TLDR:

• Uniswap’s no-code tool lets teams launch onchain token auctions from a browser in four simple steps.
• The Continuous Clearing Auction spreads bids across blocks, removing bot sniping and last-second advantages. 
• Aztec’s CCA raised $59M from 17,000 bidders across 191 countries, clearing 60% above its floor price.
• Cap Labs’ $CAP auction closed 5.5x oversubscribed at a $106M FDV, pulling in $16.4M in commitments. 

Uniswap has rolled out a no-code token auction tool within its Web App, enabling teams to configure and run onchain token sales directly from a browser.

The feature is built on Uniswap’s Continuous Clearing Auction mechanism, which processes bids across multiple blocks.

All winning bidders pay the same final clearing price. The move positions Uniswap as a direct competitor to platforms like Pump.fun in the token-launch market.

How the Continuous Clearing Auction Works

The Continuous Clearing Auction conducts price discovery entirely onchain without resolving in a single block. Bids accumulate over multiple blocks, each clearing at a price carried forward from the previous one. This structure removes the speed advantage that typically favors bots and last-second snipers.

Bidders set a total budget and a maximum price per token during the process. Tokens are distributed to participants whose bids remain competitive as each block clears. Every successful bidder pays the same final clearing price at the end of the auction.

Uniswap previously described the CCA mechanics through a post on Aztec’s token sale. That auction raised $59 million from 17,000 bidders across 191 countries. It cleared at a price 60% above Aztec’s floor, demonstrating strong demand discovery through the mechanism.

Once a CCA closes, liquidity routes automatically into a Uniswap pool. Projects therefore get both price discovery and a bootstrapped trading pair from a single workflow. This end-to-end flow reduces the technical steps teams previously needed to manage separately.

Track Record and What the Tool Offers Teams

The CCA mechanism already has a verified track record before the no-code interface launched. Cap Labs’ $CAP auction drew 1,002 unique bids and closed 5.5x oversubscribed. It cleared at a $106 million fully diluted valuation, pulling in $16.4 million in total commitments.

STRATO also ran a CCA that became the fourth largest in Uniswap’s history. Both auctions ran before Uniswap made the no-code setup available to teams. The results show the mechanism can attract meaningful participation even without simplified tooling.

The no-code flow now guides teams through four steps: adding token information, configuring the auction, customizing the liquidity pool, and launching.

Uniswap posted a walkthrough of the setup sequence on Wednesday. A dedicated @UniswapAuctions account also tracks live auctions and outcomes in real time.

The tool lowers the barrier for projects that previously needed developer resources to run token launches. Teams can now manage the entire process from a browser with no code required.

As token launch competition grows, Uniswap’s onchain-native approach offers a structured alternative to existing platforms.

Bitcoin options markets are signaling caution rather than panic, according to new research from Anchorage Digital. In its latest Prime Signal report, the firm’s head of research, David Lawant, finds that traders across both crypto-native venues and traditional investment wrappers are paying up for downside protection—especially over the very near term.

The study looked at options activity across Deribit and two major exchange-traded fund products tied to Bitcoin exposure: BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) and Strategy’s Bitcoin-linked instruments. Anchorage argues that this cross-market view helps capture differences between crypto-native positioning and more institutional or retail flows than a single venue alone.

Key takeaways

• Deribit and IBIT options show elevated put skew, consistent with demand for downside hedges at a premium rather than outright bullish bets.
• Defensive positioning is unusually high within both markets’ historical ranges—ranked in the 82nd percentile for IBIT and the 84th percentile for Deribit over their respective multi-year windows.
• Anchorage reports Bitcoin options have spent nearly half of 2026 pricing higher one-week implied volatility than one-month implied volatility, an inversion that has typically been temporary.
• In Strategy’s options market, put skew remains below levels Anchorage associates with past stress episodes like forced deleveraging.

Downside hedging stays in focus across venues

Anchorage’s central finding is that traders are not just buying options—they are choosing structures that emphasize downside risk. In both the Deribit and IBIT options markets, the firm observed elevated put skew, a pattern that generally indicates market participants are willing to pay more for protection against lower prices than for upside participation.

Anchorage quantifies this defensiveness by comparing current activity against historical behavior. It reports that defensive positioning sits at the 82nd percentile within IBIT’s history and at the 84th percentile across Deribit’s five-year record, suggesting that the current hedging intensity is high relative to what has been typical.

Why the “one-week vs one-month” volatility inversion matters

Beyond skew, Anchorage examined the term structure of implied volatility—specifically how volatility priced for the coming week compares with volatility priced for the following month. The report says Bitcoin options have spent nearly half of 2026 with one-week implied volatility higher than one-month implied volatility, an inversion it describes as unusual and historically episodic.

Anchorage attributes the pattern to a chain of catalysts spanning macroeconomic conditions, geopolitical developments, and crypto-specific drivers that have kept traders focused on near-term risks. Instead of signaling a stable trend expectation, the data points toward “event window” caution: participants appear more concerned about what could happen soon than about setting a long-range directional view.

Lawant said he is watching for a change in that relationship—specifically, whether one-month implied volatility begins to exceed one-week implied volatility again. He frames such a shift as a sign that the market may be growing more comfortable looking further out rather than concentrating hedges around immediate uncertainty.

Strategy’s options market: hedging without “crisis” pricing

Anchorage’s analysis also addresses whether the options market is pricing Strategy (MSTR) as if it faces a severe downside scenario. While the company has experienced weakness in its equity-related products, Anchorage argues that options demand for protection has not escalated to stress levels typically associated with broad systemic fear.

Earlier coverage from the market has highlighted the decline in Strategy’s perpetual preferred stock, STRC. According to the details cited in Anchorage’s research discussion, STRC fell as low as $82.53 on June 22—around 17% below its $100 par value—before partially recovering after Strategy disclosed it had increased its fiat reserves to $1.3 billion. By Thursday, STRC was reported as trading around $77, roughly 23% below par, based on the figures referenced in the report write-up.

The weakness has also extended to Strategy’s common shares. The article notes that MSTR has been down about 78% over the past year and traded around $87 on Thursday, according to Yahoo Finance data.

However, Anchorage’s options read-through is more measured than the equity performance. The firm reports that Strategy-related options remain well below stress levels seen during prior market corrections. While put skew indicates that hedging demand is present, the skew has not moved into ranges that Anchorage associates with fears of forced deleveraging or a broader crisis.

That distinction matters for market participants because it separates “risk management” from “contagion pricing.” Put skew can rise for many reasons—structural hedging, volatility supply/demand, or tactical protection—so Anchorage’s comparison to historical stress levels is intended to show that traders are cautious but not uniformly expecting a severe unwind scenario.

Broader implications for how traders are framing risk

Taken together, Anchorage’s findings suggest a market where near-term downside hedging remains the dominant theme, even as different trading ecosystems show broadly consistent behavior. Elevated put skew in both Deribit and IBIT indicates that the appetite for protection is not limited to a single buyer type or venue; it spans the crypto-native options market and a key regulated product channel.

At the same time, the volatility term structure points to timing rather than direction. The one-week/one-month implied volatility inversion described in the report implies that traders are treating the next few days to weeks as more uncertain than the later month horizon—consistent with a market responding to catalysts as they approach, rather than immediately repricing longer-term outlooks.

For Strategy-related risk, the message is similar: equity weakness does not automatically translate into options-market “panic pricing.” Anchorage says the hedging activity in Strategy’s options is still below the kind of levels it has previously linked to forced deleveraging dynamics.

Going forward, traders may want to track whether the one-month implied volatility premium returns over the one-week measure—an indicator Lawant flagged as a potential shift from immediate risk management to a longer-term posture. Until then, Anchorage’s data suggests the market will likely keep prioritizing near-term protection across both crypto and ETF-linked Bitcoin options.

Michael Saylor has faced renewed legal pressure after a shareholder rights firm opened an investigation into Strategy, adding to mounting scrutiny that has accompanied the company’s sharp stock decline and Bitcoin’s latest selloff.

According to Rosen Law Firm, the investigation is examining whether Strategy misled investors through materially inaccurate business disclosures. The firm said it is evaluating potential securities claims and is preparing a possible class action on behalf of shareholders who suffered losses.

The announcement comes roughly a week after Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff publicly argued that investors in Strategy’s STRC preferred shares could have grounds for legal action if they purchased the security based on Saylor’s promotion of the company’s Bitcoin-backed investment strategy. Schiff’s remarks came before any law firm publicly disclosed plans to examine potential shareholder claims.

Meanwhile, pressure on the company has continued in the market. Yahoo Finance data show Strategy shares fell below the $100 threshold earlier this week before dropping to around $86 on Thursday, leaving the stock down more than 6.5% on the day and about 23% over the past week.

Concerns have expanded beyond the stock price

Legal scrutiny follows growing criticism that had already surrounded Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury model. As crypto.news reported yesterday, Schiff argued that continued weakness in Strategy’s shares could eventually force the company into difficult capital allocation decisions.

According to Schiff, persistent selling pressure from short sellers could make buying back Strategy shares more attractive than purchasing additional Bitcoin. He argued that selling part of the company’s Bitcoin holdings to finance stock repurchases could narrow the gap between Strategy’s market valuation and the value of its underlying assets, although he questioned whether such a move would be enough to restore investor confidence.

Schiff also warned that any sale of Bitcoin by Strategy could weigh on the cryptocurrency market itself by adding fresh supply during a period of weak demand.

Separate concerns have also come from on-chain analytics firm CryptoQuant. The firm’s recent analysis urged Strategy to slow its pace of Bitcoin accumulation and rebuild liquidity instead. 

According to CryptoQuant, annualized dividend obligations tied to Strategy’s STRC perpetual preferred stock have climbed to about $1.2 billion, while the company’s cash reserves have fallen 38% during 2026.

CryptoQuant further estimated that dividend coverage has dropped from more than seven years to roughly 14 months. The firm calculated that restoring coverage to 24 months would require approximately $2.8 billion in cash, nearly double the company’s existing reserves.

Management continues backing its Bitcoin strategy

Even as outside criticism has intensified, Strategy’s leadership has continued defending its long-term Bitcoin approach. Saylor recently pointed to conditions during the 2022 crypto bear market, when Bitcoin traded near $16,000, and the company’s debt exceeded the combined value of its Bitcoin and cash reserves.

According to Saylor, the company’s financial position has since improved substantially, with Bitcoin and cash reserves now exceeding outstanding debt by more than $40 billion. His comments indicate that Strategy does not intend to abandon its Bitcoin treasury strategy despite the latest market turbulence.

Meanwhile, additional selling pressure emerged during Thursday’s session. Market commentator Zerohedge claimed that unusually heavy put option buying in Strategy shares coincided with fresh weakness in both MSTR stock and Bitcoin.

Invesco’s move is another sign of asset managers increasingly chasing a new business opportunity created by stablecoins. These cryptocurrencies are designed to maintain a fixed value, typically tied to one U.S. dollar, and are backed by reserve assets such as cash and short-term Treasuries. As issuance grows, so does demand for firms that can manage those reserves.

Citigroup projects the stablecoin market could expand to as much as $4 trillion by 2030, up from roughly $300 billion today, creating a potentially lucrative market for fund managers.

BlackRock, State Street and ProShares also filed to launch funds aimed at serving as stablecoin reserve vehicles, reflecting intensifying competition to provide the infrastructure behind digital dollars.

The filing also builds on Invesco’s broader tokenization strategy. Earlier this year, the firm took over management of Superstate’s roughly $900 million tokenized Treasury fund, becoming the first third-party asset manager to use Superstate’s blockchain-based FundOS platform.

That move placed Invesco alongside firms such as BlackRock, Franklin Templeton and Fidelity that have embraced tokenized money market funds as a way to modernize how traditional assets are issued, transferred and settled using blockchain rails.

SpaceX has drawn fresh warnings over possible market excess after expanding its bond sale to $25 billion only weeks after its blockbuster public offering, while the SPCX stock has remained more than 30% below its post-IPO peak.

According to the Financial Times, Allianz Chief Investment Officer Ludovic Subran believes the enlarged debt offering points to signs that financial markets may be entering bubble territory, arguing that companies are taking advantage of elevated equity prices and favorable borrowing conditions to raise fresh capital.

Subran cited SpaceX’s return to the debt market shortly after its IPO as an example of investor enthusiasm running at an unusually strong pace. According to the Financial Times, he said the speed of fundraising activity suggests companies are rushing to secure financing while market conditions remain supportive.

The Allianz executive also drew a distinction between stock and bond investors. While equity investors often focus on long-term growth prospects, he noted that debt investors typically seek predictable income and stable returns.

Subran’s comments came as investors also weighed the latest U.S. Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation data, which reinforced concerns that inflationary pressures remain elevated.

Bond sale adds to scrutiny over SpaceX valuation

Although reports indicate the expanded bond offering attracted strong investor demand, the financing has added to the ongoing debate over whether SpaceX’s valuation already prices in much of its expected growth.

Earlier, crypto.news reported that Susquehanna initiated coverage of SpaceX with a Neutral rating and a $170 price target. In its research note, the brokerage said the company’s valuation depends on aggressive growth assumptions and premium valuation multiples.

Around the same time, KeyBanc began coverage with a Sector Weight rating without assigning a price target. According to the brokerage, SpaceX is well-positioned to remain the leading player in the commercial space launch industry, but much of that long-term potential may already be reflected in the current share price.

Stock decline and short sellers keep pressure on SPCX

Selling pressure has continued in the stock market as SPCX extended its decline after the opening bell. At the time of writing, the shares were down about 2% near $151, leaving the stock roughly 21% lower over the past five trading days and more than 30% below the high reached shortly after its IPO.

Earlier reporting by crypto.news cited Ortex Technologies, which said bearish bets against SpaceX had climbed rapidly in recent sessions, lifting short interest to a significant portion of the company’s public float. Ortex co-founder Peter Hillerberg described the pace of new short positions as unusual for a company that has been publicly traded for only a few weeks.

According to Hillerberg, many traders appear to be positioning for additional downside after the stock’s sharp retreat from its post-listing rally. Ortex also linked the selling pressure to profit-taking in newly listed companies and a pullback across risk-sensitive assets, as investors reassess SpaceX’s valuation following its rapid early gains.

At the same time, market attention has also turned to unconfirmed reports that SpaceX could consider acquiring T-Mobile. A report citing TD Cowen said such a move could become an option if the company fails to secure a network-sharing agreement. The analysts pointed to T-Mobile’s existing relationship with Starlink as a possible strategic advantage, although they stressed that the acquisition scenario remains speculative and there has been no official confirmation from either company.

TLDR:

• STRC has dropped to $76.20, approximately 25% below its $100 par value, alarming income-focused investors.
• Strategy owes $1.2 billion annually in STRC dividends but holds only $1.4 billion in USD reserves currently.
• Unlike Terra LUNA, Saylor faces no forced liquidation if STRC falls, as dividends remain legally discretionary.
• A sustained STRC discount could weaken MSTR demand over time, quietly slowing Strategy’s Bitcoin accumulation pace.

Is STRC the next LUNA? That question is circulating across crypto social media after Strategy’s preferred stock dropped to approximately $76.20, roughly 25% below its $100 par value.

On-chain intelligence firm Arkham has weighed in with a detailed breakdown, drawing both parallels and sharp distinctions between the two instruments.

With $1.2 billion in annual dividend obligations and $1.4 billion in reserves, the math is tight, and markets are paying close attention.

What Is STRC and Why Are Investors Comparing It to LUNA?

STRC is a Nasdaq-listed perpetual preferred stock carrying a $100 stated par value. It launched in July 2025 at a 9% annual dividend rate, which Strategy has since raised seven consecutive times to 11.50% as of June 2026.

That rising yield mirrors the dynamic that drew retail investors into Terra’s Anchor protocol before its collapse. STRC also pays an 11.5% annual dividend, a yield that echoes the 20% return Terra’s Anchor protocol advertised before it imploded.

According to Arkham, there are 104.89 million STRC shares outstanding. At 11.5% on a $100 par value, Strategy owes approximately $1.2 billion per year to maintain those dividends. The firm held $1.4 billion in USD reserves as of earlier this week, leaving a thin buffer.

The preferred stock fell to an intraday low of $82.53 last week, its deepest drawdown since launch, reviving comparisons on social media to Terra’s UST stablecoin collapse in 2022. A high yield and a price drifting below its target were enough to trigger that memory across crypto circles.

A hawkish Federal Reserve pivot on June 17, with nine of 18 FOMC officials projecting at least one rate increase in 2026, added further pressure on both Bitcoin and the income-oriented buyers STRC targets. That macro backdrop accelerated the selling.

Why STRC Is Not LUNA and What the Slide Means for Strategy

The structural differences between STRC and Terra LUNA are where the comparison breaks down. Benchmark analyst Mark Palmer described STRC as “not a stablecoin,” characterizing the selloff as a market-driven reset of required yield rather than a depeg, noting that something never pegged cannot technically depeg.

Terra UST maintained a programmatic $1 peg enforced by algorithmic minting and burning of LUNA tokens, a mechanism STRC simply does not have.

Arkham noted that Saylor is not legally required to pay STRC dividends at any point. Unlike Terra’s design, there is no forced liquidation triggered by a price drop.

The market price of STRC reflects investor confidence in Strategy’s willingness and capacity to keep paying, nothing more.

Strategy’s legacy software business generates roughly $477 million in annual revenue against more than $1.2 billion in preferred-dividend obligations, a gap funded almost entirely by capital markets activity rather than operations. That structural mismatch is the real concern, not a death spiral.

A sustained discount still forces difficult choices on Strategy: richer preferred terms, more equity issuance, or drawing on the Bitcoin reserve itself.

Arkham warned that if MSTR investors begin to recognize their capital is being recycled into dividend payments for earlier preferred shareholders, demand for MSTR shares could soften over time, gradually constraining the firm’s broader Bitcoin accumulation engine.