Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

TULSA, OK / ACCESS Newswire / June 29, 2026 / BOK Financial Corporation (NASDAQ:BOKF) will host a conference call to review second quarter 2026 financial results at noon central time on Tuesday, July 21, 2026. The call may also include discussion of company developments, forward-looking statements and other material information about business and financial matters. The results are scheduled to be released after the market closes on Monday, July 20, 2026.

The live audio webcast and presentation slides will be available on the company's investor relations website. The conference call can also be accessed by dialing 1.800.715.9871 toll free, or 1.646.307.1963, conference ID: 6617678. A webcast replay will be available shortly after the live call's conclusion on the company's investor relations website or by dialing 1.800.770.2030 and referencing replay PIN 6617678.

About BOK Financial Corporation

BOK Financial Corporation is a $54 billion regional financial services company headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma with $124 billion in assets under management and administration. The company's stock is publicly traded on NASDAQ under the Global Select market listings (BOKF). BOK Financial Corporation's holdings include BOKF, NA; BOK Financial Securities, Inc.; and BOK Financial Private Wealth, Inc. BOKF, NA's holdings include TransFund and Cavanal Hill Investment Management, Inc. BOKF, NA operates banking divisions across eight states as: Bank of Albuquerque; Bank of Oklahoma; Bank of Texas; and BOK Financial in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas and Missouri; as well as having limited purpose offices in Connecticut, Nebraska, Tennessee and Wisconsin. Through its subsidiaries, BOK Financial Corporation provides commercial and consumer banking, brokerage trading, investment, trust and insurance services, mortgage origination and servicing, and an electronic funds transfer network. For more information, visit www.bokf.com.

Contact:

Heather King
Director of Investor Relations 214.676.4666

SOURCE: BOK Financial

AI-related US stocks staged a V-shaped reversal, with most recouping their opening losses.

Per Bitget market data, AI-related US stocks staged a V-shaped reversal tonight, with most erasing their post-opening declines. Micron Technology is down 3% after hitting an intraday low of 8%. Marvell Technology (MRVL) turned positive, currently up 0.49% following an over 5% intraday drop. Corning (GLW) and CommScope Holding (CBRS) rallied more than 10%. Storage stocks Western Digital (WDC) gained 8% and Seagate Technology (STX) rose 4%.

4 minutes ago

Due to a stock split, Binance will adjust the contract size of CRWD U-margined perpetual contracts.

According to an official announcement, the underlying asset of the CRWDUSDT perpetual contract will implement a 1-for-4 stock split of its issued Class A shares via a dividend distribution. Consequently, Binance will adjust the contract size of its CRWDUSDT U.S. dollar-margined perpetual contract at 08:00 (UTC+8) on July 2, 2026. The adjustment is projected to be completed by 21:30 (UTC+8) the same day. Post-adjustment, the contract will enter a 5-minute cancel-only phase.

4 minutes ago

CZ: I previously sent a message to Elon Musk to discuss cooperation based on X Money, and received a reply stating that X Money is currently not involved in cryptocurrency.

In an interview, CZ stated that when X Corp launched X Money, he sent a message to Elon Musk on X, inquiring whether Binance could become a partner. Musk responded that X Money is not currently venturing into the cryptocurrency space. CZ added that he hopes X will eventually evolve into a global payments platform, drawing a parallel between this opportunity and Starlink’s achievements in the internet access sector.

4 minutes ago

CZ comments on MicroStrategy: The company’s asset structure is overly complex, but he views Michael Saylor as a "steadfast Bitcoin supporter".

In an interview, CZ stated that Strategy’s preferred stock STRC structure is "too complicated", noting that "it took many attempts to understand STRC". The product relies on Bitcoin as underlying collateral, creating a structural contradiction: while Bitcoin’s long-term appreciation thesis may be valid, its volatility makes it a challenging base for leverage instruments. CZ also emphasized he is not commenting on founder Michael Saylor’s credibility, describing him as a "firm Bitcoin supporter".

4 minutes ago

CZ: Binance’s Greek MiCA license application was nearly approved, but was forced to withdraw due to external factors.

In an interview, CZ stated that Binance’s MiCA license application submitted in Greece was fully compliant with regulatory requirements and near approval before being withdrawn, but the process was interrupted by "external political intervention". He added that multiple EU countries had expressed interest in the license, leading to a degree of "competitive lobbying", yet non-regulatory factors ultimately derailed the application, forcing its withdrawal. Binance officially pulled the Greek application last week and said it will shift to other EU member states to pursue MiCA authorization. Responding to market rumors linking Binance to senior EU political figures, CZ noted he has not seen any verifiable documents, only similar claims online, and has not confirmed them. He also pointed out that the EU MiCA transition period will end on July 1, after which unlicensed platforms must cease related services, with national regulators making clear they will not extend the deadline. CZ called the outcome a "lose-lose situation" and cited Japan and Singapore’s regulatory paths as examples, emphasizing compliance processes often require longer timelines.

4 minutes ago

Kraken is set to list the Bittensor subnet Alpha token.

Barry Silbert, founder and CEO of Digital Currency Group (DCG), parent company of Grayscale, reposted on X to disclose that crypto exchange Kraken is set to list Alpha tokens from Bittensor subnets. According to leaked details, the first batch of tokens to be listed includes Chutes, Targon, Score, Ridges AI, Hippius, and others.

4 minutes ago

AI-related US stocks staged a V-shaped reversal, with most recouping their opening losses.

Per Bitget market data, AI-related US stocks staged a V-shaped reversal tonight, with most erasing their post-opening declines. Micron Technology is down 3% after hitting an intraday low of 8%. Marvell Technology (MRVL) turned positive, currently up 0.49% following an over 5% intraday drop. Corning (GLW) and CommScope Holding (CBRS) rallied more than 10%. Storage stocks Western Digital (WDC) gained 8% and Seagate Technology (STX) rose 4%.

4 minutes ago

Due to a stock split, Binance will adjust the contract size of CRWD U-margined perpetual contracts.

According to an official announcement, the underlying asset of the CRWDUSDT perpetual contract will implement a 1-for-4 stock split of its issued Class A shares via a dividend distribution. Consequently, Binance will adjust the contract size of its CRWDUSDT U.S. dollar-margined perpetual contract at 08:00 (UTC+8) on July 2, 2026. The adjustment is projected to be completed by 21:30 (UTC+8) the same day. Post-adjustment, the contract will enter a 5-minute cancel-only phase.

4 minutes ago

CZ: I previously sent a message to Elon Musk to discuss cooperation based on X Money, and received a reply stating that X Money is currently not involved in cryptocurrency.

In an interview, CZ stated that when X Corp launched X Money, he sent a message to Elon Musk on X, inquiring whether Binance could become a partner. Musk responded that X Money is not currently venturing into the cryptocurrency space. CZ added that he hopes X will eventually evolve into a global payments platform, drawing a parallel between this opportunity and Starlink’s achievements in the internet access sector.

4 minutes ago

CZ comments on MicroStrategy: The company’s asset structure is overly complex, but he views Michael Saylor as a "steadfast Bitcoin supporter".

In an interview, CZ stated that Strategy’s preferred stock STRC structure is "too complicated", noting that "it took many attempts to understand STRC". The product relies on Bitcoin as underlying collateral, creating a structural contradiction: while Bitcoin’s long-term appreciation thesis may be valid, its volatility makes it a challenging base for leverage instruments. CZ also emphasized he is not commenting on founder Michael Saylor’s credibility, describing him as a "firm Bitcoin supporter".

4 minutes ago

CZ: Binance’s Greek MiCA license application was nearly approved, but was forced to withdraw due to external factors.

In an interview, CZ stated that Binance’s MiCA license application submitted in Greece was fully compliant with regulatory requirements and near approval before being withdrawn, but the process was interrupted by "external political intervention". He added that multiple EU countries had expressed interest in the license, leading to a degree of "competitive lobbying", yet non-regulatory factors ultimately derailed the application, forcing its withdrawal. Binance officially pulled the Greek application last week and said it will shift to other EU member states to pursue MiCA authorization. Responding to market rumors linking Binance to senior EU political figures, CZ noted he has not seen any verifiable documents, only similar claims online, and has not confirmed them. He also pointed out that the EU MiCA transition period will end on July 1, after which unlicensed platforms must cease related services, with national regulators making clear they will not extend the deadline. CZ called the outcome a "lose-lose situation" and cited Japan and Singapore’s regulatory paths as examples, emphasizing compliance processes often require longer timelines.

4 minutes ago

Kraken is set to list the Bittensor subnet Alpha token.

Barry Silbert, founder and CEO of Digital Currency Group (DCG), parent company of Grayscale, reposted on X to disclose that crypto exchange Kraken is set to list Alpha tokens from Bittensor subnets. According to leaked details, the first batch of tokens to be listed includes Chutes, Targon, Score, Ridges AI, Hippius, and others.

4 minutes ago

The decentralized finance sector has endured a tumultuous year, with 121 separate security breaches in 2026 alone leading to losses of nearly $942 million. Industry data points to a notable surge in attack activity, highlighting the persistent vulnerabilities within DeFi protocols. With market participation weakening, investor confidence has been put under significant strain, raising key questions about the industry’s risk management.

Losses accelerate in the second quarterAccording to CryptoRank, the second quarter of 2026 proved to be one of the most devastating periods for the crypto industry. In just three months, approximately $775 million was stolen across 85 distinct attacks. This single quarter accounted for over 80% of all funds lost throughout the year, making it the most intense quarter ever recorded for DeFi exploits.

The data also reveals that the number of incidents surged by 49 attacks compared to the next busiest quarter; however, the total financial damage did not eclipse earlier peak periods. This was primarily due to only two truly large-scale breaches dominating the quarter. Losses related to Drift Protocol and KelpDAO exceeded $590 million, which represented nearly half of all DeFi losses for the year.

CryptoRank underscores that the second quarter alone accounted for more than 80% of annual losses, revealing just how rapidly attack techniques continue to evolve across the DeFi ecosystem.

Drift Protocol and KelpDAO take center stage in major breachesCryptoRank notes that some $285 million in assets was siphoned from Drift Protocol users in a coordinated social engineering attack. Blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs has linked this breach to hacker groups associated with North Korea. The attackers reportedly convinced members of the Drift Security Council to authorize seemingly routine transactions which secretly conferred elevated permissions to the malicious actors.

Mini glossary: Social engineering is an attack method that exploits human behavior rather than technical flaws. Attackers deceive authorized individuals into approving apparently benign actions, thereby gaining critical system access.

Just weeks later, the infamous Lazarus Group targeted KelpDAO, exploiting a flaw in the LayerZero bridge infrastructure. The hackers made off with around $290 million in rsETH. KelpDAO is known as a DeFi protocol built around re-staked assets.

According to Chainalysis, the perpetrators took control of validator infrastructure, forged cross-chain messages, and managed to mint tokens on Ethereum without burning corresponding assets on Unichain.

Chainalysis explains that the attackers seized the protocol’s validator infrastructure, generated fraudulent cross-chain messages, and bypassed security checks. This opened the door for tokens to be minted on the Ethereum network without destroying equivalent assets on Unichain, creating a critical exploit path.

Mini glossary: LayerZero is an interoperability platform designed to facilitate asset and message transfers between different blockchains. Vulnerabilities in its validation layer can enable fraudulent cross-chain activity.

Total value locked falls as capital flight intensifiesThe uptick in DeFi breaches coincided with already weakening market conditions. CryptoRank observed that the total value locked (TVL) in DeFi declined every month throughout the year, slipping from roughly $115.3 billion in January to just over $70 billion by end-June. Although security lapses were not the only cause, experts suggest the succession of high-profile incidents further accelerated the capital outflows.

The attack on KelpDAO notably increased the pressure in the market. Lending protocol Aave experienced an outflow of around $12 billion in under 24 hours. This sharp withdrawal caused Aave’s TVL to plummet from $26.4 billion to $14.3 billion, underscoring the contagious effect of loss of trust on major protocols.

IndicatorBeforeAfterAnnual TVL$115.3 billionJust over $70 billionAave TVL$26.4 billion$14.3 billionFragmentation grows between blockchain platformsAnalysts stress that current conditions differ markedly from the sector-wide DeFi collapse of 2021 and 2022. CryptoRank emphasizes that there is now broader stablecoin supply, tokenization of real-world assets, and greater diversification of capital into lending, derivatives, and infrastructure layers.

Looking across chain platforms, Tron and Hyperliquid emerged as the only networks to record TVL growth in 2026. In stark contrast, Plasma and Arbitrum saw the sharpest declines, highlighting how sector turbulence is leading to a divergence between different blockchain ecosystems.

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

© ShutterstockProfessional / Shutterstock.com

Due to the attention given to their trillion dollar market caps and preoccupation with A.I., the Magnificent 7 stocks (Apple, Amazon, Alphabet/Google, Meta Platforms/Facebook, Nvidia, Microsoft, and Tesla) often make people forget that there are 493 other stocks in the S&P 500 worth investors’ consideration. 

Case in point: investors seeking a combination of income and growth need not avoid S&P 500 ETF exposure. At the time of this writing, State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSE: SPY), which is one of the leading straight S&P 500 ETFs in the market, is posting a +7.47% YTD return, with a +20.46% 1-year gain and a 0.98% yield. In comparison, the Invesco S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility ETF (NYSE: SPHD), an ETF that draws upon different stocks from the index apart from the Magnificent 7, boasts a +10.45% YTD return, a +14.74% 1-year return, and a 4.57% yield. 

The S&P 500 Of 30 Years Ago

SPHD’s focus on dividends and lack of Magnificent 7 inclusion is reminiscent of the S&P 500 in the mid 1990s.

When looking at the top holdings of SPHD, it resembles an S&P 500 time capsule from 30 years ago, an era when Frasier and The X-Files were TV favorites, The Fugees and Spice Girls were ubiquitous on the radio, people still bought compact discs, and Michael Jordan led the Chicago Bulls to their fourth NBA title. Among SPHD’s top holdings are:

Verizon Communications: 3.47% Altria Group: 3.443% Pfizer Inc.: 2.97% As one might deduce from its official name, SPHD selects the 75 highest yielding stocks from the S&P 500, weighting them by yield in descending order. A subsequent 12-month volatility analysis reduces the list of 75 to the 50 stocks with the lowest volatility. Inevitably, the sectors that tend to generate dividends, i.e, real estate, utilities, financials, and consumer staples, tend to wind up getting greater representation in SPHD. The cumulative dividends are passed through and prorated to shareholders. SPHD made its market debut on 10-18-2012. A detailed  overview includes the following:

Net Assets $3.23 billion YTD Return 10.45% Yield  4.57% 1-Year Return 14.74% NAV $51.73 3-Year Return 12.89% 52-week Range $46.58-$53.07 5-Year Return 6.14% Avg, Daily Volume 754,119 shares 10-Year Return 7.34% P/E Ratio 17.43 Expense Ratio 0.30% Gains vs. Income and Other Caveats

Choosing strong growth ETF or a growth & income ETF is a choice than many investors facing retirement in the near future is a major decision.

Don't wait: the analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just revealed his top 10 AI stocks. See the full list FREE now.

Of course, the tech bubble perception and spreading concerns about overvaluation of A.I. is a very valid one, as Magnificent 7 avoidance is a major factor driving foreign investors away from the tech sector and towards other ones in their own domestic markets. US investors who share those sentiments (such as investor Michael Burry of “Long Short” fame), but who still want major US market upside may find SPHD of interest. 

However when measuring over the extended term, SPY unequivocally outpaces SPHD, primarily due to the horsepower of the technology stocks, mostly dominated by the Magnificent 7. While the rest of the S&P 500 stocks continue to grow at their respective paces, the overall S&P 500 index owes its consistent annual double-digit return performance and triple point return long haul performance from those leading tech stocks in the index. Nevertheless, SPHD has continued to offer solid, albeit less spectacular gains, and has unflaggingly never missed a monthly dividend payment since its inception. 

That dividend, though, is subject to interest rate fluctuations. If rates are cut, dividends may take a small reduction, but the stocks and SPHD’s NAV will get a boost. Alternatively, rising rates may make dividends larger, but SPHD will take a commensurate NAV drop. 

The other main consideration is how much money SPHD will leave on the table vs. SPY in capital gains if the market takes another strong bull run. A Federal Reserve Bank interest rate cut announcement will cause SPY to boom. SPHD will rise also, but its gap with SPY will likely widen as well, as the tech stocks will probably be leading the charge. 

Allocating some of one’s portfolio to SPHD makes sense for investors seeking some income with their growth, with the income as a defensive hedge against a market downturn or volatility fears. However, this defensive posture might not be a long term hold scenario, so portfolio monitoring is a prudent practice to follow if one does buy SPHD. 

Don't wait: the analyst who called NVIDIA in 2010 just revealed his top 10 AI stocks. See the full list FREE now.

It doesn't matter your age or experience: taking full advantage of the stock market and investing with confidence are common goals for all investors. Luckily, Zacks Premium offers several different ways to do both.

The research service features daily updates of the Zacks Rank and Zacks Industry Rank, full access to the Zacks #1 Rank List, Equity Research reports, and Premium stock screens, all of which will help you become a smarter, more confident investor.

It also includes access to the Zacks Style Scores.

What are the Zacks Style Scores? The Zacks Style Scores, developed alongside the Zacks Rank, are complementary indicators that rate stocks based on three widely-followed investing methodologies; they also help investors pick stocks with the best chances of beating the market over the next 30 days.

Each stock is assigned a rating of A, B, C, D, or F based on their value, growth, and momentum characteristics. Just like in school, an A is better than a B, a B is better than a C, and so on -- that means the better the score, the better chance the stock will outperform.

The Style Scores are broken down into four categories:

Value ScoreFinding good stocks at good prices, and discovering which companies are trading under their true value, are what value investors like to focus on. So, the Value Style Score takes into account ratios like P/E, PEG, Price/Sales, Price/Cash Flow, and a host of other multiples to highlight the most attractive and discounted stocks.

Growth ScoreWhile good value is important, growth investors are more focused on a company's financial strength and health, and its future outlook. The Growth Style Score takes projected and historic earnings, sales, and cash flow into account to uncover stocks that will see long-term, sustainable growth.

Momentum ScoreMomentum trading is all about taking advantage of upward or downward trends in a stock's price or earnings outlook, and these investors live by the saying "the trend is your friend." The Momentum Style Score can pinpoint good times to build a position in a stock, using factors like one-week price change and the monthly percentage change in earnings estimates.

VGM ScoreIf you like to use all three kinds of investing, then the VGM Score is for you. It's a combination of all Style Scores, and is an important indicator to use with the Zacks Rank. The VGM Score rates each stock on their shared weighted styles, narrowing down the companies with the most attractive value, best growth forecast, and most promising momentum.

How Style Scores Work with the Zacks Rank The Zacks Rank, which is a proprietary stock-rating model, employs earnings estimate revisions, or changes to a company's earnings expectations, to make building a winning portfolio easier.

#1 (Strong Buy) stocks have produced an unmatched +23.94% average annual return since 1988, which is more than double the S&P 500's performance over the same time frame. However, the Zacks Rank examines a ton of stocks, and there can be more than 200 companies with a Strong Buy rank, and another 600 with a #2 (Buy) rank, on any given day.

But it can feel overwhelming to pick the right stocks for you and your investing goals with over 800 top-rated stocks to choose from.

That's where the Style Scores come in.

To have the best chance of big returns, you'll want to always consider stocks with a Zacks Rank #1 or #2 that also have Style Scores of A or B, which will give you the highest probability of success. If you're looking at stocks with a #3 (Hold) rank, it's important they have Scores of A or B as well to ensure as much upside potential as possible.

The direction of a stock's earnings estimate revisions should always be a key factor when choosing which stocks to buy, since the Scores were created to work together with the Zacks Rank.

A stock with a #4 (Sell) or #5 (Strong Sell) rating, for instance, even one with Scores of A and B, will still have a declining earnings forecast, and a greater chance its share price will fall too.

Thus, the more stocks you own with a #1 or #2 Rank and Scores of A or B, the better.

Stock to Watch: Insulet (PODD - Free Report) Acton, MA-based Insulet Corporation manufactures and sells its proprietary continuous insulin delivery systems for people with insulin-dependent diabetes. The company designed Omnipod, a small, lightweight, self-adhesive disposable tubeless device that can be worn in multiple locations, including the abdomen, hip, back of the upper arm, upper thigh or lower back.

PODD is a #3 (Hold) on the Zacks Rank, with a VGM Score of A.

Momentum investors should take note of this Medical stock. PODD has a Momentum Style Score of A, and shares are up 9.2% over the past four weeks.

Seven analysts revised their earnings estimate upwards in the last 60 days for fiscal 2026. The Zacks Consensus Estimate has increased $0.18 to $6.46 per share. PODD boasts an average earnings surprise of +16.2%.

With a solid Zacks Rank and top-tier Momentum and VGM Style Scores, PODD should be on investors' short list.

For those looking to find strong Construction stocks, it is prudent to search for companies in the group that are outperforming their peers. Dycom Industries (DY - Free Report) is a stock that can certainly grab the attention of many investors, but do its recent returns compare favorably to the sector as a whole? Let's take a closer look at the stock's year-to-date performance to find out.

Dycom Industries is a member of our Construction group, which includes 88 different companies and currently sits at #16 in the Zacks Sector Rank. The Zacks Sector Rank includes 16 different groups and is listed in order from best to worst in terms of the average Zacks Rank of the individual companies within each of these sectors.

The Zacks Rank is a proven system that emphasizes earnings estimates and estimate revisions, highlighting a variety of stocks that are displaying the right characteristics to beat the market over the next one to three months. Dycom Industries is currently sporting a Zacks Rank of #1 (Strong Buy).

Within the past quarter, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for DY's full-year earnings has moved 20.6% higher. This is a sign of improving analyst sentiment and a positive earnings outlook trend.

Based on the latest available data, DY has gained about 44.5% so far this year. At the same time, Construction stocks have gained an average of 17.9%. This means that Dycom Industries is performing better than its sector in terms of year-to-date returns.

Orion Marine Group (ORN - Free Report) is another Construction stock that has outperformed the sector so far this year. Since the beginning of the year, the stock has returned 65.1%.

The consensus estimate for Orion Marine Group's current year EPS has increased 12.9% over the past three months. The stock currently has a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy).

Breaking things down more, Dycom Industries is a member of the Building Products - Heavy Construction industry, which includes 8 individual companies and currently sits at #46 in the Zacks Industry Rank. On average, this group has gained an average of 39.7% so far this year, meaning that DY is performing better in terms of year-to-date returns. Orion Marine Group is also part of the same industry.

Dycom Industries and Orion Marine Group could continue their solid performance, so investors interested in Construction stocks should continue to pay close attention to these stocks.

Launching a memecoin used to be a one-time event. Now, on platforms like Pump.fun, the person who creates a token can earn a cut of every trade, potentially for as long as it trades. That single change has reshaped who launches coins, why, and how the money flows. Here is how creator fees work, how they are evolving, and where they go wrong.

Summary

Creator fees are a share of trading activity that a memecoin launchpad routes to the person who created a token, turning a launch into a potential ongoing income stream rather than a one-time event. On Pump.fun, the dominant Solana launchpad, creator fees can reach a small percentage of each transaction, and the system has evolved from rewarding coin creation to trying to reward genuine trading. A 2026 update introduced creator-fee sharing, letting teams split fees across multiple wallets, transfer token ownership, and assign percentages to community administrators. The mechanic has produced a new playbook in which some creators airdrop their fees back to holders to build loyalty, while the same tools can sustain hype around a token the creator profits from. Creator fees align incentives in theory but introduce real risks in practice, from incentivizing spam launches to enabling fee extraction at the expense of retail traders. Creator fees are payments that a memecoin launchpad routes to the person who created a token, taken as a small percentage of the trading activity in that token, which turns launching a coin from a one-time act into a potential source of ongoing income. This is a genuinely important shift in how memecoins work, and it is easy to miss if you only watch token prices. In the older model, someone who launched a token might profit only by holding and selling their own allocation; the act of creating the coin itself paid nothing directly. Modern launchpads changed that by sharing a slice of every trade with the token’s creator, so that a coin which trades actively can pay its creator continuously, sometimes substantially, regardless of whether the creator buys or sells.

That single mechanic reshaped the incentives of the entire memecoin economy: it changed who launches coins, why they launch them, how they behave afterward, and increasingly how communities and influencers are paid. Understanding creator fees is therefore central to understanding why the memecoin space looks the way it does. The mechanic also sits at the heart of recent flashpoints in crypto, from launchpads redesigning their fee systems to influencers pledging to airdrop their accumulated fees back to traders. To make sense of those stories, you need to understand what creator fees are, how launchpads make money around them, how the systems have evolved from rewarding mere coin creation toward rewarding real trading, the newer fee-sharing tools that let creators split and redistribute their take, the community playbook this has enabled, a concrete worked example of the money involved, and the real risks and abuses the model invites.

This guide walks through each. The goal is not to encourage launching coins or chasing fees, but to explain a mechanism that now shapes the behavior of nearly every memecoin you might encounter, so that you can read the incentives behind a token rather than just its price chart. Once you see who gets paid and how, a great deal of otherwise baffling memecoin behavior starts to make sense.

What creator fees actually are At the simplest level, a creator fee is a cut of trading taken automatically and paid to a token’s creator. When a launchpad hosts a token, it typically charges fees on trades, and it can direct a portion of those fees to the wallet associated with whoever created the coin. Because the fee is a percentage of trading volume, the creator earns more when the token trades more, which ties the creator’s income to the activity around the coin rather than to a single sale of their own holdings. This is structurally different from the traditional way token creators made money, which was to hold an allocation and sell it, an approach that aligns the creator with dumping on buyers.

A creator fee, by contrast, pays the creator from the flow of trading itself, which in principle gives them a reason to want sustained activity instead of a quick exit. It helps to separate the creator fee from the other fees in the system, because a launchpad’s economics involve several layers. When you trade a memecoin on a launchpad, the fees on that trade can be split among multiple parties: the protocol, meaning the platform itself; the liquidity providers who supply the pool the token trades against once it has graduated to a normal market; and the creator. Each takes a defined slice.

The creator fee is the portion earmarked for the token’s originator, and on the leading Solana launchpad it can reach a small but meaningful percentage of each transaction. Multiplied across high trading volume, even a fraction of a % per trade can add up to large sums for a coin that catches fire. So the basic picture is this: every trade in a launchpad memecoin pays a toll, and one slice of that toll flows to whoever created the coin, for as long as people keep trading it. That simple arrangement is the engine behind much of what follows.

How launchpads make money around fees To understand creator fees, it helps to understand the business of the launchpad itself, because the two are intertwined. A memecoin launchpad is, at its core, a fee machine: it earns from the enormous volume of trading that flows through the tokens it hosts, regardless of whether any individual token succeeds or fails. This is a crucial point that explains much of the industry’s behavior. The platform benefits from activity and speculation in aggregate, so its incentive is to maximize the number of coins launched and the volume traded, even though the vast majority of those coins will lose nearly all their value.

The launchpad wins on volume; the individual trader usually does not. The leading Solana launchpad illustrates the scale of this. It has captured a dominant share of Solana’s memecoin launches, on the order of three-quarters of them, and it has generated very large revenues from platform fees. Notably, it has directed the overwhelming majority of its platform revenue, well over 90%, into buying back its own token, retiring a substantial portion of that token’s supply, one of the most aggressive buyback programs in crypto.

That detail matters because it shows how the fee flows ultimately circulate: trading fees fund the platform, which funds buybacks of the platform’s token, which benefits the platform’s token holders. Creator fees are one branch of this larger fee economy, the branch earmarked for the people who create the coins. Seen this way, the whole system is an arrangement for converting speculative trading volume into revenue and distributing it among the platform, its token holders, liquidity providers, and creators. The traders supplying the volume are the source of all of it.

From rewarding creation to rewarding trading Creator-fee systems have not stood still; they have evolved in response to the problems they created, and that evolution is instructive. An earlier generation of the dominant launchpad’s fee system, introduced in late 2025 as part of a broader program, was designed to reward successful token creators, and it worked in the sense that it pulled in a wave of new participants, many of whom had never used a crypto application before, who began launching coins to earn fees. Platform activity surged, with trading volumes reportedly doubling. But the design had a flaw that its own operators came to recognize: by rewarding the act of creating coins, it skewed incentives toward low-risk coin creation instead of toward the high-risk trading that actually sustains a launchpad’s health.

In other words, it paid people to mint tokens, which produced a flood of low-quality launches, when what the platform needed was active trading and liquidity. This led to a rethink. The platform’s operators concluded that creator fees needed to change so that they rewarded genuine trading activity and the people who provide liquidity, instead of simply rewarding deployment. They signaled a shift toward what they described as a market-based approach, in which traders, not the people deploying coins, would effectively determine whether a token’s narrative deserved fee support, moving the reward toward the activity that generates real volume.

The operators also made a pointed cultural statement, indicating that no member of the platform’s own team would accept creator fees, and framing the feature as being for the active traders the community calls trenchers. That is why who the fees are aimed at matters in the broader Solana memecoin culture. The direction of travel, then, is away from paying people merely to launch tokens and toward channeling fees in a way that supports trading and liquidity. Whether that fully works in practice is open to question, but the evolution itself reveals the central tension in creator fees: a reward meant to encourage good behavior can easily encourage the wrong behavior, and designing it well is genuinely hard.

Creator-fee sharing and the newer tools The most consequential recent change to creator fees was the introduction, in early 2026, of a fee-sharing system that gave creators far more flexibility in how their fees are handled, and understanding it clarifies several recent headlines. Under the older model, directing fees to a specific person or address was cumbersome, and the system sometimes required users to trust others to allocate fees properly, which weakened transparency. The fee-sharing update addressed this by letting a token’s team split its creator fees across multiple wallets, up to ten of them, and assign specific percentages to each, as well as transfer ownership of a coin and revoke certain authorities over it. Importantly, the update also let community administrators, the people who take over a coin in what is called a community takeover, assign fee percentages after a token has launched, opening the fee stream to community structures instead of only the original deployer.

This may sound like a technical plumbing change, but its effects are significant. By making it easy to split and redirect creator fees, the update turned the fee stream into something that could be shared among a team, distributed to a community, or routed to specific purposes, instead of flowing solely to one anonymous creator. It enabled coordinated projects to pay multiple contributors, allowed communities that revive an abandoned coin to capture the fees, and, as the next section describes, made it practical for creators to redistribute their fees back to holders as a loyalty mechanism. The broader significance is that creator fees stopped being a simple, single-recipient reward and became a flexible tool that could be programmed to serve different incentive structures.

That flexibility is powerful, and like most powerful tools in this space, it can be used to align a community or to manufacture loyalty around a token the controllers profit from. The mechanics are neutral; the uses are not. This is why creator fees should be read as the incentive design behind tokens rather than as a simple reward feature. The question is never only whether fees exist; it is who controls them, where they flow, and what behavior they encourage.

The community playbook this enabled The fee-sharing tools, combined with the sheer size of fees a viral coin can generate, gave rise to a new playbook that has reshaped how influencers and communities interact with memecoins. The traditional influencer-coin pattern was extractive: an influencer launches or promotes a token, the price spikes on their attention, and they sell into it, leaving followers with losses. The newer playbook inverts part of that. Instead of pocketing accumulated creator fees, some creators now airdrop portions of those fees back to the community of holders and traders, framing it as sharing the rewards with the people who drove the coin’s success.

This redistribution, returning earned fees to holders instead of extracting and exiting, has been received notably well in a culture long cynical about influencers benefiting at retail’s expense. A high-profile instance brought this playbook to wide attention when a prominent Solana influencer, amid a memecoin frenzy built on his name, publicly criticized the launchpad over its handling of rewards and pledged to airdrop his accumulated creator fees, reported in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, back to traders, framing it in the community’s own slang as giving them a boost the platform would not. That was the fee-airdrop playbook in action. The move generated goodwill and reinforced a narrative that the influencer had alignment and skin in the game.

But the same episode illustrates the playbook’s double edge. A fee-airdrop program is a truly community-friendly gesture, and it is also a powerful tool for sustaining attention and buying pressure around a token the creator holds a large position in and profits from. Redistributing fees can align a creator with holders, and it can also be a sophisticated way to keep a speculative coin alive a little longer. Both readings are valid, and the honest view is that creator-fee redistribution is a real improvement over pure extraction while remaining a tool whose ultimate effect depends on the intentions and holdings behind it.

The mechanic does not, by itself, make a memecoin safe. It may reduce one type of extraction while preserving others. It may prove genuine alignment, or it may simply extend the life of a trade that still depends on fresh buyers arriving. The difference depends on the creator’s holdings, transparency, and behavior after the airdrop.

A worked example: where the money goes To ground the abstraction, walk through a simplified example of how creator fees flow, using round numbers for clarity instead of precision. Imagine a creator launches a memecoin on a launchpad where the creator fee is set at a small fraction of 1% of each trade, and the coin catches a wave of attention. Suppose that over a busy stretch the token does $50 million in cumulative trading volume as buyers and sellers churn through it. Even at a creator-fee rate of, say, around 0.5% of trading, that volume would generate on the order of a couple of hundred thousand dollars in creator fees flowing to the wallet associated with the coin, entirely separate from any gain or loss on the creator’s own token holdings.

This is why a single viral coin can pay its creator a life-changing sum from fees alone, and why the prospect of those fees draws so many people to launch tokens. Now layer on the fee-sharing tools. With the newer system, that creator could split the fee stream across multiple wallets, perhaps paying several contributors who help run the project, or assign a percentage to a community administrator after a takeover, or set aside a portion to airdrop back to holders. So the same $200,000 might be divided among a small team, partly redistributed to the community to build loyalty, and partly retained.

The numbers here are illustrative, not a claim about any specific coin, but they capture the real dynamic: meaningful sums, generated from the trading volume of ordinary buyers, flowing to creators and increasingly programmable into splits and redistributions. The essential point the example makes is where the money originates. Every dollar of creator fees comes from the trading activity of the people buying and selling the coin. The fee is a transfer from traders to creators, dressed up in various ways.

Understanding that is the key to reading any claim about creator fees with clear eyes, because it locates who pays and who is paid. A fee can be redistributed, split, or framed as community alignment, but it still begins as a toll on trading activity. That does not make it automatically abusive. It does mean the economic direction of the flow should be clear before anyone treats it as a benefit.

Risks, abuses, and what to watch Creator fees, for all their cleverness, introduce a set of risks and potential abuses that anyone interacting with memecoins should understand. The first is that fees incentivize spam. When launching a coin can pay, people launch enormous numbers of low-quality coins purely to chase fees, flooding the market with tokens that have no purpose beyond generating trades, which is precisely the problem the launchpads themselves identified and tried to redesign around. The second is fee extraction layered on top of other extraction.

A creator can earn substantial fees while also holding a large token position, and the combination gives them strong tools and strong motives to pump attention around a coin, sustain trading, and benefit regardless of whether holders ultimately profit, which can shade into the pump-and-dump dynamics that critics attribute to influencer-driven micro-caps. That is where how fee extraction can shade into abuse becomes relevant. Not every creator-fee model is a rug pull, but the same environment that supports fee extraction also supports scams, liquidity drains, and insider exits. The difference often lies in wallet concentration, transparency, and whether the creator can profit while holders are left with the downside.

The third risk is trust and transparency in how fees are allocated. Because fee streams can be split, redirected, and assigned to various wallets, it is not always clear who is actually receiving a coin’s fees or what they will do with them, and earlier systems were criticized for requiring users to trust others to allocate fees properly. The fourth is that the entire structure is funded by retail traders, the people supplying the volume, most of whom lose money on the highly volatile tokens involved, while fees flow to creators and platforms regardless. There are also broader integrity questions hanging over the dominant launchpad, including a major lawsuit alleging an insider-driven system that favored privileged participants at retail’s expense, a reminder that the fee economy operates in a lightly regulated and contested environment.

The practical guidance that follows from all this is to read creator fees as an incentive structure, not a feature that benefits you. When you encounter a memecoin, ask who earns its fees, how large their position is, and whether the activity around it is organic or manufactured by people who profit from the trading. Creator fees explain a great deal of memecoin behavior, and almost none of it is designed in the interest of the trader supplying the volume. They are part of the launch mechanism fees ride on, and understanding both the curve and the fee stream is how you see the full extraction path.

Frequently asked questions What is a creator fee in crypto? A creator fee is a share of trading activity that a memecoin launchpad routes to the person who created a token, taken as a percentage of each trade. It turns launching a coin into a potential ongoing income stream, because the creator earns from the flow of trading instead of only from selling their own holdings. On the leading Solana launchpad, the creator fee can reach a small percentage of each transaction, which can add up to large sums for a coin that trades heavily. It is one of several fees on a trade, alongside the protocol’s cut and the fees paid to liquidity providers, and it is specifically the slice earmarked for the token’s originator.

How much can a creator earn from fees? It depends entirely on trading volume, since the fee is a percentage of trading. For a coin that fails to attract attention, the fees are negligible. For a coin that goes viral and trades tens of millions of dollars in volume, even a fraction of a % per trade can generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, separate from any gain on the creator’s own holdings. This is why viral coins can pay their creators life-changing sums from fees alone, and why the prospect draws so many people to launch tokens. The flip side is that the overwhelming majority of launched coins generate almost nothing, because most never attract meaningful trading.

What is creator-fee sharing? Creator-fee sharing is a system introduced on the leading Solana launchpad in early 2026 that lets a token’s team split its creator fees across multiple wallets, up to ten, and assign specific percentages to each, as well as transfer a coin’s ownership and revoke certain authorities. It also lets community administrators who take over a coin assign fee percentages after launch. The effect is to turn the creator fee from a single-recipient reward into a flexible tool that can pay a team, fund a community, or be redistributed to holders. It made the fee stream programmable, which enabled new uses like airdropping fees back to a community, while also raising questions about who actually controls a coin’s fees.

Why do some influencers airdrop their creator fees? Because it builds goodwill and a narrative of alignment. The traditional influencer-coin pattern is extractive, with the influencer selling into the hype they create. Airdropping accumulated creator fees back to holders inverts part of that, framing the influencer as sharing rewards with the community that drove the coin, which plays well in a culture cynical about influencer extraction. A prominent example saw a Solana influencer pledge to airdrop his fees back to traders during a frenzy built on his name. The honest read is that this is both a truly community-friendly gesture and a tool for sustaining hype around a token the influencer profits from, since the same move keeps attention and buying pressure alive.

Are creator fees bad for traders? Creator fees are funded by traders, since every dollar of fees comes from the trading volume of people buying and selling the coin, so they represent a transfer from traders to creators and the platform. They also create incentives that often work against traders: they reward spamming low-quality coins, they give creators tools and motives to manufacture hype around tokens they profit from, and they fund a system in which platforms and creators earn regardless of whether holders win or lose. They are not inherently fraudulent, and redistribution can return some value to communities, but they are best understood as an incentive structure that benefits creators and platforms. That structure is funded by the speculative activity of retail traders who mostly lose.

Which launchpad pays creator fees? The most prominent is the dominant Solana memecoin launchpad, which captured roughly three-quarters of Solana’s memecoin launches and built an elaborate creator-fee system, including the 2026 fee-sharing tools described here. It directs a small percentage of each trade to a coin’s creator and has evolved its system from rewarding coin creation toward trying to reward genuine trading and liquidity. Other launchpads on Solana and other chains have their own fee models, and the specifics vary. But the general concept, routing a slice of trading fees to token creators, has become a standard feature of the memecoin launchpad model instead of something unique to any single platform.

This article is educational information, not financial advice or an endorsement of launching or trading any token. Details of launchpad fee systems, rates, and features reflect reporting available as of June 29, 2026, and can change. Memecoins are extremely high-risk and frequently lose most or all of their value, and the fee structures described are funded by trading activity that mostly results in losses for participants. Verify current platform terms independently and consult a qualified professional before making any decision.

Not financial or tax advice. PANews content is strictly educational and informational and is not investment advice, financial advice, tax advice, legal advice, or a solicitation to buy or sell any digital asset, security, or financial product. Do your own research and consult qualified advisers.

Disclosure. PANews may publish sponsored content, partner content, advertisements, affiliate links, event promotions, and market commentary involving Web3 projects, service providers, or financial products. PANews personnel, contributors, or affiliates may hold digital assets or other interests related to covered topics. See our Terms of Service.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Aster executes first token burn under upgraded tokenomics

@BinanceWallet has formally joined @Aster_DEX as a network validator, marking a meaningful step up from its previous role as a front-end integration partner. The move gives Binance Wallet a direct vote in Aster's on-chain governance and decentralised listing decisions.

From Interface to Infrastructure The distinction matters. Rather than simply routing users to Aster's trading environment, Binance Wallet now participates in the protocol's underlying decision-making. As part of the arrangement, it will support "Aster Open Standards," the framework Aster launched in late June 2026 that allows tokens already listed on Binance Spot or its Alpha programme to apply for an Aster spot listing through an on-chain validator vote.

Aster Open Standards (AOS-1) launched around June 25, 2026, and allows any token already listed on Binance Spot or in its Alpha programme to apply for a listing on Aster via an API check. Projects pay a 50,000 USDT application fee, which is refunded if the on-chain validator vote fails. With Binance Wallet now holding a validator seat, it has a direct say in which tokens pass that threshold.

The validator integration also gives Binance Wallet influence over Aster's broader protocol governance. Token holders and designated participants in the Aster DAO vote to steer roadmap decisions, and validator status places Binance Wallet within that decision-making structure rather than at its periphery.

Trading Campaigns to Follow The partnership will launch with a series of exclusive trading campaigns and perpetuals incentives aimed at growing retail participation on the platform. The move builds on an existing commercial relationship: Aster DEX had previously been integrated into the Binance Web3 Wallet, enabling millions of users to access professional-grade trading tools directly from their self-custody wallets.

Aster is a privacy-focused decentralised exchange offering perpetual markets on crypto, stocks, and commodities. Its Aster Chain is a high-performance, privacy-focused Layer 1 blockchain designed specifically for derivatives trading. The chain uses Proof-of-Staked Authority (PoSA) as its consensus mechanism, the same model that underpins BNB Chain, making Binance Wallet's validator role a natural fit within that architecture.

For Aster, securing a validator of Binance Wallet's scale adds institutional weight to a governance model that is still maturing. For Binance Wallet, it deepens its footprint in DeFi infrastructure at a time when the line between wallets and decentralised exchanges continues to narrow.

Sources:
CoinMarketCap: Aster Latest Updates and Market Insights
Aster Official Documentation
CoinDesk: Binance Wallet Unlocks In-App Leveraged Crypto Futures Trading With Aster

Key Takeaways Strategy is preparing to liquidate up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin holdings to strengthen its cash position, currently sitting at $2.55 billion. Two separate $1 billion buyback initiatives have been authorized — targeting both common and preferred shares. The firm’s mNAV metric fell beneath the critical 1.0 threshold on June 27, eliminating its capital-raising edge. STRC preferred stock dividend increased to 12%, with new policies requiring cash reserves to cover a full year of obligations. Shares of MSTR were trading at $82.31, reflecting a 3.5% decline, as Bitcoin hovered around $60,275. Strategy (MSTR) is executing a dramatic strategic reversal. The enterprise that staked its reputation on accumulating and never selling Bitcoin is now preparing to offload a significant portion — a development that has captured Wall Street’s full attention.

Strategy Inc, MSTR

In a June 29 filing, Strategy outlined intentions to divest up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin assets. The capital raised will strengthen the company’s treasury, finance preferred shareholder dividends, service debt obligations, and support general corporate requirements.

MSTR shares climbed approximately 5% during pre-market hours following the disclosure, though by regular trading the stock had retreated to $82.31, representing a 3.5% decline. Bitcoin was trading near $60,275, posting a modest 0.6% gain over the previous day.

According to the filing, Bitcoin disposals will occur opportunistically based on prevailing market dynamics and capital requirements — not according to any predetermined timeline.

The Economics Have Shifted For an extended period, Strategy’s approach was remarkably straightforward: raise capital through securities offerings, acquire Bitcoin, then repeat the cycle. This framework delivered exceptional results during Bitcoin’s bull runs, particularly when the company’s mNAV — measuring enterprise valuation against Bitcoin holdings — remained substantially above 1.

That crucial metric slipped below parity on June 27. This development signals that the valuation premium enabling Strategy to access inexpensive capital for Bitcoin acquisitions has essentially vanished.

Both common and preferred securities have experienced severe declines tracking Bitcoin’s downturn. MSTR has plummeted nearly 80% during the past twelve months. The perpetual preferred instruments Strategy introduced in 2025 — initially conceived as a mechanism to expand Bitcoin holdings without diluting existing shareholders — have tumbled below $75, significantly beneath the $100 par value necessary for economically sensible purchases.

Management also indicated greater restraint regarding future common stock issuances, especially when share prices approach net asset value.

Dual share repurchase authorizations totaling $1 billion each were unveiled — one addressing Class A common stock, the other targeting preferred Digital Credit Securities.

A newly adopted board mandate now obligates Strategy to maintain treasury reserves sufficient to cover no less than twelve months of anticipated preferred dividends and interest charges. Current reserves total $2.55 billion.

Warning Signs Emerged Weeks Ago The shift became evident as early as June 1, when Strategy revealed it had liquidated 32 Bitcoin — marking its first sale since 2022. While negligible compared to its approximately $51 billion total position, the symbolic significance was undeniable.

Bitcoin skeptic Peter Schiff quickly seized on the development. In a June 29 commentary, he characterized Strategy as “now a Bitcoin seller,” highlighting the company’s rebranded Bitcoin Monetization Program.

FalconX senior derivatives trader Bohan Jiang provided a more balanced perspective: “While there is more selling pressure on Bitcoin, it is definitely positive for the stock, and both the common and preferred shareholders.”

The STRC preferred dividend rate was elevated to 12% as part of the restructuring announcement.

Bitcoin has faced headwinds lately, dipping below $59,000 the previous week before staging a partial recovery.

Just before the start of July, the Bitcoin price is approaching a pivotal trendline that may determine its ultimate fate.

After a very difficult month, the existing chart structure suggests a good chance prices will continue to fall.

We are entering the month of Bitcoin's top trading at about $59,500, which is a considerable decrease from its high in the spring.

Factors Shaping Crypto

In the next weeks, three factors will determine market behavior: a bearish chart pattern, falling on-chain demand, and enormous capital outflows.

A cautionary tale based on historical events is the first. With an average gain of 5.90% and a median gain of 2.49%, June has traditionally been a beneficial month for Bitcoin.

But the price of Bitcoin fell almost 19% this month.

In a similar fashion, May started off with a decline of 3.57%, contrasting sharply with the typical rise of 18%. April was the only month in 2026 that exceeded its own median.

This represents a significant shift compared to 2025, when the initial two months of that year concluded on an optimistic note.

According to TradingView, the Bitcoin price is moving within a bearish head-and-shoulders pattern over the three-day period.

This formation is defined by a high - the head - placed between two lower peaks - the shoulders, and the price is presently slowly approaching the lower trendline.

There was a notable spike in sales volume from June 15th to June 24th, suggesting a possible 26% drop.

Source: TradingViewNonetheless, volume alone cannot be considered a dependable signal regarding the potential selling actions of significant stakeholders.

On-chain data points to the impending pressure point.

There has been a local high of about 0.69 for the Bitcoin exchange whale ratio, which is a measure of the proportion of total inflows that come from the top 10 addresses relative to the total.

Following the last rise on June 19, which reached 0.67, Bitcoin fell from $63,481 to $59,501, representing a 6.30% fall. In most cases, a surge in selling pressure is imminent when the ratio rises since it suggests that greater deposits are moving toward exchanges.

There is a parallel pattern in the retail sector.

ETF Sell-Off Hits Crypto

According to The Kobeissi Letter, US gold and Bitcoin ETFs have seen over $12 billion leave the market since April, while semiconductor ETFs have drawn almost $20 billion.

During this period, the largest Bitcoin ETF has lost almost 12% of its value due to investors fleeing to chip stocks.

Everything about the ambience is terrible.

Renowned investor Jeremy Grantham recently described Bitcoin as a “useless, speculative mechanism” that is destined to “dwindle away with a whimper,” reflecting the growing indifference now affecting spot demand.

That alignment of significant capital movements, fund withdrawals, and subdued market sentiment prompts a critical inquiry: Are we facing a sharp downturn or a gradual decline?

Consistent growth is the prevailing trend in the derivatives industry.

Around May 30th, the entire value of active futures contracts for Bitcoin, known as open interest, hit a peak of over $31.3 billion. About $21.6 billion is the current value.

At 0.003%, the financing rate for Bitcoin is marginally positive; it stands for the periodic cost of holding leveraged holdings.

A little leaning towards long positions is indicated by this. Significantly, there is far less leverage available to cause a dramatic liquidation cascade compared to a month ago, as indicated by the decreasing open interest.

Bitcoin is trading at over $59,500, and chart signs point to the possibility of more drops after an almost 19% decrease in June.

The cryptocurrency is also approaching a crucial trendline. If the neckline is broken, a three-day head-and-shoulders pattern, as reported by BeInCrypto, indicates a possible downside of almost 26%.

Furthermore, the exchange whale ratio has hit a new low of about 0.69, and June saw record-high outflows of $4.06 billion from US spot Bitcoin ETFs, the highest monthly total since the fund's launch.

The breakdown would be confirmed by a closing below $55,298 according to BeInCrypto.

Support levels are around $52,458 and $48,413, while the anticipated objective is approximately $42,000. But if you were to regain the $61,654 and $67,335 levels, this situation would be null and void.

Institutional spot flows, not leverage, are feeling the heat.

Massive Exodus from Bitcoin ETFs Extends the Drag

This departure has never happened before.

With about $4.06 billion flowing out of US spot Bitcoin ETFs in June, it was the most liquid month since the funds were first introduced.

This amount is more than the previous record, which was achieved in February 2025 and was $3.56 billion.

The persistent flight of capital sheds light on the seemingly constant rather than erratic downward pressure on the Bitcoin price forecast, which is explained by the data from whales and the change in retail investment.

Price Bets For July

Here is when the levels become important. The head and shoulders design suggests a possible 26% movement in the event that the neckline is broken. Whether or not Bitcoin reaches that mark will determine the July value projection.

A collapse would be verified if the price closed below $55,298—the 0.5 Fibonacci barrier. Following it are $52,458 and $48,413, which will lead to the expected goal of around $42,000.

Buyers must recoup $61,654 and then $67,335 to defy the existing arrangement.

Here, a nuanced difference is at work.

Since head-and-shoulders breakdowns don't always work, and open interest is now low, a big short squeeze might happen.

At $55,298, we can see a slight lateral shift away from a possible 26% drop to the $42,000 region.

Bitcoin Bottom, Anyone?

Bitcoin's price continued its fight towards the $60,000 level, with certain chart signs suggesting a possible comeback.

According to TradingView, hourly charts show a series of high swing lows, with positive signals from the relative strength index (RSI) indicator.

A bullish divergence was noted on the four-hour chart, as the RSI formed lower lows while the price formed higher lows. Because of this, market players became interested in the possibility of a Bitcoin price reversal. unknown component

Crypto trader known only as "Rod" uploaded a chart that he said showed a striking resemblance between the present market downturn and the one in 2022.

— Rod (@Crypto_R0D) June 26, 2026 The market eventually found support when BTCUSD hit its bear-market low of $15,600, coinciding with the appearance of a weekly RSI positive divergence.

In early June, the four-hour RSI hit a record low of 11.4—a level never before seen.

Source: TradingViewFriday saw the addition of daily time periods to the mix of RSI bull indications by crypto expert Lukasz Wydra.

On the Bitcoin chart, the bullish RSI divergence is now formally established. While it may yet go further, he assured X fans that Binance's defence of the price was unwavering.

According to Wydra, the RSI indications are a positive indicator.

Some traders remained committed to their current forecasts, anticipating that additional downward pressure would emerge sooner or later.

Niels Klaver, cofounder of the crypto platform STABL Agency, reiterated the need for a rise to $55,000 “before any significant shift” can occur to alter the current landscape.

What Other Technical Readings Show

TradingView's Bitcoin technical analysis overview for the week ahead, based on key data from moving averages, oscillators, and pivots, showed a sell signal.

Source: TradingViewBoth short- and long-term gauges pointed to a sell stance.

Source: TradingViewSeparately, InvestTech's Algorithmic Overall Analysis and one to six weeks' recommendation gave a negative score.

"Bitcoin shows weak development in a falling trend channel in the short term. Falling trends indicate that the currency experiences negative development and falling buying interest among investors. The currency has broken through support at $61,000. This predicts a further decline."

Source: InvestTechInvestTech added, "In case of positive reactions, there will now be resistance at $61,000. The RSI curve shows a falling trend, which supports the negative trend. The currency is overall assessed as technically negative for the short term."

Japanese Bitcoin treasury firm Metaplanet has announced its plan to expand its Bitcoin ambitions, with Director of Bitcoin Strategy Dylan LeClair revealing that the company intends to acquire an additional 170,000 BTC as part of its long-term goal of controlling 1% of Bitcoin’s total supply.

The strategy would increase Metaplanet’s holdings to 210,000 BTC by the end of 2027, making it one of the world’s largest Bitcoin treasuries. At Bitcoin’s fixed maximum supply of 21 million coins, the target represents approximately 1% of all Bitcoins that will ever exist. Such a milestone would place the Tokyo-listed company alongside Strategy among the most influential institutional owners of the digital asset.

5/5 Proposals Approved at the @Metaplanet Extraordinary Shareholder Meeting

1) Approve shift of capital stock and capital reserve to capital surplus to increase capacity for preferred share dividends & potential share buybacks. ✅

2) Increase the total number of authorized…

— Dylan LeClair (@DylanLeClair) December 22, 2025

Metaplanet Is Doubling Down on Its Bitcoin Treasury Strategy The latest target follows board approval of Metaplanet’s revised Bitcoin accumulation plan, which significantly expands the company’s original objective.

Rather than stopping at 40,000 BTC, the company now plans to acquire a total of 210,000 BTC by the end of 2027. Since the company already holds roughly 40,000 BTC, the updated strategy implies purchases of approximately 170,000 additional Bitcoin over the next 18 months.

LeClair described the goal in straightforward terms.

“Our target is 1% of the Bitcoin supply.” The executive has consistently argued that Metaplanet measures success not through fiat-denominated returns but by increasing Bitcoin per share, a philosophy that mirrors Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor’s long-standing approach to corporate treasury management.

To finance the expansion, the company plans to continue using equity issuance, preferred shares, warrants, and other capital market instruments rather than relying solely on cash generated from operations.

Earlier this year, Metaplanet announced a major equity financing initiative designed specifically to accelerate Bitcoin accumulation. The company has repeatedly emphasized that the objective is to raise capital efficiently while minimizing shareholder dilution.

Corporate Competition for Bitcoin Is Intensifying Metaplanet’s announcement highlights how competition among corporate Bitcoin treasury companies is escalating.

Over the years, Strategy has dominated the corporate Bitcoin accumulation narrative. However, more recently, treasury companies like Metaplanet, Twenty One Capital and MARA Holdings have created an institutional race to accumulate scarce Bitcoin supply.

Top Bitcoin treasury companies. Source: Bitcointreasuries.net

If Metaplanet succeeds, its holdings would account for one out of every hundred Bitcoin that will ever exist. That concentration could have broader implications for market liquidity.

Unlike exchange-traded funds, which purchase Bitcoin on behalf of investors, treasury companies typically accumulate BTC as long-term balance sheet assets. Those coins are rarely sold, effectively reducing the liquid supply available to the market.

The strategy also reflects growing confidence among Bitcoin-focused corporates that long-term appreciation will outweigh short-term volatility.

LeClair has repeatedly argued that Bitcoin should be viewed as a superior treasury reserve asset capable of protecting corporate purchasing power over time, particularly in an environment of persistent fiat currency debasement.

Whether investors continue supporting those financings will depend largely on Bitcoin’s long-term performance and Metaplanet’s ability to generate value on a per-share basis.

BARRONS: Strategy's Tool for Buying Bitcoin Is Slipping. The Company Pivots to 'Active Capital Management.'

In BlackRock Bitcoin news today, iShares Bitcoin Trust, better known as IBIT, shed $1.3Bn in net redemptions during the week of June 22–26, according to Farside Investors flow data.

That single fund accounted for 72.9% of the $1.79Bn that left the entire US spot Bitcoin ETF complex that week, the clearest sign yet that the vehicle Wall Street built to bring institutional money into Bitcoin can run just as efficiently in reverse.

Bitcoin ETF investors are underwater.

The average investor in BlackRock’s IBIT is now down roughly 40%, after sitting on a 30% gain as recently as mid-2025.

U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs just saw $1.79B in weekly net outflows, their second-largest on record. Friday marked a seventh… pic.twitter.com/JLvhVde0Gj

— Frank Chaparro (@fintechfrank) June 27, 2026

The tension at the center of this story is that the BlackRock Bitcoin ETF was the product that turned ‘institutional demand’ into a simple, repeatable narrative. Now, at the very moment Bitcoin needs external buyers, IBIT has become the market’s most prominent source of ETF sell pressure.

As ETF numbers dominate the headlines, BTC USD is trading at around $60,000, down roughly -1% on the day, with 24-hour trading volume at $20.7Bn.

One Fund, One Week, One Dominant Signal

(SOURCE: CoinGlass)

On June 26 alone, IBIT posted $444.5M in single-day outflows, every dollar of net redemption recorded across the entire ETF complex that day, per CoinGlass data. The week ended with IBIT’s seventh consecutive week of net outflows, the longest such streak since the fund launched in January 2024.

The macro backdrop driving those redemptions was not a single event but a convergence. A stronger-than-expected US non-farm payrolls print reduced near-term Federal Reserve rate-cut expectations, pushing Treasury yields higher and making fixed-income alternatives more attractive relative to non-yielding BTC.

Geopolitical risk-off sentiment, including heightened Iran-related tensions that rattled broader markets, compounded the move, pulling capital out of risk assets across digital assets, AI equities, and commodities.

As of June 29, IBIT’s net assets stood at around $45Bn with a benchmark price near $59,813, according to BlackRock’s iShares product page. The $1.3Bn weekly redemption is dominant within the ETF complex but still a relatively small proportion of its total AUM.

DISCOVER: Best Meme Coin ICOs to Invest in 2026

Why BlackRock Bitcoin IBIT’s Size Makes This Different Liam ‘Akiba’ Wright, writing for KuCoin’s TechFlow DeepChain, framed the structural problem precisely: “When IBIT attracts funds, its scale reinforces the narrative of Bitcoin institutional demand. When IBIT experiences outflows, its size makes those outflows impossible for other parts of the market to ignore.” Small funds can bleed quietly. IBIT cannot.

The mechanics matter here. In July 2025, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved in-kind creation and redemption mechanics for crypto exchange-traded products (ETPs), meaning authorized participants, the large financial institutions that create and redeem ETF shares in bulk, can now exchange ETF shares directly for underlying Bitcoin rather than going through a cash-only process.

That structural change means ETF flow pressure can transmit more directly into the spot market during risk-off periods, though Wright noted that “ETF outflows should be viewed as a transmission of risk, not as direct evidence that every dollar redeemed is automatically dumped into the spot market.”

Still, the concentration is hard to dismiss. Bitcoin ETF outflows and BlackRock’s $60K support test have become the same story, and only two small funds in the complex avoided net redemptions during the June 22–26 week.

EXCLUSIVE: Join 99Bitcoin’s $1000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit

Bull Case, Bear Case, and What Comes Next $BTC is creating interesting setups.

We're still in the same range, and liquidity is being built on both sides here.

Therefore my POI's for potential trades lay at the boundaries, not within the compression.

As of now, it still looks bearish: CVD showing weak buy pressure,… pic.twitter.com/whjLcq4moZ

— Lennaert Snyder (@LennaertSnyder) June 29, 2026

In other BlackRock Bitcoin news, the BTC/USD price is trading near $60,000 on June 29, with negative returns over both the 7-day and 30-day periods. The $58,000–$60,500 range has acted as a contested support zone, while the $61,000 band represents the first meaningful resistance ceiling above current levels. How Bitcoin holds critical $60K support in the sessions ahead will be the clearest signal of whether this was a flush or the start of something deeper.

Bull case: The heaviest redemptions have already cleared the system. Outflows slow, Bitcoin reclaims the $59,000–$62,000 range, and June’s data is later read as a crowded-trade cleanup rather than a structural break in institutional conviction. At $44.87 billion in net assets, IBIT remains the most liquid compliant Bitcoin wrapper in the world.

Bear case: IBIT continues posting large daily redemption numbers, Bitcoin fails to hold above $60,000, and spot buyers outside the ETF complex are left absorbing the supply on their own. Wright put it plainly: “Non-ETF spot buyers must hold the market on their own, without the support of the shell that once provided the simplest bullish narrative.”

The macro headwinds driving broader crypto market weakness, rate expectations, geopolitical uncertainty, and dollar strength have not materially shifted. Until they do, the crypto ETF flows data from CoinGlass carries more weight than usual.

Slowing Bitcoin ETF outflows would be the first sign that the selling pressure is easing. Another heavy week would make the sell-wall narrative structurally difficult to dismiss.

EXPLORE: Best Crypto Presales With Asymmetric Upside in the Current Market

#Bitcoin News Today

Why you can trust 99Bitcoins

10+ Years

Established in 2013, 99Bitcoin’s team members have been crypto experts since Bitcoin’s Early days.

90hr+

Weekly Research

100k+

Monthly readers

50+

Expert contributors

2000+

Crypto Projects Reviewed

Follow 99Bitcoins on your Google News Feed

Get the latest updates, trends, and insights delivered straight to your fingertips. Subscribe now!

Subscribe now

Alex Ioannou

On-Chain Journalist

Alex is a seasoned cryptocurrency trader and market analyst with over seven years of active experience in the digital asset space. Since entering the markets in 2017, Alex has specialized in identifying emerging "meta" trends and high-volatility narratives. Notably, Alex... Read More

On January 1, 2000, the world was supposed to end. As the date changed and the next millennium rolled in, computer systems programmed in the 1960s and 1970s were expected to crash. Storage space was very expensive back then. As a result, programmers often saved space by recording years with only two digits instead of four, omitting the century. Once the century changed, the logic would be lost, and systems would malfunction.

Massive IT projects were launched to fix the problem and prevent looming disasters, like nuclear power plants exploding. Alongside a booming tech industry, an even more booming survival industry emerged. Guidebooks were published on how to survive the impending catastrophe — hide under the table — while there was a healthy trade in bunkers and overpriced survival packs.

In a preemptive move, the U.S. Federal Reserve loosened monetary policy. The burgeoning internet and its early successes had brought technology to the masses. Together with loose financing conditions and growing public enthusiasm at the turn of the millennium, this ignited a unique boom on the stock markets, especially for tech and internet stocks.

The world did not come to an end. Instead, people started to wonder what would become of companies that had no chance of turning a profit and depended on continuous injections of investor funding. Doubts began to spread, share prices started to fall, and over the course of the year 2000, the dot-com bubble burst.

The final nail in the coffin of the 2000s bubble came on September 11, 2001. The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York made it seem as though the world really was ending. Air traffic shut down, war broke out, and a recession followed. Stock markets plunged, and they just kept falling.

Once again, the U.S. Federal Reserve stepped in to save the economy and the financial markets. Interest rates were slashed, credit became cheap, and with this, the economic downturn was slowed. Starting in early 2003, the stock markets began to recover. Slowly at first, then faster. The exceptionally low interest rates stimulated economic activity, albeit not as intended. The burst tech bubble was soon replaced by a gigantic housing bubble, especially in the United States.

The film The Big Short begins with a quote from Mark Twain:

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

History provides us with many examples that show how stubbornly and for how long people, indeed entire societies, have clung to false beliefs. A good example is the geocentric worldview that many held in the Middle Ages: they believed that the universe revolved around the Earth. Galileo Galilei held an opposing belief and was threatened with death and excommunicated from the Church for it. The Church’s self-image and vested interests forbade such an inconvenient truth. But as it is with the truth, a point comes when it can no longer be denied.

The same was true of the financial crisis of 2007–2009. Behind many financial products on offer were mortgage-backed securities of little or no value. This truth, too, eventually could not be denied. The markets for these securities and the financial products built on them collapsed, along with a lot of the banks and financial institutions that held them. In the end, the entire financial system imploded. Major, well-known banks went bankrupt, financial markets dried up, and even healthy companies were put at risk of failure.

The terrifying yet fascinating part was the reaction of governments and central banks — through bailouts. With the exception of Lehman Brothers and a few others, virtually all the major institutions were saved. At the time, Chancellor Angela Merkel guaranteed the German public that their bank deposits were safe — a promise she likely could not have kept if it had been called out.

The central element of the bailouts was and still is the printing of money. Governments generously rescued important, systemically relevant banks and companies with the input of fresh money. Central banks financed and continue to finance this by purchasing government bonds, cutting interest rates, and providing very favorable financing conditions to banks.

This point is very important. When a central bank buys an outstanding government bond, that means it is increasing the money supply or printing money. In the film Oeconomia, Peter Praet, at that time the chief economist of the ECB, says this quite explicitly: “It is not physical money, but electronic.”

Printing money means increasing the amount of money in circulation. And that results in all of our money getting watered down. Ultimately, this makes it worth less since there’s more money but the same amount of goods.

When new money is created — that is, when money is inflated and then spent, no matter what it’s spent on — prices will eventually rise, and the money everyone else holds becomes less valuable. Put another way, when new money is created, everyone who already holds money is slightly dispossessed.

Only those who receive the new money first benefit, which is usually the banks, shareholders, and companies as well as borrowers and thus the government. Also benefiting are those who hold the goods or assets that are first purchased with the newly created money. This primarily includes real estate, stocks, and tangible assets in general.

Such inflation must be distinguished from individual price increases. If the demand for city-center locations suddenly rises because people are moving from the country to the city, property prices in city centers will rise, while they fall in the countryside. With inflation, prices rise almost everywhere. Price increases caused by rising demand or falling supply, such as after a poor harvest, are limited and are offset by a drop in prices elsewhere.

Inflation acts like a tax, but it isn’t perceived as such. The government could just as well take a small amount of money from every business and citizen to cover its spending instead of creating new money by issuing a government bond. In practice, it would be the same thing, only it wouldn’t be so easy, and many people would complain and might vote those politicians out in the next election.

Inflation is vague, and in public perception it’s not the government’s fault but rather that of others who are creating shortages of goods and profiting from rising prices. Political and public scapegoats for rising prices can always be found.

The former ECB chief economist, Peter Praet, states quite clearly that the functioning of today’s financial and economic system depends on the creation of more and more money — in other words, on continuous inflation. If the last financial crises have shown us anything, it’s the automatic reaction of governments: printing money. And crises will always keep coming for a variety of reasons: the ongoing climate crisis, pandemics, wars, migration, demographics, etc. Justification and excuses for printing money can always be found.

What does this have to do with Bitcoin? A major and very valid criticism of a sound monetary system, in which money cannot be multiplied uncontrollably, is that it provides no way to intervene quickly by increasing the money supply in severe crises. That’s true. You would have to save beforehand, to set aside reserves.

And if there is one thing politicians cannot do, it’s save. There is always a good reason to spend money, whether it’s simply doing good, solving problems, winning over voters before an election, or even supporting a friendly entrepreneur in one’s own constituency.

The alternative would be to raise taxes in order to finance these unforeseen expenses. That would be politically and economically counterproductive. It would scare off voters and take away their purchasing power.

The crucial point is this: without the ability to print money at will, the boom that precedes a crisis wouldn’t arise in the first place, or at the very least would be much smaller. And the subsequent crises would also be a lot smaller. This is evident in the economic cycles of the 19th century, when a strict gold standard was in place.

Yes, there were numerous crises at the time. But they were short and less severe. And periods of falling prices certainly did not end in the dreaded deflationary spiral.

The ability to print unlimited amounts of money leads to correspondingly large misallocations, which then lead to correspondingly large corrections, and therefore, crises. These crises in turn trigger even more money-printing, and on it goes.

The greater the misallocations beforehand, the greater the corrections afterward. A healthy monetary system leads to sounder economic decisions, sustainable upturns, and brief downturns in which misallocations are corrected.

Money that cannot be arbitrarily multiplied limits misallocations during a boom, and accordingly, limits corrections during a downturn.

At the height of the financial crisis, on October 31, 2008, an anonymous person or group published the Bitcoin white paper — six weeks after Lehman Brothers, one of the largest banks in the U.S., filed for bankruptcy.

On January 3, 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto launched the Bitcoin blockchain. The very first block was mined. This first block contains the following message:

“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”

This was an explicit reference to a headline in The Times on January 3, 2009 — the repeated bailout of a financial system still teetering on the brink of collapse.

Bitcoin was, and still is, the answer to a fragile financial system: to uncontrolled money printing, to willful denial of reality, but also to the unfair and socially unjust expropriation that accompanies money creation.

The cap of 21 million bitcoin and the lack of central control make a policy of inflation impossible. Someone who holds bitcoin cannot be dispossessed by the uncontrolled printing of even more bitcoin.

Nor can they be dispossessed by banks that go bankrupt or deny access to bitcoin, provided they hold their bitcoin in a self-hosted wallet and thereby manage their own access. No central authority can revoke that access.

The timing of Bitcoin’s launch was no coincidence. It was the reaction to a financial system that would have collapsed had money not been printed in a pretty much uncontrolled manner.

Bitcoin is sound money — a response to a broken financial system. It is a system that is not imposed from above. Participation is voluntary and open to anyone. No one with a computer or smartphone and an internet connection can be excluded from it. For many, it’s a lifeline out of the fiat money system that is not sustainably viable.

In contrast to an inflationary and opaque system, Bitcoin is decentralized, transparent, and fundamentally honest.

Discover more in Bitcoin: The Honest Money!
This excerpt is just the beginning. Dive deeper into how inflation devalues your money, your savings, and your time in Bitcoin: The Honest Money by Alex von Frankenberg, Ph.D. The paperback is available now.

Order your copy here!

Bitcoin is not having a great month. The leading crypto slipped from $60K to $59K on Monday morning, down 7.9% over the past seven days, as sellers continue to apply steady downward pressure with no obvious relief in sight.

The move lower is not just a price story. It is an ETF story, and that is what makes this moment worth paying attention to.

The ETF outflow problem is getting worse June’s spot Bitcoin ETF outflows have already eclipsed February 2025’s record of $3.6B, and the month still has time left on the clock.

Think of it like a bathtub with the drain open. New buyers would need to pour in water faster than it is draining to stabilize the price. Right now, the drain is winning.

When the spot Bitcoin ETFs launched, the dominant narrative was that institutional access would create a structural floor under Bitcoin’s price. Persistent, record-breaking outflows challenge that assumption in a meaningful way.

Advertisement

It does not mean the ETFs were a failed experiment. It means institutions are also capable of selling, which should surprise no one but apparently needed a reminder.

Bitcoin’s 24-hour change sits at just -0.2%, so Monday’s session has been relatively contained. The weekly picture tells a different story: -7.9% is a meaningful drawdown for an asset that was trading above $60K not long ago.

Extreme fear, with Ethereum holding steady and Solana pushing higher The Crypto Fear and Greed Index currently reads 12, which falls squarely in “Extreme Fear” territory. Last week it sat at 20, also Extreme Fear, meaning sentiment has deteriorated further rather than stabilized.

A reading of 12 is the kind of number that historically makes contrarian investors lean forward in their chairs. Extreme fear tends to mark capitulation zones, where sellers who are going to sell have largely already sold. Whether that logic applies here depends entirely on whether ETF outflows have more room to run.

Ethereum, trading near $1,575, is essentially flat on both a daily and weekly basis. It is not recovering, but it is not accelerating lower either, which in this environment qualifies as a mild form of resilience.

Solana is the outlier. Up 3.0% over the past 24 hours and climbing toward $74, it is the one major asset bucking the broader trend today. DeFi is also the top-performing category over the seven-day period, though its net change sits at 0.0%, which technically makes it the best house on a street where every other house is on fire.

What this means for the market The confluence of record ETF outflows, a Fear and Greed reading of 12, and Bitcoin trading below $60K creates a setup that cuts both ways for investors trying to make sense of positioning right now.

On the bearish side: outflows at this scale suggest institutional holders are reducing exposure, not adding to it. That is a headwind that retail buying alone is unlikely to overcome in the short term. The $59K level is not a trivial one to lose, either. It represents a psychological threshold that, if it fails to hold, could invite the next wave of liquidations.

On the bullish side: extreme fear readings at these levels have historically preceded recoveries, even if the timing is never clean. Solana’s ability to post gains while Bitcoin bleeds is a signal worth monitoring. When risk appetite returns to crypto markets, assets that held up during the selloff tend to outperform on the way back up.

The honest answer for investors watching this is that the ETF outflow data is the most important variable to track right now. If June closes with outflows that materially exceed the February record, it suggests the institutional bid that drove Bitcoin’s earlier rally has softened in a structural way, not just a seasonal one. If outflows begin to slow or reverse before month-end, the $59K test may look like a buying opportunity in hindsight.

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

Strategy is shifting strategies as the Bitcoin behemoth seeks to quell fears over its financial health. On Monday, the company announced that it may sell up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin to build its cash reserves, cover investor payouts, and fund stock buybacks to avoid issuing more equity.

The new policy is an about-face for Strategy, which has established itself as one of the biggest buyers of the world’s largest cryptocurrency. Michael Saylor, the firm’s executive chairman and a prominent Bitcoin bull, has repeatedly proclaimed that investors should never sell their holdings. “You do not sell your Bitcoin,” he said last October.

But Strategy’s stock has recently come under heavy pressure, shedding 44% over the past year. Meanwhile, STRC, a preferred share issued by Strategy that Saylor has said has “money-market-level stability,” has also tanked. Supposedly pegged to $100, STRC closed Friday at around $74.

Now, Saylor has begun to change his tune. In June, the company sold $2.5 million of Bitcoin. In addition to its plan to sell up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin, the company calls for changes to cash reserves, adjustments to the dividend policy, and up to $1 billion in authorized buybacks of its preferred share products.

“Strategy remains committed to Bitcoin as its primary treasury reserve asset,” Saylor said in a statement.

On Monday morning, the company’s shares rose almost 3% to trade near $86, while STRC gained about 4% to approach $79. Bitcoin also briefly climbed to around $60,600 before pulling back.

Saylor cofounded Strategy, then known as MicroStrategy, in 1989. It operated as an enterprise software firm but, concerned about U.S. dollar devaluation, the company adopted Bitcoin as its primary treasury reserve asset in 2020, starting with a $250 million purchase. Strategy now owns about 4% of the total supply of Bitcoin.

Over the past year, a swarm of Strategy imitators loaded public companies with cryptocurrencies to try to spark stock rallies, but that trade has since fallen out of favor. Solana‑hoarder Solmate has lost almost all its value, leaving backers nursing heavy paper losses, while Cantor Fitzgerald’s BSTR Bitcoin vehicle has scrambled to keep a SPAC deal alive amid waning investor appetite.

Due to a stock split, Binance will adjust the contract size of CRWD U-margined perpetual contracts.

According to an official announcement, the underlying asset of the CRWDUSDT perpetual contract will implement a 1-for-4 stock split of its issued Class A shares via a dividend distribution. Consequently, Binance will adjust the contract size of its CRWDUSDT U.S. dollar-margined perpetual contract at 08:00 (UTC+8) on July 2, 2026. The adjustment is projected to be completed by 21:30 (UTC+8) the same day. Post-adjustment, the contract will enter a 5-minute cancel-only phase.

3 minutes ago

CZ: I previously sent a message to Elon Musk to discuss cooperation based on X Money, and received a reply stating that X Money is currently not involved in cryptocurrency.

In an interview, CZ stated that when X Corp launched X Money, he sent a message to Elon Musk on X, inquiring whether Binance could become a partner. Musk responded that X Money is not currently venturing into the cryptocurrency space. CZ added that he hopes X will eventually evolve into a global payments platform, drawing a parallel between this opportunity and Starlink’s achievements in the internet access sector.

3 minutes ago

CZ: Binance’s Greek MiCA license application was nearly approved, but was forced to withdraw due to external factors.

In an interview, CZ stated that Binance’s MiCA license application submitted in Greece was fully compliant with regulatory requirements and near approval before being withdrawn, but the process was interrupted by "external political intervention". He added that multiple EU countries had expressed interest in the license, leading to a degree of "competitive lobbying", yet non-regulatory factors ultimately derailed the application, forcing its withdrawal. Binance officially pulled the Greek application last week and said it will shift to other EU member states to pursue MiCA authorization. Responding to market rumors linking Binance to senior EU political figures, CZ noted he has not seen any verifiable documents, only similar claims online, and has not confirmed them. He also pointed out that the EU MiCA transition period will end on July 1, after which unlicensed platforms must cease related services, with national regulators making clear they will not extend the deadline. CZ called the outcome a "lose-lose situation" and cited Japan and Singapore’s regulatory paths as examples, emphasizing compliance processes often require longer timelines.

3 minutes ago

Kraken is set to list the Bittensor subnet Alpha token.

Barry Silbert, founder and CEO of Digital Currency Group (DCG), parent company of Grayscale, reposted on X to disclose that crypto exchange Kraken is set to list Alpha tokens from Bittensor subnets. According to leaked details, the first batch of tokens to be listed includes Chutes, Targon, Score, Ridges AI, Hippius, and others.

3 minutes ago

Trump: Will Take Immediate Action on Fed Governor Lisa Cook’s Eligibility for Her Position

US President Trump stated that in the lawsuit over the eligibility of Federal Reserve Governor Cook, the Supreme Court remanded the case to a lower court solely on procedural grounds. We will immediately take appropriate action to ensure that individuals who have engaged in misconduct do not continue to make decisions on major matters related to the well-being of the United States.

3 minutes ago

Castle Securities warns that the Federal Reserve’s policies will become more stringent.

Castle Securities stated that investors have underestimated Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s resolve to curb inflation, warning that higher interest rates could put pressure on risk assets. The firm also cautioned that the rally in the artificial intelligence market faces growing risks, including weak demand, declining returns, and intensified political and regulatory scrutiny.

3 minutes ago

When deciding whether to buy, sell, or hold a stock, investors often rely on analyst recommendations. Media reports about rating changes by these brokerage-firm-employed (or sell-side) analysts often influence a stock's price, but are they really important?

Before we discuss the reliability of brokerage recommendations and how to use them to your advantage, let's see what these Wall Street heavyweights think about AppLovin (APP - Free Report) .

AppLovin currently has an average brokerage recommendation (ABR) of 1.37, on a scale of 1 to 5 (Strong Buy to Strong Sell), calculated based on the actual recommendations (Buy, Hold, Sell, etc.) made by 30 brokerage firms. An ABR of 1.37 approximates between Strong Buy and Buy.

Of the 30 recommendations that derive the current ABR, 23 are Strong Buy and three are Buy. Strong Buy and Buy respectively account for 76.7% and 10% of all recommendations.

Brokerage Recommendation Trends for APP

Check price target & stock forecast for AppLovin here>>>

While the ABR calls for buying AppLovin, it may not be wise to make an investment decision solely based on this information. Several studies have shown limited to no success of brokerage recommendations in guiding investors to pick stocks with the best price increase potential.

Do you wonder why? As a result of the vested interest of brokerage firms in a stock they cover, their analysts tend to rate it with a strong positive bias. According to our research, brokerage firms assign five "Strong Buy" recommendations for every "Strong Sell" recommendation.

In other words, their interests aren't always aligned with retail investors, rarely indicating where the price of a stock could actually be heading. Therefore, the best use of this information could be validating your own research or an indicator that has proven to be highly successful in predicting a stock's price movement.

Zacks Rank, our proprietary stock rating tool with an impressive externally audited track record, categorizes stocks into five groups, ranging from Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) to Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell), and is an effective indicator of a stock's price performance in the near future. Therefore, using the ABR to validate the Zacks Rank could be an efficient way of making a profitable investment decision.

Zacks Rank Should Not Be Confused With ABRIn spite of the fact that Zacks Rank and ABR both appear on a scale from 1 to 5, they are two completely different measures.

Broker recommendations are the sole basis for calculating the ABR, which is typically displayed in decimals (such as 1.28). The Zacks Rank, on the other hand, is a quantitative model designed to harness the power of earnings estimate revisions. It is displayed in whole numbers -- 1 to 5.

Analysts employed by brokerage firms have been and continue to be overly optimistic with their recommendations. Since the ratings issued by these analysts are more favorable than their research would support because of the vested interest of their employers, they mislead investors far more often than they guide.

On the other hand, earnings estimate revisions are at the core of the Zacks Rank. And empirical research shows a strong correlation between trends in earnings estimate revisions and near-term stock price movements.

Furthermore, the different grades of the Zacks Rank are applied proportionately across all stocks for which brokerage analysts provide earnings estimates for the current year. In other words, at all times, this tool maintains a balance among the five ranks it assigns.

There is also a key difference between the ABR and Zacks Rank when it comes to freshness. When you look at the ABR, it may not be up-to-date. Nonetheless, since brokerage analysts constantly revise their earnings estimates to reflect changing business trends, and their actions get reflected in the Zacks Rank quickly enough, it is always timely in predicting future stock prices.

Is APP Worth Investing In?In terms of earnings estimate revisions for AppLovin, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has remained unchanged over the past month at $15.97.

Analysts' steady views regarding the company's earnings prospects, as indicated by an unchanged consensus estimate, could be a legitimate reason for the stock to perform in line with the broader market in the near term.

The size of the recent change in the consensus estimate, along with three other factors related to earnings estimates, has resulted in a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) for AppLovin. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) stocks here >>>>

It may therefore be prudent to be a little cautious with the Buy-equivalent ABR for AppLovin.

FDA Issues Complete Response Letter For Lantheus Imaging AgentThe FDA stated unresolved third-party facility manufacturing-related conditions.

The third-party facility is responsible for drug product manufacturing. Satisfactory resolution of the unresolved facility inspection-related conditions is required before the LNTH-2501 NDA may be approved.

The CRL did not identify any concerns regarding the data submitted by Lantheus in support of the application, nor did it identify any issues related to the safety or efficacy of LNTH-2501.

In March, the FDA extended the PDUFA date for LNTH-2501 by three months to June 29, 2026, to allow additional time to review manufacturing-related information. 

The agency said that the standard review extension is not related to the efficacy or safety data of LNTH-2501. 

William Blair Delays Octevy Sales ForecastWilliam Blair on Monday wrote, “While we are disappointed by the setback, we are encouraged that the complete response letter (CRL) does not appear to be clinical in nature.”

In light of the CRL, analyst Andy Hsieh pushed back initial sales of Octevy by one year in the model to the first quarter of 2028 from the first quarter of 2027 previously.

Octevy is a PET diagnostic imaging agent for certain neuroendocrine tumors.

Analyst Highlights Improving Fundamentals, Growth CatalystsTaking a step back, William Blair wrote that the fundamentals for Lantheus are improving as the company navigates through challenging pricing dynamics before transitioning the market to Pylarify TruVu at the end of the year.

The analyst said that the ongoing launch of Neuraceq, coupled with the anticipated approval of MK-6240 (tau-directed diagnostic PET agent for Alzheimer’s disease), provides multiple drivers to reinvigorate top-line growth.

LNTH Price Action: Lantheus Holdings shares were trading down 0.50% at $109.25 at the time of publication on Monday. The stock is trading near its 52-week high of $111.46, according to Benzinga Pro data.

Image via Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

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

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

Shares of First Hawaiian (FHB - Free Report) have been strong performers lately, with the stock up 9.5% over the past month. The stock hit a new 52-week high of $29.63 in the previous session. First Hawaiian has gained 16.8% since the start of the year compared to the 3.4% move for the Zacks Finance sector and the 14.4% return for the Zacks Banks - West industry.

What's Driving the Outperformance?The stock has an impressive record of positive earnings surprises, as it hasn't missed our earnings consensus estimate in any of the last four quarters. In its last earnings report on April 24, 2026, First Hawaiian reported EPS of $0.55 versus consensus estimate of $0.53.

For the current fiscal year, First Hawaiian is expected to post earnings of $2.33 per share on $914.22 in revenues. This represents a 5.91% change in EPS on a 3.8% change in revenues. For the next fiscal year, the company is expected to earn $2.46 per share on $948.26 in revenues. This represents a year-over-year change of 5.49% and 3.72%, respectively.

Valuation MetricsThough First Hawaiian has recently hit a 52-week high, what is next for First Hawaiian? A key aspect of this question is taking a look at valuation metrics in order to determine if the company has run ahead of itself.

On this front, we can look at the Zacks Style Scores, as they provide investors with an additional way to sort through stocks (beyond looking at the Zacks Rank of a security). The individual style scores for Value, Growth, Momentum and the combined VGM Score run from A through F. The idea behind the style scores is to help investors pick the most appropriate Zacks Rank stocks based on their individual investment style.

First Hawaiian has a Value Score of B. The stock's Growth and Momentum Scores are C and C, respectively, giving the company a VGM Score of B.

In terms of its value breakdown, the stock currently trades at 12.7X current fiscal year EPS estimates, which is a premium to the peer industry average of 11.8X. On a trailing cash flow basis, the stock currently trades at 11.8X versus its peer group's average of 12X. Additionally, the stock has a PEG ratio of 2.18. This isn't enough to put the company in the top echelon of all stocks we cover from a value perspective.

Zacks RankWe also need to look at the Zacks Rank for the stock, as this is even more important than the company's VGM Score. Fortunately, First Hawaiian currently has a Zacks Rank of #2 (Buy) thanks to a solid earnings estimate revision trend.

Since we recommend that investors select stocks carrying Zacks Rank of 1 (Strong Buy) or 2 (Buy) and Style Scores of A or B, it looks as if First Hawaiian passes the test. Thus, it seems as though First Hawaiian shares could have potential in the weeks and months to come.

How Does FHB Stack Up to the Competition?Shares of FHB have been soaring, and the company still appears to be a decent choice, but what about the rest of the industry? One industry peer that looks good is RBB Bancorp (RBB - Free Report) . RBB has a Zacks Rank of #2 (Buy) and a Value Score of B, a Growth Score of C, and a Momentum Score of A.

Earnings were strong last quarter. RBB Bancorp beat our consensus estimate by 46.67%, and for the current fiscal year, RBB is expected to post earnings of $2.36 per share on revenue of $136.68 million.

Shares of RBB Bancorp have gained 13.1% over the past month, and currently trade at a forward P/E of 11.48X and a P/CF of 11.55X.

The Banks - West industry may rank in the bottom 68% of all the industries we have in our universe, but there still looks like there are some nice tailwinds for FHB and RBB, even beyond their own solid fundamental situation.

Ripple says it has more than 300 institutional partners. The XRP community hears that as 300 banks buying XRP. The reality is that most of them use Ripple’s software without ever touching the token, and even the ones that do rarely hold it. This is the structural gap at the heart of why XRP’s price stays stuck while Ripple keeps winning.

Summary

Ripple has more than 300 institutional partners, but roughly 60 percent use its messaging and software rails without ever touching XRP, while only about 40 percent use the On-Demand Liquidity product that involves the token. Even the partners that use On-Demand Liquidity generally do not hold XRP, because licensed exchanges and market makers handle the buying and selling, and the banks see only fiat in and fiat out. This split is the mechanical explanation for the long-standing gap between Ripple’s corporate success and XRP’s stuck price, since network adoption does not automatically translate into sustained token demand. The bullish rebuttal is that On-Demand Liquidity volume is real where it runs, that even momentary XRP demand creates buy pressure, and that token demand can come from ETF flows and regulation independent of settlement. For holders, the honest read is that partner counts measure Ripple’s business, not XRP demand, and the token’s fate depends on whether the On-Demand Liquidity share grows and its volume scales, plus channels like ETFs and regulatory clarity. Ripple likes to say it has more than three hundred institutional partners, and the number sounds like exactly the validation XRP holders have waited years to see: hundreds of banks and payment companies, all signed up to Ripple, all presumably driving demand for the token. That is how the figure is usually heard in the community, as three hundred institutions buying and using XRP. The reality is very different, and confronting it honestly is essential for anyone who holds the token. 

The large majority of Ripple’s partners use the company’s messaging and payment software without ever touching XRP, and even among the minority that use the product built around the token, almost none actually hold XRP. The partner count measures the size of Ripple’s business, not the demand for its associated asset, and the gap between those two things is the single best explanation for one of the most frustrating puzzles in crypto: why XRP’s price has stayed pinned near a dollar through 2026 even as Ripple racks up settlement deals, bank partnerships, and institutional wins.

This is not an argument that Ripple is failing or that XRP is worthless. It is an argument that the popular story, in which corporate adoption mechanically pulls the token price up with it, rests on a misunderstanding of how Ripple’s products actually work. There are really two Ripples: one that sells messaging and payment software to banks, which does not require XRP, and one that offers a liquidity service that uses XRP as a bridge, which does. Most partners signed up for the first. Understanding that split, and what it means for whether Ripple’s success ever reaches the token, is the purpose of this piece. 

It covers the two different products Ripple sells, why even the token-using product rarely puts XRP on a bank’s balance sheet, the value-accrual problem this creates, the genuine bull-case rebuttal, the geographic concentration of the volume that does exist, and what would actually have to change for Ripple’s growth to start pulling XRP demand with it. The goal is to give holders an accurate map of where the token stands in Ripple’s empire, rather than the flattering version the partner count implies.

There are two different Ripples The root of the confusion is that Ripple sells more than one thing, and only some of what it sells involves XRP. For most of its history, Ripple’s core enterprise offering has had two distinct components. The first is messaging and payment-connectivity software, historically associated with products that let banks send payment instructions and connect to one another more efficiently than the old correspondent system allows. 

This software improves how banks communicate and process cross-border payments, but it does not require XRP at all; a bank can adopt it, become a Ripple partner, and never go near the token. The second component is On-Demand Liquidity, or ODL, the service that actually uses XRP as a bridge asset to move value between currencies without pre-funded accounts. ODL is the part of Ripple’s business that creates real XRP usage.

The crucial fact is how Ripple’s partners split between these two. By most accounts, only around forty percent of Ripple’s roughly three hundred partners use On-Demand Liquidity, the XRP-based product, while the other sixty percent or so use the messaging and software rails that do not touch XRP at all. So when the community hears three hundred partners and pictures three hundred sources of XRP demand, the accurate picture is closer to a bit more than a hundred partners using the token-based product, and a larger group using Ripple software that bypasses XRP entirely. 

This is not hidden or scandalous; it simply reflects that many institutions wanted Ripple’s payments technology without taking on a volatile crypto asset. But it has enormous implications for the token, because it means the headline partner count overstates XRP demand by a wide margin. A bank can be a proud, public Ripple partner and contribute precisely nothing to XRP usage, and many are exactly that. The first step to understanding XRP’s stuck price is to stop counting all of Ripple’s partners as XRP customers, because most of them are not.

Even ODL partners do not hold XRP It would be natural to assume that the forty percent of partners using On-Demand Liquidity are therefore buying and holding XRP, generating steady demand, but even that is largely not the case, and the reason cuts to the core of the value-accrual problem. The way ODL works, banks do not generally buy or hold XRP themselves. Instead, licensed exchanges and liquidity providers sit in the middle of the transaction. 

When a bank uses ODL to send value across a corridor, the source currency is converted into XRP, the XRP moves across the ledger in seconds, and it is converted into the destination currency on the other side, but this buying and selling is handled by market makers and exchanges, not by the bank. From the bank’s perspective, it puts fiat in on one side and receives fiat out on the other, never holding the token in between. The XRP is touched only momentarily, by the liquidity providers facilitating the swap, before it is converted back.

This structure is deliberate and is actually part of ODL’s appeal to institutions: it lets banks access the speed and capital efficiency of XRP-based settlement while staying in their regulatory comfort zone, seeing only fiat on their books and never holding a volatile crypto asset. For the banks, that is a feature. 

For XRP holders hoping that institutional adoption means institutions accumulating XRP, it is a disappointment, because it means even the token-using corner of Ripple’s business does not create the kind of sustained, buy-and-hold demand that would steadily lift the price. The demand ODL creates is real but fleeting: XRP is bought and sold in the same moment to bridge a payment, generating transactional throughput rather than lasting accumulation. 

The momentary buying does create some genuine buy pressure, which the bull case rightly emphasizes, but it is a different and weaker force than the image of banks adding XRP to their reserves. So the picture sharpens: most partners do not touch XRP, and most of those that do touch it only in passing, through intermediaries, without ever holding it.

The value-accrual problem this creates Put these facts together and you arrive at the deepest issue in the entire XRP story, the one that explains the stuck price more convincingly than any other: the problem of how value accrues to the token. A blockchain network, or in this case a payments business built around a token, can grow impressively while the token itself fails to capture that growth, if the activity does not translate into sustained demand for the asset. 

That is precisely the situation the two-Ripples split creates. Ripple the company can keep signing partners, opening corridors, and processing more payments, and most of that growth flows through software that bypasses XRP or through an ODL process that touches XRP only momentarily via intermediaries. The corporate success is real, but the channel connecting it to token demand is far narrower than the partner count suggests.

This is the mechanical explanation for the puzzle that has frustrated XRP holders all year: Ripple keeps winning, and XRP keeps trading near a dollar beneath its major moving averages. The wins are concentrated in parts of the business that do not require holding the token, so they do not generate the buy-and-hold demand that would lift the price.

Layered on top is XRP’s large supply, including the enormous quantity Ripple holds in escrow and periodically releases, which means that even meaningful transactional demand must contend with substantial available supply. For demand to overwhelm that supply and move the price durably, the token would need usage on a scale that the current adoption pattern, heavy on XRP-free software and light on XRP accumulation, does not produce. 

None of this means XRP cannot rise; it means the path from Ripple’s business growth to XRP’s price is not the automatic, mechanical link the bullish narrative assumes. The token does not appreciate simply because Ripple succeeds. It would appreciate if usage of the specific XRP-based product grew large enough that the momentary demand it generates, compounded across enormous volume, finally outweighed the supply. That is a much higher bar than signing the three-hundredth partner.

The escrow overhang that makes it worse There is a supply-side dimension to the value-accrual problem that deserves its own attention, because it raises the bar that token demand must clear. A very large quantity of XRP sits in escrow controlled by Ripple, released into the market on a schedule over time, and this steady stream of new available supply is a structural feature of the token that has no equivalent in a fixed-supply asset. Whatever demand the network generates, whether the momentary buying of On-Demand Liquidity or the buy-and-hold demand of ETFs, must contend not only with the XRP already circulating but with the additional supply that periodically enters from escrow. This is part of why even real demand has struggled to move the price durably: it is pushing against a supply that keeps replenishing.

The interaction between the demand pattern and the supply schedule is the crux. If the token-using share of Ripple’s business were large and growing fast, the transactional demand it generates might comfortably absorb the escrow releases and then some, letting the price rise. But because most of Ripple’s activity bypasses the token, and the part that uses it does so only momentarily through intermediaries, the demand side has been too thin to overwhelm the supply side decisively. The result is a token that can trade sideways even during periods of corporate success, because the modest, fleeting demand from settlement is roughly matched by available and incoming supply. 

Critics of Ripple have long pointed to the escrow releases as a persistent headwind, while the company argues the releases are managed responsibly and that it has an incentive not to suppress its own largest holding. Either way, the practical point for holders is that the value-accrual gap is not only about weak demand capture; it is about weak demand capture meeting a large and replenishing supply, which together explain why the price has been so resistant to the steady drumbeat of adoption headlines. For the token to break higher durably, demand would need to grow enough to clear both the circulating float and the escrow overhang at once, which is a higher bar than demand alone.

The bull case deserves a fair hearing The picture so far is sobering, but the bullish rebuttal is substantive and deserves a fair hearing, because the situation is not as one-sided as the skeptical read alone implies. The first point in XRP’s favor is that the momentary demand ODL creates is still real demand. Every time the XRP-based product bridges a payment, XRP is genuinely bought, even if it is sold moments later, and at sufficient volume that continuous buying and selling represents real, ongoing market activity rather than nothing. 

If the corridors using ODL grow and the volume flowing through them scales up, the cumulative buy pressure from all that bridging could become a meaningful force, particularly because it recurs constantly instead of being a one-time event. The bull case holds that the token-touching share of Ripple’s business is the part that matters, and that as it grows, so does the demand that flows through XRP.

The second point is that the forty percent is not fixed. Partners that adopted Ripple’s messaging software first can later convert to On-Demand Liquidity, and Ripple has every incentive to push that conversion, since it is the largest holder of XRP and benefits directly when XRP usage rises. If a meaningful share of the messaging-only majority converts to the XRP-based product over time, the demand base expands substantially. 

The third and perhaps strongest point is that settlement throughput is not the only channel to XRP demand. The forces most capable of moving XRP, the institutional flows into spot ETFs and the regulatory clarity that the CLARITY Act would provide, operate largely independent of whether banks hold XRP in their settlement flows. ETF demand is buy-and-hold demand of exactly the kind ODL does not generate, and it has already drawn over a billion dollars into XRP funds. 

Tokenized real-world assets settling on the XRP Ledger represent another growing source of activity. So the bull case is that the partner-count critique, while accurate about settlement mechanics, misses the channels, ETFs and regulation, that could drive XRP regardless of how banks handle their payment corridors. These are genuine counterpoints, and an honest holder should weigh them against the structural concern instead of dismissing either.

The geographic reality nobody mentions A further dimension that rarely makes it into the bull-or-bear debate is where Ripple’s XRP-based volume actually flows, and it complicates the global-rail narrative in an important way. On-Demand Liquidity has been live in production for years, but its real usage has been concentrated in specific cross-border corridors instead of spread evenly across global finance. 

The meaningful volume has historically clustered in particular regions, such as certain Middle East and Southeast Asia corridors, and more recently in Latin American routes involving institutions like Braza Bank and Mexican corridors involving Bitso. These are real flows with real value, and the busiest names on the XRP Ledger include identifiable financial institutions instead of anonymous wallets, which is a genuine point in the network’s favor. But the volume is geographically concentrated, not the worldwide banking rail the headline narrative implies.

This concentration matters for two reasons. First, it means XRP’s settlement demand depends heavily on a relatively small set of corridors, so the token’s utility-driven demand is less diversified and more exposed to the fortunes of those specific routes than a global-rail framing would suggest. Second, in the corridors where institutional settlement does happen on-chain, XRP increasingly competes for share against alternatives, including dollar stablecoins like USDC and Ripple’s own RLUSD, as well as emerging central-bank digital-currency projects, according to blockchain-analytics observations.

So even within the settlement niche where XRP is used, it is not unchallenged; it is one option competing for institutional flow against instruments that offer dollar stability. The honest synthesis is that XRP’s real settlement footprint is meaningful but concentrated and contested, which is a more accurate and more modest picture than the image of a token quietly powering the world’s bank transfers. For holders, this is another reason to track the actual volume in the actual corridors instead of the partner count or the global ambition.

What would actually change the picture If the partner count is the wrong thing to watch, the natural question is what the right things are, and identifying them gives holders a far better framework than counting Ripple’s deals. The first and most direct change would be conversion: the messaging-only majority of partners moving onto On-Demand Liquidity, which would expand the share of Ripple’s business that actually uses XRP. 

Watching whether the roughly forty percent figure grows over time is more informative than watching the total partner number rise, because growth in the token-using share is what expands XRP demand. The second is volume: even within the existing ODL base, the total value flowing through XRP-bridged corridors is what generates the cumulative buy pressure, so rising corridor volume matters more than new logos. A handful of high-volume corridors can move more XRP than dozens of low-volume partnerships.

Beyond settlement, the channels most likely to drive durable XRP demand are the ones that operate independent of how banks handle payments. Spot ETF flows are the clearest, because they represent genuine buy-and-hold demand, and their trajectory, whether they compound or stall, will say more about XRP’s institutional demand than any partner announcement. Regulatory clarity from the CLARITY Act is the second, because codifying XRP’s status could unlock institutional capital that settlement adoption alone never reaches. The growth of tokenized real-world assets on the XRP Ledger is a third, since it brings a different kind of activity and demand to the network.

The honest framework for a holder is therefore to stop treating Ripple’s partner count and corporate wins as proxies for XRP demand, because most of that activity bypasses or only momentarily touches the token, and to focus instead on the metrics that actually connect to demand: the ODL share and its volume, ETF flows, regulatory progress, and on-chain asset growth. The partner count tells you Ripple is a successful company. It tells you very little about whether XRP, the token, is capturing that success, which is the only question that matters for the price.

Frequently Asked Questions Do banks that partner with Ripple actually use XRP? Mostly not. Ripple has more than three hundred institutional partners, but only around forty percent use On-Demand Liquidity, the product that involves XRP as a bridge asset. The other sixty percent or so use Ripple’s messaging and payment software, which does not touch XRP at all. So a large majority of Ripple’s partners can be active customers without ever using the token. This is the key reason the partner count overstates XRP demand: many partners signed up for Ripple’s payments technology specifically without taking on a volatile crypto asset, and they contribute nothing to XRP usage despite being counted as partners.

If a bank uses On-Demand Liquidity, does it hold XRP? Generally no, and this surprises many people. In On-Demand Liquidity, banks do not buy or hold XRP themselves. Licensed exchanges and liquidity providers handle the conversion: the source currency becomes XRP, the XRP moves across the ledger in seconds, and it is converted to the destination currency, all managed by market makers. The bank sees only fiat in and fiat out, never holding the token. This is deliberate, letting banks access XRP-based settlement speed while staying in their regulatory comfort zone. The result is that even the token-using part of Ripple’s business creates only momentary, transactional XRP demand instead of the buy-and-hold accumulation that would steadily lift the price.

Why does XRP’s price stay stuck if Ripple is so successful? Because most of Ripple’s success flows through channels that bypass the token or touch it only momentarily. The majority of partners use XRP-free software, and even On-Demand Liquidity touches XRP only in passing through intermediaries, so Ripple’s corporate growth does not mechanically translate into sustained XRP demand. Add XRP’s large supply, including the escrow Ripple periodically releases, and transactional demand has to be very large to move the price durably. This value-accrual gap, between a thriving business and a token that does not capture its success, is the clearest explanation for why XRP has stayed near a dollar through 2026 even as Ripple keeps winning deals.

Is this a reason to be bearish on XRP? Not necessarily, but it is a reason to be realistic about what drives the token. The structural critique shows that partner counts and corporate wins are poor proxies for XRP demand. But the bull case has real merit: On-Demand Liquidity volume is genuine demand where it runs, the token-using share of partners can grow as banks convert from messaging to liquidity, and the strongest demand channels, spot ETF inflows and regulatory clarity from the CLARITY Act, operate independent of bank settlement entirely. So the picture is not simply bearish; it is that XRP’s demand depends on specific things, the growth of On-Demand Liquidity volume and the independent channels of ETFs and regulation, instead of on Ripple’s overall business success.

Where is XRP actually used for settlement? On-Demand Liquidity volume has historically been concentrated in specific cross-border corridors instead of spread across global banking. Meaningful usage has clustered in certain Middle East and Southeast Asia routes and, more recently, Latin American corridors involving institutions such as Braza Bank and Mexican routes involving Bitso. These are real flows, and the busiest names on the XRP Ledger are identifiable financial institutions. But the volume is geographically concentrated, not the worldwide rail the narrative implies, and within those corridors XRP competes for share against dollar stablecoins like USDC and Ripple’s own RLUSD. So XRP’s settlement footprint is meaningful but concentrated and contested instead of dominant.

What should XRP holders watch instead of the partner count? Focus on the metrics that actually connect to token demand. The most direct is the share of partners using On-Demand Liquidity, currently around forty percent; whether that grows matters more than the total partner number. The second is the volume flowing through XRP-bridged corridors, since cumulative throughput is what generates buy pressure. Beyond settlement, watch spot ETF flows, which represent true buy-and-hold demand, regulatory progress on the CLARITY Act, which could unlock institutional capital, and the growth of tokenized assets on the XRP Ledger. These tell you whether XRP the token is capturing demand, which the partner count does not, because most partners never touch XRP.

This article is information, not investment advice. Figures on Ripple’s partners, On-Demand Liquidity usage, and corridor volumes reflect reporting and estimates available as of June 27, 2026, and can change. The relationship between Ripple’s business and XRP demand is a debated topic. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell XRP or any asset. Verify current details from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.

In a CNBC interview on June 27, Garlinghouse said Strategy’s first Bitcoin sale in a while "definitely started something."

Its leveraged structure amplified excitement on the way up and is now compounding weakness on the way down, Garlinghouse concluded.

He pointed to Strategy’s preferred stock STRC (NASDAQ:STRC) trading roughly 25% below par as a "damning indictment," saying the situation has not helped market sentiment.

"Financial engineering does not drive long-term value," Garlinghouse noted, adding that digital assets must solve real problems at scale for customers to build liquidity, demand and trust.

Garlinghouse added that he remains bullish on Bitcoin but argued that Strategy’s approach was "not focused on the right stuff."

Critics have argued that Strategy’s ability to continuously fund Bitcoin purchases through equity issuance is effectively paused until the stock regains a premium valuation.

BTC – Store-Of-Value AssetWhile Bitcoin remains the dominant store-of-value asset, Ripple is positioning XRP (CRYPTO: XRP), stablecoins and institutional payments infrastructure as part of a broader shift toward tokenized finance.  

Despite that, he said he is bullish on Bitcoin, calling the current pullback a time to "be greedy when others are fearful," while reiterating that Bitcoin’s long-term value lies in its role as digital gold and XRP’s utility remains focused in bringing traditional finance onto blockchain.

The interview also highlighted on the convergence of artificial intelligence, stablecoins and tokenization, explaining how blockchain rails could become financial infrastructure for machines, autonomous agents and tokenized assets.

Image: Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

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

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