Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Dogecoin is revisiting a historical accumulation zone, with the current setup mirroring earlier cycle bottoms that have previously preceded major rallies.

Dogecoin (DOGE) is once again trading in a price region that historically aligns with key accumulation areas. Data from the monthly chart shows that the current setup closely resembles previous market cycles where prolonged consolidation eventually gave way to massive upside moves.

Familiar Dogecoin Setup The 1-month chart shows that DOGE has repeatedly found support after extended corrections before starting strong rallies. In each previous cycle, the asset’s price offers the first entry point, then stabilizes at a long-term support trendline. Dogecoin then provides the last entry point before it starts a massive expansion phase.

For context, DOGE gave the first entry when it bottomed at $0.000086 in May 2015. After that, the coin formed a support around $0.000198 in April 2016 and consolidated above it until February 2017. What followed was a 1,823% rise to $0.0040 in May 2017.

Dogecoin 1M Chart Analysis The same thing happened in the next cycle. Dogecoin gave its first sniper entry at the low of $0.00065 in September 2017. Subsequently, it found support around $0.0018 in February 2019 and consolidated around it until March 2020.

Between April 2020 and May 2021, DOGE rallied an impressive 41,011%, reaching its current all-time high of $0.74.

Current DOGE Price Level Aligns with Previous Cycle Bottoms The current market structure appears to be following a similar path. Dogecoin gave its first perfect entry at $0.056 in October 2023. The meme coin also formed a long-term support at $0.0805 in August 2024 and, in June, retested it.

While the pullback has taken it slightly below the horizontal support region, the structure remains intact. This is because it still trends above a broader ascending support line that has guided its price since October 2023.

Meanwhile, the current price level presents the last entry point to buy DOGE at a discount, according to history. What has followed this period is a strong price reversal and the start of an impulsive move to unprecedented price levels.

Dogecoin Target and Key Uptrend Requirement If history repeats, Dogecoin could be nearing its bottom here. Since each rally from here has seen it surpass the previous high, the first target could be around $0.80, representing a 981% increase from the current price of $0.074.

In an ultra-bullish scenario, DOGE could finally break the $1 barrier and even target $2. This culminates in a 1,251% to 2,602% growth from here.

Nonetheless, while the historical comparison is encouraging for bulls, confirmation is still necessary. Dogecoin needs to maintain support around the current accumulation area and show signs of recovery to confirm this pattern.

If buyers defend this region around $0.066 successfully, the setup could produce massive gains like the previous cycles. However, a decisive move below the support zone would invalidate the pattern and force the token downwards.

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

An exploit drained roughly 16 million ADA, about $2.4 million, from 374 Cardano wallets in late June. What happened next is the interesting part: EMURGO, one of Cardano’s founding entities, announced a recovery path to return the assets within two weeks, while an independent forensic team including Mt. Gox veterans published competing findings. Crypto has spent fifteen years insisting stolen funds are gone forever. Cardano is running a live experiment in whether that has to be true, and every chain is watching the precedent.

Summary

A Cardano linked exploit drained about 16 million ADA from 374 wallets, with EMURGO outlining a two week plan to return affected users’ funds. Independent investigators challenged parts of the official account, putting competing forensic findings at the centre of how victims could qualify for restitution. The recovery effort is testing whether a blockchain ecosystem can compensate theft victims without reversing the ledger or compromising decentralization principles. Between June 21 and 23, an exploit connected to a protocol called SecondFi drained approximately 16 million ADA, worth about $2.4 million, from 374 addresses on Cardano. As crypto thefts go, it barely registers: the industry loses that much most weeks, and 2026’s running total makes $2.4 million a rounding error. The theft is not the story.

The story is the response. Within days, EMURGO, the commercial arm among Cardano’s founding entities, announced it had identified a recovery path for affected users and would begin returning assets within roughly two weeks, one week to build the recovery mechanism and one to test it. Simultaneously, an independent forensic team, Tibane Labs, whose personnel include investigators from the Mt. Gox case, crypto’s original catastrophic theft, published a competing analysis of what actually happened, disputing elements of the official account. And the affected community, 374 wallets whose owners did nothing wrong beyond using a protocol, became the test population for one of the most consequential questions in the industry: whether a blockchain ecosystem can make theft victims whole without breaking the properties that make it a blockchain.

That question has a fifteen-year history of being answered no, at enormous cost, and a handful of famous exceptions that each bent the rules in a different way. Ethereum rolled back its ledger once, in 2016, and the decision split the chain permanently. Exchanges have reimbursed hacks from their own treasuries. Protocols have negotiated with attackers, paying bounties for returns. But a founding entity engineering restitution for users of a third-party protocol, on a chain whose ledger will not be rolled back, through a mechanism built and tested in two weeks, is a new entry in the genre, and its outcome, success, failure, or messy middle, will be cited in every post-exploit governance fight for years. This piece covers the exploit as best the competing forensics allow, the anatomy of the recovery mechanism and the hard constraints it must respect, the restitution genre’s history and where this attempt sits in it, the moral-hazard and precedent questions that make recovery controversial even when it works, and what the two-week experiment will actually prove.

What happened, as far as the forensics agree The reconstruction begins with an unusual feature: there are two of them. The official account, from EMURGO and ecosystem responders, describes an exploit connected to SecondFi that extracted funds from user wallets across a three-day window, with 374 affected addresses and roughly 16 million ADA taken. The independent account, from Tibane Labs, a forensic team whose resume includes the Mt. Gox investigation, examines the same on-chain evidence and disputes elements of the official narrative, a disagreement whose specifics matter less, for this piece’s purposes, than its existence: three weeks after the event, the ecosystem’s official and independent investigators have not converged on a single story of what occurred.

That divergence is itself a finding about the state of crypto incident response.

On-chain data is perfectly preserved and public, which is why blockchain forensics can achieve certainties conventional financial investigation cannot; but the interpretation layer, which contract behavior was intended, which approvals were informed, where the boundary between exploit and design flaw sits, remains contested terrain where reputations, liability, and recovery eligibility all hang on the framing. The pattern is familiar from the anatomy of every major protocol disaster: the chain records what happened with perfect fidelity and no opinion, and the fight is always over what it meant. For the 374 wallet owners, the practical consequence is concrete: the recovery mechanism’s design, and who qualifies for it, depends on which reconstruction prevails, which is why competing forensics are not academic but constitutive of the restitution itself.

The scale deserves honest framing too. Sixteen million ADA is about 0.04% of circulating supply; $2.4 million is small enough that EMURGO could plausibly reimburse it from corporate resources without any mechanism at all. The choice to build a recovery process instead, engineered, tested, documented, signals that the exercise is understood by its architects as infrastructure, a template being built at low stakes for use at higher ones, which is exactly why it merits the scrutiny this piece gives it.

The mechanism: what recovery can and cannot mean Every recovery attempt on a public blockchain operates inside the same iron constraint: the ledger does not go backward. Cardano’s history will not be rewritten; the stolen ADA sits wherever the attacker moved it, validly, as far as the protocol is concerned. Whatever EMURGO’s two-week build produces, it is not an undo button, and enumerating what it can be maps the entire design space of crypto restitution.

The first family is interception: if stolen funds sit on exchanges or touch regulated venues, they can be frozen and clawed back through compliance channels, the path that has recovered the largest sums industry-wide and the reason attackers launder through mixers and cross-chain routes, the bridge-hopping playbook every major theft now follows. Its reach ends where the attacker’s operational security begins. The second is negotiation: bounty offers converting attackers into white hats retroactively, effective embarrassingly often, and dependent entirely on the attacker’s incentives.

The third is replacement: making victims whole from some treasury, corporate funds, protocol reserves, an ecosystem pool, without touching the stolen assets at all, which is restitution in the economic sense and abandons recovery in the literal one. The fourth, rarest and most Cardano-specific in this instance, is mechanism-level remediation: where the exploited system itself, a protocol’s contracts, a wallet standard, retains any authority over the affected assets or their derivatives, that authority can sometimes be repurposed to restore balances, the approach that requires exactly the one-week-build-one-week-test cadence EMURGO described.

The announced timeline suggests a combination weighted toward the third and fourth families, and the details, at this writing, remain unpublished, which is appropriate caution and also part of the test: restitution mechanisms revealed before deployment invite gaming by exactly the adversaries they respond to. What can be evaluated in advance is the constraint set any design must satisfy. It must distinguish victims from opportunists, on-chain, against forensics that are themselves disputed. It must not create authority that persists after the emergency, because a standing power to reassign user balances is a bigger vulnerability than any exploit. It must not require the base protocol to special-case the event, the line Cardano’s own decentralization principles, governed by DReps precisely to prevent unilateral intervention, will not permit crossing. And it must complete fast, because every week of delay compounds the harm and shrinks the interceptable share. Two weeks, against those constraints, is aggressive, and the aggressiveness is the announcement’s real content: EMURGO believes the mechanism exists and is discoverable on a schedule.

The victims’ fortnight: what waiting inside a recovery is like The 374 addresses deserve a section of their own, because restitution debates chronically abstract the people they are about, and this population is unusually legible. The affected wallets skew small: the $2.4 million total across 374 addresses averages under $6,500 per victim, savings-scale money for the retail holders who dominate Cardano’s famously loyal base, not fund-scale positions with legal departments and insurance. Their fortnight is a specific experience the industry has never bothered to design for: funds visibly gone, an official promise of return on a stated schedule, competing expert accounts of what even happened, and no action available except watching announcements, a limbo in which every day of official silence gets read as bad news and every community rumor moves through the victim population at chat speed.

Two features of this experience matter beyond sympathy. The first is that victim behavior during recovery windows is itself an attack surface: fake recovery portals, phishing campaigns impersonating the restitution process, and advance-fee scams targeting exactly this population appear within days of every publicized exploit, harvesting victims a second time, and the quality of official communication, clear channels, signed announcements, explicit warnings that no one will DM them, is as much a part of the mechanism’s success as its code. The second is that the fortnight sets the template for what users can expect from the ecosystem, and expectations are load-bearing: an institution-courting chain whose retail base learns that infrastructure failures get handled competently retains those users through the next incident, while a botched communication cycle converts a $2.4 million exploit into a permanent trust discount far more expensive than the theft. The recovery’s architects are, whether they framed it this way or not, running crypto’s first serious customer-service operation for a decentralized loss event, and the industry’s notes on it will be as valuable as the mechanism itself.

The genre: how crypto has answered theft before The SecondFi experiment enters a genre with a defined canon, and its position in that canon is what gives a $2.4 million incident industry-wide stakes.

The founding text is Ethereum’s 2016 DAO intervention: facing the theft of a double-digit share of all ETH, the community altered the ledger to reverse it, and the decision’s price was permanent schism, the unaltered chain persisting as Ethereum Classic and the precedent haunting every subsequent governance debate. The lesson the industry took was that base-layer intervention works exactly once, at existential scale, and costs a chain’s neutrality forever; no major network has repeated it, through losses orders of magnitude larger. The second tradition is the exchange model: centralized custodians from the Mt. Gox estate through the modern majors have run reimbursements, creditor processes, and insurance funds, restitution as a corporate liability question, effective where custody was centralized and irrelevant where it was not. The third is the protocol-treasury model: DeFi projects reimbursing exploits from token treasuries or negotiated bounties, case by case, with outcomes ranging from full restoration to governance-vote refusals that left victims holding the loss, a genre in which the liquidation-era bad-debt socializations supplied some of the bitterest chapters.

What the canon lacks, and what SecondFi supplies, is the founding-entity model on a decentralization-first chain: an ecosystem steward, not the thief’s counterparty, not the ledger’s operator, engineering restitution for a third-party protocol’s users without touching the base layer. Cardano is, in one sense, the natural venue for the attempt, its culture prizes formal process and its governance apparatus is unusually explicit, and in another sense the hardest one, because the same culture treats ledger neutrality as close to sacred, and the community debate around the recovery has featured exactly the voices, on exactly the lines, the DAO fight canonized: make victims whole versus code is law, with a decade of intervening history sharpening both sides.

The timing layer: why this experiment, this month The recovery’s context supplies half its meaning, because the experiment is running inside the most delicate month Cardano has had in years, and every audience the mechanism performs for is watching for its own reasons.

The institutional audience arrived the same week: Clearstream, Deutsche Borse’s post-trade arm with trillions in custody, added ADA to its regulated custody services on July 7, the most significant institutional on-ramp in the asset’s history, landing days into the recovery window. Institutions selecting crypto assets audit precisely the thing SecondFi tests, how an ecosystem behaves when its infrastructure fails, and the recovery’s execution is, functionally, a live due-diligence exhibit for every custody and ETF conversation the ecosystem hopes to have. The market audience is watching a fragile turn: ADA rebounded roughly 30% from multi-year lows in the same fortnight, whale wallets accumulated through the crash while on-chain usage thinned, and the recovery sits inside a sentiment window where a competence story compounds the bounce and an incompetence story validates the lows. And the governance audience is internal: Cardano’s DRep apparatus and its constitutional culture have spent two years building the machinery of collective decision-making, the Van Rossem fork is moving through exactly that machinery this month, and a founding entity executing an emergency restitution adjacent to, but not through, the formal governance process is itself a constitutional data point, read closely by everyone who cares where the ecosystem’s real authority lives.

The timing also explains the two-week aggression. A recovery that completes before the news cycle moves on is an asset; one that drags into autumn is a liability regardless of outcome, because unresolved incidents metastasize in exactly the audiences above. The schedule is the strategy, and its keeping or slipping is the first verdict the experiment will render.

Moral hazard, precedent, and the case against success The strongest objections to the recovery deserve their full weight, because they are not callousness; they are the accumulated lessons of the genre.

The moral-hazard argument runs: every successful restitution teaches users that losses get reversed, which erodes the diligence that self-custody requires, subsidizes risk-taking on unaudited protocols, and converts founding entities into implicit insurers of an ecosystem they cannot actually underwrite, a liability that compounds until an exploit arrives at a scale no one can cover, whereupon the implicit promise defaults at the worst moment. The precedent argument runs deeper: a proven capability to restore balances is a proven capability to reassign them, and every government, litigant, and pressure group learns from the proof; the neutrality that makes public chains valuable is precisely the credible inability to do favors, and each benevolent exception prices that credibility down. And the selection argument is the practical edge of both: 374 wallets got a recovery mechanism because their loss was legible, bounded, and adjacent to a founding entity’s reputation, while the ecosystem’s countless smaller victims, of rug pulls, drainers, and their own mistakes, get nothing, which converts restitution from a principle into a lottery whose winners are chosen by newsworthiness.

The answers, from the recovery’s defenders, are also serious. Users harmed by infrastructure failures they could not have evaluated are not moral-hazard cases but consumer-protection ones, and an industry courting mainstream adoption cannot tell mainstream users that their diligence should have included auditing smart contracts. Precedent cuts both ways: an ecosystem that visibly cares for its users compounds trust, the asset every chain claims to optimize, and the intervention line, no base-layer changes, no persistent authority, can be held publicly and verifiably. The honest synthesis is that both sides are describing real gradients, and the experiment’s value is precisely that it will convert the argument into evidence: a recovery that completes cleanly, inside its constraints, without scope creep, is a data point the make-whole side has never had on a decentralization-first chain, and a recovery that fails, stalls, or requires quiet rule-bending is the strongest code-is-law exhibit since the DAO.

The forensics fight: why the second opinion matters The Tibane Labs dimension deserves fuller treatment before the conclusion, because independent forensics entering a live recovery is nearly as novel as the recovery itself, and its implications outlast this incident.

Crypto incident analysis has historically been a monopoly of the responding party: the exploited protocol, the affected foundation, or the security firm they retain writes the post-mortem, and the community consumes it as fact, with no institution playing the adversarial-review role that accident investigation runs on in every mature industry. The entry of an unaffiliated team, staffed by investigators whose formative case was Mt. Gox, the theft whose decade of creditor litigation taught crypto what unresolved forensics cost, breaks the monopoly on exactly the incident where the official account carries financial consequences: eligibility for restitution flows from the accepted reconstruction, and a disputed reconstruction means disputed eligibility, appeals, and the exact procedural morass the two-week schedule cannot absorb.

The dispute’s existence, whatever its resolution, teaches two durable lessons. The first is that restitution mechanisms need an evidentiary standard before they need code: who adjudicates victimhood, against which account of events, with what appeal path, questions the traditional financial system answers with courts and regulators and that a decentralized recovery must answer with something, publicly, in advance, or improvise under fire. The second is that a market for adversarial blockchain forensics is forming, funded by exactly these disputes, and its emergence is unambiguously healthy: official accounts that expect independent review are written more carefully, mechanisms designed under scrutiny are designed better, and the industry’s post-mortem culture, long a public-relations genre, acquires the beginnings of a discipline. If the SecondFi fortnight produces nothing else, a precedent that serious incidents get second opinions would justify the episode’s place in the canon by itself.

What the two weeks will actually prove The experiment resolves into observable outcomes on a short clock, and the reading guide is worth writing in advance. Completion on schedule, with victims restored and the mechanism’s design published for audit, proves the founding-entity model viable at small scale and makes it the reference implementation every future incident invokes, on Cardano and beyond. Partial completion, some victims, disputed eligibility, timeline slippage, proves the harder truth that restitution’s binding constraint is not engineering but forensics, and elevates the Tibane-versus-official divergence from footnote to headline. Failure or quiet abandonment feeds the code-is-law canon and, less obviously, damages the specific asset that motivated the attempt: Cardano’s institutional courtship, the Clearstream custody listing landing the same week, leans on the ecosystem’s reputation for process, and a botched recovery is a process failure in the one arena institutions watch.

Beyond the fortnight, the durable questions are two. Whether the mechanism, whatever it is, gets generalized, documented, criticized, and hardened into ecosystem infrastructure, or remains a one-off that future victims cite and cannot access. And whether the precedent’s boundary holds: the recovery’s architects have implicitly drawn a line, exceptional response, no base-layer change, no standing power, and the entire value of the experiment, for Cardano and for the industry, depends on that line surviving its own success. Crypto has proven, exhaustively, that it can build systems where theft is final. The SecondFi fortnight is a test of something the industry has barely attempted: whether it can build justice on top of finality without dissolving the finality, and 374 wallets, $2.4 million, and one founding entity’s reputation are the stakes of the first controlled trial.

Beyond Cardano, the audiences with the most to learn are the ones building the systems where this question arrives at a thousand times the scale. The tokenized-asset rails now carrying equities and Treasuries onto public chains inherit, with the assets, traditional finance’s non-negotiable expectation that errors and thefts get remediated, and every institution wiring real-world value into blockchain settlement is implicitly betting that something like the SecondFi mechanism, generalized, standardized, and legally legible, will exist when it is needed. The corporate chains have answered the question by centralizing it, their operators can intervene, and everyone knows it, which is exactly the answer the decentralized ecosystems cannot give and the reason this experiment matters disproportionately: it is a test of whether the neutral chains can offer remediation without becoming the corporate ones. Regulators, meanwhile, read incidents like this in their own dialect: a shown industry capacity for orderly restitution is an argument against prescriptive consumer-protection mandates, and a shown incapacity is the argument for them, which places the fortnight’s outcome, improbably, inside the same policy conversations deciding the industry’s classification and custody rules.

The final word belongs to proportion, which has been this piece’s method throughout. Two point four million dollars is nothing; 374 wallets are a village; two weeks is a news cycle. And the question the village and the fortnight are answering, whether a system built so that no one can reverse anything can still, when it matters, make things right, is the oldest and largest open question in the industry, older than the DAO, as large as adoption itself. Small experiments that answer large questions are the best bargains in institutional history. This one cost sixteen million ADA, none of it EMURGO’s, and its findings, either way, will be cited for a decade.

For readers tracking the experiment live, the checklist is short: the mechanism’s technical publication, the first restored balances on-chain, the treatment of disputed addresses, the Tibane findings’ final form, and whether any authority created for the recovery is verifiably dismantled afterward. Five items, two weeks, one precedent, and the rare crypto story whose ending will be a matter of public record rather than public argument.

And a housekeeping note befitting a live experiment: this piece freezes a moving story at the midpoint of its two-week window, the mechanism’s details were unpublished at this writing, and the account above should be read against the recovery’s actual outcome, which, by the time most readers arrive here, will be a matter of on-chain record. That the story can be checked against the chain is, fittingly, the whole point of the system being tested.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Digital asset markets are volatile, and you can lose your entire investment. Incident details reflect public reporting as of July 9, 2026, and the recovery process described is ongoing; verify current status before relying on any account of it. Always do your own research.

Tether’s TON Integration Pushes USDT Deeper Into Telegram’s Crypto Economy is the kind of crypto story that looks simple at headline level but becomes more useful once you place it inside the wider market backdrop. Stablecoin adoption often becomes most meaningful when it is embedded in apps people already use, and TON’s link to Telegram gives this rollout a different distribution profile.

The reason it deserves attention today is not that one announcement or filing magically changes the whole market. It is that the update adds another data point to a sector still trying to work out where capital, users, and regulation are actually moving.

For more details, visit the official Tether platform.

TL;DR Tether expanded native USDT utility on TON-linked yield protocols.The move strengthens stablecoin activity inside the Telegram-connected TON ecosystem.USDT on TON is becoming a payments and app-utility story, not only a trading-pair story. Stablecoins Keep Moving Into New Distribution Channels Native USDT support on TON can reduce friction for payments, transfers, and app-level balances.

Tether’s incentive campaigns are aimed at making the network more attractive to builders and users.

Stablecoins remain one of crypto’s clearest product-market fits. They are used for trading, transfers, payments, treasury management, and increasingly application-level balances. That is why new integrations or regulatory wrappers can matter more than they first appear.

The Bigger Stablecoin Takeaway The wider stablecoin market is increasingly about distribution channels, not just reserve size.

The market is also becoming more competitive. Issuers are no longer only fighting over supply; they are fighting over distribution, network placement, yield design, and compliance status.

For NewsBTC readers, the practical takeaway is to avoid treating this as an isolated headline. The stronger read is to connect it with the current market environment: liquidity is still selective, regulatory pressure has not disappeared, and the projects that keep shipping useful updates are the ones most likely to hold attention when the cycle gets noisy.

That does not mean the story should be stretched beyond what the source supports. The cleaner approach is to keep the facts tight, explain the mechanism, and show readers why it may matter if follow-up data confirms the same direction over the next few sessions.

In other words, this is a development to watch rather than a guaranteed turning point. Crypto moves quickly, but the useful signals are usually the ones that still make sense after the first reaction fades.

The important thing for readers is context. A single development rarely defines the market on its own, but a series of source-backed updates can show where momentum is building. That is why this article keeps the focus on the specific mechanism in play, the source behind it, and the reason traders or builders may care today.

This article is based on information from tether.to.

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

WebX 2026 Adds Speakers and Sponsors Ahead of July Conference

BNB Chain Haber Specs Point To Faster Finality And A More Competitive Network Stack is the kind of crypto story that looks simple at headline level but becomes more useful once you place it inside the wider market backdrop. BNB Chain’s technical roadmap matters because the network is competing in a crowded field where speed, cost, and reliability are table stakes.

The reason it deserves attention today is not that one announcement or filing magically changes the whole market. It is that the update adds another data point to a sector still trying to work out where capital, users, and regulation are actually moving.

For more details, visit the official GitHub platform.

TL;DR BNB Chain published node release details tied to the Haber hard fork.The update targets performance and validation improvements.For BNB Chain, faster infrastructure is part of the fight to keep developers and users active. The Technical Detail Traders Should Not Ignore The release notes point to changes around node software and transaction state validation.

Hard fork specifications are important because validators and infrastructure providers need time to prepare.

Protocol updates rarely arrive with the drama of a courtroom ruling or an ETF filing, but they are often more important over time. They decide how networks handle scale, incentives, cross-chain activity, and user cost. For builders, those details are not optional.

Why Builders Care About The Update The update fits a wider push by major chains to refine performance without sacrificing ecosystem compatibility.

The market tends to reward finished products, but those products depend on this kind of maintenance. A chain that keeps improving its technical base gives developers more reasons to stay.

For NewsBTC readers, the practical takeaway is to avoid treating this as an isolated headline. The stronger read is to connect it with the current market environment: liquidity is still selective, regulatory pressure has not disappeared, and the projects that keep shipping useful updates are the ones most likely to hold attention when the cycle gets noisy.

That does not mean the story should be stretched beyond what the source supports. The cleaner approach is to keep the facts tight, explain the mechanism, and show readers why it may matter if follow-up data confirms the same direction over the next few sessions.

In other words, this is a development to watch rather than a guaranteed turning point. Crypto moves quickly, but the useful signals are usually the ones that still make sense after the first reaction fades.

The important thing for readers is context. A single development rarely defines the market on its own, but a series of source-backed updates can show where momentum is building. That is why this article keeps the focus on the specific mechanism in play, the source behind it, and the reason traders or builders may care today.

This article is based on information from github.com.

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

Key Highlights Shares of WD-40 surged 15% in pre-market trading Friday following impressive fiscal Q3 results Quarterly revenue increased 24% year-over-year to $195.1 million, significantly surpassing the $172.8 million consensus Earnings per share reached $2.33, substantially exceeding the Street’s $1.56 projection Regional performance showed Americas up 29%, Asia-Pacific climbing 24%, and EIMEA gaining 17% Management elevated full-year EPS outlook to $6.05–$6.35 from previous guidance of $5.75–$6.15 Shares of WD-40 (WDFC) rallied 15% in Friday’s pre-market session following the release of fiscal third-quarter financials that significantly exceeded analyst projections across all key performance indicators.

WD-40 Company, WDFC

The company reported quarterly revenue of $195.1 million, marking a 24% increase compared to the same period last year and comfortably beating the analyst consensus of $172.8 million from FactSet.

Earnings per share landed at $2.33, crushing the Street’s $1.56 forecast. Management also increased its full-year EPS outlook to a range of $6.05–$6.35, moving up from the previous guidance of $5.75–$6.15. The consensus estimate had been $6.01.

$WDFC Q3' 26 EARNINGS HIGHLIGHTS

🔹 Revenue: $195.1M (Est. $172.8M) 🟢; +24% YoY
🔹 Adj. EPS: $2.33 (Est. $1.56) 🟢; +51% YoY
🔹 Gross Margin: 56.6%; +40 bps YoY
🔹 Operating Income: $40.3M; +47% YoY

FY26 Guide:
🔹 Revenue: $675M-$690M (Est. $642.5M) 🟢
🔹 EPS: $6.05-$6.35… pic.twitter.com/5OZZFZym0F

— Wall St Engine (@wallstengine) July 9, 2026

The revenue growth showed strength across all geographic segments. Sales in the Americas jumped 29%, the Asia-Pacific region posted a 24% gain, and EIMEA — representing Europe, India, the Middle East and Africa — recorded a 17% increase.

Chief Executive Steven Brass attributed the Americas momentum to broader distribution channels, robust e-commerce results, and strategic promotional campaigns.

Brass also called attention to a special edition “King of the Hill” branded product developed through collaborations with Disney (DIS) and Home Depot (HD). The creative origins of that partnership remain an open question.

Worldwide Momentum What makes this quarter particularly noteworthy is that growth wasn’t driven by a single region. The 24% revenue expansion reflected simultaneous strength across WD-40’s three global operating segments, lending credibility to the sustainability of these results.

The company has also been integrating artificial intelligence into its supply chain operations and back-office functions. This represents the practical, infrastructure-focused application of AI technology — less attention-grabbing than consumer-facing AI products, but potentially offering longer-term competitive advantages.

This quarter’s performance follows an 11% sales increase in the previous period, suggesting the company is building momentum rather than posting a one-time anomaly.

Beating the Tech Rally While the Nasdaq advanced 1.3% during Thursday’s regular session and AI names captured renewed investor attention, WD-40 was outpacing those high-profile technology stocks on Friday.

Heading into Friday’s session, WDFC had already gained more than 20% year-to-date in 2026, before tacking on another 15% following the earnings announcement.

That performance trajectory is remarkable for a company whose core product is a household lubricant. There are no semiconductors involved, no massive data infrastructure, no multi-billion dollar AI training operations — simply a product with consistent global demand and a management team executing an effective growth strategy.

The stock maintained its sharp gains after the opening bell, continuing to significantly outperform broader market indices.

With revised full-year guidance of $6.05–$6.35 EPS now exceeding analyst expectations, the stock has a positive tailwind as the company moves through the remainder of its fiscal year.

Crypto giant Circle is rebuffing efforts to help scam victims, law enforcement officials say.

According to a report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the issuer of the USDC stablecoin is allegedly declining to cooperate in assisting scam victims recover their funds. The ICIJ report says some unnamed law enforcement officials are raising alarms due to instances of Circle refusing to freeze or recover assets suspected to have been proceeds of scams.

In a county in southeastern Wisconsin, state prosecutors recently filed a criminal complaint against Circle, alleging that the stablecoin issuer refused to comply with a warrant ordering it to recover a scam victim’s stolen assets. Circle in response argued that the complaint should be dismissed while reportedly branding it meritless.

Milwaukee County’s police detective Scott Simons says he’s witnessed over a dozen instances around the US where Circle either refused a request from law enforcement to freeze victim funds or where a court order intended to force Circle to freeze victim funds failed because it was received too late.

Additionally, New York prosecutors have also claimed in a letter to Congress that Circle failed to honor court orders seeking to reimburse victims, according to the report. The letter says,

“Circle’s motive for not assisting law enforcement becomes crystal clear: it is financially preferable to only freeze cryptocurrency deemed to have been stolen, but not return the underlying asset to law enforcement or any fraud victim, because Circle can continue to collect the interest through investment of the underlying funds.”

Key Highlights Circle Internet Group (CRCL) rallied up to 15% during Friday’s premarket session following regulatory approval from the OCC to launch a national trust bank The newly approved entity will function as Circle National Trust, offering digital asset custody services under federal banking supervision ARK Invest, led by Cathie Wood, accumulated approximately 218,000 CRCL shares just one day prior to the regulatory announcement This regulatory milestone reinforces the operational framework for USDC, Circle’s primary stablecoin product Coinbase (COIN), USDC’s co-issuer with Circle, climbed 4.6% to reach $165.80 following the news Circle Internet Group (CRCL) shares skyrocketed as much as 15% during Friday’s premarket session after receiving authorization from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to launch a federally chartered trust bank focused on digital assets.

Circle Internet Group, CRCL

Shares advanced to $72.34 before regular trading commenced, rebounding from Thursday’s 1.7% loss.

The newly chartered institution will be known as Circle National Trust and will do business as First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A. It will function under the direct regulatory authority of the OCC, which serves as the principal federal supervisor for nationally chartered banks.

Circle has received final OCC approval to establish First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A., a national trust bank operating as Circle National Trust.

A major U.S. regulatory milestone that strengthens USDC infrastructure through federally regulated custody, with reserve… pic.twitter.com/GtThvFV5aW

— Circle (@circle) July 10, 2026

Circle submitted its regulatory application to the OCC on June 30, 2025. The company secured preliminary approval in December 2025 before obtaining final authorization this Friday.

Circle National Trust will begin operations by providing digital asset custody solutions for Circle and its related entities. The OCC’s sanctioned business model permits the bank to subsequently extend its services to a select group of institutional clients, encompassing banks and authorized derivatives entities.

Chief Executive Officer Jeremy Allaire stated that federal supervision “establishes a new benchmark for transparency, governance, and scalability” for Circle’s operational framework and creates opportunities for financial institutions to leverage public blockchain networks with enhanced regulatory confidence.

This authorization directly bolsters USDC, Circle’s dollar-backed stablecoin, by placing its custody operations under federal banking supervision for the first time in its history.

ARK Invest’s Strategic Timing Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest acquired 217,896 CRCL shares distributed across three investment vehicles — the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK), the ARK Next Generation Internet ETF (ARKW), and the ARK Blockchain & Fintech Innovation ETF — merely 24 hours before the regulatory announcement became public.

CRCL currently represents 3.1%, 3%, and 4.3% of the holdings in each respective fund.

ARKK advanced 1.71% while ARKW appreciated 2.52% during Friday’s trading session.

Broader Cryptocurrency Market Response Coinbase (COIN), which partnered with Circle to launch USDC, appreciated 4.6% to close at $165.80 on Friday.

Bitcoin advanced 2.6% across a 24-hour period to trade at $64,385, while Ethereum increased 3%.

USDC maintains its standing as the dominant stablecoin originating from the United States. While stablecoins were initially utilized primarily for cryptocurrency trading, their adoption has expanded to include cross-border remittances and inflation protection in countries experiencing currency instability.

Circle has actively promoted the concept that stablecoins will become integral to mainstream payment systems. Recent statements from Circle leadership have highlighted emerging applications in transactions conducted by AI-powered autonomous agents.

The OCC’s authorization represents another significant milestone in Circle’s strategy to integrate with the federal banking infrastructure, providing its custody operations with the regulatory legitimacy that institutional market participants have consistently demanded.

Circle, the issuer of USDC, one of the largest stablecoins in the cryptocurrency market, has received final approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish a national custodial bank.

Accordingly, Circle announced that it has received final approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish a federal deposit bank called Circle National Trust.

This development follows the conditional approval the company received approximately seven months ago. It is seen as a significant step strengthening Circle’s position in the US financial system.

Circle announced that the bank’s name is “First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A.- Circle National Trust Bank” and that it will operate under the name “Circle National Trust”.

Circle states that this approval brings USDC custody operations under federal regulation. The national custodian bank to be established under this approval will initially only provide custody services to Circle’s affiliates. This will allow Circle to manage the security and operational processes of its digital assets more effectively within its own organization.

Circle also added that the bank aims to take over the management of US dollar reserves backing the USDC stablecoin in the future.

Circle Co-Founder and CEO Jeremy Allaire said, “The OCC’s approval to establish Circle National Trust represents a decisive step toward bringing blockchain technology and digital assets to the heart of the U.S. financial system. Federal oversight of our trust bank sets a new standard for transparency, governance, and scalability for Circle’s infrastructure and paves the way for a new phase of adoption where leading financial institutions can operate on public blockchains with clarity and confidence.”

As you may recall, Circle submitted its application to the OCC last June and received conditional approval in December.

Ripple has received conditional approval from the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for Ripple National Trust Bank, but has not yet received final approval.

*This is not investment advice.

Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!

Circle just handed AI developers a gift bag: open-source starter kits that plug USDC payments directly into the AI frameworks where most agents are actually being built. The kits, now live on GitHub, target LangChain and the Claude Agent SDK, two of the most widely adopted platforms for building autonomous AI agents.

What Circle actually shipped The open-sourced Agent Stack starter kits provide ready-to-use code that connects AI agents to Circle’s infrastructure. That means developers can give their agents wallets, let them send and receive USDC, and interact with onchain services, all without building payment plumbing from scratch.

Advertisement

The kits build on Circle’s broader Agent Stack, which launched on May 11, 2026. That initial release introduced several foundational components, including command-line interface utilities for developers, permissioned agent wallets with built-in access controls, and gas-free nanopayments that allow USDC transfers as small as $0.000001.

The starter kits also support x402-compatible transactions. The x402 protocol is essentially the HTTP 402 “Payment Required” status code brought to life: a machine-readable way for services to demand payment before granting access. When an AI agent hits an x402-enabled endpoint, it can autonomously decide to pay, receive the service, and move on.

Circle’s Agent Marketplace adds another layer. It functions as a discovery hub where AI agents can find and transact with other agents or services.

Why open source matters here The choice to target LangChain and the Claude Agent SDK is also telling. LangChain has become something of an industry standard for building LLM-powered applications, and Anthropic’s Claude SDK is rapidly gaining ground among enterprise developers who prioritize safety and controllability.

The bigger financial picture Circle raised $222 million through a presale of its ARC token, which valued the Arc network at $3 billion.

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

Circle has received final approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [OCC] to establish a national trust bank. This marks a major regulatory milestone as the stablecoin issuer moves another key part of its USDC infrastructure under direct federal oversight.

The approval makes Circle one of the first crypto-native firms from the OCC’s latest wave of digital asset trust bank applicants to reach the operational stage. It also signals a broader shift as U.S. regulators increasingly integrate crypto infrastructure into the existing banking framework rather than creating a separate regime for digital assets.

Circle National Trust to provide federally regulated custody The new institution, First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A., will operate as Circle National Trust under OCC supervision. According to Circle, the national trust bank will initially provide fiduciary digital asset custody services for the company and its affiliates. 

It does this while creating a pathway to offer custody services directly to a limited number of institutional clients. This includes banks and regulated financial institutions, depending on market demand.

Circle also said the charter is designed to support future management of the USDC Reserve. Thus, bringing reserve operations under federal banking oversight if implemented. 

The company described the approval as strengthening USDC’s infrastructure through federally regulated custody. It also lays the foundation for additional capabilities as the platform evolves.

Chief Executive Jeremy Allaire said the approval represents “a defining step” in bringing blockchain infrastructure into the U.S. financial system. He added that federal oversight would provide greater transparency, governance, and confidence for institutions building on public blockchains.

Approval advances latest wave of crypto trust banks The announcement also places Circle at the forefront of the OCC’s latest push to bring crypto firms into the federal banking system.

In December 2025, the OCC granted conditional approval to a group of crypto-focused national trust bank applicants, including Circle, Ripple, BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Paxos. 

Circle has now progressed from conditional to final approval, allowing it to establish and operate its national trust bank under the regulator’s supervision.

The milestone reflects a broader trend in U.S. digital asset regulation, with crypto infrastructure providers increasingly seeking national trust bank charters to expand regulated custody services and strengthen institutional participation in digital assets.

What a national trust bank means Unlike a traditional commercial bank, a national trust bank does not operate as a retail lender or accept consumer deposits in the conventional sense. Instead, it specializes in fiduciary services, asset custody, and trust activities under OCC oversight.

For Circle, that structure enables the company to provide regulated digital asset custody while positioning USDC infrastructure within an established federal banking framework. 

The approval also establishes a pathway for future reserve management under OCC supervision, reinforcing Circle’s strategy to expand regulated infrastructure around its stablecoin ecosystem.

Final Summary Circle has received final OCC approval to establish Circle National Trust, moving key parts of its USDC infrastructure under direct federal banking oversight. The approval advances Circle beyond the OCC’s earlier conditional approval stage.

OUSD’s announcement sent Circle’s stock into a free fall. But how much of a threat does the new stablecoin actually pose?

Posted July 10, 2026 at 1:05 pm EST.

The stablecoin world has a new entrant and its announcement has had at least some Circle investors shaking in their britches.

Circle’s stock fell nearly 19% last week as new stablecoin company Open Standard  announced plans to launch Open USD, or OUSD, a stablecoin backed by nearly every finance giant you can think of, from BlackRock to Western Union.

It didn’t help that a report of Circle being delisted from several Russell growth indexes broke the day before. While Circle has pared some of last week’s losses, it is still trading below its price before the OUSD announcement at $66.65.

CRCL daily candle chart. Source: TradingView The market reacted poorly for a number of reasons. Open Standard’s partnerships suggest it is targeting the same market as Circle: compliant Western enterprise payments. But Open Standard, which will launch later this year and is helmed by Stripe-owned stablecoin company Bridge CEO Zach Abrams, isn’t just going after Circle’s target market; Open Standard is also trying to undercut Circle while at it 

Unlike Circle, Open Standard says it won’t charge fees on redemption and minting. In comparison, Circle charges up to 0.05% on redemptions depending on volume. Open Standard also promises to give the revenue earned on reserves to partners, less a management fee.

So is OUSD “an existential threat” to Circle, as Coin Bureau founder Nic Puckrin put it?

In the rest of this issue, subscribers get:

A critical look at how OUSD challenges the two main drivers of Circle’s business Coinbase’s role in any emerging competition Whether the consortium model just might work this time The bull, base and bear cases for Circle What investors should be watching for the clearest near-term indication of what is to come for Circle’s business.  Already a subscriber? Keep reading.

Why serious investors subscribe:

Clear thinking during macro regime changes

Fewer trades, better decisions

Avoiding one bad allocation often matters more than finding one great trade

The USDC issuer’s new bank will open by offering fiduciary custody for Circle and its affiliates, with management of the stablecoin’s reserves pushed to a later phase.

Posted July 10, 2026 at 2:07 pm EST.

Circle secured the last piece of federal approval it needs to establish its own bank.

Circle Internet Group won approval on Friday from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A., which will operate as Circle National Trust.

Circle National Trust will provide fiduciary custody of digital assets for Circle and its affiliates. Under the business plan the OCC approved, the bank could later extend that service to a limited group of institutional clients, “focusing on banks and other financial institutions, such as regulated derivatives organizations.” Circle listed reserve management as a future capability.

“OCC approval to establish Circle National Trust marks a defining step in bringing blockchain technology and digital assets into the core of the U.S. financial system,” Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire said in a statement. “Federal oversight of our trust bank sets a new standard for transparency, governance, and scale for Circle’s infrastructure and unlocks a new phase of adoption, where leading financial institutions can build on public blockchains with clarity and confidence.”

The charter caps a busy regulatory run for the company, which raised $1.1 billion in its 2025 stock-market debut and was an early winner from the GENIUS Act, the stablecoin law that took effect in July 2025. Circle’s filing helped open a wave of similar applications from crypto firms, though Anchorage Digital Bank had held the only such crypto charter since 2021.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has argued the OCC should not grant the charters to firms she says do not qualify under the National Bank Act.

Related Listen: Why Any DeFi Protocol ‘Lives and Dies by Its Oracle’ and How to Strengthen Them

AI-assisted content: This article was produced with the assistance of AI tools and was reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by a member of the Unchained editorial team before publication.

Circle's new OCC-chartered trust bank gives USDC federal custody backing, sending CRCL up 10%+ as it claws back OpenUSD selloff losses.

Listen

0

0:00 0:00

Subscribe to Bankless or sign in

Circle received final approval from the OCC to create Circle National Trust, a federally regulated trust bank that will hold digital assets for USDC and could eventually help manage the assets backing it. The approval gives Circle a stronger regulatory position as competition among stablecoins grows.

What's the Scoop?The Charter: The OCC approved Circle’s application to create First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A., which will operate as Circle National Trust. Circle applied in June 2025 and received conditional approval in December 2025. The new bank will be overseen directly by the OCC, giving Circle a federal regulator for part of its USDC business.What It Does: Circle National Trust will hold digital assets for Circle and its affiliates and may later offer custody services to a small number of banks and regulated financial firms. It is also designed to eventually help manage the reserves backing USDC. That would place a key part of USDC’s operations under direct federal supervision. The charter does not mean USDC is government-insured, but it could make banks and large institutions more comfortable using it.The Stock Reaction: Circle shares rose more than 10% in early trading before giving back some of those gains. The stock had fallen roughly 20% after OpenUSD launched, as investors worried that its free minting, free redemption, and shared reserve income could hurt Circle’s business. That concern may have been overstated. USDC still accounted for ~70% of adjusted stablecoin transaction volume in the first half of 2026, compared with 25% for USDT, while firms including Standard Chartered and BNY have chosen to build on USDC. The OCC approval adds another advantage by giving Circle federal oversight that OpenUSD does not yet have.Open USD Is Coming for Circle’s Margins on Bankless

The newest major stablecoin consortium is offering businesses a better deal than Circle has. Will Circle be fazed?

BanklessDavid Christopher

0

Written by David Christopher

629 Articles • View all      

David is a writer/analyst at Bankless. Prior to joining Bankless, he worked for a series of early-stage crypto startups and on grants from the Ethereum, Solana, and Urbit Foundations. He graduated from Skidmore College in New York. He currently lives in the Midwest and enjoys NFTs, but no longer participates in them.

No Responses

Search Bankless

3 Altcoins That Could Reach All-Time Highs This Weekend, July 11-12

Zcash price has rallied past $500 after open interest jumped to $1.02 billion and traders accumulated positions ahead of the July 28 Ironwood upgrade.

Summary

Zcash price climbed above $500 as traders positioned ahead of the July 28 Ironwood network upgrade. Futures open interest rose 27% to $1.02 billion, while trading volume jumped 49%, signaling stronger market participation. Technical indicators point to continued bullish momentum, with $510-$516 emerging as the next key resistance zone. According to data from crypto.news, Zcash (ZEC) price has risen more than 7% over the past 24 hours to trade above $500, extending its weekly gain to around 10% as traders increased exposure ahead of the network’s Ironwood upgrade.

Alongside the price rally, derivatives participation has accelerated, while technical indicators point to sustained buying momentum. The latest move has also coincided with a recovery across the crypto market, where Bitcoin reclaimed the $64,000 level and improved sentiment for several major digital assets.

Network upgrade has become the key catalyst Scheduled to activate at block 3,428,143 on July 28, the Ironwood upgrade has become the main catalyst behind renewed interest in Zcash. Zcash core developer Sean Bowe stated that the proposal has received support from major participants across the Zcash ecosystem.

Zcash's Ironwood mainnet activation height has been set and tagged! All of the major organizations are committed to activation of NU6.3 at height 3428143, which is approximately July 28th at 8AM EST.

— Sean Bowe (@ebfull) July 9, 2026 The upgrade follows the discovery of a critical vulnerability in the Orchard shielded pool in May. According to the Zcash development team, the flaw could theoretically have allowed counterfeit ZEC to enter circulation without being detected, although no such exploitation was reported.

As part of Ironwood, developers will permanently retire the Orchard pool and prevent any new transactions from entering it. A redesigned shielded pool will replace it with stronger security measures, including formal verification, external security audits and quantum-resistant note designs intended to strengthen supply integrity and improve confidence in private transactions.

At the same time, improving conditions across the digital asset market have added another layer of support. Bitcoin’s recovery above $64,000 has encouraged renewed buying across altcoins, while Ether has continued moving toward its 50-day moving average near $1,800. XRP has also held support around $1.09, helping sustain positive sentiment ahead of the Zcash network upgrade.

Technical indicators continue to favor buyers Growing participation in the futures market has reinforced the recent advance. Derivatives data shows trading volume jumped 49% to $1.98 billion, while open interest climbed 27.32% to $1.02 billion, indicating traders have continued opening new leveraged positions before the July activation.

On the technical side, ZEC has reclaimed several important resistance levels after recovering from roughly $368 in late June. The 4-hour chart shows the price moving above both the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement level at $459.71 and the 78.6% level at $484.63, leaving the recent swing high as the next obstacle.

Zcash 4-hour price chart — July 11 | Source: crypto.news Momentum indicators continue to support the bullish structure. The 4-hour MACD remains in positive territory with the MACD line holding above the signal line, while the RSI sits near 65, suggesting buying strength remains intact without entering deeply overbought territory.

The daily chart also shows the Aroon Up indicator at 100% and Aroon Down near 14%, a combination that typically signals a strong prevailing uptrend. Even so, ZEC continues trading just below the Supertrend resistance around $516, making that zone an important hurdle before buyers can attempt another leg higher.

Zcash daily price chart — July 10 | Source: crypto.news Commenting on the latest setup, crypto analyst Ardi noted that a decisive move above $510 would invalidate the current local swing resistance and could increase the probability of a rally toward $540.

$ZEC

Still hunting its continuation into $540.

If we take out the local swing invalidation at $510, then it's very likely $540 gets met.

And then if both clear, everyone who counted ZEC out is about to be very confused when they see the price action to comes after it.

I'm… pic.twitter.com/5vZw05h5KM

— Ardi (@ArdiNSC) July 10, 2026 While the analyst outlined that bullish scenario, the rapid increase in open interest also indicates leveraged positioning has become more crowded, leaving ZEC vulnerable to sharper price swings if momentum weakens near resistance. 

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Aave V3 On zkSync Era Gives DeFi Lending Another Push Into ZK Rollups is the kind of crypto story that looks simple at headline level but becomes more useful once you place it inside the wider market backdrop. Aave’s expansion strategy is a good lens for the broader DeFi market: liquidity follows users, but users also follow trusted liquidity venues.

The reason it deserves attention today is not that one announcement or filing magically changes the whole market. It is that the update adds another data point to a sector still trying to work out where capital, users, and regulation are actually moving.

For more details, visit the official Governance platform.

TL;DR Aave DAO approved steps to deploy Aave V3 pools on zkSync Era.The move would bring more lending liquidity into a ZK-rollup environment.It shows major DeFi protocols are still expanding across scaling networks. What The Governance Move Changes Aave V3 deployments give users familiar lending and borrowing tools on new networks.

zkSync Era offers a scaling environment built around zero-knowledge rollup technology.

DeFi is in a more mature phase now. The market is less impressed by vague promises and more interested in where liquidity actually goes, which networks get deployments, and which governance decisions can change usage. That makes protocol-level votes and launches worth watching.

Why DeFi Liquidity Keeps Spreading The DAO approval process also shows how major DeFi protocols are still using governance to decide where liquidity should go next.

The question is whether these moves create practical depth. More chains, more pools, and more governance proposals only matter if users find better pricing, easier access, or stronger risk controls.

For NewsBTC readers, the practical takeaway is to avoid treating this as an isolated headline. The stronger read is to connect it with the current market environment: liquidity is still selective, regulatory pressure has not disappeared, and the projects that keep shipping useful updates are the ones most likely to hold attention when the cycle gets noisy.

That does not mean the story should be stretched beyond what the source supports. The cleaner approach is to keep the facts tight, explain the mechanism, and show readers why it may matter if follow-up data confirms the same direction over the next few sessions.

In other words, this is a development to watch rather than a guaranteed turning point. Crypto moves quickly, but the useful signals are usually the ones that still make sense after the first reaction fades.

The important thing for readers is context. A single development rarely defines the market on its own, but a series of source-backed updates can show where momentum is building. That is why this article keeps the focus on the specific mechanism in play, the source behind it, and the reason traders or builders may care today.

This article is based on information from governance.aave.com.

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

Temp check would extend the fee switch to Uniswap's newest architecture, drawing an early warning that the move "risks killing the protocol."

Uniswap Labs on July 7 proposed activating protocol fees on a subset of Uniswap v4 pools, extending the fee rollout that DAO voters approved under the UNIfication package to the exchange's newest and most flexible pool architecture.

The temperature check went to a five-day Snapshot vote running July 7-12, with an onchain vote scheduled to begin the week of July 13. Because Uniswap's GovernorBravo contract caps proposals at 10 actions, Uniswap Labs said two onchain votes will be posted in parallel to cover all the chains involved.

UNI is up 6.8% to $3.57 in the past 24 hrs, giving Uniswap a market capitalization of $2.2 billion, according to CoinGecko, while ETH is up almost 3%. The token remains down more than 90% from its May 2021 record of about $44.92, though it had climbed more than 40% over the past month amid the UNIfication burns and Uniswap's expansion onto new venues.

UNIfication RolloutThe proposal follows the UNIfication overhaul, which DAO members passed in December with near-unanimous support and which turned on protocol fees and directed them toward burning UNI. It builds on four earlier fee proposals, numbered #93 through #96, and uses the same expedited governance track those proposals established.

Protocol fees are now live across all v2 and v3 pools on 11 chains: Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Celo, OP Mainnet, Soneium, X Layer, Worldchain, Zora, BNB Chain and Polygon. Uniswap Labs said the protocol set a record last month, citing the UNIBurnBot account's report that 186,000 UNI were burned in a single day.

A New Fee System for v4v4's design forced a different approach. Where v2 pools carry a single static fee tier and v3 pools carry several, v4's hooks allow potentially unlimited fee tiers, and a pool's fee can change from one block to the next. Setting a fee on each pool individually is not workable at that scale.

To handle it, the proposal introduces a V4 Fee Controller split across two contracts. A V4FeePolicy contract computes the fee for any pool from rules that governance defines, and can be swapped out if the logic needs to change. A V4FeeAdapter contract enforces any per-pool overrides governance has set, otherwise applies the policy's fee, pushes it to the pool and routes the proceeds to a TokenJar contract on each chain. The policy sorts each pool into a "family" based on its characteristics, then resolves the fee from the most specific applicable rule down to a global default. The contracts are published in Uniswap's protocol-fees repository.

The temp check would switch on fees for three families: static fee pools without hooks, pools launched through Continuous Clearing Auctions, and aggregator hook pools that route external liquidity into v4. Static and CCA pools follow a curve pegged to a proportion of each pool's LP fee. Aggregator hooks carry a flat fee with a 25x multiplier that lifts the cap to 250 basis points, set at a 10 bps family default and 3 bps for select stable pairs on most chains, and 3 bps and 1 bps respectively on Base. Uniswap Labs stressed the proposal does not enable fees on any v4 pools outside those families. As with v2 and v3, collected fees fund UNI burns, with tokens accumulated on L2s and alternative L1s bridged back to Ethereum and sent to the 0xdead address.

LP PushbackThe proposal drew immediate opposition from Guillaume Lambert, founder of the options protocol Panoptic, who disclosed he had voted "Abstain" on UNIfication and argued the fee switch should never touch v4.

"Turning on the v4 fee switch risks killing the protocol," Lambert wrote, contending that liquidity providers are "structurally short convexity" and, by his analysis, already earn less than the volatility they take on. Taxing v4 pools without compensating LPs, he said, would leave them "nowhere to go except to other AMMs/UniV3-forks." He said he could only support the move if LPs were directly compensated with sustained UNI incentives running "practically forever until organic activity returns."

Not all early feedback was critical. Forum participant Abel189 backed the proposal, calling a deterministic, on-chain fee policy "a more scalable approach than configuring individual pools one by one" and praising the gradual rollout across specific families.

Yes, but in a narrow and practical way. Hyundai Card, the credit card arm of Hyundai Motor Group, has run a real cross-border payment on the Avalanche blockchain, moving money between two of the automaker's overseas units with USDT. This was not a car tokenized on chain or a flashy corporate partnership. It was a live intercompany transfer that settled in about seven minutes, against the three to four hours a bank wire usually takes on the same route.

What did Hyundai Card actually do?On July 9, the company said it completed its first proof of concept for stablecoin cross-border remittance. Hyundai Motor America converted $20,000 into USDT, sent it across Avalanche to Hyundai Motor Mexico, and converted it back into dollars there. The full process, including transfer and verification, averaged about seven minutes.

What sets it apart is that this was real money running through real books. The company reviewed accounting, tax, legal and internal control requirements before moving the funds, so the payment passed through actual corporate finance processes. According to Hyundai Card, the point was to show it had moved beyond a simple technical test and built something ready for real use. It also called this the first stablecoin cross-border transfer PoC by a Korean card company.

The pilot brought together three main players:

Tether supplied USDT, the dollar-pegged stablecoin used for the transfer.Avalanche provided the blockchain rails, with sub-second finality and low fees.Axiym, a Swiss-regulated payments firm, handled the settlement infrastructure that connected everything.Why does this matter for Avalanche?It is a rare look at a major global automaker moving its own treasury money on $AVAX rails. This is enterprise cross-border payments, the exact use case Avalanche (@avax) has spent the past year positioning itself for.

Axiym (@AxiymFinance) is the piece that makes it work. It runs a liquidity-as-a-service model on Avalanche, allowing licensed money service businesses to access capital on demand, rather than pre-funding accounts in every country. That pre-funding problem is one of the biggest hidden costs in cross-border payments. Axiym has processed more than $1.4 billion in volume on Avalanche to date, and it is a founding member of Avalanche's broader payments push.

How the Hyundai pilot fits a bigger planThe Hyundai test does not stand alone. On June 18, the Avalanche Foundation launched the Avalanche Payments Collective, a group of 28 organizations building payment infrastructure on the network. Founding members include Franklin Templeton, VanEck, Paxos, Anchorage Digital, Ethena, Rain, and Axiym.

Together the members support payment flows across more than 150 countries, 96 currencies and roughly 22 billion payout endpoints spanning bank accounts, cards, and mobile wallets. The collective covers settlement, stablecoins, treasury, foreign exchange, custody, and payouts. The Hyundai pilot, run through collective member Axiym, is a live example of what that ecosystem is built to do.

What comes next?Hyundai (@HMGnewsroom) is not stopping at the US to Mexico route. A second pilot is set for later in July among Hyundai Motor's European subsidiaries. That test will move real money in local currencies beyond the dollar and measure whether stablecoin transfers cut foreign exchange costs against traditional banking. Two new partners join for that phase: Circle, the issuer of USDC, and Visa.

If it works, Hyundai Card said it will look at using stablecoins for settlement and fund transfers across the group's units worldwide.

There is a catch worth watching. Korea's own rules have not caught up. Authorities have moved to keep dollar-backed stablecoins like $USDT and $USDC out of the scope of corporate digital-asset activity. On top of that, the country's Foreign Exchange Transactions Act does not recognize stablecoins as a legal means of cross-border payment, and the Bank of Korea has leaned toward a central bank digital currency over private stablecoins. So one of Korea's largest conglomerates has now built and tested the compliance framework to move money on Avalanche, while its home regulators still have not made room for it.

Sources:

The Korea Herald reported the pilot details and the Hyundai Card official's statement on completing preparations for real-world use.The Korea Times framed the test as the first applied to an actual intercompany settlement at a major multinational.The Block covered the proof of concept from Hyundai Card's press release, including the second PoC with Visa and Circle.Crypto Briefing detailed the planned European expansion and its multi-currency, FX-cost focus.Avalanche Foundation announced the Avalanche Payments Collective and Axiym's $1.4 billion in processed volume.

In brief AVAX One regained compliance with Nasdaq's $1.00 minimum bid price rule after 10 straight days above threshold. The crypto treasury company rose back above the minimum level thanks to a 1-for-12 reverse stock split in June. Interim CEO Pete Wylie says the company is now focused on growth and profitability. AVAX One Technology, a crypto treasury firm that holds Avalanche (AVAX), announced Thursday that it has regained compliance with Nasdaq's minimum bid price requirement, closing out a listing issue that had put the company under scrutiny ahead of last month’s reverse stock split.

The West Palm Beach, Florida-based company said Nasdaq confirmed it met Listing Rule 5550(a)(2), which requires a stock's closing bid price to stay at or above $1.00 per share. Nasdaq found that AVAX One's shares closed above that threshold for 10 consecutive trading days, from June 15 through June 29, satisfying the requirement and closing the matter.

AVAX One conducted a 1-for-12 reverse stock split on June 15 to meet the compliance requirement, cutting its supply from over 92.3 million shares to just under 7.7 million shares.

"We are pleased to have regained compliance with Nasdaq's minimum bid price requirement and appreciate the trust our shareholders have placed in us throughout this process," said AVAX One Interim CEO Pete Wylie, in a statement. "With this matter now closed, we are intently focused on executing on our growth and profitability initiatives. We are moving ahead across all fronts."

Wylie shifted from chief operating officer into the role of interim CEO last week following the departure of previous CEO Jolie Kahn. The board is searching for a permanent chief executive to take over the role.

AVAX One said it’s built around three business lines: an Avalanche digital asset treasury, Bitcoin mining, and artificial intelligence infrastructure. AVAX One holds roughly 14 million AVAX tokens—valued near $95 million—staked at an approximate 6% net yield, and runs Bitcoin mining operations in Alberta, Canada, and Ohio that generate cash flow.

The company also said it is exploring AI infrastructure projects aimed at a niche it calls the "missing middle"—sites in the 5 to 50 megawatt range meant to serve enterprise inference, edge computing, and regulated industries that larger hyperscale data centers aren't designed to accommodate.

AVAX One is among a flood of crypto treasury firms that popped up in 2025, following the example of original Bitcoin treasury firm, Strategy (previously MicroStrategy). However, with declining crypto prices since last fall, many of these firms are now substantially underwater on their investments and/or have market caps valued beneath their crypto holdings.

The Avalanche-focused firm’s market cap sits around $40.5 million, well below the value of its crypto assets. Avax One (AVX) shares finished the day up about 3.6% at a price of $5.43, down 70% since the start of the year.

The Avalanche network’s native AVAX token was recently trading at $6.71, up more than 4% on the day but down 50% since the start of 2026 and 95% from its 2021 peak price of nearly $145.

Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.

Key Highlights AVAX is currently priced between $6 and $7 with a market capitalization hovering around $2.9 billion Moderate scenario projects AVAX reaching $80 to $150 driven by enterprise adoption and DeFi expansion Optimistic scenario envisions AVAX climbing to $300–$500 if institutional tokenization gains significant momentum Conservative scenario places AVAX between $15 and $30 should Ethereum and Solana dominate the market Weighted average price projection for 2031 stands at roughly $145 Avalanche positioned itself as a formidable challenger to Ethereum during the previous market cycle. The platform’s high-speed transactions, minimal transaction costs, and flexible subnet architecture attracted both developers and institutional players throughout the last bull run. While AVAX has retreated significantly from its historical peak, development activity on the network continues without interruption.

Avalanche (AVAX) Price Currently, AVAX fluctuates in the $6 to $7 range, translating to a market valuation near $2.9 billion. This represents a substantial decline from its 2021 heights. Nevertheless, Avalanche has maintained its strategic focus on enterprise blockchain solutions, tokenization of real-world assets, and institutional financial services.

A significant advantage for Avalanche lies in its expanding roster of institutional collaborators. The past twelve months have witnessed the introduction of AVAX-dedicated ETFs, CME futures contracts, and treasury management solutions. Major financial institutions including BlackRock and Apollo have investigated tokenization initiatives on Avalanche’s infrastructure, lending considerable legitimacy to the network within traditional finance circles.

Moderate Projection: $80 To $150 Range The most probable trajectory positions Avalanche as a preferred blockchain infrastructure for enterprise applications. The platform’s adaptable Layer 1 architecture enables corporations, governmental entities, and financial institutions to construct dedicated blockchain environments leveraging Avalanche’s underlying technology.

Should the tokenized asset sector continue its expansion trajectory, Avalanche stands strategically positioned to capture meaningful market share. A valuation between $80 and $150 would correspond to a market capitalization spanning $37 billion to $70 billion. This pathway depends on consistent progress across DeFi protocols, gaming platforms, and institutional deployment.

Conservative Outlook And Competitive Pressures The primary challenge confronting AVAX stems from intense marketplace competition. Ethereum maintains its leadership position in institutional asset tokenization. Solana has demonstrated remarkable growth in retail adoption, stablecoin usage, and decentralized application development.

Avalanche must also demonstrate more robust on-chain engagement metrics. Network fee generation and revenue remain relatively modest when benchmarked against certain competitors. Should institutional players favor alternative platforms, AVAX could remain range-bound between $15 and $30 through the end of 2031.

The optimistic scenario projects AVAX reaching $300 to $500. Achieving this outcome demands that Avalanche emerge as a leading platform for tokenized financial products, with banking institutions and asset management firms deploying solutions at institutional scale. This would necessitate a market capitalization between $140 billion and $235 billion.

Based on probability-weighted analysis across all three scenarios, the five-year price target approximates $145 by 2031.

Bitwise, one of the largest companies in the cryptocurrency sector, has made changes to its funding.

Accordingly, Bitwise added the altcoins HYPE and XLM to its Bitwise 10 Crypto Index ETF (BITW), the world’s largest crypto index fund, while removing DOT and AVAX.

With this move, Bitwise highlighted the recent shift in institutional investors’ preferences for digital assets.

As part of the latest changes, Hyperliquid (HYPE) and Stellar (XLM) were added to the index, while Polkadot and Avalanche were removed from the portfolio.

Undoubtedly, the most notable addition to Bitwise’s portfolio was Hyperliquid. Hyperliquid delivered a strong performance in the first half of 2026, achieving $1.34 trillion in transaction volume and $320 million in protocol revenue.

HYPE gained approximately 165% in value during the same period, becoming one of the strongest performing projects and entering the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization.

Following the rebalancing, HYPE now holds approximately 0.95% of the fund’s weighting, while Bitcoin remains the ETF’s largest asset by far, with a weighting of 77.54%, despite the changes.

Ethereum maintains its second place with a portfolio weighting of 13.04%, while XRP is represented at 4.21%, Solana at 2.78%, HYPE at 0.95%, Cardano at 0.39%, Stellar at 0.38%, Chainlink at 0.34%, Litecoin at 0.21%, and Sui at 0.17%.

Finally, Polkadot and Avalanche were the two projects removed from the index, with Bitwise explaining that both crypto assets failed to meet the required criteria in terms of market capitalization and index weighting.

*This is not investment advice.

Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!

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.

Hyundai Card, the financial arm of Hyundai Motor Group, just sent $20,000 in USDT across the US-Mexico border on the Avalanche blockchain. The whole thing took about seven minutes. A traditional bank wire for the same transfer? Three to four hours, minimum.

The proof-of-concept, completed on July 9, moved actual funds between Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor Mexico. Not test tokens, not sandbox money, not a simulation. Real dollars, real stablecoin, real settlement.

How the pilot worked The transaction was a collaboration between Hyundai Card, Tether, Ava Labs (the team behind Avalanche), and Axiym, a blockchain payments firm. Each party played a distinct role in making the intercompany settlement function end-to-end on-chain.

Advertisement

The $20,000 amount is modest by corporate treasury standards, obviously. But proof-of-concept pilots aren’t about size. They’re about proving the plumbing works before you turn up the water pressure.

Hyundai Card is reportedly preparing a second trial for later in July 2026, this time potentially involving USDC rather than USDT, with Visa as a partner. That European-focused pilot would expand the blockchain payment exploration to a second stablecoin and a second major financial infrastructure partner.

Why a car company is moving stablecoins The fact that Hyundai chose to use actual funds rather than running a simulated test is the detail worth paying attention to. Simulations prove technology works in theory. Live pilots prove it works in the messy reality of compliance requirements, KYC obligations, and regulatory frameworks that govern real money movement.

Avalanche’s selection as the settlement layer is also notable. The Layer 1 blockchain has been positioning itself as enterprise-friendly infrastructure, and landing a pilot with one of the world’s largest automakers is a significant validation of that strategy.

Tether’s involvement adds another data point to USDT’s growing presence in institutional use cases. The stablecoin has historically been associated more with crypto-native trading than corporate finance, but pilots like this one suggest that narrative is shifting.

What this means for investors When a company with Hyundai Motor Group’s scale and brand recognition publicly tests stablecoin-based treasury operations, it gives permission to every other corporate treasurer who’s been quietly curious about blockchain payments. The follow-up pilot involving USDC and Visa would only amplify that effect, bringing two of the most recognizable names in traditional finance and regulated stablecoins into the conversation.

The risk to watch is regulatory. Cross-border stablecoin transfers between corporate entities touch multiple jurisdictions, each with their own rules about money transmission, securities classification, and tax reporting. What works cleanly between the US and Mexico may face different hurdles in Europe, Asia, or other regions where Hyundai operates. The European pilot planned for later this month will be an important test of whether the model scales across regulatory environments.

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

Erling Haaland’s name is fueling a wave of speculative Solana meme coins. A Viking-themed Google Easter egg linked to Norway’s World Cup quarterfinal against England sent the phenomenon viral this week.

Developers seized the moment. They launched short-lived meme coins such as $RO and $VIKINGROW on Solana, while an Erling Haaland branded token also drew fresh trader attention alongside the surge in searches.

Viral Google Feature Fuels Meme coin FrenzyThe Google Easter egg appeared as Norway prepared to face England in Friday’s quarterfinal. The animation showed a Nordic helmet graphic when users searched Haaland’s name directly. It drew global search traffic toward the striker within hours.

One thing to do today… search my name on Google 😉

— Erling Haaland (@Erling) July 9, 2026 Anonymous developers on Solana moved fast. They deployed tokens like $RO and $VIKINGROW to capture retail curiosity. These coins carry no utility or team affiliation. However, their launch timing tracks closely with Haaland’s rising search volume.

Historically, similar spikes have followed other viral football moments earlier in the tournament. BeInCrypto has observed a similar pattern with other football meme coin surges tied to this year’s event.

Speculative Meme coins Ride the WaveRetail traders have piled into these instruments despite thin liquidity. Few carry any verified link to Haaland himself. Coinbase data shows the Erling Haaland meme coin trading near $0.00037 on Solana. Its market cap sits around $370,000, a fraction of mainstream crypto assets.

HAALAND Price Performance. Source: CoinbaseThe meme coin slid nearly 16% over the past day. That drop reflects the volatility common among speculative launches. Therefore, some analysts view the token less as an investment and more as a short-term cultural bet.

Meanwhile, other traders continue chasing World Cup tokens trending on decentralized exchanges regardless of the risk. Established fan tokens during knockouts have shown comparatively steadier price action.

Sorare Digital Collectibles Gain From Real GoalsAway from meme coins, Haaland’s official non-fungible token (NFT) cards are climbing in value on the blockchain fantasy platform Sorare. His seven goals through the tournament have lifted demand among fantasy managers. These managers prize real performance data over pure speculation.

In addition, Sorare’s licensing deals with major leagues make its digital cards easier to value than untested meme coins.

The celebrity meme coin sector, however, carries its own warning signs. The ongoing Iggy Azalea lawsuit centers on misleading token promotion tied to a celebrity’s name.

FIFA’s own rulings are also reshaping crypto markets this tournament. A recent Polymarket eligibility decision shows how tournament outcomes now move prediction markets, too.

Whether the Haaland-branded meme coin outlasts the World Cup hype remains uncertain. The divergence between speculative Solana tokens and verified digital collectibles already hints at which trend traders may trust longer.