Uniswap has launched Earn, a self-custodial lending product that allows users to deposit USDC, USDT, and ETH into Morpho vaults without leaving its app.

Uniswap Earn supports USDC, USDT and ETH

Earn is available through the Uniswap Web App and Wallet, extending the platform beyond token swaps and liquidity provision into onchain lending.

Users can select a supported asset, choose an amount and authorize the deposit with one signature. Deposits then earn interest paid by borrowers across lending markets selected by the underlying vault.

USDC, USDT and ETH are supported at launch, with all three vaults operating on Ethereum mainnet. Users can withdraw at any time because the product has no mandatory lockup or cooldown period, according to Uniswap’s launch announcement.

Uniswap does not charge a separate fee for using Earn. However, depositors remain responsible for standard Ethereum transaction costs, which can make smaller positions less economical when network fees rise.

Deposits appear alongside users’ other assets in the Uniswap portfolio interface. The dashboard displays the amount deposited, the current yield rate and total earnings, while recording deposits and withdrawals in the account’s activity history.

Morpho and Gauntlet manage the lending infrastructure

Morpho supplies the permissionless lending infrastructure behind Earn, while Gauntlet curates the vaults and determines how deposits are distributed across eligible markets.

Vault curation can reduce the need for depositors to compare individual lending pools, collateral types, and utilization rates. Gauntlet can set exposure limits and rebalance capital as market conditions change, but depositors still carry the risks associated with those allocation decisions.

Morpho currently reports about $11.79 billion in deposits and $4.15 billion in active loans across its network. The protocol previously said deposits increased from $5 billion at the beginning of 2025 to $13 billion by the end of that year’s third quarter.

Active loans rose from $1.9 billion to $4.5 billion over the same period. Annualized interest paid to Morpho lenders reached $227 million in 2025, representing a 400% increase from 2024, according to Morpho’s annual review.

Earn broadens Uniswap beyond token swaps

Earn gives Uniswap another way to retain users between trades. Instead of transferring unused stablecoins or ETH to a separate lending protocol, users can now access lending vaults through the same interface used for swaps and portfolio tracking.

The integration places Uniswap in closer competition with established lending platforms such as Aave and Compound. Its main distribution advantage is an existing base of traders who can move from swapping to lending without navigating to another application.

For US users, Earn is an onchain lending service rather than a bank savings account. Deposits do not carry FDIC insurance, and self-custody does not remove smart contract, collateral, liquidity, or stablecoin risks.

Vault yields are also variable. Rates can fall when lender deposits grow faster than borrowing demand, meaning the displayed annual percentage yield is not guaranteed for the duration of a deposit.

UNI price shows limited reaction to Earn launch

UNI traded near $4.30 at the time of writing, declining approximately 2.8% over the previous 24 hours. The token remained up about 12% over seven days.

Its market capitalization stood near $2.68 billion, while 24-hour trading volume reached roughly $376 million. The latest move does not establish a direct link between the Earn announcement and UNI’s price performance.

Adoption will depend on the yields offered by the Gauntlet-curated vaults, Ethereum transaction costs, and users’ willingness to accept lending-market risks. Uniswap has not announced that Earn revenue will flow directly to UNI holders, making deposits and user retention the main metrics to watch initially.

A new study from the Bank of Italy challenges a common assumption about stablecoins in cross-border payments: using stablecoin transfers for remittances may not automatically deliver better economics or faster delivery than established payment rails once the full cost chain is considered.

Researchers evaluated 200 remittances denominated in USDC across 10 bidirectional payment corridors connecting Italy with Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the United Arab Emirates and South Africa. They compared end-to-end fees and settlement times against traditional remittance services, concluding that most expenses and delays were driven by fiat on- and off-ramp frictions rather than by blockchain execution itself.

Key takeaways

• In the tested corridors, exchange and currency-conversion charges made up the majority of total remittance cost, while blockchain transaction fees were only a small portion.
• Total stablecoin remittance costs ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, depending on the corridor, while settlement time was typically under 20 minutes where instant payment systems were available.
• Compared with the World Bank’s global average remittance cost benchmark of 6.65%, stablecoin transfers were cheaper in most corridors—but were cheaper than Wise in only three out of seven comparable corridors.
• The study argues that improvements to domestic instant payment infrastructure and reduced reliance on reconversion into fiat are likely to matter more than blockchain technology alone.
• Regulatory design strongly influences where stablecoin users transact, with overly restrictive regimes potentially pushing activity toward offshore or unregulated channels.

Stablecoin remittances: where the cost really comes from

The Bank of Italy study tested 200 USDC remittance flows across 10 corridors, designed to capture realistic friction across payment paths between Italy and several major regions. The researchers focused on the full journey—from conversion and routing through the on- and off-ramps used to turn fiat into stablecoins and back again—then compared results to traditional remittance offerings.

According to the report, the largest share of costs came from exchange fees and currency conversion. Blockchain fees represented only a small fraction of the total remittance cost, undermining the idea that “using a blockchain” by itself will guarantee cheaper transfers. In other words, even if the stablecoin transfer settles quickly on-chain, the conversion steps required to deliver value in the recipient’s usable currency can dominate the bill.

On the cost range observed in the experiment, total stablecoin remittance costs varied sharply by corridor—from as low as 0.3% to nearly 9%. That variability matters for investors and payment operators because it suggests that stablecoin remittance performance is not uniform; it depends heavily on the local availability and pricing of payment infrastructure and conversion services.

Speed depends on local payment rails, not just settlement time

The study also measured settlement times end-to-end. For stablecoin remittances, transfer settlement was reported as less than 20 minutes in corridors where instant payment systems were available. In corridors without those systems, settlement took one to two business days.

This finding is consistent with the broader logic of cross-border payments: on-chain settlement can be quick, but delivery is constrained by the speed of off-chain steps—such as how quickly funds can be credited to accounts after the stablecoin leg is completed. For users, that means stablecoins may improve speed only when the surrounding payment ecosystem can match the speed of the blockchain component.

How stablecoins compare to global benchmarks and mainstream providers

To contextualize the results, the Bank of Italy report used the World Bank’s global average remittance cost of 6.65% as a reference point. Against that benchmark, the stablecoin corridors examined were cheaper in most cases. However, the study’s comparison to major providers was more nuanced.

The report found that stablecoin transfers were less expensive than Wise in only three of seven comparable corridors. That asymmetry is important: it indicates that stablecoin-based remittances may undercut some traditional options in certain routes, but they do not consistently outperform competitive incumbents across the board.

For traders and builders watching stablecoin adoption, the implication is clear: performance will likely be route-specific until the conversion and settlement ecosystem improves. Stablecoin rails can reduce certain types of friction, but in practice they must be integrated into efficient on- and off-ramp systems to translate into sustained advantage.

Infrastructure investment and spending stablecoins directly

While the study found that blockchain transaction fees were not the primary cost driver, it argued that strategic investment in domestic instant payment infrastructure could improve the competitiveness of stablecoin-based cross-border payments. The authors emphasized that settlement speed depended heavily on the quality of local payment rails—so improving the “last mile” (and the corresponding conversion processes) is likely to yield the biggest gains.

The report also highlighted a structural bottleneck: stablecoins currently often require reconversion into local fiat to be usable by recipients. It suggested that meaningful economic advantages would increase if stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy.

If stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy, for goods and services, rents, or school fees, without reconversion into local fiat currency, the economic advantages of stablecoin-based transfers would be substantially higher.

Regulation: efficiency can improve or unravel depending on design

Beyond infrastructure and market mechanics, the study argued that regulatory design shapes remittance efficiency. In the Bank of Italy’s framing, prohibitionist regimes have not eliminated stablecoin demand; instead, they can redirect usage toward offshore platforms and other unregulated channels. Conversely, overly restrictive frameworks may increase operational complexity for retail users, potentially offsetting any intended consumer protections.

The study arrives as major jurisdictions tighten or implement frameworks for crypto assets and stablecoins. The European Union has implemented its Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, and the United States enacted the GENIUS Act, which is intended to govern payment stablecoins. As these regimes take effect, the balance between compliance, accessibility, and the availability of regulated fiat on- and off-ramps may directly affect real-world remittance outcomes.

The broader stablecoin market context also matters. DefiLlama data cited in the article places stablecoin supply at about $307 billion, up roughly 16% over the past year. That growth underscores why policymakers and payment providers are focused on the operational and regulatory details—especially where remittances are concerned.

What to watch next is whether regulatory changes and domestic payment infrastructure upgrades reduce the conversion frictions that the Bank of Italy study identifies as the dominant cost and timing drivers. If stablecoin usage increasingly shifts toward corridors with strong instant payment rails and if more “spendable” pathways emerge, the potential for stablecoins to outperform traditional remittance services may become clearer—and more consistent across routes.

Pump.fun reportedly dismissed employees shortly before their PUMP token grants were scheduled to vest, leaving at least one former worker without an allocation now valued at seven figures.

Pump.fun layoffs preceded employee token vesting

Pump.fun reduced its workforce in late March and early April after rapidly expanding its operations, according to an investigation by Sandmark.

Documents, emails, and internal recordings reviewed by the publication showed that some employees lost their jobs shortly before their PUMP allocations were due to begin vesting. At least one former employee allegedly forfeited tokens now worth seven figures.

Workers had reportedly signed token grant agreements in June 2025. Under those arrangements, the first 25% of their allocations would vest after one year, followed by additional releases over time.

Sandmark obtained a termination email showing that Pump.fun head of talent Lloyd McCarthy called affected employees into a group meeting in late March. During the recorded meeting, co-founder Noah Tweedale said the company had “grew too quickly,” limiting its ability to operate “fast and rough.”

Contracts were terminated in early April, according to the report. Affected workers received severance payments based on how long they had worked for the company, but their unvested PUMP allocations were reportedly canceled.

Pump.fun has not publicly addressed the findings.

Former workers allege a second round of cuts

New allegations surfaced after former workers claimed that Baton Corp., the company behind Pump.fun, conducted another round of layoffs in mid-July.

A newly created X account named “ex pump employee” alleged that Baton dismissed about 40 employees one day before their PUMP grants were scheduled to vest. The account owner claimed to have worked for the company for more than a year.

The account also alleged that Pump.fun never intended to conduct a public PUMP airdrop because the company opposed “giving free money” to users. Pump.fun has not responded publicly to that claim.

However, Sandmark said it could not independently verify the allegation that 40 workers were dismissed immediately before the July vesting event. The claim therefore remains based on the former employee’s account rather than independently reviewed employment records.

The dispute centers on employee compensation rather than tokens already held by public investors. Still, the allegations could increase scrutiny of how crypto companies structure token grants and whether employment termination clauses allow firms to cancel large allocations shortly before vesting.

PUMP distribution moved $86.49M to 121 wallets

The allegations follow Pump.fun’s first major team and investor token distribution after a one-year lockup expired.

As crypto.news previously reported, on-chain tracking showed that 57.279 billion PUMP tokens, valued at approximately $86.49 million at the time, moved to 121 wallets on July 15.

Wu Blockchain said the distribution marked the start of a three-year vesting period for team and investor allocations. The transfers made previously restricted tokens available to recipients, although wallet movements alone do not prove that any of the tokens were sold.

For US token holders, the employment allegations do not change their ownership rights. The broader concern is market-related: continued insider distributions could increase transferable supply and create selling pressure if recipients move tokens to exchanges.

PUMP remains 77% below its record high

PUMP traded around $0.002 at press time, gaining nearly 5% over the previous 24 hours, according to CoinGecko. Despite the daily rise, the token remained roughly 77% below its September 2025 all-time high.

The decline comes as Pump.fun continues to generate large numbers of short-lived meme coins. A June CoinGecko study examined 18.67 million tokens created through the launchpad between January 2024 and June 2026.

Researchers found that 12.8 million tokens, or 68.67%, recorded their final Pump.fun bonding-curve trade on the day they launched. Tokens that never traded were excluded because they had no measurable trading lifespan.

CoinGecko linked the high failure rate to the platform’s low barriers to token creation, which allow users to abandon launches quickly when early demand fails to appear.

Bitcoin (BTC) fell to its lowest levels in over two weeks on Friday as US stocks saw pressure into the monthly close.

Key points:

• Bitcoin approaches $62,000 as daily losses hit 3.5%.
• US stocks saw no positive reactions to relief in Asia, where stocks rebounded after the semiconductor sell-off.
• Analysis warns that Bitcoin bear-market history should continue to repeat in August.

Bitcoin price targets $62,000 in month-end volatility

Data from TradingView showed BTC/USD falling 3.5% to reach $62,369 on Bitstamp, a level last seen on July 14.

BTC/USD one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

US stocks turned red at the open before treading water, diverging from a major relief bounce seen in Asia. There, South Korea’s KOSPI index ended the day up 17.9%, its largest single-day gain on record.

KOSPI index one-day chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

“Semiconductor shares led both the sell-off and the subsequent recovery, reflecting the index’s high exposure to the global AI and memory-chip cycle,” trading company QCP Capital wrote in commentary on the latest macro market moves.

QCP noted that crypto market trading activity increased around the KOSPI gyrations, something it said “highlighted the growing relationship between crypto liquidity, regional equity positioning and broader technology-sector sentiment.” 

Both Japan and Korea reportedly engaged in currency interventions on Thursday, while Japan’s central bank kept benchmark interest rates at 1.0%, following the US Federal Reserve’s decision to stand pat on Wednesday.

Bitcoin traders see bear-market history repeating in August

BTC/USD approached the end of the monthly candle up 8.5%, marking its strongest July performance since 2022, per data from CoinGlass.

BTC/USD monthly returns (screenshot). Source: CoinGlass

Related: Here’s what happened in crypto today

Previously, traders had anticipated a relief bounce for the pair lasting until August, mirroring the 2022 bear market and ultimately reaching its next long-term bottom.

Trader and analyst Rekt Capital, among those seeing BTC price action copying bear-market moves from four years ago, forecast that the tide might not turn immediately.

“It’s likely price will try to maintain these highs in the early stages of August but history suggests price could rollover just like it did in 2022,” he wrote in a post on X on Friday.

Rekt Capital reiterated that Bitcoin’s 50-month exponential moving average (EMA), currently at $65,820, continued to act as resistance after two failed breakouts since mid-June.

BTC/USD one-day chart with 50-month EMA. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Bitcoin price fell below $63,000 on Friday as a short-lived rebound in Asian semiconductor stocks faded, adding pressure as the cryptocurrency entered its historically weak August trading period.

Bitcoin price falls below $63K as risk assets weaken

Bitcoin traded below $63,000 after losing approximately 3% over the previous 24 hours. The decline followed renewed weakness in Asian technology shares, particularly companies tied to the artificial intelligence and semiconductor sectors.

Ethereum fell 2.8% to around $1,860, while Solana declined 2% to approximately $73. XRP traded near $1.06 as selling spread across large-cap cryptocurrencies.

The pullback came one day after Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix rallied roughly 25%, helping South Korea’s KOSPI recover from a steep multiweek decline. That rebound initially suggested investors were returning to semiconductor stocks following heavy selling.

Momentum failed to carry into Friday, however, raising concerns that Thursday’s advance was a temporary relief rally rather than the start of a sustained recovery.

Why faltering AI stocks are weighing on crypto

Crypto assets and AI-related equities have increasingly traded as part of the same risk-sensitive market. Both sectors rely heavily on speculative capital and tend to weaken when investors reduce exposure to high-valuation assets.

Recent pressure on semiconductor stocks has centered on questions about whether AI infrastructure spending can continue at its current pace. Investors are also examining whether future demand for memory chips and computing hardware can support valuations reached during the AI investment boom.

Those concerns are not directly related to Bitcoin’s network or adoption. However, broad risk reduction can still affect crypto as institutional traders rebalance portfolios, reduce leverage and move funds into cash or defensive assets.

For US investors, the next moves in Nvidia and other AI-linked shares could provide an important signal for crypto sentiment. Continued losses across the Nasdaq and semiconductor sector may limit Bitcoin’s ability to recover even without a crypto-specific negative catalyst.

Extreme fear compounds Bitcoin’s August risk

Market sentiment has deteriorated alongside prices. Alternative’s Crypto Fear & Greed Index stood at 25, placing the market in the “Extreme Fear” category. The index was at 28 one week earlier.

CoinGecko category data also showed limited strength across the crypto market. Decentralized finance showed limited relative resilience, but the sector remained under pressure alongside the broader crypto market.

That flat performance suggests investors may be favoring yield-generating or market-neutral DeFi strategies over directional exposure. It does not necessarily indicate that traders expect an immediate market recovery.

Bitcoin’s entry into August adds another risk. Historical data over the past 4 years places its average return for the month near negative 10%, making August one of the cryptocurrency’s weakest calendar periods.

Thin summer liquidity can magnify price swings as participation falls. Traders may also reduce exposure ahead of a month associated with repeated losses, creating additional selling pressure through a self-reinforcing seasonal pattern.

Bitcoin price could test $58K if weakness persists

An 8% decline from Bitcoin’s current level near $63,000 would place the asset around $58,000. That area is likely to attract attention as a possible support zone if selling continues.

A break below $58,000 could expose Bitcoin to a deeper correction, particularly if weak liquidity combines with leveraged long liquidations. Conversely, a recovery above $63,000 would be an early sign that buyers are absorbing supply.

The more important test may come from outside the crypto market. A sustainable floor in AI and semiconductor shares could help restore broader risk appetite, while another sharp decline would increase the likelihood of further pressure on Bitcoin.

Extreme fear has historically appeared near favorable medium-term entry points, but it does not identify an exact market bottom. Bitcoin’s August seasonality, weak technology shares and cautious investor positioning leave the near-term setup tilted toward volatility.