Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Ripple ekosistemi son günlerde hem kurumsal tarafta hem de XRP Ledger ağında dikkat çeken gelişmelere sahne oldu. Şirket, RLUSD stablecoin’i için yeni bir kurumsal platform devreye alırken, ödeme altyapısına yönelik stratejik bir yatırım gerçekleştirdi. Binance’in RLUSD ve XRP kullanıcılarına sunduğu yeni teşvikler ile XRP ETF‘lerine yönelik talebin sürmesi de ekosistemde öne çıkan başlıklar arasında yer aldı.

Buna karşın XRP fiyatı son toparlanmasını korumakta zorlanıyor. Analistler, teknik görünümün hâlâ aşağı yönlü riskler taşıdığına dikkat çekerken yatırımcılar kritik destek ve direnç seviyelerini yakından izliyor.

Ripple RLUSD İçin Kurumsal Platformunu Neden Hayata Geçirdi? Ripple, 23 Temmuz’da Ripple Mint platformunu kullanıma sundu. Yeni platform, kurumsal müşterilere RLUSD basma (mint), geri ödeme (redeem), köprüleme (bridge) ve varlık yönetimini tek bir sistem üzerinden gerçekleştirme imkânı sunuyor.

Şirketler işlemlerini standart arayüz üzerinden yürütebilirken, API ve webhook entegrasyonları sayesinde kendi altyapılarına da bağlanabiliyor. Ripple, bu platformla özellikle ödeme sistemleri, hazine yönetimi ve alım satım operasyonlarında stablecoin kullanımını kolaylaştırmayı hedefliyor.

Ripple’ın Notabene Yatırımı RLUSD İçin Ne Anlama Geliyor? Ripple, regülasyon odaklı ödeme altyapısı sağlayıcısı Notabene’ye stratejik yatırım yaptığını da duyurdu.

İki şirket, RLUSD’yi işletmeler arası stablecoin ödeme platformu Notabene Flow’a entegre etmeyi planlıyor. Açıklamaya göre Notabene ağı, 100’den fazla ülkede faaliyet gösteren 2.300’den fazla finansal kurumu birbirine bağlıyor ve yıllık yaklaşık 2 trilyon dolarlık işlem hacmine aracılık ediyor.

Bu iş birliğiyle Ripple, RLUSD’nin regüle ödeme kuruluşları ve finansal kurumlar tarafından daha geniş ölçekte kullanılmasını hedefliyor.

XRP Ledger’da Yapay Zekâ İşlemleri Neden Rekor Kırdı? XRPL AI Hub verilerine göre XRP Ledger üzerinde yapay zekâ ajanları tarafından gerçekleştirilen işlem sayısı 22 Temmuz itibarıyla 1,4 milyonun üzerine çıktı. Ağda aynı dönemde 129 farklı işletmenin aktif olduğu belirtilirken, bu büyüme Ripple’ın haziran ayında tanıttığı yapay zekâ geliştirme kitinin ardından geldi.

Veriler, geliştiricilerin XRP Ledger’ı makineden makineye ödemeler ve otomatik finansal işlemler gibi kullanım alanlarında test etmeye devam ettiğini gösteriyor.

Binance RLUSD ve XRP Kullanıcılarına Hangi Teşvikleri Sunuyor? Binance, RLUSD kullanıcılarına yönelik yeni ödül programını duyurdu.

Borsaya göre uygun varlıklarda değişken getiri oranı %22,25 seviyesine ulaştı. Binance Earn ve Margin ürünleri üzerinden RLUSD tutan veya kullanan yatırımcılar ise haftalık XRP ödüllerinden yararlanabiliyor.

Ancak borsa, getiri oranlarının piyasa koşulları ve kullanıcı katılımına bağlı olarak değişebileceğini vurguladı.

XRP Fiyatında Hangi Seviyeler Takip Ediliyor? XRP, hafta içinde 1,16 dolar seviyesini test etmesinin ardından yeniden 1,10 dolar civarında işlem görüyor. Böylece son yükseliş hareketinin önemli bölümü geri verilmiş oldu.

Teknik görünümde XRP’nin geniş bir düşüş kanalı içinde hareket etmeyi sürdürdüğü belirtiliyor. Analistlere göre 1,18 dolar seviyesi ilk önemli direnç konumunda bulunuyor. Bu bölgeden gelebilecek olası satış baskısı mevcut düşüş trendinin devam etmesine neden olabilir.

Öte yandan alıcıların daha önce 1,02-1,04 dolar aralığındaki destek bölgesini koruması olumlu bir sinyal olarak değerlendiriliyor. Bu bölgenin kaybedilmesi halinde XRP’nin yeniden 1 doların altını test etme riski gündeme gelebilir. Kısa vadede izlenen en güçlü direnç seviyesi ise 1,28 dolar olarak öne çıkıyor.

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

Son Dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla.

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

Competition for on-chain liquidity continues to intensify. However, ecosystems with greater utility continue to attract more capital.

Recent cross-chain flows show Solana [SOL] attracting roughly $552.6 million in net inflows, outpacing all other competing networks.

Ethereum remains the largest source of outgoing capital, while Arbitrum [ARB], Base, BNB Chain, and Tron [TRX] also direct liquidity toward Solana. These migrations indicate users find value in a network providing multiple use cases versus a single purpose.

Source: X Robinhood Chain may lead tokenized-equity DEX volume, although that advantage remains limited to one niche. In contrast, Solana maintains $4.9 billion in TVL, $16.4 billion in stablecoins, over 1.7 million daily active addresses, and $1.1 billion in DEX volume.

Together, those metrics reinforce stronger network effects and sustained capital attraction.

Can buyers regain control above key resistance? While the Solana ecosystem continues to be attractive for investors, no one in the market has been able to translate this attraction into a breakthrough

After rebounding from $73.23 to nearly $80, profit-taking emerged near the 38.2% Fibonacci level at $79.80, slowing the recovery. Even though sellers were unable to take out the support at $75.52, they did establish a new high and thus prevented the price from revisiting the July lows.

Source: SOL/USD on TradingView This indicates that there is a gradual absorption of selling by the buyer’s side as opposed to aggressive buying. At press time, SOL was trading within a very tight range around $76.46, reflecting a temporary balance between demand and supply.

A close above $77.32 would suggest fresh capital is translating into stronger conviction, whereas losing $75.52 would indicate sellers have regained short-term control.

Consumer spending reinforces Solana’s growth While capital inflows and improving price action point to growing confidence, payment activity suggests that confidence is increasingly translating into real-world usage.

Monthly crypto card top-ups climbed steadily through 2025 before accelerating sharply in 2026, reaching a record $94.32 million in May.

Crypto card top-ups in terms of monthly volumes increased steadily through 2025 prior to an acceleration in growth in 2026. The peak was reached at a record $94.32 million in May.

Although volumes eased after that month, they remained above $70 million, indicating users were continuing to spend on the network and not abandoning it.

KAST still processes most transactions, yet other providers are gradually expanding their share.

Source: X The broader participation helps reduce reliance on one platform and hence strengthens the payment ecosystem.

Most importantly, consumer spending is rising, which indicates Solana’s growth is no longer driven primarily by trading and DeFi. Instead, users are increasingly relying upon the network for daily transactional use, reinforcing broader adoption and supporting long-term demand within the ecosystem.

Final Summary

Bittensor [TAO] is approaching a decisive moment as weeks of selling pressure begin to lose momentum. Since peaking near $292.2 in late June, the token has steadily retreated. However, each successive decline has become less aggressive.

That slowdown has formed a falling wedge, a pattern that often reflects weakening bearish conviction rather than fresh selling pressure. Consequently, at press time, TAO traded around $198.3, as it nears the pattern’s apex near the critical $182.5 support.

Buyers have defended that level several times since January, making it the foundation of the current structure. Meanwhile, the failure to reclaim $244.7 has kept the overall trend biased towards the sellers, as that previous support has turned into solid resistance.

Source: TAO/USDT on TradingView Additionally, momentum indicators show the bearish trend is waning. At the time of writing, the RSI has rebounded to 45.23 but still hasn’t reached the price’s recent lows. This shift indicates a reduction in selling momentum below the surface.

Notably, the MACD reinforces this view. While both lines of the MACD continued to converge on the zero line, the histogram has made a slight positive turn. Despite that, volume remains very light compared to what was seen during the sharp sell-off that occurred in mid-July.

That lack of follow-through suggests sellers are no longer entering with the same conviction. Therefore, a breakout above the wedge and a reclaim of $244.7 would likely confirm a bullish reversal and expose $292.2.

Yet, losing $182.5 would invalidate the setup and shift momentum back toward the February low near $150.

Do the latest upgrades support TAO’s recovery? While the technical setup suggests selling pressure is fading, Bittensor’s latest upgrades strengthen the network’s long-term foundation. Previously, subnet owners could secure their position with a one-time commitment, making it harder for new participants to compete.

Source: Bittensor.com The new conviction mechanism changes that by rewarding users who keep their TAO locked over longer periods. It also allows committed challengers to replace inactive subnet owners after a year.

As a result, operators must continue contributing instead of relying on an early advantage. Meanwhile, Spec 437 reduces miners’ upfront costs by locking part of the registration fee instead of burning it completely.

Miners can recover those locked tokens only by remaining active and earning rewards. This approach encourages continuous participation but deters spam and short-term speculation.

All in all, if these upgrades increase demand, it could be enough to provide the demand needed to break above the resistance zone of $205-$220.

Final Summary

Key Highlights PUMP token has climbed approximately 50% from its recent bottom, reaching the $0.0020 level The project’s most significant token unlock event to date was successfully absorbed by market demand without causing a price collapse A new “BOOST mode” feature was introduced, channeling trapped liquidity into buy-and-burn mechanics for newly launched tokens Despite upward price movement, Open Interest has been falling, indicating spot market activity rather than leveraged speculation Critical price resistance zone identified between $0.00210 and $0.00215, which bulls must overcome to validate a sustained reversal The Pump.fun (PUMP) token has experienced a dramatic recovery, climbing nearly 50% from its recent bottom near $0.0013 to current levels around $0.0020. The upward momentum occurred despite market concerns surrounding the project’s largest token distribution event since inception.

Pump.fun (PUMP) Price In mid-July, a substantial quantity of tokens became available for circulation: 32.5 billion PUMP from investor allocations (representing 25% of that pool) and 50 billion PUMP from team allocations (also 25% of that category). The balance of these locked tokens will be released gradually throughout a 36-month period. Historically, significant unlock events tend to create selling pressure. However, PUMP defied this pattern.

Market participants successfully absorbed the newly released tokens while simultaneously driving prices toward a significant long-term descending trendline resistance. This development has reframed the conversation from supply concerns to whether the current momentum can sustain itself.

Cryptocurrency analyst Ansem (@blknoiz06) weighed in on the platform X, highlighting that PUMP consistently generates $1 million in daily revenue even during sluggish on-chain market conditions. He described it as “one of the few stories in crypto where the issue is actually the narrative and sentiment instead of the actual fundamentals.” His analysis suggested that renewed activity on Solana could propel PUMP to new all-time highs, while noting that HYPE commands a 15x higher market valuation despite comparable two-year revenue figures.

$PUMP thesis + trade setup from stream last week

$1M a day with worst onchain conditions is notable, one of the few stories in crypto where the issue is actually the narrative & sentiment instead of the actual fundamentals of the business

if $SOL onchain picks back up this hits… pic.twitter.com/Dy15jW6hd5

— Ansem 🐂🀄️ (@blknoiz06) July 26, 2026

Introduction of BOOST Mode Creates Additional Tailwind The platform recently unveiled “BOOST mode,” an innovative feature designed to recover liquidity that becomes inaccessible when tokens migrate from bonding curves to automated market maker pools. This mechanism redirects that otherwise-lost capital into a buy-and-burn process executed over approximately five minutes. According to platform estimates, more than $100 million in liquidity is permanently lost each year through this migration process. BOOST captures a portion of this value, reportedly increasing effective liquidity by roughly 20% for each newly graduated token.

Although BOOST primarily affects newly created tokens rather than PUMP itself, the mechanism enhances the overall ecosystem economics that PUMP represents as the platform’s native asset. The feature’s launch aligned with PUMP posting weekly gains exceeding 30%.

On July 20, PUMP experienced a dramatic single-day surge of 20-22%, accompanied by a more than 500% spike in 24-hour trading volume, which reached approximately $131 million. Open Interest expanded from roughly 100 million to 163 million contracts during this initial breakout phase.

Chart Analysis Shows Mixed Signals at Critical Junction Technical indicators present a nuanced picture. The Supertrend indicator has shifted to a bullish configuration and price action is maintaining position above the Guppy EMA array. Despite this, Open Interest has declined as price has advanced. This divergence points to spot market buying rather than leveraged futures trading as the primary force behind the rally.

On-chain monitoring services have identified multiple modest but significant PUMP accumulation transactions from large holders in recent trading sessions. Additionally, the token’s built-in buyback-and-burn mechanism is removing approximately 0.1% of circulating supply each day, creating consistent deflationary pressure that compounds with the BOOST feature.

The primary resistance barrier is positioned at $0.00210–$0.00215. Near-term support can be found at $0.00185–$0.00190, while the recent swing low at $0.0013 represents the critical level that bulls must protect to maintain the current bullish structure.

Strategy, known as the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, has paused its Bitcoin acquisition streak for four consecutive weeks. This marks the firm’s longest break from BTC purchases in nearly two years as it moves to strengthen its cash position before the release of its second-quarter earnings report.

Michael Saylor’s post triggers speculation on Bitcoin acquisitionOn July 26, Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman of Strategy, posted a Bitcoin purchase chart on X, captioned, “We’re gonna need another color.” This message fueled speculation among followers, with many anticipating another major Bitcoin acquisition. The anticipation was further elevated by a similar post a few days prior, in which Saylor hinted at purchasing more Bitcoin but instead oversaw a substantial BTC sale. These posts echo a longstanding pattern of Saylor hinting at upcoming Bitcoin buys, usually followed by a US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure.

In Saylor’s words on X, “We’re gonna need another color,” many interpreted the statement as a nod towards further BTC accumulation.

Recently, however, this historical pattern has shifted, with the company departing from routine BTC purchases after such announcements. At the same time, Strategy’s latest public filings indicate a directional change in capital management strategy.

To date, Strategy has conducted 113 Bitcoin purchases for treasury management, holding a total of 843,775 BTC. These were acquired at an average price of $75,476 per Bitcoin, totaling $63.69 billion in investment.

At the current market price of $65,373.96 per Bitcoin, the company’s BTC holdings are now valued at $55.1 billion. This reflects a notional decline of approximately $8.6 billion compared to the initial investment amount.

HoldingTotal BTCAverage Purchase PriceTotal InvestmentCurrent ValueDifferenceStrategy843,775 BTC$75,476$63.69B$55.1B-$8.6BStrategy has also encountered valuation pressure. Since late June, the firm’s market Net Asset Value (mNAV) has fallen below 1, indicating that its market capitalization has dropped beneath the market value of its Bitcoin holdings. As a result, issuing additional shares to fund more BTC acquisitions has become less attractive.

Mini dictionary: mNAV, or market Net Asset Value, compares a company’s market capitalization with the value of its underlying assets. A mNAV below 1 implies that the firm’s market value is less than the value of the assets it holds.

Capital management shift: Building cash reservesInstead of continuing aggressive Bitcoin buying, Strategy has opted to boost its cash holdings. Between July 13 and July 19, the firm sold more than 2.73 million shares of MSTR, generating approximately $263.5 million in net proceeds. According to a July 20 SEC filing, the company’s cash balance now stands at roughly $3.225 billion.

Despite this buildup, Strategy retains the option to sell an additional $23.53 billion in common stock via existing at-the-market programs. The company has also approved a $1 billion buyback for both digital credit securities and its common stock, and can liquidate up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin if needed.

CryptoQuant Head of Research Julio Moreno suggested that the company’s annualized dividend commitments have almost quadrupled to $1.2 billion, while cash reserves have dropped 38% in 2026. Dividend coverage fell rapidly, prompting Moreno to recommend ending automatic BTC buys and focusing on rebuilding liquidity.

On July 23, Strategy updated its mNAV calculation, with representatives clarifying that figures before this change are no longer directly comparable. The firm’s leadership appears to be prioritizing a more conservative approach to capital allocation in light of increased financial obligations.

In June, CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno urged Strategy to scale back Bitcoin purchases and replenish cash, highlighting that the ability to cover dividends from reserves had sharply declined over the past six months. Moreno emphasized the need for any future BTC purchases to follow an investment-driven philosophy rather than an automatic acquisition policy.

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.

In major XRP news today, $3.6 billion AUM EverSource Wealth Advisors has disclosed significant holdings in XRP ETFs along with investments in Bitcoin ETFs. The financial advisor also reported stock holdings in Evernorth Holdings’ SPAC, Strategy (MSTR), and other crypto stocks.

EverSource Wealth Advisors Reveals Exposure in XRP ETFs EverSource Wealth Advisors has disclosed exposure in multiple XRP ETFs, according to the latest 13F filing with the US SEC. The firm has joined other tradFi companies exploring crypto ETFs due to rising confidence amid growing regulatory clarity.

EverSource Wealth Advisors holds 1,777 shares of ProShares Ultra XRP ETF. In addition, the firm revealed small holdings in Franklin XRP ETF. The small position likely followed after Wall Street giants such as Bank of America’s XRP ETF exposure.

The financial advisor also disclosed 250 shares held in Ripple-backed Evernorth Holdings’ SPAC Armada Acquisition Corp II (XRPN) stock. The buy comes as Evernorth Holdings moved closer to a merger with Armada Acquisition Corp II, as CoinGape reported earlier.

Moreover, institutional interest in XRP is rising amid RWA tokenization, XRP Ledger (XRPL), and Ripple’s partnerships with Wall Street and global companies. Recently, Ripple launched Ripple Mint to enable institutions to mint, redeem, and manage RLUSD through APIs and web access.

Meanwhile, spot XRP ETFs saw net inflows of $8.15 million last week, according to SoSoValue data. As a result, the cumulative inflows to date have increased to $1.49 billion. Also, total assets under management across five XRP ETFs have reached $1 billion.

Holdings in Bitcoin ETFs, MSTR, Other Crypto Stocks Holding EverSource Wealth Advisors also revealed holdings in multiple spot Bitcoin ETFs including BlackRock Bitcoin ETF (IBIT), Fidelity’s FBTC, Ark 21Shares’ ARKB, Grayscale’s GBTC, and Bitwise’s BITB.

The firm holds 100,108 shares worth over $3.3 million in BlackRock Bitcoin ETF and 88,591 shares in ARKB. These two mark the firm’s largest holdings in spot Bitcoin ETFs.

In addition, EverSource has holdings in Strategy (MSTR), Trump family-backed American Bitcoin Corp (ABTC), Robinhood (HOOD), and other crypto stocks. Notably, the firm has 43,674 shares of MSTR and 16,355 STRK perpetual shares.

As CoinGape reported recently, Farmers & Merchants Investments disclosed XRP ETF, Bitcoin ETFs, and Robinhood holdings. ETF holdings 261 shares of BlackRock Bitcoin ETF and 475 shares of Robinhood Markets, according to the SEC filing.

While institutions purchase traditional shares, on-chain traders can access fractionalized equities directly through the best platforms to trade tokenized stocks.

Stellar (XLM) is sustaining its upward trajectory following a breakout, as market analysts focus on further gains and buyers work to defend critical price levels. The recent launch of a real-time analytics dashboard by the Stellar network has further enhanced transparency, allowing detailed tracking of ecosystem activity and signals of network adoption.

XLM price outlook and analyst targetsXLM is currently trading at $0.1785, with a 24-hour transaction volume of $75.21 million and a total market capitalization of $6.1 billion. Despite a recent 2.4% decline, both the coin’s price structure and network data are viewed by analysts as supportive of a bullish reversal in the near future.

Crypto analyst Javon Marks continues to monitor XLM with a bullish perspective, maintaining a price target of $0.681. Reaching this level would represent a potential increase of more than 278% from the current trading price.

XLM has already climbed over 120% since leaving its previous resistance range, and buyers have consistently defended higher support levels, reinforcing the case for continued recovery.

Technical analysts note that the current period of consolidation for XLM could serve as a setup for an additional surge, should bullish momentum gather further strength.

If Stellar breaks through key resistance levels, the network’s price could move closer to the $0.681 target, aligning with ongoing growth in tokenization and blockchain adoption within its ecosystem.

MetricCurrent ValueTarget ValueXLM Price$0.1785$0.68124h Volume$75.21 million–Market Cap$6.1 billion–Dashboard launch and ecosystem transparencyStellar has recently unveiled a publicly accessible real-time analytics dashboard through a collaboration with Allium Labs. The dashboard allows anyone to monitor core network activity, including active user accounts, transaction numbers, smart contract executions, and fees as they occur.

A dedicated component of the dashboard is focused on real-world asset tokenization, providing issuer-specific details such as market capitalization and transaction volume for tokenized assets.

The dashboard builds on Allium’s analytics technology, which is designed for financial institutions and incorporates advances from companies such as Visa, Phantom, and a16z. The implementation underscores Stellar’s approach to transparency and its effort to drive broader blockchain adoption.

Mini dictionary: Allium Labs is a technology company specializing in blockchain analytics platforms for financial institutions, emphasizing transparency and regulatory compliance.

The new dashboard offers real-time public insight into every metric on Stellar’s network, including data related to active addresses, transaction volumes, smart contract operations, and network costs.

Market consolidation and future prospectsDespite optimistic forecasts and network growth, XLM continues to trade within a consolidation phase. However, broader market sentiment in the crypto sector has turned increasingly positive, potentially positioning XLM for a significant breakout if favorable conditions persist.

Analysts indicate that the next direction for Stellar will depend on its ability to maintain support levels and overcome key resistance points. A decisive move above these thresholds could drive the XLM price closer to the $0.681 mark, particularly as interest in tokenization rises and transaction volume increases.

Traders are closely watching volume and sentiment indicators as they monitor potential signals for the next major trend in XLM’s price action.

Overall, Stellar’s recent technology upgrade combined with robust analyst targets is drawing attention from investors and industry observers as the network seeks further traction in blockchain adoption and tokenization growth.

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.

Spot ETFs tied to Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP collectively attracted more than $152 million in net inflows during the week of mid-July 2026. Bitcoin did the heavy lifting, as usual, but the quieter story is the steady capital trickling into newer products like Solana and XRP funds.

On July 21 alone, Bitcoin spot ETFs pulled in $203.2 million. Ethereum followed with $37.5 million, while Solana and XRP added $5.8 million and $5.66 million respectively, according to data tracked by SoSoValue.

Bitcoin still dominates, but the field is widening Bitcoin has had a spot ETF since 2024, giving it a massive head start in accumulating assets under management. Ethereum launched its own spot product the same year. Together, they account for the overwhelming majority of crypto ETF capital.

Advertisement

Solana spot ETFs have now amassed over $1.14 billion in total inflows as of late July 2026.

XRP spot ETFs tell a similar story. Since launching in November 2025, these funds crossed $1 billion in cumulative inflows by the end of December 2025. The fact that positive inflows have continued well into 2026 suggests this wasn’t just a launch-day sugar rush.

What this means for investors Solana’s $1.14 billion in cumulative inflows positions it as a legitimate institutional-grade asset.

XRP’s rapid accumulation of over $1 billion in its first two months was notable in its own right. The token has historically carried regulatory baggage, but the existence of an approved spot ETF effectively signals that the regulatory cloud has cleared enough for major asset managers to participate.

The daily numbers fluctuate considerably, as the gap between Bitcoin’s $203.2 million single-day haul and Solana’s $5.8 million illustrates.

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

Celestia [TIA] has been on the decline over the past couple of weeks, as the market appears to be settling into a more neutral position.

TIA has posted a 25% decline on a year-to-date basis, with the past day reflecting that neutral state through a 0.2% gain as of the time of writing.

The market appears caught in a tight spot, with uncertainty building over the price’s next direction.

TIA faces more token unlocks TIA will undergo a major token unlock, channeling the released tokens toward research and development for the blockchain. A token unlock distributes new tokens into the market, bumping the asset’s supply and weighing on its price.

The unlock will release roughly $62,000 into the market in less than 24 hours, with another $62,000 following in 48 hours—an amount likely to move the market significantly.

Source: DeFiLlama Beyond that, Celestia’s total value locked (TVL) remains at $0, reflecting how weak the blockchain’s performance has been. The chain generated just $53 in fees over the past day, underscoring the point.

This combination of weakening on-chain performance and an expected volume surge puts Celestia at major risk.

Funding and capital flows Despite the weakening on-chain metrics and the scheduled token unlock, sentiment around TIA has turned net positive, with investors showing a growing pattern of long bets in the market.

Funding Rate data over the past day has spiked significantly, reaching roughly 0.0049% on the chart, according to the latest reading. A positive Funding Rate implies more bulls than bears in the market, measured by the scale of leveraged positions open on the asset.

Source: CoinGlass Adding to this outlook is a massive inflow of capital into the market, reinforcing the bullish case.

To put this into perspective, Open Interest surged 23% over the past 24 hours, reaching a high of $57.52 million within that period.

The rising Funding Rate, at a time when Open Interest has also surged, signals that the new inflow of capital is being channeled toward long positioning in the market.

Liquidation levels are tight Liquidation heatmap analysis, which identifies clusters of buy and sell orders on the chart, shows TIA sitting in a tight spot from a liquidity perspective.

The asset carries distributed sell orders above price, matched by an equal depth of distributed buy orders below price.

This means price could swing either way—the asset could move up or down, since both clusters exert the same pull on price, and liquidation clusters are known to act like magnets.

Source: CoinGlass However, given the market’s tight positioning, momentum will be the key determinant of where price skews. With bulls currently in control, there’s a high chance of an upswing in price from current levels over the short to near term.

Final Summary Celestia is releasing a large batch of new tokens into the market within the next two days, which could add selling pressure on the price. Traders taking bullish bets have been growing fast, suggesting many expect the price to rise in the near term.

After nearly 3,080 Bitcoin [BTC] left Kraken, attention has shifted back to whale accumulation. The two transfers included 1,265 BTC worth approximately $81.3 million and 1,815 BTC valued at about $116.6 million, bringing the combined value close to $198 million. 

Rather than signaling imminent selling, the movements pointed toward coins leaving an exchange for unknown wallets. Such a  pattern often reflects long-term holding instead of immediate distribution. However, the transfers arrived while Bitcoin traded within a well-defined recovery structure, making the timing especially notable. 

Investors also viewed the withdrawals alongside broader on-chain indicators instead of treating them as isolated events. As a result, the latest whale activity reinforced the argument that large holders continued reducing readily available exchange supply despite recent market volatility.

Scarcity returns to Bitcoin’s favor Bitcoin’s Stock-to-Flow Ratio strengthened considerably and reached 46.5K as of writing, posting a remarkable 350.01% increase over the previous 24 hours. The sharp rise suggested that Bitcoin’s scarcity profile improved after weakening in earlier sessions. 

Since the metric compares circulating supply against annual issuance, higher readings generally reflected tighter supply conditions. This shift aligned well with the latest exchange withdrawals because both indicators pointed toward fewer coins remaining available for immediate selling. 

However, scarcity alone did not determine future price direction. Market participants still required sustained demand to capitalize on reduced supply. Even so, the improvement suggested that Bitcoin’s long-term supply dynamics remained supportive. 

Investors therefore gained another fundamental signal that complemented the growing accumulation narrative driven by large holders.

Source: CryptoQuant Miner behavior eased another source of supply Bitcoin miners also reduced selling pressure during the latest trading session. At press time, the Miners’ Position Index (MPI) dropped to -1.2389 after declining 128.44% over the previous day. 

Negative MPI readings historically indicated that miners sold fewer coins relative to their one-year average. That behavior reduced another potential source of market supply after whale withdrawals already removed substantial holdings from exchanges. 

Instead of increasing distribution into strength, miners appeared to retain a larger share of newly mined Bitcoin. Such positioning usually reflect greater confidence in future valuations rather than urgency to secure profits. Nevertheless, miner activity represented only one part of Bitcoin’s broader supply picture. 

However, reduced miner selling complemented improving scarcity metrics and strengthened the broader case that immediate selling pressure remained relatively contained.

Source: CryptoQuant Can Bitcoin’s channel support fuel another advance? Bitcoin traded near $64,368 after retreating toward the lower boundary of its ascending channel at the time of writing. 

BTC’s price respected support around $63,824, keeping the broader recovery structure intact despite the recent pullback. Meanwhile, resistance remained established near $66,835, with another significant barrier positioned around $73,000. 

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) eased to 50.85, while its moving average stood at 53.66. Those readings showed cooling buying strength rather than aggressive bearish control. The indicator stayed above the oversold region, suggesting sellers had not gained complete dominance. 

If buyers defended the channel support, Bitcoin could revisit $66,835 before attempting another move toward $70,000 and eventually $73,000. However, losing $63,824 would likely expose the next major support around $60,000, shifting short-term sentiment back in favor of sellers.

Source: TradingView Conclusively, the latest Kraken withdrawals, stronger Stock-to-Flow Ratio, and subdued miner selling all strengthened Bitcoin’s supply outlook. Although price cooled near channel support, the broader structure remained constructive. 

Moreover, current conditions suggest accumulation continues to outweigh distribution. Yet the next decisive move would likely depend on whether buyers maintain control above the $63,824 support level.

Final Summary Bitcoin whales removed nearly $198 million from Kraken, easing immediate exchange selling pressure. BTC still holds ascending channel support while scarcity and miner activity favor stronger supply conditions.

The XRP Ledger community is progressing work on multiple bug reports related to xrpld v3.2.0 with the goal of implementing the fixCleanup3_2_0 amendment on July 29. The problems, posted on the XRPLF GitHub, span from performance regressions to problems with synchronization, despite node operators’ ongoing migration to the latest release.

A Look At Newly Reported Issues On XRP Ledger v3.2.0 After upgrading from xrpld 3.1.3 to 3.2.0, it is reported that xrpld 3.2.0 is slowly lagging behind the XRP Ledger mainnet consensus. The nodes which were once updating the validated ledgers on the same hardware “now gradually fall behind the validated ledger.”

However, going back to the 3.1.3 version fixes the problem, according to the issue on GitHub. The reporter called it “a performance regression in 3.2.0.”

Another report claims that xrpld 3.2.0 on Windows 10 never progresses beyond the “connected” server state. Despite maintaining around 30 stable peers, loading a valid UNL with 35 trusted validators, and receiving validations and proposals, the node reportedly never reaches syncing or tracking.

But rather than joining the current ledger of the network, it continues to close its own ledgers since the network’s genesis. The reporter reported that this machine was previously able to run rippled without any problem and the problem only occurred after migration to xrpld.

One validator-related problem is that Ripple-backed XRP Ledger v3.2.0 version does not successfully download ledger data from peers on a mainnet validator. Moreover, it cannot move past “server_state: connected” to “syncing,” “tracking,” or “full” stage.

The reporter made the observation that the process of acquiring the ledger on xrpld 3.2.0 was slowed down relative to xrpld 3.1.3-1. It took around 13 minutes to complete from an empty datastore to full, so it is suspected a regression occurred.

Developers are also looking at a validator public keys report on the new XRP Ledger version. The service showed the public key of the new validator, but server_info still showed the public key of the validator that was migrated previously, resulting in a mismatch between the two.

Validator Issues Warning As July 29 Deadline Inches Closer Meanwhile, XRPL validator Vet encouraged users to upgrade their XRP Ledger nodes to 3.2.0. He wrote on X, “Happy Hump Day to everyone, especially those who have upgraded their XRP Ledger nodes to 3.2.0!” He added, “In less than 1 Week all nodes running XRPL versions below 3.2.0 will experience service interruptions. Please update your nodes, remind exchanges and projects to update as well!”

According to XRP Ledger Explorer, 499 of 843 nodes (59.69%) are now running version 3.2.0. Whilst, 303 nodes (36.24%) remain on version 3.1.3. Adoption of validators has surged to 65.77% with 98 validators upgraded. The fixCleanup3_2_0 amendment currently has 30 of 35 trusted validators in support (85.71%), and is set to become active on 29 July 2026 at 09:57 UTC, as long as it stays above the 80% threshold.

WEMIX says attacker moved about $724,000 after contract breach WEMIX suspended bridges, liquidity-pool trading and several services after an attacker compromised a WEMIX$-linked contract and moved 724,198 USDC.e.

Layer-1 blockchain network WEMIX said an attacker moved about 724,000 in USDC.e tokens after compromising ownership of a contract linked to its WEMIX$ stablecoin and issuing tokens without authorization. 

The abnormal transactions occurred on Sunday at 9:17 UTC, according to a preliminary incident update from WEMIX. The attacker issued about 5.23 million WEMIX$, which was converted into 30,736 WEMIX and 724,198.27 USDC.e. The USDC.e was then bridged to Ethereum and BNB Smart Chain before being exchanged for assets including Ether and Tether’s USDT and distributed across multiple addresses.

WEMIX said some of the funds were deposited into centralized exchanges. The company identified the attacker’s wallets and requested asset freezes and assistance from exchanges and stablecoin issuers, adding that some exchanges had already frozen addresses linked to the incident. 

The company temporarily suspended all bridges connected to its layer-1 network, WEMIX3.0, including Chainlink CCIP and the PLAY Bridge. It also suspended trading in affected liquidity pools, withdrew foundation-provided liquidity, and paused services including the WEMIX$ Module and PNIX decentralized exchange. 

WEMIX said the cause and full impact remain under investigation and warned that the preliminary figures could change. 

Cointelegraph contacted WEMIX for additional information but did not receive an immediate response.

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

To our token holders and network participants, 

Today Storj Management and Board have commenced a voluntary, court-supervised financial restructuring — an accelerated reorganization. You deserve more than a press release, so here is the full picture, plainly. 

Why we did this. The company carries liabilities that largely predate our current strategy. Inveniam has continued to support us, and the operating business has been right-sized — lean team, disciplined costs. But past obligations of this scale cannot be outgrown; they can only be resolved. This process resolves them in one place, under court supervision, with full transparency, and gives us the time to present a strong business plan for what comes next. 

The network and the token today. The network continues to operate normally. The token’s utility in the network is unchanged by today’s announcement. We will not comment on price — not today, not during the process; we know trading has been quiet and low for a long time, and nothing in this letter is a prediction or an inducement to buy or sell anything. 

The path we intend to propose. Our goal — stated openly — is that the restructured company be owned by the people who built it and the people who believed in it: management, this decentralized community, Token holders and other investors. Concretely, we intend to propose, as part of a plan of reorganization, a mechanism for Token holders to participate in the equity of the restructured company. The design (eligibility, mechanics, and terms) will be developed during the process and disclosed formally. 

What we cannot promise. A plan must be approved through the court process, and the law sets priorities among stakeholders that we must respect. So we are promising you a seat at the table and a genuine intention — not an outcome. We would rather be straight with you now than walk anything back later. 

How to engage — concretely: 

Organization: we strongly encourage token holders who wish to organize as a group during the process are welcome to do so; we are keen to engage constructively with any representative group, and the email above is the starting point. Please reach out so that we can build Storj with our community. 

Dedicated channel: [email protected] — staffed, read daily, with a commitment to respond within [2] business days. 

Open AMA with Storj management team: TBD. Questions can be submitted in advance via the email above. 

Formal process information: court documents, timelines, and official notices. If you believe you hold a claim, please email [email protected] — please rely on it over rumor. 

Kaloyan Raev, Director, Software Engineering, Storj 

Important: This letter is for information only. It is not an offer or solicitation of any security or token, not a promise of any recovery or distribution, and not financial advice. Any participation by token holders in the restructured company will occur only pursuant to a court-approved plan and definitive documentation, and applicable securities laws. 

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong says quantum computing does not pose an immediate threat to Bitcoin. However, he also stressed that the cryptocurrency industry must begin preparing now for a future in which sufficiently powerful quantum computers become a reality.

In a post on X, Armstrong announced the launch of the Bitcoin Security Consortium, a new initiative backed by Coinbase alongside BlackRock, Fidelity Digital Assets, Block, Blockstream, Strategy and other major industry participants. 

The consortium aims to support the long-term security of the Bitcoin network and coordinate efforts to prepare the flagship cryptocurrency for the eventual arrival of quantum computers. 

HOT Stories

The announcement comes as Coinbase published a detailed roadmap outlining its own post-quantum strategy. The exchange said it is developing a quantum-resistant version of its proprietary key management system, known as PQ-CoreKMS. 

According to the exchange, there is high confidence that fault-tolerant quantum computers will eventually be built. However, its quantum-focused board also found that such a threat is not imminent. The real lies in coordinating secure migrations across decentralized blockchain networks with millions of users.

Coinbase will co-host working sessions with Bitcoin Core developers, cryptographers and researchers beginning in August to discuss migration strategies. The company also pledged engineering resources and funding for this purpose.

Recent advances

In recent years, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) completed the selection and standardization of the first post-quantum cryptographic algorithms. Governments and technology companies have already started transitioning critical infrastructure toward these new standards. 

Today’s quantum computers remain far from the scale required to compromise Bitcoin’s elliptic curve cryptography, researchers continue to make steady advances in hardware reliability, error correction and logical qubits. Experts generally agree that a cryptographically relevant quantum computer capable of attacking Bitcoin would require millions of high-quality physical qubits operating with robust error correction well beyond current capabilities, but they also caution that predicting when such systems will emerge is difficult. 

For Bitcoin specifically, developers have proposed several approaches for a future migration, including introducing quantum-resistant signature schemes, encouraging users to move funds to upgraded addresses, and implementing protocol changes through future Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Any transition would require broad consensus. 

Coinbase said that is precisely why it believes the industry’s focus should be on preparation. 

Questions have resurfaced within the cryptocurrency community about whether Ripple could unilaterally destroy its massive XRP escrow holdings. The debate focuses on Ripple’s control over XRP’s circulating supply and the network’s decentralized governance model.

Ripple’s Authority on Escrowed XRPWeb3 investor and blockchain commentator Jake Claver addressed these concerns in a recent social media post, clarifying that Ripple does not have independent power to burn its escrowed XRP. Ripple is a San Francisco-based fintech company known for developing payment solutions using XRP and related blockchain infrastructure.

Claver explained that the XRP Ledger operates under decentralized governance and Ripple itself directly controls only three out of the 35 validators on the network’s Unique Node List (UNL). For any protocol change—such as the destruction of escrowed XRP—a supermajority vote is necessary. According to Claver, that threshold stands at 80%, requiring consensus from at least 28 validators outside Ripple’s control.

Ripple runs 3 of 35 trusted validators, and any change needs approximately 80% consensus. They can lock XRP in escrow, but torching supply takes 28 other independent validators voting yes. Decentralization, in practice.

The XRP Ledger’s governance ensures that no single participant, including Ripple, can arbitrarily alter network rules or destroy tokens without broad validator agreement.

Burning Escrow: Procedure and RoadblocksAccording to Claver, any attempt to burn XRP from escrow would require a formal network amendment, which must be supported by a significant majority of trusted validator nodes. He emphasized Ripple’s limited influence within this structure, reaffirming that direct unilateral action is impossible.

Claver also referred to past statements by David Schwartz, Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer, who has repeatedly maintained that such a measure would need overwhelming network support according to the XRP Ledger’s rules.

Ripple may place, lock, or release XRP in escrow as part of monthly schedules and business operations, but only a large-scale network consensus could approve burning these assets entirely.

Mini dictionary: Unique Node List (UNL) — In the XRP Ledger, the UNL is a set of validators trusted to reach consensus on the state and rules of the ledger. Amendments and critical changes to the protocol require high UNL validator consensus to be enacted.

Community Perspectives and Escrow MonetizationClaver’s explanation drew broad engagement from the XRP community. Some questioned if Ripple would have any motivation to remove a primary source of capital from its balance sheet. XRP_BIBLE argued that monthly sales from escrow remain a significant income source for Ripple, thus making a mass burn unlikely.

Ripple monetizes some of its XRP through monthly sales, so it has little incentive to destroy escrow, which represents a major funding mechanism.

Other users, like WilliamLolli.DigitalAssetEvangelist, reiterated the point that Ripple’s structured releases have always been central to its business model. They questioned why the company would shift away from a system it views as successful.

Another community participant, Italian Gatorade, highlighted the difference between regular transaction fee burns on the XRP Ledger and large, deliberate token burns for optics or pricing effects. The user supported the network’s current process of burning negligible amounts with each transaction, while opposing proposals to destroy escrow similar to certain meme coins.

Community responses overall echoed confidence in the ledger’s decentralized governance, underscoring that any change to XRP’s total supply would require significant, multi-party agreement and not just Ripple’s approval.

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.

Summarize this article with:

Is Ethereum just going through a simple consolidation phase or have investors already turned the page? While the crypto market watches for the slightest sign of a rebound, prediction platforms like Polymarket display a pessimism rarely seen towards the sector’s second largest capitalization. Having returned around 1,880 dollars after a brief passage above 1,950 dollars, ETH remains above its late June low at 1,510 dollars, without convincing. This gap between a still solid network and a degraded market sentiment raises the question: how far can distrust go?

In brief Polymarket bettors give Ether only a 17% chance of crossing the 3,000 $ threshold by the end of 2026, even hesitating between a return to 1,000 $ and a rebound towards 3,000 $. With a price hovering around 1,880 $, at 62% of its August 2025 high (4,946 $), the probability of breaking this record this year is estimated at only 6%. ETH stocks on exchanges fall to a historically low level of 15.1 million tokens, reinforced by more than 33.6% of the monetary mass locked in staking. Despite these solid fundamentals, the rise in US bond rates weighs on risk assets and temporarily blocks the price rebound below the 1,900 $ resistance. Ethereum: here is what Polymarket and Kalshi contracts reveal Traders operating on the Polymarket and Kalshi platforms are currently betting millions of dollars on the trajectories of Ethereum prices by the end of the year, showing blatant pessimism. The numerical data from these derivative financial markets perfectly illustrate the suspicion of speculators :

A balanced arbitrage between 1,000 $ and 3,000 $ : on Polymarket, the contract “Will Ethereum hit 1,000 $ or 3,000 $ first?” cumulates 95,300 $ in volume and values the 1,000 $ option at 54% against 50% for the 3,000 $ scenario ; Diving probabilities beyond 2,500 $ : the general market “what price will Ethereum reach in 2026?” gathers nearly 9 million dollars. While giving an 83% chance to reach 2,000 $ and 56% to touch 2,500 $, the 3,500 $ hypothesis falls to 12% and the 5,000 $ falls below 4% ; A fall to 1,500 $ favored : this scenario represents the largest share of the event with 1.86 million dollars in volume and 47% odds granted ; Almost exclusive new all-time highs (ATH) : a 2.3 million dollar contract gives only a 6% chance of beating the absolute record by December 31, 2026 (and 1% by September 30). The August 2025 ATH set at 4,946 $ is 62% above the current price of 1,860 $ ; The parallel diagnosis from Kalshi : the contract “how high will Ethereum get this year?”, settled on the CF Ethereum Real Time Index (expiration on January 1st, 2027), sets the chances of an ETH above 3,500 $ at 15%, above 3,750 $at 12% and above 4,000$ at 10%. All these options on Polymarket are rigorously based on ETH/USDT pair data on Binance and expire on December 31, 2026. The resolution condition for a new ATH requires surpassing each candle summit recorded since December 16, 2025. Moreover, the significant gap between these dates shows how much bettors doubt a short-term bullish breakout.

Institutional accumulation and drying up of reserves While speculation is faltering on derivative markets, the acquisition dynamics of major economic players and the token holding structure describe a radically different reality. Spot Ethereum ETFs have recorded between 72 and 73 million dollars in net daily inflows in recent sessions, driven by BlackRock’s ETHA fund and Fidelity’s FETH, pushing the total cumulative inflows beyond 11 billion dollars. Meanwhile, Bitmine Immersion Technologies, the largest corporate ETH holder, has boosted its treasury to reach about 5.78 million coins, or nearly 4.8% of circulating supply, while making acquisitions aimed at reaching its 5% target.

This constant buying pressure is accompanied by a marked drying up of available reserves on centralized exchange platforms. Stocks on exchanges have fallen to a multi-year low near 15.1 million ETH, a sharp drop compared to the more than 21 million recorded a year earlier, with more than 658,600 coins valued over 1.2 billion dollars leaving platforms like Gemini and Bitfinex over recent weeks. Moreover, token locking intensifies, with nearly 33.6% of the total Ether supply now engaged in staking, while exit queues for validators drop toward zero, confirming long-term asset retention.

The Glamsterdam update and the macroeconomic context On the technological side, the protocol’s development schedule follows its roadmap without major obstruction with the preparation of the Glamsterdam update, still planned for the second half of the year. This major deployment targets activation on the mainnet between September and October, subject to validation of public tests, and will introduce ePBS (enshrined proposer builder separation) as well as a redesign of access lists at the block level to allow parallel transaction execution. Thus, this upgrade will come with an increase of the gas limit floor to 200 million, extending the efficiency gains of layer two solutions where average fees now hover around 0.8 cents of a dollar.

However, this technical strength bumps against a heavy overall financial environment that blocks token valuation. The recent price drop fits into a weakness in the crypto market, heavily pressured due to rising US Treasury bond yields which divert capital from risk assets. From a chartist analysis perspective, this context maintains immediate technical support around 1,850 $, while a stubborn resistance has formed in the zone between 1,900 $ and 1,920 $.

Ultimately, Ethereum’s current situation illustrates a clash of visions between the immediate caution of derivative markets and the structural solidity of its ecosystem. On one side, bettors apply a discount related to the macroeconomic climate and short-term uncertainty. On the other, massive institutional flows and drying up of available supply create a potential supply shock. Coming months will show if the Glamsterdam update and mechanical token scarcity will be enough to defy Polymarket’s pessimistic probabilities.

Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Adjinacou Luc Jose

Diplômé de Sciences Po Toulouse et titulaire d'une certification consultant blockchain délivrée par Alyra, j'ai rejoint l'aventure Cointribune en 2019. Convaincu du potentiel de la blockchain pour transformer de nombreux secteurs de l'économie, j'ai pris l'engagement de sensibiliser et d'informer le grand public sur cet écosystème en constante évolution. Mon objectif est de permettre à chacun de mieux comprendre la blockchain et de saisir les opportunités qu'elle offre. Je m'efforce chaque jour de fournir une analyse objective de l'actualité, de décrypter les tendances du marché, de relayer les dernières innovations technologiques et de mettre en perspective les enjeux économiques et sociétaux de cette révolution en marche.

DISCLAIMER

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.

PANews, July 26 – Token Unlocks data shows that tokens including SUI, EIGEN, and FF are set for large unlocks next week, specifically:

Sui (SUI) will unlock approximately 13.72 million tokens on August 1 at 8:00 AM Beijing time, representing about 0.34% of circulating supply, valued at roughly $9.9 million;

EigenCloud (EIGEN) will unlock approximately 36.82 million tokens on August 1 at 12:00 PM Beijing time, representing about 5.79% of circulating supply, valued at roughly $7.6 million;

Falcon Finance (FF) will unlock approximately 102 million tokens on July 29 at 9:00 PM Beijing time, representing about 3.53% of circulating supply, valued at roughly $6.2 million;

Kamino (KMNO) will unlock approximately 229 million tokens on July 30 at 8:00 PM Beijing time, representing about 2.97% of circulating supply, valued at roughly $4.1 million;

Ethena (ENA) will unlock approximately 40.63 million tokens on August 2 at 3:00 PM Beijing time, representing about 0.47% of circulating supply, valued at roughly $3.5 million.

A coalition of major financial institutions and Bitcoin-focused firms has formed the Bitcoin Security Consortium, committing substantial resources to bolster the cryptocurrency network’s long-term defenses. Strategy (NASDAQ:MSTR), the company formerly known as MicroStrategy and led by Michael Saylor as executive chairman, is among the nine founding members.

The group also includes Anchorage Digital, ARK Invest, BlackRock, Block, Blockstream, Coinbase, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Galaxy.

Together they have pledged a combined $15 million over the next three years to support open-source developers and researchers working on Bitcoin’s security infrastructure.

The consortium’s primary aim is to reinforce the resilience of the Bitcoin network without interfering in its decentralized development process.

Members will independently direct their contributions to engineers and organizations of their choosing, focusing especially on efforts to prepare the system for potential future risks posed by quantum computing.

While large-scale quantum computers capable of breaking current cryptographic standards do not yet exist and are widely estimated to remain years away, the initiative treats post-quantum cryptography as an important long-term priority already being pursued by the technical community.

Phong Le, chief executive officer of Strategy, underscored the motivation behind the effort.

As long-term holders of Bitcoin, the participating organizations have a strong interest in ensuring the network remains secure across generations.

Providing financial support to those performing this specialized work, while also helping clarify public discussions around it, represents a practical form of contribution, he noted.

BlackRock’s global head of digital assets, Robert Mitchnick, similarly highlighted the value of the work done by Bitcoin Core developers.

He expressed satisfaction that his firm and the other members would now supply meaningful additional funding to address the network’s extended security requirements.

Coordination of the consortium’s day-to-day activities will be handled on a volunteer basis by Mike Schmidt, executive director of Brink, a nonprofit that already funds and assists Bitcoin open-source developers.

The structure deliberately mirrors established models in which industry participants support open-source software they rely upon by offering resources and raising awareness, while refraining from controlling the underlying code or development decisions.

Organizers emphasized that the consortium will neither create nor dictate changes to Bitcoin’s protocol, nor take positions on specific technical proposals.

It will not claim to represent Bitcoin or its developers.

Protocol evolution will continue to rest with the global, decentralized community of contributors.

In addition to funding, the group plans to publish and maintain informational materials on Bitcoin’s security posture, updating them as circumstances evolve, and to serve as a reliable reference point for investors, the public, and the media.

The formation of this alliance reflects growing institutional involvement in Bitcoin and a recognition that its security constitutes a shared responsibility.

By channeling resources toward existing technical efforts rather than attempting to centralize control, the consortium seeks to strengthen the open ecosystem that has sustained Bitcoin through previous challenges. Over the coming months, participants intend to expand support for developers while fostering clearer communication about the network’s defensive readiness, including preparations for a possible quantum computing environment.

TLDR: Uniswap v4 uses smart contract hooks to restrict swaps and liquidity access to approved wallets only. Permissioned Pools support tokenized funds, securities, and equities with issuer-controlled compliance rules. Superstate, Securitize, and Dowgo are helping connect regulated assets with programmable AMM liquidity. Tokenized assets reached $36.87 billion, increasing demand for compliant secondary-market infrastructure. Uniswap Labs has introduced Permissioned Pools, an open-source framework designed to bring regulated tokenized assets into automated market makers without opening access to every wallet. Announced on July 23, the system allows issuers to place tokenized funds, securities, and equities inside Uniswap v4 while controlling who may participate.

Uniswap Launches Permissioned Pools for Compliant Onchain Trading

Uniswap has introduced Permissioned Pools on v4, enabling tokenized securities, funds, equities, and other regulated assets to trade through AMMs with onchain allowlist checks. Launch partners include Superstate,… pic.twitter.com/o4xxstWYww

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) July 26, 2026

The launch addresses a growing infrastructure problem across tokenized finance. Blockchain-based assets can be issued efficiently, yet regulatory restrictions often prevent them from entering permissionless secondary markets. Permissioned Pools combine programmable liquidity with wallet-level controls, giving approved participants access while preserving issuer-defined compliance rules.

How On-Chain Allowlisting Controls Pool Access The framework relies on Uniswap v4 hooks, which are external smart contracts designed to customize how each pool operates. Before every swap or liquidity deposit, the hook checks an issuer-controlled allowlist.

Approved wallets may receive permission to trade, provide liquidity, or perform both activities. As a result, eligibility checks occur directly within pool-level contracts rather than through websites or offchain verification systems.

The system also uses a permissions adapter to hold the restricted underlying token. Meanwhile, Uniswap’s PoolManager handles a wrapped version of the asset inside the pool.

Assets are wrapped when deposited and unwrapped when withdrawn. Consequently, approved users receive the underlying permissioned asset after completing a transaction.

This structure also prevents restricted tokens from moving freely through standard pool routes. In addition, several controls are designed to close potential compliance gaps.

Liquidity-position NFTs cannot be transferred, while disallowed wallets cannot gain exposure through multi-hop transactions. Users may still withdraw liquidity after losing permission.

Issuers can also pause swaps, update compliance systems, or force-close positions when regulatory or administrative action becomes necessary. However, these safeguards give issuers considerable operational authority.

Administrators control wallet eligibility, approved routing contracts, and emergency measures. Therefore, the framework introduces a centralized layer within the broader decentralized exchange structure.

To reduce administrative risk, Uniswap recommends securing these powers through protections such as multisignature wallets. This measure reflects the significant authority attached to allowlist management and emergency intervention.

Institutional Partners Expand Tokenized Market Liquidity Permissioned Pools contracts are already live on the Ethereum mainnet and the Sepolia test network. As a result, issuers can deploy restricted pools through the open protocol without changing ordinary permissionless markets.

However, deployment does not automatically guarantee visibility across Uniswap Labs’ products. Inclusion within its interface and API routing requires issuers to complete a separate onboarding process. Meanwhile, existing Uniswap v4 pools continue operating without these additional restrictions.

Superstate, Securitize, and Dowgo are the first announced partners supporting the framework. Superstate helped develop the standard for tokenized funds and equities, while Securitize contributed support for assets issued through its DS Protocol.

Dowgo also added compatibility with the ERC-3643 token standard. The European digital-securities platform plans to use the framework after securing authorization under the European Union’s DLT Pilot Regime.

The development builds on an earlier collaboration between Uniswap Labs and Securitize. In February, the companies enabled eligible BlackRock BUIDL holders to exchange BUIDL and USDC through UniswapX.

That earlier integration used a request-for-quote model involving approved market participants. By comparison, permissioned pools place restricted assets directly inside an automated market maker.

Consequently, approved users can access programmable on-chain liquidity while remaining subject to issuer-controlled compliance requirements. The structure links automated execution with wallet-level eligibility checks.

The launch also arrives as tokenized asset markets continue expanding. RWA.xyz reported $36.87 billion in distributed tokenized asset value on July 26, including $16.20 billion in tokenized United States Treasuries.

Although those figures show rising issuance, they do not automatically indicate active secondary-market liquidity. Permissioned Pools address that separate challenge by creating controlled trading environments for institutions and approved participants.

Their practical operation will therefore depend on three measurable factors: the assets deployed, the liquidity supplied, and the effectiveness of issuer-managed access controls.

South Korea’s dominant crypto exchange is rolling out the welcome mat for DeFi lending. Upbit will list Morpho (MORPHO) in its KRW trading market on July 25 at 18:00 KST, with Euler (EUL) following one day later on July 26.

The announcement alone was enough to nudge Morpho’s price up 4.8%.

Why these two protocols, and why now Morpho and Euler both belong to a newer generation of lending protocols that take a modular approach, essentially letting users and developers customize lending markets rather than relying on one-size-fits-all pools. This contrasts with legacy monolithic platforms like Aave and Compound, where governance committees set parameters for the entire protocol. Modular lending flips that model, giving market creators more granular control over collateral types, interest rate curves, and risk parameters.

Morpho has been on a tear lately. The protocol raised $175 million in June, pushing its valuation north of $2 billion. Its active deposits now surpass $11 billion, with roughly $4 billion in outstanding loans.

Advertisement

Just days before the Upbit listing, on July 22, Morpho launched a fixed-rate lending feature called Morpho Midnight on the Base mainnet. Fixed-rate lending has long been a white whale in DeFi, something traditional finance takes for granted but decentralized protocols have struggled to implement cleanly.

Euler suffered a major exploit back in 2023, but rebuilt, and its modular lending infrastructure has since expanded to new chains. On July 17, the protocol deployed on HSK Chain, broadening its capacity to offer loans against tokenized assets. Its token, EUL, was trading in the $1 to $1.70 range around the time of the listing announcement.

Morpho’s market cap sat in the $1 billion to $1.3 billion range prior to the listing, placing it roughly between the 50th and 60th largest crypto assets by market capitalization.

The Upbit effect When a token gets a KRW trading pair on Upbit, it gains direct fiat on-ramp access to millions of Korean traders who might otherwise never interact with it. Historically, this has produced sharp, short-term price spikes as new capital floods in. The 4.8% Morpho bump on announcement alone is textbook.

The back-to-back scheduling is notable. Listing both on consecutive days suggests Upbit sees enough demand to justify two DeFi lending tokens in rapid succession, rather than spacing them out to avoid cannibalizing attention.

What this means for investors Morpho’s $11 billion in deposits demonstrates real demand for more customizable credit infrastructure. First, expect increased liquidity for both MORPHO and EUL. KRW pairs tend to generate meaningful volume, particularly in the first few weeks after listing.

Second, Morpho’s fixed-rate lending launch adds a fundamental catalyst that sits underneath the listing hype. If Morpho Midnight gains traction on Base, it could attract institutional borrowers who have historically avoided DeFi’s variable-rate structures.

Euler presents a different risk-reward profile. The protocol’s recovery from the 2023 exploit is notable, and its expansion to HSK Chain shows technical ambition. EUL’s price range of $1 to $1.70 suggests the market hasn’t fully re-rated the token.

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

Spot Bitcoin ETF Outflows Rose as CLARITY Act Odds FellBitcoin price retreated for the fourth consecutive day as American investors sold their ETF holdings for two straight days. Data shows that Bitcoin ETFs lost over $240 million in assets on Friday after losing $225 million a day earlier. 

As a result, the net weekly inflow was $33 million, lower than the previous week’s $75 million. BlackRock’s IBIT ETF lost over $212 million on Friday, while Fidelity’s FBTC shed over $27 million. 

Falling Bitcoin ETF inflows normally send a signal that demand among American institutional investors is falling. 

The selling coincided with several major events. For one, there are doubts on whether the Senate will pass the CLARITY Act. While the most important sections have bipartisan support, Democrats and consumer watchdog groups have opposed it. 

They argue that the current provisions will not bar President Donald Trump and his family members from issuing tokens. Recent disclosures showed that Trump pocketed over $1.4 billion in crypto profits last year, even as most supporters lost billions.

Odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law have dropped to just 35% on Polymarket. Earlier this year, these odds were 75%. 

Polymarket odds of CLARITY Act being signed into law | Source: Polymarket

The CLARITY Act aims to change how the crypto industry is regulated by giving the more lenient CFTC more power than the SEC. It also sets rules for stablecoin rewards and how digital assets are classified.

Bitcoin’s weakness also coincided with the rising odds that the Federal Reserve will hike interest rates amid the ongoing US-Iran war. Odds of a rate hike happening this year have jumped to over 70%. In most cases, Bitcoin and other risky assets underperform the market in a high interest rate environment.

Bitcoin Price Dropped After Hitting a Key ResistanceTechnicals show that BTC price retreated after hitting the crucial resistance level of $67,018, its highest level on June 15. That is a sign that it formed a double-top pattern, a common reversal sign. 

The coin also found resistance at the 100-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA). It also moved below the Supertrend indicator. 

Therefore, the coin will likely remain under pressure as long as it is below the resistance level of $67,018. A move above that price will point to more gains, potentially to the psychological level of $70,000.

Image: Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

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

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

22h18 ▪ 4 min read ▪ by Eddy S.

Summarize this article with:

The CLARITY Act, a flagship bill to regulate cryptos in the United States, is on the brink of failure. With 4 days to convince the Senate, its adoption has only a 30% chance of success. Between political deadlocks and economic stakes, the future of Bitcoin and altcoins is at play now.

In Brief Urgency in the Senate: 4 days to adopt the CLARITY Act, with only a 30% chance of success. Political deadlocks: Democrats and Republicans divided on ethics and crypto regulation. Stakes for Bitcoin: Adoption could boost cryptos, failure would plunge them into uncertainty. The U.S. Senate Has 4 Days to Save the CLARITY Act, Chances Drop to 30% The CLARITY Act, this long-awaited bill to clarify crypto regulation in the United States, sees its adoption chances drop to 30%, according to Galaxy Digital. The reason? A dire lack of votes in the Senate. Indeed, with only 4 days before the summer recess, Republicans, who control 53 seats, struggle to gather the 60 votes required to avoid a filibuster.

Democrats, led by Elizabeth Warren, strongly criticize the bill, especially on ethical provisions (entrusted to the Department of Justice) and the sunset clause in 2029. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell, Republican leader, has been absent since his hospitalization, further reducing the chances of success. Alex Thorn, director of research at Galaxy, is clear:

The time for incremental negotiations is over. A last-minute effort is needed.

If the Senate does not initiate the process by July 30, the bill will be postponed to September, where it will have to compete with the federal budget and midterm elections. A failure would mean another year of legal uncertainty for the American crypto industry.

Bitcoin and CLARITY Act: why this law could change everything (or nothing at all) Bitcoin, often considered a commodity by the CFTC, could indirectly benefit from the CLARITY Act, even if the text does not explicitly mention it. Indeed, by clarifying the roles of the SEC and CFTC, this law could reduce the risks of arbitrary lawsuits against platforms like Coinbase or Kraken, which list BTC. However, if the bill fails, Bitcoin could face increased regulatory pressure.

Without a clear framework, the SEC could continue targeting exchanges under the pretext of selling unregistered securities, as it did with Ripple. Conversely, if the CLARITY Act passes, Bitcoin could attract more institutional capital, notably through spot ETFs. Clear regulation would also strengthen BTC’s legitimacy as a digital store of value, against competitors like gold or the dollar.

The CLARITY Act is at a turning point. Its failure would plunge cryptos into uncertainty, while its adoption could revolutionize the market! As Charles Schwab thinks, who sees it as a historic catalyst. But with 4 days to convince, one question remains: will senators dare to save the crypto future of the United States?

Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Eddy S.

The world is evolving and adaptation is the best weapon to survive in this undulating universe. Originally a crypto community manager, I am interested in anything that is directly or indirectly related to blockchain and its derivatives. To share my experience and promote a field that I am passionate about, nothing is better than writing informative and relaxed articles.

DISCLAIMER

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of contents

Lista DAO, a BNB Chain-based DeFi protocol, is launching liquidity pools on OpenOcean, a multichain DEX aggregator. With this development, Lista DAO is broadening access to the decentralized liquidity across the BNB Chain network. As per Lista DAO’s official announcement, the move lets users leverage diverse Lista-driven trading pairs via the aggregation platform of OpenOcean. The move comes just before the rollout of the LISTA Compounding Rewards Season 1 that will go live on the 26th of July.

Lista DAO Widens Liquidity Access via OpenOcean Integration Integration with OpenOcean permits Lista DAO to deliver enhanced swap pricing as well as more effective execution of trades for market members. So, the provision of liquidity pools through OpenOcean is anticipated to fortify on-chain liquidity, along with making swaps of tokens easier for consumers. The move enables liquidity providers and traders to seamlessly access many crucial trading pairs via OpenOcean.

Among the compatible pools are $USDT/$lisUSD, $BNB/$slisBNB, $USDT/$USDC, and $U/$USDT. At the same time, more pairs are also going to be available in the near future. With the use of the aggregation technology of OpenOcean, consumers can likely leverage optimized routing to search for significantly competitive exchange rates among liquidity providers within the decentralized network.

The partnership denotes a key development for Lista DAO to expand the liquidity infrastructure’s accessibility. Enabling the availability of these pools via a broadly utilized DEX aggregator can advance trading activity while streamlining access. It targets consumers who prioritize performing swaps via one interface instead of interacting with more than one DEX separately. Additionally, the deeper liquidity’s availability is poised to minimize price slippage when large transfers take place.

LISTA Compounding Rewards Season 1 Starts on July 26 According to Lista DAO, parallel to the liquidity expansion, the platform is also readying to unveil Season 1 of the LISTA Compounding Rewards initiative on the 26th of July. The platform will specifically distribute rewards via “Interest Crates,” with 2 primary factors determining allocations, including the maturity and position of the respective position. Overall, the merger of the incentive project and the broadened liquidity access underscores the platform’s endeavors to bolster its DeFi network.

AUTHOR

Umair Younas is a cryptocurrency-related content writer linked with this work since 2019. Here, at Blockchainreporter, he serves as a news and article writer. He is a crypto, blockchain, NFTs, DeFi, and FinTech enthusiast. He has strong command over writing authentic reviews about brokers and exchanges and he has collaborated with our education team to write educational content as well. He has a dream to raise awareness among people about digital currencies. His works are well-researched and brimmed with information hence they provide fresh insights. Stay tuned to his posts if you want to stay up-to-date with the crypto-verse.

Donald Trump-backed Official Trump (TRUMP) memecoin team has just moved nearly $17 million worth of its tokens. The latest on-chain transfer comes on the heels of the CLARITY Act deadline, spurring speculations. In addition, the scheduled TRUMP token unlock has led to other lawyer of reasoning behind the move.

Official Trump Team Moves Millions In TRUMP Memecoin Donald Trump’s team shifted 16.84 million TRUMP tokens worth approximately $16.91 million to three Fireblocks custody wallets today, according to Arkham Intelligence data.

“TRUMP TEAM SENT $16M TRUMP TO CUSTODY.” The blockchain analytics platform added, “The $TRUMP team just transferred $16.91M of TRUMP to 3 Fireblocks Custody addresses.”

The transfers were distributed in three wallets. First, approximately 3.555 million worth $5.5 million TRUMP tokens were transferred to an address on Fireblocks. Thereafter, the team moved 3.596 million TRUMP tokens to another address on Fireblocks. At last, 3.686 million TRUMP tokens were shifted to a third address on Fireblocks. The total of the transfers on execution was approximately $16.91 million.

TRUMP TEAM SENT $16M TRUMP TO CUSTODY

The $TRUMP team just transferred $16.91M of TRUMP to 3 Fireblocks Custody addresses.

These addresses have all received $TRUMP in the past, and all sent their past TRUMP to Bitgo. Are they distributing TRUMP unlocks? pic.twitter.com/Y6XU8dg7qS

— Arkham (@arkham) July 25, 2026

Moreover, Arkham said that these wallets had previously also received TRUMP tokens. The firm asked, “These addresses have all received $TRUMP in the past, and all sent their past TRUMP to Bitgo. Are they distributing TRUMP unlocks?”

The latest movement drew attention as a big part of the token is kept under the control of the insiders. The TRUMP team has the ability to sell up to 96 million tokens, or 9.6% of the entire token supply, at the current price tag of $150 million, per crypto tools data. This figure is significant as it is about 40% of the current total token supply of 237 million.

There are currently 80% of the total supply in the hands of the insiders, and almost 670 million tokens (67%) are already unlocked. At press time, the TRUMP token was at $1.57, marking an 83% decline from its year-over-year high and nearly 98% drop from $73.43 in January 2025. According to data, there have been approximately 1 million buyers who have lost a total of $3.81 billion.

The CLARITY Act Factor In Play The Trump coin activity on-chain comes amid digital asset legislation in Washington. Despite recognizing it wouldn’t get 60 votes required for passage, Senate Majority Leader John Thune is trying to get the CLARITY Act to the floor prior to the August recess.

As CoinGape reported previously, Thune said, “I would like to at least get Clarity started. We’ll see where the votes are.” The bill passed the House in July 2025 and passed the Senate Banking Committee the following month with a vote of 15-9 in May 2026. However, the bill still needs to gain about seven Democratic votes to pass and key issues of contention remain: ethics rules and consumer protection.

The ethics provisions crackdown on Donald Trump’s crypto businesses like the TRUMP meme coin. Hence, the recent onchain movement has sparked discussions on the Internet.