Hyperliquid překonal S.A.N.T.A v 24hodinových příjmech a jeho kumulované příjmy už přesáhly 1,027 miliardy USD. Až 97 % poplatků jde na zpětné odkupy HYPE.
Hyperliquid has overtaken S.A.N.T.A in 24-hour revenue generation, marking another data point in the ongoing battle between competing memecoin infrastructure models.
The platform, which runs its own Layer-1 blockchain purpose-built for perpetual futures trading, has turned itself into one of DeFi’s most efficient revenue engines. Cumulative revenue has surpassed $1 billion, reaching roughly $1.027 billion according to DefiLlama data.
The revenue flywheel that keeps spinning Hyperliquid captures trading fees and funnels them into what it calls an Assistance Fund. That fund exists primarily for one purpose: regular buybacks of HYPE, the platform’s native token. Up to 97% of fees get redistributed into these buybacks.
Advertisement
Annualized revenue run rates currently sit between $676 million and $843 million. Hyperliquid has at times generated more revenue than Ethereum. The platform operates without venture capital funding and runs a minimal team.
S.A.N.T.A and the transparency question Public information about S.A.N.T.A’s operations, revenue metrics, and overall business model remains difficult to verify independently. There are no public sources confirming the operational functionality or revenue claims of S.A.N.T.A as related to Hyperliquid.
Hyperliquid’s revenue figures are trackable through DefiLlama and other on-chain analytics tools.
What this means for investors Hyperliquid’s perpetual futures focus gives it a structural advantage. Perps are the most traded instrument in crypto, often generating multiples of spot trading volume.
The HYPE buyback mechanism, funded by up to 97% of fees, creates consistent demand pressure on the token. The 97% redistribution rate also leaves very little cushion for building reserves or funding development during lean periods.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Bitcoin se blíží vzácnému týdennímu death crossu, který dříve předcházel dalšímu 28% poklesu. Michael Saylor zároveň naznačil další nákupy BTC, i když má Strategy poprvé v tomto cyklu mNAV pod 1,0.
TLDR:Bitcoin Weekly Death Cross Raises Fresh BTC Price ConcernsMichael Saylor Hints at More Bitcoin Buying Despite Strategy Valuation Pressure Bitcoin approaches a rare weekly death cross as traders monitor long-term market direction closely. Strategy’s mNAV has dropped below 1.0 for the first time during this market cycle. Michael Saylor hinted at more Bitcoin discussions despite growing valuation concerns. Technical signals and institutional buying remain key factors shaping Bitcoin sentiment. Bitcoin could soon print a rare weekly death cross as bearish technical signals return to the market. At the same time, Michael Saylor has hinted that Strategy may continue accumulating Bitcoin despite growing pressure on its valuation.
The two developments have reignited discussion around Bitcoin’s price outlook and institutional demand. Investors are now watching technical charts alongside corporate buying activity for the next major market signal.
Bitcoin Weekly Death Cross Raises Fresh BTC Price Concerns Crypto Rover shared that Bitcoin is approaching a weekly death cross, a technical pattern that appears when the long-term moving average falls below the shorter trend. The account noted that the previous weekly death cross preceded another 28% decline in Bitcoin’s price.
🚨 BITCOIN WEEKLY DEATH CROSS IS NOW INCOMING.
Last time this happened, BTC crashed another -28%.
If history repeats again, the real bottom may not come until late Q3 or early Q4 2026.
That would also perfectly match Bitcoin’s 4-year cycle. https://t.co/NgE8PlCamN pic.twitter.com/sbPGjGTIv4
— Crypto Rover (@cryptorover) June 28, 2026
The same post highlighted Bitcoin’s historical four-year market cycle. According to Crypto Rover, another extended correction could align with the later stages of the current cycle if previous patterns repeat.
The signal has attracted attention because weekly chart formations appear far less often than daily indicators. Traders typically monitor them for broader market direction rather than short-term volatility.
Despite the technical setup, the pattern alone does not determine future price action. Market participants continue weighing macroeconomic conditions, liquidity, and institutional demand alongside historical chart behavior.
Michael Saylor Hints at More Bitcoin Buying Despite Strategy Valuation Pressure While bearish technical signals circulated, Michael Saylor posted that more charts would be needed, a familiar response that often precedes fresh Bitcoin discussions. His comment followed renewed debate surrounding Strategy’s ability to continue funding Bitcoin purchases.
🚨 JUST IN: Michael Saylor hints at buying more $BTC.
What's interesting is the timing.
Strategy's mNAV has now fallen below 1.0 for the first time this cycle, meaning the company is trading below the market value of the Bitcoin it holds.
Management has previously indicated… https://t.co/WkFYTYOyBi
— Wise Advice (@wiseadvicesumit) June 28, 2026
Wise Advice pointed to Strategy’s market value relative to its Bitcoin holdings. The account noted that the company’s modified net asset value, or mNAV, has fallen below 1.0 for the first time during the current market cycle.
According to the same discussion, Strategy previously suggested that issuing new equity below roughly 1.22 times mNAV could reduce shareholder value. That threshold has prompted questions about whether additional equity-funded Bitcoin purchases remain practical under current market conditions.
Even so, Saylor’s brief response has kept attention on Strategy’s long-standing Bitcoin accumulation strategy.
Investors now await any official filings or announcements that could clarify whether another Bitcoin purchase is approaching while the company navigates changing market dynamics.
El Salvador koupil dalších osm bitcoinů a zvýšil své rezervy na 7 696,37 BTC. Nákupy pokračují i po změnách pravidel, které zrušily povinnost přijímat bitcoin jako platbu.
Bitcoin continues to hold an important place in El Salvador’s financial strategy, which continues its regular purchases despite changes in its regulatory framework. The country has just added new digital assets to its national treasury, confirming the continuity of its reserve policy. This new acquisition comes as sovereign cryptocurrency reserves remain closely monitored by market observers and institutional players around the world.
In brief El Salvador purchased eight new bitcoins, bringing its national reserves to 7,696.37 BTC. The country continues its weekly accumulation strategy despite recent changes to its legislative framework. The new rules remove the obligation to accept Bitcoin as a means of payment without affecting the national reserve policy. Regular acquisitions continue to strengthen El Salvador’s treasury, whose sovereign reserves remain closely monitored. El Salvador Continues Its Accumulation Strategy El Salvador has strengthened its national bitcoin treasury by acquiring eight additional units during the past week. This operation now brings public reserves to 7,696.37 BTC, according to the official data from the Ministry of Finance.
The government thus maintains a regular purchase pace, which has become a component of its digital asset management strategy. This progression confirms the country’s intention to pursue its accumulation plan without interruption.
Moreover, the Bitcoin Office continues to monitor the evolution of national reserves through public data. This transparency makes it possible to measure each new acquisition made by the authorities. Several observers have also relayed this recent increase in sovereign holdings. El Salvador remains among the states whose digital asset reserves receive constant attention.
Bitcoin Retains a Place in the National Strategy Despite IMF Reforms The latest purchase comes after several adjustments made to the legal framework regarding Bitcoin, as part of the agreement concluded with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The adopted changes mainly concern its use in daily commercial activities. Private companies are no longer obliged to accept this asset as a means of payment. However, Bitcoin remains integrated into the legal framework implemented by the authorities.
At the same time, the national reserve policy has not experienced any interruption. Official data show that weekly purchases continue according to the same logic as before. This separation between payment policy and reserve strategy now appears clearer. El Salvador therefore continues to develop its holdings while adapting certain rules governing the use of the digital asset.
A National Reserve That Keeps Progressing Each new acquisition gradually increases the volume of public reserves of the country. With a total of 7,696.37 BTC, El Salvador confirms the continuity of its long-term accumulation policy.
Regular purchases remain at the core of this strategy, regardless of changes in the legislative framework. Sovereign reserves thus continue to be closely monitored by industry players.
This new progression also illustrates the stability of the acquisition mechanism adopted by the authorities. Official data allow precise tracking of the evolution of the national treasury over the weeks. The BTC thus retains a central role in this reserve strategy, which continues regularly. El Salvador therefore maintains its course, while the evolution of its holdings will continue to be observed in upcoming official updates.
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
Ghiles A.
Journaliste et rédacteur web passionné par l’univers des cryptomonnaies et des technologies Web3. J’y traite les dernières tendances et actualités afin de proposer un contenu de haute qualité à un large public du secteur.
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.
Strategy drží 847 363 BTC v hodnotě 64,1 miliardy USD, ale BTC pod 60 000 USD uvádí firmu do ztráty a zvyšuje tlak na akcionáře i věřitele. Klíčové riziko už není likvidace, ale splatnost 1,01 miliardy USD konvertibilního dluhu 15. září 2027.
MicroStrategy’s $64 billion Bitcoin (BTC) bet has become a stress test for everyone who funded it. BTC now trades below $60,000, and the renamed company, Strategy, sits at a discount to its own holdings.
The question dividing investors is no longer whether Strategy gets liquidated tomorrow. It is who absorbs the losses while the company keeps its coins and keeps paying to hold them.
How the Bitcoin Flywheel was BuiltBy June 22, Strategy held 847,363 BTC bought for $64.1 billion, an average of $75,651 each. That is the largest corporate Bitcoin position anywhere.
MicroStrategy Bitcoin Purchases in 2026. Source: StrategyThe model runs like a flywheel. The company sells stock and debt, buys more Bitcoin, and its shares climb when BTC rises. However, falling prices spin the machine in reverse.
BTC has fallen below $60,000 this week, its lowest level since 2024. The stock has slid with it, dropping under the value of the Bitcoin on its books.
A new accounting standard made the pain visible. Since 2025, FASB rule ASU 2023-08 forces firms to mark Bitcoin to fair value each quarter. As a result, Strategy booked a $14.46 billion unrealized loss in early 2026. That produced a $12.54 billion net loss, or $38.25 for every diluted share.
Michael Saylor's Strategy currently has a $14 billion unrealized loss on bitcoin.
Tom Lee's Bitmine currently has a $10.5 billion unrealized loss on ETH.
This is why it's foolish to follow the smart money and not take profit.
They can survive a crypto winter, most of will not!
— Layah Heilpern (@LayahHeilpern) June 25, 2026 Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Who Actually Pays for MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin BetThe bill does not fall on Strategy alone. As the flywheel slows, the cost spreads to five groups, in rough order of exposure.
Common shareholders They stand first in line. When the stock trades below the value of its Bitcoin, the company still raises cash by selling new shares. Each sale buys less Bitcoin than it hands away.
“If we decide to sell $1 billion of MSTR stock and buy $1 billion of Bitcoin… when you do it at 1.0x MNAV… it is dilutive. It is a minus 48 basis point yield. It costs the shareholders $310 million,” Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman, Strategy, said during Q1 2026 earnings call.
Existing owners are left holding a smaller claim on the same coins, and that dilution is how the strategy gets funded.
Investors in other treasury companies The copycats have fared worse than the original. Their shares once traded far above the Bitcoin they held, lifted by hype.
As that premium faded, many Bitcoin treasury company stocks fell much harder than Bitcoin itself, leaving late buyers deep underwater.
“If that’s not already a bubble burst, how would that bubble burst?” Tom Lee, Chairman of BitMine, said while many treasury stocks traded below net asset value.
Passive and index fund investors This group never chose the bet. MSCI has proposed removing companies whose digital assets exceed half their total assets from its global indexes.
“Feedback from the consultation confirmed institutional investor concern that some DATCOs exhibit characteristics similar to investment funds, which are not eligible for inclusion in the MSCI Indexes,” MSCI said in its official announcement earlier this year.
Strategy clears that bar with ease. An exclusion would force index funds and pension trusts to sell automatically, whatever the price, just to keep tracking the benchmark.
Convertible bondholders and preferred shareholders These investors lent on the assumption that MicroStrategy could always refinance. If Bitcoin stays depressed into 2027, that assumption breaks.
“Proceeds from the bitcoin sales are expected to be used to fund distributions on preferred stock,” Strategy indicated in the June 1 Form 8-K.
Bondholders can demand cash, and preferred holders still expect dividends, both drawing on a reserve of just $1.4 billion.
MicroStrategy itself The company is the backstop of last resort. On its first quarter 2026 earnings call, Michael Saylor again framed Strategy as a net buyer that never sells.
“We will probably sell some Bitcoin to fund a dividend just to inoculate the market, just to send the message that we did it.”
Yet if financing freezes while debt and dividends come due, keeping that vow could become impossible.
“We will sell Bitcoin when it is advantageous to the company. We are not going to sit back and just say we will never sell the Bitcoin,” Strategy co-CEO Phong Le added.
The Real Test Arrives in 2027MicroStrategy faces no margin call today. Its main debt is unsecured, so a falling price alone cannot trigger a forced sale. The threat is a date, not a level.
Holders of a $1.01 billion convertible note can demand repayment on September 15, 2027. If the shares sit below the conversion price, that claim becomes a cash bill the company must cover.
Strategy has neared this edge before. A 2022 Silvergate loan backed by Bitcoin carried a margin call near $21,000 before the firm repaid it. Moving to unsecured notes and preferred stock removed the automatic trigger, but not the obligation.
Microstrategy took a loan to buy more #bitcoin a few months ago using 19,000 $BTC as collateral.
Margin call price is $21,000…
Time to post some more collateral I think!
— Lark Davis (@LarkDavis) June 13, 2022 Some peers have already blinked. This month one Nasdaq company sold Bitcoin to repay debt, and its shares jumped. Analysts have also questioned Strategy’s exit liquidity if it is ever forced to sell at scale.
For now, no forced sale looms. The pressure has simply moved from a price trigger to a calendar. The number that matters is no longer $60,000, but the September 2027 repayment date.
Šance na schválení CLARITY Act v roce 2026 klesly na 42 %, což je pro XRP zásadní rána. Zákon by totiž zapsal jeho status digitální komodity do federálního práva.
For most of 2026, the CLARITY Act has been XRP’s one great catalyst, the bill that would write its commodity status into federal law. Now prediction markets put its 2026 passage at 42%, down from the low seventies, as a human-trafficking backlash, a banking-lobby fight, and a closing legislative window collide. Here is what the falling odds actually mean for XRP.
Summary
Prediction markets now price the CLARITY Act’s chances of becoming law in 2026 at around 42%, down sharply from highs near 73% earlier in the year. The bill would codify XRP’s classification as a digital commodity into federal statute, the catalyst analysts say could unlock billions in institutional ETF demand. The odds fell as an anti-trafficking coalition attacked a decentralized-finance provision, the banking lobby fought stablecoin rules, and the path to 60 Senate votes narrowed. The legislative window is closing fast: the White House targeted a July finish, the Senate Banking and Agriculture versions still need reconciling, and the August recess effectively ends the year’s chances. For XRP, passage could open a path toward analyst targets of several dollars, while failure or delay removes its one Ripple-specific catalyst and leaves it moving with Bitcoin. For most of 2026, XRP has had one great catalyst hanging over it, a single piece of legislation that holders have treated as the event capable of finally breaking the token out of its year-long range: the CLARITY Act, the crypto market-structure bill that would write XRP’s status as a digital commodity into federal law. For months the bill advanced, clearing the House, then a key Senate committee, and prediction markets priced its passage as increasingly likely, with odds climbing into the low seventies. That optimism has now reversed. As of late June, prediction-market data assigns roughly a 42% probability that the CLARITY Act becomes law in 2026, a sharp decline that reflects mounting trouble on several fronts at once.
A bill that looked, for a while, like it was on a glide path to the president’s desk now sits on a knife edge, and because XRP’s near-term thesis has been so tightly bound to it, the falling odds are a genuinely important development for anyone holding the token. The reason the odds matter so much is that the CLARITY Act is not just another crypto bill for XRP; it is the specific catalyst the market has been waiting on, the one event that could turn today’s favorable but fragile regulatory interpretation into durable statutory certainty. Spot XRP exchange-traded funds have launched and gathered over $1 billion, the token won legal clarity when its long battle with the securities regulator ended, and a later joint classification treated it as a digital commodity, but all of that rests on interpretive ground that a future administration could in principle reverse. The CLARITY Act would put XRP’s commodity status into actual law, removing the last layer of uncertainty that keeps large institutions on the sidelines, and analysts have projected that passage could unlock several billion dollars in additional ETF inflows.
This piece explains why the odds have fallen, the specific obstacles now in the bill’s path, the closing legislative window, and, most importantly, what each outcome, passage or failure, would actually mean for XRP’s price and prospects. The aim is to give holders a clear, grounded read on a catalyst that has become harder to handicap.
Why the odds fell The decline from the low seventies to the low forties did not come from a single event but from a convergence of problems that have collectively made passage look less certain. The most striking new obstacle is a backlash centered on a specific provision of the bill. According to a letter obtained by a Washington publication, the Alliance to End Human Trafficking, a Catholic-backed anti-trafficking organization, urged Senate leaders to revisit a decentralized-finance provision in the CLARITY Act, warning that it could weaken safeguards against illicit finance. The concern centers on Section 604 of the bill, which would codify the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.
Under that provision, software developers who build decentralized blockchain applications would not be held responsible for crimes committed by users of those platforms and would not be treated as money transmitters. The anti-trafficking group warned that this language could open regulatory gaps that make it harder for authorities to detect and track financial activity tied to crimes such as human trafficking. This kind of opposition is politically potent in a way that technical crypto disputes are not, because it reframes the bill from a question of market structure into a question of whether Congress is weakening tools used to fight trafficking. That framing gives wavering lawmakers a powerful reason for caution.
It is not the only pressure. The banking lobby has been fighting provisions related to stablecoin yield and what it characterizes as insufficient bank-equivalent regulation for stablecoin issuers, with prominent banking figures vowing to challenge the bill on the floor, because the CLARITY Act’s framework directly threatens traditional finance’s competitive position in payments. Layered on top is the simple arithmetic of the Senate, where advancing major legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. With the governing party holding 53 seats, the bill needs at least seven crossover votes from the opposition, a structurally harder problem than the committee votes it has already cleared.
Each of these pressures, the trafficking backlash, the banking fight, and the vote math, has chipped away at the perceived likelihood of passage, and together they explain why the market has repriced the odds so sharply downward. That is also why the politics around the bill now matter as much as the market-structure text itself. The policy framework may be close, but the votes still have to survive a crowded field of objections before the bill reaches the president’s desk.
The provision at the center of the fight It is worth dwelling on Section 604, because it has become the lightning rod, and understanding it clarifies why the bill suddenly looks more vulnerable. The provision would codify into law a principle that the crypto industry considers foundational: that developers who write the code for decentralized applications should not be treated as money transmitters and should not be held criminally liable for what users do with their software, in the same way that the makers of a web browser or an email protocol are not liable for crimes committed using those tools. To the industry, this is a basic protection for open-source software development, without which building decentralized systems in the U.S. becomes legally perilous. It is one of the reasons crypto firms have pushed so hard for the bill.
To critics, the same provision looks like a loophole. The anti-trafficking coalition’s argument is that by shielding decentralized-finance developers from money-transmitter obligations, the language could remove a layer of monitoring and accountability that helps authorities trace illicit funds, including money tied to human trafficking and other serious crimes. The dispute is, at its core, a genuine and difficult policy tension between two legitimate goals: protecting software developers and open innovation on one side, and preserving law-enforcement tools against financial crime on the other. That tension is precisely what makes the provision such an effective pressure point, because it cannot be dismissed as mere industry lobbying or partisan obstruction; it pits real concerns against each other.
For the bill’s prospects, the significance is that Section 604 gives opponents a substantive, morally weighted objection to rally around, and gives undecided senators a defensible reason to demand changes or withhold support. That is exactly the kind of friction that can stall legislation when the calendar is tight and the vote margin is thin. The bill does not only need supporters who like digital-asset clarity; it needs senators who are comfortable defending the developer-shield language under pressure from law-enforcement and anti-trafficking groups. That is a harder political task than simply explaining why tokens need a market-structure framework.
The legislative window is closing Even setting aside the substantive fights, the CLARITY Act faces a brutal constraint that may matter more than any single objection: time. The legislative calendar for passing a controversial bill in 2026 is narrow and closing. The White House pushed for a finish around the July 4 holiday, a target that officials themselves conceded was tight, and the harder deadline is the August recess, after which campaigning for the autumn elections begins in earnest and the Senate’s floor schedule effectively closes to contested votes. Any realistic path to passage this year therefore runs through a small number of remaining legislative days, and every additional dispute consumes some of that dwindling supply.
Compounding the time pressure is a procedural step that the headline timeline often obscures: reconciliation between two Senate committees. The CLARITY Act’s framework splits jurisdiction over digital assets between the securities regulator and the commodities regulator, and because both the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Agriculture Committee have claimed a stake, the Banking Committee’s version of the bill must be merged with the Agriculture Committee’s companion legislation before any floor vote can happen. That merger is not complete. The bill cleared the Banking Committee on a bipartisan vote in May and was placed on the Senate’s legislative calendar in early June, making it formally eligible for floor consideration, which is the closest it has ever been to becoming law.
But floor eligibility is not passage. To actually become law, the bill must still be reconciled across the two committees, survive a 60-vote floor vote, be reconciled again with the version the House passed, and then be signed by the president. Each of those steps takes time the calendar may not provide, and if the vote does not come before the recess, the political window that opened this opportunity may not reopen on the same terms. One senator who has championed the bill captured the stakes bluntly, saying they did not come this far to quit at the five-yard line, but the five-yard line in a closing window is exactly where bills die.
What passage would mean for XRP For XRP holders, the entire point of tracking the CLARITY Act is what its outcome would do to the token, so it is worth being specific about both scenarios, beginning with passage. If the bill becomes law and codifies XRP’s digital-commodity status into federal statute, the most important effect would be the removal of the last meaningful layer of regulatory uncertainty, which is the gatekeeper that has kept large institutions cautious. XRP already enjoys more regulatory clarity than almost any major token after its legal battle ended and the joint classification treated it as a commodity, but that clarity rests on interpretive releases rather than statute, and a statute is far more durable. With permanent legal footing, the institutional capital that has waited on the sidelines, pension funds, asset managers, and the like, would have the certainty it needs to allocate.
The clearest channel for that capital is the spot ETF complex. Analysts at a major bank have projected that passage and the resulting clarity could drive several billion dollars of additional inflows into XRP exchange-traded funds, on the order of three to six times what those funds have gathered since launching. Flows of that magnitude would represent a demand shock large enough to push XRP through the resistance levels that have capped it and toward higher targets, with mainstream analyst forecasts in a passage scenario clustering in the several-dollar range by year-end. The more bullish projections reach higher still if a second catalyst, such as Ripple securing a Federal Reserve master account, were to follow.
The important caveat is that some of this may already be partly priced in, because the market has watched the bill advance for months, so the real question is not whether clarity helps XRP but how much of the waiting money actually moves once passage is law versus how much already has. Still, the directional case is clear: passage would be a powerful, fundamentally positive catalyst for XRP, the event that could finally connect the token’s long-promised institutional thesis to actual demand. It would also sit alongside another XRP catalyst in the spotlight, where holders have been trying to separate company-level events from token-level value. In this case, unlike many Ripple corporate developments, the statutory classification would apply directly to the token.
What failure or delay would mean The other side of the ledger is just as consequential, and with the odds now below even, it deserves equal weight. If the CLARITY Act fails or stalls, whether by missing the legislative window, dying in the reconciliation process, or falling short of 60 votes on the floor, XRP would lose its one Ripple-specific catalyst, the single event distinguishing it from the rest of the market. In that scenario, XRP would likely revert to moving with Bitcoin rather than leading on its own regulatory story, surrendering the independent upside that the bill represented. The institutional flows that have supported XRP could reverse, the way weekly ETF inflows did earlier in the year when momentum faded, falling from over $200 million to a trickle within a month.
Without the statutory catalyst, Ripple’s institutional infrastructure would keep growing through stablecoins and fiat rails, but in a way that does not necessarily drive XRP token demand, leaving the familiar gap between corporate progress and token price intact. That is XRP’s other open question: whether Ripple’s wins translate into XRP demand, or whether stablecoins and company-level infrastructure capture most of the value. If the CLARITY Act fails, that question becomes even more important because the regulatory unlock would no longer be there to carry the near-term thesis. XRP would then need ETF flows, ledger usage, and broader crypto risk appetite to do the work instead.
The price implications of failure are meaningful. Analysts have suggested that in a no-bill scenario, XRP could slip back toward the lower end of its range, with some pointing to support around the $1.20 to $1.30 area and warning that a break of the key technical floor on a broader market sell-off could open a path toward materially lower levels with little support in between. A bank that projected large inflows on passage had already trimmed its XRP target on the assumption of a delayed bill rather than a failed one, illustrating how much of the token’s valuation has been riding on this single legislative outcome. That is why the price levels at stake matter: the legal catalyst and the technical chart are now feeding into each other.
The sharpest risk is not merely that the bill fails this year but that failure pushes it out of reach entirely, since a missed 2026 window could shelve the effort for years if the political configuration that enabled it does not recur. For XRP, that would mean losing not just a near-term catalyst but the central pillar of its independent investment case, throwing the token back onto Bitcoin’s coattails and onto the slow, uncertain process of turning network usage into token demand without the regulatory unlock.
The priced-in problem A subtler issue complicates both scenarios and deserves its own attention, because it shapes how XRP might actually react to news: the question of how much of the CLARITY Act’s effect is already in the price. Markets are forward-looking, and the bill’s advance has been the most-watched regulatory story in crypto for the better part of a year, which means XRP’s current price already embeds some probability of passage. This creates a genuine puzzle for holders. If passage is partly priced in, then the actual event, should it come, might produce a smaller pop than the headline suggests, as the market has already bought the rumor and could sell the news.
Conversely, if the market has grown skeptical and priced the bill closer to the current 42% odds, then a clear passage could still surprise to the upside by forcing a repricing toward certainty. This is why XRP has traded in a range even as the bill progressed: each catalyst has been priced as a possibility instead of a fact, because a proof-of-concept settlement is priced as a proof of concept until it becomes recurring volume, an ETF is priced on the flows it actually attracts instead of the flows it might, and a legislative catalyst is priced on the probability of passage, which for the CLARITY Act has stayed well short of certainty. A token sitting on a stack of maybes trades like a token sitting on a stack of maybes: range-bound, reactive, and quick to sell the news. That is the practical problem facing XRP now.
The practical implication for holders is that the falling odds are informative in two directions. They lower the probability the market assigns to the positive catalyst, which is bearish, but they also mean that less of the good news is now priced in, which paradoxically increases the potential upside surprise if the bill does pass against the odds. The cleanest way to read XRP right now is as a token whose price reflects a market that has grown genuinely uncertain about its central catalyst. That makes both the downside of failure and the upside of surprise passage larger than they would be if the outcome were close to settled.
What holders should watch For an XRP holder trying to navigate a catalyst that has become harder to handicap, the analysis points to a focused set of signals worth tracking over the coming weeks. The first and most important is simply whether a floor vote gets scheduled before the August recess, because the closing window is the binding constraint, and the absence of a scheduled vote as the recess approaches would be a strong signal that 2026 passage is slipping away. The progress of the committee reconciliation between the Banking and Agriculture versions is a related early indicator, since the floor vote cannot happen until that merger is done. The second signal is the trajectory of the opposition, particularly whether the Section 604 trafficking objection gains traction with undecided senators or whether sponsors find a way to address it, because that fight has the potential to either stall the bill or, if resolved, clear a path.
The third thing to watch is the prediction-market odds themselves, which have proven to be a useful real-time gauge of the bill’s perceived chances and which will move as developments unfold; a recovery back toward the sixties or seventies would signal renewed momentum, while a further slide would confirm the pessimism. Alongside the legislative signals, holders should keep an eye on the observable market data that will register the outcome regardless of the politics: ETF flows, which would surge on passage and stall on failure, and XRP’s behavior around its key technical levels, particularly whether it holds the support that the bear case threatens. The stablecoin fight also matters because it is one of the pressure points inside the bill, and the stablecoin rules in the bill are part of why banks and crypto firms are fighting so hard over the final text.
The honest synthesis is that the CLARITY Act has gone from a likely catalyst to a genuine coin flip, and with it XRP’s near-term path has become a binary bet on a contested vote in a closing window. Passage would be a powerful positive catalyst capable of unlocking institutional demand; failure would strip XRP of its defining catalyst and throw it back onto Bitcoin’s movements. At 42% and falling, the market is telling holders that the outcome it once treated as probable is now anything but. The next few weeks of the legislative calendar are likely to decide which way XRP breaks.
Frequently asked questions What is the CLARITY Act and why does it matter for XRP? The CLARITY Act is a crypto market-structure bill that would codify the classification of tokens like XRP as digital commodities into federal law. For XRP, this matters enormously because the token’s current commodity status rests on interpretive regulatory releases instead of statute, which a future administration could in principle reverse. Writing that status into actual law would remove the last major source of regulatory uncertainty that keeps large institutions cautious, and analysts have projected that passage could unlock several billion dollars in additional XRP ETF inflows. It has been XRP’s single most important catalyst throughout 2026, which is why its odds of passing move the token.
Why did the CLARITY Act’s odds fall to 42%? The odds fell from highs near 73% because of several problems converging at once. An anti-trafficking coalition attacked Section 604 of the bill, a provision shielding decentralized-finance developers from money-transmitter obligations, warning it could weaken tools against illicit finance. The banking lobby has fought provisions on stablecoin yield and regulation, while the Senate math is hard because advancing the bill requires 60 votes, meaning at least seven crossover votes from the opposition. Combined with a closing legislative calendar, these pressures made passage look far less certain, and prediction markets repriced the probability sharply downward to around 42%.
What happens to XRP if the CLARITY Act passes? Passage would remove the last layer of regulatory uncertainty by writing XRP’s commodity status into durable federal law, giving cautious institutions the certainty they need to allocate. The clearest effect would flow through spot ETFs, with analysts projecting several billion dollars of additional inflows, three to six times what the funds have gathered so far. That demand could push XRP through its resistance levels toward analyst targets in the several-dollar range by year-end, with higher projections if a second catalyst like a Federal Reserve master account followed. The main caveat is that some of this may already be priced in, so the size of the reaction depends on how much waiting money actually moves.
What happens to XRP if the bill fails? Failure or delay would strip XRP of its one Ripple-specific catalyst, likely sending it back to moving with Bitcoin instead of leading on its own regulatory story. Institutional ETF flows could reverse, as they did earlier in the year when momentum faded, and analysts have suggested XRP could slip toward support around $1.20 to $1.30, with a break of its key floor on a broader sell-off opening a path to materially lower levels. The sharpest risk is that a missed 2026 window could shelve the effort for years. That would cost XRP not just a near-term catalyst but the central pillar of its independent investment case.
When is the deadline for the CLARITY Act? The practical deadline is the Senate’s August recess, after which election-year campaigning effectively closes the floor schedule to contested votes. The White House had pushed for a finish around the July 4 holiday, a target officials conceded was tight. Before any floor vote, the Senate Banking Committee’s version must be reconciled with the Senate Agriculture Committee’s companion bill, a merger that is not yet complete, and after a floor vote the bill would still need to be reconciled with the House-passed version and signed by the president. If the vote does not happen before the recess, 2026 passage becomes very unlikely.
Is the CLARITY Act’s effect already priced into XRP? Partly, which complicates how the token may react. The bill’s advance has been the most-watched regulatory story in crypto for nearly a year, so XRP’s price already embeds some probability of passage, which is part of why the token has stayed range-bound: each catalyst gets priced as a possibility instead of a fact. If passage is partly priced in, the actual event could produce a smaller move than expected. But with odds now down at 42%, less of the good news is currently priced in, which paradoxically increases the potential upside surprise if the bill passes against the odds, while also reflecting greater downside risk if it fails.
This article is information, not investment advice. Legislative timelines, prediction-market odds, prices, and analyst projections reflect reporting available as of June 28, 2026, and can change quickly. The status and prospects of the CLARITY Act are uncertain and contested. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell XRP or any security. Verify current developments from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.
California’s DFAL Clock Is Ticking: XRP Price Hanging in the Balance
Ahmed Barakat
Author
Ahmed Barakat
Part of the Team Since
Aug 2025
About Author
Ahmed Balaha is a journalist and copywriter based in Georgia with a growing focus on blockchain technology, DeFi, AI, privacy, digital assets, and fintech innovation.
Has Also Written
Fact Checked by
CryptoNews Editorial Team
Author
CryptoNews Editorial Team
Part of the Team Since
Sep 2018
About Author
The CryptoNews editorial team is composed of seasoned writers specializing in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Their expertise ensures comprehensive, accurate, and insightful content for...
Has Also Written
Last updated:
8 hours ago
California’s Digital Financial Assets Law will take effect on July 1. It requires any firm conducting digital asset business activity with state residents to hold a DFAL license, and have a completed application on file with the DFPI, or cease covered operations. Right now, as of public records, no Ripple entity appears among applicants. XRP price has fallen below the $1.10 level at this moment of uncertainty.
DFAL covers the exchange of digital assets for fiat or other digital assets, their transfer between persons, custody, and the issuance of reserve-backed instruments. It maps directly onto Ripple’s California-facing operations: payments infrastructure, custody services, and the issuance and redemption of RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin.
Ripple’s existing portfolio of 40-plus U.S. money transmitter licenses does not automatically satisfy DFAL; the law is a separate regime administered by the DFPI through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System.
However, there are three paths to legal compliance by July 1: hold a DFAL license, have a completed application pending with the DFPI, or qualify under a narrow statutory exemption, primarily available to banks, certain trust companies, and SEC- or CFTC-registered entities operating within already-regulated activity.
🗓️Key date for @Ripple – July 1.
Ripple previously engaged CA's DFPI for a DFAL license noting firms can keep operating if submit by 7/1/26. Public docs through March '26 don't list any Ripple entities, though likely filed. Necessary for all CA offerings, issue/redeem/custody. pic.twitter.com/xfQK4Z3IBc
— WrathofKahneman (@WKahneman) June 19, 2026 Ripple has engaged with the process as the company submitted a formal comment letter to the DFPI, pushing to eliminate redundant money transmitter license requirements for DFAL-licensed firms. However, engagement is not the same as a filed application.
Law firms, including Chambers-ranked practices, have described DFAL as one of the most expansive state-level digital asset licensing regimes in the country.
Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio
Can XRP Price Hold $1 If Ripple Misses the DFAL Deadline?XRP is trading near $1.10, far below the expected $2.50 many predicted. Recent price action reflects weak momentum, with sellers repeatedly capping rallies around the $1.15 to $1.20 area. Despite ongoing attention on Ripple’s regulatory developments, the market has yet to price in a decisive positive outcome.
Meanwhile, investors remain focused on several legal and regulatory milestones involving Ripple. The court’s earlier finding that XRP itself is not inherently a security removed a major uncertainty. However, the remaining penalty and injunction issues still matter because they could influence Ripple’s future business operations and market sentiment.
From a technical perspective, XRP must first reclaim the $1.15 to $1.20 zone before traders can discuss a stronger trend reversal. If buyers regain control and regulatory developments remain favorable, the next resistance area could emerge around $1.30 to $1.50. A sustained move above those levels would likely require a meaningful catalyst.
On the downside, support remains clustered around $1.05 and $1.00. If regulatory expectations weaken or broader crypto markets turn lower, those levels could come under pressure. The $1.00 mark remains an important psychological threshold, as a decisive break could invite additional selling.
For now, the market appears to be waiting for confirmation rather than trading on assumptions. Regulatory progress could improve sentiment, yet XRP’s longer-term trajectory will likely depend on both legal clarity and stronger demand returning to the market.
Don’t Miss Out on Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit
XRP prošel masivní likvidací longů za 6,7 mil. USD, zatímco open interest klesl o 11 %. Držitelé na spotovém trhu zůstali klidní a denní aktivní adresy za dva týdny vzrostly o 71,7 %.
28 June 2026 | 15:41 The story in XRP is a split screen: the derivatives market just went through a violent, one-sided purge of leveraged bets, while network usage keeps climbing.
Key Takeaways XRP saw a one-sided long-liquidation flush, peaking at $6.7M on June 22. Open interest fell 11%, meaning purged positions aren’t being rebuilt. Active addresses rose almost 72% in two weeks even as price fell. XRP trades for $1.04 at the time of writing. The recent move was driven by a liquidation cascade: an 830% spike in long liquidations, which is a mechanical event rather than a sentiment reading. Margin thresholds were breached and positions were force-closed automatically. The roughly $3M in long liquidations dwarfing the short side confirms how one-sided it was, this was a purge of upside bets, not a balanced deleveraging. The climax came on June 22 with a $6.7M flush, the single largest burst of forced selling on the chart, landing exactly as price hit its lowest point near the $1.05 range.
What happened next matters as much as the flush itself. According to recent report, shared by CryptoQuant, open interest dropped from $1.18B to $1.04B, down 11%, while this played out. That’s the tell that separates a flush from a rotation: positions are being closed and not rebuilt. Traders aren’t re-entering, which leaves the market structurally lighter and less amplified than before.
The Funding Rate Hit Its Floor The funding rate adds the second layer. It reached its deepest negative reading of the entire March-to-June window right at the June 22 climax, a -463% shift against the quarterly baseline. Negative funding means shorts are the dominant paid position, longs are effectively being compensated just to hold their positions open.
This is where precision matters. At extremes, negative funding is mechanically unsustainable, because shorts eventually have to cover, which can create upward price pressure. But that’s a precondition for a squeeze, not a guarantee of one, and it should not be read as bullish on its own. It describes a compressed setup, a spring under tension, without saying anything about whether or when it releases.
The Split That Defines Who Actually Sold Here’s the most analytically important data point in the whole picture. While the futures market cascaded, Binance spot reserves fell just 0.35% on the week. Spot holders, in other words, didn’t panic-sell onto exchanges. That cleanly separates two very different actor types: leveraged speculators, who got wrecked, and spot holders, who barely moved.
The absence of spot capitulation during a violent futures flush is what tells you the nature of the selling. This was derivatives-manufactured, the forced unwinding of leveraged positions, rather than organic distribution by the people who actually hold XRP. That distinction changes how to read the entire episode: it was a leverage problem, not a conviction problem among holders.
Metric Status/Result Significance Long Liquidations $6.7M peak (June 22) Violent, one-sided flush of leveraged bets. Open Interest Down 11% Positions are closed, not rebuilt; market is lighter. Binance Spot Reserves Down 0.35% Spot holders didn’t panic; selling was derivatives-manufactured. Active Addresses +71.7% (2 weeks) Real engagement diverging from speculative price drops. The Network Is Growing as Price Falls Now the counter-signal. Daily active addresses rose from about 23,000 on June 14 to nearly 39,500 by June 27, a 71.7% increase in two weeks, according to Ali Charts citing Santiment. Price fell over roughly the same window. Network usage expanding while price contracts is a genuine divergence, and historically these kinds of divergences don’t tend to persist indefinitely.
Network activity on $XRP has surged over the past two weeks.
Daily active addresses have climbed from 23,000 on June 14 to nearly 39,500 today, signaling growing on-chain participation. pic.twitter.com/lqX9oo3AsS
— Ali Charts (@alicharts) June 28, 2026
It’s important to be exact about what this does and doesn’t say. It doesn’t predict direction. What it indicates is that the chain is being used more, not abandoned, real engagement separating from speculative price behavior. Set against the derivatives picture, the contrast is stark: the futures market shows panic, while the network shows growth.
The Setup, and What Could Confirm a Direction Put the layers together and what you have is structural cleanup, not a directional call. The leverage has been flushed, open interest has compressed and isn’t rebuilding, funding sits at an extreme, spot holders stayed put, and on-chain activity is rising. That combination describes a market that’s been deleveraged and is being actively used, which could resolve in either direction.
The honest framing is that the network’s continued growth provides a floor narrative, evidence the chain isn’t being abandoned, rather than a price prediction. As for what to watch: the negative funding extreme is the squeeze precondition, but the signal that would actually confirm a direction is open interest. If OI starts rebuilding alongside rising price, that’s leverage returning on the long side; if it stays compressed, the market remains light and unconfirmed either way. The deleveraging is real and largely complete.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Consult a professional before making investment decisions.
Author
Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.
Brad Garlinghouse řekl, že Ripple by po případném IPO mohl pro držitele XRP udělat „něco speciálního“, ale ne v dohledné době. Nepotvrdil žádný konkrétní mechanismus ani žádný slib.
Brad Garlinghouse said one word, “maybe,” and the XRP community heard a promise. Asked whether holders could get a piece of Ripple if it goes public, he nodded toward a “special arrangement.” This is what was actually said, what holders could realistically receive, and the downside almost nobody is talking about.
Summary
Ripple chief executive Brad Garlinghouse said that “if and when” Ripple goes public, the company might do “something special” for XRP holders, then immediately added it was “not in the immediate term.” That hedged “maybe” was offered in response to a direct question, not volunteered as a plan, and he declined to commit to any mechanism such as a token buyback. Ripple and XRP are legally and financially separate assets: holding XRP grants no shares, no dividends, and no claim on Ripple’s corporate profits, and no bridge between the two currently exists. The mechanisms holders imagine, preferential IPO share access, long-term holding rewards, or tokenized Ripple equity, are all unannounced and face serious securities-law hurdles given XRP’s legal history. The overlooked risk is that a Ripple IPO could actually pressure XRP, by drawing institutional capital toward Ripple stock and pushing the company to monetize its escrow holdings to satisfy public-market investors. One word from Ripple’s chief executive set the XRP community alight, and that word was “maybe.” Speaking on the “Crypto In America” podcast with journalist Eleanor Terrett, Brad Garlinghouse was asked the question XRP holders have wanted answered for years: if Ripple ever goes public, could the people who hold XRP get a piece of it. He did not say no. He gestured first at the indirect benefits Ripple already provides, then, pressed on whether the company would do something specific for holders in an initial public offering, he said, “Maybe, but that is not in the immediate term.”
JUST IN: Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse says the company processed $13T in payments last year with no immediate IPO plans pic.twitter.com/f9bd80FPsX
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) May 5, 2026 That was the entire substance of it, a hedged possibility wrapped in a qualification, offered in answer to a direct question rather than announced as a plan. And yet within hours it had been clipped, shared, and reshaped across XRP social media into something close to a corporate commitment, with community members urging one another to “hold accordingly.” The gap between what Garlinghouse actually said and what the community heard is the real story here, because the difference between a hinted-at maybe and a planned reward is the difference between a reasonable hope and a misplaced expectation.
The reason the remark landed so hard is the situation it landed into. XRP holders have spent 2026 watching Ripple collect exactly the kind of institutional wins the community long predicted, settlements with JPMorgan, stablecoin launches with major partners, a steady drumbeat of bank deals, while the token itself has stayed pinned near a dollar and change, beneath every major moving average. That combination, corporate triumph paired with token stagnation, breeds a particular hunger: the sense that the wins are real but are somehow not reaching holders, and that some missing mechanism could finally connect the two. Into that hunger dropped Garlinghouse’s nod, and it did what a catalyst does in a starved market.
This piece separates the hope from the reality. It covers exactly what was said and the precise wording that matters, the crucial distinction between Ripple the company and XRP the token, the mechanisms a holder benefit could theoretically take and why each is harder than it sounds, why Ripple may not even go public soon, the indirect benefit Ripple genuinely does provide, and the downside almost nobody is discussing: that an IPO could actually work against XRP. The goal is the real picture, neither dismissing the possibility nor inflating it into the certainty the hype implied.
What Garlinghouse actually said Precision matters here, because the entire community reaction rests on a few carefully chosen words, and those words were more conditional than the excitement suggested. Garlinghouse did not volunteer the remark; he was asked directly whether XRP holders could share in Ripple’s success if the company eventually launched an initial public offering. His first instinct was to point to the indirect benefit Ripple already provides, saying he hopes XRP holders feel they benefit from Ripple’s existence through the work the company does to grow the XRP ecosystem. Only when pressed on whether Ripple would do something specific for holders in an IPO scenario did he offer the line that ignited everything: “Maybe, but that is not in the immediate term.”
When pushed further on concrete mechanisms, including a possible token buyback, he declined to commit to any of them, pointing back instead to what Ripple already does for the ecosystem. So the full extent of the supposed promise is a “maybe,” qualified as not near-term, given in response to a direct question rather than offered as a plan, with no program described, no mechanism named, and no action committed to. The community heard “Ripple will do something special for holders.” What Garlinghouse actually said was closer to “maybe someday, if we go public, which is not happening soon.”
Those are not the same statement, and stacking the two conditionals reveals how far the exciting headline sits from anything concrete: a possible benefit, attached to a possible IPO, that he himself describes as not a priority. It is worth adding that days earlier, at an industry conference, Garlinghouse had been cooler still on the idea of going public at all, emphasizing that staying private gives Ripple flexibility. Read in that context, the podcast remark was a hint, not a plan and certainly not a promise. Any honest assessment of what holders would actually get has to begin from that fact rather than from the amplified version that spread online.
Ripple is not XRP: the distinction that decides everything To understand why this question is so charged, and so easily misunderstood, you have to grasp a distinction that still confuses many people: Ripple and XRP are legally and financially separate assets, and owning one does not mean owning the other. Ripple is a private technology company that builds payment and liquidity products, some of which use the XRP Ledger. XRP is a cryptocurrency, the native asset of the XRP Ledger, which is a decentralized, open-source blockchain that Ripple does not control. Holding XRP gives you ownership of that token and nothing else.
It confers no shares in Ripple, no dividends, no voting rights, and no claim whatsoever on Ripple’s corporate profits or assets. The two are different things with different value drivers, and the price of one does not automatically move the other. That distinction is why the company-versus-token gap keeps resurfacing across Ripple’s 2026 story. Ripple can win institutional business, launch products, and deepen its corporate value without automatically delivering a direct benefit to XRP holders.
This separation is the foundation of the entire holder-payout question, because it means there is no existing structure, no dividend, no buyback mechanism, no holder-equity bridge, that currently connects Ripple’s corporate fortunes to the people who hold XRP. Any such benefit would require a deliberate corporate decision: Ripple choosing to extend something to holders of a token that is legally distinct from its stock. That is precisely what makes Garlinghouse’s “maybe” notable, because it gestures at the possibility of Ripple voluntarily building a connection that does not exist and is not required to exist. The community’s hope is that Ripple might someday decide to construct that bridge.
The reality is that no bridge exists today, none is planned, and the entire question is whether Ripple might ever choose to build one. Everything that follows, every imagined mechanism and every obstacle, flows from this single fact: a Ripple IPO would, by default, do nothing for XRP holders, because the token and the company are separate. Only an affirmative, deliberate choice by Ripple could change that. Until such a choice is announced, a holder payout remains speculation, not entitlement.
The mechanisms holders imagine Once the “maybe” spread, the community began filling in the blank with specific mechanisms, and it is worth laying them out, because they define the range of what “something special” could plausibly mean. The most discussed idea is preferential access to IPO shares, an arrangement in which verified long-term XRP holders, or users staking on the XRP Ledger, would be granted priority subscription rights to buy into a Ripple offering at favorable terms before the general public. This is the version that most directly answers the community’s wish, because it would let XRP holders transition, at least partly, into Ripple shareholders. It would turn token loyalty into an equity stake.
A second imagined mechanism is a long-term holding reward, a community-based structure that would give some benefit to holders who have kept XRP for a defined period, rewarding loyalty without necessarily handing over equity. A third, more technically ambitious idea is tokenized Ripple equity: a blockchain-based representation of Ripple stock made available to eligible token holders, which would use the very tokenization technology the industry is racing to build in order to bridge the gap between Ripple shares and XRP. Some in the community have also floated the notion of an “equity-token-bound” proof of entitlement, a digital claim linking XRP holding to some future right in Ripple. Each of these would, in its own way, construct the bridge between Ripple equity and XRP holders that currently does not exist.
The crucial thing to hold in mind is that all of them remain imagined, not announced. Garlinghouse named none of them; he declined, in fact, to endorse any specific structure when asked. They represent the community’s wish list of what “something special” might be, not a menu Ripple has offered. The distance between a fan’s plausible idea and a company’s actual program is considerable, especially when the imagined benefit touches securities law, global compliance, investor eligibility, and the legal separation between Ripple equity and XRP.
Why each mechanism is harder than it sounds The reason Garlinghouse spoke in hints instead of specifics is almost certainly that nearly every concrete version of a holder benefit collides with serious obstacles, and understanding those obstacles is essential to a realistic view. The largest is securities law, and it is a particularly sharp problem for XRP of all tokens. Linking a cryptocurrency’s holding to equity benefits raises exactly the kind of securities-law questions that defined Ripple’s long and costly legal battle, the years-long fight over whether XRP sales amounted to unregistered securities transactions. Building a formal bridge that rewards XRP holders with equity or equity-like rights risks recreating the very entanglement between the token and the company that Ripple spent years and enormous legal resources trying to separate.
The company would have to navigate that terrain with extreme care, because a poorly designed holder-benefit program could reintroduce the argument that XRP is a security tied to Ripple’s enterprise, which is the last thing Ripple wants. That is why the catalyst that matters more than the IPO is still statutory clarity from the CLARITY Act, not an undefined corporate reward. Federal clarity can strengthen XRP’s status without blurring the line between the token and Ripple equity. A holder-equity program, by contrast, could blur that line if designed carelessly.
Beyond securities law, the practical obstacles multiply. A preferential-share program would require verifying who is a genuine long-term holder, drawing cutoff lines that would inevitably be seen as arbitrary or unfair, and managing the identity and compliance machinery to do it at scale across a global, pseudonymous holder base. A holding-reward structure raises questions of how to fund it and how to avoid favoring large holders over small ones. Tokenized equity would face the full weight of securities regulation governing who can own and trade company stock, plus the technical and legal work of making a regulated equity instrument function on a blockchain.
Each mechanism, in other words, is not just a matter of Ripple deciding to be generous; it is a tangle of legal exposure, fairness problems, and operational complexity, any one of which could sink it. This is why the most dramatic interpretations of “special arrangement” are also the least likely. A sober reading has to weight the modest possibilities, a governance gesture, a symbolic recognition, or simply Ripple structuring its business so more value flows through XRP over time, far more heavily than the windfall the community imagined.
Why Ripple may not even go public soon The entire holder-benefit scenario is downstream of a prior question that often gets lost in the excitement: will Ripple even go public at all, and if so, when. On this, Garlinghouse has been consistent and notably unenthusiastic. He has repeatedly described an IPO as not a priority, and his reasoning is grounded in the current state of the public markets for crypto companies. He has pointed to the underwhelming performance of crypto-related public listings, citing peers whose post-listing stock has struggled, and noted reports that at least one major exchange had delayed its own listing plans.
His view, in short, is that the public markets have not treated Ripple’s peers well, and that there is little reason to rush into that environment. He has also made a positive case for staying private, arguing that it preserves flexibility, including, he joked, the freedom to speak openly without lawyers drafting every word. This is not the posture of a company on the verge of ringing the opening bell. It means the holder-benefit question is built on a foundation that is itself uncertain: a possible reward contingent on an IPO that the chief executive describes as neither planned nor imminent.
That is the sense in which the whole thing is a maybe attached to a maybe. For an XRP holder weighing what they might receive, this is the most important practical point, because even the most generous imaginable holder benefit is irrelevant unless and until Ripple actually decides to go public. By Garlinghouse’s own account, that decision is not on the calendar. The community’s hope therefore rests on two sequential uncertainties: first that Ripple goes public, and second that, having done so, it chooses to extend something to holders it is under no obligation to help.
Either link breaking is enough to make the whole scenario evaporate. That is why the IPO hint should not be treated like a near-term catalyst, even if it tells holders something about how Ripple thinks about its community. The comment matters as a signal of openness, but it does not change the current legal structure, the current IPO timeline, or the current token economics. XRP holders should separate those categories carefully.
The indirect benefit Ripple already provides Set against the speculation is Garlinghouse’s actual, stated position, which deserves a fair hearing because it is not a trivial argument: that XRP holders already benefit from Ripple’s existence, indirectly but intentionally. The foundation of this argument is a simple fact: Ripple is the largest single holder of XRP. That gives the company a stronger economic incentive than anyone else to increase the token’s value and adoption, because Ripple profits when XRP rises, just as holders do. Its incentives are genuinely aligned with holders, even without any formal program linking the two.
Every commercial partnership Ripple pursues, every payment corridor it opens, every institutional deal it closes, and every regulatory battle it fights is evaluated, at least in part, through the lens of how it drives XRP utility and liquidity. Garlinghouse’s framing is that this alignment is the real benefit, that Ripple’s entire strategy is built around making XRP the most useful, liquid, and trusted digital asset in payments and settlement, and that by growing the ecosystem it makes what holders own more valuable, even without a dividend or an equity link. That is where XRP’s actual utility remains central to the long-term case. The token’s real thesis has to rest on usage, liquidity, and settlement demand, not on implied ownership of Ripple.
NEW: JPMorgan, Mastercard, Ondo Finance and Ripple complete tokenized Treasury redemption test on XRP Ledger. Settlement took roughly 5 seconds compared to 3 to 5 business days on traditional rails pic.twitter.com/9Rkd3MkWF4
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) June 12, 2026 Garlinghouse has pointed to concrete examples of this posture, including Ripple’s backing of XRP treasury companies such as Evernorth, which is working to build a large XRP treasury business with Ripple’s support, an effort Garlinghouse frames as helping XRP holders, the XRP community, and Ripple shareholders at the same time. This argument has genuine merit and should not be dismissed as spin. The company’s commercial work plausibly does increase XRP’s utility and demand over time, which is a real, if diffuse, benefit to anyone holding the token. The counterpoint, and the reason the “maybe” resonated, is that many in the community find this indirect alignment insufficient.
They want a concrete share of Ripple’s corporate success, not an incentive structure that may or may not translate into token-price appreciation. That dissatisfaction is precisely the nerve Garlinghouse’s remark touched. His indirect-benefit argument is, in effect, his answer to it: you already benefit, just not in the direct way you want. Whether that answer satisfies holders depends on whether Ripple’s wins eventually become visible in XRP demand rather than simply in Ripple’s corporate valuation.
The downside nobody mentions: an IPO could hurt XRP Here is the part of the story that the bullish excitement almost entirely skips: a Ripple IPO is not unambiguously good for XRP, and there is a credible case that it could actively work against the token, at least in the near term. The first channel is competition for capital. Today, an institution that wants exposure to Ripple’s success has essentially one liquid way to get it: buy XRP, the token associated with the company’s ecosystem. If Ripple goes public, that changes.
Suddenly there is a direct way to own a piece of Ripple itself, a regulated equity that offers what a token cannot: potential dividends, audited financial transparency, ownership of the company’s actual assets and cash flows, and the compliance comfort of a listed stock. Faced with that choice, institutional capital that might have flowed into XRP as a proxy for Ripple could instead flow into Ripple stock, siphoning off the very institutional demand the XRP bull case depends on. The IPO, in this reading, would give the market a cleaner instrument for the Ripple thesis, and XRP could lose its role as the default vehicle for it. That is the uncomfortable side of where XRP trades while holders wait: the market wants direct token demand, not merely a story about Ripple’s corporate success.
The second channel is selling pressure from Ripple itself. As a private company, Ripple has long been criticized for selling XRP from its large escrow holdings, a persistent source of new supply. After an IPO, that pressure could intensify instead of ease, because a public company answers to Wall Street’s quarterly demands for cash flow and profitability. To satisfy those demands and bolster its financial reports, Ripple’s board could face strong incentives to monetize tens of billions of XRP from its escrow accounts in a more systematic and aggressive way, creating an invisible, long-term overhang on the token’s price.
None of this is certain, and a well-managed IPO could be handled in ways that limit these effects, but the point is that the community’s framing of an IPO as pure upside for holders is incomplete. The honest version acknowledges that going public is a double-edged sword for XRP. It could, in the bullish case, come bundled with a “special arrangement” that rewards holders, or it could, in the bearish case, drain attention and capital away from the token while increasing the supply pressure on it. Holders hoping for the first should at least weigh the second.
What it means for holders today So what should an XRP holder actually take from all of this, standing in the present with the token trading near a dollar and the “special arrangement” still nothing more than a hedged remark? The disciplined answer is to give the IPO hint the weight it actually carries, which is to say very little, and to keep attention on the catalysts that truly move XRP. A possible IPO reward is a weak basis for any decision, because it is a maybe attached to a maybe: an unplanned, undefined benefit contingent on an IPO that Ripple does not prioritize. It is better regarded as a distant possible upside not to be counted on than as a catalyst to position around.
The things that will actually determine XRP’s path are observable and concrete: whether the CLARITY Act passes and writes XRP’s commodity status into federal law, whether spot ETF flows compound or trickle, whether the network’s settlement usage grows enough to translate into real token demand against the escrow supply, and where Bitcoin drags the broader market. Those are the signals worth watching, and the IPO hint is not among them. This does not mean the remark is meaningless. It reveals something real about Ripple’s posture toward its community, a willingness to at least entertain the idea of connecting corporate success to holders, which is more than many companies would offer.
But revealing a posture is not the same as making a commitment, and the most useful thing a holder can do is to enjoy the signal for what it shows about Ripple’s attitude while declining to build any expectation on top of it. The community heard a promise. What Garlinghouse offered was a maybe, and in investing the difference is everything. An XRP holder is better served by evaluating the token on its actual merits, its use in payments, its regulatory position, its adoption, and its supply dynamics, than by speculating about an IPO reward that exists only as a hedged possibility.
That possibility is attached to an IPO that may never come, and that could, in some scenarios, hurt the token as much as help it. The hope is understandable. The discipline is to keep it in proportion. If Ripple ever announces a real program, holders can judge the terms then; until then, the “special arrangement” is a signal, not a strategy.
Frequently asked questions Did Ripple promise XRP holders a payout from its IPO? No. Ripple chief executive Brad Garlinghouse said that “if and when” Ripple goes public, the company might do “something special” for XRP holders, then immediately added that it was “not in the immediate term.” That was a hedged “maybe” offered in response to a direct question, not a plan, a program, or a commitment, and he declined to endorse any specific mechanism such as a token buyback. The community amplified the remark into something close to a promise, but no payout has been announced, no mechanism has been described, and the comment was explicitly conditional on an IPO that Garlinghouse describes as not a priority.
Does holding XRP give me any ownership of Ripple? No. Ripple and XRP are legally and financially separate assets. Ripple is a private technology company that builds payment and liquidity products, some of which use the XRP Ledger. XRP is the native cryptocurrency of the XRP Ledger, a decentralized blockchain that Ripple does not control. Holding XRP grants no shares in Ripple, no dividends, no voting rights, and no claim on the company’s profits or assets.
What could a “special arrangement” actually look like? The mechanisms the community imagines include preferential access to Ripple IPO shares for verified long-term XRP holders, long-term holding rewards for those who keep XRP for a defined period, and tokenized Ripple equity made available to eligible holders. All of these are unannounced and remain speculation instead of anything Ripple has offered. Each also faces serious obstacles, especially securities law, because linking token holding to equity benefits raises exactly the questions Ripple fought during its long legal battle over XRP. More modest possibilities, such as a governance gesture or simply structuring the business so more value flows through XRP, are more realistic than a direct equity windfall.
Is Ripple actually going to have an IPO? It is uncertain, and Garlinghouse has repeatedly described going public as not a priority. He has cited the weak post-listing performance of crypto-company peers and reports of a major exchange delaying its own plans, and he has argued that staying private preserves flexibility. This matters because the entire holder-benefit question is downstream of an IPO happening at all. Even the most generous imaginable reward is irrelevant unless Ripple first decides to go public and then chooses to extend something to holders.
Could a Ripple IPO actually be bad for XRP? It could, and this is the part the bullish framing tends to skip. An IPO would give institutions a direct way to own Ripple through regulated stock that offers dividends, financial transparency, and ownership of company assets, potentially drawing capital that might otherwise have flowed into XRP as a proxy for Ripple. Separately, as a public company answerable to quarterly earnings expectations, Ripple could face stronger incentives to monetize its large XRP escrow holdings more aggressively, adding long-term selling pressure on the token. Going public is therefore a double-edged sword for XRP, with credible downside as well as the hoped-for upside, and holders should weigh both.
What should XRP holders actually focus on? On the observable catalysts that truly move the token instead of the IPO hint. Those include whether the CLARITY Act passes and codifies XRP’s commodity status, whether spot XRP ETF flows compound or stall, whether the network’s settlement usage grows into real token demand against the escrow supply, and the direction of Bitcoin and the broader market. The “special arrangement” remark is best treated as a small signal about Ripple’s posture toward its community, given minimal weight in any actual view of XRP’s prospects. Evaluating XRP on its real merits, utility, regulatory position, adoption, and supply, is far sounder than positioning around a hedged maybe.
This article is information, not investment advice. Prices, corporate plans, and statements reflect reporting available as of June 28, 2026, and can change quickly. Brad Garlinghouse’s comments were conditional and did not constitute a commitment or a program. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell XRP or any security. Verify current details from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.
CLARITY Act by mohl odstranit právní nejistotu a otevřít cestu americkým penzijním fondům s majetkem kolem 56 bilionů USD k digitálním aktivům, včetně XRP. To by mohlo výrazně zúžit likviditu dostupnou k obchodování.
The CLARITY Act, currently under discussion in the United States, is gaining close attention in crypto markets due to its potential to deliver a much clearer regulatory framework for digital assets. Should the bill become law, many industry observers believe it could significantly reduce the legal uncertainty that has long deterred institutional investors from entering the space.
Why institutional capital is watching Market sources tracking industry data suggest that the CLARITY Act could be a game changer for the US crypto sector. According to this perspective, the bill may eliminate one of the major regulatory hurdles preventing American pension funds—which collectively manage around $56 trillion in assets—from accessing digital assets. These funds typically avoid assets without clear legal status due to strict compliance obligations.
At the heart of the debate lies the question of whether digital assets should be classified as securities or commodities. This lack of clarity keeps institutions from allocating capital to cryptos like XRP, presenting both legal and custodial challenges for major investors.
Glossary: The CLARITY Act is a legislative proposal in the US aiming to clarify the regulatory framework for digital assets. Its main purpose is to define which assets will be treated as securities and which as commodities, easing the compliance burden for market participants.
If the CLARITY Act takes effect, analysts believe it could establish a comprehensive framework for digital assets and bolster the standing of assets such as XRP among institutional investors.
Liquidity squeezes move into focus One notable aspect for XRP is that not all of its circulating supply is actively traded. Although the total supply is high, only a limited fraction is exchanged on markets. A substantial portion remains in the hands of long-term holders, is stored in institutional wallets, or is locked in escrow accounts, narrowing the readily accessible supply for trading.
This limited tradable supply means that even a modest influx of institutional capital into XRP, spurred by regulatory clarity, could rapidly tighten available liquidity. Market observers note that if demand outstrips accessible supply, upward price pressure could escalate swiftly.
Despite XRP’s large total supply, the actively traded amount remains restricted, so any surge in institutional demand could sharply reduce liquidity in the short term.
Time pressure mounts in Washington Meanwhile, reports indicate Congress is picking up the pace on the bill. Republican lawmakers are pushing to advance the CLARITY Act before the August recess, driven by a crowded legislative calendar that leaves little room for delay.
Once senators return to work on July 13, Congress will have only about 20 working days to deliberate, vote on the bill, and come to an agreement with the House of Representatives on the final version. This tight window is putting additional pressure on lawmakers to give the bill the necessary attention.
Within the digital asset industry, the CLARITY Act is viewed as one of the most significant regulatory moves in the US in recent years. Its passage could unlock far broader institutional participation—and with it, the prospect of reducing the legal fog that has hovered over the market, potentially making XRP a standout asset in the coming period.
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.
Matrixdock rozšiřuje tokenizované zlato XAUm na síť Stellar a Stellar Development Foundation do něj přímo investuje v rámci diverzifikace pokladny. XAUm je krytý 1:1 fyzickým zlatem o ryzosti 99,99 % akreditovaným LBMA.
@matrixdock, Asia's leading real-world asset tokenization platform, has expanded its tokenized gold product XAUm to the @StellarOrg network. As part of the deal, the Stellar Development Foundation is making a direct investment in XAUm as part of its on-chain treasury diversification, reinforcing XAUm's role as a reserve-grade asset for institutional treasuries.
What Is XAUm and How Is It Backed?Each XAUm token is backed 1:1 by 99.99% purity LBMA-accredited physical gold, securely stored with custodians Brink's and Malca-Amit. Reserves are independently audited by Bureau Veritas, the same firm that verifies the world's largest gold ETFs, with Stellar smart contracts audited by OtterSec and Runtime Verification.
XAUm has grown to rank among the top four tokenized gold products globally and is Asia's largest, with over 88,000 unique on-chain addresses and 730,000 lifetime transactions across its ecosystem.
On Stellar, XAUm will be integrated with the Stellar DEX liquidity pools and lending markets, with on-chain liquidity support provided by Wave Digital Assets. XAUm-dedicated deposit vaults will also be launched, enabling institutional clients to deposit, hold, and earn XAUm natively.
Stellar's RWA Momentum BuildsThe XAUm expansion arrives as the total value of real-world assets and stablecoins on the Stellar network reaches $3.35 billion, a figure that includes tokenized treasury products and fiat-backed stablecoins. The milestone underscores Stellar's accelerating push to bridge traditional finance with blockchain infrastructure.
The Matrixdock deal follows a May 2026 collaboration between the Stellar Development Foundation and the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC), which announced plans to connect its tokenization service to the Stellar network as part of a broader multi-chain strategy.
Sources:
Matrixdock official press release via PR Newswire
Stellar network RWA market cap surpasses $3 billion, Crypto Briefing
Hyper Foundation spustila grantový program za zhruba 10 milionů USD na podporu migrace z USDH na USDC. Pomoc míří na projekty i uživatele v ekosystému Hyper.
TLDR:Hyper Foundation Unveils $10M USDH Migration Grant ProgramUSDH Holders Receive Migration Options as Ecosystem Shifts to USDC Hyper Foundation committed about $10 million to support USDH migration across affected ecosystem projects. Eligible builders must complete migration or orderly shutdown activities before the end of July deadline. USDH holders can swap tokens for USDC through supported HyperCore and HyperEVM migration pathways. Grant allocations depend on deployment costs or affected USDH total value locked across supported protocols. Hyper Foundation has introduced a grant program worth approximately $10 million to support projects affected by the USDH sunset. The initiative targets builders migrating away from the stablecoin or winding down USDH-dependent services before the end of July.
Eligible teams have already been contacted as the network moves through an organized transition process. The funding aims to reduce migration costs while helping maintain continuity across the Hyper ecosystem.
Hyper Foundation said the grants will support builders whose products relied on USDH before its retirement. According to the foundation, eligible recipients include HIP-1 spot deployers, HIP-3 perpetual deployers, HyperEVM protocols, dedicated USDH: USDC bridge operators, and Native Markets.
The grants fall into two categories. Migration grants support teams replacing USDH with USDC, while wind-down grants assist projects ending USDH-related operations. The foundation noted that wind-down grants remain smaller than equivalent migration awards.
According to Hyper Foundation, every recipient has committed to completing migration or orderly shutdown activities before the end of July. The program seeks to minimize disruption while encouraging structured transitions across supported applications.
Grant calculations also differ between ecosystem participants. HIP-1 and HIP-3 recipients receive allocations based on auction deployment costs, while HyperEVM protocol grants depend on the amount of USDH total value locked affected by the sunset.
USDH Holders Receive Migration Options as Ecosystem Shifts to USDC Hyper Foundation also outlined the migration process for users holding USDH. The organization encouraged users to follow instructions directly from the protocols where their assets remain deployed.
Users can exchange USDH for USDC through the HyperCore spot order book. The foundation also confirmed that HyperEVM users can swap USDH for USDC at a one-to-one ratio through Across without paying transaction fees.
Hyper Foundation Allocates $10M in Grants to Support USDH Migration
Hyper Foundation announced approximately $10 million in grants to help builders affected by the USDH sunset, covering migration and wind-down costs. Grants will be distributed to eligible HIP-1 and HIP-3… pic.twitter.com/Hwy7ZNwswz
— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) June 28, 2026
Wu Blockchain highlighted the announcement shortly after the grant program became public. The report noted that the funding package covers both migration expenses and wind-down costs for affected ecosystem participants.
Hyper Foundation also acknowledged the contribution of builders, users, and Native Markets throughout the USDH rollout. The organization credited community participation and direct coordination with helping the migration process progress smoothly during the transition period.
Zcash se blíží k upgradu Crosslink, který přidá PoS finalitu vedle stávajícího PoW a má zvýšit bezpečnost sítě. Pro staking bude nutné přesunout ZEC do Orchard poolu.
Zcash is moving closer to one of its most significant consensus-layer changes in years. The proposed Crosslink upgrade introduces a proof-of-stake (PoS) finality layer that runs alongside the existing proof-of-work (PoW) chain.
It adds a second consensus mechanism that locks confirmed blocks, making them economically irreversible. This provides additional security against rollback attacks and significantly reduces wait times for certain transactions.
Although Crosslink has not yet been activated on the Zcash mainnet, this guide explains how node operators who want to participate as finalizers can be better prepared for public testing and eventual deployment.
Key Takeaways Crosslink adds a PoS finality layer to Zcash, allowing finalizers to stake ZEC and help secure the network alongside PoW miners. Prospective finalizers should migrate to Zebra, move eligible ZEC into the Orchard pool, and participate in Crosslink Feature Net testing to prepare for deployment. Reliable infrastructure, continuous uptime, and active participation in protocol updates will be essential for operating a Crosslink finalizer node. Understanding Crosslink’s Validator Model This model aims to improve settlement security without abandoning Zcash’s existing consensus foundation.
Crosslink introduces a network of PoS participants known as finalizers that operate alongside miners. While miners continue to produce blocks, validators help ensure finality through a Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) mechanism running in parallel with the PoW chain.
According to Shielded Labs, staking operations, delegation mechanisms, validator roster selection, and reward issuance have already been incorporated into the prototype development roadmap.
Step-by-Step Process of Preparing Your Node 1. Migrate from Zcashd to Zebra
The Crosslink prototype is built on Zebra, which requires operators running on Zcashd to:
Install the latest Zebra release from the official Zcash Foundation GitHub repository. Sync the Zebra node to the chain tip before switching. Migrate wallet functionality to Zallet. Verify your node reports the correct chain state. The latest Zebra release has upgraded several core cryptography libraries and bumped the minimum supported Rust version, so ensure your build environment meets the current Rust toolchain requirements before compiling from source.
2. Move ZEC to the Orchard Shielded Pool
Staking is tied exclusively to Orchard-pool balances. If your ZEC is sitting in a transparent address or an older Sapling address, it will not be eligible for staking under Crosslink.
Transfer funds to a unified address beginning with “u1” using Zashi or Zallet, and confirm the balance appears in the Orchard pool.
Staking uses quantized amounts of 1, 10, or 100 ZEC, so plan your holdings accordingly to avoid locking up funds in amounts that fall between these tiers.
3. Run the Crosslink Feature Net
The first seasonal incentivized testnet allows the community to help test the system while contributing to infrastructure that benefits the Zcash mainnet. Community incentives focus on activities that support the ecosystem.
To join:
Pull the Crosslink-enabled build from the ShieldedLabs/crosslink-deployment GitHub repository. Configure your node to connect to Feature Net peers using the parameters published by Shielded Labs for Season 1. Submit a staking action using the updated transaction version that includes a staking action field. Monitor finality status via the dedicated RPC calls added in Milestone 2, which log warnings when finality stalls. 4. Harden Your Infrastructure
The current focus for Crosslink development is on stability, especially around new networking components for syncing. Finalizer nodes need reliable uptime because BFT consensus requires a minimum quorum of participants to advance the finality layer. Operators should:
Run nodes on dedicated hardware with at least 16 GB RAM and an SSD-backed data directory. Ensure uninterrupted internet connectivity with redundant failover. Monitor the finality-status RPC endpoint to detect and alert on stall conditions. Keep the node software updated across each seasonal Feature Net cycle, as breaking changes to database schemas and serialization formats are expected during the prototype phase. 5. Follow the ZIP Process
Crosslink requires formal Zcash Improvement Proposals (ZIPs) to move from Feature Net to the mainnet. Hardening comes after the productionization phase to finalize ZIPs and complete security audits. These steps are intended to prepare the protocol for a future network upgrade, pending community approval and successful security audits.
Monitor the official ZIPs repository and participate in community sentiment polls, which influence whether Crosslink is scheduled into a future network upgrade.
Potential Challenges for Validators Crosslink introduces new operational responsibilities that traditional PoW miners do not face.
These may include:
Managing delegated stake Maintaining high validator uptime Responding to protocol upgrades Monitoring slashing or penalty mechanisms Balancing security with operational costs Although many design elements are still being finalized, operators should expect validator management to require more ongoing oversight than simply running a standard full node.
Bottom Line To prepare a validator node for the Zcash Crosslink hybrid PoS upgrade, operators should migrate to the Zebra ecosystem, position eligible ZEC in the Orchard pool, participate in Feature Net testing, and maintain reliable infrastructure capable of supporting finality operations.
While Crosslink is still progressing through testing and governance stages, early preparation can help node operators understand the protocol’s staking and finalization mechanics before deploying on the mainnet.
If approved, Crosslink could strengthen Zcash’s security model by combining PoW mining with stake-based finality, creating a more resilient network while introducing new opportunities for ZEC holders to participate in consensus.
Uniswap a Spark spustily „Stablecoin FX Layer“ pro směnu stablecoinů mezi bankami, fintechy a platebními firmami. Spark do něj vložil zhruba 150 milionů USD likvidity na Uniswap v4.
@sparkdotfi and @Uniswap have joined forces to build what they call a "Stablecoin FX Layer," a shared liquidity network designed to let banks, fintechs, and payment companies move between dollar-pegged tokens without each having to build their own infrastructure from scratch.
Spark deployed approximately $150 million in stablecoin liquidity across two pools on Uniswap v4 to kick off the first phase, with the pools pairing Sky's USDS with Tether's $USDT and PayPal's PYUSD. A Spark spokesperson described the deployment as one of the largest automated market maker liquidity migrations in decentralized finance.
One shared system instead of fragmented poolsThe FX Layer acts as shared liquidity and exchange infrastructure on Uniswap v4, enabling multiple stablecoin issuers to plug into a common system instead of each building and bootstrapping their own liquidity pools, market makers, and inventory management. Spark acts as the orchestration layer, deciding how liquidity is allocated, governed, and coordinated across different stablecoins.
Uniswap and Spark are betting that as the number of stablecoins grows, the market will need the equivalent of a foreign-exchange network to move liquidity between issuers. The issuer landscape is already expanding rapidly, with PayPal's PYUSD, Ripple's RLUSD, Revolut's planned stablecoin, and banking consortiums in Europe and Japan among the projects in development.
The stablecoin market's growth potential frames the urgency: Citi has projected the market could grow from roughly $300 billion currently to $4 trillion by 2030.
DualPool hook to put idle capital to workSpark plans to introduce two additional tools in future phases, a Shared Liquidity Layer and a DualPool hook, both built on Uniswap v4's programmable architecture, with a liquidity hook allowing idle capital to be deployed into approved yield strategies when it is not needed for trades.
Between swaps, DualPool keeps idle stablecoin liquidity in Spark's yield-bearing ERC-4626 vaults, and moves that capital into a Uniswap v4 pool only when it is needed for execution. The DualPool hook will go through a separate security review and testing process before release, with the current deployment using standard Uniswap v4 pools rather than this planned framework.
The project could eventually expand beyond USDS, USDT, and PYUSD as Spark works with additional stablecoin issuers and ecosystem partners. Spark CEO Sam MacPherson summed up the thesis plainly: "It will be defined by the infrastructure that allows hundreds of issuers to operate together at global scale."
Sources:
The Block: Spark, Uniswap build stablecoin FX Layer seeded with $150 million liquidity migration
CoinDesk: Uniswap, Spark aim to build stablecoin FX market as banks and fintechs enter the industry
The Defiant: Spark, Uniswap, and Sky launch $150M liquidity migration to build shared stablecoin FX layer
Stacks se zařadil do indexu Coinbase COIN50 a obsadil zhruba 40. místo s váhou 0,04 % a tržní kapitalizací kolem 319,6 milionu USD. Zařazení potvrzuje splnění likviditních a tržních kritérií Coinbase.
Stacks has secured a place in Coinbase’s COIN50 Index, the exchange’s flagship benchmark that tracks the 50 largest and most liquid digital assets. STX sits at roughly the 40th position with an index market cap of around $319.6 million and a weight of 0.04%.
What the COIN50 Index actually is Coinbase launched the COIN50 Index on November 12, 2024, as a transparent benchmark for institutional investors looking to gauge the broader crypto market without manually sorting through thousands of tokens.
The index is weighted heavily toward the obvious giants. Bitcoin commands roughly 50% of the total weight, with Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and even Dogecoin rounding out the top positions. The remaining assets, including STX, occupy the long tail with individually small weightings.
Advertisement
Coinbase also built a perpetual futures contract tied to the COIN50, giving traders a single instrument to express a view on the entire top-50 basket.
A 0.04% weight means Stacks isn’t moving the needle on any portfolio allocation by itself. But inclusion in the index signals that STX meets Coinbase’s liquidity and market cap thresholds, which are the same filters institutional compliance teams use when deciding what’s investable and what isn’t.
Why Stacks matters in the Bitcoin Layer 2 conversation Stacks occupies an unusual niche. It’s a smart contract platform that settles transactions on Bitcoin, effectively giving Bitcoin programmability without modifying Bitcoin’s base layer. The protocol enables mining rewards, staking, and decentralized applications, all anchored to Bitcoin’s security model. Its flagship product in this regard is sBTC, a Bitcoin-backed asset designed to let holders earn yield while keeping their BTC exposure intact.
The protocol also completed an integration with Fireblocks on June 17, 2026, the institutional custody and settlement platform. That integration matters because Fireblocks is the plumbing behind many of the largest crypto funds and trading desks. If an institution can’t custody an asset through its existing infrastructure, it typically won’t touch it. Fireblocks support removes that friction.
What this means for investors STX’s $319.6 million index market cap makes it one of the smaller constituents in the COIN50. Smaller assets in weighted indexes can get dropped during quarterly rebalances if their market cap or liquidity deteriorates. Staying in the index requires Stacks to maintain its current market position, which is far from guaranteed in a sector where rankings shift quickly.
For traders, the COIN50 inclusion creates a subtle but real liquidity benefit. Index-linked products generate baseline trading volume, and market makers who arbitrage the index against its components will naturally add depth to STX order books.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
SUI příští týden odemkne asi 13,72 milionu tokenů, tedy 0,34 % nabídky v oběhu, v hodnotě zhruba 9,4 milionu USD. Výrazné uvolnění tokenů čeká i EIGEN, FF, CARDS a GPS.
PANews reported on June 28, data from Token Unlocks shows that tokens such as SUI, EIGEN, and FF will see large unlocks next week, specifically:
Sui (SUI) will unlock approximately 13.72 million tokens at 8:00 a.m. Beijing time on July 1, accounting for approximately 0.34% of circulating supply, worth approximately $9.4 million;
EigenCloud (EIGEN) will unlock approximately 36.82 million tokens at 12:00 p.m. Beijing time on July 1, accounting for approximately 6.15% of circulating supply, worth approximately $8.7 million;
Falcon Finance (FF) will unlock approximately 102 million tokens at approximately 9:00 p.m. Beijing time on June 29, accounting for approximately 3.66% of circulating supply, worth approximately $6.9 million;
Collector Crypt (CARDS) will unlock approximately 28.84 million tokens at 3:00 a.m. Beijing time on June 30, accounting for approximately 6.11% of circulating supply, worth approximately $6.7 million;
GoPlus Security (GPS) will unlock approximately 708 million tokens at 8:00 a.m. Beijing time on July 1, accounting for approximately 15.90% of circulating supply, worth approximately $6.3 million.
Sui po zavedení Address Balance a gasless stablecoin transfers třikrát zastavil mainnet během dvou dnů. První dva výpadky souvisely s hranicí mezi gas charging, gas smashing a settlement, třetí s chybou při restartu validátorů a během epoch transition.
Mainnet halts are rarely caused by one isolated bug. They usually expose a boundary where several subsystems made different assumptions. The May 2026 Sui halts are a good example.
Shortly after Sui rolled out Address Balance and gasless stablecoin transfers, the mainnet halted three times within roughly two days. The first two halts were tied to the boundary between Address Balance, gas charging, gas smashing, and settlement. The third surfaced during validator restarts and epoch transition, exposing a separate randomness / DKG persistence issue.
At first glance, gasless stablecoin transfer sounds like a wallet feature: let users send USDC without first buying SUI. That is a real UX improvement. It removes one of the most awkward parts of stablecoin payments on a gas-token chain.
But on Sui, that UX improvement reaches deep into the execution layer. Gas payment is not just a fee field. It involves coin objects, object versions, replay protection, failed-transaction handling, and checkpoint settlement. Address Balance changes how fungible funds move through that pipeline.
This article starts from the incidents and works backward: why Address Balance exists, how it enables gasless stablecoin transfers, where compatibility with the old coin-object world becomes risky, and what developers should take away from the rollout.
1. Why Address Balance Exists Sui's asset model is object-oriented by default. A Coin<T> is a versioned object. Legacy payment flows are built around selecting, consuming, splitting, merging, and updating coin objects.
That model is powerful. It gives Sui strong ownership semantics and helps parallel execution: unrelated owned objects can move independently. But the same model can make simple payments feel stateful.
A wallet or payment app may need to:
choose which coin objects fund a transfer; split or merge coins to match the desired amount; keep fresh object references; avoid reusing the same coin or gas object in concurrent transactions; make sure the user has SUI before sending a stablecoin. For a user who just wants to send USDC, that is unnecessary friction. The user thinks in balances: "I have 100 USDC, send 10." The chain historically exposed something closer to a set of coin objects.
Address Balance adds a fungible-balance layer on top of Sui's object model. Instead of requiring every unit of a fungible asset to appear as a separate Coin<T> object, it provides a canonical balance for each (address, coin type) pair. Funds sent through sui::coin::send_funds or sui::balance::send_funds merge into the recipient's balance for that asset.
This does not replace every Coin<T> path. Coin objects, address balances, and compatibility mechanisms coexist. That is part of the design: existing wallets, contracts, SDKs, and indexers cannot all migrate at once.
The important shift is that fungible assets no longer always need to be represented as concrete coin objects in the transaction path. That is what makes a cleaner stablecoin payment UX possible.
2. How the New Payment Path Works Address Balance looks like an account balance, but Sui does not become a traditional account-based chain. The core mechanism is the accumulator.
Simplified:
user transaction: deposit -> emit Merge accumulator event withdraw -> emit Split accumulator event checkpoint / commit settlement: collect accumulator events aggregate by (owner, Balance<T>) create system settlement transaction settlement transaction: update AccumulatorRoot dynamic fields User transactions do not directly write the shared AccumulatorRoot. If every address-balance operation wrote that shared object directly, parallelism would suffer. Instead, user transactions emit accumulator events. Settlement transactions aggregate and persist those changes later.
The main Move framework surface is small:
balance::send_funds<T>(Balance<T>, recipient) deposits a Balance<T> into the recipient's address balance. balance::redeem_funds<T>(Withdrawal<Balance<T>>) converts a withdrawal into a Balance<T>. coin::send_funds<T>(Coin<T>, recipient) converts a coin into a balance and deposits it into address balance. coin::redeem_funds<T>(Withdrawal<Balance<T>>) converts an address-balance withdrawal into a Coin<T>. The transaction format adds CallArg::FundsWithdrawal: reserve up to N from the sender's or sponsor's Balance<T>. During execution, this input becomes a Move-side sui::funds_accumulator::Withdrawal<Balance<T>>. It is not an ordinary owned object. It is a withdrawal handle. Only after it is redeemed through redeem_funds does it produce a Split accumulator event.
This gives the scheduler something it can reason about before execution: the maximum possible outflow. It can reserve funds conservatively without locking an entire account.
Gasless stablecoin transfer is built on top of this machinery. For allowed stablecoin types, a qualifying peer-to-peer transfer can execute with:
gasPayment = [] gasPrice = 0 gasBudget = 0 That does not mean arbitrary free computation. Gasless transfers are intentionally narrow. The token must be allowed by protocol configuration. The PTB shape must match a small set of balance and coin operations. The transaction cannot write ordinary objects. Input coins must be consumed or converted into address balances. There is also a minimum transfer amount, and gas-paying transactions are prioritized during congestion.
Those boundaries are security assumptions. Without them, gasPrice = 0 would become a generic free-computation and spam surface.
Address-balance gas payment also introduces a replay-protection requirement. A transaction that pays gas from address balance may have no gas coin object in gas_data.payment. If a stateless transaction has no owned object input anchoring it, it needs TransactionExpiration::ValidDuring, a chain identifier, and a nonce so it cannot be replayed across time or networks.
This is the tradeoff: the user no longer needs to manage SUI gas coins for simple stablecoin transfers, but the execution layer must now reason about balance withdrawals, stateless transaction validity, and deferred settlement.
3. Where Compatibility Gets Risky Sui cannot switch the whole ecosystem from coin objects to address balances overnight. Existing SDKs, wallets, indexers, and Move contracts still speak in Coin<T> and object references. The transition therefore needs compatibility.
Some compatibility is straightforward. Balance APIs now need to distinguish total balance, coin object balance, and address balance. A wallet that only scans owned Coin<T> objects can undercount a user after funds arrive through address balance. Indexers also need to process accumulator events, not only object diffs: Split is address-balance outflow, and Merge is address-balance inflow.
Some compatibility is more subtle. Existing contracts that accept Coin<T> can still be called by redeeming a coin from address balance first:
const [coin] = tx.moveCall({ target: '0x2::coin::redeem_funds', typeArguments: ['0x2::sui::SUI'], arguments: [tx.withdrawal({ amount: 1_000_000_000n })], }); tx.transferObjects([coin], recipient); Conversely, an old flow that produces a Coin<T> can fold it back into address balance through coin::send_funds.
The highest-risk compatibility layer is coin reservation.
Traditional gas payment uses concrete SUI coin objects:
gas_data.payment = [Coin<SUI> object refs] When there are multiple gas coins, the execution layer performs gas smashing: it combines multiple gas coins into one target coin, deletes the other gas coins, and charges gas from the target coin.
Address Balance adds another shape:
gas_data.payment = [real coin object, synthetic reservation object, ...] The synthetic reservation object is not a real on-chain coin. It is an ObjectRef-shaped compatibility value whose digest encodes an address-balance withdrawal reservation. After parsing it, the execution layer treats it as reserved SUI from the sender's address balance.
That is where assumptions start to overlap. Gas smashing was built around coin objects. Coin reservation looks like an object reference, but it is not an ordinary owned object. It can enter paths originally designed for gas coins, while its economic effect comes from address balance.
This is also why explorers and RPCs can be easy to misread. suix_getCoins or an explorer UI may show a coinObjectId, but that value can come from compatibility rather than from a user transaction creating or transferring a normal owned Coin<T>.
A mainnet example illustrates the issue. In transaction ECjUCiAP9YMYFyQrEKUb2JVyWovPyqN6rPGXRz42pUQn, the user transaction had:
objectChanges = [] balanceChanges: sender -100000 USDC, recipient +100000 USDC gasData.payment = [], gasPrice = 0, gasBudget = 0 accumulator events for Balance<USDC> The recipient later appeared in suix_getCoins with a coinObjectId whose previousTransaction was EvgW7KsrN8jaBUkuCdeo4NfiB9baZDyGTXidwxFbt4BV, a system settlement transaction. That settlement transaction called accumulator_settlement::settlement_prologue and accumulator_settlement::settle_u128, creating or modifying accumulator dynamic fields under 0x...0acc. Meanwhile, suix_getOwnedObjects filtered by 0x2::coin::Coin<USDC> returned empty for the recipient.
That combination is closer to an Address Balance RPC compatibility representation than to a normal coin object created by the user transaction.
The compatibility layer is useful. It keeps older coin-object flows working while address balances roll out. But it also brings address-balance side effects into execution logic that previously handled coin object mutation. That boundary is exactly where the first two halts occurred.
4. What Actually Broke The public timeline is short:
2026-05-28, about 07:00-13:30 PT: mainnet halt. A boundary bug between v1.72 Address Balance and gas charging / gas smashing triggered settlement underflow. 2026-05-29, about 05:00-08:30 PT: second halt. The interim fix covered only part of the InsufficientFundsForWithdraw shape. Another cancellation reason could mask InsufficientFundsForWithdraw, and the same class of underflow appeared again. 2026-05-29, about 13:30-19:20 PT: third halt. Validators restarted to deploy the fix, exposing a randomness / DKG state persistence bug. Epoch change could not complete. The first incident can be summarized as:
TX1: drain sender address balance to 0 TX2: gas payment = [real coin A, real coin B, address-balance reservation R] scheduler/execution sees address balance no longer enough TX2 is marked InsufficientFundsForWithdraw bug: TX2 still runs gas smashing path reservation R emits a Split accumulator event transaction fails, but Split event reaches checkpoint settlement settlement: current balance = 0 merge = 0 split = R checked arithmetic underflows system settlement transaction aborts every validator hits the same deterministic abort The important point is not that Sui allowed an invalid balance update. It did not. Checked arithmetic prevented the underflow from passing silently. The problem was where the failure happened: inside a system settlement transaction. Once that transaction aborted deterministically, honest validators stopped at the same checkpoint.
This is a liveness failure, not a theft-of-funds failure. Funds remained protected, but the chain stopped making progress.
The bug was also publicly triggerable. It did not require validator keys or admin privileges. It required transactions competing for the same address balance, one transaction entering InsufficientFundsForWithdraw, and a hybrid gas payment containing both real coins and a reservation. This is not the same as a simple "balance < amount" case, which would fail before consensus. The relevant shape involved concurrent transactions competing for the same address-balance reservation space.
The first hotfix pruned address-balance entries from gas payment once a transaction entered an IFFW early abort, while keeping real coins. The second halt showed that this was too narrow. A transaction can have multiple early cancellation reasons; if the fix only checks the surfaced error, IFFW can be masked. The more robust fix treats IFFW as a reason to bypass the executor / gas-smashing path and produce deterministic zero-gas failure effects.
The third halt was different. It came from randomness / DKG state during epoch change. Validators restarted to deploy the second fix. DKG participation for the next epoch did not meet the threshold, so randomness was disabled as designed. A latent persistence bug meant the "DKG failed/disabled" verdict was not remembered correctly after later restarts. Randomness-dependent transactions could neither execute nor be cancelled, the queue could not drain, and end-of-epoch logic waited for a DKG that would never complete.
The emergency fix added a force-epoch-close operator lever. That detail matters because production reliability is not only about the new feature. It is also about emergency upgrades, validator restarts, low-frequency epoch transitions, and operational recovery.
5. What Developers Should Take Away The point of this analysis is not that gasless stablecoin transfers were a bad idea. The demand is real. Payment UX matters. Stablecoin users should not need to understand gas coins before sending dollars.
The lesson is that payment UX can become consensus-critical when it changes gas payment and settlement. The implementation bar has to match that risk.
For wallets and payment apps:
Treat Address Balance and coin objects as coexisting asset representations. Show total balance, coin balance, and address balance clearly so users do not think funds have disappeared. Precheck gasless eligibility. Do not set gasPrice = 0 just because the token is USDC. Validate PTB shape, allowlisted functions, absence of ordinary object writes, minimum transfer amount, and gas budget. For address-balance gas payment, handle ValidDuring and nonce explicitly. Do not reuse the same nonce for distinct stateless transactions. In sponsored transactions, do not assume tx.gas is always the right abstraction. Address-balance gas payment uses empty gas payment (setGasPayment([])), while tx.gas represents the gas coin argument. Prefer higher-level APIs such as tx.coin() and tx.balance() where applicable, and review any GasCoin usage explicitly. For indexers and deposit monitors:
Process accumulator events. Balance-change algorithms that only inspect object diffs are incomplete. Do not require objectChanges to be non-empty. For gasless stablecoin transfers, the main signal should be balanceChanges: owner == watched address, coinType == target coin type, amount > 0 means incoming funds, and amount < 0 means outgoing funds. Treat objectChanges, compatibility coinObjectIds, and settlement transactions as enrichment or reconciliation signals, not as the only evidence of payment. For payment businesses:
Do not monitor only whether a transaction digest was submitted successfully. Monitor checkpoint progression, finality latency, epoch transitions, randomness/DKG state, and gasless rejection rate. Keep a paid fallback. During congestion, gas-paying transactions are prioritized over gasless stablecoin transfers. High-value or SLA-sensitive payments may need a paid path. For security teams:
Model failed transaction side effects explicitly. In this incident, the dangerous path was not a successful withdrawal. It was a failed path that still left a settlement-impacting accumulator event. Treat gas payment as a consensus boundary. It handles DoS protection, fee conservation, object lifecycle, balance deduction, and failed-transaction behavior. Preserve replay determinism during hotfixes. Nodes replaying historical checkpoints under different binaries must still produce the same effects. 6. Conclusion Address Balance is a meaningful protocol improvement for payment-oriented use cases. It addresses real friction: coin object UX, concurrent gas coin management, and the need for users to hold SUI before transferring stablecoins. Gasless stablecoin transfer is not just product language. It depends on concrete execution-layer mechanisms: allowlist, PTB shape validation, address-balance withdrawal, replay protection, zero gas budget, and accumulator settlement.
The May 2026 halts show the cost of making that improvement safely. The first two incidents came from address-balance reservations entering gas smashing in a way that let failed transactions leave settlement-impacting accumulator events. The third showed that emergency fixes themselves depend on validator restart and epoch-close paths, which are rare but critical.
Gasless transfers are worth building. Better payment UX is worth building. But the return is not free. What Sui had to give in return was a much higher burden on execution-layer invariants, gas accounting, settlement design, protocol gating, and operational recovery.
That is the real lesson of Address Balance: the closer a UX improvement gets to gas payment and settlement, the more it must be treated as core protocol engineering, not as an ordinary product feature.
FAQs What is Address Balance on Sui?
Address Balance is a fungible-balance layer added on top of Sui's object model. Rather than requiring every unit of a fungible asset to exist as a discrete Coin object, it provides a canonical balance for each address-and-coin-type pair. Deposits merge into that balance via accumulator events, which are settled later by system transactions rather than written directly by user transactions.
How do gasless stablecoin transfers work on Sui?
Qualifying peer-to-peer stablecoin transfers can set gas price, gas budget, and gas payment all to zero. The token type must be protocol-allowlisted, the transaction must match a narrow set of allowed PTB shapes, and no ordinary objects can be written. Gas is effectively covered by the protocol for these transfers, removing the requirement for users to hold SUI before sending stablecoins.
How should indexers and deposit monitors handle Address Balance transactions?
They should process accumulator events rather than relying solely on object diffs. For gasless stablecoin transfers, objectChanges may be empty, so balanceChanges is the primary signal for detecting incoming or outgoing funds. Compatibility coinObjectId values from settlement transactions should be treated as reconciliation signals rather than authoritative evidence of payment.
What is the key security lesson from the Sui halts?
Failed transactions can still produce side effects. In this case, a transaction that entered an insufficient-funds early abort still emitted a Split accumulator event, which reached checkpoint settlement and caused underflow. Any system where gas payment intersects with deferred settlement needs to explicitly model what failed transaction paths leave behind, not just what successful ones produce.
References Sui Foundation, "Sui Launches Gasless Stablecoin Transfers," 2026-05-20: https://blog.sui.io/sui-launches-gasless-stablecoin-transfers/ Sui Docs, "Gasless Stablecoin Transfers": https://docs.sui.io/develop/transaction-payment/gasless-stablecoin-transfers Sui Docs, "Using Address Balances": https://docs.sui.io/onchain-finance/asset-custody/address-balances/using-address-balances Sui Docs, "Migrating to Address Balances": https://docs.sui.io/onchain-finance/asset-custody/address-balances/migrate-address-balances SIP-58, "Sui Address Balances": https://github.com/sui-foundation/sips/blob/main/sips/sip-58.md Sui Foundation, "Sui Mainnet Halts Resolved After Major Upgrade," 2026-05-31: https://blog.sui.io/sui-mainnet-halts-resolved-after-major-upgrade/
Zach Pandl z Grayscale uvedl, že zvýšení dividendy STRC o 50 bazických bodů zřejmě neobnoví důvěru trhu. Podle něj by ji mohl vrátit až prodej více než 3 miliard USD v Bitcoinu.
Grayscale Research Head Zach Pandl said that Strategy’s 50 basis point increase in the STRC dividend next week may not be enough to restore market confidence.
According to Pandl, such an increase would raise the company’s dividend obligations by approximately $100 million over the next two years. However, this step is not expected to significantly improve investor confidence.
Pandl stated that a more effective step to restore market confidence might be for Strategy to sell over $3 billion worth of Bitcoin. He noted that this sale would be enough to cover almost all of the cash liabilities the company will face over the next two years.
Pandl stated the following in his assessment:
“What I expect to happen for Strategy next week is a 50 basis point increase in the STRC dividend. That translates to approximately $100 million in additional dividend obligations over the next two years, and that probably won’t help market confidence. What I hope will happen is that the company sells over $3 billion worth of Bitcoin to cover almost all of its cash obligations over the next two years. That would likely restore market confidence.”
*This is not investment advice.
Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!
BIP-110 má před srpnovou aktivací jen 0,31 % podpory hashrate, daleko od potřebných 55 %. Návrh na omezení nefinančních dat na Bitcoin tak míří k tichému neúspěchu.
Bitcoin’s most polarizing governance battle of 2026 is heading toward a quiet defeat. BIP-110, the proposal designed to restrict non-financial data on Bitcoin’s blockchain, has mustered roughly 0.31% of total hashrate support as of late June, with major mining pools conspicuously absent from the signaling effort.
The mandatory signaling phase is projected to begin around block height 961,632, somewhere between August 7 and August 15. The proposal needs 55% of miners to signal support for an early lock-in. It currently has 0.31%.
What BIP-110 actually tries to do In technical terms, the proposal caps transaction output data at 34 bytes and restricts OP_RETURN usage to 83 bytes. It would make it significantly harder to embed images, tokens, and other non-monetary content directly on Bitcoin’s base layer.
The proposal was originally introduced as BIP-444 back in October 2025 before being formally reassigned. Its author, Dathon Ohm, designed it as a temporary measure, a one-year consensus soft fork that would essentially give Bitcoin a trial period of tighter restrictions on data usage.
Advertisement
Proponents argue that protocols like Ordinals and Runes have driven up transaction fees and placed unnecessary strain on node operators.
The numbers tell a bleak story Node support for BIP-110 sat at 2-3% in early 2026. That translated to roughly 583 out of approximately 24,481 nodes in January, with much of that support attributed to Bitcoin Knots software rather than deliberate ideological alignment.
Miner support is even thinner. The 0.31% hashrate figure translates to about 5 EH/s out of a total network hashrate of approximately 940 EH/s.
The first block signaling support for BIP-110 was mined by Ocean pool back in March 2026. Since then, no major mining pool has followed suit. Ocean, run by Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr, has long been an outlier in the mining world, known for filtering certain transaction types that larger pools process without hesitation.
Why the big pools aren’t biting Critics of the proposal have been vocal. Blockstream CEO Adam Back and well-known Bitcoin developer Jameson Lopp have both raised concerns about the risks involved. Their objections center on several points: the potential for a chain split if enforcement is inconsistent, reputational damage to Bitcoin from a contentious fork attempt, and the fundamental enforcement problem that only nodes running the new rules would actually uphold the restrictions.
Even if BIP-110 somehow activated, its restrictions would only apply to nodes that chose to enforce them. Miners and nodes that didn’t upgrade would continue processing the transactions BIP-110 seeks to block.
What this means for investors The near-certain failure of BIP-110 carries implications beyond the technical debate. For market participants, the immediate takeaway is that Ordinals, Runes, and similar protocols aren’t going anywhere. The economic incentives for miners to process these transactions remain intact, and the political will to restrict them doesn’t exist at the hashrate level where it matters.
Bitcoin’s upgrade mechanism requires overwhelming consensus. BIP-110’s failure to gain traction shows that even proposals with passionate grassroots support can stall completely if they don’t align with miner economics.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Mike Novogratz varuje, že slabost Bitcoinu souvisí s tlakem na Strategy a jejím financováním. Klíčová je zóna 59 000 až 60 000 USD; proražení může otevřít cestu k 45 000 USD.
Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz has linked Bitcoin’s latest price drop to growing concern around Strategy, the company formerly known as MicroStrategy.
Summary
Novogratz says Strategy stress has become a core reason behind Bitcoin’s latest confidence shock. Weak crypto demand and strong-dollar policy comments added macro pressure as traders watched support levels. Related Strategy reports show STRC pressure, dividend costs, and cash reserves remain market concerns. Speaking on an All Things Markets episode, Novogratz said the sell-off reflects a mix of Strategy pressure, weak crypto sentiment, and macro stress.
Strategy pressure takes center stage Novogratz said the current Bitcoin weakness is tied to what he called a “MicroStrategy-led breakdown in confidence.” He said the problem is not only Bitcoin’s price, but also investor concern around Strategy’s funding model.
Mike Novogratz (@novogratz) is sounding the alarm this week. If the ultra-wealthy don't figure out a way to share the gains from AI, the pitchforks are coming, and history tells us exactly what that looks like. We're breaking down the widening wealth gap, Alan Greenspan's lasting… pic.twitter.com/egwAeghtUn
— Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) June 27, 2026 Strategy remains the largest public corporate holder of Bitcoin. Its stock and preferred securities have become a key part of how traders judge risk across the wider Bitcoin market.
The comments follow weeks of debate over Strategy’s capital structure. As previously reported, the company’s Bitcoin flywheel has come under pressure as its stock traded below the value of its Bitcoin holdings.
That shift matters because Strategy used its stock premium for years to raise capital and buy more Bitcoin. When that premium weakens, raising fresh capital becomes harder and market confidence can fade.
STRC weakness adds to market concern Novogratz also pointed to poor trading in Strategy’s preferred products. He said “the Saylor thing is real” and noted that the company’s perpetuals were trading weakly.
The pressure centers on STRC, Strategy’s preferred stock product. STRC was designed to trade close to $100, but market stress has pushed it below that level at several points.
As previously reported, CryptoQuant said Strategy’s annual dividend obligations had risen to about $1.2 billion. The firm also said dividend coverage had dropped to about 14 months as cash reserves declined.
That warning added to earlier concerns after Strategy sold 32 BTC in late May. The sale raised about $2.5 million and marked the company’s first reported Bitcoin sale since December 2022.
Macro pressure weighs on Bitcoin Novogratz also cited macro policy as another reason for Bitcoin’s weak price action. He pointed to hawkish central bank signals and stronger support for the U.S. dollar.
He said “strong dollar is weak Bitcoin.” His view is that a stronger dollar can reduce demand for risk assets, including Bitcoin, during periods of market stress.
That view fits with the wider market mood. Bitcoin has also faced pressure from ETF outflows, weaker liquidity, and cautious options positioning.
Aspreviously reported, ETF flows and Strategy concerns have weighed on trader sentiment. Bearish exposure near the $60,000 area also showed that traders were preparing for more downside risk.
Bitcoin faces key support test Novogratz said the $59,000 to $60,000 zone is now important for Bitcoin. He warned that if this level fails, the market could open a path toward $45,000.
He also said the next move remains hard to call. In his words, the chance of a deeper drop or recovery is “50/50” because the setup is complicated.
The comments show how closely traders now watch Strategy as part of the Bitcoin market. The company’s balance sheet, STRC performance, and cash position have become market signals.
For now, Bitcoin’s next test sits near the same level Novogratz named. A hold above the $59,000 to $60,000 area could calm traders, while a break below it may bring more selling pressure.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Michael Saylor naznačil další nákup Bitcoinu, když na X napsal, že „budeme potřebovat víc grafů“. Jde o stejný signál, který už tento měsíc předcházel dalším oznámením nákupů.
Michael Saylor is doing the thing again. The Strategy executive chairman posted on X on June 28, sharing the company’s Bitcoin acquisition tracker alongside a single line: “We’re gonna need more charts.”
If you’ve been paying attention, you know what that means. It’s the same playbook Saylor has run all month, with similar teaser posts on June 7 and June 21 preceding formal disclosures of additional Bitcoin purchases.
Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, has built its entire corporate identity around one bet: Bitcoin goes up over the long run, and anyone who buys enough of it will be rewarded. The company is the largest public corporate holder of Bitcoin on the planet, having accumulated thousands of coins across multiple acquisition cycles funded primarily through equity and preferred stock offerings.
Advertisement
What makes this latest tease notable is the context surrounding it. At one point in June 2026, Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings were reportedly $11.7 billion underwater. Saylor has previously stated that the company is “not going to be selling” even in adverse scenarios, and has gone further by saying Strategy will continue buying Bitcoin “forever.”
How Strategy keeps buying The company doesn’t just dip into a corporate checking account when it wants more coins. It raises fresh capital through equity offerings and preferred stock sales, then deploys that capital into Bitcoin.
Recent transaction data illustrates the company’s approach. Small sales of 32 BTC were followed by substantially larger repurchases, a pattern that reinforces the idea that any selling is tactical and temporary, while the buying is structural and ongoing.
What this means for investors The $11.7 billion in unrealized losses is a number worth sitting with. Most companies that find themselves that deep underwater on an investment start talking about “strategic reviews” and “reassessing priorities.” Saylor is posting memes about needing more charts.
What to watch next is straightforward: the formal acquisition announcement that almost certainly follows this latest tease. If the pattern from June 7 and June 21 holds, a specific purchase disclosure should land within days.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Bitcoin se drží poblíž 60 000 USD i přes napětí na Blízkém východě a obavy kolem Strategy. Klíčová podpora je 58 000 USD, návrat nad 64 000 až 66 000 USD by mohl obnovit momentum.
Bitcoin is trading near $60,000 after a volatile week that pushed the largest cryptocurrency to its lowest level since late 2024.
Summary
Bitcoin is holding near $60,000 despite Middle East tension and renewed pressure from Strategy concerns. Analysts say a break above $66,000 could revive momentum, while $58,000 remains key support. On-chain data shows weaker short-term holder dominance, a structure often seen near accumulation zones. The price has stayed calm through the weekend, even as new tension in the Middle East tested risk appetite across global markets.
BTC had opened the previous business week with strength, rising to about $65,500 after reclaiming support near $64,000. That move failed to hold. Sellers later pushed the asset below $62,400, then toward $59,000, before another drop sent Bitcoin near $58,000.
Bitcoin steadies after sharp weekly sell-off Bitcoin’s latest price action shows a market trying to hold a base after a fast decline. BTC now trades around the $60,000 area, with bulls defending the zone after repeated tests below that mark.
The weekend calm stands out because the U.S. and Iran exchanged fresh blame over the broken ceasefire. Earlier this month, Bitcoin had climbed above $65,500 after a U.S.-Iran deal eased oil and inflation fears across markets.
That relief rally did not last. Bitcoin soon lost strength as traders returned to concerns around liquidity, ETF flows, and Strategy-related risk.
The current setup leaves BTC stuck between two near-term levels. A move below $58,000 could invite more selling, while a clean recovery above $64,000 to $66,000 may show that buyers are regaining control.
Strategy fears remain a market pressure point One of the main pressure points remains Strategy, the company formerly known as MicroStrategy. Growing concern around its capital structure has affected Bitcoin sentiment because the firm remains the largest corporate holder of BTC.
As previously reported, Bitcoin fell below $60,000 for the second time in June as liquidations topped $850 million. Strategy shares also dropped sharply as traders watched the company’s stock, preferred shares, and Bitcoin treasury.
Another report said Strategy’s Bitcoin flywheel has started to work in reverse. The company once used a stock premium to raise capital and buy more BTC, but weaker market pricing now makes that model harder to sustain.
CryptoQuant has also urged Strategy to pause Bitcoin purchases and rebuild cash reserves. The firm said dividend coverage tied to STRC had fallen to about 14 months as cash reserves declined.
This pressure does not mean Strategy must sell Bitcoin now. Still, the market is watching whether further stress in STRC or MSTR could create more fear around BTC.
Analysts split on breakout or deeper chop Crypto analyst Market Watcher said Bitcoin’s weekly structure remains clear. The analyst pointed to a downtrend from the July and August highs near $70,000 and $67,000 and said a break of that line would make them more willing to deploy capital.
$BTC (1W)
break of downtrend (July ~70k, august ~67k): more actively looking to scale capital into positions while trading the breakout momentum
indecisive summer chop (~59k – ~66k): doing mostly nothing, day trading whats there
break of main trend (~ 58k): popcorn and TL on… pic.twitter.com/XB5uU0sICt
— Market Watcher (@watchingmarkets) June 28, 2026 The same analyst described the current zone as “indecisive summer chop” between about $59,000 and $66,000. That range matches the current market, where BTC has not broken down fully but has also failed to reclaim lost momentum.
Market Watcher said a break of the main trend near $58,000 would change the setup. The analyst also compared the current downtrend to the December 2022 and January 2023 breakout, which later started a major BTC uptrend.
EGRAG CRYPTO took a longer view and focused on Bitcoin’s 12-month cycle. The analyst said the usual rhythm has been three years up and one year down, but this cycle may be different if 2026 closes as a red yearly candle.
EGRAG said the four-year cycle remains intact for now, but added that structure matters more than hope. That view keeps attention on the yearly close and whether Bitcoin can regain a stronger long-term pattern.
#BTC – The 12M Cycle Is Flashing Something Different 👀
The historical $BTC rhythm has been clear:
🔸3 years UP → 1 year DOWN
🔸3 years UP → 1 year DOWN
🔸3 years UP → 1 year DOWN
But this cycle is different so far:
🔸2 years UP → and now potentially 2 years DOWN
🔸That is… pic.twitter.com/dczPLUMesG
— EGRAG CRYPTO (@egragcrypto) June 27, 2026 On-chain data points to possible reset CryptoQuant analyst Crazzyblockk said Bitcoin’s short-term holder realized dominance has fallen to 27.6%. The analyst said that places BTC inside a historical undervaluation zone where long-term holders control most realized capital.
In past cycles, market tops formed when short-term holders held most realized capital. That often showed heavy speculation and late-cycle buying.
Bitcoin’s short-term holder realized dominance, source: CryptoQuant analyst Crazzyblockk Bear markets have shown the opposite setup. Short-term holders realize losses, their share of realized capital falls, and long-term holders regain control.
The analyst said current data looks closer to past accumulation phases than cycle tops. However, they also warned that bottoms often form through a process, and another capitulation phase remains possible.
Another CryptoQuant analyst, Facundo Fama, pointed to long-term holder SOPR. The analyst said when LTH-SOPR moves near or below 1, long-term holders are selling coins at or near a loss.
The last time LTH-SOPR stayed below 1 on the monthly timeframe for more than three months was in October 2022, when BTC traded near $20,000. That data does not guarantee a bottom, but it shows that long-term holder stress has returned to a rare zone.
Bitcoin price outlook Bitcoin’s short-term outlook now depends on whether bulls can defend $58,000 and recover the $64,000 to $66,000 range. A close above that upper band could support a stronger recovery attempt.
A loss of $58,000 would weaken the current base and could expose lower areas as traders reduce risk. In that case, Bitcoin may revisit deeper support before building a new range.
For now, BTC is neither breaking down nor confirming a strong reversal. The market remains calm near $60,000, but that calm depends on support holding, Middle East risk staying contained, and Strategy-related fear easing.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Prezidentka Ripple Monica Longová vystoupí na XRP Seoul 2026 v Soulu 3. října během Korea Blockchain Week. Akce má spojit držitele XRP, vývojáře XRPL a firmy kolem blockchainových financí.
Ripple President Monica Long is set to appear at XRP Seoul 2026, adding a major company voice to one of Asia’s key XRP-focused events.
Summary
Monica Long’s Seoul appearance comes as Korea remains one of XRP’s most active trading markets. XRP Seoul will connect holders, builders, and projects during Korea Blockchain Week on October 3. Ripple’s Korea ties now span custody, tokenized bonds, XRPL projects, and local developer programs. The event will take place on October 3 during Korea Blockchain Week. It will bring together XRP holders, XRP Ledger builders, ecosystem projects, and companies working on blockchain finance.
Monica Long joins XRP Seoul lineup The XRP Seoul account said it was “honored to welcome” Long to the event. The post described her as a leader across Ripple’s business, product, and engineering teams.
Long has worked at Ripple since 2013. The event page says she has helped build the company into a “one-stop shop to move, manage, hold and tokenize value.”
We're honored to welcome @MonicaLongSF, President of @Ripple.
Monica leads Ripple's Business, Product and Engineering teams, building Ripple into a one-stop shop to move, manage, hold and tokenize value. Since joining in 2013, she's played a pivotal role in driving the company… pic.twitter.com/TCbHhU8up4
— XRP Seoul 2026 🇰🇷 (@XRPSEOUL) June 28, 2026 Her role gives the event added weight for XRP supporters. Ripple remains closely linked to XRP through its holdings, payments work, stablecoin strategy, custody services, and use of XRP Ledger infrastructure.
The appearance also comes as Korea Blockchain Week lists Long among its 2026 speaker lineup. The main KBW conference runs from September 30 to October 1 in Seoul.
Korea remains a major XRP market South Korea has long been one of XRP’s most active retail markets. In a recent Korea and Japan trading review, XRP trading on Upbit and other Korean platforms stood out during several periods of strong market activity.
In May, XRP’s Korean won pair also led Upbit volumes after Hana Bank moved to buy a large stake in Dunamu, the operator of Upbit. As previously reported, XRP outpaced Bitcoin and Ethereum in 24-hour volume on the exchange at that time.
That trading pattern explains why Seoul is a key place for an XRP event. Korean traders often drive sharp moves in XRP volume during market cycles.
XRP Seoul 2026 says it will focus on XRP Ledger growth, institutional adoption, and real-world use cases. The official event site says it expects more than 3,000 attendees and over 100 companies.
XRPL activity expands in Korea Ripple’s work in Korea goes beyond token trading. In May, Ripple Custody signed a deal with Kyobo Life Insurance to pilot near real-time settlement of tokenized Korean government bonds.
As previously reported, the pilot uses Ripple Custody to hold, transfer, and settle tokenized bonds. The project also explores stablecoin payment rails through RLUSD.
Local XRPL groups are also supporting developer activity. XRPL Korea lists the Korea Financial Innovation Program 2026 as a three-month path for teams building blockchain-based finance products.
That effort gives XRP Seoul a builder angle, not only a market angle. The event will likely give projects a stage to show how they use XRPL for payments, tokenization, custody, and other financial products.
XRP utility remains under debate Long’s appearance comes as XRP holders continue to question how Ripple’s business growth connects to the token. Recent coverage has tracked Ripple’s moves toward banking, stablecoins, custody, and deeper ties with traditional finance.
A recent analysis of Ripple’s bank strategy said RLUSD may benefit first from a trust charter and Fed master account path. Another SWIFT strategy report noted that Ripple now appears more focused on working with bank messaging systems than replacing them.
That leaves XRP’s direct role under close review. Some holders want clearer proof that Ripple’s new deals create lasting demand for XRP, not only for Ripple products.
XRP Seoul gives Long a public stage to address that gap. Her comments may help show how Ripple sees XRP, RLUSD, custody, tokenized assets, and Korean market growth fitting into the same plan.
Ripple při klíčových institucionálních obchodech stále častěji používá RLUSD jako platební prostředek, nikoli XRP. To vyvolává obavy, že poptávka po XRP tak zůstává stranou.
Ripple settled a tokenized Treasury with JPMorgan in five seconds, expanded a stablecoin deal across Latin America, and powered remittances to 170 million people. The catch for XRP holders: the cash leg in deal after deal is RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar stablecoin, not XRP. Here is whether the token they hold is being quietly sidelined by the company built around it.
Summary
Ripple’s biggest recent wins, a five-second tokenized Treasury settlement with JPMorgan and Mastercard, a stablecoin expansion across Latin America, and a major remittance deal, increasingly use RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar stablecoin, as the cash leg rather than XRP. RLUSD crossed $1 billion in market value quickly and is becoming the settlement asset enterprises actually want, raising the question of whether it is taking the role XRP was built to play. The pattern reflects a real tension: Ripple the company keeps winning institutional deals, while XRP the token stays pinned near a dollar, beneath every major moving average. The bullish counterargument is that Ripple is the largest XRP holder with aligned incentives, that RLUSD and XRP serve different functions, and that ledger activity can still benefit XRP indirectly. For holders, the question is whether XRP’s value will accrue from network usage and catalysts like the CLARITY Act and ETF flows, or whether RLUSD will capture the settlement demand XRP was meant to capture. In June 2026, Ripple completed something that should have been a milestone for XRP. Working with JPMorgan, Mastercard, and the tokenization firm Ondo Finance, it settled the cross-border redemption of a tokenized U.S. Treasury fund across banks on the XRP Ledger, and the blockchain leg finalized in under five seconds, against the one to three business days the same transaction can take on traditional rails. It was a genuine showcase of what Ripple’s technology can do, the kind of institutional validation the XRP community has predicted for years.
NEW: JPMorgan, Mastercard, Ondo Finance and Ripple complete tokenized Treasury redemption test on XRP Ledger. Settlement took roughly 5 seconds compared to 3 to 5 business days on traditional rails pic.twitter.com/9Rkd3MkWF4
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) June 12, 2026 And yet there was a detail in it that has become the defining unease for XRP holders: the cash leg of that settlement used RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, not XRP. The same pattern has repeated across Ripple’s other recent wins. A partnership expanding stablecoin settlement across Latin America runs on a regulated peso-backed stablecoin issued on the XRP Ledger and integrated with Ripple’s infrastructure, while a major remittance deal reaching 170 million people uses RLUSD as the primary settlement asset. Deal after deal, Ripple keeps winning, and deal after deal, the asset doing the actual settling is increasingly a stablecoin, while XRP trades near a dollar and change as though none of it is happening.
This is the question that has moved to the center of the XRP story, and it is a fair and uncomfortable one: if every Ripple win runs on RLUSD rather than XRP, is the token being quietly sidelined by the very company built around it? The concern is not baseless, because it touches the oldest puzzle in the XRP thesis, the gap between Ripple’s corporate success and XRP’s token price, and gives it a specific, mechanical explanation. But it is also not the whole story, because there are real counterarguments about why RLUSD and XRP are not simply competitors, why Ripple’s incentives remain aligned with holders, and how ledger activity can still benefit the token.
This piece works through both sides honestly. It lays out the pattern of RLUSD showing up where holders expected XRP, explains what RLUSD is and why enterprises prefer it for settlement, examines whether the stablecoin is cannibalizing XRP’s intended role, presents the bullish case that the two assets are complementary, and arrives at a grounded view of what holders should actually take from it. The goal is neither to stoke the fear nor to dismiss it, but to give holders an accurate read on whether their token is being left behind.
The pattern: RLUSD where holders expected XRP Start with the pattern itself, because it is real and worth seeing clearly across the recent run of Ripple announcements. The flagship example is the tokenized Treasury settlement with JPMorgan, Mastercard, and Ondo Finance. For years, the XRP pitch held that cross-border institutional settlement was exactly what XRP was built for, the bridge asset that would let value move between currencies and institutions in seconds. When Ripple finally delivered a marquee demonstration of that capability, settling a tokenized Treasury redemption across borders and banks in under five seconds, the XRP Ledger provided the rails, but RLUSD provided the cash leg.
That detail matters because it changes what the event proved. It proved that the XRP Ledger can support serious institutional flows, with names that compliance departments recognize and a settlement speed legacy rails cannot match. But it did not prove that XRP the asset sits at the center of the payment, because the money leg moved through a stablecoin rather than the volatile token. As previously reported, Ripple’s tokenized Treasury settlement with JPMorgan showed that the ledger can win important business before the token captures meaningful demand.
The same shape recurs elsewhere. Ripple expanded a payments partnership in which a regulated peso-backed stablecoin is issued on the XRP Ledger and integrated into Ripple’s payment infrastructure to support enterprise stablecoin settlement across Latin America. Ripple also backed Flutterwave in a round that valued the African payments company at $3.2 billion, with RLUSD positioned for use across payment rails that reach a very large user base. In each case, the XRP Ledger and Ripple’s infrastructure become more relevant, but the settlement asset is a stablecoin.
Across these deals, the consistent feature is that the XRP Ledger, the blockchain Ripple built and that XRP is native to, is doing real and valuable work, but the asset moving through it as money is increasingly a stablecoin rather than XRP. This is what gives the holder concern its force: it is not a single anomalous deal but a repeated pattern in which Ripple’s institutional wins showcase the ledger and the company’s technology while routing the actual settlement value through RLUSD or another stablecoin. For holders who bought XRP on the thesis that institutional settlement demand would drive token demand, watching that settlement demand flow through a stablecoin instead is a legitimate cause for unease. The first honest step is simply to acknowledge that the pattern is real.
What RLUSD is and why enterprises prefer it To judge whether this pattern is a problem, you have to understand what RLUSD is and why enterprises keep choosing it, because the answer explains the dynamic without requiring any conspiracy against XRP. RLUSD is Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, a token designed to hold a steady value of $1, backed by reserves, and issued on the XRP Ledger and other chains. It crossed $1 billion in market value quickly after launch, a sign of real demand, and it has become the asset Ripple increasingly puts forward as the cash leg in its enterprise settlements.
The reason enterprises prefer a stablecoin for the money side of a transaction is straightforward and has nothing to do with any view about XRP. Businesses settling real-world value need price stability. When a company moves money across borders, it wants the amount it sends to equal the amount that arrives, with no exposure to price swings in between. XRP, like any freely traded cryptocurrency, fluctuates in price, which makes it difficult to use as the unit in which an enterprise wants to denominate and hold a settlement, even if it can still work as a bridge for moving value quickly.
A stablecoin solves this by holding a fixed dollar value, so the enterprise can settle in something that behaves like the dollars it already thinks in. This is why, across the industry and not just at Ripple, stablecoins have become the dominant on-chain settlement instrument: they combine the speed and programmability of crypto with the price stability that commerce requires. RLUSD is Ripple’s entry into that category, and its growing use in Ripple’s deals reflects the same market logic that has made stablecoins central everywhere. For readers who want the basics, how RLUSD holds its dollar peg is the starting point for understanding why enterprises gravitate toward it.
The same logic explains why exchange and liquidity integrations matter. When RLUSD is listed with XRP pairs and broader access, the stablecoin becomes easier to move, price, and route through the infrastructure Ripple wants enterprises to use. That helps Ripple’s payments stack, and it can deepen activity on the XRP Ledger, but it still does not mean every dollar of settlement creates direct XRP demand. The holder question is what remains for XRP once the stablecoin has taken the stable cash role.
Understanding this matters because it reframes the concern. RLUSD is not showing up in Ripple’s settlements simply because Ripple is trying to sideline XRP; it is showing up because enterprises asked for a stable settlement asset and Ripple built one to give them. That is a rational business decision for Ripple and a useful product decision for institutions. The harder question is whether that useful product decision narrows the value-accrual path that XRP holders were counting on.
Is RLUSD cannibalizing XRP’s role? This is the crux of the matter, and it deserves to be stated plainly: there is a real argument that RLUSD is taking the settlement role XRP was originally meant to play. The classic XRP thesis cast the token as the bridge asset for cross-border value transfer, the thing that would sit in the middle of international settlements, moving value between currencies in seconds and capturing demand as global payment volume flowed through it. Stablecoins complicate that thesis directly, because a dollar stablecoin can perform much of the cross-border settlement function that XRP was built for, moving value quickly and programmably while also offering the price stability XRP cannot. If enterprises can settle in RLUSD on the XRP Ledger, getting the speed of the ledger without the volatility of the token, then the specific demand driver that was supposed to accrue to XRP may instead accrue to the stablecoin.
This is the structural worry beneath the holder concern, and it is not easily waved away. The bull case for XRP has long depended on the idea that Ripple’s growing settlement business would translate into demand for the token, but if the settlement business increasingly runs on RLUSD, that translation weakens. Ripple’s institutional infrastructure could keep growing impressively, opening corridors and closing deals, while the value of that growth flows through stablecoins and fiat instead of driving XRP token demand. That would leave the familiar gap between corporate progress and token price not just intact but mechanically explained.
The token could end up as the rails, valuable to the system but not the asset that captures the economic value moving across it. This is the version of events that should genuinely concern holders, and it is why the RLUSD pattern is more than a cosmetic detail. It points to a possible future in which XRP’s network succeeds, Ripple thrives, RLUSD becomes a major settlement asset, and XRP the token still struggles to convert all of that activity into sustained demand because the demand has a stablecoin to flow into instead. That is also why the older question of XRP’s bridge-asset role needs to be revisited rather than repeated as if nothing has changed.
There is a broader parallel here with other infrastructure tokens. A network can be useful without its native token absorbing the full value of that usefulness, especially when users can interact with the network through stable assets, tokenized deposits, or application-level instruments. XRP holders have already seen this in miniature: the ledger gets institutional proof points, Ripple gets business wins, and XRP gets fees, reserves, or optional routing rather than obvious direct demand. Whether that is enough depends on scale, and that scale has not yet shown up in the price.
The bullish case: complementary, not competing The other side of this debate is serious and deserves a full hearing, because the framing of RLUSD versus XRP as a zero-sum contest may be too simple. The first counterargument is that RLUSD and XRP serve different functions and can coexist productively. A stablecoin is the cash leg, the stable unit in which value is denominated and held. XRP, in the bridge role, can still serve as the connective asset that moves value between different currencies and stablecoins, the neutral intermediary in a world where many different fiat-backed stablecoins exist and need to be exchanged.
In this view, a proliferation of stablecoins actually increases the need for a neutral bridge asset to move between them, and XRP could capture that role precisely because it is not tied to any single currency. RLUSD handles the dollar leg, MXNB handles the peso leg, and other stablecoins can handle other currencies or jurisdictions. XRP can then sit between those assets when liquidity is fragmented, routing value across the ledger’s exchange and payments infrastructure. That is a more modest thesis than “XRP becomes the cash leg of global settlement,” but it is not an irrelevant one.
The second counterargument concerns incentives. Ripple is the largest single holder of XRP, which means the company has a powerful, built-in economic reason to drive the token’s value and usage that does not depend on any promise. Every corridor Ripple opens, every institution it onboards, and every unit of activity it brings to the XRP Ledger can eventually matter to XRP if that activity creates fees, reserves, routing, liquidity depth, or bridge demand. From this angle, Ripple building a successful stablecoin is not a betrayal of XRP holders but an expansion of the ecosystem XRP sits inside.
Even RLUSD, issued on the XRP Ledger, can support XRP indirectly by increasing ledger activity and making the network more useful to institutions. That is the strongest version of the complementary thesis: stablecoins bring institutions onto the rail, and once they are there, XRP has more chances to serve as liquidity, routing, or bridge infrastructure. The weakness is timing and certainty. Indirect value can take years to show up, and investors do not price “maybe someday” the same way they price direct, measurable demand today.
The third point is that XRP’s strongest catalysts were never really about being the settlement cash leg in the first place. The most powerful drivers of XRP’s potential value, regulatory clarity from the CLARITY Act, compounding ETF inflows, and broad adoption of the ledger, operate largely independent of whether RLUSD or XRP is the cash leg in any given deal. On this reading, holders fixating only on the RLUSD-versus-XRP question are watching one important variable, but not the only variable. The better question is whether the total system being built around XRP Ledger becomes large enough that XRP’s indirect roles finally matter.
The value-accrual problem at the heart of it Step back and the RLUSD debate is really a specific instance of the deepest question in the entire XRP story, the one that has defined the token through 2026: how, exactly, does value accrue to XRP? A blockchain network can succeed enormously while the token native to it struggles if the activity on the network does not translate into sustained demand for the token. This is the puzzle XRP holders have lived with all year, watching Ripple rack up settlements, stablecoin launches, banking moves, and enterprise deals while the token stayed pinned near a dollar beneath every major moving average. The RLUSD pattern sharpens this puzzle by identifying a concrete reason the translation might be failing.
If the settlement value that was supposed to flow into XRP flows into RLUSD instead, then network success and token demand decouple in exactly the way the price action suggests. That is why the issue is bigger than one JPMorgan test or one Flutterwave deal. It is about whether XRP captures the economic value of the ledger it secures and powers, or whether it becomes a necessary but low-fee native asset beneath higher-value instruments. In previous coverage, this was the same basic dilemma behind the company-versus-token gap up close: Ripple can become more valuable without XRP necessarily moving in lockstep.
The honest framing is that XRP’s range-bound behavior is less a mystery than a predictable feature of how value accrues, or fails to accrue, to a token whose network can succeed without it. The waiting ends only when usage and token demand finally converge, and that convergence requires specific things to happen. Settlement volume needs to become large enough that fees, reserves, routing, and ecosystem use begin to matter against the enormous XRP supply locked in escrow. ETF flows also need to compound instead of trickle, while a regulatory catalyst like the CLARITY Act needs to cross the line to pull institutional money off the sidelines.
RLUSD’s rise is relevant because it bears on the first of those channels, the settlement-volume channel, by raising the possibility that volume accrues to the stablecoin instead of the token. But it is only one of several channels, and the others, ETF demand and regulatory clarity, could drive XRP regardless of what settles Ripple’s deals. That is why the catalyst that drives XRP regardless still matters to holders even if RLUSD keeps winning the cash-leg role. The realistic synthesis is that the RLUSD pattern is a genuine headwind to one specific version of the XRP value-accrual thesis, the bridge-asset-settlement version, while leaving the regulatory-unlock and ETF-demand versions largely intact.
What holders should take from it So should XRP holders worry about RLUSD, and if so, how much? The grounded answer is that the concern is legitimate but should be held in proportion, neither dismissed nor allowed to dominate. The legitimate part is that RLUSD genuinely does weaken the specific thesis that institutional settlement demand would flow into XRP. In deal after deal, that demand is flowing into the stablecoin instead, and holders who bought XRP primarily on the bridge-asset-settlement story should update on that evidence instead of ignoring it.
If your entire case for XRP rested on the idea that Ripple’s settlement business would mechanically drive token demand, the RLUSD pattern is a real challenge to that case and worth taking seriously. Pretending the token is the cash leg when it increasingly is not would be wishful thinking. The question is no longer whether Ripple is winning, because it clearly is. The question is whether XRP captures enough of those wins to justify the token thesis on its own terms.
The proportion part is that the bridge-asset-settlement story was never the only pillar of the XRP thesis, and arguably not even the strongest one. The catalysts most capable of moving XRP, statutory clarity from the CLARITY Act and the institutional ETF demand it could unlock, operate largely independent of whether RLUSD or XRP settles any given transaction. Ripple’s status as the largest XRP holder also keeps its incentives aligned with the token even as it builds RLUSD. The stablecoin may be the product enterprises want now, but XRP remains the native asset inside the ecosystem those enterprises are entering.
The most useful posture for a holder is therefore to treat the RLUSD pattern as important information about where one channel of demand is going, while keeping attention on the channels that matter more: regulatory progress, ETF flows, and whether ledger activity overall, RLUSD included, grows large enough to support the token through fees, reserves, routing, and ecosystem demand. For price-focused readers, what the gap means for price is the practical version of the same question. If XRP keeps failing to convert Ripple’s wins into token demand, the chart will continue to reflect that. If regulatory clarity, ETF inflows, and ledger usage finally converge, RLUSD may look less like a replacement and more like the stablecoin that helped bring institutions onto the rail.
The deepest truth here is that XRP’s fate depends on the convergence of usage and token demand, and RLUSD is one factor among several bearing on that convergence. It is a headwind to one pillar instead of the collapse of the whole case. Holders should worry enough to watch it closely and to be honest about which version of the XRP thesis it undercuts, but not so much that they lose sight of the larger catalysts that will ultimately determine whether the token finally breaks its range.
Frequently asked questions What is RLUSD? RLUSD is Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, a token designed to hold a steady value of $1, backed by reserves, and issued on the XRP Ledger and other blockchains. It crossed $1 billion in market value quickly after launch, reflecting real demand, and Ripple increasingly puts it forward as the cash leg, the stable settlement asset, in its enterprise deals. Because it holds a fixed dollar value instead of fluctuating like XRP, RLUSD is suited to the role of denominating and settling real-world value, which is why it has become central to Ripple’s institutional settlement business and to the debate about what that leaves for XRP.
Why do Ripple’s deals use RLUSD instead of XRP? Because enterprises settling real-world value need price stability, and a stablecoin provides it while XRP does not. When a business moves money across borders, it wants the amount it sends to equal the amount that arrives, with no exposure to price swings in between. XRP fluctuates in price, which makes it useful as a fast bridge for moving value but difficult as the unit an enterprise wants to hold and settle in. RLUSD holds a fixed dollar value, so enterprises can settle in something that behaves like the dollars they already use.
Is RLUSD replacing XRP? Not exactly, though it is taking part of the role XRP was originally pitched for. The classic XRP thesis cast the token as the bridge asset for cross-border settlement, and a dollar stablecoin can perform much of that settlement function while also offering price stability XRP lacks, so RLUSD does compete with one version of XRP’s intended purpose. The counterargument is that the two are complementary: RLUSD handles the dollar cash leg, while XRP can serve as the neutral bridge that moves value between many different currencies and stablecoins. A world of many stablecoins may actually increase the need for a neutral bridge asset, a role XRP could fill.
Does RLUSD’s success hurt XRP holders? It weakens one specific pillar of the XRP bull case, the idea that Ripple’s settlement business would mechanically drive XRP token demand, because that settlement demand increasingly flows into RLUSD instead. Holders who bought XRP primarily on that bridge-asset-settlement story should take the pattern seriously. However, RLUSD runs on the XRP Ledger, generating activity, fees, reserves, and ecosystem growth that can indirectly support XRP, and Ripple, as the largest XRP holder, keeps its incentives aligned with the token. The stronger XRP catalysts, regulatory clarity and ETF demand, operate largely independent of which asset settles a given deal, so RLUSD is a headwind to one pillar instead of the collapse of the whole case.
What actually drives XRP’s value then? XRP’s value depends on the convergence of network usage and token demand, which requires specific things to happen. Settlement and ecosystem activity must become large enough that fees, reserves, routing, and demand begin to matter against the large XRP supply locked in escrow. Spot ETF inflows also need to compound, and a regulatory catalyst like the CLARITY Act needs to cross the line to pull institutional money off the sidelines. These channels, particularly the regulatory unlock and ETF demand, operate largely regardless of whether RLUSD or XRP settles any individual transaction.
Should I sell XRP because of RLUSD? This article does not give investment advice, and that decision depends on your own analysis and circumstances. What the analysis offers is a framework: RLUSD truly weakens the bridge-asset-settlement version of the XRP thesis, so if that was your primary reason for holding, the pattern is a real challenge worth weighing honestly. But it leaves the regulatory-clarity and ETF-demand versions of the thesis largely intact, and Ripple’s incentives remain aligned with XRP as its largest holder. The proportionate response is to watch the RLUSD trend closely and be honest about which pillar it undercuts, while keeping the larger catalysts in view instead of reacting to a single factor in isolation.
This article is information, not investment advice. Partnership details, settlement mechanics, market values, and corporate plans reflect reporting available as of June 28, 2026, and can change quickly. The relationship between RLUSD and XRP is an evolving and debated topic. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell XRP, RLUSD, or any asset. Verify current details from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.
XRP dipped all the way to the 1 dollar mark on Friday, putting this key threshold to the test once again. As selling pressure remained strong throughout the week, market participants closely watched the US Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index for May, one of the Federal Reserve’s preferred gauges of inflation. The data hinted that inflation is proving more persistent than anticipated, prompting a cautious tone toward riskier assets.
Short term scenarios dominate the XRP outlookOver the course of three straight days, XRP declined and tested the heavy trading zone around 1.06 dollars, seeing about 830 million XRP change hands at this level. However, buyers struggled to hold the support and the price retreated to the 1 dollar boundary.
Following Friday’s low, buying interest emerged and the recovery extended into Saturday. Over the past 24 hours, XRP has gained 2.95 percent, most recently trading at 1.07 dollars. The key near-term question is whether support at 1.06 dollars can be reestablished, allowing the bounce to continue.
Analysts now see three possible paths for XRP in the short run: a continued recovery, a period of sideways movement, or a decline below 1 dollar.
Alternatively, if the market waits for fresh direction, the price could remain stuck in a narrow band. However, should the current levels fail, a fresh drop below the psychological 1 dollar mark may become likely, drawing attention to previous zones of strong trading activity as potential supports.
According to crypto analyst Ali, if XRP breaks below the critical 1 dollar level, three key price supports come into focus. Roughly 923 million XRP changed hands at 0.80 dollars, 1.16 billion at 0.62 dollars, and 1.06 billion at 0.51 dollars—areas where heavy historical trading activity makes them likely candidates for a potential price floor.
LevelXRP Traded (million)Significance1.06 dollars830Key near-term support and resistance0.80 dollars923First major support0.62 dollars1,160Deeper retracement target0.51 dollars1,060Lower support bandXRP Ledger takes the lead in RLUSD supplyA major development for the Ripple ecosystem this week involved RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin. For the first time, on-chain supply of RLUSD on the XRP Ledger has surpassed that on Ethereum. Data tracking Ripple stablecoins shows 810 million dollars’ worth of RLUSD now circulating on XRP Ledger, while supply on the Ethereum network remains at approximately 760 million dollars.
XRP Ledger is Ripple’s proprietary blockchain network, widely used for cross-border payment solutions. RLUSD—a stablecoin tied to the US dollar—is designed for both institutional and retail payments across different platforms within the Ripple ecosystem.
RLUSD’s in-circulation supply on XRP Ledger reached 810 million dollars, while on the Ethereum network, the figure stood at 760 million dollars.
Regulatory green light for RLUSD in JapanJapan’s Financial Services Agency (FSA) has now officially recognized RLUSD under the country’s Payment Services Act as a new kind of electronic payment instrument. This move paves the way for Ripple’s stablecoin product to be used within Japan’s regulated financial markets.
Plans are in place to offer RLUSD in Japan through SBI VC Trade, making it available to both institutional investors and individual users. SBI VC Trade operates as a crypto platform under the umbrella of Japan’s financial giant SBI Holdings, expanding its product lineup to include the new stablecoin.
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.
Sharplink, the second-largest Ethereum [ETH] treasury company, purchased an additional 29,196 ETH for $46.7 million on the 27th of June. In fact, Lookonchain reported that the Ethereum DATs amassed 39,196 ETH, worth $62.4 million, over the last three days.
Source: Lookonchain/X This marks Sharplink’s second purchase after an eight‑month pause. The first occurred when the firm added 5,000 ETH through FalconX, worth about $7.88 million at an average price of $1,576. With these acquisitions, Sharplink now holds 868,699 ETH in total, including 22,102 staked tokens. Meanwhile, its stock closed at $4.81, up 5.48% from the prior trading day.
Sharplink vs. Bitmine Meanwhile, on the 22nd of June, Bitmine, the biggest Ethereum DAT, paid $92 million to acquire an additional 52,203 Ethereum. As of right now, Bitmine has 5,672,956 ETH worth $8.92 billion.
Bitmine’s Tom Lee also stressed that his firm plans to continue growing steadily through 2026 and ultimately accomplish the “alchemy of 5%.” Although Sharplink has not yet disclosed such plans, the ETH accumulation strategy has been relatively comparable.
Ethereum’s market dynamics paint a concerning picture All this happened as ETH was trading at $1,568.75, the lowest level since April 2025. Meanwhile, Ethereum’s Spot Taker CVD has lost some of its aggressive buying momentum, which is a major shift compared to June 2025.
Although buyers are still present in the market, their influence has waned. Unlike the strong accumulation phase seen a year ago, the current demand indicates buyer exhaustion.
Source: CryptoQuant Final Summary Sharplink added more ETH in the past three days, pushing its total ETH holding to 868,699 ETH in total. Sharplink’s stock price also jumped after the ETH accumulation, but ETH’s price was changing hands around the $1500 price level.
Ethereum uzavírá 2. čtvrtletí 2026 po dvou po sobě jdoucích dvouciferných ztrátových čtvrtletích a vypadl z globální top 100 aktiv podle tržní kapitalizace. Velcí držitelé prodali zhruba 550 000 ETH.
28 June 2026 | 13:38 Ethereum is ending the second quarter of 2026 in a rough spot: two consecutive double-digit negative quarters, a market cap that has slipped out of the global top 100 assets, and a derivatives market where buyers are present but unable to push price higher.
Key Takeaways Ethereum is closing Q2 2026 with two straight double-digit negative quarters. Its market cap has fallen out of the global top 100 assets. Buyers are active in derivatives, but price isn’t responding. The only comparable back-to-back negative Q1 and Q2 were in 2022; 2018 remains the sharpest downside risk scenario for what follows. One of the most telling signals is in the order flow. The Taker Buy/Sell Ratio sits at 1.13, meaning aggressive buyers are outnumbering sellers on Binance. Normally that pushes price up. It isn’t. The Fund Price at $12.59 has been declining since April despite that buying pressure, and that combination is the problem.
What it points to is absorption: the sell orders are large enough to neutralize the incoming buy flow without price responding. When buying pressure exists but price stays flat or falls, the more likely explanation, as the analysis frames it, is distribution, larger holders using bounces to exit, rather than accumulation building a base. It’s worth being precise that order-flow data can’t name who is selling; what it shows is buying being absorbed, and distribution is the reading that best fits that behavior.
On-chain data confirms who is doing the selling. Crypto analyst Ali Charts wrote on X that large-scale holders offloaded roughly 550,000 ETH over the past week, injecting $880 million in sell-side supply into the market. That selling pressure pushed ETH below its immediate $1,633 support floor, with the market now testing critical volume support at $1,583. According to URPD data cited by Ali Charts, losing that level opens a path toward extended liquidations, with the next high-volume demand zones sitting at $1,237 and $1,089 if distribution continues into next week.
2026 in Historical Context The quarterly numbers put the weakness in perspective. Q1 2026 finished at -29.26% and Q2 at -24.75%. The only year in ETH’s recorded history with a comparable back-to-back negative Q1 and Q2 was 2022, which posted -10.75% and -67.34% respectively. 2018 had a positive Q2 (+15.29%) before collapsing in Q3 (-48.69%) and Q4 (-41.62%), making it the relevant downside risk scenario rather than a structural match. In every other year that opened with a negative Q1, ETH recovered in Q2. 2026 has not followed that pattern.
Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2018 -46.61% +15.29% -48.69% -41.62% 2022 -10.75% -67.34% +24.09% -9.94% 2026 -29.26% -24.75% — — That matters for what comes next. The historical Q3 average is +7.4% with a median of +8.19%, and Q3 has been positive in the majority of recorded years, which may normally be an encouraging base rate. But there is some exceptions: in 2018 for example, Q3 came in at -48.69%. So the historical record cuts both ways, the typical Q3 is positive, but still sometimes it was sharply negative.
The Top-100 Milestone ETH falling out of the global top 100 assets by market cap isn’t a separate event, it’s a direct consequence of the price decline. It’s a measure of how far Ethereum’s market cap has compressed relative to the full universe of global assets, equities, commodities, and everything else ranked by size. The milestone is symbolic rather than mechanical, but it captures how much ground the asset has given up.
🚨 WILD: Ethereum is no longer a top 100 asset ranked by market cap. pic.twitter.com/9IRIBJMkq6
— Cointelegraph (@Cointelegraph) June 27, 2026
Pulling it together: the order flow shows buyers active but unable to move price, which most plausibly reflects larger holders distributing into strength; the quarterly record shows a two-quarter decline matched structurally only by 2022, with 2018 providing the sharpest downside risk scenario for what follows; and the market-cap milestone underlines the scale of the compression. None of this predicts where ETH goes next. The data describes a market under real structural pressure, with a forward path that the history can frame but not settle.
The signal worth watching into July is straightforward: whether this absorption pattern breaks toward heavier selling, or whether the steady buyer flow finally overcomes the resistance that has been capping it. That probably could give a sign on which way the pressure is resolving.
Ethereum is trading for $1,570 at the time of writing after 6.7% drop for the past 7 days, according to CoinMarketCap data.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Consult a professional before making investment decisions.
Author
Alex is Editor-in-Chief of Coindoo and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, with nearly a decade of experience covering financial markets - crypto first, then everything else. It started in 2016 with Bitcoin. Like most people at the time, he didn't fully understand it - so he kept digging. Blockchain, tokenomics, the projects, the cycles. That curiosity never stopped, and eventually pulled him into traditional markets too: equities, commodities, macro. Not because he left crypto behind, but because you can't properly understand one without the other. What drives him is straightforward: he wants to know why something is happening, not just that it's happening. Most market coverage stops at the headline - price up, price down, here's a chart. Alex finds that kind of reporting actively unhelpful. If you walk away from an article without understanding the mechanism behind the move, what did you actually learn? He holds a degree in Tourism from New Bulgarian University - not the most obvious path into financial markets, but markets have a way of pulling in people who are simply too curious to stay out. He has authored over 200 in-depth analyses and more than 10,000 articles across crypto and traditional finance. He still thinks every day in markets teaches him something new. That's probably why he hasn't stopped.
U spotových ETH ETF v USA přibylo dalších 12,85 mil. USD čistých odlivů, což dál oslabuje institucionální poptávku po Ethereu. Trh tak zůstává pod tlakem a býci mají problém obnovit růstový impuls.
Institutional appetite for Ethereum [ETH] continues to weaken as investors reduce exposure to risk assets amid uncertain market conditions. U.S. spot ETH ETFs recently recorded another $12.85 million in net outflows, extending a broader slowdown in fund demand despite cumulative net inflows remaining near $11 billion.
With this reduction, there will be less institutional capital available to buy Ethereum to help stabilize prices as they continue to decline.
Source: SoSoValue As such, Ethereum now relies more heavily on staking demand, layer-2 activity, and natural organic spot buying to help stabilize prices. If Ethereum network demand increases, then it is possible that the markets can begin to absorb some excess supply.
However, if institutional demand does not increase, then we should expect longer-term consolidation and increased vulnerability to sentiment-driven price movements.
ETH bears retain control despite buying pressure Institutional demand has already weakened, and derivatives activity now suggests bearish conviction is strengthening. Market structure may be decisively bearish unless spot flows and leverage flows simultaneously turn positive again.
Meanwhile, the fund price has declined steadily from its April peak to 12.59. This dynamic reflects a fading appetite for leveraged long positions. Moreover, this divergence shows that buyers, though appearing more aggressive, are becoming less effective, leaving bears firmly in control of short‑term price action.
Source: Arkham Although moving assets to this new address does not necessarily indicate that the person behind the transaction is planning to sell their asset. Yet, previous instances of like-sized on-chain asset movements have occurred before liquidity events, making subsequent wallet activity the key signal to monitor.
If the funds remain in self-custody, the transfer will likely reflect routine wallet management. However, deposits to exchanges or OTC counterparties could reinforce existing bearish sentiment and increase expectations of additional selling pressure.
Final Summary Ethereum remained vulnerable as weakening institutional demand and bearish market structure continue limiting recovery momentum. ETH needs stronger spot demand to offset selling pressure and restore sustained bullish momentum.
Americké spotové Bitcoin ETF zaznamenaly za týden čistý odliv 1,79 miliardy USD, jeden z největších od jejich spuštění. Bitcoin přesto držel nad 60 000 USD.
Despite strong outflows from US spot Bitcoin ETFs, Bitcoin managed to hold steady above the $60,000 mark on Saturday. In the last 24 hours, Bitcoin rose by 1.44 percent, trading around $60,260. Its daily trading volume reached $30.16 billion, while its market capitalization stood at $1.21 trillion. Controlling 58.1 percent of the total crypto market, Bitcoin continued to set the pace for the broader industry even amid ongoing selling pressure.
Weekly outflows from ETFs accelerateUS spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded a staggering $1.79 billion net outflow last week. This figure ranks as one of the largest weekly withdrawals since these products launched in January 2024. The recent movement has also pushed the total 2026 US spot Bitcoin ETF flow back into negative territory.
These outflows impacted major issuers, including BlackRock’s IBIT fund. IBIT had earlier ranked among 2024’s fastest-growing ETFs thanks to robust inflows from institutional investors. As one of the world’s largest asset management companies, BlackRock brings significant influence to the global ETF market.
Analysts at Glassnode note that this current wave marks one of the lengthiest periods of outflow since spot Bitcoin ETFs began trading, explaining that most investors are now opting to reduce risk rather than buying more at lower levels.
Bloomberg data shows that about $4.5 billion has exited Bitcoin ETF products since the start of the year. This trend points to the scale of institutional selling pressure throughout 2026.
IndicatorDataBitcoin price$60,26024-hour changeUp 1.44%Weekly ETF net flow-$1.79 billion2026 total ETF outflowApproximately $4.5 billionUnderlying market weakness persistsLosses in Bitcoin ETFs have occurred against a backdrop of persistent weakness in the overall crypto market. Since the severe sell-off that began in October, digital assets have struggled to recover. The total market capitalization of all crypto assets has dropped to roughly $2 trillion, a steep fall from its pre-correction peak of over $4 trillion.
A slowdown in investor activity and a waning of institutional interest have made recovery even more difficult. Capital that might have flowed into the crypto sector instead moved toward artificial intelligence-oriented investments and prediction market platforms. This shift redirected funds that could have supported digital asset valuations.
Early investors see gains erasedThe latest wave of selling has hit those who entered Bitcoin ETFs during stronger periods particularly hard. According to Bespoke Investment Group, early investors were up nearly 30 percent by mid-2025. However, Bitcoin’s extended decline has wiped out much of those gains, leaving the average investor facing a loss approaching 40 percent.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs have emerged as a major channel of institutional demand since their approval. High-value outflows from these products may signal weakening professional investor confidence, which could create additional downside pressure on prices.
Still, ETF flows represent just one aspect of the market. Bitcoin has previously rebounded after periods of heavy institutional selling, especially when overall risk appetite improved or new sources of demand appeared.
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.
Fidelity Digital Assets tvrdí, že bezpečnost Bitcoinu po halvingu neklesá. Růst hashrate, úpravy obtížnosti a poplatky podle ní drží síť odolnou. Firma ve své zprávě z června 2026 navazuje na analýzu z března 2024 a upozorňuje, že odměna za blok po halvingu v dubnu 2024 klesla z 6,25 BTC na 3,125 BTC.
Every four years, Bitcoin cuts its mining rewards in half. Fidelity Digital Assets has spent the last two years building a detailed case for why concerns about network security are overblown.
The firm’s June 2026 report, titled “Bitcoin’s Programmed Security: Part Two,” is a follow-up to its March 2024 analysis and digs into the economic mechanics that keep Bitcoin resilient even as miners earn fewer coins per block. The core argument: the combination of rising hash rates, automatic difficulty adjustments, and growing transaction fee revenue creates a self-reinforcing security model that doesn’t collapse when subsidies decline.
Advertisement
The numbers behind the argument Since the 2016 halving, Bitcoin’s hash rate has surged by over 8,000%. Since 2020, it has climbed 394%. Both of those stretches included halvings that cut miner rewards in half.
The most recent halving occurred in April 2024, dropping block rewards from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC. The next one, expected around 2028, will reduce rewards further to 1.5625 BTC.
Why the doomsday math doesn’t add up Bitcoin’s difficulty adjustment mechanism recalibrates every 2,016 blocks (roughly two weeks), automatically adjusting how hard it is to mine a block. If miners drop off the network, difficulty falls, making it cheaper for remaining miners to operate. If miners flood in, difficulty rises.
Fidelity notes that while temporary hash rate dips have occurred after halvings, none have resulted in significant security breaches. The report also finds that even in projected low-subsidy environments beyond 2040, the cost of mounting a 51% attack on the network remains disproportionate to any potential gains from doing so.
Transaction fees as the long-term bridge During the April 2024 halving, transaction fees in a single block reached approximately 12 times the block subsidy. That spike was partly driven by the Runes protocol launch, which created unusual demand for block space.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Spotové XRP ETF v červnu přilily 46,5 milionu USD a kumulativní čistý příliv dosáhl 1,43 miliardy USD. XRP se mezitím drží kolem 1,06 USD a zůstává pod tlakem.
XRP ETF Inflows Continued in JuneData shows that spot XRP ETFs added $46.5 million in assets this month, bringing the cumulative net inflow to $1.43 billion. These funds have had only one month of outflows since their launch in November last year.
Bitwise’s XRP ETF holds $293 million in assets, while the ETFs from Franklin, Canary, and 21Shares manage $235 million, $234 million, and $112 million, respectively.
The ongoing XRP ETF inflows are a sharp contrast to those tracking Bitcoin and Ethereum. Spot Bitcoin ETFs had over $4.06 billion in outflows this month, bringing the net outflows since January to $5.6 billion.
Similarly, Ethereum ETFs have shed over $471 million in outflows this month, lower than the $540 million they lost last month.
XRP ETF inflows rose in the same week in which Ripple announced that RLUSD, its stablecoin, will now be available in Japan following the approval by the main financial regulator. This approval will likely help it become an alternative to USDC and USDT.
Recent data, however, shows that RLUSD has lost momentum as the supply has dropped to $1.57 billion from the year-to-date high of $1.8 billion. RLUSD has become one of the most important use cases for the XRP Ledger network.
Another major news came from Europe, where Ripple secured a preliminary Crypto Asset Service Provider (CASP) license in Luxembourg. This is a major milestone as it paves the way for the full rollout of Ripple Payments across the Euro area and MiCA compliance.
XRP Price is Hanging on a Thread Above $1The weekly chart shows that the Ripple price has slumped in the past few months, mirroring the performance of most cryptocurrencies. It dropped from a high of $3.6690 in July to the current $1.06.
The token has slumped below the Major S&R pivot point of the Murrey Math Lines tool. It has remained below the 50-week and 100-week Exponential Moving Averages (EMA).
XRP has settled along the 78.6% Fibonacci Retracement level. Therefore, there is a risk that the token may drop further in the near term, potentially to the Strong, Pivot, Reverse level of the Murrey Math Lines at $0.7813. This view will be confirmed if it drops below the supply of $1.
Image: Shutterstock
Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
US spot Chainlink ($LINK) ETFs have recorded their first week of net outflows since the products launched, snapping a streak that lasted more than 200 consecutive trading days. The figure, roughly $220,000 in negative weekly flows, is modest in absolute terms, but the symbolic significance is hard to dismiss.
A Historic Streak Comes to an End Grayscale launched the first US spot Chainlink ETF, GLNK, on NYSE Arca on December 2, 2025. The ETF attracted $37 million in first-day inflows, and LINK rebounded more than 7% as investors responded to renewed institutional attention. From that point forward, the LINK spot ETF complex went on an almost unbroken run of positive flows.
Analyst data shows the outflow ended 203 days without a negative daily reading. The turning point came on June 22, when data shared by Arca showed the LINK spot ETF complex posting a daily net outflow of approximately $490,920. That reduced cumulative net inflows from about $123.82 million to $123.33 million, while total net assets fell to roughly $100.88 million, compared with more than $107 million one week earlier.
Institutional interest appears to be wavering, as evidenced by the first net capital outflow from LINK spot ETFs after a record-breaking streak of entries that lasted over half a year. LINK ETFs had been among the best-performing altcoin ETFs, though only Avalanche (AVAX) spot ETFs are yet to see outflows since their own debut.
Blip or Broader Shift? There are early signs the outflow may be temporary. According to SoSoValue data, Chainlink spot ETFs recorded net inflows of approximately $137,710 on the Tuesday following the outflow session. Although the inflow remains relatively small, it could signal improving investor sentiment if the trend continues over the coming days.
The broader price picture for $LINK remains under pressure. The asset has logged a year-to-date loss of nearly 45%, with price testing levels not seen with this much downside pressure in quite some time. LINK is currently trading below all its major moving averages, including the critical 200-day SMA near the $10.15 mark.
On the fundamental side, @Chainlink continues to expand its real-world footprint. The protocol announced the formation of a new working group involving multinational organizations across Europe and South Korea, collectively representing more than $10 trillion in assets under management, focused on modernizing foreign exchange infrastructure and evaluating a shift from traditional T+2 settlement to real-time T+0 settlement. Whether that kind of adoption news is enough to restore positive ETF flow momentum remains the key question heading into July.
Sources:
Brave New Coin: Chainlink Price Analysis, LINK Spot ETF Ends 203-Day Inflow Streak
Invezz: Can LINK Price Reclaim $8 as Chainlink Targets Real-Time FX Settlement?
FXStreet: Chainlink Price Forecast, FX Partnership Fails to Lift Sentiment
Avalanche ve 2. čtvrtletí 2026 přidal na C-Chain 707 000 nových adres, tedy šestkrát více než v 1. čtvrtletí. TVL sítě mezitím téměř zdvojnásobil na zhruba 2,1 miliardy USD.
Avalanche’s C-Chain onboarded 707,000 new addresses during Q2 2026. That’s six times the number added in Q1, a pace that suggests something beyond routine growth is happening on the layer-1 network.
The numbers behind the surge The 707,000 figure represents net new C-Chain addresses, the primary execution layer where most user activity on Avalanche takes place. Monthly new address data tracked by The Block has become one of the more reliable proxies for gauging real user adoption on the network, and the Q2 numbers represent a clear inflection point.
Avalanche’s DeFi ecosystem has been pulling in capital at a remarkable clip. Total value locked across the network has nearly doubled since April 2025, reaching approximately $2.1 billion.
Advertisement
The subnet architecture has also been expanding. By the end of 2025, the network had 75 active subnets, a 158% year-over-year increase. Each subnet can be tailored for specific applications, whether that’s gaming, enterprise logistics, or DeFi protocols, without clogging the main road.
On the infrastructure side, Avalanche raised its C-Chain gas target to support throughput of 4 million transactions per second.
What changed to unlock this growth The Etna upgrade, which went live in December 2024, significantly reduced the cost of deploying new subnets. Following Etna, the Avalanche9000 and Granite initiatives further refined the network’s performance characteristics.
VanEck launched a spot AVAX ETF in January 2026, giving traditional finance a regulated on-ramp to the token. A spot ETF signals that at least some regulatory bodies have reached a level of comfort with AVAX’s classification as a digital commodity. Pilot programs targeting institutional participation in Avalanche’s DeFi ecosystem have also contributed to the TVL growth.
What this means for investors For AVAX holders, more active users means more transaction fees, and more transaction fees means more demand for the token that pays those fees. AVAX is also used for staking and subnet validation, so network expansion creates additional demand channels beyond simple transaction activity.
Avalanche is carving out a distinctive position with its subnet model at a time when other layer-1s are competing primarily on raw throughput or EVM compatibility. The 75 active subnets represent a real differentiator, particularly for enterprise use cases where organizations want their own execution environment without sacrificing interoperability with the broader ecosystem.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Americké spotové Solana ETF poprvé od spuštění míří na negativní měsíc: v červnu mají zatím odlivy 5,8 milionu USD. Od startu koncem října 2025 přitom nasbíraly zhruba 1,45 miliardy USD čistých přílivů.
US spot Solana ($SOL) ETFs have delivered a remarkably consistent performance since hitting the market, recording positive net inflows every single month since launch. June 2026, however, looks set to test that record.
The products are currently sitting at negative $5.8 million in net flows for June, with only two trading days remaining in the month to reverse the deficit.
A strong start since October 2025 The first US spot Solana ETFs debuted in late October 2025, with Bitwise's Solana Staking ETF (BSOL) launching on the New York Stock Exchange on October 28. This was closely followed by the conversion of the Grayscale Solana Trust (GSOL) from a trust product into a Solana ETF.
Unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, Solana ETFs launched with staking built in, offering investors on-chain yield alongside price exposure. Bitwise targets average staking rewards of over 7% for BSOL holders.
The spot Solana ETF products accumulated approximately $1.45 billion in total cumulative inflows since launch. Despite experiencing negative price action over several months, Solana ETFs maintained positive net inflows, a trend that ran counter to conventional expectations of risk-on and risk-off behavior in crypto markets.
June brings the first real test Spot Solana ETFs saw $3.94 million in net outflows on June 26 alone, indicating investor hesitation. That single-day figure has compounded into a monthly deficit that now stands at $5.8 million, leaving the products on track for their first negative month since inception.
Bitcoin ETFs are net-negative year-to-date, and Ethereum has bled harder, but XRP and Solana ETFs have marked the rotation story of 2026. That context makes a potential first negative month for $SOL ETFs more notable. Whether June closes in the red will come down to whether buyers return in force over the remaining sessions.
DL News: US Solana spot ETFs seen to hit $5bn in inflows
Bitwise: Bitwise Launches BSOL, First Spot Solana ETP in US
SpotedCrypto: Crypto ETF Flows June 2026
Kaspa už zpracovala zhruba 2,347 miliardy transakcí na Layer 1, což ji řadí mezi nejaktivnější sítě. Po Crescendo hardforku běží na 10 blocích za sekundu.
According to data from the official @kaspaunchained explorer, Kaspa's Layer 1 blockchain has now processed roughly 2,347,000,000 transactions, placing it among the highest cumulative transaction counts of any major network. The figure represents a dramatic leap in activity for a proof-of-work chain that only launched in November 2021.
Built for Speed on a Proof-of-Work Foundation Kaspa's transaction throughput is underpinned by its blockDAG architecture, which uses the GHOSTDAG consensus protocol to allow parallel block creation rather than the single-block linear approach used by Bitcoin and Ethereum. Following the Crescendo hardfork earlier in 2025, Kaspa's block rate increased from one block per second to ten blocks per second, drastically boosting throughput. Since that upgrade, the network has operated at a steady 10 blocks per second, delivering 100-millisecond block times and sub-7-second finality.
The numbers behind that architecture are hard to ignore. On October 2, 2025, Kaspa set a new world record for proof-of-work throughput by reaching 5,584 transactions per second under real network conditions, surpassing its own previous record of 4,757 TPS achieved just days earlier. These figures were recorded on Kaspa's live mainnet under genuine transaction load, not testnet simulations. On October 5, 2025, the network processed 158,441,966 transactions within a single 24-hour window.
The Valuation Question: $770M Market Cap vs. 2.35 Billion Transactions Kaspa currently holds a live market cap of approximately $770 million, with a circulating supply of around 27.5 billion KAS coins out of a maximum supply of 28.7 billion. That places $KAS in a middle tier of Layer 1 assets by market value, despite its outsized on-chain activity relative to peers.
The supply picture is a key part of the valuation debate. Approximately 95.4% of Kaspa's 28.7 billion maximum supply is already in circulation, with emissions nearing zero by end-2026. New selling pressure primarily comes from miners selling rewards, not token unlocks. That dynamic could reduce dilution risk over time, but it also means the network must attract fresh demand to sustain price levels.
On the protocol side, a significant catalyst is imminent. The upcoming Toccata hard fork marks Kaspa's shift from a payments chain to a programmable Layer 1, introducing native KRC-20 token issuance, covenant programming via the SilverScript compiler, and zero-knowledge verification opcodes. The upgrade is seen as bullish for $KAS because it enables decentralized finance, NFTs, and complex applications to settle directly on Kaspa's secure base layer, potentially driving developer adoption and new utility.
Whether 2.35 billion transactions and an imminent programmability upgrade justify, or undervalue, a $770 million market cap is a question the market is still working through. The on-chain fundamentals are difficult to dismiss. The price action, for now, tells a more cautious story.
Yuma podpořená Digital Currency Group spustila fond pro institucionální investory, který nabízí diverzifikovanou expozici vůči ekosystému Bittensor a tokenu TAO. Fond zahrnuje i koš AI subnetů.
Yuma, a Digital Currency Group-backed investment company, has launched a fund that gives institutional investors diversified exposure to the Bittensor ecosystem, as asset managers expand investment products tied to decentralized AI.
According to a Thursday announcement, the Yuma Total Market Fund provides exposure to Bittensor’s native TAO token and a basket of AI-focused subnets through a single investment vehicle. The strategy is intended to simplify access to the broader Bittensor ecosystem without requiring investors to select individual subnet tokens.
The fund launched with seed capital from an undisclosed anchor investor.
Bittensor is a decentralized network that supports the development of AI infrastructure and applications through specialized subnets spanning areas such as compute, marketplaces and identity. According to Yuma, the network's 128 subnets represent more than $900 million in combined value. However, data from network tracker Taostats shows a combined subnet value closer to $300 million.
TAO, the native token of the Bittensor ecosystem, has a market capitalization of nearly $2.4 billion. Source: CoinMarketCap
Institutional interest in the Bittensor ecosystem has grown alongside the network’s expanding subnet economy. In April, Grayscale increased TAO’s weighting in its Grayscale Decentralized AI Fund to 43% during the fund’s quarterly rebalance. TAO’s allocation has since fallen to about 20%, with Near Protocol's NEAR now comprising the fund’s largest holding at roughly 44%.
Asset managers are also seeking to broaden investor access to TAO. Bitwise filed for a TAO Strategy ETF with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in April, while Grayscale submitted an amended registration statement to convert its existing Bittensor Trust into a spot TAO exchange-traded fund that would list on NYSE Arca if approved.
Grayscale Bittensor Trust (TAO) application with the SEC. Source: SEC
Anthropic restrictions renew focus on decentralized AIThe case for decentralized AI, which distributes AI infrastructure and computing across blockchain-based networks rather than relying on a single provider, gained renewed attention after the US Commerce Department suspended public access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models over national security and export control concerns.
At the time, Grayscale head of research Zach Pandl said the restrictions underscored the risks of relying on centralized AI providers. The government order limiting access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 “highlights the risks of centralized control of AI,” Pandl said. “We expect demand for decentralized AI, like Bittensor and its TAO token, to rise as investors seek alternatives.”
The restrictions appear to be easing. The Commerce Department restored access to Mythos 5 on Friday, and Axios reported Saturday that the Trump administration is expected to allow Anthropic to resume public access to Fable 5 as soon as next week.
Magazine: How AI just dramatically sped up the quantum risk for Bitcoin
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.
XRP ETF zaznamenaly za týden příliv 22,99 milionu USD, nejvíce za posledních šest týdnů. Zároveň už sedmý týden v řadě dominují nad Bitcoinem i Ethereum.
The broader crypto ETF market has continued to bleed for several weeks, but XRP remains moving in the opposite direction, outpacing other major ETF products in both daily and weekly performance.
According to the latest data showcased by SosoValue, XRP has posted its strongest weekly ETF inflow for the month as of June 26, 2026, as investors show rising interest.
XRP hits 8-week steady inflow streakThe data provided by the source shows that XRP has attracted a total of $22.99 million in inflows, marking the highest weekly influx of new capital for June.
HOT Stories
While the funds have been posting consistent inflows for the past eight weeks, this is the highest inflow the XRP ETFs have posted in the past six weeks.
Considering the sharp rise in ETF inflows amid the prolonged streak of positive performances, it appears that institutional investors are beginning to show heightened confidence in XRP despite the intensifying market uncertainties.
Institutions choose XRP over Bitcoin again Apart from the surge in inflows attracted by the XRP ETFs, their consistent dominance over other crypto ETF products, especially Bitcoin and Ethereum, has continued to draw attention from market participants.
It appears that institutional investors are beginning to look beyond the largest crypto assets and are more willing to venture their funds into XRP-based investment products instead.
Although it is important to note that one strong week does not automatically signal a long-term trend, XRP's dominance over Bitcoin and Ethereum has remained for seven consecutive weeks, positioning it as a major player in the ETF market.
While XRP just saw its highest weekly inflow in about six weeks, Bitcoin has just posted its biggest outflow ever of $1.79 billion.
XRP klesl na 1,02 USD po likvidacích long pozic za téměř 9 milionů USD. Zároveň ETF přílivy dál stahují dostupnou nabídku XRP, ale spotová poptávka chybí.
Ripple’s [XRP] decline continued after leveraged buyers lost control, pushing the altcoin down to $1.02, its lowest value since early February. Initially, the price slipped toward $1.07 before triggering nearly $9 million in long liquidations on the 25th of June.
Binance led with about $4.5 million, highlighting the concentration of the leverage that existed within one exchange. As forced selling intensified, derivatives traders rapidly reduced exposure instead of adding fresh positions.
Binance Open Interest dropped to nearly $205 million, marking its lowest level since the 22nd of March. Meanwhile, Bybit Open Interest fell to around $185 million, reinforcing the domino effect of the catastrophe.
Source: CryptoQuant This synchronized decline suggests speculative excess has largely been flushed from the market. Such resets typically take some pressure off the downside because they eliminate the weakly positioned leveraged sellers.
Otherwise, lower leverage alone may stabilize volatility without generating a sustained recovery. The next directional move will likely depend on whether fresh buyers replace liquidated positions or continue waiting on the sidelines.
ETF demand tightens XRP supply XRP ETF demand is tightening available XRP supply despite the market weakness. The net inflow reached 4.82 million XRP during week 26, driving total ETF holdings up by almost 10% to 938.73 million XRP, which accounts for approximately 1% of the currently circulating XRP.
With each new ETF creation requiring the purchase of additional Spot XRP, this gradual reduction in available XRP on the open market can help limit the amount of sellable inventory or reduce potential selling pressure.
Source: XRP Insights On the other hand, despite the fact that institutional buyers are accumulating significant amounts of XRP via the ETFs, no corresponding increase in participation from the broader spot market has been seen.
As such, prices have continued to be pressured downward. In addition to the decrease in price, valuations have also declined from over $1 billion at one time down to $989 million at present.
As such, it appears that institutional buying power has increased more than the valuation of XRP.
If ETF inflows persist alongside stronger spot demand, shrinking liquid supply could increasingly amplify future price recoveries. Otherwise, accumulation may continue without triggering an immediate breakout.
Final Summary Ripple’s leverage reset has reduced speculative pressure, but sustained recovery still depends on fresh spot demand returning. XRP ETF accumulation continues tightening liquid supply, though stronger Spot participation remains essential for a lasting breakout.
Na Ethereum Research byl zveřejněn návrh, který by část stakingových odměn přesměroval na financování veřejných statků. Jde zatím jen o ranou debatu o správě protokolu, ne o schválený návrh.
A proposal on Ethereum Research suggests redirecting part of staking rewards toward public goods funding. Supporters see sustainable decentralized funding, while critics warn of protocol-level overreach. The proposal is not approved and should be treated as an early governance debate. Staking Economics And Ethereum Governance: Why This Story Matters Ethereum Protocol Debate: Diverting Staking Rewards for Public Goods Funding Sparks Controversy has become one of the stronger weekend crypto stories because it sits at the intersection of price action, market structure, and the kind of narrative that traders tend to follow closely when the broader news cycle slows down.
The key point is not simply that the proposal was published on ethresear.ch. It is that the development gives the market a fresh way to judge whether the current crypto environment is being driven by genuine network adoption, regulatory progress, liquidity shifts, or short-term speculation.
The Main Details According to the official source material, the proposal was published on ethresear.ch. The report also notes that it suggests a protocol-level mechanism to redirect a portion of staking rewards to public goods funding.
That distinction matters because crypto markets often move first on headlines and only later separate durable developments from short-lived momentum. In this case, the verified boundaries are especially important: Do not claim this is approved or scheduled for a hard fork.
Market Context For traders, the story arrives at a moment when crypto assets are still trying to define a clearer direction. Bitcoin remains the anchor for broader sentiment, but altcoin narratives are increasingly being judged on their own fundamentals, including usage, liquidity, compliance, treasury activity, and developer progress.
That makes this development relevant beyond a single token or company. If the underlying trend proves durable, it could help shape how investors evaluate Ethereum, ETH, Staking, Governance, Public Goods over the coming weeks. If it fades, however, it may become another example of a strong weekend narrative that struggled to translate into sustained market follow-through.
What To Watch Next The next important question is whether the market receives further confirmation from primary sources, dashboards, official announcements, or on-chain data. Follow-up disclosures, exchange data, governance updates, or wallet activity could all help clarify whether this is an isolated headline or the start of a broader theme.
Readers should also watch whether liquidity responds. In crypto, even fundamentally meaningful developments can fail to move prices if traders remain defensive, leverage is being unwound, or capital is rotating into other sectors. That is why this story should be read alongside broader market structure rather than in isolation.
This report is based on information from Ethereum Research.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
AMLBot potvrdil, že phishingový útok na Polymarket odčerpal zhruba 3,1 milionu USD v PUSD z 11 peněženek. Ukradené prostředky byly přesunuty z Polygonu na Ethereum a přeměněny na ETH.
Blockchain intelligence firm AMLBot has confirmed the Polymarket supply-chain attack total at approximately $3.1 million in PUSD across 11 user wallets, with funds bridged from Polygon to Ethereum and converted to ETH. Polymarket has pledged full refunds but has not named the compromised vendor.
Blockchain intelligence firm AMLBot has fixed the total stolen in Thursday's Polymarket supply-chain attack at approximately $3.1 million in PUSD, providing the first forensically confirmed on-chain dollar figure and tracing the stolen assets from Polygon to Ethereum. On-chain investigator Specter, which published the first public alert, identified more than 11 victim wallets.
AMLBot posted the revised tally on Saturday, two days after on-chain investigators first flagged the drain. The figure revises earlier estimates upward and, for the first time, pins both the dollar amount to a single on-chain intelligence source. AMLBot said it continues to monitor affected accounts as the investigation proceeds.
From Front-End to BridgeThe attack, covered by The Defiant on Thursday, began when a compromised third-party vendor injected malicious JavaScript into Polymarket's website. The code targeted user transactions at the front-end layer; Polymarket's smart contracts on Polygon were untouched. Polymarket confirmed fewer than 15 accounts were affected, consistent with scope described by on-chain security researchers tracking the wallets in real time.
On-chain investigator Specter published the first public alert and identified the attacker's primary consolidation address on Ethereum: `0xe65b1C586757c5510B60F998Eebb14C1eF71E1eD`. PeckShield confirmed the stolen funds were bridged from Polygon to Ethereum and then swapped into roughly 1,893 ETH. Bubblemaps independently counted fewer than 15 affected accounts and estimated $3 million in losses being refunded.
PUSD is Polymarket's native collateral token, a Polygon-based ERC-20 minted 1:1 against USDC.e through the platform's on-chain collateral contracts. Deployed in April 2026 per on-chain records, PUSD operates exclusively within the platform and carries no external exchange listing, so the attacker had to convert it to ETH to exit. The token held its $1.00 peg throughout the incident, per PolygonScan data for the pUSD contract on Polygon.
Refund Commitment, Vendor Still UnnamedPolymarket posted on X Thursday morning saying it had contained the attack, removed the malicious dependency, and would refund impacted users in full. William LeGate confirmed the repayment would be total, adding in a second post that there were "no user 'losses.'" The platform has not publicly named the compromised vendor across any channel since the incident was disclosed.
Initial independent estimates put the theft at $2.94 million, based on on-chain wallet tallies by Specter Analyst, while PeckShield and other firms rounded to roughly $3 million. AMLBot's Saturday update lifts the confirmed total by approximately $160,000 from Specter's initial read.
TechCrunch reported that a Polymarket spokesperson confirmed the breach but declined to provide further detail. Security researchers at CyberInsider and BleepingComputer both classified the incident as a supply-chain attack, the type where a downstream dependency injects hostile code into a trusted application, rather than a direct protocol exploit.
Platform ContextThe platform currently holds $432 million in total value locked on Polygon, per DefiLlama. Security trackers cataloguing Q2 2026 DeFi incidents have counted the June 25 Polymarket attack among a sustained wave of supply-chain and front-end compromises targeting DeFi infrastructure in 2026.
Polymarket has committed to refunding affected users in full but has set no public timeline for completion and has not disclosed the identity of the third-party vendor whose compromise triggered the attack.
Charles Hoskinson uvedl, že Midnight’s Glacier Drop přivedl tisíce uživatelů z Bitcoinu, XRP a dalších sítí do Cardana. Airdrop je přiměl poprvé pracovat s peněženkami a aplikacemi Cardana.
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has highlighted the success of Midnight’s Glacier Drop as a major driver of new user adoption for the Cardano ecosystem.
In a recent commentary, Hoskinson described the Midnight project as a success story, pointing to the impact of its Glacier Drop campaign. Beyond distributing tokens to eligible participants across multiple blockchain ecosystems, he emphasized that the initiative introduced thousands of users from rival networks to Cardano’s infrastructure for the first time.
Glacier Drop Attracts Users From Multiple Blockchains: Hoskinson According to Hoskinson, the airdrop attracted holders from Bitcoin, XRP, and several other blockchain ecosystems. To claim their NIGHT tokens, eligible users had to interact directly with the Cardano network. Notably, many participants used Cardano wallets and decentralized applications for the first time to complete the redemption process.
Midnight is a privacy-focused partner chain designed to deliver programmable privacy features for enterprises and real-world applications while remaining connected to the broader Cardano ecosystem.
Through the Glacier Drop initiative, Midnight distributed NIGHT tokens to users across ecosystems such as the XRP Ledger, Bitcoin, and Solana instead of limiting eligibility to Cardano holders alone.
Users who held at least $100 worth of eligible native assets qualified for the airdrop and became eligible to receive a share of the NIGHT token allocation.
To complete the claim, participants had to:
Visit the Glacier Drop portal. Sign a transaction using their wallet on the originating blockchain. Provide an unused Cardano address as the destination wallet. Receive their NIGHT tokens directly on the Cardano network. Hoskinson Sees the Process as an Onboarding Engine Hoskinson believes this redemption model will serve as a powerful onboarding mechanism for Cardano.
By requiring users from competing ecosystems to interact with Cardano infrastructure, the Glacier Drop encouraged them to explore Cardano wallets, decentralized applications, and transaction processes firsthand.
As users claim their rewards, some might become active participants in the Cardano ecosystem rather than passive recipients of an airdrop.
Midnight’s Popularity Surged After Launch The Glacier Drop also played a major role in Midnight’s early momentum. NIGHT quickly became one of the most trending crypto assets globally for several weeks following its launch. The token also reached a market cap of $1 billion within weeks.
The initiative also generated significant activity on Cardano. Within just 42 days, Midnight-related activity recorded 354,000 transactions on the network.
Today, the ecosystem continues to expand, with Midnight recording 77,311 unique wallets and 929,540 transactions linked to the project. However, the market valuation of NIGHT has plummeted to $504 million at press time, translating to a unit price of $0.03035.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
SecondFi po exploitu na Cardanu očekává zahájení vracení aktiv zhruba za dva týdny po dokončení testů a bezpečnostních kontrol. Firma uvedla, že incident zasáhl asi 16 milionů ADA na 374 adresách.
Cardano wallet SecondFi has identified a recovery path for users affected by Tuesday's exploit and expects to begin returning assets in about two weeks, following testing and security reviews.
According to a Saturday statement by Phillip Pon, CEO of SecondFi developer Emurgo, the company completed forensic investigations and established a recovery pathway for affected users. Pon said the coming week would be spent building the solution, followed by another week of testing before assets begin to be returned.
Pon urged users to refrain from migrating assets or taking actions outside official guidance, saying the recovery process was designed around existing wallet states and that independent action could complicate the secure return of funds.
SecondFi developer Emurgo shared an update on the wallet's recovery efforts. Source: Emurgo
SecondFi disclosed a security breach on Tuesday that affected approximately 16 million ADA, worth about $2.4 million at the time, across 374 addresses. SecondFi previously said it traced the incident to an address-level issue in its Cardano web wallet generation software that exposed users' private keys.
The company also said it secured roughly 129 million ADA through emergency measures and transferred the funds to an independent third-party custodian, where they will remain until the verification and recovery process is complete.
SecondFi has not yet published a comprehensive post-mortem detailing the vulnerability or how the exploit was carried out.
SecondFi warns of recovery-related scamsIn a separate update on Saturday, SecondFi warned that malicious actors are circulating fraudulent messages impersonating the wallet while its recovery effort remains underway.
The company said no recovery actions requiring user participation have begun and that it will never ask users for private keys, seed phrases, wallet credentials or direct wallet access.
SecondFi said any messages instructing users to submit wallet information, migrate assets or take immediate action outside its verified communication channels should be treated as fraudulent.
It added that users requiring assistance should submit a ticket through its official support portal while the recovery process continues.
Magazine: AI is banking the unbanked in Africa… faster than crypto
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.
Cardano se přiblížilo k dalšímu upgradu: governance akce hard fork van Rossem už má 62,76 % schválení od DRep a 31,59 % od SPO. Ratifikace může přijít během příštích dvou epoch.
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's next protocol upgrade may be getting closer to reality, according to a recent update from Intersect, a member-based organization for the Cardano ecosystem.
In a recent milestone, the van Rossem hard fork initiation governance action was submitted on Cardano Mainnet in the past week, beginning the on-chain governance process for an intra-era upgrade.
In a fresh update, Intersect noted that ecosystem readiness made significant progress this week. For SPOs, Block production numbers on node version 11 remained stable, increasing slightly to 87% for epoch 639. Likewise, multiple major exchanges signaled readiness this week, pushing readiness by liquidity up to 77.37%.
HOT Stories
Currently, the van Rossem hard fork initiation action sits at 62.76% DRep approval, 31.59% SPO approval and 1 constitutional vote from the Constitutional Committee (CC) with 6 members yet to vote. This means that the DRep threshold at 60% has been surpassed, with SPOs yet to meet the 51% threshold and four CC votes remaining to meet the 5 out of 7 threshold.
You Might Also Like
The van Rossem hard fork initiation governance action was submitted on Mainnet on June 16 during epoch 637. Current voting progress indicates a potential ratification within the next two epochs. Based on the governance timeline, the next possible ratification dates are June 28 or July 3, with the corresponding potential enactment dates being July 3 or July 8, respectively.
Cardano's recent developmentsThe public testnet for Ouroboros Leios, Musashi Dojo, was launched this week. Leios refers to the scaling solution for Cardano. A year ago, Leios was just a research paper from Input Output (IO) Research, with its next phase unveiled as a live prototype on a public testnet.
You Might Also Like
Mithril is moving into its next phase as Teragone takes over the workstream, bringing deep cryptography expertise and continuity coordinated through Intersect.
The RealFi Phase 1 Testnet is expected to go live on July 6, the first public step toward next-generation stablecoin infrastructure on Cardano.
Tether a Ledn začlenily Tether Gold (XAUT) do platformy pro kryptopůjčky; uživatelé jej mohou držet a obchodovat, později přijdou i zlatem kryté půjčky. XAUT je krytý 707 747 uncemi zlata.
Tether and Ledn have teamed up to bring tokenized gold into the crypto lending world. The partnership, announced on June 18, integrates Tether Gold (XAUT) into Ledn’s platform alongside Bitcoin and stablecoins, with gold-backed loans expected to follow later this year.
What the deal actually looks like From launch, Ledn users can trade and hold XAUT on the platform. Each XAUT token represents one fine troy ounce of gold, with 707,747 ounces currently backing the equivalent number of tokens in circulation.
Later in 2026, Ledn plans to roll out gold-backed loans denominated in Tether’s stablecoins. Borrowers will be able to choose between USDT and the newly launched USAT.
Advertisement
Ledn maintains a 1:1 collateral holding policy, meaning they don’t rehypothecate or lend out the collateral backing user deposits. Worth noting: the lending product won’t be available to residents of Canada or the EU.
The gold behind the token Tether manages a gold stockpile estimated between 140 and 154 metric tons, valued at roughly $23 billion. XAUT’s market cap recently surpassed $3 billion, making it one of the most significant commodity-backed tokens in crypto.
“Growing demand for solutions that combine long-term ownership with financial flexibility,” Paolo Ardoino said of the partnership’s rationale.
Why this matters for investors The crypto lending market has been rebuilding trust since the cascading failures of 2022, when firms like Celsius, BlockFi, and Voyager proved that aggressive rehypothecation and opaque risk management could crater an entire sector overnight. Ledn survived that purge, partly because of its conservative collateral approach.
Paxos Gold (PAXG) is XAUT’s closest competitor in the tokenized gold space, and it currently lacks a comparable lending integration.
The USAT launch, which will serve as one of the loan denomination options, suggests Tether is building an ecosystem where its various products feed into each other.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Aave spustil Aavenomics 3.0: běží automatické buybacky AAVE a DAO snížil provozní výdaje. Nový režim směruje veškeré příjmy protokolu a GHO k držitelům AAVE.
Aave confirmed Saturday that Aavenomics 3.0 is now active, with automated AAVE token buybacks running and DAO operational spending reduced, completing a governance roadmap the protocol has built toward since mid-2024.
Aave’s governance framework confirms that Aavenomics 3.0 is now active, with automated AAVE token buybacks running and DAO operational spending reduced, completing a governance roadmap the protocol has built toward since mid-2024.
The activation follows passage of the Aavenomics Part One ARFC and the Aave Will Win framework, which together established the immutable buyback and revenue-routing structure now live. Protocol revenue currently runs at approximately $402 million annualized, based on DefiLlama’s trailing seven-day window, with all-time fees exceeding $2.21 billion. Buybacks under the prior discretionary program had already acquired more than 205,000 AAVE tokens, roughly 1.28% of total supply, since launching in April 2025, per Aave’s governance forum.
Automated Buyback MechanicsThe original buyback mandate, passed as the Aavenomics Part One ARFC in early 2025, authorized the Aave Finance Committee to execute $1 million per week in AAVE purchases from secondary markets for the first six months of the mandate. That program was committee-directed: the AFC could resize, pause, or redirect it without a protocol-level change.
Aavenomics 3.0 replaces that structure with an immutable, non-discretionary mechanism that routes all Aave Protocol and GHO revenue to AAVE holders without requiring committee sign-off on each cycle.
Aave founder Stani Kulechov outlined the design Thursday, describing “immutable and automated buybacks of AAVE” as the core update. The Defiant reported Thursday on Kulechov’s initial public remarks as he disputed reports of discounted stake talks with Kraken’s parent company.
DAO Spending ReductionThe spending cut runs in parallel. In March 2026, governance passed an ARFC reducing the annual buyback budget from approximately $50 million to $30 million, citing a 25% decline in borrow fee revenue from its peak and an optimistic 2026 operational budget of $190 million against 2025’s $142 million in annual revenue. The adjustment also shifted primary buyback funding from stablecoins to ETH-correlated assets, using the DAO’s approximately $40 million in ETH holdings to reduce stablecoin drawdown.
The reduction preserves around $20 million annually in stablecoin reserves for service providers and growth programs. At the adjusted pace, the DAO acquires an estimated 292 AAVE per day.
The broader revenue framework was established by the Aave Will Win (AWW) proposal, proposed in late March 2026 and launched in April 2026. Under AWW, 100% of revenue from Aave Protocol, GHO, and Aave-branded products flows to the DAO treasury. Aave Labs operates solely as a DAO service provider with no direct claim on protocol revenue.
AAVE PriceAAVE was trading around $97.83 Saturday morning, up roughly 10% over the prior 24 hours and up about 32% on the week, per CoinGecko. Market cap stood at approximately $1.49 billion, with Aave’s total value locked at $12.45 billion, per DefiLlama.
GHO, Aave’s native stablecoin, circulates at roughly $598 million, per DefiLlama, contributing incremental fee income alongside lending revenues.
Objem na DEXu na Shibarium spadl na nulu a na síti nebyly od 23. června zaznamenány žádné obchody. Aktivita v DeFi i počet denních transakcí dál slábnou.
Trading activity across the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem on Shiba Inu’s L2 blockchain, Shibarium, has disappeared, as DEX volume currently sits at zero.
At press time, Shibarium DEX volume stood at zero, according to data from DeFiLlama, reflecting extremely weak on-chain participation.
Zero Trades Since June 23 Decentralized exchanges operating on Shibarium, including WoofSwap and ShibaSwap, have recorded no trading activity since June 23. The last recorded DEX transaction on the network occurred on June 22, when traders exchanged just $60 worth of assets.
Furthermore, throughout most of June, daily trading volumes on these platforms remained below $100, underscoring the lack of activity across the ecosystem. The slowdown highlights Shibarium’s struggle to attract meaningful DeFi adoption since its launch.
Shibarium DEX Volumes Dwindling DEX Activity After the mainnet went live in August 2023, the network initially showed encouraging signs of growth. DEX volume reached $6,800 in October 2024 before climbing to $54,000 in December 2024.
However, activity weakened in the following months. Although the development team attempted to revive optimism by promising faster ecosystem growth and higher DEX participation, trading activity continued to decline.
Shibarium briefly recovered in September 2025, when DEX volume rose to $47,000, before reaching a cycle peak of $86,000 in December 2025. Since then, trading activity has entered a prolonged decline, with many days registering no transactions at all across Shibarium-based DEXes.
Since October 2024, Shibarium’s decentralized exchanges have processed a cumulative $2.66 million in trading volume. That figure remains lower than the amount of DEX volume established networks such as Ethereum and Solana regularly process in a single day.
One major reason behind the weak on-chain metrics is that most trading involving Shiba Inu ecosystem tokens still occurs on centralized exchanges rather than on Shibarium’s native applications.
At press time, SHIB generated $56.4 million in 24-hour trading volume, with most transactions taking place on centralized platforms such as Binance and Coinbase.
Total Value Locked Remains Modest Despite weak trading activity, Shibarium’s total value locked (TVL) currently stands at $21,495, representing a 1.89% increase over the past 24 hours. While the increase suggests some capital remains within the ecosystem, the figure remains modest compared to competing DeFi networks.
Meanwhile, overall network usage continues to weaken. Shibarium currently processes only 889 daily transactions, with smart contract interactions accounting for most of that activity. The trend suggests that user engagement across the network remains limited and that DeFi adoption on Shibarium has yet to gain meaningful traction.
Shibarium Daily Transaction DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
Jito dosáhlo hrubých příjmů 1,75 miliardy USD, přičemž 81 % pocházelo z odměn MEV. Počet aktivních adres výrazně vzrostl a objem obchodů se za posledních 24 hodin zvýšil téměř o 90 % na 102 milionů USD.
Market activity across the Jito network has accelerated significantly of late.
The protocol has generated $1.75 billion in gross revenue, making it one of the strongest-performing projects in the Solana ecosystem. Most of that revenue—about 81%—came from MEV rewards, while staking rewards accounted for the remainder.
These metrics suggest Jito’s infrastructure is handling more economic activity as users continue to rely on the protocol for staking and MEV services. That’s not all though as that growth is also beginning to show up elsewhere.
Source: DefiLlama Is the revenue growth translating into user activity? In fact, network participation has strengthened over the past few days too.
The number of active addresses registered a major hike, pointing to significant engagement across the ecosystem. At the same time, trading volume expanded by nearly 90% to $102 million over the last 24 hours.
These metrics often move together.
More active addresses usually indicate broader user participation, while an uptick in trading volume often means capital may be flowing back into the market. Together, they seemed to paint a picture of increasing network activity rather than a short-lived spike in speculation.
That makes the recent revenue milestone more meaningful too. It is evidence that the protocol isn’t just attracting attention—it is also generating sustained economic activity.
Source: Santiment Is the market beginning to recognize that growth? Well, the improving fundamentals are now starting to appear on the chart too.
After spending months consolidating, JTO broke above a bullish flag pattern on the daily timeframe. Since then, the price has continued to respect an ascending trendline that has produced multiple rebounds since early May.
If the momentum holds, the trendline resistance could be the next target for the token’s buyers.
In fact, the technical structure appeared to be catching up with what on-chain data has been showing for weeks. Whether the breakout develops into a larger rally will ultimately depend on whether network activity continues to expand.
At the time of writing, the latest metrics hinted at a bullish run continuation. Revenue has been growing, users are becoming more active, and trading participation registered a hike too.
In other words, the recent price breakout may simply be the market beginning to reflect those improving fundamentals.
Source: TradingView Final Summary Jito generated $1.75 billion in protocol revenue, highlighting sustained network usage. Hike in active addresses and a $50 million uptick in trading volume coincided with JTO’s breakout above a multi-month bullish flag.
Brad Garlinghouse z Ripple kritizoval financování nákupů bitcoinu u společnosti Strategy prostřednictvím emisí preferenčních akcií a řekl, že dlouhodobou hodnotu má tvořit užitečnost, ne finanční inženýrství.
Zároveň upozornil, že STRC je asi 25 % pod nominální hodnotou 100 USD.
Brad Garlinghouse has criticized Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin acquisition strategy, arguing that Strategy’s reliance on preferred stock financing has failed to create lasting value as its securities continue to weaken.
Summary
Brad Garlinghouse criticized Strategy’s Bitcoin funding model, arguing long-term value should come from utility rather than financial engineering. Growing scrutiny of Strategy includes a shareholder investigation, insider share sales, and CryptoQuant’s call to preserve cash. Anchorage Digital said investors remain defensive, but options markets are not signaling expectations of a company-specific crisis. According to comments made during a CNBC interview on Friday, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse criticized Michael Saylor’s approach to financing Bitcoin purchases through Strategy’s capital markets program, saying long-term value in crypto should come from real-world utility rather than financial engineering.
Questioning whether the model can continue rewarding shareholders over time, Garlinghouse argued that issuing securities to fund additional Bitcoin purchases does not create sustainable value. He added that Strategy’s focus on financial structuring has had negative consequences for the digital asset market.
“Financial engineering does not drive long-term value … long-term value of any digital asset is going to be driven by utility.”
Although he challenged Strategy’s funding model, Garlinghouse maintained that he remains bullish on Bitcoin itself. His comments came as Bitcoin briefly traded below $60,000 on Friday, extending pressure across companies closely tied to the cryptocurrency.
Strategy’s preferred stock has come under pressure Garlinghouse pointed to Strategy’s STRC preferred shares as evidence that investors are becoming more cautious about the company’s financing structure. He noted that the preferred stock has fallen roughly 25% below its $100 face value, describing the decline as a sign that investors are questioning the sustainability of the approach.
Strategy has spent roughly the past year raising capital through preferred securities, including STRC, to finance additional Bitcoin purchases. The instrument also carries an 11.5% cumulative annual dividend obligation, leaving the company with continuing dividend commitments alongside its expanding Bitcoin treasury.
At the same time, scrutiny has widened beyond Garlinghouse’s criticism. Earlier this week, on-chain analytics firm CryptoQuant recommended that Strategy pause further Bitcoin purchases and instead strengthen its cash reserves as market conditions remain difficult.
Additional pressure has emerged from legal developments. As crypto.news reported previously, Rosen Law Firm has opened an investigation into whether Strategy made materially inaccurate business disclosures to investors. According to the firm, it is evaluating potential securities claims and considering a possible class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who suffered losses.
Investor scrutiny has continued despite mixed market signals Selling by company insiders has added another layer to investor concerns. SEC filings show Strategy director Jarrod Patten exercised options to acquire 1,500 Class A shares on June 23 before selling the entire position the same day at $106.08 per share, generating an estimated pre-tax gain of about $131,766.
The latest transaction extends a months-long selling streak. Regulatory filings indicate Patten has sold 55,750 Strategy shares over the past three months for roughly $9 million in proceeds, with the sales taking place as investors continue debating the company’s reliance on repeated share issuance and leveraged Bitcoin accumulation.
Even so, derivatives markets are not signaling expectations of an immediate company-specific crisis. According to new research from Anchorage Digital, traders continue paying elevated premiums for downside protection across Bitcoin, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust and Strategy shares, but options pricing remains well below levels seen during previous periods of severe stress.
Anchorage Digital’s head of research, David Lawant, wrote that while defensive positioning has risen into the upper range of historical readings, Strategy’s options market has not reached the conditions normally associated with forced deleveraging or fears of a breakdown in the company’s business model.
Chainlink zaznamenal v roce 2026 dva nejsilnější dny růstu sítě, kdy vzniklo více než 3 000 nových peněženek denně. Počet adres s alespoň 1 LINK vzrostl na zhruba 535 000.
Chainlink just had its two busiest days of the year for new wallet creation, with each day crossing the 3,000 threshold. The data, tracked by Santiment, points to a network that’s quietly building momentum even as the broader crypto market remains indecisive.
The numbers behind the surge The two record days each saw more than 3,000 new Chainlink wallets created, making them the highest on-chain growth days LINK has posted in all of 2026.
Non-micro wallets, defined as addresses holding at least 1 LINK, have climbed to approximately 535,000. That figure hasn’t been reached since December 2022, roughly three and a half years ago.
Advertisement
The mid-tier holder cohort is growing too. Wallets containing 1,000 or more LINK hit 25,420 in 2026, a new yearly high.
Addresses holding over 100,000 LINK reached an all-time high of 805 in May 2026, representing an 8.2% increase over the previous seven weeks.
Token unlocks didn’t kill the momentum In June 2026, Chainlink executed a quarterly token unlock of roughly 21 million LINK, worth approximately $166 million at current market prices. The wallet growth continued right through the unlock period without any visible disruption.
Why traditional finance keeps showing up On June 22, 2026, Chainlink launched its APAC Equities Streams, a product designed to bring equity market data on-chain for the Asia-Pacific region.
What this means for investors The whale accumulation trend is particularly telling. An 8.2% increase in wallets holding over 100,000 LINK over just seven weeks suggests that large holders are building positions with intent.
Quarterly token unlocks will continue to introduce new supply, and at $166 million per quarter, that’s a persistent headwind that requires consistent demand to offset.
Investors should also watch whether the non-micro wallet count continues climbing toward its previous peaks or plateaus near the 535,000 level. A sustained push above December 2022 levels would confirm that this cycle’s adoption is genuinely surpassing the previous one.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
CRE společnosti Chainlink byl vybrán DTCC pro Collateral AppChain a má podporovat správu kolaterálu pro tokenizovaná aktiva. Zároveň Chainlink oznámil roli klíčové infrastruktury pro Project Pangea, konsorcium více než 50 bank a bankovních skupin s více než 10 biliony dolarů v aktivech, s cílem zajistit T+0 vypořádání FX transakcí.
Chainlink just landed two of the most consequential institutional partnerships in its history, and both happened within weeks of each other.
On May 12, 2026, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation selected Chainlink’s Runtime Environment, known as CRE, to power its Collateral AppChain. Then on June 23, 2026, Chainlink announced it would serve as core infrastructure for Project Pangea, a consortium of over 50 banks and banking groups managing more than $10 trillion in assets.
What DTCC actually does, and why this matters DTCC processed over $4.7 quadrillion in securities transactions in 2025 alone. To put that in perspective, global GDP is roughly $100 trillion. DTCC handles nearly 50 times that figure annually.
Advertisement
The organization is now building a Collateral AppChain, scheduled to launch in Q4 2026, that will manage real-time collateral operations including pricing, valuation, margining, and settlement for tokenized assets across multiple blockchains. Chainlink’s CRE is the selected runtime environment for that system.
Chainlink co-founder Sergey Nazarov described the CRE as capable of “securely orchestrating critical outputs” for DTCC’s operations.
Project Pangea and the T+0 settlement ambition Project Pangea is targeting T+0 foreign exchange settlement, meaning trades would clear and settle on the same day, instantaneously, rather than the current T+2 standard where settlement takes two business days after a trade is executed.
The mechanism is atomic Payment-versus-Payment swaps, or PvP. In a traditional FX trade, one party sends currency first and hopes the counterparty delivers theirs shortly after. In an atomic PvP swap, both legs of the transaction settle simultaneously, or neither does. There is no trust required between counterparties because the settlement is enforced by the protocol itself.
Chainlink’s technology will facilitate this process using regulated EUR and KRW stablecoins. The consortium includes over 50 banks and banking groups with a combined $10 trillion in assets.
What investors should watch The risks are real. DTCC’s AppChain is not live until Q4 2026, and large-scale institutional deployments have a history of running over schedule and under-delivering on initial specifications. Project Pangea is even earlier in its development arc. Regulatory approvals for stablecoin-based settlement at this scale involve multiple jurisdictions and no clear timeline.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Aave V4 chce přenést půjčování tokenizovaných akcií onchain a odstranit brokery, kteří si dnes berou 50–85 % poplatků. Cílí tak na trh se zhruba 4,6 bilionu USD v půjčených cenných papírech.
TLDR: Aave V4 will enable onchain securities lending for tokenized stocks, removing broker intermediaries entirely. The global securities lending market holds $4.6 trillion in loans and generates $35 billion annually. Brokers currently retain 50–85% of borrow fees, leaving asset holders with only a minimal revenue share. Aave founder Stani Kulechov confirmed the protocol is expanding its TAM beyond crypto to all asset classes. Aave is positioning itself to capture a share of the global securities lending market through its upcoming V4 upgrade.
The protocol plans to bring tokenized stocks onchain, enabling users to earn borrowing fees without brokers taking the majority of revenue.
Aave executive Luigi D’Onorio DeMeo outlined the move on X, noting a market with roughly $4.6 trillion in securities on loan annually. The protocol aims to remove intermediaries and offer full borrowing rates directly to users.
Aave V4 Opens the Door to Tokenized Equity Lending Prime brokers and retail platforms currently dominate the securities lending business. Firms like Robinhood and Schwab lend out client-held stocks to earn revenue.
DeMeo laid out the imbalance clearly on X, stating that these platforms “typically keep 50–85% of the borrow fees, passing only a small share back to you.” Only a fraction of that revenue flows back to the actual holders of those securities.
Prime brokers and retail platforms like Robinhood and Schwab, etc earn sizable revenue by lending out the stocks that individuals/funds hold in their account. They typically keep 50-85% of the borrow fees, passing only a small share back to you.
More broadly, the Securities… pic.twitter.com/amXL9rVg0h
— Luigi D'Onorio DeMeo (@luigidemeo) June 26, 2026
Aave V4 is designed to change that arrangement entirely. The upgrade will allow users to supply tokenized stocks directly onchain.
From there, users can earn the full borrow rate without a middleman capturing most of the return. DeMeo described the model as one that offers “real-time transparency, dynamic pricing, no rehypothecation and no middlemen taking the lion’s share.”
The protocol also plans to eliminate rehypothecation, meaning collateral cannot be reused in layered transactions. That removes a major risk factor commonly associated with traditional securities lending operations.
Users retain direct exposure to their assets without hidden leverage from intermediaries. The structure is intended to give holders meaningful control over how their securities generate returns.
Aave founder Stani Kulechov reinforced this direction publicly on X. He wrote that “Aave is expanding its TAM from crypto assets to all assets with securities-backed loans and securities lending.”
The post came in direct response to DeMeo’s outline of the V4 roadmap. Together, both statements confirm the protocol is moving deliberately into traditional financial market territory.
A $35 Billion Annual Revenue Pool Now Within Reach The global securities lending market generates approximately $35 billion in annual revenue. DeMeo noted that “the securities lending market sees roughly $4.6 trillion in securities on loan globally,” with brokers capturing the majority of that revenue pool.
Asset holders receive only a minor cut of what their securities generate. Aave’s V4 launch is positioned as a direct response to that structural gap.
The go-to-market strategy for tokenized equities will be built around utility within Aave V4. Rather than tokenizing stocks purely for speculative trading, the focus is on enabling productive use through lending.
DeMeo stated that “the GTM for tokenizing equities will be providing utility with Aave V4.” Securities lending is a proven revenue-generating mechanism in traditional finance, and Aave is bringing it onchain from day one.
The protocol’s approach also addresses transparency concerns common in traditional lending markets. Onchain infrastructure allows open verification of which assets are on loan and at what rates.
That level of visibility does not exist in most broker-operated lending programs. Users can track their returns in real time without relying on periodic statements from intermediaries.
Aave’s push into securities lending marks a meaningful shift in how the protocol defines its market. Previously, the focus was on crypto-native collateral and borrowing.
Now the protocol is actively targeting traditional financial markets through tokenized asset infrastructure. The $4.6 trillion securities lending pool represents a target that extends well beyond anything Aave has previously addressed.
