DoubleZero has launched a dedicated market data feed for Hyperliquid, giving professional trading firms access to the decentralized exchange’s full order book over fiber rather than through its public APIs.

The feed includes Hyperliquid’s native perpetual futures and markets operated by trade[XYZ], which uses Hyperliquid’s infrastructure to offer perpetual contracts tied to assets including oil, gold and silver. The Hyperliquid feed was developed with validator operators and ecosystem partners including Hyperion DeFi, MAVAN and Kinetiq.

DoubleZero said the service delivers a continuous, ordered stream of market data for market makers, quantitative trading firms, and proprietary trading firms that need faster, more consistent order book updates.

Previously, firms seeking a complete view of Hyperliquid’s order book had to assemble the data themselves through public API responses or operate their own Hyperliquid nodes. DoubleZero said changes to Hyperliquid’s public APIs have reduced the frequency and depth of updates available through them.

DoubleZero operates a global fiber network designed to move data quickly between participants in blockchain networks and other distributed systems. Hyperliquid is the third venue available through its Edge market-data service, following Solana and prediction market Kalshi.

Related: Bitwise launches first Lighter ETP amid Hyperliquid rivalry

Onchain market infrastructure starts to resemble traditional exchanges

Hyperliquid’s market data infrastructure is beginning to resemble what traditional electronic exchanges use as professional trading moves onchain, according to Hyperion DeFi CEO Hyunsu Jung.

Jung told Cointelegraph that CME, Nasdaq and other major exchanges distribute professional market data over dedicated networks, allowing automated trading firms to receive a consistent stream of ordered data at high speeds.

“Hyperliquid data can now be consumed through the same basic model: publish once, distribute simultaneously over dedicated fiber,” he said.

However, significant differences remain. Traditional exchanges allow trading firms to place their systems close to the infrastructure that processes trades, while Hyperliquid executes trades onchain. DoubleZero’s service only delivers market data; it does not place or execute trades for firms.

“So the convergence is not Hyperliquid becoming CME,” Jung said. “It is onchain markets adopting the market-data infrastructure that professional trading firms already use.”

“It does not eliminate latency differences,” Jung said. “A firm in Tokyo will still have a physical advantage over one in New York.”

Magazine: Kyle Samani predicts SOL flippening, claims ‘no one’ uses ETH

Bitcoin (BTC) had a volatile Thursday during US hours as the yield on the 10-year US Treasury note climbed to its highest level in nearly two decades. After briefly falling below $83,000, BTC struggled to reclaim $84,500. Ondo Finance (ONDO), meanwhile, was among the top-performing altcoins.

Key points: 

• Bitcoin briefly fell below $83,000 before stabilizing near $84,500 amid rising bond yields.
• Ondo’s token reclaims $0.50 for the first time since December 2025 as BlackRock-backed Ondo Intelligent Portfolios launch on Ethereum and BNB Chain.
• The US 10-year Treasury yield climbs to 5.18%, its highest since July 2007, while the 30-year yield reaches 5.46%.

US 10-year Treasury gains 70 basis points this month, hits 5.18%

The US 10-year Treasury yield rose more than 4 basis points to 5.18% on Thursday, its highest level since July 2007, according to TradingView data. The 30-year yield hit 5.46%, reclaiming 2004 highs.

The climb came on the day the US Treasury was scheduled to buy back up to $6 billion in bonds maturing in roughly 20 to 30 years, part of an expanded program aimed at improving liquidity in long-dated debt markets.

International bond markets also weakened, while the Japanese yen (JPY) came under renewed pressure. Mohamed A. El-Erian, president of Queen’s College Cambridge, wrote on X: “Flying under many radars for now, but probably not for long: The Japanese Yen has weakened back to 159 per U.S. dollar (CNBC chart), approaching the established FX intervention zone.”

He continued: “This matters far beyond Japan for a key reason right now: Japanese foreign exchange intervention typically involves selling US securities to buy Yen, potentially adding yield pressures to an already sensitive Treasury market.”

Higher yields make government bonds more attractive and can weigh on non-yielding assets such as Bitcoin. Even so, BTC has extended its August rally, challenging bearish predictions tied to Bitcoin’s traditional four-year cycle.

ONDO token among top performers, reclaims $0.50 level

The tokenized real-world asset (RWA) token ONDO was among the top gainers in the last 24 hours and rose back to the psychological $0.5 level, according to CoinGecko data. 

Despite the recent failure of the CLARITY Act to pass through a procedural vote in the US Senate, the token managed to reclaim a level last traded in December 2025. 

Related: CLARITY vote failure could stoke more crypto PAC spending in key races

The rally came as BlackRock-backed Ondo Intelligent Portfolios launched on Thursday. While most RWA products focus on tokenizing individual stocks and commodities, the new offering allows non-US users to buy tokenized shares in diversified portfolios.

The tokens went live on Ethereum and BNB Chain, with settlement handled through CoW Protocol, CoW DAO said on X. The first three tokens track model portfolio strategies developed by BlackRock for Ondo: BLKHIon (High Income), BLKDIGon (Diversified Growth) and BLKGRWon (High Growth).

Strive built its Bitcoin treasury by raising $85.88 million in three trading days. The firm completed three SATA sessions between September 21 and September 23. Analysts estimate the raise funded roughly 1,001 additional coins for its Bitcoin treasury.

Strive’s Bitcoin Treasury Grows Session By Session

Strive opened the week with $27.69 million in net proceeds on September 21. The company sold about 284,000 shares to fund its Bitcoin treasury that day. Trackers estimate the session added 321.97 coins at an average price of $86,001.

The pace accelerated on September 22, and the Bitcoin treasury expanded further. Strive raised $36.08 million and sold roughly 370,000 shares. The session added an estimated 418.27 coins at an average price of $86,266.

September 23 brought a smaller but steady gain for the Bitcoin treasury. Strive raised $22.11 million and sold about 226,700 shares. The tracker values that day’s addition at 261.43 coins, priced near $84,556.

Strategy’s Bitcoin Treasury Faces A Funding Gap

Michael Saylor’s Strategy runs a larger Bitcoin treasury but has hit a financing wall. Its preferred stock, STRC, has traded below the $100 par value since June. The shares fell as low as $73.62 during that stretch.

Because STRC has failed to raise new capital since June, Strategy shifted tactics. The company turned to STRC buybacks instead of fresh share sales. Even so, Strategy still expanded its Bitcoin treasury during the September 14-20 week.

Strategy added 950 coins that week for $75.7 million. The average purchase price came to $79,670 per coin. Its total Bitcoin treasury now holds 846,000 coins, bought for about $63.8 billion at an average cost of $75,416 each.

A Widening Gap Between The Two Companies

Strive’s Bitcoin treasury has outpaced Strategy’s buying rate in recent weeks. Between September 14 and 18, Strive purchased 1,355 coins for $107.7 million. Its total holdings reached 26,355 coins at that point.

Warrant exercises added extra fuel to Strive’s fundraising engine. Those exercises generated $21.2 million in gross proceeds last week. More than half of Strive’s total capital raised has come through SATA proceeds since the program began.

The contrast highlights two different paths for building a Bitcoin treasury. Strive leans on ATM share sales and warrant activity to keep buying. Strategy, meanwhile, now depends on buybacks and other funding sources while STRC remains under par.

A bizarre drama played out on YouTube this past week, when a channel called Mighty Mike Plays posted a video explaining how nine-year-old “Mighty Mike” apparently got a hold of his father Dave’s company card and spent $118,000 on a YouTube ad campaign.

However, the story immediately appeared to have a number of holes, and within a few days there were too many red flags for influencers, who had initially boosted the story’s reach, to ignore.

Just a kid and his dad

Mighty Mike Plays, which features Roblox and Minecraft videos, was created in June of 2024 but only started posting videos in August of this year.

Over the past month, the channel has uploaded 175 long and short form videos — a considerable number for a child of nine.

When it suddenly started reaching the front page of YouTube ads, people began to comment that Mike was going to get in trouble with his father. They were, in fact, being played by the marketing.

On September 14, the channel released a video titled “Message from Dad… Mighty Mike Plays is Over.”

In the video, Dave speaks while Mike plays Minecraft. He states that Mike had spent $118,000 on the YouTube ad campaign and worst of all that the charges were on his company card and now he might get fired.

Dave didn’t explain why he would ever use a company card for anything but company purchases or how using the card even for a $20 ad campaign — as he stated was his intention — wasn’t illegal, but no red flags outside of this were obvious yet.

Read more: Kalshi’s AI ad turned an Asian YouTuber into ‘a white dude’

99 problems and the vid is one

On September 18, a new video was released, once again with Mike playing Minecraft and Dave speaking. Unfortunately, this time the video was nothing but red flags. Dave states that he’s been fired from his job and that the company has demanded that he pay back all $118,000 within 30 days.

He doesn’t clarify what will happen in 30 days if the company isn’t paid back.

Advertisement

Dave doesn’t show any proof of ad spend or any emails with his colleagues where they discuss the circumstances. Instead he suggests that the family will soon lose their home because he’ll have to sell it within the 30-day period.

All of this sounds like fiction, but it only gets more absurd.

Dave states that he doesn’t want to start a GoFundMe or Kickstarter to support his family and doesn’t specify a reason, though it’s thought that if you lie about the reason you need funds on these websites you can get sued and the money can get clawed back.

Instead, he says, he wants to sell merchandise online to try to raise the funds himself — a bizarre decision.

Advertisement

Slop merch, slop campaign

Dave’s website is filled with AI-created merchandise, all selling for immense prices (nearly $100 for t-shirts that say “118k” and “67 wassup chat”), some supposedly already sold out.

And, as eagle-eyed YouTubers quickly pointed out, the terms of service, which previously promised that returns would be allowed within 30 days, now state that ALL SALES ARE FINAL.

It’s unclear if this is legal or binding to anyone who bought the merchandise before the change.

Needless to say, it’s now Dave who’s claiming that he’s going to be suing numerous influencers and YouTubers for suggesting that he’s a scammer, emailing them to say he’s hired a lawyer and will be taking them to court for libel — an expensive move for a man who supposedly just lost his job and owes $118,000.

Regardless, Mike and Dave are posting videos again but have yet to address any of the previous red flags littering their videos.

Advertisement

Protos will follow the story for more information if anything changes.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

A recent dispute between AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron and Robinhood highlighted that issue, centering on whether synthetic or tokenized products may leave investors with economic exposure to a stock but without the same legal rights as registered shareholders. Issuer-sponsored models aim to narrow that gap by tying the token directly to the issuer’s records.

“The architecture we establish now matters and that is why we are bringing together this group of leading firms to chart the course,” said Tom Farley, CEO of Bullish.

Alpaca said it plans to contribute to interoperability between traditional securities and onchain markets through its Instant Tokenization Network.

“Tokenization creates an opportunity to connect issuers and investors in ways that weren’t possible with traditional market infrastructure,” said Arush Sehgal, head of digital assets at Alpaca. “Getting it right means preserving shareholder rights and ensuring onchain markets remain connected to the markets they’re built on.

Apex Fintech Solutions, which provides infrastructure for broker-dealers and other financial firms, said the group could help establish standards that enable tokenized markets to connect with existing systems.

The coalition said its work follows last week’s U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission exemption allowing limited onchain trading of U.S.-listed equities under certain conditions.

Digital asset treasury (DAT) companies—public vehicles that hold crypto and aim to finance growth through a trading premium over their crypto holdings—are losing much of their early advantage, according to a report released this week by DWF Ventures.

In its analysis of the 20 largest DATs by assets under management, DWF found that only four trade above their “mNAV,” a metric that compares a company’s market value to the value of its underlying crypto holdings. The implication is straightforward: investors appear less willing to pay extra for crypto exposure through listed balance sheets, shrinking one of the model’s key funding mechanisms.

Key takeaways

• Only four of the 20 largest digital asset treasuries trade above mNAV, meaning most trade at discounts to their crypto holdings.
• DWF links the shift to investors no longer pricing DAT shares at a persistent premium for crypto exposure.
• DAT stocks have generally struggled to outperform simply holding the underlying cryptocurrency, with the reported advantage—when it exists—often modest.
• External warnings about “mNAV collapse” predate the latest market weakening, including concerns raised by Standard Chartered and Galaxy Digital.

Most DATs now trade below their crypto holdings

DWF’s report, published Thursday, examined the largest DAT companies by assets under management and found that just four trade above an mNAV of 1—where market value exceeds the value of held crypto. Those firms are Bit Digital, Strive, Hyperliquid Strategies, and BitMine.

For investors, discounts like these matter because DAT growth strategies typically rely on issuing equity at prices above the value of existing holdings. When shares trade at a premium, companies can raise capital and add to their crypto exposure without diluting existing shareholders’ effective value. When that premium disappears—or flips into a discount—new share issuance becomes less attractive and can dilute shareholders rather than strengthen the treasury.

DWF characterizes the widespread discounts as a sign that the market is no longer willing to pay the same premium for publicly traded crypto exposure.

The “treasury premium” appears to have peaked

DWF points to Strategy, the Bitcoin treasury model pioneer, as an early benchmark for how the premium worked when the approach first captured investor attention. According to the report, the general pattern across DATs has been that mNAV premiums peaked when the strategy was new and demand for the structure was strongest.

DWF highlights Strategy’s mNAV peak in late 2024 during a Bitcoin rally, when demand for leveraged BTC exposure was reported to be particularly strong. The broader framing from DWF is that, as the novelty and momentum around BTC treasury structures faded, the premium investors were willing to pay weakened as well.

DWF also notes that while some DATs have outperformed the underlying cryptocurrency at times, the outperformance has typically been small compared with what investors could have achieved by simply holding the crypto directly.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph described how Michael Saylor’s Strategy helped popularize the Bitcoin treasury approach beginning in 2020, setting the template DATs later tried to follow.

Real-world evidence: Sequans exits its BTC treasury

The DWF findings arrive alongside a concrete example of a company moving away from the treasury approach. Sequans Communications, a French semiconductor firm that launched a Bitcoin treasury strategy last year, disclosed that it sold its remaining 314 BTC, completing an exit process.

As reported by Cointelegraph, the exit began with a redemption of its convertible debt in May and concluded with the sale of the remaining Bitcoin. After the transaction, Sequans said it holds no cryptocurrency on its balance sheet, according to the report linked by Cointelegraph: Sequans exits bitcoin treasury strategy after selling remaining 314 BTC.

While a single exit does not determine whether DATs as a category will fail, it underscores the practical consequences of a structure that depends on continued investor support. If share prices fail to sustain a premium over NAV, the cost of raising and maintaining exposure via equity becomes harder to justify.

Warnings about mNAV collapse preceded the latest market stress

DWF’s report is not the first to question whether the DAT model can keep functioning without a persistent equity premium. Standard Chartered reportedly raised concerns in September 2025, when Bitcoin and the broader crypto market were described as booming. The bank warned that an “mNAV collapse” could trigger consolidation among digital asset treasuries.

Galaxy Digital made a similar argument, stating that the model “critically depends on a persistent equity premium to NAV.” In Galaxy’s view, that premium is what allows companies to issue shares and buy more crypto while avoiding dilution of existing holders. If shares trade below NAV, raising new equity can become dilutive and undermine the strategy’s financing logic.

In research cited by Cointelegraph, Galaxy analyst Will Owens wrote that “if the premium collapses, or worse, flips to a discount, the model begins to break.”

These concerns align with the timing and direction of market movement. The source notes that Bitcoin fell from a record high of more than $126,000 in October to below $60,000 before recovering to around $86,000, creating conditions in which treasury premiums and leveraged demand could plausibly weaken.

In other words, the issue raised by the earlier institutional warnings has not gone away: it appears to be a structural dependence on investor willingness to pay above NAV, not just a temporary valuation adjustment.

Why the discount trend matters now

For traders and longer-term investors, the shift toward widespread DAT discounts changes how the category should be evaluated. If most treasuries trade below their underlying holdings, the “equity as growth capital” thesis becomes less reliable, and performance may converge toward the crypto market itself—minus whatever inefficiencies arise from the stock wrapper.

It also raises the question of what happens when premiums do not recover quickly. DWF’s findings suggest that the model’s early advantage—capital accessibility driven by investor enthusiasm—has faded, leaving fewer companies able to compound holdings through share issuance without eroding shareholder value.

Investors watching DATs next should focus on whether any remaining premiums can stabilize and on how companies respond when share prices do not justify continued equity-funded purchases—especially as market volatility continues to pressure crypto-linked balance sheets.

Former Democratic congressman Tim Ryan has said the CLARITY Act could still pass this year if lawmakers resolve disputes that blocked a 49–50 Senate vote on Sep. 15.

Tim Ryan, a former Ohio congressman and adviser to Shyft, told crypto.news that lawmakers still have a path to an agreement if they return to negotiations and make concessions. The Senate rejected cloture on a motion to proceed to the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act on Sep. 15, with 49 senators voting yes, 50 voting no, and one not voting. The motion needed 60 votes to advance the bill to debate; it was not a final vote on passage.

Ryan identified unresolved concerns about ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards. In his view, support for clear crypto rules remains bipartisan, even though senators have yet to agree on the details. He said a deal could still be reached in the lame-duck session later this year if both sides are willing to compromise.

“I think there’s still a path,” Ryan said. “The legitimate concerns around ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards need to be addressed.”

CLARITY Act talks could resume after the failed vote

Ryan’s assessment follows a statement from seven Senate Democrats who voted against cloture. As previously covered by crypto.news, the senators described the result as “not the end” of their work on the legislation and pledged to continue bipartisan talks. Their statement came on Sep. 16, one day after the vote.

For Ryan, the distinction between a procedural defeat and a final rejection matters. Senators voted on whether to take up the measure, leaving its provisions open to further negotiation. He said the outstanding issues need answers before the bill can secure enough support to move forward.

The proposed legislation would set federal rules for digital asset markets and divide responsibilities between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under the framework described in earlier CLARITY Act coverage, qualifying digital commodities and their spot markets would fall primarily under CFTC oversight, while securities-related activity would remain with the SEC. The bill would also set registration requirements for crypto trading platforms and other market participants.

Ryan tied the negotiations to decisions being made by American companies. Businesses hiring workers and committing capital, he said, need rules they can rely on beyond a change in administration. He also argued that jobs and investment are at stake in the congressional debate.

SEC and CFTC actions have limits, Ryan says

With the bill stalled, both regulators have taken steps under their existing powers. Ryan said the agencies can make meaningful progress, but he does not believe their actions alone can provide the lasting framework businesses and consumers need.

“Agency action helps, but companies making long-term investments need long-term certainty,” he said. “If you’re building a business, hiring people and investing capital, you need to know the rules are going to last beyond the next administration.”

On Sep. 17, the SEC granted temporary, conditional relief for certain venues trading tokenized U.S.-listed stocks through permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools. The order lasts five years after publication and requires eligible stock tokens to give holders the same rights as equivalent traditional shares.

The SEC also placed limits on trading symbols and volume, required trading to stop when the underlying stock is halted, and sought public comment on the exemption. Its tokenized stock order concerns securities already within the SEC’s remit, rather than settling how every crypto asset should be regulated.

The CFTC’s Market Participants Division issued a separate no-action position that day for qualifying passive software providers. Subject to stated conditions, division staff will not recommend enforcement over a failure to register as an introducing broker, or as an associated person of one, when the software helps users trade with registered derivatives firms and markets. The CFTC developer relief applies to the activities covered by the letter; it does not change the underlying registration law.

The CFTC also submitted a proposed framework for crypto transactions and markets for White House review on Sep. 17. That submission begins a review process: the proposal would still need to return to the commission for a vote before publication and public comment. CFTC Chair Michael Selig had previously directed staff to examine what market rules the agency could establish using its existing authority.

Bitcoin, XRP and Solana remain part of the classification debate

Asked whether assets could face conflicting treatment, Ryan said uncertainty remains despite guidance from the two agencies. He pointed to Bitcoin, XRP and Solana as assets for which regulators have provided more clarity, while calling for Congress to establish consistent rules that businesses and consumers can use without resolving classification disputes through individual court cases.

The SEC’s March 17 interpretation, issued with CFTC guidance, listed Bitcoin, XRP and Solana among its examples of digital commodities. The SEC based that assessment on its understanding of the assets’ characteristics, terms and functions at the time. The interpretation also said a crypto asset that is not itself a security can be involved in a transaction subject to securities law, and that the agency may refine its views after public feedback.

For U.S. token holders and platforms, Ryan’s concern is how those distinctions apply when an asset is sold or traded. He said businesses and consumers should have consistent rules instead of having to litigate the treatment of assets case by case.