Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Jul 14, 2026, 2:57 p.m.

2 min read

Jeremy Allaire Circle CEO. (The Washington Post / Getty Images) Summary

JPMorgan said a new arrangement with Hyperliquid is a near-term revenue headwind for Circle and Coinbase, with a greater long-term threat to Circle's USDC economics. The bank argued the deal exposes a "prisoner's dilemma," encouraging Circle and Coinbase to compete for USDC distribution at the expense of each other's economics. The Wall Street firm lowered earnings estimates for both firms, citing the Hyperliquid changes alongside weaker crypto trading volumes and asset prices.JPMorgan (JPM) lowered its forecasts for Circle Internet (CRCL) and Coinbase (COIN), saying their revamped agreement with Hyperliquid weakens the economics of Circle's USDC and posed a bigger long-term threat to the stablecoin issuer.

The bank said the deal created a "prisoner's dilemma," incentivizing stablecoin issuer Circle and crypto exchange Coinbase to compete for distribution of the dollar-pegged token at the expense of each other's economics.

Hyperliquid, now one of the largest crypto trading venues, holds about $6 billion of USDC, or roughly 8% of the circulating supply, JPMorgan estimated.

"We think the change in the Hyperliquid relationship showcases the challenge for Circle and Coinbase partnership agreements because it can create 'a prisoner’s dilemma' that drive Coinbase and Circle to compete with each other when promoting USDC distribution," analysts led by Kenneth Worthington said in the Tuesday report.

Hyperliquid is one of crypto's fastest-growing trading venues and the leading decentralized perpetual futures exchange. The platform processed more than $150 billion in trading volume in July alone, while its volume relative to Binance climbed to 11.5%, underscoring its growing share of the derivatives market. USDC balances on Hyperliquid have swelled to roughly $6 billion, making it an increasingly important distribution channel for the stablecoin.

Under the new arrangement, Coinbase will classify USDC on Hyperliquid as "on-platform," collecting the income generated by reserves and paying 90% of it to Hyperliquid. JPMorgan estimated Coinbase previously split nearly all of the revenue evenly with Circle.

The bank cut earnings estimates for both companies, citing the Hyperliquid agreement and weaker crypto markets, though it expects higher interest rates to provide some support for USDC-related revenue over the longer term.

USDC has also lost momentum in recent months. Its circulating supply has fallen to about $73 billion from nearly $80 billion in March, part of a broader $10 billion contraction in the stablecoin market since May as crypto trading activity cooled and new regulated rivals chipped away at the dominance of USDC and Tether's USDT.

Japanese investment bank Mizuho said in a report last week that Circle's final approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to establish First National Digital Currency Bank is a positive milestone, but investors may be overestimating its significance.

AI Disclaimer: Parts of this article were generated with the assistance from AI tools and reviewed by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and adherence to our standards. For more information, see CoinDesk's full AI Policy.

12345678910

The two largest retail-facing trading platforms in the US are now competing for your idle stablecoins, and they’ve both picked the same DeFi protocol to do it. Coinbase and Robinhood have each built yield products on top of Morpho, the decentralized lending infrastructure that has quietly amassed over $11B in total value locked.

Two platforms, two philosophies Coinbase launched its onchain USDC lending product via Morpho back on September 18, 2025. The yields are variable, meaning they fluctuate with supply and demand in the lending markets, and the platform has advertised rates reaching as high as 10.8%.

On top of the base lending rate, Coinbase participants can earn MORPHO token rewards. These are claimable periodically, with Coinbase One subscribers reportedly getting enhanced access.

Coinbase has also introduced two risk-tiered vault options curated by Steakhouse Financial: “Prime” and “Higher Yield.” The Prime vault carries lower risk and lower returns, while Higher Yield does what the name suggests, with commensurately more exposure.

Advertisement

Robinhood took a different path entirely. Its “Robinhood Earn” product started rolling out around July 1, 2026, and it targets an estimated 7% APY on USDG, its own stablecoin. Rather than letting rates float, Robinhood is fixing the yield for a year.

The Robinhood vault operates on the Robinhood Chain and is backed by insurance from Lloyd’s of London.

Why Morpho is the quiet winner Neither platform built its own lending protocol from scratch. Both chose Morpho, which functions as permissionless lending infrastructure that lets anyone create isolated lending markets, or “vaults,” with customizable risk parameters.

Neither platform requires lockup periods. Users can deposit and withdraw based on vault liquidity, with interest accruing instantly.

What this means for investors Coinbase’s variable model rewards active participants who understand DeFi mechanics and are comfortable with rate fluctuations. When lending demand is high, you could earn well above 7%. The MORPHO token rewards add upside, but tokens are inherently volatile.

Robinhood’s fixed 7% is designed for people who want to set it and forget it. The Lloyd’s insurance backing adds a layer of confidence that’s unusual in crypto yield products. But fixed rates carry their own risk for the platform: if market rates drop below 7%, Robinhood is subsidizing the difference. If rates spike well above 7%, users miss out on the upside.

Both Coinbase and Robinhood are publicly traded, SEC-reporting companies offering yield products built on decentralized infrastructure. The fact that regulators haven’t blocked these products, at least so far, suggests a growing tolerance for DeFi integrations when wrapped in compliant, insured, consumer-friendly packaging.

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

Nobody hacked anything. No smart contract failed, no private key leaked, no phishing link fired. On July 6, the treasury of BonkDAO, the community organization behind one of Solana’s flagship memecoins, transferred roughly $20 million worth of BONK to a wallet controlled by an attacker, and every step of the transfer was a valid transaction executed exactly as the DAO’s own rules prescribed.

Summary

An attacker spent about $4.4 million to gain enough BONK voting power and passed a proposal that transferred nearly $20 million from the BonkDAO treasury. The incident exposed how low voter participation, no timelock, and automatic proposal execution left the DAO vulnerable to governance capture. The treasury drain has renewed calls for stronger DAO safeguards as exchanges, investigators, and the broader crypto industry assess the aftermath. The attacker did not break the governance system. They bought it, for about $4.4 million, at an implied return of nearly five to one, in a vote where seven wallets participated and more than 18,000 members did not. The episode is the cleanest proof to date of an uncomfortable truth the industry has spent years politely ignoring: a treasury governed by token-weighted voting is worth exactly the cost of assembling a temporary majority, and for most DAOs, that cost is a fraction of the prize.

The mechanics deserve a careful walkthrough because the details are what turn a crime story into a design lesson. And the aftermath, exchanges freezing deposits, law enforcement notified, a philosophical fight over whether this was theft at all, will shape how every treasury-holding DAO on every chain rewrites its rules over the next year.

Six days in the open The attack was not fast, and it was not hidden. On June 30, an anonymous wallet submitted a proposal to BonkDAO’s governance system, which runs on Realms, Solana’s standard DAO tooling. The proposal carried the title BIP #76, styled itself as a governance renewal plan, and dressed the theft in the language of turnaround management: install new leadership, restructure the council, monetize treasury holdings, stop the bleeding. It even included a line noting that yes-voters would be eligible to receive tokens, a detail that reads in hindsight like a dark joke about incentive design. Beneath the rhetoric sat the only clause that mattered: an instruction to transfer 4.43 trillion BONK, the bulk of the treasury, to a wallet the proposer controlled.

The proposal stayed live for six days. During that window, the attacker methodically accumulated voting power, spending approximately $4.4 million buying BONK through exchange wallets, an amount equal to just over 1% of total supply but decisive against the DAO’s quorum arithmetic. On-chain researchers, including Yu Xian of security firm SlowMist and the analyst Yu Jin, later reconstructed the accumulation pattern: purchases sized to clear the quorum threshold with minimal excess, executed while the proposal sat in plain sight and no meaningful opposition organized. On July 6, the attacker cast the assembled stake. The final tally showed 882.38 billion BONK in favor against a quorum threshold of 879.95 billion, a margin so narrow it amounts to the attacker buying the exact number of votes required and almost nothing more.

Turnout was 2.9%. The yes share was 99.9%, which is what unanimity looks like when a single voter agrees with itself.

Then the system worked as designed, which is the entire problem. Realms-based governance executes passed proposals automatically. No human signed off, no council reviewed the transfer, no delay separated approval from execution. The treasury moved to an address ending in JHvQ, which investigators traced to funding from a Bybit account, and portions began flowing toward exchanges within hours.

The anatomy of the failure Three missing safeguards converted a bad proposal into an executed one, and each is a standard control the DAO simply did not have. The first is a timelock: a mandatory delay between a proposal passing and its instructions executing. Even a 48-hour window would have given the community, or the core team, time to see a treasury-draining transfer queued and organize a response. The second is a multisig or council veto: an emergency brake allowing designated signers to freeze anomalous executions. The third is quorum and participation design: a system where 1% of supply can constitute a passing majority against 2.9% turnout has set its security budget equal to the apathy of its members.

The deeper failure sits above all three: the treasury’s size bore no relationship to the cost of controlling it. BonkDAO held roughly 15% of all circulating BONK, a war chest accumulated through the token’s boom years, governed by a mechanism whose capture cost floated with the token’s price and its holders’ attention. The attacker’s arithmetic was public information. Anyone could compute that quorum, multiplied by market price, cost about $4 million to satisfy, against a treasury worth five times that. The only surprising thing about the attack is that it took until 2026.

The pattern has a canonical ancestor. In 2022, an attacker used a flash loan to seize voting control of Beanstalk, a DeFi protocol, and drained about $180 million in the same block. The industry’s response then was to treat flash-loan governance as the flaw: protocols added voting delays that made borrowed tokens useless for instant capture. BonkDAO’s attacker needed no flash loan. They used patient capital, real purchases held across days, which defeats the flash-loan defenses entirely and shows that the vulnerability was never the loan. It was the market for votes itself.

The market for votes was always there The uncomfortable context is that vote buying in DAO governance is not a fringe exploit; it is an industry with infrastructure. Bribe markets, where protocols openly pay token holders to vote for emissions and incentives, have operated for years around the largest DeFi governance systems and are treated as legitimate yield. Vote-lending and delegation markets let holders rent their governance power without selling their tokens. The line between that accepted economy and what happened to BonkDAO is intent, not mechanism: the machinery for converting money into votes was built, normalized, and liquid long before someone aimed it at a treasury instead of an emissions gauge.

That normalization is why the security framing has to be economic instead of technical. Auditors evaluate smart contracts against code exploits and can certify a system bug-free while it remains trivially capturable, because capture is not a bug. The relevant metric, which security researchers have urged for years under the name cost of corruption, compares the expense of acquiring decisive voting power against the value extractable by wielding it. For a healthy system, the first number exceeds the second with a wide margin. BonkDAO’s ratio, roughly $4.4 million against $20 million, was not marginal. It was an arbitrage with a six-day settlement period, advertised on a public governance forum. Any DAO that has never computed its own ratio should assume an attacker has.

The turnout side of the ratio deserves equal weight, because the attacker’s capital did not defeat 18,000 members; it defeated their absence. Governance participation across the industry has decayed for years, from the double-digit turnout of early experiments to the low single digits typical today, as token holders rationally conclude that reading proposals is unpaid labor with diluted influence. Every percentage point of apathy directly lowers the capture price. In that sense, the $4.4 million was not the cost of beating BonkDAO’s community. It was the market-clearing price of its indifference, and comparable prices are computable for hundreds of treasuries right now.

The tooling default problem A quieter thread of the postmortem concerns Realms, the standard governance stack on Solana, and by extension the defaults every DAO platform ships. Nothing in the incident involved a flaw in the tooling: Realms executed a validly passed proposal, which is its job. But defaults are policy, and the configuration this DAO ran, automatic execution, no timelock, a static quorum set long ago, is the path of least resistance the tooling made easy. The same critique applies across ecosystems, where governance frameworks expose timelocks and councils as optional modules that busy launch teams skip. The predictable industry response is already forming: platforms moving protective defaults from opt-in to opt-out, warning surfaces that flag treasury-moving instructions in plain language, and simulation tools that show voters exactly what a proposal executes before they approve it. None of that required new research. It required a $20 million proof that someone would actually pull the trigger.

Theft, or the rules working The philosophical fight broke out immediately and is more consequential than it sounds. One camp, including a notable contingent of on-chain observers, argues that nothing was stolen: the attacker followed every rule, won a vote the rules recognized, and executed a transfer the rules authorized. Code was law, the law was bad, and the losses are tuition. The proposal was public for six days; 18,000 members who could not be bothered to vote against their own treasury made a governance decision by omission. On this reading, the term “attack” launders negligence into victimhood, and law enforcement involvement sets a precedent that undermines the entire premise of on-chain governance: if valid votes can be criminal, then governance outcomes are subject to off-chain veto, and the system’s guarantees mean nothing.

The opposing camp, which includes BonkDAO itself, the analytics firms tracking the funds, and figures like Ripple’s chief technology officer emeritus David Schwartz, who compared the maneuver to corporate fraud, argues that legality is not defined by protocol validity. A proposal that misrepresents its purpose, transfers assets to its author, and relies on engineered low turnout is fraud in any legal system humans have built, regardless of how faithfully the machinery executed it. Corporate law developed exactly these doctrines for exactly these reasons: shareholder votes procured through deception are voidable, and control acquired to loot a treasury is a breach the courts unwind. The wrapper being a DAO does not repeal centuries of fiduciary reasoning.

The debate matters practically because it decides where defense happens. If this is theft, then exchanges freezing funds, as Upbit did when it suspended BONK deposits and withdrawals, and law enforcement tracing the Bybit-funded wallet are the immune system working. If this is the rules working, then every defense must live on-chain, in timelocks and vetoes and quorum design, and off-chain recovery is itself the attack on the system. The industry visibly believes both things at once, which is why the response has been both a law enforcement referral and a wave of emergency governance reviews at other DAOs.

What BONK was, and what the treasury was for The scale of the loss only registers against what the DAO had built. BONK launched in December 2022 as Solana’s answer to its darkest hour, airdropping half its supply to the ecosystem’s users, developers, and artists in the weeks after the FTX collapse had cratered confidence in the chain. The distribution strategy worked beyond any reasonable expectation: the token became the community flag of Solana’s recovery, integrated across hundreds of applications, listed on every major venue, and eventually the anchor of an ecosystem spanning launchpads, exchanges, and grant programs. The treasury at the center of this month’s attack was the accumulated war chest of that run, holding roughly 15% of supply and funding the buybacks, integrations, and community programs that separated BONK from the thousands of memecoins that mint, spike, and vanish.

That history is why the governance failure stings beyond the dollar figure. The DAO structure was not decoration; it was the mechanism by which a token with no product and no cash flows coordinated thousands of contributors for three years. The treasury was the proof that memecoin communities could accumulate and steward real resources. Its draining through a seven-wallet vote is therefore an attack on the category’s best argument for itself, and every project that pitched community treasuries as the moat now answers for the moat’s price tag.

The damage, priced The market’s verdict was swift but contained. BONK fell between 8 and 10% on the disclosure, trading around levels that left its market capitalization near $400 million, and stabilized within days. Several factors capped the damage. The stolen tokens, more than 4.4 trillion BONK, represent supply that was already outside the market in a treasury, so the theft’s mechanical effect is a transfer of overhang rather than new emission, though overhang in hostile hands is worth less than overhang in friendly ones. Exchange coordination raised the realistic prospect of partial recovery or at least slowed liquidation. And the token’s price had already absorbed a brutal year alongside the whole memecoin complex, whose aggregate value sits more than 50% below its level of twelve months ago even after a July bounce, leaving less speculative premium to destroy.

No user wallets were touched, and the BONK token contract itself was never at issue, distinctions that matter for the asset’s survival. The loss is concentrated in the commons: the treasury that funded ecosystem grants, marketing, and the buyback programs that gave the DAO its purpose. For a memecoin, whose entire value proposition is community coordination, draining the coordination budget through the coordination mechanism is a uniquely poetic wound, as crypto.news noted in its report on the treasury raid. The token survives; the question is whether the institution does.

The recovery race Recovery, if it happens, will happen at the choke points, and the first week showed both their power and their limits. Stolen tokens moving toward centralized exchanges triggered the standard playbook: BonkDAO identified the exchange wallets used to accumulate BONK before the vote, notified law enforcement, and coordinated with exchanges, bridges, and the Solana Foundation. Upbit’s suspension of BONK deposits and withdrawals closed one of the deepest liquidity venues to the attacker, and the wallet trail through a Bybit-funded account gives investigators a potential identity thread, since major exchanges hold verified customer records behind funded accounts.

The limits are equally real. On-chain funds that stay on-chain remain beyond freezing, and an attacker with $20 million of patience can wait out attention, launder through decentralized venues, or drip supply into liquidity over months. Security analysts examining the movement patterns flagged infrastructure choices that complicate tracing, and the history of comparable incidents suggests recoveries are partial when they happen at all, often arriving through negotiated returns, the white-hat conversion, where an attacker keeps a bounty-sized fraction, more often than through seizure. The realistic best case is not restoration but attrition: enough friction at every exit that liquidation becomes slow, discounted, and legally dangerous, which changes the attacker’s arithmetic retroactively and, more importantly, changes it prospectively for the next one running the same computation against another treasury.

The regulatory shadow The episode also lands in the middle of a live legislative fight, and lawmakers hostile to DeFi could not have commissioned a better exhibit. The CLARITY Act’s most contested sections concern exactly this territory: what obligations attach to decentralized systems, who bears responsibility when autonomous code moves other people’s money, and whether governance token holders or developers stand behind the structures they launch. A $20 million treasury vanishing through a valid vote, followed by an appeal to the very law enforcement the system was designed to route around, hands skeptics their argument in a single anecdote: the industry wants code to be law until code loses, at which point it wants law to be law. Advocates will answer that the failure was one badly configured DAO, not the model, and that the response, exchanges, analytics firms, and police cooperating within hours, shows the accountability layer functioning. Both arguments will be quoted in committee, and the regulation debate will price the incident long after the market has forgotten it.

There is a subtler legal exposure inside the DAO structure itself. If courts or regulators conclude that governance token voting constitutes control, then large holders who do vote may carry duties toward the treasury they direct, an outcome that would make participation more dangerous than apathy and invert the incentive problem the industry is trying to fix. The unresolved status of DAO legal personhood, patched in a few jurisdictions through wrapper statutes and ignored in most, means every treasury of size is now a test case waiting for its plaintiff.

What every other DAO does now The practical legacy of BIP #76 is a checklist already circulating through governance forums across Solana and every other ecosystem. Timelocks on treasury-affecting proposals move from best practice to table stakes, with delays scaled to transfer size. Emergency veto councils, unfashionable for years because they reintroduce trusted parties into trustless systems, return to favor with sunset clauses and narrow mandates as the compromise. Quorum design gets rethought around adversarial math: thresholds set as a function of treasury value and float cost, not as static%ages chosen at launch when nobody imagined the treasury would be worth stealing. Proposal screening adds friction, deposit requirements, and mandatory review windows for any instruction that moves funds. And delegation programs attempt to fix the underlying disease, the 2.9% turnout, by concentrating voting power in accountable delegates who show up.

Each fix carries its own cost, and the honest version of the checklist admits it. Timelocks slow legitimate operations and give markets time to front-run treasury actions. Vetoes recreate the trusted committee that DAOs were invented to remove, and committees can be captured too, or become liability magnets under exactly the legal theories the theft camp invoked. High quorums can freeze governance entirely in low-attention projects, converting treasuries into unspendable monuments. The design space has no free choices, only tradeoffs between capture resistance and operational capacity, and every DAO is now pricing those tradeoffs under deadline.

The DeFi sector’s broader security picture sharpens the urgency. The same week brought a $9 million oracle exploit on a Hedera lending protocol and an active drain at a yield platform flagged mid-attack by security monitors, part of a first half that set records for incident count. Governance capture now joins oracle manipulation and bridge compromise on the standing threat list, with one distinction that makes it worse: it scales with legitimacy. The more valuable and decentralized a DAO becomes, the more its governance token trades freely, and the more liquid the market for its own capture.

The watchlist for holders and builders For anyone holding BONK or tokens governed by similar structures, the incident reduces to observable signals. On the recovery track: movement from the JHvQ-linked wallets, exchange announcements about frozen or returned funds, and any communication suggesting a negotiated settlement, each of which reprices both the treasury and the overhang. On the reform track: the text of the DAO’s emergency proposals, whether they include timelocks and a veto council, and crucially the turnout they attract, since a reform vote that passes with the same 2.9% participation has fixed the paperwork and not the disease. On the contagion track: whether other large-treasury DAOs disclose their own capture math and patch it publicly, or wait for their own BIP #76.

Builders face a starker version of the same list. Compute the cost of corruption for your own system today: quorum threshold times token price against extractable treasury value, adjusted for realistic turnout. If the ratio is unfavorable, every day it stays public is a day the trade is live for someone else. The defenses are neither novel nor expensive, which is exactly why their absence will stop being forgivable. Before July 6, an unprotected treasury was a theoretical risk that governance forums debated in the abstract. After it, the exploit is documented, the playbook is public, the return profile is proven, and the next attacker does not need to innovate. They need to search.

There is also a quieter question for the Solana ecosystem specifically, which had, by most measures, its strongest institutional month on record even as the attack unfolded: whether the maturity narrative absorbs the incident or gets dented by it. The honest answer is that the two stories are about different layers. The chain performed flawlessly throughout; the failure lived entirely in one organization’s configuration of one governance application. Institutions doing diligence understand that distinction. Retail sentiment, which still drives the memecoin complex that BONK anchors, often does not, and the gap between those two readings will be visible in the relative performance of governance-token projects for quarters.

The bill for cheap governance comes due For BONK itself, the path from here runs through three questions. Whether exchange and law enforcement coordination claws back a meaningful share of the 4.4 trillion tokens, where each recovered tranche is both treasury restoration and supply certainty. Whether the DAO can pass its own emergency reforms through the very mechanism that just failed, a live experiment in whether a captured system can vote itself better armor. And whether the community that made BONK one of the defining tokens of the meme coin era treats the episode as a death knell or a founding trauma; communities have rallied around less. The token has survived worse markets than this news.

For everyone else, the lesson costs nothing and is therefore priceless. Every DAO treasury on every chain now has a public quote for what its governance is worth: the market price of its quorum. If that number is smaller than the treasury, the treasury is not owned, it is rented, and the rent is whatever an attacker pays for the votes.

BonkDAO’s members learned the rent on a Monday in July. The rest of the industry gets to learn it from the outside, which is the only cheap way the lesson is ever taught.

Disclaimer: This article is information, not investment advice. Figures, on-chain attributions, and recovery prospects reflect reporting available as of July 14, 2026, and can change as investigations proceed. Characterizations of the incident as theft or as valid governance are contested. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell BONK or any other asset. Verify current developments from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.

Injective is spearheading a new area for agentic finance to thrive.

Today we are introducing the Injective AI Agent SDK to give builders one package with the tools needed to create novel agents onchain. It connects documentation, chain commands, agent skills, and onchain execution in one setup.

AI development has changed. Builders direct agents. They give context. They set the goal. Then the agent reads, writes, checks, and executes.

However, financial agents need more than generic coding help. They need market data, transaction flows, current docs, balances, markets, bridges, wallets, and chain state.

Injective gives agents those rails with seamless accessibility for developers everywhere.

npm install -g @injectivelabs/ainj

One Install for the Injective AI StackThe SDK brings together the pieces developers usually assemble by hand.

Injective CLI
The injectived command gives agents direct access to core chain functions. Agents can query state, manage wallet flows, prepare transactions, and interact with Injective from the same command line interface used across the network.

Injective agent skills
Agent skills teach AI coding tools how Injective workflows actually work. The agent gets chain specific context across docs, commands, and examples.

Injective documentation MCP server
The documentation server connects agents to Injective source material while they build. That keeps answers grounded in the current developer stack.

Injective main MCP server
The main server gives agents a path to query, transact, and trade across Injective Mainnet and Testnet.

The result is simple. Builders spend less time wiring tools together and more time building the actual application.

Why AI Agents Need Purpose-Built Financial RailsAgents act constantly.

They check state. They compare markets. They rebalance portfolios. They test logic. They prepare transactions. They retry when conditions change.

That behavior breaks on expensive, slow infrastructure. It works on Injective.

Injective supports 650 millisecond block times, instant finality, and standard transaction fees around $0.0003. It also gives agents native financial modules, an onchain orderbook, and cross chain connectivity.

That performance gives agents room to operate. A trading agent can research a market and place an order inside the Injective environment. A treasury agent can read balances, inspect routes, and prepare actions onchain. A builder can ask for an application and give the agent the context to build against live Injective rails.

This is the chain doing what agents need.

From Prompt to Onchain ActionThe SDK is designed around the way developers already work with modern AI environments such as Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and other MCP compatible tools.

With the SDK installed, an agent can do the following.

Search the Injective docs for the right workflow.Query wallet balances and market data.Prepare and sign Injective transactions.Open and close perpetual futures positions.Bridge assets across supported networks.Write EVM or Injective native applications with chain specific context.Reason about staking, token metadata, and onchain activity.The point is simple. Injective should be available wherever builders already direct agents to work.

Part of the Larger Injective RoadmapThe SDK fits directly into the Injective roadmap.

The Injective MCP Server brought natural language execution to perpetual futures. Injective agent skills made those workflows reusable. dAppBuilder lets users generate financial applications from prompts. The Injective Agents platform points toward autonomous agents with onchain identities and direct economic activity.

The SDK pulls that direction into a cleaner builder flow.

AI native finance needs a chain where agents can read, reason, and execute. Injective has the financial modules, settlement speed, and cross chain reach to make that real.

This reaches beyond trading. Agents can support stablecoin payments, real world asset workflows, treasury management, portfolio automation, institutional dashboards, and new financial applications that static interfaces struggle to handle.

Injective is turning finance into software agents can use.

What to Know Before You BuildThe SDK plugs into the AI development environments builders already use.

It works alongside tools such as Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and MCP compatible agent setups. It gives those tools Injective context and execution paths.

User control stays at the center. Any action that writes to the chain still needs a funded wallet, signing approval, and thoughtful key management. Good agent design keeps keys local, exposes only the right context, and asks for approval before state changes.

Powerful agents need clear guardrails.

Get StartedThe Injective AI Agent SDK is live today.

npm install -g @injectivelabs/ainj

Read more in the Injective AI developer docs, explore the open source Injective agent skills, and follow Injective for what ships next.

About InjectiveInjective is a lightning fast interoperable layer one blockchain optimized for building premier Web3 finance applications. Injective provides developers with powerful plug-and-play modules for creating unmatched dApps. INJ is the native asset that powers Injective and its rapidly growing ecosystem. Injective is incubated by Binance and is backed by prominent investors such as Jump Crypto, Pantera and Mark Cuban.

Website | Telegram | Discord | Blog | Twitter | Youtube | Facebook | LinkedIn | Reddit | Instagram | Orbit Newsletter

Ondo launches 24/7 minting and redemption for tokenized stocks, closing a weekend gap that has cost traders up to 46 times more on other platforms.

Trading a tokenized stock at 2 a.m. on a Sunday used to mean one thing, moving an asset between wallets, not actually creating or redeeming it. Ondo just changed that.

Ondo has launched 24/7 instant minting and redemption for tokenized U.S. stocks and ETFs, live now across Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Solana. 

The upgrade expands beyond Ondo's existing 24/5 minting window and applies to six of its most actively traded tokenized assets, SPYon, QQQon, CRCLon, NVDAon, TSLAon, and GOOGLon, with more expected to follow.

Why this is actually newSeveral platforms have advertised 24/7 trading for tokenized stocks before. 

But that claim has always come with an asterisk, the round-the-clock access has applied only to transferring an asset between wallets or exchanges, not to minting new tokens or redeeming existing ones for cash. 

Minting and redemption, the actual creation and settlement of these tokenized assets, has continued to follow traditional market hours, pausing over weekends just like the underlying stock exchanges.

Ondo Stocks already supported 24/7 permissionless transfers, letting users hold and move tokenized assets across supported wallets, exchanges, and protocols at any time.

What was missing was the ability to mint or redeem those same assets outside of standard trading hours. This update closes that gap, eligible users can now mint or redeem supported assets at the current prevailing price, any day, at any hour, including weekends and U.S. public holidays.

Why the price you pay depends on where you tradeThe practical impact of this shows up most clearly in execution costs. 

Ondo shared data comparing weekend trading costs on its platform against other tokenized stock venues.

Scroll to Continue

Recommended Articles

For a $100,000 trade in tokenized Circle stock (CRCLon), execution cost on Ondo averaged $33, compared to $835 on another platform, 25 times higher. Tokenized Google stock (GOOGLon) showed the widest gap, costing $43 on Ondo versus $1,644 elsewhere, 38 times higher. Tokenized Nvidia stock (NVDAon) showed the largest multiple of all, at $13 on Ondo versus $738 elsewhere, 57 times higher. Tesla showed a 25 times gap, the Invesco QQQ ETF showed a 7 times gap, and the SPDR S&P 500 ETF showed a 5 times gap.

Trending on TheStreet Roundtable:Cathie Wood's ARK issues bold prediction on U.S. digital dollarAnalysts stunned by Robinhood's $3.1 billion debut weekMicroStrategy sells shares to boost U.S. dollar reserveThis gap comes down to how liquidity is sourced. Ondo's tokenized stocks draw liquidity directly from public markets, where trading depth is substantial. 

Other platforms rely on onchain liquidity pools, which are limited in depth by design, meaning larger trades, especially over weekends when markets are thinner, can move prices significantly and cost traders far more.

Why this matters for tokenized markets broadlyDemand for always-on access to traditional financial assets has been growing steadily, as investors increasingly expect the same speed and flexibility from tokenized stocks that they already get trading crypto. 

By extending minting and redemption to a full 24/7 cycle, Ondo is positioning tokenized stocks to function with the same continuous liquidity and utility as the crypto markets they trade alongside.

Ondo Stocks has built a significant lead in this space already, listing more than 430 tokenized stocks and ETFs across Solana, Ethereum, and BNB Chain, and becoming the first platform in the category to surpass $1 billion in total value locked, more than every other tokenized stock platform combined. 

That infrastructure also allows tokenized stocks to be used as collateral across platforms including Ondo Perps, Morpho, and Euler.

Ondo says this 24/7 minting and redemption upgrade builds directly on that foundation, with further expansion of its always-on infrastructure planned as tokenized markets continue moving toward a fully continuous trading model.

Key Takeaways HYPE has declined more than 2% on Monday, with the token now challenging critical support near the $68.50 trendline Futures Open Interest contracted by over 2% across 24 hours to reach $2.72 billion, accompanied by $2.48 million in liquidated long positions Institutional investors poured $10.36 million into HYPE ETFs during the previous week, marking a ninth uninterrupted week of capital inflows Markets launched under HIP-3 have expanded their share of Hyperliquid perpetual trading volume from 2% to approximately 50% throughout 2026 Critical support rests at the 50-day EMA level of $63.13; a breakdown beneath this threshold may drive prices toward $53.71 Hyperliquid (HYPE) is currently exchanging hands near $65 on Monday, reflecting a decline exceeding 2% as widespread risk aversion across markets weighs on cryptocurrency valuations. This downturn continues the negative price movement observed during the previous week.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) Price Escalating geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran centered around oil tanker navigation rights in the Strait of Hormuz have triggered a flight from risk-oriented assets, with cryptocurrencies caught in the selloff. Alternative tokens such as HYPE have experienced heightened selling pressure as a result.

Derivatives market intelligence from CoinGlass indicates that Open Interest decreased by more than 2% during the last 24-hour period, settling at $2.72 billion. Aggregate liquidation events reached $2.93 million, with positions betting on price increases accounting for $2.48 million of this figure.

The funding rate metric has experienced a pronounced decline to 0.0275%, signaling an increase in traders establishing short positions. This represents a notable departure from the optimistic market positioning observed in prior weeks.

Institutional Capital Continues Flowing In Notwithstanding near-term price weakness, HYPE exchange-traded funds attracted $10.36 million in net inflows throughout the past week. This achievement represents the ninth consecutive week that institutional investment vehicles focused on HYPE have recorded positive capital flows.

Source: SoSoValue Cryptocurrency analyst Michaël van de Poppe shared an optimistic assessment on July 12, stating that the HYPE chart “is ready to break out upwards” with a price objective of $100. His thesis rests on consistent revenue expansion, a pattern of ascending peaks and troughs, and the asset maintaining position above both its 21-day and 50-day moving average indicators.

The $HYPE chart is super strong.

It's ready to break out upwards, and the next target is going to be $100.

The reasons for the fact that this is the case:

– Constant revenue growth and value accrual to the token.
– Holding above the 21-Day and 50-Day MA's.
– Constant higher… pic.twitter.com/S6AZSY1Ecr

— Michaël van de Poppe (@CryptoMichNL) July 12, 2026

From a technical perspective, HYPE is currently challenging a breakout from an important ascending trendline situated around $68.50. The 50-day exponential moving average positioned at $63.13 now represents the nearest support zone requiring monitoring.

The Relative Strength Index has deteriorated below the neutral 50 mark to 48, while the MACD indicator is charting below its signal line. These technical readings collectively suggest diminishing bullish momentum.

A daily candle closure beneath the $63.13 threshold could establish conditions for a move toward the 50% Fibonacci retracement level located at $53.71. Conversely, a price recovery scenario would establish the previous swing high at $75.58 as the initial resistance target.

Permissionless Markets Drive Volume Growth Beyond immediate price dynamics, Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 infrastructure has demonstrated explosive adoption. HIP-3 enables developers to launch permissionless perpetual futures markets directly onchain.

The protocol’s contribution to aggregate Hyperliquid perpetual futures volume has surged from roughly 2% when 2026 commenced to approaching 50% presently. This expansion correlates with increasing retail trader appetite for onchain equity derivatives products.

TradeXYZ has emerged as the dominant participant within this category, operating markets including XYZ100 (which tracks the Nasdaq-100 index) alongside individual equity perpetuals on companies like Nvidia and Tesla, all settled using stablecoins.

The continuous 24/7 market availability represents a fundamental attraction point—participants can respond to breaking developments at any moment without restriction to traditional market hours.

HYPE exchange-traded funds documented their ninth consecutive week of institutional capital inflows totaling $10.36 million as of the most recent reporting period.

Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo, a registered investment advisor (RIA) based in Orlando, Florida, has disclosed that it holds shares of the Franklin XRP exchange-traded fund (ETF).

In its latest 13F filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the company reported holding 964 shares of the ETF, valued at around $11,000 at press time. The firm boasts $1.35-$1.4 billion in assets under management (AUM) and is currently ranked among the top 500 RIAs in the US and named to the Best Financial Advisory Firms list.

Source: sec.gov

XRP ETFs attract institutional interestA similar Virginia-based firm, Main Street Group, also disclosed XRP exposure. According to its Q2 2026 regulatory filing, the firm holds 5,261 shares (valued at roughly $58,292 at the time of writing) in the Canary XRP ETF.

Additional firms with exposure in various XRP ETFs include Larson Financial Group ($1.8 million), Q3 Asset Management ($430,000), and Hurley Capital ($135,000). These firms join more prominent players like Flow Traders, whose XRP ETF is worth $1.93 million and makes up the largest institutional XRP ETF portfolio.

While the amount of funds invested varies, the above filings indicate increased institutional interest in XRP ETFs. According to MarketBeat, institutional investors purchased over 160,000 XRP ETF shares in the last 24 months. In the past year, inflows into these investment vehicles have totaled $2.50 million with zero outflows.

Source: MarketBeat

Token price is not reflective of ETF inflowsDespite rising institutional investment in XRP ETFs, the token itself is down 62.16% over the past year, trading at $1.06. Investor anticipation of US Fed interest hikes to curb inflation has also caused a recent market downturn, with XRP down over 3% in the past day.

Source: CoinMarketCap

That said, there just may be a silver lining, since the token has printed a chart similar to one from a time when it surged by 60,000%.

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.

Read the Next News

Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz has challenged claims that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission focused only on Ripple’s sales of XRP. 

Summary

David Schwartz says the SEC repeatedly portrayed XRP itself as a security during Ripple litigation. Marc Fagel argues the case ultimately tested whether Ripple sold XRP through unregistered securities offerings. The 2023 ruling separated XRP tokens from transactions, rejecting programmatic sales while penalizing institutional deals. He said the agency’s complaint and public statements repeatedly described XRP itself as a security before the court rejected parts of that broader position.

The exchange followed comments from former SEC attorney Marc Fagel, who said the case ultimately turned on whether Ripple sold XRP through unregistered securities offerings. Schwartz argued that this summary leaves out the regulator’s original language and the court’s response to it.

Schwartz disputes narrower reading of SEC case In a July 14 X exchange, Fagel said the SEC needed to prove that Ripple sold XRP as a security to establish a Section 5 violation. He added that the agency did not need to decide every secondary-market transaction in its case against Ripple.

Schwartz agreed that Ripple’s sales mattered but rejected the claim that this was the regulator’s only argument. He wrote, “The complaint itself frequently refers to XRP itself as the security.” He called the narrower retelling “an attempt at completely rewriting history.”

You are ignoring the entire thrust of their argument, their statements around it, and the pushback they got from the court. This is an attempt at completely rewriting history.

The complaint itself frequently refers to XRP itself as the security. The SEC's press release… pic.twitter.com/pjF6Ku0Jbf

— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) July 13, 2026 SEC complaint used broad language around XRP The SEC’s December 2020 complaint said Ripple and its executives sold more than 14.6 billion units of a “digital asset security called XRP.” The regulator alleged that the sales raised more than $1.38 billion without registration or an exemption.

The SEC’s public announcement focused on Ripple’s alleged unregistered offering and its executives’ personal sales. Fagel later acknowledged that the agency’s messaging lacked nuance and that its points appeared to change during the case. He maintained that the final legal question concerned Ripple’s XRP transactions.

Court separated the token from each transaction Judge Analisa Torres drew a distinction between XRP and the contracts or schemes used to sell it. Her July 2023 order said XRP, as a digital token, was not “in and of itself” a contract, transaction or scheme that met the Howey test.

The court then reviewed Ripple’s sales by category. It found that about $728.9 million in direct institutional sales constituted unregistered investment contracts. Programmatic exchange sales did not meet the same test because buyers did not know whether Ripple or another holder sold the tokens.

Ripple case ended with split ruling intact The SEC and Ripple dismissed their appeals in August 2025, formally ending the civil case. The final judgment kept a $125.04 million penalty and a permanent injunction tied to future unregistered institutional sales.

Notably, the XRP community marked July 13 as the third anniversary of the 2023 ruling. The decision protected Ripple’s programmatic exchange sales while leaving its institutional transactions subject to securities law.

Related reporting showed that Ripple considered closing after the SEC filed its complaint. The company continued the case and spent about $150 million on its legal defense, according to Ripple executives, as reported by crypto.news.

Schwartz said the court’s rejection of the SEC’s broader position formed a major part of Ripple’s victory. Fagel said the outcome still centered on whether Ripple’s sales qualified as securities transactions. Their exchange reflects a lasting dispute over the agency’s legal burden, public wording and the ruling that followed. That distinction still shapes how XRP’s legal history is described.

Getting crypto into your bank account has always felt like one too many steps. You sell on an exchange, wait for the withdrawal, pay a fee somewhere in the middle, and hope nothing breaks. Oobit just cut out most of that process for TRX holders.

The Tether-backed payments app announced on March 1, 2026 that users can now send TRX directly from self-custodial wallets to bank accounts via SEPA in Europe, ACH in the United States, and Faster Payments in the United Kingdom. Transfers settle in seconds, with no swaps required and no third-party intermediaries involved.

What Oobit actually built here The feature connects crypto wallets directly to traditional banking rails, three of them specifically, covering the major fiat corridors in Europe, the US, and the UK.

SEPA handles euro-denominated transfers across most of Europe. ACH is the backbone of US dollar bank payments. Faster Payments is the UK’s near-instant pound sterling network.

Advertisement

The architecture routes transactions through DTR and leverages a partnership with DePay for execution. The absence of an intermediate swap is the notable part. Most crypto-to-bank pathways require converting to a stablecoin or fiat on an exchange first, which adds time, fees, and counterparty exposure. Oobit’s approach removes that layer.

This TRX-specific announcement builds on a broader rollout Oobit made just days earlier. On February 24, 2026, the company launched wallet-to-bank transfers supporting multiple tokens including BTC, ETH, USDT, and TRX. The March 1 announcement zeroed in on TRX specifically, signaling a deliberate push to deepen the TRON ecosystem’s integration with traditional finance.

Why TRON and why now Oobit is not a new name in the TRON ecosystem. The two have worked together previously on Tap and Pay functionality and merchant spending features, meaning this wallet-to-bank integration is the next step in an existing relationship rather than a cold start.

Oobit operates across more than 80 countries and supports transactions in over 180 countries. A wallet-to-bank feature that spans SEPA, ACH, and Faster Payments simultaneously covers most of the world’s retail banking population.

What this means for TRX holders and the broader market For investors holding TRX, the practical upgrade is straightforward. Liquidity becomes easier to access. You no longer need an account on a centralized exchange to convert your position to spendable fiat.

The Tether connection also deserves a mention. Tether, the issuer of USDT and one of the most influential entities in crypto infrastructure, backing Oobit gives the company both credibility and a natural distribution channel. USDT is already the dominant stablecoin on TRON. Having Tether-backed tooling that makes TRX more spendable and more liquid reinforces the network’s position as a payments layer.

The risk worth watching is regulatory. Direct crypto-to-bank transfers sit at the intersection of two heavily regulated industries. Banking regulators in the EU, US, and UK all have views on how fiat exits from crypto should be structured, and those views are not always consistent. Oobit will need to maintain compliance across all three payment rail jurisdictions simultaneously.

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

Robinhood Chain has been live for barely a week, and USDG liquidity on Uniswap has already doubled. The Paxos-issued stablecoin’s total value locked on the protocol climbed past $8.5 million, up from roughly half that just seven days ago.

Robinhood Chain’s first week, by the numbers Robinhood Chain, an Arbitrum-based Layer 2 network, officially launched its public mainnet on July 1, 2026. Uniswap deployed as the primary automated market maker from day one, essentially serving as the chain’s liquidity backbone.

The entire chain’s TVL crossed $100 million within days of going live, and Uniswap alone has captured over $30 million of that liquidity.

Advertisement

Trading volume on Uniswap reportedly reached as high as $500 million during the first week.

USDG now represents around 65% of the total stablecoin supply on Robinhood Chain.

Why USDG is growing so fast Ethena made a $50 million deposit into a USDG vault curated by Steakhouse Financial.

Robinhood Earn, a yield product built around USDG, offers an estimated 7% APY through structured vaults managed by Steakhouse Financial.

What this means for investors When a single stablecoin accounts for 65% of a chain’s stablecoin supply, the ecosystem’s health becomes tightly coupled to that one asset. If USDG faces a de-peg event, regulatory challenge, or liquidity crisis, the ripple effects across Robinhood Chain would be disproportionately severe.

Uniswap’s position as the flagship AMM on Robinhood Chain gives it a first-mover advantage, with over $30 million in liquidity already captured and $500 million in first-week trading volume.

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

Circle, the company behind USD Coin (USDC), minted nearly $750 million worth of USDC on the Solana blockchain on July 13, bringing the total USDC issued on Solana in 2026 to approximately $68.26 billion, according to Onchain Lens. This significant activity highlights Solana’s growing role as a major platform for dollar-backed crypto liquidity.

USDC issuance and Solana’s positionUSDC serves a vital function in the digital asset ecosystem, facilitating trade settlement, acting as collateral in lending and derivatives, and powering tokenized real-world asset transactions. Increased minting volumes often signal shifts in capital allocation and investor sentiment across the market.

Onchain Lens reported that the latest batch of tokens was sent to the Solana address 7VHUFJHWu2CuExkJcJrzhQPJ2oygupTWkL2A2For4BmE. The growing trend of USDC issuance on Solana has been evident throughout 2026. For example, in April, Circle minted $3.25 billion of USDC on the network within a single week, executed across thirteen separate tranches of 250 million tokens each.

Circle, a global financial technology firm, is known for issuing stablecoins and providing blockchain-based payment solutions. Solana is a high-performance blockchain recognized for its speed and low-cost transactions, making it a preferred venue for both projects and traders seeking fast settlements.

Mini dictionary: Onchain Lens, a blockchain tracking and analytics platform that monitors major activity and trends in cryptocurrency networks.

Gross issuance, supply, and liquidity flowWhile $68.26 billion represents the total USDC minted on Solana this year, much of this amount does not remain on the network. According to DefiLlama, the current USDC supply on Solana is about $7.3 billion. Industry data shows that across all blockchains, total USDC supply stands near $73.5 billion.

MetricSolanaAll Blockchains2026 Gross USDC Issuance$68.26 billionn/aCurrent USDC Supply$7.3 billion$73.5 billionThis means only 10.7% of the USDC issued on Solana remains on the chain, with the remainder likely redeemed, burned, or moved to other blockchain networks as market participants adjust their strategies. Far from suggesting lost assets, these numbers indicate that liquidity is actively recycled, confirming that Solana operates as an efficient settlement layer for large-scale dollar flow.

Circle has consistently emphasized the importance of measuring USDC issuance alongside redemptions and circulating supply. The company’s transparency reports specifically distinguish between new minting, redemptions, and total supply, suggesting that issuance alone is not a complete indicator of market dynamics.

USDC is a digital dollar backed 100% by highly liquid cash and cash-equivalent assets and is always redeemable 1:1 for US dollars.

— Circle

As the ecosystem continues to evolve, these transparency measures are designed to provide greater clarity for market participants and institutional users.

Key drivers behind Solana’s USDC activitySolana remains a leading hub for digital asset trading activity, which helps explain Circle’s heavy USDC issuance on the network. Earlier this year, USDC accounted for 52% of all stablecoins held on Solana, reaching $14.7 billion in reserves. Major decentralized exchanges on Solana, including Raydium, Jupiter, and Orca, support high transaction volumes that rely on a robust stablecoin reserve for liquidity.

Circle’s expansion into institutional finance further drives USDC issuance on Solana. In June, BNY became the first institutional partner to offer direct custody and minting of USDC. The company also collaborates with global banks such as Standard Chartered, reinforcing its broader mission to integrate traditional finance with blockchain infrastructure.

The USDC reserve is primarily composed of cash and short-term US Treasury instruments, maintaining full backing and allowing users to redeem USDC 1:1 for U.S. dollars. This model has helped USDC retain its position as the world’s second-largest stablecoin by market capitalization, trailing only Tether’s USDT.

Going forward, observers are likely to focus on the speed and frequency with which newly minted USDC either stays on Solana or transitions off the chain. Solana’s prominence is increasingly measured by the scale of dollar volumes moving through its network, rather than any fixed snapshot of circulating supply.

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.

Spain has recorded the largest fan token burn of the FIFA World Cup 2026 after more than 1.16 million SPAIN Fan Tokens were permanently removed from circulation following the team’s quarter-final victory.

Summary

Spain burned 1.16 million SPAIN Fan Tokens after defeating Belgium in the World Cup quarter-finals. The Burn to Glory campaign has now removed nearly 3 million SPAIN tokens from circulation. Chiliz and LBank expanded fan token trading with new futures products and live trading competitions. According to Chiliz, Spain’s 2-1 win over Belgium triggered the destruction of 1,161,234 SPAIN Fan Tokens under its Burn to Glory campaign, reducing the token’s total supply to 27.25 million. The company said the burned tokens were worth about $649,050 and pushed Spain to the top of the tournament’s burn leaderboard with nearly three million tokens removed so far.

With Spain now through to the semi-finals as the first World Cup affiliate among Chiliz’s national team partners, another victory over France would take the cumulative burn above the three million token milestone, according to the campaign’s mechanics.

Spain extends its lead in Chiliz’s Burn to Glory campaign Burn to Glory ties token burns to on-field success, permanently removing part of a participating national team’s fan token supply after qualifying wins. Spain has benefited the most from the mechanism during this year’s tournament, while Belgium remains second on the leaderboard despite leaving the competition.

Chiliz said Belgium’s quarter-final defeat did not change its standing as the second-largest contributor to the campaign, with about 870,000 BELG Fan Tokens already burned during the World Cup.

Argentina has also continued climbing the rankings after beating Switzerland to reach the final four. According to Chiliz, a total of 160,000 ARG Fan Tokens have been burned across the tournament. The company added that Argentina’s treasury burn allocation will increase from 5% to 7.5% as a result of its semi-final qualification.

Portugal, which exited after losing to Spain in the Round of 16, also took part in the campaign. Chiliz reported that 208,000 POR Fan Tokens were permanently removed before the team’s elimination.

Fan token trading expands beyond tournament results Alongside the burn campaign, Chiliz has continued adding trading features around fan tokens as interest in the World Cup ecosystem grows.

Crypto exchange LBank has introduced perpetual futures for Argentina and Portugal fan tokens while announcing plans to list futures contracts for several major football club tokens. According to the exchange, upcoming additions include tokens linked to Atletico Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Paris Saint-Germain, Manchester City, Galatasaray and Arsenal.

Elsewhere, Chiliz has launched live weekly trader competitions through its Vibe Trading and Battle Trade products, allowing participants to compete while World Cup matches are being played.

Away from the tournament, the company is also preparing its next expansion for the Socios platform. Following regulatory approval in the United States, Chiliz said it is working toward launching college sports fan tokens on the app, with the rollout scheduled for the 2026 college sports season.

Earlier in the tournament, the Socios team also organized a Token Hunt promotion that allowed users to collect SPAIN and BELG Fan Tokens along with CHZ rewards before the latest Burn to Glory milestones were reached.

Together, those initiatives show that Chiliz has continued building activity around fan tokens beyond match-day price movements, while tying token supply changes directly to results on the pitch.

The launch of Robinhood Chain on an Ethereum layer-2 network is bullish for long-term value and network effects, argue analysts. 

Robinhood Chain has generated $816,000 in gross revenue since launching on July 1, with 89% captured by Robinhood, 10% by Arbitrum as middleware, and only 0.15%, or $1,538, paid to Ethereum for settlement, which doesn’t sound great.

Robinhood Chain is an EVM-compatible Arbitrum-based layer-2 network that uses ETH as its native gas token, but Ethereum is not seeing any revenue benefits yet.

Bullish or Bearish for Ethereum? Lorenzo Valente, director of research at Ark Invest, said, “If your thesis is ‘ETH is money,’ Robinhood building here is ultra bullish.” “More activity, more ETH collateral, more lindyness,” he added.

However, for those who believe ETH is a revenue-generating asset, “this is the ultra-bear case.” He added that Robinhood was never going to build on Solana, Sui, or any “monolithic layer-1” because it wants stack customization.

“They want to be landlords, not renters. Ethereum won this deal on merit. It’s just not pricing it right … Ethereum sells the most valuable settlement layer in crypto at marginal cost.”

Valente said that a healthier split would be 75% to Robinhood, 10% to Arbitrum, and 15% to Ethereum.

The Robinhood Chain is the cleanest case study of what happened to ETH’s economics over time.

Since inception, @RobinhoodApp Chain has grossed ~$816K in revenue.@Arbitrum, the middleware provider, takes 10%: ~$80K.

Arbitrum then pays Ethereum for settlement: $1,538.

The… pic.twitter.com/Jc8k4yi60M

— Lorenzo Valente (@LorenzoARK) July 13, 2026

Responding to the post, Consensys founder Joe Lubin said Ethereum layer-1 revenue fees should stay low to foster growth.

You may also like: Expert: Bitcoin Faces $8B Attack Risk, Ethereum More Secure Bitmine Snaps Up Over 30,500 ETH as Tom Lee Focuses on Crypto’s New Success Story AI Found a Real Ethereum Bug – But the Bigger Story Is What Comes Next “Tens of thousands of companies will set up shop over the next 2-3 years on some mix of Ethereum L1, L2s, and private permissioned EVMs.”

“Monetary premium will grow very large, fee revenue to L1 from so much activity,” he added before concluding that staking and other locking away of ETH will reduce supply, and “net burning of ETH under ultrasound conditions will further grow the value of ETH.”

Since its launch a fortnight ago, 82,895 ETH worth around $147.5 million has been bridged to Robinhood Chain, according to Defillama. Analysts say this has become another demand sink, along with staking, which has 33% of the supply locked, treasury companies, and ETFs.

No Love For ETH Prices Despite this bullish narrative, Ether prices remain at multi-year bear market lows with low volume and negative sentiment. ETH is trading flat on the day at around $1,780 following a dip to $1,750 during early Tuesday trading in Asia.

It has moved off its cycle low of just over $1,500 in late June, but has hit resistance at $1,800 six times over the past ten days. This remains the barrier to break for ETH to continue its slow climb higher.

The major catalysts for Ether are macro and likely to be inflation coming down and lower chances of a Fed rate hike.

Tags:

Jito DAO just put its money where its tokenomics are. The protocol has introduced JIP-38, a governance proposal that would channel 100% of Jito’s 80% revenue share from its upcoming JTX Trade platform directly into automated buybacks and burns of the JTO token, with a minimum commitment of one year.

What JIP-38 actually does The mechanics are straightforward, even if the implications are not. JTX Trade, Jito Labs’ forthcoming self-custodial trading terminal built on Solana, will generate trading fees. Under the current structure, Jito DAO receives an 80% cut of those fees.

JIP-38 proposes taking that entire 80% share and routing it into a programmatic mechanism called a Rev Splitter. The Rev Splitter would automatically purchase JTO tokens on the open market and then burn them, permanently removing them from circulation.

In English: every dollar of fee revenue Jito earns from JTX Trade gets used to buy JTO and destroy it. No treasury allocation debates, no discretionary spending. Just automated supply reduction, running for at least one year through Q4 2027.

Advertisement

The on-chain nature of the Rev Splitter means anyone can verify the buybacks in real time.

JTX Trade and Jito’s product evolution To understand why JIP-38 matters, you need to understand what JTX Trade represents for Jito’s broader strategy. The protocol built its reputation on Solana infrastructure: the Jito Block Engine handles MEV (maximal extractable value) optimization, and JitoSOL is one of the most widely adopted liquid staking tokens on the network, used by entities as large as Coinbase.

JTX Trade is a self-custodial trading terminal designed for what Jito describes as “pro-retail” users, essentially experienced individual traders who want institutional-grade tools without giving up custody of their funds. The platform was announced in May 2026, with a launch window targeting July 2026.

Initially, JTX Trade will focus on spot trading. The roadmap extends into perpetual futures and even prediction markets.

The buyback playbook in DeFi JIP-38 didn’t emerge in a vacuum. Jito’s community has been debating fee allocation strategies for months. A previous proposal, JIP-24, also centered on routing fees toward buybacks, suggesting this is a conversation the DAO has been iterating on rather than a sudden decision.

By locking in the policy for at least one year, Jito is essentially telling the market: we believe JTX Trade will generate enough fees to make this worthwhile, and we’re willing to stake our treasury allocation on that conviction.

What this means for JTO holders and the broader market For current JTO holders, if JTX Trade generates substantial trading volume, the automated buybacks create persistent buying pressure on JTO while simultaneously removing tokens from circulation.

There’s also a governance dimension worth watching. JIP-38 positions Jito as one of the most explicitly “shareholder-friendly” DAOs in crypto. By making every fee dollar traceable and every buyback verifiable on-chain, the protocol is creating a level of financial transparency that most traditional companies would struggle to match.

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

The Pump.fun business model is making profits at a much quicker pace than it is spending on narratives. According to the recent data, the platform’s annualized revenue has hit $344 million, with the network earning approximately $944,000 every day for the past three months. 

Meanwhile, more than $407 million worth of PUMP tokens have already been bought back and removed from circulation.

In simple terms, PUMP is no longer relying solely on speculation. The platform is generating enough cash flow to consistently return value to token holders.

Source: Pump.fun Approximately half of the revenue is returning According to AMBCrypto’s close analysis on the network data, over 50% of its revenue is allocated to token buybacks. This cements the network’s long-term project of reducing circulating supply while at the same time boosting its volatility.

Every day when the platform generates income, some part of the income is spent on buying PUMP coins from the market before destroying them.

The impact of the process has been significant. Up until now, 149 billion PUMP tokens have been destroyed, thereby covering almost 15 percent of the entire circulating supply.

The process does not guarantee higher prices. However, it creates a steady source of demand regardless of broader market conditions.

Source: Pump.fun How are network users reacting to the developments? Normally, buybacks are only effective if the underlying business continues generating revenue. At least for now, that does not seem to be the case.

The number of active addresses is still high. In most cases, it has exceeded 7,000 users per day throughout the past few months. The consistency matters since it suggests that the platform’s revenue is being supported by actual network activity rather than a short-lived spike in trading volume.

In other words, the allocation of a bigger proportion of revenue on buyback seems to bear some fruit. If the activity sustains, the current bullish momentum could be accelerated.

Source: Santiment Is $0.001698 next for PUMP? On the daily chart, the token’s price action has just broken past the 20-period Simple Moving Average (20 SMA). The Bollinger Band’s divergence is wide enough, suggesting that the market still has more volatility for a potential explosive move. But the direction is not clear.

However, with the token Stochastic RSI now dropping below 25, which often points to an oversold market, the current bullish push could be prolonged. At press time the token had recorded a 10% surge and was trading at around $0.001495.

The resistance level at $0.001698 stands as the next target for the market buyer if the current bullish run is sustained.

All in all, Pump.fun is already generating nearly $1 million per day. If that pace continues, buybacks will continue removing supply regardless of short-term market sentiment. When combined with positive technicals, the projected bullish run continuation nears certainty.

Source: TradingView Final Summary Pump.fun’s annualized revenue has surged to $344 million, with the platform generating nearly $944,000 per day over the past three months. More than $407 million has been allocated to buybacks, removing nearly 15% of PUMP’s total supply from circulation.

In brief New Hampshire's governor signed the Blockchain Basics Law, introducing new protections for blockchain innovation and crypto users in the state. Last year, the state became the first in the nation to introduce a strategic Bitcoin reserve, allowing for up to 5% of public funds to be invested in the leading crypto asset. However, its executive council recently rejected the allowance of the first Bitcoin-backed municipal bond. New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte helped make the state into one of the crypto-friendliest in the nation when she signed HB 639 into law last week. 

Known as the The Blockchain Basic Laws act, the bill provides protections for cryptocurrency innovation and use in the state while also allowing for the creation of a special blockchain dispute docket in the superior court. 

"With Governor Ayotte's signature on HB 639, New Hampshire has once again demonstrated that it intends to lead the nation in blockchain innovation," said New Hampshire Representative Keith Ammon, the bill’s primary sponsor, in a statement. 

“The Blockchain Basic Laws protect one of the most fundamental rights in the digital economy—the right of individuals to control their own digital assets through self-custody,” he added. “They also provide clear legal protections for blockchain developers, miners, validators, entrepreneurs, and businesses building the next generation of financial technology.”

The state’s latest blockchain legislation follows its passing of a strategic Bitcoin reserve last year. The bill, signed by Ayotte in May 2025, allows the state’s treasurer to invest up to 5% of its public funds in the leading crypto asset, alongside precious metals like gold and silver. 

Ammon, who played a key role in that bill’s passage, told Decrypt at the time it was “one little way our state could hedge against inflation in the future."

“Today, with the signing of HB 639, we have taken another major step by enacting one of the most comprehensive blockchain rights laws in the country,” he said in a statement. “Entrepreneurs, investors, developers, and innovators across America should know that New Hampshire is open for blockchain business."

Despite its advances, the state’s executive council last week blocked a proposal that would have allowed the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority to facilitate a Bitcoin-backed municipal bond.

Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.

The US government just moved $288 million worth of Bitcoin and Ether to Coinbase Prime, the exchange’s institutional custody and trading arm. The deposits include crypto confiscated from three separate criminal cases: assets tied to Brian Krewson, the defunct BTC-e exchange, and Ryan Farace.

Where the crypto came from BTC-e was a cryptocurrency exchange seized by US authorities back in 2017 on money laundering charges. The platform was one of the earliest major exchanges to face a full government takedown, and forfeited assets from that case have been trickling through the legal system ever since.

Ryan Farace, along with his brother Joseph Farace, was involved in a drug trafficking operation that led to the forfeiture of over 4,000 BTC between 2018 and 2021. Ryan and Joseph were sentenced for their roles in 2023 and 2024, respectively.

Advertisement

The government also made a smaller, related transfer of 2.44 BTC to Coinbase Prime addresses, suggesting this isn’t a one-off dump but part of a broader, methodical approach to managing its growing crypto inventory.

Why Coinbase Prime matters here Coinbase Prime is an institutional-grade platform built for large clients, including government agencies, that need custody services, over-the-counter trading, and structured liquidation capabilities.

The Department of Justice and the US Marshals Service have increasingly relied on regulated platforms like Coinbase to handle forfeited digital assets. The process typically works like this: assets are held in custody until all legal formalities surrounding forfeiture are completed, at which point they can be liquidated for the government’s benefit.

The use of Coinbase Prime specifically signals something worth noting. The government is choosing regulated, compliance-heavy infrastructure over ad hoc methods for managing these assets. That’s a far cry from the early days of federal crypto seizures, when the US Marshals Service literally auctioned off Silk Road Bitcoin in bulk lots to the highest bidder. Tim Draper famously bought nearly 30,000 BTC that way in 2014.

Market implications for Bitcoin and Ether holders Coinbase Prime facilitates OTC sales, which are specifically designed to minimize market impact. Large blocks of Bitcoin or Ether can be matched with institutional buyers directly, bypassing the public order book.

On-chain analytics firms can now track these government wallets in near real-time. Transparency means traders get advance warning of potential sales, but it also means every wallet movement gets amplified by social media and crypto news cycles.

Investors would be wise to monitor Coinbase Prime wallet activity and any subsequent announcements from the DOJ or US Marshals Service regarding auction schedules or liquidation timelines.

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

XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) attorney John Deaton on Sunday said the SEC sued Ripple executives individually to force a faster settlement, calling it a deliberate intimidation campaign that reached their families.

How Far Did The SEC’s Intimidation Tactics Actually Go?Deaton argued on X that former SEC Chair Jay Clayton explicitly stated in a prior interview that suing individual executives, even in non-fraud cases, gives the government settlement leverage over the company.

“When the full weight and force of the United States Government comes after you, I don’t care who you are — it can be quite intimidating,” Deaton wrote. “That’s why Clayton did it.”

Prosecutors attempted to subpoena every credit card and bank statement belonging to Brad Garlinghouse and co-founder Chris Larsen, including records from their wives and family members, despite both executives having already handed over every XRP transaction ever made.

The judge shut that request down.

Deaton identified those same prosecutors as the team an appellate court later described as “arbitrary and capricious” and the same lawyers sanctioned in the Debt Box case for committing fraud upon the court. 

The SEC complaint was drafted in a fraud-like style despite the agency never alleging fraud, a tactic Deaton said was designed to pressure the defendants into settling.

The same team lied to the court, claiming Deaton had threatened to beat up SEC staff, and asked the court to bar him from serving as amicus counsel on behalf of 75,000 XRP holders.

However, Garlinghouse and Larsen refused to settle through all of it, winning the case with those 75,000 holders behind them.

From Delisted To Institutional: How XRP Survived The SECRipple fought through four years of litigation and roughly $150 million in legal fees. A federal judge ultimately ruled that XRP itself was not a security and that programmatic sales on exchanges did not constitute securities transactions. 

CEO Brad Garlinghouse revealed last week that Ripple had come close to shutting down entirely and distributing its XRP holdings to shareholders before choosing to fight.

Ripple has since secured licenses across multiple jurisdictions and expanded its U.S. operations, with banks actively building on its payments infrastructure.

XRP Price Update: Key Levels to WatchWhale activity on the XRP Ledger dropped sharply as crypto analyst Ali Charts noted on Monday.

Transactions worth more than $1 million fell from 70 over the past week to just 2 on Monday.

XRP is sitting below its 20-day EMA at $1.1044 and 50-day EMA at $1.1606.  Meanwhile, buyers have repeatedly defended the $1.03 to $1.05 support zone, but the falling trendline keeps producing lower highs.

Key levels for XRP: $1.03 — losing this on a daily close confirms a breakdown and opens $1, then $0.95 $1.10 — first level XRP needs to reclaim to break the descending trendline Image: Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

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

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

@chainlink has crossed 900,000 non-empty $LINK wallets on Ethereum, an all-time high, with roughly 20,000 new addresses added in the past month alone. The milestone lands while the token trades near local lows in the $7.80 range, a gap that on-chain analytics firm @SantimentData describes as quiet accumulation: holders building exposure while the price stays flat and broader market attention sits elsewhere.

Wallets Rising, Price Not Following The divergence is not new to Chainlink watchers. Santiment data shows $LINK added more than 8,000 non-empty wallets in just five days earlier this month, pushing the total holder count toward 900,000. That kind of wallet growth at a price near local lows typically signals accumulation rather than speculation. The broader trend also extends to larger holders. The number of Chainlink wallets holding at least 100,000 $LINK climbed to a fresh all-time high earlier in 2026, with 805 such addresses on record. Over a seven-week stretch, that cohort expanded by 8.2%, marking the fastest pace of accumulation since the metric was tracked.

Santiment classifies these as whale-tier addresses, typically associated with institutions, high-net-worth individuals, and long-term strategic holders. The growth in this bracket does not come from short-term speculation. A wallet holding nearly $1 million in a single altcoin is likely structured around a multi-month or multi-year thesis.

Adoption Running Ahead of the Chart The on-chain activity sits against a backdrop of expanding real-world integrations. Robinhood activated its Ethereum-based layer 2 blockchain mainnet on July 1, 2026, and selected Chainlink to provide data feeds, data streams, and its cross-chain interoperability protocol from the initial block, powering tokenized stock tokens and on-chain products for millions of users. The DTCC also selected Chainlink's technology in May 2026 to power a new collateral system targeted for the fourth quarter, while more than fifty banks across sixteen countries joined Chainlink's Project Pangea in June 2026 to build faster foreign exchange settlement.

Chainlink has had one of its biggest institutional stretches of the year, and the price has barely noticed. The broader pattern is clear: $LINK has fallen around 20% over the past three months despite positive ecosystem announcements, showing that the market has been discounting good news and focusing more on macro and technical pressure than on long-term adoption headlines. Whether the steady build in holder counts eventually translates into price momentum remains the central question for Chainlink in the months ahead.

Sources:
Blockchain Reporter: Chainlink Whale Wallets Hit All-Time High, Signaling Solid Accumulation
Crypto Briefing: Chainlink Posts Two Highest Network Growth Days of 2026
MEXC: Chainlink LINK Price Prediction July 2026

While much of DeFi has been busy watching its TVL shrink, Morpho has been doing the opposite. The decentralized lending protocol now holds approximately $2.8 billion in USDC deposits, making it the single largest venue for USDC lending in decentralized finance.

How Morpho became DeFi’s stablecoin magnet Morpho’s architecture sets it apart from traditional pooled lending protocols. Unlike systems where everyone’s deposits sit in one big liquidity pot with uniform risk parameters, Morpho uses a modular, curator-managed vault system. Curators, most notably Steakhouse Financial, manage vaults with tailored strategies that optimize yield while adjusting risk exposure. Steakhouse Financial’s curated vaults handle significant portions of the platform’s USDC deposits, including hundreds of millions on Base.

Advertisement

Morpho previously raised $175 million at a $2 billion valuation from investors including a16z and Paradigm. The protocol operates on both Ethereum and Base.

Strategic partnerships fueling capital inflows Morpho secured a major distribution channel when Coinbase introduced USDC lending powered by Morpho’s vault technology in September 2025. That partnership put Morpho’s infrastructure in front of Coinbase’s user base, funneling capital from retail and institutional users alike.

In June 2026, Morpho teamed up with Zama and Steakhouse Financial to launch the first confidential DeFi yield vaults. These allow users to make encrypted USDC deposits while still earning on-chain yield, a product designed for institutional investors who want DeFi returns without having their positions visible to anyone with a block explorer.

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

A single manipulated price feed let an attacker turn 250 SAUCE tokens worth a few dollars into $9.05 million in borrowed USDC and wrapped HBAR in eight seconds.

Bonzo Lend, a lending protocol on the Hedera network, lost approximately $9.05 million after an attacker exploited a verification flaw in a third-party Supra oracle contract on July 11.

The attacker deposited 250 SAUCE tokens worth a few dollars as collateral, then submitted a manipulated price update that inflated the token's HBAR-denominated value, according to a preliminary incident report Bonzo published. The account subsequently borrowed 6.63 million USDC and 34.52 million wrapped HBAR, worth roughly $9.05 million at the report's reference HBAR price.

Fake Price, Fast ExitA second wallet borrowed roughly $1 million more while the abnormal price persisted, then contacted Bonzo through Discord, identified itself as a white-hat responder and said it would return the funds. That put total abnormal borrowing at about $10.06 million before the return.

Bonzo's own X account said the lend protocol had been temporarily paused while its team investigated volatile markets, and later confirmed it remains paused pending recovery work. Supra Labs, whose oracle contract processed the bad price, published its own incident report attributing the failure to a degenerate BLS signature and zero-valued public key that its Hedera verifier wrongly accepted for a single SAUCE/wHBAR feed, while saying its core aggregation and other feeds were unaffected.

Ecosystem FalloutHedera's total value locked fell nearly 40% in 24 hours after the exploit, and Bonzo's own TVL plunged 77% in the same window. DefiLlama now shows Bonzo's TVL at $3.06 million.

A security researcher's technical writeup said more than $5.25 million of the stolen funds was bridged to Ethereum via LayerZero and swapped into ETH within hours.

DFINITY Goes Live with Community Stress Test@Dfinity has activated MULTI/DEX in Play Mode on multidex.ai, kicking off a structured community evaluation phase for what the project describes as a "DeFi 3.0" protocol built entirely on Internet Computer ($ICP).

The exchange went live on July 11, and simulated trading volume crossed $243 million within 24 hours by July 13, according to the platform's public dashboard. All balances during this phase are dummy assets, meaning no real capital is at risk. Each participant starts with $100,000 in simulated funds and competes on a public leaderboard.

The exchange recorded over $162 million in volume and more than $129,000 in simulated fees on its first day alone.

How MULTI/DEX WorksMULTI/DEX runs 100% on-chain and lists Bitcoin ($BTC), Ethereum ($ETH), Solana ($SOL), and $ICP against an ICPUSD quote asset. It combines a central limit order book with an automated market maker (AMM), and supports both spot trading and margin positions with up to 10x leverage. An insurance fund built from 5% liquidation penalties is designed to absorb bad debt and keep the exchange solvent.

The infrastructure sits under the governance of the Network Nervous System (NNS), Internet Computer's on-chain algorithmic governance mechanism, which directly orchestrates and updates the network. NNS proposal 142,743 created a dedicated SEV-enabled subnet with confidential computing to host the exchange, spanning seven nodes across seven independent providers and seven jurisdictions. A follow-up proposal on July 9 authorized deployment of the exchange canisters on that subnet.

The Play Mode phase is not just a product demonstration. DFINITY is using it as a formal community evaluation ahead of an official GitHub release. Developers are actively encouraged to probe the protocol for vulnerabilities, with bugs and exploits directed to a dedicated bounty email address. The broader goal is to gather enough community confidence to submit MULTI/DEX to an NNS vote for permanent, autonomous, ownerless execution.

DFINITY founder Dominic Williams framed the launch as a direct challenge to centralized exchanges, describing the project as "true DeFi that mimics CEXs." The play-mode period will determine whether the community endorses handing full control of the platform to the NNS.

Sources:
BeInCrypto via Yahoo Finance: ICP Traders Pile $243 Million Into Multi/DEX
DFINITY Developer Forum: MULTI/DEX Thread
DFINITY: The Network Nervous System, Governing the Internet Computer

A Bitcoin wallet dormant since the cryptocurrency traded near $6,500 has transferred 2,931 BTC worth about $188 million, reviving onchain activity after seven years.

Summary

A Bitcoin wallet inactive for seven years has moved 2,931 BTC worth about $188 million. Onchain data showed the wallet last became active when Bitcoin traded near $6,500, leaving the holder with an estimated tenfold gain. Whale sized transfers continue to dominate Bitcoin exchange inflows, a trend that analysts have historically linked to selling pressure. Blockchain intelligence platform Arkham reported that the long-inactive holder moved the Bitcoin from wallet “356my” to a new address, “bc1qn”, on Sunday. The transfer is the wallet’s first recorded onchain movement since it last became active when Bitcoin was priced at roughly $6,500.

With Bitcoin now changing hands at around $64,000, blockchain analytics platform Onchain Lens estimated the holder is sitting on nearly a tenfold gain from the original position.

A Bitcoin whale just woke up after 7 years.

2,931 $BTC (~$188M) was moved after sitting untouched since BTC traded at ~$6.5K.

Today, with BTC above ~$64K, the same stack is worth nearly 10x more.

Data credit: @arkham pic.twitter.com/y0JXIM91yK

— Onchain Lens (@OnchainLens) July 12, 2026 Whale transfers continue to dominate exchange flows The latest movement comes as large Bitcoin holders continue to account for most transfers into cryptocurrency exchanges, a trend that onchain data has linked to rising selling pressure.

CryptoQuant’s exchange whale ratio chart showed that about 99% of Bitcoin deposited to exchanges currently comes from the 10 largest individual transfers. The metric stood at 0.99 at the time of publication, indicating that whale-sized transactions continue to dominate exchange inflows.

According to CryptoQuant, elevated whale exchange ratios have historically been associated with bearish market conditions because large deposits are more likely to precede sizeable sell orders than routine transfers from retail investors.

Separately, data from Coinglass classifies transfers worth at least $10 million as whale transactions. Such movements have accounted for most Bitcoin flowing to exchanges in recent months, increasing trader focus on whether large holders are preparing to sell.

Selling pressure has also persisted from another direction. Data from Farside Investors showed that U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded $197 million in net inflows during the week leading up to Friday, although the products posted $4.51 billion in net outflows throughout June, their weakest monthly performance on record.

Dormant wallets remain under close watch Older Bitcoin wallets have continued attracting market attention because many are associated with early miners, long-term holders, or defunct trading platforms.

Earlier this year, crypto.news reported that a dormant whale destroyed 107 BTC worth about $8.3 million by sending the coins to an unrecoverable burn address after nearly 11 years of inactivity. Blockchain security firm AMLBot said the transactions may have been linked to the collapsed Mt. Gox exchange, although no entity behind the transfers was identified.

In a separate case reported by crypto.news, another Satoshi-era holder transferred 2,650 BTC worth more than $200 million to trading firms FalconX and Cumberland while retaining nearly 6,000 BTC. 

Although those transfers did not confirm an immediate sale, market participants closely tracked the movement because large transactions from early Bitcoin holders can introduce additional supply if the coins eventually reach exchanges.

https://coinness.com/ja/media/hyperliquid-how-to-use

Activity on Hyperliquid, a decentralized perpetual futures platform, has surged to a new peak with over $11 billion in open positions, marking the highest level for the year. This development reflects growing interest in the platform, which operates on its proprietary Layer 1 blockchain. The increase includes significant engagement in non-crypto markets, such as gold and equities, through its HIP-3 markets. Hyperliquid already accounts for about 70% of all on-chain perpetual futures volume, highlighting its dominant role in the sector. This milestone comes as the platform continues to attract interest amid a backdrop of robust global market activity.

Advertisement

Key Takeaways The surge in open positions on Hyperliquid suggests increased confidence and engagement from market participants, indicating a potential upward trend in user activity. Pricing within related prediction markets shows a minor increase in the likelihood of Hyperliquid reaching the $100 target by the end of 2026, now at 41.5% YES. The platform’s ability to capture a substantial share of both crypto and non-crypto markets appears to support its continued growth and relevance in the sector. What to Watch Market participants will be observing whether Hyperliquid can sustain this level of engagement and whether it will translate into further price increases, particularly towards the $100 target by December 31, 2026. Key developments to monitor include potential partnerships, technological advancements, and institutional interest, which could further influence market confidence. Additionally, any security incidents or regulatory challenges could impact market sentiment and alter current pricing expectations.

Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31 41.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 5.4% — — View market → January 1 2027 4% — — View market → January 1 2027 70.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 9.1% — — View market → January 1 2027 4.5% — — View market →

Ripple has announced that onchain financial products are rapidly transforming the global finance sector, signaling a clear shift from the experimental phase of blockchain toward widespread adoption. The technology company, which specializes in digital payment protocols and the XRP Ledger, cited increasing evidence that tokenized funds, bonds, and repurchase agreements (repos) are delivering significant improvements in settlement speed, cost reduction, transparency, and round-the-clock operational efficiency when compared to traditional systems.

UK takes the lead in digital assetsThe UK government has set out a strategic plan to establish itself as a center for tokenized wholesale finance. Ripple stated that the country’s robust capital markets, strong regulatory framework, and long-standing credibility in global finance give it a competitive advantage in driving digital asset innovation.

Industry forecasts suggest tokenized wholesale markets in the UK could achieve up to £33 billion, or approximately $45 billion, in annual economic output by 2035. Advocates claim that moving conventional financial instruments onto blockchain networks could deliver notable economic benefits as well as modernize financial infrastructure.

Ripple projects that tokenized funds, bonds, and repos are already enabling faster settlements, lower operational costs, and continuous market access, supporting the case for blockchain as a core element of future financial infrastructure.

Ripple also confirmed its ongoing participation in the UK Treasury’s Wholesale Digital Markets Taskforce. The Taskforce, working with regulators and private firms, is developing policies to advance the United Kingdom’s digital markets and support the rollout of blockchain-based financial products.

The UK initiative aims to increase the tokenization of real-world assets, including government bonds, corporate debt, money market funds, and repos. These efforts are designed to modernize financial markets while enabling real-time, transparent, and resilient transactions.

Mini dictionary: Repurchase agreement (repo), a short-term loan where one party sells securities to another with an agreement to repurchase them at a set date and price. Repos are widely used in money markets to manage liquidity between financial institutions.

Ripple and institutional adoption of blockchainThe momentum in tokenization is not confined to the UK. Financial institutions around the world are increasingly recognizing the advantages of bringing capital markets onchain. JPMorgan, one of the largest global banks, has underlined the growing importance of tokenized assets and programmable money, describing them as building blocks for the financial market’s next evolution.

Country/InstitutionTokenization StrategyAnnual Output TargetUKWholesale market and real-world asset tokenization£33 billion ($45 billion) by 2035RippleXRP Ledger as core infrastructure for regulated digital marketsGlobal scale (no explicit target)JPMorganAdoption of tokenized assets and programmable moneyNo direct output target statedRipple maintains that the XRP Ledger is well positioned to meet the needs of regulated digital markets. David Schwartz, Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer, has recently highlighted tokenized loans, securities, and repo markets as a significant opportunity for the network, stating that the platform could serve as an institutional backbone for bond issuance, securities processing, tokenized lending, and wholesale funding.

Ripple is working with regulators, financial institutions, and technology partners to shape frameworks that support regulated tokenization and encourage adoption of blockchain solutions in global finance.

As governments and leading institutions accelerate tokenization strategies, Ripple aims to ensure the XRP Ledger is prepared to facilitate large-scale, regulated trading of real-world assets. Observers say that the global financial system is increasingly positioning blockchain not simply as a vehicle for cryptocurrencies but as a foundational technology for markets and payments 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.