The US Department State Department has launched a program to “advance diplomatic efforts on digital freedom and freedom of expression” using a Bitcoin (BTC) advocacy organization as a partner.
In a Friday X post, the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) said that it would be a founding partner in the US State Department’s Freedom Tech Excellence Program (FTEP), alongside Palantir Technologies, Anduril Industries and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. According to the organization, the program will allow its employees “to work alongside state department experts and defend digital freedoms around the world.”
“FTEP brings private sector talent to the Department for limited-term assignments to advance diplomatic efforts on key issues including online freedom of expression, privacy-enhancing technologies, countering digital surveillance, and responsible AI governance,” said the State Department.
Source: Bitcoin Policy Institute
Since its creation as a “non-partisan research and advocacy” organization in 2021, the BPI has endorsed attempts to codify US President Donald Trump’s executive order to establish a strategic crypto reserve into law. As of July, lawmakers in the US Congress had not passed legislation to follow Trump’s March 2025 executive order.
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.
Alex Thorn, head of firmwide research at Galaxy Research, analyzed Strategy’s newly announced Digital Credit Capital Framework as the company seeks solutions for its capital-structure issues amid sizable unrealized losses on its Bitcoin holdings.
Strategy’s capital move: What’s changing?Strategy, listed on Nasdaq under the ticker MSTR, recently filed an 8-K revealing its Digital Credit Capital Framework. The company, which is well known for its significant Bitcoin reserves totaling 847,363 BTC, faces unrealized losses reported to be approximately $14 billion.
According to the regulatory filing, the framework now allows Strategy to sell up to $1.25 billion worth of Bitcoin. It also officially institutes a USD reserve policy, updates dividend terms for STRC preferred shares, and authorizes individual $1 billion share repurchase programs for both preferred stock and MSTR common shares.
The board allocated $2.55 billion of cash reserves, limiting these funds strictly to paying preferred dividends and servicing debt interest. At the company’s current annual outflows of about $1.76 billion, this reserve would cover roughly 17 months. A full $1.25 billion Bitcoin sale would extend total liquidity to around $3.8 billion, supporting about 26 months of obligations.
In May, Strategy executed its first-ever Bitcoin sale, liquidating 32 BTC for around $2.5 million to fund a dividend payment.
JPMorgan has advised Strategy to focus on raising capital by selling shares rather than liquidating its Bitcoin holdings. Alex Thorn at Galaxy Research said the core question is whether these new measures genuinely fix the company’s capital-structure risks, or merely push them into the future.
Strategy’s leadership, including Chairman Michael Saylor, considers the overhaul essential for financial resilience, with Saylor emphasizing, “digital credit requires liquidity, discipline, and active capital management.”
Mini dictionary: Strategy (MSTR): Strategy is a publicly traded company known for its large-scale Bitcoin investments and active role in digital asset capital management.
Market reaction and investor outlookInvestor interest in the new framework was reflected in the stock market. MSTR shares rose 12.6% to $92.68 on the Monday after the announcement, then climbed past $100 by Wednesday. This represented a 27% gain from the previous Friday’s closing price. STRC preferred shares also moved higher, ending at $87.87 on July 3.
AssetPre-announcement pricePost-announcement price% ChangeMSTR Common Shares$78.62$100++27%STRC Preferred SharesNot stated$87.87N/ABenchmark Equity Research reaffirmed its positive stance by maintaining a Buy rating for MSTR and setting a price target of $570 for the stock.
Benchmark Equity Research views the framework favorably and kept its Buy rating in place, citing enhanced financial flexibility for Strategy.
Other players: Strive and SATAStrive, another company aiming to build a capital structure backed by Bitcoin, cautioned investors this week against assuming it would issue new SATA preferred shares at the $100 par value due to market volatility.
Jeff Walton, Strive’s chief risk officer, reported that the short interest in SATA shares rose by 1 million in the 30 days ending June 30, while the annualized borrowing cost for the shares jumped from 6.1% to 68.6% during the same period.
Mini dictionary: SATA preferred shares: These represent specialized stock issued by Strive, offering fixed dividends and priority over common shares, but may be affected by short-selling and market dynamics.
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.
Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for striking two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea on July 22, marking the first direct attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure since the dramatic 2019 drone assault that temporarily cut the kingdom’s production in half. Brent crude responded exactly how you’d expect: it surged more than 7%, blowing past $100 per barrel for the first time since those 2019 attacks.
The targeted vessels, the Encelia and the Layla, were transiting the Red Sea when they were hit. Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree said the tankers were struck for violating a naval embargo.
The geopolitical backdrop is getting worse, not better On July 16, Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi publicly threatened Saudi oil facilities, giving the market about a week’s warning that something ugly might be coming. The attacks followed the breakdown of a four-year truce between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia.
Advertisement
The Houthis, an Iran-aligned movement controlling much of northern Yemen, have been locked in a prolonged conflict with the Saudi-led coalition for years. Roughly 4.5 million barrels of oil pass through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait daily, making it a pressure point that can send shockwaves through global energy markets with a single well-placed strike.
Goldman Sachs has already weighed in, suggesting prices could exceed $120 per barrel if supply disruptions continue.
The crypto angle is more nuanced than “Bitcoin goes up” Bitcoin held steady in the $63,000 to $65,000 range following the attacks.
In 2025, the US Treasury sanctioned Houthi-linked cryptocurrency wallets that had received approximately $900 million in USDT. That’s not a rounding error. It’s nearly a billion dollars in stablecoin flows tied to a designated militant group, and it underscores a tension that the crypto industry has never fully resolved: the same permissionless infrastructure that makes digital assets attractive to legitimate users also makes them useful to sanctioned entities operating outside the traditional banking system.
What this means for investors The sanctions angle is worth monitoring closely. The $900 million in USDT flows to Houthi-linked wallets gives regulators fresh ammunition to push for stricter stablecoin oversight, particularly around Know Your Customer requirements for large transfers. If another round of attacks triggers another round of sanctions, expect USDT issuer Tether to face renewed scrutiny about its compliance infrastructure.
The 2019 Abqaiq attacks spiked oil prices by roughly 15% in a single day before the market calmed down within weeks. The question now is whether the current geopolitical environment, with a broken truce, an emboldened Houthi leadership, and broader Iranian-backed proxy activity across the region, allows for that same rapid normalization.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Spot Bitcoin ETF Outflows Rose as CLARITY Act Odds FellBitcoin price retreated for the fourth consecutive day as American investors sold their ETF holdings for two straight days. Data shows that Bitcoin ETFs lost over $240 million in assets on Friday after losing $225 million a day earlier.
As a result, the net weekly inflow was $33 million, lower than the previous week’s $75 million. BlackRock’s IBIT ETF lost over $212 million on Friday, while Fidelity’s FBTC shed over $27 million.
Falling Bitcoin ETF inflows normally send a signal that demand among American institutional investors is falling.
The selling coincided with several major events. For one, there are doubts on whether the Senate will pass the CLARITY Act. While the most important sections have bipartisan support, Democrats and consumer watchdog groups have opposed it.
They argue that the current provisions will not bar President Donald Trump and his family members from issuing tokens. Recent disclosures showed that Trump pocketed over $1.4 billion in crypto profits last year, even as most supporters lost billions.
Odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law have dropped to just 35% on Polymarket. Earlier this year, these odds were 75%.
Polymarket odds of CLARITY Act being signed into law | Source: Polymarket
The CLARITY Act aims to change how the crypto industry is regulated by giving the more lenient CFTC more power than the SEC. It also sets rules for stablecoin rewards and how digital assets are classified.
Bitcoin’s weakness also coincided with the rising odds that the Federal Reserve will hike interest rates amid the ongoing US-Iran war. Odds of a rate hike happening this year have jumped to over 70%. In most cases, Bitcoin and other risky assets underperform the market in a high interest rate environment.
Bitcoin Price Dropped After Hitting a Key ResistanceTechnicals show that BTC price retreated after hitting the crucial resistance level of $67,018, its highest level on June 15. That is a sign that it formed a double-top pattern, a common reversal sign.
The coin also found resistance at the 100-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA). It also moved below the Supertrend indicator.
Therefore, the coin will likely remain under pressure as long as it is below the resistance level of $67,018. A move above that price will point to more gains, potentially to the psychological level of $70,000.
Image: Shutterstock
Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
President Donald Trump said he is considering resuming full-scale military operations against Iran if his demands are not met.
Bitcoin dropped over 3% in July on reports of ceasefire breakdowns and renewed strikes.
From ceasefire to ‘finish the job’ The 2026 Iran war kicked off with US-Israeli strikes in late February. An informal ceasefire and a series of understandings followed, giving markets a breather and letting Bitcoin claw back losses through the spring months.
Advertisement
That ceasefire collapsed by early July. Renewed violence in the Strait of Hormuz reignited hostilities. US combat fatalities and Iranian retaliations have kept the military exchanges going into mid-July.
Now Trump is talking to defense officials about targeting Iranian nuclear sites and military infrastructure. The phrase reportedly being used in those conversations is “finish the job.”
Crypto gets caught in the sanctions crossfire In June 2026, the US Treasury sanctioned Nobitex, Iran’s largest digital asset exchange, along with three other Iranian digital asset channels. The stated reason: sanctions evasion. This effort is part of a campaign the administration has dubbed “Economic Fury.”
Bitcoin’s geopolitical mood swings Bitcoin dropped over 3% when the ceasefire fell apart and strikes resumed in July. When de-escalation signals emerged earlier in the spring, prices rebounded meaningfully.
Polymarket hosted a $120 million market related to a potential permanent peace deal in Iran, with odds shifting based on Trump’s public comments.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
BTC is marginally up since the news went live, but the actual volatility has historically taken place on Monday morning.
Following a few weeks of escalations, new threats, and strikes, United States President Donald Trump has reportedly ordered its military to stand down instead of carrying out the planned attacks for tonight.
The crypto focus is back on bitcoin, which has typically shown a positive reaction to similar developments. However, the actual impact might be felt after at least 24 hours.
As reported by Axios, the reason for tonight’s withdrawal from new military action is the recently resumed talks on the Strait of Hormuz.
Large media sites suggested yesterday that Oman has initiated talks with Iran to reopen the key Strait, and some sources claimed that major progress has been made over the past day. It appears Trump wants to see how it resolves before deciding whether or not the US will continue with its attacks.
BREAKING: President Trump ordered the US Military to not carry out planned strikes on Iran Friday night, despite previously approving the strikes, per Axios.
This came just hours after talks mediated by Oman over reopening the Strait of Hormuz reportedly resumed.
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) July 25, 2026
The primary cryptocurrency is prone to reacting to any sort of news on the war front. Renewed attacks typically lead to price corrections, while the reemergence of hope for a deal, ceasefire, or even more permanent peace, have resulted in major rallies.
The tricky part is the timing. Aside from the initial shock when the war started in late February, the asset has remained relatively stable when the new developments took place over the weekend. Instead, its actual fluctuations in either direction transpire on Monday morning when most traditional financial markets start to open.
You may also like: Here’s Why Bitcoin Dipped Below $64K Today Dem Senator Slams GOP’s CLARITY Ethics Proposal as ‘Not a Serious Effort’: Report Bitcoin’s Sharpe Ratio Signals an ‘Optimal’ Spot Accumulation Window Consequently, even though it has defended the $64,000 support now, which many analysts believe is key for its next big move, the bigger reaction is likely to take place in 36 hours.
Kuwait is pushing back hard against a Wall Street Journal report claiming it participated in secret airstrikes against Iranian military targets. Kuwait’s ambassador to the US, Al-Zain Al-Sabah, denied any involvement in military operations against Iran, stating that Kuwait neither carried out such actions nor allowed its territory to be used as a launchpad against neighboring states.
The denial came just hours after the WSJ published its report alleging that both Bahrain and Kuwait conducted airstrikes on Iranian targets in early July 2026.
What we actually know Neither Bahrain nor Kuwait has publicly acknowledged the alleged strikes. Spokespeople from both countries did not provide comments to the Wall Street Journal following publication. So we’re left with a major US newspaper reporting one thing and a Gulf state ambassador categorically denying it, with no third-party confirmation to break the tie.
Advertisement
Kuwait faced several Iranian drone and missile attacks earlier in 2026, which raised serious questions about its defense posture in the Persian Gulf.
The reported strikes, if they occurred, would mark an unusual instance of direct military action by Gulf states against Iran. Historically, Gulf countries have preferred to operate through coalitions or with explicit US backing rather than conducting independent offensive operations.
Why crypto traders should care about Persian Gulf airstrikes Gulf conflict developments have been directly linked to fluctuations in Bitcoin prices this year, with escalations triggering significant leverage liquidations across major exchanges.
The mechanism isn’t complicated. Persian Gulf tensions threaten oil supply chains, which creates uncertainty in energy markets, which shifts global risk sentiment, which sends leveraged crypto positions into liquidation cascades.
The broader macro picture for investors Energy market disruptions remain the primary transmission mechanism to crypto. Oil supply chain uncertainty historically correlates with volatility spikes across risk assets, and Bitcoin has increasingly behaved like a high-beta risk asset during acute geopolitical stress.
What makes this particularly tricky is that the confirmation or debunking of the WSJ report could each produce violent market reactions in opposite directions. Confirmation would likely trigger a risk-off move as traders price in further escalation. A credible debunking might produce a relief rally.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
The honeymoon is officially over for spot Bitcoin ETFs. After a record-breaking debut in January 2024 and two years of near-uninterrupted capital inflows, the products have hit a wall in 2026, with net flows turning negative for the majority of the year so far.
The numbers tell an uncomfortable story US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $5.4 billion in net outflows during the first half of 2026, marking the first negative half-year since the products launched.
To put that in context: these same funds had accumulated $56.6 billion in cumulative net inflows over their first two years of existence.
June 2026 was particularly rough. The month produced roughly $4.5 billion in outflows, the largest single-month exit on record for spot Bitcoin ETFs.
Advertisement
BlackRock’s IBIT was a significant contributor to the selling. In one reported week alone, IBIT saw $1.34 billion in redemptions.
By mid-July, year-to-date net flows had crossed into negative territory for the first time. There were occasional bright spots: a three-day stretch produced a $510 million rebound. But brief recoveries have not been enough to reverse the broader trend that has defined the year.
Why the money is leaving The most straightforward explanation is Bitcoin’s own price performance. ETF wrappers made it easier than ever to buy Bitcoin exposure, and that convenience works in both directions.
The second factor is competition from AI-related assets. Capital rotation is a real phenomenon, and the narrative around artificial intelligence has been loud enough in 2026 to pull institutional dollars away from crypto.
What this means for Bitcoin markets and investors Second, the outflow trend from IBIT specifically is worth watching. BlackRock’s fund became the dominant venue for institutional Bitcoin exposure in a remarkably short time. When the largest player in a product category starts seeing consistent redemptions, it tends to get noticed by other institutional allocators who benchmark against each other.
Third, the $56.6 billion in cumulative inflows that built up over 2024 and 2025 represents a large pool of capital sitting at various cost basis levels. Some of that capital is profitable and may be taking gains. Some may be underwater and holding on.
A $5.4 billion outflow in a half-year is significant, but it lands against a backdrop of $56.6 billion in prior inflows. The question worth asking is not whether the outflows are large in absolute terms, because they are, but whether they represent a temporary correction in enthusiasm or a more durable structural shift in how institutions want to hold Bitcoin.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is heading to the White House armed with fresh intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program, setting the stage for a meeting with President Donald Trump that could reshape the geopolitical landscape, and with it, the trajectory of risk assets including Bitcoin.
Israeli officials aren’t exactly optimistic about diplomacy. The prevailing view from Jerusalem is that a US-Iran agreement remains unlikely, particularly after a year defined by military confrontations, paused negotiations, and regional tension.
What happened in June, and why it matters now In June 2026, renewed hostilities between Israel and Iran sent Bitcoin sliding into the $63,000 to $70,000 range. Oil prices jumped over 3% during the same stretch.
Advertisement
Bitcoin has increasingly behaved like a high-beta risk asset during geopolitical shocks, not a safe haven. Traders who thought they were insulated from old-world geopolitics learned otherwise.
The intelligence briefing and its implications The specifics of Netanyahu’s new intelligence on Iran’s nuclear efforts remain undisclosed as of July 25, 2026.
Trump has reportedly urged Netanyahu to exercise restraint in response to ongoing provocations.
What crypto investors should actually watch The Strait of Hormuz remains the critical variable. Roughly 20% of global oil passes through that narrow waterway.
Prediction markets like Polymarket have already begun pricing Netanyahu-related event probabilities, suggesting that sophisticated traders are treating this as a quantifiable geopolitical risk.
Bitcoin’s behavior during the June selloff offers a useful framework. The drop to the $63,000 to $70,000 range happened fast. Traders who were leveraged long got caught.
There has been minimal coverage of Iran-specific or sanctions-related tokens in connection with this narrative. Investors aren’t looking for niche plays tied to Iranian sanctions evasion or geopolitical speculation. They’re treating Bitcoin itself as the proxy for broader market risk associated with Middle Eastern instability.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Crypto influencer and trader Carl Runefelt, known as "The Moon," said he sold two Ferraris worth a combined $2.5 million to increase his exposure to Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC).
Historically Significant Support ZonesIn a podcast on Friday, trader Runefelt argued that Bitcoin is approaching one of its most historically significant support zones.
He pointed to the 200-week moving average, a long-term technical indicator that has previously coincided with major market bottoms.
Runefelt said he views BTC’s current decline as a rare accumulation opportunity.
The average reflects Bitcoin’s average price over approximately four years, broadly aligning with the cryptocurrency’s halving cycle.
Rather than entering his entire position at one price, Runefelt said he places several limit orders throughout the support zone to build an average entry.
Why He Is Avoiding High LeverageRunefelt cautioned against using significant leverage around long-term technical levels because Bitcoin can briefly fall below widely watched support before reversing.
Sharp declines can trigger stop-loss orders and liquidations positioned beneath the moving average, wiping out leveraged traders immediately before a potential rebound.
Runefelt claimed he currently has more than $2.5 million in Bitcoin positions open on MEXC, in addition to another profitable position on Bybit.
Bitcoin’s History Around The 200-Week AverageRunefelt cited several previous occasions when Bitcoin traded near or below its 200-week moving average before beginning major rallies.
"Historically, each of these touches has marked a bottom right before the next parabolic rally," he said.
Photo: William’s photo / Shutterstock.com
Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) recorded a total trading volume of $8.05 billion over the past full week, marking the lowest five-day total since October 2024.
Bitcoin ETF inflows slow as volatility dropsETF volume for the week was down 14% compared to $9.37 billion in the previous week, according to SoSoValue data. While April 2025 saw a lower weekly volume for the funds, that period spanned only four trading sessions due to market holidays. Among weeks with a full five sessions, this recent period ranks as the slowest since mid-October 2024.
Throughout the week, Bitcoin’s price hovered near $64,000, significantly below its peak late last year. Minimal price movements contributed to reduced trading activity, leaving fewer opportunities for short-term traders.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs posted net inflows of $33.8 million for the week, their third consecutive week of inflows following an earlier streak of eight weeks of outflows that ended in early July. However, the latest figure represents a slowdown compared to $75.7 million the previous week and $197.4 million two weeks ago.
A sharp turnaround occurred midweek: net inflows had reached $499.1 million by Wednesday, but large-scale outflows followed with $225.2 million exiting on Thursday and another $240.1 million on Friday. These outflows erased most of the gains accumulated earlier in the week.
BlackRock’s IBIT, the largest Bitcoin ETF by assets, registered $414.7 million in outflows on Thursday and Friday alone and ended the week down approximately $95.5 million. The ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF and Grayscale’s Bitcoin Mini Trust partially offset these withdrawals, attracting $85.8 million and $78.1 million, respectively.
Mini dictionary: SoSoValue, an analytics platform, provides detailed real-time tracking and reporting for digital asset investment products, including ETF flow and volume data.
Inflows to US spot Bitcoin ETFs reached $499.1 million by Wednesday, but heavy withdrawals on Thursday and Friday erased most of those gains, resulting in only $33.8 million in net inflows for the week.
Ether ETFs see stronger inflows and outperform Bitcoin productsSpot Ether ETFs brought in $103.9 million in new funds during the past week, more than triple the Bitcoin ETF net inflows. This marks the third straight week of positive inflows for Ether ETFs, during which they have surpassed Bitcoin ETFs for two consecutive weeks. In the previous week, Ether funds attracted $105.4 million while Bitcoin drew $75.7 million.
At the end of the week, Ether ETFs managed $10.17 billion in net assets, roughly one-eighth of the $77.82 billion held by Bitcoin ETFs. Over the last three weeks, both groups have seen similar cumulative inflows, with Ether ETFs adding $293.8 million and Bitcoin $306.9 million.
BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust accounted for the majority of Ether ETF inflows, taking in $96.3 million. Grayscale’s Ethereum Mini Trust followed at $9.9 million in net inflows. Fidelity’s FETH, however, recorded $6.2 million in outflows. Ether ETF trading volume reached $2.78 billion, about 35% of Bitcoin ETF trading volumes.
Fund TypeWeekly Net InflowsTotal Net AssetsTrading VolumeBitcoin ETFs$33.8 million$77.82 billion$8.05 billionEther ETFs$103.9 million$10.17 billion$2.78 billion Spot Ether ETFs attracted $103.9 million in weekly inflows, outperforming their Bitcoin counterparts for a second consecutive week.
Outflows still weigh on year-to-date performanceDespite signs of renewed interest in July, the inflows have not offset earlier losses. Since January, Bitcoin ETFs remain down $5.23 billion, maintaining a negative trend for capital movement this year. Ether ETFs are down by about $1.15 billion over the same period despite recent gains.
In July, Ether led the revival, posting $337.7 million in inflows compared to Bitcoin’s $234 million. On July 11, both ETF types broke their eight-week outflow streaks, adding $281.8 million combined, though this was only a partial recovery from the $9.46 billion in outflows recorded over the preceding two months.
Bitcoin ETFs had previously ended a 13-day withdrawal streak on June 5 after redeeming more than $4.4 billion since mid-May. Ether ETFs also halted a 17-day period of declines on that date.
Data from CoinShares shows institutional investors reduced their Bitcoin exposure by 17% during the first quarter, reflecting a broader reassessment of crypto asset allocations. On June 5, $326 million was withdrawn from Bitcoin ETFs, including $214 million in outflows from BlackRock’s IBIT, underscoring ongoing volatility in investor sentiment.
As of early Saturday, Bitcoin traded at approximately $64,368, while Ether changed hands near $1,875, based on aggregated pricing from CoinGecko.
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 CLARITY Act, a flagship bill to regulate cryptos in the United States, is on the brink of failure. With 4 days to convince the Senate, its adoption has only a 30% chance of success. Between political deadlocks and economic stakes, the future of Bitcoin and altcoins is at play now.
In Brief Urgency in the Senate: 4 days to adopt the CLARITY Act, with only a 30% chance of success. Political deadlocks: Democrats and Republicans divided on ethics and crypto regulation. Stakes for Bitcoin: Adoption could boost cryptos, failure would plunge them into uncertainty. The U.S. Senate Has 4 Days to Save the CLARITY Act, Chances Drop to 30% The CLARITY Act, this long-awaited bill to clarify crypto regulation in the United States, sees its adoption chances drop to 30%, according to Galaxy Digital. The reason? A dire lack of votes in the Senate. Indeed, with only 4 days before the summer recess, Republicans, who control 53 seats, struggle to gather the 60 votes required to avoid a filibuster.
Democrats, led by Elizabeth Warren, strongly criticize the bill, especially on ethical provisions (entrusted to the Department of Justice) and the sunset clause in 2029. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell, Republican leader, has been absent since his hospitalization, further reducing the chances of success. Alex Thorn, director of research at Galaxy, is clear:
The time for incremental negotiations is over. A last-minute effort is needed.
If the Senate does not initiate the process by July 30, the bill will be postponed to September, where it will have to compete with the federal budget and midterm elections. A failure would mean another year of legal uncertainty for the American crypto industry.
Bitcoin and CLARITY Act: why this law could change everything (or nothing at all) Bitcoin, often considered a commodity by the CFTC, could indirectly benefit from the CLARITY Act, even if the text does not explicitly mention it. Indeed, by clarifying the roles of the SEC and CFTC, this law could reduce the risks of arbitrary lawsuits against platforms like Coinbase or Kraken, which list BTC. However, if the bill fails, Bitcoin could face increased regulatory pressure.
Without a clear framework, the SEC could continue targeting exchanges under the pretext of selling unregistered securities, as it did with Ripple. Conversely, if the CLARITY Act passes, Bitcoin could attract more institutional capital, notably through spot ETFs. Clear regulation would also strengthen BTC’s legitimacy as a digital store of value, against competitors like gold or the dollar.
The CLARITY Act is at a turning point. Its failure would plunge cryptos into uncertainty, while its adoption could revolutionize the market! As Charles Schwab thinks, who sees it as a historic catalyst. But with 4 days to convince, one question remains: will senators dare to save the crypto future of the United States?
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
Eddy S.
The world is evolving and adaptation is the best weapon to survive in this undulating universe. Originally a crypto community manager, I am interested in anything that is directly or indirectly related to blockchain and its derivatives. To share my experience and promote a field that I am passionate about, nothing is better than writing informative and relaxed articles.
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.
The author, who holds a degree in International Relations and Political Science, has 10 years of experience as a writer and editor in the fields of cryptocurrency, blockchain technologies, and digital asset markets.While at COINTURK, he has published over 8,500 news articles, analyses, essays, and reports on Bitcoin, altcoins, cryptocurrency markets, the blockchain ecosystem, digital asset regulations, and global financial developments. Closely following market movements and industry developments, the author addresses the complex world of cryptocurrency in a clear and reader-friendly manner.An avid reader, the author also evaluates the impact of international developments on financial markets and the digital asset ecosystem.
XRP bulls suffered significant liquidations on Saturday as the cryptocurrency continued to trade under pressure.
Over the past 24 hours, total XRP-related liquidations reached $2.12 million, according to liquidation data from Coinglass, with long positions accounting for $1.99 million.
Short liquidations, meanwhile, totaled $127,430. The imbalance suggests that leveraged traders betting on further XRP gains have absorbed most of the recent losses.
HOT Stories
The pressure was also visible over a shorter timeframe. During the past 12 hours, total liquidations reached $257,760, including $169,790 in long positions and $87,970 in shorts.
The liquidation figures come as XRP's broader market activity weakens. The token is down 0.26% over the past 24 hours, while its market capitalization has declined 0.15% to approximately $68.2 billion. Trading volume has fallen 26.59% to $785.29 million, suggesting reduced activity across the market.
XRP currently has a total supply of approximately 99.98 billion tokens, with a maximum supply of 100 billion. About 62.53 billion XRP are in circulation, while the cryptocurrency has approximately 544,970 holders.
Ripple Mint raises questions about XRP utilityThe latest XRP price weakness coincides with the launch of Ripple Mint, a platform designed to give institutions a unified way to access, mint, redeem and manage Ripple's RLUSD stablecoin.
Announced on Wednesday, Ripple Mint aims to address some of the operational challenges associated with institutional use of RLUSD. The platform provides a dedicated interface with built-in controls and oversight, while also offering programmatic access for automation and system-level integrations.
Through Ripple Mint, institutions can mint and redeem RLUSD directly from the source, bridge the stablecoin across supported networks, monitor funds throughout the transaction lifecycle and integrate RLUSD into internal systems and workflows.
The launch has nevertheless renewed a longstanding debate surrounding XRP's role in Ripple's institutional strategy.
With RLUSD's market capitalization reaching approximately $1.5 billion, some market observers argue that growing adoption of Ripple's infrastructure does not necessarily create direct demand for XRP.
Institutions can use RLUSD for payments and settlement without needing to acquire XRP, potentially limiting the extent to which growth in Ripple's stablecoin ecosystem translates into buying pressure for the XRP token.
This dynamic has contributed to a more cautious market narrative around XRP, particularly as the token continues to struggle to establish sustained bullish momentum.
XRP approaches key technical supportThe three-day decline has pushed XRP toward approximately $1.09, bringing the cryptocurrency closer to a key trendline support level.
XRP is currently trading within a relatively narrow $1.06 to $1.10 range. At the same time, Bollinger Bands are beginning to contract again on higher timeframes, suggesting that volatility may be declining as the market enters another period of consolidation.
You Might Also Like
Historically, extended periods of contraction and sideways trading have sometimes preceded significant moves in either direction. However, the current technical structure also raises the possibility of another prolonged period of range-bound price action if XRP fails to establish a clear catalyst for a sustained breakout.
For now, the combination of heavy long liquidations, declining spot trading activity and questions surrounding the relationship between RLUSD adoption and XRP demand is keeping the token under pressure.
A sustained move below the $1.06 support area could increase bearish sentiment, while a recovery above the upper end of the current range could provide bulls with an opportunity to regain momentum. Until either scenario develops, XRP may remain vulnerable to further volatility as leveraged traders reassess their positions.
Fears of Ripple burning its approximately 32 billion of XRP that is currently held in escrow have surfaced again in the crypto community. However, crypto commentator and Digital Ascension Group Chairman Jake Claver says that’s not possible as of now. He said that since the XRP Ledger is based on decentralized validator consensus, which could save the XRP in escrow from any kind of burn activities.
Can Ripple Burn Its 32 Billion XRP Held In Escrow? Based on XRPScan data, currently a stash of around 32.45 billion XRP is locked in escrow. Meanwhile, there’s approximately 67.53 billion XRP in circulation, and the total supply of XRP on the XRP Ledger is set at 100 billion.
Almost 1.44 million XRP has been permanently burned due to transaction fees. Hence, the total amount of XRP available to be burned is nearly 99.99 billion of which Ripple owns around 32% stake.
In response to the rumors swirling around X, Claver wrote, “‘Will Ripple just burn the escrow?’ They can’t.” He said that Ripple operates three out of 35 trusted validators, while any change to the protocol needs to get 80% of the validators to agree.
'Will Ripple just burn the escrow?' They can't. Ripple runs 3 of 35 trusted validators, and any change needs ~80% consensus. They can lock XRP in escrow, but torching supply takes 28 other independent validators voting yes. Decentralization, in practice. pic.twitter.com/PqVBCyQizr
— Jake Claver, QFOP (@beyond_broke) July 24, 2026
According to the video Claver attached to the post, Ripple cannot destroy the escrowed tokens with its own authority. “They have to have an 80% consensus in order to pass an amendment on the network,” he explained.
Thus, Claver declared: “They can’t burn it.” He added, They can escrow it, they can lock it. They can give it away, they can transfer it, but they cannot burn it without putting it to a vote for the UNL validators.” A similar vote to upgrade system was used recently to update the XRP Ledger v3.2.0 after its June 15 release.
Claver also brought attention to comments by Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz in February 2024. “David Schwartz has explicitly said these words. Well, not verbatim, but pretty close in the tweets,” he added.
What Did Schwartz Say? Schwartz’s comments were made during a conversation regarding Ripple’s long-term XRP holdings. He said that the initial intent was to liquidate at a much faster rate than that.
“We were originally hoping to get our holdings way down in just a few years mostly using giveaways. That strategy just didn’t work,” Schwartz wrote. He added, “We don’t want to be holding lots of XRP for decades, but it’s not clear what other options we have.”
Thereafter, Schwartz rejected a suggestion from another X user to burn XRP from escrow every month to support XRP price. “If you’re thinking that will have some positive impact on the price, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that,” he said.
For this, Schwartz referred to the token burn by Stellar which he said had “no real effect” on the XLM price. Schwartz also cross questioned the user on why Ripple would make such a not-so-profitable move.
I think people are looking in the wrong place. Look at this comparison of XRP versus XLM over one year and over several years. pic.twitter.com/9To8hee3vm
— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) February 19, 2024
He questioned, “Why would Ripple consider an option that doesn’t give it millions of dollars over an option that does give it millions of dollars when there’s no evidence of any benefits?” Stellar’s burn only depleted the foundation’s resources, he added.
In another response, Schwartz emphasized that despite a big token burn, the market did not budge as he shared several charts. “Stellar burned 53% of the supply and you can’t even find it on the XLM/USD chart, the XLM/BTC chart, or the XLM/XRP chart,” he wrote. The Ripple CTO Emeritus declared: “It just destroys something that has value.”
Stellar burned 53% of the supply and you can't even find it on the XLM/USD chart, the XLM/BTC chart, or the XLM/XRP chart. All they did was reduce their own resources. It just destroys something that has value.
— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) February 19, 2024
In conclusion, both Claver’s explanation and Schwartz’s previous comments indicate that Ripple will be unable to burn the escrowed XRP on its own. They also believe there is not much evidence that this would benefit XRP price at all, or even the entire ecosystem.
Crypto analyst ChartNerd has identified a repeating chart pattern in XRP’s trading history, describing it as a rare occurrence worth monitoring closely. In a recent social media post, he noted that a specific technical signal, known as the “Bull Switch,” has now appeared just four times since XRP’s inception.
Historical signals and chart analysisChartNerd, known for his technical analysis of digital assets, highlighted the significance of this signal by stating, “This signal has now flashed only 4 times in $XRP’s entire history of data.” He emphasized the importance of the pattern, connecting each previous occurrence to major market moves in past market cycles.
ChartNerd explained that previous Bull Switch signals coincided with notable market upswings in 2017, 2020, and 2022, adding, “These are not the kind of signs to be ignoring.” He suggested that 2026 may also trigger significant price action based on the current setup.
The indicator at the center of this analysis alternates between green and red trend bands. Each Bull Switch is marked when XRP’s price pulls back into the lower segment of a green band and subsequently recovers. ChartNerd’s chart displays black boxes around each historical signal, with arrows pointing to the precise moments when the pattern was activated.
Currently, XRP is trading near the lower margin of the green trend band after a significant pullback from its all-time high of $3.65 in July 2025. The asset has entered a period of consolidation around this support range, similar to the lead-up to previous Bull Switch cycles.
YearBull Switch TriggerXRP Market Reaction2017FirstMajor rally2020SecondUptrend follows2022ThirdPrice rebound2026Fourth (current)Pending outcomeThe pattern across XRP’s timelineReviewing XRP’s long-term price chart from 2014 to 2026, ChartNerd’s analysis isolates four points where the Bull Switch emerged. He argued that each occurrence lined up with a broader cycle trigger, and described the present formation as the fourth such event in the asset’s history.
Although ChartNerd did not issue a formal price target with his latest pattern analysis, he has previously mentioned the possibility of XRP reaching $27, contingent on continued bullish momentum driven by technical signals.
ChartNerd, a widely followed independent analyst, is recognized in the digital currency community for his data-driven approach to charting and interpreting technical indicators.
Mini dictionary: Bull Switch, in this context, refers to a technical indicator pattern where an asset’s price briefly dips into a key support zone (the lower end of a green trend band) before rebounding. It is often interpreted by traders as a potential signal for a positive price reversal.
XRP’s consolidation and outlookAccording to the analysis, the latest Bull Switch still dominates market attention. Traders are monitoring whether XRP can maintain its support at the current green band, as a sustained move may lead to a new price breakout if history repeats.
No precise timeline or guarantee of outcome accompanies this technical setup. However, XRP enthusiasts and market observers continue to watch closely, waiting to see if the rare historical pattern signals another major market move.
The recurring Bull Switch signal in $XRP’s chart has become a focal point for traders, who are weighing historical precedent against present conditions as they consider potential future price movements.
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.
As XRP continues to show mixed price action amid the recurring crypto market downturn, it appears that traders are beginning to lose confidence in its price potential.
Latest data from crypto prediction market Kalshi has shown traders betting on a 59% chance of XRP dropping further below the $1 mark as market uncertainty continues.
With the bets sitting at about 59%, it implies crypto traders on the platform see the outcome of XRP plunging below $1 this year as more likely than not.
HOT Stories
It is important to note that the traders placing the bets did not predict XRP's potential price with certainty. However, the predictions showcase the collective expectations of traders willing to risk capital on the outcome, suggesting that traders are increasingly losing confidence in the asset.
XRP in July breaks bearish trendXRP has continued to slip in and out of the bullish price zone, as its price struggles to retain positive momentum amid consistent market volatility.
This price inconsistency has seen XRP post several months of consistent losses despite frequent expectations of a potential price breakout.
You Might Also Like
Nonetheless, XRP has delivered more positive price moves this month, as historic data from CryptoRank shows that the asset is up 5.6% so far this month, recovering from a six-month low of $1.01 after briefly touching $1.17 a few days ago.
While July has often proved to be a positive month for the crypto market, XRP has met the expectations of traders, delivering a decent gain of about 6% this month while extending a seven-year streak of steady positive July returns.
The XRP Ledger is advancing its capabilities in artificial intelligence payments by integrating Mastercard’s Verifiable Intent (VI) standard, through support from t54.ai. A recent upgrade has introduced the x402 Facilitator for XRP Ledger, enabling enhanced payment processing that leverages AI to authorize and assess risks before completing each transaction.
Mastercard Verifiable Intent integration on XRP LedgerThe x402 Facilitator, deployed on the XRP Ledger in February 2026, was developed to allow AI agents to purchase online digital goods and services using XRP or RLUSD, without requiring an account or API key. Developers are now able to incorporate Mastercard’s VI credential into the x402 payment flow. This upgrade enables each transaction to be cryptographically validated by proving who authorized the payment, the allowed spending amount, and the specific item or service being purchased.
The system uses an embedded risk engine in the XRPL Facilitator to automatically analyze every payment request, ensuring only properly authorized transactions proceed. According to t54.ai, the VI standard relies on the Mastercard Agentic Payments system, which supplies all the necessary data to process transactions initiated by AI-driven agents.
Verifiable Intent, based on Mastercard’s Agentic Payments system, brings together key verification factors—payment authorization, spending limits, and item identification—supporting secure automated payments on XRP Ledger.
As artificial intelligence increasingly automates digital processes, the need for infrastructure capable of supporting machine-to-machine payments is expected to grow. Mastercard’s Agent Pay for Machines (AP4M) seeks to meet this need by empowering machines to make authorized payments for users across Mastercard’s global payment network.
Ripple, the company overseeing the development of the XRP Ledger and known for its enterprise blockchain solutions, has entered into a partnership with Mastercard to contribute to the Agent Pay for Machines program. This collaboration began in June 2026, with Ripple participating in the initiative to further develop AI-based payment solutions.
Mini dictionary: Mastercard Verifiable Intent (VI) — A digital credential that verifies payment intent by authenticating the payment initiator, spending cap, and purchase details for secure AI-driven transactions.
XRP Ledger achieves agentic transaction milestoneThe ongoing development in the XRP Ledger’s payment ecosystem has resulted in the processing of over 1.4 million agentic transactions, according to figures published by t54.ai. These transactions were executed using the x402 Facilitator within the XRP Ledger, marking a rapid expansion of AI-based payments on the platform.
J. Akinyele, Head of Engineering at RippleX, described the state of AI payment infrastructure as being reminiscent of the early days of cloud computing. He emphasized the necessity for AI agents to eventually access payment systems that operate as seamlessly as current digital communication protocols.
Akinyele explained that reaching the milestone of a million processed transactions highlights early but meaningful progress, while also acknowledging that the technology remains in its formative stage.
He further suggested that the current achievements represent just the beginning for the XRP Ledger in adopting and scaling AI-powered payments, with significant advancements expected as the technology matures.
FeatureBefore UpgradeAfter UpgradePayment AuthorizationBasic validationMastercard VI credentialRisk AnalysisManual or limitedAutomated via risk engineAI Agent AccessAccount/API key requiredNo account/API key requiredMilestone TransactionsBelow 1 million1.4 million+The integration of advanced payment standards and support for autonomous agents indicates that the XRP Ledger aims to position itself as a frontrunner in enabling secure and seamless AI-driven financial transactions.
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.
Japan’s Civil Code, a foundational legal resource established in 1896, is rarely a subject of mainstream investment discussion. However, X Finance Bull, a well-known crypto analyst, has shifted attention to Article 589 of this code, urging investors to examine its connection to XRP and Japan’s approach to digital asset regulation.
Article 589 and Lending RulesArticle 589 of the Civil Code governs the accrual of interest in lending contracts. The provision specifies that interest is not automatically required unless expressly agreed upon between lender and borrower. When such an agreement exists, lenders are entitled to interest from the moment they transfer funds to the borrower. This legal framework applies broadly to lending transactions, including any involving digital assets.
Recent commentary from Yuto Kanzaki, an insider at the Bank of Japan, was highlighted by X Finance Bull. Kanzaki reportedly emphasized that Article 589 could become much more relevant than many market participants anticipate. He stated that international borrowers should not assume that prior approvals for refinancing or capital flow will automatically continue under the evolving regulatory climate.
Yuto Kanzaki noted that Article 589 is likely to be invoked more frequently as regulators intensify oversight of lending practices, especially in transactions involving foreign borrowers. He warned that borrowers depending on continual access to Japanese capital markets face increasing scrutiny as financial rules tighten.
XRP’s Role in Japan’s Financial InfrastructureX Finance Bull drew parallels between Article 589, regulatory momentum, and the strategic adoption of XRP in Japan. Over the years, Ripple and SBI Holdings have worked to integrate XRP into the national payments framework, developing robust digital asset infrastructure. This foundation, built in an environment of advancing regulation, positions XRP with potential advantages as legal and compliance requirements gain prominence.
The analyst also pointed out that 589 is a significant figure within the XRP community, commonly cited as a long-term price milestone. The synchronization of the Civil Code article with community narratives led to speculation about whether the association is purely coincidental or hints at deeper connections within the market’s evolution.
Regulatory Shifts and Market ImplicationsJapan continues to formalize its regulatory landscape for cryptocurrencies by incorporating digital assets into established financial oversight structures. This policy direction directly affects how payment networks, settlement platforms, and blockchain-based financial services develop and interact with both domestic and international market participants.
The insights attributed to Kanazaki reflect heightened vigilance over capital flows, particularly for borrowers and institutions reliant on Japanese refinancing channels. X Finance Bull did not forecast any price movement for XRP, instead highlighting how shifts in Japan’s refinancing standards may impact the infrastructure underpinning digital asset transactions.
As Japan applies more comprehensive regulatory scrutiny to digital finance, investors and market observers are watching how established players like XRP adapt within this environment. Technological platforms that offer portfolio management, price tracking, and macroeconomic data integration will become increasingly significant in navigating the country’s evolving financial rules.
Considering the increased necessity of monitoring regulatory and technical developments, market participants are turning to tools that centralize portfolio management. 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.
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.
XRP stabilized near $1.09 as traders monitored whether the token could maintain the $1.08 support amid mixed market signals and weak momentum. The coin, which reported a 0.23% decline over the past 24 hours but remained up 0.46% for the week, saw trading volume reach $662 million, according to CoinGecko.
XRP’s history of bottoming before BitcoinCrypto analyst ChartNerd drew attention to the historical pattern of XRP establishing a market bottom ahead of Bitcoin during previous midterm election cycles. In June 2014 and June 2022, XRP set macro lows months before Bitcoin confirmed its bottom in the final quarter of those years.
XRP has previously set its macro floor a few months ahead of Bitcoin. In both June 2014 and June 2022—midterm years—the bottom arrived several months before Bitcoin’s confirmation in the fourth quarter.
This pattern, according to ChartNerd, lines up with larger market cycles historically connected to political calendars. If XRP holds $1.08 while Bitcoin marks a fresh low, there is a chance that XRP’s bottom could be in place before Bitcoin shows similar price action. However, analysts cautioned that past performance does not guarantee repetition.
ChartNerd also referenced 2018, another midterm year, when XRP’s losses persisted longer than Bitcoin’s, demonstrating potential deviations from the pattern. Every midterm cycle since 2014, including the current approximate 70% correction as 2026 approaches, has resulted in downward pressure for XRP.
Market data remains inconclusive, offering no clear direction as traders assess both historical precedent and current technical signals.
Mini dictionary: ChartNerd is a pseudonymous cryptocurrency market analyst known for studying chart patterns, historical cycles, and price behavior in digital asset markets.
$1.08 support zone faces pressureTrader Diana highlighted that XRP was trading around $1.095, with buying activity focused on defending the critical $1.08 support area. Technically, the 4-hour chart shows XRP positioned below a moving average cluster in the $1.11 to $1.12 range. The breakdown of former triangle support has intensified the pressure on the current price level.
The Relative Strength Index (RSI), a momentum indicator, rested near 39, below its signal line at 45, suggesting weak buying momentum. Two scenarios emerged from this technical structure. If XRP holds above $1.08 and reclaims the $1.11 to $1.12 range, this could pave the way for a move toward $1.145 and potentially $1.20, with a larger barrier at $1.29 to $1.30. Meanwhile, a decisive drop below $1.08 could prompt a slide to $0.91, with the $0.86 level flagged as deeper macro support. This latter move would represent a roughly 21% fall from current prices.
Support/Resistance LevelPriceCurrent Support$1.08Immediate Resistance$1.11–$1.12Next Resistance$1.145, $1.20, $1.29–$1.30Next Support if $1.08 Fails$0.91, $0.86Traders split on next moveTrader Jack described XRP as facing a pivotal test after its price dropped from near $1.15 back to $1.08, which he characterized as a make-or-break support zone.
After facing rejection near $1.15, XRP has pulled back to $1.08. If buyers hold this level, a move back towards $1.12–$1.15 is possible. If support fails, focus shifts to $1.05 as the next key area.
Jack noted that adapting to market price action is more effective than attempting to predict exact moves in advance. The divergence in trader signals reflects a broader uncertainty, with some referencing XRP’s history of early bottoming as a cause for cautious optimism. However, others emphasize that past cycles do not eliminate the possibility of deeper declines, as seen in 2018.
With $1.08 now seen as the decisive level, traders maintain a close watch, ready to react accordingly if the price breaks above resistance or falls through support in the sessions ahead.
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.
Crypto analyst Steph Is Crypto has outlined a bullish scenario for XRP, suggesting the digital asset could be on the verge of a substantial price breakout similar to its strong move in 2024. Presenting side-by-side charts on X, he compared XRP’s current market structure with the accumulation period that led to its prior rally.
Chart analysis signals possible repeat of 2024 rallySteph Is Crypto pointed to a defined trading range where XRP has consolidated after a previous decline, describing this as an “Accumulation Window.” He argued that current price action reflects a setup nearly identical to the buildup before XRP’s earlier breakout, indicating the asset could be following the same upward trajectory.
Accompanying his post, Steph Is Crypto wrote, “XRP is on the verge of creating a new wave of millionaires over the next 2–3 months!” Two comparative charts displayed XRP’s prior multi-month sideways movement before an aggressive run higher, then positioned the current market inside a similar structure, suggesting another breakout may be imminent.
XRP may soon create a new wave of millionaires as it forms a pattern that closely matches the accumulation phase before its 2024 surge, Steph Is Crypto explained, highlighting comparable chart structures and projecting another strong advance.
A dotted trajectory on the new chart projects XRP moving beyond its current range, with a potential target near $4 if momentum follows historical patterns. This analysis places emphasis on broader accumulation trends rather than short-term fluctuations, with the suggestion that the next 2–3 months could prove crucial for XRP’s price action.
PeriodXRP Market StructureAnalyst’s Expected Outcome2024Sideways accumulation, then breakoutRallied to new local highs2026 (current)Similar sideways trading, range-boundPossible breakout toward $4Community reactions and regulatory factorsDespite the optimistic projection, not all community members were convinced. A notable reply from user Dapospapa questioned the forecast’s tight timeframe, referencing ongoing price weakness in XRP alongside increased attention on the CLARITY Act, a legislative effort closely watched by digital asset investors.
Dapospapa directly challenged the outlook, citing downward price movement even as regulatory developments captured market attention. He asked, “2–3 months? Seriously, it’s trending down on a day the CLARITY Act is hyped and possibly happening; please explain?”
Mini dictionary: CLARITY Act, a proposed US legislative measure aimed at providing regulatory clarity for digital assets and addressing the status of cryptocurrencies as securities or commodities.
Steph Is Crypto offered no further elaboration in response to the question, instead allowing his comparative charts and historical analysis to support his position. He remains confident that the resemblance between present and past market phases could precede another significant upward move in XRP.
Outlook remains uncertainWhether XRP will retrace a similar path to its 2024 rally is yet to be seen, as market conditions and regulatory factors continue to shape sentiment. The next few months are expected to be a key period for the asset, with both technical and legislative events likely to influence its trajectory.
While the chart similarities are notable, investors remain divided on whether XRP can achieve a breakout to $4 in the timeframe suggested by Steph Is Crypto, particularly amid evolving US crypto regulation.
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.
Crypto analyst Digital Asset Investor has projected that XRP may experience a twentyfold increase from its current valuation. He is urging followers to take note of this target and claims the move could position XRP to overtake Bitcoin in total market capitalization.
The Bitcoin dominance debateDigital Asset Investor outlined his belief that Bitcoin’s current dominance stems from regulatory circumstances rather than underlying utility. He described Bitcoin as occupying a so-called regulatory monopoly, giving it a substantial advantage over other digital assets.
He argued that this scenario could shift if new policies or regulations prompt a change in how cryptocurrencies are classified. Under those circumstances, he predicts that utility-focused assets would gain ground at Bitcoin’s expense.
In his assessment, Bitcoin could eventually be seen as just another altcoin if its regulatory regime changes, losing the top-tier status it currently enjoys. He has singled out XRP as a key beneficiary, citing its potential to capture investment redirected from Bitcoin.
“When Bitcoin loses its regulatory monopoly and utility kicks in, XRP as well as others will replace Bitcoin and Bitcoin will become an altcoin.”
XRP price projectionReferencing research shared by crypto analyst SMQKE, Digital Asset Investor highlighted a report from asset manager WisdomTree. According to the report, XRP would need to surge 20x from its present price to match Bitcoin’s market capitalization.
The analyst considers such growth plausible if investor attention shifts toward assets with practical use cases. He asserts that as regulatory clarity improves across the industry, capital flows could increasingly favor projects with demonstrated utility.
Digital Asset Investor views XRP’s integration into cross-border payment systems and partnerships with traditional finance companies as evidence of its real-world value. He claims these factors enhance its prospects for attracting institutional interest in the near future.
Mini dictionary: WisdomTree is a US-based asset management firm known for offering exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and crypto market research reports.
AssetCurrent Market CapRequired XRP Price Increase to SurpassBitcoinLargest in crypto marketXRP must rise 20xXRPMuch lower than BitcoinTarget: 20x growth from current levelAnalyst’s confidenceDigital Asset Investor’s outlook is marked by conviction. He encourages followers to “write it down,” emphasizing his belief that the target can be reached as market dynamics evolve.
He tells his audience to document this forecast, indicating that, in his view, regulatory reforms and on-chain utility could position XRP for a historic rally.
The analyst referenced ongoing developments such as proposed legislation including the CLARITY Act, suggesting the legislative environment could quickly reshape the competitive landscape for cryptocurrencies like XRP.
He maintains that the alignment of regulatory clarity and market interest could help XRP achieve the projected value increase. For XRP holders, the key message is that the path for significant appreciation may depend on wider industry developments and potential regulatory shifts.
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.
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.
Nuclear power is carbon-free, so it is technically a clean power source. And it is always on, so it is a reliable base-load power source. With power demand expected to grow 60% over the next 20 years, up from 10% over the last 20 years, nuclear is increasingly seen as a key part of the supply equation. One big story investors don't want to miss is the huge support the nuclear power industry is getting from the U.S. government.
Massive growth plans for nuclear power The U.S. nuclear power fleet produces around 100 gigawatts of power today. The goal of Donald Trump's May 2025 executive order is to reach 400 gigawatts by 2050. There will be many steps in that process, including on the regulatory and financing fronts. Already, the groundwork has been laid to test new reactor technologies and to provide funding for both nuclear power start-ups and existing nuclear power companies seeking to expand.
Image source: Getty Images.
There are several ways for an investor to play the sector. For investors that don't want to jump in with both feet, a picks-and-shovels option like Cameco (CCJ -1.65%) or Brookfield Renewable (BEP +0.09%)(BEPC -0.24%) could be a good choice. While neither is directly benefiting from U.S. government support, Cameco produces and sells uranium. Industry growth is inherently positive for the company. Brookfield Renewable shares ownership of Westinghouse with Cameco. Westinghouse is one of the largest service providers to the nuclear power industry. Again, more nuclear power means more business for Westinghouse.
Today's Change
(
-1.65
%) $
-1.47
Current Price
$
87.86
If you want direct exposure, a more supportive regulatory environment will help Constellation Energy (CEG -0.45%) reopen shuttered power plants and sustain operations at plants scheduled for shutdown. It already has deals with Walmart (WMT +0.99%) and Meta (META -1.80%) to support its nuclear power plant operations. Notably, the U.S. government has provided Constellation with a $1 billion loan tied to its nuclear power ambitions.
Today's Change
(
-8.17
%) $
-0.72
Current Price
$
8.09
Then there are emerging new technologies, like the small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) that NuScale Power (SMR -8.17%) is looking to build. It will also benefit from increased regulatory support, as highlighted by the recent approval of a higher-capacity system the company has built. NuScale is already working with a Romanian utility and with the Tennessee Valley Authority on the potential deployment of its first SMRs. NuScale is a money-losing start-up, so only the most aggressive investors should consider it. But it could also have the biggest upside potential if its technology takes hold.
Different ways to play the nuclear renaissance If you are a conservative dividend investor, high-yield Brookfield Renewable is probably your best option, noting it operates a diversified clean energy business and sports a lofty 4.8% yield. Contract power company Constellation Energy is more growth-oriented, but still has a sizable existing business to support its nuclear ambitions. Some investors may prefer Cameco, which sells a commodity product likely to be in high demand. The most aggressive investors should consider NuScale Power, which has yet to sell its first SMR. But when it does ink its first deal, the stock could quickly see strong investor interest.
Reuben Gregg Brewer has positions in Brookfield Renewable Partners. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Cameco, Constellation Energy, Meta Platforms, and Walmart. The Motley Fool recommends Brookfield Renewable, Brookfield Renewable Partners, and NuScale Power. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Nuclear energy stocks have gone through a boom and bust over the last 12 months. NuScale Power (SMR -8.17%) is a prime example of this stock market trend, with shares rising 500% at one point in the past three years before violently falling back to earth.
In 2026, this trend has continued. NuScale Power's stock is down 38% this year. And yet, there is still a need for massive amounts of new electric power for future artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, which nuclear power is well positioned to provide.
Where could that lead NuScale Power shares five years from now?
Today's Change
(
-8.17
%) $
-0.72
Current Price
$
8.09
Small nuclear reactors for AI data centers By now, many readers are aware of the electricity needs for the upcoming AI data center investments. You may be well aware of them when looking at your current electric bills. This has not only become an economic issue but also a political one, in which government agencies, large and small, are trying to pass rules requiring AI infrastructure providers to pay for exclusive power agreements to avoid overly burdening residential electric bills.
Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are theoretically a perfect solution for this problem, and NuScale Power has the only design approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Because of this, the company has partnered with ENTRA1 Energy as its commercial partner to develop power plants for these small nuclear reactors.
After this tie-up, the Tennessee Valley Authority committed to buying 6 gigawatts of power utilizing NuScale's SMR technology, which could mean a boom in future demand. However, as of the summer of 2026, NuScale Power has never built a nuclear reactor, even though its designs were approved years ago.
Image source: Getty Images.
Where will NuScale stock be five years from now? While there is a lot of excitement about providing electricity for the AI revolution in the next few years, NuScale Power's development timeline with ENTRA1 Energy is much longer. Its projects with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Poland, and Romania will not generate revenue until 2030, assuming no further delays. This is going to miss the meat of the AI data center build-out, which is why the boom is primarily being supplied by natural gas.
Right now, NuScale Power's free cash flow is highly negative, at $750 million over the last 12 months, while revenue is negligible. If this continues -- as it looks like it will -- the stock will be much lower five years from now.
Nebius: Scaling Its OperationsNebius (NBIS -13.58%) primarily constructs extensive computing infrastructure, operates cloud platforms designed for demanding workloads, and develops autonomous driving technologies alongside educational ventures for international clients.
In addition to introducing a new deployment model for on-premises infrastructure in July 2026, it reported a 21% gross margin for the quarter ended March 31, 2026.
Strategy: Maintaining a Steady BaselineStrategy (MSTR -2.09%) functions as a corporate Bitcoin treasury entity that offers investors varying degrees of economic exposure to digital assets, while additionally providing analytics software directly to global enterprises.
While facing new investigations regarding potential securities law violations in late June 2026, it recorded an earnings per share of -$38.25 for the quarter ended March 31, 2026.
Why Revenue Matters for Retail InvestorsRevenue provides insight into customer demand and business scale. This metric helps investors measure a company’s overall size, market footprint, and long-term trajectory.
Quarterly Revenue for Nebius and StrategyQuarter (Period End)Nebius RevenueStrategy RevenueQ2 2024 (June 2024)$12.1 million$111.4 millionQ3 2024 (Sept. 2024)$43.3 million$116.1 millionQ4 2024 (Dec. 2024)$37.9 million$120.7 millionQ1 2025 (March 2025)$55.3 million$111.1 millionQ2 2025 (June 2025)$105.1 million$114.5 millionQ3 2025 (Sept. 2025)$146.1 million$128.7 millionQ4 2025 (Dec. 2025)$227.7 million$123.0 millionQ1 2026 (March 2026)$399.0 million$124.3 millionData source: Company filings. Data as of July 24, 2026.
Foolish TakeThe revenue trends for Nebius and Strategy reveal the staggering difference between the former’s focus on infrastructure for the hot artificial intelligence sector against the latter’s dedication to Bitcoin.
Strategy’s sales are a relic of its roots as a data analytics software company. Even so, it achieved a solid 12% year-over-year increase in revenue during the first quarter. Yet these days, Strategy exists primarily as the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin. It exited Q1 with over 818,000 Bitcoin holdings, representing about 4% of the world’s supply.
As a result, Strategy’s fortunes are tied to the cryptocurrency. With Bitcoin’s value declining in 2026, Strategy’s stock has fallen a whopping 77% over the trailing 12 months through July 24.
As its revenue trend shows, Nebius has grown into an AI powerhouse. Its Q1 revenue of $399 million represents an impressive 684% year-over-year jump.
The company provides data center infrastructure to customers seeking AI computing power, but has been careful about relying too heavily on debt to fund its data center expansion. Its cautious fiscal approach combined with outstanding sales growth propelled its stock to more than a 250% share price increase in the past 12 months through July 24.
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.
