Kalshi has secured an exclusive partnership with the U.S. Tennis Association to become the US Open’s prediction market platform partner as the tournament’s main draw gets underway in New York.

Front Office Sports reported on Aug. 30, citing two people familiar with the agreement, that the partnership took effect immediately after being finalized following last week’s qualifying rounds. Financial terms and other parameters of the agreement were not disclosed.

The deal gives Kalshi an official role at one of tennis’s four Grand Slam tournaments and was completed later than initially planned. The US Open, owned and operated by the USTA, had previously considered waiting until 2027 or later before entering a prediction market partnership.

Kalshi becomes US Open prediction market partner

Discussions in recent weeks had involved multiple prediction market platforms and focused partly on match integrity and potential partnerships beginning next year, Front Office Sports reported.

Plans changed after Craig Tiley took over as USTA CEO on July 20. Tiley played a major role in pushing for an agreement covering the 2026 tournament, according to the report.

One source told Front Office Sports that the arrangement would prevent competing prediction market companies from advertising at the US Open venue and across television coverage of the tournament, including ESPN broadcasts.

The agreement had not yet been fully reflected across the organizations’ public materials when the main draw started Sunday. Kalshi was absent from the US Open’s official partner list as of Sunday afternoon.

A Kalshi blog post published earlier that day analyzing the women’s singles tournament still carried a disclaimer saying the company was “not affiliated with the U.S. Open or WTA,” according to Front Office Sports.

Kalshi already offers a large number of contracts tied to US Open matches. Its tennis markets on Sunday included individual men’s and women’s singles matches, with some contracts recording more than $1 million in trading volume.

The US Open agreement expands a sports strategy that has increasingly put prediction market platforms alongside leagues, teams and major events.

In June, crypto.news previously reported that Kalshi had secured World Cup branding exposure through a partnership with ADI Predictstreet, FIFA’s official prediction market partner for the 2026 tournament. The arrangement placed Kalshi branding alongside ADI Predictstreet across stadium, television and digital coverage beginning with the knockout stage.

Sports partnerships have spread across the prediction market industry. Kalshi and Polymarket have partnerships with the NHL, while Polymarket has worked with Major League Baseball and the New York Yankees. Kalshi has separately announced relationships with MLB clubs including the Atlanta Braves, Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres and San Francisco Giants.

Novig has moved into the same market through a partnership with the New York Mets, becoming the first prediction market platform to sign an individual MLB team.

Sports contracts drive Kalshi’s expansion

Sports have become a central source of trading activity for Kalshi as the platform expands beyond the political and economic event contracts that helped prediction markets gain attention.

The company’s sports strategy was particularly visible during the FIFA World Cup. Weekly Kalshi trading volume reached a record $5.1 billion in June as activity tied to the tournament increased, while sports-related contracts had become its largest product category, according to previous coverage.

Kalshi has developed compliance systems alongside the expansion. Its sports-market surveillance includes IC360 screening and a prohibited-persons system designed to identify athletes, coaches, referees and league personnel who should not trade certain contracts. The company has paired those controls with its proprietary Poirot detection engine and Solidus Labs’ HALO surveillance platform, as detailed in crypto.news’ examination of prediction market surveillance in July.

The commercial push has continued while courts consider whether sports event contracts offered on federally regulated prediction markets can remain outside state gambling regimes.

Kalshi faces conflicting rulings over sports contracts

Two days before the US Open partnership emerged, Kalshi suffered a setback in its dispute with Nevada gaming regulators.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Aug. 28 that Kalshi had not shown that the Commodity Exchange Act was likely to preempt Nevada gaming regulations as applied to its sports event contracts. The three-judge panel affirmed in part a lower court order dissolving a preliminary injunction that had prevented Nevada from enforcing its laws against Kalshi.

Nevada’s Gaming Control Board had sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter alleging that it was operating a sports betting platform in violation of state laws and gaming regulations.

Kalshi argued that it operates as a designated contract market under the Commodity Exchange Act and that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission therefore has exclusive authority over its sports contracts.

The Ninth Circuit rejected Kalshi’s request for preliminary protection from Nevada enforcement. Its ruling found that the sports event contracts at issue did not qualify as swaps under the relevant Commodity Exchange Act definition because they were sports bets. The court remanded issues involving Kalshi’s election contracts to the district court for further consideration.

The decision came after Kalshi and Polymarket had already lost separate efforts connected with state gambling enforcement. In May, a Ninth Circuit panel denied emergency motions involving disputes in Nevada and Washington, finding that a Commodity Exchange Act preemption defense did not by itself establish federal jurisdiction.

Kalshi received a different result in the Third Circuit, which previously upheld preliminary relief preventing New Jersey regulators from enforcing state gambling laws against its sports contracts. The court found Kalshi had demonstrated a reasonable chance of succeeding on its argument that the contracts were swaps covered by federal derivatives law.

New York has produced another unfavorable ruling for the company. A federal judge in July rejected Kalshi’s injunction bid, leaving the state’s gambling-law claims against its sports event contracts in place while the litigation proceeds.

State and local challenges have continued during August. Baltimore sued Kalshi and Polymarket on Aug. 13 over alleged unlicensed sports betting, with the Kalshi complaint naming Coinbase, Robinhood and Webull because the platforms distribute its event contracts to their customers.

Baltimore alleged that contracts covering game winners, point spreads and player performances operate like sports wagers without the licenses and consumer protections required under state law. Kalshi rejected that characterization and maintained that its federal regulatory status permits it to offer the contracts.

The city is seeking statutory penalties, customer restitution and disgorgement of proceeds it alleges came from unlawful activity, along with an order preventing the companies from offering unauthorized sports betting to Baltimore residents.

Robinhood Chain recorded $2.66 million in application revenue over 24 hours on Aug. 31, according to a rolling DeFiLlama dashboard.

The reading placed the network above Hyperliquid L1 at $1.71 million, Ethereum at $1.57 million and Base at approximately $439,252. Robinhood Chain’s total was roughly 6.1 times Base’s figure during the same snapshot.

The dashboard had shown lower totals earlier in the day. That difference reflects the rolling measurement window rather than a correction or separately reported financial result.

Robinhood Chain app revenue led the snapshot

DeFiLlama’s dashboard aggregates revenue retained by applications operating on each network. Its Robinhood Chain reading increased 201% from the previous week and reached $23.23 million over 30 days.

However, the 30-day comparison presented a different ranking. Hyperliquid L1 recorded $53.6 million, while Ethereum generated $52.03 million. Robinhood Chain therefore led the daily snapshot but remained behind both networks over the longer period.

The comparison also does not mean Robinhood Markets earned more revenue than Ethereum or Hyperliquid. Application revenue belongs to individual protocols and may include several measurement methods, depending on how each service collects fees.

Three applications generated about 93% of revenue

GMGN led Robinhood Chain applications with approximately $1.11 million in 24-hour revenue. DeFiLlama defines that figure as trading fees retained by GMGN after referral commissions. Its EVM referral deduction is partly estimated using the rate measured on Solana.

Pons followed with approximately $1.03 million. Its total includes launch fees and portions of swap fees retained by the protocol. Uniswap ranked third with about $327,707.

Together, the three applications generated nearly $2.47 million, equivalent to approximately 93% of Robinhood Chain’s reported total. The concentration shows that the daily result depended heavily on trading bots, token launches and decentralized exchange activity.

Pons has been expanding its Robinhood Chain presence through an ETH-based bonding curve and Uniswap v4 integration

App revenue differs from blockchain revenue

Application revenue measures fees retained by protocols after payments to liquidity providers, referrers or other participants. It differs from gross user fees, transaction volume and revenue retained by the underlying blockchain.

DeFiLlama separately estimated Robinhood Chain’s own 24-hour revenue at about $963,612. Its definition covers transaction gas fees after Ethereum execution costs, blob costs and the Arbitrum Expansion Program share.

The distinction matters because Robinhood Chain is an Ethereum-compatible Layer 2 built with Arbitrum technology. Robinhood launched its public mainnet on July 1 for tokenized assets and decentralized financial applications.

Uniswap became one of its main liquidity venues at launch. In related coverage, crypto.news reported that cumulative tokenized-stock trading through Uniswap had surpassed $1 billion by Aug. 21.

Longer data will test whether the lead continues

Robinhood Chain would need to maintain stronger seven-day and 30-day results before the daily reading could indicate a sustained change in network rankings. Daily revenue can rise sharply during token launches or periods of concentrated speculative trading.

Future assessments should examine whether revenue spreads across more applications, whether active users continue returning and whether transaction activity persists without short-term incentives. GMGN and Pons currently account for most of the total, making the network sensitive to changes in either platform.

The earlier $1.84 million reading and the later $2.66 million total demonstrate how quickly a rolling dashboard can change. Articles comparing networks should therefore identify the measurement time and avoid presenting the figure as a completed financial period.

Polygon Labs has patched several security flaws across its proof-of-stake network through two coordinated hard forks, including a vulnerability that could have forced the full validator set to perform costly processing from a single crafted transaction.

Polygon’s Validators Support Team disclosed the fixes in an Aug. 27 forum post after the Austin and Kyoto hard forks had already been tested and activated. The team said consensus-affecting security fixes were deployed privately, validated on the Amoy testnet and disclosed only after the mainnet fleet was protected.

The vulnerabilities affected Bor, Polygon PoS’s execution client, and Heimdall, which handles validator coordination and other consensus functions. Polygon said it found no evidence that any of the issues had been exploited or caused disruption on mainnet.

Polygon hard forks close block processing flaws

The Austin hard fork upgraded Bor to version 2.10.0 and addressed two denial-of-service paths tied to block processing.

One involved state-sync events used for L1-to-L2 bridge deposits. Such events can execute contract code and precompiles, but their execution was not subject to an effective per-block gas bound. Austin introduced a limit on how much gas state-sync events can consume within a block, preventing them from exhausting processing resources.

A separate weakness involved TxDependency data used during block processing. A malicious block producer could supply an oversized data field, potentially causing excessive memory allocation and crashing peers processing the block.

Polygon described both issues as block-processing denial-of-service vectors instead of consensus-correctness flaws and said neither had caused known disruption before the patches were deployed.

The Kyoto hard fork, which moved Heimdall to version 0.11.0, covered a larger group of input-validation and consensus-hardening fixes.

Among them, Polygon identified deeply nested google.protobuf.Any fields as the most severe vulnerability in the batch. Heimdall transactions can wrap messages inside Any fields, which in turn can be nested inside one another.

Without a depth limit, an attacker could construct a transaction containing deeply nested fields at relatively little cost while forcing every validator processing it to carry out substantial decoding work. Polygon said the flaw provided a permissionless route for imposing costly, coordinated processing across the validator set.

Kyoto added a byte-level scan that rejects transactions once nesting exceeds a defined threshold. The check applies at both mempool admission and the consensus processing stage so the same transaction cannot be accepted through one path and rejected through another.

Other Heimdall fixes covered milestone accounting, checkpoint processing and L1 event replay. Failed future-span creation can now degrade and retry at the next boundary instead of blocking a milestone commit, while new replay keys address an edge case in which distinct L1 events could otherwise collide.

Older Polygon nodes have fallen out of consensus

Both hard forks are mandatory for operators that want to remain on the canonical Polygon PoS network.

Bor v2.10.0 is required for all nodes, while Heimdall v0.11.0 applies to validators and full nodes. Polygon said operators running versions from before the activation heights have already forked away from canonical consensus and must update their software to rejoin the network.

The changes were delivered as binary upgrades, meaning operators do not need to migrate state, modify the genesis configuration or perform a full resync. Nodes that have fallen out of consensus can upgrade and roll back to the appropriate pre-hard-fork height before catching up with the canonical chain.

Polygon has previously used hard forks to address problems affecting its PoS infrastructure. In September 2025, developers executed a hard fork after a software bug caused transaction finality delays of as much as 15 minutes.

The earlier incident affected validator synchronization and local fast finality while block production and Ethereum checkpointing continued. Bor and Heimdall updates were deployed to restore milestone processing, state synchronization and consensus finalization.

A month later, the Rio mainnet upgrade introduced witness-based stateless validation and a Validator-Elected Block Producer model as Polygon continued changing how its PoS network processes and verifies transactions.

Polygon has continued changing its PoS infrastructure

Network performance remained another focus in 2026. In May, crypto.news previously reported that Polygon had reduced block time to an average of 1.75 seconds, its first block-time reduction since launch.

Polygon software engineer Lucca Martins said at the time that the change raised theoretical throughput to roughly 3,260 transactions per second and allowed the network to process about 14% more payments per second. The work formed part of Polygon’s push to support higher transaction volumes from stablecoin payments and decentralized finance activity.

The latest security fixes arrived after Polygon completed the replacement of MATIC with POL as the native gas and staking token on its PoS network. The migration began in September 2024 as part of the Polygon 2.0 roadmap, with MATIC held directly on Polygon PoS converted to POL at a one-to-one ratio.

The original MATIC-to-POL plan designated POL as the token used for gas payments and staking, while its proposed functions were expected to expand as Polygon developed its staking and aggregated-chain architecture.

Changes have extended to Polygon Labs itself. In July, the company cut another round of jobs while completing the integration of crypto exchange Coinme. CEO Marc Boiron said the restructuring was designed to support profitability by 2027 as Polygon Labs moved toward a payments-focused business model.

POL showed little positive reaction to the security disclosure. The token was trading near $0.09983 on Aug. 30, down about 2.3% over the previous 24 hours and 6.8% over seven days, according to CoinGecko data provided with the report. Its price remained about 60.8% lower than a year earlier, giving the token a market capitalization of roughly $1.07 billion.

On Aug. 21, 2026, decentralized exchanges across the chains tracked by DeFiLlama processed about $10.5 billion in spot volume over 24 hours.

Solana accounted for roughly $2.8 billion. The picture was similar over 30 days: $48.5 billion of the market’s $181.2 billion total, or just under 27%.

That is a large share for one layer-1 network, but the headline figure does not tell traders where they can get a reliable fill.

Aggregate volume measures how much value changed hands, not where usable liquidity sits. On the same day, PumpSwap processed about $485 million, BisonFi $466 million, Orca $307 million, Raydium $260 million and Manifest $218 million. Together, those five venues handled roughly $1.74 billion, or 62% of Solana’s total. Dozens of other protocols shared the remainder. The practical question is therefore not how many pairs a DEX lists. It is whether the venue can absorb a specific order when the trader needs to execute, and how much slippage appears when it cannot. SOL is not limited to Solana-based venues either; it also trades as a perpetual contract on platforms built on other networks, including Arbitrum.

1. The fee model quietly shapes how people trade

Solana’s cost structure is unusual enough to change behavior. Every transaction pays a base fee of 5,000 lamports per signature, with an optional prioritization fee priced in micro-lamports per compute unit, as the protocol documentation lays out. At current prices the base component rounds to fractions of a cent.

Those low costs influence trading in two distinct ways.

The advantage is straightforward. Cheap transactions make frequent retail trading possible where the same strategy could be uneconomical on Ethereum mainnet. Splitting a position into 15 smaller orders adds little network cost.

The drawback becomes clearer during congestion. Cheap failed transactions also make it inexpensive to flood the network. Priority fees can then become the real cost of getting a transaction included, with traders competing in an auction they may not win. Anyone budgeting only for the base fee can face delays or failed execution when timing matters most.

2. Volume charts have three blind spots

Routing can inflate totals. An aggregator may split one order across several pools. Each venue records the portion it fills, while the aggregator may also record the complete trade. The activity is genuine, but adding every reported figure can count the same order more than once.

Incentives can make liquidity look more durable than it is. Volume attracted by token rewards often leaves when those rewards end. A busy pool can become much thinner within a quarter, while historical charts offer little warning.

MEV creates another hidden cost. A large order submitted to a public mempool can attract sandwiching, backrunning and priority-fee competition. The loss does not appear as a separate charge; it appears in a worse execution price.

Onchain volume remains useful, but it should be treated as a starting point rather than a final verdict.

3. Automated market makers and order books are answering different questions

Most of the Solana venues above are variations on the constant-product idea Uniswap popularized, where a pool prices assets against a formula instead of against resting bids and offers, a mechanic the protocol’s own documentation still describes more clearly than anyone else has managed. It works remarkably well for long-tail assets, because a pool can exist for a token nobody would bother quoting by hand.

The limitation is depth. Price impact on an AMM rises as an order consumes more of a pool, and liquidity outside leading pairs can be thinner than the interface suggests. Order books reverse that tradeoff: they can offer stronger execution where market makers are active, but may have little usable depth elsewhere.

Derivatives venues concentrate liquidity differently from spot exchanges. Perpetual platforms focus activity in a smaller group of heavily traded contracts instead of spreading it across thousands of tokens. A BTC or SOL perpetual order book can therefore be deeper than a spot market for the same asset. Some hybrid platforms match orders offchain and settle them onchain, aiming to provide order-book execution without requiring users to give up custody.

4. The decentralization question does not resolve itself

The Bank for International Settlements made an argument back in its December 2021 Quarterly Review that has aged well: DeFi protocols exhibit what the authors called a decentralization illusion, since governance, sequencing and upgrade authority almost always concentrate somewhere identifiable.

Five years later, Solana’s DEX market offers a useful example. Its settlement layer is permissionless, but liquidity remains concentrated, a few aggregators route much of the order flow, and incentive programs controlled by small teams can shape activity. This is not evidence that the network has failed to decentralize. It shows that a decentralized ledger does not automatically create a decentralized market structure.

How the three venue models compare

What to check before routing a large order

Check depth, not just volume. Review the order book or pool reserves for the exact pair and model the expected fill at the intended trade size. Two venues with similar daily volume can produce very different results.

Separate protocol fees from network fees. Solana’s network fee may be small, but venue charges, spreads and price impact can still materially change the final cost.

Identify the source of liquidity. Organic market-maker activity can behave differently under stress from liquidity attracted mainly by temporary rewards.

Understand the custody model. Assets held in an exit-ready smart contract present different risks from collateral placed with an intermediary whose balance sheet cannot be inspected. Execution quality does not answer the custody question.

Test the venue against difficult conditions. A market can look deep during calm trading and deteriorate quickly during a sharp hourly move.

Solana’s onchain trading market has earned a large share of decentralized exchange activity. Still, a chain processing $48 billion in monthly volume does not prove that every venue can handle every order. Traders need pair-specific evidence before choosing where to execute.

Trading-volume data: DeFiLlama, retrieved Aug. 21, 2026.

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has challenged the Bank for International Settlements’ preference for tokenized bank deposits, arguing that fully reserved stablecoins give users a stronger alternative to money held under fractional reserve banking.

The Bank for International Settlements laid out the case for tokenized deposits on Aug. 28, when General Manager Pablo Hernández de Cos told the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium that stablecoins still fall short of several properties needed to function as money at scale. Ardoino responded by questioning why savers would choose bank deposits when stablecoins can hold reserves in highly liquid assets such as U.S. Treasuries.

“BIS is rightfully worried about the fact that stablecoins are exposing the emperor without clothes,” Ardoino said. “Why someone should choose to put his savings into a fractional reserve product while stablecoins are fully reserved?”

Tether CEO challenges the BIS case for tokenized deposits

Hernández de Cos argued that stablecoins face problems with redeemability at par, interoperability and financial integrity, while their use outside the United States can create concerns over monetary sovereignty and digital dollarization.

In the BIS model, tokenized deposits remain liabilities of commercial banks and settle through central bank accounts. De Cos said this structure preserves the “singleness” of money because different bank liabilities remain redeemable at par through central bank settlement.

Stablecoins work differently. A user holding USDT who needs to pay someone accepting only USDC may first need to exchange one token for the other in a secondary market, where prices can deviate from their dollar pegs, particularly during periods of stress.

Public blockchains create another concern for the BIS. Stablecoins can circulate across multiple networks and through self-custody wallets, while moving the same asset between chains can require bridges or other infrastructure. De Cos argued that this structure creates interoperability problems and makes consistent enforcement of anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing controls more difficult.

Ardoino focused his response on the reserve structure behind the two forms of digital money. The Tether executive argued that stablecoins can be backed almost entirely by liquid reserves, including U.S. government debt, while commercial banks operate under a fractional reserve system in which only part of their liabilities are held in liquid assets.

His comments put the reserve question at the center of a debate that has increasingly divided stablecoin issuers and the banking sector as both compete to move fiat-denominated money onto blockchain networks.

Crypto.news recently examined how a tokenized bank deposit remains on the issuing bank’s balance sheet even after being represented on a blockchain. Unlike stablecoins, customer funds do not move into a separate reserve portfolio and can remain available to support the bank’s lending operations.

Tokenized deposits are moving beyond pilot programs

Banks have started building infrastructure around that model as stablecoins take a larger role in digital payments.

JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo are developing a shared deposit token network through The Clearing House, with a launch targeted for the first half of 2027. The planned system would initially give multinational companies access to programmable treasury and cross-border payment services.

SWIFT has pursued a similar route. In July, the financial messaging network launched a  blockchain-based shared ledger with 17 major banks, including Citi, HSBC, UBS and BNP Paribas. The system was designed around tokenized bank deposits for round-the-clock cross-border payments.

Custodia Bank and Vantage Bank have taken a different approach by combining the two structures. Their dual-purpose token model is designed to operate as a bank deposit while inside the Hazel network and function as a stablecoin when transferred outside it. The Ethereum-based system has been under testing ahead of a planned fourth-quarter 2026 rollout.

Despite supporting tokenized deposits, Hernández de Cos acknowledged that the model has its own unresolved problems. No multi-bank or cross-jurisdictional ecosystem currently issues tokenized deposits through a fully interoperable framework, he said. Existing systems remain concentrated on permissioned platforms, while some designs resemble bank-issued stablecoins.

The BIS chief said stablecoins and tokenized deposits could ultimately coexist, but argued that tokenized deposits should handle most everyday payments while stablecoins serve more specialized functions.

Stablecoin growth raises the deposit flight question

Ardoino’s criticism comes as the competition for deposits has become part of the U.S. debate over crypto market structure.

Banking groups have repeatedly pushed lawmakers to tighten stablecoin reward provisions in the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. In July, the American Bankers Association, Independent Community Bankers of America and 76 state banking associations urged Senate leaders to revise Section 404 before the legislation reached the Senate floor.

The groups argued that allowing crypto platforms to provide certain rewards on stablecoin balances could encourage customers to move funds out of traditional bank accounts. Under that argument, deposit losses could leave community banks with less funding available for lending.

Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser repeated the concern in August while supporting passage of the CLARITY Act. Fraser warned that stablecoin rewards could draw deposits away from banks and affect their ability to extend credit.

The dispute partly traces back to the GENIUS Act, which prevents payment stablecoin issuers from directly paying interest or yield to holders. Crypto exchanges and other service providers can still offer some rewards depending on how their programs are structured, leaving lawmakers and banking groups divided over where the restrictions should apply.

Hernández de Cos raised a similar funding issue at Jackson Hole. Stablecoin issuers can increase demand for government debt by placing reserves into Treasury securities, potentially lowering sovereign borrowing costs, he said. At the same time, money leaving commercial bank deposits could increase bank funding costs and eventually raise borrowing costs for households and companies.

Ardoino presented the same movement of funds from the opposite perspective.

“What happens to financial system if people start realizing that stablecoins are safer and move their savings into the better asset class?” he said. “We’re in the Find Out phase.”

USDT remains the largest stablecoin by circulation and has developed a substantial user base outside the United States. Ardoino has repeatedly positioned the token as a dollar-based savings and payments product for markets where access to U.S. dollars or conventional banking services can be limited.

Tether has pursued that market through payment and remittance investments, including its May investment in cross-border platform LemFi, which serves users across African and Asian remittance corridors.

Ardoino said some economies now rely heavily on USDT for both domestic and foreign commerce, while the BIS has warned that increasing use of dollar-denominated stablecoins outside the United States could weaken monetary policy transmission and increase dependence on external monetary conditions.

A common misconception in the realm of cryptocurrency investment is that making money through mining requires an understanding of complex blockchain technology and the purchase of expensive mining hardware.

However, the launch of FT mining—a cloud mining service—has completely shattered this barrier to entry. Now, even ordinary individuals with no knowledge of mining equipment can easily participate in cryptocurrency mining and generate stable passive income.

For many ordinary users, cryptocurrency mining still sounds like a “high-barrier-to-entry technical job for professional engineers and mining farms.” However, now, through FT mining, even those completely unfamiliar with mining rigs and algorithms, and without the need for hardware or maintenance, can easily participate in mining.

Legitimate and Regulated Cloud Mining Services

Headquartered in England and regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), FT mining operates in full compliance with the EU’s MiFID II financial regulatory framework, ensuring:

• Transparent and lawful platform operations
• Secure and reliable custody of user funds
• Daily settlement and traceability of mining returns

Furthermore, the platform holds annual security certification from PwC, and its digital asset custody is underwritten by Lloyd’s of London, guaranteeing full protection for user assets even in extreme scenarios. CEO Faye Victoria Thompson stated:

“FT mining aims to enable users to generate stable passive income within a legitimate and secure environment; we prioritize the safety of user funds above all else, regardless of market volatility or technical threats.”

FT mining Cloud Mining Model: No mining hardware required—start with a single click.

Register an Account — Sign up for free and get started immediately

Deposit Crypto Assets — Supports BTC, ETH, USDT, XRP, etc.

Select a Hashrate Contract — Activate mining with one click; earnings calculated automatically

Daily Earnings Payout — Automated settlement for true passive income

Examples of Popular Contracts:

Starter Contract: $100 — 2-day term — Total profit approx. $108

Stable Contract: $800 — 5-day term — Total profit approx. $852.50

Professional Contract: $5,000 — 20-day term — Total profit approx. $6,520

Premium Contract: $36,000 — 35-day term — Total profit approx. $582,448

For further details regarding the contract, please visit the official website.

Comprehensive Fund Security Safeguards

FT mining has built a top-tier security infrastructure:

Multi-signature cold wallets: User funds are stored in regulated cold wallets.

AI risk monitoring system: Real-time analysis of abnormal transactions to block potential risks.

Cloudflare Enterprise Firewall + McAfee Cloud Security Certification: Round-the-clock defense against external attacks.

PwC audits and Lloyd’s insurance: Transparent, traceable funds covered by full insurance.

CTO Lucas Yip emphasizes:

“Our goal is for users to earn returns in a completely secure environment. Security and transparency are FT mining’s unwavering bottom line.”

Real Feedback from Global Users

John, a retired investor from the US:

“Seeing my earnings automatically deposited every day without any hassle gives me the peace of mind to hold long-term.”

Anna, a retiree from Germany:

“A regulated platform, fund insurance, and transparent earnings—FT mining gives me the utmost confidence.”

Elena, an investor from Bulgaria:

“Even when the crypto market is volatile, my daily earnings arrive steadily; it gives me great peace of mind.”

Start Your Passive Income Journey

In today’s rapidly evolving digital economy, seizing innovative investment opportunities is crucial. With its low entry barrier, high transparency, and stable returns, FT mining cloud mining is becoming the preferred path to financial freedom for more and more people.

Whether you are a busy professional, a retiree seeking extra income, or an everyday investor interested in digital currency but lacking a technical background, FT mining offers a simple and reliable passive income solution.

Official Website: https://ftmining.com

App Download: https://ftmining.com/xml/index.html#/app

Customer Service Email: [email protected]