Crypto Breaking

Andre Cronje, the architect behind Yearn.finance and the creator of Fantom Network, says most decentralized finance has drifted away from what many in the sector have historically meant by “DeFi.” In a conversation with Cointelegraph during Chain Reaction X, Cronje argued that true DeFi exists only in small pockets, while the broader ecosystem has evolved into something closer to conventional finance layered on-chain.
His remarks arrive as quantitative signals point to contraction in DeFi activity and as regulators and policy makers continue to scrutinize whether DAOs are genuinely decentralized enough to remain outside traditional oversight. With DeFi total value locked (TVL) falling sharply and governance widely concentrated in major protocols, the debate over decentralization—technical, economic, and legal—has moved from philosophy to governance design and regulatory classification.
Key takeaways
Andre Cronje argues that most DeFi today is no longer “true DeFi,” because intermediaries and decision-makers effectively remain in the system.
DefiLlama data cited in the report shows DeFi TVL fell from about $167 billion in early October 2025 to roughly $75 billion at the time of writing.
The European Central Bank has questioned whether large DAO ecosystems should be considered “fully decentralized,” citing governance token concentration across major protocols.
Cronje also renews a long-running technical debate in DeFi: whether emergency controls like circuit breakers are compatible with decentralization.
Cronje’s “true DeFi” critique: decentralization vs. onchain finance
Cronje’s central claim is that DeFi, as practiced by most mainstream protocols, has departed from the decentralization ideal. “I don’t think DeFi exists anymore outside of those very small niches,” he told Cointelegraph during Thursday’s Chain Reaction X Spaces. He further argued that “true DeFi” should be decentralized, immutable, and without an intermediary, adding that those standards are not met by “pretty much any other protocols running today.”
Rather than rejecting decentralization entirely, Cronje reframed the shift as an evolution into “onchain finance or open finance.” In his view, the ecosystem has moved into a structure where roles that traditionally belong to banks and other intermediaries—curation, risk committees, and decision-making—are effectively performed by other entities within the protocol’s operating reality.
“We’ve long since moved on from [DeFi]. Because your intermediary now is a company, it’s a decision maker, it’s a curator, it’s a risk committee, it’s all the traditional kind of things we saw in banking.”
That argument matters for investors and users because it reframes what decentralization is supposed to guarantee. If governance and administrative control concentrate around identifiable decision-makers—whether individuals, foundations, or companies—then the “trust-minimized” promise can weaken. For market participants, the practical outcome is not just a philosophical disagreement; it affects how risks are priced, how upgrades and interventions occur, and how credible the threat of “exit” really is when the system’s controls are not distributed.
Cronje did leave room for a more optimistic interpretation. He said the critique does not rule out “true DeFi” altogether and suggested that genuine innovation is still occurring among some protocols.
From circuit breakers to governance control: the decentralization test
According to the same reporting thread, Cronje has been making this point for months. Earlier in the year, he said that much of DeFi is “no longer DeFi” in the strict sense, as builders debate whether circuit breakers and other emergency controls are necessary safeguards against exploits. The implication is that emergency mechanisms may introduce discretionary intervention—potentially conflicting with the immutability and autonomy expected from “true DeFi.”
This internal engineering debate has increasingly spilled into governance questions. If a system’s safety depends on a special intervention path, the governance structure that can authorize those interventions becomes part of the decentralization equation. That is where decentralization is no longer only about smart contract code; it becomes about who can change outcomes under stress.
Cronje’s comments also intersect with a broader policy question: when is a DAO decentralized enough to qualify as outside the scope of financial regulation?
DeFi’s contraction meets regulatory pressure
The article’s discussion places Cronje’s remarks alongside data showing that DeFi has been shrinking. DefiLlama data cited in the report indicates DeFi TVL fell to about $75 billion at the time of writing, down from $167 billion in early October 2025—more than halving over roughly the past 10 months. While TVL is not a direct measure of decentralization quality, it can reflect broader market appetite, capital rotation, and confidence in protocol risk—factors that often rise when governance effectiveness and system resilience come under scrutiny.
In parallel, the European Central Bank has questioned whether certain DAOs meet the threshold implied by “fully decentralized” services under regulatory frameworks. In a March working paper, the ECB examined Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth, and Uniswap. It reported that, based on governance tokenholder holdings snapshots from November 2022 and May 2023, the top 100 governance token holders controlled more than 80% of the token supply in each protocol.
The ECB authors said these findings challenge assumptions about inherent DAO decentralization and whether such systems should remain outside Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) as “fully decentralized” services.
For readers, the tension is clear: DeFi’s decentralization narrative is often presented as a property of code and onchain governance, but regulators and researchers look at real-world concentration of economic power. Even where the smart contracts are decentralized, the governance tokens may be held and coordinated in ways that create effective control at the top.
What changes next: the decentralization debate is shifting from rhetoric to design
Cronje’s intervention reflects a wider sector shift—from arguing about whether DeFi is “dead” to asking how DeFi should be structured if decentralization is treated as a measurable standard. When TVL declines and governance concentration becomes a regulatory talking point, protocol designers face increasing pressure to demonstrate that decision-making is genuinely distributed and that emergency actions are constrained in ways that users can evaluate.
For investors and builders, the practical watchlist is likely to focus less on slogans and more on governance architecture: distribution of voting power, how upgrades and circuit breakers are authorized, and what level of intervention is actually possible by identifiable parties.
As policy scrutiny continues and market participation evolves, readers should watch whether major protocols modify governance mechanisms or strengthen decentralization claims with clearer, more testable structures—because the definition battle is increasingly tied to risk, regulation, and how resilient these systems are under stress.
This article was originally published as Andre Cronje: DeFi Label Fades as On-Chain Finance Takes Over on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Andre Cronje, founder of DeFi platform Flying Tulip and creator of the Fantom Network, says “most” decentralized finance no longer fits the strict definition of DeFi. Speaking during Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction X Spaces event on Thursday, Cronje argued that true DeFi should be decentralized, immutable, and free of intermediaries—conditions he believes many major protocols no longer meet.
His comments come as industry-wide concerns about concentration in DeFi governance and real-world controls continue to grow, alongside data showing DeFi activity has cooled substantially over the past year. According to DefiLlama, total value locked (TVL) in DeFi has fallen to about $75 billion, down from roughly $167 billion in early October 2025—more than a 50% decline.
Key takeaways
Andre Cronje argues that most current DeFi relies on intermediaries and decision-makers, undermining the “true DeFi” model.
Cronje frames the shift as movement toward “onchain finance or open finance,” rather than the original DeFi ethos.
DefiLlama data cited in the discussion shows DeFi TVL has more than halved over the past 10 months, reflecting weaker momentum.
European Central Bank analysis has questioned DAO decentralization, suggesting top governance token holders control large shares of supply.
The debate is increasingly about whether emergency controls, governance concentration, and protocol dependencies should keep DeFi outside regulation.
From decentralized finance to “open finance”
Cronje’s central claim is that DeFi has drifted away from its original design principles. In his view, many protocols that present themselves as decentralized now include centralized elements in practice—such as companies or other entities functioning as decision-makers, curators, or risk-management bodies.
“We’ve long since moved on from [DeFi]. Because your intermediary now is a company, it’s a decision maker, it’s a curator, it’s a risk committee, it’s all the traditional kind of things we saw in banking.”
That framing matters because it shifts the discussion away from user interfaces and token-based governance, toward the actual mechanisms that control execution and risk. When “decentralization” is defined as the absence of discretionary intermediaries, the question becomes whether today’s DeFi protocols are merely automated fronts for off-chain power—or truly credibly minimized in terms of who can intervene.
Cronje also stopped short of saying the concept of true DeFi is dead. He argued that some protocols still show genuine innovation consistent with his definition, even if the broader ecosystem has moved toward a different model.
Why the industry is arguing about circuit breakers and controls
The critique is not new for Cronje. Earlier this year, he said much of DeFi is “no longer DeFi” in the strict sense while builders debate whether circuit breakers and other emergency measures are now necessary to protect users from exploits. Those controls can improve safety, but they also introduce practical questions: Who can trigger them? How discretionary are they? And do they effectively reintroduce centralized authority into systems marketed as decentralized?
The tension is becoming more explicit. If protocols are forced to rely on intermediated responses to security incidents, then the “immutable” component of true DeFi becomes harder to defend. At the same time, users and developers may view emergency capabilities as unavoidable once real-value systems and complex smart contracts face exploitable edge cases.
DeFi TVL contraction adds weight to the skepticism
While decentralization debates are partly philosophical, the numbers indicate the ecosystem’s broader traction has slowed. DefiLlama data cited in the discussion shows DeFi TVL has dropped to about $75 billion from around $167 billion in early October 2025—an overall contraction of more than half over approximately 10 months.
Decreasing TVL does not automatically prove decentralization is failing, but it does support the idea that the center of gravity in crypto finance has shifted. When capital and liquidity concentrate elsewhere—whether in centralized venues, tokenized markets, or other on-chain segments—protocol governance concentration and dependency risks tend to receive more scrutiny from investors.
For market participants, falling TVL also changes the incentives behind governance. With less capital flowing through protocols, participants may become more aligned with risk-averse decisions or concentrated operators—especially if recovery and security mechanisms require coordination.
Regulators and academics look at DAO concentration
Cronje’s comments align with earlier concerns raised by institutional researchers. In a March working paper, the European Central Bank questioned whether decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are sufficiently decentralized to remain outside regulators’ scope.
According to the ECB paper, researchers examined Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth, and Uniswap, finding that the top 100 governance token holders controlled more than 80% of the supply in each protocol. The analysis was based on holdings snapshots from November 2022 and May 2023.
The ECB authors said these findings challenge the idea of “inherent decentralization” and whether DAOs should qualify as “fully decentralized” services outside Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). In other words: even if protocols use token voting and smart contract execution, governance concentration can still mean power is effectively centralized among a relatively small set of participants.
This matters for the practical question investors and users face: how much confidence should be placed in the permissionless nature of governance when major influence is concentrated? If decentralization is measured not by code architecture alone but by distribution of influence, concentration becomes a key regulatory and compliance problem.
What to watch next
The debate over “true DeFi” is likely to intensify as protocols balance security controls, governance participation, and real-world operational dependencies. Investors should watch how builders define decentralization in practice—especially around emergency powers and concentrated governance—and whether regulators treat “token-based coordination” as meaningfully decentralized when custody, influence, or intervention remain concentrated.
This article was originally published as Andre Cronje Says “DeFi” Is Gone, On-Chain Finance Now on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin has remained trapped in a tight trading band since early June, and on-chain data suggests the latest pressure is coming from short-term holders trying to exit around levels where they’re closest to breakeven. Glassnode’s latest weekly on-chain analysis points to realized-price “resistance” formed by speculative investors who bought within the past six months, while Bitfinex Alpha highlights how a concentrated supply slice is repeatedly flipping between profit and loss as spot trades inside the range.
With BTC/USD stuck between roughly $58,000 and $68,000, the market appears to be working through a recurring pattern: rebounds are being met by holders looking to reduce exposure, even as long-term participants continue to absorb repeated tests from below. For traders, the key question is whether the speculative selling pressure can finally be exhausted—or whether the range simply persists.
Key takeaways
Glassnode estimates Bitcoin short-term holders are about 7.2% underwater overall, with an average realized cost basis near $68,700 acting as a notable resistance level.
Glassnode frames the “cost-basis ladder” as a structural reason price struggles to break out, citing the median realized price near $63,000 as a level that has absorbed repeated upward attempts for weeks.
Bitfinex Alpha says a large tranche of supply—1,794,308 BTC—currently sits in the $62,000 to $65,000 cost-basis band, reinforcing stubborn range boundaries.
As BTC trades within the same $3,000 band, the largest concentration of holders keeps moving between profit and loss, increasing turnover and reinforcing the range dynamic.
Why short-term holders are pushing back at range highs
In its latest weekly edition, Glassnode focused on the behavior of short-term holders (STHs)—investors who acquired BTC within the last six months. The firm reports that this cohort remains roughly 7.2% underwater in aggregate, based on its cost-basis measure (realized price). Glassnode places that realized cost basis at $68,700, a level it describes as central to why price is stalling around the upper part of the current range.
Glassnode also points to how realized-price “rungs” map into the market’s ongoing stalemate. The analytics firm notes that spot prices are sitting just above the median realized price (around $63,000), which it characterizes as the midpoint dividing coins’ cost bases into higher and lower halves. That same median level, according to Glassnode, has “absorbed every test from above for more than a month,” even as broader range conditions have persisted.
“The cost-basis ladder frames the stalemate. Spot sits just above the Median Realized Price at $63.0K, the level that splits every coin’s cost basis down the middle, and below the Short-Term Holder Cost Basis at $68.7K, the average entry of the market’s most recent buyers.”
“That cohort is underwater, which historically makes it quick to sell into recoveries, while the median level has absorbed every test from above for more than a month.”
In other words, the market’s upper breakout attempts are meeting sellers who are not yet fully “whole,” but who still have incentives to lighten exposure during recoveries—especially as they approach their average cost basis. This dynamic can slow or prevent sustained upside momentum, particularly when buyers and sellers are evenly matched across a narrow price corridor.
BTC/USD stuck in a June-to-present range
Glassnode’s analysis aligns with the broader price picture. BTC/USD has been boxed in a near three-month range between approximately $58,000 and $68,000 since the start of June. Cointelegraph previously described the ongoing tug-of-war inside this corridor, noting that technical factors have helped keep price contained.
A separate theme in current commentary is the idea that downside resolution may be increasingly likely in bear-market-style conditions. Cointelegraph cited a 50-month trend line near $65,800 as a factor contributing to tighter constraints in the trading range.
More recently, trader and analyst Rekt Capital warned that $63,000 appears to be weakening as local support, with each rebound from that level reportedly gaining less traction. While such technical commentary cannot determine direction on its own, it reinforces what Glassnode’s on-chain framing implies: repeated attempts to move upward may be repeatedly checked, while key levels near the middle of the range are not strengthening decisively.
Supply concentration in the $62,000–$65,000 band reinforces resistance
Beyond holder psychology, Bitfinex Alpha argued that the “stubborn” boundaries of the range are also tied to ownership distribution on-chain. In a Wednesday report, Bitfinex Alpha pointed to a distinct cost-basis concentration using the UTXO Realised Price Distribution (URPD) framework. According to Bitfinex Alpha, the $62,000 to $65,000 band holds 1,794,308 BTC at that cost basis—equivalent to 8.93% of circulating supply.
URPD tracks the price at which coins last moved on-chain, offering a way to visualize where large amounts of BTC are “anchored” by prior transaction activity. Bitfinex Alpha highlights that the largest holdings within this narrow band sit around $63,800.
“With price trading inside this band, the largest concentration of holders across any narrow $3,000 range keeps moving between profit and loss and a large volume of coins changes hands as a result,” Bitfinex added.
The implication for spot action is straightforward: when a large share of BTC is concentrated in a relatively tight realized-cost window, small price moves can shift many holders’ positions from paper gains to paper losses and back again. That can produce a market that repeatedly churns—active enough to avoid a clean bottom, but structured enough to limit breakouts.
What to watch next: the $68,700 and $69,400 thresholds
Glassnode’s analysis places the short-term holder realized cost basis near $68,700 as a key level for any upside attempt to clear. Meanwhile, Bitfinex Alpha notes that immediately above the current STH cost basis is a psychologically significant marker: Bitcoin’s old all-time high of $69,400 from November 2021.
For investors and active traders, the immediate watch is whether price can build momentum through the $68,700 area without quickly being met by STH-led supply. If it fails, the odds favor continued range behavior—particularly given how the $62,000–$65,000 cost-basis concentration encourages frequent position flipping. If BTC does manage to reclaim and hold above those thresholds, the market would need to demonstrate not just a rebound, but an ability to convert the speculative cohort’s behavior from selling pressure into net demand.
This article was originally published as Glassnode: Speculative demand keeps Bitcoin under $68.7K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Digital Yuan vs US Dollar has become a major theme in discussions about the future of global trade as China continues developing its digital currency infrastructure while the U.S. dollar maintains its long-standing position in international finance. The latest developments do not indicate an immediate shift away from the dollar, but they show how financial systems are being redesigned through technology, cross-border payment networks, and new approaches to currency settlement.
China’s digital yuan strategy is focused on creating additional payment channels, strengthening renminbi usage, and reducing dependence on dollar-based systems. For decades, the U.S. dollar has been the foundation of global commerce. It remains the leading reserve currency, a major currency for international trade settlements, and a benchmark for commodities, sovereign debt, and financial markets.
However, countries facing geopolitical uncertainty, currency volatility, and financial risks are increasingly exploring alternatives that provide greater flexibility. China’s digital yuan development is part of this broader transformation. Beijing is not simply attempting to replace the dollar. Instead, it is building financial infrastructure that could allow more transactions to take place through alternative networks.
What Does Digital Yuan Vs Us Dollar Show About The New Financial Landscape
Digital Yuan vs US Dollar reflects a wider change in how countries think about financial independence and payment systems. The debate is no longer only about which currency dominates reserves. It is increasingly about which networks control the movement of money across borders.
The dollar’s influence has been built over decades through deep capital markets, global trust, liquidity, and widespread usage. International institutions and financial markets continue to rely heavily on dollar-based systems. At the same time, emerging markets are exploring ways to reduce excessive dependence on a single currency.
This shift is driven by several factors, including geopolitical tensions, sanctions risks, trade disputes, and the impact of a strong dollar on developing economies. A stronger dollar can increase the burden of dollar-denominated debt, pressure local currencies, and contribute to capital outflows. For some policymakers, expanding alternative payment options is viewed as a way to improve financial resilience.
How Has China Redesigned The Digital Yuan In 2026
China’s digital yuan has entered a new phase with a redesign aimed at making the system more compatible with existing banking structures. The key change is that digital yuan holdings will remain connected to commercial banks and payment companies rather than functioning purely as digital cash issued directly by the central bank. Under the updated model, commercial banks can manage digital yuan funds, maintain those balances within their financial systems, and pay interest to users.
Current deposit rates remain around 0.05%, meaning the immediate financial incentive remains limited. However, the redesign changes the relationship between banks and the e-CNY project. Previously, banks were concerned that digital yuan adoption could pull deposits away from traditional accounts and reduce available lending capacity. The new structure reduces that concern by keeping commercial institutions involved.
The redesign also reflects a wider global movement toward tokenized deposits, where financial institutions use new technology to improve payment systems without significantly disrupting banking operations. China began exploring a digital currency in 2016 and became one of the first major economies to develop a large-scale central bank digital currency project.
Despite early expectations, adoption has grown gradually because consumers already rely heavily on established digital payment platforms. By November 2025, the People’s Bank of China reported that the e-CNY had processed nearly 3.5 billion transactions worth 16.7 trillion yuan, equivalent to about $2.4 trillion.
However, digital yuan activity remained a small share of China’s broader payment market, accounting for about 0.2% of the 1.3 quadrillion yuan processed through bank cards and digital platforms during 2024. Internationally, the digital yuan has also expanded. The currency had processed more than 3.4 billion transactions worth around $2.3 trillion to $2.4 trillion by the end of 2025, representing growth of more than 800% since 2023.
What Is New With The Digital Yuan’s Global Expansion
The latest developments show that China’s focus is moving beyond domestic payments toward international settlement infrastructure. A major area of attention is Project mBridge, a multi-central bank digital currency platform designed to explore direct cross-border digital currency payments. The platform includes China, Hong Kong, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. The system has processed more than 4,000 cross-border transactions worth nearly $55.5 billion.
The digital yuan accounts for about 95% of the settlement volume. While this remains small compared with traditional global payment networks, it demonstrates China’s effort to develop alternative financial channels. China has also continued expanding offshore renminbi finance, cross-border trading, and Shanghai’s role as an international financial center.
The measures announced at the Lujiazui Forum included efforts to strengthen foreign central bank liquidity facilities, increase international participation in parts of China’s financial sector, and support wider renminbi usage. These developments are part of a longer strategy. Beijing has spent nearly two decades promoting renminbi internationalization through trade settlement programs, offshore clearing centers, currency swaps, and alternative payment infrastructure.
What Are The Key Metrics Behind The Digital Yuan Vs Us Dollar Competition
Digital Yuan vs US Dollar shows two different financial models. The digital yuan is a state-backed digital payment system designed for domestic use with expanding cross-border capabilities. The U.S. dollar remains the world’s primary reserve currency and is deeply integrated into trade, investment, and financial markets. The digital yuan has processed more than 3.4 billion transactions worth around $2.3 trillion to $2.4 trillion.
Its cross-border role through mBridge has exceeded $55 billion in transaction volume with more than 4,000 transactions. The dollar’s advantage comes from scale, trust, and market depth. Unlike the digital yuan, it does not depend on a newly developed payment network because existing global financial systems already operate around dollar liquidity.
The two systems are also following different policy directions. China continues developing a state-backed digital currency while limiting private stablecoin competition. The United States has focused more on private-sector dollar-backed stablecoins and has not launched a retail central bank digital currency.
Why Does The Digital Yuan Matter For Businesses And Investors
For companies involved in international trade, changes in payment infrastructure could create new options for settlement. Businesses operating with Chinese partners may eventually have more opportunities to use renminbi-based payment channels. Treasury teams in emerging markets may explore multi-currency strategies to reduce dependence on a single settlement currency.
For investors, the development of digital currencies and stablecoins represents a broader transformation in how global money flows. The competition may not only involve currencies themselves but also the technology and networks supporting transactions. Financial professionals will increasingly need knowledge of currency markets, geopolitical risks, digital payment systems, and cross-border financial strategies.
Conclusion
Digital Yuan vs US Dollar does not represent an immediate contest where one currency will quickly replace another. The dollar continues to benefit from strong institutional foundations, global acceptance, and deep financial markets. China’s objective appears more focused on creating alternatives and reducing dependence on dollar-based systems.
A world where more trade, investment, and payments can operate through multiple financial networks would represent a significant change. The future is more likely to involve a multi-currency environment where the dollar remains important while other currencies gain specific roles.
Glossary
Digital Yuan (e-CNY): China’s official digital currency.
US Dollar (USD): The world’s leading reserve currency.
CBDC: A digital currency issued by a central bank.
Cross-Border Payments: Payments made between different countries.
Renminbi (RMB): China’s official currency, also called the yuan.
Frequently Asked Questions About Digital Yuan Vs Us Dollar
Is The Digital Yuan Replacing The US Dollar
No. The Digital Yuan is not replacing the US Dollar, but it offers another option for global payments.
What Is The Main Goal Of China’s Digital Yuan
China aims to improve digital payments and expand cross-border payment options.
Why Are Countries Exploring Alternatives To The US Dollar
Some countries want more payment choices and less dependence on a single currency.
How Could The Digital Yuan Affect Global Trade
The Digital Yuan could make international payments faster and provide more settlement options.
This article was originally published as Digital Yuan Vs Us Dollar: The Growing Battle Over Global Trade And Digital Finance on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan argues that crypto valuations may be structurally poised to rise as more networks route transaction fees toward token repurchases and burns. In his view, the market still has not fully accounted for the growing link between protocol revenue and the value of native tokens.
Speaking in a CIO memo published by Bitwise, Hougan said that—outside of Bitcoin—an increasing share of activity is now translating into revenue that can directly create buy-side pressure for tokens. He cited multiple DeFi and crypto-native projects that already use fees to reduce circulating supply, and he expects the approach to spread across DeFi applications and layer-1 ecosystems over the next 12 to 24 months.
Key takeaways
Hougan says crypto assets beyond Bitcoin could see much higher valuation as protocol fees increasingly translate into token buybacks and burns.
He points to examples across DeFi—Hyperliquid, Uniswap, and Aave—where revenue mechanisms are designed to reduce token supply.
The CIO argues investors have not fully priced in revenue-to-token value linkages, leaving some assets potentially undervalued.
Hougan ties the trend partly to a more permissive US regulatory environment that reduces friction for revenue-sharing features.
He notes that even with revenue capture, token holders do not have the same cash-flow rights as equity shareholders, and tokenomics can still change.
Why revenue capture could matter for token valuation
Hougan’s central claim is that the market narrative for many cryptocurrencies is shifting from pure speculation to a model where network usage can have measurable economic consequences for token holders. According to the Bitwise memo, protocol revenue can create a direct channel to demand for a token—either by purchasing it back or by removing tokens from circulation through burns.
That difference matters because it brings at least some components of conventional valuation logic into the crypto market. Hougan said stronger ties between revenue and token value could allow investors to think more like they do with traditional assets, where earnings and cash flows help justify prices. At the same time, he emphasized a key asymmetry: token holders typically do not have shareholders’ legal claims on cash flow. In addition, community-set tokenomics means the rules governing how revenue is used can evolve.
DeFi examples where fees flow to buybacks and burns
In the memo, Hougan highlighted several protocols that already operationalize fee-to-token mechanisms.
Hyperliquid: The decentralized exchange generated over $800 million in revenue last year, according to the figure cited by Hougan. Hyperliquid’s own reporting offers a concrete example of the model: on Aug. 6, the protocol said it recorded $169 million in second-quarter revenue and directed $141 million toward buybacks and burns of its HYPE token. The implication is straightforward—trading activity can translate into systematic token repurchases rather than only funding ongoing development or remaining in treasury.
Uniswap: Hougan also pointed to Uniswap’s “UNIfication” overhaul and its fee plan. Cointelegraph previously reported that Uniswap’s approved changes include protocol fees that can be used to fund UNI burns. Under that mechanism, fees that are collected can be claimed by burning UNI, with the memo referencing an activation tied to a Dec. 22, 2025 date. The structural point for investors is that, once fully live, protocol usage has a built-in pathway to reducing supply.
Aave: For Aave, the revenue-to-token model is tied to DAO buybacks. Hougan referenced Aave DAO’s buyback program purchasing more than 205,000 AAVE during its first 10 months. Cointelegraph reporting also cited an Aug. 5 statement from Aave founder Stani Kulechov about designing an automated, non-discretionary buyback mechanism. Additionally, Kulechov wrote that “100% of Aave Protocol and GHO revenue goes to the $AAVE token,” describing that arrangement as established in the “Aave Will Win” proposal.
From regulatory friction to “revenue-driven” markets
Hougan attributed the accelerating interest in revenue-linked token economics to a gradually more favorable regulatory landscape in the United States. In his view, the industry spent years avoiding revenue-sharing style features due to securities-law concerns, which limited the scope for directly connecting protocol earnings to token supply adjustments.
In the Bitwise memo, he also argued that crypto can continue expanding even without a specific legislative outcome sometimes discussed in the sector. Hougan pointed readers to Cointelegraph coverage of the idea that regulatory clarity—or its absence—does not necessarily mean the industry must pause its development trajectory.
For investors, the implication is not just that DeFi protocols are innovating, but that the regulatory environment may be allowing economic designs to mature—turning “activity” into something closer to a cash-flow analogue through mechanisms like buybacks and token burns. What remains uncertain, however, is how consistent this will be across networks and how resilient it will be if market conditions or governance priorities change.
What to watch as the model spreads
If Hougan is right, the next wave in token design will likely focus on whether fees can be captured reliably and then used in a repeatable way that affects circulating supply. Investors should watch for governance decisions that formalize fee routing, clarify whether buybacks are discretionary or rule-based, and track how much of revenue is actually allocated to token reduction versus other uses.
Over the coming 12 to 24 months—as Hougan expects—attention may shift from “does a protocol have revenue?” to “what economic actions does that revenue trigger for the token?” The key question for token holders will be how durable those revenue-to-demand pathways prove once the market cycle turns.
This article was originally published as Bitwise CIO: Linking protocol revenue to tokens could double valuations on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto’s valuation framework may be due for an update as more networks turn protocol revenue into token buybacks and burns, a shift that Matt Hougan, Chief Investment Officer at Bitwise, argues the market has not fully priced in. In a Wednesday memo, Hougan described a growing “revenue-driven” model for crypto assets outside Bitcoin, where real usage and activity can translate into native-token value—potentially supporting much higher valuation expectations than today’s metrics imply.
Hougan went further, suggesting that if decentralized finance (DeFi) and layer-1 networks continue adopting fee-to-token mechanisms over the next 12 to 24 months, investors could begin to see token economics resemble more familiar valuation logic. The catch, he noted, is that token holders do not have the same legal rights to cash flows as traditional shareholders, and many tokenomics structures can be modified by communities.
Key takeaways
Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan says the market is underpricing crypto assets that increasingly use protocol revenue for buybacks and burns.
He expects more DeFi and layer-1 networks to add revenue-capture features within 12 to 24 months.
Hyperliquid reported second-quarter revenue of $169 million and directed $141 million toward HYPE buybacks, according to the protocol.
Uniswap’s fee “UNIfication” plan is designed to fund UNI burns through fee collection mechanisms approved for activation in late 2025.
Aave DAO’s token repurchase program has already accumulated over 205,000 AAVE in its first 10 months, with automation plans in development.
Why protocol revenue is changing the token-value story
Hougan’s core argument is that native-token value is increasingly tied to network activity rather than being driven purely by speculation. He frames the shift as a transition toward models where fees and revenue can flow back into token supply management—either by buying tokens or removing them through burns.
For investors, the practical implication is that some assets may start to look more like income-producing businesses, at least in terms of the economic link between use and token scarcity. Hougan highlighted that this matters because traditional valuation approaches rely heavily on how cash flow is distributed to owners. Tokens, by contrast, typically do not grant a direct legal claim to revenues, and community-controlled tokenomics can evolve over time.
Still, Hougan’s memo suggests the market’s current pricing may not reflect the growing frequency with which fees are being routed back into token buy-and-burn structures.
Examples from DeFi: fees routed to buybacks and burns
Hougan pointed to several protocols already implementing revenue-to-token mechanisms, each offering a different method for turning activity into changes in token supply.
Hyperliquid: buybacks and a large allocation of revenue
Hyperliquid—described as a decentralized exchange—reported that it generated more than $800 million in revenue last year and uses roughly 99% of that revenue to buy and burn HYPE. On Aug. 6, the protocol reported $169 million in second-quarter revenue and said it directed $141 million toward HYPE buybacks, based on coverage referenced by Hougan’s memo.
Uniswap: UNI burns tied to fee activation
Uniswap’s path to revenue-based token supply changes centers on its “UNIfication” overhaul. Earlier reporting noted that the activation of protocol fees was approved with UNI burns in mind, with the mechanism designed so that collected fees can be claimed by burning UNI. The memo’s referenced update states that this approach is scheduled to take effect via activation for burns on Dec. 22, 2025.
Aave: repurchases backed by protocol revenue
Aave provides a more explicit example of a buyback program funded by protocol performance. According to the cited governance and founder statements, Aave DAO’s buyback program purchased more than 205,000 AAVE during its first 10 months. On June 25, Aave founder Stani Kulechov said the team was designing an automated, non-discretionary buyback mechanism.
In related remarks, Kulechov stated that “100% of Aave Protocol and GHO revenue goes to the $AAVE token,” referencing an “Aave Will Win” proposal that established the policy framework.
What regulatory change could unlock—and what remains uncertain
Hougan connected the broader shift toward revenue-sharing style token economics to a potentially more supportive regulatory environment in the United States. His view is that projects may increasingly be willing to implement structures that resemble traditional revenue alignment, after years when many steered clear of certain designs due to securities-law concerns.
As referenced in the memo, Hougan suggested that regulatory guidance could allow crypto to keep expanding even without passage of a specific federal framework—pointing to earlier coverage of whether the industry can “keep expanding” regardless of broader legislative timelines.
For readers, the key question is not whether revenue-to-token mechanisms can work—they already do in several cases—but whether regulation will encourage more networks to replicate these models at scale, and whether investors can reliably forecast token economics when token holders lack the same enforceable cash-flow rights that exist in equity markets.
Why this could affect valuation—and how to watch the next phase
Hougan argued that stronger links between protocol revenue and token value could help make crypto easier to evaluate using more conventional tools. That does not mean tokens become identical to stocks; rather, the memo’s thrust is that markets may be underestimating how much fee-driven buybacks and burns can alter expected token supply dynamics over time.
At the same time, investors should be alert to the details that determine whether buybacks or burns are sustainable: how revenues are calculated, how consistently fees flow to token holders (or token supply management), and whether automation or governance processes can be relied on through market cycles. Hougan’s emphasis on community-set tokenomics is a reminder that these mechanisms can change, sometimes quickly, depending on governance outcomes.
Over the coming months, investors will likely want to track whether additional DeFi protocols and major layer-1 ecosystems follow the same playbook—especially in how they commit protocol revenue to token supply actions—and whether regulators provide clearer guidance that reduces uncertainty for projects considering revenue-capture designs.
This article was originally published as Bitwise CIO Says Protocols Tying Revenue to Tokens Could Double Crypto Valuations on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

An Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) shareholder has moved toward legal action against former ASX directors and officers, seeking court permission to pursue claims tied to the exchange’s failed blockchain-based clearing and settlement replacement project.
According to an ASX announcement on Wednesday, Rosherville Pty Ltd has informed the exchange that it intends to apply for leave to commence a statutory derivative action under sections 236 and 237 of Australia’s Corporations Act. If the Federal Court grants permission, Rosherville would bring the proceedings on ASX’s behalf—while the court would first need to assess whether the proposed case can proceed.
Key takeaways
Rosherville Pty Ltd is seeking Federal Court leave to bring a statutory derivative action on ASX’s behalf related to the CHESS replacement project.
ASX said there are no allegations against the exchange itself in the proposed proceeding, but it has not disclosed which former officers or directors are targeted.
The push comes after ASIC took legal action over allegedly misleading market statements connected to the project and after ASX admitted misleading conduct.
The dispute could clarify how far shareholders may hold former leaders accountable for oversight of high-profile fintech failures.
How the CHESS blockchain plan unraveled
ASX began investigating a replacement for CHESS—the Clearing House Electronic Subregister System—in 2016. The exchange selected a distributed-ledger approach developed with New York-based Digital Asset, with expectations at the time that ASX could become one of the first major securities markets to run core services on blockchain technology.
Those expectations ultimately did not materialize. The rollout was repeatedly delayed. In November 2022, ASX paused the project after an Accenture review identified significant issues, including problems with the design and with its ability to satisfy ASX requirements, according to reporting at the time from Cointelegraph.
By May 2023, ASX had formally abandoned the blockchain replacement plan and said it would shift to more conventional technology, another step covered in earlier reporting on the matter.
Regulator action over market statements
The Federal Court and ASIC’s involvement is central to the latest shareholder development. ASIC sued ASX in August 2024, alleging that ASX lacked a reasonable basis for statements made in February 2022 that the project was “progressing well” and on track for an April 2023 launch.
ASIC characterized the matter as a collective failure involving ASX’s board and senior executives, according to earlier coverage. The dispute culminated in a significant regulatory outcome for ASX: in June 2026, ASX admitted misleading conduct connected to the CHESS replacement project.
On July 3, the Federal Court ordered ASX to pay a $14.4 million penalty and $2.1 million toward ASIC’s costs, effectively closing the regulator’s case weeks before Rosherville notified ASX that it was preparing to seek leave for derivative proceedings against former officials.
Why a shareholder derivative action matters
ASX’s Wednesday statement underscored that the proposed lawsuit is aimed at individuals rather than the exchange itself. It also made clear that the matter is at an early stage: the exchange did not specify which former officers or directors Rosherville plans to target, and it did not outline the precise alleged breaches or the remedies the claimant wants. Importantly, the court had not yet considered whether the proposed action can proceed.
Even so, the direction of the case highlights a question that investors and corporate governance observers often consider after large-scale technology undertakings fail: when a company admits misconduct or faces penalties tied to project communications, can shareholders translate that outcome into claims against the decision-makers who oversaw the effort?
As framed in ASX’s disclosure, Rosherville’s plan is grounded in Australia’s Corporations Act mechanism for statutory derivative actions, which can allow shareholders to pursue claims on behalf of the company, subject to court approval. That “permission” step is critical—because it means the court will examine whether the case is procedurally and substantively viable before any allegations against individuals are litigated.
What to watch next in the Federal Court
For market participants, the immediate variables are straightforward. The court will determine whether Rosherville’s application meets the statutory threshold for leave and whether the claims can move forward. ASX’s statement indicates that the exchange itself is not accused in the proposed action, but it has declined to offer details about the individuals or the alleged duty breaches. That information, if provided later in the process, could determine how investors interpret the scope of accountability sought by shareholders.
Beyond the legal mechanics, the broader watch point is how the case interacts with the earlier ASIC matter. While ASX’s admission of misleading conduct and the Federal Court’s penalty are part of the background, the shareholder action—if permitted—would focus on the alleged actions or omissions of former officers and directors. Readers should monitor any court filings that clarify the specific duties in question and how the shareholder claim relates to, or differs from, the conduct ASIC pursued.
This article was originally published as ASX Shareholder Moves to Sue Ex-Directors Over Failed Blockchain Plan on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

An Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) shareholder is seeking permission from the Federal Court to pursue a statutory derivative lawsuit targeting certain former ASX officers and directors over alleged breaches connected to the exchange’s ultimately abandoned blockchain-based clearing and settlement overhaul.
ASX said on Wednesday that Rosherville Pty Ltd has notified the exchange of its intention to apply for leave to bring the case under sections 236 and 237 of Australia’s Corporations Act. If the court grants leave, the proceedings would be brought on ASX’s behalf. ASX also emphasized that the proposed action does not include allegations against the exchange itself, and it provided limited detail about who would be named, what duties were allegedly breached, or what remedies Rosherville would seek.
Key takeaways
Rosherville wants the Federal Court’s leave to file a statutory derivative action on ASX’s behalf under Australia’s Corporations Act.
ASX says the proposed claims target former officers and directors, not the exchange, but the court has not yet considered whether the case can proceed.
The litigation follows a broader regulatory reckoning over ASX’s CHESS replacement project, including findings by ASIC.
ASIC’s case against ASX was resolved earlier in 2026 with a penalty and cost order, potentially setting the stage for shareholder-focused accountability efforts.
Why the proposed action could matter for corporate governance
Statutory derivative actions are designed to allow shareholders, with court approval, to pursue claims on behalf of a company when directors or officers may have breached duties owed to that company. Here, Rosherville’s proposed case would test how far that accountability can extend for board and senior leadership decisions related to one of Australia’s most expensive financial-technology failures.
While ASX did not specify which former officials Rosherville plans to name or what conduct it alleges, the core premise is straightforward: that responsibility for overseeing the CHESS replacement project may not have been adequately discharged. For investors, the practical significance is that litigation risk can reach beyond the corporate entity itself and toward the individuals who managed or governed the decisions leading to regulatory and operational consequences.
At the same time, the court has not yet examined whether the proposed suit meets the legal threshold to move forward, meaning there is still uncertainty about the scope and viability of the claims.
From CHESS replacement to abandoned blockchain plans
The dispute traces back to ASX’s long-running attempt to replace its Clearing House Electronic Subregister System (CHESS). According to earlier reporting cited in the record, ASX began exploring a replacement in 2016 and selected a distributed-ledger system developed with New York-based Digital Asset.
In December 2017, ASX was widely expected to use blockchain for core services, a prospect described at the time as a first for a securities exchange. But the project repeatedly slipped. In November 2022, ASX paused the initiative after an Accenture review identified significant problems with the design and with meeting ASX’s requirements.
Then, in May 2023, ASX formally abandoned blockchain for the replacement, saying it would consider more conventional technology instead. The progression—from early expectations of a groundbreaking launch to a pause, then abandonment—became the backdrop for subsequent regulatory scrutiny.
ASIC’s case against ASX and the question of board accountability
The shareholder effort comes after ASIC took action against ASX itself. In August 2024, the regulator sued the exchange, alleging it did not have a reasonable basis for telling the market in February 2022 that the project was “progressing well” and on track for an April 2023 launch. ASIC later characterized the episode as a collective failure by ASX’s board and senior executives.
Later developments in 2026 narrowed the regulator’s focus to misleading conduct tied to the CHESS replacement effort. In June 2026, ASX admitted to misleading conduct related to the project. On July 3, 2026, the Federal Court ordered ASX to pay a $14.4 million penalty and $2.1 million toward ASIC’s costs, effectively bringing ASIC’s case to an end weeks before Rosherville notified ASX of its intention to seek leave for a derivative action against former officials.
Although those steps were not the same as a case against individuals, the sequencing is notable. ASIC’s enforcement action concluded against the company, but the shareholder proposal suggests some investors believe the responsibility for the issues may also sit with former decision-makers at the governance and management level.
What investors should watch next
Rosherville’s application is not yet a filed lawsuit; it hinges on the Federal Court granting leave to commence the statutory derivative action. That process will be central for determining whether the allegations can proceed, who qualifies as a potential defendant, and what legal theories and remedies the shareholder is attempting to pursue on ASX’s behalf.
In the meantime, the case is likely to remain closely tied to how courts interpret directors’ and officers’ duties in complex technology transitions—especially where public statements to the market and later regulatory outcomes are in the background. The next concrete milestone for market participants will be whether the Federal Court approves the leave request and, if it does, how the claims are framed.
This article was originally published as ASX Shareholder to Sue Former Directors Over Failed Blockchain Plan on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bank of Montreal has placed XRP-linked fund positions inside its massive investment portfolio, according to a new regulatory filing. The Canadian lender submitted a new Form 13F-HR report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, confirming the token's presence for the first time. BMO's total reportable holdings exceeded $303 billion at the close of June 2026, making the bank one of the largest institutions to disclose crypto-linked assets this quarter.
BMO’s XRP Fund Positions
The filing lists 323 shares of the Rex Osprey XRP ETF, a spot fund tied directly to the token's price. It also reports 20 shares of the ProShares Ultra XRP ETF, a leveraged product designed for short-term moves. Both positions sit within BMO's much larger equity and fund portfolio, and neither represents a significant share of total assets.
BMO did not buy XRP tokens directly on any cryptocurrency exchange, and it avoided that route entirely. Instead, the bank used regulated U.S. exchange-traded fund infrastructure to gain exposure, which kept the transaction within familiar securities rules. Regulated ETFs also let large institutions report holdings through standard filing channels, so compliance teams face fewer complications.
This structure additionally removes the need for BMO to store or secure the underlying token itself. Fund managers behind the ETFs handle custody, settlement, and daily price tracking on the bank's behalf. As a result, BMO gains market exposure while transferring operational and security risk to a third party.
National Bank of Canada Set an Earlier Precedent
National Bank of Canada disclosed similar XRP exposure earlier in the same reporting period, and its filing arrived before BMO's. The bank reported 3,848 shares of the Bitwise XRP ETF, a spot product tracking the token's market price directly. That stake carried an approximate value of $330,000 at the time of filing.
Together, the two Canadian banks now share a nearly identical approach to digital asset exposure. Each institution enters the market through transparent, SEC-regulated fund vehicles rather than direct token purchases. Neither bank holds XRP on its own balance sheet outside these fund wrappers, and both rely on third-party custody.
This shared pattern points to a wider shift among Canada's largest financial institutions. Big banks increasingly treat XRP funds as a small but manageable portfolio addition rather than a speculative outlier. Further disclosures from other Canadian lenders could follow in upcoming quarterly filings, given this emerging pattern.
A New Group of XRP Holders Emerges
Goldman Sachs previously held XRP positions worth more than $150 million, and that stake formed around the turn of 2025 and 2026. The firm reduced or fully exited those holdings by the summer of 2026, according to filing data. This shift effectively locked in profits and marked the end of Goldman's early XRP position.
A newer group of midsize asset managers and family offices has since filled that space. Arax Advisory Partners, Gerber, Vista Finance, and Gallacher Capital now appear among the reported XRP fund holders. Each firm builds its own combination of spot and leveraged token exposure across different funds.
These newer holders typically split capital between traditional spot products and short-term leveraged instruments. The Franklin XRP Trust and Bitwise XRP ETF represent the spot side of that split. The ProShares Ultra XRP ETF, meanwhile, adds leveraged and more volatile exposure to the same overall strategy.
Because 13F filings carry a 45-day reporting delay, they offer only a snapshot rather than a live position update. Positions can change significantly between the reporting date and public disclosure, so current holdings may already differ. Even so, BMO's filing confirms that XRP now sits on another major bank's balance sheet, alongside a growing list of regulated institutions.
This article was originally published as BMO Reveals XRP Fund Stake Inside $303 Billion Portfolio on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Prediction market operator Kalshi is expanding how its real-time trading information reaches market participants by partnering with DoubleZero Edge for distribution via DoubleZero’s dedicated fiber network. In a Wednesday announcement shared with Cointelegraph, the companies said Kalshi’s live order book feed for certain sports and crypto perpetuals event contracts will be made available to new DoubleZero Edge subscribers.
The integration targets a long-standing gap in prediction market infrastructure: access to fast, machine-readable market data. Rather than building bespoke systems that reconstruct order books from raw exchange screens or parse multiple API endpoints, subscribers can consume a dedicated data feed designed to deliver order book data directly.
Key takeaways
Kalshi’s real-time order book for sports and crypto perpetuals event contracts is now distributed through DoubleZero Edge’s fiber network.
DoubleZero Edge positions the feed as a way to avoid rebuilding infrastructure from order books and API responses.
Sports appears as one of Kalshi’s biggest demand categories, with crypto also ranking among the top segments by weekly notional volume.
The rollout arrives as Kalshi remains involved in ongoing regulatory disputes over whether its event contracts are sports wagers or CFTC-regulated derivatives.
Dedicated fiber distribution for prediction market order books
Kalshi said the new offering makes it the first prediction market to distribute its live order book data through DoubleZero Edge’s dedicated fiber network for sports and crypto perpetuals event contracts. For institutional and technical users, the practical value is straightforward: lower latency pathways and a consistent, machine-friendly way to ingest market depth and price levels as trades happen.
DoubleZero co-founder Austin Federa described data access as a core component of market structure, arguing that infrastructure has lagged behind “new financial paradigms” that include crypto, perpetuals, and prediction markets. The pitch here is that the industry has continued to grow without matching the data distribution capabilities usually expected in traditional, high-speed markets—especially for participants who run automated strategies.
Where Kalshi’s volumes come from
Kalshi’s focus areas are not limited to crypto. According to Dune data cited in the announcement, sports accounts for 37.8% of Kalshi’s weekly notional volume, while crypto ranks third at 20.3%. Exotics, meanwhile, lead the mix at 39.4% of weekly notional trading volume.
Those proportions matter because they suggest the network-based data distribution may reach more than a niche slice of traders. A dedicated feed for sports-linked markets could be particularly relevant for participants who need to track changing probabilities and liquidity across event timelines, while crypto perpetuals event contracts add additional complexity that favors fast data ingestion.
Broader visibility, including ChatGPT search
The order book distribution comes amid increasing visibility of Kalshi markets in mainstream discovery channels. In early July, Cointelegraph reported that OpenAI began displaying Kalshi’s prediction market odds for FIFA World Cup matches in ChatGPT search results.
While that development relates more to consumer-facing access than to institutional infrastructure, it underscores how prediction markets are becoming more embedded in the information layer that users interact with—creating more pressure for robust, reliable data pathways underneath.
Regulatory pressure remains a central backdrop
Kalshi’s sports event contracts continue to sit at the center of a regulatory dispute involving state regulators and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The disagreement centers on how the contracts should be classified.
State authorities argue the products are essentially wagers subject to state gambling laws. Kalshi and the CFTC, by contrast, contend that these event contracts are derivatives that fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
The legal conflict has already produced concrete restrictions. On June 29, a Michigan judge temporarily blocked Kalshi from allowing residents to place bets on sporting events. Earlier, Kentucky sued five prediction market platforms—including Kalshi and Polymarket—accusing them of operating unlicensed sports betting platforms. Nevada also issued a temporary ban on Kalshi earlier in March.
Meanwhile, the CFTC has taken an offensive stance as well, suing several states—arguing that federally regulated event contracts should fall under its authority. According to earlier Cointelegraph reporting, the CFTC’s legal actions are aimed at reinforcing the agency’s jurisdiction over products it views as derivatives.
In that context, better market data infrastructure may help participants operate more effectively, but it does not resolve the classification question that determines where and how these markets can be offered. Traders and developers looking at the space may therefore see two parallel tracks: technical maturation through data distribution, and legal outcomes that determine geographic reach.
Looking ahead, readers should watch whether improved access to real-time order book feeds accelerates participation from professional market makers and automated traders—and whether regulatory decisions continue to constrain Kalshi’s ability to offer sports-linked contracts in key jurisdictions.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Adds Sports & Crypto Perps Data Feed on DoubleZero on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple has backed the fixCleanup3_3_0 amendment, and the move pushes the XRP Ledger toward its 3.3.0 upgrade. The amendment bundles several bug fixes and protocol cleanups into one package. It targets Single Asset Vaults, the Lending Protocol, and other core ledger components.
FixCleanup3_3_0 Amendment Gains Early Support
Ripple cast its vote during the early voting stage, and the action signals strong company support. Eight of 35 UNL validators currently back the proposal, according to the latest voting data. The amendment still needs wider validator backing before it can activate.
Mainnet activation requires an 80% threshold, or 28 of 35 validator votes. Validators must also sustain that support for two consecutive weeks. Only then does the amendment take effect on the live network.
The fixCleanup3_3_0 package covers fixes for Automated Market Makers and the permissioned DEX. It also addresses Checks and pseudo-accounts within the ledger. Node operators must upgrade to XRP Ledger 3.3.0, or they risk amendment-blocked status once the upgrade activates.
XRP Ledger 3.3.0 Upgrade Moves Forward
Five other amendments remain in the voting stage alongside fixCleanup3_3_0. These include Confidential Transfer, BatchV1_1, and DynamicMPT. PermissionDelegationV1_1 and Sponsor round out the current list of proposals.
Developers have also outlined several non-feature improvements tied to the upgrade. The changes include a 10-15% reduction in memory usage. Online delete and node sync performance also see notable gains.
The upgrade further expands test coverage across the network’s codebase. These changes aim to boost stability and improve overall performance. Ripple positions the release as groundwork for institutional and tokenization use cases.
XRP Price Reacts Amid Mixed Derivatives Signals
XRP has risen almost 3% over the past 24 hours, and whale wallet activity has climbed alongside it. The token trades at $1.02 as network activity picks up. Trading volume has rebounded 16% within the same 24-hour window.
Derivatives data from CoinGlass tells a different story, though. Selling activity has increased in the futures market despite falling CPI inflation. Total XRP futures open interest dropped more than 0.65% within an hour.
That decline followed a recent bounce above $2.70 billion in open interest. CME futures open interest still holds a 1.31% gain over 24 hours. Open interest has slipped on Binance, OKX, Bybit, and other major exchanges.
The mixed derivatives picture contrasts with the network’s broader upgrade momentum. Ripple’s support for fixCleanup3_3_0 adds weight to the 3.3.0 rollout. Validators now hold the next steps toward full amendment activation in their hands.
Traders tracking this shift can compare features across major crypto derivative platforms. Funding rates and liquidity depth vary widely between exchanges. Such comparisons help traders position themselves as the upgrade unfolds.
This article was originally published as Ripple Backs FixCleanup3_3_0 Amendment As XRP Ledger 3.3.0 Nears on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Anchorpoint Financial, a Hong Kong-licensed stablecoin issuer, is widening the distribution of its Hong Kong dollar stablecoin, HKDAP, by adding HashKey Exchange as an authorized distributor. The move comes as Hong Kong’s regulated stablecoin framework continues to roll out, with market participants positioning tokenized HKD for institutional and professional access.
In a Tuesday announcement, the companies said the arrangement is part of a beta rollout. Eligible institutions and professional investors can access HKDAP via HashKey and other supported channels. HashKey also stated that it has completed its first HKDAP minting and redemption transaction with eligible clients, including fiat on- and off-ramping.
Key takeaways
Anchorpoint Financial has appointed HashKey Exchange as an authorized distributor for its Hong Kong dollar stablecoin, HKDAP.
The partnership begins with a beta rollout for eligible institutions and professional investors, with HashKey already completing an initial mint and redemption.
Anchorpoint and HashKey plan to expand distribution over time and look at additional HKDAP use cases.
Hong Kong dollar stablecoins are still an early-stage segment, and reliable public data on their adoption remains limited.
HKDAP distribution goes through HashKey
HashKey’s role focuses on making HKDAP available to users that meet the eligibility requirements for the beta program. The announcement highlights operational readiness—HashKey said it has already carried out its first HKDAP minting and redemption cycle with eligible clients and incorporated fiat on- and off-ramping.
For institutions, that plumbing matters. Minting and redemption are often where operational friction concentrates, particularly when regulated stablecoins need to integrate with traditional financial rails. By completing an initial transaction, HashKey signals that it is prepared to support at least the early workflow for converting fiat into HKDAP and back out again.
Anchorpoint said the distribution program will be expanded gradually, and the companies plan to explore broader applications for HKDAP beyond basic issuance and redemption.
A regulated Hong Kong dollar stablecoin built for “tokenized money”
HKDAP—short for “HKD At Par”—is designed to function as a regulated tokenized Hong Kong dollar for payments and other financial transactions. Anchorpoint Financial is a joint venture established by Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong), HKT and Animoca Brands.
Anchorpoint was among the first firms to receive a stablecoin issuer license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, reflecting how the issuer-side licensing regime is beginning to translate into real distribution relationships. The company was established in April 2025, two months after Standard Chartered and Animoca Brands, together with HKT, announced plans to launch a Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoin, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
As more authorized players enter the system, the market’s ability to scale will depend not only on licenses, but also on how quickly distributors and platforms can onboard eligible customers and run mint/redeem operations reliably.
From access to use cases: payments, settlement, and tokenized finance
The companies said they intend to explore additional uses for HKDAP as distribution grows. Their stated priorities include cross-border payments, settlement, and tokenized finance.
Those directions are consistent with what many regulated stablecoin initiatives aim to accomplish: moving tokenized fiat from “on-chain custody” toward transactional utility. Cross-border payments and settlement, in particular, are areas where stablecoins are often evaluated for faster settlement cycles and improved interoperability—though real adoption will depend on the readiness of counterparties, compliance processes, and integration details with existing payment and banking infrastructure.
At this stage, Anchorpoint and HashKey’s focus appears intentionally phased: begin with beta access for eligible participants, validate minting/redemption processes, and then widen distribution while testing expanded functionality.
How big could Hong Kong’s stablecoin segment become?
Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoins could eventually develop into a meaningful market, but current visibility is limited. A 2025 Citi report cited in the announcement estimated that circulation could reach $16 billion after the introduction of the city’s stablecoin licensing regime. Still, the broader picture remains uncertain.
For now, US dollar-pegged stablecoins dominate global circulation, and synthetic stablecoins represent a smaller, emerging category. Reliable data on circulation and adoption for Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoins is described as limited, making it difficult to assess where the market stands today or how quickly it could grow.
Meanwhile, stablecoin activity overall continues at high volume. Bernstein reported that the combined adjusted transaction volume of USDC and USDt reached roughly $3.8 trillion in the first quarter of the year, underscoring the depth of stablecoin usage even as a narrower regulatory submarket—HKD-pegged tokens—finds its footing.
This contrast matters for investors and operators: it suggests demand for stablecoin settlement and transfer mechanics is already established globally, but the local HKD variant still needs to build liquidity, distribution breadth, and compatible use cases to convert regulatory momentum into sustained adoption.
As HashKey and Anchorpoint expand distribution beyond the beta phase, the key signals to watch are onboarding speed for eligible institutions, the consistency of minting and redemption throughput, and evidence that HKDAP use cases—especially cross-border payments and settlement—are moving from plans to repeatable production workflows.
This article was originally published as HashKey Launches Beta Distribution for Hong Kong-Regulated HKDAP Stablecoin on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Bank of England’s Digital Pound Lab is running a trade-finance experiment designed to test whether stablecoins and a potential digital British pound could work together inside the same cross-border payment flow.
In a project announced on Wednesday, NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs said the trial links an exporter’s advance delivered via a stablecoin rail with a UK importer’s settlement using simulated digital pounds. The focus is on the practical mechanics of payments timing—particularly the point at which trade finance is released and how long settlement takes.
Key takeaways
The Digital Pound Lab trial pairs a stablecoin payment to an exporter with simulated digital pound settlement by a UK importer in a single cross-border workflow.
NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs are combining payments testing with a separate effort to generate reusable credit profiles for small businesses.
The project is explicitly using simulated systems: the Bank of England has not committed to issuing a digital pound and the lab uses no real customers or money.
The work targets a long-standing trade finance problem where exporters may wait days after shipment to receive payment, tying up working capital.
The broader initiative aligns with ongoing UK regulatory development for stablecoins and tokenized settlement models.
Trade finance, simulated digital pounds, and stablecoin rails
The Bank of England’s Digital Pound Lab experiment is centered on trade finance—an area where cash flow can be constrained by settlement delays between shipping goods and receiving payment. According to the announcement from NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs, the test scenario involves an exporter receiving an advance through a stablecoin-based payment flow while a UK importer completes settlement using simulated digital pounds.
The companies did not describe the trial as a live market product; instead, it is positioned as an experiment within the lab’s research environment. The Bank of England has also emphasized that lab experiments designed by participants should not be treated as signals about future policy or as endorsements of any specific firm or technology.
For exporters—especially smaller businesses—payment timing can determine how much working capital is locked up. When funds arrive days after shipment, firms can face higher financing costs or reduced ability to take on new orders. By testing whether different digital payment components can operate in the same cross-border route, the lab project aims to assess whether tokenized settlement could reduce friction that slows trade.
Reusable credit profiles for small businesses
Beyond payments plumbing, the initiative includes a separate workstream aimed at helping small businesses access credit more efficiently. The plan, as described by the participating companies, is to create reusable credit profiles by combining transaction data, open-finance information and commercial risk data from Dun & Bradstreet.
Polygon Labs is providing the smart contract infrastructure for this part of the project. The practical idea is straightforward: instead of rebuilding risk assessments from scratch for each transaction, the system would attempt to turn available data into a standardized credit profile that could be reused in future trade finance arrangements.
If that approach works as intended, it could reduce the operational cost and time involved in underwriting and credit checks—an issue that often weighs more heavily on smaller firms than on larger counterparties with more established financing relationships.
Why this matters amid UK stablecoin and tokenization rulemaking
The trade-focused lab experiment lands as UK authorities continue building the regulatory structure for stablecoins and preparing the financial system for tokenized assets. In June, the Bank of England published draft rules for sterling-denominated stablecoins it considers systemic to the UK’s financial stability.
That proposal, according to the Bank of England, would allow systemic stablecoin issuers to hold up to 70% of their reserves in interest-bearing government debt. It also introduces a temporary issuance cap of 40 billion pounds (about $52.8 billion) per systemic stablecoin, replacing earlier suggestions that would have limited holdings at the level of individual participants and businesses. The Bank of England has said it aims to finalize those rules by the end of 2026, ahead of a planned 2027 rollout.
Under the framework, stablecoins deemed systemic—because their use could pose risks significant enough to affect financial stability—would fall under the Bank of England’s regime. Non-systemic stablecoins would remain under the Financial Conduct Authority’s oversight.
Meanwhile, tokenization is also being tested through updates to legacy settlement infrastructure. In May, the Bank of England proposed moving its Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) and CHAPS systems toward near-24/7 operation, including weekends and extended daily hours, partly to support cross-border payments and new settlement models as tokenization develops.
Additionally, the Bank of England approved HSBC’s Orion platform to operate in the UK’s Digital Securities Sandbox. That sandbox is expected to support digital bond issuance, including the country’s planned Digital Gilt Instrument—another sign that regulators are exploring how tokenized assets might integrate with existing market infrastructure.
What to watch next in the Digital Pound Lab
Because the Digital Pound Lab trial uses no real money or customers and the central bank has not committed to issuing a digital pound, the near-term value for market participants is primarily methodological: seeing whether a stablecoin rail and a simulated digital pound can coordinate inside a realistic cross-border trade workflow. The next step is whether the lab’s findings inform practical designs for interoperability, settlement timing, and how credit and compliance data could be translated into reusable structures for small businesses.
This article was originally published as BoE Trial Focus: Stablecoin and Digital Pound for Cross-Border Payments on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Goldman Sachs has agreed to acquire NEOS Investments in a deal worth up to $2.25 billion. The transaction combines cash and equity, and final terms depend on performance benchmarks. This move strengthens Goldman’s position in the fast-growing active ETF market.
Deal Structure And Expected Timeline
Goldman Sachs will pay through a mix of cash and equity for NEOS Investments. The final payout remains tied to service and performance commitments over time. Regulators must still approve the transaction before it becomes final.
We're excited to announce that @NEOSInvestments is joining Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
Together, we'll combine NEOS’ innovative investment platform with Goldman’s global scale and resources seeking to bring even greater value to our investors, all while preserving the team,… pic.twitter.com/QRfropJBCK
— NEOS Investments (@NEOSInvestments) August 12, 2026
The companies expect the deal to close during the first quarter of 2027. This timeline allows both firms to complete regulatory reviews and integration planning. Goldman will fold NEOS into its existing asset management structure once approved.
NEOS currently manages nineteen systematic options-based income ETFs for its clients. The firm held roughly $30 billion in assets under management as of June. Some reports suggest that figure has since grown closer to $32 billion.
Neos Brings Scale To Goldman’s Options-Based Fund Lineup
NEOS launched in 2022 and quickly built a reputation in options-income investing. Its strategies focus on generating steady income while managing market exposure. This approach appealed to both individual and institutional investors seeking balance.
This acquisition follows Goldman’s earlier purchase of Innovator Capital Management, another options-focused firm. Innovator specializes in defined-outcome and buffer ETFs for risk-conscious investors. Together, these deals show Goldman’s clear strategy of expanding options-based offerings.
Co-founders Troy Cates and Garrett Paolella will join Goldman Sachs Asset Management as partners. The broader NEOS team is also expected to transition into Goldman’s structure. Goldman’s leadership described the acquisition as complementary to its buffer, income, and outcome-based strategies.
Combined ETF Platform Surpasses $130 Billion In Assets
After the deal closes, Goldman’s total ETF platform will exceed $130 billion in assets. Active ETFs alone will account for roughly $80 billion of that total. This scale places Goldman among the largest active ETF providers in the industry.
Morningstar data ranks Goldman as the eighth-largest active ETF provider as of June. That ranking reflects steady growth across the firm’s broader asset management division. The NEOS acquisition should push Goldman further up that competitive ranking.
Options-based income ETFs have expanded rapidly across the wider market in recent years. The category now holds about $180 billion in total assets industry-wide. Annualized growth has topped seventy percent since 2021, according to Morningstar figures.
Broader Market Context And Industry Trends
Demand for options-income strategies has grown steadily among everyday and institutional investors alike. These products aim to generate income while limiting downside exposure to market swings. That balance has made them increasingly popular within traditional ETF structures.
Goldman’s acquisitions of NEOS and Innovator reflect a broader shift toward specialized ETF products. Large asset managers continue consolidating smaller, innovative firms to diversify their offerings. This pattern suggests further consolidation may follow across the active ETF sector.
Once the deal closes, Goldman plans to operate NEOS alongside its current ETF lineup. The firm aims to expand its overall product range and total assets under management. Goldman’s latest move signals continued ambition within the actively managed ETF space.
This article was originally published as Goldman Sachs Expands Active ETF Reach With Neos Buyout on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A new federal lawsuit challenges Truth Social’s paid service for early access to presidential announcements. The service charges trading firms as much as $100,000 monthly. Meanwhile, plaintiffs argue that the system gives paying users faster access to public government information.
Lawsuit Targets Truth Social’s Paid Feed
The Intercept and Freedom of the Press Foundation filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Manhattan federal court. The complaint names President Donald Trump and seeks restrictions on his participation in Truth API. It also targets White House employees who may use the service to distribute official announcements.
Truth API gives subscribers faster access to selected posts from Trump and other Truth Social accounts. However, the plaintiffs argue that presidential messages should reach the public without paid delays. They say the service creates a separate information channel for customers who can afford its fees.
Trump Media launched Truth API on August 1 after announcing the service in July. The company designed the product for financial institutions and trading firms seeking faster information. Therefore, the service could give trading companies an advantage when presidential posts affect financial markets.
Constitutional Claims Raise Public Access Issues
The lawsuit argues that Truth API violates First Amendment protections by favoring paying subscribers. According to the complaint, news organizations and members of the public should receive equal access. The plaintiffs also challenge the government’s role in providing special access through a private platform.
The complaint further raises a Fifth Amendment claim over the financial condition attached to access. The plaintiffs argue that the government cannot require large payments for access to a public benefit. However, the court has not ruled on either constitutional claim.
Trump frequently uses Truth Social to announce decisions involving trade, foreign policy, and federal appointments. Some announcements can move markets because they reveal major policy changes or government actions. As a result, faster access can hold significant value for companies that trade financial assets.
Trump Media Ownership Adds Financial Dimension
The plaintiffs also point to Trump’s financial interest in Trump Media as part of their case. The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust owns about 41.43% of Trump Media shares. Trump remains the trust’s sole beneficiary, and that holding has carried a value above $1 billion.
Trump Media launched Truth Social in 2022 after Trump founded the company in 2021. Since then, the platform has become a major channel for Trump’s direct public communication. The company has therefore gained importance as presidential announcements increasingly appear on the platform.
The lawsuit asks the court to stop Trump and White House employees from providing preferential access. It specifically targets the delivery of official announcements through Truth API’s paid system. The plaintiffs are represented by several legal groups, including the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic.
The case now places Truth Social’s premium information model under federal scrutiny. Its outcome could influence how public officials distribute time-sensitive information through private platforms. Meanwhile, the dispute raises broader questions about equal access when presidential statements can affect markets.
Trump Media and the White House now face legal arguments over the service’s structure and public role. The court will determine whether the plaintiffs can establish the constitutional violations alleged in the complaint. Until then, Truth API remains a paid service that offers faster access to selected Truth Social posts.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Faces Lawsuit Over $100,000 Truth Social Early Access on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

FlightAware has dropped its lawsuit against prediction markets platform Kalshi just one day after filing, according to a Tuesday notice filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The move came after a judge ordered Kalshi to show cause as to why a temporary restraining order should not be issued related to FlightAware’s trademarks and alleged use of its data.
In the filing, attorneys for FlightAware stated they voluntarily dismissed the case against Kalshi. As of Wednesday, neither FlightAware nor Kalshi had publicly commented on the matter.
Key takeaways
FlightAware voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Kalshi in the Southern District of New York, one day after the complaint was filed.
The court had recently required Kalshi to explain why a temporary restraining order should not be granted over FlightAware’s trademarks and data.
Kalshi event contract listings appeared to update wording from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency,” including added language intended to avoid claims of affiliation.
The case sits within a broader, ongoing regulatory fight in the U.S. over how prediction markets should be governed.
A rapid reversal in a name-and-data dispute
FlightAware’s lawsuit—filed the day before the dismissal—alleged Kalshi used FlightAware’s “data and name” to run gambling markets tied to flight cancellations. FlightAware’s complaint also accused Kalshi of trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to its reputation, and unfair competition.
In the subsequent Tuesday filing, FlightAware’s counsel informed the court that the matter was being voluntarily dismissed. A fast turnaround like this often raises questions about whether negotiations were underway or whether the parties resolved issues that made continued litigation unnecessary, but neither side had made any public statement clarifying the reason.
Court order and contract wording changes
Before the dismissal, the case reached a key procedural moment: a judge ordered Kalshi to show cause why the court should not impose a temporary restraining order tied to FlightAware’s trademark and data. That order indicates the dispute had advanced to the point where the court was considering interim relief.
Separately, evidence from Kalshi’s event contracts suggested the platform had altered how it referenced the source of flight data. At least one event contract listing showed a shift in wording from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency,” describing the entity responsible for verifying outcomes related to flight cancellations. The listing also included language stating that the contract did not “indicate an endorsement of this product or any affiliation” between FlightAware and Kalshi.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to both companies for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
The contract referenced FlightAware’s website as the “Primary Source Agency,” per Cointelegraph’s reporting and the contract’s displayed language.
Prediction markets remain tangled in U.S. regulatory conflict
FlightAware’s legal dispute is only one example of how prediction market platforms are repeatedly pulled into litigation and regulatory pressure. Cointelegraph notes that Kalshi, Polymarket, and other prediction market companies have faced actions from U.S. state gaming authorities and regulators alleging certain contracts function as illicit sports betting for residents.
At the federal level, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has continued to assert a strong role in how such markets should be regulated. On Tuesday, the CFTC—whose chair Michael Selig has argued the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets—said it invoked “emergency authority” to block New York state officials from seeking a temporary restraining order that would have restricted Kalshi from offering event contracts nationwide.
This CFTC action followed New York authorities filing a lawsuit against Kalshi in July, which alleged Kalshi operated an unlicensed gambling platform through its contracts involving sports and other events.
The CFTC’s position has also been echoed in earlier federal interventions. In Michigan, a judge ordered Kalshi in June to stop offering sports betting contracts to residents until a civil case was resolved. But the CFTC ordered Kalshi not to comply with that state order, placing the platform in what Kalshi’s legal representatives described as an “impossible position” between conflicting state and federal directives.
What to watch next
With FlightAware’s lawsuit now dismissed, the immediate question shifts to what, if anything, changes in Kalshi’s use of flight-related data and branding going forward—and whether other regulatory or legal challenges will continue to move faster than this particular name-and-trademark dispute. Investors and users should also watch for how regulators handle the underlying jurisdictional tension that has repeatedly shaped prediction markets litigation in the U.S.
This article was originally published as FlightAware Withdraws Kalshi Lawsuit One Day After Filing on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

El Salvador marked five years since it made Bitcoin legal tender, but the legacy of the experiment is proving far more contested than the celebratory moment in 2021 suggested. President Nayib Bukele pitched the move as a fast track to financial inclusion, cheaper remittances, and more investment—yet new research and later policy changes indicate that everyday adoption never materialized on the scale promised.
According to Dr. Tobias Boos, a senior scientist at the University of Vienna who leads research into Bitcoin’s political economy in El Salvador, the project fell short when measured against Bukele’s stated goals. “There is little doubt that the project was a failure if we take seriously the reasons Bukele gave for its adoption,” Boos said, pointing to limited progress on foreign direct investment, banking access, and remittance use.
Key takeaways
Research led by Dr. Tobias Boos finds “mass adoption by citizens did not occur,” with adopters more likely to be young, male, urban, and already banked.
Despite Chivo’s launch and remittance-focused hopes, crypto wallets handled only a small share of remittance flows by 2024.
An IMF program culminating in 2025 approvals pushed El Salvador to reduce state involvement: acceptance became voluntary and public-sector use of Bitcoin was limited.
The most durable impact may have been symbolic—making nation-state Bitcoin adoption a real-world precedent—rather than transforming payments or financial inclusion domestically.
Promises of financial inclusion vs. who actually adopted
When Bukele announced the plan at Bitcoin 2021 in Miami on June 5, 2021, he framed adoption as a way to create jobs and deliver financial inclusion to people outside the formal economy. But five years on, evidence described in the research Boos co-authored suggests the adoption pattern did not match the inclusion narrative.
In a 2025 study, Boos and colleagues (Grigera and Schmid) reported that Salvadorans who adopted Bitcoin were disproportionately young, male, urban, and more highly educated—and importantly, “already banked.” Boos’ interpretation is blunt: “Mass adoption by citizens did not occur.”
The mismatch matters because El Salvador’s starting point was weak banking access. World Bank data cited in the reporting shows that in 2021, only 35.9% of people aged 15 and over held a bank account—one of the lowest levels in the region. In other words, if Bitcoin were to serve as a substitute for missing banking infrastructure, it would need to bridge gaps for people without accounts.
Yet the government’s Chivo wallet, while capable of transferring funds to bank accounts, did not remove the structural barriers preventing many unbanked Salvadorans from accessing the financial system in the first place. Boos and his colleagues describe this as the same core problem reappearing across the adoption story: even with incentives, the missing link was broader financial accessibility rather than the availability of a wallet app.
Remittances: where the “cheaper transfers” thesis didn’t stick
Bukele also sold Bitcoin adoption as a way to improve remittance economics. El Salvador’s economy is tightly linked to money sent from abroad: in 2024, remittances were reported to account for around 24% of GDP, with the United States providing 98% of the total. But the reporting highlights a key constraint—El Salvador has used the U.S. dollar for more than two decades—meaning the most obvious potential cost-saving from Bitcoin (bypassing currency conversion) was already largely neutralized.
That context helps explain why, even with a wave of early promotional activity, crypto wallets remained marginal in remittance flows. The cited research indicates that crypto accounted for barely 1% of remittances by 2024, down from a peak of about 1.7% in 2020–21.
Incentives also did not translate into durable usage. Chivo offered users $30 worth of Bitcoin for signing up, but an analysis described in the article by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that more than 60% of early Chivo users did not make another transaction after spending their free BTC. The reported pattern points to a “try it for the reward” adoption model rather than sustained payment behavior.
On the ground, Bitcoin-focused journalist Joe Nakamoto reported a similar disconnect. In a recent visit, Nakamoto claimed he tested Bitcoin acceptance at 21 shops in a San Salvador mall and found that only four accepted it, and just one did so smoothly. His characterization in the reporting is that living on Bitcoin is “borderline impossible” except in narrow, workaround-driven areas.
The IMF pivot: from legal tender to voluntary use
While public debates about Bitcoin adoption continued, international pressure eventually forced a policy recalibration. In December 2024, El Salvador agreed to a $1.4 billion financing arrangement with the International Monetary Fund, under which it would scale back its involvement in Bitcoin. The agreement was later approved in February 2025, and in January the government amended its Bitcoin law.
The changes described in the reporting included making acceptance voluntary, requiring taxes to be paid in U.S. dollars, and limiting public sector involvement in Bitcoin-related activities—effectively dismantling the most far-reaching parts of Bukele’s original approach. Put simply, Bitcoin could still be used, but the state would no longer compel businesses to accept it or embed it into the public financial system.
Boos says the outcome aligned with the IMF’s assessment. He described the initiative as “soft adoption” that never led to mass payments usage, noting in the reporting that he is not aware of tax payments made using Bitcoin and that supporting infrastructure largely remained unused. Separately, the IMF later found “no evidence” of a beneficial use case for the unbanked and characterized Bitcoin’s impact on financial inclusion as minimal.
For investors and builders watching adoption narratives, this shift is instructive: it shows that legal frameworks and state incentives alone are insufficient if day-to-day demand, payment rails, and integration into mainstream economic behavior do not follow.
What El Salvador did achieve: a precedent, not a universal payments system
Even if Bitcoin did not become everyday money across El Salvador, the experiment still delivered something unprecedented: it moved nation-state Bitcoin adoption from a theoretical concept into a real, live case study. Samson Mow, chief executive of Bitcoin infrastructure firm JAN3, framed the change as a shift in how governments think—turning the question from “whether a sovereign could hold Bitcoin” to “why it hadn’t.”
El Salvador also drew sustained attention from prominent figures in the Bitcoin ecosystem, effectively placing the country at the center of the movement’s public narrative. The reporting notes that Stacy Herbert, who later became a director of El Salvador’s National Bitcoin Office, exemplifies how deeply some parts of the Bitcoin community became intertwined with government structures.
At the same time, the article draws a distinction between what Bitcoin achieved for El Salvador and what El Salvador achieved for Bitcoin. Boos argues the symbolic significance was largely “for” the international Bitcoin community rather than evidence of economic success for Salvadorans. Nakamoto goes further, describing the overall strategy as closer to branding aimed at outsiders than an internally effective economic plan—“beautiful branding” directed at those with capital and passports.
There are also examples of localized, working ecosystems. Bitcoin Beach in El Zonte is cited as an early grassroots initiative that predates the national experiment and reportedly continues functioning even after acceptance became voluntary. The reporting similarly references individual stories of Salvadorans using Bitcoin in daily life, portraying the persistence of micro-economies even as national-scale goals faded.
Beyond legal tender, the Bukele government also promoted projects such as Volcano Bonds and Bitcoin City. However, the article states that repeated delays undermined their progress, and the IMF arrangement “kneecapped” those efforts—though it acknowledges that symbolic impact may still matter to how the episode is remembered globally.
The harder question: Bitcoin strategy under emergency politics
The experiment’s global meaning cannot be separated from the governance environment that made it possible. During Bukele’s time in office, power has been concentrated, and the state of emergency introduced in March 2022 to combat gang violence remains in place years later.
Human Rights Watch, according to the reporting, says the government has continued to remove checks on executive authority. The article also states that local and international human rights organizations have documented mass arbitrary detention and due process violations under the state of emergency.
At the same time, the reporting emphasizes that judging Bukele only through this lens may miss why he remains popular at home. It cites a sharp fall in the official homicide rate—from 53.1 per 100,000 during the year he took office to 1.3 per 100,000 in 2025—framing the crackdown as a visible public security transformation for many Salvadorans.
That tension feeds into the uncomfortable question for Bitcoiners: what does it mean when a philosophy about individual freedom is advanced through a government imposing policy at scale? Mow acknowledges the potential of emergency powers in the hands of a leader who shows restraint, while warning about how quickly those same mechanisms can be repurposed if leadership changes.
Ultimately, the five-year assessment presented in the reporting is split. Bitcoin gave Bukele global attention, and Bukele gave Bitcoin something it had not previously secured at that level: a nation-state willing to place the asset at the center of its economic strategy—even if the implementation did not deliver the promised outcomes for payments, remittances, or mass financial inclusion.
Going forward, readers should watch how El Salvador’s voluntary policy framework evolves—particularly whether Bitcoin usage remains confined to niche communities like Bitcoin Beach or finds more mainstream payment integration—while also tracking the ongoing human rights and institutional implications of emergency governance that shaped the experiment.
This article was originally published as El Salvador Marks 5 Years of Bitcoin Adoption, Cites Domestic Focus on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Bank of England’s Digital Pound Lab is running a new experiment that tests whether stablecoins—and a notional digital British pound—could work together inside the same cross-border trade payment flow. The project is designed to show how payment and settlement could be connected to trade finance in a way that reduces the delays and cash-flow pressure that small and medium-sized businesses often face.
According to an announcement from the project participants, the trial involves NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs. In the setup, an exporter receives an advance through a stablecoin-based “rail,” while a UK importer completes settlement using simulated digital pounds—without using real customers or real money.
Key takeaways
The Digital Pound Lab experiment tests stablecoin rails alongside simulated digital pounds in a single cross-border trade settlement flow.
NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs are collaborating, with Polygon providing smart contract infrastructure.
A second workstream focuses on generating reusable credit profiles for small businesses using transaction data and open-finance inputs.
The Bank of England has not committed to issuing a digital pound, and lab tests are not intended as signals of future policy.
How the trade finance pilot is meant to work
The core concept targets a structural problem in international trade: payment timing. When exporters ship goods before receiving full payment, they may have to wait days to be paid, tying up working capital. That delay can make trade finance harder to access—particularly for smaller firms that may lack established lines of credit.
In the lab’s proposed flow, the exporter receives an advance via a stablecoin pathway, while the importer performs settlement through simulated digital pounds. The pairing is intended to demonstrate how stablecoin-based payment mechanics could coexist with a central-bank-style settlement layer, at least in a controlled testing environment.
The experiment is also designed to be realistic in terms of participants’ roles: it is built around trade finance and settlement processes rather than a generic token transfer scenario. That distinction matters because trade finance depends on paperwork, counterparty assessment and timing—factors that can be difficult to model in simple demonstrations.
Building blocks beyond payments: credit profiles for SMEs
The project does not stop at moving value. It includes a separate workstream intended to improve how small businesses are assessed for credit, by creating reusable credit profiles.
As described in the announcement, that credit-profile effort combines transaction data, open-finance information and Dun & Bradstreet’s commercial risk data. Polygon Labs is contributing smart contract infrastructure for the overall system, which suggests the test may explore whether on-chain logic can help standardize or reuse parts of the credit assessment process rather than rebuilding them from scratch for every transaction.
For investors and builders, the value of this component is that trade finance bottlenecks are often caused by more than settlement latency. Information asymmetry and rigid underwriting cycles can restrict financing even when payment rails are upgraded. By aiming at “reusable” profiles, the project appears to target a way to shorten the time between data availability and a credit decision—though the outcomes of that part of the work are not yet detailed.
Why regulators and central banks are watching stablecoins and tokenized payments
The Bank of England’s experiment lands in the middle of broader regulatory and infrastructure work in the UK. The central bank and other regulators are preparing for stablecoins and tokenized assets, while also modernizing the plumbing behind traditional payment settlement.
Earlier this year, the Bank of England published draft rules for sterling-denominated stablecoins it considers systemic to the UK financial system. According to the central bank’s proposal referenced in the report, issuers could hold up to 70% of their reserves in interest-bearing government debt, and the framework introduces a temporary issuance cap of 40 billion pounds (about $52.8 billion) for each systemic stablecoin.
The policy timeline included in the article points to potential finalization by the end of 2026, ahead of a planned 2027 rollout. Stablecoins deemed “systemic” would fall under the Bank of England’s regulatory regime, while non-systemic stablecoins would remain under the Financial Conduct Authority.
That split between systemic and non-systemic tokens is an important practical detail for market participants. It implies that not every stablecoin would be treated the same way, and that compliance requirements could vary depending on how widely a token is used and how much it matters to financial stability. For developers, it also suggests that designs and reserve structures may need to be aligned with which regulatory lane a token is likely to occupy.
The lab’s trade test is also tied to the UK’s wider push to upgrade settlement speed and flexibility. In May, the Bank of England proposed moving its RTGS and CHAPS systems toward near-24/7 operation, including weekend and extended daily hours—an effort framed as support for cross-border payments and evolving settlement models that could incorporate tokenization.
In July, the central bank also approved HSBC’s Orion platform to operate in the UK’s Digital Securities Sandbox. The article notes that Orion is expected to support digital bond issuance, including the country’s planned Digital Gilt Instrument. While that is separate from stablecoin rules, it reinforces the theme that UK authorities are testing tokenized approaches across multiple asset types, not only payments.
What the Digital Pound Lab trial does—and does not—indicate
Even as the experiment explores stablecoin rails and simulated digital pound settlement, the Bank of England is explicit that the Digital Pound Lab uses no real customers or money and that it has not committed to issuing a digital pound.
The central bank also cautions that participant-designed experiments in the lab should not be interpreted as indications of future policy or as endorsements of the companies or products involved. In practice, that means readers should treat the pilot as proof-of-concept work: useful for identifying technical and process challenges, but not a guarantee of a specific eventual product roadmap.
What to watch next is whether the project can demonstrate measurable improvements—such as reduced settlement delays, more efficient financing workflows, or faster credit assessment cycles—within its controlled environment. Since the announcement does not provide results or performance metrics yet, the most immediate signal will come from any follow-on reporting from the lab on what worked, what failed, and which regulatory assumptions were necessary for the trial design.
This article was originally published as Bank of England Trials Stablecoin and Digital Pound for Cross-Border Payments on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

FlightAware, the real-time aviation tracking company, moved quickly to end its lawsuit against prediction markets platform Kalshi—less than a week after the case was filed and one day after a court ordered Kalshi to explain why a temporary restraining order should not be issued.
According to a Tuesday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, FlightAware’s attorneys notified the court that they voluntarily dismissed the action against Kalshi. The original lawsuit, filed the day before, alleged Kalshi used FlightAware’s name and data to run markets tied to flight cancellations.
Key takeaways
FlightAware voluntarily dismissed its case against Kalshi in the Southern District of New York shortly after Kalshi was ordered to respond on restraining-order grounds.
Kalshi’s event contract language appears to have shifted from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency,” including an added disclaimer meant to avoid implying affiliation.
The dismissal does not remove the broader legal pressure on prediction market operators facing challenges from U.S. states and regulators.
Federal-state jurisdiction fights remain central, with the CFTC citing “exclusive jurisdiction” positions in related matters involving Kalshi.
A rapid procedural reversal in federal court
In its Tuesday submission, FlightAware’s legal team stated that it had voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit against Kalshi. The notice was filed after Kalshi had been ordered by a judge to show cause as to why the court should not issue a temporary restraining order involving FlightAware’s trademark and data claims.
The timeline is notable for its speed: the dispute was initiated with FlightAware’s complaint alleging trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to reputation, and unfair competition. Less than a day later, the case was withdrawn.
Although such abrupt turnarounds can sometimes indicate settlement discussions, neither FlightAware nor Kalshi had publicly commented on the litigation as of Wednesday, according to the reporting context provided in the source.
Contract language changed—from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency”
The lawsuit’s core allegation centered on Kalshi’s use of FlightAware branding and information to structure event markets related to flight cancellations. In at least one public-facing event contract, however, the wording appears to have been altered.
At minimum, the language describing the entity responsible for verifying outcomes shifted from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency.” That same contract also included a disclaimer indicating that the market listing does not “indicate an endorsement of this product or any affiliation” between FlightAware and Kalshi. The “Primary Source Agency” label was linked to FlightAware’s website, aligning the verification reference with FlightAware while avoiding direct brand positioning.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to the companies for comment but did not receive an immediate response, leaving the reason for FlightAware’s dismissal unclear. What is clear for market participants is that these labeling and attribution details are not just branding choices—they can directly affect legal exposure when they imply relationships between data providers and market operators.
Prediction market legal pressure continues beyond this dispute
FlightAware’s withdrawal from the case comes amid an ongoing wave of litigation and regulatory conflict targeting prediction markets in the U.S. As outlined in the source material, Kalshi and other prediction platforms such as Polymarket have faced legal action from multiple U.S. state gaming authorities and regulators over alleged unlicensed or illicit sports betting offered to residents.
These cases have been shaped by a key tension: whether prediction markets fall under federal oversight—particularly the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—or instead are primarily governed by state gaming and gambling laws.
In a separate matter involving New York, the CFTC invoked what it described as “emergency authority” to block state officials from seeking a temporary restraining order that would have prohibited Kalshi from offering event contracts nationwide. The move followed New York authorities filing suit in July, alleging that Kalshi was operating an unlicensed gambling platform through its contracts on sports and other events.
Federal vs. state jurisdiction remains the central battleground
The CFTC’s stance is tied to assertions made repeatedly by its chair, Michael Selig, that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. In the New York fight, that position was used to counter state efforts to impose a nationwide restraining order.
The source also points to a Michigan case with similar themes. In June, a Michigan judge ordered Kalshi to stop offering sports betting contracts to residents until the civil case concluded. The CFTC—again under Selig—then ordered Kalshi not to comply with the state ruling, according to the referenced reporting. Kalshi’s leadership, including its head of enforcement and legal counsel as described in the source, characterized the situation as creating an “impossible position” between competing state and federal orders.
While FlightAware and Kalshi’s dispute over trademark and data has been dropped, the surrounding environment for prediction market operators has not eased. Instead, the legal focus appears to be shifting toward the broader regulatory framework—who has the authority to regulate these markets, and under what legal definitions.
For users and investors watching prediction markets, the next key question is whether the industry’s ongoing compliance approach—especially around data attribution and product affiliation language—will reduce friction in future disputes, or whether the bigger federal-state jurisdiction conflict will continue to dominate outcomes regardless of how individual contracts are labeled.
This article was originally published as FlightAware Withdraws Kalshi Lawsuit One Day After Filing on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Anchorpoint Financial, a Hong Kong-licensed stablecoin issuer, has named HashKey Exchange as an authorized distributor for its Hong Kong dollar stablecoin, HKDAP. The move is designed to broaden eligible institutions’ and professional investors’ access to the fiat-backed token as Hong Kong’s regulated stablecoin framework continues to roll out.
In a Tuesday announcement, the companies said the distribution arrangement is part of a beta phase. HashKey reported that it has already completed its first HKDAP minting and redemption cycle with eligible clients, including both fiat on-ramps and off-ramps. Anchorpoint and HashKey also indicated that they intend to expand distribution over time and assess additional applications for HKDAP, such as cross-border payments, settlement workflows, and tokenized finance.
Key takeaways
HashKey Exchange has been added as an authorized distributor for Anchorpoint’s HKDAP, expanding regulated access to the Hong Kong dollar stablecoin.
The rollout is in beta, with HashKey already completing an initial HKDAP minting and redemption transaction using eligible clients.
Anchorpoint plans to widen distribution and explore use cases beyond payments, including settlement and tokenized finance.
HKDAP is positioned as “HKD At Par,” aiming to act as tokenized money within Hong Kong’s licensed stablecoin market.
Why the HashKey distribution matters for Hong Kong’s regulated stablecoin rollout
Distribution partners are often the practical bridge between an issuer’s compliance setup and the end-user access that determines whether a regulated stablecoin can scale. By authorizing HashKey Exchange to distribute HKDAP during a beta phase, Anchorpoint is effectively widening the number of institutional and professional channels through which the token can be minted, redeemed, and used.
HashKey’s confirmation that it has already completed an initial minting and redemption transaction is notable because it signals that at least part of the operational rails are live—not just planned. The inclusion of fiat on- and off-ramping in that first cycle also points to a focus on converting between traditional currency and the tokenized asset in a way that can support real transaction flows.
The companies framed the arrangement as expandable over time. For market participants watching Hong Kong’s stablecoin regime, the next question is how quickly authorized distribution can broaden beyond the initial set of participants, and whether additional ecosystem services will integrate HKDAP for payments and settlement.
What HKDAP is, and Anchorpoint’s regulatory positioning
HKDAP—short for “HKD At Par”—is described as a regulated Hong Kong dollar stablecoin intended to function as tokenized money for payments and other financial transactions. Anchorpoint’s role as the issuer is anchored in Hong Kong’s licensing process: the company was among the first to receive a stablecoin issuer license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.
Anchorpoint is a joint venture involving Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong), HKT, and Animoca Brands. According to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph, the venture was established in April 2025. Cointelegraph previously reported on the earlier plans by Standard Chartered and Animoca Brands—together with HKT—to launch a Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoin.
As these licensing milestones are reached, the industry typically shifts from “permissioning” to “distribution and adoption.” In that sense, the HashKey beta rollout can be read as a step toward converting regulatory approval into day-to-day market usage.
Hong Kong dollar stablecoins could grow—if adoption data catches up
Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoins may have the potential to become a meaningful segment of the broader stablecoin market, particularly given the city’s push for regulated issuance and supervision. A 2025 Citi report cited by the article’s underlying coverage estimated that stablecoin circulation in Hong Kong could reach $16 billion after the introduction of the local licensing regime.
Even so, observers face a data challenge. For now, US dollar-pegged tokens remain the clear majority of the global stablecoin market, while synthetic stablecoins are another smaller, emerging category. Reliable, public information on how much HKD-pegged supply exists and how widely it is used remains limited, making it difficult to judge where Hong Kong dollar stablecoins currently stand relative to that growth forecast.
Meanwhile, broader stablecoin activity has continued to intensify. The same underlying reporting points to Bernstein data showing that the combined adjusted transaction volume of USDC and USDt reached roughly $3.8 trillion in the first quarter of the year. While that figure does not measure HKDAP directly, it does underline that stablecoins remain central to large-scale on-chain transaction activity—creating a potentially supportive backdrop for new fiat-pegged entrants once distribution and liquidity deepen.
Next steps: broader access, more use cases, and what to monitor
Anchorpoint and HashKey said they plan to expand distribution over time and explore additional uses for HKDAP beyond basic minting and redemption. The proposed directions—cross-border payments, settlement, and tokenized finance—are closely tied to where tokenized currencies can deliver operational benefits, such as faster settlement cycles and programmable settlement for financial transactions.
For investors, traders, and institutional builders, the most actionable signals to watch will likely include how quickly distribution expands to more eligible counterparties, whether HKDAP liquidity improves across participating venues, and what concrete integrations emerge for payments and settlement. Just as important, market participants will want clearer visibility into HKDAP adoption over time—especially once Hong Kong dollar stablecoin activity becomes more measurable and comparable across issuers and channels.
As the beta phase progresses, the real test will be whether HKDAP can move from a licensed token concept into a consistently used fiat rail—one supported by distribution partners like HashKey and by credible, repeatable minting/redemption demand from regulated participants.
This article was originally published as HashKey Launches Beta Distribution for HKDAP Regulated Stablecoin in Hong Kong on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.