DefiLlama and Forgd have introduced an AAA-to-CCC rating system covering 128 of 149 listed tokens, with Uniswap currently holding the dashboard’s only AAA grade at a composite score of 60.80.

DefiLlama’s live Universal Token Rating dashboard places Uniswap first with disclosure and performance scores of 7.87 and 7.72, respectively. Meteora follows with an AA grade and a composite score of 58.48, while Curve DAO ranks third at 53.32.

Developed with token advisory platform Forgd, the system grades assets by combining what a project discloses with what trading data shows. Its disclosure assessment covers areas such as tokenomics, insider wallets and commercial arrangements, while the performance side examines liquidity, spreads, venue coverage and market-maker conduct.

DefiLlama Head of Research Ryan Celaj told crypto.news that both components are required because averaging them could allow strength in one area to conceal serious problems in another.

“We’re multiplying a project’s disclosure and performance scores deliberately, because they are both necessary conditions for credibility. And ‘necessary’ is the key word. It’s not that performance and disclosures both factor in. They’re required.”

Under the formula, a project with a disclosure score of 10 and a performance score of 2 receives a composite score of 20. Celaj said an average would give the same project a much less critical score despite its weak market performance.

DefiLlama token grades require strength on both axes

The two scores range from zero to 10 and are multiplied to produce a result out of 100. AAA begins at 60, meaning a token cannot reach the top category if either component falls below six, even with a perfect score on the other axis.

AA starts at 40, with narrower bands separating A, BBB, BB, and B as weaknesses increase. Celaj said the thresholds make the highest grades difficult to obtain while creating distinctions among assets further down the table.

Although the letters resemble grades used in conventional finance, Celaj said they do not estimate default probabilities and should not be treated as equivalents to ratings issued by a traditional credit-rating agency. The format was selected because institutional traders already understand the AAA-to-CCC scale.

The approach also links stated policies to observable results. A project may publish detailed market-making terms or token-distribution plans, but the performance score tests whether liquidity, trading activity and wallet behavior match those claims.

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams drew attention to the results after UNI received the only AAA grade. Referring to the ranking in an Aug. 27 X post, Adams called it “the result of a neutral, unbiased ratings system” and referred to past criticism of Uniswap as “crypto Twitter psyops and fud.”

Pineapple Financial has onboarded more than $1 billion in residential mortgage records to Injective, marking a significant step in its plan to migrate a long-running mortgage portfolio onto a public blockchain network. Injective said Friday that Pineapple aims to bring more than 29,000 funded mortgages—worth over $10 billion—onto the platform over time.

Unlike many tokenization models that package loans into new securities, Pineapple’s approach centers on moving existing loan documentation into onchain “records.” Each mortgage is represented by an onchain entry linked to the underlying loan file, rather than being repackaged as a separate mortgage security.

Key takeaways

• Pineapple has migrated over $1 billion in residential mortgage records to Injective, per Injective.
• Injective says Pineapple intends to move 29,000+ funded mortgages worth $10 billion+ in total.
• Onchain mortgage records are built around 500+ loan-related data points, designed to support verification, audit trails, and risk analysis.
• PAPL0, which tracks the mortgage records on Injective, shows an asset market cap of about $1.1 billion (Token Terminal data).
• The mortgage record tokens are described as representing records, not direct ownership of the underlying loans.

How Pineapple is putting mortgages onchain

Injective framed Pineapple’s migration as part of a broader effort to move a historical loan portfolio onchain. The company said each migrated mortgage corresponds to an onchain record tied to the underlying loan file, with the structure intended to preserve the relationship between onchain data and the original loan documentation.

Injective also highlighted the data depth of the system: the records reportedly include more than 500 data points spanning loan-level information. In practical terms, that level of detail can be useful for building auditability and enabling risk analysis directly around the referenced mortgage file—capabilities that would be harder to achieve if only minimal metadata were stored onchain.

As of the latest update, Pineapple’s dashboard shows the program includes 2,079 mortgage records, compared with 1,259 when the migration initiative began in December 2025. That jump underscores that the project is not limited to a pilot dataset, but is expanding into larger portions of the mortgage book.

PAPL0 growth and what the token actually represents

On Injective, Pineapple’s onchain mortgage record tracking is associated with PAPL0. According to Token Terminal data, PAPL0 has an asset market cap of roughly $1.1 billion, up 48.2% over the past nine months.

Token Terminal’s project page describes PAPL0 as a vehicle tied to mortgage records on Injective. Importantly, the token is presented as representing the mortgage records themselves—not ownership of the underlying loans. That distinction matters for investors and counterparties evaluating what economic exposure they’re actually getting: record ownership and tokenized loan exposure are not always the same thing in real-world asset (RWA) designs.

Injective and Pineapple: beyond the migration

The mortgage records migration also sits within a broader relationship between Pineapple and Injective. Injective said the partnership includes a separate $100 million Injective (INJ) digital asset treasury. Within that arrangement, Pineapple reportedly stakes INJ from the treasury, and Kraken serves as a primary validator for the holdings.

That setup highlights a common challenge in onchain finance: moving RWAs is not only about tokenizing assets, but also about operational infrastructure such as staking, validation, and the ongoing management of blockchain-based holdings that support the tokenized system.

Real estate tokenization is widening—but remains niche

Mortgage record tokenization is part of a broader push to bring traditionally illiquid real estate and related investment interests onto blockchain networks. The central promise remains similar across projects: tokenization can make it easier to divide interests, transfer them, and provide more transparent access to certain asset-related information.

Recent coverage across the sector points to momentum in other formats as well. In June, Apex Group joined Goldman Sachs, Archax, and LRC Group on a tokenized real estate fund where shares are issued as digital tokens through Goldman Sachs’ Digital Asset Platform. In Dubai, tokenization efforts have also expanded: the Dubai Land Department launched a second phase of a pilot after about $5 million in property had been tokenized, with transactions recorded on the XRP Ledger, according to earlier reporting.

Still, the scale of tokenized real estate remains small compared with the overall RWA market. RWA.xyz data referenced in the article estimates tokenized real estate at about $226.5 million in distributed value, up 11.7% over the past 30 days, versus roughly $38.8 billion across tokenized RWAs tracked by RWA.xyz.

For market participants, this imbalance suggests a key tension in the RWA narrative: while real estate continues to attract serious experimentation, adoption and capital allocation across the broader tokenized assets space are happening faster elsewhere.

Going forward, the key question for readers is whether Pineapple’s approach—using rich loan-level records tied to underlying files, rather than repackaging mortgages into new securities—can sustain scaling beyond early migration milestones. The pace of record onboarding (2,079 currently, versus 1,259 at launch in December 2025) will likely be a close signal to watch as the project progresses toward its stated goal of 29,000+ funded mortgages.

Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor has defended Americans’ ability to advocate for Bitcoin without a license, while separating public recommendations from fraud and market manipulation.

According to a Sept. 4 X post, Saylor argued that discussing Bitcoin, advocating for its adoption, and recommending ownership are permitted activities in the United States.

Michael Saylor separates Bitcoin advocacy from fraud

“In America, you don’t need a license to discuss Bitcoin, advocate for it, or publicly recommend owning it,” Saylor wrote.

The Strategy chairman then drew a line between promoting the asset and engaging in illegal trading practices.

“Bitcoin is a commodity, not a security. Fraud and manipulation are illegal,” he added.

Saylor did not point to a specific enforcement case, regulatory proposal, or dispute in his post. Instead, his statement presented public Bitcoin advocacy as separate from conduct that can trigger action under existing fraud and market-manipulation laws.

His description of Bitcoin as a commodity also follows the position long taken by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The agency has asserted authority over fraud and manipulation involving Bitcoin in interstate commerce, while its direct regulatory powers are more extensive in derivatives markets.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has separately allowed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products to trade on U.S. exchanges. Approval of those products gave American investors access to Bitcoin exposure through regulated brokerage accounts, although the SEC has said approving an exchange-traded product does not amount to endorsing its underlying asset.

Saylor’s statement concerns public discussion rather than the legal duties that may apply when a person sells securities, manages money, provides personalized investment advice or makes misleading claims. His post did not claim that free speech protections exempt fraud, manipulation, or other prohibited conduct.

Public promotion can also carry disclosure duties in certain circumstances. The SEC has previously brought cases against celebrities who promoted tokens treated as securities without revealing compensation, but Saylor’s post dealt specifically with Bitcoin, which he described as a commodity.

Bitcoin classification remains part of the CLARITY Act debate

In Washington, lawmakers are still considering legislation that would define how the SEC and CFTC divide responsibility for digital assets.

The Senate is scheduled to hold an upcoming procedural vote on the CLARITY Act at 2:15 p.m. ET on Sept. 15. The motion to proceed requires support from at least 60 senators and would open the bill to debate and amendments rather than send it directly to the president.

Republicans hold 53 Senate seats, leaving the measure dependent on Democratic support even if every Republican votes to advance it. Internal Republican objections could increase the number of opposition votes needed, according to recent reporting on the negotiations.

Under the proposed framework, digital commodities would generally fall under the CFTC’s spot-market authority, while assets offered as investment contracts would remain within the SEC’s securities jurisdiction. Registered digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers would also face federal operating and compliance requirements.

Bitcoin is the clearest asset expected to fall within the commodity category. Saylor’s classification claim therefore aligns with a central part of the policy framework, although his brief post did not mention the CLARITY Act or call for any specific language in the bill.

Lawmakers continue to negotiate ethics provisions, stablecoin rewards, and protections for developers who do not control customer assets. Supporters say a federal statute would replace regulatory uncertainty with written divisions of authority, while critics have raised questions about consumer protection, illicit finance and the reach of exemptions for decentralized software.

Sheriffs withdraw opposition before the Senate vote

The National Sheriffs’ Association has changed its position on the CLARITY Act from opposition to neutral, removing one source of resistance less than two weeks before the scheduled vote.

As crypto.news reported on Sept. 4, NSA President Sheriff Troy Wellman and Executive Director Justin Smith disclosed the new position in a Sept. 3 letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

The organization previously objected to protections for noncontrolling developers and software providers, arguing that parts of the legislation could hinder investigations into illicit activity conducted through decentralized finance systems. Its neutral position allows Congress to continue working on the bill without formal opposition from the group, but it does not amount to an endorsement.

Senator Cynthia Lummis welcomed the decision in a post on X and urged the Senate to advance the measure. Lummis has argued that the legislation would give law enforcement more resources to pursue crypto-related crime while imposing anti-money laundering duties on covered intermediaries.

Section 10604 of the Senate text would prevent a developer from being treated as a money-transmitting business solely for creating certain software or infrastructure, provided that the developer lacks the legal right and unilateral ability to control users’ transactions.

Supporters of the provision say existing laws against money laundering, wire fraud, sanctions violations, and terrorist financing would remain in effect. Several law-enforcement organizations have supported the bill or adopted neutral positions, while other groups have sought narrower protections and more authority for investigators.

Even if the Senate clears the Sept. 15 motion, senators would still have to debate amendments and vote on final passage. Any changes to the House-approved text would also require action by the House before the legislation could reach the president.

Strategy resumes Bitcoin purchases with 4,603 BTC

Alongside Saylor’s public advocacy, Strategy has returned to the Bitcoin market after going roughly 10 weeks without a net purchase.

An Aug. 31 filing with the SEC showed that Strategy bought 4,603 BTC between Aug. 24 and Aug. 30. The company spent about $369.7 million at an average price of $80,318 per Bitcoin, including fees and expenses.

The acquisition raised Strategy’s holdings from 840,447 BTC to 845,050 BTC. According to the filing, the company paid an aggregate $63.73 billion for the position, producing an average purchase price of $75,412 per coin.

Strategy financed the latest acquisition through sales of its MSTR common stock, which generated approximately $602.8 million in net proceeds during the reporting period. The company also spent $151.8 million repurchasing STRC preferred shares and increased its unrestricted U.S. dollar reserve by $30 million.

Chief Executive Phong Le later said the company evaluates Bitcoin transactions according to its cost of capital rather than the cryptocurrency’s price alone. Explaining Strategy’s capital-cost approach, Le said financing conditions can make a purchase at $80,000 appropriate even after sales closer to $60,000.

MSTR traded at $142.80 late on Sept. 4, down about 1.5% from its previous close. The U.S.-listed stock moved between an intraday low of $135.41 and a high of $144.39, with approximately 26.3 million shares changing hands.

Robinhood has rejected AMC Entertainment’s demand to halt an AMC-linked token, turning a dispute over one of its 189 stock products into a test of how US rules may treat third-party tokenized equities.

Robinhood chief legal officer Dan Gallagher refused AMC CEO Adam Aron’s demand to stop trading tokens tied to the company’s stock, writing on X that the brokerage would not “DECIST” before telling AMC to “send your lawyers.”

Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev backed Gallagher’s response minutes later, saying the company stood behind its Stock Tokens. The statements escalated a public disagreement that began when Aron said AMC had neither approved nor participated in the product.

Robinhood-AMC clash moves from objection to legal threat

Aron initially accused Robinhood of marketing a security connected to AMC without the company’s authorization. As crypto.news reported earlier, the theater executive described the product as “contemptible” and said outside securities counsel would examine the matter.

After Tenev asked him to explain his concerns, Aron argued that Robinhood had created a synthetic market through a unit based in Jersey, outside the United States. According to the AMC chief, stock-token buyers do not receive the voting, ownership, or other rights held by ordinary shareholders.

Aron also claimed that a separate market-tracking AMC could interfere with the company’s control over its capital-raising activity. He called on Robinhood to “cease and desist” voluntarily and said AMC would consider asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to review the arrangement.

No lawsuit or SEC enforcement action against Robinhood’s AMC product had been announced at the time of publication. Aron’s statements therefore remain allegations rather than findings that Robinhood violated US securities laws.

Gallagher, who served as an SEC commissioner between 2011 and 2015, rejected the demand without giving a detailed legal response. Tenev later reposted Gallagher’s message and reiterated Robinhood’s support for the product.

Robinhood stock tokens provide exposure without AMC ownership

Robinhood’s documents describe the assets as tokenized debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited, rather than shares issued by the companies they track.

According to the company’s Stock Token documentation, each ERC-20 token corresponds to a particular stock or exchange-traded fund and uses a Chainlink data feed to publish its reference price onchain. Robinhood says the tokens are backed one-for-one by underlying shares held with a licensed custodian.

Ownership of a token, however, does not give its holder legal or beneficial rights against AMC or any other referenced company. Token holders cannot vote as AMC shareholders, and their claims depend on their contractual relationship with the Jersey issuer.

Robinhood says investors can sell the tokens in secondary markets or redeem them with the issuer after completing identity and anti-money laundering checks. If the issuer becomes insolvent, the company says an independent security agent would sell the underlying shares and arrange cash payments to eligible token holders.

Corporate actions also follow a different process from conventional share ownership. Robinhood manages dividends and stock splits through an onchain multiplier that adjusts the number of shares represented by each token without changing the holder’s raw token balance.

The company’s July 2026 quarterly filing states that approvals obtained in Jersey do not amount to regulatory endorsement or prudential supervision. Liechtenstein’s Financial Market Authority approved the base prospectus for completeness, consistency and ease of understanding under the EU Prospectus Regulation, but Robinhood’s filing says the decision should not be treated as an endorsement of the issuer or its products.

Stock Tokens have not been registered under the US Securities Act and cannot be offered, sold or delivered in the United States or to US persons. Restrictions also apply in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland, according to Robinhood.

For American investors, the restrictions mean an AMC token cannot currently serve as an alternative to buying AMC shares through a US broker. Robinhood nevertheless acknowledged in its filing that the product could expose the company to regulatory, litigation, contractual, operational, and reputational risks.

RedStone sees consent and registration as the dividing line

Marcin Kaźmierczak, co-founder of blockchain oracle provider RedStone, told crypto.news that AMC’s objection concerns how Robinhood structured and issued the asset, rather than the use of blockchain technology.

“This dispute is not a tokenization problem. Robinhood wrapped a public company’s shares into an offshore, unregistered derivative without notifying the company, so this reaction was predictable. It’s a consent and registration issue.”

Kaźmierczak said the products most likely to survive regulatory review would involve the referenced company and comply with securities requirements from launch. In his view, an issuer-backed instrument has a stronger path than a synthetic product designed to operate outside US securities registration.

“Expect this fight to speed up the push for an actual U.S. framework rather than slow tokenization down.”

His comments describe an expected policy effect and do not establish that public companies presently have a legal right to approve every third-party derivative that references their shares. The legality of Robinhood’s structure would depend on the applicable securities, derivatives, disclosure, and marketing rules, as well as the jurisdictions in which the product is offered.

RWA.xyz data placed the value of distributed tokenized stocks at approximately $2.91 billion on Sept. 4, up 17.5% over 30 days. The tracker listed 5,245 products and put Robinhood sixth among tracked platforms, with 189 assets carrying a combined value of about $103.2 million.

US rules distinguish ownership from synthetic exposure

The SEC’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets drew a formal distinction between issuer-sponsored and third-party tokenized securities in a January staff statement.

Under an issuer-sponsored model, a company or its agent can record the security directly on a blockchain or use a token to initiate changes in an offchain shareholder register. A third party can also tokenize another company’s security, but the SEC staff said the resulting product may not provide an ownership interest or contractual claim against the original issuer.

Third-party structures can expose buyers to risks connected to the token provider, including its possible bankruptcy, which a direct holder of the underlying stock may not face, according to the SEC statement.

In February, the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee recommended mandatory disclosures that explain token holders’ ownership rights. The committee also called for SEC, state, or Financial Industry Regulatory Authority oversight of intermediaries and trading protections designed to give investors the best available execution terms.

Two securities transfer groups later pressed for issuer-backed products while asking the SEC to limit relief for unaffiliated tokens. Continental Stock Transfer & Trust and the Securities Transfer Association argued that third-party products could confuse investors about custody, dividends, voting, insolvency claims, and the identity of the legal shareholder.

The SEC has separately been preparing a limited route for tokenized stocks that could allow selected platforms to test continuous trading under defined conditions. No final eligibility rules or implementation date have been announced, and existing federal securities requirements remain in force.

Nasdaq received SEC approval for a pilot in March covering eligible Russell 1000 securities and major index-linked ETFs. Under the approved structure, participants can select traditional or tokenized settlement while receiving the same rights and pricing attached to the underlying securities.

The US jobs report landed hotter than many economists expected in August, and the immediate ripple was felt across risk assets—including Bitcoin. According to figures released on Friday, the US economy added 162,000 nonfarm payroll jobs, roughly three times the consensus estimate of about 56,000. Bitcoin initially slid from around $81,300 to local lows near $78,600 before recovering to about $79,500 by the time of writing.

The stronger labor market also injected fresh volatility into expectations for the next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decision on Sept. 15–16. With the Fed’s path still being debated, traders appeared to reprice the odds of a pause versus a rate hike after the payroll release, even as parts of the political debate around interest rates intensified.

Key takeaways

• US nonfarm payrolls rose to 162,000 in August—well above the ~56,000 economist consensus.
• Bitcoin reacted with a selloff from $81,300 to $78,600, then rebounded to roughly $79,500.
• Polymarket’s implied probabilities for the Sept. 16 FOMC rate decision swung back toward a 50/50 split after the data.
• A Blake2b-based Bitcoin fork (continuation of the BIP-110 chain) recorded early spot activity, with coins trading on Neoxa around $350 versus USDC.

Hotter payrolls shift FOMC expectations again

Labor market strength tends to matter for central-bank policy because it can influence whether inflation pressures persist and how quickly—if at all—the Fed can comfortably ease rates. This latest set of numbers landed decisively above forecast, and traders reacted in real time.

Earlier in the week, sentiment around the upcoming FOMC meeting had already been unstable. In particular, Fed Governor Christopher Waller signaled on Thursday that he would favor a pause pending upcoming inflation data. That comment helped move market-implied odds: Polymarket reportedly shifted probabilities to 60% for a pause and 40% for a 25 basis-point rate hike.

Friday’s labor data changed the picture. After the payrolls beat expectations, implied probabilities returned to a roughly even split, with Polymarket showing a 50/50 division between the pause and a 25 basis-point hike.

Beyond the markets, political pressure on the Fed’s policy direction also became part of the narrative. US President Donald Trump used Truth Social to demand further rate cuts, arguing that high interest rates put the US at a disadvantage and saying he would not allow it. The post also framed the debate as a change in stance from previous leadership—after Trump had criticized former Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting rates, though he waited until Friday to make a similar demand aimed at the then-newer Fed leadership context.

Why Bitcoin sold off after a jobs beat

Bitcoin’s drop immediately after the payroll release followed a pattern investors have seen in many rate-sensitive environments: stronger economic prints can increase expectations that borrowing costs will remain higher for longer. That can translate into tighter financial conditions and reduced appetite for high-volatility assets.

In this case, the chart response was clear. Bitcoin moved off roughly $81,300 to local lows around $78,600 following the data, then partially recovered to about $79,500. While that rebound suggests traders were not fully committed to a sustained risk-off trajectory, the initial selloff highlights how quickly macro data can overpower other narratives when the policy path feels uncertain.

With the next FOMC meeting approaching, this jobs report adds another data point traders can use to calibrate their view of the Fed’s reaction function. What remains uncertain is not only the direction of policy, but also whether committee members ultimately align behind a single approach—especially as forward guidance has been viewed by many traders as less anchored than it was during prior eras of clearer signaling.

Blake2b Bitcoin fork finds its first thin liquidity

Separate from the macro-driven market moves, a technical development inside the “Bitcoin fork” ecosystem drew attention. After the BIP-110 soft fork activated on Aug. 7, the network temporarily split between a chain enforcing BIP-110 rules and another chain continuing under the previous ruleset.

Supporters of BIP-110 argued the branch struggled because miners did not allocate enough computational power to continue extending it. In response, they have pointed to this outcome as evidence—at least in their view—of how concentrated influence can be within the mining layer. Their criticism centers on the fact that only a small number of mining pools control the majority of Bitcoin’s hashrate, meaning the same entities can strongly affect which chain progresses and which transactions make it into blocks.

From there, a subset of BIP-110 supporters pursued a different approach. Led by LukeDashjr, they continued the BIP-110 chain while changing the proof-of-work algorithm to Blake2b, aiming—according to the proponents’ rationale—to make it easier for a different set of miners to participate using DATUM gateway technology. The relevant hard fork was initiated on Aug. 30.

A key practical implication is that holders of SHA-256 Bitcoin balances were mapped 1:1 into the Blake2b version: every address holding SHA-256 Bitcoin before Aug. 7 (and possibly after) is reported to hold an equivalent amount on the Blake2b chain.

At the moment, liquidity is still limited. The only exchange listing Blake2b Bitcoin is Neoxa. Even so, early trading is visible: Blake2b coins are trading at about $350 against USDC, with an approximately 1.1% spread, based on Neoxa’s order book for the pair BTCB2/USDC.

What to watch next: macro volatility and fork liquidity

Going forward, the immediate driver of Bitcoin’s near-term mood is likely to remain macro—especially around the Fed meeting on Sept. 15–16, where fresh labor and inflation data can still reweight the market’s odds. At the same time, the Blake2b fork story is a separate but related reminder that “Bitcoin ecosystem” developments are increasingly moving in parallel paths—where token availability on exchanges and liquidity depth may determine whether these narratives can move beyond niche trading.

The tokenized real-world asset market has reached $34.6 billion onchain, but only $3.79 billion has been deployed in protocols, leaving about 89% of issued value idle.

DefiLlama data shows a sharp difference between the value of tokenized assets issued onchain and the amount being used inside decentralized finance protocols.

BlackRock’s BUIDL has a utilization rate of 0.64%, while Franklin Templeton’s BENJI stands at 0% and Circle’s USYC at 0.52%, according to the platform. Each product gives holders exposure to yield-bearing assets, but little of their issued value has moved into the protocols covered by DefiLlama’s utilization measure.

Products created for use as collateral show a different pattern. Centrifuge’s tokenized Janus Henderson Anemoy AAA CLO Fund, known as JAAA, has reached 97.97% utilization, while Re Protocol’s reUSD stands at 97.87% and Maple Finance’s SyrupUSDT at 88.84%.

Artem Tolkachev, chief RWA officer at Falcon Finance, told crypto.news that the gap cannot be understood from one utilization figure alone. In his view, analysts must first examine what the asset was created to do and then identify where holders are using it.

“Low utilization is weak utility when a product was built and priced to be borrowed against and stays flat after launch,” Tolkachev said.

“An underlying fund that is held for yield and redeems on time is doing its job at zero utilization.”

Tokenized RWA utilization requires more than one measure

Tolkachev separates utilization into two levels. At the asset level, he examines redemption speed, the party responsible for honoring redemptions, the stability of the yield, and the losses holders could face after a default.

At the use level, he looks at whether an asset is being held for yield, posted as collateral at a centralized exchange, or supplied to a DeFi protocol. Each route carries different terms and risks, he said, making protocol utilization an incomplete measure of total demand.

Assets held by custodians or supplied as margin at derivatives venues may perform an economic function without appearing in DeFi utilization data. Money market funds, for example, are commonly purchased as cash-management products rather than assets that must circulate through lending pools.

Wrappers designed specifically for DeFi require a different test, according to Tolkachev. If their main purpose is to support borrowing or other onchain activity, a low utilization rate after launch can point to weak adoption.

A similar gap has appeared at the network level. An August report found that Stellar’s RWA market had grown from about $785 million in January to more than $3 billion in July, while RWA-enabled pools on its Blend lending protocol held only slightly more than $2 million.

RedStone attributed part of the gap to the difficulty of pricing traditional assets around the clock. U.S. Treasuries, money market funds and corporate credit do not produce continuous market prices in the same way as Bitcoin or Ether, leaving lending protocols to manage stale valuations when the underlying markets are closed.

Falcon applies five tests before accepting RWA collateral

Before Falcon accepts assets such as JAAA, the JTRSY Treasury fund, or tokenized Mexican CETES, Tolkachev said its underwriting process focuses on two outcomes: how quickly the protocol can turn seized collateral into cash and how much value it could recover under stressed conditions.

The first test covers the token holder’s legal claim. Falcon examines whether the token provides a perfected claim on assets held through a bankruptcy-remote structure or merely an unsecured promise from the issuer. The review also considers what would happen to holders if the issuer failed.

Redemption terms form the second test. Some tokenized money market funds can redeem directly into a stablecoin onchain, while liquidity facilities may buy fund shares at net asset value onto their own balance sheets. Other products depend on the issuer and the timetable written into the fund documents.

“We read the documents, not the deck,” Tolkachev said. “A collateral asset you cannot exit in stress is not collateral.”

Falcon then examines secondary-market liquidity to determine whether another buyer exists or whether redemption is the only exit. A limited secondary market can slow a liquidation or force the protocol to accept a lower price when it needs to close a position.

The fourth test covers the price feed, including how the asset is valued and whether the data can resist manipulation when its underlying market is closed. Credit quality completes the review through an assessment of ratings, duration, issuer exposure, and portfolio concentration.

Falcon classifies JAAA as exposure to AAA-rated collateralized loan obligations, while JTRSY holds short-term U.S. government debt and CETES represents short-dated Mexican sovereign bills. The protocol has added JAAA and JTRSY as accepted collateral and separately integrated tokenized Mexican bills.

“If any one of those five legs fails, it does not become collateral, however attractive the yield,” Tolkachev said.

Closed markets increase liquidation risk for tokenized RWAs

DeFi loans run continuously, but the securities behind many RWA tokens trade during limited hours. Tolkachev said Falcon sets collateral factors by measuring price volatility, the time needed to sell the asset, and the period during which the protocol could be unable to transact or obtain a fresh valuation.

Structured credit and non-U.S. sovereign bills may not trade overnight or during weekends. A borrower can still approach a liquidation threshold during that period, leaving the protocol with collateral it cannot immediately sell.

To account for the mismatch, Falcon applies larger haircuts when an underlying market has long closures or limited secondary liquidity. Its liquidation thresholds also include a buffer for periods when the asset cannot be traded, while its pricing process may hold or discount a stale valuation instead of relying on a thin off-hours trade.

Weekend news creates another risk because the credit or sovereign asset may reopen at a different price. Tolkachev said Falcon adds a cushion for such gaps and sizes borrowing capacity according to what the protocol could liquidate during the asset’s most difficult trading window, rather than using its full face value.

The issue has direct relevance for tokenized U.S. Treasuries and funds holding American government securities. Although their blockchain tokens can move at any hour, reliable prices and access to the underlying Treasury market still depend on traditional trading, settlement, and redemption systems.

A June guide to RWA tokenization noted that putting an asset onchain does not alter its legal character. Token holders still depend on fund structures, custodians, transfer restrictions, and the laws governing the underlying claim.

RWA underwriting capacity remains concentrated

Few DeFi protocols accept structured credit or sovereign debt as collateral because the review requires legal, credit, and operational expertise, according to Tolkachev. Most lending protocols were built to list liquid crypto tokens with continuous exchange prices, a model that does not cover fund documents, bankruptcy claims, or issuer-managed redemptions.

Underwriting also requires protocols to create liquidation procedures for assets whose markets may be closed when a loan becomes undercollateralized. Since much of that work is specific to each product, Tolkachev said it cannot be fully automated.

Capacity has consequently gathered at a small number of venues able to complete such reviews. Pools that accept assets built for collateral use can fill quickly, even as much larger tokenized funds remain outside lending and borrowing markets.

Centrifuge offers one example of demand concentrating around an asset with a defined use. In August 2025, its total value locked crossed $1.1 billion, supported by more than $653 million in JAAA and over $392 million in its tokenized Treasury fund. At the time, JAAA was available to non-U.S. professional investors with a minimum investment of $500,000.

Tolkachev said expanding underwriting capacity would require common standards covering the legal rights attached to RWA tokens and the process for redeeming them. He also called for reliable price feeds for assets with closed-market hours and detailed disclosures covering portfolio composition, issuer exposure and concentration.

Key points:

• The US economy added 162,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in August, nearly triple economists’ consensus estimate of 56,000.
• Bitcoin sold off from $81,300 to local lows of $78,600 following the data, before recovering to $79,500.
• A rival Bitcoin fork using the Blake2b algorithm saw its first trading activity, with coins changing hands at $350 on exchange Neoxa.

Labor market beats expectations threefold

According to data released on Friday, the US economy added 162,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in August, significantly outperforming economists’ consensus expectations of roughly 56,000 jobs. In response to the announcement, Bitcoin (BTC) sold off from $81,300 to local lows of $78,600. At the time of writing it stands at $79,500. 

Recent economic data carries added weight, given how divided rate outlooks remain ahead of the next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on Sept. 15-16. Under previous Federal Reserve chairs, expectations ahead of the FOMC were mostly well-anchored. However, the lack of forward guidance from Chair Kevin Warsh, along with potential dissenters in the committee, has resulted in added uncertainty. 

After Fed Governor Christopher Waller said on Thursday that he would favor a rate pause pending upcoming inflation data, Polymarket probabilities swung to 60% in favor of a pause and 40% for a 25 basis-point interest rate hike. Friday’s labor market data however, drove the implied probabilities back to a 50/50 split.

Implied Probabilities for the Sep. 16 FOMC rate decision. Source: Polymarket

In response to the strong labor market data, US President Donald Trump leveled new rate-cut demands. “The Fed Board, with its great new leader, must get smart – BE PATRIOTS for a change,” he stated in a Truth Social post and continued: “High interest rates put the U.S.A. at a very unfair disadvantage, ⁠and I won’t allow that to happen!”

Trump had frequently criticized former Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting rates, but had held back from making similar statements toward Warsh until Friday. 

Blake2b version of Bitcoin attracts first liquidity

When the BIP-110 soft fork activated on Aug. 7, the Bitcoin network briefly split into two competing chains: one enforcing BIP-110’s new rules and another continuing under the existing rules. The BIP-110 side largely stalled because miners did not devote enough computing power to extending that chain.

BIP-110 supporters viewed miners’ refusal to follow the user-activated soft fork (UASF) as evidence that Bitcoin’s mining layer has become too centralized. That criticism was sharpened by the absence of an organized counter-effort from the Bitcoin Core side, such as a user-rejected soft fork (URSF). Only five mining pools control the vast majority of Bitcoin’s hashrate, concentrating significant influence over which chain is extended and which transactions are included in blocks.

Bitcoin Network Hashrate Distribution. Source: Blockchain.com

In response, a subset of BIP-110 supporters, led by LukeDashjr, decided to continue the BIP-110 chain with a change in the proof-of-work algorithm to Blake2b to allow for a new, more decentralized set of miners to emerge using DATUM gateway technology. The corresponding hard fork was initiated on Aug. 30. Every address that held SHA-256 Bitcoin before Aug. 7 (and possibly after) will hold an equivalent amount on the Blake2b version of Bitcoin. So far, the only exchange listing Blake2b Bitcoin is Neoxa. While liquidity remains thin, Blake2b coins are currently trading at $350 against USDC with a 1.1% spread. 

BTCB2/USDC orderbook. Source: Neoxa Exchange

Related: Crypto Biz: AI took a back seat when Bitcoin started climbing