Robinhood says layoffs aren’t being driven by AI integration

According to a Forbes report published on June 4, 2026, AI has been the top‌ reason cited for tech layoffs during 2026. Robinhood, however, seems to be taking a different tack.

Unlike BitGo, attributing its cuts to AI, Robinhood hasn’t indicated these layoffs were driven by AI adoption. The company’s stated reason is that it’s reducing management layers and streamlining operations to improve efficiency. And at this point, there is no clear evidence that Robinhood is replacing laid-off employees with AI.

That said, AI is likely part of the broader trend affecting how companies think about staffing. Rather than completely replacing employees, AI is often used to make existing teams more productive. Tasks involving research, customer support, coding, analysis and administrative work can frequently be handled faster and with fewer people than in the past.

As for service quality, users should probably expect the core user experience to remain largely unchanged. Functions such as trade execution, portfolio tracking, market data and charting are already highly automated.

The areas to watch are customer support and specialized assistance. AI can handle many routine questions effectively, but more complex issues, such as account restrictions, tax-related questions or crypto transfer problems, still benefit from human expertise.

Key Highlights

• Anthropic may receive clearance to reactivate its Fable 5 AI system following a 15-day suspension
• Final authorization from the Pentagon and NSA remains outstanding before full deployment
• Limited Mythos 5 access was reinstated on Friday by the Commerce Department for select users
• Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent facilitated resolution discussions
• Anthropic and OpenAI are advocating for standardized government evaluation protocols for cutting-edge AI systems

According to a recent Axios report, Anthropic’s Fable 5 AI system may return to operation as soon as next week. The Trump administration is reportedly approaching a final determination to remove restrictions that have disabled the model since June 12.

The system went offline following a U.S. government export control directive that raised national security questions. The interruption disrupted access for numerous developers and enterprises who had integrated the technology into their workflows.

According to Axios sources with knowledge of the deliberations, the restrictions may be removed within the upcoming week. Dialogue between Anthropic representatives and government officials is anticipated to continue throughout the weekend.

However, universal approval hasn’t been achieved yet. Both the Pentagon and the National Security Agency must provide their authorization before the model can be reactivated. Several other government entities have already determined that the system poses no significant security risks for public deployment.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent were instrumental in advancing negotiations. In correspondence to Anthropic, Lutnick acknowledged that the company “has worked with the US government to address risks” connected to both AI systems.

Partial Access Restored for Mythos 5

The Commerce Department granted Anthropic permission on Friday to reinstate Mythos 5 access for a select cohort of vetted users. Mythos 5 represents the more sophisticated version of the two systems and has never been released for widespread public consumption.

Both the Fable 5 and Mythos 5 platforms share the same foundational AI architecture. The primary distinction lies in their deployment strategy: Fable 5 targets general public accessibility, whereas Mythos 5 incorporates enhanced protective measures designed to minimize risks such as cyberattacks or biological weapons development.

The Significance of Fable 5 for Development Teams

Prior to its June 12 suspension, Fable 5 had gained substantial traction among software developers due to its superior coding and analytical functions. Payment processing firm Stripe allegedly utilized it to restructure a 50 million-line codebase within a single day—a task that would have required manual engineering efforts exceeding two months.

Following the suspension, automated development processes were interrupted, and certain organizations migrated their operations to alternative AI platforms, including more affordable Chinese-developed models.

The shutdown also occurred amid broader tensions between Anthropic and the Trump administration. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had previously characterized Anthropic as a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security.” The anticipated reinstatement of Fable 5 signals a transformation in that dynamic.

An administration representative informed Axios that Anthropic “has worked positively with the government.”

Advocacy for Standardized Evaluation Framework

Both Anthropic and OpenAI are urging the Trump administration to establish a formalized assessment framework for advanced AI models prior to their public release. This initiative follows President Trump’s June 2 executive order that introduced voluntary government screening for powerful AI technologies.

OpenAI secured approval on Friday for a restricted preview of GPT-5.6. In an official statement, the organization expressed that it doesn’t believe government access mechanisms “should become the long-term default.”

Anthropic has similarly advocated for an evaluation process that is “transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts.”

A broad selloff in technology stocks has weighed even more heavily on crypto-focused companies, highlighting a growing divergence between digital asset equities and the broader US stock market.

Shares of Coinbase (COIN) and Circle (CRCL) have fallen 69% and 72%, respectively, from their all-time highs. Those declines exceed the drawdowns seen in several major technology companies, including Oracle (ORCL), Salesforce (CRM), Netflix (NFLX) and Palantir (PLTR), which are down between 48% and 57% from their peaks, according to data from The Kobeissi Letter

By comparison, the large-cap S&P 500 Index has retreated just 3.5% from its recent high.

Source: The Kobeissi Letter

The pullback in technology stocks reflects mounting concerns that advances in artificial intelligence could disrupt existing business models across parts of the sector. Semiconductor stocks have generally held up better despite bouts of volatility, while crypto-related equities have remained under pressure amid broader weakness in digital asset markets and uneven progress on comprehensive crypto market structure legislation in the United States.

Negative sentiment toward the sector has intensified after Bitcoin fell below $60,000 this week, extending its decline to more than 54% from its October peak. Ether has also come under heavy selling pressure, recently falling to around $1,500, roughly 69% below last year’s high.

Bear market conditions have also weighed on corporate earnings, with Coinbase reporting first-quarter results that missed Wall Street expectations. Revenue fell 21% from the previous quarter, while the company posted a loss of $1.49 per share, versus analysts’ expectations for a profit of $0.27 per share.

Related: Crypto Biz: The cost of stacking sats

Analysts downgrade crypto market’s 2026 outlook despite strong institutional adoption 

The crypto market’s prolonged downturn has prompted analysts at 21Shares to lower their expectations for 2026, arguing that digital asset prices have significantly underperformed the industry’s underlying fundamentals.

In its midyear outlook, 21shares said institutional adoption continues to strengthen, particularly in stablecoins, tokenization and prediction markets. However, the asset manager argued that Bitcoin’s four-year market cycle remains the dominant force driving crypto prices.

According to the report, growing institutional ownership has helped moderate Bitcoin’s drawdowns but has not fundamentally altered its cyclical behavior.

Bitcoin’s price action this year suggests the four-year cycle remains intact. Source: 21shares

“Bitcoin’s cycle is evolving, but it has not broken yet,” 21Shares said, walking back its earlier forecast that the four-year cycle had become obsolete.

Related: Ethereum Foundation leadership exodus continues with director’s departure

Tokenized real-world assets crossed $30 billion on-chain in 2026, with BlackRock, JPMorgan, and Franklin Templeton leading the charge. This guide explains what RWA tokenization actually is, how it works, why the biggest names in finance are betting on it, and the risks the hype tends to skip.

Real-world asset tokenization is the process of creating a blockchain-based token that represents legal or economic rights to an asset that exists in the traditional, off-chain world, such as a US Treasury bill, a share in a building, a unit of a money market fund, or a gram of gold held in a vault.

The single most important thing to understand at the outset is that the token is not the asset. When you hold a tokenized Treasury, you do not hold the Treasury bill itself on the blockchain; you hold a digital record of a claim on an underlying bill that a custodian or legal entity holds on your behalf. The token is a convenient way to track and transfer ownership, but the actual legal and economic substance lives off-chain, in contracts, custody arrangements, and the laws of whatever jurisdiction governs the asset.

This distinction is the key to understanding everything else about real-world assets, often shortened to RWAs, because it explains both why tokenization is powerful and where its risks come from.

The reason RWA tokenization has become one of the most discussed topics in crypto in 2026 is that it represents a bridge between two worlds that have mostly stayed separate: the enormous, established markets of traditional finance, and the always-on, programmable infrastructure of blockchains.

The on-chain value of tokenized real-world assets grew from roughly $5.5 billion at the start of 2025 to around $30 billion by the middle of 2026, and the forces driving that growth are not retail speculators chasing the next memecoin but the largest financial institutions on earth.

This guide explains what RWA tokenization actually is, how the process works step by step, the main categories of assets being tokenized, why institutions are moving so fast, how RWAs differ from other crypto assets, a concrete worked example, and, crucially, the risks that the enthusiastic coverage often skips over. By the end, you should be able to tell the difference between the genuine innovation and the hype.

What a tokenized real-world asset actually is

Begin with a precise definition, because the term gets used loosely. A real-world asset, in the crypto sense, is any asset that exists outside the blockchain and has been given an on-chain representation through tokenization. The underlying asset can be tangible, such as real estate, gold, or commodities, or it can be a traditional financial instrument, such as a government bond, a corporate bond, a share of a fund, or a slice of private credit.

Tokenization is the process of issuing a token that stands in for defined rights related to that asset, so those rights can be tracked, held, and transferred on a blockchain. A useful working definition is this: an RWA token is an on-chain record of rights to an off-chain asset, enforced by legal and operational structures that exist outside the blockchain.

The phrase rights to an asset is doing important work in that definition, because what the token represents varies. In some cases, the token reflects fractional ownership of the asset itself. In others, it represents an entitlement to the cash flows the asset produces, such as the interest on a bond. In still others, it is a redemption right, a promise that the holder can exchange the token for the underlying asset or its cash value, or a claim secured by collateral.

What the token means in any specific case depends entirely on the legal structure behind it, which is why two tokens that both call themselves tokenized Treasuries can carry very different rights and protections. The blockchain provides a shared, transparent ledger for recording who holds what and for moving those holdings quickly, but it does not, by itself, create or enforce the underlying rights. That enforcement comes from the contracts, the custodians who hold the real asset, and the courts and regulators of the relevant jurisdiction. Tokenization, in short, changes the wrapper around the asset, not the asset itself.

How tokenization actually works

The lifecycle of a tokenized real-world asset connects the physical or financial world to the blockchain through a chain of legal, operational, and technical steps, and each link matters. It begins with asset selection and valuation, where an issuer identifies an asset suitable for tokenization and gets it properly valued, which, for real estate, means appraisals and, for private credit, means underwriting.

Next comes the legal structure, typically the creation of a special purpose vehicle, a separate legal entity that holds the underlying asset on behalf of token holders and defines their rights. This legal layer is the foundation of the whole arrangement, because it determines what holders actually own and what happens if the issuer fails. A well-designed structure with bankruptcy-remoteness, meaning the asset is insulated from the issuer’s other obligations, offers far stronger protection than a simple contractual promise.

With the legal structure in place, the token itself is issued, usually following an established standard such as ERC-20 for fungible tokens or specialized security-token standards built to carry compliance rules. Smart contracts, the self-executing programs on the blockchain, then handle much of the assets’ on-chain lifecycle, automating the minting of new tokens, transfer restrictions, distribution of yield such as interest or dividends, and the redemption process. 

Because most tokenized RWAs fall under existing securities rules, compliance is woven throughout: many require identity verification, and once a holder is verified, their wallet address is often whitelisted, meaning the token can only be transferred to other approved addresses. 

Custody arrangements guarantee that the real asset backing the token is held securely, and a redemption process defines how a holder converts the token back into the underlying asset or its value. Services such as proof-of-reserve attestations, which cryptographically confirm that the on-chain tokens are fully backed by real assets held with a custodian, and cross-chain interoperability standards that let tokens move between blockchains, are increasingly layered on top to build trust and avoid fragmented liquidity. The result is an asset that behaves like its traditional counterpart legally but moves with the speed and programmability of crypto.

The main categories of tokenized assets

The RWA label covers a wide and growing range of asset classes, and each behaves differently, so it helps to know the major categories. By distributed value on public blockchains, tokenized US Treasuries are the largest single category, at roughly $12.9 billion in 2026, prized because they bring the steady, low-risk yield of government debt on-chain in a form that settles 24/7 and can be used inside decentralized finance. Closely related are tokenized money market funds, which package short-duration government debt into a single yield-bearing token. Private credit is the other giant of the sector, with active on-chain private credit around $19 billion, representing loans to businesses that produce yield for token holders, and depending on how it is measured, private credit may be the largest category of all.

Beyond those two, tokenized equities and exchange-traded funds let investors hold on-chain exposure to stocks, though most such products provide economic exposure to a stock’s price and dividends rather than direct share ownership or voting rights, a distinction regulators have drawn sharply. Commodities, dominated by gold-backed tokens such as PAXG and XAUT, rose sharply to around $5.5 billion as gold itself climbed, each token backed 1-to-1 by physical metal in a vault.

Real estate tokenization lets people buy fractional stakes in properties and receive a share of rental income, lowering the entry cost of a market once reserved for the wealthy. Bonds, both government and corporate, round out the core categories.

It is worth noting that stablecoins, which are technically tokenized claims on real-world reserves like dollars, are usually tracked separately because of their enormous scale, around $300 billion, and their distinct role as payment instruments rather than investments. The breadth of these categories is part of why advocates describe tokenization as potentially touching nearly all of human economic activity, even if the reality today is concentrated in Treasuries, credit, and gold.

Why institutions are betting billions

The defining feature of the 2026 RWA boom, and what separates it from most crypto trends, is that the institutions driving it are the largest names in traditional finance rather than crypto-native startups. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has committed firmly to tokenization through its BUIDL fund, a tokenized money market fund that surpassed $2.5 billion in assets, and its chief executive Larry Fink has repeatedly described tokenization as the next generation for markets, comparing its current stage to where the internet was in 1996 and envisioning a future of one general ledger on which all assets are tokenized.

Alongside BlackRock sit Franklin Templeton with its BENJI token, Circle, Securitize, and the major banks: JPMorgan processes large volumes of tokenized transactions through its blockchain platform, while Goldman Sachs, HSBC, and UBS have explored or piloted tokenized issuances.

The reasoning behind these bets is a combination of efficiency and opportunity. Tokenization can consolidate the traditionally separate processes of distribution, trading, clearing, settlement, and safekeeping into a single layer, reducing the counterparty risk and operational cost that come from passing an asset through many intermediaries. It enables near-instant settlement instead of the days that traditional securities can take; it allows assets to trade around the clock, and it makes them programmable, so that compliance rules, yield distributions, and other functions can be automated in code.

For institutions managing vast portfolios, even modest efficiency gains translate into large savings, and the ability to offer clients 24/7 access and fractional products opens new markets. This is why the institutional move is best understood as a bet on the infrastructure of tomorrow’s financial system instead of a trade on today’s prices, and why forecasts from major consultancies, while varying widely, are strikingly large, with estimates of the tokenized market reaching figures from $2 trillion to $16 trillion by 2030. Whether those forecasts prove accurate or optimistic, the direction of institutional conviction is clear.

A worked example: tokenized gold

To make the abstract concrete, consider tokenized gold, one of the clearest illustrations of how RWA tokenization works in practice. A company that issues gold-backed tokens takes physical gold, held and audited in professional vaults, and issues tokens against it on a 1-to-1 basis, so that each token represents ownership of a specific quantity of gold, often one fine troy ounce. If the issuer holds a 400-ounce gold bar, it can issue 400 tokens, each backed by 1 ounce of that bar. A holder of 1 token owns the rights to 1 ounce of gold sitting in the vault, and can redeem the token for the physical metal or its cash value according to the issuer’s terms.

What tokenization adds to this otherwise ordinary gold ownership is the set of capabilities that come from the asset living on a blockchain. The token can be divided into very small fractions, in some cases as small as a millionth of a unit, so a person can own a tiny sliver of gold instead of a whole bar or coin. It can be transferred person to person in minutes, at any hour, without the logistics of moving physical metal. And because it is a programmable token, it can be used within decentralized finance, for example, as collateral to borrow against without selling the underlying gold.

The token’s value tracks the price of gold, because that is what backs it, so the holder gets the store-of-value characteristics of physical gold combined with the portability and programmability of crypto. This example captures the essence of the RWA thesis at the level of an individual asset: real-world value on one side, the flexibility of crypto infrastructure on the other, joined by a token whose worth depends entirely on the gold actually sitting in the vault and the legal right to claim it.

How RWAs differ from regular crypto

A common source of confusion is the difference between tokenized real-world assets and native crypto assets, and the distinction is fundamental to understanding what an RWA is and is not. Native crypto assets, such as Bitcoin or Ether, originate directly on a blockchain and have no claim on anything outside it. Their value comes from network activity, utility, governance roles, scarcity, and market demand, and they exist purely on-chain with no custodian or legal entity standing behind them holding a real-world counterpart. When you hold Ether, the asset itself is the on-chain token; there is no off-chain thing it represents.

A tokenized real-world asset is the opposite in this respect. Its value derives from an off-chain asset held by a custodian or structured through a legal entity, and the token is a representation of rights to that external asset instead of a self-contained on-chain asset. This difference shapes nearly everything about how the two are treated. RWA tokens typically fall within securities classifications because they reflect ownership, economic rights, or claims linked to a financial instrument, which means they usually require compliance, regulated custody, and clear legal documentation.

Native crypto tokens are often classified as utility tokens and regulated, where they are regulated at all, under different frameworks. A useful way to hold the distinction in mind is that tokenization does not change the regulatory nature of the underlying product: if an asset is treated as a security in the traditional world, it will generally be treated as a security once tokenized, because the token is just a new wrapper around the same legal substance. Crypto-native assets, having no such off-chain substance, sit in a different regulatory category entirely.

Risks and what can go wrong

For all the genuine promise of RWA tokenization, the risks are real and specific, and an honest understanding of them is essential before treating any token as a reliable claim on a real asset. The foundational risk is that the token is only as good as the legal structure behind it.

Because the enforceable rights live off-chain, a token’s value in a crisis depends on whether the legal arrangement actually holds up, and a well-designed special purpose vehicle with bankruptcy-remoteness offers far stronger protection than a loose contractual promise.

If the issuer becomes insolvent, the legal structure determines whether holders recover anything, which makes the quality of that structure the single most important thing to evaluate.

The other risks build on this foundation. Counterparty and custodial risk means that holding a tokenized Treasury requires trusting that the custodian actually holds the underlying bills and that the issuer will honor redemptions; if the custodian suffers a breach or the issuer fails, holders can face losses regardless of how sound the blockchain is.

Regulatory uncertainty is significant because the treatment of RWA tokens remains unsettled in many jurisdictions, and tokenization does not exempt an asset from securities laws. Smart contract and oracle risk means that bugs in the code, or manipulation of the price feeds some tokens rely on, can affect how the token functions.

Liquidity and redemption constraints are a practical danger: many RWA tokens restrict transfers to whitelisted, identity-verified addresses, and redemption may be limited to the issuer or approved purchasers, so a token that looks liquid can become hard to exit under stress, which is often the most underappreciated risk.

Issuers also typically hold administrative keys that let them pause transfers, blacklist addresses, or upgrade contracts, introducing a degree of central control. And it is worth remembering that only a small fraction of tokenized RWAs, around $2.5 billion of the roughly $30 billion on-chain, is actually active in decentralized finance, because compliance rails limit open-market use.

The blunt summary is that tokenization changes the wrapper, not the underlying exposure: an RWA token carries all the risks of the underlying asset plus a new set of technical, custodial, and legal risks layered on top.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article is educational information, not financial, legal, or tax advice. Market sizes, products, and institutional activity reflect reporting available as of June 26, 2026, and the RWA sector is evolving quickly. Tokenized real-world assets carry significant risks and are not suitable for everyone. Verify current details and the specific legal structure of any product from primary sources, and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.

Key Takeaways

• Western Digital shares plunged as much as 13% during trading on June 26, reaching an intraday bottom of $611.53
• On June 22, Fox Advisors cut their rating from Outperform to Equal-Weight, expressing concerns about hard disk drive pricing expectations
• The company finalized a SanDisk share swap and eliminated $858.4M worth of convertible notes, leading to dilution and increased share supply
• Insider transactions showed 125 stock sales over six months with no purchases, with CEO Irving Tan offloading roughly 40,000 shares in 26 separate deals
• Following a remarkable 54%+ rally in the previous month, the stock’s forward P/E ratio had climbed to 40x–45x, leaving limited margin for disappointment

Western Digital (WDC) experienced a sharp decline of up to 13% during June 26 trading, bottoming out at $611.53 as multiple negative catalysts converged simultaneously.

Western Digital Corporation, WDC

Selling pressure intensified following Fox Advisors’ rating cut on June 22, which moved WDC from Outperform to Equal-Weight. The analyst firm expressed skepticism that hard disk drive pricing improvements would meet the market’s elevated expectations.

This downgrade continued to exert downward pressure on shares throughout the remainder of the week.

Concurrently, Western Digital completed two significant corporate actions that introduced additional shares into circulation. The company executed an exchange involving more than one million SanDisk shares for WDC common stock, generating immediate share overhang and prompting arbitrage-related hedging strategies.

Additionally, the firm extinguished $858.4 million of its 3.00% Convertible Senior Notes maturing in 2028, exchanging them for cash plus approximately 21.3 million newly issued common shares. This equity dilution negatively impacted short-term earnings per share projections.

Heavy Insider Selling Compounds Concerns

Insider activity at WDC painted a concerning picture, with 125 stock disposals recorded over the past six months and not a single purchase. Among those selling was CEO Irving Tan, who divested around 40,000 shares through 26 individual transactions.

This uniformly negative insider trading pattern contributed to deteriorating investor confidence.

The broader memory and storage sector also experienced downward momentum. Investor sentiment took a hit when a South Korean policymaker floated the idea of an AI-focused windfall tax, triggering steep declines in South Korean equity indices and pulling down memory and chip stocks globally.

Quick Reversal After Impressive Rally

Prior to this sharp decline, WDC had enjoyed a spectacular run, climbing more than 54% over the preceding month. This surge was driven by optimism surrounding AI-related storage demand and momentum from the broader memory sector rally following Micron’s impressive earnings report on June 25. Those gains are now being significantly retraced.

At the peak of that rally, the stock’s forward price-to-earnings ratio had expanded to 40x–45x — a premium valuation that offered minimal cushion for negative developments. Once the downgrade, dilution announcements, and sector-wide headwinds materialized simultaneously, profit-taking intensified rapidly.

Notwithstanding the recent decline, analyst sentiment toward WDC remains predominantly positive with 21 buy recommendations, 3 hold ratings, and just 1 sell rating. The stock maintains a year-to-date gain of 292.35%, with a current market capitalization of $232.8 billion.

Broader market indices provided no support during WDC’s selloff, with the Nasdaq declining 0.2% and the S&P 500 trading roughly unchanged on the same session.

The stock’s average daily volume stands at 8.1 million shares. According to the most recent technical indicators, sentiment readings continue to signal a buy.

Key Takeaways

• Chief Accounting Officer Emily Ho offloaded 1,860 SNOW shares at $232.245 apiece, generating proceeds of $431,975 on June 24, 2026.
• The stock was priced at $248.96 when the transaction was disclosed, representing a gain over Ho’s sale price.
• Recent months have witnessed significant insider disposals, notably director Frank Slootman’s May divestment of 437,076 shares worth more than $110 million.
• The cloud data company’s latest quarterly earnings exceeded Wall Street forecasts — posting $0.39 earnings per share against $0.32 projections, while revenue surged 33.5% annually to reach $1.39 billion.
• Wall Street maintains an optimistic stance with a “Moderate Buy” consensus and price target averaging $293.53.

On June 24, 2026, Emily Ho, serving as Snowflake’s Chief Accounting Officer, executed a sale of 1,860 SNOW shares priced at $232.245 each, totaling $431,975 in transaction value. When the regulatory filing became public, shares were changing hands at $248.96 — indicating the stock had appreciated beyond her disposal price.

Snowflake Inc., SNOW

Following this divestment, Ho maintains direct ownership of 41,283 shares, which encompasses holdings connected to unvested restricted stock units.

This transaction represents just one piece of a broader pattern of insider activity at Snowflake. On May 29, director Frank Slootman divested 437,076 shares at a mean price of $252.43, generating proceeds exceeding $110 million. This disposal occurred through a predetermined Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement and slashed his stake by approximately 92%.

Director Michael Speiser similarly unloaded 50,338 shares in April at $148.21 each. Collectively, company insiders have disposed of 1,702,704 shares valued at approximately $390 million during the past quarter. Current insider ownership represents roughly 4.80% of outstanding shares.

Institutional Money Flows in Opposite Direction

Contrary to insider behavior, institutional capital has been accumulating SNOW positions. Union Bancaire Privee UBP SA expanded its holdings by an impressive 521.5% during Q1, concluding the period with 224,795 shares worth approximately $33 million.

Brighton Jones LLC increased its allocation by 90% in the fourth quarter. Intech Investment Management boosted its stake by 24% in Q1. Institutional ownership now comprises approximately 65% of SNOW’s shareholder base.

SNOW commenced Friday’s trading session at $248.29. The equity trades within a 52-week range spanning $118.30 to $284.99. The 50-day moving average rests at $191.99, considerably beneath current levels, while the 200-day average sits at $189.19. The company commands a market capitalization of $86.06 billion.

Snowflake’s most recent earnings announcement on May 27 revealed EPS of $0.39 — surpassing the $0.32 analyst consensus by $0.07. Revenue registered at $1.39 billion, exceeding expectations of $1.32 billion and representing a 33.5% year-over-year increase.

The organization continues operating at a deficit. Net margin stands at -23.79%, accompanied by a negative return on equity of -50.50%. Full-year EPS projections anticipate -$1.87.

Wall Street Maintains Confident Outlook

The wave of insider disposals hasn’t significantly altered analyst perspectives. JPMorgan elevated its price objective to $285 while maintaining an “Overweight” designation following Q1 results. Truist advanced its target to $300, pointing to encouraging signals from Snowflake Summit 2026. UBS confirmed its “Buy” stance with a $370 projection.

Sanford Bernstein lifted its target to $250 while preserving a “Market Perform” rating. Evercore maintains a more conservative $200 objective.

Among 41 analyst assessments, 34 recommend Buy, five suggest Hold, and one advises Sell — including one Strong Buy. The consensus price target reaches $293.53.

Regarding business developments, Unlimitail chose Snowflake’s infrastructure to support a retail media network utilizing Data Clean Rooms capabilities. Rival Databricks announced its data warehousing operations achieved a $1.5 billion annual run rate, fueled by artificial intelligence demand.

SNOW’s year-to-date price appreciation registers at 3.51%, with typical daily trading volume hovering around 8.6 million shares.

Providing liquidity to a decentralized exchange looks like easy passive income, until you withdraw and find you have less than if you had simply held your tokens. That gap is impermanent loss, the most misunderstood risk in DeFi. This guide explains what causes it, how to calculate it, and how to limit it.

Impermanent loss is the opportunity cost a liquidity provider suffers when the value of the tokens they deposited into a decentralized exchange’s liquidity pool ends up lower than it would have been had they simply held those same tokens in their own wallet. It is one of the simplest-sounding yet most misunderstood risks in decentralized finance, and it catches a great many people who are drawn to liquidity provision by the promise of passive income.

The mechanism trips people up because it is counterintuitive: you can deposit two tokens into a pool, watch their prices rise, earn fees the whole time, and still end up worse off than if you had done nothing at all. The word impermanent makes it sound harmless, almost like a temporary inconvenience, but for liquidity providers in volatile pools, it can be a substantial and very real drag on returns.

Understanding what causes it, how to estimate it, and how to limit it is essential for anyone thinking about supplying liquidity, because it is the single factor most likely to turn an apparently profitable strategy into a losing one.

The reason impermanent loss exists at all comes down to how decentralized exchanges work. Rather than matching buyers and sellers through an order book, most decentralized exchanges use automated market makers, pools of tokens governed by a mathematical formula that sets prices algorithmically. Liquidity providers fund these pools, and in return, they earn a share of the trading fees. The catch is that the same formula that lets the pool function also forces it to rebalance as prices move, and that rebalancing is what produces impermanent loss.

This guide walks through how liquidity pools and automated market makers work, exactly why price divergence creates the loss, a concrete worked example with numbers, how to calculate it, the role of fees and rewards in offsetting it, and the practical strategies that liquidity providers use to limit their exposure. The goal is to give you a clear enough mental model that you can judge, before committing any funds, whether providing liquidity to a given pool is likely to be worth it.

How liquidity pools and automated market makers work

To understand impermanent loss, you first have to understand the machinery that creates it, which is the automated market maker. A traditional exchange matches a buyer with a seller through an order book. A decentralized exchange built on an automated market maker, such as Uniswap or Curve, works differently: instead of matching counterparties, it holds pools of tokens that traders swap against directly, with prices set by a formula rather than by bids and offers.

To make this work, the pools need to be funded, and that is where liquidity providers come in. A liquidity provider deposits a pair of tokens into a pool, most commonly in a 50-50 split by value, and in exchange earns a portion of the fees that traders pay to swap against that pool.

The formula that governs the most common type of pool is elegantly simple. Many automated market makers use a constant product formula, often written as x*y = k, where x and y are the quantities of the two tokens in the pool and k is a constant that must stay the same. Because k cannot change, any trade that removes some of one token must add a corresponding amount of the other, and the ratio between the two tokens is what sets the price.

When a trader buys one token from the pool, they reduce its quantity and increase the other’s, which moves the price, and the formula guarantees the pool always quotes a price based on its current balances. This design is what makes decentralized trading possible without a central order book, and it works beautifully for traders.

For liquidity providers, however, the same rebalancing mechanism is the source of the problem, because it means the composition of their deposited tokens changes automatically as prices move, and not in their favor.

Why price divergence creates the loss

Here is the heart of the matter: impermanent loss arises specifically from divergence in the prices of the two tokens in a pool. When you deposit a pair of tokens, the automated market maker holds them in a balance dictated by its formula. If the market price of one token rises relative to the other, traders and arbitrageurs will buy the now-underpriced token from the pool until the pool’s price matches the wider market. That arbitrage is essential to keeping the pool’s prices accurate, but it has a consequence for you as a provider: the pool sells off some of the token that is rising in value and accumulates more of the token that is falling. In other words, the rebalancing leaves you holding more of the loser and less of the winner compared to what you started with.

When you later withdraw your liquidity, you receive your share of the pool in its rebalanced composition, and the total value of those tokens is less than the value you would have had if you had simply held your original deposit untouched. That shortfall is the impermanent loss. The critical insight is that it is driven entirely by how far the two tokens’ prices move relative to each other: the larger the divergence, the larger the loss, and it can occur whether the pool’s assets are rising or falling, because what matters is the change in the price ratio between them, not the direction.

The reason it is called impermanent is that the loss is only on paper as long as you stay in the pool; if the prices happen to return to the ratio at which you deposited, the loss disappears. It becomes a permanent, realized loss only at the moment you withdraw while the prices are still diverged. This is why impermanent loss is best understood not as money stolen from you but as an opportunity cost, the gap between what your pooled position is worth and what holding the tokens would have been worth.

A worked example with real numbers

Numbers make the concept click, so consider a concrete example. Suppose you want to provide liquidity to an Ether and dollar-stablecoin pool, and at the time you deposit, Ether is worth $1,600. Following the standard 50-50 split, you deposit 1 Ether and $1,600 of the stablecoin, for a total deposit worth $3,200. The pool now holds your tokens alongside everyone else’s, governed by the constant product formula.

Now suppose the price of Ether rises to $2,000 on the wider market. Arbitrageurs will buy Ether from the pool because it is briefly cheaper there, until the pool’s price catches up to $2,000. This rebalancing means the pool now holds less Ether and more of the stablecoin than before, and your share reflects that new mix. When you withdraw, you receive, say, an amount of Ether and stablecoin that together is worth less than if you had just held your original 1 Ether and $1,600. 

Had you simply held, your 1 Ether would now be worth $2,000 and your stablecoin still $1,600, totaling $3,600. Your pooled position, after the rebalancing, might be worth around $3,500. That roughly $100 gap, before counting any fees, is the impermanent loss: the cost of having provided liquidity rather than held.

As a rule of thumb, when the price ratio between the two tokens doubles, the impermanent loss is around 5.7%, and the loss grows as the divergence grows. The example shows the unsettling truth that you can be up in dollar terms, since your position rose from $3,200 to $3,500, and still have lost relative to the simpler choice of holding.

How to calculate impermanent loss

For those who want to move beyond intuition to a precise figure, impermanent loss can be calculated with a standard formula, and understanding it helps demystify the phenomenon. The common estimator depends only on the price ratio, written as r, which is the ratio of the token pair’s price at the time of withdrawal to its price at the time of deposit.

The formula is:

Impermanent Loss = (2 × √r ÷ (1 + r)) − 1

The result is a negative percentage representing how much worse the liquidity position performed compared with simply holding the assets.

Using the doubling example:

• r = 2
• √2 ≈ 1.414
• 2 × 1.414 ≈ 2.828
• 2.828 ÷ 3 ≈ 0.943
• 0.943 − 1 ≈ -0.057

This equals an impermanent loss of approximately 5.7% before fees.

The formula also confirms several useful observations:

• If r = 1, meaning prices have not changed relative to one another, impermanent loss is zero.
• As r moves further away from 1, the loss increases.
• The formula depends on relative price movement, not whether prices rise or fall.

Many online calculators can perform this calculation automatically, but understanding the formula and remembering the 5.7% loss when prices double provides a useful mental shortcut when evaluating liquidity pools.

How fees and rewards offset the loss

Impermanent loss is only half the story, because liquidity providers are not giving their tokens away for nothing; they earn in return, and whether a position is profitable depends on the balance between what they earn and what they lose.

The primary source of earnings is trading fees. Every time a trader swaps against the pool, they pay a fee, and that fee is distributed to the liquidity providers in proportion to their share of the pool. In an active pool with heavy trading volume, those fees accumulate and can offset, or more than offset, the impermanent loss, leaving the provider with a net profit.

This is the entire economic proposition of providing liquidity: you accept the risk of impermanent loss in exchange for a stream of fee income, and you come out ahead when the fees exceed the loss.

Many protocols sweeten the deal further with additional token rewards, distributing their own governance or incentive tokens to liquidity providers on top of the trading fees, a practice often called yield farming or liquidity mining. These rewards can substantially boost returns and are frequently used by new protocols to attract liquidity. Some protocols also offer explicit impermanent loss protection, a form of insurance that partially reimburses providers for losses, typically funded by token emissions or a reserve pool, though the terms and caps vary.

The crucial point, however, is that the offsets are not guaranteed to win. Research on real pools has found that for a large share of liquidity providers, in some major pools, more than half, the impermanent loss actually exceeded the trading fees they earned, meaning they would have been better off simply holding.

This is the sobering reality behind the passive-income pitch: the fees are real, but so is the loss, and in volatile pools, the loss can swallow the fees. The honest way to approach liquidity provision is to weigh the expected fee income against the likely impermanent loss for a given pair before committing, instead of assuming the fees will automatically make it worthwhile.

How to limit your exposure

Because impermanent loss is driven by price divergence, the most effective ways to limit it all come down to choosing pairs whose prices move together, and understanding the trade-offs involved. The single most powerful technique is to provide liquidity to stablecoin pairs, such as a $1 stablecoin paired with another.

Because both tokens are pegged to the same dollar value, their prices barely diverge, which means the impermanent loss is close to 0. The trade-off is that such pools typically generate lower fee income, since they attract less volatile trading, but for a provider whose priority is avoiding impermanent loss, stablecoin pairs are the safest choice.

A related approach is to use pairs of assets that are closely correlated or pegged to each other, such as a token and its wrapped equivalent, where the two are designed to hold the same value and therefore experience essentially no divergence.

Beyond pair selection, some automated market makers allow providers to deposit in ratios other than the standard 50-50, or to concentrate their liquidity within a chosen price range, which can change the risk profile, though concentrated liquidity can also intensify impermanent loss if the price moves outside the chosen range.

Researching the historical volatility and price correlation of a potential pair before committing, and running the numbers through an impermanent loss calculator under different price scenarios, lets a provider find a pair that fits their risk tolerance.

The overarching principle is straightforward: the more the two tokens in a pool can move apart in price, the greater the impermanent loss risk, so providers who want to minimize that risk favor pairs that stay close in value, while those willing to accept more risk in pursuit of higher fees go in with clear eyes about the trade-off. There is no way to eliminate impermanent loss entirely on volatile pairs, but there are clear ways to manage and reduce it.

Risks and common mistakes

Beyond the mechanics, a few risks and recurring mistakes are worth flagging directly, because they are where liquidity providers most often get hurt. The most common mistake is treating advertised yields as guaranteed profit.

A pool may advertise an attractive annual yield from fees and rewards, but that headline figure does not account for impermanent loss, which can quietly erode or exceed it, so the real return can be far lower or even negative. Anyone evaluating a pool should mentally subtract the likely impermanent loss from the advertised yield to get a truer picture.

A second mistake is providing liquidity to highly volatile or uncorrelated pairs without appreciating the risk. The greater the price divergence between the two tokens, the larger the impermanent loss, so pairing a stablecoin with a volatile small-cap token, or two unrelated volatile tokens, exposes a provider to potentially severe losses if one moves sharply.

A third risk is withdrawing at the wrong moment, since impermanent loss only becomes permanent on withdrawal; pulling liquidity while prices are heavily diverged locks in the loss, whereas waiting, if the prices later converge, can reduce or erase it, though there is no guarantee they will.

Underlying all of this is the smart contract risk inherent in any decentralized finance protocol, since the pool is governed by code that could contain bugs or be exploited, a risk entirely separate from impermanent loss but always present.

The disciplined approach is to understand that providing liquidity is an active risk decision, not a passive income button: choose pairs deliberately, account for impermanent loss when judging returns, and recognize that the convenience of earning fees comes with a genuine cost that, in volatile pools, can outweigh the reward.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article is educational information, not financial advice. Decentralized finance involves significant risks, including impermanent loss, smart contract vulnerabilities, and the potential loss of funds. Figures and formulas are illustrative and reflect general information available as of June 26, 2026. Verify the specifics of any protocol from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before providing liquidity or making any decision.