Japan’s central bank is in focus this week as its next interest-rate meeting comes amid new 40-year yen lows against the US dollar.

Key points: 

• The Japanese yen is approaching new 40-year lows against the US dollar, nearly beating its latest record from last week.
• The Bank of Japan will decide on interest-rate changes on July 31, with rates already at 1%, their highest since September 1995.
• Analysts have been warning that the yen carry trade could unwind again, repeating a major crypto headwind from 2024.

Dollar-yen seeks to reclaim 40-year record

Data from TradingView showed USD/JPY approaching 164 on Tuesday, just a fraction below new 40-year highs seen last week.

USD/JPY 12-month chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

The yen’s status as a funding currency is making BoJ monetary policy have an outsized influence on global markets. Japan’s currency markets are characterized by minimal capital controls and unmatched liquidity among non-dollar currencies. 

Japan’s persistent current account and trade surpluses in earlier decades along with systemically low interest rates have made JPY the most important global funding currency. However, since Japanese inflation picked up in 2022, this has created the risk of carry trade unwinds accompanied by a liquidity crunch. 

On Thursday and Friday, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) will decide on whether to adjust its benchmark rate, which at 1.0% is currently at its highest since 1995.

Markets expect rates to stay the same, with market-implied probabilities of a rate hold at 98%, given that policymakers enacted their latest raise in June. Prediction service Polymarket puts the odds of no change at 99% as of Tuesday.

At the time, however, the BoJ suggested that fresh hikes would come later. In a summary from the June meeting, it referenced inflationary trends in the form of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), coupled with historically low rates in place for the past three decades, as grounds for the change.

“As for the future conduct of monetary policy, given that underlying CPI inflation has been approaching 2% and financial conditions have been accommodative, it is appropriate for the Bank to continue to raise the policy interest rate and adjust the degree of monetary accommodation, in response to developments in economic activity and prices as well as financial conditions,” BoJ said.

Since then, a concurrent headwind, the weakening of the yen, has gathered pace, staying above the key 160 level against the dollar despite a dip following the June rate hike.

The BoJ previously noted the potential for a weaker yen to weigh on CPI growth, constricting consumer spending power.

“Attention should also be paid to the point that, with firms’ behavior shifting more toward raising wages and prices recently, exchange rate developments are, compared to the past, more likely to affect prices, and that such moves could affect underlying CPI inflation through changes in inflation expectations,” its Outlook for Economic And Prices document, issued after its April meeting, read.

Yen carry trade unwind risks global spread

For crypto traders, developments in the yen are of key importance.  The yen carry trade, which can act as a liquidity source for crypto markets, is heavily influenced by BoJ moves to stabilize the yen’s exchange rate against the dollar. As Cointelegraph reported, interventions in August 2024 sparked a snap “unwinding” of the carry trade, with an immediate detrimental impact on Bitcoin and altcoins.

Related: Rate path still divides investors: Five things to know in Bitcoin this week

Now, with USD/JPY building on new 40-year highs, concerns of a repeat are growing.

“That trade only works if two conditions remain intact. Japanese interest rates remain exceptionally low. The yen remains broadly stable or continues depreciating,” analyst Ricky Ho wrote in his latest X commentary on Monday.

In 2023 a group of developers forked the XRP Ledger because its validators would not adopt smart contracts. Three years later the parent chain is shipping its own programmability layer, and the drafted specification names the fork’s technology as an inspiration. Here is what actually happened, what it means for XAH, and why three competing architectures now answer the same question.

Forks in crypto usually happen over money or ideology. This one happened over a feature. In 2023, after years in which the XRP Ledger’s validators declined to adopt Hooks, a lightweight smart-contract system that would let small pieces of code live on accounts and govern the transactions those accounts send and receive, the developers behind it stopped waiting. They took the ledger’s open-source rippled codebase, added Hooks, launched a network called Xahau with its own token and its own validators, and shipped the capability the parent chain would not. Ripple’s chief technology officer publicly supported the move at the time, saying he could not think of a better path forward for the technology. Three years later the parent chain is building programmability after all. XLS-100d, a WebAssembly-based Smart Escrows amendment, is among the known amendments with a devnet running, and XLS-101d, a drafted specification for general smart contracts, explicitly names both Hooks and the Ethereum Virtual Machine among its influences. This piece examines what that convergence actually means: for the ledger that spent years refusing, for the fork that stopped waiting, and for an ecosystem that now has three separate answers to the question of how a payments chain becomes programmable.

What Xahau took, and what it built

Understanding the fork requires understanding what it kept, because Xahau is not a departure from the XRP Ledger’s design so much as an addition to it.

The network preserved the core: the consensus protocol, the native decentralized exchange, and the fee-and-reserve logic that protects the ledger against spam by charging and burning fees in the native token. What it added was Hooks, small pieces of code installed on an account that impose rules on transactions before those transactions execute, enabling functions such as time locks on transfers, social-recovery arrangements for accounts, and self-custodial direct debits. The design philosophy is deliberately narrow. Hooks were never intended to replicate a general-purpose virtual machine; they are lightweight logic reacting to ledger events, executing fast enough to preserve settlement speed and cheap enough to suit a payments chain.

Two further design choices distinguish it. Xahau substituted a simpler token standard for the parent’s NFT implementation, and it built a governance system in which the genesis account itself is controlled by a hook that regulates matters including the emission of new XAH, administered through a two-tiered arrangement with up to twenty independently owned validators as participants. Governance by smart contract, on a chain whose reason for existing is smart contracts, is at least internally consistent. XAH functions as the network’s fee and reserve asset, with a balance-rewards mechanism that has no equivalent on the parent chain.

The launch was contentious in the way ecosystem splits usually are, with parts of the XRP community expressing unease at the lack of official involvement, and with the fork’s supporters arguing that validators refusing an amendment for years had left no alternative. The relevant point for today is that Xahau shipped and kept shipping, accumulating a validator set, an exchange listing history, and a working developer story around a capability the main ledger did not have.

What the parent is shipping now

The XRP Ledger’s current roadmap describes a different route to the same destination, and the specifications are public.

XLS-100d, Smart Escrows, brings WebAssembly-based conditional logic to escrow objects, allowing programmable conditions to govern the release of funds, and it appears among the ledger’s known amendments with a dedicated devnet for developers to test against.

That is a narrow, payments-native form of programmability: not a general computing environment, but escrows that can enforce arbitrary conditions written in a widely supported bytecode format. XLS-101d, Smart Contracts, is the broader specification, drafted in 2025, proposing general smart contract capability on the ledger and citing both Hooks and the EVM among the designs it draws from.

The choice of WebAssembly instead of a bespoke virtual machine is the interesting technical decision, because it imports an existing toolchain and developer base rather than asking builders to learn something proprietary. It is also, in its way, an admission: the ledger that resisted programmability for years is now adopting a mainstream execution standard, and doing so with public acknowledgment of the technology that forked away over exactly this question.

The timing places three approaches in the same ecosystem simultaneously. Hooks run on Xahau. Solidity runs on the XRPL EVM sidechain, whose first year this publication audited and found holding $25,741 in total value locked, a figure that remains the sharpest available evidence that architectural compatibility does not produce developer gravity by itself. And WebAssembly is arriving natively on the main ledger. Three answers, one ecosystem, and no consolidation in sight.

Data center operator Core Scientific (CORZ) announced an infrastructure partnership with Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) anchored by 15-year leases for 529 megawatts of U.S. AI capacity, which the company said could generate more than $14 billion in base contracted revenue.

The capacity is expected to support AMD customer deployments beginning in 2027. The agreements give AMD, under certain conditions, the right to reserve another 1,925 MW through Dec. 28, 2028, potentially expanding the partnership to roughly 2.5 gigawatts.

AMD directly leased 377 MW across Core Scientific sites in Pecos and Hunt County, Texas, and Muskogee, Oklahoma, according to the company’s quarterly filing.

An unnamed cloud provider leased another 152 MW in Auburn, Alabama, and Dalton, Georgia, under agreements supported by AMD.

Core Scientific and AMD will collaborate on data-center design and the deployment of AMD Instinct graphics processing units, EPYC processors and ROCm software, the companies said.

AMD also received warrants to purchase up to 30 million Core Scientific shares at $23.47 per share. About 6.5 million vested when the initial leases were signed, with further warrants vesting as additional capacity is contracted.

XRP price fell about 5% to $1.05 on July 28 as a broader risk-off move and forced long liquidations pushed the token below a closely watched technical floor.

XRP price breaks below a double-top neckline

According to data from crypto.news, XRP (XRP) price traded at $1.049 at the time of writing after reaching an intraday low of $1.0486 on Binance. The decline extended a broader downtrend that has kept the token under pressure since May.

The 4-hour chart shows XRP forming two rounded peaks near $1.17, creating a double-top structure. Both advances lost momentum before buyers could establish support above $1.15.

A horizontal neckline near $1.054 separated the pattern from its bearish confirmation. XRP moved below that level on July 28, exposing the psychological $1 mark and the late-June lows between $1.01 and $1.03.

The breakdown followed repeated failures around $1.11 during the previous sessions. Sellers took control once XRP lost $1.08, with the decline accelerating as the price approached the double-top neckline.

Momentum indicators reflect the speed of the move. XRP’s 4-hour relative strength index fell to 25.93, below the 30 level commonly associated with oversold conditions. Its RSI moving average remained much higher at 41.94, showing how rapidly short-term momentum weakened.

Oversold readings can support a temporary rebound, but they do not confirm that a bottom has formed. XRP would first need to recover the broken $1.054 level and then establish a higher low.

Liquidations accelerate XRP’s decline

CoinGlass’ 24-hour liquidation heatmap shows XRP falling from around $1.105 to $1.05 as the market moved through several leveraged trading zones.

The initial decline cleared liquidity around $1.095 and $1.08. Once those levels failed, the price moved quickly toward $1.06 as leveraged long positions faced liquidation and stop-loss orders were triggered.

XRP now trades near another visible liquidity concentration between $1.043 and $1.05. That cluster could temporarily slow the decline, although a clean move through it would leave less visible support before $1.02.

Most of the larger outstanding liquidity pools are above the current price. The heatmap shows concentrations near $1.062, $1.075 and $1.097, with the largest nearby band sitting just below $1.10.

These levels could act as price magnets during a rebound because traders may target areas where short positions are vulnerable. However, they could also become resistance if holders use a recovery to reduce exposure.

The supplied market brief attributed part of the selling pressure to more than 150 million XRP moving from private wallets to centralized exchanges over 48 hours. Without named transaction records or wallet labels, those transfers should be treated as a reported catalyst rather than confirmed evidence that all the tokens were sold.

XRP indicators point to sustained selling pressure

XRP’s daily chart shows the price closing below the lower Bollinger Band, which stood near $1.0538. A close outside the band reflects unusually strong downside momentum, although it also increases the possibility of a short-term mean-reversion move.

The Bollinger Band midpoint is near $1.0981, closely matching the strongest nearby liquidity cluster on the heatmap. A recovery above that level would return XRP to its recent trading range and weaken the immediate bearish setup.

The upper band sits much higher at $1.1423. XRP would need to reclaim that area before the daily structure begins to shift away from the pattern of lower highs that has developed since May.

Chaikin Money Flow stood at -0.12 on the daily chart. A negative reading indicates that selling pressure has outweighed accumulation during the indicator’s 20-day window.

The 4-hour moving average convergence divergence indicator also remains bearish. The MACD line has dropped to -0.0125, below its -0.0072 signal line, while the histogram stands at -0.0052.

Immediate support sits between $1.043 and $1.05. Below that range, traders may watch $1.02 and $1.00. Resistance is located near $1.054, $1.075, and $1.098, followed by the previous rejection zone around $1.11.

Global selloff adds pressure ahead of the Fed

XRP’s decline coincided with a sharp retreat across Asian technology stocks. South Korea’s Kospi closed 10.84% lower after losses in Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix drove its steepest fall in five months.

That selloff spread through other Asian markets and increased demand for lower-risk positions ahead of the Federal Reserve’s July 28–29 meeting. Higher market volatility can weigh on altcoins because traders often reduce their most speculative holdings first.

Crypto sentiment also faced a US policy setback. Senate leaders temporarily pushed aside the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act while prioritizing federal nominations and a Russia sanctions bill, reducing the time available before the August recess, according to CoinDesk.

Meanwhile, wallets associated with BlackRock’s exchange-traded funds transferred about $271 million in Bitcoin and Ethereum to Coinbase Prime. Such movements can accompany ETF creation and redemption activity, meaning they do not by themselves prove that BlackRock conducted a discretionary market sale.

For US XRP holders, the Federal Reserve meeting and the Senate’s remaining legislative schedule are the main near-term external catalysts. Technically, holding the $1.043–$1.05 zone could produce an oversold bounce, while a daily close below it would increase the risk of a move toward $1.

Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao has endorsed a proposal for “license passporting” across ASEAN, arguing that crypto firms already authorized in one country should not have to restart the licensing process from scratch when expanding to neighboring markets.

Zhao made the remarks during a fireside chat at the ASEAN Tech Summit Manila 2026 on Tuesday, backing an idea raised by Lito Villanueva, founding chair of FinTech Alliance PH. The core concept is a simplified approval pathway—while still allowing regulators to assess applicants—so that cross-border operations can be reviewed without duplicating every step of initial authorization.

Key takeaways

• Zhao argues ASEAN could enable crypto license portability, reducing the need for firms to reapply from scratch in each member state.
• The proposal is framed as “simplified authorization” rather than full deregulation: regulators would still retain review power.
• ASEAN already uses cross-border frameworks in other financial areas, offering precedents for streamlined regional processes.
• Analogies to the EU’s crypto passporting approach suggest a path forward, but ASEAN’s policy fragmentation could slow standardization.

Why passporting matters for ASEAN crypto and stablecoins

ASEAN member states regulate digital assets through separate national regimes, which can create multiple parallel compliance pathways for companies attempting regional expansion. Zhao’s argument centers on how that fragmentation affects both operational costs and competitive dynamics.

A regional licensing framework, proponents say, could lower compliance expenses and make it easier for crypto and stablecoin services to operate across borders. Zhao also linked passporting to consumer outcomes, suggesting that expanding the set of platforms able to compete through lighter processes could reduce costs and improve service quality.

He characterized the biggest obstacle as political rather than technical, adding that the underlying “technology” of coordinating authorization should not be the deciding factor. For investors and market participants, the practical implication is that clearer and less duplicative regulatory pathways could support more consistent regional market access—potentially affecting liquidity, product availability, and the speed at which regulated offerings scale.

ASEAN’s existing playbook: streamlined approvals in other sectors

While ASEAN does not currently operate a bloc-wide “passport” specifically for crypto firms, regional regulators have created mechanisms that resemble elements of mutual recognition and simplified cross-border authorization in capital markets.

According to the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum (ACMF), the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum’s Collective Investment Schemes Framework allows a fund authorized in its home jurisdiction to be offered in participating host jurisdictions through a streamlined authorization process. The framework was first operationalized in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand in 2014, and the Philippines joined in 2021, based on an ACMF news release stating that ASEAN capital markets connectivity would be enhanced with the Philippines’ entry into the scheme.

The ACMF has also introduced the ACMF Pass under its Professional Mobility Framework. The program enables eligible investment advisers licensed in one participating jurisdiction to receive fast-track registration to provide advisory services in another, without obtaining a new license.

These frameworks are narrower than the “passporting” approach Villanueva and Zhao discussed for crypto firms. They do not eliminate host-market requirements, and the review still ultimately depends on what host jurisdictions require. Still, they show that ASEAN regulators have already experimented with regional integration tools that reduce redundancy and speed up cross-border market entry—an important reference point for any push toward license portability in digital assets.

Notably, these regional arrangements also help explain how a passporting model might be structured to satisfy regulators: authorization can be streamlined through predefined criteria and processes, while host markets maintain the ability to enforce local rules.

What the EU’s crypto-asset passporting shows—and what ASEAN may differ on

Zhao’s comments also echo a familiar global comparator: the European Union’s approach under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). In the EU, an authorized crypto-asset service provider can use passporting rights to provide services across member states after notifying its home regulator of the countries and the specific services involved, according to prior reporting that discussed early tests as national regulators pushed back against passporting.

However, Zhao highlighted a key constraint: differences in national policy priorities and regulatory approaches can make alignment harder in ASEAN than in the EU. That said, his stance remains that a firm already licensed in one ASEAN market should face a lighter process when entering another—suggesting that “full harmonization” may not be required for progress, even if perfect uniformity is still unlikely.

For readers evaluating the potential impact, the most important takeaway is the distinction between two extremes. On one end is a fully unified bloc-wide regime; on the other is complete duplication of licensing in every jurisdiction. Passporting, as described here, aims to live in the middle—preserving regulatory oversight while cutting down repetitive administrative work.

Next steps: what investors and builders should watch

Whether ASEAN moves toward license portability for crypto will depend on how regulators balance political coordination with market needs for clarity and scale. The immediate signal to monitor is whether proposals like this shift from concept to an actionable framework—particularly around what would be required for streamlined cross-border authorization, how host jurisdictions would apply conditions, and where regulators draw the line between portability and re-licensing.