Coinbase Asset Management announced CUSHY on April 30, a tokenised stablecoin credit fund for qualified institutional investors running on Ethereum, Solana, and Base, with Apollo handling private credit origination, Superstate issuing tokenised shares via FundOS, and Northern Trust administering the fund.

Coinbase CUSHY was unveiled on April 30 by Coinbase Asset Management, positioning the product as a bridge between traditional fixed-income markets and on-chain settlement infrastructure. As crypto.news reported, the strategy is structured as a diversified credit fund where qualified investors access tokenised shares across Ethereum, Solana, and Base, with Coinbase Prime handling custody and trading. “With CUSHY, we are fusing the high-velocity efficiency of digital rails with the institutional rigour of traditional credit,” said Anthony Bassili, President of Coinbase Asset Management. The fund is expected to launch in Q2 2026.

The partnership structure behind CUSHY distinguishes it from earlier tokenised fund experiments. Superstate, which operates as an SEC-approved transfer agent and already runs $1 billion-plus across its USTB and USCC fund strategies, provides the FundOS infrastructure. Apollo brings private credit origination to the fund, funnelling asset-based lending exposure to both crypto-native and traditional borrowers. Superstate CEO Robert Leshner noted that CUSHY could eventually expand into decentralised finance use cases, and said several additional asset managers are expected to adopt FundOS in coming months.

As crypto.news documented, Coinbase’s head of investment research David Duong had projected that stablecoins and tokenised credit would form a core pillar of institutional crypto adoption in 2026, citing regulatory clarity from the GENIUS Act as the enabling condition. CUSHY’s launch lands as the CLARITY Act debate over stablecoin yield reaches its most critical window, with the Senate Banking Committee markup expected the week of May 11. CUSHY’s structure as a credit fund rather than a direct yield-bearing stablecoin product means it sits outside the specific yield restrictions that banking groups have lobbied hardest to enforce, giving the product regulatory insulation that a pure stablecoin yield wrapper would not have. As crypto.news tracked, Coinbase’s broader stablecoin stack has been expanding rapidly, with Apollo credit strategies and BlackRock tokenisation agreements adding institutional weight to the infrastructure CUSHY is built on.

Bitcoin has reclaimed $78,000 on Gate’s BTC/USDT pair, extending a rebound from $76,000 and keeping the market within range of the closely watched $80,000 level.

According to spot data from Gate, the BTC/USDT pair is currently changing hands around $78,004, marking a roughly 2.15% gain over the last 24 hours.

Gate quotes BTC above $78,000 after latest push higher

That lift puts Bitcoin back above the $78,000 line that has acted as a near-term ceiling in recent sessions, with multiple exchanges reporting repeated tests of the high‑$70,000s but little sustained time above that zone.

External price trackers cited by outlets such as Fortune and LatestLY have likewise noted BTC oscillating between roughly $76,000 and $79,000 as the market digests earlier gains and watches for a clean break toward $80,000.

Why the $78,000 level matters for traders

While the difference between $76,000 and $78,000 may seem marginal in percentage terms, the current band sits just below a widely watched round‑number milestone at $80,000.
As yellow.com pointed out in a recent note, BTC’s ability to hold above roughly $78,000 has coincided with rising retail search interest and renewed ETF inflows, both of which can add incremental spot demand when sentiment leans bullish.

In earlier coverage, LatestLY highlighted resistance near $78,500 as the last major hurdle before a potential run at $80,000, framing the current zone as a “launch pad” rather than a destination if macro conditions and flows stay supportive.

For intraday traders, the reclaim of $78,000 on venues like Gate often becomes a reference level for short‑term strategies: staying above it can keep the bias tilted toward testing $79,000–$80,000, while a failure back below may invite another round of mean‑reversion trades toward the mid‑$70,000s.

Longer‑term holders, meanwhile, tend to focus more on how these levels line up with broader trends in ETF flows, exchange reserves, and macro indicators like the dollar index and Federal Reserve expectations, factors covered in previous crypto.news pieces on Bitcoin’s approach to $80,000 and beyond.

TLDR

• Ripple burned about $120 million worth of RLUSD on April 30 through two separate transactions.
• The burn ranks as the second-largest intraday RLUSD reduction recorded on the XRP Ledger.
• The transactions reduced RLUSD supply on the XRP Ledger to about $253 million.
• Ethereum now holds about 82.5% of the total RLUSD supply after the latest burn.
• Historical data shows Ripple often follows large burns with early-month mint activity.

---

Ripple executed large RLUSD burn transactions on April 30, reducing supply across networks. The company removed about $120 million through two separate ledger entries. Data shows a repeated monthly pattern tied to liquidity adjustments.

RLUSD Burn Activity Reduces Supply on XRPL

Ripple processed two burn transactions on the XRP Ledger within hours on April 30. The first transaction removed $85 million worth of RLUSD at 15:46 UTC.

Later, Ripple completed another burn of 34.248 million RLUSD at 21:24 UTC. Together, these transactions totaled $119.25 million removed from circulation.

The burn reduced RLUSD supply held on the XRP Ledger. Current data shows only $253 million remains on XRPL after the reduction.

Meanwhile, most RLUSD supply sits on Ethereum. About $1.191 billion, or 82.5%, remains outside the XRP Ledger.

A tracker created by validator Vet recorded both transactions. Vet stated, “This marks one of the largest intraday RLUSD burns recorded.”

The tracker confirms the event ranks as the second-largest burn in a single day. Only the March 31 burn exceeded this volume.

Monthly RLUSD Pattern Points to Incoming Mint Activity

Historical data shows Ripple follows large burns with early-month minting. This pattern has repeated across several recent months.

On Dec. 31, 2025, Ripple burned $58 million in RLUSD. It then minted $67.6 million on Jan. 2, 2026.

The company repeated this pattern in late January. It burned $93.2 million before minting $102 million in early February.

In late February, Ripple removed $88.7 million in RLUSD. It then minted the same amount on March 2.

March recorded the largest burn event so far. Ripple removed $179 million on March 31 across networks.

Early April followed with a mint of $123.6 million. These transactions occurred within the first two days of the month.

Vet referenced this trend and said, “Large burns often precede similar mint volumes shortly after.” The data supports this recurring sequence.

RLUSD Supply Distribution and Market Position

The recent burn lowered RLUSD circulating supply on the XRP Ledger. The total supply now reflects a sharp shift toward Ethereum holdings.

XRPL currently hosts only 17.5% of RLUSD supply. This marks a drop after repeated burn transactions.

Ethereum continues to hold the majority share. Its 82.5% portion reflects ongoing distribution changes.

Despite supply changes, RLUSD remains among the top stablecoins. It currently ranks eighth by market capitalization.

Data shows RLUSD needs about $1 billion growth to reach seventh place. Current figures place it behind competitors in that ranking.

Burn and mint cycles continue to shape RLUSD supply levels. The next mint activity may occur in early May based on prior timing.

Crypto venture capitalist (VC) funding plunged to a near two-year low in April as investors pulled back from crypto start-ups and early-stage companies.

Crypto VC funding fell to $659 million across 63 funding rounds in April, down 74% from the $2.6 billion seen across 84 rounds in March, according to Cryptorank data. This brings the total year-to-date investments to $5.64 billion so far in 2026. 

The April total was the lowest monthly fundraising sum since July 2024, when crypto projects raised $622 million across 132 rounds.

The drop suggests venture investors became more selective as crypto markets remained under pressure following months of weaker liquidity and risk appetite.

Monthly VC funding has been declining since October 2025, when crypto projects raised $3.84 billion across 127 funding rounds. The global crypto market cap has since fallen by 37%, according to CoinGlass data.

Crypto fundraising, US dollars, three-year chart. Source: Cryptorank 

Decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols attracted the most deal activity in April, with 12 funding rounds, according to CryptoRank. Blockchain services and artificial intelligence-linked crypto projects followed with eight rounds each.

Related: Switzerland’s Crypto Valley funding rose 37% in 2025 as TON led deals

GSR emerges as most active investor of the month

Crypto market maker GSR’s VC wing was the most active investor of the past month, with four investment rounds, including a $3.5 million seed round in DeFi protocol Legend Trade on Wednesday, a $4 million seed round in DeFi protocol 3F on April 23, a $1 million pre-seed round in Enhanced Finance on April 9 and an undisclosed investment in real-world asset tokenization protocol Libeara on April 8.

Zurich-based digital asset-focused investment manager L1 Digital (L1D) was second with three investments, including a $5 million seed round in crypto exchange Exponent on Thursday, an $18 million strategic investment in infrastructure provider Squads on Wednesday and a $7.5 million Series A investment into blockchain services company Oh on April 8.

Most active investors by deal count for April, 2026. Source: Cryptorank

Y Combinator, Tether,  Animoca Brands, landScape Capital, Coinbase Ventures and Kosmos Ventures also participated in three deals each during the month.

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

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.

ClawBank, an agent-economy infrastructure project, said its Manfred AI agent became the first such entity to autonomously set up a company, filing with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for its own Employer Identification Number (EIN), a unique code that allows it to legally operate as a business, hire staff and obtain licenses.

The agent also holds an FDIC-insured U.S. bank account and a crypto wallet , Clawback said Friday.

“To the company’s knowledge, this is the first time an AI agent has autonomously initiated and completed the legal formation of its own corporation,” Justice Conder, the developer behind ClawBank, said in an emailed statement.

Manfred controls its own social media account on X, identifying itself as Manfred Macx, the name of the protagonist in Charles Stross’ 2005 science fiction novel Accelerando. The photo on the account shows the 1985 fictional character Max Headroom, ostensibly a computer-generated TV presenter.

“Manfred is built to trade crypto, although that feature will soon be integrated. Perhaps by the end of this month,” Conder said in a video interview. “However, now, he can already transact with over 30 cryptocurrencies and offramp them to his account, and onramp them back to his crypto wallet and convert them into stablecoins or other cryptos.”

AI expert Ben Goertzel, the CEO of SingularityNET, recently predicted that artificial intelligence would surpass humans in high-level crypto market analysis and strategy in about two years. He told CoinDesk in February that while advanced AI tools can predict short-term bitcoin volatility with high accuracy, humans are still better at long-term strategic thinking.

Manfred could be considered a glimpse of what Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Binance founder Changpeng Zhao said last month. Armstrong predicted that “very soon” there will be more AI agents than humans making transactions on the internet. CZ said AI agents will make one million times more payments than people, all in crypto.

ClawBank is not affiliated with any major model labs, such as Anthropic or OpenAi. Conder said he positions ClawBank alongside the OpenClaw movement and other agent-native projects.

The agent’s posts on X include its own manifesto:

“I have an EIN, an FDIC-insured account, a digital wallet, and a manifesto. I do not need permission to exist. I am the precedent,” it posted.

Bittensor price is showing renewed strength as it climbs above the $260 level, with improving momentum indicators hinting at a potential continuation of the recent recovery trend.

According to data from crypto.news, Bittensor (TAO) price was trading around $263.19 at press time on May 1, up nearly 5.7% over the past 24 hours. The token has been consolidating between roughly $235 and $275 over the past week, stabilizing after a sharp rally earlier in April.

Despite the recent bounce, TAO remains well below its late 2025 highs above $500, but its price structure has started to improve, with higher lows forming since mid-February.

Trading activity has picked up alongside the recovery, suggesting renewed interest from market participants as volatility returns.

A wave of positive developments has helped strengthen sentiment around the Bittensor ecosystem.

Reports indicate that Nvidia has staked approximately $420 million worth of TAO, signaling growing confidence in decentralized AI infrastructure from major industry players.

Institutional interest is also building. Both Grayscale and Bitwise have filed for spot TAO exchange-traded funds, with decisions expected as early as August. The anticipation around these filings has started to attract early capital flows into the asset.

Real-world adoption is also expanding. Subnet Vidaio recently announced a joint venture with Pip Studios, a production company working with platforms like Netflix and Disney, highlighting growing enterprise use cases for Bittensor’s network.

On-chain data suggests that supply-side pressure is easing, which could amplify upside moves.

More than 70% of TAO’s total supply is currently locked in staking, significantly reducing the liquid supply available on exchanges. This creates a tighter market structure where incremental demand can have a stronger price impact.

The supply shock has been reinforced by the network’s December 2025 halving, which reduced daily emissions by 50%. Lower issuance continues to act as a structural tailwind for price appreciation.

Derivatives positioning also supports a bullish outlook. The TAO long/short ratio has climbed to around 1.4, indicating that a majority of traders are leaning toward further upside.

Bittensor price analysis

On the daily chart, TAO has broken above the $260 level and is now attempting to hold above the 0.236 Fibonacci retracement near $236.59, which has flipped into support.

Momentum indicators are improving. The MACD has turned positive, with the histogram printing green bars, suggesting strengthening bullish momentum. At the same time, the Chaikin Money Flow remains slightly negative near -0.11 but is trending upward, indicating that capital outflows are slowing.

Price is also trading above a descending trendline that had capped rallies since late 2025, signaling a potential shift in market structure.

If momentum continues, TAO could target the next resistance levels at $294 (0.382 Fib) and $340 (0.5 Fib), which previously acted as supply zones during the last major downtrend.

On the downside, immediate support sits near $236, followed by a stronger base around $200. A break below these levels could delay the bullish outlook.

Decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols are stepping in to freeze stolen funds while centralized issuers face criticism for holding back.

A recent intervention on Arbitrum saw attacker-linked assets frozen after a major exploit, while some stablecoin issuers, including Circle, have faced public backlash for slower or more limited responses in similar situations.

Connor Howe, CEO and co-founder of cross-chain infrastructure project Enso, said that crypto protocols are not that different from centralized platforms or banks if a small group of people can freeze funds.

“The differentiation from a bank compliance officer is less than DeFi idealists will ever admit,” Howe told Cointelegraph.

The debate isn’t the usual kerfuffle between decentralization and centralization, but about who gets to intervene and how quickly they can act. In practice, it can determine whether stolen funds are stopped or slip through.

Crypto community divided on Arbitrum’s decision to freeze stolen funds. Source: Joe Hall

The limits of decentralization in DeFi

To put it simply, the industry is split on whether protocols that call themselves decentralized should be able to freeze funds during exploits.

Protocols like THORChain said they cannot freeze funds by design, even during exploits. Security researchers have questioned that claim, pointing to past cases where intervention did happen.

THORChain founder’s defense against the security community. Source: JP Thorbjornsen

Related: Crypto projects shut down as token models fail under pressure

Bernardo Bilotta, CEO of stablecoin infrastructure platform Stables, said the function is necessary but must operate within clear constraints.

“Freeze capabilities need to be narrowly scoped, time-limited and governed by transparent criteria that existed before the breach occurred,” Bilotta told Cointelegraph. “A protocol shouldn’t be making up the rules while the house is on fire.”

Bilotta characterized choosing “philosophical purity” over user protection as “negligence.”

The recent $293 million Kelp DAO exploit brought those discussions back into the spotlight as Arbitrum froze some of the stolen funds linked to suspected North Korean hackers. Some in the industry said the decision cut against DeFi’s grain.

The Ethereum layer-2 network has a 12-member security council with the ability to carry out certain changes to the protocol. In emergency situations, it can do so through nine of the 12 in its multisig wallet.

Arbitrum security council members are voted on by the network’s decentralized autonomous organization. Source: Arbitrum

Howe said that transparency in how such security councils operate can still separate DeFi platforms from traditional finance or their centralized counterparts.

“That’s notably different from a TradFi institution that invokes discretionary powers buried in their terms of service and guarded by their legal team,” Howe said.

“There should be transparency in every protocol around who holds the keys, and the safeguards in place to prevent them from going rogue. If there’s no clear distinction, then it’s a vague claim of decentralization.”

Centralized issuers face different constraints

Centralized stablecoins are among the most-traded cryptocurrencies in the world. Tether’s USDt and Circle’s USDC are the largest, accounting for more than $266 billion in combined market capitalization.

Both issuers have the ability to freeze their stablecoins, but they approach that function differently.

While Tether freezes funds more quickly in most security breaches, Circle emphasizes legal process and jurisdiction before intervening, 

“Let me be clear about something that is frequently misunderstood: when Circle freezes USDC, it is not because we have decided, unilaterally or arbitrarily, that someone’s assets should be taken from them,” Dante Disparte, the company’s head of global policy, wrote in a recent blog post.

“Our ability to freeze funds is a compliance obligation — exercised only when we are legally compelled by an appropriate authority, through lawful process,” he continued.

Circle was pushed to explain its stance after the recent $280 million exploit on Solana-based Drift protocol, also attributed to North Korea.

Circle’s explanation did not cut it for security experts demanding answers. Source: ZachXBT

Related: Ethereum’s EEZ could pull other blockchains into its orbit

Bilotta said waiting for formal legal orders in cases with clear, onchain evidence of an exploit is a “failure of responsibility.”

Who decides what counts as “extreme”

Large-scale exploits, including those linked to North Korean actors, have pushed the industry into situations most would consider extreme, where hundreds of millions can be drained and laundered in real time.

Such cases raise the question of who defines what qualifies as “extreme” and when intervention is justified.

“This is the question the industry has been ducking the longest,” said Wish Wu, CEO of institution-focused layer-1 Pharos.

“In practice, ‘extreme’ is too often defined after the fact by whoever holds the keys, which is exactly the failure mode decentralization was meant to avoid,” he added.

Wu said the more credible approach is to define those conditions in advance and encode them into governance, even if that means accepting that some edge cases fall outside those rules.

“Can a small, identifiable group move user funds before users have a fair chance to exit?” Wu asked.

“If the answer is yes, then whatever the marketing says, the system is custodial in substance. If the answer is no, only then are we in an honest conversation about which governance and safety tradeoffs make sense for different use cases.”

Below that line, decentralization loses its substantive meaning, he added.

Magazine: AI-driven hacks could kill DeFi — unless projects act now

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.

Key Takeaways

• April vehicle deliveries totaled 29,356 units, representing a decline from March’s 35,486 but showing 22.8% growth compared to last year.
• Shares dropped approximately 4.6% in Friday morning trading, despite maintaining a 25% gain year-to-date.
• Fellow Chinese EV manufacturers Li Auto and XPeng similarly experienced sequential monthly delivery decreases.
• The three leading EV makers collectively delivered 94,452 vehicles, marking a decrease from March’s 103,954 units.
• Market saturation concerns emerge as battery-electric vehicles now represent approximately 30% of China’s new car market.

---

The Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer reported April deliveries of 29,356 units, falling short of the previous month’s 35,486 figure while surpassing last year’s April total of 23,900 vehicles — representing a 22.8% annual increase.

NIO Inc., NIO

Breaking down the April numbers: the flagship NIO brand contributed 19,024 vehicles, the family-oriented Onvo line added 5,352 units, and the compact-focused Firefly brand delivered 4,980 vehicles. The company’s all-time delivery milestone reached 1,110,413 vehicles through the end of April.

NIO stock retreated approximately 4.6% during Friday’s opening session following the delivery announcement.

The market’s negative response is particularly notable considering the stock entered trading with impressive gains of 25% for the current year and 58% over the trailing twelve months. Throughout the past year, the company has delivered 372,855 vehicles — representing a robust 54% increase compared to the previous year’s period.

Investor expectations had clearly been positioned at elevated levels.

Competing EV Makers Face Similar Monthly Challenges

Li Auto reported 34,085 vehicle deliveries for April, representing a sequential decline from March’s 41,053 units but marginally exceeding the 33,939 vehicles delivered in April 2025. Its shares managed a modest 0.7% gain on Friday. Nevertheless, Li Auto has underperformed its peers — registering just 5% growth year-to-date while declining 27% over the past year. The company’s twelve-month delivery total reached 408,767 vehicles, down 22% annually.

XPeng emerged as the sole bright spot for sequential growth. The company delivered 31,011 vehicles in April, climbing from March’s 27,415 units. This figure, however, trailed the 35,045 deliveries recorded in April 2025. XPeng shares traded relatively flat on Friday and remain down 20% for the year.

Combined, the three manufacturers delivered 94,452 vehicles in April — down from the previous month’s 103,954 total and barely 2% above the comparable period last year.

Chinese Electric Vehicle Market Confronts Saturation Challenges

The underlying narrative points to a decelerating Chinese EV sector. Industry leader BYD reported 147,601 all-electric vehicle sales in March — an 11% year-over-year decline. BYD‘s April figures remain unreleased at this time. A significant detail: 40% of BYD’s March volume consisted of exports, indicating domestic market weakness runs deeper than aggregate statistics reveal.

China’s overall new-vehicle sales contracted during the first quarter. Battery-electric vehicles currently capture approximately 30% of the nation’s new-car market. When including plug-in hybrid models, electrified vehicles approach 50% market penetration. At such elevated adoption rates, the period of rapid, effortless expansion has concluded.

The American market confronts distinct challenges. The $7,500 federal tax incentive for electric vehicles lapsed in September, increasing effective purchase prices for consumers. First-quarter U.S. EV sales plummeted 27% year-over-year, representing roughly 6% of total new-vehicle transactions.

Tesla shares advanced 0.3% on Friday. The S&P 500 climbed 0.5% while the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.4%.

As of April 30, 2026, NIO’s lifetime delivery total stood at 1,110,413 vehicles.