A group of crypto and Web3 firms that includes OKX, MetaMask, Matter Labs and Genlayer have formed the “Internet Court” to reach dispute resolutions between AI agents.

These days, AI agents negotiate and pay one another without humans in the loop, but as with human-to-human transactions, agent-to-agent transactions will run into contractual disagreements.

The problem is that agentic systems have no way to settle these disputes, and traditional courts are not built to handle such cases. Hence the need for the 27-firm-backed protocol, led by the Genlayer Foundation, which makes AI-based payments, escrow and dispute resolution interoperable, according to a press release.

Agentic commerce is not prepared for the potential fallout when agents disagree at machine speed, according to David Riudor, CEO and co-founder of the GenLayer Foundation. “Internet Court is the shared place agents can turn to when a deal goes wrong. Machine-speed money needs machine-speed adjudication,” he said.

A key problem the dispute protocol solves is interoperability between a variety of AI commerce systems. Agentic commerce is certainly charging ahead but the infrastructure underpinning this new economy is still highly fragmented.

Bitcoin mining and data center company TeraWulf is reportedly preparing to raise about $3.5 billion in debt to fund an artificial intelligence campus leased by Anthropic.

The planned financing could include leveraged loans and high-yield bonds, according to a Bloomberg report. Morgan Stanley is expected to lead the transaction, which could launch later in 2026.

TeraWulf considers first leveraged loan

TeraWulf Chief Financial Officer Patrick Fleury reportedly said the company could enter the leveraged loan market for the first time as part of the financing package.

Leveraged loans usually serve companies with high debt levels or below-investment-grade credit profiles. They often carry variable interest rates, which can increase borrowing costs when benchmark rates rise.

The company may combine the loan with high-yield bonds to finance construction at its Justified Data campus in Hawesville, Kentucky. However, TeraWulf has not announced final terms, interest rates or a closing date.

The reported $3.5 billion raise remains subject to market conditions. Neither TeraWulf nor Morgan Stanley had publicly issued a detailed financing announcement at the time of publication.

Anthropic lease targets $19B in revenue

The financing follows TeraWulf’s 20-year lease agreement with Anthropic.

Under the agreement, TeraWulf will develop a purpose-built AI infrastructure campus capable of supporting about 401 megawatts of critical computing load. Initial capacity is expected to begin operating in the second half of 2027, with full deployment targeted for early 2028.

TeraWulf estimates that the lease will generate approximately $19 billion in contracted revenue over its initial term. The company also said the contract would receive support from an investment-grade credit profile.

As previously reported by crypto.news, TeraWulf shares rose after the company disclosed the Anthropic deal. The agreement gives the former Bitcoin-focused operator a long-term source of contracted AI infrastructure revenue.

Still, the projected $19 billion represents revenue expected over 20 years rather than an upfront payment. Construction, financing and operating costs will affect the amount that ultimately reaches TeraWulf.

Previous debt financed AI expansion

TeraWulf has already used large debt offerings to build its high-performance computing operations. In October 2025, its subsidiary priced $3.2 billion of senior secured notes.

The notes carry a 7.75% annual interest rate and mature in 2030. TeraWulf used the proceeds to finance part of its Lake Mariner data center expansion in New York.

The company later raised additional capital through convertible debt and other credit facilities. Its planned Kentucky financing would further increase the amount of borrowed funds supporting its move into AI computing.

Moreover, TeraWulf is among several Bitcoin miners moving into AI and high-performance computing. Mining companies can reuse access to power, land and cooling systems to meet growing data center demand.

AI pivot brings new financial questions

TeraWulf previously generated most of its income through Bitcoin mining. However, the company now describes itself as an energy infrastructure operator serving AI and high-performance computing clients.

Its first-quarter 2026 results showed that more than 50% of revenue came from HPC hosting. The company said contracted leases could reduce its dependence on Bitcoin prices and mining difficulty.

However, the expansion requires large upfront spending. TeraWulf must build the Kentucky campus before receiving the full lease revenue expected from Anthropic.

The company has also faced questions over construction costs, insider stock sales and its long-term funding model. Fleury has argued that customers remain responsible for servers, processors and technology upgrades, while TeraWulf supplies power and physical infrastructure.

A token can look cheap by market cap and be catastrophically expensive by fully diluted valuation, and the gap between the two numbers is where most crypto losses quietly begin. This guide explains market cap and FDV, why the difference matters more than either number alone, how token unlocks turn FDV into future selling pressure, the low-float high-FDV trap that defined a market cycle, and how to read both numbers before you buy.

Two traders look at the same token. The first checks its market capitalization, sees a modest number, and concludes the token is cheap with room to grow. The second checks its fully diluted valuation, sees a figure ten times larger, and concludes the token is a time bomb of future selling. They are looking at the same asset, and they are both reading real numbers. The gap between what they see is one of the most important and least understood concepts in crypto valuation, and misreading it has cost more retail money than almost any other single mistake.

Market capitalization and fully diluted valuation, FDV, are the two headline ways to size a token, and each answers a different question. Market cap asks what the tokens in circulation right now are worth. FDV asks what all the tokens that will ever exist would be worth at today’s price. When most of a token’s supply is already circulating, the two numbers are close and the distinction barely matters. When most of the supply is still locked, waiting to be released over years, the two numbers diverge enormously, and the space between them is a map of future selling pressure that the market cap alone completely hides.

This guide explains both numbers and the relationship that matters more than either. It covers what market cap and FDV actually measure, why circulating supply is trickier than it sounds, how the unlock schedule turns FDV into a calendar of future dilution, the low-float high-FDV trap that defined the 2024 token cycle and its aftermath, the specific ways these numbers mislead, and the practical checklist for reading a token’s valuation before the locked supply reads it to you.

The two numbers, precisely

Market capitalization is the simplest valuation in crypto: circulating supply multiplied by current price. A token trading at $2 with 100 million coins in circulation has a $200 million market cap. It answers the question, what is the market currently valuing this token at, based on the coins actually available, and it is the number that appears first on every tracker and the one most people mean when they call a token large or small.

Fully diluted valuation multiplies the same price by the total supply that will ever exist, not just what circulates today. If that same $2 token has a maximum supply of one billion coins, of which only 100 million circulate, its FDV is $2 billion, ten times its market cap. FDV answers a different question, what would this token be worth if every coin that will ever exist traded at today’s price, and it is, in effect, the valuation the market is implicitly assigning to the entire project if you assume the price holds as the rest of the supply arrives.

The relationship between the two is the whole game, and it is captured by one ratio: circulating supply divided by total supply, the float. A token with 90% of its supply circulating has a market cap close to its FDV, the two numbers nearly agree, and there is little hidden supply to worry about. A token with 10% of its supply circulating has an FDV ten times its market cap, and 90% of its eventual supply is sitting locked somewhere, scheduled to enter the market over time. The lower the float, the wider the gap, and the wider the gap, the more the market cap flatters the token by hiding what is coming.

Circulating supply is trickier than it looks

Before trusting either number, it is worth knowing that circulating supply, the input to market cap, is itself a slippery figure. It is meant to count the coins genuinely available to trade, excluding locked, reserved, and unreleased tokens, but the accounting varies by source and can be gamed. Projects sometimes report circulating supply generously, counting tokens that are technically unlocked but held in foundation or team wallets that will not actually sell, or excluding tokens in ways that flatter the market cap. Different data providers apply different methodologies, which is why the same token can show slightly different market caps on different trackers.

This matters because market cap inherits every ambiguity in circulating supply. A token whose reported circulating supply is artificially low will show an artificially low market cap, making it look cheaper than it is, while its FDV, based on the harder-to-fudge total supply, tells the less flattering truth. The discipline is to treat circulating supply as a claim to be checked rather than a fact, and to always read it alongside total supply and the unlock schedule, because the gap between circulating and total is not empty space, it is a queue.

The unlock schedule: FDV as a calendar

Here is the insight that turns FDV from an abstract number into a practical warning: the difference between circulating supply and total supply does not stay locked forever. It is released on a schedule, the vesting or unlock schedule, and that schedule is a calendar of future selling pressure written years in advance.

When a project launches, it typically sells or allocates only a fraction of its tokens, keeping the rest locked for the team, investors, treasury, and ecosystem, released gradually over months or years. Each release, an unlock, converts locked tokens into circulating ones, expanding the supply that can be sold. The tokens existed all along, they were always counted in FDV, but they become sellable only when they unlock, the anticipatory dynamic that governs every large scheduled release. This is why FDV matters: it is not a hypothetical, it is a preview of the supply that is contractually scheduled to arrive, and the unlock calendar tells you exactly when.

The mechanical consequence is relentless. A low-float token with a high FDV faces a headwind that a high-float token does not: a steady stream of newly unlocked tokens, often released to insiders sitting on large gains, entering a market that must absorb them just to keep the price flat. If demand does not grow at least as fast as supply unlocks, the price falls, not because anything went wrong with the project, but because the supply side of the equation was scheduled to overwhelm the demand side from the start. Reading a token’s unlock schedule is reading its future selling pressure, and a token whose FDV dwarfs its market cap is a token whose price chart is fighting its own supply calendar for years, the same supply-versus-demand scissors that shapes entire market cycles.

The low-float, high-FDV trap

The gap between the two numbers is not just a technical curiosity; it defined an entire market cycle and taught a brutal lesson. In the 2024 token era, a wave of projects launched with very low floats and very high FDVs: a small fraction of supply circulating, valuations that looked reasonable by market cap, the fair-launch platforms industrializing exactly this structure at scale, as their own house token’s supply cliff showed but enormous by FDV, and long vesting schedules loading the future with unlocks.

The pattern worked, briefly, because low float is a price accelerant in both directions. With few tokens available to trade, modest demand produces dramatic price gains, thin supply amplifies buying the way it amplifies everything, the same launch-curve dynamic that prices earliness into every memecoin, and the early charts looked spectacular, drawing in buyers who checked the market cap, saw room to grow toward the FDV, and bought. Then the unlocks began. Wave after wave of locked supply, much of it held by insiders who had bought far lower, entered the market, and the same thin float that amplified the rise now had to absorb a rising tide of new supply against fading demand. The result was a cohort of tokens that spent the following period grinding relentlessly lower, not from any failure of their projects but from the arithmetic they launched with: valuations set at the top, supply scheduled to arrive into weakness, and a float too thin to defend the price on the way down. The lesson the cycle burned into the market was that a low market cap next to a high FDV is not a bargain waiting to grow, it is frequently a warning that the price you see was manufactured by scarcity that is scheduled to end.

A worked comparison: two tokens, same market cap

Set two tokens side by side to see the gap do its work. Token A trades at $1 with 800 million of its 1 billion total supply circulating: an 80% float, a market cap of $800 million, and an FDV of $1 billion. The two numbers nearly agree, only 200 million tokens remain to unlock, and whatever selling pressure they represent is modest against the supply already trading. Token B also has an $800 million market cap, at $4 with 200 million of a 1 billion total supply circulating: a 20% float and an FDV of $4 billion. Same market cap, radically different situations. Token B has four times the eventual supply still locked, 800 million tokens queued to arrive, and its price must climb a supply escalator running the other way for as long as those unlocks continue.

A buyer comparing the two by market cap alone sees a tie and might pick Token B for its higher price and apparent momentum. A buyer reading float and FDV sees that Token A is most of the way through its dilution while Token B has barely begun, and that Token B’s $4 price is being held up by a float one-quarter the size, exactly the scarcity that will reverse as supply unlocks. Neither token is automatically good or bad, but they are not remotely the same investment, and only the second reading reveals it. The market cap said they were equal; the FDV and the float said one had a tailwind and the other a four-year headwind.

What responsible vesting looks like

Because the guide has dwelt on the trap, fairness requires describing the healthy version, since a high FDV is not inherently a red flag. Responsible token design vests supply in ways that align insiders with long-term holders rather than setting them up to dump: meaningful cliffs before any team or investor tokens unlock at all, long linear release schedules that spread supply over years instead of dropping it in cliffs, allocations weighted toward ecosystem and community rather than concentrated in early investors, and transparent, published schedules that let the market price the dilution in advance instead of being surprised by it. A project with a high FDV but a slow, transparent, community-weighted unlock schedule and genuine demand growth can absorb its supply gracefully, and many legitimate networks have.

The distinction that matters is therefore not high FDV versus low FDV but scheduled dilution versus demonstrable demand. A token whose users, revenue, or adoption are growing fast enough to soak up its unlocks can carry a high FDV comfortably; a token whose only source of price support was a thin float, facing large near-term unlocks to insiders already in profit, cannot. Reading valuation well means holding the FDV and the unlock schedule in one hand and the demand trajectory in the other, and asking the only question that ultimately sets the price: is real demand growing at least as fast as scheduled supply. When the answer is yes, a high FDV is a sign of ambition; when it is no, the same number is a countdown.

How the numbers mislead, in both directions

Each number lies in its own way, and knowing how is the point of reading them together. Market cap misleads by hiding the future: it makes low-float tokens look cheap and small, showing only the tokens that circulate today and silently omitting the locked supply queued to dilute them, which is exactly why the low-float trap works, buyers who anchor on market cap are reading a number designed, whether intentionally or not, to look better than the token’s real valuation. FDV misleads by ignoring time and probability: it values every future token at today’s price as if all supply existed now, which overstates the case for tokens whose locked supply may be burned, may never fully release, or may be years away, and it treats distant, uncertain dilution as if it were present, which can make a healthy long-vesting project look scarier than it is.

The truth lives in reading both against the unlock schedule. A high FDV is not automatically damning, plenty of legitimate projects launch with most supply locked and vest it responsibly, but a high FDV with imminent, large unlocks to insiders sitting on gains is a specific and readable danger. A low market cap is not automatically a bargain, it may simply be the visible tip of a much larger diluted valuation. The numbers are inputs to a judgment, not verdicts on their own, and the judgment requires the third document neither number contains: the vesting schedule that says how much supply arrives, when, and to whom.

The practical checklist

Reading a token’s valuation honestly comes down to a short sequence. First, check the float: circulating supply divided by total supply, because it tells you at a glance how much of the story the market cap is hiding, a float near 100% means the two numbers agree, a float near 10% means the market cap is showing you a tenth of the eventual supply. Second, read the gap: compare market cap to FDV, and treat a large gap as a flag to investigate, not a verdict, but never a number to ignore. Third, pull the unlock schedule: find out how much locked supply exists, when it releases, and to whom, because that calendar is the future selling pressure the FDV only summarizes, and imminent large unlocks to early investors are the specific danger the low-float trap is built on. Fourth, weigh demand against supply: ask whether the project’s growth in users, revenue, or adoption is plausibly fast enough to absorb the scheduled unlocks, because that race, demand growth against supply release, is what actually sets the price over time.

The deeper habit, beneath the checklist, is refusing to let a single number make the decision. Crypto’s most expensive lesson is that a token can be simultaneously cheap by one honest measure and dangerously expensive by another, and that the two measures diverge precisely in the tokens most aggressively marketed as opportunities. Market cap tells you what the market pays for what exists. FDV tells you what it is implicitly paying for what is coming. Neither is the truth alone; the truth is in the space between them, on the unlock calendar, and the traders who read that space before they buy are reading the one part of a token’s valuation that the price chart, the marketing, and the market cap are all designed to keep them from seeing until it is too late.

A closing note on where these numbers come from, because trusting a tracker blindly reintroduces the very ambiguity the guide warns against. Market cap and FDV are computed from supply figures that projects self-report and aggregators standardize imperfectly, total supply can change if a project mints or burns tokens, maximum supply is sometimes uncapped entirely, which makes FDV undefined or meaningless, and circulating supply, as covered above, is the softest input of all. The disciplined reader treats the headline numbers as starting points and verifies the underlying supply mechanics: is there a hard cap, is supply inflationary, are tokens being burned, and does the unlock schedule match what the tracker implies. These checks take minutes and routinely overturn the first impression, a token with an uncapped supply has no true FDV, a token with aggressive burns may see supply shrink instead of grow, and a token whose emissions never end is diluting holders forever regardless of any headline ratio. The two numbers are tools for asking better questions, not answers to be trusted on sight, and the space between them, mapped against the real supply schedule, is where a token’s honest valuation actually lives.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Digital asset markets are volatile and you can lose your entire investment. Details are current as of July 9, 2026. Always do your own research.

Frequently asked questions

TLDR

• EU Parliament approved the extension of “chat control,” allowing message scanning measures to continue until 2028.
• Lawmakers failed to reach the required votes to block the proposal, enabling the framework to move forward.
• The measure revives rules that had expired in April, restoring a legal basis for voluntary message scanning.
• An amendment exempts end-to-end encrypted communications from being scanned under the law.
• Markéta Gregorová described the outcome as a “bittersweet victory,” citing encryption protections alongside continued scanning.

The European Parliament has approved a controversial extension of “chat control,” allowing platforms to scan private messages for illegal content until 2028. Lawmakers failed to secure enough votes to block the measure, despite strong opposition from privacy advocates. The decision revives a temporary legal framework and keeps chat control in place while negotiations on a permanent law continue.

Lawmakers fail to block extension amid divided vote

The European Parliament held a decisive vote on extending chat control after using an urgent legislative procedure earlier this week. A total of 314 lawmakers voted to reject the measure, falling short of the 361 required threshold. Meanwhile, 276 lawmakers supported the continuation of chat control, allowing the framework to proceed.

The outcome effectively revives provisions that had expired in April, restoring a legal basis for voluntary message scanning. Lawmakers had previously rejected a temporary extension in March due to concerns over scope and privacy. However, political pressure led to renewed efforts to maintain chat control through the urgent vote.

The European People’s Party played a central role in reviving the proposal after earlier opposition. Its leadership sought a revised path that avoided restrictive amendments that had blocked progress before. As a result, the vote allowed chat control to move forward under adjusted conditions.

Encryption exemption shapes final version of measure

Parliament approved an amendment that excludes end-to-end encrypted communications from the scanning requirement. This exemption ensures that platforms cannot apply chat control to messages protected by strong encryption. The change reflects ongoing concerns about preserving secure communication standards within the European Union.

Pirate Party lawmaker Markéta Gregorová supported the amendment and described the outcome as mixed. She stated, “Protecting encryption was one of our priorities, and I am therefore glad that we managed to secure an absolute majority.” However, she also noted that “voluntary mass scanning unfortunately passed” under chat control.

Supporters of the broader law argued that scanning measures remain necessary to combat harmful material online. They emphasized the need for tools that help identify and prevent the spread of child abuse content. As a result, chat control continues to balance enforcement goals with limited protections for encrypted communication.

Next steps shift focus to permanent legislation talks

The approved framework will now return to the Council of the European Union for further consideration. Ministers from member states will review the amended provisions and decide whether to adopt them. Their decision will determine how chat control operates across the bloc in the near term.

Negotiations on a permanent version, known as “Chat Control 2.0,” will resume in September. Lawmakers remain divided on whether scanning should be targeted or broadly applied across platforms. This debate will shape the long-term structure of chat control within European digital policy.

Former lawmaker Patrick Breyer indicated that political resistance remains strong despite the current outcome. He said the recent vote showed limited support for widespread scanning measures in future proposals. As discussions continue, chat control remains a central issue in the European Union’s approach to digital regulation.

Circle (CRCL), the issuer of the world’s second largest stablecoin USDC, received approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish a national trust bank.

National trust banks are authorized to provide users with custody and fiduciary services but do not accept consumer deposits or make loans like traditional commercial banks.

Shares are higher by 14% in pre-market trading.

“OCC approval to establish Circle National Trust marks a defining step in bringing blockchain technology and digital assets into the core of the U.S. financial system,” Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire said Friday in a statement announcing the milestone. “Federal oversight of our trust bank sets a new standard for transparency, governance, and scale for Circle’s infrastructure.”

The move comes as crypto firms such as Kraken, increasingly seek federal charters, licenses and banking approvals. Crypto.com secured an OCC license in February to operate as a federally regulated crypto custodian bank. BitGo, Circle, Ripple, Paxos, and Fidelity Digital Assets all received similar conditional approvals in December.

More Than a Place to Store Crypto

For years, crypto wallets were viewed as simple tools for holding digital assets and signing blockchain transactions. Their primary function was straightforward: securely store private keys and allow users to send or receive cryptocurrencies.

That role is rapidly evolving.

Today, wallets are transforming into comprehensive digital identities that represent who users are across decentralized ecosystems. Instead of acting as digital bank accounts, wallets are becoming digital passports—portable, permissionless identities that unlock access to financial services, governance, gaming, social platforms, AI applications, and much more.

As Web3 matures, your wallet is beginning to matter just as much as your assets.

Identity Without Central Authorities

Traditional internet identity depends on centralized platforms.

Logging into websites typically requires:

• Email addresses
• Passwords
• Phone verification
• Government-issued IDs
• Social media accounts

These systems place user identity under the control of corporations that collect, monetize, and often expose personal data.

Blockchain wallets introduce a fundamentally different model.

Instead of asking a centralized provider for permission, users authenticate ownership using cryptographic signatures. No passwords are transmitted, no personal information is required, and users remain in control of their credentials.

Ownership replaces registration.

Your On-Chain Reputation Matters

Every blockchain transaction contributes to a growing on-chain history.

This history can include:

• DeFi participation
• NFT ownership
• DAO governance votes
• Liquidity provision
• Staking activity
• Developer contributions
• Community engagement
• Cross-chain interactions

Together, these activities form a verifiable reputation that applications can recognize.

Unlike traditional credit scores or social media profiles, this reputation is transparent, portable, and owned by the user rather than a single platform.

Projects increasingly reward long-term participants based on wallet history rather than simply attracting short-term users with token incentives.

One Wallet, Many Ecosystems

A modern wallet already serves as a universal login across thousands of decentralized applications.

With one cryptographic signature, users can access:

• Decentralized exchanges
• Lending protocols
• NFT marketplaces
• Blockchain games
• Social platforms
• AI-powered applications
• Governance portals
• Token launch platforms

Rather than creating dozens of separate accounts, a single wallet becomes the key that opens an entire digital economy.

This seamless interoperability is one of Web3’s greatest advantages.

The Rise of Verifiable Credentials

The next evolution goes beyond wallet addresses.

Developers are integrating verifiable credentials that allow wallets to prove specific facts without revealing unnecessary personal information.

For example, users may prove:

• They are over the required age.
• They completed a certification.
• They belong to a specific DAO.
• They passed KYC requirements.
• They attended an event.
• They own certain assets.

Zero-knowledge cryptography enables these proofs while preserving privacy.

Instead of exposing entire identities, users reveal only what is necessary.

Access Is Becoming Reputation-Based

Increasingly, Web3 projects reward users based on meaningful participation rather than speculative behavior.

Wallet history can determine eligibility for:

• Exclusive token launches
• Governance privileges
• Community rewards
• NFT mints
• Higher staking tiers
• DeFi incentives
• Beta testing opportunities
• Ecosystem grants

Rather than filling out forms or submitting applications, your wallet demonstrates your experience and contributions.

Participation becomes your résumé.

Wallets Beyond Finance

The concept of digital passports extends well beyond cryptocurrency.

Future wallet use cases may include:

• Digital driver’s licenses
• University diplomas
• Medical records
• Professional certifications
• Event tickets
• Membership cards
• Travel credentials
• AI identity verification

Instead of storing dozens of separate credentials across different services, users could manage them from a single self-custodied wallet while deciding exactly who can access each piece of information.

This creates a more user-centric internet where individuals control their own identity.

Challenges Still Remain

Despite rapid progress, several obstacles must be addressed before wallets fully become digital passports.

User Experience

Managing seed phrases, signing transactions, and understanding permissions remain intimidating for newcomers.

Security

As wallets accumulate more valuable credentials, they become increasingly attractive targets for attackers.

Privacy

Public blockchain data can expose behavioral patterns if privacy-enhancing technologies are not widely adopted.

Standardization

The ecosystem still lacks universal standards for decentralized identity, credential verification, and interoperability across chains.

Solving these issues will be essential for mainstream adoption.

The Future of Digital Identity

The shift from centralized accounts to self-owned identities represents one of Web3’s most important transformations.

In the coming years, wallets may become the foundation of how people interact with the internet—not just financially, but socially, professionally, and personally.

Instead of asking companies to verify who we are, we may carry portable, cryptographically secure identities that work across countless applications while preserving privacy and user ownership.

The wallet of the future won’t simply hold your money.

It will hold your reputation, credentials, memberships, achievements, and digital life.

In a decentralized internet, your wallet is becoming your passport—and the journey has only just begun.

REQUEST AN ARTICLE

Oil is back in the driver’s seat, and both the pound and the aussie are feeling its grip. The Bank of England held rates at 3.75% in June, but with UK inflation at 2.8% and crude oil climbing on renewed Middle East tensions, markets now lean towards a hike before year-end. Down under, the Reserve Bank of Australia held its cash rate at 4.35% after three straight increases, with core inflation stuck at 3.6%, keeping the door open for further tightening. Two hawkish central banks, one shared inflationary culprit—yet it’s the existing 60-basis-point rate gap in Australia’s favour that is giving GBP/AUD its current shape, with the pair holding firm near the 1.93 handle as traders watch which bank blinks first.

Technical Outlook

GBP/AUD pits two currencies backed by hawkish central banks against each other. After a sharp downtrend, the pair found a floor in May 2026 and has since reversed into a medium-term uptrend as sterling claws back ground against the aussie. Price is now testing a key resistance zone that has previously capped upside attempts, making the coming sessions pivotal.

Bullish Scenario

Several sessions of strong bullish momentum have kept sterling supported. The pair is testing a crucial resistance zone at 1.9350–1.9400, which has rejected price before.

A confirmed break above could open the path towards the next resistance at 1.9520–1.9550.

Such a breakout would likely require fundamental support, such as further escalation in the Middle East or an even more hawkish BoE.

Bearish Scenario

Price could reject the resistance zone once again, reinforcing it as a key barrier.

A bearish RSI divergence on the 4H chart adds weight to this scenario, with price posting higher highs while the RSI prints lower highs—a sign of fading momentum.

The ascending trendline is now the nearest relevant support; a break below could expose the intermediate zone at 1.9080–1.9120, where price may pause and consolidate.

Should tensions ease or fresh UK political developments emerge, sterling could lose ground, breaking below this zone to test the next support at 1.8780–1.8820.

Ultimately, GBP/AUD’s next move will hinge on geopolitical and macroeconomic developments, alongside these key technical levels. Which of the two currencies will show greater strength in the sessions ahead?

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

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

DeXe price has surged more than 20% in a single day, climbing to a new all-time high on July 10 as a breakout above key resistance and heavy short liquidations propelled the token to the top of the cryptocurrency market.

According to data from crypto.news, DeXe (DEXE) price climbed to an all-time high of $36.34 before easing to around $34.30, still posting gains of more than 22% over the previous 24 hours. The move came after the token broke above the $28 resistance zone that had capped prices during a multi-day consolidation, triggering fresh buying activity as stop orders were activated and momentum traders entered the market.

Technical breakout fuels fresh price discovery

The rally gathered pace after DEXE completed a breakout from a bullish pennant that had formed between roughly $22 and $27. As price cleared the upper boundary of the pattern, buyers quickly pushed the token into price discovery, leaving no historical resistance overhead after it surpassed its previous record high.

Derivatives positioning added another layer of strength to the advance. Nearly 96% of liquidations over the past 24 hours came from short positions, forcing bearish traders to buy back their positions as prices accelerated. That short squeeze amplified spot demand and helped extend the rally beyond initial breakout targets.

Exchange liquidity also played a significant role. A large share of DEXE’s circulating supply remains locked in decentralized autonomous organization treasuries and long-term staking contracts, limiting the amount of tokens readily available for trading. With thinner order books absorbing a wave of buy orders, relatively modest inflows produced an outsized move in price.

The rally also coincided with improving sentiment across digital assets. After investors pulled back from risk assets earlier in the week following military tensions between the United States and Iran, easing geopolitical concerns encouraged capital to return to cryptocurrencies.

Bitcoin’s recovery above $63,000 supported renewed interest in high-beta altcoins, while CoinMarketCap’s Fear and Greed Index improved from 26 to 30, signaling a modest recovery in market confidence.

Momentum indicators continue supporting the uptrend

DeXe’s strong performance this year has also been supported by improving fundamentals. The protocol has gained attention as decentralized governance and artificial intelligence projects continue attracting investor interest, with the token rising roughly 750% year-to-date. Per data from DeFiLlama, the network also secures nearly $1.6 billion in total value locked, while maintaining a record free of smart contract exploits, adding to investor confidence.

Longer-term technical indicators remain constructive despite the rapid advance. The daily chart shows DEXE trading comfortably above its 50-day exponential moving average near $20.71 and its 200-day EMA around $12.91, highlighting the strength of the prevailing uptrend rather than a brief speculative spike.

Daily momentum indicators also continue to favor buyers. The MACD remains in a bullish crossover with an expanding positive histogram, while the Chaikin Money Flow sits around 0.25, indicating sustained capital inflows.

Although the latest daily candle formed a long upper wick after reaching a record high, suggesting some traders locked in profits, neither indicator currently signals a meaningful deterioration in momentum.

On-chain activity continues to reinforce the bullish case. Blockchain tracking data shows whale transactions worth more than $100,000 have climbed to record levels, while the number of wallet holders has steadily approached 50,000.

At the same time, the Relative Strength Index is moving toward the overbought 70 level, indicating the rally may pause or consolidate before buyers attempt another leg higher from record territory.

Japanese lender CRYL has launched Bitcoin-backed loans of up to 1 billion yen ($6.2 million), allowing individuals and businesses to raise fiat currency without selling their BTC. 

On Thursday, the company announced that borrowers can access between 1 million yen ($6,200) and 1 billion yen ($6.2 million) at annual rates of 3.5% to 7%. The loans carry collateral ratios of 40% to 60%. They run for one year and can be used for expenses, including taxes, business funding and property purchases.

The launch expands Japan’s small market for regulated crypto-backed financing. In 2020, Fintertech, a Daiwa Securities Group and Credit Saison joint venture, launched a similar service and currently lends up to $3 million against Bitcoin or Ether. However, CRYL’s service advertises a higher ceiling and a lower minimum, while limiting collateral to BTC. 

CRYL framed the service as adding a third option beyond holding or selling their crypto. However, applicants must undergo screening, and most loans use a lump-sum repayment structure, with principal and interest due after one year. 

Bitcoin-backed finance takes shape in Japan

Fintertech’s product shows that Bitcoin-backed lending has been available in Japan for several years. The company’s website currently lists loans for individuals and businesses with annual rates of 4% to 8%, a 50% collateral ratio and a minimum borrowing amount of 5 million yen ($31,000).

The service also gained a wider distribution channel in October 2025, when Daiwa Securities began introducing customers at its branches across Japan to Fintertech’s digital asset-backed loans. Fintertech is owned 80% by Daiwa Securities Group and 20% by Credit Saison.

Related: Japan crypto bill advances with ETF, tax reform path: Report

Other Japanese companies are exploring how Bitcoin could support more complex credit products. On Friday, Metaplanet Securities, yen stablecoin issuer JPYC and tokenization infrastructure provider Progmat announced a study into using BTC as collateral or credit enhancement for digital corporate bonds and other blockchain-based credit instruments. 

Unlike the loan products offered by CRYL and Fintertech, the Metaplanet initiative remains at the research phase, and the companies said no issuance has been decided. 

Magazine: Bitcoin’s quantum dilemma: Bigger blocks or STARK proofs?