A blue-check account on X falsely claimed to be a freshly fired Coinbase product manager, earning nearly 200,000 views within hours. The meme fit perfectly into crypto investors’ predispositions yesterday with irresistible confirmation bias.

Yesterday, bitcoin and ether hit 52-week lows. Base, Coinbase’s blockchain, was down for roughly two hours. Everything was going down.

The account jokingly explained that Coinbase fired Ravi Riley as “a non-technical PM on the Base sequencer team and my first PR got merged to prod at noon.” Multiple trackers confirmed the roughly two-hour outage, even though it was not caused by Riley, who was never a Coinbase employee.

The memetic implication was that a new hire had crashed Base and then was marched out.

It is, after all, too easy to dunk on Coinbase. The company is the largest publicly traded crypto company and probably has the largest US customer base on social media.

Another Coinbase outage after Brian Armstrong fired workers

Yesterday’s meme traces its origin to at least May 5.

Early in the morning on that day, founder Brian Armstrong cut 700 workers, or roughly 14% of his staff. He revoked access on the spot, before most employees started work in the morning, “Coinbase system access has been removed today. I know this feels sudden and harsh, but it is the only responsible choice given our duty to protect customer information.”

Within two days, the Coinbase website went down altogether. Although the headcount reduction was probably unrelated to that outage, it didn’t matter for many critics on social media.

Attempting to blame the layoffs on something positive, Armstrong framed the cuts as an AI-driven rebuild. Tens of millions of dollars in restructuring charges would somehow improve the business with a nebulous benefit of AI.

Layoffs, then a service outage. Armstrong’s memo had spawned a meme. “Today I was fired from Coinbase” became an instant hit.

The most popular variants claimed absurd job accomplishments, especially Coinbase operations that crypto traders hated: issuing 1099s, freezing accounts, implementing the 4H chart, and website cacheing.

As with any meme on social media, people remake it in endless variations to make Coinbase the punchline of layoffs that never literally happened as a way to make fun of Coinbase’s shortcomings.

Advertisement

Base outage ends, but Coinbase memes continue

Yesterday, Base resumed normal block production within about two hours. Block production stalled at 16:03 UTC after a malformed block was sequenced.

That consensus failure stopped the chain after block 47806542, according to the network’s status incident. Deposits, withdrawals, and on-chain activity all queued behind the bad block. 

The official Base account said only that “Base Mainnet is currently halted while the team works on an issue with block production.” It stressed that funds were secure.

Read more: Hot air at AWS causes Coinbase outage

Advertisement

The timing was awkward. The stall hit hours before Base’s scheduled Beryl upgrade, set for 18:00 UTC that same day. 

Anyway, the incident revived a familiar criticism. Base relies on a Coinbase-operated sequencer, so one bad block can stall the entire network. A key sequencer also caused a chain halt in August 2025, the network’s last major stall prior to yesterday.

In other words, it was easy to point a lazy finger at Coinbase for the outage. That’s what happened.

A repeat jokester makes Coinbase the punchline

Riley is a former Chainlink engineer. His post about getting fired from Coinbase mimicked the now-standard layoff-confessional format, complete with vanished Slack access and a wistful note about reflecting.

Advertisement

Riley is a jokester on social media and has posted another fake layoff confessional in the past.

A Community Note on X dismantled Riley’s claim: “Ravi Riley was never employed at Coinbase, as confirmed by his X bio and LinkedIn profile listing only Brookwell as current and no prior Coinbase role.” The Community Note added that his post mirrored his earlier fake firing claim about a company called Delve.

His Delve post collected 3.8 million views, a satirical jab tied to the Delve compliance scandal. His Coinbase remix kept that general format.

Despite its obvious fake content and a pending Community Note, Riley’s post remained live by early morning today.

Advertisement

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.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has added Hyperliquid—an exchange platform focused on perpetual trading—to its Investor Alert List, a consumer-protection tool used to flag entities that the public may mistakenly perceive as being licensed or authorized by the regulator.

MAS stated that the new entry covers the Hyper Foundation website and the Hyperliquid trading app. MAS previously expanded the same alert list to other crypto trading platforms, underscoring Singapore’s approach to reducing regulatory confusion and strengthening investor safeguards.

Key takeaways

• MAS added Hyperliquid and the related Hyper Foundation website/app to the Investor Alert List as a potential source of public misunderstanding about regulatory status.
• Inclusion on the Investor Alert List is not a ban and does not, by itself, indicate an enforcement action by MAS.
• MAS has recently tightened oversight of crypto firms that serve overseas customers, emphasizing licensing requirements and AML/CFT alignment.
• Hyperliquid says it has not represented itself as MAS-licensed or authorized and argues that its permissionless infrastructure has not changed.

What MAS’s Investor Alert List signals

MAS’s Investor Alert List is designed to protect consumers by identifying entities that may be wrongly viewed as licensed or regulated by the central bank and financial regulator. The regulator has repeatedly clarified that being listed does not automatically equate to prohibited activity under Singapore law.

MAS’s decision to include Hyperliquid specifies both the ecosystem’s website and the trading app. This level of detail matters for compliance teams and institutional counterparties that may perform due diligence using public regulatory signals—because alert-list entries often trigger internal review of marketing, representations, and risk controls tied to a platform’s perceived regulatory status.

MAS’s process also reflects a broader supervisory challenge in crypto: decentralized or non-traditional trading services can be difficult to categorize in conventional licensing frameworks, and customers may assume legitimacy based on branding, accessibility, or geographic association.

Hyperliquid’s response and the compliance angle

Hyperliquid said it has never claimed to be licensed or authorized by MAS. The platform added that nothing about its permissionless infrastructure has changed following the alert-list update.

From a regulatory monitoring standpoint, the statement is significant because it addresses a core risk highlighted by the Investor Alert List: whether public-facing material could lead users to believe that a platform is supervised by MAS.

For institutions—such as banks, payment providers, wealth managers, and regulated intermediaries—the practical question is not only whether a platform is “approved,” but how it is marketed and how counterparty engagements are documented. An investor alert can influence counterparty risk assessments, onboarding decisions, and ongoing third-party monitoring, particularly where customer communications or operational integration could create regulatory perception risk.

Singapore’s tightening crypto oversight: licensing and AML/CFT alignment

MAS has increasingly applied licensing and compliance expectations across the crypto sector. In May 2025, MAS ordered crypto companies serving overseas customers to either obtain licenses or cease operations. MAS described the step as consistent with its longstanding regulatory position, rather than a new shift in policy.

According to MAS, the directive closed a previously exploited gap where some Singapore-based firms avoided licensing by focusing on overseas customers. MAS said it had communicated its position since 2022 and moved to end a transition period for firms that continued operating without the required authorization.

MAS also framed its measures as part of strengthening consumer protection and aligning Singapore’s framework with international standards on Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT). This emphasis is relevant for regulated entities assessing cross-border services, because crypto businesses may operate across jurisdictions while still relying on global infrastructure and customer access.

For compliance officers, these developments reinforce a key point: supervisory expectations can apply even where services are not marketed as being Singapore-centric, particularly when a firm’s Singapore footprint, corporate presence, or operational arrangements create regulatory reach.

Related regional context and unresolved distinctions

The use of an investor alert list, rather than immediate enforcement, highlights an important regulatory distinction in Singapore’s approach: MAS appears to differentiate between consumer-perception issues and licensing/authorization determinations. While alert-list inclusion is not itself an enforcement action, it can function as an early-warning mechanism that signals how MAS views the likelihood of public misunderstanding.

This also leaves several issues for ongoing clarification in the broader ecosystem. For example, decentralized or permissionless trading structures may challenge conventional definitions of “licensed activity,” particularly when users access the service through applications or websites tied to identifiable organizational entities. Regulators across multiple jurisdictions have grappled with how licensing obligations apply to decentralized finance interfaces, especially when consumer access is straightforward.

Separately, MAS’s enforcement posture on licensing for firms serving overseas customers suggests that jurisdictional boundaries may not shield entities from Singapore’s regulatory reach where licensing obligations attach through corporate structure or operational presence.

What to watch next

Hyperliquid’s alert-list addition is unlikely to settle questions about licensing classification or the regulatory treatment of permissionless services, but it does raise near-term compliance considerations for institutions engaging with or referencing the platform. MAS’s broader enforcement direction—especially around licensing obligations and AML/CFT expectations—will remain the key factor shaping how similar platforms are assessed in future regulatory updates.

Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume, told customers in the European Union (EU) it is suspending some services because it will not have a Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) license in place by July 1.

Users were emailed to notify them the exchange was no longer able to accept new registrations and would restrict services, a spokesperson for the Abu Dhabi-based company told CoinDesk. “Your assets remain safe and secure, and will remain accessible at all times,” the email said.

On Thursday, the company said it withdrew its license application in Greece and would seek authorization in another EU country.

“Our ambitions in Europe remain the same, and we are confident we will secure a MiCA licence in the coming months,” Binance said in a statement to CoinDesk.

The exchange intends to approach France instead, the Financial Times reported Friday, citing people familiar with the company’s plans.

The emails to clients in France, Italy, Poland and Spain come days before a June 30 deadline. Crypto firms must have a MiCA license from at least one EU member state by July 1 to provide services across all 27 member states. Unlicensed firms must wind down their EU activities.

Australia’s corporate regulator has extended a key compliance transition for digital asset businesses, giving firms more time to apply for licenses under updated guidance. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) said the temporary “no-action” position against enforcement will last until September 30, 2026, after being pushed back from an earlier June 30, 2026 deadline.

The extension covers companies seeking an Australian Financial Services (AFS) license, as well as digital asset firms that may require market or clearing and settlement authorizations. ASIC also broadened the relief to include businesses that operate through authorized representatives or via intermediary arrangements with already licensed entities.

Key takeaways

• ASIC extended its digital asset no-action protection to September 30, 2026 for firms applying under updated licensing guidance.
• The relief applies not only to AFS license applicants, but also to companies that may need market and clearing and settlement approvals.
• ASIC widened eligibility to cover digital asset activities carried out through authorized representatives or intermediary arrangements with licensed firms.
• ASIC said it has received around 30 license applications since it updated its digital asset guidance in October 2025.

ASIC pushes the clock back for licensing applications

ASIC’s update provides additional runway for digital asset businesses working through Australia’s financial services licensing expectations. In a statement, the regulator said the no-action stance that shields eligible firms from enforcement will continue through Sept. 30, 2026, giving applicants more time to prepare submissions and meet licensing requirements tied to ASIC’s approach to digital asset products.

Under the extension, firms that need AFS licensing can remain within the protected period while they apply. ASIC’s scope is also broader than simple trading-platform licensing: it extends to situations where a business may require additional market structure permissions, including market authorizations, and clearing and settlement authorizations.

The regulator said it has also seen activity around the guidance it issued, noting it has received about 30 license applications since the update in October 2025. For industry participants, that figure is a useful signal: demand for formal licensing is moving forward, but the regulator appears to be acknowledging that processing, preparation, and regulatory readiness take longer than the initial timetable.

How INFO 225 shaped the licensing pathway

The latest extension builds on earlier regulatory work. ASIC had previously introduced the no-action position after updating Information Sheet 225 (INFO 225), clarifying how Australia’s existing financial services laws apply to digital asset activities. ASIC’s central point is that many digital asset products can fall within Australia’s definition of financial products, meaning providers may need to hold an AFS license depending on how their offerings are structured.

ASIC has consistently framed its approach as technology-neutral, arguing that the legal definitions are broad enough to cover digital assets. The regulator said its interpretation was recently reinforced by the High Court’s Block Earner ruling, which concluded that the company’s former crypto yield product was a financial product under the Corporations Act.

That High Court outcome matters beyond one case, because it strengthens the legal basis for ASIC’s view that some crypto-linked revenue models—such as yield products—can be regulated under existing securities and financial services frameworks. For businesses, it raises the stakes around product classification: even if a firm believes its activity is “new” or “digital-native,” the legal analysis can still lead back to traditional licensing duties.

What comes after the transition: the Digital Asset Framework

The no-action relief is not the end state. ASIC’s temporary approach runs alongside Australia’s broader legislative track: the Digital Asset Framework, which passed Parliament in April and is currently scheduled to commence on April 9, 2027.

ASIC has warned that the incoming framework will bring digital asset platforms and tokenized custody platforms under the financial services licensing regime in a more formal, dedicated structure. Importantly for existing licensees and applicants, ASIC noted that approvals obtained under the current INFO 225-based route may not fully cover future requirements once the new regime begins.

In a May announcement, ASIC said many digital asset firms that apply for a licence based on INFO 225 will also need to add Digital Asset Platform (DAP) and Tokenized Custody Platform (TCP) authorizations once the new framework commences. That distinction creates a two-stage compliance picture for the industry: first, secure the licensing status that fits current guidance, and then prepare for additional authorizations required under the forthcoming regime.

For investors and customers, the practical implication is straightforward: licensing and oversight for crypto services in Australia may become more granular over time. Firms that focus only on the near-term INFO 225 transition could face additional operational and compliance work after April 2027.

Why the extension matters for builders and market participants

Extending the deadline reduces immediate pressure on applicant pipelines and may allow businesses to align governance, risk controls, and regulatory compliance processes with ASIC’s expectations. It also acknowledges that the licensing journey is broader than submitting paperwork—firms must demonstrate capability across key areas such as client protections, arrangements, and ongoing compliance obligations that regulators typically expect from AFS-licensed entities.

The extension’s inclusion of authorized representative and intermediary arrangements is particularly relevant for distribution models. Digital asset firms often operate through partnerships or regulated intermediaries; by clarifying that no-action relief can extend to those structures, ASIC is signaling that compliance can be achieved through legitimate regulated channels rather than forcing every participant to build an entirely standalone licensing footprint immediately.

Still, the timeline remains tight relative to the next legislative phase. With the Digital Asset Framework scheduled to start in April 2027, the period granted by ASIC now serves as a bridge: enough time to get initial applications in, but not enough to avoid future licensing upgrades if firms will ultimately need DAP and TCP authorizations.

As ASIC continues processing applications and as the April 2027 commencement date approaches, the next items to watch are how many applicants ultimately secure AFS licenses and what proportion need additional DAP/TCP approvals. That will offer the clearest indication of how quickly Australia’s crypto regulatory regime is moving from guidance-based classification to the dedicated structure set out in the new framework.

CoinDesk Indices presents its daily market update, highlighting the performance of leaders and laggards in the CoinDesk 20 Index.

The CoinDesk 20 is currently trading at 1595.41, up 0.4% (+5.99) since 4 p.m. ET on Thursday.

Eleven of 20 assets are trading higher.

Leaders: AAVE (+8.9%) and SOL (+4.5%).

Laggards: NEAR (-2.5%) and ETH (-1.1%).

The CoinDesk 20 is a broad-based index traded on multiple platforms in several regions globally.

The pullback marks a sharp reversal from expectations at the start of 2026, when many industry executives anticipated a wave of crypto listings following successful IPOs by Circle (CRCL) and CoinDesk’s owner Bullish (BLSH).

Crypto investors also worry that this year’s blockbuster AI-related IPOs are siphoning capital away from digital assets. The successful listing of SpaceX SPCX), along with expectations for additional high-profile AI and technology offerings, has given institutional investors another destination for growth capital at a time when crypto markets have struggled to regain momentum.

Market participants say that rotation has weighed on tokens, crypto-linked equities and the appetite for new crypto IPOs

Snider said the pickup in public listings reflects improving confidence among both corporate executives and equity investors. The key question, is whether the surge signals the kind of market euphoria typically seen at the peak of an asset bubble.

He sees some familiar warning signs. Equity valuations remain elevated, investor confidence is strong, and AI has become a dominant investment theme, echoing the technology-driven optimism that characterized previous market peaks.

But the strategist argued one critical metric tells a different story: the number of IPOs. The U.S. has averaged roughly 100 IPOs a year over the past quarter century, close to the current pace. That compares with more than 250 IPOs in 2021 and nearly 400 during the height of the dot-com boom in 1999.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has given digital asset businesses another three months to apply for licenses required under its updated regulatory guidance.

Australia’s financial regulator said that the temporary protection from enforcement would remain in place until Sept. 30, pushed from the previous June 30 deadline.

The extension applies to businesses seeking an Australian Financial Services (AFS) license, as well as companies that may require market or clearing and settlement authorizations.

ASIC also expanded the no-action relief to cover digital asset businesses operating through authorized representatives or intermediary arrangements with licensed firms, widening the pool of companies eligible for the transition period.

The regulator said it has received about 30 license applications since updating its digital asset guidance in October 2025.

Source: ASIC

Australia’s crypto licensing transition takes shape

ASIC previously introduced the no-action position after updating its Information Sheet 225 (INFO 225) guidance to clarify how existing financial services laws apply to digital assets. The guidance states that many digital asset products are financial products under existing law, meaning many providers require an AFS licence.

That approach rests on ASIC’s view that Australia’s definitions of financial products are broad and technology-neutral. The regulator said its interpretation was recently reinforced by the High Court’s Block Earner ruling, which found that the company’s former crypto yield product was a financial product under the Corporations Act.

Related: Coinbase plans expansion to stock trading in Australia after securing license

The temporary relief is separate from Australia’s Digital Asset Framework, which passed Parliament in April and is scheduled to commence on April 9, 2027.

The law will bring digital asset platforms and tokenized custody platforms under Australia’s financial services licensing regime. ASIC has warned that some firms licensed under the current guidance may need additional authorizations once the new framework takes effect. 

“Many digital asset firms that apply for a licence based on INFO 225 will also need to add DAP and TCP authorisations to their licence once that regime commences,” ASIC said in a May announcement. 

Magazine: AI is banking the unbanked in Africa… faster than crypto

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.

Chainlink has wired itself into the plumbing of global finance, with SWIFT, JPMorgan, UBS, and DTCC building on its infrastructure. Its token trades around $7, roughly 86% below its all-time high. The gap between the adoption and the price is the whole story, and it is the same story as XRP.

Chainlink may be the most widely adopted piece of infrastructure in all of crypto, and its token trades like an afterthought.

Over the past two years the network has wired itself into the core of traditional finance, with SWIFT, the messaging backbone that connects roughly 11,000 banks and moves on the order of $150 trillion a year, moving from pilot to pre-production on Chainlink’s cross-chain technology.

JPMorgan, UBS, ANZ, Fidelity International, SBI, DTCC, Euroclear, and Mastercard have also built around its infrastructure, while the value secured across its oracle network has climbed past $90 billion, many times that of any competitor.

By the measure of institutional adoption that crypto has chased for a decade, Chainlink has arguably won. And yet LINK, its token, trades around $7, roughly 86% below the all-time high near $53 it reached back in 2021.

The fundamentals keep setting records and the price keeps disappointing. That gap, between a network embedding itself in global finance and a token that acts like none of it is happening, is the entire story.

Anyone who followed XRP through 2026 will recognize it immediately, because it is the same adoption-versus-token gap.

This piece works through why Chainlink’s extraordinary adoption has not lifted its token. It covers what Chainlink actually does and why banks cannot easily avoid it, what SWIFT and the institutions signed up for, the central problem of how value is supposed to reach the token at all, the mechanisms Chainlink has built to try to close that gap, why the market still refuses to pay up, and what would finally have to change for the price to follow the adoption.

The aim is not to talk LINK up or down, but to explain one of the most striking disconnects in the market: how a project can win the institutional race it set out to win and watch its token languish anyway.

The most important company in crypto you do not trade

Start with what Chainlink does, because its importance is easy to miss precisely because it is infrastructure.

Blockchains have a built-in blindness: they cannot, on their own, see anything that happens outside their own network. A smart contract on a blockchain has no native way to know the price of a stock, the result of a shipment, the value of a currency, or whether a payment cleared in a bank account.

This is called the oracle problem, and it is a hard limit on what blockchains can do, because a contract that cannot react to real-world information is a contract that can only move tokens around inside its own walls.

Chainlink exists to solve exactly this. It is a decentralized network that feeds outside data onto blockchains and connects them to one another and to traditional systems, acting as the secure bridge between the on-chain world and everything else.

Without something like Chainlink, the entire edifice of decentralized finance, and the much larger project of tokenizing real-world assets, simply does not function.

That is why what oracles feed data to matters. Smart contracts are only as useful as the data and systems they can reliably touch.

Because that role is foundational, Chainlink has become close to unavoidable for anyone serious about putting financial activity on a blockchain.

Its price feeds underpin major lending and trading protocols across decentralized finance. Its cross-chain protocol has been adopted by large exchanges and protocols as a bridging standard.

Critically, its institutional push has landed the names that matter most. The roster of traditional-finance firms building on Chainlink reads like a directory of the global banking system, and the total value its oracle network secures runs into the tens of billions, many times that of the nearest competitor.

By the standard crypto has always used to define success, real institutions using the technology for real financial activity, Chainlink is at or near the top of the entire industry.

It is, in a sense, the most important company in crypto that most people never think to trade, because its product is the invisible plumbing rather than the visible coin.

And a token that trades like the adoption is not happening

Now place that adoption next to the chart, and the contrast is jarring.

LINK trades around $7, down roughly 86% from its 2021 peak near $53, and it spent the most recent stretch sliding rather than rising, sitting below the technical levels that traders watch for signs of strength.

The pattern across the last couple of years has been almost comically consistent: record after record on the fundamentals, the cross-chain protocol moving billions a month, the value secured hitting new highs, the bank partnerships piling up, while the token closed well below where it traded years earlier.

Analysts who follow Chainlink closely have taken to describing its recent history in exactly those terms, as a period of record fundamental milestones paired with significant price disappointment.

The ETF channel has not solved the problem either. Chainlink spot ETFs recently saw a net outflow, ending a six-month inflow streak and showing that even new institutional access does not automatically create uninterrupted demand.

This is what makes Chainlink such a clean case study, and such a frustrating holding for its believers.

Advertisement

It is not a story of a failing project ignored for good reason; the project is, by adoption metrics, thriving. It is a story of a thriving network whose token has decoupled from its success.

That forces an uncomfortable question that applies to a whole category of crypto assets: what is the actual link between a network being used and its token rising in value?

For Bitcoin the answer is relatively direct, since the asset itself is the product. For an infrastructure token like LINK, the answer is far murkier, and the murkiness is precisely what the price reflects.

The market is not saying Chainlink has failed. It is saying it does not yet see how all that institutional adoption turns into sustained demand for the token.

Advertisement

Until it does, the chart and the deal sheet point in opposite directions.

The oracle problem, and why it made Chainlink unavoidable

To understand both the strength of Chainlink’s position and the weakness of its token, it helps to sit with the oracle problem a moment longer, because it explains the moat.

A blockchain is a deterministic system: it is brilliant at agreeing on its own internal state, who holds what, but it is mathematically incapable of knowing anything about the outside world on its own.

Advertisement

If a smart contract needs to know the price of an asset to liquidate a loan, or whether a real-world bond has matured, it has to get that information from somewhere. If it gets it from a single source, it inherits that source’s vulnerability to error or manipulation.

That would undermine the security that makes blockchains worth using in the first place.

Chainlink’s design answers this by gathering data through a decentralized network of independent node operators, aggregating their inputs, and delivering a result that no single party can easily corrupt.

That decentralized, tamper-resistant design is why Chainlink became the default rather than one option among many.

Advertisement

Once a network of high-quality node operators is securing tens of billions of dollars across hundreds of applications, that track record itself becomes a moat. A bank deciding whose data and cross-chain infrastructure to trust with real money is going to choose the one with the longest, most battle-tested history.

This is the foundation of the institutional strategy.

Chainlink’s cross-chain protocol added a risk-management layer, an independent set of nodes that watches for anomalies and can halt transfers if something looks wrong. That is the kind of dual-layer safeguard large institutions demand before moving significant capital on-chain.

The result is that Chainlink occupies a position closer to critical utility than to speculative token: the oracle and interoperability standard that the tokenized-finance future is being built on.

Advertisement

The strength of that position is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether holding the token captures any of it.

What SWIFT and the banks actually signed up for

The institutional adoption is concrete and worth spelling out, because it is genuinely impressive and it is also, on close inspection, the source of the token’s problem.

Chainlink built a suite of products aimed squarely at banks and asset managers: a cross-chain protocol for moving assets and messages between blockchains and legacy systems, a runtime environment that lets institutions build and manage tokenized-asset workflows, a compliance engine that embeds rules like identity checks directly into tokenized assets, a confidential-compute layer that lets sensitive institutional data be processed without exposing it on a public chain, and data services that bring benchmark and index information on-chain.

This is not a retail product suite. It is enterprise financial infrastructure, designed to slot into how large institutions already operate.

Advertisement

The marquee relationship is with SWIFT, and it captures both the scale and the nature of the adoption.

SWIFT connects roughly 11,000 banks and carries the messaging behind an enormous share of global settlement, and Swift and Chainlink’s ongoing work moved from early pilot toward pre-production.

The goal is to let banks send traditional SWIFT messages that trigger smart-contract actions across blockchains, without those banks having to rip out and rewrite their legacy systems.

That is a profound integration: it means the existing banking messaging layer could reach into the on-chain world through Chainlink as the connective tissue.

Advertisement

More recently, Chainlink also partnered with more than 50 banks on Project Pangea for T+0 foreign-exchange settlement, another sign that traditional finance is testing Chainlink as an institutional bridge rather than a crypto side experiment.

But notice the shape of it. What the banks signed up for is infrastructure, a way to connect their systems to blockchains using Chainlink’s technology.

They signed up to use the network. Nothing in a SWIFT pre-production integration, a JPMorgan tokenization pilot, or a bank FX settlement project necessarily requires anyone to buy, hold, or even think about the LINK token.

The adoption is real, and it is adoption of Chainlink the infrastructure. That is different from demand for LINK the asset.

Advertisement

That distinction is the hinge on which the entire price puzzle turns.

The value-accrual problem: adoption is not token demand

Here is the core issue, the one that explains the chart.

For a token to rise because its network is being used, there has to be a mechanism that converts that usage into demand for the token. For infrastructure tokens, that mechanism is often weak, indirect, or still being built.

Advertisement

When a bank uses Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol, it pays fees, and those fees are part of how value is meant to flow to the network.

But the fees generated even by substantial institutional usage are, so far, small relative to the headline numbers that make the adoption sound overwhelming.

The value secured across the network may be measured in tens of billions, but the value secured is not revenue. Revenue is not automatically token demand either.

A pilot or a pre-production integration generates little in the way of recurring fees, and even meaningful live usage produces fee flows that are modest next to LINK’s multi-billion-dollar market value.

Advertisement

This is the value-accrual problem, and it is the single best explanation for why LINK trades where it does.

The market is making a distinction that the celebratory headlines blur: between adoption of the infrastructure, which benefits the network and its users, and demand for the token, which is what actually moves the price.

It is the identical distinction that explains why XRP failed to rally on Ripple’s bank deals, because those deals ran through the company and its stablecoin while the token captured only a sliver.

For Chainlink, the question every prospective LINK buyer faces is simple and unforgiving: if SWIFT and JPMorgan can use the network without the token being central to the economics, then what exactly am I buying when I buy LINK?

Advertisement

The project has answers to that question, and they are improving. But the market has not yet been convinced that the answers are large enough to matter.

That is why the adoption keeps growing and the token keeps waiting.

The strategic reserve and staking: Chainlink’s answer

Chainlink is acutely aware of the value-accrual problem, and it has been building mechanisms specifically designed to tie network usage to token value.

That is the strongest part of the bull case.

Advertisement

The first is a fee model that converts revenue generated across the network, including from institutional and off-chain use, into LINK, accumulating it in the Chainlink Reserve.

The logic is that as adoption grows and generates more revenue, more of that revenue is converted into LINK and held, creating a structural source of buying tied directly to usage.

This is meant to be the bridge between adoption and token demand that infrastructure tokens so often lack.

It is a way to make sure that when the network earns, the token benefits. The reserve has been growing, adding millions of LINK, which is a tangible sign of the mechanism working, even if the amounts remain small relative to the total supply.

Advertisement

The second mechanism is staking.

Chainlink lets LINK holders stake their tokens to help secure the network’s data feeds and services, locking up supply and giving the token a direct role in the system’s security and economics.

As more high-value feeds and services come to rely on staked LINK as a security backstop, demand to stake, and therefore to acquire and lock the token, is meant to rise.

That makes Chainlink part of a broader move toward security-backed crypto networks. For context, another staking-secured network shows how tokens can accrue value when they are required to secure services rather than simply sit beside them.

Advertisement

Together, the reserve and staking are Chainlink’s answer to the question of why anyone should own LINK instead of simply admire the network.

The reserve ties revenue to token accumulation. Staking ties the token to the network’s security and to a yield.

These are real, well-designed mechanisms, and they are the reason the bull case is not empty.

The honest caveat is that they are still early and still modest in scale relative to a multi-billion-dollar market cap. They point in the right direction, but they have not yet generated token demand large enough to overcome the broader forces pushing the price down.

Advertisement

Why the chart still says no

Even granting the reserve and staking, several forces keep weighing on LINK, and naming them explains why the token has not responded to the adoption.

The first is the simple gravity of the broader market. LINK is a high-beta altcoin, meaning it tends to move more violently than the market as a whole, rising faster in booms and falling harder in downturns.

Through a stretch of macro pressure and a weak environment for risk assets, infrastructure tokens like LINK have been sold off regardless of their individual progress.

Advertisement

When capital flees risk, the quality of a project’s bank partnerships offers little protection, because the selling is driven by macro flows, not fundamentals.

The second force is competition. Chainlink leads the oracle space by a wide margin, but rivals are chasing the same market with different technical models, faster delivery in certain niches, or lower costs.

The existence of credible competitors caps the pricing power and the perceived inevitability that would justify a higher token valuation.

The third and deepest force is the value-accrual skepticism already described.

Advertisement

The market keeps treating Chainlink’s institutional milestones as proofs of concept instead of as recurring revenue, pricing a SWIFT pre-production integration as a promising experiment instead of as a stream of token demand, because that is what it currently is.

Until the pilots become production volume large enough to drive real fees into the reserve and real demand into staking, the market is, not unreasonably, declining to pay in advance.

This is the same discipline that kept XRP pinned through its own parade of bank wins. The chart is not ignoring the adoption; it is refusing to pay for token demand that has been promised but not yet delivered at scale.

What would finally make LINK follow the adoption

If you want to know when LINK might finally track its fundamentals, the analysis points to a specific set of conditions, and none of them is simply another partnership announcement.

Advertisement

The first and most important is the transition from pilots to production volume.

A SWIFT integration in pre-production is a promise; SWIFT-connected banks routing real, recurring settlement volume through Chainlink’s protocol would be a structural source of fee demand unlike anything in the token’s history.

Even a small fraction of the volume that flows through global bank messaging would dwarf current usage.

The clearest single catalyst to watch is whether that integration goes fully live and starts carrying real traffic, because that is the moment infrastructure adoption could begin converting into the recurring revenue that feeds the reserve.

Advertisement

The policy backdrop also matters. Chainlink executives have warned that delays in U.S. crypto rules benefit overseas competitors, because institutions need clarity before they can scale production deployments.

The second condition is the maturation of the token mechanisms themselves: the strategic reserve growing large enough that its accumulation of LINK becomes a meaningful, visible source of demand, and staking scaling to the point where locking the token to secure high-value services pulls significant supply off the market.

The third is the broader environment, since even strong fundamentals struggle against a hostile macro tape, and a friendlier market for risk assets would let Chainlink’s progress show up in the price.

The new exchange-traded products tracking LINK add another potential channel for demand if they gather assets. But as the recent outflow showed, the ETF channel must become a sustained buyer, not just another headline.

Advertisement

The honest synthesis is that Chainlink has done the hard part, winning the institutional adoption that the rest of crypto only talks about.

The remaining question is purely about conversion: whether all that adoption can be turned into durable, measurable demand for the token through fees, the reserve, and staking, at a scale large enough to matter.

Until it is, LINK will keep trading like the adoption is not happening, not because the market is blind to Chainlink’s success, but because it is watching the one number that has not yet moved. That number is demand for the token itself.

Frequently asked questions

Why does Chainlink have so much adoption but a low token price?

Because adoption of the infrastructure is not the same as demand for the token. Banks and protocols use Chainlink’s data feeds and cross-chain protocol, generating fees, but those fees are still small relative to LINK’s multi-billion-dollar market value, and nothing about a SWIFT or JPMorgan integration requires anyone to buy or hold LINK. The market distinguishes between the network being used, which benefits the infrastructure, and token demand, which moves the price. So far, the adoption has not converted into token demand large enough to lift the price, which is why LINK trades around $7 despite record fundamentals.

Advertisement

What does Chainlink actually do?

Chainlink solves the oracle problem. Blockchains cannot natively access information outside their own network, so a smart contract has no built-in way to know a price, a payment status, or a real-world event. Chainlink is a decentralized network that feeds outside data onto blockchains and connects them to one another and to traditional systems, using many independent node operators so no single party can easily corrupt the data. This makes it foundational infrastructure for decentralized finance and for tokenizing real-world assets.

What did SWIFT and the banks sign up for with Chainlink?

They signed up to use Chainlink’s infrastructure, chiefly its cross-chain protocol, which lets banks send traditional SWIFT messages that trigger smart-contract actions across blockchains without rewriting their legacy systems. JPMorgan, UBS, DTCC, Euroclear, and others are building on Chainlink’s suite of institutional products for tokenized assets, compliance, and data. Crucially, this is adoption of the infrastructure, not a commitment to buy or hold the LINK token, which is exactly why the impressive partnerships have not directly lifted the price.

How is Chainlink trying to connect adoption to the token?

Through two main mechanisms. A fee model converts revenue generated across the network, including from institutional use, into LINK and accumulates it in a strategic reserve, creating buying tied to usage. Staking lets holders lock LINK to help secure the network’s data feeds and services, taking supply off the market and giving the token a direct economic role. Both are well-designed attempts to bridge the gap between adoption and token demand, and the reserve has been growing, but they remain modest relative to LINK’s market value and have not yet offset the forces pushing the price down.

Will LINK go up if SWIFT fully adopts Chainlink?

It could, but the key is volume, not the integration itself. A pre-production SWIFT integration is a promise; SWIFT-connected banks routing real, recurring settlement volume through Chainlink would generate fee demand on a scale unlike anything in the token’s history, because even a fraction of global bank messaging volume would dwarf current usage. That fee flow could feed the strategic reserve and drive real token demand. So the catalyst to watch is whether the integration goes live and carries actual traffic, turning infrastructure adoption into recurring revenue, instead of the announcement of the integration alone.

Advertisement

Is Chainlink’s situation similar to XRP’s?

Very. Both are cases where a network or company achieved real institutional adoption while the token failed to follow, because the value flows first to the infrastructure and only indirectly to the token. Ripple’s bank deals ran through its stablecoin and ledger while XRP captured a sliver; Chainlink’s bank integrations run through its infrastructure while LINK captures fees that are still small relative to its valuation. In both cases the market prices the adoption as promising proof of concept instead of as token demand, and in both cases the token waits for pilots to become production-scale volume.

This article is information, not investment advice. Cryptocurrency is volatile, and figures for Chainlink and LINK reflect reporting available as of June 26, 2026, which can change quickly. Do your own research and verify current data from primary sources before making any decision.

Framework Ventures has closed a $400 million fourth fund that will finance startups developing crypto, artificial intelligence, robotics, and energy technologies as the venture capital firm broadens its investment mandate.

Framework Ventures announced the new fund on Friday and said it will direct the capital toward what it describes as “frontier technology,” a category that includes blockchain, artificial intelligence, robotics, and energy. 

Co-founders Vance Spencer and Michael Anderson told Fortune the firm has already committed about half of the capital.

Spencer and Anderson did not identify the limited partners behind the fund. They said contributors include sovereign wealth funds, funds of funds, an Ivy League endowment, and nonprofit organizations. 

A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission showed Framework managed $1.28 billion in assets as of December 2025.

Anderson told Fortune the investment strategy followed changes in the interests of founders already working with the firm rather than a response to the recent surge in AI investment. He said entrepreneurs within the firm’s network increasingly wanted to build businesses across both crypto and artificial intelligence.

AI joins crypto as investment priority

Framework launched in 2019 with a focus on decentralized finance and became an early investor in Aave and Chainlink. The firm later raised a $100 million second fund in 2021 before securing another $400 million crypto-focused fund in 2022.

The latest portfolio extends beyond blockchain projects. Fortune reported that Framework has invested in robotics data startup Mecka AI and also holds a stake in mortgage company Better.com.

Several crypto-focused venture firms have adopted similar investment strategies this year. As previously reported by crypto.news, Haun Ventures announced a $1 billion fund in May to back companies developing crypto financial infrastructure, tokenization, and AI agents. 

Paradigm, one of the largest VCs in the crypto space, is also pursuing a larger investment vehicle. Fortune reported that the firm is seeking as much as $1.5 billion for a fund that will support crypto, artificial intelligence, and robotics startups.

Lately, OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI developers have attracted growing venture capital interest as investors pursue new technology opportunities. At the same time, several crypto-focused investment firms have expanded their mandates beyond digital assets while continuing to finance blockchain companies.

For instance, crypto exchange BitGo announced this week that it would reduce nearly 15% of its workforce while redirecting resources toward security, trading, stablecoins, settlement, and AI-powered infrastructure.

Meanwhile, IP-focused Story Protocol has also replaced its original intellectual property licensing strategy on Thursday after rebranding as the DATA Foundation. The project said it will build infrastructure to source, verify, license, and compensate contributors for artificial intelligence training data through blockchain-based systems.