US regulators have issued long trading and registration bans against two former FTX-linked executives as part of civil enforcement tied to the exchange’s collapse. In a separate SDNY matter, prosecutors are pushing back on a motion to dismiss in a case involving alleged insider betting on Polymarket.

Taken together, the rulings and filings underscore how US oversight is extending beyond criminal proceedings—using civil instruments to restrict market access and to continue pursuing novel questions around how prediction-market “event contracts” should be treated under federal commodities law.

Key takeaways

• The CFTC entered consent orders imposing five-year trading bans on Caroline Ellison and Zixiao “Gary” Wang, tied to their FTX roles.
• Those same orders also add registration bans—10 years for Ellison and eight years for Wang—separately from criminal outcomes.
• In SDNY, prosecutors opposed a motion to dismiss filed by a US soldier accused of more than $400,000 in alleged nonpublic-information trades on Polymarket.
• The government argued the defendant’s “ambiguous” Commodity Exchange Act theories raise issues that are not appropriate for a motion-to-dismiss stage.

CFTC consent orders: Ellison and Wang face trading and registration bans

On Tuesday, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) entered consent orders connected to a 2022 enforcement action brought by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The orders involve former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison and FTX co-founder Zixiao “Gary” Wang.

Under the CFTC’s terms, both individuals received a five-year trading ban related to their positions in the events surrounding FTX’s collapse. The Commission also required additional restrictions on each executive’s market-facing activities: Ellison was ordered to undergo a 10-year registration ban, while Wang received an eight-year registration ban.

According to CFTC enforcement director David Miller, the restrictions were imposed in recognition of what the CFTC characterized as Wang’s and Ellison’s “material assistance in the Commission’s FTX-related investigations.”

Importantly, the civil case handled through these consent orders is separate from criminal proceedings tied to allegations that customer funds were misused at FTX. Earlier criminal outcomes included a two-year prison sentence for Ellison and a “time served” outcome for Wang, as reported in coverage of the parallel matters.

Why these civil bans matter after criminal cases

Civil enforcement actions like these can still shape the post-FTX landscape even when criminal cases are winding down. Trading bans and registration bans directly affect whether a person can participate in regulated market activity, which can have longer operational consequences than criminal sentencing alone.

Here, the CFTC’s approach also highlights a key feature of how US financial regulators pursue accountability: consent orders can produce fast, court-approved restrictions without the need for a contested merits ruling in the civil case itself. While the underlying criminal cases address criminal liability, these orders focus on deterrence and on limiting future involvement in regulated trading and registration.

For market participants, the practical effect is clear: even as FTX’s executive-level criminal cases progressed on a separate track, the CFTC’s civil process kept moving to close off future access to trading and registration for key figures connected to the firm’s failure.

SDNY dispute over Polymarket insider-betting allegations

In another SDNY filing released this week, lawyers for the US government opposed a motion to dismiss from Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier accused of using nonpublic information to generate more than $400,000 through event contracts on the prediction market platform Polymarket.

Prosecutors say Van Dyke’s trading was connected to a military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. The defense motion, filed on July 31, sought dismissal of charges by arguing that the Commodity Exchange Act—the legal framework at the center of three of the charges—was “ambiguous” in treating event contracts as “swaps” within the CFTC’s jurisdiction.

In the government’s Wednesday opposition filing, prosecutors contended that Van Dyke’s argument depended on hypothetical scenarios and broader questions about “ongoing litigation over state gaming laws,” which they said were unnecessary for the court to resolve at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

“Van Dyke’s motion asks the Court to make a factual determination not appropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage,” SDNY Deputy US Attorney Sean Buckley argued in the filing. Buckley said the defendant’s approach relied on speculative assertions about facts drawn from the indictment and “incorrect conclusions” about the nature of the charge, particularly with respect to whether the alleged conduct involved “property.”

As of Friday, the court had not posted a decision on the motion to dismiss to the public docket.

How the case frames event contracts as commodities

The procedural fight in the Polymarket matter is significant because it turns on how the Commodity Exchange Act applies to event contracts—an issue that has been central to the government’s theory of the case. Van Dyke’s defense attempts to recast the charging statute as too uncertain, while prosecutors argue the legal and factual issues raised by the defense are premature.

For traders and platform users, the broader stakes are about what kinds of market instruments regulators view as sufficiently tied to commodities law enforcement. If the government’s theory prevails through the next stages, it could reinforce the idea that certain prediction-market structures may fall within the CFTC’s reach. If the defense meaningfully limits the statute’s application, courts may narrow how event contracts are categorized.

At this point, the key development is not a ruling on the merits, but the court’s next step after the opposition: whether it will deny dismissal, require further briefing, or allow the case to proceed with the government’s allegations intact.

Readers should watch for the SDNY decision on the motion to dismiss in the Polymarket matter and, separately, whether additional FTX-related civil enforcement actions follow the pattern set by the CFTC consent orders—especially as courts continue to translate civil theories into concrete trading and registration limits.

Bitget CEO Gracy Chen expects Bitcoin to remain broadly around current levels through the end of the year despite its recent surge, citing interest rates and broader macroeconomic conditions as key factors shaping the cryptocurrency’s outlook.

Speaking on Cointelegraph’s Trade Secrets podcast, Chen said predicting whether Bitcoin (BTC) will finish the year above or below $70,000 is difficult, pointing to the possibility of higher interest rates as one factor that could pressure prices.

Cointelegraph host interviews Bitget CEO Gracy Chen. Source: Trade Secrets

“If any of that happens, the price should go down, at least theoretically,” Chen said, adding that BTC has become increasingly integrated with traditional finance and sensitive to broader macroeconomic conditions.

“My guess is maybe around the same range,” Chen said, adding that BTC could finish the year $10,000 to $20,000 above or below current levels, which she described as her “more responsible” forecast.

Related: Bitcoin rally sends crypto stocks soaring as miners, treasury companies jump

Chen sees US Bitcoin purchases as unlikely

Chen was also skeptical that the US government will begin purchasing Bitcoin for its national reserve before the end of President Donald Trump’s term, calling such a move unlikely within the next two years.

The Trump administration established a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve in March 2025 using BTC already forfeited to the federal government, while directing officials to explore budget-neutral strategies for acquiring additional BTC.

The US government currently holds an estimated 328,372 BTC, according to BitcoinTreasuries.NET, much of it accumulated through law enforcement seizures and asset forfeitures rather than direct purchases.

Top 5 government Bitcoin holdings. Source: BitcoinTreasuries.NET

Chen said actively purchasing Bitcoin would be a significantly bigger policy decision, requiring debate among lawmakers and political parties despite the administration’s broadly crypto-friendly stance.

“From a policy perspective, it’s probably unlikely,” Chen said. “I just don’t see it coming right now.”

Magazine: Bitcoin to $1M by 2030 is ‘mathematically impossible’ says Markus Thielen

A Hyperliquid testnet deployer using Kraken’s name has whitelisted 10 wallets and tested three compliance controls, raising the possibility that the centralized exchange has been experimenting with a permissioned HIP-3 market.

Blockworks analyst Shaunda Devens reported on Aug. 22 that a deployer called “Kraken HIP-3 test DEX” had activated a permission system known as Star gating on Hyperliquid’s testnet on Aug. 19.

Will Kraken Be the First Compliant HIP-3 Deployer?

In line with the regulatory approach we just laid out, Hyperliquid keeps adding testnet functions that would enable compliant use. In addition to whitelisting, new observed features would allow a deployer to cancel a user’s… https://t.co/FJJIfxpzBx pic.twitter.com/sCteKU89rP

Advertisement

— shaunda devens (@shaundadevens) August 21, 2026

The deployment has added 10 wallets to its approved-user list and tested three of five compliance controls observed on the testnet, according to Devens. A validator has also been registered under the name “Kraken Exchange Validator.”

Kraken’s connection to the HIP-3 test remains unconfirmed

Devens said Hyperliquid has been adding testnet functions that could support regulated or licensed operators. Along with wallet whitelisting, the observed tools let a deployer cancel a user’s open orders, close positions through reduce-only orders, and move collateral.

Unlike an ordinary user-submitted trade, each action gives the deployer direct control over an account or position. An operator could use the functions to restrict access, respond to sanctions or legal orders, reduce risk, and remove funds from an account when its rules require intervention.

Such controls are common at centralized exchanges, where account access depends on identity checks and compliance screening. Applying them to HIP-3 would create a permissioned market that still uses Hyperliquid’s on-chain order book and settlement infrastructure.

In her post, Devens asked whether Kraken could become “the first compliant HIP-3 deployer,” but she also noted that the name does not prove Kraken’s participation. Hyperliquid’s testnet allows permissionless deployments, meaning an unrelated user could create a market or validator carrying the exchange’s name.

Neither Kraken nor Hyperliquid had publicly confirmed a partnership or test when this report was written. The available evidence, therefore, shows that a Kraken-branded deployment exists and has used the new controls, not that Kraken created it.

How Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 framework works

HIP-3, short for Hyperliquid Improvement Proposal 3, allows independent builders to operate perpetual futures markets through HyperCore, the network’s trading engine. HyperCore supplies the order book, matching system, margin functions, and liquidation process, while each deployer selects its markets and trading rules.

As crypto.news previously explained, HIP-3 has been active on mainnet since Oct. 13, 2025. A builder must stake 500,000 HYPE to operate an independent perpetual exchange without approval from Hyperliquid’s core team.

Deployers choose the listed assets, price oracles, collateral, margin requirements, leverage limits, and funding settings. The first three assets can be introduced without an auction, while later listings require deployers to compete through a Dutch auction.

The 500,000 HYPE stake acts as a financial bond. Validators can slash it if a deployer manipulates an oracle or breaks market rules, and the requirement remains in effect for 30 days after the operator closes its markets.

HIP-3 deployers also receive 50% of the fees from their markets. According to the July 3 report, HIP-3 open interest had surpassed $1.43 billion, while contracts tracking equities and commodities had become seven of Hyperliquid’s 10 largest markets by trading volume.

Permissioned functions would modify one important part of that model. Although anyone could still deploy a HIP-3 market after meeting the protocol requirements, a deployer using Star gating could limit trading on its own market to approved wallets.

Such an arrangement could allow an operator to combine public blockchain settlement with identity checks, location restrictions, or other account-level rules. Whether the functions will reach the mainnet, and under what conditions, has not been confirmed.

Kraken has expanded regulated and on-chain markets

The testnet name has attracted attention partly because Kraken and its parent company, Payward, have spent 2026 adding securities, tokenized assets and on-chain trading services.

On Aug. 18, the exchange launched U.S. stock trading for eligible customers across the European Economic Area. The service covers more than 7,000 traditional U.S.-listed stocks, over 700 xStocks, and more than 600 crypto assets through one account.

Payward Europe Digital Solutions, a Cyprus investment firm authorized under the European Union’s MiFID II framework, provides the conventional stock service. Kraken said xStocks had generated more than $38 billion in transaction volume since the tokenized products launched in June 2025.

Earlier in 2026, the company introduced xChange, an on-chain execution system initially supporting more than 70 tokenized equities across Ethereum and Solana. Kraken later allowed eligible customers outside the United States to use selected xStocks as collateral for futures and margin positions.

Payward has also been taking the product beyond U.S. equities. Through a July agreement with trading infrastructure company GTN, it plans to add shares from Hong Kong before moving into the United Kingdom, Europe, South Korea, and other approved markets, subject to local licenses.

Devens cited Hyperliquid’s work involving xStocks and Payward’s recent business activity as reasons the test might be connected to Kraken. Her assessment remains an inference based on the names and timing rather than confirmation from either company.

U.S. derivatives rules would still limit access

For U.S. users, a permissioned HIP-3 deployment would not by itself make on-chain perpetual contracts legally available. Commodity derivatives offered to American retail traders generally must operate through entities registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

An Aug. 3 review of CFTC crypto oversight found that regulated crypto derivatives venues in the United States operate through designated contract markets, clearing organizations, and registered intermediaries. The agency approved the listing of a Bitcoin perpetual futures contract on a registered exchange in May 2026 and issued guidance covering continuous trading, clearing and settlement.

The CFTC has also pursued offshore derivatives platforms that served U.S. customers without registration. Wallet screening and order controls could help an operator enforce geographic restrictions, but the functions do not replace registration or other legal requirements.

Risk controls also matter because HIP-3 deployers select their own price sources and market settings. On July 28, a Hyperliquid contract tracking SK Hynix shares fell 17.9% intraday after a single unusually low trade on South Korea’s NextTrade entered the contract’s oracle system.

The SK Hynix contract was operated by Trade.xyz under HIP-3. One share changed hands at 1.272 million won, 29.96% below the previous close, before the underlying price recovered from the isolated transaction. HyperInsight said the on-chain contract fell from about $1,128 to $927 and later returned above $1,100.

Trade.xyz retained responsibility for the oracle, leverage rules and settlement process, while Hyperliquid’s documentation allowed the deployer to halt trading, change open-interest limits or settle the market. The operator had not published its final incident report when the July 28 coverage appeared.

Bitcoin held above $77,000 following the Wall Street open as gold joined the broader crypto upswing, pushing precious metals to multi-month highs. The move underscores how strongly investors are linking digital assets to traditional macro drivers, particularly US rate expectations and the outlook for government debt financing.

Trading data cited by market commentary showed BTC cooling after briefly testing levels not seen since May 15, yet still up nearly 6% on the day. Gold tracked the risk-on momentum as well, rising to around $4,632 per ounce—its highest level since mid-May—with both assets also posting strong gains on a monthly view.

Key takeaways

• Bitcoin consolidated above $77,000 after hitting its highest level since May 15, while gold reached a similar US-dollar strength milestone.
• Commentary from The Kobeissi Letter ties the cross-asset rally to inflation and US Treasury actions around debt buybacks.
• QCP Capital highlighted a divergence in how Treasuries, gold, and Bitcoin reacted after a Treasury-related announcement, pointing to sensitivity to long-end rates and the dollar.
• Prediction markets moved toward higher probability for large upside: Polymarket put the odds of BTC reaching $90,000 before 2027 at 48%.
• Technical-focused participants still warned that Bitcoin may need to reclaim key trend levels before a stronger uptrend is confirmed.

Bitcoin and gold rally together above key levels

According to TradingView data referenced in the report, BTC/USD briefly topped levels last seen on May 15 before drifting lower within the session. Even with that cooling, Bitcoin remained firmly higher on the day, up by nearly 6% at the time of writing.

Gold’s performance mirrored the same macro impulse. At the time of writing, gold was quoted around $4,632 per ounce, up about 2.2% on the day and at multi-month highs. On a month-to-date basis, the cited data showed BTC/USD up roughly 13% and XAU/USD up about 16%, indicating the strength of the broader cross-asset trend rather than a one-off price spike.

Macro linkage: debt policy, inflation expectations, and long-end rates

The rally’s timing led market commentators to emphasize US fiscal and debt-management policy as a common driver. The Kobeissi Letter argued that the simultaneous strength in precious metals and crypto should not be viewed as surprising, framing it around inflation, deficit spending, and US Treasury policy. The commentary specifically pointed to record deficit spending and to the US Treasury Department’s pledge to at least double certain debt buyback operations to $4 billion.

The underlying logic is straightforward: when investors anticipate changes in the path of long-term rates, liquidity conditions, and the demand profile for government debt, alternative assets can reprice quickly—even if their fundamental narratives differ. That is precisely what investors saw in the near-synchronous move between Bitcoin and gold.

Divergence after the Treasury announcement raises questions

While the cross-asset alignment was a headline, QCP Capital’s market analysis drew attention to a more nuanced pattern. In its latest “Market Color,” QCP noted that the most visible cross-asset signal of the week was a divergence after the Treasury-related announcement: Treasuries initially rallied but then gave back much of the move, while BTC and gold did not retrace to the same extent.

“That does not establish a new liquidity or monetary regime, but it does highlight the sensitivity of alternative assets to changes in long-end rates and the dollar.”

QCP added that financial stress signals were not limited to the US, citing surging Japanese government bond yields following a rare joint currency intervention earlier in the month. Taken together, the message for traders is that Bitcoin’s sensitivity appears less about isolated equity-style momentum and more about the way global rate dynamics and currency conditions feed into perceived liquidity and risk pricing.

Prediction markets price in a $90,000 target—technicals remain cautious

As Bitcoin’s upside momentum pushed beyond 20% over two days, the probability of higher year-end targets began to look more achievable for some market participants. Polymarket data put the odds of BTC/USD hitting $90,000 before 2027 at 48% at the time of writing, with the report noting that the figure was up sharply compared with the start of the week.

Even with that rising confidence, not everyone was convinced that momentum would translate into a sustained technical break. Trader and analyst Rekt Capital stressed that Bitcoin still needs to reclaim its 50-week exponential moving average (EMA) around $77,232. In his view, rejecting that level would keep the market in a broader downtrend structure characterized by lower highs.

“History suggests there’s still time for price to continue its Downtrend.”

Rekt Capital’s framing is important because it highlights a tension that often appears during macro-driven rallies: narrative strength can coexist with technical uncertainty. Investors may be willing to price upside quickly based on macro conditions, but technical traders typically look for specific confirmations before treating a move as durable.

For readers watching the next steps, the key question is whether Bitcoin can hold above the consolidation area near $77,000 while reclaiming trend resistance around the 50-week EMA. At the same time, the market will likely keep tracking developments that affect long-end rates and the US dollar, since recent cross-asset behavior suggests that changes in debt policy expectations can move both BTC and gold with little delay.

Former Alameda Research and FTX executives receive 5-year trading bans

On Tuesday, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) entered consent orders related to a 2022 enforcement action against former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison and crypto exchange FTX co-founder Zixiao “Gary” Wang.

The orders imposed by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) required that Ellison and Wang receive a five-year trading ban related to their roles in the crypto exchange’s collapse. The CFTC also ordered that the Alameda CEO receive a 10-year registration ban, while Wang received an eight-year registration ban.

According to CFTC enforcement director David Miller, the orders reflected Wang’s and Ellison’s “material assistance in the Commission’s FTX-related investigations.” The civil case is separate from criminal cases involving the misuse of customer funds at FTX, in which Ellison was sentenced to two years in prison and Wang received time served.

US prosecutors file opposition to Polymarket trader over $400,000 Maduro bet

On Wednesday, lawyers representing the US government in SDNY filed their opposition to a motion to dismiss from Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier who allegedly made more than $400,000 using event contracts on prediction market platform Polymarket using nonpublic information. Van Dyke was tied to the military operation that removed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January.

Related: Judge stays CFTC’s case against US soldier over prediction market bets

The US soldier’s motion to dismiss, filed on July 31, included claims that the Commodity Exchange Act, at the center of three of the charges he faces, was “ambiguous” in treating event contracts as “swaps” under the CFTC’s purview. In its Wednesday filing, the US government argued that Van Dyke “advances hypotheticals, edge cases, and ongoing litigation over state gaming laws” that were unnecessary to decide in order to move forward with the case.

“Van Dyke’s motion asks the Court to make a factual determination not appropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage,” said SDNY Deputy US Attorney Sean Buckley. “His argument relies on speculative assertions about facts, based on improper inferences from the Indictment and incorrect conclusions about the nature of the charge, to claim that facts do not amount to ‘property.’”

As of Friday, the court had not posted any decision on the motion to the public docket.

Magazine: MiCA cracks down on USDT in Europe… but no one else cares

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Uniswap’s combined tokenized-stock trading volume on Robinhood Chain has reached $1 billion for the first time, according to protocol founder Hayden Adams.

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams announced the milestone in an Aug. 22 X post, adding that he expects trading volume for the assets to eventually reach $1 trillion.

The $1 billion figure covers cumulative swaps involving multiple tokenized stocks rather than one token or a measure of deposited assets. Uniswap said earlier this week that stock-token volume had reached $638.5 million, indicating that activity has continued to rise since the previous update.

Advertisement

Adams did not provide a timeframe for his $1 trillion projection. The forecast would require tokenized-stock trading on Robinhood Chain to grow one thousandfold from the latest milestone.

Uniswap stock-token volume has climbed since July

Robinhood Chain opened its public mainnet on July 1 as an Ethereum layer-2 network built with Arbitrum technology. Uniswap v2, v3, v4, and UniswapX became available on the network from its first day, according to a launch announcement from Uniswap Labs.

Under the arrangement, Uniswap operates as the chain’s main public automated market maker, allowing traders to exchange Robinhood Stock Tokens through liquidity pools instead of a traditional order book. Supported assets include tokens tied to US-listed companies such as Nvidia, Apple, and Alphabet.

Advertisement

Trading expanded quickly after the launch. As crypto.news reported at launch, Robinhood introduced 95 Stock Tokens that eligible users in more than 120 countries could hold, transfer, and use in decentralized applications.

Robinhood described the instruments as debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets Jersey Limited. Each token tracks the economic performance of a referenced stock, but holders do not receive ownership of the underlying shares, corporate voting rights, or the other privileges normally available to shareholders.

Earlier activity on Robinhood Chain included crypto tokens, stablecoins, memecoins, and tokenized stocks. A July 9 network volume report found that Uniswap generated $500 million in daily trading volume eight days after the chain launched, up tenfold from the preceding day.

Cumulative Uniswap volume across every asset category passed $1 billion by July 10. The new figure announced by Adams is narrower because it counts stock-token trades rather than all swaps completed through the protocol.

Advertisement

Correlated stock pools form part of the $1B total

Adams recently discussed a smaller set of Robinhood Stock Token pools that pair individual equities with a token tracking the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, commonly known by its SPY ticker. Ten stock-versus-SPY pools processed $33 million from more than 11,000 traders during their first 12 days, according to his analysis.

The $33 million measurement represents only the correlated pools discussed in Adams’ report and does not cover every tokenized-stock pair included in the $1 billion total. Other markets allow users to trade stock tokens against stablecoins, Ether, and different supported assets.

In his analysis, Adams argued that pairing stocks with correlated assets could reduce the inventory risk faced by liquidity providers. A market maker supplying Nvidia and SPY tokens, for example, may face smaller price differences than one supplying Nvidia and a dollar-linked stablecoin because both equity assets can move in the same direction.

Adams presented the model as one way automated market makers could compete in equity markets, where professional firms currently supply much of the liquidity. His projection remains untested at the scale of traditional stock exchanges, while the first Robinhood Chain pools provide a limited set of onchain trading data.

Advertisement

Robinhood Chain’s initial activity has not come solely from tokenized equities. A July FalconX data report found that memecoins generated more than 80% of the network’s decentralized-exchange volume during its first three weeks.

At the time, the chain had recorded nearly $9 billion in cumulative DEX volume, $431 million in total value locked, and close to $400 million in stablecoin supply. Tokenized stocks accounted for a smaller share of total trading even though Robinhood designed the network around real-world assets and related financial applications.

Robinhood Stock Tokens remain restricted in the US

For American investors, Robinhood states that Stock Tokens are not available in the United States. Eligibility rules also apply in other jurisdictions, preventing the blockchain’s permissionless design from automatically granting every wallet legal access to the assets.

Uniswap Labs gives a similar warning for tokenized securities available through its products. According to the company, some tokens may not represent direct ownership of the securities they reference, while issuers can impose identity checks, wallet allowlists, transfer rules, and geographical restrictions.

Advertisement

The company also states that certain securities accessible through Uniswap products have not been registered under the US Securities Act of 1933. Such assets cannot generally be offered or sold in the United States without registration or an applicable exemption.

To support assets with compliance requirements, Uniswap Labs introduced Permissioned Pools for v4 in July. The system lets issuers maintain allowlists that smart contracts check before a user can swap an asset or provide liquidity.

A previously published permissioned-pools report said Superstate, Securitize, and Dowgo helped develop the standard for regulated tokenized funds, stocks, and other securities. Regular Uniswap v4 pools remain permissionless, while issuers can select the restricted structure when their assets require identity or eligibility checks.

Robinhood Chain activity has fed into Uniswap fees

Robinhood Chain’s early trading also became a major source of Uniswap fees. During one 24-hour period in July, DefiLlama recorded about $5.16 million in fees across the protocol, including roughly $4.38 million generated on Robinhood Chain.

Advertisement

Daily Uniswap traders on the network reached about 220,000 during the same period, while the chain produced $10.98 million of the protocol’s $20.1 million in weekly fees. Protocol fees differ from revenue because liquidity providers receive much of the money paid by traders.

Robinhood subsidized gas costs for the first 90 days after mainnet went live, lowering transaction expenses during the chain’s launch period. A July 11 network update found that the blockchain processed 7.6 million daily transactions while Robinhood covered gas fees that users would otherwise have paid.

Uniswap later expanded its Robinhood Chain presence by launching Pools.trade, a platform that lets projects issue tokens and move their liquidity into Uniswap v4 pools. The product offers crowd-based and instant token launches, with completed launches settling into permanently locked liquidity positions.

Advertisement