Blockchain network Harmony Protocol has taken the decision to wind down, worried that “threats posed by state actors and AI agents are too great.”

Harmony informed users on Sunday via X that the project, launched in 2019, would migrate to Ethereum, where it hoped its ONE token would be safer.

However, the prevalence of hacks currently wreaking havoc on the Ethereum ecosystem suggests that Harmony may well remain exposed in its new home.

On August 11, the protocol suffered an exploit which resulted in the “unauthorized minting” of  3 trillion native ONE tokens. The team later executed a rollback of the chain, restoring its pre-hack state.

The price of ONE dropped sharply directly after the hack and has lost more than 40% of its value over the past month.

Harmony was previously rocked by a devastating $100 million hack of its Horizon bridge back in 2022, a year which saw multiple bridges lose nine-figure sums.

At its peak, earlier that same year, the network held over $1 billion of TVL. Today, that figure sits at just $150,000.

Robinhood’s tokenized AMC product briefly traded far above the referenced stock during the U.S. Labor Day weekend, prompting a fresh test of whether activity on Robinhood Chain can move real equity markets.

IOSG researcher Mario Chow reported on Sept. 7 that the token reached $18.04 after AMC Entertainment shares closed at $2.54 on Sept. 3. AMC subsequently rose as much as 22% in premarket trading before surrendering most of the advance.

The episode demonstrates that an onchain premium can generate demand for the corresponding shares when an authorized participant creates additional stock tokens. It does not establish that token trading caused the entire move in AMC.

It also does not show that Robinhood issued an unlimited supply of AMC stock tokens. Robinhood’s system allows the supply to expand or contract through creation and redemption. Issuance remains governed by the product’s legal terms, operational procedures, available collateral and market access.

Robinhood stock tokens are not AMC shares

Robinhood describes its Stock Tokens as tokenized debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited. They track the economic performance of referenced U.S. securities but do not convey direct ownership.

According to Robinhood’s official documentation, holders receive no legal or beneficial rights in the company whose shares a token tracks. They cannot vote as AMC shareholders or assert ownership claims against AMC.

Robinhood’s 2026 quarterly filing similarly identifies Stock Tokens as debt securities issued by the Jersey affiliate. The company lists regulatory, litigation, operational and reputational risks associated with making them accessible through Robinhood Wallet.

The products are not registered under U.S. securities laws and cannot be offered to U.S. persons. Eligible investors in selected jurisdictions can nevertheless transfer and trade them through wallets, centralized exchanges or decentralized applications.

This separation explains AMC CEO Adam Aron’s objection. Aron said AMC had not authorized or participated in the product. He called the token “contemptible, outrageous, disgusting” and said the company had engaged outside securities counsel.

Robinhood rejected AMC’s demand to discontinue it. As crypto.news reported, Robinhood argued that it could continue offering the AMC-linked product without the issuer’s consent because the instrument is Robinhood’s debt security rather than an AMC-issued share.

Another distinction concerns the meme coins involved. Robinhood did not issue $MEME, $CINEMA or $BONER. Independent developers created those tokens and liquidity pools on Robinhood Chain, a permissionless Ethereum-compatible network. Some pools use Robinhood Stock Tokens as their quoted asset.

An AMC premium prompted token supply to expand

IOSG’s research reconstructed creation and redemption transactions for the AMC-linked token. It estimated that the supply rose from 152,106 tokens to 2.90 million within three days.

The researcher counted approximately 3.05 million newly created tokens and 310,000 redeemed tokens during the period. Those figures produced a net increase of approximately 2.74 million.

Because each token tracks the economics of one share, creating tokens may require the participating intermediary to obtain corresponding market exposure. Robinhood says assets supporting its Stock Tokens are held through regulated financial institutions, although token holders do not own those assets directly.

IOSG estimated that approximately $7.6 million of real AMC shares was purchased as the token supply increased. The report further estimated that those purchases represented as much as 7.6% of trading during the busiest premarket interval.

Those calculations are external estimates derived from blockchain activity and market data. Robinhood has not publicly confirmed the $7.6 million figure, identified the authorized participant or published a transaction-by-transaction record of corresponding AMC purchases.

AMC shares still reacted during the period. The stock advanced from a Sept. 3 close of $2.54 to approximately $3.11 in early premarket trading on Sept. 4, according to the IOSG analysis. It later fell back and closed near $2.65.

The timing is consistent with some buying pressure reaching the equity market. However, timing alone cannot establish how much of the move came from token creation. AMC news, speculative trading and ordinary premarket orders could also have contributed.

Crypto.news separately reported that AMC shares gained about 21% during the public dispute. No official filing has attributed that movement to Robinhood Chain activity.

Creation and redemption work against a lasting squeeze

A conventional short squeeze relies on constrained share availability. Rising prices force short sellers to repurchase shares, which creates more demand and can push prices higher again.

GameStop displayed an extreme version of that structure in January 2021. An SEC staff report found that GameStop’s short interest reached 122.97% of its public float. AMC’s short interest was much lower at 11.4%.

Robinhood and other brokers restricted purchases of both stocks on Jan. 28, 2021. Robinhood’s regulatory filings attribute the restrictions to clearinghouse deposit requirements and related liquidity pressure.

The current stock-token structure behaves differently. When a token trades above the value of its reference share, an authorized participant can potentially acquire the share exposure, create more tokens and sell them into the premium.

Additional supply reduces scarcity. The arbitrage trade also becomes less attractive as the token price moves back toward the referenced share price. This creates negative feedback rather than the self-reinforcing demand associated with a short squeeze.

Redemption can reverse the process. If a Stock Token trades below its reference value, eligible intermediaries may acquire and redeem tokens, reducing their supply and potentially unwinding the corresponding market hedge.

The IOSG report found a similar expansion in Robinhood’s tokenized Hims & Hers product. Its supply reportedly increased from 468 tokens around the launch of the $BONER market to 130,876 tokens.

These findings support the argument that meme-coin buying can transmit some demand into tokenized equities and potentially into underlying shares. They do not support the stronger claim that onchain buyers can permanently lock the real equity’s circulating supply.

Dynamic issuance does not alter AMC’s actual shares outstanding. It changes the number of Robinhood debt instruments providing economic exposure to AMC.

Market closures leave a temporary pricing gap

Token markets can remain active when the underlying U.S. stock market is closed. The creation channel may not operate with the same availability because authorized participants need access to equity trading, custody and settlement services.

This mismatch can leave a Stock Token without an immediate arbitrage route during weekends or market holidays. Thin liquidity can then push its onchain price far above or below the last available reference price.

IOSG attributed the AMC token’s rise to $18.04 partly to this timing gap. The move occurred after the U.S. market closed and before intermediaries could respond through the usual creation process.

Once premarket trading began, the gap narrowed. The actual AMC share price initially moved upward while the token price declined. By shortly before the regular session, both were reportedly trading near $2.61 to $2.62.

The episode suggests that the token itself can experience a short-lived squeeze when new creation is unavailable. Such a move does not necessarily transfer proportionally to the underlying share.

Existing supply also matters. After the AMC token supply expanded to approximately 2.90 million, IOSG observed smaller deviations during the following closure. A deeper token float made another extreme premium more difficult to produce.

The risk may be greater for newly launched products with limited supply, concentrated liquidity or temporarily paused creation. Investors also face smart-contract, issuer, pricing-feed and redemption risks that do not exist in the same form when holding ordinary registered shares.

Activity around these products is growing. In related coverage, Robinhood Chain’s RWA-linked trading volume reached a reported $390 million, including $217 million from meme coin and stock-token pairs.

Genuine and imitation stock tokens require clearer labels

A separate risk comes from tokens that use a public company’s name or ticker without any backing or formal relationship with the company.

Robinhood’s genuine Stock Tokens have an identified issuer, legal terms and reference assets. Robinhood Chain’s documents describe them as tokenized debt instruments issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited.

A third party can still deploy an unrelated token using similar branding on a permissionless blockchain. Such a token may have a fixed supply but no custodian, redemption right, authorized participant or claim against underlying shares.

Similar names can make the two products difficult to distinguish in wallets and decentralized exchange interfaces. A market price that follows a public stock does not prove that the token holds corresponding shares or offers enforceable redemption rights.

IOSG identified counterfeit stock-linked contracts as the larger investor-protection concern. Its researchers said some copied equity names and supplied token balances that appeared designed to imitate genuine products.

Those findings have not produced a publicly announced enforcement case. Still, they reinforce the need to verify contract addresses, issuer documentation and redemption terms instead of relying on a ticker symbol.

As previously reported, tokenized equity holders reached 752,000 across five platforms, while Robinhood accounted for 328,000. Wider adoption increases the consequences of unclear ownership and backing disclosures.

What happens next depends partly on whether AMC takes formal legal action. Aron said the company had retained securities counsel, but AMC has not announced a lawsuit or regulatory filing challenging Robinhood’s product.

Regulators must also decide how unaffiliated stock-linked instruments should disclose ownership, issuer consent, collateral and redemption rights. Until those questions are resolved, the creation channel remains the main mechanism connecting token prices with real equity markets.

FAQs

The euro enters this week’s ECB meeting (September 9–10) with genuine hawkish backing, having already been told by insiders that policymakers are prepared to raise rates again to counter the inflationary side-effects of the Middle East conflict, even as they signal little appetite for tightening beyond that. July’s hold at 2.25% came with Lagarde explicitly warning that renewed hostilities and the resulting oil price rebound pose upside risks to the inflation outlook, keeping the door firmly open to a move back to 2.50% this week.

The Aussie, meanwhile, is riding one of its strongest stretches in months, hitting a fresh three-month high after Q2 GDP beat expectations at 0.4% quarter-on-quarter, reinforcing bets that the RBA could resume tightening this month. Markets now price a 50–58% chance of a September hike, with a November move seen as effectively locked in, while commodity strength and Australia’s growing role in the AI infrastructure boom add further structural support to the currency.

The result: two hawkish central banks converging on rate decisions within days of each other, leaving EUR/AUD’s next move to hinge on whether Frankfurt or Canberra delivers the more convincing signal.

Technical Analysis of EUR/AUD

As the EUR/AUD chart shows, the pair has been trading within a steep descending trendline since mid-August’s highs near 1.6441, with price now testing the confluence of this trendline and the 0 Fibonacci level near 1.6086. Adding intrigue to the setup, the RSI is forming a bullish divergence, printing higher lows even as price carved a fresh low this week.

Bullish Scenario

Should buyers break above the descending trendline, the divergence would gain real technical credibility, opening the path towards the 0.382 retracement near 1.6222, with a stronger move potentially targeting the 0.5 level around 1.6264.

Bearish Scenario

Conversely, a continued rejection at the trendline would keep sellers in control, invalidating the divergence and exposing fresh lows below the 1.6086 level, with the broader downtrend from August’s highs remaining firmly intact.

With price testing a fresh low right at the trendline while the RSI quietly hints at fading downside momentum, EUR/AUD looks poised for a decisive reaction. Will the ECB’s hawkish stance finally show up on the chart, or will the RBA’s own tightening momentum keep this downtrend alive?

Trade over 50 forex markets 24 hours a day with FXOpen. Take advantage of low commissions, deep liquidity, and spreads from 0.0 pips (additional fees may apply). Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading forex with FXOpen.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.