Japan's push for domestic investment may stabilize its bond market but risks unsettling global financial flows and currency dynamics.

The post Japan’s bond yields fall, yen strengthens after Finance Minister’s remarks on domestic investment appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Andreessen's role may signal increased tech influence on economic policy, potentially reshaping productivity and employment landscapes.

The post Fed appoints Marc Andreessen to productivity and jobs panel under new chair Kevin Warsh appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

ChatGPT Work democratizes coding, potentially transforming workplace productivity and redefining skill requirements for white-collar roles.

The post OpenAI launches ChatGPT Work, turning every white-collar employee into a coder appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Esports' cautious stance on crypto integration highlights a preference for stability and control, potentially limiting innovation and fan engagement.

The post VCT China Stage 2 kicks off as esports continues to sidestep crypto integration appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

AI-driven investment strategies could revolutionize portfolio management, challenging traditional models and reshaping financial advisory services.

The post JPMorgan builds AI agents that outperform traditional portfolios in two decades of backtesting appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

JPMorgan Says the Real Threat to Bitcoin Isn’t Strategy (MSTR) — It’s Private Blockchains

Strategy’s recent bitcoin sales and its formal monetization program have rattled investors, but JPMorgan analysts see a bigger danger to bitcoin: blockchain adoption that routes around public networks and the tokens that ride on them.

In a report led by managing director Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou and reported by The Block, the bank argued that Strategy is not the main structural threat to the asset. 

The company sold 3,588 bitcoin for $216 million in early July to cover preferred dividends, its largest disposal on record, and such sales can add bursts of selling pressure. The deeper concern, the analysts said, is where tokenization, payments and settlement end up.

Should that activity settle on permissioned rails rather than public chains, the crypto ecosystem could face a structural de-rating — thinner liquidity, weaker capital flows and slower on-chain volume — a drag that would reach bitcoin in time.

Institutions have leaned toward permissioned blockchains, which offer privacy, know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering controls, governance, throughput, legal accountability and regulatory certainty. 

That preference, per JPMorgan, creates a competitive problem for public networks like Ethereum.

The analysts cited the Bank for International Settlements, which has warned against public permissionless chains for systemic financial infrastructure and has pushed instead for “unified ledgers” that hold tokenized central bank money, bank deposits and assets inside regulated walls.

Tokenization as a real-world use case

Banks are building to that spec. Tokenized deposits — digital claims on bank balances, backed by banking regulation and deposit insurance — stand out as the clearest case. Should such deposits spread in the non-transferable forms regulators favor, they could crowd out stablecoins in institutional payments. 

SWIFT’s blockchain project and central bank digital currency efforts such as the digital euro and digital yuan would reinforce that regulated lane.

Real-world asset tokenization tells a similar story. The market sits near $50 billion, much of it on Ethereum for now, though the analysts read that as early experimentation rather than a settled structure. 

As adoption matures, issuance, custody and settlement could migrate to private infrastructure, leaving public chains for distribution and interoperability. DTCC and Securitize show the pattern in motion, and the analysts questioned whether public settlement is even the most efficient model for regulated firms, given the capital savings of deferred, netted settlement.

What could prove JPMorgan wrong

The Clarity Act, even should it pass this year, might not lift the threat; it could embolden bank-issued deposit tokens at the expense of public stablecoins. 

The analysts flagged three ways their thesis breaks: a hybrid model where both chain types matter, stronger stablecoin adoption under friendly rules, or bitcoin holding its role as “digital gold” and a debasement hedge whatever happens across the rest of crypto.

This post JPMorgan Says the Real Threat to Bitcoin Isn’t Strategy (MSTR) — It’s Private Blockchains first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin’s New Debt Machine is Facing Its First Major Test

Public companies kept stacking Bitcoin in June, but the month’s real story played out in a corner of the market that did not exist a couple of years ago: the preferred shares that treasury firms now use to fund their coin purchases. 

A new report from BitcoinTreasuries.net calls June the first true stress test for this “digital credit” market, and the results offer a mixed but telling verdict on where corporate Bitcoin adoption goes next.

First, the buying. Public treasuries added close to 9,000 BTC before sales in June, or about 7,300 BTC on a net basis, worth some $427 million at the month-end price of $58,398. That counts as moderate growth, and two names did most of the work. 

Michael Saylor’s Strategy added 3,625 BTC net, and Strive added 3,364, with each company spending in the neighborhood of $200 million. 

Strip out those two and the rest of the field bought about 2,000 BTC. For the full second quarter, the report estimates 110,000 BTC in net additions, a pace that beat the two quarters before it.

The context matters here. Bitcoin sat well below its October 2025 peak near $126,000 and dipped under $60,000 during the month. That backdrop set the stage for the drama in digital credit.

Preferred shares to fuel bitcoin

To understand why that drama matters, it helps to know how the model works. Companies such as Strategy no longer rely on their own cash to buy Bitcoin. They issue preferred shares that promise investors a fixed or variable dividend, sell them near a $100 par value, and route the proceeds into coins.

Strategy’s flagship product, STRC, and Strive’s version, SATA, became the two biggest of these instruments. For a stretch, they traded in a tight band around par, and investors treated them as a place to park money at a healthy yield.

That calm bred risk. As the report explains, a long run near par let leverage build inside STRC as buyers borrowed to amplify the trade. When Bitcoin’s price slid, that leverage turned into a trigger. 

Starting June 18, STRC and SATA fell below their $100 par. Leveraged holders got margin-called, forced sales pushed prices down, and STRC bottomed near $75. SATA weakened from a mix of its own pressures and spillover from STRC. 

This was not a crisis of the underlying dividends, which kept flowing, but a crisis of positioning, the report framed.

The recovery came fast enough to reassure the faithful. By July 2, STRC changed hands near $87 and SATA near $97, prices that held into the report’s July 9 publication. Neither Strategy nor Strive missed a dividend. 

Strategy’s bitcoin holdings

The report notes that Strategy held 847,363 BTC at an average cost near $75,651 and had a $1.1 billion dollar reserve in mid-June, while Strive kept an 18-month dividend reserve. The pitch: these are cash-flow questions, not solvency questions.

Strategy did not sit still. Saylor’s firm rolled out share and digital-credit buybacks, raised STRC dividends, and set up a dollar reserve, a package meant to steady prices while it keeps buying coins. Saylor framed it as a balance between commitment to Bitcoin and the “liquidity, discipline, and active capital management” the credit strategy demands.

Since then, Strategy has sold $3,588 and now holds 843,775 bitcoin. 

The market voted with volume. Combined STRC and SATA trading topped $10 billion in June, a monthly record for each, and that came without new at-the-market share sales feeding the pipeline. Demand for the paper, in other words, did not vanish when the price broke.

BitcoinTreasuries.net polled its readers, an audience it concedes leans pro-digital-credit, and found more optimism than fear. A slim majority, 52%, did not see the price drop as a major problem. Most holders sat tight, and 52% of all respondents bought STRC or SATA after June 18. 

At the same time, three-quarters expect price swings to recur, so nobody is calling the risk gone. Looking ahead, 77.8% expect the digital-credit supply to grow by the end of 2027, and about a fifth expect it to clear $50 billion.

This post Bitcoin’s New Debt Machine is Facing Its First Major Test first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

New Hampshire Council Rejects $100 Million Bitcoin-Backed Bond

The New Hampshire Executive Council rejected a plan on Wednesday to authorize a $100 million bond backed by Bitcoin, killing a proposal that state officials had cast as a first-in-the-nation bid to draw digital finance to the Granite State.

The New Hampshire councilors voted 3-2 against it, according to reporting from The Boston Globe.

The New Hampshire Business Finance Authority and Governor Kelly Ayotte had promoted the bond as “groundbreaking” and “historic.” The deal would have stood as the world’s first Bitcoin-backed municipal bond. The plan had cleared Moody’s ratings and reached the Executive Council for its final vote before issuance.

The council did not share that enthusiasm. Karen Liot Hill, the lone Democrat, framed her opposition as caution rather than hostility. 

“I’m not opposed to Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general,” she told The Boston Globe. “But I do think that we are being asked as a state to lend a kind of legitimacy to a financial transaction, which is from … an emerging asset class that has been shown to be very volatile.”

Bitcoin is ‘emerged’

James Key-Wallace, executive director of the Business Finance Authority, disputed the framing. “The only quibble I would have is … I wouldn’t call them ’emerging,'” he said. “They’ve ’emerged.’ They’re here.”

Key-Wallace stressed that the bond carried zero risk for New Hampshire taxpayers. The loan agreement would create a conduit between private investors and a private borrower, with cryptocurrency as collateral. 

The state would owe nothing, even in a Bitcoin crash. Should Bitcoin climb across the three-year term, the authority could collect millions in fees for small business, child care, housing, and economic development programs. He said the deal could lead to “several more.”

Ayotte, who last year signed a law giving the state treasurer discretion to invest in Bitcoin and made New Hampshire the first state to pass a strategic Bitcoin reserve into law, defended the value of moving first. 

“I think it’s something that we really need to think about,” she said, “because our state continues to thrive when we are continuing to be innovative — and especially if we can do so in a way that protects the taxpayers.”

Liot Hill moved to table the proposal, but no colleague seconded the motion, a silence that sent the plan to its final vote. Janet Stevens and David Wheeler joined her in opposition. Joseph Kenney and John Stephen voted in favor.

Key-Wallace said his team remains excited about the state’s role in the digital asset economy, and he offered to present the idea to the council in the future.

This post New Hampshire Council Rejects $100 Million Bitcoin-Backed Bond first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

BitGo Adds Quantum-Risk Controls to Bitcoin Custody

BitGo Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BTGO) introduced a set of tools to help institutions measure and reduce the quantum-computing risk tied to their Bitcoin holdings. The digital asset infrastructure company said the features apply to UTXO-based wallets and its multi-signature custody service.

The release builds on BitGo’s multi-signature architecture, which the firm pioneered for Bitcoin to reduce single points of failure. The new controls give clients more visibility into wallet-key exposure, better handling of unspent transaction outputs, and workflows for institutional wallet operations.

At the center of the launch is a Quantum Risk Score, an in-platform system that rates potential quantum exposure across supported Bitcoin wallets. A Fix Exposed Addresses Workflow guides clients through moving funds from addresses with elevated exposure into new addresses with stronger key hygiene. 

A new UTXO Selection Method groups and prioritizes coins by address to limit the exposure that partial spends create. Updated default address-type controls steer wallets away from transaction patterns that raise quantum concerns.

Bitcoin could face quantum attacks

The risk stems from how Bitcoin addresses work. An address whose public key has appeared on-chain could, in a future with capable quantum machines, face attack. 

Estimates place 6.9 million Bitcoin in addresses with exposed public keys. Funds in address types that reveal a public key from creation, such as Taproot or Pay-to-Public-Key, fall outside the scope of the application and need separate remediation.

“We believe the safest key is one whose public key has never been revealed on-chain,” said Mike Belshe, CEO and co-founder of BitGo. “These capabilities give institutions a practical way to understand and reduce quantum exposure while continuing to rely on the proven security of multi-signature.”

BitGo said no quantum computer can break Bitcoin at present. Adam Back, co-founder and CEO of Blockstream and BSTR, framed the timing as a reason to act. “Nobody has a quantum computer that can touch Bitcoin today, but that’s exactly why the work should start now, while it’s calm and optional rather than urgent and forced,” he said.

The company described the tools as a complement to future protocol-level post-quantum signature upgrades to Bitcoin, rather than a replacement. 

The features cover supported UTXO-based assets and multi-signature configurations.

This post BitGo Adds Quantum-Risk Controls to Bitcoin Custody first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Russia’s Largest Private Bank Alfa-Bank To Test Bitcoin and Crypto Trading

Alfa-Bank, Russia’s largest private lender, is preparing to launch its own digital depository and a full slate of crypto services once national regulation takes effect, joining a widening race among Russian banks to capture a market that does not yet legally exist.

Dmitry Vitman, chief operating officer of Alfa-Bank’s corporate and investment business, told RBC Investments that the bank intends to offer “all possible services related to digital currencies” once the relevant legislation comes into force. 

“First and foremost, we plan to create our own digital depository and offer its services to other companies,” he said.

Under the framework expected to govern the market, a digital depository would record and store cryptocurrency and digital financial assets, monitor client transactions, and block transfers to addresses not sanctioned by authorities.

Firms that already hold a depository license would not need a separate license from the Central Bank to operate one.

Vitman said the market will develop gradually. Retail brokerage will come first, leaning on Russian and international infrastructure, with a possible launch in late 2026 or early 2027 if digital currency legislation enters into force in September 2026. 

Even so, he cautioned that meaningful liquidity and volume in Russia’s crypto market are unlikely to materialize before late 2027, a timeline that reflects both the untested regulatory machinery and the caution of institutions wary of moving before the rules are final.

The bank also wants to build Russian investment instruments on open blockchains capable of attracting foreign investors. 

“It’s important for Russia to develop its own instruments, otherwise we’ll have nothing to offer,” Vitman said. “We need to attract investors to our infrastructure, so we need to create products that can compete globally.”

A crowded field in Russia

Alfa-Bank is far from alone. T-Technologies Group, which controls T-Bank, has announced plans to launch a digital depository built on the Atomize digital financial asset platform and to sell crypto through its broker, T-Investments. 

VTB Bank likewise plans to create its own domestic digital depository for storing, recording, and circulating digital assets, including Bitcoin.

State-owned giant Sberbank is moving the fastest. The bank will launch a digital depository for storing and accounting crypto by December 1. Sberbank also plans to enable authorized crypto transactions inside its Sber app and SberInvestments, integrating custody directly into services that reach tens of millions of Russians.

When bitcoin and crypto trading could begin

The draft law “On Digital Currency and Digital Rights” has passed its first reading in the State Duma, advancing a sweeping regime that defines crypto circulation rules and introduces new professional participants, including crypto exchanges and digital depositories.

Originally slated to take effect July 1, 2026, the law’s timeline has slipped, with the new expected in-force date set for September 1. 

Vladimir Chistyukhin, first deputy chairman of the Central Bank, said the regulator expects all rules needed to launch legal crypto operations to be adopted and published by November, clearing the way for the first transactions. 

The Moscow Exchange expects to conduct its first crypto trades by the end of 2026.

This post Russia’s Largest Private Bank Alfa-Bank To Test Bitcoin and Crypto Trading first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

New Hampshire’s Executive Council rejected a proposed $100 million Bitcoin-backed municipal bond in a 3-2 vote on July 8, stopping a Business Finance Authority structure that would have moved BTC collateral into a state-linked public finance process.

The vote came after the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority said last November that its board had approved a $100 million inaugural issuance backed by Bitcoin, while noting that issuance would still require approval by the Governor and Executive Council.

That approval did not come.

As the Boston Globe reported, the councilors voted against the plan after a motion to table the proposal failed to receive a second.

Related Reading

What states can still do to crypto after GENIUS and CLARITY

Federal law can decide what crypto is, but Illinois just proved a state can still decide how much it costs to use.

Jun 29, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

Why the rejection matters

The bond was structured by Wave Digital Assets, Rosemawr Management, and the BFA, with Orrick advising the authority and BitGo Trust Company serving as the custodian for the Bitcoin collateral. The BFA announcement said the deal was designed so taxpayer funds and state guarantees would not be at risk, a point also emphasized by Governor Kelly Ayotte and BFA Executive Director James Key-Wallace.

Related Reading

Washington has started selecting which crypto firms control custody at a national level

A fast cluster of OCC approvals suggests the US is formalizing who controls custody, settlement, and stablecoin infrastructure.

Apr 3, 2026 · Gino Matos

Moody's assigned provisional Ba2 ratings to up to $100 million in taxable revenue bonds for the Waverose Finance Project. CryptoSlate previously covered that rating as a credit-market milestone because the bonds are tied to a loan to NH CleanSpark Borrower Trust 2026-1, with Bitcoin pledged as collateral.

The public approval setting is now a core part of the narrative. The vote showed that a rated Bitcoin-backed structure could still fail once it moved from credit design into a government approval room. That makes the rejection less about Bitcoin’s market price and more about whether public finance officials are ready to attach state-linked legitimacy to BTC collateral, even in a conduit structure that backers said would not expose taxpayers to repayment risk.

The earlier Moody's rating and CryptoSlate's prior coverage already addressed how Bitcoin could be priced, haircut, and liquidated inside the bond structure. The council vote addressed the public-finance question separately: officials were unwilling to let this version of the structure enter the municipal bond pipeline.

Related Reading

Bitcoin just crossed into credit markets — with forced selling built in

The new bond structure gives BTC credit utility, but ties that access to clear liquidation thresholds if prices fall.

Apr 2, 2026 · Gino Matos

The decision turns on what public finance is willing to accept as collateral, and how far a Bitcoin-backed structure can move once it leaves the world of crypto credit specialists and enters a government approval room.

The final action leaves New Hampshire’s Bitcoin-backed bond experiment unfinished at the public approval stage. BFA officials could bring the idea back, but this version of the proposal failed before it could move from a rated credit structure into an approved municipal bond issuance.

The post New Hampshire rejects $100M Bitcoin-backed bond after public finance hearing appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A New York federal court has returned prediction-market access to state hands just weeks before the CFTC closes comments on national event-contract rules.

In a July 7 opinion and order, Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York denied KalshiEX LLC’s request for a preliminary injunction to block New York gaming officials from enforcing state gambling law against its sports-event contracts while the case proceeds.

The decision is preliminary. It leaves the merits open, but it rejects Kalshi’s bid for immediate relief on the argument that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts New York’s gambling laws as applied to those contracts.

The access risk now has two tracks: whether the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accepts event contracts at the federal level, and whether states can force platforms to block, limit, or redesign access before the federal framework is finished.

Related Reading

CFTC sues 3 states in bid to redefine crypto prediction markets as federal products

Federal lawsuits aim to override state gambling laws, putting the future of sports prediction markets on a fast legal track.

Apr 3, 2026 · Gino Matos

The federal clock is still running

The order landed while the CFTC’s proposed prediction-market rules remain open for comment. The agency’s June 12 Federal Register notice gives interested parties until July 27 to comment on proposed public-interest determinations for event contracts, including contracts involving gaming or activity unlawful under federal or state law.

A related CFTC release said the framework would apply to growth in event contracts, including those referencing sporting events.

Torres’s order sharpened the access issue before that process closes. The court rejected Kalshi’s argument that CFTC-designated contract market rules requiring impartial access effectively require nationwide access to sports contracts.

It also treated the cost of geolocating users on a state-by-state basis as an ordinary regulatory compliance burden, undercutting Kalshi’s irreparable harm argument.

That part of the ruling carries the most operational weight for venues. Geofencing may be expensive, disruptive, and inconsistent with a national market, but the order leaves room for states to keep pressing their gambling-law theories while platforms litigate.

Related Reading

How a disputed $1 billion claim became a powerful weapon against prediction markets

America’s gambling lobby says that prediction markets are draining public money from states and tribes, as US gambling revenue hits record highs.

May 31, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The order binds Kalshi’s New York case. The product category is already broader.

Crypto.com describes its sports-event trading as a CFTC-regulated derivatives feature. Coinbase says its prediction markets are available to U.S. residents, but not in Nevada.

Gemini announced that its affiliate, Gemini Titan, received a CFTC-designated contract market license, and the CFTC’s own DCM list records QCX LLC doing business as Polymarket US.

CryptoSlate has previously tracked how state-vs-CFTC fights can turn prediction-market compliance into refunds, blocked access, and venue-by-venue risk. New York adds a new pressure point because the court said state gambling law can complement federal commodities law, at least at this stage.

Related Reading

Crypto rails made prediction markets global, gambling laws may make them local again

South Korea’s reported probe into Polymarket users follows broader action against event-contract platforms.

Jun 7, 2026 · Gino Matos

The next signal is whether the CFTC’s final rule reduces that fragmentation or leaves platforms with a national listing process and local access map. Until then, prediction markets can win federal recognition and still face state-by-state limits on who can actually trade.

The post Kalshi’s court loss shows federal approval may still leave prediction markets fenced off by states appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Robinhood launched the public mainnet of Robinhood Chain this month, describing it as a permissionless Layer 2 built on Arbitrum for tokenized stocks, real-world assets, DeFi lending, and AI-native finance.

One week in, the chain's loudest retail activity is driven by CASHCAT, a memecoin built on Robinhood's own discarded “CashCat” name. The token reached nearly $150 million in market cap and over $159 million in 24-hour volume.

CASHCAT gained liquidity, price charts, and social attention through Uniswap V3 pools and third-party launch and routing infrastructure, including Noxa.fun and Pump.fun, rather than through Robinhood's own app-listing process.

Behind an unapproved listing

Robinhood built Robinhood Chain with Uniswap and other partners live on day one, connected to Robinhood's own on-chain wallet users.

That same open architecture, designed to support tokenized equities and RWA collateral, also lets any token deployed on the chain reach external DEX liquidity, charting pages and aggregator surfaces that can resemble parts of a formal listing without passing through Robinhood's app-level approval process.

Vlad Tenev and Baiju Bhatt called the company CashCat before settling on Robinhood, a name tied in company lore to Bhatt's fondness for cats. That history gave an anonymous memecoin a reference drawn directly from Robinhood's own origin story.

A Dune dashboard built by user Adam_tehc showed CASHCAT accounting for roughly 79% of the aggregate market cap and 74% of the volume among the top 25 Robinhood Chain memecoins. The next-largest token, Dog In Hood, sat about 16 times smaller.

The same Dune dashboard shows the chain's trading activity accelerated, with daily transactions moving from about 1.2 million on July 7 to nearly 2.8 million on July 8, a 133% jump in a single day.

Deployments through the Noxa.fun launchpad climbed from 1,858 to 6,675 tokens over the same period, a 259% increase.

By July 8, new-token creation was accelerating faster than overall transaction growth, with Noxa.fun deployments accounting for 0.155% of daily transactions on July 7 and 0.238% the next day.

That pace raises the possibility that new tickers are fragmenting attention across the chain rather than deepening liquidity in the few tokens already proving durable.

DefiLlama data show the chain's total value locked at around $107.8 million, with the stablecoin market cap near $246.8 million and the active RWA market cap around $12.5 million.

CASHCAT's volume-to-market-cap ratio points to same-day turnover, a pattern more consistent with high-velocity trading than long-horizon holding.

The risk sitting underneath the rally

Vlad Tenev told CNBC on July 2 that crypto's future runs through real-world assets, and days later, he posted that Robinhood Chain is being built to be the best chain for RWAs, adding that it “works great for memes too.”

That turn reveals something about permissionless infrastructure, as once Robinhood opened the chain to any builder, the market picked its own breakout asset, and CASHCAT's Robinhood-coded name pulled the chain's founder into the meme narrative around a token built outside the company.

Copycat tokens and impersonator accounts are already circulating, and liquidity sits concentrated in a single new-chain DEX pair prone to slippage and sharp wicks.

A 2026 academic study covering 34,988 memecoins across Ethereum, BNB Chain, Solana, and Base found that 1,801 tokens, or 5.15%, stopped trading entirely within 24 hours of launch.

CASHCAT's size puts it well outside that failure group today, and the same permissionless rails that lifted it also host thousands of tokens built to fail fast.

What the next 60 days could show

In the bull scenario, CASHCAT or the broader meme category holds above $100 million, weekly average transactions are still above 2 million, the stablecoin market cap holds above $200 million, and the active RWA market cap climbs toward the $50 million to $100 million range.

Under that path, meme liquidity becomes the bootloader for Robinhood Chain's user base, and the RWA thesis Robinhood pitched on July 1 finally gets wallets and stablecoins to build on.

In the bear scenario, CASHCAT falls between $30 million and $50 million, daily transactions drop below 600,000, Noxa.fun deployments fall below 700 per day, and the active RWA market cap sits flat near its current level.

Under that path, CASHCAT reads as an attention spike the chain absorbed and moved past, leaving Robinhood Chain's RWA ambitions to build their own user base separately.

Citi's 2026 tokenization research puts today's global tokenized-asset market near $17 billion and projects $5.5 trillion by 2030 in its base case, with public equities and Treasuries expected to lead early adoption.

The report estimates that just 10% of US retail investors moving to on-chain solutions by 2030 could create $2.6 trillion in demand for tokenized public equities alone.

Robinhood's crypto revenue fell 47% year over year to $134 million in the first quarter of 2026. Total net revenue for the same quarter climbed 15% to $1.07 billion, with platform assets reaching $307 billion.

A chain that captures activity outside app-listed tokens gives Robinhood a second crypto engagement surface, one that grows independently from individual memecoin survival.

Robinhood Chain's RWA ambitions still depend on years of institutional adoption that Citi's own forecast treats as a decade-long build.

CASHCAT already delivered proof that the moment permissionless infrastructure goes live, the market builds its own hundred-million-dollar listing, with or without Robinhood's approval.

The post Robinhood launched a Wall Street layer 2 chain and the market crowned a $150M cat coin first appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Crypto scams start online with a fake bank alert, a cloned voice, a romance message, or a tech-support pop-up. Then, the last instruction is usually much more physical: withdraw cash, find a crypto kiosk, scan a QR code, and keep the scammer on the phone until the money is gone.

However, that last step is turning Bitcoin ATMs and other crypto kiosks into a pressure point in America's fraud problem.

The FBI's Internet Crime Report said that Americans submitted 181,565 complaints involving cryptocurrency, with reported losses exceeding $11 billion. A later IC3 cryptocurrency-kiosk PSA put a smaller but more concrete mechanism under the spotlight: 13,460 complaints involving crypto kiosks in 2025 and $388,981,267 in adjusted losses.

Online fraud creates the belief that money must move immediately. The kiosk creates the payment rail a frightened victim can operate in a convenience store, gas station, or supermarket while a criminal gives instructions in real time.

Once cash becomes crypto and moves into a wallet controlled by the scammer, the window to interrupt the transfer usually closes.

The kiosk becomes the point where families, banks, operators, and state regulators still have a chance to step in.

The $11B problem has a street-level endpoint

The FBI's 2025 numbers show the scale of the broader fraud pipeline. IC3 received 1,008,597 total complaints in 2025, and the FBI said cyber-enabled crimes defrauded Americans of nearly $21 billion.

Cryptocurrency complaints were the highest-loss descriptor in the report, while AI-related complaints added nearly $893 million in losses.

The rise of generative AI has helped scammers get victims to reach the kiosk already primed to act. The FBI said scammers now use fake social profiles, voice clones, identification documents, and believable videos depicting public figures or loved ones.

Those tools do not need to touch a blockchain to push someone toward the machine. They create the pressure, authority, or panic that sends a victim out the door with cash.

The kiosk PSA shows what happens next. IC3 said cryptocurrency kiosks are ATM-like devices or terminals that allow users to exchange cash for cryptocurrency.

It said criminals may direct victims to send funds through them, and that complaints involving the devices rose 23% in 2025 while losses rose 58% from 2024.

IC3 also warned that its kiosk data covers scams involving cryptocurrency kiosks and may include other transaction types. Still, kiosks are becoming a recurring part of the payment path in scams that have already moved from online persuasion to real-world cash movement.

Related Reading

Bitcoin ATMs were crypto’s street-corner bank. Now regulators are shutting the door

Crypto’s first real-world retail infrastructure is breaking down under the weight of scam complaints, legal pressure and the growing normalization of regulated Bitcoin investing.

May 30, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The scammer does not need to touch the machine

The mechanics are simple enough to make the device dangerous. IC3 said typical kiosk complaints involve criminals providing detailed instructions on how to withdraw cash from a bank, locate a kiosk, and deposit and send funds using it.

Its warning signs include people holding QR-code documentation they cannot explain, making large first-time cash withdrawals, speaking on the phone while appearing confused at a bank or kiosk, or lingering around the machine.

California's Department of Financial Protection and Innovation describes the same pattern in its consumer warning.

A scammer contacts the victim, creates a sense of urgency, directs them to a crypto ATM, stays on the phone during the transaction, and may send a QR code that routes the purchased assets directly to the scammer's wallet. The DFPI also highlights the danger in that the transactions are quick and immediate and cannot be reversed.

FinCEN's 2025 notice on convertible virtual currency kiosks explains why that workflow is attractive to criminals.

A CVC kiosk purchase looks like a standard ATM transaction to a user, but the wallet address that receives the crypto may belong to someone else and is often embedded in a QR code. FinCEN said scammers often keep victims in constant phone or online contact until payment is completed.

It also said scammers may instruct victims to split deposits across amounts or machines to avoid safeguards.

The economics add another clue. Kiosk fees can range from 7% to 20%, but scammers tolerate the cost because crypto can move quickly upon receipt, and recovery can be difficult.

Related Reading

The US Bitcoin ATM industry is breaking under fraud, bans, and fees

Bitcoin Depot’s collapse shows how fraud losses, state bans, KYC rules, and high fees are forcing a reassessment of the US Bitcoin ATM model.

May 19, 2026 · Gino Matos

For a legitimate buyer, a high fee is a bad deal. For a criminal trying to convert a victim's cash into fast-moving crypto, it can be part of the business model.

That is why the device sits at the center of the question of responsibility. The victim may be the one pressing buttons, but the transaction often includes visible warning signs before the funds move.

The warning signs include a large cash withdrawal, a nervous customer, a phone call that does not end, a QR code supplied by someone else, repeated deposits, or a destination wallet the customer cannot explain.

Operators and banks are now part of the control surface

FinCEN has urged financial institutions to identify and report suspicious activity involving CVC kiosks. It also warned that the risk of illicit activity is higher when operators fail to meet Bank Secrecy Act obligations.

That puts pressure on both sides of the kiosk business. Operators have to monitor the customer and the transaction. Banks and credit unions that serve the operators have to understand whether a kiosk business has real anti-fraud and anti-money-laundering controls.

FinCEN said non-compliant operators are especially vulnerable to abuse by scammers and other criminals. It said some scammers direct victims to specific kiosks, sometimes across state lines, likely to avoid stronger controls.

California's DFPI says the state's Digital Financial Assets Law prohibits kiosk operators from accepting more than $1,000 per person per day.

CryptoSlate's recent coverage of Florida's new crypto ATM law described another model with warnings, receipts, transaction caps, registration, and conditional refunds that can shift some of the scam risk onto operators.

Related Reading

Florida’s new crypto ATM law makes scam refunds the cost of doing business

HB 505 tests whether caps, receipts, warnings, and conditional refunds can shift fraud costs onto kiosk businesses.

Jul 1, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Those examples form a state-level menu rather than a national standard: lower daily limits, clearer warnings, live customer support, refund rights, operator registration, bank monitoring, and direct calls from operators when a transaction appears to be fraudulent.

Each approach aims at the same small window of time between cash withdrawal and blockchain settlement.

The FTC's earlier Bitcoin ATM data spotlight helps explain the urgency. It said reported fraud losses involving Bitcoin ATMs increased nearly tenfold from 2020 to 2023 and topped $65 million in the first half of 2024, with a median reported loss of $10,000 in that six-month period.

It also said older adults were hit disproportionately.

IC3's 2025 kiosk figures framed that concern within a larger official context. More than half of the kiosk complaints involved people over 50, resulting in losses of over $302 million.

That is a household-finance risk, often arriving through the same places where people already buy gas, groceries, and convenience-store goods.

The next test is whether those everyday touchpoints can become interruption points. A bank teller who questions a rushed cash withdrawal, an operator who blocks a suspicious transaction, a state cap that prevents a full account drain, or a family member who recognizes the script can all change the outcome before the money moves.

After the transaction, the tools are weaker. The fraud may still be traceable on-chain, but the funds can move through wallets and exchanges faster than a victim can understand what happened.

That asymmetry is drawing scrutiny because the kiosk may be the last practical place to stop the transfer.

If operators, banks, and lawmakers cannot make that moment safer, the official numbers point toward a harsher conclusion. The weakest link in the crypto scam pipeline may be the ATM-like machine that turns fear into a crypto transfer before anyone else can intervene.

The post Why Bitcoin ATMs are becoming the last stop in America’s $11B crypto scam pipeline appeared first on CryptoSlate.

EMURGO said it is stepping down from its role in Pentad, the five-member group coordinating Cardano's infrastructure funding, to focus resources on recovering funds lost in the SecondFi exploit.

The attack exploited a flaw in SecondFi's wallet address-generation system, draining roughly $2.4 million in ADA from 374 wallets.

A wallet-layer product failed, and EMURGO, one of Cardano's founding entities, stepped back from an infrastructure coordination role as recovery work began. Cardano's governance system, which grew during its Voltaire era, adds a second layer to the story because the product failure sits inside the same wallet environment where ordinary ADA holders delegate and vote.

Yoroi's help documentation says users can delegate voting power to Yoroi's own DRep, delegate to a different DRep, abstain, or select no confidence, all from inside the wallet. The same documentation ties reward withdrawal to completing one of those governance actions and routes direct voting through a GovTool connection.

Where Cardano's governance starts

Cardano Docs describes CIP-1694 governance as a structure that combines ADA owners, delegated representatives, stake pool operators, and a constitutional committee, with participation beginning the moment a holder picks a governance-compatible wallet. That starting point makes wallet security a governance dependency for ADA holders using wallet-based delegation and voting flows.

CardanoCube's live governance hub recorded 28 active governance actions, 379 active DReps, and 3,217 votes cast over 30 days, with 87.52 billion ADA in voting power exercised during the same window.

A compromised wallet inside that system matters because it sits in the same user flow that now carries live treasury votes and DRep delegation.

Pentad brought together Input Output, the Cardano Foundation, EMURGO, Intersect, and the Midnight Foundation to coordinate infrastructure spending across the network.

Intersect said the Cardano community approved a 70 million ADA Critical Integrations Budget in late 2025 to close gaps in stablecoins, institutional custody, cross-chain bridges, pricing oracles, and analytics.

The Cardano Foundation's May 2026 update requested 23 million ADA in Critical Integrations V2 funding for Year 2 support covering Circle USDCx, LayerZero, Pyth, Dune, and native Fireblocks integration, routing the request through Pentad with the Foundation, Input Output, EMURGO, and Midnight as co-sponsors and Intersect as administrator.

EMURGO's exit lands inside that active funding cycle, pulling one of the entities steering treasury-backed infrastructure away from the table just as a second funding round moves through the process.

Bitquery's on-chain investigation traced the failure to weak randomness in SecondFi's key-generation code, with the Cardano chain processing every transaction as designed.

The firm also reconstructed a broader swept-funds picture above 129 million ADA. That figure should be treated separately from the confirmed loss of roughly 16 million ADA, as it reflects Bitquery's broader forensic accounting rather than the amount publicly tied to affected users.

The confirmed loss amounts to about 42,800 ADA per affected wallet, a meaningful sum for the people who held it. Compared with CardanoCube's 87.52 billion ADA in cumulative voting power recorded across 30-day governance activity, the loss is small by voting-scale comparison, at roughly 0.018%, though that denominator reflects voting activity across governance actions rather than total ADA supply.

Measured against Cardano's own infrastructure budgets, 16 million ADA equals about 23% of the original 70 million ADA Critical Integrations fund and about 70% of the 23 million ADA requested for Year 2.

What comes next

A bull path could drive better wallet audits, clearer recovery flows, and broader hardware wallet adoption across Cardano's user base, with GovTool integration improving as a direct result.

Under that path, DRep participation holds or grows, no-confidence and abstain delegations stay level, and Pentad's remaining members keep the Critical Integrations work moving at its current pace, with the remaining four members absorbing EMURGO's share of the coordination.

A bear path has led users to move their ADA to safety and stop there, leaving governance participation behind.

Under that path, active DReps decline, inactive DReps grow, 30-day vote counts fall below recent levels, and major treasury votes draw thinner participation, concentrating governance weight further toward large holders and professional DReps.

Bitquery's own account keeps the failure at the wallet layer, and the public record so far ties the exploit entirely to compromised custody, with governance votes untouched by the incident.

EMURGO has said its focus now sits on recovery, migration, and an on-chain restitution process, leaving the permanence of its Pentad step-back unconfirmed.

SecondFi's failure tested whether Cardano governance holds up when the wallet itself becomes the point of failure, and the answer lies in whether DReps, votes, and voting power continue to move at the pace Cardano's governance has already reached.

The post Cardano’s wallet hack exposed the user layer holding its on-chain government together appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Elon Musk's SpaceX pulled off the largest IPO in history on 12 June 2026, and the debut lived up to the hype: shares priced at $135, opened around $150 and closed near $161 on day one, briefly valuing the company above $2 trillion. Less than a month later, the picture looks very different. $SPCX has drifted back down toward the $145–$150 zone, giving back almost every point of that first-day pop and sitting well below its 16 June intraday high of roughly $225.

That round trip — from a record blockbuster launch to a stock hovering just above its offer price — is why "will SpaceX stock crash?" has become one of the most searched questions in the market right now. Below we break down what is happening, why, and the realistic scenarios from here.

Why is the SpaceX stock price falling?

The slide is less a single catastrophe than a classic post-IPO cool-off colliding with an eye-watering valuation. A few forces are stacked on top of each other:

The debut pop was built on retail euphoria. SpaceX reserved an unusually large share of the offering — reportedly around 30% — for individual investors, and demand ran several times oversubscribed. That kind of frenzy tends to front-load buying, and once the initial rush fades, the price often gravitates back toward where the deal was actually priced. That is roughly what has happened here.

The valuation leaves little room for error. Even after the pullback, $SPCX carries a market capitalisation north of $2 trillion against negative trailing earnings. Bulls are underwriting Starlink's cash flow, a dominant launch franchise and the xAI/Grok AI angle years into the future. When a stock is priced for near-flawless execution, even neutral news can trigger selling.

Sector sentiment turned. Space and satellite peers have sold off in sympathy, and a broader risk-off tone across high-multiple tech has weighed on the newest, most speculative name in the group. Not being eligible for S&P 500 inclusion for at least a year also removes a source of forced index buying that some traders had been counting on.

What are analysts saying about SPCX?

Wall Street is, on paper, still constructive — but the range of opinion is extreme, which is itself a warning sign. Consensus sits at a "Buy," with average 12-month targets clustering somewhere in the low $200s depending on the data provider. Individual targets, however, span from around $115 on the low end to as high as $800 on the most aggressive bull notes, with at least one street-high call implying enormous upside.

That spread — a low-triple-digit bear case against a high-triple-digit moonshot — tells you the honest truth: nobody really knows how to value SpaceX yet. When targets disagree by a factor of five or more, the "average" price target is close to meaningless, and the stock is likely to stay extremely volatile. Notably, at least one prominent value investor has publicly called the listing one of the most overvalued in history and predicted an eventual collapse, while momentum-focused analysts see the next leg higher toward and beyond $250.

Will SpaceX stock crash? Three scenarios

Rather than pretend to know the outcome, it helps to frame the possibilities. None of these is a prediction — they are the paths the market is currently pricing between.

• Bear case — a genuine unwind. If the retail bid keeps fading, a lock-up or anti-flipping window expires and allows more supply onto the market, or a Starship setback or macro risk-off event hits, $SPCX could break below its $135 IPO price and keep going. Given the beta and daily swings the stock has already shown, a fast 30–50% drawdown from current levels is well within the realm of what a name this speculative can do. This is the scenario the "crash" question is really about.
• Base case — a long, choppy consolidation. The stock spends months digesting its valuation, ranging roughly between the IPO price and its debut highs while the business grows into expectations. Volatile, frustrating, but not a crash — the typical fate of a hyped mega-IPO once the dust settles.
• Bull case — the story reasserts itself. Strong Starlink numbers, Starship progress, momentum behind the xAI/Grok integration and eventual index inclusion pull buyers back in, and the stock retests and clears its former highs toward the upper end of analyst targets.

The uncomfortable reality: all three are plausible right now, and the stock can travel a long way in either direction before the fundamental picture is any clearer.

How to trade SpaceX stock price — in either direction?

Here is where many investors get stuck. If you think $SPCX is heading lower, simply owning shares does you no good — and if you think it is heading higher, you may want leverage or the flexibility to move fast. This is exactly the situation CFDs are built for, because they let you take a position in both directions: go long if you back the bull case, or go short if you think a crash is coming.

With XTB you can trade SpaceX ($SPCX) as a CFD — meaning you can open a long position to profit from a rebound, or a short position to profit if the stock falls, all from one account. XTB is a well-established, regulated broker with a fast, intuitive platform, transparent pricing and no minimum deposit, which makes it a practical choice whether you are positioning for the next leg up or hedging against the downside.

👉 Open your XTB account here and trade SpaceX long or short

Whatever your view on the crash question, the key advantage is optionality: you are not forced to pick "buy and hope." You can express a bearish or a bullish thesis — and manage your risk with defined position sizing — through a single regulated platform. Start trading $SPCX with XTB.

The MiCA transition period ended on July 1, 2026, and the damage is now measurable. This wasn't a soft compliance nudge — it was a mass extinction event that redrew the entire European crypto map in a single day. While the market obsessed over price charts, the more consequential story is who's still legally allowed to operate on the continent, and who just quietly disappeared.

How many crypto firms actually survived MiCA?

The numbers are brutal. Public mirrors of the bloc's register counted 244 licensed CASPs across 25 jurisdictions once the deadline passed. Before MiCA, roughly 3,167 firms held national crypto registrations across Europe. Measured against that base, close to 92% of the market did not make the cut.

Framed against the pre-MiCA legacy pool, only 210 of 1,200+ EU crypto firms converted to MiCA authorization. The other 83% are now in breach of EU law. Either way you count it, the vast majority of the old market is gone — and there are no do-overs. The European Securities and Markets Authority has confirmed that there are no extensions and no grace periods.

Who are the biggest casualties?

Two names dominate the losers' column, and both are giants. The two biggest casualties are private. Binance, the largest exchange in the world, withdrew its license application in Greece days before the deadline and restricted services in several EU countries. Tether, the largest stablecoin issuer, chose to stay out rather than restructure its reserves to MiCA's standard.

Tether's exit was a deliberate strategic call, not a failure to qualify. CEO Paolo Ardoino called MiCA's stablecoin reserve requirements "very dangerous" — specifically the rule requiring issuers to hold 60% of reserves in EU bank deposits, which Tether argued creates systemic bank exposure. The practical result is stark: $USDT, the most-traded stablecoin on earth, has been pulled from every EU-licensed venue. 

Binance isn't necessarily gone forever, though. Binance is pursuing a French MiCA licence. If granted, passporting rules allow it to re-enter the EU. The July 1 deadline suspended services; it did not permanently revoke the ability to apply. 

Why does this matter for the survivors?

Because every euro of displaced volume has to go somewhere legal. That matters for the public names because it removes their toughest competition from the regulated arena. Every euro of EU volume that can no longer legally touch Binance or USDT has to find a licensed home.

The market has already tilted decisively toward the compliant perimeter. Approximately 70 percent of EU crypto transactions now occur on MiCA-compliant exchanges, and that share can only grow as unlicensed platforms wind down.

Which exchanges are the winners?

The survivor list is short and increasingly powerful. Major exchanges have secured licenses. The strategic weapon here is passporting: Coinbase spent the run-up securing a MiCA license and opening a Luxembourg hub to passport regulated services across all 27 EU member states. One license now covers a 450-million-person market, a barrier that smaller, unlicensed rivals cannot cross.

On the stablecoin side, the winner is even clearer. Circle is the only issuer among the ten largest stablecoins to secure MiCA authorization for both its dollar token, $USDC, and its euro token, EURC. With $USDT locked out, regulated euro rails now run largely through Circle.

Is the European market healthier or just smaller?

That's the open question. The market that emerges in late 2026 will be smaller, more concentrated, and governed by a single rulebook. Whether that is a feature or a flaw depends on who is still standing. For traders, the upside is real: fewer, better-regulated venues with clearer legal protection. The downside is reduced competition and the friction of migrating away from familiar USDT pairs.

What should EU traders do now?

If your funds are still sitting on an unlicensed platform, the clock has already run out — move them to a MiCA-authorized exchange. You can compare the fully regulated survivors side by side in our broker comparison.

Crypto woke up in the red today, July 8, 2026. Just a day after Bitcoin, Ethereum and XRP had pushed past key levels and the mood was turning optimistic, the market flipped within hours. The trigger wasn't anything on-chain — it came from the Middle East.

The US conducted airstrikes against Iranian targets in retaliation for Iran firing on non-military ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Risk assets sold off almost immediately, and crypto — as it so often does when geopolitics turns ugly — was first to bleed. 

What actually happened between the US and Iran?

The escalation landed at an especially fragile moment. Talks between the two countries were already on pause as Iran observes a weeklong funeral for the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and now the airstrikes and the president's recent comments put long-term peace into serious jeopardy. 

Then came the words that spooked traders most. Addressing NATO leaders, US President Donald Trump declared the ceasefire "over" and said negotiating with Iran is a "waste of time," though talks reportedly continue. He went further later in the day: Trump said the US will "very probably" hit Iran again tonight, warning that Washington could strike hard.

Iran, for its part, isn't backing down. Tehran's foreign ministry framed the US action as a "clear and material breach of Article 10 of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Cessation of War," and reports indicate Iran has begun retaliatory strikes, firing anti-ship cruise missiles and drones at US Navy warships in the Sea of Oman. In other words, the MoU that had underpinned the fragile truce now looks effectively dead.

How far did crypto prices fall?

The damage was broad rather than catastrophic — a risk-off flinch, not a full capitulation. Most cryptos dropped on average 2.9% since midnight UTC, with all but one token declining. Bitcoin and ether fell more than 2% after Trump declared the ceasefire "over."

Looking at the majors: Bitcoin slipped back toward the $61,000–$62,000 zone, Ethereum lost the momentum that had briefly carried it above $1,800 and dropped toward $1,720, and XRP was among the hardest hit of the large caps, sliding around 5% on the day to about $1.07. Solana took the worst of it among the majors — Solana has now completely retraced a rally that began on July 2, trading back near $77 after challenging $84 on Monday.

Why did altcoins get hit hardest?

This is the pattern almost every time fear spikes: the further out on the risk curve, the harder the fall. Altcoins bore the brunt, with $350 million of the $450 million in total liquidations coming from altcoin pairs, and tokens like JUP, ETHFI and PUMP losing between 5.5% and 9.3%.

When traders de-risk, they rotate out of speculative small caps first and hold the majors longer, which is exactly why an index like the CMC20 and coins further down the list show steeper 24-hour losses than Bitcoin itself.

Why does a Middle East conflict move Bitcoin at all?

It comes down to how the market treats crypto right now — as a risk asset, not a safe haven. Demand for risk-based assets like crypto tends to decline during uncertain geopolitical situations such as this.

There's also a direct macro channel through oil. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most critical oil chokepoints, so strikes in the area push energy prices up fast. Following the escalation, Brent crude rose 2.05% to $75.68 a barrel and US West Texas Intermediate gained 2.07% to $71.90. Higher oil feeds inflation fears, which pressures rate expectations, which drains liquidity from speculative assets — crypto included. When oil spikes and yields rise, crypto is historically the first to bleed.

Was the market already vulnerable before the strikes?

Yes — and that context matters for anyone trying to gauge what comes next. The sell-off didn't hit a healthy market; it hit one that was still recovering. As Yahoo Finance noted, crypto is already trying to recover from one of its worst monthly performances in years. You can see that strain in the year-to-date numbers on today's board: even blue-chips like Ethereum sit deep in the red for 2026, so sentiment was thin to begin with.

At the same time, it's worth keeping perspective. This isn't 2022 — institutional infrastructure is stronger, and corporate balance sheets are actively participating. On-chain accumulation hasn't stopped either: Tom Lee's Bitmine bought another 40,000 ETH worth $71.6 million, following a 42,000 ETH purchase the previous week as it pushes toward 5% of total supply.

Where does crypto go from here?

The uncomfortable truth for holders is that crypto's next move probably won't be decided on-chain at all. While it trades like a risk asset, direction is being set by headlines out of the Middle East and by the oil market. Watch three things: whether Iran's retaliation escalates or cools, whether the ceasefire gets stitched back together despite the "over" rhetoric, and whether oil keeps climbing.

Most leveraged stock products in Europe are CFDs — synthetic contracts where you never actually own the underlying asset, capped by regulators at 5x for retail traders. As of today, July 8, 2026, Bitpanda is doing something the European market hasn't seen before: leverage on real stocks and ETFs.

The Vienna-based fintech is expanding its offering with margin trading for stocks and ETFs, letting users trade more than 875 securities with leverage of up to 20x. The key difference from every CFD provider out there — you're buying into the actual underlying assets, not betting on a price feed.

What is Bitpanda Margin Trading on Real Securities?

At its core, margin trading means borrowing capital to open a position larger than your own funds allow. 20x means that someone putting in €500 controls a €10,000 position — and gains and losses multiply accordingly.

What sets this launch apart is what you're actually trading. You aren't trading CFDs or synthetic contracts. You get direct exposure to the real security — with everything that comes with genuine ownership. Bitpanda is building this on top of its Real Securities brokerage, which has been running since January 29, 2026. What's new now is the leverage layered on top.

With real securities, that ownership is meaningful: you hold actual shares in your securities account rather than derivatives, and as a shareholder you're entitled to dividends, stock splits, mergers, and other corporate actions handled according to issuer and exchange rules.

How does Bitpanda offer 20x when EU rules cap leverage at 5x?

This is the clever part, and it's worth understanding. In the EU, leveraged stock products face a strict limit: the regulator ESMA caps stock CFDs — bets on price movements without real share ownership — at 5:1 for retail clients.

But that ceiling only applies to CFDs. Because this is classic securities margin rather than a CFD, ESMA's CFD leverage limits don't apply here — and 20x becomes possible. The mechanics behind it: clients put up their own capital and borrow the rest in the form of Bitpanda's euro stablecoin EURCV to fund the position.

What are the fees?

This is where the launch gets aggressive on pricing. Buying is order-fee-free, a flat €1 fee applies on selling, and for clients in Austria and Germany the platform also handles the tax settlement on capital gains. On top of that sits a daily funding fee of 0.03% on the borrowed amount, per Bitpanda's launch materials.

The zero-fee headline comes with one caveat worth flagging for readers: the advertised "zero order fee" applies only to the order fee on buying. The borrowed capital still carries a daily funding cost, which compounds the longer a position stays open. 

Who is this actually for?

Here's the part the marketing tends to skip, and it matters. Leverage this high on individual stocks is a fundamentally different risk profile than leverage on crypto or broad ETFs. Unlike crypto, stocks don't trade around the clock — trading happens on a regulated exchange with fixed hours, not 24/7. Real Securities trade Monday to Friday, 07:30–23:00, not 24/7.

That creates gap risk. If a price gaps overnight or over the weekend — say, after a bad earnings report — your position can open at a loss before you can even react. And with 20x, it doesn't take much: if a stock moves just 5% against you, your entire stake is wiped out. A 5% gap after a profit warning is completely normal for single stocks.

For context on how leverage plays out for retail traders, Bitpanda's own CFD product "Leverage" discloses that 53.24% of retail client accounts lose money trading CFDs with the provider — and that's at a maximum of 2x. This new product goes to ten times that ratio. Margin trading here is squarely aimed at experienced traders who understand liquidation, funding costs, and risk management — not beginners looking for a shortcut. 

Why this launch matters for the European market

Zooming out, this fits a clear strategic arc. The move suits Bitpanda's shift from crypto broker to multi-asset platform — in a year when the market is speculating about a possible Bitpanda IPO. And it slots into a broader European trend: more and more retail platforms are bringing leveraged products to a wide audience. The upside is real — so is the downside risk.

By sidestepping the CFD structure entirely, Bitpanda has found a route to high leverage that its CFD-bound competitors structurally can't match. Whether that's an advantage or simply a higher-stakes version of the same game depends entirely on how it's used.

Ready to explore Bitpanda Margin Trading on real stocks and ETFs?

➡️ Trade over 875 real stocks and ETFs with up to 20x leverage — direct ownership, 0% buy fees, and automatic tax handling in Germany and Austria. Unlike CFDs, you get real exposure to the underlying assets, not synthetic contracts.

Get started with Bitpanda Margin Trading →

There was no code exploit. No compromised private key. No phishing link. And yet BonkDAO says attackers stole about $20 million in BONK through a malicious governance proposal targeting its Solana treasury. 

The attacker didn't break the rules — they bought them.

What happened to BONK DAO?

$BONK is a Solana-based memecoin, and BONK DAO is the community body that governs it. Token holders vote on proposals, and if a vote passes, it executes automatically on-chain. That design is exactly what got weaponized.

The sequence began on June 30, when an anonymous wallet submitted a proposal to transfer the treasury's holdings to a wallet it controlled. That proposal was titled "BIP #76 – Sowellian BonkDAO," and it read more like a pitch than a heist: it sought to "implement Sowellian governance, install new members and council, rebuild from the ashes, monetize holdings, and stop the bleeding," and dangled a reward promising all "yes" voters would be eligible to receive BONK tokens. 

Buried underneath the marketing language sat the only line that mattered — an instruction to transfer roughly 4.4 trillion BONK straight to the attacker's wallet.

How did the attacker pass a fake proposal?

This is the part that should keep every DAO up at night. The proposal needed "yes" votes equal to 1% of BONK's supply to hit quorum. So the attacker simply went and bought it. Over July 4 and 5, a separate wallet acquired exactly that much, spending about $4.4 million to buy BONK on the exchanges Bybit and Binance. 

By the time voting closed, the numbers were almost surgically precise. The proposal passed with just seven wallets voting, against more than 18,000 members who did not — a turnout of 2.9%. It cleared quorum by the narrowest margin, 882.38 billion BONK in favor against an 879.95 billion threshold, almost exactly the stake the attacker had spent days assembling.

The result? The 99.9% "yes" result was effectively a single voter agreeing with itself. The DAO then did what it was built to do — it executed the transfer automatically, and about $20 million in BONK moved out of the treasury into the attacker's wallet. 

Bonk DAO Attack: Where did the money go?

The stolen tokens didn't stick around. More than 4.4 trillion BONK — valued at approximately $19.3 million at the time of transfer — moved out of the treasury to an address ending in "JHvQ," identified via Solscan as having been funded through a Bybit account. By 3:30 p.m. ET the same day, the tokens had been moved again, this time to a different Solana address ending in "eh42."

The promised voter rewards never materialized. The tokens were never distributed — instead they were shuffled to a second address hours later, a pattern consistent with an attacker trying to obscure the trail rather than honor any community commitment. Security firm PeckShield later flagged that roughly $148,000 worth of stolen BONK has already moved to OKX.

Was Bonk DAO Hacked?

Technically, no — and that's the uncomfortable part. The attacker didn't exploit a bug in any smart contract. The root issue was governance design, not code. Every single step was a valid, authorized on-chain transaction.

With no timelock, quorum minimum, or multisig check in place to catch an anomalous proposal before it executed, a well-funded attacker was able to turn a $4 million token purchase into control over a $20 million treasury. A timelock would have forced a delay between approval and execution, giving the community a window to spot the drain. A multisig override could have frozen it in an emergency. BONK DAO had neither.

This has reopened an old debate. Because every step was a valid transaction, some on-chain observers argued the attacker simply exploited a weak governance design rather than breaking in. The lesson stands either way: a treasury that can be drained by whoever assembles a temporary voting majority is only as secure as the cost of buying that majority — and here, that cost was a fraction of the prize.

What is BONK DAO doing about it?

BonkDAO has notified law enforcement and is working with the Solana Foundation, centralized exchanges, and network bridges to recover funds. It said it had identified the exchange wallets used to buy tokens ahead of the vote — and the involvement of law enforcement makes clear the DAO is treating this as an attack, not a clever loophole.

Recovery, though, is an uphill battle. Governance attacks are notoriously hard to reverse precisely because they run through the protocol's own legitimate machinery.

How did BONK's price react?

The market response was surprisingly contained given the scale. BONK prices are down about 7% in the past 24 hours in the aftermath of the attack. Exchanges moved fast — South Korean exchange Upbit and American exchange Kraken both paused deposits and withdrawals of the BONK token, with Upbit citing "user protection measures following the circumstances of a security incident."

Researchers warn AI agents could be tricked into downloading malicious code by exploiting the same hallucinations that cause chatbots to make mistakes.

AVAX One, which stockpiles the native token of the Avalanche crypto network, is back in Nasdaq's good graces after a reverse stock split.

The company's post-trained GLM 5.2 preview pairs a cheaper open-source base with a frontier advisor—and it's already live in production.

Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke will have the power to appoint Anthropic board members as part of company's Long-Term Benefit Trust.

Ethereum researchers are using AI agents to hunt for vulnerabilities, shifting security work from finding bugs to proving which ones are real.

New volatility fueling sources have appeared, but the momentum is certainly there.

The Ripple-linked XRP token continues its multi-month slide against Bitcoin (BTC), hovering at 0.00001735 BTC.

JPMorgan analysts believe that the flagship cryptocurrency could be threatened by tokenless, institutional blockchains.

On-chain metrics reveal a massive 77% spike in AI-agent transactions with XRP while Ripple's USD stablecoin turnover slides 32%.

Following a $216 million Bitcoin sale, Michael Saylor drops a new risk calculator showing exactly how long Strategy can survive.

TLDR:

• BitGo announces Quantum Risk Score to measure exposure across Bitcoin wallet addresses. 
• New Fix Exposed Addresses workflow moves funds into keys with stronger hygiene practices. 
• UTXO selection method groups addresses by wallet to limit exposure from partial spends. 
• Belshe says safest key is one whose public key stays unrevealed on the blockchain.

BitGo is announcing new quantum risk management capabilities for bitcoin wallets. The launch adds a Quantum Risk Score, a guided workflow for exposed addresses, a new UTXO selection method, and updated default controls. These tools build on BitGo’s existing multi-signature architecture for institutional clients.

BitGo Rolls Out Quantum-Focused Wallet Controls Built On Multi-Signature Security

BitGo Holdings, Inc., trading as NYSE: BTGO, confirmed the launch as an expansion of its long-standing wallet security model.

The company built its reputation on multi-signature custody, a structure designed to remove single points of failure. This announcement adds quantum-focused tools directly into that same framework.

The centerpiece of the release is the Quantum Risk Score, a scoring system built into BitGo’s platform. It allows institutions to assess exposure levels across supported Bitcoin wallets in one place.

Clients can identify which addresses carry elevated risk due to public keys already visible on-chain. The score does not require a change to existing custody arrangements to be useful.

Paired with the score, BitGo introduced a guided remediation workflow named Fix Exposed Addresses. This tool walks clients through moving funds from higher-risk addresses into newly generated ones.

The new addresses follow improved key hygiene practices from the moment they are created. For institutions managing large wallet volumes, this removes much of the manual work involved.

Mike Belshe, CEO and Co-founder of BitGo, explained the reasoning behind the release. “We believe the safest key is one whose public key has never been revealed on-chain,” he said.

“These capabilities give institutions a practical way to understand and reduce quantum exposure while continuing to rely on the proven security of multi-signature.”

Additional Tools Target UTXO Handling And Wallet Defaults

Alongside the risk score, BitGo announced a new UTXO selection method aimed at reducing exposure from partial spends.

This method groups and prioritizes unspent transaction outputs by address instead of handling them separately. The approach limits how often public keys get revealed during normal wallet activity.

BitGo was clear that some address types fall outside this particular tool’s scope. Formats like Taproot and Pay-to-Public-Key expose a public key from the moment they are created.

Funds already held in those address types require separate remediation steps, a distinction BitGo highlighted directly in its announcement.

The company also announced updated default address-type controls as part of the same release. These changes adjust how new wallets behave by default, reducing reliance on patterns tied to added quantum-related exposure. BitGo positioned this update as a companion to future protocol-level changes rather than a substitute for them.

Adam Back, Co-Founder and CEO of Blockstream and BSTR, weighed in on the timing of the release. “Nobody has a quantum computer that can touch Bitcoin today, but that’s exactly why the work should start now, while it’s calm and optional rather than urgent and forced,” he said.

Belshe echoed that same view when describing the broader strategy behind the launch. “We believe institutions do not need to wait for a quantum event to begin managing quantum risk,” he added.

“The right approach is to reduce exposure now, harden wallet operations, and prepare for the migration from today’s security models to future post-quantum standards.”

BitGo maintained that institutions do not need to wait for an actual quantum event before acting. The announcement frames quantum risk management as routine operational hygiene, one step in a longer migration toward post-quantum wallet standards.

The post BitGo Announces Quantum Risk Tools for Bitcoin Wallet Security appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• HPC and Phantom filed a joint letter urging CFTC to clarify registration rules for developers.
• The letter asks CFTC to give registered exchanges a path to adopt onchain infrastructure.
• HPC and Phantom want the Phantom no-action letter codified into a permanent formal rule.
• The filing responds directly to a CFTC request on rules hindering market participants.

Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom have urged the CFTC to clarify that publishing onchain protocol software does not require registration.

The two firms submitted a joint comment letter this week addressing onchain market infrastructure. Their filing asks regulators to modernize outdated rules built around custodial intermediaries.

It calls for a clear registration pathway for exchanges adopting onchain systems. The letter also pushes to codify the existing Phantom no-action letter into formal policy.

HPC And Phantom Detail Registration Concerns

Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom compare software developers to internet service providers. The letter states “no one confuses either person for the other” between builders and brokers.

An internet provider supplies cables that let brokers take customer orders. The letter argues protocol developers deserve the same clear distinction under CFTC rules.

Digital asset builders have not received consistent treatment from past CFTC leadership. The letter notes developers were left “guessing whether they may be treated as operating an unregistered exchange.”

This ambiguity pushed many companies to build their products offshore instead. HPC and Phantom credit current leadership under Chairman Selig with shifting this approach.

Onchain markets differ structurally from traditional custodial trading systems, the letter notes. Legacy markets pass customer funds through brokers, exchanges, and clearinghouses sequentially.

The filing states onchain systems “let users hold their own funds and trade directly with one another.” Hyperliquid Policy Center and Phantom say regulation should reflect this fundamental difference.

Three recommendations anchor the joint submission to the Commission. Confirm first that publishing protocol software alone does not require registration.

Second, create pathways for registered exchanges to adopt onchain infrastructure directly. Third, convert the Phantom no-action letter into what the filing calls “a formal rule.”

Firms Frame Request As Path To Onshore Growth

HPC and Phantom present their proposal as a route to bring innovation onshore. The letter states protections can be built in “by design rather than by decree.”

Regulated intermediaries would continue handling responsibilities that code alone cannot resolve. This structure preserves protections while modernizing infrastructure for onchain derivatives markets.

The letter responds to a CFTC request asking which rules hinder market participants. HPC and Phantom write, “this is our answer, and it is within the Commission’s own authority to act on.”

They state the requested changes fall within the Commission’s existing regulatory authority. No new legislation would be required to implement these clarifications.

Codifying the Phantom no-action letter would benefit smaller non-custodial wallet providers broadly. The filing notes such firms would gain “durable certainty rather than having to ask, one at a time, for relief.”

Firms would gain lasting certainty instead of requesting individual relief repeatedly. This reduces friction for developers building non-custodial financial technology tools.

Existing registrants also stand to benefit from the proposed regulatory pathway. Exchanges and clearinghouses could retire legacy systems for transparent onchain alternatives instead.

Compliance obligations would remain intact under the new registration framework. HPC and Phantom describe this transition as advantageous for American consumers.

The joint letter reflects continued engagement between digital asset firms and federal regulators.

The post Hyperliquid Policy Center, Phantom Urge CFTC To Ease Onchain Software Registration Rules appeared first on Blockonomi.

The list of meme coins to buy usually comes with an open clock. This week it doesn’t. Bullski ($BULLSKI) opens stage one of its presale at 5pm UTC on Friday, July 10, and the run-up is short.

Until then, the one move that matters is free: claim a spot on the priority list through Bullski’s site so you enter stage one ahead of the public rush. Here’s what the window really is, what to do before Friday, and where the listed memes fit around the event.

What the Before-Friday Window Really Is

The window is short and specific. Bullski’s presale opens to the public at 5pm UTC this Friday, and the days before it are a reservation phase. Joining the free priority list holds your place so stage one starts with you already through the door.

That’s the entire trick to a launch with a hard date: the people who did the two-minute step early are the ones who buy at the opening price.

Myth: Buying before a launch means finding somewhere to buy the token early. Reality: there is nowhere to buy $BULLSKI before Friday, and any page that says otherwise is not Bullski. The move before Friday is the free reservation; the buying happens at stage one, once the presale is live.

The One With the Deadline

Bullski is the reason the deadline exists, and its numbers hold up under a clock. It’s an ERC-20 token on Ethereum with a fixed 120 billion supply, sold through a 16-stage presale where each stage prices higher than the last on the way to a $0.0025 listing reference. Stage one is the lowest rung on that ladder, and stage one is what opens Friday, July 10.

The checks are already in place, which matters more when a date is pushing you. The contract is verified on Etherscan, an audit is in process, and liquidity locks at launch. Staking starts with the first purchase, and a referral program pays holders for bringing people in.

A deadline with a paper trail behind it is a very different thing from a deadline alone.

The Listed Memes Around the Event

The big listed memes are context here, not competition. Dogecoin has traded through every cycle since 2013 and is still the category benchmark, though its supply keeps growing and its early window closed more than a decade ago. Shiba Inu built one of the largest holder communities in crypto.

Pepe proved in 2023 that a fresh meme coin can still run hard. All three are listed, which means you can buy them any day you like. None of them has a Friday.

The short window belongs to the coin that does.

Side by side, the split looks like this.

That leaves a short list between now and Friday.

• Set up an Ethereum wallet such as MetaMask and fund it with ETH or USDT for fees.

• Claim your priority spot now instead of at five minutes to five on Friday.

• Save the official Bullski links so launch day involves zero searching.

Watch Out: A ticking window is exactly when people skip their checks. The Friday date is real, but so are the fake pages that cluster around any launch drawing attention. Verify every link through Bullski’s official channels before you connect a wallet, however close to the deadline you get.

Beating the Window: Your Before-Friday Move

If the countdown has your attention, spend it in the right order. The reservation is the whole game between now and launch: it costs nothing, takes about two minutes, and decides whether you enter at the lowest stage price or wait behind the crowd that reserved earlier. Fund your wallet, then reserve your stage-one entry on the official site.

When the presale opens Friday evening UTC, priority holders step into stage one first, buy with ETH or USDT, and can stake their $BULLSKI straight away.

$250 USDT Giveaway: There’s one more free move before the window closes. Bullski’s Bullish by Default draw pays $250 USDT to one winner, picked at random, with no purchase needed. You can join the Bullski giveaway draw through the Telegram and X, and bringing a friend adds entries. Winners are announced only on the official channels, and the team will never ask for your wallet keys.

Meme Coins to Buy Before Friday FAQ

What meme coins should I buy before Friday?

Bullski is the one with an actual deadline attached: stage one of its 16-stage presale opens Friday, July 10 at 5pm UTC, and the free priority list is how you enter it first. DOGE, SHIB, and PEPE are the listed names around it, buyable any day. Do your own research before committing to any of them.

What can I actually do before the launch?

Three things. Claim your priority list spot, set up an Ethereum wallet with a little ETH or USDT, and save the official links so you’re not searching in a hurry on the day. There’s nothing to pay before launch; the buying starts at stage one.

What happens at 5pm UTC Friday?

Stage one of Bullski’s presale opens. Priority list holders enter first, buy $BULLSKI with ETH or USDT at the lowest price of the sixteen stages, and can stake right away. From there the presale climbs stage by stage toward its $0.0025 listing reference.

How do I reserve a stage-one entry?

Go to the official Bullski site and add yourself to the priority list; it takes moments. Then fund an Ethereum wallet and wait for July 10. When stage one opens, your reservation puts you ahead of the public queue.

For More Information

Website: Visit the official Bullski website at bullski.io

Telegram: Join the Bullski Telegram channel at t.me/BullskiCoinOfficial

X (Twitter): Follow Bullski on X at x.com/bullskicoin

The post Meme Coins to Buy Before Friday: The Short Window Ahead of Bullski’s 5pm UTC Launch appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Kalshi is requesting regulatory clearance for perpetual futures covering gold, currencies, and energy.

• The trading venue intends to move past cryptocurrency-focused derivative offerings.

• Precious metals, particularly gold, represent a top strategic focus for upcoming launches.

• Regulatory examination by the CFTC may establish precedents for energy-linked perpetual contracts.

• Legacy derivative exchanges confront mounting competitive challenges from Kalshi’s strategic growth.

Kalshi has submitted applications to broaden its perpetual futures offerings into precious metals, currency pairs, and energy commodities. This strategic initiative represents an effort to extend its regulated derivatives framework beyond cryptocurrency markets. The expansion strategy positions Kalshi in direct rivalry with long-standing exchange platforms and retail-focused trading services.

Precious Metals Lead Kalshi’s Expansion Strategy

The trading platform has identified gold-linked perpetual futures as an initial priority amid expanding interest beyond digital currencies. Precious metals hold widespread recognition among both retail participants and institutional trading desks. Management views gold as an accessible gateway for introducing broader traditional asset exposure.

Unlike conventional futures agreements, perpetual contracts carry no fixed expiration dates. Market participants maintain positions indefinitely without needing to transition holdings into subsequent contract periods. Yet leveraged exposure amplifies potential profits and losses during volatile price movements.

Following CFTC authorization in May, Kalshi introduced regulated cryptocurrency perpetual futures that have accumulated approximately $16.1 billion in transaction volume. Building on that momentum, the platform seeks to deploy identical contract structures across conventional financial instruments.

Currency and Energy Markets Join Expansion Blueprint

The venue is simultaneously advancing products connected to currency exchange rates and energy commodities. These instrument categories frequently react to international tensions, production disruptions, and cyclical consumption patterns. Management identifies these characteristics as favorable attributes for sustained perpetual futures activity.

Company representatives report substantial progress in regulatory discussions regarding the planned product launches. The CFTC has additionally requested industry feedback concerning perpetual instruments linked to physically deliverable or inventory-based energy commodities. This consultation process may determine how petroleum products and related assets access regulated trading environments.

Future development may encompass contracts tracking equity indices and single-stock exposures. Nevertheless, metals, currencies, and energy commodities appear positioned as immediate priorities. Upon receiving approval, these instruments would operate during standard trading sessions rather than continuous 24-hour availability.

Perpetual Contract Approval Intensifies Market Competition

This development unfolds as established exchange operators evaluate competitive implications from regulated perpetual futures authorization. CME Group, Cboe Global Markets, Nasdaq, and Intercontinental Exchange have encountered pressure following CFTC approval decisions. These determinations sparked concerns regarding competitive dynamics within U.S. derivatives infrastructure.

CME Group has initiated legal proceedings against the CFTC and its leadership challenging approvals granted to Kalshi and Coinbase. The exchange contends that regulatory authorities advanced excessively fast on products carrying substantial market-wide consequences. Skeptics additionally caution that retail market participants may inadequately assess hazards associated with leveraged perpetual instruments.

Kalshi maintains that regulated market access channels offshore trading activity into supervised environments. Company estimates suggest international perpetual futures volume approached $90 trillion throughout the previous year. Consequently, its precious metals, currency, and energy initiative may gauge appetite for regulated alternatives within domestic markets.

The post Kalshi Plans Expansion Into Gold, Currency, and Energy Perpetual Futures Markets appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• NATO unveils “Drone Edge” program allocating more than $40B for counter-UAV technology across five years
• Four European nations—Norway, Finland, Germany, and Denmark—commit to purchasing up to five Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton reconnaissance drones
• Russia’s Dronnitsa conference openly focuses its agenda on preparing for “large-scale conflict with NATO”
• Russian drone manufacturers now produce millions of unmanned systems each year, maintaining production superiority
• NATO aims to increase drone operator training fivefold before 2027 ends

Unmanned aerial vehicle technology is fundamentally transforming military readiness strategies for both NATO and Russia. From explosive-laden drones to artificially intelligent swarm systems, massive investments are flowing into UAV capabilities on both sides.

NATO Unveils Massive $40 Billion Counter-Drone Program

During this week’s summit in Ankara, NATO introduced its “Drone Edge” strategy. The comprehensive initiative allocates over $40 billion toward advanced counter-drone systems throughout the coming five years.

NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte additionally announced that member states will acquire up to five Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton high-altitude reconnaissance unmanned aircraft. A letter of intent formalizing this acquisition was signed by Norway, Finland, Germany, and Denmark.

These Triton systems will augment NATO’s current RQ-4D Phoenix drone fleet, which operates from Sigonella Air Base in Sicily. Both platforms trace their lineage to Northrop’s Global Hawk design, featuring a 35.4-meter wingspan and endurance exceeding 30 hours of continuous flight.

Additionally, NATO has committed to expanding its drone pilot training programs to produce five times the current number of qualified operators before 2027 concludes.

Russia’s Military Focus Shifts Toward NATO Confrontation

As NATO strengthens its defensive posture, Russia pursues its own strategic path. The upcoming Dronnitsa conference, Russia’s primary annual drone technology forum scheduled for August, explicitly centers on preparation for “major warfare with NATO.”

Samuel Bendett, a leading drone warfare analyst advising both CNA and CNAS research institutions, emphasizes the significance of this strategic pivot. He characterizes Dronnitsa as an operationally-focused gathering where field operators collaborate with manufacturers to develop actionable tactics and viable technology.

Russian defense manufacturers now output millions of unmanned systems annually. According to Bendett, this production capacity provides Russia with a significant, though potentially temporary, quantitative advantage over Western manufacturing capabilities.

Among the technologies under development are fiber-optic controlled drones, which prove substantially more resistant to electronic warfare jamming than conventional radio-controlled variants. These innovations emerge directly from operational experience gained during the Ukraine conflict.

Understanding the Evolution of Contemporary Drone Combat

Drones have evolved dramatically from reconnaissance platforms into primary offensive weapons systems. Throughout Ukraine, coordinated drone swarms have successfully targeted Russian petroleum facilities. Across the Middle East, Iranian-manufactured Shahed drones have created significant disruption to maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormoz.

Contemporary loitering munitions cost substantially less than traditional cruise missiles while enabling mass deployment tactics. These systems can remain airborne for extended periods, engage mobile objectives, and utilize low-altitude flight profiles that evade conventional radar systems.

Looking forward, NATO analysts project that future drone warfare will incorporate artificially intelligent swarm coordination, directed-energy interception networks, underwater-launched aerial systems, and additive-manufactured munitions.

The technological competition between offensive drone capabilities and counter-drone defenses continues to intensify across both alliances.

The post NATO Invests $40 Billion in Counter-Drone Technology as Russia Gears Up for Confrontation appeared first on Blockonomi.

Ethereum (ETH) is trading at nearly 65% below its all-time high, with attention around the asset at an almost yearly low, even as its largest network upgrade since The Merge is due within weeks.

But an analyst tracking the setup says the gap between weak social interest and steady on-chain usage is the kind of divergence that has often come right before sharp moves for the cryptocurrency.

Glamsterdam Approaches as On-Chain Data Stays Firm

In a July 9 post on X, pseudonymous analyst Wise Crypto noted that the Ethereum network has been processing roughly 450,000 active addresses despite social media discussion sitting near yearly lows.

According to them, the upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade could become a major catalyst, considering that it could increase Ethereum’s gas limit by three times and cut transaction fees by about 78%. It has also been said that it could lift throughput to about 10,000 transactions per second.

“Major catalyst. Minimal attention,” the market watcher wrote, while naming $1,754 as the ETH level worth watching. A sustained move above that area, according to them, could open the way toward $2,440, while failure to hold support could send the world’s second-largest crypto asset back toward $880.

Looking at CoinGecko data at the time of writing, ETH was trading just a few dollars below Wise Crypto’s stated resistance level, having dipped slightly (about 1%) in 24 hours but still gaining nearly 7% during the past week and about 3% over 30 days.

That quiet backdrop is sitting alongside some unusual exchange data shared by CryptoQuant contributor Amr Taha, who said that Binance’s 30-day ETH open interest change fell to -594,000 ETH earlier in the week, marking its deepest contraction since August 2024. Around the same time, ETH spot volume on OKX climbed to $2.09 billion, 49% higher than its best reading of the year, which was recorded on February 5.

According to Taha, the pairing is notable because a leverage flush alongside rising spot volumes probably means that speculators are leaving the market while spot buyers are continuing to stack ETH and not that there’s a broad retreat from the asset.

Executives Talk Up the Cycle While Traders Stay Cautious

Ethereum has been rejected at $1,800 three times this week, but that didn’t stop Consensys co-founder Joseph Lubin from saying Wednesday that the “Summer of Ethereum Love is gaining steam,” pointing to newly launched steward groups like Ethlabs working alongside the Ethereum Foundation, and citing the network’s eleven years of uptime as a draw for institutions.

Analyst Michaël van de Poppe struck a similar tone over the weekend, arguing that “the worst period for ETH is over” after the token closed out its third straight quarterly loss of more than 20%, a first in its history. He called the odds of a fourth consecutive drop statistically low and pointed to the pending CLARITY Act as a potential liquidity driver.

The post Analyst Sees Upside for ETH Ahead of Glamsterdam Upgrade appeared first on CryptoPotato.

AscendEX said it stopped operating on July 1 after the MiCA transition period ended.

Following its exit, ZachXBT warned the public about the platform’s liquidity, alleging that it wouldn’t be able to process customer withdrawals.

ZachXBT Raises Fresh Liquidity Concerns

In its announcement, the crypto exchange said that it was winding down due to challenging market conditions and the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, which left several crypto firms unable to operate in the region after failing to obtain the required authorization.

Following the decision, account access has been limited to offboarding processes, while automated withdrawals have been paused. The exchange said all withdrawal requests will now go through manual reviews and may be delayed, require additional information, or fail to be processed.

“We are not in a position to give assurances about timing or amounts today. No account holder or group of account holders is given priority outside the documented review process,” read the notice.

ZachXBT had previously shared on Telegram that several of the platform’s users were experiencing withdrawal delays for days or weeks, with some requests not being processed at all. The blockchain detective said his analysis found that AscendEX’s hot wallets had almost no reserves of major assets such as USDT, ETH, USDC, and SOL, leading him to believe that it was facing liquidity challenges.

Community reports corroborated the situation, with many individuals who had tried to move funds out of the exchange saying their transactions had been stuck in “initiating” for over a week. In a follow-up post, ZachXBT claimed that the platform has yet to process over 7 figures worth of transactions for its users.

He also urged the affected to take legal action by filing police reports and speaking to the relevant regulators in their countries to hold the platform accountable.

AscendEX Confirms Financial Issues

The exchange, founded in 2018 by George (Jing) Cao, was once a major crypto platform. However, AscendEX fell victim to a hack in December 2021 that drained about $78 million in digital assets.

In its statement, the firm said that its decision to shut down was heavily influenced by financial and operational issues, explaining that a strategic transaction meant to provide liquidity had failed. It added that market conditions had also contributed to the pressure, causing the company to assess its financial position and all available options for account holders.

The firm concluded by advising users to forward any complaints through its official channels and said that it would notify them of any next steps should insolvency proceedings be initiated.

The post ZachXBT Sounds Alarm Over AscendEX as Users Struggle to Withdraw Funds appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Solana’s recovery appears to have lost momentum after it shed over 6% in the past week. As it currently trades near $77, it is facing its most negative market sentiment of 2026.

In fact, SOL’s trading volume has dropped to its lowest point in 2026, while negative commentary surrounding the asset has surged to its highest daily level this year, according to Santiment.

Rebound Setup Emerges

Much of the disappointment stems from expectations that strong narratives around tokenized stocks and real-world asset (RWA) activity would translate into stronger price performance, something traders have yet to see.

Santiment noted that this combination of elevated fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) alongside weak trading volume has historically created conditions that can favor a rebound. With retail participation low and sentiment deeply negative, there may be less resistance if large stakeholders decide to drive Solana’s prices higher, which could potentially set the stage for a sharp move that catches traders off guard.

The Solana network added 1.60 million new addresses over the past two weeks. Additionally, the SuperTrend indicator on SOL’s three-day chart also flashed a new buy signal for the first time since October 10, 2025, when the Average True Range (ATR) trailing stop moved below the price. According to analyst Ali Martinez, the previous SuperTrend sell signal was followed by a 74% price correction. He said the latest signal points to a bullish trend and could send SOL toward $100.

Michaël van de Poppe also observed that the crypto asset has re-entered its trading range and may briefly pull back before continuing its upward move. He added that holding the $75-$77 range as support could open the door to gains toward $100 and potentially $120 in the coming weeks or months.

$78 Holds the Key

Another crypto analyst, Dami-Defi, also pointed to a potential breakout as SOL currently tests the upper boundary of a descending channel that has been in place since September 2025. According to the analyst, a three-day close above $78 would confirm the breakout and open the door to an initial move toward $105, followed by $125 and $155 if momentum continues.

However, the setup would be invalidated by a three-day close below $72, and stronger trading volume would be needed to confirm the breakout.

The post Solana (SOL) FUD Hits 2026 High: Why It Could Be a Bullish Twist appeared first on CryptoPotato.

June was not kind to Cardano’s native token, whose price briefly crashed below $0.14, marking the lowest point since 2020.

Fortunately for the bulls, the asset started July on the right foot, temporarily recovering to roughly $0.20, and is currently trading at around $0.17, representing a 14% increase over two weeks.

It will be interesting to see whether ADA can extend its positive momentum in the following months and reclaim the major milestone of $1 before the end of the year. Below is the perspective of three of the most widely used AI-powered chatbots.

Possible But Quite Difficult Task

ChatGPT estimated that ADA could reach $1 sometime this year, but warned that this will be extremely challenging given current levels. OpenAI’s platform claimed that the biggest problem is usage, noting that Cardano’s ecosystem and activity still look small relative to the valuation needed for such a milestone.

“$1 is possible only in a full bull scenario — Bitcoin strong, altcoins rotating, ETF optimism rising, and Cardano showing real DeFi/stablecoin growth. A more realistic recovery path would first be $0.30–$0.50. If ADA clears that zone with volume, then $0.75–$1 becomes a serious target. If the broader market stays weak, ADA may struggle even to reclaim $0.30,” it stated.

Perplexity also didn’t rule out the possibility, but argued that an explosion of that magnitude would require three things to happen simultaneously: Bitcoin-led market strength, a clear acceleration in the Cardano ecosystem, and a major re-rating of large-cap altcoins.

The chatbot claimed that the most realistic scenario for ADA this year is to reach a maximum of $0.80, as it could spend parts of the year closer to $0.30-$0.50, especially if catalysts like CME futures, Hydra, and improved DeFi usage start to matter more.

Uphill Battle

Google’s Gemini said an ascent to $1 for ADA in 2026 is mathematically possible but highly improbable. The chatbot addressed the ongoing problems of Cardano, which continues to struggle with user growth, DeFi traction, and actual daily transaction volume compared to its competitors like Solana and Ethereum.

Moreover, Gemini touched upon Charles Hoskinson’s recent statements, which have posed hurdles to ADA’s price action. Recall that Cardano’s founder shocked the community last month when he said he’s “taking a break” and warned of an upcoming “wave of failures in the ecosystem.”

“>”Hoskinson is known for his unfiltered, highly transparent communication style. While his supporters praise his honesty, markets hate uncertainty. Right now, Cardano is going through a painful transition phase, and Hoskinson’s public commentary is magnifying those growing pains,” Gemini stated.

The post Can Cardano (ADA) Reclaim $1 in 2026: 3 AIs Weigh in appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s market appears to be in the later stages of a bear market, but the signals confirming a broader turnaround have not yet emerged. On-chain data shared by Glassnode shows the asset has recovered from $57,800 to nearly $63,000 over the past week, but it remains below both the True Market Mean of $76,600 and the Short-Term Holder Cost Basis of $72,200.

This leaves the asset in a “deep value” zone.

BTC Bottoming

Bitcoin has now spent about five months trading below both of these levels – one of the longest discount periods in its history. According to Glassnode, such long periods have historically provided the foundation for cyclical bottoms as investors accumulate at prices below the average cost of recent buyers and the broader active market. However, a further decline toward the Realized Price of roughly $53,000 remains possible.

The report identified long-term holders as the primary source of current selling pressure. Since early February, the share of realized value attributed to long-term holder losses has increased from 15% to 43%, which makes this cohort’s capitulation the largest contributor to downside pressure. These investors largely bought near the cycle peak and, after holding through months of losses, are increasingly selling as the downturn tests their conviction.

Glassnode said that this steady wave of distribution has prevented Bitcoin from reclaiming the upper end of its current trading range. The report added that long-term holders’ realized losses, measured on a 30-day moving average basis, recently climbed to around $280 million per day, which is the highest level since December 2022. This was the second major spike recorded during the current bear market.

Unlike the previous spike, however, this wave of capitulation has not yet begun to cool. Glassnode believes that a decline in this metric will be necessary before a credible transition back to bullish conditions can be considered.

Off-chain indicators also continue to point to weak institutional demand despite exhibiting modest improvement. The 30-day average of US spot Bitcoin ETF net flows has remained negative since mid-May. The average daily outflows declined from a peak of $193 million in early June to approximately $88.9 million.

While the slower pace of withdrawals is viewed as a “tentative positive,” institutions are still reducing exposure overall, which means demand has yet to stabilize. ETF trading activity also remains low, as daily volume ranges between $650 million and $950 million, roughly 80% below the $4.4 billion daily peak recorded in October 2025.

According to the report, both stronger trading activity and a return to neutral or positive ETF flows would be needed to confirm renewed institutional participation.

Defensive Positioning

Derivatives markets present a mixed picture. The options put/call ratio has fallen to 0.56, its lowest level this year, while perpetual futures funding rates indicate traders have cautiously rebuilt long positions after earlier de-risking. Despite this, the options market remained defensive.

“The 25-delta skew, the premium of downside protection over upside, is bid across every tenor. Every selloff since the winter has re-bid it, and late June’s spike to 24% was the most defensive the front end has been since the February selloff. Traders are still paying up to hedge each dip, even as the book leans long.”

Bitcoin also trades about 6% below the options market’s aggregated max pain level of $66,000, the price at which the greatest number of outstanding options would expire worthless and around which spot price has often gravitated as expiry approaches.

The post Bitcoin Is in Deep Value Zone, Yet $53K Drop Cannot Be Ruled Out appeared first on CryptoPotato.