Bitcoin Ordinals advocate Leonidas has proposed a new open-source Bitcoin client that would raise transaction size limits and reduce the dust threshold, seeking to remove policy restrictions affecting Ordinals and Runes transactions.

In a Friday post on X, Bitcoin Ordinals advocate Leonidas introduced a proposal for an alternative Bitcoin client called Bitcoin $DOG Mode, describing it as software designed to remove limits enforced by existing Bitcoin clients rather than by the Bitcoin protocol itself.

I am very excited to announce the launch of a new open source Bitcoin client called Bitcoin $DOG Mode.

Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots have spent years enforcing rules that Bitcoin itself does not have.

Advertisement

A transaction can be fully valid under consensus and still be blocked from… pic.twitter.com/WCJ9roEkeo

— Leonidas 🧡 $DOG (@LeonidasNFT) July 17, 2026

The proposed client would increase the maximum individual transaction size to 3.9 million weight units (WU) from the 400,000 WU allowed under Bitcoin Core’s default policy. It would also reduce the dust limit to 1 satoshi, compared with the current 294 to 546 satoshis required by Bitcoin Core for standard transactions.

According to Leonidas, Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots have enforced transaction policies for years that are not part of Bitcoin’s consensus rules. He said the new client is intended to remove what he described as unnecessary restrictions, adding that the long-term goal is to attract enough users for Bitcoin Core to eventually reconsider those policies.

Larger transactions and smaller outputs

If adopted, the higher transaction limit would allow Ordinals users to include much larger inscriptions or entire collections within a single Bitcoin transaction, including transactions that occupy most of a block.

The lower dust limit would also make it easier to create very small transaction outputs. Under the current default rules used by Bitcoin Core nodes, users often have to increase output values above the minimum threshold before their transactions are relayed across the network. Bitcoin $DOG Mode would instead allow outputs as small as 1 satoshi.

Bitcoin $DOG Mode is being positioned as an alternative to Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots, the two most widely used Bitcoin clients.

Ordinals and Runes have remained divisive since their launch. Supporters view them as Bitcoin-native versions of non-fungible and fungible tokens, while critics have argued they consume valuable block space and amount to network spam.

Proposal follows Ord.io shutdown

The proposal comes just months after Leonidas announced the closure of Ord.io, one of the earliest Ordinals explorers. In May, he said the project would shut down after the team ran out of funding and no longer saw a sustainable path forward.

Ord.io, launched in 2023, had served more than 1 million users before announcing plans to go offline. The associated consumer app Zap also ceased operations after failing to reach sufficient user growth, while the team said it would preserve public Ord.io data on GitHub and remained open to another group taking over the project.

Activity around Bitcoin inscriptions has cooled since the strong demand seen during 2023 and early 2024. Runes generated $135 million in fees during the first week after Bitcoin’s 2024 halving, although transaction activity later declined. 

The trust behind reimbursing creditors with ties to defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX announced that its next distribution of funds would start on July 31.

In a Friday notice, the FTX Recovery Trust and crypto exchange said that they would distribute about $900 million to claimants in the recovery plan’s “convenience and non-convenience classes.” Eligible creditors can receive funds through their BitGo, Kraken or Payoneer accounts within one to three business days starting from July 31.

The distribution will mark the fifth round of attempts of repaying FTX’s creditors. Convenience claims under $50,000 will receive a 120% reimbursement under FTX’s recovery plan, while others will receive between a 103-105% distribution.

Source: Sunil Kavuri

Following a March distribution of $2.2 billion, the trust has paid out about $10 billion since the company filed for bankruptcy in November 2022 amid a crypto market downturn that resulted in many exchanges filing for Chapter 11 protection. Former FTX executives including CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried and Ryan Salame, the co-CEO of FTX’s Bahamian affiliate, are still in federal prison as part of their role in the exchange’s misuse of customer funds.

Related: FTX estate misses out on $3B Cursor stake value after $200K sale in 2023

In May, the law firm Fenwick & West, which advised FTX before its collapse, agreed to pay $54 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed by former users. A group of 20 FTX users sued the law firm for $525 million just days earlier.

Presidential pardon looking less likely for former FTX CEO

Bankman-Fried, who pleaded not guilty to criminal charges related to his role in the misuse of customer funds at FTX, was found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2024. His appeal for his conviction and sentence was denied last month after a federal court upheld the New York court ruling.

However, even before the appellate court ruling became public, Bankman-Fried applied for a pardon from Donald Trump, something the US president said in a January interview that he did not plan on granting. Despite the statement from Trump, this week the US Senate unanimously adopted a resolution opposing clemency for the former FTX CEO.

The measure can’t stop Trump from issuing a pardon but reflected bipartisan opposition to the president granting clemency to a convicted felon. Many lawmakers have criticized the president issuing a pardon for former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao after a UAE entity invested $2 billion into the crypto exchange using a stablecoin issued by the Trump family business, World Liberty Financial.

Magazine: Strategy became a symbol of the dot-com crash: Could history repeat?

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Stablecoins have long been pitched as a faster way to move dollars across borders. In Bolivia, they’re increasingly becoming a way to access dollars in the first place. The country’s recent proposal to recognize Tether’s USDt (USDT) for payments underscores how economic instability is driving adoption in many emerging markets. 

Elsewhere, Bitcoin miners are discovering that pivoting to AI infrastructure may unlock new revenue streams, but it doesn’t shield them from investor scrutiny.

Bolivia weighs recognizing USDT amid dollar shortage

Bolivia is considering a regulatory framework that would recognize Tether’s USDT as a payment currency, marking another step in the country’s push to integrate digital assets into its financial system.

Economy and Public Finance Minister Jose Gabriel Espinoza said the proposal would allow USDT to circulate alongside the boliviano and the US dollar for payments and savings. The framework remains under review and would include anti-money laundering safeguards, as Bolivia is still on the Financial Action Task Force’s gray list. The initiative follows the lifting of the country’s crypto ban in 2024 and the new administration’s pledge to expand access to digital asset services.

The proposal comes as Bolivia struggles with a prolonged shortage of US dollars after pressure on foreign exchange reserves forced the government to abandon its long-standing currency peg earlier this year. The resulting gap between the official and parallel exchange rates has increased demand for dollar-denominated alternatives such as USDT, which has become an increasingly popular payment tool in the country.

Source: EL DEBER

Bitcoin miners’ AI pivot draws scrutiny over insider stock sales

Investors are increasingly scrutinizing insider stock sales at Bitcoin miners pursuing AI infrastructure strategies as enthusiasm for the sector cools and governance concerns take center stage.

According to Blocksbridge Consulting, executives at TeraWulf, Cipher Digital, Riot Platforms and Core Scientific have disclosed stock sales in recent months, many of them made under prearranged Rule 10b5-1 trading plans. Strategic investors have also trimmed their holdings — including Tether — which reduced its stake in Bitdeer following the company’s AI-driven rally. The shift comes as the TEM AI Infrastructure Growth Index has fallen 16% over the past month.

Blocksbridge said investors are increasingly looking beyond the AI growth story to assess whether the benefits of miners’ strategic pivots will flow to public shareholders.

Most stocks in the 20-company TEM AI Infrastructure Growth Index were down over the past month through July 8. Source: Miner Weekly

CleanSpark stock jumps on $6.6 billion data center lease as AI pivot accelerates

CleanSpark shares rallied as much as 22% after the Bitcoin miner signed a 20-year data center lease in Georgia that could generate up to $6.6 billion in contracted revenue, underscoring its push into AI and high-performance computing infrastructure.

The agreement covers a 175-megawatt data center at the company’s Sandersville, Georgia, campus and was signed with an undisclosed investment-grade global technology company. The tenant will install its computing equipment at the site, with phased deliveries expected to begin in the fourth quarter of 2027. If the customer exercises two five-year extension options, the contract’s total value could reach $11.6 billion.

The deal reflects a broader trend among Bitcoin miners seeking new revenue streams as post-halving mining economics remain under pressure. While many publicly traded miners have reduced their Bitcoin holdings to shore up liquidity, CleanSpark has largely remained a net accumulator despite selling some BTC earlier this year to fund operations. 

CleanSpark remains a net accumulator of Bitcoin. Source: BitcoinTreasuries.NET 

Bitmine generated $46 million from Ethereum staking last quarter

Bitmine Immersion Technologies generated $45.7 million in revenue from Ethereum staking and validation last quarter, demonstrating the strength of its business even as ETH prices remained under pressure. 

Ethereum staking accounted for 98% of the company’s revenue for the three months ended May 31, compared with $624,000 from self-mining Bitcoin and $168,000 from consulting services. The results follow the March launch of MAVAN, Bitmine’s institutional Ethereum staking platform, which was built on the acquisition of validator operator Pier Two Holdings. The company said it has staked roughly 85% of its Ether holdings, or about 4.9 million ETH.

Chairman Tom Lee said Bitmine now stakes more Ether than any other entity and projects annualized staking rewards of $284 million once its holdings of the token are fully staked through MAVAN and its partners. 

Crypto Biz is your weekly pulse on the business behind blockchain and crypto, delivered directly to your inbox every Thursday.

Keyrock has completed its acquisition of the trading and brokerage assets of BlockFills’ institutional digital asset business, expanding its reach across crypto market making, over-the-counter trading, options and other capital-market services. 

The Brussels-based firm said the deal adds BlockFills’ client relationships, trading technology and derivatives expertise to its existing institutional platform.

According to Keyrock’s announcement, the transaction also expands its regulatory footprint through a CIMA-registered entity in the Cayman Islands. It also includes the proposed acquisition of an FCA-authorized entity in the U.K., subject to regulatory approval. Keyrock said the combined business will support institutional clients with trading infrastructure backed by its balance sheet and compliance framework.

Today, Keyrock takes another major step forward. We have completed the acquisition of assets of BlockFills’ institutional digital asset trading and brokerage business. pic.twitter.com/krYzwK5sQp

— Kevin de Patoul (@kevindepatoul) July 16, 2026

The company did not disclose the purchase price in its announcement. However, earlier U.S. bankruptcy court filings showed that Keyrock agreed to pay $3.25 million for substantially all of BlockFills’ assets while assuming certain liabilities, customer relationships, equity interests and proprietary technology. A U.S. bankruptcy judge approved the sale in June.

BlockFills deal strengthens Keyrock’s derivatives business

The acquisition also brings experienced BlockFills staff into Keyrock. Perry Parker, who previously worked at Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank and led institutional options at BlockFills, is joining the company alongside Dan Schak, who oversaw risk and trading operations. Other employees across trading, operations and commercial functions will also move to Keyrock.

Keyrock co-founder and chief strategy officer Juan David Mendieta called the deal “an exceptional opportunity to further strengthen our team with outstanding talent and accelerate our global reach.” He also pointed to BlockFills’ institutional derivatives expertise and trading technology as key parts of the transaction.

Keyrock said digital asset derivatives are among its fastest-growing business lines as institutional demand for options and structured trading products expands. The BlockFills assets add specialist staff and client-facing systems in that area, giving the firm more capacity to serve hedge funds, asset managers, market makers and other professional counterparties.

The completed sale follows months of financial pressure at BlockFills. As crypto.news previously reported, the company froze deposits and withdrawals in February after suffering a reported $75 million lending loss. Co-founder and CEO Nicholas Hammer later stepped down as the firm searched for a buyer or strategic partner. BlockFills entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March.

Meanwhile, the acquisition comes as Keyrock expands its own institutional business. In March, the firm reached a $1.1 billion valuation in a Series C funding round led by Standard Chartered’s SC Ventures. The company has continued to build services covering liquidity, OTC execution, derivatives, credit, onchain markets and asset management.

Keyrock said it will integrate the acquired BlockFills operations in phases and communicate directly with clients as services become available. The deal gives the company a larger institutional client base and deeper derivatives capabilities while extending its regulatory presence across additional markets.

Piero Cipollone has warned that stablecoins could drain bank deposits as Coinbase fell 1.75% to $157 and Circle lost 6% across five sessions to trade near $60.

The European Central Bank executive board member raised the concern during a July 17 speech at the Federation of Cooperative Credit Banks in Rome, where he linked increased stablecoin use with a possible decline in customer deposits.

According to Cipollone, consumers may become less willing to keep money in conventional bank accounts if stablecoins gain wider use. He argued that the European Union should speed up the digital euro to protect the role banks play in the financial system and limit reliance on privately issued tokens.

His comments have added a European voice to concerns already raised by US banking groups during negotiations over the CLARITY Act. In a letter to the Senate, the groups called for changes to Section 404 that would stop stablecoin companies from offering rewards or yield through affiliated firms.

Banking groups warned that interest-bearing stablecoins could pull deposits from community lenders and weaken their ability to provide credit. Circle, which issues the USDC stablecoin, has become especially exposed to the dispute because any limits on stablecoin rewards could affect how exchanges and other partners promote USDC.

Stablecoin fears deepen pressure on crypto stocks

Circle shares briefly dropped to $58 during pre-market trading on July 17, their lowest level since February 2026, before recovering toward $60.46. The decline continued even after Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest purchased about $15.4 million worth of Circle shares.

Legislative uncertainty has also weighed on sentiment. As crypto.news reported, President Donald Trump met with senators on July 16 as Republicans tried to resolve disputes holding up the CLARITY Act. The bill requires Democratic support in the Senate, where disagreements over ethics provisions and Trump’s crypto interests have complicated negotiations.

Coinbase faces a separate risk because changes to US market rules could affect stablecoin revenue, institutional services and trading activity. Compass Point analysts forecast that COIN could fall to $140 if Congress fails to pass the CLARITY Act, arguing that the bill may have more influence on the stock than Coinbase’s second-quarter earnings scheduled for July 30.

$COIN Compass Point Reiterates Sell – PT $140

**Key Points:**
– Compass Point reaffirms **Sell** rating on Coinbase
– Price target unchanged at **$140**
– Bull case seen as dependent on Clarity Act passage; 3Q guidance expected to disappoint with deteriorating fundamentals…

— Jesse option (@AShmueil) July 17, 2026

Advertisement

Oppenheimer has lowered its Coinbase price target to $209, citing weak trading volumes on the exchange. The revised target remains above the current market price but points to reduced expectations for transaction revenue.

COIN and CRCL remain pinned near key support

On the daily chart, COIN is testing the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement at $156.92 after closing around $157.12. A break below this area would expose the psychological support at $150, followed by the May low at $139.13, close to Compass Point’s $140 target.

COIN’s MACD line has crossed above its signal line and produced a positive histogram, suggesting that bearish momentum has eased. Both lines remain below zero, however, while the relative strength index at 45.77 stays under the neutral 50 level.

A recovery would first need to clear $160–$165 before testing the 61.8% Fibonacci level at $170.89.

Circle’s daily chart places CRCL inside a descending channel that has controlled its slide from roughly $100 in early June. The $58–$60 zone remains the first support area, while a breakdown could expose $50, matching Mizuho’s downside target.

Mizuho analysts also warned that the new OpenUSD stablecoin could take market share from Circle, adding another risk to CRCL’s stock price.

$CRCL | Mizuho Securities 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐥𝐞 to 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐥, 𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐭𝐨 $𝟓𝟎 pic.twitter.com/oqA4fAC3M4

— Hardik Shah (@AIStockSavvy) July 14, 2026

CRCL’s MACD has formed an early bullish crossover below zero, but the Chaikin Money Flow reading of minus 0.29 shows continued capital outflows. A close above the channel resistance around $64–$65 would weaken the bearish setup, whereas another rejection could send the shares back toward $58 and Mizuho’s $50 forecast.

Bitcoin slipped below $63,000 on Friday as renewed U.S. military action against Iran added to a broader retreat from risk assets. 

According to crypto.news market data, BTC traded near $62,777, down 2.19% over 24 hours, after moving between $62,705 and $64,753.

The decline extended BTC’s pullback after sellers rejected prices near $65,000 earlier in the week. Asian equity markets also fell sharply on Friday, although a major selloff in technology and semiconductor stocks was a central driver of the broader market weakness. The MSCI Asia-Pacific index dropped 2.7%, while Japan and Taiwan recorded heavier losses.

Meanwhile, geopolitical pressure increased after the U.S. carried out another wave of strikes against Iran. The latest attacks targeted infrastructure and military-linked sites in southern Iran, including bridges and facilities near key ports. Iran also continued retaliatory attacks across parts of the Gulf region.

Fresh tension between Washington and Beijing added another source of uncertainty. President Donald Trump released intelligence and alleged Chinese interference connected to the 2020 U.S. election. 

China denied the allegations, while previous U.S. intelligence assessments found no evidence that Beijing changed the election result. Markets are also watching whether the dispute affects Trump’s planned September meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Bitcoin traders watch $62,200 support and $65,000 resistance

Despite the latest decline, institutional flows offered some support. According to the SoSoValue figures provided for the July 16 session, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $79.15 million in net inflows, led by BlackRock’s IBIT with $33.44 million.

The inflows follow a period of uneven institutional demand. Bitcoin recently faced pressure from rising oil prices and renewed U.S.-Iran tensions while traders watched support around $62,000. That analysis identified resistance between roughly $63,100 and $64,700.

The latest technical setup remains mixed. The chart data provided for this report showed BTC below its nine-day simple moving average near $63,765, while the relative strength index stood at 47.74. That places momentum slightly below neutral without showing deeply oversold conditions.

Bitcoin has also remained inside the broader $60,000–$65,000 range for more than a month. A sustained recovery above $64,000 and $65,000 would improve the short-term structure. However, another rejection from that area could keep the cryptocurrency locked inside its current consolidation range.

Analysts highlight key resistance and support levels

Crypto analyst Michaël van de Poppe said BTC’s broader setup remains constructive despite the latest correction. In his view, a clear breakthrough above $65,000 could open the way for stronger upside momentum.

Nothing changed on $BTC.

It’s looking great for upside momentum from here, even despite the recent correction.

Advertisement

Clear breakthrough above $65K, and we’re still going to see a strong run. pic.twitter.com/tT6YAakMsI

— Michaël van de Poppe (@CryptoMichNL) July 16, 2026

Meanwhile, Ardi identified the $63,300–$63,800 region as an important trendline area and placed horizontal support near $62,200. He warned that losing both areas could signal that the current relief rally has ended.

Ali Charts offered a longer-term view based on Bitcoin’s previous market cycles. He noted that BTC has historically formed major bottoms about 12 months after major market peaks. If that pattern repeats, he said the next major bottom could emerge around October. However, historical cycles do not guarantee that Bitcoin will follow the same timeline again.

Historically, Bitcoin $BTC has bottomed roughly 12 months after each major market top.

If that pattern holds, the next market bottom could form around October. pic.twitter.com/8oHc0jaUzs

— Ali Charts (@alicharts) July 17, 2026

In addition, Crypflow also pointed to Bitcoin’s two-week MACD as a potential confirmation signal. The analyst noted that during the 2018 and 2022 bear markets, BTC had already reached its cycle bottom before the two-week MACD produced a bullish crossover. Based on that pattern, a future crossover could confirm an existing bottom rather than identify it in advance.

The asset is also moving through a large options settlement. As crypto.news reported earlier Friday, around $1.2 billion in BTC options expired with maximum pain near $63,000. The expiry came as Bitcoin remained inside the $60,000–$65,000 range that has contained price action for more than a month.

XRP won. Seven years of legal limbo ended on a single Wednesday in March, when two agencies put it in writing. What almost nobody has noticed is what kind of writing it was, and how little it would take to unwrite.

For most of a decade, the single most important fact about XRP was a question: is it a security? The question survived a four-year lawsuit, a split ruling, a $125 million penalty, and the end of the case itself, because none of those resolved the underlying classification for anyone other than Ripple. Then, on March 17, 2026, it stopped being a question. The Securities and Exchange Commission, joined by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, published a joint interpretive release that named XRP outright as a digital commodity. Not a security. In writing, from both agencies, at Commission level. The most consequential American crypto policy document in years, and it arrived without a single vote in Congress. That last detail is the whole story, and it cuts in both directions.

NEW: Ripple received legal advice that the company was done and unsavable following the SEC lawsuit. Lawyers recommended cutting a deal to save themselves, according to Ripple CTO David Schwartz pic.twitter.com/8bQenIdDvj

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 12, 2026

Advertisement

What the March release actually did

The document runs 68 pages and carries Release Numbers 33-11412 and 34-105020. It sorts crypto assets into five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, payment stablecoins, and digital securities. Only the last of those, meaning tokenized versions of traditional instruments such as stocks and Treasuries, sits fully under SEC jurisdiction. Everything else falls primarily to the CFTC or outside securities regulation entirely.

XRP is named in the first category. So are Bitcoin, Ether, Solana, Dogecoin, Cardano, Avalanche, Chainlink, Polkadot, Hedera, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Shiba Inu, Stellar, Tezos, and Aptos. Press coverage generally counted 16 named assets; several SEC-filed prospectuses describe the list as 18, and the discrepancy appears to come from how the release’s examples are counted rather than from any dispute about XRP’s inclusion.

The test the release applies is worth reading closely, because it explains why XRP qualified. A digital commodity is an asset intrinsically linked to and deriving its value from the programmatic operation of a functional crypto system, together with supply and demand dynamics, instead of from the expectation of profits from the essential managerial efforts of others. That final clause is Howey’s language, inverted. XRP is a commodity precisely because the XRP Ledger runs without Ripple’s managerial effort determining its value. The thing XRP holders spent years arguing became the legal basis for the classification.

The release also addressed the mechanics that had been left dangling for years: how a non-security crypto asset may become subject to an investment contract, how it may cease to be subject to one, and how the securities laws apply to airdrops, protocol mining, protocol staking, and the wrapping of a non-security asset. It follows the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, stood up in January 2025, and Project Crypto, which became a joint SEC-CFTC initiative in January 2026, along with a memorandum of understanding announced days earlier.

Both chairs put their names on the shift in language nobody could misread. Atkins, speaking at the DC Blockchain Summit, said his agency is not the securities and everything commission anymore. Selig, for the CFTC, said the wait was over and committed to rules of the road that let the industry operate onshore.

Why this is stronger than people assume

The reflexive crypto reaction to any agency action is that it is worthless because the next administration undoes it. That reaction is lazy here, and the reason is a distinction most coverage skipped.

This is a Commission-level interpretation, not staff guidance. The difference is not cosmetic. Staff guidance represents the views of agency personnel and binds nobody, which is why the industry spent years being told that no-action letters and staff statements carried no legal weight. As Jenner and Block noted in its client alert, the March interpretation is binding on the SEC and the CFTC. The agencies have committed themselves, and the CFTC further committed to administering the Commodity Exchange Act consistently with the SEC’s reading. That is the strongest thing short of a rule.

The practical effects arrived immediately and are already load-bearing. Fund issuers began citing the release directly in registration statements: Grayscale and Hashdex prospectuses point to it as the basis on which their index constituents are not securities. Accredited investors and fund managers could reclassify holdings and adjust compliance programs without waiting for the GENIUS Act’s full implementation in November 2026. Exchanges listing named assets shed a category of risk they had carried since 2018. A framework that private capital has already built products on top of is considerably harder to unwind than a memo, because unwinding it now means breaking live registered products.

JUST IN: UBS, the world’s largest wealth manager with $5.7 trillion in assets, has disclosed its $XRP holdings in a new SEC 13F filing. Exposure via Grayscale and Volatility Shares ETFs pic.twitter.com/GCJWmPR3wK

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) May 8, 2026

There is a political durability argument too. Reversing the classification of Bitcoin, Ether, and XRP would require a future Commission to explain why a functional ledger’s token became a security again, against its own recent 68-page reasoning, in the face of litigation from every issuer relying on it. Agencies can do that. They rarely enjoy it.

Why it is weaker than a law

Now the other side, and it is the reason this piece exists. Everything above describes strength within the executive branch. None of it describes permanence.

The interpretation is administrative action. It is not a statute. Any future administration can direct its agencies to reinterpret, and no congressional vote is required to do it. The current regulatory floor under XRP was created by two agency chairs and can be lifted by two different agency chairs. The industry spent 2018 through 2025 learning what it feels like when a Commission decides that the previous Commission’s posture was wrong, and nothing in the March release prevents that from happening again. It simply raises the cost.

The release also does not supersede Howey. Norton Rose Fulbright made the point plainly: the joint interpretation does not replace the Supreme Court’s test. It cannot, because an interpretive release cannot overrule the Court. What the agencies did was explain how they will apply existing law. A court hearing a private securities claim is not bound by the agencies’ view of the statute, and the security status of any specific asset still turns on the facts and circumstances of its offer and sale. The SEC said as much: an asset may cease to be linked to an investment contract as the relevant facts evolve, which is the same sentence read backwards.

That leaves a gap that matters for XRP specifically. The 2023 ruling in the Ripple case drew a line between programmatic sales on exchanges and institutional sales, treating them differently. The March interpretation classifies the asset. It does not immunize every transaction in that asset. An aggressive future enforcement posture would not need to declare XRP a security to cause problems. It would only need to find managerial effort in a particular offering.

And there is the awkward provenance question. The framework XRP holders are now relying on was produced by the same agency that spent four years litigating against Ripple and collected a $125 million penalty. That agency did not change its mind because the law changed. It changed its mind because its leadership changed. Which is precisely the argument for wanting something more permanent.

The ladder

The useful way to hold all of this is as a hierarchy of durability, because XRP’s status is not binary. It sits on a specific rung.

Staff guidance is the bottom. Non-binding, reversible by a memo, worth roughly what the issuing staff’s tenure is worth. This is what crypto had for years.

Commission-level interpretation is where XRP sits today. Binding on the SEC and CFTC, reasoned in public across 68 pages, relied upon in live registration statements. Reversible by a future Commission through the same instrument that created it, with no involvement from Congress and no notice-and-comment obligation.

JUST IN: UBS, the world’s largest wealth manager with $5.7 trillion in assets, has disclosed its $XRP holdings in a new SEC 13F filing. Exposure via Grayscale and Volatility Shares ETFs pic.twitter.com/GCJWmPR3wK

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) May 8, 2026

Advertisement

A formal rule is the next rung, and it is the one currently in motion. The SEC’s Regulation Crypto proposal sits in the agency’s July 2026 rulemaking slot, under review at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Rules go through notice and comment, which is slow and irritating and precisely why they are hard to unwind. Reversing a final rule generally requires another full rulemaking, with a reasoned explanation that survives judicial review. Bankless made the observation that most outlets missed: the SEC has leaned on staff guidance and its taxonomy so far, but formal rules are far harder for a future commission to undo.

A statute is the top. The CLARITY Act would put the taxonomy into law, at which point unwinding it requires Congress, which is a body that struggles to pass anything at all. That difficulty is the feature.

So XRP holders currently occupy rung two of four, with rung three under White House review and rung four stuck on the Senate calendar with no floor vote scheduled and roughly three working weeks left before the August recess. That is the actual position, and it is neither the triumph nor the mirage that the two loudest camps describe.

The four years everyone forgot to price

There is a piece of history worth putting next to the March release, because it explains why the classification felt like an ending and why it is not one.

The SEC sued Ripple in December 2020, alleging XRP had been sold as an unregistered security. The case ran four years and produced a split ruling in 2023: sales to institutional buyers were investment contracts, while programmatic sales on exchanges were not, because anonymous buyers on an order book could not know whose effort they were relying on. Ripple ultimately paid a $125 million penalty and the litigation wound down in 2025. Exchanges delisted XRP for American users during the case and relisted after it. Billions in market value moved on procedural filings.

Notice what that outcome did and did not settle. It resolved claims against one company. It did not classify XRP for anyone else, which is why the question survived the case that was supposed to answer it. Every other market participant was left reading a district court opinion about someone else’s conduct and guessing. That guessing is what ended in March, and it ended not because a court ruled or Congress voted, but because agency leadership changed and the new leadership read the same statute differently.

That is the part worth sitting with. The law did not change between 2020 and 2026. The Securities Act of 1933 reads the same. Howey reads the same. The XRP Ledger runs the same consensus it ran when the lawsuit was filed. What changed was who occupied the chairs, and the outcome flipped from four years of litigation to a 68-page release naming XRP as a commodity in the first category.

Anyone who believes that dynamic runs in only one direction has not been paying attention. The same mechanism that delivered the win is the mechanism that could withdraw it, and it requires nothing more dramatic than another election and another appointment. This is exactly why the ladder matters, and exactly why the industry pushed for statute instead of settling for the agency’s blessing. A framework that can be reversed by a personnel change is not a framework. It is a truce.

The counterpoint, and it is a fair one, is that this cuts against the doom case too. If a hostile Commission could reclassify XRP tomorrow, it could also have done so at any point in the past decade and largely did try. The industry survived. Exchanges relisted. The asset persisted through the worst enforcement posture the SEC could produce, which suggests the practical downside of reinterpretation is a repeat of a period XRP already lived through and outlasted, not an existential event. The market has already stress-tested the bear case, and XRP is still here.

What this means for the price nobody wants to hear

XRP trades around $1.10 to $1.15, having reclaimed that support after a macro-driven rally cooled. A year ago it traded near $3.65. Analysts note that regulatory risk on Ripple has fallen to a multi-year bottom following the end of the SEC litigation, and demand from domestic funds has stabilized accordingly.

Both of those sentences are true simultaneously, and their coexistence is the most instructive fact about this market. The single largest overhang on XRP for seven years was legal uncertainty. That overhang has been removed more decisively than the most optimistic holder could have scripted in 2022: named, in writing, by both agencies, at Commission level. And the token is down roughly 70% from a year ago.

The honest conclusion is that legal clarity was necessary and is not sufficient. It removed a reason not to own XRP. It did not create a reason to own it. Those are different things, and the market has now run the experiment. Anyone still arguing that the next regulatory milestone is the catalyst has to explain why the biggest regulatory milestone in the asset’s history produced a lower price.

Which loops back to the ladder, and to why the rung matters even in a market that appears not to care. The value of moving from interpretation to rule to statute is not that it triggers a rally. It is that it removes the tail. As long as XRP’s classification rests on administrative action, an unknown future Commission holds an option to reopen a question that took seven years and $125 million to close the first time. Codification does not make XRP go up. It makes the worst case go away. In an asset that has spent a decade pricing legal risk, retiring the possibility of its return is worth something, and it is worth it quietly, over years, in the form of institutions that will hold it because they no longer need a legal opinion to do so.

What to watch

Three things, in order of how much they would change.

Regulation Crypto clearing OIRA and reaching public comment. The proposal is slotted for July. If it publishes and survives comment substantially intact, XRP moves from rung two to rung three, and the classification gets meaningfully harder to reverse. Watch whether the decentralization off-ramp language stays intact, since that is the provision doing the same work the taxonomy does.

The CLARITY Act reaching a floor vote before August 7. If it passes and is signed, the taxonomy becomes statute and the question closes permanently. If it dies, the entire American crypto framework rests on one agency’s interpretation and one agency’s pending rule, which is the outcome the industry spent a year lobbying to avoid.

Any enforcement action that tests the edges. The interpretation classifies assets. It does not classify transactions. The first case that alleges a specific XRP offering carried managerial effort, notwithstanding XRP’s commodity status, will show how much the March release actually protects. Until that happens, its practical strength is theoretical.

XRP won its argument. It won it in the weakest venue that could have delivered the win, from an agency that could deliver it because its leadership changed and could withdraw it for the same reason. Whether that victory is permanent is being decided right now, in a rulemaking review and on a Senate calendar, and almost none of it is being decided by anything Ripple does.

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. It describes regulatory interpretations and pending rulemaking, both of which can change, and it is not a legal opinion on the status of any asset. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell anything. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 17, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

No. There is no official Robinhood Chain token, there is no airdrop, and there is no snapshot. Every token currently claiming that association is either a joke that admits it or a trap that does not.

Ask the internet whether Robinhood Chain has a token and you will get a hundred confident answers, most of them wrong and several of them designed to be. The correct answer is short: no. Robinhood launched its blockchain on July 1, 2026 and did not issue a native token with it. What exists instead is a chain that runs on ether, a company stock that trades on Nasdaq, and a growing crowd of community tokens borrowing Robinhood’s branding without permission. Understanding why the chain has no token, and why that absence is precisely what makes the question dangerous, is worth more than any list of tickers.

The direct answer

Robinhood Chain has no official native token. There is no RHC, no HOODCHAIN, no chain coin.

The network is an Ethereum layer 2 built on Arbitrum’s Orbit stack, and it uses ether for gas. When you transact on Robinhood Chain, you pay fees in ETH, the same asset that secures Ethereum. That is a deliberate design choice and it is the single most important fact in this article, because gas is the primary reason most chains issue tokens at all. For readers new to the network, crypto.news has also explained the chain itself and its Stock Tokens.

The company’s only official tradable instrument is HOOD, the common stock of Robinhood Markets on Nasdaq. That is an equity: it carries shareholder rights, it is regulated as a security, and it is bought through a brokerage account. It is not a crypto token and it does not live on the chain.

Two other tickers cause confusion and neither is what people mean. USDG is the stablecoin used across Robinhood’s on-chain products, including as collateral for perpetual futures. It is not a Robinhood Chain token; it is a dollar stablecoin. LIT is the token of Lighter, the perpetuals exchange that partners with Robinhood Chain. Robinhood Ventures invested in Lighter and Lighter committed $11 million of LIT to the Robinhood community, which is a partner incentive and not a chain token.

So: ETH for gas, HOOD for equity, USDG for stable value, LIT for a partner protocol. No chain token.

Why the chain does not have one

Blockchains issue native tokens for three reasons, and Robinhood Chain has an answer for each.

Gas. A chain needs a unit to pay for computation. Most layer 1 networks mint their own. Robinhood Chain uses ether instead, inheriting Ethereum’s asset and its liquidity on day one. No new token required.

Governance. Some networks distribute tokens so holders can vote on protocol changes. Robinhood is a publicly listed brokerage running a chain as corporate infrastructure. It has shareholders and a board. It does not need a governance token, and issuing one would create an awkward second constituency with unclear legal standing next to the one that already owns the company.

Incentives. Chains hand out tokens to bootstrap usage. Robinhood has roughly 28 million customers across 38 countries and a distribution pipeline no new chain can match. It ran a 90-day gas fee subsidy instead, which achieves the same bootstrapping without issuing a security-shaped asset.

There is a fourth reason, unstated and probably decisive. Robinhood is a regulated broker with securities licenses in multiple jurisdictions. Issuing a token would invite an immediate question about whether that token is a security, from the same regulators who supervise its core business. The company has spent years building the relationships that let it offer Stock Tokens abroad and lending products at home. A native token would put all of that on the table in exchange for benefits it can already obtain without one.

The precedent supports the read. Coinbase’s Base, the most successful corporate chain to date, has no native token either, and Coinbase has repeatedly said it has no plans to issue one. Corporate chains built by regulated financial companies tend not to mint coins. That is the pattern, not the exception.

What CASHCAT actually is

CASHCAT is the token everyone means when they ask this question, so it deserves a direct treatment.

It is a community memecoin deployed on Robinhood Chain shortly after mainnet. It has a fixed supply of one billion tokens and its contract address is 0x020bfC650A365f8BB26819deAAbF3E21291018b4. It reached a market capitalization near $156 million within days and, at its peak, was worth roughly twelve times every tokenized real-world asset on the chain combined.

It has no affiliation with Robinhood. Not a partnership, not an endorsement, not a corporate project. The token’s own website says as much, disclaiming any connection to Robinhood Markets or to Vlad Tenev, and describing the project as fan fiction with a ticker. Asked what the utility is, the site answers that the utility is cat.

The name is where the confusion comes from, and it is a genuinely good story. Before Robinhood was Robinhood, Tenev and co-founder Baiju Bhatt called their company CashCat. The detail comes from a New Yorker profile and had been sitting in startup lore for years until someone realized it made a perfect memecoin. The token resurrects a discarded company name. That is the whole connection, and it is a connection of trivia, not of ownership.

What complicated matters is that on July 8, Tenev posted that while the company is building the chain to be the best for real-world assets, it works great for memes too, and he followed the token’s account. That is a CEO acknowledging something visible on his own network. It is not an endorsement, an affiliation, or a claim of ownership. But it is exactly the kind of signal that makes a retail buyer assume otherwise, which is why the disclaimer matters more than the follow.

The tokens filling the gap

The absence of an official token has not produced an absence of tokens. It has produced the opposite.

Within days of launch, Robinhood Chain hosted Cash Dog in Hood, Little John, Hoodrat, and Arrow, none of which existed before July 1. Noxa, the chain’s dominant launchpad, was averaging roughly 18,600 new token launches per day before it stopped accepting launches on July 11 and went dark two days later. Pump.fun added Robinhood Chain support on July 8, letting Solana’s memecoin crowd deploy without bridging. Crypto.news covered how memecoins took over the network as Robinhood’s RWA chain became dominated by speculative tokens.

The wave has not stopped. On July 16, STONKCAT opened a presale for $SCAT, pitching a community called The Litter and a running joke about a cat that never sells. A separate MemeToro presale is running alongside it, promising staking, AI-assisted launch tools, and prediction markets after the ecosystem expands.

Read the pattern rather than the individual tokens. Each new project borrows Robinhood’s branding, gestures at the chain’s legitimacy, and sells the association. None of them have the association. The branding gap that CASHCAT discovered is now a repeatable business model, and presales are where it converts fastest, because a presale asks for money before there is a market price to check.

How the scam works

This is the part worth internalizing, because the mechanics are predictable.

The airdrop rumor. New chains often reward early users with retroactive token distributions. Robinhood Chain will not, because there is no token to distribute. But the expectation exists, and it is exploited: posts claiming a snapshot has been taken, a claim window is open, or eligibility depends on connecting a wallet. Every one of those is false by construction. There is nothing to claim.

The official-looking token. A token deploys with Robinhood branding, a plausible ticker, and a website that mimics corporate design. It buys visibility. Retail buyers who have heard that Robinhood launched a chain assume this is the asset. It is not, and no amount of visual polish changes that.

The unaudited contract. CASHCAT itself illustrates the deeper problem: security audits of its contract were not possible because Robinhood Chain is too new for the tooling to have caught up. That applies across the chain. Tokens launching today are deploying into an environment where standard verification infrastructure does not yet exist, which removes the check that would normally catch a malicious contract.

Thin liquidity. CASHCAT’s trading pool has been worth far less than the token’s market capitalization, which means large trades swing the price hard in both directions. A nine-figure market cap sitting on a shallow pool is not a nine-figure asset. It is a small pool with a large number attached.

The defense is unglamorous and it works. Verify the contract address against a source you trust before buying anything. Assume any claim of official Robinhood affiliation is false unless Robinhood says otherwise on its own channels. Treat presales with more suspicion than listed tokens, since presales take money before price discovery. And accept the base case: there is no token, so there is nothing to be early to. That is also why understanding how token scams are structured matters before interacting with any new chain asset.

Why the question keeps getting asked

It is worth understanding why this particular question generates so much search traffic, because the answer explains the risk better than any warning does.

Crypto spent roughly four years training people that a new chain means a new token, and that being early to the token is where the money is. That training was accurate. Solana, Avalanche, Arbitrum, Optimism, and dozens of others issued native assets, and early participants in several of them did extraordinarily well. Airdrops turned unpaid testnet activity into five-figure windfalls. An entire behavioral pattern formed around it: hear about a new chain, find the token, get in before everyone else.

Robinhood Chain arrives carrying every signal that pattern responds to. It is new. It launched with a keynote. It is backed by a company with roughly 28 million customers and a Nasdaq listing. It has partners with real names, real volume, and real integrations. Every heuristic a crypto user has says there is a token here and being early to it matters.

There is not, and the mismatch between the expectation and the reality is the entire exploit surface. Scammers do not need to be clever when the audience has already convinced itself the thing exists. They only need to supply it. A token appears, the branding is close enough, and buyers who arrived expecting to find an official asset find something that looks like one. The pattern completes itself. That is why these tokens appear on new chains so quickly after launch.

The same dynamic explains why presales cluster here. STONKCAT opened a $SCAT presale on July 16 and a MemeToro presale is running alongside it, both pitching future products, staking, and ecosystem participation. A presale is the purest expression of the be-early instinct: it asks for money before there is any market price, any liquidity, or any way to verify what you bought is what was described. On a chain where audit tooling has not caught up, the ordinary checks that would flag a problem are also unavailable.

Notice too what the corporate structure means for anyone hoping the policy changes. If Robinhood ever issued a token, it would be a decision made by a listed company with a board, disclosed through filings and official channels, and scrutinized immediately by the regulators supervising its brokerage business. It would not leak through a countdown site or a Telegram group. The manner of any announcement would itself be evidence of whether it was real, and that is a more reliable filter than any list of red flags.

The uncomfortable framing worth sitting with: the reason there is no official token is the same reason the chain has institutional credibility at all. A regulated broker that minted a coin would be a different kind of company, facing a different set of questions, offering a different product. The absence people are searching for is not an oversight waiting to be corrected. It is the design.

What to watch instead

If the interest behind the question is genuine exposure to what Robinhood is building, three things are real and none of them are memecoins.

HOOD equity. The company’s stock is the direct instrument. Its crypto business is under real pressure, with transaction revenue down 47% year over year to $134 million in the first quarter of 2026 and native-app crypto volume down 48% to $24 billion. The chain is the response. Second-quarter earnings on July 29 are the first look at whether Stock Tokens are converting.

The chain’s real-world asset figure. This is the metric that matters and almost nobody quotes it. Tokenized real-world assets on Robinhood Chain total roughly $12.8 million against a network holding around $312 million in total value. If that number grows substantially while memecoin activity fades, the strategy is working. If it does not, the traffic never converted.

Whether the policy changes. Companies reverse themselves. If Robinhood ever does issue a token, it will announce it through its own channels, in filings and official communications, not through a countdown site. Until that happens, the answer to the question in the headline is the same as it was on July 1.

The honest summary is that the most valuable thing about Robinhood Chain having no token is that it tells you what kind of chain it is. Networks that mint coins are asking you to fund them. A network built by a listed brokerage running on someone else’s gas asset is asking you to use it. Those are different propositions, and only one of them has a ticker to chase.

The one number that answers everything

If you take a single thing from this article, make it this: the chain’s own scoreboard tells you whether any of it is working, and it is not the number anyone quotes.

Robinhood Chain holds roughly $312 million in total value locked. That figure gets cited constantly and it is close to meaningless, because value locked counts stablecoins parked, lending positions open, and assets sitting in automated market makers. It measures presence, not purpose. Transaction counts are worse, because a 90-day gas fee subsidy has been paying for activity since launch, which inflates the count and makes comparisons with chains like Base unreliable until the subsidy expires.

The number that means something is tokenized real-world assets: roughly $12.8 million, of which about $10.68 million is stocks and around $410,000 is Treasuries. That is approximately 4.1% of activity on a chain built entirely for that category. Every other metric on the network is measuring something the chain was not designed to do.

So the honest scorecard reads: enormous traffic, negligible product-market fit for the actual product, and a subsidy propping up the headline. That is not a verdict, because two weeks is not a verdict. It is a baseline. If tokenized assets grow well past $13 million while the memecoin volume fades, the speculation was the ignition sequence and Robinhood was right. If the assets stay flat while the traffic rotates to whichever chain is paying attention next, the chain attracted a crowd that was never going to convert.

Second-quarter earnings on July 29 are the first genuine look, because they will show Stock Token adoption from the company’s own books rather than from chain-level metrics that a subsidy is distorting. Watch that, and watch whether liquidity persists after the subsidy expires. Those two data points will tell you more than any token ever could, and neither of them requires you to buy anything.

Frequently asked questions

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Memecoins are highly speculative, frequently trade on thin liquidity, and most participants lose money. Token affiliations, contract addresses, and project claims change and should be verified independently before any transaction. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy any token or security. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 17, 2026.