Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Key Takeaways NBIS is expanding its AI infrastructure, targeting more than 4 GW of contracted power capacity by year-end. DLR is seeing record AI-driven leasing, expanding its data center pipeline through 2027 and beyond.Both NBIS and DLR are investing heavily in AI infrastructure, but differ in growth pace and business models. Nebius Group N.V. (NBIS - Free Report) and Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (DLR - Free Report) are benefiting from the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure as enterprises and hyperscalers accelerate investments in high-performance computing, AI cloud platforms and next-generation data centers. Growing demand for AI training and inference workloads is driving the need for large-scale GPU capacity, power-rich data center campuses and globally connected infrastructure, positioning both companies to capitalize on the ongoing buildout of the AI ecosystem.

While Nebius is expanding its AI-native cloud platform by adding GPU capacity, securing long-term customer commitments and investing heavily in new AI infrastructure, Digital Realty is scaling its global data center platform through record leasing activity, hyperscale developments and expanded connectivity to support increasingly AI-driven workloads. Both companies continue to invest aggressively to meet rising AI infrastructure demand, although they are executing through different business models within the AI infrastructure value chain.

Let’s evaluate their fundamentals, growth prospects, market challenges and valuations to determine which stock presents a stronger investment opportunity.

The Case for NBISNebius is rapidly scaling its AI infrastructure footprint by expanding data center capacity and strengthening its AI-native hyperscaler platform. Within the past three months, the company has increased its contracted power capacity from more than 2 gigawatts to over 3.5 gigawatts and now expects to exceed 4 gigawatts by year-end. It also announced a new data center site in Pennsylvania, which is expected to support 1.2 gigawatts of power at full build-out. More than 75% of the company's contracted power capacity is now owned, reflecting its strategy of building and operating an integrated AI infrastructure platform with greater control over long-term capacity.

The company continues to enhance its full-stack AI cloud platform by offering services across the AI lifecycle, including bare-metal infrastructure, multi-tenant cloud, inference and agentic capabilities. The acquisitions of Tavily, Eigen AI and Clarifai have strengthened its engineering capabilities while improving inference optimization and agentic search technologies. The company also expanded its collaboration with NVIDIA and achieved NVIDIA Exemplar Cloud status for GB300 training workloads, placing it among a limited number of cloud providers recognized across multiple GPU generations.

Demand for Nebius' AI infrastructure remains strong across a broad range of industries, with management stating that several customers typically compete for every GPU brought online. During the first quarter, pipeline generation increased 3.5 times sequentially, supported by growing demand from AI-native companies, enterprises and software vendors. Customers spanning fintech, physical AI, life sciences, manufacturing, energy and pharmaceuticals are increasingly adopting the company's AI cloud platform. Nebius also delivered a strong first-quarter financial performance, with group revenue rising 684% year over year and the AI business recording 841% revenue growth, reaching an annualized run-rate revenue of $1.9 billion.

For 2026, Nebius expects annualized run-rate revenue of $7 billion to $9 billion, group revenue of $3 billion to $3.4 billion and an adjusted EBITDA margin of around 40%. However, management expects quarterly EBITDA margins to fluctuate during the year as investments in infrastructure and capacity expansion are incurred ahead of revenue generation. Margins are expected to decline in the second quarter due to the back-half weighted deployment of new capacity before recovering to first-quarter levels in the third quarter and improving further in the fourth quarter.

The company has also raised its 2026 capital expenditure guidance to between $20 billion and $25 billion from the earlier range of $16 billion to $20 billion to support additional AI infrastructure capacity planned for 2027. The increased investment is backed by customer commitments but will require incremental financing through asset-backed structures, corporate debt and other funding alternatives. The company continues to evaluate multiple financing sources while maintaining a disciplined approach to funding its long-term data center expansion strategy.

The Case for DLRDigital Realty is gaining from robust AI infrastructure and data center demand, with enterprises and hyperscalers increasingly deploying AI workloads across its global PlatformDIGITAL ecosystem. The company said digital infrastructure has become foundational as AI adoption accelerates compute intensity, cloud demand remains resilient and enterprises continue investing in technology. This drove one of the strongest leasing quarters in the company's history, supported by rising demand for both interconnection services and large-scale hyperscale capacity.

The company continues to strengthen its position in AI-ready infrastructure through record leasing activity and an expanding global footprint. The company signed its largest-ever lease, a 200-megawatt AI inference deployment with a hyperscale customer in Charlotte, while also securing multiple 10-plus megawatt AI-related leases across major global markets. AI-oriented bookings represented a record share of the 0-1 megawatt category, reflecting growing enterprise adoption. To support future demand, the company expanded its development pipeline to 1.2 gigawatts under construction, increased investments in hyperscale campuses and added new connectivity hubs and land acquisitions across North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific.

Digital Realty is also benefiting from strong long-term visibility supported by a record backlog and continued investments in AI-focused data center capacity. Management highlighted that customers are shifting AI deployments from pilot projects to production environments, particularly for inference workloads, while enterprise AI demand continues to expand. Record bookings lifted the backlog to $1.8 billion, with lease commencements extending into 2027 and beyond. Digital Realty is simultaneously scaling its private capital platform, expanding hyperscale development funding and securing additional land and power resources to meet customers' long-term AI infrastructure requirements.

However, the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure continues to face industry-wide execution challenges. Management noted that limited power availability, labor shortages, supply chain constraints and community opposition are restricting the pace at which new data center capacity can be delivered. These factors are widening the gap between customer demand and deployable capacity, while utilities, equipment availability and construction timelines remain key variables across major markets.

Digital Realty is also navigating higher development costs as inflation in land values, construction expenses, supply chains and liquid-cooling infrastructure increases capital requirements for new AI data centers. The company acknowledged elevated operating expenses during the quarter and expects continued investment spending to support hyperscale growth. While management believes market rental rates are strong enough to offset rising development costs and preserve targeted returns, higher capital intensity and ongoing infrastructure investments remain important considerations.

Share Performance for NBIS & DLRIn the past three months, NBIS stock has surged 154.5% while DLR gained 10.4%.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Valuation for NBIS & DLRIn terms of Price/Book, NBIS shares are trading at 8.97X, higher than DLR’s 2.93X.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

How Do Estimates Compare for NBIS & DLR?Over the past 60 days, analysts have significantly revised estimates for NBIS’ bottom line for the current year.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

For DLR, estimates have been revised marginally upward over the past 60 days.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

NBIS or DLR: Which Stock is the Better Investment?Both NBIS and DLR currently carry a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

While Digital Realty provides a more established and stable data center platform supported by strong leasing activity and long-term backlog, Nebius' faster growth profile, improving earnings outlook and expanding AI-native platform make it the more compelling choice for investors seeking higher upside in the AI infrastructure space.

Jefferies has reiterated its 'buy' rating on AstraZeneca PLC (LSE:AZN, NASDAQ:AZN) and named the drugmaker a Franchise Pick, framing an approaching late-stage trial readout as the next major catalyst for the shares.

The broker holds a price target of 18,000p, implying upside of around 30% to the current price.

At the centre of the call is CARDIO-TTRansform, a phase III study of eplontersen, marketed as Wainua, in transthyretin amyloidosis, a progressive condition in which misfolded proteins build up in the heart.

Data is due in the second half of 2026, and Jefferies argues a positive result could de-risk around $5 billion in future sales while adding a low single-digit percentage to its net present value estimate.

The analysts see the trial as well placed to succeed, citing a large patient population and the ability to test the drug both alone and alongside existing stabiliser therapies such as tafamidis.

A favourable outcome would validate eplontersen as a competitive silencing treatment and open the door to combination use, where Jefferies sees the larger long-term prize.

The broker frames the opportunity within a transthyretin amyloidosis market it expects to reach around $18 billion by 2030, driven by earlier diagnosis and a shift towards disease-modifying therapies in a condition that remains widely underdiagnosed.

Jefferies also points to AstraZeneca's broader pipeline, including the amyloid-clearing antibody cliramitug, as evidence of a multi-mechanism franchise rather than a single-product bet.

On the longer-term question of growth beyond 2030, the analysts estimate AstraZeneca must de-risk roughly $12.5 billion of incremental revenue by 2034 to sustain forecast top-line growth of about 3% a year, a target they consider achievable.

The price target places the stock at a premium of around 40% to the European pharmaceuticals sector on 2027 earnings, a valuation Jefferies says is justified.

Key Takeaways Abbott faces Diagnostics weakness, China uncertainty and EPS dilution from the Exact Sciences deal.DXCM is expanding CGM adoption through new products, broader coverage and global market growth.DXCM reiterated 2026 revenue growth guidance of 11%-13% and expects wider G7 15 Day adoption. With the rising prevalence of diabetes worldwide, the demand for more efficient and real-time glucose monitoring solutions has intensified. Abbott (ABT - Free Report) and DexCom (DXCM - Free Report) are among the leading players in the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device market, valued at $13.4 billion in 2025 by Grand View Research.

Healthcare giant Abbott’s businesses span cardiovascular care, diagnostic testing, nutrition, pain and movement disorders, with Diabetes Care being a consistent top-line driver for the past several quarters. On the other hand, DexCom is a pure-play CGM company whose target market consists mainly of people with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes using insulin therapy, as well as certain non-insulin users who struggle with hypoglycemia.

Here’s a closer look at both companies to determine which stock offers the more compelling investment opportunity today. 

The Case for Abbott

Abbott’s flagship, sensor-based CGM system, FreeStyle Libre, has quickly established global leadership across both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. CGM sales reached $2 billion in the first quarter of 2026, up 7.5% year over year, though growth was affected by a delay in an international tender renewal and a difficult prior-year comparison tied to shelf restocking dynamics. CGM growth is forecasted to return to double-digits in the second quarter.

Abbott’s CEO also remains bullish on the long-term CGM opportunity, estimating that 70-80 million people globally should be using CGMs compared with the current market of roughly 10-12 million users. Recently, the company secured CE Mark for the first-ever dual glucose-ketone sensing technology for people with diabetes, branded as Libre Duo and Libre Duo 10 Day.  The systems continuously measure glucose and ketone levels every minute and will integrate with the Libre digital health ecosystem.

Beyond Diabetes Care, Abbott’s Core Lab Diagnostics business is seeing robust demand across the United States, Europe and Latin America. However, Core Lab trends were flat in China, with the company continuing to expect a weaker market for the full year despite lapping prior pricing actions.

The March 2026 acquisition of Exact Sciences added a Cancer Diagnostics business, expanding presence in one of the fastest-growing areas of healthcare. Even so, the deal introduces a $0.20 dilution to the 2026 adjusted EPS guidance of $5.38 to $5.58.

Abbott’s Rapid and Molecular Diagnostics business suffered from lower demand for respiratory virus testing due to a much weaker respiratory season compared to last year. Management is taking a cautious view and is not assuming the shortfall will recover later in the year. The Established Pharmaceuticals Division benefits from branded generics positions in faster-growing geographies. Abbott is focused on restoring a healthier balance between price and volume over time in Nutrition, while its Medical Devices segment is gaining from scale advantages and new product cycles across the franchises.

Take a look at how analysts are projecting Abbott’s bottom line.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The Case for DexCom

DexCom is benefitting from broader access to its CGM product portfolio, continued active base growth and new product launches. The company has partnered with several insulin delivery systems manufacturers to integrate its CGM products, with more than one million CGM users now connected to an automated insulin delivery (AID) system worldwide.

Internationally, DexCom’s 2026 first-quarter growth was widespread across core markets, with notable strong performance in countries such as France and Canada, where access has recently expanded. Management outlined a targeted international strategy aimed at gaining share through reimbursement progress and a portfolio tailored to local channels, including DexCom One+ in Europe. 

In the quarter, DexCom made an expanded rollout of the G7 15 Day sensor across all U.S. channels. The platform is now available with all U.S. pump partners, helping minimize friction for AID users who upgrade within the installed base. DexCom expects nearly 50% conversion of the U.S. base to the 15-day sensor by year-end 2026, with an international launch expected to begin in the second half of the year. The company also introduced its next-generation G8 roadmap, designed to deliver a step-change improvement in glucose performance with a smaller form factor and self-adapting sensor.

DexCom continues to build out its software ecosystem, adding engagement tools for Stelo, including enhanced Smart Meal Logging features, and it has been expanding provider-facing capabilities through Direct EHR Integration. More than 320 health systems have already integrated or are in the process of onboarding this capability across the United States and international markets. 

The company also continues to expand insurance coverage for its CGM sensors, particularly among Type 2 diabetes patients. The three largest U.S. Pharmacy Benefit Managers now cover DexCom CGM for all people with diabetes, including those with type 2 not using insulin. 

ABT also reiterated its 2026 revenue guidance, calling for 11% to 13% growth over 2025 levels. Take a look below at how the company’s earnings estimates are shaping up. 

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

ABT & DXCM: Price Performance and Valuation

Year to date, ABT shares have declined 25.6%, whereas DexCom shares have climbed 4.1%.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Abbott is trading at a forward, five-year Price/Sales (P/S) of 2.99X, below its median of 4.63X. Meanwhile, DXCM sits with a five-year P/S of 4.88X, also lower than its median of 9.93X.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Conclusion

Both companies are poised to benefit from the long-term growth trends of the CGM market. However, Abbott continues to face respiratory testing volatility in Diagnostics, dilution risk following the Exact Sciences acquisition and ongoing uncertainty in China. DexCom is gaining from elevated CGM demand worldwide, new product launches and expanding coverage for its sensors.

While DexCom trades at a premium to Abbott, it remains well below its historical median. The stock has also delivered stronger YTD performance relative to Abbott. Coupled with positive earnings estimate revisions, existing DXCM holders may find it prudent to stay invested to enjoy growth prospects. Meanwhile, those holding ABT stock may find it wise to sell for now until the short-term operating visibility improves.

DXCM carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold), while ABT has a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell).

You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

Launching a stablecoin used to mean building the whole stack: reserves, attestation, custody, redemption, distribution. Stablecoin-as-a-Service from Ethena removes that work. What is left for the issuer is the price feed that lets the token work as collateral in DeFi. For JupUSD, that feed comes from RedStone.

TL;DR: Stablecoin-as-a-Service lets any app launch a branded stablecoin on rented reserve infrastructure. Ethena runs the reserves and the machinery, and the partner brings the name and the distribution. Jupiter launched JupUSD stablecoin, monetizing $400 to $500 million of idle perps collateral. The current stablecoin circulating supply sits at $51 million. RedStone now delivers the price feed for JupUSD on Jupiter’s Solana platform.  Stablecoin-as-a-Service: Ethena’s Reserve Model  Ethena Whitelabel is a Stablecoin-as-a-Service product that allows partners to launch a branded stablecoin on rented reserve infrastructure, the same infrastructure that also backs USDtb, Ethena’s BUIDL-backed dollar.

When a partner launches a branded stablecoin, Ethena runs the reserves and the mint and redemption process, allowing the issuer to focus on the branding and distribution.

Ethena’s whitelabel offering covers multiple chains and protocols, with partners choosing between Ethena’s underlying reserve models depending on the product they want.

For JupUSD, that reserve asset is USDtb, which has grown to a circulating supply of roughly $889 million as of June 2026, according to DeFiLlama. Partners building on this infrastructure plug into a reserve mechanism already operating at scale.

Why JupUSD Needs Reliable Pricing Data Jupiter is Solana’s largest DeFi platform by total value locked. Founded in October 2021 as a swap aggregator routing trades across Solana DEXs, it has since expanded into a full onchain finance suite providing perpetual futures trading, lending, prediction markets, and a mobile trading app. Jupiter processed over $1 trillion in spot and perpetuals volume in 2025.

JupUSD was launched in January 2026, initially backed entirely by USDtb before the reserve mix shifted to its current 90/10 split with USDC. For Jupiter, the stablecoin solved a balance sheet problem: its perpetuals venue was sitting on roughly $400 to $500 million of idle collateral, and JupUSD puts that capital to work.

It is monetization infrastructure, not a savings account for users. Because USDtb flows through to BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, the yield accrues to Jupiter’s reserves rather than to JupUSD holders. As of June 12, 2026, JupUSD’s circulating supply sits around $51 million, published live on the project’s transparency page with broader metrics on DeFiLlama.

JupUSD is the default stablecoin powering the Jupiter superapp, which means that every venue using it needs reliable pricing data to run smoothly. Perps need it to value collateral, Jupiter Lend needs it to trigger liquidations, and Jupiter Predict needs it to settle markets. RedStone now provides that price feed for JupUSD on Solana.

The RedStone approach for whitelabeled stablecoins A whitelabeled stablecoin arrives with its reserves handled but cannot be used as collateral until a price feed makes it usable. Lending markets, perps, and prediction markets all need a fast, manipulation-resistant feed before they will take it as collateral or settle against it. The more venues the stable reaches, the bigger demand for price feed is.

RedStone’s modular architecture treats each feed as a configuration change rather than a bespoke build, so coverage expands at the pace these stablecoins now launch. On Jupiter that is already live: RedStone provides the JupUSD feed on Solana today, currently serving Jupiter’s perpetual markets.

Ethena handles reserve management as a service. RedStone provides the pricing data that makes each one usable. 

Frequently Asked Questions What is Stablecoin-as-a-Service?
A model where the reserve and issuance infrastructure for a stablecoin is provided as a service, so an app can launch its own branded stable without building custody, attestation, and redemption from scratch. Ethena offers it through Ethena Whitelabel, and JupUSD is built on it.

Why does a service-issued stablecoin still need an oracle?
Reserves back the token’s value, but they do not make it usable in DeFi. Lending markets and perpetual venues need a manipulation-resistant price feed to accept it as collateral. Without one, the stablecoin remains a simple coin rather than a productive asset.

What type of price feed is RedStone running for JupUSD?
A push-model market feed for JupUSD on Solana that aggregates the spot price from exchanges and pushes updates onchain on deviation 0.2% or 24h heartbeat triggers.

Learn more about RedStone here.

Key Takeaways Biogen's newer drugs are growing but remain insufficient to offset declining MS franchise sales.Leqembi's subcutaneous autoinjector and blood-based diagnostics may support growth from 2027 onward.Biogen's growth products generated $851 million in Q1 sales, up 12% year over year. Biogen (BIIB - Free Report) is in the midst of a major portfolio transition. The company is seeing declining sales of its key multiple sclerosis (“MS”) drugs like Tecfidera and Tysabri and spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) treatment, Spinraza, due to generic erosion, increasing competition from newer therapies and pricing headwinds.

To combat the pressure on key drugs, Biogen has been aggressively building a new growth engine around recently launched products, Eisai-partnered Leqembi for Alzheimer’s disease, Skyclarys for Friedreich’s ataxia, Qalsody for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Supernus Pharmaceuticals (SUPN - Free Report) -partnered Zurzuvae for depression.

The key question for investors is whether these products can eventually compensate for the erosion of blockbuster drugs like Tecfidera, Tysabri and Spinraza. Let us discuss.

Key Multiple Sclerosis Drugs, Spinraza Face Increased CompetitionBiogen’s MS sales are declining due to generic competition for Tecfidera globally, biosimilar competition for Tysabri in Europe and rising competitive pressure in the MS market.

In 2026, Biogen expects revenues for MS products, excluding Vumerity, to decline by a mid-teen percentage versus 2025 due to increased competitive pressure on the ex-U.S. MS business, particularly accelerating generic competition for Tecfidera in Europe.

Spinraza’s sales are also declining due to lower demand amid increasing competitive pressure from newer SMA treatments, including gene therapies and oral medicines that offer greater convenience. Spinraza faces competition from Novartis’ (NVS - Free Report) gene therapy, Zolgensma, and Roche and PTC Therapeutics’ (PTCT - Free Report) Evrysdi (risdiplam), which comes as either a liquid solution or an oral tablet.

BIIB’s New Drug Contributing to Top-Line GrowthAmid declining demand for MS drugs and Spinraza, Biogen believes its new products, Leqembi, Skyclarys and Zurzuvae have the potential to return the company to revenue growth.

The largest opportunity in Biogen's new portfolio is arguably Leqembi. Leqembi/lecanemab gained approval for early Alzheimer’s disease in the United States in 2023. Though the Leqembi launch was slow, it picked up in 2024 and 2025. Leqembi has also been launched in Japan, China, the EU and some other countries. Leqembi commands over 60% of the anti-amyloid therapy market share in the United States.

A less frequent maintenance intravenous dosing version of Leqembi was approved by the FDA in January 2025. A subcutaneous autoinjector for maintenance dosing called Leqembi Iqlik was launched in October 2025, while a supplemental filing seeking approval of the Leqembi Iqlik subcutaneous autoinjector for initiation dosing has been granted priority review by the FDA, with a decision expected in August. Biogen and Eisai believe that the introduction of blood-based diagnostics (which can help earlier detection of Alzheimer’s) and the subcutaneous autoinjector for maintenance and initiation should drive Leqembi’s growth from 2027 onward.

Other new products, Qalsody, Biogen/Supernus’ Zurzuvae and Skyclarys (added from the 2023 acquisition of Reata Pharmaceuticals) are also seeing strong demand trends in the United States.

Skyclarys is seeing strong demand trends in the United States as well as the EU. Biogen expects Skyclarys’ future growth to come from ex U.S. markets as the launches advance. Zurzuvae’s launch also exceeded the company’s internal expectations, with sales more than doubling in 2025. Skyclarys and Zurzuvae’s sales are expected to continue to rise in 2026.

Biogen’s growth products (Skyclarys, Qalsody, Zurzuvae, Vumerity and Spinraza plus Alzheimer’s revenues from the Leqembi collaboration) generated sales of $851 million in the first quarter, rising 12% year over year.

In April, Biogen closed its acquisition of Apellis Pharmaceuticals, adding the commercialized medicines Empaveli and Syfovre for immune-mediated retinal disease and nephrology to its commercial portfolio. These drugs should also contribute to Biogen’s growth in future quarters.

Can BIIB’s New Drugs Offset Key Drugs’ Erosion?After declining for several years, Biogen’s revenues have somewhat stabilized since 2024 due to contributions from newer products and pipeline progress. However, its newer drugs, Leqembi, Skyclarys, Qalsody and Zurzuvae, are currently insufficient to offset the near-term top-line decline of the MS franchise. Though all these new drugs are showing signs of growth, replacing lost revenues from Tecfidera, Tysabri and Spinraza will likely take time.

BIIB’s Price Performance, Valuation and EstimatesBiogen’s stock has risen 14.8% so far this year compared with an increase of 5.4% for the industry. 

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

From a valuation standpoint, Biogen is reasonably priced. Going by the price/earnings ratio, the company’s shares currently trade at 13.44 forward earnings, which is lower than 17.72 for the industry. The stock is trading above its five-year mean of 13.17.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for earnings has declined from $15.04 per share to $13.99 per share for 2026 over the past 60 days. For 2027, the consensus mark for earnings has declined from $16.61 to $16.22 per share over the same time frame.

Image Source: Zacks Investment Research

Biogen has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

, /PRNewswire/ -- Paramount Skydance Corporation (NASDAQ: PSKY) ("Paramount") today announced the extension of the Expiration Dates in connection with the previously announced (i) offers to purchase (the "Tender Offers" and each, a "Tender Offer") for cash, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the related offer to purchase (the "Offer to Purchase"), any and all of the identified notes in each series of the Existing Tender Offer Notes (defined by reference to the table set forth below) issued by Discovery Global Holdings, Inc. (formerly WarnerMedia Holdings, Inc.) (the "DGH Issuer") and Discovery Communications, LLC (the "DCL Issuer" and together with the DGH Issuer, each a "WBD Issuer" and collectively the "WBD Issuers"), as applicable, and (ii) offers to exchange (the "Exchange Offers" and each, an "Exchange Offer" and, together with the Tender Offers, the "Offers" and each, an "Offer"), upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the related exchange offer memorandum (the "Offering Memorandum"), any and all of the identified notes in each series of the Existing Exchange Offer Notes (defined by reference to the table set forth below) (together with the Existing Tender Offer Notes, the "Offer Notes") issued by the applicable WBD Issuer for notes to be newly issued by Paramount.

The Expiration Dates for the Tender Offers and Exchange Offers (as defined in each of the Offer to Purchase and Offering Memorandum, respectively) have been extended to 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on July 15, 2026, unless further extended. The Settlement Dates for the Tender Offers and Exchange Offers (as defined in each of the Offer to Purchase and Offering Memorandum, respectively) will occur promptly after the Expiration Date and are currently anticipated to occur in the third quarter of 2026. Paramount anticipates extending the Expiration Date for such Tender Offers and Exchange Offers until such time that would result in the Settlement Dates occurring on the closing date of the proposed acquisition (the "Acquisition") by Paramount of Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. ("WBD") or within one business day thereof. Tenders of the Offer Notes in the Offers may be withdrawn at any time prior to the Expiration Date. The aforementioned extensions further extend the Expiration Dates previously extended by Paramount on June 12, 2026.

As of 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on June 25, 2026, approximately 24.38% and 44.27% of the aggregate principal amount of the Existing Tender Offer Notes and Existing Exchange Offer Notes, respectively, have been validly tendered in the applicable Offers. As Paramount previously announced that it anticipates extending the Offers to align with the closing date of the Acquisition, Paramount does not view these figures to be representative of the final results of the applicable Offers.

Information about each series of Offer Notes eligible to participate in the Offers is summarized below.

Type of Offer

Offer Notes to be Tendered
or Exchanged, as

Applicable

Issuer of Offer Notes

CUSIP No. / Common Code
/ ISIN Eligible to
Participate in the Offers (1)

Aggregate Principal
Amount of Offer Notes
Eligible to Participate in the
Offers (2)

Tender Offer

3.950% Senior Notes due 2028

DCL Issuer

25470D CP2

US25470DCP24

$1,234,458,000

Exchange Offer

4.125% Senior Notes due 2029

DCL Issuer

25470D CQ0

US25470DCQ07

$655,825,000

Exchange Offer

3.625% Senior Notes due 2030

DCL Issuer

25470D CR8

US25470DCR89

$914,183,000

Exchange Offer

5.000% Senior Notes due 2037

DCL Issuer

25470D CS6

US25470DCS62

$453,281,000

Exchange Offer

6.350% Senior Notes due 2040

DCL Issuer

25470D CT4

US25470DCT46

$438,102,000

Exchange Offer

4.950% Senior Notes due 2042

DCL Issuer

25470D CU1

US25470DCU19

$130,366,000

Exchange Offer

4.875% Senior Notes due 2043

DCL Issuer

25470D V91
CV9US25470DC

$141,584,000

Exchange Offer

5.200% Senior Notes due 2047

DCL Issuer

25470D W74
CW7US25470DC

$3,161,000

Exchange Offer

5.300% Senior Notes due 2049

DCL Issuer

25470D X57

CX5US25470DC

$247,860,000

Tender Offer

3.755% Senior Notes due 2027

DGH Issuer

254948 AH5

US254948AH58

254948 AN2

US254948AN27

U25483 AA3

USU25483AA38

$1,189,336,000

Exchange Offer

4.054% Senior Notes due 2029

DGH Issuer

254948 AJ1

US254948AJ15

254948 AP7

US254948AP74

U25483 AB1

USU25483AB11

$1,353,828,000

Exchange Offer

4.279% Senior Notes due 2032

DGH Issuer

254948 AK8

US254948AK87

254948 AQ5

US254948AQ57

$2,691,764,000

Exchange Offer

5.050% Senior Notes due 2042

DGH Issuer

254948 AL6

US254948AL60

254948 AR3

US254948AR31

U25483 AD7

USU25483AD76

$4,104,687,000

Exchange Offer

5.141% Senior Notes due 2052

DGH Issuer

254948 AM4

US254948AM44

254948 AS1

US254948AS14

$949,883,000

Exchange Offer

4.302% Senior Notes due 2030

DGH Issuer

XS3393993285

339399328

€234,382,000

Exchange Offer

4.693% Senior Notes due 2033

DGH Issuer

XS3393994507

339399450

€316,641,000

__________

(1) No representation is made as to the correctness or accuracy of the identifiers listed in this press release or printed on the Offer Notes. Such identifiers are provided solely for the convenience of the holders.

(2) Represents the aggregate principal amount of Offer Notes outstanding that are eligible to participate in the Offers.

The Exchange Offers are being made pursuant to an exemption from the registration requirements of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") promulgated thereunder, and are also not being registered under any state or foreign securities laws. Any securities offered pursuant to the Exchange Offers may not be offered or sold in the United States or to any U.S. persons (as defined below) except pursuant to an exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration requirements of the Securities Act. The Exchange Offers will only be made, and the securities offered pursuant to the Exchange Offers are only being offered and issued, to holders of applicable Existing Exchange Offer Notes who are (a) reasonably believed to be "qualified institutional buyers" as defined in Rule 144A under the Securities Act or (b) not "U.S. persons," as defined in Rule 902 of Regulation S under the Securities Act (such holders, "Eligible Holders"), and only Eligible Holders who have completed and returned the eligibility certification are authorized to receive or review the Offering Memorandum or to participate in the Exchange Offers. The eligibility certification is available electronically at: https://gbsc-usa.com/eligibility/paramount.

General

Each Offer is a separate offer, and each may be individually consummated, amended, extended, terminated, or withdrawn, subject to certain conditions and applicable law, at any time in Paramount's sole discretion, and without also consummating, amending, extending, terminating, or withdrawing any other Offer with respect to any other series of Offer Notes. Paramount may terminate an Offer if any of the conditions of such Offer described in the Offer to Purchase or Offering Memorandum, as applicable, are not satisfied or waived by the applicable Expiration Date, subject to applicable law. In addition, Paramount may waive the conditions to an Offer without extending such Offer in accordance with applicable law.

The Offers are being made solely by Paramount and are not being made by WBD or the WBD Issuers. None of Paramount, WBD, the WBD Issuers, the Dealer Managers, the Exchange Agent (as defined below), the Information Agent (as defined below), the trustees under each of the indentures governing the Offer Notes, the trustee or collateral agent under the indenture that will govern the notes to be issued in the Exchange Offers, or any affiliate of any of them makes any recommendation as to whether any holder of Offer Notes should tender or refrain from tendering all or any portion of the principal amount of such holder's Offer Notes for cash or notes to be issued in the Exchange Offers. No one has been authorized by any of them to make such a recommendation. Holders must make their own decision whether to tender Offer Notes in any Offer and, if so, the amount of Offer Notes to tender.

Only Eligible Holders may receive a copy of the Offering Memorandum and participate in the Exchange Offers. Paramount has engaged Global Bondholder Services Corporation to act as the exchange agent (in such capacity, the "Exchange Agent") and information agent (in such capacity, the "Information Agent") for the Offers. Questions concerning the Offers, or requests for additional copies of the Offer to Purchase or Offering Memorandum or other related documents, may be directed to Corporate Actions by telephone at (855) 654-2014 (U.S. toll-free) or (212) 430-3774 (banks and brokers) or by email at [email protected]. Holders should also consult their broker, dealer, commercial bank, trust company or other institution for assistance concerning the Offers. The Exchange Offer documents and the Tender Offer documents can be accessed at the following link: https://gbsc-usa.com/paramount.

Paramount has engaged BofA Securities and Citigroup as dealer managers (in such capacity, the "Dealer Managers") for the Offers. Holders with questions regarding the Offers should contact BofA Securities, Inc. at +1 (888) 292-0070 (toll-free) or +1 (980) 388-3646 (collect) or [email protected] or Citigroup Global Markets Inc. at +1 (800) 558-3745 (toll-free) or +1 (212) 723-6106 or [email protected]. Latham & Watkins LLP is serving as legal counsel to Paramount and Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP is serving as legal counsel to the Dealer Managers.

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any security, and does not constitute an offer, solicitation, or sale of any security in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation, or sale would be unlawful.

About Paramount, a Skydance Corporation

Paramount, a Skydance Corporation is a next-generation global media and entertainment company, comprised of three business segments: Studios, Direct-to-Consumer, and TV Media. PSKY's portfolio unites legendary brands, including Paramount Pictures, Paramount Television, CBS, CBS News, CBS Sports, Nickelodeon, MTV, BET, Comedy Central, Showtime, Paramount+, Pluto TV, and Skydance Animation, Film, Television, Interactive/Games, and Paramount Sports Entertainment.

PSKY-IR

Cautionary Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

This communication contains "forward-looking statements" regarding the Acquisition and the other transactions referred to herein. The reader is cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations of future events. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results could vary materially from the expectations and projections of Paramount. Risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: the risk that the closing conditions for the Acquisition will not be satisfied, including the risk that clearances under applicable antitrust or regulatory laws will not be obtained or will be obtained subject to conditions that are not anticipated; the possibility that the transactions described herein will not be completed in the expected timeframe or at all; the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstances that could give rise to the termination of the Acquisition; potential adverse effects to the businesses of Paramount or WBD during the pendency of the Acquisition, such as employee departures or distraction of management from business operations; negative effects of the announcement or the consummation of the Acquisition on the market price of WBD or Paramount stock; the risk of stockholder litigation relating to the Acquisition, including resulting expense or delay; the potential that the expected benefits and opportunities of the Acquisition, if completed, may not be realized or may take longer to realize than expected; risks related to the streaming business of the post-Acquisition combined business (the "Combined Company"); the adverse impact on the Combined Company's advertising revenues as a result of changes in consumer behavior, advertising market conditions, and deficiencies in audience measurement; risks related to operating in highly competitive and dynamic industries; the unpredictable nature of consumer behavior, as well as evolving technologies and distribution models; risks related to the Combined Company's decision to invest in new businesses, products, services, and technologies, and the evolution of the Combined Company's business strategy; the potential for loss of carriage or other reduction in, or the impact of negotiations for, the distribution of the Combined Company's content; damage to the Combined Company's reputation or brands; losses due to asset impairment charges for goodwill, content and long-lived assets, including finite-lived intangible assets; liabilities related to discontinued operations and former businesses; increasing scrutiny of, and evolving expectations for, sustainability initiatives; evolving business continuity, cybersecurity, privacy and data protection and similar risks; challenges in protecting and maintaining the Combined Company's intellectual property rights; domestic and global political, economic and regulatory factors affecting the Combined Company's business generally or the Acquisition; the inability to hire or retain key employees or secure creative talent; disruptions to the Combined Company's operations as a result of labor disputes; risks and costs associated with the integration of, and Paramount's ability to integrate, the businesses of Paramount Global, Skydance Media, LLC, and WBD successfully and to achieve anticipated synergies, including in the amounts or on the timelines anticipated to realize such synergies; litigation related to the Acquisition and other matters or transactions; risks associated with the Combined Company's holding company structure, including its dependence on distributions from its subsidiaries to meet tax obligations and other cash requirements; risks related to our indebtedness, including our substantial outstanding debt obligations, our ability to incur substantially more debt and our ability to meet the financial and other covenants contained in the agreements governing the indebtedness of Paramount, WBD, or the Combined Company. A further list and description of these risks, uncertainties and other factors and the general risks associated with the respective businesses of Paramount and WBD can be found in Paramount's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the SEC on February 25, 2026, including in the sections captioned "Cautionary Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements" and "Item 1A. Risk Factors," Paramount's most recently filed Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2026, filed with the SEC on May 4, 2026, including in the sections captioned "Cautionary Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements" and "Item 1A. Risk Factors," and Paramount's subsequent filings with the SEC, and in WBD's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, filed with the SEC on February 27, 2026, including in the section captioned "Item 1A. Risk Factors," WBD's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2026, filed with the SEC on May 6, 2026, and WBD's subsequent filings with the SEC. Neither Paramount nor WBD undertakes to update any forward-looking statement as a result of new information or future events or developments, except as required by law.

SOURCE Paramount Skydance Corporation

Singapore’s top financial watchdog just put Hyperliquid on notice. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) added the high-speed trading platform to its Investor Alert List on June 26, flagging it as neither licensed nor authorized to operate in the city-state.

The move doesn’t ban Hyperliquid outright. But it does tell Singaporean users something important: if things go sideways on the platform, MAS protections won’t be there to catch you.

What the Investor Alert List actually means MAS launched the list back in 2004 as a public warning tool. Its purpose is straightforward: inform residents when a financial service provider hasn’t obtained the proper licenses to operate within Singapore’s jurisdiction.

Advertisement

Being on the list doesn’t mean Hyperliquid is fraudulent. It means the platform hasn’t gone through Singapore’s regulatory gatekeeping process, which covers things like capital requirements, anti-money laundering compliance, and consumer safeguards.

Singapore’s MAS has also placed Bybit Fintech Ltd. on its Investor Alert List as part of its efforts to strengthen oversight of crypto platforms operating without local authorization.

In response, Bybit said it is seeking clarification from MAS and noted that it has long implemented measures, including contractual restrictions and IP blocking, to prevent Singapore users from accessing its platform.

Hyperliquid says it never claimed to be licensed by MAS In a statement, Hyperliquid said that as permissionless infrastructure, it is not, and has never claimed to be, licensed or authorized by MAS.

Hyperliquid has been added to the MAS's Investor Alert List (IAL). IAL listing does not constitute a ban, an enforcement action, or a finding of wrongdoing. The IAL provides a list of entities that, based on information available to MAS, may be wrongly perceived as being licensed…

— Hyperliquid (@HyperliquidX) June 26, 2026

The team added that nothing about the network or its operation has changed. Users always maintain self-custody, and all transactions are settled transparently and fully onchain.

Hyperliquid said the ecosystem will continue to engage constructively with regulators and institutions around the world in support of clear, effective frameworks that enable the continued development of onchain finance.

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

ToplineBillionaire Michael Saylor on Friday defended his Strategy’s approach to bitcoin even as shares of the cryptocurrency’s largest institutional holder fell to multi-year lows, and as analysts warned against the company buying more amid a broader decline in the crypto market.

Shares of bitcoin’s largest institutional holder have plummeted 80% from their all-time high.

Getty Images

Key FactsSaylor, in a post on X, wrote that “volatility tests capital structure” and reaffirmed that Strategy “remains focused on bitcoin, disciplined capital allocation, credit quality and long-term value creation.”

Shares of Strategy plunged by more than 9% on Thursday to their lowest level since February 2024, and shares are down more than 8% from their record intraday high ($543) in November 2024, while its preferred stock has dropped nearly 25% since Jan. 13 to a new record low.

The price of bitcoin briefly stumbled to a 21-month low on Thursday, hitting an intraday low of $58,131, and the world’s leading cryptocurrency has shed more than half of its value since peaking above $126,000 in October 2025.

Crypto analytics firm CryptoQuant wrote in a report Thursday that Strategy should halt its bitcoin purchases and instead rebuild its cash reserves, arguing the company’s strategy of buying during bitcoin price dips has resulted in “rapid unrealized loss growth.”

JPMorgan analysts issued a similar warning in a note earlier this month, concluding Strategy’s dollar reserves should be rebuilt to “restore confidence and reduce investor concerns that the company would sell more bitcoins to cover dividend payments.”

forbes valuationSaylor founded Strategy, then known as MicroStrategy, in 1989, and his net worth has swelled to $3 billion as of market close on Thursday. He emerged as a top executive during the dot-com bubble, after which Saylor’s fortune plummeted, but Strategy’s bitcoin investments made him a billionaire once again, as Saylor has directed the firm to shift its corporate coffers into bitcoin.

big number845,256. That’s Strategy’s total bitcoin holdings, which the company priced at an aggregated market value of $63.9 billion, or roughly $75,680 per token, according to a regulatory disclosure earlier this month. Strategy most recently purchased 1,550 bitcoin for $101.3 million on June 8 at an average price of $65,332 per coin.

key backgroundStrategy’s cash reserves totaled $1.4 billion as of Friday, representing just a fraction of its bitcoin holdings. The company’s bitcoin transactions have shifted broader views of the crypto market, including its first bitcoin sale in years late last month, sparking a selloff that erased the cryptocurrency’s record-setting surge. Billionaire hedge fund executive Philippe Laffont said earlier this week he was a “little bit more worried” about bitcoin, arguing there were more attractive investment opportunities, like SpaceX, that he would “rather bet” on. Bitcoin’s latest slide also comes as $10 billion in options is set to expire Friday on Deribit, the world’s largest crypto options venue.

further readingForbesBillionaire Saylor’s Strategy Buys Bitcoin Worth $101 Million—After Earlier Sale Sparked Sell-OffBy Ty Roush

Michael Saylor broke his public silence on June 26 with a post on X reaffirming Strategy’s commitment to Bitcoin, as the company faces a securities investigation and widening pressure across its capital structure.

Rosen Law Firm launched the probe, examining whether Strategy executives made materially misleading statements across five linked securities. The company has issued no formal response.

Saylor Doubles Down on Bitcoin FocusOn X, Saylor offered no direct comment on the probe. Instead, he framed volatility as a structural test. He signaled continued commitment to credit quality and long-term value creation.

Volatility tests every capital structure. Strategy remains focused on Bitcoin, disciplined capital allocation, credit quality, and long-term value creation. We appreciate our investors and will continue to execute with transparency and resolve. $MSTR

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) June 26, 2026 Michael Saylor. Source: XThe statement is notable for what it omits. It makes no mention of the class action interest gathering around the firm or the sharp declines across Strategy’s preferred securities. Saylor focuses on capital discipline, a message directed at both equity holders and creditors.

Strategy holds 847,363 Bitcoin (BTC), more than 4% of all Bitcoin that will ever exist. Its average acquisition cost sits near $75,500 per coin, well above current prices. That gap compressed the MSTR premium investors once paid for leveraged Bitcoin exposure. It also sharpened scrutiny on how the company continues to fund new purchases.

Strategy built much of that position through multiple classes of publicly traded preferred stock. Those instruments now sit under pressure as Bitcoin prices weaken and investor confidence in the dividend model erodes.

Market Pressure Tests That ConvictionThe day before Saylor posted, critic Peter Schiff escalated his criticism of Strategy’s declining market performance.

He argued MSTR has fallen 84% from its all-time high. Schiff also noted that STRC dropped 25% from par, now carrying an implied yield of 15.3%. Saylor’s post served as an indirect rebuttal to those attacks without addressing them directly.

Questions about STRC’s long-term sustainability have grown sharper. The preferred stock’s dividend structure costs an estimated $1.2 billion annually. Strategy disclosed a $1.4 billion cash reserve on June 22, barely a year of cover at current rates.

Whether Saylor’s reaffirmation steadies investor confidence or the probe escalates into a formal complaint may define Strategy’s near-term trajectory.

A conditional national trust bank charter, a pending Federal Reserve master account, and a string of acquisitions in brokerage, payments, and treasury. Ripple is assembling a full regulated-finance stack. The benefits flow first to its stablecoin and the company itself. What is left for XRP is the question.

Summary

Ripple has assembled a full regulated-finance stack: a conditional national trust bank charter, a pending Federal Reserve master account bid, and acquisitions in prime brokerage, payments, and treasury services. The charter and master account primarily benefit RLUSD, Ripple’s stablecoin, whose reserves would sit under federal and state oversight, not XRP directly. A national trust bank cannot take ordinary deposits or carry federal deposit insurance, so the real prize is direct access to Federal Reserve payment rails and custody of its own stablecoin reserves. For XRP, the benefit is indirect: a more legitimate, bank-grade Ripple strengthens the whole ecosystem and XRP’s role as a bridge asset, but it creates no direct token-demand mechanism. This is the same pattern that defined XRP through 2026, in which Ripple’s wins flow first to the company and RLUSD, with the token benefiting slowly, if at all. Ripple is turning itself into a bank, or something very close to one, and it is doing it methodically.

Over the past year the company won conditional federal approval to operate a national trust bank, applied for a Federal Reserve master account that would give it direct access to the central bank’s payment systems, and bought its way into prime brokerage, payments, and corporate treasury services through a series of acquisitions.

Add the dollar stablecoin it already issues, the 70-plus regulatory licenses it holds around the world, and a fresh European license that lets it passport services across 30 countries, and the picture is unmistakable.

A company once known mainly for a cross-border payments network and a controversial token is assembling the full apparatus of a regulated financial institution.

For XRP holders, who have watched the token grind sideways near a dollar through a year of Ripple triumphs, the natural question is what all of this means for them.

The honest answer is more complicated, and more sobering, than the headlines suggest, because almost every piece of Ripple’s banking build benefits the company and its stablecoin first, and the token only indirectly.

This piece works through Ripple’s transformation into a regulated financial institution and what it actually delivers for XRP. It covers the banking stack Ripple is assembling, what a national trust bank can and cannot do, the real prize of a Federal Reserve master account, why the charter is mostly a stablecoin story, what genuinely accrues to XRP, the bull case within the bank build, and what holders should watch.

The goal is to separate the real significance of Ripple becoming a bank, which is considerable for the company, from the wishful assumption that everything good for Ripple is automatically good for the token, which 2026 has repeatedly shown to be false.

A payments company is turning into a financial institution Take the full measure of what Ripple has built, because the strategy only becomes clear when you see the pieces together.

The foundation is a conditional charter to operate a national trust bank, granted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the federal regulator that supervises national banks. The OCC conditionally approved Ripple National Trust Bank alongside other crypto firms in a broader wave of national trust bank approvals.

That federal approval matters because it moves Ripple deeper into the regulated banking perimeter without turning it into an ordinary retail bank.

A subsequent rule expanded what such trust banks are allowed to do, turning what would have been a narrow custody license into something with real operational scope, including digital-asset custody, stablecoin reserve management, and certain payment services.

On top of the charter, a Ripple subsidiary applied for a Federal Reserve master account, the account that would connect Ripple directly to the central bank’s payment rails.

And around that regulatory core, Ripple has been buying capabilities: a prime brokerage, a payments business, and a corporate treasury-services firm, each acquisition adding a piece of the institutional-finance stack.

Layer in the rest and the ambition is obvious. Ripple issues a dollar-pegged stablecoin that has grown past $1 billion in market value.

It holds dozens of regulatory licenses across jurisdictions, and it recently secured preliminary European authorization that lets it offer regulated services across the entire European Economic Area.

That is where Ripple’s European license fits into the larger build. The company is not only chasing U.S. banking access; it is trying to make its regulated-finance stack portable across major markets.

Taken individually, any one of these is a notable corporate step. Taken together, they describe a single, coherent strategy: to become the institutional infrastructure layer for crypto-native finance.

Ripple wants to be a regulated entity that banks and corporations can trust to custody assets, manage stablecoin reserves, settle payments, and connect to both the traditional financial system and the blockchain world.

Ripple is not dabbling in banking. It is building a bank-grade financial institution deliberately, piece by piece.

The question for a token holder is where, in all of this carefully assembled machinery, XRP actually fits.

What a national trust bank is, and what it is not Before assessing what the charter means for XRP, it is worth being precise about what a national trust bank actually is, because the word “bank” carries connotations the charter does not deliver.

A national trust bank is not a retail bank. It cannot take ordinary deposits, cannot offer checking or savings accounts, and does not carry federal deposit insurance, the protection that backs ordinary bank deposits.

What it can do is custody assets, provide fiduciary and trust services, manage reserves, and, under the expanded rule, handle digital-asset custody and certain payment-related functions.

Headlines that say “Ripple becomes a bank” are gesturing at something real, but they compress away an important distinction.

That distinction matters for understanding the charter’s purpose. Ripple’s trust bank exists primarily to serve Ripple’s stablecoin business.

Its core planned function is to custody and manage the reserve assets that back the stablecoin, which today are held through a separate trust entity, and to provide custody to institutional clients.

By bringing reserve management in-house under a federal charter, Ripple gains tighter control, removes reliance on third-party custodians, and obtains a regulatory standing that few stablecoin issuers can match: oversight at both the federal level, through the national chartering regulator, and the state level, through New York’s financial regulator.

That dual supervision is a genuine selling point to institutions weighing whether to trust Ripple’s rails.

This is also why the fight over trust charters matters. Senator Elizabeth Warren and banking groups have challenged the idea that crypto firms with OCC trust charters should be treated like bank-grade institutions, arguing that they could act like crypto banks without the same restrictions.

NEW: Sen. Elizabeth Warren joins banks to challenge Ripple and other crypto firms with OCC trust charters. Claims they act as crypto banks avoiding regulatory obligations pic.twitter.com/ojuHDUd73U

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) May 28, 2026 The crypto industry has pushed back. The Digital Chamber called on the OCC to uphold crypto trust bank charters for firms including Coinbase, Ripple, Circle, and BitGo, arguing that the charters are part of bringing digital assets into regulated finance rather than keeping them outside it.

NEW: Digital Chamber calls on OCC to uphold crypto trust bank charters for Coinbase, Ripple, Circle and BitGo against Sen. Warren’s claim of banking law violations pic.twitter.com/qBLrmTOD14

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) May 27, 2026 But notice what the trust bank does not do. It does not custody XRP for the benefit of XRP holders, does not create any obligation to buy or hold the token, and does not make XRP a bank deposit or a regulated bank instrument.

It is, at its heart, infrastructure for the stablecoin, which is the recurring theme of Ripple’s entire banking build.

The real prize: a Federal Reserve master account The most consequential piece of Ripple’s banking strategy is the one furthest from being secured: a Federal Reserve master account.

A master account is the account a financial institution holds directly with the central bank, and it is the gateway to the core of the financial system.

It allows direct settlement through the central bank’s payment networks, the same rails the largest banks use, and direct access to base money rather than balances held at a commercial bank.

For a stablecoin issuer, the prize is enormous. With a master account, Ripple could hold the reserves backing its stablecoin directly at the central bank, the safest possible place, eliminating the counterparty risk of relying on private banks and giving institutions far greater confidence in the stablecoin’s solvency and redemption safety.

That is why custody and reserve safety matters so much in this story. Stablecoins are only as trusted as the assets backing them, the institutions holding those assets, and the transparency around redemption.

The catch is that no crypto-native firm has ever received full access of this kind on ordinary terms, and the bar is extraordinarily high.

The central bank has historically been reluctant to extend master accounts to non-traditional institutions. Uninsured trust banks face the most stringent levels of review, and previous attempts by crypto-adjacent firms to win access have often failed or taken years.

Ripple’s subsidiary has applied, and the application remains pending, with no public timeline and no clear signal of when or whether the central bank will act.

Approval would be genuinely transformative. It would mark a deeper integration between a crypto-native company and the core U.S. financial system, and it would dramatically strengthen the institutional credibility of RLUSD.

Ripple, Circle receive conditional national bank charter approvals from OCC

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) December 12, 2025 But it is far from assured. Even in the optimistic case, the direct beneficiary is again the stablecoin and the company’s settlement capabilities, not the token.

A master account would let Ripple hold stablecoin reserves at the central bank and settle through its rails. It would not, by itself, create demand for XRP.

The prize is real, and the prize is mostly about everything except the token.

Why this is mostly a stablecoin story Step back and a clear pattern emerges from every piece of Ripple’s banking build: it is, overwhelmingly, a stablecoin story.

The trust charter exists primarily to custody and manage stablecoin reserves. The master account, if granted, would primarily benefit the stablecoin by letting its reserves sit at the central bank.

The European license primarily expands where Ripple can offer regulated payment and stablecoin services. The acquisitions in brokerage, payments, and treasury primarily build out an institutional settlement and services business in which the stablecoin is the natural cash leg.

Ripple’s dollar stablecoin has grown past $1 billion, expanded across multiple blockchains, and won approvals in multiple jurisdictions. The banking apparatus is being constructed largely to support and legitimize it.

That is why the RLUSD the bank serves is the center of the story. A stablecoin is useful to institutions precisely because it is designed to hold a steady dollar value while moving across crypto rails.

Ripple’s own reserve-transparency page also shows why this matters. The company is trying to make RLUSD look less like an experimental crypto product and more like a regulated dollar instrument with transparent backing, regular attestations, and bank-grade custody.

This is the same dynamic that defined XRP through 2026, when Ripple’s marquee bank deals and settlement milestones ran through its stablecoin and ledger while the token captured little beyond a negligible network fee.

As previously reported, this is why Ripple wins bypass the token. Ripple can deepen its institutional footprint while XRP still waits for direct, measurable token demand.

The banking build is that dynamic taken to its logical conclusion. Ripple is constructing a regulated financial institution whose central purpose is to make its stablecoin the most trusted, most institutionally credible dollar token in the market, and to build a settlement and custody business around it.

XRP is part of the broader ecosystem, but it is not the thing the bank is for.

A holder hoping that the charter, the master account bid, and the acquisitions would translate into direct demand for the token is, once again, watching the wrong variable.

The value of all this machinery flows first to Ripple the company and to the stablecoin it is built to serve, exactly as Ripple’s own communications have acknowledged in noting that the banking progress is unlikely to move the token’s price directly or immediately.

So what do XRP holders actually get? If the bank build is mostly about the stablecoin, the fair question is whether XRP holders get anything at all.

The honest answer is yes, but indirectly and slowly. The benefit to XRP runs through legitimacy and ecosystem strength rather than any direct mechanism.

As Ripple becomes a regulated, bank-grade financial institution, the entire ecosystem it anchors gains credibility in the eyes of the banks and corporations Ripple wants as customers.

A more trusted Ripple makes every part of its stack, including the ledger on which XRP lives and the role XRP can play, more palatable to institutional users.

The argument, which Ripple and many holders make, is that demand for one asset in an ecosystem can lift others in the same stack, and that a Ripple wired into the core of the financial system is a Ripple better positioned to drive real-world use of XRP as a bridge asset over time.

This indirect benefit is not nothing, and it would be a mistake to dismiss it. XRP’s most plausible long-term role is as a bridge asset that moves value between currencies in settlement.

A Ripple with a federal charter, a master account, and a credible institutional settlement business is a Ripple with more opportunities to route that kind of settlement in ways that touch the token.

But the benefit is conditional, gradual, and unguaranteed, three qualities that make it very different from the direct, immediate boost holders often hope for.

XRP does not become a bank deposit, a stablecoin, or a regulated instrument through any of this. It remains a separate, volatile asset whose demand depends on whether Ripple’s growing institutional infrastructure eventually channels real settlement volume through it.

The competing path is obvious: the same settlement volume could instead keep flowing through RLUSD, which is better suited to settlement precisely because it does not move in price.

The banking build improves the odds that Ripple can win regulated institutional business someday. It does not make that business flow through XRP now, and it does not create token demand on its own.

The bull case within the bank build In fairness to the optimistic view, there is a coherent bull case for XRP buried inside Ripple’s banking transformation, and it deserves a clear statement.

The strongest version goes like this: Ripple is methodically removing every reason an institution might hesitate to build on its rails.

The charter answers the custody and reserve-management question. The master account, if granted, answers the reserve-safety question at the highest possible level.

The acquisitions answer the brokerage, payments, and treasury questions. The licenses answer the regulatory question across jurisdictions.

As those barriers fall one by one, Ripple becomes a place where serious institutions can conduct serious volume. In a world where Ripple is running large-scale regulated settlement, the case for using XRP as the neutral bridge asset between currencies strengthens, because the infrastructure to do it at scale finally exists and is trusted.

Pair that with the token’s other tailwinds, including the regulatory clarity from its resolved legal status, the spot exchange-traded funds gathering assets, and the prospect of federal legislation codifying its commodity classification, and the bull case becomes clearer.

That is where the legislation that could codify XRP fits in. If the CLARITY Act turns XRP’s commodity treatment into durable federal law, it could make institutions more comfortable using the token where it has a genuine settlement role.

In that version of the future, XRP sits inside a maturing, increasingly bank-grade ecosystem at exactly the moment that ecosystem becomes capable of institutional-scale activity.

If even a fraction of the settlement flowing through a fully built-out Ripple touches XRP as a bridge, the demand could be meaningful, and it would arrive on top of a token that has already cleared its regulatory hurdles.

This is a real argument, and it is why the banking build is truly good news for the long-term XRP thesis even though it is not a direct catalyst.

The caveat, as always, is the word “if.” The bull case depends on Ripple choosing and managing to route settlement through the token rather than through the stablecoin, and the entire pattern of 2026 suggests the stablecoin keeps winning that role.

The infrastructure being built is real. Whether XRP is wired into it is the open question.

What XRP holders should watch For a holder trying to judge whether Ripple’s banking transformation will ever translate into token demand, the analysis points to a few specific signals worth tracking, none of which is another charter or acquisition headline.

The first is the Federal Reserve master account decision.

If granted, it would be a landmark for Ripple and the stablecoin, and it would mark the company’s deepest integration into the financial system. Over time, that expands the surface area where XRP could be used.

If denied, a key piece of the institutional thesis stalls.

Either way, it is the most consequential pending item, and its outcome shapes everything downstream.

The second and more important signal is whether XRP actually appears in the settlement flows of Ripple’s bank-grade business, as opposed to the stablecoin doing all the work.

This is the variable that decides the entire question. If Ripple’s institutional settlement increasingly routes through XRP as a bridge asset, generating real, recurring token demand, then the banking build will finally have reached the token.

If, as has been the pattern, the stablecoin carries the settlement while XRP captures only a fee, then the bank is a Ripple and stablecoin story with XRP riding the halo of legitimacy but not the flows.

The third signal is the broader regulatory picture, particularly whether federal legislation codifies XRP’s status, which would compound the legitimacy the banking build provides.

The honest synthesis is that Ripple becoming a bank is a major, genuine achievement that strengthens the company, the stablecoin, and the long-term credibility of the whole ecosystem.

For XRP specifically, it improves the odds without delivering the goods.

The token’s payoff depends on a future choice, to run regulated settlement through XRP, that Ripple has not yet shown it will make.

Until it does, the bank is being built for everything except the token, and the token, as it has all year, waits.

Frequently asked questions Is Ripple actually becoming a bank? Sort of, but with important caveats. Ripple won conditional federal approval to operate a national trust bank and applied for a Federal Reserve master account, and it has acquired prime brokerage, payments, and treasury businesses. But a national trust bank is not a retail bank: it cannot take ordinary deposits, offer checking or savings accounts, or carry federal deposit insurance. It is a specialized institution for custody, fiduciary services, and reserve management. So Ripple is building a bank-grade regulated financial institution, but one focused on custody and stablecoin reserves instead of traditional deposit-taking banking.

What is the Federal Reserve master account and why does it matter? A master account is an account held directly with the central bank, giving direct access to its payment rails and to base money, the same access the largest banks have. For Ripple, it would let the company hold its stablecoin’s reserves directly at the central bank, the safest possible location, eliminating reliance on private banks and boosting institutional confidence in the stablecoin. No crypto-native firm has ever been granted full access of this kind on ordinary terms, the review is stringent, and Ripple’s application is pending with no timeline. Approval would be transformative for the company and stablecoin, though not a direct catalyst for XRP.

Does Ripple’s banking push help XRP? Indirectly and gradually, not directly. The charter and master account primarily benefit Ripple’s stablecoin, whose reserves they would custody and secure. XRP does not become a deposit, a stablecoin, or a regulated instrument. The benefit to XRP runs through legitimacy: a bank-grade Ripple strengthens the whole ecosystem and improves the odds that XRP is eventually used as a bridge asset in regulated settlement. But that is conditional and slow, not the direct demand boost holders often hope for, and Ripple itself has acknowledged the banking progress is unlikely to move the token’s price immediately.

Why does the stablecoin benefit more than XRP? Because the entire banking build is designed around the stablecoin. The trust charter exists mainly to custody and manage stablecoin reserves. The master account, if granted, would let those reserves sit at the central bank. The acquisitions build a settlement business in which the stablecoin is the natural cash leg. A stablecoin is suited to settlement precisely because it holds a steady value, while XRP’s volatility makes it less suitable for that role. So Ripple’s regulated infrastructure naturally channels value to the stablecoin, with XRP benefiting only as part of the broader, more credible ecosystem.

What is the bull case for XRP in all this? The bull case is that Ripple is methodically removing every reason an institution might hesitate to use its rails, through the charter, the master account bid, the acquisitions, and the licenses. As those barriers fall, Ripple becomes capable of large-scale regulated settlement, and the case for using XRP as a neutral bridge asset between currencies strengthens because the trusted infrastructure to do it finally exists. Combined with XRP’s regulatory clarity, its ETFs, and possible federal legislation, the bull case is that XRP sits inside a maturing, bank-grade ecosystem just as that ecosystem becomes capable of institutional-scale activity. The caveat is whether settlement actually routes through XRP instead of the stablecoin.

What should XRP holders watch next? Three things. First, the Federal Reserve master account decision, which would mark Ripple’s deepest integration into the financial system and expand where XRP could be used, or stall a key part of the thesis if denied. Second, and most important, whether XRP actually appears in the settlement flows of Ripple’s institutional business, generating real token demand, as opposed to the stablecoin doing all the work. Third, the broader regulatory picture, especially whether federal legislation codifies XRP’s commodity status. The token’s payoff depends on Ripple choosing to route regulated settlement through XRP, a choice it has not yet shown it will make.

This article is information, not investment advice. Cryptocurrency is volatile, and regulatory approvals, corporate plans, and figures reflect reporting available as of June 26, 2026, which can change quickly. Verify current data from primary sources before making any decision.

Cover image via depositphotos.com Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

Transaction activity on the XRP Ledger has increased dramatically, with payment volume close to 1 billion XRP in a single day.

XRP's payments volume surgeRecent network data shows that on June 25, payment volume increased to about 926 million XRP, one of the biggest spikes seen in recent weeks. Such a sharp rise seems extremely bullish at first glance. High transaction volumes are frequently seen as a sign of increasing institutional involvement, expanding network utility, or rising demand for the underlying asset.

XRP/USDT Chart by TradingViewThe overall picture, however, indicates that investors should exercise caution when analyzing the data. One crucial detail is the fact that payment volume increased without a corresponding increase in active users. The number of active addresses stayed comparatively constant throughout the month, varying between 100,000 and 150,000, despite transaction volume surging toward 1 billion XRP. This divergence suggests that rather than broad network adoption, the spike might have been caused by a comparatively small number of significant transactions.

HOT Stories

The XRP Ledger frequently exhibits this kind of behavior. Hundreds of millions of XRP can be moved between wallets by large organizations, exchanges, payment processors, and institutional players, momentarily inflating transaction metrics without necessarily indicating a significant change in retail demand.

In the meantime, XRP's market performance continues to be challenged. The asset recently broke below a multi-month support zone that had held since March and is still trading within a wider downtrend. According to technical indicators, XRP is trading below all significant moving averages, and the price structure continues to form lower highs and lower lows.

XRP's market performance There is a substantial gap between price action and network activity. In the past, persistent bull markets have typically been accompanied by concurrent increases in market demand, active addresses, and transaction volume. In this instance, only one of those metrics has demonstrated significant acceleration.

You Might Also Like

Strong network utilization frequently provides a stronger long-term foundation, as opposed to speculative trading alone. The market may start to see the recent spike as proof of real adoption growth, rather than isolated whale activity, if active users begin to track transaction volume higher in the upcoming weeks.

For the time being, the billion-XRP payment spike shows how active the XRP Ledger is, but before interpreting it as a clear bullish signal, traders will probably need confirmation from user growth and price performance.

Former Ethereum Foundation member Trent Van Epps warned on Thursday that Ethereum (CRYPTO: ETH) faces a critical funding gap within 3 to 9 months.

Why The Foundation Is Pulling Back On PurposeVan Epps, who spent five years at the Ethereum Foundation before recently stepping away, explained in an interview with Coindesk that the organization is deliberately pushing legitimacy and funding power out into the broader ecosystem rather than holding onto it. 

The Foundation’s treasury, built from the network’s earliest days, has funded critical shared resources like client development and the move from proof of work to proof of stake, but that treasury is shrinking by design.

Core development funding needs sit at roughly $30 million per year, a small figure against Ethereum’s $200 billion market cap and the trillions in stablecoin settlement the network handles. 

The problem isn’t a lack of need. It’s that as the Foundation steps back, no clear institution has stepped up to fill the gap, even as the Foundation recently cut its workforce by 20% and saw executives depart.

Protocol Guild Raised $40 Million In Four Years, But It Isn’t EnoughVan Epps built Protocol Guild, a collective funding mechanism for Ethereum’s core developers, distributing nearly $40 million over four years. 

“We’ve had some good success,” he said, “but ultimately it’s not sufficient.”

He pointed to the free-rider problem as the core obstacle to fixing it. 

“If somebody donates, but their competitor doesn’t, all of a sudden they have a distinct advantage over somebody who’s parted with some of their resources to fund the shared resource,” he said, calling coordination among large stakeholders genuinely hard even when most understand what’s at stake.

Beyond the funding question, Van Epps argued ETH as an asset needs fresh, confident storytelling that connects the token directly to the EVM’s dominance, the engine underpinning roughly 90% of total value locked across crypto including layer-2 networks.

ETH’s Chart Shows Oversold Conditions After A Sharp Trendline BreakETH broke a rising trendline that had held since February, triggering a fast move down through $1,900, then $1,800, into the $1,557 level. 

The death cross from November 2025 remains intact across all major moving averages.

RSI sits at 28.98, an oversold reading that often precedes bounce attempts even within a larger downtrend. 

The 20-day EMA at $1,707.57 and 50-day EMA at $1,864.11 sit overhead as the first levels traders will watch for any recovery to either fail or gain real traction.

Image: 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.

Tether stablecoin USDt has become the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization as Ether fell to its lowest price of the year on Friday

Ether’s market capitalization dropped below $185 billion following a 5.2% price crash over 24 hours, sending the asset tumbling to $1,510 on Coinbase, according to TradingView. This allowed USDt, with a $186 billion market capitalization, to surpass the cryptocurrency. 

“[The] stablecoin overtake really highlights how the market still favors stability over ETH’s volatility right now,” Andri Fauzan Adziima, research lead at Bitrue Research Institute, told Cointelegraph. 

The development reflects accelerating stablecoin growth, which currently represents almost 15% of the entire crypto market capitalization. Stablecoin supply contracted more than 30% in the last bear market, but they’re hitting record highs this time, wrote 21Shares on Thursday, adding:

“To us, that is the strongest evidence yet that stablecoins are one of crypto’s defining use cases – demand that no longer depends on the cycle.”USDt flipped ETH in market capitalization. Source: CoinGecko

Alvin Kan, chief operating officer of Bitget Wallet, told Cointelegraph that the flip is a “notable milestone that highlights the explosive growth and dominance of stablecoins in today’s crypto ecosystem.”

“It demonstrates strong demand for reliable, liquid on- and off-ramps during periods of volatility, while serving as a reminder that ETH must continue delivering compelling utility and narrative momentum to maintain its position.” Kan said the development is positive for the broader market, as deeper stablecoin liquidity supports higher trading volumes and ecosystem innovation.

ETH prices are back at crucial support levels last visited in October 2023 and April 2025.

The Ethereum ecosystem has also faced internal changes recently, following several executive departures and a 20% workforce reduction at the Ethereum Foundation.

However, a new nonprofit organization called Ethlabs was launched this week by key EF developers and researchers and backed by Ether treasuries Bitmine and Sharplink. 

ETH prices are at a critical long-term support level. Source: TradingView

Not all are bearish  Some have taken Ether's decline as an opportunity.

Ether treasury company Sharplink bought the dip, making its first purchase in eight months, scooping up 5,000 ETH on Thursday. Bitmine, chaired by Tom Lee, has also been accumulating at these low prices, adding a further 76,881 ETH last week. 

Meanwhile, Circle’s USDC (USDC) also flipped Ripple’s XRP (XRP) in market capitalization as XRP fell back towards $1, its lowest level since November 2024, leaving XRP with a market capitalization of $64 billion compared with USDC's $73.6 billion.

Magazine: AI is banking the unbanked in Africa... faster than crypto

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Biogen logo is seen displayed in this illustration taken, May 3, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

CompaniesJune 26 (Reuters) - Biogen (BIIB.O), opens new tab said on Friday it had either paused or discontinued funding for most of Apellis Pharmaceuticals' research programs ​as it integrates the rare-disease drugs specialist it purchased ‌for $5.6 billion earlier this year.

The U.S. drugmaker has also cut a small number of roles within the research organization as it shifts resources ​toward Empaveli and Syfovre, the approved therapies acquired through ​the deal.

Keep up with the latest medical breakthroughs and healthcare trends with the Reuters Health Rounds newsletter. Sign up here.

"As part of the integration of Apellis, Biogen ⁠is conducting a comprehensive review of the former Apellis ​clinical & preclinical portfolio to further evaluate strategic fit," a Biogen ​spokesperson said.

The company did not offer details on the number of roles or the specific programs impacted by the decision.

Biogen has suspended two ​trials evaluating Empaveli in two separate kidney-related conditions, according to ​updates posted earlier this month on the U.S. government's clinical trials database.

The ‌Apellis ⁠deal, Biogen's largest since its 2023 buyout of Reata Pharmaceuticals, is expected to support the company's near-term growth as demand for its key multiple sclerosis franchise declines and sales of ​Alzheimer's drug ​Leqembi lag expectations.

Empaveli ⁠is approved for two rare kidney diseases and a rare blood disorder while Syfovre is ​authorized to treat geographic atrophy, an advanced ​eye condition ⁠that is a leading cause of blindness.

The two drugs generated a combined revenue of about $689 million last year and are ⁠expected to ​grow at a mid-to-high-teens rate at ​least through 2028, the companies had said when the deal was announced in ​March.

Reporting by Mariam Sunny in Bengaluru; Editing by Sriraj Kalluvila

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

First Graphene Ltd (ASX:FGR, OTCQB:FGPHF, FRA:M11) earlier this week confirmed it had completed the acquisition of USA-based MITO® Material Solutions, with managing director and CEO Michael Bell telling Proactive the transaction had moved quickly and gave the company a stronger commercial platform in the United States.

Bell said First Graphene completed the deal within “sort of five or six days” of signing the agreement, describing the rapid turnaround as a reflection of the motivation shown by both teams. He said it was “a testament to both our team and the MITO® team being pretty motivated to get the deal across the line”.

The acquisition also brings MITO® Material Solutions chief executive officer Haley Marie Keith into First Graphene Ltd (ASX:FGR, OTCQB:FGPHF) as vice president of business development. Bell said Keith would lead US business operations, business development, commercial activity and promotion from Indiana.

For investors, the appointment appears to be an important catalyst in the company’s US expansion strategy. Bell said Keith brought “a huge amount of experience” in the US market, composites and the MITO® Material Solutions portfolio. He described her appointment as “a fairly clear line in the sand” that showed First Graphene Ltd was committed to growing its US business.

Bell said the scale of the US market required a focused approach. Drawing on previous experience, he said companies could not assume one person could represent a business across the entire country, noting that the market was vast and often required a state-by-state focus.

The company is initially looking at opportunities across aerospace, transportation and defence, although Bell said those sectors were likely to move more slowly. In the near term, First Graphene Ltd also intends to build on MITO® Material Solutions’ validation work in commercial sporting goods, where the acquired business already has clients.

Revenue growth and pipeline development were also highlighted. Bell said First Graphene Ltd had recently expanded from five new clients to six, with another footwear company coming across the line in recent days. He added that the time taken to move customers from inquiry to execution or production was speeding up.

Bell said the company had a pipeline approaching 700 opportunities, ranging from early-stage discussions to projects that had been in development for up to three years. He also pointed to a nearer-term group of around 30 to 40 potential clients in areas such as marketing releases and regulatory approvals, which he said could become contributors to revenue over the next six months.

Interview highlights First Graphene Ltd has completed the acquisition of USA-based MITO® Material Solutions within about five or six days of signing the agreement. Michael Bell said the fast completion reflected strong motivation from both the First Graphene Ltd and MITO® Material Solutions teams. MITO® Material Solutions chief executive officer Haley Marie Keith has joined First Graphene Ltd as vice president of business development. Keith will support US business operations, business development, commercial activity and promotion from Indiana. Bell said Keith brings significant experience in the US market, composites and the MITO® Material Solutions portfolio. First Graphene Ltd sees the appointment as a “line in the sand” showing its commitment to expanding in the United States. The company is targeting opportunities across aerospace, transportation, defence and commercial sporting goods. Bell said MITO® Material Solutions has already validated products in commercial sporting goods, giving First Graphene Ltd a base to grow from. First Graphene Ltd has added a sixth client in recent months, including another footwear company. The company has a pipeline approaching 700 opportunities, with 30 to 40 potential clients in later-stage areas such as marketing releases and regulatory approvals.

Proactive: Welcome back to Proactive Investors. I’m your host, Kerry Stevenson. I’ve asked Michael Bell to come back. He is the managing director and CEO of First Graphene Ltd, ASX code FGR. The reason I’ve asked Michael back is that the last time I had him on, which was only a couple of weeks ago, we were talking about the acquisition of MITO® Material Solutions. That has now closed. The deal is done, but First Graphene Ltd has also made its first hire in the United States. This looks like rapid global expansion. Michael, congratulations on closing the deal. We talked about the deal last time. Talk to us about closing the deal. It was a pretty quick turnaround.

Michael Bell: Yes, we managed to get it closed within sort of five or six days from signing the agreement. It was really a testament to both our team and the MITO® team being pretty motivated to get the deal across the line and get into it. We got it wrapped up the other week, and we also made our first hire as part of that deal.

Haley Marie Keith, who is the CEO of MITO® Material Solutions, has come across to First Graphene Ltd. She will head up our business operations, business development, commercial and promotion within the United States. She is based out of Indiana and brings a huge amount of experience in both the US market and composites, but also the MITO® portfolio. She will really help us drive that forward.

It is also a fairly clear line in the sand of our intent to grow the US business. There is huge opportunity there. As we immerse ourselves more, both in the MITO® materials as well as the First Graphene PureGRAPH line, we start to understand the true potential of the United States. It is a line in the sand saying we are committed to growing that side of the business.

Proactive: Is the US market a tough one to break into, Michael? I know it is a big market. It is huge, isn’t it?

Michael Bell: It is big. I have had previous experience of trying to grow businesses in the United States out of a company that I was a partner in, in New Zealand. That taught us some very hard lessons in terms of the size of the market. Where you think one person can represent you across the United States, you need to focus on a state basis because the market is so vast.

How I apply that to Haley Marie Keith is that she has a big role and a very broad opportunity. It will take some really critical focus on certain applications, certain client bases and so on.

Proactive: Talking about focus, are you going to focus more on government or are you going to focus more on private?

Michael Bell: It is a good question. The products that we have acquired from MITO® Material Solutions, and the ones that we see proving the most successful and having the fastest timeline, would be aerospace, transportation and defence. Those are probably slower-moving industries.

What MITO® Material Solutions has done is take its products and validate them in the commercial sporting goods segment. It has clients in those spaces and we have a pipeline to expand that. We will probably continue focusing on that, pushing that and growing the sporting goods side, while at the same time advancing the pipeline that MITO® Material Solutions has established in bigger industries like aerospace, transportation and defence.

Proactive: Before we finish up, it is important for our audience and investors to know that First Graphene Ltd has a very full pipeline, which means growth is happening. The company also already has revenue generation. What is that looking like?

Michael Bell: It is strong. It is growing. We mentioned previously, I think in our last call, that we had added five clients in the last couple of months. That has now expanded into a sixth client. We got another footwear company across the line just in the last few days.

That tax rate, or that time to get people from inquiry to executing or getting it into production, is speeding up. We have a big pipeline, somewhere up towards 700 different opportunities, somewhere between a week and three years deep in development. We have also got that really good next wave of clients, sort of 30 or 40 of them, that are in marketing releases, regulatory approvals and that sort of phase. Those are coming on and are our next contributors to revenue over the next six months.

Proactive: The US market is a major focus. MITO® Material Solutions has now been acquired, and the deal is done. More importantly, MITO® Material Solutions CEO Haley Marie Keith is joining First Graphene Ltd as vice president of business development as the company strikes out into a big US market. First Graphene Ltd’s ASX code is FGR. Michael is taking strides to expand and First Graphene Ltd is generating revenue. Michael, good to chat. Talk to you next time.

Michael Bell: Thanks so much.

Chainlink has wired itself into the plumbing of global finance, with SWIFT, JPMorgan, UBS, and DTCC building on its infrastructure. Its token trades around $7, roughly 86% below its all-time high. The gap between the adoption and the price is the whole story, and it is the same story as XRP.

Summary

Chainlink has embedded itself in traditional finance, with SWIFT, JPMorgan, UBS, DTCC, and others building on its cross-chain infrastructure, yet LINK trades near $7, about 86% below its 2021 high. The disconnect mirrors XRP almost exactly: the network’s adoption is real and growing, but the token captures the value only indirectly and slowly. Chainlink secures more value than any other oracle network and its cross-chain protocol processes billions of dollars a month, but the fees actually reaching LINK holders are tiny next to the headline adoption. A new strategic reserve converts protocol revenue into LINK and staking locks up supply, but neither yet offsets weak token-level demand and a soft market for high-risk altcoins. The gap closes only if bank usage scales into real, recurring fee demand for LINK, and the clearest test is whether SWIFT’s integration moves from pre-production into live settlement volume. Chainlink may be the most widely adopted piece of infrastructure in all of crypto, and its token trades like an afterthought.

Over the past two years the network has wired itself into the core of traditional finance, with SWIFT, the messaging backbone that connects roughly 11,000 banks and moves on the order of $150 trillion a year, moving from pilot to pre-production on Chainlink’s cross-chain technology.

JPMorgan, UBS, ANZ, Fidelity International, SBI, DTCC, Euroclear, and Mastercard have also built around its infrastructure, while the value secured across its oracle network has climbed past $90 billion, many times that of any competitor.

By the measure of institutional adoption that crypto has chased for a decade, Chainlink has arguably won. And yet LINK, its token, trades around $7, roughly 86% below the all-time high near $53 it reached back in 2021.

The fundamentals keep setting records and the price keeps disappointing. That gap, between a network embedding itself in global finance and a token that acts like none of it is happening, is the entire story.

Anyone who followed XRP through 2026 will recognize it immediately, because it is the same adoption-versus-token gap.

This piece works through why Chainlink’s extraordinary adoption has not lifted its token. It covers what Chainlink actually does and why banks cannot easily avoid it, what SWIFT and the institutions signed up for, the central problem of how value is supposed to reach the token at all, the mechanisms Chainlink has built to try to close that gap, why the market still refuses to pay up, and what would finally have to change for the price to follow the adoption.

The aim is not to talk LINK up or down, but to explain one of the most striking disconnects in the market: how a project can win the institutional race it set out to win and watch its token languish anyway.

The most important company in crypto you do not trade Start with what Chainlink does, because its importance is easy to miss precisely because it is infrastructure.

Blockchains have a built-in blindness: they cannot, on their own, see anything that happens outside their own network. A smart contract on a blockchain has no native way to know the price of a stock, the result of a shipment, the value of a currency, or whether a payment cleared in a bank account.

This is called the oracle problem, and it is a hard limit on what blockchains can do, because a contract that cannot react to real-world information is a contract that can only move tokens around inside its own walls.

Chainlink exists to solve exactly this. It is a decentralized network that feeds outside data onto blockchains and connects them to one another and to traditional systems, acting as the secure bridge between the on-chain world and everything else.

Without something like Chainlink, the entire edifice of decentralized finance, and the much larger project of tokenizing real-world assets, simply does not function.

That is why what oracles feed data to matters. Smart contracts are only as useful as the data and systems they can reliably touch.

Because that role is foundational, Chainlink has become close to unavoidable for anyone serious about putting financial activity on a blockchain.

Its price feeds underpin major lending and trading protocols across decentralized finance. Its cross-chain protocol has been adopted by large exchanges and protocols as a bridging standard.

Critically, its institutional push has landed the names that matter most. The roster of traditional-finance firms building on Chainlink reads like a directory of the global banking system, and the total value its oracle network secures runs into the tens of billions, many times that of the nearest competitor.

By the standard crypto has always used to define success, real institutions using the technology for real financial activity, Chainlink is at or near the top of the entire industry.

It is, in a sense, the most important company in crypto that most people never think to trade, because its product is the invisible plumbing rather than the visible coin.

And a token that trades like the adoption is not happening Now place that adoption next to the chart, and the contrast is jarring.

LINK trades around $7, down roughly 86% from its 2021 peak near $53, and it spent the most recent stretch sliding rather than rising, sitting below the technical levels that traders watch for signs of strength.

The pattern across the last couple of years has been almost comically consistent: record after record on the fundamentals, the cross-chain protocol moving billions a month, the value secured hitting new highs, the bank partnerships piling up, while the token closed well below where it traded years earlier.

Analysts who follow Chainlink closely have taken to describing its recent history in exactly those terms, as a period of record fundamental milestones paired with significant price disappointment.

The ETF channel has not solved the problem either. Chainlink spot ETFs recently saw a net outflow, ending a six-month inflow streak and showing that even new institutional access does not automatically create uninterrupted demand.

This is what makes Chainlink such a clean case study, and such a frustrating holding for its believers.

It is not a story of a failing project ignored for good reason; the project is, by adoption metrics, thriving. It is a story of a thriving network whose token has decoupled from its success.

That forces an uncomfortable question that applies to a whole category of crypto assets: what is the actual link between a network being used and its token rising in value?

For Bitcoin the answer is relatively direct, since the asset itself is the product. For an infrastructure token like LINK, the answer is far murkier, and the murkiness is precisely what the price reflects.

The market is not saying Chainlink has failed. It is saying it does not yet see how all that institutional adoption turns into sustained demand for the token.

Until it does, the chart and the deal sheet point in opposite directions.

The oracle problem, and why it made Chainlink unavoidable To understand both the strength of Chainlink’s position and the weakness of its token, it helps to sit with the oracle problem a moment longer, because it explains the moat.

A blockchain is a deterministic system: it is brilliant at agreeing on its own internal state, who holds what, but it is mathematically incapable of knowing anything about the outside world on its own.

If a smart contract needs to know the price of an asset to liquidate a loan, or whether a real-world bond has matured, it has to get that information from somewhere. If it gets it from a single source, it inherits that source’s vulnerability to error or manipulation.

That would undermine the security that makes blockchains worth using in the first place.

Chainlink’s design answers this by gathering data through a decentralized network of independent node operators, aggregating their inputs, and delivering a result that no single party can easily corrupt.

That decentralized, tamper-resistant design is why Chainlink became the default rather than one option among many.

Once a network of high-quality node operators is securing tens of billions of dollars across hundreds of applications, that track record itself becomes a moat. A bank deciding whose data and cross-chain infrastructure to trust with real money is going to choose the one with the longest, most battle-tested history.

This is the foundation of the institutional strategy.

Chainlink’s cross-chain protocol added a risk-management layer, an independent set of nodes that watches for anomalies and can halt transfers if something looks wrong. That is the kind of dual-layer safeguard large institutions demand before moving significant capital on-chain.

The result is that Chainlink occupies a position closer to critical utility than to speculative token: the oracle and interoperability standard that the tokenized-finance future is being built on.

The strength of that position is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether holding the token captures any of it.

What SWIFT and the banks actually signed up for The institutional adoption is concrete and worth spelling out, because it is genuinely impressive and it is also, on close inspection, the source of the token’s problem.

Chainlink built a suite of products aimed squarely at banks and asset managers: a cross-chain protocol for moving assets and messages between blockchains and legacy systems, a runtime environment that lets institutions build and manage tokenized-asset workflows, a compliance engine that embeds rules like identity checks directly into tokenized assets, a confidential-compute layer that lets sensitive institutional data be processed without exposing it on a public chain, and data services that bring benchmark and index information on-chain.

This is not a retail product suite. It is enterprise financial infrastructure, designed to slot into how large institutions already operate.

The marquee relationship is with SWIFT, and it captures both the scale and the nature of the adoption.

SWIFT connects roughly 11,000 banks and carries the messaging behind an enormous share of global settlement, and Swift and Chainlink’s ongoing work moved from early pilot toward pre-production.

The goal is to let banks send traditional SWIFT messages that trigger smart-contract actions across blockchains, without those banks having to rip out and rewrite their legacy systems.

That is a profound integration: it means the existing banking messaging layer could reach into the on-chain world through Chainlink as the connective tissue.

More recently, Chainlink also partnered with more than 50 banks on Project Pangea for T+0 foreign-exchange settlement, another sign that traditional finance is testing Chainlink as an institutional bridge rather than a crypto side experiment.

But notice the shape of it. What the banks signed up for is infrastructure, a way to connect their systems to blockchains using Chainlink’s technology.

They signed up to use the network. Nothing in a SWIFT pre-production integration, a JPMorgan tokenization pilot, or a bank FX settlement project necessarily requires anyone to buy, hold, or even think about the LINK token.

The adoption is real, and it is adoption of Chainlink the infrastructure. That is different from demand for LINK the asset.

That distinction is the hinge on which the entire price puzzle turns.

The value-accrual problem: adoption is not token demand Here is the core issue, the one that explains the chart.

For a token to rise because its network is being used, there has to be a mechanism that converts that usage into demand for the token. For infrastructure tokens, that mechanism is often weak, indirect, or still being built.

When a bank uses Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol, it pays fees, and those fees are part of how value is meant to flow to the network.

But the fees generated even by substantial institutional usage are, so far, small relative to the headline numbers that make the adoption sound overwhelming.

The value secured across the network may be measured in tens of billions, but the value secured is not revenue. Revenue is not automatically token demand either.

A pilot or a pre-production integration generates little in the way of recurring fees, and even meaningful live usage produces fee flows that are modest next to LINK’s multi-billion-dollar market value.

This is the value-accrual problem, and it is the single best explanation for why LINK trades where it does.

The market is making a distinction that the celebratory headlines blur: between adoption of the infrastructure, which benefits the network and its users, and demand for the token, which is what actually moves the price.

It is the identical distinction that explains why XRP failed to rally on Ripple’s bank deals, because those deals ran through the company and its stablecoin while the token captured only a sliver.

For Chainlink, the question every prospective LINK buyer faces is simple and unforgiving: if SWIFT and JPMorgan can use the network without the token being central to the economics, then what exactly am I buying when I buy LINK?

The project has answers to that question, and they are improving. But the market has not yet been convinced that the answers are large enough to matter.

That is why the adoption keeps growing and the token keeps waiting.

The strategic reserve and staking: Chainlink’s answer Chainlink is acutely aware of the value-accrual problem, and it has been building mechanisms specifically designed to tie network usage to token value.

That is the strongest part of the bull case.

The first is a fee model that converts revenue generated across the network, including from institutional and off-chain use, into LINK, accumulating it in the Chainlink Reserve.

The logic is that as adoption grows and generates more revenue, more of that revenue is converted into LINK and held, creating a structural source of buying tied directly to usage.

This is meant to be the bridge between adoption and token demand that infrastructure tokens so often lack.

It is a way to make sure that when the network earns, the token benefits. The reserve has been growing, adding millions of LINK, which is a tangible sign of the mechanism working, even if the amounts remain small relative to the total supply.

The second mechanism is staking.

Chainlink lets LINK holders stake their tokens to help secure the network’s data feeds and services, locking up supply and giving the token a direct role in the system’s security and economics.

As more high-value feeds and services come to rely on staked LINK as a security backstop, demand to stake, and therefore to acquire and lock the token, is meant to rise.

That makes Chainlink part of a broader move toward security-backed crypto networks. For context, another staking-secured network shows how tokens can accrue value when they are required to secure services rather than simply sit beside them.

Together, the reserve and staking are Chainlink’s answer to the question of why anyone should own LINK instead of simply admire the network.

The reserve ties revenue to token accumulation. Staking ties the token to the network’s security and to a yield.

These are real, well-designed mechanisms, and they are the reason the bull case is not empty.

The honest caveat is that they are still early and still modest in scale relative to a multi-billion-dollar market cap. They point in the right direction, but they have not yet generated token demand large enough to overcome the broader forces pushing the price down.

Why the chart still says no Even granting the reserve and staking, several forces keep weighing on LINK, and naming them explains why the token has not responded to the adoption.

The first is the simple gravity of the broader market. LINK is a high-beta altcoin, meaning it tends to move more violently than the market as a whole, rising faster in booms and falling harder in downturns.

Through a stretch of macro pressure and a weak environment for risk assets, infrastructure tokens like LINK have been sold off regardless of their individual progress.

When capital flees risk, the quality of a project’s bank partnerships offers little protection, because the selling is driven by macro flows, not fundamentals.

The second force is competition. Chainlink leads the oracle space by a wide margin, but rivals are chasing the same market with different technical models, faster delivery in certain niches, or lower costs.

The existence of credible competitors caps the pricing power and the perceived inevitability that would justify a higher token valuation.

The third and deepest force is the value-accrual skepticism already described.

The market keeps treating Chainlink’s institutional milestones as proofs of concept instead of as recurring revenue, pricing a SWIFT pre-production integration as a promising experiment instead of as a stream of token demand, because that is what it currently is.

Until the pilots become production volume large enough to drive real fees into the reserve and real demand into staking, the market is, not unreasonably, declining to pay in advance.

This is the same discipline that kept XRP pinned through its own parade of bank wins. The chart is not ignoring the adoption; it is refusing to pay for token demand that has been promised but not yet delivered at scale.

What would finally make LINK follow the adoption If you want to know when LINK might finally track its fundamentals, the analysis points to a specific set of conditions, and none of them is simply another partnership announcement.

The first and most important is the transition from pilots to production volume.

A SWIFT integration in pre-production is a promise; SWIFT-connected banks routing real, recurring settlement volume through Chainlink’s protocol would be a structural source of fee demand unlike anything in the token’s history.

Even a small fraction of the volume that flows through global bank messaging would dwarf current usage.

The clearest single catalyst to watch is whether that integration goes fully live and starts carrying real traffic, because that is the moment infrastructure adoption could begin converting into the recurring revenue that feeds the reserve.

The policy backdrop also matters. Chainlink executives have warned that delays in U.S. crypto rules benefit overseas competitors, because institutions need clarity before they can scale production deployments.

The second condition is the maturation of the token mechanisms themselves: the strategic reserve growing large enough that its accumulation of LINK becomes a meaningful, visible source of demand, and staking scaling to the point where locking the token to secure high-value services pulls significant supply off the market.

The third is the broader environment, since even strong fundamentals struggle against a hostile macro tape, and a friendlier market for risk assets would let Chainlink’s progress show up in the price.

The new exchange-traded products tracking LINK add another potential channel for demand if they gather assets. But as the recent outflow showed, the ETF channel must become a sustained buyer, not just another headline.

The honest synthesis is that Chainlink has done the hard part, winning the institutional adoption that the rest of crypto only talks about.

The remaining question is purely about conversion: whether all that adoption can be turned into durable, measurable demand for the token through fees, the reserve, and staking, at a scale large enough to matter.

Until it is, LINK will keep trading like the adoption is not happening, not because the market is blind to Chainlink’s success, but because it is watching the one number that has not yet moved. That number is demand for the token itself.

Frequently asked questions Why does Chainlink have so much adoption but a low token price? Because adoption of the infrastructure is not the same as demand for the token. Banks and protocols use Chainlink’s data feeds and cross-chain protocol, generating fees, but those fees are still small relative to LINK’s multi-billion-dollar market value, and nothing about a SWIFT or JPMorgan integration requires anyone to buy or hold LINK. The market distinguishes between the network being used, which benefits the infrastructure, and token demand, which moves the price. So far, the adoption has not converted into token demand large enough to lift the price, which is why LINK trades around $7 despite record fundamentals.

What does Chainlink actually do? Chainlink solves the oracle problem. Blockchains cannot natively access information outside their own network, so a smart contract has no built-in way to know a price, a payment status, or a real-world event. Chainlink is a decentralized network that feeds outside data onto blockchains and connects them to one another and to traditional systems, using many independent node operators so no single party can easily corrupt the data. This makes it foundational infrastructure for decentralized finance and for tokenizing real-world assets.

What did SWIFT and the banks sign up for with Chainlink? They signed up to use Chainlink’s infrastructure, chiefly its cross-chain protocol, which lets banks send traditional SWIFT messages that trigger smart-contract actions across blockchains without rewriting their legacy systems. JPMorgan, UBS, DTCC, Euroclear, and others are building on Chainlink’s suite of institutional products for tokenized assets, compliance, and data. Crucially, this is adoption of the infrastructure, not a commitment to buy or hold the LINK token, which is exactly why the impressive partnerships have not directly lifted the price.

How is Chainlink trying to connect adoption to the token? Through two main mechanisms. A fee model converts revenue generated across the network, including from institutional use, into LINK and accumulates it in a strategic reserve, creating buying tied to usage. Staking lets holders lock LINK to help secure the network’s data feeds and services, taking supply off the market and giving the token a direct economic role. Both are well-designed attempts to bridge the gap between adoption and token demand, and the reserve has been growing, but they remain modest relative to LINK’s market value and have not yet offset the forces pushing the price down.

Will LINK go up if SWIFT fully adopts Chainlink? It could, but the key is volume, not the integration itself. A pre-production SWIFT integration is a promise; SWIFT-connected banks routing real, recurring settlement volume through Chainlink would generate fee demand on a scale unlike anything in the token’s history, because even a fraction of global bank messaging volume would dwarf current usage. That fee flow could feed the strategic reserve and drive real token demand. So the catalyst to watch is whether the integration goes live and carries actual traffic, turning infrastructure adoption into recurring revenue, instead of the announcement of the integration alone.

Is Chainlink’s situation similar to XRP’s? Very. Both are cases where a network or company achieved real institutional adoption while the token failed to follow, because the value flows first to the infrastructure and only indirectly to the token. Ripple’s bank deals ran through its stablecoin and ledger while XRP captured a sliver; Chainlink’s bank integrations run through its infrastructure while LINK captures fees that are still small relative to its valuation. In both cases the market prices the adoption as promising proof of concept instead of as token demand, and in both cases the token waits for pilots to become production-scale volume.

This article is information, not investment advice. Cryptocurrency is volatile, and figures for Chainlink and LINK reflect reporting available as of June 26, 2026, which can change quickly. Do your own research and verify current data from primary sources before making any decision.

A new mobile app is giving Zcash ($ZEC) holders something the ecosystem has long needed: a simple way to find businesses near them that accept ZEC in the real world.

ZecMap is now available on the Apple App Store. Users can open the map, locate nearby merchants accepting Zcash, and head straight to a participating business. The premise is straightforward. Holding ZEC has never been the hard part. Spending it has.

From Web to MobileZecMap first launched as a web platform in May 2026, inviting the Zcash community to contribute merchant listings. The project also introduced a contributor rewards programme, letting users earn ZEC by adding verified businesses to the directory. The iOS app is the next step in that rollout, putting the map directly in users' pockets.

The platform has expanded steadily since its web debut. According to the Zcash community newsletter ZecHub, ZecMap has grown to support more than 9,000 locations and has integrated with Flexa, a payments network that lets users spend crypto at physical retail locations. A planned AI assistant is also in development, designed to help users find nearby merchants and answer questions about Zcash day-to-day usage.

Closing the Spending Gap for a Privacy CoinThe app arrives at a moment when the broader Zcash ecosystem is seeing renewed momentum. Zcash uses zero-knowledge proofs to allow shielded transactions, meaning payment details can remain private without sacrificing verifiability on-chain. That technical foundation makes it well-suited to real-world commerce, but merchant acceptance has historically lagged behind the technology.

Tools like ZecMap are a direct response to that gap. By surfacing a live, community-sourced directory of accepting merchants, the app turns Zcash from a stored asset into something more practical for everyday use. For the Zcash community, that shift matters as much as any protocol upgrade.

An Android version was announced as part of the original roadmap and is expected to follow the iOS release.

Sources
Zcash Community Forum: ZecMap is now available on the App Store
ZecHub Shielded News Vol. 23: ZecMap Flexa integration and 9,000+ locations
Zcash Community Forum: ZecMap Contributor Rewards Programme

A Legal Foundation for Agentic CommerceHedera has joined as a founding member of the Legal Context Protocol (LCP), a new open standard designed to give AI agent transactions a verifiable legal framework. The American Arbitration Association (AAA), together with Integra Ledger, launched the LCP on June 24 as a new open standard that makes legal terms, consent, and dispute resolution discoverable and verifiable when AI agents transact on behalf of people and organizations.

Founding contributors include Google, IBM, Circle, Wayfair, Stellar Development Foundation, Ava Labs, UiPath, Cardano, Hedera, Crossmint, Pinata, Aptos Foundation, Baselayer, Trinsic, First Person Cooperative, Sei Labs, and Mysten Labs, the original contributor to Sui.

Payments and identity checks already exist for AI agents, but there has been no shared system for proving the legal terms, jurisdiction, and dispute process. David Fisher, CEO of Integra Ledger, framed the gap plainly: "Payment infrastructure is actively being built for AI agents. The legal layer, what was agreed, under what terms, and how disputes will be resolved, is not. LCP provides the essential legal layer, built as an open standard that can be added to all payment rails and protocols."

Hedera's Role and the Scale of the OpportunityAs AI agents start making decisions and transacting on our behalf, Mance Harmon, co-founder of Hedera, said "we need to know there's a clear answer to what happens if something goes wrong." He added that LCP gives agentic commerce a missing layer of trust that requires no new infrastructure to adopt.

AI agents are already negotiating services, executing procurement, and settling payments autonomously. Gartner projects that by 2028, 90% of B2B purchases will be intermediated by AI agents, channeling more than $15 trillion through automated exchanges.

LCP does not move money itself. It records the terms under which a transaction took place, which law governs it, and what remedies are available if a dispute arises, making that information discoverable and cryptographically verifiable so counterpart agents and human auditors can confirm the legal context of an automated deal.

Any organisation with a web server can adopt the LCP, which does not require any other specific infrastructure, intermediaries, or use of blockchain technology. The protocol was published under an open source Apache 2.0 licence, and governance is intended to transfer to a neutral foundation.

AAA and Industry Leaders Launch Legal Protocol for Agentic Commerce (PR Newswire) | AAA Launches Legal Layer for AI Agent Transactions (CoinTelegraph) | AAA Official Press Release (adr.org)

HOUSTON, June 26, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a developer of safe, high-power energy systems that enable physical AI across space, defense, drones, data centers, robotics, and other mission-critical applications, today announced that, as part of its non-dilutive growth strategy, it has extended the pause of its at-the-market (“ATM”) equity offering program with Cantor Fitzgerald and Craig-Hallum through September 30, 2026.

KULR expects its existing liquidity, together with disciplined balance-sheet management, to support its planned operations and growth initiatives. Rather than issue equity under the ATM at current levels, the Company may, from time to time, sell its Bitcoin holdings to fund the following priorities:

Scale its flagship KULR ONE Space (K1S) architecture providing scalable, standardized battery solutions that meet rigorous human spaceflight safety standards.
Ramp production of its KULR ONE Air products for military and commercial drone applications.
Advance the development of its KULR ONE MAX battery backup solutions for AI data center and telecommunications applications.
"We do not intend to issue equity at these levels when we have more disciplined ways to fund our growth,” commented KULR Founder and CEO Michael Mo. “Keeping the ATM paused protects our shareholders from dilution and keeps our focus where it belongs -- building more batteries and getting them to customers.”

During this period, the Company intends to prioritize execution across its core platforms which was detailed in Mr. Mo's recent letter to shareholders.

About KULR Technology Group, Inc.
KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) is an energy-systems platform company that designs and manufactures safe, high-power battery solutions for physical AI and other mission-critical applications. Its KULR ONE® platform integrates advanced battery architecture, thermal management, safety engineering, battery management systems, and power electronics to serve space and defense, drones and electric aviation, AI data-center backup, robotics, and Energy-as-a-Service markets. Based in Webster, Texas, KULR is scaling domestic production to support the growing energy demands of physical AI and autonomous systems. Learn more at KULR.ai.

Find KULR: Website | X | Telegram | LinkedIn | Instagram | TikTok | Facebook

Investor Relations:
KULR Technology Group, Inc.
Phone: 858-866-8478 x 847
Email: [email protected]

Safe Harbor Statement
This release contains certain forward-looking statements based on our current expectations, intentions and assumptions that involve risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking statements in this release are based on information available to us as of the date hereof. Our actual results may differ materially from those stated or implied in such forward-looking statements, due to risks and uncertainties associated with our business, which include the risk factors disclosed in our Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2026, as may be amended or supplemented by other reports we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time. Forward-looking statements include statements regarding our expectations, beliefs, intentions, or strategies regarding the future and can be identified by forward-looking words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “should,” and “would” or similar words. All such forward-looking statements that are provided by management in this release are based on information available at this time, and management expects that internal expectations may change over time. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, we assume no obligation to update the information included in this press release, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

This report is from this week's The Tech Download newsletter. Like what you see? You can subscribe here.

Rollercoaster. That's probably the most accurate word to describe SpaceX's opening two weeks as a public company. 

The stock surged for several successive days following a record-breaking IPO, briefly overtaking both Amazon and Microsoft in terms of market cap and rising more than 60% on the initial share offering price of $135.

But the good times weren't set to last. Daily drops of 5% and 4% were followed by a 16% slump as jitters crept into the market. Steadier days followed, with single point moves in either direction.

The volatility underscores the whipsaw nature of a story-driven stock.

Lofty sci-fi ambitions, huge coverage in the *ahem* media and a founder with a cult-like following whipped up a frenzy of excitement around the company.

"Most stocks trade based on how their multiple of earnings compares to other comparable stocks," Gil Luria, head of technology research at D.A. Davidson, told me. 

"Elon Musk companies don't really do that." Musk's ventures instead trade on expectations, he added. 

"Tesla trades more on [autonomous driving service] Robotaxi and [humanoid robot] Optimus than they do on selling cars, and SpaceX trades more on the promise of Mars exploration, or at least data centers in space," said Luria.

Retail investors bought into that forward-looking narrative in droves.

SpaceX "embodies many of the qualities that have historically resonated with retail investors: a transformational technology story, a bold vision of the future, a celebrity founder and unparalleled media attention," Viraj Patel, global macro strategist at Vanda, said.

In the first five trading sessions, retail investors bought a net $405 million of SpaceX shares, comfortably the strongest retail IPO debut in recent history, said research firm Vanda.

"For SpaceX, the 'cult of Elon' pulls in more retail investors and adds extra hype that can add a lot to volatility as we saw with Tesla share prices," Mike Coop, chief investment officer, EMEA at Morningstar Wealth, told me. Morningstar analysts caused a stir in the run-up to SpaceX's IPO, writing that the stock was worth less than half of its $1.75 trillion target.

After a bullish initial few days on the public markets, fundamentals became a bigger driver of the price causing a "hangover," said Kyle Rodda, senior market analyst at Capital.com. 

Musk has been, in a somewhat predictable fashion, touting sky-high revenue growth in years to come. He said on June 14 that the company "might be able to reach approximately" $1 trillion revenue in 2030.

That would mark a huge jump from the $18.7 billion in revenue SpaceX made in 2025. The company posted a $4.9 billion net loss in 2025, and it lost $4.28 billion in the first quarter of this year.

Long term SpaceX faces two big challenges on the markets, said Coop. 

"Firstly, the supply of shares will go up as early investors lighten up exposures and monetise gains," he said.

"Secondly, the current price is too high given the massive uncertainty around the company's prospects and its starting point of being heavily loss making and requiring huge capital investment."

Despite that, so far few have been willing to bet against the stock.

Michael Burry of "The Big Short" fame said on June 16 that he has no position in SpaceX, and argued that options used to wager against the stock remain too expensive even as he questioned the company's nearly $3 trillion market value.

And while SpaceX is seeing some interest from short sellers, many are still reluctant to bet against Musk.

Time will tell how far narrative takes SpaceX stock. In any case, expect more twists and turns on the rollercoaster.

Latest updatesAnthropic is racing to increase its AI compute capacity in the Asia-Pacific region, as the company scrambles to keep up with soaring demand for its products.

OpenAI and Broadcom on Wednesday unveiled their debut custom chip, called Jalapeño, marking the ChatGPT maker's first entry into artificial intelligence silicon.

A second worker has died at the construction site of BYD's electric vehicle factory in Szeged, Hungary, CNBC has learned.

Apple on Thursday announced price hikes on MacBooks and iPads, its first formal move to pass higher memory and storage costs on to consumers after CEO Tim Cook said increases had become unavoidable.

ON Semiconductor has agreed to buy Synaptics in a nearly $7 billion all-stock deal to bolster its push into physical artificial intelligence technology.

Stock of the week

Micron stock.

Memory chipmaker Micron had a good week as its third-quarter results topped analysts' estimates.

The U.S. company has been one of the main beneficiaries of the AI boom, with its stock price up more than 800% over the past year, lifting the company's market cap past $1 trillion.

BlackBerry Today

BB

BlackBerry

$10.28 +1.67 (+19.32%)

As of 06/25/2026 03:59 PM Eastern

This is a fair market value price provided by Massive. Learn more.

52-Week Range$3.12▼

$10.93P/E Ratio128.58

Price Target$7.17

BlackBerry Limited NYSE: BB delivered a Q1 fiscal 2027 earnings beat that impressed investors.

The June 25 report showed revenue surging 26% year-over-year to $152.9 million, well above the $139.8 million consensus.

Get BlackBerry alerts:

Adjusted earnings per share (EPS) of four cents topped the analysts’ estimate of three cents.

 However, a double beat alone doesn’t explain BB’s nearly 20% post-earnings surge, or its more than 170% year-to-date rally.

The bigger story is about the company’s ongoing transformation. BlackBerry is now a pure-play software company with a real foothold in what many call AI's next leg: physical AI. The question for investors is whether the recent surge is too early or just the start of a longer rally. 

BlackBerry Earnings Beat Shows Software Strategy Is WorkingAt a time when many technology stocks are being judged by a “what have you done for me lately?” standard, BlackBerry's latest earnings report gave the bulls a lot of ammunition. The numbers show that the company is converting its software pivot into durable profitability.

 BlackBerry posted its fifth consecutive quarter of positive GAAP net income. Adjusted EBITDA grew 144% year-over-year. Both the QNX and Secure Communications segments achieved Rule of 40 performance, a benchmark that combines growth and margin into a single test of software-business quality. The company also generated $4.6 million in operating cash flow, marking its first positive operating cash flow quarter in nine years, excluding a prior patent sale.

Management raised full-year guidance to revenue of $594 million to $621 million and adjusted EPS between 16 cents and 20 cents. 

How QNX Positions BlackBerry for the Physical AI Boom BlackBerry has fully exited handsets and now exclusively sells software. QNX, its real-time operating system, sits inside more than 275 million vehicles on the road today.

 That installed base gives BlackBerry a strategic position in physical AI. Physical AI refers to systems where models drive real-world machines: autonomous vehicles, humanoid robots, surgical equipment and industrial automation. These applications need software that responds in microseconds with zero tolerance for failure.

 This is where QNX shines. Its deterministic, safety-certified architecture is built for exactly these workloads. Cloud-trained AI must eventually run on certified embedded software when it touches the physical world, and that layer is QNX's value proposition.

 The NVIDIA NASDAQ: NVDA partnership, which was announced at Hannover Messe in April, amplifies the opportunity. QNX OS for Safety 8.0 now integrates with NVIDIA's IGX Thor platform and Halos Safety Stack. The combination targets autonomous mobile robots, humanoids, surgical robotics, and industrial automation.

Those are categories NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang has flagged as multi-trillion-dollar end markets. A separate design win with Chinese EV maker Leapmotor for its D19 SUV signals continued automotive traction even as QNX expands into new verticals. 

Can BlackBerry's Valuation Support More Upside? After the post-earnings bump, BB shares trade around $10 with a trailing price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio just shy of 130x. 

BlackBerry Stock Forecast Today12-Month Stock Price Forecast:
$7.17
-30.27% Downside

Hold
Based on 9 Analyst Ratings

Current Price$10.29High Forecast$12.00Average Forecast$7.17Low Forecast$4.50BlackBerry Stock Forecast Details

The Blackberry analyst consensus forecasts on MarketBeat have the stock rated a Hold, with a consensus price target of around $7.

 However, Canaccord Genuity nearly doubled its price target to $8.20 from $4.40 on June 24, and Stifel Nicolas initiated coverage with a $12 price target. Investors will be watching to see if these are outliers or the start of a trend.

The consensus Hold rating suggests analysts still view BB as a slow-growth business. But if price targets begin to chase the company’s fundamentals, the outlook will change.  

For example, if QNX captures even a small slice of the physical AI software stack, the addressable market expands well beyond automotive. The NVIDIA partnership also opens distribution to a developer ecosystem numbering in the millions. 

That is the "early" argument. Bears counter that the revenue base is still small relative to ambitions. Competition from open-source ROS 2 and established players like Wind River and Green Hills Software is real and well-funded.

The Catch: QNX Momentum May Take Time to ScaleSeveral risks deserve attention before chasing the rally. QNX revenue grew strongly in Q1, but automotive software design cycles are notoriously long. Royalty revenue depends on vehicle production volumes, which remain choppy globally. 

Secure Communications growth runs in the mid-single digits. That segment generates steady cash but will not drive the multiple expansion needed to justify the current price. 

Stock-based compensation and dilution are also persistent issues. A buyback program is in place, but the share count needs to fall further for per-share metrics to improve meaningfully. 

Is BlackBerry Stock a Buy After Its Massive Rally? The Q1 print confirmed that BlackBerry's pivot is working. Physical AI gives the company a real growth narrative for the first time in over a decade. But at current prices, investors are paying for a story that needs several quarters of execution to fully play out.

 For long-term holders, the thesis remains intact, and the guidance raise gives them another quarter of cover. For new buyers, waiting for a pullback or a clearer signal that QNX royalties are accelerating may be the more disciplined approach.

BlackBerry Limited (BB) Price Chart for Friday, June, 26, 2026

Should You Invest $1,000 in BlackBerry Right Now?Before you consider BlackBerry, you'll want to hear this.

MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and BlackBerry wasn't on the list.

While BlackBerry currently has a Hold rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys.

View The Five Stocks Here

Robotics and automation are rapidly becoming essential infrastructure across healthcare, manufacturing, logistics, and many other industries.

"Physical AI" is coming to the United States, and there are four ways that investors can gain exposure to this new robotics revolution. Plus, learn which seven companies are most positioned to benefit as intelligent robots enter the workforce.

Get This Free Report

The decline appears to reflect broad market weakness rather than company-specific news. Softer index futures prompted investors to reduce exposure to high-growth technology stocks, leading to profit-taking across semiconductor names following their strong gains in recent months.

AI Spending Keeps Taiwan Semiconductor Ahead While Intel Foundry Gains TractionSeparately, Counterpoint Research said on Friday the global Foundry 2.0 market is benefiting from sustained artificial intelligence demand, with Taiwan Semiconductor expected to remain one of the biggest winners as AI investments continue through 2026.

The research firm said Taiwan Semiconductor’s first-quarter revenue surged 41% year over year and forecast full-year 2026 revenue growth of about 36%, driven by strong demand for AI GPUs, AI ASICs and advanced packaging.

Senior Analyst William Li said the current AI cycle represents a “broader structural transformation” for the semiconductor industry rather than a typical cyclical recovery, citing unprecedented capacity reallocations, pricing changes, and persistent CoWoS packaging constraints.

“Growing TPU and ASIC demand could further tighten leading-edge capacity, creating opportunities for Intel Foundry and Samsung Foundry, with Apple M-series chip on Intel Foundry as a potential catalyst,” the research firm said.

Technical AnalysisDespite Friday’s pullback, TSM remains in a long-term uptrend. The stock continues to trade above its 50-day simple moving average of $411.50, its 100-day SMA of $381.83, and its 200-day SMA of $339.26. The 20-day SMA also remains above the 50-day SMA, while the 50-day SMA stays above the 200-day SMA, signaling a bullish long-term trend.

In the near term, however, momentum has cooled. TSM is trading about 1.5% below its 20-day SMA of $433.61 after retreating from its June peak and 52-week high. That suggests the stock is consolidating rather than extending its rally.

The relative strength index (RSI) stands at 52.43, indicating neutral momentum. A reading near 50 typically signals a balanced market where buyers and sellers remain evenly matched.

Key resistance sits near $450. A move above that level could revive bullish momentum. On the downside, support is around $405.50, just below the 50-day moving average. A break below that level could weaken the intermediate-term trend.

Earnings And Analyst OutlookTSM is expected to report second-quarter results on July 16.

Wall Street expects earnings of $3.77 per share, up from $2.47 a year earlier, on revenue of $39.76 billion, compared with $30.07 billion in the prior-year quarter.

The stock trades at about 37.5 times earnings, reflecting its premium valuation.

Analysts remain broadly bullish. The consensus rating is Buy, with an average price forecast of $489.17. Recent analyst actions include:

Bank of America Securities reiterated Buy and raised its price forecast to $590 on June 24. Susquehanna maintained a Positive rating and lifted its price forecast to $575 on June 22. Barclays reiterated Overweight with a $470 price forecast on April 22. Taiwan Semiconductor Benzinga Edge RankingsAccording to Benzinga Edge, TSM scores highly for Momentum (91.98), Growth (92.65), and Quality (97.54), while its Value score remains weak at 22.28 because of its premium valuation.

The combination suggests investors continue to reward the company’s strong earnings profile and AI-driven growth prospects, although valuation remains a key consideration.

ETF ExposureTSM is a major holding in several exchange-traded funds, including:

Large inflows or outflows in these funds can create additional buying or selling pressure for TSM shares.

Taiwan Semiconductor Price ActionTSM Stock Price Activity: Taiwan Semiconductor shares were down 1.61% at $428.00 during premarket trading on Friday, according to Benzinga Pro data.

Image via 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.

The positive opinion is based on results from the Phase 3 BRUIN CLL-313 and BRUIN CLL-314 trials, previously presented at the 2025 American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting and published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology

BRUIN CLL-313 is the first Phase 3 study to evaluate a non-covalent BTK inhibitor exclusively in patients with treatment-naïve CLL and BRUIN CLL-314 is the first Phase 3 CLL trial to compare non-covalent and covalent BTK inhibitors, as well as the first to compare any BTK inhibitors in the treatment-naïve setting

If granted marketing authorization, this would expand pirtobrutinib's indication as a treatment option for patients with CLL in the European Union across all lines of therapy

, /PRNewswire/ -- Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY) today announced that the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has issued a positive opinion for Jaypirca (pirtobrutinib), a non-covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, for the treatment of adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) across all lines of therapy and regardless of prior BTK inhibitor treatment. Following this positive opinion, the application is now referred to the European Commission for final action. The European Commission's decision is expected in the next one to two months. 

"Results from BRUIN CLL-313 and BRUIN CLL-314 provide compelling evidence that pirtobrutinib can make a meaningful difference for people living with CLL across multiple lines of therapy," said Paolo Ghia, M.D., professor, medical oncology, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele and IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Italy. "The strong efficacy and tolerability demonstrated in these trials underscores the clinical value pirtobrutinib may offer patients. This positive opinion from the CHMP is an exciting and significant milestone, bringing us closer to a future where pirtobrutinib is an option for more people with CLL across the European Union."

Results from BRUIN CLL-313 and BRUIN CLL-314 were presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting and Exposition in December 2025 and published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology.

"Based on the strong results from the BRUIN CLL-313 and CLL-314 studies, we believe Jaypirca has the potential to serve as a meaningful new option for newly diagnosed patients and those who have not yet received a BTK inhibitor," said Jacob Van Naarden, executive vice president and president of Lilly Oncology. "Thanks to the impact of contemporary CLL treatments, many patients may receive fewer lines of therapy over their lifetime, making treatment choices in earlier lines profoundly important. This CHMP opinion represents a step toward an important global approval for Jaypirca in this indication and reflects our ambition to make Jaypirca available to every CLL patient who may benefit, at any line of therapy. Today, we are on the brink of making that a reality across the European Union as we await the European Commission's final decision."

Lilly has also submitted these results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval for adult patients with CLL, with a decision expected in the second half of 2026.

About BRUIN CLL-313
BRUIN CLL-313 is a Phase 3, global, randomized, open-label study of pirtobrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy (BR) in people with CLL/SLL without 17p deletions who have not been previously treated. The trial enrolled 282 patients who were randomized 1:1 to receive pirtobrutinib (200 mg orally, once daily) or BR per labeled doses. BR is a chemoimmunotherapy regimen used in the treatment of CLL. The primary endpoint is PFS as assessed by blinded IRC. Secondary endpoints include investigator and IRC assessed ORR, duration of response (DoR), and PFS, OS, time to next treatment (TTNT), safety and tolerability and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). 

About BRUIN CLL-314
BRUIN CLL-314 is a Phase 3, randomized, open-label study of Jaypirca (pirtobrutinib) versus Imbruvica (ibrutinib) in patients with CLL/SLL who were either treatment-naïve, or who were previously treated and were BTK inhibitor-naïve. The trial enrolled 662 patients who were randomized 1:1 to receive pirtobrutinib (200 mg orally, once daily) or ibrutinib (420 mg orally, once daily). The primary endpoint is ORR as assessed by blinded IRC. Secondary endpoints include investigator and IRC-assessed PFS, duration of response (DoR) and event-free survival (EFS), and time to next treatment (TTNT), OS, safety and tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO).

About Jaypirca (pirtobrutinib)
Jaypirca (pirtobrutinib, formerly known as LOXO-305) (pronounced jay-pihr-kaa) is a highly selective (300 times more selective for BTK versus 98% of other kinases tested in preclinical studies), non-covalent inhibitor of the enzyme BTK.1 BTK is a validated molecular target found across numerous B-cell leukemias and lymphomas including mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).2,3 Jaypirca is a U.S. FDA-approved oral prescription medicine, 100 mg or 50 mg tablets taken as a once-daily 200 mg dose with or without food until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

About Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)
CLL is a form of slow-growing non-Hodgkin lymphoma that develops from white blood cells known as lymphocytes.4,5 CLL is one of the most common types of leukemia in adults.6  There are roughly 100,000 new cases of CLL globally each year, and the overall incidence of CLL in Europe is approximately 4.92 cases per 100,000 persons per year.6,7  In CLL, the cancer cells are present in the blood.6

INDICATIONS FOR JAYPIRCA (pirtobrutinib) (in the United States)

Adult patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) who have previously been treated with a covalent BTK inhibitor. Adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) after at least two lines of systemic therapy, including a BTK inhibitor. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on response rate. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical trial benefit in a confirmatory trial. IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION FOR JAYPIRCA (pirtobrutinib)

Infections: Fatal and serious infections (including bacterial, viral, fungal) and opportunistic infections occurred in Jaypirca-treated patients. Across clinical trials, Grade ≥3 infections occurred (25%), most commonly pneumonia (20%); fatal infections (5%), sepsis (6%), and febrile neutropenia (3.8%) occurred. In patients with CLL/SLL, Grade ≥3 infections occurred (32%), with fatal infections occurring in 8%. Opportunistic infections included Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia and fungal infection. Consider prophylaxis, including vaccinations and antimicrobial prophylaxis, in patients at increased risk for infection, including opportunistic infections. Monitor for signs and symptoms, evaluate, and treat. Based on severity, reduce dose, temporarily withhold, or permanently discontinue Jaypirca.

Hemorrhage: Fatal and serious hemorrhage has occurred with Jaypirca. Across clinical trials, major hemorrhage (Grade ≥3 bleeding or any central nervous system bleeding) occurred (2.6%), including gastrointestinal hemorrhage; fatal hemorrhage occurred (0.3%). Bleeding of any grade, excluding bruising and petechiae, occurred (16%). Major hemorrhage occurred when taking Jaypirca with (2.0%) and without (0.6%) antithrombotic agents. Consider risks/benefits of co-administering antithrombotic agents with Jaypirca. Monitor for signs of bleeding. Based on severity, reduce dose, temporarily withhold, or permanently discontinue Jaypirca. Consider withholding Jaypirca 3-7 days pre- and post-surgery based on surgery type and bleeding risk.

Cytopenias: Jaypirca can cause cytopenias, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. Across clinical trials, Grade 3 or 4 cytopenias, including decreased neutrophils (27%), decreased platelets (13%), and decreased hemoglobin (11%), developed. Grade 4 decreased neutrophils (15%) and Grade 4 decreased platelets (6%) developed. Monitor complete blood counts regularly. Based on severity, reduce dose, temporarily withhold, or permanently discontinue Jaypirca.

Cardiac Arrhythmias: Cardiac arrhythmias occurred in patients taking Jaypirca. Across clinical trials, atrial fibrillation or flutter were reported in 3.4% of Jaypirca treated patients, with Grade 3 or 4 atrial fibrillation or flutter in 1.6%. Other serious cardiac arrhythmias such as supraventricular tachycardia and cardiac arrest occurred (0.4%). Cardiac risk factors such as hypertension or previous arrhythmias may increase risk. Monitor and manage signs and symptoms of arrhythmias (e.g., palpitations, dizziness, syncope, dyspnea). Based on severity, reduce dose, temporarily withhold, or permanently discontinue Jaypirca.

Second Primary Malignancies: Across clinical trials, second primary malignancies, including non-skin carcinomas, developed in 9% of Jaypirca-treated patients, most frequently non-melanoma skin cancer (4.4%). Other second primary malignancies included solid tumors (including genitourinary and breast cancers) and melanoma. Advise patients to use sun protection and monitor for development of second primary malignancies.

Hepatotoxicity, Including Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI): Hepatotoxicity, including severe, life-threatening, and potentially fatal cases of DILI, has occurred in patients treated with BTK inhibitors, including Jaypirca. Evaluate bilirubin and transaminases at baseline and throughout Jaypirca treatment. For patients who develop abnormal liver tests after Jaypirca, monitor more frequently for liver test abnormalities and clinical signs and symptoms of hepatic toxicity. If DILI is suspected, withhold Jaypirca. If DILI is confirmed, discontinue Jaypirca.

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity: Jaypirca can cause fetal harm. Administration of pirtobrutinib to pregnant rats caused embryo-fetal toxicity, including embryo-fetal mortality and malformations at maternal exposures (AUC) approximately 3-times the recommended 200 mg/day dose. Advise pregnant women of fetal risk and females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment and for one week after last dose.

Adverse Reactions (ARs) in Patients Who Received Jaypirca
The most common (≥30%) ARs in the pooled safety population of patients with hematologic malignancies (n=704) were decreased neutrophil count (54%), decreased hemoglobin (43%), decreased leukocytes (32%), fatigue (31%), decreased platelets (31%), decreased lymphocyte count (31%), calcium decreased (30%).

Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Serious ARs occurred in 38% of patients, with pneumonia (14%), COVID-19 (4.7%), musculoskeletal pain (3.9%), hemorrhage (2.3%), pleural effusion (2.3%), and sepsis (2.3%) occurring in ≥2% of patients. Fatal ARs within 28 days of last dose occurred in 7% of patients, most commonly due to infections (4.7%), including COVID-19 (3.1% of all patients).

Dose Modifications and Discontinuations Due to ARs: Dose reductions in 4.7%, treatment interruption in 32%, and permanent discontinuation of Jaypirca in 9% of patients. Permanent discontinuation in >1% of patients included pneumonia.

Most common ARs (≥15%) and Select Laboratory Abnormalities (≥10%) (all Grades %; Grade 3-4 %): hemoglobin decreased (42; 9), platelet count decreased (39; 14), neutrophil count decreased (36; 16), lymphocyte count decreased (32; 15), creatinine increased (30; 1.6), fatigue (29; 1.6), musculoskeletal pain (27; 3.9), calcium decreased (19; 1.6), diarrhea (19; -), edema (18; 0.8), dyspnea (17; 2.3), AST increased (17; 1.6), pneumonia (16; 14), bruising (16; -), potassium decreased (13; 1.6), sodium decreased (13; -), lipase increased (12; 4.4), ALT increased (11; 1.6), potassium increased (11; 0.8), alkaline phosphatase increased (11; -). Grade 4 laboratory abnormalities in >5% of patients included neutrophils decreased (10), platelets decreased (7), lymphocytes decreased (6).

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma from Single-Arm and Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

Serious ARs occurred in 47-56% of patients across clinical trials. Serious ARs in ≥5% of patients in the single-arm trial were pneumonia (18%), COVID-19 (9%), sepsis (7%), febrile neutropenia (7%). Serious ARs in ≥3% of patients in the randomized controlled trial were pneumonia (21%), COVID-19 (5%), sepsis (3.4%). Fatal ARs within 28-30 days of last Jaypirca dose occurred in 8-11% of patients, most commonly due to infections (7-10%), including sepsis (5%), COVID-19 (2.7-5%), and pneumonia (3.4%).

Dose Modifications and Discontinuations Due to ARs: Dose reductions in 3.6-10%, treatment interruption in 42-51%, and permanent discontinuation of Jaypirca in 9-17% of patients. Permanent discontinuation in >1% of patients included second primary malignancy, pneumonia, COVID-19, neutropenia, sepsis, anemia, and cardiac arrythmias.

Most common ARs and Select Laboratory Abnormalities (≥20%) (all Grades %, Grade 3-4 %)--in a randomized controlled trial: neutrophil count decreased (54; 26), hemoglobin decreased (45; 10), platelet count decreased (37; 17), pneumonia (28; 16), ALT increased (25; 1.8), creatinine increased (25; -), calcium decreased (23; 0.9), sodium decreased (22; 0.9), bilirubin increased (21; 0.9), upper respiratory tract infections (21; 0.9); in a single-arm trial: neutrophil count decreased (63; 45), hemoglobin decreased (48; 19), calcium decreased (40; 2.8), fatigue (36; 2.7), bruising (36; -), cough (33; -), musculoskeletal pain (32; 0.9), platelet count decreased (30; 15), sodium decreased (30; -), COVID-19 (28; 7), pneumonia (27; 16), diarrhea (26; -), abdominal pain (25; 2.7), lymphocyte count decreased (23; 8), ALT increased (23; 2.8), AST increased (23; 1.9), creatinine increased (23; -), dyspnea (22; 2.7), hemorrhage (22; 2.7), lipase increased (21; 7), alkaline phosphatase increased (21; -), edema (21; -), nausea (21; -), pyrexia (20; 2.7), headache (20; 0.9). Grade 4 laboratory abnormalities in >5% of patients included neutrophils decreased (23).

Drug Interactions

Strong CYP3A Inhibitors: Concomitant use increased pirtobrutinib systemic exposure, which may increase risk of Jaypirca ARs. Avoid using strong CYP3A inhibitors with Jaypirca. If concomitant use is unavoidable, reduce Jaypirca dose according to approved labeling.

Strong or Moderate CYP3A Inducers: Concomitant use decreased pirtobrutinib systemic exposure, which may reduce Jaypirca efficacy. Avoid using Jaypirca with strong or moderate CYP3A inducers. If concomitant use with moderate CYP3A inducers is unavoidable, increase Jaypirca dose according to approved labeling.

Sensitive CYP2C8, CYP2C19, CYP3A, P-gp, or BCRP Substrates: Use with Jaypirca increased their plasma concentrations, which may increase risk of ARs related to these substrates for drugs sensitive to minimal concentration changes. Follow recommendations for these sensitive substrates in their approved labeling.

Use in Specific Populations

Pregnancy and Lactation: Due to potential for Jaypirca to cause fetal harm, verify pregnancy status in females of reproductive potential prior to starting Jaypirca. Presence of pirtobrutinib in human milk is unknown. Advise women to use effective contraception and to not breastfeed while taking Jaypirca and for one week after last dose.

Geriatric Use: In the pooled safety population of patients with hematologic malignancies, patients aged ≥65 years experienced higher rates of Grade ≥3 ARs and serious ARs compared to patients <65 years of age.

Renal Impairment: Because severe renal impairment increases pirtobrutinib exposure, reduce Jaypirca dose in these patients according to approved labeling.

PT HCP ISI MCL_CLL Q42025

Please see Prescribing Information and Patient Information for Jaypirca.

About Lilly 
Lilly is a medicine company turning science into healing to make life better for people around the world. We've been pioneering life-changing discoveries for 150 years, and today our medicines help tens of millions of people across the globe. Harnessing the power of biotechnology, chemistry and genetic medicine, our scientists are urgently advancing new discoveries to solve some of the world's most significant health challenges: redefining diabetes care; treating obesity and curtailing its most devastating long-term effects; advancing the fight against Alzheimer's disease; providing solutions to some of the most debilitating immune system disorders; and transforming the most difficult-to-treat cancers into manageable diseases. With each step toward a healthier world, we're motivated by one thing: making life better for millions more people. That includes delivering innovative clinical trials that reflect the diversity of our world and working to ensure our medicines are accessible and affordable. To learn more, visit Lilly.com and Lilly.com/news, or follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. P-LLY

© Lilly USA, LLC 2026. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Trademarks and Trade Names
All trademarks or trade names referred to in this press release are the property of the company, or, to the extent trademarks or trade names belonging to other companies are referenced in this press release, the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and trade names in this press release are referred to without the ® and ™ symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that the company or, to the extent applicable, their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, the company's or their rights thereto. We do not intend the use or display of other companies' trademarks and trade names to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements (as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) about Jaypirca (pirtobrutinib), as a potential treatment for adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), and the timeline for future readouts, presentations, and other milestones relating to Jaypirca and its clinical trials, and reflects Lilly's current beliefs and expectations. However, as with any pharmaceutical product, there are substantial risks and uncertainties in the process of drug research, development, and commercialization. Among other things, there is no guarantee that planned or ongoing studies will be completed as planned, that future study results will be consistent with study results to date, that Jaypirca will receive additional regulatory approvals, or that Lilly will execute its strategy as expected. For further discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from Lilly's expectations, see Lilly's Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as required by law, Lilly undertakes no duty to update forward-looking statements to reflect events after the date of this release.

Endnotes & References

Mato AR, Shah NN, Jurczak W, et al. Pirtobrutinib in relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies (BRUIN): a phase 1/2 study. Lancet. 2021;397(10277):892-901. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00224-5 Hanel W, Epperla N. Emerging therapies in mantle cell lymphoma. J Hematol Oncol. 2020;13(1):79. Published 2020 Jun 17. doi:10.1186/s13045-020-00914-1 Gu D, Tang H, Wu J, Li J, Miao Y. Targeting Bruton tyrosine kinase using non-covalent inhibitors in B cell malignancies. J Hematol Oncol. 2021;14(1):40. Published 2021 Mar 6. doi:10.1186/s13045-021-01049-7 Mukkamalla SKR, Taneja A, Malipeddi D, et al. Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. [Updated 2023 Feb 18]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470433/ The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. NHL Subtypes. Access here: https://www.lls.org/lymphoma/non-hodgkin-lymphoma/nhl-subtypes. Accessed on October 25, 2023. Ou Y, Long Y, Ji L, et al. Trends in Disease Burden of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia at the Global, Regional, and National Levels From 1990 to 2019, and Projections Until 2030: A Population-Based Epidemiologic Study. Front Oncol. 2022;12:840616. Published 2022 Mar 10. doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.840616 Sant M, et al. Incidence of hematologic malignancies in Europe by morphologic subtype: results of the HAEMACARE project. Blood. 2010. 116:3724–34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20664057/  Refer to:   Kyle Owens; [email protected] (Media)
                  Michael Czapar; [email protected] (Investors) 

SOURCE Eli Lilly and Company

Key Takeaways MKC says Flavor Solutions growth offset softer U.S. consumer trends, led by foodservice and CPG demand.MKC is refining pricing, packs, distribution and marketing to improve consumer trends by the third quarter.MKC topped earnings and revenue estimates, with gross margin up 270 basis points and operating income up 30%. McCormick & Company, Incorporated (MKC - Free Report) used its second-quarter call to make a clear case that Flavor Solutions is carrying the business, while management works to restore better volume trends in U.S. consumer spices.

Management reaffirmed its 2026 outlook, but much of the investor focus shifted to how quickly the company can fix pressure in the Americas consumer business and sustain the stronger industrial and foodservice backdrop.

MKC Finds Its Main Engine in Flavor SolutionsChairman, president and CEO Brendan Foley said the quarter’s most important feature was the acceleration in Flavor Solutions, where growth broadened across Flavors and Branded Foodservice customers. That strength more than offset softer consumer trends in the Americas.

Flavor Solutions' organic sales rose 3% in the quarter, with gains split nearly evenly between price and volume. In the Americas, the segment posted 4% organic growth, helped by large CPG customers, private label, high-growth innovators and stronger branded foodservice demand.

Foley also pointed to reformulation activity, beverage innovation and health-and-wellness projects as key demand drivers. In Q&A, he said those projects are commercializing faster than initially expected, which adds support to the second-half outlook for the segment.

McCormick Targets a Consumer Volume ResetThe softer spot remained Global Consumer, especially U.S. spices and seasonings. Foley said shifting demand patterns, wider price gaps and heavier competitive promotion hurt consumption in certain segments, even as the broader category still grew.

Management’s response is familiar but more targeted this time. Foley said McCormick is refining revenue growth management, adjusting price-pack architecture, expanding distribution and increasing value-focused marketing to improve trends by the third quarter and return to volume growth in the fourth.

That issue surfaced repeatedly in analyst questions. Barclays, BofA and TD Cowen all pressed management on whether the company can restore sustainable volume momentum. Foley’s answer was consistent: the playbook is similar to the one used two years ago, but execution is faster, more digital and aimed at narrower pockets of weakness.

MKC Uses Margin Gains to Fund ReinvestmentThe second quarter still showed strong financial leverage. Adjusted EPS came in at $0.80, which beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $0.69 by 15.9%. Revenues of $1.94 billion topped the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.90 billion by 2%. Gross margin expanded 270 basis points, and adjusted operating income rose 30%.

CFO Marcos Gabriel said the largest moving pieces behind margin expansion were accretion from McCormick de Mexico, productivity savings, surgical pricing and a tariff refund. The refund lowered the cost of goods sold by $28 million in the quarter and added about $0.07 to adjusted EPS.

Just as important, Gabriel said most of that tariff benefit is being used to absorb higher inflation tied to the Middle East conflict and other cost pressures. That framing mattered because management presented the quarter’s margin upside as a source of funding for reinvestment, not as a clean earnings windfall.

McCormick Pushes Ahead on Unilever FoodsFoley also spent time reinforcing confidence in the pending Unilever Foods combination. He said integration planning is advancing with a dedicated management office, 20 functional teams and more than 200 people working across both organizations.

Management reiterated the deal’s financial targets, including a 21% operating margin at close, mid- to high-single-digit adjusted EPS accretion within the first 12 months after closing and mid- to high-teens accretion by year three.

Analysts also tested the durability of that future margin profile. Foley and Gabriel argued the model does not assume unusually lean SG&A, and Gabriel said the path to 23% to 25% operating margins comes from layering synergies on top of the 21% starting point.

MKC Flags a Softer Third-Quarter Profit CadenceThe other area of scrutiny was the third quarter. Gabriel said adjusted operating income should grow in the high-single-digit to low-double-digit range, with continued gross margin expansion offset by heavier ERP spending, higher incentive compensation and a significant increase in brand marketing.

JPMorgan and BNP Paribas pushed on whether this reflected a change in expectations. Gabriel said it was more about SG&A phasing than a change in the company’s internal view, though he also acknowledged inflation is tracking toward the high end of the company’s mid-single-digit cost outlook.

Cash flow was one cleaner positive. First-half operating cash flow rose to $431 million from $161 million a year earlier, helped by profitability and working capital improvement, particularly in inventory days and payables. Leverage ended the quarter at about 2.9 times.

McCormick Leaves the Call on OffenseThe overall tone coming out of the call was constructive but not complacent. Management repeatedly pointed to the resilience of flavor categories, the breadth of the portfolio and the ability to redirect margin gains into brand support, innovation and distribution.

At the same time, executives did not underplay the strain on the U.S. consumer. The company’s message was that Flavor Solutions is performing ahead of plan, while consumer remediation is now the central execution task for the back half of fiscal 2026.

MKC’s Zacks Signals Still Lean CautiousMKC currently carries a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell), along with a Value Score of C, Growth Score of F, Momentum Score of C and VGM Score of D. Under the Zacks framework, weaker ranks reflect less favorable earnings estimate revision trends, while Style Scores help gauge value, growth and momentum characteristics.

You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.

That combination points to a more cautious near-term setup than the quarter’s headline beat alone would imply. The Zacks system places the greatest weight on estimate revisions, and the current rank can change as analysts update forecasts after the just-reported results.

Carvana NYSE: CVNA delivered a genuinely impressive Q1 2026 earnings report that included a record number of units sold.

Carvana Today

$66.22 -1.69 (-2.49%)

As of 06/25/2026 03:59 PM Eastern

52-Week Range$54.46▼

$97.38P/E Ratio40.28

Price Target$93.14

However, in the two months following the report, CVNA is down approximately 15% despite favorable analyst sentiment. That includes a 10% drop on June 17 in sympathy with cost commentary from CarMax NYSE: KMX, even though Carvana's own unit economics are moving in the opposite direction.

Get Carvana alerts:

After the company’s strong Q1 numbers, Carvana still has operational fuel left in the tank. For example, the company’s AI-driven reconditioning tools haven't been rolled out at most facilities, meaning further margin expansion is on the runway.

The company's new Stellantis NYSE: STLA hybrid hub model has also shown early traction. The Casa Grande franchise reportedly went from 30 to 50 units per month to more than 700 after Carvana took it over.

Why Is CVNA Under Pressure?With all these positive factors driving the stock's outlook, why is CVNA under pressure? Some may say the issue is one of valuation. At 41x forward earnings, Carvana is priced like a technology stock. But the company’s innovative, online-only model has been disruptive to a market that wasn’t known for innovation. And, although the company doesn’t have a long history of profitability, the 41x figure is a discount to its historic average.

The company also cited the likelihood of lower gross profit per unit (GPU) in the coming quarter for a variety of reasons, including the year-over-year comparison to last year’s tariff anniversary. But that’s likely to be a one-time event and wouldn’t explain a sell-off that is now over 20% in 2026.

Carvana Is More Sensitive to Financing ConditionsThe real impact on CVNA is likely coming from something outside of its control. Specifically, the near-term direction of U.S. monetary policy. The tone of Federal Reserve chair Kevin Warsh's statements on June 17 did not indicate that he means to move towards an accommodative stance anytime soon.

The CME FedWatch tool agrees. The odds of a rate cut for the rest of 2026 are not even given a percentage. This may not satisfy investors who want to sharpen their pencils and look for a mathematical reason to sell Carvana in the company’s financials. But before dismissing it, here’s something to consider.

For an auto retailer, interest rates matter because auto loan rates are among the stickiest in consumer credit. The average used car APR is well above 11%. Trade-ins increasingly carry negative equity. A consumer who barely qualifies at current rates gets squeezed harder if rates hold or rise

Something else to consider, Carvana's competitor CarMax recently delivered earnings and, despite beating estimates and growing penetration, saw net income drop nearly 12% to $185.6 million as it cut prices to defend volume. Its loan-loss reserve also climbed to 2.95% of loans, up from 2.78%, as the company leaned harder into Tier 2. This is a category of consumers with strong but not top-tier credit who usually qualify for rates that carry a cost premium.

The typical Carvana customer skews to a lower FICO score than CarMax and is more dependent on financing. When rates stay high, marginal buyers are the first to be disqualified, and those are disproportionately Carvana's customers. There's also a K-shaped wrinkle to consider. Upper-leg consumers are still spending, but they're prioritizing travel and experiences over big-ticket vehicle purchases.

That does give fundamental investors something to consider. Restrictive policy compresses growth multiples hardest. At a 41x forward multiple, Carvana needs growth to deliver.

If higher-for-longer rates take $1 of earnings per share (EPS) away from CarMax, it could take 10x off CVNA's multiple. That puts Carvana’s 5-for-1 split last quarter into a different light.

Analysts Remain Bullish, But Technicals Stay WeakInstitutional buying was down sharply in the last quarter, but since the company’s earnings report, analysts have been mostly bullish on CVNA. The Carvana analyst forecasts on MarketBeat show a consensus price target of $93.14 as of June 24, representing a significant gain for investors. However, investors may have to wait until after Carvana reports earnings next month to get a better picture of analyst sentiment.

The CVNA chart shows a stock that continues to be in a downtrend, with recent rallies failing to crack the 200-day simple moving average. A bigger concern for investors may be volume, which is down sharply. The MACD also remains below its signal line, with the histogram near zero. There’s simply no real conviction one way or the other, which amplifies short interest of around 7%, which in and of itself isn’t bearish.

The next potential catalyst comes with Carvana's Q2 earnings report scheduled for July 29. Until then, CVNA is likely to stay tethered to macro signals rather than its own execution. The numbers say the company’s business model is working. The question is whether the Federal Reserve cooperates before the multiple compresses further.

Should You Invest $1,000 in Carvana Right Now?Before you consider Carvana, you'll want to hear this.

MarketBeat keeps track of Wall Street's top-rated and best performing research analysts and the stocks they recommend to their clients on a daily basis. MarketBeat has identified the five stocks that top analysts are quietly whispering to their clients to buy now before the broader market catches on... and Carvana wasn't on the list.

While Carvana currently has a Moderate Buy rating among analysts, top-rated analysts believe these five stocks are better buys.

View The Five Stocks Here

Enter your email address and we’ll send you MarketBeat’s list of ten stocks set to soar in Summer 2026, despite the threat of tariffs and what's happening in Iran. These ten stocks are incredibly resilient and are likely to thrive in any economic environment.

Get This Free Report