Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz has linked Bitcoin’s latest price drop to growing concern around Strategy, the company formerly known as MicroStrategy.

Summary

Novogratz says Strategy stress has become a core reason behind Bitcoin’s latest confidence shock. Weak crypto demand and strong-dollar policy comments added macro pressure as traders watched support levels. Related Strategy reports show STRC pressure, dividend costs, and cash reserves remain market concerns. Speaking on an All Things Markets episode, Novogratz said the sell-off reflects a mix of Strategy pressure, weak crypto sentiment, and macro stress.

Strategy pressure takes center stage Novogratz said the current Bitcoin weakness is tied to what he called a “MicroStrategy-led breakdown in confidence.” He said the problem is not only Bitcoin’s price, but also investor concern around Strategy’s funding model.

Mike Novogratz (@novogratz) is sounding the alarm this week. If the ultra-wealthy don't figure out a way to share the gains from AI, the pitchforks are coming, and history tells us exactly what that looks like. We're breaking down the widening wealth gap, Alan Greenspan's lasting… pic.twitter.com/egwAeghtUn

— Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) June 27, 2026 Strategy remains the largest public corporate holder of Bitcoin. Its stock and preferred securities have become a key part of how traders judge risk across the wider Bitcoin market.

The comments follow weeks of debate over Strategy’s capital structure. As previously reported, the company’s Bitcoin flywheel has come under pressure as its stock traded below the value of its Bitcoin holdings.

That shift matters because Strategy used its stock premium for years to raise capital and buy more Bitcoin. When that premium weakens, raising fresh capital becomes harder and market confidence can fade.

STRC weakness adds to market concern Novogratz also pointed to poor trading in Strategy’s preferred products. He said “the Saylor thing is real” and noted that the company’s perpetuals were trading weakly.

The pressure centers on STRC, Strategy’s preferred stock product. STRC was designed to trade close to $100, but market stress has pushed it below that level at several points.

As previously reported, CryptoQuant said Strategy’s annual dividend obligations had risen to about $1.2 billion. The firm also said dividend coverage had dropped to about 14 months as cash reserves declined.

That warning added to earlier concerns after Strategy sold 32 BTC in late May. The sale raised about $2.5 million and marked the company’s first reported Bitcoin sale since December 2022.

Macro pressure weighs on Bitcoin Novogratz also cited macro policy as another reason for Bitcoin’s weak price action. He pointed to hawkish central bank signals and stronger support for the U.S. dollar.

He said “strong dollar is weak Bitcoin.” His view is that a stronger dollar can reduce demand for risk assets, including Bitcoin, during periods of market stress.

That view fits with the wider market mood. Bitcoin has also faced pressure from ETF outflows, weaker liquidity, and cautious options positioning.

Aspreviously reported, ETF flows and Strategy concerns have weighed on trader sentiment. Bearish exposure near the $60,000 area also showed that traders were preparing for more downside risk.

Bitcoin faces key support test Novogratz said the $59,000 to $60,000 zone is now important for Bitcoin. He warned that if this level fails, the market could open a path toward $45,000.

He also said the next move remains hard to call. In his words, the chance of a deeper drop or recovery is “50/50” because the setup is complicated.

The comments show how closely traders now watch Strategy as part of the Bitcoin market. The company’s balance sheet, STRC performance, and cash position have become market signals.

For now, Bitcoin’s next test sits near the same level Novogratz named. A hold above the $59,000 to $60,000 area could calm traders, while a break below it may bring more selling pressure.

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

Bitcoin is trading near $60,000 after a volatile week that pushed the largest cryptocurrency to its lowest level since late 2024. 

Summary

Bitcoin is holding near $60,000 despite Middle East tension and renewed pressure from Strategy concerns. Analysts say a break above $66,000 could revive momentum, while $58,000 remains key support. On-chain data shows weaker short-term holder dominance, a structure often seen near accumulation zones. The price has stayed calm through the weekend, even as new tension in the Middle East tested risk appetite across global markets.

BTC had opened the previous business week with strength, rising to about $65,500 after reclaiming support near $64,000. That move failed to hold. Sellers later pushed the asset below $62,400, then toward $59,000, before another drop sent Bitcoin near $58,000.

Bitcoin steadies after sharp weekly sell-off Bitcoin’s latest price action shows a market trying to hold a base after a fast decline. BTC now trades around the $60,000 area, with bulls defending the zone after repeated tests below that mark.

The weekend calm stands out because the U.S. and Iran exchanged fresh blame over the broken ceasefire. Earlier this month, Bitcoin had climbed above $65,500 after a U.S.-Iran deal eased oil and inflation fears across markets.

That relief rally did not last. Bitcoin soon lost strength as traders returned to concerns around liquidity, ETF flows, and Strategy-related risk.

The current setup leaves BTC stuck between two near-term levels. A move below $58,000 could invite more selling, while a clean recovery above $64,000 to $66,000 may show that buyers are regaining control.

Strategy fears remain a market pressure point One of the main pressure points remains Strategy, the company formerly known as MicroStrategy. Growing concern around its capital structure has affected Bitcoin sentiment because the firm remains the largest corporate holder of BTC.

As previously reported, Bitcoin fell below $60,000 for the second time in June as liquidations topped $850 million. Strategy shares also dropped sharply as traders watched the company’s stock, preferred shares, and Bitcoin treasury.

Another report said Strategy’s Bitcoin flywheel has started to work in reverse. The company once used a stock premium to raise capital and buy more BTC, but weaker market pricing now makes that model harder to sustain.

CryptoQuant has also urged Strategy to pause Bitcoin purchases and rebuild cash reserves. The firm said dividend coverage tied to STRC had fallen to about 14 months as cash reserves declined.

This pressure does not mean Strategy must sell Bitcoin now. Still, the market is watching whether further stress in STRC or MSTR could create more fear around BTC.

Analysts split on breakout or deeper chop Crypto analyst Market Watcher said Bitcoin’s weekly structure remains clear. The analyst pointed to a downtrend from the July and August highs near $70,000 and $67,000 and said a break of that line would make them more willing to deploy capital.

$BTC (1W)

break of downtrend (July ~70k, august ~67k): more actively looking to scale capital into positions while trading the breakout momentum

indecisive summer chop (~59k – ~66k): doing mostly nothing, day trading whats there

break of main trend (~ 58k): popcorn and TL on… pic.twitter.com/XB5uU0sICt

— Market Watcher (@watchingmarkets) June 28, 2026 The same analyst described the current zone as “indecisive summer chop” between about $59,000 and $66,000. That range matches the current market, where BTC has not broken down fully but has also failed to reclaim lost momentum.

Market Watcher said a break of the main trend near $58,000 would change the setup. The analyst also compared the current downtrend to the December 2022 and January 2023 breakout, which later started a major BTC uptrend.

EGRAG CRYPTO took a longer view and focused on Bitcoin’s 12-month cycle. The analyst said the usual rhythm has been three years up and one year down, but this cycle may be different if 2026 closes as a red yearly candle.

EGRAG said the four-year cycle remains intact for now, but added that structure matters more than hope. That view keeps attention on the yearly close and whether Bitcoin can regain a stronger long-term pattern.

#BTC – The 12M Cycle Is Flashing Something Different 👀

The historical $BTC rhythm has been clear:
🔸3 years UP → 1 year DOWN
🔸3 years UP → 1 year DOWN
🔸3 years UP → 1 year DOWN

But this cycle is different so far:
🔸2 years UP → and now potentially 2 years DOWN
🔸That is… pic.twitter.com/dczPLUMesG

— EGRAG CRYPTO (@egragcrypto) June 27, 2026 On-chain data points to possible reset CryptoQuant analyst Crazzyblockk said Bitcoin’s short-term holder realized dominance has fallen to 27.6%. The analyst said that places BTC inside a historical undervaluation zone where long-term holders control most realized capital.

In past cycles, market tops formed when short-term holders held most realized capital. That often showed heavy speculation and late-cycle buying.

Bitcoin’s short-term holder realized dominance, source: CryptoQuant analyst Crazzyblockk Bear markets have shown the opposite setup. Short-term holders realize losses, their share of realized capital falls, and long-term holders regain control.

The analyst said current data looks closer to past accumulation phases than cycle tops. However, they also warned that bottoms often form through a process, and another capitulation phase remains possible.

Another CryptoQuant analyst, Facundo Fama, pointed to long-term holder SOPR. The analyst said when LTH-SOPR moves near or below 1, long-term holders are selling coins at or near a loss.

The last time LTH-SOPR stayed below 1 on the monthly timeframe for more than three months was in October 2022, when BTC traded near $20,000. That data does not guarantee a bottom, but it shows that long-term holder stress has returned to a rare zone.

Bitcoin price outlook Bitcoin’s short-term outlook now depends on whether bulls can defend $58,000 and recover the $64,000 to $66,000 range. A close above that upper band could support a stronger recovery attempt.

A loss of $58,000 would weaken the current base and could expose lower areas as traders reduce risk. In that case, Bitcoin may revisit deeper support before building a new range.

For now, BTC is neither breaking down nor confirming a strong reversal. The market remains calm near $60,000, but that calm depends on support holding, Middle East risk staying contained, and Strategy-related fear easing.

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

Ripple settled a tokenized Treasury with JPMorgan in five seconds, expanded a stablecoin deal across Latin America, and powered remittances to 170 million people. The catch for XRP holders: the cash leg in deal after deal is RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar stablecoin, not XRP. Here is whether the token they hold is being quietly sidelined by the company built around it.

Summary

Ripple’s biggest recent wins, a five-second tokenized Treasury settlement with JPMorgan and Mastercard, a stablecoin expansion across Latin America, and a major remittance deal, increasingly use RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar stablecoin, as the cash leg rather than XRP. RLUSD crossed $1 billion in market value quickly and is becoming the settlement asset enterprises actually want, raising the question of whether it is taking the role XRP was built to play. The pattern reflects a real tension: Ripple the company keeps winning institutional deals, while XRP the token stays pinned near a dollar, beneath every major moving average. The bullish counterargument is that Ripple is the largest XRP holder with aligned incentives, that RLUSD and XRP serve different functions, and that ledger activity can still benefit XRP indirectly. For holders, the question is whether XRP’s value will accrue from network usage and catalysts like the CLARITY Act and ETF flows, or whether RLUSD will capture the settlement demand XRP was meant to capture. In June 2026, Ripple completed something that should have been a milestone for XRP. Working with JPMorgan, Mastercard, and the tokenization firm Ondo Finance, it settled the cross-border redemption of a tokenized U.S. Treasury fund across banks on the XRP Ledger, and the blockchain leg finalized in under five seconds, against the one to three business days the same transaction can take on traditional rails. It was a genuine showcase of what Ripple’s technology can do, the kind of institutional validation the XRP community has predicted for years.

NEW: JPMorgan, Mastercard, Ondo Finance and Ripple complete tokenized Treasury redemption test on XRP Ledger. Settlement took roughly 5 seconds compared to 3 to 5 business days on traditional rails pic.twitter.com/9Rkd3MkWF4

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) June 12, 2026 And yet there was a detail in it that has become the defining unease for XRP holders: the cash leg of that settlement used RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, not XRP. The same pattern has repeated across Ripple’s other recent wins. A partnership expanding stablecoin settlement across Latin America runs on a regulated peso-backed stablecoin issued on the XRP Ledger and integrated with Ripple’s infrastructure, while a major remittance deal reaching 170 million people uses RLUSD as the primary settlement asset. Deal after deal, Ripple keeps winning, and deal after deal, the asset doing the actual settling is increasingly a stablecoin, while XRP trades near a dollar and change as though none of it is happening.

This is the question that has moved to the center of the XRP story, and it is a fair and uncomfortable one: if every Ripple win runs on RLUSD rather than XRP, is the token being quietly sidelined by the very company built around it? The concern is not baseless, because it touches the oldest puzzle in the XRP thesis, the gap between Ripple’s corporate success and XRP’s token price, and gives it a specific, mechanical explanation. But it is also not the whole story, because there are real counterarguments about why RLUSD and XRP are not simply competitors, why Ripple’s incentives remain aligned with holders, and how ledger activity can still benefit the token.

This piece works through both sides honestly. It lays out the pattern of RLUSD showing up where holders expected XRP, explains what RLUSD is and why enterprises prefer it for settlement, examines whether the stablecoin is cannibalizing XRP’s intended role, presents the bullish case that the two assets are complementary, and arrives at a grounded view of what holders should actually take from it. The goal is neither to stoke the fear nor to dismiss it, but to give holders an accurate read on whether their token is being left behind.

The pattern: RLUSD where holders expected XRP Start with the pattern itself, because it is real and worth seeing clearly across the recent run of Ripple announcements. The flagship example is the tokenized Treasury settlement with JPMorgan, Mastercard, and Ondo Finance. For years, the XRP pitch held that cross-border institutional settlement was exactly what XRP was built for, the bridge asset that would let value move between currencies and institutions in seconds. When Ripple finally delivered a marquee demonstration of that capability, settling a tokenized Treasury redemption across borders and banks in under five seconds, the XRP Ledger provided the rails, but RLUSD provided the cash leg.

That detail matters because it changes what the event proved. It proved that the XRP Ledger can support serious institutional flows, with names that compliance departments recognize and a settlement speed legacy rails cannot match. But it did not prove that XRP the asset sits at the center of the payment, because the money leg moved through a stablecoin rather than the volatile token. As previously reported, Ripple’s tokenized Treasury settlement with JPMorgan showed that the ledger can win important business before the token captures meaningful demand.

The same shape recurs elsewhere. Ripple expanded a payments partnership in which a regulated peso-backed stablecoin is issued on the XRP Ledger and integrated into Ripple’s payment infrastructure to support enterprise stablecoin settlement across Latin America. Ripple also backed Flutterwave in a round that valued the African payments company at $3.2 billion, with RLUSD positioned for use across payment rails that reach a very large user base. In each case, the XRP Ledger and Ripple’s infrastructure become more relevant, but the settlement asset is a stablecoin.

Across these deals, the consistent feature is that the XRP Ledger, the blockchain Ripple built and that XRP is native to, is doing real and valuable work, but the asset moving through it as money is increasingly a stablecoin rather than XRP. This is what gives the holder concern its force: it is not a single anomalous deal but a repeated pattern in which Ripple’s institutional wins showcase the ledger and the company’s technology while routing the actual settlement value through RLUSD or another stablecoin. For holders who bought XRP on the thesis that institutional settlement demand would drive token demand, watching that settlement demand flow through a stablecoin instead is a legitimate cause for unease. The first honest step is simply to acknowledge that the pattern is real.

What RLUSD is and why enterprises prefer it To judge whether this pattern is a problem, you have to understand what RLUSD is and why enterprises keep choosing it, because the answer explains the dynamic without requiring any conspiracy against XRP. RLUSD is Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, a token designed to hold a steady value of $1, backed by reserves, and issued on the XRP Ledger and other chains. It crossed $1 billion in market value quickly after launch, a sign of real demand, and it has become the asset Ripple increasingly puts forward as the cash leg in its enterprise settlements.

The reason enterprises prefer a stablecoin for the money side of a transaction is straightforward and has nothing to do with any view about XRP. Businesses settling real-world value need price stability. When a company moves money across borders, it wants the amount it sends to equal the amount that arrives, with no exposure to price swings in between. XRP, like any freely traded cryptocurrency, fluctuates in price, which makes it difficult to use as the unit in which an enterprise wants to denominate and hold a settlement, even if it can still work as a bridge for moving value quickly.

A stablecoin solves this by holding a fixed dollar value, so the enterprise can settle in something that behaves like the dollars it already thinks in. This is why, across the industry and not just at Ripple, stablecoins have become the dominant on-chain settlement instrument: they combine the speed and programmability of crypto with the price stability that commerce requires. RLUSD is Ripple’s entry into that category, and its growing use in Ripple’s deals reflects the same market logic that has made stablecoins central everywhere. For readers who want the basics, how RLUSD holds its dollar peg is the starting point for understanding why enterprises gravitate toward it.

The same logic explains why exchange and liquidity integrations matter. When RLUSD is listed with XRP pairs and broader access, the stablecoin becomes easier to move, price, and route through the infrastructure Ripple wants enterprises to use. That helps Ripple’s payments stack, and it can deepen activity on the XRP Ledger, but it still does not mean every dollar of settlement creates direct XRP demand. The holder question is what remains for XRP once the stablecoin has taken the stable cash role.

Understanding this matters because it reframes the concern. RLUSD is not showing up in Ripple’s settlements simply because Ripple is trying to sideline XRP; it is showing up because enterprises asked for a stable settlement asset and Ripple built one to give them. That is a rational business decision for Ripple and a useful product decision for institutions. The harder question is whether that useful product decision narrows the value-accrual path that XRP holders were counting on.

Is RLUSD cannibalizing XRP’s role? This is the crux of the matter, and it deserves to be stated plainly: there is a real argument that RLUSD is taking the settlement role XRP was originally meant to play. The classic XRP thesis cast the token as the bridge asset for cross-border value transfer, the thing that would sit in the middle of international settlements, moving value between currencies in seconds and capturing demand as global payment volume flowed through it. Stablecoins complicate that thesis directly, because a dollar stablecoin can perform much of the cross-border settlement function that XRP was built for, moving value quickly and programmably while also offering the price stability XRP cannot. If enterprises can settle in RLUSD on the XRP Ledger, getting the speed of the ledger without the volatility of the token, then the specific demand driver that was supposed to accrue to XRP may instead accrue to the stablecoin.

This is the structural worry beneath the holder concern, and it is not easily waved away. The bull case for XRP has long depended on the idea that Ripple’s growing settlement business would translate into demand for the token, but if the settlement business increasingly runs on RLUSD, that translation weakens. Ripple’s institutional infrastructure could keep growing impressively, opening corridors and closing deals, while the value of that growth flows through stablecoins and fiat instead of driving XRP token demand. That would leave the familiar gap between corporate progress and token price not just intact but mechanically explained.

The token could end up as the rails, valuable to the system but not the asset that captures the economic value moving across it. This is the version of events that should genuinely concern holders, and it is why the RLUSD pattern is more than a cosmetic detail. It points to a possible future in which XRP’s network succeeds, Ripple thrives, RLUSD becomes a major settlement asset, and XRP the token still struggles to convert all of that activity into sustained demand because the demand has a stablecoin to flow into instead. That is also why the older question of XRP’s bridge-asset role needs to be revisited rather than repeated as if nothing has changed.

There is a broader parallel here with other infrastructure tokens. A network can be useful without its native token absorbing the full value of that usefulness, especially when users can interact with the network through stable assets, tokenized deposits, or application-level instruments. XRP holders have already seen this in miniature: the ledger gets institutional proof points, Ripple gets business wins, and XRP gets fees, reserves, or optional routing rather than obvious direct demand. Whether that is enough depends on scale, and that scale has not yet shown up in the price.

The bullish case: complementary, not competing The other side of this debate is serious and deserves a full hearing, because the framing of RLUSD versus XRP as a zero-sum contest may be too simple. The first counterargument is that RLUSD and XRP serve different functions and can coexist productively. A stablecoin is the cash leg, the stable unit in which value is denominated and held. XRP, in the bridge role, can still serve as the connective asset that moves value between different currencies and stablecoins, the neutral intermediary in a world where many different fiat-backed stablecoins exist and need to be exchanged.

In this view, a proliferation of stablecoins actually increases the need for a neutral bridge asset to move between them, and XRP could capture that role precisely because it is not tied to any single currency. RLUSD handles the dollar leg, MXNB handles the peso leg, and other stablecoins can handle other currencies or jurisdictions. XRP can then sit between those assets when liquidity is fragmented, routing value across the ledger’s exchange and payments infrastructure. That is a more modest thesis than “XRP becomes the cash leg of global settlement,” but it is not an irrelevant one.

The second counterargument concerns incentives. Ripple is the largest single holder of XRP, which means the company has a powerful, built-in economic reason to drive the token’s value and usage that does not depend on any promise. Every corridor Ripple opens, every institution it onboards, and every unit of activity it brings to the XRP Ledger can eventually matter to XRP if that activity creates fees, reserves, routing, liquidity depth, or bridge demand. From this angle, Ripple building a successful stablecoin is not a betrayal of XRP holders but an expansion of the ecosystem XRP sits inside.

Even RLUSD, issued on the XRP Ledger, can support XRP indirectly by increasing ledger activity and making the network more useful to institutions. That is the strongest version of the complementary thesis: stablecoins bring institutions onto the rail, and once they are there, XRP has more chances to serve as liquidity, routing, or bridge infrastructure. The weakness is timing and certainty. Indirect value can take years to show up, and investors do not price “maybe someday” the same way they price direct, measurable demand today.

The third point is that XRP’s strongest catalysts were never really about being the settlement cash leg in the first place. The most powerful drivers of XRP’s potential value, regulatory clarity from the CLARITY Act, compounding ETF inflows, and broad adoption of the ledger, operate largely independent of whether RLUSD or XRP is the cash leg in any given deal. On this reading, holders fixating only on the RLUSD-versus-XRP question are watching one important variable, but not the only variable. The better question is whether the total system being built around XRP Ledger becomes large enough that XRP’s indirect roles finally matter.

The value-accrual problem at the heart of it Step back and the RLUSD debate is really a specific instance of the deepest question in the entire XRP story, the one that has defined the token through 2026: how, exactly, does value accrue to XRP? A blockchain network can succeed enormously while the token native to it struggles if the activity on the network does not translate into sustained demand for the token. This is the puzzle XRP holders have lived with all year, watching Ripple rack up settlements, stablecoin launches, banking moves, and enterprise deals while the token stayed pinned near a dollar beneath every major moving average. The RLUSD pattern sharpens this puzzle by identifying a concrete reason the translation might be failing.

If the settlement value that was supposed to flow into XRP flows into RLUSD instead, then network success and token demand decouple in exactly the way the price action suggests. That is why the issue is bigger than one JPMorgan test or one Flutterwave deal. It is about whether XRP captures the economic value of the ledger it secures and powers, or whether it becomes a necessary but low-fee native asset beneath higher-value instruments. In previous coverage, this was the same basic dilemma behind the company-versus-token gap up close: Ripple can become more valuable without XRP necessarily moving in lockstep.

The honest framing is that XRP’s range-bound behavior is less a mystery than a predictable feature of how value accrues, or fails to accrue, to a token whose network can succeed without it. The waiting ends only when usage and token demand finally converge, and that convergence requires specific things to happen. Settlement volume needs to become large enough that fees, reserves, routing, and ecosystem use begin to matter against the enormous XRP supply locked in escrow. ETF flows also need to compound instead of trickle, while a regulatory catalyst like the CLARITY Act needs to cross the line to pull institutional money off the sidelines.

RLUSD’s rise is relevant because it bears on the first of those channels, the settlement-volume channel, by raising the possibility that volume accrues to the stablecoin instead of the token. But it is only one of several channels, and the others, ETF demand and regulatory clarity, could drive XRP regardless of what settles Ripple’s deals. That is why the catalyst that drives XRP regardless still matters to holders even if RLUSD keeps winning the cash-leg role. The realistic synthesis is that the RLUSD pattern is a genuine headwind to one specific version of the XRP value-accrual thesis, the bridge-asset-settlement version, while leaving the regulatory-unlock and ETF-demand versions largely intact.

What holders should take from it So should XRP holders worry about RLUSD, and if so, how much? The grounded answer is that the concern is legitimate but should be held in proportion, neither dismissed nor allowed to dominate. The legitimate part is that RLUSD genuinely does weaken the specific thesis that institutional settlement demand would flow into XRP. In deal after deal, that demand is flowing into the stablecoin instead, and holders who bought XRP primarily on the bridge-asset-settlement story should update on that evidence instead of ignoring it.

If your entire case for XRP rested on the idea that Ripple’s settlement business would mechanically drive token demand, the RLUSD pattern is a real challenge to that case and worth taking seriously. Pretending the token is the cash leg when it increasingly is not would be wishful thinking. The question is no longer whether Ripple is winning, because it clearly is. The question is whether XRP captures enough of those wins to justify the token thesis on its own terms.

The proportion part is that the bridge-asset-settlement story was never the only pillar of the XRP thesis, and arguably not even the strongest one. The catalysts most capable of moving XRP, statutory clarity from the CLARITY Act and the institutional ETF demand it could unlock, operate largely independent of whether RLUSD or XRP settles any given transaction. Ripple’s status as the largest XRP holder also keeps its incentives aligned with the token even as it builds RLUSD. The stablecoin may be the product enterprises want now, but XRP remains the native asset inside the ecosystem those enterprises are entering.

The most useful posture for a holder is therefore to treat the RLUSD pattern as important information about where one channel of demand is going, while keeping attention on the channels that matter more: regulatory progress, ETF flows, and whether ledger activity overall, RLUSD included, grows large enough to support the token through fees, reserves, routing, and ecosystem demand. For price-focused readers, what the gap means for price is the practical version of the same question. If XRP keeps failing to convert Ripple’s wins into token demand, the chart will continue to reflect that. If regulatory clarity, ETF inflows, and ledger usage finally converge, RLUSD may look less like a replacement and more like the stablecoin that helped bring institutions onto the rail.

The deepest truth here is that XRP’s fate depends on the convergence of usage and token demand, and RLUSD is one factor among several bearing on that convergence. It is a headwind to one pillar instead of the collapse of the whole case. Holders should worry enough to watch it closely and to be honest about which version of the XRP thesis it undercuts, but not so much that they lose sight of the larger catalysts that will ultimately determine whether the token finally breaks its range.

Frequently asked questions What is RLUSD? RLUSD is Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, a token designed to hold a steady value of $1, backed by reserves, and issued on the XRP Ledger and other blockchains. It crossed $1 billion in market value quickly after launch, reflecting real demand, and Ripple increasingly puts it forward as the cash leg, the stable settlement asset, in its enterprise deals. Because it holds a fixed dollar value instead of fluctuating like XRP, RLUSD is suited to the role of denominating and settling real-world value, which is why it has become central to Ripple’s institutional settlement business and to the debate about what that leaves for XRP.

Why do Ripple’s deals use RLUSD instead of XRP? Because enterprises settling real-world value need price stability, and a stablecoin provides it while XRP does not. When a business moves money across borders, it wants the amount it sends to equal the amount that arrives, with no exposure to price swings in between. XRP fluctuates in price, which makes it useful as a fast bridge for moving value but difficult as the unit an enterprise wants to hold and settle in. RLUSD holds a fixed dollar value, so enterprises can settle in something that behaves like the dollars they already use.

Is RLUSD replacing XRP? Not exactly, though it is taking part of the role XRP was originally pitched for. The classic XRP thesis cast the token as the bridge asset for cross-border settlement, and a dollar stablecoin can perform much of that settlement function while also offering price stability XRP lacks, so RLUSD does compete with one version of XRP’s intended purpose. The counterargument is that the two are complementary: RLUSD handles the dollar cash leg, while XRP can serve as the neutral bridge that moves value between many different currencies and stablecoins. A world of many stablecoins may actually increase the need for a neutral bridge asset, a role XRP could fill.

Does RLUSD’s success hurt XRP holders? It weakens one specific pillar of the XRP bull case, the idea that Ripple’s settlement business would mechanically drive XRP token demand, because that settlement demand increasingly flows into RLUSD instead. Holders who bought XRP primarily on that bridge-asset-settlement story should take the pattern seriously. However, RLUSD runs on the XRP Ledger, generating activity, fees, reserves, and ecosystem growth that can indirectly support XRP, and Ripple, as the largest XRP holder, keeps its incentives aligned with the token. The stronger XRP catalysts, regulatory clarity and ETF demand, operate largely independent of which asset settles a given deal, so RLUSD is a headwind to one pillar instead of the collapse of the whole case.

What actually drives XRP’s value then? XRP’s value depends on the convergence of network usage and token demand, which requires specific things to happen. Settlement and ecosystem activity must become large enough that fees, reserves, routing, and demand begin to matter against the large XRP supply locked in escrow. Spot ETF inflows also need to compound, and a regulatory catalyst like the CLARITY Act needs to cross the line to pull institutional money off the sidelines. These channels, particularly the regulatory unlock and ETF demand, operate largely regardless of whether RLUSD or XRP settles any individual transaction.

Should I sell XRP because of RLUSD? This article does not give investment advice, and that decision depends on your own analysis and circumstances. What the analysis offers is a framework: RLUSD truly weakens the bridge-asset-settlement version of the XRP thesis, so if that was your primary reason for holding, the pattern is a real challenge worth weighing honestly. But it leaves the regulatory-clarity and ETF-demand versions of the thesis largely intact, and Ripple’s incentives remain aligned with XRP as its largest holder. The proportionate response is to watch the RLUSD trend closely and be honest about which pillar it undercuts, while keeping the larger catalysts in view instead of reacting to a single factor in isolation.

This article is information, not investment advice. Partnership details, settlement mechanics, market values, and corporate plans reflect reporting available as of June 28, 2026, and can change quickly. The relationship between RLUSD and XRP is an evolving and debated topic. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell XRP, RLUSD, or any asset. Verify current details from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.

Sharplink, the second-largest Ethereum [ETH] treasury company, purchased an additional 29,196 ETH for $46.7 million on the 27th of June. In fact, Lookonchain reported that the Ethereum DATs amassed 39,196 ETH, worth $62.4 million, over the last three days. 

Source: Lookonchain/X This marks Sharplink’s second purchase after an eight‑month pause. The first occurred when the firm added 5,000 ETH through FalconX, worth about $7.88 million at an average price of $1,576. With these acquisitions, Sharplink now holds 868,699 ETH in total, including 22,102 staked tokens. Meanwhile, its stock closed at $4.81, up 5.48% from the prior trading day. 

Sharplink vs. Bitmine Meanwhile, on the 22nd of June, Bitmine, the biggest Ethereum DAT, paid $92 million to acquire an additional 52,203 Ethereum. As of right now, Bitmine has 5,672,956 ETH worth $8.92 billion.  

Bitmine’s Tom Lee also stressed that his firm plans to continue growing steadily through 2026 and ultimately accomplish the “alchemy of 5%.” Although Sharplink has not yet disclosed such plans, the ETH accumulation strategy has been relatively comparable. 

Ethereum’s market dynamics paint a concerning picture All this happened as ETH was trading at $1,568.75, the lowest level since April 2025. Meanwhile, Ethereum’s Spot Taker CVD has lost some of its aggressive buying momentum, which is a major shift compared to June 2025.

Although buyers are still present in the market, their influence has waned. Unlike the strong accumulation phase seen a year ago, the current demand indicates buyer exhaustion.

Source: CryptoQuant Final Summary Sharplink added more ETH in the past three days, pushing its total ETH holding to 868,699 ETH in total. Sharplink’s stock price also jumped after the ETH accumulation, but ETH’s price was changing hands around the $1500 price level. 

Institutional appetite for Ethereum [ETH] continues to weaken as investors reduce exposure to risk assets amid uncertain market conditions. U.S. spot ETH ETFs recently recorded another $12.85 million in net outflows, extending a broader slowdown in fund demand despite cumulative net inflows remaining near $11 billion.

With this reduction, there will be less institutional capital available to buy Ethereum to help stabilize prices as they continue to decline.

Source: SoSoValue As such, Ethereum now relies more heavily on staking demand, layer-2 activity, and natural organic spot buying to help stabilize prices. If Ethereum network demand increases, then it is possible that the markets can begin to absorb some excess supply.

However, if institutional demand does not increase, then we should expect longer-term consolidation and increased vulnerability to sentiment-driven price movements.

ETH bears retain control despite buying pressure Institutional demand has already weakened, and derivatives activity now suggests bearish conviction is strengthening. Market structure may be decisively bearish unless spot flows and leverage flows simultaneously turn positive again.

Meanwhile, the fund price has declined steadily from its April peak to 12.59. This dynamic reflects a fading appetite for leveraged long positions. Moreover, this divergence shows that buyers, though appearing more aggressive, are becoming less effective, leaving bears firmly in control of short‑term price action. 

Source: Arkham Although moving assets to this new address does not necessarily indicate that the person behind the transaction is planning to sell their asset. Yet, previous instances of like-sized on-chain asset movements have occurred before liquidity events, making subsequent wallet activity the key signal to monitor.

If the funds remain in self-custody, the transfer will likely reflect routine wallet management. However, deposits to exchanges or OTC counterparties could reinforce existing bearish sentiment and increase expectations of additional selling pressure.

Final Summary Ethereum remained vulnerable as weakening institutional demand and bearish market structure continue limiting recovery momentum. ETH needs stronger spot demand to offset selling pressure and restore sustained bullish momentum.

Every four years, Bitcoin cuts its mining rewards in half. Fidelity Digital Assets has spent the last two years building a detailed case for why concerns about network security are overblown.

The firm’s June 2026 report, titled “Bitcoin’s Programmed Security: Part Two,” is a follow-up to its March 2024 analysis and digs into the economic mechanics that keep Bitcoin resilient even as miners earn fewer coins per block. The core argument: the combination of rising hash rates, automatic difficulty adjustments, and growing transaction fee revenue creates a self-reinforcing security model that doesn’t collapse when subsidies decline.

Advertisement

The numbers behind the argument Since the 2016 halving, Bitcoin’s hash rate has surged by over 8,000%. Since 2020, it has climbed 394%. Both of those stretches included halvings that cut miner rewards in half.

The most recent halving occurred in April 2024, dropping block rewards from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC. The next one, expected around 2028, will reduce rewards further to 1.5625 BTC.

Why the doomsday math doesn’t add up Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment mechanism recalibrates every 2,016 blocks (roughly two weeks), automatically adjusting how hard it is to mine a block. If miners drop off the network, difficulty falls, making it cheaper for remaining miners to operate. If miners flood in, difficulty rises.

Fidelity notes that while temporary hash rate dips have occurred after halvings, none have resulted in significant security breaches. The report also finds that even in projected low-subsidy environments beyond 2040, the cost of mounting a 51% attack on the network remains disproportionate to any potential gains from doing so.

Transaction fees as the long-term bridge During the April 2024 halving, transaction fees in a single block reached approximately 12 times the block subsidy. That spike was partly driven by the Runes protocol launch, which created unusual demand for block space.

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

US spot Chainlink ($LINK) ETFs have recorded their first week of net outflows since the products launched, snapping a streak that lasted more than 200 consecutive trading days. The figure, roughly $220,000 in negative weekly flows, is modest in absolute terms, but the symbolic significance is hard to dismiss.

A Historic Streak Comes to an End Grayscale launched the first US spot Chainlink ETF, GLNK, on NYSE Arca on December 2, 2025. The ETF attracted $37 million in first-day inflows, and LINK rebounded more than 7% as investors responded to renewed institutional attention. From that point forward, the LINK spot ETF complex went on an almost unbroken run of positive flows.

Analyst data shows the outflow ended 203 days without a negative daily reading. The turning point came on June 22, when data shared by Arca showed the LINK spot ETF complex posting a daily net outflow of approximately $490,920. That reduced cumulative net inflows from about $123.82 million to $123.33 million, while total net assets fell to roughly $100.88 million, compared with more than $107 million one week earlier.

Institutional interest appears to be wavering, as evidenced by the first net capital outflow from LINK spot ETFs after a record-breaking streak of entries that lasted over half a year. LINK ETFs had been among the best-performing altcoin ETFs, though only Avalanche (AVAX) spot ETFs are yet to see outflows since their own debut.

Blip or Broader Shift? There are early signs the outflow may be temporary. According to SoSoValue data, Chainlink spot ETFs recorded net inflows of approximately $137,710 on the Tuesday following the outflow session. Although the inflow remains relatively small, it could signal improving investor sentiment if the trend continues over the coming days.

The broader price picture for $LINK remains under pressure. The asset has logged a year-to-date loss of nearly 45%, with price testing levels not seen with this much downside pressure in quite some time. LINK is currently trading below all its major moving averages, including the critical 200-day SMA near the $10.15 mark.

On the fundamental side, @Chainlink continues to expand its real-world footprint. The protocol announced the formation of a new working group involving multinational organizations across Europe and South Korea, collectively representing more than $10 trillion in assets under management, focused on modernizing foreign exchange infrastructure and evaluating a shift from traditional T+2 settlement to real-time T+0 settlement. Whether that kind of adoption news is enough to restore positive ETF flow momentum remains the key question heading into July.

Sources:
Brave New Coin: Chainlink Price Analysis, LINK Spot ETF Ends 203-Day Inflow Streak
Invezz: Can LINK Price Reclaim $8 as Chainlink Targets Real-Time FX Settlement?
FXStreet: Chainlink Price Forecast, FX Partnership Fails to Lift Sentiment

US spot Solana ($SOL) ETFs have delivered a remarkably consistent performance since hitting the market, recording positive net inflows every single month since launch. June 2026, however, looks set to test that record.

The products are currently sitting at negative $5.8 million in net flows for June, with only two trading days remaining in the month to reverse the deficit.

A strong start since October 2025 The first US spot Solana ETFs debuted in late October 2025, with Bitwise's Solana Staking ETF (BSOL) launching on the New York Stock Exchange on October 28. This was closely followed by the conversion of the Grayscale Solana Trust (GSOL) from a trust product into a Solana ETF.

Unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, Solana ETFs launched with staking built in, offering investors on-chain yield alongside price exposure. Bitwise targets average staking rewards of over 7% for BSOL holders.

The spot Solana ETF products accumulated approximately $1.45 billion in total cumulative inflows since launch. Despite experiencing negative price action over several months, Solana ETFs maintained positive net inflows, a trend that ran counter to conventional expectations of risk-on and risk-off behavior in crypto markets.

June brings the first real test Spot Solana ETFs saw $3.94 million in net outflows on June 26 alone, indicating investor hesitation. That single-day figure has compounded into a monthly deficit that now stands at $5.8 million, leaving the products on track for their first negative month since inception.

Bitcoin ETFs are net-negative year-to-date, and Ethereum has bled harder, but XRP and Solana ETFs have marked the rotation story of 2026. That context makes a potential first negative month for $SOL ETFs more notable. Whether June closes in the red will come down to whether buyers return in force over the remaining sessions.

DL News: US Solana spot ETFs seen to hit $5bn in inflows
Bitwise: Bitwise Launches BSOL, First Spot Solana ETP in US
SpotedCrypto: Crypto ETF Flows June 2026

Yuma, a Digital Currency Group-backed investment company, has launched a fund that gives institutional investors diversified exposure to the Bittensor ecosystem, as asset managers expand investment products tied to decentralized AI.

According to a Thursday announcement, the Yuma Total Market Fund provides exposure to Bittensor’s native TAO token and a basket of AI-focused subnets through a single investment vehicle. The strategy is intended to simplify access to the broader Bittensor ecosystem without requiring investors to select individual subnet tokens.

The fund launched with seed capital from an undisclosed anchor investor.

Bittensor is a decentralized network that supports the development of AI infrastructure and applications through specialized subnets spanning areas such as compute, marketplaces and identity. According to Yuma, the network's 128 subnets represent more than $900 million in combined value. However, data from network tracker Taostats shows a combined subnet value closer to $300 million.

TAO, the native token of the Bittensor ecosystem, has a market capitalization of nearly $2.4 billion. Source: CoinMarketCap

Institutional interest in the Bittensor ecosystem has grown alongside the network’s expanding subnet economy. In April, Grayscale increased TAO’s weighting in its Grayscale Decentralized AI Fund to 43% during the fund’s quarterly rebalance. TAO’s allocation has since fallen to about 20%, with Near Protocol's NEAR now comprising the fund’s largest holding at roughly 44%.

Asset managers are also seeking to broaden investor access to TAO. Bitwise filed for a TAO Strategy ETF with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in April, while Grayscale submitted an amended registration statement to convert its existing Bittensor Trust into a spot TAO exchange-traded fund that would list on NYSE Arca if approved.

Grayscale Bittensor Trust (TAO) application with the SEC. Source: SEC

Anthropic restrictions renew focus on decentralized AIThe case for decentralized AI, which distributes AI infrastructure and computing across blockchain-based networks rather than relying on a single provider, gained renewed attention after the US Commerce Department suspended public access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models over national security and export control concerns.

At the time, Grayscale head of research Zach Pandl said the restrictions underscored the risks of relying on centralized AI providers. The government order limiting access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 “highlights the risks of centralized control of AI,” Pandl said. “We expect demand for decentralized AI, like Bittensor and its TAO token, to rise as investors seek alternatives.”

The restrictions appear to be easing. The Commerce Department restored access to Mythos 5 on Friday, and Axios reported Saturday that the Trump administration is expected to allow Anthropic to resume public access to Fable 5 as soon as next week.

Magazine: How AI just dramatically sped up the quantum risk for Bitcoin

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.

Ripple’s [XRP] decline continued after leveraged buyers lost control, pushing the altcoin down to $1.02, its lowest value since early February. Initially, the price slipped toward $1.07 before triggering nearly $9 million in long liquidations on the 25th of June.

Binance led with about $4.5 million, highlighting the concentration of the leverage that existed within one exchange. As forced selling intensified, derivatives traders rapidly reduced exposure instead of adding fresh positions.

Binance Open Interest dropped to nearly $205 million, marking its lowest level since the 22nd of March. Meanwhile, Bybit Open Interest fell to around $185 million, reinforcing the domino effect of the catastrophe.

Source: CryptoQuant This synchronized decline suggests speculative excess has largely been flushed from the market. Such resets typically take some pressure off the downside because they eliminate the weakly positioned leveraged sellers.

Otherwise, lower leverage alone may stabilize volatility without generating a sustained recovery. The next directional move will likely depend on whether fresh buyers replace liquidated positions or continue waiting on the sidelines.

ETF demand tightens XRP supply XRP ETF demand is tightening available XRP supply despite the market weakness. The net inflow reached 4.82 million XRP during week 26, driving total ETF holdings up by almost 10% to 938.73 million XRP, which accounts for approximately 1% of the currently circulating XRP.

With each new ETF creation requiring the purchase of additional Spot XRP, this gradual reduction in available XRP on the open market can help limit the amount of sellable inventory or reduce potential selling pressure.

Source: XRP Insights On the other hand, despite the fact that institutional buyers are accumulating significant amounts of XRP via the ETFs, no corresponding increase in participation from the broader spot market has been seen.

As such, prices have continued to be pressured downward. In addition to the decrease in price, valuations have also declined from over $1 billion at one time down to $989 million at present.

As such, it appears that institutional buying power has increased more than the valuation of XRP.

If ETF inflows persist alongside stronger spot demand, shrinking liquid supply could increasingly amplify future price recoveries. Otherwise, accumulation may continue without triggering an immediate breakout.

Final Summary Ripple’s leverage reset has reduced speculative pressure, but sustained recovery still depends on fresh spot demand returning. XRP ETF accumulation continues tightening liquid supply, though stronger Spot participation remains essential for a lasting breakout.

Blockchain intelligence firm AMLBot has confirmed the Polymarket supply-chain attack total at approximately $3.1 million in PUSD across 11 user wallets, with funds bridged from Polygon to Ethereum and converted to ETH. Polymarket has pledged full refunds but has not named the compromised vendor.

Blockchain intelligence firm AMLBot has fixed the total stolen in Thursday's Polymarket supply-chain attack at approximately $3.1 million in PUSD, providing the first forensically confirmed on-chain dollar figure and tracing the stolen assets from Polygon to Ethereum. On-chain investigator Specter, which published the first public alert, identified more than 11 victim wallets.

AMLBot posted the revised tally on Saturday, two days after on-chain investigators first flagged the drain. The figure revises earlier estimates upward and, for the first time, pins both the dollar amount to a single on-chain intelligence source. AMLBot said it continues to monitor affected accounts as the investigation proceeds.

From Front-End to BridgeThe attack, covered by The Defiant on Thursday, began when a compromised third-party vendor injected malicious JavaScript into Polymarket's website. The code targeted user transactions at the front-end layer; Polymarket's smart contracts on Polygon were untouched. Polymarket confirmed fewer than 15 accounts were affected, consistent with scope described by on-chain security researchers tracking the wallets in real time.

On-chain investigator Specter published the first public alert and identified the attacker's primary consolidation address on Ethereum: `0xe65b1C586757c5510B60F998Eebb14C1eF71E1eD`. PeckShield confirmed the stolen funds were bridged from Polygon to Ethereum and then swapped into roughly 1,893 ETH. Bubblemaps independently counted fewer than 15 affected accounts and estimated $3 million in losses being refunded.

PUSD is Polymarket's native collateral token, a Polygon-based ERC-20 minted 1:1 against USDC.e through the platform's on-chain collateral contracts. Deployed in April 2026 per on-chain records, PUSD operates exclusively within the platform and carries no external exchange listing, so the attacker had to convert it to ETH to exit. The token held its $1.00 peg throughout the incident, per PolygonScan data for the pUSD contract on Polygon.

Refund Commitment, Vendor Still UnnamedPolymarket posted on X Thursday morning saying it had contained the attack, removed the malicious dependency, and would refund impacted users in full. William LeGate confirmed the repayment would be total, adding in a second post that there were "no user 'losses.'" The platform has not publicly named the compromised vendor across any channel since the incident was disclosed.

Initial independent estimates put the theft at $2.94 million, based on on-chain wallet tallies by Specter Analyst, while PeckShield and other firms rounded to roughly $3 million. AMLBot's Saturday update lifts the confirmed total by approximately $160,000 from Specter's initial read.

TechCrunch reported that a Polymarket spokesperson confirmed the breach but declined to provide further detail. Security researchers at CyberInsider and BleepingComputer both classified the incident as a supply-chain attack, the type where a downstream dependency injects hostile code into a trusted application, rather than a direct protocol exploit.

Platform ContextThe platform currently holds $432 million in total value locked on Polygon, per DefiLlama. Security trackers cataloguing Q2 2026 DeFi incidents have counted the June 25 Polymarket attack among a sustained wave of supply-chain and front-end compromises targeting DeFi infrastructure in 2026.

Polymarket has committed to refunding affected users in full but has set no public timeline for completion and has not disclosed the identity of the third-party vendor whose compromise triggered the attack.

Cardano wallet SecondFi has identified a recovery path for users affected by Tuesday's exploit and expects to begin returning assets in about two weeks, following testing and security reviews.

According to a Saturday statement by Phillip Pon, CEO of SecondFi developer Emurgo, the company completed forensic investigations and established a recovery pathway for affected users. Pon said the coming week would be spent building the solution, followed by another week of testing before assets begin to be returned.

Pon urged users to refrain from migrating assets or taking actions outside official guidance, saying the recovery process was designed around existing wallet states and that independent action could complicate the secure return of funds.

SecondFi developer Emurgo shared an update on the wallet's recovery efforts. Source: Emurgo

SecondFi disclosed a security breach on Tuesday that affected approximately 16 million ADA, worth about $2.4 million at the time, across 374 addresses. SecondFi previously said it traced the incident to an address-level issue in its Cardano web wallet generation software that exposed users' private keys.

The company also said it secured roughly 129 million ADA through emergency measures and transferred the funds to an independent third-party custodian, where they will remain until the verification and recovery process is complete.

SecondFi has not yet published a comprehensive post-mortem detailing the vulnerability or how the exploit was carried out.

SecondFi warns of recovery-related scamsIn a separate update on Saturday, SecondFi warned that malicious actors are circulating fraudulent messages impersonating the wallet while its recovery effort remains underway. 

The company said no recovery actions requiring user participation have begun and that it will never ask users for private keys, seed phrases, wallet credentials or direct wallet access.

SecondFi said any messages instructing users to submit wallet information, migrate assets or take immediate action outside its verified communication channels should be treated as fraudulent. 

It added that users requiring assistance should submit a ticket through its official support portal while the recovery process continues.

Magazine: AI is banking the unbanked in Africa… faster than crypto

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.

Tether and Ledn have teamed up to bring tokenized gold into the crypto lending world. The partnership, announced on June 18, integrates Tether Gold (XAUT) into Ledn’s platform alongside Bitcoin and stablecoins, with gold-backed loans expected to follow later this year.

What the deal actually looks like From launch, Ledn users can trade and hold XAUT on the platform. Each XAUT token represents one fine troy ounce of gold, with 707,747 ounces currently backing the equivalent number of tokens in circulation.

Later in 2026, Ledn plans to roll out gold-backed loans denominated in Tether’s stablecoins. Borrowers will be able to choose between USDT and the newly launched USAT.

Advertisement

Ledn maintains a 1:1 collateral holding policy, meaning they don’t rehypothecate or lend out the collateral backing user deposits. Worth noting: the lending product won’t be available to residents of Canada or the EU.

The gold behind the token Tether manages a gold stockpile estimated between 140 and 154 metric tons, valued at roughly $23 billion. XAUT’s market cap recently surpassed $3 billion, making it one of the most significant commodity-backed tokens in crypto.

“Growing demand for solutions that combine long-term ownership with financial flexibility,” Paolo Ardoino said of the partnership’s rationale.

Why this matters for investors The crypto lending market has been rebuilding trust since the cascading failures of 2022, when firms like Celsius, BlockFi, and Voyager proved that aggressive rehypothecation and opaque risk management could crater an entire sector overnight. Ledn survived that purge, partly because of its conservative collateral approach.

Paxos Gold (PAXG) is XAUT’s closest competitor in the tokenized gold space, and it currently lacks a comparable lending integration.

The USAT launch, which will serve as one of the loan denomination options, suggests Tether is building an ecosystem where its various products feed into each other.

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

Trading activity across the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem on Shiba Inu’s L2 blockchain, Shibarium, has disappeared, as DEX volume currently sits at zero. 

At press time, Shibarium DEX volume stood at zero, according to data from DeFiLlama, reflecting extremely weak on-chain participation.

Zero Trades Since June 23 Decentralized exchanges operating on Shibarium, including WoofSwap and ShibaSwap, have recorded no trading activity since June 23. The last recorded DEX transaction on the network occurred on June 22, when traders exchanged just $60 worth of assets. 

Furthermore, throughout most of June, daily trading volumes on these platforms remained below $100, underscoring the lack of activity across the ecosystem. The slowdown highlights Shibarium’s struggle to attract meaningful DeFi adoption since its launch. 

Shibarium DEX Volumes Dwindling DEX Activity  After the mainnet went live in August 2023, the network initially showed encouraging signs of growth. DEX volume reached $6,800 in October 2024 before climbing to $54,000 in December 2024.

However, activity weakened in the following months. Although the development team attempted to revive optimism by promising faster ecosystem growth and higher DEX participation, trading activity continued to decline. 

Shibarium briefly recovered in September 2025, when DEX volume rose to $47,000, before reaching a cycle peak of $86,000 in December 2025. Since then, trading activity has entered a prolonged decline, with many days registering no transactions at all across Shibarium-based DEXes. 

Since October 2024, Shibarium’s decentralized exchanges have processed a cumulative $2.66 million in trading volume. That figure remains lower than the amount of DEX volume established networks such as Ethereum and Solana regularly process in a single day.

One major reason behind the weak on-chain metrics is that most trading involving Shiba Inu ecosystem tokens still occurs on centralized exchanges rather than on Shibarium’s native applications.

At press time, SHIB generated $56.4 million in 24-hour trading volume, with most transactions taking place on centralized platforms such as Binance and Coinbase. 

Total Value Locked Remains Modest Despite weak trading activity, Shibarium’s total value locked (TVL) currently stands at $21,495, representing a 1.89% increase over the past 24 hours. While the increase suggests some capital remains within the ecosystem, the figure remains modest compared to competing DeFi networks.

Meanwhile, overall network usage continues to weaken. Shibarium currently processes only 889 daily transactions, with smart contract interactions accounting for most of that activity. The trend suggests that user engagement across the network remains limited and that DeFi adoption on Shibarium has yet to gain meaningful traction. 

Shibarium Daily Transaction 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.

Brad Garlinghouse has criticized Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin acquisition strategy, arguing that Strategy’s reliance on preferred stock financing has failed to create lasting value as its securities continue to weaken.

Summary

Brad Garlinghouse criticized Strategy’s Bitcoin funding model, arguing long-term value should come from utility rather than financial engineering. Growing scrutiny of Strategy includes a shareholder investigation, insider share sales, and CryptoQuant’s call to preserve cash. Anchorage Digital said investors remain defensive, but options markets are not signaling expectations of a company-specific crisis. According to comments made during a CNBC interview on Friday, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse criticized Michael Saylor’s approach to financing Bitcoin purchases through Strategy’s capital markets program, saying long-term value in crypto should come from real-world utility rather than financial engineering.

Questioning whether the model can continue rewarding shareholders over time, Garlinghouse argued that issuing securities to fund additional Bitcoin purchases does not create sustainable value. He added that Strategy’s focus on financial structuring has had negative consequences for the digital asset market.

“Financial engineering does not drive long-term value … long-term value of any digital asset is going to be driven by utility.”

Although he challenged Strategy’s funding model, Garlinghouse maintained that he remains bullish on Bitcoin itself. His comments came as Bitcoin briefly traded below $60,000 on Friday, extending pressure across companies closely tied to the cryptocurrency.

Strategy’s preferred stock has come under pressure Garlinghouse pointed to Strategy’s STRC preferred shares as evidence that investors are becoming more cautious about the company’s financing structure. He noted that the preferred stock has fallen roughly 25% below its $100 face value, describing the decline as a sign that investors are questioning the sustainability of the approach.

Strategy has spent roughly the past year raising capital through preferred securities, including STRC, to finance additional Bitcoin purchases. The instrument also carries an 11.5% cumulative annual dividend obligation, leaving the company with continuing dividend commitments alongside its expanding Bitcoin treasury.

At the same time, scrutiny has widened beyond Garlinghouse’s criticism. Earlier this week, on-chain analytics firm CryptoQuant recommended that Strategy pause further Bitcoin purchases and instead strengthen its cash reserves as market conditions remain difficult.

Additional pressure has emerged from legal developments. As crypto.news reported previously, Rosen Law Firm has opened an investigation into whether Strategy made materially inaccurate business disclosures to investors. According to the firm, it is evaluating potential securities claims and considering a possible class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who suffered losses.

Investor scrutiny has continued despite mixed market signals Selling by company insiders has added another layer to investor concerns. SEC filings show Strategy director Jarrod Patten exercised options to acquire 1,500 Class A shares on June 23 before selling the entire position the same day at $106.08 per share, generating an estimated pre-tax gain of about $131,766.

The latest transaction extends a months-long selling streak. Regulatory filings indicate Patten has sold 55,750 Strategy shares over the past three months for roughly $9 million in proceeds, with the sales taking place as investors continue debating the company’s reliance on repeated share issuance and leveraged Bitcoin accumulation.

Even so, derivatives markets are not signaling expectations of an immediate company-specific crisis. According to new research from Anchorage Digital, traders continue paying elevated premiums for downside protection across Bitcoin, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust and Strategy shares, but options pricing remains well below levels seen during previous periods of severe stress.

Anchorage Digital’s head of research, David Lawant, wrote that while defensive positioning has risen into the upper range of historical readings, Strategy’s options market has not reached the conditions normally associated with forced deleveraging or fears of a breakdown in the company’s business model.

Chainlink just landed two of the most consequential institutional partnerships in its history, and both happened within weeks of each other.

On May 12, 2026, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation selected Chainlink’s Runtime Environment, known as CRE, to power its Collateral AppChain. Then on June 23, 2026, Chainlink announced it would serve as core infrastructure for Project Pangea, a consortium of over 50 banks and banking groups managing more than $10 trillion in assets.

What DTCC actually does, and why this matters DTCC processed over $4.7 quadrillion in securities transactions in 2025 alone. To put that in perspective, global GDP is roughly $100 trillion. DTCC handles nearly 50 times that figure annually.

Advertisement

The organization is now building a Collateral AppChain, scheduled to launch in Q4 2026, that will manage real-time collateral operations including pricing, valuation, margining, and settlement for tokenized assets across multiple blockchains. Chainlink’s CRE is the selected runtime environment for that system.

Chainlink co-founder Sergey Nazarov described the CRE as capable of “securely orchestrating critical outputs” for DTCC’s operations.

Project Pangea and the T+0 settlement ambition Project Pangea is targeting T+0 foreign exchange settlement, meaning trades would clear and settle on the same day, instantaneously, rather than the current T+2 standard where settlement takes two business days after a trade is executed.

The mechanism is atomic Payment-versus-Payment swaps, or PvP. In a traditional FX trade, one party sends currency first and hopes the counterparty delivers theirs shortly after. In an atomic PvP swap, both legs of the transaction settle simultaneously, or neither does. There is no trust required between counterparties because the settlement is enforced by the protocol itself.

Chainlink’s technology will facilitate this process using regulated EUR and KRW stablecoins. The consortium includes over 50 banks and banking groups with a combined $10 trillion in assets.

What investors should watch The risks are real. DTCC’s AppChain is not live until Q4 2026, and large-scale institutional deployments have a history of running over schedule and under-delivering on initial specifications. Project Pangea is even earlier in its development arc. Regulatory approvals for stablecoin-based settlement at this scale involve multiple jurisdictions and no clear timeline.

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

Key takeaways:

SOL’s rebound to $72 shows bullish futures and airdrop hopes, but falling TVL and low DEX volumes point to fragile onchain demand.Tokenized stocks spark hype on Solana, yet Pump.fun dependence and Hyperliquid competition threaten sustained SOL momentum.Solana native token SOL jumped to $72 on Friday, distancing itself from the $64 lows the prior day. Part of traders’ optimism stemmed from the stellar growth of tokenized stock trading, fueled by the AI sector. However, increasing competition in decentralized application networks could limit SOL’s short-term upside.

Solana tokenized stocks 24-hour volumes, USD. Source: Jupiter Aggregator

Tokenized stocks on Solana traded over $113 million in 24 hours, according to Jupiter Aggregator data. However, the relatively thin liquidity in the automated market-making pools raised concerns, especially as multiple issuers compete for similar products. Still, some of those tokens launched only recently, which might explain the low number of holders in most cases.

Blockchains ranked by DeFi Total Value Locked (TVL), USD. Source: DefiLlama

The Total Value Locked (TVL) on the Solana network dropped 11% over the past month, while the Ethereum layer-2 Base reduced the gap. Negative highlights on Solana TVL include a 19% decline in Kamino, a 20% trim by Binance Staked SOL, and a 17% decline in Raydium. The tokenization platform xStocks, on the other hand, posted 31% growth in TVL.

Solana weekly DEX volumes & DApps revenue, USD. Source: DefiLlama

Decentralized exchange (DEX) volumes on Solana fell to $10 billion per week from $30 billion in early February, coinciding with a downtrend in decentralized application (DApp) revenues. Thus, regardless of the successful launch of tokenized tech stocks and equity indexes, demand for SOL on blockchain processing remains subdued.

Solana’s dependence on Pump.fun and increased competition in tokenized launchesMore concerningly, 30% of DApp revenue on Solana came from the token launch platform Pump.fun, which depends heavily on memecoin activity. A CoinGecko report revealed that 80% of the 18.7 million tokens launched in less than 48 hours, while 55% of the addresses involved lost up to $1,000 according to Dune data.

SOL perpetual futures annualized funding rate. Source: Laevitas

Demand for bullish leverage on SOL futures increased on Friday, pushing the funding rate to its highest level in June. The current 10% level is far from displaying excessive confidence, as the 6% to 12% range is typically deemed neutral. Still, the 14% gains since the $64 low on Thursday managed to reverse the bearishness marked by negative funding rates.

Part of SOL investors’ optimism stems from anticipation of airdrops on the network, although the timing of those tokens' launch remains uncertain. Highlights include OnRe reinsurance with $200 million in TVL, Bulk perpetual DEX with an aggregate open interest of $325 million, and Loopscale lending platform at $79 million in TVL.

It might be premature to claim that SOL is bound to reclaim the $80 mark, last seen on June 1, given increased competition in tokenized stock trading from Hyperliquid and centralized exchanges on competing blockchains. OKX, for instance, formed a strategic partnership with the NYSE parent company using Ethereum-based systems.

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.

One Source of Truth for Sui's Performance@SuiNetwork has entered a data partnership with @tokenterminal, bringing its onchain financial and usage metrics onto the platform that institutional investors treat as the standard for cross-chain comparisons. The move gives investors, developers, and the broader community a single, standardized view of the network's performance, covering everything from daily active users and transaction counts to fees and revenue.

Token Terminal transforms raw blockchain data into comparable, institutional-grade metrics. The platform covers more than 100 chains and 1,200 applications, applying consistent business logic so that cross-protocol comparisons are defensible rather than apples-to-oranges. Its data is also accessible via the Bloomberg Terminal, giving traditional finance professionals a direct line to onchain fundamentals.

The Sui partnership follows a similar playbook Token Terminal has used with other layer-1 networks. When Cardano signed on, the integration brought standardized revenue, active user, and validator data into Token Terminal's reporting framework, with the data subsequently flowing to platforms including Bloomberg Terminal, Binance, and CoinGecko. Ronin and Aptos have taken the same route. For Sui, the practical effect is the same: analysts and institutions can now pull its metrics into their own models programmatically via API, without having to compile and format data independently.

Why Transparency Matters for Institutional CapitalThe timing reflects a broader dynamic in crypto markets. Institutional allocators increasingly require standardized, auditable data before they commit capital to a network. Sui's architecture, built around a novel object-centric data model and the Move programming language, produces onchain data that looks structurally different from Ethereum or Solana. Having that data normalized and presented through a platform institutions already trust reduces a meaningful friction point for due diligence.

$SUI is currently a top-30 asset by market capitalization. The network has been expanding its institutional footprint across multiple fronts in 2026, including regulated stablecoin infrastructure and banking partnerships. Transparent, comparable onchain reporting through a platform like Token Terminal fits that broader push. If standardized metrics make it easier for allocators to screen and evaluate Sui alongside competitors, the network's bet is that the data will speak for itself.

Sources:
Sui Overview, Token Terminal
Cardano partners with Token Terminal, Crypto Briefing
Ronin Data Partnership, Token Terminal

Somewhere between a DEX and a full-blown financial exchange, Hyperliquid has built something that most DeFi protocols only claim to be: the dominant venue for trading perpetual futures on-chain. At its peak in 2025, the platform captured more than 80% of decentralized perpetual trading volume. Hyperliquid’s share of on-chain perpetual futures volume sat at 36.4% in January 2026, then climbed to 44% by mid-2026, even as new competitors entered the space.

The scale of what Hyperliquid has actually built Hyperliquid processed $633 billion in trading volume during Q1 2026 alone. Daily volume runs between $3 billion and $10 billion depending on market conditions. Cumulative lifetime volume crossed $4.726 trillion by June 2026.

Advertisement

The platform runs on its own Layer-1 blockchain, built on a consensus mechanism called HyperBFT. Collateral on the platform settles in USDC. The protocol offers leverage up to 40x across more than 300 markets. Those markets now extend beyond crypto perpetuals into commodities, indices, prediction markets, and real-world assets, all made possible through the platform’s HIP-4 framework.

Revenue, the HYPE token, and what traders are actually paying for Hyperliquid generated over $800 million in revenue in 2025. Recent weekly revenue has averaged around $11 million, which annualizes to roughly $570 million at that pace.

The HYPE token launched on November 29, 2024, with approximately 31% of supply allocated to a user airdrop. It subsequently reached all-time highs near $77. The token has attracted ETF investment interest and serves a functional purpose: revenue generated by the protocol flows back to HYPE holders through distributions and token burns.

Total value locked on the platform has ranged between $1 billion and $6 billion depending on market conditions.

The 30-day trading volume reached $237 billion by mid-2026.

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have jointly called for public comment on their approach to harmonizing regulatory frameworks for crypto futures. The proposed public comment on the SEC CFTC framework comes amid the recent approval of crypto perpetual futures in the U.S.

Calls For Public Comment On SEC CFTC Framework In a press release, the SEC and CFTC issued a joint request for public comment on potential approaches to further harmonize regulatory frameworks applicable to portfolio margining across securities, security-based swaps, futures, swaps, and related positions. The public comment period will remain open for 60 days after the publication in the Federal Register. This is significant as the CFTC notably regulates prediction markets, which trade swaps.

Furthermore, this follows the launch of crypto perpetual futures in the U.S., with Kalshi securing CFTC approval to offer BTC, ETH, XRP, and HYPE futures. The request for public comment on the SEC CFTC framework also comes amid the rise in tokenized securities, with platforms such as Hyperliquid offering perpetuals for these securities.

The SEC and CFTC noted that the request for comment will assist them in evaluating whether greater coordination or alignment in portfolio margining requirements may improve risk management efficiency, reduce unnecessary market fragmentation, and enhance consumer protections.

Meanwhile, this marks the latest coordination between the SEC and CFTC towards providing clear frameworks that boost the crypto and financial markets. As CoinGape reported, the SEC and CFTC are pushing to clarify the definitions of derivative products, including definitions of swaps and security-based swaps, and how to treat them.

A Move To Further Promote Innovation SEC Chair Paul Atkins noted that further harmonizing the SEC CFTC framework will ensure that jurisdictional overlap does not stifle innovation and efficiency. “Cross-margining offers a clear opportunity to unlock liquidity that remains frozen in separate accounts, and we encourage market participants to provide feedback on ideas that will help improve coordination between both agencies,” he said.

Commenting on this move, CFTC Chair Michael Selig said that fostering enhanced cooperation between the two agencies on portfolio margining promises to unlock untapped capital while ensuring a more robust risk management framework and market protections. The CFTC is currently facing a lawsuit from the CME over its approval of crypto futures.

The CME argues that crypto perpetuals are swaps, not futures contracts, and that the regulator approved these products the wrong way. These crypto futures are already seeing significant demand, with Kalshi’s products recording over $1 billion in trading volume in under two weeks after they launched.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Polymarket traders assign a 76% probability that Ethereum will reach $1,500 before the end of 2026, reflecting near-total conviction in further downside from current levels. U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs recorded 17 consecutive days of net outflows totaling $401 million in May 2026, setting the longest institutional withdrawal streak in ETH history. A confirmed death cross on the daily chart, where the 50-day EMA crossed below the 200-day EMA, preceded months of further decline in both prior Ethereum bear markets. The Glamsterdam protocol upgrade, originally targeting June 2026, has been delayed to Q3 2026, removing the primary near-term catalyst that bulls had used to anchor support. Ethereum trades below its 20-day, 50-day, and 100-day exponential moving averages, all clustered between $1,740 and $2,050, creating a dense resistance wall above current price action. Ethereum traded near $1,670 on June 25, 2026, holding just above a support zone that has protected every major low since the 2022 bear market bottom. The $1,500 level has drawn $3.9 million in total volume on Polymarket prediction markets alone, where traders now price a 76% chance that ETH reaches that threshold before year-end.

 That conviction stems from a convergence of signals: record ETF outflows, a confirmed death cross, and a delayed protocol upgrade that had been the last remaining bullish catalyst for Q2. 

This article examines the technical, fundamental, and on-chain data behind the growing consensus that $1,500 is no longer a floor but a destination, and what that shift means for positioning.

Record ETF Outflows Signal Institutional Retreat U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs logged 17 consecutive trading days of net outflows in May, totaling $401 million and setting a record for the longest institutional withdrawal streak Ethereum has experienced. 

On June 23 alone, ETH ETFs recorded $82 million in net outflows, marking the fourth straight day of withdrawals as market caution grew amid U.S.-Iran tensions and shifting interest rate expectations. The institutional retreat contrasts sharply with the accumulation thesis that dominated late 2025.

When spot ETH ETFs launched, proponents argued that regulated institutional vehicles would create a persistent demand floor. 

That thesis has not survived contact with a 65% drawdown from the approximately $4,950 all-time high reached in August 2025. Funding rates have turned negative and open interest has declined sharply, suggesting a leverage flush rather than a fresh uptrend, according to data reviewed by Cryptopolitan analysts.

Death Cross and Descending Channel Frame the Technical Picture A death cross confirmed on the daily chart when the 50-day exponential moving average crossed below the 200-day EMA. In Ethereum’s prior bear markets of 2018 and 2022, this signal preceded months of further decline before any sustained recovery began.

ETH currently trades below its 20-day, 50-day, and 100-day EMAs, all clustered between $1,740 and $2,050. That alignment creates a dense resistance wall. Analyst Ardi stated on X that ETH has one responsibility over the next four months: do not start closing below $1,500. 

He noted the level has held every major low since the 2022 bottom, and losing it would force a reconsideration of bullish assumptions, Ardi wrote on June 24. Immediate support sits at $1,585, with a deeper floor at $1,468 if the current level fails.

Glamsterdam Delay Removes the Last Bullish Catalyst The Glamsterdam upgrade represents Ethereum’s most significant protocol change since the Merge. Originally targeting June 2026, the upgrade has been officially delayed to Q3 2026, removing the primary catalyst that bulls had been using to anchor a price floor for the current quarter.

Glamsterdam’s two headline components are Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS) and Block-Level Access Lists (BALs). The ePBS feature removes reliance on third-party MEV relays to match block builders with validators. 

BALs enable parallel transaction execution by requiring each block to declare upfront which accounts it will read and write. A confirmed 200-million-gas limit floor was set at the Soldøgn Interop in April 2026, representing a 233% increase from the current limit.

Analysis: The delay matters because price catalysts derive their power from proximity. A Q2 upgrade creates a tradable event in the present quarter; a Q3 timeline pushes it into seasonal low-volume months, reducing the probability that institutional capital will front-run the event.

Prediction Markets Quantify the Downside Consensus Polymarket now prices a 76% chance that ETH hits $1,500 before year-end, while Kalshi shows 73%. That level of convergence across two independent prediction platforms is unusual.

The $1,500 zone aligns with a high-footprint anchored volume profile, according to Coinpedia analysis, meaning significant historical volume traded at that price, which can act as either support or a magnet for price.

Analyst James Easton compared Ethereum’s current weekly chart to the Russell 2000 index. The Russell 2000 has broken above its resistance near 2,500, but Ethereum remains below its equivalent zone near $4,300 to $5,100.

A confirmed move above approximately $5,100 could place Ethereum in price discovery, Easton noted, though that requires a reversal of the current downtrend as a prerequisite.

Regulatory Implications The SEC has not issued new guidance on spot Ethereum ETFs during the current drawdown. If outflows continue at the current pace, issuers may face pressure to reduce fees or restructure fund terms to stem redemptions.

The delayed Glamsterdam upgrade also raises questions about whether the SEC’s classification framework for ETH could shift if staking mechanics change significantly post-upgrade.

What’s Next? The immediate test is whether ETH can hold above $1,585 and reclaim $1,685 on a daily close. The Glamsterdam upgrade timeline in Q3 2026 provides the next fundamental catalyst. Prediction market pricing currently embeds an assumption that the $1,500 test is a matter of when, not if.

FAQs What does the Ethereum death cross mean for price?
A death cross occurs when the 50-day EMA crosses below the 200-day EMA, signaling medium-term momentum has turned negative relative to the long-term trend.

How many consecutive days of ETH ETF outflows occurred?
U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs recorded 17 consecutive days of net outflows in May 2026, totaling $401 million and setting a record for institutional ETH withdrawal streaks.

What is the Glamsterdam upgrade for Ethereum?
Glamsterdam is Ethereum’s next major protocol upgrade, featuring Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation and Block-Level Access Lists, now delayed from June to Q3 2026 release.

What probability do prediction markets assign to ETH hitting $1,500?
Polymarket prices a 76% chance, and Kalshi shows 73% probability that ETH will reach $1,500 before the end of the 2026 calendar year.

Where is the next major Ethereum support level?
Immediate support sits at $1,585 with a deeper floor at $1,468, and the $1,500 level aligns with anchored volume profile data from prior cycles.

What caused the Ethereum price decline in 2026?
A combination of record ETF outflows, a confirmed death cross, the Glamsterdam upgrade delay, and broader macro risk-off sentiment drove ETH below $1,700.

Can Ethereum recover above $5,000 from current levels?
Analyst James Easton noted a confirmed move above $5,100 could place ETH in price discovery, but the current descending channel must reverse first.

References TechTimes: Ethereum Price Prediction 2026: 17-Day ETF Outflow Record Targets $1,500 Support Analytics Insight: Ethereum Price Today: ETH Holds Critical $1,500 Support Coinpaper: Ethereum Price Prediction: Can $1,500 Support Unlock $5,100? Coinpedia: Ethereum Price Prediction 2026, 2027 – 2030

Bitmine Immersion Technologies, trading as BMNR on the NYSE, has met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the Russell 1000 Index. The addition is expected to take effect on June 26, 2026, following a preliminary list publication in May 2026.

What Bitmine actually is, and why the Russell 1000 matters The company holds approximately 5.67 million ETH, which represents roughly 4.7% of the total Ethereum supply. Combined with cash and other assets, its total holdings clock in at approximately $10.7 billion.

The Russell 1000 Index tracks the largest 1,000 US-listed companies by market capitalization. It serves as a benchmark for large-cap investing, and more importantly, it’s the reference index for a massive ecosystem of passive funds, ETFs, and institutional portfolios that automatically buy whatever the index tells them to buy.

Advertisement

Chairman Tom Lee indicated that the resulting inflows from index trackers could reach into the billions.

The Ethereum thesis, wrapped in a stock ticker BMNR co-founded Ethlabs, a collaborative initiative designed to accelerate Ethereum’s institutional adoption. The effort reportedly involves notable figures from the Ethereum ecosystem, including Joe Lubin.

The company’s investor roster includes ARK Invest, Founders Fund, and Pantera Capital.

The stock trades with high liquidity, reportedly seeing hundreds of millions in daily volume.

What this means for investors When passive funds buy BMNR shares, they’re indirectly gaining exposure to 5.67 million ETH. That means pension funds, 401(k) plans, and retirement accounts benchmarked to the Russell 1000 will, whether they realize it or not, suddenly have a slice of their portfolio tied to the price of Ethereum.

When MSTR entered the Nasdaq 100 in late 2024, it triggered a wave of passive buying that helped stabilize the stock’s premium to its underlying Bitcoin holdings.

The preliminary list drops in May 2026, which gives institutional investors about a month to position ahead of the June 26 effective date.

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

@chainlink is restructuring how its Build program operates. Rather than collecting native tokens from supported projects, Chainlink Labs will now enter direct commercial agreements paid in ETH or in liquid assets converted into $LINK. The proceeds flow into the Chainlink Reserve.

From Token Allocations to Commercial Deals Since its launch in September 2022, the Build program has aimed to accelerate the growth of early-stage and established projects within the Chainlink ecosystem by providing enhanced access to Chainlink services and technical support. Under the original structure, projects committed a percentage of their total token supply to the Chainlink ecosystem in exchange for those benefits, including incentives to LINK stakers.

That model is now changing. Going forward, Chainlink Labs will strike direct commercial deals with participating projects, with payments denominated in ETH or converted into $LINK before entering the Reserve. The company frames the shift as building sustainable network economics, concentrating value in $LINK rather than distributing a basket of third-party tokens to stakers.

The Chainlink Reserve is a strategic onchain reserve of $LINK designed to support the long-term growth and sustainability of the Chainlink Network. It accumulates LINK tokens using offchain revenue from large enterprises adopting the Chainlink standard and from onchain service usage. The Reserve is built up via Payment Abstraction, onchain infrastructure that lets users pay for Chainlink services in their preferred asset, with payments then programmatically converted to LINK through a decentralized exchange. As of Q1 2026, the Reserve held 3.06 million LINK, with a value of roughly $27.5 million.

Staker Rewards Wind Down as Claims Deadline Approaches The restructuring also marks the end of Chainlink Rewards in its current form. Chainlink Rewards is a community engagement program that enables Build projects to make their native tokens claimable by ecosystem participants, including eligible LINK stakers. The program distributed roughly $20 million worth of project tokens over its run across two seasons.

Season Genesis launched in collaboration with Space and Time, which made 100 million SXT tokens available to eligible LINK stakers. Season 1 followed with nine Build projects, including Dolomite, XSwap, Brickken, Folks Finance, Mind Network, Suku, Truflation, and bitsCrunch, and introduced a more advanced engagement and claiming mechanism. Season 1 is now the last under the current format. Token claims end on July 7, 2026, and any tokens not claimed by that date will be forfeited and no longer available.

The overhaul reflects a broader effort by Chainlink Labs to draw a tighter connection between network revenue and $LINK token value, moving away from indirect incentives through third-party project distributions.

Sources:
Chainlink Blog: Build Program Evolution
Chainlink Blog: Introducing Chainlink Rewards Season 1
Chainlink Blog: Introducing the Chainlink Reserve

You can now trade a memory-chip ETF from your Solana wallet. Sunrise DeFi, a platform built by Wormhole Labs, has launched a tokenized version of the Roundhill Memory ETF, ticker $DRAM, on Solana’s Jupiter exchange.

What $DRAM actually is The underlying asset here is the Roundhill Memory ETF, which trades on traditional markets under the Cboe BZX exchange with the ticker DRAM. That fund launched on April 2, 2026, and quickly attracted billions in assets under management as AI-driven demand for memory chips accelerated.

Advertisement

Sunrise DeFi’s contribution is wrapping that ETF into a token that lives natively on Solana. The $DRAM token is now live on Jupiter, Solana’s dominant decentralized exchange aggregator, which handles swaps and lending across the ecosystem. This isn’t Sunrise DeFi’s first rodeo. The platform has previously handled the integration of PAX Gold (PAXG) and Ethena’s ENA token on Solana, building a track record of ensuring liquidity from day one for newly tokenized assets.

The bigger picture: tokenized equities flood Solana $DRAM isn’t arriving in isolation. It’s part of a broader wave of tokenized traditional financial products landing on Solana throughout 2026. Ondo Global Markets and Securitize are among the firms actively working to bring tokenized equities and funds to the network. Jupiter has become the natural landing pad for these products, serving as the connective tissue between tokenized real-world assets and Solana’s existing DeFi ecosystem.

Sunrise DeFi, designed specifically by Wormhole Labs to facilitate these integrations, is positioning itself as the go-to bridge between traditional finance products and Solana’s DeFi rails. Wormhole’s cross-chain messaging infrastructure gives it a natural advantage here, since moving assets across ecosystems is literally what the protocol was built for.

What this means for investors Tokenized ETFs remove several friction points from traditional investing. No brokerage account needed. No market hours. No T+1 settlement.

For memory-chip bulls specifically, $DRAM offers a way to express that thesis entirely within the DeFi ecosystem. Instead of holding the ETF in a brokerage and crypto in a separate wallet, traders can now manage both exposures in a single interface. That composability—the ability to use $DRAM as collateral for loans or pair it in liquidity pools—is where tokenized assets genuinely differentiate themselves from their traditional counterparts.

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

Despite Shiba Inu’s recent price weakness, investors have resumed accumulating the token, withdrawing more than 300 billion SHIB from exchanges over the past 24 hours.

Notably, Shiba Inu’s exchange reserve have retreated from recent highs, signaling renewed accumulation activity. The metric, which tracks the amount of SHIB held in exchange wallets, fell from approximately 80.5 trillion tokens to 80.37 trillion in less than 48 hours.

Recent Exchange Inflows Interrupted a Multi-Week Trend Before this week’s developments, Shiba Inu’s exchange reserves had been declining steadily for several weeks and had even fallen below the 80 trillion SHIB mark.

However, the trend briefly reversed earlier this week when investors transferred large amounts of SHIB to exchanges, according to data from CryptoQuant. Approximately 749 billion SHIB flowed into trading platforms, pushing exchange reserves to 80.53 trillion on June 23 and further to 80.55 trillion the following day.

Investors Return to Accumulation  Contrary to expectations, exchange reserves failed to rise further as SHIB’s price plunged. Instead, they resumed their decline, dropping to 80.37 trillion tokens by press time.

The reversal suggests that many investors have returned to accumulation despite the broader market downturn. In particular, some holders appear to view current price levels as an opportunity to increase exposure rather than reduce positions. 

SHIBA INU Exchange Reserve All Exchanges Negative Netflows Strengthen the Bullish Accumulation Case Exchange netflow data further reinforces the accumulation narrative. The metric, which measures the difference between exchange inflows and outflows, has turned negative and currently stands at -355.54 billion SHIB, representing a 2.12% decline in exchange balances over the past 24 hours.

Although inflows surged to 442.21 billion SHIB during the period, outflows significantly exceeded that figure and reached 797.76 billion tokens. As a result, exchanges recorded a net outflow of more than 355 billion SHIB, highlighting continued investor accumulation despite the recent correction. 

Shiba Inu Flows to Exchanges Liquidation Wipes Out Over $200K Shiba Inu Leveraged Bets  The latest accumulation trend emerged as Shiba Inu experienced another sharp decline that briefly pushed the token to around $0.0000040 earlier today. SHIB later recovered part of its losses and rebounded to approximately $0.0000042.

Nonetheless, the sell-off inflicted heavy losses on leveraged traders. According to liquidation data from CoinGlass, SHIB derivatives traders lost approximately $210,820 over the past 24 hours.

Long traders absorbed the overwhelming majority of the losses, with liquidations approaching $194,000. Meanwhile, short traders recorded comparatively smaller losses totaling about $16,870.

Shiba Inu liquidation 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.