Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, the man who built the world’s largest crypto exchange and then went to prison for its compliance failures, has some thoughts about Hyperliquid. Speaking on the Galaxy Brains podcast on June 10, CZ called Hyperliquid’s high-performance Layer-1 blockchain and no-KYC perpetual futures trading model “awesome.” In the same breath, he made it clear he would never touch that approach himself. “I would never do what they do,” he said, pointing to the very personal consequences he faced when Binance’s own compliance infrastructure fell short.

Binance was hit with a $4.3 billion fine in 2023 for KYC and anti-money laundering violations. CZ personally served a four-month prison sentence as part of the settlement. He acknowledged that Binance, as a centralized exchange with identifiable leadership and corporate structure, simply cannot operate the way Hyperliquid does. Hyperliquid, by contrast, positions itself as a decentralized protocol, which at least theoretically puts it in a different regulatory category.

Advertisement

Inside Hyperliquid’s model Hyperliquid launched its Layer-1 blockchain in 2023 and has since grown into one of the most active decentralized trading venues in crypto. Users connect their wallets and start trading perpetual futures instantly. No identity verification, no waiting period, no compliance friction. By 2025, it was handling hundreds of billions monthly in transaction volume.

Hyperliquid’s decentralization claims deserve some scrutiny. The network runs on just 24 validators. The Hyper Foundation controls approximately 60% of the governance stake. CZ himself pointed to this dynamic, noting that Hyperliquid is controlled by a small team. If regulators ever decide to come after the platform, that concentrated control structure could make it easier to identify responsible parties than a truly distributed protocol would.

HYPE token rides the wave The HYPE token, native to the Hyperliquid ecosystem, is trading near its all-time high around $76 to $77, with a market capitalization exceeding $15 billion. CZ’s remarks appear to have contributed to renewed enthusiasm around the token. The price surge came without any immediate regulatory repercussions.

What this means for investors The investment case for HYPE comes down to a single bet: can a no-KYC trading platform continue operating at scale without facing the kind of enforcement action that nearly destroyed Binance? Hyperliquid’s concentrated governance structure, with 24 validators and a foundation controlling roughly 60% of stake, means there are identifiable entities that regulators could target. A protocol where a single foundation holds supermajority governance power is, functionally, more like a company than a truly decentralized network, meaning decision-making could change rapidly and tokenomics could be altered based on the preferences of a small group.

Investors should watch for two signals above all else. First, any regulatory action or formal investigation targeting Hyperliquid or similar no-KYC platforms, particularly from US authorities, would immediately reprice the risk. Second, any moves by the Hyper Foundation to distribute governance stake more broadly would strengthen the decentralization argument and potentially reduce regulatory exposure.

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

Perpetual futures are on track to become one of the dominant trading instruments in global finance, with decentralized exchange Hyperliquid demonstrating how blockchain-based infrastructure could challenge traditional markets, according to Pantera Capital.

The blockchain-focused asset manager said in a Wednesday X post that perpetual futures offer structural advantages over traditional derivatives, including 24/7 trading, no contract expiries, simpler position management and continuous price discovery, making them increasingly attractive beyond crypto markets.

Pantera, an investor in the Hyperliquid ecosystem, said Hyperliquid has become the leading example of that shift by expanding perpetual futures beyond cryptocurrencies into equities, commodities and stock indices as part of founder Jeff Yan's vision of “housing all of finance.”

Hyperliquid's growth has drawn attention from traditional finance, including NYSE parent Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), whose CEO, Jeffrey Sprecher, urged regulators to create a "level playing field" for launching 24/7 onchain perpetual futures contracts.

Pantera Capital said Hyperliquid has increased the market share of onchain perps, as DEX perps volumes rose to 14% of centralized exchange (CEX) perps volume, up from less than 1% in early 2023 when Hyperliquid first launched.

Hyperliquid accounts for roughly 40% of onchain perpetual futures trading volume, according to Pantera. It ranks as the fourth-largest fee-generating protocol in the crypto industry, generating $13.5 million in weekly fees in the past seven days, according to DefiLlama data.

Top protocols by weekly fees generated. Source: DefiLlama

Traditional finance embraces 24/7 marketsCryptocurrency platforms and TradFi institutions are bringing more traditional investment products under blockchain wrappers.

On May 22, OKX announced plans to launch perpetual futures based on ICE's Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate crude benchmarks under a partnership with the exchange operator.

Earlier in March, the NYSE partnered with tokenization platform Securitize as part of a broader effort to develop blockchain-based stock trading infrastructure with 24/7 trading and settlement for Wall Street.

In January, the NYSE’s parent company, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), shared plans for a tokenized securities venue designed for 24/7 trading, instant settlement, stablecoin-based funding and onchain settlement.  

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.

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.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Crypto-related stocks in U.S. markets continued their rally during trading hours, with MARA surging 15.27%.

According to market data from BIT (bit.com), US-listed crypto-related stocks continued to strengthen during intraday trading. Details: Strategy (MSTR) rose 2.11%; Circle (CRCL) gained 0.83%; MARA Holdings (MARA) surged 15.27% after announcing the acquisition of a Texas-based 2000MW computing power park project company for up to $600 million; Riot Platforms (RIOT) climbed 6.1%.

1 hours ago

JPMorgan: The biggest risk for Bitcoin is not Strategy’s sell-off, but blockchain adoption that bypasses public chains and tokens.

JPMorgan Chase’s analyst team noted that the market views Strategy’s Bitcoin sale plan as a key risk for the crypto sector, but it is not a major structural threat to Bitcoin. The more fundamental risk lies in tokenization, payments, and settlements increasingly taking place on permissioned infrastructure that does not rely on public blockchains. If this trend continues, the entire crypto ecosystem could face a "structural downgrade"—marked by slower transaction activity, reduced liquidity, and weaker capital inflows—ultimately weighing on Bitcoin. The analysts stated bluntly: "In our view, a more significant risk stems from the way blockchain is adopted in traditional finance, which continues to bypass public, permissionless networks." The analysts explained that institutional adoption so far has clearly favored permissioned chains, as they offer advantages in privacy, KYC/AML controls, governance, throughput, legal accountability, and regulatory certainty, posing a competitive threat to public blockchains like Ethereum. If tokenized deposits are widely adopted—especially in non-transferable forms favored by regulators—it could reduce demand for stablecoins in institutional payments and settlements; SWIFT’s blockchain initiative and central bank digital currency (CBDC) projects such as the digital euro and digital renminbi further strengthen regulated alternatives. In the roughly $500 billion tokenized real-world assets market, while Ethereum currently holds a certain share, this likely reflects early-stage experimentation rather than the market’s long-term structure. As institutional adoption grows, issuance, custody, settlement, and lifecycle management will likely be conducted more on private or permissioned infrastructure that meets requirements for identity, confidentiality, and operational resilience, with public blockchains used only for distribution and limited secondary trading.

1 hours ago

Security Warning: Abnormal on-chain fund flows detected for the CodexField project on BNB Chain.

On-chain investigator Specter has issued a community security alert, warning of potential fund misappropriation risks associated with the CodexField project on BNB Chain. On-chain tracking shows the project has amassed over $85 million in funds. Specter detected abnormal on-chain fund flows yesterday: a wallet bridged 17.3 million USDT from TRON to Ethereum, then swapped the tokens for DAI via Bitget Swap on Polygon. So far, $6.5 million has been transferred out, while the remaining $10.8 million is still in transit. The funds were originally bridged from Ethereum to TRON roughly six months ago, and the source wallet is linked to CodexField’s deposit contract. Below are key addresses for users to verify on their own: EVM: 0xBc606358910b3720d136F0d4Ce12b759C270747a TRON: TQNTEYadFVVQeobBtctSjurJ5RpfBsTmqh, TAzpg8L1WkkzCxxZk8TYnvaRYahehh52MK Related deposit contract: 0x9E6A75b546B65E7B9D34E2c9aB8Fe224B9aA52AA Additional red flags: The project requires a minimum $100 deposit for participation. Blockchain security tool Blocksec MetaSuites initially labeled the deposit contract as "Fake CodexField", but Specter’s follow-up investigation found the contract is actually operated by the CodexField team itself. The project uses multiple domains and subdomains to collect user deposits, and the team previously shared these domains via official channels. Its fund flow pattern is unusual, deviating from standard fund management practices: the project bridges funds across multiple blockchains, routes them through intermediate wallets, and ultimately sends assets to centralized exchanges. Specter noted that based on on-chain activity, the project warrants high vigilance. It advises all users interacting with CodexField to exercise extreme caution until the team provides a transparent explanation of its fund movements.

1 hours ago

Post-quantum cryptography management platform QIZ Security closes $17 million seed round.

QIZ Security, a crypto posture and post-quantum cryptography (PQC) management platform, announced the completion of a $17 million seed funding round, led by Bessemer Venture Partners and Merlin Ventures, with participation from Evolution Equity Partners, Qbeat Ventures, Singtel Innov8, and Qino Cyber Capital. The capital will be used to accelerate product R&D and market expansion. QIZ Security was co-founded by Ben Volkow, Lenny Ridel, and Itan Barmes; the team has years of experience in cybersecurity, enterprise services, and post-quantum transformation, with Barmes previously leading Deloitte’s global quantum cybersecurity readiness team. Its platform helps enterprises identify and assess crypto asset risks and implement remediation measures, and is currently applied in industries including finance, telecommunications, healthcare, and critical infrastructure. It has also established partnerships with Cisco, AWS, Google, CrowdStrike, Deloitte, EY, and IBM, among others.

1 hours ago

Hyperliquid recommends that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) formally recognize that on-chain protocols are not required to register, and non-custodial wallets do not serve as financial intermediaries.

Hyperliquid Policy Center (HPC) and Phantom have jointly submitted comments to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in response to the agency’s request for feedback on whether existing rules keep pace with the evolution of financial technology, proposing to explicitly extend the distinction between "building tools" and "operating regulated businesses" to on-chain markets. The comments note that software engineers have been developing matching engines for regulated futures trading platforms for decades, and the CFTC has never classified them as trading platform operators. However, developers in the digital asset sector have long lacked such clarity, forcing many to opt for offshore development. The current CFTC, led by Chairman Selig, is working to address this gap and carve out room for innovation for fintech firms in digital asset and derivatives markets. The two entities put forward three key recommendations: First, explicitly confirm that merely publishing on-chain protocol software itself does not require registration — a factor often decisive for engineers when choosing where to develop. Second, establish a clear path for the CFTC’s registration bodies to operate regulated functions using on-chain infrastructure, enabling trading platforms and clearinghouses to replace decades-old legacy systems with transparent infrastructure. Third, formalize Phantom’s recent no-action letter into official rules, eliminating the need for self-custody wallet providers to apply for approved exemptions on a case-by-case basis. HPC and Phantom stress that self-custody and transparent on-chain systems can embed investor protection directly into technology, while regulated intermediaries retain responsibility for issues that technology cannot resolve independently. This approach will bring the next generation of financial markets within reach of U.S. consumers.

1 hours ago

Micron raises its U.S. investment plan to $250 billion, betting on demand for AI memory chips.

Micron Technology plans to increase spending on its new U.S. factory to $250 billion to meet the surging demand for memory chips driven by the global artificial intelligence boom. The move adds $50 billion to Micron’s previously announced $200 billion commitment to expanding domestic U.S. chip manufacturing, covering projects in New York, Idaho, and Virginia. The expenditure is expected to run through 2035, and will help the company achieve its target of producing 40% of its DRAM products in the U.S. within the next decade.

1 hours ago

Phantom Technologies and the Hyperliquid Policy Center filed a joint comment with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission asking the agency to update its rules for onchain market infrastructure.

The comment responds to the CFTC’s request for information on regulations that may limit fintech firms from partnering with financial infrastructure and intermediaries regulated by the Commission.

Phantom and HPC said current rules generally assume a custodial market structure where intermediaries handle customer orders and funds, while onchain markets can allow users to trade directly and retain control of their assets.

Advertisement

The groups asked the CFTC to confirm that developing or contributing to onchain protocol software does not, by itself, trigger registration with the Commission. They said registration should apply to firms that actually handle customer orders or funds, or enter into transactions with customers, rather than to software protocols or developers standing alone.

Phantom and HPC also asked the CFTC to give registered exchanges, clearing organizations and intermediaries a path to use onchain infrastructure for regulated functions.

The comment said designated contract markets should be able to use onchain protocols for matching and execution, while derivatives clearing organizations should be able to use them for margining, settlement, clearing and default management.

The filing also calls on the CFTC to turn its recent Phantom no action letter into a formal rule. That letter granted relief to Phantom as a non custodial wallet provider whose role is limited to providing technical access to regulated markets. Phantom and HPC said a rulemaking would give similar wallet and front end providers broader certainty.

Phantom said it does not hold user funds, control private keys, execute trades between users or intermediate transactions. HPC described itself as an advocacy group focused on creating a regulated path for Americans to access onchain markets, including those available on Hyperliquid.

Phantom integrates Hyperliquid through its interface, though the functionality is not available to US users. The groups said they are working together to support regulations that would allow Americans to access onchain derivatives markets under CFTC oversight.

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

HYPE trades near $68 after roughly tripling from its March low of $25.64, a run built during one of the most risk-averse stretches crypto has seen since 2022.

Global retail crypto activity contracted for two straight quarters through Q1, yet Hyperliquid’s token set an all-time high at $76.90 in June. Understanding why it outperformed in risk-off conditions explains why a risk-on turn could compound the effect rather than replace it.

Summary HYPE tripled from $25.64 in March to a $76.90 high in June. At peak activity, $2.3M in daily fees funded $11M in HYPE buybacks. Seven of Hyperliquid’s top ten markets by volume are now equities or commodities. Price is coiling between support at $67 and a triple-tested ceiling near $74. Why It Worked in a Risk-Off Market Most crypto assets need risk appetite to rise, because their value rests on future adoption stories that get discounted harder when money turns defensive. HYPE’s value rests on something that gets paid daily: trading fees. And trading volume does not need optimism, it needs movement. The first half of 2026 delivered movement in abundance, from a 22% Bitcoin drawdown in Q1 to an oil shock during the West Asia crisis, and every violent session generated fees regardless of direction.

The mechanism that converts those fees into price support is the buyback. Hyperliquid routes the overwhelming majority of its protocol revenue into an Assistance Fund that buys HYPE on the open market, continuously, with no discretionary committee deciding when. At peak activity this year the platform generated $2.3 million in daily fees, funding $11 million in buybacks. More volume means more fees, more fees mean a larger standing bid under the token, and the purchased supply comes out of circulation. It is the crypto equivalent of an aggressive corporate buyback program, except executed block by block. That bid is why drawdowns in HYPE kept finding buyers while tokens with no revenue link bled without support: part of the demand is mechanical.

The risk-on case stacks on top rather than replacing this. Defensive markets gave Hyperliquid volatility-driven volume in oil, gold, and liquidations. A risk-on turn adds the other engine: expanding crypto speculation, altcoin leverage, and new listings, on a platform that already processes roughly 70% of all on-chain perpetuals volume. HYPE is one of the few large tokens with a credible claim to both regimes.

No Longer a Crypto Exchange That Happens to List Oil The deeper change came through HIP-3, the October 2025 upgrade that lets anyone staking 500,000 HYPE deploy their own perpetual futures markets on Hyperliquid’s infrastructure. Builders used it to list what crypto never had: tokenized Nvidia, Tesla, and S&P 500 contracts, WTI and Brent crude, gold, silver, FX, even pre-IPO names like SpaceX. Open interest across these builder-deployed markets grew from about $790 million in January to over $3 billion by early June, according to OAK Research.

The composition tells the real story. Oil and precious metals alone drove over 67% of HIP-3 volume in Q1, WTI crude perpetuals reached $1.27 billion in daily volume in March, and seven of Hyperliquid’s top ten markets by volume are now equities or commodities rather than crypto pairs. The killer feature is the clock: these markets never close, and when the West Asia crisis broke over weekends with traditional commodity venues dark, traders priced oil on Hyperliquid, pushing HIP-3 to as much as 40% of total platform volume. Non-crypto assets showed 60% trader retention in late March, the signature of a durable product rather than a novelty.

Every one of those barrels and shares feeds the same machine. HIP-3 markets charge roughly double native fee rates, half to the deployer and half to the protocol, so the buyback engine now runs on oil volatility and equity earnings seasons as well as crypto cycles. Deployers also lock 500,000 HYPE each just to participate, removing further supply. The scale of the shift has forced traditional finance to respond: ICE chief executive Jeffrey Sprecher, whose company owns the NYSE, called Hyperliquid “bigger than Nasdaq” at a May conference, while Grayscale Research wrote in June that the platform now looks “more like Amazon Web Services than a stock exchange.”

Coiling Under a Triple-Tested Ceiling The daily chart shows the June blow-off resolving into compression, not breakdown. Price at $68 sits above the rising 50-day moving average at $64.68, with the full average stack still in bullish order after the March-to-June trend tripled the token.

Daily technical analysis chart for Hyperliquid/USD, illustrating current price trends and technical indicators. The structure is a sequence of lower highs, $76.90, then roughly $74, then $71.50, pressing onto a horizontal shelf at $66.50 to $67 that has been defended repeatedly since late June. Below the shelf, a fresh ascending trendline and the 50-day converge, stacking three supports into a $2.50 window between $64.50 and $67. RSI at 53 has reset from overbought to neutral while price gave back little, which is digestion, not distribution. The triggers are clean: a daily close above $71.50 breaks the lower-high sequence and opens the $74 ceiling, with $76.90 the only level beyond it. A close below $64.50 takes out shelf, trendline, and 50-day together, exposing thin air down to the $53 to $54 zone where the 100-day is rising. Between $67 and $71.50, the chart is noise.

Where the Machine Can Break The buyback engine is reflexive, and reflexivity cuts both ways. If volume contracts, fees fall, buybacks shrink, and the mechanical bid weakens exactly when the token needs it most. The flywheel that amplified the rally can amplify a genuine downturn too.

Concentration is the second risk. A single deployer, TradeXYZ, accounts for more than 90% of HIP-3 open interest, so the non-crypto growth story currently rests on one team’s oracles, liquidity management, and continued good standing. HIP-3 markets are also not backstopped by Hyperliquid’s native liquidity pool; each deployer stands alone.

Regulation is the third and largest. The UK’s FCA lists the platform as unauthorized, Singapore has raised its own flag, and CME Group and ICE have formally warned US authorities about 24/7 synthetic markets in strategic commodities forming prices outside regulated frameworks while traditional venues are closed. When the exchanges Hyperliquid is disrupting start lobbying, the compliment is real, and so is the threat. Synthetic stock perpetuals sit in a gray zone that a single enforcement action could darken quickly.

The technical reality suggests HYPE’s next leg could depend on which arrives first: a volume regime that keeps the buyback engine fed, or a regulatory shock that tests the 90%-concentrated foundation. The chart has compressed the decision into a narrow band. Above $71.50, a token with revenue in both risk regimes could trade back toward price discovery. Below $64.50, the market might signal the machine’s output is already priced. What the first half already proved is narrower but real: Hyperliquid no longer needs a crypto bull market to generate demand for its token. A risk-on turn may be simply be the first time both engines run at once.

Direct lending by U.S. private credit firms fell sharply in the second quarter even as fund-raising by such firms rebounded, underscoring the deviation between capital raised for the asset class and ​the deal flow to absorb it.

Investors might want to bet on Progyny (PGNY - Free Report) , as it has been recently upgraded to a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy). This upgrade primarily reflects an upward trend in earnings estimates, which is one of the most powerful forces impacting stock prices.

A company's changing earnings picture is at the core of the Zacks rating. The system tracks the Zacks Consensus Estimate -- the consensus measure of EPS estimates from the sell-side analysts covering the stock -- for the current and following years.

Individual investors often find it hard to make decisions based on rating upgrades by Wall Street analysts, since these are mostly driven by subjective factors that are hard to see and measure in real time. In these situations, the Zacks rating system comes in handy because of the power of a changing earnings picture in determining near-term stock price movements.

Therefore, the Zacks rating upgrade for Progyny basically reflects positivity about its earnings outlook that could translate into buying pressure and an increase in its stock price.

Most Powerful Force Impacting Stock PricesThe change in a company's future earnings potential, as reflected in earnings estimate revisions, and the near-term price movement of its stock are proven to be strongly correlated. That's partly because of the influence of institutional investors that use earnings and earnings estimates for calculating the fair value of a company's shares. An increase or decrease in earnings estimates in their valuation models simply results in higher or lower fair value for a stock, and institutional investors typically buy or sell it. Their transaction of large amounts of shares then leads to price movement for the stock.

For Progyny, rising earnings estimates and the consequent rating upgrade fundamentally mean an improvement in the company's underlying business. And investors' appreciation of this improving business trend should push the stock higher.

Harnessing the Power of Earnings Estimate RevisionsAs empirical research shows a strong correlation between trends in earnings estimate revisions and near-term stock movements, tracking such revisions for making an investment decision could be truly rewarding. Here is where the tried-and-tested Zacks Rank stock-rating system plays an important role, as it effectively harnesses the power of earnings estimate revisions.

The Zacks Rank stock-rating system, which uses four factors related to earnings estimates to classify stocks into five groups, ranging from Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) to Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell), has an impressive externally-audited track record, with Zacks Rank #1 stocks generating an average annual return of +25% since 1988. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here >>>> .

Earnings Estimate Revisions for ProgynyFor the fiscal year ending December 2026, this provider of fertility and family building benefits is expected to earn $2.04 per share, which is unchanged compared with the year-ago reported number.

Analysts have been steadily raising their estimates for Progyny. Over the past three months, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for the company has increased 6.3%.

Bottom LineUnlike the overly optimistic Wall Street analysts whose rating systems tend to be weighted toward favorable recommendations, the Zacks rating system maintains an equal proportion of "buy" and "sell" ratings for its entire universe of more than 4,000 stocks at any point in time. Irrespective of market conditions, only the top 5% of the Zacks-covered stocks get a "Strong Buy" rating and the next 15% get a "Buy" rating. So, the placement of a stock in the top 20% of the Zacks-covered stocks indicates its superior earnings estimate revision feature, making it a solid candidate for producing market-beating returns in the near term.

You can learn more about the Zacks Rank here >>>

The upgrade of Progyny to a Zacks Rank #1 positions it in the top 5% of the Zacks-covered stocks in terms of estimate revisions, implying that the stock might move higher in the near term.

NEW YORK, July 09, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Helen of Troy Limited (NASDAQ: HELE) and certain of its officers.

This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Helen of Troy securities between April 24, 2024 and October 8, 2025, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm’s site: bgandg.com/HELE.

Helen of Troy Case Details

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:

Helen of Troy overstated the success and benefits of its Project Pegasus initiative, touting the “fuel” it was generating while downplaying issues such as “implementation hiccups” at its Tennessee distribution center and assuring investors that the project was progressing and delivering cost-saving efficiencies; 
in reality, Project Pegasus was not delivering the efficiencies Defendants claimed, as the Company lacked sufficient resources and budget to achieve its stated restructuring and cost-savings goals; and 
as a result, Defendants’ statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
What's Next for Helen of Troy Investors?

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm’s site: bgandg.com/HELE. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in Helen of Troy you have until August 3, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff.

No Cost to Helen of Troy Investors

We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys’ fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful.

Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for Helen of Troy Securities Class Action?

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com

"Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, or Instagram.

Contact Info

Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or Nathan Miller
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
917-590-0911 | [email protected]

Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--e.l.f. Cosmetics, a brand from e.l.f. Beauty (NYSE: ELF), today announced it is giving away thousands of driving lessons to UK learners with RED Driver Training, democratising access to one of the most financially out-of-reach milestones facing young people in the UK today. e.l.f., which stands for every eye, lip and face, is a brand that has always believed the most powerful thing it can offer is access - to beauty, to confidence and now, to the driving seat. e.l.f.'s.

9.7.2026 19:07

Po volatilním průběhu v předchozím dni jsou dnes americké indexy nakonec vytaženy do zelených čísel. Převážně jsou podpořeny sektorem AI, který předchozí den nejvíce ztrácel. Strach z geopolitické eskalace na blízkém východě se postupně během dne vytrácel a trh toto riziko z části absorbuje. Je to hlavně díky poklesu cen ropy. O to se postaral prezident Trump, který sdělil, že americká strana byla kontaktována Íránem s tím, že se chtějí dohodnout po dalších amerických úderech. Černé zlato tak ustoupilo ze včerejších zisků a WTI padá o -2,11 %. Zároveň se investoři začínají soustředit na blížící se výsledkovou sezonu a tento okolní geopolitický ruch krapet odsouvají do ústraní.

Nejvíce rostoucím sektorem jsou tedy dnes technologie, a to konkrétně sektor AI. Již nějakou dobu je na trhu viditelné přelévání kapitálu mezi takzvanými hyperscaleři a čipovými společnostmi. Dnes to jsou čipové firmy, které se těší vyšší poptávce. Příkladem mohou být společnosti AMD +6,65 % a Micron +7,22 % či volatilnější ARM +11,11 %.

Z očekávaných výsledků se příliš netěšili investoři společnosti Pepsi (-3,29 %), která představila smíšené výsledky. Nepotěšils především čísla zisku EPS, přestože tržby byly nad odhady.

Uklidnění na trhu svědčí i cenným kovům, kde zlato přidává +1,34 % a stříbro dokonce +3,7 %. Lehce v zisku se drží i kryptoměny. Jejich hlavní zástupce Bitcoin přidává +0,98 %.

Index Dow Jones +0,3 % na 52507,56 b.
S&P 500 +0,68 % na 7533,74 b.
Nasdaq Composite +0,99 % na 26126,03 b.

Index S&P 500 +0,68 % na 7533,74 b. Nejsilnější sektory S&P Změna Nejslabší sektory S&P Změna Informační technologie +1,7 % Nezbytná spotřeba -1,6 % Finanční sektor +1,1 % Energie -1,4 % Zbytná spotřeba +0,8 % Komunikační služby -0,8 % Nejsilnější akcie S&P Změna Nejslabší akcie S&P Změna Lumentum Holdings (LITE) +12 % Paramount Skydance Corp (PSKY) -4,6 % Sandisk Corp (SNDK) +9,2 % APA Corp (APA) -4,2 % Flex (FLEX) +7,7 % Costco Wholesale Corp (COST) -4,1 % Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (NCLH) +7,4 % Palantir Technologies (PLTR) -3,7 % Lam Research Corp (LRCX) +7,2 % McKesson Corp (MCK) -3,6 %
Jan Pazourek, Fio banka, a.s.

Key Takeaways Levi Strauss exceeded Q2 earnings and revenue estimates and raised its fiscal 2026 outlook.LEVI grew DTC revenues 11%, with e-commerce up 19% and broad-based international momentum.Levi Strauss expanded adjusted EBIT margin, reduced inventories 7% and increased its dividend 14%. Levi Strauss & Co. (LEVI - Free Report) reported strong second-quarter fiscal 2026 results, with earnings and revenues surpassing the Zacks Consensus Estimate. The denim apparel maker continued to benefit from healthy consumer demand, robust Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) momentum, broad-based international growth and improving profitability. Management raised its fiscal 2026 revenue and earnings outlook.

The global denim leader reported adjusted earnings of 28 cents per share, which beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 24 cents by 16.7%. The bottom line also increased 27.3% from the 22 cents reported in the year-ago quarter.

Quarterly net revenues increased 8% year over year to $1.56 billion, surpassing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.52 billion by 2.5%. Organic revenues advanced 5.7%, reflecting balanced growth across regions, channels and product categories.

Despite the earnings beat and higher full-year guidance, LEVI shares declined 5.5% following the earnings release. While management reaffirmed confidence in the business and highlighted broad-based growth, the company also noted that tariff and foreign exchange pressures remained headwinds and were embedded in its updated fiscal 2026 outlook.

LEVI's Quarterly Performance: Key Metrics & InsightsLevi Strauss' DTC business remained the primary growth engine during the quarter. DTC revenues increased 10.8% on a reported basis and 8.4% organically, benefiting from higher store productivity and strong digital momentum. E-commerce revenues climbed 19% on a reported basis and 17% organically, while DTC comparable sales advanced 6%. The DTC channel accounted for 51% of total company revenues during the second quarter.

Wholesale revenues grew 5.3% on a reported basis and 3.1% organically, reflecting healthy demand across retail partners. Beyond Yoga also performed strongly, with revenues increasing 15.8% year over year.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the DTC and wholesale channels was pegged at $805 million and $734 million, respectively, for the fiscal second quarter.

Management emphasized that the company's balanced growth strategy continued to generate momentum across wholesale and DTC, U.S. and international markets, women's and men's businesses, as well as tops and bottoms. Categories beyond denim bottoms contributed roughly one-third of quarterly revenue growth, highlighting Levi Strauss' transformation into a broader denim lifestyle company.

LEVI’s Regional Performance Stays BroadThe Americas generated revenues of $815.5 million, increasing 9% on a reported basis and 6.8% organically. Within the region, the U.S. business grew 5%, supported by continued strength across both DTC and wholesale channels.

Europe reported revenues of $420.2 million, up 4.2% on a reported basis but down 0.8% organically due to the timing impact of last year's distribution center transition. Excluding this temporary disruption, underlying demand remained healthy, supported by strong DTC performance across key markets.

Asia continued to outperform, with revenues increasing 10.1% on a reported basis and 11.9% organically to $283.7 million, reflecting double-digit growth across both DTC and wholesale channels. Management also highlighted strong performances across Turkey, Japan and India, while noting early signs of improvement in China. Mexico remained another standout market with 15% growth and Latin America also delivered double-digit gains across Brazil, Colombia and the Andes region.

Levi Strauss’ Brand & Category MomentumThe Levi's brand generated $1.46 billion in revenues during the quarter, increasing 8.1% on a reported basis and 5.6% organically. Total Levi's Brands revenues rose 7.8% on a reported basis and 5.5% organically, while Levi Strauss Signature posted modest growth.

Women's revenues advanced 11%, supported by continued demand across seasonal assortments and an expanding lifestyle offering. Bottoms revenues increased 6%, driven by core fits and looser silhouettes, while shorts grew 11%. Tops revenues increased 5%, or 7% excluding the European distribution center transition, benefiting from strength in blouses, wovens, sweaters and polos. Per management, encouraging traction in its premium Blue Tab collection as Levi Strauss expanded beyond its traditional denim franchise.

The company added nearly 3 million new loyalty members during the quarter, bringing total global membership to almost 50 million. Meanwhile, e-commerce represents about 12% of company revenues despite growing nearly 60% over the past three years, highlighting a significant long-term growth opportunity.

LEVI's Margins & ExpensesGross profit increased to $979.1 million from $905.8 million in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin expanded 10 basis points to 62.7%, backed by the lower product costs and pricing actions, partly offset by tariffs and foreign exchange headwinds.

Selling, general and administrative expenses were $843.4 million compared with $791 million in the prior-year quarter. Adjusted SG&A increased 6.5% to $837.9 million, mainly due to higher selling expenses and unfavorable foreign exchange impacts. The adjusted SG&A margin declined 80 basis points year over year to 53.6% in the second quarter. Disciplined cost management helped adjusted EBIT margin expand 70 basis points to 9%.

Levi Strauss' Financial SnapshotsLEVI ended the second quarter with $849.3 million in cash and cash equivalents and total liquidity of approximately $1.8 billion, providing ample financial flexibility. Total inventories declined 7% year over year, reflecting disciplined inventory management.

Levi Strauss returned $53.9 million to shareholders through dividends during the quarter and continues to have $240 million available under its share repurchase authorization. Adjusted free cash flow increased nearly 60% year over year to $230.9 million. The company announced a quarterly dividend of 16 cents per share, representing a 14% increase from the prior year.

LEVI’s Q3 GuidanceThe company expects continued business momentum in the third quarter, with reported and organic net revenues projected to increase 4%-5% year over year, despite no anticipated benefit from foreign exchange.

Gross margin is expected to expand by approximately 10 basis points to 61.8%, even with an estimated 70-basis-point foreign exchange headwind. Adjusted EBIT margin is projected to improve to 11.9%, reflecting continued operating leverage and disciplined cost management.

Adjusted EPS is expected to be in the range of 34-36 cents, including a 2-3 cents per share headwind from a higher tax rate and the impact of foreign exchange on gross margin. Management expects margin expansion to continue through the second half, with a more meaningful improvement anticipated in the fourth quarter.

What to Expect From LEVI in FY’26?Following its strong first-half performance, Levi Strauss raised its fiscal 2026 outlook. Management said the company is taking into account the entire second-quarter beat into its updated guidance, reflecting confidence in continued business momentum.

The company now expects reported revenue growth of 7%-7.5%, up from the previous 5.5%-6.5% forecast. Organic revenue growth is projected at 5.5%-6%, compared with the earlier 4.5%-5.5% range.

Gross margin is expected to expand by approximately 10 basis points, supported by a favorable sales mix, including higher DTC sales, continued growth in the women's category, stronger international performance, lower promotional activity and ongoing cost-efficiency initiatives. The company expects an adjusted EBIT margin of 12% for the full year.

Adjusted EPS guidance was raised to $1.46-$1.52 from the previous $1.42-$1.48 range, despite incorporating an estimated 4-cent-per-share headwind from a higher tax rate. The outlook assumes current tariff levels remain in place and does not anticipate any significant deterioration in macroeconomic conditions, inflation, supply-chain disruptions or currency movements.

The company continues to expect 50-60 net new store openings during fiscal 2026, with most openings planned for the second half. Management reaffirmed confidence in achieving its long-term objectives of $10 billion in annual revenues and a 15% operating margin, supported by profitable growth and disciplined execution.

LEVI Stock Past Three-Month Performance

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Shares of this Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) company have risen 7.8% over the past three months against the industry’s 1.2% decline.

Other Solid Picks in RetailGenesco Inc. (GCO - Free Report) is a Nashville-based specialty retail and branded company. It sells footwear and accessories in retail stores. The company flaunts a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) at present. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Genesco’s current fiscal-year earnings indicates growth of 55.2% from the year-ago actuals. GCO delivered a trailing four-quarter average earnings surprise of 3.8%.

Designer Brands Inc. (DBI - Free Report) designs, produces and retails footwear and accessories. It offers shoes, boots, sandals, sneakers, socks, handbags and accessories. It currently carries a Zacks Rank #2.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Designer Brands’ current fiscal-year earnings and sales suggests growth of 137.5% and 0.5%, respectively, from the year-ago actuals. DBI delivered a trailing four-quarter average earnings surprise of 112.8%.

Tapestry, Inc. (TPR - Free Report) is the designer and marketer of fine accessories and gifts for women and men in the United States and internationally. The company carries a Zacks Rank #2 at present.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Tapestry’s current fiscal-year earnings and sales indicates growth of 36.5% and 13.9%, respectively, from the year-ago actuals. TPR delivered a trailing four-quarter average earnings surprise of 15.6%.

Starting today, PayPal USD (PYUSD) is issued natively on Polygon Chain through Paxos and available through the Polygon Open Money Stack (OMS), enabling businesses to move federally regulated onchain dollars across borders through a single integration, with regulated payins, payouts, and compliance built in. 

Businesses already processing payments on Polygon can access PYUSD directly, through the same wallets, ramps, and compliance tooling they are already using.

Polygon Chain settles more than $2.5 billion in stablecoin volume every day and has settled more than $2.6 trillion in total stablecoin volume. 

PYUSD joins this infrastructure as a federally regulated dollar stablecoin. Paxos issues it under a national trust charter supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which makes it one of the largest US dollar stablecoins issued by a federally regulated entity. 

For a regulated buyer, that federal backing means PYUSD meets the compliance bar that institutional and enterprise use cases require.

One integration, no assembly requiredPutting a stablecoin into production in your payments app used to mean assembling the pieces yourself. 

A token on one service, payins and payouts through another, with compliance tooling hovering above it all, plus the engineering work of wiring them together. 

We built the Open Money Stack to collapse that into a single integration. With PYUSD now native on Polygon Chain, a business can accept money from a card, bank account, or exchange balance, hold and move PYUSD across borders, and cash out to local currency through a single integration.

That consolidation shows up on the balance sheet. Settlement lands faster. Operational overhead drops because there is one vendor relationship to manage instead of several stitched together.

Who this is forStart with payroll. A company paying contractors across three countries can now run those payouts in PYUSD on infrastructure that already moves serious volume, without standing up its own banking and compliance stack. The same path opens for a marketplace settling with overseas sellers and a remittance app moving money into emerging markets. Fiat to stablecoin settlement and back, one integration, a federally regulated stablecoin at the center.

The people on the receiving end feel it too. Payouts arrive faster. Fewer transactions fail. Money lands in local currency without the delays and fees typical of correspondent banking.

What the partnership means"A stablecoin is only as useful as the places it can go and what it can do when it gets there," said Marc Boiron, CEO of Polygon Labs. "Bringing PYUSD natively into the Open Money Stack means a business can take money in, move it across borders, and cash it out in one integration, with compliance built in. When a federally regulated stablecoin is available on infrastructure that already moves money at scale, businesses stop asking whether stablecoin payments are ready and start asking what they can build with them."

"As the regulated issuer of PYUSD, our role is to bring trusted stablecoins to businesses and institutions wherever they need them," said Peter Jonas, Chief Revenue Officer, Paxos. "PYUSD is issued under a national Trust charter supervised by the OCC, and bringing it natively to Polygon puts a federally regulated, dollar-backed stablecoin on one of the most active networks for stablecoin payments. Businesses running on the Open Money Stack can now settle in PYUSD with confidence in the compliance and regulatory oversight that serious money requires."

Get startedPYUSD already operates across several networks and markets. Its native issuance on Polygon Chain connects it to the ecosystem where stablecoin payments are most active, and where the Open Money Stack provides the wallets, ramps, compliance, and cross-chain routing businesses need through a single integration.

For a builder, the next step is short. Point your existing Polygon integration at PYUSD and settle. The wallets, ramps, and compliance tooling you already use carry over.

Businesses and developers can get started at the Open Money Stack.

PYUSD Goes Native on Polygon@PayPal's $PYUSD stablecoin is now live natively on the @0xPolygon blockchain, issued through @Paxos and integrated into Polygon's Open Money Stack (OMS) for global enterprise use. The move marks a meaningful expansion for the dollar-backed token, which launched in August 2023 on Ethereum, expanded to Solana in 2024, and has since reached a wider set of chains.

$PYUSD is a US dollar stablecoin issued by Paxos Trust Company and distributed through PayPal and Venmo. Paxos is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and its reserves are fully backed by US dollar deposits, Treasuries, and equivalent cash instruments. Circulating supply sat near $3.5 billion in May 2026, up more than fivefold over the prior year.

One Integration for Cross-Border Enterprise PaymentsThe central appeal of placing $PYUSD inside the OMS is operational simplicity. The Open Money Stack is Polygon's stablecoin payments infrastructure, combining fiat on-ramps and off-ramps, wallet infrastructure, compliance, stablecoin orchestration, and onchain settlement in one open, vertically integrated platform. For businesses, that means executing federally regulated cross-border transactions through a single integration, without assembling separate pay-in, payout, and compliance layers.

The architecture addresses a pain point familiar to any payments team that has tried building stablecoin flows: vendor fragmentation. Most institutions currently stitch together separate compliance vendors, wallet providers, bridges, off-ramps, and chains. The Open Money Stack replaces multiple vendors with one integration, handling stablecoin routing underneath: on-ramp, settle, off-ramp.

The infrastructure is already operating at scale. Polygon Chain, the settlement layer of the OMS, can now support up to 5,000 payment transactions per second, putting it in the same throughput tier as traditional major payments networks, at a fraction of the cost. The OMS reports $54 billion in stablecoin transfer volume, 159 million unique wallet addresses, and an average transaction cost of $0.002, with live integrations by Revolut, Stripe, Flutterwave, and others.

The PYUSD integration positions both PayPal and Polygon at the front of an accelerating shift in enterprise payments. By March 2026, PayPal had extended access to users across 70 markets, including the United Kingdom, Singapore, Peru, and Guatemala, moving PYUSD from a US-only product toward a global one. Adding native Polygon support through the OMS gives enterprise clients a regulated, single-stack path to plug into that reach.

Sources
Polygon Open Money Stack, Polygon Technology
Polygon Labs Unveils Open Money Stack, CoinDesk
PayPal PYUSD Goes Global: 70 Markets, FinTech Weekly

Key Takeaways Table of Contents

Key TakeawaysNative PYUSD Integration with Polygon’s Payment InfrastructureStablecoin Transaction Volume Highlights Polygon’s Payment FocusRegulated Stablecoin Settlement Through Paxos PayPal USD arrives on Polygon natively via Paxos for streamlined business transactions. The Open Money Stack from Polygon now supports PYUSD alongside wallets and fiat conversion. Companies gain access to integrated settlement and cash-out capabilities in one platform. Polygon reports handling $2.6 trillion in stablecoin transaction volume. Paxos delivers regulated, dollar-backed PYUSD to Polygon’s payment ecosystem. PayPal’s stablecoin has officially launched on Polygon via a Paxos partnership, marking a significant expansion in its payment capabilities. This development provides companies with native access to PYUSD through Polygon’s comprehensive payment framework. The integration combines regulated dollar-backed settlement with digital wallets, fiat on-ramps, and built-in compliance infrastructure.

Native PYUSD Integration with Polygon’s Payment Infrastructure Paxos has introduced native PYUSD issuance on Polygon, eliminating the need for bridged token versions. Consequently, companies can now leverage the stablecoin across Polygon’s entire payment ecosystem. This framework enables deposits, transfers, settlements, and fiat conversions within a unified architecture.

NEW: @PayPal USD (PYUSD) is now issued natively on Polygon Chain and built into the Open Money Stack.

Send a stablecoin built for payments across borders, and settle it on the chain already doing billions in payments volume every day. pic.twitter.com/5KiUITZqs4

— Polygon | POL (@0xPolygon) July 9, 2026

The Open Money Stack from Polygon integrates digital wallets, fiat gateway services, regulatory compliance features, and stablecoin settlement capabilities. This unified approach allows companies to minimize the need for multiple payment provider integrations. The infrastructure accommodates various payment methods including card transactions, bank transfers, exchange operations, and stablecoin flows.

This integration specifically addresses the needs of organizations requiring accelerated cross-border transactions and simplified operational workflows. Payroll service providers, digital marketplaces, and money transfer services can leverage PYUSD for global payment processing. These companies can transfer value and convert to fiat without developing proprietary banking infrastructure.

Stablecoin Transaction Volume Highlights Polygon’s Payment Focus According to Polygon, its blockchain has facilitated over $2.6 trillion in stablecoin transaction volume. This substantial figure demonstrates the network’s established foundation in payment-oriented stablecoin operations. It also illustrates why integrating PYUSD aligns with Polygon’s comprehensive settlement approach.

Major companies including Revolut and Stripe currently utilize Polygon for payment operations. Businesses already operating on Polygon can incorporate PYUSD without overhauling their existing technology stack. This compatibility reduces technical overhead and accelerates implementation timelines.

According to Polygon Labs, the Open Money Stack enables organizations to accept payments and facilitate cross-border fund movement. It also provides currency conversion to local denominations through a single integration point. This architecture creates a more direct connection between conventional financial systems and blockchain-based settlement.

Regulated Stablecoin Settlement Through Paxos PYUSD is minted by Paxos and maintained through dollar-denominated reserve assets. Paxos states that the stablecoin functions under a national trust charter with OCC oversight. This regulatory framework positions PYUSD among the supervised dollar-backed stablecoins operating in the U.S. market.

The Polygon deployment provides PYUSD with access to another significant blockchain network for payment and settlement operations. This expansion reflects the broader trend of stablecoin integration by payment companies and financial technology providers. Earlier this year in June, Mastercard incorporated PYUSD into its settlement infrastructure across multiple blockchain platforms.

PayPal and MoonPay also unveiled PYUSDx this year for customized stablecoin applications. This platform enables developers to create stablecoins supported by PYUSD reserves without constructing payment infrastructure independently. Collectively, these initiatives demonstrate PYUSD’s strategic expansion into mainstream payment systems.

Oliver Dale

Editor-in-Chief of Blockonomi and founder of Kooc Media, A UK-Based Online Media Company. Believer in Open-Source Software, Blockchain Technology & a Free and Fair Internet for all. His writing has been quoted by Nasdaq, Dow Jones, Investopedia, The New Yorker, Forbes, Techcrunch & More. Contact [email protected]

Every token launched on Pump.fun, every fair-launch memecoin, and a surprising share of DeFi’s core machinery runs on the same idea: a mathematical formula that sets a token’s price from its supply, with a smart contract as the only market maker. This guide explains how bonding curves actually work, the worked math of buying up a curve, the graduation model that industrialized token launches, the sniper and bundler attacks that exploit it, and where the elegant idea breaks.

Summary

Bonding curves use a mathematical formula to set token prices based on supply, allowing tokens to launch without order books or external market makers. Platforms such as Pump.fun use bonding curves to bootstrap liquidity before moving successful tokens into automated market maker pools through a graduation process. While bonding curves make token launches transparent and permissionless, they remain vulnerable to sniper bots, bundled buys and liquidity limitations during exits. Table of Contents

The core mechanism: price as a function of supplyThe worked math: buying up the curveGraduation: the model that industrialized launchesWhere curves came from, and where they wentThe attack playbook: snipers, bundlers, and exit geometryCurves and AMMs: the same family, different jobsThe honest assessmentFrequently asked questions Somewhere in the time it takes to read this paragraph, a new token will be created on a bonding curve. It will have no order book, no market maker, no seeded liquidity, and no listing process, and it will nevertheless be instantly tradable, with a live price, from its first second of existence. The mechanism making that possible is a bonding curve: a mathematical function, enforced by a smart contract, that maps the token’s supply to its price, so that every purchase mints tokens and pushes the price up the curve, and every sale burns tokens and slides it back down.

Bonding curves are among the oldest ideas in decentralized finance, sketched by Simon de la Rouviere in 2017 and formalized in Bancor’s early work, and for years they lived in the ecosystem’s academic corners, pricing continuous tokens and DAO shares. Then the memecoin era found them. Pump.fun built its entire launch machine on a bonding curve, over a million tokens have entered the world through it, and the curve became the defining market structure of an entire trading culture, the trenches, where fortunes are made and lost inside a formula most participants have never read.

This guide reads the formula. It covers what a bonding curve is and how the mint-and-burn mechanism works, the worked arithmetic of buying up a curve, the main curve shapes and what each one incentivizes, the launchpad graduation model that turned curves into an industrial process, the attack playbook, snipers, bundlers, and the exit-liquidity geometry, that exploits them, how bonding curves relate to the automated market makers that power DeFi’s exchanges, and the honest assessment of what the mechanism fixes and what it merely relocates.

The core mechanism: price as a function of supply A bonding curve is, at bottom, one equation: price equals some function of supply, P = f(S). The smart contract implementing it holds a reserve of a base asset, SOL on Pump.fun, ETH or a stablecoin elsewhere, and stands ready, permanently and automatically, to be the counterparty to anyone.

Buying works like this: a user sends the reserve asset to the contract; the contract consults the curve, calculates how many new tokens that payment purchases given the current supply, mints them, and delivers them; the supply is now higher, so the curve dictates a higher price for the next buyer. Selling reverses it: the user returns tokens, the contract burns them and pays out reserve assets at the curve’s current rate, and the price steps down. Nobody quotes prices, nobody provides liquidity, and nobody can refuse the trade; the contract is issuer, exchange, and market maker fused into one piece of code, a vending machine whose price tag adjusts after every sale.

Two properties follow immediately, and they explain the mechanism’s appeal. The first is guaranteed liquidity: because the contract always stands on the other side, a curve-launched token can never be unsellable in the way an order-book token with no bids can; there is always an exit price, however low. The second is deterministic pricing: the formula is public and fixed, so the price impact of any trade can be computed exactly in advance, slippage as a published schedule rather than a surprise. Together they solve the cold-start problem that killed a decade of token launches: how to make a brand-new asset tradable before any market exists for it. The curve is the market, from block one.

The worked math: buying up the curve Numbers make the mechanism honest, so walk one simple example. Suppose a token launches on a linear curve where the price starts at $0.001 and rises by $0.001 for every 100,000 tokens minted. The first buyer spends $100: at prices between $0.001 and roughly $0.0011, they receive a bit over 95,000 tokens, an average price near $0.00105, already above the starting tick because their own purchase moved the curve. A second buyer now spends $1,000 into the higher range and receives proportionally fewer tokens per dollar, perhaps 600,000 tokens at an average near $0.0016. A third spends $10,000 and pushes the price past $0.006.

Notice what the arithmetic did. The first buyer’s 95,000 tokens, bought for $100, are now worth nearly $600 at the marginal price, an unrealized 6x for simply being early, and that is the entire psychological engine of curve trading: the formula converts earliness itself into profit, mechanically, visibly, in real time. Notice also what it did not do: create any external demand. The third buyer’s $10,000 is what values the first buyer’s position, and if the third buyer sells back into the curve, the price retraces down the same path it climbed. A bonding curve is a perfectly transparent game of musical chairs in which the music, the chair count, and everyone’s seat are published on-chain, and it is precisely this transparency that its defenders cite as the fairness: unlike a rigged order book or an insider allocation, the curve cheats no one, because everyone can read exactly what they are stepping into.

The curve’s shape sets the game’s temperature. Linear curves rise gently and reward early buyers modestly; exponential curves, where each purchase raises the price by a percentage rather than an increment, produce the vertical charts and 100x-in-an-hour outcomes that memecoin culture selects for; logarithmic and flattening curves front-load the appreciation then stabilize, a design used when a project wants early supporters rewarded but later prices calm. Bancor-style designs parameterize this with a reserve ratio, the fraction of the token’s market value held as reserve collateral, where lower ratios mean steeper, more explosive, more fragile curves. Every launchpad’s choice of shape is a statement about what behavior it wants, and the memecoin era’s revealed preference has been unambiguous: steep.

Graduation: the model that industrialized launches The design that conquered the market, Pump.fun’s, added one crucial idea to the classic curve: an ending. Tokens on the platform begin life on a bonding curve, and when buying pushes the market value to a threshold, historically in the $60,000-70,000 range, the token graduates: the curve phase closes, and the accumulated reserve is deposited, together with tokens, into a conventional automated-market-maker pool on the platform’s own venue, where the token trades like any other from then on.

Graduation solved the curve’s deepest historical problem, which is that a pure bonding curve is a closed economy: its price can only reflect flows into and out of itself, it cannot arbitrage against external markets, and its reserve is a honeypot whose smart-contract risk grows with size. By using the curve only as a launch chamber, a price-discovery and liquidity-bootstrapping phase, and then handing the survivors to a normal market, the graduation model captured the curve’s cold-start magic while shedding its long-term liabilities. It also created, deliberately, a tournament structure: the overwhelming majority of launched tokens never graduate, dying quietly on their curves, while the few that cross the threshold receive instant liquidity, visibility, and the implicit endorsement of survival. The platform collects fees at every stage, an economics this publication examined through its own token’s stress test, and the tournament runs continuously, thousands of times a day, the purest expression of permissionless market Darwinism crypto has produced.

It is worth being precise about what fair launch means in this structure, because the term does heavy marketing work. The curve guarantees procedural fairness: no presale, no allocation, identical rules for every participant, and a price schedule known in advance. It does not and cannot guarantee distributive fairness, because identical rules reward unequal speed, information, and capital, which is where the attack playbook begins.

Where curves came from, and where they went The bonding curve’s biography explains its present better than any specification. The idea emerged from 2017-era token engineering, de la Rouviere’s continuous organizations, Bancor’s reserve-ratio formalism, as an answer to a governance-age question: how should communities issue and price membership continuously, without discrete sales? The early implementations were earnest and mostly ignored, curation markets, DAO shares, continuous funding for public goods, sophisticated designs waiting for a use case that never arrived at scale. The idea survived the 2018 winter in academic corners and resurfaced wherever cold-start liquidity was the binding problem: SocialFi’s creator keys priced follower access on steep exponential curves during the Friend.tech moment, NFT projects experimented with curve-priced mints, and stablecoin architectures quietly used flattened curves to hold pegs between correlated assets.

Then Solana’s memecoin culture supplied the use case the theorists never imagined: not funding organizations, but manufacturing lottery tickets at industrial scale. Pump.fun’s January 2024 launch stripped the concept to its essentials, one standard steep curve, one graduation rule, one-click creation, and the result processed more token launches in its first two years than the rest of crypto’s history combined. The pattern spread instantly: every major chain grew launchpad clones, incumbent platforms bolted on curve launches, and the bonding curve, born as a tool for patient community capital, became the engine of the fastest, most disposable market ever built. There is a genuine irony in the arc, and also a lesson about mechanisms: the curve did not choose its culture. It priced earliness deterministically, and the market that valued earliness most, the memecoin trenches, adopted it hardest. Mechanisms are amplifiers of the demand they meet, and the curve’s history is the cleanest proof in crypto’s archive.

The creator’s side of the modern launchpad economy deserves its own accounting, because the curve reshaped it too. Launching a token once required capital: liquidity to seed, market makers to hire, listings to buy. The curve reduced the cost to a transaction fee, which transformed token creation from an investment into a lottery ticket, and creators responded rationally by buying thousands of tickets: serial launches, A-B testing of tickers and memes, portfolios of hundreds of attempts awaiting one graduation. Platform fee-sharing programs, paying creators a slice of their token’s trading fees, industrialized the incentive further, producing a professional class of launchers whose economics resemble content creation more than entrepreneurship: volume, iteration, and the occasional viral hit subsidizing the long tail of duds. Whether that economy is a democratization of finance or a spam machine with a fee switch is the debate that follows the launchpads everywhere, and the honest answer is that the curve, as always, executes whichever game arrives.

The attack playbook: snipers, bundlers, and exit geometry Every property that makes curves fair in principle is exploitable in practice, and the exploits are now industries.

The first is sniping. Because the earliest positions on a steep curve capture the largest mechanical gains, bots monitor token-creation transactions and buy within the same block a token launches, frequently faster than the creator’s own community can. The playing field is level in exactly the way a footrace against professional sprinters is level, and the same latency-and-priority infrastructure that powers all on-chain extraction dominates curve entry.

The second is bundling: a launcher, or an attacker, splits a large early buy across dozens of wallets in the launch block, manufacturing the appearance of broad organic demand while concentrating the curve’s cheapest supply in one pair of hands. Bundled launches are the modern rug’s preferred anatomy: the bundler rides the crowd up the curve and exits into it, and because the curve guarantees liquidity, the exit always executes; the guarantee that no holder can be trapped is equally the guarantee that no dumper can be refused. Detection tools now score launches for bundling patterns, and the arms race between bundlers and detectors is a permanent feature of the trenches.

The third is the exit geometry itself, subtler and universal. On any curve, the reserve held by the contract equals the area under the curve up to the current supply, which is always less than the current supply times the current price, the market cap. On steep curves the gap is enormous: a token can show a $60,000 market value while its curve holds a fraction of that in actual reserve, meaning that if every holder tried to exit, the average exit price would sit far below the last trade. The curve never lies about this, the math is public, but the market-cap number is what trades on screens and in heads, and the difference between marked value and extractable value is where most curve-trading losses actually live. It is the same lesson every thin market teaches,the gap between the last price and the liquidation reality, rendered in its mathematically purest form.

One number from the tournament’s own accounting calibrates the odds honestly. Across the launchpad era, graduation rates, the fraction of launched tokens that ever cross the threshold into a real market, have run in the low single digits, and the fraction that sustains any liquidity a month later is a fraction of that fraction. The curve’s defenders and critics both own this statistic: defenders because it proves the tournament filters ruthlessly at near-zero cost per attempt, an efficiency no venture process approaches, and critics because it quantifies the base rate every buyer of a fresh launch is fighting. Neither reading changes the practical arithmetic for a participant: the expected value of a random curve entry is set by that base rate times the payoff distribution, both of which are public, and the traders who survive the trenches are, almost by definition, the ones who stopped treating the odds as someone else’s problem. The curve publishes everything. The tournament’s mortality table is part of everything.

Curves and AMMs: the same family, different jobs A final clarification earns its place because the terms blur constantly: bonding curves and automated market makers are siblings, not synonyms. An AMM like Uniswap uses a curve, the constant-product formula x*y = k, to price swaps between two tokens that already exist, with liquidity supplied by outside providers who bear the divergence costs of that role. A bonding curve in the issuance sense uses its formula to govern the minting and burning of a token against a reserve, with the contract itself as issuer and sole liquidity source. The mathematics rhyme; the jobs differ: AMM curves make secondary markets, issuance curves make primary ones, and the graduation model is precisely a pipeline from the second to the first. Knowing which kind of curve a token sits on is the first diligence question in this corner of the market, because it determines who holds the reserve, who can change the rules, and what the sell-side guarantee actually is.

One boundary condition also deserves a sentence: curves are single-market objects, and their guarantees end at the contract’s edge. The moment a token graduates, or trades simultaneously on external venues, its price becomes an arbitrage between markets, the curve’s determinism dissolves into ordinary microstructure, and the trader’s toolkit reverts to the standard one of depth, spreads, and flows. The curve is training wheels with perfect physics; the road afterward is the road.

The honest assessment Bonding curves deserve both their reputation and their notoriety, and an honest summary holds both. What they genuinely fixed is real: the cold-start problem is solved, launch gatekeeping is gone, insider allocations are structurally impossible on a pure curve, and pricing is the most transparent in all of finance, a formula anyone can read. What they merely relocated is equally real: the advantage moved from insiders with allocations to insiders with infrastructure, the risk moved from being unable to sell to being mathematically last, and the fairness became procedural while the outcomes stayed as skewed as ever, because the curve prices earliness and earliness is not evenly distributed. The mechanism is a mirror: it executes exactly the game its participants bring to it, faster and more honestly than any structure before it. For a user, the practical wisdom compresses to three habits: read the curve’s shape before buying, because it is the payout table; check the launch block for bundling, because the table may be seated; and never confuse the marked price with the exit price, because the area under the curve, not the last tick, is what everyone is actually fighting over.

A closing thought on where the mechanism goes next, because the design space is not finished. Dynamic curves that adjust steepness to demand, anti-sniping randomization of launch blocks, creator-fee structures that reward holding over flipping, and curve designs that route a share of the ride into locked liquidity or holder distributions are all live experiments across the launchpad ecosystem, each an attempt to keep the cold-start magic while sanding down the extraction. The direction of travel is legible: first-generation curves optimized for launch velocity, and the survivors of the current era are optimizing, under competitive and community pressure, for what happens after the launch, retention, distribution, durability, the boring variables that decide whether a mechanism that can create a million tokens can ever create a lasting one. The formula will keep evolving. The lesson it has already taught is permanent: in permissionless markets, the launch mechanism is the market structure, and reading it is not optional homework but the trade itself.

And for readers who arrived here from a chart rather than a curiosity, the fifteen-second version: find the token’s curve page, note its shape and its distance from graduation, check the launch block for clustered wallets, compare the contract’s reserve to the displayed market value, and size the position as a ticket in a tournament whose mortality table you have now read. The formula will do exactly what it says. Everything else is the crowd.

The bonding curve, in the end, belongs to a small class of crypto inventions, alongside the flash loan and the automated market maker, that could not have existed in prior financial systems: it requires a machine that can hold reserves, enforce a formula, and stand as a tireless counterparty, all without an operator, and it converts the oldest problem in market design, who makes the first market, into a line of arithmetic. That the memecoin era found it first says something about crypto’s culture; that it works, flawlessly and continuously, across millions of launches says something about the technology, and both statements will outlive whatever the trenches are trading this month.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Memecoin and DeFi markets are extremely volatile and you can lose your entire investment. Details are current as of July 9, 2026. Always do your own research.

Frequently asked questions What is a bonding curve in simple terms? A bonding curve is a formula, enforced by a smart contract, that sets a token’s price based on how many tokens exist. Buying mints new tokens and pushes the price up the curve; selling burns tokens and moves it down. The contract holds a reserve of a base asset and acts as the permanent counterparty, so the token is tradable from the instant it is created, with no order book or market maker.

How does a bonding curve launch work on platforms like Pump.fun? A creator launches a token onto the platform’s standard curve for a tiny fee. Buyers purchase directly from the curve, moving the price up as supply grows. If demand pushes the token’s value to the graduation threshold, the accumulated reserve and tokens are moved into a normal trading pool and the token trades conventionally from then on. Most tokens never graduate and simply fade on their curves.

Why does the price rise when people buy? Because the formula ties price directly to supply. Each purchase mints tokens, raising supply, and the curve assigns a higher price to every subsequent token. The steeper the curve’s shape, the faster the price accelerates, which is why memecoin launches can multiply in minutes on relatively small inflows.

Can a bonding curve token become unsellable? Not in the order-book sense: the contract always buys tokens back at the curve’s current rate, funded by its reserve, so an exit price always exists. The real risk is that the exit price after others sell is far below what you paid, and that the total reserve is always less than the token’s headline market value, so not everyone can exit near the last traded price.

What is a fair launch, and are bonding curves actually fair? A fair launch means no presale, no team allocation, and identical rules for all buyers from block one, which pure bonding curves deliver procedurally. In practice, speed and infrastructure decide who gets the cheapest supply: sniper bots buy in the launch block and bundlers split large buys across many wallets to disguise concentration. The rules are equal; the race is not.

What is the difference between a bonding curve and an AMM like Uniswap? Both use formulas to set prices, but an AMM curve governs swaps between two tokens that already exist, using liquidity deposited by outside providers, while an issuance bonding curve governs the minting and burning of a token against a reserve held by the contract itself. Launch curves create primary markets; AMMs run secondary ones.

What are the main risks of buying on a bonding curve? Being late on a steep curve, where the mechanical advantage belongs entirely to earlier buyers; bundled launches, where one actor secretly holds the cheap supply and exits into the crowd; smart-contract flaws in the curve itself; and the reserve gap, since the contract’s reserve is always smaller than the token’s marked value. The formula is transparent, so most losses come from not reading it.

Are bonding curves used for anything besides memecoins? Yes. They price continuous tokens and DAO shares, bootstrap liquidity for new projects, structure token sales that replace ICOs, and underpin stablecoin and pegged-asset designs using flattened curves. The memecoin launchpad is the most visible application, but the mechanism is general-purpose market infrastructure.

Key Takeaways VKTX is attracting takeover speculation as its expanding obesity pipeline boosts strategic appeal.Viking Therapeutics advanced VK2735 into late-stage studies and added obesity candidate VK3019.VKTX expects key VK2735 maintenance dosing data in Q3 2026, followed by oral data in H1 2027. Although Viking Therapeutics (VKTX - Free Report) isn’t officially on the auction block, investors are increasingly viewing it as a potential acquisition target. This perception stems from the company's rapidly expanding obesity franchise, driven by the late-stage development of VK2735, the addition of a new obesity candidate and an upcoming clinical data readout that could further bolster investor confidence.

Why Is Everyone Talking About VKTX?The renewed takeover speculation isn't driven by reports of an imminent deal. Instead, it reflects Viking's growing strategic value as the company continues to strengthen and diversify its obesity pipeline.

VK2735 remains the company's lead obesity candidate and primary value driver.  This dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist has delivered encouraging efficacy across both subcutaneous (SC) and oral formulations, positioning it as one of the more promising late-stage obesity therapies currently under development. While the SC version is currently being evaluated in two phase III studies, the oral formulation is on track to enter late-stage development later this year.

Viking has further strengthened its obesity franchise with the initiation of a phase I study evaluating VK3019, a novel dual amylin and calcitonin receptor agonist. The addition of a second obesity candidate demonstrates the company's strategy of building a broader franchise rather than relying on a single asset.

Investors are also closely watching an upcoming data readout from an ongoing maintenance dosing study on VK2735, which could serve as another important catalyst. The study is evaluating multiple maintenance regimens, including monthly SC, weekly oral and daily oral dosing, to determine whether the weight loss achieved with weekly SC treatment can be sustained over the long term. Viking expects to report SC maintenance data in the third quarter of 2026, followed by oral maintenance data in the first half of 2027.

From the viewpoint of large-cap biotech/pharma companies looking to strengthen their presence in the fast-growing obesity market, Viking Therapeutics represents an attractive strategic asset. Acquiring the company would allow a potential buyer to significantly accelerate its obesity pipeline compared with developing a therapy from the ground up. Such a deal could also benefit VKTX, as the clinical-stage biotech could leverage a larger partner's commercial infrastructure, manufacturing capabilities and global distribution network to maximize the reach of its obesity portfolio following potential regulatory approvals.

Competition Heating Up in the Obesity SpaceThe obesity market has garnered significant attention in recent years, as both Eli Lilly (LLY - Free Report) and Novo Nordisk (NVO - Free Report) dominate the space with their respective blockbuster obesity drugs, Zepbound and Wegovy. The obesity market in the United States is expected to reach $100 billion by 2030. To capitalize on this opportunity, both companies have expanded their manufacturing capacity while continuing to invest heavily in next-generation obesity therapies.

Although competition initially centered on once-weekly injectable therapies, the focus has increasingly shifted toward more convenient oral alternatives. Earlier this year, Novo Nordisk launched an oral version of Wegovy, while Eli Lilly introduced Foundayo, marking a significant step toward improving patient convenience and broadening access to obesity treatment.

The competitive landscape is now evolving beyond traditional GLP-1 therapies. Both companies are advancing next-generation candidates designed to deliver greater efficacy and improved patient convenience through multi-target mechanisms. Among them, Eli Lilly's retatrutide, a triple agonist targeting the GLP-1, GIP and glucagon receptors, has demonstrated approximately 28% weight loss in late-stage studies—an efficacy level previously associated primarily with bariatric surgery.

Novo Nordisk is advancing its next-generation obesity pipeline. It has submitted a regulatory filing seeking approval for CagriSema injection, a follow-up drug to Wegovy, while another candidate, amycretin, has shown strong weight-loss efficacy in a phase II study and is expected to enter late-stage development soon.

VKTX’s Price Performance, Valuation and EstimatesShares of Viking Therapeutics have outperformed the industry year to date, as seen in the chart below.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

From a valuation standpoint, VKTX is trading at a premium to the industry. Based on the price-to-book value (P/B) ratio, the company’s shares currently trade at 9.24 times trailing book value, higher than the industry’s 3.69 times. The stock is also trading above its five-year mean of 4.35.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Estimates for Viking’s 2026 loss per share have widened from $4.67 to $4.70 in the past 60 days. During the same timeframe, loss estimates for 2027 have increased from $4.40 to $4.47.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Viking Therapeutics currently has a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell).

You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

JP-BLOOMBERG: Eric Trump's Bitcoin investments have resulted in the loss of $600 million in his holdings

July 9, 2026 at 3:47 PM UTC

New Hampshire’s executive council voted down a proposal to bring the first Bitcoin-backed bond to the municipal market.

The bond sale, managed by Jefferies through private placement, failed to win approval on Wednesday from the council that would have allowed a conduit issuer to sell the bonds. The New Hampshire Business Finance Authority’s proposal to sell $100 million of taxable municipal bonds failed to pass, according to results posted on the council’s website.

Bitcoin (BTC) saw intraday highs after Thursday’s Wall Street open as US stocks rebounded on fresh Iran peace hopes.

Key points:

Bitcoin joins a risk-asset rebound as US President Donald Trump said that Iran "wants to make a deal" after the ceasefire breakdown.Crypto short liquidations near $100 million over 24 hours.Traders see important BTC price levels coming as soon as the daily close.Crypto, stocks rise as Trump teases new Iran "deal"Data from TradingView showed BTC/USD rising back above $63,000, up by nearly 1.5% on the day.

BTC/USD one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

US stocks were in the green across the board, helping to erase Wednesday’s downside as US President Donald Trump said that the Iran peace deal was “over.”

“They called a little while ago; they want to make a deal so badly,” Trump subsequently said in comments quoted by trading resource The Kobeissi Letter and others.

Crypto markets joined the sense of relief, helping push 24-hour short liquidations to nearly $100 million, per data from CoinGlass.

BTC/USD vs. crypto liquidations (screenshot). Source: CoinGlass

Commenting on the latest BTC price setup, trader Killa described their view as “not bearish at all.”

“In my view, we still have a few more months of choppy PA,” an X post stated, eyeing $68,000 for a potential short entry.

Source: Killa/X

Fellow trader Jelle saw ongoing strength from bulls, with a support reclaim still possible.

“Looks like bulls aren't giving up on the reclaim just yet,” he told X followers. 

“Get back above, and we likely push for 65-70k again. Reject, and sub-60k is back on the menu for $BTC.”BTC/USD 12-hour chart. Source: Jelle/X

Continuing, trader Daan Crypto Trades emphasized $64,700 for the daily close.

“$BTC is ranging $61.3K-$64.7K range and spent this morning climbing back up after yesterday's risk-off flush,” his latest X analysis read. 

“A daily close above $64.7K flips the story and would make for a larger relief rally across the board. A close under $61.3K opens the road to the lows again and kills the momentum.”BTC/USD one-hour chart. Source: Daan Crypto Trades/X

As Cointelegraph reported, opinions on the bear-market bottom being in continue to diverge.

This week, analysis described a “textbook” bottom formation now underway, while BTC price-cycle comparisons continued to demand a deeper macro floor.

This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph's Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research.

Singapore’s Temasek Holdings on Wednesday announced that crypto remains off limits as the sovereign wealth fund targets lifts AI exposure from 6% to 15% of its portfolio by 2031.

FTX’s Shadow Still Hangs Over Temasek’s Crypto StanceTemasek President of Global Investments Nagi Hamiyeh told CNBC the firm holds no direct crypto investments and cited regulatory uncertainty as the reason for staying out. 

“I can’t forecast what happens in the future, and the role that crypto is going to play in the main economy, depending on the different regulations that might happen,” Hamiyeh said.

The 2022 FTX writedown of $275 million drew sharp public criticism in Singapore, with then-Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong calling the loss disappointing and damaging to the country’s reputation. 

Temasek’s current focus stays on blockchain infrastructure and what the technology can deliver for the real economy, stopping well short of direct token or exchange exposure.

AI Is Where Temasek Is Putting Its Long-Term ConvictionHamiyeh said when choosing between frontier AI models and AI adoption, he bets on adoption every time. 

“Not every situation needs frontier models. It’s all about the applications, and it’s all about the companies that embrace AI and build a moat,” he said.

His longest-term wager is on the physical side of AI, covering automation, robotics, and industrial process optimization. 

Temasek invests across the full AI value chain including energy infrastructure and data centers, where long-term contracts with highly rated counterparties keep risk low. 

The firm wants AI at 15% of its portfolio by 2031, up from 6% in the fiscal year ended March 2026.

Europe Is Temasek’s Second Largest Allocation After The USTemasek deployed roughly 12 billion euros, or about $14 billion, into Europe over the past two years, second only to the US.

Hamiyeh pointed to European luxury brands, consumer names, energy transition plays, and family-owned industrials as areas where Temasek brings patient long-term capital.

On the Middle East, Hamiyeh said the long-term transformation story remains intact but the full consequences of the current conflict haven’t played out yet. 

On defense, Temasek takes a case-by-case approach, focusing on dual-use technologies with civilian applications while ruling out biological and chemical weapons entirely. Its only current defense exposure is ST Engineering.

Image: Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

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

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

Michael Saylor’s company Strategy has launched an interactive credit model, enabling investors to assess the company’s debt resilience in real time. The announcement landed just two days after Strategy confirmed it had sold 3,588 BTC for $216 million to bolster dollar liquidity and cover preferred share payments. Formerly known as MicroStrategy, the company is widely recognized for holding significant amounts of Bitcoin on its balance sheet as part of its enterprise software and treasury operations.

Credit model introduced after Wall Street scrutinyThe new simulator comes as a direct response to renewed risk debates on Wall Street about Strategy’s business model. It is designed to provide analysts with tangible data on how long the company can sustain its debt obligations even if there’s no significant uptrend in Bitcoin’s value.

Strategy emphasizes that converting reserves to cash is not a desperate move but rather part of a broader capital structure it describes as the digital credit capital framework.

The model released by Strategy allows investors to see exactly under what circumstances the company can meet its dividend and coupon commitments, even if Bitcoin growth comes to a standstill.

Cash buffer for 30 years takes the spotlightThe underlying data in the simulator reveals the limits of Strategy’s current capital structure. Even in a scenario where Bitcoin’s value stagnates for decades, the company’s $52.87 billion in crypto reserves and $2.55 billion in USD reserves would allow all dividend payments to be honored for a full 30 years without interruption.

One particularly notable metric is the annual breakeven return. According to the BTC Breakeven ARR, Bitcoin does not have to stage a dramatic rally for Strategy to meet all its coupon and dividend payments without tapping new capital—an average annual increase of just 3.33% would keep the commitments solvent.

IndicatorDataBTC sold3,588 BTCSales proceeds$216 millionCrypto reserves$52.87 billionUSD reserves$2.55 billionPayment buffer30 yearsAnnual breakeven growth3.33%Debt commitments and new financial toolsStrategy is currently managing $6.714 billion in convertible bond debt and an additional $15.464 billion tied to preferred shares. These obligations bring its total debt load to $22.178 billion, while the company’s BTC Rating—a measure of assets to liabilities—stands at 2.7 times.

Michael Saylor’s long-standing approach centered on relentless Bitcoin accumulation. However, the arrival of the STRC debt instrument has altered this dynamic. As of July, the volume-weighted average market price of STRC shares fell below their par value of $100, prompting the company to increase the dividend rate to 12.00% in order to defend market prices.

The company acknowledged that higher dividend rates require consistent fiat cash inflow, so it has utilized up to $1.25 billion worth of BTC-to-cash conversion, as approved by its board of directors.

This shift signals a move away from passive holding towards a more flexible asset management strategy. Strategy’s new interactive model aims to limit the influence of traditional credit agencies and provide investors with a transparent, data-driven view of debt sustainability—even in a non-rallying crypto market environment.

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

MARA Holdings has expanded its AI and digital infrastructure footprint by acquiring a 1,200-acre powered land site in Texas, helping lift its shares more than 12% as the Bitcoin miner continues to outperform many publicly traded crypto companies.

Summary

MARA has acquired a 1,200-acre powered site in Texas with up to 2 GW of planned grid capacity. The company plans to build an AI and high-performance computing campus alongside Bitcoin mining operations. MARA shares jumped more than 12% after the announcement, extending gains to over 45% this year. According to a company press release, MARA has signed a definitive agreement to acquire the Texas property from HIF. The site is expected to provide access to an initial 1 gigawatt of grid capacity by October 2027, with total available capacity projected to reach 2 gigawatts by April 2028.

The company said the location is designed to support large-scale digital infrastructure alongside its existing Bitcoin mining operations.

The announcement extends MARA’s investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure, an area that has attracted increasing attention from Bitcoin miners looking to diversify revenue sources. 

Yahoo Finance data showed MARA shares climbing to $13.77 following the announcement, leaving the stock up more than 14.6% on the day and over 53% year to date despite continued weakness across much of the crypto mining sector.

Source: Yahoo Finance Texas site adds capacity for AI and Bitcoin mining Beyond expanding its mining operations, MARA said it plans to develop the property with Starwood Digital Ventures into a large-scale digital infrastructure campus capable of supporting high-performance computing workloads, flexible compute services and Bitcoin mining. The company added that the site has already generated interest from potential high-performance computing tenants.

Once an HPC lease is executed, MARA said HIF will retain a minority ownership stake in the project. Construction is expected to begin in phases later this year, subject to regulatory approvals.

Earlier this year, MARA strengthened its digital infrastructure portfolio by acquiring Long Ridge Energy & Power in a $1.5 billion transaction, adding another large energy asset to support its computing strategy. The Texas purchase builds on that expansion as the company continues investing in facilities that can serve both blockchain and AI workloads.

Bitcoin miners continue expanding AI infrastructure MARA joins a growing list of publicly traded Bitcoin miners investing in AI-focused infrastructure instead of relying solely on cryptocurrency mining. As crypto.news reported earlier, IREN Limited recently completed its acquisition of Spain-based Ingenostrum, also known as Nostrum Group, adding roughly 490 megawatts of secured grid-connected power and establishing its first operating base in Europe for AI cloud services.

Meanwhile, crypto.news previously reported that TeraWulf signed a 20-year data center lease with AI company Anthropic. According to TeraWulf, the agreement could generate nearly $19 billion in revenue over its lifetime, highlighting the growing commercial demand for high-performance computing capacity.

The trend extends beyond infrastructure operators into corporate Bitcoin treasury strategies. Earlier this week, crypto.news reported that American Bitcoin Corp. increased its Bitcoin holdings to more than 8,000 BTC.

BitcoinTreasuries data ranked the company among the largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holders in the United States, ahead of GD Culture Group and Galaxy Digital, illustrating how companies across the sector are pursuing different approaches to strengthen their positions as institutional interest in digital assets and AI computing continues to grow. 

JPMorgan just told investors to stop worrying about the wrong thing. The bank’s latest analysis, led by analyst Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, argues that Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) isn’t the structural threat to Bitcoin that everyone keeps nervously eyeing. The real risk? Institutional blockchain adoption that routes entirely around public chains like Bitcoin, funneling trillions through private, permissioned networks instead.

Strategy is big, but not the boogeyman Strategy has accumulated roughly $8.2 billion worth of Bitcoin in 2026 alone. That figure accounts for approximately 70% of estimated net digital asset inflows this year, according to JPMorgan’s analysis dated July 9. The company’s total holdings now represent about 4.2% of Bitcoin’s entire supply. A July 2 report from the same bank flagged “two-way flow risks” stemming from Strategy’s updated monetization policy, which now allows for selective BTC sales to cover corporate obligations.

The quiet rise of permissioned chains JPMorgan’s own Kinexys platform, a permissioned blockchain network, has now processed over $4 trillion. That’s not a pilot program. That’s real institutional plumbing moving real money at scale, entirely outside the public blockchain ecosystem.

Advertisement

The JPMorgan analysts’ July 9 note emphasizes that this pattern, where institutional adoption of blockchain bypasses permissionless networks altogether, represents a more fundamental structural risk to Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition than any single holder’s trading behavior.

Why this matters more than it sounds JPMorgan’s analysis challenges the argument that as blockchain technology goes mainstream, the rising tide lifts all boats, including native tokens on public networks. If the world’s largest banks and financial institutions adopt blockchain at scale but exclusively through permissioned systems they control, the technology wins but the tokens don’t necessarily come along for the ride.

JPMorgan has every incentive to promote a world where Kinexys matters and public blockchains matter less. But the $4 trillion in processed transactions is hard to wave away. If institutions satisfy their blockchain needs through private networks, the institutional demand that was supposed to drive Bitcoin’s next leg up might not materialize the way bulls expect.

What investors should actually watch Strategy’s selective selling policy introduces short-term volatility risk, but the company has been transparent about its approach, and the market has had time to digest the implications of a single entity controlling over 4% of Bitcoin’s supply.

Investors should monitor how quickly platforms like Kinexys expand their capabilities into areas that currently rely on public chains, particularly in tokenized assets, cross-border payments, and settlement infrastructure. If permissioned networks start absorbing those use cases, the impact won’t show up as a dramatic crash. It’ll show up as a persistent discount to where Bitcoin trades based on adoption metrics that no longer apply.

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

COINTELEGRAPH: Can Bitcoin hold $62K ahead of Friday's $1.4 billion options expiry?