Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

SmartCentres Real Estate Investment Trust (“SmartCentres”) (TSX: SRU.UN) announced today that it will be reporting its financial results for the three mont

Neymar Jr stepped onto the pitch in the 76th minute of Brazil’s 3-0 win over Scotland at the 2026 World Cup, and the internet lost its collective mind. Former Peru international Jefferson Farfan, watching from his YouTube channel ‘Satelite+’, could barely contain himself as the Santos number 10 crossed himself, looked skyward, and jogged into the attack.

What the moment didn’t do: move any meaningful needle in the crypto world that once treated Neymar like a Web3 demigod.

## The ghost of Neymar’s crypto past

Rewind to January 2022. Neymar dropped roughly $1.12 million on two Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs, paying 159.99 ETH for one and 189.69 ETH for the other.

Advertisement

Two months before those purchases, in November 2021, Neymar had signed an exclusive licensing deal with NFTSTAR, a platform operated by The9 Limited, to create and sell digital collectibles featuring his likeness.

Today, the BAYC floor price sits at a fraction of its 2022 highs. His NFTSTAR partnership has faded from public conversation. And the unofficial meme tokens that sprung up bearing his name across various blockchains? They collectively hold a valuation under $3,000. That’s not a typo. Three thousand dollars, combined, across every chain.

## The Santos FC Fan Token tells a quieter story

There is one crypto asset with a legitimate, structural connection to Neymar’s career: the Santos FC Fan Token (SANTOS). When news broke in early 2025 that Neymar was returning to his boyhood club, the token jumped 10.6% on centralized exchanges.

Neymar’s World Cup cameo against Scotland triggered no comparable reaction in SANTOS or any other token. No new endorsement was announced. No crypto partnership was unveiled alongside the appearance.

## What Neymar’s non-event means for sports crypto

In 2021 and 2022, athlete endorsements could single-handedly pump token prices. Tom Brady had FTX. Steph Curry had FTX. Neymar had his apes. The logic was simple: famous person touches crypto thing, crypto thing goes up. That trade worked until it catastrophically didn’t, and the rubble from FTX’s collapse made every celebrity-crypto pairing look like a liability rather than a catalyst.

Now, without a fresh endorsement deal, a new NFT collection, or any official Neymar-branded protocol tied to the World Cup, there’s simply no vehicle for speculative capital to ride the Neymar wave in crypto markets. The meme tokens are functionally dead. The fan token moves on club news, not international fixtures.

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

After FTX vanished with billions in customer money, “proof of reserves” became the phrase every exchange started using. This guide explains what it really proves, what it quietly leaves out, and how to tell a meaningful attestation from a marketing badge.

Summary

Proof of reserves lets crypto exchanges verify on chain holdings against customer liabilities instead of relying only on trust. Merkle trees and zero knowledge proofs help exchanges prove customer balances are included without exposing private account data. Proof of reserves improves transparency but cannot fully confirm off chain obligations or guarantee long term solvency. Table of Contents

The problem proof of reserves is trying to solveThe two halves: assets and liabilitiesHow Merkle-tree proof of reserves worksThe zero-knowledge upgradeThe limitations every user must understandWhy auditors and skeptics both have a pointA cautionary tale that proves the pointProof of reserves versus a real auditHow to read an exchange’s proof of reservesFrequently Asked Questions Proof of reserves is a cryptographic method an exchange uses to show that it actually holds the crypto assets its customers have deposited, by publishing verifiable evidence of its on-chain holdings and, in the stronger versions, matching them against what it owes. The first sentence of that definition is the part exchanges love to advertise. The second part, the matching against what it owes, is the part that separates a genuine solvency proof from a reassuring graphic, and it is where most of the difficulty lives. 

The idea moved from a niche cryptographic curiosity to an industry standard almost overnight in late 2022, when FTX, one of the largest exchanges in the world, collapsed and revealed an estimated eight-billion-dollar hole between what it claimed to hold and what it actually had. In the panic that followed, every surviving exchange rushed to prove it was not the next FTX, and “proof of reserves” became the phrase they reached for. This guide explains what proof of reserves is, how the cryptography works, what a credible implementation looks like, the serious limitations every user should understand, and how to read an exchange’s attestation without being lulled by a green checkmark.

The reason this matters is simple and uncomfortable. When you deposit crypto on a centralized exchange, you generally do not hold those coins yourself; the exchange holds them and owes them back to you, exactly as a bank holds your deposit. That arrangement works only if the exchange truly has the assets, keeps them separate from money it gambles or lends, and can return them on demand. FTX proved that an exchange can claim all of this while secretly using customer funds to plug losses elsewhere, and that by the time the truth surfaces, the money is gone. 

Proof of reserves is the industry’s attempt to make that kind of fraud detectable in advance, by replacing “trust us” with “verify it yourself.” Whether it succeeds depends entirely on how it is done, and the gap between the strong and weak versions is the most important thing this guide will teach you.

The problem proof of reserves is trying to solve To understand proof of reserves, start with what an exchange actually is from a financial standpoint. A centralized exchange custodies assets on behalf of millions of users, pooling them in wallets it controls. Your balance on the screen is not a coin with your name on it; it is an entry in the exchange’s database, a promise that the platform owes you that amount and will pay it when you withdraw. As long as everyone does not ask for their money at once, and as long as the exchange truly holds what it owes, the system runs smoothly.

The danger appears when an exchange quietly spends, lends, or loses customer assets while still showing full balances on screen. Users see numbers that look real, but the coins behind them are gone, and the shortfall stays hidden until a wave of withdrawals exposes it.

This is precisely the failure FTX embodied. It took customer deposits and funneled them to an affiliated trading firm, which lost them, while customer account balances continued to display as though the money were safe. When users tried to withdraw en masse, the exchange could not pay, and the missing billions came to light only in the collapse. The episode burned a lesson into the industry: an exchange’s own assurances are worthless, because a fraudulent or insolvent platform will keep claiming everything is fine right up until it implodes. 

What users needed was a way to check, independently and cryptographically, that an exchange held the assets it claimed, without having to trust the exchange’s word or wait for an auditor’s annual report. Proof of reserves was the answer the industry converged on, a mechanism designed to make solvency, or its absence, visible to anyone willing to verify, ideally before a platform fails rather than after.

The two halves: assets and liabilities The single most important concept in proof of reserves is that real solvency requires proving two separate things, and that an exchange holds enough assets is only one of them. The first half is proof of assets: showing that the exchange controls a certain quantity of crypto in its wallets. This is the easier half, because blockchains are public. An exchange can point to its wallet addresses and let anyone see the balances on-chain, or it can cryptographically sign a message from those addresses to prove it controls them. Either way, the assets side is relatively straightforward to show, because the blockchain itself is the evidence.

The second half is proof of liabilities: showing the total amount the exchange owes to all of its customers combined. This is the hard half, and it is the half that weak implementations skip. Without knowing the total liabilities, proving assets means nothing, because solvency is a comparison. An exchange holding one billion dollars of crypto looks healthy until you learn it owes customers two billion, at which point it is catastrophically insolvent. Proof of assets alone tells you what is in the vault; only proof of liabilities tells you whether what is in the vault is enough. 

A complete proof of reserves therefore pairs the two: it shows that total assets held are greater than or equal to total customer liabilities, which is the actual definition of solvency. When an exchange publishes a glossy page showing its wallet holdings but says nothing rigorous about what it owes, it has proven assets and called it solvency, and that substitution is the most common way the term gets watered down into marketing.

How Merkle-tree proof of reserves works The clever cryptography in proof of reserves is mostly on the liabilities side, because proving what an exchange owes without exposing every customer’s private balance is the genuinely hard problem. The standard tool is a structure called a Merkle tree. Picture every customer’s balance as a leaf at the bottom of a tree. Each leaf is hashed, meaning run through a one-way cryptographic function that turns it into a fixed string of characters. 

Pairs of hashes are then combined and hashed again, level by level, climbing the tree until everything condenses into a single hash at the very top called the Merkle root. That root is a compact fingerprint of every balance in the system at once, and crucially, changing any single balance anywhere in the tree would change the root entirely.

The exchange publishes the Merkle root, which represents its total customer liabilities, along with the total asset figure, ideally verified by a third party. Each individual user can then independently confirm that their own balance was included in the calculation. The exchange gives the user the specific branch of hashes connecting their leaf to the root, and the user can recompute the path and check that it produces the published root. If it does, the user has proven their balance was counted in the total, without the exchange ever revealing anyone else’s balance. 

The privacy is the point: the Merkle tree lets the exchange prove a true, complete total of what it owes while keeping each customer’s individual figure hidden from everyone else. If enough users perform this check and find themselves correctly included, the published liability total becomes credible, and it can be compared against the proven assets to assess solvency. The catch, which we will return to, is that this only works well if users actually perform the check and if the asset side is honestly and independently verified.

The zero-knowledge upgrade The basic Merkle-tree approach has a subtle weakness that more advanced systems have moved to close. To fully trust the liability total, you ideally want assurance that the exchange did not cheat in constructing the tree, for instance by sneaking in fake negative balances to make its total liabilities look smaller than they really are, or by excluding certain accounts. The plain Merkle tree proves your balance is included, but it does not, on its own, prove that every entry in the tree was non-negative and that the math behind the total was honest. A sophisticated exchange could, in principle, manipulate the construction in ways an ordinary user checking a single branch would not catch.

The fix that leading exchanges have adopted is to layer a zero-knowledge proof on top of the Merkle tree, using a cryptographic technique called a zk-SNARK. A zero-knowledge proof lets one party prove a statement is true without revealing the underlying data. Applied to proof of reserves, a zk-SNARK can prove that every user balance in the tree was included, that no balance was negative, and that the total was computed correctly, all without exposing any individual balance or even aggregate patterns. 

The exchange proves, in effect, “the sum of all real, non-negative customer balances equals this published number, and here is mathematical proof we did not fake it,” and anyone can verify that proof. The founder of Ethereum publicly proposed exactly this kind of zk-SNARK enhancement as the right way to do proof of reserves, and major exchanges now run zk-SNARK systems atop their Merkle trees. This is the current state of the art on the liabilities side: a privacy-preserving, tamper-evident proof that the total owed is honest and complete.

The limitations every user must understand Even the most sophisticated proof of reserves has serious limitations, and understanding them is what separates an informed user from someone soothed by a checkmark. The first and most damning is the snapshot problem. Proof of reserves captures a single moment in time. An exchange short on assets could borrow funds, perhaps from another exchange or a lender, hold them just long enough to pass the snapshot, prove healthy reserves, and return the borrowed money the next day. The proof would be technically accurate and completely misleading, because the assets were never really there outside the photographed instant. Frequent or continuous proofs reduce this risk but do not eliminate it, and many exchanges publish only periodically.

The second limitation is that proving assets does not prove they are unencumbered. An exchange can genuinely hold the coins it shows while having secretly borrowed them, pledged them as collateral, or owing them to a third party. The blockchain shows the coins sitting in the wallet; it does not show the hidden loan agreement that means those coins are not really free to cover customer withdrawals. The third limitation is the liabilities honesty problem already noted: a proof of assets with no rigorous, independently verified proof of liabilities is not a solvency proof at all, and many advertised implementations stop at assets. 

Fourth, off-chain assets and obligations sit entirely outside the blockchain’s view, so an exchange holding fiat currency, real-world assets, or off-chain debts cannot have those captured by an on-chain proof. The honest summary is that proof of reserves can show an exchange has assets at a moment, but it struggles to prove those assets are sufficient, unencumbered, continuously present, and matched against an honest accounting of everything owed. It is a meaningful check, not a guarantee.

Why auditors and skeptics both have a point Because the cryptography alone cannot close every gap, third-party auditors have become central to credible proof of reserves, and their role is both valuable and contested. An independent auditor or specialized verification firm can examine an exchange’s wallets, confirm control of the assets, review the liability construction, and attest that, at the time examined, assets exceeded liabilities by some margin. Several firms now perform this work, publishing reserve ratios for exchanges that show assets comfortably above liabilities, figures above one hundred percent meaning the exchange holds more than it owes. Some exchanges go further, combining independent accountant reviews with user verifiable identifiers so individuals can confirm their own inclusion. This blend of cryptographic proof and human attestation is currently the strongest form of assurance an exchange can offer short of full, traditional financial audits.

Yet skeptics raise a point worth taking seriously, and it is best captured by the prominent executive who refused to publish proof of reserves for his own company’s holdings, calling it a bad idea. His argument was not that hiding assets is good, but that proof of reserves as commonly practiced can mislead: it can create a false sense of security by proving assets while saying little verifiable about liabilities, off-chain obligations, or whether the assets are encumbered, and a sophisticated bad actor can satisfy the letter of a proof while remaining insolvent in substance. The skeptics and the auditors are, in a sense, both right. Proof of reserves done well, with honest liabilities, independent attestation, and frequent snapshots, is a real improvement over the pre-FTX world of pure blind trust. Proof of reserves done poorly, as a one-time assets-only graphic, can be worse than nothing if it lulls users into a confidence the proof does not actually earn. The technique is a tool, and like any tool it can be wielded honestly or as theater.

A cautionary tale that proves the point The limitations are not hypothetical, and a fresh example shows exactly how a proof-of-reserves regime can fail in practice. In early 2026, an investigation by an on-chain forensics firm revealed that a European exchange’s main Bitcoin holding wallet had collapsed from around fifty-six Bitcoin to a fraction of a single coin, a drop of more than ninety-nine percent, even as the platform continued to assure users it was solvent. 

Tens of thousands of customers were potentially affected, and observers described it as one of the most significant European exchange failures since FTX itself. The episode landed as a direct reminder that an exchange claiming solvency, and even one gesturing at reserves, can be hollow underneath, and that the gap between a public claim and verifiable on-chain reality is exactly where users lose money.

The lesson is not that proof of reserves is useless; it is that the quality and continuity of verification are everything. Had that exchange’s reserves been continuously proven, independently audited, and matched against honestly constructed liabilities, the draining of its main wallet would have been visible to anyone watching, and users could have withdrawn before the collapse rather than after. Instead, the assurance was a claim rather than a living, verifiable proof, and the on-chain reality diverged catastrophically from the story being told. 

This is the practical case for treating proof of reserves as a process to scrutinize instead of a badge to trust. A meaningful proof is recent, frequent, independently attested, and covers both halves of the solvency equation. A claim of solvency with none of that behind it is precisely the kind of reassurance that history keeps showing to be worthless at the worst possible moment.

Proof of reserves versus a real audit A point of confusion worth clearing up is the difference between proof of reserves and a traditional financial audit, because exchanges sometimes blur the two and they are not the same thing. A full audit, of the kind applied to a public company, examines far more than whether assets exceed liabilities at a moment. It scrutinizes the quality and ownership of those assets, whether they are encumbered or pledged, the accuracy of the books over a period instead of a snapshot, the internal controls that govern how money moves, the company’s other obligations and debts, and the truthfulness of management’s representations, all signed off by an accountable auditing firm that stakes its reputation and faces legal consequences for getting it wrong. 

Proof of reserves, even in its strongest cryptographic form, does much less: it shows on-chain assets and, ideally, customer liabilities at a point in time, but it does not examine the off-chain business, the encumbrances, the controls, or the conduct of management.

This gap matters because the marketing around proof of reserves can imply a level of assurance closer to a full audit than the technique actually provides. An exchange can truthfully say it published a proof of reserves while its off-chain finances, its corporate debts, its commingling of funds, or its risky lending remain entirely unexamined. The early scramble after the FTX collapse made this gap vivid: some auditing firms that had begun providing proof-of-reserves attestations stepped back from the work, wary of the reputational risk of appearing to vouch for an exchange’s overall solvency when their procedures covered only a narrow, point-in-time slice. 

The lesson is not that proof of reserves is dishonest, but that it occupies a specific and limited place. It is a cryptographic check on a particular question, do the on-chain assets cover the customer liabilities right now, and it is truly useful for that. It is not a substitute for the comprehensive, ongoing, accountable scrutiny that a real audit provides, and an exchange that has only published a proof of reserves has not been audited in the full sense, however much the language might suggest otherwise.

The practical upshot is to hold two ideas at once. Proof of reserves is a meaningful advance over the pre-FTX world, in which users had nothing but blind faith, and a strong, frequent, independently attested, two-sided proof truly lowers the risk of a hidden insolvency. At the same time, it is a narrow instrument that cannot see the off-chain obligations, the encumbrances, or the management conduct that have featured in many exchange failures. 

The most informed users treat a credible proof of reserves as one positive signal among several, alongside an exchange’s regulatory standing, its track record, its transparency, and the protections of the jurisdiction it operates in, instead of as a complete verdict on safety. Combining the cryptographic check with these other signals, and keeping meaningful holdings in self-custody, is the realistic way to manage exchange risk, because no single proof, however clever, captures everything that can go wrong.

How to read an exchange’s proof of reserves Putting it together, here is how to evaluate any exchange’s proof of reserves instead of taking the headline at face value. First, check whether it proves liabilities, not just assets. A page showing only wallet balances is proof of assets, and on its own it tells you nothing about solvency, because you cannot see what the exchange owes. Look for a Merkle-tree liability commitment, ideally strengthened by a zero-knowledge proof, and the ability to verify your own balance’s inclusion. Second, check for independent attestation. 

A reserve ratio confirmed by a reputable third party carries far more weight than a self-published graphic, because it means someone with professional accountability examined the wallets and the liability construction instead of the exchange grading its own homework.

Third, check recency and frequency. A proof from many months ago tells you little about today, and a single annual snapshot is easy to game with borrowed funds; frequent or continuous proofs are far harder to fake. Fourth, keep the structural limitations in mind even when all of the above is present: a proof cannot easily show that assets are unencumbered, cannot capture off-chain obligations, and cannot guarantee the assets stay there after the snapshot. The most important practical takeaway sits above all the cryptography. 

Proof of reserves reduces the trust you must place in an exchange, but it does not eliminate it, and the only way to remove custody risk entirely is to hold your own keys in self-custody, where no exchange stands between you and your coins. For assets you do keep on an exchange, favor platforms with frequent, independently audited, two-sided proofs, treat assets-only graphics with skepticism, and remember the lesson FTX taught at great cost: an exchange will keep telling you everything is fine right up until it is not, so verification, not reassurance, is what protects you.

Frequently Asked Questions What is proof of reserves in simple terms? Proof of reserves is a way for a crypto exchange to show, with verifiable evidence instead of just its word, that it actually holds the assets customers have deposited. In its strong form it proves two things: that the exchange controls a certain amount of crypto in its wallets (proof of assets), and that this amount is greater than or equal to everything it owes customers (proof of liabilities). Together those show solvency. It became an industry standard after the FTX collapse in late 2022 revealed an estimated eight-billion-dollar gap between claimed and actual reserves.

How does proof of reserves actually work? The asset side is shown using the blockchain itself, since an exchange can reveal its wallet holdings or cryptographically sign messages proving it controls them. The liability side uses a Merkle tree: every customer balance is hashed and combined upward into a single fingerprint called a Merkle root, which represents the total owed. Each user can verify their own balance was included without seeing anyone else’s. Leading exchanges add a zero-knowledge proof (a zk-SNARK) on top to prove no balances were negative or omitted and the total is honest, all without exposing individual figures.

What are the main weaknesses of proof of reserves? Several. It is a snapshot, so an exchange could borrow assets briefly to pass the check and return them afterward. It does not prove the assets are unencumbered, meaning they could be secretly borrowed or pledged as collateral. Many implementations prove only assets and skip a rigorous, independently verified proof of liabilities, which means they do not actually prove solvency. And it cannot capture off-chain assets or obligations. So proof of reserves is a meaningful check but not a guarantee that an exchange is truly solvent and safe.

Why did some people refuse to publish proof of reserves? A prominent executive declined to publish proof of reserves for his company’s holdings, arguing it is a bad idea because it can mislead. The concern is that an assets-only proof creates false confidence: it can show coins in a wallet while saying nothing verifiable about liabilities, off-chain debts, or whether the assets are encumbered, and a sophisticated bad actor can satisfy the surface of a proof while remaining insolvent underneath. The point is not that hiding assets is good, but that a weak proof of reserves can be worse than none if it lulls users into unearned trust.

Does proof of reserves mean my money is safe on an exchange? Not by itself. A strong, frequent, independently audited, two-sided proof of reserves meaningfully reduces the risk that an exchange is secretly insolvent, which is real protection. But no proof can guarantee the assets stay there after the snapshot, that they are unencumbered, or that off-chain obligations are covered. The only way to remove exchange custody risk entirely is self-custody, holding your own private keys so no platform stands between you and your coins. For assets kept on an exchange, prefer platforms with credible, recent, two-sided proofs, but do not treat any proof as an absolute guarantee.

How can I tell a credible proof of reserves from marketing? Check four things. Does it prove liabilities, not just assets, with a Merkle-tree commitment and ideally a zero-knowledge proof, plus the ability to verify your own balance? Is it independently attested by a reputable third party instead of self-published? Is it recent and frequent instead of a stale annual snapshot? And does the explanation acknowledge the limitations instead of implying total safety? A two-sided, independently audited, frequently updated proof is credible. An assets-only graphic with no liability proof, no third party, and an old date is closer to a marketing badge than a solvency proof.

This article is educational information, not financial or investment advice. Exchange practices, reserve ratios, and verification methods change, and figures reflect reporting available as of June 25, 2026. Always confirm an exchange’s current proof-of-reserves details from primary sources, and remember that self-custody is the only way to fully remove exchange custody risk.

PANews June 25 news, based on the current Bitcoin price of $59,600 and the 200-day DCA cost (C200) of $75,821, the Ahr999 bottom-fishing indicator is about 0.287, in the extremely undervalued zone; the intra-year low was 0.27 on February 6, 2026.

Statistical data shows that Ahr999 falling below 0.3 is an extremely rare signal, usually only appearing during systemic panic or bear market bottoms. Historically, the indicator fell below 0.3 during the early market in 2011, the bottom of the 2018 bear market (lowest around 0.24), the COVID flash crash in 2020, and the FTX collapse and ETH chain liquidations in 2022.

The Bitcoin Ahr999 indicator (also called the ahr999 bottom-fishing indicator) was created by ahr999 (Jiushen), primarily to help long-term holders (HODLers) and DCA users determine buying timing. Ahr999 = (current Bitcoin price / 200-day DCA cost) × (current Bitcoin price / exponential growth valuation).

Key Takeaways Virtu is benefiting from strong trading volumes and rising market participation.Execution Services growth is diversifying revenue beyond trading volatility.Upward earnings revisions and consistent beats support the bullish outlook. Virtu Financial, Inc. (VIRT - Free Report) , a leading financial services company, is well poised to grow on the back of its diversified business, a supportive trading environment and efficiency-improving efforts. Headquartered in New York, Virtu Financial has a market cap of $9.7 billion.

Its shares have returned 87.1% in the year-to-date period, outperforming both the industry and the S&P 500 Index. Over this timeframe, the industry declined 7.9%, and the S&P 500 Index gained 7.4%. The stock currently sports a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy).

Encouraging Estimates for VIRTReflecting the positive sentiment around Virtu, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2026 earnings per share has seen five upward revisions and no downward movement. The consensus estimate for 2026 adjusted earnings for VIRT is currently pegged at $6.51 per share, indicating a 13.6% year-over-year growth. The consensus estimate for 2026 revenues suggests 10.6% year-over-year increase.

VIRT beat earnings estimates in each of the past four quarters, with an average surprise of 25.1%.

Growth DriversVirtu Financial benefits from higher trading activity as it provides liquidity and execution services across equities, options, fixed income, currencies and commodities markets. As market participation increases, the company typically generates stronger trading-related revenues. In the first quarter, commissions, net and technology services revenues rose 23.3% year over year to $186.6 million, while interest and dividend income increased 16.9% to $127.5 million.

At the same time, VIRT continues to diversify its revenue base beyond market volatility-driven trading activities by expanding its technology-enabled execution platform. The Execution Services segment delivered adjusted net trading income of $149.5 million in first-quarter 2026, up from $115.1 million in the prior-year period. Daily average contribution from the segment improved to $2.5 million. Growth was supported by demand for workflow technology, algorithmic trading solutions and at-the-market offerings, marking the eighth consecutive quarter of expansion for the business.

The company’s balance sheet continues to provide flexibility to reinvest and return capital. Virtu ended first-quarter 2026 with cash and cash equivalents of $973.2 million. Net Debt-to-EBITDA of 0.5 is lower than the industry average of 1.3.

Key RiskHowever, there is one factor that investors should keep an eye on.

Virtu Financial’s operating cash flow can fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter due to changes in trading assets and liabilities, margin requirements and other working capital items, making cash generation less predictable. In the first quarter of 2026, the company used $0.1 million in operating activities, compared with net cash provided by operations of $15 million in the year-ago period.

Nevertheless, we believe that a systematic and strategic plan of action will drive this company’s growth in the long term.

Other Top-Ranked PlayersInvestors interested in the broader Finance space may look at some other top-ranked players like WisdomTree, Inc. (WT - Free Report) , Chime Financial, Inc. (CHYM - Free Report) and Bread Financial Holdings, Inc. (BFH - Free Report) , each carrying a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) now. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for WisdomTree’s 2026 earnings indicates 32.6% year-over-year growth. During the past month, WT has witnessed one upward estimate revision against none in the opposite direction. It beat earnings estimates thrice in the past four quarters and met once, with an average surprise of 10.9%.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Chime Financial’s current-year earnings is pegged at 30 cents per share, which indicates a 107% year-over-year improvement. It witnessed seven upward estimate revisions in the past 60 days against no downward movement. The consensus mark for CHYM’s current year revenues suggests a 22.6% surge from a year ago.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Bread Financial’s current-year earnings increased 2.1% over the past 60 days. During this time, BFH has witnessed three upward estimate revisions against none in the opposite direction. The consensus mark for current-year revenues is pegged at $3.94 billion, indicating a 2.5% increase from a year ago.

Key Takeaways GlobalFoundries' Q1 gross margin rose 510 bps to 29%, as revenues increased 3% to YoY $1.63B.GFS saw Communications Infrastructure and Data Center revenues jump 32%, helped by a richer AI mix.GlobalFoundries expects silicon photonics revenues to roughly double in 2026 as SiGe demand stays strong. GlobalFoundries Inc. (GFS - Free Report) is starting to show that its AI opportunity is not limited to direct exposure to GPUs or leading-edge logic chips. Instead, the company is benefiting from the broader infrastructure required to support AI, including silicon photonics, silicon germanium, automotive semiconductors, embedded memory and industrial connectivity.

The first quarter of 2026 suggests that strategy is beginning to pay off. While first-quarter revenues increased a modest 3% year over year to $1.63 billion, the more important story was profitability. Gross margin (Non-IFRS) expanded to 29%, up from 23.9% a year earlier, a remarkable 510-basis-point improvement and the largest year-over-year expansion in more than three years. Management now expects another quarter of roughly 28.5% gross margin despite ongoing investments in capacity and technology. The improvement was driven by a richer revenue mix, with Communications Infrastructure and Data Center revenues climbing 32% to $230 million. Management expects silicon photonics revenues to roughly double in 2026 and forecasts high-30% growth for the broader segment.

The margin implications could be meaningful. Management described silicon germanium, another key optical networking, as margin accretive and said demand is strong enough that capacity at its Vermont fab is oversubscribed well into 2027. GlobalFoundries is expanding capacity in silicon photonics, FDX and high-performance SiGe to meet customer demand, but these investments are being targeted toward higher-value technology corridors rather than broad commodity capacity.

GlobalFoundries is also extending its AI exposure into physical AI, including robotics and industrial automation. The company expects Home and Industrial IoT to become a key beneficiary of physical AI beyond 2026, even though that segment declined in the first quarter due to shipment timing and inventory normalization. Its partnership with Inova Semiconductors for a robotics control reference platform supports this longer-term strategy.

At 29% non-IFRS gross margin, GlobalFoundries is close to a key profitability milestone. If silicon photonics continues to scale, automotive remains resilient and Technology Services grows as expected, 30% may not be the ceiling. It may be the beginning of a more profitable phase for the company.

Can GFS Outpace Silicon Photonics Rivals Like TSM & UMC?GlobalFoundries is not alone in targeting the fast-growing silicon photonics market. Among its closest competitors is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSM - Free Report) , which is advancing co-packaged optics through its COUPE platform. Leveraging its leadership in advanced process technologies and packaging, TSM is well-positioned to serve hyperscalers and AI chip designers seeking higher-bandwidth interconnect solutions. However, GlobalFoundries differentiates itself with a specialized optical networking portfolio that combines silicon photonics, silicon germanium, packaging, testing and manufacturing services.

United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC - Free Report) is also expanding its presence in silicon photonics. The company recently announced a strategic partnership to develop thin-film lithium niobate photonics for AI infrastructure and plans to launch its first silicon photonics process design kit in 2027. UMC is also evaluating hybrid bonding, TSV and chiplet integration to support future co-packaged optics applications, underscoring the industry's growing focus on AI networking technologies.

GFS’ Stock Price Performance & Valuation TrendShares of GlobalFoundries have surged 133.7% in the past six months, outperforming the Zacks Electronics - Semiconductors industry’s 48.4% growth.

GFS 6-Month Price Performance

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

GFS stock is currently trading at a premium to its industry peers, with a forward 12-month price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 47.61, as shown in the chart below.

P/E (F12M)

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Earnings Estimate Revision of GFSGFS’ earnings estimates for 2026 and 2027 have trended upward in the past 60 days to $1.89 and $2.62 per share, respectively. The revised estimates for 2026 and 2027 imply year-over-year growth of 9.9% and 38.6%, respectively.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

GFS currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Key Takeaways Geoff Kendrick from Standard Chartered has launched coverage on AAVE, projecting a $3,500 valuation by December 2030. This projection suggests approximately a 50-fold surge from AAVE’s present trading range of $70–$76. According to Kendrick, Aave has bounced back following the April KelpDAO security breach that threatened $230 million in protocol losses. The bullish outlook hinges on tokenized real-world assets expanding 37-fold to approximately $2.7 trillion by decade’s end. Incremental milestones position AAVE at $180 by late 2026, climbing to $600, $1,200, and $2,200 in following years. Geoff Kendrick, who leads digital assets research at Standard Chartered, has launched coverage on Aave with an ambitious long-term valuation of $3,500 by December 2030. With AAVE currently hovering around $76, this projection implies an approximate 50-fold appreciation.

Aave Price The projection unfolds through a multi-year timeline. Kendrick anticipates AAVE climbing to $180 by late 2026, advancing to $600 by late 2027, reaching $1,200 by late 2028, and touching $2,200 by late 2029 before ultimately achieving the $3,500 mark in 2030.

Kendrick characterized Aave as a blockchain-powered automated banking system. The protocol operates exclusively via smart contracts, eliminating traditional banking elements like human staff or subjective credit decisions.

BREAKING: Standard Chartered projects Aave to hit $3,500 by 2030.

The bank says DeFi lending is entering its next major growth cycle, with Aave positioned to capture the upside. pic.twitter.com/GjjuwUhAxx

— MSB Intel (@MSBIntel) June 24, 2026

During its October 2025 zenith, Aave commanded approximately $75 billion in total deposits. Kendrick highlighted that this deposit volume would have positioned the protocol within the top 30 U.S. banks measured by deposit holdings.

The protocol encountered significant turbulence this year. Attackers exploited a vulnerability in April, extracting roughly $292 million in rsETH through a LayerZero-connected bridge and subsequently leveraging those stolen tokens as collateral across Aave and competing DeFi protocols.

This security incident exposed Aave to potential losses approaching $230 million. Deposit levels plummeted, while active lending activity contracted. Aave responded by halting rsETH market operations.

Real-World Asset Tokenization and Aave Horizon Standard Chartered’s extended-term thesis leans heavily on the proliferation of tokenized real-world assets. The financial institution forecasts this asset category will multiply 37-fold by 2030, approaching $2.7 trillion in total value.

Kendrick explained that Aave’s revenue framework connects directly to lending activity and deposit volumes, suggesting that expansion in tokenized markets could drive enhanced protocol earnings and subsequent appreciation for the AAVE token.

Aave Horizon, the protocol’s permissioned lending infrastructure, represents a crucial component. This platform enables vetted institutions to secure loans against tokenized real-world collateral. By late May, Horizon recorded approximately $163 million in outstanding loans, contrasted against a broader tokenized real-world asset ecosystem valued at $30 billion.

Aave’s native GHO stablecoin contributes additional strategic value. GHO circulation has expanded to roughly $600 million following its 2023 debut. Significantly, all GHO-generated fees flow entirely to the protocol instead of being distributed to external liquidity providers.

Chart Analysis and Competing Projections AAVE has rebounded from early-June troughs around $58–$60, currently exchanging hands near $76. This represents roughly a 6.5% gain over the preceding 24-hour period.

$AAVE is really strong today and has decent relative strength. They're still recovering from some of the fud they had before but overall, still a good project. TA wise, it's unfortunately still in a very bearish trend, though. it needs to break above these 4h EMAs in order to… https://t.co/g0pHCGd78O pic.twitter.com/18jyI9qkVL

— Altcoin Sherpa (@AltcoinSherpa) June 24, 2026

The 4-hour chart continues displaying an overarching bearish framework following a dramatic decline from above $100 in May. Critical resistance zones appear near $75.50–$76.00. A decisive breakout beyond this threshold could trigger momentum toward $78–$80.

Grayscale’s Alternative Valuation Grayscale Research has independently suggested AAVE may be trading below intrinsic value near $75. The research firm calculates fair value could advance toward $175 over a 12-month horizon, contingent on scenarios featuring improved regulatory frameworks and accelerated tokenized asset integration.

Standard Chartered interprets present deposit figures as a cyclical bottom and projects capital will flow back into the protocol as DeFi market conditions stabilize.

At publication time, AAVE was exchanging near $76.49.

CoinDesk 20 performance update: AAVE gains 10.1% as index rises

Cryptocurrency exchange Kraken is reportedly in talks to acquire a 15% stake in decentralized finance protocol Aave. According to sources close to the matter, the potential investment prices Aave at a valuation of $385 million.

According to CoinDesk, Kraken, operating under Payward Inc., plans to invest 35,000 Ethereum (ETH) as part of the deal, receiving 250,000 AAVE tokens and a 15% stake in Aave Group common shares.

Two sources close to the transaction said Kraken is also considering sharing this approximately $71 million deal with different investors through syndication. The sources requested anonymity because the discussions are private.

According to a third source close to the company’s plans, this investment could be one of the first deals planned as part of Payward Asset Management’s expansion. Kraken aims to take a more active role in DeFi and other investment opportunities with this move.

Aave is known as one of the largest decentralized lending protocols, allowing users to borrow and lend crypto assets without needing intermediaries. Users earn returns by providing assets to liquidity pools, while those wishing to borrow can use crypto collateral to obtain a loan.

However, Aave was at the center of one of the biggest crises in the DeFi ecosystem in April. Attackers linked to the North Korea-linked Lazarus Group exploited a vulnerability in KelpDAO’s cross-chain bridge to mint approximately $292 million worth of rsETH without any backing.

The attackers used these tokens as collateral on Aave to borrow real assets. After the collateral became worthless, it was estimated that between $190 million and $230 million in bad debt accumulated on the protocol.

Although Aave’s own smart contracts didn’t have a direct vulnerability, the incident prompted users to quickly exit the protocol to mitigate their risks. This resulted in an outflow of over $8 billion, once again highlighting the contagion risk inherent in interconnected structures within the DeFi ecosystem.

A chart showing the increase in AAVE’s price. *This is not investment advice.

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

Kraken is in advanced discussions to buy a 15% interest in Aave Group as the crypto exchange deepens its push into decentralized finance, CoinDesk reported Thursday, citing people familiar with the negotiations.

The proposed transaction values Aave at $385 million and would involve Kraken investing 35,000 ETH, worth about $31 million, in exchange for 250,000 AAVE tokens and an equity stake.

According to the report, Kraken is looking to syndicate part of the approximately $71 million investment and sees the deal as the first in a series of strategic investments under Payward Asset Management, a new initiative built to expand the firm’s investment activities beyond its core exchange business.

Advertisement

The talks come as Kraken accelerates its expansion ahead of an expected IPO. The company recently agreed to acquire derivatives exchange Bitnomial and has reportedly been raising fresh capital at a $20 billion valuation.

Aave, meanwhile, remains the largest DeFi lending protocol despite facing heavy withdrawals earlier this year following a major exploit targeting Kelp DAO’s rsETH cross-chain bridge.

According to a new report from Standard Chartered, Aave could rise to $3,500 by the end of 2030 as growth in DeFi and tokenized assets fuels demand for onchain lending.

Standard Chartered’s digital assets research head views Aave as one of the most established infrastructure providers in DeF. The bank expects tokenized real-world assets actively used in DeFi to expand dramatically by 2030, creating new opportunities for lending protocols that can connect digital and traditional financial markets.

The report also highlighted potential catalysts including Aave’s Horizon platform, which targets institutional adoption through permissioned lending markets backed by tokenized assets.

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

Top Wall Street analysts changed their outlook on these top names. For a complete view of all analyst rating changes, including upgrades, downgrades and initiations, please see our analyst ratings page.

Considering buying UWMC stock? Here’s what analysts think:

Photo 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.

Momentum investing is all about the idea of following a stock's recent trend, which can be in either direction. In the "long context," investors will essentially be "buying high, but hoping to sell even higher." And for investors following this methodology, taking advantage of trends in a stock's price is key; once a stock establishes a course, it is more than likely to continue moving in that direction. The goal is that once a stock heads down a fixed path, it will lead to timely and profitable trades.

While many investors like to look for momentum in stocks, this can be very tough to define. There is a lot of debate surrounding which metrics are the best to focus on and which are poor quality indicators of future performance. The Zacks Momentum Style Score, part of the Zacks Style Scores, helps address this issue for us.

Below, we take a look at Amphenol (APH - Free Report) , a company that currently holds a Momentum Style Score of B. We also talk about price change and earnings estimate revisions, two of the main aspects of the Momentum Style Score.

It's also important to note that Style Scores work as a complement to the Zacks Rank, our stock rating system that has an impressive track record of outperformance. Amphenol currently has a Zacks Rank of #2 (Buy). Our research shows that stocks rated Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and #2 (Buy) and Style Scores of "A or B" outperform the market over the following one-month period.

You can see the current list of Zacks #1 Rank Stocks here >>>

Set to Beat the Market? In order to see if APH is a promising momentum pick, let's examine some Momentum Style elements to see if this maker of fiber-optic products holds up.

Looking at a stock's short-term price activity is a great way to gauge if it has momentum, since this can reflect both the current interest in a stock and if buyers or sellers have the upper hand at the moment. It's also helpful to compare a security to its industry; this can show investors the best companies in a particular area.

For APH, shares are up 6.61% over the past week while the Zacks Electronics - Connectors industry is up 6.61% over the same time period. Shares are looking quite well from a longer time frame too, as the monthly price change of 16.07% compares favorably with the industry's 14.32% performance as well.

While any stock can see a spike in price, it takes a real winner to consistently outperform the market. Over the past quarter, shares of Amphenol have risen 27.47%, and are up 67.78% in the last year. In comparison, the S&P 500 has only moved 12.56% and 22.2%, respectively.

Investors should also take note of APH's average 20-day trading volume. Volume is a useful item in many ways, and the 20-day average establishes a good price-to-volume baseline; a rising stock with above average volume is generally a bullish sign, whereas a declining stock on above average volume is typically bearish. Right now APH is averaging 9,569,251 shares for the last 20 days..

Earnings OutlookThe Zacks Momentum Style Score also takes into account trends in estimate revisions, in addition to price changes. Please note that estimate revision trends remain at the core of Zacks Rank as well. A nice path here can help show promise, and we have recently been seeing that with APH.

Over the past two months, 3 earnings estimates moved higher compared to none lower for the full year. These revisions helped boost APH's consensus estimate, increasing from $4.29 to $4.78 in the past 60 days. Looking at the next fiscal year, 3 estimates have moved upwards while there have been no downward revisions in the same time period.

Bottom LineTaking into account all of these elements, it should come as no surprise that APH is a #2 (Buy) stock with a Momentum Score of B. If you've been searching for a fresh pick that's set to rise in the near-term, make sure to keep Amphenol on your short list.

Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR +0.52%) provides a lower-cost, broader approach to small-cap value, while iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF (IWN +0.48%) offers potentially higher volatility and more concentrated sector tilts.

Both funds target the same segment of the market -- small companies that trade at low price-to-book or price-to-earnings ratios. However, they track different indexes, leading to distinct differences in risk, return, and portfolio composition that investors could consider before choosing between them.

Snapshot (cost & size)MetricVBRIWNIssuerVanguardiSharesExpense ratio0.05%0.24%1-yr return (as of June 23, 2026)26.20%42.30%Dividend yield1.70%1.50%Beta0.951.01AUM$65.5 billion$14.3 billionBeta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months. Dividend yield is the trailing-12-month distribution yield as of June 23’s closing price.

Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF is the more affordable option with an expense ratio of 0.05%, compared to 0.24% for iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF. The Vanguard fund also provides a slightly higher payout for income-seeking investors.

Performance & risk comparisonMetricVBRIWNMax drawdown (5 yr)(24.20%)(26.70%)Growth of $1,000 over 5 years (total return)$1,510.00$1,413.00What's insideThe iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF, launched in 2000, focuses on U.S. small-cap value stocks, carrying 1,407 in its portfolio. Its sector weights include Financial Services at 23.9%, Industrials at 12.1%, and Technology at 11.%. Top positions include TTM Technologies Inc (TTMI 0.05%) at 1.1%,  Echostar Corp Class A (SATS 2.18%) at 1.1%, and Hut 8 Mining Corp (HUT 1.07%). It has paid $3.19 per share over the trailing 12 months.

The Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF, launched in 2004, is less diversified with 841 holdings. Its top sectors include Financial Services at 17.5%, Industrials at 17.4%, and Consumer Cyclical at 12.5%. Its largest positions include Flex Ltd (FLEX +7.75%) at 1.25%, Jabil Inc (JBL +2.39%) at 0.8%, and Tapestry Inc (TPR 3.01%) at 0.7%. The Vanguard fund has a trailing-12-month dividend of $4.14 per share.

The iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF is having an excellent year, with its more diverse small-cap portfolio benefiting from the recent run in small caps relative to mid- and large-cap sectors.

Both funds are good ways to play the small-cap sector, which should be a part of most diversified portfolios.

But the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF gets the nod, given that it outperforms IWO on every other longer time frame. VBR has returned more than 18% the past three years, compared to 13.5% for IWO, according to information from each fund as of March 31. The Vanguard offering also bests the iShares competitor on the 5-year lookback, 8.19% to 5.56%, and the 10-year time, 10.58% to 9.42%.

Some of this outperformance may be due to the concentration of holdings in VBR compared to IWO. That may not be replicable in the future. But Vanguard Small-Cap ETF’s low expense ratio has been a factor in past performance and will continue to be, especially when considering IWO’s much higher expenses. Go with Vanguard.

For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.

Software concern Samsara Inc (NYSE:IOT) is trading 5.1% lower at $29.64 at last glance, adding to its extensive pullback from its early June 2026 high. In the month of June, IOT has suffered a loss in 14 of its 18 sessions. This week the shares broke below the 80-day moving average, adding to its 16% year-to-date deficit. All is not lost, however, as a historic bull signal is now flashing on the data operations stock.

IOT sports a 10-day put/call volume ratio of 1.93 at the International Securities Exchange (ISE), Cboe Options Exchange (CBOE), and NASDAQ OMX PHLX (PHLX) that stands higher than 92% of readings from the past year.

There has been eight instances in the last three years that the equity's 10-day buy-to-open put/call ratio crossed over 1.0 and hit the 90th percentile. Per Schaeffer's Senior Quantitative Analyst Rocky White, IOT was higher one month later 63% of the time after these signals with an average 8.2% return. From its current perch, this would put the stock back near $32.

A short squeeze could keep the wind at the equity's back. Short interest increased by 15% in the most recent reporting period, and the 41.26 million shares sold short account for 11.5% of IOT's total available float. At the stock's average pace of trading, it would take shorts almost seven trading days to buy back their bearish bets.

Options look like an affordable route. Samsara stock's Schaeffer's Volatility Index (SVI) of 63% sits in the 32nd percentile of its annual range, meaning near-term option traders are pricing in relatively low volatility expectations.

-

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Further to the announcement made on March 13, 2026, CRH (NYSE: CRH) today announces that the separate schemes of arrangement to cancel the Company’s 5% preference shares and 7% preference shares became effective today, June 25, 2026, and that the preference shares have been cancelled.

Cancellation of the admission of the 5% preference shares to trading on Euronext Growth Dublin is expected to occur with effect from 7:00 a.m. (BST) tomorrow, Friday June 26, 2026.

About CRH

CRH is the leading provider of building materials critical to modernizing infrastructure. With our team of 83,000 people across 4,000 locations, our unmatched scale, connected portfolio, and deep local relationships make us the partner of choice for transportation, water, and reindustrialization projects, shaping communities for a better tomorrow. CRH (NYSE: CRH) is a member of the S&P 500 Index. For more information, visit www.crh.com.

More News From CRH

Back to Newsroom

Binance will delist the IPUSDT and IPUSDC USDT-margined perpetual contracts due to the rebranding of the Story brand.

Per an official announcement, following the rebranding of the Story (IP) brand to Data Network, Binance will automatically liquidate IPUSDT and IPUSDC U-margined perpetual contracts at 17:00 CST (UTC+8) on June 28, 2026, and remove these perpetual contract trading pairs after liquidation concludes. Users are advised to close their positions voluntarily before trading is suspended to avoid automatic settlement of their positions. Starting from 16:30 CST (UTC+8) on June 28, 2026, users will no longer be able to submit new non-reduce-only orders for the aforementioned perpetual contracts. A separate announcement will be released when the new contract goes live.

1 hours ago

Sources: Israeli military withdrawal from Lebanon is an important "red line" for Iran.

Local time on June 25, a source close to the negotiation team said that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese territory is one of the conditions for a final Iran-US agreement, and is regarded as an important "red line" by Iran's negotiation team. The source further stated that the final memorandum of understanding will guarantee Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The agreement text previously reached in Switzerland already emphasized a "conflict resolution mechanism" that is participated in and uniformly implemented by Iran. Iran is currently following up on the specific implementation timeline. (CCTV)

1 hours ago

Apple's stock price fell by 6%, marking its largest decline since April 2025.

According to Bitget's market data, Apple's stock price fell by 6%, marking its largest decline since April 2025.

1 hours ago

Analyst: Bitcoin falls below $60,000, but institutions and whales are not continuing to bet on further declines.

Greeks.live macro researcher Adam posted on X: "Tomorrow is the quarterly expiry, and Bitcoin has dipped below $60,000. As seen in the GEX chart, $60,000 is clearly the highest open interest price point. Meanwhile, large positions are also starting to accumulate at $58,000 and $59,000, signaling rising market risk. Institutional investors and major holders have not continued to bet on a downward move; they are just waiting for the expiry."

1 hours ago

TD Cowen Analyst: SpaceX May Acquire T-Mobile

TD Cowen analysts said SpaceX could acquire T-Mobile to accelerate its wireless communication ambitions if a network sharing agreement cannot be reached. The report points to Starlink’s existing partnership with T-Mobile US as a strategic fit. This idea is purely speculative, but it underscores the growing competitive pressure the space exploration firm faces in the telecom industry.

1 hours ago

Decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol Spark has deployed approximately $150 million in stablecoin liquidity across two Uniswap v4 pools on Ethereum as part of a collaboration aimed at creating shared liquidity and exchange infrastructure for stablecoin issuers.

A Spark spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the initial deployment is live in two pools pairing USDS with PayPal USD (PYUSD) and USDT, with USDS serving as the foundation. Spark described the deployment as one of the largest automated market maker (AMM) liquidity migrations in DeFi.

“These pools represent the initial deployment of approximately $150 million of liquidity and establish the first phase of the Stablecoin FX Layer,” the spokesperson said. “This initial deployment focuses on bootstrapping shared liquidity on Uniswap v4.”

Earlier this month, Standard Chartered identified Uniswap as a potential beneficiary of tokenized assets moving into DeFi. It forecast that total assets held in DeFi could reach $2.7 trillion by 2030, with Uniswap potentially emerging as a liquidity venue for the growing market. 

The deployment announced Thursday lays the groundwork for a planned programmable liquidity system that could reduce the need for banks, financial technology firms and stablecoin issuers to build separate liquidity networks while testing whether Uniswap can make onchain capital more efficient without weakening market depth.

Spark plans programmable liquidity expansionSpark said it plans to introduce its Shared Liquidity Layer and DualPool hook in subsequent phases using Uniswap v4's programmable architecture to coordinate how liquidity is distributed across stablecoin markets.

A liquidity hook enables protocols to seamlessly integrate with platforms for capital access and developing yield and trading strategies.

Spark said a hook is intended to allow capital not immediately needed for trades to be deployed into governance-approved products, liquidity venues and yield-generating strategies.

The implementation of the DualPool hook will go through a separate security review, testing and production-readiness process before deployment. The first phase uses standard Uniswap v4 pools rather than the planned programmable framework.

Spark said the planned framework is intended to give future stablecoin issuers access to shared liquidity rather than requiring them to individually bootstrap pools, coordinate market makers and manage inventory across different venues.

The spokesperson told Cointelegraph that Spark is working with additional partners across the stablecoin ecosystem but is not yet ready to disclose those integrations.

Uniswap seen as winner as tokenized assets move onchainIn a June 15 note to clients, StanChart's bank's head of digital assets research, Geoff Kendrick, said that tokenized treasures, equities, bonds and other assets could bring more trading activity and liquidity to decentralized exchanges as their DeFi use expands. 

DeFi total value locked as of June 25. Source: DefiLlama

This new $150 million migration offers a more immediate test of StanChart's infrastructure thesis, though it involves stablecoins rather than tokenized securities. 

The migration also follows Uniswap’s push into institutional tokenized-asset trading. On Feb. 12, BlackRock said it would bring its $2.1 billion tokenized Treasury fund, BUIDL, to Uniswap, allowing eligible institutional investors and market makers to trade the security through decentralized infrastructure. 

Magazine: Japanese pension fund tips 1% in crypto, G7 urges action on NK hackers: Asia Express

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Jun 25, 2026, 1:00 p.m.

2 min read

Uniswap is working with Spark to build an FX system for stablecoins. (appshunter.io/Unsplash)Summary

Spark and Uniswap are building a shared liquidity infrastructure for stablecoins.The initiative starts with a $150 million liquidity migration supporting USDS, USDT and PYUSD.The effort comes as banks, fintechs and payment firms increasingly explore issuing stablecoins.Uniswap (UNI) and Spark are betting that as the number of stablecoins grow, the market will need the equivalent of a foreign-exchange network to move liquidity between issuers.

Spark, a decentralized-finance (DeFi) protocol focused on stablecoin liquidity, said Thursday it is working with decentralized exchange Uniswap to create what it calls an "FX layer" for stablecoins, a shared liquidity network designed to support a growing number of issuers.

The goal is to make it easier to move between stablecoins while allowing idle capital to earn yield until it's needed for trading, the companies said.

The move comes as stablecoins move beyond their crypto-native roots and increasingly become part of the cross-border payment network. That's been helped by lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere advancing regulatory frameworks encouraging fintechs, payment firms and banks to enter the market. The stablecoin market could grow from the current $300 billion to $4 trillion by 2030, global bank Citi projected.

Much as foreign-exchange markets connect fiat currencies, Spark is betting that stablecoins will eventually need a shared infrastructure to move efficiently between issuers. The company sees that liquidity layer — rather than the stablecoins themselves — as the next battleground in the sector's growth.

As a first step, Spark plans to migrate $150 million of liquidity to Uniswap v4, bringing together liquidity for Sky's USDS, Tether's USDT and PayPal's PYUSD. That list could grow as more companies want to issue their own stablecoins.

"The next generation of stablecoins won't be defined by who can issue another digital dollar," Spark CEO Sam MacPherson said in a statement. "It will be defined by the infrastructure that allows hundreds of issuers to operate together at global scale."

12345678910

Binance will delist the IPUSDT and IPUSDC USDT-margined perpetual contracts due to the rebranding of the Story brand.

Per an official announcement, following the rebranding of the Story (IP) brand to Data Network, Binance will automatically liquidate IPUSDT and IPUSDC U-margined perpetual contracts at 17:00 CST (UTC+8) on June 28, 2026, and remove these perpetual contract trading pairs after liquidation concludes. Users are advised to close their positions voluntarily before trading is suspended to avoid automatic settlement of their positions. Starting from 16:30 CST (UTC+8) on June 28, 2026, users will no longer be able to submit new non-reduce-only orders for the aforementioned perpetual contracts. A separate announcement will be released when the new contract goes live.

1 hours ago

Sources: Israeli military withdrawal from Lebanon is an important "red line" for Iran.

Local time on June 25, a source close to the negotiation team said that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese territory is one of the conditions for a final Iran-US agreement, and is regarded as an important "red line" by Iran's negotiation team. The source further stated that the final memorandum of understanding will guarantee Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The agreement text previously reached in Switzerland already emphasized a "conflict resolution mechanism" that is participated in and uniformly implemented by Iran. Iran is currently following up on the specific implementation timeline. (CCTV)

1 hours ago

Apple's stock price fell by 6%, marking its largest decline since April 2025.

According to Bitget's market data, Apple's stock price fell by 6%, marking its largest decline since April 2025.

1 hours ago

Analyst: Bitcoin falls below $60,000, but institutions and whales are not continuing to bet on further declines.

Greeks.live macro researcher Adam posted on X: "Tomorrow is the quarterly expiry, and Bitcoin has dipped below $60,000. As seen in the GEX chart, $60,000 is clearly the highest open interest price point. Meanwhile, large positions are also starting to accumulate at $58,000 and $59,000, signaling rising market risk. Institutional investors and major holders have not continued to bet on a downward move; they are just waiting for the expiry."

1 hours ago

TD Cowen Analyst: SpaceX May Acquire T-Mobile

TD Cowen analysts said SpaceX could acquire T-Mobile to accelerate its wireless communication ambitions if a network sharing agreement cannot be reached. The report points to Starlink’s existing partnership with T-Mobile US as a strategic fit. This idea is purely speculative, but it underscores the growing competitive pressure the space exploration firm faces in the telecom industry.

1 hours ago

Table of contents

For years, Uniswap has been the default DEX for swapping tokens. But when the great memecoin launchpad wave hit, the action moved to Solana and Pump.fun, leaving Ethereum’s premier DEX on the sidelines. That’s now changing. According to the original report, Uniswap has released a no-code token auction tool inside its Web App. Projects can now configure and run onchain token sales directly from a browser, without a line of smart contract code.

A New Breed of Token Sale The tool relies on Uniswap’s Continuous Clearing Auction system. Instead of a single-block sale where bots race to front-run every bid, the auction clears across multiple blocks. All successful bidders pay the same final clearing price, stripping away the advantages enjoyed by high-speed sniper bots. For teams launching a token, that means less chaos and fewer angry community members who saw their allocations vanish before they could even click.

Uniswap already handles massive spot volume. Adding native auction infrastructure signals a clear intention: bring token genesis events back under its own roof rather than losing that flow to other chains and dedicated launchpads. Builders no longer need to stitch together a separate dutch auction contract or trust a third-party platform with their initial token distribution.

Challenging Pump.fun’s Dominance Pump.fun built a cultural and trading flywheel on Solana by making token creation trivial and gambling immediate. Daily volumes have dwarfed many established DeFi protocols. Uniswap’s move is a direct response to that success, but with a different market structure. Where Pump.fun embraces the frenzy of open market price discovery from block one, Uniswap opts for a more orderly auction where the clearing price is uniform for all participants. This targets projects and investors who want fairness over pure speed.

The token launch market has exploded, with platforms like Pump.fun generating billions in volume. The broader tokenization trend, as seen in the tokenization market, shows no sign of slowing. Auction mechanisms that reduce extraction by MEV bots could appeal to a more diverse set of issuers, from community memecoins to early-stage DAO governance tokens.

The Continuous Clearing Auction Advantage Last-block auction manipulation and priority gas auctions have plagued token sales for years. The Continuous Clearing Auction approach reduces the incentive to spam the mempool because bidding over several blocks gives honest participants more time to react. It also prevents a single wealthy actor from stealing the entire round at a discount because all bidders settle at the same price. The design echoes the type of fair price discovery seen in traditional financial markets, something DeFi has long promised but rarely delivered at scale.

No-code tools also lower the barrier to entry. A team can launch a token auction without hiring a Solidity developer, which has been a stumbling block for creators who only needed a simple fair sale. That simplicity might pull activity back to Ethereum and its layer-2 networks, where Uniswap’s liquidity already sits.

Liquidity Flows and DeFi’s Next Phase If the auction tool gains traction, it could redirect token launch liquidity from other chains into the Ethereum ecosystem. Uniswap, built on Ethereum, remains a major protocol in a network that consistently leads in developer activity, so enhancing its offering could attract more developers who want their token to have immediate access to deep AMM liquidity. That would shift the competitive landscape away from fragmented launchpad experiences toward a single, liquid hub.

What’s less clear is whether the tool can generate the same viral attention that Pump.fun enjoys. The latter’s interface and instant gratification mechanics are built for speculation, not careful price discovery. Uniswap’s more regulated approach may attract quality projects but could struggle to capture the memecoin gambling crowd that fuels enormous fee generation. One scenario sees a divergence where Uniswap becomes the venue for fair-launch community sales while Pump.fun keeps its casino-like stronghold. Another scenario sees Uniswap’s deeper liquidity pools siphoning serious volume from newer entrants.

For now, the tool is live and free to use, sitting inside the same interface that millions of DeFi users already trust. The real test begins when the first high-profile token auctions go live and the market judges whether fair price discovery actually translates into sustained user demand.

AUTHOR

Farhan Karim is a technology writer and content strategist with 15+ years of experience writing thousands of articles, blogs, whitepapers, and ebooks on Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, and other tech niches. His expertise in content strategy, SEO, and a keen eye on the ever-evolving tech space have led him to work with companies like Pepsi, Huawei, Arab News, and now Blockchain Reporter.

Spark, Uniswap, and Sky are launching shared stablecoin liquidity infrastructure, beginning with a $150 million USDS migration to Uniswap v4 pools designed to serve a multi-issuer stablecoin economy.

Spark, Uniswap, and Sky are launching a joint "Stablecoin FX Layer," shared programmable liquidity infrastructure for a multi-issuer stablecoin economy. The first deployment is a migration of roughly $150 million in USDS liquidity into Uniswap v4 pools, which the protocols describe as one of the largest AMM liquidity migrations in DeFi.

The three protocols announced the initiative Thursday in a joint post on Paragraph published by Spark. The migration targets two pools: USDS/USDT and USDS/PYUSD, both on Uniswap v4. Spark acts as the coordination layer, governing allocation frameworks and risk parameters; Sky's USDS, which carries a circulating supply of roughly $10.3 billion, provides the initial liquidity foundation.

Fragmented Liquidity Stablecoins processed more than $28 trillion in economic volume in 2025, according to Chainalysis data cited in the Spark post. As the issuer count grows, including PayPal's PYUSD, Ripple's RLUSD, Revolut's planned stablecoin, Deel's DLUSD, Robinhood's reported ambitions, a euro stablecoin project from ING, BBVA, and BNP Paribas, and MUFG, Mizuho, and SMBC in Japan, each new issuer creates an isolated liquidity pool.

Capital is not scarce, the Spark post argues. It is fragmented across isolated pools where it cannot be deployed efficiently. Every issuer bootstraps liquidity independently, multiplying the coordination problem with each new token.

DualPool Hook The technical mechanism rests on Uniswap v4's hook architecture. Uniswap v4 has processed $4.4 trillion in cumulative trading volume since launch and introduced hooks: modular smart-contract extensions that attach custom logic to pool events such as swaps and liquidity additions. The specific instrument here is the DualPool hook, which embeds programmable behavior directly into pool mechanics.

Spark governs the allocation framework on top. When liquidity in a given pool is not needed for trade execution, Spark can redeploy it across approved products within the Sky ecosystem, keeping idle capital productive rather than sitting dormant. The protocols describe this as solving the liquidity-versus-productivity tradeoff: capital earns yield while remaining available for settlement.

Sky's Role and the First PoolsSky operates the USDS stablecoin alongside the legacy DAI, which carries a market cap of roughly $4.65 billion. Sky's total value locked stands at $5.76 billion per DefiLlama, with Spark holding an additional $4.6 billion in TVL as the capital-allocation arm that borrows from Sky's stablecoin reserves.

The $150 million migration deploys USDS into two pools: USDS/USDT and USDS/PYUSD. The PYUSD pairing means PayPal's stablecoin connects to the shared infrastructure directly, rather than bootstrapping an independent pool. The long-term vision is for issuers including Robinhood, Revolut, and bank-issued tokens to join the same layer, with USDS as the shared quoting asset.

Fidelity's dollar stablecoin routes liquidity through Uniswap, an earlier example of institutional stablecoin issuers choosing shared exchange infrastructure rather than building their own.

Yield-Bearing Liquidity Under the current AMM model, liquidity providers commit capital to pools and forego returns while waiting for trades to clear. The DualPool mechanism routes uncommitted liquidity into the Sky ecosystem, through sUSDS and other Sky-approved products, until it is called on for execution.

J.P. Morgan projects global cross-border payment flows will grow from $194.6 trillion in 2025 to more than $320 trillion by 2032, the scale context the Spark post uses to frame the capital-efficiency argument for institutional issuers.

What Comes NextThe $150 million USDS migration is framed as a first step. Spark has previously published a risk framework for its Sky Agent Network, and the FX Layer announcement extends that infrastructure logic to multi-issuer liquidity coordination. Sky's $6 billion sUSDS yield pool provides the underlying product layer into which idle pool capital would flow.

Momentum investing is all about the idea of following a stock's recent trend, which can be in either direction. In the "long context," investors will essentially be "buying high, but hoping to sell even higher." And for investors following this methodology, taking advantage of trends in a stock's price is key; once a stock establishes a course, it is more than likely to continue moving in that direction. The goal is that once a stock heads down a fixed path, it will lead to timely and profitable trades.

Even though momentum is a popular stock characteristic, it can be tough to define. Debate surrounding which are the best and worst metrics to focus on is lengthy, but the Zacks Momentum Style Score, part of the Zacks Style Scores, helps address this issue for us.

Below, we take a look at Vishay Intertechnology (VSH - Free Report) , a company that currently holds a Momentum Style Score of B. We also talk about price change and earnings estimate revisions, two of the main aspects of the Momentum Style Score.

It's also important to note that Style Scores work as a complement to the Zacks Rank, our stock rating system that has an impressive track record of outperformance. Vishay Intertechnology currently has a Zacks Rank of #1 (Strong Buy). Our research shows that stocks rated Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and #2 (Buy) and Style Scores of "A or B" outperform the market over the following one-month period.

You can see the current list of Zacks #1 Rank Stocks here >>>

Set to Beat the Market?Let's discuss some of the components of the Momentum Style Score for VSH that show why this chipmaker shows promise as a solid momentum pick.

Looking at a stock's short-term price activity is a great way to gauge if it has momentum, since this can reflect both the current interest in a stock and if buyers or sellers have the upper hand at the moment. It is also useful to compare a security to its industry, as this can help investors pinpoint the top companies in a particular area.

For VSH, shares are up 9.3% over the past week while the Zacks Semiconductor - Discretes industry is up 9.3% over the same time period. Shares are looking quite well from a longer time frame too, as the monthly price change of 13.68% compares favorably with the industry's 13.68% performance as well.

While any stock can see its price increase, it takes a real winner to consistently beat the market. That is why looking at longer term price metrics -- such as performance over the past three months or year -- can be useful as well. Shares of Vishay Intertechnology have increased 201.96% over the past quarter, and have gained 257.26% in the last year. On the other hand, the S&P 500 has only moved 12.56% and 22.2%, respectively.

Investors should also pay attention to VSH's average 20-day trading volume. Volume is a useful item in many ways, and the 20-day average establishes a good price-to-volume baseline; a rising stock with above average volume is generally a bullish sign, whereas a declining stock on above average volume is typically bearish. VSH is currently averaging 8,851,985 shares for the last 20 days.

Earnings OutlookThe Zacks Momentum Style Score encompasses many things, including estimate revisions and a stock's price movement. Investors should note that earnings estimates are also significant to the Zacks Rank, and a nice path here can be promising. We have recently been noticing this with VSH.

Over the past two months, 3 earnings estimates moved higher compared to none lower for the full year. These revisions helped boost VSH's consensus estimate, increasing from $0.51 to $0.75 in the past 60 days. Looking at the next fiscal year, 3 estimates have moved upwards while there have been no downward revisions in the same time period.

Bottom LineGiven these factors, it shouldn't be surprising that VSH is a #1 (Strong Buy) stock and boasts a Momentum Score of B. If you're looking for a fresh pick that's set to soar in the near-term, make sure to keep Vishay Intertechnology on your short list.

LOS ANGELES, June 25, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP reminds investors of the upcoming August 4, 2026 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Verra Mobility Corporation (“Verra” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: VRRM) common stock between February 24, 2026 and May 26, 2026, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR VERRA INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERE TO INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS.

What Happened?
On May 26, 2026, Verra disclosed that it had received a termination notice from Avis Budget Group regarding its contract. The Company accordingly lowered its full year 2026 financial outlook.

On this news, Verra’s stock price fell $9.23, or 70.6%, to close at $3.85 per share on May 27, 2026, thereby injuring investors.

On June 1, 2026, Verra announced that its President and Chief Executive Officer had been terminated as “the Board determined that a change in leadership [was] needed[.]”

What Is The Lawsuit About?
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Verra’s optimistic plan for continued growth in its Commercial Services business was dependent on its relationship with Avis, and in particular obtaining a contract extension with Avis Budget; (2) the Company minimized concerns that major RACs could replace Verra with in-house solutions or outsourced alternatives, making Verra’s 2026 full year guidance increasingly unlikely to be met; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Verra common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 4, 2026 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit.

Contact Us To Participate or Learn More:
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us:
Charles Linehan, Esq.,
Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100,
Los Angeles California 90067
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free: 888-773-9224
Visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook.

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contact Us:
Glancy Prongay Wolke & Rotter LLP,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Charles Linehan
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 310-201-9150
Toll-Free: 888-773-9224
Visit our website at: www.glancylaw.com.

MSCI Inc. (MSCI) Discusses Strategic Priorities and Innovation in Private Assets Business June 25, 2026 9:30 AM EDT

Company Participants

Jeremy Ulan - Head of Investor Relations & Treasurer
Luke Flemmer - Head of Private Assets

Conference Call Participants

Alex Kramm - UBS Investment Bank, Research Division

Presentation

Jeremy Ulan
Head of Investor Relations & Treasurer

Good morning, everyone. I'm excited to welcome you to today's discussion about our Private Asset business. I'm Jeremy Ulan, Head of Investor Relations and Treasurer here.

Before we jump in, I just want to read our usual disclaimer. Today's discussion may contain forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations, involve risks and uncertainties, and our actual results may differ materially from what we discuss. Please review our filings with the SEC for more details. Also, you'll see on the website that we posted a presentation. It is not something we're going to walk through, but it is supplemental, and you can review it at your own pace.

Jumping in here, I'm pleased to be joined today by Luke Flemmer, our Head of Private Assets, as well as Alex Kramm from UBS, who, I think, everyone knows. He will help us moderate the discussion today.

So let me now pass the microphone to Alex.

Question-and-Answer Session

Alex Kramm
UBS Investment Bank, Research Division

The virtual microphone, I guess. All right. Well, thanks for having me, everyone. Luke, thanks for doing this. Maybe just given that a lot of people probably don't know you that well, haven't met you, why don't we just start there? You joined MSCI 18 months ago, but you've had an interesting career before that. So can you just give us some more detail about you, your background and why you were excited to join MSCI in that particular role that you have now?

Key Takeaways HLIT and BDC are compared as connectivity stocks serving broadband, telecom and enterprise markets.Harmonic benefits from broadband access growth, cOS traction, recurring software revenues and DOCSIS 4.0.BDC has a lower forward valuation, but HLIT's price gains and operating metrics make it the better pick. Harmonic, Inc. (HLIT - Free Report) and Belden Inc. (BDC - Free Report) are key players in the communications infrastructure and networking equipment space, serving broadband, telecom and enterprise network markets. While Harmonic is focused on broadband access and video delivery solutions, Belden provides networking, connectivity and industrial infrastructure products.

Let us delve a little deeper into the competitive dynamics of the firms to understand which of the two is relatively better placed in the broadband and telecom services industry.

The Case for HLITHarmonic is benefiting from strong organic growth, supported by increasing adoption of its broadband access solutions, expanding recurring software revenues and a growing customer base. The company's focus on next-generation broadband technologies has led to a healthy revenue growth, strengthening its market position. The Broadband segment remains Harmonic's primary growth driver. The company's cOS virtualized broadband platform is gaining traction among cable operators and fiber providers looking to modernize their network infrastructure. Growing deployments of the platform and rising connected modem counts highlight strong customer demand and increasing market penetration.

In addition, Harmonic is well placed to benefit from the ongoing transition to DOCSIS 4.0 technology. As broadband operators upgrade networks to support higher speeds and greater capacity, demand for the company's software-based broadband solutions is expected to increase. Strong broadband bookings and a healthy backlog underscore the favorable demand environment. The company also continues to generate solid momentum from its software and SaaS offerings. A growing customer footprint reflects the strength of its product portfolio and execution capabilities. Broader adoption among cable and fiber operators is creating multiple avenues for growth while supporting long-term revenue stability.

However, pricing pressure and rapid technological changes within the highly competitive broadband and video infrastructure markets often affect the company’s profitability. Harmonic has relatively lower profit margins compared to some larger technology peers, and its growth is influenced by high customer concentration risk. The company also faces intense competition from larger, well-funded networking and infrastructure providers, prompting it to continually invest in research and development initiatives, which can put pressure on earnings.

The Case for BDCBelden is pursuing a balanced growth strategy, leveraging both organic initiatives and opportunistic acquisitions to strengthen its position in the rapidly evolving industrial automation and networking markets. The company's focus on innovation, portfolio enhancement and operational excellence has enabled it to capitalize on secular growth trends while delivering sustainable value to shareholders. Belden is focusing on new product development and expansion of geographic footprint in attractive end markets to fuel its organic growth. The company continues to benefit from robust demand for industrial automation, smart manufacturing and digital infrastructure solutions, driven by accelerating digital transformation efforts across industries.

Belden aims to acquire firms that enhance its technology portfolio and expand its market opportunities. The company has consistently utilized acquisitions to strengthen its capabilities in high-growth areas such as industrial networking, software and cybersecurity. These buyouts also create cross-selling opportunities and deepen customer engagement. Management's acquisition strategy is focused on identifying businesses that complement existing operations, provide access to attractive growth markets and generate long-term value. In addition to realizing operational synergies, the acquisitions increase its exposure to faster-growing and less cyclical markets, reinforcing its transition toward a more technology-driven business model.

However, Belden operates in cyclical industrial, enterprise and infrastructure markets, making its revenue sensitive to economic slowdowns, reduced capital spending and delays in automation or networking projects. While Belden has been shifting toward higher-margin industrial automation and digital infrastructure solutions, it still has meaningful exposure to manufacturing and construction activity, which can fluctuate with macroeconomic conditions. The business also faces intense competition from larger global electrical and networking equipment providers, creating ongoing pricing pressure and requiring continuous investment in innovation. In addition, high integration and execution risks, supply chain disruptions, raw material cost inflation and tariff-related pressures can compress margins.

How Do Zacks Estimates Compare for HLIT & BDC?The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Harmonic’s 2026 sales implies a year-over-year decline of 14.8%, while that of EPS indicates growth of 38.3%. The EPS estimate for 2026 has been trending northward 14% over the past 60 days.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Belden’s 2026 EPS indicates year-over-year growth of 7.6%. The EPS estimates have trended up 0.4% over the past 60 days.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Price Performance & Valuation of HLIT & BDCOver the past year, Harmonic has surged 57.2% compared with the industry’s growth of 325.3%. Belden has gained 3.5% over the same period.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Belden looks more attractive than Harmonic from a valuation standpoint. Going by the price/earnings ratio, BDC’s shares currently trade at 13.09 forward earnings, lower than 20.81 for HLIT.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

End NoteHarmonic and Belden carry a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Both companies expect earnings to increase in 2026. In terms of price performance, Harmonic has outperformed Belden. An uptrend in estimate revisions shows bullish investor sentiment for HLIT, although it appears to have less attractive valuation metrics compared with Belden. With slightly better operating metrics, Harmonic is a better investment option at the moment.