Crypto World
Ripple wins run on RLUSD, not XRP. Should you worry?
Ripple settled a tokenized Treasury with JPMorgan in five seconds, expanded a stablecoin deal across Latin America, and powered remittances to 170 million people. The catch for XRP holders: the cash leg in deal after deal is RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar stablecoin, not XRP. Here is whether the token they hold is being quietly sidelined by the company built around it.
Summary
- Ripple’s biggest recent wins, a five-second tokenized Treasury settlement with JPMorgan and Mastercard, a stablecoin expansion across Latin America, and a major remittance deal, increasingly use RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar stablecoin, as the cash leg rather than XRP.
- RLUSD crossed $1 billion in market value quickly and is becoming the settlement asset enterprises actually want, raising the question of whether it is taking the role XRP was built to play.
- The pattern reflects a real tension: Ripple the company keeps winning institutional deals, while XRP the token stays pinned near a dollar, beneath every major moving average.
- The bullish counterargument is that Ripple is the largest XRP holder with aligned incentives, that RLUSD and XRP serve different functions, and that ledger activity can still benefit XRP indirectly.
- For holders, the question is whether XRP’s value will accrue from network usage and catalysts like the CLARITY Act and ETF flows, or whether RLUSD will capture the settlement demand XRP was meant to capture.
In June 2026, Ripple completed something that should have been a milestone for XRP. Working with JPMorgan, Mastercard, and the tokenization firm Ondo Finance, it settled the cross-border redemption of a tokenized U.S. Treasury fund across banks on the XRP Ledger, and the blockchain leg finalized in under five seconds, against the one to three business days the same transaction can take on traditional rails. It was a genuine showcase of what Ripple’s technology can do, the kind of institutional validation the XRP community has predicted for years.
And yet there was a detail in it that has become the defining unease for XRP holders: the cash leg of that settlement used RLUSD, Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, not XRP. The same pattern has repeated across Ripple’s other recent wins. A partnership expanding stablecoin settlement across Latin America runs on a regulated peso-backed stablecoin issued on the XRP Ledger and integrated with Ripple’s infrastructure, while a major remittance deal reaching 170 million people uses RLUSD as the primary settlement asset. Deal after deal, Ripple keeps winning, and deal after deal, the asset doing the actual settling is increasingly a stablecoin, while XRP trades near a dollar and change as though none of it is happening.
This is the question that has moved to the center of the XRP story, and it is a fair and uncomfortable one: if every Ripple win runs on RLUSD rather than XRP, is the token being quietly sidelined by the very company built around it? The concern is not baseless, because it touches the oldest puzzle in the XRP thesis, the gap between Ripple’s corporate success and XRP’s token price, and gives it a specific, mechanical explanation. But it is also not the whole story, because there are real counterarguments about why RLUSD and XRP are not simply competitors, why Ripple’s incentives remain aligned with holders, and how ledger activity can still benefit the token.
This piece works through both sides honestly. It lays out the pattern of RLUSD showing up where holders expected XRP, explains what RLUSD is and why enterprises prefer it for settlement, examines whether the stablecoin is cannibalizing XRP’s intended role, presents the bullish case that the two assets are complementary, and arrives at a grounded view of what holders should actually take from it. The goal is neither to stoke the fear nor to dismiss it, but to give holders an accurate read on whether their token is being left behind.
The pattern: RLUSD where holders expected XRP
Start with the pattern itself, because it is real and worth seeing clearly across the recent run of Ripple announcements. The flagship example is the tokenized Treasury settlement with JPMorgan, Mastercard, and Ondo Finance. For years, the XRP pitch held that cross-border institutional settlement was exactly what XRP was built for, the bridge asset that would let value move between currencies and institutions in seconds. When Ripple finally delivered a marquee demonstration of that capability, settling a tokenized Treasury redemption across borders and banks in under five seconds, the XRP Ledger provided the rails, but RLUSD provided the cash leg.
That detail matters because it changes what the event proved. It proved that the XRP Ledger can support serious institutional flows, with names that compliance departments recognize and a settlement speed legacy rails cannot match. But it did not prove that XRP the asset sits at the center of the payment, because the money leg moved through a stablecoin rather than the volatile token. As previously reported, Ripple’s tokenized Treasury settlement with JPMorgan showed that the ledger can win important business before the token captures meaningful demand.
The same shape recurs elsewhere. Ripple expanded a payments partnership in which a regulated peso-backed stablecoin is issued on the XRP Ledger and integrated into Ripple’s payment infrastructure to support enterprise stablecoin settlement across Latin America. Ripple also backed Flutterwave in a round that valued the African payments company at $3.2 billion, with RLUSD positioned for use across payment rails that reach a very large user base. In each case, the XRP Ledger and Ripple’s infrastructure become more relevant, but the settlement asset is a stablecoin.
Across these deals, the consistent feature is that the XRP Ledger, the blockchain Ripple built and that XRP is native to, is doing real and valuable work, but the asset moving through it as money is increasingly a stablecoin rather than XRP. This is what gives the holder concern its force: it is not a single anomalous deal but a repeated pattern in which Ripple’s institutional wins showcase the ledger and the company’s technology while routing the actual settlement value through RLUSD or another stablecoin. For holders who bought XRP on the thesis that institutional settlement demand would drive token demand, watching that settlement demand flow through a stablecoin instead is a legitimate cause for unease. The first honest step is simply to acknowledge that the pattern is real.
What RLUSD is and why enterprises prefer it
To judge whether this pattern is a problem, you have to understand what RLUSD is and why enterprises keep choosing it, because the answer explains the dynamic without requiring any conspiracy against XRP. RLUSD is Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, a token designed to hold a steady value of $1, backed by reserves, and issued on the XRP Ledger and other chains. It crossed $1 billion in market value quickly after launch, a sign of real demand, and it has become the asset Ripple increasingly puts forward as the cash leg in its enterprise settlements.
The reason enterprises prefer a stablecoin for the money side of a transaction is straightforward and has nothing to do with any view about XRP. Businesses settling real-world value need price stability. When a company moves money across borders, it wants the amount it sends to equal the amount that arrives, with no exposure to price swings in between. XRP, like any freely traded cryptocurrency, fluctuates in price, which makes it difficult to use as the unit in which an enterprise wants to denominate and hold a settlement, even if it can still work as a bridge for moving value quickly.
A stablecoin solves this by holding a fixed dollar value, so the enterprise can settle in something that behaves like the dollars it already thinks in. This is why, across the industry and not just at Ripple, stablecoins have become the dominant on-chain settlement instrument: they combine the speed and programmability of crypto with the price stability that commerce requires. RLUSD is Ripple’s entry into that category, and its growing use in Ripple’s deals reflects the same market logic that has made stablecoins central everywhere. For readers who want the basics, how RLUSD holds its dollar peg is the starting point for understanding why enterprises gravitate toward it.
The same logic explains why exchange and liquidity integrations matter. When RLUSD is listed with XRP pairs and broader access, the stablecoin becomes easier to move, price, and route through the infrastructure Ripple wants enterprises to use. That helps Ripple’s payments stack, and it can deepen activity on the XRP Ledger, but it still does not mean every dollar of settlement creates direct XRP demand. The holder question is what remains for XRP once the stablecoin has taken the stable cash role.
Understanding this matters because it reframes the concern. RLUSD is not showing up in Ripple’s settlements simply because Ripple is trying to sideline XRP; it is showing up because enterprises asked for a stable settlement asset and Ripple built one to give them. That is a rational business decision for Ripple and a useful product decision for institutions. The harder question is whether that useful product decision narrows the value-accrual path that XRP holders were counting on.
Is RLUSD cannibalizing XRP’s role?
This is the crux of the matter, and it deserves to be stated plainly: there is a real argument that RLUSD is taking the settlement role XRP was originally meant to play. The classic XRP thesis cast the token as the bridge asset for cross-border value transfer, the thing that would sit in the middle of international settlements, moving value between currencies in seconds and capturing demand as global payment volume flowed through it. Stablecoins complicate that thesis directly, because a dollar stablecoin can perform much of the cross-border settlement function that XRP was built for, moving value quickly and programmably while also offering the price stability XRP cannot. If enterprises can settle in RLUSD on the XRP Ledger, getting the speed of the ledger without the volatility of the token, then the specific demand driver that was supposed to accrue to XRP may instead accrue to the stablecoin.
This is the structural worry beneath the holder concern, and it is not easily waved away. The bull case for XRP has long depended on the idea that Ripple’s growing settlement business would translate into demand for the token, but if the settlement business increasingly runs on RLUSD, that translation weakens. Ripple’s institutional infrastructure could keep growing impressively, opening corridors and closing deals, while the value of that growth flows through stablecoins and fiat instead of driving XRP token demand. That would leave the familiar gap between corporate progress and token price not just intact but mechanically explained.
The token could end up as the rails, valuable to the system but not the asset that captures the economic value moving across it. This is the version of events that should genuinely concern holders, and it is why the RLUSD pattern is more than a cosmetic detail. It points to a possible future in which XRP’s network succeeds, Ripple thrives, RLUSD becomes a major settlement asset, and XRP the token still struggles to convert all of that activity into sustained demand because the demand has a stablecoin to flow into instead. That is also why the older question of XRP’s bridge-asset role needs to be revisited rather than repeated as if nothing has changed.
There is a broader parallel here with other infrastructure tokens. A network can be useful without its native token absorbing the full value of that usefulness, especially when users can interact with the network through stable assets, tokenized deposits, or application-level instruments. XRP holders have already seen this in miniature: the ledger gets institutional proof points, Ripple gets business wins, and XRP gets fees, reserves, or optional routing rather than obvious direct demand. Whether that is enough depends on scale, and that scale has not yet shown up in the price.
The bullish case: complementary, not competing
The other side of this debate is serious and deserves a full hearing, because the framing of RLUSD versus XRP as a zero-sum contest may be too simple. The first counterargument is that RLUSD and XRP serve different functions and can coexist productively. A stablecoin is the cash leg, the stable unit in which value is denominated and held. XRP, in the bridge role, can still serve as the connective asset that moves value between different currencies and stablecoins, the neutral intermediary in a world where many different fiat-backed stablecoins exist and need to be exchanged.
In this view, a proliferation of stablecoins actually increases the need for a neutral bridge asset to move between them, and XRP could capture that role precisely because it is not tied to any single currency. RLUSD handles the dollar leg, MXNB handles the peso leg, and other stablecoins can handle other currencies or jurisdictions. XRP can then sit between those assets when liquidity is fragmented, routing value across the ledger’s exchange and payments infrastructure. That is a more modest thesis than “XRP becomes the cash leg of global settlement,” but it is not an irrelevant one.
The second counterargument concerns incentives. Ripple is the largest single holder of XRP, which means the company has a powerful, built-in economic reason to drive the token’s value and usage that does not depend on any promise. Every corridor Ripple opens, every institution it onboards, and every unit of activity it brings to the XRP Ledger can eventually matter to XRP if that activity creates fees, reserves, routing, liquidity depth, or bridge demand. From this angle, Ripple building a successful stablecoin is not a betrayal of XRP holders but an expansion of the ecosystem XRP sits inside.
Even RLUSD, issued on the XRP Ledger, can support XRP indirectly by increasing ledger activity and making the network more useful to institutions. That is the strongest version of the complementary thesis: stablecoins bring institutions onto the rail, and once they are there, XRP has more chances to serve as liquidity, routing, or bridge infrastructure. The weakness is timing and certainty. Indirect value can take years to show up, and investors do not price “maybe someday” the same way they price direct, measurable demand today.
The third point is that XRP’s strongest catalysts were never really about being the settlement cash leg in the first place. The most powerful drivers of XRP’s potential value, regulatory clarity from the CLARITY Act, compounding ETF inflows, and broad adoption of the ledger, operate largely independent of whether RLUSD or XRP is the cash leg in any given deal. On this reading, holders fixating only on the RLUSD-versus-XRP question are watching one important variable, but not the only variable. The better question is whether the total system being built around XRP Ledger becomes large enough that XRP’s indirect roles finally matter.
The value-accrual problem at the heart of it
Step back and the RLUSD debate is really a specific instance of the deepest question in the entire XRP story, the one that has defined the token through 2026: how, exactly, does value accrue to XRP? A blockchain network can succeed enormously while the token native to it struggles if the activity on the network does not translate into sustained demand for the token. This is the puzzle XRP holders have lived with all year, watching Ripple rack up settlements, stablecoin launches, banking moves, and enterprise deals while the token stayed pinned near a dollar beneath every major moving average. The RLUSD pattern sharpens this puzzle by identifying a concrete reason the translation might be failing.
If the settlement value that was supposed to flow into XRP flows into RLUSD instead, then network success and token demand decouple in exactly the way the price action suggests. That is why the issue is bigger than one JPMorgan test or one Flutterwave deal. It is about whether XRP captures the economic value of the ledger it secures and powers, or whether it becomes a necessary but low-fee native asset beneath higher-value instruments. In previous coverage, this was the same basic dilemma behind the company-versus-token gap up close: Ripple can become more valuable without XRP necessarily moving in lockstep.
The honest framing is that XRP’s range-bound behavior is less a mystery than a predictable feature of how value accrues, or fails to accrue, to a token whose network can succeed without it. The waiting ends only when usage and token demand finally converge, and that convergence requires specific things to happen. Settlement volume needs to become large enough that fees, reserves, routing, and ecosystem use begin to matter against the enormous XRP supply locked in escrow. ETF flows also need to compound instead of trickle, while a regulatory catalyst like the CLARITY Act needs to cross the line to pull institutional money off the sidelines.
RLUSD’s rise is relevant because it bears on the first of those channels, the settlement-volume channel, by raising the possibility that volume accrues to the stablecoin instead of the token. But it is only one of several channels, and the others, ETF demand and regulatory clarity, could drive XRP regardless of what settles Ripple’s deals. That is why the catalyst that drives XRP regardless still matters to holders even if RLUSD keeps winning the cash-leg role. The realistic synthesis is that the RLUSD pattern is a genuine headwind to one specific version of the XRP value-accrual thesis, the bridge-asset-settlement version, while leaving the regulatory-unlock and ETF-demand versions largely intact.
What holders should take from it
So should XRP holders worry about RLUSD, and if so, how much? The grounded answer is that the concern is legitimate but should be held in proportion, neither dismissed nor allowed to dominate. The legitimate part is that RLUSD genuinely does weaken the specific thesis that institutional settlement demand would flow into XRP. In deal after deal, that demand is flowing into the stablecoin instead, and holders who bought XRP primarily on the bridge-asset-settlement story should update on that evidence instead of ignoring it.
If your entire case for XRP rested on the idea that Ripple’s settlement business would mechanically drive token demand, the RLUSD pattern is a real challenge to that case and worth taking seriously. Pretending the token is the cash leg when it increasingly is not would be wishful thinking. The question is no longer whether Ripple is winning, because it clearly is. The question is whether XRP captures enough of those wins to justify the token thesis on its own terms.
The proportion part is that the bridge-asset-settlement story was never the only pillar of the XRP thesis, and arguably not even the strongest one. The catalysts most capable of moving XRP, statutory clarity from the CLARITY Act and the institutional ETF demand it could unlock, operate largely independent of whether RLUSD or XRP settles any given transaction. Ripple’s status as the largest XRP holder also keeps its incentives aligned with the token even as it builds RLUSD. The stablecoin may be the product enterprises want now, but XRP remains the native asset inside the ecosystem those enterprises are entering.
The most useful posture for a holder is therefore to treat the RLUSD pattern as important information about where one channel of demand is going, while keeping attention on the channels that matter more: regulatory progress, ETF flows, and whether ledger activity overall, RLUSD included, grows large enough to support the token through fees, reserves, routing, and ecosystem demand. For price-focused readers, what the gap means for price is the practical version of the same question. If XRP keeps failing to convert Ripple’s wins into token demand, the chart will continue to reflect that. If regulatory clarity, ETF inflows, and ledger usage finally converge, RLUSD may look less like a replacement and more like the stablecoin that helped bring institutions onto the rail.
The deepest truth here is that XRP’s fate depends on the convergence of usage and token demand, and RLUSD is one factor among several bearing on that convergence. It is a headwind to one pillar instead of the collapse of the whole case. Holders should worry enough to watch it closely and to be honest about which version of the XRP thesis it undercuts, but not so much that they lose sight of the larger catalysts that will ultimately determine whether the token finally breaks its range.
Frequently asked questions
What is RLUSD?
RLUSD is Ripple’s dollar-pegged stablecoin, a token designed to hold a steady value of $1, backed by reserves, and issued on the XRP Ledger and other blockchains. It crossed $1 billion in market value quickly after launch, reflecting real demand, and Ripple increasingly puts it forward as the cash leg, the stable settlement asset, in its enterprise deals. Because it holds a fixed dollar value instead of fluctuating like XRP, RLUSD is suited to the role of denominating and settling real-world value, which is why it has become central to Ripple’s institutional settlement business and to the debate about what that leaves for XRP.
Why do Ripple’s deals use RLUSD instead of XRP?
Because enterprises settling real-world value need price stability, and a stablecoin provides it while XRP does not. When a business moves money across borders, it wants the amount it sends to equal the amount that arrives, with no exposure to price swings in between. XRP fluctuates in price, which makes it useful as a fast bridge for moving value but difficult as the unit an enterprise wants to hold and settle in. RLUSD holds a fixed dollar value, so enterprises can settle in something that behaves like the dollars they already use.
Is RLUSD replacing XRP?
Not exactly, though it is taking part of the role XRP was originally pitched for. The classic XRP thesis cast the token as the bridge asset for cross-border settlement, and a dollar stablecoin can perform much of that settlement function while also offering price stability XRP lacks, so RLUSD does compete with one version of XRP’s intended purpose. The counterargument is that the two are complementary: RLUSD handles the dollar cash leg, while XRP can serve as the neutral bridge that moves value between many different currencies and stablecoins. A world of many stablecoins may actually increase the need for a neutral bridge asset, a role XRP could fill.
Does RLUSD’s success hurt XRP holders?
It weakens one specific pillar of the XRP bull case, the idea that Ripple’s settlement business would mechanically drive XRP token demand, because that settlement demand increasingly flows into RLUSD instead. Holders who bought XRP primarily on that bridge-asset-settlement story should take the pattern seriously. However, RLUSD runs on the XRP Ledger, generating activity, fees, reserves, and ecosystem growth that can indirectly support XRP, and Ripple, as the largest XRP holder, keeps its incentives aligned with the token. The stronger XRP catalysts, regulatory clarity and ETF demand, operate largely independent of which asset settles a given deal, so RLUSD is a headwind to one pillar instead of the collapse of the whole case.
What actually drives XRP’s value then?
XRP’s value depends on the convergence of network usage and token demand, which requires specific things to happen. Settlement and ecosystem activity must become large enough that fees, reserves, routing, and demand begin to matter against the large XRP supply locked in escrow. Spot ETF inflows also need to compound, and a regulatory catalyst like the CLARITY Act needs to cross the line to pull institutional money off the sidelines. These channels, particularly the regulatory unlock and ETF demand, operate largely regardless of whether RLUSD or XRP settles any individual transaction.
Should I sell XRP because of RLUSD?
This article does not give investment advice, and that decision depends on your own analysis and circumstances. What the analysis offers is a framework: RLUSD truly weakens the bridge-asset-settlement version of the XRP thesis, so if that was your primary reason for holding, the pattern is a real challenge worth weighing honestly. But it leaves the regulatory-clarity and ETF-demand versions of the thesis largely intact, and Ripple’s incentives remain aligned with XRP as its largest holder. The proportionate response is to watch the RLUSD trend closely and be honest about which pillar it undercuts, while keeping the larger catalysts in view instead of reacting to a single factor in isolation.
This article is information, not investment advice. Partnership details, settlement mechanics, market values, and corporate plans reflect reporting available as of June 28, 2026, and can change quickly. The relationship between RLUSD and XRP is an evolving and debated topic. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell XRP, RLUSD, or any asset. Verify current details from primary sources and consider your own circumstances before making any decision.
Wife of former FTX executive seeks to preclude her husband’s guilty plea
In a Friday filing with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) over campaign finance charges, Michelle Bond’s legal team asked the court to consider precluding evidence related to former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame, her husband who is currently serving a 90-month sentence after he pleaded guilty in 2023.
Bond faces campaign finance charges alleging that her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York was partially funded by contributions from FTX facilitated by Salame. As part of the filings this week, Bond asked the court to exclude evidence of her husband’s guilty plea and “related plea materials,” in which the former executive admitted to making “political contributions in [his] name that were funded by transfers from the bank accounts” of an entity tied to FTX.
“The Court should preclude the government from introducing or referring to Mr. Salame’s guilty plea or any related plea materials, because their minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Ms. Bond,” said the filing.
Bond’s lawyers added:
“[…] Mr. Salame’s plea materials lack any probative value as to Ms. Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent. Mr. Salame’s plea is an admission of his own guilt, not evidence of Ms. Bond’s state of mind or participation in any charged offense.”
The motion also requested the court include information related to Bond’s “contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings,” arguing that though she and Salame were not married at the time of the alleged crime, the former FTX executive was not an “ordinary ‘individual’ donor” contributing to her campaign.
Related: US Senate unanimously adopts resolution opposing clemency for SBF
The criminal case is one of the latest involving individuals tied to the defunct crypto exchange following its 2022 collapse. Salame, former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison were all sentenced to prison for their role in the misuse of customer funds and related charges.
Former congressman ordered to pay $35,000 over Kalshi bet
George Santos, a former New York House representative who was expelled from Congress in 2023, was ordered to pay a $17,500 civil monetary penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement from profits earned over bets placed on prediction markets platform Kalshi. The order from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) stemmed from Santos trading on event contracts betting on his appearance at the 2026 State of the Union address in Washington, DC.
“While buying and selling positions in this market, Santos posted on social media about his plans to attend or not attend the SOTU,” said the CFTC. “In his social media posts, Santos made a series of material misrepresentations and omissions about whether he would attend the SOTU. After these posts, the SOTU contract prices moved in a direction that was favorable to Santos’ positions which allowed him to make over $17,500.”
February X post about his State of the Union attendance. Source: George Santos
Santos is barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years as part of the order. He was also previously sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2025, but served only three months before his sentence was commuted by US President Donald Trump.
US solider accused of making $400,000 Polymarket bet seeks to dismiss charges
Gannon Ken Van Dyke is a US soldier who faces charges for allegedly making more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts using nonpublic information tied to a military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. He was involved in the operation removing Maduro, according to the US Justice Department, and allegedly used insider information to bet whether the Venezuelan president would be removed from power, leading to criminal charges in April.
In a Friday SDNY filing, Van Dyke’s legal team filed a 51-page memo in support of a motion to dismiss the indictment based on different legal theories, including that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) at the center of three of the charges was “ambiguous” in treating event contracts as “swaps.”
Although the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has claimed that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets on the basis that event contracts are treated as “swaps,” Van Dyke’s lawyers said the lack of clarity was sufficient to dismiss some of the charges.
“If Congress, executive branch agencies, and courts all find the ‘swap’ definition ambiguous, how can ordinary citizens have fair notice that prediction market wagers are covered by the CEA?” said the filing. “They cannot.”
The case is expected to have significant implications for lawmakers and government officials using prediction markets. Trump’s teleprompter operator reportedly made more than $100,000 using Kalshi event contracts related to the president’s speeches.
Based on a schedule filed in June, Van Dyke is potentially looking at a trial beginning in late 2026 or early 2027. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Magazine: Here’s why the CLARITY Act’s ethics deal may be so hard to reach
The attacker working through Coldcard-generated keys is now emptying wallets worth a few thousand dollars each.
Galaxy Research flagged a third wave of sweeps early Sunday, roughly 208 bitcoin drained from 1,912 addresses between Friday midday and Saturday morning UTC.
That is just over a tenth of a bitcoin per victim. The July 30 opening wave averaged close to a full coin, 1,083 bitcoin from 1,196 addresses in 41 minutes.
Observed losses across all three waves now total 1,367 bitcoin, nearly $89 million, from 4,585 addresses.
Wave three sends each victim’s coins to its own destination rather than the handful of shared collector addresses that made the first two easy to map, and parks them in pay-to-witness-script-hash outputs, a format that can carry multisignature or timelock conditions, instead of the plain single-key outputs used before.
It batched an average of six victims into each sweep where wave one took exactly one at a time, and it scanned only the default derivation path, the standard branch of the key tree a wallet checks first, instead of testing several branches per seed.
Perhaps due to the quickly re-escalating tension in the Middle East, the cryptocurrency market has posted fresh losses over the past few hours, with BTC dropping to $62,000 after failing to reclaim the $63,000 support during the day.
XRP was not spared, as it just slipped below $1.05. The asset was rejected at $1.20 during the mid-July rally after the favorable US inflation data for June, and eventually lost the coveted $1.10 support. Now, it fights for the last line of defense before the bulls would have to defend the $1.00 zone.
Popular analyst EGRAG CRYPTO outlined the significance of the $1.05 level, calling it the ‘battlefield’ region. Although he noted earlier today that the cross-border token had managed to maintain that level, he acknowledged the predominantly bearish structure of lower highs on the 4-hour chart.
The short-term path of recovery would be a successful defense of $1.05 before XRP can bounce above $1.083 and eventually reclaim the $1.10 level, which now acts as resistance.
EGRAG laid out an even more promising road ahead for the asset if it manages to continue its recovery, with the “major price target” set at $1.30.
However, a decisive breakdown below $1.05 would essentially mean that XRP will head toward the notable liquidity zone at around $1.00, he warned.
Mikybull Crypto also believes XRP has the strength to stage a surprising comeback. The analyst claimed that the asset’s bullish reversal run is currently loading despite the negative outlook.
His long-term chart compares the current market structure with the one from two years ago when XRP was highly compressed at around $0.60. Once it broke out the upper boundary, though, it rocketed to a fresh all-time high within less than a year.
“Before the last run, I screamed for you to buy at a crazy discount. The opportunity is presenting again,” he said now.
History is not on XRP’s side at the moment, though, as August has been quite a painful month for the asset. As reported earlier today, the cross-border token was deep in the red in all four previous editions.
The post XRP Price Dips to ‘Battlefield’ Zone, but Analysts See Major Reversal Opportunity appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Pi Coin (PI) rose 8% on Saturday to $0.0870. The move pushed the token onto CoinGecko’s trending list, days before a hard deadline for Pi Network.
Nodes are the computers that check Pi transactions. The people who run them have until August 11 to install an update. Nodes that miss it get cut off.
Why Pi Coin Is Trending Again
CoinGecko ranked PI second on its trending board on Saturday. Most other coins on that list were falling. Pi Coin was one of the few going up.
The bigger picture is less kind. While PI has gained 7% over the past week, it is still down 25% over the past month. The token is worth about $957 million in total, making it the 67th largest coin.
Trading stayed thin. Pi Network market data shows roughly $8.6 million changed hands in 24 hours.
What the August 11 Deadline Means
Protocol v26 is the latest step in a long chain of updates that started at version 19. Pi says it makes smart contracts safer. It also improves how the network stores data and talks to other blockchains.
“Protocol 26 is a major milestone ahead of the final planned upgrade, Protocol 27. With 8 successful upgrades completed over the past few months, these final two upgrades will bring the network up to date with the latest protocol features, improvements, and functionality,” the team noted.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Only node operators need to act. People who mine Pi on their phones do not. Pi lists every step on its node page.
Pi nodes agree on transactions in small trusted groups, a design borrowed from Stellar. The July 22 Protocol v25 rollout added the cryptography that privacy apps need.
Why Pi Coin Rallies Keep Fading
Traders have seen this before. PI jumped 24% ahead of the July 22 update. It handed the gain back once the day arrived. The Protocol 24 mainnet upgrade in June ended the same way.
Zoom out and it looks worse. PI hit a record low of $0.0710 on July 14. It now sits 79% below where it traded a year ago.
New supply is the main drag. PiScan data cited last month showed about 1.71 billion PI unlocking over the next year. That is a heavy load for a market trading under $10 million a day.
Protocol v27 is the last planned update. Whether August 11 shifts the PI price forecast outlook comes down to one thing. Buyers have to show up faster than the new coins do.
The post Pi Coin Defies Market Trend Before Key Deadline: Will the 10% Bounce Hold? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Who are possible challengers to FIFA President Gianni Infantino?
Infantino was originally expected to easily retain his position at the helm of FIFA in March 2027.
Now, with public calls for review into his leadership, potential rivals may feel emboldened.
“FIFA is full of sharks, and there’s no question that many of them can smell blood. Infantino’s election in 2027, which seemed like a sure bet only a few days ago, is now an open question,” Boykoff says.
Challengers for his role must submit their candidacies by Nov. 18, and there has already been some speculation as to who might make a bid.
Sheikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, president of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC), was defeated by Infantino in 2016, the current administrator’s first term, but he could return a decade later as a frontrunner. He called Infantino’s investment proposal and his failure to consult AFC on it “totally unacceptable,” putting the two publicly at odds.
We will begin with the mandatory disclaimer, as we are well aware that historical performance does not guarantee similar moves in the future. However, history does tend to rhyme, and that’s what happened in July for BTC.
The question is: will August follow suit, as the month has not been kind to the largest cryptocurrency, especially the last four editions.
July Brought Some Gains
Before we explore what happened in July, here’s a brief outlook of the painful June, which set the stage for a rebound during the seventh month of the year. The 2026 edition of June became the most violent in terms of price moves for the cryptocurrency in precisely four years. It tumbled by 20.48% in 2026 compared to 37.28% in June 2022.
As such, it was almost expected that July would be a better month. History was also on BTC’s side as 9 out of the last 11 were in the green. However, the start was actually quite surprising as bitcoin dipped below $58,000 on July 1 for the first time in nearly two years.
The bears quickly lost control, though, and the asset reclaimed the coveted $60,000 level within a day or two. It wasn’t the most volatile of months, but BTC still managed to post some gains and peaked on July 21 at $67,000. This became its highest price tag in two months.
However, it was rejected there despite the softer-than-expected inflation data for June and the fact that the Fed refused to hike interest rates last week. Thus, bitcoin ended the month at under $64,000, which was still a 9% monthly increase.
Your Move, August
As popular analyst Ali Martinez put it yesterday: August hasn’t been kind to bitcoin. In fact, the last four have all been in the red, posting losses of 13.88%, 11.29%, 8.6%, and 6.49%, respectively. The silver lining is that the declines become less violent over time.
The broader August perspective is still deeply negative, though. Only three out of the last 12 editions have been in the green, with 2017 standing out as the most bullish one on record. At the time, BTC rocketed by over 65%, but it was a different time and a vastly different market phase.
For now, BTC enters August 2026 with lots of uncertainty not only within the industry itself, where interest has dwindled lately, but on a macro perspective as well. The war in the Middle East continues, and the one between Ukraine and Russia too, while inflation remains an issue, and Trump’s controversial actions tend to halt each breakout attempt in its tracks.
The post Bitcoin Rebounded in July, but Bears Target an August Pullback appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.
All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.
A crypto-industry-backed political action committee affiliate has intensified its advertising push ahead of next week’s Michigan Republican primary, according to the latest Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. Protect Progress PAC, which the filings indicate is funded largely by contributions from cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase, has spent more than $2 million on media to influence the contest in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District.
The most recent updates, filed as of Thursday, show the committee ramping up spending in support of U.S. Representative Shri Thanedar while also funding opposition to his Democratic challenger, Donavan McKinney. The renewed disclosures come shortly after earlier reporting showed the PAC had already ramped up its buy—effectively doubling its reported ad spending from the prior week.
Key takeaways
- FEC filings show Protect Progress PAC has spent over $2 million on media for Michigan’s 13th district primary race.
- New disclosures add $884,240 to advertisements supporting Shri Thanedar and more than $150,000 to ads opposing Donavan McKinney.
- The PAC’s funding is described in the filings as being largely backed by cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase.
- Thanedar’s legislative record includes support for crypto-related bills such as the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.
- Protect Progress is an affiliate of Fairshake, a major outside spender in U.S. elections tied to crypto industry policy goals.
Michigan’s 13th district: Protect Progress increases ad buys
According to FEC disclosures accessed via the commission’s docquery system, Protect Progress PAC reported spending more than a combined $2 million on media in connection with Michigan Representative Shri Thanedar and his Democratic primary contest against Donavan McKinney.
As of Thursday, the filings reflect a further escalation: compared with what the PAC had already reported spending a week earlier, the committee’s latest report effectively doubled its media spending. The additional outlay includes $884,240 dedicated to ads supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 aimed at opposing McKinney.
The Michigan primary is scheduled for Tuesday, but the filings underscore that the committee and its network have been willing to deploy substantial resources well before Election Day. Similar patterns have been visible across multiple congressional races during the 2026 cycle, according to the article’s referenced coverage and FEC-based reporting.
Why the race is drawing crypto-linked political money
Thanedar’s congressional record is at the center of the narrative around why outside groups see his candidacy as important for crypto policy. During his time in the House, he voted in favor of the stablecoin-focused GENIUS Act and supported the legislative push for clearer digital asset market structure—the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which has been discussed in the Senate.
He also cosponsored the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act, an effort aimed at protecting developers. Supporters of crypto policy reform often point to such measures as steps toward a more predictable regulatory environment, while critics argue the industry has too much influence over the political process.
For voters watching the contest, the spending escalation suggests the primary is being treated as more than a local political test—it is being framed by donors and advocacy networks as part of a broader strategy to influence which lawmakers back specific digital asset legislation.
McKinney’s response and the broader allegations over crypto influence
McKinney has publicly characterized the ad push as a payoff for political favors. In a July 21 statement related to the PAC spending, he said “the crypto lobby is paying my opponent back for helping Trump make over $1 billion since taking office,” according to a video shared on his campaign’s Facebook page.
That comment appears to reference the U.S. President’s disclosures about crypto-related earnings, including a figure cited in earlier reporting referenced by the article—more than $1.4 billion from crypto investments in 2025—along with concerns raised by Democrats that Trump could be using his role to profit through policies such as GENIUS.
While those claims are rooted in political argument rather than direct proof of intent tied to the specific Michigan ads, they highlight a recurring tension in U.S. crypto politics: outside spending may be framed by industry-aligned PACs as policy support, while opponents often describe it as evidence of undue influence.
Cointelegraph reports that it reached out to both Thanedar’s and McKinney’s campaigns for comment on the PAC expenditures but did not receive an immediate response.
Fairshake’s affiliates: national momentum in multiple primaries
Protect Progress PAC is an affiliate of Fairshake, a political network that has become one of the most prominent outside spenders linked to crypto industry policy goals. Fairshake was responsible for spending more than $170 million across the 2024 election cycle through media buys supporting candidates it viewed as aligned with crypto-friendly regulation, as summarized in the article.
The article also notes that affiliates have already deployed millions of dollars in 2026 races beyond Michigan, pointing to activity in states including Texas and Illinois. In addition, it cites Public Citizen reporting from June that Fairshake and its affiliates accounted for more than $82 million out of roughly $189 million deployed by crypto companies during the 2026 election cycle.
Fairshake itself reportedly listed holding a $193 million “war chest” as of January, according to figures referenced in the piece. Taken together with the Michigan disclosures, the pattern suggests a sustained approach: deploy substantial resources early enough to shape narrative and voter attention around specific legislative priorities.
The article further describes similar affiliate activity in other congressional primaries. It says Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media in Washington’s 4th congressional district to support a Republican candidate, with Washington holding primaries on the same day as Michigan.
In Alabama, scheduled primaries on Aug. 11 are also described as a focus for Fairshake-linked spending. FEC filings cited in the article indicate Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $511,000 on media supporting Jerry Carl Jr., a Republican who represented Alabama’s 1st congressional district from 2021 to 2025.
For readers tracking the cycle, these parallel contests illustrate how crypto-aligned PAC affiliates appear to treat primary elections as strategic targets—places where candidate positioning on digital asset policy could be determined before general election dynamics begin.
What to watch as Michigan’s primary approaches
With Michigan’s 13th district primary scheduled for Tuesday, the key question is whether Protect Progress’s latest ad surge will further alter voter perceptions or turnout in the remaining days. More broadly, the filings reinforce that crypto-linked political spending is not limited to high-profile general election races—affiliates are actively contesting primaries with resources intended to influence policy direction well after election season announcements fade.
Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) says this bear market has no shortage of money. Plenty of it is hunting for somewhere to go.
Elsewhere, Social Capital founder Chamath Palihapitiya said where he thinks it should land. Not in artificial intelligence (AI) chips.
The Bear Market Has Money. It Is Not Buying Crypto
CZ did not say where the money should go, but acknowledged that there was a lot of liquidity floating despite the bear market.
The numbers show why it is not going into crypto. Bitcoin (BTC) trades near $63,037. It is down 45% in a year. That is almost exactly half its October 6 record.
Chamath Is Buying Land, Not Chips
Meanwhile, the Social Capital founder Chamath Palihapitiya, a venture capitalist, entrepreneur, and investor, buys three things at once. Land, a power connection, and an empty building to hold the computers.
“LPS (Land Power Shell) is still the most obvious and fastest path to cash on cash returns,” Palihapitiya wrote.
Palihapitiya is a former senior executive at Facebook (now Meta), a renowned SPAC sponsor, and former minority owner of the Golden State Warriors.
His reason is simple. Towns keep blocking data centers. Every site that already has power gets rarer.
The numbers back him. Data Center Watch counted at least 75 US projects blocked or delayed in early 2026, worth about $130 billion.It was the worst quarter on record. Opposition groups doubled and now operate in 49 states.
Politicians joined in. More than 300 state data center bills were filed in six weeks. Maine missed becoming the first state to ban them outright by one House vote.
Why He Quit the Chip Business
He says he helped start Groq in 2016. Nvidia licensed Groq’s technology last December. The deal was not exclusive. Groq founder Jonathan Ross moved to Nvidia.
Neither company gave a price, but Palihapitiya says $20 billion. Still, he would not do it again as chips have to run too fast, factories have to be too exact, and a startup cannot get enough memory.
How Much Power He Has Bought
Palihapitiya says he and his partner Anita Vlallian have acquired almost six gigawatts (GW). It arrives in stages through 2029.
One deal shows the going rate. Nasdaq-listed TeraWulf used to mine Bitcoin. In July it leased a 401-megawatt site in Hawesville, Kentucky, to Anthropic. The lease runs 20 years and should bring in about $19 billion.
Here is the part that proves his point. That site is not built yet. Power starts flowing in late 2027 and reaches full load in early 2028.
The money is committed anyway. Palihapitiya holds roughly 15 times that much capacity. His is not leased out yet, so the figure shows the size of his bet, not its value.
However, miners got there first, and already own cheap power, land with grid hookups, and empty sheds. Coinbase chief executive Brian Armstrong disputed the mining warning in July.
What Could Go Wrong
Jordi Visser of 22V Research says easy money is over in AI. He expects about 30% a year now.
The land bet also needs the protests to keep coming. If towns start approving data centers again, the scarcity goes away.
TeraWulf’s $19 billion is a forecast too. Its own filing calls it expected revenue.
CZ is right. The money is out there. The question is whether it buys power lines or comes back to Bitcoin and crypto markets.
The post CZ Says Bear Market Money is Hunting, Social Capital Founder Says Skip AI Chips appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Brendan Hunt On Why ‘Ted Lasso’ Season 4 Changes Everything
Darline Graham makes her political debut in South Carolina
US Justice Department subpoenas New York Times freelancer over North Korea story, paper says
-
Sports6 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Business3 days agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Fashion1 day agoWeekend Open Thread: Wit & Wisdom
-
Tech6 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Politics1 day agoMeta enters AI-training agreement with far-right ‘propaganda rag’ Newsmax
-
Politics5 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Crypto World7 hours agoMicroStrategy Post-Earnings CLARITY Act Push Could Add New Catalyst for Its Stock
-
Politics5 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
News Videos6 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Entertainment4 days ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Business4 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Crypto World7 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
Politics6 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
News Videos2 days agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Crypto World15 hours ago
XRP Ledger v3.3.0 brings five institutional features
-
Entertainment7 days agoSara Gilson Killed By Husband After Viral “Pedophile” TikTok Video
-
Crypto World4 days agoKraken Enables Retail Access to Jersey Mike’s IPO via Tokenized Shares
-
Tech5 days agoNew macOS Sequoia & Sonoma security updates for older Macs
-
News Videos4 days agoClaude: Build Financial Dashboards in Minutes (2026)
-
Politics2 days agoLuke Littler’s dominance sparks GOAT debate
You must be logged in to post a comment Login