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.

In the current suit, James Ramirez, claims he downloaded the app on July 25, 2025 and had 7.4 BTC “transferred to a scammer.” He reported the app and theft to Apple that day, according to the filing. Christopher Ellis allegedly lost about $840,000 after installing the app on Aug. 3.

Jalen Delgado, who had downloaded the app around May 1, 2025, lost 1.05 BTC, then worth roughly $120,000 after relying on “Apple’s representations that its App Store was safe and the apps hosted in the Apple App Store had been vetted by experts,” according to the filing.

Ramirez and Ellis said Apple never responded to their reports.

The official Sparrow Wallet is a desktop-only application available for Windows, macOS and Linux. It does not offer an iOS version.

The lawsuit alleges Apple ranked the fraudulent application and included it in curated cryptocurrency app collections alongside legitimate products. It also points to Sparrow developer Craig Raw warning in January 2024 that an impersonator remained available despite being reported to Apple weeks earlier.

The case seeks reimbursement of the alleged stolen assets, compensatory and punitive damages and potentially multiplied damages. The plaintiffs also want Apple to disclose the limitations of its review process, strengthen its controls and warn users that an App Store listing does not establish that a cryptocurrency application is authentic.

Apple is being sued by three iPhone and App Store users who allege they suffered combined losses of about $1.8 million after installing a fake Bitcoin wallet application that prompted them to enter their seed phrases. The complaint was filed on Friday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, according to a copy of the filing reviewed by MacRumors.

The suit argues Apple did not do enough to screen and supervise apps distributed through the App Store, even as the company promotes it as a trusted marketplace. The plaintiffs say the fraudulent app enabled scammers to transfer their Bitcoin after they shared sensitive recovery information.

Key takeaways

• Three plaintiffs allege they lost a combined about $1.8 million after installing a counterfeit Bitcoin wallet app from Apple’s App Store.
• The complaint says users entered seed phrases into the malicious app, allowing scammers to move their Bitcoin.
• Losses reported in the filing include roughly $875,000, $840,000, and $120,000 during 2025.
• Apple says it has removed impersonating apps and terminated related developer accounts, and points users and developers to report guideline-violating software.
• The original wallet developer has previously criticized Apple over fake app versions appearing in the App Store, and the legitimate wallet does not offer an official iOS app.

Allegations in the Northern District of California lawsuit

The lawsuit names three customers: James Ramirez, Christopher Ellis, and Jalen Delgado. Their complaint, filed Friday, claims Apple failed to adequately review and monitor applications available through the App Store despite presenting the platform as a controlled, trustworthy distribution channel, as described in the filing copy obtained by MacRumors.

The plaintiffs allege that they downloaded what they believed was a Bitcoin wallet app but was actually a fraudulent copy. After installing the app, they entered their seed phrases—the recovery words that can be used to access cryptocurrency wallets. The complaint says those phrases were then used by scammers to transfer the victims’ Bitcoin holdings.

According to the complaint, the losses occurred during 2025. Ramirez reported losses of about $875,000, Ellis reported about $840,000, and Delgado reported approximately $120,000.

The impersonated wallet and the “no official iOS app” issue

The counterfeit app impersonates Sparrow Wallet. MacRumors reports that Sparrow Wallet is available on Windows, macOS, and Linux, and that developer Craig Raw has said the wallet has no official iOS app.

That detail may be significant for investors, users, and app platform observers because it underscores an apparent mismatch: if there is no legitimate iOS release, a purported iOS wallet carrying the same branding would be inherently suspicious. MacRumors further notes that Raw has previously criticized Apple after fake versions of the app appeared on the App Store.

For users, this kind of incident highlights the risk of wallet-related apps that ask for seed phrases. In practice, seed phrases are effectively full-access credentials. Any wallet prompt requesting them should raise serious red flags, especially when the app’s legitimacy is unclear.

Apple’s response: app removals and account terminations

Apple told MacRumors that it has taken action against the fraudulent listings. The company said it removed apps impersonating Sparrow Wallet and terminated developer accounts tied to those apps.

Apple also pointed to its reporting mechanisms, saying developers and users can report applications that violate App Store guidelines. Apple further said it takes action against apps that do not comply with its rules.

The lawsuit, however, centers on whether those controls were sufficient—particularly given the alleged scale of the losses and the claim that users were able to access a counterfeit app that appears designed to capture seed phrases.

Why the case matters for crypto users and the broader app ecosystem

This dispute touches a fault line that has repeatedly surfaced in crypto-enabled fraud: many losses involve not only a malicious actor, but also the ecosystem that allowed the harmful app to reach victims in the first place. For crypto users, the case serves as a reminder that downloading wallet software from mainstream app stores is not, by itself, a guarantee of safety—especially when the app’s behavior suggests it may be collecting recovery credentials.

From an enforcement and platform-governance perspective, the lawsuit may also shape how regulators, courts, and consumers evaluate “reasonable” screening and monitoring for high-risk financial and credential-handling applications. The plaintiffs are alleging a failure of oversight despite Apple’s positioning of the App Store as a trusted marketplace, which is likely to be a focal point in legal arguments about responsibility and foreseeability.

Even if Apple removes impersonating apps quickly after being informed, victims may already have been compromised. That timing gap—between a fraudulent app becoming available and enforcement actions landing—can be critical in the types of scams described in the filing.

There is also an information asymmetry for users: people may assume that brand names like “wallet” and familiar project titles imply legitimacy. The “no official iOS app” detail reported by MacRumors, combined with Raw’s past criticism about fake listings, suggests that legitimacy signals (such as official release availability and publisher identity) can be decisive for avoiding impersonation.

What happens next will likely depend on how the court assesses the adequacy of Apple’s app review and monitoring processes, and how it evaluates whether the harm was caused by app distribution decisions versus individual user behavior (such as entering seed phrases into a fraudulent interface).

In the meantime, readers should watch for any further procedural developments in the case and for Apple’s continued actions on impersonating crypto apps—especially wallet applications that request seed phrases or recovery credentials. The unanswered question is not only whether enforcement occurred, but whether it came fast enough to prevent the kinds of losses alleged in this filing.