The part that rattles valuations is the license. K3 is open-weight, with the full model due for public release on July 27. Anyone will be able to download it, run it on their own hardware, and pay nobody.

Anthropic released Fable 5 last month, and OpenAI shipped GPT-5.6 a week ago, both closed and metered. The assumption underwriting hundreds of billions of dollars in AI infrastructure spending is that frontier capability stays scarce, expensive and American.

A free Chinese model at the top of a coding leaderboard is a direct argument against that.

Meanwhile, Moonshot’s domestic rivals took it worst, with Z.ai falling about 27% and MiniMax about 16%.

For crypto, the headwinds run through the tape rather than through anything onchain. Bitcoin has spent this entire week taking direction from semiconductors.

Last Friday, it rose 4% on the day South Korea’s Kospi jumped 8% and SK Hynix priced $26.5 billion of American depositary shares. This Friday, it fell because a model release in Beijing made the same trade look expensive.

There is, however, a more concrete exposure underneath.

Bitcoin miners have spent two years repositioning themselves as AI data center landlords, signing long-term leases with model developers on the assumption that demand for training and inference compute keeps rising.

Bitcoin (BTC) endured a brutal first half of 2026, dropping to a multi-year low of $57,717 on July 1, a level not seen since September 2024. The flagship cryptocurrency has declined over 30% so far this year and is trading around $63,300 at the time of writing.

Improving macro conditions and whale accumulation briefly pushed BTC above $65,000 this week. However, it fell back into the red, highlighting the fragility of its recovery during current market conditions.

Bitcoin (BTC) Recovery On Shaky Ground

Bitcoin (BTC) has endured a difficult few months, falling to its lowest level since September 2024 on July 1, when it plunged to a low of $57,717. The flagship cryptocurrency has declined over 30% during the first half of 2026, and chances of a recovery remain low until ETF inflows rebound and prevailing macroeconomic conditions improve. BTC also faces the prospect of a deeper decline as investors pivot to AI stocks.

BTC extended its decline for a third day after Tuesday’s rebound and has slipped below $63,000 after stalling around the $65,000 level. While the flagship cryptocurrency has struggled, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq are trading at record levels. This may suggest that the decline is BTC-specific. However, several factors are at play, including geopolitical tensions and crypto-specific factors like ETF outflows, liquidations, and Strategy’s decision to leverage some of its BTC holdings.

What’s Keeping Bitcoin (BTC) Price Action Subdued

Bitcoin (BTC) has been in the doldrums since the start of the year. The flagship cryptocurrency has been declining since hitting its all-time high in October 2025. The bullish narrative around President Trump’s victory and a crypto-friendly administration quickly faded as key crypto-specific legislation stalled. The delay in establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve and passing the CLARITY Act has had a significant impact on investor sentiment and laid bare the friction between the banking sector and the crypto industry.

Institutional demand, one of the primary drivers of BTC’s rally to its all-time high, has also declined. According to data from CoinMarketCap, spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded total net inflows of $21.4 billion in 2025. In comparison, they have recorded around $5.8 billion in net outflows year-to-date, a distinct shift in investor sentiment and weakening institutional demand.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the threat of quantum computers have also impacted investor sentiment and price action. Capital rotation into AI stocks and initial public offerings of companies like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic has also pulled BTC lower.

Additionally, Strategy’s decision to sell some of its BTC to fund a dollar reserve has dealt a psychological blow to the market and directly put pressure on the asset’s price. The Bitcoin treasury company has authorized selling up to $1.25 billion in BTC and has already executed two sales. The company sold 32 BTC in May for $2.5 million before liquidating 3,588 BTC for $216 million in July. Unsurprisingly, the large sale was a shock to the market, and the flagship cryptocurrency fell nearly 4% in the aftermath of the transaction.

Can Bitcoin (BTC) Price Action Recover

BTC’s recovery hinges on several factors. The passage of the CLARITY Act could be a significant boost for the market. It establishes a clear market structure to regulate the industry and could boost institutional confidence and drive adoption. The bill has advanced from the Senate Banking Committee but faces a crucial test on the Senate floor.

Spot Bitcoin ETF demand is crucial for a sustainable recovery. ETFs have registered substantial outflows so far as investors pulled capital. However, heavy outflows have slowed as sell-side pressure declines. After recording substantial outflows in June, Bitcoin ETFs have recorded considerable inflows in July, a sign that institutional interest could be returning.

BTC registered a sharp bounce after US CPI data revealed inflation declined 0.4% month-on-month in June, the first monthly decline in six years. Headline inflation fell from 4.2% to 3.5%, while core CPI fell to 2.6%. However, inflationary risks remain thanks to renewed US-Iran tensions. Escalating Middle East tensions could push oil prices higher, raising inflationary risks. The markets have also tempered expectations of a rate hike, with the probability of such a hike falling from 78% to 58%.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.

All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.

Lighter is the exchange running perpetual futures inside Robinhood Wallet. It is also the clearest attempt yet to rebuild payment for order flow on a blockchain, backed by the company that made the practice famous.

Most people encountering Lighter will not encounter it by name. They will open Robinhood Wallet, tap into perpetual futures, and trade. Underneath that tap is a separate company running a zero-knowledge rollup, taking half the revenue, and executing a strategy that would be familiar to anyone who followed the GameStop hearings. Lighter is not simply a venue Robinhood integrated. It is a bet that the most valuable thing in trading is not fees but order flow, and that the way to win the perpetual futures market is to give the trading away and sell what the trading reveals. That idea has a name in traditional finance, and the company whose name is synonymous with it is the one funding this.

What Lighter is

Lighter is a decentralized exchange specializing in perpetual futures, built as an Ethereum layer 2 using custom zero-knowledge circuits. It was founded in 2022 by Vladimir Novakovski, and launched its public mainnet in October 2025 after an extended beta.

The technical pitch addresses a real tension in on-chain derivatives. Perpetual exchanges historically had to choose: sacrifice decentralization for speed, or sacrifice speed for trustlessness. Centralized venues match orders fast and ask you to trust them. Fully on-chain venues are verifiable and slow. Lighter uses zero-knowledge rollup architecture to attempt both, processing transactions off-chain for speed while posting cryptographic proofs on-chain, which produces verifiable order matching and liquidations at latency competitive with centralized exchanges.

That matters more for perps than for most products. A perpetual futures position is leveraged and margined, which means liquidation is automatic and mechanical. If you cannot verify that a liquidation was executed correctly, you are trusting the venue at the exact moment the venue has the least incentive to be honest with you. Verifiable liquidation is not a marketing feature. It is the point.

Its token is LIT. The market has valued the project in the region of $2.75 billion fully diluted, which is a valuation built on distribution rather than on current fee revenue, for reasons the rest of this article explains.

The Robinhood relationship

The integration went live with Robinhood Chain’s mainnet on July 1, 2026, announced at the company’s The World is Flat livestream from the Old Royal Naval College in London.

The mechanics: a revamped Robinhood Wallet gives eligible users access to perpetual futures through Lighter. USDG, a dollar stablecoin, serves as both the collateral and the quote asset. Users can deposit Robinhood Chain assets into Lighter’s smart contracts as margin, and the whole experience sits inside Robinhood Wallet, so users never navigate an unfamiliar DeFi interface. When Lighter added Robinhood Chain collateral support, LIT rose roughly 15%.

Two details tell you this is a partnership and not a vendor arrangement. The revenue splits 50/50 between Robinhood and Lighter. And Lighter committed $11 million of its LIT tokens to the Robinhood community, with eligible users earning points on perp trades and double points when trading through Robinhood.

The history behind it runs further than the deal. Robinhood Ventures participated in Lighter’s $68 million funding round in November 2025, which valued the company at roughly $1.5 billion. Tenev serves as an advisor to Lighter and has publicly called it a step forward for decentralized infrastructure. And Novakovski and Tenev share a professional history stretching back over a decade, with Novakovski having mentored Tenev early in his career. Novakovski described the deal as twelve years in the making, which reads as hyperbole until you notice that Robinhood picked a perps partner run by the person who mentored its CEO.

Lighter frames the Robinhood integration as its first Domain, a template for how the exchange plans to scale: rather than acquiring users directly, it becomes the engine underneath someone else’s front end.

The order flow model

Here is the part that makes Lighter interesting instead of merely well-connected.

Lighter offers zero fees to retail traders. That is not a promotional rate. It is the business model. The revenue comes from the other side: sophisticated firms and high-frequency traders pay for premium accounts that give them access to the venue’s order flow.

Anyone who followed the 2021 retail trading hearings will recognize this immediately. In traditional equity markets, Robinhood does not charge commissions. It routes its customers’ orders to market makers such as Citadel and Virtu, who pay for the privilege. The industry term is payment for order flow, and the economic logic is that retail orders are valuable precisely because they are uninformed. A market maker filling a retail order is unlikely to be trading against someone who knows something. Filling an order from a sophisticated fund is dangerous, because that fund may well know something the market maker does not. Uninformed flow is profitable to intermediate. Informed flow is toxic.

Lighter reproduces that structure on-chain. Aggregate uninformed retail flow by making it free, then monetize access to it. The valuation logic follows: at a multibillion-dollar fully diluted value, the bet is not that Lighter will eventually raise fees. It is that if Lighter becomes the default engine behind Robinhood Wallet’s crypto users, the value of that order flow to market makers rises accordingly. Retail flow crossing over from stock trading is generally less sharp than crypto-native flow, which makes it more valuable to the firms buying access.

That is a genuinely coherent strategy and it is also the reason Lighter’s current fee generation looks thin against competitors running conventional models. The company is not trying to earn on volume. It is trying to own the pipe.

A worked example of the flow trade

The order flow argument is abstract until you price it, so walk the logic the way a market maker would.

Imagine two venues, each routing $200 billion of monthly perpetual futures volume. The first is crypto-native, populated by professional traders, arbitrage desks, and funds running systematic strategies. The second is retail crossover, populated by people who mostly trade equities and take directional views on Bitcoin when it is in the news.

To a market maker, those two order books are not remotely the same asset, and the identical volume figure conceals the difference. On the professional venue, a large share of incoming orders carry information. When a systematic fund lifts your offer, there is a meaningful chance it knows something about the next few seconds that you do not, and you are now holding inventory that is about to move against you. The industry term is toxic flow, and market makers price it by widening spreads, which is the cost of being adversely selected.

On the retail venue, the incoming orders are largely uninformed in the technical sense. Not stupid, and not badly intentioned, simply not carrying private information about the immediate direction of price. A market maker filling those orders can hedge calmly and earn the spread with far less adverse selection. That flow is worth substantially more per dollar of volume, and firms will pay for access to it.

Now the business model resolves. Lighter gives retail trading away for free, because the free trading is what aggregates the valuable flow. It sells premium access to the firms that want to interact with that flow. The more retail volume it aggregates, and the less contaminated that volume is by professional activity, the more the access is worth. Robinhood’s distribution is the input: millions of retail stock traders crossing into perps are close to the ideal population for this model, which is precisely why the partnership exists and why the revenue splits evenly.

That also explains a valuation that looks strange against current fees. At a fully diluted value in the billions, the market is not pricing Lighter’s fee revenue, which is thin by design. It is pricing the possibility that Lighter becomes the default engine behind Robinhood Wallet, at which point the flow it controls becomes considerably more valuable to the firms buying it. The bet is on distribution, not on eventually charging.

The honest counterpoint is that this model has been tested before, at scale, in equities, and it works commercially while generating a permanent argument about whether the customer is the buyer or the product. Nothing about a zero-knowledge proof settles that argument. It only proves that whatever happened, happened as described.

Where it sits in the market

Context matters here, because the perpetuals market is not empty.

Hyperliquid dominates the decentralized perpetuals category and has for some time, having built its position by serving crypto-native traders with high-performance execution. Aster competes on similar ground. Both are fighting for the same audience: sophisticated on-chain traders who care about latency, depth, and fee structure. For more context on the venue Lighter competes against, crypto.news has also examined why HYPE is different inside Hyperliquid’s buyback.

Lighter has explicitly chosen not to fight there. Its positioning is the traditional finance bridge, and its distribution advantage is a pipeline to millions of retail stock traders that no crypto-native competitor can access. That is a defensible strategic choice: the crypto-native segment is contested and price-sensitive, while the retail crossover segment is large, uncontested, and, for the reasons above, more commercially valuable per unit of volume.

The wider context is that fees across perpetual decentralized exchanges are trending toward zero. In a market where nobody can charge, whoever captures the most valuable flow wins. Lighter is not making an unusual bet so much as making the traditional finance bet earlier than its competitors.

Robinhood has expanded the surface around it, offering commodity, ETF, and foreign exchange perpetuals with up to 10x leverage to European users, while its Earn product pays roughly 7% APY on USDG through Morpho infrastructure. USDG therefore does double duty: yield when idle, margin when deployed.

Who cannot use it

The restriction list is long and it includes the country where Robinhood has most of its customers.

Perpetual futures through Robinhood Wallet are unavailable to residents of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and Singapore, along with other restricted jurisdictions.

The American exclusion is the one worth understanding, because it is the same wall that blocks Stock Tokens. Perpetual contracts occupy an unresolved zone in US financial law. The CFTC has historically treated perps as swaps, which places them under derivatives regulation that most crypto platforms are not structured to satisfy. That question is live: the CME is currently litigating against the CFTC over precisely how a perp should be classified, and the CLARITY Act would hand the agency primary authority over digital commodity spot markets while the agency itself operates with a single commissioner.

So an American Robinhood customer can hold the stock of the company that co-owns the revenue from a perps exchange they are legally barred from using. That is not an accident. It is a map of where American crypto regulation currently stands.

The questions worth asking

Three things about this arrangement deserve more scrutiny than they have received.

Whether on-chain payment for order flow attracts the same criticism. The traditional practice drew sustained regulatory attention on the argument that free trading is not free, that customers pay through worse execution, and that the arrangement creates a conflict between a broker’s duty to its customers and its revenue from the firms buying their orders. None of those critiques become less true because the venue posts zero-knowledge proofs. Verifiable matching proves the trade executed as stated. It does not prove the trade was routed to your benefit.

Whether the relationships are disclosed clearly enough. Robinhood Ventures is an investor in Lighter. Tenev is an advisor to Lighter. Novakovski mentored Tenev. Robinhood takes half the revenue. Each of those is individually unremarkable and publicly reported. Together they describe a venue selected through a network of overlapping interests, integrated as the default option inside an app used by millions, and a retail user tapping the perps tab is unlikely to know any of it.

Whether the traffic is real. Robinhood Chain ran a 90-day gas fee subsidy from launch, which inflates transaction counts and makes comparisons with other chains unreliable during the subsidy window. Perps activity routed through the wallet during that period should be read with the same caution. The honest test arrives when the subsidy expires and the flow either persists or does not.

None of this makes Lighter a bad product. The zero-knowledge architecture is a real answer to a real problem, and verifiable liquidation is worth having. It makes Lighter a product whose economics are worth understanding before you use it, which is a different claim and a more useful one. The trade is free. Something is still being sold.

What to watch

Three concrete signals will settle whether this integration is infrastructure or a distribution experiment.

Whether flow persists after the subsidy. Robinhood Chain ran a 90-day gas fee subsidy from launch. Perps routed through the wallet during that window are trading in artificially cheap conditions. The honest measurement of whether retail crossover users actually want perpetual futures arrives when they start paying real costs, and any volume figure quoted before then carries an asterisk.

Whether premium accounts materialize. The entire valuation thesis rests on sophisticated firms paying for access to Robinhood’s retail order flow. That is a testable claim. If market makers commit at scale, the model works and Lighter’s fully diluted value makes sense. If they do not, Lighter is a zero-fee exchange with no revenue and a large token supply, which is a considerably worse business.

Whether the regulatory position moves. Americans are barred from perps through the wallet because perpetual contracts sit in an unresolved zone of US law, where the CFTC has historically treated them as swaps. Two things could change that: the CME’s litigation against the CFTC over how a perp is classified, and the CLARITY Act, which would hand the agency primary authority over digital commodity spot markets. If perps come onshore, Robinhood’s largest customer base becomes addressable overnight and this integration stops being a foreign product.

The last one is the real prize and it explains the patience. Building the perps rail now, with a partner run by the CEO’s mentor, in jurisdictions where it is already legal, means that on the day American rules change the distribution is already wired. Robinhood is not building for the market it has. It is building for the one it expects, which is either foresight or an expensive bet on Congress. Worth noting that the agency holding the decision, the CFTC, currently operates with a single confirmed commissioner out of five seats and has lost roughly a fifth of its staff, while simultaneously writing perps rules, asserting jurisdiction over prediction markets, and preparing to inherit crypto spot markets if the CLARITY Act passes. The timeline for American perps therefore depends less on what Robinhood or Lighter build than on whether one understaffed regulator can produce a rulebook. For a user, the practical takeaway is narrower and more useful: the product exists, it works, it is free, and the reason it is free is that something about your trading is being sold to someone. That is not a scandal. It is the deal, and it is worth knowing you are in it.

Frequently asked questions

Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Perpetual futures are leveraged products carrying substantial risk of loss, including losses exceeding the margin posted, and availability varies sharply by jurisdiction. Nothing here is a recommendation to trade any instrument or use any platform. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 17, 2026.

Key takeaways

• Pi Network (PI) is showing signs of recovery after several days of consolidation and easing selling pressure.
• Rising Open Interest suggests speculative traders are positioning for a potential rebound.
• The upcoming Stellar Protocol v25 mainnet upgrade and improving market sentiment could support PI’s recovery.

Pi Network (PI) posted modest gains on Friday after three consecutive sessions of sideways trading, suggesting that selling pressure may be easing following a sharp correction earlier this month.

Although the token remains in a broader downtrend, increasing derivatives activity and deeply oversold technical indicators are fueling speculation that PI could be preparing for a short-term rebound.

Speculative demand begins to strengthen

Pi Network remains one of the cryptocurrency market’s most speculative community-driven assets, making its price particularly sensitive to shifts in investor sentiment.

After a steep sell-off earlier this month, optimism has started to improve as broader market risk appetite stabilizes.

Another potential catalyst is the Stellar Protocol version 25 mainnet upgrade, scheduled for July 22, which could support sentiment across ecosystems connected to Stellar-based infrastructure.

Meanwhile, derivatives data points to growing speculative interest. According to CoinAnk, Pi Network Open Interest increased to $10.73 million on Friday from $10.44 million a day earlier. 

Open Interest has steadily recovered from $9.11 million recorded on Monday, indicating that traders are gradually returning to the market after the recent correction.

The increase suggests retail investors are beginning to position for a possible recovery, although conviction remains relatively modest.

PI remains oversold despite stabilizing price action

From a technical perspective, Pi Network continues to trade below the key $0.0800 resistance level, leaving the broader trend bearish.

However, the token has managed to hold near the lower boundary of a falling channel, where technical support is reinforced by the 161.8% Fibonacci extension level at $0.06793.

Holding above this area could provide the foundation for a relief rally if buying momentum continues to build.

Technical indicators are beginning to show early signs that the recent decline may be losing momentum.

The Relative Strength Index (RSI) has fallen to around 17, placing PI deep in oversold territory. While oversold readings do not guarantee a reversal, they often indicate that selling pressure has become stretched.

At the same time, the Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) remains below the zero line but is showing signs of weakening bearish momentum, suggesting sellers may be losing control.

If PI extends its recovery, the first resistance level is the 127.2% Fibonacci extension at $0.09613.

A stronger rebound would then face resistance near $0.110, where the upper boundary of the falling channel could limit further gains unless broader market sentiment improves.

On the downside, the 161.8% Fibonacci extension at $0.06793 remains the most important support level.

A decisive break below that area could expose the 227.2% Fibonacci extension near $0.01463, significantly increasing downside risk.

For now, Pi Network’s deeply oversold technical setup, combined with rising Open Interest and improving market sentiment, suggests that a short-term recovery remains possible, although the broader trend will remain bearish until key resistance levels are reclaimed.

BTC is less volatile than South Korea’s stock market. Since the start of June, South Korea’s benchmark KOSPI has swung an average of 3.8% a day, more than double BTC’s 1.7%.

On Thursday alone, South Korea’s benchmark KOSPI fell 6.4% to 6,820, tripping its 37th program-trading halt of 2026, a five-minute regulatory pause to restore order to chaotic markets.

However, that crash wasn’t even its worst session of the week.

Meanwhile, BTC and crypto indices appear to be sailing calmer waters by comparison. On a 12-month basis, KOSPI’s annualized volatility has climbed to 57% against BTC’s 47% — still higher than BTC over this impressive timespan.

One analyst remarked, “Compared to KOSPI, BTC has become a low-volatility asset. SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics showed volatility of 90% and 78% respectively, an extreme level previously observed only in thematic stocks.”

Investors have swept up SK Hynix and Samsung into the recent frenzy of AI stocks. Both companies make hardware related to the boom in AI chatbots and coding tools like Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and others.

Remarkably, even after its sharp decline in recent days, KOSPI remains 2026’s top-performing stock market of a major economy, still up about 60% despite shedding a quarter of its valuation since June.

Seven market-wide circuit breakers this year

The KOSPI set its record close of 9,114.55 on June 22. One day later it dropped 9.99%, one of the largest single-day declines in the index’s history.

Monday was nearly as brutal. An 8.95% plunge through the 7,000 level triggered its seventh 20-minute, market-wide circuit breaker of 2026. 

A market-wide circuit breaker halts all trading of listed stocks for 20 minutes after an 8% drop. The more common program-trading halt, also known as a sidecar, pauses only certain programmatic orders after sharp futures moves.

By Wednesday the machinery was working in reverse. The index rebounded 6.24% to 7,284.41. Then Thursday took most of it back. 

The Bank of Korea didn’t help, raising rates 25 basis points to 2.75%, its first rate rise since January 2023.

All the while, BTC has been trading relatively calmly in the $60,000s since the start of June.

Introduction

Autonomous Market Makers (AMMs) transformed decentralized finance (DeFi) by replacing traditional order books with smart contracts that automatically provide liquidity and execute trades. Platforms like Uniswap, Curve, Balancer, and many others proved that anyone can become a liquidity provider while enabling permissionless trading around the clock.

However, the next generation of AMMs is poised to become far more intelligent than today’s liquidity pools. Rather than simply following fixed mathematical formulas, future AMMs will leverage artificial intelligence, real-time market data, programmable liquidity, and cross-chain infrastructure to optimize trading, reduce risks, and maximize capital efficiency.

The evolution of AMMs may redefine how liquidity functions across the entire digital economy.

From Passive Liquidity to Intelligent Liquidity

Today’s AMMs generally rely on predetermined algorithms such as the constant product formula (x × y = k). While revolutionary, these systems still face several limitations:

• Impermanent loss
• Capital inefficiency
• Fragmented liquidity
• Static fee structures
• Slow adaptation to market volatility

Future autonomous market makers will actively respond to market conditions instead of waiting for liquidity providers to manually adjust positions.

Imagine liquidity pools that automatically:

• Shift liquidity where trading demand is highest
• Modify trading fees during periods of volatility
• Rebalance portfolios continuously
• Hedge exposure against extreme market swings
• Allocate idle capital into yield-generating strategies

Liquidity becomes dynamic instead of passive.

AI-Powered Liquidity Management

Artificial intelligence will likely become one of the biggest upgrades for AMMs.

Machine learning models could analyze:

• Trading volume
• Historical volatility
• On-chain activity
• Wallet behavior
• Macroeconomic events
• Stablecoin flows
• Cross-chain liquidity movements

Using these insights, AMMs could predict liquidity demand before it happens.

Rather than reacting after volatility occurs, intelligent AMMs may reposition liquidity in anticipation of changing market conditions.

This could significantly reduce impermanent loss while improving execution quality for traders.

Cross-Chain Autonomous Liquidity

The blockchain ecosystem is no longer confined to a single network.

Assets now move between:

• Ethereum
• Solana
• Base
• Arbitrum
• Optimism
• Avalanche
• BNB Chain
• Sui
• Aptos

Future AMMs won’t be limited to one blockchain.

Instead, autonomous market makers will coordinate liquidity across multiple ecosystems simultaneously.

A single liquidity position could automatically migrate toward whichever blockchain currently offers:

• Higher trading volume
• Better yields
• Lower transaction costs
• Greater user demand

Liquidity becomes globally optimized rather than trapped on isolated chains.

Intent-Based Trading

Intent-based architecture is emerging as one of Web3’s most exciting innovations.

Instead of specifying every trading parameter, users simply express what outcome they want.

For example:

“Swap my USDC into ETH at the best possible price before tomorrow.”

An autonomous market maker can then:

• Search multiple DEXs
• Split orders
• Route across chains
• Minimize slippage
• Reduce gas fees
• Complete execution automatically

The user focuses on outcomes rather than execution mechanics.

Self-Optimizing Fee Models

Today’s AMMs often charge fixed trading fees.

Future systems could dynamically adjust fees based on:

• Market volatility
• Liquidity depth
• Trade size
• Arbitrage opportunities
• Network congestion

During periods of high volatility, fees may increase to better compensate liquidity providers.

During quieter periods, fees could decrease to attract more trading activity.

This creates a healthier balance between traders and liquidity providers.

Autonomous Risk Management

Risk management may eventually become fully automated.

Future AMMs could continuously monitor:

• Oracle anomalies
• Flash loan attacks
• Liquidity concentration
• Whale movements
• Smart contract risks
• Bridge vulnerabilities

If abnormal conditions are detected, liquidity parameters could automatically tighten or temporarily pause certain functions to reduce exposure.

This makes decentralized exchanges more resilient without requiring constant human intervention.

Tokenized Real-World Assets

As tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) continue to expand, AMMs will likely become the liquidity engine for:

• Tokenized Treasury bills
• Real estate
• Carbon credits
• Commodities
• Private credit
• Corporate bonds
• Tokenized equities

Autonomous liquidity systems will help price these assets more efficiently while maintaining deep, global liquidity around the clock.

Personalized Liquidity Strategies

Not every liquidity provider has the same goals.

Future AMMs may allow users to select AI-driven strategies tailored to their preferences, such as:

• Conservative income generation
• Low-volatility portfolios
• Aggressive yield optimization
• Stablecoin-focused liquidity
• Long-term asset accumulation

Instead of manually managing positions, users could delegate optimization to autonomous agents that continuously adjust strategies according to predefined risk preferences.

The Rise of Autonomous Financial Infrastructure

Eventually, autonomous market makers may evolve beyond decentralized exchanges.

They could become foundational infrastructure powering:

• Lending markets
• Stablecoin issuance
• Prediction markets
• Gaming economies
• Tokenized securities
• Machine-to-machine payments
• AI agent economies

As autonomous software agents begin conducting transactions on behalf of humans, intelligent AMMs could provide the liquidity layer that enables these machine-driven economies to function efficiently.

Challenges Ahead

Despite their promise, autonomous market makers still face significant hurdles:

• Ensuring AI decision-making remains transparent and auditable
• Protecting against manipulation of automated strategies
• Maintaining decentralization while increasing complexity
• Securing cross-chain infrastructure
• Navigating evolving regulatory frameworks
• Balancing automation with user control

Addressing these challenges will be essential to building trust and encouraging widespread adoption.

Climax

Autonomous Market Makers represent the next major evolution of decentralized finance. By combining AI, cross-chain interoperability, programmable liquidity, and automated risk management, they have the potential to make markets smarter, more efficient, and more accessible than ever before.

Rather than relying on static formulas alone, future AMMs will continuously learn, adapt, and optimize in real time. As blockchain ecosystems mature and financial activity becomes increasingly automated, these intelligent liquidity engines could serve as the backbone of a truly autonomous global financial system—one where capital flows seamlessly, markets respond instantly, and decentralized finance operates with unprecedented efficiency.

REQUEST AN ARTICLE

The UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) and City of London Police have secured prison sentences for two men they say were involved with the “Scattered Spider” hacking group, a cybercrime crew prosecutors link to ransomware and cryptocurrency extortion schemes across the UK and the United States.

According to an NCA press release, the men pleaded guilty at Woolwich Crown Court on June 22 and were sentenced to five years and six months on Thursday. Authorities say the case is part of broader efforts to dismantle financially motivated cyberattacks in which cryptocurrency often plays a central role.

Key takeaways

• Two men connected to Scattered Spider received five years and six months in prison after guilty pleas at Woolwich Crown Court.
• UK investigators linked the group to intrusion activity targeting London’s public transport network in September 2024.
• US prosecutors have associated Scattered Spider with collecting at least $115 million in crypto ransom payments from dozens of US companies.
• Prosecutors say earlier attacks included a Caesars Entertainment breach and a subsequent Bitcoin ransom payment.
• The US Department of Justice previously reported an FBI seizure of about $36 million tied to wallets linked to the group.

UK sentencing follows a high-profile transport network breach

The NCA and City of London Police stated that the two defendants were associated with Scattered Spider. Investigators have previously linked the group to an intrusion into London’s public transport network in September 2024, an incident reported to have produced losses and recovery costs totaling 29 million British pounds (about $38.9 million).

That alleged breach underscores why cybercrime attributed to Scattered Spider has drawn attention beyond typical corporate fraud: public-sector and critical services are often targeted because operational disruption can be immediate and expensive, even when organizations ultimately recover their systems.

US prosecutors tie the group to crypto extortion at scale

The UK case comes as US authorities describe Scattered Spider’s wider footprint. A September press release from the Department of Justice (DOJ) said US prosecutors linked the group to collecting $115 million in cryptocurrency ransom payments from at least 47 US companies.

In the same DOJ release, prosecutors also characterized the attacks as disruptive to a broad range of targets—including critical infrastructure and the federal court system—suggesting that Scattered Spider’s activity was not limited to isolated enterprises but extended to organizations with heightened operational and regulatory importance.

That pattern matters for crypto investors and exchange and compliance stakeholders as well, because extortion campaigns can drive recurring demand for laundering services and complicate efforts to trace stolen funds once ransoms are paid.

Earlier allegations include Caesars Entertainment ransom in Bitcoin

The DOJ press release also accused Scattered Spider of breaching Caesars Entertainment and stealing a large customer database in September 2023. In connection with that incident, prosecutors said Caesars paid a $15 million ransom in Bitcoin (BTC).

For readers tracking the intersection of ransomware and cryptocurrency payments, this detail reflects a recurring dynamic in extortion cases: victims may seek to move quickly to stop ongoing damage, while attackers often demand digital assets that are typically easier to move than traditional payment rails.

FBI action targeting Scattered Spider-linked crypto wallets

The DOJ’s September release further reported that, in July 2024, the FBI seized approximately $36 million worth of cryptocurrency from wallets said to be linked to Scattered Spider.

According to the DOJ, investigators tied the group to at least 120 computer network intrusions. The agency said it traced and seized digital assets connected to wallets allegedly controlled by group members as part of its investigation.

While the UK sentencing is focused on two individual defendants, the seizure case highlights how law enforcement actions often span multiple stages—identifying suspected actors, attributing intrusions, and then attempting to disrupt the money movement that fuels ransomware and related extortion.

Looking ahead, the key uncertainty is how these cases will translate into sustained disruption of Scattered Spider’s operational capabilities. Readers should watch for further announcements on additional arrests, more wallet-related seizures, and any follow-up reporting that clarifies the extent of responsibility for the reported London transport breach and other high-profile targets.