Crypto World

What is a crypto trust bank? Charters, custody, and the Fed Master Account

Published

4 weeks ago

27 June 2026

BMO brings tokenized cash and deposits to CME’s 24/7 settlement rails

A wave of crypto firms, from Ripple to Circle, have won national trust bank charters, and several are chasing a Federal Reserve master account. This guide explains what a crypto trust bank actually is, what a charter does and does not grant, and why the real prize sits at the central bank.

Summary

A crypto trust bank is a chartered trust institution that custodies digital assets and manages stablecoin reserves, bringing crypto custody inside the regulated banking system without being a full retail bank.
A national trust charter lets a crypto firm custody its own assets and reserves and obviate the patchwork of state money-transmitter licenses, but it cannot take ordinary deposits or carry federal deposit insurance.
In 2025 and 2026, a wave of crypto firms, including Ripple, Circle, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, and others, won conditional national trust charters.
The bigger prize is a Federal Reserve master account, which would give direct access to the central bank’s payment rails and let a firm hold reserves at the Fed itself, something no crypto-native firm has yet achieved.
Charters and master accounts primarily benefit stablecoins and custody businesses by deepening their regulatory standing, marking crypto’s convergence with traditional banking.

A crypto trust bank is a chartered financial institution, supervised like a bank, whose purpose is to custody assets and provide fiduciary services rather than to take deposits and make loans, and which a crypto firm uses to hold digital assets and manage stablecoin reserves inside the regulated banking system. That definition contains the key to understanding the whole subject: a trust bank is a real, regulated bank, but a specialized kind, built around safekeeping and trust services rather than the deposit-taking and lending that define ordinary retail banks.

In 2025 and 2026, a remarkable wave of crypto firms obtained or pursued these charters, transforming companies once seen as outside the financial system into federally supervised institutions, a shift that marks one of the clearest signs yet of crypto converging with traditional banking. This guide explains what a trust bank is, what a national trust charter actually grants a crypto firm and what it pointedly does not, why so many crypto companies suddenly wanted one, the even larger prize of a Federal Reserve master account, and what the whole development means for stablecoins, for the industry, and for users.

The reason this matters is that the relationship between crypto and the banking system has been one of the defining tensions of the industry’s history. For years, crypto firms depended on traditional banks to hold their customers’ money and connect them to the financial system, a dependence that became a serious vulnerability during periods of regulatory pressure and bank failures, when crypto companies found their accounts closed or their banking partners collapsing.

The move to obtain trust charters is, in large part, an effort to end that dependence by bringing crypto firms inside the regulated banking system on their own terms. This guide covers what a trust bank is, the powers and limits of a charter, the 2025-2026 wave of approvals, a worked example of how a charter changes a stablecoin issuer’s position, the central-bank master account that is the ultimate goal, what it all means for stablecoins, and the genuine limits and risks that the headlines often gloss over.

What a trust bank is

Start with the institution itself, because the word “bank” carries assumptions that a trust bank does not always meet. In traditional finance, a trust bank is a bank that specializes in custody and fiduciary services rather than in the deposit-taking and lending that most people associate with banking. Its core business is holding assets on behalf of clients, safeguarding them, and managing them in a fiduciary capacity, meaning with a legal duty to act in the client’s interest.

Trust banks have long existed to custody securities, manage estates and trusts, and provide safekeeping for institutions, and they are regulated as banks, but their activities are narrower and, in important ways, less risky than those of a full-service commercial bank, because they are not lending out customer money or running the maturity mismatches that make ordinary banking risky.

This specialization is exactly what makes the trust bank model attractive to crypto firms. A crypto company’s central regulated need is custody: safely holding digital assets and, for stablecoin issuers, holding and managing the reserve assets that back their tokens. A trust bank charter is purpose-built for precisely this kind of safekeeping and fiduciary activity, which is why crypto firms gravitated to it instead of to a full commercial banking charter that would saddle them with powers and obligations they neither need nor want.

By becoming a trust bank, a crypto firm gains the regulated standing and supervisory oversight of a banking institution while staying within the narrower scope of custody and trust services that match its actual business.

Understanding that a trust bank is a custody-and-fiduciary institution, not a deposit-and-lending one, is the foundation for understanding everything a crypto trust charter does and does not provide.

What a national trust charter grants, and what it does not

A national trust charter, granted in the United States by the federal regulator that oversees national banks, gives a crypto firm a specific and valuable set of capabilities, and it is important to be precise about both what it includes and what it excludes. On the positive side, the charter allows the firm to operate as a federally supervised trust bank, custodying digital assets and, under expanded rules, managing stablecoin reserves and providing certain payment-related services.

Crucially, it lets the firm custody its own assets and reserves directly, instead of depending on a third-party bank, and it can obviate the need for the patchwork of separate state money-transmitter licenses that crypto firms have historically had to collect state by state, replacing a fragmented compliance burden with a single federal charter. It also confers the legitimacy and oversight of a banking institution, which matters enormously to the institutional clients a crypto firm wants to serve.

The exclusions are just as important, and they are where headlines often mislead. A national trust charter does not make a crypto firm a full bank in the everyday sense. It does not permit the firm to take ordinary deposits, the way a retail bank accepts checking and savings accounts. It does not come with federal deposit insurance, the government protection that backs ordinary bank deposits up to a limit, because trust banks generally do not hold the kind of deposits that insurance covers.

And it does not authorize the firm to lend, to run the credit business at the heart of commercial banking. So when a crypto firm “becomes a bank” via a trust charter, it gains custody, reserve management, and regulated standing, but it does not gain the ability to take insured deposits or make loans. This distinction is not a quibble; it is central to understanding what these charters actually mean, because a customer who assumes a chartered crypto trust bank offers the same protections as an insured retail bank would be mistaken, and that misunderstanding could matter a great deal in a crisis.

Why crypto firms suddenly want them

The sudden rush of crypto firms toward trust charters in 2025 and 2026 was not coincidental, and understanding the motivations explains the strategic logic. The first and most fundamental driver is independence from third-party banks. For most of crypto’s history, firms relied on partner banks to hold customer funds, custody reserves, and connect to the financial system, and that dependence proved dangerous: during periods of regulatory pressure and amid a series of bank failures, crypto companies found their banking relationships severed or their partner banks collapsing, threatening their operations through no fault of their own. A trust charter lets a firm custody its own assets and reserves directly, removing that single point of failure and the strategic vulnerability it created.

The second driver is regulatory tailwind. A shift in the political and regulatory environment toward a more accommodating posture on crypto opened a path for these charters that had been effectively closed before, and the federal regulator approved a cluster of crypto firms in a coordinated wave, signaling a broader acceptance of crypto-native institutions in the banking system.

The third driver is the rise of stablecoin regulation: as comprehensive rules for stablecoins took shape, holding a trust charter aligned a firm with the likely requirements, particularly around the custody and management of reserves, positioning compliant issuers ahead of the curve. The fourth is simple competitive and reputational advantage: a federally chartered trust bank carries a legitimacy that a lightly regulated startup cannot match, and for firms courting banks, asset managers, and corporations as clients, that regulated standing is a powerful selling point.

Together, these drivers, independence, regulatory opening, stablecoin alignment, and legitimacy, explain why a long list of major crypto firms pursued charters at once, turning what had been a fringe idea into an industry-wide movement.

A worked example: a stablecoin issuer with and without a charter

To see why a charter matters in practice, compare a stablecoin issuer’s position before and after obtaining one, because the contrast makes the abstract benefits concrete.

Without a charter, a stablecoin issuer must rely on third-party banks to hold the reserve assets that back its tokens, the cash and short-term government securities that give the stablecoin its value. This dependence creates several vulnerabilities. The issuer is exposed to the health of its partner banks, so if one of them fails or freezes the account, the reserves and the stablecoin itself are jeopardized, a danger that became vividly real when a stablecoin temporarily lost its peg after a bank holding part of its reserves collapsed. The issuer must also navigate a patchwork of state-by-state money-transmitter licenses, a costly and fragmented compliance burden, and it lacks the regulated standing that would reassure cautious institutional users.

With a national trust charter, the same issuer’s position is transformed. It can custody its own reserve assets directly through its chartered trust bank, under federal supervision, removing the dependence on potentially fragile third-party banks. In some cases the firm gains oversight at both the federal and state level, a dual-supervision structure that few stablecoin issuers can match and that serves as a strong signal of credibility to institutions evaluating whether to trust the stablecoin.

The single federal charter can replace much of the state-by-state licensing burden, simplifying compliance. And the regulated standing of a trust bank reassures the banks, asset managers, and corporations the issuer wants as customers, lowering the barrier to adoption. The worked comparison shows the charter’s real value clearly: it converts a stablecoin issuer from a firm dependent on outside banks and a fragmented license patchwork into a federally supervised institution that controls its own reserves and carries banking-grade legitimacy. That transformation is precisely why stablecoin issuers were among the most eager pursuers of these charters.

The real prize: a Federal Reserve master account

As valuable as a trust charter is, it is a stepping stone to something larger, and the ultimate goal for the most ambitious crypto firms is a Federal Reserve master account. A master account is the account a financial institution holds directly with the central bank, and it represents the deepest possible integration into the financial system. It grants direct access to the central bank’s payment rails, the core networks through which money moves between institutions, and access to base money held at the central bank itself, instead of balances held at a commercial bank. For most of the financial system, this kind of direct central-bank access is reserved for traditional banks, and obtaining it is the difference between operating at the edge of the system and operating at its core.

For a crypto firm, particularly a stablecoin issuer, the appeal of a master account is profound. It would allow the firm to hold the reserves backing its stablecoin directly at the central bank, the safest possible place to keep them, eliminating the counterparty risk of relying on commercial banks and giving institutions unparalleled confidence in the stablecoin’s solvency and the safety of its redemptions. It would also allow direct settlement through the central bank’s payment systems, a powerful capability for a payments-focused firm.

The obstacle is that the bar is extraordinarily high, and no crypto-native firm has yet been granted a master account. The central bank has historically been cautious about extending this access to non-traditional institutions, uninsured trust banks face the most stringent review, and previous attempts by crypto-adjacent firms to win access have been denied. Several chartered crypto firms have applied and are waiting, with no guaranteed outcome and no clear timeline. The master account is the real prize precisely because it is so hard to win and so transformative if won, marking the moment a crypto-native firm would plug directly into the heart of the financial system.

What it means for stablecoins and the industry

Stepping back, the trust-charter wave is, more than anything, a stablecoin story, and seeing why clarifies the whole development. The firms most eager for charters were heavily those with stablecoin businesses, because the charter speaks directly to a stablecoin issuer’s central regulated needs: custodying and managing the reserve assets that back the token, doing so under credible supervision, and removing the dependence on third-party banks that has repeatedly threatened stablecoins in the past.

As comprehensive stablecoin regulation took shape, a trust charter became close to a prerequisite for operating a serious, institutionally trusted stablecoin in the United States, and the firms that obtained charters positioned their stablecoins as the most credible and best-supervised in the market. The dual oversight some of them gained, federal and state, became a competitive selling point, a way to signal to institutions that the stablecoin’s reserves are held to banking-grade standards.

The broader significance is the convergence of crypto and traditional banking. The trust-charter wave marks the moment when crypto firms stopped operating outside the regulated banking system and began entering it as supervised institutions, accepting the obligations of banking regulation in exchange for its legitimacy and stability. This is a profound shift from crypto’s early ethos of operating apart from, and often in opposition to, the traditional financial system. It signals a maturing industry in which the leading firms seek the same regulated standing as banks, and in which the line between a crypto company and a financial institution blurs. For the industry, this convergence brings legitimacy, stability, and access, the ability to custody assets safely, serve institutional clients, and integrate with the financial system.

It also brings the constraints of regulation, the compliance burdens, capital requirements, and supervision that come with a banking charter. The trust-charter wave is, in essence, crypto’s leading firms choosing to join the financial system instead of replacing it, which is one of the most consequential shifts in the industry’s trajectory.

Risks and limits to understand

For all the significance of the trust-charter movement, several risks and limits deserve clear attention, because the headlines tend to overstate what these charters mean. The most important point for any user is the one already emphasized: a crypto trust bank is not a full, insured retail bank. It does not carry federal deposit insurance, so assets held with a chartered crypto trust bank do not enjoy the government protection that backs ordinary bank deposits up to a limit.

A customer who assumes a “crypto bank” offers the same safety net as an insured retail bank is mistaken, and in a failure scenario, that misunderstanding could be costly. The charter brings supervision and legitimacy, which are real, but it does not transform custody into an insured deposit, and that distinction must not be lost.

Other limits and risks are substantial. The Federal Reserve master account that many firms seek remains unattained by any crypto-native firm and is far from assured, so the deepest integration into the financial system, and the reserve-safety benefits that come with it, are still aspirational instead of achieved. The charters themselves are often conditional, meaning the firms must still satisfy capital, governance, and risk-management standards before operating fully, and conditional approval is not the same as a fully operational bank.

Traditional banking groups have opposed extending charters and central-bank access to crypto firms, citing systemic-risk concerns, and that opposition could shape how far the privileges extend. There is also regulatory and political risk: the accommodating posture that opened the path to these charters could shift, and supervisory expectations could tighten. And the convergence itself carries a subtler risk, that bringing crypto firms inside the banking system concentrates new kinds of risk within the regulated perimeter in ways regulators are still learning to assess.

None of this negates the genuine progress the charters represent, but anyone evaluating a chartered crypto trust bank, whether as a user, an investor, or an observer, should hold a clear view of what the charter does and does not provide, treat the master account as a hope instead of a fact, and never mistake banking-grade supervision for deposit insurance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a crypto trust bank in simple terms?

A crypto trust bank is a chartered, bank-supervised institution built around custody and fiduciary services instead of deposits and lending, which a crypto firm uses to hold digital assets and manage stablecoin reserves inside the regulated banking system. It is a real, regulated bank, but a specialized kind: its job is safekeeping and trust services, not taking checking accounts or making loans. Crypto firms pursue this model because their central regulated need is custody, and a trust charter is purpose-built for exactly that, giving them banking-grade standing without the powers and obligations of a full commercial bank.

What does a national trust charter let a crypto firm do?

It lets the firm operate as a federally supervised trust bank, custodying digital assets and, under expanded rules, managing stablecoin reserves and providing certain payment-related services. Crucially, it lets the firm custody its own assets and reserves directly instead of depending on third-party banks, and it can replace the patchwork of state money-transmitter licenses with a single federal charter. It also confers the legitimacy and oversight of a banking institution. What it does not grant is the ability to take ordinary insured deposits or to make loans, so it is not a full retail bank.

Does a crypto trust bank have deposit insurance?

No, and this is one of the most important things to understand. National trust charters generally do not come with federal deposit insurance, the government protection that backs ordinary bank deposits up to a limit, because trust banks do not hold the kind of deposits that insurance covers. So assets held with a chartered crypto trust bank do not enjoy the safety net that an insured retail bank provides. A customer who assumes a “crypto bank” offers the same protection as an insured bank is mistaken, and that distinction could matter greatly in a failure. The charter brings supervision and legitimacy, not deposit insurance.

Why did so many crypto firms get charters in 2025 and 2026?

Several reasons converged. The biggest was independence from third-party banks, since crypto firms had repeatedly been hurt when partner banks closed their accounts or failed, and a charter lets a firm custody its own assets directly. A more accommodating regulatory environment opened a path that had been effectively closed, and the regulator approved a cluster of firms together. The rise of comprehensive stablecoin regulation made a charter close to a prerequisite for a serious stablecoin. And the legitimacy of a federal charter is a powerful selling point to institutional clients. Together these drove an industry-wide rush.

What is a Federal Reserve master account and why does it matter?

A master account is an account held directly with the central bank, granting direct access to its payment rails and to base money held at the central bank itself, instead of balances at a commercial bank. For a stablecoin issuer, it would allow holding reserves directly at the central bank, the safest possible place, eliminating commercial-bank counterparty risk and giving institutions strong confidence in the stablecoin’s safety. It is the real prize because it represents the deepest integration into the financial system, but the bar is extremely high, no crypto-native firm has yet been granted one, and applications remain pending with uncertain outcomes.

What does the trust-charter wave mean for the crypto industry?

It marks the convergence of crypto and traditional banking. The leading crypto firms are choosing to enter the regulated banking system as supervised institutions, accepting banking regulation in exchange for its legitimacy, stability, and access, a profound shift from crypto’s early ethos of operating apart from the traditional system. It is largely a stablecoin story, since charters speak directly to issuers’ need to custody reserves credibly. The convergence brings legitimacy and integration but also the constraints of regulation, and it signals a maturing industry whose leading firms increasingly resemble, and seek to operate alongside, traditional financial institutions.

This article is educational information, not legal, financial, or investment advice. Charter approvals, master account decisions, and regulations are evolving, and details reflect reporting available as of June 26, 2026, which can change quickly. Crucially, a chartered crypto trust bank is generally not covered by federal deposit insurance. Verify current information from primary sources before relying on anything described here.

Source link

Crypto World

More MiCA-Licensed Crypto Firms Could Leave EU Market: Gate Europe CEO

Published

1 minute ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

More MiCA-Licensed Crypto Firms Could Leave EU Market: Gate Europe CEO

Crypto companies already licensed under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) could still exit the market as compliance costs mount, according to Gate Europe’s CEO.

Giovanni Cunti told Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction on Monday that stricter regulatory requirements have made it increasingly difficult for new entrants to compete and that some licensed firms could ultimately be unable to absorb the ongoing costs of operating under the framework.

“I think there are going to be quite a few more of the ones that acquire MiCA license that will not be capable to sustain the cost and the resources that are needed to carry on this business in the long term,” Cunti said.

MiCA is the EU’s regulatory framework for crypto assets. The bloc’s 18-month transition period ended on July 1, requiring crypto firms serving EU customers to operate under authorization or cease offering regulated services.

The deadline prompted several exchanges to restrict or withdraw services in parts of Europe while licensed firms began operating under the new regime. Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume, was not able to secure a MiCA license before the deadline.

Compliance costs reshape Europe’s crypto market

Cunti also warned that MiCA’s stricter regulatory requirements could drive some crypto startups and projects outside Europe. While the framework has strengthened investor protections, he said it leaves less room for innovation than jurisdictions with lighter rules.

He said some projects may choose to launch in jurisdictions with less restrictive regulatory requirements instead of navigating the bloc’s compliance regime.

“We may need to be prepared that some projects, possibly some important projects, may be looking at other jurisdictions with different guidelines,” he said.

To be sure, the number of companies authorized under MiCA continues to grow, albeit at a slower pace.

On Friday, the European Securities and Markets Authority added 14 crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to its register, bringing the total to 294 after adding 37 firms in ESMA’s first update following the July 1 transition deadline.

Cunti said the higher regulatory burden is reshaping Europe’s competitive landscape, but the shrunken market also presents an opportunity for those remaining crypto service providers.

“There was a market with thousands of operators, and now there is a market with only hundreds,” Cunti said.

“So definitely there is a big opportunity for all of us. There is an ongoing migration because customers do not want to lose access to this market,” he added.

Magazine: The British Virgin Islands are a top crypto hub no one ever talks about: Here’s why

Source link

Crypto World

Grayscale Files S-1 for Spot Worldcoin ETF

Published

8 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Grayscale Files S-1 for Spot Worldcoin ETF

Grayscale filed an S-1 registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2026, to launch a spot Worldcoin ETF, according to the filing's EDGAR record. The filer entity, Grayscale Worldcoin ETF, is registered under file number 333-297570 and accession number… Read the full story at The Defiant

Source link

Crypto World

Morpho Launches Fixed-Rate Lending Protocol on Base

Published

14 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Morpho Launches Fixed-Rate Lending Protocol on Base

Lending protocol Morpho has launched Morpho Midnight on Base, adding fixed-rate, fixed-term loans to its onchain credit network alongside the variable-rate markets offered through Morpho Blue.

In an announcement sent to Cointelegraph, Morpho said the offer-driven protocol lets lenders and borrowers propose their own interest rates, maturities and other loan terms instead of relying on a protocol-defined utilization curve. Loans are issued as fixed obligations, with terms set through competing offers rather than algorithmic pool pricing.

Predictable rates and defined maturities are standard features of traditional credit markets. However, they remain uncommon in decentralized finance (DeFi), where borrowing costs generally fluctuate based on market utilization. Fixed terms could make onchain lending more attractive to institutions and businesses that need to manage funding costs, returns and risk exposure in advance.

A Morpho spokesperson told Cointelegraph that Midnight is live on the Base mainnet, initially supporting cbBTC and USDC across multiple maturity dates. The spokesperson said Morpho deliberately kept the launch contained as part of a progressive rollout that prioritizes security.

The spokesperson said crypto-native lenders, borrowers and curators already active on Morpho Blue had shown interest in Midnight. Several unidentified enterprises and institutions are also building products on the protocol in beta, with announcements expected as those products go live.

Morpho’s fixed-rate lending plans take shape

Morpho first outlined the fixed-rate system in 2025 under a broader “Morpho V2” roadmap. It described an intent-based, peer-to-peer marketplace where users could submit custom offers, price loans through market demand and keep capital earning variable yield until a fixed-rate offer was matched.

In April, Morpho named the fixed-rate protocol Midnight and clarified that it was not a replacement for Morpho Blue. While Blue provides open-ended, variable-rate lending pools, Midnight externalizes loan risk, interest rate and duration to market participants.

The protocol then released Midnight’s whitepaper and codebase in May, saying that its “offered capital” model was intended to avoid a recurring problem for fixed-rate DeFi protocols: liquidity being locked or fragmentation across maturity dates.

Midnight’s launch follows Morpho’s $175 million funding round in June, led by Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz’s a16z crypto and Ribbit Capital. At the time, Morpho said it planned to expand integrations with banks, asset managers and large platforms while adding features associated with traditional credit markets.

Morpho’s infrastructure already underpins variable-rate lending products distributed through major crypto platforms. In April, Coinbase launched Morpho-powered USDC loans for United Kingdom users, allowing them to borrow against Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH) and cbETH on Base.

The loans carried variable rates and no fixed repayment schedule, illustrating the open-ended borrowing model that Midnight intends to complement.

Magazine: Ethereum’s EEZ could pull other blockchains into its orbit

Source link

Crypto World

XRP Ledger pushes v3.2.0 rollout as amendment deadline nears

Published

21 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

XRP ETFs could pull $8B if CLARITY passes: the math

XRP Ledger’s v3.2.0 software has reached 66% validator adoption, with 99 validators now running the release as the network approaches a July 29 amendment activation.

Summary

XRP Ledger v3.2.0 now runs on 66% of tracked validators and 57.33% of nodes.
The fixCleanup3_2_0 amendment holds 85.71% support ahead of its July 29 activation.
The update fixes vault, lending, and permissioned DEX issues while renaming rippled to xrpld.

According to recent XRPL Explorer data, 481 nodes, or 57.33% of the tracked network, have installed v3.2.0. The figures show that the latest software has gained ground since its June rollout, although a sizeable share of operators remain on the previous release.

Version 3.1.3 still runs on 42 validators, equal to 28% of the validator set covered by the tracker. Another 323 nodes, representing 38.41% of the 825 observed nodes, also continue to use the older software.

Software adoption and amendment approval are separate processes on the XRP Ledger. Installing v3.2.0 gives operators access to the latest fixes, while an amendment requires support from at least 80% of trusted validators for two consecutive weeks before its rules can take effect.

The fixCleanup3_2_0 amendment has already crossed that voting threshold. XRP Ledger governance data shows 85.71% support, with 30 validators voting in favor and five opposing the proposal.

Having secured the required backing, the amendment is scheduled to activate on July 29, 2026, at 09:57 UTC. Support must remain at or above 80% throughout the countdown; otherwise, the network’s two-week timer will restart.

Validator backing keeps the amendment on schedule

XRPL validator Vet has urged node operators to update their software before activation so their infrastructure remains compatible with the amended protocol. Operators using unsupported versions can become amendment-blocked once new rules go live, preventing their servers from determining the valid state of the ledger.

Unlike a feature release built around new user-facing products, fixCleanup3_2_0 combines maintenance changes for functions already available on XRPL. The official v3.2.0 release announcement identifies fixes covering Single Asset Vaults, the Lending Protocol, the Permissioned decentralized exchange, Multi-Purpose Tokens, and Permissioned Domains.

For Single Asset Vaults, the package addresses accuracy and rounding issues that can affect how deposited assets and shares are calculated. Lending Protocol changes correct related accounting behavior, while the Permissioned DEX and Permissioned Domains receive fixes for problems found after their earlier implementation.

Amendment voting allows validators to decide whether those consensus-level changes should become binding across the ledger. Even though v3.2.0 is already running on most tracked validators, the amendment will not alter mainnet behavior until the waiting period ends successfully.

Crypto.news reported earlier in July that fixCleanup3_2_0 had entered its final activation window after approval moved above 80%. The current 85.71% reading leaves a buffer of 5.71 percentage points, but XRPL rules still require support to hold until the scheduled activation time.

XRPSCAN’s amendment tracker lists fixCleanup3_2_0 as a proposal introduced through version 3.2.0. Its status also means operators must install compatible software even though running the release does not automatically count as an affirmative amendment vote.

Version 3.2.0 prepares XRPL infrastructure for new activity

Released in mid-June, v3.2.0 has also changed the name of the XRP Ledger’s core server software from “rippled” to “xrpld.” The rename follows XLS-0095, a technical proposal intended to align the server’s identity more directly with the XRP Ledger.

The change affects more than the executable’s name. Under XRPL’s migration instructions, operators moving from version 3.1.3 must update the configuration file from rippled.cfg to xrpld.cfg, along with related paths and deployment settings.

Node operators may also need to revise database directories, package references, scripts, service definitions, and server metadata. XRPL documentation provides a migration process designed to preserve existing node data while replacing the former server naming conventions.

Beyond the rename, the XRP Ledger development team describes v3.2.0 as a cleanup and maintenance release. The software retires amendments that have remained active for more than two years and continues work to divide the libxrpl codebase into smaller modules, which can make future development and maintenance easier.

Those infrastructure changes arrive while projects are testing new payment uses on the ledger. Ripple-backed t54.ai recently reported that XRPL had processed more than 1 million AI-driven payments through the x402 protocol and launched an AI Hub for agents, developers and payment services.

According to t54.ai, the hub was developed with support from Ripple developers and the XRP Ledger Foundation. It collects AI projects, autonomous agents, developer tools, payment services and technical resources in one place for teams building XRPL applications.

With eight days remaining before the scheduled amendment date, validator voting has kept fixCleanup3_2_0 on course. The remaining task falls to node operators still running older software, as the July 29 activation will apply the maintenance rules across the XRP Ledger if approval stays above the required level.

Source link

Crypto World

Bitcoin Hits two-week high as Remittix surpasses $31m after huge ecosystem expansion

Published

27 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Bitcoin traders face possible 70% drawdown with $38k target in play

Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.

Bitcoin’s recent rally and ETF inflows are boosting market sentiment as traders look beyond BTC to emerging projects such as Remittix.

Summary

Bitcoin’s rally shifts attention to Remittix as its presale surpasses $31 million and ecosystem expansion continues.
Remittix tops $31 million in presale funding as Bitcoin’s rebound fuels interest in emerging crypto projects.
Remittix nears a $32 million presale milestone as Bitcoin strength revives demand for altcoin opportunities.

Bitcoin has returned to the centre of market attention after climbing to around $65,500, its highest level in roughly two weeks. The move came as risk appetite improved, chip stocks rebounded and U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded five straight sessions of inflows worth more than $600 million.

The return of Bitcoin momentum is now pushing traders to look across the wider crypto market for altcoins with stronger growth potential. One of the projects gaining attention is Remittix, which has now passed $31 million in its presale after announcing a major ecosystem expansion through Remittix Markets.

Bitcoin momentum puts altcoins back on watch

Bitcoin remains the biggest signal for the wider crypto market. Recent coverage showed Bitcoin reaching the $65,500 area before traders began watching whether the move could hold, while CoinDesk also reported that Bitcoin had previously pulled back after hitting a similar monthly high as profit-taking entered the market.

That matters because Bitcoin strength often helps bring attention back to higher-growth altcoin plays. When Bitcoin stabilises or pushes higher, investors usually begin searching for smaller projects with clearer catalysts, stronger upside narratives and upcoming launch events.

Remittix surpasses $31m as RTX momentum builds

Remittix has now passed $31 million in its presale, putting the project close to the key $32 million milestone where the team is expected to reveal the official launch date.

That gives RTX a clear near-term catalyst at a time when traders are looking beyond Bitcoin for new opportunities. The project has also confirmed a wider ecosystem direction, with PayFi, Remittix Markets and future Earn products becoming the core story around RTX.

This is why Remittix is starting to stand out. It is not only a presale with a launch countdown. It is becoming a product-led ecosystem built around crypto payments, trading access and real-world utility.

PayFi targets a massive payments problem

The strongest part of the Remittix story is still its PayFi platform.

Crypto is easy to buy, hold and trade, but using it for normal bank payments remains difficult. Users often need exchanges, wallet transfers, conversions and withdrawal steps before digital assets can become usable fiat.

Remittix is designed to solve that problem by letting users send crypto to any bank account in the world, while the recipient receives fiat directly. That gives the project a clear use case in the global payments industry, which Remittix positions as a $19 trillion opportunity.

The platform is now fully developed and has already been tested by members of the community. That gives RTX a stronger foundation before launch than projects relying only on future promises.

Remittix markets expands the ecosystem

Remittix has also revealed Remittix Markets, its new perpetual futures trading platform.

This adds a second major growth layer to RTX. PayFi gives Remittix its real-world payments angle, while Remittix Markets adds trading activity, perps demand and another reason for users to engage with the ecosystem.

As Bitcoin hits a two-week high and traders search for the next high-growth altcoin story, Remittix is building momentum with a developed PayFi platform, a major ecosystem expansion and a $32 million launch date reveal milestone now approaching.

Discover the future of PayFi with Remittix by checking out their project here.

FAQ

Why is Bitcoin in focus right now?
Bitcoin is in focus after climbing to around $65,500, its highest level in roughly two weeks, supported by renewed risk appetite and spot Bitcoin ETF inflows.

How much has Remittix raised so far?
Remittix has now passed $31 million in its presale and is approaching the $32 million milestone for its official launch date reveal.

What makes Remittix different from other presales?
Remittix has a fully developed PayFi platform tested by community members and has expanded the RTX ecosystem with Remittix Markets, its new perps trading platform.

Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.

Source link

Crypto World

Wrapped Ethereum Just Logged a Five-Year Whale Record: Here’s Why It Matters for ETH

Published

34 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Wrapped Ethereum (WETH) recorded 113,000 whale transactions worth more than $100,000 over the past week. This figure is its highest level since May 2021, according to on-chain analytics platform Santiment.

The surge indicates that significant capital is moving through Ethereum’s trading, lending, liquidity, and decentralized finance (DeFi) infrastructure rather than remaining idle in wallets.

WETH Whale Activity

Santiment, in its latest post on X, revealed that the increase coincides with several signs of rising demand for Ethereum. These include accelerating inflows into US spot Ether ETFs, with BlackRock’s ETH products absorbing a large share of recent inflows, as well as growing activity on Robinhood Chain, which uses ETH for gas and has processed heavy decentralized exchange (DEX) volume since its July 1 launch.

The analytics firm also pointed to increasing corporate treasury participation, as it highlighted Bitmine’s holdings of around 5.8 million ETH and backing from Bitmine, SharpLink, and Joe Lubin for Ethlabs to cater to the increasing institutional demand for Ethereum.

While they do not guarantee a price rally, these factors are worth paying attention to.

Next Key Levels

As for ETH’s price, the world’s largest altcoin by market cap, climbed to $1,934 on Wednesday, rising by almost 9% on the week and 4.5% on the day. Earlier, crypto analyst Ali Martinez said Ethereum remains above the “must hold” level of $1,850; its next upside target would be $2,300.

MN Trading founder Michaël van de Poppe also believes that if the crypto asset holds the crucial support zone above $1,800, it should “trigger a continuation upwards.”

A similar projection was made by another analyst, Tony Research, who said ETH could first climb above $2,000, with a move toward the $2,200 area possible if Bitcoin reaches $70,000. However, the rally is expected to be followed by seven to 10 days of distribution before Ethereum falls into a final bottom zone between $1,260 and $890, which the analyst described as a dollar-cost averaging (DCA) opportunity.

According to the forecast, that decline would pave the way for a new bull cycle, with Ethereum eventually targeting $7,000.

The post Wrapped Ethereum Just Logged a Five-Year Whale Record: Here’s Why It Matters for ETH appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

Bitcoin Joins Stocks Ignoring Macro Pressures To Eye $67,000

Published

40 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Bitcoin Joins Stocks Ignoring Macro Pressures To Eye $67,000

Bitcoin (BTC) built on gains at Tuesday’s Wall Street open as crypto echoed resilient US stock markets.

Key points:

BTC price action approached $67,000 despite new geopolitical and macroeconomic pressures.
Neither the US-Iran war nor proposed international trade tariffs were able to disrupt risk-asset upside.
Bitcoin needed a reclaim of its 21-week simple moving average to challenge the bear market, analysis warned.

Bitcoin, stocks ignore Iran war, fresh US tariffs

Data from TradingView showed BTC/USD approaching $67,000, closing in on seven-week highs.

BTC/USD one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Upward momentum that began the day showed little signs of stopping despite macro conditions that seem to favor a risk-off mindset.

The US-Iran war saw further escalation on the day as Iran struck Amazon facilities in Bahrain in response to US strikes, while the Strait of Hormuz oil route remained closed.

As a result, WTI crude oil prices reached their highest levels in over a month, nearing $85 per barrel.

CFDs on WTI crude oil one-day chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

Multiple media reported US president Donald Trump plans to introduce new 10% international trade tariffs. These would follow 50% measures imposed on Canada this week.

Despite these notional headwinds for crypto and risk assets, traders attributed the lack of bearish reactions to expectations that the situation would ultimately resolve in markets’ favor.

“Markets are pricing in peace,” YouTube channel host Crypto Rover summarized in a post on X to their 1.6 million followers.

Caleb Franzen, creator of Bitcoin and macro analysis resource Cubic Analytics, was confident about the near-term trend in the S&P 500 index.

“I reiterate… I have zero fear, concern, or worry with S&P 500 futures looking like this,” he told X followers on Monday.

S&P 500 futures one-day chart. Source: Caleb Franzen/X

To be sure, words of caution came from figures such as JPMorgan CEO, Jamie Dimon, who warned that markets were treating current risks too lightly.

BTC price needs 21-week trendline reclaim: Analyst

While some traders looked for a retest of levels up to and including $70,000, Keith Alan, cofounder of trading resource Material Indicators, was conversely cautious on the BTC price outlook.

Despite a “golden cross” involving the 21-day and 50-day simple moving averages (SMAs) on Monday, the bear market, he warned, had gone nowhere.

“Bear Markets don’t always look like Bear Markets, especially in lower timeframes,” he wrote in his latest X analysis.

“The macro trend will be challenged if Bitcoin pushes above the 21-Week SMA. Until that happens, the Bear Market remains intact.”

BTC/USD one-day chart with 21-week, 50-week SMA.
Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

The 21-week SMA stood at $69,720 at the time of writing, coinciding with Bitcoin’s then-all-time high from 2021.

Alan acknowledged that there was “no real resistance” until $67,250.

Source link

Crypto World

Bitcoin’s Spot Market Remains Sluggish, but Derivatives Tell a Different Story

Published

47 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Speculative activity in the Bitcoin market is showing signs of recovery even as spot market participation remains subdued, according to Glassnode’s latest findings.

The analytics firm said spot trading activity continues to lack conviction, as Spot Volume fell below the lower statistical band of $4.5 billion, which was indicative of persistently weak liquidity and muted investor participation. Such low trading volumes typically accompany periods of consolidation, where markets struggle to build enough momentum for a decisive breakout.

At the same time, Spot Cumulative Volume Delta (CVD) showed that aggressive taker selling has eased compared to the previous week. Although the metric remains in negative territory, the narrowing deficit signals that sellers are becoming less aggressive. The reading is now sitting comfortably within its statistical range as traders reassess their market direction.

While spot markets remain quiet, derivatives data points to a gradual return of speculative appetite.

Derivatives Activity Picks Up

Futures Open Interest, for one, has climbed to $32 billion. Glassnode said the steady increase indicates traders are gradually re-establishing leveraged positions, which has led to higher participation across the futures market.

Long-Side Funding Payments, however, have declined to $1.7 million and are now close to the upper statistical threshold. According to the report, this suggests bullish positioning is still dominant, but traders are paying a smaller premium to maintain long positions. This means that aggressive bullish conviction has moderated compared to recent sessions.

Meanwhile, Perpetual CVD has recovered sharply and has reversed from a net selling bias to a positive $123.2 million. The move into positive territory points to a shift in taker behavior, as aggressive buyers are now exerting greater influence on price action than sellers.

Options Positioning Shifts

Activity in the options market has also strengthened. Options Open Interest rose to $30 billion, as capital committed to derivatives positions increased, although the figure remains slightly below the lower statistical band of $30.3 billion. Glassnode said the trend suggests traders are actively opening new positions. This potentially raises the chances of volatility around major options strike prices.

Simultaneously, the Volatility Spread has narrowed sharply and now sits comfortably within its statistical range, which indicates that implied volatility has largely aligned with realized market movements and that options traders are demanding a smaller risk premium.

This trend was also evident in the Options 25-Delta Skew, which has retreated significantly amidst weaker demand for protective put options and a moderation in bearish hedging activity as sentiment becomes more neutral.

The post Bitcoin’s Spot Market Remains Sluggish, but Derivatives Tell a Different Story appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Source link

Crypto World

Ether Surges Past $1.9K as Traders Eye $2.1K for ETH Breakout

Published

53 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Ether (ETH) is back under fresh pressure from leveraged traders after a sharp push toward the $1,950 area. Tuesday’s uptick helped trigger around $62 million in liquidations tied to bearish positions, as ETH rose roughly 29% from its June 26 low near $1,500 and briefly tested $1,950 for the first time in about seven weeks.

The price move also mirrored a broader improvement in risk appetite. Bitcoin climbed above $66,500, while US equities strengthened after investors reassessed concerns about stretched valuations following the rapid rally in artificial intelligence-related shares.

Key takeaways

ETH’s breakout attempt near $1,950 came with meaningful leverage-driven liquidations, signaling traders were positioned for downside.
Ethereum’s fundamentals are not keeping pace: DApp revenues and weekly DEX volumes remain weak versus prior months.
Record staking participation (34% of ETH supply, per StakingRewards) may dampen sell pressure, but it hasn’t yet translated into stronger onchain demand.
Derivatives indicators are less bearish than late June, yet ETH perpetual funding has struggled to stay in the typical neutral band.
Next week’s catalysts from major US tech earnings could determine whether the market’s optimism extends to crypto.

Price rally meets uneven participation across Ethereum

Despite the renewed bullish momentum, Ethereum’s activity metrics suggest caution. The network’s onchain data points to a market that is moving more because of broader sentiment than because usage is clearly re-accelerating.

According to DefiLlama, weekly revenue generated by Ethereum decentralized applications (DApps) fell to $9.8 million—the lowest level since September 2024. That matters because DApp revenue is often seen as a proxy for real demand and user willingness to pay for services, while price strength alone can be driven by derivatives positioning and macro flows.

DefiLlama data also shows decentralized exchange (DEX) volumes sliding to about $7.2 billion per week. In that environment, traders appear to be less enthusiastic about the kinds of high-turnover assets that typically boost activity, including memecoins and certain utility tokens.

The revenue picture is similarly mixed among top applications. DefiLlama notes that some prominent projects have been under pressure on the year, with losses of 50% or more year-to-date reported for tokens including Ethena (ENA), Mantle (MNT), and Arbitrum (ARB). While individual performance doesn’t automatically determine Ethereum’s direction, broad weakness in major ecosystems can limit organic demand during upswings.

Derivatives coolness suggests traders aren’t fully convinced

ETH’s rally has been accompanied by shifts in derivatives sentiment, but not a decisive reset to confident positioning. Laevitas data indicates that the annualized funding rate on ETH perpetual futures has had trouble remaining consistently in a “neutral” 6%–12% range during the past month.

That is an important nuance: when funding stays near neutral, it often indicates more balanced long and short demand. When funding persistently drifts away from that zone, it can suggest one-sided positioning that raises the risk of reversals.

Still, sentiment has improved compared with late June, when funding rates turned negative and reflected stronger bearish demand. The improvement aligns with expectations that staking activity could help reduce downside exposure.

Staking hits a new participation record, but the market still wants catalysts

A key support factor for ETH’s structure has been staking. StakingRewards data shows that a record 34% of the total ETH supply is now staked, up from 33% just one month earlier. In practical terms, higher staking participation can reduce the amount of liquid ETH available for selling, which may lower immediate sell pressure during price rebounds.

The staking narrative is reinforced by continued institutional accumulation activity. The article’s source references Tom Lee’s Bitmine Immersion (BMNR US), which reportedly added 156,719 ETH over the past month, bringing its stake to 4.8% of available supply. Separately, earlier coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted Bitmine’s Ethereum staking generation, underscoring how large holders are positioning through staking rather than liquid trading.

Even so, staking participation alone may not be enough to sustain an upswing if onchain demand remains subdued. The same onchain picture that shows low DApp revenue and declining DEX volumes also helps explain why the derivatives market hasn’t fully “opened the throttle” for longs. In other words: the capital on the sidelines may be more willing to absorb downside than to chase upside.

ETH is also still far from its August 2025 all-time high—reported as 61% below that peak—which can weigh on risk appetite. Traders may remain reluctant to pile in until they see clearer evidence that activity and demand are broadening beyond a macro-driven bounce.

Earnings from US megacaps could influence whether ETH breaks higher

Ether’s ability to extend gains toward the next major psychological level—often framed as $2,100—likely depends on whether risk appetite stays elevated across both traditional markets and crypto. On Tuesday, the immediate backdrop was favorable: stock strength helped ease concerns tied to valuation worries after a fast-moving AI-driven rally.

Looking ahead, the market will be watching corporate results for cues on whether the “risk-on” trend can persist. The report points to 3M Company’s (MMM) earnings after Tuesday’s open as part of the early week catalyst calendar. More importantly for the crypto complex, it also highlights Alphabet’s earnings scheduled for Wednesday after US markets close.

Investors are reportedly focused on cloud services growth, with expectations cited as 64% growth in cloud revenue, amid heavy AI investment. If results and guidance reinforce a stable macro backdrop, it could help restore confidence across risk assets—potentially giving ETH the additional momentum it needs to test higher levels without relying primarily on liquidation-driven moves.

For traders and long-term observers alike, the next signals to watch are straightforward: whether ETH can hold above the recent breakout zone after the liquidation wave, whether DEX volumes and DApp revenue continue to stabilize instead of drifting lower, and whether derivatives funding moves back toward a more sustainably neutral range as macro catalysts land.

Source link

Crypto World

BIS exposes how stablecoins are slipping past capital controls

Published

60 minutes ago

22 July 2026

NewsAdmin

Stablecoins quietly out‑settle Visa as Coinbase crowns them the internet’s real money

BIS researchers have found that dollar-backed stablecoin inflows across more than 130 economies remain largely unaffected by capital controls, exposing a growing challenge for emerging-market governments.

Summary

BIS found stablecoin inflows remain largely unaffected by capital controls across more than 130 economies.
Dollar-backed tokens are expanding in emerging markets facing inflation, weak currencies and limited foreign exchange access.
Nigeria and Latin America show growing stablecoin use for remittances, trade settlement and cross-border payments.

The BIS study compared stablecoin inflows with foreign-currency bank deposits to examine how households and businesses gain exposure to the U.S. dollar during periods of financial stress. Both forms of dollarization increased alongside sovereign crises, banking problems and strong exchange-rate pass-through, but only traditional deposits responded clearly to restrictions on foreign currency and capital flows.

Unlike bank deposits, dollar-pegged tokens can move through crypto exchanges, peer-to-peer markets and self-hosted wallets without passing through domestic banks. According to the researchers, this difference likely exists because “stablecoins are partly circulating outside the regulatory perimeter.”

The results indicate that restrictions designed for bank accounts may have limited influence over digital tokens. While governments can require approval for foreign-currency deposits or restrict transfers through financial institutions, users can still receive, hold, and send stablecoins through blockchain networks.

Researchers also found that deposit and stablecoin dollarization tend to persist once established. Their analysis showed little evidence that users simply replace foreign-currency deposits with stablecoins, suggesting the two channels can expand at the same time instead of competing for the same demand.

Capital controls are failing to contain stablecoin demand

Dollar-pegged tokens could weaken monetary sovereignty if households and companies increasingly store or transact in U.S. dollars outside regulated banks, the BIS study warned. The risk is more pronounced in emerging and developing economies where inflation, currency depreciation or restricted access to foreign exchange makes dollar assets attractive.

Capital controls have historically reduced some forms of deposit dollarization because banks must enforce domestic rules. Stablecoin inflows, however, were broadly similar in economies with and without such restrictions, according to the BIS.

Digital tokens have bearer-like features and can be transferred through unhosted wallets, making complete enforcement difficult. The BIS Annual Economic Report 2026 noted that blocking domestic intermediaries from handling unapproved stablecoins may limit some transactions, but such measures are likely to remain imperfect.

Despite the concern over monetary sovereignty, the study found little evidence that moderate deposit dollarization materially weakens monetary-policy transmission. Economies with higher foreign-currency deposits did, however, show a somewhat higher risk of elevated inflation.

Stablecoins may present different policy problems because their use can extend beyond savings into payments, trade settlement and remittances. As transactions leave the banking system, authorities may also lose access to information normally collected by regulated financial institutions, limiting their view of capital movements.

The BIS findings suggest policymakers may require controls designed for blockchain-based assets rather than relying only on rules created for bank deposits. Any response would need to account for foreign exchanges, peer-to-peer transfers and self-hosted wallets, all of which can keep activity outside domestic financial channels.

Emerging markets are driving stablecoin payment adoption

Nigeria illustrates how economic pressure can push stablecoins into daily financial activity. The International Monetary Fund found that stablecoins accounted for more than 65% of the country’s cross-border crypto inflows in 2024, with total inflows approaching the value of recorded remittances by 2025.

According to the IMF, Nigerian households use USDT and USDC for family remittances, crypto investments and access to dollar-denominated value. Small and medium-sized importers have also used the tokens to pay foreign suppliers, while some large companies have tested them for trade settlement.

Inflation, naira depreciation and limited access to foreign currency made stablecoins more attractive during 2023 and 2024, the IMF reported. When the Central Bank of Nigeria restricted banks from serving crypto users in 2021, activity moved toward less regulated peer-to-peer markets instead of disappearing.

Stablecoins can cut payment time and reduce dependence on correspondent banks, according to the IMF. However, the institution warned that heavy use of dollar tokens could lower demand for the naira and move more transactions beyond the reach of Nigerian regulators.

A similar pattern has emerged in Latin America. Bitso Business reported an 81% year-over-year increase in stablecoin payment volume during the first half of 2026. The company also found that Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC represented 40% of regional crypto purchases in 2025, overtaking Bitcoin for the first time.

Across the crypto market, stablecoin capitalization has risen to about $309.7 billion from roughly $260 billion a year earlier. The increase gives dollar-backed tokens a larger role in payments and savings while adding urgency to the regulatory concerns identified by the BIS.

BIS research has also separated privately issued stablecoins from tokenized bank money. Through Project Agorá, eight central banks and more than 40 regulated institutions have tested cross-border settlement using tokenized commercial-bank deposits and central-bank reserves, according to the institution’s 2026 report.

That model keeps tokenized payments inside a regulated two-tier banking system, while stablecoins can circulate beyond it. For policymakers, the contrast explains why existing capital controls may struggle to contain digital dollarization even as demand for faster cross-border payments continues to grow.

Source link