Crypto market commentator Michelle Kirby has publicly declared her intention to hold XRP beyond the $100 mark, while suggesting that the majority of investors will not wait for such high price levels.
Kirby, known for her analysis in the digital asset community, recently wrote on X that roughly 98% of people are likely to sell their XRP holdings once the price reaches $10 to $50. She asserted her commitment to hold until XRP trades above $100 and asked who else in the community planned to join her.
98% of people are expected to sell their XRP between $10 and $50. Kirby emphasizes her intent to remain invested and reach a price above $100.
Her perspective appears to resonate with several prominent figures in the crypto sector. The $100 target for XRP has been discussed by multiple analysts who consider it achievable within the current market cycle.
Time Traveler, a well-followed commentator, previously stated on X that 2026 could be the year XRP exceeds $100. He cautioned against specifying a timeline for financial success but maintained that the asset holds significant potential, especially when considering its possible role in the financial ecosystem by 2050.
Bird, an analyst and developer recognized in the XRP community, has also supported the $100 price point. In his post, Bird wrote, “XRP will be $100+,” attributing his optimism to the XRP Ledger’s ability to support real-world asset tokenization.
Mini dictionary: XRP Ledger, the underlying blockchain for XRP, enables fast, low-cost transfer and settlement of both cryptocurrency and tokenized real-world assets. Its unique consensus protocol sets it apart from traditional proof-of-work blockchains.
XRP projections beyond $100Other analysts have set even higher targets. Jake Claver, another cryptocurrency commentator, outlined a $750 price projection for XRP by the end of 2026. He based his forecast on statements from Ripple president Monica Long, who said that full-scale institutional blockchain adoption could be realized within the same timeframe.
While the $750 target sparked debate and skepticism among market participants, it reflects a growing sentiment that higher XRP prices are possible if institutional interest accelerates. Many view the $100 milestone as a launching point rather than a final destination for the digital asset.
AnalystTarget PriceTarget YearRationaleMichelle Kirby$100+Not specifiedLong-term holding through bull cyclesTime Traveler$100+2026Market cycle and long-term adoptionJake Claver$7502026Institutional adoption as cited by RippleInvestor behavior in bull cyclesKirby’s post spotlights a recurring theme in crypto markets: many investors buy during periods of low prices but depart the market before higher, more ambitious price targets are hit. By expressing her aim to hold until at least $100, Kirby identifies with the smaller segment of investors who are willing to withstand larger market swings for potentially greater returns.
Some analysts warn that those who sell at $10 or $50 might miss significant future gains if long-term projections materialize.
In response to a community member who suggested it could take until 2030 for XRP to achieve the $100 milestone, Kirby replied that she expects this level to be reached sooner than many anticipate. She cited analyst sentiment that prices could rise to as high as $1,000 by 2030, reinforcing the possibility of upside for those who maintain their positions.
These viewpoints continue to spark debate across the XRP community, as investors weigh the prospects of holding through multiple market cycles to achieve higher price targets.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.
U.S. spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs posted combined net outflows of $310.62 million on July 24, ending a period of relative calm for crypto exchange-traded products, according to data tracked by SoSoValue and first reported by the original report. The reversal was particularly sharp for Ethereum funds, which had attracted capital for five consecutive trading sessions before Thursday’s decline. Bitcoin ETFs accounted for $240 million of the daily outflow, while Ethereum ETFs shed $70.62 million.
A Sudden Reversal for Ether Funds The five-day inflow streak highlighted a period where traders had been quietly rotating into ETH products, possibly driven by improving network fundamentals and a rebound in decentralized finance activity. That momentum evaporated in a single session. The $70.62 million in outflows ended the longest run of consecutive inflows for the young Ethereum ETF category since its second week of trading. While the day’s total may seem modest, the abrupt stop underscores how quickly sentiment can shift in these vehicles, where a handful of large institutional orders can tip the daily tally.
Bitcoin Products Bleed $240 Million Bitcoin ETFs suffered deeper wounds. The $240 million in net outflows hit products across the board, with little distinction between low-fee and high-fee issuers. Although daily flow data is inherently noisy, this was one of the larger single-day exits in recent weeks and suggests that broader de-risking, rather than issuer-specific rotation, was at play. Some analysts pointed to macroeconomic jitters or month-end rebalancing, but no single catalyst stood out in public data. The outflows unfolded against a tumultuous regulatory backdrop. With the Senate set to vote on a landmark crypto bill within days, traditional banks launched aggressive last-minute lobbying efforts to reshape the legislation, a fight that has added uncertainty to institutional positioning as covered in detail.
Sentiment Check: Macro or Crypto Cyclical? Divining the exact trigger is difficult. ETF flows often lag price moves, and July 24 saw a slight pullback in both Bitcoin and Ether spot prices, which may have prompted late-day redemptions. Liquidity tends to thin out in the summer months, magnifying the impact of even moderate selling pressure. For Ethereum ETFs, the timing is notable because the products are still building an institutional base; a sustained outflow streak could discourage fence-sitters who have been waiting for steadier demand signals before committing capital. Even as ETF flows turned negative, underlying network activity told a different story. Data on developer engagement across major blockchains showed sustained momentum on Ethereum and other layer-1 networks, as highlighted in a recent analysis, suggesting that long-term builders remain unfazed by short-term fund flows.
What Comes Next for the ETF Complex Whether this single-day outflow marks a turning point or a fleeting bout of profit-taking is the open question traders are asking. The rest of the week’s flow data will matter more than any single session. If ETFs fail to recover inflows quickly, it could signal that the recent wave of institutional demand—particularly for Ethereum products—was more tentative than it appeared. On the other hand, a rebound would suggest that July 24 was merely a statictical blip amplified by low volume. The narrowing gap between Bitcoin and Ether ETF flows also bears watching; any sustained preference for one over the other could reshape narratives around which asset is winning institutional mindshare in the current cycle.
AUTHOR
Freelance writer and crypto enthusiast with a focus on Web3, delivering clear and engaging articles. Known for his well-researched articles and insightful analysis, Shayan covers a broad range of topics including market trends, blockchain technology, decentralized finance (DeFi), and emerging crypto projects. His writing aims to educate both beginners and experts, providing clear, engaging content that helps readers stay informed about the fast-evolving crypto space. Shayan's expertise and dedication make him a trusted voice in the blockchain community.
Ethereum (ETH), son aylarda yaşadığı sert düşüşlerin ardından yeniden yatırımcıların radarına girdi. Kripto para analisti NoName, Ethereum’un tarihsel olarak ayı piyasalarının sona erdiği fiyat bölgesine ulaştığını savunurken, uzun vadede 7.000 dolar seviyesinin hala ulaşılabilir olduğunu belirtti. Buna karşın bazı analistler ise düşüş sürecinin henüz tamamlanmadığını ve yeni dip seviyelerin görülebileceğini düşünüyor.
Analiste Göre Ethereum Dip Bölgesine Girdi Takma adıyla tanınan kripto analisti NoName, Ethereum grafiğinde oluşan dört ardışık düşük zirvenin klasik bir ayı piyasası yapısını tamamladığını ifade etti. Analiste göre ETH fiyatı sırasıyla 4.957 dolar, 3.400 dolar, 2.460 dolar ve 1.950 dolar seviyelerinde daha düşük zirveler oluşturarak uzun süredir devam eden düşüş trendini sürdürdü. Bu hareketin ardından fiyatın 1.300 ile 1.900 dolar aralığına gerilemesi, geçmiş piyasa döngülerinde görülen dip bölgeleriyle benzerlik taşıyor.
NoName, bu seviyelerin teknik göstergelerden çok yatırımcı psikolojisini yansıttığını belirterek, geçmişte 4.900 dolar seviyelerinde büyük ilgi gören Ethereum’un bugün 2.000 doların altında “ölü proje” olarak görülmesinin piyasa psikolojisinin doğal bir sonucu olduğunu ifade etti.
Ethereum için yalnızca teknik analiz değil, zincir üstü göstergeler de dikkat çekici sinyaller üretmeye başladı. Analist Ali Martinez, Ethereum’un MVRV oranının 160 günlük hareketli ortalamasını yukarı yönlü kestiğini ve geçmişte benzer sinyallerin büyük yükseliş hareketlerinden önce görüldüğünü paylaştı. Öte yandan Binance üzerindeki 30 günlük fonlama oranı ortalaması son altı ayın en yüksek seviyesine ulaşarak vadeli işlem piyasasında yatırımcı güveninin yeniden artmaya başladığını gösterdi. CoinGecko verilerine göre Ethereum haberin hazırlandığı sırada 1.900 doların hemen altında işlem görüyordu. Son bir ayda yaklaşık yüzde 12 değer kazanan ETH, buna rağmen tüm zamanların en yüksek seviyesi olan yaklaşık 4.946 doların yüzde 60’tan fazla altında bulunuyor.
Balinalar Alım Yaparken ETF Girişleri Güçleniyor Piyasadaki belirsizliğe rağmen büyük yatırımcıların Ethereum biriktirmeye devam ettiği görülüyor. Blockchain analiz platformu Lookonchain, Galaxy Digital’in OTC masası aracılığıyla yaklaşık 27.000 ETH satın alan bir cüzdanı tespit etti. Ayrıca yatırımcı Arthur Hayes’in de son günlerde yüzlerce ETH daha satın alarak toplam varlığını artırdığı bildirildi. Kurumsal yatırımcı ilgisi de dikkat çekiyor. Spot Ethereum ETF’lerine bu ay 400 milyon doların üzerinde net giriş gerçekleşirken, tahmin platformu Kalshi’deki yatırımcılar yıl sonuna kadar ETH fiyatının yaklaşık 3.200 dolar seviyesine ulaşabileceğini öngörüyor.
Ethereum için iyimser beklentiler bulunsa da tüm piyasa uzmanları aynı fikirde değil. Blockchain analiz şirketi CryptoQuant, ETH’nin gerçekleşen fiyatının yaklaşık yüzde 17 altında işlem gördüğünü ancak dip oluşumunu gösteren göstergelerin tamamının henüz teyit vermediğini belirtti. Şirkete göre piyasada gerçek anlamda bir teslimiyet süreci henüz tamamlanmış değil.
Benzer şekilde analist Nonzee:
Ethereum’un kısa vadede 2.000-2.200 dolar bandına yükselebileceğini ancak bunun kalıcı bir yükseliş yerine bir boğa tuzağı olabileceğini düşünüyor.
Analiste göre fiyatın önce 900 ile 1.300 dolar aralığına kadar geri çekilmesi ihtimali bulunuyor. Buna rağmen uzun vadede o da Ethereum için 7.000 dolar hedefini koruyor.
Değerlendirme Ethereum, hem teknik görünüm hem de zincir üstü veriler açısından kritik bir döneme girmiş durumda. Bazı analistler mevcut fiyat bölgesini ayı piyasasının dip noktası olarak değerlendirirken, diğerleri daha güçlü bir teslimiyet süreci yaşanmadan kalıcı yükseliş beklemenin erken olduğunu savunuyor. Balina alımları, ETF girişleri ve olumlu zincir üstü sinyaller iyimserliği desteklese de yatırımcıların kısa vadede yüksek volatiliteye karşı dikkatli olması gerekiyor. Ethereum’un önümüzdeki süreçte 2.000 dolar seviyesini yeniden aşması, piyasanın yönü açısından önemli bir gösterge olabilir.
Son dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
Over $100 million entered the funds tracking the altcoin in the past week.
The spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds ended their third consecutive week in the green, but momentum faded at the end of it.
In the meantime, the funds tracking Ethereum continue to outperform, gaining over $100 million as the underlying asset challenged the $1,950 level.
BTC ETFs Still in the Green but… The funds tracking the market leader were in a tough spot for weeks. Eight, to be precise. In this streak that began in mid-May and felt it went on for eternity, they saw over $8 billion withdrawn from investors, with the total net inflows going down from over $59.34 billion to $51.08 billion on July 2.
However, investors finally changed their tune at this point and broke this negative trend during the first full week of July, inserting nearly $200 million. Another $75.67 million followed during the subsequent week, and the one that just ended began on a high note. In fact, the actual net inflows stood at approximately $1 billion during the seven consecutive green days – from July 14 until July 22.
This coincided (or propelled) with bitcoin’s price rally that drove the asset to $67,000 on Wednesday for the first time in over a month. However, the asset was rejected there, driven south to $64,000 on Friday, while the ETF outflows returned. On Thursday and Friday, investors pulled out $225.18 million and $240 million, respectively.
As such, even though the week ended slightly in the green, it was a relatively modest $33.79 million.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs Net Flows. Source: SoSoValue ETH ETFs Still Do Better A rather interesting trend that began two weeks ago was replicated once again. The spot Ethereum ETFs turned out to be more attractive to investors, with almost $104 million in net inflows. Only one day was in the red, with investors pulling out $70.62 million on Friday. Before that, they had poured in $38.09 million on Monday, $37.47 million on Tuesday, $72.64 million on Wednesday, and $26.32 million on Thursday.
You may also like: Bitcoin ETFs Edge Closer in Japan as Regulators Tighten Crypto Oversight The ETF Battle Between Gold and Bitcoin: Is BTC Really Losing? Bitcoin Nears Final Stage of Bear Market Window – Is a Broader Recovery in Sight? Perhaps due to these rather impressive numbers, the underlying asset surged past $1,900 mid-week and peaked at just over $1,950. However, it couldn’t keep the momentum going and slipped by about $100 on Friday and Saturday.
The total net inflows of the ETH ETFs have recovered over $200 million in the past three weeks, but are still well below the $12.09 billion seen in May.
The US spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs recorded a combined net outflow of $310.62 million on July 24, 2026, according to data compiled by SoSoValue. This slowdown marks the end of a relatively calm period for crypto-listed products. The reversal mainly affects Ethereum funds, which had seen five consecutive days of inflows.
In brief Bitcoin ETFs accounted for the majority of outflows with $240 million Ethereum ETFs lost $70.62 million, breaking a five-day inflow streak No single catalyst: macro de-risking, spot price decline, and reduced summer liquidity Ethereum Loses Momentum After Five Days of Inflows The five days of inflows just concluded indicate a discreet but real rotation of capital towards ETH products. Network fundamentals improving, DeFi activity picking up: the reasons for this movement were many, as already shown by the recent analysis of Bitcoin ETF flows.
This momentum evaporated in a single session. With $70.62 million in net redemptions, the young category of Ethereum ETFs sees its longest consecutive inflow streak end since its second week of existence.
The amount may seem modest relative to the capital at stake. But the sudden stop reminds of a reality of these vehicles: a few institutional orders are enough to flip the daily balance.
Bitcoin ETFs bled harder. The $240 million net outflows hit all issuers, with fee differences making no difference in the outcome. The figure ranks among the largest daily drops in recent weeks, even though flow data remains inherently volatile.
It depicts a fairly broad de-risking movement, not a simple capital waltz from one fund to another. Some analysts point to macroeconomic tensions. Others mention end-of-month rebalances. No isolated element stood out in the public data from July 24.
The Regulatory Context Adds to Uncertainty Finding a single trigger is a challenge. ETF flows often follow prices with a lag, and July 24 saw both Bitcoin and Ether retreat slightly during the session, which may have triggered last-minute redemptions. Thinner summer liquidity amplifies such moves.
For Ethereum ETFs, the timing is especially sensitive because these products are still seeking their institutional base. A prolonged series of outflows could deter investors who were waiting for stronger signals before entering. Yet, the fundamentals of underlying networks paint a different picture.
Developer engagement on Ethereum and major layer-1s remains strong, proof that long-term builders are not having their roadmaps dictated by daily ETF flows.
The rest of the week will show whether July 24 was just a hiccup or the start of a heavier trend. The flows in the coming sessions will matter more than this isolated figure. If inflows do not resume quickly, the institutional demand from recent weeks, especially on the Ethereum side, could prove more fragile than expected. A rebound, on the other hand, would relegate July 24 to a statistical accident, inflated by summer volumes.
BlackRock has also shown that major issuers know how to restart the engine when conditions are right. The narrowing gap between Bitcoin and Ethereum flows also deserves attention: a lasting preference for one asset or the other could redraw the map of institutional adoption in the current cycle.
Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
Join the program
A
A
Lien copié
Fenelon L.
Passionné par le Bitcoin, j'aime explorer les méandres de la blockchain et des cryptos et je partage mes découvertes avec la communauté. Mon rêve est de vivre dans un monde où la vie privée et la liberté financière sont garanties pour tous, et je crois fermement que Bitcoin est l'outil qui peut rendre cela possible.
DISCLAIMER
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.
Ethereum is maintaining its crucial support at $1,850, preserving a local pattern characterized by higher highs and higher lows. This sustained structure indicates that ETH could advance toward resistance levels at $1,950, $2,060, $2,150, and possibly $2,350 if momentum continues.
Short-term rebound targets $2,060After testing the lower edge of its ascending channel, Ethereum has rebounded, reinforcing the short-term bullish outlook. Crypto analyst Ali Martinez noted that ETH may revisit the upper boundary near $2,060, provided it defends the $1,850 support area.
Martinez emphasized the importance of the $1,850 zone as the critical point for sustaining Ethereum’s upward trajectory, suggesting that a successful defense could mark a renewed push toward higher resistance levels above $2,000.
Trading data showed ETH recovering toward $1,886 following a brief dip to the channel’s support line. Historically, similar reactions from this boundary have led to moves deeper into the channel’s median and upper bands.
Immediate resistance is found near $1,980, where Ethereum previously struggled to maintain its positive momentum. A decisive break above this region could strengthen the ongoing rebound and set the stage for a move to $2,060.
The bullish scenario depends on ETH’s ability to hold $1,850. A significant drop below that level would undermine the local uptrend and increase the likelihood of a sharper correction.
As long as Ethereum remains above $1,850, both the $1,980 and $2,060 targets remain viable. A breakdown, however, could signal a shift in sentiment, favoring sellers in the short term.
SupportFirst ResistanceNext Resistance Levels$1,850$1,980$2,060, $2,150, $2,350Key resistance at $2,150 as bulls maintain structureEthereum’s sequence of higher highs and higher lows has not been disrupted despite recent price volatility. Analyst Daan Crypto Trades stated that a breakout above the $1,950 local high could propel ETH toward $2,150 and potentially $2,350, reinforcing the positive setup.
Clearing the $1,950 resistance level is regarded as a signal of renewed momentum, with the next major hurdle found between $2,150 and $2,190 where significant moving averages may act as barriers.
Recent analysis showed Ethereum pulling back after reaching resistance near $1,958, with buyers now focused on defending the $1,850 region. This zone remains pivotal for sustaining the recovery attempt.
A daily close above $1,950 would likely indicate renewed strength, drawing attention to the resistance range around $2,150 to $2,190. At that stage, Ethereum’s 200-day moving average and exponential moving average both converge, adding to the challenge of breaking higher.
Successfully overcoming these technical hurdles could set the stage for further gains toward $2,350 and the broader range high near $2,391, although such a move would require increased buying activity.
Conversely, if Ethereum fails to hold $1,850, the bullish pattern would be weakened. Immediate downside targets include $1,788 and the more substantial support area near $1,736.
For now, Ethereum’s trend remains constructive above $1,850. Market participants are watching for confirmation of a breakout above $1,950, which would solidify the case for further upward movement, while a break below support could signal a return to the previous trading range.
Mini dictionary: 200-day moving average, exponential moving average — The 200-day moving average is a long-term trend indicator calculated by averaging closing prices over the past 200 days, while the exponential moving average gives more weight to recent prices, making it more responsive to recent market changes. Both are commonly used to identify trend direction and key support or resistance levels in cryptocurrency trading.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.
The world’s largest stablecoin now travels between blockchains as USDT0, a version its builders insist is not a wrapped token, while its mechanics lock collateral in an Ethereum vault and mint claims elsewhere. Here is how it actually works, who runs it, what the trust stack contains, and why a gas tank on a new chain runs on it.
Summary
USDT0 is the omnichain version of Tether’s USDT, launched in January 2025, that lets the world’s largest stablecoin operate on blockchains where Tether has not deployed a native contract. It runs on LayerZero’s Omnichain Fungible Token standard: real USDT is locked in a contract on Ethereum, and USDT0 is minted one-to-one on destination chains, with transfers executed by burn-and-mint messaging, not bridge liquidity pools. It is operated not by Tether but by Everdawn Labs under license, a structural nuance that defines the trust stack: holders carry Tether’s reserve risk plus the lockbox contract plus LayerZero’s verification layer. The system has scaled fast: more than $50 billion in cumulative transfers by late 2025, daily volumes in the hundreds of millions, deployments across chains from Arbitrum to Plasma, and a starring role as the native gas token of Stable’s payments chain. The marketing insists USDT0 is not a wrapped token. The mechanics are lock-and-mint. Resolving that tension honestly is most of what a holder needs to understand. Every successful monetary instrument eventually faces the geography problem: the money is in one place, and the demand is in another. Gold solved it with certificates, banks with correspondent accounts, and Tether, whose USDT is the most used digital dollar on earth, faced it acutely by 2024, when the stablecoin’s natural habitat, Ethereum and Tron, no longer contained the frontier of activity.
New chains launched monthly, each wanting the deepest dollar in crypto, and Tether’s options were unattractive: deploy a native USDT contract on every chain, multiplying operational and compliance surface with each launch, or let third-party bridges wrap USDT into a zoo of incompatible IOUs, the wrapped-asset sprawl that fragmented liquidity and produced some of crypto’s worst exploits.
USDT0, launched in January 2025, is the third option: one canonical collateral pool, on Ethereum, feeding a single standardized representation that travels anywhere, minted and burned by cross-chain messages instead of shuffled through bridge pools.
Eighteen months later, it has moved more than $50 billion cumulatively, colonized the new-chain frontier, and become something no wrapped asset ever was: the native gas token of an entire blockchain. Its operators insist, emphatically, that it is not a wrapped token. Its mechanics are a lockbox and a mint. Both statements are doing work, and understanding the gap between them is the point of this guide.
The mechanics, step by step USDT0 is built on LayerZero’s Omnichain Fungible Token standard, OFT, and the cleanest way to understand it is to follow one dollar through the system.
Start with issuance. A market maker or exchange holding native USDT on Ethereum deposits it into the USDT0 lockbox, a smart contract on Ethereum mainnet that serves as the system’s single collateral vault. Upon deposit, an equal amount of USDT0 is minted on the destination chain of choice, Arbitrum, Berachain, HyperEVM, Plasma, Stable, or any other connected network. The mainnet USDT never leaves the vault; what circulates elsewhere is the omnichain representation, backed one-to-one by the locked collateral, with supply across all chains reconciled against the vault’s balance and attested through on-chain proof-of-reserves.
Now move it. When a holder sends USDT0 from chain A to chain B, no asset crosses anywhere. The OFT contract on chain A burns the tokens; LayerZero’s messaging layer carries a verified instruction to chain B; the contract on chain B mints the same amount to the recipient. The verification is the system’s load-bearing component: each message is attested by a configurable set of Decentralized Verifier Networks, DVNs, independent parties that confirm the source-chain burn actually happened, and delivered by an executor on the destination chain.
Because transfers are burn-and-mint against one canonical pool, there are no per-chain liquidity pools to drain, no slippage between chain versions, and no bridge inventory to exploit in the way that destroyed earlier designs; the attack surface concentrates instead in the messaging layer and its verifier configuration, which is where any honest risk analysis must spend its time.
Exit works in reverse: burn USDT0 anywhere, unlock native USDT from the Ethereum vault, redeem through Tether’s ordinary channels. The system also extends beyond the dollar, with the same architecture carrying XAUT0, the omnichain version of Tether Gold, and the roster of connected chains has grown to include most of the venues where new stablecoin activity concentrates.
Who actually runs it Here is the structural fact most coverage elides, and it matters more than any throughput statistic: USDT0 is not operated by Tether.
The system is built and run by Everdawn Labs, a separate company operating under license from Tether, announced as the deployment partner in January 2025 for chains where Tether chose not to run a native mint. Tether’s relationship to the system is that of licensor, collateral issuer, and, as of February 2026, strategic investor in LayerZero Labs itself, an investment that formalized the alignment between the dollar, its omnichain vehicle, and the messaging layer underneath both. The arrangement mirrors patterns elsewhere in stablecoin infrastructure, where issuers increasingly delegate chain expansion to specialized partners instead of operating every deployment themselves.
For a holder, the delegation defines the trust stack, and the stack should be enumerated, not gestured at.
Layer one: Tether’s reserve risk, the same exposure any USDT holder carries, that the collateral behind the dollar is what the attestations say.
Layer two: the lockbox, an Ethereum smart contract whose integrity secures the entire omnichain supply; a flaw there is a flaw everywhere at once.
Layer three: LayerZero’s messaging, specifically the DVN configuration chosen for USDT0, since the verifiers who attest cross-chain messages are the parties who could, in a failure or compromise scenario, authorize mints that should not exist.
Layer four: Everdawn’s operational competence across all of it. Native USDT on Ethereum or Tron is a direct claim on Tether. USDT0 on a frontier chain is a claim on locked USDT, mediated by a contract, a messaging protocol, a verifier set, and an operator.
In calm conditions, the distinction is invisible, the tokens are fungible in practice, and the peg has held. The distinction exists for the other conditions, which is what trust stacks are for.
Wrapped or not? Adjudicating the claim Everdawn’s positioning is explicit: USDT0 is not a wrapped token or a synthetic asset; it is USDT, extended across blockchains. The mechanics described above are, equally explicitly, lock-and-mint, the same skeleton as every wrapped asset since WBTC. Both claims can be examined honestly, and the resolution is more informative than either slogan.
What the not-wrapped claim gets right is the difference in kind from the wrapped-asset era’s actual pathologies. Classic wrapping was fragmentary: every bridge minted its own IOU, so one dollar became five incompatible tokens across five chains, each backed by a different custodian or pool, each trading at its own slight discount, each an island of risk.
USDT0 is canonical and unified: one standard, one collateral pool, one supply reconciliation, fungible representations everywhere, with the issuer’s blessing and proof-of-reserves attached. It also avoids the liquidity-pool bridge model whose drained pools produced the industry’s worst losses; burn-and-mint against a vault has no inventory to steal on the transfer path. In the dimensions that made wrapped a warning label, fragmentation, unofficial issuance, pool risk, USDT0 is genuinely something else.
What the claim obscures is that the something else still has the wrapped structure’s irreducible core: the circulating asset on the destination chain is a representation, and between it and the underlying dollar sit contracts, messages, and verifiers that native USDT holders do not depend on.
The honest taxonomy is that USDT0 is an official, canonical, issuer-aligned wrapper, the best-constructed version of the category, marketed as the category’s transcendence. Holders should adopt the engineering description rather than the marketing one, not because failure is likely, the system’s eighteen months have been clean, but because the description determines where to look when evaluating any chain, protocol, or yield product built on top of it: at the DVN configuration, the lockbox, and the operator, the three components a native-USDT analysis would never need to mention.
A note on what the numbers above are measuring, because USDT0 statistics arrive in three units that coverage routinely conflates. Cumulative transfer volume, the $50 billion figure, counts every cross-chain movement since launch and grows monotonically; it measures usage of the messaging rails, and a single market maker cycling inventory daily can generate billions of it.
Daily transfer volume, the hundreds of millions, measures current throughput and is the honest activity gauge. And outstanding supply, the amount of USDT locked in the Ethereum vault backing circulating USDT0, measures adoption as a stock: how many dollars actually live on the frontier at any moment, which is the number that matters for assessing both the system’s importance and its blast radius.
The three can tell different stories simultaneously: high cumulative volume with modest outstanding supply describes a busy corridor more than a settled population, and the disciplined reader checks which unit any headline is using before concluding anything.
The public dashboards report all three, and the ratio between daily volume and outstanding supply, the velocity of the omnichain dollar, is quietly the best single indicator of what USDT0 is being used for: high velocity signals bridging and arbitrage traffic, while a falling ratio with growing supply signals the thing the system was actually built for, dollars moving to new chains and staying there.
The precedent stack: how crypto got here USDT0’s design is best appreciated against the three generations of cross-chain dollar movement it is trying to retire, because each generation’s failure wrote one of its requirements.
Generation one was the custodial wrap, WBTC’s model applied everywhere: a trusted custodian holds the asset, a merchant mints the representation, and the trust is institutional. It worked, and it concentrated risk in single custodians whose failure would orphan every wrapped unit, a structure acceptable for one flagship asset and unworkable for a dollar meant to exist on thirty chains.
Generation two was the liquidity bridge: pools of the asset parked on both sides of a route, with transfers swapping against the inventory. This is the architecture behind the industry’s grimmest leaderboard, the Ronin, Wormhole, and Nomad exploits that together lost billions, because pooled inventory is a honeypot and bridge code guarding it became the most attacked surface in crypto.
Generation three was canonical-but-fragmented: issuers deployed native contracts chain by chain, which eliminated wrapper risk and created its own sprawl, the same dollar as incompatible deployments, unofficial bridged versions filling every gap the issuer had not reached, and users left to guess which contract address was real, a confusion that persists in every wallet’s token list today.
USDT0 is the fourth-generation answer, and its design choices map one-to-one onto the predecessors’ wounds: a single canonical collateral pool instead of custodial fragmentation, burn-and-mint messaging with no pooled inventory to drain, issuer alignment and proof-of-reserves instead of unofficial IOUs, and one standard identity across every chain instead of the address-guessing game.
What it could not design away is the residual that every cross-chain system shares: a verification layer whose honesty the whole structure rests on, which in USDT0’s case is LayerZero’s DVN configuration. The generational history is therefore the fairest way to grade the system, dramatically safer than bridges, structurally cleaner than fragmented wraps, and still, irreducibly, a machine whose security equals the integrity of the parties attesting its messages.
Crypto has not escaped that equation; it has, in USDT0, produced its most disciplined answer to it so far, with the largest dollar in the industry as the test load.
Why it matters: the gas tank case study The clearest demonstration of what USDT0 changes arrived when Stable, the Tether-ecosystem payments chain, made it the network’s native gas token, the first time the fuel of an entire Layer 1 has been a representation of somebody’s dollar.
The design solves a real problem this publication’s stablechain coverage has examined: on general-purpose chains, users must hold a volatile native asset to move their stable one, an absurdity for payments. Stable’s v1.2.0 upgrade in February retired its earlier wrapped-gas workaround and made USDT0 the chain’s fee asset directly, so a user’s balance and their fuel are the same dollar, with simple transfers gas-exempt entirely.
None of that is possible with mainnet-native USDT, which cannot leave Ethereum; it is possible with USDT0 precisely because the omnichain layer lets a new chain import the world’s deepest dollar at launch, liquidity, brand, and users included, without waiting for Tether to deploy natively.
The same import logic explains USDT0’s spread across the frontier generally: for a new chain, connecting to the standard is the difference between launching with dollars and launching with promises.
The strategic reading completes the picture. USDT0 converts USDT from a multi-chain asset into a network: one vault, many outlets, centrally standardized, and it does so under the Tether ecosystem’s own governance, not through third-party bridges it cannot control.
Every new chain that adopts the standard deepens the moat of the underlying dollar, which is why the system’s growth, $50 billion moved, hundreds of millions daily, a gas tank on a purpose-built chain, is best understood not as bridge traffic but as the largest stablecoin building its own distribution grid. The dollar stays in the vault. The claim on it goes everywhere. Whether that is called wrapping or extension matters less than knowing which one you hold.
A final calibration on scale, because the numbers reframe what kind of object this is. USDT’s total circulation runs in the $150-billion-plus range across all chains, and USDT0’s share of it, while growing fast, remains the frontier slice: the omnichain system’s cumulative $50 billion in transfers and nine-figure daily volumes measure movement, not stock, and the locked collateral backing all outstanding USDT0 is a single-digit percentage of total USDT. That proportion is the honest size of the experiment: the vast majority of the world’s largest stablecoin still lives natively on Tron and Ethereum, where remittance corridors and exchange settlement run on decade-old rails, and USDT0 is the expansion mechanism for everywhere else, the new chains, the payments experiments, the frontier.
The proportion also explains the system’s risk posture from Tether’s side: delegating the omnichain layer to a licensed operator quarantines the frontier’s novel risks, messaging, verifiers, new-chain exposure, away from the core deployments that carry the float. If the omnichain layer ever failed, the damage would be severe for the connected chains and contained for the dollar itself, a separation that is prudent engineering from the issuer’s chair and worth internalizing from the holder’s: USDT0’s guarantees are engineered to protect USDT first.
As the frontier grows into the core, on Stable above all, that proportion will shift, and the omnichain layer’s security budget, scrutiny, and systemic weight will have to grow with it. The system’s first eighteen months earned it the benefit of the doubt. Its next test is carrying a meaningful fraction of the world’s working dollar, which is a different weight class, and the honest summary for any user is the one this guide began with: know which dollar you hold, and know the stack standing between it and the vault.
Frequently Asked Questions What is USDT0 in one sentence? USDT0 is the omnichain version of Tether’s USDT: real USDT is locked in a vault contract on Ethereum, and an equivalent amount of USDT0 is minted on destination blockchains, letting the stablecoin operate on networks where Tether has no native deployment, with cross-chain transfers executed by burn-and-mint messaging through LayerZero rather than traditional bridges.
Who issues and operates USDT0? Everdawn Labs, a separate company operating under license from Tether, not Tether itself. Tether issues the underlying USDT collateral and announced the partnership in January 2025; in February 2026, it also made a strategic investment in LayerZero Labs, whose messaging standard the system uses. The delegation matters for risk analysis: USDT0 holders depend on Everdawn’s operations and LayerZero’s verification in addition to Tether’s reserves.
How is USDT0 different from bridged or wrapped USDT? Structurally similar, institutionally different. Like wrapped assets, USDT0 is a representation backed by locked collateral. Unlike the wrapped-asset era, it is canonical and unified: one official standard with one Ethereum collateral pool, issuer alignment, proof-of-reserves, and fungible supply across chains, replacing the fragmented, unofficial IOUs of third-party bridges, and using burn-and-mint messaging with no liquidity pools to drain in transit.
What are the actual risks of holding USDT0? A four-layer stack: Tether’s reserve risk, identical to any USDT exposure; the Ethereum lockbox contract, whose compromise would affect all omnichain supply simultaneously; LayerZero’s messaging layer, specifically the Decentralized Verifier Networks configured to attest transfers, since a compromised verifier set could authorize invalid mints; and Everdawn’s operational execution. Native USDT carries only the first layer, which is the practical difference between the two.
How large is the USDT0 system? By late 2025, it had processed more than $50 billion in cumulative transfers, with daily volumes reported around half a billion dollars, and deployments spanning chains including Arbitrum, Berachain, HyperEVM, Flare, Ink, Unichain, Plasma, and Stable. The same architecture also carries XAUT0, the omnichain version of Tether Gold.
Why did Stable make USDT0 its gas token? To eliminate the volatile-gas absurdity for payments: on Stable, the dollar users hold is also the fuel they spend, with simple USDT transfers exempted from gas entirely, which is impossible with mainnet-native USDT since it cannot leave Ethereum. The February v1.2.0 upgrade made USDT0 the chain’s native fee asset, retiring an earlier wrapped-gas design and making Stable the first Layer 1 fueled by a stablecoin representation.
Can USDT0 lose its peg separately from USDT? In stressed scenarios, yes, temporarily. Because USDT0’s redemption path runs through burning the token and unlocking Ethereum collateral, disruptions to the messaging layer, verifier availability, or the lockbox could impair convertibility even while native USDT trades normally, and market prices on isolated chains could gap accordingly. In normal conditions, arbitrage keeps the representations fungible, and the system’s operating history to date has held the peg.
What should users check before relying on USDT0 on a given chain? Three things: that the token contract is the official USDT0 deployment rather than a third-party bridge version, the DVN configuration securing that chain’s connection, documented in the official USDT0 materials, and the depth of exit liquidity, either through direct redemption paths or on-chain markets, on the specific network. For protocols building on it, the verifier configuration is the core due-diligence item. This is educational information, not financial advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. It describes third-party infrastructure whose parameters, deployments, and risk profile can change. Always verify official contract addresses and documentation before transacting. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 24, 2026.
Dash traded at $32.20, with a 24-hour trading volume of $54.22 million and a market capitalization of $411.6 million. In the past 24 hours, Dash lost 2.51%, yet some analysts see potential for a bullish reversal as interest in the network grows.
Analyst forecasts and technical outlookCrypto analyst Javon Marks noted that Dash is showing signs of gathering positive momentum after achieving a breakout from a significant wedge or flag pattern. He emphasized that such technical patterns can signal a major upward move, attracting attention from both traders and investors.
The prevailing question among market participants is whether buyers can sustain control and guide Dash toward higher resistance zones. Technical indicators suggest a target around $1,010 may be possible if the bullish momentum continues and substantial buying pressure emerges.
Javon Marks pointed out that Dash has the potential to reach a target near $1,010 if buyers maintain the breakout and strong demand persists in the coming sessions.
Despite these forecasts, traders remain cautious, noting that any sustained upward movement requires confirmation of key support and resistance levels before entering new positions.
Network progress and market environmentDash is a digital currency focused on fast, low-cost transactions with a built-in privacy option, designed to improve user experience and compete in the evolving blockchain industry. Its ongoing upgrades and adoption efforts reflect ambitions to remain competitive among privacy-focused cryptocurrencies.
The recent downward trend in $DASH mirrors the broader market movement as Bitcoin, the leading cryptocurrency, also declined. This wider correction has dampened short-term sentiment despite optimistic technical setups for Dash.
AssetPrice24h ChangeVolumeMarket CapDash$32.20-2.51%$54.22M$411.6MBitcoin(Reference asset)Downtrend(Not specified)(Not specified)Analysts believe Dash’s future price action will depend on whether bulls can maintain the current momentum and defend critical support levels. Any signs of recovery or further breakdown will likely guide the next major moves.
Factors influencing investor confidenceSome market participants say broader ecosystem adoption is helping build confidence, especially as other privacy-focused projects like Zcash have implemented upgrades such as Orchard. These improvements in peer projects may make Dash more appealing to traders seeking privacy and efficiency.
Observers are closely monitoring Dash’s performance for any indications of trend continuation or reversal. The general consensus remains that further technical confirmation is needed before a full-scale rally can be expected.
Mini dictionary: Orchard, a privacy technology introduced in Zcash that enhances transaction confidentiality by using zero-knowledge proofs and shielded addresses. These improvements make Zcash transactions more secure and private, offering a benchmark for similar privacy-focused cryptocurrencies.
The coming days are expected to provide further clarity on whether bullish or bearish forces will dominate in the $DASH market.
If key support and trend confirmation do not materialize soon, traders may remain hesitant, waiting for stronger signals before increasing exposure to Dash.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.
Cover image via U.Today Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
Dogecoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have returned to a stagnant phase after recording a day of $345,130 in inflow this week.
According to recent data from SoSoValue, Dogecoin ETFs saw $0 in daily total net inflow on July 24. The same was seen on July 22 and 23 when $0 was recorded in daily net inflow.
This was not entirely the narrative this week, as Dogecoin saw a day of inflow on July 21 when it recorded $345,130. This marked a brief break from the zero-inflow streak seen since July 6, with all days recording $0 in inflows.
HOT Stories
Zero-flow days are not unusual for newer or lesser-volume crypto ETFs, particularly those tracking assets beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Dogecoin has crossed $12 million in cumulative total net inflow, despite the lull in inflows. According to SoSoValue, Dogecoin ETFs' cumulative total net inflow stood at $12.12 million as of July 24.
You Might Also Like
Dogecoin is also marking its first positive week of inflows since the week ending June 18, recording a weekly inflow of $345,130.
Dogecoin signals remain mixedAt the time of writing, Dogecoin was trading down with the rest of the crypto market, down 0.17% in the last 24 hours to $0.07.
You Might Also Like
DOGE futures open interest is in the green, currently at $1.10 billion. DOGE's spot price remains under pressure after falling to its lowest since November 2023 on Thursday.
The combination of rising open interest alongside a price drop might signal trader interest in shorting the declining market.
Meanwhile, a widely watched signal indicates optimism. According to crypto analyst Ali, the TD Sequential has flashed a buy signal on the monthly chart just as DOGE approaches a major support level around $0.056. If that support holds, a rebound toward $0.16 may be on the cards, with the top of the channel near $0.45 as the broader upside target.
Could Dogecoin, the world's largest memecoin, have given a bullish signal again after a long period of silence?
Crypto analyst Ali Martinez shared critical price levels regarding the technical outlook of Dogecoin (DOGE) and Bitcoin (BTC).
Martinez noted that the TD Sequential indicator gave a bullish signal on Dogecoin’s monthly chart. According to the analyst, this signal emerged around the time the DOGE price approached the key support level of approximately $0.056.
Martinez stated that if Dogecoin holds the $0.056 support level, the price could initially recover towards $0.16, while indicating $0.45, located at the upper limit of the rising channel, as a broader-term target.
On the Bitcoin side, the analyst argued that the $63,800 level should be closely watched, and if this area holds as support, BTC could experience a rebound towards $67,000.
Conversely, Martinez noted that if Bitcoin loses the $63,800 support level, selling pressure could intensify, with the next downside target being around $60,000.
At the time of writing, the BTC price is trading at $64,065, while the DOGE price is at $0.06990.
*This is not investment advice.
Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!
Dogecoin exchange-traded funds saw daily net inflows stall at zero for three consecutive days this week, according to data from SoSoValue. On July 22, 23, and 24, no new funds entered Dogecoin ETFs, maintaining a stagnant flow pattern that has persisted through much of July.
Brief inflow breaks the streakDespite the overall lull, Dogecoin ETFs experienced a positive development earlier in the week. On July 21, inflows reached $345,130, temporarily halting a zero-inflow streak that had lasted since July 6. Prior to this brief spike, all trading days in July had registered no new investment in Dogecoin ETFs.
Such periods of limited activity are common for smaller or newer cryptocurrency ETFs, particularly those tracking digital assets beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum. Market analysts often note that thin trading and episodic inflows are characteristic of crypto funds with niche focus or lower recognition among institutional investors.
Cumulative inflows surpass $12 millionDogecoin ETFs have now exceeded $12 million in cumulative total net inflow. As of July 24, SoSoValue reported that overall net investments in these funds had reached $12.12 million. This week also marks the first time since the period ending June 18 that Dogecoin ETFs have posted a positive net inflow, registering $345,130 in weekly gains.
DateDaily Net InflowCumulative Total Net InflowJuly 21$345,130$12,120,000July 22$0$12,120,000July 23$0$12,120,000July 24$0$12,120,000DOGE price and futures activityDogecoin’s market price continues to face downward pressure, mirroring a wider decline in the cryptocurrency sector. DOGE was down 0.17% over the previous 24 hours and traded at $0.07 at last check.
Open interest in DOGE futures has reached $1.10 billion, signaling higher trading activity in derivative markets. However, with spot prices falling to their lowest level since November 2023, some analysts suggest traders may be positioning for further downside.
The combination of increasing open interest alongside a declining price is seen as an indicator that some participants are seeking to capitalize on falling values.
Technical signals and analyst outlookA closely followed technical indicator has offered a note of optimism. Crypto analyst Ali reported that the Tom DeMark (TD) Sequential has presented a buy signal on Dogecoin’s monthly price chart. This comes as DOGE approaches a strong support zone at $0.056.
Mini dictionary: TD Sequential, a technical analysis indicator developed by Thomas DeMark, is used to identify price exhaustion and potential trend reversals in financial markets.
If Dogecoin maintains support above $0.056, analysts point to the possibility of a rebound. Upside targets include $0.16, with a longer-term channel top near $0.45 seen as a broader objective.
Crypto analyst Ali highlighted that the TD Sequential has signaled a potential buying opportunity for Dogecoin, noting the importance of the $0.056 support level as a foundation for a possible move toward $0.16 and above.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.
Dogecoin has slipped below a key weekly support level, trading near $0.069, and returned to its long-term accumulation zone around $0.07. Analysts have flagged this development as a potential trigger for further downside, unless Dogecoin swiftly reclaims the $0.071 to $0.074 range.
Dogecoin revisits accumulation zone near $0.07The meme-inspired cryptocurrency has dropped back into the support region that has historically attracted significant buyer interest during market corrections. Trading near $0.069, Dogecoin sits in the blue zone between $0.055 and $0.080, identified by analyst Surf as a major accumulation area.
Since 2021, Dogecoin has repeatedly rebounded from this accumulation block, often following extended declines. Each recovery period has differed in strength and duration, but the zone has consistently provided buyers with an entry point.
Dogecoin’s recent decline from its peak near $0.48 in late 2024 brings the price structure into sharper focus. According to analysts, as long as price action continues forming lower highs, underlying momentum remains negative. However, the current region could still spur another round of buying if long-term supporters return.
Sustaining levels above $0.055 is critical for maintaining this multi-year support structure. A recovery to $0.08 or $0.10 would be the first sign of a shift in sentiment, though there is no conclusive evidence yet that a bottom has formed.
Dogecoin’s long-held support area has sparked rebounds in the past, but breaking below could invalidate the accumulation thesis and open the door to additional losses.
If buyers step in and defend this historical block, Dogecoin may once again find a platform for upside. Conversely, failure to hold above this threshold could allow the market to search for new lower supports.
Mini dictionary: Accumulation zone, a price region where buyers consistently accumulate an asset after extended declines, providing repeated support and often preceding price rebounds.
Bears in control after key support breakDOGE’s loss of the $0.071 weekly support has made the short-term outlook more negative. Analyst Scient pointed out that this development could indicate widespread weakness in the crypto sector, as Dogecoin is often viewed as a speculative sentiment gauge.
The breakdown occurred after another failed rally attempt at a descending resistance, signaling persistent selling pressure. DOGE is now trading just below its former support range, and buyers must reclaim $0.071 to $0.074 to reverse the technical damage.
If price stays below these levels, the chart shows $0.065 as the next immediate support, with a longer-term trendline near $0.061 offering further downside targets.
Support/Resistance LevelDescription$0.080 – $0.055Long-term accumulation zone$0.071 – $0.074Key weekly resistance to reclaim$0.065Immediate potential support$0.061Major descending trendline support Unless DOGE recaptures the $0.071 to $0.074 range soon, the risk of sliding further to $0.065 and then $0.061 remains elevated.
A decisive move below $0.061 would intensify the bearish trend, potentially driving Dogecoin to new local lows inside its historical accumulation band. Until buyers recover key levels, market sentiment is likely to remain under pressure.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.
Dogecoin-backed ETFs still struggle to convince investors. After a brief surge in subscriptions, institutional interest quickly waned, confirming the difficulties these products face in establishing themselves in the market. As asset managers look to expand the crypto ETF offering beyond bitcoin and Ethereum, funds linked to memecoins illustrate the limits of this diversification. This new stagnation phase raises questions about the real appetite of investors for these atypical financial vehicles.
In brief After a single day of inflows at $345,130 on July 21, daily flows quickly dropped back to $0 on July 22, 23 and 24. Despite these frequent pauses, ETFs record their first positive week since June 18, totaling $12.12 million. DOGE’s price falls 0.17% over 24h to stand at $0.07, nearing its lowest level since November 2023. Open interest on derivatives rises to $1.10 billion, indicating an accumulation of short positions in the short term. The illusion of a return of institutional liquidity on Dogecoin ETFs Dogecoin-backed ETFs have abruptly fallen back into a complete standstill phase, breaking hopes of a prolonged rebound in institutional flows. According to aggregated data, recent activity boils down to particularly marked figures :
July 22, 23, and 24 : no net daily inflows recorded consecutively ; The surge of July 21 : $345,130 injected, breaking a series of days without inflows started on July 6 ; Weekly volume : it is the first positive week in terms of capital inflows since the week ended June 18. Although this daily dynamic seems bleak, the overall evaluation reveals a more balanced financial structure. Experts remind that days with no net flow are not unusual for recent products or displaying limited volumes, especially when tracking memecoins. Despite the dry spell observed at the end of the week, the net cumulative balance on these ETFs remains solid above the symbolic threshold of $12 million.
A divided market Beyond the lethargy of listed products, the spot market and the futures sector send highly conflicting signals reflecting uncertainty. Thus, the Dogecoin price undergoes general crypto market pressure, showing a slight drop of 0.17% over the last 24 hours to trade around $0.07. This decline occurs as the spot price hit on Thursday its lowest level recorded since November 2023. This weakness on the physical market shows a lack of aggressive short-term buyers to support the price.
Contrary to this deterioration observed on the spot price, open interest on DOGE futures is rising and firmly in the green, reaching $1.10 billion. The simultaneous combination of rising open interest and falling spot prices is a specific signal for finance specialists. The association of growing open interest with a plunging price indeed indicates a massive accumulation of short positions by investors, evidently willing to speculate on a further downward continuation of the ongoing corrective movement.
Technical indicators Despite the dominance of sellers on derivatives, the exclusively bearish market reading is nuanced by the presence of technical signals leading to longer-term reversal scenarios. Crypto analyst Ali highlights a chart pattern particularly watched by specialists. Thus, the TD Sequential indicator has just confirmed an explicit buy signal on the monthly chart of the memecoin. This rare setup occurs at a pivotal moment as the token approaches a major strategic support zone identified around $0.056.
If this historic technical floor manages to contain selling pressure and trigger a buyer reaction, projections foresee a first rebound towards an intermediate target of $0.16. In case of confirmation of this movement, the larger bullish target stands around $0.45.
The current Dogecoin dynamic therefore requires extremely careful and nuanced observation. On one side, the recurrent absence of inflows in ETFs and the rise in short positions reflect genuine short-term skepticism. On the other side, the presence of monthly buy signals on fundamental support zones proves that the structural rebound potential remains technically intact if the critical threshold of $0.056 is preserved.
Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
Join the program
A
A
Lien copié
Adjinacou Luc Jose
Diplômé de Sciences Po Toulouse et titulaire d'une certification consultant blockchain délivrée par Alyra, j'ai rejoint l'aventure Cointribune en 2019. Convaincu du potentiel de la blockchain pour transformer de nombreux secteurs de l'économie, j'ai pris l'engagement de sensibiliser et d'informer le grand public sur cet écosystème en constante évolution. Mon objectif est de permettre à chacun de mieux comprendre la blockchain et de saisir les opportunités qu'elle offre. Je m'efforce chaque jour de fournir une analyse objective de l'actualité, de décrypter les tendances du marché, de relayer les dernières innovations technologiques et de mettre en perspective les enjeux économiques et sociétaux de cette révolution en marche.
DISCLAIMER
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.
Cover image via U.Today Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson addressed criticism from Director of Research of the Digital Asset team at Ark Invest, Lorenzo Valente, in an X post.
Valente, in an X post, had questioned why Cardano continues to receive industry attention, criticizing its continued prominence in the space. He claimed that the crypto sector undermined its own credibility by continuing to invite Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson to conferences, accepting sponsorships, and featuring Cardano in podcasts.
"It's 2026, and we're still talking about Cardano. We're still inviting Charles to conferences, treating Cardano as newsworthy, accepting its sponsorship money, and giving it airtime on podcasts. Then we wonder why this industry struggles for credibility. We deserve the reputation we have. No serious industry keeps rewarding irrelevance like this," Valente wrote.
HOT Stories
Engaging with Valente's post, Hoskinson responded, pointing out the Ark Invest Director of Research's bias outright. Hoskinson dismissed the criticism, suggesting that the comments reflected personal bias rather than an objective assessment of Cardano.
Well, I don't think I'll get a fair shake from @ARKInvest anytime soon :( It's sad that VCs hire people like this. An entire institution is biased by one person https://t.co/d5SA5ovsfH
— Charles Hoskinson (@IOHK_Charles) July 25, 2026 "Well, I don't think I'll get a fair shake from ARK Invest anytime soon :( It's sad that VCs hire people like this. An entire institution is biased by one person," Hoskinson wrote.
Valente's criticism of Cardano and its founder appears to reflect a personal opinion rather than the company's position, as Cardano was named among the assets in Ark Invest's ETF filing.
You Might Also Like
In January this year, ARK Invest, the asset management firm led by Cathie Wood, filed with U.S. regulators to launch a new cryptocurrency exchange-traded fund (ETF) that would track the CoinDesk 20, a benchmark of the most liquid digital assets, which includes Cardano.
Cardano community counts downThe Cardano community is counting down as August 9, 2026 marks the completion of the six-month observation window following the ADA futures launch, opening the path for streamlined U.S. SEC regulatory reviews necessary for an ETF approval.
You Might Also Like
Regulated ADA futures debuted on CME Group on February 9, 2026. Cardano has yet to receive its own spot ETF, with many in the community now considering late Q3/Q4 2026 as the most realistic window for potential final U.S. spot market approvals or trading commencements.
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson publicly responded to criticism from Lorenzo Valente, Director of Research for the Digital Asset team at Ark Invest, following a social media exchange that drew significant attention across the cryptocurrency sector.
Lorenzo Valente posted on platform X questioning why Cardano continues to garner industry attention, expressing skepticism about its ongoing visibility at conferences, podcasts, and sponsorship activities. He argued that the crypto sector weakens its reputation by treating Cardano as a significant project, stating that inviting Hoskinson and granting air time to Cardano “rewards irrelevance.”
Valente wrote, “It’s 2026, and we’re still talking about Cardano. We’re still inviting Charles to conferences, treating Cardano as newsworthy, accepting its sponsorship money, and giving it airtime on podcasts. Then we wonder why this industry struggles for credibility. We deserve the reputation we have. No serious industry keeps rewarding irrelevance like this.”
It’s 2026, and we’re still talking about Cardano. We’re still inviting Charles to conferences, treating Cardano as newsworthy, accepting its sponsorship money, and giving it airtime on podcasts. Then we wonder why this industry struggles for credibility. We deserve the reputation we have.
Hoskinson dismisses Ark Invest critiqueCharles Hoskinson, the creator of Cardano, addressed Valente’s remarks directly on X, highlighting what he described as bias from Ark Invest’s digital asset research leadership and questioning the objectivity of the critique. Hoskinson indicated that Valente’s comments reflected a personal perspective rather than an institutional viewpoint, and he expressed skepticism about receiving support from Ark Invest in the near future.
He argued, “Well, I don’t think I’ll get a fair shake from ARK Invest anytime soon 🙁 It’s sad that VCs hire people like this. An entire institution is biased by one person.”
Well, I don’t think I’ll get a fair shake from ARK Invest anytime soon 🙁 It’s sad that VCs hire people like this. An entire institution is biased by one person.
Ark Invest’s Cardano exposureDespite Valente’s comments, official filings indicate that Ark Invest, a U.S.-based investment management firm led by Cathie Wood, continues to include Cardano among the digital assets tracked by its proposed exchange-traded fund (ETF). In January, Ark Invest applied to launch a new cryptocurrency ETF that would replicate the CoinDesk 20 Index, which features some of the most liquid digital assets, including Cardano.
Valente’s critique therefore appears to be a personal opinion and does not necessarily represent Ark Invest’s official investment outlook or strategy regarding Cardano or its ADA token.
Mini dictionary: Ark Invest, founded by Cathie Wood, is an investment management firm known for its focus on disruptive innovation. CoinDesk 20 is a digital asset index featuring the 20 most liquid crypto assets traded on trusted exchanges.
Anticipated Cardano ETF progressThe Cardano community is closely watching developments as August 9, 2026, will mark six months since the launch of regulated ADA futures on CME Group. Completion of this observation period is seen as an important milestone for any streamlined U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) review process, which is required before potential approval of a Cardano spot ETF.
ADA futures began trading on CME Group on February 9, 2026, expanding institutional accessibility to Cardano. However, Cardano does not yet have its own spot market ETF, and some market participants are now projecting that the earliest reasonable opportunity for such regulatory approval could come in the latter part of 2026.
Many in the Cardano ecosystem see late Q3 or Q4 2026 as the period most likely for any final U.S. approvals or the commencement of spot ADA ETF trading. The event is considered by Cardano proponents as a potential turning point for broader institutional adoption in the United States.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.
Cardano [ADA] ranked among the weakest-performing crypto tokens in the market, losing significant ground since its launch. ADA plunged to around $0.16 at press time, down from an all-time high near $3.10.
ADA slipped 2.14% over the past 24 hours, while trading volume plummeted 23% to $177.3 million. Price action told only part of the story, though.
On-chain metrics did little to strengthen ADA’s recovery case.
Why is Cardano’s network activity so weak? ADA’s on-chain footprint pointed to real weakness in transaction flow.
The Cardano network logged just 21,700 transactions over the past day, a steep drop from roughly 57,000 at its peak.
That pattern held across recent trading and much of this year. Daily Transaction Count hovered between 11,000 and 20,000, a subdued range for a network of Cardano’s standing.
By contrast, Active Addresses ticked up to roughly 13,860. That divergence suggested a larger pool of users still generated only limited on-chain activity.
In broader terms, Active Addresses mostly sat between 10,000 and 20,000. Thin address activity paired with a low Transaction Count weighed heavily on the chain’s utility.
Source: Alphratcal Are whales behind ADA’s selling pressure? Exchange activity told a similar story. Heavy investor participation failed to lift a bearish outlook.
Spot Average Order Size data showed large whales dominated ADA trading on centralized exchanges. Whales are investors who control enough liquidity to influence an asset’s performance.
Weighed against Spot Market Netflow, that whale dominance translated into net selling of ADA over the past two weeks.
Source: CryptoQuant CoinGlass reported ADA’s Spot Netflow this week came in at roughly $1.41 million, against about $143.43 million in Exchange Inflows.
The pattern stretched back several weeks: the week beginning 13th of July logged roughly $167.39 million in inflows and a netflow of $1.82 million, consistent with continued net selling.
Sustained selling from the group kept ADA at risk. The only saving grace was buyers holding netflow within range.
Can Cardano’s 500 million ADA treasury plan turn the tide? For now, the bullish case for ADA rests on its development plan for the Cardano blockchain.
The plan raises the treasury’s spending allocation from 350 million to 500 million ADA, giving the network more room to build out core infrastructure.
The move matters most if it drives higher on-chain activity, pulls in more active addresses, and attracts protocols to build on Cardano.
DeFiLlama data shows just 62 protocols currently operate on the chain—a low figure for a network active for years—holding a combined total value locked (TVL) of $61.7 million.
Final Summary Cardano’s Active Addresses rose while transactions collapsed – a split that hints at hollow, low-value engagement. A treasury raised to 500 million ADA offers ammunition, but ammunition without demand rarely wins battles.
Altın piyasasında son aylarda yaşanan sert dalgalanmaların ardından dikkat çeken yeni bir tahmin geldi. Varlık yönetim şirketi WisdomTree tarafından yayımlanan analiz raporunda, ons altının mevcut düzeltme sürecinin ardından yeniden yükseliş trendine girebileceği belirtilirken, 2027 yılının ikinci çeyreği için 4.563 dolar hedefi paylaşıldı. Analistler, son geri çekilmeyi boğa piyasasının sona ermesi olarak değil, aşırı fiyatlamaların dengelendiği sağlıklı bir düzeltme olarak değerlendiriyor.
Altında Yükseliş Potansiyeli Korunuyor WisdomTree analistlerine göre altın piyasası, 2026 yılının ilk yarısında tarihi bir yükselişin ardından sert bir düzeltme sürecine girdi. Ocak ayında görülen 5.595 dolarlık rekor seviyenin ardından yaşanan satışlar yatırımcıların dikkatini çekse de raporda uzun vadeli yükseliş beklentisinin değişmediği vurgulandı. Analistler, fiyatlardaki geri çekilmenin spekülatif hareketlerin azalmasını sağladığını ve altının yeniden ekonomik temeller doğrultusunda fiyatlanmaya başladığını belirtiyor. Böylece piyasadaki aşırı değerleme priminin büyük ölçüde ortadan kalktığı ifade ediliyor.
İlginizi Çekebilir: HYPE Fiyatı İçin Analistlerden Dikkat Çeken Tahmin!
Raporda, altın fiyatlarında yaşanan sert düzeltmenin üç temel gelişmeden kaynaklandığı belirtiliyor.
İlk olarak, Kevin Warsh’ın ABD Merkez Bankası (Fed) başkanlığı için aday gösterilmesi, para politikasına ilişkin belirsizlikleri azaltarak altına eklenen risk priminin gerilemesine neden oldu. İkinci olarak, İran ile yaşanan jeopolitik gerilim sırasında yatırımcıların güvenli liman alımlarından çok nakit ihtiyacına yönelmesi dikkat çekti. Bu süreçte birçok yatırımcı likidite sağlamak amacıyla altın satışına yöneldi. Üçüncü faktör ise Çin ve Hindistan merkezli altın yatırım ürünlerine yönelik talebin zayıflaması oldu. Ayrıca kurumsal yatırımcıların, özellikle Tether gibi büyük alıcıların altın birikim hızını azaltması da fiyatlardaki düzeltmeyi hızlandıran unsurlar arasında gösterildi. WisdomTree’den 2027 İçin 4.563 Dolar Tahmini Raporda yer alan baz senaryoya göre, 2027 yılının ikinci çeyreğinde bazı makroekonomik koşulların gerçekleşmesi halinde altın fiyatının 4.563 dolar seviyesine ulaşabileceği öngörülüyor.
Bu senaryoda öne çıkan beklentiler şöyle sıralanıyor:
ABD enflasyonunun yüzde 2,2 seviyesine gerilemesi, 10 yıllık ABD tahvil faizlerinin yaklaşık yüzde 4,33 seviyesinde dengelenmesi, Dolar Endeksi’nin (DXY) 97,1 seviyesine kadar düşmesi. WisdomTree analistleri, bu şartların oluşması halinde ons altının mevcut seviyelerine kıyasla yaklaşık 500 dolarlık bir yükseliş potansiyeli taşıyabileceğini belirtiyor.
Doların Zayıflaması Altını Destekleyebilir Raporda ayrıca ABD ekonomisindeki bütçe açığı ve cari açık gibi uzun vadeli yapısal sorunların dolar üzerinde baskı oluşturmaya devam edebileceği ifade edildi. Doların değer kaybetmesi halinde yatırımcıların yeniden altına yönelmesinin mümkün olduğu belirtilirken, bunun değerli metal için uzun vadede önemli bir destek unsuru olabileceği vurgulandı. Analistlere göre küresel belirsizliklerin devam etmesi, merkez bankalarının altın alımlarını sürdürmesi ve faizlerde beklenen normalleşme süreci de orta ve uzun vadede altın fiyatlarını destekleyen faktörler arasında yer alıyor.
Son dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
The world’s largest stablecoin issuer pays roughly $2.9 billion a year in fees to blockchains it does not control. Its answer was to back two competing chains at once: Plasma, the $373 million DeFi-flavored bet, and Stable, the enterprise rail where USDT is the gas. One issuer, two armies, one enemy named Tron, and a strategy that makes sense only when you see whose problem it solves.
Summary
Tether’s ecosystem has seeded two purpose-built USDT chains that compete directly with each other: Plasma, live since September with a $373 million token sale, a paymaster model, and roughly $551 million in DeFi TVL, and Stable, live since December with $2 billion in pre-deposits, USDT-as-gas, and an enterprise focus. The motive is a number: analyses put Tether’s annual network-fee bill near $2.9 billion, split largely between Ethereum and Tron, value that leaks to base layers the issuer does not control while its own revenue runs near $5 billion. The two chains embody opposite design philosophies, a subsidized general-purpose DeFi economy with a native token doing traditional work, versus a stripped payments rail where the dollar itself is the fuel, and opposite go-to-market strategies. The real target is not each other but Tron, which still carries roughly 45% of all USDT and earns the fees on the world’s largest remittance flows, a moat neither challenger has meaningfully dented. Funding both sides is not indecision; it is a portfolio: the issuer wins if either chain repatriates the fee leak, wins bigger if both segment the market, and loses only to the status quo it is paying $2.9 billion a year to escape. Companies do not usually finance both armies in a war, but then no company has ever been positioned quite like Tether. The issuer of USDT sits atop the most profitable simple business in finance, collecting Treasury yield on the reserves behind roughly $150 billion of circulating dollars, and it watches, every day, a substantial slice of its ecosystem’s economics leak sideways: the fees users pay to move USDT accrue not to Tether but to the blockchains USDT lives on, a bill that research houses have tallied near $2.9 billion a year, flowing mostly to Ethereum validators and, above all, to Tron, the chain that quietly became the developing world’s dollar-remittance backbone.
Tether’s response, characteristically, was not one bet but two. Plasma, backed by Tether-adjacent capital and Founders Fund, raised $373 million in an oversubscribed sale and launched in September as a general-purpose stablecoin chain with a native token, a paymaster that makes USDT transfers free, and a DeFi ecosystem that onboarded Aave, Ethena, and Euler on day one. Stable, backed by Bitfinex with Tether’s chief executive advising, drew $2 billion in pre-deposits and launched in December as something sparer: a chain where USDT itself is the gas, transfers are free by protocol rule, and the pitch is enterprise blockspace rather than yield farming.
Bitfinex-backed layer 1 Stable releases tokenomics, mainnet to go live on Dec. 8
Stable shares tokenomics details ahead of its Dec. 8 mainnet launch, with a total supply of 100B tokens distributed among ecosystem, team, investors and advisors.
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) December 3, 2025 Two chains, one family, the same target market, and a rivalry the ecosystem politely declines to name. This piece names it, maps the two designs honestly, and answers the question the arrangement raises: why an issuer would fund its own chain war, and what winning even means when you own both sides.
The fee leak: the war’s actual cause Start with the number that explains everything, because without it the two-chain strategy looks like a waste and with it the strategy looks obvious.
USDT’s success created a strange corporate geometry: the asset is Tether’s, the activity is enormous, and the toll booths belong to other people. Every USDT transfer on Ethereum pays gas to Ethereum validators; every transfer on Tron, where nearly half of all USDT lives and where the remittance corridors of Asia, Africa, and Latin America actually run, pays energy and bandwidth costs into Tron’s economy.
Aggregated, analyses of Tether’s ecosystem have put the annual network-fee spend associated with USDT movement at roughly $2.9 billion, against issuer revenues that industry estimates placed near $4.9 billion in the same period, meaning the base layers underneath USDT capture value at a scale approaching the issuer’s own take.
Delphi Digital’s framing of the problem is the cleanest: as issuance spread across chains, the infrastructure supporting USDT ended up largely outside Tether’s control, and the economic value generated by usage is disproportionately captured by the rails, especially Ethereum and Tron.
For most companies this would be an irritation. For a stablecoin issuer, it is a strategic vulnerability with three faces. Economically, it is margin leaking to landlords. Competitively, it funds a chain, Tron, whose operator is an independent actor with his own token, his own politics, and his own regulatory exposures, none of which Tether chooses. And architecturally, it means the user experience of the world’s most used digital dollar, fees, congestion, gas-token requirements, is set by networks optimizing for other things.
The purpose-built USDT chain is the answer to all three at once: repatriate the fees, own the rail, and design the experience around the dollar. The only question was which design, and Tether’s ecosystem answered: both.
Two chains, two philosophies The rivals are best understood as opposite answers to one question: how much chain does a stablecoin need?
Plasma’s answer is: a whole one. It is a full EVM Layer 1 with its own token, XPL, doing the traditional native-token jobs, validator staking, settlement asset, and value accrual through the chain’s growth, while a paymaster contract absorbs gas costs so that simple USDT transfers cost users nothing. The design keeps the familiar crypto economy intact: XPL had a $373 million public sale seven times oversubscribed, the chain launched with more than a hundred DeFi integrations, TVL has built to roughly $551 million, sub-second PlasmaBFT finality serves trading as well as payments, Bitcoin anchoring adds a security narrative, and a confidential-transfers module courts payroll and B2B flows.
Plasma is, in short, a general-purpose chain that subsidizes its stablecoin lane, betting that free USDT transfers pull in users whose other activity, lending, trading, yield, pays the bills and accrues to the token. The paymaster’s economics depend on exactly the patron logic this publication’s gasless-transfers guide dissects: most zero-fee chains in history died when the subsidy ran out, and Plasma’s differentiating claim is that its subsidy is underwritten by an ecosystem with a direct commercial interest in USDT ubiquity.
Stable’s answer is: as little chain as possible. No paymaster indirection, no separate gas asset at all: USDT0, the omnichain dollar, is the fee token; simple transfers are exempt by protocol rule, and the native STABLE token is confined to staking and governance, deliberately invisible to users, the architecture this publication’s companion guides map in detail.
Where Plasma courted DeFi, Stable ships enterprise blockspace, dedicated capacity for institutional payment flows, and its traction metric was not TVL but the $2 billion in pre-deposits that arrived before mainnet. The design concedes the DeFi economy to others and optimizes one thing: dollar movement at payments-grade predictability, on the bet that remittance processors, merchants, and treasuries choose rails the way they choose clearing banks: for boredom, not composability.
The philosophies produce different vulnerabilities, and honesty requires both. Plasma’s risk is dilution of purpose: a general-purpose chain competing for DeFi against Ethereum, Solana, and every L2, where free USDT transfers are a loss leader for an economy that may never outgrow its subsidy, and where the XPL token must justify itself against exactly the value-accrual skepticism this publication applies everywhere.
Stable’s risk is the mirror: a rail so minimal that its moat is only execution and alignment, with no ecosystem gravity to retain users who arrive, and a token whose value case, as our STABLE guide argues, waits on governance decisions nobody has made. One chain risks being too much; the other risks being too little; and both share the risk that actually matters, which lives in Asia, on the incumbent.
Tron: the enemy both were built to fight The polite framing says Plasma and Stable address different segments. The impolite truth is that both exist to take the same prize: the roughly 45% of all USDT that lives on Tron and the fee flows it generates.
Tron’s dominance is the most underexamined fact in stablecoin land. It hosts the largest share of the largest stablecoin, it carries the remittance and exchange-settlement flows of the markets where USDT is not a trading chip but a savings technology, and its moat is precisely the kind that whitepapers cannot breach: cash-network effects, integrations in thousands of local exchanges and OTC desks, muscle memory in a hundred million wallets, and fees that, while meaningfully nonzero, are known, tolerated, and priced into every corridor.
Both challengers aim at it explicitly, Plasma’s remittance-routing pitch is skip Tron’s TRX gas requirement, Stable’s free-transfer pitch is the same sentence with different plumbing, and both discovered what challengers of payment incumbents always discover: users do not migrate for architecture, they migrate when their exchange, their employer, or their remittance app migrates, which makes the war a business-development grind, not a technology contest.
The scoreboard that matters is therefore not TVL or transaction counts, both inflatable, but the share of USDT supply resident on each chain, and by that measure the war has barely begun: Tron’s share has eroded only at the edges, the challengers’ combined float remains a fraction of it, and the incumbent retains the advantage every toll-road owner has, profitability that funds its own retention incentives.
Which is exactly why the two-chain strategy makes sense from the issuer’s chair, and this is the piece’s resolving move. Tether does not need to pick the winning design; it needs the fee leak plugged and the rail owned by family, and funding two philosophies is how a portfolio manager attacks an uncertain market: Plasma tests whether a subsidized DeFi economy can bootstrap payments gravity, Stable tests whether enterprise minimalism can, the two chains’ competition sharpens both faster than monopoly would, and every dollar of USDT float either one wins from Tron or Ethereum converts leaked fees into family economics.
If both succeed, the market segments, retail-and-DeFi on one, institutional on the other, and the issuer owns the whole stack. If one dies, the survivor inherits its lessons and its float. The only losing scenario is the status quo, and the status quo is the thing costing $2.9 billion a year.
Wars are usually negative-sum for the combatants and profitable for the arms dealer; this one was designed by the arms dealer, which is the fact to keep in view as the ecosystem spends the next year pretending the two chains are not aimed at each other, and at Tron, and, quietly, at the $2.9 billion.
The regulatory shadow both chains share One more force shapes the war from outside it, and the family’s own coverage of Washington makes it unavoidable: both chains are Tether-ecosystem infrastructure launching into the exact regulatory window in which American law is deciding what offshore-issued dollars may do.
The GENIUS Act’s stablecoin framework, whose missed implementation deadlines this publication has chronicled, and the CLARITY Act’s market-structure fight, live on the Senate floor this very week, together draw the perimeter that will define both chains’ addressable markets. The core exposure is identical for both: USDT remains an offshore-issued dollar under frameworks built to privilege domestically regulated issuance, and every corridor the chains win converts informal USDT usage into visible, systematic flows that regulators can see, name, and gate.
The chains’ opposite strategies produce opposite versions of the exposure. Stable’s enterprise pitch runs toward the regulated world on purpose, courting institutions whose compliance departments must bless the rail, which makes it the family’s test of whether Tether-aligned infrastructure can pass American diligence at all. Plasma’s retail-and-DeFi economy runs away from that scrutiny by construction, thriving in exactly the permissionless corridors that the illicit-finance provisions of every pending bill target.
One chain bets the family can join the regulated system; the other bets it can outgrow the need to; and the legislation moving through Congress this month will grade both bets before either chain’s technology does. The honest summary for the cluster this piece opens: the fee-leak war is the family’s offensive campaign, and the regulatory perimeter is its defensive one, and the second war, unlike the first, is not one the issuer designed.
The third bidder nobody prices One actor complicates the family war’s tidy geometry, and the honest map includes it: the incumbent chains are not standing still, and the war’s most likely spoiler is not either challenger failing but the leak becoming cheaper to tolerate.
Tron’s defense is already visible in its pricing behavior: the network has periodically tuned its resource model when migration pressure rises, and its operator retains the toll-road owner’s ultimate weapon, the ability to cut fees toward zero in the corridors under attack while keeping them positive everywhere else, a price-discrimination play incumbents from airlines to telecoms have run against cherry-picking entrants forever. Every basis point Tron shaves narrows the challengers’ pitch, and Tron can shave from profits while the challengers subsidize from war chests, an asymmetry that favors the incumbent in any prolonged price war.
Ethereum’s defense is structural: the institutional and DeFi USDT that lives there is the stickiest float in the ecosystem, held for composability with the deepest markets in crypto, and no payments-optimized rail competes for it at all, which is why the realistic battlefield is Tron’s remittance float, not Ethereum’s collateral float, and why the challengers’ addressable prize is meaningfully smaller than the headline $2.9 billion suggests.
And there is a fourth trajectory the war could take, the one the arms-dealer framing predicts: the leak becoming the product. Tether’s ecosystem does not strictly need either chain to win the migration war if the chains’ existence disciplines the incumbents’ pricing, converts the issuer from rate-taker to rate-negotiator, and hands the family credible exit infrastructure it can invoke in every commercial conversation with Tron.
Leverage, not conquest, may be the strategy’s real deliverable: the $373 million and the $2 billion pre-deposits purchase, at minimum, the ability to move, and the ability to move is what turns a captive tenant into a negotiating one. On this reading, the two chains are already succeeding, quietly, in the only meeting that matters, and the float-share scoreboard understates a war whose first victory is a better lease.
What to watch USDT float by chain, quarterly: The war’s only honest scoreboard: the share of total USDT supply resident on Plasma and Stable versus Tron and Ethereum. Transaction counts inflate; resident float is the fee leak actually moving. Watch whether the challengers’ combined share reaches double digits, and whose share it comes from.
The subsidy postures: Plasma’s paymaster spend against its DeFi economy’s fee generation, and Stable’s emission schedule against its enterprise fee flows: both chains’ free tiers have funding models this publication’s framework can grade, and the first one to show cross-subsidy covering the free lane has found the sustainable shape.
A corridor flip: The event that would actually move the war: a major remittance processor, exchange, or payments app moving a named corridor’s settlement from Tron to either challenger. One real corridor outweighs any TVL milestone, and business-development announcements of that specific shape are the tell.
The issuer’s hand: Canonical USDT issuance decisions, where Tether mints natively versus where USDT0 bridges, are the issuer quietly picking favorites, and any consolidation move, shared infrastructure, a merger, a formal designation of lanes, would be the portfolio manager closing a position. The war ends the way it started: by family decision.
A closing note on the observable that will settle the philosophies faster than any strategy memo: developer behavior. Chains are chosen twice, once by users moving money and once by builders deploying products, and the two chains’ opposite designs make opposite bids for the second constituency. Plasma’s full EVM economy with a hundred day-one DeFi integrations bids for builders with composability and a token to align them; Stable’s enterprise blockspace bids with predictability and a customer base of institutions that pay for boredom.
The early returns are legible in the metrics each side brags about: TVL and integrations on one side, pre-deposits and enterprise partnerships on the other, and the metric each side avoids, and the first year of divergence will show whether payments infrastructure in crypto follows the platform playbook, where ecosystems win, or the utility playbook, where reliability does.
Tron, for what it is worth, won its position with neither: it won with distribution into exchanges and remittance desks before anyone was watching, which is the quiet reminder that the war’s decisive constituency may be neither users nor builders but the few hundred business-development conversations, with processors, exchanges, and payroll providers, that actually move float at scale. Both challengers know it, which is why the war’s real battles will be invisible, fought in integration roadmaps and settlement agreements, and reported, if at all, one corridor at a time.
Frequently Asked Questions What are Plasma and Stable, in one line each? Plasma is a general-purpose stablecoin Layer 1, live since September, with a native token (XPL), a paymaster making simple USDT transfers free, and a DeFi ecosystem around $551 million in TVL. Stable is a payments-focused Layer 1, live since December, where USDT0 itself is the gas asset, simple transfers are free by protocol rule, and the focus is enterprise and institutional flows.
Why does Tether’s ecosystem back both? Because the strategic problem, roughly $2.9 billion a year in USDT-related network fees leaking to chains outside the family, above all Tron and Ethereum, matters more than which design solves it. Backing two opposite philosophies is portfolio logic: each tests a different route to repatriating the fee flow, competition sharpens both, and any float either wins converts leaked economics into aligned economics.
How do the two chains differ technically? Plasma keeps a conventional chain economy: XPL handles staking and settlement, a paymaster subsidizes the free USDT lane, the EVM ecosystem is fully general, and Bitcoin anchoring plus confidential transfers extend the feature set. Stable removes the separate gas asset entirely, USDT0 pays fees, simple transfers are exempt, the STABLE token is confined to staking and governance, and capacity is marketed as enterprise blockspace.
Are they really competitors, or complementary? Directly competitive, whatever the diplomatic framing. Both target the existing USDT float and the same migration sources, Tron’s remittance corridors first, and both pitch the identical headline benefit of free dollar transfers. Segmentation into retail-DeFi versus institutional lanes is a possible equilibrium, but it would be an outcome of the competition, not an alternative to it.
Why is Tron the real target? Tron carries roughly 45% of all USDT, the largest share of the largest stablecoin, concentrated in the remittance and exchange-settlement corridors where USDT functions as everyday money. Its fees are the biggest single component of the ecosystem’s leak, and its moat, integrations, habits, and cash-network effects, is the one both challengers were engineered to attack, so far with only marginal erosion.
What would winning look like for either chain? Resident USDT float, not activity metrics. A challenger reaching a double-digit share of total USDT supply, or flipping a named remittance corridor’s settlement from Tron, would mark real progress. For the issuer’s ecosystem, winning is broader: any combination of outcomes that moves fee flows from external chains to family-aligned ones, including a split decision where both chains hold different segments.
What are the main risks to each? Plasma: the general-purpose trap, competing for DeFi against far larger ecosystems while its free lane depends on subsidy, and an XPL token facing the standard value-accrual skepticism. Stable: the minimalism trap, a rail with no ecosystem gravity, a token whose value case awaits governance decisions, and reliance on enterprise adoption cycles that move slowly. Both: Tron’s incumbency and the possibility that users simply do not migrate.
What does this mean for USDT holders? Little direct risk and some structural benefit: the chains compete to make USDT cheaper and easier to move, and the omnichain plumbing (USDT0) connecting them is the same system this publication’s guides describe, with the same trust stack. The war’s outcome matters more for XPL and STABLE holders, whose tokens are claims on the respective designs winning, and for the fee economics of Tron and Ethereum, the incumbents being challenged. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures for fees, revenues, TVL, and supply shares are estimates drawn from third-party research and change continuously. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 24, 2026.
StableChain’s product is Tether’s dollar: gas in USDT, transfers in USDT, yield in USDT. Its native token does none of that, and holders own governance and staking rights over a network whose every cash flow is denominated in someone else’s asset. This is crypto’s value-accrual question in its purest form yet, and it deserves a straight answer.
Summary
STABLE is the native token of StableChain, the Tether-ecosystem Layer 1 whose defining feature is that users never need it: gas is paid in USDT0, transfers settle in USDT, and simple sends are free. The token’s stated jobs are governance and security: holders vote on protocol matters through the Stable Foundation’s framework, and validators stake STABLE to secure the network, earning rewards for doing so. The design is deliberate and principled: a payments chain needs a stable fee asset, and separating the security bond from the payment medium is the dual-token architecture’s entire point. The uncomfortable corollary is equally deliberate: a token the product never touches must find its value in security demand, governance rights, and any future claim on the network’s USDT-denominated fee flows, the fee-switch question. Whether that is enough is the purest version of the debate this publication has tracked across Ethereum, XRP, and the L2s: whether infrastructure success ever becomes token value, now tested on a chain that spelled the separation into its architecture. Every blockchain token answers one question with its existence: why does this network need me? Bitcoin’s answer is total; the token is the point. Ethereum’s answer is functional: the token is the fuel and the bond. And the new generation of stablecoin chains has produced the strangest answer yet, embodied most cleanly by STABLE, the native token of the Tether-ecosystem chain whose entire design philosophy is that users should never have to touch it.
On StableChain, gas is paid in USDT0, the omnichain version of Tether’s dollar. Balances are USDT. Simple transfers are exempt from fees entirely. The yield products pay in dollar terms. A user can onboard, transact, build, and exit without ever knowing STABLE exists, and that is not an oversight; it is the pitch: a payments chain where the volatile native token has been engineered out of the user’s path completely, which leaves the token itself standing in an interesting place.
STABLE launched alongside the mainnet in December with two stated jobs, governance and staking, and a market price that implies belief in a third: that owning the token means owning something about the network’s future economics. This guide takes the question seriously from both directions: what the token actually does, mechanically, today, and what it would need to become for the belief to be right, because the gap between those two is where every dual-token chain’s story is decided.
What the token actually does Start with the mechanical inventory, because it is short, real, and frequently misdescribed.
Job one: security. StableChain is a proof-of-stake network, and its validators stake STABLE as the bond that makes consensus honest; misbehavior risks the stake, and diligence earns rewards. This is the token’s hardest, least dismissible function: every proof-of-stake chain needs a bonding asset whose value is endogenous to the network, because a chain secured by staking someone else’s asset, USDT, say, would let an attacker rent security from outside the system it attacks.
The security budget, the total value staked and the rewards paid to maintain it, is denominated in STABLE, funded today primarily through emissions, and it is the one place where the token is structurally irreplaceable. The dual-token design’s honest logic lives here: the payment medium should be stable and external, the security bond should be volatile and internal, and one asset cannot be both.
Job two: governance. STABLE carries voting rights in the network’s governance through the framework stewarded by the Stable Foundation, the independent body launched with the mainnet to run grants, ecosystem programs, and protocol votes. Tokenholder governance over a payments chain means influence over real parameters: fee policy for the non-exempt tiers, the scope of the gas-exempt allowlist, validator-set rules, upgrade schedules, treasury allocation. Governance rights are the token’s most commonly mocked function, crypto’s history is thick with governance tokens whose votes govern nothing consequential, and the mockery should be calibrated: on a chain with a patron as dominant as Tether’s ecosystem, the live question is not whether votes happen but how much of consequence is actually delegated to them, and the honest answer this early is: it is being determined, vote by vote, and the record so far is thin because the chain is young.
And that is the complete mechanical list. STABLE is not gas, not the settlement asset, not the unit of account for the chain’s products, not required to hold, send, or build. The inventory’s brevity is the design, and everything else about the token is a question about the future.
The value question, stated honestly A token’s price is a claim on future usefulness, so state precisely what a STABLE holder owns a claim on, and what they do not.
They do not own the chain’s product. The product is USDT mobility, and its economics flow elsewhere: the float income on the dollars flows to Tether, the fee revenue on non-exempt transactions accrues in USDT terms, and the network’s growth, more users, more transfers, more integrations, grows the patron’s business directly, the mechanism this publication’s gasless-economics guide details. A million new users transacting entirely in the free tier generate, mechanically, zero fee demand for STABLE, precisely because the design removed the token from their path.
This is the sharpest version yet of the value-accrual gap that runs through crypto’s whole history, Ethereum’s L2s paying pennies to mainnet, XRPL’s agents settling in RLUSD, adoption compounding while the associated token watches, except that on those networks the gap emerged; here it was drafted, deliberately, as a feature.
What holders do own is three claims, in ascending order of speculativeness.
First, security demand: as the value settled on the chain grows, the security budget must grow with it; a chain moving billions cannot be secured by a token worth millions without inviting attack, so a successful StableChain structurally requires a valuable STABLE, with validators and delegators buying and locking it to earn the staking yield. This is real, and it has a known weakness: security demand sets a floor proportional to what attackers could steal, not a valuation proportional to what users transact, and the two numbers can diverge by orders of magnitude.
Second, governance premium: if the parameters tokenholders control become commercially consequential, which fee tiers exist, who gets allowlisted, how the treasury deploys, then influence over them is worth paying for, particularly to businesses building on the chain.
Third, and decisive: the fee switch, the question of whether the network’s USDT-denominated cash flows are ever routed to the token, through staking rewards paid from real fees instead of emissions, buy-and-burn mechanics, or revenue sharing. Every dual-token network eventually faces this fork, and the whole investment case compresses into it: a STABLE whose staking yield is funded by growing USDT fee revenue is equity-like, a claim on a payments business; a STABLE whose yield is funded by its own emissions is a dilution machine wearing a yield costume, paying holders with their own money.
Which fork this chain takes is not yet determined, is squarely within what governance and the Foundation will decide, and is, far more than any adoption metric, the number to watch.
One structural detail deserves its own paragraph before the arithmetic: where STABLE sits in the chain’s launch history, because the token’s distribution is part of its value question. The network arrived through a pre-deposit campaign that drew more than $2 billion from over 24,000 wallets before mainnet, a mechanism this publication’s stablechain coverage has examined as its own fundraising genre, and the token generation that followed allocated STABLE across the founding ecosystem, investors from the $28 million seed round, the Foundation’s treasury, and the community programs the Foundation administers.
The composition matters for both of the token’s jobs. For governance, initial concentration among ecosystem insiders means early votes measure the founding coalition’s intentions more than any community’s, and the decentralization of the holder base is itself one of the signals the grading framework below should track.
For security, the same concentration cuts the other way, benignly: a validator set staked by aligned parties is resistant to hostile accumulation precisely because so much supply sits with the ecosystem, which is the standard early-chain trade: security through concentration now, credibility through distribution later. The unlock and emission schedules, as they publish, convert this from description to data: the float’s growth path determines how quickly the dilution ratio bites, and whose tokens are doing the diluting.
The security-budget arithmetic, worked The token’s hardest function deserves its numbers worked in public, because security demand is the one claim STABLE holders own unconditionally, and its arithmetic is both the case’s floor and its ceiling.
A proof-of-stake chain’s security budget must answer one question: what does it cost to attack the network, and is that cost comfortably above what an attacker could gain? The attack cost is a function of the staked value, acquiring or corrupting a controlling share of stake, and the gain is a function of what the chain settles: double-spendable balances, censorable payments, extractable value in flight.
For a payments chain aspiring to carry institutional USDT settlement, the gains side scales with throughput and float parked on-chain, which is why the design community’s rule of thumb holds that staked value must grow roughly in line with the value the chain secures, and why a successful StableChain mechanically requires a substantially valuable STABLE: billions settled daily cannot sit on security worth tens of millions without the mismatch itself becoming the vulnerability.
That is the floor argument, and it is real. Its limits are equally arithmetic.
First, security demand prices the bond, not the business: a chain can secure ten billion dollars of daily settlement with, say, low single-digit billions of staked value, generous by current industry ratios, and that number is a ceiling on security-driven token demand no matter how large the payment volumes above it grow. The token’s security case, in other words, scales with the square footage of the vault, not the traffic through the lobby.
Second, the demand is circular at the margin: validators acquire STABLE to earn staking rewards, and if the rewards are emissions, the demand is buying dilution, a loop that adds lock-up but not exogenous value, which is again why the fee-switch question dominates everything; real-fee rewards are the only input that breaks the circle.
Third, the floor is contingent on decentralization actually mattering: a young chain whose validator set is effectively permissioned within a patron’s ecosystem is secured, in practice, by the patron’s reputation as much as by the bond, and the bond’s economic necessity, along with the token’s, grows only as that training-wheel arrangement is genuinely retired.
The security argument for STABLE is therefore best held precisely: it guarantees the token a job, sized to the vault; it does not guarantee the token a valuation, sized to the network; and the distance between those two is, once more, a decision waiting in governance, not a mechanism waiting in code.
The comparisons that calibrate it Three adjacent cases put boundaries on how this can go, and each maps onto a live possibility for STABLE.
The cautionary case is the pure governance token: assets whose networks succeeded while the token’s claims never matured, votes over nothing binding, fees never routed, value asymptoting toward the governance premium alone, which history prices low. Crypto’s graveyard of DeFi governance tokens trading at fractions of their launch against thriving protocols shows the failure mode is not network failure; it is the network succeeding around the token.
The constructive case is the modern fee-sharing turn: protocols that activated their fee switches, Maker’s burn against DAI revenues in its era, the newer generation of staking modules paying real revenue, and repriced accordingly. The mechanics exist, are well understood, and require only the governance will, which on a patron-dominated chain means the patron’s will: routing USDT fees to STABLE stakers is a decision to share the rail’s economics with tokenholders instead of concentrating them in the ecosystem, and patrons make that decision when tokenholder alignment is worth more to them than the revenue, typically as the validator set decentralizes and the chain’s credibility requires it.
And the sobering case is the gas-token contrast: Ethereum’s ETH, whatever its troubles, is bought by every user by necessity, a demand floor STABLE’s design explicitly forgoes. The dual-token chain trades away that mandatory bid for a better product, stable fees, and the trade’s honesty should be admired even as its consequence is priced: on this architecture, nothing is automatic; every path from network success to token value runs through an explicit decision, by governance, by the Foundation, by the patron, to build the connection.
STABLE is, in that sense, the cleanest experiment yet run on crypto’s oldest question. The chain can succeed enormously; the token participates only if someone decides it should; and the entire due diligence of holding it reduces to a judgment about whether, when, and how generously that decision gets made.
Watch the emission schedule against real fee revenue, watch the first governance votes that touch money, and watch for any fee-switch proposal in the Foundation’s pipeline, because on a chain that engineered the token out of the product, the only thing that can engineer it back in is a vote.
A closing note on how this experiment will actually be graded, because the token’s design guarantees the verdict arrives as a series of documents, not a moment.
The first grading event is every emissions disclosure: the schedule’s dollar value against the chain’s real USDT fee revenue is the dilution ratio, and its trend is the single most information-dense number the token will ever print.
The second is the first governance vote that moves money, a fee-tier change, a treasury deployment, an allowlist decision, because it will reveal whether tokenholder governance on a patron chain is a legislature or a suggestion box, and markets will reprice the governance premium accordingly within the week.
The third is any fee-routing proposal, the fork this guide has argued everything reduces to, and its absence is also information: each quarter the network grows while staking yield remains emission-funded is a quarter of evidence about which fork the ecosystem intends.
And the last is the slow one, validator-set composition, because the security argument matures only as the set opens beyond the founding ecosystem, converting the bond from ceremony into necessity.
None of these events is a price target, and that is the point: STABLE is a claim whose value will be legislated into existence, or not, by identifiable decisions on a public calendar, which makes it, whatever else it becomes, one of the most watchable experiments in token design now running. The chain’s users will never notice any of it, by design. The holders should notice nothing else.
One comparison from outside crypto rounds out the calibration, because the dual-token structure has a traditional-finance cousin worth naming: the exchange operator. A stock exchange’s product is other people’s securities, its fees are denominated in ordinary money, and its own listed shares confer exactly what STABLE confers, governance over the venue and a claim on whatever economics the operator chooses to route to shareholders.
Nobody needs exchange shares to trade on the exchange, and the shares are valuable anyway, because the operator routes real fee revenue to them; the fee switch, permanently on, is the entire business model. The analogy clarifies both what STABLE could become and what it is not yet: exchange operators are valuable because the routing decision was made at incorporation, in the corporate form itself, while a dual-token chain makes the same decision later, optionally, through governance, under a patron whose interests may prefer the revenue concentrated elsewhere.
The distance between STABLE today and the exchange-share model is exactly one decision wide, which is both the bull case’s simplicity and the bear case’s, and it returns the analysis to where the mechanical inventory left it: a token whose two real jobs are secure and decide, holding an option on a third job, collect, that only the second job can exercise.
Frequently Asked Questions What is the STABLE token in one sentence? STABLE is the native governance and staking token of StableChain, the Tether-ecosystem Layer 1: validators stake it to secure the network, and holders vote with it on protocol matters, while all user-facing activity, gas, transfers, and settlement, runs in USDT and USDT0, deliberately excluding the native token from the payment path.
Why would a chain design its own token out of the user experience? Because volatile gas is a payments-product defect. Requiring users to hold a fluctuating native asset to move stable dollars adds friction, unpredictable costs, and onboarding failure, so stablechains denominate fees in the stablecoin itself and exempt simple transfers entirely. The dual-token structure separates roles: stable asset for payments, native token for the security bond and governance, each doing what the other cannot.
If users never need it, where does demand for STABLE come from? Three sources. Security demand: validators and delegators must acquire and lock STABLE to earn staking rewards, and a chain settling large value structurally needs a large security budget. Governance demand: influence over commercially meaningful parameters, fee tiers, allowlists, treasury, is worth acquiring if those votes bind. And prospectively, fee routing: any future mechanism directing the chain’s USDT-denominated revenues to stakers, the fee-switch question that dominates the token’s long-term case.
What is a fee switch and why does it matter so much here? A fee switch routes a network’s real revenues to its tokenholders, through revenue-funded staking rewards, buybacks, or burns. It matters acutely for STABLE because the chain’s cash flows are all denominated in USDT: without routing, staking yield comes from STABLE emissions, which is dilution recycled as yield; with routing, the token becomes a claim on an actual payments business. The decision sits with governance and the Foundation, and no commitment has been made either way.
How does STABLE’s situation compare to Ethereum’s ETH? They occupy opposite ends of the design space. ETH is mandatory: every Ethereum user buys it for gas, creating an automatic demand floor tied to usage, and it doubles as the staking bond. STABLE forgoes the mandatory bid entirely for a better payments experience, keeping only the bond and governance roles. The trade means StableChain’s success does not automatically create STABLE demand; every connection must be built by explicit decision.
What are the main risks for STABLE holders? The governance-token failure mode: the network thriving while the token’s claims never mature, with emissions diluting holders faster than security and governance demand grow. Concentration risk: a patron-dominated ecosystem may keep economically consequential decisions outside tokenholder reach. And the structural gap between security-budget demand, which scales with what attackers could steal, and the network’s transaction volume, which can be orders of magnitude larger without touching the token.
What signals would show the token’s case strengthening? Real-fee staking yield: rewards funded by USDT fee revenue rather than emissions. Binding votes on money: governance decisions that actually set fee policy, allowlists, or treasury deployment. A published emission schedule declining against growing fee revenue. And validator-set decentralization that increases the security bond’s importance. The inverse signals, emission-funded yield, ceremonial votes, widening dilution, mark the cautionary path.
Is the dual-token model good or bad design? It is honest design with a hard consequence. Separating the payment asset from the security bond solves real problems: stable fees, spam-resistant security, and the world’s largest stablecoin gets a purpose-built rail from it. The consequence is that token value becomes a policy outcome rather than a mechanical one, decided by governance rather than usage. Holders are underwriting that policy process, which is a different investment than underwriting the network. This is educational information, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Token designs, governance frameworks, and reward mechanisms described here can change through protocol decisions. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 24, 2026.
Manchester United is on the hunt for a new training kit sponsor after its deal with Tezos, the blockchain platform that adorned the club’s practice jerseys since 2022, expired in June 2025. The partnership was worth over £20 million annually, making it one of the most lucrative crypto-sports deals in Premier League history.
Reports indicate the club is in advanced talks for replacement deals expected to exceed £18 million annually.
The Tezos experiment and what it actually delivered When Manchester United announced Tezos as its official training kit and blockchain partner in 2022, the deal was heralded as a landmark moment. A top-tier football club aligning with a Layer 1 blockchain protocol felt like validation for an industry still fighting for mainstream credibility.
Advertisement
The club also launched an MUFC fan token on Socios.com via Chiliz, enabling holders to participate in fan voting and engagement features.
Why crypto-sports deals keep fizzling FTX had its name on the Miami Heat’s arena before, well, you know how that ended. Crypto.com paid $700 million for naming rights to the former Staples Center.
The silence from Manchester United on any new crypto or digital asset partnerships since mid-2025 is telling. No new blockchain deals have surfaced. No expanded fan token initiatives have been announced.
What this means for crypto investors watching sports partnerships For anyone in the crypto space eyeing sports sponsorships as a signal of adoption, the Manchester United case is instructive. These deals are marketing expenditures, not adoption milestones. When a blockchain protocol pays £20 million a year for logo placement, the question investors should ask is whether that spend is generating users, transactions, or developer activity, not just eyeballs.
There’s also the fan token angle to consider. Chiliz and Socios.com built an entire business model around sports fan tokens, but trading volumes and engagement metrics across the platform have declined from their 2021-2022 peaks.
Investors should track two things: who replaces Tezos on United’s training kit, and whether any new deal includes deeper blockchain integration beyond logo placement.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Kripto para piyasasında haftalık görünüm pozitif seyrini korurken, analistler Ethereum (ETH), XRP, Cardano (ADA), Binance Coin (BNB) ve Hyperliquid (HYPE) gibi altcoinler için önemli destek ve direnç seviyelerine dikkat çekti. Değerlendirmeye göre Ethereum ve Cardano toparlanma sinyalleri verirken, XRP yatay seyrini sürdürüyor. BNB zayıf görünümünü korurken HYPE için ise düzeltme riski öne çıkıyor.
Ethereum 2.000 dolar direncine yaklaştı Ethereum son bir haftada yaklaşık %3 yükseldi. Haziran sonundan bu yana alıcıların güç kazanmasıyla başlayan toparlanma hareketi, 1.500 dolar desteğinin korunmasının ardından hız kazandı.
Analistler, şimdi gözlerin 2.000 dolar seviyesine çevrildiğini belirtiyor. Bu seviyenin güçlü bir psikolojik direnç oluşturabileceği ve kısa vadede satış baskısını artırabileceği ifade ediliyor.
Buna karşın Ethereum’un uzun vadeli düşüş trendinden tamamen çıkabilmesi için 2.000 doların destek seviyesine dönüşmesi gerektiği vurgulanıyor.
XRP 1,20 dolar direncini aşmakta zorlanıyor XRP de haftayı yaklaşık %3 yükselişle tamamladı. Fiyatın 1 dolar desteğinin üzerinde kalması olumlu değerlendirilirken, 1,20 dolar seviyesindeki direncin henüz aşılamaması dikkat çekiyor.
Analistler, işlem hacmindeki kademeli düşüş nedeniyle XRP’nin güçlü bir kırılım gerçekleştirecek momentuma sahip olmadığını düşünüyor. Şubat ayındaki sert düşüşün ardından yatırımcı ilgisinin tam olarak geri dönmediği belirtiliyor.
Yine de fiyatın 1 dolar üzerinde kalmayı sürdürmesi, satış baskısının sınırlı kaldığını gösteren önemli bir gelişme olarak değerlendiriliyor.
Cardano yükseliş sinyali veriyor Cardano haftalık bazda yaklaşık %6 değer kazanarak incelenen altcoinler arasında en güçlü performansı gösterdi.
Analistler, fiyat grafiğinde oluşan omuz-baş-omuz dönüş formasyonunun ardından 0,15 dolar desteğinin korunmasını olumlu görüyor. Ancak kalıcı bir trend değişiminin teyit edilmesi için daha yüksek dipler ve daha yüksek zirveler oluşması gerektiği belirtiliyor.
Bu senaryoda 0,25 dolar seviyesinin aşılması kritik önem taşıyor. Ayrıca haftalık MACD göstergesinin yükseliş sinyali üretmesi, satıcıların güç kaybedebileceğine işaret ediyor.
BNB zayıf görünümünü sürdürüyor Binance Coin son bir haftada kayda değer bir yükseliş gösteremedi. Analistlere göre 580 dolar direnci aşılmadığı sürece fiyatın yatay hareketini sürdürmesi veya daha düşük seviyeleri test etmesi olası görünüyor.
Azalan işlem hacmi ve volatilite de alıcıların piyasaya yeterince güçlü dönmediğini gösteriyor. Değerlendirmede, Avrupa Birliği’ndeki son düzenlemelerin de BNB üzerindeki talebi sınırlayan faktörlerden biri olabileceği ifade edildi.
Bu nedenle analistler, olası geri çekilmelerde 500 dolar seviyesini önemli destek olarak izliyor.
HYPE için düzeltme uyarısı Hyperliquid (HYPE) ise haftayı yatay tamamlasa da son bir ayda yaklaşık %5 değer kaybetti. Analistler, fiyatın 60 doların altında kalmasının satış baskısını artırabileceğini belirtiyor.
60 dolar seviyesinin altında kalıcılık sağlanması durumunda daha geniş çaplı bir düzeltmenin başlayabileceği ifade edilirken, 56 ve 52 dolar seviyeleri önemli destek noktaları olarak öne çıkıyor.
Önümüzdeki günlerde altcoin piyasasının yönü, Bitcoin’in fiyat hareketi ve kritik direnç seviyelerinin aşılıp aşılamayacağına bağlı olacak.
Bu içerik genel piyasa verilerine dayanır ve yatırım tavsiyesi değildir. Kendi araştırmanızı yapmanızı öneririz.
Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
BNB Chain is heading to Stanford. The team will present a case study on consensus engineering improvements at the Science of Blockchain Conference (SBC) 2026, scheduled for July 27-29 at Stanford University. The core narrative: how BSC went from a 45-second finality time to sub-second speeds through a series of deliberate, multi-year upgrades.
From 45 seconds to under one The presentation, slated for Day 2 of the conference, traces BSC’s consensus speed journey through consecutive hard forks that each shaved significant time off block production.
The Lorentz hard fork brought block times down to 1.5 seconds. Then the Maxwell hard fork, implemented on May 22, 2025, pushed that figure to 0.75 seconds through the BEP-524 protocol.
Advertisement
The technical upgrades behind these improvements include consecutive block production and validator sync optimizations.
The conference and its credibility SBC is organized by the Stanford Center for Blockchain Research (CBR), Berkeley RDI, and the Initiative for Cryptocurrencies and Contracts (IC3). Notable figures involved include Dan Boneh and Ari Juels. The conference focuses on blockchain protocols, network performance, and decentralized finance solutions.
BNB Chain and YZi Labs will also co-host an evening reception during the conference.
Why speed matters for DeFi When finality takes 45 seconds, a DEX trade, a lending position adjustment, or a liquidation all exist in a state of uncertainty during that window. At sub-second finality, market makers can operate with tighter spreads and liquidation engines can act more precisely.
What this means for investors The risk side deserves attention. Speed improvements often involve tradeoffs in decentralization or security. BSC operates with a relatively small validator set compared to Ethereum, and faster block times can increase the hardware requirements for validators, potentially concentrating the network further.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Triple-A, a crypto payment infrastructure provider, reportedly lost over $9.7 million after a significant security breach targeted its hot wallets on several blockchain networks. Blockchain security firms and analysts tracking the event claimed that the attacker executed complex movements across multiple chains before consolidating the funds into a single Ethereum wallet. Triple-A has yet to confirm the incident or disclose whether customer funds or company reserves were at risk.
Attack Details and Initial DiscoveryOn-chain analyst Specter was the first to detect suspicious activity involving wallets attributed to Triple-A, initially estimating the losses at over $9.3 million. As the situation developed, further tracking pushed the total above $9.7 million. PeckShield, another blockchain security firm, later supported these findings, stating that the attacker exploited hot wallets operating across TRON, Ethereum, Polygon, and Arbitrum.
Investigators also observed signs that the exploit traced back to Solana and TON, suggesting a broader impact spanning a range of blockchain ecosystems. Researchers explained that once the attacker gained access, they rapidly swapped stolen tokens into different cryptocurrencies before bridging assets over to Ethereum for consolidation.
According to on-chain data, the attack resulted in the creation of a single Ethereum address controlling approximately 5,227 ETH, with a value of $9.7 million at the time of the incident. Security teams noted the coordinated nature of the swaps, bridging transactions, and subsequent consolidation of assets.
Specter and PeckShield reported that more than $9.7 million worth of crypto assets were siphoned from Triple-A’s hot wallets across several chains. The attacker used swaps and bridges to move stolen funds to Ethereum, where 5,227 ETH are currently held at a single destination.
Researchers additionally mapped out multiple wallet addresses linked to the suspicious transfers but did not attribute the attack to any known hacking group. No connections have been made to previous security incidents involving similar wallet infrastructure.
Ongoing Security Challenges for Hot WalletsThe breach reinforces persistent concerns over the vulnerability of hot wallets, which remain connected to the internet for prompt transaction processing. While convenient for crypto payments, this configuration increases exposure to potential attacks compared to offline cold storage.
Security experts believe the attacker likely accessed Triple-A’s hot wallet systems before funneling liquid assets through decentralized exchanges and bridges. They also stated that the movement of funds into a single Ethereum address allows for more streamlined control and potential future withdrawals.
The evolving loss figures, moving from initial estimates of $9.3 million to $9.7 million, likely reflect ongoing asset movements and fluctuations in Ethereum’s market price during the course of the investigation. The situation unfolded during a week marked by separate exploits against other crypto companies, including AFX Trade, Verus Ethereum Bridge, and B2 Network.
CryptoAppsy, which requires no account creation hassle, combines your crypto investments with real-time prices, detailed charts, and multi-currency portfolio management on a single screen. With this all-in-one financial assistant, you can instantly seize opportunities by setting up smart price alerts, filter news specific to your coins, discover newly listed altcoins without missing them, and always stay one step ahead of the market with critical macroeconomic data such as Fed interest rates.
So far, investigators have not found evidence connecting the Triple-A incident to the other recent attacks. The growing list of multi-chain security breaches highlights the urgent need for enhanced wallet security and monitoring tools in the digital asset industry.
Triple-A has not responded with an official comment or provided clarity regarding the full scope of the losses. The exact amount and the mechanism behind the suspected exploit are still unconfirmed as the company continues its internal investigation.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.
Güney Kore’nin en büyük kripto para borsalarından Upbit, yeni bir altcoin listelemesini daha duyurdu. Borsa tarafından yapılan resmi açıklamaya göre Morpho (MORPHO), 25 Temmuz itibarıyla Kore Wonu (KRW) işlem çiftiyle alım satıma açılacak. Güney Kore pazarına doğrudan erişim sağlayacak bu listelemenin, MORPHO’nun likiditesini artırması ve daha geniş bir yatırımcı kitlesine ulaşmasına katkı sağlaması bekleniyor. Duyurunun ardından tokene yönelik ilgi hızla artarken, yatırımcılar hem işlem hacmindeki değişimi hem de fiyat hareketlerini yakından takip etmeye başladı.
Upbit, MORPHO’yu KRW Pazarında Listeleyecek Upbit’in yayımladığı duyuruya göre MORPHO, 25 Temmuz saat 12.00 (TSI) itibarıyla KRW işlem çifti ile alım satıma açılacak. Güney Kore merkezli borsa, yeni listelemelerde olduğu gibi MORPHO için de belirli güvenlik prosedürlerinin uygulanacağını ve işlemlerin ağ doğrulamalarının tamamlanmasının ardından başlayacağını belirtti. Upbit’te gerçekleştirilen listelemeler, platformun yüksek işlem hacmi nedeniyle çoğu zaman ilgili altcoinlerde volatilitenin artmasına neden olabiliyor.
Morpho Nedir? Morpho, Ethereum ağı üzerine inşa edilmiş bir merkeziyetsiz finans (DeFi) protokolüdür. Ana hedefi, kullanıcıların daha optimize faiz oranlarıyla borç alma ve borç verme işlemlerini gerçekleştirmesini sağlamaktır. Protokol, özellikle Aave ve Compound gibi popüler DeFi protokolleri üzerinde çalışan bir optimizasyon katmanı olarak tasarlanmıştır. Platform, merkeziyetsiz bir kredi ve borç protokolüdür. Kullanıcılar, ERC-20 ve ERC-4626 token’larını teminat göstererek kredi alabilir veya borç verebilir. Morpho’nun benzersiz özelliği, “permissionless market creation” (izin gerektirmeyen pazar oluşturma) özelliğidir. Bu, kullanıcıların kendi risk ve faiz modellerini oluşturarak izole edilmiş pazarlar yaratmalarına olanak tanır.
İlginizi Çekebilir: Morpho Nedir?
Listeleme Sonrası Fiyat Hızla Yükseldi Upbit’in listeleme duyurusunun ardından MORPHO piyasasında alım ilgisi belirgin şekilde arttı. Açıklamanın ardından token fiyatı kısa sürede güçlü bir yükseliş kaydederek günün en dikkat çeken altcoin performanslarından birini sergiledi. Artan işlem hacmiyle birlikte yatırımcıların listeleme haberine olumlu tepki verdiği görülürken, Güney Kore pazarından gelebilecek yeni likidite beklentisi fiyat hareketini destekleyen başlıca unsurlar arasında yer aldı. Kripto para piyasasında Upbit gibi yüksek hacimli borsaların listeleme kararları, ilgili varlıklarda kısa vadeli fiyat artışlarını sıkça tetikleyebiliyor.
Kripto para piyasasında borsa listelemeleri genellikle fiyat üzerinde olumlu etki yaratsa da, kısa vadede sert dalgalanmalar görülebiliyor. Listeleme öncesinde yaşanan yükselişlerin ardından bazı yatırımcıların kar satışına yönelmesi, fiyatın hızlı şekilde geri çekilmesine neden olabiliyor. Bu nedenle uzmanlar, MORPHO işlemi yapmayı planlayan yatırımcıların listeleme sırasında oluşabilecek yüksek volatiliteyi göz önünde bulundurmaları ve risk yönetimine dikkat etmeleri gerektiğini belirtiyor.
Değerlendirme Upbit’in MORPHO’yu KRW işlem çiftiyle listeleyeceğini açıklaması, proje için önemli bir gelişme olarak öne çıkıyor. Güney Kore pazarına doğrudan erişim sağlayacak olan listeleme, tokenin işlem hacmini ve görünürlüğünü artırabilir. Ancak geçmiş listelemelerde görüldüğü gibi, yatırımcıların kısa vadeli fiyat dalgalanmalarına karşı temkinli hareket etmeleri önem taşıyor.
Son dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
The author, a medical doctor and health economist, produces content on cryptocurrency markets, blockchain technologies, digital assets, and global finance.As a cryptocurrency writer and investor, he closely follows Bitcoin, altcoins, market trends, macroeconomic developments, token economies, and innovations in the digital asset ecosystem. By combining perspectives from health economics and financial analysis, he evaluates developments in cryptocurrency markets using a clear and data-driven approach.
Blok zinciri ekosisteminin büyümesiyle birlikte üretilen verinin miktarı da hızla artıyor. Ancak bu verilerin güvenilir, doğrulanabilir ve uzun yıllar boyunca erişilebilir şekilde saklanması giderek daha önemli bir sorun haline geliyor. Özellikle yapay zekâ uygulamalarının zincir üzerindeki verilere daha fazla ihtiyaç duymaya başlaması, veri altyapısını Web3 ekosisteminin en kritik bileşenlerinden biri haline getirdi. Covalent (CXT) ise tam bu noktada devreye girerek çok zincirli blok zinciri verilerini standartlaştıran, doğrulanabilir hale getiren ve geliştiricilere tek bir API üzerinden sunan merkeziyetsiz veri altyapısı oluşturmayı hedefliyor.
Covalent Network, yalnızca farklı blok zincirlerinden veri toplayan bir platform olmanın ötesinde, uzun vadeli veri kullanılabilirliği (Long-Term Data Availability), veri doğrulanabilirliği (Data Verifiability) ve yapay zekâ uygulamalarının ihtiyaç duyduğu güvenilir veri altyapısını sağlamaya odaklanıyor. Ekosistemin yerel tokeni olan CXT, ağ güvenliği, staking, yönetişim ve ekonomik teşvik mekanizmalarının merkezinde yer alıyor.
Covalent (CXT) Ne İşe Yarar? Covalent, farklı blok zincirlerinden elde edilen verileri tek bir standart altında toplayan ve geliştiricilerin bu verilere kolayca erişmesini sağlayan merkeziyetsiz bir veri altyapısıdır.
Platform, çok sayıda blok zincirindeki ayrıntılı verileri indeksleyerek bunları tek bir API üzerinden erişilebilir hale getirir. Böylece geliştiriciler, işletmeler ve araştırmacılar farklı ağlar için ayrı veri altyapıları kurmak yerine tek bir sistem üzerinden kapsamlı blok zinciri verilerine ulaşabilir.
Covalent Network aynı zamanda topluluk tarafından yönetilen merkeziyetsiz bir protokol olarak faaliyet göstermektedir. Ağın temel amacı, blok zinciri verilerinin uzun yıllar boyunca güvenilir, doğrulanabilir ve sürdürülebilir şekilde erişilebilir olmasını sağlamaktır.
Covalent Nasıl Çalışır? Covalent Network, blok zincirlerinden gelen verileri sürekli olarak toplar, indeksler ve ağ üzerinde birden fazla noktada depolar.
Toplanan veriler daha sonra GoldRush API (eski adıyla Unified API) aracılığıyla geliştiricilerin kullanımına sunulur.
Bu yapı sayesinde kullanıcılar;
Geçmiş blok zinciri verilerine, Gerçek zamanlı ağ verilerine, İşlem kayıtlarına, Akıllı sözleşme bilgilerine, Zincir üzerindeki diğer ayrıntılı verilere tek bir API üzerinden erişebilir.
Platformun hedefi, veri erişimini mümkün olduğunca standart hale getirerek farklı blok zincirleri arasında çalışmayı kolaylaştırmaktır.
Uzun Vadeli Veri Kullanılabilirliği (Long-Term Data Availability) Covalent’in en önemli odak noktalarından biri uzun vadeli veri kullanılabilirliğidir.
Proje, uzun vadeli veri kullanılabilirliğini blok zincirlerinde geçmiş verilerin yıllar boyunca erişilebilir kalması olarak tanımlamaktadır.
Ethereum ekosisteminde rollup mimarisinin yaygınlaşması, Danksharding ve EIP-4444 gibi protokol değişiklikleriyle birlikte geçmiş verilerin saklanması giderek çekirdek protokolün dışına taşınmaktadır.
Covalent Network ise bu sorumluluğu üstlenerek geliştiricilerin yalnızca güncel verilere değil, tarihsel blok zinciri kayıtlarına da güvenilir şekilde ulaşabilmesini amaçlamaktadır.
Bu doğrultuda ağ;
Ethereum, Diğer Layer-1 ağları, Farklı blok zinciri ekosistemleri için uzun süreli veri saklama altyapısı oluşturmayı hedeflemektedir.
Veri Doğrulanabilirliği (Data Verifiability) Covalent Network’ün temel özelliklerinden biri de veri doğrulanabilirliğidir.
Platform üzerinde gerçekleştirilen her veri işleme süreci kriptografik kanıtlarla desteklenmektedir.
Böylece;
Ağ operatörlerinin doğru çalıştığı, Verilerin değiştirilmediği, İşlenen bilgilerin güvenilir olduğu kriptografik yöntemlerle doğrulanabilmektedir.
Bu yapı özellikle yapay zekâ uygulamaları açısından büyük önem taşımaktadır. Çünkü AI sistemlerinin güvenilir sonuçlar üretebilmesi için doğrulanabilir veri kaynaklarına ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.
Yapay Zekâ İçin Veri Altyapısı Covalent, kendisini yapay zekâ odaklı veri altyapısı olarak konumlandırmaktadır.
Özellikle otonom AI ajanlarının blok zinciri verilerine olan ihtiyacının artmasıyla birlikte proje;
Yapılandırılmış veri, Doğrulanabilir veri, Gerçek zamanlı veri, Çok zincirli veri erişimi sağlayarak AI uygulamalarını desteklemeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Platform, 230’dan fazla blok zincirini kapsayan veri altyapısıyla AI sistemlerinin ihtiyaç duyduğu verileri saniyenin altında gecikmeyle sunmayı hedeflemektedir.
Modüler Veri Altyapısı Covalent Network modüler bir mimari üzerine inşa edilmiştir.
Bu yapı sayesinde blok zincirlerinin veri katmanı depolama süreçleri birbirinden ayrılmaktadır.
Platformun geliştirdiği Block Specimens isimli veri formatı, blok zinciri durumunun standart biçimde saklanmasını mümkün kılmaktadır.
Bu sayede;
Ağ düğümü çalıştırmadan veri işleme, Zincir verilerinin yeniden analiz edilmesi, Standart veri şemalarının oluşturulması gibi işlemler daha verimli şekilde gerçekleştirilebilmektedir.
Çok Zincirli Destek Covalent yalnızca tek bir blok zincirine hizmet vermemektedir.
Platform;
Birden fazla blok zincirini destekleyen yapı, Standart veri modeli, Ticari veri araçlarıyla uyumluluk, Düşük donanım gereksinimi, Verimli depolama sistemi gibi özelliklerle çok zincirli veri altyapısı sunmaktadır.
Bu sayede geliştiriciler farklı ağlar arasında veri toplama süreçlerini tek sistem üzerinden yönetebilmektedir.
GoldRush API Nedir? GoldRush API, Covalent Network üzerinde indekslenen verilere erişim sağlayan ana API hizmetidir.
Eskiden Unified API olarak bilinen bu sistem, geliştiricilerin blok zinciri verilerini hızlı ve standart şekilde sorgulamasına olanak tanımaktadır.
Platform üzerindeki veri taleplerinin büyük bölümü GoldRush API üzerinden gerçekleştirilmektedir.
Covalent (CXT) Token Ne İşe Yarar? CXT, Covalent Network’ün yerel yardımcı (utility) tokenidir.
Token, ağın ekonomik yapısını oluşturan üç temel alan üzerinde kullanılmaktadır.
Ağ Yönetişimi (Governance) CXT sahipleri ağın geleceğine ilişkin karar alma süreçlerine katılabilmektedir.
Yönetişim kapsamında;
Yeni veri kaynaklarının eklenmesi, Yeni blok zincirlerinin entegrasyonu, Staking parametreleri, Veri modelleme standartları, Ağ güncellemeleri gibi teklifler oylamaya sunulmaktadır.
Yönetişim süreci önce topluluk forumunda tartışılmakta, ardından Snapshot üzerinden gerçekleştirilen gaz ücreti gerektirmeyen oylamayla sonuçlandırılmaktadır.
Oy kullanma hakkı sahip olunan CXT miktarıyla orantılıdır.
Staking ve Ağ Güvenliği CXT aynı zamanda ağ güvenliğinin temelini oluşturmaktadır.
Ağ operatörleri veri üretmek ve doğrulamak için belirli miktarda CXT stake etmek zorundadır.
Kötü niyetli veya hatalı davranış tespit edilmesi durumunda stake edilen tokenlerin bir kısmı kesilebilmektedir (slashing).
Altyapı çalıştırmak istemeyen kullanıcılar ise CXT tokenlerini operatörlere devrederek staking ödülleri kazanabilmektedir.
Ağ Kullanımı GoldRush API ve Covalent’in diğer veri ürünlerinden elde edilen ekonomik değer CXT etrafında şekillenmektedir.
Platformu kullanan;
Geliştiriciler, Şirketler, Yapay zekâ uygulamaları tarafından oluşturulan gelirlerin bir bölümü açık piyasadan CXT satın alınmasında kullanılmaktadır.
Satın alınan tokenler daha sonra Stratejik Rezerv’in desteklenmesinde değerlendirilmektedir.
Bu yapı, ağ kullanımının artmasıyla birlikte CXT talebinin de artmasını hedefleyen ekonomik bir model sunmaktadır.
Covalent (CXT) ve Yapay Zekâ Ekonomisi Covalent, CXT’yi doğrulanabilir veri ekonomisinin temel ödeme aracı olarak konumlandırmaktadır.
Her API sorgusu, AI ajanı tarafından gerçekleştirilen veri talebi ve yeni blok zinciri entegrasyonu ağ ekonomisine katkı sağlamaktadır.
Bu yaklaşım doğrultusunda;
Daha fazla kullanım, Daha fazla gelir, Daha yüksek CXT talebi oluşturacak ekonomik döngü hedeflenmektedir.
Covalent (CXT) Arz Yapısı CXT’nin toplam arzı 1 milyar adettir.
Tüm tokenler ağın başlangıcında oluşturulmuştur.
Token ekonomisi enflasyon üretmeyecek şekilde tasarlanmıştır.
Her ne kadar akıllı sözleşmede mint fonksiyonu bulunsa da bu özellik varsayılan olarak devre dışıdır ve yalnızca topluluk yönetişimi tarafından alınacak resmi bir karar sonucunda aktif hale getirilebilir.
Covalent (CXT) Tokenomics CXT token dağılımı şu şekildedir:
Özel Satış (Private Sale) %20,4 Ekosistem %20 Rezerv %18,9 Takım %14,4 Tohum Yatırımı (Seed) %10 Staking %8 Halka Açık Satış %3,4 İkinci Özel Satış (Private Sale 2) %2,9 Danışmanlar %2 Toplam arz 1.000.000.000 CXT ile sınırlandırılmıştır.
Covalent (CXT) Yatırımcıları Covalent bugüne kadar yaklaşık 10,69 milyon dolar yatırım toplamıştır.
Projeye yatırım yapan öne çıkan fon ve yatırım şirketleri arasında şunlar yer almaktadır:
Tier 1
Coinbase Ventures YZi Labs (eski adıyla Binance Labs) Tier 2
Woodstock Fund AU21 Capital Moonrock Capital TRGC CoinGecko Ventures Tier 4
RockTree Capital CMCC Global Avalanche VC Brilliance Ventures Tier 5
Morningstar Ventures
Resmi Bağlantılar Website X (Twitter) Whitepaper Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
The Solana blockchain recorded its strongest performance yet in the realm of consumer payment cards. Top-up volumes linked to crypto cards built on the network reached an unprecedented peak in May, climbing to $94.32 million. This figure marks the highest monthly total observed for such activity on Solana and underscores growing real-world usage of the chain beyond pure trading or speculative holding.
These card-related flows now account for a notable share of the broader crypto card market.
Monthly volumes processed through Solana-based products represent approximately 22 percent of the total activity across competing networks.
This positioning reflects steady gains in market share as users increasingly favor platforms that deliver fast settlement and low fees for everyday spending.
Two providers stand out as primary contributors to this momentum: KAST and RedotPay.
Both have developed card offerings that allow holders to convert digital assets or stablecoins into spendable balances usable at merchants worldwide.
Their combined activity has helped propel Solana’s portion of the sector higher, demonstrating how specialized fintech applications can drive tangible on-chain transaction volume.
The rise in top-ups signals more than isolated growth.
It points to wider acceptance of blockchain-powered payment tools among ordinary consumers.
Rather than remaining confined to niche crypto enthusiasts, these cards are facilitating routine purchases, from retail transactions to digital services.
Solana’s architecture, known for high throughput and rapid finality, appears well-suited to supporting the near-instant top-ups and settlements that card users expect.
Comments from industry participants have highlighted the practical advantage of avoiding lengthy confirmation delays that can frustrate users on slower networks.
This development fits into a larger pattern of expanding utility within the Solana ecosystem.
As more projects focus on bridging digital assets with traditional payment rails, metrics such as card top-ups serve as concrete indicators of adoption.
Higher volumes can attract additional developers, foster new product features, and encourage partnerships that further integrate the network into daily financial life.
Observers note that sustained increases in consumer spending through these channels may reinforce Solana’s competitive standing relative to other blockchains competing for payment-related use cases.
Market watchers will likely monitor whether the May peak continues or expands in subsequent months.
Consistent growth could spur further innovation in card design, rewards structures, and multi-chain interoperability.
At the same time, the 22 percent share already achieved illustrates that Solana has secured a meaningful foothold in a segment previously dominated by alternative networks.
The record top-up figures and rising market contribution from leading card issuers provide clear evidence of progress in making Solana a practical foundation for consumer payments. By enabling seamless conversion and spending of on-chain value, these products help move blockchain technology closer to mainstream financial applications, turning network capacity into everyday utility for users around the globe.
Yapay zeka ve yüksek performanslı bilgi işlem (HPC) alanındaki talebin hızla artması, merkeziyetsiz bulut çözümlerine olan ilgiyi de beraberinde getiriyor. Özellikle yapay zeka modellerinin eğitimi, büyük veri analizi ve GPU gerektiren uygulamaların yaygınlaşması, daha esnek ve uygun maliyetli bilgi işlem altyapılarına olan ihtiyacı artırıyor. Bu alanda öne çıkan projelerden biri olan CapIX Protocol (CPX), dünyanın farklı bölgelerindeki kullanılmayan işlem gücünü tek bir ağ altında bir araya getirerek daha düşük maliyetli, ölçeklenebilir ve verimli bir bulut altyapısı sunmayı hedefliyor. Akıllı yönlendirme sistemi sayesinde en uygun işlem kapasitesini otomatik olarak seçen platform, hem bireysel geliştiricilere hem de kurumsal kullanıcılara hitap eden merkeziyetsiz bir bilgi işlem ekosistemi oluşturmayı amaçlıyor. Peki CapIX Protocol (CPX) nedir, nasıl çalışır ve CPX token ne işe yarar?
CapIX Protocol, farklı altyapı sağlayıcılarının sunduğu işlem gücünü tek bir platform üzerinden yöneten merkeziyetsiz bir bilgi işlem ağıdır. Proje, kullanılmayan CPU ve GPU kaynaklarını değerlendirerek kullanıcıların ihtiyaç duyduğu işlem kapasitesini en uygun maliyetle sunmayı amaçlar. Platformun merkezinde yer alan CapIX OS, ağa bağlı sağlayıcıları anlık olarak tarayarak fiyat, performans ve kullanılabilirlik kriterlerine göre en uygun işlem gücünü seçer. Böylece kullanıcılar tek bir sağlayıcıya bağlı kalmadan küresel ölçekte dağıtılmış bilgi işlem altyapısından yararlanabilir. CapIX ekosistemi özellikle yapay zeka modelleri, bulut sunucuları, GPU kiralama ve merkeziyetsiz uygulamalar için geliştirildi.
CapIX Nasıl Çalışıyor? CapIX’in çalışma mantığı, farklı sağlayıcılardan gelen işlem gücünü tek bir akıllı yönlendirme sistemi altında toplamaya dayanıyor.
Süreç şu şekilde ilerliyor:
Kullanıcı Solana uyumlu cüzdanını platforma bağlıyor. SOL veya USDC yatırarak bakiyesini oluşturuyor. Çalıştırmak istediği uygulama veya sunucu türünü seçiyor. CapIX OS, ağdaki tüm aktif sağlayıcıları tarıyor. En düşük maliyetli ve uygun donanıma sahip düğüm otomatik olarak seçiliyor. İş yükü ilgili node üzerinde çalıştırılıyor ve kullanım süresine göre ücretlendiriliyor. Bu yapı sayesinde kullanıcılar manuel olarak sunucu aramak yerine sistemin en uygun seçeneği otomatik belirlemesinden faydalanabiliyor.
CapIX’in Sunduğu Hizmetler CapIX yalnızca bir bulut platformu değil, aynı zamanda yapay zeka geliştiricileri ve kurumsal kullanıcılar için farklı hizmetler sunan kapsamlı bir ekosistem oluşturuyor.
Başlıca ürünleri şunlar:
CapIX Cloud: Dağıtık sanal sunucu ve GPU kiralama platformu. AI Inference: OpenAI uyumlu API üzerinden 250’den fazla yapay zeka modeline erişim. AI Labs: Kuantum bilgi işlem ve deneysel yapay zeka uygulamaları. Serverless Jobs: Kullanıldığı kadar ödeme modeliyle çalışan işlem altyapısı. Private AI Models: Kullanıcılara özel yapay zeka modellerini API üzerinden çalıştırma imkânı. Bu hizmetlerin tamamı aynı altyapı ve yönlendirme sistemi üzerinden çalışıyor.
Smart Router Teknolojisi Nedir? CapIX’in en dikkat çeken bileşeni Smart Router (Akıllı Yönlendirici) sistemi olarak öne çıkıyor.
Bu teknoloji;
Ağdaki tüm işlem kapasitesini gerçek zamanlı tarıyor. Fiyat, donanım gücü ve gecikme sürelerini karşılaştırıyor. En uygun maliyetli sağlayıcıyı otomatik seçiyor. Gerektiğinde iş yükünü birden fazla node arasında dağıtabiliyor. Bu sayede kullanıcılar büyük bulut sağlayıcılarının uyguladığı yüksek fiyat marjlarından kaçınabiliyor.
CPX Token Ne İşe Yarar? CPX, CapIX Protocol ekosisteminin yerel tokenidir ve Solana Token-2022 standardı üzerinde geliştirilmiştir. Platformda kullanıcılar bugün için doğrudan SOL ve USDC ile ödeme yapabiliyor. Ancak CPX token, gelecekte devreye alınacak zincir üstü uzlaşma (on-chain settlement) katmanının temel varlığı olarak tasarlandı.
CPX’in kullanım alanları arasında şunlar bulunuyor:
Ağ üzerindeki uzlaşma işlemleri, Protokol ücretlerinin yönetimi, Yakım (burn) mekanizması, Hazine fonunun desteklenmesi, Ekosistem teşvikleri. Proje, CPX token bulundurmayı zorunlu kılmadan ağın kullanılabilmesini hedefliyor.
CapIX’in Avantajları CapIX Protocol, geleneksel bulut hizmetlerine alternatif oluşturabilecek çeşitli avantajlar sunuyor.
Öne çıkan özellikleri şunlardır:
Merkeziyetsiz işlem gücü ağı Kullanılmayan GPU ve CPU kaynaklarının değerlendirilmesi Gerçek zamanlı fiyat karşılaştırması Solana tabanlı ödeme sistemi OpenAI uyumlu AI API desteği GPU kiralama hizmeti SSH erişimli bulut sunucuları Kullanıldığı kadar ödeme modeli API entegrasyonu Geliştiricilere yönelik kapsamlı araçlar Güvenlik ve Yol Haritası CapIX, güvenlik tarafında sıfır güven (Zero Trust) yaklaşımını benimseyen bir mimari kullanıyor. Platformda konteyner izolasyonu, tek kullanımlık SSH anahtarları, HMAC tabanlı kimlik doğrulama, işlem tekrarını önleyen güvenlik mekanizmaları ve Solana üzerinde doğrulanabilir ödeme kayıtları bulunuyor.
Projenin yol haritasında ise şu teknolojiler yer alıyor:
Gizli bilgi işlem (Confidential Computing) AMD SEV-SNP ve Intel TDX desteği NVIDIA Confidential GPU teknolojileri zkVM doğrulama sistemi Zincir üstü uzlaşma altyapısı eBPF tabanlı ağ izolasyonu Bu özelliklerin ilerleyen dönemlerde kademeli olarak kullanıma sunulması planlanıyor.
CapIX Protocol (CPX), merkeziyetsiz bulut bilişim ve yapay zeka altyapısını tek platform altında birleştirmeyi amaçlayan yenilikçi projeler arasında yer alıyor. Akıllı yönlendirme sistemi, küresel GPU ağı ve OpenAI uyumlu yapay zeka servisleriyle hem geliştiricilere hem de kurumsal kullanıcılara düşük maliyetli bilgi işlem imkânı sunmayı hedefliyor. CPX token ise gelecekte devreye alınacak zincir üstü uzlaşma mekanizmasının merkezinde yer alacak. Merkeziyetsiz AI ve bulut bilişim sektörünün büyümesiyle birlikte CapIX’in geliştirdiği teknolojilerin yakından takip edilmesi bekleniyor.
Resmi Bağlantılar Website X (Twitter) Whitepaper Son dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
Solana is trading near the $75 support zone as traders watch for short-term recovery signals, while long-term technical patterns hint at the possibility of a much larger price increase if multiple resistance levels are surpassed.
Long-Term Technical Formation Suggests Bullish ScenarioTechnical analyst CryptoCurb observed that Solana could be forming a multiyear cup-and-handle pattern, with price activity now positioned in the formation’s descending handle. Historically, this pattern signals the potential for a significant rally if key breakout levels are cleared.
The pattern encompasses Solana’s price action from its 2021 peak down to recent lows and subsequent recovery into 2024. Currently, Solana is trading near $74, close to the lower boundary of the handle’s descending channel. According to CryptoCurb, maintaining the $64 to $74 region is critical for keeping this formation intact and could provide a platform for a renewed upside move.
A cup-and-handle pattern generally becomes valid only when the asset breaks above the handle’s upper resistance. In Solana’s case, this would require a move through the $120 to $160 range, then a further rally to challenge resistance around $200 and revisit former highs between $250 and $300.
CryptoCurb points out that only a sustained breakthrough above these major levels would strengthen the case for a rally toward $1,000 and beyond, emphasizing that the current scenario remains highly speculative as long as the breakout is unconfirmed.
Should Solana fall decisively under $64, the technical structure would lose its bullish tone, making further downside more likely.
Mini dictionary: Cup-and-handle pattern, a bullish chart formation where a security forms a rounding bottom (the cup) followed by a consolidation (the handle); a breakout above the handle’s resistance is considered a potential trigger for a strong rally.
Key ResistanceSupportPotential Target$120–$160, $200, $250–$300$64–$74$1,000 (speculative)Solana is also facing an important short-term test at $75. Market analyst AnnieShr remarked that the $75 area, previously a resistance before the late-June rally, has become a crucial support level. A successful hold here could set the stage for a recovery toward $79 to $80.
The chart highlights resistance near $80, where Solana has been unable to break higher in recent attempts. A confirmed close above this area on the four-hour time frame could revive bullish momentum, with follow-through targets at $82 and the next resistance around $84.
The analysis states that as long as Solana holds above $75, buyers have a chance to push prices higher, but any close below this level would weaken the case for reversal and bring the $70 and $66–$63 regions into focus as potential next supports.
For now, traders are closely monitoring the battle between buying interest at $75 and overhead selling at $80, as this range may determine Solana’s next major directional move.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.
The author, a medical doctor and health economist, produces content on cryptocurrency markets, blockchain technologies, digital assets, and global finance.As a cryptocurrency writer and investor, he closely follows Bitcoin, altcoins, market trends, macroeconomic developments, token economies, and innovations in the digital asset ecosystem. By combining perspectives from health economics and financial analysis, he evaluates developments in cryptocurrency markets using a clear and data-driven approach.
What Was The 1.16 Trillion SHIB Move About?Blockchain data from Arkham Intelligence showed Coinbase moved the tokens across three newly created wallets with no prior transaction history, without touching the spot market order book at all.
Crypto analyst LuckSide Crypto said in a YouTube video the transfer is routine internal custody management, not a selling signal.
The three transfers broke down as 573 billion SHIB from an unmarked wallet, 242 billion SHIB, and 348 billion SHIB.
LuckSide Crypto noted that exchange supply overall keeps falling, which he views as a long-term constructive sign regardless of the size of the internal movement.
Moreover, SHIB recently fell as low as 33rd in the crypto market rankings before climbing back to 31st, recovering ground as selling pressure eases.
Is Selling Pressure Actually Easing?SHIB’s daily volume has dropped from around $100 million to the $50 million to $70 million range while price has been trading sideways, a sign the heavy capitulation selling from earlier this year is starting to flatten out.
The analyst said that whale wallet counts continue rising even as price has not followed, a setup that typically precedes accumulation phases rather than fresh breakdowns.
He noted the June lows were some of the most oversold readings SHIB has produced in its history, comparable only to August 2024.
Key catalysts to watch next week include the Clarity Act Senate floor vote, an FOMC meeting, and a PCE inflation report, all of which could inject volatility into the broader crypto market and directly impact SHIB’s next directional move.
Is Shiba Inu Price Showing Signs Of A Bullish Reversal?SHIB remains in a bearish trend structure with the 20-day SMA below the 50-day and the 50-day below the 200-day, keeping the path of least resistance pointed down.
The token is down 70% over the past 12 months, which means any bounce faces overhead supply quickly.
MACD sits above its signal line with a positive histogram, an early sign that downside pressure is easing even if the bigger trend has not flipped yet.
Moreover, SHIB has tested its 20-day moving average every session this week and been rejected each time, with the $0.00000504 level acting as the key support zone to watch on any pullback.
Image Source: Shutterstock
Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
US President Donald Trump reportedly instructed the military not to carry out the new attacks on Iran that he had previously approved on Friday.
According to Axios, citing two sources close to the matter, Trump’s decision means a pause in the daily US attacks against Iran, which have been ongoing for 13 days. It is not yet clear whether this step is a temporary halt or a sign of a more comprehensive shift in Washington’s Iran policy.
The decision was noteworthy because it came hours after an Omani delegation traveled to Tehran to discuss reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping. Reports of progress in negotiations mediated by Oman strengthened expectations that military tensions could be reduced.
However, diplomatic talks have yet to reach a comprehensive agreement. According to the New York Times, Iran rejected a US-sourced ceasefire proposal conveyed to Tehran by Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi. Iranian officials reportedly argued that the proposal did not resolve the dispute over control of the Strait of Hormuz and only envisioned a temporary ceasefire.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to travel to Washington on Monday at Trump’s invitation. Netanyahu is reportedly scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House on Tuesday and attend the funeral of the late US Senator Lindsey Graham.
*This is not investment advice.
Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!
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.
Just another normal day in crypto, and the exploit season never ends.
Triple-A, a payment protocol that enables businesses to pay and get paid globally, has become a victim of yet another cryptocurrency hack. The exploit resulted in a loss of more than $9.70 million on multiple chains.
This exploit comes two days after the crypto space saw $35 million vanish in three separate exploits in a single day. Are hackers outwitting the existing blockchain ecosystem?
Triple-A loses $9.7M in crypto to a hack As per PeckShieldAlert, Triple-A wallets lost more than $9.7 million after hackers drained tokens across 4 chains and the amount could be more. These chains exploited in the Triple-A hack included TRON [TRX], Ethereum [ETH], Polygon [POL], and Arbitrum [ARB].
Notably, the bridge on the Arbitrum chain continues to be involved in most of these hacks.
The exploiter bridged the stolen funds to Ethereum, as in almost every other hack. Currently, the funds have been consolidated in an address containing 5,227 ETH, equivalent to $9.696 million.
Source: PeckShieldAlert What is worrying is the fact that Triple-A is yet to acknowledge the attack. Deposits are still live, and new funds continue to be drained, a classic hot wallet custody failure.
Users have criticized the silence of the Triple-A team, which is acting like it is not happening. However, some users suggest that it could be a developer rather than a hacker.
Crypto hacks skyrocket in July The hack is an indication that hackers could be outwitting the existing blockchain infrastructure. Some recovery attempts have been successful, but most of the hacks have left institutions counting losses.
Two days ago, there were three crypto attacks on BSquared Network, AFX Trade, and the Verus-Ethereum bridge. The new hack takes the total hacked capital to $41.83 million this week, as per DefiLlama.
By extension, crypto has lost about $106 million to hacks this month of July, with still 6 days to go. Bonzo Lend leads in the largest funds lost this week, at about $10.05 million.
Source: DeFiLlama In the past 90 days, $264 million has been extracted from crypto through exploits. On average, that is $2.90 million per day across 94 exploits. The pace appears to be increasing with each new generation of more capable AI models.
Source: DeFiLlama These hacks reinforce the sentiment that DeFi could be bracing for another FUD cycle similar to the one seen in Q1 and Q2.
Final Summary Triple-A lost $9.70 million to an exploit that affected the TRON, Ethereum, Polygon, and Arbitrum chains. The exploiter bridges funds to Ethereum as the weekly total value hacked reaches $41.83 million.
Official Trump’s team has transferred about $16.91 million in TRUMP tokens to Fireblocks custody wallets as Senate negotiations over ethics rules in the CLARITY Act remain stalled.
Summary
16.84 million TRUMP tokens were sent to three Fireblocks custody addresses, according to Arkham Intelligence. Arkham said the addresses had previously moved received TRUMP tokens onward to BitGo. Senate Democrats are resisting ethics provisions that leave enforcement solely with the Department of Justice. TRUMP has fallen about 98% from its January 2025 peak of $73.43, based on the supplied market data. TRUMP tokens move to Fireblocks custody wallets Arkham Intelligence reported that the Official Trump team transferred 16.84 million TRUMP tokens, valued at roughly $16.91 million, to three Fireblocks custody addresses on July 25.
“TRUMP TEAM SENT $16M TRUMP TO CUSTODY,” Arkham wrote in its alert, adding that the transfers were split among three Fireblocks wallets.
TRUMP TEAM SENT $16M TRUMP TO CUSTODY
The $TRUMP team just transferred $16.91M of TRUMP to 3 Fireblocks Custody addresses.
These addresses have all received $TRUMP in the past, and all sent their past TRUMP to Bitgo. Are they distributing TRUMP unlocks? pic.twitter.com/Y6XU8dg7qS
— Arkham (@arkham) July 25, 2026 The blockchain analytics firm noted that each destination address had received TRUMP tokens before and later sent those holdings to BitGo. Arkham asked whether the latest movements could be connected to the distribution of TRUMP unlocks.
The transaction does not by itself show that tokens were sold or sent to an exchange. However, the use of custody addresses has drawn attention because a large share of the memecoin’s supply remains tied to insider-controlled wallets.
Crypto tools data cited in the report shows that the team could sell up to 96 million tokens, equal to 9.6% of the total supply and about 40% of the reported circulating supply of 237 million tokens. About 80% of the total supply remains in insider hands, while roughly 670 million tokens, or 67%, have already unlocked.
TRUMP traded near $1.57 at press time, according to the supplied data. That price represents an 83% decline from its year-over-year high and a nearly 98% drop from the $73.43 level reached in January 2025.
CLARITY Act ethics rules put Trump’s crypto ties in focus The transfer comes as Senate Republicans attempt to secure backing for the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, known as the CLARITY Act, before the August recess.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has pushed to bring the bill to the floor even without the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. “I would like to at least get Clarity started. We’ll see where the votes are,” Thune previously said.
The House passed the legislation in July 2025, while the Senate Banking Committee advanced it in May 2026 by a 15-9 vote. The bill still needs additional Democratic support, with ethics standards and consumer protections remaining central obstacles.
Republicans have added restrictions on crypto activity by senior elected officials to the latest draft. According to reports by Crypto in America’s Eleanor Terrett and Punchbowl News’ Brendan Pedersen, the White House sent the proposed language to Republican senators on July 20 before Democrats had reviewed it.
The draft would cover the president, vice president, members of Congress, federal judges and their spouses. Covered officials would be barred from issuing or sponsoring digital assets and would have to sell their crypto holdings, use a blind trust, or take both steps.
The provision would expire at noon on Jan. 20, 2029, when Trump’s term is scheduled to end. It would also permit companies to continue using an official’s name, image or likeness when that arrangement existed before the official became subject to the restrictions.
Democratic opposition centers on enforcement Democratic Sen. Angela Alsobrooks has objected to relying only on the Department of Justice to enforce the ethics rules, calling that approach “unserious.”
Alsobrooks said she would oppose the CLARITY Act if the current wording reached the Senate floor. Her stance carries added weight because she was one of two Democrats who supported advancing the bill through the Senate Banking Committee in May.
President Donald Trump accepted the ethics provision earlier this week after Democratic lawmakers made limits on elected officials’ crypto dealings a condition for continued talks. Yet disagreement over who enforces those restrictions has prevented a bipartisan deal.
Democrats pushed for the language after financial disclosures showed Trump earned as much as $1.4 billion from crypto-related ventures last year. Alsobrooks and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand had told colleagues that the market-structure bill could not advance without conflict-of-interest rules.
What the TRUMP transfer means for US holders For U.S. TRUMP holders, the on-chain movement adds a fresh supply-related risk while the Senate debates whether elected officials can retain ties to token projects. The Fireblocks transfers do not prove sales, but Arkham’s note about prior transfers from the same addresses to BitGo has fueled scrutiny over their potential purpose.
The immediate focus is whether the wallets make further transfers to exchanges or other custodians, and whether negotiators can resolve the DOJ enforcement dispute before the Senate’s August recess.
Bitget’s Reality rTokens recorded up to 58% lower simulated slippage than competing tokenized equity products on $50,000 orders, according to a CryptoRank study. The result places execution quality at the centre of the tokenized stock race. Offering blockchain-based exposure is no longer enough. Platforms must also prove that traders can enter or exit larger positions without moving the price sharply.
In brief Bitget rTokens recorded up to 58% lower simulated slippage on $50,000 orders. The study compared NVIDIA, Microsoft, Meta and Tesla products across leading platforms. Deeper liquidity helped Bitget produce stronger large-order execution results. Bitget leads the test on large-order execution Bitget delivered the lowest simulated slippage across every comparable stock tested in the CryptoRank study. The analysis covered NVIDIA, Microsoft, Meta and Tesla. These were the only four assets with valid two-sided order books across all selected platforms. The findings connect closely with Bitget’s investment in professional U.S. stock data. Deeper market information helps traders assess available liquidity before sending an order. It also shows whether displayed prices can absorb meaningful size.
Bitget ranked first for both $10,000 and $50,000 simulated orders. The strongest gap reached 58% on a $50,000 trade. That does not mean every rToken order receives the same advantage. The figure represents the best result observed within the tested set. Slippage measures the difference between the expected price and the average price obtained when an order moves through the order book. A platform can display an attractive headline price while offering too little liquidity behind it.
That problem becomes more visible as order size rises. A small purchase may execute close to the quoted price. A $50,000 order can consume several price levels, increasing the final cost for the buyer or reducing proceeds for the seller. CryptoRank found that Reality rTokens had the highest balanced displayed liquidity within 50 basis points. In practical terms, Bitget showed more buy and sell depth close to the market price. That structure can reduce the price impact of larger orders.
The study used simulated execution rather than a record of completed customer trades. Market conditions can also change quickly. Its findings therefore offer a snapshot of liquidity quality, not a permanent guarantee of future execution.
Bitget connects exchange liquidity with Wall Street CryptoRank attributed Bitget’s performance to a liquidity architecture that combines exchange-based order books with liquidity linked to underlying markets such as the NYSE and Nasdaq. This creates a closer connection between a tokenized product and the market where the original equity trades.
That link matters because tokenized stocks with identical tickers are not necessarily identical products. Their legal structures, redemption systems, liquidity providers and investor claims can differ significantly. A familiar company name does not remove the need to understand what the token actually represents.
Bitget has made tokenization one of its main 2026 strategic priorities. Its Stock+ ecosystem now combines tokenized equities, ETFs, commodities and crypto within a wider Universal Exchange model. The platform says eligible users can access more than 500 tokenized traditional assets. Reality rTokens also include features such as fractional access and extended trading availability. The CryptoRank study adds another dimension to that strategy: execution must remain efficient when order sizes grow.
Tokenization moves from access to infrastructure The tokenized equity market is approaching $2 billion in onchain value, with more than 471,000 holders. Those figures remain small compared with global stock markets. However, they show that blockchain-based equity exposure is developing beyond experimental launches.
The next phase will be shaped by less glamorous details. Order-book depth, spreads, settlement arrangements, custody and redemption rights will matter more than the number of available tickers. Weak infrastructure can turn convenient access into expensive execution.
Bitget’s result strengthens its position, but competition will continue. Other exchanges can add liquidity, improve market-making arrangements or redesign their products. Traders should therefore compare actual market depth rather than treating one study as a final ranking.
Still, CryptoRank’s findings capture an important shift. Tokenized equities are starting to be judged like mature financial products. Access remains useful, but price quality decides whether that access works at scale. As more crypto investors move into equities, Bitget’s advantage will depend on maintaining the liquidity that produced this result.
Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
Join the program
A
A
Lien copié
Evans S.
Fascinated by Bitcoin since 2017, Evariste has continuously researched the subject. While his initial interest was in trading, he now actively seeks to understand all advances centered on cryptocurrencies. As an editor, he strives to consistently deliver high-quality work that reflects the state of the sector as a whole.
DISCLAIMER
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.
Kripto para piyasasında satış baskısı etkisini sürdürürken, Bitcoin (BTC) son 24 saatte yaşadığı değer kaybıyla 63 bin dolar seviyesine geriledi. Lider kripto paradaki geri çekilme, altcoin piyasasında da geniş çaplı satışları beraberinde getirirken, Kripto paraların büyük bölümü günü düşüşle geçirdi. Sui (SUI), Cardano (ADA), NEAR Protocol (NEAR) ve Solana (SOL) en fazla değer kaybeden büyük kripto paralar arasında yer alırken, Uniswap (UNI) ise yükseliş kaydeden tek önemli altcoin oldu.
Bitcoin 63 Bin Dolar Seviyesine Geriledi Bitcoin, son işlem gününde satış baskısının artmasıyla birlikte 63 bin dolar seviyesine kadar geriledi. Gün içerisinde toparlanma denemeleri görülse de lider kripto para son 24 saatte yaklaşık yüzde 1 değer kaybetti. Analistler, Bitcoin’deki geri çekilmenin yalnızca teknik nedenlerden kaynaklanmadığını, yatırımcıların küresel ekonomik gelişmeler ve makro belirsizlikler nedeniyle daha temkinli hareket ettiğini belirtiyor. Kısa vadede 63 bin dolar seviyesinin korunup korunamayacağı ise piyasanın yönü açısından kritik önem taşıyor.
İlginizi Çekebilir: Kripto Piyasasında Kapanma Dalgası: Bir Proje Daha Veda Ediyor!
Bitcoin’deki düşüş, altcoin piyasasında daha sert fiyat hareketlerini beraberinde getirdi. Kripto paraların büyük bölümü değer kaybederken en dikkat çeken düşüşler şu varlıklarda görüldü:
Sui (SUI): Yaklaşık yüzde 4 düşüş Cardano (ADA): Yaklaşık yüzde 3-4 düşüş NEAR Protocol (NEAR): Yaklaşık yüzde 3-4 düşüş Solana (SOL): Yaklaşık yüzde 2,5 düşüş Bu tablo, yatırımcıların riskli varlıklardan çıkış yaparak daha temkinli bir pozisyon almaya devam ettiğini gösteriyor.
Bitcoin ve Altcoinlerde Gözler Destek Seviyelerinde Piyasa uzmanları, Bitcoin’in 63 bin dolar seviyesinin üzerinde tutunmasının kısa vadeli teknik görünüm açısından kritik önem taşıdığına dikkat çekiyor. Bu seviyenin korunması, satış baskısının hafiflemesiyle birlikte tepki alımlarını destekleyebilir ve yatırımcı güveninin yeniden artmasına katkı sağlayabilir. Özellikle işlem hacminde yaşanabilecek artışın, Bitcoin’in kayıplarını telafi ederek daha yüksek direnç seviyelerini test etmesinin önünü açabileceği değerlendiriliyor. Buna karşın 63 bin dolar seviyesinin aşağı yönlü kırılması halinde satış baskısının güçlenmesi ve fiyatın daha düşük destek bölgelerine doğru geri çekilme riskinin artabileceği ifade ediliyor.
Altcoin piyasasında ise risk iştahının zayıf seyretmesi nedeniyle oynaklığın bir süre daha yüksek kalması bekleniyor. Bitcoin’deki yön arayışının netleşmemesi, yatırımcıların büyük bölümünü temkinli hareket etmeye yönlendirirken, özellikle orta ve düşük piyasa değerine sahip altcoinlerde fiyat dalgalanmalarının daha sert yaşanabileceği belirtiliyor. Analistler, önümüzdeki günlerde hem Bitcoin’in kritik destek seviyelerindeki performansının hem de makroekonomik gelişmelerin, kripto para piyasasının genel yönü üzerinde belirleyici olmaya devam edeceğini vurguluyor.
Değerlendirme Bitcoin’in 63 bin dolar seviyesine gerilemesi, kripto para piyasasında satış baskısının yeniden güç kazandığını gösteriyor. Altcoinlerde görülen daha sert düşüşler, yatırımcıların riskten kaçınma eğiliminin arttığına işaret ederken, Uniswap’ın pozitif ayrışması günün dikkat çeken gelişmelerinden biri oldu. Önümüzdeki günlerde Bitcoin’in kritik destek seviyelerindeki performansı ve küresel piyasalardaki gelişmeler, hem BTC’nin hem de altcoinlerin kısa vadeli yönü üzerinde belirleyici olmaya devam edecek.
Son dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
Cambria is launching $RSGP, its native token. Eligible players and ecosystem participants can claim a share through the Loot Drop.
Your Ronin assets can make you eligible. Holding selected assets across the Ronin ecosystem can unlock Loot Drop allocations, making this one of the easiest ways for the Ronin community to participate.
Claim your allocation before the deadline. Connect your wallet, verify your eligibility, and claim your Loot Drop through Cambria’s official portal.
Cambria’s $RSGP Loot Drop is live, giving players, collectors, and ecosystem supporters the chance to secure a share of the upcoming token distribution.
One of the easiest ways to qualify is through the Ronin ecosystem.
If you’ve been collecting NFTs, playing games, or supporting builders on Ronin, you may already be eligible for a Loot Drop allocation. Cambria has included a wide range of Ronin assets as part of its eligibility criteria, rewarding community members who have helped grow the ecosystem.
For the Ronin community, eligibility is based on a combination of ecosystem participation and asset ownership. Specifically, this includes:
Axie Score
RON staking
Mystic Axies
Pixels Lands
Fableborne Kingdoms
Mokis
Fishing Frenzy Passes
Whether you’re an Axie collector, an active Ronin gamer, or a long-term ecosystem supporter, it’s worth checking your wallet to see if you’re eligible for a share of the $RSGP Loot Drop.
Claiming your Loot Drop only takes a few minutes:
Visit Cambria’s Portal.
Sign in using your Ronin Wallet.
Open the Airdrop page from the top left corner.
Check your eligibility and Loot Drop allocation.
Claim your $RSGP before the claim window closes.
If your wallet holds eligible Ronin assets, your Loot Drop allocation will appear automatically, ready to claim.
The Cambria team is rewarding the communities that helped shape the ecosystem, and Ronin users are part of that story.
If you’ve been active on Ronin, take a moment to connect your wallet and see if you’re eligible. Your next adventure in Cambria could start with a $RSGP Loot Drop waiting to be claimed.
Yapay zekâ ile blok zinciri teknolojisinin birleşmesi, Web3 ekosisteminde yeni nesil altyapı projelerinin ortaya çıkmasını sağlıyor. Ancak günümüzde veri doğrulama, yapay zekâ şeffaflığı, ölçeklenebilirlik ve kurumsal sistemlerle merkeziyetsiz ağların birlikte çalışabilmesi gibi birçok temel problem hâlâ çözüm bekliyor. House Party Protocol (HPP) ise bu sorunlara çözüm sunmayı hedefleyen, yapay zekâ odaklı (AI-native) bir Layer-2 blok zinciri projesi olarak öne çıkıyor.
Arbitrum Orbit altyapısı üzerinde geliştirilen ve Ethereum güvenliğiyle korunan House Party Protocol, veri kullanılabilirliği (data availability) için EigenDA’dan yararlanıyor. Proje; kurumsal blok zinciri altyapısını, yapay zekâ doğrulama sistemlerini, veri güvenilirliğini ve merkeziyetsiz uygulamaları tek bir ekosistemde birleştirerek gerçek dünya kullanım senaryolarına uygun, modüler ve ölçeklenebilir bir altyapı oluşturmayı amaçlıyor.
House Party Protocol (HPP) Ne Sunuyor? House Party Protocol (HPP), yapay zekâ uygulamaları ve Web3 ekosistemi için geliştirilen AI-native bir Layer-2 blok zinciri altyapısıdır.
Proje, Arbitrum Orbit üzerine inşa edilmiş olup Ethereum tarafından güvence altına alınmaktadır. Veri kullanılabilirliği katmanında ise EigenDA kullanılmaktadır.
House Party Protocol, 2025 yılında tamamlanan topluluk yönetişimi süreci sonrasında kurumsal blok zinciri projesi Aergo’nun dönüşümüyle ortaya çıkmıştır.
Yeni yapı altında dört farklı proje tek ekosistemde bir araya getirilmiştir:
Aergo: Temel blok zinciri altyapısı Alpha Quark: DeFi ve likidite katmanı Booost: İnsan doğrulama ve dijital kimlik çözümleri W3DB: Veri doğrulama ve yapay zekâ odaklı veri altyapısı Bu birleşmeyle birlikte House Party Protocol, yapay zekâ ve blok zinciri teknolojilerini ortak bir altyapıda buluşturmayı hedeflemektedir.
House Party Protocol (HPP) Nasıl Çalışır? House Party Protocol, yalnızca bir Layer-2 ağı olmanın ötesinde uçtan uca çalışan AI odaklı bir veri altyapısı oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır.
Platform;
Veri üretimi, Veri doğrulama, Yapay zekâ model geliştirme, AI model doğrulama, Merkeziyetsiz uygulama geliştirme gibi süreçleri tek altyapı üzerinde bir araya getirmektedir.
Bu yapı sayesinde hem kurumsal şirketlerin hem de Web3 uygulamalarının aynı ekosistem içerisinde birlikte çalışabilmesi hedeflenmektedir.
House Party Protocol, güvenilir verilerin ve merkeziyetsiz yapay zekâ sistemlerinin geleceğin dijital ekonomisinin temel altyapısı olacağını öngörmektedir.
Bu doğrultuda projenin temel hedefleri şunlardır:
Zincir içi (on-chain) ve zincir dışı (off-chain) sistemleri AI Oracle katmanı ile birbirine bağlamak, Doğrulanabilir veriler kullanarak yapay zekâ çıktılarının güvenilirliğini artırmak, Finans, dijital kimlik ve varlık değerleme gibi alanlarda gerçek kullanım senaryoları oluşturmak, Farklı blok zincirlerini birbirine bağlayan AI-native Bridge Layer geliştirmek. Uzun vadede HPP, yapay zekânın yalnızca uygulamalarda kullanılan bir araç değil, doğrudan blok zinciri altyapısının temel bileşeni haline gelmesini hedeflemektedir.
Yapay Zekâ ve Blok Zinciri Arasında Köprü Kuruyor House Party Protocol’un geliştirilme amacı yalnızca blok zincirlerini birbirine bağlamak değildir.
Proje aynı zamanda yapay zekâ sistemlerinin güvenilir şekilde çalışabileceği merkeziyetsiz bir altyapı oluşturmayı hedeflemektedir.
Bu kapsamda sistem;
Makineler tarafından okunabilir veriler, Bağımsız şekilde doğrulanabilen veri kaynakları, Şeffaf AI modelleri, Denetlenebilir algoritmalar, Açıklanabilir yapay zekâ çıktıları üzerine inşa edilmektedir.
House Party Protocol (HPP) Hangi Problemleri Çözmeyi Amaçlıyor? House Party Protocol, günümüzde AI ve Web3 ekosistemlerinde karşılaşılan çeşitli problemlere çözüm sunmayı hedeflemektedir.
Veri Parçalanması Merkeziyetsiz yapay zekâ sistemleri çoğu zaman güvenilir veri kaynaklarına erişmekte zorlanmaktadır.
Ayrıca farklı platformlar arasında veri toplama, etiketleme ve doğrulama süreçlerinin standart olmaması AI modellerinin gelişimini yavaşlatmaktadır.
HPP bu süreçleri ortak bir altyapı altında toplamayı amaçlamaktadır.
Ölçeklenebilirlik Blok zincirleri yoğun yapay zekâ hesaplamaları için tasarlanmamıştır.
Yüksek maliyetler ve gecikmeler gerçek zamanlı AI uygulamalarını zorlaştırmaktadır.
House Party Protocol ise AI odaklı çalışma mantığı sayesinde bu yükü daha verimli yönetmeyi hedeflemektedir.
Yapay Zekâ Şeffaflığı Günümüzde birçok AI modeli kapalı kutu şeklinde çalışmaktadır.
Verilerin nereden geldiği veya modelin nasıl karar verdiği çoğu zaman doğrulanamamaktadır.
HPP, veri geçmişini ve AI süreçlerini zincir üzerinde kayıt altına alarak daha şeffaf bir yapı oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır.
Kurumsal Sistemlerle Web3 Arasındaki Uyum Kurumsal şirketler;
Regülasyon, Veri güvenliği, Uyum süreçleri, Kurumsal standartlar nedeniyle doğrudan açık blok zinciri ağlarını kullanmakta zorlanabilmektedir.
House Party Protocol, kurumsal altyapılar ile merkeziyetsiz uygulamalar arasında uyum sağlayabilecek bir köprü oluşturmayı hedeflemektedir.
Birleşik HPP Ekosistemi House Party Protocol, farklı çözümleri tek platform altında toplamaktadır.
Ekosistem;
AI hizmetlerinin oluşturulmasını, Veri doğrulanmasını, Yapay zekâ modellerinin geliştirilmesini, Merkeziyetsiz uygulamaların çalıştırılmasını, Zincirler arası veri paylaşımını tek altyapı üzerinde gerçekleştirmeyi hedeflemektedir.
Bu yapı sayesinde geliştiriciler farklı platformlara ihtiyaç duymadan uygulamalarını oluşturabilecek bir çalışma ortamına sahip olmayı amaçlamaktadır.
House Party Protocol (HPP) AI-Native Bridge Layer House Party Protocol kendisini çok zincirli (multi-chain) geleceğe hazırlanan bir AI-Native Bridge Layer olarak tanımlamaktadır.
Bu altyapı;
Aergo Layer-1, Ethereum, Ethereum Layer-2 ağları arasında birlikte çalışabilirliği destekleyecek şekilde tasarlanmıştır.
Ayrıca ilerleyen süreçte ağa yapay zekâ destekli güvenlik mekanizmaları ve yönlendirme optimizasyonları gibi yeni özelliklerin eklenmesi planlanmaktadır.
House Party Protocol (HPP) Token Ne İşe Yarar? HPP token, ağın temel yardımcı (utility) ve yönetişim tokenidir.
Ekosistem üzerindeki tüm işlemler HPP kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmektedir.
Başlıca kullanım alanları şunlardır.
Ağ İşlem Ücretleri House Party Protocol ana ağı üzerinde gerçekleştirilen;
AI model çalıştırma, AI çıkarım (inference) işlemleri, Akıllı sözleşme yürütme, Veri doğrulama, Zincirler arası işlemler için HPP ile işlem ücreti ödenmektedir.
Bu ücretler ağ güvenliğini sağlamak ve doğrulayıcıları teşvik etmek amacıyla kullanılmaktadır.
House Party Protocol (HPP) ile Yapay Zekâ Hizmetlerine Erişim HPP token;
Eğitim veri setleri, AI destekli varlık değerleme araçları, Model doğrulama servisleri, Analitik hizmetler gibi ekosistem uygulamalarına erişim için kullanılmaktadır.
Ayrıca HPP tabanlı uygulamalarda;
AI işlem hizmetleri, Abonelik sistemleri, Zincir dışı hesaplama (off-chain compute), AI bot hizmetleri gibi çözümlerde de ödeme aracı olarak kullanılmaktadır.
Geliştirici Ekonomisi House Party Protocol, kullanım bazlı gelir modeli benimsemektedir.
Geliştiriciler kullandıkları AI servisleri kadar ödeme yaparken, oluşturulan gelir;
Hesaplama düğümleri, Model geliştiricileri, Veri doğrulayıcıları arasında paylaşılmaktadır.
Böylece ekosisteme katkı sağlayan katılımcılar ekonomik olarak teşvik edilmektedir.
House Party Protocol (HPP) Yönetişim HPP aynı zamanda yönetişim tokenidir.
Token sahipleri;
Yeni AI standartlarının kabulü, Protokol güncellemeleri, Token mekanizmaları, Stratejik teklifler, Topluluk kararları gibi konularda oy kullanabilmektedir.
Staking HPP, ağ güvenliğini sağlayan staking mekanizmasının temelini oluşturmaktadır.
Özellikle Proof-of-Inference sistemi kapsamında;
Veri sağlayıcıları, AI model geliştiricileri, Doğrulayıcılar ağa katılabilmek için HPP stake etmektedir.
Doğru ve güvenilir hizmet sağlayan katılımcılar staking ödülü kazanırken, yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmeyen katılımcılar için token kesintisi (slashing) uygulanabilmektedir.
Proof-of-Inference Sistemi House Party Protocol’un dikkat çeken bileşenlerinden biri de Proof-of-Inference sistemidir.
Bu sistem;
Zincir dışı AI hesaplamalarının doğruluğunu kontrol eder, Sonuçların tarafsızlığını doğrular, Hesaplama süreçlerinin güvenilirliğini artırır. Bu mekanizma sayesinde merkeziyetsiz yapay zekâ hizmetlerinin daha güvenilir şekilde çalışması hedeflenmektedir.
Zincir Üzeri Denetlenebilirlik Platform üzerinde gerçekleştirilen;
AI çıktıları, Veri setleri, Model sonuçları, İşlem geçmişi zaman damgasıyla zincir üzerine kaydedilmektedir.
Bu yapı tam denetlenebilirlik ve şeffaflık sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır.
House Party Protocol (HPP) Tokenomics HPP token dağılımı şu şekildedir:
Instant Swap %41 Ekosistem %23 Topluluk %22 Rezerv %8 Takım ve Danışmanlar %5 Yatırımcılar %1
Resmi Bağlantılar Website X (Twitter) Whitepaper Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
CLARITY Act, ABD’de kripto para sektörüne yönelik kapsamlı düzenleyici çerçeve oluşturmayı hedefleyen en önemli yasa tasarılarından biri olarak görülüyor. Ancak Senato‘nun yaz tatiline yaklaşmasıyla birlikte tasarının kısa vadede yasalaşma ihtimali önemli ölçüde zayıfladı. Sürecin uzaması, hem kripto para piyasası hem de kurumsal yatırımcılar tarafından yakından takip ediliyor.
Kripto sektörü, düzenlemenin 2026 yılı içinde tamamlanabilmesi açısından yaz dönemini kritik bir eşik olarak değerlendiriyordu. Son açıklamalar ise beklentilerin sonbahar aylarına kayabileceğine işaret ediyor.
CLARITY Act İçin Süreç Neden Yavaşladı? ABD Senatosu Çoğunluk Lideri John Thune, CLARITY Act’in yaz tatiline girilmeden önce nihai oylamaya sunulmasının zor göründüğünü ifade etti. Buna rağmen Thune, tasarının en azından Senato Genel Kurulu’nda görüşülmeye başlanmasını umut ettiğini belirtti.
Sektör temsilcileri daha önce 7 Ağustos tarihini kritik bir dönüm noktası olarak görüyordu. Ancak takvimin sonbahara sarkması halinde Kongre’nin daha sınırlı çalışma süresi nedeniyle düzenlemenin yıl sonuna kadar tamamlanması zorlaşabilir.
Bu nedenle yasa sürecindeki her gelişme, dijital varlık ekosistemi açısından büyük önem taşıyor.
Beyaz Saray Ve Senato Cephesinde Son Beklentiler Beyaz Saray’ın kripto danışmanlarından Patrick Witt, Senato’nun ağustos ayının ilk haftasında tasarıyla ilgili yeni adımlar atabileceğini düşünüyor. Buna karşın temmuz ayı içerisinde nihai oylamanın gerçekleşme olasılığını düşük görüyor.
Bu değerlendirme, piyasalarda kısa vadede kesin bir düzenleme beklentisinin zayıflamasına neden oldu. Özellikle kurumsal yatırımcılar ve sektörde faaliyet gösteren şirketler, yeni takvimin nasıl şekilleneceğini yakından izliyor.
ABD’de hazırlanacak kapsamlı düzenlemeler, yalnızca yerel piyasaları değil küresel kripto yatırımı ortamını da etkileyebilecek potansiyele sahip bulunuyor.
Taslakta Hangi Maddeler Tartışılıyor? Senatör Cynthia Lummis tarafından paylaşılan güncellenmiş CLARITY Act taslağında müşteri varlıklarının korunmasına yönelik daha güçlü düzenlemeler yer aldı. Bu değişiklikler yatırımcı güvenliğini artırmayı amaçlıyor.
Ancak bazı başlıklarda uzlaşma henüz sağlanabilmiş değil. Kamu görevlilerinin kripto faaliyetlerine ilişkin etik kurallar, stablecoin ödüllerine yönelik hükümler ve çeşitli düzenleyici maddeler üzerinde taraflar arasında görüş ayrılıkları devam ediyor.
Bu anlaşmazlıkların çözülmesi, tasarının Senato’dan geçiş sürecini doğrudan etkileyebilecek en önemli unsurlar arasında gösteriliyor.
CLARITY Act Kripto Para Piyasası İçin Neden Önemli? Galaxy Research Araştırma Başkanı Alex Thorn, Kongre’nin daralan çalışma takvimi nedeniyle CLARITY Act’in 2026 yılı içinde yasalaşma ihtimaline ilişkin tahminini yüzde 50’den yüzde 30’a düşürdüğünü açıkladı.
Bu değerlendirme, düzenlemenin beklenenden daha uzun sürebileceğine yönelik endişeleri artırdı. Yasanın kabul edilmesi halinde kripto para sektöründe faaliyet gösteren şirketler için daha net bir hukuki çerçeve oluşturulması bekleniyor. Ayrıca düzenleyici belirsizliğin azalması, uzun vadede kurumsal yatırımcı ilgisini destekleyebilecek gelişmeler arasında değerlendiriliyor.
Önümüzdeki haftalarda Senato’dan gelecek açıklamalar ve yasa takvimine ilişkin yeni gelişmeler, hem ABD finans piyasaları hem de küresel kripto ekosistemi açısından belirleyici olmaya devam edecek.
Bu içerik kesinlikle yatırım tavsiyesi niteliği taşımamaktadır. Piyasalar yüksek risk içermektedir ve yatırım kararlarınızı almadan önce kendi araştırmanızı yapmanız önemlidir.
Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
Yapay zeka odaklı blockchain projesi Worldcoin (WLD), World Foundation’ın 217 milyon WLD token satışı gerçekleştirmesinin ardından sert değer kaybetti. Vakıf, bu satıştan 52,5 milyon dolar fon toplarken, satışa konu olan tokenların 12 ay boyunca kilitli olacağı açıklandı. Buna rağmen yatırımcıların arz endişesiyle satışa yönelmesi sonucu WLD fiyatı son 24 saatte %10’dan fazla geriledi.
World Foundation Milyon Dolarlık Fon Topladı World Foundation, gerçekleştirdiği token satışıyla 217 milyon WLD karşılığında 52,5 milyon dolar yatırım aldı. İlk yatırım turuna Pantera Capital liderlik ederken, Bain Capital Crypto, Eightco Holdings, Selini Capital ve Susquehanna Crypto da yatırımcılar arasında yer aldı. Vakıf, elde edilen kaynağın World ID altyapısını kurumsal platformlara, tüketici uygulamalarına ve yapay zeka ajanlarına entegre etmek için kullanılacağını açıkladı. Satılan tokenların Temmuz 2027’ye kadar kilitli kalacak olması, kısa vadede ek satış baskısını sınırlandırmayı amaçlıyor.
İlginizi Çekebilir: Ripple’dan Bir Hamle Daha: Yeni Girişim Duyuruldu!
Kurumsal yatırımcıların uzun vadeli kilitlenme şartını kabul etmesine rağmen piyasa ilk etapta haberi olumsuz fiyatladı. WLD fiyatı açıklamanın ardından %10’dan fazla değer kaybederek yaklaşık 0,34 dolar seviyesine geriledi. Son 30 günlük performansa bakıldığında ise düşüş daha da dikkat çekiyor. WLD yaklaşık %33 değer kaybederken, aynı dönemde Bitcoin %5’in üzerinde, Ethereum ise yaklaşık %15 yükseliş kaydetti. Böylece Worldcoin, büyük piyasa değerine sahip kripto paralar arasında negatif ayrışan projelerden biri oldu. Analistler, yatırımcıların özellikle dolaşımdaki arzın büyümeye devam etmesi ve gelecekte açılabilecek token miktarı nedeniyle temkinli davrandığını belirtiyor.
Kurumsal Yatırımcılar World ID Vizyonuna Güveniyor Fiyat düşüşüne rağmen kurumsal yatırımcıların projeye ilgisi sürüyor. Özellikle Pantera Capital, yatırım kararının kısa vadeli fiyat hareketlerinden ziyade World’ün uzun vadeli “Proof of Human” (İnsan Kanıtı) vizyonuna dayandığını ifade etti. Pantera Capital Ortağı Cosmo Jiang, yapay zekanın hızla gelişmesiyle birlikte insanların ve yapay zeka sistemlerinin güvenilir şekilde ayırt edilmesini sağlayacak çözümlere olan ihtiyacın arttığını belirterek World ekosisteminin bu alanda önemli bir rol üstlenebileceğini söyledi.
Fiyat baskısına rağmen World ekosistemindeki kullanıcı sayısı artmaya devam ediyor. World Foundation’ın paylaştığı verilere göre 39 milyondan fazla kullanıcı World Network’e katılmış durumda. Ayrıca 18 milyondan fazla kişi Orb doğrulamasını tamamlarken, ağ üzerinde 475 milyondan fazla World ID doğrulaması gerçekleştirildi. Buna rağmen yatırımcıların şu aşamada daha çok token arzı ve fiyat üzerindeki etkisine odaklandığı görülüyor.
Değerlendirme World Foundation’ın gerçekleştirdiği 217 milyon WLD token satışı, kısa vadede Worldcoin fiyatı üzerinde güçlü bir satış baskısı oluşturdu. Her ne kadar tokenların 12 ay boyunca kilitli olması ani satış riskini azaltıyor olsa da, piyasadaki arz endişesi yatırımcıların temkinli hareket etmesine neden oldu. Buna karşılık Pantera Capital ve diğer kurumsal yatırımcıların projeye yaptığı yatırım, World ID teknolojisinin uzun vadeli potansiyeline olan güvenin sürdüğünü gösteriyor. Önümüzdeki dönemde hem kullanıcı büyümesi hem de kurumsal benimsenme, WLD fiyatının yönünü belirleyen en önemli faktörler arasında yer alacak.
Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
Bitcoin güvenliği, ekosistemin sürdürülebilirliği açısından en önemli başlıklardan biri olmaya devam ediyor. Bu kapsamda sektörün önde gelen dokuz şirketi, ağın uzun vadeli korunmasını desteklemek amacıyla Bitcoin Security Consortium adlı yeni bir oluşum kurduklarını duyurdu. Girişim; geliştiricilere finansman sağlamak, güvenlik araştırmalarını desteklemek ve kuantum sonrası şifreleme teknolojileri üzerine çalışmaları hızlandırmayı hedefliyor. Bu gelişme, yalnızca Bitcoin için değil, daha geniş kripto para piyasası açısından da önemli bir adım olarak değerlendiriliyor.
Bitcoin Güvenliği İçin Hangi Şirketler Bir Araya Geldi? Konsorsiyumun kurucu üyeleri arasında Strategy, BlackRock, Coinbase, Galaxy, Fidelity Digital Assets, Anchorage Digital, ARK Invest, Block ve Blockstream yer alıyor. Böylece yatırım şirketleri, saklama hizmeti sağlayıcıları, kripto borsası işletmeleri, ödeme firmaları ve altyapı şirketleri ortak bir çatı altında buluşmuş oldu.
Girişimin günlük koordinasyonunu ise Brink İcra Direktörü Mike Schmidt gönüllü olarak üstlenecek. Ancak konsorsiyum, Bitcoin ağının yönetiminde söz sahibi olmayacağını ve yalnızca güvenlik alanındaki çalışmaları destekleyeceğini özellikle vurguluyor.
Geliştiricilere 15 Milyon Dolarlık Destek Sağlanacak Strategy tarafından paylaşılan bilgilere göre kurucu üyeler, önümüzdeki üç yıl boyunca Bitcoin geliştiricileri ve güvenlik araştırmacıları için toplam 15 milyon dolar kaynak ayırmayı taahhüt etti.
Her şirket, ayırdığı bütçeyi kendi belirleyeceği bağımsız kuruluşlara yönlendirecek. Böylece merkezi bir fon yapısı yerine farklı projelerin desteklenmesi hedefleniyor. Bu modelin, blok zinciri teknolojisinin güvenliğini artıracak yeni araştırmaların önünü açması bekleniyor.
Kuantum Sonrası Kriptografi Neden Öncelik Kazandı? Konsorsiyumun ilk çalışma alanı kuantum sonrası kriptografi olarak belirlendi. Uzmanlar, mevcut şifreleme yöntemlerini aşabilecek kuantum bilgisayarların kullanımının henüz yıllar uzakta olduğunu belirtse de, olası risklere karşı bugünden hazırlık yapılmasının kritik önem taşıdığı görüşünde birleşiyor.
Strategy CEO’su Phong Le de şirketin uzun vadeli bir Bitcoin yatırımcısı olduğunu belirterek, ağın gelecek nesiller boyunca güvenli kalmasına katkı sunmayı amaçladıklarını ifade etti. Güvenlik araştırmalarına kaynak ayırmanın, ekosisteme yapılabilecek en değerli katkılardan biri olduğunu söyledi.
Bitcoin Protokolü Değişmeyecek, Hazırlıklar Hızlanacak Bitcoin Security Consortium, Bitcoin protokolünü değiştirmeyecek ve teknik karar alma süreçlerine müdahale etmeyecek. Ağın geliştirilmesine ilişkin tüm kararlar, bugüne kadar olduğu gibi açık kaynak geliştirici topluluğu tarafından alınmaya devam edecek.
Öte yandan kuantum güvenliğine yönelik çalışmalar yalnızca bu girişimle sınırlı değil. Galaxy kısa süre önce Bitcoin Quantum Readiness Initiative programını tanıtarak kuantum sonrası güvenlik araçları geliştiren projelere 5 milyon dolara kadar hibe vereceğini açıkladı. ABD Başkanı Donald Trump da federal sistemlerin 2031 sonuna kadar kuantum sonrası kriptografi altyapısına geçişini hedefleyen iki başkanlık kararnamesini imzaladı.
Bunun yanında Project Eleven, belirli senaryolarda yaklaşık 6,9 milyon Bitcoin’in gelecekte kuantum bilgisayarların oluşturabileceği risklerden etkilenebileceği uyarısında bulundu. Şirket, “Q-Day” olarak adlandırılan dönemin en erken 2030 yılında başlayabileceğini öngörüyor.
Bitcoin ekosisteminde güvenlik yatırımlarının artması, uzun vadede hem dijital varlık sektörünün hem de yatırımcı güveninin güçlenmesine katkı sağlayabilir.
Bu içerik kesinlikle yatırım tavsiyesi niteliği taşımamaktadır. Piyasalar yüksek risk içermektedir ve yatırım kararlarınızı almadan önce kendi araştırmanızı yapmanız önemlidir.
Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.
Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.
Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest has added about $251,500 in BitMine Immersion Technologies shares and the 3iQ Solana Staking ETF across three of its exchange-traded funds.
Summary
ARKK bought 5,264 BitMine shares worth about $83,100 at Friday’s $15.79 close. ARKW and ARKF added 28,018 SOLQ.U shares valued at roughly $168,400 combined. The 3iQ Solana Staking ETF fell 2.12% to $6.01 during Friday’s session. ARK Invest adds BitMine exposure ARK Invest’s Friday trade disclosures show its flagship ARK Innovation ETF, or ARKK, purchased 5,264 shares of BitMine Immersion Technologies (BMNR).
Based on BMNR’s $15.79 closing price, the purchase was worth approximately $83,100. The position represented roughly 0.0014% of ARKK’s portfolio, making it a small allocation within the fund but another addition to ARK’s crypto-linked investment exposure.
BitMine has positioned itself as an Ethereum treasury company, placing ARK’s purchase alongside its wider investments in publicly traded firms connected to digital assets.
The transaction was part of a broader ARKK rebalance that also included additional purchases of X-Energy shares and sales of Figma stock. ARK also sold shares of Strata Critical Medical, ATAI Life Sciences and Elbit Systems across its funds, according to the disclosures.
3iQ Solana Staking ETF receives $168K allocation ARK’s ARK Next Generation Internet ETF (ARKW) and ARK Fintech Innovation ETF (ARKF) also increased their holdings in the 3iQ Solana Staking ETF, which trades under the ticker SOLQ.U.
ARKW purchased 16,917 shares, worth about $101,700 at Friday’s close. ARKF added 11,101 shares, valued at approximately $66,700.
Together, the two funds acquired 28,018 SOLQ.U shares worth around $168,400. The purchases came as the Solana-based investment product declined $0.13, or 2.12%, to close at $6.01 on Friday.
The move gives ARK further exposure to Solana through an exchange-traded product that includes staking-related exposure, rather than a direct purchase of SOL tokens.
ARK’s crypto and AI buying spree continues Friday’s trades followed a more active week for ARK Invest, which bought nearly $60 million in Tesla, Circle Internet Group and Securitize shares on Thursday amid a broader U.S. equity market sell-off.
Tesla accounted for more than $51 million of that total, according to the firm’s daily trade reports. ARK also added roughly $14 million in SpaceX stock earlier in the week.
Outside crypto-related holdings, Friday’s filings showed new purchases of Pony AI, Kodiak AI, Scribe Therapeutics and Compass Pathways. The transactions point to continued portfolio adjustments across artificial intelligence, healthcare and digital-asset-linked companies.
What it means for U.S. investors ARK Invest’s latest activity offers U.S. investors another snapshot of how one of the country’s best-known thematic ETF managers is approaching crypto exposure.
The purchases were modest relative to ARK’s overall assets, but they spread exposure across two distinct parts of the market: BitMine’s Ethereum treasury strategy and a Solana staking-focused ETF product.
U.S. investors considering similar exposure should note that ARK’s purchases do not amount to a forecast on either asset. They instead show the firm’s continued use of public equities and exchange-traded products to gain exposure to crypto-related themes while it also rotates positions in technology and AI stocks.
Layer-1 blockchain Dango will wind down operations by halting trading on its perpetual decentralized exchange (DEX) on Wednesday and shutting down its network on Aug. 13.
“Despite our best effort, various reasons have led us to conclude there is no viable path to a lasting commercial success,” Dango said in a Friday X announcement.
Dango founder Larry Liu added that the team faced cash shortages, legal challenges that slowed momentum, the loss of team members, and broader market conditions.
Dango launched its mainnet in January after raising $3.6 million in a 2024 seed round led by Hack VC and Lemniscap. It rolled out its perpetual DEX in April, only to suffer a roughly $410,000 exploit days after launch. The attacker later returned the funds in exchange for a bug bounty.
Dango’s open interest dwarfed by Hyperliquid, AsterAccording to DefiLlama, Dango’s total value locked fell from a peak of roughly $4.5 million in early May to about $1.6 million before the announcement.
The perp DEX market is increasingly competitive and dominated by a handful of platforms.
Hyperliquid held more than $11 billion in open interest on Saturday, which represents the value of outstanding perpetual futures contracts that haven’t been closed.
Perp DEX ranking by open interest. Source: DefiLlama
Only Aster and Variational also hold more than $1 billion in open interest. Dango held just under $391,000 in open interest.
CoinGecko said in its second quarter industry report that Hyperliquid became the second-largest perpetual exchange by open interest on July 1, behind only Binance.
A summer of crypto shutdownsDango’s shutdown adds to a growing list of crypto platform closures in July, including 11-year-old perpetual futures pioneer BitMEX.
Restructuring adviser Roshan Dharia told Cointelegraph that BitMEX’s shutdown reflects structural pressures facing mid-sized centralized exchanges, where liquidity has increasingly concentrated among the industry’s largest players and regulatory compliance costs continue to rise.
“The top five platforms now control an estimated 80% of global spot volume, leaving mid-tier and regional exchanges with shrinking margins and no viable path to scale,” Dharia said.
Other recent closures include DEX aggregator Odos Protocol and perp DEX Satori Finance.
Magazine: A quantum roadmap would push Bitcoin much higher: Charles Edwards
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.
