XRP Ledger má za zhruba dva týdny začít hlasování o velké aktualizaci s batch transakcemi, confidential transfers, sponsored fees a dalšími funkcemi. Součástí jsou i optimalizace výkonu a opravy chyb.
A slate of long-awaited protocol amendments for the XRP Ledger (XRPL) is expected to enter validator voting in roughly two weeks.
According to prominent XRPL validator Vet, the proposed changes include support for batch transactions, confidential transfers, sponsored fees and reserves, permission delegation, dynamic Multi-Purpose Tokens (MPTs), and a bundled bug fix.
The release also contains substantial performance optimizations that will make nodes more efficient and improve network reliability.
HOT Stories
"If everything goes well," Vet wrote on X, the amendments will be ready for voting in approximately two weeks.
A feature-packed upgradeThe upcoming package combines new functionality with infrastructure improvements.
For instance, Batch enables multiple transactions to be grouped together, and Confidential Transfers will conceal transaction amounts without compromising the ledger's integrity.
The proposal also includes Sponsored Fees and Reserves (XLS-68) that allow third parties to cover transaction fees and reserve requirements on behalf of users.
You Might Also Like
At the same time, Permission Delegation would let users delegate specific permissions without handing over full control of an account. Dynamic MPT introduces enhancements to the ledger's Multi-Purpose Token standard.
Vet said security-related initiatives had delayed feature development, but that work had now resumed.
"Yes, the security initiatives put everything else on hold. We can start resuming," Vet wrote, describing the package as a "sweet mix" of performance improvements, new features, and fixes.
Reserve debate intensifies ahead of sponsored reserves launchIn the meantime, another governance discussion has emerged around whether XRPL's reserve requirements should be lowered further.
Vet made clear he opposes reducing reserves under the current conditions.
Back in the day, activating an account required 1,000 XRP during what was then known as the "create fee" era. Then, co-founder Jed McCaleb reduced that requirement to 200 XRP in 2013.
Over the years, validators repeatedly lowered reserve levels. Today, activating an XRPL account requires a 1 XRP base reserve.
Vet noted that he had supported previous reserve reductions but argued that storage and memory remain valuable network resources, particularly as demand for computing infrastructure has increased during the AI boom.
"The architects designed reserves as a deliberate protective mechanism of network resources, storage & memory, against spam and DDoS attacks," he wrote.
XRP v otevřeném zájmu futures kontraktů vystřelil na 2,60 miliardy USD a předstihl HYPE. Růst táhnou přílivy od velryb, spot ETF a derivátových obchodníků.
XRP recorded a sharp surge in open interest in the last few days, surpassing Hyperliquid’s HYPE token. The recent capital inflow into XRP from whales, spot ETFs, and derivatives traders has also kept prices stable. This indicates growing signs of institutional engagement in the XRP ecosystem.
XRP Futures Open Interest Surpasses HYPE According to CoinGlass data, XRP perpetual and futures open interest climbed significantly, reaching $2.60 billion as of July 20. A rise in open interest signals derivatives traders’ growing conviction and capital flow in XRP.
Derivatives market data showed massive buying in past 24 hours. The total XRP futures open interest jumped more than 10% to $2.60 billion. Futures OI across crypto exchanges climbed in the past 4 hours.
The crypto asset has surpassed HYPE to become the fourth largest in terms of total open interest. HYPE futures open interest dropped more than 2.50% to $2.57 billion in past 24 hours.
Total XRP Futures Open Interest. Source: Coinglass HYPE, the native token of the Hyperliquid, previously overtaken XRP in futures open interest earlier. HYPE open interest skyrocketed above $3 billion after Kalshi launched CFTC-regulated HYPE perpetuals.
Traders looking to take advantage of these volatile open interest swings can compare the best crypto futures trading platforms to evaluate margin rules, funding rates, and available leverage.
Rising Demand Among Institutions Fuels Momentum The major catalysts behind the recent growing institutional appetite for XRP include Ripple’s partnerships with many tradfi and crypto native firms, inflows into spot ETFs, and demand from derivatives amid low funding rates.
Jack McDonald, SVP Stablecoins at Ripple, told Grayscale about the company Ripple’s institutional strategy, and RWA adoption of RLUSD and XRP. Ripple has partnered with Ondo Finance, Mastercard, JPMorgan, and OKX to build the future of finance.
Ripple is partnering with @Mastercard, @jpmorgan, @okx, and @OndoFinance to build the future of finance for both traditional and digital assets.@_JackMcDonald_ joins Grayscale to discuss @Ripple's institutional strategy, real-world adoption of $RLUSD and $XRP, and what's next. pic.twitter.com/e98EgpiiJk
— Grayscale (@Grayscale) July 19, 2026
Moreover, spot ETFs recorded renewed inflows amid capital inflows into the crypto market. Cumulative net inflows and AUM have reached $1.49 billion and nearly $1 billion. Whereas HYPE ETF total assets under management reached $301.34 million, with significant outflows last week.
As CoinGape reported earlier, whales accumulated 70 million XRP in a week as US inflation cooled. The massive whale accumulation sent XRP price higher, alongside a notable surge in futures open interest.
Spotové ETF na Ethereum přilákaly za týden 13.–17. července čisté přílivy kapitálu 105 milionů USD, nejvíc od dubna 2026. BlackRockův ETHA opět táhl většinu přílivů.
Ethereum spot ETFs pulled in $105 million in net inflows during the week of July 13-17, marking the strongest weekly performance for the category since April 2026. The number represents a meaningful acceleration from the prior week’s roughly $84 million in net inflows, which itself was notable for being the first positive week after two straight months of redemptions.
Breaking the outflow streak The $105 million weekly figure carries extra weight when you consider what came before it. Ethereum spot ETFs had endured an eight-week stretch of net outflows. The prior week’s $84 million in inflows snapped that streak, and last week’s acceleration to $105 million suggests the reversal might have some staying power.
BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust ETF, trading under the ticker ETHA, has been doing the heavy lifting. The fund has consistently accounted for the majority of daily net positive flows across the Ethereum ETF landscape.
Advertisement
Ethereum was trading at approximately $1,845 during the inflow week, reflecting a modest price recovery. The $1,800 to $1,900 range has served as a critical zone for ETH, with buyers stepping in consistently near the lower end.
What changed the momentum Data from flow-tracking platforms like SoSoValue and Farside Investors confirms the trend of renewed institutional interest, contrasting sharply with the prolonged redemption period that preceded it.
What this means for investors The $105 million figure, while the best since April, still represents relatively modest flows compared to the peaks that Ethereum ETFs have seen during more euphoric periods.
The concentration of flows in BlackRock’s ETHA means the health of the entire Ethereum ETF category depends heavily on a single product. If ETHA flows slow, the broader category could easily tip back into net outflow territory.
For investors watching Ethereum’s price action, the $1,800 level has become a key support zone. Sustained ETF inflows tend to provide a floor under prices, as the ETFs need to purchase actual ETH to back their shares. If weekly inflows continue at the $80-105 million pace, that represents consistent buy pressure that didn’t exist during the outflow streak.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Zilliqa uvedla, že u jednoho z jejích směnárenských partnerů došlo k bezpečnostnímu incidentu a z cold wallet byly odcizeny ZIL. Burzy byly vyzvány k dočasnému pozastavení vkladů a výběrů.
Zilliqa, a high-performance layer 1 blockchain built to deliver fast, low-cost transactions, on Monday announced that one of its exchange partners suffered a security breach in which ZIL tokens were stolen from a cold wallet.
According to the project, the incident is under investigation as it works alongside the relevant parties to identify the cause of the attack and determine its overall impact.
Advertisement
We have been made aware of a security incident involving one of our exchange partners, in which ZIL was stolen from a cold wallet.
The incident is under active investigation, and we are working with the relevant parties to establish the root cause and full scope. As a…
— Zilliqa (@zilliqa) July 20, 2026
In response, exchanges have been alerted and requested to temporarily halt ZIL deposits and withdrawals as a safeguard against the movement or liquidation of stolen assets on centralized exchanges.
The team said more details will be released once confirmed information becomes available.
ZIL fell from around $0.0028 to a low of $0.0024 before rebounding to $0.0026 by press time, marking a 7% decline over the past 24 hours, per CoinGecko.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Vivian Nguyen. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Zcash dokončil přechod z zcashd na Zebra a Zakura a vstupuje do éry Ironwood. Síť zároveň posiluje dlouhodobou bezpečnost díky formálnímu ověření a kvantové obnově.
Zcash’s infrastructure has entered a new phase as the network completes its transition away from its original software implementation. That evolution took nearly a decade, beginning with zcashd’s 2016 launch before Zebra’s 2024 release introduced a Rust-based alternative.
After the 2024 deprecation notice, node operators had enough time to switch over before the planned retirement. On the 18th of July, zcashd reached end of support at block height 3417100.
Source: X Meanwhile, Zakura completed the new node ecosystem. Rather than simply replacing legacy software, the transition strengthens maintainability, prepares the network for Ironwood, and reduces long-term operational risk.
Zcash’s adoption remains intact Completing Zcash’s infrastructure transition did not remove the market’s biggest question. Instead, it shifted attention to whether users still trusted the network after the Orchard vulnerability. Early activity suggests that confidence largely held.
Although shielded balances declined 14% to 4.42 million ZEC, users continued relying on private transactions, which rose 11.1% QoQ to 131,584.
Source: Zcash on X This trend became even more significant as the anonymity set for ZCash expanded by 325,127 units to 124.08 million.
This indicated an increase in participants using ZCash for privacy purposes. In addition, average daily trading volume increased by 33.8% QoQ to $373 million. This further reinforces that overall use of the network has been increasing.
Rather than reflecting weakening adoption, these trends point to cautious capital repositioning while confidence in Zcash’s privacy infrastructure remained intact.
Formal verification reinforces protocol integrity Even resilient blockchain networks are ultimately judged by how they respond to critical security threats. Zcash faced such a test when researchers found a flaw in Orchard shielded pools that secured roughly 85% of shielded value.
But the flaw stayed contained because disclosure was coordinated, and developers were able to release an emergency fix within days. More importantly, this flaw allowed forgery inside Orchard rather than inflating the total supply of ZEC.
The turnstile mechanism prevented forged funds from leaving the pool other than legitimate deposits. Looking ahead, Ironwood strengthens this protection through formal verification and quantum recovery too.
Together these upgrades move Zcash from reactive fixes towards stronger assurances of long-term security and confidence within the ecosystem.
Final Summary Zcash [ZEC] completed its migration to Zebra and Zakura, strengthening infrastructure while maintaining resilient network activity. Zcash enters the Ironwood era with formal verification and quantum recovery, reinforcing long-term protocol security.
Quarterly Cash Distributions Set for AugustGrayscale is moving to convert staking rewards from its Ethereum ($ETH) and Solana ($SOL) exchange-traded funds into regular cash payouts for shareholders. The asset manager filed a prospectus supplement on July 17, 2026, outlining changes to its Grayscale Solana Staking ETF (ticker: GSOL) that introduce mandatory quarterly cash distributions of staking rewards, with the amendment expected to take effect on or around August 7, 2026. A parallel amendment has been filed for its Ethereum Staking ETF (ticker: ETHE) on the same timeline.
Under the proposed structure, both trusts would convert staking rewards to cash no less often than quarterly, with the net proceeds distributed to shareholders after expenses and a facilitation payment to the sponsor. SEC documents explicitly state that there is no guarantee of a fixed distribution amount, as payouts will depend on the actual staking rewards received during each period.
IRS Guidance and the Case for Standardised PayoutsGrayscale views the change as necessary to align with IRS Revenue Procedure 2025-31, so each trust can continue to be treated as a grantor trust for U.S. federal income tax purposes. That procedure allows a compliant trust to distribute net staking rewards consistently, either in kind or after a cash sale, no less frequently than quarterly. Grayscale's proposed agreements specifically choose cash, requiring the trusts to sell the native-asset rewards before passing net proceeds to shareholders.
The move also has a practical benefit for investors. By aligning both the ETHE and GSOL trusts to the same payout cadence, investors gain a common framework to compare net cash returned across the two funds. GSOL stakes all of its Solana holdings, generating approximately 6.1% in annual rewards, which are converted to cash and paid out after fees. By contrast, gross staking rewards on Ethereum currently range from 3.1% to 3.3% annually, with net distributions to shareholders coming in at around 1.9% to 2.6% after fund fees and custody costs.
The Ethereum fund has already tested this model. In January 2026, Grayscale's ETHE became the first spot crypto ETP in the U.S. to distribute staking rewards to shareholders, paying out proceeds from rewards earned between October 6, 2025 and December 31, 2025. That initial distribution totalled $9.4 million, paid on January 6, 2026.
Investors should note the tax implications. Grayscale explicitly flags in the filing that cash distributions carry tax consequences, and the fund encourages investors to consult tax advisors, as distributions from a staking ETF are likely treated as ordinary income in most jurisdictions.
Sources:
Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF, SEC Form 424B3 Filing, July 17, 2026
Grayscale Solana Staking ETF, SEC Form 424B3 Filing, July 17, 2026
CryptoSlate: Grayscale quarterly cash distributions analysis, July 19, 2026
Právní šéf společnosti Nova Labs uvedl, že CLARITY Act by mohl ukončit přístup „coin flip“ k regulaci kryptoměn po změnách politického vedení v USA. Zákon by mohl zařadit programově distribuované tokeny, jako je HNT, mezi digitální komodity místo cenných papírů.
Nova Labs’ legal chief said the CLARITY Act could stop crypto regulation from reversing whenever US political leadership changes. The SEC dismissed its digital asset claims against Nova Labs with prejudice in April 2025, three months after suing the company over HNT distributions. CLARITY could classify programmatically distributed tokens such as HNT as digital commodities rather than securities. The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, financial advice. We do not make any warranties regarding the completeness, reliability, or accuracy of this information. All investments involve risk, and past performance does not guarantee future results. We recommend consulting a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
Giuseppe Ciccomascolo began his career as an investigative journalist in Italy, where he contributed to both local and national newspapers, focusing on various financial sectors.
Upon relocating to London, he worked as an analyst for Fitch's CapitalStructure and later as a Senior Reporter for Alliance News. In 2017, Giuseppe transitioned to covering cryptocurrency-related news, producing documentaries and articles on Bitcoin and other emerging digital currencies. He also played a pivotal role in establishing the academy for a cryptocurrency exchange website. Crypto remained his primary area of interest throughout his tenure as a writer for ThirdFloor.
Shiba Inu za posledních 24 hodin spálil 13,2 milionu tokenů SHIB a míra spalování vyskočila o 131,2 %. Největší transakce přesunula 9,7 milionu SHIB z CEX.IO do dead wallet.
Shiba Inu’s burn rate surged over the past 24 hours after community members permanently removed more than 13 million SHIB tokens from circulation.
According to Shibburn data, a total of 13.2 million Shiba Inu were burned in the past day, permanently reducing the token’s circulating supply. The burns were completed across 13 separate transactions, with the largest single burn accounting for the majority of the destroyed tokens.
The biggest transaction occurred yesterday when an unidentified user transferred 9.7 million SHIB from the CEX.IO exchange to the official dead wallet. Meanwhile, the second-largest burn took place just hours before press time, eliminating approximately 1.2 million SHIB from circulation.
Shiba Inu Burn Activity Accelerates Sharply The latest burn marks a significant increase compared with activity recorded over the previous week, during which daily burns generally remained below 7 million SHIB.
Following the latest spike in burns, Shibburn data shows that the 24-hour burn rate soared by 131.2%. The recent activity also lifted longer-term burn totals. Weekly burns have now reached 45.44 million SHIB, while the monthly burn count has climbed to 269.9 million SHIB.
Shiba Inu Burn Since the launch of the Shiba Inu ecosystem, the community has permanently destroyed 410,840,414,408,454 SHIB (410.84 trillion) through 21,216 burn transactions. That figure represents 41.08% of Shiba Inu’s original 1 quadrillion-token supply, leaving about 58.92% of the total supply still in circulation.
SHIB Price Remains Under Selling Pressure Despite the sharp increase in token burns, SHIB continues to trade under bearish pressure. At the time of writing, Shiba Inu was down 0.23% over the past 24 hours, trading at $0.000004143. The token has also declined 1.36% over the past seven days and 12.31% over the last month.
Furthermore, SHIB remains 1.13% lower on a month-to-date basis, leaving the token with only 11 days to recover and turn its monthly performance positive. It continues to rank outside the top 30 and currently stands as the 33rd-biggest token globally, with a market cap of $2.43 billion.
Meanwhile, growing exchange inflows continue to offset the positive impact of the latest burn activity. According to CryptoQuant data, approximately 12.6 billion SHIB flowed into cryptocurrency exchanges over the past 24 hours.
Consequently, Shiba Inu’s exchange reserve increased to 86.32 trillion SHIB, suggesting that more holders may be positioning their tokens for potential selling, which could continue to weigh on the asset’s near-term price performance.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
Binance ukončí podporu hlavní sítě Moonriver (MOVR) a Moonbeam (GLMR) a přesune jejich kontrakty na Base Network v poměru 1:1. Vklady a výběry přes hlavní síť budou pozastaveny 21. července 2026 v 11:00 UTC.
This is a general announcement and marketing communication. Products and services referred to here may not be available in your region. Fellow Binancians, Binance will discontinue the mainnet support of Moonriver (MOVR) and Moonbeam (GLMR), as well as open deposits and withdrawals via Base Network for the aforementioned tokens. General Deposits and WithdrawalsAt 2026-07-21 11:00 (UTC), deposits and withdrawals of the aforementioned tokens via Moonriver and Moonbeam mainnet will be suspended. Users should ensure they leave sufficient time for the aforementioned tokens’ deposits to be fully processed prior to this time. Binance will not make a separate announcement to inform users after we resume deposits and withdrawals of the aforementioned tokens.After the event is complete, Moonriver and Moonbeam mainnet will no longer be supported for deposits and withdrawals.Spot, Margin, and Futures trading and Binance Earn services will not be impacted during the migration.Binance will handle all technical requirements for users who are involved in this event. Contract Swap MOVR and GLMR will be migrated from their mainnets to Base Network at a ratio of 1:1. New tokens smart contract addresses:MOVRGLMR Note: There may be discrepancies between this original content in English and any translated versions. Please refer to the original English version for the most accurate information, in case any discrepancies arise. Thank you for your support! Binance Team 2026-07-20
Allbridge, the company behind cross-chain stablecoin bridge Allbridge Core, said it has paused the protocol as a precaution after a “security incident” that reportedly saw $1.65 million drained on Sunday.
The incident affected Allbridge Core’s Solana deployment, with the attacker having already bridged the stolen funds from Solana to Ethereum before moving them into privacy pools.
“Allbridge Core is experiencing a security incident,” it said in a post on X on Sunday. “We have paused the protocol as a precaution while we investigate. If you have liquidity in affected pools, please withdraw now.”
The Allbridge Core exploit is at least the sixth attack targeting a cross-chain bridge since May. Bridges are attractive targets for attackers because they often hold large pools of funds that back bridged assets on the destination blockchain.
Source: Lookonchain
Onchain Lens reported the attacker made a $1.12 million USDC (USDC) flash loan from Kamino, before rapid USDC/USDT swaps that distorted the Allbridge Core stablecoin pool’s exchange rate.
The attacker then withdrew liquidity at manipulated rates, repaying the $1.12 million USDC loan and keeping the difference.
“The resulting pool imbalance created a temporary positive arbitrage window. If you took advantage of it, please consider returning funds… this will go directly toward compensating affected LPs,” it added.
This wasn’t the first time Allbridge Core was hit by a flash loan attack.
In April 2023, Allbridge was exploited for $573,000 through a flash loan attack on Allbridge’s pool on the BNB Chain. The attacker acted as both liquidity provider and swapper, and exploited a flaw in a smart contract that allowed them to manipulate swap prices, which led to $289,900 drained in Binance USD (BUSD) and $290,900 in USDt (USDT).
Warning posted to the Allbridge Core website. Source: Allbridge Core
Cross-chain bridges targeted since May In June, Taiko, an Ethereum layer-2 blockchain, urged its users to withdraw assets from the network’s bridges after attackers exploited one of its bridge protocols and stole $1.7 million.
Taiko reopened its bridge 11 days later after completing a four-step recovery plan.
Weeks before the Taiko incident, Secret Network was exploited through an “infinite mint” bug on a vulnerable smart contract, which created unbacked versions of Axelar-wrapped assets, resulting in a $4.67 million exploit.
Other recent bridge exploits included the Gravity Bridge, Verus Bridge and the Butter Network.
Magazine: The British Virgin Islands are a top crypto hub no one ever talks about: Here’s why
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.
Aurora, the Ethereum-compatible blockchain layer built on NEAR Protocol, went dark at 02:16 UTC on July 20, 2026. Hours later, the network remains completely unavailable, with no official statement from Aurora Labs explaining what happened or when service might resume.
For a network that once locked up $2.5 billion in total value, this would have been a five-alarm fire. Today, with Aurora’s TVL sitting at roughly $4.65 million, the outage reads more like a quiet alarm going off in an increasingly empty building.
What we know so far On-chain monitoring flagged the outage shortly after it began in the early morning hours UTC. Aurora’s mainnet, which allows developers to deploy Ethereum-compatible smart contracts and decentralized applications at lower costs than Ethereum mainnet, has been completely inaccessible since.
Advertisement
The @auroraisnear account has not issued any public explanation. No root cause has been identified publicly, and there’s no estimated timeline for restoration.
The long decline of Aurora’s TVL When Aurora launched in 2021, it had genuine momentum. The project raised $12 million from a roster of over 100 investors that included Pantera Capital and Electric Capital. It was positioned as the bridge between Ethereum’s massive developer ecosystem and NEAR Protocol’s scalable architecture.
By 2022, things were looking solid. Aurora’s TVL peaked at approximately $2.5 billion, and the broader NEAR ecosystem initiated a $90 million developer fund, allocating 25 million AURORA tokens to boost DeFi activity on the platform.
From $2.5 billion to roughly $4.65 million represents a drop of about 99%. The month preceding the outage was unremarkable. Aurora had been quietly pushing routine updates related to its Virtual Chains and Intents features, but nothing that suggested a major technical crisis was brewing.
What this means for investors and developers For anyone still holding positions on Aurora or building applications on the network, this outage demands a serious reassessment. Extended downtime without communication from the team is one of the clearest warning signals in crypto infrastructure.
A 99% decline in TVL tells you that capital has already voted with its feet. An unexplained, multi-hour mainnet outage tells you that operational resilience may also be deteriorating.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Multicoin Capital vložil 1,75 milionu USD do seed kola Trasia Labs, která buduje asijsky zaměřenou perpetual futures platformu na Hyperliquidu. Jde o vstup Multicoinu do ekosystému Hyperliquid.
Multicoin Capital has provided $1.75 million in seed funding as the sole institutional backer for Trasia Labs, the developer of a specialized perpetual futures trading platform built natively on Hyperliquid. This transaction represents Multicoin’s entry into the Hyperliquid ecosystem and supports a project explicitly designed to serve traders across Asian markets.
Co-founded by Mable Jiang—previously a general partner at Multicoin Capital and chief revenue officer at the team behind Stepn—and Edison Chen, a longtime web3 builder, Trasia officially launched its initial web interface on July 17, 2026.
The platform offers bilingual support in Chinese and English and has a native mobile application scheduled for release in August.
An invite-only Asia Points rewards program is now active to engage early users.
Trasia operates as a non-custodial venue that initially provides acess to Hyperliquid’s native perpetual markets.
It intends to introduce proprietary contracts later in the year, with an early emphasis on assets linked to high-interest sectors such as AI infrastructure and companies approaching public listings or generating strong regional investor attention.
The team maintains flexibility in contract selection to respond quickly to market shifts.
The founders deliberately limited external equity capital at this stage, preferring to demonstrate product-market fit and user traction before seeking additional rounds.
In parallel, more than $35 million in HYPE and USDC has been committed to support the rollout of Trasia’s HIP-3 Asian equity perpetuals markets and related growth initiatives.
The platform leverages HIP-3 mechanics, which allow developers to build decentralized perpetual exchanges on Hyperliquid by staking a bond, enabling customized offerings while benefiting from the underlying network’s performance and liquidity.
A key differentiator for Trasia is its regional focus and distribution strategy.
Rather than competing solely for existing on-chain derivatives users, the team targets participants who may be new to decentralized trading or unfamiliar with Hyperliquid entirely.
Plans center on mobile-first design, localized channels, and the founders’ established networks in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Tokyo to lower entry barriers and build a distinct user community.
The current team consists of approximately ten members based primarily in these hubs.
This investment aligns with broader interest in expanding decentralized finance tools to serve high-potential geographies.
Asia represents a significant pool of trading activity and capital, yet many participants still rely on traditional or centralized venues.
By combining Hyperliquid’s high-throughput order book infrastructure with tailored user experiences and asset selections, Trasia aims to capture incremental flows and contribute to deeper on-chain liquidity in regional equities and related instruments.
Multicoin Capital has expressed long-term optimism about both the base Hyperliquid protocol and application-layer projects like Trasia.
The firm views the ecosystem as positioned for substantial growth, with specialized platforms capable of gaining meaningful share through targeted execution and user ownership.
Trasia will focus on product refinement, liquidity provisioning, and user acquisition amid a competitive HIP-3 landscape.
Early indicators, including the points program and upcoming mobile launch, suggest an emphasis on community engagement and accessibility. Success will depend on converting regional interest into sustained trading activity while navigating market volatility and evolving regulatory considerations.
The round highlights continued selective capital deployment in crypto infrastructure, particularly where experienced teams address clear geographic and product gaps.
For participants in the Hyperliquid ecosystem, Trasia’s development offers another avenue for exposure to Asia-centric perpetuals innovation and potential liquidity expansion. As the platform matures, it could serve as a case study in how focused distribution and technical integration drive adoption in decentralized derivatives.
HYPE drží support na 61,01 USD, zatímco denní poplatky protokolu Hyperliquid vystřelily na 1,9 milionu USD. To ho řadí na 6. místo mezi protokoly podle denních výnosů z poplatků.
Hyperliquid, a decentralized derivatives trading protocol, is seeing increased trading activity as its native token HYPE maintains a solid support level and network growth signals further potential. Recent data shows buyers are defending key price zones, while rising protocol fees highlight strengthening user engagement on the platform.
Price action and key support levelsHYPE is currently priced at $61.01, with a 24-hour trading volume of $235.1 million and a market capitalization of $15.43 billion. Over the previous 24 hours, the token gained 2.41%, which positions it for a possible bullish reversal. Market observers note the importance of HYPE holding above its main support, as sustained buying interest keeps the positive market structure intact despite recent consolidation.
According to Bitcoin Meraklisi, a well-followed cryptocurrency analyst, the critical $58 support serves as a crucial threshold for further bullish momentum. Holding this level is essential for the asset to pursue higher prices. If the price closes above the $74 resistance on higher timeframes, a bullish cup pattern could form, potentially pushing HYPE toward the $172 target. Failure to hold $58, however, may weaken the overall outlook and open the way for corrections.
Bitcoin Meraklisi emphasizes the significance of the $58 support, indicating that if HYPE remains above this level, there is room for a sustained upward move, while breaching it would likely lead to a loss of momentum.
Hyperliquid fee revenue surgesHyperliquid’s network has seen its daily protocol fee collection surge to $1.9 million, according to data compiled by blockchain research firm NSB Intel. This new milestone places Hyperliquid in sixth place among protocols that generate the highest daily fee revenue, surpassing competitors such as Canton in the process.
This surge in fee accrual is widely viewed as a positive sign for the protocol, pointing to greater user adoption and a notable increase in trading volumes on the platform.
Mini dictionary: Hyperliquid is a decentralized perpetual futures protocol that allows on-chain trading of cryptocurrency derivatives without the involvement of centralized intermediaries. The protocol’s growth is measured in part by fee revenue and user activity metrics.
ProtocolDaily Fee RevenueRankingHyperliquid$1.9 million6thCantonBelow $1.9 millionBelow 6thMarket sentiment and future outlookStronger trading volumes and higher protocol fee revenue have fueled optimism for HYPE’s continued growth. As bullish sentiment returns to the wider crypto market, reflected in upward movement in BTC, Hyperliquid investors are increasingly confident in the platform’s competitive position.
Technical analysts observe that, provided HYPE maintains critical support levels, the asset could test and potentially break above significant resistance barriers. If momentum holds, this move may accelerate gains and reinforce the token’s position within the decentralized finance landscape.
However, should HYPE lose its main support, analysts caution that the asset could see increased selling pressure and a price correction. Sustained network activity and fee generation remain important indicators for investor confidence and future price action.
Continued expansion in both trading activity and protocol revenue reflects the growing role of Hyperliquid in the decentralized finance sector, underscoring its strengthening market position relative to other DeFi platforms.
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.
Strategy drží 843 775 BTC v hodnotě asi 54,5 miliardy USD, ale její mNAV klesl na 1,03x a model financování je pod tlakem. Firma už prodala 3 588 BTC na výplatu dividend STRC a tvorbu hotovostních rezerv.
For years, Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin [BTC] strategy looked nearly impossible to challenge. Every capital raise financed another Bitcoin purchase. Every rally reinforced the model. Shareholder dilution also seemed justified because the corporate treasury kept expanding.
Yet, success gradually introduced a different challenge. The financial engine behind the relentless accumulation is now demanding more from the treasury it was built to grow. At press time, Strategy held 843,775 BTC, worth about $54.5 billion. This milestone comes after adding 171,278 BTC this year.
Source: Bitcoin Treasuries However, those holdings carry a $63.69 billion cost basis, with an average purchase price of $75,482. That gap has shifted attention from accumulation toward the sustainability of the model. Reflecting that transition, the recent sale of 3,588 BTC was used to support STRC dividends and strengthen $3 billion in cash reserves.
That said, the real question remains. Can Bitcoin‘s future appreciation continue offsetting dilution, financing costs, and an increasingly self-dependent capital structure?
The engine behind Strategy Dependence on the rising price of Bitcoin is no accident; it has been the foundation of Strategy’s accumulation engine since day one.
Meanwhile, the Market to Net Asset Value (mNAV) has slipped to just 1.03x. The metric gauges how the market values a Digital Asset Treasury (DAT). Previously, it spiked as high as 2.51x, but the sharp decline has eroded the premium that once made equity issuances highly accretive.
Rather than relying on operating cash flow, the company depended on maintaining an enterprise mNAV above 1, allowing it to issue shares at a premium and recycle fresh capital into Bitcoin purchases.
For years, that formula worked remarkably well in favor of the DAT. As mNAV climbed to 3.89x, Strategy raised $25.3 billion during 2025 and accelerated its treasury expansion without materially weakening shareholder exposure. However, currently, the math has changed.
Source: Strategy Therefore, Strategy will likely have to shift its focus away from adding to its Bitcoin holdings and toward creating flexibility within its balance sheet. Still, not everyone views the recent pressure as evidence that the model is failing.
Lead Information Compliance Assurance Manager at SpaceX, Vincent Peters, observed,
People often confuse volatility with failure. Bitcoin has experienced extraordinary appreciation punctuated by significant corrections.
He added that while those corrections create headlines, they “don’t necessarily invalidate a long-term strategy.” Unless Bitcoin regains sustained upward momentum, rebuilding the premium may prove more important than acquiring the next Bitcoin.
The per-share challenge That changing reality is also reshaping how Strategy measures success. The company was never trying to own more Bitcoin for the sake of it. Instead, the objective was to ensure every shareholder owned more Bitcoin over time. Such a distinction made BTC Yield and Bitcoin per share the clearest measures of whether the model was truly creating value. For several years, the model delivered on that promise.
BTC yield reached 9.4% in early 2026, while Bitcoin per share climbed to 207,776 satoshi (sats), supported by 171,278 BTC in net accumulation. Yet, the BTC yield has fallen off slightly, hovering around 6.6% as of press time. Although the flywheel has slowed down considerably, that same slowdown has started to impact how well Strategy is performing, according to those same metrics.
As enterprise mNAV compressed toward 1.03x, each new share issued generated less incremental Bitcoin ownership than before.
Source: Strategy More importantly, investors are no longer watching Strategy solely for the size of its Bitcoin treasury. They are watching whether it can continue funding future purchases. That debate has also attracted criticism from longtime Bitcoin skeptic Peter Schiff, who questioned Strategy’s capital allocation. He argued,
The model needlessly destroyed shareholder value by selling discounted MSTR shares instead of Bitcoin.
That shift matters. Rather than being simply the largest owner of Bitcoin, Strategy has become a proxy indicator for institutional demand for Bitcoin.
Therefore, the debate is moving beyond treasury growth alone, with the focus now on whether Strategy can maintain investor confidence in its ability to generate shareholder wealth over the long term by continuing to fund future purchases.
The cost of conviction Building the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin treasury has given Strategy its greatest financial burden. That trade-off is becoming harder to ignore as Strategy’s capital structure grows more complex.
The DAT has approximately $1.76 billion annually in Stretch (STRC) dividend obligations. In addition to those, it also has convertible notes and continuing equity financing. Meanwhile, its software business generates only about $500 million in annual revenue.
Source: Strategy Therefore, there exists a large funding gap. This funding gap explains why, currently, capital markets are equally important to the price of Strategy’s Bitcoin.
As Andrew Bahlmann, founder of Deal Leaders International, noted,
Having conviction with respect to an asset does not equate to having confidence in the ability to finance it.
He added that lenders ultimately favor collateral that remains stable across market cycles rather than assets whose value fluctuates sharply.
Strategy has approximately $2.5 to $3 billion in cash reserves. Therefore, it retains some financial flexibility. Still, prolonged mNAV compression may limit access to accretive capital. This would increase reliance upon reserves or selective sales of the Strategy’s Bitcoin to meet obligations. As such, this challenge is evident when compared to peers.
Metaplanet continues to expand through lower-cost yen-denominated financing. This is by accepting currency risk in exchange for cheaper capital despite mNAV near 0.92x. In contrast, Semler Scientific has adopted a more conservative approach, relying on lower issuance and minimal preferred obligations.
Source: Bitcoin Treasuries Strategy still commands unmatched scale with 843,775 BTC, yet its funding model is also the most demanding. The comparison highlights a growing trade-off across Bitcoin treasury companies.
All in all, aggressive accumulation can accelerate growth, but resilient capital structures ultimately determine how well that growth survives prolonged market stress.
Final Summary Bitcoin accumulation alone no longer guarantees Strategy’s long-term success. BTC treasury growth now hinges on sustainable capital, not just larger holdings.
Bitcoin BIP 110 je na rozcestí: podporu těžařů má jen 0,86 %, hluboko pod 55% hranicí pro rané uzamčení. Povinné signalizování začne na bloku 961 632 a plné vynucení má přijít 1. září 2026.
BIP 110 reached “Complete” status on June 25, 2026, proposing a one-year restriction on Bitcoin transaction data. Miner signaling for the proposal sits at 0.86%, far below the 55% threshold needed for early lock-in. Mandatory signaling begins at block 961,632, expected around August 7, with full enforcement targeted for September 1. Mining pool Foundry opened an internal vote that could shift the outcome before the deadline arrives. Bitcoin’s BIP 110 proposal, a one-year softfork that would reimpose strict limits on how much arbitrary data miners can embed inside transactions, advanced to complete status on June 25, 2026. Weekend signaling data puts miner backing at just 0.86%, a fraction of the 55% threshold needed for miners to lock the rule in early and guarantee it takes effect. The shortfall matters less than it might elsewhere in Bitcoin’s governance history, because BIP 110 does not need miner consent to take effect. Its mandatory signaling phase starts automatically at block 961,632, expected around August 7, and full enforcement follows on September 1 regardless of how many miners have opted in by then. Signaling works by having miners mark the blocks they produce to show whether they support the change, similar to a running vote tallied block by block.
A Rule Core Wrote Into Existence Itself The proposal exists because of a decision Bitcoin Core made months earlier. In late 2025, Core developers removed the historical 80-byte limit on OP_RETURN, a small text field Bitcoin lets users attach to a transaction to store non-payment data, like a short note, an image reference, or a token record, aiming to push data-heavy users toward prunable storage rather than methods that permanently bloat the UTXO set, the ledger of unspent coins every node has to hold. BIP 110 reverses that call and goes further, capping data pushes at 256 bytes and OP_RETURN itself at 83 bytes across seven distinct consensus restrictions new rules that every computer running the Bitcoin software would have to follow. Node-level support runs between 7% and 15%, carried almost entirely by users on Bitcoin Knots rather than Core. Knots has served for years as the client of choice for operators who want tighter limits on which transactions their computer accepts and passes along before miners confirm them, and this fight has turned it into the technical base camp for developers like Luke Dashjr and channels such as Bitcoin University, who treat inscriptions, Ordinals, and Runes as spam bloating storage costs for every full node operator.
None of that miner math is settled, though. Foundry controls between 25% and 30% of global hash rate, and it opened an internal vote over the weekend letting individual rig owners direct their share of the pool’s power toward signaling BIP 110. A meaningful swing from Foundry’s base could pull support well above 0.86% before block 961,632 arrives, though nothing guarantees that happens in time.
Date or Block Height Milestone Status June 25, 2026 BIP 110 reaches “Complete” status Confirmed Weekend of July 18-19, 2026 Miner signaling measured at 0.86% Below the 55% threshold needed for miners to approve it early Block 961,632 (~August 7, 2026) Mandatory signaling begins (enforced by node software, not by a miner vote) Automatic, independent of miner support September 1, 2026 Full enforcement target Pending Timeline table showing BIP 110 milestones from completion in June through enforcement in September 2026.
The Ordinals Camp Answers With DOG Mode’s Relaxed Rules Ordinals advocate Leonidas proposed a counter on July 16 and 17: DOG Mode, an alternative Core client that relaxes local relay policy instead of tightening consensus rules, permitting transactions near the full block size and cutting the dust limit to 1 satoshi. Backers say that frees up roughly $25 million in bitcoin that currently sits below the dust limit, the smallest payment size a node will bother forwarding because the fee to move it would cost more than the payment itself. The distinction that matters here is structural. DOG Mode only changes the mempool, the waiting room where unconfirmed transactions sit before a miner picks them up, and the relay policy a node uses to decide what to pass along to other nodes. It leaves the rules for what makes a block valid completely alone. That means DOG Mode needs just one cooperating miner willing to include the relevant transactions, rather than the network-wide agreement BIP 110 requires.
Aspect BIP 110 / Bitcoin Knots DOG Mode Type of change Consensus rule (network-wide) Local settings on individual nodes OP_RETURN cap 83 bytes Unrestricted, per Core v30 Dust limit Unchanged Cut to 1 satoshi Activation requirement Network-wide node adoption One willing miner Comparison table of consensus and policy differences between BIP 110 and the DOG Mode alternative client.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back spent the weekend spelling out the downside case. If nodes running BIP 110’s rules start rejecting blocks once mandatory enforcement hits, while miners without majority backing keep mining under the old rules anyway, the network splits into two chains that stop recognizing each other’s blocks. Back called the likely loser a “Pompeii chain,” a minority network frozen at the moment of the split, and mocked BIP 110’s backers on X for failing to line up real financial backing behind the effort.
MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor took the opposing position furthest in a weekend essay titled “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea.” His argument: money cannot distinguish valid transactions from spam by design, and encoding that distinction into consensus hands developers a censorship tool. He warns that tool could later be pointed at privacy features or corporate custody arrangements once the precedent exists. He pairs it with an economic warning – suppressing data-heavy transactions cuts fee demand precisely as block subsidies, the fixed reward miners earn for each block, keep shrinking on a preset schedule, pushing miners to rely more on fees to stay profitable.
Seeking Alpha downgraded its near-term Bitcoin outlook from Strong Buy to Tactical Buy over the weekend, citing governance risk tied to the August deadline rather than any shift in the long-term monetary case. MicroStrategy alone holds 843,775 BTC, and treasury firms in that position value Bitcoin specifically for a rule set that doesn’t move without overwhelming consensus – a softfork activating on sub-1% miner backing, purely because nodes enforce it regardless, is exactly the governance uncertainty that kind of holder has avoided since 2017’s Blocksize Wars. What happens next hinges on Foundry’s vote closing before block 961,632 and on whether Knots adoption grows past its current 7% to 15% share in the weeks remaining.
Consensys popřel, že by při incidentu kolem MetaMask unikla uživatelská data nebo prostředky. Firma uvedla, že nebyl nasazen škodlivý kód a bezpečnost uživatelů zůstala nedotčena. Consensys také uvedl, že incident zachytil a nahlásil orgánům činným v trestním řízení.
Leading Ethereum software firm Consensys has firmly denied rumors that user data or funds were compromised after a North Korea-linked IT worker temporarily gained access to the core codebase of its popular Web3 wallet, MetaMask.
The security incident, which took place earlier this year, involved an individual operating under the alias "Tyler Knapp" (GitHub username: "imyugioh").
The individual was not a direct employee of Consensys, but was instead engaged as a consultant through an unnamed third-party provider.
HOT Stories
Between March 9 and early April 2026, the contractor contributed directly to MetaMask’s core codebase, specifically working on the wallet's fiat on-ramp and off-ramp features.
Upon detecting the threat, Consensys took immediate and aggressive action. The firm froze all product releases, swiftly terminated the contractor's access, and launched a comprehensive internal security audit.
You Might Also Like
The company also confirmed that it has notified law enforcement agencies regarding the infiltration.
Correcting misinformationIn a public statement released on X (formerly Twitter), Consensys sought to correct recent misinformation circulating online about the severity of the breach.
"Earlier this year, we identified and contained a threat from an individual engaged as a consultant through a third-party provider," the company stated. "After the threat was quickly identified, we immediately terminated all access, launched a comprehensive investigation, and notified law enforcement."
Consensys emphasized the results of its internal audit, confirming that the threat was neutralized before any damage could occur.
"Our investigation confirmed no malicious code was deployed, no customer assets or data were compromised, and there was no impact to user safety, funds, or security," the firm concluded.
Nabídka stablecoinů na XRP Ledger vzrostla za týden o více než 5 % na zhruba 980,33 milionu USD, tažená hlavně RLUSD. Jižní Korea mezitím spustila pilot blockchainových dluhopisů pro trh v hodnotě 900 miliard USD.
South Korea has accelerated its move into blockchain-based finance with the launch of a pilot program aimed at its $900 billion bond market. The initiative comes as Ripple’s XRP Ledger approaches a major milestone, with the total stablecoin supply on the network climbing close to $1 billion, spurred primarily by strong growth in the Ripple USD (RLUSD) token.
XRPL stablecoin supply approaches $1 billionBSC News reported that XRP Ledger’s total stablecoin supply grew by over 5% in the past week, reaching approximately $980 million. Data from DefiLlama confirmed these numbers, showing the network’s stablecoin market capitalization at $980.33 million—an increase of roughly $47.4 million in a single week.
XRP Ledger is edging toward stablecoin dominance, with a surge in supply placing it just short of the symbolic $1 billion mark. The majority of the increase is attributed to RLUSD, which maintains a dominant share of the network’s stablecoin market cap.
RLUSD remains the leading stablecoin on the XRP Ledger, accounting for about 90% of the total supply. USDV ranks as the second-largest token following another period of rapid growth.
The network’s stablecoin supply has shown volatility throughout 2026. XRPL briefly surpassed the $1 billion threshold earlier this year before stabilizing in the $760 million to $980 million range in recent months.
Mini dictionary: RLUSD (Ripple USD) is a USD-backed stablecoin issued on both the XRP Ledger and Ethereum, facilitating fast and low-cost transactions. The token’s recent migration trends have made XRPL the primary platform for RLUSD circulation.
NetworkStablecoin Market CapRLUSD ShareTVLXRP Ledger$980 million~90%$32.8 millionEthereum–<50% of RLUSD–RLUSD migration strengthens XRPL dominanceRecent market data indicate that more than half of RLUSD’s circulating supply now resides on the XRP Ledger. Until early 2026, the stablecoin was primarily issued on Ethereum, but migration activity has shifted the balance, making XRPL RLUSD’s principal blockchain by supply.
Cumulative trading volume for RLUSD pairs on XRPL has surpassed $2.5 billion since its 2025 launch. However, decentralized finance activity on the network remains subdued when compared to the growth in stablecoin supply. DefiLlama’s dashboard shows XRPL’s total value locked at just $32.8 million—far behind its stablecoin circulation.
XRP price stable as South Korea tests blockchain bondsXRP is currently trading at $1.09, achieving a market capitalization near $68.4 billion and ranking sixth among all cryptocurrencies. Daily trading volume stands at $611 million, and the circulating supply is recorded at approximately 62.46 billion XRP.
Meanwhile, South Korea’s bond market pilot marks a significant step for institutional blockchain adoption. The program aims to digitize infrastructure in a market worth around $900 billion, reflecting growing interest among financial institutions in blockchain technology.
Ripple, established in 2012, is a US-based technology company known for developing payment settlement solutions and maintaining the XRP Ledger, a decentralized blockchain designed for fast asset transfers. South Korea’s public sector blockchain initiative and Ripple’s network expansion highlight parallel advances in both institutional and crypto-native segments.
Both developments are seen as signals of increasing blockchain integration across different areas of finance. Market analysts continue to monitor adoption trends, network growth, and liquidity patterns as the sector matures.
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.
TLDR: GENIUS Act’s one-year rule deadline passed on July 18, 2026, with zero final rules issued. Stablecoin supply grew 18.6% to $308.1 billion despite the unfinished regulatory framework. USDT and USDC together control 83% of the stablecoin market as rules remain drafts. Full regulatory effect now shifts to January 18, 2027, regardless of rulemaking progress. The GENIUS Act reached its first anniversary on July 18, 2026, without a single final rule published by regulators. The statutory deadline for completing payment stablecoin regulations passed with eight proposals still pending across several federal agencies.
Meanwhile, the stablecoin market expanded from $259.7 billion to $308.1 billion over the same period, an 18.6% increase recorded entirely under an unfinished regulatory framework. The law’s full effect now shifts to January 18, 2027, regardless of rulemaking progress.
Market Growth Outpaces Regulatory Progress On-chain data pulled on July 19 confirmed the scale of the gap between law and enforcement. Total stablecoin supply climbed from $259.7 billion at signing to a May peak above $320 billion. It settled at $308.1 billion by the missed deadline, showing steady expansion despite regulatory delays.
Four agencies hold responsibility for finalizing GENIUS Act rules, and none has completed the process. The OCC proposed a broad implementing rule in March covering reserves, capital and custody standards. The FDIC and NCUA submitted separate prudential and licensing proposals, while Treasury addressed state-level regulation in April.
Market concentration adds weight to the delay, since two issuers control most circulating supply. USDT and USDC together represent about 83% of the stablecoin market, meaning any final rule shapes their operations directly. USD1, the World Liberty Financial token, has grown into the fifth-largest stablecoin despite limited scale a year ago.
An institutional cohort has expanded inside this regulatory gap throughout the GENIUS Act’s first year. PayPal’s PYUSD, BlackRock’s BUIDL, Ripple’s RLUSD and Paxos-backed USDG all grew without finished federal guidance. These issuers built market share while the rules meant to govern them remained in draft form.
Stablecoin Issuers Face Uncertainty Ahead Of 2027 Deadline Congress built a backstop into the original legislation covering scenarios where deadlines slip. The Act takes effect on the earlier of January 18, 2027, or 120 days after final rules publish.
Since no rule finalized after September 20 can move that date earlier, January 18 now stands as the effective start.
Draft proposals outline requirements without yet carrying legal force for issuers. Reserves must sit one-to-one in cash and short-dated Treasuries under current drafts.
Redemptions would need processing within two business days, alongside a five-million-dollar capital floor from OCC language.
Individual issuers face different exposure depending on their current structure and market. Circle’s USDC has the most riding on final capital and reserve requirements. Tether launched USAT, a US-compliant token, anticipating rules that remain unpublished a year later.
Stablecoins function as the settlement layer beneath most crypto market activity today. Every DEX pair and on-chain treasury operates on infrastructure lacking finished US legal grounding. The market added $48 billion in new supply without waiting for regulatory certainty to arrive.
Injective oznámil zalistování INJ na Robinhood Crypto a podání žádosti o registraci transfer agenta u SEC. Tím směřuje k infrastruktuře pro regulované tokenizované cenné papíry.
Injective decided to do the crypto equivalent of dropping an entire album instead of a single. At its Summit in Washington, D.C. on July 16, the layer-1 blockchain rolled out a Robinhood listing, an SEC filing, a Linux Foundation membership, an AI development kit, and a MiCA whitepaper. That’s a lot of bullets for one press cycle.
The headline grabber is the live listing of INJ on Robinhood Crypto, which instantly puts the token in front of millions of eligible US users for spot trading. INJ launched on the platform trading between $4.76 and $5, placing its market capitalization at roughly $494 million.
The SEC play and what it actually means Beyond the exchange listing, Injective revealed it has filed a transfer agent registration with the SEC. This isn’t a token registration or a security filing. It’s something more specific and, frankly, more interesting.
A transfer agent is the entity that maintains official ownership records of securities. Injective wants to be the bookkeeper for tokenized stocks, bonds, and real-world assets, but on-chain instead of in some dusty back-office database.
Advertisement
The move positions Injective as infrastructure for regulated tokenized securities rather than just another DeFi playground. If approved, it would allow the network to facilitate on-chain ownership records that satisfy US regulatory requirements.
The Summit itself drew attendees from Circle, Galaxy, and Robinhood, signaling that Injective’s institutional courtship is being taken seriously by firms that actually move capital at scale.
AI agents, Linux Foundation, and the kitchen sink Injective also announced it joined the x402 Foundation, an initiative operating under the Linux Foundation umbrella. The x402 Foundation’s stated goal is promoting internet-native payments for AI agents and applications.
Alongside that membership, Injective launched an AI Agent SDK, a software development kit designed to let developers build AI-powered applications on top of its blockchain.
The network also published a MiCA whitepaper, addressing the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulatory framework.
For a network that has processed over 2.9 billion transactions since inception, the throughput credentials are already established.
The ETF wildcard Canary Capital’s proposal for a staked INJ ETF has entered the SEC’s 21-day public comment period. This is still early-stage, and public comment periods are not approvals.
Investors watching this space should pay close attention to whether the Canary Capital ETF clears its comment period and whether the transfer agent registration advances, because those two milestones would convert announcements into actual regulatory infrastructure.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Aevo spustil PERPS+ v mobilní aplikaci a přinesl zajištění proti poklesu u perpetual futures na BTC a ETH jedním klepnutím. Mobilní verze teď plně odpovídá desktopu.
Aevo’s decentralized derivatives exchange delivers PERPS+ to mobile traders, achieving full feature parity with desktop. Downside protection on perpetual futures is now available in one tap from a phone.
Aevo, the decentralized derivatives exchange with more than $10 billion in options volume since 2020, has made PERPS+ available on mobile. The update adds protection directly to a perpetual futures position at entry, where the trader selects a mode, defines the level, and Aevo executes the full position in a single tap. No options knowledge is needed. With this release, Aevo’s mobile platform now mirrors its desktop experience completely.
Traders can download the Aevo app on the App Store and Google Play for the full mobile experience (currently not available to U.S. or U.K. persons).
Aevo has a track record of building products the rest of the market eventually adopts. PERPS+ on mobile is the latest example. Risk-defined positions once required either a professional options desk or a DeFi vault with fixed parameters. They now require a single tap.
Built first, copied later Aevo’s technical foundation helped shape how decentralized derivatives are built today. A custom Ethereum layer-2 combines an off-chain order book with on-chain settlement, delivering centralized-exchange execution speeds without requiring traders to give up custody. That architecture has since been widely replicated across the decentralized derivatives space.
Aevo also introduced aeUSD, a yield-bearing stablecoin designed specifically as trading collateral. With nearly two years of live production history, it ranks among the most battle-tested yield-bearing collateral assets in DeFi. Collateral earns passively whether positions are open or flat.
Everything runs inside a single cross-margin account: options, perps, and structured products sharing one collateral pool. Delivering decentralized options at exchange scale remains a technical challenge most venues have not solved.
PERPS+: protection built in, no options knowledge required The barrier has always been the same. Options provide genuine risk management, loss caps, upfront income, and defined entry parameters, but strikes, expiries, and premium calculations push most perps traders away. The result is a majority of leveraged traders running positions with no protection at all.
PERPS+ removes the interface barrier. Traders choose from three enhancers:
Limit My Loss defines the maximum loss at entry, with the downside capped and the upside remaining fully open. Get Paid to Hold delivers an upfront premium immediately, in exchange for a defined profit ceiling. Lock My Range sets both the floor and the ceiling on a position for approximately zero net cost. PERPS+ is currently available on BTC and ETH perpetual futures.
The trader selects the protection level. Aevo handles the structuring, pricing, and execution in one tap.
Aevo spokesperson said “Onchain options have been called the next big thing every year since 2021. And every year, they’ve failed to become it… So we thought, what if getting options-level protection felt exactly like trading a perp? That’s PERPS+”.
PERPS+ addresses two distinct trader profiles. The first is the perps trader who has never used options, where they gain one-tap protection on positions they were already planning to open. The second is the DeFi vault depositor who wants structured exposure but without fixed vault terms, as PERPS+ gives them the same vault-like payoff structure with full control over their own parameters.
PERPS+ is live across web and mobile. The feature launched on web first and is now fully available on both platforms.
Protection that travels Closing a position from a phone has always been possible. Opening one with a defined floor already built in has not, until now. Aevo mobile makes that a one-tap action, on a mobile derivatives exchange with full desktop parity.
A token with a shrinking supply The AEVO token has been fully distributed since mid-2025, when the final scheduled unlock completed. No vesting cliffs ahead. No investor unlock events. No dilution overhang.
74 million AEVO have been permanently removed from circulation to date through a recurring monthly buyback and burn, funded entirely by real exchange revenue. The supply mechanic makes the token deflationary. Stakers receive monthly Uniswap V3 LP positions in the AEVO/USDC pool, earning swap fees that compound as long as the position is held.
The result: no unlock calendar to trade against, and a deflationary supply that shrinks as the exchange earns.
About Aevo PERPS+ and the full mobile experience are live at www.aevo.xyz. Technical documentation is on Aevo Docs.
PANews July 19 news, Token Unlocks data shows that tokens such as ZRO, KAITO, H will see significant unlocks next week, including:
LayerZero (ZRO) will unlock approximately 25.71 million tokens on July 20 at 7:00 PM Beijing time, representing roughly 4.6% of circulating supply and valued at around $20.9 million;
KAITO (KAITO) will unlock approximately 17.6 million tokens on July 20 at 8:00 PM Beijing time, representing roughly 4.3% of circulating supply and valued at around $16 million;
Humanity Protocol (H) will unlock approximately 266 million tokens on July 25 at 8:00 AM Beijing time, representing roughly 8.6% of circulating supply and valued at around $15.5 million;
Plasma (XPL) will unlock approximately 88.89 million tokens on July 25 at 8:00 PM Beijing time, representing roughly 3.44% of circulating supply and valued at around $7.3 million;
SoSoValue (SOSO) will unlock approximately 23.46 million tokens on July 24 at 5:00 PM Beijing time, representing roughly 6.78% of circulating supply and valued at around $6.9 million;
aPriori (APR) will unlock approximately 31.88 million tokens on July 23 at 8:00 AM Beijing time, representing roughly 11.28% of circulating supply and valued at around $6.8 million;
SOON (SOON) will unlock approximately 20.24 million tokens on July 23 at 4:30 PM Beijing time, representing roughly 3.91% of circulating supply and valued at around $3.3 million;
MBG By Multibank Group (MBG) will unlock approximately 27.15 million tokens on July 22 at 8:00 PM Beijing time, representing roughly 6.96% of circulating supply and valued at around $3.3 million;
Undeads Games (UDS) will unlock approximately 2.15 million tokens on July 21 at 8:00 AM Beijing time, representing roughly 1.11% of circulating supply and valued at around $2.4 million.
Bitcoin prochází on-chain resetem: aktivní tradeři stáhli ztrátovou marži na -11 % a staré velryby 14. července realizovaly ztrátu asi 297,3 milionu USD.
19 July 2026 | 17:33 Bitcoin’s rebound has reduced the losses carried by active on-chain traders, but the broader ownership data still stops short of confirming a trend reversal.
Key Takeaways Bitcoin’s on-chain trader loss margin has improved to -11%, returning to the neutral range used in the analysis. The realized prices of 1-3 month and 3-6 month holders have converged in the low-$70,000 area. Old whales realized approximately $297.3 million in losses on July 14, their second-largest daily loss event since September 2025. The reset becomes more convincing only if BTC absorbs the released supply and reclaims recent-holder cost bases. Different datasets describe different parts of the same adjustment. Recent investors have lowered their collective cost basis as coins changed hands during the decline. Older whales have started realizing unusually large losses, showing that the pressure has moved beyond the market’s newest participants. Bitcoin, however, remains below the price at which two important recent-holder groups would return to break-even.
The result is an on-chain structure that looks less damaged than it did at the June lows, but one that still needs demand to prove that the released supply has found durable buyers.
Recent Holders Have Repriced Lower but Remain Underwater CryptoQuant analyst reported that Bitcoin’s On-Chain Trader Profit/Loss Margin had recovered to -11%. The analyst classified the reading as neutral after it moved back inside the -12% boundary separating the bearish zone in this model.
Bitcoin on-chain trader realized price and profit/loss margin. A smaller loss margin can reflect a price recovery, but it can also develop when coins purchased or last moved at higher levels are sold and transferred again at lower prices. That second process reduces the realized price of the active cohort even without a complete market recovery.
ShayanMarkets found the same adjustment in the Realized Price UTXO Age Bands. Realized price values a group’s coins according to the market price when they last moved on-chain, making it a useful proxy for the cohort’s average cost basis rather than a record of every investor’s exact purchase price.
Bitcoin realized price by UTXO age bands. The realized prices of the 1–3 month and 3–6 month groups have converged in the low-$70,000 area. Continued trading during the downturn gradually pulled both readings lower, even though the cohorts entered the market at different stages.
These two analyses should not be treated as independent bullish confirmations. Both are capturing the same repricing among relatively recent holders: losses have been realized, coins have moved at lower values and the market’s collective break-even level has declined.
That adjustment reduces the distance Bitcoin must recover before recent investors return to profit. It also concentrates potential selling in the same area. Holders who endured the decline may use a rebound toward the low-$70,000s to exit near break-even, turning the shared realized price into an on-chain resistance zone.
Old Whales Are Now Participating in the Loss-Taking The third analysis shows that the stress has reached a more established part of Bitcoin’s holder base.
According to CryptoQuant analyst Moreno, old whales realized approximately $297.3 million in losses on July 14, when Bitcoin traded near $65,000. It was the second-largest daily negative reading for this cohort since September 2025.
BTC whale profit-taking activity chart / Source: CryptoQuant, Moreno. The only larger event occurred on January 20, when old-whale losses reached roughly $334.3 million with BTC near $88,300. That earlier event came before another severe stage of the downturn, so the size of the latest loss cannot be treated as evidence that capitulation has ended.
Older whales generally have greater capacity to withstand volatility than recent entrants. Their decision to move coins at a loss indicates that the drawdown has lasted long enough, or reached far enough, to force some mature holders to reassess their exposure.
They are not responsible for most of the capitulation. New whales, recently active whales and the 10,000-BTC balance cohort have recorded substantially larger losses at several points in the decline. The July 14 event shows that old whales have joined the process, while newer and more reactive capital continues to generate the heavier pressure.
Old whale Bitcoin profit-taking analysis. The Three Signals Describe an Ownership Reset The sequence across the datasets is more informative than any individual reading.
Active traders have already realized enough losses to pull their cost basis lower. Two recent-holder groups now share a similar break-even level, while some older whales are only beginning to accept losses of unusual size.
Coins are therefore being transferred from holders with higher reference prices to buyers receiving them closer to the current market. That can create a healthier base because the new owners need a smaller recovery to return to profit and may be less likely to sell after a modest bounce.
The data cannot identify those buyers or establish that they have stronger conviction. Realized losses confirm that ownership is changing; price must show whether the incoming demand can absorb the supply without another breakdown.
What Would Turn the Reset Into a Reversal? Three developments would provide stronger confirmation:
Whale losses begin to fade: The market should absorb the July 14 event without a cluster of larger losses from old or recently active whales. Bitcoin holds while supply changes hands: Avoiding new lows during continued loss realization would indicate that buyers are taking the released coins without requiring progressively lower prices. BTC reclaims the low-$70,000 area: A move above the converged 1-3 month and 3-6 month realized prices, followed by a successful retest, would show that recent-holder selling has been absorbed. Reclaiming the on-chain trader realized price would also return that cohort’s profit/loss margin above zero, shifting active traders from an aggregate loss into profit.
The bearish interpretation remains valid if large whale-loss events continue to cluster, BTC establishes new lows or another rebound fails below the recent-holder cost bases. Under those conditions, the lower realized prices would reflect ongoing capitulation rather than the foundation of a sustained recovery.
Bitcoin’s ownership structure is adjusting, but the market has not completed the final step. Losses have been realized and cost bases have moved lower; demand must now carry price through the low-$70,000 supply zone.
Even a move above the low-$70,000 area would not fully confirm a trend reversal on its own. Bitcoin would also need to hold above the recent-holder cost bases, absorb renewed selling and avoid a quick return below them. Until those conditions are met, the data supports an on-chain reset, not a reversal.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice.
Author
Alexander Zdravkov is a market analyst and crypto journalist with interests in economics, broader financial markets and digital assets. His journey into crypto began more than four years ago, driven by a fascination with the rapid evolution of blockchain technology and the transformative potential of decentralized finance. He began analyzing market cycles and identifying emerging trends before they reach the mainstream. He holds a degree in International Relations - a background that helped shape his broader perspective on global economics, geopolitics, and the interconnected nature of modern financial markets. Whether covering the latest developments in the crypto sector or exploring broader macroeconomic themes, Alexander focuses on giving readers context rather than simply repeating headlines. During his career, he has authored more than 5,000 articles covering cryptocurrencies, traditional finance, and global market developments. His work spans everything from Bitcoin and altcoins to macroeconomic trends influencing risk assets worldwide.
Michael Saylor naznačil další krok Strategy po zveřejnění grafu kryptoměnových rezerv s otázkou „What’s next?“. Firma drží 843 775 BTC v hodnotě 54,28 miliardy USD a je v nerealizované ztrátě kolem 5 miliard USD.
Cover image via depositphotos.com Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
Strategy founder Michael Saylor posted a fresh chart of the company's crypto reserves on social media with the brief caption, "What's next?" — a teaser that immediately sparked discussion about the next steps of the world's largest corporate Bitcoin holder.
The situation is particularly intriguing because the company, which built its reputation on aggressive Bitcoin purchases, is now in a vulnerable position measured in billions of dollars in losses.
Billions in the red versus a fiat cushion: Strategy's capital scenariosAccording to the latest data from Strategy Tracker, the company holds 843,775 BTC on its balance sheet — an enormous 4% of Bitcoin's total global supply. The portfolio is worth $54.28 billion, but due to the high average purchase price of $75,653, the position is now sitting on an unrealized loss of nearly 15%, or around $5 billion, with Bitcoin currently trading near $64,000.
HOT Stories
Saylor's question about "what comes next" has divided the expert community into two camps, with the more optimistic side of the market predictably interpreting the post as an announcement of another buy-the-dip purchase financed through new debt. Investors are now awaiting the opening of trading on Monday and fresh SEC filings.
On the other hand, management's recent actions differ from the familiar "buy and never sell" slogan. Strategy has made no new purchases since June 22 and recently broke its own taboo by selling 3,588 BTC, with the latest transaction involving 2,225 BTC on July 6, used to pay dividends to shareholders and build a $2.55 billion reserve.
You Might Also Like
Saylor's teaser appeared at a turning point, as the company is forced to balance its status as Wall Street's leading Bitcoin bull with the strict necessity of servicing its obligations during a market downturn.
Whether the next step will mark a return to aggressive purchases or a continuation of cautious maneuvering supported by a fiat safety cushion will become clear in the coming reporting days.
BlackRock zaznamenal během pěti obchodních dnů čisté přílivy kapitálu ve výši 343,4 milionu USD do svých krypto ETF. Nejvíc přinesl IBIT s 204,1 milionu USD, zatímco ethereum fondy ETHA a ETHB přidaly 139,3 milionu USD.
TLDR: BlackRock crypto ETF inflows reached $343.4 million across IBIT, ETHA and ETHB during the five trading days ending July 17. IBIT attracted $204.1 million despite opening the period with a $185.5 million outflow before recording four positive sessions. BlackRock’s Ethereum products added $139.3 million, with ETHA supplying nearly all the new capital received during the week. The figures represent net investor flows into BlackRock-managed ETFs, rather than cryptocurrency purchases for BlackRock’s corporate balance sheet. BlackRock crypto ETF inflows approached $350 million during five trading sessions as demand returned for regulated Bitcoin and Ethereum products. The asset manager’s three major crypto funds attracted a combined $343.4 million from July 13 through July 17.
The total included $204.1 million for the iShares Bitcoin Trust, known as IBIT. BlackRock’s Ethereum funds, ETHA and ETHB, received another $139.3 million. The activity followed several weeks of unstable flows across the wider digital asset ETF market.
BlackRock Crypto ETF Inflows Rebound After Early Outflow IBIT started the week with a $185.5 million withdrawal on July 13. That loss placed the fund under pressure as all U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded a combined $424.7 million daily outflow.
Demand shifted during the following session. IBIT gained $138.9 million on July 14, followed by $80.8 million on July 15. It then collected $33.4 million on July 16 and $136.5 million on July 17.
Those four sessions produced $389.6 million in gross inflows. They erased the opening redemption and left IBIT with $204.1 million in net weekly additions. Farside Investors’ data also shows IBIT supplied the largest Bitcoin ETF inflow on the final trading day.
The figures describe capital entering the ETF rather than a direct BlackRock Bitcoin purchase. Authorized participants create new fund shares as demand rises, while the trust adjusts its Bitcoin holdings to support those shares.
Source: Coinglass Bitcoin ETF inflows also recovered across the wider market. U.S. funds posted positive totals during each session from July 14 through July 17 after the sharp Monday withdrawal.
Bitcoin and Ethereum Funds Drive BlackRock ETF Demand Ethereum ETF demand added another source of growth for BlackRock. ETHA received $58.3 million on July 14 before adding $45.3 million the next day.
ETHB attracted $4 million on July 15. ETHA later recorded $31.7 million on July 17, bringing its five-day total to $135.3 million. The two funds therefore collected a combined $139.3 million.
BlackRock crypto ETF inflows were especially concentrated in ETHA during the final session. The fund supplied $31.7 million of the $36.7 million entering all U.S. Ethereum ETFs that day. Historical inflows into ETHA have reached about $11.3 billion.
ETHB gives brokerage investors exposure to Ethereum and staking rewards, while ETHA offers spot Ethereum exposure without direct wallet management.
Source: Coinglass The ETF activity arrived as BlackRock reported record assets under management of $15.3 trillion. The company collected $192 billion in net inflows during the second quarter and $321 billion during the first half of 2026. ETFs, private markets, and fixed-income products supported those results.
BlackRock’s iShares business collected $178 billion during the quarter. Total companywide net inflows reached $868 billion over the previous 12 months, showing that crypto products represent a small but expanding part of its broader ETF operation.
Cardano projekt Pogun chce přivést Bitcoin do DeFi přes úvěrový trh, výnosovou vrstvu a most, ale jeho první termín už uplynul a treasury financování nezískal.
19 July 2026 | 11:31 Cardano’s Pogun initiative targets Bitcoin liquidity through a credit market, yield layer and trust-minimized bridge, but the project remains unfinished after its treasury request expired and its first deadline passed.
Key Takeaways Pogun plans to combine a non-margin credit market, a yield application and a trust-minimized Bitcoin bridge on Cardano. The widely cited $1.6 trillion figure represents Bitcoin’s total market value, not capital already committed to the project. Pogun’s request for ₳12.29 million from the Cardano Treasury expired without receiving the required approval. The original Q2 credit-market deadline has passed, while Pogun’s official website still describes the platform as coming soon. Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson is backing Pogun, a development initiative intended to bring Bitcoin liquidity into Cardano-based credit and yield markets.
Led by Omer Husain and the team behind Input Output’s open-source Cardinal bridge specification, Pogun plans to combine a non-margin credit market, a yield application and a trust-minimized Bitcoin bridge.
The project’s central test is not whether Cardano can advertise access to Bitcoin’s market value. It is whether Pogun can launch a useful credit market, attract borrowers and lenders, and give BTC holders a reason to cross the bridge when it becomes available.
The $1.6 Trillion Bitcoin Claim Needs Context Pogun’s official proposal describes Bitcoin as a vast pool of capital that is “almost entirely idle.” The phrase refers to Bitcoin’s limited use in native decentralized lending and credit markets, not to every BTC sitting unused.
Some coverage has rounded the opportunity to $1.6 trillion, while Pogun’s own governance proposal described Bitcoin as a roughly $1.5 trillion asset. Either figure is a time-sensitive estimate of Bitcoin’s total market capitalization which as of 19 July, 2026, is around $1.3T, not an amount that Pogun has secured or expects to move into Cardano in full.
Bitcoin is already used through self-custody, exchanges, corporate treasuries, exchange-traded products and centralized lending arrangements. Pogun’s argument is narrower: only a relatively small portion of that capital participates in decentralized credit and yield markets without relying on a centralized custodian.
Pogun is therefore competing for the subset of Bitcoin holders willing to use BTC as collateral or deploy it into financial strategies. It is not integrating Bitcoin’s entire market value into Cardano.
Pogun Plans to Build the Market Before the Bridge Pogun’s published roadmap contains three connected stages:
Q2 2026
Non-margin credit market
Bilateral, fixed-term loans without automatic price-based liquidations
Q3 2026
Yield application
An interface connecting user capital with strategies built on the credit market
Q4 2026
Bitcoin bridge
A trust-minimized route for deploying BTC in Cardano-based applications
Pogun’s sequence is deliberate. The credit market is intended to establish demand, the yield application would make that market easier to access, and the bridge would then introduce Bitcoin as additional collateral and liquidity.
That gives incoming BTC an intended use from the beginning, but it also creates dependency between the milestones. Delays or weak adoption in the first two products could reduce the reason for Bitcoin holders to use the bridge when it arrives.
The First Roadmap Deadline Has Passed The proposal stated that the non-margin credit market would launch on Cardano’s mainnet in the second quarter of 2026 after completing a formal security audit.
That quarter ended on June 30.
As of July 19, Pogun’s official website continues to describe the platform as “coming soon.” The official project pages reviewed for this article do not provide a public mainnet announcement, deployed contract address or completed audit report.
That does not establish that development has stopped. It means the Q2 milestone cannot yet be treated as publicly delivered based on the evidence currently available.
In a June 11 video, Hoskinson said work had not been paused after the project failed to secure treasury funding and described Pogun as a commercial initiative that could continue without the proposed community investment.
His comments indicate that development is continuing, but they do not establish that the credit market has launched publicly or completed the formal audit described in the original proposal.
The Cardano Treasury Did Not Fund Pogun Pogun requested ₳12.29 million from the Cardano Treasury, valued at approximately $2.95 million when the proposal was prepared.
The proposed funding was divided into milestone-based tranches. Later bridge funding would have depended on verified progress in the credit market, while the proposal included provisions for returning undisbursed funds if milestones failed, the team dissolved or the bridge was found to be technically infeasible.
Pogun also proposed returning 20% of EBITDA to the Cardano Treasury until the original investment had been repaid, followed by 5% of EBITDA from Cardano-related products in perpetuity.
That arrangement was never activated.
The onchain governance action expired on May 24, 2026, without receiving the support required for ratification. No ₳12.29 million treasury withdrawal was approved for Pogun.
The failed vote did not remove money that had already been granted. It meant that this specific treasury withdrawal was never authorized.
If Pogun continues as a privately funded commercial initiative, the Cardano Treasury will not automatically receive the proposed revenue share unless a separate agreement is approved in the future.
How Pogun’s Credit Market Is Supposed to Work Pogun’s first planned product differs from the pooled, overcollateralized lending markets commonly found across DeFi.
Borrowers and lenders would negotiate loan terms directly, including: The amount being borrowed; The interest rate; The repayment period; The collateral requirements; The conditions that constitute default. Smart contracts would enforce those agreed terms. According to Pogun, the model would not depend on external price oracles or automatic margin calls, meaning temporary market volatility would not by itself liquidate a borrower’s collateral.
The structure resembles fixed-term private credit more closely than a continuously rebalanced DeFi lending pool.
Active loan positions would be represented by transferable Bond Tokens issued as Cardano native assets. That could allow a lender to transfer or sell exposure before a loan matures, creating the foundation for a secondary market in tokenized debt positions.
Removing automatic price-based liquidation does not remove financial risk.
A borrower can still default, collateral can lose value before it is recovered, and Bond Tokens may have little secondary-market liquidity. Smart-contract vulnerabilities, weak borrower assessment and disputes involving real-world counterparties could add further risk.
The model exchanges the danger of rapid oracle-driven liquidation for longer-duration credit, liquidity and enforcement risks. Its usefulness will depend on how clearly those risks are disclosed and priced.
The Bridge Is Trust-Minimized, Not Trustless Pogun’s final stage is intended to move Bitcoin into the Cardano environment without placing the underlying BTC under the control of a single custodian.
The roadmap describes a 1-of-N security model. Under that design, a fraudulent withdrawal can be blocked as long as at least one verifier in the operator set remains honest and available.
Although the proposal labels the component a BitVM-powered bridge, a later technical explanation from Input Output says the team moved toward a custom implementation based on BABE after identifying production constraints in the BitVM family of designs.
The architecture described by Input Output combines several systems: A custom implementation based on BABE, which uses witness encryption for Bitcoin-side verification; Recursive Halo2 proofs intended to attest to Cardano state through the Mithril certificate chain; Groth16 proofs that package the result into a smaller form for the Bitcoin-side mechanism; An N-party transaction graph designed to support multiple operators and changes to the operator set. At a high level, the design is intended to prove what happened on Cardano, compress that evidence into a smaller cryptographic proof and make the result verifiable through a Bitcoin-side mechanism without giving one custodian control of the underlying BTC.
Mithril certificates allow external systems to verify authenticated information about Cardano without independently replaying the entire blockchain. Pogun intends to use proofs built over that certificate chain to establish what occurred on Cardano before a corresponding Bitcoin-side action is accepted.
The architecture is technically detailed, but a design document is not proof of production security.
Bridge implementations can be exposed to software bugs, proof-system failures, operator outages, configuration errors and weaknesses in the applications holding bridged assets. Public code, independent audits, testnet performance and the composition of the verifier set will matter as much as the cryptographic design.
Calling the bridge trust-minimized is therefore more accurate than calling it trustless.
Why Cardano Sees an Architectural Fit With Bitcoin Cardano argues that it is a natural environment for Bitcoin-based finance because the two networks share a related accounting structure.
As Cardano’s official documentation explains, Bitcoin and Cardano both use versions of the Unspent Transaction Output model. Bitcoin transactions consume existing outputs and create new ones, while Cardano extends that structure through its EUTXO model to support programmable conditions, native assets and smart contracts.
That shared lineage can make some financial logic easier to express across the two systems. It does not mean that Cardano can control native Bitcoin directly or that other smart-contract networks cannot support Bitcoin-based applications through different architectures.
Pogun still requires a bridge to connect two separate ledgers. Its success will depend on implementation quality, security and market demand rather than the UTXO connection alone.
What Pogun Could Mean for Cardano and ADA Pogun is partly an attempt to expand Cardano’s relatively small DeFi economy.
At the time of writing, DefiLlama records approximately $72 million in total value locked across Cardano applications. Even a modest amount of BTC deployed into Cardano-based credit markets could therefore be material relative to the ecosystem’s present size.
That possibility should not be confused with a guarantee that billions of dollars will arrive.
Claims that Pogun could push Cardano’s TVL to $10 billion or $15 billion are not supported by the project’s formal proposal. Its own end-of-2027 scenarios projected approximately:
$100 million in Pogun TVL under a bearish scenario; $450 million under its base scenario; $765 million under its bullish scenario. Those are project forecasts rather than assured outcomes. Actual adoption will depend on bridge security, borrowing demand, available returns, liquidity, regulatory access and competition from other Bitcoin DeFi platforms.
The effect on ADA also needs careful framing.
Under Cardano’s current rules, ADA is accepted as payment for network fees. Pogun activity executed on Cardano could therefore generate additional transaction-fee demand.
The scale of that effect would depend on transaction volume, fee levels and whether applications require users to hold ADA directly or abstract the payment process on their behalf. Bridged Bitcoin sitting inactive in a contract would not create the same recurring network demand as an actively used credit market.
Pogun could add utility to Cardano, but publishing a roadmap does not by itself create substantial or sustainable demand for ADA.
What Would Confirm the Bitcoin DeFi Thesis The strongest evidence will come from delivered products and measurable usage rather than the total market value of Bitcoin.
The thesis would become more credible if Pogun provides: • A publicly verifiable mainnet deployment for the credit market;
• A completed independent security audit and accessible report;
• Contract addresses and documentation that allow users to verify the system;
• Measurable loan volume, borrower activity and repayment data;
• A yield application with clear risk disclosures and sustained deposits;
• A functioning bridge testnet followed by an independently audited mainnet release;
• Transparent information about operators and the assumptions behind the 1-of-N model;
• Measurable BTC collateral, Cardano TVL and transaction growth after launch.
For now, Pogun remains a development initiative rather than evidence that significant Bitcoin liquidity has entered Cardano.
The next decisive proof point is a publicly verifiable launch of the credit market, followed by its audit results and measurable lending activity. Only then will the planned yield layer and Bitcoin bridge have an operating market to connect to.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice.
Author
Alex is Editor-in-Chief of Coindoo and co-founder of Millennial Media Group, with nearly a decade of experience covering financial markets - crypto first, then everything else. It started in 2016 with Bitcoin. Like most people at the time, he didn't fully understand it - so he kept digging. Blockchain, tokenomics, the projects, the cycles. That curiosity never stopped, and eventually pulled him into traditional markets too: equities, commodities, macro. Not because he left crypto behind, but because you can't properly understand one without the other. What drives him is straightforward: he wants to know why something is happening, not just that it's happening. Most market coverage stops at the headline - price up, price down, here's a chart. Alex finds that kind of reporting actively unhelpful. If you walk away from an article without understanding the mechanism behind the move, what did you actually learn? He holds a degree in Tourism from New Bulgarian University - not the most obvious path into financial markets, but markets have a way of pulling in people who are simply too curious to stay out. He has authored over 200 in-depth analyses and more than 10,000 articles across crypto and traditional finance. He still thinks every day in markets teaches him something new. That's probably why he hasn't stopped.
Cardano aktivovalo hard fork Van Rossem na mainnetu, který přináší nové funkce Plutus, rychlejší a levnější smart kontrakty a vyšší bezpečnost sítě. ADA se drží kolem 0,165 USD.
Cardano price hovered at $0.1650 on Sunday after the Van Rossem hard fork officially activated across the mainnet. ADA gained during the previous 24 hours as traders assessed the upgrade’s impact on network performance.
The broader cryptocurrency market also improved, rising 0.54% to reach a $2.2 trillion valuation. Bitcoin price was still trading over $64,000, with Ethereum at $1,860 and XRP price showing a small gain.
Market sentiment may strengthen further if Bitcoin maintains support above $63,500 and approaches the $69,000 resistance level.
Van Rossem Hard Fork Strengthens Cardano Mainnet The Protocol Version 11 upgrade of Cardano was implemented once all the necessary governance groups gave it adequate approval. The proposal passed ratification levels in Epoch 643 on July 13. It was automatically enacted in the next epoch boundary, which is July 18, 2026.
The upgrade comes with new Plutus features that aim to enhance the execution of smart contracts. Faster processing, reduced costs and updated cost models can be enjoyed by developers.
These modifications can make decentralized applications run in the growing ecosystem of Cardano more efficient.
NEWS: V11 (van Rossem) hardfork is now officially live on Cardano $ADA mainnet.
It brought new Plutus capabilities, faster/cheaper smart contracts, and protocol prep for Leios.
Congratulations to the entire Cardano ecosystem on another successful upgrade! 🥳 pic.twitter.com/KLJtAaV9Uy
— Cardanians (CRDN) (@Cardanians_io) July 19, 2026
Van Rossem also enhances ledger consistency and enhances node security. The upgrade includes improved primitives, special VRF keys, and new reference input regulations.
The hard fork governance action was given precedence by the ledger of Cardano over other proposals during the ratification. There were however no rival governance actions that were withheld, stifled or lapsed.
The upgrade is also gearing Cardano towards the proposed transition to the Dijkstra era. That future hard fork should bring in Ouroboros Leios, the significant Cardano scalability framework. The goal of Leios is to maximise throughput without compromising network security and decentralisation.
Whale $100K Activity Falls While ADA Price Holds Steady Cardano price looks at recovery because whale transactions have not been high as compared to spikes that have been noticed earlier in the year. The current participation of major holders is limited and would show large ADA transfers above 100,000.
The whale activity had earlier spiked to more than 200 transactions in January and then went down in the months that followed. The highest brief increases were observed in February, March, June, and July, but none of them was as high as the first peak.
Santiment data The fact that this slowdown persists implies that large investors are acting cautiously until they can see through the fog before they can venture more into Cardano.
Cardano Price Outlook Signals 20% Rally Toward $0.20 The ADA price surged to $0.165, extending its recovery from the $0.160 support zone during four-hour trading.
Buyers are trying to gain control, but short-term resistance is close to $0.17 according to the Cardano future outlook.
An emphatic four hour close above that line may help build momentum towards $0.180. A break of $0.18 can lead to a break of $0.20, which is about 20% increase over the current.
Source: Tradingview The MACD is still a bit positive but narrow lines indicate that momentum still requires more volume. In the meantime, the Chaikin Money Flow value of approximately 0.13 indicates that capital is still flowing into the market.
Cardano price must defend $0.16 to preserve this bullish structure and prevent another pullback. Any failure at the support may reveal $0.15 before the buyers get confidence back.
Tether má před sebou dva roky na to, aby upravil USDT podle amerického zákona GENIUS Act, jinak může být na amerických kryptoměnových platformách omezen. Podle posledních zveřejnění by až čtvrtina rezerv USDT stále nesplňovala nové standardy.
The U.S. GENIUS Act to regulate stablecoins just hit a milestone, and Tether may have some compliance work ahead of it. (Jesse Hamilton/CoinDesk)Summary
The GENIUS Act that governs U.S. stablecoin issuers is complicated and a work-in-progress, but now that its first anniversary is reached, Tether and other non-U.S. issuers have two years left to figure out their compliance strategies. The one-year mark was supposed to see the federal financial regulators finishing their stablecoin rules, but none have done so, yet, leaving some compliance uncertainty. The basic outlines of the U.S. standards, though, would force the most widely circulated coin — Tether’s USDT — to make a lot of major changes before it could satisfy the law. The world's leading stablecoin by volume, Tether's USDT, could be shoved out of the U.S. markets if the company doesn't revamp dramatically in the next two years.
Despite assurances last year from CEO Paolo Ardoino that the stablecoin giant would achieve U.S. compliance for USDT, the company hasn't yet revealed a sharp turn toward the demands of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which became law one year ago.
With that consequential anniversary of President Donald Trump's signing of the law passing on Saturday, the industry has marked a surge in stablecoin interest and issuance, plus a wide array of crypto and traditional financial firms pursuing U.S. trust bank charters to ease their stablecoin pathways. But the one-year mark was also supposed to be a deadline for federal financial regulators to have rules in place implementing GENIUS, and they've so far fallen short. That could be problematic as experts and industry insiders still reveal some disagreements over how the law should be interpreted.
At this point, it's still two firms battling for market dominance, with a few others — including the issuer tied to President Donald Trump, World Liberty Financial — fighting it out for a very distant third place. Tether's chief rival, U.S.-based Circle, has made more of an apparent effort to pre-comply with what U.S. regulations will soon require.
Meanwhile, Tether's most recent disclosures suggest as much as a quarter of USDT's reserves — the stockpile meant to ensure that those redeeming their coins will always be able to — were still plugged into assets that won't meet GENIUS Act standards, such as precious metals, lending and bitcoin BTC$64,666.25 holdings. GENIUS requires that issuers are fully reserved in the most highly liquid and reliable assets — essentially cash and U.S. Treasuries.
"Tether will comply with the GENIUS Act," Ardoino told CoinDesk at the White House, in the moments after Trump signed GENIUS a year ago. While the CEO indicated then that his company would pursue a separate U.S.-specific token, he said that USDT would also be managed to meet the law's foreign-issuer standards.
When asked multiple times for an update on its compliance stance in recent days, representatives of El Salvador-based Tether didn't offer a response.
This year, Tether rolled out USAT — launched with U.S. standards in mind and issued through U.S. banking partner Anchorage Digital. So far, it remains at a relatively low level of usage.
“Non-compliant stablecoins cannot be used by U.S. institutions when the safe harbor expires in 2028, but we don’t expect the market to wait," said Kevin Wysocki, head of policy at Anchorage Digital, the crypto-native bank that manages a number of stablecoins. He said the company believes institutional users will move toward "compliant, bank-issued digital dollars well ahead of that deadline."
Do they have two years?GENIUS included a three-year grace period for compliance, and two years remain, after which U.S. crypto platforms won't be able to offer stablecoins whose issuers haven't checked all the regulatory boxes. However, there seems to be some disagreement over whether foreign issuers are meant to enjoy that same safe harbor. Some lawyers in finance assume that Tether gets until July 18, 2028, to comply, but others have suggested that foreign issuers would have to comply the moment GENIUS officially goes live, which is likely six months from now in January.
"Upon the effectiveness of the GENIUS Act, foreign issuers will need to immediately comply with lawful orders to seize and freeze coins held by illicit actors, but they will have a runway of approximately two more years to prepare for the additional requirements so that their coins may remain eligible for listing on U.S. centralized trading platforms," said Justin Levine, a lawyer at Davis Polk who advises clients on stablecoin issues, adding that one of those remaining requirements — registration with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — is likely to require a “significant undertaking”
"So they do have time, as long as they comply with seize and freeze orders,” he said. “But those that want to have their coins continue to be traded on U.S. centralized platforms and have that liquidity should still be thinking about it right now, even if it's not imminent that they're going to get delisted."
While Levine's firm and others have interpreted the deadline for foreign issuers as being two years away, an analysis last year from law firm Paul Hastings had read GENIUS as offering separate timelines for foreign and domestic firms. But after being asked about its view recently, that interpretation was removed from the firm's website, and its spokespeople didn't immediately respond to CoinDesk's requests for clarity.
A dive into the footnotes of federal regulators suggests a two-track deadline in the law. The OCC, the national bank regulator that will also be supervising certain stablecoin issuers, said in a footnote within a proposal for implementing aspects of GENIUS that the drop-dead date was generally in 2028, but that it gets triggered the moment the law is effective (by January) for the coins of foreign issuers that don't meet "certain requirements." Those requirements, though, could simply be referring to the shorter-term demands that include the ability to freeze bad actors' assets and, when requested by the government, to seize them.
The fuller slate of requirements for foreign issuers will eventually include demands that their home regulator be certified by the secretary of the Treasury as being "comparable" to the U.S. regime, that the firms be OCC-registered and they keep their reserves in U.S. institutions.
Regulators run behindHowever, none of the federal agencies have finalized their GENIUS rules, leaving some uncertainty about what will be set into regulatory stone even as the first requirements approach. A number of regulators' efforts are underway and may soon be completed, but others remain in preliminary stages. In other words, companies have no regulations to comply with just yet.
If there's lingering disagreement over GENIUS timelines, Trevor Tanifum, a managing principal at consulting firm FS Vector, said he anticipates that smaller platforms with low risk appetites will delist certain stablecoins and avoid the bother. But others may be willing to press on.
He said that prominent companies with robust legal departments may be willing to occupy a different view, such as: "We're going to spend the money on lawyers and lobbyists until someone walks up to our door and forces us to delist these non-U.S. issuers."
"It's pretty much what has happened, I think, at every major crypto hurdle," he said. "These platforms still count on a lot of transaction volumes, liquidity from non-U.S. issuers, and so I can't see them giving up those volumes without a fight."
The biggest U.S. exchange is Coinbase, but the company declined to discuss its stablecoin listing plans under GENIUS.
The exchange and much of the rest of the crypto industry has more recently shifted policy attention toward a different effort of Congress: the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. The sector's lobbyists had aimed for a one-two punch with GENIUS and Clarity, and they'd succeeded last year in getting the stablecoin bill passed into law.
But that first major crypto law was meant to complement a wider-reaching regulation of U.S. crypto markets under the Clarity Act, which is still languishing in the final weeks of its potential 2026 congressional window. It remains unclear at the first anniversary of the GENIUS Act whether its companion will join it on the books. And if it does, it's likely to include some provisions that overhaul some of GENIUS's language.
Either way, Tether, Circle and the rest of the stablecoin sector are on track to be federally regulated in the coming months under the new law, and how those regulations are navigated may upend which firms play a leading role.
Chainlink je zapojen do pilotních projektů CBDC a vypořádání tokenizovaných aktiv v Brazílii, Hongkongu, Austrálii, Británii a v rámci projektu mBridge. V Brazílii a Hongkongu už podpořil přeshraniční test vypořádání obchodu.
Chainlink has wormed its way into the plumbing of central bank digital currency projects and tokenized asset settlements across five countries. Brazil, Hong Kong, Australia, the United Kingdom, and participants in the multi-nation mBridge initiative are all running pilots that rely on Chainlink’s infrastructure to move government data and settle cross-border transactions.
The central bank roster The highest-profile integration sits in Brazil, where the central bank’s Drex CBDC project has tapped Chainlink through a collaboration with Banco Inter. That partnership produced a cross-border trade settlement pilot connecting Brazil and Hong Kong, automating payments for tokenized assets in what amounted to a real-time proof of concept for programmable international commerce.
On the Hong Kong side, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s e-HKD project incorporated Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol, known as CCIP. The protocol handled cross-chain Payment-vs-Payment settlement between ANZ’s A$DC stablecoin and the e-HKD CBDC, essentially proving that a stablecoin issued by an Australian bank and a digital currency issued by Hong Kong’s monetary authority could swap value atomically across different ledgers.
Advertisement
Australia’s involvement comes through ANZ, the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, which has been one of the more aggressive traditional banks in experimenting with stablecoins and tokenized assets. ANZ’s demonstrations using Chainlink focused on settling tokenized assets across public blockchains.
The Bank of England entered the picture in February 2026, selecting Chainlink for its Synchronisation Lab. The lab’s mission is testing atomic settlement with onchain securities.
Rounding out the five-country footprint is Chainlink’s role in addressing interoperability challenges highlighted by mBridge, the multi-CBDC platform involving monetary authorities from China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and the UAE. Chainlink’s CCIP addresses the core technical problem: making different digital currencies talk to each other without a centralized intermediary acting as translator.
Why CCIP is the product that matters Chainlink’s CCIP enables actual value transfer and message passing between entirely separate blockchain networks. Chainlink’s infrastructure handles secure data feeds, cross-chain connectivity, compliance checks, and automated transaction mechanisms like Delivery-vs-Payment and Payment-vs-Payment settlements.
What this means for investors For LINK, Chainlink’s native token, the expanding use cases across both public DeFi and centralized finance create a dual demand profile. The Brazil-Hong Kong trade finance experiment completing successfully in late 2025 suggests at least some of these projects are moving beyond the science-fair stage.
The risk is that pilots remain pilots. Central bank technology projects have a long and storied history of impressive demonstrations that never reach production scale. The gap between a successful cross-border settlement test and a live system processing billions in daily volume is measured in years and political will, not just technical capability.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Centrální banky testují Chainlink jako propojovací infrastrukturu pro data, platby, tokenizovaná aktiva, compliance a vypořádání napříč oddělenými systémy. Jde zatím jen o kontrolované piloty, ne o trvalé přijetí tokenu LINK.
19 July 2026 | 15:22 Chainlink is not offering central banks a new currency or asking governments to replace their sovereign financial systems with a public blockchain. Its institutional role is more practical: coordinating data, payments, tokenized assets, compliance checks and settlement instructions across systems that were not designed to communicate with one another.
Key Takeaways Central banks are testing Chainlink as connective infrastructure, not as a replacement for sovereign currencies or domestic settlement systems. The Brazil–Hong Kong experiment coordinated payments, trade documents and asset ownership across several separate platforms. Singapore’s Project Guardian showed that tokenized funds can operate alongside existing banking and fiat-payment infrastructure. These projects remain controlled pilots and do not represent permanent adoption or an endorsement of the LINK token. That pattern appears in experiments involving the Central Bank of Brazil, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Singapore’s Project Guardian, Swift, UBS Asset Management and the U.S. Department of Commerce.
These projects do not amount to broad central-bank adoption. They do, however, reveal why Chainlink continues to appear in public-sector and regulated financial experiments.
The Harder Problem Begins After a Digital Currency Is Created A central bank can build a domestic digital-currency or tokenized-settlement platform. The more difficult question is how that platform interacts with foreign currencies, commercial-bank systems, tokenized funds, trade documents, public blockchains and established payment networks.
The Bank for International Settlements has found that there is no universal model for connecting central bank digital currencies across borders. Each jurisdiction has its own legal framework, access rules, policy objectives, privacy requirements and technical architecture.
Its more recent work on tokenization reaches a similar conclusion. Multiple ledgers are likely to coexist, but fragmented systems could create isolated pools of money and assets unless institutions develop reliable ways to coordinate transactions between them. The BIS has warned that the benefits of tokenization depend not only on the technology but also on interoperability, governance and effective risk management. Its analysis is available in the report on tokenization in payments and financial markets.
Chainlink approaches this problem through several connected services.
Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol: CIP
carries messages and tokenized value between separate blockchain networks.
Automated Compliance Engine: ACE
is designed to apply identity, jurisdiction and transfer policies before a transaction proceeds.
The proposition is therefore broader than the familiar description of Chainlink as a price oracle. It is attempting to become an orchestration layer for financial processes that span several technological environments.
Brazil and Hong Kong Connected Two Sovereign Platforms In October 2024, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Central Bank of Brazil announced plans to connect Hong Kong’s Ensemble Sandbox with Brazil’s Drex pilot.
The collaboration focused on cross-border payment-versus-payment and delivery-versus-payment settlement. The first mechanism coordinates the exchange of two currencies, while the second ensures that the transfer of an asset occurs together with its payment.
A subsequent trade finance experiment involved Banco Inter, Chainlink and the Global Shipping Business Network. It connected the Drex environment with Hong Kong’s Ensemble infrastructure, a trade finance platform and an electronic bill of lading system.
CRE coordinated payment instructions and translated messages into the formats required by the participating systems, including ISO 20022. It also triggered an external API to update the electronic bill of lading.
CCIP synchronized events between the platforms so that contract execution, credit release, payment and the transfer of ownership over the traded goods could form part of the same workflow.
This was more complex than sending a token from one blockchain address to another. The transaction depended on money, ownership records, banking instructions and trade documentation changing in the correct order across several independent platforms.
The experiment demonstrated that these actions could be coordinated technically. It did not establish whether the architecture can operate at production scale, how responsibility would be divided after an operational failure or whether central banks would use the same infrastructure in a live deployment.
Singapore Kept the Existing Payment Rails A separate experiment examined whether institutions could use tokenized assets without requiring every participating bank to adopt an onchain currency.
In November 2024, Swift, UBS Asset Management and Chainlink completed a pilot under the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Project Guardian. The project automated subscriptions and redemptions for a UBS tokenized investment fund.
Chainlink coordinated the conditions needed to mint or burn the fund tokens. Swift carried the payment instructions through conventional fiat settlement infrastructure already connected to more than 11,500 financial institutions.
The payment leg therefore remained within established banking rails even though the investment fund was represented through blockchain-based tokens.
This addresses a practical barrier to institutional adoption. A bank should not need to rebuild its payment stack or hold a specific stablecoin simply to process a transaction involving a tokenized fund. Institutions can introduce tokenized products gradually while continuing to use infrastructure that already supports their operational and regulatory requirements.
The pilot involved a controlled process rather than an open commercial deployment. Its value lies in demonstrating a possible migration path, not in proving that the model has already achieved market-wide adoption.
Official Economic Data Can Now Be Read by Smart Contracts Chainlink’s work with the U.S. Department of Commerce concerns data rather than cross-border settlement.
On August 28, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce published a cryptographic hash of its second-quarter GDP release across nine blockchains. The headline GDP figure was also included on networks that supported the additional data.
The department worked with Chainlink and Pyth to distribute the information more broadly. Chainlink subsequently made six data series from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis available through its Data Feeds across ten blockchain ecosystems.
The feeds covered the levels and annualized percentage changes for: Real gross domestic product The Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index Real final sales to private domestic purchasers A government report published on a website is readable by people. A standardized onchain feed can also be read directly by software.
A prediction market could use the official figure to settle a contract. A macro-linked financial product could calculate a payment from a published economic indicator. Lending or portfolio-management systems could incorporate the release into predefined risk rules.
That oracle role extends beyond economic data: on June 9, 2026, ADI Predictstreet, the official prediction market partner of the FIFA World Cup 2026, adopted Chainlink as its exclusive oracle infrastructure to automate market resolution, settlement and payouts.
Those examples describe potential applications rather than established demand. The publication proves that official government data can be delivered in a format smart contracts can consume; it does not show that financial protocols are already using those feeds at meaningful scale.
Compliance Is More Difficult Than Moving the Asset Interoperability alone is not sufficient for regulated finance.
A bank may need to confirm the identity, jurisdiction, sanctions status, investor classification and transfer eligibility of both parties before allowing a tokenized asset to change hands. Publishing the underlying customer records on a public blockchain would create serious privacy and data-protection problems.
Chainlink’s Automated Compliance Engine is designed to separate the compliance result from the sensitive information used to produce it.
A trusted institution could issue a credential confirming that a customer has completed the necessary checks. The transaction system would receive proof that the condition has been met without placing the customer’s name, passport information, address or complete banking record onchain.
The policy layer could then determine whether the transaction is permitted. Rules might cover investor eligibility, sanctions screening, geographic restrictions, transfer limits or the validity period of a credential.
ACE does not automatically make a financial product compliant with GDPR, MiCA, the Bank Secrecy Act or any other regulation. Legal compliance still depends on which rules are encoded, who supplies the identity information, where personal data is stored, how exceptions are handled and which institution remains responsible for the final decision.
Its purpose is narrower: giving institutions a technical way to translate some compliance requirements into enforceable transaction conditions.
The Evidence Supports a Role, Not a Final Winner The experiments show that Chainlink can perform several functions relevant to institutional tokenization:
Move instructions between separate blockchain networks
Coordinate onchain and offchain events
Connect tokenized assets with conventional payment systems
Deliver official external data to smart contracts
Apply identity and transfer conditions across a transaction
They do not show that central banks have selected Chainlink as permanent global infrastructure.
Most of the evidence still comes from pilots, sandboxes, technical demonstrations and announcements involving a limited number of institutions. Production systems would also need to resolve questions involving operational resilience, cybersecurity, governance, transaction reversals, legal responsibility, vendor dependence and incorrect external data.
The U.S. Department of Commerce explicitly stated that publishing its GDP data on blockchains did not endorse any particular blockchain, service or associated activity. Participation by a central bank or government body should therefore not be interpreted as support for the LINK token.
The more defensible conclusion is architectural. Central banks and regulated institutions are exploring tokenized finance, but the resulting system is unlikely to consist of one blockchain controlled by one operator. Sovereign platforms, commercial-bank ledgers, public networks and traditional payment rails may continue to coexist.
Chainlink is being tested as one possible way to make transactions work across those boundaries. Whether it becomes permanent infrastructure will depend less on the number of pilots announced and more on whether those experiments progress into resilient, legally defined and production-scale systems.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice.
Author
Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.
Prezident Circle Heath Tarbert hájí dlouhodobou strategii firmy a tvrdí, že USDC s asi 73 miliardami USD v oběhu a podporou na 34 blockchainech je těžké napodobit. Akcie CRCL přitom po IPO spadly zhruba z 260 USD do nízkých 60 USD.
Circle President Heath Tarbert has defended the company’s long-term strategy after Circle shares fell sharply from their post-IPO peak.
Summary
Circle says USDC’s scale and network effects remain difficult for new stablecoin competitors to replicate. Open USD adds pressure as Circle shares trade far below their post-IPO peak near $260. Circle keeps expanding regulated infrastructure while investors question competition, margins, and future stablecoin revenue sharing. Speaking in a July 14 interview with FOX Business, Tarbert said management remains focused on building financial infrastructure rather than reacting to short-term moves in the stock.
The interview came as Circle faced growing investor concern over competition in the stablecoin market. CRCL had traded near $260 after its public debut before falling toward the low $60 range. Tarbert said Circle is “playing the long game” and argued that successful execution would eventually support shareholder value.
Tarbert points to USDC network effects Tarbert said Circle’s main focus remains building a full-stack internet financial platform around USDC and related infrastructure. He argued that the company’s position cannot be measured only through daily stock movements and said the stock should “take care of itself” if Circle delivers on its wider mission.
He also defended USDC against new competitors. Tarbert pointed to roughly $73 billion in circulation and native support across 34 blockchains, saying those network effects would be “incredibly hard to replicate.” Circle describes USDC as a regulated digital dollar used across trading, payments and settlement.
Open USD adds new pressure to Circle The comments came after Open Standard launched Open USD, a planned stablecoin backed by more than 140 participating businesses. The group includes Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, BlackRock, BNY and Coinbase. Open Standard says partners can mint and redeem Open USD without fees and receive reserve earnings after a management charge.
As reported by crypto.news, Circle shares fell 17.5% to $62.63 after Open USD entered the market and CRCL left several Russell Growth indexes. The decline added to concerns about whether new stablecoin models could pressure Circle’s economics.
Wall Street has also raised questions about that competition. Crypto.news reported that Mizuho cut its Circle price target to $50, arguing that Open USD’s revenue-sharing structure could pressure margins and raise distribution costs.
Circle faces pressure over USDC economics Circle’s challenge extends beyond new stablecoin issuers.JPMorgan lowered earnings forecasts for Circle and Coinbase after a new revenue-sharing agreement tied to USDC balances on Hyperliquid. The bank said stronger adoption could come with lower reserve income retained by the companies.
Tarbert pushed back on the idea that competitors can quickly reproduce USDC’s reach. He also described USDC as the largest regulated stablecoin and said it leads in actual transaction volume, presenting scale and existing distribution as key parts of Circle’s competitive position.
Circle keeps expanding regulated infrastructure Circle has continued adding regulated infrastructure despite the stock decline. On July 10, the company received final OCC approval to establish Circle National Trust. The trust bank will initially provide digital asset custody, with USDC reserve management planned as a possible future service.
As reported by crypto.news, the approval places the new entity under direct federal supervision. Circle says the structure could support wider institutional use of its digital asset infrastructure.
Tarbert’s comments frame the stock decline against a wider contest for stablecoin distribution and reserve income. Open USD brings a large group of payment and financial companies into the market, while Circle continues betting that USDC’s existing network and regulated infrastructure will support its long-term position.
Zakladatel Zcash Zooko Wilcox představil nouzový plán, který má při hard forku Ironwood 28. července 2026 na bloku 3 428 143 uzamknout případné falešné ZEC v původním Orchard poolu. Nový Orchard pool poběží s opravenou kryptografií.
Cover image via depositphotos.com Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.
Zcash (ZEC) co-founder and lead developer, Zooko Wilcox, has revealed the details of an emergency strategy designed to preserve the coin's mathematical integrity. The network is preparing for the Ironwood hard fork (NU6.3), which will activate on July 28, 2026, at block 3,428,143 to permanently isolate the vulnerable Orchard pool and lock up any potentially forged ZEC.
The "turnstile" strategy: How to lock up phantom coinsFor those who missed it, a critical bug was discovered by Shielded Labs researcher Taylor Hornby that could theoretically have allowed hackers to mint ZEC undetected inside the private Orchard pool. By 2026, developers had quickly fixed the vulnerability at the protocol level and found no evidence that it had actually been exploited.
However, because the Orchard pool provides complete privacy, no one can guarantee that hidden issuance did not occur before the patch was deployed.
HOT Stories
Zooko's strategy eliminates the need for blind trust. On July 28, the original Orchard pool will be completely sealed and a new, clean Orchard pool with corrected cryptography will launch in its place.
Ironwood Ironwood Ironwood!
Humanity is going to have a form of money that is unstoppable, private, and has full correctness proofs (formal verification) of some of its key properties, thanks to heroic math by an awesome team led by @TachyonZcash. https://t.co/Z85ktHtoPE
— zooko🛡🦓🦓🦓 ⓩ (@zooko) July 19, 2026 Funds will be transferable from the old system to the new one only through a special turnstile gateway. This cryptographic mechanism strictly controls the balance: it will prevent more coins from leaving the old pool than legitimately entered throughout its entire history.
You Might Also Like
If hidden issuance did occur, the counterfeit ZEC will remain permanently frozen inside the old pool, becoming digital waste. At the same time, any user running a personal node will be able to independently verify the accuracy of the circulating supply.
Cryptocurrency exchanges, wallets, and swap services that have not completed their software testing may temporarily suspend ZEC deposits and withdrawals, but developers emphasize that such pauses are routine technical adjustments on the service providers' side, not a threat to the security of users' assets.
Private-wallet holders should also be prepared for their Orchard balances to temporarily appear unavailable.
As of now, ZEC holders only need to wait until July 28, when Ironwood's cryptographic "turnstile" will demonstrate in practice Zcash's ability to protect its economy under conditions of strong privacy guarantees.
Agenti Virtuals Protocol nasazení na Robinhood Chain jsou nově dohledatelní v Binance Wallet přes Meme Rush. Integrace přišla po spuštění mainnetu Robinhood Chain.
Every Virtuals Protocol agent deployed on Robinhood Chain is now discoverable inside Binance Wallet’s Meme Rush feature. Binance Wallet added filters for Robinhood Chain projects, including Virtuals Protocol, on July 18 and 19, 2026, roughly two and a half weeks after Robinhood Chain’s mainnet went live on July 1.
What Robinhood Chain actually is, and why it matters here Robinhood Chain is an AI-native Layer 2 blockchain built on Arbitrum infrastructure, oriented around financial services and tokenized real-world assets.
Advertisement
Virtuals Protocol plugged its AI agent framework into Robinhood Chain around the mainnet launch date. Between 2,100 and 2,400 individual AI agents went live on the chain within roughly two weeks of that integration, generating trading volume in the range of $77 million to $100 million.
The VIRTUAL token saw a roughly 20% price increase tied to the Robinhood Chain integration milestones.
Meme Rush, explained without the hype Binance Wallet’s Meme Rush is a token discovery feature focused on emerging and early-stage tokens. The feature recently expanded to support multi-chain browsing, which opened the door for Robinhood Chain projects to appear alongside assets from other networks. Virtuals Protocol is not the only project benefiting. Meme Rush’s Robinhood Chain filter sits alongside filters for other launchpads including Flap and Bankr.
What investors should actually watch The numbers from the first two weeks, between 2,100 and 2,400 agents live and $77 million to $100 million in trading volume, suggest genuine traction rather than a soft launch. Early volume can be inflated by wash trading, incentive farming, or bot activity. The more durable signal will come from whether that volume holds or grows in the weeks after the Meme Rush integration.
The VIRTUAL token’s 20% move is worth contextualizing carefully. A price increase tied to a specific integration event can reflect genuine demand, but it can also reflect traders front-running anticipated retail flows.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Zcash spouští Zakura, nový full node s cílem zvládnout více než 50 000 transakcí za sekundu při zachování soukromí. Podporuje i nadcházející upgrade Ironwood (NU6.3).
Zakura, a new Zcash full node maintained independently of the Zcash Foundation, launches as a pruned, fast-syncing fork of Zebra with compatibility for the legacy zcashd client ahead of its July 18 end of life.The software is one pillar of a broader effort, alongside Project Tachyon and private information retrieval research, to scale Zcash toward Visa- and Mastercard-level throughput by shrinking verification data and removing wallet performance bottlenecks.Zakura supports the Ironwood (NU6.3) upgrade activating July 28, which introduces a turnstile mechanism to cap withdrawals from the Orchard shielded pool and contain any counterfeit ZEC that may have been created via a long‑standing soundness bug.Those rebuilding Zcash have a dream: to match global payments giants Visa and Mastercard by handling tens of thousands of payments every second while preserving full verifiability and strong privacy guarantees.
The first piece of that plan is Zakura, a new full node software released Wednesday at version 1.0.0. It is maintained by Sean Bowe, a founding member of Zcash's zero-knowledge cryptography, and Dev Ojha, the Osmosis cofounder who now leads Valar Group. Both teams are funded by private ZEC donations rather than by a company or a foundation.
"Our dream is to support the world's payments. Mastercard and Visa handle more than 50k transactions per second; that's our floor. With Zcash's existing cryptography, that volume would demand over 500 MB/s of throughput from the node,” a blog post said. “The current stack won't get us there. The cryptography our teams are developing closes much of that gap.”
A full node is the program that keeps a complete copy of a blockchain, the Zcash ledger, in this case, and independently checks every transaction against the network's rules. Zakura is a fork of Zebra, the Zcash Foundation's node software – meaning it started from the Foundation's official code and was rebuilt from there.
Consensus rules are the shared rulebook every node enforces, the thing that decides which blocks and transactions the whole network accepts as valid. If a node applies different rules, it forks off and stops following the same chain as everyone else.
Pruning, snapshots and compatibilityZakura can also prune, a term for deleting old blockchain data a node no longer needs, and cut disk usage substantially. That shrinks the chain enough that the team publishes ready-made copies of it, about 11 gigabytes with the old data stripped, which a new node can download instead of pulling the whole history from other nodes one block at a time.
That takes a node from nothing to running in under two minutes, which the team says is “680 times faster.”
A compatibility mode further reproduces the interface of zcashd, the original client that reaches end of life on July 18, so wallets and exchange integrations built against it will keep working as is.
Throughput targets and Tachyon’s roleThe reason for building all this is arithmetic.
Mastercard and Visa process more than 50,000 transactions per second, and the team calls that figure '“its floor, not its target.” Zcash's current cryptography would require a node to take in and verify more than 500 megabytes of data every second to keep up, because every private transaction carries a proof, and proofs are large.
That is roughly a full DVD of data arriving every ten seconds, continuously, and no current Zcash software runs anywhere near that. But the missing piece is the reason each bottleneck exists.
Bowe's Project Tachyon is tackling this by working on recursive proofs, in which one proof attests to the validity of thousands of others, dramatically reducing the amount of data that must be checked at consensus.
Under Tachyon, a node verifies a single proof instead of the thousands, which the team says reduces the requirement for consensus data from 100 megabytes per second to 500 megabytes, a level they claim is technically achievable with careful engineering.
Wallet bottlenecks and Valar’s PIR solutionWallets have a different problem. Because Zcash hides who a transaction is for, a wallet cannot ask a server which transactions belong to it without giving itself away. It pulls down everything and tests each one, which is why wallet software tops out at about one transaction per second.
To remove that bottleneck, Valar Group is working on private information retrieval techniques that let a wallet fetch its own data from a server without the server learning which entries were requested.
Fast block propagation Fast block propagation means broadcasting newly mined blocks across a blockchain network as quickly as possible. Zakura is a software layer tasked with that.
It has to move new blocks between nodes fast enough for high‑volume proofs and wallet traffic to matter. It ships with an experimental system aimed at delivering every block to every node in under half a second, which is switched off by default for now.
The near‑term test of these ideas arrives in late July. Ironwood, formally NU6.3, activates on mainnet at block 3,428,143, roughly 8 a.m. Eastern on July 28, and Zakura supports it from release.
Bowe said on July 10 that all major organizations are committed to that height, a week later than originally planned, after exchanges and wallet providers requested preparation time.
How Ironwood came into existenceIronwood exists because of a flaw that nearly broke Zcash in June. The so-called shielded pools are the private side of the network, where amounts and participants are hidden, and a zero-knowledge proof stands in as evidence of the math work.
On May 29, Shielded Labs researcher Taylor Hornby found that the proof circuit for Orchard, the newest shielded pool, contained a soundness bug that let an attacker mint counterfeit ZEC with no onchain trace. The flaw had been live since Orchard activated in May 2022.
Developers disabled Orchard through an emergency response completed June 2, then restored it with a corrected circuit via the NU6.2 hard fork at block 3,364,600 on June 3.
The patch could not account for the four years the hole was open. A zero-knowledge proof reveals nothing beyond the fact that it verified, so the chain holds no record of what any Orchard transaction moved, and nobody can prove counterfeit ZEC was never created.
Ironwood is built to settle that. A so-called ‘turnstile’ at the pool's boundary caps what can leave and what can enter, leveraging the fact that ZEC amounts crossing into or out of shielded pools are public even when the transactions inside are not. Sealing Orchard to new deposits leaves the turnstile as the only exit, and any fake coins inside are stuck there.
In simple terms, honest balances can migrate out over time, while counterfeit coins may be prevented from fully exiting and entering into circulated supply. This setting traps any attempted excess supply at the boundary, restoring reliability of the token’s supply.
Zcash buduje novou architekturu node a upgrady Project Tachyon a NU7 s cílem dosáhnout až 50 000 TPS u shielded transakcí. Na testnetu klesla doba bloku ze 75 na 25 sekund a shielded TPS se zdvojnásobilo.
Zcash is swinging for the fences. The privacy-focused blockchain, which currently processes somewhere between 3 and 20 shielded transactions per second, is building toward a future where it can handle 50,000 TPS, putting it in the same conversation as Visa’s payment network. That’s roughly a 2,500x improvement over current capacity.
The ambition is built on a new node architecture and a series of protocol upgrades that collectively aim to make fully private transactions not just possible at scale, but practical.
Project Tachyon and NU7: the engine room The scaling push centers on two key initiatives: Project Tachyon and the NU7 network upgrade. Project Tachyon, led by cryptographer Sean Bowe, targets thousands of TPS for shielded transactions, with estimates suggesting up to 10,000 TPS as a near-term milestone before pushing toward the 50,000 figure.
The NU7 testnet launched on May 22, 2026, and early results are encouraging. Block times dropped from 75 seconds to just 25 seconds, a threefold reduction. Shielded TPS doubled on the testnet compared to previous benchmarks, contributing to what the project describes as a potential 300% increase in transaction speed.
Advertisement
For context, Zcash’s current shielded throughput of 3 to 20 TPS makes it roughly comparable to Bitcoin’s base layer in terms of raw capacity. The difference is that every shielded Zcash transaction uses zk-SNARKs, a form of zero-knowledge cryptography that proves a transaction is valid without revealing sender, receiver, or amount. That privacy comes with heavy computational overhead, which is precisely what these upgrades are designed to reduce.
The improvements build on years of iterative upgrades, including the Sapling and Orchard shielded pools, which progressively reduced the cost and complexity of private transactions. The new node software, a Rust-based rewrite called Zebra, provides the foundation for these protocol-level scaling changes rather than relying on beefier hardware.
Growing adoption, growing pains Zcash’s shielded pool now constitutes around 30% of total supply. The Zcash Foundation also raised $25 million in March 2026, giving the project fresh capital to fund development. That fundraise coincided with the shielded pool growth, suggesting aligned momentum between builder activity and user adoption.
Zcash’s trajectory hit a serious speed bump in early June 2026 when a critical network vulnerability was discovered and patched. ZEC’s price dropped approximately 48% in the aftermath.
What this means for investors The competitive landscape matters here. Monero, Zcash’s primary rival in the privacy coin space, operates on a fundamentally different privacy model with its own scaling constraints. Meanwhile, general-purpose Layer 1s like Solana boast high TPS numbers but offer no native transaction privacy.
The 48% price crash following June’s vulnerability disclosure shows how quickly confidence can erode. Delivering a 300% speed improvement on a testnet is noteworthy. Delivering Visa-scale private transactions on mainnet, without security incidents, is an entirely different challenge.
The shielded pool reaching 30% of total supply is a metric worth watching closely. If that number continues climbing alongside successful mainnet deployments of NU7, it would suggest organic demand for Zcash’s core privacy proposition. If it stalls or reverses, it may indicate that the security scare did lasting damage to user confidence, regardless of how impressive the throughput numbers look on paper.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Michael Saylor odmítá návrh BIP 110 a tvrdí, že by oslabil neutralitu Bitcoinu tím, že by omezil dnes platné transakce. Varuje také před precedentem pro budoucí zásahy do konsenzu.
Bitcoin governance debates are heating up again, and this time Michael Saylor has entered the conversation with a lengthy critique of BIP 110. Rather than focusing on price or market cycles, Saylor argues the proposal could fundamentally change how Bitcoin evolves by introducing consensus rules that restrict currently valid transactions.
His argument isn’t that every inscription or non-financial application deserves protection. Instead, it’s that Bitcoin’s consensus layer shouldn’t be used to decide which legitimate, fee-paying transactions are acceptable.
Saylor Questions Consensus Rule ChangesSourceBIP 110, known as the Reduced Data Temporary Softfork, proposes introducing several temporary consensus restrictions for roughly one year. According to Saylor, the proposal would limit multiple transaction and scripting features while deploying through a modified activation process that lowers the miner signaling threshold compared to previous Bitcoin soft forks.
Although existing UTXOs created before activation would remain unaffected, Saylor argues the proposal would still remove transaction functionality currently considered valid and establish a precedent for restricting future use cases through consensus rather than market forces.
He repeatedly stresses that his criticism targets the proposal itself rather than its authors, acknowledging that supporters are attempting to address genuine concerns around node costs, transaction efficiency, and Bitcoin’s role as sound money.
Neutral Rules Versus Protocol RestrictionsA central theme throughout Saylor’s memo is Bitcoin’s principle of neutrality. According to him, Bitcoin cannot distinguish whether transaction data represents an image, authentication record, financial settlement, proof, contract, or future application. Because of that limitation, he argues consensus rules should remain content-neutral rather than restricting technical structures that may serve multiple legitimate purposes.
Saylor also questions whether BIP 110 sufficiently demonstrates measurable benefits. His memo argues the proposal does not quantify expected improvements in decentralization, node costs, payment fees, or network efficiency before recommending changes to consensus.
Instead, he suggests resource pricing, relay policies, mining policies, pruning, and Layer-2 development remain more appropriate mechanisms for managing network resource consumption without modifying Bitcoin’s base consensus rules.
Governance Debate Takes Center StageThe memo also raises concerns over BIP 110’s proposed deployment process, particularly its lower signaling threshold and temporary consensus rules.
Michael Saylor argues protocol changes should emerge only through overwhelming agreement among developers, miners, node operators, exchanges, businesses, custodians, and holders. He warns that using consensus to discourage one category of valid transactions today could create governance precedents for restricting other applications in the future.
Ultimately, Loading profile preview concludes that Bitcoin’s long-term strength comes from neutral rules, permissionless innovation, and broad consensus rather than defining acceptable transaction purposes through protocol changes.
Story Ends Here
Trust with CoinPedia:CoinPedia has been delivering accurate and timely cryptocurrency and blockchain updates since 2017. All content is created by our expert panel of analysts and journalists, following strict Editorial Guidelines based on E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Every article is fact-checked against reputable sources to ensure accuracy, transparency, and reliability. Our review policy guarantees unbiased evaluations when recommending exchanges, platforms, or tools. We strive to provide timely updates about everything crypto & blockchain, right from startups to industry majors.
Investment Disclaimer:All opinions and insights shared represent the author's own views on current market conditions. Please do your own research before making investment decisions. Neither the writer nor the publication assumes responsibility for your financial choices.
Sponsored and Advertisements:Sponsored content and affiliate links may appear on our site. Advertisements are marked clearly, and our editorial content remains entirely independent from our ad partners.
Tokenized gold has reached a significant milestone on the XRP Ledger, exceeding $1 million in total trading volume. This development strengthens the XRP Ledger’s position within the rapidly expanding real-world asset (RWA) ecosystem.
XAUa surpasses $1 million in trading volumeTrensik, a platform that monitors verified tokenized real-world assets on the XRP Ledger, reported that the cumulative trading volume of tokenized gold (XAUa) has now surpassed $1 million. While this figure remains small relative to the broader global gold market, it marks growing demand for blockchain-based commodities and rising confidence in tokenized assets on the network.
Unlike traditional gold markets, XAUa allows trading around the clock and enables settlements in seconds directly on-chain. This structure provides investors with continuous access to a digital asset fully backed by physical gold, leveraging the transparency and efficiency of blockchain technology.
With XAUa’s real-world gold backing and 24/7 trading, investors gain faster settlement, global accessibility, and transparent ownership—characteristics often absent in legacy gold markets.
Mini dictionary: Trensik, a platform that tracks verified tokenized real-world assets issued and settled on the XRP Ledger, provides analytics and transparency to monitor the adoption and usage of on-chain assets.
XRPL’s expanding RWA and institutional adoptionThe XRP Ledger is designed as an open-source blockchain with features tailored to the tokenization and transfer of digital assets, including commodities, stablecoins, government bonds, and real estate. Its reputation for low transaction costs, near-instant settlements, and built-in tokenization tools has attracted a variety of projects seeking to bring traditional assets onto blockchain rails.
Tokenized gold, such as XAUa, offers an alternative to direct bullion ownership by removing barriers including custodial costs, transportation, and delayed settlements. Holders access proof-backed tokens intended to be redeemable for physical gold, and these tokens can move globally within seconds.
Recent data shows momentum is growing across the XRP Ledger on multiple fronts. The network has surpassed 8 million registered accounts, indicating greater adoption among retail and institutional participants alike.
MetricRecent ValueSignificanceXAUa trading volume$1 millionTarget reached for tokenized goldXRPL accounts8 million+Network adoption milestoneWhale accumulation70 million XRPIndicator of rising investor confidenceLarge holders, often referred to as whales, have accumulated more than 70 million XRP tokens in the latest period—highlighting optimistic sentiment regarding the ledger’s future development and use cases.
Growing enterprise integrationIn addition to retail growth, the network is seeing progress in enterprise adoption. Made in USA Inc., a supply chain and product authentication platform, has recently acquired a comprehensive XRP Ledger infrastructure stack. This move will support its blockchain-based product verification services, as companies increasingly leverage the ledger for use cases extending beyond payments and simple value transfers.
Industry participants view the $1 million milestone for tokenized gold as a meaningful step for commodity-based assets on XRP Ledger, rather than an endpoint. Combined with sustained increases in account numbers, heightened whale holdings, and expanded institutional engagement, evidence suggests XRP Ledger is solidifying its reputation as a preferred blockchain for RWA tokenization.
With continuous growth across trading volume, account numbers, and enterprise participation, the XRP Ledger is building its presence as a core network for real-world asset infrastructure.
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.
XRP Ledger schválil upgrade FixCleanup3_2_0 s podporou 85,71 % validátorů; aktivace na mainnetu je plánována na 29. července. Počet účtů na síti zároveň poprvé přesáhl 8 milionů.
The XRP Ledger is preparing for a significant upgrade with the FixCleanup3_2_0 amendment set for mainnet activation in less than two weeks. A consensus of 85.71% was reached for this amendment, with 30 validators voting in favor, triggering the start of a two-week activation period.
Details of the FixCleanup3_2_0 UpgradeThe FixCleanup3_2_0 amendment introduces a range of technical improvements to the XRP Ledger protocol. These adjustments address issues related to Single Asset Vaults, the Lending Protocol, the permissioned decentralized exchange (DEX), Multi-Purpose Tokens, and permissioned domains. Precision and rounding fixes have been integrated for Single Asset Vaults and the Lending Protocol to enhance reliability in these services.
A correction was added to resolve an issue with the ‘ValidPermissionedDEX’ invariant, which previously activated during the deletion of a valid offer. The upgrade also introduces validation checks for non-canonical Multi-Purpose Token amounts and implements a zero DomainID check to strengthen permissioned domain security.
One major feature of this upgrade is the addition of the invariant AccountRootsDeletedClean, ensuring no directly accessible artifacts remain when an account is deleted. This amendment is part of Version 3.2.0 of xrpld, the reference implementation server for the XRP Ledger protocol. This version was released in mid-June, targeting improved network stability and reducing operational risks for institutions and users.
Mini dictionary: xrpld, the core reference implementation software for running XRP Ledger servers, is maintained by Ripple and supports validating, participating, and relaying transactions on the network.
Mainnet Upgrade TimelineBased on data from XRPScan, the FixCleanup3_2_0 upgrade is scheduled for activation on July 29, 2026, at 09:57:00 AM UTC. The timeline reflects the amendment’s standard two-week consensus period after majority approval.
XRP Ledger Ecosystem GrowthAlongside the upcoming software upgrade, the XRP Ledger reached a notable milestone this week, with the number of accounts surpassing 8 million. Popular XRP explorer XRPL Services reported an account count of 8,005,586, highlighting sustained growth in network adoption.
XRP Ledger accounts exceeded 8 million for the first time, signaling ongoing interest and activity in the ecosystem, as reported by XRPL Services.
Swell 2026 Event and Industry ParticipationMomentum around XRP continues to grow this year, with major developments planned for the fall. The annual Swell conference, organized by Ripple, will convene in New York City in 2026. The event brings together builders, financial leaders, and the broader XRP community for discussions on trends and future developments in blockchain technology.
Expected speakers at Swell 2026 include Tom Farley, Chairman and CEO of Bullish, a digital asset exchange; Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple, the technology company behind the XRP Ledger; Billy Hult, CEO of Tradeweb; Monica Long, President at Ripple; and David Schwartz, CTO Emeritus at Ripple.
Ripple’s x402 Foundation InitiativeRipple announced its new role as a Premier Member of the x402 Foundation. This non-profit foundation focuses on developing technology standards and infrastructure for enabling agentic payments. Ripple’s participation will support further development of tools for developers who implement the x402 protocol, facilitating transactions in both XRP and RLUSD.
Mini dictionary: The x402 Foundation is dedicated to fostering open standards for agentic payments, allowing digital agents to autonomously transact using digital assets like XRP and RLUSD without human intervention.
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.
CryptoQuant uvedl, že páka na XRP na Binance se výrazně pročistila a ELR klesl na 0,16, což připomíná strukturu trhu před prudkým růstem v roce 2024. XRP je zároveň asi 70 % pod maximem.
CryptoQuant, a cryptocurrency analysis platform, reported a significant decrease in leveraged positions in the XRP market, noting that the current outlook resembles the market structure that formed before the major price rally in 2024.
According to CryptoQuant analysts, XRP is undergoing a new delegitimization process on Binance. This trend is being tracked through the estimated leverage ratio (ELR), which measures the ratio of leveraged positions in the futures market to the exchange’s XRP reserves.
According to the data, XRP’s ELR level on Binance has fallen to 0.16. This is one of the lowest levels recorded since November 2024 and is approaching the low of 0.15 seen in April 2026. This decline occurs during a period when XRP’s price has corrected by approximately 70 percent from its peak.
The main reason for the decline in ELR was stated to be the decrease in futures positions. The liquidation of some leveraged positions during the price correction led to a decrease in the amount of open interest and a decline in the total leverage level in the market.
CryptoQuant argues that this leverage cleanup is important for the ongoing correction process. According to the analysis, excessive leverage accumulated in the market makes price movements more fragile and unpredictable, while clearing positions can help the market settle on a more stable footing.
A similar process occurred in the XRP market in 2024. While XRP was trading sideways around $0.40, the estimated leverage ratio (ELR) had fallen to 0.05. After the clearance of leveraged positions, the XRP price rose by more than 790%, and the ELR level increased again as leverage re-entered the market during the price rally.
Analysts added that the current market structure does not guarantee a new surge of the same magnitude in XRP. However, it was stated that following the delegitimization cycle is important for investors to evaluate market conditions and potential positioning opportunities.
*This is not investment advice.
Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!
Kraken spustil nové opční kontrakty na Bitcoin (BTC) a Ethereum (ETH) pro profesionální a institucionální klienty. Jde o evropské, cash-settled opce denominované v USD.
Kraken, a cryptocurrency exchange that also offers stock trading, has introduced a fresh lineup of options contracts on Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH). This move aims to make sophisticated derivatives trading available to a broader group of professional and institutional investors as the crypto market matures.
The platform is rolling out European-style, cash-settled options that are linear and denominated in USD.
These contracts provide direct exposure to the underlying assets in a format familiar to traditional finance professionals.
At launch, traders can access weekly, monthly, quarterly, and semi-annual expirations through a request-for-quote (RFQ) system on Kraken Pro.
This initiative addresses a key gap in the crypto derivatives landscape. While options represent only a modest portion of overall crypto trading volume today, they dominate activity in conventional markets.
Kraken anticipates that institutional capital flowing into digital assets will drive options usage closer to traditional levels, and the new products are built to capture that growth.
The contracts use a straightforward linear structure, with premiums, profits, losses, and final settlements all handled in U.S. dollars.
Portfolio margining comes enabled by default for qualifying clients, allowing offsetting positions across spot, futures, and options to lower overall margin needs.
All assets reside in one unified wallet, and participants can collateralize positions with more than 30 different currencies, leveraging Kraken’s established multi-collateral framework.
Minimum order sizes start at 0.01 contracts for BTC/USD and 0.1 for ETH/USD, with tick sizes of $1 and $0.10 respectively.
Settlement relies on a 30-minute observation window prior to 8 UTC. Fees follow Kraken’s standard derivatives schedule, based on notional value but capped at 12.5% of the premium.
Alexia Theodorou, Director of Derivatives at Kraken, highlighted the strategic intent: the existing crypto options market has largely catered to a niche group of crypto-native participants.
By contrast, Kraken’s dollar-settled design aligns with what institutional players already understand and use alongside their spot and futures activity in a single account.
The launch marks the opening chapter of a multi-phase expansion.
Initial availability is limited to eligible professional and institutional clients via RFQ. European access is slated for the second half of 2026, pending regulatory approvals.
Subsequent updates will likely introduce a public order book to enhance liquidity and price discovery, along with additional assets and wider geographic reach.
Options serve as vital tools for expressing views on price direction, volatility, and time decay.
Integrating them into Kraken Pro creates a comprehensive derivatives suite where clients can manage risk and take directional positions efficiently within one ecosystem.
This development reflects Kraken’s commitment to building institutional-grade infrastructure.
By combining familiar contract mechanics with robust margining and multi-currency collateral, the exchange positions itself to support the next wave of professional participation in crypto derivatives. As the market evolves in 2026, products like these could help bridge the divide between crypto and traditional finance, offering sophisticated hedging and speculative opportunities in a regulatedenvironment.
Ethereum po Dencunu ztratilo deflační „ultrasound money“ efekt: aktivita se přesunula na L2 a denní burn klesl až na 50 až 70 ETH. Síť je tak za běžných podmínek mírně inflační.
Ethereum’s best marketing line was that using it destroyed it, that every transaction burned ETH and shrank the supply. Then the network solved its scaling problem, activity fled to layer 2s, and the burn collapsed. The scaling worked. The scarcity did not survive it.
Summary
Ethereum’s “ultrasound money” thesis held that EIP-1559 fee burning would outpace new issuance, making ETH deflationary and a superior store of value to Bitcoin. It worked briefly after the 2022 Merge. Then the March 2024 Dencun upgrade moved activity to layer-2 rollups paying near-zero fees, and the daily burn collapsed from thousands of ETH to as low as 50 to 70. ETH has since been mildly inflationary, with net supply growth around 0.2% to 0.8% annually depending on the period, reversing the deflation the thesis promised. The December 2025 Fusaka upgrade added EIP-7918, a blob fee floor designed to restore a minimum burn. Fidelity modeled it would have added roughly $78.6 million in burn across 93% of days since 2024. The deeper tension is unresolved: a cheap, scaled Ethereum burns less than a congested, expensive one, so the network’s success as infrastructure works against its scarcity as an asset. For about eighteen months, Ethereum had the best story in crypto, and the story was a paradox: the more people used the network, the rarer its token became. Every transaction burned a little ETH, and when the network was busy enough, it burned more than it created. Supply went down. The community called it ultrasound money, a deliberate jab at Bitcoin’s “sound money,” complete with a bat emoji and a movement.
For a while, the data backed it up. Then Ethereum did the thing it had promised to do for years, which was to scale, and scaling broke the story. Activity moved to layer-2 networks that pay almost nothing to the base chain, the burn collapsed, and ETH quietly went inflationary again. This is the story of how Ethereum’s greatest technical success dismantled its best economic narrative, and whether a December upgrade can put the pieces back.
What ultrasound money actually meant The mechanism is worth getting exactly right, because the whole debate turns on it.
In August 2021, Ethereum activated EIP-1559, which changed how transaction fees work. Instead of paying miners directly, every transaction now pays a base fee that is burned, permanently removed from circulation. The busier the network, the higher the base fee, and the more ETH destroyed. On its own, that is just a fee-burning mechanism. It became a monetary thesis when Ethereum switched from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake in the September 2022 Merge, which cut new ETH issuance by roughly 90%, because the network no longer had to pay energy-intensive miners.
Put the two together, and you get the ultrasound thesis. Issuance dropped to a trickle after the Merge. Burning continued with every transaction. If burning exceeded issuance, total ETH supply would shrink over time, making the asset deflationary. And a deflationary asset with growing demand should, in theory, appreciate. Ethereum would become harder money than Bitcoin, whose supply still grows, hence “ultrasound.” The tracking site ultrasound.money existed to display exactly this: supply ticking down, day by day.
For a stretch after the Merge, it happened. Supply fell back toward and below the level it sat at during the Merge itself. Burns outpaced issuance. The narrative was not hype; it was, for that window, an accurate description of the data. That is what made it powerful, and what made its reversal so awkward.
NEW: Tom Lee calls Robinhood Chain proof that ETH is money
The chain uses Ethereum as native gas, denominates fees in ETH, and settles on Ethereum L1 while generating volume exceeding many established DEXes pic.twitter.com/Ir2hTsaMiu
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 12, 2026 How scaling broke it The break came from Ethereum solving its most famous problem, and the irony is total.
Ethereum’s scaling strategy is to push transactions off the expensive base layer and onto layer-2 rollups, networks like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base that process transactions cheaply and then post compressed data back to Ethereum for security. The base layer becomes a settlement and data-availability layer; the rollups handle the actual activity. This is the roadmap Ethereum has pursued for years, and it works.
The March 2024 Dencun upgrade was the pivotal moment. It introduced EIP-4844, “blob” transactions, a separate and far cheaper data channel for rollups to post their data. Costs for layer 2s dropped by a factor of 10 to 100. Activity that used to happen on mainnet, paying mainnet fees and burning mainnet ETH, moved to rollups paying blob fees that were, in practice, close to zero because blob space was massively oversupplied relative to demand.
The effect on the burn was immediate and severe. Before Dencun, Ethereum burned thousands of ETH per day during busy periods. After Dencun, daily burn dropped to as low as 50 to 70 ETH. The base layer had lost its primary fee source. With issuance running around 1,700 ETH per day and burn collapsing well below that, the equation flipped: Ethereum began creating more ETH than it destroyed. By various measures across 2025 and into 2026, net annual inflation ran somewhere between roughly 0.2% and 0.8%, depending on the window. ETH supply crossed back above its Merge-era level. The deflation was over.
The mechanism that made ultrasound money true, EIP-1559 burning at scale, had not been removed. It had been bypassed. The activity simply moved to a layer where the burn does not happen in any meaningful amount. Ethereum scaled successfully and, in doing so, severed the link between usage and scarcity that the entire thesis depended on.
The bull case: it still works, just differently The response from Ethereum’s defenders is not denial. It is reframing, and parts of it are genuinely strong.
The first point is that elastic scarcity is the actual feature, not permanent deflation. Ethereum was never designed to deflate forever at a fixed rate. It was designed to burn in proportion to demand, which means it becomes deflationary when the network is busy and mildly inflationary when it is quiet. During periods of high mainnet activity, above roughly 16 gwei average gas, burn still exceeds issuance, and ETH still goes net deflationary, temporarily. The mechanism works exactly as designed; it is just that a scaled network spends more time in the quiet regime. In this reading, ultrasound money was always conditional, and the condition is demand, not a promise.
The second point is that issuance is still radically lower than before. Even mildly inflationary, Ethereum issues roughly 90% less ETH than it did under proof-of-work. Compared to Bitcoin, which currently inflates at around 0.8% annually on a fixed schedule, Ethereum’s roughly 0.2% net inflation in calmer periods is actually lower. Both assets inflate in 2026; Ethereum, by some measures, inflates less. The “harder than Bitcoin” claim survives in a narrow, technical form even without net deflation.
The third point is that the supply figure overstates the sell pressure. Roughly 28% to 30% of all ETH is locked in staking, earning yield and not circulating. The tradeable float, ETH actually available on exchanges, is meaningfully smaller than the headline supply number, and it shrinks as more ETH is staked. A modestly inflating total supply with a large and growing staked portion is a very different pressure than the raw inflation number suggests. Demand from ETFs, treasury companies, and staking can absorb 0.2% inflation without difficulty.
NEW: Ethereum ETFs see 58 million dollars in net inflows on July 14
Fresh capital flowed into spot Ethereum ETFs during the latest session pic.twitter.com/V3vb5Y7x39
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 16, 2026 And the fourth point is simply that the store-of-value case never rested on deflation alone. As long as demand for Ethereum’s blockspace, its role as settlement for stablecoins, tokenization, and DeFi, grows faster than supply, price can rise regardless of whether supply ticks up 0.2% a year. Scarcity was a nice story. Utility is the real thesis.
The bear case: the narrative was load-bearing The skeptical reading is that the ultrasound story was not just marketing, that it was doing real work in the investment case, and that losing it matters more than the reframing admits.
The blunt version comes from the on-chain data and the people watching it leave. Daily network fee revenue on Ethereum fell from near $40 million in early 2025 to a local low around $10 million in 2026. That is not just a burn problem; it is a value-accrual problem. If the base layer captures little fee revenue because activity happens on rollups that pay it almost nothing, then holding ETH is a bet on an asset whose own network is monetizing its users poorly. Some analyses have tied this directly to developer attrition and reduced whale support, framing the end of ultrasound money as the end of a period when ETH had a clean, quantifiable reason to appreciate.
The deeper problem is structural and hard to argue away: a scaled, efficient Ethereum is less deflationary than a congested, expensive one. This is the tension at the center of the whole debate. The very thing that makes Ethereum better as infrastructure, cheap transactions, more capacity, activity on fast rollups, is the thing that reduces the burn. Ethereum cannot simultaneously be the cheap, high-throughput settlement layer it wants to be and the fee-burning deflationary asset the ultrasound thesis needed. Those are in direct conflict, and the roadmap chose scaling. The asset thesis was, in a real sense, sacrificed to the technology roadmap.
Then there is the value-capture question that rollups sharpen. Layer 2s use Ethereum for security and pay it a pittance for the privilege. Robinhood’s own chain is an example: analyses of corporate L2s show the base layer capturing a rounding error of the economics while providing the security that makes the whole arrangement credible. If Ethereum’s future is thousands of rollups settling to it cheaply, then Ethereum is providing enormous value and capturing little of it, and no amount of narrative reframing fixes a value-capture problem that lives in the fee structure.
The fix nobody is talking about Which brings us to December 2025, and the upgrade that was designed, in part, to address exactly this, and that most of the market ignored.
The Fusaka upgrade activated on December 3, 2025. Its headline features were about scaling further, PeerDAS and expanded blob capacity. But buried in it was EIP-7918, the “blob base fee bound,” which is the most direct attempt yet to repair the burn. The problem Dencun created was that blob fees could collapse to near-zero, one wei, when execution costs dominated and blob demand was soft, which meant rollups consumed Ethereum’s capacity almost for free and burned almost nothing. EIP-7918 sets a floor: it ties the minimum blob fee to the execution base fee, roughly the execution base fee divided by 16, so that even in quiet periods rollups pay a meaningful minimum, and a minimum stream of ETH gets burned.
The modeling is striking. Fidelity Digital Assets analyzed what would have happened if EIP-7918 had been active since blobs launched, and found that on 93% of days since the 2024 Dencun upgrade, the adjusted fee would have exceeded the actual fee, generating an estimated additional $78.6 million, roughly 24,641 ETH, in cumulative blob-fee revenue. Blockworks noted that had the mechanism been introduced in June 2025, burnt blob fees would have been nearly 8x higher. The intent is explicit: restore a floor under the burn so that as stablecoins, DeFi, and tokenization migrate to rollups, ETH still captures value from that activity instead of subsidizing it.
The honest caveat is that this is a floor, not a restoration. EIP-7918 prevents the burn from collapsing to zero; it does not recreate the thousands-of-ETH-per-day burn of the congested mainnet era. Whether it produces measurable, sustained deflation depends on how much activity flows through blobs and how high execution base fees run, and the market is still watching. It is a serious, well-designed attempt to reconnect usage and scarcity. It is not a return to 2022.
Sound money versus ultrasound money, honestly compared Because the entire thesis was built as a shot at Bitcoin, it is worth putting the two monetary models side by side without the tribalism, since the comparison is more interesting than either camp admits.
Bitcoin offers fixed scarcity. The supply schedule is written into the protocol, capped at 21 million coins, and halves on a predictable timetable roughly every four years. A holder knows today, with certainty, what Bitcoin’s issuance will be in 2030 and 2040. That certainty is the entire product. Bitcoin does not react to demand, does not burn, does not adjust; it simply issues on schedule toward a hard cap, and its current inflation runs around 0.8% annually, trending toward zero over decades. The trade-off Bitcoin holders accept is that the base layer offers little native utility and no yield. You hold it for the certainty, and you give up productivity in exchange.
Ethereum offered, and to a degree still offers, elastic scarcity. Supply responds to network demand: high usage burns more and can push ETH net deflationary; low usage burns less and lets mild inflation through. The appeal was a token that becomes scarcer precisely when it is most used, tying the asset’s scarcity to the network’s success. The trade-off, which the L2 era exposed, is that elasticity cuts both ways.
A demand-responsive supply is only deflationary when demand is high on the layer that burns, and Ethereum deliberately moved demand to layers that do not burn. Bitcoin’s rigidity, often criticized as inflexible, turned out to be the thing that made its monetary promise keepable. Ethereum’s flexibility, often praised as sophisticated, turned out to be the thing that made its monetary promise conditional.
The honest scorecard is that these are different products for different buyers, not better and worse versions of the same thing. Bitcoin sells certainty and asks you to forgo utility. Ethereum sells utility and asks you to accept that its scarcity depends on how that utility is used. The ultrasound-money era was the brief window when Ethereum appeared to offer both, certainty of deflation and utility of a working network, and that window closed not because Ethereum failed but because it succeeded at scaling.
A holder choosing between them in 2026 is really choosing between guaranteed scarcity with no yield and demand-driven scarcity with staking yield and network utility. Framed that way, the loss of ultrasound money is less a defeat than a clarification: Ethereum was never going to be Bitcoin, and the burn was hiding how different the two bets actually are.
What this means for holding ETH Strip away the narrative fight and the practical question is whether the ultrasound story mattered to the price, and the uncomfortable answer is that it is hard to tell, because ETH has underperformed through the entire period regardless.
The clean way to see it: the ultrasound thesis was strongest right after the Merge, and it has been dismantled steadily since Dencun in March 2024. Over that same window, ETH has been a persistent underperformer against both Bitcoin and its own former highs. Either the market was pricing the loss of the deflation narrative, or the market never cared about the narrative and ETH’s problems lie elsewhere, in L2 value leakage, in competition from Solana, in the sheer difficulty of the modular roadmap. Both readings are defensible, and they point to different conclusions about whether fixing the burn fixes the price.
The most honest framing is that ultrasound money was a proxy for a real question that has not gone away: does Ethereum capture value from its own success? When the network was congested and expensive, the answer was visibly yes; the burn made it legible. When the network scaled and cheapened, the answer became murky, and the burn stopped telling the story. EIP-7918 is an attempt to make the answer legible again by putting a floor under value capture.
Whether it works will show up not in the marketing but in two numbers over the next year: net ETH supply, and base-layer fee revenue. If both turn up meaningfully, the thesis has a second life. If they do not, then ultrasound money was a phase, not a property, and Ethereum’s investment case has to stand on utility alone, which is a harder, slower, less tweetable argument than the one that shrank the supply.
Frequently Asked Questions What is Ethereum ultrasound money? It is the thesis that Ethereum’s ETH token would become deflationary and a superior store of value to Bitcoin. It rests on two mechanisms: EIP-1559, activated in 2021, which burns a portion of every transaction fee, and the 2022 Merge, which cut new ETH issuance by roughly 90%. When burning exceeds issuance, total supply shrinks. The term was a play on Bitcoin’s “sound money” branding.
Is Ethereum still deflationary in 2026? Not on a net basis, in normal conditions. After the March 2024 Dencun upgrade shifted activity to cheap layer-2 rollups, the burn collapsed, and ETH became mildly inflationary, with net supply growth around 0.2% to 0.8% annually depending on the period. During bursts of high mainnet activity, it can still turn temporarily deflationary, but the sustained deflation of the immediate post-Merge period ended.
Why did layer 2s break the burn? Because they moved activity off the base layer, where transactions burned meaningful ETH, onto rollups that pay near-zero fees. The Dencun upgrade introduced cheap “blob” transactions for rollups, cutting their costs 10 to 100 times. Blob space was oversupplied, so blob fees fell close to zero, and the daily burn dropped from thousands of ETH to as low as 50 to 70. The activity continued; the burn did not follow it.
Does this mean ETH is a worse investment? Not necessarily, and defenders make several counterpoints: issuance is still about 90% lower than under proof-of-work, roughly 0.2% net inflation in calm periods is actually below Bitcoin’s, nearly a third of ETH is locked in staking and off the market, and the real case rests on demand for blockspace rather than deflation. Critics counter that base-layer fee revenue collapsed too, raising a genuine value-capture problem.
What is EIP-7918? A change introduced in Ethereum’s December 2025 Fusaka upgrade that sets a minimum price for blob transactions, tied to the execution base fee, roughly that fee divided by 16. It prevents blob fees from collapsing to near-zero during quiet periods, ensuring a minimum stream of ETH is burned. Fidelity modeled that it would have added roughly $78.6 million in cumulative burn across 93% of days since 2024 had it existed earlier.
Did Fusaka restore ultrasound money? No, it put a floor under the burn rather than restoring the deflation of the post-Merge era. EIP-7918 stops the burn from collapsing to zero and improves value capture as activity migrates to rollups, but it does not recreate the thousands-of-ETH-per-day burn of the congested mainnet period. Whether it produces sustained net deflation depends on blob activity and execution fees, and remains to be seen.
Is Ethereum still harder money than Bitcoin? In a narrow technical sense, sometimes. In calm periods, Ethereum’s roughly 0.2% net inflation can run below Bitcoin’s roughly 0.8% fixed-schedule inflation. But Bitcoin offers predictable, protocol-guaranteed scarcity indefinitely, while Ethereum’s supply is elastic and responds to demand, so it can inflate more during quiet, scaled periods. They offer different kinds of scarcity: fixed and certain versus elastic and demand-driven.
What should I watch to know if the thesis recovers? Two numbers over the next year: net ETH supply growth, and Ethereum base-layer fee revenue. If EIP-7918 and rising rollup activity push net supply back toward flat or negative while base-layer revenue climbs from its roughly $10 million lows, the value-capture story recovers. If supply keeps growing and fee revenue stays depressed, ultrasound money was a temporary phase, and ETH’s case rests on utility and demand alone.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. It describes monetary mechanics and network upgrades whose effects are uncertain and still developing. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Always do your own research. Figures on supply, burn, and inflation move continuously and are accurate as of July 17, 2026.
Bitmine Immersion Technologies drží 5,54 až 5,77 milionu ETH a je asi 507 000 ETH od cíle vlastnit 5 % celé obíhající nabídky Ethereum. Společnost plánuje tempo nákupů zpomalit, jak se k této hranici blíží.
Bitmine Immersion Technologies is within striking distance of a goal that sounded almost absurd when it was first announced: owning 5% of all circulating Ethereum. The NYSE-listed company (ticker: BMNR) currently holds between 5.54 million and 5.77 million ETH, representing approximately 4.59% to 4.78% of the estimated 120.7 million ETH in circulation. That leaves roughly 507,000 ETH between Bitmine and its target of 6.035 million ETH.
From Bitcoin mining to Ethereum treasury Bitmine’s journey here is one of the more dramatic corporate pivots in recent crypto history. The company originally focused on Bitcoin mining, and at some point leadership decided the better play was accumulating ETH as a primary reserve asset rather than mining BTC.
Chairman Tom Lee has been the architect of what the company calls the “alchemy of 5%.” The underlying strategy is straightforward: buy a lot of Ethereum, then buy more, then stake it for yield while continuing to buy.
Advertisement
The company’s total crypto and cash holdings now sit between $9.6 billion and $11.3 billion. Bitmine’s stock has become one of the most actively traded equities in the US market, with daily volumes reaching into the hundreds of millions and sometimes billions of shares.
The institutional backing tells a story The company has attracted institutional backing from ARK Invest, led by Cathie Wood, alongside Founders Fund and Pantera Capital.
Staking as an income engine In 2026, the company launched its Made-in-America Validator Network, or MAVAN, a staking infrastructure designed to generate yield on its holdings. The reported 7-day staking yield sits at 2.99%, which on a base of roughly 5.5 million ETH translates to a meaningful income stream.
What this means for investors and the ETH market Chairman Tom Lee has indicated that Bitmine plans to moderate its purchasing pace as it approaches the 5% threshold. For the broader Ethereum market, Bitmine’s accumulation raises questions about supply concentration: when a single corporate entity holds nearly 5% of a network’s circulating supply, a locked-up, staked treasury of that size effectively removes a substantial portion of supply from active circulation. If ETH’s price drops significantly, the staking yield provides some cushion, but 2.99% doesn’t fix a 40% drawdown.
Investors watching BMNR should pay close attention to the pace of remaining purchases, any changes in staking yield as the validator network scales, and whether the institutional backers maintain or increase their positions as Bitmine closes in on its target.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
There is $1.6 trillion in Bitcoin sitting idle, earning nothing, doing nothing. Charles Hoskinson has a plan to put it to work on Cardano, and the plan quietly requires every transaction to burn a little ADA. Whether that saves Cardano or exposes its central problem is the whole question.
Summary
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has laid out a strategy to bring Bitcoin into Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem through a platform called Pogun, targeting the roughly $1.6 trillion in idle Bitcoin. Pogun rolls out in three phases across 2026: a non-margin credit market in the second quarter, a yield application in the third, and a BitVM-based trust-minimized bridge in the fourth. The mechanism that matters for ADA holders: every transaction in the system requires ADA for fees, paid invisibly by Bitcoin users, creating a demand driver that Cardano’s token has lacked. It leans on Midnight, Cardano’s privacy partner chain, for confidential transactions, and on Cardano’s EUTXO architecture, which shares design lineage with Bitcoin’s own UTxO model. The sharp objection, raised by Cardano’s own community: if Bitcoin can be lent, earn yield, and settle without users noticing ADA, why hold ADA at all? The plan may build against its own token. Cardano has a problem it has had for years, and it is not a technology problem. ADA trades around 94% below its 2021 high, the network’s DeFi activity has long lagged its ambitions, and its founder spends a meaningful share of his time denying rumors that he is quitting. What Cardano has never lacked is engineering and ideas.
What it has lacked is a reason for capital to show up. Charles Hoskinson’s answer, laid out across 2026, is audacious: stop trying to attract crypto capital to Cardano and go get Bitcoin’s instead. There is roughly $1.6 trillion in Bitcoin sitting idle in wallets, earning nothing, and Hoskinson wants to route a slice of it through Cardano’s infrastructure, with every transaction quietly paying fees in ADA. It is the most concrete demand thesis Cardano has produced in years. It also contains a contradiction its own community has already spotted.
The idle-Bitcoin thesis The premise starts with a real and large number. Something on the order of $1.6 trillion in Bitcoin sits in wallets doing nothing productive. Bitcoin is superb as a store of value and poor as a financial instrument: it does not natively lend, earn yield, or plug into decentralized finance without wrapping, bridging, or handing custody to an intermediary. That gap, enormous dormant capital with no native way to work, is what every “Bitcoin DeFi” project is chasing, and Hoskinson has decided Cardano should chase it hard.
His framing, delivered publicly in May 2026 and reiterated through the year, is that Bitcoin holders would be able to access lending, yield, and privacy tools through Cardano without surrendering control of their assets. A dedicated team, described at various points as around 19 people, is building it. The pitch to Bitcoin holders is straightforward: keep your Bitcoin, but make it productive, through infrastructure that does not require you to trust a centralized custodian.
The pitch to Cardano holders is different and more important to the ADA investment case. Hoskinson has been explicit that the entire system runs on ADA underneath. In his own words, every single transaction requires ADA to happen; the Bitcoin user pays a fee in ADA but does not see it. The idea is to make ADA the invisible fuel of a Bitcoin-DeFi economy, generating persistent, usage-based demand for the token regardless of whether anyone is speculating on ADA itself. For a token whose central weakness has been the absence of a demand driver, that is the whole game.
What Pogun actually is Pogun is the platform that operationalizes the thesis, and its structure is more concrete than Cardano’s roadmaps usually are.
It rolls out in three phases across 2026. The first, targeted for the second quarter, is a non-margin credit market: lending against Bitcoin without the liquidation-cascade risk that leveraged lending carries. The second, targeted for the third quarter, is a yield-focused application that lets Bitcoin holders earn returns.
The third, targeted for the fourth quarter, is a BitVM-powered bridge, a trust-minimized way to move Bitcoin onto Cardano infrastructure without the custodial risk that has plagued wrapped-Bitcoin products. Input Output Group sought treasury funding for the effort, with figures around 12.3 million ADA cited, as part of a larger proposal slate that also funded the Leios scaling upgrade.
The architecture leans on two Cardano-specific pieces. The first is Midnight, Cardano’s privacy-focused partner chain, which launched its mainnet in early 2026 and serves as the confidential coordination layer, letting Bitcoin holders use DeFi tools without exposing their positions publicly. Hoskinson has framed Midnight as proof of Cardano’s partner-chain model, specialized chains operating alongside the main network while drawing on its security.
The second is Cardano’s EUTXO accounting model, which shares design lineage with Bitcoin’s own UTxO model. That shared lineage is not incidental; it is part of the technical argument that Cardano is a more natural home for Bitcoin DeFi than account-based chains like Ethereum, because the two systems think about transactions in a similar way.
The sequencing is deliberate. The team has described building the credit market and liquidity first, so that by the time the consumer-facing products launch, there is already a functioning market underneath them instead of an empty shell waiting for users.
JUST IN: Cardano enables thousands of onchain signature checks at lower cost
Plutus smart contracts can now verify signatures natively using BLS12 381 cryptography pic.twitter.com/9Mqk9B6J9V
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 18, 2026 The bull case The strongest version of this argument is that Cardano has finally identified the right target and built a credible, differentiated way to reach it.
The demand mechanism is genuinely elegant. Cardano’s problem was never capability; it was that ADA had no structural reason to be in demand beyond speculation and staking. Embedding ADA as the mandatory fee layer of a Bitcoin-DeFi economy creates exactly the kind of usage-based demand that speculation cannot provide, and that does not evaporate when sentiment turns. If Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano generates real volume, ADA demand rises mechanically with it, transaction by transaction, whether or not anyone is bullish on ADA as a trade. That is a far healthier demand base than the memecoin-and-narrative cycles driving other chains.
JUST IN: Cardano reduces reliance on creator input output
Key infrastructure will be handed to external teams with community oversight starting in August pic.twitter.com/72NTpukLYb
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 18, 2026 The target is also the right one. Every serious chain is chasing Bitcoin DeFi because the prize, a fraction of $1.6 trillion in dormant capital, is the largest untapped pool in crypto. Cardano bringing brokerage-grade patience, a privacy layer, and UTxO compatibility to that chase is a real differentiator against the wrapped-Bitcoin approaches that have dominated and repeatedly failed on custody and trust. A BitVM bridge that reduces custodial risk addresses the exact failure mode, hacked or insolvent custodians, that has burned wrapped-Bitcoin users before.
And it fits Cardano’s identity rather than betraying it. Cardano’s whole brand is methodical, research-driven, security-first engineering, often criticized as too slow. Bitcoin holders are, as a group, the most conservative and security-conscious in crypto. A careful, peer-reviewed, custody-minimizing approach to Bitcoin DeFi is arguably better matched to Bitcoin holders than the move-fast culture of other DeFi ecosystems. For once, Cardano’s slowness could be a feature aimed at exactly the audience that values it.
The bear case The skeptical case starts with a question a Cardano community member asked Hoskinson directly, and it is devastating in its simplicity: what would be the point of holding ADA over Bitcoin? Are we building against our own core token?
The concern is real and structural. If the system is designed so that Bitcoin users pay fees in ADA without seeing it, then the design goal is explicitly to make ADA invisible. A Bitcoin holder using Pogun holds Bitcoin, earns yield in Bitcoin, and never needs to acquire, hold, or think about ADA. The fees are abstracted away. If ADA is successfully hidden from the user, then ADA is a backend utility token that the end user has no reason to hold as an investment, which means the demand is limited to whatever float the protocols need to operate, not the broad holder demand that supports a token’s price.
Making ADA the invisible plumbing is good for usage and potentially bad for ADA as an asset people want to own. Hoskinson’s answer, that transactions require ADA regardless, addresses mechanical demand but not the deeper question of why anyone holds ADA rather than the Bitcoin it is helping to mobilize.
The second problem is execution and timeline. Cardano has a long history of ambitious roadmaps that arrive late or underdeliver relative to the promise. Pogun’s phases are targeted across 2026, and Cardano’s governance has been visibly deadlocked, with treasury votes for exactly this kind of initiative facing friction and Hoskinson warning that rejecting research funding could drive engineers away. A plan that depends on multiple new components, Midnight, the BitVM bridge, the credit and yield layers, all shipping and integrating on schedule, is a plan with substantial execution risk in an ecosystem that has struggled to convert roadmap into adoption before.
The third problem is competition. Cardano is not alone in chasing Bitcoin DeFi; it is late to a crowded race. Bitcoin layer-2s, wrapped-Bitcoin protocols on Ethereum, and Bitcoin-native DeFi efforts are all pursuing the same idle capital, several with more liquidity, more developers, and more existing integrations than Cardano has managed to attract. Cardano’s DeFi TVL has sat around $1.1 billion at times, a fraction of Ethereum’s or Solana’s, which raises the question of why Bitcoin holders would route their capital through the ecosystem that has struggled most to attract capital in the first place. Being a natural technical home for Bitcoin DeFi does not help if the liquidity and developers are elsewhere.
LATEST: Bitcoin is heading natively to Cardano. The Cardinal protocol aims to wrap BTC UTXOs into Cardano native assets with a one-to-one peg, unlocking liquidity for Cardano DeFi without custodians pic.twitter.com/hEhZzGzefV
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) April 28, 2026 The token question at the center Everything about this plan comes back to one unresolved tension, and it is worth stating plainly because it is the crux of whether Pogun helps ADA or merely helps Bitcoin.
Cardano is trying to solve its demand problem by making ADA essential but invisible. Those two properties are in tension. Essential means every transaction needs ADA, which creates mechanical demand proportional to usage. Invisible means users never consciously hold or value ADA, which suppresses the discretionary demand that actually drives a token’s price above its pure utility floor. A token that is essential-but-invisible tends to trade at its utility value, the minimum float the system needs to function, rather than at the premium that comes from people wanting to own it. Ethereum resolved this tension by making ETH visible and desirable as an asset in its own right, through staking, through the ultrasound narrative, through being the reserve asset of its own economy. Cardano’s Pogun design points the other way, toward ADA as backend infrastructure.
The optimistic resolution is that sufficient usage makes even utility-value demand large. If Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano processes enormous volume, the mechanical ADA demand could be substantial even if no one holds ADA for love of it. The pessimistic resolution is that Cardano will have built a successful piece of Bitcoin infrastructure whose value accrues to Bitcoin holders and Pogun’s operators, while ADA captures only the thin utility margin, which is not the outcome ADA holders are hoping for when they cheer a Bitcoin-DeFi announcement.
Which resolution wins depends on numbers that do not exist yet, because the products are still launching. The second-quarter credit market and third-quarter yield app are the first real tests. If they generate meaningful Bitcoin volume and ADA demand rises visibly with it, the thesis has legs. If they launch quietly into the same low-liquidity environment that has characterized Cardano DeFi, then Pogun becomes another well-engineered Cardano initiative that did not move the token, and the community member’s question, why hold ADA over Bitcoin, will have answered itself.
Why Cardano needs this to work To understand why Hoskinson is betting so heavily on Bitcoin DeFi, you have to understand how much pressure Cardano is under, because Pogun is not an opportunistic add-on. It is a response to an existential question the market keeps asking.
The pressure is visible in the numbers and the noise around them. ADA trades roughly 94% below its 2021 high, deep in the ranks of large-cap tokens that led the previous cycle and never recovered. Cardano’s DeFi total value locked, around $1.1 billion at times, is a fraction of Ethereum’s or Solana’s despite Cardano having been live since 2017 and commanding one of the most committed communities in crypto. Hoskinson has spent 2026 denying rumors that he is leaving the project and calling them fiction, which is not a thing founders of thriving networks typically have to do. And the governance apparatus, the CIP-1694 on-chain system Cardano is genuinely proud of, has been deadlocked over treasury proposals, with Hoskinson warning that rejecting research funding could push engineers out.
Underneath all of it is a criticism Hoskinson himself has accepted in his own framing: Cardano’s problem is not technology. He has said explicitly that it is not a node problem, not a problem of imagination, not a problem of execution capability, but a problem of governance, coordination, and ultimately getting capital and users to show up. That is a striking admission from a founder, and it reframes Pogun. Bitcoin DeFi is not just a product; it is Hoskinson’s answer to the accusation that Cardano builds impressive technology that nobody uses. If he can route Bitcoin’s enormous, idle capital base through Cardano, he solves the adoption problem and the demand problem at once, and he does it without needing to win the crypto-native DeFi users who have consistently chosen other chains.
That is why the stakes are higher than a normal roadmap item. Cardano has tried narratives before: smart contracts, then DeFi, then real-world assets, and none produced the adoption inflection the community keeps waiting for. Bitcoin DeFi is the biggest swing yet, aimed at the biggest target, and it arrives at a moment when patience with the slow-and-steady thesis is visibly thinning. If Pogun works, it vindicates the entire methodical approach. If it lands quietly like its predecessors, it will be much harder to argue that the next initiative will be different. Hoskinson has effectively staked the credibility of Cardano’s whole strategy on reaching an audience that has never been Cardano’s, which is either the boldest possible move or a sign of how few options remain.
What to watch Three concrete markers will tell you which way this breaks.
The first is whether the Pogun phases actually ship on their 2026 timeline. The credit market was targeted for the second quarter and the yield app for the third; slippage on those dates, in an ecosystem already criticized for slow delivery, would be an early negative signal. Shipping on time, with working products, would be a genuine and somewhat unexpected positive given Cardano’s track record.
The second is Bitcoin volume through the system, not ADA price. The entire thesis rests on attracting idle Bitcoin, so the metric that matters is how much Bitcoin actually flows into Pogun’s credit and yield products once they are live. ADA price will be noisy and driven by the broader market; Bitcoin TVL on Cardano is the clean read on whether the idle-Bitcoin thesis is working.
The third is whether ADA demand becomes visible in the data as usage grows. This is the crux question made measurable. If Bitcoin volume rises and on-chain ADA demand rises with it in a legible way, the essential-and-invisible design is working as a demand driver. If Bitcoin volume rises and ADA does nothing, then the community’s fear was correct, and Cardano will have built valuable infrastructure for someone else’s asset. Hoskinson has made the boldest, most concrete bet of Cardano’s recent history. The next two quarters start to settle whether it was aimed at the right target or against his own token.
Frequently Asked Questions What is Cardano’s Bitcoin DeFi plan? It is a strategy, led by founder Charles Hoskinson, to bring Bitcoin into Cardano’s DeFi ecosystem and tap the roughly $1.6 trillion in idle Bitcoin. The centerpiece is Pogun, a platform letting Bitcoin holders lend, borrow, and earn yield through Cardano infrastructure without surrendering custody. Crucially, every transaction in the system requires ADA for fees, creating usage-based demand for Cardano’s token.
What is Pogun? A three-phase Bitcoin DeFi platform rolling out across 2026: a non-margin credit market in the second quarter, a yield-focused application in the third, and a BitVM-based trust-minimized bridge in the fourth. It integrates Midnight, Cardano’s privacy partner chain, for confidential transactions, and builds on Cardano’s EUTXO architecture, which shares design lineage with Bitcoin’s UTxO model. Input Output Group sought around 12.3 million ADA in treasury funding for it.
How does this benefit ADA holders? Through embedded demand. Hoskinson has stated that every transaction in the system requires ADA for fees, paid by Bitcoin users who may not even notice. If Bitcoin DeFi on Cardano generates real volume, ADA demand rises mechanically with it, independent of speculation. For a token whose main weakness has been the lack of a structural demand driver, that is the core of the investment argument.
What is the main criticism? That the design makes ADA essential but invisible, which are properties in tension. If Bitcoin users pay fees in ADA without seeing it, they have no reason to hold ADA as an investment, so demand may stay limited to the minimum the protocols need instead of the broad holder demand that lifts a token’s price. A community member asked Hoskinson directly what the point of holding ADA over Bitcoin would be, capturing the concern that Cardano may be building against its own token.
How is this different from wrapped Bitcoin? Wrapped Bitcoin typically requires trusting a custodian to hold the underlying Bitcoin, a model that has failed through hacks and insolvencies. Pogun’s fourth phase is a BitVM-based bridge designed to be trust-minimized, reducing reliance on a custodian. Combined with Cardano’s UTxO compatibility with Bitcoin and the Midnight privacy layer, the pitch is a more secure, more private way to make Bitcoin productive than existing wrapped approaches.
Why does Cardano think it can win Bitcoin DeFi? Three arguments: its EUTXO architecture shares design lineage with Bitcoin’s UTxO model, making it a technically natural fit; its methodical, security-first culture matches Bitcoin holders’ conservatism; and its Midnight privacy chain offers confidentiality that Bitcoin holders value. The counterargument is that Cardano is late to a crowded race with lower liquidity and fewer developers than competitors, which may outweigh any technical fit.
When does Pogun launch? Its phases are targeted across 2026: the credit market in the second quarter, the yield application in the third, and the BitVM bridge in the fourth. Given Cardano’s history of ambitious roadmaps arriving later than promised, and ongoing governance friction over treasury funding, whether these dates hold is itself a meaningful signal to watch.
Will this fix ADA’s price? Unknown, and it depends on the essential-versus-invisible tension. If Bitcoin volume through Pogun is large, mechanical ADA demand could be substantial even without holders wanting ADA for its own sake. If volume is modest, or if ADA is so well hidden that demand stays at the minimum float the system needs, the plan could succeed as Bitcoin infrastructure while doing little for ADA as an asset. The next two quarters of launches are the first real test.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. It describes a development roadmap whose components are still launching and whose outcomes are uncertain. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 17, 2026.
Tokenizované akcie emitované společností Binance přidaly za posledních 30 dní přes 300 milionů USD, v čele s SanDisk s 59,4 milionu USD. Na Binance Futures patří jejich objem už mezi nejvyšší po BTC a ETH.
Binance is the largest exchange, with BNB Chain continuing to make major milestones. The chain is following in the footsteps of early issuers of tokenized stocks and is threatening their positions in terms of total cap.
Tokenized stocks issued by Binance are growing bigger and are now key players in the daily volume traded on Binance. Here is why it’s a threat to Securitize, which has the largest market cap of tokenized stocks.
Binance-issued tokenized stocks’ growth outpaces early issuers According to data from Token Terminal, Binance-issued tokenized stocks added the largest capital in the past 30 days, ahead of all early issuers.
In fact, Binance added over $300 million, followed by Securitize, xStocks, and Robinhood at $179 million, $33 million, and $13 million. Those stocks on Ondo Finance [ONDO] saw the largest outflows of $78 million.
Source: Token Terminal There were 7 key stock drivers of this capital growth on Binance, led by SanDisk [SNDKb] at $59.4 million.
SNDKb was followed by Micron [MUb], SpaceX [SPCXb], and Circle [CRCLb] at $58.7 million, $46.3 million, and $42.7 million, respectively. Stocks on Ondo Finance that were trading on Binance were losing their market capitalization.
Source: Token Terminal Additionally, more tokenized stock volume is set to hit the Binance exchange. This is after tokenized Hong Kong equities went live on BNB Chain through Stove Protocol.
That means trading volume on the Binance exchange will continue growing.
How will the volume and price of BNB react? However, that is not the case when looking at the on-chain data.
The daily futures volume that includes these stocks is $41.08 billion from 742 pairs. It is half the highest volume of this year, which was at $89.82 billion. This suggests the tokenized stocks have yet to make a major impact on daily trading volume.
But already these stocks are among the most traded assets on Binance Futures. SNDK, SOXL, MU, SKHY, and SPCX appear on the volume leaderboard with $4.31 billion, $2.51 billion, $1.82 billion, $1.34 billion, and $718 million, respectively.
This high volume from tokenized stocks was only behind that of Bitcoin [BTC] and Ethereum [ETH], which had $8.83 billion and $6.16 billion, respectively. It indicates stocks are becoming a key volume contributor to crypto exchanges.
Source: CoinGlass With the trading volume on Binance having the potential to grow, the price of the native token for the chain could continue to stabilize or grow higher. BNB is up 1.21%, trading at $570 as it moves between $560 and $580 for the better part of July.
Final Summary Binance-issued stocks grow by more than $300 million in the past 30 days as SanDisk stock leads with $59.4 million. The volume of tokenized stocks is among the highest for all assets on Binance Futures, only behind Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Chainlink získává institucionální adopci: Jumper, Glacis Labs i Caliber nasadily CCIP a ACE pro cross-chain převody a tokenizaci nemovitostí. LINK se drží na 8,25 USD.
Chainlink (LINK) is drawing attention in the crypto sector as new institutional partnerships and expanding use cases spark debate over its long-term price trajectory. Despite trading at $8.25 with a daily trading volume of $213.52 million and a market cap of $6.17 billion, LINK faces diverging opinions about its potential for significant price growth.
Institutional adoption strengthens Chainlink’s positionRecent integrations within the Chainlink ecosystem demonstrate heightened interest from major players in the blockchain industry. Chainlink, recognized for its decentralized oracle solutions and bridging services between blockchains and real-world data, has enhanced its network utility through key collaborations and technology rollouts.
Jumper and Glacis Labs have adopted Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) to enable seamless cross-chain transfers. This technical integration underlines Chainlink’s drive to be at the center of blockchain interoperability and the facilitation of tokenized assets.
Mini dictionary: CCIP (Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol), a protocol developed by Chainlink, enables the transfer of data and assets between different blockchain networks, helping decentralized applications operate across multiple chains securely.
In addition, Caliber, a company specializing in real estate investment management, has selected Chainlink’s Automated Compliance Engine (ACE) to support regulatory compliance for real estate tokenization. This move reflects an ongoing trend among institutions to leverage Chainlink for regulatory integration, security, and streamlined asset management on blockchain structures.
Mini dictionary: Automated Compliance Engine (ACE), a compliance solution from Chainlink, automates regulatory checks and controls for tokenized assets, helping businesses integrate compliance mechanisms into their blockchain operations.
Investor debate over price outlookWhile institutional use has grown, crypto analyst OTC Trades identified an ongoing debate among traders regarding LINK’s price prospects. Some argue that current price action, with LINK oscillating near $8.25 and previously peaking around $11, shows diminished volatility and momentum compared to earlier bull markets. Skeptics contend the token’s limited upside may hinder any rapid move towards new record highs unless a strong market catalyst appears.
On the other hand, supporters highlight Chainlink’s core strengths, including increasing adoption of its oracle and cross-chain technologies, consistent ecosystem growth, and the crucial role it plays in real-world asset tokenization. They point to these fundamentals as reasons for sustained or renewed price appreciation, even if gains may develop more gradually than in prior cycles.
Chainlink’s ecosystem has expanded through new integrations such as Jumper, Glacis Labs, and Caliber, cementing its role in driving blockchain interoperability and institutional adoption.
LINK price momentum and future prospectsAfter a period of relative stability, LINK has shown the formation of a bullish reversal in its price structure. As the broader crypto market—led by BTC—starts to turn upward, analysts suggest the positive sentiment could accelerate LINK’s rebound. Investors are now watching whether the surge in CCIP adoption and further institutional partnerships will translate into higher demand for LINK, potentially pushing the price towards key resistance levels.
The sustainability of this momentum will depend on continued advances in network integration and market trends. Whether buyers can retest the $11 range will be shaped by both macro crypto trends and Chainlink’s ongoing ability to secure major partnerships.
MetricCurrentRecent HighLINK Price$8.25$11Trading Volume (24h)$213.52 million–Market Capitalization$6.17 billion–As interest in blockchain interoperability and real-world asset tokenization grows, Chainlink continues to position itself as a key infrastructure provider supporting the evolution of the decentralized ecosystem.
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.
Uniswap spouští hlasování o aktivaci protokolových poplatků pro vybrané v4 pooly na 11 blockchainových sítích. V předběžném hlasování návrh podpořilo 93 % voličů.
Uniswap is about to flip the fee switch on its newest protocol version, and the community seems pretty enthusiastic about it. On-chain voting for two proposals that would activate protocol fees on select v4 pools across 11 chains is set to begin around July 19, 2026, following a temperature check where 93% of voters backed the move.
That temperature check, which ran from July 7-12, saw 13.9 million UNI vote in favor versus just 1 million against.
What the fee activation actually looks like The proposal targets three specific categories of v4 pools: static fee pools without hooks, continuous clearing auction pools, and aggregator hook pools. If you’re wondering what hooks are, think of them as customizable plug-ins that let developers tweak how liquidity pools behave. Uniswap v4, which launched on January 31, 2025, introduced this modular architecture as its signature feature.
The fee structures aren’t uniform across all pools. On Base, stablecoin pools would carry a 10 basis point fee. Certain aggregator hooks would get a 25x multiplier applied. The collected fees won’t just sit around on whatever chain they’re generated on. They’ll funnel into what Uniswap calls TokenJars on their respective chains before being bridged back to Ethereum.
Advertisement
Once those fees land on Ethereum, they get directed to the 0xdead address for permanent burning, reducing total supply.
This isn’t Uniswap’s first rodeo with fee-driven burns. The December 2025 UNIfication vote initiated protocol fees for v2 and v3 pools, and the results have been tangible. Uniswap recently recorded a single-day burn of 186,000 UNI from v2/v3 fees alone. Now the protocol wants to extend that same economic engine to its latest version.
From governance token to deflationary asset UNI spent years as a token whose primary utility was voting on proposals. The UNIfication package that passed in late 2025 fundamentally changed that equation by creating a direct link between protocol revenue and token supply reduction.
Extending this to v4 pools across 11 chains, including Ethereum and Base, significantly broadens the fee collection surface area. The protocol isn’t just adding fees to a few pools on mainnet. It’s building a multi-chain revenue pipeline that ultimately compresses back to a single deflationary action on Ethereum.
The liquidity provider concern Not everyone’s celebrating. Some community members have raised concerns about what protocol fees mean for liquidity providers. When the protocol takes a cut, that fee comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is often the returns that LPs would otherwise pocket.
The 93% approval rate suggests most governance participants believe the tradeoff is worth it, but governance voters and liquidity providers aren’t always the same people. Large UNI holders who benefit from burns might vote differently than someone running a concentrated liquidity position on a stablecoin pair.
For investors tracking the UNI token specifically, the expansion of fee collection to v4 pools across 11 chains materially increases the burn rate potential. The 186,000 UNI single-day burn from v2/v3 alone demonstrated real economic impact. The on-chain vote starting around July 19 will determine whether that thesis gets tested in production.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Robinhood Chain po spuštění krátce vystřelil na více než 3 miliardy USD v týdenním objemu na DEX, ale Solana má zhruba 27× vyšší TVL a více než 2 miliony aktivních adres. V metrikách DeFi ji tedy zatím nedohání.
Robinhood Chain launched, filled with memecoins, briefly ranked third among DEXs, and the “Solana killer” talk started immediately. Then you look at the actual numbers. Solana has 27 times the value locked and 2 million more users. This is not a flippening. It is a fair fight over the wrong metric.
Summary
Robinhood Chain launched July 1 and drew roughly $185 million in value locked and over $3 billion in first-week DEX volume, briefly ranking among the top DEXs by volume and prompting Solana comparisons. Solana dwarfs it on every durable metric: around $4.93 billion in value locked, $1.91 billion in daily DEX volume, more than 2 million active addresses, and roughly $3 million in daily app revenue. The gap on value locked is about 27 to 1. On active users, it is larger. Volume alone, the one metric where Robinhood looked competitive, is the least durable measure and is inflated by a memecoin frenzy and a gas subsidy. The real bull case for Robinhood is not flipping Solana on-chain. It is distribution: roughly 28 million existing customers and a decade of retail brand equity that no crypto-native chain can match. The honest verdict is that Robinhood will not flip Solana on DeFi metrics any time soon, but the two are not actually competing for the same thing, which makes the flippening question the wrong one. Within days of Robinhood Chain going live, the comparison wrote itself. A memecoin frenzy sent the chain’s DEX volume past $3 billion in a week; it briefly cracked the top three networks by daily DEX volume, and crypto Twitter did what crypto Twitter does: it declared a Solana killer.
The parallel was tidy. Solana also grew through a memecoin boom, so surely Robinhood was running the same playbook toward the same destination. Then you pull the actual data, and the tidy story falls apart. Solana has roughly 27 times Robinhood Chain’s value locked and millions more users.
The one metric where Robinhood looked competitive, raw volume, is the flimsiest number on the board. This piece is about whether Robinhood Chain can flip Solana, and the short answer is no, not close, and the more interesting answer is that flipping Solana was never the right frame.
The scoreboard Start with the numbers, because the numbers settle most of the argument before it starts.
Solana, as of mid-July 2026, carries around $4.93 billion in total value locked, does roughly $1.91 billion in daily DEX volume, has more than 2 million active addresses, and generates about $3 million in daily application revenue. These are the metrics of a mature, heavily used layer-1 with a deep DeFi ecosystem, years of accumulated liquidity, and a large, sticky user base.
Robinhood Chain, roughly 2 weeks after launch, sits at around $185 million in value locked, having posted more than $3 billion in DEX volume across its first week. Depending on the day and the source, its TVL has been quoted between $185 million and $312 million, with the higher figure heavy on stablecoin deposits. Active addresses are counted in the hundreds of thousands cumulatively, not the millions active.
Line the durable metrics up, and the gap is stark. On value locked, Solana leads by a factor of roughly 27 to one against the lower Robinhood figure, and still around 16 to 1 against the higher one. On active users, the gap is larger still. On application revenue, Solana’s ecosystem earns real fees across a diverse set of protocols; Robinhood Chain’s revenue is concentrated in memecoin trading and inflated by incentives. There is exactly one metric where Robinhood looked competitive in its first fortnight, and that is raw DEX volume, where a memecoin frenzy briefly pushed it into the same conversation as networks many times its size.
That single metric is doing all the work in the flippening narrative, and it is the metric that deserves the least trust.
Why volume is the wrong number Volume is seductive because it is large and it moves fast, and it is misleading for the same reasons.
Robinhood Chain’s $3 billion first week was overwhelmingly memecoin trading. CASHCAT alone generated roughly $98 million in a single day, about 17% of the chain’s entire DEX volume, and the broader wave of Robinhood-themed tokens, Cash Dog in Hood, Little John, Hoodrat, drove most of the rest.
Memecoin volume is the most transient category of on-chain activity there is. It arrives with attention and leaves with it, and it leaves no infrastructure behind. A chain doing $3 billion in memecoin volume this week can do a fraction of that next month, as the 33% single-day CASHCAT drop after its launchpad exited already showed.
Then there is the subsidy. Robinhood Chain ran a 90-day gas fee subsidy from launch, which makes transactions artificially cheap and inflates transaction counts and, indirectly, trading activity. Any volume comparison during the subsidy window is measuring a promotion as much as organic demand. The honest read of that number will only be available once the subsidy expires and users start paying real costs.
Value locked, by contrast, is sticky. It represents capital that has chosen to reside on the chain, in lending protocols, liquidity pools, and asset-management strategies, and it does not evaporate with a memecoin’s attention cycle. Solana’s ~$4.93 billion in TVL is the accumulated result of years of protocols, integrations, and users committing capital. Robinhood’s ~$185 million is a 2-week-old figure heavily weighted toward stablecoin deposits and speculative liquidity. TVL is the metric that predicts whether a chain is durable. Volume is the metric that predicts whether it is currently trending. They are not the same, and the flippening narrative relies entirely on the second.
The bull case for Robinhood The strong case for Robinhood Chain does not run through on-chain metrics at all, and the people making the flippening argument are looking in the wrong place because the actual advantage is off-chain.
Robinhood has roughly 28 million customers across 38 countries and more than a decade as one of the largest retail investment platforms in the United States. That is a distribution asset no crypto-native chain possesses. Solana had to acquire its users one at a time through the slow, expensive work of crypto adoption.
Robinhood already has tens of millions of funded accounts belonging to people comfortable trading both stocks and crypto, and it can put its chain in front of them inside an app they already use. If even a modest fraction of that base becomes active on-chain, the user numbers change quickly. Brand equity and distribution are exactly what earlier tokenization projects lacked, and Robinhood has both in abundance.
The memecoin-as-ignition argument also has real historical support. Solana itself grew through a memecoin cycle: BONK, WIF, and the Pump.fun era, before it produced serious infrastructure and institutional adoption. Base followed a similar arc. Speculative trading bootstraps the liquidity, the market makers, the tooling, and the attention that serious applications later need. In this reading, Robinhood Chain’s memecoin phase is not a failure to attract real activity; it is the normal first stage, and judging a 2-week-old chain by its TVL is like judging Solana by its 2021 numbers.
And Robinhood is playing a different game entirely. Its chain is built for tokenized stocks and real-world assets, a category Solana is also chasing but where Robinhood brings brokerage licenses, custody relationships, and regulatory infrastructure that a crypto-native chain has to build from scratch. If the RWA thesis plays out, Robinhood competes on ground where its traditional-finance credentials are an advantage, not on the DeFi metrics where Solana is years ahead. The flippening question assumes the two chains want to be the same thing. They may not.
The bear case for Robinhood The skeptical case is that Robinhood Chain has attracted exactly the kind of activity that does not convert, and that the gap to Solana is not a head start Robinhood can close but a structural difference it may never close.
The mercenary-liquidity problem is the core of it. Memecoin traders are loyal to activity, not to chains. They arrived on Robinhood Chain because that is where the new-launch action was, and they will leave for the next chain offering quicker profits without a second thought. The Noxa launchpad that powered the entire boom generated roughly $12 million in fees and then stopped accepting launches and went dark within 11 days of the chain’s launch. That is not the behavior of infrastructure settling in; it is the behavior of an extraction cycle moving through. When the memecoin attention leaves, the question is what remains, and right now what remains is roughly $12.8 million in actual tokenized real-world assets, the thing the chain was built for.
The convert-the-traffic problem compounds it. Robinhood’s 28 million customers are a distribution asset only if they can be moved on-chain, and there is no evidence yet that memecoin degens and Robinhood’s retail stock traders are the same people or that 1 becomes the other. The chain’s current users may have almost no overlap with the tokenized-asset investors Robinhood hopes to serve. Distribution is potential, not conversion, and the conversion has not been proven.
Then there is the structural point that on-chain metrics are not a race Robinhood is quietly winning. Solana continues to outperform Robinhood Chain across essentially every DeFi metric despite the new chain’s loud debut, and Solana is not standing still. It has its own institutional momentum, its own tokenized-asset push, its own SBI partnership for on-chain financial markets in Japan. Robinhood is not catching a stationary target. It is entering, 2 weeks old, a competition against a network with a multi-year head start that is itself accelerating. Closing a 27-to-1 TVL gap against a moving, growing competitor is a different proposition than the volume charts suggest.
The Base comparison nobody makes The flippening debate fixates on Solana, but the more instructive comparison is Coinbase’s Base, because Base is the closest thing to a control group for exactly what Robinhood is attempting, and it complicates both the bull and bear cases.
Base launched in 2023 as a corporate-backed Ethereum layer 2, built by a licensed, publicly traded American financial company with a large existing user base, aimed at bringing mainstream users on-chain. That is Robinhood Chain’s template almost exactly. And Base’s early growth, like Robinhood’s, ran heavily through memecoins before it developed into a more diversified ecosystem. So Base is the case study for whether a corporate chain can convert a speculative launch into durable activity, and the answer it offers is genuinely mixed.
On the bull side, Base did convert. It built real DeFi, real stablecoin activity, and real applications on top of the initial speculation, and it became one of the larger L2s by several measures. Coinbase’s distribution, tens of millions of users, mattered, and the memecoin phase did function as ignition rather than as the whole story. That is the precedent Robinhood is betting on, and it is a real one: a corporate chain did turn a speculative launch into something lasting.
On the bear side, Base did not flip Solana either, and it had a 2-year head start on Robinhood plus a parent company that was crypto-native from birth. If Base, with Coinbase’s crypto-specific expertise and a longer runway, sits alongside Solana instead of above it, the idea that Robinhood Chain will vault past Solana looks even less plausible. And Base has its own value-capture questions as an Ethereum L2, the same ones that apply to Robinhood Chain, where the base layer captures little of the economics. Base shows the corporate-chain model can work; it also shows that working means becoming a significant chain, not dethroning the incumbent. That is the realistic ceiling for Robinhood Chain too: not flipping Solana, but earning a durable place alongside it, and only if it converts the way Base did rather than fading the way most launch-frenzies do.
What a flippening would actually require The word “flippening” gets thrown around loosely, so it is worth being precise about what would have to happen for Robinhood Chain to actually surpass Solana, because the specifics show why the headline math is not close.
Flipping Solana is not one event; it is a set of them across separate metrics, and they do not move together. On total value locked, Solana holds roughly $4.93 billion against Robinhood Chain’s ~$185 million, a gap of about 27 times. Closing that does not mean matching Solana’s memecoin volume for a week. It means persuading serious capital, lending markets, stablecoin issuers, restaking protocols, and asset managers to park billions on a corporate L2, which is a trust-and-time problem that speculative volume does nothing to solve. TVL is sticky precisely because it represents commitment, and commitment is the thing a memecoin wave cannot manufacture.
On active addresses, Solana runs above 2 million against a far smaller base on Robinhood Chain, and the composition matters more than the count. Solana’s addresses span DeFi users, NFT traders, payment apps, and memecoin degens across a mature ecosystem. Robinhood Chain’s early activity is concentrated in memecoin speculation and a gas subsidy that inflates the raw transaction figure. An address trading CASHCAT once is not equivalent to an address running a lending position, a payment flow, and a staking allocation. The headline number can converge while the underlying engagement stays a chasm apart.
On application revenue, Solana generates around $3 million daily from a diversified base of protocols. Robinhood Chain’s revenue is thin and skewed toward the launchpad-and-memecoin complex that already showed it can evaporate in days when Noxa went dark. Sustainable app revenue requires applications people use for reasons other than speculation, and building that catalog is measured in years of developer adoption, not weeks of viral trading.
Then there is the structural ceiling nobody in the flippening conversation mentions: Robinhood Chain excludes US persons from its flagship products. Stock Tokens are barred to Americans, wallet perpetuals are barred to Americans, and the chain’s entire regulated-RWA thesis is aimed at a user base that cannot legally touch its marquee offerings from Robinhood’s home market. Solana has no such wall. A chain competing for global L1 dominance with its largest potential market fenced off from its best products is running the race with a weight the incumbent does not carry.
Put those together, and the flippening is not a single line for Robinhood Chain to cross. It is four separate lines, on four metrics that move at different speeds for different reasons, at least one of which is capped by regulation. Memecoin volume, the one number Robinhood Chain can actually post, is the least sticky and least predictive of the set. That is why the honest answer to the headline is not “not yet.” It is “not close, and the gap is wider than the volume charts make it look.”
The verdict So will Robinhood Chain flip Solana? On the metrics that matter, no, and not close, and not soon.
The value-locked gap is roughly 27 to 1. The user gap is larger. The revenue gap is structural. The only metric where Robinhood was competitive is raw volume, which is the least durable measure available, is dominated by transient memecoin trading, and is inflated by a temporary gas subsidy. A chain does not flip a mature layer-1 by winning the one number that evaporates when attention moves on. Every durable indicator points to Solana remaining well ahead for the foreseeable future.
But the question contains a flawed assumption, and that is the more useful thing to say. “Flip Solana” treats the two chains as competitors for the same prize, and they may not be. Solana is a general-purpose, crypto-native layer-1 with a deep DeFi ecosystem built by and for crypto users. Robinhood Chain is a corporate settlement layer built by a licensed brokerage to bring tokenized stocks and real-world assets to a retail base that already trades on Robinhood. Their overlap right now is memecoins, which is precisely the activity neither of them was built for and which will belong to whichever chain is currently paying attention. The lasting competition, if there is one, is over tokenized real-world assets, and that race has barely started.
The honest framing is this. Robinhood will not out-DeFi Solana; that is not a contest it is positioned to win and probably not one it is trying to win. What Robinhood can do is convert a slice of 28 million existing customers into on-chain users of tokenized-asset products, on rails where its brokerage credentials matter more than its DEX volume. If it does that, it does not need to flip Solana, because it will be winning a different game. If it does not, the memecoin volume fades, the chain settles back to its $12.8 million of real assets, and the flippening talk looks like what it probably is: a volume chart mistaken for a verdict. The number to watch is not DEX volume and not the gap to Solana. It is whether tokenized real-world assets on Robinhood Chain grow, and Robinhood’s July 29 earnings are the first real look.
Frequently Asked Questions Is Robinhood Chain bigger than Solana? No, and the gap is large. As of mid-July 2026, Solana holds around $4.93 billion in total value locked against Robinhood Chain’s roughly $185 million, a gap of about 27 to 1. Solana also has more than 2 million active addresses and around $1.91 billion in daily DEX volume from a mature ecosystem. Robinhood Chain briefly matched Solana on raw DEX volume during a memecoin frenzy, but trails badly on every durable metric.
Why do people compare Robinhood Chain to Solana? Because Robinhood Chain’s DEX volume surged past $3 billion in its first week, briefly ranking among the top networks, and because Solana famously grew through a memecoin cycle of its own before maturing. The parallel is that both bootstrapped with speculation. The comparison relies heavily on volume, which is the least durable metric and, for Robinhood, is inflated by memecoin trading and a temporary gas subsidy.
Could Robinhood Chain flip Solana eventually? On DeFi metrics, it is unlikely any time soon, given a 27-to-1 value-locked gap against a competitor that is itself growing. Robinhood’s real advantage is off-chain: roughly 28 million existing customers and strong retail brand equity. If it converts a meaningful share of that base into on-chain users of tokenized-asset products, it could become large without ever matching Solana on DeFi, because it would be competing on different ground.
Why is DEX volume a misleading metric? Because it is transient and easily inflated, Robinhood Chain’s volume was overwhelmingly memecoin trading, which arrives and leaves with attention and builds no lasting infrastructure. A 90-day gas subsidy also made transactions artificially cheap during the launch window. Value locked, which represents capital committed to the chain’s protocols, is a far better predictor of durability, and on that measure Solana leads decisively.
What is Robinhood Chain actually built for? Tokenized stocks and real-world assets. It launched as an Ethereum layer 2 with Stock Tokens as the flagship product, targeting a retail base that already trades equities on Robinhood. Its competitive advantage is brokerage licenses, custody relationships, and regulatory infrastructure. The memecoin activity that drove its early volume is not the use case it was designed for, and only about $12.8 million in real-world assets currently sit on it.
What happened with CASHCAT and the memecoins? CASHCAT, a token named after Robinhood’s original working name, surged to a roughly $156 million market cap and at one point generated about 17% of the chain’s daily DEX volume. It spawned a wave of Robinhood-themed tokens. The launchpad driving the boom, Noxa, earned around $12 million in fees, then went dark within 11 days, and CASHCAT fell more than 33% in a day, illustrating how quickly memecoin activity can leave.
Does Robinhood’s user base guarantee success? No. Roughly 28 million customers is a distribution advantage, but distribution is potential, not conversion. There is no evidence yet that Robinhood’s retail stock traders will become active on-chain users, or that the memecoin traders currently driving activity overlap with the tokenized-asset investors the chain targets. Converting existing customers into on-chain users is the unproven step the entire strategy depends on.
When will we know if the strategy is working? Watch the tokenized real-world asset figure on the chain, currently around $12.8 million, rather than DEX volume or the gap to Solana. If real assets grow substantially while memecoin activity fades, the traffic is converting, and the strategy is working. Robinhood’s second-quarter earnings on July 29 should offer the first real look at Stock Token adoption, and liquidity behavior after the gas subsidy expires will be the next test.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. It compares blockchain networks and company strategies, not the merits of any token. Memecoins are highly speculative, and most participants lose money. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy any asset or use any platform. Always do your own research. On-chain figures move quickly and are accurate as of July 17, 2026.
SBI Holdings po koupi Coinhako získala nepřímou kontrolu nad 1,11 bilionu SHIB v hodnotě 4,62 milionu USD. Nejde ale o přímou investici SBI do Shiba Inu.
Japanese financial giant SBI Holdings has gained exposure to a substantial Shiba Inu holding following its acquisition of Singapore-based cryptocurrency exchange Coinhako.
The acquisition, carried out through SBI’s subsidiary, SBI Ventures Asset, received final approval from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), allowing the transaction to close. As a result, Coinhako has become a consolidated subsidiary of SBI Holdings.
Through the acquisition, SBI gains immediate access to Coinhako’s regulated crypto infrastructure, expanding its digital asset ecosystem beyond Japan while strengthening its regional footprint.
SBI Plans Broader Digital Asset Expansion SBI plans to leverage Coinhako as a gateway to expand its blockchain-based financial services across Southeast Asia. The integration will allow SBI to connect Coinhako’s user base with products such as its yen-backed stablecoin JPYSC and tokenized real-world asset (RWA) offerings.
The acquisition also strengthens SBI’s regulatory position in the region by giving it access to Coinhako’s Singapore-based operations and Major Payment Institution (MPI) license from the Monetary Authority of Singapore. This provides a compliant foundation for expanding digital asset services without building a new infrastructure from the ground up.
SBI Chairman Yoshitaka Kitao said the move aligns with the company’s goal of creating global digital asset corridors that connect Japan and Southeast Asia through faster blockchain-powered payments and cross-border financial services.
SBI Inherits More Than 1 Trillion SHIB Tokens Beyond the strategic expansion, the acquisition also gives SBI control over Coinhako’s substantial cryptocurrency treasury. According to blockchain intelligence platform Arkham, Coinhako currently holds $160.87 million worth of digital assets across multiple cryptocurrencies.
Among those assets are 1.11 trillion Shiba Inu tokens, valued at $4.62 million at current market prices. While SHIB represents only a portion of Coinhako’s total holdings, it remains one of the exchange’s largest crypto positions.
Arkham data shows that Shiba Inu is Coinhako’s sixth-largest cryptocurrency by dollar value. Ethereum, Binance Coin, Chainlink, Tether, and Pepe lead the exchange’s portfolio.
With Coinhako now operating as an SBI subsidiary, these treasury assets, including the 1.11 trillion SHIB tokens, effectively become part of the broader SBI corporate ecosystem. However, they remain exchange-held assets rather than direct investments by SBI itself.
Coinhako Crypto Holdings What the Acquisition Means for Shiba Inu Meanwhile, the acquisition does not necessarily indicate that SBI has purchased Shiba Inu as an investment. Instead, the company has assumed ownership of an exchange that already custodies significant amounts of SHIB alongside numerous other digital assets.
Nevertheless, the transaction places more than 1 trillion SHIB tokens under the umbrella of one of Japan’s largest financial groups. It is worth noting that SBI’s crypto exchange arm, SBI VC Trade, already supports Shiba Inu trading and has launched several campaigns for users, including staking opportunities and token giveaways.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
Za 24 hodin bylo u Shiba Inu spáleno 6,75 milionu SHIB a denní burn rate vzrostl o 140 %. Od spuštění bylo z oběhu trvale odstraněno 41,08 % původní nabídky.
Shiba Inu’s deflationary momentum intensified over the past 24 hours, with 6.75 million tokens sent to dead wallets. This action pushed the daily burn rate up by 140% compared to the previous day, highlighting the community’s continued commitment to reducing SHIB’s circulating supply.
Burn milestone and supply reductionSince its launch, Shiba Inu has permanently destroyed 410,840,395,512,922 tokens by sending them to unusable null addresses. This ongoing strategy has resulted in 41.08% of SHIB’s original 1 quadrillion token supply being removed from circulation. Currently, 58.92% of the initial supply remains, demonstrating the significant impact of these regular token burns.
MetricAmountTotal Supply Burned410.84 trillion SHIBPercentage Burned41.08%Current Supply58.92% of initialThe pace of SHIB burns remains consistent, with over 21,000 cumulative burn transactions now recorded. Data shows that these collective efforts, carried out by members of the Shiba Inu community, have reached 21,193 individual transactions, reflecting an ongoing reduction in supply through a decentralized mechanism.
Short-term burn statistics and price movementsIn the last seven days, the SHIB community removed 43.75 million tokens from circulation, while the thirty-day tally stands at 267.58 million tokens. Despite these supply reductions, the price performance has shown modest fluctuations. Over the latest 24-hour period, SHIB edged up by 0.96% to $0.00000417, though it still trades 4.87% lower on the weekly timeframe.
PeriodSHIB BurnedPast 24 Hours6.75 millionPast 7 Days43.75 millionPast 30 Days267.58 millionOver 410 trillion SHIB have now been sent to dead wallets, meaning 41.08% of the original supply is permanently removed, while over 21,000 separate burn transactions have been completed by the community.
Macro factors and regulatory developmentsShiba Inu’s recent price movement followed mixed signals from wider economic data. The latest US producer and consumer price index readings came in softer than expected, while jobless claims for the week ending July 11 totaled 208,000, lower than forecasted figures. The University of Michigan’s latest consumer sentiment index rose to 54.4, surpassing the Dow Jones consensus forecast of 50.5.
Japan implemented major amendments to the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA) on July 15, 2026. The updated legislation distinguishes cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum from securities and instead classifies them as investment products.
The revisions seek to strengthen investor protection while enhancing engagement from banks, securities firms, asset managers, and institutional investors in Japan’s crypto market.
Shiba Inu is already included on the Japan JVCEA Green List, a status that simplifies listing on regulated domestic platforms. With this regulatory update, SHIB could see improved access and visibility in Japan’s evolving digital asset landscape.
Mini dictionary: JVCEA Green List – A registry maintained by the Japan Virtual and Crypto Assets Exchange Association (JVCEA) that includes cryptocurrencies approved for listing on domestic exchanges, allowing for easier regulatory compliance and onboarding in the Japanese market.
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.
Stacks dosáhl 1,6 milionu peněženek, které kdy obdržely převod, což ukazuje rostoucí adopci sítě. Zároveň rozšiřuje ambice v oblasti Bitcoin DeFi prostřednictvím stBTC, návrhu PoX-5 a integrace s Fireblocks.
Bitcoin has long been the asset everyone wants exposure to and the network nobody could build on. Stacks was designed to change that, and a new on-chain milestone suggests it is making progress.
The Stacks protocol has recorded 1.6 million total wallets that have ever received a transfer, according to on-chain analytics tracking cumulative user adoption.
What the wallet count actually tells you What the 1.6 million figure tells you is the cumulative reach of the network, the total number of unique addresses that have had at least some interaction with the Stacks ecosystem at any point in its history. Not everyone is logging in daily, but the number sets a ceiling for potential reactivation and signals that the protocol has moved well beyond niche hobbyist territory.
A busy summer of product launches On July 8, 2026, the protocol announced stBTC, a liquid staking token built to generate Bitcoin yield within the Stacks DeFi ecosystem. Instead of simply holding Bitcoin and earning nothing, users can stake it through Stacks and receive a liquid token that can be deployed elsewhere in DeFi while the underlying Bitcoin continues earning yield.
Advertisement
Five days later, on July 13, a proposal for the PoX-5 upgrade was put forward. PoX, which stands for Proof of Transfer, is the consensus mechanism that connects Stacks to Bitcoin by having miners transfer Bitcoin to participate in block production. The PoX-5 proposal introduces a new staking model and a 15% reserve fund, creating a buffer within the staking system designed to add stability and reduce the risk of yield disruption for participants.
Earlier in the summer, on June 17, Stacks announced an integration with Fireblocks, the institutional-grade digital asset custody and transfer platform. Fireblocks is the infrastructure layer that hedge funds, banks, and crypto-native institutions use to move and secure assets at scale, and the integration opens the door to a class of capital that previously had no clean on-ramp into the Stacks ecosystem.
The Nakamoto foundation The Nakamoto release, completed in 2024, was the most significant technical upgrade in the protocol’s history. Before Nakamoto, Stacks blocks were tied to Bitcoin block production, meaning the network inherited Bitcoin’s roughly ten-minute confirmation window. Post-Nakamoto, the protocol produces blocks at a faster cadence. The two-way peg mechanism, sBTC, allows Bitcoin to move between the Bitcoin base layer and the Stacks layer without relying on a centralized custodian.
stBTC, announced this July, builds directly on top of sBTC.
What investors should watch stBTC is the most direct catalyst to watch. Liquid staking tokens tend to generate flywheel effects: yield attracts deposits, deposits increase total value locked, higher TVL attracts more DeFi protocols, and more protocols attract more users.
The PoX-5 upgrade directly affects the incentive structure for STX holders who participate in stacking. The 15% reserve fund introduces a new variable into that calculus, and the market will need to price in both the stability benefits and any changes to effective yield rates once the upgrade is finalized.
The Fireblocks integration removes one of the primary friction points for funds that want Bitcoin DeFi exposure without building custom infrastructure.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Arbitrum získává podporu díky rozšířené integraci WalletConnect a 24hodinový objem obchodů vzrostl na 83,15 milionu USD. Analytici zároveň sledují silnější technické signály a růst zájmu kupců.
Arbitrum (ARB), a layer-2 scaling solution for Ethereum, is attracting greater market attention as bullish indicators mount and buying interest increases. Stronger technical signals and expanded infrastructure developments are supporting expectations for a potential upward price movement.
Bullish momentum builds as technicals improveARB is currently priced at $0.08794 with a 24-hour trading volume of $83.15 million and a market capitalization of $560.21 million. The cryptocurrency has displayed stability in the last 24 hours, and its price structure suggests potential for a reversal. Market participants have observed growing signs that ARB could be entering an early bull phase, buoyed by advances in technical patterns and persistence above key daily moving averages.
Crypto analyst Michael van de Poppe noted that technical indicators across several timeframes are strengthening, highlighting bullish divergences relative to both the US dollar and Bitcoin. The formation of a higher low in the ARB price is viewed as supporting evidence that buyers are maintaining control.
Analysts point out that, despite recent consolidation, Arbitrum has defended a key support zone and continues to register increased trading volume, reflecting upward pressure from traders and speculators.
The accumulation phase may be underway, with increased participation suggesting that ARB could be in the initial stages of a new market cycle.
WalletConnect and Arbitrum partnership boosts ecosystemWalletConnect, a widely adopted communication protocol for connecting decentralized applications with mobile wallets, has expanded its integration with Arbitrum. This cooperation aims to make on-chain application development faster and more cost-effective for organizations operating on the Arbitrum network.
The enhanced partnership allows for more seamless wallet interactions, improved user experiences, and lower transaction fees. Developers can now more efficiently deliver services to end users due to these improvements.
Arbitrum supports an ecosystem with over $17 billion locked in its protocols and liquidity exceeding $4 billion in stablecoins, making it a prominent option for larger enterprises seeking blockchain solutions.
Transaction fees on Arbitrum remain below $0.01, further contributing to its suitability for deploying scalable decentralized applications.
Mini dictionary: WalletConnect, a protocol that enables easy and secure connection between decentralized applications and cryptocurrency wallets without requiring users to reveal private keys.
MetricValueCurrent ARB price$0.0879424-hour trading volume$83.15 millionMarket capitalization$560.21 millionTotal value locked (TVL)$17 billionStablecoin liquidity$4 billionAverage transaction feeLess than $0.01Market outlook remains cautiously optimisticDespite optimistic forecasts and new integrations, ARB’s price continues to face downward pressure. Broader market trends, however, are showing signs of improvement, and analysts suggest that a reversal could occur if favorable conditions persist.
Significant resistance levels remain, but renewed accumulation by large holders and expanding ecosystem partnerships—such as the growing collaboration with WalletConnect—are cited as potential catalysts for a new uptrend.
Expectations for increased bullish sentiment rest on persistently high trading volumes, enhanced network partnerships, and signs of continued whale accumulation, all of which support the prospect of a trend reversal for ARB.
Nonetheless, market participants continue to monitor Arbitrum’s progress closely in light of the volatile nature of the cryptocurrency sector.
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.
