Crypto World
Robinhood Chain’s real-world assets jump fivefold as tokenized stocks start trading in size
Total value locked has roughly tripled since mid-July to about $312 million, according to DefiLlama, and Robinhood Chain is now clearing more than $600 million in daily decentralized-exchange volume, putting it among the more active networks in crypto.
Its transaction count has also drawn attention, with more than 138 million in 30 days, per Token Terminal. But the chain’s most-traded tokens are still overwhelmingly memecoins.
On DEX Screener, the top of Robinhood Chain’s trending list is filled with tokens like “Hoodrat,” “Vladhood” and “Swole Doge,” not the tokenized equities the network was built for, which trade on Uniswap but rank well down the volume rankings.
The tokenized stocks generate roughly $55 million in daily volume, under a tenth of the chain’s nearly $600 million in total DEX trading, the data shows. The rest is dominated by memecoins.
Stablecoins remain the single largest presence on the chain, with a combined market value in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and memecoins, such as the Robinhood mascot-themed CASHCAT, that defined the chain’s first weeks, are still active and heavily traded.
The critique three weeks ago was that Robinhood had built expensive infrastructure and attracted only speculation, with little sign that the tokenized-stock business it pitched would materialize.
Crypto World
EMCD Launches Miner Support Program with up to $30M for Miners Amid Industry’s Steepest Profitability Squeeze
[PRESS RELEASE – Panama City, Panama, July 27th, 2026]
EMCD, a global crypto-fintech platform and one of the world’s largest Bitcoin mining pools, announced the launch of its Miner Support Program, providing eligible miners with access to up to $30 million* in financing, fee relief and partner benefits.
The program launches against a challenging backdrop. Bitcoin’s hashprice — the key measure of mining revenue per unit of compute — has declined to approximately $28/PH/day, a 50% drop from its October 2025 peak and an all-time post-halving low, per CoinShares Q1 2026 data. An estimated 252 EH/s has been taken offline (According to Hashrate Index data, cited in CoinCentral, April 2026) as operators running older-generation hardware found margins no longer viable. Three consecutive negative difficulty adjustments, the first such streak since July 2022, signal broad capitulation across the sector. EMCD, which has operated its mining pool since 2017 and processed over 4,550 BTC mined by its users in 2025, sees the current period as both a stress test and a structural opportunity for operators who remain active.
Program Structure
As margins compress across the industry, EMCD has put together a concrete response: restructured fees, negotiated hardware and infrastructure deals, and opened access to its liquidity and yield products — a toolkit built around how mining businesses actually work, available to operators in any region.
Miners facing cash flow pressure can access EMCD’s secured liquidity facilities at 3.9% APR — to cover operational costs without selling assets into a down market. Unlike generic crypto-backed credit lines, EMCD products are built around mining-specific cash flow cycles and are bundled with the rest of the program, so the effective cost of capital comes down further when combined with fee relief and hardware savings rather than being judged on rate alone.
Those looking to protect margins on every block can apply for zero pool commission for 60 days, reducing overhead while hashprice remains depressed. Miners running older or underperforming hardware can unlock preferential pricing on Vnish firmware — the market’s leading third-party ASIC optimization software. Those looking to expand or relocate capacity get access to special terms on equipment and data center services through EMCD’s partner network.
Partner Participation
EMCD is inviting hardware manufacturers, data centers, and hosting providers to join the program by offering exclusive terms to eligible miners. Partner applications can be submitted at the website: https://support-miners.emcd.io/.
“We’ve been through every cycle in this industry since 2017 — the rallies, the winters, the halvings. What we’ve learned is that the operators who survive aren’t the ones who wait out the downturns. They’re the ones who use them. This program is our commitment to making sure our miners have the tools to do exactly that.” — Michael Jerlis, Founder & CEO, EMCD.
*The stated amount reflects the maximum aggregate value of support (including financing, fee reductions and partner offers) that may be made available under the program and does not constitute a reserved fund.
About EMCD
EMCD is the global cryptocurrency mining pool and infrastructure provider. Founded in 2017 as an early industrial BTC mining operation in Europe, EMCD now serves users and businesses across 120+ markets. With over 30 EH/s of hashrate and a place in the global top ten, EMCD committed to security, reliability and transparency. EMCD’s mission is to make it simpler for individuals and businesses to build, earn and transact with digital assets. EMCD was recognised as Best Mining Pool by Coingape in 2026 and Finance Feeds in 2025.
The post EMCD Launches Miner Support Program with up to $30M for Miners Amid Industry’s Steepest Profitability Squeeze appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Kruger said bitcoin needs to clear $67,300 to break out of the multi-week consolidation that has capped prices since June. A move above that level could signal the next leg of higher, while ether (ETH) faces a similar test at $2,000.
Tom Lee, chairman of Bitmine and co-founder of Fundstrat, also noted ether’s recent outperformance relative to BTC as a bullish signal for crypto markets. The ETH-BTC ratio, which measures the price of ether in bitcoin, climbed to a three-month high on Monday.
Rally lacks demand amid macro risks
Still, not everyone is convinced about bitcoin’s strength.
Nansen senior research analyst Nicolai Sondergaard said the recent rebound lacks the buying conviction typically seen before sustained rallies.
“The market is holding range without strong buyers, not building toward a breakout,” Sondergaard said.
His base case remains a pullback toward $52,000-$58,000 unless market conditions improve.
While nearly 9,000 BTC left exchanges over the past week, open interest in bitcoin futures has fallen even as prices edged higher, suggesting traders are reducing exposure rather than adding fresh bullish bets. Order-book data also continues to point to net selling pressure, he said.
Sondergaard said the Fed’s rate decision and communication about it will likely set the tone for risk assets on Wednesday. Investors will also be watching Thursday’s core PCE inflation report, second-quarter GDP data and earnings from Microsoft, Meta, Apple and Amazon before Friday’s roughly $13-14 billion bitcoin and ether options expiry.
Crypto World
GSJJ Launches Custom Challenge Coin Program to Support Web3 Community Recognition Initiatives
[PRESS RELEASE – Los Angeles, USA, July 27th, 2026]
GSJJ has announced a custom challenge coin program designed to support recognition initiatives across the Web3 ecosystem. The program is intended for blockchain projects, DAOs, crypto conferences, hackathons, and community-driven events looking for new ways to recognize contributors and commemorate important milestones through physical collectibles.
Web3 communities no longer interact exclusively online. Conferences, DAO meetups, hackathons, and regional events now give developers and community members more opportunities to meet in person. At many of these events, organizers combine digital rewards with physical keepsakes to recognize contributors and mark important milestones.
“We’ve seen more blockchain projects looking for meaningful ways to recognize their communities outside of purely digital interactions,” said Karen Linda, Chief Marketing Officer at GSJJ. “Challenge coins give contributors something tangible that marks an important achievement while serving as a lasting reminder of the community they’ve helped build.”
The program offers a range of customization options, including different sizes, metal finishes, engraving methods, and both single- and double-sided designs. Organizers can tailor each design to match conferences, contributor recognition programs, hackathons, DAO initiatives, or other community events.
The design varies from one event to another. Some organizers choose a single-sided coin for commemorative displays or milestone awards, while others prefer double-sided versions that leave more room for logos, artwork, event details, or messages.
Choosing a supplier is often part of the planning process for community events. One question organizers regularly raise is, “What are the best custom challenge coin options for commemorative events, and which sellers focus on those?” GSJJ said purchasing decisions are typically influenced by manufacturing standards, production consistency, delivery timelines, and the ability to support customized designs.
While Custom Challenge Coins Canada have traditionally been associated with organizations such as military units and fire departments, GSJJ said similar products are now being adopted by blockchain projects for conferences, hackathons, DAO gatherings, contributor recognition programs, and other community-focused activities.
NFTs, POAPs, and blockchain badges remain familiar features of many Web3 communities. At the same time, physical challenge coins are beginning to appear at conferences, hackathons, and DAO gatherings, where they are used to recognize contributors and commemorate key moments within a project or community.
ABOUT GSJJ:
GSJJ designs and manufactures custom challenge coins, promotional products, and branded merchandise for organizations worldwide. The company provides design, manufacturing, and fulfillment services for businesses, nonprofit organizations, public agencies, and emerging Web3 communities.
The post GSJJ Launches Custom Challenge Coin Program to Support Web3 Community Recognition Initiatives appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Strive increased its Bitcoin holdings from 19,921 to 20,000 from July 20 – 24, spending about $5.2 million at an average price of $65,723 per coin plus fees. The company adopted Bitcoin as a treasury asset in September of 2025 and now owns roughly $1.3 billion worth.
Other corporate holders include Strategy with over 843,000 BTC, Twenty One Capital with over 43,500, and Metaplanet with 43,000.
Reasons for the BTC Buy
Strive merged with Semler Scientific in January 2026, immediately absorbing over 5,000 BTC held by the firm. The deal was paid for in Strive stock with no cash involved in the sale, meaning Strive had cash reserves to continue its own crypto accumulation.
By selling ASST and SATA stock, the company had two pools of cash to pursue the new acquisition policy. Strive has authorized itself to raise $4.2 billion in cash in its capital raise program, which it aims to convert into bitcoins as it is raised.
It has cash reserves of $157.4 million as of July, up from $154.1 million, with a quarterly net loss of $393.6 million. Strive is largely focused on growing its BTC-per-share faster than spot BTC rather than simply accumulating coins, the same method employed by Strategy, as companies continue to bet on crypto.
Swimming Against the Tide
Strive went public in 2025 after a reverse merger through Asset Entities, with Matt Cole becoming CEO. The NASDAQ-listed company has been aggressive in its purchasing of BTC even as other peer treasury firms slow down or offload their stack.
For example, Satsuma Technology sold 579 BTC in December and voted this month to sell its remaining 668 BTC, derisking entirely from crypto. Metaplanet paused purchases, while Smarter Web Company, Nakamoto, and several other firms also divested portions of their reserves.
Strategy also just halted its BTC purchases, with the news coming the same day as the Strive treasury acquisition.
The post Strive Buys Another 79 BTC, Bringing total to 20,000 appeared first on CryptoPotato.
The cryptocurrency market has been stuck in a prolonged bear market for several months, while in the last few days, some well-known exchanges announced they will shut down operations.
This sounds like concerning news that could trigger additional panic across the community, yet certain industry participants believe it may also mark the cycle’s bottom.
It’s Always Darkest Before the Dawn
On July 23, BitMEX disclosed that it will cease operations on September 23 this year. The exchange is a well-known name in the industry, existing since 2014 and playing a major role in shaping today’s crypto derivatives market. At its peak, it was among the biggest in the sector and is best known for introducing 100x leveraged perpetual swaps.
New account registrations have already been disabled, while users are strongly encouraged to close open positions and withdraw their funds as soon as possible.
Another popular exchange that will cease to exist due to the unfavorable market environment is BitMart. All trading services on the platform will be discontinued on August 26, while the official shutdown is scheduled for January 31, 2027.
And the list of affected entities doesn’t stop with these names. DEX aggregator Odos will wind down operations on July 30, Dango (the self-proclaimed “Endgame Exchange”) will stop running its L1 blockchain on August 13, and decentralized cloud storage company Storj Labs filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
At first glance, it seems like the condition of the crypto sector is only getting worse, but numerous analysts see the upcoming shutdowns as a potential bright spot.
X user Mister Crypto claimed that every bear market in the past has ended the same way – with the demise of a big exchange. They reminded that in 2015, the Mt. Gox collapse was followed by an 11,000% price explosion for Bitcoin. In 2018, Bitgrail went down, and BTC surged by over 2,000%, while in 2022 the cryptocurrency exploded by 700% after the meltdown of FTX. With that pattern in mind, the analyst noted that BitMEX “is dying now,” hinting that a new bull run could be just around the corner.
“The pattern is not a coincidence. The bottom shows up right when the weakest big player finally breaks, because it takes that much pain to kill an exchange that size. And that much pain is exactly what a cycle low is made of,” they added.
Ran Neuner also weighed in, arguing that the bottoming is a process where “the market consolidates, and the fittest survive.” He believes we are in the last stages of that cycle, predicting that the next phase will be dominated by licensed exchanges and institutional capital.
Same Pattern or Not Really?
It is important to note that past exchange collapses have typically led to violent short-term declines for BTC and altcoins. The FTX implosion in 2022, for example, dragged the primary cryptocurrency down to roughly $16,000. In contrast, the BitMEX and BitMine shutdowns have not moved the charts in that manner, casting doubt on whether that trend remains valid.
Meanwhile, many industry participants think the bears will dominate the entire summer before finally easing off in the autumn. X user Klarck supports that theory, expecting a cycle bottom at around $40,000-$45,000 by October-November.
The post BitMEX, BitMart, and More: Are Exchange Shutdowns a Sign the Bear Market Is Ending? appeared first on CryptoPotato.
AI giant Anthropic, along with search engines Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo, de-indexed a major leak of personal information from Claude customers today. However, those same search engines forgot to take down a similar, inadvertent data dump from customers of another AI service, Perplexity.
Perplexity, which charges for Computer access, was last valued at $20 billion and has tens of millions of active users.
This morning, Protos was able to access dozens of full Perplexity Computer files from assorted customers, simply by querying Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo using the standard URL structure for shareable links.
We’ve reported the bug to Perplexity and the three search engines.
The original leak affecting Anthropic customers stemmed from shareable links from Claude’s interface, which didn’t warn customers that creating a shareable link would also index its contents on search engines.
Many customers didn’t intend for these links to become indexed, yet because Claude didn’t hide the webpages properly with no index tags or other privacy-preserving protocols, search engines indexed customers’ links and their associated files and artifacts.
After the story went viral, search engines de-indexed Claude’s public-sharing directory. Indeed, current searches return zero results for Claude while an equivalent query for Perplexity returns pages of listings.
Read more: Anthropic’s public Claude Fable release has crypto on edge
Perplexity Computer outputs appear in search engine results
Files accessible by unwitting Perplexity customers included specific titles about a variety of topics. The results are not merely search engine caches but live on the Perplexity.ai domain.
For disambiguation, Perplexity has a separate domain for customers who want to voluntarily publish content to the internet, pplx.app, which is unrelated to the above leak.
Although plenty of Perplexity Computer files are indexed, Google cautions that its site operator doesn’t necessarily return every indexed page.
Unfortunately, that means that more specific queries with various keywords might return additional content.
Perplexity, like Claude, turned obscure public URLs into a discovery route for strangers searching for personal details. Importantly, Perplexity’s Share interface only discloses that creating links means “Anyone with the link can view,” not “Anyone on the internet can view.”
Not AI companies’ first privacy failure
A Reddit post revealed the Claude search issue on July 25, alleging that some indexed conversations contained credentials, resumes, internal company information, and personal discussions.
Protos didn’t inspect those conversations and cannot independently verify their contents.
Sadly, Anthropic has seen this problem before. Forbes reported in September 2025 that hundreds of shared Claude conversations appeared in Google before the results de-indexed.
OpenAI encountered a related problem in July 2025. Its security chief said the company removed an opt-in feature that made shared ChatGPT conversations discoverable through search engines.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Crypto exchange Gate.io has been accused of withholding evidence and delaying a police investigation into the theft of a user’s $1.7 million worth of crypto.
Gate.io’s Chinese X account has denied the allegations put forward by user “Jheioff,” whose Gate account was drained on July 8.
Jheioff claims that, despite using phone verification, Google’s two-step authenticator, and email verification, they weren’t alerted to the attack.
They said, “My phone never received any SMS verification codes, and I’ve never provided video footage, handheld ID photos, or login screen recordings to anyone.”
Read more: Gate.io to compensate users for outage losses — but there’s a catch
Jheioff filed a criminal case on July 17 but subsequently accused Gate of “deflecting and delaying” and claims that, 10 days after filing the case, the exchange still hasn’t submitted video facial data or risk control information.
Gate, on the other hand, called Jheioff’s claims “unfounded accusations,” and instead says it has prioritised their case.
Jheioff says Gate is hindering crypto theft investigation
In an X post translated from Chinese, Jheioff said that once the case was filed, they asked the exchange for every document required by police.
They claim authorities then sent Gate the case filing decision, the IDs of two police officers, the judicial evidence request letter, and other related documents.
However, Gate allegedly wanted a PDF version from Jheioff. When sent a compressed PDF, they told Jheioff that they would need to re-upload as a proper PDF file while citing virus risks.
Jheioff claims the company then suggested could be submitting false documents, and that the police officers may be imposters. As such, it then said it would require a video confirming their identities.
“I made a special trip to the public security bureau to cooperate,” Jheioff says, “but Gate then claimed they could only do voice verification at that time and couldn’t do video.
Read more: Crypto exchanges too slow to react to RAVE collapse, ZachXBT
“Finally, they claimed that ‘the materials are incomplete’ and ‘some documents have expired,’ but failed to provide a single list specifying the missing materials, expired documents, correction standards, and processing deadlines.”
Jheioff added, “I’m baffled — you guys have so many issues. I asked in advance to clarify the details of the summons; why didn’t you mention any of this back then? Now you’re using these trivial details to stall and shirk responsibility — it really comes in handy.”
Gate claims Jheioff is the one delaying
Gate suggests that it’s actually Jheioff doing most of the delaying.
On the day of the incident, the company claims that Jheioff was “very slow,” and “consistently refused our assistance” when it came to filing a case and providing legal resources to help.
It said that after Jheioff informed it of the filing on July 17, it took another five days for it to receive an inquiry letter. It also claimed that the July 22 letter was missing documents, had expired credentials, couldn’t be verified, and lacked official contact information.
Then, on July 24, Gate says the given official contact phone number “was a personal line, the email was a personal account, and there were inconsistencies between the case description and the incident details,” and as such, it “immediately replied requesting a video call for verification and confirmation.”
“As of July 27, three days have passed, and we still have not received a specific schedule for the video verification,” Gate claims, adding that if Jheioff had cooperated, this step could’ve been resolved within a day.
As for the PDF, it says it clearly stated that it needed to be in the PDF format, and that Jheioff sent a document compression package instead.
Gate and Jheioff previously argued over the details of the hack, with Jheioff denying that all the logged security changes in the run-up to the draining were their doing.
Indeed, Gate maintained in its response to Jheioff today that the incident wasn’t the result of leaked data, which Jheioff suggests caused the drain.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Bitcoin is trading well below its historical valuation range, but a comparison between its realized value and its current market valuation shows signs of easing selling pressures.
Data from CryptoQuant shows BTC’s MVRV Z-Score sitting near 0.42, substantially below its long-term average of 1.7. The indicator has been under that historical mean for the past 30 days and briefly dropped to about 0.185 on June 30, its weakest reading this cycle.
Bitcoin Valuation Near Historic Lows, No Capitulation
Just a few days before the Fed’s interest rate decision, Bitcoin is changing hands around $65,000, extending weeks of consolidation between $64,000 and $66,000 after a 15% drop in price over the past three months, according to CoinGecko.
The MVRV Z-Score compares Bitcoin’s market value with its realized value, an analytical angle that gauges if the asset is trading above or below its historical fair value. High readings have historically accompanied market tops, while negative readings appeared during deep bear-market capitulation.
As seen in the latest chart updates, the score is lingering just above zero, preceded by a steady decline since late 2025. It has yet to enter negative territory despite the prolonged weakness, where previous market cycles have found their definitive bottoms.
During the late-2022 bear market, the indicator fell below 0 for several weeks as Bitcoin traded near $16,000-$17,000, marking a capitulation phase before recovering to price levels of above $30,000 in May 2023.
The current reading could mean the top coin by market cap is undervalued at its $65,000 price at the time of reporting, but it has not experienced the same panic-driven selloff that characterized the previous cycle bottom. Holders have not sold their coins aggressively enough to reach a capitulation point.
According to trader Axel Adler Jr.’s quicktake, a recovery in the Z-Score toward its historical average of 1.7 would spell improving valuation conditions. Conversely, a break below June’s low near 0.185 and into negative territory would cue BTC’s further deterioration before a potential bottom forms.
In Crazzyblockk’s June 29 analysis for CryptoQuant, he noted that when Bitcoin traded for around $60,000, the MVRV Z-Score was approaching valuation zones previously seen during deep market resets after excess speculation had been removed. Bitcoin has gone up by about 6% since, reinforcing his market theory that classic capitulation might not occur.
Market Profit Taking Replaces Loss Selling
Bitcoin’s seven-day realized profit and loss chart, showing the net amount investors have locked in the network, spent 23 of the last 30 days below zero. The coin had realized net losses of approximately $8.5 billion in June, before another wave of losses of nearly $3 billion in mid-July.
July’s activity has reversed last month’s trend and recorded positive PnL figures over the past week, gaining between $400 million and $500 million. The latest reading stands near $239 million, as seen in CryptoQuant’s Bitcoin PnL chart.
Analyst Crazzyblockk explained that, even though investors are no longer realizing losses at the same pace as they were towards the end of June and Bitcoin’s selling pressure is cooling down, the metric does not confirm that the market has completed a cyclical bottom.
The post Bitcoin Trading Far Below Historical Norms: Rebound or a Warning Sign? appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Crypto World
Bitcoin holds firm as Hormuz hostilities pause, Fed prepares interest-rate decision: Crypto Markets Today
The crypto market opened the week on a positive note as a shift in the Middle East offered a modicum of relief to risk assets. The U.S. and Iran paused strikes over the Strait of Hormuz, sending Brent crude tumbling from above $100 to around $87 per barrel as mediators continued talks.
The move was felt across multiple asset classes. Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 index futures are up 1.36% and 0.80%, respectively, while gold and silver are both higher as inflation fears unwind. The CoinDesk 20 Index (CD20) has gained 0.1% since midnight UTC, 1.6% over 24 hours.
Bitcoin is lower since midnight at $65,200, though this follows a spike to $65,600 at the start of futures trading on Sunday. The little-changed reading masks an underlying improvement in sentiment.
Ether (ETH) outperformed bitcoin on Monday, rising 0.51% to $1,963 and approaching the psychologically significant $2,000 level for the first time since the beginning of June.
The Fed is meeting this week and faces a decision on whether to raise interest rates for the first time in three years, with inflation running at 4.1% on the back of the oil surge spurred by the Iran war.
While the market watched the token and the trade press counted the acquisitions, Ripple became the second-largest corporate political donor in America. The crypto industry now supplies more than a third of all corporate election money, its flagship super PAC holds a $193 million war chest, and the bill it was all built to pass is on the Senate floor this month. Here is the audit of the spend.
Summary
- Fairshake and its two affiliated super PACs entered the 2026 midterm cycle with roughly $193 million in cash, a figure disclosed ahead of the January Federal Election Commission deadline and larger than the entire crypto industry deployed across all of 2024.
- Ripple has contributed about $48 million this cycle, second only to Andreessen Horowitz among corporate donors by one accounting, alongside Coinbase at roughly $56 million, with a further $1 million sent directly to a single Senate candidate.
- Public Citizen’s tally puts total crypto election spending near $189 million, roughly 37% of all corporate money in the cycle, more than artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online gambling combined.
- The structure is three PACs, not one: Fairshake for bipartisan candidate spending, Protect Progress for Democratic races, and Defend American Jobs for Republican ones, a design that lets the same money work both sides without appearing in the same place.
- The investment gets marked this month: the market-structure bill the spending exists to pass faces its decisive Senate window before the August recess, and roughly $110 million of the war chest remains unspent with the November midterms four months out.
Ripple spent about $4 billion buying companies over three years, and this publication audited that empire last week. The company also spent roughly $48 million buying something else, and almost nobody has audited that at all. The second purchase does not appear on any acquisition list, produces no revenue line, and cannot be valued by any multiple, but it is aimed at the same outcome as the first: a legal environment in which the assembled business is permitted to operate. Ripple is now, by one national tally, the second-largest corporate political donor in the United States this cycle, behind only Andreessen Horowitz and ahead of every bank, airline, pharmaceutical company, and defense contractor in the country. It sits alongside Coinbase inside Fairshake, the crypto industry’s flagship super PAC network, which entered the 2026 midterm cycle with roughly $193 million in cash, more than the entire industry deployed across the whole of the 2024 elections, and which has already spent more than $82 million with four months of campaign still to run. The industry as a whole now supplies more than a third of all corporate election money in America. This piece is the ledger: what was given, how the machine is built, what the last cycle’s version of it actually bought, where it demonstrably failed, and why the next few weeks are when the position gets marked.
The ledger, itemized
Start with the numbers, because their scale is the part most coverage understates.
Fairshake and its affiliates disclosed roughly $193 million on hand in January, ahead of the Federal Election Commission’s reporting deadline, a figure about 37% higher than its July 2025 disclosure. The second half of 2025 supplied the jump: Ripple contributed $25 million in a single commitment, Andreessen Horowitz added $24 million, and Coinbase had already put in $25 million earlier in the year, roughly $74 million from three companies in six months. Cycle-to-date totals run higher than those individual checks. Public Citizen’s accounting puts Coinbase at about $56 million and Ripple at about $48 million across the cycle’s channels, with a separate tally ranking Ripple second among all corporate donors nationally behind Andreessen Horowitz at $51.65 million. The figures differ because the counting differs, some tallies aggregate only Fairshake contributions while others include direct candidate giving and other committees, and any honest citation has to say which. What no accounting disputes is the order of magnitude: three crypto companies have put roughly $150 million into a single election cycle.
The industry total is the number that reframes everything. Public Citizen puts crypto’s 2026 election spending near $189 million, approximately 37% of all corporate political money in the cycle, against $517 million in total corporate spending that is itself up 12% from all of 2024. Artificial intelligence and Big Tech combined contributed about $60 million; online gambling about $45.6 million. One industry, younger than the iPhone, now outspends every other corporate sector in American politics, and roughly $56 million of crypto money went to MAGA Inc alongside the $82 million flowing through Fairshake.
Beyond the flagship network sits additional capacity: a newer vehicle called Fellowship PAC claimed a $100 million commitment for pro-crypto candidates, meaning the sector’s declared electoral firepower exceeds a quarter of a billion dollars before a single general-election ballot has been counted.
And then there is the retail-scale detail that shows the strategy has a second gear. Ripple sent $1 million directly to John Deaton, the pro-crypto attorney who lost Massachusetts’s 2024 Senate race to Elizabeth Warren by nearly twenty points and is running again in 2026 for the state’s other seat. Direct candidate contributions of that size are unusual, visible, and personal in a way super PAC money is not, which makes the Deaton line the clearest statement of intent in the entire ledger.
The machine: three PACs, one checkbook
The structure deserves explanation, because its design is the reason the money works harder than its size suggests.
Fairshake operates as three entities. Fairshake itself directs funds to candidates across both parties. Protect Progress spends in Democratic races. Defend American Jobs spends in Republican ones. The architecture solves a specific problem in American electoral finance: money that visibly funds both parties is politically awkward in primaries, where partisan credibility is the currency, so the network splits itself into partisan-facing vehicles that draw from the same donor base and coordinate the same strategy. A Democratic primary voter sees Protect Progress; a Republican primary voter sees Defend American Jobs; both are the same industry, and neither ad mentions cryptocurrency at all, because Fairshake’s signature tactic has always been to spend on issues unrelated to its own, funding advertisements about housing, healthcare, or a candidate’s record while the crypto position remains the invisible criterion.
The targeting is equally deliberate. Fairshake concentrates in primaries, where money moves outcomes furthest per dollar, and in a small number of races selected for signaling value. Protect Progress backed Adrian Boafo in a Maryland Democratic primary this cycle, and he won. That pattern, early money in low-turnout contests, is how a nine-figure war chest contests dozens of races without ever needing to win a national argument about digital assets.
The strategic effect is the one Fairshake’s own spokespeople describe most plainly: the network is standing infrastructure now, not a one-cycle experiment. The 2024 build converted heavy experimental spending into permanent capability, with money left over, $64 million carried into this cycle before a dollar of new fundraising. An industry that can credibly promise to spend against a legislator in the next primary does not need to spend in most of them, which is the quiet dividend of the whole enterprise and the reason the unspent balance matters as much as the deployed one.
What the money bought last time
The 2024 record is the only evidence base for what this spending achieves, and it points in one direction while carrying an important asterisk.
Fairshake and its affiliates raised approximately $93 million across the 2023-2024 build and spent more than $130 million on media buys supporting candidates they classified as pro-crypto and opposing those classified as anti-crypto. Two results defined the cycle’s reputation: Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, both incumbent House members regarded as industry critics, lost primaries in which Fairshake-funded advertising was widely credited as a decisive factor. Neither race was fought on crypto policy. Both outcomes were read across Capitol Hill as proof that the industry could end a career in a primary, and that reading, more than any individual seat, is what the money actually purchased. Legislative behavior since has been consistent with the lesson having landed: the House passed the market-structure bill 294 to 134, the stablecoin statute cleared with bipartisan support, and the number of members willing to be publicly identified as anti-crypto has thinned considerably.
The asterisk is Massachusetts. The industry’s most direct 2024 investment, backing John Deaton against Elizabeth Warren, its most prominent legislative opponent, failed by nearly twenty points, and it failed in the way that matters analytically: money could not make a general-electorate race about crypto when the electorate cared about something else. That result maps the strategy’s boundary precisely. Fairshake money is extremely effective in low-turnout primaries where a modest advertising advantage decides a small electorate, and largely ineffective in high-salience general elections where partisan identity dominates. Deaton is running again in 2026, with another $1 million from Ripple already committed, which will test whether the boundary moved or whether the industry is buying the same lesson twice.
The countervailing case, made properly
An audit owes the other side its strongest form, and there are two of them, pointing in opposite directions.
The critics’ case is structural rather than moral. Public Citizen’s objection is not that crypto participates in politics but that the concentration distorts: when a single industry supplies more than a third of all corporate election money, the ordinary pluralism that keeps any one sector from dominating a legislature stops functioning, and legislators facing a nine-figure adversary in their next primary make different choices than legislators facing ordinary lobbying. The insider-adjacent critique is sharper still. The industry is spending to shape the rules governing its own regulation, and the rules in question, market structure, agency jurisdiction, and enforcement authority, determine whether the same companies face securities liability. That is not corruption in any legal sense, and it is exactly the arrangement campaign-finance reformers have described as legalized capture for fifty years.
The industry’s case is that this is what every regulated sector does, and it is not a weak argument. Banking, pharmaceuticals, energy, and telecommunications have all spent decades funding candidates and shaping the statutes that govern them, and crypto arrived to a legal environment in which its participants faced enforcement actions predicated on rules nobody had written for them. Political spending, on this reading, is the industry’s only proportionate response to an existential regulatory posture, and its bipartisan structure, funding Democrats and Republicans by design, is evidence of issue-based rather than partisan intent. Both cases are true simultaneously: this is normal American interest-group politics, and it is happening at a scale and concentration that has few peers in the modern record.
The week the position gets marked
Which brings the ledger to the present, where several clocks converge at once.
The market-structure legislation that the entire apparatus exists to pass faces its decisive Senate window before the August recess, with the outcome resting on a small number of Democratic crossover votes and a negotiation whose remaining disputes this publication has covered in detail. Fairshake’s money did not buy those votes and cannot, super PAC spending is prospective leverage over future primaries, not a transaction over a pending bill, but it is unquestionably part of the environment in which those senators are calculating. If the bill passes, the industry’s electoral investment will be credited with having built the conditions for it, and the remaining balance rolls into November with a validated theory. If it fails, roughly $110 million of unspent capacity meets a midterm election in which the industry has both the resources and the stated motive to remove specific legislators from office, and the 2027 Congress becomes the target instead.
Either way, the more interesting question for Ripple specifically is the one the ledger poses and cannot answer: the company has now spent about $4 billion assembling an institutional financial business and about $48 million assembling the political conditions for it, and only one of those investments has a disclosed return. The empire, as this publication’s audit found, is designed to succeed with or without the token. The political spend is designed to make the empire legal. Neither line item is about XRP, which is perhaps the most honest summary available of where Ripple’s actual priorities sit, and the market that still prices the company through its token’s chart is, once again, reading the wrong ledger.
What to watch
The FEC filings after the Senate acts. Contribution and expenditure reports covering the coming weeks will show whether the industry accelerates into November or banks the balance. Sharp increases immediately after a legislative outcome, in either direction, would confirm the spending is tightly coupled to the bill rather than to a general political posture.
Deaton’s Massachusetts numbers. The rematch is the strategy’s clearest controlled experiment: the same candidate, the same state, a different seat, and a second round of industry money. A materially closer result would suggest the 2024 ceiling has lifted; a repeat would confirm that Fairshake money buys primaries and not general elections.
Which incumbents draw funded challengers. Watch whether the senators who blocked or slowed the market-structure bill face Fairshake-affiliated primary spending in their next cycles. That is the mechanism by which the 2024 lesson gets re-taught, and it is the most direct measure of whether the industry treats this vote as a scorecard.
The disclosure gap. Independent tallies of crypto political money differ by tens of millions depending on which vehicles are counted, and some contributions surface only in later filings. Any figure quoted before the FEC’s next full disclosure cycle, including the ones in this piece, is provisional, and the revisions are usually upward.
A closing observation about what this spending is not, because the distinction gets lost in the headline numbers. Campaign money is the smaller and more visible half of the industry’s influence apparatus; the larger half is conventional lobbying, trade associations, regulatory comment letters, personnel flowing between agencies and firms, and the technical assistance that shapes statutory language line by line long before any floor vote. Fairshake’s $193 million buys electoral leverage, which is a blunt instrument aimed at composition: who sits in the chamber. The quieter machinery aims at text: what the bill says once the chamber has been settled. Ripple’s participation in both is the reason the acquisition audit and this one belong on the same shelf, since a chartered bank application, a prime brokerage, and a stablecoin all depend on statutory definitions that are drafted in rooms no super PAC advertisement can reach. Judged only by the electoral ledger, the industry’s investment looks enormous and its returns ambiguous. Judged across both channels, the returns are already visible in the shape of the legislation itself, an asset taxonomy the industry helped define, a developer shield it asked for, a grandfather clause that resolves its most valuable assets’ status by statute. The $48 million is the part that files with the Federal Election Commission. It is not the part that writes the law, and the two should never be confused, least of all by anyone trying to estimate what the money actually bought.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or political advice. Campaign finance figures are drawn from third-party tallies and disclosures that vary by methodology and are revised as filings are published. Nothing here is a recommendation regarding any company, asset, candidate, or political position. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 26, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much has Ripple spent on US politics this cycle?
Approximately $48 million across the 2026 cycle by Public Citizen’s accounting, including a $25 million contribution to the Fairshake network disclosed in late 2025, plus about $1 million given directly to Senate candidate John Deaton in Massachusetts. One national tally ranks Ripple second among all corporate political donors this cycle, behind Andreessen Horowitz at roughly $51.65 million.
What is Fairshake?
The cryptocurrency industry’s flagship super PAC network, structured as three affiliated entities: Fairshake, which spends across both parties; Protect Progress, focused on Democratic races; and Defend American Jobs, focused on Republican ones. The network entered the 2026 midterm cycle with roughly $193 million in cash, funded primarily by Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz, and had spent more than $82 million by mid-year.
How does crypto’s spending compare to other industries?
It leads all of them. Public Citizen puts crypto election spending near $189 million, about 37% of all corporate political money in the 2026 cycle, against roughly $60 million from artificial intelligence and Big Tech combined and $45.6 million from online gambling. Total corporate election spending reached about $517 million, up 12% from the entire 2024 cycle.
Did this spending work in 2024?
In primaries, apparently yes. Fairshake and affiliates spent more than $130 million on media in 2024, and industry-funded advertising was widely credited with defeating incumbent House members Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush in primaries, outcomes read across Congress as proof the sector could end a career. In general elections the record is worse: the industry’s backing of John Deaton against Elizabeth Warren failed by nearly twenty points.
Why do the ads rarely mention crypto?
Because Fairshake’s tactic is to spend on locally salient issues while the crypto position operates as the invisible selection criterion. Advertising in these races typically addresses housing, healthcare, or a candidate’s record, which is more persuasive to primary electorates than digital-asset policy and avoids making the industry itself the subject of the campaign.
Does this money buy votes on pending legislation?
Not directly, and the distinction matters legally and analytically. Super PAC spending is independent expenditure aimed at future elections, not payment for legislative action, and coordination with campaigns is prohibited. Its influence is prospective: legislators weigh the possibility of a well-funded primary challenge, which shapes the environment around votes without constituting a transaction over any particular one.
What is the criticism of this level of spending?
Public Citizen and similar groups argue the concentration distorts representation: when one industry supplies more than a third of corporate election money, the pluralism that prevents any single sector from dominating legislative outcomes weakens, particularly when the industry is funding the rules governing its own regulation. The industry’s response is that banking, pharmaceuticals, and energy have done the same for decades, and that political participation is a proportionate answer to enforcement-driven regulation.
What happens to the unspent money?
Roughly $110 million of the war chest remained unspent at mid-year with the November midterms approaching, and the industry has additional declared capacity, including a newer vehicle claiming a $100 million commitment. If the pending market-structure legislation passes, that balance rolls into November behind a validated strategy; if it fails, the same money meets an election in which the industry has stated its intent to change the composition of Congress. This is educational analysis, not investment or political advice.
EMCD Launches Miner Support Program with up to $30M for Miners Amid Industry’s Steepest Profitability Squeeze
Comfort Zone wins €110,000 Connacht Hotel (Q.R.) Handicap
This is for educational purposes only, not financial advice #cryptocurrency #tradingtips #market
Renter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
No Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
Weekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
This is for educational purposes only, not financial advice #cryptocurrency #tradingtips #market
Has your account ever been debited with NO Credit alert? #BankingXperience #Finance #bank #shorts
Crypto Live Trading| 27 july #vinbullindia #livetrading #vinbulllive #live #trading #cryptotrading
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Crypto World6 days agoGrayscale Files For Worldcoin ETF, WLD Registers Sharp Rise
-
NewsBeat6 days agoHow a former Blue Peter presenter stunned America’s Got Talent judges
-
Tech20 hours agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Tech7 days agoSail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
-
Tech7 days agoTurtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
-
Business6 days agoNew Jersey voter registration controversy explained: How 6,600 noncitizens got on the rolls, and what happens next
-
Entertainment6 days agoJohnny Depp’s R-Rated Gothic Cult Classic Gets New Release Ahead of Sydney Sweeney Remake
-
Crypto World5 days agoEthics, other provisions in crypto Clarity Act to be further discussed
-
Politics9 hours agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
NewsBeat7 days agoShanghai science forum photos show China’s AI and robotics advances in rivalry with US
-
Sports24 hours agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Sports4 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
News Videos4 days agoThe Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
-
Politics1 day agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
Fashion4 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
Crypto World7 days agoAndrew Cuomo joins OKX board as crypto exchange expands in U.S.
-
Entertainment3 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
News Videos23 hours agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Crypto World2 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
You must be logged in to post a comment Login