Membership-based wholesale retailer Costco Wholesale (COST 4.23%) reported sales for the retail month of June after the market closed on Wednesday, and at a glance, the numbers looked strong. Net sales rose 10.6% year over year to about $29.2 billion for the five weeks ended July 5. U.S. comparable sales, a measure of sales at warehouses open at least a year, climbed 10.6%. And digitally enabled comparable sales jumped nearly 21%. The company also declared its regular quarterly dividend of $1.47 per share.
And yet the stock fell about 4% as of this writing, slipping to about $913 and landing roughly 17% below its 52-week high.
So why would investors sell a report that, on its face, looks like more of the steady growth Costco is known for?
Image source: Getty Images.
Here's why Costco stock declined The answer is in the fine print. Strip out gasoline prices and foreign exchange, two things Costco doesn't really control and that can flatter or dent any single month, and June looks a good deal more ordinary. On that adjusted basis, U.S. comparable sales rose 7.6% year over year, and total company comparable sales rose 7%.
Much of the gap between the adjusted and reported figures came from higher gas prices during the period.
Seven percent is still a fine number. The problem is the trajectory. Costco's adjusted total company comparable sales ran 7.8% in April and 8% in May, so June's 7% is a step down rather than a step up. The U.S. told the same story: adjusted comparable sales there eased to 7.6% in June, down from 8.7% in May.
Of course, the business isn't faltering. Digitally enabled sales, adjusted for currency, actually accelerated to 21.5% in June. And membership, the recurring high-margin engine underneath everything Costco does, keeps renewing at rates most retailers can only envy. For the first 44 weeks of the fiscal year, adjusted comparable sales are running at a healthy 6.7%.
But Costco doesn't get graded on a normal retail curve. It gets graded against its own sky-high valuation.
Today's Change
(
-4.23
%) $
-40.33
Current Price
$
912.80
Why a good month wasn't good enough As of this writing, Costco trades at about 46 times earnings. That is rich for any retailer, though it is down from the mid-50s the stock commanded earlier this year. For context, the S&P 500 trades closer to 25 times.
Investors have long been willing to pay that premium for Costco's consistency and the recurring income from its membership fees, and understandably so. The problem, I think, is what the stock's valuation already prices in: years of uninterrupted mid-to-high single-digit comparable sales growth and steady profit gains, with no soft patches allowed.
So when a monthly update shows the underlying growth rate cooling, even a little, the reaction can look outsized next to the news. A 7% adjusted comp would be a triumph at most retailers. At Costco's valuation, however, it may not be enough to live up to investors' expectations.
The dividend, meanwhile, is a nice gesture. But at a yield of about 0.6% it was probably never the reason to own the stock.
So is this 4% dip a chance to buy one of the market's best businesses? I don't think so, at least not yet.
Costco stock has been stuck in the same spot for a while: a great company priced as if nothing ever slows down. June is a small reminder that growth ebbs and flows, even at a business this well run.
I wouldn't bet against the company. Costco keeps signing up members, keeps holding on to them, and keeps growing online sales. And a 4% pullback does make the stock a touch less expensive than it was on Tuesday. But a touch less expensive arguably isn't enough to make the stock a buy.
Ultimately, at about 46 times earnings, I'd want a wider margin of safety before putting new money to work. I'm content to wait on the sidelines for a price that leaves room for the occasional ordinary month. Shareholders who already own Costco, of course, have far less to worry about. This is a company worth holding for the long haul.
On July 09, 2026, RH (RH) shares rose 3.5% to a current price of $168.33, showing a notable recovery in the midst of a volatile performance over the past year.
SummaryMicron Technology (MU) earns a Buy rating as HBM4 adoption and strategic customer agreements (SCAs) fundamentally enhance its economic moat and earnings stability.SCAs lock in ~40% of MU’s revenues at fixed prices/price bands through 2028–2030, buffering cyclicality while HBM demand will drive gross margin expansion and premium pricing.HBM memory transitions MU from a commodity player to a specialized supplier, with HBM4 ramping twice as fast as HBM3E and already exceeding $1B in revenue.Risks include eventual supply increases post-2028 and hyperscaler capex concentration, but near-term HBM scarcity and potential AI accelerator utilization improvements support robust growth and margins. krblokhin/iStock Editorial via Getty Images
Micron Technology, Inc. (MU) has been one of the most watched semiconductor stocks for a reason. After rising by over 722% in the last year, it captured investors' imaginations with the hope of further gains. The main question
897 Followers
Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of MU either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Additional stock ownership: GOOGL, AMZN, META
Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.
Micron Technology (MU +4.51%) just reported a gross margin most software companies would envy, and it came from a business that stamps out physical memory chips. In its core data center unit, gross margin reached 87% last quarter.
For a company long treated as the poster child for commodity boom-and-bust cycles, that number is stunning. It is also the clearest sign yet that memory has become one of the scarcest, most valuable inputs in artificial intelligence (AI).
While the 87% margin is the headline, the more important question for the stock is how durable that pricing power is, and, at today's price, whether the market believes it can last at all.
Imag source: Getty Images.
A number that rewrites the story In its fiscal third quarter of 2026 (the period ended May 28, 2026), Micron's core data center business generated record revenue of $11.5 billion. That was up 103% from the prior quarter, and the unit now accounts for about 28% of the whole company. Gross margin there expanded roughly 12 percentage points in a single quarter to 87%.
Put another way, that one segment is now running above a $45 billion annual pace, up from a roughly $6 billion annual pace a year ago.
The strength wasn't confined to one corner of the business. Companywide revenue set a record at about $41.5 billion, up a staggering 346% year over year from $9.3 billion, and non-GAAP (adjusted) earnings per share hit a record $25.11.
What drove the margin was price, not just volume. Memory prices have soared as artificial intelligence has strained supply. Micron's newest high-bandwidth memory (HBM), the dense chips stacked beside AI processors, has already shipped more than $1 billion of its latest generation. That product is ramping about twice as fast as the one before it, and its entire 2026 supply is already sold out under multi-year agreements.
Management said industry demand for DRAM and NAND memory continues to run well ahead of supply, and it expects those tight conditions to persist beyond 2027. That is the sort of visibility a commodity chipmaker almost never gets.
That backdrop points to enormous near-term earnings power. Micron guided for fiscal fourth-quarter revenue of about $50 billion at a gross margin near 86%, which would stretch the run of records at least one quarter further.
Today's Change
(
4.51
%) $
42.84
Current Price
$
991.64
The market isn't convinced it lasts And yet the stock tells a far more skeptical story. Even after jumping more than 8% today as of this writing, as Micron raised its planned U.S. investment to more than $250 billion through 2035 -- and despite the record results -- Micron shares still trade at less than 7 times the earnings analysts expect over the next 12 months. This is well under a third of the S&P 500's roughly 25 times earnings.
A multiple that low usually signals that investors expect earnings growth to eventually stall and even start to decline. And this checks out. Memory has always been cyclical. Historically, capacity eventually catches up, prices roll over, and a fat margin narrows quickly.
In short: Investors have watched that movie enough times to price Micron as though the boom is borrowed time -- even as it prints the best numbers in its history.
The bull case is that this cycle breaks the old pattern. HBM is far harder to make than commodity memory. And bringing new capacity online can take years, which could keep supply tight well after past cycles would have cracked.
Personally, I think the truth sits somewhere in the middle. The 87% data center margin is almost certainly a peak rather than a baseline, and I wouldn't bet on it holding for years to come.
But a stock priced at less than 7 times forward earnings doesn't need the peak to last. It just needs the eventual downturn to be milder, or to arrive later, than the market is currently assuming.
At about $1,026 as of this writing, Micron looks cheap if AI keeps memory tight into 2027 and beyond. But the stock could look expensive in hindsight if the cycle turns.
That makes it a bet on timing more than on how impressive the margin is. The record margin tells you the boom is here. The single-digit multiple tells you the market still expects it to end. For investors comfortable with the volatility, it's arguably one of the more compelling ways to play the memory boom. But it's a deeply cyclical stock, and I'd want to own it in a size I could stomach through the next downturn.
Broadcom (AVGO +3.24%) is closing in on a milestone only a handful of companies have ever reached. As of this writing, the semiconductor and infrastructure-software giant is worth about $1.91 trillion. That leaves it less than 5% shy of a $2 trillion market capitalization, and at the current share count, a move to about $420 per share would get it there.
The stock rose more than 3% on Thursday alone, so it could get to this milestone quickly.
The latest catalyst for the stock came from Apple (AAPL +0.85%). On Wednesday, the iPhone maker said it will spend more than $30 billion with Broadcom over the coming years, deepening a supplier relationship that already runs deep. It's the sort of headline that can make a $2 trillion valuation feel almost preordained.
But just because there's a clear potential path to $2 trillion doesn't mean it can stay there.
So how solid is the ground under Broadcom's climb toward the $2 trillion club?
Image source: The Motley Fool.
The AI engine behind the climb Zooming out behind the last few days, the broader catalyst for Broadcom isn't the Apple deal -- it's artificial intelligence (AI).
In its fiscal second quarter (ended May 3), Broadcom's AI semiconductor revenue reached $10.8 billion, up 143% year over year. That's the line item investors are really paying for. Management expects it to keep accelerating. It guided for about $16 billion in the current quarter, which would be roughly 200% growth, and has reaffirmed a target of more than $100 billion in AI semiconductor revenue in fiscal 2027.
Those numbers aren't a forecast built on hope. Indeed, Broadcom designs custom AI accelerators and networking chips for the largest cloud companies as they build out data centers. The order book backs the guidance up, too. The company said bookings for AI semiconductors have topped $30 billion, giving it rare visibility into future demand.
Total revenue for the quarter rose 48% year over year to a record $22.2 billion, and free cash flow came in above $10 billion, or 46% of revenue.
In other words, the market isn't valuing Broadcom near $2 trillion on hope, but rather on underlying business momentum.
What the Apple deal actually locks in So where does Apple fit into all this?
Apple's commitment, announced Wednesday, is expected to exceed $30 billion and runs through 2031. It covers custom silicon and advanced wireless connectivity parts, including the radio-frequency filters tucked inside iPhones and other devices, all to be made in the U.S. Broadcom will spend $1.5 billion to modernize its plant in Fort Collins, Colorado. All told, the companies say the arrangement will produce more than 15 billion American-made chips -- the largest single piece of Apple's push to expand domestic manufacturing.
But the deal doesn't appear to be a resh data center AI windfall. Apple has long been one of Broadcom's largest customers, primarily for wireless and connectivity components. So this deal deepens a relationship Broadcom already had. It doesn't open a new one.
That still counts for a lot. Locking in years of orders from a longtime customer strips out a real source of uncertainty. But it's a different kind of good news than the AI ramp, and it's worth keeping the two straight.
Overall, I think the underlying business strength is durable.
Today's Change
(
3.24
%) $
12.59
Current Price
$
401.28
But what about the valuation?
Even after its run, Broadcom trades at about 25 times forward earnings. That's not cheap. But it's far below the triple-digit multiples of some of the market's hottest AI names, and it looks reasonable relative to the growth the company is actually posting.
The bigger risk, of course, is the same force that got the stock here. A valuation this size assumes the data center build-out keeps compounding, and any real sign that cloud spending is cooling could hit Broadcom stock particularly hard.
But I do think the odds are high that Broadcom gets to a $2 trillion market capitalization and continues compounding for years to come. The business behind the number is delivering -- AI semiconductor revenue growing at a triple-digit rate, now with an anchor customer locked in through the end of the decade. Of course, the ride will be filled with some ups and downs.
Ještě před několika týdny patřila Jižní Korea díky AI boomu mezi nejvýkonnější akciové trhy světa. Prudká korekce technologických titulů však pořadí obrátila, a tak nyní nejvyšší dolarové výnosy v letošním roce nabízí Nigérie.
Nigerijské akcie předběhly ty jihokorejské, když letos investorům přinesly nejvyšší výnos v dolarech. Stojí za tím i zhoršující se sentiment ohledně akcií společností zabývajících se umělou inteligencí, což tlačí ještě nedávno světového rekordmana do medvědího pásma.
Referenční index Nigérie letos dosáhl v dolarovém vyjádření návratnosti 67 %, čímž překonal 66% nárůst jihokorejského indexu Kospi, jak vyplývá z údajů Bloombergu. Index Kospi klesl od svého vrcholu 19. června o 22 % poté, co se investoři začali vybírat zisky a zpochybňovat, zda je poptávka po akciích AI udržitelná. Jihokorejský won od začátku roku oslabil o 5 % a je čtvrtou nejhůře výkonnou asijskou měnou.
Naproti tomu akcie největšího afrického producenta ropy letos posílily díky makroekonomickým reformám, vyšším cenám ropy a lepší nabídce deviz, přičemž naira od ledna vzrostla o 4 %. Investiční atraktivitu země mohla navíc posílit i informace z tohoto týdne, že S&P Dow Jones Indices uvažuje o jejím zařazení mezi frontier markets.
Růst nigerijského trhu táhnou především finanční společnosti obchodované na burze v Lagosu. Mimořádný výnos přinesla investorům pojišťovna Fortis Global Insurance – v dolarovém vyjádření více než 1 400 %.
Na rozdíl od korejského indexu Kospi nejsou firmy kótované na nigerijské burze přímo napojené na boom umělé inteligence. Investory, kteří v této západoafrické zemi nakupují akcie ve velkém, přitahují jiné faktory, uvedl Damilola Okeleye, obchodník ze společnosti Stonex Nigeria Financial. „Silným motorem letošních zisků byly ekonomické reformy v Nigérii a také možnost, že na burzu vstoupí Dangote Petroleum Refinery & Petrochemicals, největší rafinerie ropy v Africe,“ uvedl Okeleye.
Tagy: akcie, Jižní Korea, návratnost, Nigérie, Výkon
Reklama
Na tomto místě můžete zahájit diskusi. Zatím nebyl zadán žádný názor. Do diskuse mohou přispívat pouze přihlášení uživatelé (Přihlásit). Pokud nemáte účet, na který byste se mohli přihlásit, registrujte se zde.
Aktuální komentáře
10.07.2026 6:04Nejvýnosnější akciový trh roku? Jižní Koreu sesadila Nigérie 09.07.2026 17:25Pracují nyní trhy pro Fed nebo proti němu? A jak dopadnou testy nových monetární myšlenek? 16:06Existují skutečně důvody pro zvedání sazeb? 14:14SK Hynix míří na Nasdaq. O jeden z největších burzovních debutů v historii je obrovský zájem 14:01Nápojový kolos PepsiCo zvýšil čtvrtletní zisk, u růstu tržeb překonal odhady 13:58Výsledková sezóna v USA: Kalendář pro 2. čtvrtletí 2026 13:56Výsledková sezóna v Evropě: Kalendář pro 2. čtvrtletí 2026 13:56Výsledková sezóna Česko: Kalendář pro 2. čtvrtletí 2026 12:04Investiční výhled na druhé pololetí: Shrnutí 11:02Míra nezaměstnanosti v červnu stagnovala 10:51PODCAST Analytický radar: Makrovýhled Patrie pro druhé pololetí 10:23Akcie znovu rostou, zatímco dluhopisy tlumí optimismus 10:19Nezaměstnanost v ČR v červnu stagnovala na 4,8 procenta, přibylo volných míst 9:48Průmyslová výroba v Česku v květnu zrychlila meziroční růst na dvě procenta 8:55Rozbřesk: Potvrdí průmysl zlepšenou kondici ekonomiky? 8:48Kofola zachrání Bílinskou kyselku i Zaječickou hořkou. Uspěla ve výběrovém řízení o tradiční minerálky 8:44Akcie míří vzhůru i přes napětí s Íránem. SK Hynix přitahuje velký zájem a Kofola kupuje tradiční minerálky 6:40Sohn: Google může být ke koupi, kvalita nyní jen zabírá místo v portfoliu 08.07.2026 22:01Akcie oslabily kvůli novému napětí mezi USA a Íránem, ropa prudce zdražila 16:06Apple sází na americké čipy, Broadcom získal kontrakt za více než 30 miliard dolarů
Reklama
On July 09, 2026, Magnite Inc (MGNI) shares rose 4.5% today, closing at $21.22. This movement is notable within the context of a 52-week range that spans from $
Shares of Mara Holdings (MARA +9.98%) popped on Thursday after the digital infrastructure developer announced a major new project.
Image source: Getty Images.
Land, power, and compute Mara agreed to purchase powered land from sustainable fuels company HIF USA for an aggregate purchase price of up to $600 million.
The more than 1,200-acre site is located roughly 90 miles southwest of Houston, Texas. It's projected to provide access to up to 2 gigawatts (GW) of grid capacity by April 2028.
Today's Change
(
9.98
%) $
1.20
Current Price
$
13.22
Mara plans to build a digital infrastructure campus in collaboration with Starwood Digital Ventures that can run artificial intelligence (AI) and other high-performance computing workloads, including Bitcoin mining operations.
Mara said prospective computing clients have already demonstrated interest in becoming tenants.
Construction is slated to start this year, subject to regulatory approval.
Shifting from Bitcoin to AI The project is expected to more than double Mara's total power capacity to about 4.8 GW, thereby bolstering its standing as a provider of large-scale computing services.
"As demand for digital infrastructure continues to grow, we believe sites with access to reliable, scalable power will become increasingly valuable," Mara CEO Fred Thiel said. "This acquisition meaningfully expands our long-term development pipeline and strengthens our ability to support high-performance compute and maximize the value of that power over time."
Investors clearly approve of the strategy, which has the potential to be far more lucrative than Mara's prior focus on Bitcoin mining operations.
Joe Tenebruso has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
On July 09, 2026, Upstart Holdings Inc (UPST) shares rose 4.5% today, currently priced at $33.23. This movement comes amid a 52-week range of $23.97 to $87.30,
Rivian (RIVN +8.70%) is capitalizing on increasing EV momentum.
*Stock prices used were the afternoon prices of July 7, 2026. The video was published on July 9, 2026.
Parkev Tatevosian, CFA has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Parkev Tatevosian is an affiliate of The Motley Fool and may be compensated for promoting its services. If you choose to subscribe through his link, he will earn some extra money that supports his channel. His opinions remain his own and are unaffected by The Motley Fool.
On July 09, 2026, WisdomTree Inc (WT) shares rose 6.2% today, bringing the current price to $19.86. Over the past year, the stock has traded within a 52-week ra
United Wholesale Mortgage (UWMC +2.46%), which usually just goes by the acronym UWM, just got beaten. But in this case, being a loser could be the best thing that happened to the company and its shareholders. Here's what happened and why the failed bid to buy Two Harbors (TWO +0.00%) isn't really that bad of an outcome.
Bidding wars can lead to trouble UWM and privately held CrossCountry Mortgage were both attempting to buy the mortgage real estate investment trust (REIT) Two Harbors. It all started with UWM and Two Harbors agreeing to a $1.3 billion all-stock deal in late 2025. CrossCountry Mortgage stepped in at the end of the first quarter of 2026, offering an all-cash deal that Two Harbors deemed superior.
Image source: Getty Images.
As often happens in such situations, there was an ugly, public back-and-forth. At the end of the day, CrossCountry Mortgage's cash offer rose from an original $10.70 per share to $12, or roughly $1.3 billion. That comes even after UWM offered $12.50 in cash for Two Harbor shareholders who preferred cash over 2.3328 shares of UWM. While UWM was clearly displeased with losing out, it also didn't pursue it further after its final offer.
If you own UWM, you should probably be pleased with the outcome. As anyone who's ever been in a bidding war knows, the winner often ends up overpaying. And, as Benjamin Graham, the famous investor who helped train Warren Buffett, often noted, paying too much for a good company can turn it into a bad investment. Corporate acquisitions are no different.
Today's Change
(
2.46
%) $
0.05
Current Price
$
2.08
Sometimes the winner is the loser Buffett, however, is a rather interesting name here. He backed Occidental Petroleum's (OXY 2.41%) winning bid for Anadarko Petroleum, helping the energy company outbid industry giant Chevron (CVX 1.09%). Only the deal left OXY with a huge amount of debt, just as the energy industry started a downturn. OXY had to cut its dividend to free up cash for deleveraging, and the stock price crumbled.
It isn't clear what will happen with CrossCountry Mortgage and Two Harbors, since CrossCountry Mortgage is private. However, UWM showed discipline by not pursuing Two Harbors to the point of putting its own business at risk. The importance of this outcome increases when you note that UWM's dividend yield is a shockingly high 20% and its earnings don't currently cover the dividend payment. In fairness, loan origination volume in the first quarter of 2026 rose 39% year over year, making it "the second-highest first quarter production in company history." Still, it is probably better for the company to avoid the cost and complexity of a contentious merger, given its massive dividend yield, which suggests investors are already worried about the risk of a dividend cut.
New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - July 9, 2026) - WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of purchasers of securities of Hub Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HUBG) between April 28, 2023 and May 11, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 28, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Hub Group securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Hub Group class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/hub-group-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 28, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Hub Group's financial statements prepared for the periods from Q1 2023 to Q4 2024, including annual reports for 2023 and 2024, contained material misstatements-caused by the premature and incorrect recognition of certain transactions-concerning, inter alia, Hub Group's operating revenue, operating income, revenue recognition, effectiveness of internal controls and procedures, and drivers of financial results and growth. In addition, Hub Group's financial statements prepared for the periods from Q1 2025 to Q3 2025 contained material misstatements-caused by the understatement of purchased transportation costs and accounts payable -concerning, inter alia, Hub Group's operating expenses, purchased transportation and warehousing expenses, operating income, effectiveness of internal disclosure controls and procedures, and drivers of financial results and growth. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Hub Group class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/hub-group-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
-------------------------------
To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/304662
Source: The Rosen Law Firm PA
Ready to Announce with Confidence? Send us a message and a member of our TMX Newsfile team will contact you to discuss your needs.
The immediate resistance remains at the $4,200 to $4,280 area. However, a break above $4,280 will push the price towards the $4,370 and $4,500 areas on 4-hour chart. The short term price action also shows that a break above $4,500 will likely open the door for a rally towards $5,000.
Silver Price Forecast: XAGUSD Breakout Eyes $72 XAGUSD Daily Chart Shows Strong Rebound From $55 The daily chart for spot silver also shows a strong rebound from $55. The price is consolidating between $55 and $64. A break of these levels will likely define the next move. Due to the importance of the $55 support zone, the price may break the $64 level and push towards $72. The $72 level is the key resistance level and a break above this level will likely open the door for a rally towards the $89 region.
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of common stock of Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU) between October 14, 2024 to May 4, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important August 24, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Peabody Energy common stock during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Peabody Energy class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/peabody-energy-corporation/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Peabody Energy’s Centurion mine and the multitude of issues causing delays to the ramp-up and the return to full longwall production dates. On March 30, 2026, Peabody Energy issued a press release lowering guidance pertaining to Centurion mine’s expected first quarter 2026 output ahead of Peabody Energy’s full earnings release. In pertinent part, defendants announced that sales volume from the Centurion mine was expected to deliver approximately 250,000 tons in the first quarter due to mining commissioning challenges (compared to previous estimates of around 700,000 tons). When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Peabody Energy class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/peabody-energy-corporation/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
-------------------------------
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827 [email protected]
www.rosenlegal.com
On July 09, 2026, Sonic Automotive Inc (SAH) shares rose 8.3% to $95.31. The stock has demonstrated significant price performance, with a year-to-date increase
On July 09, 2026, Sunrun Inc (RUN) shares rose 3.8% today, closing at $12.46. The stock has traded within a 52-week range of $9.01 to $22.44, highlighting signi
On July 09, 2026, Steven Madden Ltd (SHOO) shares rose 3.4% today, closing at $40.32. Despite today's positive movement, the stock has seen a 10.3% decline over
The Financial Select Sector SPDR ETF remains a Buy with 10-15% upside, driven by improving fundamentals and favorable technical momentum. XLF benefits from higher long-term rates, stabilizing credit trends, and capital markets strength, with financials trading at attractive 10-13x earnings multiples. Morgan Stanley is best positioned among mega banks for an earnings beat, leveraging market-driven fee income and robust MS equity underwriting.
GPIF proposal sparks capital repatriation hopes Long-dated JGBs lead powerful relief rally Imported inflation strengthens BOJ normalisation case USD/JPY nears trendline support Japanese assets rally on GPIF proposal Japanese assets are rallying after Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama said the government wants to encourage Japan's GPIF, the world's largest pension fund, to invest substantially more domestically.
The reason markets are reacting so strongly is because this isn't just any pension fund. The GPIF manages almost ¥300 trillion, or around US$1.8 trillion. If even a small portion of that portfolio is redirected towards domestic assets, you're potentially talking about a meaningful shift in global capital flows, with money coming back into Japan to buy yen-denominated investments.
Katayama's comments come after a bruising week for Japan's debt markets, with long-dated government bond yields surging to multi-decade highs. At the same time, the yen fell to its weakest levels in decades on a trade-weighted basis, underscoring the broad-based nature of its decline. If the GPIF were to increase its allocation to domestic assets, it could help support both the bond market and yen.
And that's exactly where the market reacted first.
JGB long-end yields tumble
Source: TradingView
Long-dated Japanese government bonds are leading the rally, particularly in the 10 to 20-year sector, which had borne the brunt of this week's sell-off. The subsequent flattening of the curve reflects not only the prospect of stronger domestic demand, but also stronger-than-expected Japanese producer price data. Prices rose 7.1% from a year earlier in June, beating expectations. Import prices within the report also surged 29.7%, reinforcing the inflationary impact of the weaker yen and adding to the case for the Bank of Japan to continue gradually normalising monetary policy.
While today's developments are supportive for Japanese bonds, they don't alter the broader fundamental backdrop. Much of the upward pressure on Japanese yields has reflected global forces, particularly the rise in US real yields. Even after the recent backup in nominal yields, Japanese real yields remain negative, limiting their appeal relative to overseas bond markets. That's why today's GPIF announcement is important, but it doesn't completely offset the broader forces that have been weighing on the market.
Nuance needed for Nikkei 225
Source: TradingView
At first glance, the prospect of the GPIF increasing its allocation to domestic assets looks supportive for Japanese equities. However, there's an important caveat. If the announcement is accompanied by a sustained appreciation in the yen, it could create headwinds for Japan's export-oriented companies, tempering some of the positive impact from stronger domestic institutional demand.
Looking at the chart, the Nikkei continues to coil within what appears to be a falling wedge, a bullish continuation pattern that points to the potential for an upside breakout.
Earlier this week, the index completed a dragonfly doji after a false break beneath wedge support before rebounding strongly from the intersection of the 50-day moving average with 66,000, the latter a level that acted as both support and resistance in June. That failed breakdown leaves the focus on the topside.
A break above wedge resistance would strengthen the bullish case, bringing a retest of the record high at 73,520 into view. On the way, 72,000 may provide resistance, having capped gains on two occasions in June.
The oscillators paint a more neutral picture. RSI is sitting around the 50 level after posting a series of lower highs, while MACD remains in positive territory but has flattened noticeably. Together, they suggest upside momentum has moderated, although not sufficiently to undermine the broader bullish technical setup.
USD/JPY unwind gathers pace
Source: TradingView
The final leg of the story is the yen. If Japanese institutions begin reallocating capital back home, that naturally creates demand for the currency, helping explain why USD/JPY has pulled back from this week's highs.
Positioning may also be amplifying the move. Speculative investors are already carrying one of the largest net short yen positions in more than a decade, according to the latest Commitment of Traders data. That leaves the market vulnerable to bouts of short covering whenever positive yen catalysts emerge.
Looking at the chart, USD/JPY has slipped beneath not only the 2024 high at 161.95, but also 161.50, a level that acted as both resistance and support earlier this year. The pair is now approaching uptrend support dating back to the middle of May, which comes in around 161 today.
A break below would expose 160.73, the former 2026 high set in late April and successfully defended on two occasions in early July, making it an important support zone to watch. A move below that area, and particularly beneath 160.50, would open the door for a test of the 50-day moving average, located around 160.
Momentum indicators are also beginning to soften. RSI has rolled over after posting a series of lower highs and is now back around the neutral 50 level. MACD has produced a bearish crossover while remaining in positive territory, suggesting upside momentum is not only fading but could be on the cusp of shifting in favour of the bears.
AeroVironment Flies Under Wall Street’s Radar Toward a $4 Billion TargetAeroVironment NASDAQ: AVAV executives used the company’s 2026 Investor Day in New York to outline a plan to roughly double revenue by fiscal 2030, supported by new defense programs, expanded production capacity and higher spending on research and development.
Chairman, President and CEO Wahid Nawabi said the company has expanded significantly since its 2024 Investor Day, describing AeroVironment as a roughly $2 billion business with about 4,000 employees, more than 60,000 systems fielded and customers in more than 55 countries. He said the company is organized into two segments: Autonomous Systems, or AxS, and Space, Cyber and Directed Energy.
Get AeroVironment alerts:
Drone Stocks Are Down, But Defense Backlogs Tell a Different StoryNawabi said the company’s portfolio is focused on four mission areas: multi-mission intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; strike solutions; counter-unmanned aircraft systems; and space and advanced technologies. He said AeroVironment’s total addressable market has grown from about $30 billion two years ago to more than $80 billion today.
“We have built our portfolio very deliberately, to meet the rising demands of the pretty much highest-priority items that are in the U.S. Department of War’s strategic needs and capability gaps,” Nawabi said.
Fiscal 2030 Targets Call for Revenue of $3.5 Billion to $4 Billion Why Wall Street Still Sees Massive Upside for AeroVironment StockChief Financial Officer Sean Woodward said AeroVironment is targeting fiscal 2030 revenue of $3.5 billion to $4 billion, representing a compound annual growth rate of 15% to 20% from fiscal 2026. The company ended fiscal 2026 with nearly $2 billion in revenue, $2.7 billion in total backlog and adjusted EBITDA margins of 14.5%.
For fiscal 2027, Woodward said the company expects top-line growth of 10% at the midpoint of its guidance range. He said that figure excludes revenue related to the SCAR BADGER program and excludes incremental Ukraine-related revenue.
By fiscal 2030, Woodward said AeroVironment expects adjusted EBITDA margins to improve to 18% to 20%, a 350- to 550-basis-point increase from fiscal 2026. He said adjusted EBITDA is expected to rise from $286 million in fiscal 2026 to a range of $630 million to $800 million by fiscal 2030.
Woodward said the growth outlook is expected to be driven by several operating groups, including Precision Strike and Defensive Systems, Space and Directed Energy, unmanned aircraft systems, Cyber & Mission Solutions, and other all-domain systems such as ground robots and underwater vehicles.
Company Plans Heavy Fiscal 2027 Investment Year Executives emphasized that fiscal 2027 will be an investment year. Woodward said AeroVironment expects capital expenditures of 12% to 14% of revenue in fiscal 2027, or nearly $300 million, as the company expands production capacity and infrastructure.
Chief Operating Officer Rob Smith said the company is investing in facilities in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsville, Alabama; and Northern and Southern California. He said Salt Lake City will support Switchblade production, Albuquerque will support LOCUST directed-energy systems and Huntsville will support Freedom Eagle-1, the company’s kinetic counter-UAS interceptor missile program.
Smith said the company’s capital investments are expected to support about $4 billion of additional manufacturing capacity. He also said AeroVironment has reduced its supplier base from more than 3,000 a year ago to about 1,400 and that 92% of parts are dual sourced. He said 98% of the company’s parts are NDAA-compliant.
Woodward said the elevated capital spending is expected to decline after fiscal 2027 toward more historical levels. In response to an analyst question, he clarified that AeroVironment does not expect to be free cash flow positive in fiscal 2027, but expects positive free cash flow from fiscal 2028 through fiscal 2030.
Executives Highlight Recent Contract Wins and Program Pipeline Chief Growth Officer Church Hutton said AeroVironment has more than 20 products either in production or entering production. He highlighted several recent awards and program opportunities, including:
A $117 million U.S. Army Long-Range Reconnaissance award for P550. A $186 million task order for Switchblade 600 under the Lethal Unmanned Systems Directed Requirement contract. A $17 million Army award for Red Dragon, the company’s one-way attack capability. A $500 million sole-source IDIQ for RF counter-UAS, supported by the Titan system, with an $81 million first delivery order. More than $350 million, approaching $400 million, in laser communications wins in the last fiscal year. Hutton said AeroVironment expects to compete for more than $35 billion of opportunities from fiscal 2027 through fiscal 2030. Those opportunities include programs in multi-mission ISR, strike, counter-UAS and space and advanced technologies.
“We are working with customers we know, relationships that we have, products that they need to solve problems that are their highest priorities,” Hutton said.
Counter-UAS and Directed Energy Identified as Key Growth Areas Executives repeatedly pointed to counter-UAS as a major growth market. AeroVironment’s counter-drone portfolio includes Titan RF jamming systems, LOCUST laser weapon systems and Freedom Eagle-1 kinetic interceptors.
Mary Clum, president of Space, Cyber and Directed Energy, said the LOCUST system has demonstrated mobility and modularity, including testing on multiple vehicles and a roll-on, roll-off containerized configuration for Navy use. Smith said the company’s directed-energy product has been deployed operationally and tested by both the Navy and the Army, including on the USS George H.W. Bush.
Nawabi said he views laser weapon systems for counter-UAS as being at an adoption inflection point similar to where loitering munitions were several years ago. He cited cost per shot, mobility and reliability as potential advantages of LOCUST, and said the U.S. Army’s Enduring High Energy Laser program could be a key market catalyst.
International Expansion and M&A Remain Part of Strategy Executives said international growth is a major focus. Hutton said AeroVironment recorded more than $500 million in international sales in fiscal 2026 and sees demand in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia-Pacific for counter-UAS, strike and long-range ISR systems.
Woodward said international revenue represented about 28% of fiscal 2026 revenue after the BlueHalo acquisition changed the company’s mix, and he expects that percentage to increase by fiscal 2030, though not necessarily return to prior levels above 50%.
Nawabi also said mergers and acquisitions remain a tool to fill capability gaps, but are not the company’s primary growth strategy. He said the fiscal 2030 outlook is primarily organic and that the company will remain “judicious” given current valuation levels in the market.
In closing, Nawabi said the company is positioned in markets that are receiving increased defense investment and has a portfolio aligned with customer priorities. He said AeroVironment will update investors as new awards and program milestones develop.
About AeroVironment NASDAQ: AVAVAeroVironment, Inc NASDAQ: AVAV is a technology company specializing in unmanned aerial systems (UAS), tactical missiles and precision loitering munitions, electric vehicle charging and scalable energy systems. Headquartered in Monrovia, California, the company develops solutions for defense, public safety and commercial markets. Their offerings include small UAS for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as advanced weapons systems designed to meet the needs of modern military operations.
The company's unmanned aerial systems portfolio features platforms such as the Raven, Puma and Switchblade series, which are deployed by the U.S.
This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest reporting and unbiased coverage. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected].
Should You Invest $1,000 in AeroVironment Right Now?Before you consider AeroVironment, you'll want to hear this.
MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and AeroVironment wasn't on the list.
While AeroVironment currently has a Moderate Buy rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys.
View The Five Stocks Here
The AI boom is creating opportunities across semiconductors, cloud computing, enterprise software, infrastructure, cybersecurity, and automation.
Inside this report, you’ll find 10 companies positioned to benefit as artificial intelligence moves from hype to real-world deployment and becomes a core growth driver for corporate America.
A Look at Par Pacific Holdings Inc (PARR) After 4.4% Decline -- GF Value $36.37 vs Price $65.54
On July 09, 2026, Par Pacific Holdings Inc PARR shares fell 4.4% today, currently priced at $65.54. This decline comes amid a strong year for the stock, which has seen an impressive year-to-date increase of 86.5%, and a remarkable one-year gain of 100.2%. The shares have fluctuated between a 52-week high of $70.39 and a low of $26.83.
GF Value™ verdict: Current price is $65.54, compared to GF Value™ of $36.37, indicating the stock is 80.2% overvalued.GF Score™ of 54/100 indicates an average performance relative to other stocks.Most notable signal: No insider transactions have occurred in the last three months. Is PARR Overvalued or Undervalued? With Par Pacific Holdings Inc's current stock price at $65.54, it is significantly above the GF Value™ of $36.37, suggesting that the stock is 80.2% overvalued. This valuation indicates a substantial margin of safety for potential investors, who may find greater value in purchasing the stock at lower levels. The GF Valuation label identifies PARR as significantly overvalued, raising concerns about the sustainability of its current price level.
Being overvalued poses risks as market corrections can lead to price declines, especially if the company's fundamentals do not justify the high valuation. The current price may not align with the intrinsic value projected by GF Value™, which is GuruFocus' proprietary measure of intrinsic value, calculated from historical trading multiples, past business growth, and future performance estimates. Investors may want to exercise caution as the stock price appears disconnected from its intrinsic value.
How Does PARR's Valuation Compare to Its History? Metric Current Historical P/E (TTM) 7.3x 3.9x Forward P/E 4.7x N/A Par Pacific Holdings Inc's current P/E (TTM) of 7.3x is significantly above its 5-year median P/E of 3.9x, indicating that the stock is trading at a higher valuation compared to its historical levels. The forward P/E of 4.7x suggests a more favorable outlook, but the analysis aligns with the GF Value™ verdict, which sees the stock as overvalued based on its historical performance.
What Does PARR's GF Score™ Tell Us? Metric Rating GF Score™ 54 Financial Strength 6/10 Profitability 7/10 Growth 2/10 Valuation 1/10 Momentum 3/10 The GF Score™ of 54/100 indicates an average performance across the key metrics used to assess stocks. The strongest area is profitability, with a score of 7/10, suggesting that the company has maintained a good level of earnings relative to its peers. However, the weakest area is valuation, scoring just 1/10, which reinforces the notion that PARR is currently overvalued based on its intrinsic value. Growth also remains a concern with a low score of 2/10, suggesting limited potential for expansion in the near term.
What Are Insiders Doing with PARR Stock? There have been no insider transactions involving Par Pacific Holdings Inc in the last three months. This lack of activity may suggest that insiders are currently not confident in the stock's potential for growth, or they may be awaiting a more favorable price to make transactions. The absence of buying or selling activity can also indicate a wait-and-see approach from insiders regarding the company's future performance.
What This Means for Investors Based on the assessment of GF Value™, Par Pacific Holdings Inc is currently overvalued. With the significant discrepancy between the current stock price and the estimated intrinsic value, potential investors may want to be cautious about entering a position at this time. A careful evaluation of market conditions and company fundamentals is advisable before making investment decisions.
For the complete analysis, visit the Par Pacific Holdings Inc PARR stock page. You can also explore the GF Value™ page for detailed valuation methodology, or use the GuruFocus Stock Screener to find similar opportunities.
Frequently Asked Questions What is PARR's GF Score™?
PARR has a GF Score™ of 54/100, indicating an average performance relative to other stocks in the market.
Is PARR overvalued or undervalued?
PARR is currently overvalued, with a GF Value™ of $36.37 compared to the current price of $65.54, indicating an 80.2% overvaluation.
What is PARR's P/E ratio?
PARR's P/E (TTM) is 7.3x, which is significantly above its 5-year median P/E of 3.9x, suggesting that the stock is trading at a higher valuation than its historical averages.
This stock alert was generated using automated technology and GuruFocus financial data to provide readers with timely and accurate market reporting. This content was reviewed by GuruFocus editorial team prior to publication. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected].
Disclosures I/We may personally own shares in some of the companies mentioned above. However, those positions are not material to either the company or to my/our portfolios.
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of common stock of Verra Mobility Corporation (NASDAQ: VRRM) between February 24, 2026 and May 26, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important August 4, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Verra common stock during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Verra class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/verra-mobility-corporation-2026/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 4, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Verra’s relationship with Avis Budget Group (“Avis”), and in particular obtaining a contract extension with Avis. Further, Verra minimized concerns that major rent-a-cars could replace Verra with in-house solutions or outsourced alternatives. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Verra class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/verra-mobility-corporation-2026/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827 [email protected]
www.rosenlegal.com
Venice AI is pulling in $70 million in annualized recurring revenue through its integration with Bittensor subnet 11, powered by roughly 1.7 million daily API calls.
Delphi Digital, the crypto research firm, projects Venice AI’s total ARR at approximately $200M based on a recent three-week window of subscriber data tracking.
Inside the revenue machine Subnet 11, which previously operated under the name Dippy and has since evolved into TrajectoryRL, specializes in roleplay, companion AI, and prompt optimization. The 1.7 million daily API calls flowing through this subnet translate into revenue-backed demand for subnet tokens.
Advertisement
TrajectoryRL itself documented roughly $50,000 in revenue during a single month. Scale that across the broader Venice ecosystem and you start to see how the $200M ARR projection from Delphi Digital isn’t just wishful math.
Venice AI distinguishes itself by running a privacy-focused, uncensored AI platform. Its flagship model, Venice Uncensored 1.2, was trained using compute from Bittensor’s Targon subnet. The platform offers chat, image generation, and coding tools.
The token economics behind the curtain Venice’s native token, VVV, began trading in January 2025 and has experienced significant price appreciation amid the broader AI narrative sweeping crypto markets. Holders can stake VVV for API access and earn DIEM credits that translate into computational resources on the network.
The broader Bittensor ecosystem reported approximately $43 million in revenue during Q1 2026 across all subnets.
What this means for investors NVIDIA has been engaging with the decentralized AI market. Institutional interest in decentralized AI infrastructure has been quietly building.
For investors evaluating the VVV token or the broader Bittensor ecosystem, the key metric to watch is sustained API call volume. Revenue projections based on three-week windows, however carefully tracked by firms like Delphi Digital, can be volatile.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Nous Research has added GPT-5.6 support to its Hermes Agent, available now through the Nous Portal.
Hermes Agent was not built to be a simple chatbot wrapper. Launched in February 2026, it was designed around persistent memory and skill generation, meaning the system can carry context across sessions and build new capabilities as it operates.
Advertisement
What GPT-5.6 actually brings to the table OpenAI’s GPT-5.6 family entered limited preview on June 26, 2026, and it is not a single model. It comes in three variants: Sol, the flagship; Terra, the balanced middle option; and Luna, the fast and cost-efficient tier.
Hermes Agent’s Tool Gateway feature allows it to route tasks to external services, and its native desktop applications mean users are not locked into a browser-based workflow. Pairing those features with a model family that scales from cheap-and-fast to expensive-and-thorough lets developers match compute spend to task complexity.
The GPT-5.6 family is positioned around multi-step task handling, with particular strengths in coding and cybersecurity applications.
The Nous Portal’s growing model library The Nous Portal now offers access to over 400 AI models, handling subscription management, billing, and tool integrations like web browsing and image processing through a single interface.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Bridge exploits have cost DeFi users billions. Mantle now moves to ensure its $2.5 billion MNT token supply doesn’t become the next statistic. The team announced that it is migrating the Mantle Super Portal to Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP), a shift designed to wrap every cross-chain transfer of MNT in institutional-grade security, according to the official announcement.
The migration targets the core friction that keeps large allocators away from cross-chain activity: the fear of a single point of failure. Mantle’s Super Portal was already a gateway for moving MNT between supported networks but switching to CCIP adds a risk management framework that separates message validation from token transfer execution. Chainlink’s decentralized oracle networks verify cross-chain transactions, with additional monitoring to detect abnormal behavior before funds move.
Cutting Out Bridge Risk for a $2.5B Token Mantle’s decision lands at a moment when institutional capital is slowly crossing into on-chain environments but remains allergic to bridge risk. Weekly flows show that tokenized real-world assets just crossed $20B on-chain, with major financial names settling trades on public ledgers, as covered in a recent tokenization roundup. Yet each new bridge exploit resets trust.
CCIP’s architecture is not just about moving tokens. It includes a separate risk management network that can pause or reroute transfers independently, a feature that mimics the compartmentalized controls familiar to traditional finance. For a token with a circulating supply topping $2.5 billion, even a short window of degraded security could trigger cascading liquidity problems.
The Institutional Grade Difference with CCIP Chainlink has been positioning CCIP as the go-to interoperability layer for institutions, and Mantle’s migration adds a high-profile use case. By decoupling validation from execution, CCIP reduces the blast radius of a potential smart contract bug. The protocol also uses rate-limiting and dynamic fee models that adjust during network congestion, something liquidity providers track closely.
Developer activity remains a strong proxy for long-term ecosystem health. While Mantle builds its scaling stack, the broader competitive landscape shows Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain leading the latest developer charts. Secure interoperability could tilt the balance for projects deciding where to deploy, especially if they hold large MNT positions.
Ecosystem and Market Structure Implications For MNT holders and liquidity providers, the immediate effect is a reduction in the tail risk of cross-chain transfers. If the migration strengthens settlement guarantees, arbitrageurs may tighten spreads across decentralized exchanges where MNT trades, while market makers could feel more comfortable quoting larger sizes.
Institutional staking demand has already shown the power of safety narratives. SUI’s recent 18% surge was partly driven by Nasdaq-listed firms entering staking arrangements, reflecting how perceived security draws volume. Mantle’s CCIP move fits the same pattern—upgrading infrastructure to match the expectations of capital that will not tolerate uncontrolled bridge risk.
What remains uncertain is how regulators will classify cross-chain protocols over time and whether CCIP itself could become a chokepoint if usage centralizes. No single upgrade eliminates smart contract risk entirely, and the true test will be how Mantle’s new architecture performs under real market stress. Still, by migrating its Super Portal to an established institutional standard, Mantle signals that cross-chain safety is no longer optional for ecosystems managing billions in token value.
AUTHOR
Max delves deep into the cryptocurrency realm, with a passion for altcoins and NFTs. Convinced of crypto's transformative potential, he envisions a decentralized financial future. Max's background in the financial sector grants him unique insights into global monetary systems. In his leisure, Max embraces the thrill of adventures and is an avid sports enthusiast, finding balance and rejuvenation away from work.
Grayscale CFO Edward McGee has stepped down after seven years with the firm, with the company appointing Kathryn Masci and Daniel Plourde as interim co-chief financial officers.McGee is the second senior executive to leave Grayscale in recent months, following the departure of Managing Director and Head of Distribution and Partnerships John Hoffman to Ondo Finance.The leadership changes come as Grayscale, the manager of the GBTC bitcoin ETF, has delayed plans for a U.S. IPO amid market conditions.Grayscale's chief financial officer Edward McGee has stepped down after seven years at the crypto asset manager, becoming the latest senior executive to leave the company, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday.
McGee resigned effective July 2 for personal reasons and not because of "any disagreement with the company or its operations, policies or practices," the filing said.
The company has named Kathryn Masci and Daniel Plourde as interim co-chief financial officers. Masci will also serve as principal financial and accounting officer and join the board of managers.
Masci joined Grayscale in 2020 and most recently served as senior vice president of finance.
Before that, she held finance and accounting roles at Garrison Capital, Pzena Investment Management and Ernst & Young. Plourde joined Grayscale in 2022 after senior positions at Gabelli Asset Management and State Street Global Advisors. He has also served as assistant treasurer of the Grayscale Funds Trust.
The leadership change follows another executive departure. Last fall, managing director and head of distribution and partnerships John Hoffman left Grayscale, and just joined tokenized asset platform Ondo Finance last month. The company has also added Chief Marketing Officer Ramona Boston and Head of Index Steve Vanourny over the past few months.
The departure comes as Grayscale put its plans to go public on hold. The Stamford, Connecticut-based company confidentially filed for a U.S. initial public offering in November last year. However, a person familiar with the matter previously told CoinDesk that Grayscale has paused its IPO preparations because of market conditions and is unlikely to restart the process before the fourth quarter.
A Grayscale spokesperson previously declined to comment on the IPO timeline, citing the SEC's quiet period. CoinDesk reached out for comment regarding McGee's departure.
Founded in 2013 and owned by Digital Currency Group, Grayscale has been a key bridge between traditional finance and digital assets through its regulated crypto investment products, most prominently its Bitcoin Trust (GBTC), which the firm converted into an exchange-traded fund (ETF) in January 2025. The fund once held about $28.5 billion in assets before becoming an ETF. It now manages roughly $8.5 billion as other, lower-fee ETFs have attracted investor money.
UPDATE (July 9, 2026, 22:48 UTC): Clarifies timeline of Hoffman's departure, adds recent additions to Grayscale team.
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.
A single compromised oracle just cost someone $292 million. The KelpDAO exploit, which drained 116,500 rsETH through LayerZero’s infrastructure on April 18, marks one of the largest DeFi hacks of the year, and it happened because of something the industry has been quietly ignoring: cross-chain protocols are essentially oracle networks, and oracle networks have single points of failure.
Chronicle Labs CEO Niklas Kunkel put it bluntly. Interoperability protocols like LayerZero and Chainlink CCIP are, at their core, oracles. Every time a project uses cross-chain communication, it’s placing its trust in these verification systems. When that trust gets exploited, the results are catastrophic.
How the attack unfolded The breach targeted LayerZero’s Decentralized Verifier Network, or DVN, which is the infrastructure responsible for validating cross-chain messages. Attackers compromised internal RPC nodes through social engineering, essentially tricking their way into the system rather than breaking through code.
LayerZero Labs published its incident report on May 20, attributing the attack to TraderTraitor, a North Korean threat actor linked to the Lazarus Group.
Advertisement
Here’s the thing about LayerZero’s architecture. It separates oracles (verifiers) from relayers to create a system of checks and balances for cross-chain validation. In theory, this dual-layer approach makes attacks harder. In practice, KelpDAO was running a single-DVN configuration, which meant compromising one verification layer was enough to drain the entire protocol.
The oracle problem nobody wanted to talk about LayerZero’s model was supposed to be different. By letting applications choose their own security configurations, including which DVNs to use and how many to require, the protocol positioned itself as more flexible and potentially more secure than monolithic bridge designs. But flexibility cuts both ways. When projects opt for minimal security setups to save on costs or reduce complexity, they’re effectively choosing speed over safety.
The incident report from LayerZero Labs outlined plans to improve security protocols and eliminate single-DVN setups in future deployments.
When you bridge assets across chains, you’re not just moving tokens. You’re trusting an oracle to correctly verify that a transaction happened on Chain A before releasing funds on Chain B. If that oracle lies, or is forced to lie, the money is gone.
Chronicle Labs and the redundancy argument Chronicle Labs, which Kunkel founded after spinning the company off from MakerDAO in 2023, has been building decentralized oracle infrastructure for both tokenized assets and real-world assets. The firm has historically secured over $20 billion in assets and raised $12 million in seed funding in March 2025.
The company’s pitch centers on redundancy and robust verification, which is exactly the opposite of what failed in the KelpDAO exploit. Rather than allowing single points of failure, Chronicle’s approach emphasizes multiple layers of validation that an attacker would need to compromise simultaneously.
What this means for investors and builders Investors with assets deployed across multiple chains need to understand that every bridge interaction carries oracle risk. A protocol using multiple independent DVNs presents a fundamentally different risk profile than one using a single verifier, even if both run on the same underlying LayerZero technology.
For builders, the cost savings from running minimal verification setups now need to be weighed against the existential risk of a complete protocol drain. LayerZero’s commitment to eliminating single-DVN configurations will likely become an industry standard, not a differentiator.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Why Is Mantle Moving From LayerZero to Chainlink CCIP? Mantle is migrating its Super Portal from LayerZero’s Omnichain Fungible Token standard to Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Token standard, making it the latest project to replace LayerZero for high-value token transfers.
The move pushes the total value of announced migrations from LayerZero to Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol above $7.24 billion since May. The migration includes MNT, the native token of Mantle’s network, which has more than $2.5 billion in value locked.
Mantle’s Super Portal, co-developed with Bybit, enables transfers of MNT between Ethereum and Solana. Support for additional blockchain networks is planned. During the migration, the portal will be suspended between July 9 and July 15. Existing MNT on Ethereum and Solana, along with MNT activity on Byreal and Bybit, will remain unaffected.
The migration is not only a technical upgrade. It reflects a broader reassessment of cross-chain infrastructure after a year in which bridge security has become one of the most important risk areas in crypto. Bridges allow tokens and data to move between blockchains, but they also concentrate risk because a single failure can expose large amounts of user assets.
How Did The Kelp Exploit Change Bridge Risk? The current wave of migrations began after the $292 million Kelp bridge exploit earlier this year. The incident increased scrutiny of LayerZero-powered bridge configurations and pushed projects managing large pools of wrapped, tokenized, or cross-chain assets to review their infrastructure.
Kelp later announced it would migrate more than $1.5 billion in assets to Chainlink CCIP. Since then, other projects have followed. Solv Protocol migrated $700 million in tokenized bitcoin, Re moved $475 million, Kraken transferred $330 million in wrapped assets, Lombard migrated more than $1 billion, Virtuals Protocol moved $700 million, and Yuzu Money transferred $54.5 million.
The pattern shows how quickly security concerns can reshape infrastructure choices in decentralized finance. Cross-chain systems are no longer peripheral services used only for convenience. They are becoming core rails for tokenized bitcoin, exchange-backed wrapped assets, yield products, and network-native tokens moving across multiple chains.
That makes bridge selection a direct market-structure issue. If token issuers and exchanges lose confidence in a transfer standard, liquidity can shift toward competing infrastructure even when the affected protocol remains widely integrated across the market.
Investor Takeaway The migration wave shows that cross-chain infrastructure is being judged less on distribution alone and more on risk controls. For investors, bridge security has become a key factor in assessing DeFi protocols, wrapped assets, and tokenized asset platforms.
What Does Chainlink CCIP Offer Mantle? Under the new setup, Chainlink CCIP will secure MNT transfers using its decentralized oracle network. Mantle said the migration also gives it direct control over token pools and transfer settings through the Cross-Chain Token standard.
That control matters as Mantle expands MNT to additional blockchain networks and tokenized asset markets. Projects moving assets across chains need transfer infrastructure that can support security controls, supply management, and network expansion without relying entirely on external bridge configurations.
Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Token standard is designed to support token movement across chains while giving issuers more control over how assets are minted, burned, locked, or released. For projects with large token economies, that can reduce operational complexity and make bridge governance more central to token risk management.
“As tokenized financial assets move from concept to scale, the infrastructure that carries them across chains cannot be an afterthought,” Emily Bao, a key advisor at Mantle, said in a statement.
The comment points to a larger shift in the market. Tokenized assets are moving from pilot projects to higher-value deployment, and the infrastructure behind them is being tested against institutional expectations for resilience, monitoring, and operational control.
What Does This Mean For LayerZero And Cross-Chain Competition? LayerZero remains one of the most widely used cross-chain messaging protocols, but the latest migration wave increases pressure on its position in high-value asset transfers. When multiple projects with billions of dollars in assets move to a rival protocol in a short period, the market reads it as a confidence shift even if the technology competition remains open.
The challenge for LayerZero is not only retaining integrations. It must also address concerns around how its bridge configurations are secured, reviewed, and governed after major incidents. For Chainlink, the opportunity is to convert security concerns into market share across tokenized assets, wrapped assets, and DeFi-native liquidity.
For exchanges and institutions, the lesson is direct. Cross-chain infrastructure can affect custody risk, liquidity access, user trust, and regulatory conversations around asset movement. As crypto markets spread across competing blockchains, the protocols that move assets between them are becoming part of the financial plumbing rather than background software.
Mantle’s migration shows that projects with large token economies are willing to pause transfer systems and replace bridge standards when risk reviews point in that direction. The result is a more competitive cross-chain market, but also one where security failures can trigger rapid and costly infrastructure rotation.
¿Por qué Mantle pasa de LayerZero a Chainlink CCIP? Mantle está migrando su Super Portal del estándar Omnichain Fungible Token de LayerZero al estándar Cross-Chain Token de Chainlink, convirtiéndose en el último proyecto en sustituir a LayerZero para transferencias de tokens de alto valor.
Este movimiento eleva el valor total de las migraciones anunciadas desde LayerZero hacia el Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol de Chainlink por encima de los 7.240 millones de dólares desde mayo. La migración incluye a MNT, el token nativo de la red de Mantle, que cuenta con más de 2.500 millones de dólares en valor bloqueado.
El Super Portal de Mantle, desarrollado conjuntamente con Bybit, permite transferencias de MNT entre Ethereum y Solana. Está previsto añadir soporte para redes blockchain adicionales. Durante la migración, el portal estará suspendido entre el 9 y el 15 de julio. El MNT existente en Ethereum y Solana, junto con la actividad de MNT en Byreal y Bybit, no se verá afectada.
La migración no es solo una actualización técnica. Refleja una reevaluación más amplia de la infraestructura entre cadenas tras un año en el que la seguridad de los puentes se ha convertido en una de las áreas de riesgo más importantes en el ecosistema cripto. Los puentes permiten que tokens y datos se muevan entre distintas blockchains, pero también concentran riesgo, ya que un solo fallo puede exponer grandes cantidades de activos de los usuarios.
¿Cómo cambió el exploit de Kelp el riesgo de los puentes? La actual ola de migraciones comenzó tras el exploit del puente de Kelp por 292 millones de dólares a principios de este año. El incidente incrementó el escrutinio sobre las configuraciones de puentes basadas en LayerZero y llevó a los proyectos que gestionan grandes reservas de activos wrapped, tokenizados o cross-chain a revisar su infraestructura.
Kelp anunció posteriormente que migraría más de 1.500 millones de dólares en activos a Chainlink CCIP. Desde entonces, otros proyectos han seguido el mismo camino. Solv Protocol migró 700 millones de dólares en bitcoin tokenizado, Re trasladó 475 millones de dólares, Kraken transfirió 330 millones de dólares en activos wrapped, Lombard migró más de 1.000 millones de dólares, Virtuals Protocol movió 700 millones de dólares, y Yuzu Money transfirió 54,5 millones de dólares.
Este patrón muestra la rapidez con la que las preocupaciones de seguridad pueden reconfigurar las decisiones de infraestructura en las finanzas descentralizadas. Los sistemas cross-chain ya no son servicios periféricos utilizados únicamente por conveniencia. Se están convirtiendo en la infraestructura central para el bitcoin tokenizado, los activos wrapped respaldados por exchanges, los productos de rendimiento y los tokens nativos de red que se mueven entre múltiples cadenas.
Esto convierte la elección de puente en una cuestión directa de estructura de mercado. Si los emisores de tokens y los exchanges pierden confianza en un estándar de transferencia, la liquidez puede desplazarse hacia infraestructuras rivales incluso cuando el protocolo afectado siga ampliamente integrado en el mercado.
Conclusión para inversores La ola de migraciones demuestra que la infraestructura cross-chain se está evaluando cada vez menos por su distribución únicamente y cada vez más por sus controles de riesgo. Para los inversores, la seguridad de los puentes se ha convertido en un factor clave a la hora de evaluar protocolos DeFi, activos wrapped y plataformas de activos tokenizados.
¿Qué ofrece Chainlink CCIP a Mantle? Con la nueva configuración, Chainlink CCIP protegerá las transferencias de MNT mediante su red descentralizada de oráculos. Mantle señaló que la migración también le otorga control directo sobre los pools de tokens y los ajustes de transferencia a través del estándar Cross-Chain Token.
Ese control resulta relevante a medida que Mantle expande MNT hacia redes blockchain adicionales y mercados de activos tokenizados. Los proyectos que trasladan activos entre cadenas necesitan una infraestructura de transferencia capaz de soportar controles de seguridad, gestión de suministro y expansión de red sin depender por completo de configuraciones de puentes externos.
El estándar Cross-Chain Token de Chainlink está diseñado para respaldar el movimiento de tokens entre cadenas, otorgando a los emisores mayor control sobre cómo se acuñan, queman, bloquean o liberan los activos. Para proyectos con grandes economías de tokens, esto puede reducir la complejidad operativa y dar mayor centralidad a la gobernanza de los puentes dentro de la gestión de riesgo de los tokens.
“A medida que los activos financieros tokenizados pasan del concepto a la escala real, la infraestructura que los traslada entre cadenas no puede ser un asunto secundario”, afirmó Emily Bao, asesora clave de Mantle, en un comunicado.
Este comentario apunta a un cambio más amplio en el mercado. Los activos tokenizados están pasando de proyectos piloto a despliegues de mayor valor, y la infraestructura que los sustenta está siendo puesta a prueba frente a las expectativas institucionales de resiliencia, monitoreo y control operativo.
¿Qué implica esto para LayerZero y la competencia cross-chain? LayerZero sigue siendo uno de los protocolos de mensajería cross-chain más utilizados, pero la última ola de migraciones aumenta la presión sobre su posición en las transferencias de activos de alto valor. Cuando varios proyectos con miles de millones de dólares en activos migran hacia un protocolo rival en un breve período, el mercado lo interpreta como un cambio de confianza, incluso si la competencia tecnológica sigue abierta.
El desafío para LayerZero no consiste solo en retener integraciones. También debe abordar las inquietudes sobre cómo se protegen, revisan y gobiernan sus configuraciones de puentes tras incidentes importantes. Para Chainlink, la oportunidad consiste en convertir las preocupaciones de seguridad en cuota de mercado dentro de los activos tokenizados, los activos wrapped y la liquidez nativa de DeFi.
Para los exchanges y las instituciones, la lección es clara. La infraestructura cross-chain puede afectar al riesgo de custodia, al acceso a la liquidez, a la confianza de los usuarios y a las conversaciones regulatorias en torno al movimiento de activos. A medida que los mercados cripto se distribuyen entre blockchains competidoras, los protocolos que trasladan activos entre ellas se están convirtiendo en parte de la infraestructura financiera esencial, y no en un simple software de fondo.
La migración de Mantle demuestra que los proyectos con grandes economías de tokens están dispuestos a pausar sus sistemas de transferencia y sustituir estándares de puentes cuando las revisiones de riesgo así lo indican. El resultado es un mercado cross-chain más competitivo, pero también uno en el que los fallos de seguridad pueden desencadenar una rotación de infraestructura rápida y costosa.
Por Que a Mantle Está Migrando da LayerZero para a Chainlink CCIP? A Mantle está migrando seu Super Portal do padrão Omnichain Fungible Token da LayerZero para o padrão Cross-Chain Token da Chainlink, tornando-se o mais recente projeto a substituir a LayerZero em transferências de tokens de alto valor.
A movimentação eleva o valor total das migrações anunciadas da LayerZero para o Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol da Chainlink para além de US$ 7,24 bilhões desde maio. A migração inclui o MNT, o token nativo da rede da Mantle, que possui mais de US$ 2,5 bilhões em valor bloqueado.
O Super Portal da Mantle, desenvolvido em conjunto com a Bybit, permite transferências de MNT entre Ethereum e Solana. O suporte a redes blockchain adicionais está planejado. Durante a migração, o portal ficará suspenso entre 9 e 15 de julho. O MNT já existente em Ethereum e Solana, junto com a atividade de MNT na Byreal e na Bybit, permanecerá inalterado.
A migração não é apenas uma atualização técnica. Ela reflete uma reavaliação mais amplo da infraestrutura cross-chain após um ano em que a segurança de bridges se tornou uma das áreas de risco mais importantes no mercado cripto. As bridges permitem que tokens e dados se movam entre blockchains, mas também concentram risco, já que uma única falha pode expor grandes volumes de ativos de usuários.
Como o Exploit da Kelp Mudou o Risco das Bridges? A atual onda de migrações começou após o exploit de US$ 292 milhões sofrido pela bridge da Kelp no início deste ano. O incidente aumentou o escrutínio sobre configurações de bridges baseadas em LayerZero e levou projetos que gerenciam grandes volumes de ativos wrapped, tokenizados ou cross-chain a revisar suas infraestruturas.
A Kelp anunciou posteriormente que migraria mais de US$ 1,5 bilhão em ativos para a Chainlink CCIP. Desde então, outros projetos seguiram o mesmo caminho. A Solv Protocol migrou US$ 700 milhões em bitcoin tokenizado, a Re movimentou US$ 475 milhões, a Kraken transferiu US$ 330 milhões em ativos wrapped, a Lombard migrou mais de US$ 1 bilhão, a Virtuals Protocol movimentou US$ 700 milhões e a Yuzu Money transferiu US$ 54,5 milhões.
O padrão mostra a rapidez com que preocupações de segurança podem remodelar escolhas de infraestrutura nas finanças descentralizadas. Os sistemas cross-chain deixaram de ser serviços periféricos usados apenas por conveniência. Eles estão se tornando trilhos centrais para bitcoin tokenizado, ativos wrapped garantidos por corretoras, produtos de rendimento e tokens nativos de rede que se movem entre múltiplas chains.
Isso torna a escolha de bridges uma questão direta de estrutura de mercado. Se emissores de tokens e exchanges perderem confiança em um padrão de transferência, a liquidez pode se deslocar para infraestruturas concorrentes mesmo quando o protocolo afetado permanece amplamente integrado no mercado.
Conclusão para Investidores A onda de migrações mostra que a infraestrutura cross-chain está sendo avaliada não apenas pela distribuição, mas cada vez mais por seus controles de risco. Para os investidores, a segurança das bridges se tornou um fator-chave na avaliação de protocolos DeFi, ativos wrapped e plataformas de ativos tokenizados.
O Que a Chainlink CCIP Oferece à Mantle? Sob a nova configuração, a Chainlink CCIP garantirá as transferências de MNT usando sua rede descentralizada de oráculos. A Mantle afirmou que a migração também lhe dá controle direto sobre pools de tokens e configurações de transferência por meio do padrão Cross-Chain Token.
Esse controle é relevante à medida que a Mantle expande o MNT para redes blockchain adicionais e mercados de ativos tokenizados. Projetos que movimentam ativos entre chains precisam de infraestrutura de transferência capaz de suportar controles de segurança, gestão de oferta e expansão de rede sem depender totalmente de configurações externas de bridges.
O padrão Cross-Chain Token da Chainlink foi criado para suportar a movimentação de tokens entre chains, dando aos emissores mais controle sobre como os ativos são emitidos, queimados, bloqueados ou liberados. Para projetos com grandes economias de tokens, isso pode reduzir a complexidade operacional e tornar a governança das bridges mais central na gestão de risco dos tokens.
“À medida que os ativos financeiros tokenizados saem do conceito e ganham escala, a infraestrutura que os transporta entre chains não pode ser tratada como algo secundário”, afirmou Emily Bao, consultora-chave da Mantle, em comunicado.
O comentário aponta para uma mudança mais ampla no mercado. Os ativos tokenizados estão deixando de ser projetos-piloto e passando a implantações de maior valor, e a infraestrutura por trás deles está sendo testada em relação às expectativas institucionais de resiliência, monitoramento e controle operacional.
O Que Isso Significa Para a LayerZero e a Concorrência Cross-Chain? A LayerZero continua sendo um dos protocolos de mensageria cross-chain mais utilizados, mas a atual onda de migrações aumenta a pressão sobre sua posição em transferências de ativos de alto valor. Quando múltiplos projetos com bilhões de dólares em ativos migram para um protocolo rival em um curto período, o mercado interpreta isso como uma mudança de confiança, mesmo que a concorrência tecnológica permaneça aberta.
O desafio para a LayerZero não é apenas manter integrações. A empresa também precisa endereçar preocupações sobre como suas configurações de bridges são protegidas, revisadas e governadas após incidentes de grande porte. Para a Chainlink, a oportunidade é converter preocupações de segurança em participação de mercado nos segmentos de ativos tokenizados, ativos wrapped e liquidez nativa de DeFi.
Para exchanges e instituições, a lição é direta. A infraestrutura cross-chain pode afetar o risco de custódia, o acesso à liquidez, a confiança dos usuários e as discussões regulatórias em torno da movimentação de ativos. À medida que os mercados cripto se espalham por blockchains concorrentes, os protocolos que movem ativos entre elas estão se tornando parte da infraestrutura financeira essencial, e não mais um software de segundo plano.
A migração da Mantle mostra que projetos com grandes economias de tokens estão dispostos a pausar sistemas de transferência e substituir padrões de bridges quando as revisões de risco apontam nessa direção. O resultado é um mercado cross-chain mais competitivo, mas também um cenário em que falhas de segurança podem desencadear rotações de infraestrutura rápidas e onerosas.
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of PennyMac Financial Services, Inc. (NYSE: PFSI) resulting from allegations that PennyMac may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased PennyMac securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=51887 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On January 29, 2026, PennyMac filed a Current Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K announcing PennyMac’s fourth quarter and full-year 2025 financial results. The report stated that PennyMac’s “servicing segment pretax income was $37.3 million, down from $157.4 million in the prior quarter and $87.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2024,” as well as “[retax income excluding valuation-related items was $47.8 million, down 70 percent from the prior quarter driven primarily by increased realization of mortgage servicing rights (MSR) cash flows as lower mortgage rates drove higher prepayment activity.”
On this news, PennyMac’s stock price fell $49.78 per share, or 33.3%, to close at $99.92 per share on January 30, 2026.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
-------------------------------
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827 [email protected]
www.rosenlegal.com
Shares of Arm Holdings (ARM +9.20%) rocketed 224.4% higher in the first half of 2026, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. The computer chip design and licensing firm is poised to benefit greatly from the next phase of the artificial intelligence (AI) boom, driving investor demand for the stock. It is now the 40th-largest company in the world by market cap, valued at $350 billion as of the close on July 9th, 2026.
Here's why Arm Holdings stock has boomed so far in 2026, and whether you should consider buying right now.
Today's Change
(
9.20
%) $
27.63
Current Price
$
327.87
Embracing the future with AI In the global computer chip supply chain, there is perhaps no greater gap between a company's importance and general awareness than that of Arm Holdings. It designs and licenses chip architectures for central processing units (CPUs) and has built a reputation for energy-efficient smartphone architectures, which is why Apple uses Arm for all of its internal chips.
Now, its CPU architecture is expanding rapidly into a new market: AI. Many AI infrastructure players, such as Meta Platforms and Amazon, have used Arm to design internal CPUs for data centers. It has even designed its own computer chip, the AGI CPU, an energy-efficient CPU that could arrive at the exact right moment as the power bottleneck in AI data centers grows and grows.
Arm's revenue was $4.92 billion in 2026, driven by its royalty and licensing revenue for CPU designs. By 2031, Arm projects it will generate $25 billion in revenue, driven almost entirely by the growth of its new AGI CPU. Direct sales from the chip are expected to be $15 billion five years from now.
Image source: Getty Images.
Should you buy Arm Holdings stock? The potential for growth at Arm is salivating. It could see a 5x increase in revenue over the next five years, if management's guidance is taken at face value. Investors are anticipating this growth, which has driven up the stock so far in 2026. Arm Holdings is officially a new thematic winner for the AI boom.
That doesn't mean you need to pile into the stock today. Arm management is projecting it will generate $9 in earnings per share (EPS) in 2031. Compared to the current stock price of $334, that would give it a price-to-earnings ratio (P/E) of over 36 five years from now, assuming the company can achieve these aggressive growth targets. At this stock price, investors would do best to avoid buying Arm stock.
Brett Schafer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Apple, Arm Holdings, and Meta Platforms. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
On July 09, 2026, NetScout Systems Inc (NTCT) shares rose 4.2% to $44.84, continuing a strong upward trend with a year-to-date gain of 65.7%. The stock has fluc
HPC and Phantom asked the CFTC to confirm code isn't a financial service.
Listen
0
0:00 0:00
Subscribe to Bankless or sign in
The Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) and the Phantom team filed a joint comment letter with the CFTC today, urging the agency to update rules that currently keep American users walled off from onchain derivatives markets.
What's the Scoop?The opening: The filing responds to a CFTC request for information issued in June under Executive Order 14405, which asked which of the agency's rules unduly impede fintech firms from partnering with regulated institutions. HPC and Phantom's answer amounts to a three-part roadmap for bringing onchain markets under CFTC oversight.The main thrust: The letter's central argument is that writing software isn't the same as running a financial services business, a line the CFTC has long respected offchain, where engineers build the matching engines that regulated exchanges deploy without themselves registering. The groups want the agency to confirm that publishing onchain protocol code, on its own, doesn't trigger registration either.Registrants go onchain: The second ask is guidance letting the CFTC's own registrants, like exchanges and clearinghouses, perform their regulated functions using onchain infrastructure, covering thorny areas like fund segregation and recordkeeping. Notably, the letter argues self-custody plus transparent code can meet or exceed the protections legacy custodial rules were written to provide.Codifying Phantom's letter: In March, the CFTC granted Phantom no-action relief confirming its non-custodial wallet isn't an introducing broker. The filing asks the agency to turn that one-off relief into a formal rule covering every similarly situated firm.
0
Written by Bankless
788 Articles • View all
It’s time to break up with your bank, and join the movement for a better world.
Crypto wallet provider Phantom and the Hyperliquid Policy Center have urged the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to exempt blockchain protocol developers and non-custodial wallet providers from regulations designed for traditional financial intermediaries.
In response to a CFTC request for information on regulations affecting fintech firms, the companies asked the agency to confirm that blockchain protocol developers do not have to register solely for creating onchain software, issue guidance allowing regulated derivatives firms to use blockchain infrastructure, and codify exemptions preventing non-custodial wallet providers from being treated as introducing brokers.
The companies argued that existing CFTC regulations were designed for custodial financial intermediaries that hold customer assets and process trades, while onchain protocols allow users to transact directly without intermediaries controlling funds or executing orders.
Letter to the CFTC. Source: Hyperliquidpolicy.org
They said registration requirements should apply to entities that handle customer funds or execute trades, rather than to developers who create blockchain software or contribute to open-source protocols without controlling how the software is used.
The groups also asked the CFTC to clarify that registered derivatives exchanges, clearinghouses and intermediaries can use onchain infrastructure for functions including trade execution, clearing, settlement, margining and recordkeeping, provided they continue to comply with existing regulations.
The groups said the alternative to adopting the recommendations is the status quo, in which "American users continue to be walled off from onchain derivatives markets," while innovation continues to take place offshore.
Regulatory debate over onchain derivatives intensifiesThe letter comes as crypto companies and traditional exchanges press US regulators over how blockchain-based derivatives should be regulated, with both sides seeking greater clarity on the agency's approach.
In May, Intercontinental Exchange and CME Group reportedly urged regulators to scrutinize Hyperliquid's expansion into commodity-linked perpetual futures, arguing that the decentralized platform's energy derivatives posed market integrity and manipulation risks.
Two weeks later, ICE CEO Jeffrey Sprecher called for a "level playing field" that would allow regulated exchanges to offer 24/7 onchain perpetual futures, saying existing regulations were preventing traditional exchanges from competing with platforms such as Hyperliquid. Sprecher also said ICE had held exploratory discussions with Hyperliquid to better understand onchain derivatives markets.
CME, meanwhile, has continued expanding its own regulated crypto derivatives business. This year, the exchange announced futures tied to Avalanche and Sui, launched CFTC-regulated Bitcoin volatility futures and introduced the Nasdaq CME Crypto Index futures, a market-cap weighted contract tracking seven digital assets.
Despite that expansion, CME sued the CFTC in June over the agency's approval of crypto perpetual futures, arguing the regulator exceeded its authority under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Magazine: The 5 types of real world assets being tokenized fastest onchain
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.
Crypto wallet provider Phantom and the Hyperliquid Policy Center have urged the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to exempt blockchain protocol developers and non-custodial wallet providers from regulations designed for traditional financial intermediaries.
In response to a CFTC request for information on regulations affecting fintech firms, the companies asked the agency to confirm that blockchain protocol developers do not have to register solely for creating onchain software, issue guidance allowing regulated derivatives firms to use blockchain infrastructure, and codify exemptions preventing non-custodial wallet providers from being treated as introducing brokers.
The companies argued that existing CFTC regulations were designed for custodial financial intermediaries that hold customer assets and process trades, while onchain protocols allow users to transact directly without intermediaries controlling funds or executing orders.
Letter to the CFTC. Source: Hyperliquidpolicy.org
They said registration requirements should apply to entities that handle customer funds or execute trades, rather than to developers who create blockchain software or contribute to open-source protocols without controlling how the software is used.
The groups also asked the CFTC to clarify that registered derivatives exchanges, clearinghouses and intermediaries can use onchain infrastructure for functions including trade execution, clearing, settlement, margining and recordkeeping, provided they continue to comply with existing regulations.
The groups said the alternative to adopting the recommendations is the status quo, in which "American users continue to be walled off from onchain derivatives markets," while innovation continues to take place offshore.
Regulatory debate over onchain derivatives intensifiesThe letter comes as crypto companies and traditional exchanges press US regulators over how blockchain-based derivatives should be regulated, with both sides seeking greater clarity on the agency's approach.
In May, Intercontinental Exchange and CME Group reportedly urged regulators to scrutinize Hyperliquid's expansion into commodity-linked perpetual futures, arguing that the decentralized platform's energy derivatives posed market integrity and manipulation risks.
Two weeks later, ICE CEO Jeffrey Sprecher called for a "level playing field" that would allow regulated exchanges to offer 24/7 onchain perpetual futures, saying existing regulations were preventing traditional exchanges from competing with platforms such as Hyperliquid. Sprecher also said ICE had held exploratory discussions with Hyperliquid to better understand onchain derivatives markets.
CME, meanwhile, has continued expanding its own regulated crypto derivatives business. This year, the exchange announced futures tied to Avalanche and Sui, launched CFTC-regulated Bitcoin volatility futures and introduced the Nasdaq CME Crypto Index futures, a market-cap weighted contract tracking seven digital assets.
Despite that expansion, CME sued the CFTC in June over the agency's approval of crypto perpetual futures, arguing the regulator exceeded its authority under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Magazine: The 5 types of real world assets being tokenized fastest onchain
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.
The joint filing asks regulators to turn Phantom's March no-action relief into a formal rule covering all non-custodial wallet providers.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center and wallet provider Phantom filed a joint comment with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Thursday, arguing the agency's registration rules for exchanges and brokers should not apply to onchain protocol software or non-custodial wallets, according to HPC's own post on X.
The filing responds to a request for information the CFTC and SEC issued jointly in mid-June, seeking industry input on rules that hinder financial-technology innovation.
Three RequestsHPC and Phantom laid out three asks. First, confirmation that publishing onchain protocol software alone does not trigger registration as an exchange or clearinghouse. Second, a clear path for firms already registered with the CFTC to run regulated functions, like matching and clearing, on onchain infrastructure. Third, and most concrete, turning the no-action relief the CFTC granted Phantom in March into a formal rule that would extend to other non-custodial wallet providers.
"The Commission's preexisting rules were built for legacy markets," HPC and Phantom wrote, arguing that onchain markets let users hold their own funds and trade directly, without the chain of intermediaries that broker-dealer rules assume.
The filing lands under CFTC Chairman Michael Selig, who took office in December and has since approved the first U.S.-regulated bitcoin perpetual futures contract in May and opened the door to more onshore perps trading. CME Group has separately sued the CFTC over that approval, arguing perpetual futures should be classified as swaps.
Phantom Technologies and the Hyperliquid Policy Center filed a joint comment letter with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on July 9, asking the agency to carve out blockchain developers and non-custodial wallet providers from registration requirements built for a very different era of finance.
The core argument is straightforward: writing code is not the same as running an exchange. And a wallet that lets users access derivatives without ever holding their funds shouldn’t be regulated like a broker.
What they’re actually asking for The letter lays out three specific recommendations, each targeting a different pressure point in the current regulatory framework.
First, Phantom and the Hyperliquid Policy Center want the CFTC to confirm that publishing onchain software does not, by itself, trigger any registration requirement. In English: if you build a smart contract and deploy it, that act alone shouldn’t force you to register as a Designated Contract Market, a clearinghouse, or a Futures Commission Merchant.
Second, the letter urges the CFTC to let entities that are already registered, like DCMs and FCMs, use onchain technology for core functions such as matching, settlement, and margining. This is the bridge proposal. It would let traditional players adopt blockchain infrastructure without stepping into a regulatory gray zone.
Advertisement
Third, and perhaps most strategically, the organizations want the CFTC to codify the no-action relief it previously granted to Phantom. On March 17, 2026, the CFTC issued a no-action letter that allowed Phantom’s wallet to facilitate user access to regulated derivatives without requiring broker registration. That letter was a lifeline, but no-action relief is inherently temporary and revocable. Phantom wants it made permanent.
The timing here matters. The CFTC issued a Request for Information on fintech regulations from June 16 to 18, following Executive Order 14405. The deadline for public comments was July 9, the same day Phantom and Hyperliquid filed their letter.
Why these two companies, and why now Phantom is a Solana-native wallet with approximately 15 million monthly active users. It’s the front door through which millions of people interact with decentralized applications, including derivatives platforms. Phantom doesn’t custody assets. It doesn’t execute trades on behalf of users. But under current rules, its role facilitating access to derivatives could theoretically require broker registration.
Hyperliquid, on the other hand, is one of the leading onchain perpetual contract platforms. Hyperliquid’s policy arm has a direct interest in making sure the infrastructure that supports its market, from wallets to settlement layers, isn’t strangled by rules designed for floor traders at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
Together, they represent both the access layer and the execution layer of onchain derivatives. If regulators treat either one like a traditional intermediary, the whole stack becomes unworkable for US-based firms.
The March no-action letter to Phantom was a significant signal. It suggested the agency understands that not every participant in a derivatives transaction is an intermediary in the traditional sense. But signals aren’t rules, and no-action relief is inherently temporary and revocable.
What this means for investors and the market If these recommendations are adopted, even partially, US-registered firms could begin integrating onchain infrastructure for derivatives trading, clearing, and settlement. Right now, most institutional players in the US either avoid onchain derivatives entirely or access them through offshore structures that add cost, complexity, and counterparty risk.
One of the letter’s central arguments is that treating software publication as a regulated activity pushes builders offshore. If a developer deploys a perpetuals protocol and immediately faces the prospect of registering as a DCM, the rational move is to relocate to a friendlier jurisdiction. Codifying exemptions for non-custodial tools could keep more of the ecosystem onshore, which is ultimately what the executive order behind the CFTC’s RFI was aiming for.
The most telling detail in the entire filing might be the smallest one: Phantom and Hyperliquid aren’t asking to be left alone. They’re asking to be regulated, just differently. That distinction, between wanting no rules and wanting the right rules, is where the real policy conversation lives.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
The push to get U.S. regulators to adapt their rulebooks to onchain reality just gained new momentum. Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) and Phantom submitted a joint comment letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as detailed in the original report. The letter asks the agency to modernize its regulatory framework so that publishing onchain protocol software does not, by itself, trigger registration requirements.
The filing arrives at a delicate moment for decentralized exchange infrastructure. Hyperliquid has grown into a leading derivatives venue built entirely on a self-custodial model, while Phantom’s non-custodial wallet reaches millions of users across Solana, Ethereum, and Bitcoin. Together they represent a growing cohort of protocols that argue the CFTC’s existing rules were written for custodial intermediaries—centralized order books, brokers, and clearinghouses—not for code that users interact with directly. This push mirrors a broader legislative struggle where traditional financial interests have attempted to derail landmark crypto bills just days before Senate votes.
The Core Request: Software Publication as a Non-Registrable Act The letter makes three specific demands. First, clarify that merely publishing onchain protocol software does not require registration with the CFTC. Second, create a clear pathway for regulated exchanges and clearinghouses to adopt onchain infrastructure without running afoul of legacy rules. Third, codify the Phantom Technologies non-action letter into a formal rule. That 2024 non-action letter signaled that certain self-hosted wallet activities would not face enforcement, but leaving it as agency guidance creates uncertainty for builders.
The legal argument is straightforward. Under current interpretations, a developer could be treated like a traditional market operator simply for deploying smart contracts that users control. The HPC-Phantom letter contends that the self-custodial and transparent nature of onchain markets makes that analog inappropriate. Transactions settle onchain, assets remain in user wallets, and the software does not hold customer funds. Those structural differences, they argue, demand a different regulatory posture.
Why the CFTC’s Framework Feels Outdated The CFTC’s rulebook was largely designed during an era when centralized exchanges and derivatives clearing organizations acted as trusted intermediaries holding customer margin and controlling trade execution. Onchain protocols disrupt that model by removing the intermediary. Yet the agency has not formally addressed whether the act of writing and releasing code is itself a regulated activity. This ambiguity chills development and forces projects to weigh legal exposure against innovation.
It’s not just a philosophical debate. The uncertainty has practical consequences for the U.S. market. Onchain derivatives platforms often choose to restrict access from American IP addresses rather than risk a regulatory fight. That pushes liquidity and users offshore, exactly the outcome the CFTC presumably wants to avoid. As other jurisdictions like the EU move ahead with MiCA-style frameworks that offer clearer guardrails, the pressure on U.S. agencies to provide similar clarity is mounting. In recent weeks, tokenized real-world assets crossed $20 billion on-chain, as highlighted in a market update, further underscoring the need for rules that accommodate automated, smart-contract-driven settlement.
What This Means for Exchanges and Onchain Markets If the CFTC moves toward formalizing the requested clarifications, it could open a more defined path for centralized exchanges like CME or Coinbase Derivatives to integrate onchain components without triggering full registration of those software layers. The letter explicitly calls for a framework that lets regulated entities adopt distributed ledger technology for clearing and settlement. That would mark a significant shift from the current posture, where any move toward onchain rails is often met with regulatory caution.
At the same time, a formal rule codifying the Phantom non-action letter would provide non-custodial wallet providers and protocol developers with a baseline of legal comfort. That could speed up product launches and reduce the reliance on case-by-case relief that leaves everyone guessing. For developers, the line between publishing code and operating a market would become less of a legal gray zone.
Still, the request does not address every pain point. Questions remain about how liability attaches when software is modified by third parties or used to facilitate illicit activity. Neither the letter nor current CFTC precedent provides a clean answer, and that gap is one reason the debate is likely to extend well beyond this comment period. The underlying protocol activity shows why this matters now: developer engagement across top chains remains robust, as tracked in recent weekly metrics, reflecting the pace of onchain infrastructure growth that regulators can no longer ignore.
The Road Ahead The letter lands at a time when the CFTC is signaling openness to updating its approach. The agency has brought enforcement actions against decentralized platforms before, but those often involved allegations of unregistered derivatives trading rather than the mere act of publishing code. The HPC-Phantom submission attempts to draw a bright line between software publication and market operation—a distinction that, if accepted, would reshape enforcement priorities.
What happens next depends on how the CFTC weighs the comment and whether it moves to propose a rulemaking or issue further guidance. Congressional action could also force the issue, though the legislative path remains tangled, as ongoing battles over crypto market structure bills demonstrate. For now, the industry’s push is simply to get the agency to say, in a durable form, that writing code is not a crime.
AUTHOR
Max delves deep into the cryptocurrency realm, with a passion for altcoins and NFTs. Convinced of crypto's transformative potential, he envisions a decentralized financial future. Max's background in the financial sector grants him unique insights into global monetary systems. In his leisure, Max embraces the thrill of adventures and is an avid sports enthusiast, finding balance and rejuvenation away from work.
One week. That’s all it took for Robinhood’s new Ethereum Layer-2 network to dethrone Hyperliquid as the top decentralized exchange by 24-hour trading volume. On July 8, Robinhood Chain posted between $560 million and $570 million in daily DEX volume, eclipsing what had been the dominant perps-and-spot platform in DeFi.
The catalyst wasn’t some blue-chip DeFi protocol or a revolutionary new trading primitive. It was a memecoin called Cash Cat.
A chain launch turbocharged by a cat token Robinhood Chain went live on July 1 as a permissionless Ethereum Layer-2 network built on the Arbitrum stack. It integrates Uniswap for trading, Chainlink for oracles, and Morpho for lending.
Advertisement
CASHCAT, a memecoin trading on Uniswap WETH pairs on the new chain, surged to an all-time high above $0.14. Its market cap ballooned to somewhere between $100 million and $150 million in a single day. The token alone accounted for roughly $98 million in 24-hour trading volume, acting as the rocket fuel that pushed Robinhood Chain’s total DEX numbers past Hyperliquid’s.
The numbers behind the surge Daily active addresses on Robinhood Chain approached 200,000, with more than 140,000 of those being first-time users.
The chain’s total value locked crossed $100 million within its first week, driven primarily by Morpho lending activity.
For context on what Robinhood Chain was up against: Hyperliquid had accumulated $330.8 billion in combined spot and perpetual trading volume by July 2025. Robinhood’s overall crypto trading volume sat at $237.8 billion over the same period.
Traditional finance meets permissionless chaos Robinhood Chain is built on the Arbitrum stack, integrating Uniswap for trading interfaces, Chainlink for price feeds, and Morpho for lending. The permissionless nature of the chain means anyone can deploy tokens and create trading pairs, which is how Cash Cat emerged organically rather than through a corporate partnership announcement.
What this means for investors Trading volumes on Robinhood Chain have already begun to stabilize at lower levels since the July 8 peak. The $100 million-plus in TVL from Morpho lending is a distinct signal: lending activity suggests users are deploying capital for yield, not just flipping tokens.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
TLDR: HPC and Phantom filed a joint letter urging CFTC to clarify registration rules for developers. The letter asks CFTC to give registered exchanges a path to adopt onchain infrastructure. HPC and Phantom want the Phantom no-action letter codified into a permanent formal rule. The filing responds directly to a CFTC request on rules hindering market participants. Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom have urged the CFTC to clarify that publishing onchain protocol software does not require registration.
The two firms submitted a joint comment letter this week addressing onchain market infrastructure. Their filing asks regulators to modernize outdated rules built around custodial intermediaries.
It calls for a clear registration pathway for exchanges adopting onchain systems. The letter also pushes to codify the existing Phantom no-action letter into formal policy.
HPC And Phantom Detail Registration Concerns Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom compare software developers to internet service providers. The letter states “no one confuses either person for the other” between builders and brokers.
An internet provider supplies cables that let brokers take customer orders. The letter argues protocol developers deserve the same clear distinction under CFTC rules.
Digital asset builders have not received consistent treatment from past CFTC leadership. The letter notes developers were left “guessing whether they may be treated as operating an unregistered exchange.”
This ambiguity pushed many companies to build their products offshore instead. HPC and Phantom credit current leadership under Chairman Selig with shifting this approach.
Onchain markets differ structurally from traditional custodial trading systems, the letter notes. Legacy markets pass customer funds through brokers, exchanges, and clearinghouses sequentially.
The filing states onchain systems “let users hold their own funds and trade directly with one another.” Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom say regulation should reflect this fundamental difference.
Three recommendations anchor the joint submission to the Commission. Confirm first that publishing protocol software alone does not require registration.
Second, create pathways for registered exchanges to adopt onchain infrastructure directly. Third, convert the Phantom no-action letter into what the filing calls “a formal rule.”
Firms Frame Request As Path To Onshore Growth HPC and Phantom present their proposal as a route to bring innovation onshore. The letter states protections can be built in “by design rather than by decree.”
Regulated intermediaries would continue handling responsibilities that code alone cannot resolve. This structure preserves protections while modernizing infrastructure for onchain derivatives markets.
The letter responds to a CFTC request asking which rules hinder market participants. HPC and Phantom write, “this is our answer, and it is within the Commission’s own authority to act on.”
They state the requested changes fall within the Commission’s existing regulatory authority. No new legislation would be required to implement these clarifications.
Codifying the Phantom no-action letter would benefit smaller non-custodial wallet providers broadly. The filing notes such firms would gain “durable certainty rather than having to ask, one at a time, for relief.”
Firms would gain lasting certainty instead of requesting individual relief repeatedly. This reduces friction for developers building non-custodial financial technology tools.
Existing registrants also stand to benefit from the proposed regulatory pathway. Exchanges and clearinghouses could retire legacy systems for transparent onchain alternatives instead.
Compliance obligations would remain intact under the new registration framework. HPC and Phantom describe this transition as advantageous for American consumers.
The joint letter reflects continued engagement between digital asset firms and federal regulators.
Hyperliquid’s quarterly notional trading volume has fallen roughly 35% since October 2025, a steep decline for a platform that was setting records just months ago. But buried inside that headline number is a more interesting story: real-world asset trading now accounts for about 30% of total volume on the platform, and that share keeps climbing.
The volume decline in context During Q1 2026, the platform still managed $633 billion in total trading volume.
Hyperliquid has also maintained between 32% and 44% of the perpetual DEX market throughout this period. Losing volume while keeping market share means the whole category contracted, not just one player.
Advertisement
RWA trading fills the gap RWA volume now constitutes approximately 30% of total platform activity, up meaningfully from prior quarters. At certain points during Q1 and Q2 2026, that figure peaked between 44% and 47% of total volume. In other words, nearly half of all trading on a crypto-native DEX was happening in assets like crude oil, gold, silver, and the S&P 500.
Open interest in RWA perpetuals hit an all-time high of $2.6 billion in May 2026, doubling from $1.3 billion just two months earlier in March.
If you want to hedge an S&P 500 position at 2 AM on a Sunday, your options in traditional finance range from limited to nonexistent. Hyperliquid’s RWA perpetuals fill that gap with 24/7 liquidity, no brokerage account required.
What this means for investors For HYPE token holders specifically, the token serves as the backbone of the ecosystem, used for staking, governance, fee payments, and user incentives, with a maximum supply capped at 1 billion. A decline in overall volume would normally be bearish for a platform token, since less trading typically means less fee revenue. But the growth in RWA trading introduces a new revenue stream and a new user base that could prove more durable than crypto-native speculation.
The risk to watch is regulatory. Traditional financial instruments trading on decentralized platforms exists in a gray area that regulators haven’t fully addressed. Hyperliquid’s 32% to 44% market share makes it a large enough target to attract attention.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Two of crypto’s more prominent names just told the CFTC, politely but firmly, that writing code shouldn’t require a federal license.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom Technologies submitted a joint comment letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on July 9, responding to the agency’s Request for Information on fintech regulations. The core argument: developers who publish onchain protocol software shouldn’t be forced to register as Designated Contract Markets, Futures Commission Merchants, or any other regulated entity simply because their code exists.
What they’re actually asking for The letter lays out three specific requests, and each one targets a different friction point in how current rules collide with onchain infrastructure.
First, they want the CFTC to confirm that developing and publishing onchain protocol software, by itself, does not trigger registration requirements. In English: if you build a smart contract that enables derivatives trading, you shouldn’t be treated the same as JPMorgan’s futures desk.
Second, they’re asking for updated guidance that would let CFTC-registered exchanges and intermediaries actually use onchain technology for their regulated functions.
Advertisement
Third, the letter asks the CFTC to formalize no-action relief that Phantom already received back on March 17, under CFTC Letter No. 26-09. That relief established that Phantom’s non-custodial wallet could connect users to registered derivatives markets without needing to register as an Introducing Broker. They want that precedent codified into lasting guidance rather than sitting as a one-off letter that could theoretically be rescinded.
The CFTC’s RFI was originally issued on June 18, giving industry participants a window to weigh in. This letter landed ahead of the deadline.
Why Phantom and Hyperliquid are the ones making this argument Hyperliquid operates a Layer-1 blockchain built specifically for derivatives and financial activities. Its native token, HYPE, has a total max supply of 1 billion. The Hyperliquid Policy Center was established in early 2026 with the explicit goal of advocating for regulatory clarity around onchain markets.
Phantom is a non-custodial wallet provider. It doesn’t hold user funds. It doesn’t execute trades. It’s essentially a window into blockchain activity, not a participant in it. That distinction matters enormously in regulatory terms, because the traditional framework assumes that anyone connecting users to financial markets is, in some capacity, a broker or intermediary.
Phantom’s earlier no-action relief from the CFTC signaled that at least some regulators understood the difference between a tool that facilitates access and an entity that handles money. The joint letter tries to build on that precedent before it fades into bureaucratic obscurity.
The bigger regulatory picture The CFTC has historically not treated the creators of offchain trading software as regulated entities simply for writing code. What this letter argues is that the same logic should extend to onchain developers.
The letter makes the case that onchain systems actually offer advantages over traditional custodial infrastructure. Peer-to-peer trading reduces intermediary risk. Settlement transparency improves on the opaque back-office processes of traditional finance. Self-custody eliminates the counterparty risk that comes with handing assets to someone else.
What this means for investors Institutional capital has consistently cited regulatory uncertainty as the primary barrier to deeper engagement with onchain derivatives. A CFTC framework that explicitly permits registered entities to operate on blockchain infrastructure would remove one of the largest obstacles. The difference between “technically not illegal” and “explicitly permitted” is enormous when you’re a compliance officer at a fund managing billions.
The fact that Phantom already secured no-action relief suggests some internal appetite for accommodation, but codifying that into formal guidance is a different, slower process entirely.
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.
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.
