Crypto World
Ripple fought SWIFT for a decade. Now it wants in
Ripple built its identity on replacing SWIFT, the bank-messaging network that moves roughly $150 trillion a year, with XRP as the bridge that would kill slow correspondent banking. A decade on, the banks kept SWIFT, adopted Ripple as a fast lane beside it, and the disruptor is learning to integrate. What that pivot means for XRP is the real question.
Summary
- Ripple built its identity on replacing SWIFT, the messaging network linking roughly 11,000 banks and about $150 trillion in annual flows, with XRP cast as the bridge that would end slow correspondent banking.
- A decade later, banks have kept SWIFT and adopted Ripple as a fast lane alongside it, not a replacement, and Ripple’s posture has shifted from disruption toward integration.
- Signals now point to Ripple working with SWIFT-connected infrastructure rather than purely against it, a pragmatic maturation of its original pitch.
- Rival Chainlink has already connected SWIFT to blockchains through its cross-chain messaging layer, showing that integration, not replacement, is where the institutional money is flowing.
- For XRP, the open question is whether it ends up as a settlement layer beneath SWIFT messaging or gets sidelined as banks keep messaging on SWIFT and settle in stablecoins.
For most of its existence, Ripple defined itself by a single enemy: SWIFT, the global messaging network that connects roughly 11,000 banks and underpins the movement of something like $150 trillion a year.
Ripple’s founding pitch was that SWIFT was slow, antiquated plumbing, that moving money across borders through it took days and trapped capital in pre-funded accounts around the world, and that XRP could replace all of that by acting as a neutral bridge asset that settled value in seconds.
The company’s executives spent years framing the contest in exactly those terms, as a young, fast technology coming to take the lunch of an aging incumbent.
A decade later, the scoreboard tells a more complicated story. SWIFT is still standing, still carrying the world’s bank messaging, and the banks that adopted Ripple mostly did so as a fast lane running alongside SWIFT rather than as a replacement for it.
And now, in a quiet but telling shift, Ripple appears to be moving from trying to replace SWIFT to looking for ways to plug into the world it once vowed to dismantle.
This piece examines that reversal, why it happened, and the question it raises for XRP holders, which is whether the token has a place in an integrated future or gets left out of it.
The arc matters because it is really a story about how disruption meets entrenched infrastructure, and how the ambitious narratives that sell a token in its early years collide with the slower reality of how global finance actually changes.
Ripple’s evolution from would-be SWIFT killer to prospective SWIFT partner is not a humiliation; it is a maturation, and arguably a smart one. But it scrambles the original thesis that many XRP holders bought into, the one in which the token replaces a $150 trillion network and captures the value of doing so.
This guide traces the original pitch, what SWIFT actually is and why it survived, what really happened when banks adopted Ripple, the pivot toward integration, how a rival already executed that integration, and what the whole shift means for the token at the center of it.
The original pitch: replace SWIFT
To appreciate the reversal, you have to remember how absolute the original ambition was.
Ripple was sold, for years, as the technology that would render SWIFT obsolete. The argument was concrete and, on its own terms, compelling.
When money moves across borders through the traditional system, it does not actually travel. Instead, banks send messages to one another through SWIFT and settle through a chain of correspondent banking relationships, in which each bank holds pre-funded accounts in foreign currencies at other banks.
This system is slow, taking days for some transfers, and it is capital-intensive, because trillions of dollars sit idle in those pre-funded accounts around the world. That money cannot be used for anything else.
Ripple’s pitch was that XRP could eliminate all of it by serving as a bridge asset: a bank could convert its currency into XRP, move the XRP across the world in seconds, and convert it into the destination currency on the other end, with no need for pre-funded accounts and no multi-day delay.
In that vision, XRP was not a speculative token but the grease in a new global settlement machine, and its value would rise with the volume of cross-border payments it bridged.
Ripple’s leadership leaned into the rivalry, repeatedly casting SWIFT as the slow, outdated incumbent and Ripple as the disruptor coming to replace it.
For holders, this was the heart of the bull case, and it was intoxicating precisely because the prize was so vast. If XRP became the bridge for even a meaningful slice of global cross-border value, the implications for its price were enormous.
The entire thesis rested on replacement, on XRP supplanting the old rails rather than complementing them. That framing shaped how a generation of holders understood what they owned.
It is also the framing that reality has spent the past decade quietly dismantling.
What SWIFT is, and why it did not die
The flaw in the replacement thesis was an underestimation of what SWIFT actually is and how hard it is to displace.
SWIFT is not a settlement system that moves money. It is a messaging standard, a secure, standardized language that banks use to instruct one another to move funds.
Its power comes not from technology but from its network: roughly 11,000 institutions all speaking the same language, with decades of trust, integration, and regulatory acceptance built around it.
Replacing a network like that is categorically harder than building a faster alternative, because the value of SWIFT to any one bank is that every other bank is already on it.
A faster technology does not automatically overcome that. A bank cannot unilaterally switch to a system the rest of the world is not using.
SWIFT also did not stand still. Faced with the threat from blockchain-based challengers, it modernized, rolling out faster services and adopting new global messaging standards designed to carry richer data and move more quickly, narrowing the speed advantage that challengers like Ripple had built their pitch around.
The combination, an entrenched network effect plus a modernizing incumbent, proved far more durable than the disruptor narrative allowed.
Banks, it turned out, had little appetite to rip out the messaging standard that connects them to every other bank on earth in favor of a system built around a volatile cryptocurrency, however fast it settled.
The result was not the replacement Ripple had promised but something the original pitch did not really contemplate: coexistence. SWIFT kept doing what it does, and Ripple’s technology found a narrower role beside it.
What actually happened: banks kept both
The reality that emerged is that banks adopted Ripple’s technology selectively, as a fast lane for specific corridors and use cases, while keeping SWIFT for the vast bulk of their messaging.
Hundreds of financial institutions came to have some relationship with Ripple’s network, and its on-demand liquidity service, which uses XRP as a bridge to avoid pre-funded accounts, found genuine adoption in particular remittance corridors where it offered real advantages.
But this was adoption as a complement, not a conquest. A bank might route certain payments to certain countries through Ripple while continuing to handle the rest of its global business through SWIFT, treating Ripple as one specialized tool in a kit instead of as the new foundation of cross-border payments.
This coexistence is the crucial fact that the replacement narrative obscured. XRP did not become the bridge for global finance; it became a useful option for slices of it, valuable in specific corridors but nowhere near the universal settlement asset the original pitch envisioned.
And even within Ripple’s own growing business, the company increasingly leaned on its dollar stablecoin instead of XRP for the cash leg of institutional settlement, because a stable, dollar-denominated instrument suits banks and treasurers better than a volatile token.
As previously reported, that is the coexistence reality now defining Ripple’s 2026: bank partnerships can deepen while XRP still waits for direct demand.
So the decade did not deliver the dramatic replacement of SWIFT by XRP. It delivered a more modest reality in which SWIFT remained the backbone, Ripple’s technology served as a fast lane for particular needs, and even Ripple’s own institutional ambitions came to rest as much on its stablecoin as on its token.
That is the landscape into which Ripple’s strategic pivot arrived, and it is why the pivot makes sense.
The quiet pivot from replacement to integration
Against that backdrop, Ripple’s posture has shifted in a way that would have been hard to imagine in the company’s combative early years.
Instead of positioning itself purely as SWIFT’s replacement, Ripple has increasingly built itself into the institutional financial system as it actually exists: adopting the new global messaging standards that SWIFT uses, pursuing banking charters and regulated custody, expanding a dollar stablecoin designed to fit institutional settlement, and signaling interest in connecting to, instead of only competing with, the SWIFT-based infrastructure that banks already run.
That is Ripple’s integration-ready stack: banking access, custody, stablecoin rails, and the XRP Ledger sitting beside the traditional system rather than outside it.
The disruptor that once vowed to dismantle the old rails is learning to plug into them.
This pivot is pragmatic, and it reflects a hard-won recognition. If you cannot persuade 11,000 banks to abandon the messaging standard that connects them, the smarter play is to become the layer that their existing messaging can trigger, the settlement and tokenization infrastructure that sits beneath SWIFT instead of in opposition to it.
In that model, a bank does not stop using SWIFT. It keeps sending SWIFT messages, and those messages reach into a faster settlement or tokenization layer where companies like Ripple operate.
Ripple’s whole banking and stablecoin build, its charter, its custody business, its regulated rails, positions it to be exactly that kind of layer.
That is also why Ripple USD becoming available in Japan through SBI after JFSA approval matters. It shows Ripple building a regulated settlement asset inside one of the markets most important to XRP’s history and liquidity.
The shift from replacement to integration is not an admission of defeat so much as a recalibration toward how global finance actually adopts new technology, which is by addition and connection, not by wholesale demolition.
It is a more realistic strategy. The question it raises is what role the token plays in it.
Chainlink already did it
The integration path is not hypothetical, because a rival has already walked it, and watching that rival clarifies where the institutional money is flowing.
Chainlink, the oracle and interoperability network, built its institutional strategy around connecting SWIFT to blockchains instead of replacing SWIFT. It advanced that integration to a pre-production stage in which banks can send their familiar SWIFT messages to trigger smart-contract actions across blockchains, without tearing out their legacy systems.
That is the rival that integrated first. The model is precisely the integration thesis made concrete: SWIFT stays, the banks keep their existing messaging, and a crypto-native infrastructure layer connects that messaging to the on-chain world.
The banks do not have to choose between the old system and the new one, because the new one plugs into the old.
That a major competitor reached this integration first is instructive for Ripple and for XRP holders, because it shows both the viability and the competitiveness of the integration approach.
The institutions tokenizing assets and modernizing settlement are not looking for a single technology to replace their entire stack. They are looking for connective infrastructure that links what they already use to the blockchain rails they are starting to explore.
That is the opportunity, and it is a crowded one, with Chainlink, Ripple, and others all positioning to be the layer that bridges traditional messaging and on-chain settlement.
The race is no longer about who can replace SWIFT, because the market has decided SWIFT is not going anywhere. It is about who becomes the indispensable connector between SWIFT’s world and the tokenized future, and that is a fundamentally different competition than the one Ripple originally framed.
Why integration beats replacement
It is worth dwelling on why the integration strategy is the right one, because understanding that explains both Ripple’s pivot and the constraints on XRP.
Global finance does not adopt new infrastructure by abandoning the old. It adopts by layering the new on top of the existing, connecting them, and migrating gradually as trust and standards develop.
A bank evaluating blockchain settlement is not going to disconnect from the network linking it to every other bank on earth. It is going to look for a way to use blockchain capabilities while keeping that connection intact.
Any strategy that demands wholesale replacement is fighting the fundamental way the system changes, which is why the SWIFT-killer pitch, however exciting, was always going to struggle against the slower reality.
Integration, by contrast, works with that reality. By becoming the settlement and tokenization layer that existing messaging can reach, a crypto-native firm makes itself useful without asking banks to take the impossible step of abandoning their core infrastructure.
This is why Ripple’s evolution toward regulated banking, institutional custody, a fitting stablecoin, and connection to existing standards is a more credible path to relevance than the original replacement dream ever was.
It positions Ripple to capture real institutional business in the way institutions actually adopt technology. The strategy makes sense, and the pivot is wise.
But the very logic that makes integration the right move for Ripple the company also reshapes the role available to XRP. In an integrated world, the cash leg, the part that actually settles value, can be filled by a stable instrument.
That is precisely where the token’s place becomes uncertain.
What it means for XRP
Here is the question the whole reversal forces, and it is uncomfortable for the original thesis.
In the replacement vision, XRP was indispensable: it was the bridge asset that would carry global value across borders, and its necessity was the entire point.
In the integration vision, that necessity is far less clear. If the model is that banks keep using SWIFT for messaging and connect to a settlement layer beneath it, then the critical question becomes what does the settling, and there are two candidates.
One is XRP, used as a neutral bridge asset to move value between currencies in seconds. The other is a stablecoin, used as a steady dollar instrument that banks and treasurers find easier to work with because it does not swing in value.
Ripple has built a capable stablecoin precisely because institutions want that stability, and across its own business the stablecoin has increasingly taken the settlement role.
That is the settlement asset competing with XRP. RLUSD may be good for Ripple’s institutional strategy while making XRP’s direct role less automatic.
This is the heart of the matter for holders. The integration strategy that makes Ripple more relevant as a company does not automatically make XRP more relevant as a token, because the settlement function XRP was meant to perform can be performed by the stablecoin instead, and often is.
XRP retains a genuine potential role as a bridge asset in cross-currency flows where converting through a neutral token is more efficient than holding many stablecoins, and that role is real and not negligible.
But it is no longer the indispensable, central role the replacement pitch promised. It is a contested role, competing for relevance with the stablecoin inside Ripple’s own integrated infrastructure.
The regulatory backdrop still matters here. If the CLARITY Act codifies digital-commodity treatment for XRP, it could make institutions more comfortable using the token where it actually has settlement utility.
But legal clarity alone does not decide the routing question. Banks still have to choose XRP over a stablecoin for actual value transfer, and that is a use-case decision, not just a regulatory one.
So the pivot from fighting SWIFT to plugging into it is good strategy for Ripple and ambiguous news for XRP. It improves the company’s odds of institutional relevance while leaving genuinely open whether the token shares in that relevance or watches the stablecoin capture the settlement role it was built to fill.
The decade in perspective
Stepping back, the arc from SWIFT killer to SWIFT partner is best understood not as a failure but as a lesson in how technological change actually unfolds in finance, and it carries a clear-eyed conclusion for anyone holding the token.
Ripple set out to replace the world’s bank-messaging network and learned, as most disruptors of deeply entrenched infrastructure do, that the incumbent’s network effects are more durable than any speed advantage. It also learned that the path to relevance runs through integration instead of demolition.
The company adapted intelligently, building the regulated, institutional, integration-ready business that actually fits how banks adopt new technology. That adaptation is a strength, and it positions Ripple far better for real institutional adoption than the original confrontational pitch ever did.
For XRP, though, the maturation is double-edged, and honesty requires holding both sides. The good news is that Ripple is becoming a more serious, more credible institutional player, which strengthens the ecosystem the token lives in.
The hard news is that the integrated future Ripple is building does not obviously need XRP the way the replacement future did, because the settlement role the token was created to fill can be, and increasingly is, filled by a stablecoin instead.
The decade did not deliver the dramatic story holders were sold, in which XRP supplants a $150 trillion network and captures the value of doing so.
It delivered a more modest and more realistic story, in which Ripple earns a place inside the existing system and XRP fights for a role within it.
For that role to matter, value still has to enter and exit the rails. That is why how value enters and exits the rails remains central to any serious XRP thesis.
Whether plugging into SWIFT eventually means real demand for the token, or simply real relevance for the company that issues it, is the question the next decade will answer.
The disruptor grew up. Whether its token grows with it remains to be seen.
Frequently asked questions
Did Ripple really try to replace SWIFT?
Yes. For years Ripple’s defining pitch was that SWIFT, the messaging network connecting roughly 11,000 banks, was slow, outdated plumbing, and that XRP could replace it by acting as a bridge asset that settled cross-border value in seconds without the pre-funded accounts that correspondent banking requires. The company’s leadership repeatedly framed the contest as a fast disruptor coming to take the incumbent’s business. That replacement vision, in which XRP became the bridge for global payments, was the heart of the bull case many holders bought into.
Why did Ripple not replace SWIFT?
Because SWIFT’s power is its network, not its technology. Roughly 11,000 banks all use the same messaging standard, and the value to any one bank is that every other bank is already on it, which makes replacement far harder than building a faster alternative. SWIFT also modernized, adopting faster services and new messaging standards that narrowed the speed gap. Banks proved unwilling to abandon the standard connecting them to every other bank in favor of a system built on a volatile token, so instead of replacement, the result was coexistence, with Ripple used as a fast lane alongside SWIFT.
What does it mean that Ripple wants to plug into SWIFT?
It reflects a strategic pivot from replacement to integration. Instead of trying to dismantle SWIFT, Ripple is building itself into the existing financial system, adopting the messaging standards banks use, pursuing banking charters and custody, expanding a stablecoin suited to institutional settlement, and signaling interest in connecting to SWIFT-based infrastructure instead of only competing with it. The idea is to become the settlement and tokenization layer that existing bank messaging can trigger, so banks keep SWIFT while reaching into faster on-chain settlement. It is a more realistic strategy than the original replacement dream.
How did Chainlink connect SWIFT to crypto?
Chainlink built its institutional strategy around connecting SWIFT to blockchains instead of replacing it, advancing to a pre-production stage where banks can send their familiar SWIFT messages to trigger smart-contract actions across blockchains without rewriting their legacy systems. SWIFT stays in place, the banks keep their existing messaging, and Chainlink’s infrastructure connects that messaging to the on-chain world. It is the integration thesis made concrete, and that a major competitor reached it first shows both the viability of the integration approach and how competitive the race to be the connecting layer has become.
Is the pivot bad news for XRP?
It is ambiguous instead of simply bad. In the replacement vision, XRP was indispensable as the bridge asset. In the integration vision, the settlement role XRP was meant to fill can also be filled by a stablecoin, which banks often prefer because it holds a steady value. XRP retains a real potential role as a bridge asset in cross-currency flows, but it is no longer the central, indispensable role the original pitch promised. It now competes with the stablecoin inside Ripple’s own infrastructure. So the pivot strengthens Ripple the company while leaving open whether XRP shares in that relevance.
Does XRP still have a role in cross-border payments?
Yes, but a more contested one than the original pitch suggested. XRP can serve as a neutral bridge asset in cross-currency settlement, where converting through a single token can be more efficient than holding many different stablecoins, and that role is genuine. But within Ripple’s own integrated, institutional business, the stablecoin has increasingly taken the settlement role because its stable value suits banks better. So XRP has a real but no longer indispensable role, competing for relevance with the stablecoin instead of serving as the sole bridge the replacement vision envisioned. Whether it captures meaningful settlement volume is the open question.
This article is information, not investment advice. Cryptocurrency is volatile, and corporate strategies, partnerships, and figures reflect reporting available as of June 26, 2026, which can change quickly. Verify current data from primary sources before making any decision.
As the first half of 2026 draws to a close, major cryptocurrencies are deeply in the red, lagging far behind traditional assets. Bitcoin bulls can at least take one small consolation: they’ve outperformed shares in bitcoin-holder Strategy (MSTR).
These diverging trends point to investor preference for assets linked to economic activity and geopolitical trends rather than narrative-led plays.
While bitcoin, the crypto market leader by market capitalization, is down 32% as June nears an end, ether has slumped 47% and Strategy 43%. The total crypto market cap has declined by roughly 30% to nearly $2 trillion, a level not seen since before President Donald Trump’s election victory in November 2024.
Most of the biggest coins are down, except a select few like HYPE, which has gained over 140%. HYPE’s strength is the result of increased volatility and the stellar performance of TradFi-linked assets available on its parent decentralized exchange, Hyperliquid.
Bitcoin price absorbed a huge body blow and bearish prediction, and stayed on its feet. BTC forced to fall under $60,000 after a 3% daily drop while Ethereum slid harder, down by more than 5% to around $1,510, and neither coin is anywhere close to where options market makers wanted them.
Friday’s Deribit expiry ranked as the quarter’s largest options event, with $10.63 billion in combined BTC and ETH notional contracts settling in a single session. Bitcoin’s slice came in at $9.06 billion across 92,154 calls and 57,652 puts, against Ethereum’s $1.57 billion.
Our analysts flagged that puts continue to command a meaningful premium over calls across all major tenors, with Bitcoin’s 25-delta skew printing -10.7% at one day and -11.3% at seven days. That skew confirms traders were paying for downside protection heading into settlement, instead of chasing upside.
Now that the expiry has cleared and positioning resets, where will Bitcoin go next?
Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio
Bitcoin Price Prediction: $70,000?
Bitcoin trades at $60,000, or about 14% below the $70,000 max-pain level. However, the gap is not only about options positioning, but selling pressure also stayed firm after the recent expiry, while buyers failed to trigger a meaningful rebound.
For now, the key area sits between $58,000 and $60,000. Holding that range would keep the recent pullback under control. On the upside, Bitcoin faces resistance near $63,000 to $65,000, with a stronger ceiling around $67,000 and $68,000.
If support remains intact, price could gradually work its way back toward $65,000. That would suggest sellers are losing momentum. A stronger move higher would likely require fresh demand and improving market sentiment.
Don’t Miss Out on Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit
The most likely outcome remains consolidation. Bitcoin may continue moving between $58,000 and $63,000 as traders wait for the next catalyst. Until then, price action could stay uneven and directionless.
A drop below $58,000 would weaken the near-term outlook. In that case, the next major support sits near $54,000. Meanwhile, Ethereum has fallen faster than Bitcoin recently, showing that risk appetite across crypto remains fragile. 21% below its $2,000 max pain level suggests its options positioning was even more out of whack, and it may lag any BTC recovery attempt.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
Bitcoin Hyper Draws Early-Stage Interest as BTC Tests Critical Support
Bitcoin at $60,200 with a negative skew and macro headwinds is a tough spot for spot holders. The upside to max pain is real but not guaranteed on any near-term timeline. That gap between where BTC needs to go and where it actually trades is exactly the kind of environment where early-stage infrastructure plays start attracting rotational capital looking for asymmetric exposure.
Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is positioning itself as the first Bitcoin Layer 2 with full Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) integration, targeting the core limitations that have historically kept BTC sidelined. It addresses BTC from the smart contract ecosystem: slow transactions, high fees, and limited programmability.
The presale has raised closer to $33 million at a current price of $0.0136, with staking available at high APY for early participants. The architecture pairs a decentralized canonical bridge for BTC transfers with extremely low-latency execution. The pitch is faster smart contract performance than Solana’s, while inheriting Bitcoin’s security layer.
Research Bitcoin Hyper’s presale details here.
The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: Post Deribit Settlement, BTC Survived the Selling Wave appeared first on Cryptonews.
US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw their largest daily net outflows of June on Thursday, withdrawing $696.3 million as Bitcoin slipped below $60,000. The selloff in ETF demand added to a broader cooling in institutional appetite for the asset during the month.
SoSoValue data shows the withdrawals pushed June’s cumulative net outflows to $3.61 billion, taking year-to-date net outflows to $4.6 billion. For investors tracking institutional flows, Thursday’s figures underscored how quickly sentiment can shift when price weakness triggers faster redemptions from ETF wrappers.
Key takeaways
- US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $696.3 million in net outflows on Thursday, the largest day of June.
- June outflows total $3.61 billion, with year-to-date net outflows at $4.6 billion, according to SoSoValue.
- ETF total net assets dropped to about $72.6 billion—down roughly 57% from a peak of $169.5 billion recorded in October 2025.
- WalletPilot data indicates US spot Bitcoin ETFs held 1.24 million BTC as of Tuesday, with about 63,500 BTC leaving over the past 30 days.
- Strategy’s Bitcoin buying slowed materially in June to about 3,600 BTC, intensifying debate about whether it should conserve cash during drawdowns.
Spot Bitcoin ETF outflows accelerate as price weakens
The timing of Thursday’s ETF outflows is notable: they came as Bitcoin moved through the $60,000 area, a level that has often acted as a psychological pivot for market participants. In that context, SoSoValue’s figures point to a stronger-than-usual willingness among ETF investors to exit positions during a short-term downswing.
SoSoValue reported that June’s outflows already surpassed a prior monthly high—$519.2 million logged on June 2—before extending even further on Thursday. With June net outflows now at $3.61 billion, the pattern suggests that redemptions are not just sporadic, but persistent enough to compound quickly.
That matters because spot ETFs are one of the most accessible channels for traditional capital. While other markets can absorb volatility, sustained ETF outflows typically remove a steady source of incremental demand. Traders often watch these flow metrics for confirmation that spot selling is spreading beyond spot exchanges and into regulated products.
ETF assets shrink sharply from the sector’s 2025 peak
Alongside daily flow data, the broader balance-sheet picture for the ETF complex has weakened. According to SoSoValue, total net assets for US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs fell below $73 billion for the first time since late 2024.
SoSoValue cited a peak of $169.5 billion in October 2025. By Friday, that figure stood at roughly $72.6 billion—an approximate 57% decline. Even without assuming any change in investor behavior beyond price, the reduction reflects both falling BTC value and net withdrawals from the funds.
Complementing that, WalletPilot data shows US spot Bitcoin ETFs held a combined 1.24 million BTC as of Tuesday. Over the prior 30 days, about 63,500 BTC left the products. For readers trying to separate price effects from flow effects, this distinction is critical: holdings dropping over a month signals that the outflows are affecting the underlying exposure, not just the market valuation.
Strategy’s June slowdown raises questions over capital discipline
As ETF demand cooled, another large institutional-style buyer also moderated its pace. Strategy—frequently cited as the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holder—purchased about 3,600 Bitcoin so far in June, according to Strategy filings. That rate is far below its recent activity: roughly 25,000 BTC in May and more than 50,000 BTC in April.
The slowing has fueled discussion around whether the company should continue accumulating aggressively during market drawdowns, or instead rebuild liquidity. The debate intensified after Strategy recorded a net sale of 32 BTC earlier in the month, an uncommon move during its broader accumulation period.
Some analysts argue that Strategy should pause purchases and preserve cash until conditions improve. Earlier coverage by Cointelegraph noted scrutiny around Strategy’s broader financial posture, including aspects of how it manages dividend coverage. In the current environment, such questions have become harder to ignore as both ETF flows and price momentum have weakened.
STRC share pressure, and the “self-repairing” debate
Part of the scrutiny has centered on Strategy’s perpetual preferred stock, STRC, which has traded below its intended $100 benchmark. On Thursday, STRC closed at $75.69, down 6.37%. The price action has contributed to renewed debate about whether Strategy’s financing mechanics are robust during volatility.
CryptoQuant analysts raised concerns about Strategy’s timing and risk management. Others, including Bitcoin advocate Samson Mow, pushed back by pointing to a feature described as a “self-repairing mechanism.” In an X post, Mow said that when STRC trades below its $100 benchmark, Strategy pauses new share issuance through its ATM program at that level, limiting new supply.
At the same time, the fundamental question for investors remains whether pauses in issuance and changes in acquisition pace translate into long-term restraint or just short-term adjustment. Strategy’s pace of buying can influence market psychology, particularly because the company is often viewed as a persistent demand backstop—something that may become less reliable if the market downturn causes repeated slowdowns.
Looking ahead, readers should watch whether ETF outflows continue to dominate daily flow prints and whether holdings shrink further month-over-month. In parallel, Strategy’s next purchase cadence and any further signals from STRC’s trading dynamics could clarify whether June represents a temporary slowdown—or the start of a more durable shift in institutional behavior.
With the latest major price moves (and mostly corrections) in the cryptocurrency markets, certain major players and whales have returned to act accordingly.
However, on-chain data from Lookonchain shows significant divergence between what SharpLink and some OG whales did. Here’s the Ethereum edition.
SharpLink Buys
Riding the wave of cryptocurrency treasury companies that started accumulating in 2024/2025, Joe Lubin’s SharpLink began its ETH acquisition in the summer of 2025 and quickly became one of the largest players in the broader Ethereum ecosystem. Similar to Bitmine, it kept buying new tokens as prices rose and its position quickly skyrocketed to almost $1 billion in unrealized profits by early October.
Then came the cycle-changing event in that same early October when the entire market collapsed, leaving over $19 billion in liquidations. Ethereum, similar to almost all other assets, has not been the same ever since, with its price tumbling by 70% from the 2025 ATH to under $1,550 as of now.
Interestingly, unlike Bitmine, which kept accumulating for the most part during this extended bear phase, SharpLink stood on the sidelines. This finally changed after the latest Thursday crash, as the company halted its 8-month break to acquire almost $8 million worth of ETH. It holds 876,285 ETH (valued at $1.4 billion), which includes 22,102 ETH earned from staking.
However, its position is deep in the red as its average acquisition price stands at $3,609. Its unrealized loss, according to Lookonchain, is at $1.7 billion.
Meanwhile, Bitmine, which stands on a whopping unrealized loss of around $10 billion, continues to accumulate and stake the majority of its ETH tokens. In the latest update on the matter, the Tom Lee-chaired company staked another $250 million worth of ETH.
OG Whale Capitulates
Another publication from Lookonchain shows that, in contrast to SharpLink, OG Ethereum whales have gone on a selling spree. Four such wallets received 37,602 ETH 8 years ago when the asset traded at $830. Their unrealized profits had risen to over $150 million during the 2021 and 2025 bull runs, but they refrained from selling.
However, they began disposing of their assets after the latest crash, which drove ETH to just over $1,500. As of press time, they had sold 33,623 ETH as their current profit sits at $27.4 million.
After holding $ETH for 8 years, these #Ethereum OGs finally gave up.
Four #Ethereum OG wallets received 37,602 $ETH($58.66M) 8 years ago at ~$830.
During the 2021 and 2025 bull markets, their unrealized profit exceeded $150M, but they never sold.
After 8 years of dormancy,… pic.twitter.com/bu5hqlIc9n
— Lookonchain (@lookonchain) June 26, 2026
The post SharpLink Resumes ETH Buying After 8-Month Hiatus but OG Whales Capitulate appeared first on CryptoPotato.
A third-party vendor compromise discovered Thursday allowed attackers to inject a malicious script into Polymarket’s frontend, affecting multiple users.
Blockchain analyst Specter said the malicious script appeared to facilitate a phishing attack that drained an estimated $2.94 million from at least 11 Polymarket user wallets.
Polymarket said on X that the compromise has been contained and that the affected dependency has been removed. It added that users would be fully refunded.
Cointelegraph has approached Polymarket for comment but did not receive a response before publication.
The attack was the 89th reported crypto security breach of the second quarter, according to DefiLlama data, extending the most-hacked quarter on record by incident count.
Source: Specter
Crypto exploit losses reach $74.9M across 29 June incidents
Crypto exploit losses climbed to $74.9 million across 29 reported incidents in June, surpassing May’s $60.5 million total but remaining far below April’s $644 million, according to DefiLlama data.
Total value hacked by monthly sum, 1-year chart. Source: DefiLlama.
The largest June incidents included the $36 million Humanity Protocol exploit, the $4.7 million Secret Network bridge exploit, two separate Aztec exploits worth $2.1 million each and a $1.7 million bridge exploit on Taiko.
Related: About 60% of World Cup bettors on Polymarket are first-time crypto users
Over the past 30 days, private key compromises accounted for 43% of reported exploit losses, making them the leading attack vector, according to DefiLlama. Fake proof exploits accounted for 10%, followed by reverse MEV honeypots at 8%, which present deceptive trading opportunities to lure and manipulate automated trading bots.
About a month before Polymarket’s latest attack, the prediction market disclosed a separate $600,000 exploit that was traced to a six-year-old private key used for internal top-up operations. Josh Stevens, Polymarket’s vice president of engineering, said the platform’s contracts and user funds remained safe and that all permissions tied to the key had since been revoked.
Total value hacked by technique over the past 30 days. Source: DefiLlama
Polymarket currently holds over $450 million in total value locked, up 301% from $112 million a year ago, according to DefiLlama.
Magazine: Should users be allowed to bet on war and death in prediction markets?
Key Highlights
- Base postpones Beryl implementation by 24 hours to ensure B20 registry readiness
- B20 token standard introduces native support for stablecoins and real-world assets
- Registry initialization must complete before native B20 token deployment can proceed
- Withdrawal timeframe from Base to Ethereum reduced from seven days to five days
- Integration of Reth V2 promises up to 50% reduction in node storage requirements
The Ethereum layer 2 network Base has postponed its Beryl mainnet implementation by 24 hours to ensure proper B20 Activation Registry configuration. Beryl will now go live on June 26 at 18:00 UTC, providing additional time for the registry to initialize before the hard fork executes.
B20 Registry Initialization Necessitates Schedule Adjustment
Base initially targeted June 25 for Beryl’s launch, but development teams discovered a critical timing dependency. The B20 Activation Registry needs to complete its initialization sequence before developers can begin deploying native B20 tokens. This initialization process could take up to 60 minutes following activation.
The registry manages B20 feature flag availability throughout the network post-hard fork. To prevent activating Beryl before these critical functions were operational, the team rescheduled the mainnet deployment. While the timeline has shifted, the upgrade’s technical components remain unchanged.
Beryl brings B20 to Base—a protocol-native token standard designed specifically for stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets. B20 tokens function through Rust precompiles embedded directly within Base node software, unlike conventional ERC-20 contracts. Despite this fundamental difference, B20 maintains full ERC-20 compatibility and incorporates ERC-2612 permit functionality.
Enhanced Token Management and Accelerated Bridge Transfers
The B20 Issuer Toolkit provides comprehensive features including role-based permissions, minting and burning controls, transfer restrictions, and configurable supply limits. Additionally, it offers freeze and seizure capabilities for token issuers navigating regulatory compliance requirements. These functionalities embed core token governance directly into the protocol rather than relying on external smart contracts.
Beryl simultaneously decreases the standard withdrawal duration from Base to Ethereum from seven days down to five days. The majority of bridge providers utilize this single-proof withdrawal mechanism for cross-network transfers. Base attributed this improvement to Multiproofs enhancements delivered through the preceding Azul upgrade.
The upgrade further incorporates Reth V2 into Base’s node architecture. According to Base, this software implementation can cut node storage demands by as much as 50 percent. It additionally accommodates higher block gas limits, creating opportunities for expanded network throughput.
Recent Network Disruption Unrelated to Upgrade Postponement
Base encountered a block production halt lasting approximately two hours on June 25, prior to Beryl’s adjusted activation schedule. Engineering teams identified the cause as a consensus failure triggered by an invalid block entering the sequencing pipeline. Production subsequently resumed, and the team confirmed the incident bore no connection to the Beryl postponement.
The network emphasized that user assets remained secure throughout the disruption, despite the temporary cessation of block creation. Base founder Jesse Pollak stated that network interruptions are incompatible with infrastructure supporting worldwide financial operations. While the outage increased operational scrutiny, it didn’t affect Beryl’s planned functionality.
Beryl succeeds Azul, which deployed to mainnet in May as Base’s inaugural independent upgrade. The network has scheduled Cobalt, its subsequent major upgrade, for September. Cobalt is expected to deliver account abstraction capabilities, smart account support, gas sponsorship, transaction batching, and expanded B20 features.
The crypto market is clinging to a crucial level of support, with bitcoin barely moving since midnight UTC after rebounding from its lowest level since September 2024 on Thursday.
The largest cryptocurrency was recently trading near $59,700, having fallen as low as $58,100.
Ether (ETH) failed to mirror bitcoin’s bounce, dropping a further 1% and extending its string of declines to three straight days. It recently held around $1,550.
U.S. equities also start Friday indicating weakness, Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 futures are down by 1% and 0.4%, respectively, since midnight as the tech rally of the past three months continues to unwind.
One token that bucked the bearish market sentiment was aave , which added as much as 6.8% since midnight, building on a 17% gain over the past week after CoinDesk reported that crypto exchange Kraken was looking to acquire a 15% stake in the DeFi company.
Derivatives positioning
- Market volatility continues to weigh on leveraged futures positions. Over the past 24 hours, another $1 billion in positions were liquidated, with long positions once again accounting for the majority. Notably, ETH saw more liquidations than BTC in the past 12 hours.
- Bitcoin futures open interest (OI) rose for a second consecutive day to 778,000 BTC, a sharp increase from recent lows near 730,000 BTC. The open interest surged during Thursday’s late selloff, suggesting traders added shorts into the dip in anticipation of further downside.
- The picture is different in ether futures, where open interest has remained stable near the 14 million ETH level since at least June 15. This is somewhat constructive, as it indicates traders are not aggressively shorting the price decline. A similar pattern holds for XRP.
- Solana’s open interest has pulled back from record highs but remains elevated compared with recent months, pointing to the potential for continued volatility.
- The OI-adjusted 24-hour cumulative volume delta continues to show bearish dominance across most of the top 25 cryptocurrencies, with the notable exceptions of BNB, SOL and TON. The negative reading suggests bears are more aggressive than bulls, favoring market orders over passive limit orders. This trend has persisted since Tuesday.
- Annualized 30-day implied volatility indexes are signaling rising levels of concern. Bitcoin’s BVIV index jumped to 53% early today, its highest level since June 7 and a sharp rise from the June 16 low of 39%. ETH’s index climbed to 66%.
- Wall Street’s equivalent, the VIX, has also risen to 20% from 15% recently but remains within the range seen since early April, indicating that equities are not yet in panic mode. A similar message is coming from the U.S. Treasury market’s implied volatility index, MOVE.
- On Deribit, the one-week bitcoin options skew is approaching 30%, reflecting a substantial premium for puts, or defensive positions, over calls and underscoring strong downside fears. The one- and three-month skews are conveying a similar message.
- Block flows included a large trade in the $53,000 put expiring July 10, along with demand for ether risk reversals.
Token talk
- Aave outperformed the broader altcoin market, and an honorable mention goes to solana (SOL), which has added 2% since midnight and now trades around $68.95 after tumbling to $64.05 on Thursday.
- AI tokens continue to unwind; RENDER, NEAR, FET and TAO lost between 1% and 1.5% on Friday, extending their declines.
- Hyperliquid (HYPE) also fell, dropping 2.6%. It has now lost 18.5% since touching a record high 12 days ago.
- Ethena (ENA) remains one of the worst-performing altcoins, losing another 5% on Friday. It’s now dropped 34% after touching the month’s high on June 3.
- ENA’s plight can be attributed to the ongoing bear market, as a portion of the platform’s yield-generation strategy is tied to positive funding rates, which have now flipped negative.
President Donald Trump canceled the signing ceremony for the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act on June 24, saying he will withhold his signature until Congress passes his voter ID measure. This standoff is now compressing the Senate floor calendar that the CLARITY Act needs to survive.
The housing bill, which cleared the Senate 85-5 and the House 358-32, carries a provision banning the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) through December 31, 2030. That makes its stall a crypto policy event, not just a housing one.
A Political Squeeze With Crypto Consequences
Trump posted on Truth Social that the “Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT.” The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which requires proof of citizenship to vote, has already passed the House but faces a near-certain Democratic filibuster in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who met with Trump at the Capitol, told reporters he hoped the president would “find his way to sign” the housing bill. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who co-sponsored the legislation, said she had “no idea” why Trump canceled the signing.
The housing bill’s CBDC ban had been one of the more durable wins for crypto advocates this Congress. House Republicans attached the provision to the broadly supported bill to give it the legislative momentum it could not achieve as a standalone measure. Its suspension now leaves that win in limbo.
CLARITY Act Window Is Closing
The more direct consequence for crypto markets is what the standoff means for Senate scheduling. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act sits on the Senate Legislative Calendar as No. 423, placed on June 1 and eligible for a floor vote at any time Majority Leader Thune chooses to schedule one. He has not yet announced a date.
The Senate returns from the July 4 mini-recess on July 13. The August recess begins around August 10, leaving fewer than four weeks of usable floor time. The bill still needs 60 votes to clear a filibuster, meaning at least seven Democratic crossovers beyond the two already on record.
Senator Cynthia Lummis announced this week that the bill will reach the Senate floor in July, marking the first public floor date commitment from the bill’s lead sponsor. But as BeInCrypto has reported on the Senate calendar crunch, Galaxy Digital research head Alex Thorn has already cut his 2026 passage odds to 60%, citing a shrinking schedule.
Brian Gardner, chief Washington policy strategist at Stifel, wrote that the CLARITY Act “probably needs to get through the Senate by the end of July, preferably in June.” He added that failure before the August recess would cause the bill’s prospects to “deteriorate materially.”
The CLARITY Act’s two remaining hurdles, an unresolved ethics provision and law enforcement objections to Section 604, were already straining the timeline before Trump’s housing bill move.
A SAVE Act fight that consumes Senate floor time in July could push the bill past the only realistic legislative gate remaining before the fall campaign season sets in.
The post Trump Blocks Housing Bill, Puts CLARITY Act in Danger of Not Getting Passed appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Cardano (ADA) on-chain activity spiked for the second time this month, with daily active addresses and social dominance climbing.
The uptick came as the token traded near December 2020 price lows. ADA has fallen nearly 41% over the past month, outpacing the broader market’s 19.9% decline.
Cardano Activity Surged as the Token Hit Five-Year Lows
The spike arrived during heavy selling. ADA traded near $0.142 on June 26, down about 3.38% on the day.
Today’s decline adds to a broader slide that has pulled the altcoin down by more than 13% over the past week.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
The downtrend followed ADA’s break below the $0.23 support level in early June. Despite the price slide, Santiment noted that network activity rose.
Daily active addresses reached 29,025. At the same time, social dominance climbed to 0.33% of all crypto discussions. Santiment recorded the same setup earlier in June, marking the second activity spike in a single month.
“Cardano has suddenly become one of crypto’s biggest conversation pieces as on-chain activity explodes for a second time this month,” the firm said.
Hoskinson Warnings and Governance Disputes Fueled the FUD
The analytics firm explained that much of the negative sentiment traced back to founder Charles Hoskinson. In early June, warned that more projects could fail.
Hoskinson also stepped back from videos, interviews, and X. Furthermore, he drew a hard line on his role in the token’s performance.
“What I’m not passionate about is making the price of ADA go up,” he said.
Governance disputes have added to the strain. Santiment noted that while the developments “have fueled bearish sentiment, they’ve also pushed Cardano back into the spotlight.”
It added that the combination of the on-chain spike and elevated FUD has previously preceded mild relief rallies.
“The on-chain spike and major FUD do hint at a mild relief rally, as the chart shows how the two previous instances of this setup unfolded,” the post read.
The coming sessions will show whether the pattern holds or sellers retain control.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Cardano Sits at 2020 Lows, But 2 On-Chain Signals Point to a Relief Rally appeared first on BeInCrypto.
- Binance will halt services for EU users after MiCA setback.
- BNB token price has fallen 13.2% over the past month.
- Bitcoin miner inflows to Binance hit a four-month high.
BNB token remained under pressure on Friday as investors weighed Binance’s regulatory setback in Europe against the token’s long-term role within the Binance ecosystem.
The token traded at $566.26, down 0.3% over the previous 24 hours.
During that period, Binance coin (BNB) moved between $541.77 and $569.04, showing that buyers managed to push the price close to the day’s high despite negative headlines.
Even so, the broader trend has remained weak.
BNB has fallen 1.4% over the past seven days, 5.5% in the last two weeks, 13.2% over the past month, and 12.5% over the last year.
The latest decline in sentiment comes after Binance confirmed that it will stop providing services to customers across the European Union after failing to obtain a license required under the bloc’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulations.
Regulatory setback raises fresh questions
Binance’s withdrawal from the European market represents another regulatory challenge for the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange.
The company informed affected users that services in the European Union will end after it failed to secure the required MiCA authorisation before the regulatory deadline.
Binance had previously sought approval through Greece before withdrawing its application and has indicated that it intends to pursue authorisation through another EU member state.
Although Binance said Europe remains an important market and expects to secure a license in the future, the interruption creates uncertainty for one of its largest regional user bases.
That uncertainty matters because the BNB token is closely tied to the Binance ecosystem.
While the token has expanded well beyond its original purpose as an exchange utility token, Binance’s trading activity still plays an important role in overall demand.
Any reduction in exchange activity could temporarily affect demand for BNB tokens, particularly from users who hold the token to receive trading fee discounts or participate in Binance products.
BNB token still has utility beyond the exchange
Despite the regulatory headwinds, the BNB token is no longer dependent solely on Binance’s centralised exchange.
The token serves as the native asset of BNB Chain, where it is used to pay transaction fees, support decentralised finance applications, participate in staking, and access Binance Launchpad token offerings.
These use cases continue to generate demand independent of spot trading on the exchange.
The BNB token also benefits from a deflationary supply model.
The token launched with a maximum supply of 200 million coins, and Binance continues to remove tokens from circulation through scheduled burns.
The token burn mechanism has so far removed 289,896.29 BNB tokens from the circulating supply, according to BNBBurn info, and remains one of the key features supporting the asset’s long-term economics.
However, utility alone may not fully offset the impact of negative regulatory developments in the short term.
Investor sentiment often reacts quickly to news involving Binance because of the close relationship between the exchange and its native token.
The wider crypto market decline adds another layer of pressure
The regulatory news arrives at a time when the broader cryptocurrency market is already facing fresh concerns.
Recent blockchain data showed that Bitcoin miners transferred more than 150,000 BTC to Binance during June, marking the highest miner inflows to the exchange in four months.
Large transfers from miners to exchanges are closely monitored because they can precede increased selling activity.
Although deposits do not automatically mean that coins have been sold, they often indicate that miners are preparing to access liquidity after periods of lower mining profitability.
If Bitcoin (BTC) experiences additional selling pressure, the effect can extend beyond the largest cryptocurrency.
And major altcoins, including the BNB token, frequently move in the same direction as Bitcoin during periods of broader market weakness.
If that happens, then the BNB token price could drop below the key support at $541.
However, if the market sentiment improves, then we could see the token recover above $588 and above.
Team USA’s Historic World Cup Start Inspires Nation Through Faith and Unity
Bitcoin’s first-half solace is it fell less than Strategy (MSTR): Crypto Daily
Bella Hadid Breaks Down During Lyme Disease Flare Up
-
Fashion7 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Miami – Corporette.com
-
Entertainment6 days agoRenter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
-
Sports3 days agoTwo goals and an assist by sheer aura: Cristiano Ronaldo just entered the World Cup chat
-
Tech4 days agoMicrosoft accidentally kills epic Outlook email threads
-
Business6 days agoSoccer-U.S. defends Iran World Cup travel restrictions, says discussions ongoing
-
Politics6 hours agoThe House | Manchesterism won’t survive the painful trade-offs unless it gets citizens on board
-
Politics10 hours agoPotential 2028er World Cup attendee leaderboard
-
Politics6 days agoAndy Burnham and the meaning of Makerfield
-
NewsBeat7 days agoKeir Starmer Allies Question His Chances For No 10
-
Tech16 hours agoA Look At A Gaggle Of Transputer Boards
-
Crypto World2 days ago
Bitcoin (BTC) Dips Below $62K, Ethereum (ETH) Plunges 6% Daily: Market Watch
-
Crypto World2 days agoSecuritize Wraps Roubini's SEC-Registered ETF as Dubai VARA Digital Security
-
Crypto World18 hours agoDell (DELL) Shares Tumble Over 5% Following Analyst Downgrade to Hold
-
Business2 days ago
Entergy settles forward sale agreements, raises $672 million in cash proceeds
-
Business6 days agoWall Street Week Ahead: Investors see Micron earnings as pulse check of AI rally momentum
-
Crypto World6 days agoCan Charles Hoskinson Really Rescue Cardano?
-
Entertainment6 days agoJose Alvarado Wants Taylor Swift at More Knicks Games
-
Crypto World6 days agoHIVE shares jump as $220M AI deal speeds Bitcoin mining pivot
-
Crypto World6 days agoJake Chervinsky accuses CME of protecting derivatives monopoly
-
Sports23 hours agoIndia vs Bangladesh LIVE Score, Women’s T20 World Cup: Bangladesh Opt To Bat; India Enter ‘Do-Or-Die’ Stage As Semi-Final Race Heats Up
You must be logged in to post a comment Login