ETF Store President Nate Geraci predicted on Aug. 27 that BlackRock will eventually expand its spot crypto ETF lineup beyond Bitcoin and Ether, citing the growth of competing altcoin products and BlackRock’s broad fund business.

Geraci said it was “wild” that BlackRock had not launched a spot product for another cryptocurrency or a multi-asset crypto index. He interpreted that absence as an implicit judgment that other digital assets lack sufficient investment value.

That interpretation is Geraci’s opinion. BlackRock has not publicly said other cryptocurrencies lack value, nor has it announced plans to launch or permanently reject additional spot crypto ETFs.

BlackRock’s crypto ETFs manage nearly $70 billion

BlackRock currently offers three U.S. spot crypto products through iShares. Its Bitcoin fund, IBIT, held $60.52 billion in net assets as of Aug. 26, according to official fund data.

The non-staking Ethereum fund, ETHA, held approximately $8.26 billion. BlackRock’s newer staking-enabled Ethereum product, ETHB, managed about $832.7 million and reported a 30-day staking reward rate of 1.73%.

Together, the products held roughly $69.6 billion. Their different structures mean they should not be treated as three distinct cryptocurrency exposures: both ETHA and ETHB hold Ether, while ETHB also seeks staking rewards.

BlackRock also launched BITA, a Bitcoin premium-income fund that holds Bitcoin exposure and sells call options. As crypto.news previously reported, BITA uses IBIT and Bitcoin holdings to support an options-based income strategy. It does not expand BlackRock’s underlying spot exposure beyond Bitcoin.

BlackRock has not filed for an altcoin ETF

A review of public SEC records found no BlackRock registration statement for a spot XRP, Solana or other single-altcoin ETF as of Aug. 27. No BlackRock crypto-index ETF filing was located either.

The absence of a filing does not prove BlackRock has rejected those products internally. Asset managers typically keep potential products confidential until registrations, exchange applications or company announcements become public.

Geraci predicted BlackRock would “capitulate at some point” and launch additional spot crypto ETFs.

That statement is a forecast. Geraci did not cite private discussions with BlackRock, regulatory documents or an undisclosed product plan supporting it.

BlackRock’s public digital-assets page currently focuses on Bitcoin and Ether. The company has also expanded into tokenized money-market funds, showing that its blockchain strategy extends beyond crypto ETFs.

Competitors already offer broader crypto exposure

BlackRock’s position contrasts with rival issuers that have moved into XRP, Solana and multi-asset products. Seven U.S. spot XRP ETFs collectively held approximately $1 billion in assets during August.

As crypto.news reported, spot XRP ETFs accumulated about $1.57 billion in cumulative net inflows by Aug. 24. BlackRock was not among their issuers.

Spot Solana products have also established a U.S. market. In related coverage, Solana ETFs crossed $1 billion in combined assets, led by products from Bitwise and Fidelity.

The SEC has also approved broader structures. The approval of T. Rowe Price’s active crypto ETF allowed potential exposure to Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, Solana and other qualifying assets.

Client demand will determine BlackRock’s next move

BlackRock has not announced a deadline or decision process for expanding its lineup. Any new fund would likely require a registration statement, exchange listing documents and SEC review before trading.

The commercial case would depend on client demand, liquidity, custody support, market surveillance and expected fund size. The existence of rival altcoin ETFs demonstrates regulatory feasibility but does not establish that another product would meet BlackRock’s internal thresholds.

For now, Geraci’s prediction remains unconfirmed. A BlackRock SEC filing, Delaware trust registration or official announcement would provide the first verifiable evidence of a strategy change.

A cluster of 12 wallets deposited 36 million USDC into Hyperliquid during the 24 hours ending Aug. 27 and used about $24 million to purchase HYPE, according to on-chain analyst EmberCN.

The wallets acquired 282,090 HYPE at an estimated average price of $81.50. EmberCN described the cluster as “suspected” of being connected to Andreessen Horowitz, or a16z, but the venture capital firm has not confirmed that attribution.

Public blockchain records can verify individual transfers, purchases and staking transactions. They cannot establish the legal owner of an address without additional evidence linking the wallet to a person or company.

HYPE wallets still hold $12 million in USDC

The cluster had converted approximately two-thirds of its newly deposited USDC into HYPE when EmberCN published the analysis. About $12 million remained available within the reported group of wallets.

The addresses appeared to divide purchases across multiple accounts rather than execute one large market order. Such activity can reduce the visibility and price movement associated with a single transaction, although the wallets’ exact execution strategy was not confirmed.

Three addresses cited by the analyst show Hyperliquid transaction histories that readers can inspect through Hypurrscan: one, two and three.

However, EmberCN did not publish a complete ownership proof covering all 12 addresses. Calculations can also change as wallets trade, transfer, stake or delegate tokens.

Reported HYPE position reaches $381 million

EmberCN estimated that the cluster’s accumulated and staked position had reached 4.679 million HYPE. At the market price used in the post, the holdings were worth approximately $381 million.

The analyst calculated an average acquisition cost near $65.60 and an unrealized profit of about $74.4 million. These remain estimates because the calculation depends on which addresses, deposits and internal transfers are included.

The same entity reportedly bought about $24 million in HYPE during June at an average price of $68.70. The latest purchase was made at a higher average price of $81.50.

HYPE traded near $81.40 on Aug. 27. The available evidence does not establish that the wallet activity caused any specific price movement.

A16z ownership remains unconfirmed

No public a16z portfolio announcement, regulatory filing or signed wallet message identifies the addresses as company-controlled. A16z has also not issued a statement claiming the HYPE purchases or staking position.

The wallets are therefore “suspected” to be associated with a16z, not confirmed institutional holdings.

On-chain analysts typically connect addresses through common funding sources, synchronized transactions, exchange withdrawals and interactions between wallets. These methods can identify coordinated activity but do not always reveal the entity directing it.

Earlier estimates also differed from EmberCN’s latest total. As crypto.news reported, wallets described as a16z-linked were previously estimated to hold 9.18 million HYPE.

Another analysis later claimed that suspected a16z wallets accumulated 6.906 million HYPE during 2026. The differing figures may reflect separate address clusters, transfers, sales or attribution methods.

Remaining USDC could signal further purchases

The clearest item to monitor is the roughly $12 million in USDC that had not been converted when EmberCN published the update. Further HYPE purchases would appear in the wallets’ public transaction records.

Transfers from staking accounts to exchanges or market makers could instead indicate repositioning or possible sales. Staking alone does not prove how long the entity intends to hold the tokens.

Confirmation from a16z, a signed wallet message or independently documented custody records would be needed to establish ownership. Until then, the $381 million position should be described as an analyst-attributed wallet cluster.

Tokenized deposits could make bank funding less stable and raise credit costs for US households and businesses, according to an analysis by two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 

Economists Rosie Levy and Srini Ramaswamy said instant settlement could allow depositors seeking higher yields to switch banks more quickly. They said programmable deposit tokens and agentic artificial intelligence could automate the transfers, shortening the time that deposits remain at individual banks and making them more sensitive to interest rates.

The economists estimated that if deposits became 10% more sensitive to interest rates, banks’ capacity to hold long-term loans and other assets could fall by about $700 billion. In a separate scenario, deposits remaining at banks for 10% less time could reduce that capacity by about $580 billion. Both figures are expressed in 10-year equivalents and do not represent direct reductions in lending. 

The calculations are scenarios rather than forecasts and do not represent dollar-for-dollar reductions in bank lending. They come as US banks build shared blockchain networks designed to move tokenized deposits around the clock while keeping customer funds within the regulated banking system.

Banks develop networks for tokenized deposits

On Tuesday, 39 US state banking associations formed the BankChain Alliance to develop a nationwide network supporting tokenized deposits, stablecoins and automated settlement. The Clearing House is developing a separate network backed by JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, BNY and Wells Fargo. 

Banks have also begun connecting tokenized-deposit systems across institutions. On Aug. 20, Standard Chartered and HSBC completed a live cross-border transaction through Swift’s blockchain ledger, which linked the banks’ separate systems and recorded their resulting obligations before settlement through existing payment infrastructure.

Related: US regulator mulls guidance for tokenized deposit insurance, stablecoins

Levy and Ramaswamy said banks could respond to more volatile deposits by holding larger portfolios of highly liquid assets, including reserves and US Treasurys. They said banks could also rely more heavily on term debt to maintain their lending portfolios, although funding loans through wholesale debt would likely increase credit costs for consumers and businesses. 

The authors cited Brazil’s Pix instant-payment system as a potential comparison, while noting that it is not identical to tokenized deposits. A 2025 study found that heavier Pix use increased banks’ holdings of liquid assets and reduced credit intermediation.

Magazine: SEC’s proposed crypto rules probably won’t spark new ICO boom

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.

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) drew $232.1 million in net inflows on Wednesday, slowing from the previous day while extending their inflow streak to eight trading days.

The latest inflow was down about 26% from Tuesday’s $314.4 million and marked the smallest daily total since Aug. 18, according to SoSoValue data.

The eight-session streak has attracted about $2.8 billion, cutting year-to-date net outflows to about $2.03 billion. Cumulative net inflows rose to $54.6 billion, while total net assets reached $98.6 billion.

Daily inflows in US spot Bitcoin ETFs since Aug. 17. Source: SoSoValue

The slowdown came as Bitcoin stalled after briefly climbing above $80,000 on Tuesday. Bitcoin traded at about $78,759 at publishing time, down 0.3% over the past 24 hours, according to CoinGecko.

Despite Bitcoin’s stalled price action, crypto market sentiment strengthened on Thursday. The Crypto Fear & Greed Index rose to 71 from 65 a day earlier, remaining in “Greed” territory, according to Alternative.me.

The Crypto Fear & Greed Index. Source: Alternative.me

Among altcoin funds, US spot Ether ETFs also recorded an eighth consecutive day of inflows on Wednesday, attracting $192.4 million.

US-listed spot XRP ETFs attracted $28.1 million on Wednesday, their biggest daily inflow since Jan. 5, according to SoSoValue. Cumulative net inflows reached $1.62 billion.

Related: Supply absorption ‘key question’ as Bitcoin fails to reclaim $80K: Analysis

This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research.

The SEC approved a privacy coin ETF the same month it proposed tighter rules for every other digital asset. That contradiction tells you more about what regulators actually fear than any speech or rulemaking ever could.

The last time a privacy coin dominated headlines, exchanges were delisting them. Binance dropped Monero in February 2024. OKX followed months later. The message from compliance departments was clear: assets designed to obscure transaction details were incompatible with global anti money laundering frameworks, and no amount of technical nuance would change that.

Eighteen months later, Grayscale rang the opening bell on NYSE Arca for ZCSH, the first exchange traded fund in the United States to offer direct spot exposure to Zcash. The product holds approximately $304 million in ZEC, custodied by Coinbase, and carries a 2.50% management fee with all proceeds directed toward Zcash ecosystem development. It is not a futures wrapper or a synthetic tracker. It is a fund that buys and holds privacy coins on behalf of investors who can now access them through a standard brokerage account.

That inversion from pariah to ETF did not happen by accident, and the mechanics behind it reveal something important about where regulators are actually drawing the line on financial privacy.

How the conversion worked

ZCSH is not a new fund. Grayscale established the Zcash Trust in October 2017, making it one of the oldest single asset crypto vehicles in the United States. For years it traded on OTC markets at persistent discounts to net asset value, sometimes exceeding 40%, because shareholders had no redemption mechanism to arbitrage the gap.

The conversion to an ETF changes that structure entirely. Authorized participants can now create and redeem shares directly against the underlying ZEC, which forces the market price to track net asset value within tight bands. The discount that defined the trust for years collapsed in the weeks before listing as arbitrageurs front ran the conversion.

Coinbase Custody International holds the underlying ZEC in cold storage. The fund’s prospectus specifies that only transparent (unshielded) Zcash addresses are used for custody, meaning the coins sitting inside the ETF are fully auditable on the public blockchain. This is a critical design choice: Grayscale gets to offer exposure to a privacy coin while ensuring the fund itself operates with the transparency that securities regulators require.

Why the SEC let it through

The regulatory path for ZCSH was not straightforward, but it was less contested than most observers expected. Two factors mattered.

First, the SEC completed a formal review of the Grayscale Zcash Trust in January 2026 and took no enforcement action. That review, which began in late 2024, examined whether ZEC qualified as a security under the Howey test. The conclusion was not a formal safe harbor or blessing, but the absence of action created enough regulatory clearance for Grayscale to proceed with the NYSE Arca listing.

Second, Zcash’s architecture differs from Monero’s in a way that regulators find meaningful. Zcash offers opt in privacy: users choose between transparent transactions that are fully visible on the public ledger and shielded transactions that use zero knowledge proofs to encrypt sender, receiver, and amount data. Monero, by contrast, applies privacy by default to every transaction using ring signatures, stealth addresses, and RingCT. There is no transparent mode.

That distinction matters because it allows compliance frameworks to function. An exchange listing ZEC can enforce know your customer rules on deposit and withdrawal addresses because those addresses can be transparent. The same exchange listing Monero cannot verify the origin of funds with the same confidence because the protocol obscures that information by design.

The SEC held a Zcash roundtable in 2025, the kind of structured engagement that Monero has never received. Whether that difference reflects a principled regulatory distinction or simply the politics of which assets have well funded advocacy organizations is an open question, but the outcome is clear: Zcash got an ETF, and Monero remains delisted from Coinbase, Robinhood, and most major Western exchanges.

The shielded adoption curve

The most important number in the Zcash ecosystem is not the ETF’s assets under management. It is the percentage of transactions using shielded pools.

As of July 2026, shielded transactions account for approximately 90% of all Zcash network activity. That figure was under 20% as recently as 2024. The shift happened for two reasons: wallet infrastructure improved, and community norms changed.

JUST IN: Grayscale files fifth amended registration for Zcash ETF

The proposal would convert its existing Zcash Trust into the first ETF tracking the privacy-focused asset pic.twitter.com/TAiqVZwj5d

Advertisement

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) August 23, 2026

Zodl, the most popular Zcash mobile wallet, adopted shielded by default as a design decision in late 2025. Users no longer need to opt in to privacy. They need to opt out. That single UX change flipped the ratio. When the default is private, most users stay private.

The shielded supply pool now holds roughly 4.2 million ZEC, representing about 30% of the circulating supply. That pool has grown steadily even during periods of price decline, suggesting that the users moving coins into shielded addresses are doing so for functional reasons rather than speculative ones.

This creates an interesting tension with the ETF. The fund holds ZEC in transparent addresses for regulatory compliance, but the network those coins run on is increasingly opaque. Roughly 90% of non custodial Zcash activity is now invisible to chain analytics firms. The ETF offers a window into a room where most of the lights are off.

The privacy coin paradox

The timing of ZCSH’s launch is worth examining in context. The SEC proposed Regulation Crypto Assets on August 11, 2026, a framework that would impose new registration and disclosure requirements on virtually every digital asset offering in the United States. Two weeks later, the same agency’s inaction allowed a privacy coin ETF to begin trading.

Those two moves are not contradictory in the way they appear. The SEC’s framework targets issuers and intermediaries, not the assets themselves. A privacy coin is not inherently a security any more than a transparent coin is. What matters under existing securities law is how the asset is offered, sold, and promoted. Grayscale’s trust structure, with its registered prospectus, audited financials, and regulated custodian, satisfies those requirements regardless of what the underlying asset does at the protocol level.

But the optics matter. At least 10 countries, including Japan, South Korea, the UAE, and Australia, have banned or severely restricted privacy coins on exchanges. The European Union’s Markets in Crypto Assets regulation, which took full effect in late 2025, requires exchanges to implement enhanced due diligence for assets with privacy features. Several major European exchanges delisted ZEC preemptively.

The United States just moved in the opposite direction. The world’s largest asset manager by crypto AUM listed a privacy coin on the New York Stock Exchange. That signal will be difficult for other jurisdictions to ignore, and it may force a reexamination of blanket privacy coin bans that were enacted before opt in privacy architectures like Zcash’s were well understood.

What Monero’s absence reveals

The gap between Zcash and Monero’s regulatory trajectories is now the widest it has ever been. ZEC trades on Coinbase, Robinhood, and as of this week, NYSE Arca through an ETF. Monero is available on decentralized exchanges, peer to peer platforms, and a shrinking list of offshore centralized venues.

That divergence is not primarily about technology. Both protocols provide strong transaction privacy. The difference is political and structural. Zcash has the Electric Coin Company and the Zcash Foundation, funded organizations that engage with regulators, publish compliance guidance, and maintain relationships with exchanges. Monero’s development is decentralized and pseudonymous by design, which aligns with its philosophical commitment to privacy but leaves no entity to sit across the table from a regulator.

JUST IN: Blockchain Association files comments on GENIUS Act stablecoin ID rules

The group backs the core approach but is seeking key clarifications from regulators pic.twitter.com/DZYdf5bkAp

Advertisement

— crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) August 25, 2026

The market has priced this difference aggressively. ZEC’s market capitalization overtook Monero’s earlier in 2026, a reversal that would have seemed implausible two years ago when Monero was the undisputed leader in the privacy coin category. The ETF listing is likely to widen that gap further, as institutional capital flows to the asset that can be held in a brokerage account rather than the one that requires self custody and offshore exchanges.

Whether that outcome represents a victory for financial privacy or its domestication depends on which version of privacy you value. Zcash offers privacy you can choose. Monero offers privacy you cannot avoid. The market, and the regulators, have made their preference clear.

There is a third possibility that neither camp has fully reckoned with: the ETF itself could become the primary way institutions gain exposure to privacy technology without ever touching a private transaction. If most ZEC demand flows through ZCSH and stays in transparent custody addresses, the network could bifurcate into an institutional layer that is fully visible and a retail layer that is fully shielded, with minimal interaction between the two. That bifurcation would be unprecedented in crypto markets and would raise new questions about what “privacy coin” means when the largest holders operate in the open.

The price mechanics behind the 66% rally

ZEC’s surge from roughly $500 to above $850 in the week surrounding the ZCSH listing was not a simple “buy the news” event. The move had three distinct phases, each driven by different market participants.

The first phase began on August 18 when Grayscale filed its final amended registration statement with the SEC. Traders who had been tracking the regulatory timeline recognized that the filing removed the last procedural obstacle to listing. ZEC climbed from $510 to $640 over three days on spot buying concentrated on Coinbase and Kraken, the two US exchanges with the deepest ZEC order books.

The second phase was the trust discount collapse. The Grayscale Zcash Trust had traded at a discount to NAV for most of its existence, sometimes exceeding 40%. As the conversion date approached, arbitrageurs bought trust shares at the discount and simultaneously shorted ZEC to lock in the spread. When the conversion went live and redemptions became possible, those short positions needed to be covered, creating a squeeze that pushed ZEC from $640 to $780 between August 22 and August 24.

The third phase was the listing day itself. ZCSH began trading on NYSE Arca on August 25 and ZEC touched $855, its highest price since January 2018. Volume on centralized exchanges exceeded $1.2 billion in 24 hours, roughly five times the average daily volume for the preceding month. The move attracted momentum traders and triggered liquidations on leveraged short positions across multiple derivatives venues.

The rally left ZEC with a market capitalization above $14 billion, making it the largest privacy coin by a wide margin and placing it in the top 25 digital assets by market cap. Whether that valuation is sustainable depends on whether the ETF generates sustained inflows or whether the listing was a one time catalyst that front loaded months of demand into a single week.

The post quantum question

One factor that has received less attention than it deserves is Zcash’s roadmap for post quantum cryptography. The zero knowledge proofs currently used by Zcash (Halo 2, based on the PLONK proving system) rely on elliptic curve assumptions that a sufficiently powerful quantum computer could break. The same vulnerability applies to Bitcoin, Ethereum, and every other blockchain using elliptic curve cryptography, but for a privacy coin the stakes are higher: breaking the cryptographic assumptions does not just allow theft of funds but also retroactive deanonymization of every shielded transaction ever recorded.

The Zcash development team has been working on lattice based proving systems that would resist quantum attacks, with a preliminary specification published in Q2 2026. No timeline for deployment has been committed, but the research is further along than comparable efforts on other chains. For institutional investors considering a long duration allocation through ZCSH, the credibility of that post quantum migration path is material to the investment thesis.

The irony is that a quantum threat would affect transparent blockchains far sooner in practice, since those chains expose public keys directly. Zcash’s shielded pool, by hiding public keys behind zero knowledge proofs, actually provides a degree of quantum resistance that transparent chains lack, even before a formal post quantum upgrade.

Advertisement

The AI privacy thesis

Grayscale published a research report on August 20, 2026, titled “Zcash: Financial Privacy in the Age of AI,” arguing that the proliferation of artificial intelligence systems capable of analyzing public blockchain data creates a new demand driver for transaction privacy.

The argument is straightforward: as AI models become better at clustering addresses, identifying users, and inferring spending patterns from transparent blockchains, the privacy guarantees of unshielded transactions degrade. A transaction that was effectively private in 2020 because no one was analyzing it may be fully deanonymized in 2026 by automated systems scraping public chain data at scale.

Zcash’s zero knowledge proofs offer mathematical privacy, not merely practical obscurity. A shielded transaction is not private because no one is looking. It is private because the cryptographic proof reveals nothing about the sender, receiver, or amount, regardless of how much computational power is directed at it.

That distinction becomes more valuable as surveillance capabilities improve, and Grayscale is positioning ZCSH as a hedge against a future where transparent blockchains offer no meaningful financial privacy at all. The thesis is speculative, but the directional logic is sound: demand for privacy tends to increase when the tools for surveillance improve.

Advertisement

The report also highlights a less obvious dynamic: AI agents executing transactions on behalf of users will generate vastly more on chain data than human users ever did. An AI managing a portfolio, paying invoices, or rebalancing yield positions may execute hundreds of transactions per day, each one adding to a public record that can be analyzed, clustered, and attributed. The privacy implications of AI driven financial activity on transparent chains have not been widely discussed, but Grayscale’s framing positions Zcash as infrastructure for a world where most on chain activity is automated and the volume of analyzable data grows by orders of magnitude.

Chainalysis, Elliptic, and other blockchain analytics firms have not publicly commented on how their models perform against Zcash’s shielded pool. The absence of commentary is itself informative: if the shielded transactions were trivially deanonymizable, the analytics firms would say so, as doing so would reassure their exchange and law enforcement clients. The silence suggests the privacy guarantees are holding under real world conditions, which strengthens both the investment thesis and the regulatory tension.

Fee structure and ecosystem funding

The 2.50% annual management fee on ZCSH is notably higher than the fees charged by Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, which have compressed below 0.25% through competitive pressure. Grayscale’s Bitcoin ETF (GBTC) charges 1.50% and has lost market share to cheaper alternatives from BlackRock and Fidelity.

ZCSH faces no such competition. It is the only Zcash ETF in the United States, and no competitor has filed to launch one. That monopoly position allows Grayscale to maintain the higher fee, but it also means the fund has committed to directing all management fee revenue toward Zcash ecosystem development and marketing.

Advertisement

At current AUM of roughly $304 million, that fee generates approximately $7.6 million annually for the Zcash ecosystem. For a project whose development funding has historically depended on a block reward allocation that has been contentious within the community, a stable external revenue stream tied to ETF assets is a meaningful structural change.

The question is whether the fee will suppress demand. Institutional allocators building diversified crypto portfolios may balk at paying 2.50% for Zcash exposure when they can access Bitcoin for 0.20%. The counterargument is that ZEC’s uncorrelated privacy narrative and smaller market capitalization offer a different risk return profile that justifies the premium.

What to watch

ZCSH trading volume in the first 30 days will determine whether institutional demand for privacy coin exposure is real or theoretical. Volume below $5 million daily would suggest limited interest beyond existing ZEC holders rotating into the ETF wrapper.

Shielded pool percentage crossing 95% would signal that Zcash is functionally a fully private chain, which could trigger renewed regulatory scrutiny even as the ETF trades.

Monero ETF filings or the absence of them within 90 days will reveal whether ZCSH opened a door for all privacy coins or just the one with an opt in architecture.

European exchange relisting decisions after the ZCSH launch will show whether the US regulatory signal carries weight in MiCA jurisdictions.

Grayscale fee compression if a competitor files a Zcash ETF with a lower expense ratio, the current 2.50% fee becomes unsustainable and the ecosystem funding model changes.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions. Published August 27, 2026.

Advertisement

Mirae Asset Group has set an initial target of building its digital asset business to 150 trillion won ($108 billion) and turning it profitable in 2027, using newly acquired crypto exchange Digital X as a central part of its “Mirae Asset 3.0” strategy.

Digital X said Mirae Asset Group Chairman and Global Strategy Officer Park Hyeon-joo outlined the plan on Aug. 26 during an event for Digital X employees at the Four Seasons Hotel in Seoul, where the group presented its long-term strategy following the exchange’s recent change in ownership.

Park said Mirae Asset plans to build the digital asset unit around four main areas: cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, real-world assets, or RWAs, and security token offerings. The group also intends to digitize physical assets including gold, silver, and electricity as it develops products tied to blockchain-based finance.

“We will make Digital X a key pillar of Mirae Asset 3.0,” Park said. “Based on the group’s 1,500 trillion won in client assets, our first target is to grow the digital asset sector to 150 trillion won and achieve profitability in 2027.”

Digital X becomes the core of Mirae Asset’s digital asset plan

The strategy gives Digital X a defined role less than two months after Mirae Asset completed its takeover of Korbit and renamed the South Korean cryptocurrency exchange.

As crypto.news previously reported, Mirae Asset Consulting completed the acquisition of a 97.15% stake before the exchange began operating under the Digital X name. Park informed employees in July that Korbit had formally joined the group and would form part of the Mirae Asset 3.0 strategy.

Mirae Asset Consulting initially held 92.06% of the exchange and later bought the remaining 5.42% stake needed to bring its ownership to 97.15%. The transaction followed approval from South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission and was described in local reports as the country’s first acquisition of a crypto exchange by an affiliate of a traditional financial group.

Korbit’s existing trading, deposit, withdrawal and account services continued after the ownership change, while customer cash and virtual assets remained segregated from company assets under South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act.

At the Aug. 26 meeting, organized to welcome Digital X employees into the group and introduce Mirae Asset 3.0, Park moved beyond the initial acquisition plan by assigning numerical targets to the business.

Alongside the 150 trillion won asset target, the group plans to develop financial products and services that can operate through blockchain networks while using principal investment to support its digital asset operations.

Mirae Asset described the planned model as an “on-chain finance” ecosystem, covering both digital-native assets and tokenized versions of assets that have historically traded through conventional financial infrastructure.

Mirae Asset plans RWA, stablecoin and STO products

Under the strategy presented by Park, Digital X will work across crypto trading and products while Mirae Asset develops stablecoin, RWA and tokenized securities businesses using its existing financial operations and client base.

Real-world asset projects could include the digitization of gold and silver as well as electricity, according to the company. Mirae Asset did not disclose specific token structures, blockchain networks, launch dates or transaction sizes for the planned products.

The group’s tokenized securities plans are being developed as South Korea prepares a legal framework for blockchain-issued securities.

The Financial Services Commission said in May that detailed rules would be prepared for the country’s tokenized securities framework, ahead of amendments to the Capital Markets Act and Electronic Securities Act taking effect on Feb. 4, 2027.

Those changes are expected to recognize distributed ledger systems within regulated securities infrastructure, while the FSC has been studying the treatment of tokenized stocks, bonds and money market funds along with investor protection requirements.

Infrastructure is also being prepared for the market. Samsung SDS won a contract to build a production-ready token securities platform for the Korea Securities Depository, with completion scheduled around the time the new legal rules take effect in 2027.

Other financial groups have moved into the same area. Shinhan Asset Management and Shinhan Investment & Securities signed agreements with the Canton Foundation in June to study Korean tokenized assets, regulatory requirements and access to international markets through the Canton Network infrastructure.

The agreements included work on policy discussions and technical development, while Shinhan Financial Group said other affiliates could later participate in projects involving tokenized assets and digital finance.

Stablecoin plans are developing alongside new crypto rules

Stablecoins form another part of Park’s four-part strategy, although South Korea has yet to finalize the rules that will govern domestic issuance.

A policy report published in July by Hashed Open Research and the Solana Policy Institute proposed introducing interim licensing guidance while lawmakers continue negotiations over the country’s Digital Asset Basic Act.

The proposed stablecoin licensing framework would cover issuance and circulation, exchange conduct, disclosure requirements, internal controls and operational resilience. Lawmakers and regulators have also been discussing the role of banks and non-bank firms in issuing won-denominated stablecoins.

South Korea’s existing Virtual Asset User Protection Act primarily regulates custody, unfair trading and safeguards for customer assets, leaving stablecoin issuance and other market-structure provisions for a second stage of legislation.

The Financial Services Commission said in July that it planned to work with the ruling Democratic Party on consolidating 10 pending digital asset proposals into a government-backed bill. Areas under discussion include stablecoins, exchange operations, disclosure rules, internal controls and system resilience.

The Bank of Korea has separately argued that won-backed stablecoins should initially be issued through bank-led consortiums and has supported a statutory policy body involving financial regulators and other government agencies.

No final legislative structure for stablecoin issuance has been adopted, leaving Mirae Asset’s planned stablecoin products subject to rules still being negotiated by South Korean authorities.

Mirae Asset wants more finance to move on-chain

Beyond individual product categories, Mirae Asset plans to use Digital X to develop an on-chain financial ecosystem that combines blockchain-based products with the group’s existing investment operations.

Park said the company would identify new financial products and services using digital assets while supporting selected businesses through principal investment. Digital X had previously said it would maintain compliance systems covering anti-money laundering, know-your-customer checks, information security and fraud detection as it expands under Mirae Asset ownership.

During the employee event, Park also told staff to prepare for changes in financial markets without limiting themselves to established business models.

“You need to have the insight to look ahead and prepare for new changes in advance,” Park said, adding that employees should “continuously find new possibilities” instead of remaining within fixed frameworks.

The Aug. 26 event also served as the formal introduction of Digital X employees to Mirae Asset Group’s organizational culture and long-term business strategy following the completion of the Korbit acquisition.

Alibaba reported its first-quarter results on 20 August, revealing a mixed picture for investors. Revenue increased by 9%, driven by accelerating growth in its cloud computing and AI businesses, but net profit fell by nearly three-quarters as capital expenditure on AI infrastructure surged.

Management said it expects these investments to reach break-even within the next three years. Meanwhile, free cash flow turned negative as spending on computing capacity continued to rise. To finance the further development of its full-stack AI ecosystem, Alibaba also completed a new share offering on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange this week, raising approximately $10.2 billion. Investors responded cautiously to the combination of weaker earnings and equity dilution.

Technical Analysis of Alibaba

The four-hour chart shows a clear short-term uptrend that began in late July, with the share price climbing from around $92.00 to the $133.00 resistance area.

The stock is now attempting to break below its ascending trendline after buyers failed to maintain momentum following the test of the recent highs. On 21 August, the price moved beneath the lower boundary of the current market profile at $121.50 on exceptionally high trading volume. If sellers extend the decline, the next significant support lies near $113.00.

Should the move prove to be a false breakout, attention will shift to a cluster of key resistance levels within the market profile. The Point of Control (POC) at $128.50 and the upper profile boundary at $129.50 sit very close together, creating a potentially strong resistance zone. Above this area, the major resistance remains at $133.00.

The RSI + MAs indicator currently stands at 41, 48 and 51. RSI has slipped below the neutral zone, while both moving averages remain near the middle of their range, suggesting that bearish momentum has yet to receive full confirmation.

Key Takeaways

Alibaba’s disappointing profit performance and sizeable share issuance have weighed on sentiment following its failed attempt to establish itself above $130.00. The stock’s next move is likely to depend on whether investors continue to focus on near-term earnings pressure or place greater value on the company’s long-term AI growth strategy.

Buy and sell stocks of the world’s biggest publicly-listed companies with CFDs on FXOpen’s trading platform. Open your FXOpen account now or learn more about trading share CFDs with FXOpen.

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