Humanity Protocol bills itself as “the internet’s trust layer,” but many have voiced concerns over its credibility in relation to yesterday’s H token compromise.

Following reports of suspicious transactions and worrying price movements, the project’s X account disclosed a “security incident involving the compromise of private keys belonging to a member of the Humanity Foundation.”

It warned users to avoid interacting “with the bridge or any liquidity pools.”

However, multiple members of the crypto security community have questioned both the mechanics and timing of yesterday’s incident, which led to the project’s H token crashing almost 90%.

Read more: Rough weekend for DeFi: Four hacks, three outages, one warning

An on-chain investigator who goes by “SpecterAnalyst” on X initially drew attention to suspicious transfers of H totaling $5 million.

The total extracted eventually reached $30 million, according to blockchain security auditor Peckshield. The firm tallied almost 190 million H tokens drained from over 280 affected wallets.

Additionally, two batches of 100 million H tokens were minted on BNB Chain.

Advertisement

A later official update put the total stolen at $36 million, insisting that “an employee’s laptop was compromised.” The compromise included 3-of-6 private keys for the project’s bridge contract owner, which upgraded the contract and “swept ~141.2M H in a single transaction.”

Concurrently, 3-of-5 keys for the project’s BNB Chain safe were also compromised, with a similar mechanism used to mint 200 million H tokens.

Raised eyebrows

Blockchain sleuth ZachXBT pushed back at Humanity’s initial statement, questioning why users should “blindly trust your story” after the “crime pump” of the H token.

The project’s H token recently pumped almost 400% in under five days in late May, fuelling suspicions over price manipulation.

Advertisement

In another post, he went further, calling the incident “possibly staged” as a “convenient” exit for the token’s market maker.

However, “after further analysis of the laundering,” he walked back the accusation.

Trading Strategy co-founder Mikko Ohtamaa pointed out the irony in “a protocol that ensures a blockchain address is a real human being and not a Sybil address,” using the same person for three multisig signer keys.

Humanity, a protocol that ensures a blockchain address is a real human being and not a Sybil address, was hacked.

3 of their 6 multisig key holders were the same person.

Advertisement

They did not apply their own protocol to their own multisig.

$30M gone.https://t.co/4Hqu67avHH

— Mikko Ohtamaa (@moo9000) June 9, 2026

Read more: How Humanity Protocol CEO drove his previous firm to insolvency

Advertisement

Yearn developer Banteg also appeared shocked that attackers managed to compromise three private keys from the same foundation member.

They also spotted that, while keys were rotated for the team’s BNB Chain wallet, the Ethereum wallet remained compromised for at least 14 hours, making the idea of an inside job “plausible.”

Security firm Beosin questioned whether the hack was indeed a “rug pull” after identifying the contract upgrade which allowed transfers of H tokens directly from victims’ wallets.

Today’s incident comes just over two weeks in advance of the first unlock of 266.5 million vested tokens destined for the Humanity team and investors.

Advertisement

SpecterAnalyst, who initially flagged the wallet draining transactions, also seemed skeptical of the team’s version of events.

They had previously drawn attention to the project’s team, claiming that “three out of four leads have questionable pasts involving mismanagement, lawsuits, or financial wrongdoing,” and highlighted issues with the token’s distribution following its launch last June.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Advertisement

Ripple XRP Transfer Raises Fresh Market Questions

Whale Alert reported a large XRP movement involving 50 million tokens from a Ripple-linked wallet. The transfer carried a value of about $59 million, based on current market prices. As a result, the transaction drew quick attention across the XRP community.

XRPScan data showed that the Ripple wallet first moved funds to the raRVLN1 subwallet. That step suggested an internal transfer rather than a direct exchange deposit. However, the same wallet later started sending smaller batches to Binance-linked addresses.

The transfers moved mainly in 2 million XRP lots to two wallets. XRPScan links those addresses, rBNCyN and rnPpiy, to Binance exchange activity. Therefore, the flows may reflect Ripple’s liquidity management for payment-related operations.

XRP Price Holds Recovery as Binance Flows Draw Scrutiny

XRP traded around $1.16 after gaining more than 12% from last week’s $1.05 low. The token also moved 2% higher during the latest session. Meanwhile, its 24-hour range stayed between $1.14 and $1.18.

Trading volume rose by about 4% over the past 24 hours. The increase showed stronger market activity ahead of the next U.S. CPI inflation data. Moreover, macro data could affect short-term crypto sentiment across major digital assets.

Ripple has used XRP liquidity channels for years through payment and settlement products. These flows often support exchange liquidity, cross-border payment demand, and treasury activity. Still, large exchange-linked transfers often raise sale concerns among market participants.

XRP Market Context Builds Around ETFs and Ledger Upgrades

XRP’s recovery also comes as spot ETF inflows add support to market demand. Ripple’s push for XRP Ledger upgrades has also helped maintain attention. These developments have strengthened the broader market debate around XRP’s next move.

Market analyst Ali Martinez pointed to a long-term support trendline on XRP’s monthly chart. He highlighted the $0.90 region as a key level for stronger accumulation setups. However, XRP still needs sustained strength above $1.18 to retest $1.20.

YoungHoon Kim also claimed that XRP had entered a new bull market phase. That view added more discussion around a possible move toward $1.20. For now, Binance-linked flows remain notable, but on-chain data has not confirmed direct selling.

The European Union should focus on a broader digital asset framework covering real-world assets and tokenization instead of regulating decentralized finance through a second version of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), an adviser at the European Commission said.

The European Commission launched a public consultation on MiCA in May, seeking feedback through Aug. 31.

“I do not believe that [MiCA] is outdated now. That’s my personal opinion, but it does not matter. That’s why we have this consultation,” Peter Kerstens told Cointelegraph during a fireside chat at WAIB Summit Monaco 2026.

Kerstens, one of MiCA’s architects, said that the feedback received during the European Commission’s current review period will help shape the bloc’s next regulatory steps.

MiCA is approaching the end of its transitional period on July 1, after which crypto asset service providers will be required to hold a MiCA license or stop servicing EU clients.

Related: Crypto firms face July 1 EU cutoff as MiCA grace period ends

EU doesn’t need to regulate DeFi, says MiCA architect

Decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols were included among the emerging risk areas examined in the consultation, even though they are largely outside MiCA’s current scope.

An excerpt from the public consultation on the MiCA review. Source: European Commission

However, Kerstens said regulating DeFi would be difficult because laws can be applied to people and organizations, but not directly to computer networks. He said lawmakers would need a new legal doctrine to regulate non-entities.

Kerstens added that he doesn’t see a need to regulate DeFi, which he described as a “movement” that has “no representatives.”

“I don’t see what the problem is. And if there is no problem, why should it be regulated?”

Earlier in March, a working paper from the European Central Bank questioned whether decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are decentralized enough to remain outside MiCA’s scope. Looking at Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth and Uniswap, the paper found that the top 100 governance token holders controlled over 80% of the supply in each protocol, based on holdings snapshots from November 2022 and May 2023.

The authors said these findings question whether DAOs are inherently decentralized and whether they should remain outside of the MiCA regulation as “fully decentralized” services.

Magazine: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight

StarkWare and Sui launched new privacy features this week that allow users to conceal transaction data without fully sacrificing auditability or regulatory oversight.

StarkWare said Tuesday that it launched STRK20, a privacy framework for ERC-20 tokens on Starknet that allows users to shield balances and transaction data while providing mechanisms for disclosure under certain circumstances.

Eli Ben-Sasson, co-founder and CEO of StarkWare, told Cointelegraph that “compliance-ready” does not mean STRK20 itself determines legal compliance or guarantees regulatory approval. He said the framework is built around a risk-based model in which privacy is conditional rather than absolute, with screening applied at entry into the shielded pool and viewing-key-based disclosure available under lawful request.

Separately, Sui launched a public beta for confidential transfers, a feature that conceals transaction amounts while allowing authorized parties to access information when required for auditing or compliance purposes.

The launches reflect a broader shift in crypto privacy away from complete anonymity and toward models favored by institutions that incorporate audit and disclosure mechanisms.

Sui launches confidential transfers. Source: Sui

Compliance shift in privacy systems

In recent weeks, privacy-focused projects have been forced to address questions around both oversight and reliability.

Zama, a blockchain privacy project, said on June 2 that it would accelerate its compliance roadmap. The announcement came after a court-ordered freeze of about $12.5 million in USDC held in its confidential USDC wrapper, which was later lifted following resolution of the underlying legal request.

The project subsequently highlighted its disclosure mechanisms and approach to regulatory coordination for encrypted transactions.

Related: Canton, ZKsync clash over how blockchains enforce rules

The broader push also comes amid renewed scrutiny of one of the crypto industry’s most prominent privacy projects after Zcash disclosed a bug that raised concerns that counterfeit tokens could have been created undetected.

Zcash developers said the vulnerability was addressed through an emergency network upgrade completed in early June, with no confirmed evidence of exploitation, though the nature of shielded pools makes it difficult to fully reconstruct transaction history after vulnerabilities are disclosed.

Market Moves: Why is Ethereum Foundation selling? BTC futures warning signs

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Bitcoin’s BTC$61,318.62 recent weakness is being driven by softer capital flows rather than concerns over quantum computing or other risks, according to Wall Street broker Bernstein.

Growing concerns that future quantum computers could eventually break the cryptography underpinning Bitcoin have become a recurring topic in crypto markets, especially after recent research from Google suggested the computational resources needed to crack key blockchain security systems may be far lower than previously thought.

Bitcoin treasury companies and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have attracted about $12 billion of inflows this year, down sharply from $60 billion in 2025, the broker said. ETFs have seen roughly $2.6 billion of net outflows from a $75 billion asset base, with most new demand coming from corporate buyers led by Strategy (MSTR).

Bernstein analysts attributed the slowdown largely to retail investors chasing AI-related opportunities, noting that the strongest-performing areas of crypto this year have been tied to tokenized equities and commodities.

“Bitcoin still may offer some diversification from the unusual singular AI driven momentum markets we have experienced this year,” analysts led by Gautam Chhugani wrote in the Monday report.

Still, the analysts views the modest scale of ETF outflows as encouraging, arguing that bitcoin ownership is becoming less dependent on momentum-driven retail flows.

Bitcoin has endured a difficult stretch in recent months, falling from roughly $82,000 in early May to around $63,000 today, a decline of more than 20%. The cryptocurrency briefly dropped below $60,000 last week, its lowest level since October 2024, and remains about 50% below its October 2025 record high near $126,000.

Persistent ETF outflows, weakening investor risk appetite and a shift in capital toward AI-related stocks and high-profile equity offerings have been cited as key drivers of the downturn.

Unlike previous cycles dominated by retail traders, today’s market includes ETFs, corporate treasuries, wealth-management platforms, pension funds and sovereign investors, creating a more diversified and resilient ownership base, the analysts argued.

While bitcoin has lacked the excitement of AI trades this year, Bernstein argued that “being boring” does not weaken its long-term store-of-value thesis and may ultimately reflect a healthier market structure.

Spot bitcoin ETF flows explain roughly 45% of weekly BTC price moves and remain the best gauge of investor adoption, Citi said in a report last week.

The world’s largest cryptocurrency was trading around $62,600 at publication time.

Read more: Bitcoin’s dearth of fresh investors matters more than Strategy’s sale, Citi says

The European Union’s approach to crypto regulation is shifting toward a broader digital asset framework, with calls to include real-world assets and tokenization rather than directing regulatory energy solely at decentralized finance (DeFi) through a second MiCA reboot. The European Commission’s MiCA review is in motion, having launched a public consultation in May and inviting feedback through Aug. 31.

“I do not believe that [MiCA] is outdated now. That’s my personal opinion, but it does not matter. That’s why we have this consultation,” said Peter Kerstens, a MiCA architect at the European Commission, during a fireside chat at WAIB Summit Monaco 2026. He emphasized that the input gathered during the consultation will help shape the bloc’s next regulatory steps.

As a reminder, MiCA is undergoing its review ahead of a potential second iteration. The public consultation comes as the bloc grapples with a shifting landscape for crypto firms and products. Separately, MiCA is approaching a critical deadline: the end of its transitional period on July 1, after which crypto asset service providers must hold a MiCA license to serve EU clients or halt operations there.

Key takeaways

• EU’s MiCA reform is reframing focus toward a broad digital asset framework, including real-world assets and tokenization, not just DeFi.
• The Commission’s public consultation on MiCA runs through Aug. 31, shaping the next regulatory steps while MiCA’s transitional period ends on July 1.
• DeFi is acknowledged as a risk area in the consultation, but one MiCA architect argues that regulating decentralized networks presents fundamental challenges because laws target entities, not networks.
• New research from the European Central Bank questions whether some governance models are truly decentralized, potentially impacting how DAOs fit within MiCA’s scope.

A broader regulatory horizon beyond DeFi

Kerstens framed the MiCA review as an opportunity to recalibrate the EU’s approach to digital assets, moving beyond a narrow DeFi focus. The Commission has signaled that the consultation will help determine whether MiCA should be complemented—or even supplanted—by a wider framework capable of addressing tokenization of real-world assets and other innovations in the asset class. The current consultation documents outline a range of “emerging risk areas,” including DeFi, but they do not obligate a redesign of MiCA in its current form. The overarching aim, Krstens suggested, is to maintain clear, pan-EU rules that cover the diverse realities of crypto markets while avoiding unnecessary fragmentation across member states.

The debate underscores a broader regulatory objective: ensuring investor protection, market integrity, and financial stability as the EU digital asset ecosystem evolves. While MiCA was designed to provide a comprehensive framework for crypto assets, the evolving landscape—with tokenized securities, real-world assets, and cross-border use cases—presents a case for a more expansive regime that can harmonize novel tokens with existing financial infrastructure.

DeFi scrutiny without a fixed MiCA target

Despite including DeFi as an area of potential risk in the current consultation, Kerstens argued that regulating DeFi bodies would be difficult under existing legal doctrines. Laws are generally crafted to regulate people and organizations, not the technical architectures that enable networks to operate. He described DeFi as a “movement” lacking centralized representation, which complicates the creation of traditional regulatory levers aimed at “entities.”

“I don’t see what the problem is. And if there is no problem, why should it be regulated?”

The tension here reflects a broader regulatory challenge: how to address operational and systemic risks associated with decentralized protocols that do not neatly fit into a framework designed for centralized service providers. While DeFi’s risk profile—ranging from capital efficiency to governance and transparency—remains on regulators’ radar, the path to regulation may require novel legal concepts that can address networks as opposed to conventional intermediaries.

DAOs under the regulatory microscope

Meanwhile, the ECB has explored the question of whether governance models used by some decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) can truly be considered decentralized enough to fall outside MiCA. A March working paper highlighted that in prominent protocols, governance tokens are highly concentrated: in top projects such as Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth, and Uniswap, the top 100 holders controlled more than 80% of the governance token supply in snapshots from late 2022 and mid-2023. The authors argued these dynamics raise questions about the degree of decentralization and whether such structures should be treated as “fully decentralized” services outside MiCA’s scope.

These findings contribute to a broader debate about which organizational forms deserve lighter regulatory treatment and which should be encompassed by comprehensive asset regulation. The ECB’s analysis does not settle the issue, but it adds a data-driven perspective to the discussion about how to categorize DAOs under EU rules.

For readers tracking regulatory progress, the ECB’s examination complements the Commission’s MiCA review by highlighting practical realities in token governance and the potential misalignment between governance architecture and regulatory expectations. The ongoing consultation will reflect those tensions as policymakers weigh how to integrate DAOs and other decentralized structures into a coherent EU framework.

What comes next for EU crypto regulation?

With July 1 looming for MiCA’s transitional period and Aug. 31 set as the consultation deadline, the EU faces a pivotal moment in harmonizing its approach to crypto markets. The dialogue between regulators and industry participants will shape whether MiCA evolves into a more expansive framework or remains a specialized regime with targeted updates. The central question remains: can the EU craft rules that protect consumers and investors while accommodating rapid innovation in tokenization and real-world asset integration?

Readers should watch for the Commission’s subsequent policy steps after the consultation closes, including potential legislative proposals and alignment with cross-border financial rules. As the EU navigates the balance between protection and innovation, the outcome will likely influence how other jurisdictions approach DeFi, DAOs, and tokenized assets in the years ahead.

The European Commission’s MiCA review and related ECB insights together outline a regulatory arc that could redefine Europe’s crypto rulebook—one that weighs broad asset-tokenization playbooks against the practical realities of decentralized technology.

More than 200 crypto companies and organizations are pressing the US Senate to pass the CLARITY Act, warning that protracted delays could cause the measure to miss a key legislative window. A letter circulated Monday by Stand With Crypto urged Senate leadership to advance the bill to the floor without delay, arguing that the Senate Banking Committee’s recent bipartisan vote built momentum for durable market-structure legislation.

The CLARITY Act would set out the regulatory framework for crypto in the United States by detailing how the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should oversee digital assets. Negotiations have stretched over several months as lawmakers and industry participants debated provisions—an impasse that has repeatedly stalled movement on the bill despite late-year opportunities.

In the letter, the coalition—led by Stand With Crypto along with The Digital Chamber, the Blockchain Association, and the Crypto Council for Innovation—asserted that passage would protect American jobs, sustain investment, and anchor the United States as a global leader in digital-asset innovation. The authors framed digital asset markets as a global and rapidly evolving component of financial infrastructure, stressing that policy choices will determine whether the United States remains at the forefront of innovation or cedes ground to offshore jurisdictions with less transparency and accountability.

“Digital asset markets are global, growing, and central to the future of financial infrastructure,” the letter stated. “The question before Congress is whether that future will be built in the United States — under U.S. law, U.S. oversight, and American values — or continue moving to offshore jurisdictions with less transparency, weaker consumer protections, and limited accountability.”

The call to action follows a broader dispute over two contentious policy levers: banning platforms from offering stablecoin yields, a view favored by some banking groups, and extending protections for developers of non-custodial, decentralized crypto platforms, a position championed by many in the crypto industry. Negotiations have thus far attempted to balance consumer protection, regulatory clarity, and innovation incentives, with unsettled disagreements delaying consensus on the legislation’s final form.

The letter’s signatories stressed that the bill, if enacted, would anchor market activities and employment within the United States while supporting a framework for oversight aligned with American values and standards. The coalition’s stance aligns with a longer-standing objective to provide clear jurisdictional guidance for market participants amid a shifting global regulatory landscape. As noted in coverage tied to the policy debate, the CLARITY Act remains central to ongoing questions about how the U.S. should regulate digital assets in relation to existing securities and commodities laws.

Related: Crypto’s CLARITY Act faces partisan fight over ethics on Senate floor

Key takeaways

• Over 200 crypto companies and organizations urged the Senate to advance the CLARITY Act, arguing that delay risks losing a critical legislative window.
• The act would define how the SEC and CFTC regulate digital assets, seeking to clarify regulatory oversight amid ongoing industry debates.
• The bill has stalled multiple times this year, with no confirmed floor schedule ahead of the midterm elections, despite bipartisan work in the Senate Banking Committee.
• Stakeholder positions diverge on two core policy questions: banning stablecoin-yield platforms and extending protections for DeFi developers, creating ongoing negotiations on the bill’s scope and safeguards.
• Analysts and industry participants warn that passage before the August recess is essential to avoid narrowing windows for legislative action; odds have shifted as time runs short.

Legislative momentum and timing

The CLARITY Act has enjoyed bipartisan attention in the Senate, particularly after the Banking Committee’s vote last month. Still, lawmakers have not scheduled floor time for the measure ahead of the November midterm elections, raising questions about whether the bill can clear the chamber within the current cycle. Analysts have underscored that any further delay risks constricting the window for passage, especially given the political calendar and competing priorities.

Galaxy Digital acknowledged the time-sensitive nature of the process, noting a downgrade in the odds of passage within 2026. In a separate assessment, the firm reported that the likelihood stood at 60%—down from 75%—with the expectation that the bill would need to pass before the August recess to avoid a protracted delay that could render it moot in practice. This assessment reflects the strategic constraint that negotiations must be resolved and reconciled before lawmakers depart for the recess period.

Policy content, ethics, and illicit finance considerations

Two central policy dimensions have shaped the ongoing discussions. First, banking groups have pressured for provisions that would bar certain crypto activities—specifically, platforms offering stablecoin yields—from circumventing traditional banking and regulatory safeguards. Second, the crypto industry has pressed for protections that would shield developers and operators of decentralized platforms from overbroad or misapplied enforcement actions. These areas have become focal points in the fight to secure broad bipartisan support and the 60 votes needed to advance the bill on the Senate floor without obstruction.

Legislators, including Senator Cynthia Lummis, have acknowledged the importance of addressing ethics and illicit-finance concerns as essential to maintaining floor support. Negotiators have flagged the need for amendments to these areas if the act is to cross the finish line. While the arc of negotiations remains unsettled, proponents argue that a carefully crafted framework could provide clearer jurisdictional boundaries, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and support continued innovation within a robust compliance regime.

As discussions proceed, observers note that the bill’s fate also hinges on how it interacts with broader regulatory approaches abroad, particularly in the European Union’s MiCA framework, and how U.S. policy aligns with global anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism standards. The regulatory architecture proposed by CLARITY would add a defined path for enforcement and compliance that could influence how exchanges, wallets, and DeFi protocols operate domestically and with international partners.

Regulatory architecture, enforcement, and market impact

The CLARITY Act seeks to delineate the roles of the SEC and CFTC in regulating the crypto sector, potentially ending some of the ambiguity that has characterized U.S. market oversight. A clearer delineation could influence licensing requirements for exchanges, custodians, and other digital-asset service providers, as well as the treatment of token classifications for securities or commodities purposes. For market participants, this could translate into more predictable compliance obligations, clearer reporting standards, and a more stable path for innovation within a recognized regulatory envelope.

Industry stakeholders have framed passage as a signal that the United States intends to anchor digital-asset activity within American governance and consumer-protection standards. They argue that successful enactment would maintain domestic competitiveness, attract investment, and reduce the risk of capital fleeing to less transparent jurisdictions with weaker regulatory oversight. However, the path to consensus remains uncertain, and any final version would need to balance innovation incentives with robust protections and governance norms.

Analysts and compliance teams should monitor how the act’s final terms address stablecoins, custody, and the treatment of non-custodial DeFi infrastructure. The policy debate, while focusing on enforcement and oversight, also raises questions about cross-border data sharing, information-sharing agreements for illicit finance, and the overall jurisdictional clarity that institutions require to structure their U.S. operations and international partnerships accurately. The evolving framework will have direct implications for licensing regimes, AML/KYC expectations, and ongoing regulatory oversight for crypto firms, banks engaging in crypto activities, and institutional investors considering exposure to digital assets.

As coverage from industry outlets and policy analysts notes, the CLARITY Act remains a central reference point in debates over U.S. crypto regulation, with momentum existing but not guaranteed to translate into final passage this session. The negotiations continue to hinge on ethics, illicit-finance provisions, and the balance between investor protection and innovation-friendly regulation.

For stakeholders seeking a broader context, recent discussions emphasize aligning U.S. policy with international standards and ensuring that regulatory clarity does not stifle innovation or create undue burdens on compliant, compliant-first market participants. The outcome will shape how the United States regulates digital assets relative to competing regimes, and it will influence the strategic planning of exchanges, custodians, developers, and institutional investors alike.

Analysts are watching for concrete milestones: a schedule for floor debate, any committee reconcile proposals, and publicly released amendments addressing ethics and illicit-finance concerns. The path to a potential conference on the bill will determine whether the U.S. can deliver a clear, functioning framework for digital-asset markets before the legislative window closes. As Cointelegraph noted in its coverage of the CLARITY Act, the path to a durable regulatory framework remains a complex interplay of policy objectives, partisan dynamics, and practical considerations for market participants.

Closing perspective: while the industry remains hopeful that Congress will act, the practical trajectory of the CLARITY Act will depend on whether its negotiators can resolve core points of contention and translate bipartisan support into a coherent, enforceable framework before the August recess.

Blockchain-based lending protocol Morpho said it raised $175 million in a funding round co-led by Paradigm, a16z crypto and Ribbit Capital, as investors bet that credit markets will increasingly move onchain.

The round also included Apollo Funds, Circle Ventures, VanEck and Ledger Cathay, according to a post on the Morpho blog.

Morpho operates an open credit network that allows institutions and fintech firms to build lending products on blockchain rails. The protocol has more than $11 billion in deposits and is used by institutional clients including Bitwise, Galaxy and Anchorage Digital, as well as crypto exchanges Coinbase, Kraken and Binance.

The raise highlights the interest in blockchain-based financial infrastructure from banks, asset managers and other traditional financial firms exploring tokenized assets and onchain settlement systems.

Unlike many crypto projects that seek to replace traditional finance, Morpho is positioning itself as an infrastructure provider working with existing institutions. The company said its network can help unify fragmented lending markets and support programmable credit products at scale.

Morpho said it will use the funds to develop its institutional lending infrastructure to build programmable credit products.