Coinbase has partnered with payments provider Moov to bring stablecoin payment acceptance, settlement and real-time funding to more than 1,000 community banks and credit unions, the company said Thursday in an announcement.

Moov will integrate Coinbase’s Payments API and Coinbase Developer Platform Custodial Wallet accounts into its existing payments platform, which serves the 1,000-plus institutions. That lets a bank or credit union add stablecoin services without building its own crypto technology stack. The infrastructure supports consumer payments, merchant acceptance, settlement and payouts, with fully disclosed custodial accounts available for business and merchant payments.

Why it matters for small banks

Community banks in the US typically hold less than $10 billion in total assets, and few have the resources to build crypto infrastructure themselves. The deal hands them stablecoin rails through a provider they already use. Coinbase’s head of corporate affairs, Ryan VanGrack, said community banks and credit unions “have witnessed their customers use digital assets for years.”

VanGrack added that “Modern tech should meet local institutions where they are, giving them the tools to compete with the largest players while preserving what makes them trusted pillars of their communities.”

Jill Castilla, CEO of Citizens Bank of Edmond, an Oklahoma community bank that has operated for 125 years, said her small business customers are looking to lower interchange costs and get paid faster.

The announcement lands amid a wave of bank stablecoin activity. U.S. Bank, the fifth-largest US commercial bank, completed a live cross-border payment using its proprietary USBDC stablecoin on the Stellar blockchain on Wednesday. Earlier this month, 21 financial institutions, including Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, plan to form a company to issue stablecoins, targeting a dollar stablecoin in the first half of 2027.

The partnership follows Coinbase deals with PNC in July 2025, and later with Citi and JPMorgan, moving the exchange from serving banks as a crypto venue toward providing embeddable infrastructure.

Which stablecoins the integration supports, along with pricing and a rollout timeline, was not disclosed.

Robinhood Chain has turned tokenized stocks into just another building block for decentralized trading—sometimes with genuinely odd consequences. A memecoin-and-equities liquidity pool built around BONER and tokenized healthcare shares of Hims & Hers (HIMS) briefly drove the onchain token far away from the underlying NYSE reference price.

According to a report cited in the original coverage from The Defiant, the BONER/HIMS liquidity pool at one point held 31,198 HIMS tokens—more than half of the 58,714 tokenized HIMS shares circulating. That imbalance coincided with a spike of the tokenized HIMS price to $132.64, compared with a $28.84 closing price for the real HIMS stock on the NYSE, based on historical pricing referenced from the source.

Key takeaways

• A liquidity pool’s token distribution can temporarily overpower the “reference” price of tokenized stocks, especially when onchain reserves are thin.
• Tokenized equities on DEX-style markets can trade like programmable assets, but the price signals may be unreliable when arbitrage and issuance mechanics are constrained.
• DEX automated market makers (AMMs) enable pairing tokenized stocks with almost anything that has liquidity—whether or not the pairing makes intuitive sense.
• Even skeptics view tokenized equities as a stepping stone toward broader DeFi utility, though traditional venues may still dominate price discovery.
• Demand for tokenized stock liquidity is already being generated, but it remains unclear whether onchain markets will become the primary benchmark for equities.

Bizarre pairings become possible when stocks go onchain

The core idea behind Robinhood Chain’s stock-token markets is straightforward: rather than trading a tokenized stock only against fiat or conventional financial instruments, users can deposit the tokenized share into a liquidity pool and trade it against other tokens. In this model, traders swap between assets using the pool’s pricing algorithm rather than an order book.

That flexibility is exactly what made the BONER/HIMS episode notable. The memecoin was paired with tokenized Hims & Hers shares, allowing traders to exchange between a purely crypto-native token and an onchain representation of a listed healthcare company. The episode offered a snapshot of how “real-world assets” can behave when they become composable components inside DeFi.

Thomas Probst, a research analyst at Kaiko, emphasized the scale and composability angle: “A listed stock effectively becomes a composable DeFi asset at an unprecedented scale, in the same way Ether did.”

The larger trend is that tokenized equities are increasingly being treated like generic liquidity—something that can be plugged into diverse onchain strategies. In less than three months after its launch, the original reporting pointed to Robinhood users creating a range of unusual pairings beyond memecoins, including combinations involving AI-related themes and other crypto-native assets.

Why BONER/HIMS diverged from the underlying stock

While the idea of swapping a stock token against a memecoin may look nonsensical, DeFi markets can move in ways that don’t require an economic “reason” beyond the mechanics of the pool itself. The critical difference is that the onchain market does not automatically behave like traditional stock trading—particularly when liquidity conditions are stretched.

According to commentary attributed in the original article, the extreme gap between tokenized HIMS and the real NYSE-listed HIMS share price was largely tied to “thin reserves” and “temporarily restricted issuance.” That combination can create circumstances where token prices move sharply and stay disconnected from the reference asset.

Aspris, described in the source as a finance academic at the University of Sydney, warned that these conditions can “increase the potential for strategic exploitation or manipulation.” In other words, when the onchain market is under-resourced relative to trading demand, it may not reliably reflect the real-world price it is supposed to track.

Probst added an important nuance about arbitrage. In traditional markets, multiple participants and continuous trading work together to keep prices aligned. In the tokenized-stock AMM setup, arbitrage may depend on fewer actors and can be disrupted when the real-world market is closed:

“Arbitrage relies here on a single actor rather than a continuous competitive mechanism like the one seen in traditional stock markets. These pools can therefore produce unreliable price signals, without any real transmission to the reference market.”

That explanation helps frame what happened in practice. When the liquidity pool becomes heavily imbalanced—such as holding a large share of the total tokenized float—onchain swap quotes can jump. If arbitrage cannot quickly re-align prices, the divergence can persist long enough to look dramatic.

Is this a new market—or just AMMs with stranger assets?

Under the hood, the system is built on familiar DEX plumbing: automated market makers that price assets based on liquidity pools and algorithmic formulas. The novelty, according to the reporting, is not the mechanism itself but the inventory it can contain. In traditional stock markets, equities trade against currencies and established financial instruments. Onchain, a tokenized stock can become one half of a liquidity pair with nearly any other token that is available in sufficient quantity.

Reid Noch of TD Securities, cited in the original article, described AMMs as still “very novel when compared to traditional markets.” He also suggested that if tokenized stocks are primarily used to provide liquidity for memecoin-style trading, it may be difficult to sell the concept to more conservative, institutional participants:

“As long as they are primarily used to drive liquidity in memecoins, it will be challenging for more traditional players to take them seriously.”

In the same vein, another skepticism raised in the source is whether these AMM venues will become the place where investors discover the “true” price of tokenized equities. The reporting included a view that price discovery may still happen more in traditional markets, with AMMs serving as rails that arbitrageurs use to keep quotes aligned—rather than becoming the dominant reference.

Still, the episode also highlighted something practical for market participants: even if price discovery remains imperfect, the onchain structure can generate real trading activity and liquidity demand for tokenized stocks—testing how they perform when exposed to DeFi incentives and round-the-clock trading.

What comes next: demand now, credibility later

One message that comes through clearly in the underlying commentary is that tokenized equities are already finding utility inside DeFi, even if their earliest use cases appear unconventional. Sergej Kunz, co-founder of 1inch, argued that the opportunity is broader than the assets currently appearing onchain and that tokenized equities matter because they can plug into an open financial system. Angelo Aspris similarly described how programmable equity exposure could eventually serve as collateral, loanable inventory, or margin inputs for derivatives.

The BONER/HIMS example also suggests that memecoin pairings may be less about “valuation” and more about experimenting with composability—using aggressive, liquid onchain tokens to stress-test whether stock tokens can function safely as DeFi building blocks. Kunz’s take in the source was that memecoin pairings may not be the primary use case for tokenized equities, but they still contribute to “demand, volume and liquidity” for these instruments.

At the same time, important questions remain open. The original reporting pointed to vulnerabilities created by thin reserves and issuance constraints, and to the possibility that AMM prices may not transmit reliably to the underlying reference market when trading conditions diverge. For readers, the key watch items are straightforward: whether onchain liquidity becomes deeper and more stable, whether arbitrage becomes more continuous rather than episodic, and whether trading activity grows beyond novelty pairs.

If tokenized equities can address those frictions, onchain markets may become more than a curiosity—shifting from isolated experiments toward robust infrastructure for programmable exposure to real-world assets. For now, BONER/HIMS stands as a vivid demonstration that when stocks are composable, the market outcomes can be just as unconventional as the pairings.

Japan’s publicly listed Bitcoin treasury company Metaplanet has moved to ease shareholder concerns tied to its Series 10 stock acquisition rights. In an announcement made by CEO Simon Gerovich on Friday, the company said it will further amend the rights after criticism over potential dilution from an expanded option pool.

Metaplanet plans to reduce the number of shares that could be delivered through future exercises of the Series 10 rights by 131.3 million, bringing the potential share count down from 319.464 million to 188.19 million. The company will do this by resetting the conversion ratio from 1:696 to 1:410—described as the level that existed prior to its September 2025 international share offering—while leaving already-delivered shares unchanged.

Key takeaways

• Metaplanet will cut the potential shares from future Series 10 exercises from 319.464 million to 188.19 million.
• The conversion ratio will be reset from 1:696 to 1:410, aligning with the pre–September 2025 level.
• Previously exercised shares will not be reversed, and the dilution reduction applies only to future rights exercises.
• The company says the adjustment eliminates more than $220 million in warrant value and raises Bitcoin-per-fully-diluted-share by about 8.8%.
• Metaplanet is also withdrawing earlier plans related to transferring rights into an officer and employee incentive vehicle and is tightening vesting timelines and exercise restrictions.

Dilution concerns prompt a Series 10 reset

Gerovich’s announcement responds to a wave of shareholder pushback focused on the dilution risk created by Metaplanet’s option pool expansion. According to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph, the company increased the pool from 46 million shares to 319.5 million, which drew scrutiny from investors concerned about how incremental rights could dilute existing holders.

Metaplanet had previously stated that it “fixed the pool” at 319.5 million shares on Aug. 18. However, some shareholders called for the cancellation of 273 million additional potential shares that were generated by that expansion.

In Friday’s update, Gerovich said the company will reduce the number of potential shares tied to future Series 10 exercises. Specifically, Metaplanet will lower the conversion ratio so fewer shares can be issued when the rights are exercised later, while leaving any shares already obtained through earlier exercises intact and uncanceled.

Financially, Gerovich said the change would extinguish more than $220 million in warrant value and improve the company’s Bitcoin-per-fully-diluted-share measure by about 8.8%. The logic is straightforward: if fewer shares can ultimately be issued via the rights mechanism, the dilution denominator shrinks.

What changes—and what doesn’t—under the amended rights

Metaplanet’s amended terms include both quantitative changes (fewer shares potentially deliverable) and structural changes to how the rights vest and can be exercised.

The CEO said the company will withdraw plans to transfer up to 90,000 rights to a long-term officer and employee incentive vehicle. In its place, Metaplanet will develop a new compensation program with a “leading global compensation consultant,” according to Gerovich.

Under the amended structure, all unvested rights will face additional exercise restrictions. Gerovich said rights will become exercisable in thirds, with one-third exercisable in each of 2029, 2030, and 2031. This matters for shareholders because timing affects how quickly any potential dilution could materialize, even if the total theoretical share count is capped by the conversion ratio.

The update also followed corporate actions around the Series 10 rights in late August. On Aug. 31, Metaplanet disclosed that Gerovich exercised rights to acquire 92,000 shares under the Series 10 pool, according to the company’s filing. Gerovich stated that he recused himself from board deliberations and the vote on the adjustment because he holds Series 10 rights.

Earlier, on Aug. 18, Metaplanet acknowledged in a disclosure that expanding the pool “amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders,” a statement that foreshadowed the investor backlash and the eventual decision to revisit the structure.

Market reaction and investor signals

The Series 10 adjustment drew immediate commentary from market observers. In an X post Friday, Matthew Sigel, head of digital asset research at VanEck, described the change as a “meaningful concession” that better aligns management with shareholders.

Company shares reflected some volatility around the announcement. According to Yahoo Finance, Metaplanet shares fell 3.8% on Friday, extending a five-day decline to 15%.

While price moves can be influenced by broader market dynamics, the timing of the dilution fix is notable: the company’s willingness to reduce future deliverables comes shortly after it had to address the criticism that its rights expansion could weaken the position of existing investors.

“Project Nova” expands beyond treasuries with Hong Kong plans

Alongside the Series 10 amendment, Metaplanet also outlined plans to expand its business footprint in Asia. The company announced Friday that it intends to establish a new Hong Kong subsidiary, Metaplanet Asset Management Asia Limited, with $1 million in initial capital later in September.

The subsidiary is expected to conduct trading in Bitcoin, equities, and credit products during Asian market hours. Metaplanet said the initiative is part of “Project Nova,” a broader effort to build a Bitcoin-centered platform that spans asset management, securities, capital markets, and other financial services.

In June, Metaplanet agreed to acquire Siiibo Securities in a deal valued at 2.1 billion yen (about $13.1 million), with the stated goal of forming a securities arm. That acquisition plan fits with the company’s new Hong Kong structure, suggesting Metaplanet is attempting to move from a pure treasury thesis toward a platform approach that can support trading and capital markets activities.

For investors, the immediate relevance is twofold: first, corporate actions on dilution are directly tied to shareholder outcomes, and second, the company’s platform expansion could influence how it funds growth and manages risk across different revenue lines. For now, the Series 10 amendment is the most concrete near-term change, while the Hong Kong subsidiary appears set for implementation later in the year.

Going forward, investors should watch whether Metaplanet provides further details on how the revised compensation program will be structured, and how the reduced Series 10 conversion ratio affects the company’s fully diluted share calculations as more rights vest over the 2029–2031 window.

Clearpool has proposed expanding its institutional lending products to the XRP Ledger while replacing CPOOL with CLEAR through a 1:1 token migration and treasury recapitalization.

Clearpool plans institutional credit products on XRPL

Clearpool said in its governance proposal that the expansion represents the protocol’s “next growth phase,” combining a move to the XRP Ledger with the proposed replacement of CPOOL by CLEAR. Existing CPOOL holders would receive the new token at a one-to-one ratio if the proposal passes.

Rather than treating the token change as a standalone rebrand, the protocol tied it to plans for institutional credit markets on XRPL. Clearpool identified the ledger’s operating history and what it described as an underused institutional lending market as reasons for selecting the network.

“XRPL is one of the most established networks, with institutional credit still largely untapped,” Clearpool said.

Under the proposed structure, Clearpool would develop credit products that use the XRP Ledger to manage lending transactions and yield opportunities. The protocol said new users could receive CLEAR for providing capital, while incentives currently paid in CPOOL would move to the replacement token.

At the center of the expansion are two proposed XRPL standards: Single Asset Vaults, known as XLS-65, and the Lending Protocol, identified as XLS-66. Clearpool described the pair as “native, institutional-grade credit rails” that could support lending products directly on the ledger.

Single Asset Vaults would allow funds from several participants to be pooled under defined management rules. XLS-66 would use liquidity from those vaults to issue, service and repay fixed-term loans, while participating institutions would assess borrowers and set credit terms outside the blockchain.

“The infrastructure for institutional credit is here. We intend to be the layer that runs on it,” the company said.

Mainnet use still depends on the XRPL amendment process. An institutional RLUSD credit fund announced in August was being tested on a development network because XLS-65 and XLS-66 had not completed the validator approval process at the time.

Ripple backing connects XRP and RLUSD to lending

Ripple has committed investment toward Clearpool products that would offer yield opportunities using XRP and Ripple USD, according to the proposal. No amount was disclosed for the investment cited in the document.

The commitment builds on an earlier arrangement involving Ripple, Clearpool and Cicada Partners. Under that model, the fund would provide RLUSD-denominated working-capital loans to fintech and payment companies, with approved borrowers receiving and repaying funds in the stablecoin.

Cicada would source borrowers, set loan terms, and manage credit risk, while Clearpool would supply the infrastructure for creating and operating the credit pools. Ripple would join the fund as a limited partner on the same terms as other investors without guaranteeing losses.

Using RLUSD as the loan asset would separate the stablecoin’s role from XRP’s network function. RLUSD would move between lenders and borrowers, while XRP would continue to pay transaction fees and support reserve requirements for accounts on the ledger.

The lending model would also differ from many DeFi protocols that require borrowers to deposit more collateral than they borrow. Under XLS-66, approved institutions could arrange fixed-term credit after conducting borrower reviews off-chain, with the ledger recording and managing the resulting loan.

Clearpool said its proposed XRPL expansion would build on the ledger’s vault and lending tools once they become available. Until validator approval is secured, however, products that rely on the native standards cannot operate on the main network.

CPOOL holders would receive 70% of CLEAR supply

Alongside the XRPL plan, Clearpool has proposed recapitalizing its treasury because 99% of CPOOL’s supply has vested and reserves set aside for growth have been used. The protocol said additional resources are needed to fund development, attract capital, and support adoption.

Existing holders would receive 70% of the new CLEAR allocation through the one-to-one migration. Another 10% would go to the ecosystem, 15% to the treasury, and 5% to contributors.

At migration, the proposal would raise the token supply from the current 1 billion CPOOL to 1.125 billion CLEAR. A planned unlock schedule would increase circulating CLEAR supply to 1.428 billion over three years.

The extra tokens would therefore not enter circulation at once. Distribution would follow the proposed vesting schedule, while current holders would receive their migration allocation based on the amount of CPOOL they own.

Clearpool also proposed directing half of all protocol fees toward buying CLEAR on the open market. Tokens purchased through the program would be permanently burned, reducing supply as the protocol collects fees from its products.

Both the new allocation and buyback mechanism remain subject to governance approval. The proposal does not make the CPOOL-to-CLEAR conversion automatic before tokenholders vote.

RLUSD adds a New York-regulated settlement asset

For U.S. users and institutions, RLUSD provides a regulated dollar settlement component within the planned lending system. Standard Custody & Trust Company, a Ripple subsidiary, issues the stablecoin under a limited-purpose trust charter supervised by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Ripple says RLUSD is backed by cash and permitted cash equivalents kept in segregated reserve accounts. Eligible reserve assets include short-term U.S. Treasury bills, government money market funds, overnight repurchase agreements, and bank deposits.

The stablecoin crossed $2 billion in market value in August, less than two years after its December 2024 launch. Around the time of the milestone, approximately $963 million of RLUSD was issued on XRPL, and about $1.05 billion was on Ethereum.

Because RLUSD is designed to stay near $1, growth in its market capitalization mainly tracks new token issuance rather than price gains. Clearpool’s proposal would give the stablecoin another role as a lending and settlement asset if its planned XRPL products reach the main network.

The governance process began with a proposal on Snapshot. Clearpool has provided a 14-day community discussion period before the matter proceeds to a tokenholder vote.