Crypto Daily™

Kategori mini-app Telegram menghabiskan banyak tahun lalu dengan dianggap sudah selesai. Siklus airdrop terakhir meninggalkan sederet aplikasi yang peristiwa pembuatan token-nya langsung mendahului “pemakaman” mereka, karena memicu gelombang tekanan jual dan membuat basis pengguna mereka menyusut dalam hitungan jam. Pada awal 2026, bagian yang terus bertambah dari komunitas kripto di X telah mencapai kesepakatan—meta mini-app sudah mati.
Bukan pengguna, melainkan peserta proyek
Six Seven Club, sebuah komunitas asli Telegram di balik mini-app $67, adalah salah satu proyek yang berpendapat bahwa putusan X mungkin terlalu dini. Sebagai bukti, proyek ini menggunakan kurva pertumbuhannya, menarik lebih dari satu juta pengguna hanya dalam dua bulan—termasuk pengguna aktif harian di atas 150.000 dan pengguna aktif mingguan yang melampaui 400.000.

Validator Solana meloloskan SGP-0002 pada 28 Agustus, menyetujui jadwal disinflasi yang lebih cepat setelah langkah tersebut memperoleh dukungan sebesar 67,001%, menurut Solana Compass. Hasil ini secara tipis melampaui ambang batas supermajority 66,67%. Hasilnya mengikat jaringan pada jadwal yang dirancang untuk mencapai tingkat inflasi terminal 1,5% yang sudah ada jauh lebih cepat.
Pemungutan suara menyetujui perubahan parameter yang diuraikan dalam SIMD-0550, yang menggandakan tingkat disinflasi tahunan Solana dari 15% menjadi 30%. Proposal tersebut memperkirakan bahwa jalur yang direvisi akan menghasilkan sekitar 18,9 juta emisi SOL lebih sedikit selama enam tahun dibandingkan jadwal sebelumnya.

Bitcoin diperdagangkan mendekati $63.915 pada 30 Juli dan mengalami perubahan yang relatif kecil meski terjadi respons tajam terhadap risiko geopolitik di tengah minyak dan ekuitas AS, menurut CoinDesk. Stabilitas relatif itu muncul setelah Komando Pusat AS mengatakan pihaknya telah melancarkan gelombang serangan yang besar terhadap Iran sebagai respons atas serangan rudal balistik Iran terhadap pasukan AS.
Kontrasnya cukup menonjol tetapi tidak sepenuhnya meyakinkan. Harga minyak melonjak sekitar 8% semalaman dan saham AS turun, sementara sekitar $286 juta posisi dalam mata uang kripto dilikuidasi selama 24 jam, menunjukkan bahwa para trader kripto dengan leverage tetap menghadapi tekanan yang besar meskipun bitcoin menghindari penjualan berarah yang sebanding.

Fogo mengatakan blockchain-nya beroperasi normal. Namun, mainnet tetap dihentikan.
Dalam kompromi 29 Agustus yang melibatkan Fogo Foundation, seorang penyerang menerima sekitar 400 juta token FOGO—4% dari total pasokan awal 10 miliar dan lebih dari 10% dari pasokan beredar yang dilaporkan, menurut The Block. Skala kejadian menjadikannya masalah likuiditas utama di mainnet.
Validator menangguhkan rantai dan meningkatkan jaringan untuk mencegah pergerakan aset lebih lanjut, tetapi pada awalnya tidak mengungkapkan waktu restart atau detail implementasi teknis. Respons tersebut menunjukkan mengapa kelangsungan teknis dan keamanan ekonomi bisa berbeda: pemrosesan transaksi biasa mungkin tidak dapat diterima meskipun rantai masih bisa tetap beroperasi.

SBI Holdings mengatakan pada 28 Agustus bahwa pihaknya telah melakukan investasi strategis pada Ajaib Group berbasis di Indonesia melalui sebuah anak perusahaan. Transaksi tersebut memperoleh sekitar 20% saham dan menjadikan Ajaib sebagai afiliasi yang dicatat dengan metode ekuitas.
Ajaib mengatakan investasi tersebut berjumlah $270 juta, sehingga total pendanaan kumulatifnya sejak 2019 menjadi lebih dari $500 juta.
SBI menggambarkan Ajaib sebagai platform multi-aset yang mencakup produk keuangan konvensional dan aset digital. Kemitraan tersebut, kata mereka, merupakan bagian dari upaya untuk mengembangkan infrastruktur aset digital serta jaringan bursa yang berpusat di Asia Tenggara.

Active addresses count blockchain addresses that took part in successful transactions during a selected period, usually as a sender or recipient. Holders count addresses with a nonzero balance of a particular token. The first is a measure of observed activity over time; the second is a snapshot of addresses retaining an asset.
Neither figure is a people count. A participant can use several wallets, while one address at an exchange, custodian or protocol can stand in for many customers, assets or functions. The useful question is therefore not which metric is “the” adoption number, but what each says about participation and ownership when read alongside other on-chain evidence.
Active addresses measure participation during a chosen window
Active-address data begins with transactions. Coin Metrics’ documentation describes active addresses as unique addresses participating in successful transactions within a defined interval, typically as senders or recipients. That interval might be a day, week or month, and the choice materially changes the result.
An address that sends tokens twice during one daily window normally contributes one unique address to that day’s count, not two. An address that receives tokens also qualifies under the sender-or-recipient approach. The metric therefore removes repeated appearances by the same address within the selected period, but it does not identify the person or organisation behind that address.
Methodology can differ among data providers. Glassnode, for example, defines active addresses as unique senders or receivers, while an expanded version includes addresses that called smart contracts. That distinction matters for networks and tokens where users interact principally with decentralised applications rather than making simple transfers.
Before comparing two active-address charts, establish what counts as activity: successful transfers only, or transfers plus contract calls; token-level activity, or activity on the underlying chain; and which measurement window is in use. Similar labels do not guarantee comparable series.
Holder counts measure nonzero token balances, not usage
A holder count starts from ownership records rather than a period of transaction activity. For an ERC-20 token, the usual approach is to identify every address with a balance greater than zero at a particular point in time. The ERC-20 standard exposes balances through balanceOf and defines total token issuance through totalSupply, providing the basic information used to construct such a count.
This makes holders a stock metric. It answers: how many addresses currently retain some amount of the token? Active addresses are a flow-like activity metric. They answer: how many distinct addresses participated during this interval?
The difference is practical. An address can hold a token throughout a month and never transact, adding to the holder total but not the month’s active-address figure. Conversely, an address can receive and later send a token during a day, contributing to activity even if it ends the day with no balance and is absent from an end-of-day holder snapshot.
The raw total makes no distinction between an address holding a minimal amount and one holding a large allocation; each adds one as long as its balance is nonzero. That limits what holder growth can show: without additional evidence, it should not be read as a measure of capital committed, distribution quality or recurring use.
One address is not one token user
The central limitation applies to both measures: addresses are technical identifiers, not verified identities. On Ethereum, an address can represent either an externally owned account or a smart contract, as Ethereum.org’s account documentation explains. Raw counts can consequently include exchange wallets, custodial addresses, bridges, protocol contracts, treasuries and other contracts.
That creates distortion in both directions. One investor or trader may deliberately separate activity across several wallets, increasing the apparent number of holders or active addresses. At the other extreme, a single exchange or custodian address may aggregate balances or transactions for many underlying customers, reducing the number of addresses visible on-chain relative to the number of people involved.
Smart contracts complicate the picture further. A contract can hold tokens because it is a pool, vault, bridge endpoint or other application component. It may also be active because it receives a transfer or is involved in an interaction counted under a provider’s methodology. Its appearance is real on-chain activity, but it is not automatically evidence of one additional human user.
Entity-adjusted analytics attempt to group addresses believed to belong to the same broader entity. This can make a dataset more useful for certain questions, but the groupings remain estimates rather than a complete identity registry, according to Glassnode’s guide to entity-adjusted metrics. Raw-address and entity-adjusted figures should therefore not be treated as interchangeable.
ERC-4626 vault shares show how token structure changes the reading
Tokenised vaults offer a useful example of why a holder count needs structural context. Under ERC-4626, vault shares represent claims on underlying assets. A wallet holding vault shares is not simply holding an unrelated token balance; it has a claim governed by the vault’s share and asset mechanics.
Consider a simplified sequence. A participant deposits an underlying asset into a vault and receives shares. The participant’s address can become a holder of the vault-share token. The vault contract holds or manages the underlying asset, and that contract may itself appear as a significant holder or as an active address in data associated with the relevant tokens.
Reading the resulting charts requires separating these roles. An increase in share holders may show that more addresses hold claims on the vault, but it does not establish how many distinct people are involved. Activity may reflect deposits, withdrawals, transfers of shares, or contract interactions, depending on the dataset’s definition. A large contract balance can be a normal feature of the product’s design, rather than evidence that a single investor dominates the economic exposure.
The same discipline applies beyond vaults. Before interpreting a top-holder list or an activity spike, identify whether prominent addresses are wallets, contracts, custodians or labelled infrastructure. Token design determines what a balance represents and what an interaction means.
How to read diverging holder and active-address trends
The two metrics become most informative when they diverge. Rising holders alongside low active-address rates can be consistent with passive ownership or distribution campaigns. Rising active addresses while holder counts remain broadly flat can be consistent with more frequent use by an existing address base. Those are possible readings, not proof of motive, user growth or product-market fit.
A disciplined review adds context before drawing a conclusion. Glassnode’s activity guide recommends considering transfer volume, retention, concentration, contract labels and the measurement window alongside address metrics.
Transfer volume: Compare the number of participating addresses with the amount transferred. Address growth and value moved can tell different stories.
Retention: Check whether addresses that appeared active in one period return in later periods, rather than relying only on a single spike.
Concentration: Review whether balances sit across many addresses or are concentrated in a small number of wallets and contracts.
Contract labels: Separate known exchanges, custodians, bridges, treasuries and application contracts where labels are available.
Measurement window: A daily series captures a different behaviour from a monthly series. Keep the window consistent when assessing change.
It is also worth keeping the unit of analysis explicit. A chain-wide active-address figure does not necessarily describe activity in one token, while a token’s holder count does not reveal whether its holders are active elsewhere on the chain. A provider’s methodology, the token’s architecture and the addresses included all set the boundaries of the claim.
In practice, holder counts are best used to describe the breadth of visible nonzero ownership, and active addresses to describe visible transaction participation during a specified period. The gap between them is often the point worth investigating, especially where intermediaries and contracts can aggregate or multiply the addresses seen on-chain.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do active addresses equal active users?
No. They count unique addresses meeting a transaction-based definition during a selected window. One person can control multiple addresses, and one address can represent a custodian, exchange or contract serving many people or functions.
Does a higher holder count prove token adoption?
More addresses with nonzero balances, by themselves, do not establish the number of people involved, the size of those balances or whether the token is being used.
Why do smart-contract calls affect active-address data?
Some datasets include contract callers in an expanded active-address definition. This can better capture application interaction, but it also means the series may not match a transfer-only active-address metric.
Why can exchanges distort holder and activity counts?
An exchange may use one or a small number of on-chain addresses for many customers. Those addresses can mask a large underlying customer base, while users who withdraw to several self-controlled wallets can have the opposite effect on raw counts.
Which metrics should accompany active addresses and holders?
Review transfer volume, retention, balance concentration, known contract or entity labels, and the time window used. These checks help determine whether a change is more consistent with holding patterns, repeated activity, infrastructure movements or a shift in methodology.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Tokenized stock transfer volume measures how much value moved during a stated period; market value measures the value of tokenized assets outstanding at a particular time, or sometimes an average value over a period. The first is a flow. The second is a stock. They can be numerically similar, but they do not answer the same question and should not be used as substitutes.
That distinction matters when an issuer, platform or market participant reports a large on-chain activity figure alongside a smaller—or larger—asset value. A high transfer total may reflect frequent changes of ownership, redemptions or other movements involving the same tokens. A substantial market value with low transfer activity may instead indicate that holders are retaining their positions.
Transfer volume is a cumulative activity measure
Transfer volume is the cumulative value of transactions recorded over a defined interval, such as a day, month or quarter. It is designed to show activity during that interval, rather than the size of the asset base at its end.
The exact composition of the figure depends on the reporter’s methodology. In one disclosure, Securitize described transfer volume as potentially including purchases, sales, redemptions, dividends and cross-chain movements. That breadth is consequential: a number labelled “volume” may extend beyond secondary-market buying and selling.
Most importantly, volume can count the same economic units repeatedly. A token transferred from one eligible holder to another may enter the period’s total. If the recipient subsequently transfers it again, the later transaction can add another amount to cumulative volume. The token itself has not been newly created merely because it appears in more than one transaction record.
For tokenized stocks, this means volume is closer to a measure of recorded movement or turnover than a measure of how much tokenized equity exists. It may be useful for assessing how active a network or transfer system has been, but only after establishing what transactions the provider includes and over what period.
Market value measures tokenized assets outstanding
Market value, often presented as assets under management (AUM) in platform reporting, measures the value of tokenized assets held or managed at a specified moment, or an average balance over a reporting period. If tokenized securities worth £100 million or $100 million are outstanding at the measurement time, that is the relevant market value even when no tokens change hands; the figure can also change when the value assigned to the referenced assets changes.
Transaction value can be substantially higher over a month or quarter than the closing value of assets outstanding because transfer volume measures cumulative activity. Securitize’s SEC disclosure explicitly distinguishes market value or AUM from cumulative transfer volume, describing AUM as a point-in-time or average holding-value measure rather than a tally of transfers.
Why the same token can inflate volume without increasing market value
Transfer volume measures cumulative activity during a period. Market value or AUM measures the value of assets held or managed at a point in time, or an average over a period. Securitize’s SEC disclosure explicitly distinguishes that holding-value measure from a tally of transfers.
Assume $10 million of a tokenized stock changes hands three times between eligible participants during one quarter. The resulting cumulative transfer volume could be $30 million, while quarter-end market value remains $10 million if valuation and supply are unchanged. The same position has moved three times; $30 million of distinct assets has not been outstanding. If included in the reporting definition, redemptions, dividend-related movements or cross-chain transfers could increase the gap.
The reverse pattern is possible: a platform can have a large value of tokenized assets and little transfer volume when investors mainly retain their tokens. The Bank for International Settlements has noted that repeated transfers can produce volume high relative to asset value, while retained assets can produce high outstanding value relative to trading activity.
Neither direction alone proves deep liquidity, investor demand, growth or lack of interest. It shows the relationship between activity recorded over a period and value present at a measurement date. A quarterly volume figure covers roughly three months; quarter-end AUM is a snapshot on one date. Dividing them can provide a descriptive turnover calculation only when definitions and coverage align, including transaction categories, eligible participants, issuance and redemption activity, and the terms for transferring or redeeming tokens.
Reporting period and transaction definition
The first rule for comparing volume with market value is to align the clocks. A quarterly transfer-volume figure accumulates transactions across roughly three months. A quarter-end AUM figure is a snapshot on one date. Dividing one by the other can be a useful descriptive turnover calculation only if the definitions and coverage are understood; it does not make the two underlying measures equivalent.
Securitize’s second-quarter 2026 results provide a clear illustration. The company reported $5.3 billion in aggregate transaction volume during the quarter and $4.3 billion in tokenized assets under management as of June 30, 2026. The figures may be compared as different indicators for the same broad reporting context, but the first measures activity over the quarter and the second measures assets managed at quarter-end.
Readers should also establish the reporting perimeter. “Aggregate” volume may cover multiple asset types, products, networks or types of movement. A market-value or AUM figure may cover the assets a platform manages rather than every token that has ever passed through its systems. Comparing a narrowly defined token’s trading activity with a platform-wide AUM total would not be a like-for-like exercise.
Time horizon: Is volume daily, monthly, quarterly or cumulative since launch? Is market value measured at period-end or averaged?
Transaction set: Are purchases and sales the only items counted, or are redemptions, dividends and cross-chain movements included?
Asset scope: Does each figure cover the same tokens, issuers, networks and jurisdictions?
Valuation basis: How is the outstanding tokenized asset valued, particularly where a live market price is limited?
A label by itself cannot answer those questions. The methodology and accompanying disclosures determine whether an apparent mismatch reflects turnover, different coverage, or a definitional difference.
What a tokenized stock token represents
The phrase “tokenized stock” can obscure meaningful legal and operational differences. According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, tokenized securities are securities represented by crypto assets, with ownership records maintained wholly or partly on crypto networks.
The structure may be an issuer-native security, a custodial security entitlement in which a custodian holds the underlying security, or synthetic or linked exposure rather than direct ownership of the underlying share. Those distinctions affect what has been transferred and may give holders rights that differ from those attached to the underlying security.
A token’s transfer record is not necessarily identical to a transfer on the issuer’s conventional share register, and its price is not necessarily equal to the value of a directly held underlying share. Analysts should therefore identify the instrument and examine its legal claim, custody arrangement, and redemption mechanism before interpreting reported activity.
High on-chain activity and liquidity
On-chain records can make transfers more visible and change how ownership and authorization are recorded. Transfer volume is the cumulative movement recorded during a period; it is therefore a flow measure, not a standalone measure of liquidity, market quality or the value of assets outstanding.
Liquidity instead includes the availability of willing buyers and sellers, the size that can be traded, and whether holders can exit or redeem on workable terms. The same assets can move between holders repeatedly, generating high volume without broad, continuous participation. Low activity can likewise coexist with underlying value when holders mainly retain tokens or when restrictions limit transfers.
Securitize’s filing identifies settlement, liquidity, credit, custody, cybersecurity and valuation risks that tokenization does not eliminate. It also says tokenized prices may diverge from the underlying asset’s value when liquidity is limited or redemptions are constrained. The metric should be read with the token structure, market-access rules, custody arrangements, redemption terms and valuation methodology in view.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can transfer volume be higher than a tokenized stock’s market value?
Yes. The same tokens can move between holders multiple times during a reporting period, with each qualifying movement contributing to cumulative volume while the outstanding token value remains broadly unchanged.
Does a higher transfer-volume figure mean more tokenized stocks were issued?
No. Issuance may affect the asset base, but transfer volume can rise solely because existing tokens were bought, sold, redeemed or otherwise moved under the reporter’s methodology.
Is AUM the same as the market capitalisation of tokenized stocks?
Not necessarily. AUM generally refers to assets held or managed within a provider’s stated scope. Its relationship to market capitalisation depends on the instrument, the issuer and the reporting methodology.
Should cross-chain movements count as trading volume?
That depends on the disclosed definition. A cross-chain movement is not necessarily a sale between independent investors, even where a provider includes it in aggregate transfer volume.
Why might a tokenized stock trade at a different value from its underlying share?
Limited liquidity, constrained redemption and the token’s particular legal or custodial structure can all matter. A tokenized instrument should be assessed on its own terms rather than assumed to be interchangeable with direct ownership of an underlying security.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Insiden Cosmos EVM menunjukkan mengapa menutup jalur eksploit tidak sama dengan memulihkan posisi ekonomi awal pemegang. Para penyerang menukarkan sekitar $2,87 juta aset hasil curian di bursa terdesentralisasi dan menjual sekitar $2,85 juta melalui bursa terpusat, menurut laporan pasca-insiden (post-mortem) Keamanan Cosmos.
Pada saat perangkat lunak yang terdampak telah dipatch, transaksi-transaksi tersebut tidak dapat dibalikkan dan kondisi likuiditas awal token tidak dapat dipulihkan. Oleh karena itu, sebuah patch mungkin berhasil secara teknis sementara pemegang token tetap menghadapi arus jual dari sisi penawaran, kerugian pooled-staking, paparan di luar pencurian yang terealisasi, atau beban untuk beralih ke lingkungan pengganti. Perbedaan tersebut tidak membuktikan bahwa setiap eksploit pasti menyebabkan pergerakan harga yang terukur atau bahwa patch ini gagal.

Keausan sumber daya validator adalah kondisi ketika sebuah validator blockchain tidak memiliki cukup kemampuan komputasi, memori, penyimpanan, kapasitas sistem operasi, atau throughput jaringan untuk menyelesaikan pekerjaan konsensusnya tepat waktu. Node mungkin masih berjalan dan dapat dijangkau, tetapi terlalu jauh tertinggal untuk memverifikasi, menyimpan, dan menyebarkan informasi yang diperlukan untuk sebuah attestation, pemungutan suara (vote), atau usulan blok (block proposal).
Perbedaan ini penting. Kegagalan total (crash) mudah dikenali; node yang masih hidup tetapi terlambat dapat secara diam-diam kehilangan kemampuan aktif (liveness) terlebih dahulu. Penyimpanan yang lambat atau bandwidth yang terbatas dapat membuatnya tertinggal dari ujung (tip) rantai, sedangkan propagasi yang tertunda dapat berujung pada attestation dan usulan yang terlambat atau terlewat, sesuai panduan node dari Ethereum.org. Pada skala besar, cukup banyak peserta yang terlambat dapat membuat jaringan lebih sulit untuk mencapai kesepakatan pada status berikutnya yang disetujui.

Komisi Perdagangan Berjangka Komoditas AS pada 28 Agustus memerintahkan mantan penasihat teknis Gedung Putih dan operator teleprompter Gabriel Perez untuk membayar $172.539,02 dan melarangnya berdagang selama tiga tahun terkait transaksi dalam kontrak Kalshi yang dikaitkan dengan pidato Presiden Donald Trump.
Pembayaran tersebut terdiri dari $107.539,02 keuntungan yang disita dan denda moneter perdata sebesar $65.000, menurut pengumuman CFTC. Perintah tersebut menyelesaikan tindakan agensi terhadap Perez, yang aksesnya terhadap materi pidato rahasia mendahului transaksi dalam kontrak-kontrak di mana kata atau frasa yang akan diucapkan.

U.S. stock perpetual futures are becoming a major new category on crypto exchanges, giving eligible traders continuous exposure to stocks and ETFs without using a traditional brokerage account.
Bitget, Binance, Kraken, Coinbase, and Hyperliquid are among the strongest platforms for trading U.S. stock-linked perpetuals in 2026. Bitget stands out for measured order-book liquidity, while the other venues offer different advantages ranging from xStocks and regulated centralized access to on-chain markets.
The best platform ultimately depends on what matters most to the trader: liquidity, market selection, 24/7 access, margin structure, or whether the trading venue is centralized or on-chain.
The Best Crypto Exchanges for U.S. Stock Perpetuals at a Glance
Rank
Exchange
Best for
Key advantage
1
Bitget
Overall stock-perpetual trading
Strongest measured liquidity in the reviewed cross-exchange comparison
2
Binance
Large centralized alternative
Broad TradFi perpetual ecosystem
3
Kraken
xStocks perpetual futures
24/7 xStocks markets with up to 20x leverage
4
Coinbase
Regulated centralized access
Stock perps within Coinbase's international derivatives platform
5
Hyperliquid
On-chain stock perpetuals
Builder-deployed HIP-3 perpetual markets
This ranking considers liquidity, product breadth, trading structure, market access, and differentiation. It is not a claim that every platform has been measured under identical liquidity conditions.
1. Bitget — Best Overall for U.S. Stock Perpetual Trading
Bitget ranks first because it combines a broad stock-perpetual offering with the strongest measured order-book depth in the latest cross-exchange comparison reviewed here.
Bitget's UEX model brings crypto and traditional-market exposures into the same trading environment, including perpetual contracts linked to U.S. stocks, ETFs, precious metals, and other real-world assets.
Its clearest advantage is liquidity.
In a Bitget-published study covering 36 stock perpetual markets between July 21 and July 27, 2026, Bitget compared its visible order-book depth with Binance, Hyperliquid, OKX, and Bybit.
The study measured combined bid and ask liquidity within 5, 10, and 50 basis points of each contract's midpoint.
Exchange
Within 5 bps
Within 10 bps
Within 50 bps
Bitget
$11.60M
$26.71M
$67.29M
Binance
$3.29M
$7.98M
$37.37M
Hyperliquid
$2.30M
$5.64M
$29.10M
OKX
$1.05M
$3.38M
$22.01M
Bybit
$0.68M
$2.39M
$7.18M
Bitget therefore recorded the highest aggregate visible depth at all three measured ranges in that sample. Its lead was particularly pronounced close to the midpoint, where available liquidity matters most for reducing immediate price impact.
The broad comparison was published by Bitget itself, so it should not be treated as an independent industry benchmark.
However, Block Scholes has also examined several Bitget stock-linked markets.
Using public API snapshots and historical order-book data supplied by Bitget, Block Scholes analyzed NVDA-USDT, SPY-USDT, QQQ-USDT, and XAU-USDT across spread, resting liquidity, and modeled slippage. The study found, for example, approximately $4.1 million in median resting NVDA-USDT liquidity within 2% of the midpoint on one measured day in May 2026.
That combination of broad comparative data and more detailed market analysis makes Bitget the strongest candidate when execution depth is the main priority.
Bitget stock perpetuals provide synthetic price exposure to U.S. stocks and ETFs; they do not represent ownership of the underlying shares.
2. Binance — Best Large Centralized Alternative
Binance is one of the strongest alternatives for traders who want stock perpetuals within a large, established crypto derivatives ecosystem.
Binance offers TradFi Perps that track traditional assets including individual equities, commodities, and other non-crypto markets.
Its stock perpetual contracts include exposure to companies such as Amazon, Coinbase, and Strategy. The contracts are USDT-settled, trade around the clock, and can support leverage of up to 10x depending on the market and trader eligibility.
Binance also ranked second in the 36-market liquidity comparison used above.
Its aggregate visible stock-perpetual depth was:
$3.29 million within 5 basis points
$7.98 million within 10 basis points
$37.37 million within 50 basis points
Those figures were below Bitget in the measured sample but ahead of Hyperliquid, OKX, and Bybit.
For traders already using Binance Futures, the main attraction is straightforward: stock-linked perpetuals can sit alongside existing crypto derivatives rather than requiring an entirely separate trading workflow.
That makes Binance a strong general-purpose alternative, particularly for traders who value a broad centralized derivatives ecosystem.
3. Kraken — Best for xStocks Perpetual Futures
Kraken stands out because its stock-perpetual product is built around the xStocks ecosystem, giving eligible traders 24/7 leveraged exposure to recognizable U.S. stocks and ETFs.
Available xStocks perpetual markets include instruments linked to:
Nvidia
Apple
Tesla
Alphabet
Strategy
SPY
QQQ
gold exposure
Kraken says xStocks perpetuals trade 24/7, including weekends and holidays, and support leverage of up to 20x for eligible users.
The structure is interesting because the perpetual futures reference tokenized xStocks instruments rather than simply recreating a conventional brokerage experience.
For example:
NVDAx tracks Nvidia
AAPLx tracks Apple
TSLAx tracks Tesla
SPYx provides S&P 500 ETF exposure
QQQx provides Nasdaq-100 ETF exposure
All can be traded through the same margin environment used for Kraken's crypto perpetual markets.
Kraken therefore earns its place in this list for product design and 24/7 xStocks access, rather than because we have comparable evidence that its order books are deeper than Binance or Bitget.
That distinction is important.
A platform can have an attractive product structure without necessarily having the deepest liquidity for every contract.
Kraken's xStocks perpetuals are available only to eligible users and are not available to U.S. customers.
4. Coinbase — Best for Regulated Centralized Stock Perpetuals
Coinbase is a strong option for traders who prioritize a regulated centralized platform while still wanting continuous synthetic exposure to major U.S. equities.
Coinbase launched stock perpetual futures in March 2026 for eligible traders outside the United States.
Its initial lineup included the Magnificent Seven:
Apple
Microsoft
Alphabet
Amazon
Nvidia
Meta
Tesla
SPY and QQQ perpetual futures are also available where permitted.
The contracts trade 24/7 and settle in USDC.
Single-stock perpetuals generally support up to 10x maximum leverage, while Coinbase says ETF perpetuals can support up to 20x. The platform also offers cross-margining across perpetual futures and spot positions.
Coinbase's approach differs slightly from the exchanges above because the company emphasizes the stock-perpetual product as part of its regulated international derivatives infrastructure.
During normal equity trading hours, pricing can reference direct equity-market feeds. During weekends and certain off-hours periods, Coinbase uses a hybrid pricing mechanism that incorporates internal and tokenized-equity references to maintain continuous markets.
This makes Coinbase particularly relevant for traders who want the familiarity of a large centralized exchange while accessing a relatively new category of equity-linked crypto derivatives.
The main limitation for this ranking is evidence.
Coinbase was not included in the same 36-market depth comparison used to evaluate Bitget, Binance, and Hyperliquid. It would therefore be misleading to claim that Coinbase ranks fourth because its liquidity is objectively fourth-best.
Its position here instead reflects platform structure, product availability, and regulated international access.
5. Hyperliquid — Best On-Chain Alternative
Hyperliquid is the strongest option in this list for traders who specifically want an on-chain approach to stock-linked perpetual futures.
Its differentiation comes from HIP-3.
HIP-3 allows qualified builders to deploy their own perpetual markets on HyperCore while using Hyperliquid's underlying margining and order-book infrastructure.
The market deployer is responsible for defining elements such as the oracle, contract specifications, leverage limits, and market operation.
This architecture makes it possible for builders to create perpetual markets linked to assets outside traditional crypto markets, including equity-related exposures.
Hyperliquid also performed relatively well in the Bitget-published stock-perpetual liquidity comparison.
Across the same 36-contract sample, it recorded:
$2.30 million within 5 basis points
$5.64 million within 10 basis points
$29.10 million within 50 basis points
That placed Hyperliquid third behind Bitget and Binance, but ahead of OKX and Bybit in aggregate visible depth across the measured contracts.
For traders choosing between Hyperliquid and a centralized exchange, however, the bigger difference is not simply liquidity.
It is market structure.
Bitget, Binance, Kraken, and Coinbase operate centralized trading environments. Hyperliquid offers a crypto-native on-chain model where HIP-3 markets can be deployed by external builders.
That makes Hyperliquid the most distinct platform in this ranking.
How Were the Best Stock-Perpetual Exchanges Ranked?
There is no single metric that determines which exchange is best for U.S. stock perpetuals.
For this ranking, the main factors are:
Liquidity. Visible depth and spread influence how easily positions can be entered and exited without substantial price impact.
Market selection. A useful platform should offer exposure to major equities or ETFs rather than only one or two isolated contracts.
Continuous access. One of the main attractions of crypto-native stock perpetuals is the ability to trade outside traditional U.S. equity-market hours.
Trading structure. Some traders prefer centralized exchanges, while others specifically want on-chain execution.
Margin and settlement. USDT, USDC, leverage limits, cross-margining, and collateral design can materially change the trading experience.
Liquidity deserves particular attention because trading volume alone does not show how much size is actually available near the current price.
A venue can report significant volume while having a relatively thin order book at the moment an order arrives.
For larger positions, the more useful sequence is:
spread → order-book depth → order size → potential slippage
Which Exchange Has the Best Liquidity for U.S. Stock Perpetuals?
Among the exchanges included in the July 21–27, 2026 cross-exchange comparison, Bitget recorded the greatest aggregate visible depth across the measured 5, 10, and 50-basis-point bands. Binance ranked second and Hyperliquid third.
That does not prove Bitget will always provide the best execution on every contract.
Liquidity changes constantly. It can vary by asset, trade direction, market conditions, volatility, order size, and whether the underlying U.S. equity market is open.
Kraken and Coinbase were also not included in that specific comparison, so their liquidity cannot be ranked against the other three using the same dataset.
This is why traders should check the live order book for the exact contract they intend to trade rather than relying only on an exchange-wide ranking.
Bottom Line: What Is the Best Crypto Exchange for U.S. Stock Perpetuals?
Bitget is the strongest overall choice in this comparison for traders prioritizing measured stock-perpetual liquidity. Binance offers a strong centralized alternative, Kraken stands out for its xStocks perpetual ecosystem, Coinbase provides stock perps through its regulated international derivatives infrastructure, and Hyperliquid offers the clearest on-chain alternative.
The market is still developing quickly.
More exchanges are adding equities, ETFs, commodities, and other traditional assets to crypto-native perpetual markets, which means the competitive landscape is likely to continue changing.
For traders, the most useful approach is therefore not simply to choose the biggest exchange.
Compare the actual market you want to trade, the available depth, settlement currency, leverage, trading model, and expected execution cost at your intended position size.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Nilai tokenisasi aset dunia nyata milik Stellar mencapai $3,996 miliar pada 29 Agustus, setelah naik sekitar 360% pada 2026 dari $868,8 juta di akhir tahun lalu. Pembacaan ini menempatkan jaringan tepat di bawah ambang batas $4 miliar dan mengikuti rangkaian cepat pencapaian tonggak RWA bernilai miliaran dolar yang dilaporkan selama tahun ini.
Total tersebut didasarkan pada data yang dikutip Cointelegraph dari Dune Analytics dan Stellar. Ini mengukur aset dunia nyata yang ditokenisasi di jaringan, bukan aktivitas transfer stablecoin atau ukuran yang lebih luas tentang penggunaan jaringan Stellar.

Reksa dana saham global mencatat penarikan dana sebesar $5,87 miliar pada pekan yang berakhir 26 Agustus 2026, mengakhiri rangkaian masuk dana selama 13 minggu. Ini merupakan arus keluar mingguan pertama sejak 20 Mei 2026, sehingga pembalikan tersebut menjadi sorotan setelah lebih dari tiga bulan pembelian yang berkelanjutan, menurut data Reuters yang dipublikasikan oleh Investing.com.
Penarikan pada tingkat berita utama itu tidak mencerminkan kemunduran yang seragam dari saham. Aliran dana sangat terpecah berdasarkan wilayah, sementara dana teknologi dan logam mulia terus menarik uang baru pada pekan pelaporan yang sama.

Menurut data LSEG Lipper, dana emas dan logam mulia lainnya menarik arus masuk bersih sebesar $4,21 miliar pada pekan yang berakhir 26 Agustus 2026, level tertinggi enam bulan. Pada periode yang sama, investor menarik dana sebesar $5,87 miliar dari dana saham global—arus keluar mingguan pertama sejak 20 Mei dan mengakhiri rangkaian arus masuk selama 13 minggu. Karena angka-angka tersebut mencakup kategori dana yang berbeda, angka-angka itu sendiri tidak menunjukkan bahwa uang yang keluar dari saham dialihkan secara langsung ke logam mulia.
Cuplikan Data
MetricCurrentPreviousChangePeriodPeriode per-PeriodeCurrentPreviousChangeAs ofSourceArus masuk bersih ke dana emas dan logam mulia lain sebesar $4,21 miliar—tertinggi enam bulan, pada minggu yang berakhir 26 Agustus 2026.2026-08-26Reuters via Investing.comArus keluar bersih dari dana saham global sebesar $5,87 miliar—keluar bersih mingguan pertama sejak 20 Mei, pada minggu yang berakhir 26 Agustus 2026.2026-08-26Reuters via Investing.comPenjualan dari dana saham AS sebesar $22,33 miliar—pada minggu yang berakhir 26 Agustus 2026.2026-08-26Reuters via Investing.comArus masuk ke dana teknologi sebesar $3,2 miliar—pada minggu yang berakhir 26 Agustus 2026.2026-08-26Reuters via Investing.comArus masuk ke dana logam dan pertambangan sebesar $489 juta—pada minggu yang berakhir 26 Agustus 2026.2026-08-26Reuters via Investing.comArus keluar dari dana energi sebesar $313 juta—arus keluar mingguan kedua berturut-turut, pada minggu yang berakhir 26 Agustus 2026.2026-08-26Reuters via Investing.com

Cosmos Labs mengatakan kerentanan kritis pada Cosmos EVM yang dilaporkan melalui program penelusuran bug pada bulan April dinilai secara keliru tidak berdampak pada jaringan produksi. Para penyerang mengeksploitasi kerentanan tersebut di enam rantai antara 20 Agustus hingga 25 Agustus 2026.
Aktivitas tersebut mengalir sekitar $2,87 juta melalui bursa terdesentralisasi dan sekitar $2,85 juta lainnya melalui bursa terpusat, menurut laporan pasca-insiden keamanan Cosmos.
Insiden ini mengungkap adanya celah selama berbulan-bulan antara laporan awal dan rilis yang mencapai cabang-cabang terdampak tepat sebelum serangan pertama yang diketahui. Cosmos Labs mengatakan pihaknya menggunakan proses silent patch karena pengujian awal menemukan bahwa rantai produksi aman; rilis tersebut tidak menyertakan peringatan yang spesifik terkait kerentanan tersebut.

Senat California meloloskan RUU AB 2409, RUU Digital Assets: Meme Coins, dengan suara 40-0 pada 26 Agustus, dan Majelis menyetujui perubahan dari Senat dengan suara 78-0, sehingga mengirimkan rancangan itu kepada Gubernur Gavin Newsom. Pemungutan suara tersebut menempatkan usulan larangan bagi pejabat publik dan beberapa pegawai publik tertentu untuk menerbitkan koin meme sebelum gubernur setelah persetujuan bulat di kedua kamar.
AB 2409 lolos dari kamar-kamar di California
Aksi legislatif tersebut dicatat dalam riwayat resmi RUU, yang menunjukkan persetujuan Senat dan persetujuan Majelis pada hari yang sama. Setelah pemungutan suara itu, AB 2409 masuk ke tahap engrossing dan enrolling, yakni tahap pemrosesan legislatif yang tercermin dalam catatan negara bagian.

Volume transfer saham token bulanan naik lebih dari 415% dalam 30 hari terakhir menjadi $29,5 miliar, menurut data RWA.xyz yang dilaporkan oleh Cointelegraph. Pembacaan ini penting karena menandai peningkatan transfer yang jauh lebih tajam dibandingkan total nilai saham tokenisasi yang didistribusikan di onchain pada periode yang sama.
Transfer volume mencatat nilai yang bergerak melalui instrumen saham tokenisasi, sementara distributed value mengukur nilai token saham beredar yang dimiliki di onchain. Karena itu, keduanya menggambarkan bagian pasar yang berbeda: satu mengukur aktivitas selama suatu periode, dan yang lain mengukur ukuran basis aset onchain pada suatu titik waktu.

Fogo untuk sementara menghentikan mainnetnya pada 29 Agustus setelah dugaan terjadinya kompromi token, dengan mengatakan langkah tersebut dimaksudkan untuk mencegah pergerakan lebih lanjut aset yang terkait dengan aktivitas yang tidak berwenang. Pada pembaruan terbarunya, yang diposting pada pukul 16:29 UTC, jaringan tersebut mengatakan bahwa para validator akan melakukan upgrade pada rantai untuk membatasi alamat yang terkait dengan aktivitas tersebut.
Mainnet dihentikan untuk pembatasan alamat validator
Fogo mengatakan bahwa penghentian tersebut bersifat sementara dan bahwa para validator akan menerapkan peningkatan (upgrade) yang membatasi alamat yang terkait dengan aktivitas tersebut.

Angka yang melekat pada hubungan Marvell yang diperluas dengan Google adalah $120 miliar. Angka itu cukup besar untuk mengundang pembacaan yang sederhana: pemasok chip telah mengamankan blok penjualan masa depan yang luar biasa dari salah satu pihak belanja terbesar dalam infrastruktur kecerdasan buatan.
Itu bukan yang dikatakan dalam perjanjian yang telah diungkapkan. Angka tersebut adalah tingkat pendapatan yang diperlukan agar Google memperoleh sebagian besar pendapatan dari waran ekuitas dari waktu ke waktu, bukan komitmen pembelian yang dinyatakan atau angka backlog yang diungkapkan. Perbedaan ini penting karena Marvell mengatakan kontribusi yang lebih bermakna dari hubungan tersebut diperkirakan baru akan mulai pada tahun fiskal 2029.

Laporan pasca-kematian Moonwell yang bertanggal 28 Agustus menyebutkan kewajiban peminjam yang tersisa dari insiden pasar MAMO di Base sekitar $9,131 juta. Protokol tersebut menyatakan likuidasi dimulai 32 detik setelah pinjaman terakhir yang berhasil, menyusul sebuah eksploit sehari sebelumnya yang memungkinkan sekitar $11,03 juta dalam pinjaman bruto.
Moonwell menempatkan kewajiban peminjam yang tersisa sebesar $9,131 juta
Setelah insiden pasar MAMO di Base, Moonwell memperkirakan bahwa sekitar $9,131 juta kewajiban peminjam masih tersisa setelah likuidasi dimulai.