At the start of May, oil markets were still pricing in elevated geopolitical risk and expectations of sustained supply disruption.

But easing tensions between Washington and Tehran, along with improving supply expectations, have rapidly shifted sentiment back toward fundamentals.

📉 Brent crude has fallen back to around $71–74 per barrel
📊 Prices are now close to pre-conflict levels after a drop of more than 35% since early May
⚖️ The market is reassessing whether the geopolitical risk premium has been fully removed

The debate is now split between two clear narratives.

📉 Bearish case: supply is recovering and demand remains uneven
📈 Bullish case: geopolitical risks in the Strait of Hormuz are still not fully priced in

The key question for markets is whether oil has already priced in good news — or whether volatility is simply paused, not gone.

Gain insights to strengthen your trading knowledge.

Watch it now and stay updated with FXOpen.

💬 Don’t forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more professional market insights every week.

This article represents the opinion of the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand only. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation with respect to products and services provided by the Companies operating under the FXOpen brand, nor is it to be considered financial advice.

“Today’s milestone shows we can tokenize securities in ways that meet both market and regulatory requirements, for U.S. and global investors and provides a strong foundation for our expanding access to onchain investments for more U.S. investors,” he added.

Tokenization, or the process of representing traditional assets as blockchain-based tokens, has emerged as one of the fastest-growing areas blurring digital assets and traditional finance. Supporters say it can modernize capital markets through faster settlement, around-the-clock trading and easier movement of assets across financial platforms. A report by Citi projected that tokenized securities could reach $5.5 trillion market size by 2030.

Debate around tokenization models

The launch follows the SEC’s January staff statement on tokenized securities, which outlined how a third-party custodial model could comply with existing securities laws. SEC staff statements don’t have the full weight of formal guidance approved by the agency’s commissioners, but do indicate how the regulator is thinking about issues like tokenization.

Under that approach, a regulated intermediary holds conventional shares in custody and issues blockchain-based tokens representing a holder’s entitlement to those assets. That’s an alternative approach to the issuer-sponsored tokenization, where the issuer of the underlying security is involved in the process.

The agency’s guidance coincided with a growing debate over whether tokenized stocks issued without issuer involvement confer the same rights as traditional shares. The topic drew broader attention when OpenAI said last year it did not authorize Robinhood’s tokenized offering tied to its shares and warned the tokens did not represent equity in the company.

TLDR

• June employment figures showed only 57,000 new positions created, significantly below the anticipated 113,000.
• Major equity indexes rallied following the release, with the Dow climbing approximately 0.7%.
• Jobless figures declined modestly to 4.2%, compared to predictions of 4.3%.
• Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh emphasized that markets should analyze economic indicators rather than central bank signals for rate direction.
• Probability of unchanged rates through December increased to 21.7% based on CME FedWatch Tool data.

Equity markets across the United States posted gains on Thursday following a disappointing June employment report that suggested the Federal Reserve might pause its interest rate tightening campaign.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced approximately 370 points, representing a 0.7% increase. The S&P 500 climbed 0.6%, while the Nasdaq Composite registered a 0.5% gain during morning trading sessions.

Employment Data Falls Short of Projections

According to the Labor Department’s latest release, the American economy generated 57,000 new positions during June. This figure represented a substantial miss compared to economist consensus estimates of 113,000. The data marked a notable deceleration from hiring patterns observed over the preceding three-month period.

The unemployment metric registered at 4.2%. Analysts had projected the rate would remain unchanged at 4.3%, making the slight decline an unexpected development.

The subdued hiring figures interrupted what had been a consecutive three-month stretch of robust employment growth. It simultaneously altered market sentiment regarding the Federal Reserve’s upcoming policy decisions.

Chairman of the Federal Reserve Kevin Warsh recently advised Wall Street participants to concentrate on fundamental economic metrics instead of anticipating explicit central bank communication. Thursday’s employment data provided market participants with tangible information to digest.

Chris Zaccarelli, serving as chief investment officer at Northlight Asset Management, suggested the deceleration in job creation might encourage more aggressive Federal Reserve policymakers to reconsider the pace of monetary tightening.

The likelihood of interest rates remaining unchanged through year-end climbed to 21.7%, as indicated by the CME FedWatch Tool. Market participants continue to factor in the possibility of at least one rate increase during 2025.

Government bond yields adjusted following the data release. The 2-year yield declined to 4.15%, whereas the 10-year yield ticked upward to 4.49%. The U.S. dollar simultaneously weakened against major currencies.

Technology Sector Experiences Headwinds From Semiconductor Decline

Despite broader market strength, technology equities encountered resistance. The Nasdaq underperformed relative to both the Dow and S&P 500 during the trading session.

A significant decline among South Korean semiconductor manufacturers dampened investor sentiment. The Kospi index plummeted 7.9%. SK Hynix tumbled more than 14%, while Samsung Electronics experienced a decline exceeding 9%. Both corporations had recently unveiled substantial artificial intelligence infrastructure investment initiatives.

Microsoft shares defied the broader technology sector weakness, posting gains despite surrounding headwinds.

Oil prices retreated after Qatar, serving as intermediary in U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, characterized this week’s diplomatic exchanges as productive. While no agreement materialized, the diplomatic atmosphere was interpreted favorably.

With American financial markets scheduled to close Friday in observance of Independence Day, certain traders appeared to be adjusting positions ahead of the extended holiday weekend.

The S&P 500 was trading at 7,501 during midday activity. The Dow reached 52,757. The Nasdaq positioned at 25,992.

SBI Crypto has announced it will shut down its mining pool on July 31, ending a service tied to one of Japan’s largest financial groups and giving miners less than a month to redirect their hashrate.

The pool will stop accepting mining shares, which represent a miner’s contributions in the pool, on the cutoff date, according to SBI Crypto. Shares submitted after that cutoff will not be accepted, and the firm said the pool is expected to operate normally until the shutdown date.

The company urged customers to keep mining with the pool until the cutoff so eligible shares are included in the final payout calculation.

SBI Crypto’s mining pool, according to data from Hashrateindex, accounts for roughly 2% of the Bitcoin network’s total hashrate. The firm did not disclose a reason for the closure in its shutdown notice, and it did not provide current hashrate figures for the pool.

SBI Crypto operates under SBI Group, the Japanese financial conglomerate. The mining pool opened to the public in 2021, with SBI saying at the time that it would support the pool with roughly 1.1 EH/s of its own mining power.

The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added 134 crypto wallet addresses to its ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K) sanctions entry on Wednesday, including 131 Tron addresses and 3 Monero addresses.

The TRON wallets received more than $1.4 million since 2023 and sent more than $880,000, according to Chainalysis. Tether froze balances on all 131 Tron addresses.

ISIS-K, the Islamic State affiliate active across Afghanistan, Pakistan and parts of Central Asia, has used its media arm al-Azaim Media Foundation to solicit crypto donations through websites and messaging platforms, Chainalysis said.

Chainalysis said it identified historical donation addresses tied to the group on the Tron, Monero and Bitcoin networks.

The freeze reinforces the role of centralized stablecoin issuers in sanctions enforcement. Tether froze more than $182 million in USDT across five Tron wallets in January under its sanctions compliance policy.

OFAC also sanctioned a Brazil-linked network tied to Primeiro Comando da Capital, or PCC, which Treasury described as Latin America’s largest criminal gang.

The network laundered more than $30 million in U.S.-generated illicit proceeds and used crypto to move funds back to Brazil, according to the Treasury.

The six-figure Strategy stock purchase that FBI Director Kash Patel forgot to disclose last year is currently down 45%.

NOTUS reports that on November 21, 2025, Patel bought between $100,001 and $250,000 worth of shares in the BTC treasury firm. If he invested $100,001, it would now be worth $55,000 and if it were the full $250,000, it would be worth $137,500. 

Patel didn’t disclose the purchase until May 26 this year. This is despite rules stating that executive government officials have to report trades worth over $1,000 within a 45-day period.

First-time offenders face a $200 fine, but FBI officials told NOTUS they haven’t fined Patel as of yet. 

A letter written by the Deputy Assistant Attorney General William Taylor to the Office of Government Ethics claimed Patel “inadvertently omitted” the transaction after a “miscommunication.”

Taylor added, “Director Patel is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest.”

Strategy’s stock price is also down almost -77% over the past year. The company and its founder, Michael Saylor, has previously said that BTC is an asset that traders should refrain from selling.

Tether and Circle built their businesses by keeping the interest on the dollars behind their coins. A new kind of stablecoin, run and owned by a group instead of a single company, shares that money instead. Here is how the consortium model works and why it is spreading.

A consortium stablecoin is a digital dollar, or other fiat-pegged token, that is issued and governed collectively by a group of companies rather than controlled by one. The defining idea is shared ownership of both the decisions and the economics: a board drawn from the partner companies sets the rules, and the income earned on the reserves backing the coin is distributed among those partners instead of kept by a single issuer. That structure is a deliberate break from the model that built the stablecoin giants, and it has become one of the most important trends in digital money.

This explainer covers what makes a stablecoin a consortium stablecoin, why the model is emerging now, the leading examples, and the risks that come with running a coin by committee.

Consortium versus single-issuer stablecoins

To understand the consortium model, start with the model it is reacting against. Most of today’s major stablecoins are single-issuer coins. One company creates the token, holds the dollar reserves that back it, collects the interest those reserves earn, and keeps the profit. Tether, which issues USDT, and Circle, which issues USDC, are the dominant examples, and together they control roughly 80 percent of a stablecoin market worth more than $300 billion. Their businesses are simple and enormously profitable: take in dollars, park them in safe assets like Treasury bills, and keep the yield while the token circulates freely.

That reserve income is the heart of the matter. When interest rates are meaningful, the interest on billions of dollars of reserves adds up to billions in revenue. The single issuer keeps that money, which is what makes issuing a large stablecoin one of the best businesses in finance. A partial exception is USDC, where Circle shares a large portion of the economics with Coinbase in exchange for distribution, a hint of the shared-economics idea taken further by the consortium model.

A consortium stablecoin rearranges this in two ways. First, no single company controls the network; a group governs it collectively through a shared board. Second, the reserve income is not kept by one issuer but distributed among the participating companies, usually after a management fee that funds operations. The coin still works the same way for a user, redeemable one-for-one for a dollar held in reserve, but the ownership of the decisions and the money behind it is spread across many hands instead of being concentrated in one. That is the essential difference.

The two defining features: shared governance and shared economics

Every consortium stablecoin rests on the same two pillars, and it is worth being precise about each. The first is shared, neutral governance. Instead of one company setting the token’s rules, its reserve policy, its supported chains, and its product roadmap, a board made up of the partner companies makes those decisions collectively. The stated aim is neutrality: no single participant can steer the coin to serve its own interests at the expense of the others, which is meant to make the token trustworthy as shared infrastructure rather than one firm’s product. For businesses wary of building on a competitor’s rails, that neutrality is a selling point.

The second pillar is shared economics. In a consortium model, the interest earned on the reserves is returned to the partners who adopt and distribute the coin, minus a management fee for operating costs. This directly inverts the incumbent arrangement where the issuer keeps the yield. The logic is incentive alignment: if a payment company, bank, or platform earns a share of the reserve income by supporting the coin, it has a direct financial reason to promote adoption. The coin’s growth becomes a shared commercial project instead of one issuer’s private revenue stream.

Together, these two features aim to solve problems the consortium model’s backers say businesses face with existing stablecoins. Companies often pay fees to mint or redeem at scale, do not share in the reserve revenue their volume helps generate, and have little influence over an issuer’s roadmap. A neutral, revenue-sharing, collectively governed coin is pitched as the answer to all three. Whether it delivers depends on execution, but the structure is a coherent response to the incumbents’ weaknesses.

Why consortium stablecoins are emerging now

The consortium model is not new in concept, but it has gained momentum for specific reasons in the mid-2020s. The first is regulation. In the United States, the GENIUS Act, signed into law in 2025, created a federal framework for dollar-backed stablecoins, setting standards for reserves and licensing. That clarity lowered the legal uncertainty that had kept large, regulated institutions on the sidelines, and it drew banks, payment networks, and major enterprises into a market they had previously watched from a distance. A consortium of household-name financial firms is far more plausible once the rules of the road are defined.

The second reason is the sheer size and trajectory of the market. The stablecoin sector has grown past $300 billion, and some projections see it reaching into the trillions by the end of the decade as tokens move from crypto trading into cross-border payments, merchant settlement, and corporate treasury operations. A market that large attracts competitors who want a share, and it makes the reserve income at stake enormous.

When the prize is that big, the incentive to build an alternative to the incumbents grows accordingly.

The third reason is the economics itself. As the interest income earned by single issuers has become widely understood, partners have increasingly asked why they should drive adoption of a coin whose reserve revenue flows entirely to one company. The competitive frontier has shifted from simply issuing a token to controlling the underlying network and sharing its economics. Consortium stablecoins are the natural expression of that shift, giving a broad group of participants both a say in the network and a cut of the money it generates. The result has been a wave of consortium and shared-revenue projects entering the market.

The leading examples

The clearest way to understand the model is through the projects putting it into practice. The most prominent is Open USD, or OUSD, announced in 2026 by an independent company called Open Standard and backed by a consortium of more than 140 businesses spanning payments, banking, technology, and crypto, including Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, BlackRock, BNY, Coinbase, and Google. Open USD lets businesses mint and redeem the token with no fees and no volume limits, and it shares the reserve income with participating partners after a management fee, governed by a board drawn from those partners. It is positioned as a direct challenge to Tether and Circle, and its announcement sent Circle’s stock down sharply as the market priced in the competitive threat.

Open USD is not the first of its kind. The Global Dollar Network, built around the USDG token and led by the regulated issuer Paxos, uses a similar shared-revenue structure, distributing reserve income to partners such as Robinhood, Kraken, and Galaxy Digital to encourage broad adoption. In Europe, a group of major banks including BNP Paribas, ING, UniCredit, and SEB formed a venture called Qivalis to launch a euro-pegged stablecoin, initially focused on crypto trading before expanding, as financial institutions seek shared digital-payment infrastructure they collectively control. These projects differ in detail, but they share the consortium DNA of collective governance and shared economics.

What unites the examples is a strategic bet: that the future of stablecoins is a fight over infrastructure and network control rather than individual tokens, and that a broad, aligned coalition can win it against entrenched single issuers. The breadth of the coalitions, spanning card networks, banks, technology platforms, and crypto firms, is meant to translate into real-world acceptance that a lone issuer would struggle to build. Whether that bet pays off is the open question, and history offers a cautionary example.

A cautionary precedent: the Centre Consortium

The consortium model has been tried before at the heart of the industry, and the result is instructive. When USDC launched in 2018, it was governed not by Circle alone but by the Centre Consortium, a governance body co-founded by Circle and Coinbase to oversee the coin as a neutral standard. In its early years, USDC was the shared project of two of crypto’s most important companies, with governance and economics split between them, a genuine consortium arrangement at the center of the stablecoin market.

That arrangement did not last. By 2023, Circle and Coinbase dissolved the Centre Consortium, with Circle taking full control of USDC’s issuance and governance and buying out Coinbase’s stake, replacing the shared structure with a revenue-sharing commercial agreement instead. The neutral, jointly governed body gave way to a single issuer with a distribution partner. The episode showed that a consortium can fracture, that aligning even two large partners over the long term is hard, and that the pull toward single-issuer control is strong once a coin becomes valuable.

The lesson for today’s consortium stablecoins is sobering but not disqualifying. Coordinating two founding partners proved difficult; coordinating 140 is a far larger challenge. At the same time, the Centre experience taught the industry a great deal about how to structure governance and economics, and the newer projects are designed with that history in mind. The precedent is a warning about durability, not a verdict that the model cannot work. It simply means the hardest part of a consortium stablecoin may not be launching it, but keeping the coalition together as the stakes rise.

Why the model matters

Consortium stablecoins matter because they attack the core economics of the incumbents and could reshape how digital dollars are built. By sharing reserve income, they threaten the single-issuer business model that has made Tether and Circle so profitable, and they put pressure on every issuer to justify keeping the float that stablecoins quietly earn. If businesses can earn a share of that income by supporting a shared coin, the competitive logic of the whole sector shifts, and that pressure is real regardless of which specific consortium succeeds.

The model also changes the incentives around adoption. A single issuer has to persuade partners to distribute its coin; a consortium gives those partners a financial stake in the coin’s success, turning distribution into a shared interest. Combined with neutral governance, this can make a consortium coin more attractive to businesses that do not want to depend on, or enrich, a single competitor. The breadth of backers in projects like Open USD is meant to convert that aligned interest into faster real-world acceptance across payments, banking, and commerce.

For the broader market, the rise of consortium stablecoins is part of a larger story in which crypto is replaying the history of banking, where whoever holds the deposit, or the digital dollar, ends up with more durable economics than whoever merely moves the transaction. The consortium model is an attempt to distribute that durable position across a coalition instead of concentrating it in one firm. That makes it a structurally significant development, not just another product launch, even though its ultimate success is far from guaranteed.

The risks of the consortium model

For all its appeal, the consortium model carries distinct risks that anyone evaluating it should weigh. The most fundamental is coordination. Aligning the interests of a large group of companies, each with its own priorities and competitors within the same coalition, is genuinely hard, and decision-making by committee can be slow and prone to deadlock. The Centre Consortium fractured with only two partners; a coalition of many faces a much steeper coordination challenge, and governance disputes could stall the roadmap or splinter the group.

A second risk is that consortiums have historically struggled to ship and sustain products. A launch-day roster of famous names is not the same as a working, widely adopted coin, and many industry consortiums across finance and technology have announced ambitious shared ventures that underdelivered. At announcement, a new consortium stablecoin typically has unproven contracts, reserves, and real-world usage, so the gap between a strong partner list and durable adoption is wide. The coin still has to win against the deep liquidity and entrenched network effects of incumbents like USDT and USDC, which will not stand still.

There are subtler concerns too. Concentrating governance among a group of large, powerful incumbents raises its own questions about who really controls the network and whose interests it ultimately serves. Regulatory clarity that favors well-capitalized entrants can entrench the biggest players instead of broadening competition. And a win for the consortium as a business does not automatically translate into benefits for the users, chains, or tokens associated with it. The consortium model is a serious and well-reasoned challenge to the single-issuer status quo, but it is an experiment whose durability will be settled by execution and by whether coalitions can hold together once the money at stake grows large.

Where consortium stablecoins fit among stablecoin types

To place the consortium model correctly, it helps to see the wider map of stablecoin designs, because the consortium approach is a variation on one branch of that map instead of a wholly separate species. The most common type is the fiat-backed stablecoin, where each token is backed by reserves of cash and safe assets like Treasury bills held by an issuer. Within that category sit the familiar single-issuer coins such as Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC, where one company holds the reserves and keeps the income. A consortium stablecoin is still a fiat-backed stablecoin; what changes is who governs it and who receives the reserve income, not what backs it.

Other branches of the map work differently. Crypto-collateralized stablecoins, such as those built on decentralized protocols, are backed not by dollars in a bank but by other cryptocurrencies locked in smart contracts, usually over-collateralized to absorb volatility. Algorithmic stablecoins attempt to hold their peg through supply-adjusting mechanisms instead of full reserves, a design that has repeatedly proven fragile and, in notable cases, collapsed. Yield-bearing stablecoins add a return for the holder on top of the peg, sharing reserve income or on-chain yield directly with users. These are distinct mechanisms for achieving or funding a stable value.

Seen against that backdrop, the consortium model is best understood as a governance-and-economics innovation layered onto the fiat-backed design. It does not change the fundamental promise, one token redeemable for one dollar held in reserve, and it does not introduce a new stability mechanism. What it changes is the ownership of the network: collective governance instead of a single controller, and shared reserve income instead of a single beneficiary. In that sense it sits alongside, not opposite, the single-issuer fiat-backed coins, offering the same product with a different distribution of power and profit.

This placement matters for how users should evaluate a consortium stablecoin. Because the backing is the same fiat-reserve model, the safety questions are the same ones that apply to any fiat-backed coin: what exactly is in the reserves, who holds and audits them, and what regulatory framework governs them. The consortium structure adds considerations about coordination and governance, but it does not remove the need to scrutinize reserves and compliance. A consortium coin is not safer or riskier by virtue of its governance alone; it is a fiat-backed stablecoin whose distinctive feature is shared control, and it should be judged on the fundamentals every stablecoin shares.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. The stablecoin sector is evolving rapidly, and the status of specific projects can change. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or use any asset or product. Always do your own research and consult a qualified professional before making financial decisions. Information is accurate as of July 2, 2026, and may change.

UK regulators are calling for tokenization and “new forms of digital money” to be part of the core infrastructure of the country’s future retail payment ecosystem.

In a Thursday update to the government’s roadmap for modernizing retail payment systems, HM Treasury on behalf of the Payments Vision Delivery Committee said that including tokenization and digital money would advance its efforts to create a “diverse multi-money ecosystem.”

“Programmable payments, including those that rely on tokenization,” were named as potential “product-level arrangements” that may support payment innovation in the country, the agency update said.

The update of November’s National Payments Vision document calls for infrastructure that enables emerging forms of digital money to interact with traditional payment systems. 

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) earlier this week published its landmark crypto regulatory framework and said that the licensing window for crypto companies will open from September until Feb. 28, 2027, before the regime goes live on Oct. 25, 2027.

Under that framework, cryptocurrency firms, including trading platforms, custodians, stablecoin issuers, staking companies and other intermediaries, must obtain FCA authorization to operate in the UK under the new framework. 

Illustrative diagram of roles and responsibilities outlined in Payments Vision Delivery Committee update. Source: HM Treasury

UK plans payments overhaul to support tokenization, stablecoins

In April, the UK government said it would revisit its payments rulebook to support the adoption of new payment technologies, including stablecoins and tokenization.

It said that would include a consultation on reforms for payment services and electronic money rules to create a single framework for traditional and tokenized payments, including stablecoins and tokenized deposits, according to an April 21 announcement by HM Treasury and Economic Secretary to the Treasury Lucy Rigby. 

Related: Aave Labs’ Push gains UK FCA crypto registration

The following month, the Bank of England (BoE) proposed extending operating hours for its core settlement infrastructure toward near-24/7 availability, as part of a broader push with the FCA to prepare UK wholesale markets for tokenized finance. 

The BoE said the expanded operating hours would support cross-border payments and new payment and settlement models as tokenization develops. The central bank is seeking public feedback on the proposal until July 3 and plans to publish a feedback statement in the summer.

Call for input on the future of tokenization in UK wholesale markets. Source: FCA

The FCA said just days earlier that tokenization and distributed ledger technologies could make fund management more efficient and support the innovation of the UK asset management sector.

Magazine: How crypto laws changed in 2025 — and how they’ll change in 2026