Binance has extended its rewards push around Ripple USD with another four-week campaign offering one million XRP to eligible RLUSD holders. 

The new campaign began at 00:00 UTC on Aug. 14 and runs through Sept. 11, according to the exchange’s updated announcement. Rewards will be distributed every Friday across four installments.

The follow-on program started immediately after Binance’s first RLUSD campaign ended on Aug. 14. That earlier promotion offered $800,000 worth of XRP across four weekly distributions beginning July 17. As crypto.news previously reported, the first campaign tied XRP rewards to eligible RLUSD balances held through Binance Earn and Margin products.

Binance keeps RLUSD eligibility rules largely unchanged

To qualify, users must maintain at least 0.01 RLUSD in an eligible Earn or Margin account and record at least $500 in average daily Margin or Futures trading volume. The trading volume can come from any supported pair as long as RLUSD is being used as collateral.

Binance calculates rewards using each user’s qualifying RLUSD balance and an effective annualized percentage rate determined for each weekly period. The lowest RLUSD balance observed during hourly snapshots becomes the qualifying balance for that day. There is no stated individual reward cap.

RLUSD created by borrowing other stablecoins receives different treatment. Binance applies a 60% haircut to the leveraged portion after accounting for liabilities involving USDT, USDC, U, USD1 and FDUSD. RLUSD that is itself recorded as a borrowing liability is excluded from the qualifying balance.

One million XRP will be distributed through Sept. 11

The first distribution under the new campaign is scheduled for Aug. 21, followed by payments on Aug. 28, Sept. 4 and Sept. 11. Binance will determine the effective APR and XRP valuation for each period at the time of distribution.

The prior campaign shows how those rates can move. Its effective APR started at 22.25% for the first week, then fell to 8.22%, 8.08% and 7.69% in subsequent distributions. Binance warns that the APR is “not indicative of future results” and may fluctuate from week to week.

“The old ‘long bitcoin, short the bankers’ trade is over: banks have moved from resisting digital assets to building and enabling or distributing them through custody, tokenization and regulated trading,” Dori said.

He attributed the shift to client demand and clearer rules, calling it structural rather than cyclical.

Early bank entrants included Swissquote, which added bitcoin trading in 2017, DBS in 2020 and BBVA in 2021. BNY Mellon started institutional crypto custody in 2022, the same year Nubank launched bitcoin and ether trading and LGT added crypto services.

St.Galler Kantonalbank and Santander followed in 2023, while Zürcher Kantonalbank added retail trading in 2024, before other major financial industry players including Standard Chartered, Charles Schwab, SoFi and Morgan Stanley entered the space.

Anchorage Digital CEO Nathan McCauley, meanwhile, said its client roster has increasingly reflected the convergence of traditional and decentralized finance over the past two years.

Large financial firms are partnering with specialist providers rather than building their own infrastructure, he said. Still, real-world assets coming onchain and crypto wrappers being created by large asset managers is showing two worlds are increasingly becoming one.

“We’re quickly headed towards a world where there isn’t ‘traditional finance’ and ‘decentralized finance.’ There’s just ‘finance,” McCauley told CoinDesk. “

Cardano’s Dijkstra upgrade remains on its agreed technical scope and schedule, with developers targeting Linear Leios and Nested Transactions in the first phase before a separate Peras activation in 2027. 

Intersect said in its Aug. 14 update that planning is now shifting toward ecosystem readiness, testnet reporting and support for alternative node implementations.

The latest official roadmap divides Dijkstra into two phases. Phase 1 introduces the new Dijkstra ledger era and Linear Leios, with a Q4 2026 code-completion target. Phase 2 activates Ouroboros Peras through an intra-era hard fork targeted for Q2 2027. The published schedule explicitly says those dates are estimates and “not guarantees,” as testing and on-chain governance can extend the final mainnet timeline.

Cardano Dijkstra puts Linear Leios in Phase 1

Linear Leios is the main scaling component of the first Dijkstra hard fork. Rather than replacing Cardano’s Praos security model, it introduces Endorser Blocks that can reference additional transactions and have them certified by stake-based committees. The design aims to increase throughput while retaining the existing base consensus guarantees.

Phase 1 also includes Nested Transactions, new transaction and block serialization structures, PlutusV4 changes and several protocol parameter additions. Importantly, it will install the codec extensions and parameters required for Peras without activating Peras itself.

As crypto.news previously reported, Cardano’s van Rossem hard fork moved mainnet to Protocol Version 11 in July and laid technical groundwork for Dijkstra and Leios.

Ouroboros Peras is scheduled for Phase 2. The protocol adds a voting layer that allows committees of stake pool operators to vote on recent chain tips, giving Cardano a way to reach settlement faster than under standard Praos chain-depth rules.

Intersect currently targets Q2 2027 for the Peras phase. That will require its own Preview and Pre-production deployments followed by another mainnet governance action. Phase 1 must already be active because it supplies the ledger structures and protocol parameters Peras requires.

Amaru moves toward Cardano block production

Dijkstra is also pushing Cardano toward greater node-client diversity. Intersect said Amaru, an open-source Rust implementation, is already relay capable and can validate and synchronize with the chain tip. Mainnet block production is targeted for November 2026.

Amaru’s own development tracker provides more detail. Its general block-producer release is targeted for Sept. 30, followed by a Dijkstra-compatible block producer milestone on Oct. 29 and a Leios-compatible release on Nov. 26. These are development milestones rather than guaranteed Cardano mainnet activation dates.

Node diversity would reduce Cardano’s reliance on its Haskell implementation. Intersect is also developing a Dijkstra readiness tracker covering testnet performance and ecosystem preparation while inviting alternative node teams into its weekly Hard Fork Working Group.

Governance changes must arrive before Dijkstra

Dijkstra introduces protocol parameters that Cardano governance cannot change unless they appear explicitly within the Constitution’s guardrails. Input Output therefore plans a narrow constitutional amendment adding the relevant parameters and permitted ranges. It does not propose changes to governance roles, voting thresholds or constitutional principles.

The current target is to submit that governance action no later than Epoch 655, beginning Sept. 11. Community discussion is already being organized through Intersect’s Constitutional Amendment Portal, which had received four initial submissions by Aug. 14.

Ultimately, the near-term work centers on completing Dijkstra code, establishing readiness criteria and moving the first phase through Preview and Pre-production before any mainnet governance vote. Intersect’s latest update says the agreed scope and target dates remain unchanged.

The main caveat is timing. Although the Haskell node team is working toward Phase 1 mainnet delivery by the end of 2026, the formal roadmap describes Q4 as a code-completion target and says governance and community testing can push activation later. Peras remains targeted for Q2 2027 after Phase 1 is deployed.

Harvard Management Company kept its position in BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust unchanged during the second quarter, ending two consecutive quarters of reductions in its publicly disclosed Bitcoin exposure. 

Its Aug. 14 SEC filing showed 3,044,612 IBIT shares worth $101.36 million as of June 30.

The share count was identical to March 31, when the position was worth about $116.97 million. The roughly $15.6 million decline in reported value therefore came from IBIT’s lower quarter end price rather than additional selling by Harvard.

Harvard stops selling after two quarters of IBIT cuts

Harvard had been reducing its Bitcoin ETF exposure since late 2025. It held 6,813,612 IBIT shares at the end of September before cutting the position about 21% to 5,353,612 shares in the fourth quarter. It then sold another 2.31 million shares during Q1, reducing the position 43% to its current 3,044,612 shares.

As crypto.news previously reported, Harvard cut its Bitcoin ETF position 43% and exited its Ether ETF entirely during Q1. The latest filing contains no BlackRock Ethereum ETF position, confirming Harvard did not rebuild that exposure during Q2.

Harvard’s IBIT position accounted for about 2.4% of the $4.26 billion in securities reported on its latest 13F. The filing listed 19 positions in total. Space Exploration Technologies was the largest at $2.21 billion.

Gold exposure remains larger than Harvard’s Bitcoin ETF stake

Harvard reported $149.5 million in the iShares Gold Trust and another $21.7 million in SPDR Gold Trust shares. Together, those positions were worth about $171.2 million, compared with $101.4 million in IBIT at June 30.

The comparison applies only to securities disclosed on Form 13F. It does not mean gold represents a larger allocation than Bitcoin across Harvard’s entire investment portfolio. SEC guidance says Form 13F covers qualifying securities over which an institutional manager exercises investment discretion, including U.S. listed ETFs. It does not provide a complete picture of private funds or other assets outside the reporting regime.

Dartmouth College also kept its crypto ETF share counts unchanged during Q2. As crypto.news reported, Dartmouth retained its Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana ETF positions, although their combined quarter end value fell. Its SEC filing shows 201,531 IBIT shares, 178,148 Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF shares and 304,803 Bitwise Solana Staking ETF shares.

Abu Dhabi funds keep nearly $764M in IBIT

Two Abu Dhabi investment entities also made no changes to their reported IBIT share counts. Mubadala Investment Company held 14,721,917 shares worth $490.1 million at June 30.

Abu Dhabi Investment Council reported another 8,218,712 shares worth $273.6 million. Together, the two filings show about 22.94 million IBIT shares valued at roughly $763.7 million at quarter end. Both share counts were unchanged from Q1.

That contrasts with Q1, when Mubadala added to its position while Harvard was reducing exposure. In related coverage, Mubadala increased its Bitcoin ETF holdings as Harvard sold shares.

JPMorgan adds IBIT while Morgan Stanley trims

Other institutional filings showed a mixed picture. JPMorgan reported about 10.4 million IBIT shares at June 30, up from approximately 8.3 million three months earlier. Morgan Stanley moved in the opposite direction, reducing its reported IBIT position about 4.5% to roughly 16.5 million shares worth $548.6 million.

Those filings should not automatically be interpreted as proprietary Bitcoin bets by the banks. The SEC says Form 13F can aggregate securities over which banks, broker dealers, investment advisers and related entities exercise investment discretion, including client accounts and trading activities.

Tudor Investment Corporation reported 688,529 IBIT shares worth $22.9 million, 109,446 more shares than in Q1. Its filing also included IBIT put and call options, showing that the reported equity position alone does not capture the manager’s complete exposure.

What happens next

The filings provide a snapshot only as of June 30. They do not reveal transactions made during the third quarter or show whether Harvard, the Abu Dhabi funds or other managers have changed their positions since then.

The next Form 13F cycle will disclose qualifying holdings as of Sept. 30. Until then, the latest verified data shows Harvard ended two quarters of IBIT selling without adding shares, while Mubadala and ADIC also maintained their positions. The wider institutional picture remained mixed, with JPMorgan and Tudor reporting higher IBIT exposure while Morgan Stanley trimmed its reported stake.

Payward, the parent company of Kraken, reported $508 million in adjusted revenue for the second quarter of 2026, up 17% year over year, while adjusted EBITDA dropped sharply to $23 million. 

The company disclosed the results on Aug. 14 as weaker spot trading weighed on activity despite growth across other financial products.

The profitability decline was substantial. Kraken reported $80 million of adjusted EBITDA on $432 million of adjusted revenue in Q2 2025. Payward did not disclose net income in its latest release. Its earlier financial disclosures describe adjusted revenue and adjusted EBITDA as management measures that exclude certain expenses.

Payward revenue grew while transaction volume fell

Total platform transaction volume reached $310 billion, down 18% from the previous year. Payward attributed the decline partly to weaker crypto spot volumes, while saying traditional futures, equities and tokenized equities grew during the quarter. Futures daily average revenue trades increased 8%.

Revenue also became less dependent on transaction fees. Asset-based and other revenue accounted for 60% of total revenue, compared with 55% a year earlier. Payward said that shift reflects income generated from assets and services surrounding its trading operations rather than a retreat from trading itself.

Assets on the platform stood at $40 billion at quarter-end. Payward also reported $65 billion of what it calls “Real Assets on Platform,” calculated by holding prices at Q2 2025 levels to remove market-price effects. That adjusted measure increased 48% year over year, according to the company.

Funded accounts reach a record 6.6 million

Payward reported 6.6 million funded accounts, up 42% year over year and the highest level in its history. However, comparisons with Kraken’s previously published 4.4 million funded accounts for Q2 2025 require caution.

The newer Payward definition counts distinct funded accounts across its platforms and products and counts sub-accounts separately. Kraken’s 2025 disclosure instead described funded accounts as funded customers with balances above zero. The reporting perimeter has also expanded as Payward integrated businesses such as NinjaTrader and Bitnomial.

Bitnomial expands Payward’s regulated U.S. derivatives stack

Payward closed its acquisition of Bitnomial on May 1, adding a CFTC-regulated designated contract market, clearing organization and futures commission merchant. As crypto.news previously reported, the $550 million Bitnomial acquisition gave Payward a vertically integrated U.S. derivatives stack.

Payward said the infrastructure supported regulated U.S. perpetual futures and spot margin products during Q2. Separately, a July CFTC letter shows Kraken is reconsidering the future of Kraken Derivatives Exchange, the former Small Exchange it acquired in 2025, including potential partnerships or a sale following the Bitnomial transaction.

Its federal banking push is also unresolved. The OCC still lists Payward National Trust Company’s May 8 charter application among pending digital-asset licensing applications. As crypto.news reported, the proposed national trust company would give Payward a federally supervised custody entity if regulators approve it.

What happens next for Payward

Payward expects its second-half strategy to focus on broader trading products, banking, tokenization, payments and services sold to third-party platforms. It completed its Reap acquisition on July 1 and has agreed to acquire Magic Labs’ wallet infrastructure business, although that transaction has not yet closed.

Tokenized equities remain a major part of that strategy. In related coverage, Payward expanded xStocks beyond U.S. equities through its GTN partnership, while Kraken has also begun allowing eligible users to use selected tokenized stocks as collateral.

The next financial report will show whether Payward can maintain revenue growth while restoring profitability. For now, Q2 presents a mixed picture: revenue and funded accounts increased, but transaction volume fell and adjusted EBITDA declined from $80 million to $23 million.

XRP briefly fell below the closely watched $1 level before rebounding on Aug. 16 as veteran trader Peter Brandt renewed his criticism of the cryptocurrency and said he would prefer Bitcoin even if given a large XRP position.

Brandt wrote in an X post that he was not interested in owning the token after another user challenged his views. “Who the heck even cares about XRP?” Brandt wrote, adding that he trades futures and “I would convert it immediately to BTC” if he owned half a million XRP. His remarks describe a personal asset preference, not a disclosed transaction or new trading position.

XRP rebounds after briefly falling below $1

XRP traded below $1 during Sunday’s session. A CoinGecko snapshot showed the token near $0.9993, while the latest market feed checked for this report put XRP at about $1.059. Bitcoin was trading near $62,926. The price movement has not been linked to Brandt’s post.

At $1.059, the hypothetical 500,000 XRP position discussed by Brandt would be worth about $529,500, equivalent to roughly 8.4 BTC at current prices. Brandt did not say he actually controls such a position.

The latest weakness leaves XRP about 71% below its record price. CoinGecko places its all time high at $3.65 on July 17, 2025. The same data source showed the token as much as 72.6% below that peak while XRP was trading under $1 earlier Sunday.

Brandt has repeatedly challenged XRP’s price outlook

Brandt’s latest comments continue a long running debate with XRP supporters. In March 2025, he identified what he called a textbook head and shoulders pattern. His chart suggested XRP could fall toward $1.07 if key support failed, while a move above $3 could invalidate the bearish structure.

XRP eventually traded near the level he identified, although reaching a technical target much later does not prove that the original chart caused or accurately predicted the decline. Market conditions changed materially between the March 2025 analysis and August 2026.

Brandt has also repeatedly criticized the conviction of some XRP traders. In December, he wrote that XRP and silver bulls were among the groups he had found easiest to provoke during his trading career dating to 1975.

His preference for Bitcoin also should not be interpreted as an immediate bullish Bitcoin forecast. As crypto.news recently reported, Brandt said Bitcoin could revisit roughly $58,000 after a large head and shoulders breakdown. He explicitly said he had not entered that trade and presented the decline as a possible scenario rather than a confirmed destination.

Onchain data shows reduced whale transfers to Binance

XRP’s test of $1 comes while one measure of potential exchange selling pressure has fallen sharply. CryptoQuant contributor Darkfost reported that the three month average of XRP whale inflows to Binance had declined to about $61 million, its lowest level since 2021.

As crypto.news reported, XRP whale inflows to Binance fell to their lowest level since 2021, compared with $456 million in January 2025 and $355 million in October. Lower exchange deposits can indicate less potential sell side supply, but they do not guarantee higher prices because demand can weaken simultaneously.

XRP had already been testing the same psychological level before Brandt’s latest comments. In related coverage, XRP traded near $1 as futures positioning increased, leaving traders focused on whether the support could survive sustained selling rather than a brief intraday break.

What happens next for XRP

The immediate market question is whether XRP can establish support back above $1 following Sunday’s recovery. A brief move below a round number does not by itself confirm a longer term breakdown. Traders would need additional price action, volume and market structure evidence before treating the move as durable.

Brandt has not published a new XRP price target alongside his Aug. 16 criticism. His comment was about preference between XRP and Bitcoin, not a forecast that XRP will fall further. Any attempt to present the post as a fresh bearish price prediction would therefore go beyond what he actually said.

For now, the verified developments are separate: XRP briefly lost $1 before recovering, whale deposits to Binance have fallen sharply, and Brandt remains unwilling to hold the token despite its current price being close to the $1.07 area he identified in a 2025 technical scenario.

Solana is now accessible on the XRP Ledger’s native decentralized exchange through a wrapped SOL asset issued through Axelar, extending interoperability between the two blockchain ecosystems. 

Axelar confirmed the availability in an Aug. 14 post, directing users to SOL/XRP trading on XPMarket.

Hussein Zangana, known as Vet, warned users that Axelar is currently “the only legitimate issuer” of wrapped SOL on XRPL and told traders to beware of copycat assets. His warning matters because tokens on the XRP Ledger are identified by both their currency code and issuer account, rather than a ticker alone.