Crypto World
Goldman Sachs was the biggest XRP whale, then it sold
A routine filing crowned Goldman Sachs the largest institutional holder of XRP ETFs, and the market read it as Wall Street validating XRP. The next filing showed Goldman had quietly exited the entire position and rotated into crypto stocks instead. Here is what the round trip actually reveals about XRP, Ripple, and how Wall Street is really playing crypto.
Summary
- Goldman Sachs was crowned Wall Street’s biggest XRP whale after a December 31 filing showed a $153.8 million position across four XRP ETFs, roughly 73% of the top 30 institutions’ combined exposure.
- The market read it as a powerful institutional endorsement of XRP, arriving while retail sentiment was mired in extreme fear, the classic “smart money accumulating” narrative.
- A 13F filing is a rear-view mirror, and the catch was timing: the snapshot predated a roughly 40% drop in XRP, leaving open whether Goldman held through the decline.
- The next filing answered it: Goldman had completely exited its XRP and Solana ETF positions and rotated into crypto equities such as Circle, Galaxy Digital, and Coinbase, boosting some stakes by as much as 249%.
- The episode is a lesson in reading delayed filings and a window into how Wall Street is really playing crypto, often preferring the companies and infrastructure over the tokens, which echoes the core question hanging over XRP.
In March 2026, a routine regulatory filing handed XRP holders the kind of headline they had waited years for: Goldman Sachs, the most prestigious investment bank on Wall Street, had been revealed as the single largest institutional holder of XRP exchange-traded funds in the U.S., with a position worth $153.8 million spread across four separate funds. For a token whose entire bull thesis rests on institutional adoption finally arriving, this looked like the proof. The largest bank in the world had quietly loaded up on XRP while ordinary investors were selling in fear, the very picture of smart money moving ahead of the crowd. The crypto community celebrated, analysts framed it as validation that XRP had cleared Wall Street’s due-diligence bar, and the story spread as evidence that the institutional era for XRP had begun.
It was, for a moment, exactly the catalyst the narrative needed. Then the next filing arrived, and it told the opposite story. When Goldman disclosed its following quarter, the $153.8 million XRP position had vanished entirely. The bank had exited its XRP ETF holdings completely, exited its Solana ETF holdings completely, trimmed its Bitcoin and Ethereum exposure, and redirected capital into crypto-related equities instead, increasing stakes in companies like Circle, Galaxy Digital, and Coinbase by as much as 249%.
The biggest XRP whale on Wall Street had, by the time the market crowned it, already swum away. This article tells the full story of that round trip and, more importantly, what it reveals. It covers the filing that created the whale, why the market loved it, why filings are a rear-view mirror, the exit that followed, where Goldman actually moved its money, the retail reality behind the XRP ETF, and what the whole episode means for Ripple and XRP. The analysis is information, not advice, and the lesson is both practical and structural: delayed filings can mislead, and Wall Street may prefer crypto infrastructure over the tokens themselves.
The filing that crowned a whale
Start with what was actually disclosed, because the precision of it is part of why the market took it so seriously. In a quarterly 13F filing, the mandatory disclosure large institutions must make of their equity holdings, Goldman Sachs reported a position of $153.8 million spread across four spot XRP ETFs as of December 31, 2025. The breakdown, first surfaced by the journalist Eleanor Terrett and analyzed by Bloomberg Intelligence analyst James Seyffart, showed roughly $40 million in Bitwise’s XRP ETF, $38.5 million in the Franklin XRP Trust, $38 million in Grayscale’s XRP fund, and $36 million in the 21Shares product. That made Goldman the single largest disclosed institutional holder of XRP ETF shares in the country.
To put its dominance in context, Seyffart’s analysis found that the top 30 institutional holders collectively controlled just over $211 million in XRP ETF exposure, and Goldman alone accounted for roughly 73% of that total. It was not a marginal position; it dwarfed the rest of the institutional field. Two details made the disclosure especially compelling to observers. First, it was Goldman’s first disclosed crypto allocation beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum, which meant the bank was extending its digital-asset exposure into an altcoin for the first time, a meaningful step for an institution of its stature.
Second, the position was deliberately constructed rather than concentrated: Goldman spread its bet across four different issuers in roughly equal slices, the kind of diversified allocation that signals a considered, risk-managed decision rather than an opportunistic punt. When the largest investment bank in the world shows up in the filings of four separate XRP funds with a carefully distributed nine-figure position, it suggests the trade was intentional and institutional, not incidental. The regulatory clarity that followed the conclusion of Ripple’s legal battle, combined with the ETF approvals it enabled, had given an institution like Goldman a familiar, regulated wrapper through which to hold XRP exposure, and Goldman appeared to have used it decisively. On its face, this was the institutional validation the XRP thesis had always promised.
Why the market loved the story
It is worth dwelling on why this filing landed so powerfully, because the appeal reveals what the XRP community has been hungry for. The core of the XRP bull case has long been that the token’s real catalyst is institutional adoption: that once banks, asset managers, and other large players begin holding and using XRP, demand will arrive at a scale that retail speculation never could, and the price will follow. For years, that adoption was promised but rarely visible in a form retail holders could point to. A 13F filing showing the world’s most prestigious investment bank as the single largest institutional holder of XRP ETF shares was exactly the visible, concrete proof the narrative had been missing.
It was not a vague partnership announcement or a settlement that proved the plumbing worked; it was Goldman Sachs, by name, in the filings, with a nine-figure position. The timing amplified the effect. The disclosure landed during a period when retail sentiment across crypto was mired in extreme fear, with the broad market stuck in a pessimistic stretch lasting weeks. Against that backdrop, the revelation fit one of the most seductive patterns in investing: the contrarian “smart money accumulating while the crowd panics” story.
The interpretation almost wrote itself. While ordinary investors were selling XRP in fear, Wall Street’s most powerful bank was quietly buying, which implied that the people with the best information and the deepest resources saw value precisely where retail saw only losses. That framing is emotionally powerful because it offers reassurance to holders sitting on losses, recasting their pain as the entry point that institutions were exploiting. Commentators leaned into it, describing a wave of institutional “super fans” piling into XRP ETFs and treating Goldman’s position as the leading edge of a broader Wall Street embrace. The story was compelling, well-sourced, and emotionally satisfying; its only flaw was that it was already out of date.
The catch nobody priced in
Here is the structural problem that the celebration overlooked, and it is fundamental to how 13F filings work. A 13F is a rear-view mirror. It discloses what an institution held as of the end of a calendar quarter, but it is filed weeks later, which means that by the time the public sees the position, it reflects where the institution stood at the snapshot date, not where it stands when the filing becomes news. Goldman’s $153.8 million XRP position was a snapshot as of December 31, 2025.
The filing that revealed it became public in February and drove headlines into March, but the holding it described was already two to three months stale by the time the market reacted to it. Goldman could have trimmed, added to, or exited the position entirely in the intervening period, and the filing would say nothing about it. The market was celebrating a photograph of the past as if it were a live feed. That gap mattered enormously in this case because of what happened to XRP in the interim.
The snapshot captured Goldman’s position at the end of a quarter when XRP was trading materially higher; the token had peaked near $2.40 in early January 2026. Over the following weeks, XRP fell hard, declining more than 40% through the first quarter as the broader market weakened, the same drawdown that prompted Standard Chartered to cut its year-end XRP target from $8 to $2.80 in mid-February. So the celebrated Goldman position was struck before a major decline, and the obvious question, which the more careful analysts raised at the time, was whether Goldman had held through that drawdown or exited as XRP fell. The bullish crowd treated the position as current conviction; the careful reading treated it as an open question.
The next filing settled the matter, and it did not settle it in the bulls’ favor. That is why stale filing data needs to be read differently from live flow data. A 13F can prove that an institution held something at a point in time, but it cannot prove present conviction. In crypto, where a token can move 40% before the filing becomes public, that difference is not academic.
Then Goldman sold everything
When Goldman’s first-quarter 2026 13F filing arrived in May, it revealed that the bank had completely exited its XRP ETF position. The $153.8 million spread across four funds, the holding that had crowned Goldman the biggest XRP whale on Wall Street, was simply gone. And it was not only XRP: Goldman had also exited its Solana ETF holdings entirely, erasing positions it had previously held across multiple Solana products. The bank trimmed its Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF exposure as well, reducing those holdings rather than eliminating them.
In other words, the institution that the XRP community had celebrated as a marquee believer had, by the next available snapshot, removed XRP from its portfolio completely, alongside a broader pullback from altcoin ETF exposure. The whale had not merely trimmed; it had fully unwound the position that made the headlines. The implication reframes the entire earlier narrative. The story that spread in February and March, of Wall Street’s biggest bank accumulating XRP while retail panicked, was describing a position that Goldman was in the process of exiting, or had already decided to exit, even as the public celebrated it.
The “smart money accumulating” interpretation was, in hindsight, exactly backward: the smart money was on its way out, and the delayed nature of the filing meant retail was cheering an entry at almost the moment of the exit. This does not prove that Goldman timed anything perfectly or that its move was a verdict on XRP’s long-term prospects; a single bank’s quarterly allocation decisions reflect many factors, including risk management, mandate changes, and portfolio rebalancing, not necessarily a strong directional view. But it does demolish the specific bullish read that had been built on the earlier filing. The institutional validation that the XRP thesis leaned on turned out, in this instance, to be an institution heading for the door.
For a holder who had taken comfort in the Goldman headline, the follow-up filing was a cold lesson in how stale the comfort had been. The better takeaway is not that every institutional filing is meaningless, but that timing and persistence matter. A real institutional adoption story has to survive more than one delayed snapshot. It has to show up quarter after quarter, across more than one institution, and through drawdowns.
Where the money actually went
The most revealing part of the episode is not that Goldman sold XRP, but what it bought instead, because the rotation tells a story about how Wall Street is really approaching crypto. In the same first-quarter filing that showed Goldman exiting XRP and Solana ETFs, the bank substantially increased its equity stakes in crypto-related companies, boosting positions in firms such as Circle, the stablecoin issuer, Galaxy Digital, the digital-asset financial-services firm, and Coinbase, the exchange, by as much as 249%. So Goldman did not exit crypto. It rotated within crypto, moving out of direct token exposure through altcoin ETFs and into the equities of the companies that operate the crypto economy’s infrastructure.
This is a meaningful signal about institutional strategy, and arguably a more durable insight than the original whale headline. Buying the companies instead of the tokens reflects a particular thesis: that the reliable way to profit from crypto’s growth is to own the businesses that monetize the activity, the picks-and-shovels of the industry, instead of betting on the price of any individual asset. A stablecoin issuer earns on reserves and transaction volume, an exchange earns on trading fees, and a digital-asset financial-services firm earns across market conditions, whereas an altcoin ETF simply tracks a volatile token price. For a risk-managed institution, the equities can look like a steadier way to gain crypto exposure than a single token.
The rotation suggests that, at least for this quarter and this bank, Wall Street’s conviction was stronger in the crypto economy’s infrastructure than in the XRP token itself. That distinction, between the businesses that run on crypto and the tokens crypto runs on, is precisely the distinction that has haunted XRP, and it is why this episode matters far beyond a single bank’s trade. Goldman’s money went to the companies, not the coin. For XRP holders, that distinction is the uncomfortable heart of the story.
The retail reality behind the XRP ETF
The Goldman round trip also punctures a broader assumption about XRP’s ETFs, and the data here is clarifying. Despite the institutional framing that the Goldman headline encouraged, the XRP ETF complex is, in fact, overwhelmingly retail-driven. According to Ripple’s own data, around 84% of U.S. XRP ETF assets are held by retail investors, a striking figure that stands in sharp contrast to Solana ETF products, where institutional participation runs closer to half. So even at the moment Goldman was being celebrated as the face of institutional XRP adoption, the reality was that the ETFs were funded mostly by ordinary investors, with institutions like Goldman representing a smaller, and as it turned out, transient slice.
The institutional adoption story was at a far earlier and thinner stage than the marquee headline suggested. The flow data fills in the picture. XRP ETFs launched in late 2025 and accumulated assets quickly, crossing $1 billion in cumulative inflows by mid-December and surpassing $1.5 billion by early March 2026, a pace Ripple described as among the fastest institutional adoption curves in regulated ETF history. But that momentum did not hold.
By the middle of 2026, total XRP ETF assets under management had fallen back to roughly $1 billion, well below the peak, as inflows slowed dramatically and the token’s price decline eroded the value of the holdings. The retail base has shown genuine conviction, sustaining inflow streaks even through falling prices, which is a real and somewhat encouraging signal of grassroots demand. But conviction from retail is a different foundation than sustained institutional accumulation, and the Goldman episode laid bare how much of the institutional story was projection. The ETFs proved that regulated XRP access works and that demand exists, but the demand is mostly retail, the institutional participation is early and uneven, and the single biggest institutional holder turned out to be a seller.
That is a more sober picture than the one the original headline painted, and a more accurate one. It also makes the broader ETF flow picture more important than any single famous holder. ETF demand can matter for XRP, but it matters most when flows are persistent, diversified, and not merely the result of retail conviction in a falling market. Until institutional ownership broadens and holds through volatility, the ETF story remains real but incomplete.
What it means for Ripple and XRP
So what does the whole episode actually mean for Ripple and the token? The sobering read is that it exposes how thin the institutional-validation narrative was, and it reinforces the deepest concern about XRP. The pattern that has defined XRP through this period is that Ripple keeps winning, genuinely, in the institutional arena, while the token struggles to capture the value, because the market distinguishes between adoption of Ripple’s infrastructure and demand for XRP itself. Goldman’s rotation maps onto that distinction with uncomfortable precision: the bank moved out of the XRP token and into the equities of crypto companies, choosing the businesses over the coin.
If sophisticated institutions, when they want crypto exposure, increasingly prefer to own Circle, Coinbase, and Galaxy over holding XRP, that is the value-accrual problem expressed through a portfolio: Wall Street betting on the crypto economy without betting on the token. For a holder, the lesson is to treat institutional-adoption headlines with the same skepticism the Goldman story now demands, and to ask not whether institutions are touching the ecosystem but whether they are holding the asset. That is the value-accrual question in depth, and it keeps resurfacing across Ripple’s story. Ripple can win business while XRP still has to prove that those wins create direct token demand.
The fairer, more balanced read does not let the bears claim too much, though. One bank’s quarterly decision is not a referendum on XRP, and there are real counterpoints. Goldman exited Solana too, so the move looks more like a broad altcoin-ETF pullback amid a risk-off market than a targeted verdict on XRP specifically. The bank could re-enter; 13F filings capture a moment, and the next one could show a different posture.
The retail demand underpinning the XRP ETFs has been persistent, holding through the drawdown, which suggests a genuine base of conviction that does not depend on any single institution. And the structural supports for XRP remain in place: regulated ETF access exists, the legal status is clearer than for almost any major token, and the CLARITY Act, if it passes, could codify XRP’s commodity status into federal law and unlock the larger, more durable institutional buyers, pensions and asset managers, that cannot allocate to an asset until its status is settled in statute. That is the catalyst that could unlock real institutions, and it remains the most important distinction between today’s retail-heavy ETF demand and the institutional allocation XRP bulls still expect. In that reading, Goldman was simply early and tactical, not a leading indicator, and the real institutional money is still waiting on a catalyst that has not yet arrived.
Both readings are legitimate. What the episode settles is only that the institutional era for XRP had not, in fact, begun when the headline said it had. The Goldman headline was a sign of interest, not proof of durable adoption. The sellout was a warning about overreading a single filing, not proof that XRP has no institutional future.
What to watch from here
The productive way to carry this lesson forward is to track the signals that would actually indicate institutional conviction in XRP, instead of reacting to stale snapshots. The first is the sequence of upcoming 13F filings, watched not for a single marquee name but for whether institutional XRP ETF holdings broaden and persist across multiple players and multiple quarters, which is what real adoption would look like, as opposed to one bank’s transient position. A durable institutional base would show up as sustained, distributed holdings that survive drawdowns, not a one-quarter cameo. Whether Goldman itself re-enters in a later filing is worth noting too, though it should be read as one data point instead of a verdict.
The second signal is the trajectory of XRP ETF flows and assets: whether the retail-driven inflows that have sustained the funds continue, and whether institutional participation rises from its currently thin share toward the higher levels seen in some other products. The third, and most consequential, is the CLARITY Act, because the structural argument is that the largest institutions are not absent by choice but constrained by the lack of statutory clarity, and that legislation codifying XRP’s status is the catalyst that would unlock them. If that money arrives, it would be visible in exactly the filings this episode taught us to read carefully. And the fourth is whether Wall Street’s apparent preference for crypto equities over tokens, the Circle-and-Coinbase rotation Goldman exemplified, becomes a durable pattern.
If institutions keep choosing the companies over the coins, that is the value-accrual question answering itself in real time. The Goldman round trip was a single episode, but it handed XRP holders a durable framework: celebrate adoption when it is current, distributed, and sustained, not when it is a stale snapshot of a position already being unwound. Read that way, the whale that swam away taught a more useful lesson than the whale that was never quite there. For price-focused readers, where the token stands now is the next practical question, because ETF flows, regulation, and institutional ownership only matter if they eventually show up in the chart.
Frequently asked questions
Was Goldman Sachs really the biggest XRP holder?
It was the largest disclosed institutional holder of XRP ETF shares, based on its 13F filing for the quarter ending December 31, 2025, which showed a $153.8 million position spread across four spot XRP ETFs, roughly 73% of the top 30 institutions’ combined exposure. That made it the single biggest institutional name in the XRP ETF field at that snapshot. Importantly, this was a position in XRP ETFs, not direct token holdings, and it described where Goldman stood at year-end 2025, not necessarily where it stood when the filing became public news in early 2026. The next filing revealed Goldman had since exited the position entirely.
Did Goldman Sachs sell its XRP?
Yes. Goldman’s subsequent 13F filing, covering the first quarter of 2026 and disclosed in May, showed that the bank had completely exited its XRP ETF position; the entire $153.8 million holding was gone. It also exited its Solana ETF holdings entirely and trimmed its Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF exposure. So by the time the market was celebrating Goldman as the biggest XRP whale, based on the earlier year-end snapshot, the bank had already unwound the position. This is a direct consequence of how 13F filings work: they disclose holdings weeks after the snapshot date, so a celebrated position can already be sold by the time it makes headlines.
Why did Goldman exit XRP?
The filing does not state reasons, and a bank’s quarterly allocation decisions reflect many factors, including risk management, mandate changes, and rebalancing, not necessarily a directional verdict on XRP. Two contextual points stand out. First, Goldman exited Solana ETFs too and trimmed Bitcoin and Ethereum, suggesting a broad pullback from altcoin and crypto-ETF exposure during a risk-off, falling market instead of a targeted call against XRP. Second, and more tellingly, Goldman rotated into crypto-related equities instead, increasing stakes in companies like Circle, Galaxy Digital, and Coinbase by as much as 249%, which suggests a strategic preference for owning the businesses of the crypto economy over holding volatile tokens directly.
What did Goldman buy instead of XRP?
Goldman rotated into the equities of crypto-related companies. In the same filing that showed it exiting XRP and Solana ETFs, the bank substantially increased its stakes in firms such as Circle, the stablecoin issuer, Galaxy Digital, a digital-asset financial-services firm, and Coinbase, the exchange, raising some positions by as much as 249%. The logic this implies is a picks-and-shovels thesis: profiting from crypto’s growth by owning the businesses that earn revenue from the activity, issuers, exchanges, and financial-services firms, instead of betting on the price of any single token. It is a more risk-managed way to gain crypto exposure, and it reflects a preference for the infrastructure of crypto over the assets themselves.
Does Goldman’s exit mean XRP is a bad investment?
Not on its own, and the episode should not be over-read. One bank’s quarterly decision is not a referendum on XRP, especially since Goldman pulled back from altcoin ETFs broadly during a risk-off market and could re-enter later. The retail demand underpinning XRP ETFs has been persistent, holding through the drawdown, and the structural supports, regulated access, clearer legal status, and the potential of the CLARITY Act to unlock larger institutional buyers, remain in place. What the episode does establish is that the institutional-adoption narrative built on the original Goldman headline was premature, and that holders should treat such headlines cautiously. It is a caution about reading stale filings, not a verdict on the asset.
What does this mean for Ripple?
It reinforces the central tension in the Ripple and XRP story: the distinction between adoption of Ripple’s ecosystem and demand for the XRP token. Goldman rotating from XRP into crypto equities like Circle and Coinbase mirrors, at the portfolio level, the broader pattern in which value tends to accrue to companies and infrastructure instead of to the token. If institutions seeking crypto exposure increasingly prefer to own the businesses over the coins, that is the value-accrual question expressed through Wall Street’s choices. The counterweight is that the larger, more durable institutional money may still be waiting on statutory clarity from the CLARITY Act, which, if it passes, could change the calculus. For now, the episode is a reminder that institutional validation for XRP is thinner and more provisional than headlines suggest.
This article is information, not financial or investment advice. Details of Goldman Sachs’s filings, holdings, XRP ETF figures, and price levels reflect reporting available as of June 30, 2026, are point-in-time, and can change. 13F filings are delayed snapshots and may not reflect current positions. Cryptocurrency is volatile and you can lose money. Nothing here is a recommendation about XRP or any asset. Do your own research and consult a qualified financial professional before making any decision.
The largest altcoin by market cap rode the recent minor bullish wave in the cryptocurrency market, surging from just over $1,500 to almost $2,000 to mark a multi-month peak.
However, it stalled there as it couldn’t breach that psychological level. Moreover, the same technical tool that predicted the substantial revival has now flipped bearish.
Is ETH in Trouble?
According to Ali Martinez, the TD Sequential, a metric used to determine the underlying asset’s potential exhaustion moves in either direction, has been quite successful in determining ETH’s trend reversals. Back in early July, when Ether slumped to a multi-year low at around $1,520, it flashed a buy signal. This was followed by a major monthly rally that drove ETH to $1,980 last week.
As mentioned above, though, the asset’s run was halted at that level, and the TD Sequential is hinting at further trouble ahead. Martinez noted earlier today that the indicator has flipped to a sell signal and suggested that investors might consider taking some profits off the table.
Another popular analyst going by the X handle Crypto Lens shared a similar opinion. They noted that Ethereum has stuck between $1,860 and $1,955 for a reason, as the bull trap is “just getting started.” They added that a run to the $2,000 resistance will be followed by the “real capitulation.”
Crypto Lens’ scenario envisions a week or so in consolidation below that level before the final leg down begins and drives the asset south to somewhere between $1,400 and $900. Once it cleanses the weak hands, ETH’s next bull run can begin, and the analyst’s target is a big one – $7,000.
Not Good Against BTC
Crypto Rover also weighed in on the altcoin’s performance but focused on the trading pair against BTC. He outlined a chart that shows ETH has been charting new lower highs and lower lows for the past year. It began with a local peak at 0.04 marked last October, before Ethereum gradually lost a lot of traction that culminated with a drop to $0.025 in June.
It outperformed the market leader in the past month, jumping to 0.03. However, Crypto Rover believes another rejection is coming, which could drag it south to a fresh multi-year low of under 0.0235.
I’m sorry, bulls.$ETH vs $BTC keeps forming lower highs, and the latest rally is already losing momentum.
The same thing happened last time before ETH/BTC fell to a new low. pic.twitter.com/Si09I1gfIN
— Crypto Rover (@cryptorover) July 30, 2026
The post Is ETH’s Rally Over? The Key Indicator That Called Ethereum’s Run Just Flipped Bearish appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Tokenized gold is getting a burst of investor attention this year, tracking a surge in physical bullion demand as gold prices have repeatedly set fresh highs. But a new report from RedStone suggests that—despite improving market conditions—only a small portion of tokenized gold is actually being used in decentralized finance.
RedStone data points to a widening gap between market interest in tokenized bullion and its deployment in DeFi lending. In the first quarter, tokenized gold spot trading volume reached $90.7 billion as gold futures climbed above $5,600 per troy ounce. Yet just $63 million worth of tokenized gold—via Tether Gold (XAUT) and PAX Gold (PAXG)—is currently posted as collateral on Aave v3 and Morpho, according to RedStone. That collateral usage represents roughly 1.5% of the tokens’ combined $4.2 billion market capitalization.
Key takeaways
- Tokenized gold saw high activity in spot markets, with $90.7 billion in Q1 trading volume.
- Despite that liquidity, DeFi adoption remains thin: only about $63 million in XAUT and PAXG is used on Aave v3 and Morpho.
- RedStone highlights a real stress test: Aave processed its largest cluster of XAUT liquidations on March 23 without disruption during a sharp gold sell-off.
- Gold has been under pressure from expectations of higher US interest rates, which can reduce demand for non-yielding assets.
A resilient collateral asset, but with limited deployment
RedStone’s report frames tokenized gold as “battle-tested” in DeFi collateral, even while showing that the broader adoption story is still early. The core issue is not whether tokenized bullion can hold up during market volatility—it can—but whether enough capital is being placed into decentralized lending markets to make tokenized gold a meaningful on-chain primitive.
To ground that claim, RedStone points to Aave’s performance during a major sell-off. On March 23, Aave processed its largest cluster of XAUT liquidations without disruption as gold prices moved sharply lower. RedStone presents this as evidence that tokenized bullion can function reliably as DeFi collateral when markets turn fast.
That liquidation episode landed after gold dropped around 10% over the prior week—its worst weekly performance in more than four decades. Earlier coverage linked the sell-off to what JPMorgan precious metals strategist Greg Shearer called an “extremely brutal flush,” reflecting heightened risk-off behavior and fast repricing in commodity markets.
Why DeFi use is lagging: the market is there, collateral is not
RedStone’s numbers point to a mismatch between trading interest and productive DeFi usage. Tokenized gold spot volume suggests there is plenty of demand to buy, sell, and exchange tokenized bullion exposure. But the amount actually locked or committed to decentralized lending stays relatively small—about $63 million across Aave v3 and Morpho.
That matters because lending protocols are where tokenized real-world assets can translate from “tradable exposure” into “composable financial infrastructure.” If only a tiny fraction of the token supply is being used as collateral, DeFi’s ability to scale tokenized assets—especially during periods of high volatility—remains constrained by capital deployment rather than technical viability.
RedStone also situates the findings within a broader RWA expansion. Gold is one component of a market that includes private credit and tokenized US Treasurys paired with equity-related structures. In June, Token Terminal reported the sector had topped $43 billion in value, underlining that tokenization momentum is visible beyond gold alone.
Gold’s macro headwind could cut both ways
Even though the DeFi collateral test showed operational resilience, the report arrives during a period when gold itself has been under pressure. Since peaking in January, gold futures have fallen more than 26%. RedStone attributes the decline to expectations of higher US interest rates—an environment that tends to weigh on non-yielding assets like precious metals.
For tokenized gold, that matters for two reasons. First, falling prices can increase liquidation activity in lending protocols; the March 23 event shows that this process can occur without disruption. Second, if rates remain elevated, investor demand for bullion exposure may fluctuate, influencing both the spot trading volumes and the willingness of lenders/borrowers to engage with tokenized collateral strategies.
At the same time, RedStone’s reporting implies that DeFi adoption hasn’t accelerated in proportion to the broader “tokenized gold” trading narrative. If gold volatility persists, investors may demand more robust collateral mechanisms—but the current deployment levels suggest that the industry still has work to do to turn resilience into sustained utilization.
Centralized exchanges may be moving faster than on-chain lending
While RedStone’s focus is on DeFi collateral usage, the report’s broader framing highlights a contrast: centralized platforms are increasingly integrating tokenized assets as they try to bridge traditional finance and digital assets. According to a CoinGecko report referenced in the article, an emerging “crypto TradFi” market had grown to $6.6 billion as of June.
This difference in pace helps explain the adoption gap. Tokenized gold can be actively traded on centralized exchanges without necessarily being locked into on-chain lending. Until more liquidity and integrations flow directly into decentralized collateral ecosystems, tokenized real-world assets may remain more of a trading product than a primary DeFi building block.
As the tokenized RWA market expands—both on-chain and off-chain—readers should watch whether DeFi collateral usage of XAUT and PAXG rises meaningfully beyond current levels. The March 23 liquidation test suggests protocols can handle stress, but the next key question is whether capital continues to move from spot trading activity into sustained lending and other decentralized use cases.
South Korea has approved plans to establish a new 20 trillion won investment account within its sovereign wealth fund to finance artificial intelligence, data centers and other strategic industries while allowing domestic investments for the first time.
Summary
- South Korea approved a 20 trillion won sovereign investment account focused on AI, data centers and strategic industries.
- The new Korea Investment Corporation account will be allowed to invest in domestic assets for the first time.
- The government plans to submit legal amendments in August and expects the fund to begin operations in 2027.
- The announcement follows recent efforts to attract global technology investors and expand AI-related investment initiatives.
According to a South Korean government statement released Friday, the new account will be created under the Korea Investment Corporation (KIC), expanding the sovereign wealth fund’s mandate beyond overseas assets. The government said the account will begin with at least 20 trillion won in capital, funded through equity contributions from public institutions, including policy banks.
Unlike KIC’s existing portfolio, which primarily manages foreign assets, the new account will be permitted to invest inside South Korea. The government said the structure is intended to support industries considered strategically important while also generating long-term returns for future generations and strengthening national economic security, foreign exchange stability and financial markets.
The announcement also comes as South Korean equities remain under pressure. The Kospi index has fallen 34% during July, putting it on track for its worst monthly performance on record after investors sold shares of the country’s largest semiconductor companies over concerns surrounding the scale of AI-related capital spending.
South Korea expands KIC mandate to include domestic assets
Government officials said the investment account is designed to respond to rising international interest in South Korea’s technology sector, particularly projects linked to artificial intelligence infrastructure.
According to the government, a domestic anchor investor will help attract capital from foreign sovereign wealth funds and global asset managers seeking exposure to Korean technology investments. Although officials did not directly connect the initiative to the recent stock market decline, the announcement follows several government measures introduced in recent weeks to stabilize financial markets.
The government also stressed that the account’s investment decisions will remain independent despite its public policy objectives. It said the new vehicle will operate separately from KIC’s existing foreign exchange reserve portfolio, preserving the institution’s current investment framework.
To enable the new structure, the government plans to submit amendments to the Korea Investment Corporation Act to the National Assembly in August. Fund operations are expected to begin in 2027 once the legislative process is completed.
Korea Investment Corporation managed approximately $232 billion in assets at the end of 2025. The sovereign wealth fund oversees money entrusted by the government, the Bank of Korea and other public institutions as part of the country’s foreign reserve management program.
AI investment strategy builds on startup funding plans
The latest initiative adds another layer to South Korea’s technology investment strategy after the government recently stepped up efforts to attract overseas venture capital into domestic startups.
As previously reported by crypto.news, President Lee Jae-myung met representatives from six Silicon Valley venture capital firms, including Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, Khosla Ventures, Lightspeed Venture Partners, General Catalyst and New Enterprise Associates, encouraging them to increase investments in Korean startups.
The National Pension Service also signed separate memorandums of understanding with the six firms to establish long-term investment cooperation covering investment opportunities, market information sharing and stronger links between Korea’s startup ecosystem and international venture capital networks.
Asiae reported that the government is simultaneously preparing a proposed National Growth Fund valued at 200 trillion won to finance industries such as artificial intelligence and semiconductors. The publication said policymakers expect public funding, private investment and overseas capital to enter the domestic technology sector together if the initiatives proceed as planned.
While welcoming stronger international participation, Asiae also argued that South Korea will need policies that encourage successful startups to continue expanding domestically. The newspaper pointed to stock option rules, visa policies for foreign specialists, merger and acquisition activity, commercialization of university research and administrative procedures as areas that could influence long-term investment decisions.
Digital asset policies continue alongside technology funding
The sovereign investment plan has emerged alongside several technology-related policy initiatives that South Korean authorities have been advancing during recent months.
Earlier this week, a policy report published by Hashed Open Research and the Solana Policy Institute recommended introducing interim licensing guidance for stablecoins before lawmakers complete the country’s Digital Asset Basic Act. The report proposed a phased regulatory framework covering stablecoin issuance, payment services and foreign-issued tokens while comprehensive legislation remains under discussion.
The report also summarized views presented during a June policy symposium, including ongoing discussions over whether banks should retain majority ownership of stablecoin issuers while fintech companies manage operations. Those recommendations remain advisory and have not been adopted into law.
Separately, the Financial Services Commission has said it intends to consolidate ten pending digital asset proposals into a government-backed Digital Asset Basic Act covering stablecoin issuance, exchange conduct, disclosures, internal controls and operational resilience, although no implementation timetable has been announced.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has filed civil penalty proceedings against Telegram in the Federal Court, alleging the platform failed to detect and remove pro-terror material, including videos of terrorist executions and mass shootings.
The regulator opened the case after a year-long investigation. Telegram could face penalties of up to 54.6 million Australian dollars, roughly $38 million, for failing to comply with Australia’s codes and standards.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
What eSafety Alleges Against Telegram
According to the press release, Telegram allegedly left publicly posted pro-terror material online for up to 3 weeks after Australian users reported it.
The regulator also alleges the platform failed to detect known footage of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting and the 2022 Buffalo mass shooting. That material remained on Telegram for nearly 3 months before being removed.
eSafety further claims Telegram’s Terms of Service did not prohibit pro-terror material across all parts of the app. The platform also allegedly failed to inform complainants about the outcome of their reports.
“This case concerns content linked to some of the most notorious acts of known extremist violence in recent history, including material associated with the Christchurch and Buffalo terror attacks. We allege that this content remained accessible on the service long after Telegram had been put on notice,” eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said.
Inman Grant said Australians visit Telegram 1.5 million times a month on average. The platform reports more than 1 billion users worldwide and offers groups of up to 200,000 members.
“Telegram has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent the hosting, sharing, amplification and monetisation of this harmful material,” she added.
Telegram denied the claims in a statement and said its anti-terrorism efforts are well-documented.
“We reject these allegations and will contest them in court,” a Telegram spokesperson said.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit adds to mounting legal pressure on the messaging app. Russia recently charged founder Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorist activity.
However, Durov claimed Russia acted against him because Telegram refused to comply with its demands for mass surveillance and censorship. French authorities also arrested Durov in August 2024.
Whether the Federal Court imposes the maximum penalty may signal how aggressively Australia will enforce its online safety standards against global platforms.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Australia Sues Telegram Over Alleged Failure to Remove Terror Content appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase reported its Q2 earnings, posting $1.2 billion in revenue and missing Wall Street estimates on sales and profits for a third straight time.
The exchange blamed low spot trading volumes and low volatility for missing earnings estimates. Coinbase lost $1.36 per share, significantly higher than Wall Street’s estimate of a loss between 17 cents and 44 cents, as transaction, subscription, and stablecoin revenue came in lower than expectations.
Coinbase Posts $1.2 Billion In Revenue
The mixed Q2 earnings come as weak trading activity dragged expected results lower despite cornering a record share of the cryptocurrency market. Coinbase reported $1.2 billion in net revenue for Q2, a 19% decline from the previous year.
The GAAP net loss of $359 million was significantly higher than market expectations of a $122 million loss. Coinbase’s subscription revenue, transaction revenue, services revenue, and adjusted EBITDA also fell short of expectations.
Transaction revenue was also lower at $599 million against the expected $636 million. Subscription services revenue clocked in at $555 million, narrowly missing the estimated $590 million.
Coinbase reported $292 million in stablecoin revenue, a $17 million decline from Q2 2025, and lower than StreetAccount’s estimate of $327.2 million. The company’s shares fell over 5% during after-hours trading following the earnings report.
Weak Spot Trading Activity Dampens Q2
Despite the lower numbers, Coinbase’s share of the cryptocurrency market jumped to an all-time high of 10.3%, substantially higher than the 9.1% reported in Q1. The increase in market share comes despite a struggling crypto market and weak trading activity.
Coinbase has attributed the lower-than-expected results to weak institutional and retail trading activity. Spot trading volume has dropped 25% quarter-over-quarter, while cryptocurrency prices have remained low thanks to geopolitical tensions and policy headwinds.
Brian Armstrong Bullish On Coinbase
Coinbase is positioning itself as an “Everything Exchange” as it expands its presence into derivatives, prediction markets, payments, and tokenized assets. CEO Brian Armstrong highlighted the exchange’s record market share, adding that it could operate in any market, stating,
“Coinbase is no longer a bet just on the price of bitcoin. All of financial services are getting updated by crypto, whether that’s trading or payments or lending.”
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
Crypto adoption in Canada is rising fast, according to new research from the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC). The regulator’s latest survey suggests that the share of Canadians who own cryptocurrency has climbed to 25% in 2026—up sharply from 10% in 2023—while awareness has also increased.
In findings released Tuesday, the OSC reported that 59% of surveyed adults said they are aware of crypto assets, and 25% reported holding them. The survey polled 2,360 Canadians aged 18 and over between December 2025 and January 2026, offering a snapshot of how quickly retail interest has expanded in recent years.
Key takeaways
- OSC survey data indicates crypto ownership reached 25% in 2026, versus 10% in 2023.
- Awareness among Canadian adults rose to 59%, up from levels reported in earlier OSC research.
- Roughly half of crypto owners said they check whether a platform is registered before using it.
- Many owners still appear to misunderstand core protections such as regulation, insurance coverage, and transaction capabilities.
- Federal policy discussions—such as proposed restrictions on crypto political donations and digital asset ATMs—continue in parallel with growing retail participation.
OSC survey shows rapid rise in ownership and awareness
The OSC’s survey points to a significant shift in how mainstream crypto has become among Canadian adults. While crypto awareness has increased, the more notable change is ownership: 25% of respondents reported holding crypto assets, a jump compared with the 10% ownership level reported in 2023.
OSC framed the results as evidence that Canadians are “participating” in crypto markets more than they were only a few years ago. In its release, the regulator highlighted the value of monitoring “emerging trends and behaviors” to refine how it approaches oversight.
Knowledge improving—but investor understanding of protections still lagging
Beyond adoption, the OSC also examined how informed owners appear to be. The findings suggest some improvement in basic due diligence: about 50% of crypto owners said they check whether a platform is registered before using it.
However, the OSC noted that the survey also reflected “misunderstanding” around multiple areas that matter for consumer protection. The regulator said many respondents had incomplete or incorrect beliefs related to regulation, insurance protections, and transaction capabilities.
For investors, this matters because the practical safety of an investment often depends not just on whether a platform exists, but on what protections apply when things go wrong—such as custody issues, service failures, or disputes about transactions. The OSC’s takeaway implies that higher ownership does not automatically translate into stronger investor literacy.
Growing retail participation intersects with Ottawa’s policy push
Canada’s shift toward wider crypto ownership is occurring as lawmakers debate how crypto should be regulated and where restrictions should apply. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted two federal moves that align with the OSC’s consumer-protection themes.
In April, the federal government advanced a bill that could ban the use of crypto for political donations. In the same period, Ottawa also proposed banning digital asset ATMs, citing concerns about fraud.
These initiatives reflect a broader tension that regulators often face as adoption rises: extending access while limiting pathways that could be exploited for wrongdoing. If more consumers are entering the space, policymakers may feel stronger pressure to tighten safeguards—particularly around rails that can be used anonymously or with limited oversight, such as certain payment or cash-conversion channels.
What to watch next as regulation meets expanding demand
The OSC’s survey underscores that crypto is no longer a niche activity in Canada. With one in four surveyed adults reporting ownership and more than half expressing awareness, future regulatory decisions will increasingly affect a mainstream retail population rather than a small enthusiast base.
At the same time, the OSC’s warning about gaps in understanding suggests that education and clearer consumer-facing disclosures may be just as important as rulemaking. Investors should watch whether regulators emphasize registration checks, platform disclosure standards, and specific protections related to custody and transactional processes—and whether federal proposals tied to donations and ATMs move forward.
As the next round of research or consultations approaches, the key question will be whether Canada’s regulatory response keeps pace with the pace of adoption—and whether consumers gain not only access, but also the ability to evaluate risk and protections with confidence.
Bitcoin traded near $63,900 on Friday, roughly flat, as the Bank of Japan left its benchmark rate at 1% and Governor Kazuo Ueda’s attempt to sound hawkish landed softly with markets.
The yen gave back its move during his press conference, and the dollar-yen pair returned to where it started, since traders had already priced a high chance of an October hike.
Ueda said inflation should rise above 2% later this fiscal year and pointed to AI demand and the weak yen as forces pushing prices higher, the same two threads that have shaped crypto’s macro backdrop all month.
A soft yen has fed the carry trade that sends money into risk assets, and the AI capital cycle is the trade bitcoin has tracked closely.
The broader market was quiet. Ether held near $1,885, while BNB extended its run as the standout large token, up 3.5% on the day and 4.4% on the week to around $591, per CoinDesk data.
South Korean police arrested three suspects behind a fake XRP staking scheme that defrauded 71 investors, with criminal proceeds reaching roughly $19 million.
The case shows why the country’s intense retail trading culture attracts increasingly sophisticated crypto fraud.
How the Fake XRP Staking Scheme Worked
Staking involves locking cryptocurrency to secure a network in exchange for rewards. The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency announced Thursday that its cyber unit dismantled an operation exploiting that concept.
Officers charged them with aggravated fraud and violating the Similar Reception Act. Two were taken into custody. The scheme began in October last year. The suspects launched a site branded around FXRP networks, promising monthly returns of 1.5% to 1.8% for staking XRP.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens.
Those numbers far exceeded what genuine staking services pay. Investigators believe the figures targeted yield-hungry retail investors. The fraud drew power from its timing. Flare Network is a genuine blockchain, and FXRP is a real XRP-linked asset issued by it.
The suspects hijacked those names as the real token launched. Their fake platform mimicked a legitimate service, then vanished within a month. Victims transferred roughly 3.4 million XRP, worth about $8.6 million. Police later determined that the total proceeds neared $19 million.
How Did Police Track the Stolen XRP
Promotion spanned many platforms. The group used Naver blogs, forums, Tistory, articles, Wikipedia entries, and YouTube channels.
According to the authorities, Wikipedia carried a damaging falsehood. Entries claimed FXRP staking could only be accessed through Binance, steering victims toward the fraudulent process. YouTube channels impersonated industry figures. Accounts posing as Upbit developers and Ripple insiders used paid actors to explain remittance methods.
That routing served a purpose. Victims moved XRP via domestic exchanges and overseas platforms before it reached the suspects’ wallets. The detour circumvented South Korea’s Travel Rule, which requires exchanges to verify sender and recipient details on larger transfers.
Police opened their investigation last October after overseas exchanges flagged complaints. Blockchain tracing followed the money across platforms. Speed proved critical. Within three days, authorities froze roughly $12.1 million abroad.
An Interpol red notice targets the main suspect, who remains abroad. Investigators also pursue accomplices who promoted the site.
Why South Korea Attracts These Schemes
South Korea has long been a global stronghold for XRP. Unlike Western markets dominated by Bitcoin, Korean retail traders consistently push XRP atop volume rankings.
Analyst Xaif Crypto reports XRP trading at nearly 4x Bitcoin’s volume across leading Korean platforms. On Upbit, turnover recently reached around $86 million.
That figure reflects how actively the asset changes hands, not how many hold it. Intense participation and deep liquidity create the conditions fraudsters exploit. Local appetite survived turbulence elsewhere. The Kobeissi Letter reported that Korean equities tumbled 44% over 40 days, erasing nearly $2 trillion in market value.
Officials urge caution as similar schemes multiply. Verify staking claims independently, distrust guaranteed monthly returns, and report suspicious platforms immediately.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights.
The post Fake XRP Staking Scheme Stole $19 Million: Three Suspects Arrested appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Senate negotiators have reportedly proposed revised ethics language for the CLARITY Act that would let state authorities enforce restrictions on federal officials’ crypto activities as bipartisan talks continue before the August recess.
Summary
- Senators Thom Tillis and Ruben Gallego have reportedly proposed new CLARITY Act ethics rules that would allow state authorities to enforce restrictions on federal officials’ crypto activities.
- The reported changes address Democratic concerns over leaving enforcement solely to the Department of Justice.
- The revised ethics proposal comes as Senate negotiators continue seeking enough Democratic support to advance the crypto market structure bill.
- Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has urged the Senate to vote on the CLARITY Act before the August recess as time to pass the legislation narrows.
According to Punchbowl News, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis and Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego have submitted a counterproposal to the White House that changes how the ethics provisions in the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act would be enforced.
Instead of giving the U.S. Attorney General sole enforcement authority, the proposal would allow state authorities to enforce a ban on federal officials issuing or sponsoring digital tokens.
The reported revision addresses one of the main concerns raised by Senate Democrats during negotiations over the crypto market structure bill.
Ethics enforcement has remained a sticking point
Debate over ethics rules has continued for weeks despite earlier progress between the White House and Senate Republicans.
The White House said on July 22 that it had accepted what it described as the most extensive federal ethics restrictions ever proposed after negotiations with Republican Sens. Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno. At the time, however, the administration did not disclose the final wording or explain how the provisions would be enforced.
Several Democrats argued that leaving enforcement solely to the Department of Justice would not provide enough independent oversight because the department falls under the executive branch. Barron’s previously reported that some lawmakers wanted state attorneys general to share enforcement authority, a position that closely matches the latest reported proposal.
Earlier in the negotiations, Patrick Witt, executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, told CoinDesk that the administration supported ethics rules applying across the federal government but opposed language targeting any single official or family.
CLARITY Act still needs Democratic votes
Gallego has repeatedly said the legislation requires stronger ethics safeguards before it can secure Democratic backing.
The Arizona senator previously said protections covering ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity “must be strengthened,” adding that he would continue working with Republicans to get the bill across the finish line.
Many Senate Democrats have also warned they will not support the CLARITY Act if they believe it allows President Donald Trump to retain influence over an industry his administration would regulate. Their concerns have focused on Trump’s memecoin project and his family’s involvement with World Liberty Financial.
Republicans currently hold an effective 52-47 majority in the Senate because Sen. Mitch McConnell remains absent for medical reasons. Even so, the party still needs Democratic support to reach the 60 votes required to advance most legislation.
White House faces pressure before the August recess
Pressure has increased as lawmakers approach the Senate’s August recess with limited time remaining to move the legislation.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called on senators earlier this week to hold a vote on the CLARITY Act before leaving Washington, arguing that lawmakers should publicly state where they stand on the crypto market structure bill.
Bessent also defended the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, saying it would codify longstanding Treasury policy on non-custodial software developers rather than weaken anti-money laundering enforcement. Law enforcement groups, including the National Fraternal Order of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association, later backed the revised language after earlier raising concerns.
The House approved its version of the CLARITY Act in July 2025 with bipartisan support, but Senate negotiators must still finalize the ethics package and secure enough Democratic votes before the legislation can move forward.
Bhutan’s Gelephu Mindfulness City appointed Canadian digital-asset manager 3iQ on July 30 to manage a dedicated mandate backed by an undisclosed portion of its Bitcoin treasury.
Summary
- 3iQ will manage an undisclosed portion of Gelephu Mindfulness City’s Bitcoin treasury under the mandate.
- 10,000 BTC were pledged in December 2025 to support Gelephu’s long-term development and economic plans.
- 3iQ plans a long-term local presence, talent investment and knowledge transfer alongside treasury management operations.
The agreement advances a national pledge to allocate up to 10,000 BTC to the special administrative region’s long-term development.
The parties said 3iQ will also establish a long-term presence in Gelephu, invest in Bhutanese talent and transfer investment-management knowledge. They did not disclose how much Bitcoin entered the mandate or when active management would begin.
3iQ mandate leaves key commercial terms undisclosed
The company release provides no mandate value, management fee, custody provider or investment benchmark. It also does not say whether 3iQ may lend Bitcoin, use derivatives, post collateral or pursue yield strategies. Those omissions prevent an independent assessment of the mandate’s risk limits or expected returns.
3iQ chief executive Pascal St-Jean said the firm would put Bhutan’s capital to work “responsibly, transparently and for the long term.” That statement describes the company’s intended approach, not a verified performance outcome. GMC board director Jigdrel Singay called 3iQ a founding institutional partner for the city’s planned fund ecosystem.
The agreement connects GMC with Coincheck Group, whose shares trade on Nasdaq. Coincheck disclosed that it completed the acquisition of a 99.8% beneficial interest in 3iQ on February 28. St-Jean became Coincheck Group’s chief executive on April 1 while retaining his role at 3iQ.
Bhutan’s Bitcoin pledge enters its deployment phase
Bhutan announced in December 2025 that up to 10,000 BTC from national holdings would support Gelephu’s development. GMC says the reserve was built by converting surplus hydroelectric power into Bitcoin and is intended to create jobs, develop technical skills and strengthen long-term financial resilience.
The official pledge says the Bitcoin is being put to work for national development rather than held for short-term speculation. The 3iQ appointment is the clearest disclosed step so far toward outside professional management, although the amount assigned to the firm remains unknown.
However, Bhutan has also explored collateralization, treasury management and risk-managed yield as possible tools for the broader pledge. GMC rejected claims that earlier transfers from Bhutan-linked wallets represented sales from Bitcoin committed to the city’s strategic reserves.
Gelephu’s rules require clarity on 3iQ’s local role
Gelephu’s Financial Services Office regulates traditional finance and virtual-asset activity inside the special administrative region. Its rules require firms carrying out regulated services, including asset management, to obtain a financial services licence before beginning local operations.
The regulator’s public directory did not list an entity named 3iQ on July 31. That absence does not prove that the mandate requires a separate GMC licence or that no application is pending. The partnership announcement did not identify a licensed local entity or explain the regulatory structure under which 3iQ will operate.
The directory currently includes seven approved firms, with 8020 Finance authorized to manage assets from July 23. GMC has also introduced an accelerated pathway for firms already supervised in recognized foreign financial centers, but local regulators retain responsibility for final approval.
Further milestones will define the treasury strategy
3iQ and GMC said this agreement is the first of several milestones they plan to announce over the coming months. Expected steps include building a local team, establishing operations and developing an institutional fund ecosystem, but the parties provided no formal timetable.
Future disclosures will need to show the Bitcoin amount under management, custody controls, permitted trading strategies and reporting standards. Any use of leverage, lending or collateral would also require clear risk limits because losses or counterparty failures could affect assets committed to national development.
Until those details are released, the agreement confirms a manager and a strategic direction rather than a fully disclosed investment program. Its progress will be measured by regulatory approvals, operational launches and transparent reporting on how Bhutan’s Bitcoin supports Gelephu’s development.
Residents ‘afraid’ to go near Park and Ride after ‘dangerous’ meets
Data Patterns shares fall nearly 7% after Q1 profit declines 14% YoY to Rs 22 crore
Is ETH’s Rally Over? The Key Indicator That Called Ethereum’s Run Just Flipped Bearish
-
Fashion7 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Sports4 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Business1 day agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Tech4 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Crypto World6 days agoRipple bought a bank in pieces. The $4 billion audit
-
Politics4 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Entertainment7 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
Politics3 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
News Videos4 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Business2 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Crypto World5 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
News Videos21 hours agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Politics5 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
Entertainment3 days ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Entertainment5 days agoSara Gilson Killed By Husband After Viral “Pedophile” TikTok Video
-
Crypto World2 days agoKraken Enables Retail Access to Jersey Mike’s IPO via Tokenized Shares
-
Tech6 days agoAnthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows
-
News Videos3 days agoClaude: Build Financial Dashboards in Minutes (2026)
-
Politics16 hours agoLuke Littler’s dominance sparks GOAT debate
-
Tech3 days agoNew macOS Sequoia & Sonoma security updates for older Macs
You must be logged in to post a comment Login