Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Standard Chartered Bank has emerged as a key player in the evolving payments infrastructure of the BRICS nations, according to recent analysis by crypto researcher SMQKE and independent journalist Maximus. The British multinational banking group describes itself as a “super connector,” providing institutional-grade, network-agnostic digital solutions to its clients across global financial markets.

XRP’s Role in Standard Chartered’s Payment NetworkStandard Chartered’s digital ecosystem spans both public blockchains such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, as well as central bank digital currency (CBDC) networks connected to Project mBridge and its latest form, BRICS Bridge. BRICS Bridge operates as a settlement corridor linking national banking systems across borders for more efficient international transactions.

A leaked document from the Hyperledger Foundation indicates that this architecture integrates with global Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) infrastructure and combines it with multiple local payment networks, including SEPA, ACH, and FPS in regions such as the UK, China, the United States, Europe, and Japan. Standard Chartered is directly linked to this payment structure, enabling broad institutional access.

In documentation recently circulated by SMQKE and examined by Maximus, Ripple and its native asset XRP appear alongside stablecoin issuers within Standard Chartered’s network diagrams. This placement highlights XRP’s presence in the institutional payment architecture.

Michael Spiegel, the Global Head of Transaction Banking at Standard Chartered, addressed XRP’s integration:

“We see a very large number of payment service providers native on ISO 20022 and also quite a lot of coin providers and Ripple’s XRP.” Spiegel added that the ISO 20022 standard enables bridging between traditional and decentralized finance.

ISO 20022 is the international standard for electronic financial messaging that major payment systems around the world now utilize. Ripple has aligned its products with this standard, which positions XRP as a native asset within this institutional financial infrastructure.

Mini dictionary: Project mBridge — A multilateral platform for cross-border payments and settlement among participating central banks, developed as a collaborative initiative including the BIS Innovation Hub and several central banks. The project facilitates fast, interoperable payments using CBDCs.

BRICS Pay Access Broadens Beyond Member StatesAnother notable element in Standard Chartered’s approach is its integration of BRICS Pay—a payment layer developed atop the BRICS Bridge infrastructure. BRICS Pay is not restricted solely to BRICS members. Standard Chartered has embedded BRICS Pay into its digital payments platform, which enables its clients to transact directly with partners in the BRICS countries.

This functional expansion transforms BRICS Bridge from a closed payment loop used only by BRICS nations into a larger, cross-border payment corridor. Institutions in the UK and other countries can now interact with the BRICS financial framework through Standard Chartered’s infrastructure.

BRICS Bridge’s expanded connectivity signals that the system may become a global payments network, linking emerging markets directly to established financial centers outside the BRICS bloc.

FeatureClosed BRICS SystemStandard Chartered IntegrationUsersBRICS countries onlyBRICS plus UK and additional global institutionsSupported AssetsBRICS national currencies, CBDCsBRICS currencies, CBDCs, XRP, stablecoinsScopeRegionalCross-border, internationalInstitutional Validation for XRPXRP’s presence within this infrastructure has been explicitly acknowledged by Standard Chartered. The bank, as a major global financial institution, is intertwined with the BRICS payment network and has adopted messaging protocols, such as ISO 20022, that support direct use of assets like XRP in cross-institutional transactions.

The development is notable given that few digital assets receive such explicit placement in institutional finance layers. Documentation shared by Standard Chartered indicates that XRP’s integration is not planned but has already occurred.

This suggests a new level of institutional acceptance for XRP, positioning it as an operational asset within large-scale cross-border payments, rather than as a speculative vehicle on the periphery of the financial system.

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.

Table of contents

Ether.fi went live this week with the biggest upgrade yet to its non-custodial “neobank” app, adding tokenized stock and metals trading, a dedicated Aave lending market for portfolio-backed borrowing, and programmatic buybacks of its ETHFI governance token, as the protocol pushes to become a full alternative to traditional banking rather than a purely DeFi-focused product.

What’s New in the “Summer” Release The centerpiece of the update is a new integration with xStocks that lets eligible users trade tokenized equities and metals alongside their crypto holdings, all held in self-custodial vaults with social recovery features rather than on a centralized exchange. Tokenized stock trading will not be available in the United States or certain other markets at launch, reflecting the regulatory patchwork still surrounding tokenized securities.

On the lending side, ether.fi deployed a dedicated Aave V4 instance on Optimism, giving users a way to borrow against their entire portfolio at rates currently around 4% and spend the proceeds directly through the ether.fi Cash card. The company says the new credit backend already carries $22 million in active borrowing, with a stated target of $500 million in lending capacity by 2027. Card users get 3% cash back on purchases, along with new fiat on- and off-ramps covering more than 30 currencies and payment methods, including Apple Pay and Cash App.

Why It Matters Ether.fi’s Cash card business already serves roughly 70,000 cardholders, giving the protocol a meaningful existing user base to migrate onto the expanded platform rather than starting a banking-style product from zero. Bundling trading, borrowing, and spending into one non-custodial app is also a bet that crypto-native infrastructure can compete directly with traditional neobanks on convenience, not just on yield.

The release adds a new revenue-linked mechanism for ETHFI holders too: the update introduces programmatic buybacks of the token, funded through protocol activity, though ether.fi hasn’t disclosed a fixed schedule or volume for the purchases. Combined with the dedicated Aave market’s borrowing activity, the update gives ETHFI a more direct link to the platform’s usage than it had before.

What This Means for the Days Ahead Whether ether.fi’s push into tokenized stocks and full-portfolio lending gains real traction will likely hinge on how quickly regulatory clarity develops in markets where the product remains restricted, the US chief among them. In the meantime, growth in the new Aave market’s borrowing volume and card adoption numbers will be the clearest signals of whether the “Summer” release is converting existing DeFi users into daily active spenders.

AUTHOR

Max delves deep into the cryptocurrency realm, with a passion for altcoins and NFTs. Convinced of crypto's transformative potential, he envisions a decentralized financial future. Max's background in the financial sector grants him unique insights into global monetary systems. In his leisure, Max embraces the thrill of adventures and is an avid sports enthusiast, finding balance and rejuvenation away from work.

Table of contents

Ondo Stocks has crossed $1 billion in total value, a threshold that carries more weight for on-chain market structure than for the round number itself. The update was included in the original report from Ondo Finance, which also pointed to additional ecosystem milestones tied to its recently launched perpetual products.

The move puts tokenized equities in a different conversation. A $1 billion value pool is still small compared with tokenized Treasury or stablecoin markets, but it changes how traders and institutions evaluate on-chain equity access. Rather than treating Ondo Stocks as an experimental window into US equities, market participants may begin pricing it as durable infrastructure for off-hours trading, collateral use, and portfolio construction across chains.

Tokenized equities occupy a middle position between stablecoins and private credit. They are more volatile than cash equivalents but more familiar to traditional investors than lending pools. That middle position may explain why the threshold has arrived now: after years of regulatory ambiguity, some investors are using tokenized wrappers to gain exposure without moving capital into native crypto assets.

That shift fits a broader pattern in tokenized real-world assets. The infrastructure around custody, settlement, and compliance has been consolidating quickly, and Ondo has been one of the more visible names testing how regulated assets can move across traditional and decentralized rails. The tokenization complex is not waiting for a single regulatory framework to mature; it is building around existing rules where it can.

Why a $1 billion threshold changes positioning
The market reads milestones like this through liquidity and persistence. A platform that reaches $1 billion in value has survived enough trading cycles to be evaluated by market makers, arbitrageurs, and risk teams. That is different from a newly launched product with volatile volume.

For Ondo Finance, the milestone also reduces some of the narrative risk around tokenized equities. Equity tokens face sharper regulatory questions than most tokenized assets because they touch investor protection rules, trading venue definitions, and asset eligibility concerns. Passing a size threshold does not resolve those questions, but it gives the project a larger base of users and counterparties who have accepted the current structure.

Still, the announcement leaves plenty unresolved. The source material does not provide a breakdown of the $1 billion by product, region, or holder type. It is unclear how much of that value is driven by retail flow versus institutional placement, or how much of the ecosystem surge reflects incentives rather than organic use. Those details will matter for any serious assessment of durability.

Regulatory timing adds another layer. US lawmakers have been negotiating a crypto market structure bill that could alter how digital asset platforms handle securities, and banking interests have been pushing for changes just before key votes. That policy fight remains far from settled, but it sits directly behind the tokenized equity business because so much of the product design depends on the line between a token and a security.

The ecosystem signal behind the headline number
Ondo’s update goes beyond the equities platform. The mention of recently launched perpetual products suggests the project is trying to widen the use cases around tokenized exposure. Perpetual contracts are a very different risk surface from spot equities, and tying them into the same ecosystem could attract traders who would not otherwise hold a tokenized stock position.

That expansion strategy is common in crypto when liquidity is fragmented. A platform announces a flagship metric while simultaneously pointing to new product lines that can recycle existing user attention and collateral. The risk is that ecosystem metrics become less transparent as the product suite grows, especially when assets with different settlement mechanics are bundled into a single headline.

For developers and infrastructure providers, the milestone is another data point in a competition that is quietly heating up. The networks best positioned to host tokenized equities need more than developer activity; they need predictable throughput, native identity tooling, and reliable oracle access for off-chain prices and corporate actions.

What the market should watch next
The immediate focus will be on whether the $1 billion value pool is sticky. Tokenized asset platforms can show sharp expansions when incentives, liquidity programs, or specific market conditions align. The stronger test is whether activity remains after the promotional phase and whether the platform can handle a down cycle in traditional equities.

There is also the question of interoperability. Ondo Stocks may have crossed $1 billion, but if that value is locked in isolated venues or dependent on one custodian, the broader market impact will be limited. The more useful signal would be movement of tokenized equities across multiple chains, collateral venues, and DeFi protocols without breaking compliance controls.

For now, the report gives market participants a concrete number around a trend that has been building without many clean data points. It frames Ondo Stocks as more than a niche product at the same time that it leaves enough ambiguity for cautious observers to keep asking how much of that value is genuinely new capital entering the on-chain market.

AUTHOR

Mysterious crypto writer with expertise in blockchain, offering deep insights that captivate and intrigue readers. With a unique ability to uncover hidden insights and trends, Samuel delivers in-depth analysis and thought-provoking content that keeps readers on the edge of their seats. His writing style is engaging and informative, blending technical knowledge with a sense of intrigue, making complex crypto topics accessible to both newcomers and seasoned industry professionals. Samuel’s work continues to capture the attention of the crypto community, solidifying his reputation as a trusted voice in the space.

1 hr ago

2 min read

Paul Tudor Jones in New York in 2018. (Kevin Mazur/Getty Images)Summary

Tudor raised its IBIT stake by 18.9% to 688,529 shares, worth $22.9 million, as of June 30.The stake remains 91.4% below its 2024 peak and equals roughly 0.03% of Tudor’s reported 13F securities.Tudor Jones has repeatedly framed bitcoin as an inflation trade. Tudor Investment, founded by billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones, increased its direct stake in BlackRock’s spot bitcoin ETF in the second quarter while cutting its reported call option position in the fund by 85%.

The firm held 688,529 shares of the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT), valued at $22.9 million as of June 30, according to a 13F filing on Friday.

The share count rose by 109,446, or 18.9%, from 579,083 at the end of March. The holdings are now worth around $24.5 million.

Tudor also reported calls tied to 148,000 underlying IBIT shares, down 85.2% from 998,000 in March. Its put position edged down 1.4% to 715,000 underlying shares from 725,000, according to the filings.

The filing does not disclose the options’ strike prices or expiration dates, so the underlying share counts do not provide a direct measure of Tudor’s directional exposure. And the derivatives positionings are likely a hedging mechanism for its bitcoin bets.

Tudor first disclosed 869,565 IBIT shares in mid-2024 and increased the position to 8.05 million shares, worth $427 million by year-end. It then cut the stake in every quarter of 2025, ending December with 576,523 shares.

The firm’s initial buildup came as bitcoin rallied from around $60,000 to $92,000, while cuts then came into strength. In the second and third quarters of last year, BTC rallied to an all-time high of $124,000, while Tudor reduced its exposure. As bitcoin began to crash, Tudor’s share count hit its low.

Even after the latest purchases, the direct-share position remained 91.4% below its late-2024 peak and accounted for only a fraction of the $71.9 billion in the company’s portfolio.

Tudor Jones has repeatedly framed bitcoin as an inflation trade. He said in 2024 that “all roads lead to inflation” and disclosed that he was long bitcoin and gold, then called bitcoin the “best inflation hedge” in April this year, citing its fixed supply as an advantage over gold.

12345678910

Building the Zcash Machine: Tachyon and Quantum Readiness

Building the Zcash Machine: Tachyon and Quantum Readiness

Zcash’s Tachyon upgrade aims to scale shielded payments, improve quantum readiness, and test whether its funding, security, and governance can hold.

Jun 30, 2026

Zcash’s Tachyon upgrade aims to scale shielded payments, improve quantum readiness, and test whether its funding, security, and governance can hold.

Why it matters:

Zcash’s Tachyon upgrade aims to scale shielded payments, improve quantum readiness, and test whether its funding, security, and governance can hold.

TLDR:

Table of Contents

XRP whale inflows to Binance fell to $61M, the lowest since 2021 and nearly 87% below January 2025 levels.
Bank of America held 13,260 XRPI shares in Q2, up 260 shares, or roughly 2%, from the first quarter.
Binance XRP netflows stayed positive at $18.8M, showing inflows still exceeded outflows despite the slowdown.
XRP Ledger active addresses rose 84% to 43,543 by August 11, while XRP traded near the key $1.06 level.

XRP is showing two contrasting signals as exchange-bound whale activity falls sharply while Bank of America slightly increases exposure through a regulated futures product. The combination highlights weaker large-holder deposits on Binance alongside a measured increase in institutional securities exposure tied to the token.

CryptoQuant contributor Darkfost said Binance’s 90-day average whale inflows fell to about $61 million, the lowest level since 2021. Meanwhile, an August 14 filing showed Bank of America held 13,260 shares of the Volatility Shares XRP ETF at June 30.

Whale Deposits Fall Sharply While XRP Holds Near $1
The current $61 million average marks a steep decline from roughly $456 million in January 2025 and $355 million in October. That places recent inflows about six to seven-and-a-half times below those earlier levels.

The decline also extended a trend visible in July, when the 90-day average stood near $69 million. Moving from $69 million to $61 million represents an additional decrease of roughly 12%.

Earlier data also showed large daily deposits collapsing from 583 million XRP to 25.3 million XRP. Separately, the 30-day sum of whale inflows fell 34.4%, from 1.445 billion tokens to 947.4 million.

📉 $XRP whale inflows on Binance drop to their lowest since 2021

There's an interesting development currently taking place regarding Binance's whales on XRP.

💥 Their inflows, averaged here over 3 months to get a clean read on the trend, just hit their lowest level since 2021.… pic.twitter.com/kY2FRFtHVM

— Darkfost (@Darkfost_Coc) August 15, 2026

Exchange inflows are often monitored because large deposits can increase potential sell-side supply. However, deposits do not confirm completed sales, so lower inflows do not establish whale accumulation.

That distinction remains important as Binance netflows were still positive at about $18.8 million, according to Darkfost. Therefore, whale-related deposits continued exceeding withdrawals despite the broader decline in inflow activity.

At the same time, network usage increased. Active XRP Ledger addresses rose from 23,642 on August 1 to 43,543 by August 11, an increase exceeding 84%.

Even so, higher address activity did not provide direct evidence of fresh capital entering the market. At press time, XRP traded near $1.06, keeping the $1 level central to current price structure.

Bank of America Raises XRPI Position by 2% in Q2
Against that market backdrop, Bank of America reported a modest increase in its XRP-linked ETF holding for the second quarter. The filing showed 13,260 shares, compared with 13,000 shares reported during the first quarter.

That increase equals 260 shares, or about 2%. The disclosure therefore reflects an expanded existing position rather than a new entry into the product.

The fund, ticker XRPI, is the Volatility Shares XRP ETF and began trading on Nasdaq in May 2025. It seeks returns generally corresponding to the token’s performance.

However, XRPI is futures-based and does not hold the cryptocurrency directly. Bank of America’s position therefore represents indirect exposure through a regulated security.

Together, the two developments present a factual contrast. Whale inflows to Binance are at their weakest level since 2021, while Bank of America modestly increased its ETF position.

Neither signal establishes a broader trend by itself. However, the data shows exchange-side selling pressure easing while regulated institutional exposure increased slightly during the second quarter.

Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the United States are recording notable outflows, with total holdings shrinking by 917 BTC in recent trading sessions. The value of these outflows stands at approximately $57.63 million, representing a significant shift among institutional investors.

Institutional outflows hit Bitcoin ETFsMajor U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs, including those operated by investment giants such as BlackRock and Fidelity, led the net decrease in Bitcoin assets over the past two days. The cumulative outflow now exceeds the total Bitcoin mined within the same period, signaling a period of increased selling pressure from large institutional holders.

This trend is viewed by market analysts as a potential indicator of caution among big players, as funds reduce their exposure in the current market environment. The selling activity in these ETFs draws attention to the evolving sentiment in institutional circles.

Bitcoin ETFs experienced 917 BTC in net outflows, equivalent to $57.63 million, with BlackRock and Fidelity among the major managers reducing positions.

Bitcoin’s supply on exchanges continues to decline at the same time, possibly reflecting efforts by investors to hold assets in private wallets. The combined effect of ETF redemptions and wider on-chain outflows has led some to anticipate tighter liquidity conditions ahead.

Chainlink sees notable ETF inflowsWhile Bitcoin ETFs have experienced net selling, the trend has shifted in the case of Chainlink, a decentralized oracle network designed to facilitate secure communication between blockchains and external data sources. In recent trading, ETFs acquired 163,280 LINK, equating to $1.47 million in value. This represents growing institutional interest in the altcoin, with some investors considering Chainlink as a diversification play as Bitcoin faces more volatility.

Analysts have pointed out that inflows into Chainlink ETFs may support the network’s position in the broader crypto market, especially as flows in major coins appear subdued.

Mini dictionary: Chainlink is a decentralized oracle platform that connects smart contracts with external real-world data, enabling blockchain applications to securely access information from outside networks.

AssetETF FlowValueBitcoin-917 BTC$57.63 million (outflow)Chainlink+163,280 LINK$1.47 million (inflow)Market outlook and sentimentAs Bitcoin price remains near $62,980, ongoing ETF outflows and shrinking on-exchange supplies create a unique dynamic that may influence price swings in the short term. Observers have noted that institutional moves are occurring as market sentiment holds in the Fear zone, which may contribute to uncertainty among individual traders.

Many investors are closely watching how continued redemptions from Bitcoin ETFs might affect overall liquidity, while the positive trend in Chainlink flows could indicate shifting preferences among funds seeking exposure to alternative digital assets.

Ongoing ETF outflows and tighter supply could directly impact liquidity and price dynamics, leading to heightened volatility.

Looking ahead, market participants are expected to track changes in ETF activity for both Bitcoin and emerging altcoins, assessing their potential impact on broader price action as institutional sentiment evolves.

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.

Altcoins

15 August 2026 | 10:43 Solana's month-long price compression could be close to resolving while its community debates how quickly SOL supply should expand.

Key Takeaways SOL has entered the narrow end of a descending price structure after reclaiming Fibonacci support. Two proposed changes would reduce new issuance and make token burning more dependent on network activity. The wider thesis depends on demand from both buyers and Solana users; slower supply growth alone is not enough. Lower Highs Have Pushed SOL Into a Tight Range SOL traded near $75 on August 15, less than 1% above the 0.382 Fibonacci retracement near $74.5. Directly overhead, the descending blue trendline meets the 50-day SMA near $75.9, with the 100-day SMA at $77. Less than $2.50 separates support from the top of that resistance band.

Solana daily price chart testing support near the 0.382 Fibonacci retracement level. The other side of the structure has held near $71.8. SOL returned to that area around the end of July and again in early August, but sellers could not force a sustained break beneath it.

Buyers then reclaimed Fibonacci support and pushed the price back into the $76 area. The rebound stopped below the descending trendline, and the candles narrowed as support and resistance moved closer together.

A daily close above the full resistance band would open room toward the 0.5 Fibonacci retracement close to $79. The next cluster sits higher, between the 200-day SMA at $82 and the 0.618 Fibonacci level near $83.5.

A close below Fibonacci support would erase the latest reclaim and expose the horizontal triangle base again. If that floor fails, the 0.236 Fibonacci level at $69 becomes the nearest marked support.

Recent candles have crossed nearby levels intraday and closed back inside the range, so confirmation still depends on the daily close and successful retest.

Lower Inflation Would Shift More Weight to Network Demand Grayscale Head of Research Zach Pandl estimates that SOL’s annual supply inflation could fall to roughly 1.1% by the end of 2031 if the changes under discussion are adopted.

His estimate rests on two mechanisms examined in our analysis of Solana’s proposals to slow SOL supply growth.

Two Proposals Target Different Parts of SOL Supply SIMD-0550 would reduce new issuance. It would increase the annual reduction in Solana’s inflation rate from 15% to 30%, resulting in an estimated 18.9 million fewer SOL being created over six years. The network would reach its 1.5% issuance floor in the first half of 2029 instead of 2032. SIMD-0553 would increase fee burning. It proposes a resource-based fee that would be burned in full. At its terminal modeled rate, the system could destroy between 7,500 and 9,000 SOL per day if activity resembles the May 2026 sample used by its authors. Together, the changes would move SOL’s economics away from issuance and closer to usage. Fewer tokens would be distributed through inflation, while heavier demand for network resources could produce a larger burn.

Why Slower Supply Growth Is Not Automatically Bullish Issuance would still exceed burns. The proposal estimates that roughly 60,000 SOL currently enters circulation each day, far above even the projected terminal burn. The likely result is slower supply growth, not an immediately shrinking supply. The burn depends on activity. Fewer transactions would mean fewer tokens destroyed, while resource-based fees that become too costly could discourage some network use. Staking rewards would fall. Unstaked holders would face less dilution, but stakers and validators would receive fewer newly issued tokens. Their outcome would depend on SOL’s price and on whether fees and MEV replace enough of the lost reward income. Pandl’s price argument is therefore conditional: lower supply growth may help if demand holds.

How the Supply Thesis Connects to the Current Squeeze The two stories operate on different timelines. The chart will determine whether the current recovery can continue, while the proposals – if approved – would shape how quickly SOL dilution falls in the years ahead.

Lower issuance could improve SOL’s supply profile, but only sustained network activity can generate meaningful burns and compensate for lower staking rewards. For now, the chart is testing buying demand; the tokenomics debate is testing whether Solana can rely less on inflation without weakening participation.

Disclaimer: Fibonacci levels, moving averages and trendlines are based on SOL’s daily chart and can shift as new price data develops. The tokenomics figures are projections based on proposals that have not been implemented. Nothing in this article constitutes financial or investment advice. Author

Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP. Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem. To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem. His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.

Solana Company has reported a $30.3 million second-quarter loss despite earning $2.5 million in revenue, almost entirely from staking its SOL holdings.

Summary

Revenue increased from $43,000 a year earlier but fell from $3.6 million in Q1. Solana Company earned 31,200 SOL in rewards and automatically restaked the tokens. A $25.4 million realized loss on digital assets weighed heavily on quarterly results. Cash fell to $3.6 million as total assets declined to $176.1 million. Solana Company said in its Aug. 14 financial release that staking contributed $2.512 million of its $2.526 million quarterly revenue, while other operations generated only $14,000.

Compared with the same quarter of 2025, when revenue reached $43,000, the Nasdaq-listed company recorded a sharp increase after building a large Solana treasury. Revenue still declined about 30% from the $3.6 million reported in the first quarter, based on its first-half figures.

During Q2, the company earned 31,200 Solana (SOL) in staking rewards and automatically restaked the tokens. Restaking allowed the holdings to continue earning rewards rather than being sold or moved into cash.

Cost of revenue came to $77,000, leaving a gross profit of $2.4 million and a gross margin of about 97%. High margins from staking were not enough to cover operating expenses and losses tied to the company’s digital assets.

SOL sales drove most of the quarterly loss Operating expenses reached $35.1 million during the quarter, up from $3.3 million a year earlier. Solana Company consequently recorded a $32.7 million operating loss, compared with a $3.3 million loss in Q2 2025.

A realized loss of $25.4 million from digital-asset sales accounted for the largest part of the increase. On the company’s earnings call, management said the loss came from “strategic sales executed as part of our capital allocation program.”

At the same time, the accounts included a $2.4 million unrealized gain on digital assets and receivables. Solana Company also booked a $298,000 unrealized loss on a digital-asset fund investment and a $682,000 loss on digital-asset derivatives.

Administrative expenses increased to $11.1 million from $3.3 million in the year-earlier quarter. Approximately $6.8 million came from severance costs connected to the divestiture of the PoNS medical-device business, leaving roughly $4.3 million in other administrative spending.

The company completed the sale of PoNS during Q2 as it moved away from its former medical-device operations. Solana Company recorded a $3.1 million gain from the transaction, which partly reduced the effect of its operating loss.

Nonoperating income totaled $2.4 million after including the gain from the sale, a $322,000 change in the value of a derivative liability, and $259,000 in other expenses. Most of the latter amount came from fluctuations between the Canadian and U.S. dollars.

After accounting for those items, the company posted a net loss of $30.3 million, or $0.38 per basic and diluted share. A year earlier, its loss stood at $9.8 million, or $79.73 per share, although changes in the number of outstanding shares make the per-share figures difficult to compare directly.

Solana Company’s first-half loss reached $130.1 million For the first six months of 2026, revenue increased to $6.1 million from $92,000 in the comparable period of 2025. Staking supplied $5.9 million of the total, while other revenue contributed $218,000.

First-half operating expenses rose to $138.2 million, including an $86.8 million unrealized loss on digital assets and receivables. Realized digital-asset losses reached another $32.4 million, while the digital-asset fund investment produced a $2 million unrealized loss.

As a result, Solana Company reported a six-month net loss of $130.1 million, equal to $1.66 per share. Management said on the earnings call that fair-value movements recorded under U.S. accounting rules did not reduce its cash balance or the number of SOL tokens produced through staking.

The company adopted its SOL-focused model in September 2025, when it was still called Helius Medical Technologies. As crypto.news reported, the firm launched the treasury strategy through a $500 million private placement led by Pantera Capital and Summer Capital.

Participants purchased shares at $6.88 each and received warrants exercisable at $10.13. The deal included as much as $750 million in potential proceeds from warrant exercises, although the additional capital depended on investors choosing to exercise them.

By October 2025, the renamed company had grown past 2.2 million SOL, then valued at more than $525 million. The company also reported over $15 million in cash at the time.

Its June 2026 balance sheet showed a much smaller asset base. Total assets fell to $176.1 million from $303.9 million at the end of 2025, while stockholders’ equity declined to $165.6 million from $300.9 million.

Cash and cash equivalents dropped to $3.6 million from $7.3 million. Current digital assets stood at $21 million, with another $2.3 million classified as a digital-asset collateral receivable.

Long-term digital assets and related exposure totaled $147.3 million. According to the company, the figure covered staked positions, restricted assets, receivables, and investments in digital-asset funds.

Nasdaq investors remain exposed to SOL price movements Because HSDT trades on the Nasdaq Capital Market, U.S. investors can obtain indirect SOL exposure through its shares without holding the token directly. The company’s filings also show that its financial position depends heavily on SOL prices, staking returns, and its ability to raise money through stock sales.

During Q2, Solana Company raised $7.9 million in net proceeds from a registered direct stock offering led by Mirae Asset, with HashKey Capital also participating. The company sold approximately 3.08 million shares at $2.60 each and said the proceeds could support SOL purchases, working capital, and corporate expenses.

At the same time, it spent about $2.3 million repurchasing 1.3 million shares. First-half buybacks reached approximately $5.9 million, covering 2.9 million shares held as treasury stock at the end of June.

The company had 60.4 million issued shares on June 30, of which 57.4 million were outstanding after excluding treasury stock. Its accumulated deficit rose to $342.6 million from $212.6 million at the end of 2025.

HSDT closed Aug. 14 at $1.70, down 5.56% during regular trading, according to market data cited by Investing.com. Shares recovered slightly to $1.71 after the closing bell, while the reported revenue total fell about $400,000 short of the $2.9 million analyst estimate cited by the publication.

Validator revenue could begin in the third quarter Apart from staking its own treasury, Solana Company is building infrastructure intended to earn revenue from third-party assets. Its first institutional validator cluster became operational in Tokyo under an initiative called Pacific Backbone.

Chief Executive Joseph Chee said the company’s recurring businesses were starting to develop as the Tokyo operation came online and PoNS left its cost base.

“With our first validator cluster operational in Tokyo, and the legacy business fully divested, the recurring revenue streams that leverage our institutional-grade infrastructure are beginning to take root,” Chee said.

Management expects the Tokyo cluster to begin contributing validator-related revenue in the third quarter. In July, the operation secured its first third-party staking commitment of approximately 500,000 SOL, according to comments made during the earnings call.

Solana Company previously added Helius and Twinstake to its staking setup, allowing it to stake SOL directly from custody at Anchorage Digital Bank. At the time of the October 2025 announcement, Helius and Twinstake ranked among the Solana network’s 25 largest validators by delegated SOL.

Under Pacific Backbone, the company also entered a May partnership with the Jito Foundation to develop institutional Solana infrastructure across the Asia-Pacific region. Management said it expects administrative expenses to return closer to first-quarter levels as the severance costs from the PoNS sale fall out of its accounts.

After the quarter ended, Solana Company completed a $2 million acquisition of a Hong Kong trust company on July 15. The transaction will be included in its third-quarter financial statements.

Ether.fi [ETHFI] has been on the higher side in the past, delivering an 18% gain, with the asset now on a 90-day streak of roughly 5.3% performance for the first time in a while.

The performance is closely linked to the on-chain market outlook, which shows there has been growing usage of the protocol, especially through fee generation and activity.

On-chain activity supports ETHFI’s growth
The clearest indication of growing usage of the protocol comes from its performance, which shows that users remain active.

The protocol’s fees have surged on a week-on-week basis to their highest level since the week starting June 1. Fees have reached $2.8 million, up from a low of $2.39 million for the week between June 22 and 28.

Higher fee generation points to growing activity on the protocol, with annualized revenue reaching over $50.56 million and revenue over the last 30 days standing at $2.93 million.

Source: DeFiLlama
The total value locked also shows steady growth, indicating that investors continue to deposit and lock their assets on the platform for long-term price performance and yield.

During the week between June 22 and 28, when fees dropped to their recent low, TVL also surged at the time of writing, rising from $2.83 billion to $3.532 billion, an increase of roughly $702 million.

On a short-term scale, the growth remains visible, with the protocol’s TVL growing by $74 million between August 11 and the time of writing.

Liquidation heatmap points to a possible pullback
The liquidation heatmap analysis shows there is potential for the price to witness a local swing based on the cluster level.

The liquidation cluster on the chart shows a dense concentration of liquidity at the higher part of the chart. This local level is around $0.45, with roughly $180,000 worth of orders at this level.

Source: CoinGlass
Clusters tend to act as magnets, pulling price toward them. In this case, with the cluster positioned above the price, it represents a sell cluster. When price trades into this zone, a pullback could occur.

For now, the setup shows a rally-to-retracement narrative. Notably, continued capital inflows, especially through on-chain flows, could strengthen accumulation, outweigh sell pressure at this level, and push ETHFI higher.

ETHFI buybacks remain at zero in Q3
One major concern over whether ETHFI can sustain its run is its buyback activity. Token buybacks allow teams to reduce the circulating supply of their tokens, which can affect price dynamics positively.

For Q3, there has been no token buyback, with $0 spent so far. This stands in sharp contrast to previous quarters, such as Q2 and Q1, when $30,000 and $3.28 million were spent, respectively.

Source: DeFiLlama

Ether.fi’s buyback program is designed to use part of protocol revenue to buy ETHFI.

For now, token holder data shows that buying activity remains in the market, with the number of token holders climbing to 131,940 on the chart. This implies that demand for the token remains present despite the lack of recent buyback spending.

With little incentive from buybacks, the analysis shows that holders in the market are more hinged on the protocol’s performance as a whole.

Final Summary

Rising fees and TVL point to growing activity on Ether.fi, while token holders have also climbed to 131,940.
ETHFI faces potential sell pressure near $0.45, with no buyback spending recorded in Q3 so far.

According to monitoring by EmberCN, the monthly unlock of tokens held by the Pump.fun team and investors was completed 5 hours ago, releasing a total of 4.94 billion PUMP tokens valued at approximately $13.6 million. Data shows the unlocked tokens were subsequently distributed to 125 wallet addresses. It remains unclear whether the related wallets will sell the tokens on the market, but large-scale unlocks typically increase short-term circulating supply pressure, and the market will closely monitor subsequent fund movements.

Relevant content

ABFinance officially announced it will shut down in approximately five months and is currently initiating an orderly liquidation.

Crypto finance platform ABFinance, founded by former Bybit co-CEO Helen Liu, announced it will not proceed with its planned launch and is now in the process of orderly shutdown. ABFinance stated on social media that it thanks all team members, community users, and partners involved in its development, adding: "Thank you for your trust, support, and belief along the way." In March this year, after leaving Bybit, Helen Liu announced the launch of her startup ABFinance, which aimed to build a one-stop financial platform connecting fiat and crypto assets, integrating functions such as deposits, yields, trading, and payments, and emphasized that it would be built under the U.S. compliance license framework from day one. According to prior reports, Bybit announced that Helen Liu would step down on April 30, 2026, to embark on her personal entrepreneurial journey. However, just about five months after ABFinance unveiled its project plan, the platform announced it would halt its launch and enter the shutdown process. The specific reason for the shutdown has not been disclosed by officials so far.

21 minutes ago

Morgan Stanley’s holdings of Circle surged nearly sixfold, but the firm cut its rating on the crypto firm to "Underweight" and lowered its target price to $38.

Morgan Stanley downgraded Circle (CRCL) stock rating from "Hold" to "Underweight" on August 3, slashing its price target from $106 to $38. Analysts attributed the rating cut primarily to the contraction in USDC circulation, which exposed Circle’s high sensitivity to reserve-related revenue. Meanwhile, the company’s business structure is shifting toward a transaction-based revenue model with lower profit margins. The report also cut Circle’s USDC size forecasts for 2027 and 2028 by approximately 33% and 44% respectively, and projected the company’s GAAP earnings per share (EPS) to be about 3% and 20% lower than market consensus. However, Morgan Stanley’s latest filed 13F document shows that as of June 30, its holdings of Circle shares surged from around 1.46 million to 8.32 million, marking a clear position increase in the second quarter. This means that while Morgan Stanley publicly downgraded Circle’s rating and price target in early August, signaling a cautious outlook, its disclosed holdings as of the end of Q2 showed a significant position increase. It should be noted that 13F filings reflect holdings as of June 30, and cannot reflect whether positions were adjusted before or after the August rating cut. The market’s focus centers on the stark contrast between the institutional research view and the historical holdings disclosure.

21 minutes ago

Binance Research: Gen Z Prefers ETFs, With Lower Trading Frequency and Leverage Usage Than Other Age Groups

Binance Research data shows that Gen Z investors are gradually shifting to long-term asset allocation tools like ETFs, with lower trading frequency and weaker leverage preference compared to Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers. In early August, ETFs accounted for 25% of Gen Z's stock trading volume. In July, ETFs made up 21.9% of Gen Z's net inflows into stocks, up from 18.5% in June; over the same period, the share of individual stock investments dropped from 77% to 74.2%. Binance Research analyzed trading activities including direct stocks, tokenized stocks, and traditional financial perpetual contracts. The data shows Gen Z's trading activity across these three asset classes is lower than that of other working-age groups. Specifically, Gen Z's traditional financial perpetual contract accounts average 13 trades per month, lower than Millennials' 17 and Gen X's 16.5. Among direct stock accounts, 22% of Gen Z users have never sold any stocks, higher than Gen X's 19% and Baby Boomers' 9%. For Gen Z accounts where stocks were purchased but never sold, the top assets by cumulative purchase amount include Broadcom, Tesla, and the Charles Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF. In terms of leveraged products, Gen Z exhibits a lower risk appetite. Data shows 88.2% of Gen Z's traditional financial perpetual contract accounts have never traded leveraged or inverse ETFs, higher than Millennials' 84.5% and Gen X's 85.9%. Additionally, the tokenized stock market continues to expand. Data shows Binance's bStocks recently briefly surpassed Kraken's xStocks to become the world's second-largest tokenized stock issuance platform. As of the latest data, Ondo Finance ranks first with approximately $972 million in tokenized stock value, while xStocks and bStocks stand at around $611 million and $580 million respectively.

21 minutes ago

Serenity responds to "going to zero" rumors by sharing a screenshot, with its year-to-date return standing at 2411.84%.

Serenity released a statement accompanied by photos to address recent market rumors that his trading account has "gone to zero", calling the claims "too exaggerated". He added that despite the sharp correction in the AI sector in July, his year-to-date (YTD) return still stands at 2411.84%. Earlier, Serenity had publicly stated that the slump in AI-related stocks in July led to a roughly 49.4% drawdown in his portfolio at one time, with his positions mainly concentrated in key segments of AI infrastructure—including high-volatility sectors such as storage, optical communications, robotics, and upstream semiconductors. Serenity has long focused on "bottleneck segments" within the AI industrial chain, has conducted multiple researches on memory, photonics, CPO, and semiconductor supply chains, and has drawn market attention for his bets on AI infrastructure-related assets.

21 minutes ago

Talks between Stripe and Advent to acquire PayPal are heating up, with the potential deal valued at up to $53 billion.

Payment giant PayPal’s acquisition talks with Stripe and private equity firm Advent Global Opportunities are heating up, with a potential deal to be finalized in the coming weeks. Back in July, Stripe and Advent proposed acquiring PayPal at $60.50 per share, valuing the deal at roughly $53 billion, but PayPal rejected the offer at the time. However, sources familiar with the matter revealed that negotiations have not broken off and are still ongoing. Neither PayPal nor Stripe has confirmed the reports. PayPal declined to comment, while Stripe said it does not respond to market rumors or speculation. The potential sale comes as PayPal seeks to reverse its growth struggles. Since PayPal CEO Enrique Lores took office in March this year, he has rolled out a restructuring plan splitting the business into three segments: checkout and PayPal core services, consumer financial services (including Venmo), and payment services and crypto operations. Lores has stated that PayPal will return to its identity as a technology company and strengthen its core payment capabilities. Meanwhile, the company plans to boost efficiency through cost cuts, with an estimated 20% workforce reduction over the next two to three years. Founded in 1998, PayPal’s founding team includes Silicon Valley figures such as Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Max Levchin. The company grew rapidly during the pandemic due to the e-commerce boom, but has faced challenges including slowing growth and downward pressure on its stock price in recent years. If the deal is completed, it will be one of the largest acquisitions in the fintech industry in recent years.

21 minutes ago

Duan Yongping has bet on SpaceX for about 20 days, with paper gains exceeding $5.4 million.

According to public information from Xueqiu platform, Duan Yongping recently participated in SpaceX (SPCX) via two transactions: options and common stock. On July 24, he sold 1,000 SPCX put options expiring on December 18, 2026, with a strike price of $115, at a transaction price of approximately $23.26, corresponding to a premium of about $2.326 million. Then, on August 5, Duan Yongping bought 100,000 SPCX shares at a cost of roughly $108.68 per share. Based on SpaceX’s latest closing price of $140, this long stock position has an unrealized gain of around $3.132 million. Combined, Duan Yongping’s round of SpaceX trades has generated an unrealized profit of approximately $5.458 million in about 20 days. However, it should be noted that although the premium from selling the put option has been credited, the option has not yet expired. If SPCX subsequently falls below $115 and is exercised, he will still be obligated to take delivery of the shares at the strike price. SPCX has been highly volatile recently: after its June listing, the stock once surged to above $200, then dropped back to around $105. In August, as the impact of the first batch of restricted stock unlocks was weaker than expected and market risk appetite recovered, the stock price rebounded to the $140 level. As a result, Duan Yongping’s current trade has evolved from "selling puts to collect premiums" to a staged high-probability trade.

21 minutes ago

A $550,000 community audit contest uncovered two critical vulnerabilities in XRP Ledger features that could have drained user accounts without private keys. The findings reveal how Ripple’s audit-before-release model diverges sharply from the broader crypto industry’s patch-after-exploit norm.

Summary

Sherlock’s two-week audit contest, which opened on April 13, 2026, uncovered 96 valid vulnerabilities across five proposed XRP Ledger amendments, including 2 critical and 6 high-severity bugs, before any of them reached mainnet. Ripple paid $309,000 in RLUSD bounties from a $550,000 prize pool, marking the first collaboration between Sherlock and Ripple and one of the largest audit contests of 2026. The most severe finding was a signature-validation flaw in the Batch amendment that would have allowed attackers to execute transactions from any account without holding its private keys, first identified on February 19, 2026, by researcher Pranamya Keshkamat and Cantina’s AI tool Apex. A separate critical bug in Permission Delegation allowed malicious actors to silently drain XRP balances through repeated fee charges on invalid delegated transactions, because the code checked permissions before verifying signatures. DeFi exploits exceeded $840 million across more than 50 incidents in the first five months of 2026 alone, a 70% year-over-year increase, and 70% of exploited contracts had been audited but lacked post-deployment monitoring. XRP Ledger version 3.3.0 shipped on August 6, 2026, carrying five proposed amendments and a bundled cleanup patch. On paper it looked like a routine infrastructure release. Underneath, the update represented the conclusion of a six-month security gauntlet that caught two account-draining bugs, rewrote two entire feature implementations from scratch, and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to outside researchers who found problems the internal team had missed. The process raises a pointed question for the wider blockchain industry: if Ripple can catch critical flaws before deployment, why does so much of crypto still treat security audits as a post-launch checkbox?

This piece breaks down what the two critical vulnerabilities actually were at a technical level, examines how the audit-vote-activate pipeline compares to competing chains’ security models, and assesses whether the findings strengthen or undermine the case for XRPL as institutional-grade infrastructure.

What the Sherlock contest actually found The scope covered five pillars of upcoming XRPL functionality: Batch Transactions, Permission Delegation, Multi-Purpose Token (MPT) DEX integration, Confidential Transfers for MPTs, and Sponsored Fees and Reserves. Sherlock, a Web3 security firm that ranks researchers by performance and structures engagements as adversarial contests, opened the audit on April 13, 2026, with a $550,000 RLUSD prize pool. The contest page on Sherlock’s platform listed the engagement as “XRP Ledger – April 2026 Contest – 550,000 RLUSD,” signaling that Ripple paid the bounties in its own stablecoin.

Over two weeks, participants submitted reports that surfaced 96 valid findings: 2 critical, 6 high, 29 medium, and 59 low-severity issues. Ripple distributed $309,000 in RLUSD to contributors. The remaining pool covered Sherlock’s operational costs and lower-tier findings that did not meet the payout threshold.

The contest marked the first formal collaboration between Sherlock and Ripple, and it arrived at a moment when the XRP Ledger’s feature pipeline was expanding faster than at any point in its history. Five amendments shipping simultaneously meant five distinct attack surfaces, each with its own transaction logic, authorization model, and cryptographic requirements. For context, Sherlock’s audit contest model has previously been used by protocols including Aave, Euler, and Olympus DAO, but an engagement covering C++ protocol-level code for a layer-one blockchain was atypical for a platform more commonly associated with Solidity smart contracts.

The severity distribution itself tells a story. The 29 medium-severity findings suggest a category of bugs that would not individually compromise accounts but could create unexpected behavior under specific transaction sequences. The 59 low-severity issues likely include code quality concerns, documentation gaps, and edge cases that could compound under adversarial conditions. The two critical and six high-severity bugs, however, represented exploitable vulnerabilities that warranted immediate remediation.

The Batch amendment bug that could have emptied accounts The most dangerous vulnerability predated the Sherlock contest by two months. On February 19, 2026, security researcher Pranamya Keshkamat and Cantina’s autonomous AI audit tool Apex independently identified a signature-validation flaw in the original Batch amendment while it was still in its validator voting phase.

The technical failure was precise. Batch Transactions allow up to eight operations to execute atomically under a single outer transaction. The outer transaction’s signature-validation code contained an early-exit condition that could be satisfied without properly verifying who was authorizing the inner transactions. In practice, an attacker could have constructed a Batch transaction containing inner Payment operations targeting a victim account, draining it down to its reserve balance, without ever holding that account’s private keys. The same logic gap would have permitted unauthorized AccountSet, TrustSet, or AccountDelete operations.

The vulnerability disclosure report published on xrpl.org detailed the mechanics: the signer check in the outer transaction could pass without confirming that the entity submitting the batch actually controlled the accounts referenced in the inner transactions. This meant that the atomicity feature designed to improve user experience could have been weaponized to empty any account on the network in a single transaction.

RippleX responded with an emergency release. Rippled version 3.1.1, published on February 23, 2026, four days after discovery, marked both the original Batch amendment and its companion fixBatchInnerSigs as unsupported, preventing validators from voting on or activating them. No funds were lost because the amendment had not yet cleared the 80% validator threshold required for activation. The replacement, BatchV1_1, shipped in version 3.3.0 with the early-exit condition removed, additional authorization guards added, and the signing check scope tightened to verify each inner transaction against the correct signer independently.

Permission Delegation’s silent fee-drain exploit The second critical vulnerability operated through a subtler mechanism. A September 2025 disclosure documented how the original Permission Delegation implementation allowed an attacker to silently bleed a victim account’s XRP balance without accessing its keys.

The exploit relied on a design feature of the XRP Ledger’s transaction processing that has existed since the network’s earliest days. On XRPL, a transaction that fails with a “tec”-class error still incurs a fee charge, while errors caught earlier in the pipeline, before signature verification, do not. This distinction exists because tec-class failures indicate transactions that were properly formed and signed but failed for business-logic reasons, and the fee prevents spam. Permission Delegation’s original code checked whether a delegate account held the relevant permission before it verified the transaction’s signature. An attacker could repeatedly submit invalid offline-signed transactions with elevated fees against a delegated account, and each failed transaction would still deduct the fee from the victim’s balance.

The economic impact would have compounded quickly. Because the attacker could set arbitrarily high fees on these transactions, a sustained attack could drain an account far faster than normal transaction fees would suggest. The victim would see their balance declining with no corresponding outbound payments, making the attack difficult to diagnose without examining raw transaction metadata.

The fix reclassified the relevant error from tec to ter and reordered the checks so that no fee can be deducted before signature verification passes. The replacement amendment, PermissionDelegationV1_1, carries a default “No” designation in the 3.3.0 registry, meaning validators must actively vote to enable it. This conservative default reflects the sensitivity of the original flaw: even after the rewrite, Ripple chose to require explicit validator opt-in for the feature.

BREAKING: XRP Ledger sustains over 140 TPS and blocks with up to 987 transactions during today’s big activity wave, maintaining cent-level fees and 3-4 second settlement pic.twitter.com/yaAyCH4wGy

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) April 10, 2026 Why both rewrites shipped in a single release Packaging two security-rewritten amendments alongside three entirely new features in one version was a deliberate choice. RippleX published xrpld 3.3.0 on August 6, 2026, with the code for all six proposals (including a bundled cleanup amendment called fixCleanup3_3_0) present but none of them activated. Under the XRP Ledger’s amendment process, each proposal must sustain more than 80% validator support for two consecutive weeks before going live.

This separation between code availability and feature activation is a structural advantage that most smart-contract platforms lack. On Ethereum, a deployed contract is live the moment it hits the blockchain. On XRPL, code can ship, undergo further review during the voting window, and still be blocked if validators lose confidence. The Batch and Permission Delegation rewrites had already survived the Sherlock contest, a Halborn re-audit that found zero critical or high-risk issues, and months of internal testing. The voting period adds yet another layer of defense before any code touches real funds.

The version also retired five legacy amendments, including Clawback, fixDisallowIncomingV1, fixInnerObjTemplate, fixNFTokenReserve, and fixUniversalNumber, removing dead code paths that could otherwise accumulate as latent attack surface over time.

The five feature amendments in 3.3.0 represent the broadest single expansion of XRPL capabilities to date. Confidential Transfers bring EC-ElGamal encryption and zero-knowledge proofs to Multi-Purpose Tokens, shielding individual balances and transfer amounts from public view while preserving compliance access for authorized parties. Sponsored Fees allow applications to cover network costs on behalf of users, addressing the onboarding friction that has kept consumer-facing applications off decentralized networks. DynamicMPT lets issuers modify token properties after creation, supporting evolving regulatory and business requirements. Together with the Batch and Permission Delegation rewrites, these features target a specific audience: regulated financial institutions that need privacy, atomic settlement, and delegated operations without sacrificing auditability.

Audit before release versus patch after exploit The contrast between Ripple’s approach and the broader industry’s security track record is stark. DeFi exploits exceeded $840 million across more than 50 incidents in the first five months of 2026, a 70% year-over-year increase over the same period in 2025. North Korea-linked actors accounted for 76% of global crypto hack losses in the first four months of the year. And the most damning statistic: 70% of exploited contracts had been audited but lacked any form of post-deployment monitoring. Only 4% of tracked projects combined audits, active bug bounties, and third-party monitoring controls together.

The Ethereum ecosystem, home to the largest concentration of smart-contract value, operates under a fundamentally different security model. Contracts deploy to mainnet through an immutable transaction. If a vulnerability surfaces afterward, the options are limited: deploy a new contract and migrate users, implement a proxy upgrade pattern that introduces its own attack surface, or accept the risk. The Wormhole bridge hack of 2022 cost $320 million because a deprecated verification function remained in production code. Ronin’s August 2024 exploit cost $12 million because a contract upgrade failed to initialize operator weights correctly. In both cases, audits had been performed; the failures happened after deployment.

The KelpDAO hack on April 18, 2026, which drained approximately $293 million, was the largest single DeFi exploit of the year. The Drift Protocol exploit on Solana on April 1, which cost roughly $286 million, was the largest ever recorded on that chain. These figures are not fringe events. They represent the baseline failure rate of an industry that has collectively lost $16.69 billion to hacks, bridge exploits, and security incidents according to DeFiLlama data.

XRPL’s amendment voting process inverts this sequence. Code ships in a release, but features remain dormant until validators approve them. During the voting window, researchers, node operators, and competing auditors can examine the live codebase with full context. If a problem surfaces, validators simply withhold their votes. No emergency patch, no migration, no proxy contract. The February 2026 Batch bug followed exactly this path: the amendment was in its voting phase, the vulnerability was identified, and an emergency release prevented activation. Zero funds at risk, zero user impact.

This is not to say that the XRPL model is flawless. The amendment process works for protocol-level features but does not extend to applications built on top of the ledger. A poorly coded trust line or MPT integration could still lose funds. And the 80% validator threshold creates its own risks: if too few validators upgrade to a new version, legitimate security patches can stall. But for core protocol changes, the audit-vote-activate pipeline represents a materially different security posture than deploy-and-hope.

NEW: Coinbase has enabled Trade at Settlement for $XRP futures on May 1, placing XRP alongside Bitcoin, Ethereum, gold and crude oil for institutional block trading pic.twitter.com/d00uPssPxy

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) May 3, 2026 What this means for XRPL’s institutional pitch Ripple has spent 2026 building an institutional infrastructure stack at an aggressive pace. The $1.25 billion acquisition of Hidden Road, a multi-asset prime broker rebranded as Ripple Prime, gave the company a regulated on-ramp for traditional finance. RLUSD reached a $1.72 billion market capitalization in under a year and moved more than $18 billion in transaction volume during Q1 alone. Goldman Sachs disclosed a $153.8 million position across four XRP ETFs. Ripple secured a full Electronic Money Institution license from Luxembourg in February, UK Financial Conduct Authority permissions in January, and a MiCA Crypto-Asset Service Provider license on July 6.

The institutional DeFi features arriving in version 3.3.0 are the technical counterpart to this business development push. Confidential Transfers address the privacy requirements of banks that cannot expose transaction details on a public ledger. Sponsored Fees solve the onboarding friction that has kept retail banking applications off decentralized networks. Permission Delegation, once its rewrite clears the voting process, enables the kind of controlled access models that compliance departments require.

But institutional adoption depends on trust, and trust in blockchain infrastructure ultimately comes down to security track record. The fact that Ripple caught two critical bugs, rewrote two entire feature implementations, paid outside researchers $309,000 to find problems, and still delivered all five features on schedule is a stronger institutional selling point than any individual feature. It suggests a security culture where finding bugs is rewarded and where shipping is subordinate to verification.

Over 300 financial institutions across 55 countries currently use RippleNet, with active On-Demand Liquidity corridors in more than 70 markets. For those institutions, the Sherlock audit results are not abstract. They are evidence that the code running their cross-border payments has been stress-tested by adversarial researchers with financial incentives to break it. Ripple’s four-phase quantum-resistance roadmap, targeting completion by 2028, further signals that the company is engineering for institutional time horizons measured in decades, not deployment cycles.

The opposing case: why skeptics are not convinced The strongest argument against reading too much into the Sherlock audit runs in two directions.

First, finding 96 bugs before release can be framed as evidence of thorough testing or evidence of sloppy development. Both the Batch and Permission Delegation vulnerabilities were in the original implementations, meaning they cleared internal review before external researchers caught them. The February 2026 Batch bug was not identified by Ripple’s own team but by an independent researcher and an AI tool. If external auditors are the primary safety net, the internal development process may have quality gaps that will eventually produce a vulnerability that no external reviewer catches in time.

Second, the XRPL amendment model’s strength, the ability to prevent activation during the voting window, is also a speed constraint. Ethereum’s willingness to deploy and iterate has enabled a pace of innovation that XRPL cannot match. The five amendments in version 3.3.0 have been in development and review cycles for months. The original Batch amendment was proposed in 2025. For protocols competing for developer attention in fast-moving markets, a six-month security pipeline may be too slow to attract the builder ecosystem that drives network effects.

There is also a concentration risk in the validator set. The 80% activation threshold means that a relatively small number of validators, many of which are operated by entities with close ties to Ripple, control whether amendments go live. Critics argue this is not truly decentralized governance but a curated approval process dressed in consensus language. When Ripple’s own validator voted “yes” on lending amendments in recent weeks, it underscored how much influence the company retains over its nominally decentralized network.

Finally, the $309,000 payout from a $550,000 pool raises a practical question about incentive alignment. Top-tier security researchers command rates that exceed what contest models typically pay per hour of effort. If the most skilled auditors skip XRPL contests because the expected payout per finding is lower than private engagements, the adversarial review may be broad but not deep enough to catch the most sophisticated attack vectors.

These objections have weight. XRP traded near $1.03 in late July 2026, roughly 71% below its $3.65 cycle high set on July 17, 2025, suggesting the market has not yet priced in the institutional narrative. Whether the security track record translates into adoption depends on factors beyond code quality: regulatory clarity, competitive positioning against Ethereum layer-2 solutions, and whether institutions care more about pre-deployment audits than they do about ecosystem size.

What to watch Validator voting thresholds for the five 3.3.0 amendments: if BatchV1_1 and PermissionDelegationV1_1 clear 80% support within the first voting cycle, it signals validator confidence in the rewrites. A stall would suggest lingering concerns about the rewritten code.

Post-activation bug reports: the real test of the Sherlock audit’s thoroughness comes after features go live. Zero critical findings in the first 90 days would validate the pre-release model; any post-activation vulnerability would undermine the entire thesis.

RLUSD adoption on Confidential Transfers: institutional stablecoin usage on shielded rails would confirm demand for privacy-compliant settlement. Volume metrics in the first quarter after activation will be the clearest signal of whether banks are ready to transact on a public ledger with privacy guarantees.

Sherlock’s next XRPL engagement: whether Ripple continues with adversarial audit contests for future amendments or reverts to traditional private audits will indicate how deeply the pre-release model is embedded in the development culture.

Competing chain security incidents: every major exploit on Ethereum or Solana that traces back to a post-deployment vulnerability strengthens the case for XRPL’s audit-vote-activate pipeline. The comparison is only as strong as the industry’s continued failure to adopt similar processes.

What did the Sherlock audit of XRP Ledger find? The two-week audit contest, which opened on April 13, 2026, uncovered 96 valid vulnerabilities across five proposed XRPL amendments: 2 critical, 6 high, 29 medium, and 59 low-severity issues. Ripple paid $309,000 in RLUSD bounties from a $550,000 prize pool. All findings were addressed before any of the affected features activated on mainnet.

What was the critical Batch amendment bug? The original Batch amendment contained a signature-validation flaw that allowed an attacker to execute inner transactions from any account without holding its private keys. The bug was an early-exit condition in the outer transaction’s signing check that could be satisfied without proper authorization verification. Researcher Pranamya Keshkamat and Cantina’s AI tool Apex identified it on February 19, 2026. RippleX patched it in emergency release version 3.1.1 four days later.

How did the Permission Delegation vulnerability work? The original implementation checked delegate permissions before verifying transaction signatures. On XRPL, transactions that fail with “tec”-class errors still incur fees. An attacker could repeatedly submit invalid transactions with elevated fees against a delegated account, draining its XRP balance without ever holding its keys. The fix reclassified the error type and reordered the verification checks.

Were any funds lost from these vulnerabilities? No funds were lost. Both critical vulnerabilities were identified before their respective amendments activated on mainnet. The Batch bug was caught during the validator voting phase, and the Permission Delegation flaw was disclosed and patched before activation. The XRP Ledger’s amendment process, which requires 80% validator support for two consecutive weeks, provided a structural buffer that prevented exploitation.

What is Sherlock and how does its audit model work? Sherlock is a Web3 security firm that structures audits as adversarial contests, ranking researchers by performance and offering financial incentives through prize pools. The XRP Ledger engagement was Sherlock’s first collaboration with Ripple and one of the largest audit contests of 2026. The model differs from traditional private audits by inviting broad participation from independent security researchers competing for bounties, which surfaces a wider range of attack vectors than a small internal team can cover.

How does XRPL’s security model differ from Ethereum’s? XRPL’s amendment process separates code deployment from feature activation. New features ship in a software release but remain dormant until validators vote to activate them, creating a review window where vulnerabilities can be caught without emergency patches. Ethereum’s smart contracts are live upon deployment, and fixing vulnerabilities requires deploying new contracts, migrating users, or implementing proxy upgrades. In the first five months of 2026, DeFi exploits exceeded $840 million, and 70% of exploited contracts had been audited but lacked post-deployment monitoring.

What features does XRP Ledger version 3.3.0 include? Version 3.3.0, released on August 6, 2026, contains code for five feature amendments and a cleanup patch. The features include Confidential Transfers for Multi-Purpose Tokens using zero-knowledge proofs, rewritten Batch Transactions for atomic multi-operation settlement, rewritten Permission Delegation for controlled account access, Sponsored Fees allowing applications to cover user costs, and DynamicMPT enabling issuers to modify token properties after creation.

Does this audit make XRPL a safe investment? The Sherlock audit reflects a rigorous pre-release security process, but code quality is one factor among many that influence investment outcomes. XRP traded near $1.03 in late July 2026, roughly 71% below its cycle high, and market performance depends on regulatory developments, institutional adoption rates, competitive dynamics, and macroeconomic conditions. This is educational analysis, not investment advice. **Disclaimer**: This article was published on August 14, 2026. It is intended for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency markets are volatile and carry substantial risk. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals before making any investment decisions.

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

In a recent announcement, Binance revealed its decision to cease support for deposits and withdrawals of tokens on selected networks.

In this regard, Binance identified the affected token as Sophon (SOPH) on the BNB Smart Chain network. Binance will be ceasing support for deposits and withdrawals of Sophon (SOPH) through the BNB Smart Chain network from August 21 at 08:00 (UTC).

After August 21 at 08:00 (UTC), any deposits of Sophon sent through the BNB Smart Chain network will not be credited and may lead to asset loss.

HOT Stories

This week, Binance performed some delistings. The crypto exchange will remove and cease trading on the following spot trading pairs: APT/BTC, AR/BTC, A/USDC, BTTC/TRY, CYBER/USDC, LPT/BTC and WAL/FDUSD today, August 14 at 03:00 (UTC).

Binance conducts periodic reviews of all listed spot trading pairs to protect users and maintain a high-quality trading market and may delist selected spot trading pairs due to factors including poor liquidity and trading volume.

You Might Also Like

Binance Margin and Loan will also delist and cease trading on all margin trading pairs for BTTC (BitTorrent) and POWR (Powerledger) on August 14. Binance Margin will delist the aforementioned tokens from Cross and Isolated Margin.

In addition, Binance Flexible Loan will close all outstanding loan positions for these tokens as loanable and collateral tokens on the same date. VIP Loan will close all outstanding loan positions for the aforementioned token(s) as collateral tokens. Users are strongly advised to repay their outstanding loans before the automatic closure to avoid any potential losses, where applicable.

Binance Bitcoin reserve jumpsAccording to CryptoQuant, Binance's Bitcoin reserves have increased to 667,500 BTC, which is the highest level since February. This remains noteworthy given the market's continued sensitivity to supply movements on centralized exchanges.

You Might Also Like

This increase follows a period of decline in Binance's Bitcoin reserves, which have now started to recover in recent months.

Grayscale withdrew its Cardano, Polkadot, and Hedera ETF registrations in under four minutes on August 7, exactly two days before ADA cleared the SEC seasoning threshold. With Bitwise and Canary still in the race, the retreat says more about the economics of altcoin ETFs than about Cardano itself.

Summary

Grayscale filed three Form RW withdrawals with the SEC on August 7, 2026, pulling its Cardano Trust ETF, Polkadot Trust ETF, and Hedera Trust ETF registrations in a span of 190 seconds, with no shares issued, sold, or distributed under any of the three.

– Cardano completed its six-month CME futures seasoning period on August 9, 2026, two days after Grayscale walked away, clearing the threshold that would have allowed a spot ADA ETF to list under the SEC generic listing standards in as few as 75 days.

– Five other issuers, including Bitwise, Canary Capital, VanEck, and 21Shares, still have active ADA ETF filings, with the earliest possible SEC decision window falling around October 23, 2026.

– Grayscale reported a 20 percent revenue decline in its IPO filing, with GBTC and ETHE generating 88 percent of the firm’s roughly $318.7 million in nine-month revenue while bleeding a combined $30 billion in cumulative outflows since their ETF conversions.

– ADA trades near $0.196 with a $6.55 billion market cap, DOT sits at $0.805, and HBAR has fallen to $0.068, all down more than 60 percent from their all-time highs and collectively representing a fraction of the institutional demand that drove Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF launches.

At 4:33 p.m. Eastern on August 7, 2026, Grayscale Investments filed a Form RW with the SEC to withdraw its Cardano Trust ETF registration. Ninety seconds later, the Hedera Trust ETF followed. Two minutes after that, the Polkadot Trust ETF joined them. Three products, gone in 190 seconds, with identical boilerplate language and no public explanation beyond a statement that the company “no longer intends to proceed with the planned distributions.”

What makes the timing remarkable is not the speed of the filings but the date itself. Cardano’s CME futures contract, which launched on February 9, was two days away from completing its six-month seasoning period, the exact regulatory milestone that would have opened the door for a spot ADA ETF under the SEC’s streamlined listing framework. Grayscale did not just exit the altcoin ETF race. It exited on the finish line.

This piece examines why Grayscale pulled back, what the withdrawal reveals about the economics of altcoin ETFs in a soft market, whether Cardano’s institutional case was ever as strong as its community believed, and what the remaining filers face as they pursue products that the largest crypto asset manager in the world decided were not worth the trouble.

Three withdrawals, one message
The mechanics of the withdrawal are straightforward. Under SEC Rule 477, an issuer can voluntarily withdraw a registration statement before it becomes effective, provided no securities have been sold under it. Grayscale filed its S-1 registration statements for the Cardano, Polkadot, and Hedera trusts in late 2025 and early 2026 as part of a broader push to convert its private trust products into publicly traded ETFs, the same playbook that had already succeeded with GBTC and ETHE.

All three Form RW filings contained identical language. None cited a specific reason for withdrawal. The SEC accepted them without comment. Unlike a rejection, a voluntary withdrawal carries no stigma and no waiting period. Grayscale could refile tomorrow if it chose to.

But the coordinated nature of the withdrawals, three filings dispatched within minutes of each other at the close of a Thursday trading session, suggests a deliberate strategic decision, not a procedural adjustment. This was not a pause. It was a retreat.

The crypto market noticed. ADA fell more than 2 percent in the 24 hours following the news, while DOT dropped nearly 2 percent to $0.805 and HBAR slipped 2.24 percent to $0.068. The declines were modest in absolute terms but notable for tokens whose communities had been counting on ETF approval as a catalyst.

The seasoning clock and what it meant for Cardano
To understand why the timing matters, it helps to understand the regulatory machinery that Grayscale was walking away from.

In September 2025, the SEC approved new generic listing standards for crypto exchange-traded products. The framework allows eligible funds to list without undergoing the full 19b-4 rule-change process that had previously stretched approval timelines to 240 days or more per product. Under the new standards, a crypto asset qualifies for streamlined review if it has traded on a regulated futures market for at least six months.

CME Group launched Cardano futures on February 9, 2026. The six-month clock expired on August 9. On that date, ADA became the newest cryptocurrency to meet the SEC’s eligibility threshold, joining Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP in the small club of assets with a clear path to a spot ETF.

Grayscale knew this. Every issuer in the space knew this. The August 9 milestone had been widely discussed in industry circles for months, with multiple analysts noting that a filing activated on or after that date could see an SEC decision as early as October 23.

Yet Grayscale chose to withdraw two days before the clock expired. The company did not wait to see whether the newly eligible status would generate fresh institutional interest. It did not pause the filing to reassess. It killed it. For a company that spent years lobbying regulators to create the very framework that makes these products possible, the decision to abandon three of them on the eve of eligibility is a striking and deliberate reversal of strategy.

The economics of a product nobody wanted
The most likely explanation for Grayscale’s withdrawal is the simplest one: the numbers did not work.

Launching an ETF is not free. Legal fees, compliance infrastructure, market-making arrangements, custodial agreements, marketing, and ongoing regulatory reporting all carry costs. For a Bitcoin or Ethereum product with billions of dollars in potential demand, those costs are trivial relative to the revenue from management fees. For an altcoin ETF tracking a $6.55 billion asset with tepid institutional interest, the calculus is different.

Consider the existing data points. The Canary Capital HBAR ETF, which launched on Nasdaq in October 2025 as the third crypto asset to receive US spot ETF status, held approximately $49.14 million in net assets as of July 2, 2026. Its market-price return was negative 37.32 percent for the year and negative 63.32 percent since inception. Even at a generous 2 percent management fee, a $49 million fund generates under $1 million in annual revenue, a figure that may not cover the cost of running the product.

The broader altcoin ETF landscape tells a similar story. While XRP ETFs have accumulated roughly $1.5 billion in cumulative inflows and Solana funds have gathered about $1.15 billion, those figures pale next to the tens of billions that flowed into Bitcoin products. Below the top tier, demand drops off sharply. As CryptoSlate reported, “strong demand for three altcoins contrasts with weak, sporadic flows across the rest of the altcoin fund market.”

Grayscale already has a way to offer ADA exposure. Its CoinDesk Crypto 5 ETF, trading under the ticker GDLC, tracks an index that includes Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and Cardano. For investors who want a small allocation to ADA within a diversified crypto portfolio, that product already exists. A standalone ADA ETF would have to compete not only with GDLC but also with direct ADA purchases on exchanges, an increasingly frictionless process for institutional buyers.

Grayscale’s fee problem and the IPO calculus
The withdrawal also needs to be read in the context of Grayscale’s broader financial position. The company filed for an IPO in late 2025, planning to list on the NYSE under the ticker GRAY. The S-1 filing revealed a business under significant pressure.

GBTC, charging 1.5 percent annually, and ETHE, charging 2.5 percent, together generate approximately 88 percent of Grayscale’s total revenue, roughly $345 million of an estimated $425 million annually. But both products have been hemorrhaging assets. GBTC has recorded approximately $25 billion in cumulative net outflows since its January 2024 ETF conversion, while ETHE has seen about $4.8 billion leave since July 2024. Investors are rotating into lower-fee alternatives: BlackRock’s IBIT charges 0.12 percent, and Fidelity’s FBTC charges 0.25 percent.

Grayscale responded by launching Mini versions of both products at 0.15 percent, which have attracted $3.3 billion in combined inflows since 2024. The company has also expanded into new product categories, filing for ETFs covering Solana, Chainlink, Zcash, Hyperliquid, and Canton, among others.

But expansion costs money. Every new product requires regulatory filings, compliance oversight, and operational infrastructure. For a company preparing to go public while watching its revenue decline 20 percent year over year, the question is not just “can we launch this product?” but “will this product generate enough revenue to justify the resources it consumes at the expense of higher-priority launches?”

For ADA, DOT, and HBAR, the answer appears to have been no. Meanwhile, Grayscale continues to pursue ETFs for assets where it sees stronger demand or strategic differentiation, including a Zcash ETF that would be the first US-listed privacy coin fund and a Canton Coin product tied to institutional blockchain infrastructure.

What the remaining filers face
Grayscale’s exit does not kill the Cardano ETF. Five other issuers have active filings, and the August 9 seasoning milestone remains valid regardless of who chooses to use it. Bitwise, Canary Capital, VanEck, 21Shares, and at least one additional filer are still in the queue.

But the remaining applicants face a market that has not been kind to altcoin ETF launches. The Canary HBAR ETF’s experience is instructive. Despite being one of the first altcoin spot ETFs in the United States, it launched with just $47.8 million in assets and has struggled to attract meaningful inflows since. The lesson is that regulatory approval alone does not create demand. Without institutional buyers willing to allocate capital to a specific token through an ETF wrapper, the product sits on the shelf.

Cardano has some advantages that HBAR lacked at launch. Its market cap of $6.55 billion is substantially larger. It has 16 consecutive months of net inflows into ADA investment products, according to Blockworks data. Clearstream added ADA to its MiCA-regulated custody earlier in 2026, creating a pathway for European institutional demand. And the Cardano community, whatever its other characteristics, is large and vocal.

But “large and vocal” does not always translate to “willing to buy an ETF.” Much of Cardano’s holder base consists of retail investors who already own ADA directly and have no reason to pay a management fee for wrapper exposure. The institutional demand that drove Bitcoin ETFs, pension funds, endowments, and registered investment advisors seeking regulated access to an asset they could not otherwise hold, may simply not exist at scale for a $0.20 token that remains down more than 90 percent from its all-time high of $3.10.

There is also a structural question about what an ADA ETF would actually hold. Unlike Solana and Ethereum, which have attracted issuers partly because staking yields can offset management fees and generate a positive carry for the fund, Cardano staking within a US ETF wrapper remains untested. Grayscale’s Solana Staking ETF and its Ethereum Staking Mini ETF both offer yield as a differentiator. A plain vanilla ADA spot product without staking would compete for capital against yield-bearing alternatives, a disadvantage that grows more acute as the ETF market matures and investors become more sophisticated about total return.

The fee question compounds the problem. Morgan Stanley launched Ethereum and Solana ETFs at 0.14 percent, setting a new floor for the industry. Any ADA ETF entering the market would face pressure to match or undercut that rate, further compressing the already thin revenue projections for a fund that might attract only a fraction of the assets that Solana products have gathered.

The October 23 decision window, if a filing activates promptly after August 9, will be the first real test. If an ADA ETF launches and attracts meaningful flows, the altcoin ETF thesis survives. If it launches to the same tepid reception that greeted HBAR, the market will have its answer.

The opposing case at full strength
The bearish reading of Grayscale’s withdrawal, that altcoin ETFs are a dead end and institutional demand for anything below the top four crypto assets is negligible, deserves a serious challenge.

First, the timing may not be as significant as it appears. Grayscale could have decided weeks earlier to withdraw and simply waited for a convenient filing window. The proximity to August 9 may be coincidental rather than calculated.

Second, Grayscale’s withdrawal is a single data point from a company with specific financial pressures that do not apply to every issuer. Bitwise, for example, operates a leaner business model and has built its brand around altcoin exposure. A product that does not pencil out for Grayscale, with its overhead and IPO-related cost scrutiny, might be perfectly viable for a smaller issuer willing to accept thinner margins in exchange for market positioning.

Third, the altcoin ETF market is young. Bitcoin ETFs attracted modest flows in their first weeks before institutional allocators gradually built positions over quarters. The same pattern could repeat with ADA, particularly as the October decision date coincides with a period when institutional investors typically make fourth-quarter allocation decisions.

Fourth, Cardano’s fundamentals have continued to develop. The network processed its highest transaction volumes in early 2026, governance mechanisms are active, and the Ouroboros consensus protocol remains one of the few proof-of-stake systems with formal academic verification. An ETF issuer could reasonably argue that the market has not yet priced in these fundamentals.

Fifth, and most important, the thesis would be invalidated if an ADA ETF launches in October and attracts more than $200 million in its first 90 days. That would suggest institutional demand exists and that Grayscale simply miscalculated. It would also likely prompt Grayscale to refile, as the company has shown no reluctance to reverse course when market conditions shift.

The 190-second signal the market missed
There is a detail in the withdrawal filings that has received less attention than it deserves, and that a competitor publication is unlikely to have noticed.

The three Form RW filings were submitted in a specific order: Cardano at 4:33:37 p.m. ET, Hedera at 4:34:55 p.m., and Polkadot at 4:36:47 p.m. The gaps between them, 78 seconds and then 112 seconds, suggest a single operator submitting sequential EDGAR filings, not three independent decisions happening to arrive at the same conclusion.

This matters because the order tracks roughly with market capitalization at the time of filing. ADA, the largest of the three at $6.55 billion, went first. HBAR, at roughly $3.1 billion, went second. DOT, at approximately $1.5 billion, went last. If Grayscale had withdrawn in alphabetical order or reverse chronological order by filing date, the sequence would have been different.

The implication is that even the largest of the three, Cardano, was not considered worth salvaging. Grayscale did not withdraw DOT and HBAR while keeping ADA alive for another few days to see how the seasoning milestone played out. It treated all three as a single portfolio decision, suggesting that the threshold for “worth pursuing” sits somewhere above ADA’s $6.55 billion market cap and below the market capitalization of the assets for which Grayscale is still filing, such as Solana at roughly $80 billion.

That threshold has implications far beyond Cardano. If the cutoff for a viable standalone crypto ETF sits at tens of billions in market capitalization, then the long tail of altcoin ETF filings currently working through the SEC, covering everything from Chainlink to Worldcoin, may face the same economic headwinds. The broader question of whether altcoin ETF demand can sustain product expansion is one the industry has been reluctant to confront.

What to watch
October 23 decision window: If an issuer activates a spot ADA ETF filing promptly after August 9, the SEC’s 75-day review period points to late October. The size of first-week inflows will reveal whether institutional demand for Cardano exists at scale or remains a community aspiration.

Canary and Bitwise filing amendments: Watch for S-1/A amendments from the remaining ADA ETF applicants. Active amendments signal continued commitment. Silence or withdrawal notices would confirm Grayscale’s assessment that the market is not ready.

HBAR ETF flow trajectory: The Canary HBAR ETF’s performance over the next 60 days serves as a leading indicator for ADA. If HBAR flows stabilize or reverse, it suggests growing comfort with altcoin ETF exposure. Continued outflows would validate the bearish thesis.

Grayscale IPO pricing and product roadmap: When Grayscale sets its IPO price and releases an updated product strategy, look for whether altcoin ETFs feature in the forward plan or are quietly dropped from the narrative. The company’s selective approach to new filings, prioritizing niche products with differentiation over large-cap altcoin duplicates, may become the template for the industry.

ADA price action relative to ETF catalysts: If ADA fails to rally on actual ETF approval after failing to rally on eligibility, the disconnect between community expectations and market reality will be impossible to ignore. A sustained move above $0.30 on ETF-related news would challenge the thesis that the token lacks institutional appeal.

The information presented in this article is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk, including the potential loss of all invested capital. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified financial advisors before making any investment decisions. Crypto.news does not endorse the purchase, sale, or holding of any cryptocurrency or financial instrument. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Published August 14, 2026.

Is the ADA ETF still happening without Grayscale?
Yes. Five other issuers, including Bitwise, Canary Capital, VanEck, and 21Shares, have active spot ADA ETF filings. Grayscale’s withdrawal is a business decision by one company, not a regulatory barrier. The August 9 seasoning milestone remains valid for any issuer that chooses to proceed, and the earliest SEC decision window falls around October 23, 2026.

Why did Grayscale withdraw all three at once instead of keeping the Cardano filing?
The coordinated withdrawal, completed in 190 seconds, suggests Grayscale treated ADA, DOT, and HBAR as a single portfolio decision rather than evaluating each asset independently. The most likely explanation is that none of the three met an internal threshold for projected demand, and the company chose to reallocate resources toward products with stronger revenue potential.

What is the CME futures seasoning period and why does it matter?
The SEC’s generic listing standards require a crypto asset to trade on a regulated futures market for at least six months before it can qualify for streamlined spot ETF review. CME launched Cardano futures on February 9, 2026, and the six-month period ended on August 9. Meeting this threshold allows an ETF to list in approximately 75 days rather than the 240 days required under the old per-product approval process.

How much would a Cardano ETF need to attract in assets to be commercially viable?
Based on the Canary HBAR ETF’s experience, a fund with under $50 million in assets generates less than $1 million in annual fee revenue, even at a 2 percent management fee. A standalone ADA ETF would likely need at least $200 million to $300 million in assets under management to cover operating costs and generate meaningful returns for the issuer. By comparison, XRP ETFs have attracted roughly $1.5 billion and Solana funds about $1.15 billion.

Could Grayscale refile for a Cardano ETF later?
A voluntary withdrawal under SEC Rule 477 carries no penalties, waiting periods, or stigma. Grayscale could refile an S-1 registration statement for a Cardano Trust ETF at any time. The company has previously shown willingness to adjust its product strategy based on market conditions, and a surge in ADA institutional demand could prompt a reversal.

What does Grayscale’s withdrawal mean for DOT and HBAR prices?
The immediate price impact was modest: ADA fell about 2 percent, DOT dropped nearly 2 percent to $0.805, and HBAR slipped 2.24 percent to $0.068. The withdrawals removed a potential catalyst for these tokens but did not change their underlying fundamentals. For HBAR, the Canary ETF already exists, so the loss of a Grayscale competitor may actually reduce selling pressure from fee competition.

Are altcoin ETFs still worth pursuing for issuers?
The market is splitting into tiers. Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs have attracted tens of billions. Solana and XRP funds have crossed the $1 billion mark. Below that level, flows are sporadic and concentrated among a handful of products. The question is whether assets like Cardano can reach the second tier or whether the viable ETF universe stops at four or five cryptocurrencies.

Should investors buy ADA ahead of a potential ETF approval?
Every previous crypto ETF approval in the United States has followed a pattern where the token price rallied on anticipation and was flat or lower on actual approval day. ADA has already failed to rally meaningfully on its eligibility milestone, suggesting the market may have priced in the possibility. Any investment decision should account for the significant gap between ETF eligibility and actual investor demand for an ETF product. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Aug 14 : A national U.S. bank regulator on Friday conditionally approved a bank charter application linked to President Donald Trump and his family’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, effectively greenlighting an expansion of its stablecoin operations.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said in a letter published on its website that it has granted conditional preliminary approval of World Liberty Trust Company’s application for a national trust charter, which it applied for in January. 

The charter, if ultimately approved at a later date, would allow World Liberty, through the newly created trust bank, to manage and hold assets on behalf of customers and settle payments faster. It does not generally permit deposit-taking or lending like traditional banks. 

Hoping to capitalize on the Trump administration’s crypto-friendly stance, the industry has been knocking on the OCC’s door for such charters. They allow crypto companies to hold assets on behalf of clients nationwide under a single federal charter, as well as to provide other settlement and asset servicing functions — making it easier to court major institutional clients.

Other crypto firms, including Ripple and Circle, have received preliminary approval for such charters under Comptroller Jonathan Gould, whom Trump appointed to the role last year. 

In the case of World Liberty, the charter would allow it to directly issue its USD1 stablecoin, as well as custody the U.S. dollar assets backing it, both of which are now handled by a business partner, BitGo. 

In a statement on Friday, the firm welcomed the conditional approval, calling it a "milestone" in its efforts to open the bank.

"A national trust bank brings USD1 issuance, custody, and reserve management together under OCC supervision, examined on the same standards that have governed banks for generations. We welcome continuous scrutiny from Federal regulators for many years to come," Zach Witkoff, World Liberty Trust president and chairman, said in a statement.

As in most cases, the charter is subject to conditions, including notifying the regulator of any major business plan changes, maintaining at least $20 million in capital and hiring a qualified employee to serve as the firm's internal audit manager.

In its approval letter, the OCC noted it had received comments raising concerns about non-U.S. investors in World Liberty Financial.

The regulator said such investors were not considered principal shareholders in the bank, adding that the OCC had received so-called "passivity agreements" from several bank investors, including those outside the U.S., who vowed that they would not seek to control or influence the bank's operations or decisions.

Among the signatories on those agreements was Eric Trump, the president's son, as president of a Trump-family affiliated investment vehicle.

In February, two Democratic members of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee asked Trump's Treasury secretary to examine the potential national security implications of a reported purchase of a $500 million stake in World Liberty Financial in a deal linked with the United Arab Emirates' national security adviser.

FIRM HAS TIES TO TRUMP ALLIES

World Liberty Trust’s leadership is deeply intertwined with Trump's longtime allies, the Witkoff family. 

Zach Witkoff is the son of Trump’s special diplomatic envoy, Steve Witkoff. The Witkoffs were among the co-founders of World Liberty Financial with Trump and his three sons in late 2024, with Zach Witkoff currently serving as its CEO. 

Steve Witkoff’s brother Robert Witkoff, a former insurance company executive, will be a director of World Liberty Trust. Another proposed director, Scott Alper, is the president of the Witkoff family’s real estate business. 

The OCC is part of the Treasury Department and unlike many other financial regulators does not have a bipartisan board. 

Democrats have said a World Liberty charter would pose a major conflict of interest, and pressured Gould during a February congressional hearing to confidentially share the company's unredacted application. The public version did not include full details on its capital structure or business plans. 

In its approval letter, the OCC said Gould and staff "acted consistently with their statutory duties and ethical obligations with respect to the application," adding the application was reviewed by career staff and the bank would similarly be supervised by nonpolitical examiners.

LUCRATIVE BUSINESS

World Liberty is the most prominent among the Trump family’s stable of lucrative crypto ventures. Its stated vision is to democratize finance, allowing anyone to bypass a traditional banking system that the Trumps have characterized as restrictive and unfair. 

World Liberty has promoted the USD1 stablecoin as a flagship product that is designed to be a safe, U.S. dollar-backed asset allowing for entry to a range of financial products on the blockchain. 

USD1 has grown quickly since being announced in March 2025. It is currently the fourth largest stablecoin by market capitalization, at around $4 billion. 

Reuters estimated that the Trump family earned about $50 million from the USD1 stablecoin to the end of June 2026.

Overall, World Liberty Financial funneled more than $1.6 billion to the U.S. president and his family as of April, according to Reuters calculations. 

Altcoin Analysis

ASTER has barely moved out of its late-July range, with buyers defending the lower side while repeated attempts to break higher continue to fail.

The quiet price action comes as Aster introduces several changes that could affect ASTER supply in different directions. AOS-2 is now live, millions of tokens have recently been bought back, and team and advisor vesting is set to begin after the token’s first anniversary in September.

Key Takeaways

ASTER remains trapped below key resistance.
AOS-2 introduces an expensive four-year lock.
Buybacks depend directly on platform activity.
September introduces a larger supply test.

ASTER Has Been Unable to Reclaim the 50-Day SMA
ASTER was trading around $0.60 on August 13, still below the 50-day simple moving average that has capped the token since June.

ASTER daily price chart tracking support levels near the lower Fibonacci boundary in August 2026.
The last meaningful break came around June 17. ASTER briefly moved above the average but failed to hold the advance, and subsequent attempts have stalled around the same area.

Instead of extending the decline, price has spent most of the period since late July inside a much tighter range.

Its lower boundary has also become clearer. ASTER has fallen toward $0.58 twice and bounced on both occasions, establishing the area as the nearest swing low and the strongest visible support below current price.

Much of the structure created during the earlier move higher disappeared during the decline from June’s high, giving $0.58 more significance than another short-term intraday level. Losing it could expose deeper parts of the previous range.

A sustained move above the 50-day SMA would change that picture on the upside after weeks of failed recovery attempts.

AOS-2 Creates Demand, but at a High Price
Aster published the framework for AOS-2 on July 28, extending its open listing system to perpetual markets. The protocol then put AOS-2 into effect on August 11.

Eligible projects seeking a perpetual listing must stake 1 million ASTER, locked for four years with no early exit. Applications then pass through an on-chain validator vote before an approved market can proceed toward launch.

AOS-2 enters into force.

The Aster Open Standards began with AOS-1, which opened spot listings to projects meeting a published set of criteria.

AOS-2 now extends the same principle to perpetual markets, where listing has traditionally depended on private negotiation.

Under… pic.twitter.com/sFtII7bcMl

— Aster 🥷 (@Aster_DEX) August 11, 2026

At ASTER’s current price, that means committing roughly $600,000 worth of tokens for four years.

For ASTER holders, the mechanism has an obvious benefit: every successful application creates direct token demand and removes those tokens from liquid circulation for an extended period.

The same requirement could also limit how widely AOS-2 is used.

Committing hundreds of thousands of dollars for four years is a substantial cost, particularly for smaller projects or teams that may have other options for securing a perpetual listing. AOS-2 can only become a meaningful token sink if enough projects decide that the listing opportunity justifies tying up that much capital.

That makes adoption more important than the launch itself. A handful of applications would have a limited effect on supply, while broader use would begin turning the new standard into a measurable source of long-term ASTER demand.

Buybacks Add Demand, but Their Size Can Change Quickly
Aster’s updated tokenomics direct 99% of daily platform fees toward automated ASTER buybacks. Purchased tokens are distributed to veASTER stakers, while an equal amount is burned from reserves.

The latest official update shows 2,851,653.28 ASTER purchased between July 27 and August 10.

The matching burn initially comes from the team allocation. Aster says the mechanism is intended to continue until total token supply falls from its original 8 billion toward 3 billion ASTER.

The structure combines two effects: platform revenue creates open-market purchases, while the corresponding reserve burn reduces supply elsewhere.

But the 99% figure can look stronger than it is without considering the size of the fee pool behind it. Buybacks expand when trading activity and fee revenue rise and shrink when activity slows. They are therefore not a fixed source of demand.

The latest figures provide some scale. Buying 2.85 million ASTER over roughly two weeks would translate to around 5.7 million tokens per month if that pace were sustained.

That becomes particularly relevant when compared with the supply schedule approaching in September.

September Could Put Aster’s Token Sinks to the Test
Aster’s official tokenomics allocate 400 million ASTER, or 5% of the original supply, to the team and advisors. The allocation carries a full one-year cliff followed by 40 months of linear vesting.

ASTER’s TGE took place on September 17, 2025, putting the end of that cliff around the token’s first anniversary next month.

The entire 400 million allocation will not become liquid at once. Once vesting begins, spreading the allocation evenly across 40 months works out to roughly 10 million ASTER per month.

That is notably larger than the recent buyback pace. If Aster continued purchasing tokens at roughly the rate reported between July 27 and August 10, monthly buybacks would absorb around 5.7 million ASTER – well below the roughly 10 million scheduled to vest each month.

The comparison is not exact. Buybacks fluctuate with platform revenue, while vesting only makes tokens available and does not mean they will automatically be sold.

Still, September changes the balance. Until now, buybacks and long-term locks have been removing or restricting supply without the team vesting schedule working against them. From next month, the market may have to absorb newly available tokens at the same time.

Even a portion of those vested tokens reaching the market could matter if ASTER remains stuck in its current range. With $0.58 already serving as the nearest established support, additional selling pressure would give that level a more serious test.

The next question for ASTER is therefore not simply whether AOS-2 launches successfully or whether buybacks continue. It is whether those mechanisms can absorb enough supply once vesting begins.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile, and readers should conduct their own research before making investment decisions.

Author

Reporter at Coindoo

Kosta has reported on cryptocurrency markets and blockchain infrastructure since 2020, bringing over six years of hands-on experience in the crypto industry built through daily tracking of markets, trends, and emerging blockchain developments. Specializing in Bitcoin on-chain analysis, institutional ETF flows, and digital asset price action, his work at Coindoo has been cited by other news agencies and consistently covers market developments with a focus on data-driven reporting across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP.
Over the years, Kosta has contributed to multiple crypto media outlets in different regions, authoring over 6,000 articles across the sector. His reporting spans cryptocurrency markets and the broader fintech industry, tracking not only price action but also the technological and regulatory forces shaping the ecosystem.
To support his analysis, Kosta actively leverages on-chain data and metrics from leading platforms such as Santiment, Glassnode, and CryptoQuant, enabling deeper, evidence-based market insights. He believes in the power of transparency and the data that underpins the blockchain ecosystem.
His academic background in Marketing Management from Denmark further complements his analytical approach, adding a strong understanding of communication strategy and content positioning to his work.

The Cboe BZX Exchange has filed a proposed rule change to list and trade the first-ever 3x leveraged Bitcoin ETF in the US. The filing, designated SR-CboeBZX-2026-065, was submitted on August 10, 2026, and represents a meaningful escalation in the arms race of crypto-linked investment products available to American traders.

Volatility Shares LLC, the firm behind the product, is sponsoring a suite of 3x leveraged funds covering Bitcoin, Ether, Gold, Silver, Crude Oil, and Natural Gas. For Bitcoin specifically, the fund would aim to deliver daily investment results equal to three times the performance of Bitcoin, achieved through first- and second-month CME Bitcoin futures contracts.

What triple leverage actually means
A 3x leveraged ETF does exactly what it sounds like: it multiplies the daily return of its underlying asset by three. If Bitcoin futures rise 2% in a day, the fund targets a 6% gain. If they fall 2%, you’re looking at a 6% loss.

Advertisement

That daily reset is the part most people gloss over, and it matters enormously. Over longer holding periods, the compounding effect of daily rebalancing can cause the fund’s returns to diverge significantly from simply tripling Bitcoin’s cumulative return. A volatile, sideways market can eat into returns even if the underlying asset ends up flat. These products are designed for short-term trading, not buy-and-hold retirement portfolios.

The US market already has 2x leveraged Bitcoin ETFs. Europe got ahead of the curve, with 3x Bitcoin exchange-traded products beginning to trade in November 2025. This Cboe filing would bring the US in line with what European investors have already had access to for months.

Structure and regulatory path
One of the more interesting wrinkles in the filing is the fund’s legal structure. Rather than registering under the Investment Company Act of 1940, which governs traditional mutual funds and most ETFs, the 3x Bitcoin fund would be structured as a commodity pool. That’s a meaningful distinction because it places the product under a different regulatory framework, one overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rather than the SEC’s investment company rules.

The filing also relies on amended generic listing standards that Cboe developed between 2025 and 2026. These standards essentially create a streamlined pathway for listing certain types of derivative-based ETFs without requiring individual SEC approval for each product, provided they meet pre-established criteria.

There’s one important caveat: shares of the fund cannot actually begin trading until the associated S-1 registration statement becomes effective. The exchange approval was granted on the same date as the filing, but that doesn’t mean the fund is immediately available. The SEC still needs to greenlight the registration, and no specific listing date has been confirmed.

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

In brief
A reported breach of France’s tax authority exposed data tied to 678,437 people and businesses.
The records allegedly include income figures, addresses, tax identifiers, and family information.
The data could help criminals craft targeted scams against wealthy taxpayers and Bitcoin holders.
A hacker is selling a trove of French tax records that could expose more than 678,000 people and businesses, including Bitcoin holders, to phishing, identity theft, and targeted attacks.

According to a report by French cybersecurity outlet FrenchBreaches, a hacker is selling records allegedly stolen from France’s tax authority, the DGFiP, during a June breach for several thousand euros.

Myriad: Bitcoin's next move? Click to make your prediction.“More bad news for Bitcoiners living in the leading country for wrench attacks,” Chief Security Officer at Bitcoin security platform Casa Jameson Loop wrote on X. “The French tax authority has been hacked, and 678K records leaked.”

FrenchBreaches said the database contains records on 392,867 individuals and 285,570 professionals, including 26,805 people with reference tax income of at least $116,000, 386 above $1.16 million, and eight above $11.6 million; the hacker is reportedly offering the file for several thousand dollars.

FrenchBreaches said a sample of the leaked data included names, birth details, home and email addresses, phone numbers, income figures, withholding tax rates, family status, dependents, and tax-share information.

“There DGFiP officially confirms the intrusion in its information system,” FrenchBreaches wrote in an update. Stolen credentials were used in late June to access and extract taxpayer data, and the number of people affected remains under investigation, the firm added.

According to FrenchBreaches, the attacker used stolen VPN credentials and an internal search tool to extract names, contact details, tax identifiers, income figures, withholding rates, and family information before officials cut off access.

“A scammer with real tax information and knowing of the existence of an old approach to the DGFiP could, for example, construct a fraudulent message that is much more credible than a simple fake generic email,” FrenchBreaches wrote.

While the FrenchBreaches report focused on the data leak, it comes amid a rise in wrench attacks, in which criminals use violence or threats to steal cryptocurrency.

In July, CertiK reported 52 attacks worldwide during the first half of 2026, including 33 in France. Earlier this month, Chainalysis reported 46 attacks through June, including 30 in France, with more than $30 million stolen.

“Criminals have recognized that crypto holders are high-value targets because they possess wealth in an instantly and irreversibly transferable form,” Chainalysis wrote.

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

Militia Capital Management has filed an amended 13F form with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), revealing its latest holdings in the Bitwise XRP ETF. The disclosure includes 31,820 shares, confirming that Militia Capital now holds a regulated XRP exchange-traded fund position through a product listed on a U.S. exchange.

Growing institutional demand for XRP ETFsThe Militia Capital filing highlights a growing trend among regulated investment firms to adopt XRP ETFs as part of their portfolios. Recent months have seen an expanding roster of institutions reporting exposure to these products via public SEC filings, reflecting an uptick in institutional interest and confidence in XRP-based investment vehicles.

Gallacher Capital Management declared ownership of 86,744 shares in the Canary XRP ETF, valued at $961,126 in its second-quarter 13F-HR. Brookstone Capital Management has also published data confirming exposure to an XRP ETF position.

Citadel previously reported holding 34,900 call options on the Canary XRP ETF earlier this year, having closed out all its put options. The Bank of Montreal filed its Form 13F-HR on August 12, updating its holdings through the end of June.

Bitrue indicated that Franklin Templeton clients purchased $5.66 million worth of XRP during the current year. Cumulative net inflows across the seven U.S.-listed spot XRP ETFs have reached into the billions, with several products setting new records in 2026.

Militia Capital joins a steadily increasing group of investment managers allocating capital to regulated XRP ETF products, underscoring the asset’s broader acceptance in institutional circles.

Bitwise leads in ETF inflowsMilitia Capital’s position is specifically in the Bitwise XRP ETF—currently the ETF leader in net flows year to date. On July 16, Bitwise posted daily net inflows of $4.41 million, outpacing all other XRP ETF products. The firm’s 31,820-share stake marks a deliberate commitment to the highest-volume ETF in the market.

As investors look to monitor key metrics and seek efficient market exposure, Wall Street is rapidly shifting into Web3. Participants are moving toward platforms such as 1stepSwap, enabling direct ownership of shares in major U.S. companies, as well as gold and silver, held securely in crypto wallets. This movement is powered by tokenization of real-world assets (RWAs) and algorithmic price discovery, eliminating intermediaries from the investment process.

Compliant access for institutional portfoliosInstitutions rely on regulatory filings like the 13F to make strategic, compliant decisions. Portfolio managers and compliance teams play central roles in allocating capital to digital asset-based ETFs. Militia Capital’s filing demonstrates continued growth in institutional adoption of XRP as an investable asset.

Hedge funds, asset managers, and commercial banks—along with new filings like Militia Capital’s—are increasingly selecting regulated XRP ETF products for market entry. Spot XRP ETFs were launched after persistent community advocacy, providing accessible and regulated options for institutional participants.

An expanding pattern has emerged in 2026 as regulated institutions announce new XRP ETF holdings, arriving via independent filings and product structures, giving further visibility to the sector.

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

According to a Friday report by Semafor, enterprise blockchain company Ripple will attend a meeting at the White House on Wednesday. 

Apart from Ripple, such big names as Coinbase, a16z, Chainlink, and Paradigm will also be in attendance. 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Chair Paul Atkins as well as Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Michael Selig will be present during the meeting as well. 

HOT Stories

On Thursday, Politico reported that the White House was preparing to host a gathering focusing on crypto and prediction markets. 

You Might Also Like

This will not be Ripple's first appearance at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In early 2025, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse attended the White House Digital Assets Summit, the administration's first presidential crypto summit. Garlinghouse was among a relatively small group of crypto executives invited to the event, alongside Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, and Strategy's Michael Saylor. The company associated with the XRP cryptocurrency also had another documented presence at the White House in July during the signing the stablecoin-focused GENIUS Act. 

As reported by U.Today, Ripple also took part in an important White House summit earlier this year. 

Last year, however, Ripple's lobbying operation briefly became a source of friction inside the White House because lobbyist Ballard Partners avoided important access procedures. However, Ripple was not permanently excluded from the White House despite attracting the ire of the administration.

Regulatory uncertainty As reported by U.Today, the CLARITY Act, which has been persistently pushed by the White House, did not receive a final Senate vote before the August recess. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has scheduled a procedural vote for Sept 15.

In July, White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt pushed back against Thune’s increasingly pessimistic assessment. 

Witt and senior White House officials participated in negotiations with Republican senators over one of the bill’s most contentious provisions. 

Citigroup, one of the world’s largest financial institutions, has expressed support for the Crypto CLARITY Act and called on the US Senate to advance the new digital asset regulation bill. The endorsement came as Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser emphasized the need for comprehensive legislation governing crypto markets in the United States.

Citigroup’s stance on the CLARITY ActJane Fraser voiced appreciation for current efforts to draft the Crypto CLARITY Act, while also noting that the bank continues to advocate for improvements in the legislation. Citigroup remains a major player in global banking and has increasingly engaged with digital asset markets in recent years.

Fraser stressed the importance of moving forward with the bill, even as discussions about potential amendments persist. “We’re not giving up on pushing to get some improvements made to the bill, but we would like to see a good bill go through. I think it would be excellent for the system,” Fraser stated during an interview with Fox Business.

“We’re not giving up on pushing to get some improvements made to the bill, but we would like to see a good bill go through. I think it would be excellent for the system.”

Citigroup has previously noted that regulatory progress in digital assets could help drive institutional adoption. The bank regards legislative clarity as a potential turning point for both compliance and market participation by large investors.

Market context and legislative aimsThe call for regulatory clarity comes after a difficult period for cryptocurrencies, with the global market capitalization falling by over $2 trillion in the past year. Supporters of the CLARITY Act believe the new legal framework could pave the way for a more stable and trusted crypto sector, contributing to market recovery.

The Crypto CLARITY Act is designed to establish defined rules for digital assets in the US. Its primary goals are to provide regulatory certainty, encourage institutional engagement, and strengthen investor protection.

If enacted, the legislation could help address common concerns about scams and security vulnerabilities that persist in the crypto industry. The promise of greater safeguards may help attract new participants to the market while reassuring existing investors.

Mini dictionary: Crypto CLARITY Act, proposed US legislation aimed at improving regulatory oversight and investor protection in digital asset markets. The act seeks to create clearer legal distinctions for crypto asset classes and establish consistent rules for their use and trading.

Citigroup’s recent outlook on the crypto marketWhile supporting stronger legislation, Citi recently adopted a more cautious view towards digital asset performance. On July 1, the bank reduced its 12-month price target for Bitcoin from $112,000 to $82,000. Citigroup also adjusted its projection for Ethereum, lowering it from $3,175 to $2,240.

AssetPrevious 12-Month TargetNew 12-Month TargetBitcoin$112,000$82,000Ethereum$3,175$2,240Jane Fraser’s positive remarks on the proposed crypto bill follow these cautious adjustments, reflecting Citigroup’s dual approach of backing regulatory clarity while remaining vigilant about sector volatility.

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.

Binance will stop transactions involving HTX, EXMO and nine other crypto platforms from August 23. The exchange cited recent regulatory developments as it expands compliance restrictions across several markets.

Binance Sets August 23 Transaction Restrictions Binance said the August 23 restrictions will cover HTX, formerly Huobi, alongside Rapira, Aifory Pro, ABCeX, WhiteBird, NoOnecrypto INC., Tradex, Monease Ltd, BitPapa, Exnode and EXMO. The exchange cited changes in regulatory requirements and protection of user assets for the decision.

Users should avoid sending crypto to the affected platforms or receiving assets from them. Binance may review transactions linked directly or indirectly to these companies. The exchange may also restrict related wallets while it completes compliance checks.

Similar measures already apply to several other platforms. Restrictions on Shelbit and Aban Tether Exchange started on August 7. Binance added A7 Nigeria, A7 Africa and PilotFinance Ltd to the list on August 13.

HTX Faces Sanctions-Related Restrictions The European Union added HTX to a sanctions package targeting Russia in July. The UK government had already designated Huobi Global S.A. in May. UK authorities cited suspected financial services or resources provided to A7 LLC and Garantex Europe OU.

HTX challenged the scope of the UK action. The company said the designation covered Huobi Global S.A. as a separate legal entity. HTX also maintained that the measure did not affect its online exchange or customer funds.

The UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation later took a different position. The agency said the sanctions also covered the HTX exchange because Huobi Global owns the platform.

TRM Labs separately raised concerns about frequent movements between HTX wallet addresses. The firm reported that some addresses operated for only several hours before activity moved elsewhere. Such changes can make screening based on fixed address lists harder.

HTX rejected claims that the wallet movements aimed to avoid sanctions screening. A company spokesperson described the transfers as routine security procedures used across the crypto industry.

Binance Expands Crypto Compliance Measures Earlier restrictions on Shelbit and Aban Tether followed U.S. sanctions announced on August 7. U.S. authorities accused both platforms of handling cryptocurrency linked to Iranian sanctions-evasion networks.

Authorities said wallets linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps sent more than $1 million to Shelbit addresses. They also alleged that Shelbit-linked wallets transferred over $2 million to addresses controlled by the organization.

U.S. authorities separately accused Aban Tether of processing millions of dollars involving sanctioned Iranian crypto exchanges. Those platforms included Nobitex, Wallex, Bitpin and Ramzinex.

Binance may hold transactions attempted after each restriction date for additional review. The exchange can also restrict affected wallets until its compliance teams complete those checks.

For those seeking compliant platforms amid changing EU rules can explore the best regulated crypto exchanges in Europe for their trading needs.

CCIP Becomes the Cross-Chain Standard for Institutional Assets@Chainlink is cementing its position as the go-to infrastructure layer for institutional on-chain assets, with a fresh cluster of integrations spanning cross-chain token transfers, real-time fund reporting, and on-chain reserve verification.

@Re protocol is the latest protocol to move its cross-chain infrastructure to Chainlink CCIP. Re, the on-chain reinsurance protocol with more than $475 million in total value locked, conducted an internal cross-chain infrastructure evaluation and is now migrating from LayerZero to CCIP as its exclusive bridging solution for $reUSD, its depository token with a market cap exceeding $160 million. The protocol will use CCIP to secure $reUSD transfers between @Ethereum and @Solana. Each CCIP bridge lane is secured by 16 independent node operators, and CCIP carries a SOC 2 Type 2 attestation, giving transfers an institutional-grade compliance footing.

@Nillion is implementing the same framework to enable $NIL transfers between Ethereum and HyperEVM. CCIP already supports interoperability with ecosystems including Ethereum, HyperEVM, Arbitrum, Optimism, BNB Chain, and Base, making it a natural fit for protocols that need to move assets across multiple environments without compromising security.

SmartData and Proof of Reserve Round Out the PushOn the data side, @Obligatecom is integrating Chainlink SmartData to bring real-time Net Asset Value reporting on-chain for its $200 million-plus $oTFY credit fund tokenization. Chainlink SmartData is a suite of on-chain data offerings designed to unlock the utility, accessibility, and reliability of tokenized real-world assets, providing secure minting assurances alongside essential real-world data such as reserves, NAV, and AUM data. Chainlink is already bringing NAV data for oTFY on-chain, with oTFY integrated into Kamino, Solana's leading lending protocol, where holders can use institutional-grade trade-finance exposure as collateral.

Completing the set, @RadiantPrimeXYZ is implementing Chainlink Proof of Reserve to increase transparency across its tokenized investment strategy. Chainlink Proof of Reserve verifies cross-chain and off-chain reserves backing tokenized and wrapped assets, providing unparalleled transparency. The tool enables protocols to automatically halt minting, redemptions, or trading when reserves fall short, and supports the launch of RWAs and ETFs with continuous reserve verification that meets the standards of institutional users and regulators.

Taken together, the integrations underline how Chainlink's suite of products, CCIP, SmartData, and Proof of Reserve, is increasingly being adopted as the default compliance and connectivity stack for tokenized assets in the 2026 digital economy. CCIP passed $18 billion in cross-chain transfer volume in Q1 2026 and now connects more than 70 blockchains.

Sources
Re Protocol: $475M TVL Re Transitions From LayerZero to Chainlink CCIP
Chainlink Documentation: SmartData
Chainlink Blog: Quarterly Review Q1 2026

Table of contents

Let me finish a story I started five weeks ago. In July this column called Uniswap the toll booth on DeFi’s highway and asked the question that has haunted the token since 2020: does the toll ever reach the people who own the booth? I flagged it as the single most important thing to verify about UNI, because the entire long-term case rested on it. Here is the answer, and it is more uncomfortable than either camp expected. The toll is being collected. The booth is paying its owners. And the token trades near $3.40, second on CoinGecko’s most-viewed list, roughly where it sat before any of it happened.

UNI traded at $3.43 on August 12, 2026, down 4.4% on the day, per CoinGecko, with Bitcoin at $62,753 and most of the board red. Check the live figure before acting; the argument on this page does not turn on a single session’s price.

The question got answered while nobody was looking
The mechanism is real and it is on. In December 2025 the Uniswap DAO passed a proposal called UNIfication, and the vote was not close: roughly 125.3 million UNI in favor against 742 opposed, clearing quorum several times over, with turnout above 20% of outstanding supply. The full text and the vote record sit on the Uniswap governance portal for anyone who wants the primary document rather than a summary of it.

What it did, in plain terms. It flipped the long-dormant fee switch, starting with v2 pools and the set of v3 pools that carry the overwhelming majority of fees on Ethereum mainnet. On v2, liquidity providers now take 0.25% instead of 0.30%, and the remaining 0.05% goes to the protocol. That protocol revenue funds a programmatic mechanism that buys and burns UNI. And it executed a one-time burn of 100 million UNI from the treasury, roughly 16% of total supply, sent to a burn address in January 2026 as a retroactive payment for all the years the switch stayed off.

Sixteen percent of the supply. Destroyed. In one transaction, and unlike most claims in this industry, that one is checkable by anyone: the UNI contract and its transfer history are public on Etherscan, burn address included.

Now look at the price. UNI was around $5.92 the evening the vote passed. It traded near $3.26 in May. It was $3.43 on August 12. The most transformative tokenomics event in the protocol’s history arrived, and the chart went the other way.

The One Number That Matters
Sixteen percent, versus zero percent.

That is the gap between the supply that was removed and the price response that followed, and understanding why it exists is worth more than any price target on this page.

Three things explain it, and none of them are that the burn was fake.

The market context ate the news. UNIfication landed in a stretch that was brutal for altcoins across the board. Good news arriving into a falling market gets absorbed rather than celebrated, and UNI, like almost every altcoin this year, has spent 2026 trading at the mercy of Bitcoin rather than its own fundamentals. Today is the same story in miniature: red board, red UNI.

Burn velocity is smaller than the headline. The 100 million burn was one-time and retroactive. The ongoing mechanism is the part that matters for the next five years, and it is funded by protocol fees rather than by treasury drama. Against that, the token still carries annual issuance in the region of 1.4%, which the burn has to outrun before “deflationary” means anything in practice. It reportedly is outrunning it. The margin is what determines whether this compounds into something or merely offsets dilution, and that margin is checkable rather than debatable on DefiLlama’s fee and revenue tables.

And the market had years to price it. The fee switch was discussed, proposed, delayed and debated so many times since 2020 that by the time it actually happened, anyone who believed in it had already positioned. Anticipated news is priced news.

What UNI actually is now
This part deserves saying clearly, because it changes the analytical frame permanently.

Before December 2025, UNI belonged to the same category as Arbitrum’s token and most infrastructure governance tokens: you owned a vote, and the value flowed past you to liquidity providers and to the company. This site has written that sentence about a lot of tokens. After UNIfication, UNI has a claim on protocol revenue through burns, which means for the first time it can be analyzed with something resembling a price-to-earnings framework rather than pure narrative.

The underlying business supports that framework better than most. Uniswap generated over a billion dollars in fees across 2025, ranking among the largest fee generators in all of DeFi. It processed hundreds of billions in volume in the first quarter of 2026 and holds roughly a quarter of global spot DEX volume, a share anyone can watch shift in real time on DefiLlama’s DEX rankings. Whatever the token does, the booth is busy.

So the honest summary is this: UNI stopped being a lottery ticket on governance and became a cheap, unloved claim on a real cash-generating business, in a market that currently pays nothing for either. Whether that is an opportunity or a trap depends entirely on whether crypto ever starts pricing cash flows, which it has famously refused to do for most of its existence.

Key Levels
The map from our prediction page still stands and has aged well. $3.00 remains the line that separates a recovery story from a failed bounce; UNI has spent five weeks above it without ever pulling far away. Above, $3.60 is the near resistance and $4.00 the level that would signal something has changed. The token’s 2021 high above $40 sits more than eleven times overhead, a distance that only matters as a reminder of how far sentiment has fallen, not as a target.

Bottom Line
Five weeks ago I wrote that a toll booth without a toll is a beautiful chart of someone else’s money, and that verifying the fee switch was the most important task on the page. It is verified. The switch is on, the burn happened, the mechanism runs on real revenue, and UNI near $3.40 is priced as though none of it occurred. That is either the market being slow or the market being right that cash flows do not matter here. I lean toward slow, and I would rather say that plainly than pretend the last eight months of price action supports me. Watch the burn margin against issuance, watch $3.00, and remember that the booth keeps collecting either way.

This article is for information only and is not investment advice. Crypto assets are extremely volatile and you can lose your entire stake. Always do your own research.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Uniswap price today?

UNI traded at $3.43 on August 12, 2026, down 4.4% on the day, ranking second on CoinGecko's most-viewed list. Prices move fast, so check a live source for the current figure.

Is the Uniswap fee switch live?

Yes. The UNIfication proposal passed governance in December 2025 with roughly 125.3 million UNI in favor against 742 opposed, activating protocol fees on v2 and major v3 pools on Ethereum mainnet, with revenue funding a UNI buy-and-burn mechanism.

How many UNI tokens were burned?

100 million UNI, roughly 16% of total supply, were sent from the treasury to a burn address in early January 2026 as a one-time retroactive burn, alongside the ongoing fee-funded burn mechanism.

Why did UNI fall after the fee switch was activated?

The change landed during a broad altcoin downturn, the fee switch had been anticipated and debated since 2020 so much of it was already priced, and the ongoing burn rate is modest relative to the token's market capitalization.

Does UNI now earn revenue for holders?

Indirectly. Protocol fees fund buying and burning of UNI rather than direct distributions, which reduces supply over time rather than paying holders a yield.

What are the key UNI levels to watch?

$3.00 is the support that separates a recovery from a failed bounce, with $3.60 and then $4.00 as the resistance levels above.

AUTHOR

Farhan Karim is a technology writer and content strategist with 15+ years of experience writing thousands of articles, blogs, whitepapers, and ebooks on Blockchain, Cryptocurrency, and other tech niches. His expertise in content strategy, SEO, and a keen eye on the ever-evolving tech space have led him to work with companies like Pepsi, Huawei, Arab News, and now Blockchain Reporter.

P2P.org has integrated its staking infrastructure with Arkis, allowing institutional clients to use staked Solana and Avalanche assets as collateral while continuing to earn protocol rewards.

Summary

Arkis clients can use staked Solana and Avalanche positions as collateral for trades. Margin is calculated against the aggregate risk of each client’s Arkis account. Validator downtime and slashing risk will affect how Arkis values the collateral. The integration is live through the Carry Trades section of Arkis Alpha. P2P.org staking enters Arkis collateral system P2P.org said in an Aug. 13 announcement that Arkis clients can now stake supported assets through its validator infrastructure and post the resulting positions as collateral without unstaking them first.

At launch, the integration supports Solana and Avalanche. P2P.org and Arkis did not say when other proof-of-stake networks might be added.

Once deposited, the staked asset and any trades backed by it sit within a single Arkis account. The prime broker calculates margin from the aggregate risk of the account instead of assessing each position separately at the trading venue where it is held.

Clients can therefore borrow against a supported staked position in the same way that they borrow against other collateral accepted by Arkis. According to the announcement, the asset continues generating protocol rewards while it supports the client’s trading positions.

The service is available through Carry Trades in Arkis Alpha. After a client selects a staked asset, the platform displays the strategies that accept it as collateral and provides the stated economics before capital is committed.

P2P.org supplies the non-custodial staking and validator infrastructure, while Arkis handles credit, collateral, and portfolio risk.

“Collateral is only as good as the operator standing behind it,” said Artemiy Parshakov, vice president of strategic solutions at P2P.org.

Parshakov added that staking can no longer be treated as a passive balance-sheet position once an institution borrows against it. According to the executive, P2P.org’s validator operations must meet the standards applied under Arkis’s credit and risk framework.

Arkis prices validator risk into margin Adding staked assets to a margin account introduces risks that do not apply to cash or unstaked tokens. Proof-of-stake networks can penalize validators for conduct such as signing conflicting blocks or failing to meet certain network requirements.

Known as slashing, the penalty can reduce the number of tokens attached to a validator. Extended downtime can also reduce expected rewards, changing the value of a position used to support an open trade.

Arkis said its risk framework considers the quality of the staking operator when determining how the collateral should be treated. Slashing history and validator downtime are therefore assessed as margin inputs rather than excluded from the calculation.

“A growing share of institutional books sits in assets that earn yield, and credit providers have been slow to treat those positions as part of the portfolio they margin,” said Oleksandr Proskurin, chief product officer and co-founder of Arkis.

Proskurin said the integration places staked assets alongside the client’s other positions for margin purposes. Arkis chose P2P.org because the prime broker wanted to assess the operator behind the staked asset as part of its underwriting process, he added.

According to Arkis, the Spark-backed company has deployed more than $250 million in institutional credit since 2022 without recording bad debt. The figure is company-provided and was not independently verified in the announcement.

P2P.org reported that its validators operate across more than 40 proof-of-stake networks and secure over $10 billion in staked assets. The company also claimed that it has not recorded a slashing incident since its establishment in 2018 and serves more than 190 institutional clients.

Staked collateral keeps capital in use Without such an arrangement, a fund may need to unstake an asset before using it as collateral elsewhere. Unstaking can involve a waiting period determined by the blockchain, during which the holder may lose access to trading opportunities or stop receiving some rewards.

The P2P.org integration allows the staked position to remain active while Arkis uses it to support other trades. Any rewards remain determined by the underlying protocol and can vary based on network conditions, the amount staked, validator performance, and protocol rules.

Using an earning asset as collateral does not remove liquidation or slashing risk. A decline in the token’s market price, a change in margin requirements, or a validator penalty could reduce the collateral supporting an open position.

The Arkis arrangement differs from restaking, in which an already-staked asset is used to secure additional blockchain services. As an August staking explainer detailed, restaking can expose an asset to several sets of slashing conditions when it secures multiple protocols.

Under the announced Arkis structure, the supported staked position serves as financial collateral within a prime brokerage account. The companies did not state that Solana or Avalanche assets would be restaked to secure another network.

P2P.org has used similar integrations to place its staking services inside existing institutional systems. In June, crypto.news reported that Taurus had integrated P2P.org validators with Taurus-PROTECT, allowing financial institutions to stake while retaining custody and control of their assets.

An earlier collaboration added P2P.org to Northstake’s ETH validator marketplace in January 2025. The companies said the marketplace was designed to provide regulated institutions with access to Ethereum validator infrastructure.

U.S. guidance covers some staking arrangements For U.S. institutions, a May 2025 staff statement from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance addressed certain forms of protocol staking carried out directly or through a third-party operator.

The SEC staff statement said the protocol staking activities described in its analysis did not involve the offer and sale of securities. Its position covered some non-custodial arrangements in which token owners retain ownership and control of their assets and private keys while assigning validation rights to a node operator.

The division said its view depended on the specific facts and circumstances. Services that include additional business arrangements or depart from the activities described in the statement may require a separate legal assessment.

P2P.org describes its staking infrastructure as non-custodial, but neither company announced specific access for U.S. institutions or said that the Arkis integration had been assessed under U.S. securities law. The release also did not disclose whether geographic restrictions apply to Arkis Alpha.

In May 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency confirmed that national banks and federal savings associations may outsource permissible crypto activities to third parties when they maintain appropriate third-party risk controls. The OCC guidance addressed custody and transaction execution but did not approve P2P.org, Arkis, or the use of staked assets as trading collateral.

P2P.org separately announced an Aug. 11 partnership with BoulderTech to distribute staking and decentralized finance services in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. BoulderTech will connect the validator operator with regional exchanges, custodians, banks, asset managers, and funds, while both companies assess whether to deploy validator infrastructure at IRSA-backed facilities in Argentina.

Morgan Stanley has increased its reported holding in BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF by 23% to about 16.5 million shares while adding exposure to Ether, Solana, and several crypto-linked companies during the second quarter.

Summary

Morgan Stanley added roughly 3.04 million shares of BlackRock’s IBIT during Q2. Its IBIT position was valued at $549 million as of June 30. Holdings in BlackRock’s Ether ETF increased by 202% to 4.6 million shares. New positions included Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin fund and two Solana investment products. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing signed on Aug. 11 showed that Morgan Stanley held about 16.5 million shares of BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, up from approximately 13.4 million shares at the end of the first quarter.

The addition of roughly 3.04 million IBIT shares represented a quarterly increase of about 23%. However, the reported value of the position fell by nearly 18%, from around $667 million to $549 million, as Bitcoin’s price declined during the three months ended June 30.

Morgan Stanley submitted the report as a combination Form 13F covering positions held by several related managers. The Q2 regulatory filing contained 45,905 entries with an aggregate reported value of about $1.89 trillion.

A Form 13F provides a quarter-end view of certain U.S.-listed securities held by institutional investment managers. It does not identify every transaction made during the quarter, disclose short positions, or establish that every reported share represents a proprietary investment by Morgan Stanley itself.

Morgan Stanley has added its own Bitcoin fund Alongside the larger IBIT position, Morgan Stanley reported 2.57 million shares of the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust, valued at approximately $43.3 million on June 30. The position was new because MSBT began trading during the second quarter.

Morgan Stanley launched the Bitcoin fund on NYSE Arca on April 8 with an annual management fee of 0.14%. The product holds Bitcoin and seeks to follow its spot price after accounting for expenses and other liabilities.

MSBT’s fee came below the 0.25% charged by both BlackRock’s IBIT and Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund. The Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust charges 0.15%, placing Morgan Stanley’s product one basis point below that rate at launch.

Despite offering its own fund, Morgan Stanley continued to hold larger positions in products run by competing asset managers. Its $549 million IBIT position was more than 12 times the value of the reported MSBT holding at the end of June.

Several other Bitcoin fund positions also increased. Morgan Stanley added shares of the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF and the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF, while its Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund holding rose by nearly 38%.

As crypto.news reported on Aug. 8, MSBT later added about 232.5 BTC worth $15.05 million as Bitcoin traded near $65,000. Blockchain intelligence platform Arkham estimated that the purchase raised the fund’s balance to 6,563 BTC, valued at more than $426 million at the time.

The fund-level Bitcoin balance differs from Morgan Stanley’s 13F position in MSBT shares. An ETF’s digital assets back all outstanding shares, while the 13F records the shares reported by Morgan Stanley and the affiliated managers covered by the filing.

Ether and Solana fund positions have increased Ether exposure rose across two funds during the quarter. Morgan Stanley increased its holding in BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust ETF by about 202%, taking the position to approximately 4.6 million shares.

The bank also reported around 5.1 million shares of the Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF, an increase of roughly 26% from the previous quarter. Both products provide exposure to Ether through securities traded in the United States, although their structures, fees, and treatment of staking rewards differ.

Solana appeared in the filing through two new positions. Morgan Stanley reported approximately $4.25 million in shares of the Grayscale Solana Staking ETF and about $2.26 million in the Fidelity Solana Fund.

The positions preceded Morgan Stanley’s launch of its own Solana and Ethereum products after the quarter had ended. On July 28, the bank launched Ethereum and Solana exchange-traded products under the MSSE and MSOL tickers.

Both products charge a 0.14% annual management fee and include staking provisions. Regulatory documents indicate that the Ethereum product may stake between 50% and 80% of its Ether, while the Solana product may stake up to 100% of its SOL holdings.

For U.S. investors, the 13F positions represent exposure through securities available in traditional brokerage accounts rather than direct ownership of Bitcoin, Ether, or Solana. The SEC filing reports the value of the fund shares on June 30, meaning subsequent token-price changes and portfolio transactions are not captured.

Circle and Bitcoin infrastructure holdings have grown Morgan Stanley made one of its largest crypto-related additions in Circle Internet Group, the company behind the USDC stablecoin. Its reported Circle position increased from about 1.46 million shares in the first quarter to approximately 8.32 million shares at the end of Q2.

The change represented an addition of about 6.86 million shares, leaving the reported position at more than 5.5 times its previous size. Because Circle trades on a U.S. stock exchange, its shares fall within the securities covered by Form 13F rather than being reported as a direct stablecoin holding.

Positions also grew across several Bitcoin mining and digital infrastructure companies. The filing showed additions to Cipher Digital, Core Scientific, Hut 8, and Bitdeer Technologies.

Such equity holdings carry company-specific exposure beyond Bitcoin’s market price. Their values can also depend on electricity costs, debt, mining output, hardware efficiency, and revenue from data centers or high-performance computing operations, according to the individual companies’ public disclosures.

At the same time, Morgan Stanley has expanded the ways its U.S. clients can access digital assets. In July, the bank completed its E*TRADE rollout, allowing eligible customers to buy, sell, and hold Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana for a 0.50% transaction fee through infrastructure provided by Zerohash.

Coinbase and some mining positions have declined Not every crypto-linked security increased during the quarter. Morgan Stanley reported about 550,000 fewer Coinbase shares than it held at the end of March.

The bank also reduced its CleanSpark position by more than 3.1 million shares. CleanSpark remained among the publicly traded U.S. Bitcoin miners covered by institutional filings, but Morgan Stanley’s Q2 report showed a materially smaller holding.

Bitfarms was removed from the portfolio entirely. Morgan Stanley had reported a position of roughly 8 million shares in the previous quarter before disclosing no corresponding holding on June 30.

Since a 13F only presents positions held on the final day of a quarter, the filing does not provide Morgan Stanley’s purchase or sale prices for IBIT, Circle, Coinbase, CleanSpark, or Bitfarms. It also does not show whether any of the positions were changed after June 30.