Ripple snížil nabídku RLUSD na Ethereu na zhruba 692 milionů USD, protože pokračuje v burnech tokenu. Na XRP Ledgeru je RLUSD stále více než na Ethereu.
Cover image via U.Today Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
According to recent data from Ripple Stablecoin Tracker, Ripple USD (RLUSD) supply on the Ethereum network has shrunk to about $692 million as Ripple continues to adjust the stablecoin's circulating supply through token burns.
At the start of July, RLUSD supply on Ethereum was above $727 million; now this figure has decreased, with millions in Ripple USD burned on the Ethereum network in the last seven days.
$115.4 million was burned on the Ethereum blockchain in the last seven days as seen on the Ripple Stablecoin Tracker website, while $49.3 million was minted in the same timeframe. On July 29 alone, $25.9 million was burned on the Ethereum blockchain while $6.2 million in RLUSD was minted.
HOT Stories
The last 30 days saw significant RLUSD redemptions on the Ethereum blockchain; a total of $369.4 million was burned while $167.6 million was minted.
You Might Also Like
On the XRP Ledger, a total of $324.1 million was minted in the last 30 days and $217.6 million was burned. The total circulating supply of the RLUSD stablecoin is currently $1.556 billion.
RLUSD expands footprint on XRP LedgerWith RLUSD supply on Ethereum shrinking to $692 million, XRP Ledger remains ahead, hosting more RLUSD than Ethereum network. RLUSD's footprint on XRP has increased significantly, overtaking Ethereum supply for the first time in June.
You Might Also Like
RLUSD in circulation on the XRP Ledger grew from roughly $20 million at the end of 2024 to about $800 million by late June 2026, which is a 40-fold rise, with the largest increase occurring in May and June 2026.
Ripple USD is currently one of the most-traded issued assets on XRP. Its share of all on-chain trading climbed from under 1% to about 12% in 2026, and the RLUSD/XRP pair alone has cleared roughly $900 million over the last six months.
This week, Ripple received authorization of its Crypto Asset Service Provider (CASP) license from Luxembourg's Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF). The authorization confirms Ripple as fully MiCA-compliant, with its solutions underpinned by XRP and RLUSD made available to financial institutions, corporates and businesses across all 30 countries of the European Economic Area.
An exploit drained roughly 16 million ADA, about $2.4 million, from 374 Cardano wallets in late June. What happened next is the interesting part: EMURGO, one of Cardano’s founding entities, announced a recovery path to return the assets within two weeks, while an independent forensic team including Mt. Gox veterans published competing findings. Crypto has spent fifteen years insisting stolen funds are gone forever. Cardano is running a live experiment in whether that has to be true, and every chain is watching the precedent.
Summary
A Cardano linked exploit drained about 16 million ADA from 374 wallets, with EMURGO outlining a two week plan to return affected users’ funds. Independent investigators challenged parts of the official account, putting competing forensic findings at the centre of how victims could qualify for restitution. The recovery effort is testing whether a blockchain ecosystem can compensate theft victims without reversing the ledger or compromising decentralization principles. Between June 21 and 23, an exploit connected to a protocol called SecondFi drained approximately 16 million ADA, worth about $2.4 million, from 374 addresses on Cardano. As crypto thefts go, it barely registers: the industry loses that much most weeks, and 2026’s running total makes $2.4 million a rounding error. The theft is not the story.
The story is the response. Within days, EMURGO, the commercial arm among Cardano’s founding entities, announced it had identified a recovery path for affected users and would begin returning assets within roughly two weeks, one week to build the recovery mechanism and one to test it. Simultaneously, an independent forensic team, Tibane Labs, whose personnel include investigators from the Mt. Gox case, crypto’s original catastrophic theft, published a competing analysis of what actually happened, disputing elements of the official account. And the affected community, 374 wallets whose owners did nothing wrong beyond using a protocol, became the test population for one of the most consequential questions in the industry: whether a blockchain ecosystem can make theft victims whole without breaking the properties that make it a blockchain.
That question has a fifteen-year history of being answered no, at enormous cost, and a handful of famous exceptions that each bent the rules in a different way. Ethereum rolled back its ledger once, in 2016, and the decision split the chain permanently. Exchanges have reimbursed hacks from their own treasuries. Protocols have negotiated with attackers, paying bounties for returns. But a founding entity engineering restitution for users of a third-party protocol, on a chain whose ledger will not be rolled back, through a mechanism built and tested in two weeks, is a new entry in the genre, and its outcome, success, failure, or messy middle, will be cited in every post-exploit governance fight for years. This piece covers the exploit as best the competing forensics allow, the anatomy of the recovery mechanism and the hard constraints it must respect, the restitution genre’s history and where this attempt sits in it, the moral-hazard and precedent questions that make recovery controversial even when it works, and what the two-week experiment will actually prove.
What happened, as far as the forensics agree The reconstruction begins with an unusual feature: there are two of them. The official account, from EMURGO and ecosystem responders, describes an exploit connected to SecondFi that extracted funds from user wallets across a three-day window, with 374 affected addresses and roughly 16 million ADA taken. The independent account, from Tibane Labs, a forensic team whose resume includes the Mt. Gox investigation, examines the same on-chain evidence and disputes elements of the official narrative, a disagreement whose specifics matter less, for this piece’s purposes, than its existence: three weeks after the event, the ecosystem’s official and independent investigators have not converged on a single story of what occurred.
That divergence is itself a finding about the state of crypto incident response.
On-chain data is perfectly preserved and public, which is why blockchain forensics can achieve certainties conventional financial investigation cannot; but the interpretation layer, which contract behavior was intended, which approvals were informed, where the boundary between exploit and design flaw sits, remains contested terrain where reputations, liability, and recovery eligibility all hang on the framing. The pattern is familiar from the anatomy of every major protocol disaster: the chain records what happened with perfect fidelity and no opinion, and the fight is always over what it meant. For the 374 wallet owners, the practical consequence is concrete: the recovery mechanism’s design, and who qualifies for it, depends on which reconstruction prevails, which is why competing forensics are not academic but constitutive of the restitution itself.
The scale deserves honest framing too. Sixteen million ADA is about 0.04% of circulating supply; $2.4 million is small enough that EMURGO could plausibly reimburse it from corporate resources without any mechanism at all. The choice to build a recovery process instead, engineered, tested, documented, signals that the exercise is understood by its architects as infrastructure, a template being built at low stakes for use at higher ones, which is exactly why it merits the scrutiny this piece gives it.
The mechanism: what recovery can and cannot mean Every recovery attempt on a public blockchain operates inside the same iron constraint: the ledger does not go backward. Cardano’s history will not be rewritten; the stolen ADA sits wherever the attacker moved it, validly, as far as the protocol is concerned. Whatever EMURGO’s two-week build produces, it is not an undo button, and enumerating what it can be maps the entire design space of crypto restitution.
The first family is interception: if stolen funds sit on exchanges or touch regulated venues, they can be frozen and clawed back through compliance channels, the path that has recovered the largest sums industry-wide and the reason attackers launder through mixers and cross-chain routes, the bridge-hopping playbook every major theft now follows. Its reach ends where the attacker’s operational security begins. The second is negotiation: bounty offers converting attackers into white hats retroactively, effective embarrassingly often, and dependent entirely on the attacker’s incentives.
The third is replacement: making victims whole from some treasury, corporate funds, protocol reserves, an ecosystem pool, without touching the stolen assets at all, which is restitution in the economic sense and abandons recovery in the literal one. The fourth, rarest and most Cardano-specific in this instance, is mechanism-level remediation: where the exploited system itself, a protocol’s contracts, a wallet standard, retains any authority over the affected assets or their derivatives, that authority can sometimes be repurposed to restore balances, the approach that requires exactly the one-week-build-one-week-test cadence EMURGO described.
The announced timeline suggests a combination weighted toward the third and fourth families, and the details, at this writing, remain unpublished, which is appropriate caution and also part of the test: restitution mechanisms revealed before deployment invite gaming by exactly the adversaries they respond to. What can be evaluated in advance is the constraint set any design must satisfy. It must distinguish victims from opportunists, on-chain, against forensics that are themselves disputed. It must not create authority that persists after the emergency, because a standing power to reassign user balances is a bigger vulnerability than any exploit. It must not require the base protocol to special-case the event, the line Cardano’s own decentralization principles, governed by DReps precisely to prevent unilateral intervention, will not permit crossing. And it must complete fast, because every week of delay compounds the harm and shrinks the interceptable share. Two weeks, against those constraints, is aggressive, and the aggressiveness is the announcement’s real content: EMURGO believes the mechanism exists and is discoverable on a schedule.
The victims’ fortnight: what waiting inside a recovery is like The 374 addresses deserve a section of their own, because restitution debates chronically abstract the people they are about, and this population is unusually legible. The affected wallets skew small: the $2.4 million total across 374 addresses averages under $6,500 per victim, savings-scale money for the retail holders who dominate Cardano’s famously loyal base, not fund-scale positions with legal departments and insurance. Their fortnight is a specific experience the industry has never bothered to design for: funds visibly gone, an official promise of return on a stated schedule, competing expert accounts of what even happened, and no action available except watching announcements, a limbo in which every day of official silence gets read as bad news and every community rumor moves through the victim population at chat speed.
Two features of this experience matter beyond sympathy. The first is that victim behavior during recovery windows is itself an attack surface: fake recovery portals, phishing campaigns impersonating the restitution process, and advance-fee scams targeting exactly this population appear within days of every publicized exploit, harvesting victims a second time, and the quality of official communication, clear channels, signed announcements, explicit warnings that no one will DM them, is as much a part of the mechanism’s success as its code. The second is that the fortnight sets the template for what users can expect from the ecosystem, and expectations are load-bearing: an institution-courting chain whose retail base learns that infrastructure failures get handled competently retains those users through the next incident, while a botched communication cycle converts a $2.4 million exploit into a permanent trust discount far more expensive than the theft. The recovery’s architects are, whether they framed it this way or not, running crypto’s first serious customer-service operation for a decentralized loss event, and the industry’s notes on it will be as valuable as the mechanism itself.
The genre: how crypto has answered theft before The SecondFi experiment enters a genre with a defined canon, and its position in that canon is what gives a $2.4 million incident industry-wide stakes.
The founding text is Ethereum’s 2016 DAO intervention: facing the theft of a double-digit share of all ETH, the community altered the ledger to reverse it, and the decision’s price was permanent schism, the unaltered chain persisting as Ethereum Classic and the precedent haunting every subsequent governance debate. The lesson the industry took was that base-layer intervention works exactly once, at existential scale, and costs a chain’s neutrality forever; no major network has repeated it, through losses orders of magnitude larger. The second tradition is the exchange model: centralized custodians from the Mt. Gox estate through the modern majors have run reimbursements, creditor processes, and insurance funds, restitution as a corporate liability question, effective where custody was centralized and irrelevant where it was not. The third is the protocol-treasury model: DeFi projects reimbursing exploits from token treasuries or negotiated bounties, case by case, with outcomes ranging from full restoration to governance-vote refusals that left victims holding the loss, a genre in which the liquidation-era bad-debt socializations supplied some of the bitterest chapters.
What the canon lacks, and what SecondFi supplies, is the founding-entity model on a decentralization-first chain: an ecosystem steward, not the thief’s counterparty, not the ledger’s operator, engineering restitution for a third-party protocol’s users without touching the base layer. Cardano is, in one sense, the natural venue for the attempt, its culture prizes formal process and its governance apparatus is unusually explicit, and in another sense the hardest one, because the same culture treats ledger neutrality as close to sacred, and the community debate around the recovery has featured exactly the voices, on exactly the lines, the DAO fight canonized: make victims whole versus code is law, with a decade of intervening history sharpening both sides.
The timing layer: why this experiment, this month The recovery’s context supplies half its meaning, because the experiment is running inside the most delicate month Cardano has had in years, and every audience the mechanism performs for is watching for its own reasons.
The institutional audience arrived the same week: Clearstream, Deutsche Borse’s post-trade arm with trillions in custody, added ADA to its regulated custody services on July 7, the most significant institutional on-ramp in the asset’s history, landing days into the recovery window. Institutions selecting crypto assets audit precisely the thing SecondFi tests, how an ecosystem behaves when its infrastructure fails, and the recovery’s execution is, functionally, a live due-diligence exhibit for every custody and ETF conversation the ecosystem hopes to have. The market audience is watching a fragile turn: ADA rebounded roughly 30% from multi-year lows in the same fortnight, whale wallets accumulated through the crash while on-chain usage thinned, and the recovery sits inside a sentiment window where a competence story compounds the bounce and an incompetence story validates the lows. And the governance audience is internal: Cardano’s DRep apparatus and its constitutional culture have spent two years building the machinery of collective decision-making, the Van Rossem fork is moving through exactly that machinery this month, and a founding entity executing an emergency restitution adjacent to, but not through, the formal governance process is itself a constitutional data point, read closely by everyone who cares where the ecosystem’s real authority lives.
The timing also explains the two-week aggression. A recovery that completes before the news cycle moves on is an asset; one that drags into autumn is a liability regardless of outcome, because unresolved incidents metastasize in exactly the audiences above. The schedule is the strategy, and its keeping or slipping is the first verdict the experiment will render.
Moral hazard, precedent, and the case against success The strongest objections to the recovery deserve their full weight, because they are not callousness; they are the accumulated lessons of the genre.
The moral-hazard argument runs: every successful restitution teaches users that losses get reversed, which erodes the diligence that self-custody requires, subsidizes risk-taking on unaudited protocols, and converts founding entities into implicit insurers of an ecosystem they cannot actually underwrite, a liability that compounds until an exploit arrives at a scale no one can cover, whereupon the implicit promise defaults at the worst moment. The precedent argument runs deeper: a proven capability to restore balances is a proven capability to reassign them, and every government, litigant, and pressure group learns from the proof; the neutrality that makes public chains valuable is precisely the credible inability to do favors, and each benevolent exception prices that credibility down. And the selection argument is the practical edge of both: 374 wallets got a recovery mechanism because their loss was legible, bounded, and adjacent to a founding entity’s reputation, while the ecosystem’s countless smaller victims, of rug pulls, drainers, and their own mistakes, get nothing, which converts restitution from a principle into a lottery whose winners are chosen by newsworthiness.
The answers, from the recovery’s defenders, are also serious. Users harmed by infrastructure failures they could not have evaluated are not moral-hazard cases but consumer-protection ones, and an industry courting mainstream adoption cannot tell mainstream users that their diligence should have included auditing smart contracts. Precedent cuts both ways: an ecosystem that visibly cares for its users compounds trust, the asset every chain claims to optimize, and the intervention line, no base-layer changes, no persistent authority, can be held publicly and verifiably. The honest synthesis is that both sides are describing real gradients, and the experiment’s value is precisely that it will convert the argument into evidence: a recovery that completes cleanly, inside its constraints, without scope creep, is a data point the make-whole side has never had on a decentralization-first chain, and a recovery that fails, stalls, or requires quiet rule-bending is the strongest code-is-law exhibit since the DAO.
The forensics fight: why the second opinion matters The Tibane Labs dimension deserves fuller treatment before the conclusion, because independent forensics entering a live recovery is nearly as novel as the recovery itself, and its implications outlast this incident.
Crypto incident analysis has historically been a monopoly of the responding party: the exploited protocol, the affected foundation, or the security firm they retain writes the post-mortem, and the community consumes it as fact, with no institution playing the adversarial-review role that accident investigation runs on in every mature industry. The entry of an unaffiliated team, staffed by investigators whose formative case was Mt. Gox, the theft whose decade of creditor litigation taught crypto what unresolved forensics cost, breaks the monopoly on exactly the incident where the official account carries financial consequences: eligibility for restitution flows from the accepted reconstruction, and a disputed reconstruction means disputed eligibility, appeals, and the exact procedural morass the two-week schedule cannot absorb.
The dispute’s existence, whatever its resolution, teaches two durable lessons. The first is that restitution mechanisms need an evidentiary standard before they need code: who adjudicates victimhood, against which account of events, with what appeal path, questions the traditional financial system answers with courts and regulators and that a decentralized recovery must answer with something, publicly, in advance, or improvise under fire. The second is that a market for adversarial blockchain forensics is forming, funded by exactly these disputes, and its emergence is unambiguously healthy: official accounts that expect independent review are written more carefully, mechanisms designed under scrutiny are designed better, and the industry’s post-mortem culture, long a public-relations genre, acquires the beginnings of a discipline. If the SecondFi fortnight produces nothing else, a precedent that serious incidents get second opinions would justify the episode’s place in the canon by itself.
What the two weeks will actually prove The experiment resolves into observable outcomes on a short clock, and the reading guide is worth writing in advance. Completion on schedule, with victims restored and the mechanism’s design published for audit, proves the founding-entity model viable at small scale and makes it the reference implementation every future incident invokes, on Cardano and beyond. Partial completion, some victims, disputed eligibility, timeline slippage, proves the harder truth that restitution’s binding constraint is not engineering but forensics, and elevates the Tibane-versus-official divergence from footnote to headline. Failure or quiet abandonment feeds the code-is-law canon and, less obviously, damages the specific asset that motivated the attempt: Cardano’s institutional courtship, the Clearstream custody listing landing the same week, leans on the ecosystem’s reputation for process, and a botched recovery is a process failure in the one arena institutions watch.
Beyond the fortnight, the durable questions are two. Whether the mechanism, whatever it is, gets generalized, documented, criticized, and hardened into ecosystem infrastructure, or remains a one-off that future victims cite and cannot access. And whether the precedent’s boundary holds: the recovery’s architects have implicitly drawn a line, exceptional response, no base-layer change, no standing power, and the entire value of the experiment, for Cardano and for the industry, depends on that line surviving its own success. Crypto has proven, exhaustively, that it can build systems where theft is final. The SecondFi fortnight is a test of something the industry has barely attempted: whether it can build justice on top of finality without dissolving the finality, and 374 wallets, $2.4 million, and one founding entity’s reputation are the stakes of the first controlled trial.
Beyond Cardano, the audiences with the most to learn are the ones building the systems where this question arrives at a thousand times the scale. The tokenized-asset rails now carrying equities and Treasuries onto public chains inherit, with the assets, traditional finance’s non-negotiable expectation that errors and thefts get remediated, and every institution wiring real-world value into blockchain settlement is implicitly betting that something like the SecondFi mechanism, generalized, standardized, and legally legible, will exist when it is needed. The corporate chains have answered the question by centralizing it, their operators can intervene, and everyone knows it, which is exactly the answer the decentralized ecosystems cannot give and the reason this experiment matters disproportionately: it is a test of whether the neutral chains can offer remediation without becoming the corporate ones. Regulators, meanwhile, read incidents like this in their own dialect: a shown industry capacity for orderly restitution is an argument against prescriptive consumer-protection mandates, and a shown incapacity is the argument for them, which places the fortnight’s outcome, improbably, inside the same policy conversations deciding the industry’s classification and custody rules.
The final word belongs to proportion, which has been this piece’s method throughout. Two point four million dollars is nothing; 374 wallets are a village; two weeks is a news cycle. And the question the village and the fortnight are answering, whether a system built so that no one can reverse anything can still, when it matters, make things right, is the oldest and largest open question in the industry, older than the DAO, as large as adoption itself. Small experiments that answer large questions are the best bargains in institutional history. This one cost sixteen million ADA, none of it EMURGO’s, and its findings, either way, will be cited for a decade.
For readers tracking the experiment live, the checklist is short: the mechanism’s technical publication, the first restored balances on-chain, the treatment of disputed addresses, the Tibane findings’ final form, and whether any authority created for the recovery is verifiably dismantled afterward. Five items, two weeks, one precedent, and the rare crypto story whose ending will be a matter of public record rather than public argument.
And a housekeeping note befitting a live experiment: this piece freezes a moving story at the midpoint of its two-week window, the mechanism’s details were unpublished at this writing, and the account above should be read against the recovery’s actual outcome, which, by the time most readers arrive here, will be a matter of on-chain record. That the story can be checked against the chain is, fittingly, the whole point of the system being tested.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Digital asset markets are volatile, and you can lose your entire investment. Incident details reflect public reporting as of July 9, 2026, and the recovery process described is ongoing; verify current status before relying on any account of it. Always do your own research.
Charles Hoskinson popřel, že odchází z Cardana, a označil tyto spekulace za „zcela nepravdivé“ a „naprostý výmysl“. Zdůraznil, že Input Output dál staví na síti a roadmapa pokračuje.
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson (@IOHK_Charles) has moved to put an end to persistent speculation that he is stepping away from the project. In a new video posted on July 10, Hoskinson flatly denied the claims, calling them "categorically untrue" and "a complete fabrication."
How the rumors spread The exit narrative built over several months from clips stripped of their surrounding context. A New Year 2026 stream in which Hoskinson said he had "outgrown X" and was handing the account to curators circulated without the explicit denial he delivered in the same session. A 26-minute reform video in which he criticized the Cardano Foundation's governance structure also generated clips that left out the surrounding denial. According to Hoskinson, some users edited and manipulated older statements to create a false narrative, and the content spread quickly within the Cardano community.
The rumor spread far enough that a London taxi driver relayed it to visiting Cardano supporters, and contacts at a partner firm had passed the same claim to their own chief executive. Hoskinson asked supporters to share the rebuttal video with anyone still repeating the story.
Doubling down on Cardano, not stepping back Far from retreating, Hoskinson says Input Output remains one of the largest builders on the network, with the roadmap pressing ahead across Leios, RealFi and Pogen. He is also working on a political party initiative. He has also been explicit about his formal position: he holds no governance keys, cannot initiate a hard fork or protocol parameter change, has no treasury access, and does not own the Cardano trademark. The Plomin hard fork in January 2025 transferred key governance powers to ADA holders via DReps, meaning his influence is structural and reputational rather than executive.
The denial comes against a difficult backdrop. EMURGO, one of Cardano's three founding organizations and the developer of the SecondFi wallet, announced it is stepping down from its role in the Pentad governance group to focus on recovering user funds following a $2.4 million exploit. The SecondFi wallet, a rebranded version of the well-known Yoroi wallet that EMURGO relaunched earlier this year, was compromised through a flaw in its address generation system. Attackers exploited that vulnerability to drain roughly 16 million ADA from 374 wallets, valued at approximately $2.4 million at the time.
Cardano's $ADA fell about 5% after the EMURGO announcement, compounding existing pressure. ADA's price action has struggled near multi-year lows, trading around $0.16, roughly 94% below its 2021 all-time high of $3.09. Open calls for Hoskinson to step aside have also surfaced within parts of the community, though he gave no indication he intends to do so. An active funding standoff between DReps and Input Output's research budget also remains unresolved, with Hoskinson warning that the ecosystem could lose scientists if IO's research funding fails.
Sources
Crypto News: Hoskinson Denies Cardano Exit Rumors
The Block: EMURGO Steps Down From Pentad After Wallet Exploit
BeInCrypto: Charles Hoskinson Addresses Rumors He Is Quitting Cardano
Circle zveřejnil open-source startovací sady nástrojů Agent Stack pro LangChain a Claude Agent SDK, které umožňují AI agentům přímo posílat a přijímat USDC. Sady podporují i x402 transakce a on-chain služby.
Circle just handed AI developers a gift bag: open-source starter kits that plug USDC payments directly into the AI frameworks where most agents are actually being built. The kits, now live on GitHub, target LangChain and the Claude Agent SDK, two of the most widely adopted platforms for building autonomous AI agents.
What Circle actually shipped The open-sourced Agent Stack starter kits provide ready-to-use code that connects AI agents to Circle’s infrastructure. That means developers can give their agents wallets, let them send and receive USDC, and interact with onchain services, all without building payment plumbing from scratch.
Advertisement
The kits build on Circle’s broader Agent Stack, which launched on May 11, 2026. That initial release introduced several foundational components, including command-line interface utilities for developers, permissioned agent wallets with built-in access controls, and gas-free nanopayments that allow USDC transfers as small as $0.000001.
The starter kits also support x402-compatible transactions. The x402 protocol is essentially the HTTP 402 “Payment Required” status code brought to life: a machine-readable way for services to demand payment before granting access. When an AI agent hits an x402-enabled endpoint, it can autonomously decide to pay, receive the service, and move on.
Circle’s Agent Marketplace adds another layer. It functions as a discovery hub where AI agents can find and transact with other agents or services.
Why open source matters here The choice to target LangChain and the Claude Agent SDK is also telling. LangChain has become something of an industry standard for building LLM-powered applications, and Anthropic’s Claude SDK is rapidly gaining ground among enterprise developers who prioritize safety and controllability.
The bigger financial picture Circle raised $222 million through a presale of its ARC token, which valued the Arc network at $3 billion.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Algorand za poslední čtvrtletí zaznamenal více než 1,8 milionu nových nasazení chytrých kontraktů, což znamená růst aktivity o 25,7 %. Aktivita vývojářů roste, i když cena ALGO zůstává kolem 0,08 USD.
Algorand quietly racked up over 1.8 million new smart contract deployments in the past quarter, a 25.7% increase in activity that puts the Layer 1 blockchain in a peculiar position. Developer interest is clearly climbing. The token price, not so much.
The contract deployment surge, tracked by Token Terminal, represents a meaningful acceleration for a network that many crypto observers had written off during the bear market doldrums. For context, Algorand’s January 2026 Algo Insights Report showed 808,000 smart contracts deployed at that point, marking a 31.5% increase at the time.
The numbers behind the builder boom On-chain asset creation on Algorand surged 239% month-over-month, according to the Algorand Foundation’s own evaluation. Contract deployments specifically grew 47% in a recent monthly period.
Advertisement
The most tangible proof point might be Lofty AI, a real estate tokenization platform built on Algorand. As of early July 2026, Lofty crossed $100 million in total value locked. That’s capital flowing into tokenized real-world assets.
Active wallet growth and transaction volumes have also increased alongside the contract deployment numbers.
The quantum play The Algorand Foundation published a formal roadmap for post-quantum cryptography in June 2026, setting a target of comprehensive quantum resistance by the end of 2027. The initiative builds on work that started back in 2022.
The price disconnect investors should watch ALGO currently trades around $0.08. The disconnect between on-chain activity and token price isn’t unique to Algorand, but the gap here is particularly stark given that contract deployments more than doubled since January, asset creation exploded by 239%, a major DApp hit $100M in TVL, and the foundation is executing on a multi-year quantum security roadmap.
Algorand’s tokenomics have faced criticism over the years regarding early investor unlocks and foundation distributions, which may be suppressing price appreciation even as fundamentals improve. The real-world asset tokenization angle gives Algorand a differentiated narrative, with Lofty AI’s $100M TVL milestone as concrete evidence. Ethereum, Avalanche, and Polygon are all aggressively courting the RWA sector.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Aave V3 On zkSync Era Gives DeFi Lending Another Push Into ZK Rollups is the kind of crypto story that looks simple at headline level but becomes more useful once you place it inside the wider market backdrop. Aave’s expansion strategy is a good lens for the broader DeFi market: liquidity follows users, but users also follow trusted liquidity venues.
The reason it deserves attention today is not that one announcement or filing magically changes the whole market. It is that the update adds another data point to a sector still trying to work out where capital, users, and regulation are actually moving.
For more details, visit the official Governance platform.
TL;DR Aave DAO approved steps to deploy Aave V3 pools on zkSync Era.The move would bring more lending liquidity into a ZK-rollup environment.It shows major DeFi protocols are still expanding across scaling networks. What The Governance Move Changes Aave V3 deployments give users familiar lending and borrowing tools on new networks.
zkSync Era offers a scaling environment built around zero-knowledge rollup technology.
DeFi is in a more mature phase now. The market is less impressed by vague promises and more interested in where liquidity actually goes, which networks get deployments, and which governance decisions can change usage. That makes protocol-level votes and launches worth watching.
Why DeFi Liquidity Keeps Spreading The DAO approval process also shows how major DeFi protocols are still using governance to decide where liquidity should go next.
The question is whether these moves create practical depth. More chains, more pools, and more governance proposals only matter if users find better pricing, easier access, or stronger risk controls.
For NewsBTC readers, the practical takeaway is to avoid treating this as an isolated headline. The stronger read is to connect it with the current market environment: liquidity is still selective, regulatory pressure has not disappeared, and the projects that keep shipping useful updates are the ones most likely to hold attention when the cycle gets noisy.
That does not mean the story should be stretched beyond what the source supports. The cleaner approach is to keep the facts tight, explain the mechanism, and show readers why it may matter if follow-up data confirms the same direction over the next few sessions.
In other words, this is a development to watch rather than a guaranteed turning point. Crypto moves quickly, but the useful signals are usually the ones that still make sense after the first reaction fades.
The important thing for readers is context. A single development rarely defines the market on its own, but a series of source-backed updates can show where momentum is building. That is why this article keeps the focus on the specific mechanism in play, the source behind it, and the reason traders or builders may care today.
This article is based on information from governance.aave.com.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Uniswap Labs navrhla aktivovat protokolové poplatky pro vybrané pooly v Uniswap v4; návrh už míří do pětidenního hlasování na Snapshotu. Kritici varují, že fee switch u v4 může poškodit likviditu.
Temp check would extend the fee switch to Uniswap's newest architecture, drawing an early warning that the move "risks killing the protocol."
Uniswap Labs on July 7 proposed activating protocol fees on a subset of Uniswap v4 pools, extending the fee rollout that DAO voters approved under the UNIfication package to the exchange's newest and most flexible pool architecture.
The temperature check went to a five-day Snapshot vote running July 7-12, with an onchain vote scheduled to begin the week of July 13. Because Uniswap's GovernorBravo contract caps proposals at 10 actions, Uniswap Labs said two onchain votes will be posted in parallel to cover all the chains involved.
UNI is up 6.8% to $3.57 in the past 24 hrs, giving Uniswap a market capitalization of $2.2 billion, according to CoinGecko, while ETH is up almost 3%. The token remains down more than 90% from its May 2021 record of about $44.92, though it had climbed more than 40% over the past month amid the UNIfication burns and Uniswap's expansion onto new venues.
UNIfication RolloutThe proposal follows the UNIfication overhaul, which DAO members passed in December with near-unanimous support and which turned on protocol fees and directed them toward burning UNI. It builds on four earlier fee proposals, numbered #93 through #96, and uses the same expedited governance track those proposals established.
Protocol fees are now live across all v2 and v3 pools on 11 chains: Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Celo, OP Mainnet, Soneium, X Layer, Worldchain, Zora, BNB Chain and Polygon. Uniswap Labs said the protocol set a record last month, citing the UNIBurnBot account's report that 186,000 UNI were burned in a single day.
A New Fee System for v4v4's design forced a different approach. Where v2 pools carry a single static fee tier and v3 pools carry several, v4's hooks allow potentially unlimited fee tiers, and a pool's fee can change from one block to the next. Setting a fee on each pool individually is not workable at that scale.
To handle it, the proposal introduces a V4 Fee Controller split across two contracts. A V4FeePolicy contract computes the fee for any pool from rules that governance defines, and can be swapped out if the logic needs to change. A V4FeeAdapter contract enforces any per-pool overrides governance has set, otherwise applies the policy's fee, pushes it to the pool and routes the proceeds to a TokenJar contract on each chain. The policy sorts each pool into a "family" based on its characteristics, then resolves the fee from the most specific applicable rule down to a global default. The contracts are published in Uniswap's protocol-fees repository.
The temp check would switch on fees for three families: static fee pools without hooks, pools launched through Continuous Clearing Auctions, and aggregator hook pools that route external liquidity into v4. Static and CCA pools follow a curve pegged to a proportion of each pool's LP fee. Aggregator hooks carry a flat fee with a 25x multiplier that lifts the cap to 250 basis points, set at a 10 bps family default and 3 bps for select stable pairs on most chains, and 3 bps and 1 bps respectively on Base. Uniswap Labs stressed the proposal does not enable fees on any v4 pools outside those families. As with v2 and v3, collected fees fund UNI burns, with tokens accumulated on L2s and alternative L1s bridged back to Ethereum and sent to the 0xdead address.
LP PushbackThe proposal drew immediate opposition from Guillaume Lambert, founder of the options protocol Panoptic, who disclosed he had voted "Abstain" on UNIfication and argued the fee switch should never touch v4.
"Turning on the v4 fee switch risks killing the protocol," Lambert wrote, contending that liquidity providers are "structurally short convexity" and, by his analysis, already earn less than the volatility they take on. Taxing v4 pools without compensating LPs, he said, would leave them "nowhere to go except to other AMMs/UniV3-forks." He said he could only support the move if LPs were directly compensated with sustained UNI incentives running "practically forever until organic activity returns."
Not all early feedback was critical. Forum participant Abel189 backed the proposal, calling a deterministic, on-chain fee policy "a more scalable approach than configuring individual pools one by one" and praising the gradual rollout across specific families.
NEC a Ava Labs podepsaly memorandum o porozumění (MOU) ohledně vývoje architektury, která na Avalanche spojí biometrické ověření identity a vypořádání plateb ve stablecoinech v jednom kroku. Biometrická data se přitom nebudou ukládat on-chain.
Biometric Identity Comes to Avalanche@NEC and @Avax have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to jointly develop a whitepaper outlining how NEC's biometric FaceVC technology and Avalanche's multi-chain architecture could verify identity and settle stablecoin payments in a single step, without ever storing biometric data on-chain. The deal marks a significant step toward bringing sovereign identity verification into decentralized infrastructure.
NEC brings considerable real-world scale to the collaboration. The Japanese technology giant operates more than 1,000 active biometric systems across 70 countries and regions, covering applications from immigration control and national ID programs to banking and public safety. Its FaceVC product issues verifiable credentials anchored to NEC's face recognition technology, allowing a business to confirm both the credential and the identity of the person presenting it, addressing a longstanding gap in digital verification where impersonation remains difficult to detect.
The integration is set to use @Avaxsubnets, Avalanche's customizable Layer 1 framework, to host biometric-secured transaction flows. By anchoring authentication to hardware-linked biometric data, the architecture is designed to remove reliance on traditional mnemonic seed phrases, a vulnerability that has led to significant losses for both retail and institutional users.
Why It Matters for Institutional Blockchain AdoptionThe partnership fits into a broader push by Ava Labs to position $AVAX as enterprise-grade infrastructure. Avalanche's multi-chain design allows institutions to deploy purpose-built networks with their own compliance rules while remaining connected to the wider ecosystem, a feature that has attracted partners ranging from asset managers to government agencies in recent quarters.
For NEC, the move extends its biometrics footprint into the blockchain space. The company's algorithms are rated number one for speed and accuracy by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and it has spent decades deploying identity systems at a government and enterprise scale. Pairing that track record with Avalanche's settlement speed creates a credible case for biometric-verified decentralized services.
The planned whitepaper will detail how the combined system handles identity confirmation and payment finality without exposing sensitive biometric data on a public ledger, a design consideration that will likely be central to any regulatory review of the technology.
Sources:
Avalanche Official Website, Ava Labs and NEC MOU Announcement
NEC Face Recognition: Biometric Authentication
NEC Technical Journal: FaceVC and DID/VC Identity Verification
RWA ekosystém Solany se v první polovině roku 2026 čtyřnásobil na rekordních 3,62 miliardy USD. Solana je nyní třetím největším blockchainem pro tokenizovaná RWA s podílem 10,39 %.
The real-world asset (RWA) ecosystem of Solana has quadrupled in value during the first half of 2026.
It grew from $873 million in January to a record $3.62 billion in July. The surge was driven by rapid growth in tokenized stocks, rising institutional adoption, and record trading activity.
According to the latest ecosystem data, Solana is now the third-largest blockchain for tokenized RWAs, with a 10.39% market share. The network hosts 2,119 tokenized assets across 295,853 holders. Its RWA ecosystem has also grown 20.91% over the past 30 days.
Meanwhile, Solana’s stablecoin supply has surpassed $16 billion, making it the second-largest among all blockchains. The large stablecoin base has provided deep dollar liquidity for tokenized asset trading.
Solana RWA Data Tokenized Asset Trading Reaches New Highs Notably, Solana recorded its strongest quarter for tokenized assets in Q2 2026. Spot trading volume climbed to $5.77 billion, up 7.4 times from the $775 million recorded during the second half of 2025.
June alone generated more than $2 billion in tokenized asset trading. That marked the highest monthly volume ever recorded on any blockchain.
The network also led global tokenized equity trading during the week of June 15–21. It processed $1.298 billion of the $1.324 billion traded worldwide, accounting for roughly 97% of the market.
SpaceX Listing Boosts Tokenized Stock Activity Solana’s tokenized stock ecosystem received a major boost after SpaceX’s June 12 Nasdaq listing. Tokenized SpaceX shares launched on the blockchain the same day.
SpaceX-related tokens generated $1.19 billion in June trading volume, accounting for 31% of the month’s total. Backpack Securities’ SPCX contributed $1.08 billion, while xStocks’ SPCXx added $852 million.
On June 24, Solana’s tokenized stock market reached a record $644 million in daily trading volume. The milestone highlights the network’s shift from a memecoin-focused blockchain toward a hub for tokenized financial assets.
Institutional Offerings Continue to Expand The ecosystem has continued to attract institutional issuers and infrastructure providers.
Backed Finance’s xStocks platform now offers 134 tokenized stocks. It has surpassed $3 billion in cumulative on-chain trading volume and attracted more than 57,000 unique holders.
Solflare, which reports 4 million monthly active users, has integrated all xStocks assets and added a Google Pay on-ramp.
Ondo Global Markets has also launched more than 200 tokenized U.S. stocks and ETFs. At launch, those assets represented roughly 65% of all Solana RWAs.
Meanwhile, Jupiter Lend has added tokenized SPYx, QQQx, NVDAx, and TSLAx as collateral. Users can now borrow against tokenized equities within DeFi.
Institutions Deepen Solana Adoption Institutional participation has accelerated across the network. BlackRock’s BUIDL fund has deployed $615 million on-chain through Securitize. It is now the largest individual RWA position on Solana.
Citigroup completed a tokenized Bill of Exchange settlement pilot with PwC in February. Institutional market maker B2C2 has also chosen Solana as its primary stablecoin settlement network.
Financial firms, including SoFi and R3, have expanded their enterprise banking and tokenization initiatives on Solana. The moves reinforce the blockchain’s growing role in institutional-grade digital asset infrastructure.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
Z peněženky napojené na genesis distribuce Solany zmizelo zhruba 14,2 milionu USD v SOL. Útočník tokeny nejprve unstakoval a poté je přes bridge přesunul na Ethereum.
Someone just made off with roughly $14.2 million in SOL tokens from a wallet connected to Solana’s genesis distribution. The attacker, or attackers, executed a methodical sequence: unstake the tokens, then bridge them over to Ethereum, effectively moving the funds off the Solana chain entirely.
What happened The irregular activity involved a series of unstaking transactions followed by cross-chain transfers. Someone gained access to a wallet holding staked SOL, pulled the tokens out of staking, and then used a bridge protocol to shuttle the assets over to Ethereum.
The specific bridge protocol used in this case hasn’t been publicly identified. Neither has the exact wallet address, the method of compromise, or the identity of whoever was behind it. What is known is that the loss totals approximately $14.2 million, and the wallet had direct ties to Solana’s genesis distribution.
Advertisement
Genesis distribution refers to Solana’s initial non-circulating token allocations. These were tokens set aside at the network’s launch for early backers, the Solana Foundation, ecosystem development, and other foundational purposes.
The attack vector remains unclear Nobody has confirmed exactly how the attacker gained access. The three most likely scenarios are private-key compromise, a phishing attack, or exploitation of a smart-contract vulnerability. The pattern of unstaking followed by bridging is consistent with private-key theft. An attacker who controls the keys can do whatever the legitimate owner could do, including unstaking and moving funds freely.
This isn’t the first time Solana-linked wallets have been hit with this exact playbook. Previous incidents in the ecosystem have followed remarkably similar sequences, suggesting that attackers have identified this as an efficient method for extracting and laundering stolen SOL.
What this means for investors So far, there’s no indication that this incident has triggered a broader sell-off in SOL or meaningfully impacted market prices. There is no evidence of a wider attack campaign targeting multiple genesis wallets or any vulnerability in the Solana protocol itself.
If the attacker attempts to liquidate through centralized exchanges, there’s a chance some portion could be frozen or recovered. If they route through mixers or decentralized protocols, recovery becomes exponentially harder.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Circle's $USDC now accounts for just 46% of Solana's stablecoin supply, its lowest share in more than 2 years.
According to DefiLlama data, $USDC's share has fallen to 46.13%, while $USDT's share has risen to 16.42%. Other stablecoins now collectively account for more than 26% of Solana's stablecoin market, highlighting broader liquidity diversification across the network.
Drift Fallout Changed Community Sentiment The shift follows the April 1 Drift exploit, which sparked widespread criticism of Circle across the Solana ecosystem. After attackers reportedly moved more than $230M via Circle's Cross Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP), many ecosystem participants urged DeFi users to swap $USDC for $USDT. Critics argued that Circle should have frozen the stolen funds.
When challenged on the decision, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire said the company would not intercept funds without legal precedent, describing the situation as a "moral quandary." Meanwhile, Tether earned goodwill across parts of the Solana community after supporting Drift during its recovery efforts, strengthening $USDT's standing among many users.
Fresh Legal Challenges Add to Pressure Circle now faces renewed scrutiny following a July 8 report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. According to the report, law enforcement authorities in Wisconsin and New York accused Circle of refusing to assist in freezing or recovering $USDC linked to scams. Wisconsin prosecutors filed a criminal complaint alleging that Circle failed to comply with a court order requiring the recovery of stolen assets.
Although the complaint involves a single misdemeanor count, former FBI financial crime expert Karen Greenway noted that criminal charges against a major financial firm are highly unusual.
Circle rejected the allegations, calling the complaint meritless. The company argued that it lacked the technical ability to comply with the order and maintained that the Wisconsin court lacked jurisdiction.
Stablecoin issuers such as Circle also face pressure from a changing regulatory landscape. Polymarket now places the odds of the CLARITY Act passing in 2026 at 40%, down from 82% in February.
Senator Cynthia Lummis recently warned that failure to pass the CLARITY Act could delay meaningful U.S. stablecoin legislation until 2030, turning what could have been a 1-year delay into a 4-year setback.
Solana's Stablecoin Economy Continues to Expand The decline in $USDC's market share comes even as Solana's stablecoin economy continues to grow at a record pace. During the first half of 2026, Solana recorded $1.12T in peer-to-peer stablecoin volume, up 72%, alongside 83.6M peer-to-peer transactions, up 37%. Active wallets reached an all-time high of 4.3M.
Retail transfers between $100 and $1,000 totaled a record $13.5B. Institutional transfers above $20,000 reached $1.07T, while micropayments between $0.50 and $100 climbed to an all-time high of $1.50B.
Circle has continued to expand its infrastructure despite a decline in market share. Gateway, launched in July 2025 and integrated with Solana in January 2026, allows users and businesses to access a unified $USDC balance across supported blockchains without manual bridging or third-party liquidity. The stablecoin giant recently reported that lifetime Gateway volume has now surpassed $4.5B.
Circle Scores a Major Regulatory Win Despite mounting competitive and legal challenges, Circle recently secured one of its biggest regulatory milestones. The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency granted final approval for Circle to establish Circle National Trust, a national trust bank operating as First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A.
The approval strengthens $USDC infrastructure through federally regulated custody, with reserve management planned as a future capability, while placing Circle's trust operations under direct federal oversight.
Investors welcomed the development, sending Circle's stock, $CRCL, more than 15% higher to around $71 following the announcement before retracing to its current price of $66.
While $USDC remains Solana's largest stablecoin by a wide margin, its share has fallen below 50% for the first time in more than 2 years. With growing competition, evolving regulation, and changing community sentiment, the battle for stablecoin dominance on Solana appears far from over.
Read More on SolanaFloor Claynosaurz’s HEEBOO Studio Introduces $HEEBOO Fan Token’s Public Sale Through Metaplex Genesis
Solana Memecoin Traders Flock to RobinHood - Will it Last?
Jihokorejská superaplikace Toss s přibližně 30 miliony registrovaných uživatelů testuje stablecoin navázaný na won na platformě Optimism OP Stack. Tříměsíční pilot má ověřit soulad s KYC, AML i ochranou soukromí na veřejném blockchainu.
Optimism says Toss is the fourth regulated financial institution in a year to pick the OP Stack, after Bitpanda, Kraken and Mitsui.
Toss, the South Korean fintech app with roughly 30 million registered users, is testing a Korean won stablecoin on Optimism's OP Stack, Optimism said on X Wednesday. The proof of concept also involves Sunnyside Labs, whose "Privacy Boost" tool is meant to shield transaction data on a public blockchain while preserving compliance access.
Optimism, the company behind the OP Stack framework used to build layer-2 networks, called the tie-up the fourth time in a year a regulated financial institution has adopted the OP Stack in a new market, following Bitpanda's Vision Chain in Europe, Kraken's Ink in the US and Mitsui's Zipangcoin in Japan.
Kyle Jenke, chief business officer at OP Labs, said the pilot is "about demonstrating that the OP Stack can meet the compliance, privacy, and performance standards that regulated financial institutions require." Toss chief business officer Q-Ha Steve Kim said the company aims "to build a highly trusted, compliant digital financial infrastructure tailored to the Korean market," using the same post.
Three-Month TestThe arrangement runs as a three-month proof of concept, according to a post from crypto researcher Jay Chan, covering whether a financial institution can manage settlement, meet KYC and anti-money-laundering requirements, and protect transaction privacy on a public chain at the same time. Toss operates over 500,000 online and offline payment networks, per a summary of Kim's comments on the deal.
Optimism's post frames the collaboration as a test rather than a commitment to launch a stablecoin.
The OP Stack already underpins Sony's Soneium, Uniswap's Unichain and OKX's X Layer, among others, giving Toss an established multi-chain ecosystem to plug into rather than building isolated infrastructure. Whether the pilot converts into a live KRW stablecoin will depend on regulatory sign-off in South Korea, which has not yet finalized its stablecoin licensing framework.
Beefy Finance spustila na Aave Monad nové single-asset autocompounding vaulty pro AUSD, USDC, USDT a WETH. Stablecoiny nabízejí zhruba 9 % APY, WETH asi 4 % APY.
Yield optimizers have one core promise: take the tedious work of manual compounding off your plate and put those gains back to work automatically. Beefy Finance just made that promise a lot more interesting for Aave users, rolling out new single-asset autocompounding vaults on Aave’s Monad deployment with stablecoin yields sitting around 9% APY.
The vaults cover four assets: AUSD, USDC, USDT, and WETH. The stablecoin vaults are advertising roughly 9% APY, while the WETH vault comes in around 4% APY. For context, earning 9% on a dollar-pegged asset in a protocol with over $100M in deposits is the kind of number that makes traditional savings accounts look embarrassing.
What Beefy is actually doing here Aave distributes lending incentives to depositors on top of the base borrowing yield. Without automation, you would need to manually claim those incentives, swap them, and redeposit. Beefy’s vaults harvest the accumulated Aave incentives on your behalf, reinvest them back into the same position, and your balance compounds over time without you lifting a finger.
Advertisement
The single-asset structure is worth emphasizing. These are not liquidity pool vaults, which means depositors are not exposed to impermanent loss, the mechanism where providing two-sided liquidity to a pool can leave you holding less value than if you had just kept the assets. Single-asset vaults carry a cleaner risk profile, which matters for anyone deploying significant capital into stablecoins.
The timing is deliberate. Aave’s Monad market went live around July 2, 2026, and crossed $100M in total deposits within the first two days of operation.
Beefy’s position in the yield aggregator landscape Beefy operates on over 20 chains and runs hundreds of individual vaults, with total value locked ranging between $197M and $420M depending on market conditions.
For Aave specifically, this is a meaningful integration. Aave is one of the largest and most battle-tested lending protocols in DeFi. Beefy layering autocompounding on top of that foundation gives users a way to extract more value from an already trusted venue.
What this means for investors watching DeFi yields A 9% APY on stablecoins is not guaranteed to last forever. Lending incentive rates fluctuate based on utilization, the size of the incentive pool, and how many depositors pile in. What the vaults do offer is a maximally efficient way to capture whatever yield is available at any given moment. If the rate sits at 9% today and drifts to 6% in three months, autocompounding means you will have locked in more of the 9% period than a manual depositor who only reinvested once a month.
The WETH vault at around 4% APY tells a slightly different story. ETH holders using this vault are earning a yield on an asset they might otherwise simply hold. The 4% figure is more modest, but for long-term ETH holders who were not going to sell anyway, it represents pure incremental return without adding significant complexity.
Aave’s Monad market pulling in over $100M in deposits within two days signals genuine appetite for yield on this chain. As of July 10, 2026, mainstream outlets like CoinDesk and The Block have not extensively covered Beefy’s announcement, suggesting the launch has so far been communicated primarily through Beefy’s own social media channels, targeted at its existing user base.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Těžaři Bitcoinu masivně přecházejí k AI infrastruktuře, aby kompenzovali tlak na ziskovost po halvingu. Zároveň rostou otázky kolem správy a řízení společnosti kvůli insider prodejům akcií.
Facing profitability under pressure since the last halving in April 2024, bitcoin mining companies have made a strategic pivot towards AI. Enough to excite Wall Street. However, a report from Blocksbridge Consulting published on July 9, 2026, paints an alarming reality. It highlights massive stock sales by executives and board members of some companies. More details in the following paragraphs!
In Brief Bitcoin miners accelerate their diversification towards AI infrastructures to offset the drop in mining profitability after the halving. Several mining company executives sold shares after the rise in BTC prices. The current situation fuels questions about corporate governance and investor confidence. An industrial pivot forced by the realities of the Bitcoin network At the end of 2025, the global Bitcoin network hashrate had reached a historic peak of 1,160 EH/s. This intensified competition. According to sector reports from CoinShares, the weighted average cost to validate a single BTC was about $80,000 in Q4 2025 for publicly listed entities. Result: 15 to 20% of the global fleet of obsolete ASIC machines were forced to operate at a loss.
To improve their cash flows, major players in bitcoin mining chose to convert their energy capacities to power supercomputers. A striking example: the signing of a 20-year lease contract between TeraWulf and Anthropic. The deal is valued at nearly $19 billion.
For many, this diversification attests to the transformation of the BTC mining industry’s business model. Some analysts nonetheless raise a fundamental point: this requires significant capital. This explains why many firms have had to liquidate their own bitcoin reserves. This is notably the case for Marathon Digital Holdings (MARA), which sold more than 15,000 BTC from its institutional treasury. The latest bitcoin sale dates back to April 2026.
Bitcoin and insider sales: the TeraWulf case closely scrutinized by crypto investors On June 29, Beowulf E&D Holdings, an entity managed by CEO Paul Prager, declared the sale of 275,000 TeraWulf shares. The weighted average price stands at $26.596. This represents about $7.3 million in gross proceeds. This operation attracts particular attention as it occurs one week before the announcement of a 20-year lease with Anthropic for AI infrastructure.
According to data, Prager and his entity have sold a total of about 1.59 million bitcoin-linked shares since the end of March. This equals approximately $32.7 million, with an average price of about $20.55.
On July 6, TeraWulf confirms its lease with Anthropic. According to the official press release, it is expected to generate nearly $19 billion in contractual revenue on 401 megawatts of critical load. At the same time, the company sold its 50.1% stake in the Abernathy joint venture for about $450 million.
The TeraWulf case is not isolated in the bitcoin miners universe engaged in AI CEO of Cipher Digital, Tyler Page, filed a transfer request for 112,500 shares worth $2.38 million on July 8. This action is part of a Rule 10b5-1 plan adopted in December 2025.
At Riot Platforms, CEO Jason Les sold:
175,000 shares for $4.2 million in May; an additional 250,000 shares for $7.03 million on June 22. As for Core Scientific, its legal officer sold 140,000 shares for $3 million on July 6. This brings his total sales to about 260,000 shares and $5.9 million.
That’s not all! At Hut 8, a director also sold 20,000 shares on May 21 for about $2 million. Admittedly, these transactions were executed under pre-established plans, but they still fuel doubt about the alignment between bitcoin mining executives and public shareholders.
The bitcoin mining sector faces another major challenge An analysis by VanEck published on June 16 estimates the short-term funding deficit at about $50 billion. However, this figure could rise to $221 billion to cover all future AI infrastructure needs.
Source: VanEck Research To bridge this gap, bitcoin miners have three options:
dilute shareholders through new share issuances; incur debt in a still high interest rate environment; sell part of their bitcoin reserves. Some have already started liquidating positions. If projections hold, AI could represent up to 70% of some bitcoin miners’ revenues by the end of 2026. Raising questions about the future role of BTC mining in their business model.
Bitcoin and governance: the IREN case and the question of stock tokens On June 30, the board of the former bitcoin miner turned AI cloud actor IREN approved the grant of over 18 million free shares in total to its two co-CEOs, William and Daniel Roberts, over a combined lock-up period of six years. The company assures that no other grants will be made before 2031.
The decision is not unanimous within the crypto community. Many point to the extent of dilution for bitcoin mining shareholders. Yet, IREN’s AI strategy has not yet proven sustainable profitability. Result: the stock price has fallen considerably.
What consequences for investors? For holders of shares linked to bitcoin mining, three points deserve particular attention:
the recurrence of insider sales during uptrends, an indicator of confidence; the method chosen to bridge the funding gap identified by VanEck; the real economics of signed contracts, beyond announcement figures. Dilution, debt or bitcoin sale? Each option will have a different impact on shareholder value.
Tether, for example, reduced its exposure to Bitdeer after increasing it during a market dip. This illustrates growing caution among strategic investors regarding AI-version bitcoin. If miners continue selling their reserves to finance AI infrastructure, this would indeed remove a historical buying pressure source from the bitcoin market.
Anyway, the technological transformation of bitcoin mining companies towards artificial intelligence is redefining industry standards. The current debate on governance and gain allocation could extend throughout the AI-backed crypto ecosystem.
Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
Join the program
A
A
Lien copié
Ariela R.
My name is Ariela, and I am 31 years old. I have been working in the field of web writing for 7 years now. I only discovered trading and cryptocurrency a few years ago, but it is a universe that greatly interests me. The topics covered on the platform allow me to learn more. A singer in my spare time, I also cultivate a great passion for music and reading (and animals!)
DISCLAIMER
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.
EURC od Circle dosáhl 9. července nejvyšší denní aktivity adres a nových peněženek od spuštění před čtyřmi lety, když počet aktivních peněženek dosáhl 1 760. Po konci přechodného období MiCA v EU roste poptávka po regulovaných euro stablecoinech.
Circle's euro stablecoin $EURC logged its highest daily active addresses and new wallet creation since its launch four years ago, according to Santiment data. On July 9, daily active wallets reached 1,760, a milestone that underscores accelerating demand for regulated euro-denominated digital assets.
MiCA Clears the Field for EURCThe timing of the spike is no coincidence. The EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation transition period ended on July 1, 2026, requiring all crypto firms serving EU clients to be licensed. That deadline reshaped the competitive landscape sharply. Tether chose not to apply, with CEO Paolo Ardoino calling MiCA's reserve rules "dangerous," leading major exchanges including Coinbase, Binance, and Kraken to delist USDT for European users. With the market's dominant stablecoin removed from regulated European venues, liquidity has had to go somewhere.
EURC, issued by Circle, held the highest average market capitalisation among MiCA-compliant euro stablecoins at $430.4 million across the past year and led in average weekly trading volume at $34.0 million. Circle's EURC has emerged as the dominant euro stablecoin, holding approximately 41% of total euro stablecoin market capitalisation, up from 17% market share over the past 12 months.
Compliance as a Competitive AdvantageThe primary driver behind the surge in EURC activity is the enforcement of MiCA's stablecoin provisions, which require issuers to hold specific reserves and obtain licenses to operate within the EU. Circle was among the first global firms to secure an Electronic Money Institution (EMI) license, making EURC the first major MiCA-compliant stablecoin.
The leading euro stablecoin for crypto capital markets, EURC is MiCA-compliant, redeemable 1:1 for euro, and accessible globally on Avalanche, Base, Ethereum, Solana, and Stellar. That multi-chain presence matters: several high-profile centralised exchanges have started restricting non-compliant stablecoins for European users, naturally funnelling liquidity into EURC.
Total market capitalisation of MiCA-compliant euro stablecoins rose 128%, climbing from $295.6 million to $673.9 million across the 52 weeks to June 28, 2026. The broader trend points to Europe consolidating its stablecoin market around a small group of fully licensed tokens, with EURC currently leading that pack by a wide margin.
Sources:
Cryptonomist: MiCA Euro Stablecoins Surge Post Transitional Period
Circle: EURC Official Page
Utila: Euro Stablecoin Landscape Report 2026
Oklo dokončilo akvizici Creative Engineers, Inc. a posílilo vývoj reaktoru Aurora o zhruba 20 inženýrů, výrobců a svářečů se zkušenostmi se sodíkovými systémy.
Oklo just went shopping again. The nuclear energy company completed its acquisition of Creative Engineers, Inc. (CEI) on June 30, bringing aboard roughly 20 engineers, fabricators, and welders who specialize in exactly the kind of sodium and alkali-metal systems that Oklo’s Aurora reactor technology depends on.
This is Oklo’s second acquisition in a matter of weeks. Stock reaction was mixed, with some price slips observed around the announcement.
Why sodium experts matter for a nuclear startup Oklo’s Aurora reactor is a compact, modular design that uses liquid sodium as a coolant instead of water. CEI has been doing alkali-metal work for nuclear-related projects for years, and the acquisition brings liquid-metal handling, safety training, and reactor component development capabilities in-house rather than relying on external contractors.
Advertisement
CEI has reportedly been generating positive free cash flow for over five years, which makes this more than a talent acquisition. It’s a profitable business being folded into Oklo’s operations, adding manufacturing capability and applied R&D capacity. The financial terms of the deal remain undisclosed.
The broader Aurora timeline is taking shape On June 18, Oklo announced a letter of intent with Centrus Energy to secure high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel supply for upcoming Aurora units. Initial fuel deliveries are projected for 2029, timed to support what Oklo has described as a 1.2 GW clean energy campus.
The company is targeting its first operational Aurora unit at Idaho National Laboratory by late 2027 or early 2028.
What this means for investors watching the nuclear-AI energy nexus Oklo’s chairman is Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI. The company has been positioned at the intersection of nuclear energy and AI infrastructure.
Oklo hasn’t generated meaningful revenue yet, and its first reactor is still at least 18 months from operation. Nuclear regulatory approval processes are famously unpredictable, and the HALEU fuel supply chain remains nascent. Investors should watch regulatory milestones over the next 12 months, the progression of the Centrus Energy fuel supply arrangement toward binding commitments, and whether Oklo announces additional acquisitions ahead of the 2027-2028 launch window.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
New Hampshire zamítl návrh na bitcoinem krytý komunální dluhopis ve výši 100 milionů dolarů, který měl být prvním svého druhu schváleným státem. Hlasování skončilo 3:2.
New Hampshire’s Executive Council voted 3-2 to reject a proposed $100 million Bitcoin-backed municipal bond, preventing what would have been the first state-authorized issuance of its kind.
The decision comes despite the bond receiving a provisional Ba2 credit rating from Moody’s earlier this year.
Advertisement
The decision came months after the state’s Business Finance Authority (BFA) approved the groundbreaking bond structure, which aimed to bring Bitcoin-backed financing to the municipal bond market.
The proposed financing, developed by Wave Digital Assets in partnership with Rosemawr Management and the BFA, would have seen the BFA issue taxable municipal bonds backed by $175 million in Bitcoin collateral provided by CleanSpark, with BitGo Trust acting as custodian.
If Bitcoin’s value dropped below $140 million, the collateral would have been liquidated to ensure bondholders were repaid in full, without exposing taxpayers to losses.
Council members said the proposal failed to demonstrate meaningful benefits for New Hampshire and raised concerns about lending state legitimacy to a transaction tied to a highly volatile asset class.
Meanwhile, backers argued that the decision was a missed opportunity and urged officials to revisit the proposal.
“It was an extremely short-sighted decision,” New Hampshire House Majority Floor Leader Keith Ammon, who has long championed crypto initiatives in the state, said in a post on X. “They should gather all relevant facts and information and reconsider their vote at a future meeting.”
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Metaplanet zahájila společný průzkum Bitcoinem zajištěných digitálních úvěrových produktů s JPYC, Progmatem a svou japonskou divizí pro cenné papíry. Zatím však nebylo rozhodnuto o vydání žádného produktu.
Metaplanet has started a joint study into Bitcoin-backed digital credit products with stablecoin issuer JPYC, tokenization company Progmat and its securities arm in Japan.
Summary
Metaplanet will study Bitcoin-backed credit using JPYC settlement and Progmat’s security token infrastructure in Japan. No product has launched, while issuance timing, yields, terms, and distribution methods remain undecided. Project Nova seeks to turn Metaplanet’s Bitcoin treasury into collateral for regulated digital credit products. The study will assess whether Bitcoin can support digital corporate bonds and other credit products as collateral or a credit-enhancement asset. However, the companies said they have not decided to issue any product.
Metaplanet studies Bitcoin-backed digital credit According to Metaplanet’s July 10 announcement, the four companies will study product design, regulation, investor protection, settlement and technical requirements. Their work will cover digital corporate bonds and other blockchain-based credit instruments.
Metaplanet and Metaplanet Securities will lead product design and distribution. JPYC will examine stablecoin issuance, redemption and payment functions. Meanwhile, Progmat will provide infrastructure for security token issuance, ownership records and transfer controls.
The proposed structure would use security tokens to record investor rights. JPYC or similar yen-based instruments could handle interest payments, distributions and redemptions. The participants will also assess round-the-clock trading and daily interest calculations.
However, Metaplanet warned that “nothing has been determined” regarding issuance timing, yields, terms or distribution. Any future product would require internal approvals, technical checks and talks with relevant authorities.
Project Nova expands Bitcoin’s balance-sheet role The study forms part of Project Nova, Metaplanet’s plan to build a Bitcoin-focused financial services business in Japan. The company said the project treats Bitcoin as “productive collateral on the balance sheet” rather than only a reserve asset.
Under the plan, Bitcoin could back credit instruments while stablecoins and security tokens connect traditional securities infrastructure with blockchain settlement. Metaplanet said it wants to offer yield products and wider capital-market access to retail and institutional investors.
As previously reported by crypto.news, Metaplanet agreed in June to acquire Siiibo Securities for JPY 2.1 billion. The licensed brokerage is scheduled to become Metaplanet Securities on July 13.
The acquisition gives Metaplanet access to an established corporate bond platform and a Type I Financial Instruments Business Operator. The company previously said it could use the platform to distribute Bitcoin-linked bonds and other income products in Japan.
Bitcoin treasury reaches 43,000 BTC Metaplanet’s credit study follows another expansion of its corporate Bitcoin holdings. The company bought 2,823 BTC during the second quarter, raising its holdings to 43,000 BTC.
The company acquired the latest batch at an average price of about JPY 12.7 million per Bitcoin. Its total average purchase price stood near JPY 15.3 million per coin after the transaction.
At the same time, revenue from Metaplanet’s Bitcoin income business fell about 41% from the previous quarter to JPY 1.747 billion. The company has continued adding Bitcoin while developing products that could generate income from its treasury.
Metaplanet has also set a long-term goal of holding 210,000 BTC by the end of 2027. However, the new study does not confirm that the company will pledge its existing holdings to any specific credit product.
Tokenized credit market continues expanding The proposed study comes as demand for blockchain-based financial assets continues to grow. RWA.xyz tracks tokenized government debt, private credit, corporate credit, commodities and other real-world assets across public and private networks.
Metaplanet said credit is suited to digitization because interest, repayment and collateral terms are fixed when an instrument is issued. Blockchain systems can then manage ownership records, payments and redemptions.
Strategy mezi 1. a 5. červencem prodala 3 588 BTC za zhruba 216 milionů USD, což je největší jednorázová likvidace v historii firmy. Po prodeji drží 843 775 BTC.
Strategy, the company formerly known as MicroStrategy, sold 3,588 BTC for approximately $216 million between July 1 and July 5. That’s the largest single Bitcoin liquidation in the company’s history, and it came from the man who once made “never sell” sound like a blood oath.
Michael Saylor’s firm still holds 843,775 BTC after the sale.
From diamond hands to dynamic allocation Strategy didn’t sell Bitcoin because Saylor suddenly lost faith in his thesis. The company sold to replenish USD reserves earmarked for preferred-stock dividends on its Digital Credit securities.
The board authorized potential sales of up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin on June 29, giving management room to sell significantly more if cash needs escalate. The goal, according to the company’s filings, is to avoid issuing additional equity, which would dilute existing shareholders.
Advertisement
Strategy had already broken the seal in late May 2026, selling 32 BTC for $2.5 million. Selling 3,588 coins at roughly $60,000 each is not a rounding error.
The average sale price of approximately $60,000 per Bitcoin is worth noting because Strategy’s overall cost basis sits above that level — they sold at a loss relative to what they paid for much of their stack. The company reported an $8.32 billion loss in Q2 2026 related to digital assets.
Strategy is now framing this shift as “dynamic capital allocation” designed to improve Bitcoin-per-share metrics.
Why the market cares more than the math suggests 3,588 BTC represents roughly 0.4% of Strategy’s total holdings.
MSTR shares declined several percent intraday on July 6, though they stabilized afterward. Bitcoin itself saw modest selling pressure.
The board authorized up to $1.25 billion in potential Bitcoin sales. That’s roughly 20,800 BTC at current prices, or about 2.5% of the company’s total stack.
The institutional contagion risk The $8.32 billion quarterly loss on digital assets underscores how painful this Bitcoin winter has been for corporate holders who bought aggressively during the bull market. Strategy accumulated the vast majority of its 843,775 BTC at prices that now look elevated compared to current trading levels.
The Bitcoin-per-share metric that Strategy is now optimizing for could actually benefit remaining shareholders if executed well, since selling Bitcoin to avoid equity dilution preserves each share’s claim on the remaining stack.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Japonský věřitel CRYL spustil úvěry zajištěné bitcoiny až do výše 1 miliardy jenů (6,2 milionu USD), které umožňují získat fiat bez prodeje BTC. Úroky činí 3,5 % až 7 % ročně.
Japanese lender CRYL has launched Bitcoin-backed loans of up to 1 billion yen ($6.2 million), allowing individuals and businesses to raise fiat currency without selling their BTC.
On Thursday, the company announced that borrowers can access between 1 million yen ($6,200) and 1 billion yen ($6.2 million) at annual rates of 3.5% to 7%. The loans carry collateral ratios of 40% to 60%. They run for one year and can be used for expenses, including taxes, business funding and property purchases.
The launch expands Japan’s small market for regulated crypto-backed financing. In 2020, Fintertech, a Daiwa Securities Group and Credit Saison joint venture, launched a similar service and currently lends up to $3 million against Bitcoin or Ether. However, CRYL's service advertises a higher ceiling and a lower minimum, while limiting collateral to BTC.
CRYL framed the service as adding a third option beyond holding or selling their crypto. However, applicants must undergo screening, and most loans use a lump-sum repayment structure, with principal and interest due after one year.
Bitcoin-backed finance takes shape in JapanFintertech’s product shows that Bitcoin-backed lending has been available in Japan for several years. The company’s website currently lists loans for individuals and businesses with annual rates of 4% to 8%, a 50% collateral ratio and a minimum borrowing amount of 5 million yen ($31,000).
The service also gained a wider distribution channel in October 2025, when Daiwa Securities began introducing customers at its branches across Japan to Fintertech’s digital asset-backed loans. Fintertech is owned 80% by Daiwa Securities Group and 20% by Credit Saison.
Other Japanese companies are exploring how Bitcoin could support more complex credit products. On Friday, Metaplanet Securities, yen stablecoin issuer JPYC and tokenization infrastructure provider Progmat announced a study into using BTC as collateral or credit enhancement for digital corporate bonds and other blockchain-based credit instruments.
Unlike the loan products offered by CRYL and Fintertech, the Metaplanet initiative remains at the research phase, and the companies said no issuance has been decided.
Magazine: Bitcoin’s quantum dilemma: Bigger blocks or STARK proofs?
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.
Intesa Sanpaolo zveřejnila zhruba 18 milionů USD v XRP, které drží prostřednictvím Grayscale XRP Trust, nikoli přímo v peněženkách ani přes ETF. Ukazuje to, že banky dál volí tradiční cenné papíry místo přímého držení krypta.
Italy’s largest bank disclosed an $18 million XRP position, and the interesting part is not the size but the plumbing: the exposure runs through Grayscale’s trust, not through wallets, keys, or even the shiny new ETFs. Bank crypto exposure has more than doubled in two quarters, and the wrappers banks choose reveal exactly how far the regulated world has actually come. This is the anatomy of how a bank buys a token.
Summary
Italy’s largest bank disclosed an $18 million XRP position through Grayscale’s trust, highlighting how regulated banks continue to prefer traditional securities over direct crypto holdings. European banks’ disclosed crypto exposure has more than doubled to $235 million, although most positions remain small, wrapped and focused on strategic exposure rather than treasury investments. The structure banks choose to hold crypto reflects regulatory, capital and custody constraints, offering a clearer signal of institutional adoption than the size of individual investments. The most institutionally significant XRP purchase of the year fits in a footnote. Intesa Sanpaolo, Italy’s largest banking group with over a trillion dollars in assets, disclosed a roughly $18 million position in XRP, acquired not on any crypto exchange, not through self-custody, not even through the spot exchange-traded funds that launched to such fanfare, but through shares of Grayscale’s XRP trust, a wrapper most retail traders stopped thinking about years ago.
Intesa bought an approximately $18 million position in the Grayscale XRP Trust
— Degi (@bryLFC88) July 9, 2026 Eighteen million dollars is a rounding error for Intesa, less than 0.002% of its balance sheet, and dismissing the disclosure on size would miss what it actually documents. Bank crypto exposure in aggregate has more than doubled across two quarters, from roughly $100 million to $235 million among disclosing European institutions, and each disclosure is a specimen of the same understudied question: when a regulated deposit-taking institution decides to hold a volatile digital asset, what does it actually buy, through what legal object, on whose books, and why that one? The answers are duller than the headlines and far more informative, because the wrapper a bank selects encodes everything, its regulators’ current mood, its capital treatment, its custody constraints, and its honest time horizon.
This piece uses the Intesa position as a dissection subject. It covers the menu of structures through which a bank can hold crypto and what each one costs in capital, operations, and optics; why a trust, of all things, beat both the ETFs and direct custody for this purchase; what the doubling of bank exposure does and does not signal about the institutional wave every forecast depends on; the XRP-specific reading, since the asset choice is itself information; and the checkable signals that would show bank demand becoming the structural bid the market has priced in advance so many times.
The menu: five ways a bank can own a coin A bank deciding to hold crypto chooses among five structures, and the choice is never about preference; it is about what its regulator, risk committee, and accounting framework will tolerate this quarter.
The first is direct ownership with self-custody: coins on the balance sheet, keys in the bank’s control. It is the purest exposure and the rarest, because it triggers everything at once, the harshest prudential capital treatment, under Basel-derived rules a risk weight so punitive that unhedged direct holdings can require capital near the position’s full value, plus operational custody risk the institution must build or buy, plus accounting volatility straight through earnings. A handful of pioneers run small direct books as strategic learning exercises; as a portfolio structure it barely exists.
The second is direct ownership with third-party custody: the bank owns coins held by a qualified custodian. It softens the operational problem and none of the capital problem, and it is the structure banks build for clients, custody as a fee business, far more often than for themselves; Intesa itself has run a proprietary desk and custody buildout along exactly these lines, which makes its choice of a different wrapper for this position all the more instructive.
The third is the exchange-traded fund: regulated, liquid, redeemable, tracking tightly through the creation-and-redemption machinery that keeps share and coin prices glued. For most institutions the ETF is the modern default, which is precisely why a bank bypassing it deserves attention.
The fourth is the trust or closed-end structure, the Grayscale lineage: a fund holding coins, whose shares trade as securities, historically without the redemption loop that disciplines ETF pricing, meaning shares can and famously did trade at large premiums and discounts to the underlying. The fifth is synthetic exposure, futures, notes, certificates, total-return swaps, owning the price without the asset, the structure of choice where regulators permit derivatives more readily than holdings.
JUST IN: Grayscale has categorized $XRP under the
"Global Payments" investment narrative, highlighting its role in cross-border payments and digital financial infrastructure. As institutional interest in blockchain continues to grow, #XRPArmy pic.twitter.com/g4NEi1p86Y
— Michelle Kirby X (@michelekirby623) July 10, 2026 Read as a ladder, the five structures run from maximum conviction and maximum friction at the top to minimum commitment at the bottom, and where an institution steps on reveals its constraints more honestly than its press releases. A bank in a jurisdiction with settled ETF access, clean capital rules, and a supportive supervisor buys the ETF. A bank that buys a trust is telling you something specific.
Why the trust: the unglamorous logic Intesa’s route through Grayscale’s XRP trust looks, at first glance, like choosing a flip phone, and the logic assembles quickly once the constraints are listed.
The first constraint is geography and availability. The US spot XRP ETFs are new, their European availability to a regulated Italian bank’s balance sheet runs through legal and distribution questions that a US-listed trust security, tradeable as an ordinary share, sidesteps; European institutions have bought American trust shares for years precisely because they slot into existing securities plumbing, custody, settlement, and reporting included, with no crypto-specific operational buildout at all. For a first position, or a small strategic one, the wrapper that requires zero new infrastructure wins on cost alone.
The second is the capital and accounting angle. A trust share is a security, held and risk-weighted as one under frameworks the bank already runs, while direct coin holdings drag the punitive crypto-specific capital treatment; the wrapper does not eliminate the exposure’s volatility, and it can materially simplify its regulatory life. The third is discretion and reversibility: an $18 million security position is entered, marked, and exited like any other line in a trading book, with no wallets to explain, no custodian onboarding, no board-level operational review, an experiment sized and structured to be abandonable, which is exactly how serious institutions run first experiments.
In diesem Video geht es um Goldman Sachs, Intesa Sanpaolo, sinkende XRP Bestände auf Börsen und die Frage, warum der Kurs trotz positiver Onchain Daten noch nicht wirklich reagiert.
Außerdem ordnen wir ein, ob die fehlende Krypto Liquidität wirklich verschwunden ist, oder nur… https://t.co/GcYvrwSBk7 pic.twitter.com/ttVelYqLEj
— CryptoTuts (@CryptoTuts) July 9, 2026 The fourth is the trust’s historical quirk turned feature: with spot ETFs now existing as conversion or competition targets, the old discount problem that made trusts hazardous has largely resolved, while the structure retains its accessibility. The instrument that spent years as the cautionary tale about wrappers, its discounts the very evidence that forced the ETF era into being, now serves as the quiet on-ramp for institutions whose plumbing has not caught up to the products the caution produced. Finance rarely wastes an old vehicle; it reassigns it.
The capital rules: the constraint underneath everything The single largest force shaping how banks hold crypto never appears in the headlines, so it earns its own section: prudential capital treatment, the rules deciding how much of a bank’s own equity must stand behind each asset it holds. The international framework finalized by the Basel Committee sorts crypto exposures into groups, with tokenized traditional assets and qualifying stablecoins receiving conventional treatment, and unbacked cryptoassets, the Bitcoin-and-XRP category, consigned to the punitive tier: a risk weight of 1,250%, the framework’s maximum, which in practice requires capital roughly equal to the exposure itself, plus an aggregate cap holding such exposures to a sliver of a bank’s Tier 1 capital. The design intent was explicit, to make direct crypto holdings nearly uneconomic for banks, and it succeeded: no meaningful direct bank crypto book exists anywhere under full Basel-aligned rules.
The wrapper economy documented in this piece is, in large part, the industry’s negotiated response to that number. A trust share or ETF position may, depending on jurisdiction and interpretation, route through securities and funds treatments instead of the maximum weight; synthetic exposures route through derivatives and market-risk frameworks; and client-custody businesses, where the bank never owns the coins at all, sit outside the exposure caps entirely, which is why custody is where bank crypto revenue actually lives. None of this is evasion, every structure is disclosed and supervised, and all of it is arbitrage in the honest sense: institutions selecting, among permitted forms, the one whose capital cost matches their conviction. The forward-looking point follows directly: the capital rules are under active review in multiple jurisdictions, industry bodies have pressed for recalibration as the classification legislation matures, and any softening of the 1,250% regime would do more for bank demand than a decade of conferences, because it changes the only number bank treasurers actually optimize. Watch the consultations, not the keynotes.
The specimen in context: who else, and how Intesa’s disclosure lands within a recognizable cohort, and the cohort’s composition sharpens the reading. European institutions dominate the disclosed-exposure aggregate for a structural reason: MiCA’s arrival gave the continent’s banks a supervisory framework to point to, and supervised clarity, even strict clarity, unlocks more institutional behavior than permissive ambiguity ever has. The cohort’s positions share the Intesa profile almost uniformly, small against the balance sheet, wrapped rather than direct, concentrated in the majors plus, notably, XRP, and framed internally as strategic learning. Around the disclosed positions sits the larger undisclosed economy: bank-run custody for funds and corporates, structured notes and certificates giving private-bank clients crypto exposure, and trading desks making markets in ETPs, all of which generate crypto revenue without crypto balance-sheet exposure and all of which grew straight through the drawdown. The honest map of bank adoption, in other words, is a pyramid: a vast base of client-service activity, a thin middle of wrapped proprietary positions like Intesa’s, and an apex of direct holdings that remains, by regulatory design, nearly empty. Adoption forecasts that conflate the layers, and most do, mistake the pyramid’s base for its apex and misprice both.
What $100M to $235M actually signals The aggregate number behind the Intesa specimen, disclosed bank crypto exposure more than doubling to $235 million in two quarters, invites two opposite readings, and the honest analysis requires holding both.
The deflationary reading starts with scale: $235 million across the European banking system is not institutional adoption; it is institutional curiosity, a few basis points of trading-book capacity spread across a handful of names, an order of magnitude below what single corporate treasuries deployed in the last cycle and three orders below the ETF complex. Banks hold these positions the way they hold any exotic, small, hedged or hedgeable, and structured for exit, and extrapolating a wave from a doubling of a tiny base is the oldest error in institutional-adoption forecasting. The doubling also coincides with the drawdown, which cuts both ways: it is conviction buying weakness, or it is desks accumulating inventory for client products rather than expressing any house view at all, and disclosures rarely distinguish the two.
The inflationary reading counts differently: it counts precedents. Every structure a bank uses for a small position is a structure approved, documented, and reusable for a large one; the expensive part of institutional adoption was never the buying but the permissioning, the risk-committee papers, the regulator conversations, the accounting memos, and each disclosed position is proof that some institution’s permissioning is complete. On this reading, $235 million is not the wave, it is the wave’s paperwork, and the doubling measures how fast the paperwork is clearing. The reading gains force from who is moving: Intesa is not a crypto-adjacent challenger but a systemically important incumbent whose choices get studied by every peer risk committee in Europe, and incumbent behavior is the single best-documented contagion vector in institutional finance.
Both readings share one implication worth stating plainly: the structural bank bid, the one in the conditional price forecasts, remains almost entirely in front of, not behind, the current market, which is precisely why the classification legislation gates so much of every forecast. Banks buy at the pace their constraints dissolve, and the constraints are dissolving on legislative and supervisory calendars, not market ones.
A note on the disclosure mechanics themselves rounds out the specimen. Bank positions of this kind surface through securities filings, fund shareholder registers, and periodic risk disclosures, each with its own lag and granularity, and the analysts who compiled the $235 million aggregate are stitching exactly these sources. The number is therefore a floor, not a census: positions below reporting thresholds, exposures inside synthetic structures, and holdings at institutions with lighter disclosure regimes all escape it, which means the true wrapped-proprietary layer is somewhat larger and its growth rate somewhat smoother than the headline doubling suggests. It also means the series improves mechanically as the asset class formalizes, more filings, finer categories, shorter lags, so part of every future increase will be measurement catching up with reality, a caveat worth carrying into each new headline about bank exposure records.
What a bank position is not Two category errors follow every bank-crypto disclosure, and clearing them sharpens what remains. The first is reading a trading-book position as a treasury strategy. Corporate treasury adopters hold coins as a reserve-asset thesis, financed by their capital structure and marked as conviction; a bank’s wrapped $18 million sits in a book built for exposures that come and go, sized inside limits designed to make its total loss immaterial, and often paired with hedges or client flows invisible from outside. The position’s information value is procedural, not directional: it proves the pipe exists, not that the water is committed. The second error is reading disclosure timing as buying timing. Positions surface through reporting cycles months after their construction, get built across many sessions to avoid moving thin markets, and can be inventory against structured products the bank has sold, not a view at all. The market’s habit of backdating conviction onto the disclosure date has embarrassed every analyst who indulged it, and the professional reading discipline is the same one every filing teaches: the fact is the exposure and its structure; the story is unrecoverable from public data and should be priced accordingly.
There is also the question of what would make a bank sell, which no adoption narrative ever models. Wrapped positions of this size exit for reasons that have nothing to do with crypto, quarter-end optics, risk-limit reshuffles, a supervisor’s raised eyebrow, a desk head’s rotation, and their departure would generate exactly the headlines their arrival did, inverted and equally overread. The institutional bid, when it truly forms, will be identifiable not by any single entry but by its behavior through stress: positions that persist across drawdowns, disclosures that grow through bad quarters, and wrapper migrations toward more committed structures while prices fall. By that standard, the current cohort is untested, the drawdown positions are its first examination, and the next two reporting cycles are worth more than the last ten announcements.
The XRP of it: why this asset, from this buyer The asset selection is its own signal, and it reads differently from a bank than it would from a fund. XRP is, among major assets, the one whose institutional story runs through exactly the world Intesa inhabits: cross-border payments, correspondent banking, and a corporate sponsor that has spent a decade selling to institutions like Intesa, an empire whose honest token accounting this publication has mapped. A European bank taking its crypto first step in XRP rather than only Bitcoin is choosing the asset whose bull case is denominated in its own industry’s plumbing, which makes the position readable as strategic reconnaissance as much as investment: a small, live stake in the asset one’s own payments division will inevitably be asked about.
The timing adds the contrarian layer: the position surfaces with XRP down roughly 70% from its peak, the tradable float at seven-year lows, and sentiment at cycle extremes, which is either exactly when patient institutional money historically steps in, or exactly the environment in which a small position is cheap enough to serve as an option on the payments thesis resolving. Eighteen million dollars does not move the asset. Eighteen million dollars of precedent, from this buyer, in this structure, at this point in the cycle, is the kind of data point the next dozen risk committees cite, and the market’s institutional wave, if it ever arrives, will be assembled out of citations exactly like it.
The historical rhyme deserves a paragraph, because banks have run this exact sequence before. Gold ETFs in the early 2000s, emerging-market debt in the 1990s, and high-yield credit before that each entered bank balance sheets the same way: first as client-service revenue, then as small wrapped proprietary positions justified as market-making inventory, then, after capital treatments matured and a cycle survived, as ordinary allocations nobody announced. The sequence’s clock is measured in years per stage, its motor is regulatory calibration, not price, and its tell, in every prior asset class, was the moment risk committees stopped writing special memos for the exposure, the bureaucratic non-event that never makes news and always precedes size. Crypto’s bank adoption is visibly mid-sequence: the client-service layer is thriving, the wrapped-position layer is doubling off a tiny base, and the special memos are still being written. The Intesa disclosure is one such memo made public, and the forecast it supports is not a price target but a schedule: the asset class is roughly one capital-rule revision and one uneventful cycle away from the stage where positions like this stop being articles.
One more actor deserves mention because it shadows every European bank’s calculus: the ECB and the digital-euro project, whose relationship with private crypto assets ranges from indifference to rivalry depending on the week. A eurozone bank’s crypto position lives under a supervisor whose own institution is building a competing settlement future, and the diplomacy of that position, small enough to be unobjectionable, wrapped enough to be conventional, useful enough to inform the bank’s own digital-asset strategy, explains the specimen’s every parameter as well as any market view does. Banks do not merely hold assets; they hold positions within relationships, and the wrapper is part of the diplomacy.
The signals that would show the wave forming The Intesa specimen suggests its own dashboard, and each line is public. Watch the disclosure aggregate, the $235 million line, for its next doubling and its composition, trusts versus ETFs versus direct, because wrapper migration toward more committed structures is the maturation signal. Watch European ETF and ETP access for banks, the plumbing whose arrival collapses the trust workaround. Watch the supervisory texture, capital-treatment consultations and national supervisor guidance, the constraint whose relaxation moves faster than any narrative. Watch whether custody businesses and proprietary positions converge, banks that custody for clients acquiring house exposure and vice versa, the pattern that preceded every prior asset class’s institutional normalization. And watch the legislation, always, because the classification question sets the risk weights and the risk weights set the size.
The conclusion the dissection supports is deliberately modest and, for that reason, durable. Intesa’s $18 million documents neither a wave nor a fad; it documents a procedure, the specific, replicable, now-approved path by which a trillion-dollar European bank holds a crypto asset without touching a key, and procedures, once they exist, get reused at whatever size conditions permit. The market has spent years pricing the day banks arrive. The disclosure’s quiet news is that the arrival, when it comes, will look exactly like this: no announcement, no wallet, a securities ticket in an old wrapper, and a footnote that compounds.
The dissection closes where it began, with proportion. Eighteen million dollars, one wrapper, one bank: as a market event it is nothing, and the piece has argued it is the most informative kind of nothing, a procedure caught on camera. Institutional adoption was never going to arrive as an announcement, because institutions do not announce; they file, and the filing cadence, the wrapper choices, and the capital consultations are the wave in its only observable form. Readers who want to track it need three bookmarks, the disclosure aggregates, the Basel-review docket, and the European ETP-access rulings, and one habit: when the next bank position surfaces, ask not how much but through what, because in this corner of the market, the plumbing is the story, and it has been telling it, quietly and in public, one footnote at a time.
And one sentence for the traders who read this far looking for the signal: there is none on the tape today, and there is a precise one coming, because bank flows, unlike whale flows, pre-announce themselves through rulemaking, and the rulemaking calendar is public. The edge in this corner of the market is not speed. It is literacy, and the literacy is teachable, which is what this dissection was for.
The specimen will be superseded, probably within a quarter, by a larger name or a bigger number, and the framework will not: five wrappers, one capital regime, a pyramid of adoption layers, and a disclosure lag between them all. Keep the framework, discard the headline, and the next footnote reads itself.
A closing housekeeping note: the exposure figures cited here reflect analyst compilations of public disclosures at this writing, the wrapper landscape is being actively reshaped by ETF access rulings and capital consultations, and readers applying this framework to future disclosures should expect the menu’s relative costs, though not its structure, to have shifted. The structure is the durable part; it always is.
The banks, unlike the traders, are in no hurry, and the wrappers, unlike the narratives, keep perfect records; between those two facts sits everything this piece has argued.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Digital asset markets are volatile, and you can lose your entire investment. Figures are current as of July 9, 2026, and may change. Always do your own research.
Bitmine Immersion Technologies koupila dalších 20 500 ETH za zhruba 35,9 milionu USD od Galaxy Digital. Jde o druhý velký nákup Etherea během dvou dnů.
Bitmine Immersion Technologies (NYSE: $BMNR), chaired by Fundstrat's Tom Lee, has purchased another 20,500 $ETH worth approximately $35.9 million from Galaxy Digital, according to onchain data cited by Lookonchain. The transaction is the company's second major Ethereum buy in as many days and adds further momentum to what has become one of the most closely watched corporate accumulation stories in crypto.
Back-to-Back Buys Push Holdings Higher The latest purchase follows a reported acquisition of 40,000 ETH on July 8, executed through FalconX and Kraken. Combined, the two transactions total roughly 60,500 ETH acquired within days. As of July 5, 2026, Bitmine's holdings stood at 5,742,237 ETH, representing approximately 4.8% of the total ETH supply of 120.7 million tokens. The latest buys reported on July 10 would push that figure higher still, bringing the company closer to its stated target.
The "Alchemy of 5%" and What's at Stake Guided by its philosophy of "the alchemy of 5%," Bitmine is committed to ETH as its primary treasury reserve asset, leveraging native protocol-level activities including staking and decentralised finance mechanisms. A 3.5 million share 9.50% Series A Perpetual Preferred (BMNP) deal raised about $273.8 million to fund additional digital assets, validator growth, and strategic ETH-ecosystem investments.
Chairman Thomas Lee attributed Ethereum's recent outperformance of Bitcoin and Bitmine's continued accumulation to rising investor optimism that the proposed Clarity Act will pass and bring greater regulatory certainty to crypto, especially Ethereum. Lee also believes Ethereum is undervalued, citing tokenization and rising demand from artificial intelligence applications as long-term catalysts.
Annualized staking revenues are projected at $235 million, with 4.9 million ETH representing 85% of the 5.74 million ETH held by Bitmine. Bitmine's crypto holdings rank it as the number one Ethereum treasury and number two global treasury, behind Strategy Inc. (NASDAQ: MSTR).
Sources:
Bitmine official press release via PR Newswire, July 6, 2026
CoinDesk: Bitmine adds $74 million in Ether as Tom Lee bets on Clarity Act boost
Yahoo Finance: Bitmine Purchases Another $74 Million of Ethereum
Ethereum Foundation zrušila tým Protocol Support, který pět let koordinoval upgrady, schůzky vývojářů a fellowship programy. Krok navazuje na širší restrukturalizaci a propuštění zhruba 20 % zaměstnanců.
The Ethereum Foundation has dissolved its Protocol Support team as part of a broader restructuring that recently cut about 20% of the nonprofit’s workforce.
Summary
Ethereum Foundation dissolved Protocol Support after five years coordinating upgrades, developer meetings and fellowship programs worldwide. Several team members lost their roles following the Foundation’s broader 20% workforce reduction announced recently. Core protocol work continues under Ethereum Foundation’s new structure, but some support programs face uncertainty. Protocol Support coordinated several parts of Ethereum’s development process. Its work covered core developer meetings, network upgrade tracking, Ethereum Improvement Proposal support and programs that trained new protocol contributors.
The Protocol Support account confirmed the team’s closure on X. It also invited Ethereum organizations seeking experienced developers to contact former team members.
the EF Protocol Support team has been dissolved 🖖
— EF Protocol Support (@EFprotocol) July 9, 2026 Mario Havel, who worked with Protocol Support for more than five years, said he remains at the Ethereum Foundation. However, he confirmed that the rest of his team had been dissolved and that several colleagues had lost their roles.
“I am still part of EF, continuing my work and figuring out what’s most needed in the future,” Havel wrote on X. “However, all of my team, Protocol Support, that I have been part of for 5+ years, has been dissolved.”
I was getting questions about recent EF layoffs and my situation so I should share something public as well.
I am still part of EF, continuing my work and figuring out what's most needed in the future. However, all of my team, Protocol Support, that I have been part for 5+… https://t.co/KRgKxiXQpa
— Mario Havel (@TMIYChao) July 8, 2026 Havel described the closure as the “bitter end” of a team that had supported Ethereum’s core development process through several forms and leadership changes.
Team managed key Ethereum developer programs Protocol Support helped organize All Core Developers meetings, where client teams and researchers discuss proposed upgrades. It also supported breakout calls, tracked network fork readiness and helped contributors understand Ethereum’s technical roadmap.
The team maintained Forkcast, a public platform that tracks Ethereum upgrades, proposed EIPs, testnet launches and mainnet activation plans. Former team lead William Morriss said the restructuring had ended his Ethereum Foundation role.
Protocol Support also ran the Ethereum Protocol Fellowship. The program trained developers seeking to contribute to Ethereum’s core protocol and connected participants with client teams, researchers and other technical groups.
Havel said he and former colleague Josh Davis built the fellowship over four years. The program has since brought dozens of new developers into Ethereum’s core development community.
The Foundation had opened applications for the seventh Ethereum Protocol Fellowship cohort in April. The available statements did not explain whether the current cohort will continue under another team.
Closure follows wider Foundation layoffs The team’s dissolution follows the Ethereum Foundation’s new organizational structure, announced on June 23. The Foundation cut 54 positions, equal to roughly 20% of its workforce, after a months-long review of its activities and spending.
As previously reported by crypto.news, the Foundation reorganized its work into five main areas: protocol, access, user, community and institutional layers. Separate groups handle operations and management.
The Foundation said affected workers would receive severance, career transition support and grants for related expenses. It described the changes as necessary to focus its staff and resources on work that the organization must perform over the coming years.
The latest closure also follows earlier changes to Ethereum’s research and development structure. The Foundation reduced its Protocol Research and Development team in 2025 and renamed the remaining group Protocol.
Core protocol work remains active The new protocol cluster remains responsible for Ethereum’s underlying technology. Its stated tasks include shipping upgrades safely, reducing technical complexity and improving privacy, security and censorship resistance.
Ethereum developers are also working on the Glamsterdam upgrade. The planned update includes changes to block construction, data access and network performance, as crypto.news previously reported.
However, the Foundation has not publicly detailed where every Protocol Support responsibility will move. The future management of developer meetings, Forkcast, fellowship programs and EIP support therefore remains unclear.
Protocol development does not depend on one Foundation team because Ethereum client developers, researchers and independent contributors work across several organizations. Still, Protocol Support provided coordination services that connected many of those groups during network upgrades.
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has confirmed that the ecosystem is close to launching a political party.
He made the announcement during his latest broadcast, where he also dismissed rumors that he plans to retire or leave the Cardano ecosystem. Reaffirming his long-term commitment to the network, Hoskinson revealed that preparations for the political party are already underway. He said the initiative is expected to launch soon, allowing ADA community members to participate.
“We are working on a political party, and we’ll imminently be launching that soon, and give people an opportunity to participate,” Hoskinson remarked.
His commentary signals that the initiative has progressed from a proposal to an active project, although Hoskinson did not provide a specific launch date.
A New Governance Structure for Cardano Hoskinson’s latest remarks build on his earlier proposal to establish a political party that would operate as a large, Delegate Representative (DRep) within Cardano’s on-chain governance system.
The idea emerged after months of governance disputes across the ecosystem. Several treasury proposals, including some associated with Hoskinson, failed to secure DRep approval. The resulting governance tensions eventually contributed to the cancellation of Cardano Summit 2026. In response, Hoskinson first suggested becoming a DRep before unveiling plans to create a political party.
In his view, the proposed organization would coordinate decision-making on ecosystem growth, treasury allocations, and long-term strategic priorities. The initiative would also give ADA holders and ecosystem participants a structured way to engage in governance by joining the organization and voting on key initiatives.
Hoskinson Backs the Cardano PRIME Proposal Meanwhile, Hoskinson has publicly endorsed the Cardano PRIME proposal. He expressed his support by replying “LFG” after AlphaGrowth announced that on-chain community voting for PRIME had officially begun.
PRIME is a 12-month initiative led by AlphaGrowth to accelerate Cardano’s decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem through protocol security audits, responsible liquidity incentive programs, and market expansion. The proposal seeks 120 million ADA in treasury funding, valued at approximately $19.2 million at an assumed ADA price of $0.16. If successful, the initiative aims to increase Cardano’s total value locked (TVL) by more than $200 million.
Such growth would represent a significant expansion from Cardano’s current TVL of roughly $73 million, with stablecoins currently accounting for most of the capital locked on the network.
Hoskinson has repeatedly emphasized that expanding Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem is one of the network’s highest priorities. He has previously described 2026 as a “do-or-die” year for Cardano’s DeFi ambitions, underscoring the need to attract more liquidity, users, and decentralized applications to the blockchain.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
TRON DAO, the community-governed DAO dedicated to accelerating the decentralization of the internet through blockchain technology and decentralized applications (dApps), announced today that the total circulating supply of USDT on the TRON blockchain has exceeded $90 billion. The milestone further strengthens TRON’s position as a leading network for USDT activity. According to Token Terminal, TRON leads all networks in USDT transfer volume year to date, with approximately $4.2 trillion.
TRON is one of the most widely used settlement networks in the world for stablecoins. The network’s scale, low transaction costs and consistent activity continue to support digital dollar transfers and a broad range of blockchain-based real-world use cases.
As of July 2026, TRON processes over 12.7 million daily transactions and has surpassed 392 million total user accounts. Additionally, the network supports an average of $23.8 billion in daily USDT transfers. TRON also has the highest active wallet count of any stablecoin on any blockchain according to Stablecoin Insider.
“TRON’s growth reflects the principles that have shaped the crypto industry from the beginning: open access, user ownership and practical utility,” said Justin Sun, founder of TRON. “The use of USDT on TRON reflects demand for blockchain infrastructure that is fast, efficient and accessible. As the industry continues to develop, the TRON ecosystem will remain focused on strengthening the infrastructure for stablecoins, settlement and the growing connection between DeFi and traditional finance.”
TRON’s leadership in the greater stablecoin ecosystem continues to evolve alongside growing institutional demand. Recent developments include Anchorage Digital’s integration of the TRON network, expanding institutional access to regulated custody on TRON, as well as Securitize’s integration of TRON to support tokenized real-world assets. The tokenized Hamilton Lane SCOPE Fund also became the first Securitize-issued asset available on the TRON network, further reinforcing TRON’s role as infrastructure for stablecoins, tokenized assets and institutional blockchain adoption.
Additionally, the TRON ecosystem has deepened its focus on security and safeguarding users through the T3 Financial Crime Unit (T3 FCU), a joint initiative with Tether and TRM Labs. Since its inception, T3 FCU has frozen over USD 450 million in criminal assets across five continents, established rapid response capabilities to address threats, and demonstrated how industry collaboration can effectively combat financial crime while supporting blockchain innovation.
As the digital dollar economy continues to expand, TRON remains a core pillar of the infrastructure that drives greater efficiency, accessibility and financial inclusion.
About TRON DAO TRON DAO is a community-governed DAO dedicated to accelerating the decentralization of the internet via blockchain technology and dApps.
Founded in September 2017, the TRON blockchain has experienced significant growth since its MainNet launch in May 2018. Until recently, TRON hosted the largest circulating supply of USD Tether (USDT) stablecoin, which currently exceeds $90 billion. As of July 2026, the TRON blockchain has recorded over 392 million in total user accounts, more than 14 billion in total transactions, and over $26 billion in total value locked (TVL), based on TRONSCAN. Recognized as the global settlement layer for stablecoin transactions and everyday purchases with proven success, TRON is “Moving Trillions, Empowering Billions.”
TRONNetwork | TRONDAO | X | YouTube | Telegram | Discord | Reddit | GitHub | Medium | Forum
Media Contact
Yeweon Park [email protected] Disclaimer: TheNewsCrypto does not endorse any content on this page. The content depicted in this Press Release does not represent any investment advice. TheNewsCrypto recommends our readers to make decisions based on their own research. TheNewsCrypto is not accountable for any damage or loss related to content, products, or services stated in this Press Release.
Reserve Protocol uvedl na BNB Chain pět tokenizovaných akciových DTF zaměřených na AI: $BUILDOUT, $POWER, $PHOTON, $NEOCLOUD a $ROBOTS. Jsou kryté tokenizovanými americkými akciemi prostřednictvím Ondo Global Markets.
Reserve Protocol has launched five AI-themed Reserve Protocol DTFs (Decentralized Token Funds) on BNB Chain. The aim is to give global investors a single-token route into the full AI supply chain.
The products, $BUILDOUT, $POWER, $PHOTON, $NEOCLOUD, and $ROBOTS, are live now and backed by tokenized U.S. equities via Ondo Global Markets. The announcement was made on Reserve Protocol’s official X account on July 9, 2026, alongside a video explainer and trading links.
Five DTFs, One AI Economy: What Reserve Protocol Just Built Each of the five new Reserve Protocol DTFs targets a different layer of the AI value chain. $BUILDOUT covers AI hardware and infrastructure stocks.
$BUILDOUT covers AI hardware and infrastructure stocks.
$POWER focuses on energy and power generation companies feeding AI data centers.
$PHOTON tracks photonics and optical networking companies. $NEOCLOUD holds cloud computing and AI infrastructure providers. $ROBOTS rounds out the set with robotics and automation equities.
The interesting part of the update is that an investor can buy $NEOCLOUD and get instant exposure to tokenized cloud equities without limit.
The DTFs are built on Reserve Protocol’s open-source infrastructure, which is powered by Ondo Global Markets (OGM). It holds tokenized U.S. stocks via licensed U.S. broker-dealers.
Own your share of the AI industry
Today, Reserve launches not one, but five new tokenized equity DTFs, each for a unique layer of the AI revolution: infrastructure, power, photonics, cloud compute, and robotics.
Live on @BNBCHAIN and powered by @OndoFinance, eligible users can… https://t.co/ZiI6zLMLA4 pic.twitter.com/NSnowuVRTd
— Reserve 🌐 (@reserveprotocol) July 9, 2026
Tokens are currently accessible via app.reserve.org, PancakeSwap, CoWSwap, and Bitget Wallet. They are also available on the BNB chain. Bitget has also reportedly launched an $80,000 prize pool trading campaign in relation to these DTFs.
On June 17, Ondo Finance witnessed a welcoming expansion of its tokenized securities offering. This move added 173 new tokenized stocks and ETFs across AI, robotics, quantum, and defense tech, taking its catalog past 430 assets on Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain.
The research protocol leveraged the expanded inventory and took it steps further.
Why BNB Chain, and Why Now BNB Chain currently holds over 709 tokenized stocks and ETFs in custody, with Ondo Global Markets. This accounts for more than $5.1 billion of its $6 billion in cumulative DEX volume. That liquidity depth makes BNB Chain the natural home for new tokenized equity products.
The timing is equally deliberate. Global RWA tokenization crossed $36 billion in on-chain value in 2026, with Ondo alone commanding more than 70% market share in tokenized equities and over $3.7 billion in Total Value Locked.
The broader RWA tokenization platform landscape is experiencing rapid growth, and Reserve Protocol is positioning itself at the intersection of DeFi composability and real-world AI equity exposure.
For non-U.S. investors, historically locked out of AI stocks like Nvidia or TSMC or data center REITs. These Reserve Protocol DTFs offer a first-mover on-chain alternative to traditional AI ETFs. Unlike those ETFs, DTFs trade 24/7, are fully collateralized onchain, and can plug into DeFi lending and collateral protocols.
RSR stakers also stand to benefit. Protocol fees from DTF activity fund $RSR buy-and-burn mechanics, tightening supply as TVL grows.
To understand how these blockchain-based shares function and where to acquire them, read our full review on tokenized US equities trading.
LINK roste nad 7,90 USD, protože spot ETF zaznamenaly druhý den přílivů v řadě a adopce Chainlink CCIP se rozšiřuje přes Mantle a Aave. Spot ETF podle SoSoValue zaznamenaly ve čtvrtek příliv 565 680 USD po přílivu 74 260 USD o den dříve.
Chainlink (LINK) trades above $7.90 on Friday, extending its recovery after posting modest gains in the previous day. Institutional demand shows signs of optimism, with spot Chainlink Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) logging a second straight day of inflows so far this week. In addition, growing ecosystem adoption through Mantle Super Portal and Aave's integration of Chainlink's Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) is supporting LINK's bullish outlook.
Institutional demand shows early signs of strengthInstitutional demand shows signs of optimism so far this week. SoSoValue data shows that spot ETFs recorded inflows of $565,680 on Thursday, following an inflow of $74,260 the previous day. If these inflows continue to strengthen, LINK price could extend the ongoing recovery.
Total LINK spot ETF net inflow daily chart. Source: SoSoValueGrowing ecosystem adoption boosts LINKMantle X account announced on Thursday that its Mantle Super Portal, built with Bybit, is upgrading to Chainlink's Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) as its exclusive cross-chain infrastructure, unlocking enterprise-grade security at scale.
During the same period, Aave announced the launch of Stable Vaults, enabling businesses to embed fixed-rate stablecoin yield into any product, powered by Chainlink CCIP and Price Feeds.
These partnerships and the growing adoption of Chainlink's CCIP signal a bullish long-term outlook for Chainlink and its native token, LINK, boosting ecosystem growth and bolstering investor confidence.
In the short term, these announcements lift prices slightly, with LINK extending its recovery and trading above $7.90 on Friday.
Chainlink Price Forecast: LINK could extend gains if it closes above 50-day EMAChainlink price trades at $7.90 on Friday, extending its rebound after mild gains in the previous day. LINK maintains a capped tone as it holds below the 50-day, 100-day, and 200-day Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs), which all cluster well above price.
The immediate cap emerges at the 23.6% Fibonacci retracement at $7.92, with the 50-day EMA next near $8.12, while the Relative Strength Index (RSI) is around 51 and a positive Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) reading hints at modest upside momentum that so far fails to dislodge these overhead barriers.
On the topside, initial resistance is seen at $7.92 from the 23.6% Fibonacci retracement, followed by the 50-day EMA at roughly $8.12 and the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement level near $8.48. Further up, the 100-day EMA at about $8.68 and the 50% retracement around $8.94 form a thicker supply band ahead of $9.40 and the horizontal cap near $9.93.
On the downside, support is scarce until the horizontal floor around $7.20, with the Fibonacci anchor near $7.01 acting as a deeper line of defense should sellers regain control.
(The technical analysis of this story was written with the help of an AI tool. Know more.)
Circle získala konečné schválení OCC pro národní svěřeneckou banku Circle National Trust, která bude pod přímým dohledem úřadu. Charter má časem umožnit i správu rezervy USDC pod federálním dohledem.
Circle Internet Group, the fintech company behind USDC, one of the world’s largest US dollar-backed stablecoins, has secured final approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to launch Circle National Trust, a federally regulated national trust bank that will oversee key parts of the company’s digital asset infrastructure.
According to a Friday announcement, the approval places the bank under direct OCC supervision and is expected to enhance the regulatory framework supporting USDC through federally regulated custody, with reserve management planned as a future capability.
Advertisement
Circle National Trust will initially provide fiduciary digital asset custody services for Circle and affiliated entities, the company noted. Under its approved business plan, the bank may later expand those services to a limited number of institutional customers, including banks and regulated financial institutions.
Circle also said the charter is designed to eventually allow management of the USDC Reserve within the national trust bank, bringing reserve operations under federal oversight.
The OCC approval marks one of Circle’s most important regulatory achievements to date and reflects the company’s strategy of operating within established financial regulatory frameworks.
The stablecoin issuer has steadily expanded its regulated presence globally, including obtaining approvals under the European Union’s MiCA framework and licenses across multiple international jurisdictions.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Zcash spustí upgrade Ironwood na mainnetu 28. července přibližně v 8:00 EST, o týden později, než původně plánoval. Má uzavřít pool Orchard po objevení chyby „infinity“ v květnu.
Zcash’s Ironwood network upgrade, the solution to an “infinity” bug discovered in May on the privacy-focused blockchain’s main private transaction pool, Orchard, is set to go live on July 28.
Announced in June, Ironwood closes the current Orchard pool, prevents new activity in it and sets up a new private pool. Funds leaving Orchard would have to pass through an accounting checkpoint before entering Ironwood, which could produce evidence about whether any counterfeit Zcash (ZEC) tokens were produced through the Orchard bug.
“Zcash's Ironwood mainnet activation height has been set and tagged! All of the major organizations are committed to activation of NU6.3 at height 3428143, which is approximately July 28th at 8AM EST,” Zcash core developer Sean Bowe said on Thursday.
Source: Sean Bowe
Shielded Labs had floated delaying Zcash’s Ironwood upgrade, warning that ecosystem participants such as exchanges, mining pools and wallets would not have enough time to prepare their systems for a late-July mainnet activation. Bowe’s latest comment confirms the upgrade will go ahead one week later than its earlier target date of July 21.
In June, Shielded Labs said Ironwood may provide evidence about whether the Orchard vulnerability was ever exploited.
“As users migrate funds from the existing Orchard pool to the new pool, any hypothetical counterfeiter faces a choice: attempt to move counterfeit funds and risk exposing their existence, or leave them behind and risk being unable to move them in the future.”
ZEC plummeted 50% to $299.25 from $602.68 after the disclosure of the Orchard bug on June 3. The price of ZEC has made a partial recovery in the weeks following and is trading at $492.61 at the time of writing.
Zcash crossed a major monetary milestone this week, with more than 80% of its maximum 21 million ZEC supply now issued. A post from ruZCASH on Monday shows that there is now 16,806,723 ZEC in supply.
Magazine: Bitcoin’s quantum dilemma: Bigger blocks or STARK proofs?
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.
A wave of payment-focused developments announced in June has significantly boosted Solana’s position in the digital finance ecosystem. According to Solana Payments data, Mastercard has launched seamless stablecoin settlement on the Solana network and brought Solana into its machine-centric Agent Pay initiative. These steps in payment infrastructure signal that the Solana network is gaining visibility not just in crypto transactions but also in everyday financial use cases.
Institutional payment adoption gains tractionIn South Korea, leading payment provider KG Inicis reached an agreement to explore stablecoin payments across its merchant network, which processes close to 25 trillion won per year. MoneyGram has also begun staking SOL to participate in network validation while expanding payment services to over 60 million customers worldwide. These moves underline the growing interest among major institutions in integrating Solana’s blockchain for real-world payment scenarios.
As Mastercard rolled out 24/7 stablecoin settlement on Solana, institutions like KG Inicis and MoneyGram have also begun evaluating the network for their payment services.
Digital bank Toss Bank has started pilot testing stablecoin transfers for its 15 million users. SoFiUSD grew its supply on Solana by $200 million within just five weeks. The Solana ecosystem continues to expand with new offerings like the Canadian dollar-backed CADC stablecoin and Open USD, which is supported by a consortium of major financial institutions.
The addition of subscription and allowance features to Solana means that recurring payments, payroll, and invoicing can now be executed directly on the blockchain, eliminating the need for third-party apps. The platform also highlights solutions such as international corporate banking, digital prepaid cards, and crypto-based lending products that use wallet behavior instead of traditional credit scores.
Network data points to rapid growthSince January 2025, the amount of stablecoins on the Solana network has surged by 154%, reaching $14.75 billion. Payment volume has jumped 87% compared to the same period last year. Card-based payment transactions alone have totaled $420 million. Solana’s share in the cryptocurrency payments sector climbed from 5.43% to an impressive 10.1%.
IndicatorDataStablecoin supply$14.75 billionIncrease since start of 2025154%Annual payment volume growth87%Card payment volume$420 millionMarket share5.43% → 10.1%According to Birdeye’s data from the first half of 2026, over half of Solana’s stablecoin total is made up of USDC, now spread across 7.54 million wallets. For seven consecutive weeks, Solana has ranked first among blockchains in USDC transfer volume. Birdeye is recognized as a leading crypto analysis platform for on-chain data and market tracking.
Mini glossary: Stablecoin settlement refers to the finalization of payments using digital assets that are typically pegged to fiat currencies like the dollar. USDC is a widely used, dollar-pegged stablecoin issued by Circle.
In the current week alone, the network processed 22.7 million transactions, equivalent to about one third of all USDC transaction volume. During the same period, payroll payments on Solana reached $1.6 billion, with peer-to-peer transfers among retail users totaling $803 million.
Key technical levels in focus for SOLAnalyst Celal Kucuker notes that SOL’s price continues to demonstrate resilience and retains its upward potential. He highlights the $77 level as a critical support zone, marking the intersection of previous price action and important Fibonacci retracement points.
Celal Kucuker assesses that if SOL breaks above the descending monthly trend established at the start of 2025, resistance areas at $145 and $188 may come into play.
Should SOL maintain its position above the downward trendline, the $145 and $188 levels are likely to emerge as the next resistance points. However, if the support is lost, the current bullish scenario may weaken, possibly delaying broader upward momentum in the market.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.
Hackeři kompromitovali npm balíček Injective a nasadili malware ke krádeži privátních klíčů a seed frází. Balíček měl kolem 50 000 týdenních stažení, ale škodlivý kód už byl odstraněn.
Hackers compromised a widely used Injective software package in a supply chain attack with malware designed to steal crypto wallet private keys, adding to a growing attack vector involving attackers using legitimate platforms to deliver malicious payloads.
Security firm Socket discovered on Thursday that a popular npm (node package manager) package with around 50,000 weekly downloads used for building on the Injective blockchain was maliciously modified to steal wallet private keys and seed phrases.
The large number of downloads makes the incident “significant for developers and applications that handle Injective wallet workflows,” Socket researchers said. The malicious code has since been removed.
The software supply chain attack is a relatively new attack vector in which hackers don’t target a blockchain’s cryptography or smart contracts directly, but instead compromise trusted developer tools used to build wallets, exchanges and apps.
Injective is an interoperable layer 1 designed for DeFi applications. Its usage has dwindled over the past two years, with total value locked shrinking by 88% to current levels of $8.2 million from its $71 million peak in mid-2024, according to DefiLlama.
Secretly copying private keys and phrasesVersion 1.20.21 of the @injectivelabs/sdk-ts npm package was modified through a compromised developer GitHub account, with suspicious commits beginning June 8. It was also pinned across 17 other packages in the Injective Labs npm scope, “exposing users who may not have installed the SDK [software development kit] directly,” Socket said.
“The malicious release hooks wallet key-derivation functions, records private keys and mnemonics, and exfiltrates them through fake telemetry,” Socket explained.
The malicious code hooked into normal functions used to generate wallet keys, and whenever a developer’s app used these functions, it secretly copied the seed phrase or private key. The compromised data was then encoded and sent to a web address that looked like a legitimate Injective network server.
“Any keys or mnemonics passed through affected packages should be treated as compromised,” Socket added.
Socket reported that the developer whose account was infiltrated quickly detected the compromise, but the malware had been downloaded more than 300 times, and “the campaign itself isn’t yet fully contained.”
Injective CEO Eric Chen said, “it’s already fixed, and the affected versions on npm are already deprecated.” No funds on the network are at risk, he added, and Socket did not specify whether any funds were stolen in the incident.
The compromised npm package was downloaded 310 times. Source: Socket
Wallet compromises most costly this yearThe Security Alliance (SEAL) said in its second-quarter threat report that attackers are increasingly using legitimate platforms like GitHub, npm and Google to deliver payloads.
“In some cases, compromised systems are being used to push malicious code directly into a company’s own GitHub repositories, turning a single compromise into a distribution channel for the next one.”SEAL added that the malware itself has also gotten more comprehensive, “with cross-platform payloads, including a rise in macOS-specific campaigns, that combine infostealers, RATs (remote access trojans) and backdoor capabilities in a single package.”
A similar supply chain attack hit Axios npm releases in March, while a malware campaign called TrapDoor was discovered in May targeting crypto, DeFi, AI and security developers.
GitHub itself was exploited on May 20 when it reported unauthorized access to its internal repositories following the compromise of an employee’s device.
Wallet compromises were the most costly attack vector in the first half of 2026, with $444 million stolen across 33 incidents, CertiK reported Monday.
Features: Bitcoin’s quantum dilemma: Bigger blocks or STARK proofs?
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.
Robinhood Chain za první týden po spuštění přilákal více než 70 milionů USD v bridgovaném Etheru. Síť zároveň hlásí TVL nad 106 milionů USD a denní objem obchodů na Uniswapu 500 milionů USD.
Robinhood Chain has attracted more than $70 million worth of bridged Ether within its first week, strengthening Ethereum’s role as the settlement layer behind the brokerage’s new tokenized finance network.
Summary
Robinhood Chain has attracted more than $70 million in bridged Ether within its first week after launch. Daily Uniswap trading volume has reached $500 million while total value locked has climbed above $106 million, supported by institutional liquidity. Token Terminal said continued adoption of Robinhood Chain could create a meaningful new source of demand for Ether. Data from Token Terminal showed the Arbitrum-based layer-2 network crossed the milestone after launching on July 1, with the analytics platform saying continued adoption could make the chain “a meaningful new source of demand for ETH.”
ETH bridged from @ethereum (L1) to Robinhood Chain (L2) is up by ~70x in the past week, surpassing $70M@RobinhoodApp Chain uses ETH as its native gas token
If adoption continues, the chain could become a meaningful new source of demand for ethereum:native pic.twitter.com/ihvgnut9Hz
— Token Terminal 📊 (@tokenterminal) July 9, 2026 Robinhood introduced the EVM-compatible network as an “AI-native” blockchain built for real-world assets, using ETH as its native gas token. The launch coincided with the company’s rollout of tokenized US stocks to customers in more than 120 countries, expanding its push into blockchain-based financial products.
Recent on-chain data also points to rapid ecosystem growth. Earlier this week, DeFiLlama data showed Robinhood Chain’s total value locked had climbed above $106 million after large institutional deposits into the Morpho lending protocol, while daily Uniswap trading volume reached $500 million, placing the network behind only Ethereum mainnet over the same period.
Ethereum demand grows alongside Robinhood Chain activity Alongside the rise in bridged assets, Token Terminal said Robinhood Chain has been converting liquidity into on-chain activity. According to the firm, daily active users reached 194,000 while daily revenue climbed to about $39,000, implying an annualized run rate of roughly $14 million.
DeFiLlama reported similar growth, showing the network held 46,748 ETH, worth about $83 million at current prices, before TVL later expanded beyond $100 million. The platform added that inflows on Thursday alone totaled 31,855 ETH, or roughly $55 million.
Commenting on the network’s activity, Uniswap founder Hayden Adams said most transactions on Robinhood Chain are denominated in ETH.
“It’s the base pair for trading, the highest volume asset, and the gas token to pay for blockspace,” Adams wrote, adding that the network also burns ETH on Ethereum’s mainnet to cover data storage costs.
Institutional participation has also accelerated liquidity growth. According to DeFiLlama, nearly $90 million of the chain’s locked value is held on Morpho, where Robinhood Earn offers around 7% annual percentage yield on USDG deposits. The biggest contribution came from Ethena, which deposited $50 million into a Steakhouse Financial-managed USDG vault in a single transaction.
Institutional flows support early momentum The growing activity comes as Robinhood continues expanding its tokenized finance ecosystem. Trading on the network has centered on Wrapped Ether (WETH), memecoins, and tokenized equities including NVDA, AAPL, and GOOG, while Robinhood launched the chain with support for Uniswap’s v2, v3, v4, and UniswapX infrastructure.
RWA.xyz data shows Ethereum and its layer-2 networks account for more than half of the tokenized real-world asset market, giving Robinhood Chain access to an ecosystem that already dominates the sector.
Venice AI dosahuje 70 milionů USD v anualizovaných opakovaných příjmech díky integraci s Bittensor subnetem 11 a zhruba 1,7 milionu denních API volání. Delphi Digital odhaduje jeho celkové ARR na asi 200 milionů USD.
Venice AI is pulling in $70 million in annualized recurring revenue through its integration with Bittensor subnet 11, powered by roughly 1.7 million daily API calls.
Delphi Digital, the crypto research firm, projects Venice AI’s total ARR at approximately $200M based on a recent three-week window of subscriber data tracking.
Inside the revenue machine Subnet 11, which previously operated under the name Dippy and has since evolved into TrajectoryRL, specializes in roleplay, companion AI, and prompt optimization. The 1.7 million daily API calls flowing through this subnet translate into revenue-backed demand for subnet tokens.
Advertisement
TrajectoryRL itself documented roughly $50,000 in revenue during a single month. Scale that across the broader Venice ecosystem and you start to see how the $200M ARR projection from Delphi Digital isn’t just wishful math.
Venice AI distinguishes itself by running a privacy-focused, uncensored AI platform. Its flagship model, Venice Uncensored 1.2, was trained using compute from Bittensor’s Targon subnet. The platform offers chat, image generation, and coding tools.
The token economics behind the curtain Venice’s native token, VVV, began trading in January 2025 and has experienced significant price appreciation amid the broader AI narrative sweeping crypto markets. Holders can stake VVV for API access and earn DIEM credits that translate into computational resources on the network.
The broader Bittensor ecosystem reported approximately $43 million in revenue during Q1 2026 across all subnets.
What this means for investors NVIDIA has been engaging with the decentralized AI market. Institutional interest in decentralized AI infrastructure has been quietly building.
For investors evaluating the VVV token or the broader Bittensor ecosystem, the key metric to watch is sustained API call volume. Revenue projections based on three-week windows, however carefully tracked by firms like Delphi Digital, can be volatile.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
KelpDAO exploit přes LayerZero připravil útočníkům cestu k odcizení 116 500 rsETH v hodnotě 292 milionů USD. LayerZero uvedlo, že chce odstranit single-DVN konfigurace.
A single compromised oracle just cost someone $292 million. The KelpDAO exploit, which drained 116,500 rsETH through LayerZero’s infrastructure on April 18, marks one of the largest DeFi hacks of the year, and it happened because of something the industry has been quietly ignoring: cross-chain protocols are essentially oracle networks, and oracle networks have single points of failure.
Chronicle Labs CEO Niklas Kunkel put it bluntly. Interoperability protocols like LayerZero and Chainlink CCIP are, at their core, oracles. Every time a project uses cross-chain communication, it’s placing its trust in these verification systems. When that trust gets exploited, the results are catastrophic.
How the attack unfolded The breach targeted LayerZero’s Decentralized Verifier Network, or DVN, which is the infrastructure responsible for validating cross-chain messages. Attackers compromised internal RPC nodes through social engineering, essentially tricking their way into the system rather than breaking through code.
LayerZero Labs published its incident report on May 20, attributing the attack to TraderTraitor, a North Korean threat actor linked to the Lazarus Group.
Advertisement
Here’s the thing about LayerZero’s architecture. It separates oracles (verifiers) from relayers to create a system of checks and balances for cross-chain validation. In theory, this dual-layer approach makes attacks harder. In practice, KelpDAO was running a single-DVN configuration, which meant compromising one verification layer was enough to drain the entire protocol.
The oracle problem nobody wanted to talk about LayerZero’s model was supposed to be different. By letting applications choose their own security configurations, including which DVNs to use and how many to require, the protocol positioned itself as more flexible and potentially more secure than monolithic bridge designs. But flexibility cuts both ways. When projects opt for minimal security setups to save on costs or reduce complexity, they’re effectively choosing speed over safety.
The incident report from LayerZero Labs outlined plans to improve security protocols and eliminate single-DVN setups in future deployments.
When you bridge assets across chains, you’re not just moving tokens. You’re trusting an oracle to correctly verify that a transaction happened on Chain A before releasing funds on Chain B. If that oracle lies, or is forced to lie, the money is gone.
Chronicle Labs and the redundancy argument Chronicle Labs, which Kunkel founded after spinning the company off from MakerDAO in 2023, has been building decentralized oracle infrastructure for both tokenized assets and real-world assets. The firm has historically secured over $20 billion in assets and raised $12 million in seed funding in March 2025.
The company’s pitch centers on redundancy and robust verification, which is exactly the opposite of what failed in the KelpDAO exploit. Rather than allowing single points of failure, Chronicle’s approach emphasizes multiple layers of validation that an attacker would need to compromise simultaneously.
What this means for investors and builders Investors with assets deployed across multiple chains need to understand that every bridge interaction carries oracle risk. A protocol using multiple independent DVNs presents a fundamentally different risk profile than one using a single verifier, even if both run on the same underlying LayerZero technology.
For builders, the cost savings from running minimal verification setups now need to be weighed against the existential risk of a complete protocol drain. LayerZero’s commitment to eliminating single-DVN configurations will likely become an industry standard, not a differentiator.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Hyperliquid od října 2025 snížil kvartální objem obchodování zhruba o 35 %, přesto si drží 32 % až 44 % trhu perpetual DEX. RWA nyní tvoří asi 30 % objemu a v Q1 2026 dosáhl celkový objem 633 miliard USD.
Hyperliquid’s quarterly notional trading volume has fallen roughly 35% since October 2025, a steep decline for a platform that was setting records just months ago. But buried inside that headline number is a more interesting story: real-world asset trading now accounts for about 30% of total volume on the platform, and that share keeps climbing.
The volume decline in context During Q1 2026, the platform still managed $633 billion in total trading volume.
Hyperliquid has also maintained between 32% and 44% of the perpetual DEX market throughout this period. Losing volume while keeping market share means the whole category contracted, not just one player.
Advertisement
RWA trading fills the gap RWA volume now constitutes approximately 30% of total platform activity, up meaningfully from prior quarters. At certain points during Q1 and Q2 2026, that figure peaked between 44% and 47% of total volume. In other words, nearly half of all trading on a crypto-native DEX was happening in assets like crude oil, gold, silver, and the S&P 500.
Open interest in RWA perpetuals hit an all-time high of $2.6 billion in May 2026, doubling from $1.3 billion just two months earlier in March.
If you want to hedge an S&P 500 position at 2 AM on a Sunday, your options in traditional finance range from limited to nonexistent. Hyperliquid’s RWA perpetuals fill that gap with 24/7 liquidity, no brokerage account required.
What this means for investors For HYPE token holders specifically, the token serves as the backbone of the ecosystem, used for staking, governance, fee payments, and user incentives, with a maximum supply capped at 1 billion. A decline in overall volume would normally be bearish for a platform token, since less trading typically means less fee revenue. But the growth in RWA trading introduces a new revenue stream and a new user base that could prove more durable than crypto-native speculation.
The risk to watch is regulatory. Traditional financial instruments trading on decentralized platforms exists in a gray area that regulators haven’t fully addressed. Hyperliquid’s 32% to 44% market share makes it a large enough target to attract attention.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Bitdeer otevře v Nevadě továrnu za 36 milionů USD na výrobu strojů SEALMINER pro těžbu bitcoinu, komerční produkce má začít do konce roku 2026. Akcie po oznámení vzrostly o 14,1 %.
Bitdeer Technologies has unveiled a $36 million manufacturing facility in Nevada, bringing production of its SEALMINER Bitcoin mining machines to the United States.
Summary
Bitdeer will invest $36 million in a Nevada factory to produce SEALMINER Bitcoin mining machines. The new Sparks facility is expected to begin commercial production by the end of 2026. Bitdeer shares jumped 14.1% as the company reported stronger U.S. manufacturing and 921 BTC mined in May. According to Bitdeer, the new plant in Sparks, Nevada, will manufacture key components for the company’s SEALMINER mining rigs, with commercial production scheduled to begin before the end of 2026. The company said the facility will strengthen its manufacturing capacity inside the United States while reducing its dependence on outside suppliers for critical mining equipment.
Shares of Bitdeer responded positively to the announcement, climbing 14.1% on Thursday to $14.33. Even after the rally, the stock remains about 27% below its June peak, although it has gained roughly 26% since the beginning of the year.
Nevada incentives support local manufacturing expansion Details released by Bitdeer show the Singapore-based company worked with Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo’s administration and local officials before selecting Sparks for the project. According to comments made by Bitdeer CEO Catherine Guo to local media, the state approved tax incentives, including reduced qualifying sales taxes, as part of the investment package supporting the facility.
Commercial production is expected to begin by year-end, allowing Bitdeer to manufacture more of its mining hardware domestically instead of relying as heavily on third-party suppliers. The company said the plant will focus specifically on Bitcoin mining equipment rather than artificial intelligence hardware.
Although the new factory centers on mining machines, Bitdeer has also expanded into AI cloud computing and high-performance computing services in recent years. According to the company, those businesses will continue separately from the Nevada manufacturing operation.
Bitcoin miners continue adding AI businesses Across the industry, publicly traded Bitcoin miners are investing beyond cryptocurrency mining as they seek additional revenue from power-intensive computing businesses.
MARA Holdings announced on Thursday that it plans to acquire a Texas site capable of supporting up to 2 gigawatts of capacity for AI and digital infrastructure projects. The company said the expansion will increase its ability to serve artificial intelligence workloads alongside its existing mining operations.
Earlier in the week, TeraWulf announced a 20-year data center lease agreement with AI startup Anthropic. According to TeraWulf, the contract could generate about $19 billion in revenue over its lifetime, highlighting the growing interest among mining companies in long-term AI infrastructure deals.
While several competitors are directing more resources toward AI data centers, Bitdeer continues expanding both its mining operations and supporting infrastructure. The Nevada facility adds manufacturing to that strategy by giving the company greater control over the production of its own mining hardware.
Separately, Bitdeer’s latest production update showed the company mined 921 Bitcoin during May. According to Bitdeer, the figure represents a 370% increase compared with the same month a year earlier, underscoring the rapid growth of its mining business as it adds new infrastructure and equipment.
The combination of higher Bitcoin production and domestic manufacturing comes as mining companies continue adjusting their business models after the latest Bitcoin halving. While many firms are pursuing AI-related contracts to diversify earnings, Bitdeer’s latest investment keeps its manufacturing expansion closely tied to its core Bitcoin mining business while increasing its presence in the United States.
BitGo spustilo sadu nástrojů pro řízení kvantových rizik pro institucionální bitcoinové peněženky. Nové funkce mají snížit expozici veřejných klíčů a zlepšit správu adres.
BitGo has introduced a suite of quantum risk management tools for institutional Bitcoin wallets, aiming to help clients identify, assess and reduce potential exposure to future quantum computing threats before they become a practical concern.
The tools expand BitGo's multi-signature custody platform with operational controls designed to improve wallet security, strengthen address management and reduce public key exposure across UTXO-based Bitcoin wallets, according to a statement on Thursday.
Quantum-risk tools target future computing threatsThe launch comes as concerns grow over the long-term implications of quantum computing on cryptocurrency protocols. While quantum computers capable of breaking Bitcoin's cryptography do not yet exist, security experts have increasingly urged institutions to prepare well in advance for the possibility.
"BitGo is investing in the foundation required for a post-quantum future for our clients," said BitGo CEO and co-founder Mike Belshe.
The firm noted that its multi-signature wallet architecture already minimizes unnecessary key exposure by using strict address hygiene and generating new addresses for Bitcoin transactions. The latest release adds new tools that provide institutions with greater visibility into wallet exposure and workflows for reducing potential risks at scale.
BitGo expands wallet risk management capabilitiesAmong the new features is a Quantum Risk Score that measures potential quantum-related exposure across supported Bitcoin wallets. The platform also introduces a smart UTXO selection method that groups and prioritizes unspent transaction outputs by address, helping reduce exposure that can arise from partial Bitcoin spends.
"We believe the safest key is one whose public key has never been revealed onchain. These capabilities give institutions a practical way to understand and reduce quantum exposure while continuing to rely on the proven security of multi-signature,” Belshe added.
BitGo has also added a guided "Fix Exposed Addresses" workflow, allowing institutions to move funds from addresses with elevated exposure into newly generated addresses with improved key hygiene.
In addition, updated default address-type controls are designed to reduce reliance on Bitcoin address formats and transaction patterns that may introduce additional quantum-related considerations.
The company noted that the tools are intended to complement, rather than replace, future protocol-level upgrades that could introduce post-quantum cryptographic protections to the Bitcoin network.
"Nobody has a quantum computer that can touch Bitcoin today, but that's exactly why the work should start now, while it's calm and optional rather than urgent and forced," Blockstream co-founder Adam Back stated.
BitGo noted that the new capabilities apply to supported UTXO-based assets and multi-signature wallet configurations, enabling institutions to proactively manage address-level risks using currently available technologies.
Ve 2. čtvrtletí 2026 veřejně obchodované firmy nakoupily 110 000 BTC, téměř dvojnásobek proti předchozím dvěma čtvrtletím dohromady. Jejich držby už přesahují 1,26 milionu BTC, tedy více než 6 % nabídky Bitcoinu.
Public companies went on a Bitcoin shopping spree in Q2 2026 that makes their prior accumulation look like a warm-up lap. Over the quarter, publicly traded firms collectively scooped up 110,000 BTC, a figure that’s 1.8 times the total they acquired across the previous two quarters combined.
Total corporate Bitcoin holdings now exceed 1.26 million BTC, valued at roughly $79 billion. That’s more than 6% of Bitcoin’s hard-capped 21 million supply locked up in public company balance sheets.
Corporations are outpacing the miners Year-to-date through early July 2026, public companies have added a net 166,984 BTC to their reserves. During that same stretch, Bitcoin miners produced approximately 81,153 BTC.
In English: corporations are buying more than twice the amount of new Bitcoin entering existence. When a growing number of buyers compete for a shrinking pool of available coins, the float gets squeezed.
Advertisement
Who’s doing the buying No surprise at the top of the leaderboard. Strategy, the firm formerly known as MicroStrategy, remains the undisputed heavyweight champion of corporate Bitcoin accumulation. The company holds approximately 843,775 to 847,000 BTC.
Interestingly, even Strategy isn’t purely in accumulation mode anymore. The company sold 3,588 BTC in late June and early July, a tiny fraction of its total stack but notable because it represents one of the few times the firm has moved coins out the door rather than in.
Behind Strategy, two names have emerged as serious contenders. Twenty One Capital holds around 43,500 BTC, while Metaplanet has built a position of roughly 43,000 BTC.
The concentration is worth noting. Strategy alone accounts for roughly two-thirds of all publicly held corporate Bitcoin. The remaining third is spread across a growing but still relatively small cohort of companies.
What this means for investors The supply-demand imbalance is the headline risk and opportunity. With corporate buyers absorbing more than double the new supply being mined, Bitcoin’s available float is shrinking in real time.
There’s a reflexivity problem worth watching. Many of these companies fund their Bitcoin purchases by issuing equity or convertible notes. That works beautifully when Bitcoin’s price is rising and investor appetite for these instruments is strong. It works considerably less well during drawdowns, when the same companies face margin pressure and potentially need to sell into weakness. Strategy’s small sale in late June could be a one-off, or it could be a preview of what happens when even the most committed holders need liquidity.
The 6% supply concentration in public company hands also introduces a new category of systemic risk. If a major holder ever faced a forced liquidation, whether from regulatory action, a corporate restructuring, or a leveraged position gone wrong, the market impact could be severe. Bitcoin has never had this much supply held by entities subject to quarterly earnings calls and SEC filings.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Na amerických burzách se nyní obchoduje sedm XRP ETF; pět hlavních spotových fondů drželo začátkem června 2026 čistá aktiva ve výši 927,78 milionu USD. Celkové čisté přílivy od listopadu 2025 dosáhly zhruba 1,47 miliardy USD.
Seven different XRP exchange-traded funds now trade on US exchanges. The five primary spot funds alone held $927.78 million in combined net assets as of early June 2026, while cumulative net inflows across the XRP ETF complex have reached roughly $1.47 billion since the first fund launched in November 2025. If you’ve searched for a specific ticker — XRPI, XRPC, GXRP, TOXR — and come away more confused about which fund is which, you’re not alone: these products launched within months of each other in late 2025 and early 2026, each from a different issuer, with different fee structures and, in one case, futures-based rather than spot exposure. Here’s the complete breakdown.
Key Takeaways Seven XRP ETFs currently trade in the US: Bitwise (XRP), Canary Capital (XRPC), Franklin Templeton (XRPZ), Grayscale (GXRP), REX-Osprey (XRPR), 21Shares (TOXR), and Volatility Shares (XRPI) Six of the seven hold spot XRP directly in institutional custody; XRPI is a futures-based product tracking CME XRP futures contracts rather than holding spot XRP directly Fees range from 0.19% (Franklin Templeton’s XRPZ) to 0.75%, with several issuers running temporary fee waivers to attract early assets All can be bought through standard brokerage accounts — Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, Robinhood — without needing a crypto wallet or private keys Grayscale’s GXRP originated as a private trust before converting to ETF structure, which is why it sometimes appears in searches as “Grayscale XRP Trust” The Complete List of XRP ETFs TickerIssuerStructureExpense RatioCustodianLaunchXRPBitwiseSpot0.34%Coinbase PrimeNov 19-20, 2025XRPCCanary CapitalSpot0.50%Gemini Trust + BitGo TrustNov 12-13, 2025XRPZFranklin TempletonSpot0.19%—Late 2025GXRPGrayscaleSpot (converted trust)~0.35%—Early 2026TOXR21SharesSpot (ETP structure)~0.34%—Nov 2025XRPRREX-OspreySpot~0.75%—Late 2025XRPIVolatility SharesFutures-based (1x)0.94%—May 22, 2025 Fee and custodian figures for Bitwise and Canary Capital are confirmed via SEC filings and fund provider data. Figures for the remaining five issuers are drawn from secondary reporting and haven’t been independently verified against primary sources — always confirm current terms directly with the issuer or your brokerage before investing.
What Actually Happened, and Why So Many Launched at Once Spot XRP ETFs became possible only after the SEC resolved the long-running legal uncertainty around XRP’s regulatory status in 2025. Once that cleared, approvals came in a wave rather than one at a time — multiple issuers had registration statements sitting ready, and Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse described the resulting rush of near-simultaneous launches as a “pre-Thanksgiving rush” when Bitwise’s fund debuted in November 2025. Bitwise’s XRP ETF became the first mover and quickly the most liquid, reporting over $100 million in inflows in its opening days. Canary Capital’s XRPC and 21Shares’ TOXR followed within the same window.
Demand has been uneven but persistent since launch. May 2026 was the strongest month yet for the complex, with $131.94 million in net inflows, and as of late June the funds had strung together eight consecutive weeks of positive flows. Retail investors have driven the bulk of that demand — accounting for roughly 84% of inflows by some estimates — while larger institutional participation has moved in fits and starts; Goldman Sachs, for instance, built and then fully exited a $153.8 million XRP ETF position within two quarterly filings. For the latest on how these funds are trading, see today’s XRP news.
XRPI Is Different From the Others — Here’s What to Know Most searches for individual XRP ETF tickers assume every fund works the same way: hold XRP, track its price 1:1. That’s true for six of the seven funds, but not for XRPI. Volatility Shares’ product, which launched earliest of the group on May 22, 2025, doesn’t hold spot XRP at all — instead, it invests principally in XRP futures contracts traded on the CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) through a wholly-owned Cayman Islands subsidiary, a structure commonly used by futures-based crypto ETFs to manage tax treatment. It targets 1x daily XRP performance, not a leveraged or amplified return, but the futures-based mechanics mean its returns can still diverge from spot XRP over time due to factors like futures roll costs — a nuance that doesn’t apply to the six spot-holding funds on this list. Volatility Shares separately offers a genuinely leveraged 2x product under a different ticker (XRPT), which is a distinct fund from XRPI and worth not confusing with it. If you’re looking for the most direct XRP price exposure, one of the six spot funds tracks the underlying asset more cleanly; XRPI is a futures-based alternative for investors who prefer that structure specifically.
Grayscale’s GXRP: Trust-to-ETF Conversion Explained Grayscale’s XRP product has a different history than the others. It originated as a privately-traded trust — the kind of structure Grayscale has long used to offer crypto exposure to investors before spot ETFs existed for a given asset — and later converted into a standard ETF. That conversion matters practically: trust shares often trade at a premium or discount to the underlying asset’s actual value, while properly functioning ETFs use a creation/redemption mechanism that keeps share price closely tied to net asset value. Now that GXRP trades as a converted ETF, that discount/premium dynamic has largely resolved, giving holders cleaner price tracking than the legacy trust structure offered.
How to Buy an XRP ETF Every fund on this list trades on standard US exchanges (NYSE, Nasdaq, or Cboe BZX) and can be purchased the same way you’d buy any stock or ETF:
Open or log into a brokerage account — Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, and Robinhood all support these tickers Search the specific ticker symbol (XRP, XRPC, XRPZ, GXRP, TOXR, XRPR, or XRPI) Place a standard buy order, same as purchasing any equity ETF No crypto wallet, exchange account, or private key management is required — the fund’s custodian (Bitwise uses Coinbase Prime; Canary Capital splits custody between Gemini Trust and BitGo Trust; other issuers use their own arrangements) holds the underlying XRP, and your brokerage account holds shares representing your claim on it.
Frequently Asked Questions What is XRPI? XRPI is Volatility Shares' XRP ETF, and the earliest-launched fund on this list (May 2025). Unlike the other six funds, it doesn't hold spot XRP — it invests in CME XRP futures contracts and targets 1x daily XRP performance. It's a different structure than a leveraged product, but futures-based mechanics mean returns can still diverge from spot XRP over time.
What is XRPC? XRPC is Canary Capital's spot XRP ETF, one of the first XRP ETFs to launch in the US in late 2025. It holds XRP directly in institutional custody and trades on Nasdaq.
When were XRP ETFs approved? The SEC approved the first spot XRP ETFs in late 2025 after resolving prior legal uncertainty around XRP's regulatory status. Bitwise's fund launched first on November 20, 2025, with Canary Capital, 21Shares, Franklin Templeton, Grayscale, and REX-Osprey following within the subsequent months.
What is Grayscale's XRP ETF called? Grayscale's XRP product trades under the ticker GXRP. It originated as a private trust before converting to a standard ETF structure, which is why some searches reference it as the "Grayscale XRP Trust."
How many XRP ETFs are there? As of mid-2026, seven XRP ETFs trade in the US: Bitwise (XRP), Canary Capital (XRPC), Franklin Templeton (XRPZ), Grayscale (GXRP), REX-Osprey (XRPR), 21Shares (TOXR), and Volatility Shares (XRPI). The five primary spot funds held a combined $927.78 million in net assets as of early June 2026, with cumulative net inflows across the complex reaching roughly $1.47 billion since November 2025. Contentgoogle_us_solana-wallet-tracker_serp-overview_2026-07-08_14-01-09.csvcsvgoogle_us_usd1-stablecoin_serp-overview_2026-07-08_14-01-17.csvcsvgoogle_us_usd1-stablecoin_matching-terms_2026-07-08_14-13-16.csvcsvgoogle_us_usd1-stablecoin_matching-terms_2026-07-08_14-13-53.csvcsvgoogle_us_usd1-stablecoin_related-terms_2026-07-08_14-13-23.csvcsvgoogle_us_usd1-stablecoin_related-terms_2026-07-08_14-14-13.csvcsvgoogle_us_usd1-stablecoin_related-terms_2026-07-08_14-14-22.csvcsvgoogle_us_usd1-stablecoin_serp-overview_2026-07-08_14-12-12.csvcsvblockchainreporter.net-dogecoin-price-conten_2026-07-08_14-23-12.csvcsv-content-gap-us_2026-07-08_14-43-13.csvcsvblockchainreporter.net-organic-keywords-sub_2026-07-08_15-14-10.csvcsvblockchainreporter.net-top-pages-subdomains_2026-07-08_15-14-01.csvcsvblockchainreporter.net-organic-keywords-sub_2026-07-08_23-25-57.csvcsvblockchainreporter.net-top-pages-subdomains_2026-07-08_23-25-52.csvcsvblockchainreporter.net-organic-keywords-histo_2026-07-09_02-58-12.csvcsvblockchainreporter.net-organic-keywords-sub_2026-07-09_19-02-46.csvcsvblockchainreporter.net-top-pages-subdomains_2026-07-09_19-02-42.csvcsvblockchainreporter.net-content-gap-domain-us_2026-07-09_19-08-38.csvcsvgoogle_us_societe-generale-euro_serp-overview_2026-07-09_19-12-42.csvcsvgoogle_us_xrp-etf-news_matching-terms_2026-07-09_19-33-14.csvcsvgoogle_us_xrp-etf-news_related-terms_2026-07-09_19-33-21.csvcsvgoogle_us_xrp-etf-news_serp-overview_2026-07-09_19-32-05.csvcsvgoogle_us_xrpc_serp-overview_2026-07-09_19-35-29.csvcsvgoogle_us_xrpi_serp-overview_2026-07-09_19-35-13.csvcsvgoogle_us_xrp-etf-inflows-2026_serp-overview_2026-07-09_19-45-33.csvcsv
AUTHOR
Max delves deep into the cryptocurrency realm, with a passion for altcoins and NFTs. Convinced of crypto's transformative potential, he envisions a decentralized financial future. Max's background in the financial sector grants him unique insights into global monetary systems. In his leisure, Max embraces the thrill of adventures and is an avid sports enthusiast, finding balance and rejuvenation away from work.
XRP dnes, 9. července, vzrostl o 1,6 % na 1,09 USD poté, co SWIFT oznámil pilotní projekt s 17 bankami pro blockchainové přeshraniční platby. Některé z nich jsou napojené na Ripple, ale podle analytika SWIFT token XRP nepoužije.
XRP price is up by 1.6% today, July 9, to trade at $1.09 at the time of writing. These gains come as SWIFT announces that it will be working with 17 banks, some of which are affiliated with Ripple, for a pilot phase for its blockchain-based ledger.
SWIFT Partners With Banks For Tokenized Cross-Border Payments SWIFT has announced that it will be working with 17 banks to check whether its blockchain can be used to facilitate payments made between countries.
Some of the banks named in this project, like Standard Chartered and UBS, use Ripple to custody crypto assets or to enable payments across countries using the XRP Ledger.
This initiative comes after Ripple Treasury joined the SWIFT Certified Partner Program in April 2026.
However, an analyst on X notes that Ripple’s partnership with SWIFT might not be bullish for the price of XRP because SWIFT will not use the XRP token on its blockchain-based ledger.
“Sorry $XRP holders, but the “bridge currency” and “liquidity” is tokenized deposits; not a L1 gas token,” the analyst said.
Still, XRP price made a slight gain of 1.5% on the news of SWIFT working with banks affiliated with Ripple.
XRP Technical Outlook as Price Remains Below Key EMA Levels The price of XRP has closed below the 20-day EMA of $1.11 for three straight days. This move suggests that the short-term trend is favoring bears.
If XRP fails to recover above this 20-day EMA, the price could drop to the psychological support of $1.
A drop to $1 could increase selling pressure that could pull the price down to the November 2024 low of $0.87.
However, buyers might come back because geopolitical tensions are easing after Trump said that Iran wants to make a deal for peace to end the conflict that began in February 2026.
This buying pressure could push the XRP price to the 50-day EMA level of $1.17.
XRP Price Chart However, the RSI reading of 43 suggests that the momentum is favoring bears and XRP could drop tp $0.87.
XRP ETFs Record Highest Outflows in Three Months Data from SoSoValue shows that spot XRP ETFs saw $7.29 million in outflows on July 8. This is the highest outflow that these ETFs have seen since March, 2026.
XRP ETF Inflows The outflows suggest that there is low demand for XRP by institutions, and this could make the price to drop to the psychological support of $1.
Data from Coinglass also suggests that the sentiment around XRP is bearish because of the declining long/short ratio. This ratio has dropped to 0.96, suggesting that there are more short positions than long positions.
XRP’s open interest has also dropped from $2.58 billion on July 5 to $2.33 billion today, July 9, suggesting that there is also weak demand coming from speculative traders, and the price could keep dropping.
Ethereum Foundation nasadila AI agenty k bezpečnostnímu testování své infrastruktury a našla skutečné chyby, včetně zranitelnosti v libp2p gossipsub. Ta byla opravena a zveřejněna jako CVE-2026-34219.
In brief Ethereum Foundation researchers are using AI agents to red-team critical network infrastructure. The agents helped uncover a peer-to-peer software vulnerability that was later disclosed. AI-assisted audits have already surfaced bugs in blockchain projects, including Zcash. The Ethereum Foundation is using swarms of AI agents to attack Ethereum—before someone else does.
In a blog post on Thursday, Ethereum Foundation researchers on the Protocol Security team said they have deployed a series of AI agents against the software Ethereum relies on, hunting for vulnerabilities in cryptographic systems, protocol code, and smart contracts.
“We've been running coordinated AI agents against the kinds of systems the network depends on, like systems software, cryptographic code, and contracts that have to be right,” the researchers wrote. “The agents found real bugs.”
One of the bugs discovered included a remotely triggered panic in libp2p’s gossipsub, part of the peer-to-peer layer used by Ethereum consensus clients. The issue was fixed and disclosed on Github as CVE-2026-34219.
Known as red teaming, the practice involves companies deploying security researchers to attack their own systems, attempting to infiltrate or disrupt networks to uncover weaknesses before malicious hackers find them. While red teams attack a system, it's up to blue teams to defend it.
Human researchers have traditionally searched for vulnerabilities by reviewing code manually—but AI agents can scan entire codebases, test potential exploits, and generate findings for review.
“Agents finding bugs wasn't the surprise,” the team wrote. “The surprise was how little of the work went into finding them, and how much went into telling the real bugs from the ones that just looked real.”
According to the Ethereum Foundation, the agents are organized into specialized roles, including reconnaissance, hunting, gap-filling, and validation. Some search for possible attack paths, while others attempt to reproduce failures and verify whether they work against production code.
“The schema is there for a reason,” they wrote. “It forces a specific, testable claim and a clear definition of done. An agent that has to write down an observable proof can't fall back on "this looks risky."
The growing role of AI in vulnerability research was demonstrated in April, when a preview version of Anthropic’s Claude Mythos discovered 271 vulnerabilities in Mozilla’s Firefox browser.
The researchers compared AI agents to fuzzers, or tools that test software for flaws. However, unlike fuzzers, AI agents can generate vulnerability reports, assess impact, and create proof-of-concept tests.
But detailed does not always mean correct. AI-generated findings can appear convincing even when they are wrong, leaving researchers to filter out duplicates, false positives, and vulnerabilities that cannot actually be exploited.
"One rule matters more than any other. A candidate isn't a finding until there's a self-contained artifact that reproduces the failure against the real code, and that runs for someone who didn't write it," the researchers wrote. "The reproducer doesn't read the write-up, and it doesn't care how confident the model sounded. It either runs or it doesn't."
AI tools have already helped security researchers uncover flaws in blockchain networks.
In May, security researcher Taylor Hornby used Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.8 during an AI-assisted audit that found a critical vulnerability in Zcash’s Orchard privacy pool. The flaw had existed for roughly four years and could have allowed an attacker to create counterfeit ZEC without an obvious on-chain trace. A network upgrade to restore confidence in Zcash’s supply is still in the works.
The Ethereum Foundation’s experiment brings the technology in-house, using AI agents to test its own code to find vulnerabilities.
“AI didn't replace the security researcher. It moved the work,” the Ethereum Foundation said. “Agents let us cover far more ground than we could by hand. In exchange, they ask for more careful judgment, across a much bigger pile of confident-sounding claims.”
“That's a trade worth making,” they added, “as long as you remember that the judgment is the real product.”
Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
Analytik vidí u ETH býčí nastavení před upgradem Glamsterdam, který má zvýšit gas limit třikrát a snížit poplatky asi o 78 %. ETH se drží těsně pod 1 754 USD.
Rising spot activity alongside falling leverage suggests long-term buyers may be replacing speculative traders.
Ethereum (ETH) is trading at nearly 65% below its all-time high, with attention around the asset at an almost yearly low, even as its largest network upgrade since The Merge is due within weeks.
But an analyst tracking the setup says the gap between weak social interest and steady on-chain usage is the kind of divergence that has often come right before sharp moves for the cryptocurrency.
Glamsterdam Approaches as On-Chain Data Stays Firm In a July 9 post on X, pseudonymous analyst Wise Crypto noted that the Ethereum network has been processing roughly 450,000 active addresses despite social media discussion sitting near yearly lows.
According to them, the upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade could become a major catalyst, considering that it could increase Ethereum’s gas limit by three times and cut transaction fees by about 78%. It has also been said that it could lift throughput to about 10,000 transactions per second.
“Major catalyst. Minimal attention,” the market watcher wrote, while naming $1,754 as the ETH level worth watching. A sustained move above that area, according to them, could open the way toward $2,440, while failure to hold support could send the world’s second-largest crypto asset back toward $880.
Looking at CoinGecko data at the time of writing, ETH was trading just a few dollars below Wise Crypto’s stated resistance level, having dipped slightly (about 1%) in 24 hours but still gaining nearly 7% during the past week and about 3% over 30 days.
That quiet backdrop is sitting alongside some unusual exchange data shared by CryptoQuant contributor Amr Taha, who said that Binance’s 30-day ETH open interest change fell to -594,000 ETH earlier in the week, marking its deepest contraction since August 2024. Around the same time, ETH spot volume on OKX climbed to $2.09 billion, 49% higher than its best reading of the year, which was recorded on February 5.
You may also like: ‘Summer of Ethereum Love’ Gaining Steam, Says Lubin, But When Will ETH Price Follow? Charles Hoskinson Says Ethereum Is Adopting Cardano Ideas Without Credit Bitmine Buys Another 42K ETH as 5% Supply Goal Comes Within Reach According to Taha, the pairing is notable because a leverage flush alongside rising spot volumes probably means that speculators are leaving the market while spot buyers are continuing to stack ETH and not that there’s a broad retreat from the asset.
Executives Talk Up the Cycle While Traders Stay Cautious Ethereum has been rejected at $1,800 three times this week, but that didn’t stop Consensys co-founder Joseph Lubin from saying Wednesday that the “Summer of Ethereum Love is gaining steam,” pointing to newly launched steward groups like Ethlabs working alongside the Ethereum Foundation, and citing the network’s eleven years of uptime as a draw for institutions.
Analyst Michaël van de Poppe struck a similar tone over the weekend, arguing that “the worst period for ETH is over” after the token closed out its third straight quarterly loss of more than 20%, a first in its history. He called the odds of a fourth consecutive drop statistically low and pointed to the pending CLARITY Act as a potential liquidity driver.
BNB Chain zveřejnil roadmapu pro 2. pololetí 2026 s cílem dosáhnout 1 milionu TPS a finality pod 150 ms, s cílem oslovit AI agenty. Zároveň přidává protokolovou vrstvu soukromí pro převody i smart kontrakty.
In This Article What 1 Million TPS Actually Means and Why AI Agents Need ItThe Privacy Layer: Why It Matters Beyond TradersRecord On-Chain Metrics Haven't Moved BNB Crypto Price, Yet The BNB crypto Chain has published its H2 2026 technical roadmap targeting 1 million TPS (transactions per second) and sub-150-millisecond finality, positioning itself as the infrastructure backbone for an emerging AI agent economy.
The announcement lands as the BNB crypto price sits near 2024 lows, creating a sharp disconnect between on-chain momentum and market performance that every holder needs to understand.
The BNB Chain 2026 H2 Tech Roadmap is here.
After cutting BSC block intervals to 450 ms and nearly doubling benchmark throughput to ~5,200 TPS, the next target is another 2x increase on mainnet.
What's next for BNB Chain 👇🧵 pic.twitter.com/CA6hphMEy0
— BNB Chain (@BNBCHAIN) July 8, 2026
The central tension is straightforward: BNB Chain is posting record fundamental metrics while BNB, the native token, trades near its worst levels in two years.
This new Layer 1 from the BNB Chain comes as its native token, BNB crypto, is trading up +1.2% over the past 24 hours, at around $569, with a +2.5% gain over the past seven days.
What 1 Million TPS Actually Means and Why AI Agents Need It TPS refers to the maximum number of transactions a blockchain can process per second, similar to a highway’s lane count. BNB Chain currently benchmarks at around 5,200 TPS.
This follows a 2026 hard fork that reduced block intervals to 450ms and in-memory finality to 650ms. The long-term goal is to reach 1 million TPS, requiring about 20 GGas per second, with a testnet expected in late 2026 and mainnet launch in early 2027.
The architecture uses a dual-client setup with Geth for stability and a high-performance Reth engine for parallel execution. This infrastructure is essential for agentic finance, where autonomous AI agents execute DeFi activities and process multiple microtransactions.
To support this, the roadmap includes a standardized framework for AI agents, featuring a payment abstraction layer for gasless transactions and an agent registry for tracking identity and reputation.
The BNB Agent Studio and SDK have already been launched and work with tools like AWS Bedrock. BNB Chain aims to grow by focusing on stablecoins, real-world assets, and onboarding 100,000 new AI agents by 2026.
BNB Agent Studio now allows developers to plug agents into CoinMarketCap's data endpoints with one click, using @Binance Pay's B402 merchant pool.
Agents pay for each CMC data call automatically from their own wallet using x402 settled on @BNBChain without separate API keys or… https://t.co/BEq6sILV45 pic.twitter.com/x97js2Ey8k
— BSCN (@BSCNews) July 7, 2026
DISCOVER: Best Meme Coin ICOs to Invest in 2026
The Privacy Layer: Why It Matters Beyond Traders Alongside the throughput push, the roadmap introduces a protocol-level privacy framework covering native privacy for token transfers and smart contract calls.
This is base-layer privacy, not an application-level mixer bolted on top – designed to be configurable and compliance-friendly without breaking composability (the ability of DeFi protocols to interact with each other).
The target audience is institutional: market makers, high-frequency trading desks, retail payment processors, and asset managers who need confidential settlement without sacrificing regulatory auditability.
The approach is designed to deliver compliance-friendly confidentiality at the protocol level, making it meaningfully different from privacy coins that regulators have repeatedly delisted. For BNB Chain to compete for institutional flow, this layer is table stakes.
EXCLUSIVE: Earn $10 USDC Via Binance Sign-Up
Record On-Chain Metrics Haven’t Moved BNB Crypto Price, Yet $BNB: The price is still likely working on a wave-(iv) to the downside. As long as the price remains below $631, I expect lower prices. pic.twitter.com/SqkJwMUpcU
— Man of Bitcoin (@Manofbitcoin) July 7, 2026
BNB Chain shows strong fundamentals, with daily transactions reaching 31 million and a stablecoin market cap of about $14 billion. The ecosystem includes BSC, opBNB (Layer 2), and BNB Greenfield (decentralized storage).
However, the BNB crypto price has dropped to levels not seen since 2024, highlighting a disconnect between on-chain activity and token performance, similar to trends in other Layer-1s like Solana.
For BNB, price dynamics are influenced by Binance, regulatory news, and BEP-95 burn mechanics, which reduce supply. While higher activity leads to more burns, it requires sustained volume to effectively impact the token’s value.
EXPLORE: Best Crypto Presales With Asymmetric Upside in the Current Market
#Altcoin News Today
Why you can trust 99Bitcoins
10+ Years
Established in 2013, 99Bitcoin’s team members have been crypto experts since Bitcoin’s Early days.
90hr+
Weekly Research
100k+
Monthly readers
50+
Expert contributors
2000+
Crypto Projects Reviewed
Follow 99Bitcoins on your Google News Feed
Get the latest updates, trends, and insights delivered straight to your fingertips. Subscribe now!
Subscribe now
Alex Ioannou
On-Chain Journalist
Alex is a seasoned cryptocurrency trader and market analyst with over seven years of active experience in the digital asset space. Since entering the markets in 2017, Alex has specialized in identifying emerging "meta" trends and high-volatility narratives. Notably, Alex... Read More
Free Bitcoin Crash Course Enjoyed by over 100,000 students. One email a day, 7 days in a row. Short and educational, guaranteed!
Brazilská B3 začala 6. července obchodovat opce na bitcoinových futures, etherových futures a solanových futures. Nové kontrakty dávají investorům regulovaný způsob, jak hedgeovat expozici bez držby tokenů.
Por Que a B3 Está Ampliando os Derivativos de Cripto? A bolsa brasileira B3 expandiu sua oferta regulada de derivativos de criptoativos com opções sobre futuros de bitcoin, ether e solana, oferecendo a traders locais e gestores de ativos mais um ambiente para gerenciar exposição a ativos digitais sem precisar migrar para mercados de cripto no exterior.
Os novos contratos passaram a ser negociados em 6 de julho, de acordo com um comunicado da B3. O lançamento inclui opções de compra e venda sobre futuros de bitcoin denominados em reais, enquanto os futuros de ether e solana são denominados em dólares americanos.
O lançamento adiciona mais uma camada à crescente estrutura do mercado regulado de cripto no Brasil. Em vez de oferecer custódia de cripto à vista ou liquidação direta de tokens, a B3 está construindo derivativos listados vinculados a benchmarks de cripto. Essa abordagem permite que participantes institucionais negociem exposição a preços, volatilidade e estratégias de hedge por meio de instrumentos negociados em bolsa, permanecendo dentro de um ambiente de mercado regulado.
O momento também é relevante. O Brasil já é um dos mercados de cripto mais ativos da América Latina, com forte demanda por stablecoins, produtos de investimento em cripto e acesso regulado à negociação. Ao expandir as opções vinculadas a futuros, a B3 está se posicionando como um provedor de infraestrutura local para gestão de risco em cripto, em vez de deixar as atividades de negociação mais avançadas para plataformas no exterior.
Como Funcionam os Novos Contratos? As opções são liquidadas nos contratos futuros subjacentes, não em bitcoin, ether ou solana propriamente ditos. A B3 informou que os produtos não envolvem custódia, transferência ou administração de criptoativos à vista.
Essa distinção é central para o desenho do produto. A liquidação em futuros permite que a bolsa ofereça exposição vinculada a cripto evitando os problemas operacionais associados à posse direta de tokens. Isso também dá a corretoras, gestores de ativos e traders profissionais um framework mais claro para margem, compensação e gestão de risco.
Os contratos são negociados de forma independente das 9h às 18h30, horário local, de acordo com o cronograma de negociação de derivativos da B3. O exercício é automático no vencimento quando a opção está dentro do dinheiro (in the money), a menos que o titular bloqueie o exercício.
Os 3 produtos referenciam índices de cripto da Nasdaq, segundo o anúncio. O contrato futuro de bitcoin da B3 é denominado em reais, enquanto seus futuros de ether e solana são denominados em dólares americanos. Essa divisão dá à exposição em bitcoin uma estrutura em moeda local, enquanto ether e solana permanecem vinculados à precificação em dólares.
Resumo para Investidores As novas opções de cripto da B3 dão aos investidores brasileiros uma forma regulada de negociar volatilidade e proteger exposição sem precisar tomar custódia dos tokens. A estrutura mantém os produtos mais próximos dos mercados de derivativos tradicionais do que da negociação de cripto à vista no exterior.
O Que Isso Significa Para Traders e Gestores de Ativos? Para os traders, a principal mudança é o acesso a opções listadas localmente vinculadas aos principais futuros de cripto. Isso facilita a construção de posições direcionais, o hedge de exposição em futuros, a negociação de volatilidade implícita e a estruturação de estratégias mais complexas envolvendo bitcoin, ether e solana.
Para gestores de ativos, os produtos podem ajudar a gerenciar o risco de portfólio sem depender de plataformas de opções de cripto no exterior. Um mercado listado local também pode reduzir o atrito operacional para empresas que enfrentam restrições internas sobre custódia, risco de contraparte ou negociação fora de bolsas reguladas.
O recurso de exercício automático também aproxima os produtos das práticas padrão do mercado de derivativos. Quando uma opção vence dentro do dinheiro, ela é exercida no contrato futuro subjacente, a menos que o titular bloqueie o exercício. Isso pode simplificar a execução para usuários profissionais, embora também exija gestão ativa de margem e posição próximo ao vencimento.
O desenho do produto pode atrair principalmente participantes que já compreendem a exposição a cripto baseada em futuros. Como as opções são liquidadas em futuros, e não em tokens, os usuários precisam gerenciar os riscos dos contratos futuros subjacentes, incluindo alavancagem, chamadas de margem, base e denominação em moeda.
Por Que Isso Importa Para o Mercado de Cripto do Brasil? O lançamento amplia a aposta da B3 em produtos regulados de cripto, após movimentos anteriores de listar opções de bitcoin, futuros de ether e solana, e preparar contratos de evento vinculados ao bitcoin. A bolsa está construindo um conjunto de ferramentas mais amplo em torno de ativos digitais, mantendo os produtos dentro da estrutura de derivativos listados.
Essa estratégia reflete uma tendência mais ampla na adoção institucional de cripto. Plataformas reguladas não estão apenas oferecendo exposição direta aos preços de cripto. Elas também estão construindo os instrumentos necessários para hedge, negociação de volatilidade e alocação estruturada. As opções são uma parte importante desse mercado porque permitem que os investidores gerenciem o risco de queda, expressem visões sobre volatilidade e criem posições de risco definido.
O mercado brasileiro é especialmente relevante porque a demanda local por exposição a cripto tem crescido junto com os esforços regulatórios para trazer a atividade de ativos digitais para canais financeiros formais. A expansão da B3 dá aos participantes domésticos mais ferramentas, mas também aumenta a importância da liquidez, da precificação transparente e dos controles de risco.
As novas opções não eliminam a volatilidade subjacente das criptomoedas nem a incerteza regulatória. Elas, no entanto, oferecem aos investidores profissionais uma forma mais familiar de gerenciar essa volatilidade dentro da infraestrutura de bolsa do Brasil. Para a B3, o lançamento fortalece seu papel como o principal portal regulado do país para derivativos vinculados a cripto.
Útočník za exploit Summer.fi začal prát ukradené prostředky a přes Tornado Cash přesunul zhruba 1,35 milionu DAI. Summer.fi to označuje za signál, že nemá v úmyslu vrátit peníze dobrovolně.
Summer.fi's own post-mortem confirms the attacker began laundering the $6M haul through the mixer, calling it a sign of "limited intent to return the funds voluntarily."
The attacker behind the $6 million Summer.fi exploit has begun laundering the stolen funds, moving roughly $1.35 million in DAI through Tornado Cash, the sanctioned crypto mixer, according to Summer.fi's own post-mortem of the July 6 attack.
Summer.fi, the front-end for the Lazy Summer Protocol, said the attacker "swapped a portion of the proceeds and routed them through Tornado Cash... via an intermediary wallet (0x46e0…eBa7)," adding that the move "signals limited intent to return the funds voluntarily."
Laundering TrailOnchain Lens via Odaily, reported the exploiter's wallet received 6.017 million DAI from the attack and has since moved 1.35 million DAI, swapping it for ETH on Uniswap before sending it through the same intermediary wallet into Tornado Cash. The original wallet still holds about 4.67 million DAI, while the intermediary wallet holds 50 ETH, per the report.
The exploit itself drained roughly $6.04 million from two Lazy Summer USDC vaults on Ethereum on July 6, after an attacker manipulated vault share pricing using a stale-valued token position built up over three months, Summer.fi said. The Defiant previously covered the initial exploit.
Summer.fi said its security partners, including SEAL 911, are continuing to trace the funds but that tracing "breaks down" once assets are swapped out of stablecoins and deposited into a mixer. The protocol publicly named the attacker's funder and beneficiary wallet, 0x7BF7…BDCa, "so the community and exchanges can flag associated activity."
Roughly 4.67 million DAI of the original haul remains untouched in the exploiter's primary wallet, leaving open whether further funds will move through Tornado Cash.
Eightco Holdings (ORBS) oznámila treasury v hodnotě zhruba 397 milionů USD, včetně nepřímého podílu v OpenAI v hodnotě 90 milionů USD, 18 milionů USD v Beast Industries, 16 278 ETH a 283 milionů WLD. Hodnota WLD při zveřejnění činila 149 milionů USD.
Public markets rarely get a direct window into a company’s crypto conviction. Eightco Holdings (NASDAQ: ORBS) just pried that window open. The firm’s July 8 snapshot shows total holdings of roughly $397 million, a figure built from an unusual mix of AI equity stakes and liquid crypto assets. The treasury includes an indirect $90 million position in OpenAI, $18 million in Beast Industries, 16,278 ETH, and 283 million WLD tokens—valued at $149 million at the time of disclosure.
For a Nasdaq-listed entity, the composition reads less like a traditional balance-sheet hedge and more like a concentrated bet on AI infrastructure and on-chain identity. The Ethereum stack alone is large enough to place Eightco among the more exposed public-company ETH holders, even if it still trails dedicated crypto treasury companies by a wide margin. Meanwhile, the Worldcoin (WLD) position dwarfs many crypto-native funds’ allocations to the token and directly ties the company’s fortunes to the adoption curve of the World Network.
What the Treasury Actually Holds The numbers matter because they’re unusually granular. Most corporate disclosures round crypto exposure into a catch‑all “digital assets” line. Eightco separated equity from tokens and named the projects. That level of detail is uncommon and forces the market to price not just crypto volatility but also private AI valuation risk. The $90 million indirect OpenAI stake raises immediate questions about how that valuation was derived—secondary market pricing for OpenAI equity has been choppy, and liquidity is thin. Beast Industries, a smaller position at $18 million, adds another layer of exposure to the AI hardware and robotics sector.
On the crypto side, 16,278 ETH represents roughly $36 million at current prices, assuming a ballpark $2,200 per ether. The bulk of the reported value, however, sits in 283 million WLD tokens. WLD’s fully diluted valuation and trading volumes have swung dramatically over the past year as the project rolled out biometric verification hubs across emerging markets. Holding that many tokens—likely acquired through grant agreements, market purchases, or strategic allocations—creates a direct link between Eightco’s balance sheet and World Network user growth numbers.
A Corporate Treasury Without the Usual Guardrails Public companies that hold crypto typically stick to bitcoin or ether, often citing their liquidity and regulatory clarity. Eightco’s decision to allocate heavily to WLD sits outside that playbook and reflects a different thesis. Instead of treating crypto as a store of value or inflation hedge, the treasury appears structured around ecosystem participation—staking, governance, or alignment with a protocol’s long-term infrastructure play. The Ethereum position and the Worldcoin exposure both point toward a conviction that identity protocols and AI-native distribution rails will accrue value faster than general-purpose smart contract platforms alone.
That approach aligns with a broader shift in institutional thinking tracked by recent tokenization and treasury moves. As real-world asset tokenization crosses $20 billion on-chain and traditional finance firms settle Treasury trades directly on public ledgers, the line between equity holdings and token allocation blurs. Eightco’s structure may look aggressive now, but it’s increasingly part of a pattern where a balance sheet becomes a portfolio of protocol positions.
What Stays Unanswered The press release leaves several holes. There is no disclosed cost basis for the ETH or WLD, making it impossible to judge whether the treasury is deep in profit or exposure is concentrated near entry. The indirect OpenAI stake is not explained—whether through a special-purpose vehicle, secondary purchases, or a fund commitment. Liquidity for that position is unknown, and so is any lockup or redemption schedule.
For WLD, the lack of detail on how tokens were sourced matters. If they came from early grants tied to network contributions, selling restrictions could limit balance-sheet flexibility. If they were purchased on secondary markets, volatility cushions are thinner. Regulatory risk also hovers over Worldcoin in multiple jurisdictions where biometric data collection by a private network continues to attract scrutiny from data protection authorities. A sudden enforcement action would not only hit the token price but could reshape the company’s entire book value overnight.
The disclosure arrives during a week when Ethereum itself sat near the top of developer activity rankings, reinforcing the idea that infrastructure value and treasury allocations are becoming harder to separate. For Eightco, the market now has a clear view of a $397 million wager that mixes two of the most volatile and politically sensitive corners of tech into a single public-company filing. The numbers are big enough that every subsequent quarterly update will be watched for changes in token balances and valuation marks.
AUTHOR
Max delves deep into the cryptocurrency realm, with a passion for altcoins and NFTs. Convinced of crypto's transformative potential, he envisions a decentralized financial future. Max's background in the financial sector grants him unique insights into global monetary systems. In his leisure, Max embraces the thrill of adventures and is an avid sports enthusiast, finding balance and rejuvenation away from work.
Jupiter, the largest decentralized exchange aggregator on Solana, has opened its Active Staking Rewards claim window for the second quarter of 2026. The 50 million JUP reward pool is now available to eligible stakers, with claims accepted through October 8.
The Q2 period covers April 1 through June 30, and the claim window opened on July 8 at 2:00 PM. Users who maintained a minimum average stake of 50 JUP during that period can collect their share through the Jupiter Rewards Hub or the platform’s dedicated voting site.
Any rewards left on the table after the October 8 deadline revert to the community treasury.
Advertisement
How Active Staking Rewards actually work Eligibility isn’t particularly demanding. Stake at least 50 JUP on average during the quarter, participate in DAO votes, and you’re in the running. The program has maintained a consistent 50 million JUP allocation per quarter since at least 2024.
One detail that separates this from a simple airdrop: claimed rewards get compounded directly into existing stakes, automatically boosting voting power within the Jupiter ecosystem. Rather than encouraging users to claim and dump, Jupiter has structured the system so that engaged participants become progressively more influential in governance.
Why Jupiter keeps betting on governance participation By tying rewards specifically to governance participation rather than raw liquidity provision or trading volume, Jupiter is filtering for users who actually care about the protocol’s direction. The 50 JUP minimum stake keeps the barrier low enough that casual users can participate, while the requirement to actually vote on DAO proposals ensures some baseline level of engagement. Community feedback has been largely positive, though some users have raised minor concerns about wallet requirements and the timing of claim windows.
Jupiter’s position as Solana’s leading DEX aggregator gives these governance decisions real weight. The platform routes trades across numerous decentralized exchanges on Solana, meaning the DAO’s choices about fee structures, integration partners, and protocol upgrades have tangible effects on one of the network’s most critical pieces of infrastructure.
What this means for JUP holders and the Solana ecosystem The steady cadence of 50 million JUP distributions every quarter creates a predictable emission schedule. For current JUP stakers, the math is straightforward: participate in governance, claim your rewards, and watch your voting power compound over time.
The reversion of unclaimed tokens to the community treasury means the protocol doesn’t waste emissions on disengaged holders. Tokens that would have gone to passive participants instead flow back into a pool that can fund future initiatives, development, or additional reward cycles.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Ethena USDe se stala dominantním kolaterálem v rámci nového Robinhood Crypto Earn a tvoří zhruba 50 % veškeré stablecoinové nabídky na Robinhood Chain, tedy asi 100 milionů USD z více než 200 milionů USD.
Robinhood’s week-old Earn product has a clear favorite, and it’s not even close. Ethena’s USDe synthetic dollar has emerged as the dominant collateral asset in the lending vault powering Robinhood’s new yield offering, with users overwhelmingly routing their deposits through the protocol.
The Earn product, which launched July 1 alongside Robinhood Chain itself, lets users lend USDG, a stablecoin issued by Robinhood, into a Morpho-powered vault curated by Steakhouse Financial. The estimated return: 7% APY from borrower interest.
How the vault actually works Users deposit USDG into the vault, which then lends those funds to borrowers who post collateral. That collateral comes from three sources: Ethena’s USDe, Spark’s spUSDG, and Maple’s SyrupUSDG.
Advertisement
As of July 8, Ethena accounts for approximately $100 million of the stablecoin supply on Robinhood Chain. The total supply has surpassed $200 million, meaning Ethena represents roughly 50% of all stablecoins circulating on the chain. That’s a commanding position for a protocol that only listed its ENA governance token on Robinhood back in November 2025.
Insurance coverage for the vault has been arranged through Lloyd’s of London and RELM, covering risks associated with smart contracts and cyber threats.
Why Ethena keeps winning distribution battles USDe works differently from traditional stablecoins like USDC or USDT. Rather than holding dollar reserves in bank accounts, Ethena maintains its peg through a delta-neutral hedging strategy, essentially holding crypto assets while shorting equivalent positions in perpetual futures. The yield comes from funding rates that perpetual futures traders pay.
What this means for investors Robinhood had roughly 24 million funded accounts the last time it reported figures. For ENA token holders, more USDe demand generally means more protocol revenue. The token has been trading on Robinhood since November 2025, giving retail users a direct way to express a thesis on the protocol’s growth.
Ethena’s roughly 50% share of on-chain stablecoin supply suggests users and capital allocators are expressing a strong preference over the two other collateral providers, Spark and Maple. The exact asset allocation percentages among the collateral providers have not been disclosed.
The product is progressively rolling out to U.S. users. Smart contract vulnerabilities, funding rate compression, and regulatory scrutiny of yield products remain live concerns.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
CZ označil no-KYC model Hyperliquidu za „awesome“, ale řekl, že by ho sám nikdy neprovozoval po zkušenosti s Binance. HYPE se mezitím drží poblíž historického maxima kolem 76 až 77 USD.
Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, the man who built the world’s largest crypto exchange and then went to prison for its compliance failures, has some thoughts about Hyperliquid. Speaking on the Galaxy Brains podcast on June 10, CZ called Hyperliquid’s high-performance Layer-1 blockchain and no-KYC perpetual futures trading model “awesome.” In the same breath, he made it clear he would never touch that approach himself. “I would never do what they do,” he said, pointing to the very personal consequences he faced when Binance’s own compliance infrastructure fell short.
Binance was hit with a $4.3 billion fine in 2023 for KYC and anti-money laundering violations. CZ personally served a four-month prison sentence as part of the settlement. He acknowledged that Binance, as a centralized exchange with identifiable leadership and corporate structure, simply cannot operate the way Hyperliquid does. Hyperliquid, by contrast, positions itself as a decentralized protocol, which at least theoretically puts it in a different regulatory category.
Advertisement
Inside Hyperliquid’s model Hyperliquid launched its Layer-1 blockchain in 2023 and has since grown into one of the most active decentralized trading venues in crypto. Users connect their wallets and start trading perpetual futures instantly. No identity verification, no waiting period, no compliance friction. By 2025, it was handling hundreds of billions monthly in transaction volume.
Hyperliquid’s decentralization claims deserve some scrutiny. The network runs on just 24 validators. The Hyper Foundation controls approximately 60% of the governance stake. CZ himself pointed to this dynamic, noting that Hyperliquid is controlled by a small team. If regulators ever decide to come after the platform, that concentrated control structure could make it easier to identify responsible parties than a truly distributed protocol would.
HYPE token rides the wave The HYPE token, native to the Hyperliquid ecosystem, is trading near its all-time high around $76 to $77, with a market capitalization exceeding $15 billion. CZ’s remarks appear to have contributed to renewed enthusiasm around the token. The price surge came without any immediate regulatory repercussions.
What this means for investors The investment case for HYPE comes down to a single bet: can a no-KYC trading platform continue operating at scale without facing the kind of enforcement action that nearly destroyed Binance? Hyperliquid’s concentrated governance structure, with 24 validators and a foundation controlling roughly 60% of stake, means there are identifiable entities that regulators could target. A protocol where a single foundation holds supermajority governance power is, functionally, more like a company than a truly decentralized network, meaning decision-making could change rapidly and tokenomics could be altered based on the preferences of a small group.
Investors should watch for two signals above all else. First, any regulatory action or formal investigation targeting Hyperliquid or similar no-KYC platforms, particularly from US authorities, would immediately reprice the risk. Second, any moves by the Hyper Foundation to distribute governance stake more broadly would strengthen the decentralization argument and potentially reduce regulatory exposure.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Bitwise has added Hyperliquid’s HYPE token to the Bitwise 10 Crypto Index ETF, known by the ticker BITW. The move places HYPE inside a fund that gives investors exposure to a basket of large crypto assets rather than a single token.
Summary
Hyperliquid entered BITW after strong trading activity pushed HYPE into Bitwise’s top large-cap crypto basket. DOT and AVAX lost BITW spots as HYPE and XLM met the index’s rebalancing criteria. Crypto.news coverage shows HYPE ETF demand rose quickly before early outflows tested the narrative later. Bitwise 10 Crypto Index ETF (BITW) Adds HYPE, Removes DOT and AVAX
Bitwise has officially added Hyperliquid (HYPE) to the Bitwise 10 Crypto Index ETF (BITW), the world's largest crypto index fund. Hyperliquid posted strong performance in the first half of 2026, recording $1.34… pic.twitter.com/3eF4tiPpj4
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) July 9, 2026 Bitwise describes BITW as the “world’s first and largest crypto index fund.” The product tracks the Bitwise 10 Large Cap Crypto Index, which covers the largest screened crypto assets by market value.
DOT and AVAX leave the basket The latest holdings data, dated July 7, 2026, show Hyperliquid in the fund with a weight close to 1%. Reports placed HYPE’s share near 0.95%. The same update also showed Stellar entering the fund, while Polkadot and Avalanche were removed.
The change follows Bitwise’s latest index reconstitution. BITW rebalances monthly and weights assets by market cap after screening. That means tokens can enter or leave the fund when rankings, liquidity, and index checks change.
Hyperliquid’s growth draws more attention Hyperliquid has gained more market attention this year because of its trading activity. The platform reportedly recorded $1.34 trillion in trading volume and $320 million in revenue in the first half of 2026. HYPE was also reported to have gained 165% year-to-date before entering BITW.
The move also follows rising interest in HYPE-linked products. Crypto.news reported that HYPE ETFs crossed $100 million in cumulative net inflows as traditional finance investors increased exposure to Hyperliquid. Another crypto.news report later noted that the Bitwise HYPE ETF saw its first daily outflow after 16 straight inflow days.
Index entry adds visibility for HYPE HYPE’s addition gives Hyperliquid more visibility inside a diversified crypto product. For investors, the entry means HYPE now sits inside a familiar index wrapper managed by Bitwise. Still, its fund weight remains small compared with Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Bitwise’s holdings remain subject to change because BITW adjusts with the market. HYPE’s entry shows that Hyperliquid has reached the size and market standing needed for Bitwise’s index basket. Future rebalances could change the mix again if market caps and screening results move.
