Boerse Stuttgart Digital and institutional crypto trading firm Tradias have officially completed their merger, forming a combined digital-asset infrastructure business with roughly 300 employees. The deal follows the clearance of an ownership control process, clearing the final regulatory hurdle needed to proceed with the combination.

The merger was originally announced in February, when the two companies said they would unite their regulated crypto operations and broaden services for banks, brokers, and other financial institutions across Europe. With the transaction now closed, the combined entity will aim to deepen its platform of trading and custody-related offerings under a single corporate structure.

Key takeaways

• Boerse Stuttgart Digital and Tradias have completed their merger after clearing the required ownership control procedure.
• The combined company will operate under the Boerse Stuttgart Digital name, while Tradias remains the brand for trading services.
• The unit will offer trading, custody, staking, and tokenization, targeting institutional clients across multiple regions.
• Co-CEOs will be Tradias founder Christopher Beck and Boerse Stuttgart Digital managing director Ulli Spankowski.
• The firms’ infrastructure will be headquartered in Frankfurt and Stuttgart, with additional offices in several European and Middle Eastern locations.

Merger closes after ownership control step

According to the companies’ announcement, Boerse Stuttgart Digital and Tradias finalized the merger after completing the ownership control procedure required for the transaction. The closing marks a shift from dealmaking to execution—an important distinction for institutions that often require stability and regulatory certainty before committing new capital or operational workflows.

Earlier coverage of the planned combination noted that the companies intended to consolidate their regulated crypto businesses to build what they described as a European crypto hub. The close of the merger suggests that the integration can now proceed without further corporate-structure uncertainty, allowing customers to plan around a single provider for multiple components of institutional digital-asset operations.

How the merged business will be structured

Under the terms communicated at the time of closing, the merged operation will use the Boerse Stuttgart Digital name. However, Tradias will continue to be used as the brand for the trading services. This dual-brand approach may be designed to preserve existing market recognition for trading while aligning other infrastructure services under the Boerse Stuttgart Digital umbrella.

The announcement also details the leadership appointments. Tradias founder Christopher Beck and Boerse Stuttgart Digital managing director Ulli Spankowski will serve as co-CEOs, reflecting a shared governance model rather than a full leadership replacement. For institutional clients, continuity at the executive level can matter as processes related to market-making, custody operations, and settlement workflows are integrated.

Services and footprint: trading, custody, staking, tokenization

The combined unit will provide a broad suite of digital-asset services, including trading, custody, staking, and tokenization. This menu targets core institutional needs that frequently sit behind larger on-chain or tokenization strategies—where organizations require regulated access, operational controls, and well-established service delivery.

Geographically, the business will be headquartered in Frankfurt and Stuttgart, and will also maintain locations in Athens, Beirut, Berlin, Dubai, Madrid, Milan, and Ljubljana. That footprint indicates an effort to support clients across different jurisdictions and market environments, particularly as banks and investment firms look for providers capable of operating in multiple regulatory contexts.

Institutional client base and market coverage

Boerse Stuttgart Digital lists a number of established institutional clients, including DZ Bank, DekaBank, Intesa Sanpaolo, and Société Générale-FORGE. Tradias, for its part, supports clients including flatexDEGIRO, dwpbank, and European government institutions, according to the merger announcement.

On the market side, Tradias provides trading and market-making services for more than 150 cryptocurrencies and other digital assets. Financial terms of the merger were not disclosed. While the lack of deal pricing limits how outsiders can assess valuation, the operational details—service scope, leadership, and footprint—offer a clearer picture of what the combined company intends to deliver after the integration.

Importantly for market participants, scale in market-making and asset coverage can influence how institutional clients access liquidity across many tokens, especially for firms that need both execution and ongoing custody or settlement support. The merged structure—pairing trading capability with custody and additional services—could streamline workflows for institutions that previously had to coordinate across separate providers.

What to watch next

With the merger closed and leadership in place, customers and investors should watch how the companies integrate operations across trading, custody, staking, and tokenization—and whether the combined footprint and branding accelerate uptake among banks and brokers across Europe. The key open question is how quickly service delivery and coverage will unify under the new structure without disrupting existing client operations.

Tether, best known for issuing USDT, the world’s most widely used stablecoin, is expanding its push into real-world asset tokenization to bring institutional-grade real estate asset onchain in Saudi Arabia.

The company said Thursday that its tokenization platform, dubbed Hadron, will provide the technology to issue and manage tokenized real estate assets for institutional investors in the country. Tether is teaming up with Saudi partners First Data and fintech company BKN301 on the effort.

The operating model could later expand beyond real estate into energy, infrastructure finance and other real-world assets, the firms said.

The announcement marks Tether’s latest effort to expand beyond stablecoins into tokenization, a fast-growing application of blockchain rails in finance. The firm launched Hadron in 2024 to simplify asset tokenization and is also the issuer of the largest tokenized gold offering, the $2.6 billion XAUT.

Banks and asset managers have increasingly turned to tokenization to represent traditional assets such as money market funds, private credit, real estate and equities on blockchains, arguing the technology can streamline settlement, broaden investor access and improve capital efficiency. Citi projected that the tokenized securities market could reach $5.5 trillion by 2030.

Bitcoin’s institutional footprint appears to be shrinking again, with on-chain and market metrics pointing to weaker demand from the category of holders that typically amplifies price through financial engineering and “treasury” models. According to data compiled by CryptoQuant, combined exposure across institutional Bitcoin vehicles has dropped from 1.33 million BTC to 1.20 million BTC over the past three months—an approximate 10% reduction since May.

The pullback is occurring alongside a prolonged dislocation in exchange pricing. CryptoQuant also highlights a Coinbase Premium streak that has turned persistently negative for a record 93 days, a pattern analysts often associate with muted institutional buying—particularly from U.S. participants—until the premium meaningfully improves.

Key takeaways

• CryptoQuant data shows combined holdings across institutional Bitcoin vehicles fell from 1.33 million BTC to 1.20 million BTC over three months (about 10%).
• CryptoQuant links the broader decline to pressure on “Bitcoin treasury” companies when their equity trades below the value of their BTC holdings.
• Strategy, the largest publicly held Bitcoin treasury company, reportedly sold 1,638 BTC last week.
• The Coinbase Premium index has remained negative for 93 days, reaching a record streak since early May.

Institutional exposure declines as treasury models weaken

CryptoQuant’s analysis attributes part of the institutional drawdown to the changing economics of Bitcoin treasury companies—public firms that hold significant BTC and often rely on their market valuations to finance additional purchases. In CryptoQuant’s framing, when those firms’ share prices trade above the net asset value (NAV) of their Bitcoin holdings, the market can function like a “reflexive” loop: companies issue equity or debt, buy more Bitcoin, and reinforce the premium.

That loop, however, weakens when market capitalisations fall below NAV and new financing becomes dilutive. As Novaque Research put it, the mechanism “weakens when market capitalisations fall below net asset value, and financing becomes dilutive.” In that environment, the treasury story can shift from growth-by-capital-market access to a more constrained model where additional BTC purchases become harder to justify.

CryptoQuant notes that on-chain evidence supports a loss of institutional demand, though it also cautions that the data cannot directly isolate treasury companies as the sole driver. Still, the company points to the valuation pressure facing several Bitcoin treasury names that trade at a discount to the NAV of their BTC holdings.

Strategy’s recent BTC sale spotlights the discount dilemma

The drawdown theme is reinforced by recent activity from Strategy. Business intelligence software company Strategy, which holds the largest Bitcoin treasury among public corporations, sold 1,638 BTC last week, according to earlier reporting.

CryptoQuant’s discussion centers on how market valuation discounts can distort the treasury thesis. It highlights that in Strategy’s case, a discount disappears depending on the valuation methodology used. CryptoQuant provides an additional view: on a basic share-count basis, the discount is 0.7 as of Thursday. But after taking into account Strategy’s $8 billion debt and the liquidation preference tied to its STRC preferred stock, CryptoQuant reports an mNAV of 1.03.

In practical terms, this kind of accounting sensitivity matters because treasury strategies often rely on the market’s willingness to value the BTC pile at or above the company’s implied “Bitcoin NAV.” When that valuation wobbles—or flips into a discount—capital-market support can weaken, which can show up in reduced net accumulation.

Coinbase Premium hits a record negative streak

The institutional exposure slide is happening at the same time as a separate market signal: Coinbase Premium. CryptoQuant states that the index has recorded a record 93 days of negative readings.

The Coinbase Premium measures the difference in price between Coinbase and Binance for BTC/USDT pairs. A negative reading implies Coinbase’s pricing is lower relative to Binance’s, a divergence that often aligns with lower U.S.-centric demand and/or constraints in how quickly capital moves into regulated venues.

Cointelegraph previously reported that the premium has been negative since the start of May, and that this period represents the longest run of negative readings in its observed history. A visual on CryptoQuant’s charts accompanies the analysis in the current report, showing the prolonged downside drift.

For some analysts, the record streak is more consistent with a demand shortage than with heavy, persistent selling pressure. In a post shared via X, Web3 marketing platform FOUR argued that the genesis of the months-long negative reading “did not lie in blanket US selling pressure,” adding that as long as the premium stays negative, institutional buying from U.S. investors appears muted. FOUR’s message, as captured in the reporting, is that the market should watch for when the premium flips positive as a potential prerequisite for a stronger recovery.

Why the premium, treasury valuations, and ETF flows are linked

Although the on-chain holding changes and the Coinbase Premium signal don’t automatically prove a single cause, they point in the same direction: institutional behavior appears less supportive than it was earlier in the year. Reuters previously reported on Citi’s view that ETF flows are an “important driver of prices,” and that the bank had cut its BTC price forecast to $53,000 through 2027 while ETF flow dynamics turned less favorable.

That matters because ETFs and other regulated U.S. access points are often central to institutional participation narratives. If ETF flows weaken, the pressure can show up first in exchange-relative indicators like Coinbase Premium. Then, as treasury companies face less supportive market pricing versus NAV, their ability—or willingness—to add BTC via equity and debt financing can become more limited. The result may be exactly what CryptoQuant is observing: institutional exposure falling across trusts, ETFs, and closed-end vehicles.

At the same time, CryptoQuant’s analysis is careful about causality. It states that the on-chain evidence supports a loss of institutional demand but cannot directly isolate the role of treasury companies. That uncertainty is important for readers: the data suggests direction and correlation, but investors should avoid assuming a single entity or single mechanism is responsible for the full change.

Going forward, the key watch-items are straightforward: whether Coinbase Premium eventually turns positive after the 93-day negative streak, whether institutional vehicles stabilize their BTC holdings after the approximate 10% decline since May, and whether treasury companies return to a valuation environment that makes incremental financing less dilutive. Those signals together can help clarify if the current institutional cooling is temporary or part of a longer reset in how Bitcoin is funded and accumulated.

Physical theft targeting crypto holders is escalating, according to a new Chainalysis report that tracks “wrench attacks” — kidnappings, home invasions, and hostage scenarios designed to force victims to hand over digital assets. In the first half of this year, criminals stole more than $30 million through these violent robberies, putting 2026 on course to exceed the $58 million record reported for 2025.

Chainalysis said it documented 46 violent crypto-related incidents globally through late June, up from 40 during the same period in 2025. The report highlights a key shift for crypto security: the risk is no longer limited to custody and account access, but increasingly extends to victims’ homes, families, and personal safety.

Key takeaways

• $30M+ was reportedly stolen in wrench attacks in the first half of 2026, suggesting the year could surpass $58M stolen in all of 2025.
• 46 incidents were recorded worldwide through late June, up from 40 in the same period of 2025.
• Payment outcomes remain limited: only 12 of 46 attacks led to a payment, for a 26% success rate.
• Success appears down: the reported payment rate fell from 49% in 2025.
• France is a hotspot: the report lists 30 public incidents by midyear, versus 19 across all of 2025.

A rise in violence, even as payment rates fall

Chainalysis’ figures point to wrench attacks becoming more frequent, even though the percentage of cases that result in payments has declined. In its analysis, the firm found that just 12 of the 46 documented incidents through late June ended in attackers receiving payment, translating to a 26% success rate.

That rate is lower than in 2025, when Chainalysis reported a 49% success rate for similar incidents. The discrepancy matters for investors and users because it implies criminals may be scaling up the number of attempts to offset lower yields, increasing aggregate harm even if individual attacks are less likely to pay out.

At the same time, Chainalysis cautioned that the real scale is likely understated. The firm noted that many attacks may go unreported, meaning the measured success rate could be distorted by incomplete visibility into outcomes.

The report also describes a troubling operating model: “tradecraft tends to be amateur at the point of violence, but professional at both ends.” In other words, some attackers executing the physical threat appear less sophisticated, while the selection and planning of targets may be more systematic — often involving victims identified through data leaks, social media, or insider information.

France’s surge and the role of leaked or misused data

While wrench attacks are global, the report indicates a particularly sharp concentration in France. Chainalysis said France logged 30 publicly known incidents by midyear, compared with 19 throughout 2025. Crucially, Chainalysis also pointed to the possibility that the visible number is a fraction of the true total: French authorities have reportedly counted more than 70 incidents.

In July, French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez put the first-half figure at 77 kidnappings, extortions, or attempted extortions — up from 45 for all of 2025. (Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted the government’s response alongside those figures.) Spain arrests suspect in 2025 kidnapping of Ledger co-founder is unrelated to the French count, but it underscores how reported incidents are being closely followed across jurisdictions.

The French government response, according to the report, includes a rapid-alert and protection system, with promises of expanded intelligence-sharing and coordination with the crypto industry. The implied investor takeaway is that regulators and law enforcement are treating physical targeting as a broader security issue, not merely an isolated criminal pattern.

Chainalysis also identified what it called the likeliest driver of the surge: alleged misuse of French tax records. The report describes an allegation that a French tax official accessed and sold information about crypto investors to criminals. In addition, it reports a separate breach at crypto tax-reporting company Waltio that reportedly exposed data for about 50,000 users.

For crypto holders, these details emphasize why personal data hygiene and source integrity are increasingly relevant to safety. If criminals can identify likely crypto owners with prior knowledge, the attack risk can rise regardless of whether a victim’s coins are securely held in a formal wallet setup.

How stolen funds move after the violence

The Chainalysis report also examined what happens after the physical threat — specifically, how attackers convert coercion into onchain value. The firm said tactics varied across cases.

In some incidents, attackers allegedly sent stolen funds directly to centralized exchanges. Other attackers reportedly used a sequence of tools and venues, including bridges, decentralized exchanges, and laundering services. Chainalysis noted that the most advanced cases showed links to broader criminal networks, suggesting that violence is only one part of an ecosystem that may include professional financial facilitation.

That multi-stage behavior is important for readers trying to understand both risk and recovery. Even when the physical incident does not end in payment, the attempt itself can still be informed by data gathering and may be followed by financial workflows designed to reduce traceability.

Earlier editorial conversations in the ecosystem have also focused on how hardware wallet compromises and operational security failures can expose holders to theft. However, Chainalysis’ wrench attack analysis is distinct: it centers on physical coercion and the data pathways used to identify victims, not on whether a particular device type is broadly insecure.

For those tracking broader security trends, the wrench attack pattern may be best understood as an extension of cybercrime into real-world harm — where leaks and compromised records help criminals select targets, and where execution ranges from amateur violence to more professional money movement.

What to watch next

As reporting continues and law enforcement in high-incidence regions refines alerts, protection, and data-sharing efforts, the key unknown will be whether the decline in payment success rates translates into fewer total victims—or whether attackers will keep increasing attempts to maintain revenue. Crypto holders should also watch for further disclosures about data exposure pathways, particularly involving personal records that could make individuals easier to target.

In 2021, during the height of NFT-mania, an angel investor and macroeconomist named Tascha Che (aka Tascha Labs) announced her plan to buy a $5,000 diamond, create an NFT of it, then smash it to pieces.

The stunt, intended to prove that, while physical objects can be destroyed, digital footprints can forever retain value, was widely criticized by most outside of cryptocurrency and NFT circles.

But since the complete collapse of the NFT markets and liquidity falling to near all-time lows, how has the shattered diamond NFT performed?

Diamond background

Che came up with the idea after posting a hypothesis to Twitter:

Once the tweet got enough traction, she pursued the concept. In August of 2021 she purchased a 1.3 carat diamond online, had it delivered, and then started to work on ways she could destroy it.

Her initial plan — to hit the diamond with a hammer — failed miserably, but she was eventually able to go to a mechanic who used some type of drill to obliterate it for free.

The next step was to mint the now-destroyed gem on an NFT marketplace so that people could bid on it.

This proved to be successful.

In September of 2021 a user purchased the NFT for 5.5 ETH, valued at +$17,000 at the time and over three times the price Che paid for the diamond.

While Che instantly took to social media to proclaim that her hypothesis had been proved correct, the reality was that a single sale couldn’t possibly prove that all digitized assets could retain value in spite of their destruction.

Read more: NFT firm founder indicted for using treasury to support ‘DJ hobby’

Diamond hands

After purchasing the NFT, Ivan Zhang, a decentralized finance proponent and investor, held it until finally selling in October of 2025 — for an astounding 11 ETH, or $43,000 at the time.

The destroyed diamond NFT had once again nearly tripled in value, despite one carat diamond prices plummeting in value nearly 40% over that same time period.

So, was Che’s hypothesis correct after all?

Not at all.

Not value retention, an internet artifact

As admitted to by Zhang when posting about the sale, diamond prices will continue to go down as synthetics become easier to make and demand from retail dries up.

But somehow the NFT has continued to gain value.

If the NFT was simply designed to retain the value of a destroyed physical good, one would expect to see an equal rise or decline in value.

However, a similar 1.3 carat diamond available for purchase on the same website that Che purchased hers from is now worth between $3,500-$4,000, a decline of over 20%.

Over that time period, the destroyed diamond’s value has ballooned to $43,000, or an increase of 760%.

If anything, Che’s experiment has proven positively that there’s little to no expectation of value retention of real world, physical goods that are digitized and made into an NFT. One just has to be lucky and hope that their idea goes viral.

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

A reported $3.58 million outflow from the Bitwise XRP ETF drew attention on Aug. 6 after social media accounts described the move as an unusual sale by the asset manager. 

The available evidence supports a narrower conclusion: the fund reportedly experienced a net redemption during the Aug. 5 U.S. session.

No public transaction details show that Bitwise made a discretionary market call against XRP. The distinction matters because the fund is a trust holding XRP for shareholders. Bitwise Investment Advisers sponsors the product, while authorized financial firms handle share creation and redemption orders under the trust’s operating documents.

Bitwise XRP ETF outflow is a shareholder redemption

The Bitwise XRP ETF creates and redeems shares in blocks of 10,000 through authorized participants. A net outflow therefore indicates that more fund shares were redeemed than created. It does not, by itself, reveal why investors reduced exposure or show that Bitwise changed its view of XRP.

The trust can settle a redemption in two ways. For an in-kind redemption, it transfers the corresponding XRP to an authorized participant or its designee. For a cash redemption, the sponsor arranges for the required XRP to be sold and sends the cash proceeds. A redemption can therefore involve an XRP sale, but it remains part of the fund mechanism rather than a proprietary trade by Bitwise.

Moreover, Bitwise’s official page showed 293.93 million XRP in the trust as of Aug. 4, valued at $314.39 million. It also listed 26.31 million shares outstanding, net assets of about $314.37 million and an $11.95 net asset value per share. The page had not advanced to Aug. 5 holdings when checked.

That timing prevents the public holdings page from confirming the reported $3.58 million reduction. The post behind the claim also did not provide a transaction hash, wallet address or identified counterparty. Calling the report “onchain data” does not establish whether XRP was sold for cash, transferred in kind or reflected through a change in fund shares.

Brazil’s B3 stock exchange made headlines last month when its tokenized cows went viral.

A farmer in southern Brazil was able to use 10 cows as collateral for a 100,000 Brazilian real ($19,600) loan by virtually herding them into a blockchain based holding pen, demonstrating how farmers can literally milk their assets to access credit.

And it raises an obvious question: if cows can be tokenized, what can’t be?

From dairy cows to a year’s worth of farts, here are 10 of the strangest things to be tokenized onchain.

1. A year’s worth of farts

When BlackRock chief executive Larry Fink said every asset will eventually be tokenized, he probably wasn’t thinking about flatulence. Yet, that’s exactly what happened here.

Every bit as appealing as, well, a year’s worth of farts, it has to be a contender for the strangest thingever to make it onchain.

It was during the pandemic, when most people were baking bread or leveling up on Duolingo, that filmmaker Alex Ramírez-Mallis recorded his own farts and minted each one as a nonfungible token (NFT).

They say farts are like children, and you only love your own. But the novelty factor meant that Ramírez-Mallis was able to sell his for 0.05 ETH each (about $85 at the time), proving that every asset has its price.

2. Cows

Better known as a prime source of protein in Bitcoin circles, the idea of turning 10 Brazilian cows into tokenized cattle… er, tokenized collateral, is not the most obvious use case.

The deal was structured by Brazilian investment fund Target FIDC, giving each cow a unique digital token linked to an encrypted digital identity.

Larry Fink says every asset can be tokenized. Source: BlackRock

The first loan may have been worth just $19,600, but it was a proof of concept that shows the potential to eventually support around $80 million in livestock-backed financing across its farms.

While it sounds somewhat bizarre on first glance, the agriculture industry generated around $4 trillion in global value added in 2023, so watch out for tokenized sheep, goats and chickens as collateral next.

3. Whiskey barrels

When you think of sharing a whiskey, you probably have the liquid gold kind in mind, but whiskey barrels are a natural candidate for tokenization.

Related: Tokenized RWAs get an agent-ready research layer with a new protocol

That’s because, like high-end art and collectibles, Scotch whisky typically increases in value as it matures — talk about lifting your spirits!

Several projects are experimenting with putting whisky casks onchain so investors can buy whole units or fractional ownership of tokenized whisky stored in bonded warehouses.

Just remember that if the market crashes, you can’t actually drink a digital JPEG of a barrel.

4. Racehorses

Racehorse ownership has long been reserved for the ultra-wealthy, those with deep enough pockets to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in breeding, training and upkeep, and a fancy hat to wear at the racetrack.

But tokenization is beginning to chip away at those elitist barriers, dividing ownership of real thoroughbred racehorses into digital shares.

Investors can buy a stake in an animal and share in any prize money, breeding income, or future sale proceeds, without purchasing an entire horse.

Own part of a racehorse. Source: Stablemans

A word of caution for would-be investors in this style of asset, though, whether its watches or whiskeys or large four legged animals, from Chris Turner, co-founder of impact investment firm KULA:

“Putting a collectible or luxury item on a blockchain doesn’t automatically make it more liquid or valuable if the legal rights, transfer process, and market structure remain unchanged.”

5. Uranium

If your mind turns to treasuries and private credit when thinking about tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), it might be a shift to consider uranium, the radioactive metal better known for its role in nuclear power.

But that’s what Tezos-backed metals.io is doing. Tezos co-founder Arthur Breitman says blockchain technology excels at building “reliable, auditable and cost-efficient financial rails for any asset,” but is particularly aligned with “technology-flavored commodities” like uranium.

Breitman says trading volume between November 2024 and July 2026 was $21.5 million over approximately 18,200 trades and around 7,400 unique wallets.

Related: RWAs become Hyperliquid’s largest trading category

He acknowledges that growth remains modest, telling Magazine that institutional players have shown interest but are “still shy about tokenized rails.”

6. Fishy revenue

One of the most unusual proposals tokenization platform Brickken received came from a Chilean fish-processing company that wanted to issue tokenized debt with returns tied to the value of the fish it sold.

“The token represented the lender’s contractual claim, while the interest payable adjusted according to the company’s verified sales performance. In effect, it was a tokenized, revenue-linked debt instrument,” explains Edwin Mata, chief executive of Brickken.

Mata argues that the idea highlights an important principle:

“Almost any cash flow can support a tokenized financial instrument, provided the underlying rights and data can be independently verified.”

In the end, the fish never made it onchain. The underlying fish sales still relied on audits, commercial reporting and legal agreements that couldn’t yet be automated, proving that, sometimes, the biggest obstacle to tokenization isn’t the blockchain; it’s the real world.

7. Music royalties

Music royalties have also found their way onchain, with one of the earliest high-profile examples in 2021, when DJ and producer 3LAU gave fans 50% of the streaming rights to his single Worst Case through his blockchain platform Royal.

Then, in 2022, rapper Nas used Royal to sell streaming royalty rights to two of his songs, Ultra Black and Rare.

While the idea of onchain royalties gained traction during the NFT boom, tokenized music royalties have yet to become a mainstream asset class. Maybe that’s because the streaming platforms pay peanuts.

Nothing says “financial freedom” quite like owning 0.001% of a track and realizing it needs to be played five million times just to buy a cup of coffee.

8. Human Skin

If tokenizing farts and cattle wasn’t weird enough, what about parts of your own body? That’s exactly what Croatian tennis player Oleksandra Oliynykova did in 2021, when she auctioned the advertising rights to a 15-by-18-centimeter patch of skin on her right arm as an NFT.

The winning bidder paid 3 Ether (around $5,400 at the time) for the right to choose which tattoo she would wear during tournaments for a year.

Athletes have long sold sponsorship space on shirts, helmets and race cars. Oliynykova just took the idea one step further, giving a whole new meaning to having skin in the game.

9. A Burned Banksy

Most art collectors try to preserve masterpieces; crypto collectors set them on fire to make a point about “digital ownership.” In 2021, a group calling itself Burnt Banksy bought a Banksy print titled Morons (White) for around $95,000. They livestreamed themselves burning it, and then minted the destruction.

If that leaves you scratching your head, there was method in the madness; the idea was that while the physical artwork no longer existed, ownership would live on forever through the blockchain.

The NFT sold for around $382,000, sparking fierce debate over whether the group had destroyed a valuable work of art or simply transformed it into a new one. It was probably the first time in history someone made a 300% profit from a “fire sale.”

10. The first tweet

Also in the year of our NFT Lord, 2021, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey tokenized his first-ever tweet — “just setting up my twttr” — and sold it as an NFT to crypto entrepreneur Sina Estavi for $2.9 million, quickly becoming a symbol of the NFT boom.

The first-ever tweet sold for $2.9 million. Source: Jack Dorsey

One year later, Estavi tried to resell it for $48 million, but only received bids worth a tiny fraction of the asking price, with the highest reported offer coming in at just $6,800.

While anyone can still read the tweet on X, only one person owns the blockchain certificate tied to it. Whether that’s valuable or not remains an open question. As Mata says:

“Tokenization can improve access, administration, settlement and transferability, but it cannot transform a poor investment into a good one.”

Magazine: The 100x obsession: Fundamentals grow in importance as crypto matures