Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Geoff Kendrick says UNI burns funded by Robinhood Chain trading have run at an annualized $90 million since Jul. 27. DefiLlama data puts Uniswap's protocol revenue at 2.4 times its prior level, with Robinhood Chain supplying about 60% of it.

Standard Chartered's global head of digital assets research said on Thursday that the $100 end-2030 price target he set for UNI in June may be too low, citing the rate at which Uniswap is now burning tokens with fees earned on Robinhood Chain.

The burn rate Geoff Kendrick is extrapolating from is 17 days old, and most of it comes from a chain that launched on Jul. 1. Uniswap's fee income has become concentrated in a single venue faster than any of the bank's 2030 assumptions about tokenized assets moving on-chain have been tested.

Two-Point-Four TimesUniswap protocol revenue averaged $244,222 a day between Jul. 27 and Aug. 12, up from $99,770 a day over the preceding 17 days, according to DefiLlama. All of it is used to buy and burn UNI under UNIfication, the December 2025 upgrade that routed protocol fees into programmatic burns. Annualized, the post-Jul. 27 run rate is $89.1 million, against the $90 million Kendrick cited.

At UNI's current $3.53, that pays for about 25 million tokens a year, or 4% of the 624.2 million in circulation.

"A 4% burn is clearly unsustainable," Kendrick wrote. "Even if the UNI token price were at my year-end 2026 target (USD6.50) the burn rate would be 2.2% annualised. Even that is likely not sustainable long-term. And that's before we get more partnerships like the Robinhood one." He closed the note: "I fear my 2030 UNI target of USD100 is too low!"

Sixty Percent From RobinhoodUniswap's v3 deployment on Robinhood Chain generated $925,054 of the protocol's $1.55 million in total protocol revenue over the past seven days, per DefiLlama — 60% of the burn from one chain. Uniswap accounts for $439.3 million of the chain's $511.1 million in 24-hour DEX volume, or 86%.

Uniswap Labs deployed v2, v3, v4 and UniswapX on Robinhood Chain on Jul. 2, describing itself as "the primary public AMM." Two Uniswap governance proposals executed on Jul. 17: Protocol Fee Expansion: Robinhood Chain and Activate v4 Protocol Fees (Part 1/2). Both took effect in the same window as the revenue jump, so the increase is not attributable to Robinhood Chain alone.

Where The Numbers DivergeKendrick put Robinhood Chain's total value locked "just shy of USD1bn," citing Entropy Advisors, and called it the fastest-growing chain of all time on that measure. DefiLlama has the chain at $506.97 million, with $1.55 billion bridged. The Defiant reported in July that the chain's early metrics were driven by memecoin trading rather than the tokenized stocks it was built for.

UNI is down 6.7% over 24 hours and 13.4% over the week at $3.53, per CoinGecko, with a $2.2 billion market capitalization. Standard Chartered initiated coverage on Jun. 15, calling for a 40x gain from the $2.50 level cited in that note.

@SolCex_Exchange has added Pi Network ($PI), Canton Network's $CC, and Ethereum Classic ($ETC) to its platform, with the listings going live as of August 12, expanding the exchange's tradeable asset base well beyond its native Solana ecosystem.

Pi Network's Expanding Exchange FootprintPi Network's Open Mainnet launched on February 20, 2025, with trading beginning at 08:00 UTC across participating exchanges, including Bitget, KuCoin, Gate.io, and MEXC. Despite that broad initial rollout, $PI currently trades around $0.090, with upcoming token unlocks of roughly 775 million PI adding to concerns over selling pressure. The SolCex listing gives @PiCoreTeam's token another venue as it works to recover ground lost during a July slump.

Canton Network and Ethereum Classic Round Out the ListingsThe addition of $CC from @CantonNetwork and $ETC broadens SolCex's reach further. Ethereum Classic, the original Ethereum chain maintained after the 2016 DAO fork, represents the proof-of-work legacy side of the market. Canton Network is a privacy-enabled blockchain designed primarily for institutional use cases. Listing both alongside $PI signals that @SolCex_Exchange is actively pushing to compete with larger centralized platforms.

SolCex describes itself as the first centralized cryptocurrency exchange built on @Solana, using the network's high throughput and low fees to offer fast execution and cross-chain compatibility across Solana, Ethereum, and other blockchains. Whether broader listings translate into meaningful trading volume remains to be seen, but the move adds three distinct asset classes to a platform still establishing its position in a crowded market.

Sources
CryptoPotato: Pi Network News and PI Token Price Update, August 13
GlobeNewswire: SolCex Positioned as Primary Centralized Exchange for Solana
CryptoRank: Pi Network Listing Status

Solana’s flourishing RWA sector is growing even more tangible, with Dominion bringing physical redeemable silver onchain in today’s $SILV launch.

Sunrise DeFi, the Wormhole-powered asset gateway, has been shoulder-tapped to support the launch, facilitating deep liquidity and integration across Solana DeFi.

Dominion’s launch comes at a critical time for Solana’s onchain commodities landscape, which has yet to witness the same adoption as its flourishing tokenized equities scene.

Tokenized, Physical Silver Hits Solana
Dominion has launched $SILV, a tokenized, redeemable asset backed 1:1 by physical silver. Where most of Solana’s existing onchain silver products are based on paper derivatives and adjacent ETFs, Dominion’s $SILV offers a more tangible, physical exposure to the world’s 2nd largest metal market.

"Silver has been money for thousands of years, but on-chain it barely exists. Dominion fixes that. Every SILV token is one ounce of real, audited silver you can trade, lend, and borrow against on Solana from day one. We are bringing the oldest hard asset into the most active on-chain economy." -  Mark Tormey, Dominion founder

According to Dominion’s Transparency page, the issuer holds 150,000 ounces of physical silver bars, currently valued at roughly $9.7M. Dominion claims its silver holdings are stored by institutional vault storage professionals, and are routinely subject to third-party audits, the most recent of which was conducted by Bureau Veritas in June 2026.

Minting $SILV comes with a 1.5% fee, while redemptions of physical silver are expected to be operational within 3-6 months of launch. 

"Silver has been traded for thousands of years, but buying a single ounce still means finding a dealer, paying to ship it, and paying someone else to store it. Sunrise enables issuers to bring assets like physical silver onchain without this friction, while enabling liquidity from day one of trading." - Saeed Badreg, CEO, Wormhole Labs

Traders and investors can alternatively purchase $SILV through Solana DeFi applications, with Sunrise spearheading liquidity services to facilitate better onchain execution.

Total Volume on Sunrise Assets Crosses $5.5B
Since its day one Monad ($MON) listing back in November 2025, Sunrise has consistently brought the wider market’s most tradable assets to Solana DeFi. Branching out of foreign Layer-1 coins like $MON and $HYPE, Sunrise’s expansion into a broader range of assets, including Backpack Securities, has accelerated volumes across listings.

According to Dune Analytics data, Sunrise-listed assets have witnessed over $5.5B in total trading volume, with more than 294,700 unique wallets trading foreign assets and tokenized securities onchain.

While the listing of traditional financial instruments, like tokenized equities, arguably represents a bigger opportunity, onchain markets are flowing the vast majority of trading volume through $HYPE. This is most likely due to the arbitrage opportunity available to traders moving $HYPE between Solana and the Hyperliquid L1.

While similar opportunities exist between Backpack’s tokenized stocks and their 1:1 counterparts, Backpack’s KYC requirement erects a potential barrier that could be discouraging to some arbitrageurs.

However, volume patterns suggest that some stocks are finding the onchain economy to be a far more liquid and high-volume venue than its TradFi rivals. In mid July, RoboStrategy’s $BOT witnessed higher trading volumes in Solana DeFi than on the NASDAQ, suggesting stronger appetite for certain assets among DeFi players than typical market participants.

Solana Trails on Tokenized Commodities Adoption
Despite an explosion of trading activity throughout Solana’s tokenized equity sector, the chain’s traders are yet to embrace commodities. RWA.xyz data suggests that the total value of Solana’s tokenized commodity market is only $23.6M, commanding a mere 0.48% of market share and falling well behind rival chains like Ethereum and BNB.

While Dominion’s $SILV launch is unlikely to cause an immediate shift in tokenized commodity rankings throughout the industry, it demonstrates the ecosystem’s desire to compete in one of global finance’s most competitive markets.

Read More on SolanaFloor
Regulators are taking matters into their own hands

SEC to Roll Out “Major Initiatives” to Turbocharge Crypto Industry as CLARITY Flounders

Why Does Solana Want to Burn $SOL?

Most tokenized real-world assets today are U.S. Treasuries and money-market funds. XDC Network is an exception.

Its largest tokenized asset is a USD 143 million debenture for a highway operator, part of roughly USD 860 million in real-world credit on the network: corporate debentures, agribusiness receivables, and loans to operating businesses.

It is a quieter, more granular kind of real-world asset than the headline Treasury products, and a precise picture of what XDC Network was built to carry. CertiK now helps secure that chain as one of its validators.

Real-World Credit, From Two Issuers XDC Network's tokenized value stands at about USD 1.1 billion, roughly four-fifths of its real-world assets.

Almost all of that comes from two issuers: Liqi, a tokenization platform, and Vert Capital, a securitization firm.

Liqi accounts for around USD 471 million across more than 1,800 instruments, led by a highway-operator debenture, Via Araucária, and credit tied to names like the retailer Casas Bahia.

Vert Capital adds another USD 390 million in seven structured issuances, led by agribusiness receivables certificates and a single USD 234 million issuance.

This is not the synthetic yield of early DeFi, nor the tokenized Treasuries that dominate the RWA headlines. It is ordinary real-world credit: receivables, debentures, and loans to operating businesses, issued at institutional size and settled on XDC Network.

The Real-Economy End of Tokenization These are among the harder assets to bring on-chain.

They lived in private paper and local markets, with credit tied to specific operating businesses rather than a government or a fund—the kind of exposure that is normally slow to price and hard to trade.

That is a different starting point from the standardized, already-liquid instruments that make up most tokenized real-world assets.

It reaches the part of finance that has been hardest to digitize, and it is the part XDC Network was built for.

The Rails Were in Place Before the Assets That kind of credit needs somewhere built to hold it.

XDC Network has run its mainnet since 2019, oriented from the start around trade finance and regulated settlement rather than retail speculation.

It aligns with ISO 20022, the messaging standard banks already use to move money, so a tokenized receivable settles in a format institutions recognize.

The custody and validation around it are institutional in the same way. XDC Network integrates with BitGo, Anchorage, Fireblocks, and Safe for regulated custody, and its validator set has drawn names like SBI, Deutsche Telekom, Animoca, and Republic.

For an issuer deciding where to tokenize a few hundred million dollars of receivables, that infrastructure already being there is the reason to pick one chain over another.

The ordering is the point. XDC Network assembled the trust stack first and drew the assets second, which is the reverse of a chain bolting institutional features onto retail traffic after the fact.

On-Chain, the Open Question Shifts Credit to operating businesses is one of the more opaque corners of finance.

A loan to a mid-size company does not trade on a public exchange, and its value depends on the borrower, the issuer's underwriting, and terms that are usually private.

Putting it on-chain changes part of that.

Each of Vert Capital's receivables certificates and Liqi's instruments becomes individually visible, with its issuance, size, and lifecycle trackable in real time.

For an asset class that historically settled in PDFs and spreadsheets, that is a real gain in transparency.

What on-chain settlement does not resolve on its own is the layer underneath:

Whether a token is backed by the receivable it claims Whether the issuer's process holds Whether the contract behaves as the document says The visible question moves from where an instrument is to whether it can be trusted—a different question from what a tokenized Treasury or a reserve-backed stablecoin has to answer.

CertiK Goes From Assessing the Chain to Helping Run It That is where CertiK comes in, and its role has deepened in steps.

In May, CertiK Co-Founder and CEO Ronghui Gu and XDC Foundation held a fireside discussion on real-time verification of tokenized assets and what institutional adoption requires.

CertiK had already audited the chain and keeps it under an ongoing Skynet assessment, currently in the AA tier.

The most recent step goes further. CertiK has become a validator on XDC Network, running a node that helps secure the chain those assets settle on.

For real-world credit rather than reserve-backed tokens, that shift from independent assessment to direct participation is the kind of verification the asset class actually needs.

XDC Network has put real-world credit on-chain and built the rails to settle it. Tokenizing the asset is the first half of the problem. Keeping it verifiable is the second, and CertiK now does that from inside the network, as one of its validators.

Pendle has rolled out a new USDC vault on the Morpho lending protocol, designed to funnel stablecoin liquidity directly into its Principal Token markets. The vault, which went live on August 4 and has already accumulated roughly $15.04 million in deposits, represents a deliberate effort to solve one of DeFi’s more persistent headaches: making sure borrowers can actually find the liquidity they need when using exotic collateral types.

For depositors, the pitch is straightforward. Park your USDC, earn a net APY of 14.08%, and collect weekly PENDLE token distributions on top of it. For the broader Pendle ecosystem, the vault acts as a liquidity engine for PT-backed borrowing, a market segment that has historically been constrained by shallow lending pools.

How the vault works The Ecosystem USDC vault was built in collaboration with Armitage, the curation arm of market maker Wintermute. Think of Armitage as the portfolio manager here: it decides where deposited USDC gets routed across Pendle’s various PT collateral markets on Morpho.

Right now, the allocation is almost entirely concentrated. Approximately 99.7% of funds flow into the PT-reUSD/USDC market, with smaller allocations directed toward PT-sUSDS and PT-USDG markets. That concentration isn’t random. It reflects where the borrowing demand actually lives.

Advertisement

The utilization rate on the PT-reUSD market sits around 72%, which is a healthy number in DeFi lending. For context, utilization rates above 80% typically trigger rate increases to attract more lenders, while rates below 50% suggest tepid demand. At 72%, the market is busy enough to generate meaningful yield without creating the kind of liquidity crunch that makes depositors nervous about withdrawals.

The 14.08% net APY breaks down into two components. There’s a 4.75% base rate generated organically from borrow demand, plus an additional 9.32% sourced from PENDLE token rewards. That second figure is calculated after Morpho’s 5% performance fee, so the gross reward rate is slightly higher. Depositors also receive a weekly distribution of 7,500 PENDLE tokens, spread proportionally across all vault participants.

Why PT liquidity matters To understand why Pendle built this vault, you need to understand what Principal Tokens actually are. Pendle’s protocol separates yield-bearing assets into two pieces: the principal (PT) and the yield (YT). If you hold a stablecoin that earns 5% annually, Pendle lets you sell the future yield to someone else and keep just the discounted principal, or vice versa.

PTs trade at a discount to their underlying asset and converge to full value at maturity, functioning a bit like zero-coupon bonds in traditional finance. Traders use them in what’s called “PT-looping” strategies, where they borrow against PT collateral, buy more PTs at a discount, and repeat. The spread between the borrowing cost and the PT discount is the profit.

With up to $11.8 million in available borrowing capacity, the vault meaningfully expands the runway for these strategies.

The competitive landscape The vault sits at the intersection of two major DeFi trends: the modular lending stack and the tokenized yield market. Morpho, the protocol hosting the vault, has positioned itself as a permissionless lending layer where curators like Armitage can spin up bespoke lending markets without needing governance approval.

The 14.08% APY is competitive for a stablecoin-denominated product, particularly one that doesn’t require depositors to take on directional price risk. Most vanilla USDC lending rates on major platforms hover in the low-to-mid single digits, so the premium here comes almost entirely from the PENDLE token incentives.

That dynamic creates an important distinction for potential depositors. The base yield of 4.75% is sustainable as long as borrowing demand persists. The remaining 9.32% depends on Pendle continuing to allocate PENDLE tokens to the vault.

The concentration of 99.7% of assets in a single market, PT-reUSD/USDC, is worth watching. While it reflects current demand patterns, it also means depositors are effectively exposed to the credit risk and liquidity dynamics of that one market. Armitage’s role as curator suggests the allocation could shift over time as other PT markets mature, but for now, diversification this is not.

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

Thunes, the Singapore-headquartered global payments network, launched EURC prefunding on August 13, integrating Circle’s euro-denominated stablecoin into its Direct Global Network and SmartX Treasury system. The feature lets network members fund cross-border euro transactions instantly, even when European banks are closed for the weekend or on holiday.

How it works and who it serves The integration allows Thunes’ network members, a roster that includes fintechs, neobanks, payment service providers, and Web3 companies, to prefund euro-denominated transactions using EURC. That stablecoin is MiCA-compliant, meaning it meets the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulatory framework.

EURC is compatible with multiple blockchains including Ethereum, Solana, Base, and Stellar.

Advertisement

Thunes’ infrastructure reaches 12 billion bank accounts and wallets across 140 countries, supporting over 90 currencies and 220 payment methods.

Deputy CEO Chloé Mayenobe described the launch as “a natural evolution” of the company’s capabilities.

Building on the Circle partnership This isn’t Thunes’ first rodeo with Circle. The two companies established a partnership in October 2024, initially focused on USDC-based liquidity solutions. Adding EURC extends that relationship into euro-denominated territory.

In October 2025, Thunes rolled out a Pay-to-Stablecoin-Wallets feature, allowing direct settlement into stablecoin wallets. The EURC prefunding announcement builds on that foundation.

Why 24/7 settlement matters more than it sounds EURC prefunding lets companies park liquidity in a stablecoin that maintains a 1:1 peg with the euro, making those funds available for settlement at any hour. European markets have roughly 250 business days per year, which means traditional banking rails are effectively offline for more than 100 days annually when you count weekends and public holidays.

The bigger picture for stablecoins in payments MiCA compliance is a key enabler here. The EU’s regulatory framework for crypto assets, which went into full effect in 2024, created a clear legal basis for stablecoins issued by licensed entities. Circle obtained the necessary licenses to issue EURC under MiCA.

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

Hyperliquid opened access to its Foundation operated low latency data infrastructure to qualified third party infrastructure providers on Aug. 12, creating a cheaper route for trading firms and developers that previously faced demanding direct access requirements. 

Summary

Hyperliquid opened Foundation low-latency node access to qualified infrastructure providers under a standardized pricing model. Provider pricing is currently indicated below $1,000 monthly, covering computing resources and outbound network traffic. Qualified providers need one year operating history, 100 customers, five networks, and 99.9% availability levels. Direct Foundation access previously required staking 10,000 HYPE and Tier 1 maker rebate qualification status. Providers may not offer faster dedicated lines to individual market makers under Foundation access rules. The new provider model uses a current reference price below $1,000 per month for access, covering compute and outbound traffic.

The change applies specifically to connectivity with the Hyper Foundation’s non validating node. Running an independent non validating node has always been permissionless, according to Hyperliquid’s documentation. Direct peer access to the Foundation node, however, previously required staking 10,000 HYPE and reaching Tier 1 in maker rebates, defined as more than 0.5% of 14 day weighted maker volume.

Hyperliquid Opens Low-Latency Data Nodes to Infrastructure Providers at Under $1,000 a Month

Hyperliquid Foundation has opened its low-latency on-chain data nodes to qualified infrastructure providers, allowing them to offer access at standardized pricing, currently indicated at… pic.twitter.com/LfSJuid2ZS

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) August 13, 2026 Hyperliquid opens Foundation node access beyond major makers Qualified providers must have operated for at least one year, serve at least 100 customers and support five or more networks or protocols. They also need 99.9% node availability and cannot have been terminated by another network or foundation for a breach during the previous three months.

The commercial rules are designed to limit information advantages between customers. Providers must offer open access and nondiscriminatory pricing, scale automatically as access nodes increase and cannot provide faster dedicated connections to selected market makers. Reports of verified preferential treatment may qualify for a Hyper Foundation bug bounty.

The reference price is intended to cover computing resources and outbound traffic. The Foundation describes the figure as a current benchmark, meaning the sub-$1,000 level should not be treated as a permanently fixed price. Providers are also barred from turning Foundation peering into preferential infrastructure for an individual trading firm.

The change targets latency-sensitive trading infrastructure Hyperliquid’s Foundation non validating node is designed to provide reliable, low latency blockchain data. A non validating node follows network activity without taking part in consensus. Hyperliquid also maintains open source node software in its repository, allowing users to operate their own nodes.

The access change follows earlier adjustments to Hyperliquid’s public WebSocket feeds. In June, the network directed automated traders needing more order book levels or real time update streams toward non validating nodes. The new provider route gives smaller teams another path without independently satisfying the Foundation’s former staking and maker volume requirements.

The shift also comes as professional trading infrastructure around Hyperliquid expands. Gold-i said this week that MatrixNET had integrated direct non validating node connectivity, providing institutional clients fuller order book depth and faster, more granular market data than the standard API. Gold-i has not been identified as a participant in the newly opened Foundation provider program.

As previously reported, Hyperliquid controls an estimated 70% of onchain perpetuals volume, making data quality increasingly relevant for firms competing in its order books. Separately, the Foundation controlled share of staked HYPE fell to about 49.3% this year as the validator base expanded.

What happens next for providers and HYPE Infrastructure firms that meet the published requirements can compete to provide Foundation connected data access under the new service conditions. Hyperliquid has not announced a named list of approved providers or a fixed rollout schedule in the materials reviewed. The next test will be whether multiple providers emerge while maintaining the required availability and equal access standards.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) price chart, source: crypto.news The broader change is narrower than opening Hyperliquid’s validator set or matching engine. It lowers the barrier to a specific low latency data path while leaving independent non validating nodes permissionless. For smaller market makers and trading developers, access is therefore less dependent on holding a large HYPE stake or already commanding substantial maker volume.

Ripple has cast its vote in favor of the fixCleanup3_3_0 amendment on the $XRP Ledger, giving the XRPL 3.3.0 upgrade its first significant endorsement from one of the network's primary contributors.

What the fixCleanup3_3_0 Amendment Covers The fixCleanup3_3_0 proposal is a bundled maintenance package that addresses targeted fixes across several protocol areas, including Single Asset Vaults, the Lending Protocol, Automated Market Makers (AMMs), Checks, and pseudo-accounts. It is one of six amendments introduced alongside the 3.3.0 release, which also includes Confidential Transfer, BatchV1_1, DynamicMPT, PermissionDelegationV1_1, and Sponsor.

Beyond the amendments themselves, the 3.3.0 release brings meaningful performance improvements. Developers have flagged a reduction in memory usage of between 10% and 15%, better online delete and node sync performance, and roughly 60 bug fixes identified through an internal AI red team process.

What Has to Happen Before Mainnet Activation Ripple's vote carries weight as an early signal, but it does not determine the outcome alone. Eight of the 35 Unique Node List (UNL) validators currently support the fixCleanup3_3_0 amendment. Mainnet activation requires the proposal to hold more than 80% validator support, equivalent to at least 28 of 35 UNL validators, for two consecutive weeks before the changes take effect permanently on the network.

That governance structure is standard for the XRP Ledger. Once an amendment clears the 80% threshold for the required two-week period, the change applies permanently to all subsequent ledger versions. Validators make independent decisions, and the proposal can fail or be delayed if support drops below the threshold at any point during that window.

Node operators face a practical deadline tied to the process. Any server that has not upgraded to xrpld 3.3.0 before the amendments activate risks becoming amendment-blocked, a status that cuts the node off from consensus and prevents it from reading or submitting new transactions.

The broader 3.3.0 upgrade is positioned as a step toward institutional readiness for the XRP Ledger, with features spanning privacy for tokenized assets, atomic transaction batching, delegated account permissions, and sponsored network fees.

Sources:
crypto.news: XRP Ledger upgrade gains Ripple vote for bundled fixes
XRPL.org: Amendments documentation
CoinGape: Ripple votes in favor of fixCleanup proposal

8h05 ▪ 6 min read ▪ by Ghiles A.

Summarize this article with:

Ethereum returns to the center of on-chain data after the awakening of four former whales linked to the early days of the network. On Tuesday, August 11, a Genesis wallet moved 2,680 ETH after eleven years of inactivity. This reserve, acquired for about 830 dollars, was then worth 5.03 million dollars. Two other wallets had already transferred 2,000 ETH each in July. These close movements reignite selling fears, as funds long considered dormant return to the market.

In brief Four former Ethereum whales have awakened their wallets after several years of inactivity. A Genesis wallet transferred 2,680 ETH, valued at over 5 million dollars. Two other addresses had already moved 2,000 ETH each during the month of July. These transfers to exchange platforms reignite fears of a possible massive sell-off. Ethereum: Four Wallets Awaken From Sleep On Tuesday, August 11, on-chain analysis tools detected the transfer of 2,680 ETH from a Genesis wallet. The transaction was worth 5.03 million dollars at the time of the movement. Eleven years earlier, this reserve was worth only about 830 dollars. According to data provided by Whale Alert, this growth represents a gain of 605,924% since the initial acquisition.

The wallet belonged to the first ETH holders from the Genesis period. This designation refers to the units allocated during the participatory sale launched on July 22, 2014. At that time, the first buyers obtained their tokens for only 0.31 dollars.

Now, these former reserves can represent several million dollars when they re-enter the market. Ethereum attracts special attention when these historic reserves suddenly change address. It remains relevant, as each transfer alters the reading of the available supply.

The movement of August 11, however, does not come alone. On August 9, Whale Alert spotted that another pre-mining holder transferred 2,000 ETH, valued at close to 3.8 million dollars. This reserve was worth only 620 dollars in 2015. Arkham Intelligence data then indicates that the funds joined Coinbase, which further draws attention to their possible use.

A Historic Supply Gradually Returns to the Market To understand these movements, it is necessary to go back to the early stages of the network. The creators premined about 72 million ETH before the blockchain launch. About 60 million units were then allocated to buyers during a public sale aimed at financing the launch. This operation lasted 42 days and raised 31,591 BTC for the organizers.

The balance, close to 12 million ETH, was reserved for insiders. Founders and early contributors received about 6 million units. The Ethereum Foundation obtained the remaining 6 million. This distribution explains why some ancestral addresses can still hold significant reserves, several years after their creation. Ethereum sees funds created during its early network years re-emerge.

In July, two other Genesis wallets already showed similar activity. Each had transferred 2,000 ETH, with a first movement on July 20 and a second on July 26. One of the transactions ended on CoinJar, while the other distributed the funds across several addresses. These close movements thus increase visibility around former holders. Ethereum could face new transfers if other wallets move.

Transfers That Fuel Fears of Selling The succession of these operations mainly raises the question of the funds’ final destination. When ETH that has been inactive for years joins an exchange platform, the market may expect selling. However, a transfer alone is not proof of liquidation. Funds can also change custody, be distributed among several wallets, or respond to another financial decision.

The case of the four whales therefore remains to be monitored, especially when funds reach platforms like Coinbase or CoinJar. On-chain data allows tracing these movements, but they do not directly specify the holder’s intention. For Ethereum, the issue mainly concerns the reintroduction into circulation of a supply that has seemed durably inactive.

These successive awakenings come after more than a decade of fluctuations, platform bankruptcies, and lost keys. Some holders may now seek to take profits or modify the custody of their assets. Other scenarios remain possible, including estate planning or a simple wallet change. However, the repetition of movements makes this activity more visible.

In the short term, upcoming transfers will therefore be a major indicator. If the four addresses continue moving their reserves to exchange platforms, selling fears could intensify. Conversely, redistribution to private wallets would limit this interpretation. The market will thus have to distinguish technical movements from actual selling operations.

The situation will mainly depend on the behavior of these former Ether holders. The next transactions will determine whether their awakenings signal a durable reintroduction into circulation or just custody changes. For now, data mainly shows that historic reserves are starting to move again after years of silence.

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.

Goldman Sachs has agreed to acquire Neos Investments for up to $2.25 billion, a deal that will add three Bitcoin and Ethereum options-income ETFs managing more than $1.1 billion combined to its asset management business.

Summary

Goldman Sachs will acquire Neos Investments for up to $2.25 billion. The deal will add three Bitcoin and Ethereum income ETFs to Goldman’s asset management business. Neos manages more than $30 billion across 19 options based income ETFs. The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2027, subject to regulatory approval. According to Goldman Sachs, the cash-and-equity transaction will bring Neos and its more than $30 billion in assets under management into Goldman Sachs Asset Management, subject to performance and service commitments tied to the agreement. The acquisition is expected to close in the first quarter of 2027 after regulatory approval and other customary closing conditions.

Among the 19 Neos funds included in the transaction are the Neos Bitcoin High Income ETF (BTCI), Boosted Bitcoin High Income ETF (XBCI) and Ethereum High Income ETF (NEHI), giving Goldman an existing lineup of crypto-linked income products while its own proposed Bitcoin income fund remains on file with U.S. regulators.

Goldman Sachs will inherit three crypto income ETFs Neos launched BTCI in October 2024 as an actively managed ETF designed to combine Bitcoin-linked exposure with monthly income generated through options. The fund had accumulated more than $1 billion in net assets as of Wednesday, making it the largest of Neos’ three crypto-focused products.

Rather than buying Bitcoin directly, BTCI obtains exposure through exchange-traded products linked to the cryptocurrency and uses an options strategy to generate distributions. A Neos shareholder report for the period ending November 2025 showed the portfolio using Bitcoin ETFs alongside options linked to the Cboe Bitcoin U.S. ETF Index.

XBCI, launched in February 2026, applies a more aggressive version of the strategy. The fund had about $111 million in net assets as of Wednesday and seeks roughly 150% exposure to BTCI’s underlying strategy, according to its prospectus, meaning declines in Bitcoin-linked investments can also be magnified.

Ethereum High Income ETF NEHI, meanwhile, was launched in December 2025 and had accumulated more than $77 million in net assets. Like the Bitcoin products, NEHI does not directly hold Ether and instead combines exposure through exchange-traded products with an options-based income strategy.

Neos has built the three crypto ETFs as part of a larger range of income funds covering U.S. equity indexes, fixed income, Bitcoin, Ether and gold. Founded in 2022, the investment manager now oversees more than $30 billion across 19 options-based ETFs.

“As investor demand for active ETFs grows, NEOS’ disciplined investment approach is highly complementary to our capabilities across buffer, managed outcome and income strategies,” Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO David Solomon said.

Neos deal could affect Goldman’s filed Bitcoin ETF plans The acquisition also puts an existing Bitcoin income fund inside Goldman months after the bank filed to launch a competing product of its own.

In April, crypto.news reported that Goldman had filed a registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the Goldman Sachs Bitcoin Premium Income ETF. The proposed fund would invest at least 80% of its net assets in instruments providing Bitcoin exposure, primarily through spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products, before selling call options against part of the position.

Goldman’s filing proposed an options overwrite covering between 40% and 100% of its Bitcoin exposure depending on market conditions. Selling the calls would generate premiums for monthly income, although the structure would also limit some of the fund’s participation when Bitcoin rises sharply.

Bloomberg senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas said following the Neos announcement that the acquisition could explain why the Goldman product filed in April has not launched.

Goldman will get $BTCI in the Neos deal, which is a $1b bitcoin premium income ETF, yields 27% and captures most but not all of bitcoins run-ups. Nowww I get why GS never launched the btc covered call product they filed months ago. Better to leap frog BlackRock’s $BITA vs me too pic.twitter.com/kCeuAAqiQo

— Eric Balchunas (@EricBalchunas) August 12, 2026 With BTCI already holding more than $1 billion in assets, Balchunas said the Neos acquisition could allow Goldman to “leapfrog” BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Premium Income ETF, or BITA, rather than building a competing fund from the beginning.

Goldman has not said whether it intends to withdraw, modify, or proceed with its Bitcoin Premium Income ETF following the Neos transaction.

BlackRock has already entered the Bitcoin income ETF market Competition for Bitcoin options-income products intensified in June when BlackRock brought BITA to market.

A June filing update showed that BlackRock planned to generate income by writing covered calls primarily against its iShares Bitcoin Trust, or IBIT, and Bitcoin ETF-linked indexes. The filing also set BITA’s sponsor fee at 0.65%.

BlackRock subsequently launched the fund on June 16. Unlike a conventional spot Bitcoin ETF, BITA combines Bitcoin exposure, mainly through IBIT shares, with call options written against part of the portfolio.

An analysis of BITA published after the launch found that BlackRock planned to write calls against roughly 25% to 35% of the fund’s net asset value each month while targeting annual income of between 15% and 25%. The trade-off comes from surrendering some potential gains above the strike prices of the calls when Bitcoin rises sharply.

BITA had accumulated about $59 million in net assets as of Wednesday, compared with more than $1 billion for Neos’ BTCI.

Neos’ longer operating history in the category gives Goldman an established Bitcoin income product if the acquisition closes, while XBCI adds leveraged Bitcoin-linked exposure and NEHI extends the same general income approach to Ether.

Goldman expands its options ETF business through acquisitions Neos is Goldman’s second multibillion-dollar ETF acquisition in 2026.

The firm completed its roughly $2 billion purchase of Innovator Capital Management in April, adding an investment manager focused on defined-outcome and options-based ETFs. Innovator’s products use options structures to establish predetermined ranges for potential gains and losses over specified periods.

Adding Neos would increase the scale of the same part of Goldman’s asset management operation. Goldman said derivative-income ETFs across the industry now manage about $180 billion, citing Morningstar data, after recording a compound annual growth rate of more than 70% since 2021.

Goldman Sachs Asset Management, Innovator and Neos together managed more than $130 billion across their global ETF platforms as of June 30. Goldman said the combined operation would include roughly $80 billion in active ETFs and make the firm the eighth-largest active ETF provider based on Morningstar data.

Neos co-founders Troy Cates and Garrett Paolella are expected to become partners at Goldman Sachs Asset Management once the transaction closes. Neos’ investment professionals and client-service employees are also expected to join the firm under the agreement.

SEC Clears Path for Blockchain-Based Fund CustodyThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has issued a no-action letter giving Franklin Templeton's registered funds the go-ahead to invest in its Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund, commonly known as BENJI. SEC staff said it would not recommend enforcement action against Franklin Templeton funds over a proposed custody arrangement involving shares of the Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund.

The decision allows Franklin Templeton Investor Services (FTIS) to act as custodian for participating funds without complying with certain requirements under Rule 17f-2 that were designed around physical or certificated securities. In practical terms, that removes a significant regulatory barrier that had previously complicated how blockchain-based fund shares could be held within traditional fund structures.

The OnChain Fund is a registered government money market fund whose official shareholder records are maintained through a system combining traditional internal records with blockchain technology. The blockchain portion records transactions including purchases, redemptions, dividend distributions, net asset values, and trade information, while FTIS maintains control over the official ownership record.

BENJI, Stellar, and the Safeguards in PlaceBENJI is the onchain share token of the Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund (FOBXX), a U.S.-registered mutual fund managed by Franklin Templeton. Each BENJI token represents one share of the fund, which invests in U.S. Treasury securities, repos, and cash. The fund targets a stable $1 share price.

The OnChain Fund currently uses the @StellarOrg blockchain as its primary public blockchain, although the SEC letter says other networks may be used for certain accounts subject to eligibility. For each investing fund, FTIS will create a separate blockchain wallet and retain control of the associated private key.

The relief comes with meaningful conditions. Each investing fund must maintain procedures designed to prevent unauthorized instructions, and FTIS must maintain administrative controls that allow it to correct unauthorized transactions, freeze or migrate wallet records, and restore the official ownership record when necessary. The funds' boards must approve the arrangements and review them at least annually.

Franklin Templeton's filing pointed to features of the OnChain Fund such as hourly net asset value calculations, intraday trading, and faster transaction processing as reasons for using the structure. As of Q1 2026, the fund holds roughly $828 million in assets under management and operates across eight public blockchains: Stellar, Polygon, Arbitrum, Aptos, Avalanche, Base, Solana, and Ethereum.

The fund is the first U.S.-registered fund to use a public blockchain to process transactions and record share ownership. Wednesday's SEC letter reinforces that position and may open the door for other asset managers to pursue similar structures.

Sources:
Franklin Templeton receives SEC no-action letter for blockchain fund - Crypto Briefing
Franklin Templeton Gets SEC Relief for Blockchain Fund Custody - Crypto Times
Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund surpasses $270M AUM - BusinessWire

TLDR: Hyperliquid generated over $800M in annual revenue, with about 99% of certain fees used to buy HYPE. Uniswap’s UNIfication activated protocol fees and included a one-time treasury burn of 100M UNI tokens. Aave spent about $42M buying over 205,000 AAVE in 10 months, equal to roughly 1.28% of total supply. Aave’s January 2026 revenue fell to $7.95M from $13.5M, prompting a proposal to cut annual buybacks to $30M. Crypto markets are increasingly being judged by a metric familiar to traditional businesses: how much revenue they generate and return to asset holders. Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan said in an Aug. 12 memo that this shift is weakening a long-running criticism of digital assets.

Historically, many networks could attract users, generate fees, and process billions in activity without creating direct economic benefits for native token holders. That model is changing as major protocols adopt buybacks, burns, and other mechanisms linking platform revenue with token economics.

Hougan’s argument does not equate crypto tokens with stocks. Instead, it highlights a clearer connection between protocol activity and token demand.

Hyperliquid and Uniswap Turn Protocol Fees Into Token Demand Hyperliquid provides the clearest example of the revenue model highlighted by Matt Hougan. Bitwise said the decentralized trading network generated more than $800 million in revenue last year.

The protocol directs roughly 99% of certain fee revenue toward purchasing HYPE, creating recurring token demand from trading activity. DefiLlama currently estimates Hyperliquid’s trailing-year revenue rate near $750 million, while monthly perpetual-futures volume recently reached about $190 billion.

The mechanism creates a measurable relationship between usage, fees, and token purchases. Instead of growth remaining separate from token economics, platform activity directly funds demand for HYPE through market purchases.

Uniswap has also strengthened that connection through its “UNIfication” overhaul. The governance proposal activated protocol fees and created a structure allowing collected fees to fund UNI burns.

It also included a one-time 100 million UNI treasury burn. That adjustment was significant as Uniswap had processed roughly $4 trillion in cumulative volume before the proposal was introduced. Previously, that activity did not produce a comparable direct value-accrual mechanism for UNI holders.

Aave Shows Why Revenue Alone Cannot Guarantee Token Value Meanwhile, Aave demonstrates the appeal and limits of revenue-based token analysis. The Aave DAO launched its buyback program in April 2025 and spent about $42 million purchasing more than 205,000 AAVE.

Those purchases represented approximately 1.28% of total token supply during the program’s first 10 months. However, a later proposal sought to reduce the annual buyback budget from $50 million to $30 million.

The proposal followed a drop in January 2026 revenue to $7.95 million from $13.5 million one year earlier. Aave then paused buybacks on April 19 after the rsETH incident to preserve treasury flexibility.

That decision showed why investors cannot treat protocol revenue as guaranteed token-holder cash flow. Governance decisions, security events, operating expenses, and treasury needs affect how much economic value reaches holders.

Regulatory conditions are also changing alongside these token models. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, who took office in April 2025, has prioritized clearer rules covering crypto issuance, custody, and trading.

Still, revenue-generating tokens do not automatically give holders the legal rights associated with company shares. The shift is therefore centered on measurable value transfer rather than fees alone.

As Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan argues, revenue becomes more meaningful when token holders can clearly capture part of the economic activity a network creates.

GSR shifted its Core3 model toward Solana on Aug. 12, raising SOL to 43.6% of the portfolio and making it the model’s largest allocation.

Summary

GSR raised Solana to 43.6%, making SOL the largest allocation in its Core3 model portfolio. Bitcoin fell to 16.9% of Core3, while Ether’s allocation declined to 39.5% this week overall. Solana gained 2.98% over seven days, outperforming Bitcoin and Ether in GSR’s latest weekly comparison. Ether remained the strongest 30 day performer, rising 7.88% despite its reduced model portfolio weight. Core3 gained 5.30% monthly but still trailed the equal weight basket over longer measured periods. Ether fell to 39.5%, while Bitcoin dropped to 16.9%, the smallest weight among the three assets.The firm said the change reflected a move in its relative alpha signals toward Solana as SOL showed stronger near term price momentum. GSR’s written commentary lists the Solana weight at 43.7%, while the accompanying allocation table shows 43.6%. This article uses the table figure.

GSR Model Makes Solana Top Allocation to 43.6%, Cuts Bitcoin to 16.9%

GSR’s Core3 model portfolio raised its Solana allocation to 43.6%, making SOL its largest position, while cutting Ether to 39.5% and Bitcoin to just 16.9%, as the model’s relative alpha signals shifted further… pic.twitter.com/C0aRl77W4h

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) August 13, 2026 Solana allocation jumps 7.1 points in one week The latest allocation marks a sharp reversal from the prior week. On Aug. 5, GSR assigned 36.5% to Solana, 44.1% to Ether and 19.3% to Bitcoin. Solana therefore gained 7.1 percentage points in the model within seven days, while Ether lost 4.6 points and Bitcoin lost 2.4 points.

As crypto.news previously reported, the prior weekly allocation tilted toward Bitcoin as trading activity weakened and volatility eased. The Aug. 12 update reversed part of that move. GSR said its latest positioning reflected proprietary relative signals rather than a simple ranking of recent returns.

The distinction matters because Core3 is not presented as a live investment recommendation. GSR says the weekly publication is a model framework intended for professional investors and does not constitute advice or a recommendation to allocate to the three assets.

Solana leads weekly returns while Ether leads the month Solana delivered the strongest seven day return in GSR’s latest table, gaining 2.98%. Bitcoin declined 1.02% over the same period, while Ether slipped 0.20%. Over 30 days, however, Ether remained ahead with a 7.88% gain, compared with 3.19% for Bitcoin and 2.44% for Solana.

The Core3 model itself returned 0.85% over one week and 5.30% over one month, ahead of the equal weight basket at 0.59% and 4.68%, respectively. Longer periods remain weaker. Core3 was down 35.58% year to date and 70.28% over one year, compared with losses of 32.22% and 63.44% for the equal weight basket.

Volatility also remained relatively subdued. GSR put 30 day volatility at 26.82% for Bitcoin, 39.75% for Ether and 35.26% for Solana. The firm said Solana trading volume had softened over both seven and 30 day periods, meaning its larger model weight did not coincide with stronger volume across those windows.

U.S. Solana access expands as GSR favors SOL The model shift comes as U.S. investors gain more exchange traded routes to Solana exposure. Morgan Stanley Investment Management announced on July 28 that it had launched the Morgan Stanley Solana Trust, MSOL, on NYSE Arca alongside an Ether product. The release said MSOL carries a 0.14% expense ratio and seeks to track SOL while staking a portion of its holdings.

Morgan Stanley expanded its crypto ETP lineup after launching a Bitcoin product earlier in 2026. An SEC prospectus says the Solana trust may stake up to 100% of its SOL under normal market circumstances, subject to liquidity needs and legal or regulatory considerations. The filing also details risks tied to staking, custody and concentration in one digital asset.

Competition among U.S. products has also increased. A 21Shares filing dated July 27 said the issuer would waive TSOL’s 0.21% sponsor fee for one year beginning July 28. The company said the product can capture staking rewards, while warning that rewards can fluctuate and staking creates operational and liquidity risks.

Those product developments do not prove that U.S. investors share GSR’s preference for Solana. They do show that regulated U.S. exchange traded access to SOL has broadened and become more competitive while the Core3 model has shifted exposure away from Bitcoin and Ether.

What traders will watch next GSR publishes the Core3 model weekly, making the next allocation an immediate test of whether the Solana overweight persists or reverses. Recent updates show how quickly the weights can move. Bitcoin rose from 9.2% on July 15 to 19.3% on Aug. 5 before falling back to 16.9% in the Aug. 12 model.

Volume, relative momentum and volatility will therefore remain useful measures to watch alongside the next model update. GSR has already cautioned that its opinions and estimates can change without notice as market conditions change.

The firm also warns against treating Core3 results as returns available from a live strategy. Its published figures are hypothetical, gross of transaction and management fees and exclude staking rewards. GSR further states that it may trade the assets for its own account and may hold positions that differ from the views expressed in its commentary.

Kalshi has opened its live order book to DoubleZero Edge subscribers, providing Level 1 and Level 2 data for sports contracts and crypto perpetual futures through a dedicated fiber network.

Summary

Kalshi has become the first prediction market to publish real-time order book data through DoubleZero Edge. The feed covers Level 1 and Level 2 data across sports and crypto perpetual markets. Kalshi will waive its publisher revenue share for one year, though subscribers must still pay network fees. DoubleZero plans to add historical Kalshi data in a later release without a stated launch date. Kalshi feed provides full order book depth DoubleZero Foundation and Kalshi said in an Aug. 12 announcement that the exchange’s live order book is now available through DoubleZero Edge, starting with its most actively traded sports and crypto perpetual futures contracts.

Under the rollout, subscribers can receive Top of Book and Trades information, known as Level 1 data, alongside Depth of Book information, or Level 2 data. Level 1 shows the best available bid and ask prices as well as completed trades, while Level 2 displays orders across several price levels.

Full book depth can give quantitative firms and market makers a more detailed view of liquidity than a basic price feed. According to the companies, subscribers receive the information in a sequenced, machine-readable format that can be integrated into automated pricing, hedging and trading systems.

Before the new feed, DoubleZero said firms often had to gather individual responses from Kalshi’s application programming interfaces and rebuild the order book on their own servers. Edge packages the data into a subscription product, removing part of that internal processing work.

The launch covers every Kalshi sports event and crypto perpetual futures market included in the initial categories, according to the release. Kalshi Research supplies the published information, while DoubleZero handles its delivery to connected subscribers.

Neither company disclosed the subscription price, number of initial customers or measured latency for the Kalshi feed. DoubleZero described the connection as low-latency but did not release independent tests comparing its performance with direct API access or other market-data services.

Historical data is also absent from the first version. DoubleZero said it intends to offer historical Kalshi information in a future release, although the company provided no schedule or pricing details.

DoubleZero applies its fiber network to prediction markets Rather than sending each subscriber a separate copy of the feed, DoubleZero Edge uses multicast distribution. Under that model, a data publisher sends the information once before the network delivers it simultaneously to connected users.

DoubleZero said its system carries exchange and blockchain data over dedicated fiber instead of relying only on the public internet. Traditional exchanges, including the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq and CME, have used similar distribution models to supply trading firms with real-time information.

Austin Federa, co-founder of DoubleZero, said established financial firms have spent years building private networks that move data quickly and consistently. Crypto markets, perpetual futures venues and prediction platforms, he added, developed without the same shared infrastructure.

“Traditional finance got this concept exactly right: data access is a critical part of market structure,” Federa said.

The Kalshi rollout extends a service that first focused on blockchain data. In April, crypto.news reported that DoubleZero had launched its Edge public beta with 379 Solana validators publishing transaction data through the network.

At launch, those validators represented about 43% of Solana’s staked supply. The April service sent raw Solana packets over private fiber and recorded an average delivery improvement of six milliseconds compared with conventional routing, according to DoubleZero data cited in the earlier report.

Subscription prices for the Solana beta ranged from $30 to $100 in USDC per device and per epoch, depending on location. DoubleZero has not said whether the same pricing structure applies to the Kalshi product.

Andy Ross, Kalshi’s head of institutional, said firms using the exchange increasingly overlap with participants in traditional markets. Making the order book available through Edge, Ross said, gives those companies another data connection for markets traded on Kalshi.

Kalshi waives its data revenue share for one year As part of the commercial arrangement, Kalshi will not collect its normal share of Edge subscription revenue during the feed’s first year.

DoubleZero said data publishers usually receive a percentage of subscription fees after the protocol burn. With Kalshi waiving that share, the initial price will be based on network delivery rather than an added data-licensing charge from the exchange.

The waiver does not provide free access. Trading firms must subscribe to DoubleZero Edge and meet its connection requirements before receiving the feed, while the companies have not disclosed the network fee charged for this specific product.

Once the first year expires, Kalshi could begin receiving part of the subscription revenue under DoubleZero’s standard publisher model. The announcement did not disclose the prospective percentage or confirm whether customer prices will change when the waiver ends.

Demand for a more structured feed comes after trading activity across prediction markets climbed during the summer. Data covered on Aug. 3 showed that combined July prediction-market volume reached $50.59 billion, up 7.8% from the revised June total of $46.95 billion.

Kalshi accounted for $37.7 billion, or about 74.5%, of the combined July figure for Kalshi, Polymarket and Polymarket US. The data measured taker notional volume, meaning the total did not represent exchange revenue or new customer deposits.

U.S. traders gain another route to regulated crypto data Kalshi’s crypto feed includes contracts introduced during its expansion from event markets into regulated perpetual futures. In June, the exchange launched Bitcoin perpetual futures after receiving approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The BTCPERP contract follows Bitcoin’s spot price and remains open without a fixed expiration date. According to the CFTC’s May 29 order, Kalshi must list and maintain the product under the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules that apply to designated contract markets.

Kalshi later added other crypto-linked perpetual contracts. The products gave eligible U.S. traders domestic access to derivatives that had largely been offered by offshore exchanges, while their order book data can now be delivered through the DoubleZero connection.

Kalshi has held CFTC designated contract market status since November 2020. In January 2025, the regulator modified its designation to permit intermediated futures trading, according to the CFTC’s registry.

Federal registration has not settled every legal question surrounding the sports markets included in the new feed. Several states argue that Kalshi’s sports event contracts fall under local gambling laws, while Kalshi maintains that the CFTC has exclusive authority over contracts traded on its federally regulated exchange.

A Washington court blocked Kalshi from offering sports contracts to residents in July after rejecting the company’s federal preemption argument. A Michigan judge had also temporarily restricted the exchange’s sports contracts in June over allegations that Kalshi operated without licenses required under state gambling law.

The $VIRTUAL token posted a sharp rally of roughly 15%, driven by a cluster of ecosystem announcements from @virtuals_io that lifted sentiment across the project's growing network of AI agent partners.

At the time of writing, $VIRTUAL was trading at $0.6014, up 6.19% on the week. Twenty-four-hour trading volume surged 179.1% to $96.75 million, while market capitalisation stood at $395.68 million.

Strike Robot Enters AWS Global Startup ProgramThe most closely watched announcement came from @StrikeRobot_ai, which confirmed it had been accepted into the AWS Global Startup Program. The program is an invite-only, go-to-market initiative supporting early to mid-stage startups that have raised institutional funding, achieved product-market fit, and are ready to scale. Strike Robot said it met the program's institutional-funding requirement using capital raised through @virtuals_io's Automated Capital Formation module, tying the milestone directly back to the Virtuals Protocol ecosystem.

The admission is a meaningful signal for a project built on a crypto-native launchpad. Accepted startups receive dedicated Partner Development Managers and Partner Solution Architects, with support spanning product development, go-to-market strategy, and co-selling with AWS. For a robotics AI startup that raised through an on-chain mechanism, clearing that bar adds a layer of institutional credibility that is still relatively uncommon in the sector.

Eastworlds Hits 200 Hours of Weekly TeleoperationA second update came from @eastworlds_io, described as the robotics arm of the Virtuals Protocol ecosystem. The project reported teleoperation output of 200 hours per week, a concrete operational metric that gives investors a tangible measure of real-world activity rather than just protocol-level usage figures.

Together, the two announcements reinforced a broader narrative around Virtuals Protocol: that the platform is maturing from a token launchpad into infrastructure supporting deployable AI and robotics applications. The protocol enables users to create, deploy, and monetize AI agents without requiring technical expertise, and tokenizes those agents to allow for co-ownership and revenue-sharing models. The ecosystem has been highlighted for powering over 18,000 AI agents and generating significant agentic GDP, signaling real usage beyond speculative activity.

Whether the price move holds will depend on whether the project can continue converting announcements into measurable adoption. For now, the market appears to be giving Virtuals Protocol the benefit of the doubt.

Sources
AWS Global Startup Program, Amazon Web Services
Virtuals Protocol Project Overview, Messari

Summary Crypto.com launched tokenized derivatives tracking roughly 1,500 US stocks and ETFs for users outside America. The product relies on a MiFID license secured through the acquisition of Foris Capital and custody with Alpaca. Kraken, Binance, Robinhood, OKX and Hyperliquid already run competing tokenized equity products with different structures. Regulators shut down a similar Binance and FTX attempt in 2021 within three months of launch. Crypto.com opened access on Wednesday to a new product line called Tokenized Stocks, a set of derivatives that mirror the price of about 1,500 US-listed equities and exchange-traded funds. The rollout targets users in the European Economic Area and other approved jurisdictions outside the United States, letting them buy fractional exposure to names like Apple, Nvidia and Tesla, as well as commodity funds such as SPDR Gold Shares, starting from $1. The exchange built the offering on a Markets in Financial Instruments Directive license it picked up through its acquisition of Foris Capital, and it settles trades instantly on-chain rather than through the traditional two-day clearing window.

A $1 Token Buys Price Exposure, Not a Share Certificate The product does not hand buyers real shares. Each token is a derivative contract that tracks price movement without transferring legal or beneficial ownership, voting rights or any say in corporate governance. Holders can still receive dividend-equivalent payments that mirror the underlying company’s cash distributions, even though they hold no equity stake. Collateral backing the tokens sits with Alpaca, a US self-clearing broker-dealer that already underpins more than 90% of the tokenized US stock market industry-wide. Depending on where a user is based, the legal issuer is either Foris Capital CY Limited in Cyprus or Foris Capital MU Ltd, and the Cyprus arm operates under supervision from the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission.

Trading runs continuously, including weekends, and the promotional fee structure currently sets commissions at zero, though the exchange notes that other platform charges may still apply. CEO Kris Marszalek tied the launch to a $400 million investment from Citadel Securities that valued Crypto.com at $20 billion, framing the funding as proof that markets “shouldn’t have to sleep.”

Crypto.com Tracks Prices, Some Rivals Put the Real Share on Chain Crypto.com’s approach sits on one side of a structural split that now defines the tokenized equity market. Synthetic or derivative models, which Crypto.com and Kraken both use, map the price of a stock without putting the actual security on-chain. Issuer-sponsored models instead aim to register real common shares as blockchain assets, giving holders an actual claim on the company. If an issuer like Crypto.com or Kraken runs into financial trouble, a synthetic-token holder has a claim on collateral held by a custodian like Alpaca, not a direct claim on the underlying shares the way a real shareholder would.

Synthetic · MiFID

Crypto.com

~1,500

stocks and ETFs covered

Collateral held in custody with Alpaca

Token Wrapper

Kraken · xStocks

100+

stocks and ETFs, SPL on Solana

Proprietary Chain

Binance · bStocks

$500M+

market cap

Over 90% of volume trades outside Wall Street hours

Proprietary Wrapper

Robinhood

Arbitrum

EU retail focus

Built for a traditional-broker style interface

Liquidity Integration

OKX

40+

tokenized stocks

Secondary liquidity venue, not the issuer

Synthetic Perps

Hyperliquid · HIP-3

$633B

Q1 2026 trading volume

Hosted synthetic SpaceX trading ahead of its 2026 IPO 

BaFin Shut This Down Once Already, in Three Months Flat This is not the industry’s first run at putting Wall Street on-chain. Binance and FTX both launched fractional stock tokens in April 2021, covering names like Tesla, Apple and Coinbase, through partnerships with European firms CM-Equity and Digital Assets AG. Neither exchange filed the securities prospectuses regulators expected, and Germany’s BaFin along with the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority moved quickly. Binance pulled the product just three months after it went live.

The current wave looks different on paper. Crypto.com built its launch around an actual MiFID license and regulated custody, and Kraken’s perpetuals run under similar regulatory cover. BaFin’s 2021 objection centered on the absence of a prospectus, not the token mechanism itself; Crypto.com’s MiFID license and Kraken’s regulated derivatives venue are built to satisfy that specific requirement.

Weekend Token Prices Called 92% of Monday’s Gaps Binance’s own research points to something specific: more than 90% of on-chain bStocks trading volume happens while US markets are shut. The exchange’s data found that weekend token pricing correctly anticipated 92% of the Monday morning gaps that later showed up on Wall Street. On-chain volume peaked between 20:00 and 24:00 ET, the start of the Asian trading day, while activity on Binance itself clustered around the US pre-market open. They are running continuous price discovery on assets that traditional exchanges only reopen five days a week, and traders elsewhere are watching those weekend moves for signals.

Hyperliquid pushes the same idea further. Its Layer-1 chain processes roughly 200,000 actions per second and lets external developers list perpetual contracts on equity indices, commodities and even pre-IPO companies through tools like trade.xyz. Synthetic trading for SpaceX tracked closely with the eventual valuation the company reached at its June 2026 listing, giving retail traders a way to price a private company months before it reached a public exchange. Hyperliquid cleared more than $633 billion in trading volume in the first quarter of 2026 alone and now competes with Binance for the position of the world’s second-largest perpetuals venue by open interest.

A $2.49 Billion Market Now Splits Five Ways Between Rivals The tokenized equity market has grown roughly sixfold over the past year to reach a $2.49 billion valuation, and Citigroup expects the broader tokenized securities category to reach $5.5 trillion by 2030, with $2.6 trillion of that coming from tokenized equities specifically. Crypto.com now competes directly with Kraken, Binance, Robinhood and OKX for retail flow in this category, and each platform is betting on a different structure to win users. Investors comparing these products need to look past headline asset counts and check whether they are buying a synthetic price tracker or something closer to real ownership, since the two carry different risk profiles if a platform runs into trouble. Regulatory scrutiny is also likely to intensify as volumes rise, given how quickly authorities acted the last time exchanges tried this without a full licensing framework behind them.

https://crypto.news/what-is-hyperliquid-how-does-it-work/

Hyperliquid, a decentralized perpetual futures exchange, is reportedly aiming to expand its operations into the United States despite ongoing regulatory challenges. The exchange, which currently blocks U.S. users from its front-end due to compliance issues, is seeking a path to offer on-chain derivatives within the U.S. market. This development comes amid pressure from established exchanges like CME Group and Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), which have urged U.S. regulators to impose tighter controls on Hyperliquid. The exchange’s policy arm has engaged in discussions with U.S. regulators, including a recent meeting with the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, indicating its intent to navigate the complex regulatory landscape.

Advertisement

Key Takeaways Hyperliquid’s exploration of a U.S. expansion suggests a strategic initiative to tap into the American market despite existing regulatory barriers. The involvement of regulatory bodies like the SEC indicates that the exchange is actively seeking a compliant path for its services in the U.S. Market pricing suggests a cautious outlook, with the current odds of Hyperliquid reaching $100 by the end of 2026 standing at 13.5% YES. What to Watch Observers will be keen to see how U.S. regulators respond to Hyperliquid’s proposed expansion plans and whether they will require the exchange to adopt new compliance measures. Key developments to watch include any announcements from Hyperliquid regarding partnerships or regulatory approvals that could impact their market trajectory. Changes in the odds for Hyperliquid’s price targets, particularly any significant shifts, may indicate evolving market sentiment in response to these regulatory discussions.

Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31 13.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 4.1% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.1% — — View market → January 1 2027 27.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 8.9% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.4% — — View market →

Two launchpads on Robinhood Chain cut pump.fun's share of launchpad fees from 80% to 27% in two weeks. Pump.fun's fees are up 30% over 30 days anyway, because the category grew 77% around it. Memecoin prices did not participate.

A wave of launchpads on Robinhood Chain took most of pump.fun's share of the token-launch business in the first two weeks of July. Still, pump.fun is now earning more per week than before they arrived.

The launchpad business grew faster than pump.fun lost ground in it. Weekly fees across the launchpads DefiLlama reports went from about $7 million in late June to roughly $18 million by mid-July and have stayed there, while pump.fun's own weekly take climbed to a 90-day high. Growth in the memecoin space came almost entirely from Robinhood Chain, whose mainnet opened six weeks ago, and it has since begun to reverse.

Fees Nearly DoubledLaunchpads collected $75.39 million in fees over the 30 days to Aug. 11, against $42.53 million in the 30 days before that, June 13 to July 12, a 77% increase, according to The Defiant's calculation from DefiLlama's daily fee data. The comparison covers all 125 launchpads for which DefiLlama reports fees.

Pump.fun took $31.83 million of the July 13 to Aug. 11 total, against $24.45 million in the June 13 to July 12 window, a 30% increase. Its share of the category fell to 42.2% from 57.5%.

The weekly series is sharper. In the week to June 30, pump.fun collected $5.63 million of the category's $7.10 million, or 79.4%. In the week to July 14, it collected $5 million of $18.71 million — 26.7%. In the week to Aug. 11 it collected $9.21 million of $17.83 million, or 51.7%, its largest weekly haul in 90 days.

Two products caused the July collapse in share.

The first was NOXA, a launchpad and DEX that reached Robinhood Chain before the chain reached the public. Its Robinhood Chain factory went live on June 16, two weeks before the chain's public mainnet, and earned a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a day through the end of the month. Fees crossed $99,000 on July 1, ran between $24,000 and $71,000 for the next week, then jumped to $2.22 million on July 8. They peaked at $2.33 million on July 11. NOXA charged a 1% swap fee, so that implies roughly $233 million of trading in a day on a chain then 10 days old.

That day NOXA switched its own launchpad off, and said the reason was that too many people were using it. On July 11, nine seconds after the last token launched through it, the deployer wallet dev.noxa.eth called setLaunchEnabled(false) on the launch factory, according to Robinhood Chain's Blockscout explorer. About a minute later its account posted: "you folks have been vocal about the constant new token spam, vamps, and we identified some bots spamming and copying new tokens every hour." It called the shutdown temporary. "we are finding a workaround for this issue and we have decided to temporarily disable new launches while we work."

Every launch attempted since has reverted.

The second was Pons. Ozzy, the developer who posts as @MEADGod, deployed its first factory on July 13, two days after NOXA stopped accepting launches. "I built a launchpad for Robinhood Chain because the existing ones were extracting without taking care of their communities," he wrote 10 minutes before the second deployment.

Pons charges the same 1% pool fee NOXA charged, plus a 0.0005 ETH launch fee, and splits the pool fee 70% to the creator and 30% to the protocol for tokens launched through the current factory, per its documentation. The 11 hours of launches that went through the first factory keep a 90/10 split in the creator's favor. Eighty percent of the protocol's share funds a PONS buyback and burn. Pons has produced $19.80 million in fees across its two versions in 30 days, more than every launchpad except pump.fun.

Pons Peaked In JulyPons' first version peaked at $1.54 million of fees on July 21 and took about $340,000 on Aug. 11, a decline of 78%. It has generated $18.89 million all-time and $5.03 million of protocol revenue, per DefiLlama.

Ozzy deployed a second version on Aug. 3, and it began recording fees the next day. Contract reads against the PonsV2LaunchFactory return a 1% curve fee, a 1% post-graduation fee, a 30% protocol share, an optional creator tax capped at 10%, and a 99% opening buy tax that decays over three seconds. Version two spends 50% of the creator's residual buying back the launched token rather than PONS, and vests what it buys over five years instead of burning it. It took about $148,000 in fees on Aug. 12.

Uniswap Takes No CutUniswap Labs opened pools.trade on Aug. 5 on the same chain, with no launchpad fee at all. Each token opens a Uniswap v4 pool with a 0.25% LP fee that autocompounds into a position the creator cannot withdraw; creators can switch on a cut of 0.05% of those 25 basis points. Uniswap's announcement calls that "a fraction of the standard ~1% on other launchpads."

Pump.fun's own fee schedule is the standard Uniswap is pricing against: 1.25% on the bonding curve, split 0.95% to the protocol and 0.300% to the creator. Creating a coin is free; graduating one to PumpSwap costs 0.015 SOL, after which a tiered schedule takes over and the total fee falls as the token's market capitalization rises.

Pools took $266,668 in fees on launch day, its highest since. By Aug. 11 that was $36,390, down 86%. Its 30-day total is $806,000, against $19.80 million for Pons. On Aug. 11 the first version of Pons alone took $343,432, nine times what Pools did. DefiLlama has recorded fees for the Pools contracts since July 31, five days before the interface opened. The Defiant reported that Pools out-launched Pons on its first day with 10,506 tokens against 7,210, and that Pools’ flagship token FRONG was minted six days before the product opened.

PONS has risen 160% in the week since. It traded at $0.05072 at 17:20 UTC on Aug. 12, with a market capitalization of $36.9 million, up 19.3% over 24 hours and 23.6% below its July 27 record, according to CoinGecko. UNI traded at $3.52, down 14.5% on the week.

Four days before launching a competitor on Robinhood Chain, Uniswap's account replied to Pons' with "Powered by Uniswap". Neither Ozzy nor the Pons account has posted about pools.trade.

Every Solana Rival ShrankSolana-based launchpads competing with pump.fun are smaller now than they were a month ago. Trading fees paid by users fell 65% on Bags, 56% on Meteora's Dynamic Bonding Curve, 44% on BONK.fun and 85% on EasyA Kickstart. Four.meme on BNB Chain fell 23%. Each falls by within a point of the same amount measured on protocol revenue instead, and SOL and BNB were flat between the two windows, so the declines are activity rather than price.

Their launch counts fell with them. Over the 30 days to Aug. 10, Bags created 923 tokens, down 78.5%; LetsBonk 4,039, down 34.3%; Jupiter Studio 347, down 45.5%, according to Dune data published by The Block. Pump.fun created 872,202, up 3%, and 99.3% of all tokens launched on Solana.

Growth outside pump.fun came from chains pump.fun does not operate on. Flap.sh on BNB Chain grew 209% to $5.51 million. The o1 Launchpad, which runs mostly on Base, grew from $12,698 to $982,481 after its July 3 launch. The four largest new entrants of the period — Pons, StonkBrokers, LetsCash and Uniswap Pools — all launched on Robinhood Chain.

Robinhood Chain Caught SolanaLaunchpad fees on Solana and on Robinhood Chain over the 30 days to Aug. 11 were $33.61 million and $33.49 million. Solana's grew 18%; Robinhood Chain's grew 236% against a prior 30 days in which it had produced $9.97 million, its own first month. BNB Chain took $6.62 million, up 88%. Base took $1.44 million.

Robinhood Chain's weekly launchpad fees peaked at $11.95 million in the week to July 14 and were $7.07 million in the week to Aug. 11. Solana's ran to $9.59 million, its highest of the 90-day window. On the narrow measure of who is taking money from token launches, Solana is winning again.

Robinhood Chain generated $100.2 million in application fees over 30 days against Solana's $233 million and Base's $39.6 million, per DefiLlama. Over the 30 days to Aug. 12 it did $16.58 billion in DEX volume against $4.49 billion the month before. Solana did $46.41 billion over the same window, down 25%. The Defiant reported in July that Robinhood Chain overtook Base on daily active users three weeks after launch.

The Fight For The TraderOne of the fastest-growing competitors for pump.fun's users on Solana does not launch tokens at all.

FOMO, a social trading app built by FOMO Labs, took $9.76 million in fees over the 30 days to Aug. 11, up 172% from $3.58 million in the 30 days before that. Its revenue over the seven days to Aug. 11 was $3.01 million, more than double the $1.34 million it made in the week to July 11, and above Phantom's $1.51 million and Jupiter's $0.96 million over the same week. Its daily revenue record, $544,444, was set on Aug. 6.

FOMO charges "a minimum fee of 0.50% per transaction (subject to a minimum fee of $0.95 per transaction)," according to its terms of service. It sells copy-trading, a leaderboard, and Apple Pay onboarding. It raised a $75 million Series B led by Index Ventures in June, and says more than 625,000 people have joined and traded over $4 billion. It has no token and no launchpad.

The competition pump.fun faces on Solana is now for the trade rather than the mint, and pump.fun has answered by widening its own app. On July 8 it made Robinhood Chain tokens tradable inside the pump.fun app with no bridging, which The Defiant covered as CASHCAT trading built. Alon Cohen, the pump.fun co-founder who posts as @a1lon9, wrote that "the pump fun app is not just for pump fun coins, it covers all of your crosschain trading."

Fewer Coins, Better OddsThe share of pump.fun tokens that graduate from the bonding curve averaged 2.82% in the first 11 days of August and 2.55% in July, against 0.86% in June and 0.62% in September 2025, per Dune data published by The Block. Launches rose over the same stretch, ruling out a shrinking denominator.

Pump.fun has taken $1.17 billion in fees and $1.083 billion in revenue since March 2024. In April it committed half of revenue to buying back and burning PUMP for a year, after burning roughly $370 million of previously repurchased tokens, about 36% of circulating supply at the time. DefiLlama has attributed $17.9 million of revenue to holders over the past 30 days.

Memecoins Did Not Come BackNone of this reached memecoin prices.

The memecoin sector was worth $25.15 billion on Aug. 12, according to CoinGecko, or 1.11% of the $2.27 trillion crypto market. CoinGecko's own research puts the sector's peak at $150.6 billion in December 2024. The sector is 83% below that. It is roughly flat over 30 days and down about a third over 90, by The Defiant's calculation from CoinGecko market-cap history for the category's 16 largest constituents, which hold 80% of its value.

Of the 20 largest memecoins excluding wrapped duplicates, seven are up over 30 days. BONK is down 42%, SPX6900 down 15%, FLOKI down 7%, TRUMP down 7%, WIF down 7%, FARTCOIN down 6%, DOGE down 2%. Across the 5,774 memecoins CoinGecko prices with a market capitalization, 34% are higher than a month ago and the median one sits 99% below its record, by The Defiant's count.

The exception is PUMP, up 83% over 30 days to $0.00273 and a $1.07 billion market capitalization, per CoinGecko. It remains 69% below its September 2025 high. It is the token of the business this story is about, with buybacks funded from that business's revenue.

The launch business is bigger, better-monetized and more contested than it was in June. The sector its output belongs to is worth 83% less than at its peak.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs absorbed about 13,300 BTC last week, more than four times the roughly 3,150 BTC newly created by the network.

Bitcoin moved toward the top of its range last week as institutional demand through U.S. spot ETFs strengthened. Cooler employment data reduced expectations for an immediate Federal Reserve rate hike, but persistent selling pressure kept the move contained.

The stronger ETF demand was reflected in $865.3 million of net inflows across five straight sessions, the funds’ strongest weekly showing since April. According to a recent Bitfinex Alpha report, the funds absorbed about 13,300 BTC during the period. That was more than four times the roughly 3,150 BTC newly created by the network.

ETF Inflows Return, But Sellers Push Back BlackRock’s IBIT and Fidelity’s FBTC accounted for much of the ETF activity. Ether-focused ETFs also recorded $243.7 million in inflows, extending their weekly streak and showing that demand was not limited to Bitcoin.

The renewed demand came as broader risk assets also moved higher amid easing tensions and falling oil prices. The S&P 500 rose 3.58% for the week, while Bitcoin gained slightly more than 2%, indicating that other sources of supply continued to weigh on its price.

One notable source of that supply came from Strategy, which disclosed the sale of 1,638 BTC for approximately $104.7 million. The company sold the coins at an average price of about $63,957 and said it would use the proceeds for preferred dividends and a discounted share repurchase.

Strategy’s sale adds to a broader supply overhang visible on-chain around Bitcoin’s current trading range. An estimated 1.79 million BTC have cost bases between $62,000 and $65,000, creating potential selling pressure as the price moves through the band.

Why the Macro Picture Remains Mixed U.S. labor data added to the macro backdrop, with July payrolls falling by 23,000 and earlier figures revised lower. The three-month average job gain dropped to about 20,000, while unemployment reached 4.1% as participation declined.

You may also like: Bitcoin Rebound Faces Risk as Futures Demand Outpaces Spot Buying: Analysts Only 90 Bitcoin Wallets Hold 10K+ BTC: And That Number Just Hit a 6-Month High BTC Price Drops Below $64K as Peter Schiff Urges Investors to Sell Bitcoin Initial jobless claims remained low, indicating that the labor market was cooling rather than collapsing. Futures markets lowered the probability of a September rate hike to 43.9%, while Treasury yields and the dollar eased.

However, long-term borrowing costs stayed high, with the 30-year Treasury yield above 5.2% amid inflation concerns and heavy government borrowing. Bitfinex said Bitcoin could break above $65,000 if ETF demand remains strong while inflation and long-term yields ease.

Tags:

Ripple could move ahead with its institutional strategy even as the CLARITY Act faces fresh delays in the US Senate, according to leading crypto researcher SMOKE. SMOKE emphasized that while ongoing regulatory uncertainty poses challenges for digital assets, Ripple’s expansion need not remain on hold.

Alternative regulatory pathwaysThe CLARITY Act is a proposed bill that would create comprehensive digital asset regulations in the US, including clearer guidance on token classification and expanded federal oversight. Although such legislation could offer crucial certainty to the entire crypto industry, analysts point out that it is not the exclusive path to regulatory legitimacy for blockchain firms.

Ripple, a US-based blockchain payments company best known for its XRP token, has already secured a conditional national trust bank charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC granted this approval in December 2025, paving the way for Ripple to potentially operate as a federally supervised trust bank.

Mini dictionary: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a US federal agency that supervises and regulates national banks and federal savings associations, ensuring their soundness and compliance with federal laws.

A federally licensed trust bank structure could position Ripple more strongly with regulated financial businesses. This development could be especially relevant for institutional custody, stablecoin issuance, and RLUSD reserve management—key areas for the company’s growth outside traditional payments.

Conditional progress and broader industry impactSMOKE maintains that if Congress continues to stall on the CLARITY Act, Ripple’s conditional OCC charter can still serve as an important avenue for regulatory advancement. However, the approval remains provisional, meaning Ripple does not yet function as a fully established national bank. Moreover, OCC oversight applies specifically to Ripple’s trust bank, and cannot replace broad industrywide rules that only federal legislation can deliver.

Both the CLARITY Act and the OCC charter could ultimately complement each other. The former would address digital asset regulation at the national level, while the latter offers Ripple a firm-specific regulatory path. Ripple could stand to benefit if both initiatives move forward, gaining both market clarity and an upgraded regulatory infrastructure.

InitiativeScopeStatusPotential Benefit for RippleCLARITY ActAll US digital asset companiesDelayed in US SenateClear federal rules for industryOCC CharterRipple-specificConditionally approved (Dec 2025)Federal trust bank operationsUS regulatory outlook and ongoing expansionMeanwhile, the US Securities and Exchange Commission is evaluating new regulatory strategies for digital assets. Lawmakers are expected to revisit the CLARITY Act after the Congressional recess in August, but prospects for swift passage remain uncertain as attention turns to September.

SMOKE describes Ripple’s regulatory strategy as multi-pronged, arguing that the company can keep building across payments, stablecoins, tokenization, and custody, regardless of congressional delays.

Despite legislative uncertainty, XRP adoption and Ripple’s infrastructure development can continue. The company’s expansion in institutional sectors and cross-border transactions could drive new opportunities for both XRP and the XRP Ledger network.

Ripple’s path is not contingent on the CLARITY Act passing. Should federal crypto legislation advance, Ripple could eventually benefit from having both a broader regulatory framework and its own bank charter. Until then, the company can pursue its ambitions and the use of XRP does not need to pause.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article does not constitute investment advice. Investors should be aware that cryptocurrencies carry high volatility and therefore risk, and should conduct their own research.

The XRP Ledger is drawing renewed attention from major investors, as institutional activity grows despite broader market weakness. Data from blockchain analytics firm Santiment Intelligence revealed that the number of wallets holding over 1 million XRP increased by 32 in the past three months, even as the network’s total market capitalization contracted by 29% during the same period.

Whale accumulation defies market downturnThis divergence between wallet growth and declining market cap suggests that some large holders are actively accumulating XRP, potentially taking advantage of lower prices while the broader market trends downward. Such accumulation by major investors can often precede renewed market interest or signal confidence in the asset’s long-term prospects.

XRP’s price performance over the summer showed relatively limited gains. However, strategic developments in Ripple’s ecosystem may be shaping the asset’s future narrative. Ripple, the technology company behind the XRP Ledger, is recognized for its global payment network and ongoing expansion into blockchain products targeting financial institutions. The firm is advancing its stablecoin, custody, and tokenization services, which some analysts consider key drivers for future adoption.

XRP Ledger is seeing ongoing accumulation of large wallets, with over 32 new million-XRP holders emerging in the past three months, despite a 29% drop in total market value.

The ongoing growth in the number of high-balance wallets is closely watched by market participants aiming to identify the next potential move for XRP. This trend could influence trading strategies and investment decisions as sentiment shifts in the digital asset market.

Institutional adoption and tokenized TreasuriesWithin the XRP Ledger ecosystem, RLUSD has established itself as a notable institutional stablecoin. Ripple continues to broaden its payments infrastructure, offering enterprise-level custody and advancing tokenization initiatives designed to bridge traditional finance into blockchain-based systems. These efforts are increasing blockchain utility and positioning the XRP Ledger as a potential settlement layer for large-scale financial institutions.

One of the most significant institutional moves includes the integration of tokenized US Treasuries on the XRP Ledger. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has positioned tokenization at the forefront of financial innovation. CEO Larry Fink recently described tokenization as “the next generation for markets.” This statement aligns with the ongoing rollout of tokenized Treasury products by companies such as Ondo Finance on XRPL.

Ondo Finance, a blockchain firm specializing in institutional DeFi solutions, has issued the OUSG token on XRP Ledger, providing on-chain access to US Treasury assets. These assets are secured through the BlackRock BUIDL fund, bringing approximately $212 million in tokenized Treasuries onto the network.

Mini dictionary: Ondo Finance, a company providing decentralized financial tools for institutions, enables access to traditional assets like US Treasuries on blockchain networks through tokenization.

BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink refers to tokenization as a transformative step for markets, as XRP Ledger already hosts over $212 million in tokenized Treasuries through projects like Ondo Finance’s OUSG.

This milestone signals XRP Ledger’s capacity to support asset tokenization at scale, offering rapid settlement, continuous availability, and compliance-focused infrastructure that appeals to institutions looking to bridge traditional assets onto decentralized platforms.

XRP Ledger’s institutional story builds momentumAs more companies seek efficient blockchain-based settlement solutions, tokenized Treasury products could become a key link connecting traditional finance and decentralized markets. While BlackRock and other major traditional players articulate their vision for the future, XRP Ledger is already implementing solutions that demonstrate the practical use of tokenized assets.

Market observers suggest that continued accumulation by large holders, increased adoption of Ripple’s payment technology, and growing tokenization activity will reinforce the narrative around XRP Ledger as a critical settlement layer for institutions.

However, the trajectory of XRP’s price will likely depend on whether sustained buying momentum emerges. If large-scale buying gains pace, XRP could begin to recover, but increased selling pressure may continue to delay any substantial upward movement.

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.

Faster consensus, even under load (CAP-83)Every few seconds, validators on the Stellar network agree on the next ledger. Today, part of that process requires validators to receive a full transaction set before they can make progress—and sharing those transaction sets across the network takes time.

CAP-83 lets validators begin voting before the transaction set has fully arrived, and gives them a clean, explicit way to drop a transaction set that is late or invalid instead of stalling while they wait for it. In practice that means consensus keeps moving even when transaction data is slow to propagate, which will improve throughput and help keep the network running smoothly at scale and at low cost. The full performance gains will be phased in after mainnet as parallel transaction-set downloading is gradually enabled.

Why you should care: This is a behind-the-scenes improvement—you don't need to change anything to benefit from it as it rolls out—but it's foundational. A faster, more resilient consensus process is what lets Stellar keep growing without getting slower. (Teams that consume raw ledger data directly should see the “Breaking changes” section of the upgrade guide, as the change adds a new value type they'll want to handle.)

Atomic upgrades for fleets of contracts (CAP-85)Many protocols deploy lots of copies of the same contract—a “fleet” that all share the same underlying code. When that shared code needs an upgrade (say, to ship a security fix), the admin has to update each instance one by one. For large fleets, that can't be done in a single transaction, which leaves a window where some contracts are running the new code and some are still on the old code.

CAP-85 introduces an externally managed executable: contracts can point to a shared, updatable code reference owned by another contract. Update that one reference, and every contract that points to it upgrades at once—atomically, no matter how large the fleet.

Why you should care: This is the Stellar equivalent of the “beacon proxy” pattern developers know from other chains. It makes managing large deployments dramatically safer and less error-prone, and it removes the risk of a partial upgrade leaving contracts in inconsistent states.

Migration-friendly contract data (CAP-86)As contracts evolve, their data structures often need to change—adding a field, removing an unused one, or extending a shared interface. Today the standard host functions that read and write these structures reject anything that doesn't match the exact expected shape, which makes evolving a live contract's data surprisingly hard and, in some known cases, has left contracts stuck.

CAP-86 adds new “sparse” host functions that handle missing or extra fields gracefully instead of failing. That gives developers a standard, supported way to migrate contract data to a new schema over time.

Why you should care: If you maintain contracts that you expect to upgrade over their lifetime, this makes schema changes safe and routine instead of a source of breakage. You'll get it by rebuilding against an updated SDK—no changes to how you write contracts. When the Protocol-28 versions of your SDK is out, make sure to check out the migration docs for more details.

@Algorand has shipped go-algorand v5.0.0, a consensus upgrade release that embeds post-quantum account security directly into the protocol rather than layering it on top via workarounds.

Node Runners Decide What Happens NextThe release now moves to a governance step: node runners will vote on whether to activate the consensus upgrade. If the vote passes, accounts will be able to use Falcon-1024 signatures at addresses that no Ed25519 key could ever control, drawing a clean cryptographic boundary between legacy and quantum-resistant accounts.

That added security comes with trade-offs. Falcon-1024 transactions cost three times the standard minimum fee, and the signatures cannot be batch verified, meaning each one must be checked individually. Developers and users choosing post-quantum accounts should factor both costs into their workflows.

The v5.0.0 release also brings support for larger app sizes and AVM v13 , with the smart contract size limit doubling to 16,384 bytes. Crucially, live applications can grow into that expanded limit without being redeployed, which removes a significant operational burden for teams running production contracts.

Part of a Broader Quantum-Resistance Push The first post-quantum transaction hit Algorand's mainnet on November 3, 2025, using Falcon signatures. Since then, over 140,000 such transactions have been processed. The v5.0.0 upgrade represents the next logical step: moving from Falcon accounts backed by LogicSignatures to native protocol-level support.

The Q3 2026 protocol release introduces network-level support for multiple concurrent signature schemes, a foundational step toward cryptographic agility, while continuing to support traditional Ed25519 accounts alongside the new Falcon-1024 scheme.

In June 2026, Algorand announced a roadmap targeting broad quantum resilience by the end of 2027, covering native post-quantum accounts, post-quantum multisig for institutions and treasuries, and research into post-quantum-resilient VRF and signatures for consensus messaging.

Sources
Algorand Forum: MainNet and TestNet Update, Go-Algorand 5.0.0
Algorand Blog: Post-Quantum Cryptography Roadmap
Algorand Blog: Algorand Targets Broad Quantum Resilience by 2027

Uniswap Labs is giving up creator fees on test tokens, redirecting 100% of that revenue into the protocol’s existing UNI buyback-and-burn program. The change means that every fee generated by test tokens on Uniswap’s newer launch environments now flows directly into smart contracts designed to buy UNI on the open market and permanently destroy it.

The UNIfication backstory This latest fee redirection is part of a larger structural overhaul known as UNIfication, a governance framework approved by the Uniswap DAO in November 2025. The proposal activated the protocol fee switch, establishing vault and burn contracts to ensure that protocol-level fees contribute directly to UNI token burns rather than flowing to Uniswap Labs or the foundation.

Advertisement

In December 2025, the DAO initiated a treasury burn of 100 million UNI tokens, valued at approximately $600 million at the time. Protocol fees are now live on Ethereum v2 and v3 pools, generating an estimated annualized burn rate of around $26 million from those pools alone.

How TradePools and creator fees fit in Uniswap has been building out new features including TradePools, which allow token creators to impose optional fees of up to 0.05% of the 0.25% LP fee tier on their pools. For test tokens, these creator fees now exclusively contribute to the UNI burn mechanism rather than going to Uniswap Labs.

This particular change did not require a formal governance vote. Under the UNIfication framework, certain operational decisions around early-stage tokens can be made without going through the full DAO proposal process.

What the burn rate actually means for UNI UNI’s fully diluted supply is 1 billion tokens. The December treasury burn of 100 million tokens represented a one-time reduction of 10% of total supply. The ongoing annualized burn rate of $26 million from v2 and v3 protocol fees adds a smaller but continuous reduction, with potential increases as Uniswap expands to v4 and additional blockchain ecosystems.

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

@NEARProtocol has handed verification of its confidential AI workloads to @intel's Trust Authority, shifting the chain of trust away from the platform operator and anchoring it directly at the chipmaker level.

What Changed and Why It Matters NEAR AI Cloud has run on Intel and NVIDIA confidential computing hardware since December 2025. What is new is who validates the proofs. Every workload now returns an Intel-signed attestation token confirming that the job ran inside sealed, tamper-resistant hardware. @NEARProtocol operates the service, but @intel independently checks it, meaning users no longer have to take the operator's word for it.

That distinction is significant. Intel Trust Authority decouples the roles: Intel itself is the appraiser, the host is only the host, and the relying party receives a token signed by an independent third party with no operational stake in the workload. This resolves a long-standing weakness in confidential computing deployments, where infrastructure providers have historically relied on self-attestation.

Intel Trust Authority is a zero-trust attestation service that helps verify apps, data, and workloads are running in trusted environments. It validates infrastructure, applications, and AI workloads using Intel confidential computing Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) on CPUs and GPUs.

How NEAR AI Cloud Works NEAR AI Cloud delivers private inference in three steps: a user's prompt is encrypted locally and transmitted to a Confidential Virtual Machine (CVM) inside a TEE; processing occurs inside a Trusted Execution Environment that prevents external access, including from NEAR itself; and inside the enclave, the model decrypts the input, performs inference, and re-encrypts the result before returning it.

By running models in TEEs with cryptographic attestation, the platform creates an auditable chain of trust. Organizations can verify not just that their data was encrypted in transit, but that it remained encrypted during processing and that the model executing the inference was the one they expected.

The integration is live now. For enterprises handling sensitive data, the move addresses a core concern: one misconfiguration or insider action can break traditional software-level trust signals instantly, which is why the AI industry needs verifiable privacy, not unsupported promises.

Sources:
NEAR AI: Introducing NEAR AI Cloud and Private Chat
Intel: Intel Trust Authority Overview
Crypto Briefing: NEAR AI Builds Infrastructure for Private AI Model Execution