Crypto World
Robinhood built its own chain. It still pays rent.
Every dollar Robinhood Chain earns, a tenth goes to a DAO treasury controlled by strangers. The arrangement has been covered a dozen times as good news for Arbitrum’s token.
Summary
- Robinhood Chain runs on Arbitrum’s Orbit stack, and under the Arbitrum Expansion Program every Orbit chain settling outside Arbitrum One routes 10% of net protocol revenue back to the Arbitrum ecosystem.
- The split is fixed: 8% to the Arbitrum DAO treasury, controlled by ARB tokenholders, and 2% to the Arbitrum Developer Guild.
- The figures are now real, no longer theoretical. Robinhood Chain has passed $2 million in cumulative revenue since its July 1 launch, with roughly $200,000 flowing to Arbitrum, and Arbitrum reported the network earning over $800,000 in a single seven-day stretch, annualizing near $42 million.
- The payment is calculated on net revenue after operating costs, applies to sequencer profits, and may extend to MEV capture if the chain adopts Arbitrum’s Timeboost mechanism.
- Every version of this story published so far has been written for ARB holders. The unexamined half is what the arrangement costs the brokerage, and why a company with a $2.2 billion war chest chose to pay it.
Nobody has asked the other question: what a licensed brokerage that spent a decade removing intermediaries bought by becoming a tenant.
There is a particular irony in a company whose entire founding pitch was the removal of intermediaries acquiring one. Robinhood spent a decade telling retail investors that the layers between them and the market were extractive, that commissions were a tax on participation, and that the right architecture was fewer parties taking a cut. On July 1 it launched its own blockchain, the most complete expression of that philosophy available: a settlement layer it controls, sequencing it operates, and fee revenue it collects. And under the terms of the technology stack it chose, a tenth of what that chain nets goes to somebody else. Specifically, 8% goes to a treasury controlled by holders of a governance token, and 2% funds a developer guild, both under an arrangement called the Arbitrum Expansion Program. The mechanism has been reported repeatedly since Offchain Labs disclosed it, always from one direction: what it means for ARB, why the token rallied, how a governance asset acquired a revenue claim. This piece asks the question those pieces did not. What did Robinhood buy, what is it paying, and does the arithmetic work.
What the arrangement actually is
The mechanics are specific enough to matter, and they have been reported loosely in several places.
The Arbitrum Expansion Program applies to any Layer 2 or Layer 3 chain built with Arbitrum’s Orbit toolkit that settles outside Arbitrum One or Arbitrum Nova. Those chains route 10% of net protocol revenue back to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Of that 10%, eight percentage points flow to the Arbitrum DAO treasury, which ARB tokenholders control through governance, and two percentage points fund the Arbitrum Developer Guild, which supports tooling, grants, and protocol work.
Three details in that description carry weight and are frequently dropped.Net, not gross. The calculation runs on revenue remaining after network operating costs, which ties the payment to a chain’s actual profitability instead of raw transaction throughput. That is materially friendlier to an operator than a gross fee would be, and it means a chain running at thin margins pays little regardless of volume.
Sequencer profits are the base. The revenue subject to sharing comes from the entity that orders and processes transactions, which on Robinhood Chain is Robinhood. That is the same revenue line this publication has examined as the core economics of any Layer 2, and it is precisely the line the chain exists to capture.
MEV may be included. If the chain adopts Timeboost, Arbitrum’s mechanism for capturing maximal extractable value from transaction ordering, those revenues could fall under the sharing arrangement as well. Whether Robinhood adopts it is a live question with real dollars attached, since ordering advantages on a chain hosting tokenized equities are worth considerably more than on a memecoin venue.
For contrast, Arbitrum One sends 100% of its own fees to the Arbitrum treasury. The Orbit arrangement is the lighter one, which is the point: it is the price of using the stack without settling on the flagship chain.
The numbers, now that they exist
For the first three weeks this was an abstraction. It is not anymore.
Robinhood Chain has passed $2 million in cumulative revenue since its July 1 launch, with approximately $200,000 routed to the Arbitrum ecosystem under the program. That is a clean 10%, and it is the first hard confirmation that the mechanism operates as described, not as an aspiration in a governance document.
Around that sit the throughput figures that produced it. The chain processed roughly 4 million transactions in its first week. Uniswap alone recorded $500 million in 24-hour volume on it. A single day in early July cleared $568 million. Within about two weeks the chain was clearing more than $800 million in daily decentralized exchange volume, briefly exceeding Ethereum’s, with roughly $3.9 billion across a week. Arbitrum reported the network earning over $800,000 in revenue across seven days, which annualizes near $42 million. Deposits crossed $600 million this week, rising 50% in seven days.
Now the distortion that every honest reading has to apply. The chain is running a 90-day gas subsidy, expiring around October, which means users are not paying the fees a mature chain would charge and the revenue figures are suppressed accordingly. Our audit of the chain’s first month documented how thoroughly that subsidy inflates activity metrics; it works in the opposite direction on revenue. The $42 million annualized figure is therefore both a real number and a floor, and the interesting reading comes after the subsidy lapses, when volumes and revenues both reprice. For broader context, crypto.news has also explained the subsidy distorting these numbers.
At current run rates, Arbitrum’s share is roughly $4 million a year. Against Robinhood’s quarterly revenue near $1.27 billion, that is a rounding error. Against the chain’s own economics, it is a tenth of everything.
What Robinhood bought
The arrangement only looks strange if you assume the alternative was free. It was not, and the alternatives are worth setting out because the choice reveals the strategy.
Build independently. A brokerage could commission a chain from scratch, own 100% of sequencer revenue, and pay nothing to anyone. The cost is time, engineering risk, and security. Rolling your own settlement layer means auditing it, defending it, and answering for it when something breaks, which for a regulated financial institution holding customer assets is not a theoretical exposure. It also means no ecosystem: no existing tooling, no bridges, no wallets that already work.
Use an existing chain. Deploy on Arbitrum One or Base or anywhere else, pay ordinary fees, capture nothing. This is what Robinhood actually did first, launching tokenized stock offerings on Arbitrum in 2025 before committing to its own chain, and the limitation is obvious: you are a tenant with no landlord’s economics and no control over the roadmap, the fee schedule, or who else gets to build next door.
Take the Orbit path. Get a chain you brand, control, and sequence, with Offchain Labs providing technical support, inheriting the Arbitrum ecosystem’s tooling and security assumptions, at the price of a tenth of net revenue. The launch specifications suggest what that bought: 100-millisecond block times, EVM compatibility, ETH as the gas asset instead of a new token nobody asked for, and a chain live and processing millions of transactions within a week of announcement.
Read that way, the 10% is a build-versus-buy decision resolved in favour of speed, and for a public company with a stock to defend and a crypto revenue line that fell 47% year over year in the first quarter, speed was plausibly worth more than margin. Our earnings analysis covered why the timing mattered so much.
The uncomfortable version of the same read is that Robinhood, having concluded that owning the rails is where the value sits, does not actually own them. It leases them, with favourable terms, from a decentralized organization whose token holders vote on what to do with the proceeds.
The tenant problem
That last sentence is not a rhetorical flourish. It describes a governance relationship that no traditional financial infrastructure arrangement resembles, and it has consequences nobody has priced.
The 8% going to the Arbitrum DAO treasury is controlled by ARB tokenholders through governance votes. Those holders decide how the money is deployed. They also, through the same governance process, hold influence over the direction of the technology stack Robinhood’s chain depends on. A licensed brokerage supervised by federal regulators is now a revenue contributor to, and a dependent of, an entity whose decision-making runs through token voting by anonymous participants.
For most crypto-native businesses that is unremarkable. For a public company that files with the SEC, answers to a board, and holds customer assets under regulatory obligation, it is a novel counterparty structure. The questions it raises are practical, not philosophical: what happens if governance votes to change the fee arrangement, what recourse exists if the stack’s roadmap diverges from the tenant’s needs, and how a regulated institution documents dependency on a DAO in its risk disclosures.
There is also a competitive dimension. The Orbit program applies universally, meaning any competitor can take the same path on the same terms. The arrangement Robinhood entered is not exclusive and confers no advantage over the next brokerage to build a chain, which limits how much of a moat the whole exercise creates. What it does create is a template, and the rest of the industry has noticed: our coverage of the tokenized-equity race documented Nasdaq building blockchain share issuance with Kraken’s parent and ICE working with OKX, none of which requires anyone to build from scratch.
Does the arithmetic work
Set aside the framing and ask the commercial question, because the answer determines whether any of this matters.
Roughly $42 million annualized in chain revenue, before the subsidy expires, against $4 million to Arbitrum. Against a company whose quarterly revenue runs near $1.27 billion, the chain contributes something in the low single-digit percentage range of annual revenue at current run rates, and the Arbitrum payment is immaterial to the parent by any measure.
Which means the fee share is not the story financially. It is the story structurally, because it clarifies what the chain actually is. Robinhood did not build a chain to earn sequencer fees; the numbers are too small relative to its brokerage business for that to be the motivation. It built one to control the settlement layer for tokenized equities, to avoid depending on a competitor’s infrastructure as that market develops, and to own the venue where its own products trade. Sequencer revenue is a byproduct, and 10% of a byproduct is a reasonable price for the option.
The test comes when the byproduct stops being small. If tokenized equities scale the way the DTCC’s entry into the same market suggests they might, and if Robinhood Chain hosts a meaningful share of that activity, the sequencer line grows and the 10% grows with it. A tenth of a rounding error is nothing. A tenth of a business is a negotiation, and the Arbitrum Expansion Program’s terms were set by the party that wrote them.
The precedent this sets
Strip out the two companies and the arrangement describes something the industry has been moving toward without naming: infrastructure providers taking a percentage of businesses they do not operate.
Arbitrum’s position under this model is closer to a franchise operator than a blockchain. It supplies the technology, the tooling, the security assumptions, and the developer support, and it collects a percentage of what franchisees earn across an expanding set of chains it did not build. Offchain Labs has been explicit that this is the strategy, framing enterprise adoption as the revenue thesis and noting that the flagship chain’s economics are separate. The model compounds with adoption in a way that grants and one-time licensing never do.
That has an obvious appeal for anyone holding the governance token, and it has a less obvious implication for everyone building on the stack. A percentage arrangement set at launch, when the tenant is small and the terms are generous, is an arrangement that becomes expensive precisely when the tenant succeeds. Ten percent of nothing costs nothing. Ten percent of a settlement layer hosting a meaningful share of tokenized equities is a real line item, and it is collected by a party whose consent the tenant needed at the start and whose terms the tenant did not write.
The comparison from outside crypto is the app store. Developers accepted a percentage when the platform was small and the alternative was no distribution, and spent the following decade in litigation and regulatory complaint about the rate. Nothing about the Arbitrum arrangement is coercive in that way, since alternatives genuinely exist and the terms are public. But the structural shape is familiar, and the history of platform percentages is that they are renegotiated by the largest tenants, eventually, loudly.
Robinhood is now among the largest tenants on this particular platform. Whether it ever behaves like one is a question for the quarter after the subsidy expires, when the numbers stop being small enough to ignore.
What to watch
The revenue line after October. The 90-day gas subsidy expires around then, and the first unsubsidized quarter is the only honest read on what the chain actually earns. Both volumes and revenues reprice, in opposite directions, and the net is unknown.
Whether Timeboost gets adopted. MEV capture on a chain hosting tokenized equities is worth real money, and adopting Arbitrum’s mechanism would likely bring those revenues under the sharing arrangement. The decision is a direct read on how Robinhood values ordering revenue against the cost of sharing it.
Disclosure in the filings. Whether the chain’s economics, including the Arbitrum arrangement, appear in Robinhood’s regulatory filings as a described dependency or a risk factor, and in what language. A public company documenting a revenue-sharing obligation to a DAO would be a first worth reading closely.
Whether the terms hold. The Expansion Program’s rates are set by Arbitrum governance. Any proposal to change them, in either direction, would test how much leverage a large Orbit tenant actually has, and Robinhood is now among the largest.
Competing chains on the same terms. Every brokerage that follows takes the same deal. If the tokenized-equity market fragments across several Orbit chains, the interesting question stops being what Robinhood pays and becomes what Arbitrum collects from an entire category it does not operate.
A final note on why the framing in the existing coverage matters more than it looks. Every account of this arrangement published so far was written for holders of a governance token, which meant the operative question was always whether the revenue share is large enough to justify a rally. That is a legitimate question and it produced accurate reporting. It also produced a blind spot, because a revenue share has two sides and only one of them was ever examined.
The side nobody covered is the one with the public company, the regulatory filings, the customer assets, and the board. Robinhood’s chain is now a material piece of its strategic story, its stock trades on the strength of that story, and the chain’s economics include a permanent obligation to an entity that no securities analyst covering the stock has any reason to have heard of. That gap between how crypto covers a deal and how equity markets would cover the same deal is where most of the useful analysis in this sector currently sits, and it is worth reading every ecosystem announcement with the question of who else is party to it. The same platform-ownership pattern is also visible in the same playbook in prediction markets, where distribution, licensing, and customer ownership intersect.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Arbitrum Expansion Program?
An arrangement under which any Layer 2 or Layer 3 chain built with Arbitrum’s Orbit technology stack, and settling outside Arbitrum One or Nova, routes 10% of its net protocol revenue back to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Of that, 8% goes to the Arbitrum DAO treasury controlled by ARB tokenholders, and 2% funds the Arbitrum Developer Guild.
How much has Robinhood Chain actually paid?
Roughly $200,000, against more than $2 million in cumulative chain revenue since the July 1 launch, which confirms the 10% rate operating in practice. Arbitrum separately reported the network earning over $800,000 in a single seven-day period, annualizing near $42 million, though those figures are suppressed by an ongoing gas subsidy.
Is the 10% calculated on gross or net revenue?
Net, after network operating costs, which ties the payment to a chain’s actual profitability rather than to transaction volume. The revenue base is sequencer profits, and if the chain adopts Arbitrum’s Timeboost mechanism for capturing value from transaction ordering, those revenues may fall under the arrangement as well.
Why did Robinhood not just build its own chain from scratch?
Time, risk, and ecosystem. Building independently means owning all the revenue and also owning the security, auditing, and defence of a settlement layer holding customer-adjacent assets, with no existing tooling, bridges, or wallet support. Orbit delivered a branded, controlled chain with 100-millisecond block times and technical support from Offchain Labs, live within a week, at the cost of a tenth of net revenue.
Does the payment matter financially to Robinhood?
Not currently. At present run rates the Arbitrum share is roughly $4 million a year against quarterly company revenue near $1.27 billion. The chain itself contributes a low single-digit share of annual revenue at best. The arrangement matters structurally rather than financially, because it defines what the chain is and who it depends on.
What is unusual about paying a DAO?
The counterparty structure. The 8% flowing to the Arbitrum DAO treasury is controlled by token holders voting through governance, and those same holders influence the roadmap of the technology stack Robinhood’s chain runs on. A federally regulated public company holding a revenue-sharing obligation to, and infrastructure dependency on, a decentralized organization is a novel arrangement with unsettled disclosure and risk-management questions.
Does this give Robinhood any advantage over competitors?
Not through the arrangement itself, which is available to anyone on identical terms. Any brokerage can build an Orbit chain and pay the same 10%. Robinhood’s advantages, if they hold, come from distribution and from operating the venue where its own products trade, and the tokenized-equity market is already attracting incumbent exchanges building comparable infrastructure.
What should investors watch?
The first unsubsidized quarter after the gas subsidy expires around October, whether Timeboost is adopted and MEV revenue enters the sharing arrangement, how the chain’s economics and the Arbitrum obligation appear in regulatory filings, and any governance proposal to change the Expansion Program’s rates. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Revenue figures reflect third-party trackers and company statements available at the time of writing and are subject to revision, and chain activity is currently affected by a temporary fee subsidy. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or asset. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 29, 2026.
Grayscale Research says Hyperliquid (HYPE) may be undervalued against fintech equities.
The asset manager argues that the token can be valued based on cash flows, like a stock, and, on that basis, it looks cheap.
Grayscale Builds Its Case on a $1 Billion Hyperliquid Earnings Assumption
In a note published Tuesday, Head of Research Zach Pandl valued HYPE using an “earnings per token” method. The approach adapts the earnings-per-share metric used for stocks, since Hyperliquid issues no shares.
Grayscale assumes Hyperliquid will earn roughly $1 billion in 2027, up about 20% from 2025. The firm expects recovering crypto trading volumes and stablecoin reserve income under Hyperliquid’s Aligned Quote Asset framework to drive the growth.
Pandl estimates the circulating supply will reach 270 million to 310 million tokens by the end of 2027. That produces projected earnings of $3.25 to $3.75 per token. At $54, the resulting forward multiple sits at roughly 15x to 18x.
“Despite the gains in Hyperliquid’s HYPE token this year, it still looks cheap compared to fintech equities,” the note read.
Pandl flagged weaker network revenue growth and faster token supply growth as the main risks to the forecast.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
HYPE Token Price Slides 29% From June Peak
The valuation call arrives during a difficult stretch for the token. HYPE has dropped over 13% in the past month, diverging from large-cap assets that held gains.
At press time, the token traded near $54, roughly 29% from its all-time high set in mid-June.
Institutional unstaking and fund outflows have pressured the token through July. Multicoin Capital and Paradigm unstaked around $291 million in HYPE last week.
At the same time, Spot HYPE funds posted $8.6 million in outflows last week, their second straight weekly loss, while assets fell 18% from a July 10 peak.
While Grayscale maintains that HYPE remains undervalued relative to fintech peers, the token continues to face near-term headwinds.
Slowing institutional demand and large-scale unstaking could weigh on sentiment, suggesting Hyperliquid’s long-term valuation thesis will depend on whether the protocol can deliver the revenue growth underpinning Grayscale’s forecasts.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Grayscale Says HYPE Still Looks Cheap Against Fintech Stocks appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Bitcoin price is trading at $64,500, down 0.2% over the past 24 hours, with a bad prediction from Peter Schiff. The headline number masks a more uncomfortable story developing underneath.
Peter Schiff has sharpened his critique of Michael Saylor’s Strategy, and this time, he is leaning on the company’s own data instead of ideology.
Schiff posted on X, highlighting a sharp erosion in Strategy’s Bitcoin Yield, the metric Saylor uses to justify holding MSTR over spot BTC. That yield has fallen from 13.3% year to date on May 25 to 4.5% after Strategy’s latest capital raise. That represents roughly a 66% decline in under two months.
Schiff argued that if the trend continues, Strategy’s 2026 Bitcoin Yield could turn negative. In his view, that would weaken the case for owning MSTR instead of Bitcoin. He also pointed to Strategy’s sale of 3,588 BTC for about $216 million to fund preferred dividend obligations, marking its first meaningful Bitcoin sale in years.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin remains well below its all-time high, leaving sentiment sensitive to fresh narratives. As a result, the latest exchange between Schiff and Saylor arrives at a critical moment. Whether investors embrace Strategy’s long-term approach or Schiff’s criticism could influence the debate if market volatility picks up.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
Bitcoin Price Prediction: Hold $64K, Or Is $50,000 the Real Next Stop?
At $65,000, Bitcoin is holding just above a zone attracting increasing technical attention. The current level remains a provisional buffer instead of a confirmed floor. Recent BTC price analysis has identified this range as a key decision point. Direction will likely depend on macro catalysts and ETF flows rather than chart patterns alone.
The key levels remain well defined. The $58,000 area is the first major support below current prices. Schiff has argued that the level will not hold, citing potential selling pressure if Strategy needs to raise cash. He then points to $50,000, followed by $20,000, with a long-term target near $10,000 under a worst-case scenario. Those targets reflect his view that Strategy could eventually liquidate up to $3.25 billion in Bitcoin under its new monetization framework.
Prediction markets continue to price Bitcoin downside risk more aggressively than upside. Polymarket currently assigns a 62% chance of Bitcoin falling below $50,000 this year. Meanwhile, the probability of dropping below $40,000 stands at 30%. Those odds stop short of signaling panic, but they also suggest investors are not becoming complacent.
The bullish scenario assumes ETF inflows recover while Strategy keeps its Bitcoin holdings intact. That could help Bitcoin reclaim $70,000 and eventually retest previous highs. TD Cowen’s $100,000 target by the end of 2026 remains part of that long-term narrative.
The base case sees Bitcoin trading between $60,000 and $68,000 as markets digest the Strategy yield debate. Meanwhile, a confirmed break below $58,000 with accelerating ETF outflows would strengthen the bearish case. A large-scale Bitcoin sale by Strategy would likely add pressure and challenge the bullish outlook.
Trade Bitcoin on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop
Bitcoin Hyper Targets Early Mover Upside as Bitcoin Tests Key Levels
When spot BTC corrects, and MSTR’s structural thesis gets stress-tested simultaneously, some capital starts looking for asymmetric upside elsewhere in the Bitcoin ecosystem, specifically, infrastructure plays that benefit from BTC’s long-term network effect regardless of near-term price volatility. That’s the rotation trade worth examining here.
Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is positioned squarely in that infrastructure category. It’s the first Bitcoin Layer 2 integrating the Solana Virtual Machine, delivering sub-second finality and low-cost smart contract execution on top of Bitcoin’s security layer, without sacrificing the trust model that makes BTC compelling in the first place. Fast execution, programmability, and Bitcoin-native settlement: that’s a stack the existing L2 landscape hasn’t delivered in this combination.
The presale numbers are specific: $0.0136838 per token, with $33 million raised to date. Staking is live with a high APY for early participants. The project also runs a Decentralized Canonical Bridge for BTC transfers and targets performance metrics that benchmark against Solana’s own throughput.
Traders looking to size up should research Bitcoin Hyper against the technical whitepaper before making any allocation decision.
Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio
The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: Peter Schiff Fuds Michael Saylor’s Strategy Yield’s Model appeared first on Cryptonews.
Crypto World
Binance offers gold and silver options after commodity futures pull in billions in daily volume
Options are derivative contracts used by traders to hedge price volatility risks. A call option offers asymmetric upside exposure in the underlying asset for a small upfront payment, much like a lottery ticket. A put option represents an insurance against price drops.
Exchanges typically follow a playbook when offering derivatives as a product. They start with futures to build a deep, liquid order book and tight spreads, and only once that core market is humming do they layer on options as a second wave of more complex, higher‑margin products.
A Binance representative shared volume figures for gold and silver perpetual futures that underscore their popularity. Gold perpetuals, according to the representative, have hit a peak daily volume of $7.77 billion, while silver perpetuals reached $7.27 billion. These peaks represented roughly 3–8% of COMEX gold volume and 9–20% of COMEX silver volume at that time.
“The volume growth suggests that when access to traditional market exposure becomes simpler and more integrated, user participation can ramp up quickly,” the representative said. “Liquidity can become relevant quickly.”
The new options are European-style and settled in USDT. The contracts reference a weighted average of prices drawn from multiple independent third-party data vendors that report the traditional gold and silver markets. This approach produces a robust, market-representative benchmark that does not rely on any single venue or token, according to Binance.
Crypto World
Clarity Act Delayed Again As US Senate Prioritizes Russian Sanctions, Other Legislative Business
The CLARITY Act is facing another delay as US lawmakers prioritize federal nominations, a Russian sanctions package, and other legislative business ahead of its summer recess.
The development makes it increasingly likely the bill will not be deliberated upon during the ongoing session and will be discussed during the autumn session.
Clarity Act Faces Another Delay
The United States Senate has put the CLARITY Act on the back burner as it debates federal nominations, new sanctions against Russia, and other legislative business. According to a CoinDesk report, the bill is unlikely to be taken up by the Senate before its summer recess on August 8. Journalist Eleanor Terrett revealed that the Senate leadership is discussing deliberations beyond the planned recess if they can garner enough votes to invoke cloture and press ahead with the bill. Additionally, some senators also want a vote on the SAVE America Act and Russia-Iran sanctions.
Terrett stated on X,
“A must-read on the Senate math behind the Clarity Act without the hype. I reported this morning that Senate leadership has discussed potentially keeping members in Washington beyond the scheduled recess if they have the votes to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed.”
Democratic lawmakers remain hopeful of a compromise banning senior government officials, including President Donald Trump, from investing in crypto projects.
A Procedural Delay
However, the delay is not due to Republicans and Democrats failing to agree upon the way forward. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has prioritized discussion on the Russian sanctions package, and Senate rules outline that only one contested bill can be considered at a time. Additional Senate business has also reduced floor time. As a result, lawmakers have found it difficult to discuss the CLARITY Act during the ongoing session.
Meanwhile, SEC Chair Paul Atkins reiterated his belief that the Senate will pass the CLARITY Act. Atkins added that the SEC is ready to create rules to implement the bill once it becomes law. He added that it can also address market issues if Congress delays the bill. However, the SEC Chair stressed the importance of regulatory clarity to “future-proof” crypto in the US.
President Trump Can Reconvene Senate
According to legal analyst MetaLawman, Article II, Section 3 grants President Trump the authority to reconvene the Senate during the August recess, allowing lawmakers to vote on the CLARITY Act and other delayed bills.
“President Trump Has Legal Authority to CANCEL THE SENATE RECESS. The President has the Constitutional authority to call an “extraordinary session” of the Senate to vote on the SAVE AMERICA ACT and the CLARITY ACT.”
However, as things stand, a final Senate vote on the CLARITY Act looks unlikely before next week.
How The Delay Impacts Crypto
The CLARITY Act is a crucial piece of legislation for the cryptocurrency industry. If it fails to advance during the ongoing session, it could face a substantial delay as lawmakers focus on other priorities in upcoming sessions, including election-related legislation. The delay effectively leaves the industry in limbo, with only the GENIUS Act offering some regulatory clarity. For now, the industry will rely on SEC and CFTC oversight while waiting for the bill to pass.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
The dollar’s next move hinges on tonight’s Fed decision, and this time markets genuinely don’t know what to expect. While economists still lean toward a hold—with CME FedWatch odds sitting near 68.5% for no change—Kevin Warsh’s hawkish rhetoric on having “no tolerance” for inflation, paired with growing internal FOMC support for a hike, has pushed hike odds up sharply from just 18% two weeks ago to over 30% today. Complicating things further, Warsh has deliberately scaled back forward guidance, meaning tonight’s press conference may offer fewer clues than usual.
The euro, meanwhile, has already had its say: the ECB held rates steady at 2.25% last Thursday, as expected, with Lagarde reaffirming the 2% target while flagging that energy-driven inflation risks from the Middle East conflict have yet to fully play out. Eurozone inflation cooled to 2.8% in June, but sticky services inflation near 3.5–4% keeps the door only cautiously open for a September move in either direction.
With EUR/USD trading near 1.1408, tonight’s Fed decision—not the ECB—is what will likely determine the pair’s next major direction.
EUR/USD Technical Analysis
As the EUR/USD chart shows, the pair has been consolidating within a defined range since late June, squeezed between an ascending trendline and a descending trendline, both converging around the current price near 1.1400. The 200-period EMA continues to slope lower above price, reinforcing a cautious backdrop ahead of tonight’s Fed decision.
Bullish Scenario
Should the dollar weaken on a dovish Fed outcome, price would need to break above the converging trendlines and reclaim the 0.382 Fibonacci retracement near 1.1420, with the 200-period EMA just above acting as the next key test. A confirmed break above the EMA would open the path towards the 0.5 and 0.618 retracements near 1.1480–1.1500, where stronger resistance has capped rallies since late June.
Bearish Scenario
Conversely, a hawkish surprise—or even a hike—could send the euro sharply lower, breaking both the ascending trendline and the psychological 1.1360 support level. A confirmed break here would expose the 1.1320 zone, the 0.0 Fibonacci level marking the origin of the entire recovery move, with further downside risk towards fresh multi-week lows if selling pressure accelerates.
With price coiled right at the intersection of both trendlines and the Fed decision just hours away, EUR/USD looks primed for a decisive move. Will the dollar reassert its dominance, or will the euro finally break free of this range?
Trade over 50 forex markets 24 hours a day with FXOpen. Take advantage of low commissions, deep liquidity, and spreads from 0.0 pips (additional fees may apply). Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading forex with FXOpen.
This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.
Hungary is rolling back strict crypto rules as CoinCash prepares to resume services after receiving authorization under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation.
The Hungarian parliament voted to repeal the country’s crypto validator requirement, removing mandatory third-party approval for certain crypto transactions, the Hungarian tax and legal publication Ado.hu reported on Tuesday.
Finance Minister Kármán András said the government removed the validation requirement after the previous rules disrupted Hungary’s crypto market, prompting some service providers to halt operations in the country.
“Due to the negative and market-shaking regulations so far, many players have terminated their services related to cryptocurrencies in Hungary, but the market is now showing signs of recovery,” he wrote in a Tuesday Facebook post.
The development marks a significant shift in Hungary’s crypto sector, removing an additional approval step while leaving broader licensing and compliance requirements in place.
How Hungary’s crypto checks worked
Hungary introduced the requirement through its 2024 crypto assets law, creating a separate validation process for certain crypto conversions.
The rules, which took effect on July 1, 2025, required a licensed validator to verify details including the origin of crypto assets, wallet ownership and customer information before issuing a compliance declaration.
Related: Hungary to reverse crypto trading crackdown after EU scrutiny
The system added another transaction-level approval step alongside MiCA. Hungary also applied a shortened MiCA transition period for crypto asset service providers (CASPs), requiring compliance by July 1, 2025, compared with the EU’s maximum transition deadline of July 1, 2026.
The stricter regulatory environment prompted some crypto platforms to suspend services in Hungary, including Budapest-based crypto platform CoinCash, which voluntarily paused operations in December 2025 while pursuing MiCA authorization.
CoinCash receives Hungary’s first MiCA license
The National Bank of Hungary (MNB) granted CoinCash operator Tiwala Solutions authorization under the EU’s MiCA regulation on July 20, according to a company announcement reviewed by Cointelegraph.
“We’re the first and only Hungarian company authorised directly by the National Bank under the EU framework,” CoinCash co-founder said in a LinkedIn post on Friday.
Related: Unauthorized crypto trading now carries 2 years of prison in Hungary
The authorization covers custody, crypto-to-fiat and crypto-to-crypto exchange, transfers, investment advice and portfolio management.
CoinCash said it completed a months-long compliance review before receiving approval and paused operations while preparing to meet the requirements. The company plans to gradually resume services and expand beyond trading into additional MiCA-regulated offerings.
Magazine: The real reason DeFi projects that survived 2022 crash are shutting down now
Coinbase appointed Rob Witoff as chief technology officer on July 28, bringing an early company engineer into the role as the U.S. crypto exchange expands AI-assisted product development.
Summary
- Coinbase appointed longtime engineer Rob Witoff as chief technology officer, confirming the leadership change Tuesday.
- Witoff first joined Coinbase in 2014, returning as platform head in December 2024 after entrepreneurship.
- Coinbase cut approximately 14% of employees in May while rebuilding teams around AI-assisted workflows companywide.
Coinbase’s official leadership page now lists Witoff as CTO.
Chief Executive Brian Armstrong announced the appointment on X and credited Witoff with helping turn Coinbase into “one of the most AI-enabled companies in the world.” That description is Armstrong’s assessment rather than an independently measured ranking.
Rob Witoff returns to a role shaped by Coinbase’s early years
Witoff first joined Coinbase in 2014 and worked there until 2017. Coinbase said he led security and infrastructure, became chief architect and helped build some of the exchange’s earliest systems. He later founded institutional crypto custody company Unit 410, which Coinbase acquired.
Witoff said his interest in Bitcoin began in 2009. He recalled that Coinbase initially supported one cryptocurrency, used a single codebase and ran with a small engineering team. The account provides historical context from the incoming executive, although Coinbase has not independently detailed every technical claim in the July 27 post.
The company brought him back in December 2024 as head of platform and a member of the executive team. Witoff said his latest “tour of duty” began with a goal of making Coinbase “the best place in the world to build.” That remains a forward-looking management objective.
Coinbase CTO appointment comes during an AI overhaul
The promotion follows a broad change in how Coinbase develops software and organises teams. In May, the company announced plans to reduce its workforce by about 14%, or roughly 700 roles, while flattening management and building smaller teams around AI tools.
Armstrong said AI allowed engineers to complete work in days that previously took teams weeks. He also outlined experiments with “one person teams” combining engineering, product and design work. Those plans describe Coinbase’s intended operating model; their long-term effect on output, costs and staff workloads is not yet established.
Coinbase later said nearly all newly merged code had become AI-generated and human-reviewed. Its July engineering report said the share rose from 5.7% in the first quarter of 2025 to roughly 100% by mid-2026, while maintaining human review and compliance controls.
Witoff inherits reliability and security responsibilities
The CTO will oversee technology while Coinbase expands derivatives, stablecoin payments, prediction markets and services for AI agents. Each product increases the need for dependable infrastructure, security controls and fast incident response.
Coinbase experienced a roughly 50-minute service disruption on July 14 after a routine configuration update affected a shared production cluster. Transfers, card payments and some onchain services were interrupted. The company said customer funds were not at risk and later announced new deployment safeguards and recovery procedures.
Witoff’s background in security, architecture and platform engineering gives him direct experience with those areas. However, Coinbase has not published new performance targets, budget commitments or a separate technology roadmap tied to his appointment.
Leadership changes continue across Coinbase
The CTO appointment follows another executive transition. Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal notified Coinbase on July 8 that he would leave his post on July 31. Molly Abraham is expected to become general counsel and corporate secretary, while Grewal will serve as an adviser through October.
As crypto.news previously reported, Coinbase’s May restructuring placed AI-native development at the centre of its operating plan. In related coverage, crypto.news reported that Coinbase had launched tools allowing authorised AI agents to trade, make payments and perform financial tasks.
Coinbase plans quarterly reviews of its AI-focused engineering interview process and 45-day and 90-day assessments for new hires. The next test for Witoff will be whether the company can keep releasing products quickly while maintaining security, reliability and regulatory controls.
It raised $400 million in June through a private placement of convertible preferred shares and warrants. The preferred shares, priced at $53 each, converted into common stock upon completion of the listing. Investors agreed not to transfer the securities below $70 until six months after the listing, according to the filing.
Ionic decommissioned bitcoin mining at its Ward County, Texas, site in December and committed its 234 MW of capacity to Nscale under a 126-month lease carrying $1.95 billion in contracted revenue, according to the registration statement.
The company said it expects as much as $195 million in revenue this year, with more than 90% coming from infrastructure leasing. It held 2,815.6 bitcoin worth $192.1 million and had no debt as of March 31.
Uzbekistan has established a special crypto mining zone across Karakalpakstan, introducing tax incentives, expanded power options, and a dedicated regulatory framework to attract licensed mining companies.
Summary
- Uzbekistan has launched the Beshkala Mining Valley as a regulated crypto mining zone across Karakalpakstan
- Licensed miners can use grid power, renewable energy, and hydrogen while receiving tax exemptions through 2035
- Mining companies must keep crypto sale proceeds in Uzbek banks and operate under state licensing rules
- The project allows miners to reuse excess heat for greenhouse farming as part of the regional development plan.
Under a presidential resolution that took effect on April 20, Uzbekistan has designated the entire Republic of Karakalpakstan as the Beshkala Mining Valley, creating a regulated environment for cryptocurrency mining while linking the initiative to the region’s economic development plans.
The resolution allows licensed mining companies operating within the zone to use electricity from the national grid, renewable energy sources such as solar power, and hydrogen-based power generation. It also creates a legal pathway for miners to sell their digital assets through Uzbekistan’s licensed crypto exchanges, foreign trading platforms, direct agreements, or by converting them into other liquid crypto assets.
Companies participating in the program must transfer revenue from crypto asset sales to bank accounts held in Uzbekistan, a requirement intended to keep transactions within the country’s regulated financial system while maintaining oversight of mining-related income.
Uzbekistan has expanded the crypto mining framework
Only legal entities registered in Karakalpakstan will qualify for resident status within the Beshkala Mining Valley. Businesses seeking to operate there must first obtain resident status through the zone’s directorate before applying for a crypto mining license issued under the supervision of the National Agency for Perspective Projects, the authority responsible for regulating the sector.
A dedicated directorate will oversee the management of the mining valley and process applications from prospective operators. Besides regulating mining activity, the administration will supervise implementation of the project’s development policies across the region.
Mining companies will also be permitted to reuse excess heat generated by their equipment for greenhouse farming on agricultural land, creating an additional use for energy produced during mining operations.
The resolution exempts income earned from mining activities from taxes and mandatory payments until Jan. 1, 2035, providing one of the main financial incentives for companies considering investment in the zone.
Crypto miners can use more than solar power
The latest framework also changes part of Uzbekistan’s previous mining policy.
Earlier licensing rules introduced in October 2023 required miners to obtain official authorization before operating and largely limited mining activities to electricity generated from solar power, except where legislation provided otherwise.
Under the new framework for the Beshkala Mining Valley, approved residents can instead draw power from the unified electricity grid alongside renewable energy and hydrogen-based generation. The updated approach gives operators more flexibility while preserving the country’s licensing requirements for crypto mining businesses.
Uzbek law continues to define crypto mining as the computational process used to maintain distributed ledgers by validating blocks and preserving network integrity. The activity remains restricted to legal entities rather than individual miners.
Mining revenue will remain inside Uzbekistan
Alongside operational rules, the government has tightened financial requirements governing proceeds from crypto mining.
Residents of the mining valley may sell mined digital assets through domestic exchanges, overseas trading platforms, direct contracts, or by exchanging them for other liquid crypto assets. Regardless of where the assets are sold, proceeds must ultimately be transferred to bank accounts located in Uzbekistan.
The framework is intended to keep mining-related revenue within the domestic banking system while allowing companies to access international cryptocurrency markets.
According to an earlier presidential decree signed on April 17 and effective from April 20, residents of the mining zone are also required to pay a monthly fee equal to 1% of mining income to the zone’s directorate, even as they benefit from tax exemptions running through the beginning of 2035.
Karakalpakstan remains central to investment plans
Creation of the Beshkala Mining Valley forms part of Uzbekistan’s ongoing efforts to attract investment into Karakalpakstan, a region that has remained a priority for economic development initiatives.
Government plans have linked the mining zone with improvements in regional living standards while encouraging more efficient use of renewable energy resources through regulated crypto mining projects.
The mining initiative follows another technology-focused program launched for Karakalpakstan in 2025, when Uzbekistan approved a separate tax-free zone for artificial intelligence and data center projects. That program offered discounted electricity prices and tax incentives to foreign investors, with reports stating that investments of at least $100 million could qualify for exemptions from taxes and customs duties until 2040.
Officials said the AI and data center project was designed to attract more than $1 billion in foreign investment by 2030, placing the new crypto mining zone within a series of long-term development initiatives targeting the region.
Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with aiding terrorist activity and placed him on an international wanted list, the agency said Wednesday.
The FSB accused Telegram of failing to remove channels, chats and bots allegedly used by Ukrainian intelligence and extremist groups to coordinate sabotage, attacks and cyber fraud inside Russia, according to Interfax.
Durov charges carry a sentence that could lead to life imprisonment. The FSB did not say whether Russia had requested an Interpol Red Notice, which would not, in itself, constitute an international arrest warrant.
The case escalates an investigation opened in February after Russia began restricting Telegram’s operations. The platform has been fined more than 100 million rubles ($1.25 million) this year, primarily for failing to remove content prohibited under Russian law, Interfax reported.
Telegram is one of crypto’s largest distribution platforms, hosting project communities, trading groups, bots and blockchain-based Mini Apps.
Netflix edges past the BBC as UK viewers’ first choice
$9,819 teacher paycheck breakdown #finance #invest #retirement
Manchester city centre incident LIVE as man suffers ‘possibly life-changing injuries’ at Market Street tram stop
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Sports3 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Tech2 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Crypto World6 days agoEthics, other provisions in crypto Clarity Act to be further discussed
-
Politics2 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Sports5 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
Politics1 day agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
Fashion5 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
Entertainment5 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
News Videos3 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
News Videos6 days agoThe Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
-
Crypto World4 days agoRipple bought a bank in pieces. The $4 billion audit
-
Politics3 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
Business5 hours agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Crypto World3 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
Crypto World6 days agoUniswap (UNI) pushes deeper into tokenized RWAs with permissioned trading pools
-
Entertainment15 hours ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Tech4 days agoAnthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows
-
Crypto World6 days ago
SEC Agrees to Overhaul Recordkeeping After Settling Coinbase Lawsuit Over Gensler’s Lost Texts
-
News Videos14 hours agoClaude: Build Financial Dashboards in Minutes (2026)
You must be logged in to post a comment Login