Connect with us
DAPA Banner
DAPA Coin
DAPA
COIN PAYMENT ASSET
PRIVACY · BLOCKDAG · HOMOMORPHIC ENCRYPTION · RUST
ElGamal Encrypted MINE DAPA
đźš« GENESIS SOLD OUT
DAPAPAY COMING ›

Crypto World

Is XRP complementing the banking network or replacing it?

Published

on

Is XRP complementing the banking network or replacing it?

For years the XRP community has promised that XRP would flip SWIFT, the messaging network behind global banking. In 2026 the reality is stranger than the slogan. SWIFT is building its own blockchain ledger that pointedly leaves XRP out, even as XRP gets wired into SWIFT through a side door.

Summary

  • The long-running claim that XRP will replace SWIFT has given way to a more complicated 2026 reality in which the two systems both compete and connect.
  • SWIFT is a messaging network used by more than 11,000 institutions to move trillions of dollars a day, and it completed its migration to the ISO 20022 data standard in late 2025 and is now building its own blockchain shared ledger.
  • That SWIFT ledger deliberately excludes public-network assets like XRP, keeping settlement in tokenized bank deposits, which undercuts the idea that XRP becomes the settlement rail.
  • At the same time, a SWIFT integration with the payments firm Thunes gives banks optional access to Ripple’s liquidity products, including XRP as a bridge asset, so XRP is wired in as an option rather than a requirement.
  • Ripple itself has hedged by pushing its RLUSD stablecoin as speed without volatility, pointing toward a future where XRP is one optional liquidity leg in a fragmented, interoperable system rather than the network that replaces SWIFT.

The single most durable promise in the XRP community is that XRP will one day replace SWIFT, the messaging network that sits behind nearly every international bank transfer on earth. It is a powerful story, the idea that a fast, cheap digital asset will sweep away a slow, decades-old system and capture the enormous value flowing through global payments, and it has motivated XRP holders for years. The trouble is that the story has always blurred two very different things: SWIFT, which is a messaging system that tells banks how to move money, and XRP, which is an asset that can actually move value. 

In 2026, the relationship between the two has become more interesting and more complicated than the slogan suggests. SWIFT is not standing still, having finished a major data-standard overhaul and begun building its own blockchain ledger. Ripple, for its part, has quietly softened its rhetoric from replacing SWIFT to complementing it, and has hedged its own bets by leaning into a dollar stablecoin alongside XRP. The blunt replacement narrative no longer fits the facts.

Advertisement

What makes the question genuinely worth examining now is that both systems are making concrete moves that reveal how they actually see each other. SWIFT has built a blockchain ledger that deliberately leaves XRP out, a telling choice. Yet through a separate integration, XRP has been wired into SWIFT as an optional liquidity tool, an equally telling choice in the other direction. 

The result is neither the clean replacement the bulls predicted nor the irrelevance the skeptics expected, but something messier: a fragmented, interoperable landscape in which XRP is one option among several, available but not required. This piece works through what SWIFT actually is and what Ripple actually built, the reality behind the ISO 20022 hype, SWIFT’s own blockchain project and why it excludes XRP, the side door through which XRP gets connected anyway, Ripple’s pivot toward its stablecoin, and an honest verdict on whether XRP is complementing the banking network or replacing it. The answer matters because so much of the XRP investment case rests on which of those two things is true.

What SWIFT actually is, and is not

To judge the rivalry clearly, you have to be precise about what SWIFT does, because the replacement narrative often gets this wrong. SWIFT is not a payment system that moves money; it is a messaging network that moves instructions about money. When a bank in one country needs to send funds to a bank in another, SWIFT carries the standardized message that says, in effect, pay this amount to this account. 

The actual money moves separately, through the banks’ own accounts and the correspondent banking system. More than eleven thousand financial institutions use SWIFT, and the value of payments it helps coordinate runs into trillions of dollars every day, which makes it the central nervous system of cross-border finance. It is, above all, a trusted standard and a network, deeply embedded in how banks talk to one another.

Advertisement

The weaknesses the replacement narrative points to are real, but they live in the settlement layer beneath SWIFT, not strictly in SWIFT itself. Because a cross-border payment often hops through a chain of correspondent banks, each holding pre-funded accounts in various currencies and each taking a fee and adding delay, the traditional process can take one to three business days and is closed on weekends and holidays. A payment from Japan to Brazil might pass through three or four intermediaries before arriving. 

SWIFT has worked to improve this. Its gpi service, launched in 2017, sped things up so that a large share of payments now credit within thirty minutes and effectively all within a day, with tracking along the way. But gpi modernized the messaging and tracking without changing the underlying correspondent-banking architecture, which still relies on pre-funded accounts and intermediaries. So SWIFT is best understood as the messaging and standards layer of a settlement system whose plumbing is slow, and the question is whether a blockchain alternative can replace that plumbing, the messaging layer, or both.

What Ripple actually built

Ripple’s pitch is aimed squarely at the settlement plumbing, and understanding its core product clarifies where XRP fits. Ripple is a blockchain financial-technology company built around the XRP Ledger, and its enterprise network, historically called RippleNet, lets financial institutions send payments to one another more directly than the correspondent system allows. 

The mechanism that actually involves XRP is called On-Demand Liquidity, or ODL, and it is the heart of the XRP value proposition. Instead of a bank pre-funding accounts in every destination country, ODL converts the sending currency into XRP on a crypto exchange, moves that XRP across the XRP Ledger in three to five seconds, and converts it into the destination currency on the other side. The XRP acts as a bridge asset, a momentary carrier of value between two currencies, which removes the need for the expensive pre-funded accounts that slow the traditional system.

Advertisement

The advantages are concrete. An XRP Ledger transaction settles in seconds rather than days, costs a fraction of a cent, and runs around the clock, including weekends, with the network having processed billions of transactions cumulatively and supported tens of billions of dollars in liquidity volume. For a bank or payment provider, ODL promises to free up the capital that would otherwise sit idle in pre-funded foreign accounts, while settling far faster. 

This is the genuine innovation behind the XRP thesis: not a new messaging standard, but a new way to handle the settlement leg, using a digital asset as a bridge so value can move without the correspondent-banking overhead. Whether this complements SWIFT or replaces it depends on whether banks adopt the bridge for the settlement leg while keeping SWIFT for messaging, or whether something more wholesale occurs. And as the rest of this piece shows, the 2026 evidence points firmly toward the former.

The ISO 20022 reality check

No discussion of Ripple versus SWIFT is complete without addressing ISO 20022, because few topics generate more confusion and hype in the XRP community. ISO 20022 is a global standard for the format of financial messages, replacing older, less structured message types with a richer format that carries far more data, such as detailed remittance information, compliance data, and structured identifiers. 

It improves automation, transparency, and anti-money-laundering monitoring, and it has become the common language toward which the world’s major payment systems are migrating. SWIFT completed its full migration to ISO 20022 in November 2025, ending the long coexistence with legacy message types, a genuine milestone for global finance.

Advertisement

Here is where the confusion sets in. A persistent claim in XRP circles holds that XRP is ISO 20022 compliant in a way that guarantees it a central role once banks adopt the standard. The reality is more limited. Ripple did join the ISO 20022 standards body, becoming one of the first blockchain firms to do so, and RippleNet is built to send and receive ISO 20022 messages, which lets it interoperate cleanly with banks using the standard. 

That is a real advantage for Ripple’s network. But the XRP token itself is not ISO 20022 certified, because ISO 20022 standardizes messaging formats and does not certify cryptocurrencies or blockchains at all. The standard governs how payment information is structured, not which asset settles a payment. So while RippleNet’s compliance gives Ripple a seat at the table and makes integration easier, the idea that ISO 20022 anoints XRP as the chosen settlement asset is a misreading. 

The standard raises the bar for every payment solution, traditional or crypto, and SWIFT, as the established messaging hub that helped shape the standard, arguably benefits at least as much as Ripple does. ISO 20022 is a prerequisite for interoperability, not a victory for any single token.

SWIFT is not standing still

The replacement narrative tends to picture SWIFT as a static, aging incumbent waiting to be disrupted, but the 2026 reality is that SWIFT is actively building its own path into the blockchain era. After completing the ISO 20022 migration, SWIFT moved on to a more ambitious project: a blockchain-based shared ledger designed to enable round-the-clock cross-border settlement. Having run trials since 2025 with a group of more than forty banks, SWIFT completed the design phase of this ledger in early 2026 and began building its first working version, with the aim of processing real transactions before the end of the year. 

Advertisement

The ledger is permissioned and compatible with common smart-contract tooling, and it is tied closely to the ISO 20022 messaging SWIFT already runs, so banks can plug into it through SWIFT’s trusted infrastructure instead of adopting an entirely new public blockchain.

Crucially, SWIFT has been explicit that this is about extending its existing role, not handing the rails to a competitor or issuing new money. Its chief innovation officer framed the effort as preserving settlement in central-bank money, commercial-bank money, or tokenized deposits, while adding the ability to lock in commitments, execute complex cross-border transactions atomically, and share a single auditable record across networks. In other words, SWIFT wants to keep value inside the regulated banking system while gaining the speed and programmability of a blockchain. 

To get there, it has been stress-testing nearly every digital-asset rail available, running trials with major banks on tokenized deposits, tokenized bonds, and stablecoins, including a March 2026 interoperability trial that tested several stablecoins. The picture this paints is not of an incumbent asleep at the wheel, but of a network methodically absorbing blockchain technology into its own infrastructure, on its own terms, while keeping its central position as the orchestrator of global banking. That ambition sets up the most consequential detail for XRP holders.

The detail XRP holders cannot ignore

If SWIFT is building its own blockchain ledger, the obvious question for the XRP thesis is whether XRP is part of it, and the answer, pointedly, is no. SWIFT’s shared-ledger project is designed around tokenized bank deposits in currencies such as dollars, euros, and Canadian dollars, transferred between banks under the same regulations that govern wires, and it deliberately avoids public-network assets like XRP. 

Advertisement

The design principle is that no value should escape regulated accounts, so reaching a public-ledger asset would require an additional step outside the system’s perimeter, a step the project intentionally does not take. SWIFT’s ledger is permissioned and built for the control and auditability that central banks and supervisors demand, which is precisely the opposite of XRP’s open, public network.

This is a genuinely important development that much of the bullish commentary glosses over. If banks get the round-the-clock, blockchain-based settlement they want from SWIFT’s own ledger, using tokenized deposits they already trust and within the regulated perimeter they are comfortable with, then a significant part of the problem ODL was meant to solve gets solved without XRP. SWIFT is, in effect, building a competitor to the settlement innovation that underpins the XRP thesis, and building it in a way that keeps XRP out by design. 

For an XRP holder, this should temper any expectation that banks will inevitably route settlement through XRP simply because blockchain is faster. The institutions have a path to blockchain settlement that does not touch XRP at all, offered by the network they already use and trust. That does not mean XRP is shut out of the banking system entirely, because there is a side door, but it does mean the headline rail SWIFT is building is, by deliberate choice, an XRP-free one.

Advertisement

The side door: how XRP gets wired in anyway

The story has another turn, because even as SWIFT’s own ledger excludes XRP, XRP has been connected to SWIFT through a separate channel, and understanding this optionality is essential to an honest verdict. Through an integration involving the payments firm Thunes, the more than eleven thousand banks on the SWIFT network gain optional access to Ripple’s liquidity products, including XRP as a bridge asset. 

The routing works in sequence: a company sends a payment via SWIFT, SWIFT can route it through Thunes, Thunes offers access to Ripple’s ODL infrastructure, and XRP settles that leg. The critical word in that sequence is optional. No step forces a bank to use XRP; the connection makes XRP available as one liquidity choice among others, not a mandated part of the flow.

This optionality is structurally meaningful, but it is a double-edged thing for XRP holders, and the distinction matters enormously for how to read the narrative. On one hand, being wired into SWIFT, even optionally, gives XRP distribution at a scale it could never reach through Ripple’s direct partnerships alone, putting an XRP settlement option in front of thousands of institutions. On the other hand, optional access creates demand optionality, not guaranteed volume. 

The banks can use the XRP rail, but nothing compels them to, and many will default to the rails and assets they already know. So the SWIFT connection is real and potentially valuable, but it is a long way from the mandatory, network-wide adoption the replacement narrative imagined. The accurate way to hold it is that XRP now has a foot in the door of the world’s dominant banking network, as one option a bank can choose, while SWIFT simultaneously builds its own settlement ledger that bypasses XRP. Both things are true at once, which is exactly why the simple replace-or-die framing fails.

Advertisement

Ripple’s own pivot tells the story

Perhaps the clearest signal about whether XRP is replacing SWIFT comes from Ripple itself, which has been quietly repositioning in a way that speaks volumes. Alongside its push for XRP-based settlement, Ripple has been aggressively advancing its dollar-pegged stablecoin, RLUSD, and the rationale reveals how Ripple now sees the landscape. 

RLUSD is fully reserved with cash and short-term government securities, audited regularly, and positioned as enterprise-grade infrastructure that offers the speed of blockchain rails without the price volatility of XRP. In effect, Ripple is offering banks and payment firms stablecoin-as-a-service: a way to get fast, programmable settlement while holding a stable dollar value instead of a fluctuating token. This directly complements SWIFT’s own tokenized-deposit strategy instead of trying to overthrow it.

The significance of this pivot is hard to overstate for the replacement debate. A company that truly believed XRP was on the verge of replacing SWIFT and capturing all that settlement value would have little reason to build a competing stablecoin product that settles without XRP. Ripple is hedging, building rails that work whether or not banks choose XRP, because it understands that enterprises often want stability over a bridge asset and that the future is more likely to be a fragmented mix of instruments than a single winner. 

This is the same complementary posture Garlinghouse has signaled in softening from earlier replace-SWIFT rhetoric toward language about Ripple complementing existing systems. Ripple, in other words, has read the room. It is positioning itself as a provider of modern settlement infrastructure, of which XRP is one component and RLUSD is another, instead of betting everything on XRP displacing the incumbent network. When the company most invested in XRP’s success diversifies away from pure-XRP settlement, holders should take note of what that says about the realistic ceiling of the replacement thesis.

Advertisement

Complement or replace: the honest verdict

So where does this leave the question at the heart of the matter? The honest verdict is that XRP is complementing the banking network far more than replacing it, and that the 2026 evidence has largely retired the clean replacement narrative. The landscape that is actually forming is not winner-takes-all but fragmented and interoperable, a world in which several systems coexist and connect instead of one sweeping the others away. 

SWIFT retains its position as the standards-setter and messaging hub of global finance, and it is extending that position into blockchain on its own terms, with a settlement ledger that keeps value inside the regulated banking system and deliberately excludes XRP. Ripple, meanwhile, controls a suite of modern settlement tools, including the XRP Ledger, the optional XRP bridge liquidity now reachable through SWIFT, and the RLUSD stablecoin, and it is selling all of them into a market that increasingly wants choice instead of a single rail.

Within that landscape, XRP’s realistic role is as one optional liquidity leg among many, valuable where it is chosen but never mandated, available to thousands of institutions through the SWIFT connection yet competing against tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and SWIFT’s own XRP-free ledger for each transaction. That is a meaningful role, and it is not nothing: a foot in the door of global banking, with genuine speed and cost advantages, is a real asset. But it is a long way from the world the slogan promised, in which XRP becomes the settlement rail of international finance and captures the value flowing across it.

For holders, the practical takeaway is to replace the binary replace-or-die framing with a more accurate one. XRP’s banking future is about optionality and adoption rates: how often institutions actually choose the XRP rail when given the option, and whether ODL volume grows enough to matter against the token’s large supply. The replacement dream made XRP a bet on inevitability. The complementary reality makes it a bet on competition, in which XRP must win each transaction against capable rivals, including the incumbent it was supposed to replace. That is a more sober thesis, but it is the one the facts now support.

Advertisement

Frequently Asked Questions

Is XRP going to replace SWIFT?

The 2026 evidence strongly suggests no, at least not in the wholesale way the community long predicted. SWIFT is a messaging network used by over eleven thousand institutions, and instead of being swept away, it has modernized, completing its ISO 20022 data-standard migration and building its own blockchain settlement ledger. That ledger deliberately excludes XRP, keeping value in tokenized bank deposits. XRP has been connected to SWIFT optionally through a Thunes integration, giving banks access to XRP as one liquidity choice, but participation is not required. The realistic picture is XRP complementing the banking network as one optional settlement tool, not replacing the network that coordinates global payments.

What is the difference between SWIFT and Ripple?

SWIFT is a messaging network that carries standardized instructions about payments between banks; it does not move the money itself, which travels separately through correspondent banking. Ripple is a blockchain company whose On-Demand Liquidity product actually moves value, converting a sending currency into XRP, moving it across the XRP Ledger in seconds, and converting it to the destination currency, which removes the need for pre-funded accounts. So SWIFT is primarily the messaging and standards layer, while Ripple targets the settlement layer beneath it. They operate at different points in the payment process, which is part of why they can complement each other instead of being pure substitutes.

Is XRP ISO 20022 compliant?

This is widely misunderstood. RippleNet, Ripple’s payment network, is built to handle ISO 20022 messages and Ripple joined the standards body, which helps its network interoperate with banks adopting the standard. But the XRP token itself is not ISO 20022 certified, because ISO 20022 is a messaging-format standard that does not certify cryptocurrencies or blockchains at all. It governs how payment data is structured, not which asset settles a payment. So the popular claim that ISO 20022 guarantees XRP a central role is a misreading. The standard raises the bar for all payment solutions and arguably benefits SWIFT, the established messaging hub, at least as much as it benefits Ripple.

Does SWIFT’s blockchain ledger use XRP?

No, and this is one of the most important developments for XRP holders. SWIFT’s blockchain shared ledger, which moved into its building phase in 2026, is designed around tokenized bank deposits and deliberately avoids public-network assets like XRP. It is permissioned, keeps value inside regulated accounts, and is built for the control and auditability central banks require. This means SWIFT is creating a path to round-the-clock blockchain settlement that does not involve XRP, solving much of the problem ODL was meant to address without the token. Banks wanting blockchain settlement have an XRP-free option from the network they already trust, which meaningfully tempers the case for inevitable XRP adoption.

Advertisement

How does XRP connect to SWIFT then?

Through a separate integration involving the payments firm Thunes. The arrangement gives the more than eleven thousand banks on SWIFT optional access to Ripple’s liquidity products, including XRP as a bridge asset. A payment can route from SWIFT through Thunes to Ripple’s ODL infrastructure, where XRP settles the leg. The key point is that this access is optional, not mandated. It gives XRP exposure to a vast network of institutions, which is truly valuable for distribution, but it creates demand optionality instead of guaranteed volume, since banks can choose the XRP rail but are never forced to use it over the alternatives available to them.

What does this mean for XRP’s value?

It reframes the XRP thesis from inevitability to competition. The replacement narrative implied XRP would automatically capture global settlement value; the complementary reality means XRP is one optional liquidity tool that must win each transaction against tokenized deposits, stablecoins, including Ripple’s own RLUSD, and SWIFT’s XRP-free ledger. XRP retains real advantages in speed, cost, and round-the-clock settlement, and its optional presence on SWIFT gives it broad distribution. But its value will depend on how often institutions actually choose the XRP rail and whether that volume grows enough to matter against XRP’s large supply, instead of on a wholesale replacement of SWIFT that the current evidence does not support.

This article is information, not investment advice. Details of SWIFT’s and Ripple’s products, integrations, and strategies reflect reporting available as of June 27, 2026, and can change. The competitive landscape in cross-border payments is evolving quickly. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell XRP or any asset. Verify current details from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Ether Surges Past $1.9K as Traders Eye $2.1K for ETH Breakout

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

Ether (ETH) is back under fresh pressure from leveraged traders after a sharp push toward the $1,950 area. Tuesday’s uptick helped trigger around $62 million in liquidations tied to bearish positions, as ETH rose roughly 29% from its June 26 low near $1,500 and briefly tested $1,950 for the first time in about seven weeks.

The price move also mirrored a broader improvement in risk appetite. Bitcoin climbed above $66,500, while US equities strengthened after investors reassessed concerns about stretched valuations following the rapid rally in artificial intelligence-related shares.

Key takeaways

  • ETH’s breakout attempt near $1,950 came with meaningful leverage-driven liquidations, signaling traders were positioned for downside.
  • Ethereum’s fundamentals are not keeping pace: DApp revenues and weekly DEX volumes remain weak versus prior months.
  • Record staking participation (34% of ETH supply, per StakingRewards) may dampen sell pressure, but it hasn’t yet translated into stronger onchain demand.
  • Derivatives indicators are less bearish than late June, yet ETH perpetual funding has struggled to stay in the typical neutral band.
  • Next week’s catalysts from major US tech earnings could determine whether the market’s optimism extends to crypto.

Price rally meets uneven participation across Ethereum

Despite the renewed bullish momentum, Ethereum’s activity metrics suggest caution. The network’s onchain data points to a market that is moving more because of broader sentiment than because usage is clearly re-accelerating.

According to DefiLlama, weekly revenue generated by Ethereum decentralized applications (DApps) fell to $9.8 million—the lowest level since September 2024. That matters because DApp revenue is often seen as a proxy for real demand and user willingness to pay for services, while price strength alone can be driven by derivatives positioning and macro flows.

DefiLlama data also shows decentralized exchange (DEX) volumes sliding to about $7.2 billion per week. In that environment, traders appear to be less enthusiastic about the kinds of high-turnover assets that typically boost activity, including memecoins and certain utility tokens.

Advertisement

The revenue picture is similarly mixed among top applications. DefiLlama notes that some prominent projects have been under pressure on the year, with losses of 50% or more year-to-date reported for tokens including Ethena (ENA), Mantle (MNT), and Arbitrum (ARB). While individual performance doesn’t automatically determine Ethereum’s direction, broad weakness in major ecosystems can limit organic demand during upswings.

Derivatives coolness suggests traders aren’t fully convinced

ETH’s rally has been accompanied by shifts in derivatives sentiment, but not a decisive reset to confident positioning. Laevitas data indicates that the annualized funding rate on ETH perpetual futures has had trouble remaining consistently in a “neutral” 6%–12% range during the past month.

That is an important nuance: when funding stays near neutral, it often indicates more balanced long and short demand. When funding persistently drifts away from that zone, it can suggest one-sided positioning that raises the risk of reversals.

Still, sentiment has improved compared with late June, when funding rates turned negative and reflected stronger bearish demand. The improvement aligns with expectations that staking activity could help reduce downside exposure.

Advertisement

Staking hits a new participation record, but the market still wants catalysts

A key support factor for ETH’s structure has been staking. StakingRewards data shows that a record 34% of the total ETH supply is now staked, up from 33% just one month earlier. In practical terms, higher staking participation can reduce the amount of liquid ETH available for selling, which may lower immediate sell pressure during price rebounds.

The staking narrative is reinforced by continued institutional accumulation activity. The article’s source references Tom Lee’s Bitmine Immersion (BMNR US), which reportedly added 156,719 ETH over the past month, bringing its stake to 4.8% of available supply. Separately, earlier coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted Bitmine’s Ethereum staking generation, underscoring how large holders are positioning through staking rather than liquid trading.

Even so, staking participation alone may not be enough to sustain an upswing if onchain demand remains subdued. The same onchain picture that shows low DApp revenue and declining DEX volumes also helps explain why the derivatives market hasn’t fully “opened the throttle” for longs. In other words: the capital on the sidelines may be more willing to absorb downside than to chase upside.

ETH is also still far from its August 2025 all-time high—reported as 61% below that peak—which can weigh on risk appetite. Traders may remain reluctant to pile in until they see clearer evidence that activity and demand are broadening beyond a macro-driven bounce.

Advertisement

Earnings from US megacaps could influence whether ETH breaks higher

Ether’s ability to extend gains toward the next major psychological level—often framed as $2,100—likely depends on whether risk appetite stays elevated across both traditional markets and crypto. On Tuesday, the immediate backdrop was favorable: stock strength helped ease concerns tied to valuation worries after a fast-moving AI-driven rally.

Looking ahead, the market will be watching corporate results for cues on whether the “risk-on” trend can persist. The report points to 3M Company’s (MMM) earnings after Tuesday’s open as part of the early week catalyst calendar. More importantly for the crypto complex, it also highlights Alphabet’s earnings scheduled for Wednesday after US markets close.

Investors are reportedly focused on cloud services growth, with expectations cited as 64% growth in cloud revenue, amid heavy AI investment. If results and guidance reinforce a stable macro backdrop, it could help restore confidence across risk assets—potentially giving ETH the additional momentum it needs to test higher levels without relying primarily on liquidation-driven moves.

For traders and long-term observers alike, the next signals to watch are straightforward: whether ETH can hold above the recent breakout zone after the liquidation wave, whether DEX volumes and DApp revenue continue to stabilize instead of drifting lower, and whether derivatives funding moves back toward a more sustainably neutral range as macro catalysts land.

Advertisement

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

BIS exposes how stablecoins are slipping past capital controls

Published

on

Stablecoins quietly out‑settle Visa as Coinbase crowns them the internet’s real money

BIS researchers have found that dollar-backed stablecoin inflows across more than 130 economies remain largely unaffected by capital controls, exposing a growing challenge for emerging-market governments.

Summary

  • BIS found stablecoin inflows remain largely unaffected by capital controls across more than 130 economies.
  • Dollar-backed tokens are expanding in emerging markets facing inflation, weak currencies and limited foreign exchange access.
  • Nigeria and Latin America show growing stablecoin use for remittances, trade settlement and cross-border payments.

The BIS study compared stablecoin inflows with foreign-currency bank deposits to examine how households and businesses gain exposure to the U.S. dollar during periods of financial stress. Both forms of dollarization increased alongside sovereign crises, banking problems and strong exchange-rate pass-through, but only traditional deposits responded clearly to restrictions on foreign currency and capital flows.

Unlike bank deposits, dollar-pegged tokens can move through crypto exchanges, peer-to-peer markets and self-hosted wallets without passing through domestic banks. According to the researchers, this difference likely exists because “stablecoins are partly circulating outside the regulatory perimeter.”

Advertisement

The results indicate that restrictions designed for bank accounts may have limited influence over digital tokens. While governments can require approval for foreign-currency deposits or restrict transfers through financial institutions, users can still receive, hold, and send stablecoins through blockchain networks.

Researchers also found that deposit and stablecoin dollarization tend to persist once established. Their analysis showed little evidence that users simply replace foreign-currency deposits with stablecoins, suggesting the two channels can expand at the same time instead of competing for the same demand.

Capital controls are failing to contain stablecoin demand

Dollar-pegged tokens could weaken monetary sovereignty if households and companies increasingly store or transact in U.S. dollars outside regulated banks, the BIS study warned. The risk is more pronounced in emerging and developing economies where inflation, currency depreciation or restricted access to foreign exchange makes dollar assets attractive.

Advertisement

Capital controls have historically reduced some forms of deposit dollarization because banks must enforce domestic rules. Stablecoin inflows, however, were broadly similar in economies with and without such restrictions, according to the BIS.

Digital tokens have bearer-like features and can be transferred through unhosted wallets, making complete enforcement difficult. The BIS Annual Economic Report 2026 noted that blocking domestic intermediaries from handling unapproved stablecoins may limit some transactions, but such measures are likely to remain imperfect.

Despite the concern over monetary sovereignty, the study found little evidence that moderate deposit dollarization materially weakens monetary-policy transmission. Economies with higher foreign-currency deposits did, however, show a somewhat higher risk of elevated inflation.

Stablecoins may present different policy problems because their use can extend beyond savings into payments, trade settlement and remittances. As transactions leave the banking system, authorities may also lose access to information normally collected by regulated financial institutions, limiting their view of capital movements.

Advertisement

The BIS findings suggest policymakers may require controls designed for blockchain-based assets rather than relying only on rules created for bank deposits. Any response would need to account for foreign exchanges, peer-to-peer transfers and self-hosted wallets, all of which can keep activity outside domestic financial channels.

Emerging markets are driving stablecoin payment adoption

Nigeria illustrates how economic pressure can push stablecoins into daily financial activity. The International Monetary Fund found that stablecoins accounted for more than 65% of the country’s cross-border crypto inflows in 2024, with total inflows approaching the value of recorded remittances by 2025.

According to the IMF, Nigerian households use USDT and USDC for family remittances, crypto investments and access to dollar-denominated value. Small and medium-sized importers have also used the tokens to pay foreign suppliers, while some large companies have tested them for trade settlement.

Inflation, naira depreciation and limited access to foreign currency made stablecoins more attractive during 2023 and 2024, the IMF reported. When the Central Bank of Nigeria restricted banks from serving crypto users in 2021, activity moved toward less regulated peer-to-peer markets instead of disappearing.

Advertisement

Stablecoins can cut payment time and reduce dependence on correspondent banks, according to the IMF. However, the institution warned that heavy use of dollar tokens could lower demand for the naira and move more transactions beyond the reach of Nigerian regulators.

A similar pattern has emerged in Latin America. Bitso Business reported an 81% year-over-year increase in stablecoin payment volume during the first half of 2026. The company also found that Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC represented 40% of regional crypto purchases in 2025, overtaking Bitcoin for the first time.

Across the crypto market, stablecoin capitalization has risen to about $309.7 billion from roughly $260 billion a year earlier. The increase gives dollar-backed tokens a larger role in payments and savings while adding urgency to the regulatory concerns identified by the BIS.

BIS research has also separated privately issued stablecoins from tokenized bank money. Through Project Agorá, eight central banks and more than 40 regulated institutions have tested cross-border settlement using tokenized commercial-bank deposits and central-bank reserves, according to the institution’s 2026 report.

Advertisement

That model keeps tokenized payments inside a regulated two-tier banking system, while stablecoins can circulate beyond it. For policymakers, the contrast explains why existing capital controls may struggle to contain digital dollarization even as demand for faster cross-border payments continues to grow.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Trump accepts sweeping crypto ethics rules to rescue CLARITY Act

Published

on

Polymarket chart shows a 48% chance of the CLARITY Act becoming law in 2026.

The White House has accepted what it calls the most extensive federal ethics restrictions ever proposed as the CLARITY Act seeks the Democratic votes needed to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.

Summary

  • The White House accepted extensive ethics rules addressing Democratic concerns over Trump’s crypto interests.
  • CLARITY still needs Democratic support to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
  • Bitcoin topped $66,000, while Polymarket placed the bill’s 2026 passage odds at 48%.

Punchbowl News reported on Tuesday that White House officials reached an agreement on ethics language during talks with Republican Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno. The provision could apply to President Donald Trump’s crypto interests, although neither senator has released its wording or explained how it would be enforced.

A White House official confirmed the concession in a recent statement, describing the proposed language as “the most comprehensive and wide-ranging ethics provision in history.” According to the official, the administration had “bent over backward” to address concerns raised by Democratic lawmakers.

Advertisement

The agreement removes one of the main disputes holding up the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, but it does not guarantee enough Democratic support for passage. The Senate has not published its final text or placed a floor vote on its calendar, leaving lawmakers with a limited window before the chamber’s August state work period.

Ethics deal removes a key Senate obstacle

Democratic senators have made restrictions on political crypto dealings a condition for supporting the legislation. Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy, Jeff Merkley and Chris Van Hollen previously argued that a market structure bill would be “worthless” unless it addressed Trump’s links to the digital asset industry.

Their concerns include Trump’s namesake memecoin and his family’s involvement with World Liberty Financial. Democrats have also requested congressional hearings into the president’s investments and other connections to crypto companies before the Senate holds a vote.

Advertisement

Details of the White House compromise remain unclear, including whether its limits would cover the president’s family and which authority would enforce them. Barron’s reported that some Democrats were concerned enforcement could rest only with the Trump-controlled Department of Justice instead of also allowing action by state attorneys general.

Earlier negotiations had shown how difficult the ethics issue could be. Patrick Witt, executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, told CoinDesk in May that the administration supported rules applying “from the president all the way down to the brand new intern on Capitol Hill,” but opposed provisions written against one official or family.

Senate negotiators have resolved or narrowed some other disputes while the ethics talks continued. Coinbase vice chair Ryan VanGrack recently said that Democrats had secured stronger customer safeguards, giving the Senate legislation “more teeth” than earlier versions.

“At the end of the day, this is about customer protections. The status quo lacks this infrastructure, lacks these protections, and the Democrats used this opportunity, wisely, to make sure that customers were first and foremost in [this bill].”

Stablecoin rewards, anti-money laundering controls, tokenized securities and protections for software developers have also complicated negotiations. As reported by crypto.news in May, the Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill with support from every Republican on the panel and Democratic Senators Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, producing a 15-9 vote.

Advertisement

Despite backing the committee action, Gallego and Alsobrooks did not commit to supporting the eventual floor version because negotiations were still underway. Republicans would therefore need to preserve that support and attract more Democrats to reach 60 votes in the full Senate.

The House passed its CLARITY Act version in July 2025 during Republicans’ “Crypto Week.” The proposal would divide oversight of digital assets between federal regulators and set standards for deciding when tokens fall under securities or commodities rules.

Bitcoin rises while passage odds remain below 50%

Crypto-linked markets climbed after reports of the White House agreement. Bitcoin traded above $66,000 on Tuesday and reached a seven-week high, while Coinbase shares rose about 10% and Circle gained roughly 7%.

Prediction-market traders remained less convinced. A Polymarket contract shown on Tuesday assigned a 48% chance that the CLARITY Act would become law in 2026, down 17 percentage points, with about $2.11 million in recorded volume. The contract’s pricing indicated that traders still viewed passage as uncertain despite the reported ethics agreement.

Advertisement
Polymarket chart shows a 48% chance of the CLARITY Act becoming law in 2026.
Source: Polymarket

President Trump had pressed senators to approve the legislation “in honor of” the late Senator Lindsey Graham, whom he described as a major supporter of the measure. Industry executives, including Coinbase representatives, have also urged Congress to establish federal market rules.

Still, the missing legislative text leaves the effect of the ethics compromise untested. Until Democratic senators review the provision, disclose their positions and help schedule a floor vote, the White House agreement remains a potential route to 60 votes rather than proof that the CLARITY Act will pass.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

MOVE Hits All-Time Low After MVMT Labs Bankruptcy: What Happens Next?

Published

on

Movement (MOVE) Price Performance. Source: BeInCrypto

MVMT Labs, Inc., the original developer of the Movement blockchain, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware on July 15, 2026. Days later, the Movement (MOVE) token slid to an all-time low of $0.0104.

Move Industries, the separate company that took over ecosystem development in 2025, says the case does not touch its operations. MOVE trades near $0.0108, down 94% over the past year.

Movement (MOVE) Price Performance. Source: BeInCrypto
Movement (MOVE) Price Performance. Source: BeInCrypto

Inside the MVMT Labs Bankruptcy Filing

Court records show a voluntary Subchapter V petition, a streamlined Chapter 11 track for small businesses. Case 26-11113 sits before Judge Thomas M. Horan in the District of Delaware.

Movement Labs Files Chapter 11. Source: Court Records
Movement Labs Files Chapter 11. Source: Court Records

The petition lists assets between $100,001 and $1 million against liabilities of $1 million to $10 million. Creditors number between 200 and 999.

The estate is a fraction of the project’s former scale. MOVE peaked at $1.45 in December 2024 before a disputed market making deal dumped 66 million tokens on launch day and crushed the price.

The fallout produced a market maker misconduct probe, a Binance ban on the account involved, and exchange delistings. MVMT Labs also faces a Delaware Chancery lawsuit from suspended co-founder Rushi Manche.

Advertisement

Move Industries Says It Is Full Steam Ahead

The remaining team rebranded to Move Industries in May 2025 under CEO Torab Torabi. It pivoted toward stablecoin payments for emerging markets this June. On July 21, Torabi rejected talk of a project collapse.

Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens

Markets have yet to reward that confidence. MOVE holds a $45 million market cap at rank 473, and its price action this week will show whether traders buy the separation.

Advertisement

The court expects a restructuring plan by October 13, 2026, which may reveal what remains inside the bankrupt entity.

The post MOVE Hits All-Time Low After MVMT Labs Bankruptcy: What Happens Next? appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Aztec Launches Alpha V5 on Mainnet With Faster Private Proving

Published

on

Aztec Launches Alpha V5 on Mainnet With Faster Private Proving


Aztec Network, an Ethereum Layer 2 built for private smart contracts, said on Tuesday that its Alpha V5 release is live on mainnet, calling it "the fastest private transactions we've ever shipped." The company said Alpha V5 proves a fully private transaction in about 2.5 seconds on a laptop and… Read the full story at The Defiant

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Jack Mallers Questioned MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin Strategy, Now He’s Stepping Down From Twenty One

Published

on

Twenty One Capital (XXI) Stock Performance. Source: Google Finance

Jack Mallers has stepped down as CEO of Twenty One (XXI), the Tether-backed Bitcoin treasury firm. His exit lands months after he publicly pressed Michael Saylor over mNAV math and digital credit yields.

The Strike founder says he quit after clashing with the board over the company’s direction. Critics now tie his exit to the doubts he raised on stage earlier this year.

Board Disagreements End Jack Mallers’ Twenty One Tenure

Mallers announced the decision this week. XXI began trading on December 9, 2025, so his run lasted just seven months. The firm went public with roughly 43,500 BTC, worth about $4 billion at the time. Tether, Bitfinex, and SoftBank backed it.

Tether took full control in May 2026 by buying SoftBank’s entire stake.

Advertisement

He shared more detail in follow-up posts. He walked away, he said, because “the board and I couldn’t agree on the future of the company.”

He also denied a claim by X’s Grok chatbot that he collected $140.8 million in pay. His forfeited options, he noted, now expire worthless.

The exit leaves the second-largest corporate Bitcoin treasury fully in Tether’s hands. XXI is already rethinking its model. Incoming CEO Raphael Zagury wants cash flow, not just more Bitcoin buying.

Advertisement

The Saylor Questions That Resurfaced After His Exit

The backstory makes the exit sting more. At BTC Prague earlier this year, Mallers challenged Saylor from the audience over mNAV. The metric shows how much the market pays for each dollar of Bitcoin a treasury firm holds.

His concern was simple. Some firms count securities as equity even when they are far from turning into shares. That inflates the metric. In an interview at the event, he explained the question he put to Saylor.

“…do you agree with classifying out of the money securities as equity, which obviously that would inflate the equity value, which would make an MNAV metric more attractive,” Mallers said.

He used XXI’s own convertible bond as the example. The bond turns into stock at $13 per share. However, the stock traded near $5 at the time, so that switch was nowhere close.

On a panel the same day, Mallers took aim at digital credit. These products pay investors a big yearly dividend that never stops.

Advertisement

Stretch, sold by Strategy, paid 11.5% when Mallers spoke. SEC filings show the rate rose to 12% in July. His question was simple. Who pays that bill without real revenue?

“You’re not doing anything productive in the economy to produce cash flow that can afford the money that you want to give to your grandmother. So, who’s coming up with the money?” he said during the panel.

Saylor responded at length at the time. He framed mNAV as one metric among several and defended the model’s math.

Those clips are now everywhere again. Many read them as proof that Mallers doubted the sector’s core math long before he left it.

Rug Pull Claims Meet a Firm Denial

The market’s verdict was quick. XXI closed near $4.60 on Tuesday, down 13.5% in a day. Early backers paid $10 per share, so they have lost more than half their money.

Advertisement
Twenty One Capital (XXI) Stock Performance. Source: Google Finance
Twenty One Capital (XXI) Stock Performance. Source: Google Finance

Critics on X claim losses of up to 85% from the stock’s peak, and some accused Mallers of abandoning shareholders.

He pushed back hard.

“Rug pull? Who pulled what rug? I resigned voluntarily, took no severance, forfeited my options, and walked away because it was the right thing to do. Twenty One also never sold shares via an ATM while I was CEO,” Mallers replied on X.

Reactions split into three camps. Investor Mike Alfred praised the move as a sign of clarity and alignment. BnkToTheFuture founder Simon Dixon went further. He framed it as Mallers walking away from wrapped securities entirely.

A third camp sees a warning for the digital asset treasury (DAT) sector. The model looks strong while premiums grow, they argue. The real test starts when mNAV compresses and capital dries up.

The rankings could shift too. Metaplanet crossed 43,000 BTC in July. That nearly matches XXI’s stash of roughly 43,500 BTC, putting the second spot in play.

Top 100 Public Bitcoin Treasury Companies
Top 100 Public Bitcoin Treasury Companies. Source: Bitcoin Treasuries

The debate lands with Bitcoin (BTC) near $66,600 on Tuesday, a five-week high. Mallers, meanwhile, returns his full attention to Strike. There, he wants cash flow, not dilution, to fund Bitcoin buying.

Whether his warnings prove right now depends on XXI’s next chapter under Tether. If the restructured company delivers without the metrics he questioned, his critique may fade with the drawdown that fueled it.

The post Jack Mallers Questioned MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin Strategy, Now He’s Stepping Down From Twenty One appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Russia’s Duma Approved a Crypto Bill That Could Destroy Its Market

Published

on

Russia’s Duma Approved a Crypto Bill That Could Destroy Its Market

Russia’s State Duma approved a sweeping crypto bill on July 21 that brings trading into a licensed financial system. Industry critics say the rules could dismantle the market they claim to regulate.

Lawmakers passed Bill No. 1194918-8 in its second and third readings on the same day. It still needs approval from the Federation Council and President Vladimir Putin. 

The main rules would start on September 1, followed by a transition period ending July 1, 2027.

The bill allows individuals and companies to buy and sell crypto through licensed Russian intermediaries. 

These will include brokers, asset managers, exchanges, digital depositories and a new class of registered crypto exchangers.

A digital depository would hold and record customers’ crypto, much like a traditional custodian. Crypto payments for goods and services inside Russia will remain prohibited.

Retail investors must pass a test and may buy only the most liquid assets selected under Bank of Russia criteria. 

Advertisement

Their limit will be 300,000 rubles per year through each intermediary. Current criteria would likely admit Bitcoin, Ethereum, and USDT. Qualified investors face no purchase cap.

Foreign Exchanges Lose Their Banking Rail

From July 1, 2027, Russian banks will have to block direct payments to unlicensed foreign exchanges. 

GMT Legal founder Andrey Tugarin said users will no longer be able to fund overseas platforms directly through Russian banks after that date.

Some crypto transfers will also face a 48-hour anti-fraud cooling period. The thresholds will be 300,000 rubles for transfers inside Russian infrastructure and 100,000 rubles when assets move into international infrastructure.

Advertisement

A Market Built From Scratch

Registered exchangers will need at least 15 million rubles in capital. They must install anti-fraud systems, separate client assets from company funds and meet strict compliance, staffing and cybersecurity rules.

“Crypto exchangers are a completely new legal form,” Tugarin said. No existing Russian company automatically holds that status.

However, the bill gives exporters, importers, miners, exchangers and depositories wider access to crypto for foreign trade. It also creates a clearer route for USDT, USDC and other stablecoins by classifying them as foreign digital instruments.

“This Is a Ban”

Exved founder Sergey Mendeleev said the industry had submitted detailed proposals since December 2025, but lawmakers largely ignored them.

Advertisement

He argued that the framework favours selected banks, exchanges and foreign-trade participants while restricting ordinary users and existing crypto businesses. 

Traditional financial firms could also lose millions before realising crypto trading will not produce the margins they expect, he said.

“This is not regulation. It is a ban. Like casinos or forex,” Mendeleev concluded.

The bill creates legal crypto access through a tightly controlled domestic system. Its survival will depend on whether users and businesses accept those limits or continue operating outside it.

The post Russia’s Duma Approved a Crypto Bill That Could Destroy Its Market appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Bitcoin price rejected at $67K as U.S.-Iran war drives oil higher

Published

on

Bitcoin tests $67,000 as price moves above the upper Bollinger Band.

Bitcoin price has retreated from nearly $67,000 after escalating U.S.-Iran hostilities pushed oil prices higher and tempered optimism created by progress on the CLARITY Act.

Summary

  • Bitcoin pulled back after briefly touching $66,965 as sellers defended the $67,000 resistance level.
  • CLARITY Act progress, ETF inflows and short liquidations fueled BTC’s rapid advance.
  • Rising oil prices and the U.S.-Iran conflict threaten a sustained breakout toward $70,000.

According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price rose from an intraday low of $65,149 to $66,965 on July 21 before sellers forced the price back to about $66,440. The asset remained up 1.8% on the day, but its failure to hold $67,000 showed that traders were unwilling to chase the rally as energy and inflation risks returned.

CLARITY Act progress and ETF inflows have fueled Bitcoin’s rally

Bitcoin’s advance began after the White House and Senate negotiators reached an agreement on an ethics provision that had delayed the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described negotiations as being at the “1-yard line,” while senators suggested the bill was close to a final vote.

Advertisement

The proposed ethics rules address concerns about elected officials and senior government figures holding or promoting crypto assets while in office. Reports that President Donald Trump had accepted the provision helped crypto-linked stocks rally, with Coinbase and Circle shares gaining as much as 10% during the session.

U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds added another source of demand. According to SoSoValue data, the funds recorded about $227 million in net inflows on July 20, their fifth consecutive positive session and their longest inflow run since April.

The ETF streak followed a difficult June, when investors withdrew billions of dollars from the products. Five days of fresh allocations have helped absorb available supply while Bitcoin has recovered from its June low near $58,000.

Advertisement

Spot activity also remained firm during the latest advance. Commenting on the order flow, analyst Ted Pillows wrote:

“Consistent spot buying for BTC now. This looks much better.”

Leverage amplified the initial breakout. Market data showed roughly $223 million in crypto positions liquidated over 24 hours, including about $181 million in shorts. Forced purchases by bearish traders helped Bitcoin clear $65,000 and accelerate through the $66,000 resistance area.

A separate derivatives event later exposed the rally’s fragility. According to trader Daan Crypto Trades, a position worth more than $100 million appeared to close at market, erasing over $250 million in Bitcoin open interest within one minute.

BTC briefly fell toward $65,900 before recovering most of the decline, which Daan attributed to a possible execution error or an attempt to trigger cascading liquidations.

Advertisement

Oil risks and overhead supply have blocked a clean $67,000 breakout

Oil prices have complicated the bullish setup. U.S. crude climbed about 2.6% to $84.70 per barrel, its highest level since June 12, as supply fears grew across the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea.

Washington carried out a tenth consecutive day of strikes against Iran, while Trump warned that Tehran “will pay” for attacks that killed American soldiers. Reuters also reported damage to a tanker near the Strait of Hormuz and disruption involving Saudi crude shipments after threats from Iran-aligned Houthi forces.

Higher energy costs could feed into July inflation and give the Federal Reserve less room to support financial markets. The dollar strengthened as traders reassessed the chances of higher interest rates, creating a potential headwind for Bitcoin and other speculative assets.

On the daily chart, BTC has moved above the Bollinger Band midpoint at $63,839 and briefly exceeded the upper band near $66,100. Trading above the upper band confirms strong buying pressure, but the rejection from $66,965 raises the risk of a pullback toward the band’s midpoint.

Advertisement
Bitcoin tests $67,000 as price moves above the upper Bollinger Band.
Bitcoin daily price chart — July 22 | Source: crypto.news

The Average Directional Index stood at 23.08. A reading below 25 means the daily trend has not yet gained enough strength to confirm a sustained directional move, despite Bitcoin’s recovery from the June trough.

Bitcoin has also reached the upper boundary of an ascending parallel channel on the four-hour chart. Resistance sits between $67,000 and $67,800, while the channel floor runs near $64,000. A four-hour close above $67,800 would clear the structure and expose $69,500, followed by the psychological $70,000 level.

Bitcoin approaches the upper boundary of an ascending channel near $67,000.
Bitcoin 4-hour price chart — July 22 | Source: crypto.news

Momentum still favors buyers. The four-hour MACD line stood at 592.66, above its 441.46 signal line, while the positive histogram reached 151.19. The Chaikin Money Flow reading of 0.35 showed that capital continued to enter the market despite the rejection.

CoinGlass’ three-day liquidation heatmap places the closest overhead leverage around $66,800 to $67,300, with another concentration near $68,000. A move through those levels could force additional short closures. Below price, liquidation pools appear around $65,300, $64,800, and $64,200.

Bitcoin liquidation clusters build near $67,000 above and $65,000 below.
Bitcoin liquidation heatmap | Source: CoinGlass

The bullish case would weaken if BTC closes below the channel floor and loses the daily Bollinger midpoint near $63,800. Such a breakdown could expose the lower daily band at $61,578, while renewed oil gains, further military escalation, or declining ETF inflows would add pressure. Bitcoin must therefore convert $67,000 into support before the latest recovery can extend toward $70,000.

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Warren Buffett’s $140 Billion Giveaway: Will Trump Accounts Get a Slice?

Published

on

Eric Balchunas Suggests Warren Buffet's Giveaway to Trump Accounts

A top Bloomberg analyst has a bold idea for Warren Buffett. Eric Balchunas says the investor should give his Berkshire Hathaway shares to Trump Accounts, the new government investment accounts for American children.

Balchunas shared the idea on Tuesday. Buffett, 95, plans to give away his remaining Berkshire stake, worth about $140 billion, by the end of 2034.

Why Balchunas Points Buffett to Trump Accounts

Trump Accounts launched on July 4. They were created under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a new tax law. Every eligible child born between 2025 and 2028 gets a $1,000 deposit from the Treasury.

Families can add up to $5,000 per year. The money sits in an S&P 500 index fund called SPYM by default. The Treasury picked Robinhood and BNY to run the app and the accounts.

Advertisement
Eric Balchunas Suggests Warren Buffet's Giveaway to Trump Accounts
Eric Balchunas Suggests Warren Buffet’s Giveaway to Trump Accounts

Balchunas, the senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, thinks the accounts are a natural match for Buffett. Almost all of Buffett’s wealth is Berkshire stock. He has also promised to give more than 99% of it away.

“I’ve thought about this for a while and have come to the conclusion that Warren Buffett et al could/should choose Trump Accounts as the destination for donating their stock shares,” he wrote.

He listed several benefits. Stock gifts could narrow the wealth gap and teach kids about investing. They also skip capital gains tax. And children holding Berkshire shares would carry Buffett’s legacy forward.

There is a precedent. Michael and Susan Dell pledged $6.25 billion to the program. Their gift gives $250 each to about 25 million children in lower-income ZIP codes.

Why It May Never Happen

Buffett’s money is already going elsewhere. On July 14, he gave nearly $6 billion in Berkshire shares to his four family foundations. He also cut out the Gates Foundation for the first time since 2006.

“My goal is to dispose of all of my Berkshire shares within about eight years,” Buffett said in a statement.

The rules are another problem. The accounts only take cash today. Congress also limited them to US index funds with fees under 0.1%.

Advertisement

Changing that would take a new law. Altimeter Capital CEO Brad Gerstner has pushed to allow stock gifts from billionaires. Even he faces that wall.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has hinted that Bitcoin (BTC) could join the accounts one day.

For now, it is just an idea. Buffett’s next round of giving will show whether Trump Accounts ever make his list.

The post Warren Buffett’s $140 Billion Giveaway: Will Trump Accounts Get a Slice? appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Ether Breaks Above $1,900 Taking Bears By Surprise. Is $2,100 Next?

Published

on

Ether Breaks Above $1,900 Taking Bears By Surprise. Is $2,100 Next?

Key takeaways:

  • Despite ETH’s price gains, weak onchain activity and low DEX volumes signal trader caution.
  • Record Ethereum staking at 34% reduces sell pressure, yet sustained upside needs external catalysts.

Ether (ETH) tested the $1,950 mark for the first time in seven weeks on Tuesday, triggering $62 million in liquidations across leveraged bearish positions. The move delivered 29% gains from the $1,500 low on June 26 and aligned with the broader risk-on mood that drove Bitcoin (BTC) above $66,500. Can ETH push through to $2,100?

Total crypto market capitalization (left) vs. ETH/USD. Source: TradingView

Ether’s price largely tracked the overall crypto market trend, which shifted to positive momentum in July. Tuesday’s gains in the US stock market helped ease investor worries about stretched valuations after the artificial intelligence stock rally. Traders expect solid corporate earnings after 3M Company (MMM US) reported results Tuesday morning.

Google’s parent, Alphabet, is expected to report quarterly results on Wednesday after US stock markets close. Investors look for 64% growth in cloud services revenue amid heavy AI investments. Strong earnings could restore confidence and help push the cryptocurrency market past the $2 trillion total capitalization mark.

Advertisement

Weak Ethereum onchain metrics and muted ETH derivatives persist

Despite recent ETH price gains, Ethereum onchain metrics show stagnation. Demand for blockchain processing has not recovered to levels seen six months ago, partly because traders are showing less interest in memecoins and utility tokens. Some of Ethereum’s top projects posted losses of 50% or more year-to-date, including Ethena (ENA), Mantle (MNT) and Arbitrum (ARB).

Ethereum network weekly DEX volumes & DApps revenues, USD. Source: DefiLlama

Weekly revenue for Ethereum’s decentralized applications (DApps) fell to the lowest levels since September 2024, hitting $9.8 million. Among the strongest performers are Sky (formerly MakerDAO) at $3.2 million in weekly revenue and Chainlink, which brought in $1.2 million over the same period. Overall, decentralized exchange (DEX) volumes dropped to $7.2 billion per week.

Ethereum’s weak onchain data mirrors the subdued mood in derivatives markets.

Advertisement

ETH perpetual futures annualized funding rate. Source: Laevitas

The annualized funding rate on ETH perpetual futures has struggled to remain within the neutral 6%-12% range over the past month. Still, sentiment has improved from the negative rates seen in late June, which reflected heavy bearish demand. Rising interest in Ethereum staking has likely boosted trader expectations for price gains and reduced downside risks.

Ethereum staking data. Source: StakingRewards

According to Staking Rewards data, a record-high 34% of all ETH supply is now staked, up from 33% one month earlier. Analysts expect reduced sell pressure as long-term holders keep accumulating supply, including Tom Lee’s Bitmine Immersion (BMNR US), which added 156,719 ETH over the past month. The company now controls 4.8% of available supply.

Advertisement

ETH price is 61% below the all-time high from August 2025, which helps explain why bulls lack enthusiasm in derivatives markets. The soft on-chain metrics and six-month bear market have left traders skeptical about sustained upside.

Ether’s path to $2,100 likely depends on reduced risk aversion across markets, which makes Google’s revenue guidance on Wednesday especially important.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025