Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Jupiter, the dominant decentralized exchange aggregator on Solana, just rolled out a trailing stop-loss feature for its Limit Order V2 system. It’s one of those tools that centralized exchanges have offered for years, and DeFi users have been quietly jealous about ever since.

Here’s the thing. A regular stop loss says “sell if the price drops to X.” A trailing stop loss says “sell if the price drops X% from its highest point.” The difference matters a lot when you’re riding a rally and don’t want to leave money on the table by setting a fixed exit too early, or too late.

How the trailing stop loss actually works Think of it like a ratchet that only clicks in one direction. As the price of a token climbs, your sell trigger climbs with it, always maintaining a set percentage distance from the peak. If the price reverses, the trigger stays put and fires when hit.

In English: you set a trailing distance, say 10% (which happens to be the default), and the system tracks the highest price your token reaches. If that peak was $100 and the price drops to $90, the order executes. If the price keeps climbing to $150 first, your new trigger becomes $135. You never manually adjust anything.

Jupiter allows users to configure trailing distances anywhere from 0.5% to 90%. That’s a wide range, covering everything from tight scalps on stablecoins to loose trailing stops on memecoins that might swing 30% in an afternoon before continuing upward.

Advertisement

The feature tracks peaks using either USD price or market cap, depending on how the trader configures the order. Orders can be set with expiration periods of up to 30 days, so you’re not committing to babysitting a position forever.

And it works with any token pair supported on the platform, not just majors like SOL, JUP, or USDC.

Why this matters for Solana DeFi Jupiter’s Limit Order V2 system launched around October 2025, introducing fixed take-profit and stop-loss options alongside more sophisticated order types. Those included OCO (One Cancels Other) and OTOCO (One Triggers Other Cancel Order) bundling, essentially letting traders set up conditional logic chains for their trades.

The problem with V2’s original toolkit was that everything relied on fixed triggers. Set a stop loss at $95, and that’s where it fires regardless of whether the token rallied to $200 first. Traders who wanted to protect gains during volatile uptrends had to manually adjust their orders, which kind of defeats the purpose of automation on a decentralized platform.

Execution runs through Jupiter Ultra, the platform’s routing engine designed to find optimal swap paths across Solana’s liquidity pools. Jupiter Ultra also incorporates protection against MEV (Miner Extractable Value) attacks, which on Solana take the form of sandwich attacks where bots front-run and back-run your trade to extract value.

What this means for traders and the broader market For retail traders, the trailing stop loss lowers the skill barrier for managing risk. The 10% default is sensible for most crypto assets, though anyone trading lower-volatility pairs might want to tighten that, and memecoin traders will probably want to widen it considerably.

For more experienced traders, the combination of trailing stops with OCO and OTOCO order types opens up some genuinely sophisticated strategies. You could set up a position with a take-profit target, a trailing stop loss, and have the system cancel whichever order doesn’t trigger first.

One risk worth noting: trailing stop losses in illiquid markets can create cascading sell pressure. If a token’s price drops sharply and multiple trailing stops trigger simultaneously, the resulting sell orders could push the price down further, triggering more stops.

Traders should also be aware that a 30-day maximum expiration means long-term holders can’t set and forget indefinitely. You’ll need to renew orders periodically if you’re using this as an ongoing portfolio management tool rather than a short-term trade management feature.

The feature is accessible through Jupiter’s interface via a dedicated URL parameter.

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

A newly funded wallet attracted market attention after opening a 20x leveraged long worth 230,583 SOL, valued at $18.81 million. 

The position quickly generated more than $818,000 in unrealized profit within a day, highlighting how rapidly SOL rewarded aggressive bullish exposure. 

Lookonchain’s data also showed the whale’s liquidation price was $67.14, leaving a sizeable buffer below current trading levels.

However, the trade also reflected growing confidence among leveraged participants rather than confirming SOL’s next market direction. Large positions often influence sentiment, yet they rarely guarantee sustained rallies.

Why did top traders stay heavily long? Binance data showed that 64.71% of top trader accounts held long positions, while only 35.29% remained short. 

This distribution lifted the Long/Short Ratio to 1.83, confirming that professional traders had maintained a clear bullish bias. 

The positioning also aligned with the newly opened whale trade, reinforcing expectations that higher prices could follow if buyers retain control. 

However, concentrated bullish exposure also increased downside vulnerability because leveraged positions shared similar liquidation levels. 

A modest decline could force highly leveraged longs to close automatically, accelerating selling pressure. 

Even so, the data suggested experienced traders had continued favoring upside exposure despite recent market uncertainty. 

Source: CoinGlass Solana reclaim resistance as buyers regain control Solana [SOL] recovered above the former resistance at $78.50 and traded near $81.30, confirming that buyers had regained control after defending the $67.39 support zone. 

Price also approached the next resistance around $88.10, placing the recovery within a broader rebound rather than a completed breakout. 

Meanwhile, the 14-day RSI climbed to 64.41, remaining comfortably above its 50.60 signal average. 

That improvement indicated strengthening buying pressure without reaching overbought territory above 70. 

The recent advance also produced a sequence of higher lows after June’s sharp decline, reinforcing the recovery structure. 

However, SOL still needed to reclaim $88.10 before opening the path toward the major resistance near $100.87, where sellers had repeatedly regained control during previous rallies.

Source: TradingView Can the $80 liquidity zone spark chaos? The Liquidation Heatmap identified the largest concentration of leveraged liquidity around $80. This places the biggest liquidation pocket less than 2% below SOL’s market price. 

The positioning created a fragile setup because any decisive break beneath support could rapidly increase selling pressure. 

If bears force a 5% decline over the weekend, SOL would likely fall toward $77.20, sweeping through the $80 liquidity cluster before reaching additional liquidation pockets below. 

Such a move could trigger cascading long liquidations as leveraged positions closed automatically and added fresh sell orders into the market. 

Since 64.71% of Binance’s top trader accounts already held long positions, crowded bullish exposure increased the probability that losing $80 would amplify volatility instead of producing an orderly correction.

Source: CoinGlass Can SOL defend $80 and continue higher? SOL appeared more likely to extend its recovery than suffer an immediate rejection because it had already reclaimed $80 and continued attracting aggressive leveraged positioning.

However, that bullish structure depended on holding the $80 support.

Since the largest liquidation cluster sat directly beneath the current price, a break below that level could quickly trigger cascading long liquidations.

Unless bears forced SOL below $80, the path toward $88.10 remained the more probable near-term outcome.

Final Summary SOL reclaimed $80 while whale activity and trader positioning continued favoring further upside. Heavy long positioning leaves Solana’s $80 support critical for preventing cascading liquidation pressure.

TLDR: Table of Contents

TLDR:Jupiter Trailing Stop Loss Adds Dynamic Protection to Limit OrdersJupiter Expands Solana Trading Tools With Automated Risk Management Jupiter Trailing Stop Loss uses percentage-based triggers instead of fixed stop prices for limit orders. The stop level rises with price gains and never moves lower during an active trading position. The feature supports SPL and Token-2022 assets, excluding transfer-fee token standards only. SolanaFloor highlighted the launch after Jupiter confirmed zero extra fees for the new trading tool. Jupiter has introduced a new Trailing Stop Loss feature for its Limit Orders, giving traders a way to protect gains as prices climb. The update replaces fixed stop prices with a dynamic percentage trail that adjusts upward alongside market moves. 

The feature aims to reduce the risk of profitable positions turning into losses during sharp reversals. It expands Jupiter’s trading toolkit while keeping the existing limit order experience intact.

Jupiter Trailing Stop Loss Adds Dynamic Protection to Limit Orders The new feature allows users to set a percentage trail instead of a fixed stop price. Traders can choose any value between 0.5% and 90%. The stop level automatically moves higher whenever the asset reaches a new high.

The trigger does NOT move lower (downward) like a stop loss. This allows traders to stick to the trend when it is rising and still keep some of the profits they have yet to realize. When the market turns the other direction by the selected percentage, the order automatically fills.

Say Goodbye to Roundtripping 👋

Introducing Trailing Stop Loss, the newest tool in Jupiter Limit Orders.

Old Stop Loss: You buy SOL at $50, set a stop at $45. SOL pumps to $90.

If it dumps, your profits roundtrip into a loss.

Trailing Stop Loss goes up with the price,… pic.twitter.com/RoDXq65ntS

— Jupiter (@JupiterExchange) July 3, 2026

Jupiter explained the update through its official X account using a simple trading example. A trader buying SOL at $50 could see the asset climb to $90. Instead of keeping the original stop at $45, the trailing mechanism would move the stop upward to about $81 before a reversal triggered a sale.

According to Jupiter, the feature works across all SPL tokens and Token-2022 assets except transfer-fee tokens. The exchange also said traders will not pay additional fees to use the new functionality within Limit Orders.

Jupiter Expands Solana Trading Tools With Automated Risk Management The announcement first gained attention after SolanaFloor highlighted the launch on X. The publication noted that the feature focuses on protecting profits rather than only limiting downside risk. That distinction makes the tool different from conventional stop loss strategies.

NEW: @JupiterExchange has launched Trailing Stop Loss for Limit Orders, allowing users to set a percentage trail that moves up with price and automatically sells if the asset reverses, helping protect gains instead of only limiting losses. pic.twitter.com/IqJ88QtSvY

— SolanaFloor (@SolanaFloor) July 3, 2026

Traditional stop losses remain fixed unless users manually adjust them. During fast rallies, traders often face the challenge of watching profitable positions return to their entry point or below. A trailing stop automates that adjustment without requiring repeated changes.

Jupiter described the feature as a way to prevent what traders often call “roundtripping.” Instead of allowing gains to disappear during a market reversal, the stop follows the asset higher until the selected percentage threshold is reached. 

The order then executes automatically according to the preset conditions. The rollout strengthens Jupiter’s growing suite of on-chain trading tools for the Solana ecosystem. 

The update offers traders another automated risk management option while maintaining compatibility with supported Solana token standards. The feature is now available through Jupiter Limit Orders without introducing extra trading fees.

Billions of dollars in prediction market positions settle every month based on a machine for deciding truth that most traders have never examined. This guide explains how UMA’s optimistic oracle turns real-world events into on-chain payouts, why the system usually works, the cases where it has failed spectacularly, and the rival settlement designs trying to replace it.

Prediction markets had their breakout year in 2026. Combined volume across the major venues hit $44.8 billion in June alone, driven by a World Cup that turned Polymarket into a multi-billion-dollar sportsbook. The trading side of these platforms is easy to understand: shares in Yes or No, priced between zero and one dollar, paying out one dollar if you are right. The hard part is invisible until it breaks. Someone, or something, has to decide what actually happened.

That decision layer is called resolution, and it is the load-bearing wall of the entire sector. A prediction market is only as good as its ability to decide truth, and a blockchain cannot observe the real world. It cannot see who won an election, whether a company sold an asset, or whether a bill passed. The bridge between reality and the smart contract is an oracle, and for the largest on-chain prediction market, that oracle is UMA. Understanding how it works, and how it fails, is the single most useful piece of due diligence a prediction market trader can do.

The oracle problem, event edition Crypto solved one version of the oracle problem years ago. Price feeds from networks like Chainlink and Pyth deliver asset prices on-chain by aggregating data from many independent publishers. That works because prices are public, continuous, machine-readable, and available from dozens of redundant sources.

Event markets break every one of those assumptions. The questions are one-off rather than continuous. The answers often live in press releases, court rulings, regulatory filings, or a referee’s whistle. And the phrasing matters enormously: a market asking whether a politician says a specific word five times needs a resolution process that can read, interpret, and withstand challenge. No price feed can answer questions like that. What the sector needed was an oracle for arbitrary facts, with a built-in way to contest wrong answers.

Enter UMA and optimistic verification UMA, short for Universal Market Access, is an oracle protocol built by Risk Labs. Its core product, the Optimistic Oracle, resolves outcomes for Polymarket’s main venue, which cleared around $14 billion in monthly volume during the World Cup peak. The word optimistic describes the design philosophy: submitted answers are assumed true unless someone challenges them, with economic incentives doing the policing instead of a central referee.

The flow for a typical Polymarket market runs through a version of the oracle called OOv2, and it has four stages:

Request. When a market’s end conditions are met, the market contract asks the oracle for the outcome, referencing the exact resolution criteria written when the market was created. Proposal. A proposer submits the answer, Yes or No, and posts a bond of $750 in USDC. If the proposal is wrong, the bond is forfeited. If it stands, the proposer earns a reward. Challenge window. The proposal sits open for two hours. Anyone who believes it is wrong can dispute it by posting a matching bond. Escalation. If a dispute lands, the question goes to UMA’s Data Verification Mechanism, the DVM, where UMA token holders research the question and vote on the correct answer. Voters who side with the final outcome earn rewards; voters who miss or vote against it lose a slice of their stake. The DVM’s ruling is final, the losing bond pays the winner, and the market settles. To make that concrete, follow one uncontested market through its whole life. A market opens asking whether a central bank cuts rates at its June meeting, with resolution criteria naming the official statement as the source. Traders price Yes at 70 cents through the month. The decision lands at 2 p.m., the statement confirms a cut, and within minutes an approved proposer submits Yes with the $750 bond. For two hours, anyone on earth with a matching bond could object; nobody does, because the statement is public and unambiguous. The window closes, the oracle reports Yes to the market contract, and every Yes share becomes redeemable for one dollar in USDC. Total elapsed time from event to payout: under three hours, no human authority involved, no appeal needed. That is the experience for the overwhelming majority of markets, and it is why the system scaled.

The bond arithmetic deserves a sentence of its own, because it is the whole security model in miniature. Seven hundred fifty dollars sounds trivial next to markets carrying tens of millions in open interest, and read one way, it is: a wrong proposal on a whale-scale market risks $750 to potentially swing a payout worth thousands of times that. The design’s answer is that the bond does not defend the market alone, the challenge window does. A false proposal only profits if nobody in the world notices for two hours, on a venue where every large market has thousands of position holders watching resolution like hawks and a matching bond waiting for whoever catches the error. The bond prices the cost of forcing a dispute, not the value of the market, and the escalation layer is supposed to carry the real weight. That framing also locates the true weak point precisely: the system is only as strong as the layer disputes escalate to.

The percentages favor the happy path. Roughly 99% of assertions since 2021 have gone undisputed, meaning most markets settle in the two-to-four-hour window after an event without any human argument. The system processes upward of 7,000 proposals per month, and Risk Labs has automated much of the pipeline: language models draft proposals for around half a cent per request, and bots like OOTruthBot summarize evidence threads and flag suspicious submissions, cutting routine resolution from hours to seconds.

Inside the DVM: what a token vote actually looks like Since the DVM is the backstop everything escalates to, its mechanics deserve a closer look than most traders ever give them.

When a dispute triggers a vote, the question enters a voting round for UMA token holders who have staked into the voting system. Voting runs in two phases. In the commit phase, each voter submits an encrypted vote, hidden from everyone including other voters, which prevents late voters from simply copying the visible majority. In the reveal phase, voters decrypt and publish what they committed. Votes are weighted by staked tokens, and the outcome that carries the stake-weighted majority becomes the oracle’s answer.

The incentive design is the load-bearing part. Voters who land with the final outcome earn rewards from protocol emissions. Voters who miss a round or land against the outcome lose a slice of their stake. The design intends to pay for diligence, and it mostly does, but it carries a known theoretical flaw inherited from every majority-rewarded oracle: the profitable strategy is voting with the expected majority, not with the truth, and in ordinary cases those two targets coincide. The failure cases are the ones where they separate, and where a large holder can make the majority whatever they need it to be.

There is also a timing cost. An undisputed market settles within hours; a disputed one waits for the full commit and reveal cycle, stretching resolution to days while positions stay frozen and traders argue in evidence threads. For anyone holding size, a dispute is not just a risk to the payout but a lockup on capital.

In November 2025 the system got its most significant overhaul, the Managed Optimistic Oracle V2. MOOv2 restricted the right to propose resolutions to 37 pre-approved addresses, a mix of Risk Labs staff and Polymarket users with high historical accuracy, while keeping disputes open to anyone. The change targeted premature and spam proposals, which had been a chronic source of delays and gamesmanship. Proposing became curated; challenging stayed permissionless.

Where the machine breaks The design has one structural soft spot, and 2026 has stress-tested it in public: the final arbiter is a token vote, and tokens can be bought, concentrated, and conflicted. The numbers behind that concern are not speculative. A Wall Street Journal investigation published in May found that in most disputed Polymarket markets, more than half of the UMA votes came from the ten largest wallets. At least 60% of active UMA voters could be linked to live Polymarket accounts, and roughly one in five disputes had at least one voter with a financial stake in the market they were ruling on. The dispute pipeline itself is swelling: Polymarket logged more than 1,150 disputed markets in the first five months of 2026, already past its full-year 2025 total.

Two cases show what that looks like in practice.

The first was a 2025 market on a United States minerals agreement, where a single large UMA holder cast five million tokens across three accounts, about 25% of the vote in that dispute round, pushing a contested market to resolve early against the plain reading of events. Traders on the wrong side of that ruling lost roughly $7 million. The vote was legal under the system’s rules. That was precisely the criticism.

The second came in June 2026 and drew more than $60 million in volume: a market asking whether Strategy would sell any Bitcoin by May 31. A regulatory filing published on June 1 disclosed that the company had sold 32 BTC between May 26 and May 31 at an average price of $77,135, its first disposal since 2022, inside the market’s cutoff. Two proposed resolutions were challenged, the question escalated to a token vote, and the market ultimately resolved No. Shares tracking the documented answer traded at 12 cents while the dispute ran. Critics across the industry framed the episode as a structural verdict: when ambiguous rules meet concentrated voting power, the payout can diverge from the facts, and the holders of the settlement token can be the same people holding positions in the market being settled.

None of this means most markets resolve wrongly. The overwhelming majority settle cleanly and fast. It means the tail risk is governance-shaped: the worst outcomes cluster in high-volume, ambiguously worded markets where a motivated whale has both the tokens and the position.

Why Polymarket keeps the system anyway Given the 2026 dispute record, the obvious question is why the largest on-chain venue has not replaced its oracle. The answer is a stack of practical reasons that critics tend to skip.

The happy path really is that good. Ninety-nine percent of markets settling within hours, at a cost of fractions of a cent per automated proposal, across every category from elections to award shows, is a service level no alternative currently matches for open-ended questions. Deterministic settlement cannot touch subjective markets at all, and regulated clearing brings jurisdiction constraints that would gut the international product.

The system also iterates. MOOv2 was a direct response to the proposal-spam era and measurably cut premature resolutions. The language model pipeline and evidence bots were responses to speed and quality complaints. Bond sizes, challenge windows, and proposer sets are all tunable parameters, and Risk Labs has shown willingness to tune them under pressure. Whether tuning can fix a voting-power concentration problem is the open question, since the DVM backstop itself is the part no parameter change reaches.

And there is a structural argument: for a venue whose regulatory story leans on decentralization, outsourcing truth to an external token-holder process is a feature. Polymarket does not decide outcomes, and that sentence has legal value. The company’s answer to the United States market was not to change the oracle but to split the product, running the domestic venue through a CFTC-regulated framework while the international book kept UMA. The two-track structure is itself a verdict on where each settlement model belongs.

The rival designs The dispute wave has made resolution architecture a competitive battleground, and three alternative models are now live at scale.

Deterministic validator settlement. Hyperliquid’s HIP-4 outcome markets, live since May 2026, remove the token vote entirely. Settlement runs through the chain’s validator set executing automated resolution against pre-specified objective data sources: no dispute window, no escalation, no path for a market participant to vote on a market. The constraint is scope, since deterministic settlement only fits questions with clean data sources, which is why the first HIP-4 contracts are Bitcoin price thresholds. Our companion guide to HIP-3 and HIP-4 covers the full design, and the market has been pricing Hyperliquid’s prediction market ambitions since the February announcement.

Regulated clearing. Kalshi reaches finality through the opposite architecture: a centralized exchange clearinghouse, registered with the CFTC as a derivatives clearing organization since August 2024, resolving markets under rules filed with a federal regulator and publishing results on-chain through Pyth and RedStone. Disputes go through exchange procedures, not token votes. The model trades decentralization for accountability, and its structured markets rarely face the ambiguity problems that plague open-ended questions. Polymarket’s separate United States venue, itself a CFTC-registered designated contract market that did $3.04 billion in June, follows the same regulated path, while the international venue still settles through UMA.

Purpose-built feeds. For objective, high-frequency questions, oracles built for prices work fine, and Polymarket already uses Chainlink to settle its fast crypto price markets, where no public discourse about the answer is needed. FIFA’s own licensed prediction market partner for the World Cup runs on Chainlink infrastructure, part of the tournament’s broader crypto buildout. Further out, web proof systems could let a resolution cite a cryptographically verified source document instead of a screenshot, a use case covered in our zkTLS explainer.

History adds a warning label to all of it, because decentralized resolution has been tried before and the graveyard is instructive. Augur, the sector’s first major attempt, launched in 2018 with REP token staking where reporters earned by landing with the consensus outcome, and the platform learned quickly that rewarding agreement with the majority is not the same as rewarding truth, especially once invalid and ambiguously worded markets entered the mix. Omen outsourced disputes to Kleros, a decentralized juror court whose participants were likewise paid for voting with the crowd, and inherited the same incentive plus slow rulings and heavy gas costs. Both platforms also discovered that resolution is a liquidity problem in disguise: traders avoid venues where the payout rules feel lottery-shaped, so unreliable settlement starves the order books that make prediction markets useful at all. Every resolution design since is a wager about which failure mode is most tolerable: token capture, institutional discretion, or narrow scope.

What traders should actually check Resolution risk is checkable before entry, and the checklist is short.

Read the resolution criteria as literally as a hostile lawyer would, because the oracle will. The Strategy market turned on exact wording and an exact cutoff. If the criteria name a specific source, that source is the truth regardless of what every news outlet reports. Check the venue’s settlement path: UMA-resolved international Polymarket, a CFTC clearinghouse, a validator-settled chain, and a Chainlink price feed are four different risk profiles wearing the same Yes and No interface. Prefer markets with objective, single-source answers when size matters, since ambiguity is the raw material of every resolution scandal. And in a disputed market, watch the UMA vote rather than the news cycle, because the vote is what pays.

Two habits separate professionals from tourists here. The first is position sizing by resolution clarity: the same trader who is comfortable with six figures on a rate decision, where the source is official and the answer binary, keeps ambiguous cultural or political wording to entertainment-sized stakes. The second is tracking the dispute docket itself. Markets with pending UMA votes, and the wallets voting in them, are public on-chain information, and the recurring names in contested rulings are known to anyone who looks. In a system where the referee list is visible, not reading it is a choice.

One more number worth holding in mind: UMA’s entire token traded around a $63 million market capitalization earlier this year, while the markets it settles cleared billions per month. The economic security of a token-voted oracle is bounded by the cost of acquiring the tokens, and that ratio is the quiet argument behind every alternative design now gaining ground.

Truth as infrastructure Prediction markets are routinely praised as truth machines, better than polls and faster than newsrooms. The praise is half-earned. Prices aggregate beliefs brilliantly, but the settlement layer decides which beliefs get paid, and that layer is built from bonds, challenge windows, token votes, clearinghouse rules, and validator scripts, each with a distinct way of being wrong. The sector’s next phase will be decided as much by resolution engineering as by volume, because traders forgive losing on the outcome and do not forgive losing on the ruling. The machinery for deciding truth is now a product category of its own. It deserves to be read as carefully as the odds.

Frequently asked questions How does Polymarket decide who won a market? Polymarket’s international venue outsources resolution to UMA’s Optimistic Oracle. After an event, an approved proposer submits the outcome with a $750 USDC bond, and a two-hour challenge window opens. If nobody disputes, the market settles on that answer, usually within two to four hours. If a dispute lands, UMA token holders vote through the Data Verification Mechanism, and their ruling is final.

What is UMA’s optimistic oracle? It is an oracle protocol by Risk Labs for bringing arbitrary real-world facts on-chain. It is called optimistic because proposed answers are assumed true unless challenged during a dispute window, with bonds and rewards making honesty profitable and false proposals costly. Around 99% of assertions since 2021 have gone undisputed, and contested cases escalate to a token-holder vote.

What happens when a Polymarket resolution is disputed? The disputer posts a bond matching the proposer’s, and the question escalates to UMA’s Data Verification Mechanism. UMA token holders research the question and vote, with rewards for voting with the final outcome and penalties for missing or voting against it. The losing side’s bond pays the winning side. Disputes stretch resolution from hours to days, and the DVM ruling cannot be appealed.

Why is UMA’s system controversial in 2026? Concentration and conflicts. A Wall Street Journal investigation found most disputed markets saw over half their votes come from the ten largest wallets, and about one in five disputes included a voter holding a position in the market being judged. More than 1,150 markets were disputed in the first five months of 2026, and a $60 million market on a Strategy Bitcoin sale resolved against a documented regulatory filing.

What was the Strategy Bitcoin market dispute? A Polymarket contract asked whether Strategy would sell any Bitcoin by May 31, 2026. A June 1 regulatory filing showed the company sold 32 BTC between May 26 and May 31, inside the window. The resolution was challenged twice, went to a UMA token vote, and the market resolved No anyway. The episode became the leading exhibit in the argument against token-voted settlement.

What is MOOv2? The Managed Optimistic Oracle V2, deployed in November 2025, restricted resolution proposals to 37 pre-approved addresses with strong accuracy records while keeping disputes open to everyone. Paired with language model automation that drafts proposals for fractions of a cent and bots that summarize evidence, it cut spam proposals and sped up routine settlement without changing the token-vote backstop.

How do Kalshi and Hyperliquid settle markets differently? Kalshi resolves through its CFTC-registered clearinghouse under federally filed rules, then publishes results on-chain via Pyth and RedStone, with disputes handled by exchange procedure. Hyperliquid’s HIP-4 uses deterministic settlement by the validator set against pre-specified data sources, with no dispute window at all. Neither involves a token vote, and both are positioned as answers to UMA’s governance risk.

Can a prediction market resolve incorrectly and stay that way? Yes. DVM rulings are final, and Polymarket has honored controversial outcomes rather than overriding the oracle. The practical defenses are all pre-trade: read the resolution criteria literally, check which settlement system the venue uses, prefer objectively verifiable questions for larger positions, and treat ambiguous wording as a risk factor priced into the odds.

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. Always do your own research. Information current as of July 3, 2026.

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Key Takeaways Lockheed Martin emerges as leading candidate to purchase Ultra Maritime from Advent International for approximately $3.5 billion Announcement potentially coming during the week of July 7 Target company focuses on anti-submarine warfare systems, supplying torpedo-detection technology to U.S. and UK naval forces Shares of LMT dropped more than 1.4% in extended trading after the news broke Deal remains unfinalized with multiple competing bidders still participating in the auction process Defense contractor Lockheed Martin has positioned itself as the frontrunner to purchase Ultra Maritime, a specialized naval defense company currently owned by private equity firm Advent International, in a transaction valued at approximately $3.5 billion, the Financial Times reported.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, LMT

Following the report’s publication, LMT shares declined over 1.4% during after-hours trading Wednesday evening. The stock had previously gained 4.62% during the regular session, closing at $545.91.

Advent International created Ultra Maritime by separating it from its broader Cobham Ultra holdings — a portfolio the private equity firm assembled through two significant United Kingdom transactions: acquiring Cobham through a £4 billion privatization in 2019, followed by purchasing Ultra Electronics for £2.6 billion in 2022.

The company specializes in undersea warfare capabilities, manufacturing detection buoys engineered to identify submarines and torpedoes. Its client roster includes both the United States Navy and the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy.

Negotiations continue without a finalized agreement in place. Sources familiar with the matter told the FT that a public announcement might arrive during the week beginning July 7.

Advent International refused to provide comment. Lockheed Martin has not yet responded to inquiries seeking statement.

Business Synergies Lockheed’s existing Rotary and Mission Systems division already provides naval clients with sensor technology, sonar equipment, and integrated combat systems. Acquiring Ultra Maritime’s capabilities would strengthen its underwater warfare portfolio.

With a market capitalization hovering around $110 billion, a $3.5 billion acquisition represents a significant but digestible transaction for Lockheed — strategic in nature rather than transformational.

Multiple competing bidders continue pursuing the opportunity. The FT emphasized that the sales process remains an active competitive auction, leaving open the possibility that a rival contender could submit a superior proposal. The identities of alternative bidders have not been disclosed.

Compliance Challenges The proposed transaction will likely encounter a complicated regulatory approval process. Given Ultra Maritime’s British origins and its supply relationship with the Royal Navy, the deal will probably face examination under the United Kingdom’s National Security and Investment Act.

U.S. oversight through the Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS) also represents a consideration due to the international nature of the technology and its defense applications.

The Financial Times report did not specify Lockheed’s intended financing approach for the purchase. Lockheed has traditionally funded smaller acquisitions through a combination of borrowed capital and cash generated from operations.

Shareholders will seek transparency regarding how a $3.5 billion expenditure might impact share repurchase programs and dividend distributions.

Bloomberg previously disclosed that Advent initiated the sale process for Ultra Maritime earlier in the current year.

TLDR Microsoft launched Frontier Company with a $2.5 billion investment. The new business will focus on enterprise AI deployments. The initiative will use 6,000 industry and engineering experts. Judson Althoff said the venture goes beyond the FDE model. Early partners include LSEG, Unilever, Land O’Lakes, and Accenture. Microsoft launched Microsoft Frontier Company with $2.5 billion to expand enterprise AI deployment work. Microsoft will use existing AI tools and assign 6,000 industry and engineering experts. The operating business will support large clients seeking results.

Dedicated AI Deployment Unit Microsoft said the Frontier Company will work with enterprises that need technical support. The unit will focus on deployments across existing platforms and client systems. It will also connect engineers with industry specialists for each project.

Judson Althoff, Microsoft commercial business CEO, separated the venture from common FDE models. “This goes beyond what has been labeled as Forward-Deployed Engineering,” Althoff said. He called it an outcome-driven engineering organization for clients.

Rivals Increase Spending On Similar AI Work The launch comes as major technology groups increase spending on enterprise AI delivery. Amazon Web Services announced a $1 billion AI deployment commitment two days earlier. Its project uses a Forward-Deployed Engineer model for customer work.

OpenAI and Anthropic have also started related ventures with investment partners. Those efforts show demand for practical AI integration across companies. However, Microsoft positioned its new unit as broader than standard deployment teams.

Microsoft Builds On Existing Corporate Relationships Microsoft already has engineers working with many Fortune 500 companies and institutions. That footprint may give the new business faster access to major clients. It may also shorten the time needed to identify projects.

Microsoft named London Stock Exchange Group, Unilever, Land O’Lakes, and Accenture as early partners. These partners cover finance, consumer goods, agriculture, and consulting services. Therefore, the Frontier Company starts with customers across different sectors.

Microsoft said the venture will match AI tools with specific operational needs. The company expects its teams to support complex deployments inside large organizations. The move increases competition as cloud and AI firms chase enterprise contracts.

San Francisco, California, July 3rd, 2026, Chainwire

Boardwalk, a launch and market-formation protocol for token economies, announced plans to move its protocol-token systems to Arbitrum and introduce BWS as the successor to its legacy BMX protocol token.

Under the planned transition, BWS will anchor Boardwalk’s protocol-token systems on Arbitrum, including staking, Voter Points, Fee Direction, and primary protocol-token liquidity. Boardwalk’s application layer will remain multichain, with relaunches planned across six supported networks as integration work is completed.

The transition separates the protocol token’s operating environment from Boardwalk’s broader application infrastructure. Boardwalk will continue to support token-economy launches through its application layer, while protocol-token systems operate from Arbitrum.

Boardwalk’s launch framework is intended to provide a standardized structure for token-economy formation. Its described architecture includes published launch rules, seed liquidity designed to lock at graduation, contract-defined fee routing and vesting, fee-protection mechanisms, liquidity-provider participation systems, and Café Boardwalk, a public coordination space for launches.

Under Boardwalk’s described fee configuration, applicable trades include a 1.15% token fee and a 0.10% pool fee, totaling 1.25%. The token-level fee mechanism is designed to reduce incentives for alternative liquidity arrangements focused solely on capturing trading-fee flows. Fees are routed according to the applicable launch configuration and depend on protocol activity and market conditions.

Boardwalk does not select, vet, or endorse issuers or projects that use its protocol.

“BWS is intended to consolidate the protocol-token systems supporting Boardwalk’s next stage of development on Arbitrum, while the application layer remains multichain,” said Meowphasaurus, Co-Founder of Boardwalk. “The transition provides a defined operating environment for staking, Voter Points, Fee Direction, and protocol-token liquidity, while launches continue to be structured through the Boardwalk application layer.”

BMX holders who meet published eligibility requirements will be able to migrate 1 BMX for 1 BWS through Boardwalk’s official migration process when it opens. Migrated BWS is planned to be received as a staked position on Arbitrum. Boardwalk will publish official contract addresses, eligibility criteria, timing, bridge information, and step-by-step instructions before the migration process becomes available.

BWS is planned to use a token-contract design without an owner, administrator, minter, upgrade path, or post-deployment supply-increase function. Boardwalk expects to publish final contract details and verification materials through its official channels.

Boardwalk will release further information about the multichain application relaunch and protocol-token transition through its official website and communications. Users should rely on those sources for contract addresses, eligibility criteria, and migration instructions.

About Boardwalk

Boardwalk is launch and market-formation infrastructure for transparent token economies. Its protocol framework includes visible launch rules, seed liquidity designed to lock at graduation, contract-defined fee routing, vesting, participation systems, and public coordination through Café Boardwalk.

This release is for informational purposes only. Statements about future integrations, deployments, timing, migration, bridge availability, protocol activity, fees, or burns are forward-looking and subject to change. Migration availability is subject to published eligibility criteria, applicable law, technical availability, and smart-contract risk. BWS, staking, Voter Points, and Fee Direction do not provide ownership, equity, a revenue share, or a claim on Boardwalk or its assets. Voter Points are non-transferable and have no monetary value. Nothing in this release guarantees liquidity, fee amounts, token value, economic benefit, or any financial outcome. References to Arbitrum identify an intended deployment environment and do not imply sponsorship, endorsement, or partnership.

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

June closed out the first half of 2026 on a high note for Viction - the network took a decisive step toward its next major upgrade, a new Retrodrop season opened its doors, the community layer kept shipping features that make great work impossible to miss, and local chapters kept the ecosystem moving on the ground. Here's a look back at a month where every part of Viction was building at once.

Ecosystem HighlightsNetwork Upgrade: Pre-Prometheus Is LiveThe month's headline moment - Viction successfully activated the Pre-Prometheus Hard Fork, delivering critical optimizations that enhance performance and strengthen stability, preparing Viction for the upcoming Prometheus Hard Fork.

Retrodrop Season 6Season 6 officially kicked off, opening with Viction Improvement Proposal (VIP) #10 on Forum & Governance for the community to vote on the final reward distribution model. This season rewards long-term contributors with $VIC staking at the center, along with other core DeFi activities, NFT interactions, governance participation, and ecosystem campaigns.

If you contributed to Viction during Q2 2026, mark your calendar: head to retrodrop.viction.xyz on July 13, 2026 (7:00 UTC) to check your eligibility for Retrodrop Season 6.

Creator Hub Two feature drops landed this month, both aimed at the same goal: making contributions visible. The Clan System gives creators a way to build and represent team spirit together, while Community Upvote and Spotlight lets members upvote standout submissions, unlocking bonus XP for the creators and shining a spotlight on the community's top contributors.
Good work, seen and rewarded.

Mission-based BountiesJune delivered about 14 bounties in total, including 4 built specifically for local communities - Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia - each blending cultural moments with on-chain engagement. 

Some leaned into country pride and identity, like a Philippine Independence Day campaign; some carried Viction's vision for digital freedom, innovation, and community empowerment, or turned Clan pride into viral content through an Indonesian meme battle on X. Others opened doors to real-world experiences, from Viction-based event ticketing to hands-on crypto payments:

2. Partner Spotlight: Conviction 2026In partnership with Conviction 2026 - Vietnam Digital Asset & AI Forum, the Viction community got the chance to mint a Viction-based free NFT for event ticketing and win a Conviction 2026 Pro Ticket with exclusive benefits:

💡

3. Retrodrop Season 6 Bounty SeriesA dedicated 3-part bounty series encouraged the community to engage with Retrodrop Season 6 and experience products in Viction ecosystem in everyday life, including real-world crypto payments through the Fusion Card on Coin98 Super Wallet:

Voice Your Vision for Retrodrop Season 6Cast Your Vote on VIP #10: Retrodrop Season 6 - Sign of ConvictionOpen Fusion Card and Enjoy Retrodrop S6 Pool PartyAMA Across Local CommunitiesLocal chapters across Viction Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia ran a coordinated AMA series on Retrodrop Season 6, helping members understand the spirit and core message behind the season while creating real space for members to exchange ideas and connect directly with each other.

Viction Sport IRL FrontierDAO launched a Monthly Running & Walking Challenge on Strava, a reminder that Viction's community shows up not just on-chain, but IRL too, growing and moving forward together, one step at a time.

Sneak Peek: World of ContrariansThe Build Your Contrarians Character bounty opened the door to the Contrarians universe, one of the active NFT communities within the Viction ecosystem, inviting members to start designing their characters using AI ahead of a bigger rollout launching this July.

Closing ThoughtJune closed out the first half of 2026 with real progress across the board, from the Pre-Prometheus Hard Fork and Retrodrop momentum to an evolving Creator Hub and real-world usage through the Viction ecosystem’s products.

The second half of the year is opening up: the Prometheus Hard Fork on the horizon, Viction's first steps into AI, Viction’s presence at leading events, and more Retrodrop seasons ahead to recognize everyone who's contributed to the ecosystem's growth.

Here's to the second half of 2026.

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest has increased its exposure to Elon Musk’s companies by making another sizeable Tesla purchase, just days after its multi-million-dollar investment in SpaceX. The investment manager purchased 96,935 shares of Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) in three of its exchange-traded funds (ETFs), on Thursday, July 2.

Cathie Wood’s ARK Buys More Tesla Shares At Tesla’s closing price of $393.45, the total value of the purchase is around $38.14 million, per recent disclosure. The largest purchase was by the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) that bought 69,723 shares of Tesla worth approximately $27.44 million.

Here is every move Cathie Wood and Ark Invest made in the stock market today 7/2 pic.twitter.com/O4W4fxQ3pP

— Ark Invest Tracker (@ArkkDaily) July 3, 2026

The ARK Next Generation Internet ETF (ARKW) and the ARK Space Exploration & Innovation ETF (ARKX) bought nearly $6.91 million and $3.80 million, respectively, in shares. However, Tesla shares were not added to the ARK Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF (ARKQ) during the session.

The recent acquisition by ARK Invest of SpaceX shares for $32.5 million brings the latest in Tesla’s accumulation of shares in the hands of the company. Earlier, ARK had shared that after its latest buy, SpaceX is one of the bigger positions in several of its funds.

Tesla stock price chart. Source: Yahoo! Finance For context, Elon Musk’s Tesla stock closed Thursday at $393.45, making a one-day drop of 7.49%, on Thursday. Hence, it could suggest that Cathie Wood bought the dip in TSLA shares.

The TSLA Vs. MSTR Angle At the same time, Strategy co-founder Michael Saylor was hot from the start with derivatives activity surrounding his company. On X, Saylor shared a screenshot that showed Strategy (MSTR) has a staggering open interest-to-market cap ratio of nearly 72%. This is much more than other mega-cap technology stocks like Tesla and Saylor tried highlighting his company’s better derivatives positioning.

Meanwhile, Cathie Wood’s ARK’s most recent trading report also revealed ongoing purchases of another important crypto stock, this time adding Bullish (NASDAQ: BLSH) stock. The firm bought 77,251 shares via ARKK and 9,732 shares via ARKW for a total of 86,983 shares in the day. BLSH stock was up 1.35% to close at $25.57 during trading, which made the addition worth $2.22 million.

For digital asset-related borrowing, check out our page on Crypto Loan Platforms.

Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest has purchased nearly $38.1 million worth of Tesla shares after the electric vehicle maker suffered its sharpest one-day decline in weeks.

Summary

Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest bought $38.1 million worth of Tesla shares after the stock fell 7.5% in one session. The latest purchase follows ARK’s recent $32.5 million investment in SpaceX, increasing exposure to Elon Musk-led companies. ARK also added $2.2 million of Bullish shares as Wood continues backing crypto-related investments. According to ARK Invest’s latest daily trading disclosure, the investment firm bought 96,935 shares of Tesla across three of its exchange-traded funds on July 2, taking advantage of the stock’s 7.49% drop during the session. Based on Tesla’s closing price of $393.45, the purchases were valued at roughly $38.14 million.

Source: Yahoo Finance The largest allocation went to the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK), which added 69,723 Tesla shares worth about $27.44 million. The ARK Next Generation Internet ETF (ARKW) acquired shares valued at around $6.91 million, while the ARK Space Exploration & Innovation ETF (ARKX) bought another $3.80 million. ARK’s trading report showed no Tesla purchases for the ARK Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF (ARKQ).

ARK continues building exposure to Elon Musk companies The latest Tesla purchase came a week after ARK Invest disclosed a $32.5 million investment in privately held SpaceX, another company led by Elon Musk. ARK previously noted that the latest transaction had lifted SpaceX into the list of larger holdings across several of its funds, further increasing its exposure to Musk-led businesses.

Tesla shares ended Thursday at $393.45 after falling 7.49% during the session, making the latest purchase appear to be a buy-the-dip move based on ARK’s disclosed transactions. The filing did not state a reason for the trade.

Wood has recently tied her investment outlook to macroeconomic conditions rather than short-term market swings. Speaking last week, she argued that rising geopolitical and economic instability could drive new demand for Bitcoin and other digital assets as investors look for assets that can preserve wealth across borders.

According to Wood, artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies serve different roles in portfolios rather than competing for the same capital. While AI continues attracting investment because of its growth prospects, she described Bitcoin as an “insurance policy” that becomes more valuable when confidence in traditional financial systems weakens. She also said capital leaving politically and economically unstable countries could “light another fire” under Bitcoin and the digital asset market.

Bullish joins ARK’s latest buying activity Alongside Tesla, ARK also expanded its position in crypto-focused stock Bullish (NASDAQ: BLSH), according to the same trading report. The firm purchased 77,251 Bullish shares through ARKK and another 9,732 shares through ARKW, bringing the day’s total acquisition to 86,983 shares.

Bullish closed 1.35% higher at $25.57, putting the value of the latest purchase at roughly $2.22 million.

A day earlier, Strategy co-founder Michael Saylor highlighted strong derivatives activity surrounding his own company. As crypto.news reported, Saylor shared data showing Strategy’s open interest-to-market capitalization ratio stood at nearly 72%, a level he compared with other large technology companies, including Tesla, to argue that Strategy commands stronger participation in the derivatives market.

Cover image via depositphotos.com 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.

The XRP market is preparing to exit a prolonged tailspin after, according to observations by well-known crypto analyst Ali Martinez, the popular SuperTrend technical indicator triggered a buy signal on the token's 4-hour chart overnight for the first time since mid-June. 

Against this backdrop, the price of the token began to show signs of recovery, forming a stable rising base around $1.08–$1.10 after last week's wave of sell-offs.

According to historical statistics cited by Martinez, the current switch of the indicator into the "green zone" opens a direct path toward the $1.25 price level, which implies potential market growth of 14%.

HOT Stories

XRP price outlook in context of SuperTrend indicator, Source: Analyst Ali MartinezIn his analysis, Ali Martinez pays special attention to the high accuracy of this algorithm in the past — the last time it issued a similar buy recommendation, it was followed by a rapid rally that sent the price of XRP up by 14%.

You Might Also Like

The effectiveness of the model is also confirmed in a falling market. According to historical data, SuperTrend previously identified the start of two of XRP's largest local declines — of 19% and 16% — without error, warning investors in time about the need to lock in profits. The switch of the indicator into bullish mode right now indicates that selling pressure in exchange order books has been exhausted.

Roadmap to $1.25: Three steps for XRP buyersRight now, a key confrontation is unfolding on exchanges. In order for the 14% impulse outlined in Martinez's analysis to fully play out and take the price toward the $1.25 target and above, buyers need to solve three tasks in sequence:

Breakout above $1.10: XRP has moved very close to this level. Bulls need a clean impulse breakout above this mark to confirm a real inflow of buying liquidity.Overcoming the $1.13–$1.15 zone: This range is an intermediate resistance area, where a temporary pause is possible due to profit-taking by speculators.Move toward the $1.25 target: This is the final point of the roadmap, and consolidation above it would mean the final breakdown of the downtrend.At the same time, the key safety zone for the entire bullish scenario remains the support block around $1.00–$1.04. As long as XRP holds above these values, the mathematical expectation of growth remains in force. A cancellation of the scenario and a drop below $1.04 would return the asset to the critical psychological level of $1.00.

Key Highlights Samsung Electronics shares jumped 8.22% Friday, rebounding strongly from Thursday’s 9.1% decline South Korea’s KOSPI benchmark rallied 5.76% to close at 8,088.34 following a V-shaped recovery from 7,300 lows Speculation about Anthropic partnering with Samsung on custom AI hardware drove renewed investor optimism SK Hynix climbed 10.88% Friday, bouncing back after Thursday’s devastating 14.6% plunge Despite volatility, the KOSPI maintains its position as 2026’s top-performing major global index with roughly 92% gains year-to-date Samsung Electronics shares mounted an impressive comeback Friday, gaining 8.22% after experiencing a 9.1% decline in the prior trading session. This recovery mirrored a broader turnaround in South Korea’s KOSPI index, which had activated circuit breakers Thursday amid intense market-wide selling pressure.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., SMSD.L

The KOSPI benchmark touched intraday lows near 7,300 Friday morning before executing a striking V-shaped reversal, ultimately finishing 5.76% higher at 8,088.34. The previous session witnessed a brutal 7.89% decline — marking one of the index’s steepest single-day retreats in 2026.

Emerging reports suggesting AI powerhouse Anthropic is negotiating with Samsung regarding custom AI hardware development provided investors with compelling reasons to re-enter the market. This development helped propel the recovery in both Samsung and fellow semiconductor manufacturer SK Hynix.

SK Hynix shares soared 10.88% Friday, recovering from its own catastrophic 14.6% drop just one day earlier. As the KOSPI’s two largest components, these semiconductor giants significantly influence the broader index direction.

Thursday’s dramatic selloff was partially intensified by liquidation pressure in heavily leveraged single-stock exchange-traded funds. South Korea’s financial oversight authority publicly addressed concerns regarding this market dynamic.

Anthropic Partnership Speculation Energizes Recovery Friday’s rally extended beyond simple technical retracement. The reports linking Anthropic with Samsung on bespoke hardware development provided genuine fundamental momentum alongside value-seeking and short position covering following Thursday’s panic-driven liquidation.

Samsung’s stock continues trading substantially below its 52-week peak of 374,500 won, suggesting potential for additional upside if the artificial intelligence memory narrative maintains strength.

The KOSPI’s exceptional 2026 performance has been predominantly fueled by the AI memory sector boom. With approximately 92% year-to-date gains, the index significantly outpaces every other major global benchmark. The S&P 500, for context, has advanced merely 9.3% during the same period.

AI Memory Momentum Extends Beyond Korea The artificial intelligence memory sector rally isn’t confined to Seoul markets. American competitor Micron concluded Thursday’s abbreviated pre-holiday session down 5.5% at $975.56, swept up in the semiconductor sector weakness that pushed the Nasdaq 0.8% lower.

Micron nonetheless maintains impressive 166.4% year-to-date gains, underscoring the exceptional strength characterizing memory stocks throughout 2026.

South Korea’s robust Friday rebound is interpreted as an encouraging indicator for Micron when American exchanges resume trading Monday following the Independence Day holiday.

Friday’s advances for Samsung and SK Hynix reflected a convergence of technical short-covering, opportunistic value buying, and rapid-response capital all simultaneously pursuing the recovery trade.

Samsung’s shares settled 8.22% higher Friday, while SK Hynix posted corresponding gains of 10.88%.

The long-term target for CAKE is $10, as it continues to hold the lower support of a long-term price structure on higher timeframes.

CAKE, the native token of PancakeSwap, is currently trading near a long-standing support zone that has repeatedly acted as a floor over the past two years. Meanwhile, the 1-week chart shows this is part of a larger compression within a broader symmetrical triangle with bullish implications upon breakout.

CAKE Holds Multi-Year Triangle Support The recent price structure indicates that CAKE may be building a base after an extended decline. On the weekly chart, CAKE trades close to the lower boundary of a symmetrical triangle that has formed since late 2023.

Since the structure started forming in October 2023, the token has recorded a series of lower highs and higher lows. Additionally, the structure has continued to compress slowly, building momentum for a subsequent breakout.

Currently, CAKE trades near the lower support of this symmetrical triangle. The recent downtrend took the coin to a low of $1.12 in early June before rebounding to its current price of $1.37.

CAKE Symmetrical Triangle While the possibility of one final decline toward the psychological $1 level remains, such a move could mark a potential final support sweep. This scenario could most likely happen if the broader cryptocurrency market, especially Bitcoin, drops to lower prices.

Meanwhile, holding this $1.12 support paves the way for a rebound to higher prices. The natural target is the upper resistance trendline, where prices have repeatedly faced rejection, currently near $3.40.

CAKE Breakout Targets $10 In an optimistic scenario where CAKE eventually breaks above the triangle’s descending resistance line, the target is a strong upsurge to multi-year highs.

The first upside target sits between $3.90 and $4.50, a region that aligns with previous resistance while prices trended within the structure. Notably, this 184% to 228% growth from the current market price could serve as the first take-profit area. 

Should bullish momentum continue beyond that level, the next major rally target is between $9 and $10, a 557% to 630% pump from here. This would take the CAKE token to price levels last seen in April 2022.

Meanwhile, between these two major targets are micro-resistance regions. Specifically, levels at $5.45 and $8.50 are areas of interest, where CAKE might face mild opposition.

In the meantime, CAKE continues to face declining futures and spot demand despite its 2% in the past 24 hours. During this period, Coinglass futures flows show that traders are closing more derivative contracts than opening, with inflows at $2.48 million and outflows at $2.82 million.

CAKE Futures Flow/Coinglass Spot buyers are also increasingly moving more CAKE to exchanges than they are withdrawing to self-custody wallets. Coinglass’s spot inflows stand at $853,640 and outflows at $701,170, suggesting increased selling pressure.

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.

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Choosing an interoperability architecture is really a choice about where your application logic, state, and security assumptions will live.

ZetaChain vs Wormhole is not a comparison between two identical tools. ZetaChain is a Layer 1 blockchain where developers can deploy Universal Apps that coordinate assets, data, and calls from connected networks through one programmable environment. Wormhole is an interoperability protocol that verifies and delivers messages between applications deployed on different networks. ZetaChain can suit teams that want unified logic and state, including native Bitcoin use cases. Wormhole can suit teams that want to keep existing deployments and add verified message delivery. The right choice depends on the application's state model, threat model, operating burden, and the steps a user must complete.

This guide turns those architectural differences into a practical decision process. It focuses on what developers need to build, secure, test, and operate rather than declaring a universal winner.

Start Building with the ZetaChain documentation

ZetaChain vs Wormhole at a glanceThe fastest way to understand the difference is to ask where the core application runs. With ZetaChain, a Universal App can place its main logic and shared state on ZetaChain. Users on connected networks interact with that app through ZetaChain's connectivity layer. With Wormhole, applications generally retain contracts or services across their chosen networks and use Wormhole to carry verified messages between them.

That distinction affects far more than contract deployment. It changes how a team synchronizes state, handles failures, pays for execution, audits the system, and designs the user journey. A protocol that transports messages and a programmable Layer 1 can both enable interoperability, but they assign different jobs to the application team.

Decision area

ZetaChain

Wormhole

Primary model

Layer 1 execution environment for Universal Apps

Verified messaging and token-transfer infrastructure

Application logic

Can be concentrated in one Universal App

Often remains in contracts or services on each target network

State

Can use one shared source of application state

Applications design synchronization around delivered messages

Native Bitcoin use

Designed to support programmable interactions with native BTC

Depends on the selected Wormhole product and integrated assets

Core security question

How ZetaChain consensus, observers, and threshold signing secure the flow

How Guardians verify and attest to messages

Best initial test

Prototype one end-to-end Universal App flow

Prototype message production, delivery, verification, and recovery

Neither column removes the need for careful application security. Teams still need access controls, safe upgrade processes, monitoring, rate limits, and tested recovery paths. The useful comparison is which architecture makes those responsibilities easier to reason about for a specific product.

How do the programming models differ?A ZetaChain Universal App is a smart contract application deployed on ZetaChain. It can receive calls and assets originating from connected networks, apply shared business logic, and coordinate outcomes. This model lets a developer treat interoperability as part of the execution environment rather than building a separate messaging layer into every deployment.

That can reduce duplicated logic. For example, a lending or portfolio application may need a single view of collateral and policy rules. A shared contract can be easier to audit than several versions that must remain aligned. It can also make feature releases more consistent because the team updates the central application logic instead of coordinating many deployments.

Unified state changes the design problemState is often the hardest part of an interoperable application. A message can arrive late, arrive after another action, or fail during downstream execution. If each network keeps its own state, the application needs rules for ordering, retries, duplicate handling, and reconciliation. These are application-level concerns even when the transport layer works as designed.

ZetaChain gives teams the option to keep important state in one programmable environment. That does not eliminate asynchronous behavior at connected-network boundaries, but it can reduce how many sources of truth the team maintains. Developers still need to define what happens while an inbound or outbound action is pending and how users recover from failure.

Message delivery preserves existing deploymentsWormhole's model can be attractive when a product already has contracts on several networks. Those contracts can emit messages, receive verified messages, and take local action. The team can preserve network-specific integrations and use Wormhole as a communication layer rather than moving the main application to a new execution environment.

This flexibility also places more design work on the application. Teams decide which contracts may send messages, how a receiving contract validates them, what ordering guarantees the app needs, and how state converges. For some mature products, that control is a benefit. For a new product seeking one shared logic layer, it can become extra operational weight.

What security assumptions should developers evaluate?Security comparisons should begin with explicit assumptions, not labels. Every interoperable design combines protocol security with application code, administrative controls, upgrade mechanisms, relayers or operators, and connected-network behavior. A fair review maps each component and asks how a failure could affect funds, state, or availability.

ZetaChain security modelZetaChain uses proof-of-stake consensus for its Layer 1. Validators participate in consensus, while observer components watch connected networks and report relevant events. Threshold signature schemes allow the network to control connected-network accounts without one node holding a complete private key. Economic penalties can apply to validator misconduct under the protocol's rules.

For an application team, the review should cover more than consensus. It should examine Universal App permissions, contract upgrade controls, inbound call validation, outbound action limits, and the handling of assets while an action is pending. Teams should also understand how connected-network observations become finalized actions and which events can pause or delay execution.

Wormhole security modelWormhole uses a Guardian network to observe and attest to messages. Applications verify the resulting attestations before acting. This creates a clear integration boundary, but developers must still validate the message's emitter, source context, payload, and replay properties. Accepting a valid attestation is not the same as confirming that every requested application action is safe.

Teams evaluating Wormhole should review the current Guardian set and threshold, the product-specific verification flow, contract upgrade controls, relayer behavior, and recovery procedures. They should also determine how the application responds when delivery is delayed or a destination call reverts.

Build a threat model around the whole flowA useful threat model traces one user action from the first signature to the final state change. Identify every contract, key, role, network, message, and off-chain service involved. Then test compromised administrators, malformed payloads, duplicate messages, delayed finality, destination reverts, price manipulation, and service outages.

Do not assume blockchain transactions are universally irreversible. Protocol-level exceptions, governance actions, upgrades, and reorganizations can affect outcomes. Likewise, do not describe all smart contracts as immutable. Upgradeable proxy patterns and privileged controls are common. Documenting these realities makes the comparison more useful and the final application safer.

How does each approach shape user experience?Users do not experience an architecture diagram. They experience wallet prompts, wait times, gas requirements, failed actions, and balances that either make sense or do not. The best technical design is the one that supports a clear journey without hiding material risks.

Count user-visible stepsStart by counting signatures, approvals, network switches, and transactions for the most important flow. A Universal App can often present a more unified interaction because core logic and state live in one place. The exact experience still depends on the connected network, asset, wallet, and application design.

A Wormhole-based application can also offer a streamlined interface, especially when relayers and product tooling handle delivery well. However, an app with contracts and state on several networks may need more visible coordination. Developers should test the full journey instead of inferring UX from the protocol alone.

Design the pending and failure statesInteroperable actions are not always instant. Users need to know when an action is submitted, observed, verified, executed, or waiting for recovery. A generic spinner is not enough. The interface should show a status that maps to the actual system and provide a safe next step.

For ZetaChain, teams should explain when an inbound action reaches the Universal App and when an outbound action completes. For Wormhole, teams should explain message attestation, delivery, and destination execution. In either case, the product needs idempotent retry logic so a user cannot accidentally trigger the economic action twice.

Measure UX under stressPrototype testing should include slow finality, unavailable relayers, high gas, rejected wallet prompts, and destination reverts. Record completion rate, time to completion, support requests, and recovery success. These results often reveal more than a feature checklist. They show whether the architecture can support a product people will trust.

Teams should also decide who pays each execution cost and how that is communicated. Abstracting gas can improve usability, but it creates operational and abuse-prevention requirements for the sponsor. Clear limits and monitoring are essential.

A practical evaluation process for your teamA short prototype can expose architectural tradeoffs before they become expensive. Use the same representative flow for both approaches and compare the evidence.

Define the state model. List the data that must remain consistent and identify the source of truth. Decide whether one shared state layer or network-local state better fits the product.

Map required networks and assets. Confirm current support in official documentation. Include native assets, tokens, contract calls, finality needs, and any network-specific limitations.

Write the threat model. Trace keys, roles, contracts, messages, observers, Guardians, relayers, and upgrade paths. Define loss limits and pause conditions.

Build one end-to-end flow. Use realistic contracts and a real front end. Avoid a demo that tests only a happy-path message.

Inject failures. Delay delivery, duplicate requests, revert destination calls, and interrupt services. Verify that retries are safe and the user sees an accurate status.

Measure the user journey. Count prompts, transactions, network switches, completion time, and recovery steps. Test with people who did not build the prototype.

Estimate operating work. Compare monitoring, incident response, upgrades, liquidity needs, support burden, and the number of deployments the team must maintain.

The result should be a written architecture decision record. It should name the chosen model, rejected alternatives, assumptions, measured tradeoffs, and triggers that would cause the team to revisit the decision.

When is ZetaChain the better fit?ZetaChain is a strong fit when the product benefits from one programmable environment and shared application state. This is particularly relevant for new applications that do not want to deploy and synchronize a full set of contracts across every target network. It can also suit products that need to coordinate native assets, including native BTC, through a Universal App.

A team may prefer ZetaChain when its core business logic should be consistent for every user. One central contract can reduce version drift and make audits easier to scope. Developers can focus on the application's rules while ZetaChain provides the connectivity and execution framework.

Use cases that favor a Universal AppApplications that need one shared account, policy, or portfolio state.

Products that want programmable access to native Bitcoin alongside other connected assets.

New builds seeking to minimize duplicated contract logic.

User journeys where reducing network-specific steps is a primary product goal.

Teams that want one core environment for monitoring and upgrades.

This choice still requires careful engineering. Developers need to understand ZetaChain's connected-network model, contract interfaces, gas behavior, and failure handling. The best next step is to review the ZetaChain developer documentation and build a small flow that represents the hardest part of the intended product.

When is Wormhole the better fit?Wormhole can be the better fit when a team intends to keep its existing contracts and state on their current networks. If the product needs verified messages or token transfers between those deployments. Adopting a messaging protocol may require less architectural change than moving core logic into a new execution layer.

This can matter for mature protocols with network-specific features, established liquidity, completed audits, or governance processes tied to existing contracts. Wormhole may let the team add communication while preserving those investments. It can also suit applications whose local components should remain independent and only exchange a limited set of messages.

Use cases that favor messagingExisting applications adding communication between current deployments.

Products that require network-specific contracts and local state.

Teams prepared to manage message validation, ordering, retries, and reconciliation.

Integrations centered on a Wormhole product already supported by the application stack.

The team should still prototype the complete delivery path and audit receiving-contract logic. A verified message can be authentic while the requested application action is unsafe. Strict emitter checks, payload validation, replay protection, rate limits, and tested recovery procedures remain essential.

Frequently asked questionsIs ZetaChain a bridge like Wormhole?No. ZetaChain is a Layer 1 blockchain where developers can deploy Universal Apps with shared logic and state. Wormhole is an interoperability protocol centered on verified messaging and related token-transfer products. Both can connect activity across networks, but they give the application team different programming and operating models.

Can ZetaChain Universal Apps work with native Bitcoin?ZetaChain is designed to let Universal Apps coordinate native BTC without requiring developers to deploy a smart contract on Bitcoin. Teams should confirm current network support, interfaces, and limitations in the official documentation before designing a production flow.

Which option is more secure?There is no useful one-word answer. ZetaChain and Wormhole use different security models, and application security also depends on contract code, permissions, upgrades, operators, relayers, and recovery controls. Build a threat model for the full user action and compare assumptions against the product's risk limits.

How should a team choose between ZetaChain and Wormhole?Start with state. If the product benefits from one programmable environment and unified state, prototype a ZetaChain Universal App. If it must preserve network-local contracts and state, prototype Wormhole messaging. Then compare security assumptions, user steps, failure recovery, and operating work with the same real product flow.

Start building your Universal AppThe best ZetaChain vs Wormhole decision comes from a working prototype, not a feature checklist. Define your state model, test the hardest user flow, inject failures, and measure the work your team must own. If one programmable environment and native asset access fit your product, use the official documentation to build the first Universal App flow.

Start Building

Categories

Yuma launched a diversified fund focused on the Bittensor ecosystem. The strategy combines TAO with exposure to multiple AI subnets. The fund targets institutional and accredited investors. The new vehicle combines exposure to Bittensor’s native TAO token with a portfolio of subnet assets, allowing investors to access the broader decentralized AI economy through a single managed strategy.

New Fund Targets Decentralized AI Yuma, the digital asset infrastructure and investment firm owned by Digital Currency Group (DCG), announced the launch of the Yuma Total Market Fund on June 25. The vehicle is designed to provide institutional allocators and accredited investors with broad exposure to Bittensor, one of the fastest-growing decentralized artificial intelligence networks.

Unlike traditional crypto investment products that focus on a single token, the new fund combines exposure to TAO, Bittensor’s native cryptocurrency, with assets linked to the network’s expanding ecosystem of application-specific subnets. The approach is intended to give investors access to multiple segments of the decentralized AI economy through a single professionally managed portfolio.

Yuma also confirmed that the fund has secured seed capital from an anchor investor, although neither the investor’s identity nor the size of the commitment was disclosed.

Expanding Beyond Token Exposure The launch reflects growing institutional demand for diversified exposure to blockchain-based artificial intelligence rather than concentrating solely on individual cryptocurrencies.

Bittensor operates as an open-source decentralized machine-learning network that rewards contributors for providing AI models, computing power and specialized data. Its architecture currently supports 128 active subnets, representing distinct AI applications ranging from data marketplaces and cloud infrastructure to cybersecurity, fraud detection and pharmaceutical research.

Collectively, those subnet assets represent an ecosystem valued at more than $900 million, according to Yuma.

By combining TAO with subnet exposure, the Total Market Fund seeks to capture growth across both the protocol’s base layer and its expanding application economy.

Yuma describes the strategy as an alternative to conventional AI investments concentrated in a handful of publicly traded technology companies or long-duration venture capital funds. Instead, the firm argues that decentralized AI offers investors liquid exposure to an emerging sector built around open participation and blockchain incentives.

Third Product in Growing Asset Management Platform The Total Market Fund becomes the third investment strategy within Yuma Asset Management’s expanding product lineup.

The firm’s existing Subnet Composite Fund provides market-cap-weighted exposure across the broader subnet ecosystem, while the Large Cap Subnet Fund focuses on the largest and most established subnet assets. The new strategy combines elements of both approaches by integrating protocol-level exposure through TAO alongside investments spanning the wider Bittensor network.

The launch reflects increasing product specialization as institutional investors seek more sophisticated ways to access emerging digital asset sectors beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Rather than offering passive token exposure, Yuma is positioning its products as thematic investment strategies centered on decentralized artificial intelligence, an area attracting growing attention from institutional capital.

Institutional Interest in Decentralized AI Accelerates The launch comes as artificial intelligence remains one of the fastest-growing investment themes across both traditional finance and digital assets.

Barry Silbert, founder and chief executive of both DCG and Yuma, said the new fund is intended to provide investors with exposure to an open AI ecosystem rather than relying exclusively on a small group of centralized technology companies.

AI is becoming a core portfolio allocation. But for most investors it’s limited to a few, big players

Bittensor $TAO offers access to a decentralized network of AI projects@YumaGroup opens the door for investors to Bittensor and decentralized AI https://t.co/A5C8AXEDMU

— Barry Silbert (@BarrySilbert) June 25, 2026

He argued that decentralized networks such as Bittensor allow developers, researchers and infrastructure providers to participate directly in AI innovation while creating new investment opportunities tied to blockchain-based incentive systems.

The product also reflects broader institutional interest in tokenized infrastructure and blockchain-native investment strategies. As digital asset markets mature, fund managers are increasingly creating sector-specific portfolios targeting themes such as decentralized finance, tokenization, stablecoins and artificial intelligence instead of relying solely on broad cryptocurrency exposure.

For institutional investors, the Yuma Total Market Fund represents another example of how digital asset managers are packaging blockchain infrastructure into traditional investment vehicles. Whether decentralized AI can emerge as a distinct institutional asset class will depend on continued developer adoption, subnet growth and the ability of networks such as Bittensor to compete with established AI platforms in both innovation and commercial deployment.

Peter Schiff Brands Trump Meme Coins Legal Bribes as Most Buyers Sit on Losses

Hyperliquid (HYPE) extends gains above $66 on Friday, maintaining a long-term upward trend supported by its rising 50-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA) around $60. Retail demand for HYPE rises in the near term, with Open Interest up around 5% over 24 hours as funding rates hold above zero, while institutional demand remains muted so far this week.

Retail demand builds despite institutional silenceHyperliquid gains retail strength as Bitcoin’s recovery above $61,000 on Friday eases broader market risk-off. CoinGlass data shows the HYPE futures Open Interest (OI) is up 5% over the last 24 hours, reaching $2.67 billion. This indicates a positional buildup in HYPE futures, which typically indicates a risk-on sentiment. In addition, the funding rates plateau around 0.0084%, reaffirming a largely bullish positional buildup as traders are willing to buy long positions at a premium. 

However, the institutional demand remains low. Data shows HYPE-focused Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) recorded $2.24 million on Thursday, after a $2.85 million inflow the previous day. The mild inflows of less than $3 million so far this week, in addition to the $3 million outflow on Tuesday, following the $108 million inflow on June 25, reflect passivity among institutional buyers.

HYPE derivatives data. Source: CoinGlass

HYPE ETFs data. Source: SosovalueHYPE gears up for the next bullish rallyHyperliquid above $66 on Friday holds a constructive bullish bias as it stays comfortably above the 50-day EMA near $60.65 and the 200-day EMA around $46.57. This placement above both medium- and long-term trend gauges suggests the broader uptrend remains intact.

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) near 54 hints at balanced but positive momentum, while the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) is on the verge of crossing above its signal line, suggesting that recent downside pressure is losing traction.

On the topside, immediate resistance is seen at the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement around $66.22, measured over the upswing from $38.17 to $76.93. A break above $66.22 could expose the prior swing region near $76.94, followed by the 127.2% Fibonacci extension at $93.08.

HYPE/USD daily price chart.On the downside, first support emerges at the the 50-day EMA at $60.65, followed by the 50% retracement at $54.19.

(The technical analysis of this story was written with the help of an AI tool.)

A centralized exchange just plugged itself directly into a decentralized protocol’s infrastructure. VALR, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in Africa by trading volume, has integrated Hyperliquid to power a new cross-asset perpetuals product offering over 200 markets. It’s the first time a major regulated centralized exchange has natively built on top of Hyperliquid’s Layer-1 blockchain.

The product, announced on July 2, went beyond the typical crypto perpetuals menu. Users will be able to take leveraged long and short positions on global equities like NVIDIA and Tesla, commodities including oil and natural gas, forex pairs, and of course, crypto. Web access is scheduled to go live on July 6, with mobile support following shortly after.

Advertisement

The CeDeFi play nobody expected The exchange, which serves more than 1.9 million users and over 1,900 institutional clients, is using Hyperliquid’s permissionless infrastructure for trade execution and liquidity sourcing. Hyperliquid is widely recognized as the largest on-chain perpetual futures DEX, optimized specifically for high-speed trading and deep liquidity across multiple asset classes.

VALR’s COO Gianluca Sacco framed the integration as an effort to deliver “the deepest on-chain liquidity available anywhere.” Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 protocol allows efficient third-party market deployment on its permissionless infrastructure, which is essentially what VALR is leveraging here.

Why VALR, and why now Founded in 2018, the exchange is regulated by South Africa’s Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA). It has attracted serious institutional backing, with investors including Pantera Capital and Coinbase Ventures on its cap table.

VALR is operating under FSCA regulation while sourcing liquidity from Hyperliquid’s decentralized infrastructure. A regulated front end, a decentralized back end.

What this means for the market For Hyperliquid, having a regulated exchange with nearly 2 million users building on your protocol is a significant validation event. The protocol’s HIP-3 framework was designed for exactly this kind of third-party deployment, and VALR is now the highest-profile test case.

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

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

A pseudonymous defendant has moved to dismiss a New York lawsuit seeking ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses, arguing that Bitcoin addresses are merely data strings that cannot be sued.

The defendant, identifying themselves as “John Doe 33,” filed a notice of appearance and motion to dismiss on Thursday, claiming they control one of the dormant wallets named in the lawsuit.

According to the motion, the lawsuit is legally defective because Bitcoin address strings are neither persons nor legal entities subject to the court's jurisdiction. The filing argues that a public Bitcoin address cannot itself be “found” under New York's lost-property law because it has always been publicly visible on the blockchain.

The filing challenges the lawsuit filed in May by plaintiff “Noah Doe” and two Wyoming-based LLCs, ABC Company and XYZ Company. The plaintiffs claim the Bitcoin tied to the listed addresses constitutes abandoned property that they reported to the New York Police Department and claimed under New York lost-property law.

Regardless of how the court rules on ownership, it remains unclear how the plaintiffs could recover any Bitcoin without possessing the private keys needed to access the wallets.

Defendant files a motion to dismiss the case seeking ownership of 39,069 Bitcoin wallets. Source: iapps.court.state.ny.us  

The complaint lists 39,069 Bitcoin addresses, including wallet addresses widely associated with Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto and the Mt. Gox hacker. The listed wallets collectively hold an estimated 3.7 million BTC (worth about $234 billion), according to Sani, founder of Bitcoin analytics platform Timechain Index.

Defendant appears to control $300 million Bitcoin walletBlockchain data suggests that “John Doe 33” controls a wallet holding 5,000 BTC received in April 2014 that has remained untouched for more than 12 years, making it worth more than $300 million at current prices, according to a Friday X post from Galaxy Digital head of research Alex Thorn.

“That's ~100x the median defendant address. This is a real holder with real standing choosing to fight, not a bystander.”

Source: Alex Thorn

Thorn added that the filing prevented what had been a “near-certain” default judgment and challenged jurisdictional and statutory defects in the plaintiffs' case.

The supply of Bitcoin has been dormant for the past five and 10 years. Source: Bitbo

There are currently 3.5 million BTC, worth about $215 billion, that have been dormant for the past 10 years and another 6.6 million coins, worth around $406 billion, that have been dormant for over five years, Bitbo data shows.

Magazine: How crypto laws changed in 2025 — and how they’ll change in 2026

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.

THE BLOCK: 'Markets find their footing': Bitcoin holds $61,000 rebound ahead of US Independence Day as soft jobs data eases rate fears