Connect with us

Crypto World

Tokenized Nvidia found its first real market: memecoin collateral

Published

on

Tokenized Nvidia found its first real market: memecoin collateral

A decade of tokenized equity pitches promised global access to American stocks. The use case that finally moved volume is pairing them against memecoins on a brokerage’s own chain, and it just pushed Robinhood Chain past Solana in tokenized stock trading. Nobody planned this.

Summary

  • Since mid-July, launch platforms Bankr and long.xyz have let users issue memecoins backed by tokenized stock liquidity across more than 90 tickers on Robinhood Chain.
  • DEX Screener now shows memecoins trading against tokenized NVDA, TSLA, INTC, RBLX, and SPCX among the chain’s top 100 pools.
  • That mechanism has pushed Robinhood Chain past Solana in tokenized stock volume, against Ondo’s multichain stock tokens averaging roughly $24.9 million.
  • Tokenized stocks remain a sliver of the chain itself, which cleared roughly $444 million in daily decentralized exchange volume against $332.7 million in total value locked, with most of it in memecoins.
  • Pons has announced V2 support for tokenized quote assets including NVDA, AAPL, and HOOD, but its contracts were still in audit with two partners as of late July and every feature remains subject to change until deployment.

Tokenized equities have been pitched for roughly a decade on a consistent premise: that a share of Apple represented as a blockchain token would unlock global access, continuous trading, and programmable finance for the largest asset class on earth. The pitch produced a long series of products, several regulatory settlements, a handful of scrapped launches, and until recently very little volume. Then in mid-July, without any announcement resembling the pitch, tokenized American stocks found a use that actually moved size. Launch platforms on Robinhood Chain began letting anyone issue a memecoin whose liquidity pair is a tokenized equity, across more than ninety tickers, and traders took it up immediately. The chain’s top hundred pools now include memecoins quoted against tokenized Nvidia, Tesla, Intel, Roblox, and SpaceX. The volume that arrangement generates has been sufficient to push Robinhood Chain ahead of Solana in tokenized stock trading. So the first genuine product-market fit for tokenized equities is not investment, settlement, or collateralised lending. It is serving as the denominator in speculative token pairs, and understanding why that happened tells you more about tokenization’s near future than any of the pitches did.

What is actually live

Precision matters here because a well-publicised announcement has been widely confused with the working product.

Advertisement

Bankr and long.xyz, both operating on Robinhood Chain, began in mid-July allowing users to issue memecoins backed by tokenized stock liquidity, with coverage extending across more than ninety tickers.

These are live, trading, and visible on public analytics. DEX Screener data places memecoins paired against tokenized NVDA, TSLA, INTC, RBLX, and SPCX within the chain’s top hundred pools by activity.

The tokenized stocks themselves come from Robinhood’s own factory, which has issued something in the region of 102 assets. The chain runs as an Arbitrum-based Ethereum Layer 2 with ETH for gas, with Robinhood Markets operating the sequencer, which means the network is permissionless to build on and centrally operated. There is no chain token, and fees accrue to the company instead of any onchain treasury, a structure our audit of the chain’s revenue arrangement examined in detail.

Separately, and not yet live, the chain’s dominant launchpad has announced a V2 upgrade that would add support for tokenized quote assets including USDG, NVDA, AAPL, and HOOD, alongside an ETH-denominated bonding curve, Uniswap V4 pools using Hooks, a 4.2 ETH graduation threshold, and creator payouts denominated in ETH. As of the announcement, contracts were undergoing audit with two partners and the team stated every feature remained subject to change until deployment. That distinction matters: the launchpad currently running more than half of the chain’s transactions has announced the feature its competitors already shipped three weeks earlier.

Advertisement

The milestone nobody planned

The consequence is a headline number that the tokenization industry has wanted for years, arriving through a mechanism nobody proposed.

Robinhood Chain has overtaken Solana in tokenized stock volume. Against that, Ondo Finance’s multichain stock tokens have averaged roughly $24.9 million, and the measurement in question counts only genuine tokenized stocks while excluding the chain’s official market-maker address, which understates total activity while stripping out house liquidity.

Now the context that reframes it. The chain cleared approximately $444 million in total decentralized exchange volume over a recent day against $332.7 million in total value locked, and most of that volume is memecoins. Cumulative chain DEX volume has exceeded $9 billion with roughly 80% coming from higher-risk memecoins. Tokenized stocks, in other words, are simultaneously the category in which this chain leads the industry and a sliver of the chain’s own activity.

Advertisement

Both facts are true and the tension between them is the story. A tokenized equity used as a quote asset generates volume every time the memecoin paired against it trades, which means the stock’s recorded trading activity is a byproduct of speculation in something else entirely. The number goes up. What it measures is not what the tokenization pitch promised it would measure.

Why a stock is an unusual quote asset

This is where the design deserves scrutiny, because pairing a token against an equity introduces properties that pairing against ETH or a stablecoin does not, and none of them have been stress-tested.

Advertisement

Market hours. A tokenized equity references an asset that trades on an exchange with opening and closing bells, holidays, and halts. The token trades continuously. What the quote asset is worth between 4pm and 9:30am the next morning depends entirely on how the tokenized product is designed and priced, and a memecoin pool denominated in it inherits that ambiguity for two thirds of every weekday.

Gap risk. Equities gap. An earnings print, a guidance revision, or a regulatory action can move a stock materially between one session’s close and the next session’s open, with no continuous price path in between. A liquidity pool whose denominator gaps ten percent overnight has repriced every position in it without a single trade occurring in the memecoin itself. Traders accustomed to volatility in the numerator now carry volatility in the denominator, from an event calendar most of them do not follow.

Corporate actions. Splits, dividends, mergers, and delistings all require handling. A tokenized product’s terms specify how, and the specifications vary considerably across issuers, as our examination of what tokenized stock holders actually own found. A pool paired against an asset undergoing a corporate action is a pool whose accounting depends on contractual language written by a third party.

Oracle and redemption dependency. The quote asset’s value rests on the tokenized product maintaining its relationship to the underlying share, which depends on the issuer’s reserves, redemption mechanics, and operational continuity. A memecoin pool inherits that dependency without its participants necessarily knowing it exists.

Advertisement

None of which makes the design illegitimate. It makes it novel, and novel financial plumbing generally reveals its failure modes under stress, not in documentation. The relevant stress event for this design is an ordinary earnings season, and the chain has not been through one with these pools live.

The chain’s stated purpose against its actual use

The most quotable thing in this whole story comes from Robinhood itself. The company’s framing, roughly, is that it is building the best chain for real-world assets, and that it works great for memes too.

That sentence is doing a lot of work. The chain was launched as infrastructure for tokenized securities and decentralized finance built around them, with transferable stock tokens backed one-for-one by underlying shares and a strategic story pointing at brokerage customers trading equities onchain, borrowing against them, and using dollar tokens for settlement. Our audit of the chain’s first month found that memecoins took it instead, and the numbers since have not reversed: roughly 80% of cumulative volume in higher-risk memecoins, more than half of all chain transactions running through a single launchpad, and over twelve thousand new tokens minted in a day.

The tokenized-stock-as-quote-asset development sits precisely on the seam between the stated purpose and the actual use, and it resolves the tension in an unexpected direction. Rather than tokenized equities displacing memecoins, memecoins have absorbed tokenized equities as an input. The RWA milestone the chain’s marketing wanted was delivered by the speculation its marketing downplays.

Advertisement

One analyst framing captures the right test better than any volume figure: the number to track is tokenized equity volume as a share of the chain’s decentralized exchange activity. Memecoin churn decays on every new chain. What would be genuinely unreplicable is a brokerage’s customers trading Nvidia at three in the morning, borrowing against it, and lending dollar tokens, because no competing Layer 2 can assemble that without Robinhood’s licences and user base. Volume generated by memecoin pairs is not that behaviour, and distinguishing the two is the whole analytical task.

The competitive scramble underneath

The reason this arrived in mid-July and not at launch is competitive, and the sequence is worth following because it explains why an untested design shipped quickly.

Robinhood Chain’s launchpad market has already turned over once. The platform that dominated it early held roughly three quarters of token deployments, cleared more than twelve million dollars in protocol fees, and switched off new issuance on July 11, after which its flagship memecoin declined along with several others. Displaced activity scattered across rivals including flap.sh, trensh.today, Bankr, and Pons, and Pons emerged with the largest share.

That turnover created two conditions. It proved that share on this chain is not defensible, since the previous leader vacated a dominant position in days and the traffic simply rerouted. And it left several platforms competing for the same displaced users with essentially identical products, which is the situation that forces differentiation.

Advertisement

Tokenized equity pairs are that differentiation. Bankr and long.xyz shipped it in mid-July, across ninety-plus tickers, and it gave them something no competitor offered on a chain whose entire strategic identity is real-world assets. Pons announced its own version within days, with contracts still in audit. Meanwhile, a new entrant raised $3.5 million to build a competing launchpad, and the gas subsidy that makes high-frequency minting free closes around the end of September.

So the design that this piece has spent several sections examining for untested risk properties was shipped into a market where the cost of waiting was losing share to whoever shipped first. That is the ordinary dynamic of competitive product development, and it is also the reason novel financial plumbing in this sector tends to reach users before its failure modes are understood. The participants providing liquidity in these pools are not being asked to evaluate a mature product. They are early users of something three weeks old that exists because a rival launched it and everyone else had to match.

What this means for tokenization

Step back from one chain and the development says something uncomfortable about where tokenized equities are finding demand.

Two tracks are now visible and they are moving in opposite directions. The institutional track runs through the depository: as our examination of that development described, the entity custodying more than $114 trillion in securities processed its first live tokenized trades in mid-July, with more than forty firms participating and full launch scheduled for October, using tokenized representations that preserve identical legal ownership rights. That is tokenization as the incumbents will do it, at a scale the crypto-native market has not approached.

The speculative track runs through chains like this one, where tokenized equities are useful precisely because they are novel, permissionless, and available as pool denominators. That track produces volume quickly, serves users the institutional track will not reach, and generates activity metrics that flatter the category.

The awkward part is that the second track’s volume gets counted in the same sentences as the first track’s ambition. When tokenized stock trading volume is cited as evidence of institutional adoption, some meaningful share of it is memecoin pairs. That is not fraud and nobody is hiding it, but it is the same measurement problem this publication has documented across chain metrics generally: a number that is accurate, checkable, and measuring something other than what the reader assumes.

Advertisement

For anyone assessing tokenization’s progress, the useful adjustment is to separate volume in tokenized assets from volume denominated in them. The first is adoption. The second is a byproduct.

Who is on the other side

One question the design raises and none of the coverage asks: when a memecoin trades against tokenized Nvidia, who supplied the Nvidia.

In a conventional pool, the quote asset arrives from whoever wants exposure to the token, and the pool’s depth reflects how much ETH or stablecoin people are willing to commit. Substituting a tokenized equity changes who can participate. Providing liquidity now requires holding the tokenized stock, which means acquiring it through whatever channel the issuer permits, on a chain where the issuer is the same company operating the sequencer.

That produces an unusual concentration. The tokenized assets come from Robinhood’s factory, roughly 102 of them. The chain is operated by Robinhood. The launchpads are third parties but they are building against Robinhood’s assets on Robinhood’s infrastructure, and the analytics that measure the resulting volume exclude the chain’s official market-maker address specifically because including house liquidity would distort the picture. The fact that such an exclusion is necessary tells you the house is present.

Advertisement

None of that is improper, and vertical arrangements of this kind are ordinary in traditional markets, where exchanges, clearinghouses, and market makers are frequently affiliated under disclosed structures. It is worth naming because the participants in these pools are retail traders on a consumer application, and the question of who provides the liquidity they trade against is one that took equity markets decades of regulation to answer transparently.

The practical instruction for a participant is narrow and checkable. Before providing liquidity to a pool denominated in a tokenized equity, find out where that equity came from, what redeeming it requires, and who else holds a meaningful share of the pool. Those are answerable from public data, and they determine what happens when everyone tries to exit at once.

The precedent from a market that already tried this

There is a close historical analogue, and it is worth knowing because it ended badly enough to have produced regulation.

Contracts for difference and synthetic equity products have offered retail traders exposure to stocks without ownership for decades, priced off a reference market, traded outside its hours, and settled in cash. The products worked mechanically. The problems that emerged were the ones this design inherits: reference prices that diverged from the underlying when the underlying was closed, gap events that liquidated positions at prices no market had printed, and retail participants who did not understand that the thing determining their outcome was a contractual reference, not a share. European regulators eventually imposed leverage caps and marketing restrictions specifically on those products after examining client outcome data.

Advertisement

The parallel is not exact and the differences matter in both directions. These are not leveraged products, the pools are permissionless instead of dealer-operated, and the tokenized assets involved are backed one-for-one by shares instead of being pure synthetics. Against that, a decentralized pool has no dealer to widen spreads or halt trading when the reference market gaps, no suitability assessment for participants, and no regulator having examined outcome data because the products are three weeks old.

What the analogue supplies is a list of questions with known answers from a different market. What happens to a position when the reference asset gaps and no continuous price existed in between. Who bears the cost when the tokenized representation and the underlying diverge. Whether participants understand what determines their outcome. Retail synthetic equity products answered all three the hard way, over years, and the answers were unfavourable enough to change the rules.

The memecoin-paired-against-tokenized-equity design has not answered any of them yet, and it will get its first real test on an ordinary earnings date, not in a crisis.

What to watch

Tokenized equity volume as a share of chain DEX activity. The single metric that distinguishes real adoption from pool-denominator effects, and it is computable from public dashboards.

Advertisement

The first earnings season with these pools live. Gap risk in a quote asset is theoretical until a stock moves ten percent overnight with memecoin pools denominated in it. That test arrives on a published calendar.

Whether Pons V2 ships, and with what. The launchpad running more than half of the chain’s transactions announced tokenized quote pairs with contracts still in audit and features explicitly subject to change. Its actual deployment, and whether the announced feature set survives, is the near-term event.

The gas subsidy expiry. Robinhood waived gas for ninety days from the July 1 mainnet launch, which makes minting twelve thousand tokens a day economically trivial. That window closes around the end of September, and the unit economics of high-frequency launching change when fees return.

Whether any tokenized-stock activity appears that is not speculation. Borrowing against tokenized equities, using them as settlement collateral, or holding them as positions rather than pool denominators would be the first evidence that the chain’s stated purpose is arriving. Our coverage of the holder-versus-value split found the chain leading on holders with a fraction of the value, which is the shape of a distribution problem rather than an adoption one.

Advertisement

A closing note on what would change the reading, because the case above is deliberately unsympathetic and there is a version of this that is genuinely constructive.

The strongest argument for pairing tokens against tokenized equities is that it creates demand for a tokenized asset that otherwise has almost none. Our examination of the tokenized equity market found the largest issuer holding under a billion dollars and the most widely held product carrying roughly forty-four million in value across several hundred thousand holders, an average position near a hundred and thirty dollars. Those are not the numbers of a functioning market. A mechanism that gives tokenized stocks a reason to sit in pools, be borrowed against, and change hands is a mechanism that builds the liquidity every other use case depends on, and liquidity has to come from somewhere before it comes from institutions.

Speculation has bootstrapped legitimate financial infrastructure before. The initial coin offering era funded the developer tooling that later served enterprises. Memecoin volume paid for the block space and validator economics that now settle serious value. If tokenized equity pools deepen because memecoin traders need denominators, and the deeper pools then support borrowing, settlement, and hedging that would not otherwise have existed, the sequence will look sensible in hindsight regardless of how it looks now.

The test is whether the second stage arrives. Speculation that bootstraps infrastructure and speculation that simply extracts and leaves are indistinguishable while the speculation is happening, and they are separated by exactly one observation: whether non-speculative activity in the same assets grows while the speculation cools. That number is publicly computable, nobody is currently reporting it, and it is the only thing that will settle whether this development was the beginning of tokenized equities or a footnote in the history of memecoins.

Advertisement

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. It describes live products and one announced but undeployed upgrade whose features may change, and figures reflect public analytics available at the time of writing. Tokenized asset products vary considerably in legal structure. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 30, 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does it mean to pair a memecoin against a tokenized stock?

In a decentralized exchange pool, every token trades against a quote asset, conventionally ETH or a stablecoin. Since mid-July, launch platforms on Robinhood Chain have allowed users to issue memecoins whose quote asset is a tokenized equity instead, across more than ninety tickers, so the memecoin’s price is denominated in tokenized Nvidia, Tesla, or another stock rather than in a crypto asset.

Who is actually doing this?

Bankr and long.xyz, both operating on Robinhood Chain, began offering it in mid-July, and the resulting pools now appear among the chain’s top hundred by activity, including pairs against NVDA, TSLA, INTC, RBLX, and SPCX. Pons, the chain’s dominant launchpad, has announced similar support in a V2 upgrade whose contracts were still in audit as of late July.

Has Robinhood Chain really overtaken Solana in tokenized stock volume?

By the cited measurement, yes, and the mechanism is these memecoin pairs. The comparison counts genuine tokenized stocks and excludes the chain’s official market-maker address, which understates total activity while removing house liquidity. Ondo’s multichain stock tokens averaged roughly $24.9 million over the same period.

Advertisement

Are tokenized stocks a large part of Robinhood Chain?

No. The chain cleared roughly $444 million in daily decentralized exchange volume against $332.7 million in total value locked, and most of that is memecoins. Cumulative volume has exceeded $9 billion with about 80% from higher-risk memecoins. Tokenized stocks are simultaneously the category where the chain leads and a small share of its own activity.

What are the risks of using a stock as a quote asset?

Four that do not arise with ETH or stablecoins. Market hours, since the equity’s reference market closes while the pool trades continuously. Gap risk, since stocks can move materially between sessions with no continuous price path. Corporate actions such as splits and mergers, whose handling depends on the tokenized product’s terms. And dependency on the issuer maintaining the token’s relationship to the underlying share.

Is this what tokenization was supposed to be?

Not as pitched. The decade-long case for tokenized equities centred on global access, continuous trading, and use as programmable collateral. Serving as the denominator in speculative token pairs was not part of that case, and it generates trading volume in the tokenized asset as a byproduct of speculation in something else.

How does this compare to institutional tokenization?

They are separate tracks. The depository processed its first live tokenized trades of stocks, ETFs, and Treasuries in mid-July with more than forty major firms participating and full launch scheduled for October, using tokens that preserve identical legal ownership rights. That is a different product with a different user base, operating at a scale the crypto-native market has not approached.

Advertisement

What should observers actually track?

Tokenized equity volume as a share of total chain decentralized exchange activity, which separates adoption from denominator effects; the first earnings season with these pools live, which tests gap risk; whether Pons V2 ships as announced; the gas subsidy expiry around the end of September; and any tokenized-stock activity that is not speculation. This is educational analysis, not investment advice.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

SEC ready to act if Congress stalls on CLARITY Act

Published

on

SEC sets September talks as 24-hour stock trading moves closer

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins said the regulator is prepared to write crypto market rules if Congress fails to pass the CLARITY Act, offering an agency-led fallback as Senate negotiations continue.

Summary

  • SEC Chair Paul Atkins says agency rules could proceed if Congress fails to pass CLARITY.
  • Senate Banking advanced the bill 15-9, but the full Senate has not voted on it.
  • Agency rulemaking cannot independently grant the CFTC statutory authority over digital commodity spot markets nationwide.

Atkins told CNBC that the SEC was “ready, willing and able” to address issues covered by the bill through its existing authority. However, he said legislation remained the preferred route because “statute is the way to future-proof something.” His comments describe the agency’s intended approach rather than a completed rulemaking action.

On July 28, Atkins also said publicly that the SEC was providing Congress with technical assistance as lawmakers worked on the legislation.

Advertisement

SEC can act, but it cannot replace Congress

The SEC has already placed several crypto initiatives on its 2026 regulatory agenda. Atkins said the agency intends to create clearer rules for crypto fundraising, custody and the trading of tokenized securities onchain.

Advertisement

However, the SEC is considering proposals covering crypto assets, broker-dealers and market structure. Those projects could clarify token offerings, financial responsibility requirements and trading through securities exchanges or alternative trading systems.

However, agency rules have limits. The SEC cannot independently give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission broad statutory authority over digital commodity spot markets. It also cannot permanently stop a future SEC administration from revising or withdrawing regulations.

Atkins acknowledged that distinction in earlier remarks, saying notice-and-comment rules could strengthen the SEC’s approach but that legislation offered the strongest protection against future policy reversals.

CLARITY Act has cleared committees but not the Senate

The House passed the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act in July 2025 by a 294-134 vote. The Senate Agriculture Committee later advanced its Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act in January 2026, proposing a CFTC registration system for digital commodity trading platforms.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the Senate Banking Committee approved its version of the CLARITY Act by a 15-9 vote on May 14. The committee said the legislation would divide oversight between the SEC and CFTC while creating disclosure, registration and customer-protection rules.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis released updated legislation on July 22 that merged work from both Senate committees. She described the coming weeks as potentially the “last real chance” to pass the framework for several years. That statement reflects her political assessment, not a formal legislative deadline.

As of July 30, the full Senate had not voted on the merged bill. It would still need sufficient support to overcome procedural hurdles, pass the chamber and reconcile any differences with the House-approved text.

Negotiations have continued over ethics rules for elected officials and restrictions on rewards paid to stablecoin holders. Banking groups argue that interest-like stablecoin products could draw deposits away from traditional lenders, while crypto companies say broad limits could restrict lawful customer rewards.

Advertisement

Neither position has become final law. The updated Senate materials include separate sections addressing stablecoin interest and ethics, showing that both subjects remain part of the negotiations.

In addition, CLARITY Act passage odds fell to 27% on Polymarket on July 29 as traders reacted to the delayed Senate timetable. That figure represents prediction-market pricing and does not provide an independent forecast of congressional action.

What happens if Congress does not act

The SEC could publish proposed rules under the Administrative Procedure Act. The process would normally include public comments, commission consideration and possible revisions before any final rule takes effect.

Such rules could provide clearer treatment for token issuance, registered intermediaries and securities trading. However, they would not create the full SEC-CFTC division of authority proposed by the CLARITY Act.

Advertisement

Congress may still take up the merged legislation later in 2026. Until a floor vote is scheduled, the SEC’s regulatory agenda will continue moving separately from the bill.

No verified cryptocurrency price movement can be attributed solely to Atkins’s comments. The next confirmed developments will depend on either formal Senate floor action or the publication of SEC rule proposals.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Ostium blames off chain breach for $23.75M USDC exploit

Published

on

TrustedVolumes attacker returns $2M, keeps another $2M as bounty

Ostium has concluded that its July exploit originated from compromised off-chain infrastructure rather than a flaw in its smart contracts, after an investigation found the attacker manipulated price reporting to drain 23.75 million USDC from the protocol’s liquidity vault.

Summary

  • Ostium said its investigation found the July exploit originated from compromised off chain infrastructure rather than a flaw in its smart contracts.
  • Fraudulent BTC USD price reports allowed the attacker to drain 23.75 million USDC from the protocol’s OLP liquidity vault.
  • The protocol said automated monitoring detected the attack, trading resumed on July 23, and user collateral remained unaffected.
  • A recovery plan for affected liquidity providers is being finalized and will be shared in a separate update.

According to Ostium’s post-mortem published on Wednesday, the attacker gained unauthorized access to the protocol’s off-chain infrastructure and used it to submit fraudulent BTC-USD price reports. 

The manipulated reports allowed the attacker to create artificial trading profits at the expense of the public OLP vault, while the protocol found no evidence that its smart contracts or governance multisigs had been compromised.

Advertisement

Ostium says exploit bypassed off-chain systems

During its investigation, Ostium said the initial breach occurred outside the protocol’s on-chain infrastructure. The team stated that its findings did not identify any vulnerability in the protocol’s smart contract logic or any compromise involving the multisigs responsible for governing the protocol.

Instead, the attacker abused forwarder paths that the protocol already recognized as valid. Ostium explained that the exploit began with a small test transaction involving a 100 USDC position, producing roughly 897.8 USDC in artificial profit before the attacker expanded the operation.

Following the successful test, the attacker executed the primary batch of transactions, transferring about 11.9 million USDC to a beneficiary wallet. Ostium said six additional standalone exploit cycles followed, bringing the total loss from the OLP vault to 23.75 million USDC.

Advertisement

Earlier reporting from blockchain security firm Blockaid had attributed the incident to a compromised oracle signer private key, saying the attacker bypassed the protocol’s price verification process by submitting manipulated price reports through a registered PriceUpKeep forwarder. At the time, Blockaid estimated that between $11.86 million and $18 million USDC had been withdrawn during approximately 20 trading loops, based on the exploit activity visible on-chain while the attack was still unfolding.

Automated monitoring limited additional losses

While the exploit succeeded in draining funds from the liquidity vault, Ostium said its automated monitoring systems detected the abnormal activity before additional withdrawals could take place. The protocol subsequently halted trading while its investigation continued and has since migrated to a new production environment with updated security controls.

Trading resumed on July 23 after the migration was completed.

Ostium also said trader collateral remained unaffected throughout the incident because user margin stayed inside the protocol’s trading contracts rather than the compromised liquidity pool.

Advertisement

The team added that it is still finalizing a separate recovery plan for liquidity providers whose funds were affected by the exploit. According to the protocol, further details will be released in a dedicated update.

Oracle infrastructure remained central to the attack

Although Ostium’s latest report attributes the incident to unauthorized access to its off-chain infrastructure, its findings are consistent with the attack path previously outlined by Blockaid, which concluded that compromised signing credentials allowed fraudulent price reports to pass the protocol’s verification process.

According to Blockaid’s earlier analysis, the attacker repeatedly opened and closed positions through delegated actions after submitting favorable future-dated price reports. Because the manipulated reports appeared valid to the protocol, each trading cycle generated profits for the attacker while transferring losses to the OLP liquidity vault instead of relying on a vulnerability in the smart contract code itself.

The incident has drawn attention to the security of supporting infrastructure that decentralized finance protocols rely on for external market data. In Ostium’s case, both the protocol’s post-mortem and Blockaid’s earlier investigation concluded that the exploit did not originate from flaws in the core smart contracts.

Advertisement

Ostium exploit followed Nasdaq partnership

The exploit occurred only weeks after Ostium expanded its institutional presence through a partnership with Nasdaq announced in May. At the time, the protocol said Nasdaq’s market data would support equity perpetual products listed on the platform.

Ostium also disclosed during that announcement that it had processed more than $50 billion in cumulative trading volume.

Before the exploit, the protocol had raised approximately $27.8 million from investors including General Catalyst, Jump Crypto, Coinbase Ventures, Wintermute and GSR, according to previous company disclosures.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

SK Hynix Trader Turns $2.26M Loss Into $6.44M Profit on Earnings Spike

Published

on

SK Hynix Trader Turns $2.26M Loss Into $6.44M Profit on Earnings Spike

On-chain analytics platform Lookonchain tracked a whale that turned a multi-million-dollar loss into a $6.44 million profit in the days leading up to and following the Korean chipmaker’s earnings.

SK Hynix’s stock had been facing a prolonged and substantial downturn as appetite cooled for AI infrastructure companies. However, an impressive earnings result turned things around quickly.

A Rocky Three-Day Trade

Wallet 0xC8b5 opened a 3x leveraged long on 37,229 units of SKHX on July 29. SKHX is a Hyperliquid perpetual contract that tracks SK Hynix’s share price rather than the stock itself. The $37.3 million position briefly showed a $778,000 gain, per Lookonchain.

That gain evaporated fast. A day later, the position’s value fell to $34.28 million. The wallet then faced a $2.26 million unrealized loss, according to a follow-up post. Lookonchain noted the trader had lost more than $1 million on each of the previous three trades. That pattern pointed to another costly bet.

Despite the impressive spike, SK Hynix is still down by nearly 15% over the past 5 days. Image Source: Trading View

The reversal came just as fast. The position’s value climbed to roughly $43 million. The whale now sits on a $6.44 million profit, fully recovering its earlier losses.

Why the Swing Was So Violent

SK Hynix posted record Q2 operating profit on July 29. Surging demand for its HBM4 memory chips drove the results. Yet the stock initially whipsawed lower. Investors weighed South Korea’s broader market selloff and lingering doubts about AI infrastructure spending.

That reversed on July 31. SK Hynix shares surged as much as 28.59% to ₩1,700,000 on the Korea Exchange. It marked their sharpest single-day move in years.

Strong earnings from Amazon and Microsoft sparked a broader AI-stock rally. SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won added momentum with a rare direct share purchase.

Advertisement

The episode follows a separate $57 million liquidation event on the same SKHX market days earlier. That event underscored how thin the margin for error has become. Leveraged bets that track SK Hynix’s earnings swings now carry real risk.

The post SK Hynix Trader Turns $2.26M Loss Into $6.44M Profit on Earnings Spike appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Coldcard Mk3 Warning Amid Unexplained 594 BTC Sweep

Published

on

Coldcard Mk3 Warning Amid Unexplained 594 BTC Sweep

Canadian Bitcoin hardware maker Coinkite has warned users of its Coldcard Mk3 signing device to move funds from wallets whose seed phrases were generated on affected firmware. 

On Thursday, Coinkite said seeds created on an Mk3 running firmware version 4.0.1, released in March 2021, or any later Mk3 version may put funds at risk. The issue extends through version 5.0.3, the final firmware supporting the Mk3, while the Mk4, Q and Mk5 are not affected, according to the company’s early analysis.

The warning comes as Bitcoin security specialists examine an unexplained, coordinated sweep involving 594.48 BTC from single-signature addresses. However, no definitive public evidence has established that the Mk3 issue caused those transfers.

“Out of an abundance of caution,” Coinkite urged affected users to generate a new seed on an unaffected device, verify its backup and receive address, send a small test transaction and only then move the remaining funds. The company said its investigation is ongoing and promised a formal technical review.

Advertisement

Coinkite said its early analysis indicates that affected seeds used with a BIP-39 passphrase face minimal risk, stressing that this refers to a passphrase rather than the Coldcard PIN.

Experts examine 594 BTC sweep

The sweep attracted attention after a Reddit user said funds had been drained from a wallet whose seed was generated on a Coldcard Mk3 bought in May 2021. 

The user said the seed was later restored onto a Coldcard Mk4 in January 2026, meaning it had subsequently been entered into a second device. The account is self-reported and does not establish a connection between Coldcard and the broader sweep.

In a preliminary analysis posted on Friday, AnchorWatch CEO and co-founder Rob Hamilton said that 1,324 unspent transaction outputs were swept across 500 transactions within a three-block window, moving 594.48 BTC. 

Advertisement

At the time of writing, the 594.48 BTC was worth approximately $38.3 million, based on a Bitcoin price of $64,364.07, according to CoinGecko.

Hamilton said all the addresses involved were single-signature and that 562 BTC was later consolidated into another address. “At a glance, this looks like there was flawed entropy in wallet generation somewhere along the way,” he wrote. 

Related: Thousands of crypto wallets at risk from ‘Ill Bloom’ vulnerability: Coinspect

Separately, Wizardsardine CEO Kevin Loaec said his current hypothesis is that a low-entropy random-number generator, potentially in a software library, secure element or particular device batch or firmware version, produced wallet seeds with insufficient randomness.

Advertisement

He suggested that an attacker who knew of the flaw may have used an AI-generated script to brute-force affected wallets, but searched only a limited range of BIP-84 derivation paths. That could explain why the sweep appears concentrated in native SegWit addresses and why some wallets were only partially drained, though Loaec stressed that the theory remains unconfirmed. 

Loaec warned that, if his hypothesis is correct, wallets that were only partially drained may remain at risk of further theft. He added that funds held in other address types could also be exposed if the attacker expands the scan to include them.

Magazine: Inside the ‘fake police raid’ that forced a $1M Bitcoin transfer

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Aave moves to wind down six chains in $98M cleanup

Published

on

Aave adopts Chainlink CCIP as default engine for cross-chain actions

Aave founder Stani Kulechov said on July 30 that the lending protocol plans to retire dozens of low-use asset reserves and wind down its deployments on six blockchain networks.

Summary

  • Aave proposal targets six deployments holding $12.8 million supplied and $4.1 million in outstanding debt.
  • Fifty low-adoption reserves and twenty-one matured Pendle tokens account for most assets under review today.
  • Users can retain existing positions initially, but freezes and higher rates will encourage orderly exits.

The changes cover approximately $98.1 million in supplied assets and $15.6 million in debt. However, the measures originate from an Aave governance proposal and require DAO approval before full implementation.

The proposal would remove 50 individual reserves, retire 21 matured Pendle principal tokens and close 25 reserves across Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium and Aptos.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Aave’s six smaller markets have lost most deposits

The six complete deployments hold $12.8 million in combined supply and $4.1 million in debt. Sonic is the largest, with $7.6 million supplied and $2.7 million borrowed. Its deposits have fallen 74% over six months.

Scroll deposits declined 86% to $2.2 million, while zkSync fell 88% to $844,000. Metis and Soneium dropped to $297,000 and $173,000, respectively. Aptos liquidity fell 94% over six months, leaving $1.7 million supplied and $719,000 borrowed.

LlamaRisk said these deployments generated too little revenue to cover the cost of maintaining price feeds, monitoring systems and operational support. That conclusion reflects the risk provider’s assessment and remains subject to governance review.

Fifty reserves face removal across larger deployments

The remaining proposal targets 50 low-adoption reserves and 21 matured Pendle principal tokens across 11 Aave deployments. Together, they account for $85.3 million in supplied assets and $11.5 million in debt.

Advertisement

Assets marked for removal include low-use collateral, older bridged tokens and duplicate versions of assets that now have native alternatives. For example, bridged USDC variants would be removed from some markets where native USDC is already available.

The largest affected positions include the FBTC and eBTC wrappers on Ethereum. Together, they hold about $16.3 million in supply but only around $63,000 in borrowing. Their balances have fallen sharply because the expected demand for using them as collateral did not develop.

As previously reported, Aave DAO began exploring Pendle principal tokens in 2025. The latest proposal would retire 21 tokens that have reached maturity while allowing newer maturities to replace them where appropriate.

Aave would initially freeze affected reserves and reduce supply and borrowing caps to one unit. Existing positions could remain open, but users would be unable to make new deposits, borrow more funds or use the affected assets as fresh collateral.

Advertisement

For markets with outstanding loans, the proposal would raise the reserve factor, directing more interest to the Aave treasury and reducing returns for suppliers. Whole-market closures would use a 99% reserve factor and a 5% base borrowing rate to encourage borrowers to repay and depositors to withdraw.

If borrowers do not repay, risk managers could raise borrowing rates further. Liquidation thresholds may also be reduced gradually when officials determine that remaining collateral positions create excessive exposure.

Once positions have largely unwound, Aave plans to replace live price feeds with fixed-price oracles before completely retiring the six markets.

DAO approval remains the next step

The proposal is currently at the Aave Request for Comment stage. Under the standard governance process, an ARFC normally proceeds to an off-chain Snapshot vote before reaching a binding Aave Improvement Proposal and on-chain vote.

Advertisement

Therefore, users do not need to close their positions immediately solely because of Kulechov’s announcement. The exact implementation schedule will depend on community feedback, voting and the preparation of the required technical transactions.

The move marks a retreat from Aave’s earlier push to deploy broadly across emerging networks. Aave previously expanded to Linea after receiving DAO approval.

At the same time, the protocol is concentrating resources on Aave V4, institutional markets and higher-use deployments. As crypto.news reported, the DAO approved $25 million in funding to support that strategy.

Aave remains the largest decentralized lending protocol, with about $14.5 billion in total value locked across 23 chains.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Bitcoin Miner IREN Stock Surges 30% After CEO Says Demand Outstrips Supply

Published

on

Despite the massive single-day jump, IREN is still down over the past 5 days

Bitcoin miner IREN Limited (NASDAQ: IREN), another company that has pivoted to AI infrastructure, jumped 30% on July 30, clawing back losses from a broader sell-off in AI infrastructure stocks.

Co-CEO Daniel Roberts told investors that customer demand for IREN’s computing capacity outstrips what the company can build right now.

CEO Points to Contracted Revenue, Not the Stock Price

Rather than address the recent volatility directly, Roberts used a post on X to redirect attention to the business itself. He said signed contracts already cover 85% of IREN’s $4 billion-plus 2026 annualized revenue run-rate target. Construction crews are actively working the company’s sites right now, he added.

“What we know today: demand for our capacity exceeds everything we can build, 85% of our $4bn+ 2026 target is signed, and there are thousands of people on our sites right now pouring concrete and racking GPUs. We’ve been through way worse than this. Back to it.”
Daniel Roberts, Co-CEO, IREN

Prepayments Ease Funding Concerns

The rally builds on $2.8 billion in AI cloud contracts IREN signed earlier in July with Microsoft, NVIDIA, Perplexity, and Figure AI. Several of the newer multi-year deals include customer prepayments. These payments cover roughly 45% of the related GPU capital costs, easing investor worry over how IREN funds its buildout.

IREN’s stock had fallen more than 30% over the prior month, alongside peers like TeraWulf and Applied Digital. The drop reflected a wider correction across bitcoin miner stocks pivoting toward AI hosting.

Trading volume on the rebound hit nearly 73 million shares, well above IREN’s roughly 53 million average, consistent with a short-covering squeeze layered on top of the fundamental news.

Despite the massive single-day jump, IREN is still down over the past 5 days
Despite the massive single-day jump, IREN is still down over the past 5 days. Image Source: Trading View

Whether the rebound holds may depend on how IREN’s contracted revenue converts into cash flow as its 1.2 gigawatt 2027 capacity target approaches.

The post Bitcoin Miner IREN Stock Surges 30% After CEO Says Demand Outstrips Supply appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

BoJ Holds Rates at 1%: Will Japan’s Yen Intervention Hold?

Published

on

The Yen suddenly strengthened against the USD, but that strength is quickly being erased.

The Bank of Japan is set to hold its policy rate at 1% on Friday. Confirmed currency intervention sent the Japanese Yen (JPY) surging against the US Dollar (USD) before partly reversing.

A market source told Reuters that Japan carried out yen-buying, dollar-selling intervention overnight. The move pulled the currency off a 40-year low in its biggest single-day jump since January 2023.

A Yen Rally Already Fading

USD/JPY tumbled from above 163 to below 158 on Thursday. The pair then climbed back to 160.175 in early Friday trading as the intervention effect began to fade.

Still, the reversal shows how quickly currency moves can unwind without follow-through signals from the central bank itself.

Advertisement
The Yen suddenly strengthened against the USD, but that strength is quickly being erased.
The Yen suddenly strengthened against the USD, but that strength is quickly being erased.. Image Source: Trading View

Rodrigo Catril, senior FX strategist at National Australia Bank, said the timing suited Japan’s weaker dollar and calmer risk sentiment.

“If you want to kind of intervene, it’s probably quite a good time.”

Rodrigo Catril, National Australia Bank

The Bank of Japan raised its policy rate to 1% in June, the highest level in 31 years. Analysts expect Friday’s meeting to hold that rate while striking a hawkish tone. A Reuters poll points to another hike, to 1.25%, by year-end.

The Fed’s Hold Adds Pressure

The Federal Reserve also held rates steady Wednesday, its fifth straight pause. Traders questioned the central bank’s resolve on inflation, weakening the dollar broadly. That adds pressure on Kazuo Ueda, the Governor of the Bank of Japan (BOJ), to sound convincingly hawkish.

The US Dollar Index (DXY) fell 0.7% in the previous session, Reuters reported. The index was on pace for a 1.5% weekly drop.

Advertisement

That broader dollar weakness narrows the gap between the Fed’s benchmark rate and the BoJ’s 1% level. Traders use that spread to fund the yen carry trade, borrowing cheap yen to buy higher-yielding dollar assets.

The strategy only works if the rate gap holds and the yen doesn’t strengthen too quickly. A narrower gap or a stronger yen could unwind those trades fast, adding another reason to watch Ueda’s tone closely.

The post BoJ Holds Rates at 1%: Will Japan’s Yen Intervention Hold? appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Schumer Backs Anti-Corruption Agency, Targets Crypto Disclosure Issues

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation aimed at creating a dedicated US anti-corruption bureau, arguing that existing oversight is not designed to stop presidents from profiting while in office—an accusation he ties directly to President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency-related investments.

Schumer’s proposal, the Anti-Corruption Bureau Creation Act, would establish a new federal agency with authority to “investigate, enforce, and prevent executive branch corruption,” according to a Thursday announcement from Schumer’s office. The bill also seeks to consolidate key ethics and enforcement bodies under one roof—an approach lawmakers supporting the measure say could strengthen accountability more than the current “patchwork” of watchdogs.

Key takeaways

  • Schumer’s bill would create a new federal anti-corruption bureau with investigative, enforcement, and preventive powers focused on executive branch conduct.
  • The legislation points to reported Trump earnings from investments, including cryptocurrency exposure, as part of a broader argument for tighter safeguards.
  • The proposed bureau would incorporate the Federal Election Commission, the Office of Government Ethics, and the Office of Special Counsel into a single structure.
  • Supporters are also pushing the measure alongside continued negotiations over the Senate’s crypto market-structure effort, the CLARITY Act, which still lacks a scheduled vote.
  • Even if the bureau legislation clears Congress, Trump could veto it; overriding a veto would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

A new enforcement model pitched as a response to crypto-related conflicts

In a statement released with the bill introduction, Schumer said he had introduced the Anti-Corruption Bureau Creation Act to address executive branch corruption more directly. The proposal is built around Congress’ findings—stated in the bill text—that Trump disclosed earning more than $2 billion from investments in 2025, including $1.4 billion associated with cryptocurrency, and that his family holds more than $1 billion in a crypto fund tied to foreign governments.

Schumer framed the new agency as having “real teeth,” emphasizing that it would include enforcement authority rather than acting only as a monitor. He also said the bureau would be staffed by a bipartisan group of seven members confirmed by the Senate.

To address remedies for wrongdoing, the bill includes mechanisms allowing private citizens and state authorities to pursue recovery of funds that Schumer described as stolen from Americans “through corruption.”

Advertisement

“This new bureau is one where these institutions work in symbiosis, strengthening each other and eliminating barriers between them which often got in the way,” Schumer said. “It replaces a broken patchwork of watchdogs, none of which were built for this moment, with one, powerful anti-corruption agency, ready to act anywhere, anytime corruption strikes.”

White House pushes back on conflict claims tied to investment accounts

The anti-corruption push arrives amid persistent Democratic criticism of Trump’s involvement in the crypto industry while in office. Schumer’s office noted concerns that have also hovered over the Senate’s broader crypto policy effort, the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.

While the White House agreed to certain ethics provisions in CLARITY, many lawmakers have argued those changes do not adequately address potential conflicts of interest.

In a statement to Cointelegraph, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly reiterated the administration’s position that there were “no conflicts of interest” related to Trump’s investments. Kelly said the investments were “held in fully discretionary accounts managed by independent third-party financial institutions.”

Consolidating ethics and enforcement under one “roof”

A notable feature of Schumer’s bill is its plan to reorganize parts of the federal oversight landscape. The proposal would place the US Federal Election Commission, the Office of Government Ethics, and the Office of Special Counsel “under one roof” within the new bureau.

Advertisement

The intent, as described in Schumer’s remarks, is to reduce the friction between agencies and streamline action when corruption is alleged—an argument he made by contrasting the proposed bureau with what he characterized as outdated or mismatched oversight structures.

Schumer introduced the bill with cosponsors Andy Kim, Alex Padilla, and Jeff Merkley.

What’s happening with the Senate’s CLARITY Act remains uncertain

Schumer’s anti-corruption initiative is moving alongside a separate, more technical fight in the Senate: whether and when the CLARITY Act will advance.

The article notes that the Senate has just over a week before lawmakers break for a month-long state work period. That calendar pressure is heightening uncertainty for pending legislation, including CLARITY, especially as lawmakers face the prospect of competing priorities ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Advertisement

As of Thursday, the Senate had not scheduled a vote on the CLARITY Act, despite encouragement from some Republican lawmakers and industry figures. Former Securities and Exchange Commission official John Reed Stark said the situation is difficult to predict, describing “enormous drama” surrounding the bill and stating that experts he spoke with could not confidently forecast what would happen that week.

Industry leaders have also signaled confidence while acknowledging timing risks. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said the bill was at the “one-yard line,” while Senator Cynthia Lummis continued pushing for a vote, according to posts cited in the report.

Legislative math: momentum doesn’t eliminate veto risk

Even if Schumer’s anti-corruption bureau legislation gains traction, it still faces major hurdles. The bill would require Republican support in both chambers to pass, with the party holding only a slim majority in the Senate. If it clears the Senate and House before 2028, President Trump could still veto the legislation.

Overriding a presidential veto would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, leaving the outcome dependent on whether Democrats can sustain enough cross-party backing.

Advertisement

For crypto watchers, the near-term focus is likely to split: whether the Senate can find a path forward on the CLARITY Act before its schedule runs out, and whether Schumer’s anti-corruption bureau proposal gains enough bipartisan traction to survive both legislative and veto thresholds—especially given the ongoing dispute over how (or whether) current ethics arrangements address potential conflicts tied to crypto.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Samsung SDS unveils stablecoin infrastructure plans with Dunamu

Published

on

Samsung SDS unveils stablecoin infrastructure plans with Dunamu

Samsung SDS has identified stablecoin infrastructure as the first major collaboration area under its investment in Dunamu, outlining plans to combine blockchain, AI and cloud technologies as part of its digital asset strategy.

Summary

  • Samsung SDS said its investment in Dunamu is part of a strategy to build digital asset infrastructure rather than a financial investment.
  • The company is discussing stablecoin infrastructure, AI powered payments and virtual asset financial systems with Dunamu.
  • Samsung SDS reported 17% cloud revenue growth and a 75% jump in external cloud business during the second quarter.
  • The company plans to expand its AI infrastructure from 110 MW today to more than 800 MW by 2031.

According to Samsung SDS during its second-quarter earnings conference call on Wednesday, the company has been discussing stablecoin infrastructure, AI-powered next-generation payments and virtual asset financial system integration with Dunamu, the operator of South Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchange Upbit.

Samsung SDS has outlined how its Dunamu investment will be used

Samsung SDS President Lee Joon-hee said the company’s stake in Dunamu was made to enter the digital asset infrastructure business rather than as a financial investment. He said Samsung SDS intends to combine Dunamu’s blockchain operating experience with its own IT services, artificial intelligence, cloud computing and cybersecurity capabilities to strengthen digital financial infrastructure.

Advertisement

Lee added that the companies are considering business opportunities spanning stablecoin infrastructure, AI-based payment systems and system integration services built around virtual assets. According to Samsung SDS, discussions are continuing as both sides work toward developing concrete business models.

The comments provide the clearest description yet of Samsung SDS’s plans after it invested in Dunamu earlier this year.

In May, Samsung Securities, Samsung SDS and Samsung Card agreed to acquire a combined 4% stake in Dunamu for 612.8 billion won, or about $408 million, by purchasing 1.39 million shares from Kakao-linked entities. Samsung SDS acquired a 1% stake, while Samsung Securities purchased 2% and Samsung Card acquired the remaining 1%.

Advertisement

At the time, Samsung SDS said it planned to combine its AI, cloud, security and data management services with Dunamu’s blockchain expertise, while Dunamu said it expected cooperation on blockchain investment products, payment infrastructure and AI-related blockchain applications.

Stablecoin plans extend Samsung’s digital asset push

The latest comments come less than a week after Samsung Electronics disclosed plans to bring stablecoin support to Samsung Wallet.

During the Galaxy Unpacked event on July 24, Samsung Electronics said the wallet application will support stablecoins alongside payments, rewards and digital assets, although it did not disclose launch dates, supported tokens, blockchain networks or regional availability.

Product manager Lee Dinham said at the event that Samsung Wallet would expand beyond conventional payment functions to include stablecoins, allowing users to transfer digital value directly from compatible Galaxy devices.

Advertisement

Together, the wallet announcement and Samsung SDS’s latest remarks indicate that Samsung’s digital asset initiatives now extend from consumer payment products to the infrastructure supporting blockchain-based financial services.

The direction also differs from Samsung’s response to Open Standard’s proposed OUSD stablecoin consortium earlier this month. According to South Korean newspaper Chosun, Samsung said it had not held formal consultations with Open Standard and did not know what role it was expected to play after being listed as a founding consortium member. Dunamu, Shinhan Bank and K-Bank also told the newspaper they were still reviewing the proposal and had not approved participation.

Cloud growth has supported Samsung SDS results

Samsung SDS disclosed alongside the conference call that second-quarter revenue increased 5.9% year over year to 3.7178 trillion won, while operating profit rose 0.7% to 231.8 billion won. Net profit climbed 4.6% to 184.1 billion won.

IT services revenue reached 1.7625 trillion won, up 5% from a year earlier.

Advertisement

Cloud operations remained the fastest-growing segment. Revenue from the cloud business increased 17% to 779.4 billion won, while external cloud business revenue jumped 75% year over year.

According to Samsung SDS, cloud service provider revenue grew 24% as demand for Samsung Cloud Platform increased and GPU-as-a-Service deployments expanded across public-sector and enterprise customers. Cloud management services revenue also rose 17%, supported by AI transformation projects in the financial sector and enterprise resource planning deployments within South Korea’s shipbuilding industry.

AI infrastructure expansion will also support blockchain services

Alongside its blockchain plans, Samsung SDS said it continues expanding AI infrastructure and enterprise AI offerings.

The company said it was recently selected as a core operator under South Korea’s government-backed GPU infrastructure program and launched an NPU-as-a-Service product based on FuriosaAI’s Renegade neural processing chip. It has also secured AI-related projects with Woori Bank and the Export-Import Bank of Korea while maintaining partnerships with OpenAI, Anthropic and Google Cloud for generative AI services.

Advertisement

Samsung SDS currently operates about 110 megawatts of AI infrastructure and plans to expand capacity to 230 megawatts by 2029. According to the company, that figure is expected to exceed 800 megawatts by 2031 when design, construction and operational projects are included.

The infrastructure buildout accompanies Samsung SDS’s strategy of pairing its cloud and AI capabilities with Dunamu’s blockchain platform as the companies continue discussions around stablecoin infrastructure, digital asset payment systems and virtual asset financial technology services.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Bank of Korea tests tokenized reserve transfers through BIS Project Agora

Published

on

Polymarket users face gambling investigation in South Korea

The Bank of Korea has successfully completed live cross-border payment tests using tokenized central bank reserves under the Bank for International Settlements-led Project Agora, processing transactions across six currencies and multiple payment scenarios.

Summary

  • Bank of Korea completed live Project Agora payment tests using tokenized reserve funds across six currencies.
  • South Korean banks tested cross border settlements including a 20 million won transfer using tokenized reserves.
  • The trial linked Project Hangang with the BIS platform to validate real world payment workflows.
  • The central bank plans additional Project Agora tests covering more payment scenarios and transaction types.

According to the Bank of Korea, the central bank participated in the latest round of Project Agora real transaction testing alongside 27 other central banks and private financial institutions, confirming that the platform’s core functions and operating processes worked reliably in an environment designed to mirror real-world payment operations.

The exercise covered the Korean won, U.S. dollar, euro, British pound, Swiss franc and Japanese yen. South Korea’s participating commercial banks included KB Kookmin Bank, NongHyup Bank, Shinhan Bank, Woori Bank and Hana Bank.

Advertisement

Participating institutions processed transactions worth about 800,000 Swiss francs across 17 payment scenarios. 

The Bank of Korea said the tests successfully handled several cross-border payment use cases, including single- and dual-currency settlements between companies and banks, payment-versus-payment foreign exchange settlements and fund transfers within the same financial group.

Project Agora has linked tokenized reserves with cross-border payments

For its domestic test, the Bank of Korea worked with NongHyup Bank and Shinhan Bank to transfer 20 million won between the two lenders using tokenized reserve funds. According to the central bank, it received payment instructions from both banks before issuing, transferring, and redeeming tokenized reserves on the Project Agora platform.

The process also included a manual connection between Project Hangang, the Bank of Korea’s wholesale central bank digital currency platform, and the central bank’s existing financial network to validate interoperability during the transaction.

Advertisement

Separately, KB Kookmin Bank became the first South Korean commercial bank to complete a deposit token payment test with an overseas lender after conducting a yen-based settlement trial with Japan’s MUFG Bank. The bank said the results would support its participation in future phases of Project Agora.

The Bank of Korea said additional live transaction tests would follow as the project expands to cover payment types and operational scenarios that were not included in the latest exercise.

Project Hangang has supported South Korea’s digital payment plans

The latest cross-border testing builds on South Korea’s efforts to extend Project Hangang beyond institutional pilots and into commercial payment infrastructure.

Advertisement

As previously reported, the Ministry of Science and ICT and the Korea Internet & Security Agency launched a 9.6 billion won program earlier this month to connect Project Hangang with the country’s existing payment network. The initiative is led by the Korea Financial Telecommunications and Clearings Institute and includes nine commercial banks, payment gateway providers and large merchants testing deposit token payments for everyday retail transactions.

Instead of replacing existing payment terminals, the project allows banks to issue deposit token wallets while merchants continue using current point-of-sale systems. Government agencies also plan to test deposit tokens for public-sector payments before integrating the technology with South Korea’s digital public finance platform.

The Bank of Korea has consistently distinguished deposit tokens from stablecoins. Deposit tokens represent commercial bank deposits issued through a wholesale CBDC framework operated by the central bank, while stablecoins are separate digital assets backed by reserve assets under their own regulatory model.

Bank of Korea has continued to prioritize CBDCs alongside Project Agora

The successful testing also follows Governor Shin Hyun-song’s digital finance agenda announced after he took office in April.

Advertisement

In his inaugural speech, Shin said the Bank of Korea would continue expanding Project Hangang while participating in international initiatives such as Project Agora to strengthen cross-border payment infrastructure and support the Korean won in digital finance.

Although lawmakers have continued drafting stablecoin legislation under the proposed Digital Asset Basic Act, Shin’s speech focused on wholesale CBDCs and tokenized bank deposits rather than privately issued stablecoins.

His earlier work at the Bank for International Settlements argued that multiple privately issued stablecoins could fragment payment systems, though later reports indicated he had become more open to stablecoins operating alongside CBDCs under an appropriate framework.

South Korea has advanced stablecoin legislation separately

While the central bank continues testing tokenized reserves and deposit tokens, lawmakers and financial regulators have been developing a separate legal framework for stablecoins.

Advertisement

The Financial Services Commission recently told the National Assembly that it intends to consolidate ten pending digital asset proposals into a single Digital Asset Basic Act covering stablecoin issuance, exchanges, disclosures, governance and operational resilience. The regulator has not published a final draft or announced a submission date.

Separately, a policy report published by Hashed Open Research and the Solana Policy Institute recommended introducing interim licensing guidance for won-backed stablecoins before the full legislation is completed. Participants at the June symposium cited in the report argued that temporary rules could help regulated businesses prepare for stablecoin issuance and payment services while lawmakers continue negotiating the final framework.

The Bank of Korea has maintained that banks should play a leading role in any future stablecoin model because of monetary policy, foreign exchange and financial stability considerations. Ownership rules for stablecoin issuers, however, remain under discussion, with lawmakers and regulators continuing consultations before the proposed legislation moves forward.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025