Crypto World
What is a tokenized deposit? Bank money goes on-chain
SWIFT built a ledger for them. JPMorgan settles billions with them. The FDIC is writing rules about them. Tokenized deposits are the banking system’s answer to stablecoins, and understanding the difference decides how you read the next five years of digital money.
Summary
- A tokenized deposit is a commercial bank deposit represented as a token on a blockchain, issued by the bank itself and maintaining a one-to-one relationship with money on the bank’s balance sheet.
- Unlike a stablecoin, the money never leaves the bank. It stays available to fund lending, remains covered by deposit insurance up to statutory limits, and stays inside the supervisory perimeter of banking regulation.
- The category has moved from pilot to production: SWIFT launched a shared ledger with 17 global banks in July, JPMorgan’s Kinexys settles institutional payments today, and a consortium including Bank of America and BNY targets a 2027 network.
- A technical distinction matters more than it sounds: a non-transferable tokenized deposit that settles between banks behaves like account money, while a freely transferable deposit token behaves more like a bank-issued stablecoin, and regulation treats the two differently.
- The stakes are structural. Stablecoins pull deposits out of banks into reserve assets; tokenized deposits keep them in. Which model wins the institutional corridor shapes bank funding, credit creation, and what a dollar on a blockchain actually is.
The most consequential money on blockchains this year is not a cryptocurrency and not a stablecoin. It is ordinary bank deposits, the money in checking accounts, wearing a token as a coat. In July, SWIFT switched on the 17-bank ledger built for this instrument with 17 of the world’s largest banks built specifically to move this instrument. JPMorgan already settles institutional payments with its own version. A consortium of American banking giants is building a shared network for 2027, and the FDIC’s stablecoin rulemaking carves out space to address how deposit insurance applies to it. The instrument is the tokenized deposit, and the reason it deserves twenty minutes of any crypto reader’s attention is that it is the banking system’s structural answer to the $300 billion stablecoin sector: a digital dollar that does everything a stablecoin does while never leaving the bank. Whether that is the point or the problem depends on where you sit, which is exactly what this guide unpacks.
The definition, precisely
A tokenized deposit is a digital representation of a claim on a commercial bank, recorded on a blockchain or distributed ledger, issued by the bank that holds the deposit, and redeemable one-to-one against it.
Every clause is doing work. It is a claim on a bank, the same legal object as the balance in a checking account, which means it is commercial bank money, the kind that makes up the overwhelming majority of what people and firms actually use as dollars. It is issued by the bank itself, not by a third party holding the bank at arm’s length. It maintains one-to-one correspondence with a deposit that remains on the bank’s balance sheet, so tokenizing a million dollars does not move a million dollars anywhere; it changes the record-keeping technology for money that stays put. And it lives on a ledger, which is what gives it the properties deposits never had: settlement in seconds, availability at 3 a.m. on a Sunday, and the ability to be composed into programmable payment logic.
The cleanest way to hold the concept: a stablecoin is a new kind of money issued by a new kind of company, while a tokenized deposit is the oldest kind of money with a new kind of plumbing. For readers who want the other side of the comparison, crypto.news has also explained the competing model.
How it differs from a stablecoin, mechanically
The two instruments look identical at the point of use, a dollar-denominated token that moves on a ledger and settles fast, and are opposites underneath. Three differences carry all the weight.
Where the money sits. When a customer buys a stablecoin, dollars leave their bank account and land in the issuer’s reserve portfolio, Treasury bills, repo, money funds, custodial accounts, outside the banking system. The bank loses a deposit; the reserve assets sit sterile with respect to lending. With a tokenized deposit, nothing leaves. The deposit stays on the bank’s balance sheet, funding loans exactly as before, while the token circulates as its mobile representation. Multiply across a sector and this is the difference between digital dollars that drain bank funding and digital dollars that preserve it, which is why the Federal Reserve’s research treats stablecoins as a disintermediation risk and tokenized deposits as the banks’ countermove.
Who stands behind it. A tokenized deposit carries the full apparatus of banking: deposit insurance up to statutory limits, the bank’s capital and supervision, and, behind the bank, access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window. A stablecoin carries the issuer’s reserves and, under the GENIUS Act, a legal priority for holders in insolvency plus full-reserve requirements, real protections, but no insurance and no central bank. The FDIC has confirmed the insurance line between the two: stablecoin wallets get no pass-through deposit insurance, while the FDIC’s own stablecoin rulemaking addresses insurance treatment of tokenized deposits precisely because they are deposits.
What it may pay. The GENIUS Act prohibits payment stablecoin issuers from paying interest on the coin itself, a line Congress drew to stop stablecoins from becoming uninsured savings accounts. A tokenized deposit is a deposit; a bank can pay interest on it the way it pays on any account. In a world of meaningful rates, that asymmetry is not a footnote, it is a business model, and it is one reason banks believe the institutional corridor is winnable.
The distinction inside the category
Here the vocabulary gets sloppy across the industry, and one analytical cut, articulated most clearly by researcher Noelle Acheson, brings it into focus: a tokenized deposit is not the same thing as a deposit token, and the difference is transferability.
In the strict model, a tokenized deposit moves only between customers of banks in the network, and when it moves between banks, the banks settle behind the scenes, the token a customer of Bank A holds is always a claim on Bank A, and transferring value to a customer of Bank B means Bank A’s token is burned, interbank settlement occurs, and Bank B mints its own. This is account money with better rails: the customer relationship, the compliance perimeter, and the claim structure all stay intact, which is why regulators are comfortable with it and why SWIFT’s ledger, which coordinates exactly this burn-settle-mint choreography across institutions, is built this way.
In the looser model, a deposit token is a bearer-style instrument: freely transferable to anyone with a wallet, circulating like a stablecoin while claiming deposit status. This version makes bank money composable with open networks, and it makes regulators nervous, because a freely circulating claim on a bank held by strangers to the bank starts to blur into a bank-issued stablecoin, raising exactly the insurance, run-risk, and know-your-customer questions the strict model avoids. Where each jurisdiction draws this line will quietly determine whether tokenized deposits remain an interbank instrument or grow into a public one, and it is the single most important open design question in the category.
Who is building what
The category crossed from white papers to production over roughly eighteen months, and three architectures now compete.
The single-bank model is live. JPMorgan’s Kinexys settles institutional payments with tokenized deposits today, has extended onto public infrastructure including Base and the Canton network, and proves the concept at the only scale that matters, real money, real clients. Its structural limit is reach: one bank’s token moves one bank’s money, and every large bank running its own rail recreates the fragmentation problem that correspondent banking exists to solve.
The shared-network model is the answer to that limit, and it launched in earnest on July 9, when SWIFT’s blockchain-based ledger went live for initial use with 17 banks across six continents, Citi, HSBC, UBS, BNP Paribas among them, built on Hyperledger Besu in nine months. The ledger validates and coordinates tokenized-deposit movements between member banks around the clock, with final settlement through existing rails, and its pitch is distribution: SWIFT connects more than 11,000 institutions, a footprint no single bank or startup can match. A parallel American effort through The Clearing House, backed by JPMorgan, Bank of America, Barclays, and BNY, targets a 2027 launch, meaning even the shared-network lane already has competing networks.
The public-facing frontier is where the deposit-token question lives: experiments in making bank-issued tokens usable in open on-chain environments as settlement assets and collateral. This is the smallest lane today and the one with the largest implications, because it is where bank money and DeFi composability would actually meet.
The honest limitations
The category’s advocates describe it as stablecoins without the risk. The description omits four things.
Tokenized deposits are permissioned by construction. Every holder is a bank customer inside a compliance perimeter; there is no permissionless access, which means the instrument does nothing for the populations and corridors where stablecoins found their strongest product-market fit, users the banking system serves badly or not at all. A fintech in Lagos paying a supplier in Shenzhen holds USDT because it cannot hold a JPMorgan deposit; that fact does not change when the deposit grows a token.
They are also only as good as the network effects they achieve. Money is useful in proportion to who accepts it, and a tokenized deposit accepted inside one consortium is a better wire transfer, not a new form of money. The proliferation of competing networks, SWIFT’s, The Clearing House’s, each mega-bank’s own, raises a real fragmentation scenario in which the category succeeds technically and still fails to produce a unified instrument.
Insurance is bounded. Deposit insurance covers up to the statutory limit per depositor per bank, which protects retail balances fully and institutional balances barely; a corporate treasurer holding nine figures in tokenized deposits is an uninsured creditor of the bank above the cap, exactly as with ordinary deposits. The instrument inherits banking’s protections and also banking’s fine print.
And the model is untested in a run. Tokenized deposits settle at all hours, which cuts both ways: the same rails that move corporate treasury on Sunday morning can move a panic on Sunday morning, faster than any deposit flight in history. Bank supervisors have noticed; it is one reason the strict, non-transferable design keeps winning approvals.
What could still go wrong
A category moving this fast earns a section on its failure modes, and tokenized deposits have four worth taking seriously, none of them exotic.
The first is the interoperability trap. Every architecture described above, single-bank rails, SWIFT’s shared ledger, The Clearing House network, mints tokens that work within its own perimeter. History’s parallel is instructive: early wire transfer and card networks fragmented for decades before consolidating, and the consolidation was driven by merchants and users refusing to hold seventeen incompatible instruments. A corporate treasurer offered JPMorgan tokens, SWIFT-coordinated tokens, and consortium tokens, each with different settlement finality and legal terms, may reasonably decide the pilot era is someone else’s problem and keep wiring. The category’s success requires the networks to interconnect, and the incentives to interconnect are weakest for exactly the largest banks whose participation matters most, because a proprietary rail that works is a moat.
The second is the run-dynamics question, which deserves more respect than the marketing gives it. A tokenized deposit inherits the bank’s credit risk, and always-on settlement means the deposit can leave at any hour a holder gets nervous. The 2023 regional banking crisis showed what smartphone-speed withdrawals do to a bank funded by concentrated, sophisticated depositors; token rails compress the same dynamic further. Supervisors have levers, the non-transferable design, settlement windows, position limits, but every lever traded against the always-on convenience that is the product’s selling point. The instrument’s safety case and its value proposition are, at the margin, the same dial turned in opposite directions.
The third is regulatory divergence on the deposit-token boundary. If one major jurisdiction blesses freely transferable deposit tokens while another confines banks to the strict interbank model, bank money itself forks: a transferable claim on a Singapore or London bank circulating on open networks while American bank tokens stay walled. That is not hypothetical, jurisdictions are already writing different answers, and the arbitrage it invites, banking migrating to wherever bank money is allowed to be most bearer-like, is the kind regulators historically respond to late and harshly.
The fourth is the quiet dependency on stablecoin rules. The competitive case for tokenized deposits leans on asymmetries the law that bans stablecoin interest created, stablecoins cannot pay interest, stablecoins carry no insurance, and asymmetries written by one Congress can be rewritten by another. A future amendment permitting yield-bearing regulated stablecoins, an idea already circulating in the CLARITY Act fights over activity-based rewards, would collapse the banks’ cleanest advantage overnight. The banks are building on ground the law currently tilts toward them, and the tilt is a policy choice, not a property of the technology.
None of these kill the category; each shapes what version of it survives. The strongest honest forecast is conditional: tokenized deposits win the regulated institutional corridor if the networks interconnect, if supervisors hold the transferability line without strangling the product, and if the legislative tilt endures. Three ifs is not a guarantee. It is, however, a much shorter list than the one stablecoins faced a decade ago, which is the fairest way to size the two contenders.
Why the fight matters
Strip the technology away and the tokenized-deposit-versus-stablecoin contest is a fight over the two-tier monetary system, the arrangement where central banks serve banks and banks serve everyone else, and every reader in crypto has a stake in the outcome.
If tokenized deposits win the institutional corridor, on-chain finance gets absorbed into banking: programmable settlement arrives, but issuance, access, and control remain with chartered institutions, and the deposit-funding model that finances lending survives digitization intact. If stablecoins win it, a parallel monetary layer keeps growing outside bank balance sheets, with narrower backing, broader access, and the disintermediation consequences the Fed’s researchers keep modeling. The likeliest outcome is partition, banks holding the regulated core, stablecoins holding the open edge, with the boundary contested for years at exactly the seams this guide has mapped: transferability rules, insurance treatment, and the interest-rate asymmetry the GENIUS Act wrote into law.
For now, the practical takeaways are three. A tokenized deposit is bank money with new rails, insured and supervised, and structurally unavailable to anyone outside a bank relationship. A stablecoin is new money with open rails, reserve-backed and uninsured, and structurally available to anyone with a wallet. And the institutions that spent a decade dismissing blockchains have now committed, with 17 banks, a 53-year-old cooperative, and the world’s largest asset managers in the room, to putting the oldest money in the world on them. Whatever else that signals, it settles one argument: the rails were never the controversial part. The money was. For the adjacent cash-market structure, crypto.news has also explained the other regulated cash instrument on-chain.
Frequently asked questions
What is a tokenized deposit in one sentence?
It is a commercial bank deposit represented as a token on a blockchain, issued by the bank holding the deposit, redeemable one-to-one, and left on the bank’s balance sheet, so it settles like a crypto asset while remaining ordinary, insured bank money underneath.
How is that different from a stablecoin?
Three ways. The money stays inside the bank and keeps funding loans, whereas stablecoin purchases move money out of banks into issuer reserves. It carries deposit insurance up to statutory limits and bank supervision, whereas stablecoin holders rely on reserves and legal priority with no insurance. And banks may pay interest on it like any deposit, while the GENIUS Act bars stablecoin issuers from paying interest on their coins.
Are tokenized deposits FDIC-insured?
As deposits, yes, up to the statutory limit per depositor per bank, and the FDIC’s current stablecoin-era rulemaking addresses their insurance treatment explicitly. The practical caveat is the cap: retail balances are fully covered, while institutional holders above the limit are uninsured bank creditors for the excess, exactly as with conventional accounts. Stablecoin wallets, by contrast, carry no pass-through insurance at all.
What is the difference between a tokenized deposit and a deposit token?
Transferability. A tokenized deposit in the strict sense moves only among customers of participating banks, with interbank settlement behind each transfer, preserving the account relationship. A deposit token is freely transferable to any wallet, circulating like a bank-issued stablecoin. Regulators are far more comfortable with the first model, and where jurisdictions draw this line will shape whether the instrument stays interbank or becomes public.
Who actually uses tokenized deposits today?
Institutions, not retail. JPMorgan’s Kinexys settles real institutional payments and has extended to public infrastructure including Base and Canton. SWIFT’s shared ledger launched initial use in July 2026 with 17 global banks coordinating tokenized-deposit movements around the clock. A Clearing House consortium including Bank of America and BNY targets 2027. Retail-facing versions remain experimental almost everywhere.
Do tokenized deposits threaten stablecoins?
In the institutional corridor, directly: for regulated entities moving money between themselves, an insured, interest-capable, supervised instrument is a strong competitor. In open corridors, not really: tokenized deposits require a bank relationship, so exchange settlement, DeFi collateral, and unbanked-adjacent remittances remain stablecoin territory. The likely outcome is partition rather than a winner-take-all, with the boundary set by regulation as much as preference.
What are the main risks or limits?
Permissioned access excludes everyone outside member banks. Competing networks risk fragmenting the category into non-interoperable islands. Insurance is capped, leaving large institutional balances exposed above the limit. And always-on settlement is untested under stress, since the same 24/7 rails could accelerate a deposit run faster than any in history, which is partly why supervisors favor non-transferable designs.
Why does this matter for someone holding crypto?
Because it defines the competition. The growth path stablecoins were assumed to own, institutional settlement, corporate treasury, tokenized-asset plumbing, is exactly where banks are now deploying an instrument with insurance and interest attached. How that contest resolves shapes stablecoin demand, the reserves feeding Treasury markets, and which digital dollar becomes default in each corridor. This is educational context, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Product structures, insurance treatment, and regulatory rules described here vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 20, 2026.
Morpho has officially launched its fixed-rate lending protocol Midnight on Base, adding a new credit layer to its onchain lending network as it seeks to bring fixed-rate, fixed-term borrowing closer to traditional financial markets.
Summary
- Morpho has launched Midnight on Base, bringing fixed rate and fixed term lending to its onchain credit network.
- The protocol allows lenders and borrowers to negotiate loan terms directly instead of relying on variable rate pricing models.
- Morpho said Midnight is built to support institutional and retail lending, with more than $11 billion already deposited across its lending network.
The Block reported that Midnight is now live after Morpho first introduced the protocol through its white paper in May, expanding the project’s lending stack beyond Morpho Blue, its variable-rate lending protocol. The rollout begins on Base, with Morpho planning to extend support to additional blockchain networks over time, although the company has not provided a timeline.
Unlike most decentralized lending protocols that rely on floating interest rates, Midnight allows borrowers and lenders to negotiate loan terms directly, including interest rates, maturity dates, and counterparties. Morpho co-founder and CEO Paul Frambot said the protocol was built to mirror the structure of traditional credit markets, where fixed-rate borrowing remains the standard.
“Fixed-rate lending is fundamental to how global credit markets operate,” Frambot said. “Without it, onchain markets remain incomplete.”
According to Morpho, Midnight complements rather than replaces Morpho Blue. While Blue continues to provide variable-rate lending through isolated lending markets, Midnight introduces fixed-rate, fixed-term credit using an intent-based peer-to-peer matching system that separates pricing and risk management from onchain execution.
Midnight introduces a different lending model
Morpho said lenders and borrowers can negotiate their own loan conditions instead of relying on pricing formulas embedded within a protocol. The company said the design is intended to support institutional and retail participants while enabling financing backed by tokenized real-world assets, structured credit products and repo-style transactions.
Responding to questions about competing protocols including Pendle Finance, Term Finance and Notional Finance, Frambot told The Block that earlier fixed-rate products were largely built on top of variable-rate lending systems.
“In past attempts, fixed rates were built on top of variable rates, which was imperfect,” Frambot said. “The right approach is to build fixed rates at the primitive level, and layer variable-rate products on top.”
Morpho had already outlined this approach when it published the Midnight white paper in May. At the time, the project described Midnight as an intent-based primitive for peer-to-peer lending that introduces customizable loan terms while remaining noncustodial and open source. Unlike Morpho Blue’s pool-based architecture, Midnight matches lending intents directly between participants and externalizes both pricing and risk management.
The protocol’s documentation also described fixed-term loan positions as transferable assets, allowing secondary markets to form around existing credit positions instead of keeping loans locked until maturity. Morpho argued that this structure could make onchain credit markets behave more like conventional bond and term loan markets.
Existing network provides early liquidity
Morpho believes Midnight’s architecture addresses one of the main problems faced by previous fixed-rate lending protocols.
In an earlier blog post, the project said previous designs required lenders to commit capital before borrowers arrived, leaving liquidity fragmented across different maturities. According to Morpho, Midnight instead uses an offer-based system where lenders continue earning variable yields through Morpho Blue until their fixed-rate offers are accepted.
Once an offer is matched, liquidity is sourced only for that transaction, while positions sharing the same maturity remain fungible. Morpho said this allows users to enter or exit positions before maturity without dividing liquidity across separate markets.
Frambot also identified the protocol’s offer-book architecture as another distinguishing feature. Because Midnight launches within Morpho’s existing lending ecosystem, he said the protocol can immediately connect with more than 30 independent curators already managing billions of dollars through Morpho Blue. He added that multi-market offers, programmable compliance tools and callback functionality allow capital to remain productive in variable-rate markets until a fixed-rate match occurs.
Institutional lending remains a key focus
Midnight arrives as Morpho continues expanding its institutional lending business.
In June, Morpho Association raised $175 million in one of decentralized finance’s largest funding rounds, with Paradigm, a16z Crypto and Ribbit Capital leading the investment alongside Apollo Funds, Circle Ventures, VanEck, Ledger Cathay and several other investors. Fortune reported at the time that the transaction valued Morpho at approximately $2 billion, although the company did not disclose a valuation in its official announcement.
Morpho said the funding would support technical development, commercial integrations and wider adoption of its open credit infrastructure. Frambot said at the time that the project was building an open credit network capable of connecting capital providers with borrowers without relying on fragmented lending systems.
The company also said its lending network now holds more than $11 billion in deposits. According to Morpho, companies including Coinbase, Kraken, Bitwise Asset Management and Société Générale’s regulated digital asset subsidiary, SG Forge, already use its infrastructure to build onchain credit products. Earlier company announcements also listed Binance, Anchorage Digital and Galaxy Digital among organizations integrating Morpho’s lending software.
Coinbase’s onchain lending product already operates on Morpho Blue. Asked whether the exchange intends to integrate Midnight into that service, a Coinbase spokesperson told The Block that the company has nothing to announce at this stage.
Although Coinbase did not comment further, Frambot said multiple platforms, institutions and partners have expressed interest in using Midnight.
Yesterday, crypto exchange OKX appointed to its board Andrew Cuomo — the New York governor whose administration created the BitLicense that OKX never received.
Maybe that’s what it takes to finally get that state license.
Cuomo and his administration created the BitLicense back in 2014, and OKX, the world’s fourth largest crypto exchange, has been chasing one ever since.
However, despite having well over a decade to apply, OKX still doesn’t appear on the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) register. Somewhat embarrassingly, competitors, including Coinbase, Gemini, Mastercard, MoonPay, and other crypto companies, do.
With yesterday’s news, however, the path for OKX to win its approval might finally have opened up.
Tough to get, even for the world’s fourth largest crypto exchange
The license is famously difficult to obtain.
Kraken, facing the same daunting application in 2015, called the BitLicense “a creature so foul, so cruel that not even Kraken possesses the courage or strength to face its nasty, big, pointy teeth” and left the state.
Fortune, for context, reported that the BitLicense’s first three years of availability produced just four licensees.
OKX founder Star Xu boasted that Cuomo’s new board seat will help him build “the world’s most trustworthy large digital asset exchange.” This is something that could take some work.
Indeed, between 2018 and early 2024, US customers conducted more than $1 trillion worth of transactions through OKX, even though OKX’s official policy at that time prohibited US persons from transacting on the exchange.
In fact, one OKX employee advised an American in 2023: “I know you’re in the US, but you could just put a random country and it should go through.”
For its part, OKX blamed the episode on “legacy compliance gaps.”
Read more: Flaws in New York regulator’s BitLicense operation prompt action
OKX gets Cuomo plus a BitLicense enforcement superintendent
While Cuomo is certainly OKX’s most influential BitLicense-related hire, he’s not the first.
Bloomberg previously reported that Cuomo, then a paid OKX adviser regarding the federal probe, had urged the exchange to add former NYDFS superintendent Linda Lacewell to its board.
Around that time, lo and behold, Lacewell joined OKX and even became the exchange’s chief legal officer by March 2025, five weeks after OKX’s guilty plea.
The company said her promotion would “bolster our global regulatory presence and reinforce OKX’s position as a licensing juggernaut.”
The NYDFS is the agency that granted the BitLicense OKX does not have.
‘Certain regulatory approvals’ are forthcoming
In June 2026, Intercontinental Exchange, owner of the New York Stock Exchange, announced a 50/50 joint venture with OKX, co-chaired by Cuomo.
The venture expects to operate a US broker-dealer and futures firm, pending “certain regulatory approvals.”
Those “certain regulatory approvals” aren’t difficult to imagine.
Cuomo said in the release, “The next chapter of financial markets will be defined by how well innovation and government regulation can move forward together.”
Well, the chapter before this one ended in a guilty plea for OKX for New York financial misconduct. The next one probably will not, if Cuomo can help.
A BitLicense application costs $5,000 while operating an unlicensed money transmitting business in New York and other states cost OKX more than $500 million in federal penalties.
What OKX is paying the two New Yorkers who oversaw that licensing regime, the company hasn’t disclosed.
Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news and investigations, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Ethereum’s market dominance climbed back above 10% on Tuesday after weeks below that level, while the token outperformed every other top-10 cryptocurrency with an almost 9% gain in the last seven days.
The move has rekindled bullish sentiment around ETH, even though one analyst is cautioning that no single event appears to have triggered the latest rally.
ETH Retakes 10% Market Share as Sentiment Improves
Data from CoinGecko shows Ethereum’s market cap at around $233.2 billion, with the total crypto market up nearly 2% and valued at just over $2.34 trillion. That put ETH’s share of the market at slightly more than 10%, a figure BIT analyst Markus Thielen described as a “psychologically important” threshold in a July 21 update.
Thielen also noted that when ETH dominance rose in the past, it often coincided with conditions that favored bullish traders. Indeed, at the time of writing, ETH had gained over 4% in 24 hours, but according to the analyst, there was “no immediate catalyst” behind the rise in dominance.
Some big names in the market appear to have picked up on the changing mood, with BitMEX co-founder and avid crypto trader Arthur Hayes spending over $2.5 million on 1,332.5 ETH earlier today. That was his second multi-million dollar splurge on the token in a week after earlier buying 1,293 others for a similar amount on June 16.
BIT’s weekly market watch, also published on July 21, argued that last week’s softer-than-expected US inflation data had reversed a rough start to the week, one that had briefly pushed Bitcoin (BTC) under $62,000 after conflict between the US and Iran flared again. BTC closed that week above $65,000, up almost 4%, while ETH added over 7% in the same period, ending up above $1,900 and marking its second consecutive week of outperforming Bitcoin. This also lifted the ETH/BTC ratio to 0.0293 from a June low of 0.0264.
Institutional Positioning Shifts Toward Ethereum
At the time of writing, the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency was still trading well over the $1,900 mark, having gained about 8.8% in one week and more than 12% in the last 30 days.
That weekly performance was the best among the top ten digital assets by market cap, with XRP and BTC following closely after jumping more than 6% in XRP’s case and about 5.7% in BTC’s case in that period. ETH’s daily trading volume also saw a huge uptick, adding more than 31% to the previous day’s amount to hit $11.6 billion.
Beyond spot prices, BIT’s report said perpetual funding rates have remained close to neutral despite ETH’s gains, while implied volatility stayed relatively subdued.
It also noted that institutional investors appeared to favor call options, with buy-call activity accounting for more than three-quarters of Ethereum block trades, while retail participants largely opted for call spreads to gain upside exposure with limited cost.
The post Ethereum Reclaims 10% Market Dominance as ETH Outperforms Top Cryptocurrencies appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Russia’s State Duma passed legislation establishing the country’s first comprehensive framework for regulating cryptocurrencies with most of the new rules set to take effect on Sept. 1.
The law creates a legal framework for crypto exchanges, depositories and other digital asset providers, while setting rules for who can buy crypto and under what conditions, Russia’s state-owned news agency TASS reported Tuesday.
Only organizations included in a special registry will be permitted to operate as cryptocurrency exchanges, although firms will be allowed to continue operating without registration until July 1, 2027.
Under the new law, banks will be required to refuse transfers if they suspect an unauthorized entity is operating a cryptocurrency exchange.
The legislation also guarantees judicial protection for holders of digital currencies regardless of whether the assets were previously declared.
Retail investors will be allowed to buy the most liquid cryptocurrencies through licensed intermediaries, subject to an annual limit equivalent to roughly $3,800 per intermediary. Qualified investors will be able to purchase any crypto without restrictions.
Onchain lending just gained a new option on Base: Morpho has launched Morpho Midnight, a fixed-rate, fixed-term lending market that sits alongside its existing variable-rate venue, Morpho Blue. The move introduces an intent-driven model where loans are structured around competing offers—rather than being priced by a protocol-defined utilization curve.
According to an announcement shared with Cointelegraph, Midnight is live on the Base mainnet and begins by supporting cbBTC and USDC across multiple maturity dates. Morpho says the rollout is intentionally contained to support a progressive deployment focused on security.
Key takeaways
- Morpho Midnight brings fixed-rate, fixed-term borrowing to Base, complementing Morpho’s variable-rate Blue pools.
- Loan pricing is offer-driven: lenders and borrowers propose interest rates, maturities, and other terms instead of relying on algorithmic pool utilization curves.
- Midnight is positioned to better match needs found in traditional credit markets, where funding costs and repayment schedules are known in advance.
- The initial deployment supports cbBTC and USDC with multiple maturity dates, and Morpho says additional integrations and features may come as the rollout expands.
Fixed terms arrive on Base, but with a different pricing engine
DeFi lending has historically struggled to replicate the predictability offered by conventional finance. In many onchain markets, borrowing costs rise or fall with changing utilization—meaning lenders and borrowers face pricing that can shift over time.
Morpho’s Midnight is designed to address that gap by shifting from pool-based algorithmic pricing to a marketplace of offers. As Morpho explained to Cointelegraph, the system lets participants propose interest rates, maturities, and other loan parameters. Instead of relying on a continuously running utilization curve, Midnight issues loans as fixed obligations matched through competition among offers.
For institutions and businesses, this matters because fixed repayment schedules can make it easier to manage funding costs, expected returns, and risk exposure. While the DeFi sector can approximate fixed income through complex strategies, a dedicated fixed-rate lending venue can reduce reliance on workarounds.
Morpho also emphasized that Midnight is not intended as a replacement for Morpho Blue. Blue remains focused on open-ended, variable-rate lending pools, while Midnight is structured to externalize loan risk, interest rates, and duration to market participants—turning those elements into negotiated terms.
How Morpho framed the “Midnight” design before launch
Morpho first discussed the fixed-rate approach as part of a broader “Morpho V2” roadmap. In a 2025 post referenced by Morpho’s development timeline, the protocol described an intent-based, peer-to-peer marketplace where users could submit custom offers. In that framing, capital could continue earning variable yield until it becomes matched to a fixed-rate offer—before locking into the fixed obligation.
In April, Morpho named the fixed-rate system Midnight and clarified again that it would complement, not replace, Morpho Blue. Later, Morpho released Midnight’s whitepaper and codebase in May. In connection with that release, Morpho said the “offered capital” model was meant to avoid a recurring problem in fixed-rate DeFi: liquidity lockups and fragmentation across maturity dates.
That design goal is important because fixed-rate markets can face an inherent mismatch—capital providers may not always want to commit for the exact maturities demanded by borrowers. By centering loan terms around offers, Midnight aims to make maturity selection more market-responsive while still offering borrowers defined terms.
Rollout status: live on Base with cbBTC and USDC
According to the Morpho spokesperson who spoke to Cointelegraph, Midnight is already live on the Base mainnet. The first version supports cbBTC and USDC, and it offers loans across multiple maturity dates.
Morpho said it kept the launch deliberately contained as part of a progressive rollout strategy, prioritizing security. The spokesperson also told Cointelegraph that crypto-native lenders, borrowers, and curators active on Morpho Blue have shown interest in moving into Midnight’s fixed-term environment.
Beyond existing Morpho participants, Morpho indicated that several enterprises and institutions are building products on the protocol in beta. Morpho did not provide details of those initiatives at this stage, saying announcements are expected as those products go live.
Where this fits in Morpho’s broader growth and DeFi lending trends
Midnight’s launch arrives after a period of rapid expansion for Morpho. Earlier in June, Morpho announced a $175 million funding round led by Paradigm, with participation from a16z crypto (Andreessen Horowitz) 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—an aim that aligns with Midnight’s fixed-rate proposition.
Morpho’s infrastructure is already used by major crypto platforms for variable-rate lending. In April, Cointelegraph reported that Coinbase launched Morpho-powered USDC loans for United Kingdom users. Those loans reportedly allowed borrowers to take positions against Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and cbETH on Base, using variable rates and with no fixed repayment schedule—an example of the open-ended borrowing model that Midnight is designed to complement.
In other words, Midnight extends Morpho’s toolkit toward a segment of lending that may feel more familiar to legacy finance workflows, where counterparties often value certainty in pricing and maturity. Still, the practical impact for users will depend on liquidity at specific rates and maturities, as well as how quickly lenders and borrowers coordinate around those offer terms.
Readers should watch how Midnight’s liquidity develops across maturity dates and whether more assets beyond cbBTC and USDC are added as the rollout expands. The key uncertainty is whether fixed-term demand can consistently find matching offers at attractive terms—because the economics of fixed-rate lending live and die by market participation.
In Solana news today, the network’s total stablecoin market cap crossed $15Bn for the first time, according to Token Terminal data. The question the number forces onto the table is whether this supply base holds structural depth or remains tethered to cyclical retail flows.
USDC accounts for a large share of Solana’s stablecoin supply, with DeFiLlama reporting USDC at $7.09Bn and total Solana stablecoins at $15.16Bn. Circle’s $250M USDC minting on Solana has been reported as part of a pattern of supply growth contributing to the $15Bn milestone.
This Stablecoin surge across the Solana network comes as SOL USD spiked +3% over the past 24-hours, reaching over $78, with a daily trading volume of $1.94Bn.
Solana News: Beyond USDC/USDT and the New Stablecoins on the Block
The more structurally significant development sits outside the USDC/USDT duopoly. The non-USDC/USDT stablecoin segment on Solana hit an all-time high of $4.81Bn, driven by USD1 and USDG, according to SolanaFloor data. That segment now accounts for nearly one-third of Solana’s total stablecoin market cap.
USD1, a dollar-pegged stablecoin associated with World Liberty Financial, and USDG (Global Dollar) are the primary drivers of that growth.
USDT sits at $2.91Bn on Solana per DeFiLlama, leaving the remaining $4.81Bn distributed across these newer entrants. The diversification of the issuer base matters: it signals that dollar liquidity on Solana is no longer a two-party dependency.
Anchorage Digital’s USDGO reached a $1Bn market cap on Solana, up approximately 20x since January 2026. USDGO is a regulated, USD-pegged stablecoin launched on Solana in February 2026.
Two Demand Drivers, One Supply Stack
JUST IN: Total stablecoin market cap on @solana surpasses $15B, marking an all-time high.
Leading currencies: USD, EUR, & more
Leading assets: USDC, USDT, USD1, USDGO, & more
Leading issuers: Circle, Tether, Paxos, & more
~5% of all stablecoins are currently issued on Solana. pic.twitter.com/pGrojYxwfP— Token Terminal
(@tokenterminal) July 20, 2026
Solana’s stablecoin boom is being driven by two overlapping forces that reinforce each other but do not depend on each other. The first is renewed retail activity: DEX trading volume on Solana rose 13.1% week over week, daily transactions climbed 17.3%, and TVL expanded 12.5%, per DeFiLlama metrics.
Memecoin cycle activity is generating real on-chain dollar demand, with Jupiter and Raydium as notable liquidity venues. More than $900M in new stablecoins were minted in a single 24-hour window per Token Terminal.
The second driver is settlement-layer adoption. BlockEden reports Solana processed $650Bn in adjusted stablecoin volume in February 2026, surpassing Ethereum and Tron combined. That figure predates the current $15Bn supply milestone by several months, implying settlement throughput has likely expanded further since then.
DeFi protocols on Solana benefit directly from deeper stablecoin liquidity, tighter spreads, higher utilization rates, and more capital-efficient collateral pools, all of which follow from a larger on-chain dollar base. The growing dominance of Solana in tokenized assets, which hit a record $6Bn in Q2, compounds this dynamic: real-world asset settlement and stablecoin liquidity are co-locating on the same chain.
The regulatory context is not peripheral here. Stablecoin legislation moving through Congress, including a Crypto Clarity Act framework discussed toward a Senate vote, could create clearer rules of the road for stablecoin issuers. A clear federal standard accelerates institutional issuance and removes regulatory ambiguity that has kept some treasury desks from deploying at scale on public chains.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
What the $15Bn Figure Does and Does Not Confirm
In other Solana news, the $15Bn supply level confirms that Solana has accumulated a dollar base large enough to sustain serious DeFi and settlement activity independent of any single issuer.
It does not confirm that this base is cycle-resistant. A meaningful portion of current stablecoin demand on Solana is memecoin-adjacent, speculative liquidity that migrates when retail attention rotates.
The non-USDC/USDT segment’s 15x growth since January 2025 is impressive, but some of that reflects specific product launches (USDGO’s February debut, USD1’s expansion) rather than purely organic demand accumulation.
The credible bear case is a memecoin cycle cooling combined with stalled stablecoin legislation, which would simultaneously slow both retail-driven USDC minting and institutional USDGO deployment.
The bull case is that institutional settlement demand, evidenced by USDGO’s trajectory and Solana’s stablecoin volume market share, provides a structural floor that persists through retail drawdowns.
Circle’s aggressive minting cadence and Anchorage Digital’s institutional positioning suggest at least one major issuer is betting on the latter.
Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio
The post Solana News: Stablecoin Supply Hits $15Bn With New Issuers Reshaping the Mix appeared first on Cryptonews.
A decentralized exchange (DEX) backed by Robinhood is expanding into tokenized stocks and derivatives as platforms compete to build onchain markets for traditional assets.
Arcus, a DEX built by the team behind decentralized trading platform dYdX and backed by Robinhood Crypto, launched tokenized stocks and perpetual futures on Robinhood Chain on Tuesday, according to an announcement shared with Cointelegraph.
The company previously launched spot markets when Robinhood Chain went live on July 1. Arcus offers more than 95 stock tokens, perpetual markets and crypto assets through a self-custodial trading account, with Paxos-issued stablecoin USDG serving as its primary collateral and settlement asset.
The launch comes as crypto companies and financial platforms increasingly compete to build infrastructure for tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), while regulatory questions around access and product structure remain a key challenge for the sector.
Related: Bernstein raises Robinhood price target, cites tokenization and prediction markets
Self-custody shapes approach to onchain trading
Arcus’s launch includes tokenized versions of stock in major US companies such as Nvidia, Tesla, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Google and Amazon, as well as perpetual markets tied to equities, exchange-traded funds, commodities, indexes and crypto assets.
The platform uses a self-custodial model, allowing users to retain control of their assets rather than deposit them with a centralized exchange. Arcus uses Privy, a wallet infrastructure company that helps applications create and manage crypto wallets, allowing users to sign up through email or social logins.
Source: Robinhood Chain
Users who already hold crypto can connect existing self-custodial wallets, including MetaMask, Ledger and WalletConnect, with the company citing support for additional Ethereum-compatible wallets.
Tokenized stocks face regulatory questions
Arcus said its stock tokens are unavailable in the US, Canada, the UK and other restricted jurisdictions, highlighting the different regulatory approaches to tokenized securities across markets.
Cointelegraph contacted Arcus for clarification on the restrictions but did not receive a response by publication time.
Regulators in markets including the US and UK have been examining how blockchain-based representations of traditional assets fit within existing financial frameworks, with questions around custody, ownership and market structure being addressed.
The launch adds another player to the growing race to build infrastructure for tokenized assets, with platforms including Coinbase-backed Base exploring ways to bring traditional financial products onchain.
Magazine: Is Robinhood Chain’s success bullish or bearish for ETH the asset?
Circle is building a four-layer financial stack around Arc, its new blockchain. Tether still controls the digital dollar most of crypto actually uses.
Investors still see Circle as a stablecoin issuer. The numbers mostly agree. Reserve interest produced 94% of its first-quarter revenue.
Inside Circle’s Four-Layer Financial Stack
Circle calls Arc an economic operating system. It settles in under a second. Fees are paid in USDC, and privacy is optional and built in.
The layers stack like this. Assets such as USDC, EURC, and the yield-bearing USYC sit on the base chain. Developer products like wallets and the Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP) come next. Circle’s own apps, including Mint and StableFX, sit on top.
Circle’s report says more than 100 firms joined the Arc testnet after its October 2025 launch. Goldman Sachs, Mastercard, and Visa are among the early partners. The testnet handled roughly 15 million transactions in the week ending July 15.
Big money is following. Circle’s first-quarter results revealed a $222 million ARC token presale at a $3 billion valuation. BlackRock, a16z crypto, and ARK Invest joined the raise.
Why the rush? Reserve income of $653 million made up 94% of Circle’s $694 million first-quarter revenue. Other revenue doubled in a year yet reached just $42 million. The stack is Circle’s escape plan.
Circle’s final OCC approval for a national trust bank adds regulatory muscle. The license comes from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Why Tether Still Owns Crypto’s Dollar
Tether’s USDT market cap stands near $184 billion. USDC holds $73 billion. It has slipped from $77 billion since the end of March.
The trading gap is wider still. USDT turned over roughly $48 billion in the past day. That is four times USDC’s total. Tron alone carries some $89 billion in dollar-pegged stablecoins, DefiLlama data shows. That single chain outweighs USDC’s entire supply.
History explains the loyalty. USDC fell to $0.88 in March 2023. Some $3.3 billion of its reserves sat frozen at the collapsed Silicon Valley Bank. Traders remember.
Tether also moves fast when Washington calls. It froze Iran-linked USDT worth $131 million within hours of new US sanctions this month. Circle, meanwhile, faces a Wisconsin criminal complaint for refusing to recover a scam victim’s funds without a court order.
Circle has one strong counter. USDC handled 63% of stablecoin transaction volume in the first quarter, per Visa Onchain Analytics figures in its results.
The stock market is not sold yet. Circle shares have collapsed roughly 76% from their post-IPO peak. A split market may be forming.
The GENIUS Act, America’s 2025 stablecoin law, steers regulated money to USDC. Offshore trading keeps USDT. Arc’s mainnet launch will test whether new rails can pull liquidity from a dollar Tether still owns.
The post Circle Wants to Own Crypto’s Financial Stack, but Tether Still Owns the Dollar appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Telegram is embedding a native non-custodial Gram wallet directly into its messaging app for one billion users, triggering a 10% price surge in the token formerly known as Toncoin.
Pavel Durov’s initiative aims to deliver instant, near-zero-fee transactions inside chats. The development follows the June rebrand and positions Gram as a core part of Telegram’s expanding financial tools.
The post GRAM Jumps 10% as Pavel Durov Unveils New Product for Telegram Users appeared first on BeInCrypto.
The UCITS ETF, CoinShares’ first in Europe, began trading on Deutsche Börse Xetra, tracking a rules-based index of publicly listed BTC miners.
Nvidia shows off Vera Rubin platform for tokenmaxxing
Ryanair flight from Dublin descends into boozy chaos and mid-air toilet sex
Embraer and Saab sign deal for 20 more Gripen jets in Brazil
Renter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
No Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
Weekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
Crypto Live Trading| 20 july #vinbullindia #livetrading #vinbulllive #live #trading #cryptotrading
Bitcoin (BTC): WARNING.. The Final Crash Is About To Begin! (BE READY)
XRP $50.10 IS NOT CRAZY – “XRP LEDGER ACTIVITY HITS RARE LOWS” On-Chain Analytics Firm Reports
-
NewsBeat5 days agoLondon Mayor Sadiq Khan handed a peerage by Keir Starmer alongside 15 other Labour figures… just days before the PM leaves No10
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Politics3 days agoThe House | The City of London can help the new chancellor deliver growth in every postcode
-
Politics6 days agoYoung campaigners urge incoming PM to act on outdoor junk food ads
-
Crypto World6 days agoCFTC blocks Kalshi from unwinding Michigan trades after court order
-
Crypto World4 days agoTwo July Windows Left: The CLARITY Act’s Senate Fight and What Failure Means
-
Crypto World3 days agoRipple Payments Joins MiCA With 14 Firms, Does It Mean Anything For XRP?
-
Business6 days agoNvidia Stock Slips After Big Tuesday Rally as Huang Confirms Vera Rubin Chip Is Now in Production Today
-
Politics2 days agoDemocrats look to World Cup watch parties to register thousands of voters
-
Entertainment6 days agoDisney’s Most Ambitious Failed Star Wars Attraction Is Coming to SDCC
-
Crypto World4 days agoRipple wins EU-wide access as ESMA adds it to MiCA register
-
Crypto World5 days agoInjective Submits SEC Transfer-Agent Registration to Onchain Ownership Records
-
Crypto World7 hours agoGrayscale Files For Worldcoin ETF, WLD Registers Sharp Rise
-
Business6 days agoPalantir Shares Rise After Expanded Nvidia Partnership and Fresh Analyst Upgrades Ahead of Earnings Day
-
Tech15 hours agoSail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
-
Tech13 hours agoTurtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
-
Tech7 days agoDark Secrets Emerge When Jailbreaking LLMs
-
NewsBeat4 days agoRegistration is now open for March for Men with Kev 2026
-
News Videos7 days agoXRP BOMBSHELL… XRP OMBOARDED FOR TRANSACTIONS!!!
-
NewsBeat1 day agoUnregistered fitter used Gas Safe logo on business flyers
You must be logged in to post a comment Login