CoinRank

CoinRank is recruiting independent writers worldwide 💥

What we’re looking for:
→ Deep research & trend analysis
→ Data-driven or on-chain insights
→ Web3 / Crypto / Market narratives
→ English content (self-pitched or guided topics)

What you get:
Global exposure via CoinRank website & media network
Promotion on Twitter, Telegram & partner channels
Official CoinRank contributor identity
Featured articles & social shoutouts
Dedicated author profile with your links

If you want your writing seen by real crypto readers, this is for you.
Apply now: https://forms.gle/j2U7zait2gWQdEAo7

#CoinRank #CryptoWriters #Web3Content #WriteToEarn

WikiEXPO HK 2026 will take place on July 23–24 in Hong Kong, bringing together over 12,000 professionals, 200+ speakers, and 100+ exhibitors from more than 120 countries, making it one of the largest global fintech gatherings in Asia.

 

The event will focus on core forces reshaping global finance, including fintech and AI, cryptocurrency and digital assets, Web3 and DeFi, forex and liquidity solutions, next-generation payments, and ESG in finance.

 

Positioned in Hong Kong as a bridge between East and West, WikiEXPO HK 2026 aims to provide a neutral, high-level platform for regulators, institutions, and innovators to exchange ideas and promote responsible and sustainable financial innovation.

Hong Kong will host WikiEXPO HK 2026 on July 23–24 at the Hopewell Hotel. As a leading global fintech event, this event is expected to attract over 12,000 professionals, 200+ speakers, and 100+ exhibitors from more than 120 countries and regions.

 

This year’s expo will spotlight key innovations reshaping global finance, including:
• Fintech & Artificial Intelligence
• Cryptocurrency & Digital Assets
• Foreign Exchange & Liquidity Solutions
• Web3.0 & Decentralized Finance
• Next-Generation Payments
• ESG in Finance

 

Attendees can engage with global thought leaders, innovators, and regulators through keynote presentations, panel discussions, fireside chats, and dedicated networking sessions.

 

“Hong Kong is the ideal international financial hub to bridge East and West,” said Loki So, Chief Operating Officer of WikiEXPO. “Leveraging this unique position, we aim to convene global fintech leaders in Hong Kong through this event, offering a dynamic and neutral platform that fosters responsible innovation and sustainable growth in fintech and digital assets.”

 

How to Participate:

 

Free registration is now open: https://bit.ly/wikiexpohk_2026

 

Join the Event’s LinkedIn Group for updates and announce your attendance to your business connections: https://bit.ly/linkedin_wikiexpohk2026

 

Sponsorship & Exhibiting Opportunities:
Contact: Loki So | Email: loki@wikiexpo.com | Telegram: https://t.me/Loki_wikiexpo_coo

About WikiEXPO

 

WikiEXPO is a global hub for financial innovation, uniting visionaries and leaders in fintech, forex, and crypto industries. With a worldwide community of over two million followers, our iconic summits—held in global capitals including Dubai, Hong Kong, Cyprus, Bangkok, Singapore, Sydney, South Africa, and beyond. From cutting-edge startups to industry giants, we connect the brightest minds. After six years of rapid development, WikiEXPO has become one of the world’s largest and most influential events in the forex and crypto fields.

 

Past Speakers at WikiEXPO Global

Dominic Williams: Founder & Chief Scientist, DFINITY Foundation

Evan Auyang Chi-chun: Group President, Animoca Brands

Justin Sun: Founder – TRON, Member – HTX Global Advisory Board

Reeve Collins: Co-Founder – Tether

Joy Lam: Member of Task Force on Promoting Web3 Development – Hong Kong Government, Head of Global Regulatory & APAC Legal – Binance

Alvin Hu: Managing Director, KuCoin Exchange

Kevin Lee: CEO, Gate.HK

Mario Nawfal: CEO, IBC Group

Julian Tehan: CCO, BitMEX

Hasnae Taleb: Managing Partner, Mintiply Capital, The Shewolf of Nasdaq by Nasdaq Stock Market

Mayoon Boonyarat: Director Revenue Tax Policy Division, Ministry of Finance of Thailand

John Riggins: Partner, BTC Inc

Loretta Joseph: Policy Consultant, The Commonwealth, Chairman, ADFSAC

Brian Norman: CFO Auros, Co-Chair Web3 & Blockchain committee – FinTech Assoc HK

Bugra Celik: Director, Digital Assets | Global Private Banking & Wealth, HSBC

Simon Callaghan: CEO, Blockchain Australia

Hassan Ahmed: Country Director, Coinbase Singapore

 

We look forward to welcoming you to Hong Kong in July 2026!

〈Wiki Finance Expo Hong Kong 2026: Asia’s Largest Fintech & Web3.0 event Set for July!〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Altcoin-focused treasury companies are the first to face exit risks, while treasuries centered on major assets are also under pressure.

 

Pure asset holding models are unsustainable; yield generation and liquidity management will determine long-term survival.

 

Alignment with ETF/ETE standards, alongside stronger compliance and transparency, will be critical for the industry’s future.

Amid market corrections and intensifying competition, most digital asset treasury companies are likely to be flushed out, with survivors relying on yield management, liquidity optimization, and standardized compliance frameworks.

 

MARKET VOLATILITY SHAKES THE INDUSTRY

 

In 2025, digital asset treasury companies (DATs) expanded rapidly, offering institutional investors a convenient channel to gain exposure to digital assets. Their portfolios spanned a wide range of assets, from major cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum to Solana, XRP, and selected altcoins. This broad exposure model attracted growing attention from Wall Street participants seeking alternative asset access through equity-like structures.

 

However, market conditions deteriorated in the second half of the year. Heightened volatility and sustained price corrections across digital assets triggered sharp declines in the share prices of many DATs. As asset values fell and liquidity conditions tightened, the industry began facing a dual challenge: balance sheet revaluation and operational liquidity pressure. Investor sentiment weakened significantly, raising fundamental questions about the long-term viability of many treasury-focused companies.

 

Figure 1: BTC Holdings Distribution Across Treasury Entities

 

ALTCOIN TREASURIES FACE DISPROPORTIONATE RISK

 

Industry analyst Altan Tutar has pointed out that DATs centered on altcoins are structurally more vulnerable during market downturns. These companies typically hold assets with weaker liquidity profiles and lower institutional acceptance, making it difficult for their market capitalization to remain sustainably above net asset value (mNAV).

 

During periods of declining market confidence, such treasury structures are often the first to lose investor support, increasing the likelihood of delisting, restructuring, or outright exit. While treasuries focused on major assets such as Ethereum, Solana, or XRP benefit from deeper liquidity and broader recognition, they are not immune to sustained market stress. As the crypto market undergoes structural adjustment, portfolio construction, risk management discipline, and operational efficiency have become decisive factors in determining which firms survive and which are forced out.

 

Figure 2: Entity Type Distribution of Bitcoin Treasury Holders

 

SINGLE-ASSET STRATEGIES LOSE THEIR EDGE

 

Ryan Chow, co-founder of Solv Protocol, has emphasized that companies built solely around holding Bitcoin or a single digital asset lack long-term sustainability. In 2025, the number of listed or quasi-listed companies holding Bitcoin increased sharply. Yet the subsequent market downturn exposed a fundamental weakness: the absence of effective yield and liquidity management capabilities.

 

According to Chow, future survivors will treat digital assets not merely as passive stores of value but as capital that can generate yield and support liquidity strategies. This shift requires treasury companies to move beyond directional price exposure and build mechanisms that actively enhance capital efficiency. Without such capabilities, firms remain overly dependent on market cycles, leaving them vulnerable during prolonged downturns.

 

YIELD AND LIQUIDITY AS CORE COMPETENCIES

 

Chow further notes that DATs with stronger survival prospects tend to implement multi-layered yield management strategies. These may include staking, lending, or selective participation in DeFi protocols, combined with dynamic portfolio rebalancing to respond to changing market conditions. Equally important is liquidity optimization, which ensures sufficient flexibility to manage redemptions, rebalance positions, and navigate stressed market environments.

 

Such active management capabilities significantly enhance resilience during downturns. They also help stabilize investor expectations by shifting the narrative from pure asset appreciation to risk-adjusted return generation. In a volatile market, yield and liquidity management are no longer optional enhancements but foundational pillars of competitiveness.

Figure 3: Bitcoin Treasury Inflows & Outflows Trend (2021-2025)

 

ETE PRODUCTS EMERGE AS STRUCTURAL COMPETITORS

 

Vincent Chok, CEO of First Digital, has highlighted the growing competitive pressure from crypto ETEs (Exchange-Traded E-products). Compared with DATs, ETE structures typically offer superior price transparency, regulatory clarity, and liquidity management. These advantages make them increasingly attractive to institutional and conservative investors seeking compliant digital asset exposure.

 

Chok argues that for DATs to remain relevant, they must progressively align their governance, audit standards, and asset management practices with those of ETFs. Without such alignment, DATs risk being marginalized by regulated investment vehicles that deliver similar exposure with lower perceived risk and higher transparency.

 

INTEGRATING INTO TRADITIONAL FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

 

As the digital asset industry matures, deeper integration between DATs and traditional financial infrastructure has become a strategic necessity. Establishing robust compliance frameworks, conducting regular audits, and adopting standardized asset management processes can significantly enhance investor confidence and operational stability.

 

In practice, this requires DATs to comply with KYC and AML requirements, provide consistent and transparent disclosures, and engage third-party auditors to verify asset existence, financial integrity, and risk controls. By institutionalizing these practices, treasury companies can reduce valuation volatility and narrow the credibility gap between crypto-native firms and traditional financial products.

 

Ultimately, aligning operational standards with those of ETFs allows DATs to achieve comparable levels of governance and professionalism, positioning them as legitimate participants within the broader financial system rather than peripheral or speculative vehicles.

 

INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION AND STRATEGIC DIRECTION

 

By 2026, the DAT sector is expected to undergo significant consolidation. Market corrections, the limitations of single-asset strategies, and deficiencies in compliance and transparency will drive a large-scale shakeout. Surviving companies are likely to share several defining characteristics: a core allocation to major assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana; well-developed yield and liquidity management frameworks; and operational standards aligned with ETF or ETE benchmarks.

 

Future strategic priorities for DATs include reducing single-asset volatility, improving portfolio stability, enhancing capital efficiency through innovative yield strategies, and strengthening investor trust through transparency and governance. Firms that successfully integrate these elements will not only improve profitability and competitiveness but also contribute to the broader professionalization of the digital asset management industry.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Digital asset treasury companies are entering a decisive phase of industry restructuring, with 2026 likely to determine long-term winners and losers. Market volatility, intensifying competition, and disparities in yield and liquidity management capabilities will collectively shape survival outcomes. Companies that rely solely on passive asset holding are increasingly likely to exit the market, while survivors will differentiate themselves through diversified portfolios, active yield generation, and standardized compliance frameworks. As consolidation accelerates, the industry will become more concentrated and professionalized, with high-standard operators and major-asset-focused treasuries emerging as dominant players. This evolution signals the gradual maturation and institutionalization of digital asset treasury management as a credible segment of global financial markets.

 

Read More：

DAT (Digital Asset Treasury): The Strategic Evolution of Crypto-Native Corporations

What is Digital Asset Treasury(DAT)? 5 Must-Know Insights

〈Outlook for crypto asset treasury companies in 2026〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Prenetics Global, a nutrition supplements company backed by football star David Beckham, has announced it is scrapping its Bitcoin (BTC) reserve and accumulation strategy, shifting its focus back to its core consumer health business, IM8.
The decision comes less than three months after the company completed a $48 million funding round.
#Bitcoin #BTC #Funding

Grayscale has filed an S-1 registration statement with the U.S. SEC to convert its Bittensor Trust into an ETF.
If approved, it would become the first #TAO ETP in the United States. The trust aims to track the value of TAO and plans to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
#Grayscale #ETF #Bittensor

Alibaba and Abu Dhabi plan to invest in AI company MiniMax to support its #IPO .
#Binance suspends Visa and Mastercard withdrawals for Ukrainian users.
#DeBot announces full compensation for $250,000 in losses due to a data breach in its Japanese data center.
#WSJ: Institutional predictions of a Bitcoin surge in 2025 have not materialized.
BNB Chain releases its 2026 technology roadmap, targeting transaction speeds exceeding 20,000 TPS.
#CoinRank #GN

According to an official announcement, Unleash Protocol, deployed on @StoryProtocol, was hit today by an unauthorized contract upgrade that led to the malicious transfer of user assets.
The attacker exploited control over the protocol’s multisig governance permissions to execute the upgrade, resulting in the theft and cross-chain transfer of assets including WIP, USDC, WETH, stIP, and vIP to external addresses. The confirmed loss currently stands at approximately $3.9 million.
Unleash has suspended all operations and initiated a full investigation and audit, urging users to refrain from interacting with its contracts for now. Story Protocol itself was not affected.
#Unleash #CryptoScam

Media: Alan Tam's son, Tam Hiu-fung, works as a senior software engineer at Web3, previously responsible for the NFT game CryptoKitties.
#Grayscale : 2026 Crypto Market Focuses on US Regulatory Legislation and the Threat of Quantum Computing
#PeckShield : Solana's on-chain meme coin HNUT plummets 99%, suspected Rug Pull incident.
Justin Sun @justinsuntron deposits approximately $200 million into Lighter, some of which is used to buy LIT.
#DWF Labs: $75 million DeFi fund will support perpetual contracts and lending market infrastructure.
#CoinRank

Blockchain is the underlying technology that records data, while Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency built on top of it.

 

Cryptocurrencies are applications of Blockchain, but not all cryptocurrencies have their own blockchain.

 

Understanding the Blockchain–Bitcoin relationship is essential for navigating the crypto ecosystem correctly.

Learn the key difference between Blockchain and Bitcoin, how they relate, and why confusing the two can lead to misunderstandings about crypto and decentralized technology.

 

 

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BLOCKCHAIN AND BITCOIN

 

For newcomers to the crypto space, Blockchain and Bitcoin are often the first terms they encounter—and also the ones most frequently misunderstood. In many discussions, people talk about blockchain technology when they actually mean Bitcoin, or refer to cryptocurrencies while really pointing to Blockchain itself.

 

Although these concepts are closely related, they are not interchangeable. Confusing them early on can make it much harder to understand how the broader crypto ecosystem actually works.

 

Rather than relying on rigid definitions, it helps to look at Blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and Bitcoin through a simple and intuitive analogy.

🔍 A Simple Analogy

 

Start with something familiar: the internet.

 

▶ In the internet world:

 

Websites are a technology designed to store and share information.

 

Search engines are one of the most common and popular ways to use website technology.

 

Google is simply the most well-known and widely used search engine.

 

▶ In the crypto world:

 

Blockchain is a specialized technology for recording and verifying information, using linked data blocks.

 

Cryptocurrencies are one of the most common and successful applications built on Blockchain technology.

 

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency—and the most famous and historically significant one.

 

In other words, Blockchain is the underlying technology.

Cryptocurrencies represent an application layer built on top of that technology.

 

And Bitcoin is the first and most influential example of that application.

 

✏️ Once this hierarchy is clear, an important distinction becomes obvious:

 

Talking about Blockchain does not necessarily mean talking about Bitcoin.
But talking about Bitcoin always involves Blockchain.

 

This subtle difference is a foundational concept—and understanding it is one of the first real steps toward making sense of the crypto world.

 

>>> More to read: Blockchain Is the Foundation, Web3 Is the City

BLOCKCHAIN

 

Most Blockchain systems are designed as distributed and decentralized digital ledgers. Put simply, a Blockchain is a digital record-keeping system responsible for tracking transactions. It can be viewed as a digital version of a traditional paper ledger—except it is maintained collectively by a network rather than a single authority.

 

More specifically, a Blockchain consists of a linear chain of blocks, where each block is cryptographically linked to the previous one. These cryptographic proofs secure the data and ensure continuity across the chain. While Blockchain technology can be applied to many use cases that do not involve financial activity, within the cryptocurrency context, blocks primarily serve to permanently record confirmed transactions.

 

One of the key reasons Blockchain is extremely resistant to tampering lies in its interconnected structure. Each block depends on the cryptographic integrity of the blocks before it. To create a new block, participants in the network must perform computationally intensive and resource-heavy tasks—a process commonly known as mining.

 

Miners are responsible for validating transactions and grouping them into newly created blocks. Once a block meets the network’s rules, it is added to the Blockchain. In systems such as Bitcoin, miners also introduce new tokens into circulation as rewards for their work.

 

Each confirmed block is permanently linked to its predecessor. Once a new block is added to the Blockchain, the data it contains becomes virtually immutable. This is because altering any block would require recreating its cryptographic proof—an operation that is extremely costly and practically infeasible. This design is what gives Blockchain its high level of security and trustworthiness.

 

>>> More to read: What is Blockchain and How Does It Work?

CRYPTOCURRENCY

 

At its core, a cryptocurrency is a digital form of money used as a medium of exchange within a distributed network. Unlike traditional banking systems, cryptocurrency transactions can occur directly between participants (peer-to-peer) without relying on intermediaries. All transactions remain publicly traceable through a shared digital ledger—namely, the Blockchain.

 

The term “crypto” refers to the cryptographic techniques that secure the economic system. These technologies protect transaction integrity, support the creation of new digital assets, and ensure that transaction verification can occur reliably without centralized control.

 

Not all cryptocurrencies are mineable. However, many—especially early cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin—rely on mining to regulate the issuance of new units. This mechanism allows supply to grow gradually and predictably, helping avoid the uncontrolled inflation often seen in traditional fiat currency systems.

 

As a result, mining serves a dual purpose: it validates transactions and acts as the primary method for introducing new cryptocurrency units into circulation. This structure highlights the close—but clearly defined—relationship between Blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and Bitcoin.

 

>>> More to read: Cryptocurrency vs Virtual Currency | How to Distinguish Them?

BITCOIN

 

Bitcoin is not only the world’s first cryptocurrency, but also the most well-known digital asset in the market. It was created in 2009 by an individual or group operating under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. The core idea behind Bitcoin was to build an independent, decentralized electronic payment system based entirely on cryptographic proof rather than trust in centralized institutions.

 

Although Bitcoin is the most famous example, it is far from the only cryptocurrency in existence. Today’s market includes thousands of cryptocurrencies, each with its own design choices, mechanisms, and use cases. Importantly, not all cryptocurrencies operate on their own Blockchain. Some are issued on top of existing Blockchain networks, while others are built from the ground up with independent infrastructures.

 

Like most cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin has a fixed supply. This means that once its maximum issuance is reached, no new coins will be created by the system. In the case of Bitcoin, the total supply is capped at 21 million coins. For most cryptocurrencies, this supply structure is defined and disclosed at launch, providing transparency around long-term issuance.

 

Because the Bitcoin protocol is open-source, anyone can review, audit, or copy its code. Developers from around the world have contributed to its ongoing development over time, reinforcing both the resilience of the network and the broader Blockchain ecosystem that Bitcoin helped pioneer.

 

>>> More to read: What is Bitcoin: A Comprehensive Overview

 

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈What’s the Difference Between Blockchain and Bitcoin?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Volatility is rotating away from crypto toward metals.

Bitcoin remains stuck in a low volatility holding pattern as year end liquidity fades, while silver volatility has surged on physical supply tightness, export restrictions from China, and accelerating industrial demand.

 

Crypto valuation debates are shifting from price to structure.

The split over Lighter’s LIT token FDV highlights growing skepticism around headline valuations, especially for low float launches, even as on chain activity points to strong underlying usage.

 

Institutions are maturing their crypto risk management playbook.

From Metaplanet’s continued bitcoin accumulation with yield generation strategies to the rapid adoption of options across altcoins, institutional behavior is increasingly focused on balance sheet efficiency and volatility control rather than directional bets.

Welcome to CoinRank Daily Data Report. In this column series, CoinRank will provide important daily cryptocurrency data news, allowing readers to quickly understand the latest developments in the cryptocurrency market.

Silver volatility overtakes bitcoin as year-end liquidity thins

 

Silver and bitcoin are sending sharply different signals into year-end trading. Bitcoin’s 30-day realized volatility has compressed into the mid-40s, reflecting a market stuck in a low-conviction, range-bound holding pattern. Traders point to fading spot ETF demand, mechanical positioning resets after October’s crash, and holiday-thinned liquidity as key factors suppressing directional moves.

 

Silver, by contrast, has seen realized volatility surge into the mid-50s, driven by a sharp price rally and mounting physical supply stress. Prices are up more than 150% this year as demand from green technologies accelerates, while China’s planned silver export licensing from January 2026 has tightened supply expectations. Physical premiums in Shanghai and Dubai have widened, and London’s forward curve has flipped into backwardation, signaling near-term scarcity despite limited stress in futures markets.

 

Traders split on whether Lighter’s LIT clears a $3 billion FDV after launch

 

Lighter’s LIT token has yet to begin open trading, but its valuation has already become a focal point for traders following this week’s airdrop. Premarket prices around $3.20 imply a fully diluted valuation above $3 billion, though market confidence remains divided.

 

Prediction markets show roughly even odds that LIT exceeds a $3 billion FDV shortly after launch, while expectations for $4 billion or $6 billion outcomes have faded since October’s market crash. The debate reflects broader skepticism around FDV as a signal of real demand, particularly for low-float launches where most tokens remain locked. Despite valuation uncertainty, on-chain data shows Lighter averaging roughly $2.7 billion in daily perpetuals volume, placing it among the most active derivatives venues.

 

Metaplanet adds 4,279 bitcoin as treasury strategy accelerates

 

Tokyo-listed Metaplanet purchased an additional 4,279 bitcoin in the fourth quarter for approximately $451 million, lifting its total holdings to 35,102 BTC. The acquisition reinforces the firm’s long-term bitcoin treasury strategy, with a stated target of accumulating 210,000 BTC by the end of 2027.

 

The company has now spent about $3.78 billion on bitcoin at an average purchase price above $107,000. While Metaplanet’s shares ended the year up roughly 8%, they remain well below prior highs. Alongside accumulation, the firm operates a bitcoin income generation business using derivatives, which is expected to generate around $55 million in annual revenue, highlighting a dual focus on long-term exposure and yield optimization.

 

Institutions extend bitcoin options playbook to altcoins

 

Institutional investors are increasingly applying bitcoin-style options strategies to altcoins, according to digital asset derivatives firm STS Digital. Demand is being driven by token foundations, venture capital firms, and large holders seeking to manage volatility and enhance returns ahead of liquidity events.

 

Covered calls, put selling for yield, downside hedging, and selective call buying are now being deployed across a growing range of alternative tokens. The October market crash, which triggered widespread auto-deleveraging, has further accelerated the shift toward options as a preferred risk-management tool. STS Digital reports rising bilateral altcoin options volumes, signaling deeper institutional participation beyond the major derivatives markets.

 

Read More:

Dawn Internet and the Practical Limits of Decentralized Broadband

Lighter and the Moment When Onchain Derivatives Begin to Demand Institutional Trust

〈CoinRank Daily Data Report (12/30)｜Risk Repricing Accelerates as Volatility Shifts From Crypto to Precious Metals〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

High-ownership countries often treat cryptocurrencies as functional financial tools rather than pure investments

 

Ownership in developed markets is limited, but the use of crypto is more institutionalized

 

User scale and capital influence are separated, forming a long-term global market pattern

In 2025, cryptocurrency ownership among residents varies significantly across countries, reflecting differences in financial systems, monetary environments, and cross-border capital flows.

 

FINANCIAL FUNCTION IN HIGH-OWNERSHIP COUNTRIES

 

According to 2025 data, the UAE leads globally with a 31% ownership rate, followed by Turkey and Singapore at 25.6% and 24.4%, respectively, while Vietnam and Brazil hover around 20%. On the surface, this appears as a simple ranking, but it reflects differences in financial systems and resident demand across countries. Evaluating market maturity purely by numbers is insufficient to explain the sustained increase in crypto penetration. More importantly, cryptocurrencies serve different functions in distinct financial environments.

 

In the UAE, cryptocurrencies are not only investment assets but are also used for cross-border settlements, wealth allocation, and cash flow management, complementing residents’ daily financial systems. This use indicates that residents integrate crypto into overall wealth management, and their role is more proactive and institutionalized rather than speculative. Compared with emerging markets, this high ownership does not rely on high inflation but results from a combination of institutional framework, population structure, and cross-border demand. Therefore, high ownership in this context is closer to an expansion of financial function rather than an increase in risk appetite.

 

Figure 1: 2025 Global Crypto Ownership Rate by Country (Including Top 10 Adopters Ranking)

 

HIGH PENETRATION IN EMERGING MARKETS

 

Turkey (25.6%) and Vietnam (21.2%) also show high crypto ownership rates, but the underlying drivers differ from the UAE. Residents in these countries rely more on cryptocurrencies to cope with local currency volatility and financial system frictions. Crypto serves as a store of value, an alternative dollar channel, and a supplement for financial accessibility, addressing gaps left by existing financial systems.

 

In environments with unstable inflation expectations, capital controls, or limited financial service coverage, cryptocurrencies often provide a practical alternative. Adoption in these countries is functional rather than speculative. High ownership reflects how residents respond to financial system gaps rather than market enthusiasm or trends. From cross-border payments to asset preservation, cryptocurrencies have established a real financial role, promoting actual usage and transactions. This also makes user growth in these markets more sustainable rather than cyclical.

 

UAE: THE RESULT OF INSTITUTIONAL AMPLIFICATION

 

The UAE’s high ownership is the result of an overlap between institutional environment and population structure. On one hand, the government provides clear compliance pathways, reducing legal and operational risks of using crypto; on the other, a high proportion of expatriates generates ongoing cross-border asset management demand, and high-net-worth individuals include crypto in wealth allocation.

 

Regulatory certainty here is not a constraint but a critical prerequisite for incorporating cryptocurrencies into mainstream financial activity. This overlap effect leads UAE residents to use crypto actively and systematically. Unlike high-inflation countries where demand is defensive, crypto has become part of everyday finance and wealth management in the UAE, with functionality far exceeding mere speculation. From this perspective, the UAE’s high ownership resembles an amplification of institutional support rather than the outcome of a single economic variable.

 

THE LOW-OWNERSHIP PARADOX IN DEVELOPED MARKETS

 

Ownership rates in the US (~15.5%) and Japan (~5%) are relatively low, but this does not indicate limited influence of cryptocurrencies. In these countries, crypto is mainly used through ETFs, regulated custody, and derivatives, serving more as a structural supplement to the financial system.

 

Low direct ownership reflects changes in access rather than lack of demand. In mature financial systems, residents do not need to hold crypto directly to hedge risks, yet concentrated capital and institutional channels ensure these markets still hold decisive influence over global crypto pricing and product design. Cryptocurrencies are embedded in complex financial instruments and capital structures, amplifying their indirect global market impact.

 

MARGINAL SPACE IN EAST ASIA

 

Ownership in markets like Germany and Hong Kong is moderate or low. With well-developed banking and payment infrastructures, residents have limited direct demand for crypto. Here, crypto is mainly used as a risk-controlled investment vehicle rather than a widely functional tool.

 

Low penetration does not indicate indifference but reflects differences in functional roles across financial systems. In highly developed financial environments, crypto serves more of a supplementary and institutionalized function rather than a core financial tool. Once institutionalized products expand further, influence in these markets may shift more toward capital flows rather than user numbers.

 

SEPARATION OF USERS AND CAPITAL POWER

 

High-ownership countries contribute large numbers of users, while pricing power, product design, and institutional influence remain concentrated in developed economies. This structure separates breadth of usage from market influence.

 

Emerging markets drive actual adoption and transaction activity, whereas developed markets dominate pricing, product design, and regulatory frameworks. The divergence between ownership and influence illustrates a long-term segmented global crypto market, indicating that market impact is not simply correlated with user numbers. This separation suggests that future market evolution will revolve more around institutions, capital, and product structures rather than mere user growth.

 

THE STRUCTURE BEHIND OWNERSHIP RANKINGS

 

Overall, differences in crypto ownership in 2025 not only reflect market enthusiasm but also highlight variations in financial systems, monetary credibility, and cross-border capital flows. Cryptocurrencies play different roles in different countries: in some, they are tools for cross-border transactions and value storage; in others, they function as institutional allocation assets; in highly mature financial systems, they serve more as supplementary instruments. It is precisely through these role differences that ownership figures acquire meaning beyond mere adoption.

 

When cryptocurrencies are used for cross-border settlements and value preservation, high ownership often corresponds to long-term real financial demand. When they appear as allocation assets, ownership levels are influenced more by institutions, compliance, and investment channel structures. In highly mature financial systems, lower resident ownership does not imply limited influence but reflects integration through more implicit mechanisms. This pattern shows that ownership rankings are more than statistics; they mirror the differentiated global crypto ecosystem and financial environment. Countries are not following a uniform adoption path but are finding the most appropriate role for crypto within their financial structures. This differentiation is not a short-term phenomenon but likely forms the foundation for a long-term, multi-tiered global crypto market.

 

Read More：

The Fusion Revolution of Main Street and Wall Street: Triple Resonance of Cryptocurrency Mainstreaming

〈2025 Cryptocurrency Ownership Rates by Country: UAE Tops at 31%〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

On-chain state rollbacks can technically restore ledger consistency, but their scope is inherently limited relative to cross-chain bridges and centralized exchange systems.

 

During the emergency response, key ecosystem participants had varying levels of access to information and participation in decision-making, increasing uncertainty in risk management.

 

The incident exposed structural tensions between security response, transaction finality, and real-world settlement systems on financialized blockchains.

The Flow execution-layer vulnerability and the resulting emergency response highlighted the challenges of state consistency and governance coordination in a financialized, multi-chain blockchain environment.

 

A NON-ISOLATED SECURITY SHOCK

 

On the evening of December 27, 2025, the Flow network experienced a security incident, attracting wide attention from the market and ecosystem. On-chain monitoring indicated abnormal asset creation and transfers, while FLOW token prices fell more than 30% in a short time. Several centralized exchanges immediately suspended Flow deposits and withdrawals. Flow later confirmed the incident originated from an execution-layer vulnerability, with attackers transferring approximately $3.9 million in value before validators could coordinate a shutdown.

 

Although official statements emphasized that user balances were not directly altered, the creation and transfer of illicit assets disrupted ledger integrity and impacted network trust. As an initial emergency measure, Flow’s core development team and validators temporarily halted operations to prevent further risk, while evaluating multiple recovery paths, including chain state rollback and alternative remediation approaches.

 

WHAT ROLLBACK MEANS TECHNICALLY

 

In the blockchain context, a rollback does not “edit” already packaged blocks; it is a consensus-level re-selection of history, where validators collectively discard a portion of existing chain history to confirm a new, considered-legitimate state branch. Technically, this allows resetting account balances, contract states, NFT ownership, and token issuance/burn records, restoring the ledger to a checkpoint prior to the attack.

 

It is important to note that the rollback effect is strictly confined to the on-chain environment. It restores ledger state but does not reverse already executed external economic actions. While this may have limited impact in less financialized networks, its boundary issues are pronounced in multi-chain and centralized infrastructure-coupled environments.

 

ON-CHAIN RECOVERY VS OFF-CHAIN SYSTEMS

 

The core constraint of rollback lies in the irreversibility of off-chain systems relative to on-chain state. Cross-chain bridge mint/burn operations, exchange deposit records, and user-settled transactions cannot be reversed simply by rolling back chain history.

 

Therefore, even if a rollback can “clean” the attack trace on-chain, the economic reality captured by off-chain systems remains. This mismatch is structural in multi-chain financial ecosystems, as on-chain ledgers and real-world settlement systems do not share a revertible timeline.

 

Figure 1: Illustration of on-chain rollback versus off-chain system state mismatch

 

CROSS-CHAIN BRIDGE WARNING

 

Discussions surrounding rollback quickly extended from technical to governance considerations. Alex Smirnov, co-founder of deBridge, a major cross-chain bridge in the Flow ecosystem, publicly noted that executing a rollback without sufficient ecosystem coordination could generate systemic economic losses potentially greater than the original attack.

 

The caution does not reject rollback as a technical tool, but highlights its externalities in a financialized ecosystem: bridges, custodians, and counterparties acting normally during the affected window could have their operations retrospectively invalidated, creating prolonged reconciliation and responsibility issues. This shifts the discussion from technical feasibility to system-wide capacity.

 

TIMELINE FROM ATTACK TO RESPONSE

 

The event can be divided into four key stages: first, the attack occurred on the evening of December 27, with abnormal transactions detected, FLOW prices sharply dropping, and exchanges triggering risk controls; second, in the early hours of December 28, Flow confirmed the vulnerability and disclosed the losses, entering a network shutdown; third, in the morning of December 28, patch deployment completed and multiple recovery paths were evaluated; fourth, the mainnet resumed block production gradually, while general transactions and ecosystem synchronization remained restricted.

 

This sequence shows that emergency decisions were made under compressed time constraints, while ecosystem-wide coordination could not be fully implemented, setting the stage for subsequent disputes.

 

Figure 2: FLOW token price fluctuations and market reaction during the security incident

 

ROLLBACK CONSTRAINTS, NOT CONCLUSIONS

 

From a research perspective, the rollback in this incident functions more as a system stress test than a final answer. It reveals not a single decision’s correctness, but a set of real-world constraints in financialized, multi-chain blockchains: cross-system state consistency is hard to enforce, emergency governance boundaries are unclear, and externalities cannot be fully internalized.

 

Within these constraints, Flow later announced an isolation-based recovery approach for the current phase, limiting the impact of abnormal states and avoiding full historical re-selection, reducing the risk of on-chain and off-chain state mismatches. This path should be interpreted as a stage-specific arrangement under particular conditions rather than a rejection or replacement of rollback itself.

 

GOVERNANCE EXPOSED BEYOND TECHNICAL REPAIR

 

The incident also revealed a critical governance layer issue. Cross-chain bridges, exchanges, and custodians bear direct economic and operational risks, but had limited access and participation in early risk assessment and decision-making. This structural asymmetry amplified uncertainties in any emergency response path.

 

Market reactions confirm this pattern. After the initial drop, FLOW experienced technical rebounds, but overall risk premiums increased significantly, reflecting investor sensitivity to governance capacity and emergency mechanism stability.

 

SHOULD ROLLBACK BE INSTITUTIONALIZED?

 

The research value of the Flow incident lies not in judging a particular recovery option, but in clarifying a fundamental question: in financialized, highly interconnected environments, should rollback remain a purely technical choice or be embedded within a clear institutional governance framework?

 

Defining triggers, ecosystem coordination processes, and accountability boundaries may be more important than the single emergency operation itself. In most cases, isolating abnormal states, freezing attack paths, and applying on-chain remedial measures may better align with financial systems’ need for certainty.

 

A GOVERNANCE CASE STILL EVOLVING

 

As Flow continues to disclose subsequent approaches, the event remains ongoing, entering a stage for sustained observation and study. It does not present a simple technical judgment, but reflects the dynamic adjustments of a financialized blockchain in balancing risk exposure, emergency response, and governance coordination.

 

From a research standpoint, the Flow rollback event constitutes an evolving governance case, providing a repeatable reference for understanding emergency mechanisms in future public blockchains under high-complexity conditions.

 

Read More：

Bitcoin Spot ETFs See Seventh Straight Day of Outflows

〈Flow blockchain rollback event: emergency response or systemic risk amplifier?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

#RWA protocol's TVL has surpassed DEX to become the fifth largest #DeFi category.
As the probability of Democrats winning seats in the US House of Representatives increases, Waters criticizes the SEC chairman's crypto policies.
A South Korean ruling party lawmaker is accused of "suppressing Upbit and securing a job at Bithumb for his son."
The South Korean government may postpone the submission of the "Digital Asset Basic Law" until next year, proposing to include provisions such as no-fault compensation.
#ZachXBT : A Canadian hacker impersonated Coinbase customer service and stole over $2 million in one year.

#CoinRank #GM

Dragonfly managing partner Haseeb Qureshi predicts that by 2026, a major tech company will integrate or acquire a crypto wallet, while more Fortune 100 firms—especially in banking and fintech—will build proprietary blockchains using existing crypto stacks.

 

He is skeptical of fintech-led public blockchains such as Tempo and Robinhood Chain, arguing they will fail to attract meaningful users or activity and will be unable to challenge the dominance of Ethereum and Solana.

 

Qureshi expects Bitcoin to exceed $150,000 by the end of 2026 amid a growing stablecoin market and strong growth in prediction markets, while remaining bearish on most AI–crypto use cases beyond security.

Haseeb Qureshi, Managing Partner at crypto venture capital firm Dragonfly, predicts that by 2026 a major technology company will integrate a crypto wallet, while more Fortune 100 companies will begin building their own blockchains. He also argues that blockchains launched by financial technology (fintech) companies—such as Tempo and Robinhood Chain—will ultimately fail due to their inability to attract sufficient users.

 

LARGE ENTERPRISES BUILD PROPRIETARY BLOCKCHAINS; BIG TECH INTEGRATES CRYPTO WALLETS

 

In a post on X on Monday, Haseeb Qureshi stated that the next wave of Fortune 100 adoption is likely to come primarily from banks and the fintech sector. Many of these companies are expected to leverage Avalanche, as well as existing crypto technology stacks such as OP Stack, Orbit, and ZK Stack, to build their own networks. This architecture allows enterprise blockchains to remain connected to public chains while offering higher levels of privacy and permissioned access.

 

In fact, several Fortune 100 companies in financial services—including JPMorgan, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and IBM—have already built private blockchains. However, most of these initiatives remain in pilot stages or are limited to narrow use cases.

 

Earlier this month, crypto investment firm Galaxy Digital also noted in its 2026 outlook that at least one Fortune 500 bank, cloud service provider, or e-commerce platform is expected to launch a Layer 1 blockchain in 2026. This chain is projected to settle more than $1 billion in real-economy activity and establish bridges into decentralized finance (DeFi).

 

Haseeb Qureshi further believes that one of the major technology companies dominating today’s internet ecosystem—such as Google, Meta, or Apple—will either launch or acquire a crypto wallet in 2026, a move that could potentially onboard billions of users into the crypto space.

 

FINTECH BLOCKCHAINS UNLIKELY TO CHALLENGE ETHEREUM

 

However, Qureshi is skeptical about new public blockchains built by fintech companies. He argues that these chains will struggle to attract enough users or generate sufficient network activity to challenge the dominance of native crypto networks such as Ethereum and Solana. He stated:

 

“Despite the recent excitement around fintech blockchains, their key metrics will disappoint. Daily active addresses, stablecoin flows, and real-world asset (RWA) activity—including on Tempo, Arc, and Robinhood Chain—will all fall short of expectations, while Ethereum and Solana will outperform market expectations.”

 

He added that the best developers will continue to choose neutral, infrastructure-focused public blockchains for building applications.

 

BITCOIN TO REACH $150,000, BUT MARKET DOMINANCE TO DECLINE

 

On price outlooks, Qureshi expects Bitcoin to exceed $150,000 by the end of 2026, while also predicting a decline in Bitcoin’s market dominance.

 

By contrast, Galaxy Digital offered a much more cautious view, stating that the market in 2026 will be “too chaotic” to make clear forecasts, and suggesting that Bitcoin could trade within a very wide range of $50,000 to $250,000.

 

At the same time, Qureshi predicts that the stablecoin market—currently valued at approximately $312 billion—will grow by 60% by 2026, while market leader Tether (USDT) will see its market share decline from 60% to 55%.

 

BULLISH ON PREDICTION MARKETS, SKEPTICAL ON AI–CRYPTO INTEGRATION

 

Qureshi believes that prediction markets will continue to experience explosive growth next year. However, he remains pessimistic about most applications of AI in crypto beyond cybersecurity, arguing that meaningful real-world use cases remain elusive.

 

He noted: “By 2026, AI agents still won’t be ‘paying each other,’ nor will they be spending any meaningful amounts of money.” He also predicts that, before 2026, social platforms will still lack effective solutions to curb the proliferation of spam bots.

 

Read More：

The 2nd Fintech Week 2026 Heads to Dubai — Uniting Global Financial Innovation Leaders

Exploring Fintech Growth in Thailand: Innovations and Impact

〈Dragonfly Partner’s 2026 Predictions: Fintech Blockchains Will See Little Adoption, Big Tech to Integrate Crypto Wallets〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

U.S. Bitcoin spot ETFs logged approximately $19.29 million in net outflows in a single day, extending their net-outflow streak to seven consecutive sessions, with only Fidelity’s FBTC posting inflows and Invesco’s BTCO leading outflows.

 

U.S. Ethereum spot ETFs recorded $9.63 million in net outflows, driven mainly by BlackRock’s ETHA, while Fidelity’s FETH was the sole product to attract new capital.

 

In contrast to BTC and ETH ETFs, several altcoin spot ETFs—including Solana, XRP, and LINK—registered net inflows, while DOGE, LTC, and HBAR products saw flat fund flows.

U.S. crypto ETFs continued to face sustained selling pressure, with Bitcoin spot ETFs recording seven consecutive days of net outflows while Ethereum ETFs also posted net withdrawals, even as selective altcoin products saw modest inflows.

According to data from SoSoValue, U.S. Bitcoin spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs) recorded approximately $19.29 million in net outflows on Monday, marking the seventh consecutive day of net outflows. Over the past ten trading days, these ETFs posted net inflows on only one day.

 

Among the 12 Bitcoin spot ETFs, only Fidelity’s FBTC recorded net inflows yesterday, totaling approximately $5.7 million. The largest net outflow came from Invesco’s BTCO, which saw outflows of $10.41 million.

 

Daily fund flows of U.S. Bitcoin spot ETFs

 

U.S. Ethereum spot ETFs recorded net outflows of $9.63 million yesterday, primarily driven by BlackRock’s ETHA, which saw outflows of $13.28 million. The only ETF with net inflows was Fidelity’s FETH, totaling $3.65 million. The remaining seven ETFs recorded zero net flows.

 

Daily fund flows of U.S. Ethereum spot ETFs

 

In other altcoin fund products, eight Solana spot ETFs recorded combined net inflows of $2.93 million; five XRP spot ETFs posted total net inflows of $8.44 million; and Grayscale’s LINK spot ETF recorded approximately $544,000 in net inflows. Two Dogecoin (DOGE) spot ETFs, as well as Canary’s Litecoin (LTC) ETF and HBAR ETF, all recorded zero net flows.

 

Read More：

Bitcoin ETF: From Institutional Trials to Long-Term Allocation

Bitcoin ETFs Look Less Powerful — Because the Market Is Changing

〈Bitcoin Spot ETFs See Seventh Straight Day of Outflows〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

According to an official announcement, #Bitmine is currently working with three staking service providers and plans to launch its commercial #MAVAN (Made in America Validator Network) in 2026.
As of Dec 28, 2025, Bitmine has staked a total of 408,627 ETH, valued at approximately $1.2 billion. BitMine Chairman Tom Lee (@fundstrat) прогнозed that once all of Bitmine’s ETH is staked through MAVAN and its partner staking providers, annual ETH staking fees could reach $374 million.

DAWN Internet explores decentralization at the access layer, not the application layer.

Unlike most Web3 infrastructure projects that focus on data, routing, or incentives, DAWN directly targets broadband access and the last mile. This positions it closer to real infrastructure experimentation than to purely digital DePIN models.

 

Operational grounding strengthens credibility but constrains growth.

DAWN’s origin from a functioning ISP provides real world insight into deployment, service quality, and user expectations. At the same time, reliance on hardware installation and physical conditions limits scalability and makes expansion inherently slower and more uneven.

 

Long term viability depends on demand, regulation, and execution rather than token dynamics.

The protocol’s design emphasizes service verification and revenue settlement over speculative incentives. Whether this model can persist will depend on sustained user demand, regulatory treatment of decentralized access providers, and disciplined network rollout.

WHY THE BROADBAND ACCESS LAYER HAS BARELY CHANGED

 

For decades, innovation in the internet economy has concentrated at the application and service layers. Social platforms, cloud computing, fintech, and digital content have all evolved rapidly. In contrast, the broadband access layer has remained structurally rigid. In most regions, users depend on a small number of incumbent internet service providers. Prices are relatively inelastic, switching costs are high, and service quality improves slowly.

 

This outcome is not accidental. Broadband infrastructure is capital intensive, heavily regulated, and tightly linked to geography. Building the last mile requires long term investment in physical assets, local permits, and continuous maintenance. These characteristics naturally favor consolidation and discourage new entrants. Over time, access networks became stable, defensible businesses rather than competitive markets.

 

Against this backdrop, decentralized physical infrastructure networks attempt to introduce a different coordination model. Instead of centralized ownership and balance sheet driven expansion, they rely on distributed contributors and protocol level incentives. DAWN Internet applies this idea directly to broadband access itself, rather than to adjacent layers such as data routing or coverage analytics.

 

A PROTOCOL EMERGING FROM A REAL ISP CONTEXT

 

Unlike many blockchain infrastructure projects that start with abstract protocol designs, DAWN originates from an operating business. Its foundation lies in Andrena, a wireless internet service provider serving residential and multi unit buildings across several US states.

 

This background shapes DAWN’s approach. Instead of assuming ideal conditions, the project reflects real operational constraints. Installation complexity, customer expectations, uptime requirements, and service disputes are already familiar problems for the team. DAWN’s goal is to reorganize these functions into a protocol coordinated system where individuals deploy hardware, while verification and settlement are handled collectively.

This brownfield path provides credibility. It reduces the gap between theory and practice. At the same time, it limits growth speed. Expansion is governed by physical deployment and local coordination rather than pure software adoption.

 

VERIFYING SERVICE QUALITY IN A DECENTRALIZED SETTING

 

A central challenge for decentralized physical networks is verification. In digital systems, computation can be verified deterministically. In physical services, claims must be measured in the real world. For broadband, this means confirming that a node actually delivers usable bandwidth with acceptable latency and stability.

 

DAWN addresses this through Proof of Backhaul. Instead of trusting self reported metrics, the protocol conducts active traffic tests. Nodes are challenged with real data flows, and performance is measured across throughput, latency, and packet consistency. These results directly influence reward allocation.

 

This mechanism aligns incentives with service quality rather than mere participation. It also increases complexity. Active testing requires coordination, synchronization, and resistance to manipulation. DAWN accepts this tradeoff because its target is not symbolic network growth, but the ability to support paying users.

 

HARDWARE DEPENDENCE AND NETWORK EXPANSION DYNAMICS

 

DAWN relies on dedicated hardware that functions as both an access device and a verification capable node. Deployment often requires fixed installation locations and, in some cases, rooftop placement with clear line of sight. High frequency wireless links offer high capacity, but they are sensitive to environmental conditions and physical obstructions.

 

This hardware dependence differentiates DAWN from software based models that scale through simple downloads. Each node represents capital investment, installation effort, and ongoing maintenance. As a result, expansion is incremental. Manufacturing capacity, logistics, installer availability, and local geography all shape growth.

 

At the same time, this structure enables higher per node capacity and clearer accountability. Nodes that invest more resources may deliver greater service value. Over time, network performance may vary significantly by region, reflecting differences in density, demand, and coordination.

 

ECONOMIC MODEL AND THE ROLE OF THE TOKEN

 

DAWN’s economic design centers on service provision. Users pay for connectivity. The protocol distributes revenue to nodes based on verified contribution. Token staking and penalties are used to discourage misreporting and underperformance.

 

Within this framework, the token acts primarily as a settlement and coordination layer. It supports accounting, aligns incentives, and enables governance. It is not positioned as the primary demand driver. This distinguishes DAWN from models that rely on emissions to generate participation.

 

Long term sustainability depends on whether user payments can eventually exceed incentive subsidies. If demand remains weak, rewards may distort behavior. If demand strengthens, the token becomes infrastructural rather than promotional.

 

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT AND STRUCTURAL UNCERTAINTY

 

Broadband access is a regulated activity. Rules around spectrum usage, consumer protection, reporting, and service obligations vary across jurisdictions. For decentralized models, a key uncertainty is how regulators classify individual node operators. If each participant is treated as an independent service provider, compliance burdens could become prohibitive.

 

DAWN’s expansion therefore doubles as a regulatory experiment. International pilots are not only market tests but also probes into policy flexibility. Different regions may offer varying degrees of accommodation, shaping where decentralized broadband can realistically operate.

Outcomes are unlikely to be uniform. Instead, adoption may follow a patchwork pattern, concentrating where infrastructure gaps and regulatory openness align.

 

ASSESSING THE BROADER SIGNIFICANCE

 

From a neutral perspective, DAWN represents a structured attempt to apply decentralized coordination to one of the most entrenched layers of internet infrastructure. Its strengths include operational grounding, a focus on measurable service quality, and an economic model oriented toward real usage. Its constraints are equally clear, including hardware dependence, slower expansion dynamics, and unresolved regulatory questions.

 

DAWN does not aim to rapidly replace incumbent ISPs. It explores whether alternative ownership and coordination models can coexist with traditional infrastructure under specific conditions. If successful, it would demonstrate that decentralized systems can extend beyond purely digital domains. If not, it will still clarify the practical limits of decentralization.

 

In this sense, DAWN is less a speculative narrative and more a long term test. Its outcome will depend on execution discipline, demand formation, and regulatory accommodation rather than market sentiment alone.

〈Dawn Internet and the Practical Limits of Decentralized Broadband〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。