South Korea’s dominant crypto exchange is rolling out the welcome mat for DeFi lending. Upbit will list Morpho (MORPHO) in its KRW trading market on July 25 at 18:00 KST, with Euler (EUL) following one day later on July 26.
The announcement alone was enough to nudge Morpho’s price up 4.8%.
Why these two protocols, and why now Morpho and Euler both belong to a newer generation of lending protocols that take a modular approach, essentially letting users and developers customize lending markets rather than relying on one-size-fits-all pools. This contrasts with legacy monolithic platforms like Aave and Compound, where governance committees set parameters for the entire protocol. Modular lending flips that model, giving market creators more granular control over collateral types, interest rate curves, and risk parameters.
Morpho has been on a tear lately. The protocol raised $175 million in June, pushing its valuation north of $2 billion. Its active deposits now surpass $11 billion, with roughly $4 billion in outstanding loans.
Advertisement
Just days before the Upbit listing, on July 22, Morpho launched a fixed-rate lending feature called Morpho Midnight on the Base mainnet. Fixed-rate lending has long been a white whale in DeFi, something traditional finance takes for granted but decentralized protocols have struggled to implement cleanly.
Euler suffered a major exploit back in 2023, but rebuilt, and its modular lending infrastructure has since expanded to new chains. On July 17, the protocol deployed on HSK Chain, broadening its capacity to offer loans against tokenized assets. Its token, EUL, was trading in the $1 to $1.70 range around the time of the listing announcement.
Morpho’s market cap sat in the $1 billion to $1.3 billion range prior to the listing, placing it roughly between the 50th and 60th largest crypto assets by market capitalization.
The Upbit effect When a token gets a KRW trading pair on Upbit, it gains direct fiat on-ramp access to millions of Korean traders who might otherwise never interact with it. Historically, this has produced sharp, short-term price spikes as new capital floods in. The 4.8% Morpho bump on announcement alone is textbook.
The back-to-back scheduling is notable. Listing both on consecutive days suggests Upbit sees enough demand to justify two DeFi lending tokens in rapid succession, rather than spacing them out to avoid cannibalizing attention.
What this means for investors Morpho’s $11 billion in deposits demonstrates real demand for more customizable credit infrastructure. First, expect increased liquidity for both MORPHO and EUL. KRW pairs tend to generate meaningful volume, particularly in the first few weeks after listing.
Second, Morpho’s fixed-rate lending launch adds a fundamental catalyst that sits underneath the listing hype. If Morpho Midnight gains traction on Base, it could attract institutional borrowers who have historically avoided DeFi’s variable-rate structures.
Euler presents a different risk-reward profile. The protocol’s recovery from the 2023 exploit is notable, and its expansion to HSK Chain shows technical ambition. EUL’s price range of $1 to $1.70 suggests the market hasn’t fully re-rated the token.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Hyperliquid spustil perpetual futures na akcie a jeho SPCX kontrakt na SpaceX se stal hlavním příkladem. Trh běží 24/7, umožňuje vysokou páku i short bez půjčení akcií.
When SpaceX went public, the only place most of the world could short it was Hyperliquid, where a perpetual future tracked the IPO of the decade tick for tick, and a whale ran a $14 million leveraged short no brokerage would have offered. Equity perps are the first crypto product Wall Street cannot ignore, and regulators cannot place, and this is the audit of what they actually are.
Summary
Hyperliquid, the dominant on-chain derivatives venue with roughly 70% of decentralized perpetuals volume and around $1.3 billion in annualized fees, now lists perpetual futures on stocks, with its SpaceX contract as the breakout case. The SPCX perp traded the IPO of the decade before, during, and after the listing, ran to a $228.74 high alongside the stock’s $225.64 peak, tracked its 48% collapse, and hosted positions like a 10x-leveraged $14 million short paired with a 40x $60 million Bitcoin short, structures no retail brokerage offers. Equity perps deliver what the equity market rations: 24/7 trading, high leverage, short exposure without locates or borrow fees, and access for the global majority locked out of US brokerage accounts, all against an oracle price and a funding rate instead of shares. The product’s honesty requires its limits: holders own no equity, no dividend, no claim, only a synthetic exposure whose integrity depends on oracle quality and venue solvency, on platforms mostly outside US jurisdiction. The regulatory placement is unresolved by design: synthetic equity exposure with no share changing hands sits between the SEC’s securities world and the CFTC’s derivatives world, on infrastructure neither reaches, and the CLARITY-era jurisdiction map does not cover it. The most interesting trade of June was not in a stock. When SpaceX completed the largest IPO in history and its shares began their 48% descent, an anonymous trader on Hyperliquid, the blockchain derivatives venue, was running a combined position no prime broker would have blessed and no retail app could have executed: a $60 million Bitcoin short at 40x leverage paired with a $14 million short on SPCX at 10x, a pure bet on the deflation of the year’s twin euphorias, placed on rails that never close, require no borrow, and asked no questions.
The instrument making it possible, the equity perpetual future, is the crypto industry’s quiet invasion of the stock market: a synthetic contract that tracks a share price via oracle, settles in stablecoins, charges longs or shorts a funding rate to keep the peg, and trades around the clock at leverage American brokerages reserve for institutions, on venues most of the world can reach with a wallet.
Hyperliquid’s SPCX contract, born before the IPO priced and still trading through the stock’s every convulsion, is the product’s proof of concept and its perfect case study, and this piece uses it as one: what equity perps actually are, what they genuinely fix, what they quietly are not, and why the regulatory map, freshly redrawn for crypto by the CLARITY era, has no square for them at all.
The machine: how a stock trades without shares An equity perpetual is three mechanisms in a trench coat, and each deserves one honest paragraph.
The first is the oracle. No share of SpaceX exists anywhere in the system; the contract’s reference is a price feed, assembled from the listed market’s data during exchange hours and from the perp’s own supply and demand when Nasdaq sleeps. This is the design’s power and its softest point in one: the feed makes the synthetic possible, and every question about the product’s integrity is ultimately a question about the feed, its sources, its manipulation resistance, its behavior when the underlying halts, gaps, or, as with SPCX in its lockup-shadowed churn, moves violently on thin news.
Perp venues have run oracle machinery for crypto assets for years at scale; equities add wrinkles crypto never had, official closes, halts, corporate actions, and the young history of equity perps includes the learning curve those wrinkles imply.
The second is the funding rate, the elegant trick that replaces ownership. Because nothing forces a perp’s price toward the stock’s, the contract pays a periodic transfer between longs and shorts; whichever side is heavier pays the other, so deviation from the reference price becomes expensive and arbitrage pulls the peg tight.
The funding rate is also the product’s honest price tag: holding a leveraged equity view costs whatever the crowd on your side must pay, which in euphoric stretches, SPCX’s first week, say, made long exposure meaningfully expensive, a cost structure entirely unlike owning shares and closer to a rolling options position. Traders who read funding as information, crowding, sentiment, squeeze risk, get a signal equity markets deliver only obliquely.
The third is the venue itself. On Hyperliquid, order book, matching, and liquidations run on-chain, collateral is stablecoin, and the exchange’s economics, roughly $1.3 billion in annualized fees at about 70% of the on-chain perps market, fund the token model this publication has covered as crypto’s clearest value-accrual machine. Equity perps arrived through the venue’s expansion of builder-deployed markets, the mechanism opening listings beyond crypto pairs, and the roster now reaches into stocks, indices, and commodities.
The plumbing matters because it defines the counterparty question: an equity perp holder’s real exposures are the oracle, the liquidation engine, and the venue’s solvency, not any transfer agent or clearinghouse, and those exposures live, for most such venues, offshore and on-chain, exactly where the traditional system’s guarantees do not.
What it fixes, honestly The bull case for equity perps is not hype; it is a list of the equity market’s genuine rationing decisions, each of which the perp un-rations.
Time: stocks trade 32.5 hours a week; the news that moves them does not. The SPCX perp priced Starship’s failed test, the Cursor-acquisition backlash, and every lockup rumor in real time, weekends included, while shareholders waited for Monday.
For an asset class whose defining events, launches, in this case, literally happen at all hours, continuous price discovery is not a gimmick, and the perp’s around-the-clock tape has already become, for SpaceX watchers, the leading indicator the listed market opens to.
Access: a US brokerage account requires US residency, documentation, and, for anything beyond cash equities, suitability gates; the global majority is structurally excluded from the market that prices the world’s most important companies. A perp venue asks for a wallet.
Whatever one thinks of the compliance implications, and they are the final section’s subject, the distributional fact is real: equity perps are the first instrument through which a trader in Lagos or Karachi shorts an American IPO on the same terms as a fund in Connecticut.
Shorting: the equity market’s short path, locate the borrow, pay the fee, face the recall, buy-in risk, and, for a fresh IPO like SPCX with its 911.5 million share lockup, borrow scarcity that makes shorting practically institutional-only, is friction by design. The perp deletes all of it: shorting is symmetric with longing, no locate, no borrow, no recall, which is why the instrument’s clearest use case so far is exactly the whale trade this piece opened with, and why fresh IPOs, where the listed short is hardest, and opinion is hottest, are where equity perps found product-market fit first.
Our own coverage of SPCX’s descent noted the perp and the tokenized versions tracking the collapse in lockstep with the stock, a three-venue price war in which the crypto rails, not the exchange, offered the only practical retail short.
Leverage and capital efficiency complete the list; 10x on a stock position with stablecoin collateral is a different capital regime than Reg-T margin, and together the four fixes explain the product’s trajectory better than any narrative: equity perps grow wherever the traditional market’s rationing binds hardest.
What it is not, and where it cannot be placed The audit’s other half is shorter and sharper, because the perp’s limits are as structural as its fixes.
It is not equity. No dividend, no vote, no claim in bankruptcy, no share: the holder owns a cash-settled bet on a number, and the number’s connection to the company runs entirely through the oracle.
In calm markets the distinction is pedantic; in the scenarios that define instruments, a halt, a delisting, a corporate action, an oracle failure, a venue insolvency, it is everything, and the young product’s stress record is thin precisely where equities generate their worst stresses.
The tokenized-equity reckoning this publication audited after the SpaceX IPO, products scrapped, buyers refunded, late vintages underwater, is the adjacent cautionary tale: synthetic exposure to private and newly public equity is exactly where the gap between marketing and mechanism has already cost real money.
And it is not placeable, yet, on any regulatory map. A perpetual future on a security, offered without the security, settles into a jurisdictional void the American system has spent two years mapping everything except: the SEC governs securities and the platforms that touch them; the CFTC governs derivatives on commodities; the CLARITY framework, whose implementation this publication has covered in detail, allocates digital assets between them, and a synthetic stock position on an offshore chain answers to neither cleanly.
US platforms do not offer equity perps for precisely this reason; offshore and on-chain venues offer them to everyone else, and the enforcement perimeter, as with every offshore derivatives wave before, reaches the marketing, the fiat ramps, and the US-person access, not the protocol.
The honest forecast is the one the product’s own growth writes: volumes concentrating offshore, a widening data gap between the priced world and the regulated one, and eventually, once the instrument prices something systemic, a jurisdictional fight that will make the prediction-market war look tidy, because at least an event contract admits what it is. An equity perp is a security’s price without the security, the purest regulatory-arbitrage instrument crypto has produced, and the system it arbitrages has not yet noticed the size of the hole.
The venue underneath: why this happened on Hyperliquid The product’s story is inseparable from its venue, because equity perps did not emerge on a neutral substrate; they emerged on the one platform whose economics and architecture made them almost inevitable, and the causation teaches something about where crypto’s product frontier actually lives.
Hyperliquid’s qualifications are three. Liquidity first: at roughly 70% of on-chain perpetuals volume, with open interest and depth that dwarf its decentralized rivals, it is the only venue where a $14 million single-position equity short meets a book that can absorb it, and derivatives listings live or die on day-one depth.
Machinery second: a fully on-chain order book, matching engine, and liquidation system, hardened by years of crypto perps at scale, generalizes to any oracle-priced underlying, which is precisely what the builder-deployed markets mechanism formalized, opening the listing function beyond the core team and letting the equity roster grow at ecosystem speed rather than committee speed.
And incentives third: the venue’s fee engine, the roughly $1.3 billion annualized flow whose token mechanics this publication has covered as crypto’s most direct value-accrual machine, means every new asset class listed compounds the platform’s core loop, giving the ecosystem a structural hunger for exactly the kind of frontier products that traditional venues must clear through legal departments first. Where a regulated exchange asks whether it may list synthetic SpaceX, a permissionless listing mechanism asks only whether anyone will trade it, and the answer, June showed, was emphatic.
The concentration cuts both ways, and the audit owes the caveat. A product category living overwhelmingly on one venue inherits that venue’s specific risks: its oracle choices become the category’s oracle standard, its solvency becomes the category’s systemic question, and its governance, including the validator-set concentration questions that have followed the platform since launch, becomes the category’s political exposure.
Traditional equity infrastructure disperses these risks across exchanges, clearinghouses, and transfer agents by regulatory design; the equity-perp stack concentrates them by architectural choice, trading resilience for velocity. That trade has run in crypto’s favor for two years of calm-to-volatile markets. The scenario that would reprice it, a venue-level failure during an equity stress event, with synthetic positions on halted underlyings and no clearinghouse behind the book, is the category’s true tail, unpriced precisely because it is unprecedented, and anyone sizing positions in these instruments should price the venue before pricing the view.
What to watch The roster’s growth. Which equities get perps next, and how fast listings follow retail heat. The pattern so far, fresh IPOs and locked-up names where shorting is hardest, is the tell for where the product’s edge actually lies, and the first perp on a halted or delisted name will write the stress-test chapter early.
Funding rates as the new sentiment tape. SPCX perp funding, and its successors’, is becoming the cleanest continuous read on positioning in names the options market covers only during business hours. Expect equity desks to start quoting it, quietly, the way they came to watch crypto funding.
The basis triangle. Perp versus listed stock versus tokenized versions: three prices for one exposure, on three legal architectures. Divergences in stress are where the instruments’ true differences surface, and the first sustained break will teach the market which venue leads and which merely follows.
The first US regulatory contact. An enforcement action, a no-action letter, or a CLARITY-era rulemaking that names synthetic equity exposure would end the placement void. Until then, the product grows in the gap, and the gap is the story.
One historical rhyme completes the audit, because the market has seen this movie’s structure before. Contracts for difference, CFDs, ran the same play against the equity market two decades ago: synthetic exposure, high leverage, no ownership, offered offshore to retail the regulated market rationed out, and they grew into a permanent, regulated, and repeatedly scandal-scarred fixture of European and Asian trading, banned outright for US retail to this day.
Equity perps are CFDs rebuilt on crypto rails, with three genuine upgrades: transparent on-chain positioning instead of dealer books, funding rates set by market balance instead of broker discretion, and self-custodied collateral instead of client-money accounts, and one genuine downgrade: the absence of any regulatory perimeter at all, even the imperfect one CFDs eventually accepted.
The CFD precedent predicts the arc: rapid offshore growth, a defining blowup that forces structure, then bifurcation into regulated products where allowed and gray markets where not. It also predicts the endgame nobody in crypto says aloud: the traditional exchanges, watching a parallel equity market price their listings around the clock, will eventually either extend their own hours, list their own perpetual-style products, or buy the venues, because that is what incumbents do to successful arbitrage.
The instrument’s deepest significance may be exactly that pressure: equity perps are the market’s demonstration that the 32.5-hour trading week is a policy choice, not a law of nature, and demonstrations of that kind have a way of ending with the incumbents adopting what they could not suppress.
Frequently Asked Questions What is an equity perpetual future? A derivative that tracks a stock’s price without any share existing in the system: an oracle feeds the reference price, traders post stablecoin collateral for leveraged long or short exposure, and a periodic funding-rate payment between longs and shorts keeps the contract’s price pegged to the stock’s. It trades continuously, including when the underlying market is closed, and settles in cash, never in shares.
Why did SpaceX’s perp become the breakout example? Because it offered what the listed market could not. The SPCX contract traded through the IPO of the decade around the clock, tracked the stock from its $225.64 peak through its 48% collapse, and enabled short exposure, including a documented 10x, $14 million short paired with a 40x Bitcoin short, at a moment when the fresh IPO’s lockup made traditional borrowing scarce and practical shorting nearly impossible for retail.
What do equity perps genuinely improve on? Four rationing decisions of the equity market: hours, with 24/7 trading against a 32.5-hour week; access, with a wallet replacing residency-gated brokerage accounts for the global majority; shorting, with no locates, borrow fees, or recall risk; and capital efficiency, with high leverage on stablecoin collateral. The product grows wherever these constraints bind hardest, which is why new IPOs led adoption.
What does a holder of an equity perp actually own? A cash-settled position on a number, nothing more: no dividend, no vote, no bankruptcy claim, no share. The exposure’s integrity depends on the oracle’s accuracy, the venue’s liquidation engine, and the platform’s solvency, typically on offshore, on-chain infrastructure outside traditional investor protections. In halts, delistings, corporate actions, or oracle failures, the differences from equity ownership become decisive.
Who offers these products, and can US users trade them? On-chain derivatives venues, with Hyperliquid, at roughly 70% of decentralized perpetuals volume and about $1.3 billion in annualized fees, as the category leader through its builder-deployed markets. US platforms do not list equity perps because of their unresolved legal status, and offshore venues restrict US persons formally; practical access, as with every offshore derivatives generation, varies with enforcement of the perimeter.
How do funding rates work, and why do traders watch them? Whichever side of the contract is more crowded pays a periodic fee to the other, making deviation from the reference price costly and pulling the peg tight. The rate doubles as a sentiment gauge: expensive long funding signals crowded bullishness and squeeze risk, and because it prints continuously, it offers positioning information about a stock even while the listed market sleeps.
Where do equity perps sit legally? In a void. They are synthetic exposure to securities offered without securities, on infrastructure the SEC does not reach, in a derivative form the CFTC’s commodity jurisdiction does not clearly cover, and the CLARITY-era framework allocating digital assets between the agencies does not address them. That placement question, unresolved and growing with the product’s volumes, is the category’s defining regulatory story.
Should traders use them? That is an individual decision this article does not make. The honest framing: equity perps are powerful instruments whose advantages, hours, access, symmetric shorting, and leverage are real, and whose risks, oracle dependence, venue solvency, funding costs, legal ambiguity, and the absence of every traditional investor protection, are equally real and mostly unpriced until stress arrives. Position sizes that assume the venue is a brokerage misunderstand the instrument. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Derivatives trading with leverage carries substantial risk of loss; products described may be unavailable or restricted in your jurisdiction, and figures reflect data available at the time of writing. Nothing here is a recommendation to trade any instrument. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 24, 2026.
Bitcoin klesá už čtvrtý den v řadě, protože americké spotové ETF zaznamenaly dva dny odlivů, včetně více než 240 milionů USD v pátek. Současně klesla šance na schválení zákona CLARITY Act na 35 %.
Spot Bitcoin ETF Outflows Rose as CLARITY Act Odds FellBitcoin price retreated for the fourth consecutive day as American investors sold their ETF holdings for two straight days. Data shows that Bitcoin ETFs lost over $240 million in assets on Friday after losing $225 million a day earlier.
As a result, the net weekly inflow was $33 million, lower than the previous week’s $75 million. BlackRock’s IBIT ETF lost over $212 million on Friday, while Fidelity’s FBTC shed over $27 million.
Falling Bitcoin ETF inflows normally send a signal that demand among American institutional investors is falling.
The selling coincided with several major events. For one, there are doubts on whether the Senate will pass the CLARITY Act. While the most important sections have bipartisan support, Democrats and consumer watchdog groups have opposed it.
They argue that the current provisions will not bar President Donald Trump and his family members from issuing tokens. Recent disclosures showed that Trump pocketed over $1.4 billion in crypto profits last year, even as most supporters lost billions.
Odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law have dropped to just 35% on Polymarket. Earlier this year, these odds were 75%.
Polymarket odds of CLARITY Act being signed into law | Source: Polymarket
The CLARITY Act aims to change how the crypto industry is regulated by giving the more lenient CFTC more power than the SEC. It also sets rules for stablecoin rewards and how digital assets are classified.
Bitcoin’s weakness also coincided with the rising odds that the Federal Reserve will hike interest rates amid the ongoing US-Iran war. Odds of a rate hike happening this year have jumped to over 70%. In most cases, Bitcoin and other risky assets underperform the market in a high interest rate environment.
Bitcoin Price Dropped After Hitting a Key ResistanceTechnicals show that BTC price retreated after hitting the crucial resistance level of $67,018, its highest level on June 15. That is a sign that it formed a double-top pattern, a common reversal sign.
The coin also found resistance at the 100-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA). It also moved below the Supertrend indicator.
Therefore, the coin will likely remain under pressure as long as it is below the resistance level of $67,018. A move above that price will point to more gains, potentially to the psychological level of $70,000.
Image: Shutterstock
Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
Spotové Bitcoin ETF v USA zaznamenaly v první polovině roku 2026 čisté odlivy ve výši 5,4 miliardy USD a poprvé od spuštění skončily v pololetí v minusu. V červnu z nich odteklo zhruba 4,5 miliardy USD, což byl rekordní měsíční odliv.
The honeymoon is officially over for spot Bitcoin ETFs. After a record-breaking debut in January 2024 and two years of near-uninterrupted capital inflows, the products have hit a wall in 2026, with net flows turning negative for the majority of the year so far.
The numbers tell an uncomfortable story US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $5.4 billion in net outflows during the first half of 2026, marking the first negative half-year since the products launched.
To put that in context: these same funds had accumulated $56.6 billion in cumulative net inflows over their first two years of existence.
June 2026 was particularly rough. The month produced roughly $4.5 billion in outflows, the largest single-month exit on record for spot Bitcoin ETFs.
Advertisement
BlackRock’s IBIT was a significant contributor to the selling. In one reported week alone, IBIT saw $1.34 billion in redemptions.
By mid-July, year-to-date net flows had crossed into negative territory for the first time. There were occasional bright spots: a three-day stretch produced a $510 million rebound. But brief recoveries have not been enough to reverse the broader trend that has defined the year.
Why the money is leaving The most straightforward explanation is Bitcoin’s own price performance. ETF wrappers made it easier than ever to buy Bitcoin exposure, and that convenience works in both directions.
The second factor is competition from AI-related assets. Capital rotation is a real phenomenon, and the narrative around artificial intelligence has been loud enough in 2026 to pull institutional dollars away from crypto.
What this means for Bitcoin markets and investors Second, the outflow trend from IBIT specifically is worth watching. BlackRock’s fund became the dominant venue for institutional Bitcoin exposure in a remarkably short time. When the largest player in a product category starts seeing consistent redemptions, it tends to get noticed by other institutional allocators who benchmark against each other.
Third, the $56.6 billion in cumulative inflows that built up over 2024 and 2025 represents a large pool of capital sitting at various cost basis levels. Some of that capital is profitable and may be taking gains. Some may be underwater and holding on.
A $5.4 billion outflow in a half-year is significant, but it lands against a backdrop of $56.6 billion in prior inflows. The question worth asking is not whether the outflows are large in absolute terms, because they are, but whether they represent a temporary correction in enthusiasm or a more durable structural shift in how institutions want to hold Bitcoin.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
CLARITY Act má v Senátu už jen 30% šanci na schválení, protože chybí hlasy a před letní přestávkou zbývají 4 dny. Neúspěch by prodloužil regulační nejistotu pro americký kryptotrh.
The CLARITY Act, a flagship bill to regulate cryptos in the United States, is on the brink of failure. With 4 days to convince the Senate, its adoption has only a 30% chance of success. Between political deadlocks and economic stakes, the future of Bitcoin and altcoins is at play now.
In Brief Urgency in the Senate: 4 days to adopt the CLARITY Act, with only a 30% chance of success. Political deadlocks: Democrats and Republicans divided on ethics and crypto regulation. Stakes for Bitcoin: Adoption could boost cryptos, failure would plunge them into uncertainty. The U.S. Senate Has 4 Days to Save the CLARITY Act, Chances Drop to 30% The CLARITY Act, this long-awaited bill to clarify crypto regulation in the United States, sees its adoption chances drop to 30%, according to Galaxy Digital. The reason? A dire lack of votes in the Senate. Indeed, with only 4 days before the summer recess, Republicans, who control 53 seats, struggle to gather the 60 votes required to avoid a filibuster.
Democrats, led by Elizabeth Warren, strongly criticize the bill, especially on ethical provisions (entrusted to the Department of Justice) and the sunset clause in 2029. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell, Republican leader, has been absent since his hospitalization, further reducing the chances of success. Alex Thorn, director of research at Galaxy, is clear:
The time for incremental negotiations is over. A last-minute effort is needed.
If the Senate does not initiate the process by July 30, the bill will be postponed to September, where it will have to compete with the federal budget and midterm elections. A failure would mean another year of legal uncertainty for the American crypto industry.
Bitcoin and CLARITY Act: why this law could change everything (or nothing at all) Bitcoin, often considered a commodity by the CFTC, could indirectly benefit from the CLARITY Act, even if the text does not explicitly mention it. Indeed, by clarifying the roles of the SEC and CFTC, this law could reduce the risks of arbitrary lawsuits against platforms like Coinbase or Kraken, which list BTC. However, if the bill fails, Bitcoin could face increased regulatory pressure.
Without a clear framework, the SEC could continue targeting exchanges under the pretext of selling unregistered securities, as it did with Ripple. Conversely, if the CLARITY Act passes, Bitcoin could attract more institutional capital, notably through spot ETFs. Clear regulation would also strengthen BTC’s legitimacy as a digital store of value, against competitors like gold or the dollar.
The CLARITY Act is at a turning point. Its failure would plunge cryptos into uncertainty, while its adoption could revolutionize the market! As Charles Schwab thinks, who sees it as a historic catalyst. But with 4 days to convince, one question remains: will senators dare to save the crypto future of the United States?
Maximize your Cointribune experience with our "Read to Earn" program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
Join the program
A
A
Lien copié
Eddy S.
The world is evolving and adaptation is the best weapon to survive in this undulating universe. Originally a crypto community manager, I am interested in anything that is directly or indirectly related to blockchain and its derivatives. To share my experience and promote a field that I am passionate about, nothing is better than writing informative and relaxed articles.
DISCLAIMER
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the author, and should not be taken as investment advice. Do your own research before taking any investment decisions.
Dogecoin exchange-traded funds saw daily net inflows stall at zero for three consecutive days this week, according to data from SoSoValue. On July 22, 23, and 24, no new funds entered Dogecoin ETFs, maintaining a stagnant flow pattern that has persisted through much of July.
Brief inflow breaks the streakDespite the overall lull, Dogecoin ETFs experienced a positive development earlier in the week. On July 21, inflows reached $345,130, temporarily halting a zero-inflow streak that had lasted since July 6. Prior to this brief spike, all trading days in July had registered no new investment in Dogecoin ETFs.
Such periods of limited activity are common for smaller or newer cryptocurrency ETFs, particularly those tracking digital assets beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum. Market analysts often note that thin trading and episodic inflows are characteristic of crypto funds with niche focus or lower recognition among institutional investors.
Cumulative inflows surpass $12 millionDogecoin ETFs have now exceeded $12 million in cumulative total net inflow. As of July 24, SoSoValue reported that overall net investments in these funds had reached $12.12 million. This week also marks the first time since the period ending June 18 that Dogecoin ETFs have posted a positive net inflow, registering $345,130 in weekly gains.
DateDaily Net InflowCumulative Total Net InflowJuly 21$345,130$12,120,000July 22$0$12,120,000July 23$0$12,120,000July 24$0$12,120,000DOGE price and futures activityDogecoin’s market price continues to face downward pressure, mirroring a wider decline in the cryptocurrency sector. DOGE was down 0.17% over the previous 24 hours and traded at $0.07 at last check.
Open interest in DOGE futures has reached $1.10 billion, signaling higher trading activity in derivative markets. However, with spot prices falling to their lowest level since November 2023, some analysts suggest traders may be positioning for further downside.
The combination of increasing open interest alongside a declining price is seen as an indicator that some participants are seeking to capitalize on falling values.
Technical signals and analyst outlookA closely followed technical indicator has offered a note of optimism. Crypto analyst Ali reported that the Tom DeMark (TD) Sequential has presented a buy signal on Dogecoin’s monthly price chart. This comes as DOGE approaches a strong support zone at $0.056.
Mini dictionary: TD Sequential, a technical analysis indicator developed by Thomas DeMark, is used to identify price exhaustion and potential trend reversals in financial markets.
If Dogecoin maintains support above $0.056, analysts point to the possibility of a rebound. Upside targets include $0.16, with a longer-term channel top near $0.45 seen as a broader objective.
Crypto analyst Ali highlighted that the TD Sequential has signaled a potential buying opportunity for Dogecoin, noting the importance of the $0.056 support level as a foundation for a possible move toward $0.16 and above.
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.
Tether financuje dvě konkurenční sítě, Plasma a Stable, aby omezil únik poplatků za USDT na cizí blockchainy. Cílí hlavně na Tron, který drží zhruba 45 % všech USDT.
The world’s largest stablecoin issuer pays roughly $2.9 billion a year in fees to blockchains it does not control. Its answer was to back two competing chains at once: Plasma, the $373 million DeFi-flavored bet, and Stable, the enterprise rail where USDT is the gas. One issuer, two armies, one enemy named Tron, and a strategy that makes sense only when you see whose problem it solves.
Summary
Tether’s ecosystem has seeded two purpose-built USDT chains that compete directly with each other: Plasma, live since September with a $373 million token sale, a paymaster model, and roughly $551 million in DeFi TVL, and Stable, live since December with $2 billion in pre-deposits, USDT-as-gas, and an enterprise focus. The motive is a number: analyses put Tether’s annual network-fee bill near $2.9 billion, split largely between Ethereum and Tron, value that leaks to base layers the issuer does not control while its own revenue runs near $5 billion. The two chains embody opposite design philosophies, a subsidized general-purpose DeFi economy with a native token doing traditional work, versus a stripped payments rail where the dollar itself is the fuel, and opposite go-to-market strategies. The real target is not each other but Tron, which still carries roughly 45% of all USDT and earns the fees on the world’s largest remittance flows, a moat neither challenger has meaningfully dented. Funding both sides is not indecision; it is a portfolio: the issuer wins if either chain repatriates the fee leak, wins bigger if both segment the market, and loses only to the status quo it is paying $2.9 billion a year to escape. Companies do not usually finance both armies in a war, but then no company has ever been positioned quite like Tether. The issuer of USDT sits atop the most profitable simple business in finance, collecting Treasury yield on the reserves behind roughly $150 billion of circulating dollars, and it watches, every day, a substantial slice of its ecosystem’s economics leak sideways: the fees users pay to move USDT accrue not to Tether but to the blockchains USDT lives on, a bill that research houses have tallied near $2.9 billion a year, flowing mostly to Ethereum validators and, above all, to Tron, the chain that quietly became the developing world’s dollar-remittance backbone.
Tether’s response, characteristically, was not one bet but two. Plasma, backed by Tether-adjacent capital and Founders Fund, raised $373 million in an oversubscribed sale and launched in September as a general-purpose stablecoin chain with a native token, a paymaster that makes USDT transfers free, and a DeFi ecosystem that onboarded Aave, Ethena, and Euler on day one. Stable, backed by Bitfinex with Tether’s chief executive advising, drew $2 billion in pre-deposits and launched in December as something sparer: a chain where USDT itself is the gas, transfers are free by protocol rule, and the pitch is enterprise blockspace rather than yield farming.
Bitfinex-backed layer 1 Stable releases tokenomics, mainnet to go live on Dec. 8
Stable shares tokenomics details ahead of its Dec. 8 mainnet launch, with a total supply of 100B tokens distributed among ecosystem, team, investors and advisors.
— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) December 3, 2025 Two chains, one family, the same target market, and a rivalry the ecosystem politely declines to name. This piece names it, maps the two designs honestly, and answers the question the arrangement raises: why an issuer would fund its own chain war, and what winning even means when you own both sides.
The fee leak: the war’s actual cause Start with the number that explains everything, because without it the two-chain strategy looks like a waste and with it the strategy looks obvious.
USDT’s success created a strange corporate geometry: the asset is Tether’s, the activity is enormous, and the toll booths belong to other people. Every USDT transfer on Ethereum pays gas to Ethereum validators; every transfer on Tron, where nearly half of all USDT lives and where the remittance corridors of Asia, Africa, and Latin America actually run, pays energy and bandwidth costs into Tron’s economy.
Aggregated, analyses of Tether’s ecosystem have put the annual network-fee spend associated with USDT movement at roughly $2.9 billion, against issuer revenues that industry estimates placed near $4.9 billion in the same period, meaning the base layers underneath USDT capture value at a scale approaching the issuer’s own take.
Delphi Digital’s framing of the problem is the cleanest: as issuance spread across chains, the infrastructure supporting USDT ended up largely outside Tether’s control, and the economic value generated by usage is disproportionately captured by the rails, especially Ethereum and Tron.
For most companies this would be an irritation. For a stablecoin issuer, it is a strategic vulnerability with three faces. Economically, it is margin leaking to landlords. Competitively, it funds a chain, Tron, whose operator is an independent actor with his own token, his own politics, and his own regulatory exposures, none of which Tether chooses. And architecturally, it means the user experience of the world’s most used digital dollar, fees, congestion, gas-token requirements, is set by networks optimizing for other things.
The purpose-built USDT chain is the answer to all three at once: repatriate the fees, own the rail, and design the experience around the dollar. The only question was which design, and Tether’s ecosystem answered: both.
Two chains, two philosophies The rivals are best understood as opposite answers to one question: how much chain does a stablecoin need?
Plasma’s answer is: a whole one. It is a full EVM Layer 1 with its own token, XPL, doing the traditional native-token jobs, validator staking, settlement asset, and value accrual through the chain’s growth, while a paymaster contract absorbs gas costs so that simple USDT transfers cost users nothing. The design keeps the familiar crypto economy intact: XPL had a $373 million public sale seven times oversubscribed, the chain launched with more than a hundred DeFi integrations, TVL has built to roughly $551 million, sub-second PlasmaBFT finality serves trading as well as payments, Bitcoin anchoring adds a security narrative, and a confidential-transfers module courts payroll and B2B flows.
Plasma is, in short, a general-purpose chain that subsidizes its stablecoin lane, betting that free USDT transfers pull in users whose other activity, lending, trading, yield, pays the bills and accrues to the token. The paymaster’s economics depend on exactly the patron logic this publication’s gasless-transfers guide dissects: most zero-fee chains in history died when the subsidy ran out, and Plasma’s differentiating claim is that its subsidy is underwritten by an ecosystem with a direct commercial interest in USDT ubiquity.
Stable’s answer is: as little chain as possible. No paymaster indirection, no separate gas asset at all: USDT0, the omnichain dollar, is the fee token; simple transfers are exempt by protocol rule, and the native STABLE token is confined to staking and governance, deliberately invisible to users, the architecture this publication’s companion guides map in detail.
Where Plasma courted DeFi, Stable ships enterprise blockspace, dedicated capacity for institutional payment flows, and its traction metric was not TVL but the $2 billion in pre-deposits that arrived before mainnet. The design concedes the DeFi economy to others and optimizes one thing: dollar movement at payments-grade predictability, on the bet that remittance processors, merchants, and treasuries choose rails the way they choose clearing banks: for boredom, not composability.
The philosophies produce different vulnerabilities, and honesty requires both. Plasma’s risk is dilution of purpose: a general-purpose chain competing for DeFi against Ethereum, Solana, and every L2, where free USDT transfers are a loss leader for an economy that may never outgrow its subsidy, and where the XPL token must justify itself against exactly the value-accrual skepticism this publication applies everywhere.
Stable’s risk is the mirror: a rail so minimal that its moat is only execution and alignment, with no ecosystem gravity to retain users who arrive, and a token whose value case, as our STABLE guide argues, waits on governance decisions nobody has made. One chain risks being too much; the other risks being too little; and both share the risk that actually matters, which lives in Asia, on the incumbent.
Tron: the enemy both were built to fight The polite framing says Plasma and Stable address different segments. The impolite truth is that both exist to take the same prize: the roughly 45% of all USDT that lives on Tron and the fee flows it generates.
Tron’s dominance is the most underexamined fact in stablecoin land. It hosts the largest share of the largest stablecoin, it carries the remittance and exchange-settlement flows of the markets where USDT is not a trading chip but a savings technology, and its moat is precisely the kind that whitepapers cannot breach: cash-network effects, integrations in thousands of local exchanges and OTC desks, muscle memory in a hundred million wallets, and fees that, while meaningfully nonzero, are known, tolerated, and priced into every corridor.
Both challengers aim at it explicitly, Plasma’s remittance-routing pitch is skip Tron’s TRX gas requirement, Stable’s free-transfer pitch is the same sentence with different plumbing, and both discovered what challengers of payment incumbents always discover: users do not migrate for architecture, they migrate when their exchange, their employer, or their remittance app migrates, which makes the war a business-development grind, not a technology contest.
The scoreboard that matters is therefore not TVL or transaction counts, both inflatable, but the share of USDT supply resident on each chain, and by that measure the war has barely begun: Tron’s share has eroded only at the edges, the challengers’ combined float remains a fraction of it, and the incumbent retains the advantage every toll-road owner has, profitability that funds its own retention incentives.
Which is exactly why the two-chain strategy makes sense from the issuer’s chair, and this is the piece’s resolving move. Tether does not need to pick the winning design; it needs the fee leak plugged and the rail owned by family, and funding two philosophies is how a portfolio manager attacks an uncertain market: Plasma tests whether a subsidized DeFi economy can bootstrap payments gravity, Stable tests whether enterprise minimalism can, the two chains’ competition sharpens both faster than monopoly would, and every dollar of USDT float either one wins from Tron or Ethereum converts leaked fees into family economics.
If both succeed, the market segments, retail-and-DeFi on one, institutional on the other, and the issuer owns the whole stack. If one dies, the survivor inherits its lessons and its float. The only losing scenario is the status quo, and the status quo is the thing costing $2.9 billion a year.
Wars are usually negative-sum for the combatants and profitable for the arms dealer; this one was designed by the arms dealer, which is the fact to keep in view as the ecosystem spends the next year pretending the two chains are not aimed at each other, and at Tron, and, quietly, at the $2.9 billion.
The regulatory shadow both chains share One more force shapes the war from outside it, and the family’s own coverage of Washington makes it unavoidable: both chains are Tether-ecosystem infrastructure launching into the exact regulatory window in which American law is deciding what offshore-issued dollars may do.
The GENIUS Act’s stablecoin framework, whose missed implementation deadlines this publication has chronicled, and the CLARITY Act’s market-structure fight, live on the Senate floor this very week, together draw the perimeter that will define both chains’ addressable markets. The core exposure is identical for both: USDT remains an offshore-issued dollar under frameworks built to privilege domestically regulated issuance, and every corridor the chains win converts informal USDT usage into visible, systematic flows that regulators can see, name, and gate.
The chains’ opposite strategies produce opposite versions of the exposure. Stable’s enterprise pitch runs toward the regulated world on purpose, courting institutions whose compliance departments must bless the rail, which makes it the family’s test of whether Tether-aligned infrastructure can pass American diligence at all. Plasma’s retail-and-DeFi economy runs away from that scrutiny by construction, thriving in exactly the permissionless corridors that the illicit-finance provisions of every pending bill target.
One chain bets the family can join the regulated system; the other bets it can outgrow the need to; and the legislation moving through Congress this month will grade both bets before either chain’s technology does. The honest summary for the cluster this piece opens: the fee-leak war is the family’s offensive campaign, and the regulatory perimeter is its defensive one, and the second war, unlike the first, is not one the issuer designed.
The third bidder nobody prices One actor complicates the family war’s tidy geometry, and the honest map includes it: the incumbent chains are not standing still, and the war’s most likely spoiler is not either challenger failing but the leak becoming cheaper to tolerate.
Tron’s defense is already visible in its pricing behavior: the network has periodically tuned its resource model when migration pressure rises, and its operator retains the toll-road owner’s ultimate weapon, the ability to cut fees toward zero in the corridors under attack while keeping them positive everywhere else, a price-discrimination play incumbents from airlines to telecoms have run against cherry-picking entrants forever. Every basis point Tron shaves narrows the challengers’ pitch, and Tron can shave from profits while the challengers subsidize from war chests, an asymmetry that favors the incumbent in any prolonged price war.
Ethereum’s defense is structural: the institutional and DeFi USDT that lives there is the stickiest float in the ecosystem, held for composability with the deepest markets in crypto, and no payments-optimized rail competes for it at all, which is why the realistic battlefield is Tron’s remittance float, not Ethereum’s collateral float, and why the challengers’ addressable prize is meaningfully smaller than the headline $2.9 billion suggests.
And there is a fourth trajectory the war could take, the one the arms-dealer framing predicts: the leak becoming the product. Tether’s ecosystem does not strictly need either chain to win the migration war if the chains’ existence disciplines the incumbents’ pricing, converts the issuer from rate-taker to rate-negotiator, and hands the family credible exit infrastructure it can invoke in every commercial conversation with Tron.
Leverage, not conquest, may be the strategy’s real deliverable: the $373 million and the $2 billion pre-deposits purchase, at minimum, the ability to move, and the ability to move is what turns a captive tenant into a negotiating one. On this reading, the two chains are already succeeding, quietly, in the only meeting that matters, and the float-share scoreboard understates a war whose first victory is a better lease.
What to watch USDT float by chain, quarterly: The war’s only honest scoreboard: the share of total USDT supply resident on Plasma and Stable versus Tron and Ethereum. Transaction counts inflate; resident float is the fee leak actually moving. Watch whether the challengers’ combined share reaches double digits, and whose share it comes from.
The subsidy postures: Plasma’s paymaster spend against its DeFi economy’s fee generation, and Stable’s emission schedule against its enterprise fee flows: both chains’ free tiers have funding models this publication’s framework can grade, and the first one to show cross-subsidy covering the free lane has found the sustainable shape.
A corridor flip: The event that would actually move the war: a major remittance processor, exchange, or payments app moving a named corridor’s settlement from Tron to either challenger. One real corridor outweighs any TVL milestone, and business-development announcements of that specific shape are the tell.
The issuer’s hand: Canonical USDT issuance decisions, where Tether mints natively versus where USDT0 bridges, are the issuer quietly picking favorites, and any consolidation move, shared infrastructure, a merger, a formal designation of lanes, would be the portfolio manager closing a position. The war ends the way it started: by family decision.
A closing note on the observable that will settle the philosophies faster than any strategy memo: developer behavior. Chains are chosen twice, once by users moving money and once by builders deploying products, and the two chains’ opposite designs make opposite bids for the second constituency. Plasma’s full EVM economy with a hundred day-one DeFi integrations bids for builders with composability and a token to align them; Stable’s enterprise blockspace bids with predictability and a customer base of institutions that pay for boredom.
The early returns are legible in the metrics each side brags about: TVL and integrations on one side, pre-deposits and enterprise partnerships on the other, and the metric each side avoids, and the first year of divergence will show whether payments infrastructure in crypto follows the platform playbook, where ecosystems win, or the utility playbook, where reliability does.
Tron, for what it is worth, won its position with neither: it won with distribution into exchanges and remittance desks before anyone was watching, which is the quiet reminder that the war’s decisive constituency may be neither users nor builders but the few hundred business-development conversations, with processors, exchanges, and payroll providers, that actually move float at scale. Both challengers know it, which is why the war’s real battles will be invisible, fought in integration roadmaps and settlement agreements, and reported, if at all, one corridor at a time.
Frequently Asked Questions What are Plasma and Stable, in one line each? Plasma is a general-purpose stablecoin Layer 1, live since September, with a native token (XPL), a paymaster making simple USDT transfers free, and a DeFi ecosystem around $551 million in TVL. Stable is a payments-focused Layer 1, live since December, where USDT0 itself is the gas asset, simple transfers are free by protocol rule, and the focus is enterprise and institutional flows.
Why does Tether’s ecosystem back both? Because the strategic problem, roughly $2.9 billion a year in USDT-related network fees leaking to chains outside the family, above all Tron and Ethereum, matters more than which design solves it. Backing two opposite philosophies is portfolio logic: each tests a different route to repatriating the fee flow, competition sharpens both, and any float either wins converts leaked economics into aligned economics.
How do the two chains differ technically? Plasma keeps a conventional chain economy: XPL handles staking and settlement, a paymaster subsidizes the free USDT lane, the EVM ecosystem is fully general, and Bitcoin anchoring plus confidential transfers extend the feature set. Stable removes the separate gas asset entirely, USDT0 pays fees, simple transfers are exempt, the STABLE token is confined to staking and governance, and capacity is marketed as enterprise blockspace.
Are they really competitors, or complementary? Directly competitive, whatever the diplomatic framing. Both target the existing USDT float and the same migration sources, Tron’s remittance corridors first, and both pitch the identical headline benefit of free dollar transfers. Segmentation into retail-DeFi versus institutional lanes is a possible equilibrium, but it would be an outcome of the competition, not an alternative to it.
Why is Tron the real target? Tron carries roughly 45% of all USDT, the largest share of the largest stablecoin, concentrated in the remittance and exchange-settlement corridors where USDT functions as everyday money. Its fees are the biggest single component of the ecosystem’s leak, and its moat, integrations, habits, and cash-network effects, is the one both challengers were engineered to attack, so far with only marginal erosion.
What would winning look like for either chain? Resident USDT float, not activity metrics. A challenger reaching a double-digit share of total USDT supply, or flipping a named remittance corridor’s settlement from Tron, would mark real progress. For the issuer’s ecosystem, winning is broader: any combination of outcomes that moves fee flows from external chains to family-aligned ones, including a split decision where both chains hold different segments.
What are the main risks to each? Plasma: the general-purpose trap, competing for DeFi against far larger ecosystems while its free lane depends on subsidy, and an XPL token facing the standard value-accrual skepticism. Stable: the minimalism trap, a rail with no ecosystem gravity, a token whose value case awaits governance decisions, and reliance on enterprise adoption cycles that move slowly. Both: Tron’s incumbency and the possibility that users simply do not migrate.
What does this mean for USDT holders? Little direct risk and some structural benefit: the chains compete to make USDT cheaper and easier to move, and the omnichain plumbing (USDT0) connecting them is the same system this publication’s guides describe, with the same trust stack. The war’s outcome matters more for XPL and STABLE holders, whose tokens are claims on the respective designs winning, and for the fee economics of Tron and Ethereum, the incumbents being challenged. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Figures for fees, revenues, TVL, and supply shares are estimates drawn from third-party research and change continuously. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 24, 2026.
Solana zaznamenala v květnu rekordní objem top-upů u kryptokaret ve výši 94,32 milionu USD. Tyto produkty nyní tvoří asi 22 % celkové aktivity napříč konkurenčními sítěmi.
The Solana blockchain recorded its strongest performance yet in the realm of consumer payment cards. Top-up volumes linked to crypto cards built on the network reached an unprecedented peak in May, climbing to $94.32 million. This figure marks the highest monthly total observed for such activity on Solana and underscores growing real-world usage of the chain beyond pure trading or speculative holding.
These card-related flows now account for a notable share of the broader crypto card market.
Monthly volumes processed through Solana-based products represent approximately 22 percent of the total activity across competing networks.
This positioning reflects steady gains in market share as users increasingly favor platforms that deliver fast settlement and low fees for everyday spending.
Two providers stand out as primary contributors to this momentum: KAST and RedotPay.
Both have developed card offerings that allow holders to convert digital assets or stablecoins into spendable balances usable at merchants worldwide.
Their combined activity has helped propel Solana’s portion of the sector higher, demonstrating how specialized fintech applications can drive tangible on-chain transaction volume.
The rise in top-ups signals more than isolated growth.
It points to wider acceptance of blockchain-powered payment tools among ordinary consumers.
Rather than remaining confined to niche crypto enthusiasts, these cards are facilitating routine purchases, from retail transactions to digital services.
Solana’s architecture, known for high throughput and rapid finality, appears well-suited to supporting the near-instant top-ups and settlements that card users expect.
Comments from industry participants have highlighted the practical advantage of avoiding lengthy confirmation delays that can frustrate users on slower networks.
This development fits into a larger pattern of expanding utility within the Solana ecosystem.
As more projects focus on bridging digital assets with traditional payment rails, metrics such as card top-ups serve as concrete indicators of adoption.
Higher volumes can attract additional developers, foster new product features, and encourage partnerships that further integrate the network into daily financial life.
Observers note that sustained increases in consumer spending through these channels may reinforce Solana’s competitive standing relative to other blockchains competing for payment-related use cases.
Market watchers will likely monitor whether the May peak continues or expands in subsequent months.
Consistent growth could spur further innovation in card design, rewards structures, and multi-chain interoperability.
At the same time, the 22 percent share already achieved illustrates that Solana has secured a meaningful foothold in a segment previously dominated by alternative networks.
The record top-up figures and rising market contribution from leading card issuers provide clear evidence of progress in making Solana a practical foundation for consumer payments. By enabling seamless conversion and spending of on-chain value, these products help move blockchain technology closer to mainstream financial applications, turning network capacity into everyday utility for users around the globe.
Lista DAO spouští likviditní pooly na OpenOcean, aby rozšířila přístup k likviditě na BNB Chain a zlepšila ceny swapů. Mezi podporované páry patří $USDT/$lisUSD, $BNB/$slisBNB, $USDT/$USDC a $U/$USDT.
Lista DAO, a BNB Chain-based DeFi protocol, is launching liquidity pools on OpenOcean, a multichain DEX aggregator. With this development, Lista DAO is broadening access to the decentralized liquidity across the BNB Chain network. As per Lista DAO’s official announcement, the move lets users leverage diverse Lista-driven trading pairs via the aggregation platform of OpenOcean. The move comes just before the rollout of the LISTA Compounding Rewards Season 1 that will go live on the 26th of July.
Lista DAO Widens Liquidity Access via OpenOcean Integration Integration with OpenOcean permits Lista DAO to deliver enhanced swap pricing as well as more effective execution of trades for market members. So, the provision of liquidity pools through OpenOcean is anticipated to fortify on-chain liquidity, along with making swaps of tokens easier for consumers. The move enables liquidity providers and traders to seamlessly access many crucial trading pairs via OpenOcean.
Among the compatible pools are $USDT/$lisUSD, $BNB/$slisBNB, $USDT/$USDC, and $U/$USDT. At the same time, more pairs are also going to be available in the near future. With the use of the aggregation technology of OpenOcean, consumers can likely leverage optimized routing to search for significantly competitive exchange rates among liquidity providers within the decentralized network.
The partnership denotes a key development for Lista DAO to expand the liquidity infrastructure’s accessibility. Enabling the availability of these pools via a broadly utilized DEX aggregator can advance trading activity while streamlining access. It targets consumers who prioritize performing swaps via one interface instead of interacting with more than one DEX separately. Additionally, the deeper liquidity’s availability is poised to minimize price slippage when large transfers take place.
LISTA Compounding Rewards Season 1 Starts on July 26 According to Lista DAO, parallel to the liquidity expansion, the platform is also readying to unveil Season 1 of the LISTA Compounding Rewards initiative on the 26th of July. The platform will specifically distribute rewards via “Interest Crates,” with 2 primary factors determining allocations, including the maturity and position of the respective position. Overall, the merger of the incentive project and the broadened liquidity access underscores the platform’s endeavors to bolster its DeFi network.
AUTHOR
Umair Younas is a cryptocurrency-related content writer linked with this work since 2019. Here, at Blockchainreporter, he serves as a news and article writer. He is a crypto, blockchain, NFTs, DeFi, and FinTech enthusiast. He has strong command over writing authentic reviews about brokers and exchanges and he has collaborated with our education team to write educational content as well. He has a dream to raise awareness among people about digital currencies. His works are well-researched and brimmed with information hence they provide fresh insights. Stay tuned to his posts if you want to stay up-to-date with the crypto-verse.
Trumpovo přiznání výnosů přes 1 miliardu USD z digitálních aktiv komplikuje jednání o Clarity Act. Demokraté chtějí doplnit zákaz, aby úřadující prezident a jeho rodina na kryptu nevydělávali.
Being president is a decent gig. Being president while your family runs a billion-dollar crypto operation is, apparently, an even better one.
President Donald Trump’s 2025 financial disclosure revealed income exceeding $1 billion from digital asset ventures during his first year back in the White House. Estimates peg the total somewhere between $1.2 billion and $1.43 billion, with the bulk flowing from two sources: the family’s World Liberty Financial project and the infamous $TRUMP meme coin.
The disclosure has thrown a wrench into already fragile bipartisan negotiations over the Clarity Act, the sweeping market structure bill that was supposed to give the crypto industry its regulatory framework. Democrats now want the bill rewritten with provisions specifically designed to prevent sitting presidents and their families from cashing in on digital assets. The legislation, as of late July 2026, is going nowhere.
Follow the money The numbers paint a pretty vivid picture. Roughly $500 million to $594 million of Trump’s crypto income came from World Liberty Financial, the DeFi project his family launched in 2024. WLFI controls 75% of its token sale proceeds, and those proceeds have been flowing generously to Trump-linked entities.
Advertisement
Another $635 million or so came from the $TRUMP meme coin. Here’s the thing about that number, though: it represents profits that were realized while retail investors were getting obliterated. The $TRUMP token has crashed more than 97% from its peak.
WLFI tokens haven’t fared much better, dropping roughly 80% in value.
The legislative standoff Senator Elizabeth Warren has been leading the Democratic charge, arguing that the current draft of the Clarity Act contains loopholes wide enough to drive a presidential motorcade through. Her core argument is straightforward: a president who profits from crypto has a direct financial incentive to shape crypto regulation in his favor, and the legislation needs to explicitly block that.
Recent Senate drafts have floated a proposal to temporarily ban federal officials from issuing digital assets until 2029. That provision alone has become a dealbreaker for Republicans who view it as overreach, and for some Democrats who think it doesn’t go far enough.
The crypto industry spent years begging Washington for regulatory clarity. Congress finally started delivering, passing the GENIUS Act for stablecoins in 2025. But the broader market structure bill, the one that would actually define how tokens are classified and traded, is now hostage to a political fight that has almost nothing to do with the technology itself.
What this means for investors For the crypto market broadly, the stalled Clarity Act is a significant problem. Without a market structure framework, the industry remains in a regulatory gray zone where enforcement actions substitute for clear rules.
The $TRUMP meme coin’s 97%-plus collapse is a case study in what happens when speculative assets tied to political narratives lose momentum. WLFI’s 80% decline tells a similar story. Even with a direct connection to the most powerful person in the country, the token couldn’t sustain its valuation.
The broader risk is that the Democratic push for stricter ethics provisions, if successful, could create a chilling effect beyond just the president’s portfolio. If legislation ends up restricting how any federal official interacts with digital assets, it could discourage the kind of government engagement the industry has been courting. On the other hand, if the Clarity Act dies entirely because neither side can agree on ethics language, the industry loses the regulatory framework it needs to mature.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Tým TRUMP přesunul 16,84 milionu tokenů v hodnotě asi 16,91 milionu USD do tří úschovních peněženek Fireblocks. Přesun přišel před termínem CLARITY Act a vyvolal spekulace o odemykání tokenů.
Donald Trump-backed Official Trump (TRUMP) memecoin team has just moved nearly $17 million worth of its tokens. The latest on-chain transfer comes on the heels of the CLARITY Act deadline, spurring speculations. In addition, the scheduled TRUMP token unlock has led to other lawyer of reasoning behind the move.
Official Trump Team Moves Millions In TRUMP Memecoin Donald Trump’s team shifted 16.84 million TRUMP tokens worth approximately $16.91 million to three Fireblocks custody wallets today, according to Arkham Intelligence data.
“TRUMP TEAM SENT $16M TRUMP TO CUSTODY.” The blockchain analytics platform added, “The $TRUMP team just transferred $16.91M of TRUMP to 3 Fireblocks Custody addresses.”
The transfers were distributed in three wallets. First, approximately 3.555 million worth $5.5 million TRUMP tokens were transferred to an address on Fireblocks. Thereafter, the team moved 3.596 million TRUMP tokens to another address on Fireblocks. At last, 3.686 million TRUMP tokens were shifted to a third address on Fireblocks. The total of the transfers on execution was approximately $16.91 million.
TRUMP TEAM SENT $16M TRUMP TO CUSTODY
The $TRUMP team just transferred $16.91M of TRUMP to 3 Fireblocks Custody addresses.
These addresses have all received $TRUMP in the past, and all sent their past TRUMP to Bitgo. Are they distributing TRUMP unlocks? pic.twitter.com/Y6XU8dg7qS
— Arkham (@arkham) July 25, 2026
Moreover, Arkham said that these wallets had previously also received TRUMP tokens. The firm asked, “These addresses have all received $TRUMP in the past, and all sent their past TRUMP to Bitgo. Are they distributing TRUMP unlocks?”
The latest movement drew attention as a big part of the token is kept under the control of the insiders. The TRUMP team has the ability to sell up to 96 million tokens, or 9.6% of the entire token supply, at the current price tag of $150 million, per crypto tools data. This figure is significant as it is about 40% of the current total token supply of 237 million.
There are currently 80% of the total supply in the hands of the insiders, and almost 670 million tokens (67%) are already unlocked. At press time, the TRUMP token was at $1.57, marking an 83% decline from its year-over-year high and nearly 98% drop from $73.43 in January 2025. According to data, there have been approximately 1 million buyers who have lost a total of $3.81 billion.
The CLARITY Act Factor In Play The Trump coin activity on-chain comes amid digital asset legislation in Washington. Despite recognizing it wouldn’t get 60 votes required for passage, Senate Majority Leader John Thune is trying to get the CLARITY Act to the floor prior to the August recess.
As CoinGape reported previously, Thune said, “I would like to at least get Clarity started. We’ll see where the votes are.” The bill passed the House in July 2025 and passed the Senate Banking Committee the following month with a vote of 15-9 in May 2026. However, the bill still needs to gain about seven Democratic votes to pass and key issues of contention remain: ethics rules and consumer protection.
The ethics provisions crackdown on Donald Trump’s crypto businesses like the TRUMP meme coin. Hence, the recent onchain movement has sparked discussions on the Internet.
XRP Ledger nově podporuje standard Mastercard Verifiable Intent pro agentické platby. Na XRPL už bylo přes 54 x402 facilitator vypořádáno více než 1,4 milionu agentických transakcí.
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.
Agent payments on the XRP Ledger now support Mastercard's Verifiable Intent standard, according to a recent X post by t54.ai, an AI infrastructure company building an agentic economy on the XRPL.
The x402 facilitator went live on the XRP Ledger in February 2026, allowing AI agents to pay for services using XRP and RLUSD with no need for an API key or accounts.
According to t54.ai, developers can prove through the x402 Facilitator who authorized a payment, under what limits, and for which purchase, and Trustline screens it before settlement. They can also attach a Mastercard-aligned Verifiable Intent (VI) to their x402 payments so every request agents make is automatically run through the XRPL Facilitator's risk service.
HOT Stories
Verifiable Intent (VI) is a cryptographic proof, carried alongside an x402 payment, that answers three questions a risk engine needs before it trusts an autonomous payment: who authorized it, under what limits, and for exactly which transaction. It follows the Mastercard Agentic Payments / Verifiable Intent standard.
The rise of AI has created new ways to buy and sell goods and services and now requires a new class of payments.
You Might Also Like
As part of this push, Mastercard introduced the Agent Pay for Machines (AP4M) service, which will allow payment transactions to be permissioned, orchestrated, and settled at machine speed across its global payments network.
Ripple joined the ecosystem supporting Mastercard's Agent Pay for Machines initiative in June 2026, helping to validate new use cases, establish common rules, and accelerate adoption.
XRPL hits 1.4 million agentic transactionsThe agentic economy on the XRP Ledger is growing, with over 1.4 million agentic transactions settled through t54's x402 facilitator on the XRPL.
You Might Also Like
Responding to this milestone, RippleX head of engineering J. Akinyele compared the current state of agentic payments to the early days of cloud infrastructure, when the potential was obvious but the tooling and standards were still being developed.
Akinyele said that as AI agents become more capable, they will require seamless payment infrastructure similar to how they already exchange data, adding that the XRPL is in the early stages of what is possible.
"Crossing 1M agentic transactions on the XRPL is an exciting milestone, but I believe we're still in the early stages of what's possible," Akinyele said in an X post.
BlackRock clients have reportedly sold $52.76 million worth of Ethereum, according to a social media post by @WhaleInsider. The sale appears to be linked to BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust, a spot ETF facilitating ETH exposure for institutional clients. This move is not directly attributable to BlackRock’s proprietary activity but suggests a significant outflow from the ETF, which is a major institutional holder of Ethereum. Such outflows are often observed alongside broader ETF activity and can influence market dynamics, particularly given the large scale of the transaction.
Advertisement
Key Takeaways The reported sale of $52.76 million in Ethereum by BlackRock clients suggests a substantial institutional outflow, potentially impacting market sentiment. Current market odds for Ethereum dropping to $1,300 in July remain low, indicating limited immediate market impact from this news. Observers note that BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust has previously been a significant driver of spot demand for Ethereum. What to Watch Markets will be closely monitoring any further large-scale transactions linked to the iShares Ethereum Trust, as these could indicate broader trends in institutional sentiment toward Ethereum. Additionally, any future announcements regarding inflows or outflows from major Ethereum ETFs could influence market perceptions and pricing. The impact on Ethereum’s price trajectory will also depend on broader market conditions, including regulatory developments and macroeconomic indicators.
Get live prediction-market analysis, powered by Vera. Sign up for Vera.
Term Structure
Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h August 1 2026 0.2% — — View market → August 1 2026 22.5% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.9% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 6.5% — — View market → August 1 2026 1.8% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.2% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.5% — — View market → August 1 2026 1.6% — — View market → August 1 2026 2.2% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.2% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 0.1% — — View market → August 1 2026 15.5% — — View market →
Americké spotové Ethereum ETF v pátek zaznamenaly čisté odlivy 70,62 milionu USD a ukončily pětidenní sérii přílivů. Za týden ale stále přidaly 103,9 milionu USD.
US-listed spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) logged $70.62 million in net outflows on Friday, ending a five-day inflow streak.
Ethereum funds saw $211.25 million in net inflows over the previous five sessions from July 17 to Thursday, according to SoSoValue data. They still posted $103.9 million in net inflows for the week ended Friday.
Despite the outflows, Ethereum ETFs extended their weekly inflow streak to three straight and have attracted $337.74 million in net inflows so far in July.
Spot crypto ETF flows have become one of the market’s most closely watched gauges of demand for Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) through traditional investment products.
Although other jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, have launched similar funds, US-listed ETFs account for the vast majority of assets and trading volumes.
Daily spot Ethereum ETF net flows from July 17 to July 24. Source: SoSoValue
Bitcoin ETFs also end week with outflowsThe reversal followed a similar pattern in Bitcoin ETFs, which ended a seven-day inflow streak on Thursday and recorded another $240.08 million in net outflows on Friday.
Bitcoin ETFs also extended their net inflow streak to three consecutive weeks, adding $103.90 million during the week ended Friday and $233.96 million so far in July. They followed a record June, when $4.5 billion flowed out of the funds.
BTC traded just under $64,000 at the time of writing, tumbling from the week’s high of $66,892 on Tuesday, according to CoinGecko. ETH traded at $1,837, down from Wednesday’s weekly high of $1,954.
Japan’s crypto reforms fuel $18.4 billion Bitcoin ETF forecastFollowing Japan’s recent overhaul of its crypto regulations, which is widely viewed as laying the groundwork for future spot Bitcoin ETFs, crypto management platform XWIN estimated that a mature Japanese spot Bitcoin ETF market could reach about $18.4 billion, equal to roughly 0.13% of the country’s $14.6 trillion in household financial assets.
In an analysis posted at CryptoQuant, XWIN said the estimate assumes demand from existing crypto holders, new retail investors using brokerage accounts and institutional allocators.
The report pointed to the US market as an example, noting that spot Bitcoin ETFs excluding Grayscale’s GBTC have accumulated roughly 1 million Bitcoin, demonstrating how regulated ETF products can connect traditional finance with digital assets.
“The key is access,” XWIN said, adding that a Japanese spot Bitcoin ETF would allow investors to gain Bitcoin exposure through familiar brokerage and custody systems. It characterized the $18.4 billion figure as “an achievable upper-end market scenario.”
Magazine: A quantum roadmap would push Bitcoin much higher: Charles Edwards
This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph's Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research.
Futu Securities jako první licencovaný hongkongský broker nabídl obchodování s BNB v knize objednávek. Služba je zatím jen pro profesionální investory v Hongkongu.
For months, Hong Kong’s compliant crypto trading environment has largely kept retail brokerage access under tight wraps. That changed on Friday—at least for a subset of the market—when Futu Securities, the city’s largest retail brokerage, rolled out BNB order-book trading pairs. As the original report noted, the service is available only to Hong Kong-qualified Professional Investors, a designation that typically requires a portfolio of at least HK$8 million. Futu itself stated it is the first licensed brokerage in Hong Kong to offer real-time BNB trading through an order book.
The move lands at a moment when BNB Chain continues to rank among the most active ecosystems by developer engagement. In a recent developer activity snapshot, the chain appeared alongside Ethereum and Polygon, signaling sustained technical momentum that now has a new, regulated on-ramp for well-capitalized participants.
A Calculated Step in Hong Kong’s Crypto Framework Hong Kong’s virtual asset licensing regime has moved at its own deliberate pace. The Securities and Futures Commission has approved a small number of trading platforms, mandating strict investor protection measures. By limiting BNB order-book trading to Professional Investors, Futu is testing the framework without extending full retail exposure. That structure mirrors how other regulated entities have approached initial crypto offerings in the city—starting with institutions and high-net-worth individuals before any broader rollout.
The brokerage’s claim to be first in this specific niche matters less for bragging rights than for what it says about custodial and liquidity infrastructure. Running an order book for a non-stablecoin crypto asset inside a licensed environment means the firm has satisfied compliance standards around asset custody, real-time data feeds, and transaction monitoring. Whether that template gets replicated across other large-cap tokens will now depend on how smoothly the BNB product performs and how regulators react.
What BNB Chain Gains From Regulated Exposure BNB has long been one of the most liquid tokens in the crypto market, but its trading volume has been concentrated on offshore exchanges and on-chain decentralized venues. Having a licensed brokerage provide order-book depth could gradually attract a different class of participant—family offices, asset managers, and professional trading firms that require regulatory cover before committing capital.
This also ties into broader institutional trends. Recent institutional tokenization developments show that regulated market infrastructure is becoming a serious theme across jurisdictions. Futu’s launch is not an isolated event; it sits alongside a growing list of traditional finance gateways into crypto, from tokenized Treasuries to bank-grade settlement pipelines.
Liquidity and the Professional-Only Hurdle The most obvious question is how much volume a Professional Investor-only product will generate. Trading activity on similar restricted offerings in other markets has often been modest, with early adopters using them more for price discovery than for large-scale execution. Without broader retail access, the order book might stay thin, limiting the value of real-time data for professional traders who rely on depth to size positions.
Still, the infrastructure is now live. If volumes pick up and client interest proves durable, Futu could push to expand eligibility—a step that would require further regulatory dialogue. For BNB Chain, the benefit is less about immediate trading volumes and more about cementing its place in the investable universe of licensed Asian brokerages.
Hong Kong’s next move will be watched by other regional players. Several brokerages across Asia have been weighing similar launches but have hesitated due to compliance complexity. If Futu’s order book operates without friction, it may lower the perceived risk for others to follow. The BNB trading pairs are currently a niche product, but they open a door that many in the market have been waiting for.
AUTHOR
Nicholas Otieno is a fintech writer specializing in cryptocurrency markets. Since 2019, he has written articles to educate readers about cryptocurrency and its substantial positive impact on global prosperity. Nicholas is a Bitcoin holder, believing firmly in its fundamentals. His work has been featured in publications such as Finance Magnates, Blockchain.News, Bitcoin Magazine, Coincub, and among others. When he's not writing, Nicholas enjoys performing domestic tasks, spending time with friends, listening to music, and watching football.
Across Protocol’s Risk Labs-operated relayer lost less than $4 million after an attacker fabricated $41.7 million in Solana deposit events. Uživatelé neutrpěli žádné ztráty a ACX buyback zůstává beze změny.
Across Protocol’s Risk Labs-operated relayer lost less than $4 million after an attacker fabricated $41.7 million in Solana deposit events, according to a post-incident report released by the cross-chain protocol.
Summary
1,627 fake deposits worth $41.7 million targeted 18 chains during the Solana attack. Risk Labs’ relayer paid $4.5 million across 581 fraudulent requests before suspending service. Around $500,000 in attacker funds remained trapped, reducing the net loss below $4 million. Across restored Solana transfers through CCTP, while user funds and the ACX buyback remained unaffected. Across attacker forged 1,627 Solana deposits The attack occurred between 05:07 and 06:14 UTC on July 17, according to the Across Protocol post-mortem. The attacker used 1,627 single-use Solana wallets to create the same number of fake deposit events.
Those deposits carried a combined face value of approximately $41.7 million and requested payments across 18 destination chains. Across reported that the funds were directed toward one recipient address on an Ethereum Virtual Machine-compatible network.
Risk Labs’ relayer filled 581 requests before Across stopped Solana operations. Those payments represented about 35.7% of the fraudulent requests but only 10.8% of their stated value.
The relayer advanced approximately $4.5 million of its own capital. Across invalidated the remaining 1,046 requests, preventing about $37 million in additional payouts.
Approximately $500,000 belonging to the attacker remained trapped within the protocol. Across deducted that amount from the gross payout to place its net loss below $4 million.
Why Across users avoided the relayer loss Across attributed the breach to a flaw in Risk Labs’ off-chain event-reading software rather than a vulnerability in its smart contracts. The protocol also reported that the attacker did not compromise the Solana network.
Across uses relayers that advance their own assets to complete cross-chain transfers before claiming repayment. That structure left Risk Labs’ relayer responsible for the loss instead of users who had submitted legitimate transactions.
All valid transfers were completed or fully refunded on July 17, according to Across. The protocol’s website shows that it has processed more than $34 billion in transfers without reporting a loss of user funds.
The incident differed from the Lien Finance exploit reported by crypto.news on July 24. SlowMist found that Lien’s attacker exploited a smart contract validation flaw to mint unsupported bond tokens and withdraw approximately 542,144.63 USDC.
crypto.news also reported that a wallet linked to the $285 million Drift Protocol exploit moved 23,095.1 ETH, worth about $44.4 million, through Tornado Cash on July 23 and July 24. Together, the incidents involved separate attack methods: off-chain software failure at Across, faulty contract logic at Lien, and post-exploit laundering tied to Drift.
What the CCTP shift means for US users Across restored Solana service in approximately 12 hours by routing transfers through Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol. The protocol reported that its engineers deployed the root-cause fix about five hours after the attack.
The change has a direct U.S. connection because Circle issues USDC and operates CCTP. Circle states that CCTP burns native USDC on the source network and mints the same amount on the destination network without using traditional bridge liquidity pools or third-party fillers.
For U.S. users moving USDC to or from Solana, the fallback allowed transfers to resume without relying on the affected Risk Labs event reader. The Across breach did not involve USDC’s reserves or Circle’s minting contracts, according to the protocol’s findings.
The shift also comes after the United States established its first federal payment-stablecoin framework through the GENIUS Act. The law requires permitted issuers to maintain qualifying reserves and publish regular disclosures, according to a White House fact sheet. Those rules govern stablecoin issuers rather than the separate relayer software that caused the Across loss.
ACX buyback remains unchanged ACX traded near $0.041 after the post-mortem, with a market capitalization of about $29 million, according to CoinGecko. The token remained more than 97% below its all-time high.
Across stated that the loss would not affect its planned ACX token buyback. However, the protocol did not disclose whether Risk Labs would change its relayer funding, monitoring systems or operating limits.
Solana order flow remains routed through CCTP. Across has not provided a timeline for returning to its earlier routing system or announced the recovery of any additional funds.
Triple-A čelí podezřelému průlomu hot walletů s odtoky přes 9,7 milionu USD napříč několika blockchainy. Zasaženy měly být Ethereum, Solana, TRON a TON, možná i Polygon a Arbitrum. Ukradená aktiva byla následně převedena do zhruba 5 226,66 ETH.
Key Takeaways Suspicious withdrawals exceeding $9.7 million were detected from Triple-A’s hot wallets spanning several blockchain networks The breach affected Ethereum, Solana, TRON, and TON, with potential involvement of Polygon and Arbitrum The alleged attacker converted stolen assets into roughly 5,226.66 ETH and moved them to Ethereum Triple-A remains silent on whether the incident occurred and if user deposits are compromised The Singapore-based firm operates under payment licenses across the United States, European Union, and Singapore A suspected security breach targeting Triple-A, a Singapore-headquartered stablecoin payment infrastructure provider, has resulted in unauthorized withdrawals exceeding $9.7 million from the company’s hot wallets, according to blockchain security researchers monitoring on-chain activity.
⚠️ALERT: Triple-A wallets are under an apparent active exploit with over $9.7M drained.
Onchain analyst Specter has flagged suspicious outflows from Triple-A hot wallets across TRON, Ethereum, Polygon, and Arbitrum, with the stolen assets consolidated into 5,227 ETH.
Triple-A… pic.twitter.com/1RykKuPGwA
— Coin Bureau (@coinbureau) July 25, 2026
Blockchain investigator Specter initially identified the anomalous fund movements. Cybersecurity firm PeckShield subsequently confirmed the findings, with damage assessments climbing from an early estimate of $9.3 million to more than $9.7 million as additional transactions were discovered.
Assets Drained From Six Blockchain Networks The unauthorized withdrawals targeted wallets operating on Ethereum, Solana, TRON, and TON blockchains. Additional evidence suggests Polygon and Arbitrum may also have been compromised, potentially expanding the attack surface to six separate networks.
Following extraction, the stolen digital assets underwent conversion and cross-chain bridging operations before landing on Ethereum. The destination wallet contained approximately 5,226.66 ETH when security analysts flagged the activity.
Converting multiple tokens into ETH represents standard procedure following cross-chain breaches, as it simplifies the movement of disparate assets through a single, liquid cryptocurrency.
The variance between initial and updated loss figures likely stems from ongoing transfers or fluctuations in Ethereum’s market value during the incident window.
Triple-A’s Business Operations and Official Silence Triple-A delivers payment processing solutions enabling businesses to accept, exchange, and disburse funds through stablecoin rails and conventional banking channels. Its product suite encompasses point-of-sale integrations, enterprise payment systems, and international money transfers.
The firm maintains regulatory approval across multiple jurisdictions, including American, European, and Singaporean territories. It secured Major Payment Institution status from Singapore’s Monetary Authority and became part of Circle Payments Network during March 2026.
Triple-A has issued no official acknowledgment of the security incident. The company has not revealed how unauthorized access occurred, the timeline of suspicious activity, or whether client assets face exposure.
Fireblocks serves as Triple-A’s digital asset custody provider. Currently available information contains no indication that Fireblocks infrastructure suffered any compromise.
Attacker Identity Unknown, Customer Impact Unclear Security analysts have not publicly attributed the attack to any specific threat actor. No confirmed reports indicate whether the consolidated funds subsequently moved through cryptocurrency exchanges or privacy-enhancing mixing services.
Absent official disclosure or forensic analysis, this incident remains classified as a suspected hot wallet security failure rather than a verified smart contract vulnerability.
Triple-A has not announced whether it has paused deposit acceptance, withdrawal processing, or cross-blockchain transfer capabilities in response to the suspected breach.
This event occurs separately from a July 17 attack wherein an adversary generated fraudulent Solana deposit records targeting Across Protocol. That unrelated incident caused losses below $4 million after Across suspended Solana integration. No connection exists between the two security breaches.
Stakeholders await Triple-A’s official response addressing the verified loss amount, the attack vector employed, and whether the company intends to reimburse impacted users.
Worldcoin Foundation prodala institucím včetně Pantera Capital 217 milionů WLD za zhruba 52,5 milionu USD, tedy asi se 36% diskontem proti tržní ceně. Tokeny mají roční lock-up.
According to EmberCN’s monitoring, the Worldcoin Foundation sold 217 million WLD tokens to institutions including Pantera Capital roughly 8 hours ago, securing approximately $52.5 million in funding. The Worldcoin Foundation had not previously disclosed the specific sale price, but following the announcement, the team wallet transferred around 217.4 million WLD tokens to multiple addresses. Calculated based on the token volume and financing amount, the sale price came to roughly $0.24 per token, a roughly 36% discount to WLD’s current market price. The sold WLD tokens are subject to a 1-year lock-up period, with institutional investors gaining trading eligibility once the lock-up period expires.
Relevant content
Shenzhen announces multiple cases of illegal self-media accounts related to virtual currency, which were shut down for inducing participation in illegal financial activities.
The People's Bank of China Shenzhen Branch, Shenzhen Securities Regulatory Bureau, Shenzhen Internet Information Office, and Shenzhen Local Financial Regulatory Bureau recently jointly launched a special rectification campaign on online information in the financial sector, and announced a number of typical cases of illegal self-media accounts involving virtual currency and illegal stock recommendation. Multiple accounts were dealt with for illegally publishing virtual currency-related marketing and promotional information, including accounts such as "USDT Merchant Exchange Group", "Gather to Play Virtual Currency", "Search Bitcoin", "WePay Quick Exchange", and "Zhonglian Laojiu". These accounts are suspected of promoting virtual currency services to domestic users and inducing the public to participate in illegal financial activities related to virtual currency. Authorities stated that in accordance with policy requirements such as the "Notice on Further Preventing and Dealing with Risks Related to Virtual Currency and Other Issues", the above-mentioned illegal accounts have been permanently closed by platforms in accordance with laws and regulations and relevant agreements. Shenzhen authorities said they will continue to strengthen the governance of online financial information, crack down on illegal and irregular activities such as virtual currency speculation and illegal stock recommendation, and maintain the order of the financial market.
1 seconds ago
U.S. Ethereum ETFs end five consecutive days of net inflows, but remain in net inflows for the third straight week.
U.S. spot Ethereum ETFs posted a net outflow of $70.7 million yesterday, ending their prior five consecutive trading days of inflows. Between July 17 and 24, Ethereum ETFs saw a cumulative net inflow of $211.25 million. Despite Friday’s negative flow, Ethereum ETFs still notched a weekly net inflow of $103.9 million by week’s end, marking their third straight week of inflows. Since July, Ethereum ETFs have accumulated a net inflow of $337.74 million. Bitcoin ETFs also experienced outflows: U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs had a net outflow of $240.08 million on Friday, ending a seven-day inflow streak that began on Thursday. Even so, Bitcoin ETFs recorded a weekly net inflow of $103.9 million, with a cumulative net inflow of $233.96 million since July, marking their third consecutive week of inflows. BTC is currently trading around $64,000, while ETH stands at approximately $1,854, below this week’s high of $1,954.
1 seconds ago
MORPHO surged more than 13% in a short period before pulling back, with its current market capitalization standing at $1.172 billion.
Likely driven by news that Upbit will list the MORPHO/KRW trading pair, MORPHO surged over 13% in a short time before pulling back, currently trading at $2.024 with a market cap of $1.172 billion.
1 seconds ago
Upbit will list the MORPHO/KRW trading pair, with trading opening at 18:00 on July 25.
Crypto trading platform Upbit announced that it will list MORPHO (Morpho) on its South Korean won (KRW) market at 18:00 on July 25, with support for the Ethereum network. The platform stated that after MORPHO trading goes live, buy orders will be restricted within approximately 5 minutes; for roughly 2 hours following the listing, all order types except limit orders will be restricted.
1 seconds ago
Crypto industry losses reached approximately $1.32 billion in the first half of 2026, with access control vulnerabilities emerging as the largest source of attacks.
According to Onchain Lens statistics, the crypto industry recorded 224 publicly disclosed security incidents in the first half of 2026, with cumulative losses totaling approximately $1.32 billion. Among these, "access control vulnerabilities" caused the largest losses, as multiple large-scale attacks originated from compromised permission management or breached private key/admin privileges. The affected projects include: Kelp DAO ($292 million in losses), Drift Protocol ($280 million), Humanity Protocol ($31 million), Step Finance ($30 million), Truebit ($26.5 million), Resolv Labs ($25 million), AFX ($24.15 million), and BonkDAO ($21 million). Additionally, phishing and social engineering attacks resulted in around $282 million in losses; oracle-related attacks impacted Ostium ($24 million), Blend Protocol ($10.86 million), and Bonzo ($9 million). Data shows that a small number of large-scale attacks accounted for the majority of total losses. Permission management, user security education, and oracle risks remain key areas for the crypto industry’s security protection in 2026.
1 seconds ago
Trump is anxious over the Iran war, as the conflict enters its fifth month with no signs of ending.
U.S. President Donald Trump is growing increasingly dissatisfied with the escalating Iran conflict. The conflict, originally expected to end within weeks, has entered its fifth month. Ongoing military operations have driven up energy prices and could impact the Republican Party’s performance in the November midterm elections. Sources say Trump is frustrated with the conflict’s progress and is seeking to exert greater pressure on Iran. Since the collapse of the ceasefire agreement, U.S. forces have carried out continuous strikes against Iran, with operations now in their 13th consecutive day, leaving 18 U.S. service members dead. Trump stated that the U.S. is "fully prepared" but remains in communication with Iran, adding that Iran is becoming "increasingly serious." However, analysts note Trump faces multiple challenges: a troop withdrawal would trigger political pressure, escalating operations could expand risks, and previous negotiations failed to reach a long-term peace agreement. The escalating conflict has roiled global energy markets, with Brent crude oil prices briefly topping $100 per barrel this week, and U.S. gasoline prices rising in tandem. Meanwhile, Iran-backed Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping have further complicated the regional situation. Analysts believe both the U.S. and Iran have the capability to sustain the conflict, which may enter a prolonged phase of attrition. The Trump administration aims to force Iran back to the negotiating table via military pressure, but has not yet found a clear exit strategy.
Americké ministerstvo zahraničí spustilo program Freedom Tech Excellence Program spolu s Bitcoin Policy Institute a Palantirem. Cílem je podpořit digitální svobodu, šifrování a boj proti sledování.
The US State Department has introduced a new initiative, the Freedom Tech Excellence Program (FTEP), aiming to promote digital freedom around the world with Bitcoin as a central component.
Public-private partnership to address digital challengesThe program brings together a coalition of partners, including the Bitcoin Policy Institute, data analytics firm Palantir Technologies, defense technology company Anduril Industries, and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Together, these organizations will focus on combating online surveillance, strengthening encryption, ensuring responsible governance of emerging technologies, and defending free expression online.
According to FTEP’s official outline, its priority areas include protecting First Amendment rights in the digital era, fighting unlawful digital surveillance and online scams, advancing privacy tools such as robust encryption and VPNs, guiding the safe use of artificial intelligence, and improving safeguards for children and other vulnerable online users.
The inclusion of the Bitcoin Policy Institute, a nonprofit advocating for the use of Bitcoin and related technologies to achieve social freedom and resist censorship, reflects the department’s recognition of digital assets as potential tools against financial control in restrictive regimes.
Mini dictionary: Bitcoin Policy Institute, a research and advocacy organization dedicated to the exploration and promotion of Bitcoin as a tool for human rights, financial inclusion, and free expression in repressive environments.
Embedding expertise from the private sectorThe FTEP will deploy private sector professionals to the State Department for limited-term assignments. These embedded personnel will help guide US diplomatic efforts on various digital freedom issues, drawing on sector-specific expertise.
Palantir Technologies, one of the key partners, is known for its work in big data analytics for both government and private sectors, while Anduril Industries specializes in defense technology solutions. The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation focuses on human rights advocacy, especially in nations experiencing authoritarian governance.
Bitcoin gains national strategic importanceSince taking office, President Trump has increasingly supported the digital asset sector, shaping regulatory approaches and bringing crypto-related elements into his administration. A significant milestone occurred in March 2025, when President Trump authorized an executive order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a separate Digital Asset Stockpile for the US government.
These reserves were launched with approximately 200,000 Bitcoin, assets previously acquired through criminal and civil seizures. The administration positioned Bitcoin as a strategic national resource, comparable to the country’s holdings in gold, petroleum, and pharmaceuticals.
President Trump’s order placed Bitcoin among the United States’ strategic reserves, signaling a shift in its treatment from a speculative asset to a core component of national resilience infrastructure.
Asset ClassStrategic Reserve PurposeBitcoinDigital resilience, financial sovereigntyGoldMonetary stability, economic securityPetroleumEnergy security, strategic emergenciesPharmaceuticalsMedical preparedness, public healthThe US government’s moves underline a growing recognition of digital assets’ role in future economic and security strategies, while signaling to the global community the administration’s intention to support digital freedom and advanced technology as pillars of US diplomacy.
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.
Michael Saylor didn’t just announce a dashboard. He published a balance sheet with an address. Strategy’s new MSTR-BTC interface, unveiled Thursday, is less a tool for shareholders and more a declaration: corporate Bitcoin holders no longer get to hide behind opaque treasury disclosures. The numbers, pulled straight from the blockchain, are unambiguous. The company holds 843,775 BTC valued at $54.88 billion, priced at $65,035 per coin, according to the original report.
This isn’t a marketing splash. It’s a structural shift in how public companies can verify digital asset reserves. The dashboard doesn’t rely on quarterly attestations or delayed SEC filings. It ties the treasury directly to on-chain data and capital structure metrics, displaying gross reserves of $58.1 billion, net reserves of $35.88 billion, and a market-based net asset value (mNAV) ratio of exactly 1.00x. For CFOs watching from the sidelines, that level of granularity changes the conversation.
A Corporate Treasury Built on Public Verification Strategy’s move arrives at a moment when institutional Bitcoin adoption is accelerating, yet regulatory uncertainty still hangs over how companies account for digital assets. The dashboard’s numbers tell a specific story: year-to-date BTC yield sits at 5.8%, representing a gain of 39,325 BTC — roughly $2.56 billion in dollar terms since January. That’s not paper profit from a rising price; it’s net Bitcoin accumulation relative to diluted shares outstanding.
Saylor has spent years framing Bitcoin as a superior treasury reserve asset. Now the company is proving the thesis with data that anyone can audit. The dashboard scrubs away the vagueness that once made corporate Bitcoin holdings a black box. If more firms follow this model, the market’s understanding of treasury risk shifts from trust-me filings to verifiable on-chain proof.
But this transparency cuts both ways. A 1.00x mNAV tells investors the market values Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings at their spot price, with zero premium for the operating business or future acquisitions. That’s a signal the market is pricing the company purely as a levered Bitcoin play — not a software firm. For longtime bulls, that’s validating; for those waiting for a diversification narrative, it’s a reality check.
The Transparency Standard Nobody Asked For Corporate Bitcoin treasuries are still a niche. Tesla, Block, and a handful of public miners hold significant positions, but none publish a live dashboard with this level of detail. Strategy is essentially setting the benchmark without any regulatory mandate, creating a market expectation that could pressure other firms to follow. If a company holds over $1 billion in Bitcoin and doesn’t provide comparable on-chain verification, that silence might start to look strategic.
This dynamic parallels what happened with stablecoin reserves a few years ago. Transparency became a competitive advantage, then a baseline requirement. In the corporate treasury arena, Strategy is doing the same. The dashboard’s timing also matters. A recent push for clearer crypto accounting rules in the U.S. has been stalled by banking interests, a conflict detailed in our coverage of the biggest crypto bill facing Senate resistance. Until legislation resolves, voluntary transparency becomes the strongest signal.
The dashboard doesn’t just list holdings; it connects debt structure to Bitcoin assets. Net reserves subtract obligations, giving bondholders and equity investors a clearer view of leverage. That’s especially relevant as tokenized real-world assets expand, with on-chain RWA markets crossing $20 billion and blurring the line between traditional finance and crypto collateral. When a corporate Bitcoin treasury is that transparent, using it as collateral becomes easier — and more dangerous if over-leveraged.
The Parts the Dashboard Can’t Show What’s missing from the MSTR-BTC interface is a volatility adjustment for the underlying asset. Bitcoin’s price at $65,035 gives a clean valuation, but anyone who watched the 2022 drawdown knows that $54.88 billion can quickly become $35 billion without any change in Strategy’s conduct. The dashboard’s elegance might obscure the fact that the reserve value is a moving target, not a stable number.
There’s also a governance question. The dashboard assumes Bitcoin is a permanent treasury asset, but strategy shifts happen. If a future board decides to sell part of the stack, the real-time nature of the interface could amplify market panic. Transparency is a double-edged sword when the underlying asset is that volatile and that liquid.
Still, for an asset class still fighting for legitimacy among corporate treasurers, Strategy’s move is aggressively normalizing. It’s borrowing the language of public company investor relations and applying it to an asset that many still dismiss. And it’s happening while institutions are quietly building out infrastructure — from institutional staking surges on networks like Sui to tier-one banks testing tokenized settlement. The dashboard fits into that larger picture, whether regulators are ready or not.
Strategy didn’t invent corporate Bitcoin holding. But with one interface, it just made holding it quietly look like a decision not to be transparent. That might be the dashboard’s biggest impact: not the data it shows, but the standard it imposes on everyone else.
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.
Bitcoin ETF Morgan Stanley má už přes 391 milionů USD ve spravovaných aktivech, a to jen několik měsíců po dubnovém spuštění. Tento týden do něj přiteklo dalších 15,7 milionu USD.
Wall Street giant Morgan Stanley Bitcoin exchange-traded fund now has close to $400 million in assets under management — despite only launching in April.
The NYSE Arca-listed fund, which is the first by a bank, got off to a roaring start when it debuted, bringing in over $33 million in fresh cash on its first day.
Now, the fund has over $391 million in assets, demonstrating the popularity of the product. Many ETFs never reach $400 million in assets at all, let alone in one quarter.
Senior Bloomberg Intelligence ETF analyst Eric Balchunas revealed Friday that the product has been one of the most successful funds launched this year so far.
This week alone, investors have thrown $15.7 million in new cash at the product, according to Farside Investors data.
Morgan Stanley has been making big crypto moves for years now. Back in 2021, it started offering wealthy clients exposure to Bitcoin via funds such as those by Galaxy Digital.
And last year, the bank’s CEO and Chairman, Ted Pick, said that the bank was working with regulators to see how they could offer crypto safely.
Back in April, the bank’s head of digital assets, Amy Oldenburg said client education — not product design — is the central challenge facing Bitcoin adoption.
ETF action this week After weeks of outflows and sloppy price action, American Bitcoin ETFs have taken in fresh cash over the past seven days.
Farside Investors shows the products have received a total of $274 million in new investment so far this week.
The funds had been on a winning streak, receiving nearly $1 billion over seven days until Thursday, when every ETF experienced outflows — except for Morgan Stanley’s product.
Bitcoin’s price was recently trading for $64,096, down over 1% over the past 24 hours. The cryptocurrency is virtually unmoved over a seven-day period.
European asset management firm CoinShares last week said that while investors are back at putting fresh cash in Bitcoin ETFs, other factors may hold digital asset markets from going higher.
“We see no significant upside potential from here,” James Butterfill, head of research at CoinShares, wrote.
Mathew Di Salvo
Mathew is a reporter who's covered the space since 2019, reporting on everything from Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele's Bitcoin bet to crypto exchange FTX's bankruptcy.
KULR Technology Group převedla 145,8 BTC v hodnotě 9,45 milionu USD na Coinbase Prime a její držba klesla na 100 BTC. Firma tak může být blízko úplnému odchodu z Bitcoinu.
Since the October 2025 peak, Bitcoin has failed to sustain an uptrend, falling 48% from its ATH. Amid this extended market weakness, long-term holders, especially institutions, have seen their losses skyrocket.
The rising losses have pushed many of these firms to a breaking point, and they are not only capitulating but also walking away.
KULRTech dumps $9 million in Bitcoin Treasuries that rushed to accumulate Bitcoin [BTC] from late 2024 and 2025, fearing they would miss out, have found themselves operating at a loss.
Others were pushed to capitulate to avoid more losses, and one such Bitcoin treasury company is KULRTech.
KULRTech has been aggressively dumping its BTC over the past months. According to Arkham data, KULRTech transferred 145.8 BTC worth $9.45 million to Coinbase Prime.
Source: Arkham After multiple transfers, its holdings of 1,021 BTC worth $101 million now have only 100 BTC worth $6.47 million left.
In its selling spree, the company has mostly exited at a loss. AMBCrypto earlier reported that KULR Bitcoin holdings saw over $18 million in losses.
Now with only 100 BTC left, it seems the company is on the verge of completely exiting its position. Thus, if weakness continues, the company is likely to sell and exit the market entirely.
Source: Yahoo Finance Even more impactful for KULRTech, the company’s stock value was hit the hardest by extended Bitcoin poor performance.
Yahoo Finance data showed that the company’s stock declined 78% from its ATH of $43 recorded after it announced its BTC investment. As of this writing, the firm’s stock value was around $2.7.
Treasuries holdings value plunges $47 billion from 2025 peak KULR Technology Group, Inc is one of the many Bitcoin treasury companies operating at a loss. Also, it joins a long list of these firms aggressively selling.
Interestingly, while Treasury companies have increased their holdings in 2026, they have yet to reclaim peak value.
Source: CoinGlass In 2025, Bitcoin treasury companies held 1.02 million BTC worth approximately $128.5 billion at the peak. Now, these firms hold 1.25 million BTC worth $81.5 billion, marking a $47 billion drop from the 2025 peak.
Thus, although holdings have increased by 230k BTC, the value remains extremely low, signaling rising losses. For example, Strategy is currently operating on $9 billion in losses.
With these major investors holding at a loss and continually selling, the Bitcoin market still remains at extreme risk. Thus, fear from treasuries could drive continued market weakness, further reducing the capital that BTC relied on significantly for the 2024-2025 rally.
Final Summary KULR Technology Group transferred 145.8 BTC worth $9.45 million to Coinbase Prime, reducing total holdings to 100 Bitcoin. Bitcoin treasuries have increased holdings by 230k BTC since October 2025, but value dropped from $128 billion to $81 billion.
Kansaská správcovská společnost Leisure Capital Management ve 2. čtvrtletí vykázala pozici v XRP ETF od Franklin Templeton. K 30. červnu držela 16 745 akcií v hodnotě zhruba 206 000 USD.
Kansas-based wealth manager Leisure Capital Management has revealed a position in Franklin Templeton’s XRP ETF during the second quarter of the year.
According to a newly filed regulatory form with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Leisure Capital Management held 16,745 shares of the Franklin XRP Trust ETF (XRPZ). They were valued at roughly $206,000 as of June 30.
The investment is not significant, but it shows that XRP is gaining more and more acceptance.
HOT Stories
The Overland Park, Kansas-based wealth management firm manages investment portfolios for individuals and institutions and holds traditional equities, bonds and ETFs.
Image via https://depositphotos.com/photos/kansas.htmlIts XRP ETF position appeared alongside holdings in major companies including Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia and Amazon.
More institutional interest Earlier in July, Realta Investment Advisors reported a position in the REX-Osprey XRP ETF with more than $260 million in reported holdings.
Vista Finance also disclosed exposure to the Franklin XRP Trust ETF, holding 129,958 shares worth approximately $11.45 million.
You Might Also Like
Brookstone Capital Management revealed a $71 million XRP ETF position. At the same time, CPR Investments disclosed a $363,000 position in the ProShares Ultra XRP ETF.
Institutional activity has also extended beyond ETFs.
Galaxy Digital, Arrington Capital, The Private Shares Fund and GAM Alternatives Lux recently agreed to purchase approximately $130 million worth of Ripple Labs private shares from Linqto as part of the company’s bankruptcy proceedings.
You Might Also Like
The growing number of 13F filings shows that asset managers are increasingly comfortable with XRP, which used to be considered a security by the SEC before being ultimately vindicated.
ETF structures make it possible for institutions to access the asset through familiar investment channels.
Charles Hoskinson varoval, že Bitcoin může kvůli pomalé a roztříštěné správě ztratit pozici jedničky, pokud nezvládne kvantovou hrozbu včas. Uvedl, že přes 34 % BTC má veřejný klíč na řetězci a 1,7 milionu BTC je v starých adresách.
A Governance Problem, Not Just a Technical One@IOHK_Charles, co-founder of @Cardano, has issued a pointed warning: $BTC could lose its position as the world's leading cryptocurrency not because quantum computers will break its cryptography outright, but because Bitcoin's governance culture may be too slow and too fragmented to coordinate a response in time.
"The issue with Bitcoin is it's frozen in time. It's very difficult to change anything," Hoskinson told The Block's The Starting Block podcast on Friday. He also framed @Cardano as a natural successor to Bitcoin's founding vision. "Cardano is, in many ways, a spiritual successor [to Bitcoin]. It reflects correcting a lot of things that I think that Satoshi couldn't get around to because of expertise or time but was directionally moving there," he said.
The concern is grounded in real exposure. As of March 1, 2026, over 34% of all Bitcoin has a revealed public key on-chain, meaning those holdings could be stolen by an attacker with a sufficiently powerful quantum computer. Bitcoin's proposed answer is BIP-361, a phased migration plan designed to move the network toward quantum-resistant addresses. Hoskinson argues the proposal is mischaracterized as a soft fork and would in practice require a hard fork, which conflicts directly with Bitcoin's anti-hard-fork culture.
The stakes are significant. The agonizing problem is the coins that cannot migrate: an estimated 1.7 million $BTC sit in ancient addresses, including roughly a million believed to be Satoshi Nakamoto's, whose owners are lost, dead, or permanently absent. Those coins predate modern wallet standards and cannot be recovered under BIP-361's proposed mechanism.
"What made Bitcoin so strong is it survived external threats, including the loss of its founder," Hoskinson said. "Quantum computers are yet another threat. If Bitcoin's governance is such that it's impossible to actually make meaningful progress, or they compromise the core reason to use Bitcoin, I don't think Bitcoin's going to stay the number one cryptocurrency."
Cardano's Case and the Broader Stakes"If you had on-chain governance, you could solve it," Hoskinson said. His argument is that the cryptography itself is solvable, but Bitcoin's decentralized, consensus-dependent upgrade process is not built for a transition of this scale. Hoskinson explained that Cardano's governance system makes large-scale upgrades easier to coordinate, and that the network is already voting on a quantum strategy while preparing a research proposal, with a long-term migration path designed to help users transition toward quantum-resistant infrastructure.
"With Cardano, we're going to have to make some decisions about what to do with quantum-vulnerable infrastructure. And if there needs to be a migration, we can have a vote, and then there could be an onchain function to do that," Hoskinson said. He added that Cardano is also preparing for what he described as its biggest upgrade to date, one that will make the network 60 times faster.
BIP-361 matters because Bitcoin moves slowly by design, and cryptographic migrations can take years to plan, debate, test, and adopt. How Bitcoin navigates that tension, with no CEO to mandate migration and no central authority to set deadlines, will set a template for every major chain facing the same challenge.
Sources:
CoinDesk: Hoskinson says Bitcoin's quantum fix can't save Satoshi's coins
Decrypt: Quantum Proposal Won't Save Satoshi's Bitcoin, Says Hoskinson
Crypto Times: BIP-361's Post-Quantum Migration Plan Sparks Debate
Cardano a IOG představily Pogun, který má „zrcadlit“ Bitcoin na Cardanu a otevřít držitelům přístup k DeFi bez ztráty kontroly nad mincemi. Nepákový úvěrový trh má dorazit na mainnet ve 2. čtvrtletí 2026.
There’s roughly $1.6 trillion worth of Bitcoin sitting in wallets doing essentially nothing. Cardano’s development company, Input Output Group (IOG), thinks it has a solution: a platform called Pogun that “mirrors” Bitcoin onto the Cardano blockchain, giving holders access to lending, yield, and stablecoins while they keep custody of their own coins.
Charles Hoskinson, Cardano’s founder, publicly outlined the initiative on May 3, 2026. The core pitch is straightforward. Bitcoin holders get DeFi access. Cardano gets the liquidity. And nobody has to hand their keys to a centralized intermediary to make it work.
How mirroring actually works Instead of wrapping Bitcoin in a tokenized form, Pogun clones the representation of Bitcoin assets onto Cardano’s chain. The original Bitcoin stays put. The mirrored version on Cardano can interact with DeFi protocols.
The key technical ingredient arriving later in the roadmap is BitVM-powered mirroring, which aims to minimize the trust assumptions baked into most cross-chain bridges today.
Advertisement
The platform is being built on top of interoperability groundwork Cardano has already laid, including atomic swaps between the two chains.
What makes Pogun genuinely different from the crowded field of Bitcoin DeFi experiments is its credit market design. The platform operates without traditional oracles or collateral pools. There are no margin calls. Instead, transactions rely on bilateral agreements between counterparties.
The rollout timeline The non-margin credit market is slated to hit Cardano’s mainnet by Q2 2026. A yield-generating application follows in Q3 2026. The trust-minimized BitVM mirroring implementation is planned for Q4 2026.
The project is led by Omer Husain and sits within a broader package of nine IOG proposals requesting nearly $50 million in funding for 2026. That funding encompasses network scalability upgrades and performance improvements beyond just the Pogun platform itself.
All transactions within Pogun require ADA fees. Revenues from the project flow back into the Cardano treasury.
What this means for investors The competitive landscape includes Stacks, Babylon, and several other projects also vying for Bitcoin’s idle capital. Cardano’s eUTXO model shares architectural DNA with Bitcoin’s own transaction model.
The $50 million funding request across nine proposals signals that IOG is making a substantial bet on cross-chain interoperability as Cardano’s growth strategy. The Q4 2026 BitVM implementation is the linchpin, and trust-minimized bridges have proven extraordinarily difficult to ship securely.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Chainlink uvedl, že od května přešlo z LayerZero do jeho CCIP přes 7,2 miliardy USD v cross-chain a zabalených aktivech. DTCC zároveň plánuje využít Chainlink pro svou tokenizovanou platformu kolaterálu.
CCIP Pulls in Over $7B as Projects Ditch LayerZero@Chainlink posted a strong second quarter, with its Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) emerging as the headline story. More than $7.2 billion in cross-chain and wrapped assets have migrated from LayerZero to Chainlink's CCIP since May, with Mantle becoming the latest project to replace LayerZero for high-value token transfers. Migrations include Kelp and Lombard, both of which brought over $1 billion, as well as Solv Protocol, Virtuals, Re, and Kraken's tokenized assets.
The migration wave was partly accelerated by concerns over bridge security. Bridges between different blockchains have become one of crypto's largest security risks, with a single failure able to expose hundreds of millions of dollars in user assets. Chainlink's CCIP has positioned itself as the institutional-grade alternative, with projects citing security and control over token transfer settings as key reasons for the switch.
On the broader network, Chainlink's CCIP has facilitated over $21 billion in total transferred volume and supports more than $62 billion in tokens across over 60 blockchains as of July 2026. The protocol also reported over $110 billion in total value secured across its oracle and cross-chain infrastructure.
DTCC Integration Signals Deeper TradFi CommitmentBeyond the CCIP numbers, the quarter brought a notable institutional milestone. The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC), whose subsidiaries processed $4.7 quadrillion in securities transactions in 2025, will integrate Chainlink as the data and orchestration layer for its forthcoming tokenized collateral platform. DTCC's Collateral AppChain will leverage the Chainlink Runtime Environment (CRE) and Chainlink's data standard to support eligibility, valuation, margining, collateral optimization, and settlement. The platform is targeted for production launch in the fourth quarter of 2026.
Collaborations have also extended to Swift for tokenized workflows, and a consortium including Swift, DTCC, Euroclear, and 24 others developed unified infrastructure for corporate actions processing, leveraging Chainlink for data integrity. S&P Global Ratings brought Stablecoin Stability Assessments onchain via DataLink, while WisdomTree, Visa, Deutsche Boerse, SBI Group, GLEIF, Apex Group, ICE, Westpac, FTSE Russell, and Tradeweb all adopted Chainlink for various data publishing and settlement solutions.
Taken together, the Q2 figures point to Chainlink moving beyond pilot programs into production-level infrastructure for both DeFi protocols and major traditional finance institutions. The coming months, particularly the Q4 DTCC launch, will be a key test of whether that momentum holds.
Sources:
CoinDesk: Over $7.2 Billion Have Migrated From LayerZero to Chainlink CCIP
CoinDesk: DTCC Taps Chainlink for Its Tokenized Collateral Platform
Bitcoin News: Chainlink Lands DTCC Deal to Automate Collateral Workflows
Chainlink ve 2. čtvrtletí vykázal 110 miliard USD v total value secured a přes 7 miliard USD v přesunech cross-chain tokenů do CCIP. CCIP zároveň dosáhl kvartálního objemu 4,9 miliardy USD, meziročně o 353 % více.
CCIP Growth and Total Value Secured@chainlink wrapped Q2 2026 with $110 billion in total value secured, according to its quarterly review. Over $7 billion in cross-chain token value migrated to CCIP in the quarter, driven by a shift toward secure-by-default interoperability infrastructure, while CCIP posted quarterly volume of $4.9 billion, a 353% year-over-year increase.
Numerous protocols deprecated their legacy bridging solutions and migrated to CCIP as their exclusive cross-chain infrastructure. That follows a strong Q1, when CCIP transfer volume grew 319% year over year and 78% quarter over quarter. The Q2 numbers suggest momentum is building, not levelling off.
TradFi Integration Takes Centre StageThe more consequential story is on the traditional finance side. On May 12, 2026, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation selected Chainlink's Runtime Environment, known as CRE, to power its Collateral AppChain. The AppChain, scheduled to launch in Q4 2026, will manage real-time collateral operations including pricing, valuation, margining, and settlement for tokenized assets across multiple blockchains.
Then there is Project Pangea. Chainlink, alongside multinational banking consortia, launched Project Pangea to redefine international FX markets, bringing together 50+ banks representing $10+ trillion in assets to unlock cross-border T+0 atomic settlement via Chainlink, ISO 20022 messaging, and existing Swift infrastructure. Banks interact with the system through their existing Swift payment infrastructure, with instructions routing through Chainlink's Runtime Environment, which translates ISO 20022 messages into onchain settlement actions without requiring institutions to rebuild internal systems.
Chainlink's data standard has also landed on the AWS Marketplace, broadening its reach into enterprise cloud infrastructure. These wins helped push Chainlink's Total Value Secured to $110 billion and earned Chainlink the number four spot on Fortune's Crypto 100 list for Blockchain and Protocols. Oracles were once crypto's background plumbing. Quarters like this suggest they are becoming the connective tissue between traditional finance and the chains it is moving onto.
Sources:
Chainlink Quarterly Review Q2 2026, Chainlink
Chainlink's CRE Selected by DTCC and Project Pangea, Crypto Briefing
Chainlink Launches Project Pangea With 50+ Banks, The Defiant
Arival Bank spouští platební a treasury služby v USDC pro všechny způsobilé klienty a USDT pro neamerické subjekty, s cílem zjednodušit přeshraniční platby hlavně v Latinské Americe. Konverzní poplatky začínají na 0,05 %.
Arival Bank announced the launch of stablecoin payment and treasury capabilities on July 3, 2026, with services expected to go live by mid-July. The offering supports USDC for all eligible clients and USDT for non-US entities, with conversion fees starting at just 0.05% for businesses moving into USD-denominated stablecoins.
What Arival is actually building Arival Bank operates as a recognized International Financial Entity under Puerto Rico’s regulatory framework, with full BSA/AML compliance, KYC/KYB protocols, and transaction monitoring systems.
Advertisement
The platform supports transactions across four blockchain networks: Base, Polygon, Solana, and Ethereum. The target market is global SMEs, startups, and digital-native businesses that need treasury management and cross-border payment tools.
Why Latin America is the real story here Arival’s announcement specifically calls out demand from international clients, with Latin America as a key focus. A USDC transfer on Solana settles in seconds, not days. At 0.05% conversion fees, Arival is undercutting what most traditional FX services charge by a wide margin.
The bank’s approach builds on its existing partnership with Circle Alliance, the program Circle runs to expand USDC adoption through financial institutions. By integrating stablecoin capabilities with existing USD and multi-currency accounts, Arival is creating something that looks less like a crypto product and more like an upgraded version of the banking tools businesses already use.
The competitive landscape The fee structure deserves attention. At 0.05% for stablecoin conversions, for a business processing $1 million in monthly cross-border payments, that’s $500 in conversion fees versus potentially thousands through traditional banking channels.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Komunita Stacks schválila upgrade SIP-045, Bitcoin Staking, s více než 99 % hlasů, což otevírá cestu k hard forku kolem 29. července. Součástí je i obnovení emisí STX na 1 000 STX za blok.
Most exchanges and partners have signaled readiness for the hard fork, though a few are still reviewing details and the upgrade has not yet activated.
The Stacks community approved SIP-045, the Bitcoin Staking upgrade, with more than 99% of votes cast in favor, Stacks co-creator Muneeb Ali said, setting up a hard fork targeted for around July 29 at roughly Bitcoin block 907,740.
The upgrade, formally "PoX-5: Bitcoin Staking and Emission Schedule Alignment," lets participants lock BTC in a timelocked contract on Bitcoin's base layer — under their own keys — and pair it with locked STX to earn yield paid in bitcoin. A companion proposal, SIP-044, which brings Clarity 6 and new staking post-conditions, passed alongside it. Voting opened July 6; hard-fork votes require at least 80% approval from stacked STX.
"Bitcoin is the world's most trusted asset precisely because of its design and safety principles on the L1," Ali said when the Bitcoin Staking whitepaper was published in May. "Holders can now earn yield denominated in BTC, trustlessly, while their Bitcoin stays exactly where it belongs."
How the Mechanism WorksStakers fund a timelocked UTXO on Bitcoin using OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY, pair it with an STX lock equal to at least 5% of the bond, and commit for roughly six months. The Stacks contract verifies the Bitcoin-side lock with an SPV proof — no custodian or trusted bridge. Yield comes from the BTC that miners already bid through Proof of Transfer: paired bonds get a target of about 3% APY in BTC, STX-only stackers take 85% of the excess, and 15% builds a reserve that buffers shortfalls. There is no slashing; principal returns in full when the timelock expires.
The bootstrap phase caps capacity at 3,000 BTC, managed by the Stacks Endowment with whitelisted partners and about 10% open to pools. A public testnet went live this week, and a "Genesis Bond" is targeted for late August.
SIP-045 also reverses April's emissions cut, restoring the STX coinbase to 1,000 STX per Bitcoin block from 500 — a meaningful supply increase bundled with the staking mechanism.
Yield Without Leaving BitcoinStacks has distributed more than 4,200 BTC — roughly $500 million — in stacking rewards since Proof of Transfer went live in 2021, and its sBTC bridged asset holds about $186 million, per DefiLlama, down from a Q1 peak of $545 million as BTC's price fell.
The vote result did nothing for the token. STX trades at $0.144, down 13% in 24 hours, per CoinGecko, sharply underperforming Bitcoin's 1.9% decline.
Arkham přidal Robinhood Chain do svého multi-chain exploreru a API, takže uživatelé mohou sledovat převody, adresy i velké transakce v reálném čase. Robinhood Chain zároveň za prvních 24 hodin vygeneroval zhruba 350 000 USD na poplatcích.
Arkham Intelligence has added Robinhood Chain to its multi-chain explorer and API, giving its users the ability to track real-time transfers, explore addresses, and de-anonymize entities on the retail trading giant’s freshly launched blockchain. The integration, which went live around July 22-23, lands just weeks after Robinhood Chain opened its public mainnet on July 1.
Here’s why this matters: Robinhood Chain isn’t just another L2 fighting for DeFi scraps. It’s a purpose-built network for tokenized real-world assets, letting users in more than 120 countries trade stock tokens tied to names like NVIDIA, Google, and Apple. Having Arkham’s analytical toolkit pointed at it from day one gives this ecosystem something most new chains lack: transparency infrastructure before the chaos starts.
What Arkham brings to the table Transaction scanning, wallet tracking, entity identification, and alerts for large transfers are the core offerings. For Robinhood Chain specifically, the integration means users can now monitor profitable traders operating in this new ecosystem. They can trace crypto flows across addresses, set up custom alerts for whale movements, and analyze trading patterns as the chain’s user base grows.
Advertisement
Robinhood Chain’s early days Robinhood Chain is built as an Arbitrum Layer 2, which means it inherits Ethereum’s security while processing transactions more cheaply and quickly. ETH serves as the native gas currency, and the chain uses Ethereum’s blob infrastructure for data availability. Its Ethereum Chain ID is 4663.
Uniswap was deployed from the start, giving users immediate access to decentralized trading. Early engagement metrics suggest genuine interest. The chain reportedly earned approximately $350,000 in fees within its first 24 hours of operation.
The tokenized stock angle is what makes Robinhood Chain genuinely different from the dozens of other L2s jostling for attention. By offering stock tokens linked to major equities, the chain creates a bridge between traditional finance and DeFi that doesn’t require users to abandon familiar asset classes. Accessibility across more than 120 countries is another differentiator, with Robinhood positioning its chain as the infrastructure to make that happen through its Robinhood Wallet.
What this means for investors For traders already active on Robinhood Chain, the ability to monitor on-chain activity through Arkham’s tools creates a more level playing field. Tracking which wallets are accumulating tokenized stock positions, identifying large memecoin transfers, and watching for patterns among early adopters are all now possible.
The broader market hasn’t reacted dramatically to either the chain launch or the Arkham integration. Initial price movements across related tokens were muted.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
World Foundation získala v prvním uzavření prodeje WLD 52,5 milionu USD; všechny tokeny v tomto kole jsou na rok zamčené. Peníze půjdou na rozvoj World ID pro firmy, spotřebitele i AI agenty.
Pantera Capital led the first close of a WLD sale that the foundation says will push its iris-scanning “proof of human” ID toward enterprises, consumers, and AI agents.
Original Image Credits: FotoField / Shutterstock.com
Posted July 24, 2026 at 4:51 pm EST.
The World Foundation, the nonprofit steward of the Sam Altman co-founded identity project once known as Worldcoin, said Friday it raised an initial $52.5 million in a token sale to strategic investors, with every WLD token in the round locked up for a year.
Pantera Capital led the first close, according to a press release, joined by Bain Capital Crypto, Eightco Holdings, Selini Capital, Susquehanna Crypto and other backers. The foundation said the full 12-month lockup signals a long-term bet rather than a quick flip, and that the money will go toward pushing World ID, its “proof of human” verification system, to organizations, consumers and their AI agents.
A bet on the agentic web World’s pitch is that as AI agents flood the internet, platforms will need a dependable way to tell people apart from machines. Its answer is a one-time iris scan at a physical device called the Orb, which generates an ID that proves someone is a unique human without exposing who they are.
“The need for Proof of Human is becoming acutely clear with the acceleration of AI development, and we see this in the influx of enterprise traction,” said Cosmo Jiang, a general partner at Pantera Capital, in a statement. The foundation said World ID is being wired into platforms including Zoom, Docusign, Okta, Vercel and Tinder this year, and pointed to the enterprise-focused World ID 4.0 it released earlier in 2026.
Scaling as the token lags The raise landed on the three-year anniversary of World’s July 2023 production launch, a stretch in which the network grew to more than 39 million members and over 18 million Orb-verified humans. It also follows the $135 million World sold to Andreessen Horowitz and Bain Capital Crypto in May 2025, when the network counted 26 million users.
Investors committed even as WLD trades around $0.37, roughly 97% below its March 2024 peak.
Tom Lee, a board member of Eightco, the Nasdaq-listed company that holds more than 283 million WLD, said in the release that World’s technology is “among the most important building blocks to secure and verify interactions in an increasingly digital driven world.”
Related Listen: Uneasy Money: Why Token Holders Have No Rights & Why Every DAO ‘Has Failed’
AI-assisted content: This article was produced with the assistance of AI tools and was reviewed, edited, and fact-checked by a member of the Unchained editorial team before publication.
RWAs se poprvé staly největší obchodní třídou na Hyperliquidu, když za týden od 13. do 19. července dosáhly objemu 25,1 miliardy USD, tedy 52 % celkového týdenního objemu.
Perpetual decentralized exchange (DEX) Hyperliquid’s weekly trading volume in tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) exceeded that of all other asset categories combined for the first time.
RWAs generated $25.1 billion in trading volume from July 13 to July 19, accounting for 52% of Hyperliquid’s total weekly volume of $48.2 billion, according to Blockworks data.
“Hyperliquid’s RWA market alone was larger than the combined crypto perpetual volume of every other DEX,” wrote ARK Invest’s research director for digital assets, Lorenzo Valente, in a Thursday X post.
The milestone reflects growing demand for tokenized assets on Hyperliquid. Over the past month, RWA holders grew by 32% to 1.25 million users, while the total value of tokenized RWAs rose by 3.5% to $36.7 billion, according to data aggregator RWA.xyz.
Hyperliquid generated $7.6 million in revenue over the past week, according to DefiLlama. The perp DEX ranked third among crypto applications by weekly revenue, behind stablecoin issuers Tether and Circle, which generated $112 million and $45 million, respectively.
Major “structural shift” for crypto markets: Circle co-founderCrypto-native firms and traditional financial institutions have expanded tokenized asset offerings as they bring more financial assets onto blockchain networks. In March, the NYSE partnered with tokenization platform Securitize to develop blockchain-based stock trading infrastructure with 24/7 trading and settlement.
Circle co-founder and CEO Jeremy Allaire said growing RWA trading on Hyperliquid marks a “major structural shift” in crypto markets, moving “away from speculating on endogenous digital commodities,” in a Friday X post.
Earlier in July, Pantera Capital said perpetual futures could become a dominant trading instrument beyond crypto, as perps offer structural advantages over traditional derivatives, including 24/7 trading, no contract expiries, simpler position management and continuous price discovery.
Hyperliquid’s growth has drawn attention from Wall Street institutions, including NYSE parent Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), whose CEO, Jeffrey Sprecher, urged regulators to create a “level playing field” for launching 24/7 onchain perpetual futures contracts.
Magazine: How Hong Kong is turning tokenized bonds into real market infrastructure
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.
Strategy přepracovala své metriky pro Bitcoin a nově ukazuje „čistý Bitcoin na akcii“, který po odečtení dluhu a preferenčních nároků činí 95 USD na akcii. Firma také uvedla, že její mNAV je nyní 1,02x.
In brief Strategy published new and updated investor metrics, saying its shift from convertible debt toward preferred-equity "digital credit" requires fresh yardsticks. The centerpiece, "net Bitcoin per share," measures the Bitcoin left for common shareholders after $22.3 billion in debt and preferred claims The firm also redefined mNAV under a new metric that restored it to its 1.0x par and recast "amplification" as a roughly 1.5x equity multiplier. Strategy has overhauled the metrics it uses to value its Bitcoin, rolling out a set of new "net" measures that strip out debt and preferred-stock claims to show how much of its stash actually belongs to common shareholders.
New and updated market metrics are live at https://t.co/yIv7IimRdf. As Digital Credit becomes a larger portion of our balance sheet, we've sharpened our precision based on investor feedback. This video walks through what's new and why.
00:00 - Intro to Strategy's new and updated… pic.twitter.com/ndCoDc9PDW
— Strategy (@Strategy) July 23, 2026
In a 30-minute video posted to its investor site, the company's head of investor relations Chaitanya Jain said the metrics had to "evolve" as the business moved "from an era of convertible debt to now a focus on digital credit," and pointed to investor demands for clarity. Executive chairman Michael Saylor put it more grandly, tweeting that, "Bitcoin Capital Markets require a new financial language."
The centerpiece is "net reserve," about $35 billion—what is left after subtracting $22.2 billion in senior claims ($15.5 billion of preferred stock and roughly $6.8 billion of out-of-the-money convertible debt) from Strategy's $57 billion Bitcoin pile (843,775 BTC) and $3.2 billion of cash. Dividing that residual by a new fully diluted share count gives "net Bitcoin per share," which the firm says has risen from $13 (44,000 sats) at the end of 2020 to $95 (143,000 sats)—a 43% compound annual growth rate, against Bitcoin's 16%.
The company also redefined mNAV as MSTR's share price divided by net Bitcoin per share, with the accretion threshold now fixed at 1.0x, and recast "amplification" as an equity multiplier—Bitcoin reserve over net reserve—of about 1.5x. New credit gauges frame the debt-fueled model's sustainability, with a "hurdle rate" of about 10.8% marking Strategy's effective cost of credit, a break-even rate near 3.2%, and a "flow rate" of about −11% that estimates how far Bitcoin could fall before reserves stopped covering debt and dividends.
The overhaul arrives with MSTR under pressure: the stock traded around $93 on Friday, down slightly on the day and far below its 2024 peak, days ahead of second-quarter earnings on July 30. Under the new formula, its mNAV reads right at 1.02x. Measured the old way—against Strategy's gross Bitcoin per share—the stock had looked to trade at a discount; dividing instead by net Bitcoin per share, after the roughly $22 billion of senior claims is stripped out, lifts the same share price to parity. It is Strategy's latest guidance tweak during a bear market that began last October; its flagship preferred share, STRC, still trades below its $100 “par value.”
The firm’s "digital credit" framing traces to a late-June pivot, when Strategy approved a framework for "active capital management" that, for the first time, authorized selling up to $1.25 billion of Bitcoin to top up its cash reserve, cover preferred dividends, and fund buybacks—a formal break from Michael Saylor's long-held "never sell" stance. In the weeks since, the firm has raised cash by selling MSTR stock rather than Bitcoin, sparing its 843,775 BTC stack while diluting common holders.
For now, Strategy's own math says the structure holds—as long as Bitcoin, currently around $64,000 and about 50% below its high, doesn't fall more than roughly 11% a year through the early 2030s.
Daily Debrief NewsletterStart every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
Spotové XRP ETF v USA po prudkém startu prakticky zastavily příliv peněz: týdenní toky spadly z více než 200 milionů USD na jednotky milionů a v červenci byly i nulové dny. Ve fondech je nyní 997 milionů USD čistých aktiv, proti 1,49 miliardy USD kumulativních přílivů.
Eight months ago the XRP ETFs launched faster than any product since Ethereum. The bid has since decayed 99%, from $200 million weeks to zero-flow days, leaving $1.49 billion invested, $997 million remaining, and a recovery thesis outsourced entirely to a Senate vote. Here is the full autopsy of a bid, and what its flatline actually prices.
Summary
US spot XRP ETFs launched in November with $667 million in their first month, reaching $1 billion faster than any crypto product since Ethereum’s funds, on an eight-week inflow streak that ran even while Bitcoin funds bled. The bid then decayed by roughly 99%: weekly flows fell from above $200 million to low single-digit millions, the streak ended July 13, and July’s tape shows zero-flow days punctuated by one $7.29 million outflow, the largest since March. The wreckage is precise: $1.49 billion in cumulative inflows now marks against roughly $997 million in net assets, an unrealized deficit near $493 million, with 82% of assets concentrated in three funds and several products flatlined entirely. The one institutional trophy, Goldman Sachs’s $153.8 million position across four funds, is a December-dated 13F snapshot that Bloomberg analysts read as trading-desk facilitation, inside a complex that remains 84% retail-held. The flows have now stabilized at approximately nothing, which the optimistic read calls a floor, and the recovery case has converged on a single external event: the CLARITY Act vote whose odds trade near a coin flip this week. There is a specific moment in the life of every investment product when its story stops being about demand and starts being about anatomy, and for the US spot XRP ETFs that moment can be dated: Monday, July 13, when the daily flow printed zero and an eight-week inflow streak, the product class’s last living narrative, quietly ended. What launched in November as the fastest-growing crypto fund complex since Ethereum’s, $667 million in month one, a billion dollars faster than anyone forecast, institutional validation in fund form, now trades as a case study. The buyers did not rotate, rebalance, or pause. They stopped: from weeks above $200 million to weeks near $2 million, from streak to zero-days, from launch euphoria to a July whose single best session, $6.78 million, amounts to one percent of the early pace. What remains is $1.49 billion of invested capital marking against $997 million of assets, three funds carrying 82% of everything, and a recovery thesis that no longer references the product at all, only a Senate vote. This piece is the full anatomy: how the bid died, what the wreckage precisely looks like, what the lone institutional trophy in the filings actually shows, and what the flatline, honestly read, prices for the asset underneath it.
The decay curve, dated The complex’s eight months divide into three phases so distinct they could belong to different products.
Phase one, the launch bid, ran from November into the winter: $667 million in the first month across seven issuers, the fastest accumulation to $1 billion since Ethereum’s funds, weekly prints above $200 million, and the statistic the marketing decks will never retire, an inflow streak that persisted through weeks when Bitcoin ETFs bled, which was read at the time as evidence of a distinct, durable XRP allocator base. The reading had support: the products launched into the afterglow of the SEC’s surrender, the commodity classification, and the first wave of bank-desk research initiating coverage with conditional price targets in the double digits.
Phase two, the decay, occupied the spring: weekly flows stepped down from nine figures to eight to seven, May still collected over $100 million for the month, and by June the run-rate had thinned to low single-digit millions per week, a decline of roughly 99% from peak that no single event explains and one variable tracks perfectly, the token’s price, which fell from above $2.40 in January to the $1.10s, converting every earlier allocation into a loss and every allocator’s quarterly review into an uncomfortable meeting. Fund flows follow performance with a lag in both directions; the launch streak was the up-lag, and the decay was the down-lag arriving on schedule.
Phase three, the flatline, is July: six sessions of exactly zero flows in the month’s first half, a $7.29 million single-day outflow on July 9, the largest since March, the streak’s formal end on July 13, then a stretch from July 10 through July 20 of zeros and small positives, crowned by the month’s best day, $6.78 million on July 16, driven by two issuers’ desks. The freshest coverage frames the stabilization as survival, the product has not seen an outflow day since July 9, and the framing is technically true and proportionally absurd: the bid that defined the launch is not resting, it is absent, and its absence has become stable. That is what the anatomy shows. The interesting questions are in the tissue.
The wreckage, itemized Four numbers, current as of this week’s data, describe the complex more honestly than any narrative.
$1.49 billion against $997 million. Cumulative net inflows since launch stand near $1.49 billion; total net assets stand near $997 million, roughly 1.45% of XRP’s market capitalization, with about 971 million XRP in custody. The gap, approximately $493 million, is the unrealized loss the allocator base collectively carries, the arithmetic consequence of buying a token averaging well above $1.50 that now trades near $1.10. Every future flow decision the complex’s holders make is made against that deficit, which is the single most important fact in any forecast of the flows resuming: the marginal buyer is being asked to average down into a product whose existing buyers are 33% underwater on invested capital.
82% in three funds. Bitwise holds $312.8 million in assets on $498.3 million of cumulative inflows; Canary $253.2 million on $467.0 million; Franklin $252.2 million on $415.6 million. Together, the top three hold roughly 82% of complex assets, which means the seven-fund complex is functionally a three-fund market with a long tail of products printing zeros. Category-level flow headlines obscure this: an inflow day increasingly means one or two distribution desks had a decent Thursday, and a diversified institutional bid, the launch thesis, would not produce this shape.
84% retail-held. The complex’s ownership base, per the issuer-side analysis that accompanied the spring’s institutional reporting, remains 84% retail, against 48.8% institutional participation in the comparable Solana products, a gap that quantifies how much of the launch narrative, the institutions are here, was distribution, not description. Which frames the trophy correctly.
The Goldman position, read properly. Goldman Sachs’s 13F disclosed $153.8 million across four XRP funds, roughly $40 million in Bitwise, $38.5 million in Franklin, $38 million in Grayscale, $36 million in 21Shares, making it the largest disclosed institutional holder, accounting for 73% of the top 30 institutions’ combined $211 million. The number did real narrative work all spring, and its caveats are the anatomy lesson: it is a December 31 snapshot, disclosed in March, of positions that may not exist today; Bloomberg’s analysts read the four-fund construction as consistent with trading-desk facilitation and client positioning instead of proprietary conviction; and as this publication’s own guide to how to read the Goldman position argues, the form is a rear-view mirror with a 45-day delay, structurally incapable of showing whether the bank held, added, or exited through the subsequent drawdown. The largest institutional XRP position on record is, read strictly, evidence that Goldman’s clients wanted exposure in December. The flows since are evidence of what everyone wanted after.
The geography of the remaining bid One more layer of the anatomy deserves its own examination, because the aggregate US flow numbers conceal a compositional fact with real information in it: through the American flatline, the marginal bid for exchange-traded XRP exposure migrated abroad.
Through the spring decay, European venues carried a share of global XRP product flows out of proportion to their size, with Swiss and broader European ETP wrappers at times representing the substantial majority of weekly net inflows worldwide while the US complex printed its zeros. The absolute sums are modest, European crypto ETPs are an older, smaller, steadier market, but the composition matters for what it falsifies and what it suggests. It falsifies the strongest form of the exhaustion reading: if the asset’s entire allocator universe were fully purchased, the European bid would have flatlined alongside the American one, and it did not. And it suggests where the marginal buyer actually lives: in jurisdictions where the asset’s legal status was never contested, where MiCA-era frameworks settled classification questions years earlier, and where the products consequently trade as ordinary alternatives allocations, not as bets on a Senate calendar.
Read that way, the geographic split becomes the cleanest natural experiment available on the outsourced thesis. The American flows died in the jurisdiction where the asset’s status remains hostage to legislation; the European flows persisted, modestly, in jurisdictions where it does not. If legal permanence is truly the binding constraint on institutional allocation, the CLARITY experiment has already run abroad, and its result, steady but unspectacular demand, prices the upper bound of what passage realistically unlocks: not the JPMorgan-forecast flood, but a normalization to the European pattern, mid-single-digit millions weekly, compounding quietly, unheroically, forever. That is a real bull case, and it is a fraction of the one being marketed.
The alternative reading restores the American market’s exceptionalism: US wealth-management distribution is an order of magnitude deeper than Europe’s, the RIA channel that turned Bitcoin’s ETFs into a $52 billion complex has no European equivalent, and the launch month’s $667 million showed what that distribution can move when it has a story to sell. On this reading, Europe measures the floor of post-CLARITY demand and America’s launch month measured the ceiling, and the truth, as usual, books a room between them. Either way, the geographic ledger deserves a place in every flow analysis this complex receives, because it is the one dataset showing what XRP demand looks like when Washington is not the variable, and it has been quietly reporting that answer, in Swiss francs, all year.
The regulated-channel counterpoint One dataset complicates the pure decay story, and honesty requires it: while the spot complex flatlined, the regulated derivatives channel set records.
CME’s XRP futures built to a peak of $1.4 billion in open interest with 29 large open-interest holders, a record for the venue, even as total XRP derivatives open interest across all venues collapsed from its $10 billion peak by margins reported between 75% and 96%, a deleveraging that wiped out the offshore, retail-levered complex. The split matters because the two channels answer different questions: aggregate open interest tracks speculative leverage, which is gone, while CME positioning tracks the institutions that clear through Chicago, which grew through the wreckage. The honest synthesis is narrower than either headline: the levered retail market deflated, a smaller regulated market matured, and neither flow bought spot tokens, which is why the ETF shelf and the price both starved while the derivatives venue celebrated. Institutional infrastructure and institutional demand are different things, a distinction this asset’s whole history keeps teaching. For the underlying distribution picture, crypto.news has also mapped the supply map under the products.
What the flatline prices Strip the anatomy to its meaning and three readings compete, with the tape currently endorsing the bleakest.
The floor reading, the optimists’ case, holds that the shakeout is complete: outflows never cascaded, the post-July 9 tape shows zero net redemption, the deficit is carried rather than capitulated, and a stabilized base at $1 billion of assets is the platform a catalyst builds on. Its evidence is real, the complex genuinely did not unwind the way GBTC-era products did, and its weakness is that a floor with no bid above it is just a ledge.
The exhaustion reading holds that the launch consumed the entire natural buyer base: the crypto-native allocators, the RIA early adopters, and the bank desks servicing client curiosity all bought in the first two quarters, at prices 40% above the current market, and no second cohort exists at any price the first cohort’s losses will allow advisers to recommend. On this reading the flatline is not a floor but a completed distribution, and the zero-days are what a fully-sold product looks like.
And the outsourced reading, the one the complex’s own defenders now lead with, holds that the flows return when Washington acts: legal permanence unlocks the institutional allocation the launch never actually contained, the 84% retail share inverts, and the JPMorgan-style first-year forecasts the complex undershot get a second life under a market-structure law. This is the reading that matters, because it is the one being priced, and its honest form is uncomfortable: it concedes the product failed to generate durable demand on its own and converts the entire recovery case into a claim about one bill, whose cloture count stands unresolved this very week, whose passage odds trade near a coin flip, and whose own conditional structure, as this publication’s analysis of the conditional targets riding these flows showed, was already the load-bearing wall under every double-digit XRP forecast. The ETF complex, the price targets, and now the flow-recovery thesis have all converged on the same single point of failure. That is not diversification of catalysts. It is concentration, in a legislature, measured at 41% on Polymarket, and the flatline is what an asset looks like while it waits on it.
What to watch The weekly prints against the zero line. The complex has proven it can avoid outflows; the open question is whether anything above $10 million a week ever returns without a legislative trigger. Sustained mid-eight-figure weeks would falsify the exhaustion reading on their own.
The concentration ratio. Watch whether the three-fund share of assets rises above 82%, consolidation continuing, or whether the tail products show life, the only clean signal of a broadening buyer base instead of two sales desks working.
The CLARITY binary, and the day after. Passage would run the outsourced thesis’s experiment in real time: the flows either arrive within weeks, validating everything, or they do not, which would be the most damaging data point in the asset’s institutional history, because it would exhaust the last explanation. Failure of the bill runs the mirror experiment on the deficit’s holders. That is the event the recovery thesis waits on.
The Q1 13F cycle’s ghosts. The May filings covering the drawdown quarter will show whether Goldman and the top-30 cohort held through the decline. A largely intact institutional roster supports the floor reading; a vanished one completes the anatomy.
Eight months ago the XRP ETFs were the proof that institutional demand existed. The anatomy shows what they actually proved: that distribution existed, that a launch window monetized it, and that demand, the durable kind that buys drawdowns, was never located. The complex now holds $997 million, a $493 million scar, and one hypothesis left to test, scheduled for a Senate floor that has not yet set the time. Products usually die of redemption. This one’s fate is stranger: fully built, fully priced, and waiting, with the rest of its asset class, for Washington to tell it whether the buyers were ever real. For context, crypto.news has explained he flow machinery itself.
Frequently asked questions What happened to the XRP ETF inflows? They decayed roughly 99% from launch. The products drew $667 million in their first month from November and sustained an eight-week inflow streak, but weekly flows fell from above $200 million to low single-digit millions by summer. The streak ended July 13, July logged six zero-flow sessions and a $7.29 million outflow day, and the month’s best session brought just $6.78 million.
How much money is in the funds now, and what is the loss? Cumulative net inflows stand near $1.49 billion, while total net assets are roughly $997 million, about 1.45% of XRP’s market capitalization, with approximately 971 million XRP in custody. The gap of roughly $493 million represents unrealized losses on invested capital, reflecting purchases made at substantially higher token prices than the current $1.10 area.
Which funds dominate the complex? Three of seven: Bitwise with $312.8 million in assets, Canary with $253.2 million, and Franklin with $252.2 million, together roughly 82% of all complex assets. The remaining products frequently print zero daily flows, meaning category-level inflow headlines usually reflect activity at one or two distribution desks, not broad-based demand.
Does Goldman Sachs’s position change the picture? Less than headlines suggested. Goldman’s $153.8 million across four funds, disclosed in its Q4 2025 13F, made it the largest institutional holder, about 73% of the top 30 institutions’ combined exposure. But the filing is a December 31 snapshot published in March, Bloomberg analysts read the construction as trading-desk facilitation rather than directional conviction, and the complex overall remains 84% retail-held.
How does the CME futures record fit the story? As a counterpoint about a different market. CME’s XRP futures reached a record $1.4 billion in open interest with 29 large holders even as total XRP derivatives open interest collapsed as much as 96% from its $10 billion peak. The regulated channel matured while offshore leverage deflated, but neither development bought spot tokens, which is why the ETF flows and the price starved simultaneously.
Is the recent stabilization a positive signal? It is the debated question. Since the July 9 outflow, daily flows have been zero or slightly positive, no redemption cascade has occurred, and the deficit is being carried rather than capitulated, the floor reading. The skeptical reading calls the same tape exhaustion: the natural buyer base fully purchased during launch and no second cohort exists at current prices. The flatline is consistent with both until something moves.
Why does everything now depend on the CLARITY Act? Because every other catalyst has been consumed. The SEC resolution, the launches, and the bank coverage all occurred, and the flows died anyway, leaving legal permanence as the last untested explanation for why institutional allocation has not arrived. The recovery thesis for the flows, the analyst price targets, and the asset’s broader institutional case have converged on the same legislative binary, currently priced near a coin flip.
What should investors watch next? Weekly flows against the zero line, with sustained mid-eight-figure weeks as the falsifier of the exhaustion reading; the three-fund concentration ratio, for any sign of a broadening base; the Q1 13F filings covering the drawdown quarter, to see whether the institutional roster held; and the CLARITY vote itself, whose aftermath in either direction runs the decisive experiment on whether the buyers return. This is not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Flow figures and asset values change daily and reflect data available at the time of writing. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any asset or fund. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 24, 2026.
XRP klesá k krátkodobé podpoře 1,10 USD, zatímco zájem o spotové ETF slábne; týdenní přílivy do čtvrtka činí 8 milionů USD. Ripple zároveň spustil Ripple Mint pro přístup institucí k RLUSD.
Ripple (XRP) slides toward the short-term $1.10 support on Friday, as broader crypto market sentiment weighs on crypto assets. The sell-off mainly stems from fears of inflation in the United States (US) amid the ongoing war in the Middle East and rising Oil prices.
Simon-Peter Massabni, Business Development Head at XS.com, says that digital assets are facing repricing risks due to rising geopolitical tensions and inflation fears.
“Rising oil prices, renewed inflation concerns, shifting expectations for US monetary policy, and continued institutional capital inflows are all shaping market sentiment,” Massabni said in a comment.
Ripple Mint launches to expand RLUSD accessRipple announced the launch of Ripple Mint on Wednesday, a platform providing a unified way for institutions to access, mint, redeem and manage the RLUSD stablecoin.
Ripple Mint was designed to address existing gaps in RLUSD execution by offering access to a user interface with built-in control and oversight. The platform also supports programmatic access to enable automation and system-level integration.
Institutions using Ripple Mint can mint and redeem RLUSD directly from the source, bridge RLUSD across chains, track funds throughout the transaction lifecycle, and integrate RLUSD into their internal systems or workflows.
“This expansion also creates stronger utility between XRP and RLUSD together. As RLUSD becomes available across these environments, XRP will increasingly serve as complementary assets for liquidity, settlement, swaps, collateral, and payments activity across supported chains,” Ripple stated in the press release.
Meanwhile, institutional interest in XRP-related digital assets, such as spot Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs), is fading, as evidenced by muted activity on Wednesday and Thursday. Cumulative weekly inflows stand at $8 million through Thursday, according to SoSoValue.
XRP ETF flows | Source: SoSoValue“In my view, what we are witnessing is not the beginning of a new bearish cycle, but rather a healthy repricing of risk following a strong rally, provided that institutional demand remains intact and does not give way to broad-based selling pressure,” Massabni added.
Price analysis: XRP bears poised to tighten gripXRP trades at $1.11, holding in a corrective phase below key moving averages, which keeps the broader bias bearish despite the recent stabilization. Price action remains capped by the 50-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA) at $1.14, with the Parabolic SAR at $1.07 also positioned above spot and reinforcing overhead pressure.
Momentum is mixed, as the Relative Strength Index (RSI) hovers near a neutral 49 while the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) histogram has turned lower, hinting that bullish attempts are losing traction underneath the dominant downtrend defined by the downward trending moving averages.
XRP/USDT daily chartOn the topside, initial resistance is seen at the Parabolic SAR level around $1.07, followed by the 50-day EMA at $1.14, where a daily close above would be needed to ease immediate downside pressure. Beyond that, the 100-day EMA at $1.23 and the 200-day EMA near $1.43 form a broader supply band that would likely cap any extended recovery unless buyers regain stronger control.
(The technical analysis of this story was written with the help of an AI tool. Know more.)
Ripple FAQs Ripple is a payments company that specializes in cross-border remittance. The company does this by leveraging blockchain technology. RippleNet is a network used for payments transfer created by Ripple Labs Inc. and is open to financial institutions worldwide. The company also leverages the XRP token.
XRP is the native token of the decentralized blockchain XRPLedger. The token is used by Ripple Labs to facilitate transactions on the XRPLedger, helping financial institutions transfer value in a borderless manner. XRP therefore facilitates trustless and instant payments on the XRPLedger chain, helping financial firms save on the cost of transacting worldwide.
XRPLedger is based on a distributed ledger technology and the blockchain using XRP to power transactions. The ledger is different from other blockchains as it has a built-in inflammatory protocol that helps fight spam and distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks. The XRPL is maintained by a peer-to-peer network known as the global XRP Ledger community.
XRP uses the interledger standard. This is a blockchain protocol that aids payments across different networks. For instance, XRP’s blockchain can connect the ledgers of two or more banks. This effectively removes intermediaries and the need for centralization in the system. XRP acts as the native token of the XRPLedger blockchain engineered by Jed McCaleb, Arthur Britto and David Schwartz.
XRP Ledger letos přidal 801 milionů USD v tokenizovaných aktivech v reálném světě a celková hodnota tokenizovaných aktiv na síti vzrostla na 1,319 miliardy USD. Růst táhne hlavně RLUSD.
The XRP ecosystem has welcomed over $800 million worth of distributed real-world assets this year amid the growing tokenization trend on the network.
The tokenization market has continued to grow in 2026, with its total value now exceeding $410 billion. Current data puts the market at $410.70 billion, made up of $36.72 billion in distributed asset value and $373.98 billion in represented asset value.
Growth has been especially strong in the distributed asset segment. At the beginning of the year, distributed asset value, excluding stablecoins, stood at $25.39 billion. It has since risen to $36.72 billion, as interest in tokenization has gained momentum throughout the year.
XRPL Adds Over $800 Million in Distributed RWA The XRP Ledger has also benefited from the growing interest in tokenized assets. As more attention has moved toward the sector, the network has expanded the value of assets issued directly on the ledger.
Data shows that the XRP Ledger now holds $1.319 billion in distributed asset value when stablecoins are included. Without stablecoins, the figure stands at just $323.18 million.
The network began 2026 with $518 million in distributed real-world assets. Since then, that figure has climbed to $1.319 billion, meaning the XRP Ledger has added exactly $801 million in distributed RWAs this year. The increase shows the network’s growing role in the broader tokenization market.
Distributed RWA on XRP Ledger RLUSD Leads the Growth Ripple’s stablecoin, RLUSD, has driven most of the increase in distributed assets on the XRP Ledger. At the start of the year, RLUSD had a market capitalization of $235 million. It has since grown to $896 million, adding $661 million in value during 2026.
Ripple has supported this growth by increasing RLUSD minting on the XRP Ledger while burning more of the stablecoin on Ethereum. As a result, RLUSD now makes up 67.96% of the XRP Ledger’s total distributed asset value.
The stablecoin ecosystem on the network has also continued to expand. Combined stablecoin market capitalization on the XRP Ledger has reached $995 million, bringing it close to the $1 billion mark.
Alongside RLUSD, Braza USDB contributes $69.44 million, BBRL accounts for $12 million, and USDC adds $5.8 million, with several other stablecoins making up the remainder. These assets have played an important role in increasing the ledger’s distributed asset value.
Total RWA on XRP Reaches $5.35 Billion The XRP Ledger’s tokenized asset ecosystem extends beyond distributed assets. When represented asset value is included, the network now supports $5.35 billion in real-world assets, including stablecoins.
Several tokenized products account for much of that value. The largest is JMWH from Justoken, which is worth $2.229 billion. RLUSD follows with $876 million, while the Ondo Short-Term US Government Bond Fund contributes $222 million. The ASENA FIF – Single Tranche product also represents a significant share with $215.7 million.
These figures confirm how quickly the XRP Ledger’s tokenized asset ecosystem has expanded this year. RLUSD has led the growth in distributed assets, while several large tokenized financial products have strengthened the network’s represented asset value.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
Gemini a Bitfinex drží o 658 600 ETH méně, což při ceně kolem 1 880 USD odpovídá asi 1,24 miliardy USD. Zároveň 30denní SMA funding rate na Binance dosáhl přibližně 0,00339, což je šestiměsíční maximum a ukazuje na sílící býčí sentiment.
Ethereum (ETH) reserves are moving in different directions across major cryptocurrency exchanges.
Gemini and Bitfinex have recorded significant outflows, while Binance’s holdings have remained mostly stable, according to CryptoQuant analyst Amr Taha.
658,600 Fewer ETH on Exchanges Data shared by Taha shows Gemini’s Ethereum reserve fell to 384,400 ETH on July 24. This marks its lowest level since March 2024.
Notably, the exchange has lost about 188,600 ETH, or 32.9%, since holding 573,000 ETH on April 23.
Meanwhile, Bitfinex has also seen a major decline. Its Ethereum reserve dropped from 2.71 million ETH on May 11 to 2.24 million ETH. That represents a reduction of roughly 470,000 ETH, or 17.3%.
Meanwhile, Binance’s Ethereum reserves have remained largely unchanged at around 3.8 million ETH during the same period.
Together, Gemini and Bitfinex now hold about 658,600 fewer ETH than before. At Ethereum’s current price of around $1,880, the reduction is worth approximately $1.24 billion.
Taha said that falling exchange balances reduce the amount of ETH immediately available for trading. However, reserve movements alone do not show investor intent or predict Ethereum’s future price direction.
Binance Ethereum Funding Rates Reach Six-Month High as Market Sentiment Improves In a separate market update, Arab Chain highlighted improving sentiment in Ethereum’s derivatives market.
The 30-day simple moving average (SMA) of funding rates for Ethereum perpetual contracts on Binance has risen to approximately 0.00339. This is the highest level in six months, with ETH trading near $1,920.
Funding rates represent the cost traders pay to maintain leveraged positions. A rising positive funding rate usually signals stronger demand for long positions and growing bullish sentiment.
According to Arab Chain, the indicator has reversed after declining for several months. The shift comes as Ethereum has recently recovered in price.
ETH is trading at $1,885, down 2.3% over the past day but remains up 2.56% over the past week. Moreover, the monthly chart shows ETH is up 13%.
Essentially, the move in the derivative markets suggests traders are willing to pay to hold long positions, reflecting expectations that ETH could continue moving higher.
However, Arab Chain noted that funding rates are still below the elevated levels that have historically appeared before major market corrections.
He added that continued increases could signal rising leverage in the market. This may increase the risk of widespread liquidations if Ethereum faces a sharp price decline.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
Verus Ethereum Bridge byl podruhé za něco přes dva měsíce hacknut a přišel asi o 7,54 milionu USD v kryptoměnách. Útočník zneužil stejnou chybu jako v květnu.
The Verus Ethereum Bridge has been targeted by a major security breach for the second time in just over two months, resulting in the theft of approximately $7.54 million in various crypto assets. The incident occurred on July 23 when attackers exploited a vulnerability, once again raising concerns about the security of cross-chain protocols in decentralized finance (DeFi).
Attacker Drains Bridge’s Ethereum ReservesThe breach allowed the attacker to abuse the bridge’s submitImports function, which triggered Ethereum-side payouts without equivalent assets being locked on the Verus blockchain. This vulnerability enabled the unauthorized extraction of funds from the bridge’s reserves.
Blockchain security firm Blockaid and independent researcher exvulsec both confirmed and investigated the exploit. According to on-chain data, roughly 1,137 ETH, as well as tBTC, USDC, USDT, EURC, MKR, and scrvUSD, were drained from the bridge reserves at around 03:45 UTC. The stolen assets were quickly swapped through decentralized exchanges, then consolidated into nearly 3,916 ETH before parts of the funds were routed through Tornado Cash.
Mini dictionary: Tornado Cash, a decentralized non-custodial privacy solution on Ethereum, is designed to break the on-chain link between source and destination addresses, making transaction tracing more difficult.
AssetAmount stolenEstimated valueETH1,137Included in $7.54M totaltBTCUnknownUSDCUnknownUSDTUnknownEURCUnknownMKRUnknownscrvUSDUnknown Investigators noted that by exploiting the same contract, function entry point, and vulnerability as a previous May breach, the attacker bypassed standard cross-chain verification and triggered unbacked payouts, draining several digital assets from Verus’ Ethereum bridge reserves.
Recurring Security Flaws and Recent HistoryThe latest breach revived scrutiny over Verus’ handling of a previous exploit in May, which resulted in an $11.58 million loss. Experts stated that this attack exploited the exact vulnerability from the earlier incident, indicating that core issues may have remained unaddressed. Blockaid observed that while this latest event involved a different attacker wallet, the method and targeted contract remained unchanged.
Following the May attack, the same attacker returned 4,052 ETH—about 75% of the stolen funds—after reaching an agreement with Verus. Despite that partial restitution, the repetition of the exploit has heightened doubts regarding the bridge’s security remediation process.
Experts pointed out that the repeated vulnerability likely resulted from an incomplete technical fix after the earlier breach, leaving Verus exposed to additional attacks. There is growing pressure for the protocol team to publish a thorough incident report and technical breakdown.
Ongoing Investigations and Broader RisksThe Verus incident is one of several recent DeFi bridge attacks highlighted by on-chain monitoring services. Lookonchain reported that combined losses from incidents involving Verus, AFX Trade, and B² Network have climbed to approximately $35.55 million.
Mini dictionary: Lookonchain is an on-chain analytics platform known for monitoring blockchain transactions and identifying patterns related to hacks, large movements, and abnormal activities.
Security analysts explained that bridge protocols are increasingly targeted due to logical flaws in cross-chain messaging mechanisms, which, if exploited, can allow fund withdrawals without equivalent collateralization.
Next Steps for Verus and UsersAmid the investigation, Verus halted all bridge operations but has not announced a compensation plan or released a detailed technical report. The absence of a clear official explanation has drawn criticism from the user community.
Observers expect the Verus team to prioritize closing the technical vulnerability, improve their validation process, and offer a roadmap to locate and potentially recover missing assets. Until these steps are made public, scrutiny around trust and transparency in the protocol will likely continue.
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.
ADA dnes klesla o 3,74 % na 0,167 USD, zatímco Charles Hoskinson varuje, že Trumpovy vazby na krypto brzdí schválení CLARITY Act. Senát může hlasování odložit až po srpnu.
Cardano (ADA) price is down by 3.74% today, July 24, to trade at $0.167 at the time of writing. This drop comes as Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson warns that President Trump’s ties to the crypto sector are delaying the passage of the CLARITY Act bill.
Besides Cardano, the rest of the crypto market remains down today, July 24, after the Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that the CLARITY bill might not pass before August.
Charles Hoskinson Sounds CLARITY Act Warning In a recent post on X, Hoskinson revealed that the debate around the CLARITY Act has been reduced to three talking points: crypto, Trump, and corruption.
He says that Trump’s ties to the crypto sector, including the recent disclosure that he made $1.4 billion in profit from crypto activities in 2025, will continue to push Democratic senators away from voting for the CLARITY Act and all other crypto bills.
“The process was mismanaged, and it led to this talking point. No progress can be made if crypto is partisan,” the Cardano founder said.
Hoskinson’s remarks come as Senator Elizabeth Warren asks Trump to disclose any profits that he has made from crypto since July 15. Warren says that the disclosure should come before Senate can vote on CLARITY Act.
Democratic Senators also argue that the White House concessions on ethics rules are not enough, saying that state Attorneys General, and not the DoJ, should ensure that the President does not issue digital assets.
Cardano Price Tests Ascending Channel Support Amid Selling Pressure The price of Cardano has been moving within a rising channel since July 14. This channel suggests that ADA has been on an uptrend for ten days.
But ADA is now testing the support at the lower boundary of the rising channel. If it closes below this support, it will suggest that ADA price is about to start a downtrend, and the price could drop to the psychological support of $0.15.
The RSI reading of 42 supports a bearish long-term Cardano price prediction. The RSI line is also creating a lower low on the four-hour chart, suggesting that the selling pressure is rising.
ADA/USDT: 4H Chart (Source: TradingView) The AO bars that are red and negative also suggest that bears are tightening their grip, and this further strengthens a bearish case of a move to $0.15.
Whales Scoop 30M ADA After Van Rossem Upgrade Whales have scooped 30 million Cardano tokens despite the recent decline in price, per analyst Ali Charts.
The purchases come after the Van Rossem hard fork went live on Cardano to pave the way for the Leios upgrade that will make the network 60 times faster.
Still, Hoskinson notes that Cardano and other blockchain networks need to improve their security and prevent hacks, failure to which the crypto industry could die within 15 years.
His remarks come after a recent hack on the Wanchain bridge that links Cardano to BNB Chain.
The SecondFi protocol is also shutting down after being hacked in June with this marking the third project on Cardano to shut down after TapTools and JPG Store.
Cardano bylo za posledních 30 dní pátým nejrychleji rostoucím blockchainem podle hodnoty RWA. Tokenizovaná aktiva na síti vzrostla o 23,1 % na 55,3 milionu USD.
Cardano has emerged as one of the fastest-growing blockchains for real-world assets (RWAs), reinforcing its expanding role in the rapidly evolving tokenization sector.
According to data shared by the RWA Foundation, citing Token Terminal, Cardano ranked as the fifth fastest-growing blockchain by RWA value over the past 30 days. During the period, the value of tokenized real-world assets on the network surged 23.1% to $55.3 million.
The ranking tracks month-over-month growth in RWA value across leading blockchain ecosystems, providing insight into where tokenized assets are expanding at the fastest pace.
Cardano Outpaces Several Larger RWA Ecosystems Despite hosting a smaller RWA market than several competing networks, Cardano outperformed many established blockchains in terms of growth.
For instance, Avalanche recorded a 22.6% increase, even though it maintains one of the largest RWA ecosystems at $2.5 billion. Sonic followed with 22.1% growth, bringing its RWA value to $124.2 million.
Meanwhile, Fraxtal expanded 18.4% to $39 million, while BNB Chain, which hosts the largest RWA market among the ranked blockchains at $9.2 billion, posted a 16.5% monthly increase. TON completed the top 10 with 6.4% growth, lifting its RWA value to $670.4 million.
Notably, four blockchain networks recorded even stronger monthly RWA growth. Robinhood Chain dominated the rankings with an extraordinary 11,416.2% surge, increasing its RWA value to $323.7 million. Tempo claimed second place with 74.3% growth, followed by Monad at 36.7% and Plume Network at 35.7%.
Cardano Ranks Among Fastest-Growing Blockchains in July Charles Hoskinson Says RWA Could Spur Crypto Growth The real-world asset sector continues to gain momentum as analysts project it could evolve into a multi-trillion-dollar industry over the coming years.
Specifically, Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has projected that the RWA market could reach $10 trillion by 2030, fueled by the tokenization of traditional financial assets. He expects tokenized real-world assets to account for a substantial share of the crypto industry’s growth before the end of the decade.
Cardano Expands Its Presence in RWA Tokenization As the RWA market grows, Cardano continues to position itself as a key infrastructure provider for asset tokenization.
Recently, the network participated in an initiative involving the London Stock Exchange, which introduced the MCM Fund I from Members Capital Management (MembersCap). While the investment was recorded on the London Stock Exchange’s private blockchain, Archax tokenized the fund on the Cardano blockchain.
Cardano has also continued to strengthen its RWA ecosystem through strategic partnerships. Earlier this year, Kinka partnered with EMURGO to issue gold-backed tokens on Cardano. In addition, EMURGO collaborated with compliant tokenization platforms, including Haus, OpenEden, and DigiFT, to bring tokenized assets such as private credit, U.S. government bonds, and insurance factoring onto the network.
DisClamier: This content is informational and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author's personal opinions and do not reflect The Crypto Basic opinion. Readers are encouraged to do thorough research before making any investment decisions. The Crypto Basic is not responsible for any financial losses.
Circle čelí ve Wisconsinu trestnímu obvinění za to, že neprovedla soudní příkaz ke konfiskaci USDC spojeného s podvodem. Úřady tvrdí, že měla provést „burn and reissue“ za asi 381 000 USD.
Circle is facing criminal charges in Wisconsin because, in relation to some investment fraud, "Circle Internet Financial LLC has declined to repatriate the corresponding fiat reserves" and "Circle has not complied with a Circuit Court Judge’s seizure warrant."
Law enforcement secured a seizure warrant which Circle will not enforce. Circle claims they cannot enforce it. The government is charging Circle for declining to enforce it. Whatever is going on: everyone agrees Circle is not currently enforcing it.
This column has a long history of pulling entertaining and contradictory bits out of company public statements and (usually much later) legal settlements where those companies got caught doing something they were not supposed to do. Much of the time the company in question made explicit statements that it would not do the conduct it eventually admitted doing. And much of the time those public statements were contemporaneous with the bad conduct. But we only found out they were lying years later.
Here we have the rare opportunity to work through seemingly-false statements made by a company during a public dispute with law enforcement in real time. So that is what we are going to do. Some of this was covered by the ICIJ but we think their narrative is too generous towards Circle.
Some BackgroundTether routinely seizes funds for law enforcement. Tether has the power to transfer USDT out of your address and burn them without your knowledge or consent. So to seize funds Tether just burns tokens from anywhere and then issues fresh replacement USDT to whatever address law enforcement wants. In theory Tether could also take the funds back from law enforcement — the same process can be used for any address — though that has not yet happened. Tether has had these powers for many years. Nothing is this paragraph is new or controversial.
Circle is a little bit different. Circle does not currently have a seize function in their tokens. Both Tether and Circle can freeze funds – immobilizing them in an address – but Circle's current smart contracts do not support seizure. Circle routinely freezes tokens but it does not seize them. This is presumably what Circle was referring to when it told the Walworth County Circuit Court:
Beyond the ability to blocklist wallets, however, Circle has no control of USDC held in third-party wallets and has no ability to invalidate and reissue such USDC or to transfer them.The key words here are "has no control" and "has no ability." Circle uses the conjunction "and" meaning Circle believes both of those claims to be independently true. If Circle has any way to wrangle invalidation then Circle made a false statement to the court. Given invalidation we know reissuance is possible because once you invalidate the "bad" tokens the reissuance is just issuance. Which happens all the time. So the threshold question here is whether Circle can "invalidate" USDC in an address specifed by law enforcement.
Circle's PowersCircle cannot currently invalidate USDC and seize funds. But Circle can upgrade USDC to have whatever functionality it desires. So it cannot follow this roadmap to comply with a seizure order:
Seize the fundsBut absolutely it can comply with this roadmap:
Upgrade USDC to allow seizureSeize the fundsIn a strange turn, Circle told the government the required process to seize the funds was as follows. And bear in mind we are quoting Circle's own court filing here so this is presumably a generous phrasing from Circle's perspective:
Circle also communicated to Detective Kuchta that (1) the address was not held at Circle; (2) Circle did not have the private keys for the address; (3) Circle could not, therefore, transfer USDC from the wallet; and (4) to recover the USDC for the victim law enforcement would need to locate the private keys for the address. By telling the police to go find the private keys Circle is being, well, let's call it intransigent. Actually, no, let us be a bit more direct (with apologies to Andy Samberg and Justin Timberlake). Circle looks to prefer these steps:
Get charged for no function to seizeMoan how it sucks to seizePut in a function to seizeThat’s the way they do it. Circle is being a...go watch the video in that last link.
It is hardly a secret Circle can upgrade the USDC contracts so it looks pretty likely this capability will eventually come up in court and the judge will sort Circle out. Circle's terms also provide the company with incredibly broad discretion to deny anyone access at any time and in any manner at all for pretty much any reason. This text is in the Acceptable Use Policy describing a list of things you are not allowed to do with USDC and which might lead Circle to cut you off:
For clarity, the following lists are not exhaustive and we may, at our sole discretion, modify them without notice.So Circle can decide anything it likes is out of bounds. And that document covers:
services provided by Circle Internet Financial, LLC, Circle Payments, LLC, Circle UK TradingLimited and/or Circle International Bermuda Limited (together, “Circle”), inclusive of, but not limited to, Circle Mint account,Application Programming Interface products, card processing, and the Circle Yield offering (together and separately, the “Services”), The "but not limited to" would seem to provide sufficient cover to enforce a court order by including whatever corners of Circle's operation are needed to effect the required upgrades. Remember: in this case a court is telling Circle to do something and Circle is not doing it. Maybe you think reading that clause in such a broad manner is squirrely. Sure, maybe. But that is a problem when a strained reading is used to evade a court or the clear intent of a contract or some other agreement. In the present case not reading these powers broadly led to criminal charges and is, in a real and on-going sense, blocking enforcement of a court order. Using this ambiguity to comply with the court is not going to anger the court. Certainly not any more than the current behaviour will.
Circle's Terms vs. ActionsIn Circle's documentation the company anticipates that court orders may come in to request asset freezes. There is an Access Denial Policy which sets out the freeze framework. And there is even a section entitled "Blocked Addresses & Forfeited Funds" in the USDC Terms. That later section includes this text:
Circle may also be required to freeze USDC and/or surrender associated USD held in Segregated Accounts in the event it receives a legal order from a valid government authority requiring it to do so.This anticipates the idea that a court order may mandate sending USD somewhere the court directs. The word "forfeited" appears in a section heading. And if we look at the government's description in Wisconsin we find something very much on point:
The Court’s Warrant ordered Circle to “facilitate the seizure” of Victim #1’s USDC and invalidate that USDC so that it had no value. The Warrant then ordered Circle to issue approximately $381,000 in new USDC to compensate Victim #1 and transfer that new USDC to a digital wallet owned by the Walworth County Sheriff’s Department. This procedure is known as “burn and reissue”."Facilitate the seizure" is a broad directive. The court is not telling Circle precisely how to satisfy the court's desires. The court is simply saying "find a way to do this." And Circle's on-the-record response is weird. Above we quoted Circle's broad claim of "no ability." The government's narrative gives a bit more colour there too:
In subsequent discussions, Circle’s representatives have explained that the company holds approximately $381,000 in US Currency in reserve to cover the value of Victim #1’s USDC, even though that USDC cannot be redeemed by anyone for US Currency because Circle froze it. Circle protested that if it issued $381,000 worth of new USDC, it would also have to hold an additional $381,000 in US Currency to cover the new USDC. Circle objected that it would be unfair for the company to have to set aside that much US Currency in reserve. Circle also stated that by the terms of its own contracts, it will not “burn and reissue” USDC.This is some twisted logic. Circle seems to believe it is required to maintain backing for all USDC, frozen or not, and that because it currently cannot burn and reissue USDC this would require holding double reserves for the recovered amount and that – the double reserving Circle just imposed on itself – is unfair.
We will immediately concede that double reserving here is unreasonable and dumb. But the double reserving is only "required" if we accept Circle's claim it cannot do the burn and reissue. This is a strained attempt for Circle to look like the victim. Possibly so that Circle can continue to collect interest on the US$381,000 in reserves it holds against the frozen tokens
Said another way: Circle's protest assumes Circle will not use its power to upgrade the USDC to allow seizures. We know this is Circle's thinking because, again quoting the Wisconsin government:
Circle also stated that by the terms of its own contracts, it will not “burn and reissue” USDC.This is weird. The word "reissue" does not appear on circle.com, as of this writing, per a number of searches. And the USDC Risk Factors also include a section entitled "Blocked Addresses & Forfeited Funds" so this is puzzling. If we read the reference to "its own contracts" in that last quote from Circle as pertaining to the USDC smart contracts it is again true in a literal-and-useless sense. By the terms of the currently deployed smart contracts there is no reissue power. But by the terms of those same contracts Circle can simply change the contracts.
Circle looks to be playing games so it can collect interest on frozen USDC forever. Holding frozen scam-related funds forever and keeping the interest is an interesting business model.
ContractsIf you have ever entered into any sort of commercial agreement you have probably seen clauses that allow someone to modify the terms under extreme circumstances and maybe also in a "commercially reasonable manner" if the need arises. Most contracts contemplate the idea that things can change and some amount of flexibility is required. For example, a company may change its office address. Or it may change where it banks. Or any number of other things. If you enter into a contract which includes bank details and the other party changes where it banks that does not mean you automatically can stop paying. If the company tells you where to send the money instead you cannot just decide to terminate the contract (unless it is a very strange contract indeed).
Similarly, you might enter into a contract based on some published reference price – think oil or gold or a commercial property index or some interest rate benchmark – and the name of that thing might change. Or where or how it is published might change. Someone is supposed to keep things up to date in a commercially reasonable manner. There is standard verbiage for this in many industries and if you end up in court the judge will make you do the sensible thing. Yes there are corner cases. But the Circle mess is really quite simple. Circle's term look to allow for enforcement here. And there is a simple sequence of steps Circle can follow to do the enforcement. None of this makes much sense.
Circle looks to be trying to interpret things in an incredibly narrow and self-serving way to manufacture an injury Circle would suffer if it complied. And then to moan that imagined injury is unfair. If we go back to Circle's own words to the court this is clearly exactly what they are doing:
The Complaint’s sole allegation regarding Circle’s intentional disobedience is that “Circle...refused to invalidate the stolen USDC or issue new USDC,” Compl. ¶ 9. But the Complaint clearly misrepresents the content of the relevant communication. Circle did not “refuse” to invalidate the stolen USDC; it stated that it “does not hold the private keys to the address.” Compare Compl. ¶ 9 with Ex. 6. That is an accurate statement that Circle lacked the tools required to “invalidate” the USDC held in the Blocklisted Wallet, not an intentional refusal to comply with the terms of the Second Warrant.Circle was directed to "facilitate the seizure" of the funds. And then Circle asserts it did not refuse to invalidate the USDC in question – its just that Circle has no button labelled "seize" to press. But Circle did refuse to upgrade the USDC contracts to add a seize button.
Circle also presented the total non-sequitur that it "does not hold the private keys to the address" of the fraud-linked funds. This is also arguable. It is true in the sense that Circle does not hold the fraudster's private keys. But the term "private keys" is not being used in a technically precise sense here because there are two sets of private keys that can move the funds. The term "private keys" as used here connotes control over funds. And so long as Circle has the private keys to upgrade USDC it has one set of private keys that can facilitate a seizure out of the addresses in question. Remember: USDC and USDT are not true bearer assets. The issuers retain a lot of control over "your" funds.
Maybe you think we are giving the authorities too much credit and we should interpret the claim in narrow technical terms? Under that reading, you may be thinking, it is not Circle's problem the government asked for the wrong thing. We have sympathy for this sentiment. But there is a bigger problem. If we interpret everything in these documents in narrow technical terms Circle is wrong that it has "no ability to invalidate and reissue such USDC or to transfer them." It has the ability to do this by upgrading the contract to give itself the ability. This falsity then gives rise to a litany of other false claims including:
Circle "would also have to hold an additional $381,000 in US Currency to cover the new USDC": false because once Circle has burn power there is no need to double reserve. And that is if we accept the need in the first place as Circle can simply declare the address outlaw and ignore it.Circle also stated that by the terms of its own contracts, it will not “burn and reissue” USDC: this is at most a policy Circle can revise in its sole discretion. And having a policy to defy court orders is pretty much exactly what Circle is charged with here.Circle has no control of USDC held in third-party wallets: false because in a technical sense Circle has more than "no" control via contract upgradability. It has, and we apologize for the technobabble here, "some" control.Circle...has no ability to invalidate: false via upgradability.Circle...has no ability to...reissue such USDC or to transfer them: false via upgradability.If we read the claims in the dispute broadly: Circle is not being candid. If we read the claims narrowly: Circle is not being honest. Unless Circle has somehow lost the ability to upgrade USDC – which would be a far larger problem if kept hidden for so long – we just cannot see a way they are telling the truth here. Maybe there is one but there is certainly no hint of such an explanation in the court filings to date.
Circle's Principled ResistanceWhat makes this even stranger: Circle's terms also contemplate circumstances in which the company will resist court orders. But that too does not fit what is happening here. Again from the Access Denial document:
Circle reserves all rights to object to an access denial order that presents a threat to Circle Stablecoin or that Circle determines is objectionable.USDC holders do not have any rights or derive any value from this. But it presumably empowers the company to do what it is doing in Wisconsin now without worrying about shareholders suing anyone for resisting court orders. The US legal system is adversarial and Circle is 100% entitled to resist government requests and to challenge orders. Within the US system. Telling law enforcement to go pound sand after the judge rules is not something Circle is entitled to.
It is certainly possibly Circle views anything that reduce's Circle's interest income as objectionable. There is a logical, if wacky, corporate theory here: "We prefer to hold frozen assets indefinitely to maximize shareholder value. We view this as part of our fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Victims are not shareholders sorry." Probably no company wants to come out and say that. But it is true that public companies have a responsibility to shareholders and not victims. They also have a responsibility to judges and to shareholders to not egregiously defy judges. So it is all kind of mixed together there.
Now notice the seizure warrant requests Circle is fighting here date back to August 2025. Multiple seizure warrants have been issued. And Circle has been communicating false claims to Wisconsin officials for many months now. Criminal charges were filed in April 2026. Circle moved beyond objecting to an access denial order to simply refusing to follow one after multiple rounds of back and forth. This happened over many months.
We accept it is possible to read these most recent actions as part of resisting the order. And maybe law enforcement jumped the gun with criminal charges. But it is kind of hard to credit Circle here and think ongoing negotiations without criminal charges would go anywhere. Circle has stated clearly that it cannot comply for technical reasons. Circle claims it is impossible to do what the court wants. But those claims are plainly false (or Circle is covering up something worse). For negotiations to go anywhere Circle would need to concede it was wrong or the police would need to stop asking for seizure. That looks like a stalled negotiation to us.
If Wisconsin officials were demanding Circle seize USDT then we would certainly feel for Circle. Circle is not omnipotent. There are plenty of web3 things Circle cannot do. And, obviously, it is possible for law enforcement to order someone to do something that is technically impossible for them to do. This is true of anyone and any law enforcement unit anywhere in the world. Try this one: a court could issue an order for a witness to not die before a trial. That would not have the effect of conveying immortality on the witness. Law enforcement can be wrong. But here, today, Circle is wrong.
The court wants Circle to do something that Circle can do. So we are going to make two predictions. First, Circle will eventually comply. And second, Circle will blame confusion between the legal and engineering teams for the false statements. The court should not accept that explanation. We kind of hope Circle tries the shareholder value line too. If someone says "victims are not shareholders and our fiduciary responsibility is to shareholders" that will just be too amazing for words. As odd as that outcome seems remember a listed US company is currently engaged in a dispute with law enforcement in Wisconsin in which the listed US company is just straight-up lying. This is all incredibly odd.
We have long predicted the lawyers would need to throw the engineers under the bus at some point. Honk honk.
Licensed to Shill: Retail Barely Touches Stablecoins – Treasury & Remittance Are the Real Adoption (Jeannie Lim, Xweave)
At Xweave, Jeannie Lim says her team moved $1 million for an e-commerce client in under three minutes, cutting settlement costs 30% against a Tier 2 bank’s SWIFT rate.
Lien Finance přišla kvůli chybě v logice směny bond tokenů přibližně o 542 144,63 USDC. Útočník vytvořil nekryté bond tokeny a vyčerpal likviditu protokolu.
Lien Finance lost approximately 542,000 USDC due to a vulnerability in the bond token exchange logic. The attacker exploited this flaw to create unbacked assets and drain the protocol’s liquidity. Security researchers stated that this vulnerability allowed new tokens to be minted and exchanged for real liquidity without destroying the bond tokens.
Technical Details of the Attack Blockchain security firm SlowMist announced that the attack targeted Lien Finance’s bond exchange mechanism. The attacker used the exchangeEquivalentBonds function in the BondMakerCollateralizedEth contract to create bond tokens without destroying the input bonds and then exchanged them for USDC. This resulted in the withdrawal of approximately 542,144.63 USDC. SlowMist stated that the attack occurred because the bond groups were not sufficiently verified during the exchange. The wallet address used by the attacker was identified as 0x0d7d…1808a.
Protocol Weaknesses and Their Consequences On-chain analysis by DefimonAlerts revealed the attack occurred due to permissionless bond registration and pricing vulnerabilities. The attacker created bonds containing a malicious payment function by registering a new batch of bonds through the BondMakerCollateralizedEth contract. These bonds were routed to Lien Finance’s OTC pools and replaced with actual USDC liquidity. Following the attack, several contracts were affected, including Lien Finance’s GeneralizedDotc contract.
This incident adds another vulnerability to the recently increasing number of security breaches in DeFi protocols. In July, other protocols also suffered similar attacks, resulting in losses totaling millions of dollars. Lien Finance has not yet released a detailed technical report following this attack. Researchers note that such attacks stem from weaknesses in the protocol’s pricing and validation logic.
Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!
Samsung Wallet začne podporovat stablecoiny, včetně USDC. Firma to oznámila na Galaxy Unpacked 2026 jako součást sjednocení plateb, odměn a digitálních aktiv.
Samsung just made stablecoins a default feature of its mobile wallet. At Galaxy Unpacked 2026 on July 22, the company announced that Samsung Wallet will integrate native stablecoin support, with USDC among the expected options. The move effectively puts digital dollars alongside tap-to-pay, boarding passes, and loyalty cards in the pockets of hundreds of millions of Galaxy device owners.
What Samsung actually announced The stablecoin integration was revealed as part of a broader push to make Samsung Wallet a unified hub for payments, rewards, and digital assets. Samsung framed it as a “secured payments and rewards experience.”
The company hasn’t confirmed a specific launch date for the stablecoin feature. It also hasn’t officially locked in which stablecoins will be supported beyond the strong signals pointing toward USDC, Circle’s regulated dollar-pegged token.
Advertisement
The announcement didn’t happen in isolation. Samsung simultaneously unveiled the Galaxy Card, a credit card issued by Barclays and running on the Visa network, targeting US users with tiered cash-back rewards.
In 2025, the company partnered with Coinbase to give millions of US Galaxy users access to cryptocurrency services directly through their devices. That collaboration laid the groundwork for what’s coming next, essentially graduating Samsung Wallet from a non-custodial blockchain wallet with basic crypto access into something closer to a full-featured digital asset platform.
What this means for investors For Circle, the company behind USDC, this partnership could strengthen its position ahead of any potential IPO or public market activity.
There are risks worth noting. Regulatory frameworks for stablecoins remain a work in progress in many jurisdictions. Samsung will need to navigate varying compliance requirements across its global markets, which could limit the feature’s availability to certain regions initially. The US market, where the Galaxy Card is launching alongside the Barclays partnership, is the likely first target.
The 2025 Coinbase partnership gave Samsung a foundation in crypto services, but stablecoin integration represents a fundamentally different proposition. Offering users the ability to buy Bitcoin through a partner app is one thing. Embedding dollar-equivalent digital currency into the core wallet experience is another.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Coinbase has rolled out direct USDC-BRL trading and conversion for users in Brazil, giving the country’s crypto-curious population a cleaner on-ramp between the Brazilian real and the world’s second-largest stablecoin.
The feature is live on Coinbase’s dedicated Brazilian platform at coinbase.com/en-br, where users can access real-time conversion tools, trade USDC against BRL, and, in some cases, earn yield on their holdings. Promotional rewards of up to 7% annually on USDC are part of the offering.
Why Brazil, why now USDC, issued by Circle, is pegged one-to-one to the US dollar. As of late July 2026, one USDC converts to approximately R$5.08-5.10. For Brazilian users, holding USDC is functionally like holding digital dollars, without needing a US bank account or dealing with traditional forex friction.
Coinbase launched its dedicated Brazilian platform on January 23, 2026, laying the groundwork for this kind of localized feature set. Earlier reports from 2025 had flagged limitations in BRL transaction support on the exchange, so the USDC-BRL integration represents a clear upgrade from where things stood just 18 months ago.
Advertisement
Direct fiat-to-stablecoin conversion eliminates a step that previously required users to either buy Bitcoin or Ethereum first and then swap into USDC, or use a third-party service to bridge the gap.
The stablecoin playbook in emerging markets For Coinbase specifically, Brazil represents one of only a handful of regions where the exchange has explicitly built out USDC trading and conversion infrastructure.
Brazil’s regulatory landscape passed its landmark crypto regulatory framework in 2023, and the central bank has been actively developing its own digital currency, the Drex.
The 7% annual yield promotion on USDC is worth pausing on. A dollar-denominated yield product adds a layer of currency diversification on top of the return itself, providing both yield and a hedge against real depreciation simultaneously.
What this means for investors and the competitive landscape Coinbase isn’t operating in a vacuum here. Binance, Mercado Bitcoin, and other exchanges have been aggressively courting Brazilian users for years. Binance in particular has built deep roots in the country, with BRL payment integrations and localized support that predates Coinbase’s dedicated Brazilian platform launched January 23, 2026.
Brazil’s crypto framework is still relatively young, and the central bank’s Drex project could eventually introduce a government-backed digital alternative that competes directly with private stablecoins like USDC.
The 7% promotional rate on USDC is tied to what Circle can earn on the reserves backing the stablecoin. If global interest rates decline, so do the yields that make these products compelling.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
Augur vyzval držitele REP k povinné migraci 1:1 do 1. srpna 2026, jinak legacy tokeny přestanou sledovat aktivní protokol a mohou ztratit ekonomickou hodnotu.
All REP holders must migrate their tokens by August 1, 2026, to remain part of the active Augur ecosystem Augur, one of Ethereum’s earliest decentralized prediction-market and oracle projects, today announced that the second and final phase of its Moon Fork is entering its final days, with the two-month migration window for all holders of its REP token closing on August 1.
REP holders must migrate their tokens 1:1 into an outcome-specific version of REP by August 1, 2026. Migration is one-way and irreversible. Tokens that remain in the legacy Augur universe after the window closes will no longer be able to follow the active protocol and are likely to lose their economic value. After that point, unmigrated REP can no longer be converted.
Migration tooling is available through Augur’s official fork interface at 6.augurfork.eth.limo, together with a step-by-step guide and frequently asked questions.
The fork is a live demonstration of how a decentralized system can defend a truthful outcome without any central authority ruling on the result. That security depends on participation: REP only protects the protocol when its holders act.
A live test of Augur’s economic security model The Moon Fork began on April 8 with an intentionally escalated dispute over the question: Did the Artemis II mission successfully lift off in the first week of April?
The dispute was initiated by longtime Augur community member Micah Zoltu to test the protocol’s full resolution process under real economic conditions. The correct outcome was “Yes.”
The process was designed to test the mechanism from beginning to end, including participant incentives, capital formation, dispute escalation and token migration. Augur entered the fork after enough REP was committed across successive dispute rounds to activate the protocol’s final resolution backstop.
The fork consists of two phases.
Phase one: The escalation game From April through early June, REP holders could stake on competing answers through a series of increasingly expensive dispute rounds.
Each round required more capital than the one before it. Participants staking on the ultimately accepted outcome were eligible to earn a return funded by the losing side, creating a financial incentive for the wider market to oppose manipulation.
“Most people will interact with Augur during the escalation game, which lets outcomes battle it out by seeing who can raise more money. The losers pay out the winners. Since it’s easier to raise money on an outcome people believe to be true, that’s the one with the advantage. So in this phase we try to outspend the attacker, and if we can’t, we go to phase two,” said Phill Monastirsky, co-founder of the Lituus Foundation, which stewards Augur.
The escalation process continued until the dispute reached Augur’s fork threshold. Phase one is now complete.
Phase two: Mandatory REP migration The protocol has now split into separate outcome-specific universes. Every REP holder must choose a universe and migrate their REP into the corresponding token.
“Failing to outspend the attacker, we now try to maximize their cost by forcing them into a worthless token,” said Phill. “The protocol splits into tokens corresponding to the possible outcomes, with 51% required to win. Since future Augur fees only continue on the truthful token, the attacker is forced to move 51% of the token supply into something worthless. In the Augur Lituus design, this rises to near 100%. As long as it costs them more to do that than they gain from misresolving the market, we are safe.”
Future official Augur development funded by the Lituus Foundation will continue on the universe corresponding with the truthful outcome: that Artemis II successfully lifted off during the period specified by the market.
The Foundation has migrated its own holdings and added liquidity to the corresponding token.
What REP holders need to do REP holders should take the following steps before August 1:
Hold REP in a self-custodied Ethereum wallet or confirm that their exchange will support the migration Visit 6.augurfork.eth.limo/#/migration Connect the wallet holding REP Migrate REP 1:1 into the outcome-specific token corresponding with the truthful result Confirm receipt of the new REP token in the connected wallet Migration cannot be reversed once completed.
REP held on centralized exchanges may require action by the exchange rather than the individual user. The Lituus Foundation has been working with exchanges to support migration on behalf of their users. Kraken has confirmed support; other exchanges have not, and holders should not assume support unless their exchange states it explicitly. Current exchange-support status is maintained at v3.augur.net/#exchange-support.
Exchange support may change during the migration period. Holders who cannot confirm support should withdraw their REP to a self-custodied wallet and complete the migration directly.
Why the fork matters Prediction-market platforms ultimately depend on a resolution process to determine which outcome occurred and where funds should be paid.
Many systems rely on companies, committees, token votes, multisigs or discretionary intervention. Augur was designed around a different model: an open economic process in which participants can challenge an outcome and are financially rewarded for defending the result the broader market recognizes as true.
When a dispute reaches the fork stage, REP separates into tokens associated with each possible outcome. Holders decide which universe will carry the protocol’s future economic activity by migrating into it.
The design shifts the security question away from whether a sufficiently wealthy attacker can temporarily influence a vote. Instead, it asks whether an attacker is willing to acquire and sacrifice enough REP to support a false universe that users, developers and liquidity providers may subsequently abandon.
Demonstrating the mechanism behind Augur’s next chapter The Moon Fork is testing Augur v2’s dispute architecture. Future implementations will differ from the original system, but the live exercise demonstrates the escalation-and-fork pattern underpinning Augur’s continuing oracle research.
That work includes Augur Lituus, a proposed modular resolution layer designed to allow prediction markets and other applications to outsource disputed real-world outcomes to an open, economically secured oracle.
The Lituus Foundation is funding continued work on Augur’s decentralized resolution infrastructure. The prediction-market platform under development through the separate Dark Florist workstream is expected to support the branches created through the fork, rather than the legacy unmigrated REP token.
The live migration provides a practical demonstration of Augur’s core thesis: a prediction market should not depend on any single party having the authority to declare what happened.
Important migration information Migration deadline: August 1, 2026
Migration ratio: 1:1
Migration status: Mandatory for holders who want to remain part of the active Augur ecosystem
Migration direction: One-way and irreversible
Migration portal: 6.augurfork.eth.limo/#/migration
Holders should consult the official migration interface and Augur channels for the latest technical instructions and exchange-support updates.
About Augur Augur is a decentralized prediction-market and oracle project originally built on Ethereum. Its dispute system uses open participation and economic incentives, with algorithmic forking as a final backstop, to resolve contested real-world outcomes.
About the Lituus Foundation The Lituus Foundation stewards the revival and continued development of Augur. The Foundation supports open-source development carrying Augur’s oracle research and engineering forward.
Disclaimer: TheNewsCrypto does not endorse any content on this page. The content depicted in this Press Release does not represent any investment advice. TheNewsCrypto recommends our readers to make decisions based on their own research. TheNewsCrypto is not accountable for any damage or loss related to content, products, or services stated in this Press Release.
Zcash se obchoduje kolem 502 USD a po ztrátě úrovně 520 USD čelí tlaku před upgradem Ironwood. Klíčový support je na 500 USD, návrat nad 530 USD by zlepšil krátkodobou strukturu.
Zcash price has fallen toward the $500 psychological support as a 4-hour breakdown, leveraged liquidations, and caution before the Ironwood upgrade have weakened market sentiment.
Summary
Zcash price has fallen toward $500 after losing $520 and triggering more than $2 million in long liquidations. Bulls must reclaim $530 to neutralize the bearish structure, while $550 remains the main breakout level. A daily close below $477 could expose $466 and the rounded-top target near $371. According to data from crypto.news, Zcash (ZEC) price traded near $502 on July 24 after losing about 5.5% over the past week. Sellers took control after the token lost $520, while more than $2 million in long positions were liquidated over 24 hours. Automated stop orders added pressure once price slipped through intermediate support at $510.
Outside crypto, Thursday’s technology rout reduced demand for risk assets. The Magnificent Seven erased about $797 billion in market value after Alphabet and Tesla’s earnings raised concerns over heavy artificial intelligence spending. The Nasdaq Composite fell more than 2%, while Tesla dropped 14% and Alphabet lost almost 7%.
Oil and bond markets added another obstacle. Brent crude briefly moved above $100 after Houthi attacks on two Saudi tankers raised fears of disruption in the Red Sea. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield reached an 18-month high near 4.70%, making speculative assets less attractive as traders reconsidered expectations for lower interest rates.
Crypto funds also lost institutional capital during the selloff. U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded $225 million in net outflows on July 23. BlackRock’s IBIT accounted for $202 million of the withdrawals, extending the defensive mood into altcoins such as ZEC.
Zcash price must reclaim $530 to repair its short-term structure On the daily chart, ZEC has fallen below its 20-day simple moving average at $514.77 but remains above the 50-day SMA at $477.05 and the 100-day SMA at $466.50. Those averages form the first major support area if bulls cannot hold $500. The 200-day SMA sits much lower at $382.96.
Zcash price daily chart — July 24 | Source: crypto.news Bear-bull power has dropped to minus 25.48, which shows that sellers have gained control after ZEC’s rejection near $570. However, the token remains above its medium- and long-term averages, leaving the daily recovery structure intact unless price closes decisively below the $466–$477 zone.
The 4-hour chart carries a more bearish setup. ZEC has formed a rounded-top structure since its July 15 peak near $580, with price now testing the $500 area. A confirmed breakdown could extend toward $470 before exposing the pattern’s main support and projected target around $370.69.
Zcash price has been forming a rounded-top pattern on the 4-hour chart — July 24 | Source: crypto.news Momentum readings have yet to confirm a reversal. The 4-hour Relative Strength Index stands at 35.11, close to oversold territory but still above 30. The Moving Average Convergence Divergence line remains below its signal line at minus 9.15 versus minus 8.65, while the negative histogram shows that sellers retain an advantage.
According to trader Ardi, $500 has become the main liquidity pivot after ZEC lost $520. The trader expects a brief move below the threshold before any sustained recovery and wrote:
“A reclaim of $530 would return the chart to neutral and likely begin a sideways consolidation phase.”
Ardi identified $550 as the level that would fully break the current bearish structure. Beyond it, $620 would become the next macro breakout barrier. Failure to protect $500, however, could force the trader to close the remaining long position established near $425.
CoinGlass’s three-day liquidation heatmap places the strongest overhead concentration between $524 and $529. A rebound into that band could force short sellers to exit and help ZEC challenge Ardi’s $530 neutral level. Below the market, another dense leverage pocket sits around $490–$494, making that range a likely destination if $500 gives way.
Zcash liquidation heatmap | Source: CoinGlass Derivatives traders have not turned fully bearish. ZEC’s funding rate remained positive at approximately 0.0076%, showing that long positions still pay shorts. Yet falling open interest and weaker spot volume show that fewer traders are willing to carry leverage through the current decline, limiting the fuel available for an immediate rebound.
Loss of $477 would invalidate the remaining bullish setup Ironwood, also known as NU6.3, will activate at block 3,428,143 on July 28. The upgrade will retire the vulnerable Orchard shielded pool and introduce a corrected pool. Funds leaving Orchard must pass through an accounting turnstile designed to prevent more ZEC from exiting than originally entered.
Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox has explained that the process cannot identify individual counterfeit coins or prove that the flaw was never exploited. Temporary wallet and exchange interruptions may occur as service providers update their systems, giving short-term traders another reason to reduce exposure before activation.
Zakura offers a longer-term counterweight to those concerns. The new Rust-based full-node client targets 50,000 private transactions per second and can reportedly start from a pruned snapshot in under two minutes. Still, the development has not stopped the current price correction.
A daily close below the 50-day SMA at $477.05 would weaken the primary recovery thesis and expose $466.50, followed by the June support region near $370. Continued ETF withdrawals, high Treasury yields, another oil spike, or complications during Ironwood activation would increase that downside risk. Bulls must first defend $500 and reclaim $530 before ZEC can make another attempt at $550.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Leverage rozšířil spotové maržové obchodování na Solaně na více než 700 trhů včetně nových tokenů a tokenizovaných akcií. Každá pozice je kryta skutečným aktivem, ne syntetickým futures.
The Solana spot margin protocol now offers leverage and lending across 700+ live markets, spanning long-tail assets, tokenized stocks, and real-world assets. Every position is spot leverage on the real asset, not a synthetic future.
Lavarage, the spot margin protocol for any token on Solana, now runs across 700+ live markets and closes two gaps that perpetual futures cannot reach: brand-new tokens before any futures market exists, and tokenized real-world assets where ownership matters. The through-line: leverage what matters, own what you trade.
The update targets a widening gap in on-chain markets: the assets people want to trade are growing fast at both ends, Solana now mints tens of thousands of new tokens a day and processes more than 95% of all tokenized-equity trading, while leverage has stayed locked to a handful of liquid markets.
Gap one: new assets, before a futures market exists
Solana empowers seamless assets creation on-chain: from serious project tokens all the way to meme tokens — as many as 47,619 minted in a single day (June 2026, per CryptoRank). The biggest moves and opportunities come before any futures market forms. Lavarage can spin up a spot leverage market for a new asset immediately, using liquidity already on-chain, so traders can act while it matters.
Gap two: assets where ownership matters
The second gap is capital efficiency for assets worth owning, not just betting on — tokenized real-world assets that carry long-term ownership benefits. Tokenized stocks on Solana crossed $4.9 billion in volume in H1 2026 (Crypto Briefing), roughly six times the prior half-year. For these, spot leverage beats a perpetual: you get leverage on the asset while still owning the real token. So any ownership benefits stay with you, instead of holding a synthetic derivative of it.
Benefits for traders
Spot leverage, not synthetic futures. Every position is opened with the actual asset, which the trader has the option to own. Any token on Solana. 700+ tokens have live margin markets today, the majority of which have no perpetual futures market yet. Best-offer matching. Traders are automatically matched to the loan offer with the most favourable terms, and loans are continuous with much more stable funding cost. Isolated positions. Isolation means no platform-wise auto-deleveraging. Benefits for lenders
Lenders earn real yield as interest paid by traders who borrow to open long or short positions, yield generated directly by spot-leverage borrow demand, on any asset they lend. Every loan is over-collateralized and isolated. Lenders can participate actively, creating offers and setting their own terms, or passively, by staking into existing lending vaults, which have recently paid roughly 30% APY on SOL and roughly 14% on USDC as of July 2026, variable with utilization.
Founder comment
“Perpetual futures are great for a handful of highly liquid assets. But for a new token, the moment that matters most comes before any futures market exists. For real-world assets, owning the thing you trade is the whole point,” said Tgen, co-founder of Lavarage. “Those are the two gaps we close with spot leverage. Leverage what matters, own what you trade.”
Lavarage by the numbers (July 2026)
$200M+ in cumulative volume 10,000+ unique traders 80,000+ positions opened 5,000+ tokens traded with leverage $1M+ in fees paid out to integration partners Live on Solana mainnet since 2024 Margin trade any token on Solana → v2.lavarage.xyz
About Lavarage
Lavarage is a spot margin protocol on Solana that lets traders take leverage on any token — from day-one launches to tokenized real-world assets — while holding the real asset, not a synthetic derivative. Lenders supply the liquidity, actively by setting their own terms or passively by staking into vaults, and earn interest from borrow demand. Lavarage has processed $200M+ in volume across 700+ live markets and has been live on Solana mainnet since early 2024, built on audited code (Code4rena and Sec3). Learn more at lavarage.xyz.
Tokenized equities referenced are issued by third parties via Backpack Securities and Sunrise on Solana; per-token disclaimers apply on the live product, and backing and redeemability are the issuer’s claim — do your own research. Not available to US persons. Not financial advice. Leverage trading carries risk of loss, including liquidation.
Morgan Stanley získala souhlas k listingu a obchodování spotových ETF na Ethereum a Solanu na NYSE Arca pod tickery MSSE a MSOL. Oba fondy mají poplatek 0,14 %.
Morgan Stanley has gained approval to list and trade its Ethereum and Solana ETFs on NYSE Arca as the issuer submitted 8-A and other filings with the US SEC. The Wall Street giant could soon launch its spot Ethereum and Solana ETFs.
Morgan Stanley Ethereum ETF Gains Approval According to the latest SEC filing, Morgan Stanley has gained approval to list shares of its spot Ethereum ETF from NYSE Arca. The ETF will list and trade on NYSE Arca under the ticker symbol MSSE.
Morgan Stanley has also filed 424B3, with no details on the fee waiver. The filing has become auto-effective pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act, pending CERT filing for details on the trading date.
As CoinGape earlier reported, Morgan Stanley updated delegated sponsor, Coinbase Prime, Coinbase custodial and trade finance agreements. The latest amendment indicates the Morgan Stanley Ethereum ETF could become effective soon.
The spot Ethereum ETF will levy a sponsor fee of 0.14%. Also, it plans to stake 50-80% of holdings via providers such as Figment, Galaxy Blockchain, and Coinbase Canada. Notably, staking services providers and custodians are to receive only 5% of the staking rewards.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management, the delegated sponsor, said it will not receive or retain the remaining staking rewards, resulting in higher earnings for investors.
Moreover, The Bank of New York Mellon and Coinbase Custody will serve as custodians for the Morgan Stanley Ethereum ETF.
NYSE Arca Approves Wall Street Giant’s Solana ETF Listing Morgan Stanley also filed 8-A and 424B3 with the US SEC for its spot Solana ETF. NYSE Arca has also approved Morgan Stanley Solana ETF to list and trade under the ticker MSOL.
Notably, the approval comes as $10 trillion Morgan Stanley’s brokerage firm E*TRADE completed the rollout of spot Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana trading. Clients can buy, sell, and hold crypto in a linked Zerohash account.
Morgan Stanley Solana ETF will have a 0.14% management fee. Also, the issuer plans to stake up to 100% of SOL holdings through Figment, Galaxy Blockchain, and Coinbase Canada.
The staking rewards distribution mechanism for staking service providers, custodians, and investors is the same as in the Morgan Stanley Ethereum ETF. Cash custodians, crypto custodians, administrator, transfer agent, and marketing agent are similar to those of its Morgan Stanley Bitcoin ETF.
The MSBT holds over $391 million in total assets, with BTC holdings worth over $396 million. MSBT saw $5 million in inflows in the latest session, while spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $255.18 million in outflows.
While Morgan Stanley plans to capture passive yields internally for its ETF, retail investors looking for direct control over their assets can explore the best crypto staking platforms to earn competitive APYs on their Ethereum and Solana holdings.
Byreal, AI-native DEX na Solaně inkubovaný společností Bybit, překročil 4 miliardy USD v celkovém objemu obchodů. Po spuštění mainnetu na začátku října 2025 už dříve překonal 1 miliardu USD za 10 týdnů.
@Byreal_io, an AI-native decentralized exchange built on Solana and incubated by Bybit, has crossed the $4 billion mark in total trading volume, marking a significant milestone for one of the most distinctly positioned DEX platforms in the current DeFi cycle.
From Bybit's Incubator to a Billion-Dollar Venue Byreal is a decentralized exchange built on the Solana blockchain and incubated by Bybit, the world's second-largest cryptocurrency exchange. The platform crossed $1 billion in cumulative trading volume just 10 weeks after its mainnet launch in early October 2025. The latest $4 billion figure represents a substantial acceleration from that early pace.
Byreal marked its first anniversary since launching on the Solana testnet on 30 June 2025, and over the past year has grown into a primary liquidity venue for tokenized real-world assets (RWA) and established itself as one of the first AI agent-native exchanges in DeFi. Through deep integration with Bybit Alpha, Byreal became the top Day 1 trading volume venue on Solana for multiple new tokens, including BP, MON, ARX, SKR, and BRIB, bridging centralized exchange liquidity with on-chain markets from launch day.
AI Agents as Full-Fledged On-Chain Traders Byreal brings together trading, liquidity provision, and yield generation into one unified on-chain platform, built from the ground up as an AI agent-native DEX that enables both human users and AI agents to trade, swap, and provide liquidity programmatically on Solana. This architecture is central to the platform's growth story. Rather than treating AI participation as an add-on, Byreal has made autonomous agent trading a core design principle.
Byreal uses a dual-execution engine that routes trades through both on-chain concentrated liquidity pools (CLMM) and an off-chain Request-for-Quote (RFQ) system, dynamically selecting the best execution path for tighter spreads, lower slippage, and MEV protection. Sub-200ms latency, powered by high-performance RPC infrastructure, supports institutional-grade execution speed. Solana's sub-second finality makes it a natural fit for the kind of high-frequency, multi-agent activity the platform is designed to support.
Over the past year, Byreal has expanded its product suite across three verticals on a single platform: Real Farmer, the first copy-farming product on Solana; Perps, offering up to 50x leverage trading for both equities and crypto; and Predict, an on-chain market for trading real-world outcomes.
In April 2026, Byreal announced the launch of Byreal Perps Agent Skills, extending its agent-native trading infrastructure to perpetual futures. Users can now trade perps through natural language commands via RealClaw, with no manual order entry, no separate interfaces, and no bridging required.
Sources:
Byreal First Anniversary: Chainwire
Byreal Official Documentation
Byreal Perps Agent Skills Launch: PR Newswire
@Circle has minted another $250 million $USDC on the @Solana blockchain, marking its fourth major issuance event within a 48-hour window. The move pushed the total circulating supply of USDC to a record $72.01 billion, underscoring relentless institutional demand for on-chain dollar liquidity.
Rapid Minting Reflects Rising On-Chain Demand The speed of the minting cycle is notable. Four large issuances in under two days signals that Circle is responding in near real-time to demand from market makers, trading venues, and DeFi protocols operating on Solana. Traders use USDC as collateral, as a settlement asset, and as a quick way to move between volatile positions without leaving the chain. When more USDC is minted onto Solana, it usually points to demand for on-chain dollar liquidity, which can come from market makers, DeFi protocols, retail traders, or institutions routing activity through Solana-based venues.
Large stablecoin mints typically provide fresh liquidity that can be deployed across decentralized exchanges, lending protocols, automated market makers, and yield-generating applications. As newly minted USDC enters circulation, DeFi platforms can absorb the additional capital to facilitate larger trading volumes and improve market efficiency.
USDC Cements Its Role as a Core Settlement Layer The pace of issuance sits within a broader trend of USDC dominance in 2026. Adjusted stablecoin transaction volume hit a record $1.79 trillion in June 2026, with Circle's USDC capturing 67% of activity at $1.21 trillion. That momentum has been driven in part by regulatory clarity in the United States and growing institutional use of USDC for payments and settlement.
USDC supply surged 220% since late 2023 to approximately $78 billion, driven by institutional B2B settlement, payroll infrastructure, and programmatic payment rails built by Visa and Stripe. The repeated minting cycles on Solana reflect that growth and reinforce the stablecoin's position as a primary collateral layer for on-chain finance.
Blockchain analysts note that gross issuance does not represent the network's live circulating supply, since USDC can later be redeemed, burned, or bridged to other blockchains. Even so, the frequency and scale of Circle's recent mints point to sustained, real demand rather than a one-off capital event.
Sources:
Crypto Briefing: Circle's USDC drives record stablecoin transaction volume in June 2026
CoinTrust: Circle Mints $250M USDC on Solana as 2026 Supply Nears $65B
CoinMarketCap Academy: $315B Stablecoin Supply Hits Record as USDC Gains
