Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Stable exempts USDT transfers from gas. Plasma ships zero-fee sends. Sui made stablecoin transfers free at the protocol level. Every coverage of every launch asks the same question in passing, someone still pays for blockspace, and then moves on. This guide stops and answers it: five funding models, their failure modes, and how to tell which one your free lunch runs on.

Summary

A wave of chains and wallets now offer gasless stablecoin transfers: Stable’s protocol-level exemption for USDT sends, Plasma’s zero-fee transfers, Sui’s free stablecoin operations, fee delegation on BNB Chain, and wallet-level subsidies on Tron. Free is a price, not a cost: validators still expend hardware, bandwidth, and stake to process every transaction, so gasless designs are answers to one question, who pays instead of the user, and there are exactly five answers. The five models: token-holder dilution through emissions, foundation treasuries burning finite war chests, cross-subsidy from paid transaction tiers, patron sponsorship funded by an adjacent business, and application-level paymasters passing costs to merchants and apps. Each model has a signature failure mode, from inflation death spirals to subsidy cliffs, and each embeds a priority structure: on Sui, paid transactions outrank free ones under congestion, which is what a free tier actually is. The stablechain era’s real answer is the patron model: Tether’s float income makes Stable’s free tier a marketing expense against a $100-billion-scale reserve business, which is why the free lunch is real, and why it has an owner. Crypto has finally built the thing it spent a decade promising: sending digital dollars with no fee, no gas token, no friction, just an amount and an address, like a message. Stable exempts simple USDT transfers from gas at the protocol level. Plasma launched zero-fee USDT sends as its headline feature. Sui made stablecoin transfers free network-wide this spring. BNB Chain and its wallet partners rolled out fee delegation; Tron wallets hand out daily transfer subsidies by the thousand. And every article covering every launch contains the same sentence, worded almost identically each time: the important question is how this is funded, because someone still pays for blockspace.

The sentence is correct, and it is always the last sentence on the subject. This guide is what happens when it is the first. Free transfers are not a technological discovery; they are an accounting decision. Blockspace has real costs, validators run real hardware behind real stake, and a gasless design simply moves the bill from the person clicking send to someone else, chosen by the chain’s designers. There are exactly five candidates for that someone. Learning to identify which one is holding your chain’s bill, and what happens to each under stress, is the actual literacy the gasless era requires.

The cost that does not go away Before the five models, fix the invariant, because every gasless pitch is engineered to blur it.

Processing a transaction costs resources regardless of what the user pays. Validators execute the computation, store the state change, propagate the data, and bear the capital cost of the stake or hardware that earned them the right to do so. On a fee-market chain like Ethereum, the user’s gas payment compensates exactly this work, and the fee’s second job is just as load-bearing: it rations blockspace, pricing out spam by making every transaction cost something.

A chain that sets the user’s price to zero has not abolished either function. It has committed to compensating validators from another source, and to rationing blockspace by another mechanism, and the entire integrity of a gasless design lives in how honestly those two replacements are engineered.

The rationing replacement is worth understanding first because it is universal. At a price of zero, demand for anything is infinite, so every gasless system imposes non-price limits: allowlists restricting the free tier to specific operations, simple stablecoin transfers but not contract calls, per-account rate limits, wallet-level daily quotas like Tron’s subsidy counts, or, most elegantly and most revealingly, priority markets.

Sui’s design states it plainly: free stablecoin transfers process normally in calm conditions, but under congestion, paid transactions take precedence, free riders queue behind them. That ordering is not a bug; it is the honest shape of every free tier ever built, in cloud computing, in banking, in telecoms: free means lowest quality of service, and the moment the network is worth congesting, the free lane discovers what it actually bought.

A payments product whose settlement time degrades exactly when activity spikes has a property merchants notice, which is why the rationing design deserves as much scrutiny as the funding design in any gasless chain’s documentation.

The five models Now the funding side: who compensates the validators. Every gasless system in production runs on one of five sources, or a blend.

Model one: holder dilution. The chain pays validators in newly issued native tokens, emissions, and the free tier is funded by inflating the token supply, which means the cost lands on everyone holding the token, silently, pro rata. This is the workhorse of the category; it is how Stable’s validator set is compensated in STABLE while users transact in USDT, and how most new chains bootstrap. Its virtue is that it requires no ongoing treasury decisions; its failure mode is the oldest in crypto: if the token’s price cannot bear the emission schedule, security spend collapses with the price, and the free tier is revealed to have been funded by selling the chain’s future to subsidize its present. The diagnostic question: what is annual issuance worth in dollars, versus the free tier’s resource consumption, and what happens to both if the token halves.

Model two: the foundation war chest. A treasury, raised from investors or a token sale, pays the bills directly, covering validator costs or reimbursing gas. This is the cleanest to verify and the most obviously finite: war chests burn, and the model’s signature failure is the subsidy cliff, the scheduled or unscheduled morning when the program ends and the chain discovers what organic demand at true cost looks like.

Every subsidy this publication has covered, from Robinhood Chain’s 90-day gas holiday to exchange fee promotions, belongs to this family, and the diagnostic question is always the same: what is the burn rate, what is the runway, and what is the announced end state.

Model three: cross-subsidy. The free tier is funded by paid activity on the same chain, priority fees under congestion, contract-call gas from DeFi, sequencer margins on complex transactions, the way free checking is funded by overdraft fees.

This is the only self-sustaining model that requires no external money, and its honest precondition is scale: the paid economy must be large relative to the free one, which inverts the usual pitch. A chain marketing free transfers as its main product while hoping paid activity funds them has the subsidy pointing the wrong way; a chain where free transfers are the loss-leading on-ramp to a large fee-paying economy has a business. The diagnostic: what fraction of validator revenue comes from users versus emissions, today, on the explorer.

Model four: the patron. An adjacent business with its own profit pool sponsors the chain as strategy: the free rail exists to grow the patron’s real product. This is the stablechain era’s defining model, and its clearest example is arithmetic.

Tether earns yield on the reserves backing USDT, a float measured against $100-billion-scale holdings of Treasury bills, which at prevailing rates generates income in the billions annually. Every new USDT holder, every merchant integration, every remittance corridor that a free-transfer chain onboards grows that float, which means Stable’s gas-exempt tier is not charity and not unsustainable: it is customer acquisition, priced as a marketing expense against one of the most profitable businesses per employee on earth.

The same logic runs through every patron chain, payment giants incubating their own rails included, and it cuts both ways: the free tier is as durable as the patron’s strategic interest, and its terms can change when the strategy does. The diagnostic question is not can they afford it, patrons can, but what does the patron get, and what happens when it has it.

Model five: the paymaster. Costs are moved up the application stack: the merchant, the app, the wallet, or the employer sponsors the user’s gas through account-abstraction machinery, the way merchants pay card interchange so shoppers do not. BNB Chain’s fee delegation and app-sponsored transactions across EVM chains are this family. It is the model most like mature payments economics: the party with the business interest in the transaction pays for it, and its limit is adoption friction: someone must integrate, budget, and monitor the sponsorship, which is why paymaster gasless arrives app by app rather than chain-wide.

Before the card detour, one more distinction sharpens the taxonomy: protocol-level gasless versus application-level gasless, because the two feel identical in a wallet and fail completely differently. Protocol-level exemption, Stable’s and Sui’s approach, writes the free tier into consensus rules: every user of the chain gets it, no integration required, and it can only be changed by the chain’s own governance process, which makes it durable, transparent, and slow to modify in either direction.

Application-level sponsorship, the paymaster and wallet-subsidy family, is a private arrangement: this wallet, this app, this merchant covers gas for its own users, funded from its own budget, changeable by a product decision on a Tuesday. The practical difference surfaces at the edges: protocol-level free tiers survive the failure of any single company in the ecosystem, while an app-level subsidy dies with its sponsor’s budget line, and users who learned free on one surface discover, moving to another wallet on the same chain, that the free was never the chain’s at all.

The diagnostic is one question: does the exemption appear in the protocol’s documentation or the app’s marketing? The answer assigns the free tier its durability class before any economics are examined.

The card-network precedent, taken seriously The five models have a common ancestor outside crypto, and studying it repays the detour, because the payments industry already ran a fifty-year experiment on making transactions feel free, and its results predict where gasless rails are heading with uncomfortable precision.

Card payments feel free to the shopper: no per-swipe fee, rewards paid for using the card, frictionless authorization in two seconds. The economics underneath are the paymaster model at civilizational scale: merchants pay interchange, roughly two to three percent of every transaction in the US, to fund the shopper’s free experience, the rewards, the fraud protection, and the networks’ margins, and the cost re-enters prices invisibly, spread across all shoppers including the ones paying cash.

The structure’s genius, and its lesson for crypto, is that free to the user was never a subsidy phase; it was the permanent product architecture, sustained by moving the bill to the party with the least ability to refuse, the merchant who cannot decline the cards their customers carry, and the least visibility to the person nominally benefiting.

Two further properties followed. The rails became phenomenally profitable precisely because the payer and the chooser were different parties, a separation that blunts price competition. And the fee’s invisibility became politically load-bearing: interchange wars are fought between merchants, networks, and regulators, decade after decade, while shoppers, the beneficiaries of record, remain spectators to the pricing of their own payments.

Now overlay the crypto trajectory. Gasless stablecoin transfers are converging on the same separation: users choose the rail, but patrons, apps, merchants, and tokenholders pay for it, through float, sponsorship budgets, and dilution. If the pattern completes, the endgame is not free payments in any economic sense; it is payments whose price is set in negotiations the user never sees, between chains, patrons, and integrators, exactly as interchange is set today. That is not a condemnation; the card model delivered the most reliable consumer payments in history, but it is the honest destination, and it clarifies what the current gasless land-grab is actually competing for: the position of the network that gets to set the invisible price later.

Every free tier is a bid for that seat, funded accordingly, and users evaluating today’s genuinely free transfers should enjoy them with the card precedent in mind: in payments, free has always been the most carefully engineered price there is.

Reading a chain’s answer The five models compress into a practical method, because real systems blend them and the blend is the disclosure that matters.

Take the reader’s own test case, Stable, and run it. Users pay nothing for simple USDT transfers: the free tier. Validators stake and earn STABLE: model one, dilution, funds security. Complex transactions and future priority markets pay fees in USDT: model three, cross-subsidy, in its infancy. And behind the whole structure stands the patron whose dollar the chain exists to distribute: model four, the deep pocket that makes the first two sustainable as long as the strategy holds.

The composite answer to who pays on Stable is therefore: STABLE holders via emissions, sophisticated users via paid tiers, and Tether’s float via the strategic umbrella, in proportions that will shift as the chain matures, and that ordering, patron-backed dilution transitioning toward cross-subsidy, is the healthiest available shape for a young payments chain.

The unhealthy shapes are equally recognizable now: a war-chest chain with no patron and no paid economy is a countdown; a dilution chain whose token has no demand story is a slow leak; and any chain that cannot answer the question at all has answered it.

One last reframe earns its place at the end. The question who pays has a companion the gasless era keeps forgetting: what did the payer buy? Card networks made payments feel free to shoppers and built the most profitable toll infrastructure in financial history on the merchant side.

Free checking built the overdraft industry. When crypto’s free transfers are funded by a patron, the purchase is distribution for the patron’s dollar; when funded by dilution, it is growth bought from holders; when funded by paymasters, it is customer experience bought by apps.

None of these is sinister, and all of them are terms, and the entire adult literacy of using gasless rails is knowing that a free transfer is not a gift. It is a price of zero, attached to a bill with someone else’s name on it, and the name is always findable, usually in the tokenomics.

One closing test makes the whole framework portable: the next time any chain, wallet, or app announces free transfers, run the four-question audit this guide has assembled. Who funds it: emissions, treasury, paid tiers, patron, or sponsors, and is the answer documented or inferred? What rations it: allowlists, quotas, or priority queues, and what happens to the free lane under congestion? How long is it promised: a scheduled program with an end date, an open-ended strategy, or silence? And who can change it: a governance vote, a foundation decision, or a patron’s strategy review? Ten minutes with a chain’s documentation and explorer answers all four, and the answers sort every gasless offer into one of three honest categories: a durable product feature backed by a patron or a paying economy, a bootstrap subsidy with a visible cliff, or an unfunded promise.

All three can be worth using; only the first is worth building on, and the difference between using and building is the entire practical stake of the question. A remittance sender exploiting a bootstrap subsidy is arbitraging someone else’s marketing budget, rationally. A merchant integrating settlement on the same subsidy is building a business on a countdown, less rationally.

The gasless era’s genuine achievement, and it is genuine, is that the first category now exists at all: rails where free transfers are the permanent architecture, funded by float economics that outlast any promotion. Its genuine hazard is that the three categories are marketed identically, in the same words, with the same zero, and the only party with an incentive to tell them apart is the reader.

Frequently Asked Questions Are gasless crypto transfers really free? Free to the user, never free in cost. Validators still expend computation, storage, bandwidth, and staked capital on every transaction, so gasless designs relocate the bill rather than eliminating it. The funding comes from token emissions diluting holders, foundation treasuries, paid transaction tiers, a strategic patron’s adjacent business, or application-level sponsors, and identifying which is the key question about any gasless chain.

Which chains offer gasless stablecoin transfers today? A growing set. Stable exempts simple USDT transfers from gas at the protocol level, with USDT0 as its native fee asset for everything else. Plasma launched with zero-fee USDT sends. Sui enabled free transfers for allowlisted stablecoin operations network-wide. BNB Chain supports fee delegation through wallet partners, and Tron wallets like TokenPocket distribute daily transfer subsidies covering network fees.

What stops spam if transactions cost nothing? Non-price rationing. Gasless systems restrict the free tier to specific operations, impose per-account rate limits or daily quotas, and use priority ordering; on Sui, paid transactions explicitly take precedence over free ones during congestion. Free tiers are lowest-priority service by construction, which is the practical meaning of free: full speed in calm conditions, back of the queue when blockspace is contested.

What is the most sustainable funding model? Cross-subsidy, where paid activity on the chain funds the free tier, is the only self-contained one, but it requires a large fee-paying economy first. The patron model, a profitable adjacent business sponsoring the rail strategically, is the most durable in practice: Tether’s reserve float income makes Stable’s free tier a customer-acquisition expense, sustainable indefinitely, though on the patron’s terms. Pure war-chest subsidies are finite by definition, and emission funding depends on the token’s price bearing the schedule.

How does Tether’s float pay for free transfers? Indirectly but decisively. Tether earns interest on the reserves backing USDT, predominantly short-term US government debt, generating billions annually at scale. Growth in USDT usage grows that float, so a chain that removes friction from USDT transfers grows Tether’s revenue without charging users anything. The free tier functions as marketing spend for the reserve business, which is why the model is neither charity nor a countdown.

What are the warning signs of an unsustainable free tier? A finite treasury with no announced end state or successor model; emissions funding whose dollar value depends on a token with no independent demand; free-transfer marketing with no paid economy developing behind it; and no disclosed answer to the funding question at all. The Robinhood Chain pattern is instructive: activity metrics inflated by a scheduled subsidy face a measurable cliff when it ends, and honest chains pre-frame that cliff.

Do free tiers degrade under congestion? By design, usually. Where priority markets exist, paid transactions outrank free ones, so free-tier settlement times lengthen exactly when networks are busiest. For casual transfers this rarely matters; for merchant settlement and time-sensitive payments it can, which is why serious payment integrations often pay for priority even on chains with free tiers, and why the congestion behavior belongs in any evaluation of a gasless rail.

What should users check before relying on a gasless chain? Four items: the funding source, emissions, treasury, cross-subsidy, patron, or paymaster, and its visible runway; the rationing rules, what operations qualify and what limits apply; the congestion policy, whether free transactions queue behind paid ones; and the terms’ changeability, who can end or alter the free tier and with what notice. A price of zero is a term of service, not a property of the network. This is educational information, not financial advice.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Fee policies, subsidy programs, and network designs change frequently and vary by chain. Always verify current terms in official documentation. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 24, 2026.

Hyperliquid has cumulatively burned 47.27 million HYPE tokens, accounting for 4.73% of its maximum supply.

According to monitoring by Onchain Lens, Hyperliquid generated approximately $1.4 million in fees over the past 24 hours, burning 20,640 HYPE tokens valued at around $1.2 million. To date, Hyperliquid has cumulatively burned 47.27 million HYPE tokens, worth roughly $2.76 billion, accounting for 4.73% of its maximum total supply of 1 billion HYPE.

19 minutes ago

Chairman of SK Group: South Korea Needs to Transform into an "AI-Native" Country

SK Group Chairman Choi Tae-won stated that South Korea must become an "AI-native country," adding, "The goal is to ensure every person has at least one AI agent." He noted that if this goal is achieved, South Korea will become a global AI testbed where various AI technologies can be tested and deployed. Choi added that SK Group will provide more opportunities for AI development through continuous R&D investment. He also emphasized that reducing AI costs is critical, saying, "Currently, AI costs are too high. We must cut costs through various means so that more people around the world can benefit from AI." Choi further stated that South Korea can lower AI costs by expanding its memory chip production capacity and building more AI data centers, while establishing a global AI data center hub connecting the U.S., Europe, and Asia. (Source: Jinshi)

19 minutes ago

Prominent Trader: Bitcoin’s supply held by long-term holders in loss has exceeded levels recorded during the FTX collapse

Renowned trader Killa posted that roughly 80% of cycle top indicators never triggered during the last Bitcoin bull run, and a similar situation could occur with bottom indicators in the future, meaning market bottoms cannot be judged by mechanically relying on historical signals. He noted that the supply of long-term holders currently in a loss state has exceeded levels seen during the FTX collapse and is approaching those of the 2018 bear market. Bitcoin’s realized price is currently around $50,000; in every past cycle, the price has tested the realized price of long-term holders, so a return to this region remains possible. However, Killa said it should not be assumed that Bitcoin will definitely drop back to this level. Many top indicators failed to trigger in the last cycle, and some bottom indicators may also become invalid in the future. Regardless, the current level of market loss is already comparable to that during the FTX incident and the 2018 bear market.

19 minutes ago

Poll: Democrats have a chance to flip the House, Republicans face pressure.

The latest Emerson College poll shows that Democrats hold an 11-point lead over Republicans in midterm election preferences, with 53% to 42%—marking the Democrats’ largest lead in the poll series. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump’s approval rating stands at 39%, while his disapproval rating is 57%. The poll indicates that the Democrats’ advantage stems largely from female voters, among whom they lead Republicans by 27 points. Newsweek, analyzing via its Uniform Swing Model, stated that if this national advantage translates evenly to House districts, roughly 36 Republican-held seats could flip to Democrats, resulting in a hypothetical 251-184 seat split favoring the Democrats. However, the article emphasizes that this is only a model stress test based on national polls, not an election prediction, and the actual outcome will still be influenced by factors such as candidate performance, local issues, voter turnout, and district mapping. (Jinshi)

19 minutes ago

CZ: Long-term investors can adopt the dollar-cost averaging strategy to buy in batches.

In a post addressing the question of when the best entry point is for long-term holders during bull or bear markets, CZ stated that investors should adopt the dollar-cost averaging (DCA) strategy. DCA is a strategy of continuously buying the same asset at fixed intervals with a fixed amount each time, which smooths costs by diversifying entry timings and reduces the risk of buying at a high point in a single transaction, though it does not guarantee profits.

19 minutes ago

Lee Jae-myung strongly invites U.S. capital to invest in South Korea's tech sector.

According to Yonhap News Agency, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung stated that South Korea and the U.S. should expand their cooperation beyond their long-standing security alliance, covering also sectors of technology, innovation, and startups. He emphasized that combining the U.S.’s world-class venture capital capabilities and global networks with South Korea’s advanced technological strength and manufacturing competitiveness will foster a new batch of global innovative enterprises. Lee also called on U.S. venture capital firms to step up cooperation and expand investments in South Korea, while pledging to build one of the world’s most attractive investment and startup ecosystems. He noted that South Korea will reform its visa system to better attract overseas entrepreneurial talent, and lay the groundwork for establishing a cooperation framework between domestic and foreign enterprises, research institutions, and investors. He also committed to helping South Korean startups grow into globally competitive firms by connecting privately and publicly managed funds.

19 minutes ago

Bitcoin is consolidating just above the $60K region after a volatile first half of 2026 that saw the asset collapse from its January highs near $96K. The recent rebound off the June lows has restored some short-term optimism, but the price is now stalling directly beneath a heavy confluence of moving-average resistance.

Whether this becomes the start of a genuine trend reversal or simply another lower high inside the broader downtrend will likely be decided over the next several sessions.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart On the daily timeframe, BTC remains capped below both its 100-day and 200-day moving averages, which are converging near the $70K zone and still slope downward. This is a sign that the higher-timeframe trend has not yet flipped bullish.

Since dropping from $96K in January, Bitcoin has carved out a sequence of lower highs, with the April and May recovery stalling around $82K before rolling over into the June and July low near $58K. However, the asset has since printed a series of short-term higher lows relative to the broader structure amid a clear bullish divergence with the RSI, and the market has reclaimed the $64K mark.

A sustained close above the confluence of moving averages and the $74K supply zone would be the first real evidence that the downtrend is losing control, potentially opening the door toward the prior resistance zone near $82K.

On the downside, failure to build on this recovery would put the $60K zone back in focus as the immediate support. A breakdown below that level would expose the major demand region around $54K, which remains the key higher-timeframe floor.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart The 4-hour chart shows a cleaner picture. Bitcoin bottomed inside the $58K-$60K demand zone in late June and has been climbing steadily within a rising wedge pattern, printing higher lows along the lower trendline.

That advance carried price into the $65K–$67K resistance cluster formed by June highs. However, the latest candles show a rejection from this area, with the price breaking the wedge to the downside and slipping back toward $64K.

The RSI has also cooled from overbought territory near 70 down toward the 40 zone, reflecting fading momentum rather than outright bearish pressure. A rebound and reclaim of the recent highs around the $67K zone would support a push toward $72K–$74K, while continued rejection and decline here would validate the rising wedge breakdown and likely send the price back to retest the $58K support area, which, as things stand, is the more probable scenario.

Sentiment Analysis Looking at Bitcoin’s spot average order size, large whale orders have dominated the tape through the entire decline and subsequent recovery since June. This is a marked shift from the retail-heavy order flow seen back in December 2025 near the $90K region.

This metric tracks the size distribution of executed spot orders, distinguishing retail-sized trades from large block orders typically associated with institutional or high-net-worth participants. Persistent big-whale activity through a drawdown generally signals accumulation rather than capitulation, since larger players tend to scale into weakness rather than chase strength.

The continued presence of big whale orders through both the $58K low and the recovery above $64K suggests accumulation has been underway at these depressed levels. If this behavior persists as price approaches the $72K-$74K resistance, it would lend credibility to the case for a deeper structural reversal. A sudden shift back toward retail-dominated flow near resistance, by contrast, would be a caution flag worth watching, and could point to another potential decline in the coming weeks.

Tags:

The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has expanded its sanctions against Iranian businessman Babak Zanjani and his Dot One commercial network, targeting a wider array of firms including ZEDX DMCC, ZedPay, and BZ Diamond. This latest action broadens enforcement beyond cryptocurrency exchanges, extending into gold production, payments, and logistics infrastructure.

Key sanctioned entities and their connectionsZEDX DMCC, a Dubai-based commercial company, stands out among the newly sanctioned firms. The move illustrates the network’s ongoing realignment toward the United Arab Emirates, with Dubai now serving as a commercial center for these operations. Recent research from blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs highlights that the Zanjani network has steadily shifted activity from short-lived UK companies to more stable UAE-registered entities.

The list also includes ZedPay, recognized as the group’s primary payment platform. TRM Labs had previously linked ZedPay to exchange operations and identified strong ties to Zedxion and related businesses, pointing to payment processing as a core component rather than a peripheral role. Corporate documents and branding further confirmed these relationships.

BZ Diamond DMCC, a precious metals company, is also now under sanctions. Public records connect Bahareh Zanjani to BZ Diamond, with technical infrastructure revealing shared administration among network members. The company’s addition signals OFAC’s willingness to penalize non-crypto businesses if they support sanctioned activity.

ZEDX DMCC, ZedPay, and BZ Diamond have been identified as key elements of the commercial infrastructure supporting Babak Zanjani’s network, according to TRM Labs’ earlier investigations. OFAC’s latest actions reflect the expanding scope of US enforcement against international sanctions evasion.

Mini dictionary: TRM Labs – A blockchain intelligence provider known for tracking illicit activity in crypto networks and providing advanced analytics for government agencies and compliance teams.

Sanctions extend to key network personnelIn addition to targeting businesses, the Treasury sanctioned Mehdi Rezazadeh, the chief executive of ZedPay. Prior research by TRM Labs had identified him as a significant figure within the Zedxion ecosystem. Rezazadeh is reportedly linked to mining investment discussions spanning Africa, Russia, China, and Iran. UK records also show his previous connections to various network-associated companies.

By naming Rezazadeh individually, OFAC signals a shift in enforcement focus, seeking increased accountability for executives as well as their organizations. Reports from TRM Labs indicate a pattern of shared leadership and personnel moving throughout the group’s entities in crypto, payments, and logistics.

Diversified operations and evolving structuresTRM Labs documented how the Zanjani network adapted by cycling through various corporate formations. UK-based companies often became inactive or adjusted their leadership, replaced by new business entities in differing jurisdictions. Despite these legal changes, much of the network’s digital and technical infrastructure stayed remarkably consistent. Domain registrations and technical oversight frequently carried over across renewed companies.

The group’s activities reach beyond cryptocurrency exchanges, touching aviation, rail transportation, commodity trading, travel, and precious metals. While each company appears autonomous, together they form a risk-spreading structure that endures regulatory scrutiny and company closures.

TRM Labs advocates for investigative strategies that go beyond tracking blockchain wallets and exchange activity. The firm recommends combining on-chain analysis with reviews of corporate records and domain registrations, arguing this approach is necessary to understand the full scope of modern sanctions evasion.

The US Treasury’s latest actions reflect what authorities view as a more realistic understanding of complex global financial networks, signaling that enforcement will address not only point-of-sale crypto activity but also broader commercial and technical support systems underpinning sanctioned operations.

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.

Update (July 25, 4:39 pm UTC): This article has been updated to include a response from Wise.

Payments company Wise will to change its strategy for applying for a charter license with the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to one “under a GENIUS Act framework,” the legislation to regulate stablecoins in the country.

According to a Thursday notice from Wise, the company plans to submit a new application for a national trust bank charter under a GENIUS Act framework. Investment banking group William Blair said that Wise will likely not shift its position on payment stablecoins with the new OCC application, despite being denied a charter to establish a national trust bank on Tuesday.

“Wise is focused on lowering the cost of cross-border transactions, agnostic of the rail,” said William Blair on the move to apply under GENIUS.

The OCC said in its rejection that the company could not show it had an effective Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) compliance program and had “other illicit finance activity risks.”

The GENIUS Act, signed into law in July 2025, offers a framework for payment stablecoin providers in the United States, pending finalized regulations to be approved by federal agencies. However, regulators missed a crucial deadline last week to provide guidance on implementation of the law before its effective date in January 2027.

Following the passage of the stablecoin bill, the OCC has approved several applications from digital asset companies for national trust charters, including Circle, Ripple Labs, Crypto.com and Coinbase.

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.

TLDR: The Clarity Act faces a Senate delay as Democrats demand stronger ethics restrictions covering presidential crypto profits and enforcement. Republicans need at least seven Democratic votes, making bipartisan support essential before the digital asset bill can reach the president. Critics say the draft may let Trump retain indirect crypto interests while his children continue operating separate digital asset ventures. Stablecoin reward rules, bank deposit risks, campaign spending, and weaker prediction market odds add pressure to the ethics dispute. The Clarity Act faces a new Senate roadblock as Donald Trump’s family crypto interests intensify an ethics dispute. Bloomberg reports that Democrats want stronger limits before supporting the digital asset bill. They argue the current proposal may let Trump and his relatives keep earning from memecoins and World Liberty Financial. 

Republicans need at least seven Democratic votes to move the legislation through the Senate. Negotiators now view ethics rules as the central issue, alongside consumer safeguards and illicit finance controls. The dispute has reduced expectations for passage before the August recess and weakened market confidence in a deal this year.

Clarity Act Ethics Dispute Tests Bipartisan Senate Support Senate Republicans released revised language this week to revive negotiations after months of delay. Democrats and watchdog groups rejected the offer, saying its ethics protections leave gaps. Their concern centers on whether the Clarity Act would restrict presidential profits from regulated crypto markets.

Clarity Act Passage Odds: Polymarket The proposal would allow Trump to divest his stake or place assets in a blind trust. It does not require a full sale. Critics question language covering officials with a direct interest in digital assets. Trump holds exposure to World Liberty Financial through DT Marks DEFI LLC, which owns about 38% of the venture. That structure could complicate enforcement under the proposed standard.

The draft excludes the children of government officials. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump could therefore continue their crypto business activities. The measure would not recover income already generated from token and memecoin ventures. Watchdogs argue those limits weaken the bill’s ability to address existing conflicts.

Democrats oppose giving the Justice Department primary authority over the new ethics rules. The framework would block state attorneys general from acting as an independent enforcement channel. Senator Angela Alsobrooks has described ethics as the decisive issue in negotiations. Senators Ruben Gallego and Thom Tillis are developing a possible compromise for the White House.

Timing now adds pressure. Senate Majority Leader John Thune does not expect the Clarity Act to pass before the August recess. Negotiators still need agreement on consumer protection and illicit finance measures. Without changes, Democrats may withhold the votes Republicans need for swift passage.

Trump Crypto Business Deepens Wider Regulatory Divisions Ethics is not the only obstacle facing the Clarity Act. Banks want tighter limits on stablecoin rewards, fearing deposits could move into yield-bearing crypto accounts. That shift could reduce lending capacity and pressure banking profits. Tillis has discussed circuit-breaker powers for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or other regulators if deposits fall sharply.

Senator Cynthia Lummis opposes that approach. She is one of the digital asset bill’s strongest Republican supporters. The disagreement shows how the Trump crypto business controversy intersects with fights over market structure and banking competition.

Critics have challenged a provision ending the ethics rules on January 20, 2029. That date matches the inauguration of Trump’s successor. Opponents say the sunset could limit accountability after his term. Republicans argue the proposal creates restrictions beyond those accepted by previous presidents.

Political pressure may shape negotiations. Fairshake and two affiliated super PACs have raised $164 million for the midterm elections. Federal filings show they have spent $66.6 million. Crypto-friendly Democrats risk industry opposition if talks collapse, while progressives could attack any compromise.

Senator Chris Murphy has urged Democrats to frame crypto corruption as a campaign issue. Other Democrats worry that rejecting the Clarity Act could direct industry spending against Senate candidates.

Prediction markets reflect the uncertainty. Polymarket traders placed the Clarity Act’s passage odds near one in three. That level is roughly half the probability recorded after a Senate committee backed an earlier version on May 14. The Trump crypto business dispute now sits at the center of falling expectations.

https://www.dlnews.com/articles/markets/hyperliquid-protocol-cranks-up-the-risk-with-1000x-leverage/

Tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) have overtaken all crypto categories combined to become the largest market on Hyperliquid, according to Cointelegraph. Hyperliquid, a decentralized exchange specializing in perpetuals, reported that RWA volume now accounts for 54% of its weekly volume, reaching approximately $26 billion. This development marks a significant shift in on-chain activity towards tokenized traditional assets on the platform. ARK Invest’s Lorenzo Valente highlighted that Hyperliquid’s RWA market volume has exceeded the combined crypto perpetual volumes of all other decentralized exchanges.

Advertisement

The broader decentralized exchange (DEX) perpetuals market last week was valued at about $79 billion, with Hyperliquid contributing roughly $50 billion, underscoring its dominant role. The shift towards RWAs may indicate a growing interest in tokenized assets, reflecting a trend where participants are increasingly focusing on real-world financial products in the blockchain space.

Key Takeaways The shift in market volume towards tokenized RWAs on Hyperliquid suggests an increased interest in real-world asset tokenization. Hyperliquid’s RWA market surpassing crypto categories highlights a material change in on-chain preferences. Hyperliquid’s dominant contribution to the DEX perpetuals market indicates its significant influence and potential growth in the sector. What to Watch Market participants may monitor how Hyperliquid manages this shift and whether it continues to attract interest in tokenized RWAs. Observers will likely focus on potential partnerships or technological advancements that Hyperliquid might announce, which could further support the growing trend. Additionally, keeping an eye on market sentiment and institutional involvement could provide insights into future developments consistent with continued RWA growth.

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

Term Structure

Contract Odds Δ since publish Volume 24h December 31 19.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 6.5% — — View market → January 1 2027 2.9% — — View market → January 1 2027 46% — — View market → January 1 2027 8.8% — — View market → January 1 2027 3.6% — — View market →

Almost every high-value cryptocurrency launched since 2024 is now worth less than it was at launch, according to analytics firm CryptoRank.

The firm tracked 113 coins since their token generation event (TGE) price, with only 8 of them now above that price, a median return of -95.7%.

The sample is limited to projects with a market capitalization above $100 million as of July 21, CryptoRank told CryptoPotato.

CryptoRank Study: Eight Exceptions to the Rule Eight coins included in the survey are in profit, led by HYPE, ONDO, EVA, and NIGHT.

Hyperliquid’s HYPE was up 1,519% from its launch price at the time of the survey’s publication on July 21st. Ondo Finance’s ONDO followed at 101.4%, with EverValue Coin (EVA) and Midnight Network (NIGHT) up a more modest 20.3% and 16.5% respectively.

These figures are revealing, as we can see that even among those that are up, only a small handful showed outsized performance, with six of the eight achieving double-digit increases at best. It’s worth noting that HYPE was also listed in the new S&P Pantera Digital Asset Index, which excluded many high-performing crypto assets, including Bitcoin.

Why the Decline? CryptoRank states that sell-offs, thin liquidity, and regulatory uncertainty were the main causes of major drawdowns in these projects, although the market has also observed major crashes due to exploits and other factors in the last two years.

Only 7.1% of Tokens Launched Since 2024 Are Still in Profit

Out of 113 projects with a market capitalization above $100M, only 8 are trading above their TGE price, while 105 are already in the red.

This highlights how difficult it has been for newly launched tokens to sustain… pic.twitter.com/PbjCiBD5Jd

— CryptoRank.io (@CryptoRank_io) July 21, 2026

The tokens studied spanned a wide range of niches in the crypto industry, including DeFi, gaming, and various infrastructure projects. The findings come as the broader market recovers, with bitcoin climbing above $66,000 this week on higher ETF inflows and weaker US inflation data.

You may also like: Bitwise CIO Predicts the Biggest Crypto Bull Market Yet – These 2 Investments Could Lead It HIP-4 Upgrade: Hyperliquid Opens Door to Permissionless Prediction Markets Forget Bitcoin Bottom: Analyst Says These Altcoins Could Move First Tags:

Follow:

The author, a medical doctor and health economist, produces content on cryptocurrency markets, blockchain technologies, digital assets, and global finance.As a cryptocurrency writer and investor, he closely follows Bitcoin, altcoins, market trends, macroeconomic developments, token economies, and innovations in the digital asset ecosystem. By combining perspectives from health economics and financial analysis, he evaluates developments in cryptocurrency markets using a clear and data-driven approach.

The US Department State Department has launched a program to “advance diplomatic efforts on digital freedom and freedom of expression” using a Bitcoin (BTC) advocacy organization as a partner.

In a Friday X post, the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) said that it would be a founding partner in the US State Department’s Freedom Tech Excellence Program (FTEP), alongside Palantir Technologies, Anduril Industries and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. According to the organization, the program will allow its employees “to work alongside state department experts and defend digital freedoms around the world.”

“FTEP brings private sector talent to the Department for limited-term assignments to advance diplomatic efforts on key issues including online freedom of expression, privacy-enhancing technologies, countering digital surveillance, and responsible AI governance,” said the State Department.

Source: Bitcoin Policy Institute

Since its creation as a “non-partisan research and advocacy” organization in 2021, the BPI has endorsed attempts to codify US President Donald Trump’s executive order to establish a strategic crypto reserve into law. As of July, lawmakers in the US Congress had not passed legislation to follow Trump’s March 2025 executive order.

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.

Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for striking two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea on July 22, marking the first direct attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure since the dramatic 2019 drone assault that temporarily cut the kingdom’s production in half. Brent crude responded exactly how you’d expect: it surged more than 7%, blowing past $100 per barrel for the first time since those 2019 attacks.

The targeted vessels, the Encelia and the Layla, were transiting the Red Sea when they were hit. Houthi military spokesperson Yahya Saree said the tankers were struck for violating a naval embargo.

The geopolitical backdrop is getting worse, not better On July 16, Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi publicly threatened Saudi oil facilities, giving the market about a week’s warning that something ugly might be coming. The attacks followed the breakdown of a four-year truce between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia.

Advertisement

The Houthis, an Iran-aligned movement controlling much of northern Yemen, have been locked in a prolonged conflict with the Saudi-led coalition for years. Roughly 4.5 million barrels of oil pass through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait daily, making it a pressure point that can send shockwaves through global energy markets with a single well-placed strike.

Goldman Sachs has already weighed in, suggesting prices could exceed $120 per barrel if supply disruptions continue.

The crypto angle is more nuanced than “Bitcoin goes up” Bitcoin held steady in the $63,000 to $65,000 range following the attacks.

In 2025, the US Treasury sanctioned Houthi-linked cryptocurrency wallets that had received approximately $900 million in USDT. That’s not a rounding error. It’s nearly a billion dollars in stablecoin flows tied to a designated militant group, and it underscores a tension that the crypto industry has never fully resolved: the same permissionless infrastructure that makes digital assets attractive to legitimate users also makes them useful to sanctioned entities operating outside the traditional banking system.

What this means for investors The sanctions angle is worth monitoring closely. The $900 million in USDT flows to Houthi-linked wallets gives regulators fresh ammunition to push for stricter stablecoin oversight, particularly around Know Your Customer requirements for large transfers. If another round of attacks triggers another round of sanctions, expect USDT issuer Tether to face renewed scrutiny about its compliance infrastructure.

The 2019 Abqaiq attacks spiked oil prices by roughly 15% in a single day before the market calmed down within weeks. The question now is whether the current geopolitical environment, with a broken truce, an emboldened Houthi leadership, and broader Iranian-backed proxy activity across the region, allows for that same rapid normalization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: Shutterstock

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

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

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

BTC is marginally up since the news went live, but the actual volatility has historically taken place on Monday morning.

Following a few weeks of escalations, new threats, and strikes, United States President Donald Trump has reportedly ordered its military to stand down instead of carrying out the planned attacks for tonight.

The crypto focus is back on bitcoin, which has typically shown a positive reaction to similar developments. However, the actual impact might be felt after at least 24 hours.

As reported by Axios, the reason for tonight’s withdrawal from new military action is the recently resumed talks on the Strait of Hormuz.

Large media sites suggested yesterday that Oman has initiated talks with Iran to reopen the key Strait, and some sources claimed that major progress has been made over the past day. It appears Trump wants to see how it resolves before deciding whether or not the US will continue with its attacks.

BREAKING: President Trump ordered the US Military to not carry out planned strikes on Iran Friday night, despite previously approving the strikes, per Axios.

This came just hours after talks mediated by Oman over reopening the Strait of Hormuz reportedly resumed.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) July 25, 2026

The primary cryptocurrency is prone to reacting to any sort of news on the war front. Renewed attacks typically lead to price corrections, while the reemergence of hope for a deal, ceasefire, or even more permanent peace, have resulted in major rallies.

The tricky part is the timing. Aside from the initial shock when the war started in late February, the asset has remained relatively stable when the new developments took place over the weekend. Instead, its actual fluctuations in either direction transpire on Monday morning when most traditional financial markets start to open.

You may also like: Here’s Why Bitcoin Dipped Below $64K Today Dem Senator Slams GOP’s CLARITY Ethics Proposal as ‘Not a Serious Effort’: Report Bitcoin’s Sharpe Ratio Signals an ‘Optimal’ Spot Accumulation Window Consequently, even though it has defended the $64,000 support now, which many analysts believe is key for its next big move, the bigger reaction is likely to take place in 36 hours.

Tags:

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.

Crypto influencer and trader Carl Runefelt, known as "The Moon," said he sold two Ferraris worth a combined $2.5 million to increase his exposure to Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC).

Historically Significant Support ZonesIn a podcast on Friday, trader Runefelt argued that Bitcoin is approaching one of its most historically significant support zones.

He pointed to the 200-week moving average, a long-term technical indicator that has previously coincided with major market bottoms.

Runefelt said he views BTC’s current decline as a rare accumulation opportunity.

The average reflects Bitcoin’s average price over approximately four years, broadly aligning with the cryptocurrency’s halving cycle.

Rather than entering his entire position at one price, Runefelt said he places several limit orders throughout the support zone to build an average entry.

Why He Is Avoiding High LeverageRunefelt cautioned against using significant leverage around long-term technical levels because Bitcoin can briefly fall below widely watched support before reversing.

Sharp declines can trigger stop-loss orders and liquidations positioned beneath the moving average, wiping out leveraged traders immediately before a potential rebound.

Runefelt claimed he currently has more than $2.5 million in Bitcoin positions open on MEXC, in addition to another profitable position on Bybit.

Bitcoin’s History Around The 200-Week AverageRunefelt cited several previous occasions when Bitcoin traded near or below its 200-week moving average before beginning major rallies.

"Historically, each of these touches has marked a bottom right before the next parabolic rally," he said.

Photo: William’s photo / Shutterstock.com

Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs

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

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

22h18 ▪ 4 min read ▪ by Eddy S.

Summarize this article with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join the program

A

A

Lien copié

Eddy S.

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

DISCLAIMER

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

Follow:

The author, who holds a degree in International Relations and Political Science, has 10 years of experience as a writer and editor in the fields of cryptocurrency, blockchain technologies, and digital asset markets.While at COINTURK, he has published over 8,500 news articles, analyses, essays, and reports on Bitcoin, altcoins, cryptocurrency markets, the blockchain ecosystem, digital asset regulations, and global financial developments. Closely following market movements and industry developments, the author addresses the complex world of cryptocurrency in a clear and reader-friendly manner.An avid reader, the author also evaluates the impact of international developments on financial markets and the digital asset ecosystem.

Fears of Ripple burning its approximately 32 billion of XRP that is currently held in escrow have surfaced again in the crypto community. However, crypto commentator and Digital Ascension Group Chairman Jake Claver says that’s not possible as of now. He said that since the XRP Ledger is based on decentralized validator consensus, which could save the XRP in escrow from any kind of burn activities.

Can Ripple Burn Its 32 Billion XRP Held In Escrow? Based on XRPScan data, currently a stash of around 32.45 billion XRP is locked in escrow. Meanwhile, there’s approximately 67.53 billion XRP in circulation, and the total supply of XRP on the XRP Ledger is set at 100 billion.

Almost 1.44 million XRP has been permanently burned due to transaction fees. Hence, the total amount of XRP available to be burned is nearly 99.99 billion of which Ripple owns around 32% stake.

In response to the rumors swirling around X, Claver wrote, “‘Will Ripple just burn the escrow?’ They can’t.” He said that Ripple operates three out of 35 trusted validators, while any change to the protocol needs to get 80% of the validators to agree.

'Will Ripple just burn the escrow?' They can't. Ripple runs 3 of 35 trusted validators, and any change needs ~80% consensus. They can lock XRP in escrow, but torching supply takes 28 other independent validators voting yes. Decentralization, in practice. pic.twitter.com/PqVBCyQizr

— Jake Claver, QFOP (@beyond_broke) July 24, 2026

According to the video Claver attached to the post, Ripple cannot destroy the escrowed tokens with its own authority. “They have to have an 80% consensus in order to pass an amendment on the network,” he explained.

Thus, Claver declared: “They can’t burn it.” He added, They can escrow it, they can lock it. They can give it away, they can transfer it, but they cannot burn it without putting it to a vote for the UNL validators.” A similar vote to upgrade system was used recently to update the XRP Ledger v3.2.0 after its June 15 release.

Claver also brought attention to comments by Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz in February 2024. “David Schwartz has explicitly said these words. Well, not verbatim, but pretty close in the tweets,” he added.

What Did Schwartz Say? Schwartz’s comments were made during a conversation regarding Ripple’s long-term XRP holdings. He said that the initial intent was to liquidate at a much faster rate than that.

“We were originally hoping to get our holdings way down in just a few years mostly using giveaways. That strategy just didn’t work,” Schwartz wrote. He added, “We don’t want to be holding lots of XRP for decades, but it’s not clear what other options we have.”

Thereafter, Schwartz rejected a suggestion from another X user to burn XRP from escrow every month to support XRP price. “If you’re thinking that will have some positive impact on the price, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that,” he said.

For this, Schwartz referred to the token burn by Stellar which he said had “no real effect” on the XLM price. Schwartz also cross questioned the user on why Ripple would make such a not-so-profitable move.

I think people are looking in the wrong place. Look at this comparison of XRP versus XLM over one year and over several years. pic.twitter.com/9To8hee3vm

— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) February 19, 2024

He questioned, “Why would Ripple consider an option that doesn’t give it millions of dollars over an option that does give it millions of dollars when there’s no evidence of any benefits?” Stellar’s burn only depleted the foundation’s resources, he added.

In another response, Schwartz emphasized that despite a big token burn, the market did not budge as he shared several charts. “Stellar burned 53% of the supply and you can’t even find it on the XLM/USD chart, the XLM/BTC chart, or the XLM/XRP chart,” he wrote. The Ripple CTO Emeritus declared: “It just destroys something that has value.”

Stellar burned 53% of the supply and you can't even find it on the XLM/USD chart, the XLM/BTC chart, or the XLM/XRP chart. All they did was reduce their own resources. It just destroys something that has value.

— David 'JoelKatz' Schwartz (@JoelKatz) February 19, 2024

In conclusion, both Claver’s explanation and Schwartz’s previous comments indicate that Ripple will be unable to burn the escrowed XRP on its own. They also believe there is not much evidence that this would benefit XRP price at all, or even the entire ecosystem.

As XRP continues to show mixed price action amid the recurring crypto market downturn, it appears that traders are beginning to lose confidence in its price potential.

Latest data from crypto prediction market Kalshi has shown traders betting on a 59% chance of XRP dropping further below the $1 mark as market uncertainty continues.

With the bets sitting at about 59%, it implies crypto traders on the platform see the outcome of XRP plunging below $1 this year as more likely than not.

HOT Stories

It is important to note that the traders placing the bets did not predict XRP's potential price with certainty. However, the predictions showcase the collective expectations of traders willing to risk capital on the outcome, suggesting that traders are increasingly losing confidence in the asset.

XRP in July breaks bearish trendXRP has continued to slip in and out of the bullish price zone, as its price struggles to retain positive momentum amid consistent market volatility.

This price inconsistency has seen XRP post several months of consistent losses despite frequent expectations of a potential price breakout.

You Might Also Like

Nonetheless, XRP has delivered more positive price moves this month, as historic data from CryptoRank shows that the asset is up 5.6% so far this month, recovering from a six-month low of $1.01 after briefly touching $1.17 a few days ago.

While July has often proved to be a positive month for the crypto market, XRP has met the expectations of traders, delivering a decent gain of about 6% this month while extending a seven-year streak of steady positive July returns.

Japan’s Civil Code, a foundational legal resource established in 1896, is rarely a subject of mainstream investment discussion. However, X Finance Bull, a well-known crypto analyst, has shifted attention to Article 589 of this code, urging investors to examine its connection to XRP and Japan’s approach to digital asset regulation.

Article 589 and Lending RulesArticle 589 of the Civil Code governs the accrual of interest in lending contracts. The provision specifies that interest is not automatically required unless expressly agreed upon between lender and borrower. When such an agreement exists, lenders are entitled to interest from the moment they transfer funds to the borrower. This legal framework applies broadly to lending transactions, including any involving digital assets.

Recent commentary from Yuto Kanzaki, an insider at the Bank of Japan, was highlighted by X Finance Bull. Kanzaki reportedly emphasized that Article 589 could become much more relevant than many market participants anticipate. He stated that international borrowers should not assume that prior approvals for refinancing or capital flow will automatically continue under the evolving regulatory climate.

Yuto Kanzaki noted that Article 589 is likely to be invoked more frequently as regulators intensify oversight of lending practices, especially in transactions involving foreign borrowers. He warned that borrowers depending on continual access to Japanese capital markets face increasing scrutiny as financial rules tighten.

XRP’s Role in Japan’s Financial InfrastructureX Finance Bull drew parallels between Article 589, regulatory momentum, and the strategic adoption of XRP in Japan. Over the years, Ripple and SBI Holdings have worked to integrate XRP into the national payments framework, developing robust digital asset infrastructure. This foundation, built in an environment of advancing regulation, positions XRP with potential advantages as legal and compliance requirements gain prominence.

The analyst also pointed out that 589 is a significant figure within the XRP community, commonly cited as a long-term price milestone. The synchronization of the Civil Code article with community narratives led to speculation about whether the association is purely coincidental or hints at deeper connections within the market’s evolution.

Regulatory Shifts and Market ImplicationsJapan continues to formalize its regulatory landscape for cryptocurrencies by incorporating digital assets into established financial oversight structures. This policy direction directly affects how payment networks, settlement platforms, and blockchain-based financial services develop and interact with both domestic and international market participants.

The insights attributed to Kanazaki reflect heightened vigilance over capital flows, particularly for borrowers and institutions reliant on Japanese refinancing channels. X Finance Bull did not forecast any price movement for XRP, instead highlighting how shifts in Japan’s refinancing standards may impact the infrastructure underpinning digital asset transactions.

As Japan applies more comprehensive regulatory scrutiny to digital finance, investors and market observers are watching how established players like XRP adapt within this environment. Technological platforms that offer portfolio management, price tracking, and macroeconomic data integration will become increasingly significant in navigating the country’s evolving financial rules.

Considering the increased necessity of monitoring regulatory and technical developments, market participants are turning to tools that centralize portfolio management. CryptoAppsy, which requires no account creation hassle, combines your crypto investments with real-time prices, detailed charts, and multi-currency portfolio management on a single screen. With this all-in-one financial assistant, you can instantly seize opportunities by setting up smart price alerts, filter news specific to your coins, discover newly listed altcoins without missing them, and always stay one step ahead of the market with critical macroeconomic data such as Fed interest rates.

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.

Crypto analyst Steph Is Crypto has outlined a bullish scenario for XRP, suggesting the digital asset could be on the verge of a substantial price breakout similar to its strong move in 2024. Presenting side-by-side charts on X, he compared XRP’s current market structure with the accumulation period that led to its prior rally.

Chart analysis signals possible repeat of 2024 rallySteph Is Crypto pointed to a defined trading range where XRP has consolidated after a previous decline, describing this as an “Accumulation Window.” He argued that current price action reflects a setup nearly identical to the buildup before XRP’s earlier breakout, indicating the asset could be following the same upward trajectory.

Accompanying his post, Steph Is Crypto wrote, “XRP is on the verge of creating a new wave of millionaires over the next 2–3 months!” Two comparative charts displayed XRP’s prior multi-month sideways movement before an aggressive run higher, then positioned the current market inside a similar structure, suggesting another breakout may be imminent.

XRP may soon create a new wave of millionaires as it forms a pattern that closely matches the accumulation phase before its 2024 surge, Steph Is Crypto explained, highlighting comparable chart structures and projecting another strong advance.

A dotted trajectory on the new chart projects XRP moving beyond its current range, with a potential target near $4 if momentum follows historical patterns. This analysis places emphasis on broader accumulation trends rather than short-term fluctuations, with the suggestion that the next 2–3 months could prove crucial for XRP’s price action.

PeriodXRP Market StructureAnalyst’s Expected Outcome2024Sideways accumulation, then breakoutRallied to new local highs2026 (current)Similar sideways trading, range-boundPossible breakout toward $4Community reactions and regulatory factorsDespite the optimistic projection, not all community members were convinced. A notable reply from user Dapospapa questioned the forecast’s tight timeframe, referencing ongoing price weakness in XRP alongside increased attention on the CLARITY Act, a legislative effort closely watched by digital asset investors.

Dapospapa directly challenged the outlook, citing downward price movement even as regulatory developments captured market attention. He asked, “2–3 months? Seriously, it’s trending down on a day the CLARITY Act is hyped and possibly happening; please explain?”

Mini dictionary: CLARITY Act, a proposed US legislative measure aimed at providing regulatory clarity for digital assets and addressing the status of cryptocurrencies as securities or commodities.

Steph Is Crypto offered no further elaboration in response to the question, instead allowing his comparative charts and historical analysis to support his position. He remains confident that the resemblance between present and past market phases could precede another significant upward move in XRP.

Outlook remains uncertainWhether XRP will retrace a similar path to its 2024 rally is yet to be seen, as market conditions and regulatory factors continue to shape sentiment. The next few months are expected to be a key period for the asset, with both technical and legislative events likely to influence its trajectory.

While the chart similarities are notable, investors remain divided on whether XRP can achieve a breakout to $4 in the timeframe suggested by Steph Is Crypto, particularly amid evolving US crypto regulation.

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.

Crypto market commentator Michelle Kirby has publicly declared her intention to hold XRP beyond the $100 mark, while suggesting that the majority of investors will not wait for such high price levels.

Kirby, known for her analysis in the digital asset community, recently wrote on X that roughly 98% of people are likely to sell their XRP holdings once the price reaches $10 to $50. She asserted her commitment to hold until XRP trades above $100 and asked who else in the community planned to join her.

98% of people are expected to sell their XRP between $10 and $50. Kirby emphasizes her intent to remain invested and reach a price above $100.

Her perspective appears to resonate with several prominent figures in the crypto sector. The $100 target for XRP has been discussed by multiple analysts who consider it achievable within the current market cycle.

Time Traveler, a well-followed commentator, previously stated on X that 2026 could be the year XRP exceeds $100. He cautioned against specifying a timeline for financial success but maintained that the asset holds significant potential, especially when considering its possible role in the financial ecosystem by 2050.

Bird, an analyst and developer recognized in the XRP community, has also supported the $100 price point. In his post, Bird wrote, “XRP will be $100+,” attributing his optimism to the XRP Ledger’s ability to support real-world asset tokenization.

Mini dictionary: XRP Ledger, the underlying blockchain for XRP, enables fast, low-cost transfer and settlement of both cryptocurrency and tokenized real-world assets. Its unique consensus protocol sets it apart from traditional proof-of-work blockchains.

XRP projections beyond $100Other analysts have set even higher targets. Jake Claver, another cryptocurrency commentator, outlined a $750 price projection for XRP by the end of 2026. He based his forecast on statements from Ripple president Monica Long, who said that full-scale institutional blockchain adoption could be realized within the same timeframe.

While the $750 target sparked debate and skepticism among market participants, it reflects a growing sentiment that higher XRP prices are possible if institutional interest accelerates. Many view the $100 milestone as a launching point rather than a final destination for the digital asset.

AnalystTarget PriceTarget YearRationaleMichelle Kirby$100+Not specifiedLong-term holding through bull cyclesTime Traveler$100+2026Market cycle and long-term adoptionJake Claver$7502026Institutional adoption as cited by RippleInvestor behavior in bull cyclesKirby’s post spotlights a recurring theme in crypto markets: many investors buy during periods of low prices but depart the market before higher, more ambitious price targets are hit. By expressing her aim to hold until at least $100, Kirby identifies with the smaller segment of investors who are willing to withstand larger market swings for potentially greater returns.

Some analysts warn that those who sell at $10 or $50 might miss significant future gains if long-term projections materialize.

In response to a community member who suggested it could take until 2030 for XRP to achieve the $100 milestone, Kirby replied that she expects this level to be reached sooner than many anticipate. She cited analyst sentiment that prices could rise to as high as $1,000 by 2030, reinforcing the possibility of upside for those who maintain their positions.

These viewpoints continue to spark debate across the XRP community, as investors weigh the prospects of holding through multiple market cycles to achieve higher price targets.

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.

Ethereum (ETH), son aylarda yaşadığı sert düşüşlerin ardından yeniden yatırımcıların radarına girdi. Kripto para analisti NoName, Ethereum’un tarihsel olarak ayı piyasalarının sona erdiği fiyat bölgesine ulaştığını savunurken, uzun vadede 7.000 dolar seviyesinin hala ulaşılabilir olduğunu belirtti. Buna karşın bazı analistler ise düşüş sürecinin henüz tamamlanmadığını ve yeni dip seviyelerin görülebileceğini düşünüyor.

Analiste Göre Ethereum Dip Bölgesine Girdi Takma adıyla tanınan kripto analisti NoName, Ethereum grafiğinde oluşan dört ardışık düşük zirvenin klasik bir ayı piyasası yapısını tamamladığını ifade etti. Analiste göre ETH fiyatı sırasıyla 4.957 dolar, 3.400 dolar, 2.460 dolar ve 1.950 dolar seviyelerinde daha düşük zirveler oluşturarak uzun süredir devam eden düşüş trendini sürdürdü. Bu hareketin ardından fiyatın 1.300 ile 1.900 dolar aralığına gerilemesi, geçmiş piyasa döngülerinde görülen dip bölgeleriyle benzerlik taşıyor.

NoName, bu seviyelerin teknik göstergelerden çok yatırımcı psikolojisini yansıttığını belirterek, geçmişte 4.900 dolar seviyelerinde büyük ilgi gören Ethereum’un bugün 2.000 doların altında “ölü proje” olarak görülmesinin piyasa psikolojisinin doğal bir sonucu olduğunu ifade etti.

Ethereum için yalnızca teknik analiz değil, zincir üstü göstergeler de dikkat çekici sinyaller üretmeye başladı. Analist Ali Martinez, Ethereum’un MVRV oranının 160 günlük hareketli ortalamasını yukarı yönlü kestiğini ve geçmişte benzer sinyallerin büyük yükseliş hareketlerinden önce görüldüğünü paylaştı. Öte yandan Binance üzerindeki 30 günlük fonlama oranı ortalaması son altı ayın en yüksek seviyesine ulaşarak vadeli işlem piyasasında yatırımcı güveninin yeniden artmaya başladığını gösterdi. CoinGecko verilerine göre Ethereum haberin hazırlandığı sırada 1.900 doların hemen altında işlem görüyordu. Son bir ayda yaklaşık yüzde 12 değer kazanan ETH, buna rağmen tüm zamanların en yüksek seviyesi olan yaklaşık 4.946 doların yüzde 60’tan fazla altında bulunuyor.

Balinalar Alım Yaparken ETF Girişleri Güçleniyor Piyasadaki belirsizliğe rağmen büyük yatırımcıların Ethereum biriktirmeye devam ettiği görülüyor. Blockchain analiz platformu Lookonchain, Galaxy Digital’in OTC masası aracılığıyla yaklaşık 27.000 ETH satın alan bir cüzdanı tespit etti. Ayrıca yatırımcı Arthur Hayes’in de son günlerde yüzlerce ETH daha satın alarak toplam varlığını artırdığı bildirildi. Kurumsal yatırımcı ilgisi de dikkat çekiyor. Spot Ethereum ETF’lerine bu ay 400 milyon doların üzerinde net giriş gerçekleşirken, tahmin platformu Kalshi’deki yatırımcılar yıl sonuna kadar ETH fiyatının yaklaşık 3.200 dolar seviyesine ulaşabileceğini öngörüyor.

Ethereum için iyimser beklentiler bulunsa da tüm piyasa uzmanları aynı fikirde değil. Blockchain analiz şirketi CryptoQuant, ETH’nin gerçekleşen fiyatının yaklaşık yüzde 17 altında işlem gördüğünü ancak dip oluşumunu gösteren göstergelerin tamamının henüz teyit vermediğini belirtti. Şirkete göre piyasada gerçek anlamda bir teslimiyet süreci henüz tamamlanmış değil.

Benzer şekilde analist Nonzee:

Ethereum’un kısa vadede 2.000-2.200 dolar bandına yükselebileceğini ancak bunun kalıcı bir yükseliş yerine bir boğa tuzağı olabileceğini düşünüyor.

Analiste göre fiyatın önce 900 ile 1.300 dolar aralığına kadar geri çekilmesi ihtimali bulunuyor. Buna rağmen uzun vadede o da Ethereum için 7.000 dolar hedefini koruyor.

Değerlendirme Ethereum, hem teknik görünüm hem de zincir üstü veriler açısından kritik bir döneme girmiş durumda. Bazı analistler mevcut fiyat bölgesini ayı piyasasının dip noktası olarak değerlendirirken, diğerleri daha güçlü bir teslimiyet süreci yaşanmadan kalıcı yükseliş beklemenin erken olduğunu savunuyor. Balina alımları, ETF girişleri ve olumlu zincir üstü sinyaller iyimserliği desteklese de yatırımcıların kısa vadede yüksek volatiliteye karşı dikkatli olması gerekiyor. Ethereum’un önümüzdeki süreçte 2.000 dolar seviyesini yeniden aşması, piyasanın yönü açısından önemli bir gösterge olabilir.

Son dakika kripto para haberleri için hemen tıkla

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

Ethereum Traders are Giving Up Again. The Last Two Times ETH Rallied

Ethereum is maintaining its crucial support at $1,850, preserving a local pattern characterized by higher highs and higher lows. This sustained structure indicates that ETH could advance toward resistance levels at $1,950, $2,060, $2,150, and possibly $2,350 if momentum continues.

Short-term rebound targets $2,060After testing the lower edge of its ascending channel, Ethereum has rebounded, reinforcing the short-term bullish outlook. Crypto analyst Ali Martinez noted that ETH may revisit the upper boundary near $2,060, provided it defends the $1,850 support area.

Martinez emphasized the importance of the $1,850 zone as the critical point for sustaining Ethereum’s upward trajectory, suggesting that a successful defense could mark a renewed push toward higher resistance levels above $2,000.

Trading data showed ETH recovering toward $1,886 following a brief dip to the channel’s support line. Historically, similar reactions from this boundary have led to moves deeper into the channel’s median and upper bands.

Immediate resistance is found near $1,980, where Ethereum previously struggled to maintain its positive momentum. A decisive break above this region could strengthen the ongoing rebound and set the stage for a move to $2,060.

The bullish scenario depends on ETH’s ability to hold $1,850. A significant drop below that level would undermine the local uptrend and increase the likelihood of a sharper correction.

As long as Ethereum remains above $1,850, both the $1,980 and $2,060 targets remain viable. A breakdown, however, could signal a shift in sentiment, favoring sellers in the short term.

SupportFirst ResistanceNext Resistance Levels$1,850$1,980$2,060, $2,150, $2,350Key resistance at $2,150 as bulls maintain structureEthereum’s sequence of higher highs and higher lows has not been disrupted despite recent price volatility. Analyst Daan Crypto Trades stated that a breakout above the $1,950 local high could propel ETH toward $2,150 and potentially $2,350, reinforcing the positive setup.

Clearing the $1,950 resistance level is regarded as a signal of renewed momentum, with the next major hurdle found between $2,150 and $2,190 where significant moving averages may act as barriers.

Recent analysis showed Ethereum pulling back after reaching resistance near $1,958, with buyers now focused on defending the $1,850 region. This zone remains pivotal for sustaining the recovery attempt.

A daily close above $1,950 would likely indicate renewed strength, drawing attention to the resistance range around $2,150 to $2,190. At that stage, Ethereum’s 200-day moving average and exponential moving average both converge, adding to the challenge of breaking higher.

Successfully overcoming these technical hurdles could set the stage for further gains toward $2,350 and the broader range high near $2,391, although such a move would require increased buying activity.

Conversely, if Ethereum fails to hold $1,850, the bullish pattern would be weakened. Immediate downside targets include $1,788 and the more substantial support area near $1,736.

For now, Ethereum’s trend remains constructive above $1,850. Market participants are watching for confirmation of a breakout above $1,950, which would solidify the case for further upward movement, while a break below support could signal a return to the previous trading range.

Mini dictionary: 200-day moving average, exponential moving average — The 200-day moving average is a long-term trend indicator calculated by averaging closing prices over the past 200 days, while the exponential moving average gives more weight to recent prices, making it more responsive to recent market changes. Both are commonly used to identify trend direction and key support or resistance levels in cryptocurrency trading.

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.