Crypto World
What is a bridge asset? How XRP and XLM are meant to move value
A bridge asset is a cryptocurrency used as a neutral middle step to move value between two different currencies without pre-funding accounts in each one. XRP and XLM were both built for this job. Here is how a bridge asset works, the problem it solves, and the hard question of whether being a bridge makes a token valuable.
Summary
- A bridge asset is a cryptocurrency used as a neutral intermediary to convert one currency into another, source currency into bridge asset into destination currency, without holding pre-funded accounts in every currency.
- The problem it solves is the cost of traditional cross-border payments, where banks must lock up capital in pre-funded accounts around the world; a bridge asset frees that capital by settling in seconds.
- XRP and XLM are the two most prominent bridge assets, designed respectively for Ripple’s payment network and the Stellar network, both aiming to move value between currencies quickly and cheaply.
- The hard question is whether serving as a bridge creates lasting demand for the token, because a bridge asset is held only momentarily during a transfer, a tension known as the velocity problem.
- Stablecoins increasingly compete as bridge instruments, offering price stability that a volatile bridge token cannot, which complicates the long-term value case for bridge assets.
A bridge asset is a cryptocurrency that serves as a neutral intermediary for moving value between two different currencies, allowing a sender to convert from one currency into the bridge asset and then out into another currency, without needing to hold pre-funded balances in each currency along the way. The idea sits at the heart of one of crypto’s oldest and most practical use cases, cross-border payments, and it is the design purpose behind two of the largest cryptocurrencies by market value, XRP and XLM.
In a world where moving money across borders is slow, expensive, and capital-intensive, a bridge asset promises a faster and cheaper path: instead of a bank needing accounts pre-funded with local currency in every country it pays into, it can convert the source currency into a bridge asset, send that asset across a blockchain in seconds, and convert it into the destination currency on the other side. The bridge asset is the universal middle step, the common denominator that connects any currency to any other without requiring a direct relationship between them.
Understanding the bridge-asset concept is the key to understanding what XRP and XLM were actually built to do, and also to understanding the central debate about whether that role makes them valuable. This guide explains what a bridge asset is and the specific problem it solves, how the mechanics work step by step, how XRP and XLM each implement the idea, a worked example of a cross-border payment, the crucial difference between a bridge asset and a cross-chain bridge, and then the hard part: the unresolved question of whether being a bridge asset creates sustained demand for a token, including the velocity problem and the growing competition from stablecoins.
The aim is to give you both the clear mechanical picture and the honest analytical debate, because the bridge-asset story is genuinely useful technology wrapped around a genuinely contested investment thesis, and you cannot understand one without the other. This is educational material, not investment advice.
The problem a bridge asset solves
To see why a bridge asset is useful, you have to understand the problem with how cross-border payments traditionally work, because the bridge asset is an answer to a specific and expensive inefficiency. When money moves across borders through the conventional banking system, it travels through a network of correspondent banks, each holding accounts with the others. To pay out in a foreign currency, a bank typically needs a pre-funded account in that currency, sitting in a bank in the destination country, a setup known in the industry as nostro and vostro accounts.
The bank fills these accounts in advance with the local currency so that when a payment needs to be made, the money is already there to send. Multiply this across every currency and every corridor a large bank operates in, and the result is enormous amounts of capital locked up around the world, sitting idle in pre-funded accounts purely so that payments can be made when needed. That trapped capital has a cost, and it is one of the reasons cross-border payments are expensive, slow, and inaccessible to smaller players.
A bridge asset attacks this problem directly by eliminating the need for pre-funding. Instead of holding local currency in an account in the destination country, an institution can convert the source currency into the bridge asset at the moment of payment, send the bridge asset across a blockchain to the destination in a matter of seconds, and convert it into the local currency there, where it is paid out. Because the whole round trip happens almost instantly, there is no need to keep capital parked in advance; the liquidity is sourced and settled on demand. This is the core promise of a bridge asset: it replaces pre-funded, idle capital with just-in-time conversion, freeing up the money that would otherwise be locked in nostro accounts and making cross-border settlement faster and cheaper.
A neutral bridge asset is especially powerful because it does not belong to any one country or currency, so it can connect any pair of currencies without requiring a direct trading relationship between them. Rather than maintaining liquidity between every possible pair of currencies, which grows impossibly complex as you add currencies, institutions only need liquidity between each currency and the single common bridge. The bridge asset becomes the hub that every spoke connects to.
How the mechanics work
The mechanics of a bridge-asset payment follow a consistent pattern regardless of which asset is used, and walking through the steps shows why speed is everything. The process begins when a sender wants to move value from a source currency to a destination currency.
First, the source currency is converted into the bridge asset, typically on an exchange or liquidity venue in the source market, turning, say, dollars into the bridge token at the current market rate.
Second, the bridge asset is transferred across its blockchain from the source side to the destination side, a step that takes seconds on the networks designed for this purpose.
Third, on the destination side, the bridge asset is converted into the local currency at a liquidity venue in that market, turning the token into, say, pesos or euros, which are then paid out to the recipient.
The entire sequence, convert in, transfer, convert out, completes in seconds rather than the days a traditional cross-border transfer can take. The reason speed matters so much is that it is what makes pre-funding unnecessary, and it also limits the risk of holding the bridge asset. Because the bridge token is only held for the few seconds between conversion in and conversion out, the parties are exposed to its price for only a moment, which limits the risk that the token’s volatility moves against them during the transfer. This is essential, because bridge assets like XRP and XLM are themselves volatile cryptocurrencies, and no institution would want to hold a volatile asset for long simply to make a payment.
The design solves this by minimizing the holding time to near zero. It also depends on deep liquidity at both ends: there must be enough of a market to convert the source currency into the bridge asset, and the bridge asset into the destination currency, without large price slippage, which is why bridge-asset systems concentrate on building liquidity in the corridors they serve. When liquidity is deep and the transfer is fast, the bridge-asset path can be cheaper and faster than the correspondent-banking alternative. When liquidity is thin, the conversions become expensive and the advantage erodes, which is one of the practical limits of the model and one reason adoption has concentrated in specific corridors rather than spreading evenly everywhere.
How XRP and XLM implement the idea
XRP and XLM are the two most prominent bridge assets, and although they share the core concept, they come from related but distinct lineages. XRP is the native asset of the XRP Ledger and is the bridge asset used by Ripple’s cross-border payment offering, where it functions as the intermediary for sourcing liquidity on demand instead of pre-funding destination accounts. Ripple’s branded implementation of this, its on-demand liquidity service, is the productized version of using XRP as a bridge between currencies for institutional payments, and it is the clearest real-world deployment of the bridge-asset concept at scale.
The XRP Ledger settles transactions in a few seconds with very low fees, which are the properties a bridge asset needs, and XRP’s entire original design rationale was to serve as this neutral settlement intermediary between currencies. When people describe XRP as a “bridge currency,” this is what they mean: an asset meant to sit in the middle of cross-border value transfers, converted in and out within seconds.
XLM, the native asset of the Stellar network, was designed with a closely related purpose, and Stellar’s architecture makes the bridge role especially explicit. Stellar was built to move money between currencies cheaply, with a particular focus on payments, remittances, and financial inclusion. On Stellar, institutions called anchors issue tokens that represent fiat currencies, backed by reserves, and the network includes a built-in decentralized exchange and a feature called path payments that automatically finds the cheapest route to convert one asset into another. XLM serves as a bridge in this system, a neutral asset that can connect currency pairs that lack a direct market, and it is also used to pay the network’s small transaction fees.
So both assets are built around the same fundamental idea, a fast, cheap, neutral intermediary for moving value between currencies, but XRP is most associated with institutional, bank-facing cross-border payments through Ripple, while XLM is most associated with a more open, anchor-based network oriented toward payments and financial inclusion. Both illustrate the bridge-asset concept in production, and both face the same hard question about whether the role translates into lasting token value.
A worked example
Trace a single payment to make the concept concrete. Imagine a business in the United States needs to pay a supplier in Mexico the equivalent of $10,000, and consider how this works with and without a bridge asset. In the traditional model, the US business’s bank would rely on having a pre-funded account holding Mexican pesos at a bank in Mexico, or on a chain of correspondent banks that do. The payment instruction passes through this chain, the pesos are paid out from the pre-funded account, and the whole process can take one to several business days, with fees taken at multiple points and a large amount of peso liquidity sitting idle in that account at all times to make such payments possible. The cost of that idle capital, plus the intermediary fees, is what makes the traditional transfer expensive.
In the bridge-asset model, the same payment takes a different path. The $10,000 is converted into a bridge asset, say XRP or XLM, on a liquidity venue in the United States, turning dollars into the token at the current rate. The bridge asset is then sent across its blockchain to Mexico in a matter of seconds. On the Mexican side, the bridge asset is immediately converted into pesos on a local liquidity venue, and the pesos are paid out to the supplier.
The entire round trip completes in seconds, and at no point did anyone need to keep pesos pre-funded in advance, because the liquidity was sourced on demand at the moment of payment. The business’s bank did not need idle peso capital sitting in Mexico; it converted exactly what it needed, exactly when it needed it. If the liquidity on both ends is deep, the total cost of the two conversions plus the tiny network fee can be lower than the traditional route, and the settlement is far faster. This is the bridge asset doing its job: replacing days and pre-funded capital with seconds and just-in-time conversion. The token was held for only the few seconds of the transfer, which is the whole point of the design, and also, as the next sections explain, the source of the central debate about its value.
Bridge asset versus cross-chain bridge
A crucial point of confusion deserves its own section, because the word “bridge” is used in two very different ways in crypto and conflating them leads to real misunderstanding. The bridge asset described in this guide is about moving value between currencies, an asset used as a neutral intermediary to convert one currency into another in a payment. A cross-chain bridge, by contrast, is about moving tokens between blockchains, a piece of infrastructure that lets you take a token on one blockchain and represent or transfer it onto a different blockchain, for example moving an asset from Ethereum to another network. These are entirely different concepts that happen to share a word. A bridge asset is a currency playing a role in a payment; a cross-chain bridge is software connecting two blockchains, often by locking a token on one chain and minting a wrapped version on another.
The distinction matters for several reasons. First, the risks are completely different. Cross-chain bridges have been among the most exploited pieces of infrastructure in crypto, with several large hacks resulting from vulnerabilities in the smart contracts that lock and mint tokens across chains, so “bridge risk” in that context refers to the security of that connecting infrastructure. A bridge asset used in a payment carries different risks, mainly the price volatility of the token during the brief moment it is held and the depth of liquidity on each side, not smart-contract exploit risk of a chain-connecting bridge.
Second, the purpose is different: a bridge asset answers “how do I move value from one currency to another,” while a cross-chain bridge answers “how do I move a token from one blockchain to another.” When you read about XRP or XLM as bridge assets, the meaning is the currency-to-currency payments sense, not the chain-to-chain infrastructure sense. Keeping the two ideas separate is essential to understanding both the technology and the risks, because a discussion that mixes them will mislead on both. The shared word is an unfortunate accident of terminology, and the careful reader learns to ask which kind of bridge is meant.
Does being a bridge asset make a token valuable?
Now the hard question, the one that turns a clean technical story into a truly contested investment debate: does serving as a bridge asset actually create lasting demand for the token, and therefore support its value? The intuitive answer is yes, surely a token used to move large volumes of cross-border payments must capture value from that usage. But the reality is more complicated, and the complication has a name: the velocity problem.
A bridge asset, by design, is held for only the few seconds of a transfer. It is bought, used, and sold almost instantly, never accumulated. High transaction volume through a bridge asset therefore does not necessarily translate into sustained holding demand, because the same units of the token can be reused over and over for many transfers without anyone needing to hold a growing stockpile. A token can process enormous payment volume while generating little persistent demand to own it, because payments require the token to flow through, not to be held. This is the core tension in the bridge-asset value thesis, and it is why critics argue that network usage and token price can diverge: the network can be busy while the token is weak.
There is a serious counterargument, and the honest treatment gives it weight. Proponents contend that very large and growing payment volume does require deeper liquidity pools at every conversion point, and that maintaining those pools effectively takes a meaningful float of the token out of circulation, creating a baseline of demand that scales with usage. They argue that if a bridge asset became the settlement layer for a significant share of global cross-border value, the liquidity required to support that volume without slippage would be substantial and persistent, supporting the token’s value even if no individual holder keeps it for long.
The debate, then, is between the velocity critique, which says payments flow through without creating holding demand, and the liquidity-depth argument, which says sufficient scale forces a persistent float. Layered on top is a growing competitive threat: stablecoins. A stablecoin pegged to a currency can serve as a bridge instrument too, moving value between parties quickly, and it offers something a volatile bridge token cannot, price stability, so neither sender nor receiver bears volatility risk during the transfer.
As regulated stablecoins proliferate, including ones issued by the very companies behind bridge-asset networks, some of the cross-border settlement role that bridge tokens were meant to fill may flow to stablecoins instead, which would weaken the demand case for the volatile bridge asset. None of this is settled, and a careful reader should hold all of it at once: the bridge-asset technology is real and useful, the velocity problem is a genuine challenge to the token-value thesis, the liquidity-depth rebuttal is a legitimate counter, and stablecoin competition is a real and growing complication. The mechanism works; whether it makes the token valuable is the open question.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a bridge asset in crypto?
A bridge asset is a cryptocurrency used as a neutral intermediary to move value between two different currencies. Instead of converting one currency directly into another, or keeping pre-funded accounts in every currency, a sender converts the source currency into the bridge asset, sends that asset across a blockchain in seconds, and converts it into the destination currency on the other side. The bridge asset is the common middle step that can connect any currency to any other without a direct relationship between them. XRP and XLM are the two most prominent examples, both designed to make cross-border payments faster and cheaper by replacing idle pre-funded capital with just-in-time conversion through the bridge token.
How is XRP used as a bridge asset?
XRP is the native asset of the XRP Ledger and serves as the bridge in Ripple’s cross-border payment system. Instead of a bank pre-funding accounts with local currency in every destination country, it can convert the source currency into XRP, send the XRP across the ledger in a few seconds at very low cost, and convert it into the destination currency on arrival. Ripple’s branded version of this is its on-demand liquidity service, the productized use of XRP as a settlement bridge for institutional payments. XRP’s original design purpose was exactly this neutral-intermediary role, which is why it is described as a bridge currency: an asset meant to sit briefly in the middle of cross-border value transfers.
Is XLM the same as XRP?
They share the same core idea but are distinct assets on distinct networks. XLM is the native asset of the Stellar network, which was built to move money between currencies cheaply with a focus on payments, remittances, and financial inclusion. On Stellar, institutions called anchors issue fiat-backed tokens, and the network’s built-in exchange and path-payment feature find the cheapest route to convert one asset into another, with XLM serving as a bridge between pairs that lack a direct market and paying the network’s small fees. XRP, by contrast, is most associated with institutional, bank-facing cross-border payments through Ripple. Both are bridge assets built around fast, cheap, neutral settlement, but they come from different networks with different emphases.
What problem does a bridge asset solve?
It solves the cost and slowness of traditional cross-border payments, specifically the need to pre-fund accounts. In the conventional system, a bank must keep accounts filled in advance with local currency in every country it pays into, known as nostro and vostro accounts, which locks up enormous amounts of capital sitting idle around the world. A bridge asset removes this need by sourcing liquidity on demand: the institution converts into the bridge asset and out into the destination currency at the moment of payment, in seconds, so no capital has to sit pre-funded. This frees up trapped liquidity and can make cross-border settlement faster and cheaper, which is the central promise of the bridge-asset model.
Does high payment volume make a bridge asset valuable?
Not necessarily, and this is the central debate. A bridge asset is held for only the few seconds of a transfer, so it is bought, used, and sold almost instantly instead of accumulated. This means high payment volume does not automatically create sustained demand to hold the token, because the same units can be reused for many transfers, a tension known as the velocity problem. Proponents counter that very large volume requires deeper liquidity pools, which take a meaningful float out of circulation and create demand that scales with usage. The question is unresolved, and it is complicated further by stablecoins, which can serve as bridge instruments too while offering price stability a volatile token cannot.
Is a bridge asset the same as a cross-chain bridge?
No, and confusing them is a common error. A bridge asset is a currency used to move value between two different currencies in a payment. A cross-chain bridge is infrastructure that moves tokens between two different blockchains, often by locking a token on one chain and minting a wrapped version on another. They share the word “bridge” but are entirely different concepts with different risks. Cross-chain bridges have been frequently exploited through smart-contract vulnerabilities, so their risk is about infrastructure security, while a bridge asset’s risks are mainly the token’s price volatility during the brief holding period and the depth of liquidity on each side. When XRP or XLM are called bridge assets, the meaning is the currency-to-currency payments sense.
This article is educational information, not financial or investment advice. Descriptions of XRP, XLM, and their networks reflect their design and general operation as understood in mid-2026 and can change. Nothing here is a recommendation about any asset, and the question of whether bridge assets accrue value is truly contested. Cryptocurrency is volatile, and you can lose money. Do your own research and consult a qualified professional before making any decision.
Taiwan has taken a major step toward formalizing the country’s crypto market, with lawmakers passing a new law that sets out a regulatory framework for virtual assets and stablecoins. The package establishes a licensing regime for virtual asset service providers (VASPs) and introduces specific approval, reserve, and audit requirements for stablecoin issuers.
According to Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), the Legislative Yuan passed the bill on Tuesday, requiring VASPs to obtain regulatory approval before operating. The FSC said the move is designed to strengthen protections for traders’ rights while helping Taiwan integrate with international financial markets.
Key takeaways
- Taiwan’s new law creates a licensing regime for virtual asset service providers, overseen by the FSC.
- Stablecoins issued in Taiwan must receive approval from both the central bank and the FSC, with reserve and audit requirements.
- The framework covers multiple VASP categories, including exchanges, trading platforms, custodians, and lenders.
- The law criminalizes crypto-related fraud and price manipulation, with penalties including prison time and substantial fines.
- Implementation timing depends on publication by the executive branch, with a post-implementation license application window for firms that already completed AML registration.
Licensing and oversight for VASPs
The FSC said all VASPs in Taiwan must be authorized by the regulator before they can legally operate. The law is described as Taiwan’s first comprehensive regime specifically addressing crypto and stablecoins, aligning the jurisdiction with other major Asian markets in the region—such as Japan, Singapore, and Hong Kong—that have already moved ahead with crypto legislation to encourage industry participation.
Under the rules, Taiwan defines seven types of VASPs, including exchanges and trading platforms, as well as custodians and lenders. Regardless of category, the law requires regulated firms to maintain robust internal controls and undergo audits. It also sets expectations around cybersecurity systems, listing and delisting standards for crypto assets, customer-asset segregation, and financial reporting.
Stablecoin approval, reserves, and audits
Stablecoins receive their own regulatory structure within the bill. The law states that any stablecoin issued in Taiwan must obtain approval from both the central bank and the FSC. Issuers are required to maintain sufficient reserves, with those reserves held with a trustee.
In addition, stablecoin issuers must undergo regular audits. By combining multi-agency approval with reserve custody and recurring review, the framework aims to reduce the risk of under-collateralization and improve transparency for token holders.
The FSC argued that stablecoin issuance can help Taiwan connect more effectively to international markets and strengthen its position in the global crypto sector.
Enforcement: fraud and unlicensed operation carry prison and fines
The bill also lays out enforcement measures aimed at preventing misconduct in the crypto sector. The law prohibits crypto-based fraud and price manipulation, and it sets penalties that range from three to 10 years in prison, along with fines estimated at roughly 10 million New Taiwan dollars (about $300,000) to 200 million New Taiwan dollars (about $6.3 million).
For individuals or entities that operate a VASP or issue a stablecoin without the required license, the law increases the stakes: CNA reported that unauthorized activity can result in up to seven years in prison and fines of up to 100 million New Taiwan dollars (about $3.1 million).
These figures signal that Taiwan intends to treat compliance as a central condition for market access, rather than a purely administrative requirement.
What happens next: publication, timing, and a follow-on derivatives proposal
While the legislative step is complete, the law’s timeline is not yet fully operational. The implementation date remains undecided, and the framework will only take effect after it is published by the government’s executive branch.
In the meantime, the FSC said VASPs that have already completed anti-money laundering (AML) registration before implementation can apply for a license within 12 months after the bill becomes effective. Institutions providing related services under the FSC also fall within the same general post-implementation window, according to the regulator’s comments.
Separately, CNA reported that lawmakers passed a resolution asking the FSC to propose a plan within a year detailing how the crypto industry could offer derivative crypto commodity services. The resolution frames the effort as a way to provide diversified investment options while improving the overall health of the sector—but it does not change the fact that the new law’s immediate focus is licensing, stablecoin rules, and market conduct.
Regional implications for traders and industry participants
For market participants, the practical effect of the bill will hinge on the licensing process that follows implementation—especially for platforms handling customer assets, custody, or market operations. The stablecoin provisions are likely to be particularly consequential for issuers and reserve holders, since the framework explicitly requires approvals from both Taiwan’s central bank and the FSC, along with trustee-held reserves and regular audits.
Readers should watch next for the executive-branch publication date and any subsequent guidance from the FSC on how it will evaluate VASPs across the seven defined categories, including cybersecurity expectations, customer-asset segregation practices, and listing/delisting rules. Until those details land, firms can prepare for compliance work, but the final operational path will depend on how regulators translate the law into enforceable procedures.
Sources: FSC statement (as reported in the provided material); CNA report on penalties and timelines; Cointelegraph link referenced for context.
Bitcoin fell by 20% to under $60,000 in June, its worst monthly performance since the same month in 2022. If that number alone isn’t enough to worry bulls, the price chart, especially the monthly candlestick, could be.
The June candlestick, a charting tool summarizing entire month’s price action into a single visual, looks like a solid red brick with virtually no wicks, a clear sign of complete and “uninterrupted” bear dominance throughout the month.
For anyone tracking price charts, that’s about as bearish a signal as can be and a warning that more losses could happen in the weeks ahead.
A candlestick captures four data points for any given period: where price opened, where it closed, how high it got, and how low it fell.
The candle body shows the open-to-close move. The wicks – the thin lines extending above and below the body, representing high and low – show how far price traveled in both directions during that period.
Big wicks mean buyers and sellers were fighting hard. A long upper wick means sellers beat back a rally while a long lower wick means buyers defended a selloff. Either way, wicks are evidence of two-sided activity.
The June candle
The June candle has none of that.
Crypto World
Utorg Obtains MiCA License as July 1 Deadline Forces Much of the Industry Out of Europe
[PRESS RELEASE – Dubai, UAE, July 1st, 2026]
Utorg, a crypto wallet and card platform built on institutional-grade infrastructure, today announced it has received full authorization under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, effective July 1, 2026 – the date on which the industry’s transitional period ends and unauthorized providers can no longer legally serve European users.
The company, which also provides regulated crypto rails, wallets and stablecoin infrastructure to businesses across 130+ countries, is among a small number of platforms to have completed the full authorization process and is now cleared to operate across all 29 EEA member states, a combined market of over 450 million people.
What MiCA means for users
MiCA is the EU’s first unified regulatory framework for crypto-assets, establishing binding standards on consumer protection, transparency, and financial integrity across all member states.
For users, MiCA authorization means concrete protective measures that previously did not exist in crypto: funds must be held separately from company assets, fees must be disclosed upfront, and users have a legal right to file complaints with a national regulator. If a MiCA-authorized platform fails, user assets are protected under EU law (not subject to the discretion of an offshore jurisdiction).
For Utorg, the authorization is the result of a full regulatory review of its products, operations, and compliance infrastructure. It also means ongoing oversight: Utorg is now subject to regular reporting obligations and supervisory review under EU financial law.
Industry background
July 1, 2026 marks the end of MiCA’s transitional period – the point at which crypto-asset service providers without full authorization can no longer legally serve users in the EEA.
In the months leading up to the deadline, a significant portion of the market has withdrawn from or restricted European operations. Utorg is among the few platforms to have completed the full authorization process and is operational from day one of the new regulatory regime.
Eugene Petrakov, Co-founder of Utorg, said: “Most of the industry spent the last two years hoping MiCA would get delayed or softened. We spent it building toward it. For European users, July 1 means fewer options, stricter standards, and a much shorter list of platforms they can actually trust. We intend to be at the top of that list, not just because we’re authorized, but because we built a product that is safe by design. The license confirms what was already true.”
Utorg’s products available to EEA residents
From July 1, EEA users can continue to access Utorg’s full product suite through the Utorg App, including:
- A crypto wallet supporting buy, send, receive, store, and swap across 170+ cryptocurrencies and 14 blockchains, including BTC, ETH, and SOL. Thanks to its non-custodial nature, Utorg has no access to users’ funds at any point.
- A crypto card accepted at 80 million+ merchants worldwide, with Google Pay and Apple Pay support and allowing users to spend their crypto as they wish. It’s worth mentioning that there are no fees for issuance, maintenance, or top-ups.
This crypto card operates under strict AML (Anti-Money Laundering) and KYC (Know Your Customer) compliance requirements, as mandated by MiCA, ensuring users benefit from the full protections afforded by EU law.
For card payments specifically, Utorg holds a PCI DSS Level 2 certificate under the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. This is the same security framework used across the traditional payments industry, and it governs how card numbers, transaction records, and personal details are stored, processed, and transmitted. Compliance is verified through regular audits by an independent assessor.
About Utorg
Founded in 2019, Utorg is a crypto infrastructure and consumer application fintech company operating across 130+ countries. It provides regulated on/off-ramp rails, wallet infrastructure, and stablecoin solutions to fintechs, exchanges, digital asset platforms and other businesses globally. Its consumer app, trusted by more than 2 million users, offers a self-custodial multi-chain wallet and a free Visa crypto card, available on iOS (in July) and Android. Utorg is MiCA-authorized and holds PCI DSS Level 2 certification.
The post Utorg Obtains MiCA License as July 1 Deadline Forces Much of the Industry Out of Europe appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Jim Cramer has named the 5 stocks he believes are best positioned to benefit from the artificial intelligence (AI) spending cycle, pointing to several chip suppliers as the market’s current winners.
Cramer argued that Wall Street is rewarding companies that supply the AI boom while punishing the Big Tech giants that fund it.
The Stocks Cramer Says Will Win
Cramer described Micron Technology (MU), Sandisk (SNDK), Intel (INTC), Marvell Technology (MRVL), and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) as the quarter’s biggest gainers.
According to him, “supply-demand imbalance” has boosted earnings growth, leading analysts to issue a wave of upgrades and lift price targets for companies across the group.
The numbers behind the memory names are extreme. Micron reported fiscal third-quarter revenue of $41.5 billion. Furthermore, it briefly topped Meta in market cap at $1.4 trillion. Bank of America has also lifted its Micron target to $1,500 from $950.
Meanwhile, other firms have also experienced notable growth. The company posted $5.95 billion in fiscal third-quarter revenue, up 97% from the prior quarter.
The stock has rallied roughly 4,800% over 12 months on AI-driven NAND demand. Citi set a $2,500 price target with a Buy rating.
Intel follows with steadier numbers, reporting first-quarter revenue of $13.6 billion, up 7% year over year. Cramer named it his new favorite.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Why Suppliers Are Beating Big Tech
Cramer explained that demand for compute has outrun supply, driving up the cost of memory chips and networking gear. That dynamic has rewarded the sellers rather than the hyperscalers writing the checks.
“Wall Street’s now rewarding tech companies with products in high demand and punishing their customers,” he said.
The pressure shows in the tape. The Magnificent 7 shed roughly $2.3 trillion in market value during June. The drop came as investors questioned whether record AI spending would generate enough profit to justify it.
Even Nvidia (NVDA), a core supplier of AI compute, has lagged the rally. Cramer attributed the drag to concerns that custom chip competition would eat into its dominance.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Jim Cramer Names 5 Top AI Spending Cycle Stocks appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke on July 1, 2026, in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing to commemorate the 105th anniversary of the ruling Chinese Communist Party.
Eunice Yoon | CNBC
BEIJING — Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday emphasized the global influence of the ruling Communist Party of China as he marked its 105th anniversary, striking a more outward-looking tone than in previous speeches.
The remarks, which lasted about 40 minutes, contrasted with Xi’s prior speeches on similar occasions that had a domestic focus on China’s “national rejuvenation.”
The Chinese Communist Party has “deeply changed the trend and trajectory of the world’s development through relentless struggle,” Xi said, according to a CNBC translation from Mandarin.
Xi, who is also the party’s general secretary, described the CCP as “the world’s largest ruling party with significant global influence.” He said the CCP enabled China to overthrow imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic capitalism, paving the way for industrialization.
The CCP was founded on July 1, 1921, and established the People’s Republic of China on Oct. 1, 1949. The economy began to open gradually to foreign investment and trade only in the last few decades and became the world’s second-largest economy in 2010.
China now accounts for about 28% of goods manufactured globally despite U.S. and EU tariffs.
Building on his frequently used phrase “changes not seen in a century,” Xi said Wednesday that those shifts were accelerating, and that “the world has entered a new era of turbulence and transformation.”
Against that backdrop, Xi said China would “promote the building of a new type of international relations,” but did not identify specific countries.
Xi is scheduled to visit the U.S. in September following President Donald Trump’s visit to Beijing in May.
“A strong country must have a strong military, and only a strong military can ensure national security,” Xi said on Wednesday.
China will raise defense spending by 7% this year, the slowest increase in its annual military expenditure since 2021, according to a budget plan released in March by the Ministry of Finance. The country ranks second to the U.S. in military spending.
Xi, now serving an unprecedented third term as president, also used the speech to bolster confidence in long-term national goals.
The Chinese leader reiterated opposition to “Taiwan independence” efforts and “external interference” in the issue, adding that “resolving the Taiwan issue and realizing complete reunification with the motherland is the party’s unwavering historical responsibility.”
On Hong Kong and Macau, Xi called for “promoting the long-term prosperity and stability,” while noting the need to support the integration of the two regions into serving China’s overall development.
Bitcoin traded near $58,700 as ETF selling, weak U.S. demand and a break below long-term support kept pressure on BTC.
Summary
- Bitcoin trades below $59,000 after U.S. spot ETF outflows reached $4.5 billion in June.
- BTC’s weekly close below the 200-week average raised focus on $58,000 and $50,000 support.
- CryptoQuant data shows weak U.S. demand, but long-term holders and whales continued accumulating Bitcoin.
Bitcoin traded near $58,690 at press time, down about 1.2% over the latest session, according to crypto.news market data. BTC moved between an intraday low of $57,891 and a high of $59,447, keeping the market close to the $58,000 support zone that traders have watched through June.
Meanwhile, the latest price action followed a weak monthly close for Bitcoin. BTC ended June in the red after falling from around $74,000 to near $58,000. June was not only a price decline, but also a shift in market structure as ETF demand, Coinbase Premium and apparent demand weakened at the same time.
The decline has brought BTC back to levels last seen during earlier stress periods. A loss of the $58,000 zone would keep sellers in control and could bring the next major area near $50,000 into view. A recovery attempt would need to reclaim higher moving averages before traders can treat the move as more than a short bounce.
Bitcoin ETF outflows deepen June pressure
U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded about $4.5 billion in net outflows in June, marking their worst month since launch in January 2024, according to SoSoValue data. The funds also posted $222.6 million in net outflows on June 30, extending a nine-day losing streak.
BlackRock’s IBIT accounted for the largest share of June withdrawals, with about $3.55 billion leaving the fund during the month. The combined June outflow passed the previous monthly record of $3.48 billion set in February 2025 by about 29%.
U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs had already seen a record 13-day outflow streak from May 15 to June 3, with about $4.37 billion leaving the products. That earlier selloff showed how ETF flows had become one of the main drivers of Bitcoin price action in 2026.
Traders had already been watching ETF flows, geopolitical risk and the $62,000 level in late June. The move below that area now shifts attention to whether BTC can defend $58,000 or if the market starts testing lower support.
200-week moving average breaks
Bitcoin also closed below its 200-week moving average for the first time since 2023, according to a Barchart post on X. The 200-week moving average is widely watched because past breakdowns below it have often appeared near deep cycle lows or long accumulation phases.
Earlier in June, $60,000 had become an important psychological and technical level for BTC. A convincing break below that zone could push traders to watch $50,000, which is close to Bitcoin’s August 2024 low near $49,445.
Bitcoin would need to regain the 30-day and 200-day moving averages to turn sentiment more positive. Those levels were far above spot price during the June selloff, showing how much work bulls face before the chart structure improves.
Some traders still view the break as a possible long-term entry point. But the short-term structure remains weak while Bitcoin trades below major averages and below its former support zone. The market now needs stronger spot demand to stop the decline from extending.
Analysts split on Bitcoin correction depth
“If this ends up holding then those who called it a mid-cycle correction will be vindicated,” analyst Matthew Hyland said in a post on X. He argued that Bitcoin’s current decline looks closer to the 2019 and 2021 mid-cycle corrections than deeper bear markets such as 2014, 2018 and 2022.
“BTC has barely seen any massive liquidation events this cycle, relative to its last cycle,” Daan Crypto Trades said on X.
He said lower open interest and lower speculation helped make this cycle’s moves slower and more controlled than the 2021 run.
“Bitcoin has officially dropped to new lows for the year of 2026,” Rekt Capital said on X. He noted that BTC had deviated about 16% below its 2021 all-time high, moving closer to the 22% deviation below the 2017 high seen during the 2022 bear market.
CryptoQuant’s XWIN Japan said June showed two sides of the market. The Coinbase Premium Index stayed negative, showing weak U.S. institutional spot demand, while apparent demand stayed deeply negative. At the same time, long-term holders kept holding, and whale accumulation remained resilient despite short-term panic selling.
Moreover, as reported by crypto.news, SpaceX disclosed 18,712 BTC in its filing, but the IPO’s $75 billion raise also competed for risk capital. That means the listing may have helped Bitcoin’s long-term corporate-treasury story while draining some near-term market liquidity.
That mix leaves Bitcoin at a key decision point. ETF flows, Coinbase Premium, apparent demand and liquidity now matter more than price alone. A rebound in these indicators could support a base near current levels. Without that shift, BTC may remain exposed to further downside below $58,000.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Phantom has hired three Ventuals creators after the Hyperliquid-based project shut down its OpenAI and Anthropic perpetual futures markets.
Summary
- Phantom has hired Ventuals creators Alvin Hsia, Emily Hsia and Aris Samad for its trading and data teams.
- Ventuals recently shut down its OpenAI and Anthropic perpetual futures markets on Hyperliquid.
- Phantom said the hires will support its deeper push into perpetual futures and Hyperliquid-based trading products.
Phantom CEO Brandon Millman said Alvin Hsia, Emily Hsia and Aris Samad, who created Ventuals, have joined the company’s trading and data teams.
The move brings one of Hyperliquid’s closely watched private-company market experiments into Phantom’s growing trading business.
Ventuals had earlier announced that it was winding down and joining another project within the Hyperliquid ecosystem. The project had gained attention for offering perpetual futures tied to private-company valuations, including markets linked to OpenAI and Anthropic, before those products were closed.
Perpetual futures allow traders to take positions on price movements without a contract expiry date. Unlike traditional futures, these contracts can remain open as long as margin conditions are met, making them one of the most used derivative products in crypto markets.
Their constant availability, deep liquidity, and flexible market design have also made them useful for trading assets beyond listed cryptocurrencies.
Phantom deepens focus on Hyperliquid trading
For Phantom, the hires come as the self-custody wallet continues adding trading-focused features to its core wallet business. The company is best known as a crypto wallet provider, but it has expanded into swaps, staking and derivatives as wallets compete to become more active financial platforms for users.
Millman said Phantom has become the largest distribution partner in the Hyperliquid ecosystem and plans to keep building around perpetual futures. He said open markets had become a major focus for the company and added that Phantom had gone deep into perps and planned to go further.
In the same statement, Millman described Hyperliquid as one of the strongest examples of what open markets can enable, citing its global liquidity and transparent onchain infrastructure. According to him, adding the Ventuals team will help Phantom move faster in developing trading products linked to the ecosystem.
The development also comes as perpetual futures gain attention outside crypto-native exchanges. Kalshi launched its own perpetual futures business last month after receiving regulatory approval, adding another example of trading platforms testing always-on derivatives beyond traditional crypto markets.
U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs recorded $4.5 billion in net outflows in June, their worst month since launching in January 2024, per SoSoValue data.
The previous record was $3.48 billion in February 2025. June’s figure beat that by 29%.
BlackRock’s IBIT, the largest fund by assets, accounted for $3.55 billion of the monthly total alone, including $212 million on June 30, the ninth consecutive day of net outflows. Total ETF assets have fallen to about $71 billion from roughly $83 billion at the start of the month.
[@portabletext/react] Unknown block type “image”, specify a component for it in the `components.types` prop
Two events may have set the streak in motion. SpaceX debuted June 12 and within days had absorbed billions in risk capital, with retail buying on its first trading day breaking all single-session records and the offering raising $75 billion in total.
Five days later, Kevin Warsh’s first Fed meeting as chair turned the dot plot toward hikes, took rate cuts off the table, and gave institutions a reason to reduce exposure to volatile assets.
Anthropic has said it will restore public access to Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 after U.S. authorities lifted export restrictions that had kept the company’s two most advanced AI models offline since June 12.
Summary
- Anthropic said public access to Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 will resume after U.S. authorities lifted export restrictions.
- The models were pulled offline after officials raised concerns over a reported jailbreak that could make Fable 5 identify software vulnerabilities.
- Anthropic said the redeployed models will include new classifiers to block more cybersecurity-related tasks while cooperation with the U.S. government expands.
According to Anthropic, the decision followed “a series of productive conversations” with the U.S. government, after which the company began redeploying the models with new classifiers designed to identify and block more cybersecurity-related tasks.
The company said the latest safeguards are meant to address government concerns linked to possible misuse if the systems are bypassed through jailbreak methods.
The restrictions had forced Anthropic to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for all users earlier this month, after a U.S. government export control directive instructed the company to block both models for all foreign nationals.
In its June 13 statement, Anthropic said the order also covered foreign-national employees working inside the company, prompting it to disable the models entirely to ensure compliance.
U.S. government clears redeployment after review
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said on X on Wednesday that officials had worked with Anthropic over the past two weeks to review and approve Fable 5 while keeping the model aligned with U.S. government requirements.
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles also said on X that the government’s priority was to get the best AI technology deployed “as quickly and safely as possible.”
The intervention came after officials became aware of a report in which Amazon researchers found a method to bypass Fable 5’s safeguards and make the model identify software vulnerabilities.
Anthropic, however, has argued that the reported issue was not unique to Fable 5, saying weaker models could also identify the same vulnerabilities and produce similar exploit-related output.
In its earlier response to the order, the company said authorities had presented only verbal evidence of what it described as a narrow, non-universal jailbreak. Anthropic said such a method did not remove a model’s safety protections across a wide range of tasks, unlike a universal jailbreak.
“We disagree that the finding of a narrow potential jailbreak should be cause for recalling a commercial model deployed to hundreds of millions of people. If this standard was applied across the industry, we believe it would essentially halt all new model deployments for all frontier model providers.”
The company had also warned that treating a narrow jailbreak as a reason to recall a commercial frontier model could affect the entire AI industry if applied as a general standard.
Restrictions on Anthropic have raised policy concerns outside the United States as well. On June 29, Austria urged the European Union to explore establishing Anthropic within the bloc, with State Secretary for Digitalization Alexander Proell arguing in a letter that Europe should not risk losing access to major AI advances because of decisions made elsewhere.
Anthropic expands cooperation on AI safety
Alongside the model redeployment, Anthropic said it is increasing cooperation with the U.S. government on model testing, safeguards, and misuse tracking. The company said this will include pre-release access to models and safety systems for evaluation, information sharing on jailbreaks and misuse, and dedicated resources for joint research.
Anthropic has also started drafting a framework with Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and other partners through Project Glasswing, a cybersecurity collaboration announced in April, to assess the severity of AI jailbreaks. The company said the framework is being developed as a consensus effort for classifying jailbreak risks.
The access debate came as Anthropic has continued its push for stricter frontier AI oversight. In its June 11 “Policy on the AI Exponential” proposal, the company called for testing requirements, independent evaluations, cybersecurity standards, and enforcement measures for advanced AI systems, citing potential biological, cybersecurity, and operational risks.
Key Takeaways
- On June 26, XRP touched $1.009, marking its lowest level since November 2024
- Despite the price decline, XRP spot ETF inflows remained in positive territory
- Technical analysis reveals a sustained downtrend originating from July 2025
- Open Interest has found equilibrium around 400 million XRP, indicating reduced speculative fervor
- Bullish divergence patterns on daily timeframes hint at potentially weakening bearish momentum near the $1 threshold
On June 26, 2026, XRP declined to $1.009, representing the token’s lowest point since it last visited these levels in November 2024.
The decline occurred against a backdrop of continuing positive flows into XRP spot exchange-traded funds. Market participants continued accumulating through these investment vehicles despite downward price momentum.
While ETF accumulation reduces circulating supply available for trading, this dynamic has yet to catalyze upward price movement given prevailing market sentiment.
Overall market appetite for XRP has diminished considerably over recent months, accompanied by a notable contraction in speculative trading activity.
Technical Analysis Overview
The daily timeframe reveals XRP locked in a downward trajectory that originated in July 2025. The decisive break beneath the April 2025 swing low at $1.61, which occurred in February, validated the bearish market structure.
Following this breakdown, XRP consolidated within a defined range for multiple months. Late May witnessed an aggressive selling wave that shattered this consolidation pattern and accelerated the downside move.
A temporary recovery pushed prices toward $1.30 before momentum faded, leaving XRP hovering around $1.05.
Futures market data indicates Open Interest has stabilized at approximately 400 million XRP. The corresponding Open Interest Turnover Ratio has maintained levels near 0.71.
According to analyst Arab Chain, market participants should monitor these indicators for sudden increases. Rapid expansion in either Open Interest or turnover ratio typically precedes elevated volatility periods.
Examining the 4-hour chart, XRP rallied to $1.2935 during mid-June. This advance reached the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement zone around $1.2985 before encountering renewed selling pressure.
Should the bearish trajectory persist, potential downside objectives emerge at $0.975 and $0.854. Market probabilities favored a breach below $1 during July.
Potential Support Dynamics
An alternative technical interpretation presents a more constructive outlook. XRP has consistently rebounded from the $0.90-$1.00 zone, establishing this region as durable support through multiple challenges.
The $1.13 level has transitioned from support into resistance. A successful reclaim of this threshold would indicate emerging bullish momentum.
A bullish divergence pattern on daily charts has persisted for approximately one week. Such formations typically suggest diminishing selling intensity rather than imminent capitulation.
On social platforms, trader Celal Kucuker stated XRP should maintain current support levels and projected a potential climb to $10 within the next twelve months, acknowledging significant volatility along that path.
Technical analyst ChartNerd identified a repeating accumulation structure observed during previous bear cycles, highlighting historical drawdowns ranging from 85% to 96% spanning 14 to 37 months, contrasting with the current 72% retracement over 11 months.
The immediate focus centers on the $1.00 threshold. Maintaining this level preserves the possibility of retesting $1.13 resistance, while a breakdown would expose the $0.87-$0.90 support zone.
Harvey Weinstein rushed to hospital after suffering heart failure
Topps Tiles cuts profit forecast as heatwave disrupts UK construction and tile sales
Taiwan Lawmakers Approve Crypto and Stablecoin Regulatory Rules
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
-
Politics5 days agoThe House | Manchesterism won’t survive the painful trade-offs unless it gets citizens on board
-
Crypto World1 day agoStrategy authorizes up to $1.25B in Bitcoin sales under new capital plan
-
Politics5 days agoPotential 2028er World Cup attendee leaderboard
-
Business5 days agoAsia stock markets slide as tech shares slump
-
News Videos3 days agoMAJOR BITCOIN & MARKET UPDATE!!!! (MUST WATCH ASAP!!!)
-
Tech6 days agoA Look At A Gaggle Of Transputer Boards
-
Crypto World6 days agoDell (DELL) Shares Tumble Over 5% Following Analyst Downgrade to Hold
-
Crypto World4 days agoCoinbase, Circle Deepen Crypto Stock Losses Despite Resilient S&P 500
-
Business1 day agoAustralia treasurer says alleged access of prime minister’s bank data ’incredibly concerning’
-
Crypto World4 days agoKraken's xStocks Opens Bending Spoons IPO Registration to EEA Retail
-
Sports4 days agoFIH Pro League: India defeat Pakistan 7-1, register biggest win of campaign | Other Sports News
-
Crypto World5 days agoBitcoin Sparks $600M Hourly Liquidations With $65,000 Set To Become Resistance
-
Tech3 days agoBluekit phishing kit adopts browser-in-the-middle for login theft
-
Tech4 days agoRussian hackers now target Signal backup recovery keys
-
Crypto World5 days agoHyperliquid Named on Singapore MAS Investor Alert Register
-
Crypto World6 days agoRipple and SBI launch RLUSD in Japan after JFSA approval
-
Crypto World5 days agoRTX holders must register wallets before token distribution begins
-
Business2 days agoThe AI boom won’t burst all at once. It will pop in ‘rolling bubbles’: Macquarie
-
Tech1 day agoAnonymous researcher drops 0-day ‘exploitarium’ repo
You must be logged in to post a comment Login