Crypto World
Ethics, DeFi, and $1.35B in yield
The most consequential crypto bill in American history missed its July 4 signing target and sits on the Senate calendar with no floor vote scheduled. The reason is not procedure. It is three specific, unresolved fights: the President’s $1.4 billion in crypto income, a developer shield that police groups call a criminal loophole, and a stablecoin-yield question worth $1.35 billion a year to Coinbase alone. The Senate returns July 13 with three weeks to settle all three. Here is each fight, both sides, and the math.
Summary
- Three unresolved disputes over ethics, DeFi developer protections, and stablecoin rewards continue to hold up the Senate vote on the CLARITY Act.
- The Senate has roughly three weeks before the August recess to secure enough bipartisan support and clear several procedural hurdles for the bill.
- The outcome could shape crypto regulation in the United States while influencing institutional adoption, DeFi rules, and stablecoin business models.
America’s 250th birthday came and went without the signing ceremony the White House had informally penciled in. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the bill that would finally decide which American regulator governs which crypto asset, spent July 4 exactly where it has sat since June 1: at Calendar No. 423 on the Senate Legislative Calendar, eligible for a floor vote that nobody has scheduled, with no cloture motion filed and prediction markets pricing its 2026 passage in the low-to-mid 40s, down from 82% in February and 74% barely a month ago.
The bill is not dead, and the arithmetic explaining its paralysis is brutally simple. Republicans hold 53 seats; Senators Josh Hawley and Rand Paul are expected to vote no; passage requires 60. That means roughly seven to nine Democrats must cross over, and the two Democrats who voted for the bill in committee, Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, have both said publicly that their committee votes do not guarantee floor votes. The missing Democratic votes exist in principle. They are being withheld in practice, over three specific and interlocking disputes, and last week, the negotiations over the first two fractured into stalemate, with Senate leaders reportedly planning emergency meetings when the chamber returns on July 13.
Roughly three usable Senate weeks remain before the August recess, the window that analysts from Galaxy to the bill’s own sponsors treat as the last realistic gate before midterm politics consumes the calendar, and Senator Cynthia Lummis has warned that failure now could push the next opening toward the end of the decade. This piece takes the three fights one at a time: what each dispute actually is, the strongest version of each side’s argument, what compromise would look like, and how each interacts with the unforgiving calendar. The bill’s 257 pages have been mapped in detail before; what follows is the narrower story of the three pages’ worth of disagreements deciding whether any of it becomes law.
Fight one: the President’s $1.4 billion
The first fight became concrete on July 1, when the Office of Government Ethics released President Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure for 2025. The filing showed approximately $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency-related income during the first year of his second term: $635 million in royalties from $TRUMP memecoin licensing, more than $500 million from World Liberty Financial token sales, and additional equity and stablecoin proceeds, the largest personal crypto-income disclosure in American presidential history.
For Democrats who had spent months demanding conflict-of-interest language in the bill, the disclosure converted an abstract principle into a billion-dollar fact. Their argument runs as follows: the CLARITY Act will decide the legal classification, and therefore the value, of the exact asset class from which the President’s family draws its largest income stream, and passing it without enforceable ethics provisions amounts to Congress legislating a benefit to the signer. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, among the chamber’s most crypto-friendly Democrats and a co-author of earlier market-structure frameworks, has said plainly that enforceable language covering government officials’ crypto holdings is a prerequisite for her floor support, and she is the bellwether: if the bill cannot hold its friendliest Democrats, it cannot find seven.
The Republican counter-argument is constitutional and practical. Existing ethics law already prohibits members of Congress and senior executive officials from issuing digital commodities in office, the bill’s own text says so, and provisions singling out the sitting President’s personal holdings are, in the White House’s view, a poison pill dressed as principle, designed to force a veto confrontation, not to govern. The negotiating record shows both sides maneuvering around that accusation: an ethics amendment from Senator Chris Van Hollen failed 11-13 in committee; a tentative bipartisan framework reached in May collapsed last week when Republicans withdrew support for a state-attorneys-general enforcement mechanism and offered enforcement through the US Attorney General instead, an offer Democrats rejected as circular, since the Attorney General serves at the President’s pleasure; Republicans then floated impeachment as the constitutional remedy for presidential ethics violations, which Democrats declined to treat as an answer.
The shape of a landable compromise is visible in the wreckage: enforcement housed somewhere neither side controls, disclosure obligations rather than divestiture mandates, and effective dates that decouple the provisions from the current occupant. Whether it lands is another matter. The ethics fight is the only one of the three that is genuinely about the bill’s political meaning rather than its text, which is why it has attached to this bill after sparing the stablecoin law a year earlier: a market-structure act that classifies the assets a President holds cannot be framed as neutral plumbing, and everyone negotiating knows it.
Fight two: Section 604 and the developer shield
The second fight is over Section 604, which incorporates the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and shields non-custodial software developers, people who write and publish code but never take custody of user funds, from money-transmitter registration and Bank Secrecy Act obligations. To the DeFi industry, it is the bill’s philosophical core; to a significant bloc of American law enforcement, it is a criminal loophole, and the split inside law enforcement itself, which this publication examined at length, has become one of the strangest subplots in crypto’s legislative history.
The opposition case is carried by the National Sheriffs’ Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National District Attorneys’ Association, which told Senate leadership that Section 604 would materially impair criminal investigations involving cryptocurrency. Their argument: exempting DeFi software from the registration and record-keeping duties that apply to every other financial intermediary creates a compliance-free lane that launderers, sanctions evaders, and fraud networks will route through, and prosecutors will confront protocols with no registered entity to subpoena. The prosecutors’ version is the sharpest, because subpoenas are their daily tool and Section 604 is, from their desk, a list of doors the bill would weld shut.
The defense case is that the provision protects publishers, not criminals. Under the enforcement-era status quo, open-source developers faced personal liability when third parties used their code unlawfully, a standard that would be unthinkable applied to any other form of publishing, and the shield applies only where a decentralized system has no intermediary exercising control, while every custodial actor, exchange, broker, dealer, remains fully covered. The bill’s sponsors point to the sixteen-plus illicit-finance safeguards elsewhere in the text: Section 201 applying Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering duties across registered crypto intermediaries, Section 303’s new sanctions authorities aimed at Iran, Section 305’s freeze powers for dirty funds, plus $150 million in dedicated funding for crypto fraud investigations, which Lummis has framed as money to track down scammers and bad actors. The White House Crypto Council has worked the issue directly, convening the objecting groups and producing, in the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the bill’s first major law-enforcement endorsement, its executive director citing exactly those AML, sanctions, and forfeiture provisions.
The core dispute entered the recess unresolved because it is genuinely hard: it is the same tension between publishing code and operating a financial service that runs through a decade of American crypto enforcement, now compressed into one section’s drafting. The compromise space involves narrowing the shield’s definitions, adding sunset-and-study provisions, and expanding the investigative funding, and unlike the ethics fight, this one is tractable, because both sides ultimately want the same headline, a bill that is tough on crime, and are arguing over mechanism rather than meaning.
Fight three: the $1.35 billion yield question
The third fight is the quietest and involves the most measurable money. It concerns whether digital-asset platforms can keep paying customers rewards on stablecoin holdings, a question the GENIUS Act, the stablecoin law enacted a year ago, answered incompletely: it prohibited issuers from paying interest on payment stablecoins but left open whether platforms distributing those stablecoins can pass through yield.
Coinbase earns approximately $1.35 billion annually in USDC rewards revenue through exactly that arrangement, and whether the arrangement survives depends on drafting choices inside CLARITY.
The banking industry’s argument, pressed by the American Bankers Association and voiced most bluntly by JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, who said banks will fight the bill, is that the pass-through is a loophole that lets crypto platforms offer interest-bearing, deposit-like products without the capital, insurance, and anti-money-laundering obligations that make bank deposits safe, and that at scale it becomes a deposit-drain from the regulated banking system, the same systemic worry that shaped the trillion-dollar stablecoin fight this spring.
The crypto industry’s counter is that rewards programs are marketing expenditure paid from a distributor’s own revenue, not issuer interest; that Congress already drew the line at issuers in GENIUS and re-litigating it through CLARITY is the banking lobby’s second bite; and that killing pass-through yield would simply push American stablecoin users toward offshore products that answer to no US regulator at all.
The January Senate Banking draft tried to split the difference, prohibiting yield for merely holding balances while permitting activity-linked rewards, and the final text’s placement of that line is worth, to a single company, more than a billion dollars a year, which guarantees the lobbying around it will continue to the last markup.
The gauntlet in detail: how three weeks actually get spent
The phrase floor vote compresses a procedural sequence that deserves unpacking, because the calendar risk is not one deadline but a chain of them, and each link consumes days the bill does not have to spare.
Start with what calendar placement did and did not do. Being reported to the Senate Legislative Calendar as No. 423 on June 1 made the bill eligible for floor consideration; it scheduled nothing. Majority Leader John Thune controls the floor, and his queue when the chamber returns on July 13 begins with the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual must-pass defense bill that reliably devours a week or more, alongside a FISA Section 702 reauthorization with its own hard deadline.
Only after leadership commits floor time does CLARITY’s own sequence begin: a cloture motion on the motion to proceed, an intervening day, a sixty-vote cloture roll call, up to thirty hours of post-cloture debate, then the same cycle again on the bill itself, with an amendment process in between whose scope is itself a negotiation. Run cleanly and consensually, the sequence takes the better part of a week; run under objection, it can take two, and the recess begins in roughly three.
Then come the gates the headlines forget. The Banking Committee text that sits on the calendar must be reconciled with the Senate Agriculture Committee’s companion measure, the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, because the CFTC falls under Agriculture’s jurisdiction and both committees claim pieces of the framework; that merger has been negotiated in parallel but is not complete. Whatever passes the Senate must then be squared with the House-passed version from July 2025, either through a formal conference or through the House swallowing the Senate text whole, and House Financial Services has its own scheduled activity on July 17 that signals it does not regard itself as a rubber stamp.
The GENIUS Act’s own rulemaking deadline of July 18, one year from signature, lands in the same week the Senate resumes, crowding the agencies and the committee staff who service both laws. Every one of these steps is routine in isolation; stacked inside three weeks against two competing must-pass bills, they are the reason seasoned handicappers quote coin-flip odds for a bill with majority support.
The paradox of the moment is that the deadline is also the bill’s best friend, and its sponsors know it. Lummis has been explicit about moving in July, negotiators circulated final compromise text for review around the recess, and the a16z argument, that nothing concentrates Senate minds like a closing window, has real precedent in how the stablecoin law crossed its own finish line a year ago. Both dynamics are true at once: the calendar makes passage physically difficult, and the calendar is the only force capable of converting fourteen months of almost-agreements into signatures.
The next three weeks will show which effect is stronger, and observers who want to track it in real time need exactly four tells: whether Thune files cloture in the week of July 13, whether Gillibrand’s public posture on the ethics language shifts, whether the White House Crypto Council produces a Section 604 accommodation the sheriffs accept, and whether the Agriculture merger text appears. Any three of the four pointing the same direction will settle the question before the roll is ever called.
What each outcome is worth, asset by asset
The three fights are Washington stories, and the reason markets refresh the Senate calendar is that each outcome carries a price map that analysts have, unusually, been willing to publish in advance.
The passage scenario has explicit numbers attached. Citi’s Bitcoin target of $143,000 and Standard Chartered’s $150,000 are both conditioned on the bill becoming law, with regulatory certainty cited as the unlock for the next institutional wave into spot ETFs and corporate treasuries. Ethereum’s conditional upside is structural: commodity classification supplies the legal foundation for the staking ETF products allocators have drafted but not filed, behind Standard Chartered’s conditional $7,500 end-of-year target.
XRP carries the most direct exposure of any major asset, because the SEC-CFTC joint classification of it as a digital commodity in March 2026 is an interpretive ruling a future administration could reverse, and CLARITY would convert it into statute; JPMorgan and Standard Chartered have each projected $4 to $8.4 billion of first-year XRP ETF inflows under passage, roughly five times the products’ entire cumulative haul to date, arriving into a tradable float already at seven-year lows. The May 14 committee vote provided a small-scale preview, lifting the majors within hours on nothing more than procedural progress.
The failure scenario is not symmetrical, and that asymmetry is underpriced in casual commentary. A stall past the August recess does not merely delay the upside; it re-exposes every interpretive gain of the past two years to reversal risk, keeps the pension funds and sovereign allocators that legally cannot touch unclassified assets on the sidelines indefinitely, and, per Lummis’s warning, potentially pushes the next legislative window toward 2030 as midterms and a new Congress reshuffle every committee.
It would also leave the DeFi developer question exactly where the enforcement era left it, with builders facing liability standards no other publishing industry tolerates, and hand the competitive initiative back to the jurisdictions that already have live rulebooks, the MiCA-led regimes whose contrast with the American approach has defined the global regulatory race. Failure, in short, is not the status quo; it is the status quo minus the assumption of imminent rescue that has supported valuations all year.
Between the binary outcomes sits the muddled middle the market currently prices: passage in the fall, or passage in 2027, or a slimmed bill that resolves two fights by amputating the third. Each middle path has its own distributional consequences. An ethics compromise that survives conference likely costs nothing to asset prices and buys the signatures; a Section 604 narrowed to appease the sheriffs shifts value from DeFi-adjacent tokens toward the centralized incumbents the bill would license; a yield provision drawn the banks’ way removes a billion-dollar revenue line from the largest American exchange and, by extension, from the equity that trades on it.
The bill is routinely described as crypto versus Washington, and the truer description is that it is a set of allocations among crypto’s own factions, which is exactly why the industry coalition holding together through fourteen months of markups has been the quiet achievement underneath everything else.
Three weeks, three fights, one calendar
What makes the three fights decisive is not their difficulty individually but their interaction with a calendar that has no slack. When the Senate returns July 13, floor time must first accommodate the National Defense Authorization Act and a FISA Section 702 reauthorization, and each cloture sequence on CLARITY, one on the motion to proceed, one on the bill, can consume most of a week. Behind Senate passage wait two more gates the headlines forget: reconciling the Banking Committee text with the Senate Agriculture Committee’s companion measure, and squaring the result with the House-passed version, before any signature. Galaxy Research puts 2026 passage near a coin flip; Polymarket has drifted through the 40s; the bill’s supporters, from SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce’s summer-passage expectation to a16z’s argument that the tight window itself forces compromise, are betting that deadline pressure does what fourteen months of negotiation has not.
The honest reading of the moment is that the CLARITY Act has already survived everything except its final and most political mile. It passed the House 294-134 with 78 Democrats, cleared committee 15-9, and carries an industry coalition that has held together through every markup, achievements no market-structure bill has matched. The three fights blocking it are not procedural noise; each is a real dispute about who bears risk in the new system, the public against a President’s conflicts, investigators against anonymous code, banks against their own depositors’ yield-seeking.
Whichever way each resolves, the resolutions will be read as precedent for a decade of digital-asset law. Three weeks is enough time to settle three fights, and it is also enough time to settle none of them, and as of the morning the Senate returns, the smart money is split almost exactly down the middle.
It is worth naming, finally, what the three fights have in common, because the pattern explains why this bill has been harder than its stablecoin predecessor and why its resolution will echo past crypto. Each fight is a dispute about whether the new legal order will contain an exemption, for a President’s holdings from ethics enforcement, for published code from intermediary regulation, for platform rewards from banking rules, and exemptions are where legislation does its real distributional work.
The stablecoin law passed easily because it created obligations nearly everyone could live with; CLARITY has stalled because it creates carve-outs that someone powerful, in each case, cannot. That is not a sign the bill is badly drafted. It is a sign the bill matters, that it touches money and power at the joints where they actually connect, and the fourteen months of grinding negotiation are the ordinary price of legislation that does.
The Senate’s three weeks will be covered as drama, and most of the drama will be noise; the four tells listed above, cloture filed, Gillibrand moved, the sheriffs accommodated, the Agriculture merger published, are the signal, and readers who track those four and ignore the rest will know the outcome before the vote count does.
Whatever happens by August 10, the American crypto industry will exit this window with something it has never had before: a precise, public record of exactly which three questions its legal future turned on, and exactly who answered them.
A brief word on how to consume the next three weeks of coverage. Legislative endgames generate a distinctive noise signature: anonymous optimism from offices with bills to sell, anonymous pessimism from offices with amendments to extract, and daily prediction-market swings that mostly recycle both. The durable information will arrive in exactly four formats, a cloture filing on the Senate calendar, a named senator changing a stated position on the record, published compromise text, and committee-merger documents, and each is a public artifact that cannot be spun. Everything else, including the confident threads that will flood social feeds every evening the Senate is in session, is atmosphere. The bill’s fate is a matter of four documents and seven signatures, and the discipline of watching only those is the closest thing this story offers to an edge.
One historical footnote gives the moment its proper weight. No comprehensive American market-structure law for a new asset class has passed on its first serious Senate attempt; the securities acts of the 1930s, the commodity-futures framework, and the derivatives titles of the post-crisis reforms each required a failed run or a crisis, usually both, before enactment. CLARITY arriving at the floor with a House supermajority behind it, an industry coalition intact, and no crisis forcing anyone’s hand is already outside the historical pattern, which is one reason experienced hands hold their forecasts loosely in both directions. If it passes, it will have beaten the base rate for laws of its kind. If it fails, the two-year record it leaves, votes counted, compromises drafted, objections named, becomes the starting text of the next attempt, which is more than any previous crypto Congress has left behind.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment or legal advice. Legislative details are current as of July 8, 2026, and are changing rapidly; verify the current status before relying on any timeline described here.
Key Highlights
- The TRON blockchain has officially exceeded 392 million total wallet addresses
- TRX currently trades at $0.3321 with a total market capitalization of $31.5 billion
- Technical analysts identify $0.35 as the critical resistance zone for potential breakout
- Tron Inc. acquired 151,322 additional TRX tokens, pushing treasury holdings past 704 million
- Total Value Locked on TRON increased by $1.95 billion (7.8% gain) from July 1
TRON (TRX) continues demonstrating stable price action while the blockchain platform achieves significant network growth milestones and attracts sustained institutional accumulation.
Blockchain data from TRON’s official network explorer reveals the platform has successfully surpassed the 392 million total accounts threshold. This metric encompasses all wallet addresses ever generated on the blockchain network, distinguishing it from daily or monthly active user counts.
Since launching its independent mainnet in 2018, TRON has positioned itself as a leading infrastructure for stablecoin transactions and decentralized content distribution. According to DeFilLama analytics, USDT transfers on TRON dominate the stablecoin movement landscape across blockchain networks.
The platform’s infrastructure supports up to 2,000 transactions per second with remarkably low fees averaging approximately 0.0003 TRX per transaction. This combination of high throughput and minimal costs has drawn significant institutional adoption from industry giants such as Binance, HTX, and Tether.
Blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain documented that TRON’s Total Value Locked has expanded by $1.95 billion since the beginning of July, representing a 7.8% increase. This growth trajectory indicates accelerating on-chain activity throughout recent weeks.
At present, TRX is valued at $0.3321, reflecting a 1.13% gain over the past 24-hour period. The token recorded $492.43 million in trading volume during this timeframe, while maintaining its $31.5 billion market capitalization.
Critical Resistance Zone Under Scrutiny
Cryptocurrency technical analyst Umair Orakzai observed that TRX continues defending a crucial support zone, preserving its bullish technical structure. His analysis highlights $0.35 as the next significant resistance threshold requiring close monitoring.
Market technicians suggest that a decisive move above the $0.35 level would likely attract additional buying momentum and fuel further upward price movement. Conversely, a failed breakout attempt — characterized by a brief spike above resistance followed by rapid reversal — could unleash selling pressure.
According to technical analysis perspectives, TRX must either achieve a convincing breakthrough above $0.35 or maintain consolidation within its established trading range.
Institutional Accumulation Continues
Tron Inc. executed another strategic acquisition, purchasing 151,322 TRX tokens at an average entry price of $0.3304 per unit. This transaction elevates the organization’s cumulative TRX position beyond 704 million tokens.
The company announced its intention to continue expanding its Tron Digital Asset Treasury through ongoing accumulation. This persistent buying activity demonstrates sustained confidence and long-term strategic positioning in the native asset.
TRX DAO has also acknowledged the account growth achievement, connecting it to the network’s broader decentralization objectives.
Emerging regulatory frameworks in the European Union and United Arab Emirates are anticipated to influence TRON’s capacity to establish additional institutional collaborations moving forward.
The U.S.-blocked company plans to use the proceeds to upgrade production lines and technology after posting explosive growth, including first-quarter revenue of 50.8 billion yuan, up 700% year-on-year. Reuters estimates CXMT held around 7.7% of the global DRAM market last year.
These deals follow SpaceX (SPCX) and Cerebras (CBRS), two AI-related listings that have fueled enthusiasm across semiconductor and memory stocks. Together they reinforce a broader theme: investors are allocating fresh capital to companies building the infrastructure behind artificial intelligence rather than to crypto assets.
Bitcoin has fallen roughly 50% from its October all-time high to around $63,000, as investors have increasingly favored AI infrastructure plays over digital assets.
The pipeline is far from empty.
OpenAI and Anthropic have both been discussed as companies that could eventually command valuations approaching $1 trillion.
While market expectations had pointed to IPOs as early as this year, however, growing investor unease over AI valuations and a cooling in semiconductor shares could delay those listings until 2027.
Even so, another wave of AI mega offerings would likely continue drawing liquidity away from crypto.
The Bank of Korea (BOK) has doubled down on its stance that won-denominated stablecoins should first be issued through bank-led consortiums.
According to local reports from Digital Asset and EDaily, the central bank made the comments in materials submitted on Thursday to the National Assembly’s finance committee. Local outlets reported that the BOK called for safeguards, including priority issuance by bank-led consortiums and a statutory policy body involving relevant agencies.
The latest comments reinforce the BOK’s months-long push to keep won stablecoin issuance under bank-led structures. The central bank’s stance has divided policymakers and industry groups and contributed to delays in South Korea’s digital asset bill.
The BOK also said it plans to continue developing deposit-token use cases in the second half of the year, including support for government subsidy payments, vouchers, electric vehicle charging infrastructure and further real-world transactions for the general public. Deposit tokens are digital tokens that represent commercial bank deposits.
In April, BOK Governor Hyun-Song Shin expressed support for deposit tokens and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) in his first public address, while South Korea’s Ministry of Economy and Finance announced a pilot to use tokenized deposits for government operational spending.
BOK’s stablecoin stance keeps bill debate alive
The BOK’s latest comments add to a policy standoff that has slowed progress on South Korea’s Digital Asset Basic Act. The bill had repeatedly stalled over disagreements on who should be allowed to issue stablecoins, with the BOK pushing for banks to retain majority ownership of stablecoin issuers.
Related: South Korea adds token securities to capital market overhaul
The debate has continued as lawmakers consider how stablecoins, tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) and other digital assets should fit into South Korea’s rulebooks. In April, the ruling Democratic Party proposed to put stablecoins and RWAs under existing financial laws. Despite this, key issues such as whether stablecoin issuers should be bank-led remained unresolved.
The bill’s timeline, which the government told President Lee Jae-myung in January it aimed to meet by the first quarter of 2026, has since slipped amid the US-Israeli war with Iran that began in late February, local elections, and delays in reorganizing the Assembly’s committee structure.
Magazine: The 5 types of real world assets being tokenized fastest onchain
Paradigm has raised $1.2 billion for its fourth fund, extending one of crypto venture capital’s biggest names into a wider set of technology markets. The firm said the new vehicle will back builders working in crypto, artificial intelligence, robotics, and other areas near the edge of current software and hardware development.
Summary
- Paradigm’s new fund keeps crypto central while adding AI, robotics, and frontier technology bets now.
- Crypto venture firms are broadening strategies as AI funding captures largest share of venture capital.
- Hyperliquid, Kalshi, Tempo and Morpho show Paradigm still backs crypto market infrastructure despite wider ambitions.
Co-founder Matt Huang and managing partner Alana Palmedo announced the new fund on July 8, 2026. Paradigm said it began in 2018 with a focus on frontier markets and will now invest “first in crypto” while also expanding across AI and robotics. The company presented the move as a broader mandate, not a retreat from digital assets
https://x.com/matthuang/status/2074873573983035801?s=20 .
Crypto remains part of Paradigm’s plan
Paradigm said it will “continue investing in crypto” and in companies that work on markets and financial systems. It named Hyperliquid, Kalshi, and Tempo among examples linked to that strategy. Hyperliquid operates in crypto derivatives, Kalshi focuses on prediction markets, and Tempo is a stablecoin and agent-friendly blockchain project co-founded with Stripe.
The firm also pointed to its internal work on blockchain tools and security. Foundry and Reth remain part of its open-source work, while Paradigm built EVMbench with OpenAI to test AI agents for smart contract security. These projects show that Paradigm still uses research and software development to support crypto infrastructure.
AI and robotics widen the mandate
Paradigm’s fourth fund also gives the firm more room to back companies outside blockchain. The announcement named Zipline, SendCutSend, True Anomaly, and Nous Research as examples of companies it has supported across drone delivery, rapid manufacturing, space defense, and open AI.
That wider scope follows a larger change across venture capital. AI has drawn large funding rounds in 2026, while crypto investors have started to look for deals where blockchain can support automated payments, data markets, trading, and identity. Paradigm’s line that it is investing across “AI, robotics, and other frontiers” puts the firm inside that wider trend.
Crypto VC follows the AI agent theme
Paradigm is not the only crypto-linked investor moving this way. Framework Ventures closed a $400 million fourth fund in June for crypto, AI, robotics, and energy startups. Haun Ventures also raised $1 billion in May for crypto infrastructure, tokenization, and AI agents.
The common theme is not a full break from crypto. These funds are trying to place capital where digital assets, stablecoins, and machine-led software may overlap. AI agents are one example because they may need payment rails, identity checks, and settlement systems that can run with little manual action.
Paradigm’s new fund arrives as venture money has moved toward a smaller group of AI companies. Crunchbase reported record global startup funding in the first half of 2026, with OpenAI and Anthropic taking more than 40% of the total. That helps explain why crypto funds are watching AI closely.
The raise also gives Paradigm more capital to compete for founders across several fast-moving sectors. Its message to builders was direct: “come build with us.” It also gives founders a larger capital source during a more selective crypto funding cycle. For crypto, the key point is that one of its largest venture backers is now positioning blockchain as part of a broader frontier technology strategy.
- AscendEX shut down after MiCA pressure, weak liquidity, and failed funding left operations unsustainable.
- Users face delayed manual withdrawals, with the exchange unable to guarantee full balance recovery.
- ZachXBT had flagged nearly empty hot wallets before the shutdown, including ETH, USDT, USDC, and SOL.
- The closure revives custody concerns after AscendEX’s 2021 breach, which caused about $78M in losses.
AscendEX has shut down after regulatory, financial, and operational pressures pushed the crypto exchange into a controlled offboarding process. The platform ceased operations on July 1, then published a notice on July 6 explaining the decision.
The shutdown has left users facing uncertainty over whether they will recover their full crypto balances. The exchange said current liquidity problems may limit payouts, making withdrawals the central issue for affected customers.
MiCA Pressure And Failed Funding Trigger Closure
AscendEX linked its closure to the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework, which came fully into force across the bloc. The platform said it did not hold the authorization required under MiCA, adding that regulatory pressure was only part of the problem.
Financial strain also played a major role. According to the exchange, a planned strategic transaction was expected to provide liquidity and support future growth. However, the counterparty failed to perform, leaving the business without expected funding.
The exchange also cited weak market conditions and operational pressure. Together, those factors forced the platform to stop normal services and begin reviewing its financial position.
That review now matters directly to users. AscendEX said it cannot guarantee that customers will receive all digital assets recorded in their accounts. It also said it cannot confirm the timing or size of any final recoveries.
The warning marks a sharp change from a standard exchange shutdown. Instead of simply closing services and processing withdrawals, the company is now assessing what assets remain available for distribution.
Manual Withdrawals Leave Users Facing Recovery Delays
User access has now been restricted to offboarding activities. Automated withdrawals have been suspended, while withdrawal requests are being reviewed manually.
That process could delay payouts further. The exchange said all claims will follow the same documented review process and that no group of users will receive preferential treatment.
Concerns, however, had already been growing before the notice. Last month, blockchain investigator ZachXBT said users had reported pending withdrawals lasting days or weeks. He also reviewed publicly identified hot wallets linked to the exchange.
According to his review, those hot wallets appeared to hold little or no balance in major assets, including ETH, USDT, USDC, and SOL. However, he also noted that exchange reserves may include cold wallets, third-party custodians, or addresses not publicly labeled.
Days later, ZachXBT urged affected users to report the matter to law enforcement agencies and financial regulators in their own jurisdictions. He also claimed the exchange continued accepting deposits while many withdrawals remained unprocessed.
He further alleged that one large user received no response from co-founder George Jing Cao. However, the company’s July 6 notice did not provide a specific recovery percentage for customers, leaving users with limited clarity on how much they may ultimately recover.
The uncertainty also adds to the exchange’s troubled history. AscendEX was founded in 2018 as BitMax before later rebranding, and it previously suffered a major security breach in 2021, when attackers stole about $78 million in crypto assets.
That attack was later linked to the Lazarus Group. Now, the platform’s closure has again placed user funds at the center of the story.
For affected customers, the immediate concern is recovery. For the wider market, the shutdown is another reminder that exchange account balances are not the same as direct asset control.
Pi Network’s team introduced new updates yesterday and has taken to X to outline more details about how they function and how users can take full advantage.
However, the underlying asset continues to dig new lows, and its free-fall doesn’t seem to be ending soon.
New Update Explained
CryptoPotato reported yesterday the two major updates, one focusing on the AI-assisted App Planning Phase, allowing developers to create their product from an initial idea, and the other improving the backend support. In the follow-up post on the second upgrade, the team highlighted the key features and how Pioneers can benefit.
“Backend capabilities begin with persistent storage for newly created App Studio apps, allowing apps to save and retrieve user-specific data across sessions.”
Developers can build applications on the Pi App Studio with experiences that continue even after users leave and return. The example given by the team was the following: games can remember a user’s high scores, productivity apps can display again a user’s to-do lists, and note-taking applications can preserve notes automatically.
The process was quite different until now, as these applications were “largely limited to frontend-only, single-session experiences,” in which app data such as preferences or progress disappeared if users exited the app.
The team claimed that adding such support now is a “significant App Studio platform milestone because it expands what AI-created apps can practically do on Pi Network.” Persistent storage is the first capability built on this foundation, allowing a broader range of useful apps, said the team.
PI Sees New ATL
Although Pi Network’s team continues to publish relatively frequent protocol updates, the native token fails to benefit and stage a notable comeback. Just the opposite; its price direction has been mostly south.
It painted a new all-time low at the end of June at under $0.115 when the entire market corrected. It managed to rebound slightly to somewhere between $0.12 and $0.13 for a week or so but nosedived once again at the start of the current business week. It plunged to $0.1033 yesterday for a new record low before the bears initiated another leg down several hours ago.
The new low, according to CoinGecko data, sits at $0.1002. Despite rebounding by 1.5% since then, PI is still in danger of breaking below $0.10 in the very near future given the overall market sentiment and the lack of trust in the token.
The post Pi Network’s Big July Upgrade Explained: What Pioneers Need to Know appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Robinhood Chain’s daily decentralized exchange (DEX) trading volume reached $563.9 million on July 8. This marked a record high for the week-old network, as a meme coin rush overtook its tokenized-asset pitch.
The surge coincided with 193,187 daily active addresses. Cash Cat (CASHCAT), a token tied to Robinhood’s original name, led the frenzy.
Robinhood Chain Turns Into a Meme Coin Hub
Robinhood launched the Robinhood Chain public mainnet on July 1. The Layer 2 network runs on Arbitrum technology and targets real-world assets (RWA).
Nonetheless, retail meme trading set the tone instead since the launch. According to data from Dune, 16,639 tokens were created over the past 24 hours, and many have already exceeded a $1 million market cap.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
One token that stands out among the new launches is Cash Cat. The meme coin draws inspiration from Robinhood’s early history.
Robinhood co-founder Vlad Tenev has previously hinted that the company was named CashCat before ultimately adopting its current brand.
However, it is worth noting that the token is not officially affiliated with either Robinhood or Tenev.
Tenev Comment Fuels the Cash Cat Surge on Robinhood
Cash Cat moved into the spotlight after its rally gained momentum following a post from Tenev.
“While we’re building Robinhood Chain to be the best chain for RWA … it works great for memes too,” he said.
Following the post, Cash Cat climbed to an all-time high of $0.147 on July 8, according to CoinGecko data. The token is also dominating trading activity on Robinhood Chain, recording roughly $98 million in 24-hour trading volume, according to a Dune dashboard. It attracted 8,720 unique traders, leading other tokens on the network.
Robinhood-themed meme coins, including Dog In Hood and The Robinhood, also ranked among the most actively traded assets.
However, the rally has since cooled. Cash Cat traded near $0.105 on July 9, down about 17% over the previous 24 hours, leaving open the question of whether the meme coin’s momentum can outlast the initial excitement.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Robinhood Chain DEX Volume Hits Record High Amid Cash Cat Frenzy appeared first on BeInCrypto.
“The under-covered angle is that this metric is documenting the end of the exchange-custody era,” Ben Nadareski, CEO of Solstice, said. The bigger story may not be lower exchange balances themselves, but where those assets are moving to.
“Assets are leaving trading venues for two destinations: regulated custody on one side, productive onchain positions on the other,” he said.
Moreover, the argument that bull runs always follow a steady decline in exchange balance is not necessarily true. For instance, in 2022, the supply on exchanges remained low, yet prices crashed hard.
HODLing is real
While the indicator may not be as dependable as before, it doesn’t change the fact that BTC is being accumulated by a variety of market participants in anticipation of a price increase.
“Over 130 public companies now hold bitcoin on their balance sheets, and spot ETFs have absorbed a growing share into regulated custody,” Zalan said.
According to Bitcoin Treasuries, public companies hold about 1,264,579 BTC, private ones 281,752, government entities 649,954, DeFi and other protocols 369,595, while ETFs and exchanges have 1,622,533. Its data also shows treasury companies hold about 7.252 million ETH.
Combined with nearly 7 million bitcoin in dormant wallets, a total of just under 11.2 million bitcoin sits outside active trade, which is about 56.5% of the currently circulating supply of roughly 20.05 million.
Key Highlights
- Paradigm secures $1.2 billion in its fourth venture capital fund
- Investment strategy now encompasses AI, robotics, and emerging frontier technologies beyond cryptocurrency
- Portfolio already includes drone company Zipline and space defense firm True Anomaly
- Venture capital funding reached unprecedented $510 billion in H1 2026 globally
- Cryptocurrency sector attracted $10.8 billion in venture investments during the same period
One of cryptocurrency’s most prominent venture capital firms, Paradigm, has successfully closed a $1.2 billion funding round for its latest investment vehicle, signaling a strategic pivot toward artificial intelligence, robotics, and other cutting-edge technologies while maintaining its crypto roots.
The Wednesday announcement represents a notable evolution for Paradigm, which previously concentrated exclusively on cryptocurrency investments across three funds totaling more than $4 billion since its 2018 establishment.
Strategic Diversification Initiative
Alana Palmedo, managing partner at Paradigm, explained to Bloomberg that while cryptocurrency investments remain central to the firm’s mission, the broader technology landscape presents opportunities too significant to overlook.
“Crypto was the first frontier for us, and it continues to be a really exciting one, but there’s so much else happening right now that’s pretty hard to ignore,” she said.
Co-founder Matt Huang telegraphed this strategic direction as early as June 2023. In a post on X, he acknowledged that artificial intelligence developments were becoming “too interesting to ignore” while reaffirming the firm’s dedication to cryptocurrency markets. Huang dismissed concerns about competition between the sectors, predicting “plenty of overlap” between AI and crypto.
The new fund has already been put to work. Current investments include Zipline International, which operates autonomous drone delivery systems and achieved a $7.6 billion valuation this January, alongside True Anomaly, a space defense technology company that secured a $2.2 billion valuation in April.
Additional portfolio companies include AI developer Nous Research, robotic metal fabrication service SendCutSend, and blockchain development tools Foundry and Reth.
Industry-Wide Expansion Movement
Paradigm’s strategic shift reflects a broader pattern among cryptocurrency-focused investors. Framework Ventures secured $400 million last month for diversified investments spanning crypto, artificial intelligence, robotics, and energy infrastructure. Similarly, Haun Ventures closed a $1 billion fund in May, incorporating AI investments for the first time in its portfolio strategy.
Global venture capital deployment reached an all-time high of $510 billion during the first half of 2026, exceeding the $440 billion invested throughout the entire previous year, based on Crunchbase data.
Artificial intelligence companies absorbed the lion’s share of this capital influx. OpenAI and Anthropic together captured more than 40% of total venture funding during the year’s first six months.
Cryptocurrency ventures, in contrast, attracted $10.8 billion in venture capital during the identical timeframe, according to Cryptorank figures. This represents a modest portion of the overall venture market.
Paradigm maintains significant cryptocurrency exposure through ongoing investments. The firm emphasized its stakes in Hyperliquid, a cryptocurrency perpetuals trading platform, and Kalshi, which operates prediction markets.
Matt Huang and Fred Ehrsam, Coinbase’s co-founder, established Paradigm together. The firm launched a $2.5 billion cryptocurrency-focused fund in 2021, setting a record as the largest dedicated crypto fund at that time, before raising an additional $850 million in 2024 specifically for early-stage blockchain ventures.
With its fourth fund now operational, Paradigm states it will “continue to research and build where it accelerates” cryptocurrency sector development while aggressively pursuing investment opportunities in related frontier technology markets.
Bitcoin stayed under pressure this week after the United States and Iran exchanged air strikes. Market sentiment worsened further after President Donald Trump said the memorandum of understanding and the ceasefire with Iran “is over.”
The uncertainty briefly pushed the world’s largest crypto asset close to $60,000 on Tuesday. By Thursday, however, it steadied at a little over $62,000.
Real Battle Is at $63K
Against this fragile backdrop, crypto analyst Ali Martinez said Bitcoin is trading in what he described as “no man’s land” based on the MVRV Pricing Bands. According to Martinez, BTC is currently positioned between the -0.5 and -1.0 MVRV bands, indicating the market does not present a clear valuation advantage at current prices. He identified the -1.0 MVRV Pricing Band, now at $49,867, as the level he would consider a major buy signal and a prime accumulation zone if Bitcoin declines that far.
In a separate analysis, Martinez also pointed to $63,000 as a major resistance level that the crypto asset has yet to overcome. Around 623,000 BTC were previously traded near this price, making it one of the largest resistance clusters on the chart. Many investors who bought around $63,000 could choose to sell once they return to breakeven, and potentially end up increasing selling pressure. Heightened global uncertainty could also encourage some market participants to reduce risk.
If Bitcoin fails to reclaim $63,000 and subsequently falls below $59,000, Martinez said on-chain transaction history identifies the next major support levels at $46,000, where roughly 115,000 BTC were transacted, and subsequently $37,870, where approximately 206,000 BTC previously changed hands.
War Chatter Hits 3-Month High
Online conversations within the crypto community also picked up. Discussions about war across crypto-focused social media have climbed to their highest level since April after Trump’s fresh warning, according to Santiment. Mentions of terms such as “war,” “Iran,” and “ceasefire” spiked sharply across social platforms. Santiment said that the market could witness increased market volatility until traders gain more clarity.
However, the growing skepticism toward political announcements throughout 2026 may reduce the market impact compared with similar developments earlier this year. Even so, if tensions continue to rise, Bitcoin and altcoins could face short-term pressure, while an excessive surge in fear could eventually set the stage for a sharp relief rally as headlines ease.
The post Bitcoin Is Stuck in ‘No Man’s Land’ as $63K Emerges as Major Barrier appeared first on CryptoPotato.
In A Tightrope Market, Discipline Is The Balancing Pole
‘Just unfair’: Ashwin slams selectors over Sanju Samson’s Zimbabwe snub | Cricket News
An Indian Billionaire Was Targeted By Trump. Then He Poured Money Into A Startup Secretly Backed by Donald Trump Jr.
-
Fashion6 days agoWeekend Open Thread: High Hopes
-
NewsBeat4 days agoTaylor Swift and Travis Kelce wedding staffer hilariously struggles to keep her cool while checking in megastars
-
Fashion3 days agoOpen Thread: What Great Books Have You Read Recently?
-
Crypto World6 days agoStandard Chartered Secures MiCA License as ESMA Adds 37 New Crypto Firms
-
Politics6 days agoThe House | “Reframing the debate from a binary discussion of winners and losers”: Yuan Yang reviews ‘We Are Not Machines’
-
News Videos2 days agoWhats Hidden Inside This Cash Register? #treasure #reselling #money
-
Tech2 days agoAnthropic’s new “J-lens” reveals a silent workspace inside Claude that mirrors a leading theory of consciousness
-
Business3 days agoAXT Shares Jump Nearly 14% as Semiconductor Materials Maker Rebounds on AI-Linked Indium Phosphide Demand
-
Sports2 days agoJoshua Pacio ‘more complete’ ahead of ONE rematch vs Malachiev
-
Crypto World6 days ago
ESMA Expands Crypto Register by 37 Firms Following MiCA Transition Period
-
Crypto World3 days ago
SK hynix (000660.KS) Stock Dips as $28B Nasdaq ADR Offering Drives AI Memory Expansion
-
Crypto World4 days agoSouth Africa proposes crypto tax guidance under existing rules
-
News Videos3 days agoBest Time to Enter Small Caps Right Now? Another Bull Run? | Financially Free
-
Tech4 days agoLenovo laptops are now shipping with YMTC SSDs, a sign of Chinese NAND entering the mainstream
-
Business6 days agoWhat a 10 Percent Drop Means for Buyers, Sellers and Renters
-
Sports2 days ago
We have punished the disrespect
-
Crypto World6 days agoBinance Re-Enters Philippines As EU MiCA Rules Restrict Access
-
News Videos3 days agoAvoid entering in FOMO #bitcoin #cryptocurrency #trading #scalping
-
Crypto World6 days agoAlibaba bans Claude Code over alleged backdoor security concerns
-
Tech5 days agoNeuralink Threads Its Way Straight Through the Brain’s Armor
You must be logged in to post a comment Login