The European Union is tightening crypto-related sanctions tied to Belarus, effectively barring Belarusian nationals and residents from taking controlling roles in certain EU-regulated crypto businesses. The restriction will apply to crypto exchange and custody-related providers that fall under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, starting Aug. 25.

The change is contained in Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/1847, adopted Thursday. According to the text, the decision amends the EU’s existing sanctions structure targeting Belarus over its involvement in Russia’s war against Ukraine, broadening an earlier limitation that had been limited to wallet, account, or custody services.

Key takeaways

• Belarusian nationals and residents will be prohibited from owning, controlling, or managing certain MiCA-regulated EU crypto service providers starting Aug. 25.
• The update in Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/1847 expands the scope beyond prior restrictions that covered only wallet/account/custody services.
• The prohibition includes not only ownership and control, but also holding a role on a company’s governing body.
• MiCA service categories covered by the amendment include trading platforms, exchanges, order execution/transmission, transfers, and investment advice or portfolio management.

What the EU sanctions change covers

The Council Decision states that Belarusian nationals and residents may not own or control an EU-based entity that provides “any other crypto-asset services” as defined by MiCA, nor may they hold positions on that entity’s governing body. This effectively targets governance influence as well as economic control.

MiCA’s scope of “crypto-asset services” is broad. It includes operating trading platforms and exchanging crypto assets, executing and transmitting clients’ orders, placing crypto assets, and providing transfers. The framework also covers advisory and portfolio management activities, meaning the sanctions expansion can reach multiple lines of business beyond straightforward custody.

Although the decision was adopted on Thursday and enters into force immediately, the expanded crypto-related restriction is scheduled to begin on Aug. 25—leaving regulated firms a limited window to assess whether current ownership, management arrangements, or board composition could be impacted.

Timing matters after MiCA’s transition period ended

The EU’s move arrives shortly after the end of MiCA’s transition period on July 1, when crypto companies without the required authorizations were directed to wind down operations or face enforcement action. In that context, the new sanctions restriction adds another compliance dimension for firms working within the post-transition MiCA landscape.

Instead of focusing only on licensing and operational rules, the EU is combining MiCA market regulation with sanctions screening—especially concerning personnel and governance structures. For compliance teams, that means ownership, board seats, and day-to-day control arrangements now need to be reviewed with both MiCA requirements and the sanctions framework in mind.

MiCA licensing is meant to standardize crypto services across the EU, but sanctions can independently restrict who may participate in certain roles regardless of regulatory approval. This creates a dual gate: a firm may be authorized under MiCA rules while still being required to restructure if it falls within the sanctions constraints.

Part of a wider EU effort to limit crypto access tied to Russia

The Belarus update aligns with broader EU actions aimed at crypto platforms and financial networks allegedly used to route around sanctions imposed over Russia’s war in Ukraine. The EU has been expanding its approach through successive sanctions packages and transaction bans covering crypto-related entities.

Earlier this week, the EU, as part of its 21st sanctions package against Russia, extended a transaction ban to 14 crypto-related service platforms outside the bloc. It also introduced a mechanism that would allow the EU to prohibit dealings with any foreign crypto provider that it identifies as being used by Russia to evade sanctions.

The latest package builds on a June 11 proposal that targeted 11 crypto platforms. Taken together, the EU’s direction is clear: rather than focusing solely on traditional banking channels, it is attempting to reach crypto infrastructure that may facilitate sanctioned activity.

Beyond the EU’s own actions, the sanctions tightening has also been influenced by allied measures. The proposal was reported to follow the United Kingdom’s May 26 sanctions against Huobi Global S.A., the Panamanian company behind HTX, over alleged support for Russia-linked financial networks involving sanctioned entities A7 and Garantex. In that case, HTX denied wrongdoing, telling Cointelegraph that regulatory compliance remains a priority and that it adheres to regulatory frameworks in the jurisdictions where it operates.

Implications for operators and boards across the EU

Because the amendment explicitly covers governance, EU-facing crypto firms cannot treat sanctions compliance as purely an onboarding or customer-screening task. The wording targets who can own, control, manage, or sit on governing bodies—meaning internal corporate structure becomes part of sanctions risk management.

For businesses offering MiCA-listed services—ranging from trading and exchange operations to transfer services and portfolio management—this likely requires reviewing shareholder registers, controlling persons, executive roles, and board appointments tied to Belarusian nationality or residency.

It is also notable that the measure expands an existing Belarus-related restriction. By broadening from wallet/account/custody into “any other crypto-asset services” under MiCA, the EU is signalling that it views the crypto sector as a set of connected services rather than isolated product lines. Firms that previously believed they were outside the sanctions line due to service type may need to reassess.

For investors and counterparties, these restrictions also affect operational continuity and due diligence. Business partners may increasingly factor sanctions-driven corporate eligibility into counterparty risk assessments, especially where controlling persons or board members could become restricted under future amendments.

Going forward, the critical watchpoints are the Aug. 25 applicability date and the practical steps firms take to remain compliant—particularly any changes to ownership structures or governance appointments. The EU’s broader pattern of expanding crypto sanctions suggests that additional service categories, geographies, or transaction rules could follow, even as MiCA continues to roll out its licensing and enforcement regime across member states.

US-listed spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) logged $70.62 million in net outflows on Friday, ending a five-day inflow streak.

Ethereum funds saw $211.25 million in net inflows over the previous five sessions from July 17 to Thursday, according to SoSoValue data. They still posted $103.9 million in net inflows for the week ended Friday.

Despite the outflows, Ethereum ETFs extended their weekly inflow streak to three straight and have attracted $337.74 million in net inflows so far in July.

Spot crypto ETF flows have become one of the market’s most closely watched gauges of demand for Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) through traditional investment products. 

Although other jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, have launched similar funds, US-listed ETFs account for the vast majority of assets and trading volumes.

Daily spot Ethereum ETF net flows from July 17 to July 24. Source: SoSoValue

Bitcoin ETFs also end week with outflows

The reversal followed a similar pattern in Bitcoin ETFs, which ended a seven-day inflow streak on Thursday and recorded another $240.08 million in net outflows on Friday.

Bitcoin ETFs also extended their net inflow streak to three consecutive weeks, adding $103.90 million during the week ended Friday and $233.96 million so far in July. They followed a record June, when $4.5 billion flowed out of the funds. 

BTC traded just under $64,000 at the time of writing, tumbling from the week’s high of $66,892 on Tuesday, according to CoinGecko. ETH traded at $1,837, down from Wednesday’s weekly high of $1,954.

Related: Bitcoin falls under $64K as surging US bond yields boost Fed rate-hike odds

Japan’s crypto reforms fuel $18.4 billion Bitcoin ETF forecast

Following Japan’s recent overhaul of its crypto regulations, which is widely viewed as laying the groundwork for future spot Bitcoin ETFs, crypto management platform XWIN estimated that a mature Japanese spot Bitcoin ETF market could reach about $18.4 billion, equal to roughly 0.13% of the country’s $14.6 trillion in household financial assets.

In an analysis posted at CryptoQuant, XWIN said the estimate assumes demand from existing crypto holders, new retail investors using brokerage accounts and institutional allocators. 

The report pointed to the US market as an example, noting that spot Bitcoin ETFs excluding Grayscale’s GBTC have accumulated roughly 1 million Bitcoin, demonstrating how regulated ETF products can connect traditional finance with digital assets.

“The key is access,” XWIN said, adding that a Japanese spot Bitcoin ETF would allow investors to gain Bitcoin exposure through familiar brokerage and custody systems. It characterized the $18.4 billion figure as “an achievable upper-end market scenario.”

Magazine: A quantum roadmap would push Bitcoin much higher: Charles Edwards

BEAT has gained 32.1% in seven days before an Aug. 1 release that will place the token at the center of $77.07 million in scheduled BEAT, EIGEN and ZETA unlocks.

RootData reported that Audiera will release 21.25 million BEAT at 9 a.m. Beijing time, valuing the allocation at approximately $67.78 million. The data platform calculates that the release equals 6.87% of BEAT’s circulating supply.

EigenCloud will unlock 38.35 million EIGEN worth about $7.87 million at 5 a.m. Beijing time, according to RootData. ZetaChain will add 44.43 million ZETA worth $1.42 million at midnight, with RootData placing the releases at 5.18% and 2.94% of circulation, respectively.

BEAT carries Aug. 1’s largest supply shock

BEAT traded near $3.16 after moving between $2.19 and $3.69 during the past week, according to CoinGecko. Although the token remained up 32.1% over seven days, it had retreated about 14% from the weekly high and lost 1% during the latest 24-hour period.

CoinGecko recorded $37.84 million in daily BEAT volume, up 148% from the previous day. RootData’s $67.78 million unlock valuation equals almost 1.8 times that turnover, although reported volume does not measure the amount of buy-side liquidity available to absorb recipient sales.

Using CoinGecko’s 309.27 million circulating-supply figure, the release would raise BEAT’s tradable supply to about 330.52 million if every unlocked token enters circulation. The release also equals roughly 7% of Audiera’s $965.6 million market capitalization at the checked price.

Burns drive BEAT demand before the unlock

Audiera reported 800,530 BEAT in revenue between July 13 and July 20, worth $1.84 million at the project’s stated price. It burned 797,230 BEAT during the same period, taking the cumulative amount removed from supply to 17.04 million.

“Over 17.04M BEAT permanently removed from circulation,” Audiera wrote in its July 20 update.

BEAT has gained 32.1% in seven days before an Aug. 1 release that will place the token at the center of $77.07 million in scheduled BEAT, EIGEN and ZETA unlocks.

RootData reported that Audiera will release 21.25 million BEAT at 9 a.m. Beijing time, valuing the allocation at approximately $67.78 million. The data platform calculates that the release equals 6.87% of BEAT’s circulating supply.

EigenCloud will unlock 38.35 million EIGEN worth about $7.87 million at 5 a.m. Beijing time, according to RootData. ZetaChain will add 44.43 million ZETA worth $1.42 million at midnight, with RootData placing the releases at 5.18% and 2.94% of circulation, respectively.

BEAT carries Aug. 1’s largest supply shock

BEAT traded near $3.16 after moving between $2.19 and $3.69 during the past week, according to CoinGecko. Although the token remained up 32.1% over seven days, it had retreated about 14% from the weekly high and lost 1% during the latest 24-hour period.

CoinGecko recorded $37.84 million in daily BEAT volume, up 148% from the previous day. RootData’s $67.78 million unlock valuation equals almost 1.8 times that turnover, although reported volume does not measure the amount of buy-side liquidity available to absorb recipient sales.

Using CoinGecko’s 309.27 million circulating-supply figure, the release would raise BEAT’s tradable supply to about 330.52 million if every unlocked token enters circulation. The release also equals roughly 7% of Audiera’s $965.6 million market capitalization at the checked price.

Burns drive BEAT demand before the unlock

Audiera reported 800,530 BEAT in revenue between July 13 and July 20, worth $1.84 million at the project’s stated price. It burned 797,230 BEAT during the same period, taking the cumulative amount removed from supply to 17.04 million.

“Over 17.04M BEAT permanently removed from circulation,” Audiera wrote in its July 20 update.

Poolin, the Singapore-based Bitcoin mining pool operator, and two US affiliates have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in New Jersey, according to a court filing reviewed via PACER Monitor. The move arrives as mining businesses continue to grapple with cost pressures—particularly electricity—while some operators look for new revenue streams beyond block production.

Alongside the restructuring process, Poolin is asking the court for permission to sell two West Texas mining sites to Thor CALAP LLC through a proposed stalking-horse bid valued at $52 million. A court-supervised auction would follow, with a bid deadline set for Sept. 8 under the proposed procedures.

Key takeaways

• Poolin and two US affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in New Jersey, with liabilities estimated between $100 million and $500 million.
• The company is pursuing a $52 million stalking-horse sale of two West Texas mining sites to Thor CALAP LLC.
• Under the proposed terms, $37 million would cover Tarbush assets (including assumed liabilities) and $15 million would cover the Pyote site (including power rights and equipment).
• The filing suggests a highly constrained balance sheet for a once-dominant pool, now operating at a much smaller share of network hashrate.
• The restructuring fits a broader trend: miners seeking survival via liquidation or diversification into AI/data-center infrastructure.

Chapter 11 filing outlines Poolin’s financial position

Poolin’s Chapter 11 court filing, available through PACER Monitor, provides a snapshot of the company’s estimated financial scale. The petition estimates liabilities in the range of $100 million to $500 million, while assets are estimated between $1 million and $10 million. The filing also lists 10,001 to 25,000 creditors.

For investors and industry observers, the wide liability and asset bands underscore the uncertainty that often accompanies mining restructurings—especially for operators with volatile operating expenses, variable energy costs, and exposure to the economics of mining difficulty and Bitcoin prices. While the filing does not provide a definitive balance sheet, the magnitude difference between liabilities and assets signals that creditors may be evaluating a realistic path toward partial recoveries, rather than a straightforward reorganization.

A proposed sale of West Texas capacity is central to the process

Poolin’s bankruptcy filing also centers on a targeted asset sale designed to preserve value while the case proceeds. The company is seeking court approval to sell two mining sites in West Texas to Thor CALAP LLC as a stalking-horse bid totaling $52 million.

The proposed transaction breaks down as follows:

• Tarbush assets: $37 million, including assumed liabilities.
• Pyote site: $15 million, including power rights, equipment, and other assets tied to the mining facilities.

As proposed, the sale would be subject to a court-supervised auction, with a bid deadline of Sept. 8 under the bidding procedures. For parties watching the case, the auction step is crucial: it can reveal whether other bidders are willing to pay more than the stalking-horse floor, particularly for assets that may include power arrangements and installed infrastructure.

From top pool to smaller hashrate share

Poolin was once described as the world’s largest Bitcoin mining pool. In 2019, it held that position, but the filing-era context reflects a significant shift in the industry landscape. According to Hashrate Index, Poolin currently ranks as the 17th largest mining pool operator by hashrate, with a 0.2% market share.

This matters because a pool operator’s economics are closely linked to volume—both in terms of how much hashing power it attracts and the ability to retain miners during periods of margin compression. When network conditions and operating costs become unfavorable, smaller pools can lose market share faster, which in turn can pressure revenue tied to pooled mining participation.

Restructuring and an AI pivot reshape the mining playbook

Poolin’s filing sits within a wider pattern in the Bitcoin mining sector. Rising electricity costs have pressured mining operations, pushing some companies to shut down and others to seek restructuring to reduce obligations or reallocate resources.

Earlier this year, NFN8 Group and two affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Western District of Texas in February, according to a separate report linked in the original coverage. That case illustrates how energy expenses and fixed infrastructure commitments can become difficult to sustain—particularly when mining economics deteriorate.

At the same time, some publicly traded miners have attempted a different approach: converting their power, facilities, and data-center experience into AI- and high-performance computing-oriented ventures. The original reporting noted that in November 2025, Bitfarms initiated a full wind-down of its Bitcoin mining operations as it pivoted toward AI and high-performance computing data centers.

More recently, deals tied to AI infrastructure were highlighted across the sector. Hut 8 and IREN announced large-scale AI infrastructure plans, with Hut 8 moving forward on a 15-year lease for an AI data center campus and IREN disclosing $2.8 billion in cloud services contracts with AI developers. Earlier coverage also pointed to MARA Holdings pursuing plans to acquire a Texas site with up to 2 gigawatts of capacity to expand AI and digital infrastructure.

Industry observers have framed these shifts around a key constraint: the challenge of securing compute resources and the infrastructure needed to support them. In the coverage referenced, Bernstein reportedly said that deals with third-party providers—including Bitcoin miners—will be necessary for AI companies seeking to address computing power limits at AI data centers.

What comes next for creditors and miners watching the auction

Poolin’s Chapter 11 process and proposed West Texas sale will likely become a bellwether for how much value is still attached to mining infrastructure, especially when assets are paired with power rights and installed equipment. Readers should watch the court-approved bidding process leading up to the Sept. 8 deadline and look for updates on whether the auction produces competing offers that change the valuation outlook for Poolin’s remaining operations.

Chinese courts have sentenced five Sifang payment platform operators to between three and six years in prison over a gambling network that processed more than 2.95 billion yuan, or about $428 million, through USDT, bank cards and third-party payment accounts.

The Paper reported that the Intermediate People’s Court of Xilin Gol League in Inner Mongolia upheld Ma’s conviction for illegal business operations on June 26, leaving his four-and-a-half-year prison term and 3 million yuan fine in place.

Ma’s case was the last judgment in a group of prosecutions linked to Sifang, a fourth-party payment operation that supplied payment channels to online gambling businesses. The court also ordered authorities to recover 2.95 million yuan in illegal income from Ma.

Court records cited by The Paper showed that Ma and four other defendants processed illegal payments between May 24, 2022, and Oct. 18, 2023. The operation moved funds through 105 merchant accounts connected to 10 third-party payment companies.

Some defendants received commissions or rebates through USDT wallets, while other payments went through bank cards, according to the records. Prosecutors treated their work as unlicensed payment settlement activity and charged them with illegal business operations.

Zhu received a five-year prison term and an 800,000 yuan fine, while Zhang was sentenced to six years and fined 850,000 yuan. The other defendants received terms ranging from three to six years, The Paper reported.

Sifang linked gambling sites to payment channels

According to the first judgment in the series, Zhu, Zhang, Tang, Du and Ma began building the operation in May 2022 after learning that payment services for gambling platforms could generate large profits.

Court documents said the group commissioned 32 collection and payment platforms, rented servers outside China and contacted people running overseas gambling websites. Those systems connected the gambling businesses with merchant accounts held at established third-party payment companies.

Sifang operated as a fourth-party, or aggregated, payment service rather than a licensed payment provider, according to The Paper. Such platforms combine payment interfaces supplied by banks and third-party processors, allowing merchants to collect funds through several channels from one system.

Investigators said Zhu and Zhang managed payment routes, coordinated with third-party providers, handled complaints and arranged profit distribution. Ma introduced payment channels, supplied merchant registration materials and helped merchants open accounts with third-party payment companies.

Ma also introduced intermediaries and dealt with problems that arose while merchant applications and fund transfers were being processed, according to the court findings.

Prosecutors initially alleged that the group earned 42.85 million yuan by taking a 1.45% commission from merchant transfers linked to overseas gambling websites. However, the courts attributed much smaller final profit amounts to several defendants.

Judicial records showed that one wallet associated with Zhang received 4.146 million USDT through 485 deposits between July 2022 and October 2023. The same records valued those deposits at about 26.95 million yuan.

Another wallet sent out 4.097 million USDT through 497 transfers, while Zhu, Zhang and Du also converted 1.905 million USDT into cash through 11 offline transactions. The court valued those cash conversions at roughly 12.38 million yuan.

For Ma, records obtained from the OKX application showed 152 transfers totaling 719,176.7 USDT into a wallet he supplied. The court valued those tokens at approximately 4.67 million yuan and deducted 1.72 million yuan returned by a co-defendant, leaving Ma with 2.95 million yuan in recognized illegal proceeds.

USDT records test China’s evidence rules

Investigators in Erenhot obtained wallet addresses from Tether and transaction details from OKX while building the case, The Paper reported. Wang Xiaohua, an associate professor at East China University of Political Science and Law, told the publication that linking traceable blockchain transfers to real people remains difficult when tokens do not pass through an exchange with identifying records.

Ma’s lawyer argued that investigators had not established how many payment accounts Ma handled or explained the purpose of more than 100 USDT transfers. The Paper said it sought comment from the Xilin Gol court on the evidence, valuation and cross-border data collection questions but received no response before publication.

The ruling follows calls from Chinese legal scholars and prosecutors for clearer rules on crypto-related money laundering cases. As crypto.news previously reported, a July 13 article in the People’s Procuratorate Daily identified criminal liability, evidence collection and asset recovery as three persistent problems under China’s current framework.

Prosecutors from Xiangtan’s Yuhu District and a Xiangtan University law professor argued that crypto’s anonymous, decentralized and cross-border features have complicated investigations. They also pointed to inconsistencies between China’s revised Anti-Money Laundering Law and Article 191 of its Criminal Law.

China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate disclosed in June that authorities prosecuted more than 1,200 people for drug-related money laundering between January 2025 and May 2026. In one case, a court sentenced drug trafficker Li Mobo to death after authorities found that he laundered more than $7 million through cryptocurrency, although officials made clear that the combined sentence covered several drug trafficking convictions and was not imposed for money laundering alone.

Ripple has rolled out Ripple Mint, a new institutional platform designed to make it easier for regulated organizations to interact with the company’s US dollar-pegged stablecoin, Ripple USD (RLUSD). The release centers on a single workflow layer for tasks like minting, redeeming, and managing RLUSD—either through a web interface or through direct API integrations.

Ripple Mint was announced on Thursday, with the company presenting the product as a “unified platform” that can support both manual operations and automated connections. The emphasis reflects a broader shift in stablecoin adoption: beyond experimentation, more institutions are seeking stablecoin rails for payments, trading execution, and treasury functions.

Key takeaways

• Ripple Mint is intended to streamline institutional access to RLUSD for minting, redemption, and ongoing management.
• The platform supports access via web workflows as well as API integrations for automation.
• Ripple launched RLUSD in December 2024 with an institutional focus, while later adoption has also included retail usage.
• RLUSD has grown into a major USD-pegged stablecoin by market cap, with CoinGecko data cited by earlier reporting.

A unified workflow for RLUSD

According to Ripple’s announcement, Ripple Mint is built to fit different operational needs within financial institutions. The company says the platform offers flexible access to “digital dollars through the workflows that fit their needs,” allowing organizations to manage RLUSD either by using a web interface or by connecting through APIs.

That distinction matters for how institutions typically deploy blockchain-based infrastructure. Manual workflows can be useful for smaller-scale operations, testing, or internal controls. API-based integration, by contrast, is generally required for high-throughput environments where stablecoin actions need to be connected to broader systems such as trading platforms, payment engines, or treasury management tools.

From RLUSD launch to institutional tooling

RLUSD itself was launched in December 2024, and earlier coverage described the stablecoin as initially geared toward institutional use. Over time, reports also indicated that RLUSD has seen some retail traction, suggesting the product is not limited purely to enterprise channels—even if its infrastructure direction remains institutional.

Market capitalization has followed that scaling narrative. Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph noted RLUSD moving into the ranks of the larger US dollar-backed stablecoins by market cap, and reaching the top 10 less than one year after launch. CoinGecko charts cited in that prior coverage show the token’s market cap growth culminating in a peak on June 1, 2026, when it reportedly surpassed $1.8 billion.

That timing is particularly relevant in the context of Ripple Mint. A stablecoin’s market size can influence the perceived readiness of a given ecosystem for broader institutional deployment. While market cap alone doesn’t determine adoption quality, it can reflect liquidity and accessibility—two factors institutions frequently consider when integrating stablecoins into operational workflows.

What the rollout could change for enterprise adoption

Stablecoin infrastructure for institutions is often defined by friction: onboarding processes, integration complexity, reconciliation requirements, and operational tooling. Ripple Mint’s pitch targets that friction by providing what Ripple describes as a single management layer for RLUSD, with multiple access modes (web and API).

For institutions, this kind of consolidation can reduce time-to-integration by limiting the number of bespoke systems required to mint, redeem, or manage stablecoin balances. It can also support internal compliance workflows by giving teams a consistent interface for operational actions—especially when stablecoin use expands into treasury and trading settlement activities.

At the time of publication, earlier data referenced by Cointelegraph indicated that RLUSD was ranked ninth among USD-pegged stablecoins by market capitalization. Prior coverage also cited a short-lived market cap rise around the Ripple Mint launch window, when RLUSD’s market cap reportedly moved from about $1.54 billion to $1.64 billion before settling closer to $1.59 billion, using CoinGecko figures.

Even if price movements around announcements are not a direct measure of enterprise traction, they can signal market attention. The more meaningful indicator will be whether Ripple Mint translates into new institutional integrations, increased transaction activity, and recurring usage patterns through automated API connections.

Where RLUSD sits in the broader stablecoin landscape

RLUSD is part of the competitive set of USD-pegged stablecoins, where adoption is shaped by trust, liquidity, and the usability of the surrounding infrastructure. Cointelegraph previously reported on RLUSD’s progress into the top tiers by market cap and highlighted its positioning as a US dollar-based stablecoin with an evolving user base.

Ripple Mint adds another layer to that positioning by focusing on the operational side of stablecoin access. Instead of treating stablecoin minting and redemption as separate, fragmented processes, the platform frames RLUSD management as a unified workflow—an approach that may appeal to institutions seeking predictable processes and smoother integration into existing systems.

Importantly, this does not eliminate the need for due diligence. Institutions still need to evaluate issuer and platform controls, counterparty and custody arrangements, and compliance alignment. But tooling that reduces integration overhead is often a prerequisite for stablecoins to move from pilot programs into routine usage.

Going forward, the key question for RLUSD users and potential institutional partners is whether Ripple Mint leads to measurable increases in automated adoption—especially through API-based integrations—and how quickly the platform’s capabilities expand beyond basic mint/redeem management into deeper payment and treasury workflows.

Hyperliquid’s decentralized perpetuals market has hit a notable milestone as trading in tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) started to dominate the platform’s week-over-week activity. According to Blockworks analytics, RWAs generated $25.1 billion in trading volume from July 13 to July 19—first time they have exceeded the combined volume of Hyperliquid’s other asset categories.

That $25.1 billion accounted for 52% of Hyperliquid’s total weekly trading volume of $48.2 billion, based on Blockworks data. ARK Invest research director Lorenzo Valente highlighted the scale in an X post, saying Hyperliquid’s RWA market alone was larger than the combined crypto perpetual volume of every other DEX.

Key takeaways

• RWA trading on Hyperliquid reached $25.1B in a single week (July 13–July 19), surpassing all other asset categories combined on the platform.
• RWAs represented 52% of Hyperliquid’s weekly total volume of $48.2B, per Blockworks.
• RWA adoption appears to be accelerating: RWA holder users rose 32% to 1.25 million, while tokenized RWA value increased to $36.7B (+3.5%) according to RWA.xyz.
• Revenue signals remain strong: Hyperliquid generated $7.6M in weekly revenue, placing it third among crypto apps by that metric (behind Tether and Circle).
• Executives increasingly frame perps on-chain as infrastructure: Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire called the shift a “major structural shift” toward RWA-driven trading.

RWA volume surpasses every other asset category on Hyperliquid

The shift is specific to Hyperliquid’s perpetual exchange (perps) activity, where traders transact continuously rather than relying on dated contract expirations. Blockworks’ weekly figures show that, for July 13–July 19, tokenized RWAs became the largest driver of Hyperliquid’s marketplace by volume—an inflection point for a category that has been steadily gaining attention across crypto.

Valente’s comparison—RWA volume on Hyperliquid exceeding the combined crypto perpetual volume of other DEXs—underscores how concentrated the activity is becoming around tokenized, off-chain-linked instruments on a perps venue. While DEX perps are not new, this particular weighting toward RWAs suggests that capital and liquidity are being pulled toward tokenized claims on real assets rather than limiting trading interest to native crypto commodities.

Adoption metrics point to a broader RWA pull

The volume milestone is occurring alongside growth in the underlying RWA market. RWA.xyz data cited in the report indicates that RWA holders expanded by 32% over the past month to 1.25 million users. Over the same period, the total value of tokenized RWAs rose by 3.5% to $36.7 billion.

For investors and market participants, the key question is whether Hyperliquid’s RWA outperformance reflects a one-week anomaly or a sustained change in liquidity preferences. The combination of weekly trading dominance and month-over-month growth in both holders and total RWA value makes the case for sustained demand—at least in the near term.

Revenue and relative standing among crypto applications

Volume growth often attracts scrutiny, but revenue helps clarify whether activity is translating into sustainable economic impact. DefiLlama data indicates Hyperliquid generated $7.6 million in revenue over the past week.

DefiLlama also places Hyperliquid third among crypto applications by weekly revenue, behind stablecoin issuers Tether and Circle, which generated $112 million and $45 million respectively. That ranking matters because it places an RWA-focused perps venue in direct competition for economic relevance with the dominant parts of the stablecoin ecosystem—segments that many market observers view as foundational to on-chain trading.

In practical terms, the implication is that traders are not just moving around capital for speculation: the perps market is producing measurable platform earnings at a time when RWAs are becoming a majority share of activity.

Industry executives link the trend to a “structural shift”

Beyond raw market statistics, prominent crypto and traditional finance figures are increasingly framing RWA growth on-chain as an ecosystem-level change rather than a niche experiment. Circle co-founder and CEO Jeremy Allaire said growing RWA trading on Hyperliquid marks a “major structural shift” in crypto markets. In a Friday X post, he characterized the move as departing from “speculating on endogenous digital commodities” toward trading linked to external real-world assets.

Other industry commentary supports a similar direction of travel for perpetual futures as an instrument. Earlier in July, Pantera Capital suggested that perpetual futures could become a dominant trading tool beyond crypto. The argument emphasized structural advantages of perps versus traditional derivatives, including 24/7 trading, the absence of contract expiries, simpler position management, and continuous price discovery.

Regulatory and competitive pressure is also emerging. The report references NYSE parent Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) and its chief executive Jeffrey Sprecher urging regulators to establish a “level playing field” for launching 24/7 on-chain perpetual futures contracts. The underlying tension is clear: if on-chain perps continue to attract mainstream liquidity, market participants will want consistent rules across venues that provide continuous trading and automated settlement.

At the same time, broader tokenization efforts are already integrating traditional market infrastructure concepts into blockchain settings. The report notes that in March, the NYSE partnered with tokenization platform Securitize to develop blockchain-based stock trading infrastructure aimed at 24/7 trading and settlement.

While these initiatives are not the same as Hyperliquid’s perps market, together they show a pattern: tokenized assets are moving from “possible future use” toward active trading and infrastructure design across both crypto-native and legacy finance channels.

Traders and builders should watch whether Hyperliquid’s RWA share holds beyond the July 13–July 19 window and whether revenue continues to scale as RWA holders and total tokenized value rise. The sustainability of the shift—and how regulators respond to 24/7 on-chain derivative trading—will likely determine whether this becomes a durable market structure or a temporary liquidity rotation.