Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Cardano [ADA] ranked among the weakest-performing crypto tokens in the market, losing significant ground since its launch. ADA plunged to around $0.16 at press time, down from an all-time high near $3.10.

ADA slipped 2.14% over the past 24 hours, while trading volume plummeted 23% to $177.3 million. Price action told only part of the story, though.

On-chain metrics did little to strengthen ADA’s recovery case.

Why is Cardano’s network activity so weak? ADA’s on-chain footprint pointed to real weakness in transaction flow.

The Cardano network logged just 21,700 transactions over the past day, a steep drop from roughly 57,000 at its peak.

That pattern held across recent trading and much of this year. Daily Transaction Count hovered between 11,000 and 20,000, a subdued range for a network of Cardano’s standing.

By contrast, Active Addresses ticked up to roughly 13,860. That divergence suggested a larger pool of users still generated only limited on-chain activity.

In broader terms, Active Addresses mostly sat between 10,000 and 20,000. Thin address activity paired with a low Transaction Count weighed heavily on the chain’s utility.

Source: Alphratcal Are whales behind ADA’s selling pressure? Exchange activity told a similar story. Heavy investor participation failed to lift a bearish outlook.

Spot Average Order Size data showed large whales dominated ADA trading on centralized exchanges. Whales are investors who control enough liquidity to influence an asset’s performance.

Weighed against Spot Market Netflow, that whale dominance translated into net selling of ADA over the past two weeks.

Source: CryptoQuant CoinGlass reported ADA’s Spot Netflow this week came in at roughly $1.41 million, against about $143.43 million in Exchange Inflows.

The pattern stretched back several weeks: the week beginning 13th of July logged roughly $167.39 million in inflows and a netflow of $1.82 million, consistent with continued net selling.

Sustained selling from the group kept ADA at risk. The only saving grace was buyers holding netflow within range.

Can Cardano’s 500 million ADA treasury plan turn the tide? For now, the bullish case for ADA rests on its development plan for the Cardano blockchain.

The plan raises the treasury’s spending allocation from 350 million to 500 million ADA, giving the network more room to build out core infrastructure.

The move matters most if it drives higher on-chain activity, pulls in more active addresses, and attracts protocols to build on Cardano.

DeFiLlama data shows just 62 protocols currently operate on the chain—a low figure for a network active for years—holding a combined total value locked (TVL) of $61.7 million.

Final Summary Cardano’s Active Addresses rose while transactions collapsed – a split that hints at hollow, low-value engagement. A treasury raised to 500 million ADA offers ammunition, but ammunition without demand rarely wins battles.

The world’s largest stablecoin issuer pays roughly $2.9 billion a year in fees to blockchains it does not control. Its answer was to back two competing chains at once: Plasma, the $373 million DeFi-flavored bet, and Stable, the enterprise rail where USDT is the gas. One issuer, two armies, one enemy named Tron, and a strategy that makes sense only when you see whose problem it solves.

Summary

Tether’s ecosystem has seeded two purpose-built USDT chains that compete directly with each other: Plasma, live since September with a $373 million token sale, a paymaster model, and roughly $551 million in DeFi TVL, and Stable, live since December with $2 billion in pre-deposits, USDT-as-gas, and an enterprise focus. The motive is a number: analyses put Tether’s annual network-fee bill near $2.9 billion, split largely between Ethereum and Tron, value that leaks to base layers the issuer does not control while its own revenue runs near $5 billion. The two chains embody opposite design philosophies, a subsidized general-purpose DeFi economy with a native token doing traditional work, versus a stripped payments rail where the dollar itself is the fuel, and opposite go-to-market strategies. The real target is not each other but Tron, which still carries roughly 45% of all USDT and earns the fees on the world’s largest remittance flows, a moat neither challenger has meaningfully dented. Funding both sides is not indecision; it is a portfolio: the issuer wins if either chain repatriates the fee leak, wins bigger if both segment the market, and loses only to the status quo it is paying $2.9 billion a year to escape. Companies do not usually finance both armies in a war, but then no company has ever been positioned quite like Tether. The issuer of USDT sits atop the most profitable simple business in finance, collecting Treasury yield on the reserves behind roughly $150 billion of circulating dollars, and it watches, every day, a substantial slice of its ecosystem’s economics leak sideways: the fees users pay to move USDT accrue not to Tether but to the blockchains USDT lives on, a bill that research houses have tallied near $2.9 billion a year, flowing mostly to Ethereum validators and, above all, to Tron, the chain that quietly became the developing world’s dollar-remittance backbone.

Tether’s response, characteristically, was not one bet but two. Plasma, backed by Tether-adjacent capital and Founders Fund, raised $373 million in an oversubscribed sale and launched in September as a general-purpose stablecoin chain with a native token, a paymaster that makes USDT transfers free, and a DeFi ecosystem that onboarded Aave, Ethena, and Euler on day one. Stable, backed by Bitfinex with Tether’s chief executive advising, drew $2 billion in pre-deposits and launched in December as something sparer: a chain where USDT itself is the gas, transfers are free by protocol rule, and the pitch is enterprise blockspace rather than yield farming.

Bitfinex-backed layer 1 Stable releases tokenomics, mainnet to go live on Dec. 8

Stable shares tokenomics details ahead of its Dec. 8 mainnet launch, with a total supply of 100B tokens distributed among ecosystem, team, investors and advisors.

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) December 3, 2025 Two chains, one family, the same target market, and a rivalry the ecosystem politely declines to name. This piece names it, maps the two designs honestly, and answers the question the arrangement raises: why an issuer would fund its own chain war, and what winning even means when you own both sides.

The fee leak: the war’s actual cause Start with the number that explains everything, because without it the two-chain strategy looks like a waste and with it the strategy looks obvious.

USDT’s success created a strange corporate geometry: the asset is Tether’s, the activity is enormous, and the toll booths belong to other people. Every USDT transfer on Ethereum pays gas to Ethereum validators; every transfer on Tron, where nearly half of all USDT lives and where the remittance corridors of Asia, Africa, and Latin America actually run, pays energy and bandwidth costs into Tron’s economy.

Aggregated, analyses of Tether’s ecosystem have put the annual network-fee spend associated with USDT movement at roughly $2.9 billion, against issuer revenues that industry estimates placed near $4.9 billion in the same period, meaning the base layers underneath USDT capture value at a scale approaching the issuer’s own take.

Delphi Digital’s framing of the problem is the cleanest: as issuance spread across chains, the infrastructure supporting USDT ended up largely outside Tether’s control, and the economic value generated by usage is disproportionately captured by the rails, especially Ethereum and Tron.

For most companies this would be an irritation. For a stablecoin issuer, it is a strategic vulnerability with three faces. Economically, it is margin leaking to landlords. Competitively, it funds a chain, Tron, whose operator is an independent actor with his own token, his own politics, and his own regulatory exposures, none of which Tether chooses. And architecturally, it means the user experience of the world’s most used digital dollar, fees, congestion, gas-token requirements, is set by networks optimizing for other things.

The purpose-built USDT chain is the answer to all three at once: repatriate the fees, own the rail, and design the experience around the dollar. The only question was which design, and Tether’s ecosystem answered: both.

Two chains, two philosophies The rivals are best understood as opposite answers to one question: how much chain does a stablecoin need?

Plasma’s answer is: a whole one. It is a full EVM Layer 1 with its own token, XPL, doing the traditional native-token jobs, validator staking, settlement asset, and value accrual through the chain’s growth, while a paymaster contract absorbs gas costs so that simple USDT transfers cost users nothing. The design keeps the familiar crypto economy intact: XPL had a $373 million public sale seven times oversubscribed, the chain launched with more than a hundred DeFi integrations, TVL has built to roughly $551 million, sub-second PlasmaBFT finality serves trading as well as payments, Bitcoin anchoring adds a security narrative, and a confidential-transfers module courts payroll and B2B flows.

https://x.com/cryptodotnews/status/1971621952008999090

Plasma is, in short, a general-purpose chain that subsidizes its stablecoin lane, betting that free USDT transfers pull in users whose other activity, lending, trading, yield, pays the bills and accrues to the token. The paymaster’s economics depend on exactly the patron logic this publication’s gasless-transfers guide dissects: most zero-fee chains in history died when the subsidy ran out, and Plasma’s differentiating claim is that its subsidy is underwritten by an ecosystem with a direct commercial interest in USDT ubiquity.

Stable’s answer is: as little chain as possible. No paymaster indirection, no separate gas asset at all: USDT0, the omnichain dollar, is the fee token; simple transfers are exempt by protocol rule, and the native STABLE token is confined to staking and governance, deliberately invisible to users, the architecture this publication’s companion guides map in detail.

Where Plasma courted DeFi, Stable ships enterprise blockspace, dedicated capacity for institutional payment flows, and its traction metric was not TVL but the $2 billion in pre-deposits that arrived before mainnet. The design concedes the DeFi economy to others and optimizes one thing: dollar movement at payments-grade predictability, on the bet that remittance processors, merchants, and treasuries choose rails the way they choose clearing banks: for boredom, not composability.

The philosophies produce different vulnerabilities, and honesty requires both. Plasma’s risk is dilution of purpose: a general-purpose chain competing for DeFi against Ethereum, Solana, and every L2, where free USDT transfers are a loss leader for an economy that may never outgrow its subsidy, and where the XPL token must justify itself against exactly the value-accrual skepticism this publication applies everywhere.

Stable’s risk is the mirror: a rail so minimal that its moat is only execution and alignment, with no ecosystem gravity to retain users who arrive, and a token whose value case, as our STABLE guide argues, waits on governance decisions nobody has made. One chain risks being too much; the other risks being too little; and both share the risk that actually matters, which lives in Asia, on the incumbent.

Tron: the enemy both were built to fight The polite framing says Plasma and Stable address different segments. The impolite truth is that both exist to take the same prize: the roughly 45% of all USDT that lives on Tron and the fee flows it generates.

Tron’s dominance is the most underexamined fact in stablecoin land. It hosts the largest share of the largest stablecoin, it carries the remittance and exchange-settlement flows of the markets where USDT is not a trading chip but a savings technology, and its moat is precisely the kind that whitepapers cannot breach: cash-network effects, integrations in thousands of local exchanges and OTC desks, muscle memory in a hundred million wallets, and fees that, while meaningfully nonzero, are known, tolerated, and priced into every corridor.

Both challengers aim at it explicitly, Plasma’s remittance-routing pitch is skip Tron’s TRX gas requirement, Stable’s free-transfer pitch is the same sentence with different plumbing, and both discovered what challengers of payment incumbents always discover: users do not migrate for architecture, they migrate when their exchange, their employer, or their remittance app migrates, which makes the war a business-development grind, not a technology contest.

The scoreboard that matters is therefore not TVL or transaction counts, both inflatable, but the share of USDT supply resident on each chain, and by that measure the war has barely begun: Tron’s share has eroded only at the edges, the challengers’ combined float remains a fraction of it, and the incumbent retains the advantage every toll-road owner has, profitability that funds its own retention incentives.

Which is exactly why the two-chain strategy makes sense from the issuer’s chair, and this is the piece’s resolving move. Tether does not need to pick the winning design; it needs the fee leak plugged and the rail owned by family, and funding two philosophies is how a portfolio manager attacks an uncertain market: Plasma tests whether a subsidized DeFi economy can bootstrap payments gravity, Stable tests whether enterprise minimalism can, the two chains’ competition sharpens both faster than monopoly would, and every dollar of USDT float either one wins from Tron or Ethereum converts leaked fees into family economics.

If both succeed, the market segments, retail-and-DeFi on one, institutional on the other, and the issuer owns the whole stack. If one dies, the survivor inherits its lessons and its float. The only losing scenario is the status quo, and the status quo is the thing costing $2.9 billion a year.

Wars are usually negative-sum for the combatants and profitable for the arms dealer; this one was designed by the arms dealer, which is the fact to keep in view as the ecosystem spends the next year pretending the two chains are not aimed at each other, and at Tron, and, quietly, at the $2.9 billion.

The regulatory shadow both chains share One more force shapes the war from outside it, and the family’s own coverage of Washington makes it unavoidable: both chains are Tether-ecosystem infrastructure launching into the exact regulatory window in which American law is deciding what offshore-issued dollars may do.

The GENIUS Act’s stablecoin framework, whose missed implementation deadlines this publication has chronicled, and the CLARITY Act’s market-structure fight, live on the Senate floor this very week, together draw the perimeter that will define both chains’ addressable markets. The core exposure is identical for both: USDT remains an offshore-issued dollar under frameworks built to privilege domestically regulated issuance, and every corridor the chains win converts informal USDT usage into visible, systematic flows that regulators can see, name, and gate.

The chains’ opposite strategies produce opposite versions of the exposure. Stable’s enterprise pitch runs toward the regulated world on purpose, courting institutions whose compliance departments must bless the rail, which makes it the family’s test of whether Tether-aligned infrastructure can pass American diligence at all. Plasma’s retail-and-DeFi economy runs away from that scrutiny by construction, thriving in exactly the permissionless corridors that the illicit-finance provisions of every pending bill target.

One chain bets the family can join the regulated system; the other bets it can outgrow the need to; and the legislation moving through Congress this month will grade both bets before either chain’s technology does. The honest summary for the cluster this piece opens: the fee-leak war is the family’s offensive campaign, and the regulatory perimeter is its defensive one, and the second war, unlike the first, is not one the issuer designed.

The third bidder nobody prices One actor complicates the family war’s tidy geometry, and the honest map includes it: the incumbent chains are not standing still, and the war’s most likely spoiler is not either challenger failing but the leak becoming cheaper to tolerate.

Tron’s defense is already visible in its pricing behavior: the network has periodically tuned its resource model when migration pressure rises, and its operator retains the toll-road owner’s ultimate weapon, the ability to cut fees toward zero in the corridors under attack while keeping them positive everywhere else, a price-discrimination play incumbents from airlines to telecoms have run against cherry-picking entrants forever. Every basis point Tron shaves narrows the challengers’ pitch, and Tron can shave from profits while the challengers subsidize from war chests, an asymmetry that favors the incumbent in any prolonged price war.

Ethereum’s defense is structural: the institutional and DeFi USDT that lives there is the stickiest float in the ecosystem, held for composability with the deepest markets in crypto, and no payments-optimized rail competes for it at all, which is why the realistic battlefield is Tron’s remittance float, not Ethereum’s collateral float, and why the challengers’ addressable prize is meaningfully smaller than the headline $2.9 billion suggests.

And there is a fourth trajectory the war could take, the one the arms-dealer framing predicts: the leak becoming the product. Tether’s ecosystem does not strictly need either chain to win the migration war if the chains’ existence disciplines the incumbents’ pricing, converts the issuer from rate-taker to rate-negotiator, and hands the family credible exit infrastructure it can invoke in every commercial conversation with Tron.

Leverage, not conquest, may be the strategy’s real deliverable: the $373 million and the $2 billion pre-deposits purchase, at minimum, the ability to move, and the ability to move is what turns a captive tenant into a negotiating one. On this reading, the two chains are already succeeding, quietly, in the only meeting that matters, and the float-share scoreboard understates a war whose first victory is a better lease.

What to watch USDT float by chain, quarterly: The war’s only honest scoreboard: the share of total USDT supply resident on Plasma and Stable versus Tron and Ethereum. Transaction counts inflate; resident float is the fee leak actually moving. Watch whether the challengers’ combined share reaches double digits, and whose share it comes from.

The subsidy postures: Plasma’s paymaster spend against its DeFi economy’s fee generation, and Stable’s emission schedule against its enterprise fee flows: both chains’ free tiers have funding models this publication’s framework can grade, and the first one to show cross-subsidy covering the free lane has found the sustainable shape.

A corridor flip: The event that would actually move the war: a major remittance processor, exchange, or payments app moving a named corridor’s settlement from Tron to either challenger. One real corridor outweighs any TVL milestone, and business-development announcements of that specific shape are the tell.

The issuer’s hand: Canonical USDT issuance decisions, where Tether mints natively versus where USDT0 bridges, are the issuer quietly picking favorites, and any consolidation move, shared infrastructure, a merger, a formal designation of lanes, would be the portfolio manager closing a position. The war ends the way it started: by family decision.

A closing note on the observable that will settle the philosophies faster than any strategy memo: developer behavior. Chains are chosen twice, once by users moving money and once by builders deploying products, and the two chains’ opposite designs make opposite bids for the second constituency. Plasma’s full EVM economy with a hundred day-one DeFi integrations bids for builders with composability and a token to align them; Stable’s enterprise blockspace bids with predictability and a customer base of institutions that pay for boredom.

The early returns are legible in the metrics each side brags about: TVL and integrations on one side, pre-deposits and enterprise partnerships on the other, and the metric each side avoids, and the first year of divergence will show whether payments infrastructure in crypto follows the platform playbook, where ecosystems win, or the utility playbook, where reliability does.

Tron, for what it is worth, won its position with neither: it won with distribution into exchanges and remittance desks before anyone was watching, which is the quiet reminder that the war’s decisive constituency may be neither users nor builders but the few hundred business-development conversations, with processors, exchanges, and payroll providers, that actually move float at scale. Both challengers know it, which is why the war’s real battles will be invisible, fought in integration roadmaps and settlement agreements, and reported, if at all, one corridor at a time.

Frequently Asked Questions What are Plasma and Stable, in one line each? Plasma is a general-purpose stablecoin Layer 1, live since September, with a native token (XPL), a paymaster making simple USDT transfers free, and a DeFi ecosystem around $551 million in TVL. Stable is a payments-focused Layer 1, live since December, where USDT0 itself is the gas asset, simple transfers are free by protocol rule, and the focus is enterprise and institutional flows.

Why does Tether’s ecosystem back both? Because the strategic problem, roughly $2.9 billion a year in USDT-related network fees leaking to chains outside the family, above all Tron and Ethereum, matters more than which design solves it. Backing two opposite philosophies is portfolio logic: each tests a different route to repatriating the fee flow, competition sharpens both, and any float either wins converts leaked economics into aligned economics.

How do the two chains differ technically? Plasma keeps a conventional chain economy: XPL handles staking and settlement, a paymaster subsidizes the free USDT lane, the EVM ecosystem is fully general, and Bitcoin anchoring plus confidential transfers extend the feature set. Stable removes the separate gas asset entirely, USDT0 pays fees, simple transfers are exempt, the STABLE token is confined to staking and governance, and capacity is marketed as enterprise blockspace.

Are they really competitors, or complementary? Directly competitive, whatever the diplomatic framing. Both target the existing USDT float and the same migration sources, Tron’s remittance corridors first, and both pitch the identical headline benefit of free dollar transfers. Segmentation into retail-DeFi versus institutional lanes is a possible equilibrium, but it would be an outcome of the competition, not an alternative to it.

Why is Tron the real target? Tron carries roughly 45% of all USDT, the largest share of the largest stablecoin, concentrated in the remittance and exchange-settlement corridors where USDT functions as everyday money. Its fees are the biggest single component of the ecosystem’s leak, and its moat, integrations, habits, and cash-network effects, is the one both challengers were engineered to attack, so far with only marginal erosion.

What would winning look like for either chain? Resident USDT float, not activity metrics. A challenger reaching a double-digit share of total USDT supply, or flipping a named remittance corridor’s settlement from Tron, would mark real progress. For the issuer’s ecosystem, winning is broader: any combination of outcomes that moves fee flows from external chains to family-aligned ones, including a split decision where both chains hold different segments.

What are the main risks to each? Plasma: the general-purpose trap, competing for DeFi against far larger ecosystems while its free lane depends on subsidy, and an XPL token facing the standard value-accrual skepticism. Stable: the minimalism trap, a rail with no ecosystem gravity, a token whose value case awaits governance decisions, and reliance on enterprise adoption cycles that move slowly. Both: Tron’s incumbency and the possibility that users simply do not migrate.

What does this mean for USDT holders? Little direct risk and some structural benefit: the chains compete to make USDT cheaper and easier to move, and the omnichain plumbing (USDT0) connecting them is the same system this publication’s guides describe, with the same trust stack. The war’s outcome matters more for XPL and STABLE holders, whose tokens are claims on the respective designs winning, and for the fee economics of Tron and Ethereum, the incumbents being challenged. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures for fees, revenues, TVL, and supply shares are estimates drawn from third-party research and change continuously. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 24, 2026.

Manchester United is on the hunt for a new training kit sponsor after its deal with Tezos, the blockchain platform that adorned the club’s practice jerseys since 2022, expired in June 2025. The partnership was worth over £20 million annually, making it one of the most lucrative crypto-sports deals in Premier League history.

Reports indicate the club is in advanced talks for replacement deals expected to exceed £18 million annually.

The Tezos experiment and what it actually delivered When Manchester United announced Tezos as its official training kit and blockchain partner in 2022, the deal was heralded as a landmark moment. A top-tier football club aligning with a Layer 1 blockchain protocol felt like validation for an industry still fighting for mainstream credibility.

Advertisement

The club also launched an MUFC fan token on Socios.com via Chiliz, enabling holders to participate in fan voting and engagement features.

Why crypto-sports deals keep fizzling FTX had its name on the Miami Heat’s arena before, well, you know how that ended. Crypto.com paid $700 million for naming rights to the former Staples Center.

The silence from Manchester United on any new crypto or digital asset partnerships since mid-2025 is telling. No new blockchain deals have surfaced. No expanded fan token initiatives have been announced.

What this means for crypto investors watching sports partnerships For anyone in the crypto space eyeing sports sponsorships as a signal of adoption, the Manchester United case is instructive. These deals are marketing expenditures, not adoption milestones. When a blockchain protocol pays £20 million a year for logo placement, the question investors should ask is whether that spend is generating users, transactions, or developer activity, not just eyeballs.

There’s also the fan token angle to consider. Chiliz and Socios.com built an entire business model around sports fan tokens, but trading volumes and engagement metrics across the platform have declined from their 2021-2022 peaks.

Investors should track two things: who replaces Tezos on United’s training kit, and whether any new deal includes deeper blockchain integration beyond logo placement.

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

Nuclear energy stocks have gone through a boom and bust over the last 12 months. NuScale Power (SMR -8.17%) is a prime example of this stock market trend, with shares rising 500% at one point in the past three years before violently falling back to earth.

In 2026, this trend has continued. NuScale Power's stock is down 38% this year. And yet, there is still a need for massive amounts of new electric power for future artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, which nuclear power is well positioned to provide.

Where could that lead NuScale Power shares five years from now?

Today's Change

(

-8.17

%) $

-0.72

Current Price

$

8.09

Small nuclear reactors for AI data centers By now, many readers are aware of the electricity needs for the upcoming AI data center investments. You may be well aware of them when looking at your current electric bills. This has not only become an economic issue but also a political one, in which government agencies, large and small, are trying to pass rules requiring AI infrastructure providers to pay for exclusive power agreements to avoid overly burdening residential electric bills.

Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are theoretically a perfect solution for this problem, and NuScale Power has the only design approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Because of this, the company has partnered with ENTRA1 Energy as its commercial partner to develop power plants for these small nuclear reactors.

After this tie-up, the Tennessee Valley Authority committed to buying 6 gigawatts of power utilizing NuScale's SMR technology, which could mean a boom in future demand. However, as of the summer of 2026, NuScale Power has never built a nuclear reactor, even though its designs were approved years ago.

Image source: Getty Images.

Where will NuScale stock be five years from now? While there is a lot of excitement about providing electricity for the AI revolution in the next few years, NuScale Power's development timeline with ENTRA1 Energy is much longer. Its projects with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Poland, and Romania will not generate revenue until 2030, assuming no further delays. This is going to miss the meat of the AI data center build-out, which is why the boom is primarily being supplied by natural gas.

Right now, NuScale Power's free cash flow is highly negative, at $750 million over the last 12 months, while revenue is negligible. If this continues -- as it looks like it will -- the stock will be much lower five years from now.

Kripto para piyasasında haftalık görünüm pozitif seyrini korurken, analistler Ethereum (ETH), XRP, Cardano (ADA), Binance Coin (BNB) ve Hyperliquid (HYPE) gibi altcoinler için önemli destek ve direnç seviyelerine dikkat çekti. Değerlendirmeye göre Ethereum ve Cardano toparlanma sinyalleri verirken, XRP yatay seyrini sürdürüyor. BNB zayıf görünümünü korurken HYPE için ise düzeltme riski öne çıkıyor.

Ethereum 2.000 dolar direncine yaklaştı Ethereum son bir haftada yaklaşık %3 yükseldi. Haziran sonundan bu yana alıcıların güç kazanmasıyla başlayan toparlanma hareketi, 1.500 dolar desteğinin korunmasının ardından hız kazandı.

Analistler, şimdi gözlerin 2.000 dolar seviyesine çevrildiğini belirtiyor. Bu seviyenin güçlü bir psikolojik direnç oluşturabileceği ve kısa vadede satış baskısını artırabileceği ifade ediliyor.

Buna karşın Ethereum’un uzun vadeli düşüş trendinden tamamen çıkabilmesi için 2.000 doların destek seviyesine dönüşmesi gerektiği vurgulanıyor.

XRP 1,20 dolar direncini aşmakta zorlanıyor XRP de haftayı yaklaşık %3 yükselişle tamamladı. Fiyatın 1 dolar desteğinin üzerinde kalması olumlu değerlendirilirken, 1,20 dolar seviyesindeki direncin henüz aşılamaması dikkat çekiyor.

Analistler, işlem hacmindeki kademeli düşüş nedeniyle XRP’nin güçlü bir kırılım gerçekleştirecek momentuma sahip olmadığını düşünüyor. Şubat ayındaki sert düşüşün ardından yatırımcı ilgisinin tam olarak geri dönmediği belirtiliyor.

Yine de fiyatın 1 dolar üzerinde kalmayı sürdürmesi, satış baskısının sınırlı kaldığını gösteren önemli bir gelişme olarak değerlendiriliyor.

Cardano yükseliş sinyali veriyor Cardano haftalık bazda yaklaşık %6 değer kazanarak incelenen altcoinler arasında en güçlü performansı gösterdi.

Analistler, fiyat grafiğinde oluşan omuz-baş-omuz dönüş formasyonunun ardından 0,15 dolar desteğinin korunmasını olumlu görüyor. Ancak kalıcı bir trend değişiminin teyit edilmesi için daha yüksek dipler ve daha yüksek zirveler oluşması gerektiği belirtiliyor.

Bu senaryoda 0,25 dolar seviyesinin aşılması kritik önem taşıyor. Ayrıca haftalık MACD göstergesinin yükseliş sinyali üretmesi, satıcıların güç kaybedebileceğine işaret ediyor.

BNB zayıf görünümünü sürdürüyor Binance Coin son bir haftada kayda değer bir yükseliş gösteremedi. Analistlere göre 580 dolar direnci aşılmadığı sürece fiyatın yatay hareketini sürdürmesi veya daha düşük seviyeleri test etmesi olası görünüyor.

Azalan işlem hacmi ve volatilite de alıcıların piyasaya yeterince güçlü dönmediğini gösteriyor. Değerlendirmede, Avrupa Birliği’ndeki son düzenlemelerin de BNB üzerindeki talebi sınırlayan faktörlerden biri olabileceği ifade edildi.

Bu nedenle analistler, olası geri çekilmelerde 500 dolar seviyesini önemli destek olarak izliyor.

HYPE için düzeltme uyarısı Hyperliquid (HYPE) ise haftayı yatay tamamlasa da son bir ayda yaklaşık %5 değer kaybetti. Analistler, fiyatın 60 doların altında kalmasının satış baskısını artırabileceğini belirtiyor.

60 dolar seviyesinin altında kalıcılık sağlanması durumunda daha geniş çaplı bir düzeltmenin başlayabileceği ifade edilirken, 56 ve 52 dolar seviyeleri önemli destek noktaları olarak öne çıkıyor.

Önümüzdeki günlerde altcoin piyasasının yönü, Bitcoin’in fiyat hareketi ve kritik direnç seviyelerinin aşılıp aşılamayacağına bağlı olacak.

Bu içerik genel piyasa verilerine dayanır ve yatırım tavsiyesi değildir. Kendi araştırmanızı yapmanızı öneririz.

Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.

Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.

CoreWeave (CRWV -11.58%) closed Friday at $71.88, down 11.4% for the session. The drop wiped out the artificial intelligence (AI) cloud provider's entire week and knocked down shares from levels above $86 at one point during the week, leaving shares below Monday's close of $73.06.

The timing is strange. Two days earlier, one of the biggest spenders in AI infrastructure said it wanted more of what CoreWeave sells. Alphabet lifted its 2026 capital spending outlook by $15 billion on Wednesday, to as much as $205 billion. On Alphabet's second-quarter earnings call, chief financial officer Anat Ashkenazi said the company would "expand the use of third-party capacity in Q3 as a bridging strategy."

CoreWeave shares rose in after-hours trading on that comment. But they gave it back Thursday, and more on Friday, alongside fellow neocloud Nebius Group, which fell 15% on Friday alone.

So, what gives? Friday's sell-off for these stocks arguably wasn't a verdict on demand. It was a verdict on what meeting that demand costs.

Here's a closer look.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

The demand story is the easy part CoreWeave's revenue climbed 112% year over year in the first quarter, to $2.08 billion, and its revenue backlog stood at $99.4 billion at the end of March. To be fair, few companies of any size can grow like that.

But the picture thins as you move down the income statement. Non-GAAP (adjusted) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) came in at $1.16 billion for the quarter, a 56% margin -- down from 62% a year earlier. Adjusted operating income, which charges the quarter for depreciation on all those graphics processing units and data centers, fell year over year to $21 million from $163 million. On that line, the margin went from 17% to 1%. Management expects it to expand each quarter from here, into low double digits by the fourth quarter.

The spending is running years ahead of the revenue But here's the problem.

Management expects capital expenditures of $31 billion to $35 billion this year. CoreWeave's revenue over the past 12 months was about $6.2 billion. That gap may be part of what's spooking investors.

In other words, the company plans to spend about five times its past year's sales on capacity in 2026. Zoom out, and the step-up is steep: CoreWeave reported $14.9 billion in capital expenditures in all of 2025.

One quarter tells the same story. CoreWeave generated $2.98 billion of operating cash flow during the first quarter and spent $7.7 billion on property and equipment.

Debt helps fill that gap. And the interest on it is climbing fast.

Net interest expense was $264 million in the first quarter of 2025. It reached $388 million in the fourth quarter of 2025, then $536 million in the first quarter of 2026. Management guided for $650 million to $730 million in the second quarter.

At that midpoint, CoreWeave's first-half net interest expense this year would nearly match the $1.23 billion it recorded across all of 2025.

And the balance behind it keeps growing. Total debt stood near $24.9 billion at the end of March, up from $21.4 billion three months earlier.

The backlog, meanwhile, arrives slowly. CoreWeave counted $98.8 billion of it as unsatisfied remaining performance obligations (contracted work not yet delivered) at the end of March, and expects to recognize just 36% within 24 months. The rest stretches as far out as seven years.

"This revenue backlog is near-term weighted, with 36% expected to be recognized in the next 24 months and 75% in the next four years," chief financial officer Nitin Agrawal said on CoreWeave's first-quarter earnings call.

Today's Change

(

-11.58

%) $

-9.40

Current Price

$

71.71

Near-term weighted is one way to put it. The spending happens this year, the interest accrues every quarter, and about two-thirds of that revenue isn't due until after March 2028.

And competition is a concern, too. Bloomberg reported on July 1 that Meta Platforms is building a cloud business to sell surplus AI computing capacity to outside customers. Meta also committed $21 billion to CoreWeave earlier this year, so one of the company's biggest customers may be preparing to compete with it.

So does an 11% drop make the stock cheap? At about $39 billion, CoreWeave's market value is still about six times its trailing-12-month revenue -- too high, in my opinion, for a company as speculative as this one.

Nvidia: Accelerating Revenue ExpansionNvidia (NVDA -0.92%) primarily generates revenue by providing advanced graphics, computational, and networking solutions for diverse applications.

It commenced full production of its new hardware architecture, Vera Rubin, and faced regulatory scrutiny over export controls, while reporting a 72% net income margin for the quarter ended April 26, 2026.

Planet Labs: Incremental Revenue GainsPlanet Labs PBC (PL -8.45%) primarily generates revenue by deploying satellite constellations to provide frequent, worldwide geospatial data.

It secured an eight-figure government contract extension, while generating a -148% net income margin for the quarter ended April 30, 2026.

Why Revenue Matters for Retail InvestorsRevenue is a fundamental measure of how much money a business brings in from its core operations before deducting any expenses. Tracking this figure helps investors understand the total scale and top-line growth trajectory of a business.

Quarterly Revenue for Nvidia and Planet Labs PBCQuarter (Period End)Nvidia RevenuePlanet Labs PBC RevenueQ3 2024$30.0 billion (period ended July 2024)$61.1 million (period ended July 2024)Q4 2024$35.1 billion (period ended Oct. 2024)$61.3 million (period ended Oct. 2024)Q1 2025$39.3 billion (period ended Jan. 2025)$61.6 million (period ended Jan. 2025)Q2 2025$44.1 billion (period ended April 2025)$66.3 million (period ended April 2025)Q3 2025$46.7 billion (period ended July 2025)$73.4 million (period ended July 2025)Q4 2025$57.0 billion (period ended Oct. 2025)$81.3 million (period ended Oct. 2025)Q1 2026$68.1 billion (period ended Jan. 2026)$86.8 million (period ended Jan. 2026)Q2 2026$81.6 billion (period ended April 2026)$94.2 million (period ended April 2026)Data source: Company filings. Data as of July 24, 2026.

Foolish TakeNvidia’s sales are so much larger than Planet Labs that, side by side, the latter doesn’t show up on a chart. Even so, one attribute they both share is that revenue is rising on a quarterly basis. That’s an outstanding achievement, and illustrates the substantial customer demand fueling their businesses.

As a part of the emerging space-based economy, Planet Labs delivered impressive 42% year-over-year sales growth in its fiscal first quarter ended April 30. The company’s backlog of business rose an even higher 72% year over year to over $900 million, signaling sales will continue to increase over time. In fact, Planet Labs forecasted revenue to be in the range of $102 million to $107 million for the next quarter, a significant jump up from the $73.4 million produced in the prior year.

Despite the strong growth Planet Labs is experiencing, Nvidia’s sales are even stronger. Its $81.6 billion in its fiscal Q1, ended April 26, represented a massive 85% year-over-year increase. The semiconductor giant expects revenue to accelerate to $91 billion in the next quarter, up nearly double from $46.7 billion achieved in the previous year. This level of growth demonstrates the enormous demand for Nvidia’s products powering the booming artificial intelligence sector.

There are now three public opinions about what PayPal (PYPL +0.28%) is worth. A buyout group says $60.50 per share. The market says about $56. And the average analyst price target says about $53 -- below not just the offer, but the stock's current price.

The newest of the three opinions belongs to PayPal's board, which reportedly views the $60.50-per-share cash offer from privately held payments company Stripe and private equity firm Advent International as inadequate, according to multiple reports. The bid valued the payments specialist at more than $53 billion. Notably, PayPal hasn't publicly responded to the proposal. Reports say board discussions have centered on whether the bid is high enough to warrant opening negotiations at all.

For shareholders, that leaves an odd setup: a stock pinned between an offer above the market price and an analyst consensus below it. Each number is telling investors something different, and it's worth taking them one at a time.

Image source: PayPal.

Why the board views it as inadequate The bid itself came with roughly $50 billion in committed bank financing, and the offer price represented a 28% premium to where PayPal traded before news of the bid broke on July 15. Shares jumped 17% that day and closed at $55.52.

That view implies its directors value the company above $60.50. And reports suggest the bidders may raise their offer rather than walk. Famed investor Michael Burry, a PayPal shareholder, publicly called the offer an opening bid and pegged the company's value far higher. The board evidently agrees that $60.50 shouldn't be the last word.

Two prices below the offer The market is less convinced. At about $56 as of this writing, shares of the e-commerce payments company trade roughly 7% below the offer price -- almost exactly where they settled when the bid became public. A discount like that is the market's way of pricing the risk that talks collapse, financing slips, or regulators balk. After all, the bidders have reportedly weighed possible antitrust remedies, including separating PayPal's Braintree business and transferring it to Advent -- a sign that even they expect regulatory questions. If the deal died tomorrow, the stock would likely head back toward its pre-offer price of $47.37.

The analyst consensus is the harshest of the three verdicts. At about $53, the average target sits below today's share price. The analysts covering PayPal, in other words, think the company on its own (no deal, no premium) is worth less than the market is currently paying -- and that's with the stock already trading at about 10 times earnings. The company's market capitalization sits near $49 billion as of this writing, below the more than $53 billion the buyers put on the table.

The company's recent results explain the skepticism. First-quarter revenue rose 7% year over year to $8.4 billion, and total payment volume climbed 11%. But transaction margin dollars, the company's preferred measure of transaction profitability, grew just 3%.

Active accounts were 439 million, up only 1% from a year earlier and down slightly from the prior quarter, so user growth has flattened. And management's full-year guidance calls for adjusted earnings per share ranging from a low-single-digit decline to slightly positive.

This is not a business that commands a premium valuation on its fundamentals. The premium exists because someone wants to buy the company.

Today's Change

(

0.28

%) $

0.16

Current Price

$

56.16

So here's how I'd read the standoff. The board looks like it could be preparing to negotiate. Viewing a first bid as inadequate can be a step toward seeking a higher one. Of course, the market's 7% discount is rational, too, because deals like this one do sometimes collapse. And the analysts' sub-$55 consensus is a useful reminder of what the downside looks like if PayPal has to stand on its own numbers again.

The next card gets turned over quickly. PayPal reports second-quarter results on Tuesday, July 28. Strong numbers strengthen the board's case that $60.50 undersells the company. Weak ones hand the leverage back to the bidders -- or worse, remind everyone why the stock traded at $47 in the first place.

For current shareholders, holding through the report makes sense to me. The offer may support the shares while it remains active, and the board's stance could draw a higher bid. But I wouldn't buy shares today just to capture the spread between $56 and $60.50. That 7% gap reflects the market's read on financing, regulators, timing, and the chance that no deal happens at all. And if it does fall apart, the analyst consensus has already marked the downside. So if you hold the stock, do it because you believe in the underlying company and the stock's long-term potential.

Aftermath Silver Ltd (TSX-V:AAG, OTCQX:AAGFF, FRA:FLM1) CEO Ralph Rushton talked with Proactive about the company's latest drilling campaigns at the Berenguela and Challacollo projects, outlining exploration plans aimed at expanding existing mineral resources while engineering work continues in parallel.

Proactive: Welcome back inside our Proactive newsroom. Joining me is Ralph Rushton, CEO of Aftermath Silver. Great to see you again. How are you?

Ralph Rushton: I'm very good, thank you. Fresh back from a nice break in Europe.

You're back to work because the company has resumed drilling on a couple of projects. Let's begin with Berenguela.

We've moved the drill to the eastern side of the mineral resource. Our 2024 and 2025 drilling intersected long intervals of high-grade copper there. We're now following those results up by drilling along the edge of the resource and extending eastwards beyond it to determine whether additional copper mineralisation can be incorporated into the resource estimate.

How is the drilling program being carried out?

We're positioned on the easternmost drill section of the existing resource and extending holes a few hundred metres beyond it. Any mineralisation encountered there would likely represent an addition to the existing resource. We've only recently started, so there are no results yet.

Is this expected to be a lengthy program?

It's an iterative program. If we have success, we'll continue drilling until we've gathered sufficient information. At the same time, we're waiting for permits for another copper target southwest of the project. Once work in the east is complete, we'll move there.

Northern Chile is also seeing activity.

Yes, at the Challacollo project. It's been in our portfolio for about seven years. We intended to drill last year, but contractor issues and equipment problems delayed the program. We're now close to completing the first hole. We're testing the margins of the existing resource to determine whether it can be expanded with additional ounces.

Were these targets identified through geophysical work?

No. Challacollo is a historic mine with extensive mine plans and a prefeasibility study completed around 10 to 12 years ago. We already have substantial geological information, so we haven't needed geophysics. That information has guided our targeting.

Investors will likely be pleased to see drilling progressing on two projects.

Absolutely. Engineering studies continue at Berenguela, but as a geologist I'm always happy when we're drilling. Exploration keeps things exciting alongside the engineering work.

Thanks for the update.

Thanks very much.

Quotes have been lightly edited for style and clarity

NEW YORK, /PRNewswire/ -- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of Class A or Class C common stock of Zillow Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZG) (NASDAQ: Z) between February 11, 2025 and May 7, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 10, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed by the Firm.

So what: If you purchased Zillow common stock during the Class Period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

What to do next: To join the Zillow class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/zillow-group-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 10, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually handle securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered billions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Details of the case: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Zillow's agreement with Redfin Corporation was not a "partnership," but rather an acquisition of Redfin's business; (2) as a result of the Redfin Agreement, Zillow faced a materially heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and liability under federal antitrust laws; (3) upon the filing of an antitrust lawsuit, Zillow continued to downplay its legal exposure; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Zillow's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Zillow class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/zillow-group-inc/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
[email protected] 
www.rosenlegal.com

SOURCE THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P. A.

Warner Bros. Discovery filed a lawsuit this week accusing Amazon of interference with contractual relations, breach of contract, and unfair competition.

Follow:

The author, a medical doctor and health economist, produces content on cryptocurrency markets, blockchain technologies, digital assets, and global finance.As a cryptocurrency writer and investor, he closely follows Bitcoin, altcoins, market trends, macroeconomic developments, token economies, and innovations in the digital asset ecosystem. By combining perspectives from health economics and financial analysis, he evaluates developments in cryptocurrency markets using a clear and data-driven approach.

Blok zinciri ekosisteminin büyümesiyle birlikte üretilen verinin miktarı da hızla artıyor. Ancak bu verilerin güvenilir, doğrulanabilir ve uzun yıllar boyunca erişilebilir şekilde saklanması giderek daha önemli bir sorun haline geliyor. Özellikle yapay zekâ uygulamalarının zincir üzerindeki verilere daha fazla ihtiyaç duymaya başlaması, veri altyapısını Web3 ekosisteminin en kritik bileşenlerinden biri haline getirdi. Covalent (CXT) ise tam bu noktada devreye girerek çok zincirli blok zinciri verilerini standartlaştıran, doğrulanabilir hale getiren ve geliştiricilere tek bir API üzerinden sunan merkeziyetsiz veri altyapısı oluşturmayı hedefliyor.

Covalent Network, yalnızca farklı blok zincirlerinden veri toplayan bir platform olmanın ötesinde, uzun vadeli veri kullanılabilirliği (Long-Term Data Availability), veri doğrulanabilirliği (Data Verifiability) ve yapay zekâ uygulamalarının ihtiyaç duyduğu güvenilir veri altyapısını sağlamaya odaklanıyor. Ekosistemin yerel tokeni olan CXT, ağ güvenliği, staking, yönetişim ve ekonomik teşvik mekanizmalarının merkezinde yer alıyor.

Covalent (CXT) Ne İşe Yarar? Covalent, farklı blok zincirlerinden elde edilen verileri tek bir standart altında toplayan ve geliştiricilerin bu verilere kolayca erişmesini sağlayan merkeziyetsiz bir veri altyapısıdır.

Platform, çok sayıda blok zincirindeki ayrıntılı verileri indeksleyerek bunları tek bir API üzerinden erişilebilir hale getirir. Böylece geliştiriciler, işletmeler ve araştırmacılar farklı ağlar için ayrı veri altyapıları kurmak yerine tek bir sistem üzerinden kapsamlı blok zinciri verilerine ulaşabilir.

Covalent Network aynı zamanda topluluk tarafından yönetilen merkeziyetsiz bir protokol olarak faaliyet göstermektedir. Ağın temel amacı, blok zinciri verilerinin uzun yıllar boyunca güvenilir, doğrulanabilir ve sürdürülebilir şekilde erişilebilir olmasını sağlamaktır.

Covalent Nasıl Çalışır? Covalent Network, blok zincirlerinden gelen verileri sürekli olarak toplar, indeksler ve ağ üzerinde birden fazla noktada depolar.

Toplanan veriler daha sonra GoldRush API (eski adıyla Unified API) aracılığıyla geliştiricilerin kullanımına sunulur.

Bu yapı sayesinde kullanıcılar;

Geçmiş blok zinciri verilerine, Gerçek zamanlı ağ verilerine, İşlem kayıtlarına, Akıllı sözleşme bilgilerine, Zincir üzerindeki diğer ayrıntılı verilere tek bir API üzerinden erişebilir.

Platformun hedefi, veri erişimini mümkün olduğunca standart hale getirerek farklı blok zincirleri arasında çalışmayı kolaylaştırmaktır.

Uzun Vadeli Veri Kullanılabilirliği (Long-Term Data Availability) Covalent’in en önemli odak noktalarından biri uzun vadeli veri kullanılabilirliğidir.

Proje, uzun vadeli veri kullanılabilirliğini blok zincirlerinde geçmiş verilerin yıllar boyunca erişilebilir kalması olarak tanımlamaktadır.

Ethereum ekosisteminde rollup mimarisinin yaygınlaşması, Danksharding ve EIP-4444 gibi protokol değişiklikleriyle birlikte geçmiş verilerin saklanması giderek çekirdek protokolün dışına taşınmaktadır.

Covalent Network ise bu sorumluluğu üstlenerek geliştiricilerin yalnızca güncel verilere değil, tarihsel blok zinciri kayıtlarına da güvenilir şekilde ulaşabilmesini amaçlamaktadır.

Bu doğrultuda ağ;

Ethereum, Diğer Layer-1 ağları, Farklı blok zinciri ekosistemleri için uzun süreli veri saklama altyapısı oluşturmayı hedeflemektedir.

Veri Doğrulanabilirliği (Data Verifiability) Covalent Network’ün temel özelliklerinden biri de veri doğrulanabilirliğidir.

Platform üzerinde gerçekleştirilen her veri işleme süreci kriptografik kanıtlarla desteklenmektedir.

Böylece;

Ağ operatörlerinin doğru çalıştığı, Verilerin değiştirilmediği, İşlenen bilgilerin güvenilir olduğu kriptografik yöntemlerle doğrulanabilmektedir.

Bu yapı özellikle yapay zekâ uygulamaları açısından büyük önem taşımaktadır. Çünkü AI sistemlerinin güvenilir sonuçlar üretebilmesi için doğrulanabilir veri kaynaklarına ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.

Yapay Zekâ İçin Veri Altyapısı Covalent, kendisini yapay zekâ odaklı veri altyapısı olarak konumlandırmaktadır.

Özellikle otonom AI ajanlarının blok zinciri verilerine olan ihtiyacının artmasıyla birlikte proje;

Yapılandırılmış veri, Doğrulanabilir veri, Gerçek zamanlı veri, Çok zincirli veri erişimi sağlayarak AI uygulamalarını desteklemeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Platform, 230’dan fazla blok zincirini kapsayan veri altyapısıyla AI sistemlerinin ihtiyaç duyduğu verileri saniyenin altında gecikmeyle sunmayı hedeflemektedir.

Modüler Veri Altyapısı Covalent Network modüler bir mimari üzerine inşa edilmiştir.

Bu yapı sayesinde blok zincirlerinin veri katmanı depolama süreçleri birbirinden ayrılmaktadır.

Platformun geliştirdiği Block Specimens isimli veri formatı, blok zinciri durumunun standart biçimde saklanmasını mümkün kılmaktadır.

Bu sayede;

Ağ düğümü çalıştırmadan veri işleme, Zincir verilerinin yeniden analiz edilmesi, Standart veri şemalarının oluşturulması gibi işlemler daha verimli şekilde gerçekleştirilebilmektedir.

Çok Zincirli Destek Covalent yalnızca tek bir blok zincirine hizmet vermemektedir.

Platform;

Birden fazla blok zincirini destekleyen yapı, Standart veri modeli, Ticari veri araçlarıyla uyumluluk, Düşük donanım gereksinimi, Verimli depolama sistemi gibi özelliklerle çok zincirli veri altyapısı sunmaktadır.

Bu sayede geliştiriciler farklı ağlar arasında veri toplama süreçlerini tek sistem üzerinden yönetebilmektedir.

GoldRush API Nedir? GoldRush API, Covalent Network üzerinde indekslenen verilere erişim sağlayan ana API hizmetidir.

Eskiden Unified API olarak bilinen bu sistem, geliştiricilerin blok zinciri verilerini hızlı ve standart şekilde sorgulamasına olanak tanımaktadır.

Platform üzerindeki veri taleplerinin büyük bölümü GoldRush API üzerinden gerçekleştirilmektedir.

Covalent (CXT) Token Ne İşe Yarar? CXT, Covalent Network’ün yerel yardımcı (utility) tokenidir.

Token, ağın ekonomik yapısını oluşturan üç temel alan üzerinde kullanılmaktadır.

Ağ Yönetişimi (Governance) CXT sahipleri ağın geleceğine ilişkin karar alma süreçlerine katılabilmektedir.

Yönetişim kapsamında;

Yeni veri kaynaklarının eklenmesi, Yeni blok zincirlerinin entegrasyonu, Staking parametreleri, Veri modelleme standartları, Ağ güncellemeleri gibi teklifler oylamaya sunulmaktadır.

Yönetişim süreci önce topluluk forumunda tartışılmakta, ardından Snapshot üzerinden gerçekleştirilen gaz ücreti gerektirmeyen oylamayla sonuçlandırılmaktadır.

Oy kullanma hakkı sahip olunan CXT miktarıyla orantılıdır.

Staking ve Ağ Güvenliği CXT aynı zamanda ağ güvenliğinin temelini oluşturmaktadır.

Ağ operatörleri veri üretmek ve doğrulamak için belirli miktarda CXT stake etmek zorundadır.

Kötü niyetli veya hatalı davranış tespit edilmesi durumunda stake edilen tokenlerin bir kısmı kesilebilmektedir (slashing).

Altyapı çalıştırmak istemeyen kullanıcılar ise CXT tokenlerini operatörlere devrederek staking ödülleri kazanabilmektedir.

Ağ Kullanımı GoldRush API ve Covalent’in diğer veri ürünlerinden elde edilen ekonomik değer CXT etrafında şekillenmektedir.

Platformu kullanan;

Geliştiriciler, Şirketler, Yapay zekâ uygulamaları tarafından oluşturulan gelirlerin bir bölümü açık piyasadan CXT satın alınmasında kullanılmaktadır.

Satın alınan tokenler daha sonra Stratejik Rezerv’in desteklenmesinde değerlendirilmektedir.

Bu yapı, ağ kullanımının artmasıyla birlikte CXT talebinin de artmasını hedefleyen ekonomik bir model sunmaktadır.

Covalent (CXT) ve Yapay Zekâ Ekonomisi Covalent, CXT’yi doğrulanabilir veri ekonomisinin temel ödeme aracı olarak konumlandırmaktadır.

Her API sorgusu, AI ajanı tarafından gerçekleştirilen veri talebi ve yeni blok zinciri entegrasyonu ağ ekonomisine katkı sağlamaktadır.

Bu yaklaşım doğrultusunda;

Daha fazla kullanım, Daha fazla gelir, Daha yüksek CXT talebi oluşturacak ekonomik döngü hedeflenmektedir.

Covalent (CXT) Arz Yapısı CXT’nin toplam arzı 1 milyar adettir.

Tüm tokenler ağın başlangıcında oluşturulmuştur.

Token ekonomisi enflasyon üretmeyecek şekilde tasarlanmıştır.

Her ne kadar akıllı sözleşmede mint fonksiyonu bulunsa da bu özellik varsayılan olarak devre dışıdır ve yalnızca topluluk yönetişimi tarafından alınacak resmi bir karar sonucunda aktif hale getirilebilir.

Covalent (CXT) Tokenomics CXT token dağılımı şu şekildedir:

Özel Satış (Private Sale) %20,4 Ekosistem %20 Rezerv %18,9 Takım %14,4 Tohum Yatırımı (Seed) %10 Staking %8 Halka Açık Satış %3,4 İkinci Özel Satış (Private Sale 2) %2,9 Danışmanlar %2 Toplam arz 1.000.000.000 CXT ile sınırlandırılmıştır.

Covalent (CXT) Yatırımcıları Covalent bugüne kadar yaklaşık 10,69 milyon dolar yatırım toplamıştır.

Projeye yatırım yapan öne çıkan fon ve yatırım şirketleri arasında şunlar yer almaktadır:

Tier 1

Coinbase Ventures YZi Labs (eski adıyla Binance Labs) Tier 2

Hashed 1kx Mechanism Capital Delphi Ventures Hypersphere Ventures Double Peak Tier 3

Woodstock Fund AU21 Capital Moonrock Capital TRGC CoinGecko Ventures Tier 4

RockTree Capital CMCC Global Avalanche VC Brilliance Ventures Tier 5

Morningstar Ventures

Resmi Bağlantılar Website X (Twitter) Whitepaper Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.

Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.

Yapay zeka ve yüksek performanslı bilgi işlem (HPC) alanındaki talebin hızla artması, merkeziyetsiz bulut çözümlerine olan ilgiyi de beraberinde getiriyor. Özellikle yapay zeka modellerinin eğitimi, büyük veri analizi ve GPU gerektiren uygulamaların yaygınlaşması, daha esnek ve uygun maliyetli bilgi işlem altyapılarına olan ihtiyacı artırıyor. Bu alanda öne çıkan projelerden biri olan CapIX Protocol (CPX), dünyanın farklı bölgelerindeki kullanılmayan işlem gücünü tek bir ağ altında bir araya getirerek daha düşük maliyetli, ölçeklenebilir ve verimli bir bulut altyapısı sunmayı hedefliyor. Akıllı yönlendirme sistemi sayesinde en uygun işlem kapasitesini otomatik olarak seçen platform, hem bireysel geliştiricilere hem de kurumsal kullanıcılara hitap eden merkeziyetsiz bir bilgi işlem ekosistemi oluşturmayı amaçlıyor. Peki CapIX Protocol (CPX) nedir, nasıl çalışır ve CPX token ne işe yarar?

CapIX Protocol, farklı altyapı sağlayıcılarının sunduğu işlem gücünü tek bir platform üzerinden yöneten merkeziyetsiz bir bilgi işlem ağıdır. Proje, kullanılmayan CPU ve GPU kaynaklarını değerlendirerek kullanıcıların ihtiyaç duyduğu işlem kapasitesini en uygun maliyetle sunmayı amaçlar. Platformun merkezinde yer alan CapIX OS, ağa bağlı sağlayıcıları anlık olarak tarayarak fiyat, performans ve kullanılabilirlik kriterlerine göre en uygun işlem gücünü seçer. Böylece kullanıcılar tek bir sağlayıcıya bağlı kalmadan küresel ölçekte dağıtılmış bilgi işlem altyapısından yararlanabilir. CapIX ekosistemi özellikle yapay zeka modelleri, bulut sunucuları, GPU kiralama ve merkeziyetsiz uygulamalar için geliştirildi.

CapIX Nasıl Çalışıyor? CapIX’in çalışma mantığı, farklı sağlayıcılardan gelen işlem gücünü tek bir akıllı yönlendirme sistemi altında toplamaya dayanıyor.

Süreç şu şekilde ilerliyor:

Kullanıcı Solana uyumlu cüzdanını platforma bağlıyor. SOL veya USDC yatırarak bakiyesini oluşturuyor. Çalıştırmak istediği uygulama veya sunucu türünü seçiyor. CapIX OS, ağdaki tüm aktif sağlayıcıları tarıyor. En düşük maliyetli ve uygun donanıma sahip düğüm otomatik olarak seçiliyor. İş yükü ilgili node üzerinde çalıştırılıyor ve kullanım süresine göre ücretlendiriliyor. Bu yapı sayesinde kullanıcılar manuel olarak sunucu aramak yerine sistemin en uygun seçeneği otomatik belirlemesinden faydalanabiliyor.

CapIX’in Sunduğu Hizmetler CapIX yalnızca bir bulut platformu değil, aynı zamanda yapay zeka geliştiricileri ve kurumsal kullanıcılar için farklı hizmetler sunan kapsamlı bir ekosistem oluşturuyor.

Başlıca ürünleri şunlar:

CapIX Cloud: Dağıtık sanal sunucu ve GPU kiralama platformu. AI Inference: OpenAI uyumlu API üzerinden 250’den fazla yapay zeka modeline erişim. AI Labs: Kuantum bilgi işlem ve deneysel yapay zeka uygulamaları. Serverless Jobs: Kullanıldığı kadar ödeme modeliyle çalışan işlem altyapısı. Private AI Models: Kullanıcılara özel yapay zeka modellerini API üzerinden çalıştırma imkânı. Bu hizmetlerin tamamı aynı altyapı ve yönlendirme sistemi üzerinden çalışıyor.

Smart Router Teknolojisi Nedir? CapIX’in en dikkat çeken bileşeni Smart Router (Akıllı Yönlendirici) sistemi olarak öne çıkıyor.

Bu teknoloji;

Ağdaki tüm işlem kapasitesini gerçek zamanlı tarıyor. Fiyat, donanım gücü ve gecikme sürelerini karşılaştırıyor. En uygun maliyetli sağlayıcıyı otomatik seçiyor. Gerektiğinde iş yükünü birden fazla node arasında dağıtabiliyor. Bu sayede kullanıcılar büyük bulut sağlayıcılarının uyguladığı yüksek fiyat marjlarından kaçınabiliyor.

CPX Token Ne İşe Yarar? CPX, CapIX Protocol ekosisteminin yerel tokenidir ve Solana Token-2022 standardı üzerinde geliştirilmiştir. Platformda kullanıcılar bugün için doğrudan SOL ve USDC ile ödeme yapabiliyor. Ancak CPX token, gelecekte devreye alınacak zincir üstü uzlaşma (on-chain settlement) katmanının temel varlığı olarak tasarlandı.

CPX’in kullanım alanları arasında şunlar bulunuyor:

Ağ üzerindeki uzlaşma işlemleri, Protokol ücretlerinin yönetimi, Yakım (burn) mekanizması, Hazine fonunun desteklenmesi, Ekosistem teşvikleri. Proje, CPX token bulundurmayı zorunlu kılmadan ağın kullanılabilmesini hedefliyor.

CapIX’in Avantajları CapIX Protocol, geleneksel bulut hizmetlerine alternatif oluşturabilecek çeşitli avantajlar sunuyor.

Öne çıkan özellikleri şunlardır:

Merkeziyetsiz işlem gücü ağı Kullanılmayan GPU ve CPU kaynaklarının değerlendirilmesi Gerçek zamanlı fiyat karşılaştırması Solana tabanlı ödeme sistemi OpenAI uyumlu AI API desteği GPU kiralama hizmeti SSH erişimli bulut sunucuları Kullanıldığı kadar ödeme modeli API entegrasyonu Geliştiricilere yönelik kapsamlı araçlar Güvenlik ve Yol Haritası CapIX, güvenlik tarafında sıfır güven (Zero Trust) yaklaşımını benimseyen bir mimari kullanıyor. Platformda konteyner izolasyonu, tek kullanımlık SSH anahtarları, HMAC tabanlı kimlik doğrulama, işlem tekrarını önleyen güvenlik mekanizmaları ve Solana üzerinde doğrulanabilir ödeme kayıtları bulunuyor.

Projenin yol haritasında ise şu teknolojiler yer alıyor:

Gizli bilgi işlem (Confidential Computing) AMD SEV-SNP ve Intel TDX desteği NVIDIA Confidential GPU teknolojileri zkVM doğrulama sistemi Zincir üstü uzlaşma altyapısı eBPF tabanlı ağ izolasyonu Bu özelliklerin ilerleyen dönemlerde kademeli olarak kullanıma sunulması planlanıyor.

CapIX Protocol (CPX), merkeziyetsiz bulut bilişim ve yapay zeka altyapısını tek platform altında birleştirmeyi amaçlayan yenilikçi projeler arasında yer alıyor. Akıllı yönlendirme sistemi, küresel GPU ağı ve OpenAI uyumlu yapay zeka servisleriyle hem geliştiricilere hem de kurumsal kullanıcılara düşük maliyetli bilgi işlem imkânı sunmayı hedefliyor. CPX token ise gelecekte devreye alınacak zincir üstü uzlaşma mekanizmasının merkezinde yer alacak. Merkeziyetsiz AI ve bulut bilişim sektörünün büyümesiyle birlikte CapIX’in geliştirdiği teknolojilerin yakından takip edilmesi bekleniyor.

Resmi Bağlantılar Website X (Twitter) Whitepaper Son dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla

Konu ile ilgili yorumlarınızı bize yazabilirsiniz. Ayrıca, bu tarz bilgilendirici içeriklerin devamının gelmesini isterseniz, bizleri Telegram, Youtube ve Twitter kanallarımızdan takip edebilirsiniz.

Follow:

The author, a medical doctor and health economist, produces content on cryptocurrency markets, blockchain technologies, digital assets, and global finance.As a cryptocurrency writer and investor, he closely follows Bitcoin, altcoins, market trends, macroeconomic developments, token economies, and innovations in the digital asset ecosystem. By combining perspectives from health economics and financial analysis, he evaluates developments in cryptocurrency markets using a clear and data-driven approach.

What Was The 1.16 Trillion SHIB Move About?Blockchain data from Arkham Intelligence showed Coinbase moved the tokens across three newly created wallets with no prior transaction history, without touching the spot market order book at all. 

Crypto analyst LuckSide Crypto said in a YouTube video the transfer is routine internal custody management, not a selling signal.

The three transfers broke down as 573 billion SHIB from an unmarked wallet, 242 billion SHIB, and 348 billion SHIB. 

LuckSide Crypto noted that exchange supply overall keeps falling, which he views as a long-term constructive sign regardless of the size of the internal movement.

Moreover, SHIB recently fell as low as 33rd in the crypto market rankings before climbing back to 31st, recovering ground as selling pressure eases.

Is Selling Pressure Actually Easing?SHIB’s daily volume has dropped from around $100 million to the $50 million to $70 million range while price has been trading sideways, a sign the heavy capitulation selling from earlier this year is starting to flatten out.

The analyst said that whale wallet counts continue rising even as price has not followed, a setup that typically precedes accumulation phases rather than fresh breakdowns. 

He noted the June lows were some of the most oversold readings SHIB has produced in its history, comparable only to August 2024.

Key catalysts to watch next week include the Clarity Act Senate floor vote, an FOMC meeting, and a PCE inflation report, all of which could inject volatility into the broader crypto market and directly impact SHIB’s next directional move.

Is Shiba Inu Price Showing Signs Of A Bullish Reversal?SHIB remains in a bearish trend structure with the 20-day SMA below the 50-day and the 50-day below the 200-day, keeping the path of least resistance pointed down. 

The token is down 70% over the past 12 months, which means any bounce faces overhead supply quickly.

MACD sits above its signal line with a positive histogram, an early sign that downside pressure is easing even if the bigger trend has not flipped yet. 

Moreover, SHIB has tested its 20-day moving average every session this week and been rejected each time, with the $0.00000504 level acting as the key support zone to watch on any pullback.

Image Source: Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

Today's Connections

Credit: NYT / Erik Kain

Welcome back, Connectioneers! If you’re looking for help with today’s puzzling NYT Connections puzzle, I’m here to offer my assistance with some extra clues and the solutions to the Yellow, Blue, Green and Purple groups.

Alright, alright, alright. Sunday Connectioneers, I hope you’re not working too hard. It’s a day designed by the celestial powers that be for sitting around and soaking up the sun. Head to the beach, but bring your NYT Games App with you and let’s solve today’s Connections!

Also be sure to check out my weekend streaming guide for all the best TV shows and movies to watch this weekend. There’s some great new stuff out, both at home and in theaters.

ForbesWhat To Watch This Weekend: New Shows And Movies To Stream On Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, Apple TV And MoreBy Erik Kain

Let’s do this!

If you’re looking for Saturday’s Connections guide, it’s right here.

Play Puzzles & Games on Forbes

How To Play ConnectionsConnections is the second-most popular NYT Games puzzle game outside of the main crossword itself, and an extremely fun, free offering that will get your brain moving every day. Play it right here.

The goal is to take a group of 16 words and find links between four pairs of four of them. They could be specific categories of terms, or they could be little world puzzles where words may come before or after them you need to figure out. And they get more complicated from there.

There is only one set of right answers for this, and you only get a certain number of tries so you can’t just spam around until you find something. There are difficulty tiers coded by color, which will usually go from yellow, blue/green to purple as difficulty increases, so know that going in and when you start linking them together.

You pick the four words you think are linked and either you will get a solve and a lit up row that shows you how you were connected. If you’re close, it will tell you that you’re one away. Again, four mistakes you lose, but if you want to know the answers without failing, either come here, or delete your web cookies and try again. If you want to play more puzzles, you can get an NYT Games subscription to access the full archives of all past puzzles.

NYT Connections Hints And Answers – Saturday July 26Below, we’ll get into some extra hints for each Connections group – Yellow, Blue, Green and Purple – and then the official clues and answers.

Here are today’s Connections words:

breakersyncswirlfusegamerelayflushconnectpairrefilldrainjoinswitchstraightpokerlongHere’s an Extra Hint for Each Connections Group🟡Yellow group – Young parents, take heed.🟢Green group – Used to be cutting edge, now it’s in the trash bin (or a storage box).🔵Blue group – Not descriptions of a blue sky sunny day.🟣Purple group – Think of what you might find on that beach.One Word for Each Connections Group: 🟡Yellow group – first words🟢Green group – plasma tv🔵Blue group – scotch mist🟣Purple group – gas stationWhat Are Today’s Connections Groups?Alright, the full spoilers follow here as we get into what the groups are today:🟡Yellow group – baby milestones🟢Green group – outmoded consumer tech🔵Blue group – expressions for rain🟣Purple group – what "shell" might refer toWhat Are Today’s Connections Answers?The full-on answers are below for each group, finally inserting the four words in each category. Spoilers follow. The Connections answers are:🟡Yellow group – crawling, first words, rolling over, solid food🟢Green group – blackberry, discman, dvd player, plasma tv🔵Blue group – april showers, liquid sunshine, scotch mist, wet weather🟣Purple group – carapace, gas station, pastry crust, rowing boatHere’s the finished puzzle in the order I solved it:

Today's NYT Connections

Screenshot: Erik Kain

Today’s NYT Connections is a 1/5 on the Connections Bot difficulty scale so about as easy as they come, and I think it relied on the two-word combos to hopefully throw people off. Unfortunately, even though some of these were super obscure – LIQUID SUNSHINE and SCOTCH MIST are not phrases I’m familiar with – most everything else in the Yellow, Green and Blue categories was shockingly obvious. Not much in the way of red herrings or really anything to make this a particularly interesting or impressive Connections puzzle other than the Purple group. I admit, that’s a pretty clever way to connect “SHELL.”

How’d you do on today’s Connections? Let me know on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook.

Find more guides to Wordle, Pips and Strands on my blog where you can also follow me for TV and movie and video game coverage. Let me know if you have any fun puzzle games in your rotation that I should try on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. Have a great Sunday!

John L. Schwietz, Executive VP and CFO of Valmont Industries, Inc. (VMI -0.50%), executed a direct purchase of 208 shares of common stock on July 23, 2026. SEC Form 4 filing.

Today's Change

(

-0.50

%) $

-2.44

Current Price

$

486.16

Transaction summaryMetricValueTransaction value~$101,119Shares purchased (direct)208Post-transaction shares (directly held)2,992Post-transaction value$1.46 millionTransaction value based on SEC Form 4 weighted average purchase price ($486.15); post-transaction value based on July 23, 2026 market close ($488.60).

Key questionsWhat was the magnitude of the purchase relative to the executive's total direct position?
The purchase of 208 shares expanded John L. Schwietz's direct stake by 7%, increasing his total holdings to 2,992 shares of common stock.How does the total market value of the current holdings compare to the transaction cost?
The CFO's total direct position is valued at $1.46 million as of the July 23, 2026 market close, following an investment of approximately $101,119 at $486.15 per share.In what market context did this insider purchase occur?
The transaction was executed as Valmont Industries shares have recorded a 36% total return over the 12-month period ending July 23, 2026, while the company maintains a market capitalization of $9.4 billion.Company OverviewMetricValueShare Price (as of market close 2026-07-23)$488.60Market Capitalization$9.4 billionRevenue (TTM)$4.2 billionNet Income (TTM)$505.7 millionCompany SnapshotValmont Industries designs, manufactures, and distributes engineered metal, steel, aluminum, and composite structures, including poles, towers, and infrastructure components, through its Infrastructure segment, while also providing agricultural irrigation systems and equipment through its Agriculture segment.The company generates revenue through the design and production of engineered products for infrastructure applications and agricultural irrigation solutions, operating a capital-intensive manufacturing model with global distribution capabilities across North America, Australia, Brazil, Denmark, and other international markets.Valmont serves utility companies, telecommunications providers, renewable energy developers, and agricultural producers worldwide, positioning itself as a critical supplier of infrastructure components and irrigation technology to support global energy transmission, communications networks, and agricultural productivity.Valmont Industries is a diversified industrial conglomerate with approximately $4.2 billion in trailing twelve-month (TTM) revenue and a market capitalization of $9.4 billion, demonstrating significant scale in engineered products and infrastructure solutions. The company operates a dual-segment business model spanning Infrastructure and Agriculture, leveraging its manufacturing expertise and global footprint to serve essential end markets. With a net profit margin of approximately 11.8% on TTM results, Valmont exhibits operational efficiency and competitive positioning in capital-intensive industrial markets characterized by long-term infrastructure and agricultural investment cycles.

What this transaction means for investorsThere are many reasons an insider may sell stock in a company, not all of which have to do with his or her feelings about the direction of the stock price, such as having to pay a large personal expense.

There is only one reason an insider buys: they believe the stock price is going up.

Through that prism, Schwietz’s purchase of $100,000 worth of Valmont shares is bullish. Even more so when you consider that studies show an insider purchase predicts the share price being higher in 30 days more often than not.

Schwietz was appointed CFO in April after serving as an executive in various capacities throughout the business since 2009. He knows Valmont inside and out. That he is voting with his wallet on shares is a good sign.

Also, a positive signal for investors: strong second quarter fiscal 2026 earnings. Earlier this week, the company reported that Q2 sales rose 6.5% to $1.12 billion, with the company swinging to net income of nearly $120 million after posting a small net loss a year prior. Management also projected full-year sales should rise more than 6% with much better earnings per share.

A relatively small share purchase by CFO Schwietz is not by itself a full-throated call to buy Valmont Industry shares, but taken as part of a mosaic of information about the business, it’s a positive signal for investors.

Archer Aviation is moving toward FAA certification for its Midnight aircraft with heavy backing from major airline and defense partners. Intuitive Machines has established itself as a critical lunar infrastructure provider for NASA and the growing space economy.

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

Space Exploration Technologies (SPCX -2.85%) went from being the biggest initial public offering (IPO) in history to one of the worst-performing IPOs in a long time. That's the market at work.

SpaceX was valued at about $1.8 trillion upon going public, but its underlying fundamentals didn't justify that valuation. Hype and hope aren't typically good investment strategies over the long term. Now that the stock has tumbled, it's time to think about when the right investment point might be.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

Let the market work SpaceX stock has given back more than $1 trillion from its peak valuation reached less than a week after it went public. With shares recently trading at about $118, patient investors can now own the stock well below its $135 IPO price and $161 first day closing price. The question now is by how much SpaceX shares might drift lower. It's especially timely to ask that, given its first quarterly earnings report since going public is due on Aug. 4.

First, investors need to realize that SpaceX isn't going to operate like a traditional business going public. It was listed at a valuation that made no sense fundamentally. While the company had about $18 billion in 2025 revenue, those who bought shares at the IPO were looking far into the future for much higher revenue and profit potential.

That helps explain why SpaceX has performed so poorly in its short public life. According to a Barron's analysis, the stock has underperformed compared to 90% of other U.S. IPOs with market capitalizations of $1 billion or more since July 2009.

Today's Change

(

-2.85

%) $

-3.37

Current Price

$

114.87

Wait a few days after earnings It's hard to judge what a good valuation would be to buy into SpaceX. It has huge potential with its SpaceXAI data center business, not to mention Starship rocket launches and the possibility of orbital data centers.

So one isn't going to make it a value investment where a traditional price-to-sales (P/S) or price-to-earnings (P/E) metric applies. Whether it declines enough to reach a $1 trillion valuation -- or about $76.5 per share -- is impossible to know. But investors do have a sense of the timing that might be appropriate.

SpaceX's initial earnings report will be Aug. 4. That, of course, is an important date to remember. But that report also triggers the start of the company's unique staged lock-up expiration. The actual trading unlock happens two days later on Aug. 6.

At that point, an initial tranche of over 900 million shares will be available for early investors and employees to sell. It seems likely that some will gladly monetize their stake. That would be when I would begin buying a position in SpaceX.

And there's no reason to jump in all at once, either. Investors should review the company's earnings release and then determine a strategy for building a position after Aug. 6.

Howard Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Tesla (TSLA -2.14%) shareholders had a rough Thursday. Shares of the electric car maker sank about 15% following the company's second-quarter report, closing at $319.69 -- near the bottom of a 52-week range that runs from $297.82 to $498.83.

But Wall Street barely budged. The average analyst price target on the stock sits near $412 as of this writing, about 29% above Thursday's close. And across the 44 analysts covering the company, the consensus rating is still a buy.

That's quite a gap. So is the drop a buying opportunity, or is Wall Street just slow to mark down a story it has believed in for years?

Image source: Tesla.

The quarter behind the drop Tesla's revenue rose 26% year over year to $28.2 billion in the second quarter of 2026, helped by 480,126 vehicle deliveries -- the company's best second quarter ever. That marked an acceleration from 16% growth in Q1, and it pushed the company past $100 billion in trailing-12-month revenue for the first time. After revenue shrank last year, the top line is moving again.

The profit side is another matter. Operating income fell 57% year over year to $398 million, squeezing Tesla's operating margin to 1.4% from 4.1% a year earlier. Adjusted earnings per share came in at $0.33, down 18% from a year earlier. For every dollar of record revenue, barely a penny reached operating profit.

Notably, the problem wasn't the economics of selling cars. Tesla's automotive gross margin slipped only modestly, to 16.9%.

The damage came from everything below that line, as the company spends heavily on AI (artificial intelligence), its robotaxi service, and its Optimus robot program, plus stock-based compensation tied to CEO Elon Musk's 2025 pay award. Regulatory credit revenue, a high-margin helper in past quarters, also collapsed 67% to $146 million.

And for the first time in years, the quarter burned cash. Capital expenditures more than doubled to $5.8 billion, pushing free cash flow to negative $1.1 billion.

In short, Tesla delivered record second-quarter volume and record revenue, and almost none of it reached operating profit. That's the quarter the market repriced on Thursday.

Today's Change

(

-2.14

%) $

-6.85

Current Price

$

312.84

What the 29% of upside is made of Now back to that $412 average price target.

A price target is a model's output. And the analysts behind those models are, on average, still crediting Tesla for a future of high-margin software, a scaled robotaxi network, and strong returns on all of this AI spending. The 29% gap between the target and Thursday's close arguably measures faith in that future more than it measures a discount on the business Tesla runs today.

After all, even at $319.69, the stock trades at about 300 times earnings. A company earning $0.33 a share in its best revenue quarter ever doesn't support a price like that on its own. So much future success is already priced in that the shares can fall 15% and still not look cheap on any near-term measure.

To be fair, the report offered evidence the newer businesses are moving. Services and other revenue rose 50% year over year, and energy storage deployments climbed 41% to 13.5 gigawatt-hours. But those lines remain small next to the car business that still pays Tesla's bills, and neither is yet big enough to carry the company's margin on its own.

So I don't treat the gap between the price and the target as an opportunity in itself. Targets get updated on a delay after a move this size.

The average could keep drifting down toward the price instead of the price rising to meet it.

Could the models be right? Sure.

If Tesla's robotaxi and AI bets pay off on anything like the timeline the bulls expect, today's price may well look cheap in hindsight. That has happened with this company before. I just don't think investors should pay about 300 times earnings for that outcome while the operating margin sits at 1.4% and the spending is still accelerating.

I'm not buying the drop, and the 29% of upside on paper doesn't change that. What would get my attention is profit growth showing up alongside the revenue growth.

Microsoft (MSFT) reports earnings July 29, with investors focused on whether its massive AI investments are paying off. In this Tech Corner, George Tsilis breaks down expectations for Azure, Copilot, and Microsoft's rapidly expanding AI business, as Wall Street looks for signs that rising cloud revenue will justify all the spending.

Federal safety regulators have recalled more than 16,800 fabric dressers sold through Walmart.com after determining the units fail to meet mandatory federal stability standards designed to prevent tip-over accidents involving children.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced Thursday that about 16,809 EnHomee 9-Drawer Fabric Dressers are being recalled because they are unstable if not anchored to a wall, creating tip-over and entrapment hazards that could result in serious injury or death to children.

The agency said the dressers violate the mandatory federal safety standard for clothing storage units required under the STURDY Act, a law enacted to help prevent furniture tip-over incidents involving children.

The recalled dressers were sold on Walmart.com by third-party seller Raybee-Direct between September 2023 and March 2026 for about $80. They were available in white, brown, gray and black and feature nine fabric drawers supported by a metal frame. Only units ordered before March 30, 2026, are included in the recall.

Federal safety regulators have recalled more than 16,800 fabric dressers sold through Walmart.com Sundry Photography – stock.adobe.com The CPSC said no injuries or incidents related to the recalled dressers have been reported.

TickerSecurityLastChangeChange %WMTWALMART INC.109.47+1.07+0.99% Consumers should stop using the dressers immediately if they are not anchored to a wall and move them to an area that children cannot access, according to the agency.

Consumers can contact Raybee-Direct for instructions on determining whether their dresser is included in the recall and how to dispose of it to receive a full refund.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) cited failure to meet federal stability standards under the STURDY Act. Consumer Product Safety Commission To complete the refund process, consumers must submit a photo showing the dresser has been disposed of.

The recalled dressers were manufactured in China by Xuzhou Mingquanhe Household Co., Ltd. and imported by Changsha Yiman Keji Youxian Gongsi, doing business as Raybee-Direct.

Consumers seeking additional information can contact Raybee-Direct by emailing [email protected].

FOX Business has reached out to Walmart and Raybee-Direct for comment.

Apple (AAPL +3.52%) spent about a decade trying to build a car and canceled the effort in February 2024. Roughly 2,000 employees were reportedly working on it, and the company is reported to have spent billions before shutting it down and moving much of the team to artificial intelligence (AI).

But Apple's technology is still finding its way into vehicles.

Apple and Ford (F +1.55%) announced that Apple Maps will power the navigation experience in Ford's Universal Electric Vehicle Platform beginning in 2027, delivered through a new developer kit Apple calls MapKit for Automotive. The first vehicle on that platform is a midsize electric vehicle Ford has priced around $30,000.

"Our new midsize electric vehicle will be priced around $30,000 and redefines what advanced technology can be," said Ford CEO Jim Farley in Apple's announcement.

Image source: Getty Images.

What Apple is actually supplying The arrangement goes deeper than a phone-mirroring screen. CarPlay projects an iPhone onto a car's display. This embeds Apple Maps into the vehicle itself, with Ford able to shape the look to match its own design.

Drivers get turn-by-turn directions with natural-language search, live traffic and incident data, and EV routing that preconditions the battery before a charging stop.

The more interesting piece, however, is underneath. Apple said the kit supplies road-level information automakers can use to build hands-free driving experiences, and Ford is wiring it into the next generation of BlueCruise -- its hands-free highway system.

That is a different job than drawing a map. It makes Apple a supplier to someone else's autonomy program.

"Apple Maps delivers the best map experience in the world, and we're excited to bring the power of Maps' navigation technology to Ford's innovative Universal Electric Vehicle Platform," said Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of services and health.

Why this beats the version Apple abandoned Look at what Ford's side of the business actually earns and the contrast is hard to miss. Ford carries a market capitalization of about $57 billion, which is a little more than 1% of Apple's roughly $4.9 trillion. It lost money over the past twelve months. And on Friday it recalled more than 565,000 Broncos over a wiring problem that can start an engine fire.

Building cars is a capital-hungry, low-margin business. Apple would have entered it as a beginner.

Selling the software layer into it is the opposite trade. After all, Apple's services segment produced an all-time record of about $31 billion in revenue in the fiscal second quarter (the period ended March 28, 2026), up about 16% year over year, and services carried a gross margin near 75% in fiscal 2025 against about 36% for products.

Investors should maintain perspective, though. Apple hasn't disclosed what Ford pays, and a mapping license on one vehicle platform launching in 2027 arguably won't show up as a line anybody can find in the services number.

The value here is reach, not a fee. Apple Maps has been an iPhone feature since 2012, useful mainly to people already inside the ecosystem. Embedded in a Ford, it becomes something a driver uses whether or not they own an iPhone -- and every mile driven feeds map data back.

This comes at a time when Apple's business already has strong momentum. Fiscal second-quarter revenue rose 17% year over year to $111.2 billion and earnings per share climbed 22% to $2.01, with iPhone setting a March-quarter record. Growth like that came after fiscal 2025 revenue grew about 6% for the full year, so the top line has accelerated sharply.

Today's Change

(

3.52

%) $

11.31

Current Price

$

332.97

There are risks, of course. Ford could sell fewer of these vehicles than it hopes, the 2027 timeline could slip, and other automakers may prefer Android Automotive, the competing system from Google parent Alphabet, which already sits in some of Ford's rivals.

So what do I make of it? A small deal in dollars, and a meaningful one in direction. Apple has now bought its way into vehicles through software and services, expanding its reach and increasing its optionality for future growth opportunities.

Shares trade around $333 as of this writing, near their record high, at about 40 times earnings. That is a premium price for a company this size, and I'd say the stock is a hold rather than a bargain here.

But I own it, and Thursday is a reasonable illustration of why. The car program looked like a failure in 2024. Two years later, Apple is in the dashboard of one of Ford's most important new vehicles.