Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Cocoa prices are beginning to ease after a record-breaking rally, but don't expect cheaper candy just yet as the world's biggest chocolate makers turn to social media-inspired products and other strategies to win shoppers back.

Cocoa prices reached record highs over the past two years, triggered by adverse weather conditions and poor cocoa harvests that pushed chocolate costs higher and dampened consumer sentiment.

However, the price of cocoa now appears to be falling.

Cocoa futures were last trading at $5327 per metric ton and are down 34% over the past year. The commodity surged to almost $12,000 per metric ton at the end of 2024. Cocoa prices typically hovered around $2,000 to $3,000 over the past two decades.

Cocoa futures over the past five years.

Swiss Chocolate giants Barry Callebaut, Lindt, and Nestlé all pointed to soaring cocoa prices as a drag on earnings.

Lindt said Monday that groupwide price increases of 11.8% led to chocolate sales volumes dropping 7.5% as fewer shoppers bought chocolate in the first half of the year.

"Record cocoa prices required unprecedented price increases across the industry, while geopolitical uncertainty, inflation and weak consumer sentiment weighed on demand," Group CEO Adalbert Lechner said in an analyst call. "The crisis in the Middle East added another headwind with weaker tourism flows from Asia and the Middle East to Europe."

The world's largest chocolate and cocoa supplier, Barry Callebaut, said that while global consumers are buying 4.4% less chocolate in the third quarter than the same time last year, overall sales volumes for the company grew 5.7% in the quarter, turning positive for the first time in over two years. Additionally, its global cocoa sales accelerated 18% due to a market correction earlier this year.

Meanwhile, food and beverage firm Nestlé said higher cocoa and coffee prices hit its underlying trading operating profit in the first half of the year, dropping 2.8%. The firm's confectionery business makes up 9.7% of its total sales. Nestlé expects to see margins benefit from cocoa prices coming down.

What's happening with cocoa? Cocoa prices' volatile run was largely due to poor cocoa harvests in West Africa, which were worsened by weather patterns related to El Niño and climate change, resulting in tight supply.

El Niño is a weather phenomenon with warmer-than-average temperatures that occurs every two to seven years in the Pacific Ocean. Soaring cocoa prices in 2024 were largely due to a 'strong' El Niño that led to drier, hotter weather and erratic rainfall in West Africa, according to a December analysis by Dr Tanya Lander, a researcher at the Oxford Martin School Programme on the Future of Food.

"So, it is unsurprising that the El Niño weather was linked to poor cocoa harvests in both Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana (where 60-70% of global cocoa beans are produced)," Lander wrote.

Climate change and increasing temperatures are also playing a role, with 2024 being the hottest year on record. A recent heatwave across Europe could also dampen consumer enthusiasm for chocolate, UBS analysts said in an early July note on Lindt.

Heatwaves and rising temperatures in some of Lindt's core European markets could impact chocolate demand, with European sales excluding Eastern Europe, declining in the four weeks ending June 14, the analysts said.

However, Barry Callebaut said that while a strong El Niño has been confirmed for 2026 and 2027 and creates a downside risk on supply, a large surplus for 2025-2026 acts as a buffer, resulting in a very different situation from 2023-2024.

The UBS analysts expect that Lindt has hedged at favourable cocoa bean prices for 2027, a move they estimate could reduce costs by as much as 500 million Swiss francs.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs have also had a brief but significant impact, causing price spikes and supply chain disruptions. More recently, the conflict in the Middle East also hit Lindt's travel retail business globally by reducing tourism flows.

Premium chocolate, social media trendsAs cocoa prices are expected to recover, chocolatiers are looking to win back their core customer base by innovating their premium product formats, as well as keeping a closer eye on social media trends that young people are engaging with.

Lindt released its Dubai-style chocolate bar in December 2024, a in a bid to capitalize on a viral social media trend. Global retailers from Walmart to Trader Joe's, Shake Shack, and Harrods are now selling Dubai chocolate too.

Lindt CEO Lechner said the company plans to expand its "social media presence" to create a seamless journey between inspiration, discovery, and purchase.

"The extraordinary success of our Dubai Style Chocolate launch demonstrated the growing power of social media in building awareness, engagement, and demand for our brands," Lechner said in the earnings call.

"This strategy is helping us reach new audiences and strengthen our relevance with younger consumers."

watch now

Nestlé's CEO Philipp Navratil echoed this view, saying in an analyst call on Thursday that the company plans to invest more in influencer marketing, with changes coming to how the brand advertises itself.

"More digital, more social, more organic, more fun. Tapping into how younger consumers engage with the world," Navratil said.

Both Barry Callebaut and Lindt are focusing on consumer interest in premium products for the remaining half of the year, but they're getting creative about how they offer products rather than increasing prices.

"By broadening our price architecture, we can attract new consumers, increase purchase frequency, and offer more touchpoints with the Lindt brand without compromising our premium positioning," Lechner said.

Lechner pointed out that Lindt had selectively lower prices in key markets such as Germany and Switzerland, particularly over Christmas, to support consumer demand during its most important season. Meanwhile, Barry Callebaut and Nestlé haven't mentioned lowering prices.

Instead, Barry Callebaut is also leaning into premium chocolate, growing its Gourmet business, which supplies chefs and bakers, while expanding higher-end specialty chocolate products.

PepsiCo (NASDAQ:PEP – Get Free Report) and Embotelladora Andina (NYSE:AKO.B – Get Free Report) are both consumer staples companies, but which is the superior business? We will contrast the two companies based on the strength of their earnings, risk, analyst recommendations, dividends, institutional ownership, valuation and profitability.

Dividends PepsiCo pays an annual dividend of $5.92 per share and has a dividend yield of 4.3%. Embotelladora Andina pays an annual dividend of $0.74 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.4%. PepsiCo pays out 77.6% of its earnings in the form of a dividend, suggesting it may not have sufficient earnings to cover its dividend payment in the future. Embotelladora Andina pays out 36.3% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. PepsiCo has increased its dividend for 54 consecutive years. PepsiCo is clearly the better dividend stock, given its higher yield and longer track record of dividend growth.

Valuation & Earnings This table compares PepsiCo and Embotelladora Andina”s top-line revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

Gross Revenue Price/Sales Ratio Net Income Earnings Per Share Price/Earnings Ratio PepsiCo $93.92 billion 1.99 $8.24 billion $7.63 17.91 Embotelladora Andina $3.52 billion 1.36 $295.57 million $2.04 14.89 PepsiCo has higher revenue and earnings than Embotelladora Andina. Embotelladora Andina is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than PepsiCo, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Volatility & Risk PepsiCo has a beta of 0.36, indicating that its share price is 64% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Embotelladora Andina has a beta of 0.63, indicating that its share price is 37% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Profitability This table compares PepsiCo and Embotelladora Andina’s net margins, return on equity and return on assets.

Net Margins Return on Equity Return on Assets PepsiCo 10.78% 54.63% 10.49% Embotelladora Andina 8.70% 24.47% 8.89% Institutional and Insider Ownership 73.1% of PepsiCo shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 1.6% of Embotelladora Andina shares are held by institutional investors. 0.1% of PepsiCo shares are held by insiders. Comparatively, 0.0% of Embotelladora Andina shares are held by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, large money managers and endowments believe a stock is poised for long-term growth.

Analyst Ratings This is a breakdown of recent recommendations for PepsiCo and Embotelladora Andina, as reported by MarketBeat.

Sell Ratings Hold Ratings Buy Ratings Strong Buy Ratings Rating Score PepsiCo 1 12 7 0 2.30 Embotelladora Andina 0 1 0 1 3.00 PepsiCo currently has a consensus target price of $157.90, indicating a potential upside of 15.56%. Given PepsiCo’s higher possible upside, equities analysts plainly believe PepsiCo is more favorable than Embotelladora Andina.

Summary PepsiCo beats Embotelladora Andina on 14 of the 18 factors compared between the two stocks.

About PepsiCo (Get Free Report)

PepsiCo, Inc. engages in the manufacture, marketing, distribution, and sale of various beverages and convenient foods worldwide. The company operates through seven segments: Frito-Lay North America; Quaker Foods North America; PepsiCo Beverages North America; Latin America; Europe; Africa, Middle East and South Asia; and Asia Pacific, Australia and New Zealand and China Region. It provides dips, cheese-flavored snacks, and spreads, as well as corn, potato, and tortilla chips; cereals, rice, pasta, mixes and syrups, granola bars, grits, oatmeal, rice cakes, and side dishes; beverage concentrates, fountain syrups, and finished goods; ready-to-drink tea, coffee, and juices; dairy products; and sparkling water makers and related products, as well as distributes alcoholic beverages under Hard MTN Dew brand. The company offers its products primarily under the Lay’s, Doritos, Fritos, Tostitos, BaiCaoWei, Cheetos, Cap’n Crunch, Life, Pearl Milling Company, Gatorade, Pepsi-Cola, Mountain Dew, Quaker, Rice-A-Roni, Aquafina, Bubly, Emperador, Diet Mountain Dew, Diet Pepsi, Gatorade Zero, Crush, Propel, Dr Pepper, Schweppes, Marias Gamesa, Ruffles, Sabritas, Saladitas, Tostitos, 7UP, Diet 7UP, H2oh!, Manzanita Sol, Mirinda, Pepsi Black, Pepsi Max, San Carlos, Toddy, Walkers, Chipsy, Kurkure, Sasko, Spekko, White Star, Smith’s, Sting, SodaStream, Lubimyj Sad, Agusha, Chudo, Domik v Derevne, Lipton, and other brands. It serves wholesale and other distributors, foodservice customers, grocery stores, drug stores, convenience stores, discount/dollar stores, mass merchandisers, membership stores, hard discounters, e-commerce retailers and authorized independent bottlers, and others through a network of direct-store-delivery, customer warehouse, and distributor networks, as well as directly to consumers through e-commerce platforms and retailers. The company was founded in 1898 and is based in Purchase, New York.

About Embotelladora Andina (Get Free Report)

Embotelladora Andina S.A., together with its subsidiaries, produces, markets, and distributes Coca-Cola soft drinks in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. It also offers fruit-flavored beverages, juices, sports and energy drinks, ice tea, and bottled water. Embotelladora Andina S.A. was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Santiago, Chile.

Receive News & Ratings for PepsiCo Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for PepsiCo and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

Posted by Defense World Staff on Jul 26th, 2026

Shares of International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:IBM – Get Free Report) have been given an average rating of “Moderate Buy” by the twenty-seven research firms that are currently covering the stock, MarketBeat.com reports. One research analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, eleven have given a hold rating and fifteen have given a buy rating to the company. The average 12-month target price among brokers that have updated their coverage on the stock in the last year is $265.40.

A number of brokerages have recently issued reports on IBM. Barclays lowered their target price on shares of International Business Machines from $288.00 to $262.00 and set an “overweight” rating for the company in a research note on Thursday. Sanford C. Bernstein reiterated a “market perform” rating on shares of International Business Machines in a report on Thursday, July 16th. Royal Bank Of Canada reissued an “outperform” rating and issued a $270.00 price objective on shares of International Business Machines in a research report on Tuesday. Wedbush set a $350.00 target price on shares of International Business Machines in a research note on Tuesday, June 2nd. Finally, Wall Street Zen lowered shares of International Business Machines from a “hold” rating to a “sell” rating in a research report on Saturday, July 18th.

Read Our Latest Report on IBM

Institutional Investors Weigh In On International Business Machines A number of institutional investors and hedge funds have recently bought and sold shares of the company. VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEMS ET Al lifted its position in International Business Machines by 424.6% during the fourth quarter. VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEMS ET Al now owns 260,740 shares of the technology company’s stock valued at $77,234,000 after acquiring an additional 211,040 shares during the last quarter. Assetmark Inc. grew its stake in International Business Machines by 24.8% during the 1st quarter. Assetmark Inc. now owns 64,458 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $15,624,000 after buying an additional 12,791 shares during the last quarter. GLOBALT Investments LLC GA increased its position in International Business Machines by 19.1% during the 4th quarter. GLOBALT Investments LLC GA now owns 18,288 shares of the technology company’s stock valued at $5,417,000 after buying an additional 2,930 shares in the last quarter. Newbridge Financial Services Group Inc. increased its position in International Business Machines by 30.0% during the 4th quarter. Newbridge Financial Services Group Inc. now owns 13,122 shares of the technology company’s stock valued at $3,887,000 after buying an additional 3,029 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Rice Partnership LLC purchased a new stake in International Business Machines in the fourth quarter valued at about $3,317,000. 58.96% of the stock is owned by institutional investors.

International Business Machines Price Performance Shares of IBM stock opened at $214.16 on Thursday. The stock has a 50 day moving average price of $262.92 and a 200 day moving average price of $260.50. International Business Machines has a 52-week low of $199.19 and a 52-week high of $332.46. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.63, a quick ratio of 0.76 and a current ratio of 0.79. The firm has a market capitalization of $201.28 billion, a P/E ratio of 19.00, a P/E/G ratio of 2.32 and a beta of 0.68.

International Business Machines (NYSE:IBM – Get Free Report) last announced its quarterly earnings data on Wednesday, July 22nd. The technology company reported $2.93 EPS for the quarter, meeting the consensus estimate of $2.93. International Business Machines had a return on equity of 35.65% and a net margin of 15.52%.The company had revenue of $17.16 billion for the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $17.46 billion. During the same quarter in the prior year, the company posted $2.80 EPS. International Business Machines’s quarterly revenue was up 1.1% on a year-over-year basis. As a group, sell-side analysts predict that International Business Machines will post 12.34 earnings per share for the current year.

International Business Machines Announces Dividend The company also recently disclosed a quarterly dividend, which will be paid on Thursday, September 10th. Investors of record on Monday, August 10th will be paid a $1.69 dividend. The ex-dividend date of this dividend is Monday, August 10th. This represents a $6.76 annualized dividend and a yield of 3.2%. International Business Machines’s dividend payout ratio is 59.98%.

International Business Machines News Summary Here are the key news stories impacting International Business Machines this week:

Positive Sentiment: Unusual options activity showed strong bullish interest, with traders buying 108,601 call options on IBM, about 35% above normal call volume. This suggests some investors are betting on a rebound. Positive Sentiment: Citigroup lowered its price target to $245 from $255 but kept a Buy rating, implying meaningful upside from current levels and signaling that some analysts still see value in the shares. Positive Sentiment: IBM announced a dividend of $1.69 per share, reinforcing its appeal to income-focused investors at a time when the stock has been under pressure. Neutral Sentiment: Recent commentary has turned split: some analysts and strategists view the post-earnings decline as a potential long-term opportunity, while others say IBM may be stuck in a holding pattern until growth reaccelerates. IBM: The Historic Stock Rout Is A Generational Opportunity Neutral Sentiment: IBM is still getting support from its long-term quantum computing strategy, including the announced acquisition of HRL Laboratories, which expands its quantum R&D capabilities. That could help sentiment, but the benefit is longer term rather than immediate. Negative Sentiment: The main reason the stock fell sharply is IBM’s Q2 report and lowered 2026 outlook: revenue missed expectations, mainframe sales weakened, and management cut full-year constant-currency revenue growth guidance after customers shifted spending toward AI infrastructure. Negative Sentiment: Shortly after the earnings slump, law firms announced securities-fraud investigations tied to IBM’s disclosures about the mainframe slowdown, adding legal overhang and uncertainty for shareholders. International Business Machines Company Profile (Get Free Report)

International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) is a global technology and consulting company headquartered in Armonk, New York. Founded in 1911 as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR) and renamed IBM in 1924, the company has evolved from early electromechanical machines to a diversified technology provider serving enterprises and governments worldwide. IBM is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol IBM.

IBM’s principal businesses encompass cloud computing and software, infrastructure and systems, consulting and technology services, and research and development.

Featured Stories Five stocks we like better than International Business Machines Telecom Earnings Reveal a Sector That Finally Looks Healthier Defense Earnings Show Readiness Now and Modernization Ahead Why Palantir Investors Aren’t Panicking While the Rest of AI Sells Off MarketBeat Week in Review – 07/20- 07/24

Receive News & Ratings for International Business Machines Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for International Business Machines and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

« PREVIOUS HEADLINEContrasting Fulton Financial (NASDAQ:FULT) and Magyar Bancorp (NASDAQ:MGYR)

NEXT HEADLINE »The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. (NYSE:EL) Receives $98.11 Average Target Price from Analysts

Posted by Defense World Staff on Jul 26th, 2026

Charter Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:CHTR – Get Free Report) has received an average rating of “Reduce” from the nineteen analysts that are presently covering the company, Marketbeat.com reports. Six investment analysts have rated the stock with a sell recommendation, eight have issued a hold recommendation and five have given a buy recommendation to the company. The average 1 year target price among brokers that have updated their coverage on the stock in the last year is $249.1250.

CHTR has been the subject of several recent research reports. BNP Paribas Exane lowered their price objective on shares of Charter Communications from $150.00 to $120.00 and set an “underperform” rating for the company in a research report on Tuesday, July 14th. The Goldman Sachs Group decreased their target price on shares of Charter Communications from $185.00 to $125.00 and set a “sell” rating for the company in a research note on Thursday, July 2nd. Citigroup lowered their price target on shares of Charter Communications from $230.00 to $190.00 and set a “buy” rating for the company in a report on Monday, June 29th. JPMorgan Chase & Co. dropped their price target on shares of Charter Communications from $215.00 to $200.00 and set a “neutral” rating on the stock in a research note on Monday, July 20th. Finally, Benchmark reaffirmed a “buy” rating on shares of Charter Communications in a research note on Wednesday.

Check Out Our Latest Report on Charter Communications

Charter Communications News Roundup Here are the key news stories impacting Charter Communications this week:

Positive Sentiment: Charter beat second-quarter earnings expectations, reporting $10.66 per share versus estimates around $9.98, and revenue of $13.53 billion came in slightly ahead of forecasts. Charter Announces Second Quarter 2026 Results Positive Sentiment: Mobile line growth remained a bright spot, with the company adding more than 400,000 new mobile lines, showing that its wireless expansion is still gaining traction. MarketWatch article on internet erosion Neutral Sentiment: Charter also announced debt exchange offers, which could help manage its capital structure, but the move is not a clear near-term catalyst for the stock. Charter Announces Debt Exchange Offers Negative Sentiment: Broadband subscriber losses were steeper than expected, reinforcing concerns that Charter is losing share to fiber and fixed-wireless competitors and weakening the outlook for its core internet business. Reuters broadband customer losses article Negative Sentiment: Multiple reports say Charter’s shares fell sharply to fresh lows as investors worried about ongoing internet and video customer losses, declining revenue, and a worsening competitive environment. MarketWatch article on Charter stock sharply lower Charter Communications Price Performance CHTR stock opened at $123.31 on Thursday. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 4.56, a quick ratio of 0.40 and a current ratio of 0.40. Charter Communications has a 1 year low of $111.55 and a 1 year high of $335.52. The firm has a market cap of $15.17 billion, a P/E ratio of 3.20, a price-to-earnings-growth ratio of 0.23 and a beta of 0.71. The stock has a 50-day simple moving average of $136.02 and a 200-day simple moving average of $184.01.

Charter Communications (NASDAQ:CHTR – Get Free Report) last announced its earnings results on Friday, July 24th. The company reported $10.66 EPS for the quarter, beating the consensus estimate of $9.98 by $0.68. The business had revenue of $13.53 billion for the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $13.51 billion. Charter Communications had a return on equity of 24.20% and a net margin of 9.03%.The company’s revenue was down 1.7% on a year-over-year basis. During the same period last year, the business posted $9.18 EPS. On average, equities analysts predict that Charter Communications will post 41.29 earnings per share for the current fiscal year.

Insider Activity at Charter Communications In other Charter Communications news, Director Wade Davis purchased 5,728 shares of Charter Communications stock in a transaction that occurred on Tuesday, April 28th. The stock was purchased at an average price of $173.72 per share, with a total value of $995,068.16. Following the completion of the acquisition, the director owned 6,925 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $1,203,011. This trade represents a 478.53% increase in their position. The purchase was disclosed in a document filed with the SEC, which can be accessed through this hyperlink. Also, CEO Christopher L. Winfrey acquired 3,468 shares of the stock in a transaction on Tuesday, April 28th. The shares were acquired at an average price of $172.23 per share, with a total value of $597,293.64. Following the purchase, the chief executive officer owned 74,409 shares in the company, valued at $12,815,462.07. This represents a 4.89% increase in their ownership of the stock. The disclosure for this purchase is available in the SEC filing. Over the last ninety days, insiders acquired 20,125 shares of company stock valued at $3,167,116. 1.10% of the stock is currently owned by insiders.

Hedge Funds Weigh In On Charter Communications Several institutional investors and hedge funds have recently made changes to their positions in the business. Thompson Siegel & Walmsley LLC grew its holdings in Charter Communications by 1,804.0% during the 4th quarter. Thompson Siegel & Walmsley LLC now owns 102,528 shares of the company’s stock worth $21,403,000 after acquiring an additional 97,143 shares in the last quarter. Gateway Investment Advisers LLC acquired a new stake in shares of Charter Communications in the 4th quarter valued at about $5,911,000. Norges Bank acquired a new stake in shares of Charter Communications in the 4th quarter valued at about $555,383,000. First Eagle Investment Management LLC lifted its position in shares of Charter Communications by 119.6% during the fourth quarter. First Eagle Investment Management LLC now owns 2,969,507 shares of the company’s stock worth $619,885,000 after purchasing an additional 1,617,148 shares during the last quarter. Finally, Swiss Life Asset Management Ltd lifted its position in shares of Charter Communications by 110.7% during the fourth quarter. Swiss Life Asset Management Ltd now owns 31,239 shares of the company’s stock worth $6,521,000 after purchasing an additional 16,415 shares during the last quarter. 81.76% of the stock is currently owned by hedge funds and other institutional investors.

About Charter Communications (Get Free Report)

Charter Communications, Inc is a U.S.-based telecommunications and mass media company that provides broadband communications and video services to residential and business customers. Operating primarily under the Spectrum brand, the company offers high-speed internet, cable television, digital voice (phone) and wireless services, as well as managed and enterprise networking solutions for commercial customers. Charter’s service portfolio targets both consumer and business markets with bundled and standalone offerings designed to meet streaming, connectivity and communications needs.

The company’s consumer-facing products include Spectrum Internet, Spectrum TV and Spectrum Voice, while Spectrum Mobile provides wireless service through arrangements with national wireless carriers.

Featured Stories Five stocks we like better than Charter Communications Telecom Earnings Reveal a Sector That Finally Looks Healthier Defense Earnings Show Readiness Now and Modernization Ahead Why Palantir Investors Aren’t Panicking While the Rest of AI Sells Off MarketBeat Week in Review – 07/20- 07/24

Receive News & Ratings for Charter Communications Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Charter Communications and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.

« PREVIOUS HEADLINEComparing Rand Capital (NASDAQ:RAND) & Blackrock Tcp Capital (NASDAQ:TCPC)

NEXT HEADLINE »Brokerages Set PulteGroup, Inc. (NYSE:PHM) Price Target at $142.21

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

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

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA.

South Korea's pension fund has turned to net buying of KOSPI for the first time this year, taking a heavy position in SK Hynix.

South Korean exchange data shows that pension funds, including the National Pension Service (NPS) — one of the largest institutional investors in South Korea's stock market — have turned net buyers in the Korean stock market for the first time this month. As of July 24, the NPS and other pension funds have net purchased 68.4 billion won (approximately $46.8 million) of KOSPI index constituent stocks in July this year. This marks the first monthly net purchase by pension funds this year after six consecutive months of net selling. In terms of individual stocks, SK Hynix is the most bought stock by pension funds since July, with a net purchase amount of 425.8 billion won. (Jinshi)

28 minutes ago

Iran and Oman hold multiple rounds of consultations on the Strait of Hormuz issue.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahaei stated that from the 24th to 25th, Iran and Oman held multiple rounds of deputy foreign minister-level talks in Tehran. On the basis of respecting the sovereign rights of the two coastal states, Iran and Oman, the two sides held in-depth exchanges of views on the common principles and specific operational mechanisms for ensuring safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Bahaei noted that the talks were productive and yielded certain progress. The Omani delegation left Tehran on the afternoon of the 25th, but the two sides will continue to maintain consultations at the technical and political levels. In addition, Bahaei said that the current navigation status of ships in the Strait of Hormuz has not changed. (CCTV International News)

28 minutes ago

Changxin Technology will go public tomorrow, with its over-the-counter market valuation reaching 2.76 trillion yuan.

Changxin Technology will list on the STAR Market of the Shanghai Stock Exchange on July 27, with an initial market capitalization of around 580 billion yuan. The IPO is priced at 8.66 yuan per share, and the final online subscription winning rate hit 0.4714%, a new record for STAR Market IPOs. After full exercise of the over-allotment option, total fundraising can reach up to 66.6 billion yuan. According to Hyperinsight monitoring, the price of CXMT (Changxin Memory, with Changxin Technology as its listed entity) Pre-IPO contract on Hyperliquid is currently quoted at $6.087, equivalent to a share price of 41.2 yuan. Calculated based on the total share capital of 66.881 billion shares post-IPO, the on-chain implied market value stands at approximately $407.1 billion, or around 2.76 trillion yuan. Based on this valuation, the subscription cost for a single retail lot of 500 shares is 4,330 yuan, with an estimated market value of 20,600 yuan for 500 shares on the first trading day, translating to a single lot profit of roughly 16,000 yuan. Founded in 2016, Changxin Technology is China’s largest and most technologically advanced integrated DRAM R&D, design and manufacturing enterprise. In Q4 2025, it held a 7.67% global DRAM market share, ranking fourth worldwide and first in China, with ambitions to become the world’s third-largest DRAM supplier. In Q1 2026, the company’s revenue reached 50.8 billion yuan, surging 719% year-on-year; net profit attributable to shareholders hit 24.762 billion yuan, a 1688% year-on-year jump. For the first half of 2026, it forecasts net profit attributable to shareholders of between 50 billion and 57 billion yuan.

28 minutes ago

Elon Musk: China is highly likely to become an AI leader in the future.

Elon Musk stated in an interview with The Economist that China will most likely emerge as an AI leader at some point in the future, and even if the U.S. bans Chinese AI models, it cannot prevent this outcome. (The Paper)

28 minutes ago

Samsung's Lee Jae-yong is reportedly holding discussions with OpenAI on cooperation plans in the AI and semiconductor sectors.

According to South Korean media reports, Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Jae-yong met with OpenAI founder Sam Altman at OpenAI’s San Francisco headquarters to discuss cooperation in the fields of artificial intelligence and semiconductors. OpenAI announced on the 26th that Lee and Altman held talks at the company’s San Francisco headquarters on the morning of the 25th local time. While OpenAI did not disclose specific discussion contents or topics, industry observers believe the two sides likely communicated about deepening cooperation on AI infrastructure such as high-bandwidth memory (HBM), dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), and advanced wafer foundry. They may also have explored Samsung’s digital transformation plan for rolling out generative AI across its entire business lines. (Jinshi)

28 minutes ago

The Big Short Michael Burry ramps up short positions on stocks including Micron and NVIDIA.

"The 'Big Short' protagonist Michael Burry has disclosed his latest portfolio adjustments, continuing to increase short exposure to semiconductor stocks. Specifically, he added to short positions in Micron Technology (MU), NVIDIA (NVDA), and semiconductor ETF SOXX at prices of $933.86, $210.28, and $535.83 respectively. Additionally, Burry also added to his short position in Caterpillar (CAT) at $893.49. On the long side, he increased holdings in Flutter (FLUT), DraftKings (DKNG), and Molina Healthcare (MOH) at prices of $100.72, $23.07, and $197.02 respectively. Burry’s short positions in Tesla, Palantir, and Nasdaq 100 Index ETF QQQ remained unchanged."

28 minutes ago

Micron Technology (MU -7.24%) has had a great year, with its shares rising about 217% so far. However, following a sell-off in early July, they are still down 25% from an all-time high set in late June.

A midyear sell-off like this shouldn't come as a surprise to investors since many of them wanted to lock in some profits. That's shortsighted thinking, though; the tailwinds that pushed Micron higher in the first part of the year are still there, and I wouldn't be surprised if the stock sets a new all-time high within the next few months. But how high can it rise? Let's take a look.

Image source: The Motley Fool.

The AI build-out continues Micron makes memory chips, and the artificial intelligence (AI) data center boom is consuming nearly all of its capacity. Memory chips have become the primary bottleneck in data center construction, and with high demand and low supply, prices are soaring.

The chipmaker is a beneficiary of soaring prices, boosting its revenue and profits. This situation can be resolved in one of only two ways.

First, the memory chip suppliers could dramatically increase supply to meet demand. This takes time, and Micron is building more production capacity to do just that. However, each year, AI hyperscalers continue to increase their data center spending, so this supply expansion may not be enough.

Today's Change

(

-7.24

%) $

-71.69

Current Price

$

918.52

Second, the hyperscalers could just quit building data centers, and demand would evaporate. This is a pretty unlikely scenario since the big tech companies are convinced there is major value in increasing AI computing capacity. A more realistic thought along the same lines is that AI hyperscalers could decrease their building plans, which still seems unlikely.

So, the only two ways for the memory chip market to correct the supply/demand imbalance are a time-consuming option or a highly unlikely action. As a result, I think that an investment in Micron is fairly safe, at least in the short term. Management backs this up, projecting that tightness in the memory chip market will last beyond 2027.

With AI demand expanding and more supply being a ways off, memory chip prices will continue to rise, and Micron will be a huge beneficiary. Wall Street analysts agree: They anticipate its revenue rising 84% during fiscal 2027 (ending August 2027), with earnings per share rising from $73.44 to $153.74. That prices the stock at a cheap 6.4 times next year's earnings.

MU PE Ratio (Forward 1y) data by YCharts; PE = price to earnings.

So Micron is a cheap stock operating in an industry where the product is in short supply and high demand. That bodes well, and I think shares could be heading to new all-time highs very soon. Micron Technology's valuation may double at the very least, potentially causing the stock to surpass $2,000 per share.

NOW's Agentic AI-driven growth is evidenced by the accelerating net new ACV, the higher cross-selling trends, and the expanding customer base. The Claude Mythos fears have triggered their robust Security and Risk monetization trends, with the underpenetrated segment implying further cross-selling opportunities. The prior meltdown/ongoing consolidation has contributed to NOW's cheap P/E of 22.62x while offering more than doubling upside potential to my LTPT of $215.30.

Zcash (ZEC), a privacy-focused cryptocurrency known for its advanced cryptographic technology, extended its downward movement over the past day, dropping below the $500 threshold as renewed selling pressure weighed on price action. The recent drop comes after Zcash failed to sustain its short-term recovery, raising questions about the next directional move.

Price action and current market dataAt the latest check, Zcash traded at $477.01, showing a decline of 4.44% in the past 24 hours. During this period, daily trading volume stood at $685.16 million, while Zcash maintained a market capitalization of $8.01 billion. The digital asset accounted for 0.37% of the broader cryptocurrency market.

Market participants have turned their attention to key support and resistance levels as the volatility continues. A closer look at technical levels suggests the $500 mark recently served as a critical resistance, while further support appears near the $460 area.

Team LAMBO, a crypto market analyst, indicated that the downward move hit its first downside target of $480 after the break below $500 resistance. They further noted that, “If $460 support does not hold, Zcash may target the $360 region—previously an area of strong buyer interest.”

LevelTypeStatus$528.75ResistancePrevious breakout, closely watched$500ResistanceRecently lost$460SupportImmediate, under test$360SupportPotential, if breakdown continuesTechnical outlook and potential scenariosEven as some traders brace for further declines, other technical perspectives maintain a cautiously optimistic view on Zcash’s medium-term prospects. Before the current pullback, ZEC managed to break above $528.75, a level that represented both the previous wave’s top and the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement from the May downturn. Technical analysts often interpret such breakouts as confirmation of a renewed upward impulse, suggesting that, structurally, the broader uptrend may remain intact if critical supports hold.

According to this analysis, the next significant upward target for ZEC remains at $674, a resistance area established last May. However, the intensity of selling pressure has clouded short-term direction.

The current technical mix reflects uncertainty among traders. Some anticipate additional downside if the $460 support fails, while others regard the previous breakout above $528.75 as a sign of underlying strength, indicating another rally could follow if sellers retreat.

In the near term, upcoming trading sessions are likely to prove pivotal. A resilient defense of $460 by buyers could stabilize the local trend and enable attempts to retake the $528.75 resistance. Alternatively, a sharp move below support would likely focus attention on the $360 area as the next significant base.

Focus remains on short-term price levelsWith conflicting technical signals, market participants are closely watching whether buyers can reestablish momentum or if selling extends toward lower support levels. Zcash’s price movement in the coming days is expected to determine the cryptocurrency’s next major trend direction.

Mini dictionary: Zcash, a specialized blockchain protocol, uses zero-knowledge proofs to enable private transactions that hide sender, recipient, and amount details on a public blockchain.

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

South Korea's pension fund has turned to net buying of KOSPI for the first time this year, taking a heavy position in SK Hynix.

South Korean exchange data shows that pension funds, including the National Pension Service (NPS) — one of the largest institutional investors in South Korea's stock market — have turned net buyers in the Korean stock market for the first time this month. As of July 24, the NPS and other pension funds have net purchased 68.4 billion won (approximately $46.8 million) of KOSPI index constituent stocks in July this year. This marks the first monthly net purchase by pension funds this year after six consecutive months of net selling. In terms of individual stocks, SK Hynix is the most bought stock by pension funds since July, with a net purchase amount of 425.8 billion won. (Jinshi)

8 minutes ago

Iran and Oman hold multiple rounds of consultations on the Strait of Hormuz issue.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahaei stated that from the 24th to 25th, Iran and Oman held multiple rounds of deputy foreign minister-level talks in Tehran. On the basis of respecting the sovereign rights of the two coastal states, Iran and Oman, the two sides held in-depth exchanges of views on the common principles and specific operational mechanisms for ensuring safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Bahaei noted that the talks were productive and yielded certain progress. The Omani delegation left Tehran on the afternoon of the 25th, but the two sides will continue to maintain consultations at the technical and political levels. In addition, Bahaei said that the current navigation status of ships in the Strait of Hormuz has not changed. (CCTV International News)

8 minutes ago

Changxin Technology will go public tomorrow, with its over-the-counter market valuation reaching 2.76 trillion yuan.

Changxin Technology will list on the STAR Market of the Shanghai Stock Exchange on July 27, with an initial market capitalization of around 580 billion yuan. The IPO is priced at 8.66 yuan per share, and the final online subscription winning rate hit 0.4714%, a new record for STAR Market IPOs. After full exercise of the over-allotment option, total fundraising can reach up to 66.6 billion yuan. According to Hyperinsight monitoring, the price of CXMT (Changxin Memory, with Changxin Technology as its listed entity) Pre-IPO contract on Hyperliquid is currently quoted at $6.087, equivalent to a share price of 41.2 yuan. Calculated based on the total share capital of 66.881 billion shares post-IPO, the on-chain implied market value stands at approximately $407.1 billion, or around 2.76 trillion yuan. Based on this valuation, the subscription cost for a single retail lot of 500 shares is 4,330 yuan, with an estimated market value of 20,600 yuan for 500 shares on the first trading day, translating to a single lot profit of roughly 16,000 yuan. Founded in 2016, Changxin Technology is China’s largest and most technologically advanced integrated DRAM R&D, design and manufacturing enterprise. In Q4 2025, it held a 7.67% global DRAM market share, ranking fourth worldwide and first in China, with ambitions to become the world’s third-largest DRAM supplier. In Q1 2026, the company’s revenue reached 50.8 billion yuan, surging 719% year-on-year; net profit attributable to shareholders hit 24.762 billion yuan, a 1688% year-on-year jump. For the first half of 2026, it forecasts net profit attributable to shareholders of between 50 billion and 57 billion yuan.

8 minutes ago

Elon Musk: China is highly likely to become an AI leader in the future.

Elon Musk stated in an interview with The Economist that China will most likely emerge as an AI leader at some point in the future, and even if the U.S. bans Chinese AI models, it cannot prevent this outcome. (The Paper)

8 minutes ago

Samsung's Lee Jae-yong is reportedly holding discussions with OpenAI on cooperation plans in the AI and semiconductor sectors.

According to South Korean media reports, Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Jae-yong met with OpenAI founder Sam Altman at OpenAI’s San Francisco headquarters to discuss cooperation in the fields of artificial intelligence and semiconductors. OpenAI announced on the 26th that Lee and Altman held talks at the company’s San Francisco headquarters on the morning of the 25th local time. While OpenAI did not disclose specific discussion contents or topics, industry observers believe the two sides likely communicated about deepening cooperation on AI infrastructure such as high-bandwidth memory (HBM), dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), and advanced wafer foundry. They may also have explored Samsung’s digital transformation plan for rolling out generative AI across its entire business lines. (Jinshi)

8 minutes ago

The Big Short Michael Burry ramps up short positions on stocks including Micron and NVIDIA.

"The 'Big Short' protagonist Michael Burry has disclosed his latest portfolio adjustments, continuing to increase short exposure to semiconductor stocks. Specifically, he added to short positions in Micron Technology (MU), NVIDIA (NVDA), and semiconductor ETF SOXX at prices of $933.86, $210.28, and $535.83 respectively. Additionally, Burry also added to his short position in Caterpillar (CAT) at $893.49. On the long side, he increased holdings in Flutter (FLUT), DraftKings (DKNG), and Molina Healthcare (MOH) at prices of $100.72, $23.07, and $197.02 respectively. Burry’s short positions in Tesla, Palantir, and Nasdaq 100 Index ETF QQQ remained unchanged."

8 minutes ago

The Shiba Inu community has taken notice as Shytoshi Kusama, the prominent lead ambassador for the $SHIB project, has remained silent on X for 74 days, marking one of his longest periods of social media inactivity to date.

Kusama’s prolonged absence and project focusKusama has historically engaged with Shiba Inu supporters through regular updates, hints in his bio, and even live broadcasts on X, which has served as his main platform to communicate developments related to the popular memecoin.

His current silence began on May 13, when he stopped posting or interacting on X. Previous stretches of minimal online presence were seen in late 2025 and into 2026, indicating a pattern of stepping back from the public spotlight periodically.

In January, Kusama attributed his lower profile to developing an independent artificial intelligence initiative, revealing some progress on that project as his primary focus at the time.

Despite Kusama’s absence, there is heightened speculation within the Shiba Inu community that an update or announcement may soon follow, citing his past tendency to return with fresh information after a hiatus. As of now, however, there is no official indication that a major update is imminent.

Mini dictionary: Shytoshi Kusama is the pseudonymous lead ambassador and spokesperson for the Shiba Inu ecosystem. He often represents community interests and is seen as the unofficial public face for development updates and communications.

While Kusama remains inactive, community-powered SHIB burn campaigns have continued. On-chain tracker Shibburn reports that 7.15 million SHIB tokens were burned in the last 24 hours, marking a 66% increase in the daily burn rate.

Over the past seven days, 60.58 million SHIB were burned, bringing the 30-day total to 288.61 million. Robinhood, a major U.S.-based trading platform, led monthly burn efforts by sending 152,792,823 SHIB to so-called dead wallets across 106 separate transactions.

PeriodSHIB BurnedMain BurnerTransactions24 hours7.15 millionCommunity–7 days60.58 millionCommunity–30 days288.61 millionRobinhood106Total SHIB burned to date has reached 410,840,455,020,349 tokens, completed in 21,280 individual transactions. A notable contribution came from Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin, who destroyed 410 trillion SHIB in May 2021, significantly reducing circulating supply.

Even in the absence of leadership updates, the Shiba Inu community has maintained active burn efforts, with millions of SHIB removed from circulation weekly and major platforms like Robinhood participating in sizeable burn transactions.

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

NEAR Protocol [NEAR] became one of the first blockchains with a NIST-approved post-quantum signature scheme in production. The Layer 1 AI-native settlement layer announced this in a post on X on Monday, 20th July.

The upgrade has also launched dynamic resharding. This will allow the network to scale itself automatically. The chain also believes in agentic commerce and is now actively preparing for it.

NEAR is building an open, integrated stack for the agent economy. Within this system, NEAR Protocol intends to bring identity, liquidity, private inference, confidential execution, settlement, governance, and economics.

In fact, this announcement dates back to February 2026, marking a structural shift for the protocol amid an ongoing bear market. With pessimistic wider market sentiment, a bullish turnaround has been hard to enforce so far.

A potential rebound for NEAR ahead? In the last 24 hours, the altcoin has posted losses of almost 3%, with its Open Interest sliding by 4.1% too. The daily trading volume saw a marginal uptick of 5.5%, but the short-term NEAR trend has been bearish.

Since forming a local high at $2.06 on Tuesday, 21st July, the token’s price has declined by 13.5%.

Source: Ali Charts on X Analyst Ali Martinez noted that the TD Sequential indicator gave a buy signal for NEAR on the 4-hour chart. A sell signal on 21st July has been vindicated. Hence, the question – Will this buy signal be correct too?

Traders’ call to action – Wait to sell Source: NEAR/USDT on TradingView The Fibonacci retracement levels (yellow) highlighted the NEAR rejection from $2.80-$3.00 as coming from the 78.6% retracement zone. This was in line with the higher timeframe bearish trend. The rally in May was only a retracement that has since begun to reverse itself.

For nearly two months, the bulls have defiantly held on to the $1.80-support zone. However, the CMF flashed signs of significant selling pressure, with the MACD underlining downward momentum too.

It could be a make-or-break moment for the buyers. A drop below $1.80 would signal a bearish trend continuation and could offer swing traders a chance to go short.

A price bounce beyond $2.10 is needed to instill temporary bullish confidence in NEAR.

Final Summary NEAR Protocol’s quantum-safe signing has gone live, with the TD Sequential offering up a buy signal. Bulls have been clinging to the $1.80-support zone, but the higher timeframe trend has been bearish. 

Solana has recorded the highest number of weekly active addresses among major blockchains, according to an announcement by Solana Hub. This development coincides with the network’s native token, SOL, maintaining stability near a critical support level following weeks of sideways trading.

Network activity drives industry attentionSolana Hub reported that Solana registered 18 million active addresses over the past week, surpassing networks such as BNB Chain, TRON, Bitcoin, and Ethereum during this period. These metrics were featured in a ranking titled “Top chain rankings by Active Addresses last 7D,” highlighting Solana’s prominent position in on-chain activity.

Active addresses indicate the number of unique wallets participating in transactions on a blockchain. A growing user base is generally seen as a sign of increasing demand for applications, higher transaction throughput, and stronger participation across the network’s ecosystem.

Active addresses remain one of the most dependable indicators of blockchain network health, underlining adoption trends and user engagement.

Significant growth in this metric suggests a vibrant ecosystem, potentially reinforcing confidence in Solana among developers and the broader community.

Mini dictionary: Solana Hub, an analytics and information platform focused on the Solana blockchain, provides real-time data and ecosystem research for developers, traders, and users interested in Solana network activity.

SOL price action remains subdued despite strong on-chain metricsAt publication time, SOL trades at $74.33, up 0.50% over the last 24 hours. The price is attempting to stabilize near the $73 support level, following a recovery from June lows. Technical analysis places immediate resistance at $78, a level associated with the midpoint of the Bollinger Bands. Stronger support is identified near $68.

Trading volume has decreased in recent sessions, suggesting that neither bulls nor bears are currently dominating price action. As a result, Solana may continue experiencing range-bound trading until a clear breakout or breakdown emerges.

Support LevelResistance LevelCurrent Price$73$78$74.33$68 (stronger)——Despite strong network data, traders remain cautious, awaiting confirmation of renewed buying pressure before becoming more bullish on SOL’s outlook.

Market outlook and key levels to watchThe robust growth in Solana’s network activity has not yet translated into a significant price movement. Analysts suggest this pattern is consistent across the broader cryptocurrency sector, where high on-chain participation has not always triggered immediate price rallies.

Data from DefiLlama shows that Solana’s total value locked (TVL) has remained stable near $5 billion, supporting the view that, while price consolidation continues, general ecosystem engagement is strong.

While increased network activity bodes well for Solana’s long-term fundamentals, traders are looking for a breach of the $78 resistance to shift short-term sentiment in a more positive direction.

Should SOL fall below the $73 support, the $68 zone is likely to serve as the next downside target. As market volatility persists, investors are closely monitoring external catalysts and market sentiment for signals about Solana’s next major move.

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

Quantum computing may not be at the top of every investor's mind right now due to the prominence of artificial intelligence (AI) investing. However, I think it's something investors should keep in mind. By 2030, there could be commercially viable quantum computing available, and that could shake up tech even more than AI has. If quantum computing is all that it has been hyped up to be, then maintaining some exposure to stocks in this field is just as important as AI investing.

Fortunately, several stocks cross over into both categories, making investing in both trends at the same time easy. Three stocks that I'm bullish on in the quantum field are Alphabet (GOOG +0.24%) (GOOGL +0.58%), Nvidia (NVDA -1.01%), and IonQ (IONQ -3.61%). Two of these are also major AI players as well. By maintaining solid exposure to this trio, you'll be able to capture the upside of AI while also hedging your bets on a quantum computing future.

Image source: Getty Images.

1. Alphabet Alphabet is a major player in computing, and as new computing technologies emerge, it wants to control its own destiny with in-house quantum computing. That will keep it from having to pay exorbitant prices for computing units, as it does now for Nvidia's graphics processing units (GPUs). As a result, Alphabet is plowing a ton of resources into its quantum computing division, and its Willow quantum computing chip has had some incredible breakthroughs.

Today's Change

(

0.58

%) $

1.84

Current Price

$

319.53

Alphabet ran one of its quantum algorithms on its Willow chip and demonstrated a verifiable advantage over traditional computing. This algorithm is similar to the one used to process MRIs and could have significant applications in drug discovery and materials design. Alphabet has also unearthed several other quantum algorithms, such as one that could break cryptocurrency encryptions.

Alphabet is a major player in the quantum space and has major resources that few can compete against. As a result, it's an odds-on favorite to reach viable quantum computing before anyone else.

2. Nvidia Nvidia may seem like an odd pick here because it's explicitly not developing a quantum processing unit. Instead, it's focusing on its traditional accelerating methods, as it sees incredible demand right now from AI hyperscalers. However, it's not ignoring quantum computing either. What it's doing is launching a range of tools to help the quantum industry succeed on Nvidia hardware. Nvidia sees a future where quantum and traditional accelerated computing work side by side. Ensuring that its peers' quantum computing units plug into existing infrastructure is key.

Today's Change

(

-1.01

%) $

-2.10

Current Price

$

206.66

So, Nvidia has launched several key products, like its NVQLink, a generative AI model for improving error correction, and updated its CUDA software to include quantum operations. That's a solid strategy and will allow Nvidia to profit from the rise of quantum computing.

3. IonQ Last is IonQ (IONQ -3.61%), a pure play in the quantum computing space. It has no other business units funding the company. It's only funding sources are the money it can raise from potential clients and any systems it can sell at an early stage. This makes it an incredibly risky investment option, but it also means huge upside if this stock pans out.

Today's Change

(

-3.61

%) $

-1.23

Current Price

$

32.84

IonQ is currently the world record holder for two-qubit gate fidelity, a common accuracy measure used by quantum computers to assess their products. With IonQ leading the way in the one area where quantum computing is lacking, it's a no-brainer horse to back in the race.

Still, there's no guarantee that IonQ's solution will pan out, so investors should keep their exposure limited on IonQ's stock, while Nvidia and Alphabet will be just fine if quantum computing doesn't pan out. However, I think a decade from now, investors will look back and see this trio absolutely crushing the market from both quantum computing success and AI proliferation.

VRRM Deadline: VRRM Investors Have Opportunity to Lead Verra Mobility Corporation Securities Fraud Lawsuit PR Newswire

Rosen Law Firm Encourages PennyMac Financial Services, Inc. Investors to Inquire About Securities Class Action Investigation - PFSI

New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - July 25, 2026) - WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Futu Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: FUTU) between May 24, 2023 and May 27, 2026, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 25, 2026 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Futu securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Futu class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/cases/futu-holdings-limited/join or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email [email protected] for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 25, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Futu was not in compliance with the requirements of the China Securities Regulatory Commission (the "CSRC"), including because Futu continued to conduct securities business, public fund sales business and futures business in mainland China without obtaining the requisite licenses or approval; (2) as a result, Futu was reasonably likely to face regulatory penalties, including the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and other penalties; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Futu's financial results were overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Futu's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

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

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

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

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

-------------------------------

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/306480

Source: The Rosen Law Firm PA

Ready to Announce with Confidence? Send us a message and a member of our TMX Newsfile team will contact you to discuss your needs.

Contact Us

37.63K Followers

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

The choice between Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (VOOG -0.58%) and State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Growth ETF (SLYG -0.19%) hinges on whether an investor prefers large-cap stability and tech dominance or the potential higher volatility of small-cap growth.

These two funds target opposite ends of the market capitalization spectrum. While both prioritize growth factors, they operate in different universes: one captures the titan companies of the U.S. economy, and the other focuses on smaller firms with high expansion potential. This analysis compares their costs, risk profiles, and portfolios.

Snapshot (cost & size)MetricSLYGVOOGIssuerSPDRVanguardShare price$114.58 (as of 2026-07-23)$80.29 (as of 2026-07-23)Expense ratio0.15%0.07%1-yr return (as of 2026-07-23)26.2%18.8%Dividend yield0.7%0.4%Beta1.041.17AUM$5.1B$26.4BBeta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from monthly returns over the available fund history (up to five years). The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months. Dividend yield is the trailing-12-month distribution yield.

The Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF is the more affordable option with an expense ratio of 0.07%, which is less than half of the 0.15% charged by the State Street fund. While both offer modest income, the yield gap reflects their primary focus on capital appreciation.

Performance & risk comparisonMetricSLYGVOOGMax drawdown (5 yr)(29.2%)(32.7%)Growth of $1,000 over 5 years (total return)$1,396$1,816What's insideThe Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF holds 212 stocks and is heavily tilted toward technology at 52%, communication services at 16%, and consumer cyclical at 9%. Its largest positions include NVIDIA Corp (NVDA -1.01%) at 13.64%, Microsoft Corp (MSFT +0.02%) at 7.80%, and Apple Inc (AAPL +3.52%) at 5.98%. The fund was launched in 2010. It has paid $0.37 per share over the trailing 12 months, which, at its recent ~$80.29 share price, yields 0.4%.

In contrast, the State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Growth ETF targets smaller firms with top holdings including Viasat Inc (VSAT -3.46%) at 1.15%, Corcept Therapeutics Inc (CORT -1.46%) at 1.06%, and Alkermes Plc (ALKS -0.15%) at 1.01%. This fund holds 350 positions, with a more balanced sector mix: industrials at 19%, technology at 18%, and healthcare at 17%. It was launched in 2000. It has paid $0.76 per share over the trailing 12 months, which, at its recent ~$114.58 share price, yields 0.7%.

For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.

Which is the better buyThe Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (VOOG) and the State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Growth ETF (SLYG) are both growth-oriented exchange-traded funds (ETFs), they employ very different strategies to deliver returns for investors. Let’s look at each fund individually.

First, there’s VOOG. This fund is loaded with tech megacap stocks. Indeed, just three stocks — Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia — account for about 27% of the fund’s holdings. As for sectors, technology (67% of total holdings) is the largest, followed by financials (9%) and consumer durables (2%). Overall, the fund is almost entirely focused on the U.S. stock market, with more than 98% of all holdings in U.S. stocks. As for performance, VOOG has generated a total return of 385% over the last 10 years, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.1%. Both figures are outstanding and surpass the benchmark S&P 500, which has delivered a total return of 300%, equating to a CAGR of 14.9% over the same period. As for fees, VOOG has a low expense ratio of 0.07%.

Then, there’s SLYG. Unlike its counterpart, SLYG focuses on the small and mid cap growth sector. Rather than targeting tech giants, SLY invests in much smaller companies with market caps under $10 billion. For context, Microsoft has a market cap of $2.8 trillion, meaning SLYG’s holdings are very different from those in the VOOG portfolio. For example, SLYG's top sector holdings are technology (22%), followed by financials (21%) and manufacturing (9%). Turning to performance, the fund has delivered a total return of 182% over the last 10 years, with a CAGR of 10.9%. While this isn’t terrible by any means, the fund has underperformed the benchmark, the S&P 500, and fallen well short of VOOG’s returns. SLYG also has a slightly higher expense ratio at 0.15%.

In summary, these two funds are both acceptable choices for investors seeking exposure to the growth sector of the stock market. However, VOOG beats SLYG on both performance and fees. Yet, for investors seeking diversification away from the tech megacaps, SLYG offers a viable alternative.

Stable exempts USDT transfers from gas. Plasma ships zero-fee sends. Sui made stablecoin transfers free at the protocol level. Every coverage of every launch asks the same question in passing, someone still pays for blockspace, and then moves on. This guide stops and answers it: five funding models, their failure modes, and how to tell which one your free lunch runs on.

Summary

A wave of chains and wallets now offer gasless stablecoin transfers: Stable’s protocol-level exemption for USDT sends, Plasma’s zero-fee transfers, Sui’s free stablecoin operations, fee delegation on BNB Chain, and wallet-level subsidies on Tron. Free is a price, not a cost: validators still expend hardware, bandwidth, and stake to process every transaction, so gasless designs are answers to one question, who pays instead of the user, and there are exactly five answers. The five models: token-holder dilution through emissions, foundation treasuries burning finite war chests, cross-subsidy from paid transaction tiers, patron sponsorship funded by an adjacent business, and application-level paymasters passing costs to merchants and apps. Each model has a signature failure mode, from inflation death spirals to subsidy cliffs, and each embeds a priority structure: on Sui, paid transactions outrank free ones under congestion, which is what a free tier actually is. The stablechain era’s real answer is the patron model: Tether’s float income makes Stable’s free tier a marketing expense against a $100-billion-scale reserve business, which is why the free lunch is real, and why it has an owner. Crypto has finally built the thing it spent a decade promising: sending digital dollars with no fee, no gas token, no friction, just an amount and an address, like a message. Stable exempts simple USDT transfers from gas at the protocol level. Plasma launched zero-fee USDT sends as its headline feature. Sui made stablecoin transfers free network-wide this spring. BNB Chain and its wallet partners rolled out fee delegation; Tron wallets hand out daily transfer subsidies by the thousand. And every article covering every launch contains the same sentence, worded almost identically each time: the important question is how this is funded, because someone still pays for blockspace.

The sentence is correct, and it is always the last sentence on the subject. This guide is what happens when it is the first. Free transfers are not a technological discovery; they are an accounting decision. Blockspace has real costs, validators run real hardware behind real stake, and a gasless design simply moves the bill from the person clicking send to someone else, chosen by the chain’s designers. There are exactly five candidates for that someone. Learning to identify which one is holding your chain’s bill, and what happens to each under stress, is the actual literacy the gasless era requires.

The cost that does not go away Before the five models, fix the invariant, because every gasless pitch is engineered to blur it.

Processing a transaction costs resources regardless of what the user pays. Validators execute the computation, store the state change, propagate the data, and bear the capital cost of the stake or hardware that earned them the right to do so. On a fee-market chain like Ethereum, the user’s gas payment compensates exactly this work, and the fee’s second job is just as load-bearing: it rations blockspace, pricing out spam by making every transaction cost something.

A chain that sets the user’s price to zero has not abolished either function. It has committed to compensating validators from another source, and to rationing blockspace by another mechanism, and the entire integrity of a gasless design lives in how honestly those two replacements are engineered.

The rationing replacement is worth understanding first because it is universal. At a price of zero, demand for anything is infinite, so every gasless system imposes non-price limits: allowlists restricting the free tier to specific operations, simple stablecoin transfers but not contract calls, per-account rate limits, wallet-level daily quotas like Tron’s subsidy counts, or, most elegantly and most revealingly, priority markets.

Sui’s design states it plainly: free stablecoin transfers process normally in calm conditions, but under congestion, paid transactions take precedence, free riders queue behind them. That ordering is not a bug; it is the honest shape of every free tier ever built, in cloud computing, in banking, in telecoms: free means lowest quality of service, and the moment the network is worth congesting, the free lane discovers what it actually bought.

A payments product whose settlement time degrades exactly when activity spikes has a property merchants notice, which is why the rationing design deserves as much scrutiny as the funding design in any gasless chain’s documentation.

The five models Now the funding side: who compensates the validators. Every gasless system in production runs on one of five sources, or a blend.

Model one: holder dilution. The chain pays validators in newly issued native tokens, emissions, and the free tier is funded by inflating the token supply, which means the cost lands on everyone holding the token, silently, pro rata. This is the workhorse of the category; it is how Stable’s validator set is compensated in STABLE while users transact in USDT, and how most new chains bootstrap. Its virtue is that it requires no ongoing treasury decisions; its failure mode is the oldest in crypto: if the token’s price cannot bear the emission schedule, security spend collapses with the price, and the free tier is revealed to have been funded by selling the chain’s future to subsidize its present. The diagnostic question: what is annual issuance worth in dollars, versus the free tier’s resource consumption, and what happens to both if the token halves.

Model two: the foundation war chest. A treasury, raised from investors or a token sale, pays the bills directly, covering validator costs or reimbursing gas. This is the cleanest to verify and the most obviously finite: war chests burn, and the model’s signature failure is the subsidy cliff, the scheduled or unscheduled morning when the program ends and the chain discovers what organic demand at true cost looks like.

Every subsidy this publication has covered, from Robinhood Chain’s 90-day gas holiday to exchange fee promotions, belongs to this family, and the diagnostic question is always the same: what is the burn rate, what is the runway, and what is the announced end state.

Model three: cross-subsidy. The free tier is funded by paid activity on the same chain, priority fees under congestion, contract-call gas from DeFi, sequencer margins on complex transactions, the way free checking is funded by overdraft fees.

This is the only self-sustaining model that requires no external money, and its honest precondition is scale: the paid economy must be large relative to the free one, which inverts the usual pitch. A chain marketing free transfers as its main product while hoping paid activity funds them has the subsidy pointing the wrong way; a chain where free transfers are the loss-leading on-ramp to a large fee-paying economy has a business. The diagnostic: what fraction of validator revenue comes from users versus emissions, today, on the explorer.

Model four: the patron. An adjacent business with its own profit pool sponsors the chain as strategy: the free rail exists to grow the patron’s real product. This is the stablechain era’s defining model, and its clearest example is arithmetic.

Tether earns yield on the reserves backing USDT, a float measured against $100-billion-scale holdings of Treasury bills, which at prevailing rates generates income in the billions annually. Every new USDT holder, every merchant integration, every remittance corridor that a free-transfer chain onboards grows that float, which means Stable’s gas-exempt tier is not charity and not unsustainable: it is customer acquisition, priced as a marketing expense against one of the most profitable businesses per employee on earth.

The same logic runs through every patron chain, payment giants incubating their own rails included, and it cuts both ways: the free tier is as durable as the patron’s strategic interest, and its terms can change when the strategy does. The diagnostic question is not can they afford it, patrons can, but what does the patron get, and what happens when it has it.

Model five: the paymaster. Costs are moved up the application stack: the merchant, the app, the wallet, or the employer sponsors the user’s gas through account-abstraction machinery, the way merchants pay card interchange so shoppers do not. BNB Chain’s fee delegation and app-sponsored transactions across EVM chains are this family. It is the model most like mature payments economics: the party with the business interest in the transaction pays for it, and its limit is adoption friction: someone must integrate, budget, and monitor the sponsorship, which is why paymaster gasless arrives app by app rather than chain-wide.

Before the card detour, one more distinction sharpens the taxonomy: protocol-level gasless versus application-level gasless, because the two feel identical in a wallet and fail completely differently. Protocol-level exemption, Stable’s and Sui’s approach, writes the free tier into consensus rules: every user of the chain gets it, no integration required, and it can only be changed by the chain’s own governance process, which makes it durable, transparent, and slow to modify in either direction.

Application-level sponsorship, the paymaster and wallet-subsidy family, is a private arrangement: this wallet, this app, this merchant covers gas for its own users, funded from its own budget, changeable by a product decision on a Tuesday. The practical difference surfaces at the edges: protocol-level free tiers survive the failure of any single company in the ecosystem, while an app-level subsidy dies with its sponsor’s budget line, and users who learned free on one surface discover, moving to another wallet on the same chain, that the free was never the chain’s at all.

The diagnostic is one question: does the exemption appear in the protocol’s documentation or the app’s marketing? The answer assigns the free tier its durability class before any economics are examined.

The card-network precedent, taken seriously The five models have a common ancestor outside crypto, and studying it repays the detour, because the payments industry already ran a fifty-year experiment on making transactions feel free, and its results predict where gasless rails are heading with uncomfortable precision.

Card payments feel free to the shopper: no per-swipe fee, rewards paid for using the card, frictionless authorization in two seconds. The economics underneath are the paymaster model at civilizational scale: merchants pay interchange, roughly two to three percent of every transaction in the US, to fund the shopper’s free experience, the rewards, the fraud protection, and the networks’ margins, and the cost re-enters prices invisibly, spread across all shoppers including the ones paying cash.

The structure’s genius, and its lesson for crypto, is that free to the user was never a subsidy phase; it was the permanent product architecture, sustained by moving the bill to the party with the least ability to refuse, the merchant who cannot decline the cards their customers carry, and the least visibility to the person nominally benefiting.

Two further properties followed. The rails became phenomenally profitable precisely because the payer and the chooser were different parties, a separation that blunts price competition. And the fee’s invisibility became politically load-bearing: interchange wars are fought between merchants, networks, and regulators, decade after decade, while shoppers, the beneficiaries of record, remain spectators to the pricing of their own payments.

Now overlay the crypto trajectory. Gasless stablecoin transfers are converging on the same separation: users choose the rail, but patrons, apps, merchants, and tokenholders pay for it, through float, sponsorship budgets, and dilution. If the pattern completes, the endgame is not free payments in any economic sense; it is payments whose price is set in negotiations the user never sees, between chains, patrons, and integrators, exactly as interchange is set today. That is not a condemnation; the card model delivered the most reliable consumer payments in history, but it is the honest destination, and it clarifies what the current gasless land-grab is actually competing for: the position of the network that gets to set the invisible price later.

Every free tier is a bid for that seat, funded accordingly, and users evaluating today’s genuinely free transfers should enjoy them with the card precedent in mind: in payments, free has always been the most carefully engineered price there is.

Reading a chain’s answer The five models compress into a practical method, because real systems blend them and the blend is the disclosure that matters.

Take the reader’s own test case, Stable, and run it. Users pay nothing for simple USDT transfers: the free tier. Validators stake and earn STABLE: model one, dilution, funds security. Complex transactions and future priority markets pay fees in USDT: model three, cross-subsidy, in its infancy. And behind the whole structure stands the patron whose dollar the chain exists to distribute: model four, the deep pocket that makes the first two sustainable as long as the strategy holds.

The composite answer to who pays on Stable is therefore: STABLE holders via emissions, sophisticated users via paid tiers, and Tether’s float via the strategic umbrella, in proportions that will shift as the chain matures, and that ordering, patron-backed dilution transitioning toward cross-subsidy, is the healthiest available shape for a young payments chain.

The unhealthy shapes are equally recognizable now: a war-chest chain with no patron and no paid economy is a countdown; a dilution chain whose token has no demand story is a slow leak; and any chain that cannot answer the question at all has answered it.

One last reframe earns its place at the end. The question who pays has a companion the gasless era keeps forgetting: what did the payer buy? Card networks made payments feel free to shoppers and built the most profitable toll infrastructure in financial history on the merchant side.

Free checking built the overdraft industry. When crypto’s free transfers are funded by a patron, the purchase is distribution for the patron’s dollar; when funded by dilution, it is growth bought from holders; when funded by paymasters, it is customer experience bought by apps.

None of these is sinister, and all of them are terms, and the entire adult literacy of using gasless rails is knowing that a free transfer is not a gift. It is a price of zero, attached to a bill with someone else’s name on it, and the name is always findable, usually in the tokenomics.

One closing test makes the whole framework portable: the next time any chain, wallet, or app announces free transfers, run the four-question audit this guide has assembled. Who funds it: emissions, treasury, paid tiers, patron, or sponsors, and is the answer documented or inferred? What rations it: allowlists, quotas, or priority queues, and what happens to the free lane under congestion? How long is it promised: a scheduled program with an end date, an open-ended strategy, or silence? And who can change it: a governance vote, a foundation decision, or a patron’s strategy review? Ten minutes with a chain’s documentation and explorer answers all four, and the answers sort every gasless offer into one of three honest categories: a durable product feature backed by a patron or a paying economy, a bootstrap subsidy with a visible cliff, or an unfunded promise.

All three can be worth using; only the first is worth building on, and the difference between using and building is the entire practical stake of the question. A remittance sender exploiting a bootstrap subsidy is arbitraging someone else’s marketing budget, rationally. A merchant integrating settlement on the same subsidy is building a business on a countdown, less rationally.

The gasless era’s genuine achievement, and it is genuine, is that the first category now exists at all: rails where free transfers are the permanent architecture, funded by float economics that outlast any promotion. Its genuine hazard is that the three categories are marketed identically, in the same words, with the same zero, and the only party with an incentive to tell them apart is the reader.

Frequently Asked Questions Are gasless crypto transfers really free? Free to the user, never free in cost. Validators still expend computation, storage, bandwidth, and staked capital on every transaction, so gasless designs relocate the bill rather than eliminating it. The funding comes from token emissions diluting holders, foundation treasuries, paid transaction tiers, a strategic patron’s adjacent business, or application-level sponsors, and identifying which is the key question about any gasless chain.

Which chains offer gasless stablecoin transfers today? A growing set. Stable exempts simple USDT transfers from gas at the protocol level, with USDT0 as its native fee asset for everything else. Plasma launched with zero-fee USDT sends. Sui enabled free transfers for allowlisted stablecoin operations network-wide. BNB Chain supports fee delegation through wallet partners, and Tron wallets like TokenPocket distribute daily transfer subsidies covering network fees.

What stops spam if transactions cost nothing? Non-price rationing. Gasless systems restrict the free tier to specific operations, impose per-account rate limits or daily quotas, and use priority ordering; on Sui, paid transactions explicitly take precedence over free ones during congestion. Free tiers are lowest-priority service by construction, which is the practical meaning of free: full speed in calm conditions, back of the queue when blockspace is contested.

What is the most sustainable funding model? Cross-subsidy, where paid activity on the chain funds the free tier, is the only self-contained one, but it requires a large fee-paying economy first. The patron model, a profitable adjacent business sponsoring the rail strategically, is the most durable in practice: Tether’s reserve float income makes Stable’s free tier a customer-acquisition expense, sustainable indefinitely, though on the patron’s terms. Pure war-chest subsidies are finite by definition, and emission funding depends on the token’s price bearing the schedule.

How does Tether’s float pay for free transfers? Indirectly but decisively. Tether earns interest on the reserves backing USDT, predominantly short-term US government debt, generating billions annually at scale. Growth in USDT usage grows that float, so a chain that removes friction from USDT transfers grows Tether’s revenue without charging users anything. The free tier functions as marketing spend for the reserve business, which is why the model is neither charity nor a countdown.

What are the warning signs of an unsustainable free tier? A finite treasury with no announced end state or successor model; emissions funding whose dollar value depends on a token with no independent demand; free-transfer marketing with no paid economy developing behind it; and no disclosed answer to the funding question at all. The Robinhood Chain pattern is instructive: activity metrics inflated by a scheduled subsidy face a measurable cliff when it ends, and honest chains pre-frame that cliff.

Do free tiers degrade under congestion? By design, usually. Where priority markets exist, paid transactions outrank free ones, so free-tier settlement times lengthen exactly when networks are busiest. For casual transfers this rarely matters; for merchant settlement and time-sensitive payments it can, which is why serious payment integrations often pay for priority even on chains with free tiers, and why the congestion behavior belongs in any evaluation of a gasless rail.

What should users check before relying on a gasless chain? Four items: the funding source, emissions, treasury, cross-subsidy, patron, or paymaster, and its visible runway; the rationing rules, what operations qualify and what limits apply; the congestion policy, whether free transactions queue behind paid ones; and the terms’ changeability, who can end or alter the free tier and with what notice. A price of zero is a term of service, not a property of the network. This is educational information, not financial advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Fee policies, subsidy programs, and network designs change frequently and vary by chain. Always verify current terms in official documentation. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 24, 2026.

Shares of RingCentral (RNG +25.09%) surged this past week after the cloud communications software provider announced strong gains in free cash flow and boosted its dividend.

Image source: Getty Images.

AI-fueled growth RingCentral's revenue rose 5.9% year over year to $657 million in the second quarter.

The business messaging specialist has positioned itself to be a leader in artificial intelligence (AI)–powered customer engagement solutions. It offers phone, text, and video messaging tools, as well as contact center support. RingCentral's AI agents can automate calls, provide real-time assistance, and deliver a more personalized customer experience.

Sales of these AI tools doubled over the past year and now account for 13% of RingCentral's annual recurring revenue.

"Powered by our global voice network, rich customer interaction data, and ability to orchestrate AI and human agents, RingCentral is uniquely positioned to lead the future of customer engagement," CEO Vlad Shmunis said.

Today's Change

(

25.09

%) $

9.69

Current Price

$

48.31

Better still, RingCentral is growing more profitable as it integrates AI throughout its organization. Its adjusted operating margin improved to 23.4% from 22.5% in the year-ago quarter. That contributed to a 15% jump in adjusted earnings per share to $1.22.

RingCentral, in turn, is becoming a cash-generating machine. The company's operating and free cash flow climbed 23.3% and 24.8%, respectively, to $206 million and $180 million. That amounted to an impressive free cash flow margin of 27.4%.

This robust cash generation enabled RingCentral to boost its recently initiated quarterly dividend by 67% to $0.125 per share.

Raised guidance These encouraging results also prompted RingCentral to lift its full-year financial forecast. Management now expects adjusted earnings per share of $4.96 to $5.10 and free cash flow of $615 million to $625 million in 2026.

"RingCentral is in a unique position, with a strong recurring core business, a widening moat, increasing momentum from AI-led products, and a financial profile that continues to strengthen," chief financial officer Vaibhav Agarwal said.

The supply of SpaceX (SPCX -2.68%) stock is set to soar after the company's quarterly financial update.

*Stock prices used were the afternoon prices of July 22, 2026. The video was published on July 24, 2026.

Parkev Tatevosian, CFA has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Parkev Tatevosian is an affiliate of The Motley Fool and may be compensated for promoting its services. If you choose to subscribe through his link, he will earn some extra money that supports his channel. His opinions remain his own and are unaffected by The Motley Fool.

Alphabet's (GOOGL +0.58%) (GOOG +0.21%) share price fell after providing an investor update.

*Stock prices used were the afternoon prices of July 23, 2026. The video was published on July 25, 2026.

Parkev Tatevosian, CFA has positions in Alphabet. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Parkev Tatevosian is an affiliate of The Motley Fool and may be compensated for promoting its services. If you choose to subscribe through his link, he will earn some extra money that supports his channel. His opinions remain his own and are unaffected by The Motley Fool.

Nvidia (NVDA -1.01%) investors will appreciate these developments.

*Stock prices used were the afternoon prices of July 22, 2026. The video was published on July 24, 2026.

Parkev Tatevosian, CFA has positions in Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Parkev Tatevosian is an affiliate of The Motley Fool and may be compensated for promoting its services. If you choose to subscribe through his link, he will earn some extra money that supports his channel. His opinions remain his own and are unaffected by The Motley Fool.