Crypto World
Is Ethereum losing the L1 race to Solana?
Solana now beats Ethereum on trading volume, active users, and fee revenue. Ethereum still holds the money. Halfway through 2026, the question is no longer who is faster. It is whether the two chains are even running the same race.
Summary
- Solana has overtaken Ethereum in Layer 1 activity with higher transaction volume, more active users, stronger DEX trading, and greater fee revenue.
- Ethereum continues to dominate in total value locked, stablecoin liquidity, institutional adoption, and developer activity despite losing ground in onchain usage.
- The rivalry has shifted from a direct competition into two distinct models, with Ethereum focused on settlement and custody while Solana leads in trading and execution.
There was a time when the Ethereum versus Solana debate could be settled with a smirk and an outage screenshot. Solana was the chain that went down. Ethereum was the chain that mattered. Then Solana stopped going down, its trading volume flipped Ethereum’s, its ETF launched to institutional inflows while Ethereum funds bled for seventeen straight days, and the smirk changed sides.
Halfway through 2026, both tokens are deep in a bear market. ETH trades near $1,714 after a brutal second quarter that included a 29.5% thirty-day drawdown at the June lows, its worst quarterly stretch in years. SOL trades near $81, down roughly 78% from its cycle high, hit even harder in raw percentage terms. Price settles nothing here. The interesting story is underneath, in the on-chain data, where the two networks have diverged so completely that comparing them now requires deciding which metrics count.
So: is Ethereum losing the L1 race to Solana? The honest answer is that Solana has already won several of the events, Ethereum still owns the ones with the most prize money, and the race itself has split into two different sports.
How we got here: a short history of a long feud
The rivalry has run through three distinct acts, and the current one makes no sense without the first two.
Act one, 2021 through 2022, was Solana as the venture-backed challenger: a chain built for speed, championed by Sam Bankman-Fried, and dismissed by Ethereum partisans as a centralized science project. The dismissal briefly looked like prophecy. Solana suffered repeated full-network outages, including the infamous February 2024 halt that lasted nearly five hours after a legacy loader bug forced a coordinated validator restart, and when FTX collapsed in November 2022, SOL crashed toward single digits as the market priced in guilt by association. Obituaries were published. Several were smug.
Act two, 2023 through 2024, was the resurrection nobody ordered. Solana’s developer community kept shipping through the winter, the Jupiter and Jito ecosystems matured, memecoin mania found its natural home on the only chain where a thousand trades cost less than a sandwich, and DEX volume began the climb that ended with the flip of Ethereum in late 2024. Ethereum spent the same period executing its own plan flawlessly and discovering the plan had a hole in it: the Dencun upgrade in March 2024 introduced blob space and cut L2 costs by an order of magnitude, which supercharged rollup adoption while gutting the fee burn that had underwritten the ultrasound money narrative. Activity exploded across the Ethereum stack, and ETH the asset captured almost none of it.
Act three is now: both chains institutionally legitimate, both tokens deep underwater, and the argument relocated from architecture threads to fund flow tables. Uniswap founder Hayden Adams warned back in 2025 that Ethereum’s confused scaling identity could hand DeFi leadership to Solana; in 2026 that warning reads less like a hot take and more like a memo the market already acted on.
The scoreboard, metric by metric
Start with what Solana has flatly won: activity.
On a representative day in late June, Solana processed 127 million transactions from more than 2 million active addresses. Ethereum mainnet processed 2.8 million transactions from roughly 512,000 active addresses. That is not a gap. That is a different order of magnitude. Solana sustains 600 to 700 real transactions per second on average against Ethereum L1’s 15 to 20, at a cost of roughly $0.00025 per transaction against Ethereum’s dollars-per-swap mainnet pricing.
Trading volume tells the same story. Solana’s weekly DEX volume hit $11.49 billion in April against Ethereum’s $7.62 billion, a 51% lead. In February the monthly gap was wider still: $117 billion on Solana against $52 billion on Ethereum, more than double. Jupiter, the aggregator that routes the overwhelming majority of Solana order flow across Raydium, Orca, Phoenix, and Meteora, alone processes $2 billion to $4 billion in daily volume. Solana flipped Ethereum on DEX volume in late 2024 and has held the lead through every market condition since.
Then comes the metric that should worry Ethereum researchers most: revenue.
Solana generates over $1 million in chain fees per day. The major Ethereum L2s, where most Ethereum user activity now lives, generate under $200,000 combined, because blob-based data posting after the Dencun upgrade pushed L2 costs, and therefore L2 fee revenue, toward zero. Ethereum deliberately commoditized its own execution layer to win the rollup war. The result is a settlement layer with shrinking direct income and a rival that monetizes every swap on a single unified ledger.
Now flip the card, because Ethereum’s wins are just as lopsided.
Total value locked
Ethereum L1 holds roughly $55.6 billion in DeFi deposits, around 68% of the entire global DeFi market, and the combined L1 plus L2 figure exceeds $80 billion. Solana holds between $8 billion and $12 billion depending on the week and the methodology, a figure that took a $270 million hit in April when the Drift Protocol exploit tore through its perps ecosystem. The deepest protocols in the industry, Lido at $27.5 billion, Aave at $27 billion, EigenLayer at $13 billion, all live on Ethereum, and Aave V4 launched on Ethereum mainnet in April to reinforce the point.
Stablecoins
Ethereum hosts roughly 70% of all on-chain stablecoin supply, around $32 billion in USDC and $60 billion in USDT, and remains the venue where BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, and JPMorgan build tokenized products first. Solana carries about $14 billion in stablecoins, though each of those dollars turns over roughly six times faster than its Ethereum counterpart.
Developers
Ethereum counted 31,869 active developers against Solana’s 17,708 at the latest Electric Capital reading, and added more new developers over the trailing year than any other ecosystem. Solana ranked second.
One chain has the users, the volume, and the revenue. The other has the money, the institutions, and the builders. Losing, it turns out, depends entirely on where you point the camera.
How the race split in two
The reason the comparison keeps producing contradictory answers is that the two chains stopped competing on the same terms years ago, a divergence we chronicled when the ecosystems first collided in early 2025.
Ethereum abandoned the monolithic race on purpose. Its roadmap treats the base layer as settlement infrastructure while execution migrates to rollups: Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, and a long tail of zk systems that post proofs and data back to mainnet. Base alone captures nearly half of all L2 DeFi value, Arbitrum another 31%, and the top three rollups process close to 90% of all L2 transactions. Measured as a stack, the Ethereum ecosystem still dwarfs Solana on almost every capital metric. Measured as an L1, Ethereum mainnet is a slow, expensive chain that its own designers no longer intend retail users to touch.
Solana made the opposite bet: one ledger, one global state, sub-second finality at 400 milliseconds, and a relentless engineering campaign to make the single chain fast enough that nothing else is needed. The Firedancer validator client built by Jump Crypto, rolling toward full deployment late this year, is the endgame of that bet, with a theoretical ceiling measured in the hundreds of thousands of transactions per second. The network reliability problem that defined Solana’s reputation in 2022 and 2023 has largely disappeared; outages went from routine to rare, and the chain has traded its crash-prone image for something closer to an execution monopoly on retail flow.
The philosophical split produces the statistical one. Capital sits and compounds on Ethereum because that is what the architecture rewards: deep pools, long-duration lending, staking layered on restaking. Capital churns on Solana because sub-cent fees make churning free: high-frequency trading, memecoin rotation, dollar-cost-average bots, payments. Ethereum became the deposit ledger. Solana became the trading floor.
Follow the fees: two broken business models, one working one
The revenue gap deserves its own examination, because it is the metric where architecture decisions turn into economics, and where both chains have problems they rarely advertise.
Ethereum’s fee engine used to be the envy of the industry. EIP-1559 burned base fees, high demand made ETH deflationary, and the ultrasound money framing wrote itself. The rollup migration dismantled the machine step by step. Execution moved to L2s, whose sequencers keep the margin between what users pay and what blob posting costs, and Dencun made blob posting cost next to nothing. The result in 2026: mainnet burns a fraction of its former fee load, L2s pay Ethereum pennies for security worth billions, and the value accrual question, what does ETH earn when Base wins, has replaced scaling as the ecosystem’s defining unsolved problem. Ethereum built a settlement business and priced its product like a public good.
Solana’s engine is simpler and currently stronger: one chain captures every fee at every layer. The base fee is fixed at 5,000 lamports per signature, roughly a hundredth of a cent, while priority fees let users bid during congestion, and stake-weighted quality of service plus local fee markets keep hot accounts from clogging the scheduler. On top of the protocol fees sits the Jito MEV economy, where searcher tips flow to validators and stakers, turning order-flow chaos into staking yield. Over $1 million in daily chain revenue against sub-$200,000 for the entire major L2 basket is the visible output.
The caveat is concentration of source. A large share of Solana’s fee revenue traces to speculative trading, memecoins above all, which makes the revenue line high-beta to the exact market segment least likely to survive a deep winter. Ethereum’s fee problem is structural but its demand is diversified; Solana’s fee machine works beautifully and runs on the most flammable fuel in crypto. Neither model is finished.
Fusaka and the second-half Ethereum upgrade path aim at scaling data further without answering value capture, while Solana’s validator economics, where thin margins already pushed the validator count down 68% from its 2023 peak, depend on fee and MEV income holding up.
The other front: stablecoins, payments, and tokenized everything
DEX volume gets the headlines, but the war’s second front may matter more by 2027, because it is the one institutions actually fund: who carries the tokenized economy.
Ethereum’s position is incumbency at scale. Roughly 70% of stablecoin supply, the deep USDC and USDT float that institutional desks require, and essentially the entire first generation of tokenized funds. When Ondo debuted its SEC-aligned tokenized stock model with BlackRock ETF shares this week, the underlying rails were Ethereum-ecosystem by default. Stablecoin legislation cleared the path for bank issuance and for the consortium models now emerging among major institutions, and banks build where the auditors already have coverage, which is one more network effect compounding for the incumbent.
Solana’s position is velocity and consumer reach. Its $14 billion stablecoin float turns over roughly six times faster than Ethereum’s, because sub-cent fees make stablecoins usable as money instead of just collateral. USDC settles on Solana in under a second for a fraction of a cent, which is why Visa chose it for settlement pilots, why payment processors keep adding it, and why the Solana Developer Platform launched with Mastercard, Worldpay, and Western Union rather than with hedge funds. Solana is also mounting a genuine RWA challenge through Token-2022, whose compliance extensions target exactly the issuer requirements Ethereum handles with bespoke contracts, and both chains now face a third competitor for the same institutional flow in the compliance-native stack being assembled on the XRP Ledger.
The stakes here dwarf the DEX war. Stablecoins are a $320 billion asset class growing through legislation, and tokenized funds are the institutional product with the steepest adoption curve. If Ethereum keeps the float while Solana takes the flow, the split-decision structure of this whole rivalry repeats at a much larger scale, with Ethereum as the vault and Solana as the checkout lane of tokenized finance.
The institutional tiebreaker
For most of crypto history, the institutional column belonged to Ethereum without argument. That is the column where 2026 has produced genuine movement.
The regulatory sequence mattered first. The SEC’s March 2025 classification of sixteen digital assets including SOL as commodities dissolved the securities overhang that had kept allocators away, and spot Solana ETFs began trading on October 28, 2025, making SOL the third asset after BTC and ETH with U.S. spot fund access. The flows since then have been small next to Bitcoin’s but directionally embarrassing for Ethereum: through the spring drawdown, Solana ETFs crossed $1 billion in cumulative inflows while Ethereum funds posted a seventeen-day outflow streak that stripped hundreds of millions, and July has opened with ETF flow reports showing ETH and SOL products gaining together while Bitcoin funds bleed. Goldman Sachs disclosures showed over $100 million in SOL exposure, and CalPERS entered the asset class the same quarter.
Solana’s institutional push went beyond funds. The Solana Foundation launched its Developer Platform in March with Mastercard, Worldpay, and Western Union among early adopters, shipped a quantum-readiness plan built on the NIST-standardized Falcon signature scheme in April, and rolled out on-chain, stake-weighted validator governance this week. Token-2022 extensions gave the chain the compliance hooks, confidential transfers, transfer restrictions, interest-bearing instruments, that enterprise issuers require. The pitch that Solana is a casino chain unsuitable for serious money has aged badly.
Ethereum’s institutional position remains the stronger one on stock rather than flow. It custodies the tokenized funds, hosts the deep stablecoin float, and runs the staking infrastructure through which more than 35 million ETH, nearly 29% of supply, secures the network across a million-plus validators. When a treasury desk needs to move nine figures with minimal slippage, Ethereum’s depth is still the only game available. BitMine Immersion bought its way past 5 million ETH this spring precisely on that thesis. But stock is what you accumulated yesterday. Flow is what you are winning today, and the flow has been tilting one direction for over a year.
The uncomfortable items on both ledgers
Neither chain gets to run its highlight reel without the blooper file.
Solana’s validator count has collapsed to roughly 795 active validators from more than 2,500 in 2023, a 68% decline that concentrates block production and hands critics a decentralization argument with real teeth. Its DeFi remains thin and concentrated: one aggregator with 95% market share is a single point of failure wearing a market structure costume, and the $270 million Drift exploit showed what happens when a load-bearing protocol breaks. Its volume mix still leans on memecoin speculation, the most cyclical demand source in the industry, and February’s $117 billion month can become a $40 billion month without a single thing going wrong technically.
Ethereum’s problems are quieter and arguably deeper. Lido alone controls roughly 24% of staked ETH, a concentration risk of its own. The rollup roadmap solved scaling and created a value-capture puzzle nobody has answered: if execution fees accrue to Base and Arbitrum while blobs cost pennies, what exactly does ETH the asset earn from Ethereum the ecosystem’s growth? Retail has already voted, migrating to L2s so completely that mainnet active addresses look like a ghost town next to Solana’s. And the fragmentation tax is real: liquidity split across a dozen rollups with seven-day optimistic exits is a worse user experience than one chain with 400-millisecond finality, no matter how elegant the settlement theory. The KelpDAO exploit this spring, which erased $13 billion of TVL in 48 hours of contagion, showed that composability depth cuts in both directions.
Both assets, meanwhile, have been terrible investments this year, a market-wide condition tied to the macro regime we examined in the context of Bitcoin’s liquidity dependence. Fee revenue and active addresses have not protected SOL holders from a 78% peak drawdown, and settlement supremacy has not protected ETH holders from underperforming Bitcoin for most of the cycle. Whatever race is being run, neither token’s chart looks like a victory lap, and on-chain fundamentals have been decoupled from price across the majors for much of 2026.
So who is actually winning?
Frame the question three ways and you get three defensible answers.
If the L1 race means base-layer usage, Solana won it, and the margin is no longer close. Two hundred times Ethereum’s L1 throughput, forty times its transaction count, five times its daily fee revenue, and a lead in DEX volume that has survived every market regime since late 2024. By the definition of Layer 1 that existed when the rivalry started, the contest is over.
If the race means where value lives, Ethereum is not losing and may never lose within this cycle. A 68% share of global DeFi TVL, 70% of stablecoin supply, the institutional tokenization pipeline, and the largest developer base in the industry constitute a network-effect fortress that Solana’s growth has dented but nowhere near breached. Capital has inertia, and inertia compounds.
If the race means trajectory, the tape favors Solana with an asterisk. It is winning new users, new listed products, new enterprise integrations, and the ETF flow battle. The asterisk is that trajectory arguments assume the current regime persists, and Solana’s flow-heavy economy is more exposed than Ethereum’s stock-heavy one to the next collapse in speculative appetite. Ethereum’s Fusaka upgrade cycle and the second-half protocol roadmap that all major chains have queued for late 2026 could reshuffle the technical comparison again.
The most likely outcome is also the least satisfying for partisans: permanent coexistence with divided territory. Ethereum settles and custodies. Solana executes and trades. Builders already behave as if this is settled, deploying on both by default. The 2025 framing of an L1 war with a single survivor has quietly died, not with a bang but with two chains discovering they are optimized for markets the other cannot serve.
What could flip the board before December
Split decisions invite the obvious follow-up: what would actually change the standings? Four live catalysts carry enough weight to move the argument rather than the noise.
Ethereum’s upgrade cycle is the first. The Fusaka window and the broader second-half protocol roadmap target another step-change in data capacity, and the ecosystem’s real prize sits next to it: any credible mechanism that routes L2 economic success back into ETH, whether through based sequencing, native rollup designs, or fee-market reform, would repair the value-capture hole that has haunted the asset since Dencun. Markets have front-run Ethereum upgrades before; a roadmap that finally answers the accrual question would be the first fundamental ETH catalyst in two years.
Firedancer completion is the second. Solana’s independent validator client moving to full deployment removes the single-client risk that institutions cite most, and its throughput headroom opens application categories, full order-book markets, high-frequency payment networks, that no chain currently serves. If even one breakout consumer or enterprise application lands on that capacity, Solana’s volume base diversifies away from memecoins, which neutralizes the strongest bear argument against its fee economy.
ETF mechanics are the third. Staking-enabled fund structures, under active regulatory discussion for both assets, would transform the flow picture: a spot product yielding 3% to 7% natively changes the allocator pitch entirely, and the asset that gets staking approval first inherits a durable flow advantage. Watch the filings, not the influencers.
Treasury companies are the fourth and strangest. BitMine’s multimillion-ETH accumulation and the emerging class of SOL treasury vehicles mean corporate balance sheets now sit inside both ecosystems as permanent, price-insensitive holders. The Strategy playbook applied to ETH and SOL is small today; its growth rate through a recovering market could make treasuries the marginal buyer that decides which token outperforms, independent of every on-chain metric in this article.
The verdict for the second half
Ethereum is losing the L1 race as originally defined, and it forfeited that race by choice when it went all-in on rollups. Solana is winning everything measurable at the base layer while still trailing badly where the institutional money actually sits. Watch three numbers through December: whether Ethereum ETF flows recover once its next upgrade lands, whether Firedancer’s full rollout converts Solana’s throughput ceiling into new categories of application, and whether Solana DeFi TVL can hold above $12 billion without memecoin volume subsidizing it. The chain that answers its own weakness first will own the 2027 narrative. Until then, the war everyone expected has settled into something stranger: two winners, two different games, and one increasingly obsolete question.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Digital asset markets are volatile, and you can lose your entire investment. Always do your own research. Information current as of July 3, 2026.
Crypto World
BIP-110 Activation Frozen After Coldcard Exploit: Is the Soft Fork Dead?
The developers pushing Bitcoin’s BIP-110 rule change have called off its launch. They blamed the industry response to a Coldcard wallet flaw that left user funds easier to steal.
Udi Wertheimer announced the delay, urging anyone running BIP-110 software to switch back to a normal Bitcoin (BTC) node. He gave no new date.
Why BIP-110 Activation Was Paused
BIP-110 is a temporary rule change, known as a soft fork. It would limit how much data people can pack into Bitcoin transactions.
Supporters say that data crowds out ordinary payments. Critics say Bitcoin should not police what users store.
The limits would last one year. Developer Dathon Ohm wrote the rules, and Bitcoin Knots software ships them.
Miners started voting on December 1, 2025. The Bitcoin blockspace spam debate had already split the community.
Then a separate problem landed.
Coinkite disclosed the bug on July 30. Its COLDCARD wallets built seed phrases, the master key behind a wallet, using far less randomness than promised. Roughly 72 bits instead of 128.
That gap makes a seed vastly easier to guess. Wallets running firmware released since March 2021 were hit hardest.
Updating the device does not fix a seed it already made. Coinkite is telling owners to move their money.
Thieves had already drained wallets tied to the flaw. The company has not said how much was lost.
Wertheimer called the delay a matter of timing, not doubt.
“…due to the coldcard incident, BIP-110 community leaders have decided to DELAY ACTIVATION. a new activation date will be announced at a later time,” he wrote.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
The Math Was Already Settled
Miners back a rule change by flagging their blocks. BIP-110 needed 55% of blocks in a two-week stretch. That means 1,109 blocks. The live monitor counted 30.
That is 2.63% of 1,068 blocks mined this period. It is the best BIP-110 has ever managed. It is still more than 20 times short.
Every earlier two-week stretch since December finished below 1.3%. Only 948 blocks are left. Even if every one voted yes, the total would reach about 48%. It could not pass this round.
That was already true days before anyone announced a delay.
Michael Saylor has warned about Bitcoin neutrality for weeks. He says almost every yes vote comes from one mining pool. Blockstream chief executive Adam Back has flagged chain split risk, calling the 55% bar too low to be safe.
A second phase was due at block 961,632, about six days away. It would reject any block that did not vote yes.
Nodes still running BIP-110 would enforce that on their own. That is why the warning to switch back matters.
No one owns Bitcoin’s rules. Nobody can flip a switch to start or stop a soft fork. This was a request, not a command.
Whether operators listen will say more about BIP-110’s support than any vote counter has.
The post BIP-110 Activation Frozen After Coldcard Exploit: Is the Soft Fork Dead? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Crypto World
Counting down the days: State of Crypto
Senators Ruben Gallego and Thom Tillis sent a proposed revised ethics provision to the White House on Thursday, after drafting the compromise the day before, an industry source familiar with the talks told CoinDesk. As of midafternoon on Friday, the White House had not officially responded to the proposal.
Ethics remains the biggest outstanding issue to be resolved before the Clarity Act can advance. There are ongoing negotiations around other issues, including stablecoin reserves and yield, law enforcement authorities and some of the Agriculture Committee provisions addressing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s total remit, but these are relatively uncomplicated compared to ethics, two industry sources said. One added that they expected those other issues to be resolved relatively quickly should negotiators come to a deal on ethics.
If the White House signs off on the counter-proposal from Tillis and Gallego, that could speed the way to at least the first part of the cloture process, the other source told CoinDesk. The Senate would still need to follow the cloture process laid out in last week’s edition of this newsletter, but the timelines involved mean that it would be difficult to get the bill all the way through by the end of the week. Still, getting through that first procedural vote would be a visible win for the crypto industry, should it happen.
Crypto World
Strategy keeps STRC dividend at 12% below $90
Strategy Inc. kept the annual dividend rate on its STRC preferred stock at 12% for August 2026, even though the Nasdaq-listed security ended July more than 10% below its $100 stated amount.
Summary
- 12% annualized dividend remains unchanged for August despite STRC closing July at $89.46 per share.
- $3.75 billion reserve covers roughly 2.1 years of preferred dividends and debt interest payments currently.
- Strategy repurchased 288,930 STRC shares below par while retaining $975 million in remaining authorization capacity.
The company’s official STRC information page confirms that the variable annualized rate for record dates beginning in August remains 12%. Executive Chairman Michael Saylor promoted the product on Aug. 1 as a way to “stretch your income,” emphasizing its twice-monthly payment schedule.
STRC closed at $89.46 on July 31, down $0.25 during the session. At that price, the $12 annualized payout based on the security’s $100 stated amount produces an effective yield of about 13.41%. Because Saylor announced the unchanged rate during the weekend, no post-announcement market reaction will be available until Nasdaq trading resumes.
Strategy’s STRC dividend no longer rises automatically
Strategy raised STRC’s annual dividend from 11.5% to 12% for record dates beginning in July. The increase followed a sharp June decline that took the shares as low as $71.25 and moved them far below the $100 level the company wants to maintain.
However, the company changed its rate-setting policy on June 29. Under the revised framework, management considers STRC’s market price, credit spreads, competing yields, Bitcoin volatility, cash-reserve coverage and the wider capital structure. The filing specifically states that Strategy will not necessarily raise the dividend solely because STRC trades below its stated amount.
That policy explains why July’s discount did not produce another 50-basis-point increase. Strategy instead said during its second-quarter results that it would maintain the 12% rate until STRC shows “sustained, healthy trading” near $100. The language describes management’s objective and does not guarantee that the shares will return to par.
The decision also prevents Strategy’s cash obligations from rising further while the company attempts to repair demand through other measures. Every additional 50 basis points would increase the annual cash cost across more than $10.46 billion in outstanding STRC stated value.
Buybacks now carry more of the price-support burden
Strategy has shifted part of its response from dividend increases to preferred-share repurchases. Between July 20 and July 26, the company bought back 288,930 STRC shares for approximately $25 million, paying an average of $86.53 per share. The purchase represented a 13.47% discount to the shares’ stated amount.
About $975 million remains under Strategy’s $1 billion preferred-securities repurchase authorization. Management said it intends to purchase more STRC at deeper discounts and reduce its activity as the security approaches $100. The authorization does not require Strategy to spend the remaining amount and has no fixed expiry date.
Repurchasing shares below par reduces the number of preferred shares requiring future cash distributions. It also lets Strategy retire $100 of stated value for less than $100. However, buybacks use capital that could otherwise remain available for dividends, debt interest or Bitcoin purchases.
As previously reported, Strategy funded its first $25 million STRC repurchase while increasing its U.S. dollar reserve and keeping Bitcoin purchases paused. The company raised much of that liquidity through sales of MSTR common stock rather than new STRC issuance.
The $3.75 billion reserve supports the 12% payout
Strategy reported a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve as of July 26. The company said that amount covers approximately 2.1 years of expected preferred-stock dividends and interest on outstanding debt. The reserve can only be used for those obligations unless the board approves another purpose.
The cash cushion has become more important because Strategy’s preferred-stock commitments have expanded. The company recorded $400.7 million in preferred dividends during the second quarter, compared with $49.1 million one year earlier. It has paid or declared more than $1 billion in cumulative preferred distributions.
Strategy also reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, driven mainly by an $8.32 billion unrealized loss on its Bitcoin holdings. The accounting loss did not represent an equivalent cash outflow, but the preferred dividends must be paid in U.S. dollars.
The company has therefore authorized Bitcoin sales to refill the reserve, cover dividends and interest, or finance approved security repurchases. Strategy had sold approximately $218.4 million of Bitcoin during 2026 through July 26 to fund part of its preferred obligations.
As crypto.news reported, Strategy held 843,775 BTC at an average acquisition cost of about $75,476 as of July 26. The company valued that position at $54.77 billion using Bitcoin’s July 27 market price, compared with its $63.69 billion original cost.
STRC holders receive two payments each month
STRC moved from monthly to semi-monthly distributions after shareholders approved the change in June. Record dates now fall on the 15th and final day of each month, with payments generally following around 15 days later.
Strategy has already declared a payment of $0.50 per share for Aug. 15 to investors recorded as shareholders on July 31. The company’s website lists the 12% rate for August record dates, but future cash distributions still require board or committee approval and are not guaranteed.
For U.S. federal tax purposes, Strategy expects the current payments to be treated as returns of capital to the extent of an investor’s tax basis. That is the company’s expectation rather than a guarantee of each shareholder’s treatment, and Strategy advises investors to seek tax guidance based on their own circumstances.
STRC is also unsecured. Strategy states that its preferred securities are not collateralized by its Bitcoin holdings and only hold a preferred claim on the company’s residual assets. The company further warns that STRC is not a bank deposit, is not FDIC-insured and does not carry the same protections as Treasury securities or money-market funds.
What happens next for STRC and Strategy
Chief Executive Phong Le said management’s objective is for STRC to trade between $99 and $100 “over time.” Strategy has not provided a deadline for reaching that range, and the shares’ $89.46 closing price shows that the market continues to demand a yield above the stated 12% rate.
The next confirmed event is the Aug. 15 distribution. Investors will then watch Strategy’s next monthly rate decision, further STRC repurchases and weekly SEC disclosures covering common-stock sales, Bitcoin transactions and changes to the dollar reserve.
Saylor separately posted “Bitcoin Drive engaged” on Aug. 2 alongside the company’s treasury chart. The message may fuel expectations of a new purchase disclosure, but the post does not confirm that Strategy bought Bitcoin or reversed its recent pause. An SEC filing or company announcement would be needed to verify any transaction.
As of then, Strategy is relying on its existing 12% rate, twice-monthly payments, cash reserves and discounted repurchases rather than offering STRC investors another dividend increase.
Crypto World
Ripple (XRP) ETF Monthly Recap: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
The spot exchange-traded funds tracking Ripple’s cross-border token continue with their impressive performance in times of market uncertainty, and saw only one day of no reportable action in the past week, unlike the previous ones.
July also ended in the green for the funds, meaning that only one out of the nine months they have been active was in the red.
The Good Weekly and Monthly
Data from SoSoValue shows that Monday and Wednesday were quite modest in terms of net inflows. On both days, the ETFs attracted just under $600,000. However, the green streak continued and accelerated at the end of the business week, with $6 million in net inflows on Thursday and another $7.7 million on Friday.
Thus, the week ended with $14.86 million in the green, making it the best since the one that ended on July 2, when the funds attracted $17.19 million. On a monthly scale, investors poured in $27.29 million into the spot XRP ETFs.
What’s even better is that the funds have reached another all-time high in terms of cumulative total net inflows, at over $1.5 billion as of Friday’s close. Bitwise’s XRP has extended its lead over Canary Capital’s XRPC, with $511 million in net inflows compared to $467 million for the latter.
The Bad
Although July indeed ended in the green, the actual net inflows were not all that impressive. The $27.29 million places July as just the second-worst month, beating only January when investors inserted $15.59 million into the funds.
In contrast, June was a lot more positive, with the net inflows standing close to $60 million. May was even better, with almost $132 million. The all-time high from November at $666.61 million remains untouchable.
The Ugly
Although this improved at the end of the month, July saw the most days with no reportable action in terms of net flows. Precisely half of the trading days (11 out of the 22) saw no flows, according to SoSoValue, which, aligned with the more modest $27.29 million in net inflows, suggests dwindling interest in the funds.
Separately, the underlying asset’s price performance continues to disappoint despite the numerous positive developments in the broader Ripple ecosystem. Although it managed to defend the $1.05 support during the weekend, XRP is still below $1.10, and it’s down by more than 3% on a monthly scale. What’s even more worrisome is the fact that August has been a particularly painful month for the asset historically.
The post Ripple (XRP) ETF Monthly Recap: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Crypto World
Strategy Maintains 12% STRC Preferred Dividend Despite Below-Par Price
Strategy’s preferred stock tracker, STRC, ended July trading well below its $100 par value, but management signaled that the company’s next preferred dividend rate will not rise. Executive chairman Michael Saylor said the August dividend will remain at 12%, continuing a payout level that was set after a June performance dip.
In a Saturday post on X, Saylor confirmed the dividend will hold at 12% for August. He also noted the company will keep its semi-monthly payment cadence for the second straight month after shareholders approved that change in June, following the earlier decision to increase the dividend by 50 basis points to 12%.
Key takeaways
- Strategy’s executive chairman said the August STRC dividend will remain at a 12% rate, not increase.
- STRC has continued to trade below its $100 par value throughout July, despite a monthly price rebound that began after the June dividend hike.
- Management reiterated a longer-term objective for STRC to trade near $99–$100, without specifying a timeline.
- Strategy reported building a large cash reserve—cited as $3.75 billion—to support preferred stock payouts and related obligations.
Dividend holds at 12% as preferred shares stay below par
Although STRC shares did not reach par in July, the stock did gain momentum over the month. The shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, up 5.42% for the month that started with the dividend adjustment.
Earlier, management had lifted the dividend rate in response to weak performance in June—raising it by 50 basis points to 12%. After that change, Strategy’s preferred payout strategy moved toward semi-monthly distributions, a structure that takes effect for the second month in August after the June shareholder vote.
Trading activity on Friday was also notably lighter than typical: volume was about two-thirds of the Nasdaq-listed shares’ daily average, according to the figures referenced in the report. That detail matters because it suggests the month’s rebound did not coincide with a surge in participation, even as investors processed the dividend update.
Management’s $99–$100 target meets a lower-than-par reality
Even as the next dividend stays flat, Strategy’s leadership continues to frame STRC around a valuation target. On Friday, CEO Phong Le reiterated that management’s “corporate objective” is for STRC to trade at $99–$100 over time, without adding specifics on when that goal might be reached.
That position is important to read in context: shareholders were told the dividend rate would not increase in August, even after the company adjusted payouts earlier in the quarter. Investors looking for signals that STRC might close the gap toward par have therefore had to balance two competing inputs—management’s longer-term pricing objective and the near-term decision to keep the dividend at the same level.
Cash reserve and buybacks aimed at supporting payouts
While the dividend rate message was unchanged, Saylor’s social-media activity pointed to continued capital management efforts tied to Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury strategy. On Sunday, he posted “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” accompanied by a familiar chart of Strategy’s BTC buying activity as tracked by Saylortracker.com.
The emphasis on liquidity and coverage aligns with what Strategy disclosed in its latest reporting. The company recently reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, driven primarily by an $8.32 billion unrealized loss on its Bitcoin holdings as the cryptocurrency’s price declined during the quarter.
Against that backdrop, Strategy said it has built a $3.75 billion cash reserve intended to support preferred stock payouts following the launch of its BTC monetization program. In the same vein, the company described a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve sufficient to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and related interest obligations.
Strategy also disclosed that it repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and said it intends to keep buying the securities while they trade below $100. For investors, the practical takeaway is straightforward: management is pairing a coverage plan with an active buyback strategy, presumably to reduce pressure on valuation while the preferred shares trade under par.
However, the gap between par value and the prevailing market price remains the key issue. Management’s stated intent to buy more when the shares trade below $100 suggests the company believes the market offers an entry point—but without a near-term dividend increase, investors will likely focus on whether buybacks and reserve policy can translate into sustained movement toward the $99–$100 trading range.
What to watch next for STRC holders
With the August dividend rate confirmed at 12% and STRC still trading below $100 par, the next signal for holders will likely come from any further updates on Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury actions and whether cash-reserve coverage and buybacks continue at a pace that supports improving market pricing. Investors should also watch whether management provides clearer timing around its $99–$100 objective, since it currently remains framed as a long-term goal rather than a defined schedule.
Crypto World
Trump Media launches Truth API amid SEC scrutiny
Trump Media & Technology Group’s Truth API became available to institutional customers on Aug. 1, giving trading firms rapid, machine-readable access to posts from influential Truth Social accounts, including U.S. President Donald Trump’s account.
Summary
- August 1 launch gives institutions millisecond access to influential Truth Social posts with continuous coverage.
- Schiff and Warren asked the SEC to investigate whether the paid feed violates securities laws.
- Trump’s trust holds 41% of Trump Media, linking the product’s revenue directly to his wealth.
The launch followed a July 16 Form 8-K in which Trump Media said it had already signed customers and was onboarding additional partners. The company has not publicly identified those customers or disclosed how many subscriptions it has sold.
Truth API sells faster delivery of public posts
Trump Media describes Truth API as its first data-licensing product. The feed provides posts through a low-latency connection designed for high-frequency and algorithmic trading firms. It offers continuous coverage, delivery within milliseconds and a searchable archive dating to 2022.
Interim CEO Kevin McGurn said the service provides direct access to the platform’s “most market-moving Truths.” He also said Trump Media expects the product to become an ongoing, high-margin revenue source. Those revenue expectations remain forward-looking company claims rather than reported financial results.
The company has not published an official price list. Senators Adam Schiff and Elizabeth Warren cited reports placing subscriptions between $60,000 and $100,000 per month. Therefore, the widely repeated $100,000 price should be treated as a reported upper estimate, not a company-confirmed standard fee.
Trump Media says the underlying posts remain publicly available. However, automated customers can receive and process them faster than users who refresh the platform, rely on notifications or manually monitor accounts. That speed difference matters when algorithms can react to policy announcements within milliseconds.
Insider trading claims face an uncertain legal test
Writer James Surowiecki argued that the arrangement may involve government information being monetized for private benefit. Former SEC regional director Marc Fagel offered a more cautious assessment, calling insider-trading liability a “defensible argument” but “not slam-dunk.” Both comments are legal opinions, not findings by a regulator or court.
Federal insider-trading cases generally require more than an information advantage. Under the misappropriation theory recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, prosecutors ordinarily must show that confidential information was taken for securities trading in breach of a duty owed to its source. SEC rules also focus on trading while aware of material nonpublic information.
That creates a key unresolved question. If a presidential post becomes publicly visible at the same time the API distributes it, Trump Media may argue that subscribers are paying for speed and formatting rather than nonpublic information. Many financial-data companies sell faster access to information that is technically public.
However, critics could examine whether paying customers ever receive a post before ordinary users can access it, whether unpublished policy information enters the feed or whether any subscriber knows information was obtained through a breach of duty. Purchasing a data subscription alone would not automatically establish insider trading.
Trump Media rejected the senators’ argument, saying they had created a new insider-trading theory based on publicly available information. That response states the company’s legal position. It does not prevent the SEC from reviewing the product’s design, timing records or customer communications.
Trump’s 41% stake sharpens the U.S. ethics dispute
Trump Media’s latest ownership disclosure says the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust holds 114.75 million shares, equal to about 41% of the company. Donald Trump Jr. serves as sole trustee, while President Trump is the trust’s settlor and sole beneficiary.
The ownership structure means successful Truth API revenue could benefit the company and, indirectly, the value of the trust’s stake. It does not mean subscription payments go directly to the president. Share prices, operating costs, corporate decisions and other business results determine how product revenue affects shareholder wealth.
Schiff and Warren asked SEC Chair Paul Atkins to investigate whether the feed violates federal securities law or weakens market fairness. They argued that presidential posts may contain policy information capable of moving stocks, currencies and commodities while Trump retains a large financial interest in the platform distributing them.
The senators’ request also adds another political dispute to Trump Media’s expansion into financial and crypto-related services. As previously reported, the company posted a $405.9 million first-quarter loss after large unrealized markdowns on Bitcoin, Cronos and securities. Revenue for the quarter reached $871,200.
Meanwhile, Trump Media-linked wallets moved 2,650 BTC to Crypto.com in May. The company is also exploring wider financial products and a possible Truth Social corporate separation connected to its planned TAE Technologies transaction.
The SEC has not announced an investigation
The SEC acknowledged receiving the senators’ letter but had not publicly announced an investigation, subpoena, enforcement case or formal conclusion as of Aug. 2. SEC investigations are often confidential, meaning the absence of a public notice does not establish whether staff members are privately reviewing the matter.
The next verifiable developments could include an SEC response to Congress, a Trump Media filing describing customer numbers or revenue, or disclosures explaining whether API recipients receive posts simultaneously with ordinary Truth Social users.
Trump Media shares closed at $9.86 on July 31, down $0.52 from the previous close. That session occurred before the Saturday launch, so the move cannot be attributed to Truth API becoming available. U.S. markets were closed during the weekend criticism, leaving no verified post-launch stock reaction.
For now, the central dispute remains unresolved. Trump Media presents Truth API as a conventional paid data service that distributes public information more efficiently. Critics argue that the president’s ownership, government role and ability to move markets make the arrangement unlike an ordinary social-media feed.
Crypto World
Coldcard users face urgent seed migration warning
Dogecoin community contributor Mishaboar urged Coldcard users on Aug. 1 to move their Bitcoin to wallets controlled by newly generated seed phrases.
Summary
- 1,367.05 BTC worth $88.6 million was drained from 4,585 addresses across three suspected attack waves.
- Coinkite says firmware updates protect new seeds but cannot repair seed phrases from vulnerable versions.
- Mishaboar advised users never to reuse affected seeds or enter recovery phrases into computers online.
The warning followed Galaxy Research’s estimate that three suspected attack waves drained 1,367.05 BTC, worth about $88.6 million, from 4,585 addresses.
Mishaboar wrote, “If you have ever used a COLDCARD device of any kind, migrate your funds to a new wallet immediately.” He also warned users not to reuse their existing Coldcard seed phrase or enter recovery words into an internet-connected computer. However, his reference to every Coldcard device is broader than Coinkite’s official security advisory, which identifies specific firmware versions and several exceptions.
Coldcard losses rise as attackers target smaller wallets
Galaxy Research’s latest on-chain estimate identified 1,367.05 BTC across three suspected attack waves. The research firm described $88.6 million as its “estimated observed size,” meaning the total has not been confirmed by Coinkite, law enforcement or every affected user.
The first wave removed 1,082.65 BTC from 1,196 addresses in about 41 minutes on July 30. A later third wave drained roughly 208 BTC from 1,912 addresses, with the average balance falling to slightly more than 0.1 BTC per address. The changing pattern suggests attackers moved from larger holdings toward smaller wallets.
Galaxy said each wave appeared internally consistent with one operator. However, it could not determine whether one attacker controlled all three waves. The third group used separate destination addresses, batched several victims into individual transactions and checked only the default derivation path, making it different from the earlier sweeps.
The research firm also warned that its known transaction patterns cannot identify every theft. A different attacker could generate valid transactions without repeating the fees, destination formats or collection methods seen in the first three waves.
Official Coldcard warning covers specific firmware
Coinkite said the problem affects seeds generated on Mk2 and Mk3 devices running firmware versions 4.0.1 through 4.1.9. Seeds created on Mk4 and Mk5 devices before standard version 5.6.0 or Edge version 6.6.0X are also covered. For Coldcard Q, the fixed releases are standard version 1.5.0Q and Edge version 6.6.0QX.
Coldcard Mk1 devices are outside the firmware regression identified by Block’s researchers. Coinkite also said TAPSIGNER, OPENDIME and SATSCARD are unaffected because they use different codebases. Therefore, the available technical evidence does not establish that every product ever made by Coinkite is vulnerable.
Block’s Bitcoin engineering and security team traced the flaw to a firmware integration error. The affected software used a deterministic MicroPython fallback instead of the intended STM32 hardware random-number generator when creating wallet secrets. On Mk2 and Mk3 v4 firmware, the affected path added no cryptographic entropy. Later models received a limited secure-element reseed.
Block cautioned that its analysis represented its current technical view and did not include complete empirical testing of every device. Coinkite has also said its investigation remains open and promised a formal technical report.
Firmware updates cannot repair existing seeds
Coinkite has released fixed firmware for every affected model and release track. The patches correct the seed-generation process for new wallets, but they cannot add randomness to a seed phrase created earlier. Moving the same vulnerable phrase into another hardware or software wallet also carries the weakness into the new device.
Affected users should install the correct fixed firmware before generating a replacement seed. Coinkite advises recording and verifying the new backup, checking a receiving address on the device screen and sending a small test transaction. Users should move the remaining balance only after confirming that the test funds reached the new wallet.
The company advises users to keep the old backup until the entire migration is confirmed. Mishaboar separately warned users never to type a seed phrase into a computer and recommended keeping offline copies in separate secure locations. That advice can reduce exposure to phishing, malware and cloud synchronization during a rushed migration.
Coinkite identified a limited exception for users who added at least 50 fair, independent and private dice rolls before the final seed words were produced. The company said those rolls contributed at least 128 bits of independent entropy. Users who entered fewer than 50 rolls, cannot remember the number or exposed the roll sequence should migrate.
A strong, unique BIP-39 passphrase creates an additional barrier, but Coinkite said it does not repair an affected seed. Short, reused or predictable passphrases may be guessable. Even users with strong passphrases are advised to replace the underlying seed as soon as practical.
Coldcard incident renews the self-custody debate
Bitcoin investor Anthony Pompliano said the losses showed how technically demanding self-custody can be, even though individuals retain the right to control their assets directly. He also stressed that Bitcoin itself was not hacked because the failure occurred in third-party wallet firmware rather than the Bitcoin protocol.
That distinction matters because an attacker reportedly reproduced weak wallet keys offline. The incident did not require changing Bitcoin transactions, breaking its cryptography or compromising the network’s consensus rules. Once an attacker obtains a valid private key, the resulting transaction appears on-chain like one authorized by the legitimate owner.
As previously reported, the observed loss estimate rose from an early 594.48 BTC calculation to 1,367.05 BTC as researchers found additional address groups. In related coverage, crypto.news examined how the firmware build error weakened seed generation for more than five years.
The case has also entered the U.S. institutional-custody debate.As crypto.news reported, Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas argued that the losses strengthen the case for spot Bitcoin ETFs among investors seeking price exposure without managing private keys. ETFs remove personal seed-management duties, although they replace those risks with institutional custody and counterparty exposure.
Coinkite’s promised technical review and further Galaxy address analysis are the next expected updates. Until then, $88.6 million remains the latest public on-chain estimate rather than a final confirmed loss. Users covered by the official advisory face the more immediate task of installing fixed firmware and moving funds to a completely new seed.
Crypto World
A massive stablecoin fragmentation war is brewing between tech giants and a startup is aiming to capitalize on it
The stablecoin market is fragmenting, and onchain capital allocator Spark is betting it can capitalize on the split.
Fintechs, exchanges and banking groups are increasingly launching their own dollar-linked tokens. Each issuer wants to keep users, reserves and transaction activity inside its own network as competition ramps up.
The stablecoin landscape “is about to fragment more and more,” Sam MacPherson, CEO of Phoenix Labs, said in an interview with CoinDesk.
PayPal has PYUSD, Circle has USDC, and Tether has USDT. Robinhood has joined the Global Dollar (USDG) consortium and is building its own chain, while OpenUSD (OUSD) is another large consortium that includes Stripe and Coinbase.
Beyond these giants, there are hundreds of other stablecoins, including Ethena’s USDe, World Liberty Financial’s USD1 and Sky’s USDS.
The result is liquidity scattered across an expanding number of tokens and networks.
Spark is betting those networks will still need to connect. Its aim is to be the layer that moves money between them.
Spark is an affiliated lending and liquidity unit of Sky, the DeFi ecosystem formerly known as MakerDAO and the issuer of the USDS stablecoin. It is developed by Phoenix Labs and supported through Sky’s governance and capital.
Crypto World
Strategy Maintains 12% Preferred STRC Dividend Despite Discount
Strategy CEO Michael Saylor told investors that the preferred dividend tied to Strategy’s STRC shares will stay at 12% for August, despite STRC trading well below its $100 par value through July.
In a Saturday post on X, Saylor framed STRC as an income-oriented vehicle that he says can help investors “stretch your income,” while indicating that the semi-monthly dividend schedule approved earlier this year will continue. Strategy’s chief then reiterated a longer-term target price range for the preferred shares, even as market pricing suggests investors are still demanding a discount.
Key takeaways
- Strategy’s STRC preferred dividend will remain at 12% for August, according to Michael Saylor.
- August will mark the second month in a row that STRC dividends are paid semi-monthly, following a June shareholder vote.
- STRC shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, trading below $100 par value throughout July.
- Management has continued to state a corporate objective for STRC to reach and hold around $99–$100 over time.
- Strategy says it has built a sizable cash reserve to fund preferred payouts as it monetizes Bitcoin.
Dividend guidance holds steady even as STRC trades at a discount
While Strategy’s STRC preferred shares ended July below their stated $100 par value, shareholders were told that the August dividend will not increase. Michael Saylor made that point in a Saturday X post, continuing the company’s pitch that STRC is designed to provide a steady income stream for investors.
The 12% dividend rate is not a one-off adjustment: it follows a dividend change earlier in the cycle. In June, Strategy shareholders approved changes that moved STRC to a semi-monthly payment cadence. As a result, August will be the second month that the dividend is paid on that more frequent schedule.
On the market side, STRC ended Friday at $89.46, up 5.42% for the month that began with a dividend increase. According to the article, the daily trading volume on Friday was about two-thirds of STRC’s usual daily average—suggesting participation was fairly active, but not at peak levels.
Management’s messaging has also stayed consistent with its longer-term plan. On Friday, Strategy CEO Phong Le reiterated that the company’s “corporate objective is for STRC to trade at $99-$100 over time,” without offering a specific timeline for when that target could be met.
Cash reserve strategy tied to Bitcoin treasury and preferred obligations
Beyond dividend arithmetic, the company’s stability message appears to be supported by its Bitcoin treasury and liquidity planning. Saylor posted on Sunday that “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” a phrase he used alongside a chart of Strategy’s BTC purchases from Saylortracker.com, signaling the company’s ongoing buying activity.
That matters because Strategy’s preferred dividend economics are linked to how it finances obligations while its Bitcoin holdings remain exposed to market volatility. Last week, Strategy reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, which the report attributed largely to an $8.32 billion unrealized loss tied to movements in the price of its Bitcoin holdings during the quarter.
Even with that drawdown, Strategy said it has built a cash reserve intended to help cover preferred stock payouts after the launch of its BTC monetization program. The figures cited in the article include a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve. Strategy also stated that the reserve is enough to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and interest obligations.
In practical terms, that guidance is meant to reduce concerns that near-term Bitcoin price fluctuations could immediately disrupt the dividend. Traders may still price STRC based on expected returns and relative risk, but a defined liquidity buffer can influence how investors interpret the sustainability of the payout.
Discount-to-par repurchases and the $99–$100 over-time goal
Another point investors are watching is how Strategy manages the preferred share discount. The article says Strategy recently repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and intends to continue buying the securities while they trade below $100.
This approach aligns with management’s public objective for STRC to trade closer to par over time. However, the market continues to price the shares significantly lower: with Friday’s close at $89.46, the gap to $100 remains substantial. That spread reflects uncertainty about timing—how quickly any pathway to par could play out, and whether dividends alone are enough to close the valuation gap.
Le’s repeated comment that the objective is $99–$100 over time, without specifying when, highlights the central tension: Strategy is emphasizing financial buffers and ongoing BTC-driven support, while the preferred market is still setting prices around a discount that persists through July.
Investors therefore have two parallel items to track. First is the dividend rate itself—now confirmed to stay at 12% for August. Second is whether Strategy’s buybacks and any treasury policy changes translate into steady demand for STRC preferred shares that could narrow the discount.
What to watch next for STRC holders
Going forward, STRC investors should monitor the next dividend payment cycle for August and pay close attention to whether Strategy follows through on continued preferred repurchases while the shares remain below par. At the same time, any updates related to “BTC monetization” and treasury allocation could influence how markets assess the company’s ability to fund preferred obligations during periods of Bitcoin volatility.
Crypto World
XRP Ledger urges node upgrade after manifest flood
Ripple Director of Engineering Vijay Khanna urged XRP Ledger node operators on Aug. 2 to install xrpld version 3.2.1 after developers observed a validator manifest flood on July 31.
Summary
- July 31 manifest flooding prompted xrpld 3.2.1 while XRP Ledger continued closing ledgers normally throughout.
- Four safeguards now cap manifest size, message batches, outbound sharing and unknown-key cache growth network-wide.
- Operators should upgrade, verify xrpld is running, then restart again to clear persisted manifests safely.
The hotfix limits how nodes process, store and share data received from unknown validator identities.
The XRP Ledger continued closing ledgers normally during the event, according to XRP Ledger Operations. The available evidence therefore points to pressure on node resources and peer-to-peer communications rather than a confirmed loss of funds, altered transactions or failure of ledger consensus. Developers have not published a CVE identifier or financial-loss estimate connected to the incident.
XRPL 3.2.1 limits the manifest flood route
Validator manifests are cryptographically signed records that connect a validator’s stable master identity to the temporary key it uses for daily validation messages. When operators rotate those temporary keys, they publish a new manifest signed by the master key so other nodes can verify the change.
Before the hotfix, nodes could accept, cache and rebroadcast validly structured manifests associated with validator keys they did not recognize. An attacker could exploit that behavior by producing many unknown identities and forcing peers to spend memory, storage, bandwidth and processing capacity handling the data. The public code record describes the flaw as a problem with manifest propagation.
The official xrpld 3.2.1 release is dated July 31 and was published as the latest signed release early on Aug. 1. It contains six commits across 13 changed files, including four commits that directly restrict untrusted manifest handling.
Four safeguards reduce resource-exhaustion risk
The first safeguard rejects an oversized validator manifest before the node fully decodes it. That reduces the processing work an attacker can trigger by sending individual objects larger than the software expects.
The second limits the number of untrusted manifests carried in one network message. The cap applies when nodes receive the data and when they prepare manifest messages for peers. Oversized batches are dropped without automatically disconnecting an unpatched peer, which helps upgraded and older nodes remain connected during the rollout.
A third change limits the number of unknown validator identities held in a node’s manifest cache. The final code sets the maximum at 100. Once that capacity is reached, the software rejects manifests tied to new unlisted keys while continuing to process trusted or previously recognized validators.
The patch also changes how untrusted manifest information is retained and propagated. Trusted validator data remains available because the restrictions target unlisted peer gossip rather than manifests from configured or approved validators. This distinction allows normal validator key rotation to continue while blocking unchecked cache growth.
Node operators must complete a second restart
Khanna advised validators and other infrastructure operators to upgrade to version 3.2.1 “as soon as possible.” His instructions call for a normal software update, followed by a wait of one to two minutes and a check that xrpld is running. Operators should then restart the service again.
The second restart is important for nodes that may have retained unknown manifests before installing the fix. Updating changes future handling, while restarting the corrected server helps ensure old in-memory or previously retained data does not continue affecting operations.
Operators may also need to confirm that their systems trust Ripple’s current package-signing key. The release notes state that Ripple rotated the GPG key used to sign xrpld packages on Feb. 18. Existing installations that have not trusted the replacement key may not receive automatic upgrades successfully.
The update applies to infrastructure providers rather than ordinary XRP holders. Users do not need to move XRP, change wallet keys or create new accounts because of the manifest issue. Exchanges, custodians, wallet back ends, data providers and businesses that run their own XRPL servers should instead confirm their node versions and restart status.
The post-mortem will determine the incident’s scope
XRP Ledger Operations said a technical “post-mortem will follow soon.” As of Aug. 2, the project had not published that report, so the identity of the sender, the volume of manifests transmitted and the exact resource use across affected nodes remain undisclosed.
The report should also clarify when developers first detected the activity, whether any nodes became unavailable and how quickly operators adopted version 3.2.1. Although ledgers continued closing, slow patch adoption could leave individual servers exposed to renewed flooding even when the shared ledger remains operational.
The hotfix arrives shortly after XRPL’s larger version 3.2.0 rollout. That release, issued on June 15, renamed the reference server from rippled to xrpld and introduced infrastructure changes that required operators to update software and service configurations.
As previously reported, version 3.2.0 initially spread faster among validators than across the broader node network. The manifest flood adds a new reason for remaining operators to move beyond that release and install the hotfix.
Meanwhile, in related coverage, David Schwartz moved his XRPL infrastructure to version 3.2.0 as developers prepared the network for the new server naming and protocol features. Earlier, as crypto.news reported, node operators also faced a version 3.1.3 deadline tied to an amendment activation.
The next verified updates will be the promised post-mortem and fresh software-adoption data. Until then, the confirmed response remains limited to the 3.2.1 release, its four manifest controls and the request for operators to complete the upgrade and restart process.
-
Sports7 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Business4 days agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Wit & Wisdom
-
Tech7 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Politics2 days agoMeta enters AI-training agreement with far-right ‘propaganda rag’ Newsmax
-
Politics6 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Crypto World1 day agoMicroStrategy Post-Earnings CLARITY Act Push Could Add New Catalyst for Its Stock
-
Politics5 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
Entertainment5 days ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
News Videos7 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Business5 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
News Videos3 days agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Crypto World2 days agoXRP Ledger v3.3.0 brings five institutional features
-
Crypto World5 days agoKraken Enables Retail Access to Jersey Mike’s IPO via Tokenized Shares
-
Tech6 days agoNew macOS Sequoia & Sonoma security updates for older Macs
-
News Videos5 days agoClaude: Build Financial Dashboards in Minutes (2026)
-
Politics3 days agoLuke Littler’s dominance sparks GOAT debate
-
Sports3 days agoSeema Kaliramna Wins Discus Throw Bronze, Takes India’s CWG Medals Tally To 17
-
Business5 days agoJohnson & Johnson agrees to $5.5B settlement over talc cancer claims
-
Crypto World9 hours agoCrypto PAC spending tops $2M in Michigan House race

You must be logged in to post a comment Login