Crypto World
where did the $100M go?
Thirteen months ago, Pi Network announced a Silicon Valley-style venture fund to seed its ecosystem.
Summary
- Pi Network Ventures was announced as a $100 million ecosystem fund, but only one investment has been publicly disclosed.
- The fund’s PI-token component makes its real dollar value unclear after PI’s sharp decline since the announcement.
- OpenMind is a credible robotics and AI infrastructure bet, but it does not solve Pi’s near-term token demand or unlock pressure.
- The biggest issue is disclosure: portfolio, check sizes, denomination, custody, criteria, and governance remain unclear.
One disclosed investment later, the questions have compounded faster than the portfolio. In May 2025, with its token still trading above half a dollar and its open mainnet barely three months old, Pi Network announced the kind of initiative that signals a project graduating into seriousness: Pi Network Ventures, a $100 million fund to back startups that would bring real-world utility to the ecosystem. The fund would be denominated in a mix of PI tokens and U.S. dollars, drawn from the network’s ecosystem reserves, and aimed at AI, fintech, gaming, e-commerce, and robotics. The pitch borrowed Silicon Valley’s vocabulary deliberately, promising portfolio companies capital plus something rarer: access to tens of millions of KYC-verified users.
Thirteen months later, the public record of that fund consists of one disclosed investment, a robotics software startup named OpenMind, announced at the end of October 2025, with the check size never stated.
There is no published portfolio page, no deployment report, no disclosure of how much of the hundred million has moved, in what proportion of tokens to dollars, or at what valuation of a token that has since lost most of its dollar value. For an ecosystem whose community measures hope in announcements, the fund’s first year invites a journalistic accounting. This piece attempts one: what the fund said it would do, what it can be shown to have done, what the OpenMind bet actually involves, and what the gaps in between mean.
What was announced, precisely
The founding claims matter, because accountability starts with the original language. Pi Network Ventures launched in May 2025 as a $100 million initiative of the core team and foundation, with the capital sourced from ecosystem reserves, the pool that exists inside Pi’s 100 billion token allocation for community and ecosystem building. The mandate named its sectors broadly and stated three core objectives, the last of which was bringing Pi into real-world use cases. Coverage at the time noted the fund’s hybrid denomination in PI tokens and USD, and the team framed the distinctive asset as distribution: a startup taking Pi money would gain access to one of the largest verified user bases in crypto.
Three structural facts follow from that design, and each one shapes everything that came after. First, the fund is corporate venture capital in the most concentrated sense: no outside limited partners, no independent governance, capital and decisions both belonging to the team that issues the token. Second, the denomination in PI tokens makes the fund’s headline size a moving target, since the dollar value of the token portion falls with the chart, and the chart has fallen hard. Third, sourcing from ecosystem reserves means the community’s allocation funds the bets, while the choosing of the bets sits entirely with the core team, a structure other ecosystems route through grant DAOs, councils, or at minimum published criteria.
None of these facts is improper. Corporate venture funds are common, token treasuries are volatile by nature, and early-stage discretion has its defenders. But together they make disclosure the only available check, which is why the disclosure record is the right thing to audit. The fund’s problem is not that it exists; the problem is that the public cannot see enough of it to judge whether it is functioning.
What the distribution pitch is really worth
Before the deployment record comes the fund’s most distinctive founding claim, which was never primarily about money. Pi Network Ventures marketed itself as offering startups something venture dollars cannot buy: access to one of the largest KYC-verified user bases in crypto, tens of millions of identity-checked accounts a portfolio company could, in theory, acquire as customers for free. On paper the claim has real weight. Customer acquisition is the dominant cost for most consumer startups, identity verification is its most expensive component in fintech, and a partner who delivers pre-verified users at scale would be worth taking below-market terms to work with.
This is the legitimate version of the pitch, and it is presumably what a robotics company with no consumer product saw value in when it accepted the association. The audited version is less generous. The user base’s headline numbers, 60 million claimed accounts at peak messaging, more than 17 million KYC-verified, nearly 16 million migrated to mainnet, sit beside a harder figure from the same ecosystem reviews: fewer than 100 mainnet-ready applications, despite a generative tool that let more than 51,000 creators spin up apps. A funnel that converts tens of millions of verified accounts into double-digit working applications is telling you something about the difference between an audience and a market.
Users who arrived to tap a mining button are not, on the evidence so far, converting into customers of anything at rates that would make the distribution pitch bankable, and a startup weighing a Pi Ventures term sheet can read the same funnel this piece can. The fund’s unique asset is real, unproven, and shrinking in credibility with every month the application layer stays thin. That makes the fund’s slow public pace partly self-explaining: the easiest capital to deploy is capital whose sweetener works. When the sweetener is still unproven, deployment becomes harder to explain and harder to sell.
What the fund can be shown to have done
Public evidence of the fund in action amounts to the following. OpenMind, announced October 29, 2025, is the fund’s first and only named investment. The Silicon Valley startup, founded by Stanford professor Jan Liphardt, builds OM1, an operating system pitched as Android for robots, and FABRIC, a protocol letting machines identify, verify, and cooperate. OpenMind had closed a $20 million round led by Pantera Capital in August 2025, with Coinbase Ventures, Ribbit Capital, Topology, and Pebblebed participating; Pi’s investment arrived after that round, building on it, with the amount undisclosed.
Before investing, the two teams ran a proof-of-concept using Pi’s node network for distributed AI processing.
Beyond OpenMind, the record thins fast. A partnership with CiDi Games to thread Pi into in-game economies has been described in ecosystem roundups, though whether it involved fund capital or a commercial agreement is not public. Pi App Studio, the generative AI tool that the team credits with letting more than 51,000 creators build apps, is a product launch rather than a fund deployment. Year-end ecosystem reviews cite the fund’s existence as an achievement in itself, which is the kind of citation that confirms the announcement rather than the activity.
Set that record against the fund’s own clock. Thirteen months at a stated $100 million implies, at typical early-stage check sizes, somewhere between a handful and a few dozen investments for a fund intent on deploying. One disclosed deal of unstated size is consistent with several stories: a deliberately patient fund, a fund whose other deals are unannounced, a fund whose capital was always more notional than committed, or a fund constrained by the collapse of its own denomination. The public record cannot distinguish among them, and that inability is itself the finding.
The denomination problem nobody has answered
Hovering over every question about deployment is the arithmetic of what $100 million means when part of it is PI. When the fund launched in May 2025, PI traded in the range of 60 to 70 cents. The token now trades near $0.12, a decline of more than 80% from the announcement window. If, hypothetically, half the fund’s capital was held in PI at launch valuations, that portion’s dollar value has fallen by four fifths, taking the real fund size down with it.
If most of it was PI, the fund’s purchasing power today is a fraction of its name. The team has not published the split, the custody arrangement, or whether the $100 million figure is marked to market, fixed in tokens, or backed by an off-chain dollar commitment. The question is not pedantic, because the answer determines what the fund can actually do for the ecosystem. A fund holding dollars can write dollar checks to startups regardless of the chart, while a fund holding PI faces an ugly choice every time it invests.
It can pay startups in a token they will likely need to sell, adding the fund’s own deployments to the very sell pressure the ecosystem already struggles with, or it can liquidate PI into thin order books itself before writing dollar checks, with the same effect one step removed. Every venture fund denominated in its own ecosystem’s token carries this loop, and the projects that handle it credibly do so by disclosing the mechanics. Pi has disclosed none of them, which leaves community members defending a number that may no longer describe anything. This is why the fund’s headline size cannot be treated as the same thing as available firepower.
What the OpenMind bet actually is
A single named investment merits a closer look, because it is both more interesting and stranger than the headline suggests. OpenMind is a serious company by the standard signals: a Stanford robotics founder, a round led by Pantera with Coinbase Ventures and Ribbit on the sheet, and a thesis, open infrastructure for machine intelligence in the physical world, that sits squarely inside the most funded narrative in technology. For Pi, association with that syndicate is itself a form of validation the project has rarely had. The same venture firms that would never list PI’s chart in a deck were comfortable sharing a cap table with its foundation.
The strategic logic the two teams describe runs through Pi’s node network. The proof-of-concept tested distributed AI processing across Pi’s globally scattered nodes, and the stated vision has Pi’s infrastructure serving as decentralized compute for machine workloads while Pi the token serves as a payment rail for autonomous agents, machine-to-machine transactions in a future where robots buy services from each other. The team has floated compensating node operators for contributing computing power to AI training, which would give the node network its first economic function beyond consensus. The node angle is the part with measurable nearer-term stakes.
Pi’s network of user-run nodes has always been the project’s most underused asset, thousands of machines contributing consensus to a chain with modest transaction demand. Renting that idle capacity to AI workloads would create the first revenue-shaped flow in the ecosystem’s history: external demand paying, in some denomination, for a service Pi infrastructure performs. The economics are unproven, distributed consumer hardware competes badly with data centers on most AI workloads, and the proof-of-concept has not been followed by published throughput or earnings data. But it is at least a testable proposition, and testable propositions are scarce in this ecosystem.
A fair assessment holds two thoughts at once. As a thesis, machine payments and distributed compute give Pi’s idle infrastructure a plausible future job, and betting early on a credible team in that space is what an ecosystem fund exists to do. As a present-day matter, the investment does nothing for the questions Pi holders actually face this year: it adds no token demand, no burn, no user-facing utility, and no revenue. Its payoff horizon is measured against the robotics industry’s adoption curve, which is to say in many years, making the fund’s first bet defensible and almost perfectly orthogonal to the ecosystem’s emergency.
What the ecosystem needed while the fund was quiet
Accountability includes opportunity cost, so place the fund’s quiet year against the year its ecosystem had. Between the May 2025 announcement and this writing, PI fell from the 60-cent range to roughly 12 cents, the community absorbed an unlock schedule running at hundreds of millions of tokens monthly, exchange access stayed frozen at the second tier, and the protocol upgrade ladder consumed the team’s public attention. Through all of it, the single most common community demand was not venture investment at all. It was anything that supported the token’s market structure: liquidity programs, market making, exchange listings, and transparency on supply.
A $100 million pool of ecosystem reserves is one of the few tools that could have addressed any of those, and the team chose, defensibly, to point it at multi-year utility bets instead. That choice should be stated as a choice, not discovered later. Venture deployment and market support draw from the same reserves, and a fund that invests in robotics operating systems is a fund that has decided the token’s 2026 chart is not its problem. There are good arguments for that decision, the same arguments every builder makes for ignoring price, and the team is entitled to them.
What the community is entitled to, in exchange, is knowing the decision was made. That returns, as every thread in this piece does, to the absence of anyone saying anything on the record about what the fund is for now, as opposed to what it was for at announcement. If the fund is a long-horizon utility vehicle, the team can say that. If it is also meant to support token-market structure, the team can say that too, but silence leaves the community to infer strategy from absence.
How other ecosystem funds handle this
Context sharpens the audit, because Pi did not invent the ecosystem fund, and the genre has norms. Major precedents disclose. Solana’s ecosystem investments, the Avalanche Blizzard fund, Near’s enormous ecosystem program, and the Ethereum Foundation’s grant machinery all publish portfolios, recipients, and in most cases amounts, not from regulatory obligation but because the disclosure is the point. An ecosystem fund’s announcements are marketing for builders, signaling where capital flows and inviting the next application.
A fund that does not publish its deals forfeits that flywheel, which is why silence in this genre usually indicates either inactivity or deals too small to flatter the headline number. Cautionary tales run through the genre too, and they rhyme with Pi’s structure. Token-denominated war chests announced at cycle tops have repeatedly shrunk into irrelevance as their treasuries fell, with the announced figure surviving in marketing long after the purchasing power went. Corporate funds without independent governance have a documented tendency to drift into strategic spending that serves the parent, conference sponsorships, ecosystem marketing, insider-adjacent deals, none of which is fraud and all of which is invisible without reporting.
Pi’s fund may be avoiding every one of these failure modes. The point of norms is that observers should not have to guess. If Pi Network Ventures wants to function like an ecosystem institution rather than a one-time headline, it needs the disclosure habits of an ecosystem institution. Until then, its structure invites the same questions that have followed every token-funded war chest through a down market.
The shape of the accountability gap
Assembled in one place, the gap has a precise shape. The community knows the fund’s announced size, its sectors, its stated objectives, and one portfolio company. It does not know the token-dollar split, the custody, the amount deployed, the OpenMind check size, whether other investments exist, who decides, against what criteria, or how the fund’s value has tracked the token’s decline. Every unknown on that list is a routine disclosure elsewhere in the industry.
Fixing it would cost the team a webpage. A portfolio list with amounts, a quarterly deployment note, a sentence on denomination and custody, and named criteria for what the fund backs: this is the disclosure floor for ecosystem funds run by far smaller teams, and publishing it would convert the fund from a recurring question into the credibility asset it was announced as. The choice not to publish, thirteen months in, communicates in the other direction. A community that has spent a brutal year being asked for patience notices what is and is not shared with it.
There is also a harder structural question that disclosure alone does not settle: whether community-allocated reserves spent at core team discretion should acquire governance at all. Pi’s roadmap gestures at decentralized governance through a future PiDAO, and no test of that promise will be cleaner than whether the ecosystem’s checkbook eventually answers to the ecosystem. A fund that spends in the community’s name should eventually show the community more than a headline. That is especially true when the funding pool comes from reserves whose economic burden is ultimately carried by the same holders waiting for utility.
The questions a single webpage would answer
For the record, and for anyone from the project reading, the open questions compiled across this audit fit in one place, and none requires revealing a trade secret. How much of the $100 million has been deployed to date, in how many investments? What was the size of the OpenMind check, and in what denomination was it paid? What proportion of the fund is held in PI versus dollars, and is the headline figure marked to market or fixed at announcement pricing?
Where is the capital custodied, and who controls it? What are the published criteria a startup must meet, and where does one apply? Were the CiDi Games arrangement and similar partnerships fund investments, commercial deals, or neither? Does the fund take equity, tokens, or both, and on what standard terms?
Who, by name or at least by role, makes the investment decisions, with what process for conflicts when a portfolio company’s interests and the core team’s diverge? Every ecosystem fund of comparable ambition answers most of this list as a matter of routine, and several answer all of it. The questions are printed here not as gotchas but as a checklist, because the fastest way for the fund’s second year to differ from its first is for someone to treat the list as a publishing plan. Thirteen months of silence has made the questions sharper, not the answers harder.
What “first investment” timing reveals
One detail of the chronology rewards a second look before the verdict: the gap between the fund’s announcement and its first deal. Pi Network Ventures launched in mid-May 2025. The OpenMind announcement came at the end of October, five and a half months later, and described itself explicitly as the fund’s first investment. That retroactively confirmed that the splashy launch had preceded any committed deal.
In institutional venture, that sequencing is unremarkable; funds raise first and deploy over years. In ecosystem marketing, it reads differently, because the announcement was consumed by the community, and visibly intended, as evidence of present momentum during the token’s first post-listing slide. The fund functioned as a narrative instrument for five months before it functioned as a financial one, and the narrative use arrived precisely when the chart needed it. That observation is not an accusation; announcing initiatives before executing them is how most organizations work.
It does, though, calibrate how much weight future fund announcements should carry on arrival. An ecosystem that has watched the gap between announcement and execution once should price the next announcement at execution value, which in this fund’s case has so far meant one deal, two hundred days, and a number nobody outside the building can verify. That is the same difference between announcement and mechanism that has shaped several token markets this year. The question is not whether Pi can announce utility, but whether it can show utility arriving with numbers attached.
What it means for the token
For PI holders, the fund’s first year teaches a smaller and a larger lesson. Start with the smaller one, about expectations. At any plausible deployment pace, a $100 million fund is not a price mechanism. Spread over years and paid into startups whose products mature slowly, the capital is a rounding error against an unlock schedule adding close to 200 million tokens to circulation every month.
Holders who priced the announcement as a catalyst learned the same lesson XRP holders learned about corporate milestones this year: treasury activity and token demand live on different timelines, when they connect at all.
The larger lesson is about what the fund could still become. An ecosystem fund that published its activity, denominated transparently, deployed into builders who give the token actual jobs, and eventually answered to community governance would be a genuine asset, the institutional spine of the utility era the project keeps promising. The raw materials exist: real capital by any accounting, a first investment whose co-investors are unimpeachable, and a community desperate to fund things. What stands between the current fund and that version of it is not money; it is paperwork, and the will to show it.
A fund that turned ecosystem activity into recurring demand would matter more than a headline fund size. That is why revenue-linked mechanics anchored another token so powerfully elsewhere: they connected usage to standing token demand instead of asking holders to trust a narrative.
For PI, the question is whether the fund can help create real token sinks before the cycle backdrop and unlock pressure do more damage. That matters because the cycle backdrop pressuring small caps has left little room for ecosystem promises without visible execution.
The full Pi coin price outlook still depends on recurring demand, exchange depth, unlock absorption, and whether utility can grow fast enough to offset supply.
Until the paperwork appears, the strictly accurate answer to this piece’s title is the unsatisfying one: one robotics startup, undisclosed millions, and a balance nobody outside the team can see. In venture capital, that answer would be unremarkable for a private firm and disqualifying for a fund that spends a community’s allocation in a community’s name. Pi Network Ventures has spent its first year being judged by the first standard. Its second year should be judged by the other.
As of June 11, 2026. Fund and ecosystem figures reflect public disclosures available at publication; verify current data before trading. This article is information, not investment advice.
Trading bitcoin these days feels much as it did seven months ago, at the start of the year.
The price of the largest cryptocurrency is stuck in a tight range, with volatility at six-month lows, and traders are struggling to identify a break to bet on. Not surprisingly, transaction volume has slumped and is on track for the lowest since November 2023.
Back in January, the bitcoin price had been stuck in a narrow band, $86,000-$90,000, since the second half of December. Trading volume had dropped to an average of $5.1 billion a day, and has fallen to $2.2 billion this month, according to research from K33.
What happened next is interesting. Volatility picked up in the following weeks, the price rose to nearly $98,000 by mid-January and then slid down to around $60,000 by early February. Trading volume rose.
And that’s precisely the point. Volatility is cyclical: long stretches of quiet price action often precede a sharp move in one direction or the other. Like a coiled spring, the tighter the market compresses, the more forcefully it can unwind.
The largest altcoin by market cap rode the recent minor bullish wave in the cryptocurrency market, surging from just over $1,500 to almost $2,000 to mark a multi-month peak.
However, it stalled there as it couldn’t breach that psychological level. Moreover, the same technical tool that predicted the substantial revival has now flipped bearish.
Is ETH in Trouble?
According to Ali Martinez, the TD Sequential, a metric used to determine the underlying asset’s potential exhaustion moves in either direction, has been quite successful in determining ETH’s trend reversals. Back in early July, when Ether slumped to a multi-year low at around $1,520, it flashed a buy signal. This was followed by a major monthly rally that drove ETH to $1,980 last week.
As mentioned above, though, the asset’s run was halted at that level, and the TD Sequential is hinting at further trouble ahead. Martinez noted earlier today that the indicator has flipped to a sell signal and suggested that investors might consider taking some profits off the table.
Another popular analyst going by the X handle Crypto Lens shared a similar opinion. They noted that Ethereum has stuck between $1,860 and $1,955 for a reason, as the bull trap is “just getting started.” They added that a run to the $2,000 resistance will be followed by the “real capitulation.”
Crypto Lens’ scenario envisions a week or so in consolidation below that level before the final leg down begins and drives the asset south to somewhere between $1,400 and $900. Once it cleanses the weak hands, ETH’s next bull run can begin, and the analyst’s target is a big one – $7,000.
Not Good Against BTC
Crypto Rover also weighed in on the altcoin’s performance but focused on the trading pair against BTC. He outlined a chart that shows ETH has been charting new lower highs and lower lows for the past year. It began with a local peak at 0.04 marked last October, before Ethereum gradually lost a lot of traction that culminated with a drop to $0.025 in June.
It outperformed the market leader in the past month, jumping to 0.03. However, Crypto Rover believes another rejection is coming, which could drag it south to a fresh multi-year low of under 0.0235.
I’m sorry, bulls.$ETH vs $BTC keeps forming lower highs, and the latest rally is already losing momentum.
The same thing happened last time before ETH/BTC fell to a new low. pic.twitter.com/Si09I1gfIN
— Crypto Rover (@cryptorover) July 30, 2026
The post Is ETH’s Rally Over? The Key Indicator That Called Ethereum’s Run Just Flipped Bearish appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Tokenized gold is getting a burst of investor attention this year, tracking a surge in physical bullion demand as gold prices have repeatedly set fresh highs. But a new report from RedStone suggests that—despite improving market conditions—only a small portion of tokenized gold is actually being used in decentralized finance.
RedStone data points to a widening gap between market interest in tokenized bullion and its deployment in DeFi lending. In the first quarter, tokenized gold spot trading volume reached $90.7 billion as gold futures climbed above $5,600 per troy ounce. Yet just $63 million worth of tokenized gold—via Tether Gold (XAUT) and PAX Gold (PAXG)—is currently posted as collateral on Aave v3 and Morpho, according to RedStone. That collateral usage represents roughly 1.5% of the tokens’ combined $4.2 billion market capitalization.
Key takeaways
- Tokenized gold saw high activity in spot markets, with $90.7 billion in Q1 trading volume.
- Despite that liquidity, DeFi adoption remains thin: only about $63 million in XAUT and PAXG is used on Aave v3 and Morpho.
- RedStone highlights a real stress test: Aave processed its largest cluster of XAUT liquidations on March 23 without disruption during a sharp gold sell-off.
- Gold has been under pressure from expectations of higher US interest rates, which can reduce demand for non-yielding assets.
A resilient collateral asset, but with limited deployment
RedStone’s report frames tokenized gold as “battle-tested” in DeFi collateral, even while showing that the broader adoption story is still early. The core issue is not whether tokenized bullion can hold up during market volatility—it can—but whether enough capital is being placed into decentralized lending markets to make tokenized gold a meaningful on-chain primitive.
To ground that claim, RedStone points to Aave’s performance during a major sell-off. On March 23, Aave processed its largest cluster of XAUT liquidations without disruption as gold prices moved sharply lower. RedStone presents this as evidence that tokenized bullion can function reliably as DeFi collateral when markets turn fast.
That liquidation episode landed after gold dropped around 10% over the prior week—its worst weekly performance in more than four decades. Earlier coverage linked the sell-off to what JPMorgan precious metals strategist Greg Shearer called an “extremely brutal flush,” reflecting heightened risk-off behavior and fast repricing in commodity markets.
Why DeFi use is lagging: the market is there, collateral is not
RedStone’s numbers point to a mismatch between trading interest and productive DeFi usage. Tokenized gold spot volume suggests there is plenty of demand to buy, sell, and exchange tokenized bullion exposure. But the amount actually locked or committed to decentralized lending stays relatively small—about $63 million across Aave v3 and Morpho.
That matters because lending protocols are where tokenized real-world assets can translate from “tradable exposure” into “composable financial infrastructure.” If only a tiny fraction of the token supply is being used as collateral, DeFi’s ability to scale tokenized assets—especially during periods of high volatility—remains constrained by capital deployment rather than technical viability.
RedStone also situates the findings within a broader RWA expansion. Gold is one component of a market that includes private credit and tokenized US Treasurys paired with equity-related structures. In June, Token Terminal reported the sector had topped $43 billion in value, underlining that tokenization momentum is visible beyond gold alone.
Gold’s macro headwind could cut both ways
Even though the DeFi collateral test showed operational resilience, the report arrives during a period when gold itself has been under pressure. Since peaking in January, gold futures have fallen more than 26%. RedStone attributes the decline to expectations of higher US interest rates—an environment that tends to weigh on non-yielding assets like precious metals.
For tokenized gold, that matters for two reasons. First, falling prices can increase liquidation activity in lending protocols; the March 23 event shows that this process can occur without disruption. Second, if rates remain elevated, investor demand for bullion exposure may fluctuate, influencing both the spot trading volumes and the willingness of lenders/borrowers to engage with tokenized collateral strategies.
At the same time, RedStone’s reporting implies that DeFi adoption hasn’t accelerated in proportion to the broader “tokenized gold” trading narrative. If gold volatility persists, investors may demand more robust collateral mechanisms—but the current deployment levels suggest that the industry still has work to do to turn resilience into sustained utilization.
Centralized exchanges may be moving faster than on-chain lending
While RedStone’s focus is on DeFi collateral usage, the report’s broader framing highlights a contrast: centralized platforms are increasingly integrating tokenized assets as they try to bridge traditional finance and digital assets. According to a CoinGecko report referenced in the article, an emerging “crypto TradFi” market had grown to $6.6 billion as of June.
This difference in pace helps explain the adoption gap. Tokenized gold can be actively traded on centralized exchanges without necessarily being locked into on-chain lending. Until more liquidity and integrations flow directly into decentralized collateral ecosystems, tokenized real-world assets may remain more of a trading product than a primary DeFi building block.
As the tokenized RWA market expands—both on-chain and off-chain—readers should watch whether DeFi collateral usage of XAUT and PAXG rises meaningfully beyond current levels. The March 23 liquidation test suggests protocols can handle stress, but the next key question is whether capital continues to move from spot trading activity into sustained lending and other decentralized use cases.
South Korea has approved plans to establish a new 20 trillion won investment account within its sovereign wealth fund to finance artificial intelligence, data centers and other strategic industries while allowing domestic investments for the first time.
Summary
- South Korea approved a 20 trillion won sovereign investment account focused on AI, data centers and strategic industries.
- The new Korea Investment Corporation account will be allowed to invest in domestic assets for the first time.
- The government plans to submit legal amendments in August and expects the fund to begin operations in 2027.
- The announcement follows recent efforts to attract global technology investors and expand AI-related investment initiatives.
According to a South Korean government statement released Friday, the new account will be created under the Korea Investment Corporation (KIC), expanding the sovereign wealth fund’s mandate beyond overseas assets. The government said the account will begin with at least 20 trillion won in capital, funded through equity contributions from public institutions, including policy banks.
Unlike KIC’s existing portfolio, which primarily manages foreign assets, the new account will be permitted to invest inside South Korea. The government said the structure is intended to support industries considered strategically important while also generating long-term returns for future generations and strengthening national economic security, foreign exchange stability and financial markets.
The announcement also comes as South Korean equities remain under pressure. The Kospi index has fallen 34% during July, putting it on track for its worst monthly performance on record after investors sold shares of the country’s largest semiconductor companies over concerns surrounding the scale of AI-related capital spending.
South Korea expands KIC mandate to include domestic assets
Government officials said the investment account is designed to respond to rising international interest in South Korea’s technology sector, particularly projects linked to artificial intelligence infrastructure.
According to the government, a domestic anchor investor will help attract capital from foreign sovereign wealth funds and global asset managers seeking exposure to Korean technology investments. Although officials did not directly connect the initiative to the recent stock market decline, the announcement follows several government measures introduced in recent weeks to stabilize financial markets.
The government also stressed that the account’s investment decisions will remain independent despite its public policy objectives. It said the new vehicle will operate separately from KIC’s existing foreign exchange reserve portfolio, preserving the institution’s current investment framework.
To enable the new structure, the government plans to submit amendments to the Korea Investment Corporation Act to the National Assembly in August. Fund operations are expected to begin in 2027 once the legislative process is completed.
Korea Investment Corporation managed approximately $232 billion in assets at the end of 2025. The sovereign wealth fund oversees money entrusted by the government, the Bank of Korea and other public institutions as part of the country’s foreign reserve management program.
AI investment strategy builds on startup funding plans
The latest initiative adds another layer to South Korea’s technology investment strategy after the government recently stepped up efforts to attract overseas venture capital into domestic startups.
As previously reported by crypto.news, President Lee Jae-myung met representatives from six Silicon Valley venture capital firms, including Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz, Khosla Ventures, Lightspeed Venture Partners, General Catalyst and New Enterprise Associates, encouraging them to increase investments in Korean startups.
The National Pension Service also signed separate memorandums of understanding with the six firms to establish long-term investment cooperation covering investment opportunities, market information sharing and stronger links between Korea’s startup ecosystem and international venture capital networks.
Asiae reported that the government is simultaneously preparing a proposed National Growth Fund valued at 200 trillion won to finance industries such as artificial intelligence and semiconductors. The publication said policymakers expect public funding, private investment and overseas capital to enter the domestic technology sector together if the initiatives proceed as planned.
While welcoming stronger international participation, Asiae also argued that South Korea will need policies that encourage successful startups to continue expanding domestically. The newspaper pointed to stock option rules, visa policies for foreign specialists, merger and acquisition activity, commercialization of university research and administrative procedures as areas that could influence long-term investment decisions.
Digital asset policies continue alongside technology funding
The sovereign investment plan has emerged alongside several technology-related policy initiatives that South Korean authorities have been advancing during recent months.
Earlier this week, a policy report published by Hashed Open Research and the Solana Policy Institute recommended introducing interim licensing guidance for stablecoins before lawmakers complete the country’s Digital Asset Basic Act. The report proposed a phased regulatory framework covering stablecoin issuance, payment services and foreign-issued tokens while comprehensive legislation remains under discussion.
The report also summarized views presented during a June policy symposium, including ongoing discussions over whether banks should retain majority ownership of stablecoin issuers while fintech companies manage operations. Those recommendations remain advisory and have not been adopted into law.
Separately, the Financial Services Commission has said it intends to consolidate ten pending digital asset proposals into a government-backed Digital Asset Basic Act covering stablecoin issuance, exchange conduct, disclosures, internal controls and operational resilience, although no implementation timetable has been announced.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has filed civil penalty proceedings against Telegram in the Federal Court, alleging the platform failed to detect and remove pro-terror material, including videos of terrorist executions and mass shootings.
The regulator opened the case after a year-long investigation. Telegram could face penalties of up to 54.6 million Australian dollars, roughly $38 million, for failing to comply with Australia’s codes and standards.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
What eSafety Alleges Against Telegram
According to the press release, Telegram allegedly left publicly posted pro-terror material online for up to 3 weeks after Australian users reported it.
The regulator also alleges the platform failed to detect known footage of the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting and the 2022 Buffalo mass shooting. That material remained on Telegram for nearly 3 months before being removed.
eSafety further claims Telegram’s Terms of Service did not prohibit pro-terror material across all parts of the app. The platform also allegedly failed to inform complainants about the outcome of their reports.
“This case concerns content linked to some of the most notorious acts of known extremist violence in recent history, including material associated with the Christchurch and Buffalo terror attacks. We allege that this content remained accessible on the service long after Telegram had been put on notice,” eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said.
Inman Grant said Australians visit Telegram 1.5 million times a month on average. The platform reports more than 1 billion users worldwide and offers groups of up to 200,000 members.
“Telegram has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent the hosting, sharing, amplification and monetisation of this harmful material,” she added.
Telegram denied the claims in a statement and said its anti-terrorism efforts are well-documented.
“We reject these allegations and will contest them in court,” a Telegram spokesperson said.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit adds to mounting legal pressure on the messaging app. Russia recently charged founder Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorist activity.
However, Durov claimed Russia acted against him because Telegram refused to comply with its demands for mass surveillance and censorship. French authorities also arrested Durov in August 2024.
Whether the Federal Court imposes the maximum penalty may signal how aggressively Australia will enforce its online safety standards against global platforms.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post Australia Sues Telegram Over Alleged Failure to Remove Terror Content appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase reported its Q2 earnings, posting $1.2 billion in revenue and missing Wall Street estimates on sales and profits for a third straight time.
The exchange blamed low spot trading volumes and low volatility for missing earnings estimates. Coinbase lost $1.36 per share, significantly higher than Wall Street’s estimate of a loss between 17 cents and 44 cents, as transaction, subscription, and stablecoin revenue came in lower than expectations.
Coinbase Posts $1.2 Billion In Revenue
The mixed Q2 earnings come as weak trading activity dragged expected results lower despite cornering a record share of the cryptocurrency market. Coinbase reported $1.2 billion in net revenue for Q2, a 19% decline from the previous year.
The GAAP net loss of $359 million was significantly higher than market expectations of a $122 million loss. Coinbase’s subscription revenue, transaction revenue, services revenue, and adjusted EBITDA also fell short of expectations.
Transaction revenue was also lower at $599 million against the expected $636 million. Subscription services revenue clocked in at $555 million, narrowly missing the estimated $590 million.
Coinbase reported $292 million in stablecoin revenue, a $17 million decline from Q2 2025, and lower than StreetAccount’s estimate of $327.2 million. The company’s shares fell over 5% during after-hours trading following the earnings report.
Weak Spot Trading Activity Dampens Q2
Despite the lower numbers, Coinbase’s share of the cryptocurrency market jumped to an all-time high of 10.3%, substantially higher than the 9.1% reported in Q1. The increase in market share comes despite a struggling crypto market and weak trading activity.
Coinbase has attributed the lower-than-expected results to weak institutional and retail trading activity. Spot trading volume has dropped 25% quarter-over-quarter, while cryptocurrency prices have remained low thanks to geopolitical tensions and policy headwinds.
Brian Armstrong Bullish On Coinbase
Coinbase is positioning itself as an “Everything Exchange” as it expands its presence into derivatives, prediction markets, payments, and tokenized assets. CEO Brian Armstrong highlighted the exchange’s record market share, adding that it could operate in any market, stating,
“Coinbase is no longer a bet just on the price of bitcoin. All of financial services are getting updated by crypto, whether that’s trading or payments or lending.”
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
Crypto adoption in Canada is rising fast, according to new research from the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC). The regulator’s latest survey suggests that the share of Canadians who own cryptocurrency has climbed to 25% in 2026—up sharply from 10% in 2023—while awareness has also increased.
In findings released Tuesday, the OSC reported that 59% of surveyed adults said they are aware of crypto assets, and 25% reported holding them. The survey polled 2,360 Canadians aged 18 and over between December 2025 and January 2026, offering a snapshot of how quickly retail interest has expanded in recent years.
Key takeaways
- OSC survey data indicates crypto ownership reached 25% in 2026, versus 10% in 2023.
- Awareness among Canadian adults rose to 59%, up from levels reported in earlier OSC research.
- Roughly half of crypto owners said they check whether a platform is registered before using it.
- Many owners still appear to misunderstand core protections such as regulation, insurance coverage, and transaction capabilities.
- Federal policy discussions—such as proposed restrictions on crypto political donations and digital asset ATMs—continue in parallel with growing retail participation.
OSC survey shows rapid rise in ownership and awareness
The OSC’s survey points to a significant shift in how mainstream crypto has become among Canadian adults. While crypto awareness has increased, the more notable change is ownership: 25% of respondents reported holding crypto assets, a jump compared with the 10% ownership level reported in 2023.
OSC framed the results as evidence that Canadians are “participating” in crypto markets more than they were only a few years ago. In its release, the regulator highlighted the value of monitoring “emerging trends and behaviors” to refine how it approaches oversight.
Knowledge improving—but investor understanding of protections still lagging
Beyond adoption, the OSC also examined how informed owners appear to be. The findings suggest some improvement in basic due diligence: about 50% of crypto owners said they check whether a platform is registered before using it.
However, the OSC noted that the survey also reflected “misunderstanding” around multiple areas that matter for consumer protection. The regulator said many respondents had incomplete or incorrect beliefs related to regulation, insurance protections, and transaction capabilities.
For investors, this matters because the practical safety of an investment often depends not just on whether a platform exists, but on what protections apply when things go wrong—such as custody issues, service failures, or disputes about transactions. The OSC’s takeaway implies that higher ownership does not automatically translate into stronger investor literacy.
Growing retail participation intersects with Ottawa’s policy push
Canada’s shift toward wider crypto ownership is occurring as lawmakers debate how crypto should be regulated and where restrictions should apply. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted two federal moves that align with the OSC’s consumer-protection themes.
In April, the federal government advanced a bill that could ban the use of crypto for political donations. In the same period, Ottawa also proposed banning digital asset ATMs, citing concerns about fraud.
These initiatives reflect a broader tension that regulators often face as adoption rises: extending access while limiting pathways that could be exploited for wrongdoing. If more consumers are entering the space, policymakers may feel stronger pressure to tighten safeguards—particularly around rails that can be used anonymously or with limited oversight, such as certain payment or cash-conversion channels.
What to watch next as regulation meets expanding demand
The OSC’s survey underscores that crypto is no longer a niche activity in Canada. With one in four surveyed adults reporting ownership and more than half expressing awareness, future regulatory decisions will increasingly affect a mainstream retail population rather than a small enthusiast base.
At the same time, the OSC’s warning about gaps in understanding suggests that education and clearer consumer-facing disclosures may be just as important as rulemaking. Investors should watch whether regulators emphasize registration checks, platform disclosure standards, and specific protections related to custody and transactional processes—and whether federal proposals tied to donations and ATMs move forward.
As the next round of research or consultations approaches, the key question will be whether Canada’s regulatory response keeps pace with the pace of adoption—and whether consumers gain not only access, but also the ability to evaluate risk and protections with confidence.
Bitcoin traded near $63,900 on Friday, roughly flat, as the Bank of Japan left its benchmark rate at 1% and Governor Kazuo Ueda’s attempt to sound hawkish landed softly with markets.
The yen gave back its move during his press conference, and the dollar-yen pair returned to where it started, since traders had already priced a high chance of an October hike.
Ueda said inflation should rise above 2% later this fiscal year and pointed to AI demand and the weak yen as forces pushing prices higher, the same two threads that have shaped crypto’s macro backdrop all month.
A soft yen has fed the carry trade that sends money into risk assets, and the AI capital cycle is the trade bitcoin has tracked closely.
The broader market was quiet. Ether held near $1,885, while BNB extended its run as the standout large token, up 3.5% on the day and 4.4% on the week to around $591, per CoinDesk data.
South Korean police arrested three suspects behind a fake XRP staking scheme that defrauded 71 investors, with criminal proceeds reaching roughly $19 million.
The case shows why the country’s intense retail trading culture attracts increasingly sophisticated crypto fraud.
How the Fake XRP Staking Scheme Worked
Staking involves locking cryptocurrency to secure a network in exchange for rewards. The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency announced Thursday that its cyber unit dismantled an operation exploiting that concept.
Officers charged them with aggravated fraud and violating the Similar Reception Act. Two were taken into custody. The scheme began in October last year. The suspects launched a site branded around FXRP networks, promising monthly returns of 1.5% to 1.8% for staking XRP.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens.
Those numbers far exceeded what genuine staking services pay. Investigators believe the figures targeted yield-hungry retail investors. The fraud drew power from its timing. Flare Network is a genuine blockchain, and FXRP is a real XRP-linked asset issued by it.
The suspects hijacked those names as the real token launched. Their fake platform mimicked a legitimate service, then vanished within a month. Victims transferred roughly 3.4 million XRP, worth about $8.6 million. Police later determined that the total proceeds neared $19 million.
How Did Police Track the Stolen XRP
Promotion spanned many platforms. The group used Naver blogs, forums, Tistory, articles, Wikipedia entries, and YouTube channels.
According to the authorities, Wikipedia carried a damaging falsehood. Entries claimed FXRP staking could only be accessed through Binance, steering victims toward the fraudulent process. YouTube channels impersonated industry figures. Accounts posing as Upbit developers and Ripple insiders used paid actors to explain remittance methods.
That routing served a purpose. Victims moved XRP via domestic exchanges and overseas platforms before it reached the suspects’ wallets. The detour circumvented South Korea’s Travel Rule, which requires exchanges to verify sender and recipient details on larger transfers.
Police opened their investigation last October after overseas exchanges flagged complaints. Blockchain tracing followed the money across platforms. Speed proved critical. Within three days, authorities froze roughly $12.1 million abroad.
An Interpol red notice targets the main suspect, who remains abroad. Investigators also pursue accomplices who promoted the site.
Why South Korea Attracts These Schemes
South Korea has long been a global stronghold for XRP. Unlike Western markets dominated by Bitcoin, Korean retail traders consistently push XRP atop volume rankings.
Analyst Xaif Crypto reports XRP trading at nearly 4x Bitcoin’s volume across leading Korean platforms. On Upbit, turnover recently reached around $86 million.
That figure reflects how actively the asset changes hands, not how many hold it. Intense participation and deep liquidity create the conditions fraudsters exploit. Local appetite survived turbulence elsewhere. The Kobeissi Letter reported that Korean equities tumbled 44% over 40 days, erasing nearly $2 trillion in market value.
Officials urge caution as similar schemes multiply. Verify staking claims independently, distrust guaranteed monthly returns, and report suspicious platforms immediately.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights.
The post Fake XRP Staking Scheme Stole $19 Million: Three Suspects Arrested appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Senate negotiators have reportedly proposed revised ethics language for the CLARITY Act that would let state authorities enforce restrictions on federal officials’ crypto activities as bipartisan talks continue before the August recess.
Summary
- Senators Thom Tillis and Ruben Gallego have reportedly proposed new CLARITY Act ethics rules that would allow state authorities to enforce restrictions on federal officials’ crypto activities.
- The reported changes address Democratic concerns over leaving enforcement solely to the Department of Justice.
- The revised ethics proposal comes as Senate negotiators continue seeking enough Democratic support to advance the crypto market structure bill.
- Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has urged the Senate to vote on the CLARITY Act before the August recess as time to pass the legislation narrows.
According to Punchbowl News, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis and Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego have submitted a counterproposal to the White House that changes how the ethics provisions in the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act would be enforced.
Instead of giving the U.S. Attorney General sole enforcement authority, the proposal would allow state authorities to enforce a ban on federal officials issuing or sponsoring digital tokens.
The reported revision addresses one of the main concerns raised by Senate Democrats during negotiations over the crypto market structure bill.
Ethics enforcement has remained a sticking point
Debate over ethics rules has continued for weeks despite earlier progress between the White House and Senate Republicans.
The White House said on July 22 that it had accepted what it described as the most extensive federal ethics restrictions ever proposed after negotiations with Republican Sens. Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno. At the time, however, the administration did not disclose the final wording or explain how the provisions would be enforced.
Several Democrats argued that leaving enforcement solely to the Department of Justice would not provide enough independent oversight because the department falls under the executive branch. Barron’s previously reported that some lawmakers wanted state attorneys general to share enforcement authority, a position that closely matches the latest reported proposal.
Earlier in the negotiations, Patrick Witt, executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, told CoinDesk that the administration supported ethics rules applying across the federal government but opposed language targeting any single official or family.
CLARITY Act still needs Democratic votes
Gallego has repeatedly said the legislation requires stronger ethics safeguards before it can secure Democratic backing.
The Arizona senator previously said protections covering ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity “must be strengthened,” adding that he would continue working with Republicans to get the bill across the finish line.
Many Senate Democrats have also warned they will not support the CLARITY Act if they believe it allows President Donald Trump to retain influence over an industry his administration would regulate. Their concerns have focused on Trump’s memecoin project and his family’s involvement with World Liberty Financial.
Republicans currently hold an effective 52-47 majority in the Senate because Sen. Mitch McConnell remains absent for medical reasons. Even so, the party still needs Democratic support to reach the 60 votes required to advance most legislation.
White House faces pressure before the August recess
Pressure has increased as lawmakers approach the Senate’s August recess with limited time remaining to move the legislation.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called on senators earlier this week to hold a vote on the CLARITY Act before leaving Washington, arguing that lawmakers should publicly state where they stand on the crypto market structure bill.
Bessent also defended the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, saying it would codify longstanding Treasury policy on non-custodial software developers rather than weaken anti-money laundering enforcement. Law enforcement groups, including the National Fraternal Order of Police and the Major Cities Chiefs Association, later backed the revised language after earlier raising concerns.
The House approved its version of the CLARITY Act in July 2025 with bipartisan support, but Senate negotiators must still finalize the ethics package and secure enough Democratic votes before the legislation can move forward.
WhatsApp finally fixes one of its biggest storage headaches with this new cleanup tool
Financial Management | Introduction | Financial Decision | Function |BBA | B.Com | MBA | Class 12
Redington shares gain 4% after Q1 profit jumps 77% YoY, revenue growth remains robust
-
Fashion7 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Sports5 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Business2 days agoWhy Trees Belong on the Risk Register
-
Tech4 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Crypto World6 days agoRipple bought a bank in pieces. The $4 billion audit
-
Politics4 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Entertainment7 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
Politics3 days agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
News Videos4 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Business2 days agoMajor shareholder moves on Canyon
-
Crypto World5 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
News Videos21 hours agoBitcoin Enters the 3rd Stage of the Bear Market
-
Politics5 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
Entertainment3 days ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Entertainment5 days agoSara Gilson Killed By Husband After Viral “Pedophile” TikTok Video
-
Crypto World2 days agoKraken Enables Retail Access to Jersey Mike’s IPO via Tokenized Shares
-
Tech6 days agoAnthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows
-
News Videos3 days agoClaude: Build Financial Dashboards in Minutes (2026)
-
Politics16 hours agoLuke Littler’s dominance sparks GOAT debate
-
Tech3 days agoNew macOS Sequoia & Sonoma security updates for older Macs
You must be logged in to post a comment Login