Crypto World
Pi coin halving explained: the mining rate math
Pi Network borrowed crypto’s most powerful word and built a very different machine behind it.
Summary
- Pi’s mining-rate halvings are real, but they affect new emissions rather than the larger unlock flow already pressuring price.
- Around 6.5 million PI entering circulation daily makes unlocks more important than fresh mining emissions in 2026.
- The real supply debate is not only 100 billion PI, but how much eventually migrates, unlocks, and becomes sellable.
- Protocol upgrades and ecosystem growth may help demand, but utility must absorb recurring supply rather than one-time hype.
The full supply math runs from the 3.1415926 starting rate to the unlock schedule that now swamps it, and that math defines what the price can realistically do. Few words in crypto carry the weight of “halving.” Bitcoin built a 16-year religion around it: a clockwork cut to new supply, every four years, that has preceded every major bull market the asset has had.
So when Pi Network describes its own mining system in halving language, and when its team points to halvings as the reason a 100 billion token supply will not drown the price, the word does a lot of persuading on its own. That persuasion needs an audit. Pi does have halvings, real ones, with a history and a schedule of sorts. It also has a supply system in which those halvings are close to irrelevant for the question holders actually care about.
The tokens pressuring the price in 2026 were not mined yesterday at the current rate. They were mined years ago at far higher rates, and they are arriving on the market through a different door entirely. With PI trading near $0.12, down from a $2.99 peak in the first days of open trading, the gap between the scarcity story and the supply reality has become the most important piece of math in the ecosystem. What follows walks the math from the beginning: the original mining formula, the milestone halvings, the switch to monthly supply caps at mainnet, the unlock schedule that now dominates everything, and what would have to change for the halving narrative to start mattering.
The math in one paragraph
For readers who want the conclusion before the derivation: Pi’s halvings cut the rate of new mining, which in 2026 is a trickle, while the supply that moves the market comes from the migration and vesting of roughly 100 billion pre-allocated tokens, of which only about 9 billion circulate today. Around 6.5 million PI in newly unlocked tokens reach the market every day, a flow that dwarfs fresh mining emissions and adds tens of millions of dollars in potential sell pressure every month at current prices. Halving the mining rate slows the filling of a reservoir that is already 91% full of committed water behind the dam. Both the mechanics and the overhang are real; the overhang is bigger, for years to come, under every published version of the schedule.
Where the rate began: 3.1415926 per hour
Pi’s original mining design has a certain mathematical charm. When the network launched on March 14, 2019, Pi Day, every Pioneer mined at a systemwide base rate of 3.1415926 Pi per hour, the first digits of the constant the project is named for. The rule attached to that rate was simple and aggressive: each time the network of engaged Pioneers grew by a factor of ten, starting from 1,000 users, the base rate would halve. Growth came fast, so the halvings came fast.
Five halvings have occurred, triggered at the 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 1 million, and 10 million engaged Pioneer milestones, each cutting the base rate in half. The next milestone on the original schedule sits at 100 million engaged Pioneers, and the December 2021 whitepaper noted the network was then above 30 million engaged users. The whitepaper also kept open a more drastic option: stopping mining altogether once the network reached a size the team never specified. Two things about this design separate it from the halving everyone knows.
Bitcoin halves on a fixed clock, every 210,000 blocks, roughly every four years, with a date the entire market can calculate years in advance. Pi halves on a growth milestone, which means the timing depends on user acquisition, the metric is “engaged Pioneers” as measured by the team, and nobody outside the company can verify how close the trigger is. A halving you cannot date is a halving the market cannot front-run, and front-running is most of what gives Bitcoin’s halving its price relevance. The second difference is direction of causality: Bitcoin’s halving rewards existing holders as adoption grows, while Pi’s milestone design was built to keep early mining generous enough to recruit, then throttle issuance as recruitment succeeded.
What each Pioneer actually mines
The base rate is only the floor of an individual’s mining speed, and the multiplier system matters for the supply math because it determines how unevenly the rewards have accrued. Every active Pioneer earns at least the systemwide base rate. On top of it stack bonuses: rewards for security circle connections, a referral team bonus for each invited member mining concurrently, node operation rewards for those running the desktop software, app usage rewards, and lockup bonuses that pay extra mining speed in exchange for voluntarily freezing balances for periods from two weeks to three years. A well-connected early Pioneer with a large referral tree, a node, and a long lockup could mine at many multiples of the base rate.
Today’s market carries the distributional consequence. The cheapest Pi ever created sits in the oldest and largest accounts, the ones with the deepest referral trees, and those balances have been migrating to mainnet and unlocking through 2025 and 2026. When the price chart shows persistent selling into every bounce, the mining formula’s history says who has the most room to sell profitably at any price above zero. It is the cohort the formula was designed to enrich first.
The metric nobody can audit
Before leaving the milestone system behind, one of its quietest problems needs daylight: nobody outside the company can measure the number that triggers the halving. Pi’s public figures come in layers that do not reconcile from outside. The project has claimed more than 60 million users at its peak messaging, recent coverage cites over 18 million KYC-verified accounts, and the halving trigger uses a third measure entirely, “engaged Pioneers,” defined by activity criteria the team applies internally. The December 2021 whitepaper placed that figure above 30 million.
Where engaged Pioneers stand in mid-2026, after a year of price collapse that has surely thinned daily check-ins, is not published on any dashboard a holder can refresh. The 100 million milestone could be two years away or could effectively never arrive if engagement has plateaued, and the difference between those worlds is invisible from the outside. Contrast the information environment around the halving everyone else means by the word. Any Bitcoin holder can compute the next halving to the block, watch the countdown on a dozen public sites, and verify the issuance change in the chain data the moment it happens.
The event’s power comes from this common knowledge: everyone knows that everyone knows, so positioning starts months ahead and the narrative compounds. Pi’s milestone halving offers the market nothing to coordinate around. It will be announced when the team says the threshold was crossed, verified by the team’s own definition, on data only the team holds. Whatever else that is, it is not an event a market can price in advance, which removes the one channel through which halvings have historically moved anything.
The pattern repeats across Pi’s supply system. The numbers that matter most, engaged users, migration completion, KYC attrition, and discretionary release timing, are exactly the numbers held privately. A project that wants its scarcity mechanics taken seriously could publish every one of them tomorrow. Choosing not to tells the market something, and the market has been pricing it all year.
The mainnet switch: from halvings to a supply budget
In December 2021, new whitepaper chapters quietly retired the pure milestone model and replaced it with something more corporate: a fixed maximum supply of 100 billion Pi, divided by allocation, with new mining drawn from a budgeted pool. The split honors the original 80/20 principle between community and core team. Of the 100 billion: 65 billion is reserved for mining rewards to past and future Pioneers, 10 billion for community organizations and ecosystem building, 5 billion for liquidity, and 20 billion for the core team. The team’s allocation unlocks proportionally to community migration, a design meant to prevent the company from cashing out ahead of its users.
Within the 65 billion mining pool, issuance follows declining monthly supply limits, with the systemwide rate adjusted dynamically so that each month’s total new mining fits inside an exponentially decreasing budget. This was the moment Pi’s halving story changed character. The milestone halvings still exist on paper, with the 100 million Pioneer trigger still ahead, but the binding constraint on new supply became the monthly budget formula, which declines smoothly instead of in dramatic halves. There is no future Pi halving event that will cut flowing supply in half overnight the way Bitcoin’s does, because the system no longer works that way.
Out of the redesign also came the number that now towers over everything else: the difference between 100 billion allocated and roughly 9 billion circulating. As of early 2026, only about 9% of the eventual supply trades. The other 91% exists as a claim: unmined pool, unmigrated balances awaiting KYC, locked tokens serving out their bonus terms, and team and foundation allocations vesting on their schedules. Every one of those categories resolves, eventually, into circulating supply, while mining rate math governs only the first and smallest of them.
The unlock flow versus the mining trickle
Now the arithmetic gets concrete, because this is where the argument in the title gets settled. Through 2026, the dominant source of new circulating Pi has been unlocks: previously mined balances exiting their lockup terms, migrated balances clearing the pipeline, and scheduled releases tied to the allocation model. Tracking through the spring put the average at roughly 6.5 million PI entering circulation per day, which compounds to just under 200 million tokens a month. At a $0.12 price, that is over $20 million in potential monthly sell pressure; at the prices holders are hoping to return to, the dollar figure scales up with the dream.
The schedule reflects the same monthly pressure the market struggled with earlier in the year, and the struggle shows. The token broke below $0.13 support in early June on sustained selling volume, with technicians eyeing $0.10 next. Fresh mining must be placed beside that flow. The base rate has been halved five times from its 2019 starting point, and the monthly budget formula throttles it further across a user base where most participants mine at low multipliers.
Fresh emissions in 2026 are a small fraction of the unlock flow, and cutting them in half again at the 100 million Pioneer milestone would change the total monthly supply growth by a rounding error. That is the core asymmetry: halvings act on the flow of newly created tokens, while Pi’s price is set by the flow of previously created tokens reaching the market. Bitcoin never had this problem because Bitcoin had no pre-mined reservoir; every coin that exists was mined into the market at the prevailing rate, so cutting the rate cut the only supply source there was. Pi’s halving cuts the smaller of two pipes and leaves the larger one untouched.
A holder can check this logic against the chart. Bitcoin’s halvings preceded rallies because they measurably tightened the daily balance between new supply and steady demand. Pi’s five halvings have already happened, the monthly budget already declines, and the price fell more than 95% from its peak anyway, because none of that machinery touches the unlock schedule. The scarcity mechanics are real enough, just aimed at the wrong pipe.
The lockup machine and what it defers
Lockups need a closer look, because they are the one mechanism that actually removes supply from the market today, and they do it with a catch. A Pioneer who locks tokens for a longer term mines faster, which means the system pays users in future tokens to withhold present ones. In the short run this works exactly as designed: a meaningful share of migrated balances sits frozen, the daily sellable float shrinks, and the price gets a reprieve. In the long run, every lockup is a deferral, not a removal.
The locked tokens return to the float when their term expires, and they return accompanied by the bonus tokens the lockup earned, which means the mechanism converts present supply relief into amplified future supply. A three-year lockup opened in the post-mainnet enthusiasm of early 2025 matures in early 2028 carrying its rewards with it. None of this makes lockups bad design; deferral has real value, and a project buying time to build utility is making a defensible trade. But the supply math has to count both sides of it.
The unlock flow of 2026 is partly the echo of lockups chosen in 2022 and 2023, and the lockups being chosen today at depressed prices are writing the unlock schedule of 2028 and 2029. The reservoir does not drain through this mechanism. It sloshes. That is why the lockup system can reduce immediate sell pressure while still expanding the future supply problem.
The case that 100 billion never arrives
Inside the community circulates the strongest counterargument to everything above, and it deserves a fair hearing rather than dismissal. It runs as follows: the 100 billion figure is a ceiling, not a destination. The 65 billion mining pool pays out only for mining that actually happens, at rates that keep declining, across a user base whose growth has slowed. Tokens allocated to balances that never clear KYC may never migrate, and the team has tied portions of its own allocation to community migration that may never complete.
Run those leakages forward and several community analysts project a practical circulating supply stabilizing somewhere between 30 billion and 40 billion Pi, far short of the full hundred. If true, the effective dilution ahead is roughly a third of what the headline number implies. The projection is plausible, and the serious objections to it concern knowability, not direction. The variables that determine where supply stabilizes, including KYC completion rates, migration policy, the unspecified mining stop option, and the team’s release decisions, all sit inside the company’s discretion and outside public verification.
An asset whose terminal supply ranges from 30 billion to 100 billion depending on unpublished operational choices is an asset the market will discount for uncertainty, and the discount shows up as exactly the chart Pi has. Bitcoin’s supply schedule earns a premium not because 21 million is a small number but because no one can change it. Pi’s schedule carries a penalty not because 100 billion is large but because the real number is unknowable from outside. Scarcity that requires trusting an issuer is, in market terms, a different and weaker product than scarcity enforced by code.
There is a constructive version of this point. If the practical-supply argument is right, the cheapest credibility upgrade available to the core team is publication: audited migration statistics, a binding schedule for the team allocation, and a hard answer on the mining stop. The gap between 30 billion and 100 billion is worth more to the price, closed, than any halving. That is the kind of disclosure that would let the market price scarcity instead of guessing at it.
Why the team refuses to burn
Every few months the community’s favorite alternative resurfaces: burn the supply down. Petitions have circulated asking the team to destroy 10 billion or 20 billion tokens outright, importing the deflationary mechanics that other projects use to manufacture scarcity. The core team has rejected the idea explicitly, stating that supply discipline will come from halvings, the declining mining rate, and KYC gating instead. It has also argued that the large supply exists to keep the network accessible to a global user base instead of expensive for late arrivals.
The refusal is more defensible than frustrated holders allow, and less sufficient than the team implies. It is defensible because burning community-allocated tokens to lift the price for existing holders would invert the project’s stated purpose, and because burns at this scale would mostly reward the same early whales the mining formula already favored. It is insufficient because the stated alternatives do not address the overhang, as this piece has shown, and because “trust our discretion” is the exact posture the market is already discounting. Other ecosystems have shown a middle path that Pi has so far declined: mechanical, revenue-linked buyback or burn programs, transparent and rule-bound, that tie supply reduction to actual ecosystem usage instead of decree.
Pi has no protocol revenue to commit yet, which is its own answer about sequencing: utility first, then mechanics. The chart records how long the market is willing to wait. This is why burns remain a tempting but incomplete answer. Without recurring demand or transparent supply policy, a burn would change the headline number faster than it changes the underlying confidence problem.
What the math permits the price to do
Put the pieces side by side and the supply half of Pi’s price equation reads roughly like this for the next several years. Close to 200 million new tokens a month arrive from unlocks and scheduled releases, a flow that no halving touches. Fresh mining adds a small increment on top, declining on its budgeted curve. Lockup maturities add lumpy surges with their bonus amplification.
Against all of that stands whatever organic demand exists: grassroots commerce, speculative accumulation near lows, ecosystem hopes pinned to the protocol upgrade ladder, and the smart contract functionality promised around version 26. None of this math forbids recovery; it prices it. For PI to hold any level, monthly demand must absorb the monthly flow at that level, which at $0.12 means finding over $20 million of genuine new buying every month just to stand still, and proportionally more at higher prices. That is the core of what the numbers actually permit the price to do.
Catalysts that create one-time demand spikes, an exchange listing, a Pi2Day announcement, or a protocol release, lift the price into a heavier supply schedule and then hand it back to the flow. Catalysts that create recurring demand, real applications with real token sinks and fee burn from actual usage, are the only kind the supply schedule cannot defeat. They are also the kind that takes years. This is the same lesson the divergence between corporate progress and token price has taught holders of much larger assets this year, played out with a supply overhang several times more aggressive.
The halving milestone at 100 million engaged Pioneers will arrive eventually, and when it does, the announcement will borrow Bitcoin’s vocabulary one more time. Holders who have followed the math to this point will know what to check before celebrating: not the new mining rate, but the month’s unlock total beside it. That comparison is what decides whether the event matters. Until the larger pipe slows, the smaller pipe is not the story.
A schedule is not a slogan
Pi Network did not lie about its halvings. Five of them happened, the rates fell, the monthly budget declines, and the team can point to every mechanism it promised. What the project borrowed, without earning, is the meaning the market attaches to the word: the Bitcoin-trained reflex that halving equals scarcity equals appreciation. That reflex was built on a system with no reservoir, no discretion, and no door between allocation and circulation except mining itself.
Pi has all three, and they, not the mining rate, write its supply story. One honest path remains for making the scarcity language true. Drain the uncertainty rather than the supply: publish the migration math, bind the discretionary releases, define the mining endgame, and let utility grow into the float that exists instead of promising that the float will stop growing. The day the practical supply becomes a number the market can verify is the day Pi’s halvings start to mean something.
Until then, the most important rate in the ecosystem is not 3.1415926 divided by thirty-two. It is 6.5 million per day.
As of June 11, 2026. Supply figures and unlock rates change monthly; verify current data before trading. This article is information, not investment advice.
South Korean authorities have uncovered a cryptocurrency fraud case that exploited interest in a newly launched blockchain token. The operation targeted XRP holders through a fake investment platform that disappeared after collecting millions of dollars in digital assets.
Authorities launched their investigation after an overseas cryptocurrency exchange flagged suspicious transactions. Within three days of receiving the alert, investigators traced the activity and froze digital wallets holding most of the stolen assets.
How the Scam Worked
According to the probe, the fraudulent website appeared shortly after the Flare Network introduced its FXRP token in October 2025. The platform promised monthly returns of 1.5% to 1.8% while claiming users’ original deposits would remain protected.
The investigation found that the group created convincing online material to support the fake project and make it appear legitimate. False reference pages, blog posts, online articles, and promotional videos were published to strengthen trust among potential victims.
The probe also revealed that victims were instructed to move their XRP through overseas exchanges before sending funds to designated wallet addresses. This process made the transfers appear more credible while helping the organizers distance themselves from the stolen assets.
Ultimately, the website operated for slightly more than one week before shutting down without warning after attracting deposits. During that period, seventy-one victims transferred about 3.4 million XRP worth roughly $8.6 million (12.3 billion won) into wallets controlled by the suspects.
Where the Stolen Funds Went
Blockchain tracing later showed that the suspects’ wallets handled digital assets worth approximately $19 million (27.3 billion won) during the operation. Officials froze about $12.1 million (17.3 billion won) on foreign exchanges, while the remaining funds have not been recovered.
The confirmed losses averaged around $121,000 (173 million won) per victim, although the amounts varied significantly. Police said at least one victim reported losing more than one billion won through the fraudulent platform.
The financial investigation eventually led to several arrests in South Korea. Three men in their late twenties and thirties were taken into custody in South Korea during the investigation. Two suspected organizers face aggravated fraud charges, while another suspect remains overseas under an international alert.
The post South Korea Arrests Suspects in Fake FXRP Scam That Stole $8.6M in XRP appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.
All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.
In a post on X, CEO Brian Armstrong pointed to the company’s expanding businesses beyond spot trading, including stablecoins, Base and prediction markets, noting that Coinbase reached a record 10.3% share of global crypto trading volume during the quarter.
CFO Alesia Haas struck a more measured tone, saying crypto market conditions were challenging as industry spot trading volumes fell more than 20% and the total crypto market capitalization declined by double digits. She said those conditions contributed to a 14% quarter-over-quarter decline in Coinbase’s total revenue.
Several Wall Street firms lowered estimates ahead of earnings and trimmed EBITDA forecasts as lower crypto prices weighed on institutional trading, blockchain rewards and retail activity.
Investors remained focused on Coinbase’s efforts to reduce its dependence on transaction fees.
Subscription and services revenue, which includes USDC interest income, staking, custody, Coinbase One memberships and institutional services, has become a key measure of whether the company can generate more stable revenue through crypto market cycles.
Analysts also watched for updates on newer businesses, including derivatives, prediction markets and Base, Coinbase’s Ethereum layer-2 network.
The company will host a call with investors at 5pm E.T.
Crypto exchange Coinbase reported mixed second-quarter results on Thursday, missing Wall Street expectations on profitability as weaker trading activity weighed on results despite the company capturing a record share of the crypto market.
In the second quarter, Coinbase generated roughly $1.2 billion in net revenue, broadly in line with expectations but down 19% from a year earlier. The company reported a GAAP net loss of $359 million, significantly wider than analysts’ expectations for a roughly $122 million loss. Transaction revenue, subscription and services revenue, and adjusted EBITDA also fell short of consensus estimates.
Despite the losses, the exchange posted an all-time-high 10.3% share of global crypto trading volume, up from 9.1% in the first quarter, even as industry-wide trading activity weakened.
Transaction revenue totaled $599 million, below analyst expectations of $636 million, while subscription and services revenue came in at $555 million, missing the $590 million consensus estimate.
Coinbase attributed the decline in transaction revenue to weaker consumer and institutional trading activity amid a 25% quarter-over-quarter drop in total crypto spot trading volume, lower market volatility and weaker crypto prices.
The results come as Coinbase continues to position itself as an “Everything Exchange,” broadening its business beyond spot cryptocurrency trading into derivatives, prediction markets, tokenized assets and payments.
Coinbase shares fell more than 5% in after-hours trading.
Magazine: CLARITY hopes fade, BitMEX shuts as lawsuit looms: Hodler’s Digest, July 26
The Bitcoin treasury company said it has built a $3.75 billion cash reserve to support preferred stock payouts following the launch of its BTC monetization program.
Coinbase posted a $359.5 million net loss on second quarter revenue of $1.22 billion, below Wall Street’s $1.29 billion consensus. COIN shares fell 5.44% after hours to $154.68.
The selloff erased a 2.18% regular session gain that had left the stock at $163.58. Investors looked past a record trading market share and fixed on the shrinking top line.
Coinbase Revenue Miss Extends a Losing Streak
This was the third straight quarter in the red. Losses have narrowed each time.
Coinbase lost $666.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2025 and $394.1 million in the first. Diluted loss per share came in at $1.36, while transaction revenue reached $599.2 million.
Adjusted EBITDA stayed positive at $207.8 million, a 14th consecutive quarter above zero. That figure fell from $303.3 million three months earlier.
Restructuring costs added $52.4 million. The line had read zero for 10 straight quarters before Coinbase began cutting 700 jobs earlier this year. Citi had already cut its price target by 41% days before the report.
Record Market Share Lands in a Shrinking Market
Crypto trading volume market share climbed to 10.3% from 9.1% in the first quarter, a third consecutive record. Derivatives share also hit an all-time high for the third quarter running.
Meanwhile, the wider crypto derivatives market contracted by double digits over the same stretch.
Prediction markets did the heaviest lifting. Contracts and revenue both more than doubled, growing 106% quarter over quarter. The business crossed $100 million in annualized revenue.
Those gains landed against a weak backdrop. Bitcoin spot trading volumes fell toward multi-year lows in July. Rival Robinhood saw crypto revenue drop 38% year over year.
Stablecoins Now Carry More of the Load
Subscription and services revenue reached $555.1 million, or 48% of net revenue. That share stood at 29% in the fourth quarter of 2024.
Coinbase said 88% of net revenue came from sources other than Bitcoin spot trading. Average USDC held in Coinbase products hit a record $20 billion. That is more than 30% of the dollar-pegged stablecoin in circulation at quarter end.
Stablecoin transaction volume on Base, the company’s own layer-2 network, rose sevenfold year over year.
“Coinbase is no longer a bet just on the price of Bitcoin. All of financial services are getting updated by crypto, whether that’s trading or payments or lending, and Coinbase is the best-positioned company in the world to power this,” Brian Armstrong, Coinbase co-founder and chief executive, in the earnings release.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
What Comes Next
Coinbase reduced and narrowed its 2026 adjusted expense guidance. The company now implies GAAP technology, administrative and marketing costs of $4.34 billion to $4.6 billion this year.
“Despite market headwinds, our fundamentals remain strong as we consolidate trading share and continue to build through the cycle,” Alesia Haas, Coinbase chief financial officer, in the same release.
One question now hangs over the second half. Can a bigger slice of a smaller market lift revenue once trading volumes recover?
The post Coinbase Q2 Earnings Miss Drags COIN Lower as Losses Hit 3rd Quarter appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Coinbase reported mixed results for the second quarter, showing profitability pressure as overall crypto trading activity softened—despite the exchange winning a record slice of global market volume. The company’s performance underscored a key tension for large exchanges this year: when user activity and volatility decline, even strong market share gains may not be enough to offset revenue headwinds.
For the quarter, Coinbase generated about $1.2 billion in net revenue, broadly in line with expectations but down 19% from the prior year. The exchange posted a GAAP net loss of $359 million, widening significantly versus analysts’ expectations for a loss around $122 million.
Key takeaways
- Coinbase’s net revenue for Q2 was roughly $1.2 billion, down 19% year over year, as trading-related revenue weakened.
- The company reported a GAAP net loss of $359 million, materially worse than expected.
- Transaction revenue fell short of consensus, while subscription and services revenue also missed estimates.
- Despite weaker industry activity, Coinbase reached a record 10.3% share of global crypto spot trading volume, up from 9.1% in Q1.
Revenue softness and a wider-than-expected loss
Coinbase’s top-line picture was restrained. Transaction revenue totaled $599 million, below analyst expectations of $636 million. Subscription and services revenue came in at $555 million, missing the $590 million consensus estimate.
The gap between performance and expectations showed up most clearly in the bottom line. Coinbase’s GAAP net loss of $359 million was substantially larger than forecasts for a roughly $122 million loss, reflecting the squeeze across revenue categories tied to market participation and trading conditions.
Why trading revenue declined
The exchange pointed to weaker engagement across both consumer and institutional trading. According to Coinbase, transaction revenue fell as total crypto spot trading volume dropped 25% quarter over quarter, with lower market volatility and weaker crypto prices contributing to the decline.
That explanation matters for investors because it highlights what likely drove the quarter: not a loss of competitive position, but a reduction in the underlying trading “fuel” that generates fee income. Even when an exchange captures a larger share of a smaller market, the absolute level of activity can still weigh on results.
Market share at a record level, even as volumes weakened
While revenue suffered, Coinbase’s routing and distribution strength appeared resilient. The company reported an all-time high 10.3% share of global crypto trading volume, up from 9.1% in the first quarter.
This is an important counterpoint to the earnings misses. In prior periods, exchange earnings have often been highly sensitive to both share and total market activity. Here, Coinbase demonstrated share gains even as industry-wide trading activity softened, suggesting competitive momentum. The open question for traders and analysts is whether market share growth can continue translating into better financial outcomes when price movement and volatility are weak.
Strategic push beyond spot trading
Coinbase also framed the results within its broader push to expand beyond spot trading. The company continues to position itself as an “Everything Exchange,” extending into areas including derivatives, prediction markets, tokenized assets, and payments.
That diversification angle is particularly relevant in quarters like this one, where spot activity declines can pressure transaction fees. Investors will likely watch whether non-spot products can help stabilize revenue during periods when spot volumes and volatility fall, or whether the business remains too dependent on traditional trading patterns.
Coinbase shares fell more than 5% in after-hours trading after closing up 2.2% during regular trading.
Going forward, readers should focus on whether Coinbase’s record market-share gains persist and, more importantly, whether its expansion into derivatives and other digital-asset services can deliver stronger revenue resilience when spot trading volume and volatility remain under pressure.
The Senate released 616 pages merging two committee drafts into one bill. Here is what the combined text actually does, section by section.
Summary
- Senate Republicans released updated CLARITY Act text on July 22, 2026, merging the Banking and Agriculture committee drafts into a single 616-page bill with more than 70 pages of new language, including a government ethics title negotiated with the White House.
- The bill divides digital assets into three statutory categories: digital commodities overseen by the CFTC, investment contract assets under the SEC, and permitted payment stablecoins governed by the GENIUS Act, with a maturity certification process that lets tokens graduate from securities treatment as their networks decentralize.
- An ETP grandfather clause permanently classifies tokens that anchored a qualifying exchange-traded product before January 1, 2026, as non-securities, immediately covering Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, SOL, and DOGE without requiring any issuer action.
- The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, carried intact from the House version, shields non-custodial software developers from money-transmitter obligations and Bank Secrecy Act requirements, while a separate DeFi exclusion exempts validators and open-source publishers from registration.
- No cloture motion was filed before the August 8 recess. The Senate moved to a nominations package and a Russia sanctions bill instead, shelving the CLARITY Act for the summer and compressing the remaining legislative calendar into a September session that carries less political momentum. Polymarket odds on 2026 passage have fallen from a February peak above 80 percent to roughly 30 percent as of July 29.
What the merge produced
The merged text is not a revision of either committee draft. It is a new document that stitches the Senate Banking Committee’s market-structure framework, passed 15-9 on May 14, to the Senate Agriculture Committee’s commodity-market provisions, then layers on titles that neither committee produced alone: a government ethics title, a law enforcement tools title, and 25 sections addressing sanctions and anti-money-laundering gaps.
The result is 616 pages across roughly a dozen titles. Senator Cynthia Lummis released the text alongside a section-by-section summary. The bill number remains H.R. 3633, the same vehicle that passed the House 294-134 in July 2025.
For readers who want the full statutory architecture mapped section by section, we published that guide when the House text shipped. What follows here covers only what the Senate merge added, changed, or settled.
The three-bucket classification
The core mechanism of the CLARITY Act is a statutory taxonomy that sorts every digital asset into one of three categories, each with a defined regulator.
Digital commodities are tokens whose underlying blockchain has reached functional maturity or sufficient decentralization. Once classified, these assets fall under CFTC jurisdiction. The CFTC gains exclusive authority over their spot markets, a power it currently lacks under the Commodity Exchange Act, which limits its spot-market role to anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement. Centralized exchanges, brokers, and dealers trading digital commodities must register with the CFTC and comply with custody, trading, reporting, and consumer-protection standards.
Investment contract assets are tokens sold as part of an investment contract that have not yet graduated to commodity status. These remain under SEC jurisdiction and are subject to disclosure, registration, and investor-protection requirements consistent with existing securities law.
Permitted payment stablecoins are carved out entirely and governed by the GENIUS Act, which Congress passed in July 2025. The CLARITY Act does not duplicate that framework; it defers to it.
The taxonomy matters because it replaces the enforcement-by-litigation approach of the Gensler era with a statutory line. A token’s classification is no longer a question that gets answered in a federal courtroom years after launch. It is a question that gets answered by the text of the statute, the maturity certification process, or the grandfather clause.
The merged text also introduces a provisional registration regime for digital commodity exchanges and brokers. Firms can register with the CFTC and continue operating while final rules are written, avoiding the years-long limbo that characterized the previous regulatory environment. This is a meaningful change from the pre-CLARITY status quo, where an exchange could not know whether its tokens were securities or commodities until a court told it, often through an enforcement action. Under provisional registration, the exchange registers under a defined framework, lists tokens that have been certified or are in the certification pipeline, and operates under CFTC oversight from day one.
The maturity certification path
The bill creates a defined process for a token to move from securities treatment to commodity treatment. An issuer can notify the SEC that its digital asset is, or will become within four years, “functionally mature” or “sufficiently decentralized.” The SEC then evaluates the claim against statutory criteria: the network no longer depends on a centralized group to function, the token has real utility within its ecosystem, and ongoing management by the original development team is no longer the primary driver of the asset’s value.
Once certified, the asset is no longer classified as a security. The issuer’s filing obligations lighten, and the CFTC assumes oversight. Digital commodity exchanges may list only tokens whose blockchains have been certified as mature or whose issuers comply with ongoing reporting while the certification is pending.
This is the on-ramp that the industry has described as the bill’s central innovation. It is also the provision most dependent on rulemaking that has not begun. As our analysis of what Monday morning actually looks like if CLARITY passes details, the certification process exists in statute but cannot operate until the SEC writes the rules, and the base rate for timely agency rulemaking in this space is poor.
The ETP grandfather clause
Not every token needs to walk the certification path. Section 10101 of the merged text permanently classifies any token that was the principal asset of a qualifying exchange-traded product listed on a national securities exchange before January 1, 2026, as a non-security. The classification operates by force of statute the day the bill takes effect. It cannot be reversed through SEC rulemaking.
The practical effect is immediate and large. Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, SOL, and DOGE all anchored qualifying ETPs before the cutoff. They are grandfathered as digital commodities without any issuer action, any certification filing, or any waiting period. For these five assets, the classification war ends on signature day.
The grandfather clause is permanent. It does not sunset. It does not require renewal. And because it operates by statute rather than by agency interpretation, it survives changes in SEC leadership and rulemaking priorities. This is the single provision in the bill that delivers its effects without depending on a federal agency to do anything.
Regulation Crypto: the fundraising exemption
The merged text carries forward the Regulation Crypto framework from the House version. This is a bespoke exemption from full SEC registration for ancillary assets, tokens sold in connection with an investment contract that have not yet reached maturity.
An originator can raise the greater of $50 million per calendar year for four years, or 10 percent of the total dollar value of outstanding ancillary assets, subject to a $200 million aggregate cap. The exemption comes with tailored disclosure requirements rather than full securities registration. It is designed to let early-stage projects fund development without the cost and complexity of a registered offering while still providing investors with material information.
The key constraint is the cap structure. A project that raises $50 million a year exhausts its four-year allowance at $200 million. A project whose outstanding ancillary assets are worth $3 billion can raise $300 million per year but still cannot exceed the $200 million aggregate limit. The math channels early-stage capital into projects that are building, not projects that are already large enough to register.
The DeFi developer shield
Section 604 of the merged text incorporates the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), unchanged from the House version. The BRCA codifies that non-custodial software developers are not money transmitters under federal law and carry no Bank Secrecy Act obligations. It draws a bright line between custodial and non-custodial activities, making it clear which side of that line coders and validators stand on.
A separate DeFi exclusion exempts activities like validating transactions and publishing open-source code from SEC registration requirements. Running nodes, validating transactions, and maintaining protocol software are carved out from the bill’s compliance requirements entirely. Anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement still applies; the shield covers registration, not conduct.
The DeFi Education Fund, reviewing the merged text, confirmed that the BRCA is unchanged, developer protections under the Exchange Act (Section 10601) and the Commodity Exchange Act (Section 20209) are intact, and the self-custody provision (Section 10605, the Keep Your Coins Act) is preserved. Protections under the Exchange Act reflect a compromise, with some protections for DeFi trading protocols, messaging systems, and self-custody hardware and software subject to future rulemaking. Protections under the CEA remain identical to the House-passed version.
This is the provision that the Fraternal Order of Police initially opposed and then reversed its position on. After reviewing the clarifying language in the merged text, the organization confirmed on July 24 that it is satisfied the provision does not limit law enforcement’s ability to address unlawful conduct involving digital assets.
The ethics provision
The merged text adds an entirely new government ethics title, developed in negotiations with the White House. Section 13152 prohibits covered federal officials and their spouses from issuing or sponsoring a digital asset in exchange for consideration during public service. “Covered federal officials” includes the president, vice president, members of Congress, and senior executive branch appointees.
The design choices are deliberate. The ban covers issuing new assets, not holding or profiting from existing ones. A safe harbor protects officials who place earlier crypto interests in qualified blind trusts or divest them. Penalties reach $250,000 per day of violation. And enforcement belongs solely to the Attorney General of the United States, with state attorneys general and private plaintiffs expressly barred from bringing actions.
The provision sunsets on January 20, 2029, the next presidential inauguration day.
These design choices are why the ethics provision is the center of the bill’s political fight. Seven Senate Democrats who had been negotiating the bill, including Senators Booker, Murphy, Van Hollen, and Merkley, issued a joint statement rejecting the released version the same day. Their objections center on two points: DOJ-only enforcement places the mechanism under a department whose nominee is the president’s former personal lawyer, and the 2029 sunset means the restriction expires with the current administration rather than enduring as a permanent standard.
The two Democrats whose committee votes carried the bill through the Banking Committee, Senators Alsobrooks and Gallego, also oppose the released version, for the same reasons.
Law enforcement and illicit finance
The merged text is substantially heavier on law enforcement provisions than either committee draft. Title II, Protecting Against Illicit Finance, and Title III, Responsible Innovation in Decentralized Finance, extend Bank Secrecy Act obligations to digital asset intermediaries and create rulemakings that give regulators new tools to address illicit finance through the existing AML framework.
Title IX, Law Enforcement Tools, is entirely new. It contains provisions developed in response to concerns from federal law enforcement that the original bill did not give prosecutors adequate authority. At first assessment, the title provides law enforcement with operational tools and funding without imposing registration requirements on non-custodial developers, threading a needle that earlier drafts left unresolved.
In total, the merged text contains 25 sections addressing sanctions, anti-money-laundering, and law enforcement, a significant expansion from the House version. This expansion reflects a political reality: multiple Senate votes, including some within the Democratic caucus, were conditioned on the bill doing more to address the use of digital assets in illicit finance, ransomware, and sanctions evasion.
Federal preemption
The merged text preempts state laws regulating the offer or sale of digital assets for federally registered firms, except for general antifraud statutes. This creates a uniform regulatory environment at the federal level, replacing the current patchwork of state-by-state requirements.
The preemption is significant for compliance costs. Under the current regime, a digital asset firm operating in all 50 states may need to comply with dozens of different regulatory frameworks. Under the CLARITY Act, federal registration replaces state-level licensing for activities covered by the bill. States retain their antifraud authority, and the preemption does not affect state tax law or criminal statutes.
For a broader view of where this fits within the full map of US crypto regulation in 2026, the preemption provision is the mechanism that converts the federal framework from a layer on top of existing state rules into a replacement for them, at least for firms that register.
What is not in the merged text
The merged text does not address several areas that remain open:
Stablecoin yield. Banking trade associations have publicly stated that the updated text puts at risk the local lending that drives economic activity, reflecting an ongoing dispute over whether rewards paid in connection with holding payment stablecoins constitute yield. The GENIUS Act governs stablecoins, but the interaction between the two statutes on this point is unresolved.
Specific rulemaking deadlines with enforcement teeth. The bill instructs the SEC and CFTC to write rules but does not impose the kind of penalties for missed deadlines that would force agency action. The GENIUS Act’s agencies missed their own statutory rulemaking deadline this month, one year after passage, and the CLARITY Act hands a larger workload to a CFTC operating with a single confirmed commissioner.
NFT classification. The taxonomy addresses fungible digital assets but does not create a specific category or exemption for non-fungible tokens. Their treatment will depend on how the SEC and CFTC apply the existing categories through rulemaking and enforcement.
Custody standards for qualified custodians. The merged text prohibits federal regulators from requiring financial institutions to carry customer digital assets as liabilities on their own balance sheets or hold additional capital against custodied assets, except as necessary to address operational risk. But it does not define affirmative custody standards for qualified custodians beyond this prohibition. The details of how banks, trust companies, and registered custodians must segregate, insure, and report on digital asset holdings will be determined through rulemaking.
Cross-border coordination. The bill is a domestic statute. It does not address how the CFTC and SEC will coordinate with foreign regulators on cross-listed digital assets, how conflicts between the CLARITY Act’s classification framework and foreign regulatory regimes will be resolved, or how enforcement jurisdiction will be allocated when a token classified as a commodity in the United States is treated as a security abroad.
The vote math and the shelving
The bill needs 60 votes to clear the Senate under cloture rules. Republicans hold 53 seats. Every Republican vote is assumed, which means seven Democrats must cross over. Two Democrats, Senators Gallego and Alsobrooks, voted for the bill in committee but have since opposed the merged text over the ethics provision. Their opposition does not reduce the required crossover count, because their committee votes were not floor commitments, but it signals the difficulty of the remaining math.
As our coverage of the 60-vote gap the bill faces on the Senate floor detailed, the cloture sequence itself consumes days: filing, an intervening day, the vote, then up to 30 hours of post-cloture debate. A contested bill typically needs the sequence twice, once on the motion to proceed and once on the bill itself. The calendar arithmetic proved as binding as the vote arithmetic.
No cloture motion was filed. Senate Majority Leader Thune acknowledged on July 23 that the chamber lacked time to complete debate, amendments, and a cloture vote before the August 8 recess. The floor went to a nominations package and a Russia sanctions bill instead. The CLARITY Act has sat on the Senate Legislative Calendar as Calendar No. 423 since June 1, without a scheduled vote.
The shelving does not kill the bill. The 119th Congress runs until January 2027, and the merged text remains on the calendar. But the political window narrows sharply after recess as midterm positioning absorbs Senate floor time. A September session carries less momentum, fewer available floor days, and the same unresolved ethics deadlock. Polymarket odds on the bill becoming law in 2026 are worth reading as an arc instead of a number: a February peak above 80 percent, a record low near 24 percent in mid-July, a rebound to 43 percent on July 21 after reports that the White House had agreed to the ethics provision, and roughly 30 percent as of July 29.
What to watch
September floor time. With no cloture motion filed before the August 8 recess, the next opportunity is the September session. Whether Thune allocates floor time to the CLARITY Act or prioritizes the reconciliation package will determine whether the bill gets a vote in 2026.
Democratic crossover count. Seven crossover votes beyond Gallego and Alsobrooks are needed for 60. The ethics provision remains the binding constraint on every undecided Democrat, and the recess has not produced any new commitments.
Ethics provision amendments. Floor amendments extending the sunset past 2029 or adding state AG enforcement authority would change the vote math significantly.
CFTC confirmation. The CFTC is operating with a single confirmed commissioner. Until additional commissioners are confirmed, the agency’s capacity to write the rules the bill requires is structurally limited.
SEC rulemaking timeline. The maturity certification process, the Regulation Crypto disclosure requirements, and portions of the DeFi protections all depend on SEC rulemaking that has not started.
Frequently asked questions
What is the CLARITY Act merged text?
It is a 616-page bill released by Senate Republicans on July 22, 2026, combining the Senate Banking Committee’s market-structure framework with the Senate Agriculture Committee’s commodity-market provisions, plus new titles on government ethics and law enforcement. The bill number is H.R. 3633.
How does the bill classify digital assets?
The bill creates three statutory categories: digital commodities (CFTC jurisdiction), investment contract assets (SEC jurisdiction), and permitted payment stablecoins (governed by the GENIUS Act). A maturity certification process lets tokens graduate from securities to commodity treatment as their networks decentralize.
Which tokens are grandfathered as non-securities?
Any token that was the principal asset of a qualifying exchange-traded product listed on a national securities exchange before January 1, 2026. In practice, this covers Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, SOL, and DOGE. The classification is permanent and operates by force of statute.
What does Regulation Crypto allow?
It lets token issuers raise the greater of $50 million per year for four years, or 10 percent of outstanding ancillary assets, up to a $200 million aggregate cap, with tailored disclosures instead of full SEC registration.
Does the bill protect DeFi developers?
Yes. The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (Section 604) shields non-custodial software developers from money-transmitter and Bank Secrecy Act obligations. A separate exclusion exempts validators and open-source publishers from registration. Anti-fraud enforcement still applies.
What does the ethics provision do?
It bans the president, vice president, members of Congress, and senior officials from issuing or sponsoring digital assets while in office. Penalties reach $250,000 per day. Enforcement belongs solely to the Attorney General. The provision sunsets on January 20, 2029.
Why did Democrats reject the merged text?
Seven negotiating Democrats opposed the bill because enforcement of the ethics provision is limited to the DOJ, headed by the president’s former personal lawyer, and the provision sunsets with the current administration instead of setting a permanent standard.
Has the CLARITY Act become law?
No. The bill passed the House 294-134 in July 2025 and cleared the Senate Banking Committee 15-9 in May 2026, but no cloture motion was filed before the August 8 recess. The bill remains on the Senate calendar, and the next opportunity is the September session. The 119th Congress runs until January 2027. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. Regulatory outcomes are uncertain, and the legislative text discussed may change through floor amendments or conference negotiation. Readers should consult qualified professionals before making decisions based on pending legislation. Information is accurate as of July 30, 2026.
The 2026 FIFA World Cup drove $20 billion in blockchain-based prediction market volume and $24 million in digital collectible trades, with more than 400,000 wallets participating in blockchain-based betting, according to a report from blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis.
The $20 billion figure includes trading before and during the tournament, with bettors placing roughly $5.7 billion in wagers over the five-week World Cup itself. World Cup-related markets accounted for about 63% of all prediction market activity during that period, the report said.
According to Chainalysis, users from every continent except Antarctica participated in World Cup prediction markets, with the United States and China generating the highest attributable trading volumes, followed by Canada, Thailand and the United Kingdom.
Despite the scale of betting activity, illicit participation remained limited. Chainalysis said fewer than 1% of wallets participating in World Cup prediction markets had ties to illicit actors, though it identified roughly $5.4 million in flows originating from sanctioned entities and other illicit sources.
The report also highlighted growing adoption of blockchain-based digital collectibles. Fans traded about $24 million worth of FIFA Collect NFTs during the tournament, while more than 100,000 match tickets were distributed through the platform. Wallets linked to sanctioned entities accounted for less than 0.01% of FIFA Collect users, which Chainalysis attributed in part to the platform’s identity verification requirements.
Chainalysis said the findings suggest blockchain will play a growing role in major global events and underscored the importance of compliance measures as platforms attract broader participation.
Strategy reported an $8.33 billion second-quarter operating loss after Bitcoin’s 27% decline this year drove a sharp reduction in the value of its digital asset portfolio.
Summary
- Strategy recorded an $8.32 billion unrealized digital asset loss during the second quarter.
- Its 843,775 BTC were worth $54.77 billion, below their $63.69 billion acquisition cost.
- The company posted an $8.22 billion net loss, equal to $24.45 per diluted share.
- A $3.75 billion dollar reserve provides 2.1 years of preferred dividend coverage under Strategy’s policy.
Strategy’s Bitcoin decline drives $8.33B loss
Bitcoin traded near $64,700 following Strategy’s earnings announcement, down from approximately $88,400 at the end of 2025. That decline left the company’s holdings valued below their aggregate purchase cost.
Strategy recorded an $8.32 billion unrealized loss on digital assets during the quarter, contributing to an operating loss of $8.33 billion. The results reversed the $14.05 billion unrealized gain recorded in the same quarter a year earlier.
The company reported a net loss of $8.22 billion, or $24.45 per diluted common share. Strategy posted net income of $10.02 billion, or $32.60 per share, during the comparable period last year.
Strategy shares were mostly unchanged in after-hours trading following the earnings release, suggesting investors had largely expected Bitcoin’s decline to weigh on the results.
Bitcoin holdings fall below Strategy’s acquisition cost
Strategy held 843,775 BTC as of July 26, an increase of 25% since the start of the year. The position had an original cost of $63.69 billion, including fees and expenses, and a market value of $54.77 billion.
Its average purchase price stood at approximately $75,476 per Bitcoin. With BTC trading near $64,700 after the report, the company’s position was about $10,776 underwater per coin based on its average acquisition cost.
The gap placed the total portfolio roughly $8.92 billion below its original cost. However, the reported quarterly loss was largely unrealized, meaning it reflected changes in Bitcoin’s market value rather than losses from selling the full position.
As crypto.news reported earlier, Strategy made no Bitcoin purchases between July 20 and July 26. Its total holdings remained unchanged at 843,775 BTC during that period.
The company has nevertheless sold approximately $218.4 million in Bitcoin this year to help fund preferred stock dividends. Those sales remain small relative to its overall digital asset reserve but show that Strategy is using part of the portfolio to meet financing obligations.
Strategy raises cash while reducing convertible debt
Strategy’s core software business generated quarterly revenue of $122.4 million, up 6.9% from $114.5 million a year earlier. Gross profit reached $81.6 million, representing a margin of 66.6%.
The company raised $17.06 billion through its capital markets programs during the year and reported a Bitcoin yield of 4.5%. That internal metric measures the change in Bitcoin held per assumed diluted share and does not represent a conventional investment yield.
Strategy also cut its convertible debt by 18% to $6.71 billion after repurchasing $1.5 billion of notes at a discount. The move reduced part of the company’s debt burden as lower Bitcoin prices placed pressure on its balance sheet.
Its U.S. dollar reserve rose by $525 million to $3.75 billion. Strategy said the reserve provides 2.1 years of coverage for preferred stock dividends under its current policy, although the calculation does not guarantee payments under every market condition.
Separate $1 billion repurchase programs have also been established for Strategy’s common shares and digital credit securities. The programs give the company the option to buy back securities but do not require it to use the full authorized amounts.
What the results mean for US investors
Strategy remains one of the largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holders, giving U.S. investors indirect exposure to BTC through its securities. Its shares can respond to Bitcoin prices as well as debt costs, equity issuance, preferred dividends and changes in the company’s capital structure.
The second-quarter loss shows how Bitcoin volatility can produce large swings in reported earnings. Strategy moved from a $14.05 billion unrealized digital asset gain a year earlier to an $8.32 billion unrealized loss this quarter.
Its increased cash reserve and lower convertible debt provide additional financial flexibility, but Bitcoin remains below the company’s average purchase price. Further declines could deepen unrealized losses, while a recovery above $75,476 would move the portfolio back above its aggregate acquisition cost.
‘The Witcher’ Officially Brings Back Geralt for New 2026 Release
Central bank turns piper to draw in foreign capital; leaves repo rate at 5.25, keeps stance neutral
South Korea Arrests Suspects in Fake FXRP Scam That Stole $8.6M in XRP
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Sports4 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Business1 day agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Tech4 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Crypto World5 days agoRipple bought a bank in pieces. The $4 billion audit
-
Politics3 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Entertainment6 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
Politics3 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
News Videos4 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Fashion7 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
Sports7 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
Business2 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Crypto World5 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
Politics4 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
News Videos10 hours agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Entertainment2 days ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Tech6 days agoAnthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows
-
Crypto World2 days agoKraken Enables Retail Access to Jersey Mike’s IPO via Tokenized Shares
-
Entertainment5 days agoSara Gilson Killed By Husband After Viral “Pedophile” TikTok Video
-
News Videos2 days agoClaude: Build Financial Dashboards in Minutes (2026)
You must be logged in to post a comment Login