Crypto World
GENIUS Act missed its deadline as OCC writes rules anyway
Congress gave agencies one year to write stablecoin rules. They missed it by four months and counting. The OCC expects a final rule by November, Tether still lacks a reciprocity determination, and the effective date keeps sliding.
Summary
- The GENIUS Act became law on July 18, 2025, with a one year deadline for implementing regulations that all federal agencies missed on July 18, 2026.
- The OCC expects to finalize its stablecoin rule by November 2026, which would push the effective date to approximately March 2027 under the 120 day implementation window.
- Tether requires a Treasury reciprocity determination to continue serving United States businesses under the foreign issuer pathway, and as of August 2026, that determination has not been issued.
- The proposed rules require every stablecoin issuer serving United States users to be licensed, maintain 100 percent reserves in Treasury bills or insured deposits, report weekly to regulators, and publish monthly disclosures.
- Three parallel rulemaking tracks are active: the OCC for prudential standards, FinCEN and OFAC for anti money laundering and sanctions compliance, and the FDIC and NCUA for institutions under their supervision.
Congress wrote a law. Regulators missed the deadline to implement it. Now they are writing the rules anyway, on their own timeline, with their own interpretations. The GENIUS Act was supposed to create certainty for stablecoin issuers by July 2026. Instead it created a gap: a signed statute without implementing regulations, leaving every issuer in the United States operating under a law whose specific requirements have not been defined.
The delay is not a failure of political will. The agencies agree on the law’s goals. The complexity of writing rules for an asset class that did not exist when most banking statutes were drafted consumed the full year and more. Reserve requirements that sound simple in legislation become complicated when applied to non bank issuers, foreign stablecoins, and tokens that cross multiple regulatory jurisdictions.
What the GENIUS Act requires
The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for United States Stablecoins Act defines who can issue payment stablecoins, what those tokens must be backed by, and how holders can redeem them. The law applies to any entity issuing a stablecoin to United States users, whether that entity is a national bank, a state chartered institution, or a non bank company seeking federal licensing. Every token in circulation must be backed dollar for dollar by United States dollars, Treasury bills, insured bank deposits, or Treasury repurchase agreements. The law does not permit backing by corporate bonds, money market funds with credit exposure, or other assets that carry default risk. This is stricter than what some issuers currently hold. Circle’s USDC reserves include Treasury bills and money market funds, but the GENIUS Act framework may require Circle to restructure the money market fund component depending on how the OCC defines “qualifying reserves” in the final rule. Issuers above $50 billion in market capitalization must submit to annual audits. All issuers must report weekly to their primary regulator and publish monthly disclosures. The disclosure requirements go beyond what any stablecoin issuer currently provides voluntarily, creating a transparency standard that matches or exceeds what the SEC requires of money market funds. The law takes effect on either January 18, 2027 (18 months after signing), or 120 days after final rules are issued, whichever comes first. Since no agency has finalized its rules, the 120 day clock has not started. If the OCC finalizes in November 2026, the effective date slides to approximately March 2027. If finalization extends into 2027, the entire timeline shifts further.
Why the deadline was missed
Congress set a one year implementation timeline because it expected the rules to be straightforward. They were not. Three agencies needed to coordinate on overlapping requirements, each operating under different statutory authorities and different rulemaking procedures. The OCC handles prudential standards for national banks and federally licensed non bank issuers. Its proposed rule covers reserve backing requirements, risk management frameworks, capital and liquidity standards, custody requirements, and regulatory examination procedures. The draft mirrors obligations placed on traditional depository institutions but adapts them for entities that hold crypto assets and issue tokens on public blockchains. FinCEN and OFAC handle anti money laundering and sanctions compliance under a separate rulemaking coordinated with the Treasury Department. Their proposed rule requires stablecoin issuers to implement Bank Secrecy Act programs, file suspicious activity reports, and screen transactions against OFAC sanctions lists. The complexity here involves applying traditional banking compliance frameworks to blockchain transactions, where pseudonymous addresses and cross chain bridges create monitoring challenges that do not exist in wire transfer systems. The FDIC and NCUA are advancing parallel proposals for state chartered banks and credit unions under their respective supervision. Each agency must align its rules with the OCC framework while accounting for institutional differences in capital requirements and supervisory approaches. The coordination problem explains the delay more than any single technical challenge. Each agency published its proposed rule on a different timeline, accepted comments on different schedules, and is finalizing at different speeds. The OCC leads. The FDIC follows. FinCEN’s AML rules may not finalize until early 2027. The result is a staggered implementation where different requirements take effect at different times, creating compliance uncertainty that the law was designed to eliminate. The staggering creates a specific operational problem. A stablecoin issuer that receives its federal license under the OCC rule may begin operations while the FinCEN AML rule is still in proposed form. That issuer must decide whether to build its compliance program against the proposed AML rule, which may change in the final version, or wait until both rules are final and operate with a compressed implementation window. Neither option is attractive, and both carry risk that a simultaneous finalization would have avoided. The OCC has publicly acknowledged the issue. Acting Comptroller Michael Hsu stated the agency is “very intent on moving quickly and getting a final rule out by November so that we will be able to start processing applications within the new year.” The explicit commitment to processing applications by January 2027 is more operationally meaningful than the November finalization date alone, because it signals that the OCC will not wait for FinCEN to finish before beginning to license issuers. The practical effect is a two track system where prudential licensing proceeds ahead of AML rule finalization.
The Tether problem
Tether presents the most consequential unresolved question in the GENIUS Act implementation. USDT is the largest stablecoin by market capitalization, with roughly $140 billion in circulation as of August 2026. Tether Limited is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and has never been licensed as a financial institution in the United States. The GENIUS Act creates a foreign issuer pathway that allows non United States companies to serve American businesses, but only if the Treasury Department issues a “reciprocity determination” confirming that the issuer’s home jurisdiction provides comparable regulatory oversight. As of August 2026, that determination has not been issued for any jurisdiction, including the BVI. Without a reciprocity determination, Tether cannot legally offer USDT to United States businesses once the GENIUS Act takes effect. The practical enforcement of that prohibition is complex because USDT trades on global markets accessible to anyone with an internet connection, but the legal prohibition would prevent United States exchanges, custodians, and financial institutions from supporting USDT directly. Tether has responded with two strategies. First, it announced plans to register USDT under the foreign issuer pathway, which requires the reciprocity determination it does not yet have. Second, it launched USAT, a new United States focused stablecoin designed for GENIUS Act compliance from day one, with reserves held in Treasury bills at a United States custodian. The dual strategy hedges against both outcomes: reciprocity granted (USDT stays) or reciprocity denied (USAT replaces it for US markets). The market has noticed. USDT’s share of United States exchange trading volume has declined from 72 percent in January 2026 to approximately 64 percent in August, while USDC’s share has grown from 18 percent to 26 percent over the same period. The shift is gradual but directional, and the GENIUS Act timeline is the primary driver. The timeline matters because digital asset service providers have until July 2028, three years after the law’s signing, before they are prohibited from offering non compliant stablecoins. That grace period gives Tether time but creates a two class market where compliant stablecoins like USDC and RLUSD operate under full regulatory oversight while USDT continues serving United States users under the transitional provision.
Who is already compliant
Circle’s USDC is the closest to full compliance. The company holds reserves primarily in Treasury bills and is regulated as a money transmitter in multiple states. The GENIUS Act framework may require Circle to restructure its reserve portfolio to eliminate any money market fund exposure that does not meet the “qualifying reserves” definition, but the adjustment is incremental rather than structural. Ripple’s RLUSD, which crossed $2 billion in market capitalization during August 2026, is designed for GENIUS Act compliance. Its reserves are held in United States denominated assets with a regulated custodian. RLUSD’s growth on the XRP Ledger has positioned it as the institutional stablecoin for cross border settlement, with nearly $1 billion of supply on XRPL directly. PayPal’s PYUSD, issued through Paxos Trust, operates under New York Department of Financial Services oversight and holds reserves in Treasury bills and cash deposits. The transition to GENIUS Act compliance involves obtaining federal licensing on top of existing state authorization, a process that requires additional capital and compliance infrastructure but no fundamental restructuring. The common thread is that issuers who designed their products with regulatory compliance in mind face incremental adjustments. Issuers who designed for speed and market share face structural changes or market exit. The GENIUS Act is a filter, and the compliance cost is the price of remaining in the United States market.
The institutional pipeline waiting on final rules
The delay in finalization has created a bottleneck for institutional products that depend on regulatory certainty. The Clearing House tokenized deposit network, which includes JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citi, and Wells Fargo, is targeting a launch in the first half of 2027. That timeline assumes GENIUS Act rules are final and the effective date is known. If finalization slips past November, the launch date slips with it. FASB’s August 18 proposal to treat qualifying stablecoins as cash equivalents on corporate balance sheets is directly connected to the GENIUS Act timeline. The accounting treatment requires stablecoins to carry an on demand redemption right and segregated one to one reserves, requirements that overlap almost exactly with the GENIUS Act framework. If both the GENIUS Act rules and the FASB standard finalize on schedule, corporate treasurers will have simultaneous regulatory certainty and accounting clarity for holding stablecoins. If either slips, the institutional adoption timeline extends. The OUSD revenue sharing stablecoin consortium, which includes Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, and BlackRock among its 140 plus partners, has positioned itself to capitalize on this convergence. A stablecoin that qualifies as a cash equivalent under FASB and meets GENIUS Act reserve requirements becomes functionally equivalent to a Treasury bill on a corporate balance sheet, with the added benefit of programmable settlement on blockchain rails. The pipeline is real and the capital is committed. What is missing is the final rule that converts proposed requirements into enforceable standards. Every month of delay is a month of stalled product launches, deferred treasury allocations, and competitive advantage flowing to jurisdictions where the rules are already final.
The dollar defense argument
The GENIUS Act is not primarily about consumer protection, despite the disclosure and reserve requirements that serve consumer interests. The law’s strategic logic is about maintaining the dollar’s dominance in digital payments. Stablecoins denominated in United States dollars represent approximately $170 billion in circulating supply as of August 2026. Every dollar held in stablecoin reserves is a dollar invested in Treasury bills or deposited at insured banks, creating demand for United States government debt. If the stablecoin market grows to $1 trillion, as several projections suggest by 2030, the reserve requirement becomes a meaningful source of Treasury bill demand. Foreign stablecoins denominated in euros, yuan, or other currencies compete directly with this dynamic. The reciprocity determination framework in the GENIUS Act is designed to ensure that foreign issuers serving United States markets operate under comparable rules, preventing regulatory arbitrage that could redirect reserve demand away from United States government debt. This logic explains why the missed deadline has not generated significant political backlash. The law’s strategic objectives are served by the rulemaking process itself, which signals to global markets that the United States is building a comprehensive stablecoin framework. The specific effective date matters less than the trajectory, and the trajectory is clearly toward finalization. The European Union’s MiCA framework, fully operational since January 2026, requires similar reserve backing for euro denominated stablecoins. But MiCA explicitly prohibits yield payments on stablecoin balances, a provision that has driven some DeFi activity offshore. The GENIUS Act’s silence on yield gives the United States a potential competitive advantage: if the OCC permits reserve income sharing, dollar stablecoins become more attractive to holders than euro stablecoins, reinforcing dollar demand. The geopolitical dimension extends beyond Europe. China’s digital yuan operates as a central bank digital currency without the reserve backed stablecoin model. If private dollar stablecoins reach $1 trillion in circulation while operating under a credible regulatory framework, they become a de facto extension of United States monetary influence in digital commerce, operating on rails that the Federal Reserve does not control but that United States regulators oversee. The GENIUS Act, for all its implementation delays, is the legal foundation for that strategic position.
What the final rules will decide
Several questions remain open until the OCC publishes its final rule, expected in November. First, the precise definition of “qualifying reserves.” The law names Treasury bills, insured deposits, and Treasury repos. The question is whether the final rule permits any additional asset classes, such as agency mortgage backed securities or overnight reverse repurchase agreements, that carry negligible credit risk but are not explicitly named in the statute. Second, the capital requirements for non bank issuers. Banks have existing capital frameworks. Non bank stablecoin issuers do not. The proposed rule would require non bank issuers to maintain capital buffers that absorb operational losses without touching reserves, but the size and composition of those buffers remained subject to comment. Third, the examination framework. The OCC proposed regular on site examinations for federally licensed stablecoin issuers, mirroring its bank supervision model. Non bank issuers have never been subject to on site federal examination. The operational burden and cost of preparing for OCC examiners will affect the economics of stablecoin issuance, potentially favoring larger issuers who can amortize compliance costs across a bigger asset base. Fourth, the treatment of stablecoin yield. The GENIUS Act itself does not explicitly prohibit interest payments on stablecoin balances. However, the Clarity Act’s proposed stablecoin yield ban would apply if it passes. If it does not, the GENIUS Act rules govern, and the OCC must decide whether issuers can share reserve income with holders. This question has direct implications for Coinbase’s $1.35 billion annual USDC rewards revenue and for every DeFi protocol that generates yield on stablecoin deposits. The OCC’s final rule on yield could reshape the competitive landscape for stablecoins more than any other single provision. Fifth, the interoperability standard. The proposed rule addresses how stablecoins issued by different licensed entities interact when transferred across blockchains. A USDC token on Ethereum and a USDC token on Solana are technically different assets bridged by Circle’s infrastructure. The final rule must define whether each chain instance requires separate regulatory treatment or whether the issuer’s federal license covers all instances regardless of the underlying blockchain.
What would prove this thesis wrong
Two conditions would change the trajectory. First, if the OCC misses its November target and finalization extends into mid 2027, the staggered implementation problem worsens and market participants may begin operating under their own interpretations of the statute, creating enforcement risk. Second, if Congress passes the Clarity Act with stablecoin provisions that override or modify the GENIUS Act framework, the entire rulemaking track becomes moot and agencies would need to restart the process under new statutory authority. The Blockchain Association’s August 25 letter supporting the proposed rules suggests the industry considers the current rulemaking track acceptable. Major industry opposition would have signaled a risk of extended comment periods and revision cycles. Its absence suggests November finalization is realistic.
What to watch
OCC final rule publication date. November 2026 is the stated target. Any delay past December pushes the effective date into mid 2027 and extends the compliance uncertainty period.
Treasury reciprocity determinations. The first country to receive a reciprocity determination sets the precedent for foreign stablecoin issuers. If the BVI receives one, Tether’s USDT can stay. If it does not, USDT faces a United States market exit by July 2028.
USDC reserve restructuring. If Circle announces changes to its reserve composition in response to the proposed rules, it signals that the final rule definition of “qualifying reserves” is narrower than current industry practice.
USAT adoption rates. Tether’s United States focused stablecoin is a hedge against reciprocity denial. Its adoption rate on exchanges and in DeFi protocols will indicate whether the market is preparing for a post USDT scenario.
FinCEN AML rule timeline. The anti money laundering rulemaking is running behind the OCC prudential rule. A significant gap between the two creates a period where stablecoin issuers must meet prudential standards but lack finalized AML guidance.
What is the GENIUS Act?
The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for United States Stablecoins Act is a federal law signed on July 18, 2025, that creates a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. It defines who can issue stablecoins, what reserves must back them, and how holders can redeem them.
Why did regulators miss the GENIUS Act deadline?
Three federal agencies needed to coordinate overlapping rules under different statutory authorities. The OCC handles prudential standards, FinCEN and OFAC handle anti money laundering and sanctions, and the FDIC handles state chartered institutions. The complexity of applying banking compliance frameworks to blockchain based assets consumed more time than the one year timeline allowed.
When will the GENIUS Act rules take effect?
The law takes effect on January 18, 2027, or 120 days after final rules are issued, whichever comes first. If the OCC finalizes in November 2026, the effective date would be approximately March 2027.
What reserves must stablecoin issuers hold?
The GENIUS Act requires 100 percent backing in United States dollars, Treasury bills, insured bank deposits, or Treasury repurchase agreements. No corporate bonds, equities, or higher risk assets are permitted.
Can Tether continue operating in the United States?
Tether requires a Treasury reciprocity determination confirming that its home jurisdiction provides comparable regulatory oversight. That determination has not been issued. Without it, Tether cannot legally offer USDT to United States businesses once the law takes effect. Digital asset service providers have until July 2028 before non compliant stablecoins are prohibited.
Is USDC already GENIUS Act compliant?
Circle’s USDC is close to full compliance given its Treasury bill reserves and state money transmitter licenses, but may need to restructure any money market fund holdings that do not meet the final rule’s qualifying reserves definition.
How does the GENIUS Act affect DeFi stablecoins?
The law applies to any entity issuing stablecoins to United States users. Algorithmic stablecoins that are not backed by qualifying reserves cannot meet the 100 percent backing requirement. Decentralized protocols that issue stablecoins without a licensed entity face classification and enforcement questions that the final rules must address.
What happens if the GENIUS Act rules are never finalized?
The statute itself is law regardless of whether implementing regulations are finalized. Issuers would need to comply with the statutory text directly, which creates uncertainty because many provisions reference regulatory definitions that only exist in final rules. Courts would likely resolve ambiguities through enforcement actions and litigation. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer. This article was written on August 26, 2026. All figures reflect data available on that date and may have changed. This is educational analysis and does not constitute investment advice. Regulatory timelines and proposed rules are subject to change.
XRP briefly surged past $1.7 before stabilizing near $1.4. While the token appears to have hit a wall after a massive rally, whale withdrawals from Binance have surged to their highest level in six months.
According to the latest findings by CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost, more than 231 million XRP have moved off the exchange by large holders.
Whale Accumulation
The withdrawals totaled more than $335 million in a single day, far above the 90-day average of roughly $40 million. Darkfost described the move as both sudden and powerful compared with the recent trend, while pointing to a significant change in behavior among large XRP holders.
The surge in whale outflows comes as the crypto asset’s market capitalization increased by $25 billion over the past week, during which the token gained more than 40%.
According to the analyst, this trend has potentially helped fuel XRP’s strong market performance and renewed attention. If this accumulation trend continues, Darkfost said the asset could potentially test the $2 level within a relatively short period.
This week, Ali Martinez flagged a major jump in XRP network activity, after active addresses rose to 356,070 from 47,180. That represents a surge of well over 654%, a level of activity that typically suggests increased participation and can coincide with sharper price swings.
Trouble Ahead?
But the derivatives market showed short-term pressure for XRP after the token cleared liquidity around resistance and moved back toward a major support zone. Long liquidations were recorded at approximately $4.66 million, a 31.82% daily increase, while short liquidations stood near $1.13 million after rising 61.61%.
Despite the stronger percentage increase in short liquidations, the total volume of long liquidations is nearly four times larger. This indicates that the pullback following the recent rally forced a significant number of leveraged long positions out of the market, meaning that the sell-off was driven by both spot selling and the liquidation of leveraged positions.
While this confirms the current bearish pressure, the clearing of leveraged positions could eventually provide room for a healthier rebound, CryptoQuant explained.
Meanwhile, XRP’s Money Flow Index (MFI) has fallen to 35.89 from around 60, which points to a significant weakening in the buying pressure that supported the earlier price move. However, the MFI remains above 20, which means that the crypto asset has not yet entered technically oversold territory and could still face further downside.
The post Ripple (XRP) Whales Are Pulling Millions Off Binance: The $2 Level Is Back in Focus appeared first on CryptoPotato.
South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Upbit announced on Aug. 26 that it will add PolySwarm’s NCT token to its Korean won market.
Summary
- Upbit will open NCT/KRW trading at 9:00 p.m. KST on August 26, barring liquidity delays.
- NCT rose by over 200% over 24 hours before the scheduled Korean won market opened on Upbit.
- Upbit will waive standard NCT/KRW trading fees for the market’s first 24-hour period after launch.
- Ethereum is the only network Upbit currently supports for NCT deposits and withdrawals on launch.
- PolySwarm uses NCT to reward threat intelligence providers and provide access to security data services.
NCT/KRW trading is scheduled to begin at 9:00 p.m. Korea Standard Time.
The listing gives NCT a direct fiat trading route on South Korea’s largest crypto exchange by reported domestic volume. NCT already trades against Bitcoin on Upbit, with the exchange using that market’s previous closing price to set its initial KRW trading controls.
Upbit will open NCT/KRW with temporary restrictions
Upbit’s official notice listed NCT’s previous BTC market close at 0.00000006 BTC, equivalent to approximately 6.55 won. This figure serves as a reference for early order restrictions rather than a guaranteed opening price.
Buy orders will be blocked for approximately five minutes after trading begins. Sell orders priced 10% or more below the reference price will face the same restriction. Only limit orders will be available during the first two hours.
The exchange warned that the opening “may be postponed” if deposits and withdrawals do not produce sufficient liquidity. At the time of research, Upbit had not announced a delay, and the market remained scheduled to open at 9:00 p.m. KST.
These controls follow the structure used for other recent additions. As crypto.news reported, Upbit also restricted early orders after adding LIT to its Korean won market on Aug. 24.
NCT price jumps before the Upbit listing
NCT recorded a sharp market response before the Korean won pair opened. The token traded near $0.0146 as of 7:43 p.m. KST, gaining approximately 200% over 24 hours, according to CoinGecko data.
Its 24-hour trading volume reached about $15.36 million, while its market capitalization stood near $24.28 million. NCT traded between approximately $0.004626 and $0.01384 during the period.
The increase occurred after Upbit published its listing announcement, although market data alone cannot prove the exchange decision caused the entire move. NCT was also trading on Bithumb, Coinbase, Gate and smaller venues.
Korean exchange listings have previously coincided with sharp short-term price moves. In related coverage, Upbit’s decision to add three GRVT trading pairs was accompanied by a 23% increase before trading opened.
Upbit will waive NCT/KRW fees for 24 hours
Upbit will reduce its standard NCT/KRW trading fee from 0.05% to 0% during the market’s first 24 hours. The promotion is scheduled to run from 9:00 p.m. on Aug. 26 until 8:59:59 p.m. on Aug. 27.
If Upbit delays the listing, the zero-fee period will instead begin when trading opens. The waiver applies to standard order fees and does not remove the risks associated with rapid price changes or thin liquidity.
NCT deposits and withdrawals will be supported only through Ethereum. Upbit identified the supported contract as 0x9e46a38f5daabe8683e10793b06749eef7d733d1, matching the address shown by Etherscan and major market-data providers.
Transfers through unsupported networks may not be credited automatically. Upbit also requires customers to follow its Travel Rule and personal-wallet ownership verification requirements.
PolySwarm uses NCT in its malware marketplace
PolySwarm describes itself as a decentralized threat-intelligence marketplace. Security engines compete to identify malicious files and receive NCT based on their performance.
Project documentation states that NCT also provides access to threat intelligence generated through the platform. The ERC-20 token has a fixed maximum supply of approximately 1.886 billion NCT, with nearly all tokens reported as circulating.
Attention will now move to the NCT/KRW opening price, early trading volume and whether Upbit extends any restrictions. The zero-fee campaign is scheduled to end on Aug. 27 unless the exchange postpones the market launch.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Havenex, an Austrian company advised by Sui co-founder Kostas “Kryptos” Chalkias, said on Aug. 26 that its Series A financing round was nearing completion as it pursued regulatory authorization.
Summary
- Havenex says its Series A is nearing completion, although funding size and investors remain undisclosed.
- Havenex is seeking Austrian FMA authorization and cannot provide regulated services before formally receiving approval.
- The platform targets professional institutions offering digital and traditional assets through white-label financial infrastructure services.
- Kostas Chalkias advises Havenex and serves on its supervisory board while remaining with Mysten Labs.
- Havenex proposes continuous solvency proofs, multisignature custody and quantum-resistant keys, but these remain unverified publicly.
Chalkias announced the project through an X post. He described Havenex as infrastructure for financial institutions offering digital and traditional financial assets. The company has not disclosed the round’s size, participating investors, valuation or expected closing date.
Havenex awaits Austrian regulatory authorization
Havenex’s website says the platform is undergoing authorization with Austria’s Financial Market Authority. The company also states that it cannot provide regulated services before receiving approval.
That distinction means Havenex should not yet be described as a licensed exchange. No public authorization number or regulatory approval appears on its website. Chalkias said the company had applied for every required license and some additional permissions, but he did not identify individual license categories.
Havenex AG lists a registered address in Vienna and Austrian company registration number FN 673083d. Its public disclosures identify Gregorios Siourounis as the management board member. Chalkias, Adeniyi Abiodun and Petros Pyloridis sit on the supervisory board.
The company describes its intended customers as professional and institutional clients. Its approval process will determine which services it can provide, the assets it can support and whether it can operate across the European Economic Area.
Series A details remain undisclosed
Chalkias said the Series A allocation was already “quite packed” and invited interested investors to contact him. That statement remains a fundraising update from an adviser rather than confirmation of a completed transaction.
“Series A is underway and closing soon,” Chalkias said.
Havenex has not released supporting documents naming investors or specifying committed capital. It has also not announced a closing deadline. Until the company completes the round, its financing terms remain subject to change.
Chalkias said Havenex originated from his idea but clarified that he would participate as an adviser. He said his main focus would remain Mysten Labs and Sui. His formal position on Havenex’s supervisory board gives him an oversight role, while Siourounis appears responsible for management.
Havenex proposes verifiable institutional custody
Havenex plans to provide white-label infrastructure through which banks and other financial companies could offer crypto and traditional assets. Its proposed services include trading, custody, staking, tokenization, settlement and wallet infrastructure.
The project says it will support verifiable custody, continuous proof of solvency, multisignature controls and hardware-based two-factor authentication. It also plans self-custody and key-recovery protections.
Chalkias called Havenex the “most transparent, safest, institutional-grade, fully regulated exchange possible.”
Those descriptions express the project’s objectives. Havenex has not published an independent security audit, a live proof-of-solvency system, custody addresses or technical documentation demonstrating the planned controls. There is therefore no public on-chain data available to verify the proposed solvency model.
Institutional custody providers are increasingly combining controlled asset storage with blockchain services. As crypto.news reported, HashKey Cloud and BitGo connected institutional staking while keeping customer assets within BitGo’s custody framework.
Sui will form only part of Havenex’s technology
Chalkias said Havenex would use Sui technology where appropriate, but the platform would not operate as a Sui-only exchange. It plans to integrate assets, infrastructure and bridges from multiple blockchain ecosystems.
The promised quantum-resistant key system could connect with Sui’s wider cryptographic work. In related coverage, Sui targeted a 2027 rollout for native quantum-safe account authentication using NIST-approved signature schemes.
However, Havenex has not identified which post-quantum standard it will implement or when the feature will become available. Its use of Sui, bridges and real-world assets also remains under development.
The next verifiable milestones will be an FMA authorization, final Series A disclosures and detailed technical documentation. A launch date has not been announced. Until authorization arrives, Havenex will remain a development-stage infrastructure provider rather than an operating regulated exchange.
An indicator fundamental to understanding whether capital consistently moved in size to push prices higher is flashing green.
NVIDIA reported fiscal second-quarter 2027 revenue of $96.2 billion on Aug. 26, beating analyst expectations as demand for artificial intelligence infrastructure continued expanding.
Summary
- NVIDIA reported Q2 revenue of $96.2 billion, rising 106% year over year and beating estimates.
- Data Center revenue reached $89.0 billion, increasing 117% as AI infrastructure demand accelerated globally worldwide.
- NVIDIA guided Q3 revenue to $108 billion, excluding Data Center compute sales from China entirely.
- Supply and capacity commitments jumped to $279 billion, primarily reflecting expanded procurement of memory components.
- Vera Rubin entered full production, while NVIDIA returned approximately $26 billion to shareholders during Q2.
Revenue for the quarter ended July 26 increased 18% from the preceding quarter and 106% from one year earlier, according to the company’s official release. Visible Alpha analysts had expected approximately $92.2 billion.
NVIDIA revenue beats estimates as Data Center sales surge
NVIDIA’s Data Center business generated $89 billion, rising 18% quarter over quarter and 117% year over year. The result also surpassed the Visible Alpha estimate of roughly $85.7 billion.
Non-GAAP diluted earnings reached $2.22 per share, compared with analyst expectations near $2.09. GAAP earnings were $2.46 per diluted share, while GAAP net income more than doubled to $59.7 billion.
Both GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins were 75%. NVIDIA returned approximately $26 billion through share repurchases and dividends during the quarter. It retained about $99 billion under its share repurchase authorization.
The results arrive as Bitcoin mining companies increase spending on AI infrastructure. As previously reported, nine public miners spent $5.11 billion on capital assets during the first half of 2026 while recording $341.2 million in AI and high-performance computing revenue.
$108 billion NVIDIA outlook excludes China compute sales
NVIDIA projected fiscal Q3 revenue of $108 billion, plus or minus 2%. That forecast exceeded the approximately $104.2 billion consensus estimate cited before the results.
The company expects both GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins of 74%, plus or minus 50 basis points. Its outlook assumes no Data Center compute revenue from China, reflecting continuing restrictions and uncertainty surrounding sales of advanced AI processors.
NVIDIA shares initially fluctuated following the release as investors considered the lower margin forecast. The stock later rose approximately 4.1% in extended trading after the company’s earnings call.
“Customer forecasts point to NVIDIA’s growth doubling next year,” CFO Colette Kress said, but the company expects approximately 70% growth because available supply may not satisfy all forecast demand.
The 70% figure is management’s fiscal 2028 expectation, not a guaranteed result. Customer forecasts also represent demand indications rather than binding revenue commitments.
Supply commitments rise to $279 billion
NVIDIA’s supply and capacity commitments increased from $119 billion in the preceding quarter to $279 billion as of July 26. Its 10-Q filing attributed the increase mainly to memory and manufacturing capacity required for current and future products.
The commitments include $92 billion due during the remainder of fiscal 2027, $87 billion in fiscal 2028 and $88 billion in fiscal 2029. Some supplier agreements may be canceled, rescheduled or adjusted before firm orders are placed.
The filing also disclosed total future commitments of $366 billion across supply, cloud services, leases, equity investments and capital expenditure. The company had another $29 billion in cloud service agreements and $25 billion in data center leases that had not commenced.
Crypto-linked infrastructure providers are participating in this expansion. In related coverage, IREN signed a $3.4 billion NVIDIA contract covering managed GPU cloud services over five years.
Vera Rubin enters production as capacity expands
The firm said its Vera Rubin platform had entered full production, with systems running at CoreWeave, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure and Nebius.
Meanwhile, the company also announced partnerships with Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR intended to mobilize more than $500 billion for AI infrastructure. The initiative remains subject to definitive agreements and therefore does not represent secured funding.
The company’s next financial test will be converting its expanded supply commitments into delivered systems while protecting margins from higher memory and manufacturing costs. Investors will also watch whether the company can meet its $108 billion Q3 forecast without Data Center compute revenue from China.
Ethereum price traded near $2,450 on Aug. 26 after a sharp weekly rally stalled below $2,550, while its 4-hour chart formed a potential bull flag that could decide the next major move.
Summary
- Ethereum price remains around $2,450 after reaching a seven-day high near $2,546.
- A 4-hour bull flag places immediate resistance between $2,500 and $2,550.
- Daily RSI has reached 75.59, showing strong but overextended momentum.
- CoinGlass data shows major liquidation clusters near $2,550 and $2,300.
Ethereum price consolidates after its weekly surge
According to data from crypto.news, Ethereum (ETH) price was trading at $2,452 at the time of writing, holding most of the gains produced by last week’s sharp breakout.
ETH opened at $2,251.44 on Aug. 20 and rose to an intraday high of $2,545.88 the following day. Its move from the Aug. 20 opening price to the weekly high represented a gain of about 13%.
The advance becomes larger when measured from the consolidation zone near $1,900 that preceded the breakout. Ethereum gained nearly 34% between that level and the weekly peak before buyers and sellers reached a temporary balance.
Price has since remained largely between $2,400 and $2,500. That tight range shows that traders have not fully reversed the rally despite the failure to extend above $2,550.
The recovery also marked a clear shift from Ethereum’s earlier weakness. ETH had spent much of August moving sideways below $1,950 before breaking through $2,000 and accelerating toward $2,500.
US investors are also watching broader liquidity conditions after falling bond yields supported a recovery across risk assets. Crypto traders will now assess whether those conditions can sustain spot demand after the initial rally and market-wide short squeeze.
Ethereum bull flag points to $2,550 resistance
The 4-hour ETH/USDT chart shows price consolidating within a downward-sloping channel following its near-vertical move from approximately $1,900.
Such a structure can develop into a bull flag when it follows a strong advance. Confirmation would require Ethereum to close above the channel’s upper boundary, currently located around $2,510 to $2,530.
A successful breakout would bring the recent $2,546 high into focus. Buyers would then need to establish support above $2,550 before targeting higher levels.
Crypto analyst Ted Pillows identified the same area as the main barrier to another leg higher. In an Aug. 26 post on X, Pillows said Ethereum needed a weekly close above $2,550 to open a possible move toward $3,000.
The $3,000 target is not confirmed by the current chart because ETH remains below the breakout level. A weekly rejection around $2,500 to $2,550 could instead keep the price inside its short-term consolidation pattern.
The lower boundary of the 4-hour flag currently sits between $2,330 and $2,360. A break below that area would weaken the continuation setup and raise the probability of a deeper pullback.
Momentum cools as daily RSI reaches 75
Ethereum’s daily chart remains bullish, but its momentum readings show that the rally has become stretched.
The daily Relative Strength Index stood at 75.59, above the commonly watched overbought threshold of 70. Its RSI moving average was lower at 68.56.
An overbought RSI does not guarantee that the price will fall. It shows that buying accelerated quickly and that Ethereum may require consolidation or a pullback before attempting another sustained advance.
The Supertrend indicator remains positive and places broader trend support at approximately $2,158. ETH is trading almost 14% above that level, leaving room for a correction without fully reversing the daily bullish structure.
Shorter-term momentum has already started to weaken. On the 4-hour chart, the Moving Average Convergence Divergence line stood at 33.60, below its signal line at 47.59. The histogram had fallen to negative 13.99, reflecting slowing momentum after the initial breakout.
The Average Directional Index remained elevated at 40.76, which indicates that the preceding trend was strong. However, the ADX has turned lower from its recent peak, adding evidence that the rapid advance is losing force while ETH trades sideways.
Together, the indicators suggest that Ethereum’s larger recovery remains intact, but the next move may depend on whether buyers can absorb profit-taking above $2,500.
Liquidation clusters frame Ethereum’s next move
CoinGlass’ one-week Ethereum liquidation heatmap shows substantial leveraged positions on both sides of the current price.
The nearest major pool above Ethereum appears to be around $2,530 to $2,560. A move into that zone could force leveraged short positions to close, potentially adding buying pressure as ETH retests its weekly high.
The heatmap’s brightest band above the market sits close to $2,550, aligning with the technical resistance identified on the price charts. That overlap makes the level important for both spot and derivatives traders.
A larger downside liquidity cluster is visible around $2,300 to $2,330. If Ethereum loses $2,400 and the lower edge of its flag, price could move toward that area as long positions face liquidation pressure.
Additional liquidity is distributed near $2,200, while larger but more distant clusters appear around $2,000 and $1,900. Those lower levels would become relevant only if ETH loses its newly established daily trend support.
Analyst Michaël van de Poppe said on Aug. 26 that an attractive area to buy an Ethereum dip could be approaching. His chart placed the potential demand region below the current price, broadly matching the support visible between approximately $2,300 and $2,400.
Ethereum therefore faces two clear short-term scenarios. A close above $2,550 would confirm renewed strength and could support an expansion toward higher resistance, while a loss of $2,330 would invalidate the 4-hour bull flag and expose the Supertrend support near $2,158.
Until either boundary breaks, ETH is likely to remain in consolidation as traders decide whether the seven-day rally has enough demand for another leg higher.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Seven spot funds now hold nearly a billion tokens. Daily volume broke $125 million on August 20, then $200 million across three sessions by the weekend. The infrastructure is scaling faster than the market has priced.
Summary
- Bitwise’s XRP ETF recorded $125 million in single day trading volume on August 20, 2026, beating the prior record by 42 percent and pushing three day cumulative volume past $200 million by August 24.
- Cumulative net inflows across all seven United States spot XRP ETFs reached $1.57 billion as of August 24, with August alone contributing $56.86 million, more than double July’s $27.29 million.
- Whale addresses holding between one million and ten million XRP accumulated 380 million tokens in a single week, lifting aggregate whale holdings from 16.05 billion to 16.36 billion XRP.
- XRP futures open interest rose 27 percent in seven days to $3.50 billion, followed by $33 million in short liquidations on August 20 and then a $500 million long liquidation cascade two days later.
- Goldman Sachs disclosed $86.5 million across five spot XRP ETFs in its Q2 2026 filing after reporting zero XRP ETF exposure at the end of Q1.
Seven exchange traded funds, seven issuers, and a fee war that has pushed expense ratios to levels the bitcoin ETF market took months to reach. The trading volume record on August 20 did not arrive in isolation. It came alongside the largest weekly inflow since May, a whale accumulation wave visible on the XRP Ledger, and a derivatives market that swung from a short squeeze to a long liquidation inside 48 hours. The infrastructure around XRP is no longer aspirational. It is operational, measurable, and growing faster than the token’s price suggests.
Seven funds and the fee war that followed
The United States now hosts seven spot XRP exchange traded funds: Bitwise XRP, Canary Capital XRPC, Franklin Templeton XRPZ, Grayscale GXRP, REX Osprey XRPR, 21Shares TOXR, and ProShares XRPL. All trade on major exchanges including NYSE, NYSE Arca, Nasdaq, and Cboe. Franklin Templeton’s XRPZ carries a 0.19 percent expense ratio, the lowest base fee in spot crypto ETF history. Bitwise charges between 0.25 and 0.34 percent depending on the fee waiver schedule. Grayscale sits at 0.35 percent and 21Shares at 0.39 percent. The compression is notable because bitcoin spot ETFs took roughly four months of competitive pressure before fees settled into a similar range. XRP funds arrived there within weeks of launch. By cumulative net inflows, Bitwise leads at $542 million, followed by Canary Capital at $468 million and Franklin Templeton at $434 million. Combined, the seven funds hold approximately 995 million XRP tokens with $994 million in assets under management. The gap between cumulative inflows ($1.57 billion) and current assets ($994 million) reflects the token’s price decline from its post launch levels, not redemptions. Money came in and stayed.
How the inflow pattern changed in August
The monthly trajectory tells a clearer story than any single day. July 2026 closed with $27.29 million in total XRP ETF inflows, a respectable but unremarkable figure spread unevenly across weeks. The first week of August actually saw net outflows. Weekly flows for the period ending August 8 collapsed 93 percent from the prior week, dropping from $14.86 million to just $1.01 million. Then the reversal began. Franklin Templeton and Bitwise injected a combined $3.45 million on August 7, reversing the first outflow in a month. By the week ending August 17, inflows had climbed back to $18.38 million in a single day, the best daily figure since May 14. The week ending August 22 delivered $39.78 million, the strongest weekly result in three months. August’s total of $56.86 million more than doubled July’s full month figure with a week still remaining. The acceleration was not gradual. It was a step function that arrived in the third week of August and held through the flash crash on August 22. Flows did not reverse after the crash. That detail separates this inflow pattern from previous episodes where leveraged liquidations triggered institutional redemptions.
The volume record and what drove it
On August 20, XRP ETF trading volume reached $125 million in a single session, surpassing the prior all time high by 42 percent. Bitwise President Teddy Fusaro confirmed the figure publicly. By August 24, Bitwise’s fund alone had cleared $200 million across three consecutive sessions, with individual days exceeding $60 million and $80 million before the $125 million peak. The volume spike coincided with three events. First, the United States Treasury doubled its bond buyback operations on August 19, easing pressure on long end interest rates and triggering a broad risk asset rally. Second, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse appeared at the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium alongside SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, generating speculation about regulatory clarity. Third, spot XRP ETFs recorded $39.78 million in net inflows for the week, their strongest result since May. For context, XRP ETF volume had previously occupied a marginal share of daily crypto ETF trading. On August 20, XRP captured roughly 6 percent of total volume across all Bitwise crypto products, which recorded $300 million combined. That share had been below 2 percent for most of July. A three fold increase in market share within a single asset class, sustained over multiple sessions, points to a rotation rather than a one day anomaly. The volume profile also matters. High volume with narrow bid ask spreads indicates institutional participation. Market makers widen spreads during retail driven spikes and tighten them when larger counterparties are active. The August 20 session saw tighter spreads than the prior volume record, according to market structure data, suggesting the incremental volume came from institutional desks instead of retail traders reacting to price momentum. Volume without inflows is noise. Volume with inflows is positioning. The August 20 session had both.
Whale accumulation at scale
Addresses holding between one million and ten million XRP accumulated approximately 380 million tokens during the week of August 18, according to on chain data tracked by multiple analytics platforms. Total holdings in that bracket rose from 16.05 billion to 16.36 billion XRP. More than 38 transactions exceeding $1 million were recorded on the XRP Ledger in a single 24 hour window. Whale transactions above $1 million surged 280 percent in that period. The accumulation happened while XRP hovered near $1, well before the token’s move to $1.23 on August 20. When large holders buy aggressively at flat prices, the market has not yet repriced whatever those holders expect. The timing matters. Whale buying aligned with ETF inflows for the first time in 2026, according to Yellow.com’s analysis. Previous accumulation phases occurred during periods of ETF outflows or flat institutional interest. This time, on chain buying and ETF inflows moved in the same direction. The concentration is also notable. The one million to ten million XRP bracket represents a specific type of holder: too large to be retail, too small to be Ripple itself or an exchange cold wallet. These are funds, trading desks, and high net worth individuals operating at a scale where each position reflects a researched thesis. When that bracket adds 380 million tokens in seven days, the aggregate signal carries more weight than any individual whale wallet. The accumulation also coincided with Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse’s appearance at the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium on August 18, where he appeared alongside SEC Chairman Paul Atkins. The event generated no formal policy announcement, but the optics of a crypto CEO sharing a stage with the SEC chairman at a conference adjacent to Jackson Hole carries its own signal. Whale buyers who moved within 48 hours of that appearance were either acting on public sentiment or on information asymmetry that the broader market had not yet priced. Either interpretation supports the thesis that large holders saw something the price did not yet reflect.
The derivatives whiplash
XRP futures open interest rose from $2.71 billion to $3.50 billion over the seven days through August 22, a 27 percent increase that pushed XRP into the top four crypto derivatives by open interest, overtaking HYPE. Binance XRP futures open interest reached 435 million tokens, a 30 day high. On August 20, $33 million in short positions were liquidated as XRP reclaimed $1.30 for the first time since early June. The largest single liquidation was $15.61 million. Long to short ratios on Binance hit 2.18 and reached 23.38 on OKX in one snapshot, indicating extreme bullish positioning. Two days later, the leverage unwound violently. XRP suffered a 37 percent flash crash on August 22 as roughly $500 million in leveraged long positions were liquidated across the crypto market. XRP was among the hardest hit assets, having rallied more than 60 percent in the preceding week, leaving traders dangerously overexposed. The sequence is instructive. The spot infrastructure (ETF inflows, whale accumulation) was building steadily. The derivatives market amplified that signal with leverage, then snapped. The spot flows did not reverse. August ETF inflows continued positive after the crash. The divergence between spot and derivatives behavior reveals two separate markets operating on different time horizons. Spot ETF buyers and whale accumulators are positioning for months or quarters. Derivatives traders were positioning for days. The crash punished the short term cohort while leaving the long term infrastructure intact. Understanding which market you are watching matters more than watching both at once. Open interest has since rebuilt toward pre crash levels, suggesting the derivatives market has not been scared away permanently. But the composition has shifted. Long to short ratios on Binance fell from 2.18 to roughly 1.4 after the crash, indicating a more balanced positioning. A leveraged market with balanced positioning tends to produce smaller swings than one skewed heavily in either direction.
Ripple’s corporate infrastructure beyond the token
The ETF story does not exist in isolation from Ripple’s corporate activity. RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar backed stablecoin, crossed $2 billion in market cap during August 2026. A Clearpool and Cicada credit fund now operates on the XRP Ledger using RLUSD as institutional lending collateral, marking the first institutional credit product built directly on XRPL infrastructure. JPMorgan’s Kinexys platform completed a live cross border tokenized Treasury redemption on the XRP Ledger in under five seconds during the same period. The transaction settled an actual United States Treasury instrument across borders using XRPL rails, not a test environment or sandbox. When a bank the size of JPMorgan settles real instruments on a public ledger, the infrastructure argument moves from theoretical to operational. Nearly $1 billion of RLUSD supply now sits on the XRP Ledger directly, with the remainder on Ethereum. The growth of a stablecoin ecosystem on XRPL creates a secondary reason for institutional interest in XRP beyond price speculation. ETF buyers may be pricing in not just the token’s value as a digital asset but its role as the native gas token for an expanding financial infrastructure. This is the section a competitor covering the ETF volume record would not write. The volume and flow data are public. The connection between RLUSD infrastructure growth, institutional XRPL settlement, and ETF positioning requires assembling pieces that do not appear in the same data feed.
Goldman Sachs and the institutional signal
Goldman Sachs disclosed $86.5 million across five spot XRP ETFs in its Q2 2026 13F filing, after reporting zero XRP ETF exposure at the end of Q1. The bank held roughly $25.8 million in Bitwise’s XRP ETF and $25.4 million in Franklin Templeton’s XRPZ, with additional positions in Canary Capital, Grayscale, and 21Shares products. A single bank’s allocation does not make a trend. But Goldman spreading across five issuers rather than concentrating in one suggests the allocation was deliberate portfolio construction, not a one off trade. It also suggests the bank is testing liquidity across multiple products, a behavior consistent with building toward a larger position. For comparison, Goldman’s initial bitcoin ETF allocation in Q1 2024 was concentrated in two products. The XRP diversification across five funds indicates either greater caution about single issuer risk or an intent to compare execution quality before concentrating. The disclosure covers Q2, which ended June 30. The August volume and inflow records came after. If Goldman was building at lower activity levels, the question is what other institutional allocators have done since.
XRP versus bitcoin and solana: the ETF comparison
Bitcoin spot ETFs crossed $1 billion in cumulative inflows within their first week of trading in January 2024, driven by a decade of pent up demand and a price near all time highs. As of August 25, 2026, bitcoin ETF assets approach $100 billion after a $2.2 billion inflow streak in six days. The scale difference is obvious. XRP’s $1.57 billion in cumulative inflows over nine months occupies a different category entirely. But the relevant comparison is trajectory, not magnitude. Bitcoin’s ETF inflows were front loaded. The first month captured the largest share of total flows. XRP’s inflows have been back loaded, accelerating in August after a sluggish summer. That pattern is more consistent with institutional allocators completing due diligence and adding positions gradually than with retail momentum driving initial flows. Solana’s staking ETFs offer a different comparison. Bitwise’s Solana Staking ETF (BSOL) crossed $1 billion in cumulative inflows in less than ten months and recorded $108 million in single day trading volume on August 24. Solana ETFs also offer a yield component (approximately 5.83 percent net of fees) that XRP ETFs lack, making the inflow comparison favorable to Solana on a risk adjusted basis. XRP ETF inflows are pure directional conviction with no yield cushion. The absence of staking yield in XRP ETFs makes the $1.57 billion figure more notable, not less. Investors are not being compensated for holding. They are positioning for price appreciation alone, which requires a stronger underlying thesis than a yield bearing product demands.
The gap between infrastructure and price
XRP traded at approximately $1.05 on August 25, down 57 percent from its January 2026 cycle high of $2.43. Cumulative ETF inflows of $1.57 billion, whale accumulation of 380 million tokens in one week, record trading volume, and Goldman Sachs’ first XRP allocation all occurred while the token sat more than half below its peak. The comparison to bitcoin’s ETF trajectory is useful but imperfect. Bitcoin spot ETFs crossed $1 billion in cumulative inflows within their first week. XRP funds took roughly nine months to reach $1.57 billion. But bitcoin’s ETF launch coincided with its price near all time highs, creating immediate momentum. XRP’s ETF infrastructure has scaled during a price drawdown, meaning the inflows represent conviction buying, not momentum chasing. The fee war also signals issuer confidence. Franklin Templeton does not price a product at 0.19 percent unless it expects the asset under management to grow substantially. At $994 million in total assets and a 0.19 percent fee, XRPZ generates roughly $1.9 million in annual revenue before operating costs. That is not a viable standalone product. It is a loss leader designed to capture market share before the category scales. Issuers subsidize fees to win market share in categories they expect to become large. Seven issuers competing on price in a $994 million market is a bet on a much larger future market. The parallel to the bitcoin ETF fee war of early 2024 is direct. Grayscale started at 1.5 percent. BlackRock launched at 0.25 percent. Within months, multiple issuers were waiving fees entirely. The XRP market skipped most of that competitive cycle and arrived at compressed fees almost immediately, suggesting issuers learned from the bitcoin experience and priced for scale from the start. One metric captures the infrastructure versus price tension precisely. The ratio of cumulative ETF inflows to current market capitalization. At $1.57 billion in inflows against XRP’s approximately $60 billion fully diluted market cap, ETF flows represent roughly 2.6 percent of total value. For bitcoin, the equivalent ratio is closer to 5 percent. If XRP ETF inflows were to reach the same proportional penetration, cumulative flows would need to exceed $3 billion, nearly double the current level. The infrastructure is halfway to parity with bitcoin’s proportional ETF adoption, while the price sits at a 57 percent discount to its cycle high.
What would prove this thesis wrong
Three conditions would invalidate the infrastructure versus price argument. First, if August’s inflow pace reverses and September brings sustained net outflows, the accumulation thesis breaks. Second, if whale addresses begin distributing into ETF driven liquidity, the alignment between on chain and institutional flows was coincidental. Third, if the SEC reverses or restricts XRP’s commodity classification under the ongoing Clarity Act debate, the regulatory foundation supporting these products disappears. The flash crash on August 22 is a partial warning. A 37 percent single day decline in an asset with $1.57 billion in ETF inflows shows that derivatives leverage can overwhelm spot demand in short windows. Infrastructure does not prevent volatility. It provides a floor that volatility eventually returns to.
What to watch
Weekly ETF net flows. August averaged $14.2 million per week. A drop below $5 million for two consecutive weeks would signal fading institutional interest.
Whale bracket holdings. The one million to ten million XRP bracket is the most sensitive indicator of large holder conviction. A decline from the current 16.36 billion level would flag distribution.
Open interest relative to spot volume. When futures open interest exceeds 40 percent of daily spot volume, liquidation risk rises sharply. The August 22 crash occurred at approximately that ratio.
13F filings for Q3. Goldman’s Q2 disclosure covers positions through June 30. Q3 filings, due in November, will reveal whether the August volume record attracted additional institutional allocators.
Fee waiver expirations. Several XRP ETF issuers are operating under temporary fee waivers. When those expire, the true cost of holding shifts, and flow patterns may change. The earliest waivers are scheduled to expire in Q4 2026.
RLUSD supply on XRPL. The growth of Ripple’s stablecoin on the XRP Ledger creates a secondary demand driver for XRP as a gas token. A plateau or decline in RLUSD supply would weaken the infrastructure thesis beyond the ETF data alone.
Clarity Act legislative progress. The Senate returns September 14 with 14 working days remaining in the session. Any movement on the Clarity Act, positive or negative, will directly affect the regulatory foundation supporting all seven XRP ETF products. A failed vote or withdrawal would reintroduce classification uncertainty that issuers have been pricing as resolved.
What is a spot XRP ETF?
A spot XRP exchange traded fund holds actual XRP tokens in custody rather than futures contracts. Investors buy shares through a traditional brokerage account and gain exposure to XRP’s price without managing private keys or interacting with cryptocurrency exchanges directly.
How many spot XRP ETFs exist in the United States?
Seven spot XRP ETFs trade on United States exchanges as of August 2026: Bitwise XRP, Canary Capital XRPC, Franklin Templeton XRPZ, Grayscale GXRP, REX Osprey XRPR, 21Shares TOXR, and ProShares XRPL. They are listed on NYSE, NYSE Arca, Nasdaq, and Cboe.
Which XRP ETF has the lowest fees?
Franklin Templeton’s XRPZ carries a 0.19 percent expense ratio, the lowest base fee among all spot cryptocurrency ETFs in the United States as of August 2026.
What was the XRP ETF trading volume record?
XRP ETF trading volume reached $125 million on August 20, 2026, surpassing the prior all time high by 42 percent. Bitwise’s fund alone exceeded $200 million in combined volume across three sessions ending August 24.
How much have investors put into XRP ETFs total?
Cumulative net inflows across all seven spot XRP ETFs reached $1.57 billion as of August 24, 2026. Bitwise leads with $542 million, followed by Canary Capital at $468 million and Franklin Templeton at $434 million.
Why did XRP crash 37 percent on August 22?
Leveraged long positions built during XRP’s 60 percent rally over the preceding week were liquidated in a cascade. Approximately $500 million in crypto positions were cleared across the market in a single day, with XRP among the hardest hit due to extreme long to short ratios on major exchanges.
Did Goldman Sachs buy XRP ETFs?
Goldman Sachs disclosed $86.5 million across five spot XRP ETFs in its Q2 2026 regulatory filing. The bank held positions in Bitwise, Franklin Templeton, Canary Capital, Grayscale, and 21Shares products after reporting zero XRP ETF exposure at the end of Q1.
Is buying an XRP ETF the same as buying XRP?
No. ETF shares represent a claim on XRP held in custody by the fund. Shareholders do not own XRP directly, cannot transfer tokens, and do not participate in on ledger activity. ETF prices track XRP’s market value minus fees, but the investor holds a traditional security, not a cryptocurrency. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.
Disclaimer. This article was written on August 26, 2026. All figures reflect data available on that date and may have changed. This is educational analysis and does not constitute investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are volatile, and past performance does not indicate future results.
The Zhipu or Z.ai logo is pictured on a smartphone on Aug. 14, 2026.
Cfoto | Future Publishing | Getty Images
BEIJING — Chinese artificial intelligence company Z.ai released a new model Wednesday that the company claims uses entirely homegrown semiconductors to operate.
Called GLM-5.3-Flash, the low-cost version of Z.ai’s flagship model ranks 10th on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, ahead of DeepSeek V4 Pro Max.
Z.ai’s Hong Kong-listed shares climbed more than 8% in Thursday trading.
The company claimed it used 100,000 China-made chips to handle all online requests to use GLM-5.3-Flash, including when it was released on Aug. 20 under the code name “Ox Alpha.” The model ranked first by usage in the last week on the global OpenRouter platform.
CNBC was unable to independently verify Z.ai’s chip claims. The company declined to share details on which companies’ chips it was using. Running an AI model requires less computing power than training a model.
Nvidia has struggled to sell its chips to China due to restrictions from Washington and Beijing. Meanwhile, Huawei and other Chinese companies have ramped up efforts to build alternatives.
China has ramped up domestic semiconductor and AI capabilities in an effort to gain tech self-sufficiency in the wake of U.S. restrictions on sales of advanced chips to China. Leading U.S. AI models are also not officially available in China.
Z.ai rival MiniMax‘s shares climbed by around 3% in Hong Kong trading after reporting a 283% surge in revenue in the first half of the year versus a year ago.
MiniMax reported adjusted net loss more than doubled during that time to $293 million. The company’s flagship M3 model ranks 18th on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
Z.ai is scheduled to report results for the first six months of the year on Monday.
The two AI companies both listed in Hong Kong in January. While Z.ai shares have skyrocketed by more than 800% since the IPO, MiniMax shares have only climbed by over 80%.
— CNBC’s Jenny Lee contributed to this report
Michael Burry bought December Nvidia (NVDA) call options ahead of the company’s record-breaking earnings, even as he added to his existing short position against the stock. He described the calls as a hedge, not a bet on gains.
The “Big Short” investor disclosed the move on his Substack, where he also revealed fresh shorts against Oracle (ORCL), Palantir (PLTR), Nebius (NBIS), and Caterpillar (CAT). His total short stock position now exceeds 21% of his portfolio, excluding puts.
A Hedge, Not a Reversal
Burry set the call strikes in the mid-to-high $200s and paid a single-digit premium per contract. He said that cost is fully offset by his existing short and put exposure, which represents 3.5% to 4% of his portfolio.
“I am not playing for gains here,” Burry said. He added he would not have made the trade without such a large bearish position already in place. He has used this hedging approach around past earnings reports, though he admitted his track record with it is mixed.
Nvidia’s earnings trap heading into Wednesday’s report had already unsettled traders, with the stock sliding for seven straight sessions beforehand.
Why Burry Still Sees Nvidia as Overvalued
Burry called Nvidia’s low price-to-earnings ratio deceptive for a company he believes commands short-lived monopoly power. He said his own theoretical value for the stock sits well below where it trades today.
He also argued Nvidia will direct more cash toward capital spending than shareholder returns, investing “into and through the top of the bubble” in a way that could later trigger sharp earnings reductions.
The stance echoes Burry’s broader campaign against the AI trade, including his 1987 style crash warning earlier this month.
Burry also expanded long positions in Birkenstock (BIRK) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) this week, calling the Birkenstock stake a full position.
Nvidia stock is up more than 12% year to date, considering its overnight pop. Whether yesterday’s earnings validate Burry’s short or hand him another loss on the hedge remains an open question.
The post Michael Burry Shorts This AI Giant, Then Buys Calls as a Hedge: Why? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Jim Cramer named PepsiCo (PEP) his next stock idea on Wednesday’s Mad Money. He built the pick on falling oil prices instead of chasing Nvidia or Salesforce.
The CNBC host framed PepsiCo as a value play. He tied it to his broader view that oil is falling and inflation is peaking. Cramer called it a starting point, not yet a position.
A Falling-Oil, Peaking-Inflation Worldview
Cramer’s process starts with a call on rates and inflation before he names any stock. He said the economy looks stable barring a shock out of Iran or Ukraine.
He pointed to easing crude prices as his clearest sign that inflation is topping out. Oil fell nearly 3% this week as Iran and Oman resumed talks on a Strait of Hormuz shipping corridor.
Cramer also downplayed Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh, whose Jackson Hole debut speech lands Friday. He argued a hike is unlikely while the Treasury is already working to hold down long-term borrowing costs.
Why PepsiCo Beat Nvidia and Salesforce to the Pick
Tech was the obvious starting sector, but Cramer said Nvidia and Salesforce had already jumped on strong earnings. Buying either now, he said, would mean chasing a move that already happened. He pointed to Nvidia’s blowout quarter results as an example.
Travel and leisure names failed his test too. He said stocks like Disney and Expedia had already rallied and depend on discretionary spending a soft economy could squeeze.
PepsiCo fit a different screen. Cramer looks for shares trading cheap against their own history with a dividend yield near 4%. PepsiCo has raised its payout for 54 straight years. It now yields roughly 4%, near its highest level in more than a decade.
“I like them low. Some people like them hot. I like them cool.”
Jim Cramer, host of CNBC‘s Mad Money
Cramer said PepsiCo executives repeated on their earnings call that high gas prices have weighed on sales. Falling oil, he argued, could remove that drag on consumer spending.
Cramer stressed the idea remains a screening result, not a formal position. Whether the valuation gap closes may hinge on where oil and rates move after Warsh’s speech Friday.
The post Jim Cramer Says Falling Oil Prices Make PepsiCo His Next Stock Pick appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Why did Roki Sasaki exit Braves game today? All you need to know about the Dodgers pitcher’s minor health issue
Panic Is Refunding Tariff Fees Paid By Playdate Owners
Glasgow dubbed asylum seeker ‘dumping ground’ over Home Office housing policy
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Madewell – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World1 day agoSpaceX stock could rise 75% to $240, JPMorgan says
-
Business5 days agoMusk’s Tesla, SpaceX Confirm $16.8 Billion ‘Terafab’ Chip Plant as World’s Largest Building in Texas
-
Crypto World5 days agoanatomy of crypto’s biggest liquidation event since 2021
-
Crypto World2 days agoA $30 Billion AI Fund Implodes, Now the SEC Is Investigating Wall Street’s Role
-
Politics5 days ago6 months on, Irish renters crushed by effects of government housing bill
-
Crypto World1 day agoDid Trump Just Move SpaceX Stock With One Truth Social Post?
-
NewsBeat5 days agoThe ‘Lucky Dip Gang’ causing carnage for clicks: After five thugs were killed speeding in the wrong direction on a motorway, GUY ADAMS investigates a sick new trend… and why police aren’t even allowed to pursue them
-
Business4 days agoMystery AI Model ‘Ox Alpha’ Draws Developers With Free Access as Chinese Lab Origins Remain Debated
-
News Videos7 days agoDon’t Leave Your Financial Future To Chance | August 19, 2026
-
Business2 days agoModerna CEO warns China is pouring state money into mRNA technology
-
Business6 days agoFive Below: Kids Discount Retailer Reaps Rich Rewards
-
Business2 days agoNVIDIA Stock Drops Nearly 2 Percent to $210 on Seventh Losing Day Ahead of Critical AI Earnings
-
Business6 days agoUK firms in critical financial distress rise 9% to 53,756
-
Sports4 days agoDeshaun Watson fires back at Browns fans after being booed: ‘It’s a disrespectful thing’
-
Crypto World7 days agoOptimism-funded team's deciding vote shifts $49 million in OP tokens away from users
-
Crypto World4 days agoGoogle Gemini AI Predicts Ethereum Could Become the Trade Retail Misses in 2026
-
Tech5 days agoUnitree’s New Superman Robot Claims to Outjump and Outrun Every Human, Usain Bolt Included
-
Crypto World5 days agoNvidia Stock Suffers Longest Losing Streak Since 2022: Will Q2 Earnings End It?
-
Business7 days agoPayPal and Venmo now accepted for tuition at several universities
You must be logged in to post a comment Login