Orionx, a Chile-based cryptocurrency exchange backed by Tether, is shutting down after a forensic review flagged a multimillion-dollar custody discrepancy, according to statements shared by the company on X. The exchange said it is moving into a permanent closure process and has temporarily suspended withdrawals as it works to return client funds.

Orionx said the audit identified more than $7 million in assets recorded in its custodial records that had been transferred to wallets it does not manage. The announcement arrives against a broader backdrop of increased scrutiny around custody controls and regulatory compliance for crypto firms operating in Latin America.

Key takeaways

• Orionx is initiating a permanent shutdown after a forensic audit found a custody mismatch involving more than $7 million.
• The exchange says withdrawals are temporarily suspended while it prioritizes returning client assets.
• Orionx has not disclosed when the transfers occurred, but a criminal complaint alleges outflows from custody between 2018 and 2021.
• Former co-founders Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz deny allegations tied to unauthorized access to custody systems.
• Tether led Orionx’s Series A in 2025 as part of an expansion push, with the funding announcement later removed from Tether’s website.

A forensic finding triggers a withdrawal pause

Orionx announced that it began the process of permanently closing the platform after uncovering what it described as evidence of a custody-related issue. In its X post, the exchange said withdrawals have been paused in the interim while it attempts to return as much as possible to clients.

At the center of Orionx’s case is the discrepancy identified between the balances shown in its systems and the assets it holds at its custody addresses. Orionx attributed the issue to more than $7 million in custodial assets having moved to wallets the exchange does not manage, according to the company announcement.

While Orionx said it commissioned a forensic audit that compared internal records with verifiable on-chain data, the exchange did not specify in its post when the transfers took place or how the mismatch was first detected. That timing detail is important for investors and users trying to understand exposure windows, but the available reporting points to a longer period of alleged activity.

Timeline and alleged custody gaps cited in a Chilean complaint

According to reporting by Chilean newspaper La Tercera, Orionx undertook internal efforts to comply with Chile’s Fintech Law, conducting a review of its operations in 2025 and bringing in financial professionals. The publication tied Orionx’s actions to a criminal complaint involving former executives.

Reportedly, on Aug. 27, Orionx’s chief operating officer Thomas Mac Millan noticed a “significant mismatch” between the balances recorded in Orionx’s systems and what was actually held in custody, as described in the complaint. Orionx then ran an internal review and later commissioned an external forensic audit that matched its records with data that can be checked on-chain.

The forensic audit findings, as described through the complaint and reported by La Tercera, indicate that balances tracked within Orionx’s systems were higher than the assets held at its custody addresses for Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP, and Polygon (POL). That kind of gap can be especially consequential for users because it suggests the platform’s accounting and custody reality did not align across multiple major assets.

La Tercera further reports that the complaint alleges assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts hosted on other crypto platforms. Although the exchange’s public announcement did not spell out the period, the complaint points to a multi-year span, which could influence how authorities and affected customers evaluate responsibility and timing.

Criminal complaint targets former co-founders; denials follow

Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz—both co-founders—whom it alleges had access to the company’s crypto custody systems. In the complaint as reported by La Tercera, an account associated with Díaz allegedly received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers. The report also cites allegations that another wallet received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT), and 200,000 USDC from Orionx.

Zibert and Díaz denied wrongdoing, according to La Cuarta. They said they never acted against customers’ interests and argued that the cause of Orionx’s asset shortfall remains unclear.

For Orionx customers, the competing narratives—Orionx’s custody-mismatch claims versus the co-founders’ denials—are likely to shape what happens next. But the practical impact is immediate: Orionx is prioritizing asset recovery efforts while keeping withdrawals suspended, meaning users cannot rely on normal exchange liquidity during the shutdown process.

Tether’s 2025 backing and the question of what changed

Orionx was founded in Chile in 2017 and expanded from a retail crypto exchange into a broader platform that offered crypto payment and financial services across Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico.

In June 2025, Tether invested in Orionx, exclusively leading Orionx’s Series A round, according to an archived version of Tether’s announcement. That announcement is no longer available on Tether’s website, but the archived copy attributes the investment to Tether’s stated aim of expanding digital-asset adoption across Latin America.

Cointelegraph reported that it contacted Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response by publication. The episode raises an investor question that often comes up in crypto custody failures: even when an exchange secures prominent strategic backing, custody controls and operational integrity still require continuous verification, particularly as regulatory expectations rise.

What remains uncertain is how the alleged custody shortfall ties to Orionx’s later operations and compliance efforts. The complaint reporting points to transfers between 2018 and 2021, while Orionx’s public review and forensic steps occurred later. Until more details emerge from the criminal process and the ongoing closure and restitution efforts, the exact mechanics of the gap—along with the responsibility chain—may remain disputed.

Over the coming weeks, clients and observers will likely watch for updates on whether Orionx can identify and recover missing assets from the wallets it says it does not control, as well as what authorities uncover regarding access, internal controls, and the alleged timeline of transfers.

Demand for dollar-backed stablecoins can place downward pressure on national currencies when investors receive direct access through fiat trading pairs, according to research published by the Bank of Korea on Sept. 3. The effect appeared after Binance introduced trading between selected local currencies and stablecoins such as USDT and USDC.

The Bank of Korea study, written by Jihyun Kim and Sangheum Cho, examined 12 currencies with enough local and global exchange data. Pair introductions covered the period from 2019 through 2025.

The researchers found that direct fiat-stablecoin markets strengthened the connection between crypto demand and foreign exchange markets. Stablecoin premiums became smaller, but demand shocks also gained a route into conventional currency trading.

The findings do not establish that stablecoin demand always causes currency depreciation. The measured relationship depended on market structure, access to global intermediaries and the availability of direct trading pairs.

Binance pairs connected stablecoin demand with FX markets

Dollar stablecoins trade globally, but investors in many countries cannot always purchase them directly with local currency on a large international exchange. They may instead buy stablecoins through domestic platforms, peer-to-peer markets or intermediaries.

That separation can create a local premium. The price of USDT or USDC on a domestic exchange may rise above the conventional dollar exchange rate when demand exceeds the available supply. Capital controls, transfer costs and restrictions on international exchanges can prevent arbitrageurs from closing the difference immediately.

Binance’s introduction of direct fiat-stablecoin pairs changed this structure for the currencies examined. Global market makers could sell stablecoins directly to investors paying with local currency. Those firms could then manage the resulting fiat exposure through conventional FX markets.

For example, a market maker selling USDT for Brazilian reais receives reais while giving up a dollar-linked asset. To rebalance, it can sell the reais and buy dollars in the FX market. Stablecoin buying demand can therefore generate an accompanying sale of the local currency.

The researchers described this as a shock-transmission channel. Before direct pairing, buying pressure mainly affected the domestic stablecoin premium. After pairing, some of the pressure passed into the exchange rate.

Net buyer-initiated stablecoin order flow was associated with depreciation among paired currencies. The result indicates that the direction of trading activity mattered, not only the difference between local and global stablecoin prices.

The findings support concerns that digital dollar demand may affect national currencies through new channels. An International Monetary Fund official similarly warned that local tokens could ease conversion into dollar stablecoins, particularly when on-chain markets allow users to move between currencies without conventional banking routes.

Stablecoin premiums fell after direct trading opened

The study also found stronger price integration between global and domestic stablecoin markets. Local premiums declined by approximately 0.33 to 0.38 percentage points following the introduction of Binance fiat pairs.

This decline means the local stablecoin price moved closer to the corresponding spot exchange rate. Global liquidity providers could respond when domestic demand pushed stablecoins above prices available elsewhere.

On-chain and exchange flows provided further support for this result. Stablecoins tended to move from Binance into local exchanges when domestic premiums exceeded prices on Binance. Traders could purchase the tokens in the lower-priced market, transfer them and sell where the premium was higher.

The process improves price consistency across venues, but it also links markets that were previously more separated. A demand shock that once remained within a domestic crypto exchange can prompt global market makers to trade the underlying national currency.

The paper’s result is therefore not simply that exchange listings reduced trading costs. Greater integration came with stronger transmission between digital-asset demand and foreign exchange prices.

In a separate weekly test, the researchers used Google searches for Bitcoin as a proxy for crypto investment interest. A one-standard-deviation increase in search activity was associated with a 0.118% depreciation of the Brazilian real and a 0.109-percentage-point increase in Brazil’s stablecoin premium.

These figures describe statistical relationships within the study’s sample. They do not mean every increase in Bitcoin searches will produce an equivalent currency move. Search activity may also capture broader risk sentiment, political developments or financial stress.

Korea’s unpaired market absorbed demand through premiums

South Korea provided a useful comparison because Binance did not offer a direct won-stablecoin pair during the period examined. Korean investors mainly accessed stablecoins through domestic exchanges or other indirect channels.

The researchers found no statistically measurable relationship between stablecoin buying pressure and the won’s exchange rate. Instead, stronger demand mainly raised the price premium for stablecoins inside the Korean market.

This contrast supports the study’s market-structure argument. Where global intermediaries could not directly accept won in exchange for stablecoins, they had no equivalent position to unwind through the conventional FX market.

The result does not show that Korean stablecoin activity has no connection with the won. It shows that the specific exchange-rate transmission identified among Binance-paired currencies was not measurable in Korea under the market structure studied.

Korean demand is already large. Won-denominated purchases of stablecoins reached about $64 billion during the 12 months through June 2025, according to Chainalysis data. The firm described South Korea as Asia-Pacific’s largest local-currency stablecoin market during that period.

The Bank of Korea said the relationship could change if the country expands access for corporations and foreign investors. That view remains forward-looking because Korea has not yet developed the same direct trading structure used in the study’s paired markets.

South Korea is also considering wider digital-asset rules. Lawmakers have been working on legislation covering stablecoin issuers, reserve standards and supervision. The central bank has supported a model in which banks lead won-backed issuance during the market’s early stages, citing monetary and financial stability concerns.

That position was reinforced when the Bank of Korea supported bank-led stablecoin consortiums while discussions over the Digital Asset Basic Act remained unresolved.

Dollar stablecoins create a new capital-flow channel

Traditional capital flows move through banks, securities markets and regulated foreign exchange dealers. Stablecoins add another route because investors can acquire dollar-linked assets through cryptocurrency exchanges and transfer them across borders.

The Bank of Korea researchers described these movements as a form of non-traditional capital flow. The asset remains a blockchain token, but the market maker’s decision to hedge its exposure can produce a conventional dollar purchase and local-currency sale.

This mechanism may be especially relevant in countries where households use stablecoins to preserve purchasing power. Demand often rises during inflation, currency depreciation or limited access to conventional dollar accounts.

Tether has pointed to Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia and Turkey as markets where USDT adoption has grown amid currency instability and restricted dollar access. Those are company claims rather than independent measurements, but they align with the broader pattern examined in crypto.news coverage of stablecoin use during local currency stress.

The mechanism can work in both directions. Existing currency weakness may encourage investors to buy stablecoins, while the transactions used to fulfil that demand may add selling pressure to the local currency. Separating those effects is difficult because demand for digital dollars often increases when confidence in domestic money is already declining.

The study used the timing of Binance pair introductions to identify changes in market structure. This approach helped the researchers compare conditions before and after global intermediaries gained direct access. It does not remove every outside factor affecting exchange rates.

The researchers argued that deeper FX liquidity could improve a market’s ability to absorb stablecoin-related flows. Wider international use of the won could also create more counterparties and reduce the effect of individual demand shocks.

Korea’s stablecoin rules may shape future FX exposure

The findings arrive while South Korea is developing a broader regulatory framework for stablecoins, tokenized securities and digital-asset markets. Changes allowing greater corporate or foreign participation could increase liquidity, but they could also strengthen the link between crypto demand and the won.

Authorities are considering how won-backed stablecoins should be issued and supervised. The Bank of Korea prefers bank-led issuance, while some lawmakers and technology companies have supported broader access for licensed non-bank firms.

The government has also outlined plans to expand offshore won settlement and modernize foreign exchange rules. Those measures could make the currency more accessible internationally, potentially increasing the market’s capacity to absorb cross-border flows.

South Korea’s roadmap combines won stablecoins with foreign exchange reforms, reflecting the same policy connection identified in the Bank of Korea paper. Stablecoin regulation cannot be separated entirely from currency-market structure when tokens trade directly against national money.

No new rule or trading pair was announced alongside the study. The paper is research rather than a regulatory order. Its main contribution is evidence that exchange design determines whether stablecoin demand remains a crypto-market premium or enters the conventional FX market.

For Korean policymakers, the central question is not only whether local investors will use stablecoins. It is whether future market access will give global intermediaries a direct route to hedge won positions through foreign exchange markets.

FAQs

Federal Reserve researchers proposed a framework on Sept. 4 for deciding how stablecoins and other blockchain-based financial products could fit within U.S. money supply statistics.

Payment stablecoins are not currently included in M1 or M2, but their future classification could depend on how households and businesses use them.

The authors, Kristen Payne and Mary-Frances Styczynski, examined payment stablecoins, tokenized bank deposits and tokenized money market funds in a Federal Reserve study. They considered both the economic function of each asset and whether reliable data could be collected without counting the same money twice.

The authors stressed that the paper reflects their personal views. It does not represent a Federal Reserve policy decision or an active deliberation over changing the monetary aggregates.

LeBron James teased an upcoming partnership with Polymarket on Sept. 5, placing the NBA star alongside a growing group of athletes and professional leagues working with prediction-market companies.

James shared a 14-second video showing him entering a fictional Polymarket headquarters and selecting a floor marked for sports. “Welcome to Polymarket HQ. Coming soon,” he wrote.

The post confirms that a partnership exists but provides no details about James’s role. Neither James nor Polymarket has disclosed the duration, compensation, ownership terms or specific promotional commitments.

CNBC reported that the companies are preparing a larger marketing campaign focused initially on American football. The outlet cited one person familiar with the plans who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The campaign is therefore not confirmed as rugby-related. The available report specifically identifies American football, while James’s public teaser refers only to Polymarket’s broader sports business.

Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder and Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko exchanged competing views on Sept. 6 over why Robinhood built its blockchain using Arbitrum technology instead of operating applications directly on Solana.

Goldfeder argued that Robinhood can retain roughly 90% of its chain revenue under the Arbitrum Expansion Program. A Solana-based application would pay network fees without receiving the underlying chain’s revenue, he said.

“Robinhood chose Arbitrum so they could be a landlord and not a tenant,” Goldfeder wrote. His comment responded to Yakovenko’s position that Robinhood could subsidize Solana transaction fees while charging users through its own application.

The debate followed a sharp rise in Robinhood Chain activity. The network recently collected $6.04 million in daily transaction fees and retained about $5.44 million after expenses and its Arbitrum revenue-sharing obligation.

Robinhood keeps 90% of net revenue, not gross fees

Goldfeder’s 90% figure reflects the Arbitrum Expansion Program’s share of net protocol revenue. It should not be interpreted as Robinhood automatically retaining 90% of every gross fee paid by users.

Under the program, Robinhood Chain sends 10% of its net protocol revenue to the Arbitrum ecosystem. Eight percentage points go to the Arbitrum DAO treasury, while two percentage points fund the Arbitrum Developer Guild.

Net revenue is calculated after relevant network expenses, including the cost of posting transaction data to Ethereum. Robinhood’s actual retained amount therefore depends on gross transaction fees, Ethereum data costs, infrastructure expenses and the Arbitrum payment.

The arrangement has already produced measurable results. Robinhood Chain collected a record $6.04 million in transaction fees during its latest 24-hour reporting period and retained approximately $5.44 million. The figures show the network keeping about 90% after associated costs and allocations.

The network also generated $20.33 million in revenue over seven days. Maintaining that rate for a full year would produce approximately $1.06 billion, but such annualization is only a projection based on a brief period of unusually high activity.

The latest Robinhood Chain fee record followed rapid growth in memecoin trading, token launches and decentralized exchange volume. GMGN, Pons and Uniswap accounted for much of the application activity.

Yakovenko says applications can collect fees on Solana

Yakovenko’s argument focuses on the application layer. Robinhood could deploy its services on Solana, subsidize transaction costs and charge customers through its interface, avoiding the expense of operating a separate Layer 2 network.

This approach could work for transactions initiated through Robinhood’s application. Brokerages can charge commissions, spreads, subscription fees or service fees without controlling the blockchain underneath their products.

Goldfeder countered that this model would not capture value from activity occurring outside Robinhood’s interface. Third-party wallets, trading bots, decentralized exchanges and token launchpads can interact directly with blockchain contracts.

Robinhood would pay to subsidize transactions initiated by its customers on Solana but would receive none of the network fees produced by independent users. Solana validators and stakers would receive those fees instead.

On Robinhood Chain, the company operates the network’s sequencing infrastructure. This allows it to collect transaction fees from activity across the chain, including transactions that bypass Robinhood’s front end.

Recent data supports Goldfeder’s point about outside activity. Memecoin launchpad Pons and trading platform GMGN have become large contributors to Robinhood Chain’s traffic. Many transactions generated by those applications do not originate through Robinhood’s brokerage interface.

The economic distinction is therefore broader than the cost of individual transactions. Yakovenko’s model lets Robinhood monetize its customers at the application level. Goldfeder’s model lets Robinhood capture revenue generated across an entire network.

Robinhood Chain still pays Ethereum and Arbitrum

Robinhood does not retain all the value generated by its blockchain. Robinhood Chain is an Ethereum Layer 2 built using Arbitrum Orbit, rather than an independent Layer 1.

The network uses ETH as its native gas token and posts transaction data to Ethereum using blobs, according to Robinhood’s documentation. Each transaction includes an execution component and a data-availability component.

The L2 execution fee covers computation performed on Robinhood Chain. The L1 data fee pays for publishing transaction information to Ethereum. Both components are bundled into the amount presented to users.

Robinhood also pays the Arbitrum ecosystem’s 10% share of net protocol revenue. Consequently, the “landlord” description refers to Robinhood’s control over its own chain and sequencer, not complete independence from outside infrastructure.

As an earlier examination of the revenue-sharing arrangement reported, Robinhood received a branded network, EVM compatibility, existing Ethereum tools and technical support in exchange for part of its net revenue.

Building a new Layer 1 could theoretically allow Robinhood to retain more revenue. It would also require the company to develop and maintain its own execution, consensus, bridging and security infrastructure.

Using Solana would remove the need to operate those components. However, Robinhood would become an application on infrastructure it did not control and would not collect the network’s transaction fees.

Gas subsidies complicate the revenue comparison

Robinhood launched its chain with a 90-day gas subsidy for transactions conducted through Robinhood Wallet. The subsidy is scheduled to expire on Sept. 29.

The promotion means eligible wallet users do not directly pay gas during the subsidy period. Robinhood covers those costs. However, the subsidy does not necessarily cover every transaction conducted by independent applications and wallets across the network.

That distinction is central to the founders’ debate. Goldfeder argued that much of Robinhood Chain’s activity now occurs beyond the Robinhood front end. The company can collect fees from those transactions because it operates the underlying chain.

Robinhood Chain’s activity increased rapidly during the subsidy. Its daily decentralized exchange volume recently reached approximately $1.71 billion, while total value locked in native protocols stood near $1.17 billion.

The network has also exceeded Solana in daily chain revenue during some reporting periods. However, direct comparisons require caution because the networks have different cost structures, subsidies, fee markets and validator arrangements.

The Robinhood Chain and Solana comparison identified the subsidy’s expiration as a major test. User activity could fall when customers begin paying gas, or Robinhood could extend or restructure the program.

The fee debate will become clearer after Sept. 29

The first major test arrives when the gas subsidy expires. Post-subsidy data will show how many Robinhood Wallet users continue transacting when they must pay their own network costs.

It will also show whether independent activity from Pons, GMGN, Uniswap and other applications remains strong. These applications have contributed heavily to the network’s recent fee growth.

A detailed onchain investigation by Bitquery found that Robinhood Chain’s gas price increased roughly 25-fold within 11 days. The report attributed much of the additional demand to a limited group of heavily active wallets.

The concentration creates uncertainty over whether current fee revenue is sustainable. A decline in activity from several large addresses could reduce transaction fees even if total user numbers continue rising.

Robinhood has not publicly announced whether it will extend the subsidy beyond Sept. 29. It also has not disclosed how network revenue will appear in its financial reporting.

There was no verified movement in HOOD, SOL, ETH or ARB directly attributable to the founders’ exchange. Linking broader market fluctuations to their comments without additional evidence would be speculative.

The commercial question will remain whether owning a Layer 2 produces more value than deploying an application on an existing Layer 1. Robinhood Chain’s first unsubsidized operating period will provide the clearest evidence.

Uniswap V4 held $59.1 million in tokenized stock deposits as of Sept. 6, making it the largest decentralized finance venue for the category, according to Token Terminal.

Solana-based Kamino Lend ranked second with $41.7 million. Uniswap V3 followed with $20.9 million, Token Terminal’s data showed. Together, the three venues accounted for $121.7 million, or approximately 63.2% of the measured category.

Total tokenized stock DeFi TVL stood at approximately $192.6 million. The figure measures equity-linked tokens deposited into decentralized exchanges, lending markets and related applications. It does not represent the total value of tokenized equities issued across blockchains.

Token Terminal defines total value locked as the value of onchain deposits and, in some cases, the tokenized value of user deposits made offchain. The metric changes when assets enter or leave protocols and when the prices of the underlying shares move.

Uniswap V4 leads through tokenized stock liquidity

Uniswap V4’s $59.1 million primarily represents tokenized shares supplied to liquidity pools. Users deposit paired assets into these pools so other participants can trade without relying on a conventional order book.

Uniswap V3 held another $20.9 million, bringing the two versions’ combined tokenized stock deposits to $80 million. That equals approximately 41.5% of the $192.6 million measured by Token Terminal.

The comparison between Uniswap and Kamino requires context. Uniswap is a decentralized exchange, meaning its deposited assets primarily support token swaps and market liquidity. Kamino Lend is a lending protocol where tokenized stocks can serve as supplied assets or collateral.

Both activities count toward DeFi TVL, but they perform different functions. Exchange liquidity supports trading. Lending deposits let holders borrow against their positions or receive interest from borrowers. TVL alone does not measure trading volume, borrowing demand or revenue.

The growth forms part of a broader rise in productive uses for tokenized assets. Real-world asset deposits across decentralized applications increased from $2.3 billion to $7.4 billion between the second quarters of 2025 and 2026. During that period, tokenized asset spot volume grew approximately 220% even as wider decentralized exchange activity declined.

Tokenized stock DeFi TVL remains concentrated

The three leading venues controlled more than three-fifths of the measured category. All remaining applications collectively held approximately $70.9 million in tokenized stock deposits.

That concentration creates operational dependencies. A technical failure, pricing problem or major liquidity withdrawal at one leading venue could affect a considerable portion of the market. However, the deposits remain distributed across separate smart contracts and blockchains.

Token Terminal’s network breakdown showed that Solana hosted $79.1 million in tokenized stock DeFi deposits, the largest total among tracked blockchains. Kamino accounted for a substantial share, alongside other Solana trading and lending applications.

Robinhood Chain and Ethereum also hosted material deposits. Robinhood launched its mainnet in July as an Ethereum Layer 2 supporting equity-linked tokens and decentralized applications. Eligible users can trade tokenized stocks and deploy them within DeFi, including through lending pools and decentralized exchanges.

Token Terminal’s issuer data showed another form of concentration. Robinhood-issued stocks contributed $73.1 million to DeFi TVL, while xStocks accounted for $63.9 million.

Together, Robinhood and xStocks supplied $137 million, or approximately 71.1% of the category total. Other issuers and tokenization providers accounted for the remaining $55.6 million.

Issuer concentration has also appeared in ownership data. In July, the number of tokenized equity holders across five platforms reached 752,000, following 92% growth over 30 days. Robinhood held a 44% share of those users, while Ondo and xStocks led by issued asset value.

Deposits do not always provide direct share ownership

Tokenized stocks use different legal structures. Some are backed by conventional shares held with custodians. Others are structured as debt instruments or contractual claims designed to track an equity’s economic value.

Owning a token therefore does not always provide voting rights, dividends or the legal status of a conventional shareholder. Rights depend on the issuer’s terms, reserve structure, jurisdiction, custody arrangements and redemption process.

Token Terminal describes Robinhood’s tokenized SoFi product as providing one-to-one price exposure to the U.S.-listed company. Its description of Ondo’s tokenized ASML product says the asset is structured as a debt instrument whose payable value changes with the underlying security.

Robinhood’s products have attracted scrutiny over this distinction. AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron said his company had no role in Robinhood’s AMC-linked token. The products provide economic exposure without giving holders direct ownership in the represented companies, as AMC sought legal advice over unauthorized stock tokens.

Other providers are developing models intended to confer stronger ownership rights. Base and Coinbase have said they are preparing tokenized equities backed one-to-one by underlying shares. However, key custody and transfer details remain undisclosed, and no launch date has been confirmed.

These differences matter when tokens enter lending pools. Users assume the smart-contract risk of the DeFi venue alongside the custody, legal and counterparty risks attached to the underlying token.

DeFi deposits remain below total equity issuance

The $192.6 million held in DeFi represents only part of the broader tokenized stock market. CoinShares and Token Terminal estimated that approximately $2.2 billion in equities had been tokenized during the second quarter.

The difference shows that most issued tokenized equities have not been deposited into decentralized lending or trading applications. Assets may remain in customer wallets, centralized platforms or issuer-controlled systems.

Tokenized stocks were already one of the fastest-growing real-world asset categories by holder count. However, onchain equities remain small beside global stock markets, which are valued in excess of $100 trillion.

FWDI and SPYx ranked among the largest individual assets deposited across the tracked venues, according to Token Terminal’s asset breakdown. Their positions indicate that both individual-company and broad-market products can attract onchain liquidity.

Trading has also become concentrated in particular products. Tokenized QQQ generated much of the category’s decentralized trading activity in July, when tokenized stock volume increased by 288%.

More tokenized equities could enter DeFi

The range of assets available to DeFi applications is expected to grow. Payward plans to tokenize the 100 largest London-listed equities through its xStocks framework.

The London Stock Exchange intends to support the products through its planned LSE 24 venue, subject to regulatory approval. The collaboration will also examine issuer-sponsored equity tokens. The London Stock Exchange and Payward partnership could expand xStocks beyond its existing U.S., European and Asian-linked products.

The new London-listed xStocks are expected to appear on Kraken and other supporting platforms before the planned exchange integration. They are not currently available to U.K. investors, and their addition does not guarantee immediate deposits into Uniswap or lending protocols.

Future data will show whether Uniswap V4 retains its lead or whether lending markets capture more tokenized equity deposits. Relevant measures include pool liquidity, borrowing demand, collateral performance, trading volume and issuer concentration.

There was no verified market reaction directly attributable to Token Terminal’s report. UNI and KMNO respond to wider market conditions, while the deposited assets do not represent revenue belonging to either token’s holders.

Hyperliquid repurchased and burned approximately 9,730 HYPE tokens during the 24 hours ending Sept. 6, according to blockchain data published by Onchain Lens.

The transactions were worth about $829,500 at an average purchase price of $85.27 per token. The latest activity increased the amount of HYPE classified as burned to approximately 48.42 million tokens.

That total represents about 4.84% of HYPE’s original maximum supply of 1 billion tokens. At a price of roughly $85.50, the cumulative balance would be valued near $4.14 billion.

The $4.14 billion figure is a mark-to-market calculation. It does not represent the amount Hyperliquid spent acquiring the tokens. The Assistance Fund purchased HYPE at different prices over time, and Onchain Lens did not publish a cumulative acquisition cost in its latest update.

Hyperliquid burns HYPE through its Assistance Fund

Hyperliquid uses an automated mechanism called the Assistance Fund to direct most eligible protocol fee revenue toward open-market HYPE purchases. The tokens are then removed from circulating and total supply under the network’s burn framework.

The protocol’s current documentation states that HYPE held by the Assistance Fund is burned permanently. Hyperliquid’s validators formally recognized the fund’s accumulated HYPE as burned following a governance process in December 2025.

Before that decision, the Assistance Fund accumulated tokens at a system address that lacked a conventional private key. Although market observers often treated those tokens as removed from circulation, the governance decision formally committed validators against approving an upgrade that could restore access.

The mechanism links token purchases directly to activity on Hyperliquid. Greater trading volume and fee generation provide more resources for HYPE purchases. Lower activity reduces the amount available. The program therefore has no fixed daily repurchase level.

An earlier examination of Hyperliquid’s fee-funded buyback mechanism found that roughly 97% to 99% of applicable protocol fees were directed to the Assistance Fund, depending on the market and fee category.

Priority fees follow a different process and are burned directly. The Assistance Fund should also not be confused with HLP, the protocol’s separate market-making vault.

The 48.42 million HYPE figure needs context

Multiplying 48.42 million HYPE by the reported $85.27 average produces approximately $4.13 billion. However, $85.27 was the average price for the latest 9,730-token purchase, not the historical average cost of all burned tokens.

The reported $4.14 billion total instead reflects what the cumulative tokens would be worth at current market prices. It can rise or fall without additional burns because HYPE’s market value changes continuously.

The supply calculation is more direct. Dividing 48.42 million by the original 1 billion maximum supply produces 4.842%, matching the approximately 4.84% reported by Onchain Lens.

Current data providers may display a maximum or total supply below 1 billion because previously burned tokens have already been deducted. CoinGecko, for example, listed HYPE’s fully diluted supply near 955 million tokens on Sept. 6 rather than the original maximum.

Those differences do not mean additional tokens disappeared without explanation. They reflect whether a data provider uses the original authorized maximum or a burn-adjusted supply figure. Writers comparing burn percentages should specify which denominator they use.

The burn also does not transfer cash directly to HYPE holders. HYPE is not company stock, and token ownership does not provide a legal claim on Hyperliquid Labs’ revenue. The mechanism reduces token supply and creates open-market demand, but it does not guarantee a higher price.

HYPE traded near its record after the burn

HYPE traded around $86 on Sept. 6, according to market data from CoinGecko. It gained approximately 2.6% over 24 hours and remained less than 2% below its reported record of $88.06.

CoinGecko recorded about $865 million in 24-hour trading volume and placed HYPE’s circulating market capitalization near $19.2 billion. Other platforms showed prices between approximately $85 and $87 during the same period, reflecting normal differences between venues and collection times.

The price increase occurred alongside the latest burn, but the timing alone does not prove that the 9,730-token purchase caused the movement. HYPE also responds to derivatives activity, broader market conditions, token unlocks, demand for network staking and expectations surrounding protocol revenue.

At an average price of $85.27, the latest $829,500 purchase represented a small fraction of HYPE’s daily trading volume. Its immediate price effect therefore cannot be isolated from other orders without more detailed market data.

The broader buyback program is more material because it operates repeatedly. Research published in May found that the Assistance Fund had been buying approximately $1 million in HYPE per day on average, although the amount varied with protocol revenue and token prices.

Crypto projects collectively spent a record amount on repurchases during 2026, with Hyperliquid and Pump.fun accounting for most tracked buybacks. The programs differ in funding sources, implementation and treatment of repurchased tokens.

Additional revenue could fund future HYPE burns

Hyperliquid added another potential source of Assistance Fund revenue through its aligned quote asset framework in August. AQAv2 directs most cost-adjusted reserve yield from eligible stablecoins toward the protocol.

For USDC, approximately 90% of cost-adjusted reserve income is expected to reach the Assistance Fund. Coinbase acts as the treasury deployer, while Circle provides the stablecoin’s issuance and cross-chain infrastructure.

The USDC reserve-yield arrangement began operating in August, but the first payment is scheduled for Oct. 3 because of an initial grace period and the framework’s settlement schedule.

The payment amount remains unknown. It will depend on the USDC supply deployed on Hyperliquid, prevailing reserve yields, operating costs and other terms. Any estimate before the first transfer would be forward-looking.

Until then, trading fees remain the main observable driver of Assistance Fund purchases. Daily burn totals will continue to change with platform activity and HYPE’s market price. A higher token price allows the same dollar amount to purchase fewer HYPE tokens, while a lower price increases the number removed for an equal expenditure.

Future burn reports should therefore be assessed through three separate measures: the number of HYPE removed, the money spent during the period and the token’s prevailing price. Combining them into a single dollar figure can obscure how the mechanism is performing.

Binance Futures launched two USDT-settled perpetual contracts on Sept. 6, adding markets for Pons (PONS) and the Chinese meme coin 哈基米, commonly rendered as Hajimi.

The PONSUSDT contract opened at 06:45 UTC. HajimiUSDT followed at 07:15 UTC, according to Binance’ announcement. Both products allow eligible traders to take leveraged positions without owning the underlying tokens.

The launches followed sharp price increases for both assets. At the time of the initial report, PONS traded near $0.891 after gaining about 23.9% over 24 hours. Hajimi was quoted near $0.0584 following an approximately 248.5% increase.

Later information on Binance Alpha showed Hajimi near $0.070 and up more than 330% over 24 hours. The difference reflects the token’s rapid movement and the timing of each price snapshot. These figures describe past trading conditions and do not establish a continuing trend.

Binance futures contracts use USDT settlement

PONSUSDT and HajimiUSDT are USDⓈ-margined perpetual contracts settled in USDT. Perpetual contracts have no scheduled expiration date. They use recurring funding payments to help keep their prices aligned with the relevant underlying markets.

Binance set the minimum order at one token for each contract. Each order must have a notional value of at least 5 USDT. The PONSUSDT tick size is 0.0001, while HajimiUSDT uses a smaller 0.00001 tick.

Both markets operate continuously, subject to maintenance and risk controls. Their funding rates are initially capped at positive or negative 2%, with funding settled every four hours. The cap does not mean traders will always pay or receive 2%. The applicable rate changes according to conditions in each market.

Multi-Assets Mode is supported. This feature lets eligible traders use approved assets other than USDT as margin, subject to Binance’s collateral haircuts and account rules. Binance said it would also make the contracts available for Futures Copy Trading within 24 hours of their launch.

Binance’s PONS leverage details contain a conflict

The published material provides inconsistent information about maximum PONSUSDT leverage. Its introductory summary says PONSUSDT offers up to 20x leverage and HajimiUSDT offers up to 3x.

However, the contract specifications table lists 3x as the maximum for both markets. That discrepancy remains material because leverage determines the amount of collateral required and how quickly an adverse price movement can trigger liquidation.

Until Binance corrects or clarifies the notice, traders should check the leverage and margin brackets displayed on the live PONSUSDT trading interface. Those operational settings determine which positions users can actually open.

Binance also reserves the right to change leverage, initial margin, maintenance margin, funding rates and tick sizes in response to market risk. Any later adjustment could therefore replace the limits shown in the launch announcement.

Even 3x leverage can create substantial losses in highly volatile markets. A roughly 33% adverse move can theoretically consume the starting margin of a fully leveraged 3x position before fees and maintenance requirements are considered. Liquidation can occur earlier because exchanges require positions to retain maintenance margin.

PONS futures follow its earlier Binance Alpha addition

Pons describes itself as a non-custodial token launchpad built on Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum Layer 2 network. Its native PONS token was added to Binance Alpha several days before the futures launch.

The Alpha addition gave Binance Wallet users access to the token but did not amount to a regular Binance Spot listing. The new perpetual contract also does not change that status. Binance explicitly says that futures and spot listing decisions are separate.

Pons had already recorded fast growth before the derivatives announcement. The protocol reported $5.95 million in daily fees in early September, while its token reached a then-record price above $0.52. The project also recorded more than $719 million in cumulative decentralized exchange volume at the time.

The figures were covered when Binance Alpha added PONS and FLORK. PONS subsequently climbed above the level reported in that earlier coverage. Crypto.com showed the token near $0.890 with approximately $200 million in daily trading volume on Sept. 6, broadly supporting the price cited around the Binance futures launch.

In related coverage, Uniswap Labs purchased PONS without disclosing the size, price or structure of the purchase. That transaction should not be interpreted as a guarantee of demand or future performance.

Hajimi’s rapid rally raises liquidation risk

Hajimi is a meme coin whose name is written as 哈基米 in Binance’s contract specifications. The announcement describes it simply as a Chinese meme coin and does not identify additional utility, revenue or governance functions.

Binance Alpha data showed Hajimi trading near $0.070 after the derivatives market opened. Its recorded 24-hour range extended from about $0.016 to $0.145. That spread demonstrates the difficulty of relying on a single price when an asset is moving rapidly.

The same data showed approximately $30.3 million in 24-hour volume and an estimated $70 million market capitalization. Those figures are snapshots and can change quickly. Market capitalization is also based on reported supply and token price, rather than cash held by the project.

A futures listing can increase access to an asset by allowing traders to take long or short exposure. It does not show that the exchange has endorsed the token’s value, security or long-term prospects. It may also increase volatility as leveraged positions build and liquidations produce forced orders.

Previous meme coin futures launches have produced similarly abrupt market moves. For example, Fartcoin rose following a Binance futures announcement, although historical reactions cannot predict how PONS or Hajimi will trade.

Funding rates and leverage updates are the next checks

The first operational data to watch are open interest, trading volume and four-hour funding rates. Positive funding generally means long positions pay short positions. Negative funding normally reverses that transfer. Extreme rates can show that positioning has become concentrated on one side.

Binance may alter the funding interval or capped rate during volatile conditions. It may also change position limits and margin tiers. Traders should use the live contract page rather than the original announcement when the two provide different specifications.

Futures Copy Trading support was scheduled to arrive within 24 hours of launch. Binance did not announce conventional Spot listings for either asset. PONS and Hajimi therefore remain separate cases from tokens admitted to Binance’s main spot exchange.

Regional restrictions also apply. Binance said the announced products may not be available in every jurisdiction. Users remain responsible for checking whether derivatives trading is permitted where they live.

Ripple has added former Reserve Bank of India Governor Raghuram Rajan to the opening program for Swell 2026, its annual conference focused on payments, digital assets and financial infrastructure.

The company announced on Sept. 4 that Rajan will participate in the Institutional Summit on Oct. 27. The invitation-only gathering will open Swell week before the wider conference program runs through Oct. 29.

Swell 2026 will take place at The Shed in New York City. Ripple is combining Swell with its developer-focused XRPL Apex conference for the first time, bringing institutional finance and XRP Ledger development into one event.

Ripple has not disclosed Rajan’s discussion topic, session time or appearance format. The event website lists him as a speaker but does not indicate whether he will deliver a keynote, join a panel or participate in a moderated discussion.

Ripple Swell begins with an institutional summit

The Institutional Summit is scheduled for Oct. 27 and requires prospective attendees to request an invitation. Ripple is positioning the program toward representatives of banks, asset managers, payment companies and other financial institutions.

Rajan brings experience spanning central banking, international finance and academic research. He led the Reserve Bank of India from September 2013 until September 2016 and previously served as chief economist of the International Monetary Fund.

He is currently the Katherine Dusak Miller Distinguished Service Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Ripple’s official lineup identifies Rajan by his academic position.

His addition gives the summit a direct central banking perspective as financial institutions examine stablecoins, tokenized assets and blockchain-based settlement. However, Ripple has not said whether Rajan will address any of those specific subjects.

The speaker announcement also does not indicate that Rajan is advising Ripple, endorsing XRP or supporting any company product. His confirmed involvement is limited to participating in the conference program.

Rajan also co-leads a Federal Reserve policy review

Rajan’s appearance comes as he serves as one of three external leaders of the Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet Policy task force. Harvard professors Karen Dynan and Jeremy Stein are the other leaders.

The Federal Reserve established the group to examine the costs, benefits and institutional consequences of its current balance sheet regime. The central bank said the task force would operate independently with support from Federal Reserve staff.

Its findings are intended for the Federal Open Market Committee. The group is one of five task forces examining areas including monetary policy communication, inflation frameworks, economic data, productivity and employment.

Rajan’s position on the task force does not make him a Federal Reserve official or policymaker. He serves as an external adviser alongside other economists, former central bankers and business leaders.

The task force role nevertheless adds a current U.S. monetary policy connection to his Swell appearance. The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet affects bank reserves and financial-market liquidity, subjects that overlap with institutional discussions about new settlement infrastructure.

No official source has connected Rajan’s Federal Reserve work with his participation at Swell. Any suggestion that his appearance represents Federal Reserve involvement in Ripple’s conference would therefore be unsupported.

Swell 2026 combines institutional and developer programs

Ripple expects more than 1,500 people to attend Swell 2026. The organizer is advertising more than 75 speakers and over 50 sessions across three stages.

Those figures are conference projections and may change before October. Ripple continues to add speakers, while the complete session-by-session schedule has not yet been published.

The 2026 program will combine Swell and XRPL Apex. Swell has traditionally focused on institutional payments, regulation and capital markets. XRPL Apex has centered on developers, researchers and companies building on the XRP Ledger.

Bringing the events together gives institutional participants access to technical sessions while allowing developers to hear directly from banks, exchanges and market-infrastructure providers.

The announced subjects include stablecoins, tokenization, payments, exchange-traded funds, decentralized finance, privacy, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and XRP Ledger development.

The combined Swell and XRPL Apex program will also feature actor and Water.org co-founder Matt Damon. Ripple previously named Damon as a keynote speaker but has not disclosed the subject or timing of his address.

Ripple’s lineup spans banking, markets and technology

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, President Monica Long and CTO Emeritus David Schwartz are included in the speaker lineup. Their session topics have not all been published.

Other listed speakers include Bullish Chairman and CEO Tom Farley, Tradeweb CEO Billy Hult and Susquehanna Crypto CEO Chase Lax. BNY Global Head of Markets Laide Majiyagbe and Intercontinental Exchange executive Michael Blaugrund are also scheduled to participate.

Robinhood’s crypto business will be represented by Johann Kerbrat. The roster also includes Jenny Just, co-founder of financial technology company PEAK6, and Gary White, CEO and co-founder of Water.org.

The official speaker page lists Nasdaq Chair and CEO Adena Friedman, New York State Department of Financial Services official John Melican and U.S. Representative Ritchie Torres. Patrick Witt, executive director of the White House President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, is also listed.

Participants from the XRP Ledger ecosystem include representatives of the XRPL Foundation, XRPL Commons and related development organizations. Academics from Chicago Booth, Columbia, Cornell, Carnegie Mellon, Wharton and several European universities appear on the roster.

Their inclusion does not indicate endorsement of Ripple or its products. It reflects the range of speakers that Ripple has scheduled for discussions across finance, policy and blockchain development.

The complete Swell agenda remains pending

The next confirmed step is publication of the detailed conference agenda. Ripple still needs to disclose Rajan’s session title, timing and format.

The same uncertainty applies to several other announced speakers. Conference listings confirm their planned participation but do not reveal what they will discuss.

Swell 2026 begins with the Institutional Summit on Oct. 27. The main conference and XRPL Apex sessions will continue through Oct. 29 at The Shed, located in Manhattan’s Hudson Yards district.

Standard registration is listed through Oct. 5, followed by a final registration period ending Oct. 20. Access to the Institutional Summit is handled separately through an invitation request.

Rajan’s participation adds a former central bank governor and current Federal Reserve task force adviser to Ripple’s expanding lineup. The substance of his appearance will become clearer once Ripple publishes the full agenda.