Crypto World
Who actually trades XRP? Korea and Japan order books
Set aside the ETF headlines and the courtroom drama, and the price of XRP gets made somewhere specific: on won and yen order books.
Summary
- XRP’s marginal price is heavily shaped by Korean and Japanese order books, not just Western ETF flows or Ripple headlines.
- South Korea’s spot-only crypto rules make XRP a high-beta leverage proxy for retail traders unable to use local derivatives.
- Japan’s XRP base is steadier, supported by SBI, stricter regulation, tax policy, and long-term retail familiarity.
- Traders should watch XRP/KRW volume share, won premiums, netflows, KOSPI stress, and ETF flows to read the real market.
On May 13, 2026, XRP did something on South Korean exchanges that no major Western venue has ever shown: it out-traded Bitcoin and Ethereum by combined margins of attention. Upbit, the country’s largest exchange, printed about $110.9 million in 24-hour XRP volume against Bitcoin’s $88.6 million and Ethereum’s $67 million, making the XRP/KRW pair the single busiest market on the platform. Bithumb, the second venue, showed the same pattern, with XRP behind only Tether’s stablecoin pair. The price barely moved, grinding between $1.44 and $1.46 beneath a resistance zone it had failed to break since February.
That single day was not an anomaly. It was the XRP market showing its true face. For all the attention paid to American ETF flows, SEC litigation, and Ripple’s corporate maneuvering, the marginal price of XRP gets set to a remarkable degree on Korean and Japanese order books. Understanding who actually trades this token, and why, explains more about its chart than any partnership announcement ever has.
It explains the violence of its drawdowns, the speed of its squeezes, the strange way it shrugs off news that should move it and erupts on news that should not. What follows is a tour of that market: the Korean machine, the Japanese base, the mechanics connecting them to the global price, and what any of it would take to change. The story is not only about XRP liquidity. It is about the traders whose incentives quietly write the chart most of the world reads too late.
Korea by the numbers
Start with the scale, because the scale is the story. Dunamu, the operator of Upbit, listed XRP as the platform’s most traded asset for the full year, ranking it ahead of Bitcoin and Ethereum across twelve months of order flow, not one viral afternoon. During a volume surge in July 2025, Upbit alone printed $269 million of XRP in 24 hours, the highest figure on any exchange in the world that day, with $161 million of it compressed into a single hour. In the March 2025 episode that doubled global XRP spot volume to $1.84 billion in a day, Upbit’s $452 million led every venue on earth.
Korean trading does not just favor XRP; it favors everything that moves. Altcoins make up 70% to 80% of volume on the country’s domestic exchanges, against a global average near 50%. The market runs on rotation: capital sweeps from one mid-cap name to another in days, chasing whatever is trending on the country’s hyperactive trading communities, then sweeps out again. XRP holds a special place inside that rotation as the permanent fixture, the asset Korean retail returns to in every cycle, familiar enough to be a default and volatile enough to be interesting.
The May episode showed the rotation’s other trigger: the local stock market. XRP’s surge to the top of the Korean books came as the KOSPI index slumped, and reporting at the time was blunt about the mechanism: middle-aged retail traders rotating out of weak equities and into the most familiar high-beta crypto asset available. When Korean stocks disappoint, a measurable slice of that frustration arrives on the XRP order book within days. No Ripple press release is involved at any point in the process.
The spot-only rule that explains everything
Why XRP, though? Why does a payments token with a corporate parent in San Francisco function as the national trading vehicle of South Korean retail? The deepest answer sits in Korean regulation, and it is the single most underappreciated fact in XRP market analysis. South Korea prohibits domestic crypto derivatives for retail, which means no futures, no options, and no leveraged tokens on local venues.
Access to offshore derivatives platforms is legally restricted, so Korean traders who want amplified exposure have exactly one tool available: volatility itself. A spot-only trader replicates leverage by choosing assets that move twice or three times as hard as Bitcoin, and XRP, with its deep liquidity, household familiarity, and high beta, is the closest thing the Korean rulebook allows to a leveraged Bitcoin position. Read the order book through that lens and its strangeness becomes rational. The preference for XRP over Bitcoin is not a belief about cross-border payments or a vote on Ripple’s lawsuit.
It is a structural workaround: the most liquid lottery ticket in a market where the casino only sells spot. The same logic explains the 70% to 80% altcoin share, the days-long rotation cycles, and the short holding periods that local analysis describes as a market optimized for short-horizon decisions over conviction. None of this flow is reading Ripple’s quarterly reports. Most of it would rotate into a different ticker tomorrow if a different ticker moved better.
For XRP’s global price, the consequence is a permanent, structural layer of demand that is enormous, loyal in aggregate, and utterly mercenary in the particulars. Korea will always trade XRP. Korea will not always be buying it. That distinction is why Korean volume can be bullish for liquidity and bearish for price at the same time.
The kimchi premium and the plumbing
Korean crypto markets carry a famous quirk with real consequences for XRP: prices on won pairs regularly detach from global levels, trading at a premium in manic phases and occasionally at a discount in fearful ones. It exists because Korean liquidity is partially sealed off, with capital controls and strict banking rules making arbitrage between won markets and global markets slow and legally fraught. When Korean demand surges, prices on Upbit can run several % above Binance for hours or days before the gap closes. For a token as Korea-weighted as XRP, the premium mechanics work like a feedback amplifier.
A global uptick draws Korean momentum buying, the won price runs ahead, premium-watching traders worldwide read the gap as a bullish signal and front-run the arbitrage, and the global price chases the Korean one upward. The loop runs equally well in reverse: Korean capitulation drags won pairs to a discount, the discount reads as a death signal, and global selling accelerates. Twice in the past decade, broad altcoin manias have effectively been Korean premium events exported worldwide, and XRP sat near the center both times. The kimchi premium is not a curiosity around the XRP market; it is part of the market’s transmission mechanism.
The netflow data adds a final wrinkle that volume numbers hide. During the July 2025 surge, even as Upbit led the planet in XRP volume, the exchange showed a negative net XRP flow of more than $100 million in a day, meaning tokens were leaving the venue even as trading exploded. Volume measures excitement, while netflow measures direction. Korean XRP data routinely shows the two pointing opposite ways, which is just what a rotation-driven, fast-money market should produce, and why headlines celebrating Korean volume as adoption get the story wrong.
How XRP became Korea’s coin in the first place
Korean retail’s marriage to XRP predates everything in today’s data, and the history explains the loyalty better than any present-day incentive. During the 2017 mania, South Korea briefly became the center of the crypto universe, and XRP was its favorite child. Korean won volume drove a staggering share of global XRP trading through that winter, the kimchi premium blew out to double digits, and the token’s vertical January 2018 top, the all-time high that still anchors every long-term chart, was to a remarkable degree a Korean event. Won pairs led the world up and then led it down when regulators threatened exchange closures.
An entire generation of Korean traders made and lost fortunes on XRP specifically, and markets remember their first loves. The asset that minted a country’s defining boom-and-bust story became permanent furniture in its trading culture. Entrenchment deepened through the quiet years, because while Western exchanges delisted or sidelined XRP during the SEC lawsuit, Korean venues never did. The token kept its premier placement on Upbit’s screens through the entire legal winter.
By the time American institutions returned to the asset in 2024 and 2025, Korean retail had simply never left. That is why the country’s order books today carry the depth, familiarity, and reflexes that a decade of continuous trading builds. The Korean XRP market is not a recent enthusiasm. It is an institution with a longer unbroken history than most of the asset’s Western infrastructure.
The concentration nobody prices: Upbit itself
One more fact shapes the map, because it concentrates an uncomfortable amount of XRP’s market structure in a single point of failure: Upbit’s dominance of Korean trading. Upbit handles the overwhelming majority of Korean crypto volume, operating through a real-name banking partnership that gives it privileged access to the won on-ramp. Korean regulators have spent recent years openly examining that concentration, from anti-monopoly scrutiny of the exchange’s market share to reviews of its banking arrangement. For most assets, a Korean policy shock would be a regional story.
For XRP, whose single busiest global trading pair has repeatedly been Upbit’s won market, it would be a direct hit to the token’s primary price discovery venue. A suspension, a banking partner change, or a forced market share remedy in Seoul would do more to XRP’s daily liquidity than any plausible action by the SEC. Risk runs the other direction too, and traders should hold both. Korean policy has been drifting toward expansion, not restriction, with institutional access and ETF frameworks under discussion, and Upbit’s parent has been positioning for that bigger market.
The point is not that Seoul threatens XRP. The point is that a token whose price formation leans this heavily on one venue in one jurisdiction carries a concentration risk that appears in no Western risk model, and it costs nothing to know it. Upbit is not just another exchange in XRP’s market structure. It is one of the places where the market’s center of gravity actually sits.
Japan: the other pillar, built differently
Cross the strait and the XRP market changes character completely. Japan holds one of the world’s oldest and deepest XRP retail bases, but it trades nothing like Korea, and the difference between the two books is a lesson in how regulation shapes behavior. Japanese crypto runs through exchanges licensed by the Financial Services Agency under some of the strictest consumer rules anywhere: segregated customer assets, cold storage mandates, and listing reviews that can take years. Inside that conservative perimeter, XRP achieved something unusual: institutional sponsorship.
SBI Holdings, one of Japan’s largest financial groups, has been Ripple’s most committed corporate ally for nearly a decade, running a joint venture for Asian payments, holding XRP on its own balance sheet, championing the token through the public statements of its chief executive Yoshitaka Kitao, and wiring XRP into live remittance corridors through SBI Remit. These include the Japan-to-Southeast-Asia routes where the token actually performs its original bridge function. Japanese retail absorbed that sponsorship years ago. XRP became, for a generation of Japanese savers, the respectable altcoin, the one a major financial institution had publicly blessed.
Japanese policy quietly reinforces the holding culture. Crypto gains in Japan are taxed as miscellaneous income at progressive rates that can approach the mid-fifties for high earners, a regime that punishes active trading and rewards sitting still, the exact inverse of Korea’s flat-rate deferrals and rotation-friendly structure. SBI has layered its own incentives on top over the years, at times offering XRP itself as a shareholder benefit, an arrangement with no real parallel anywhere in crypto: a blue-chip financial conglomerate handing its registered shareholders the token as a perk. Between the tax code and the corporate sponsorship, Japanese XRP sits where it lands.
The result is a holder base with the opposite metabolism to Korea’s. Japanese XRP money skews toward accumulation and long holding, moves less day to day, and shows up in the data as a stabilizing floor rather than a momentum engine. Korea supplies XRP’s velocity; Japan supplies a meaningful share of its patience. Both books are retail, both are enormous, and they pull the token in different directions: one amplifying every swing, the other quietly absorbing supply through them.
What this microstructure does to the chart
Put the pieces together and several chronic mysteries of XRP price behavior dissolve. Take the drawdown violence first. XRP routinely falls harder than its market cap peers in broad selloffs, and this spring was no exception, with the token losing roughly 17% in a single week of the June slide while breaking supports that had held for months. A market whose marginal trader is a spot-only momentum player has no natural buyer during declines.
The Korean book that supplies the bid in uptrends rotates elsewhere the moment momentum dies, taking its 70%-of-volume firepower with it, while the patient Japanese bid sits far below the action by design. Between the momentum layer and the accumulation layer lies an air pocket, and XRP falls through it with regularity. Then comes the news immunity. Corporate announcements that thrill Western holders routinely fail to move the price, while obscure local catalysts, a KOSPI slump, a Korean community rumor, or an exchange promotion, produce hundred-million-dollar volume days.
The marginal buyer does not read Ripple press releases, so Ripple press releases do not move the margin. The flow responds to what its actual drivers respond to: momentum, rotation, local market conditions, and the premium signal. The squeeze behavior follows the same logic. When XRP does catch a genuine uptrend, the same machinery that amplifies declines turns around and amplifies the rally, with Korean rotation capital piling into the most familiar name on the board and the premium loop exporting the move globally.
The token’s history of violent, late-cycle vertical rallies, the kind that triple the price in weeks after months of stagnation, is the signature of this structure. The spot-only leverage proxy works in both directions. It punishes the token when momentum disappears and rewards it when rotation comes back. That is why XRP’s chart can look dead for months and then move like a small cap when the right book wakes up.
Reading the signals correctly
For a trader or a journalist, the practical payoff of all this is a different dashboard. The standard XRP analysis toolkit, ETF flow tables, whale wallets, legal calendars, misses the market’s actual engine, and a Korea-aware toolkit looks different. Watch the XRP/KRW volume share on Upbit, not just the global total: a rising Korean share during a rally signals rotation money, the kind that leaves, while a rally on flat Korean share suggests something rarer and more durable is bidding. Watch netflow against volume, because volume spikes with negative netflows mark distribution dressed as enthusiasm.
Watch the premium: won pairs trading rich against global levels is a real-time gauge of Korean retail temperature, and its collapses have led global XRP downturns more reliably than any moving average. Watch the KOSPI too, absurd as it sounds, because the strongest single-day XRP volume event of the spring was triggered by a Korean equity selloff, not by anything that happened to Ripple. The signals also clarify what Korean volume cannot tell you. It cannot confirm institutional adoption, which lives on entirely different rails.
It cannot validate the payments thesis, since the flow is expressly speculative. It cannot anchor a long-term price target, because rotation capital prices nothing beyond the next move. This is where the full XRP price outlook must separate microstructure from fundamentals, because the book can explain the next swing without answering the long-term valuation question. The Korean book is a magnificent amplifier and a terrible oracle.
A worked example: reading one week of tape
Theory earns its keep in practice, so take the early-June slide as a worked example of the Korea-aware dashboard against the standard one. A standard reading of that week was straightforward and mostly useless: XRP fell roughly 17%, whales were selling, and support broke. A microstructure reading saw more. Korean volume share in XRP had been climbing for weeks while global price stalled under resistance, the classic signature of rotation money carrying the bid alone.
Netflows on the won venues had turned negative even on green days, meaning the loudest book in the market was distributing into its own enthusiasm. When the broad selloff arrived, the momentum layer did what the structure predicts, vanishing rather than defending. The token fell through the air pocket between the Korean bid and the Japanese one until it found the deeper levels where patience lives. Nothing about the move required whale conspiracies or news catalysts.
The order books had been describing it in advance to anyone reading the right columns. The example generalizes into the simplest possible rule for this asset: when Korean share rises and netflow falls, treat strength as borrowed. When Korean share falls while price holds, something sturdier than rotation is bidding, and that is the rarer and more valuable signal. The rule will not call tops and bottoms, but it will tell you who is on the other side of your trade, which is most of what microstructure can ever offer.
What would change the structure
Market structures this entrenched change through regulation, and two live regulatory tracks could redraw the XRP map within a couple of years. The Korean track runs toward liberalization. Seoul has spent 2025 and 2026 inching toward institutional participation in crypto, debating corporate trading accounts, spot ETF frameworks, and eventually derivatives access. Every step in that direction dilutes the spot-only distortion that makes XRP the national leverage proxy.
A Korean retail trader with access to regulated Bitcoin futures has less structural reason to express risk appetite through XRP, while Korean institutions entering spot markets would add exactly the slower, conviction-weighted flow the book currently lacks. Liberalization would likely shrink XRP’s share of Korean volume and deepen its quality at the same time, a trade long-term holders should welcome and momentum traders will mourn. The American track runs through the CLARITY Act and the ETF era. If U.S. market structure law settles XRP’s status permanently, the institutional flows that today tiptoe through ETF wrappers gain room to grow into something that rivals the Asian retail base at the margin.
The token’s price formation would then have three real engines: Korean momentum, Japanese patience, and American allocation, instead of two and a rounding error. The institutional flows that today tiptoe through ETF wrappers are still modest compared with the Asian retail base, but they are the one Western channel capable of changing the marginal buyer over time. If they deepen, XRP stops being priced mainly by Asian retail rotation and starts being priced by allocation mandates too. That would not erase Korea or Japan, but it would reduce their dominance.
Japan is also moving toward a more formal ETF regime, and XRP sits close to that conversation because of SBI’s long relationship with Ripple. A Japan ETF track would not look like Korea’s rotation market, because Japanese investors are slower-moving and more regulation-sensitive. But an approved XRP ETF in Japan would reinforce the country’s role as the patience layer rather than the momentum layer. That would deepen the book in the direction XRP has historically lacked.
Other fundamentals can still matter, but they need to create demand that survives the trading cycle. The on-chain credit system in validator voting would matter for XRP if it turns ledger activity into locked supply, yield demand, and practical use rather than another announcement cycle. That kind of utility would not replace the Korea-Japan structure immediately. It would, however, give non-speculative buyers a reason to exist beside it.
Nothing about the current chart guarantees that future. But it is the only visible path to an XRP market where the marginal price-setter holds for reasons connected to what the asset is supposed to do. Until then, the book remains the map. The first sign of change will not be a headline; it will be a shift in volume share, netflow, premium behavior, and ETF persistence.
The book does not lie
Every asset’s chart is a referendum on who owns it, and XRP’s chart has been telling the same story for years to anyone willing to look past the headlines and into the order flow. The token’s price gets made by a Korean retail machine that loves its volatility and owes it nothing, steadied by a Japanese base that bought a story its institutions endorsed a decade ago, and increasingly orbited by Western institutional money that has so far committed only modestly. The chart’s character, explosive, treacherous, indifferent to news, loyal to momentum, is not a mystery or a manipulation. It is the faithful signature of that ownership.
That means the question that matters for XRP’s next act is not the one usually asked. Not what will Ripple announce, but who will the next marginal buyer be. If the answer stays the Upbit rotation trader, the chart will keep behaving exactly as it always has, in both directions. If the regulatory tracks in Seoul and Washington deliver new kinds of buyers, the chart will start telling a new story.
The first place that change will show is not in the price at all. It will show in the books, in the share columns and the netflow tables, weeks before the headlines catch up, the way everything about this token always has. For now, XRP remains a token whose global story is often written in English but whose price is frequently negotiated in Korean won and Japanese yen. The book does not lie; the mistake is reading the wrong one.
As of June 11, 2026. Volume figures and market shares shift daily; verify current data before trading. This article is information, not investment advice.
Crypto World
Bitmine Stock Pops 13% as ETH Treasury Bet Pays Off on Wall Street
Bitmine Immersion Technologies (BMNR) shares popped 13% Monday after a fresh treasury update. It was the best-performing stock of the day on Wall Street. The Ethereum (ETH) firm’s $11.8 billion in crypto, cash, and equity stakes reassured Wall Street investors.
The company now holds 5.79 million ETH tokens, equal to 4.8% of Ethereum’s 120.7 million circulating supply. That puts Bitmine very close to its 5% accumulation target it set 13 months ago.
BitMine Buybacks Signal Confidence
Bitmine repurchased 6.1 million shares last week, up from 5.5 million the week before. That brought total repurchases to 11.6 million shares since July 1, under a $4 billion buyback program. Bitmine unveiled that program at its April NYSE main-board debut.
Chairman Tom Lee framed the accumulation as a long-term commitment rather than opportunistic trading.
“Bitmine has bought ETH every week since the inception of the ETH Treasury Strategy on June 30, 2025.”
— Lee
The firm also runs MAVAN, its own Ethereum staking network, which now holds 4.9 million staked ETH. Bitmine currently projects $254 million in annualized staking revenue. That could reach $299 million once its entire ETH position is staked.
A Wider Institutional Bet
Backers including Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest, Pantera Capital, and Galaxy Digital have supported Bitmine’s strategy. That reflects institutional appetite for Ethereum treasury companies well beyond retail traders.
BMNR now ranks among the most actively traded US stocks by dollar volume, Fundstrat data show.
The rally comes as other Ethereum treasury firms, including SharpLink, keep building ETH positions despite a choppy year. Whether Bitmine’s buyback pace and staking revenue hold up may determine if Wall Street’s patience with crypto treasuries continues.
The post Bitmine Stock Pops 13% as ETH Treasury Bet Pays Off on Wall Street appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Crypto World
Strategy Raises Cash Reserve to $3.75B and Starts STRC Stock Buyback
Strategy expanded its cash reserve to a record $3.75 billion after selling additional MSTR shares last week. The company also completed its first STRC preferred stock buyback under its repurchase program. Meanwhile, Strategy kept its Bitcoin holdings unchanged as MSTR shares gained during premarket trading and Bitcoin remained above $65,000.
Strategy Expands Cash Reserve and Completes First STRC Buyback
Strategy increased its USD reserve by $525 million after raising about $544.5 million through MSTR stock sales. The latest filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission confirmed the updated reserve position. As a result, the company now holds $3.75 billion in cash reserves.
The larger reserve gives Strategy about 2.1 years of dividend coverage under current estimates. At the same time, the company executed its first STRC preferred stock repurchase. Strategy bought back 288,930 STRC preferred shares for approximately $25 million.
The repurchase formed part of the Digital Credit Securities Repurchase Program announced last month. After the transaction, Strategy retained $975 million for additional preferred stock repurchases. Meanwhile, the MSTR share repurchase program still has about $1 million available for future purchases.
Bitcoin Holdings Stay Unchanged as Capital Strategy Continues
Strategy did not purchase additional Bitcoin during the latest reporting period. Instead, the company continued raising capital through MSTR share sales. The company still holds 843,775 BTC valued at approximately $58.47 billion.
Strategy acquired those Bitcoin holdings for about $63.68 billion over several years. Consequently, the company currently carries more than $5.21 billion in unrealized losses. However, the company has maintained its long-term Bitcoin treasury approach despite recent market fluctuations.
Strategy remains the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin among publicly traded companies. The company has regularly financed Bitcoin acquisitions through equity offerings and preferred stock issuance. However, the latest filing focused on strengthening liquidity instead of expanding Bitcoin holdings.
MSTR Shares Rise as Bitcoin Holds Above $65,000
MSTR shares closed 2.09% lower at $91.67 during Friday’s regular trading session. The stock traded between $89.76 and $93.68 before finishing below the previous close. Trading volume also remained below the stock’s 20 million share average.
Premarket trading showed renewed buying activity after the latest corporate filing became public. MSTR gained 2.21% and traded near $93.70 before the opening bell. Even so, the stock remains down about 10% over the past month and nearly 50% this year.
Meanwhile, STRC shares advanced 1.66% to $88.33 but remained below the preferred stock’s $100 target price. Several brokerage firms have maintained buy ratings on MSTR with an average 12-month target of $275. At the same time, Bitcoin traded above $65,000 after developments in Iran-Oman discussions supported broader market sentiment, while trading volume increased 86% during the past 24 hours.
Crypto World
Hong Kong Prepares Banks for Quantum Threats
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has launched a framework to assess banks’ preparedness for quantum-computing threats as the city expands its use of tokenized deposits, digital assets and blockchain settlement.
On Monday, the HKMA introduced a white paper on quantum preparedness and the sector’s first Quantum Preparedness Index (QPI). The index gave the sector an overall readiness score of 2.3 out of 10, while the white paper found that around half of surveyed institutions had no formal post-quantum planning in place. The HKMA said it aims to achieve full sector readiness, represented by a QPI score of 10, by 2030.
The development comes as Hong Kong moves more traditional financial activity onto distributed ledgers. Government figures show that Hong Kong has issued three batches of tokenized green bonds totaling about HK$16.8 billion (about $2.1 billion) since 2023, while the HKMA is advancing tokenized deposits and digital-asset settlement through Project Ensemble.
The HKMA white paper said distributed ledger applications and payment networks depend on cryptography for core functions and could face severe disruption if those protections were compromised.
It also said one surveyed institution completed a proof of concept applying post-quantum cryptography to distributed-ledger connectivity and cited HSBC’s 2024 use of quantum-safe technology to move tokenized gold across distributed ledgers.
Hong Kong’s tokenization push raises quantum stakes
The quantum initiative follows the launch of the HKMA’s Fintech 2030 strategy in 2025, which made tokenization one of four strategic pillars in a plan comprising more than 40 initiatives.
The regulator said it would accelerate real-world asset (RWA) tokenization, regularize tokenized government bond issuance and explore tokenized Exchange Fund papers, with blockchain settlement supported by e-HKD, tokenized deposits and regulated stablecoins.
Related: Hong Kong launches initiative to help banks with DLT adoption
In a Feb. 11, 2026, speech, Hong Kong Financial Secretary Paul Chan said banks in Hong Kong held more than HK$14 billion (about $1.785 billion) in digital assets under custody at the end of 2025, up about 180% year over year, while tokenized deposits had reached HK$29 billion ($3.7 billion).
According to the HKMA white paper, quantum computers capable of running Shor’s algorithm at scale could eventually break widely used RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography. This could allow attackers to decrypt protected data or forge the digital signatures used to authorize transactions, verify identities and establish trust in financial systems.
Because replacing embedded cryptographic systems can take years, the HKMA urged banks to begin inventories, risk assessments and migration planning before such machines become available.
Magazine: Ethereum’s EEZ could pull other blockchains into its orbit
Crypto World
Tether’s XAUT Receives Shariah Certification for Islamic Investing
Tether’s gold-backed token XAUt has secured Shariah certification from Amanah Advisors, positioning the product for wider use among Islamic financial institutions and investors seeking Shariah-compliant exposure to physical bullion. The move focuses on whether the token’s underlying design aligns with Islamic finance principles, particularly around how value is held and whether income-generation features introduce interest-related concerns.
According to Tether, the certification concluded that XAUt’s structure complies with key Shariah requirements, including full backing by physical gold, the absence of interest and leverage, and transparent reserves. Tether says each XAUt token corresponds to one troy ounce of physical gold held in Swiss vaults.
Key takeaways
- XAUt received Shariah certification from Amanah Advisors, strengthening its suitability for Islamic financial institutions and investors.
- Tether says the token is fully backed by physical gold, with reserves designed to be transparent and structured without interest or leverage.
- As of March 31, Tether reported XAUt reserves exceeding 707,000 troy ounces worth more than $3.3 billion.
- Onchain data cited by RWA.xyz indicates XAUt’s asset value has risen from about $700 million in July 2025 to roughly $2.5 billion.
Why Shariah certification matters for tokenized gold
For many investors, the question is not simply whether an asset is pegged to a real-world commodity, but whether the product’s mechanics fit within Shariah guidelines. Islamic finance frameworks generally restrict practices considered to involve excessive uncertainty, speculative dynamics, or interest. Those constraints have historically created a barrier for broader adoption of mainstream crypto and tokenized offerings.
By obtaining certification, Tether has effectively reduced one of the main due-diligence hurdles for compliance-focused stakeholders. Tether said the certification gives it a clearer path to distribute XAUt to Islamic banks and institutions, as well as individual investors across regions where Islamic finance is widely practiced, including the Gulf Cooperation Council, South Asia, and parts of Africa.
In addition, Tether highlighted reserve transparency and physical custody as central to the compliance narrative. Tether’s position is that each token represents one troy ounce of gold stored in Swiss vaults, and that the token is not engineered with leverage or interest-bearing features.
Reserve coverage and growth in tokenized gold exposure
XAUt is described by Tether as one of the largest tokenized gold products in the crypto market. The company’s latest reserves reporting (available via Tether’s gold reserve reports page) showed that the token was backed by more than 707,000 troy ounces of physical gold as of March 31, representing a value above $3.3 billion.
Beyond reserve size, demand signals also matter. Data cited by RWA.xyz suggests XAUt’s onchain asset value has expanded significantly over the past year. The article notes that the figure rose from approximately $700 million in July 2025 to around $2.5 billion, indicating growing interest in gold exposure delivered through token infrastructure.
While tokenized commodities are often discussed through the lens of liquidity and accessibility, the key point for investors is how Shariah certification and physical backing can intersect with market demand. If institutions in Shariah-compliant finance ecosystems can evaluate the product with fewer structural objections, it may help unlock new distribution channels—particularly where regulators and compliance departments scrutinize whether a product’s income or risk characteristics violate established principles.
Broader trend: more Shariah-compliant crypto products
Debate over cryptocurrency’s compatibility with Islamic finance has been ongoing. As discussed in earlier coverage referenced by the source, scholars have differed on whether digital assets meet Shariah expectations due to concerns such as speculation and uncertainty. Over time, however, efforts to design compliant products have started to gain traction.
One example highlighted in the source dates back to 2025, when a Bahrain-based group, AlAbraaj Restaurants Group, said it adopted a Bitcoin treasury strategy and intended to develop Shariah-compliant financial instruments to broaden access to Bitcoin within the Islamic world.
More recently, the source points to developments in stablecoin infrastructure. In April, Palm Azgar Finance expanded its Shariah-compliant PUSD stablecoin to ADI Chain, positioning it around the scale of the global Islamic finance market. The source notes that PUSD became the second stablecoin available on that network, enabling institutions to settle transactions using either a dollar-linked asset or a dirham-denominated token on the same infrastructure.
Taken together, these examples frame a shift from theoretical compliance debate toward product engineering—attempts to structure crypto exposure in a way that can pass institutional review. Tether’s XAUt certification fits that broader pattern by targeting a concrete barrier: certification by a recognized advisor that can assess whether a tokenized gold product is consistent with Shariah guidelines.
Middle East momentum and the regulatory backdrop
Distribution is not just about product design; it also depends on how regional regulators handle digital asset services. The source describes Dubai as an increasingly prominent crypto hub and notes that the emirate’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) issued its 50th virtual asset service provider license earlier this month. The article adds that this puts Dubai ahead of Hong Kong and Singapore in the number of licensed crypto firms, underscoring the pace of regulated market development in the region.
For tokenized assets like XAUt, regulatory clarity can influence whether institutions consider adoption—especially when they need to align token distribution, custody, and settlement practices with local compliance requirements. Shariah certification addresses a religious/contractual suitability question, while licensing and regulatory frameworks address operational and legal concerns. Together, the two can determine how quickly eligible products can move from niche demand to broader institutional access.
Looking ahead, the key variable will be how fast Shariah-compliant finance players incorporate XAUt into their offerings after certification. Investors and institutions should watch for indications of new partnerships, clearer market access strategies by Tether, and evidence that demand growth continues in step with the asset’s reserve reporting and onchain uptake.
Crypto World
Hong Kong Readies Banks for Quantum Risks as Tokenization Expands
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has moved to harden the city’s financial system against the long-term risks posed by quantum computing. In a newly released white paper, the regulator unveiled a first-of-its-kind Quantum Preparedness Index (QPI) designed to measure how ready banks are for potential threats to the cryptography that underpins digital payments, tokenized deposits and blockchain-based settlement.
According to the HKMA, the sector’s overall QPI score stands at 2.3 out of 10. The white paper also found that around half of surveyed institutions have not put formal post-quantum planning in place. HKMA said it is targeting full sector readiness—defined as a QPI score of 10—by 2030.
Key takeaways
- The HKMA’s inaugural Quantum Preparedness Index scored the banking sector at 2.3/10, signalling limited maturity in post-quantum planning.
- About half of surveyed institutions reportedly lack formal post-quantum cryptography migration plans.
- The regulator links quantum risk directly to the cryptography used in distributed ledgers and payment networks, warning of potentially severe disruption if protections fail.
- HKMA aims for banks to reach “full readiness” by 2030, with early actions such as inventories and migration planning flagged as urgent.
Why Hong Kong’s tokenization agenda raises quantum stakes
HKMA’s quantum initiative arrives as Hong Kong deepens the integration of traditional finance with distributed ledger technology. The regulator’s broader push includes work to tokenize assets and expand digital settlement rails—areas that rely heavily on cryptographic security for confidentiality, authentication and transaction integrity.
Government figures highlighted in related reporting show that Hong Kong has issued three batches of tokenized green bonds totaling about HK$16.8 billion (roughly $2.1 billion) since 2023. At the same time, HKMA continues to advance tokenized deposits and digital-asset settlement efforts through Project Ensemble, a programme designed to explore how tokenized forms of money and assets can move and settle on distributed ledgers.
In practice, the more value that is represented, transferred, and authorized on cryptographically protected networks, the more consequential it becomes if the underlying encryption or signature schemes are eventually weakened by quantum capabilities.
The HKMA’s quantum preparedness framework
In Monday’s announcement, the HKMA introduced both a white paper on quantum preparedness and the sector’s first QPI. The regulator’s central point is that modern distributed ledger applications and payment networks depend on cryptography for core functions, meaning a compromise could translate into operational and trust failures across financial services.
The HKMA’s white paper states that quantum computers capable of running Shor’s algorithm at scale could break widely used public-key cryptography such as RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography. The regulator warns that this could enable attackers to decrypt protected data or forge the digital signatures used to authorize transactions, verify identities and underpin trust in financial systems.
Because cryptographic systems can be embedded deeply in hardware, software and operational processes—and replacement can take years—the HKMA is effectively pushing banks to treat post-quantum migration as a multi-year programme rather than a last-minute upgrade. The regulator urged institutions to begin inventories, conduct risk assessments and develop migration planning well before quantum capabilities become a practical threat.
What the QPI score suggests—and what banks must address next
The gap between the intended endpoint and the current readiness level is stark. With an overall score of 2.3 out of 10, the QPI results imply that many institutions may not yet have translated quantum risk into concrete governance, technical roadmaps, and replacement strategies for cryptography used across their systems.
HKMA’s findings also highlight a planning shortfall: around half of the surveyed institutions reportedly had no formal post-quantum planning. That matters because preparedness is not only about choosing replacement cryptographic algorithms. Banks also need to map where current cryptographic methods are used across their infrastructure, assess dependency chains in distributed-ledger connectivity and settlement workflows, and ensure that upgrades do not disrupt operational continuity.
While the overall picture is cautious, HKMA noted that at least one surveyed institution completed a proof of concept applying post-quantum cryptography to distributed-ledger connectivity. The white paper also referenced HSBC’s 2024 use of quantum-safe technology to move tokenized gold across distributed ledgers—an example that illustrates how quantum-resilience work can show up in real settlement experiments rather than remaining purely theoretical.
Still, the HKMA’s score indicates that these efforts are not yet broad-based enough to lift the sector average. For investors and market participants, the practical takeaway is that compliance, systems readiness and operational risk management around cryptography are likely to become increasingly important as Hong Kong scales tokenized products and distributed settlement services.
Hong Kong’s wider timetable: tokenization now, cryptography upgrades later
HKMA framed the quantum preparedness push within its broader strategy to expand fintech and tokenized finance. The regulator had previously outlined a Fintech 2030 strategy in 2025, where tokenization was identified as a strategic pillar in a plan covering more than 40 initiatives. The approach includes accelerating real-world asset (RWA) tokenization, regularizing tokenized government bond issuance, and exploring tokenized Exchange Fund papers, alongside blockchain settlement supported by mechanisms such as e-HKD, tokenized deposits and regulated stablecoins.
Supporting context also came from a speech by Hong Kong Financial Secretary Paul Chan, who said banks held more than HK$14 billion in digital assets under custody at the end of 2025—up about 180% year over year—while tokenized deposits had reached HK$29 billion. Those figures underscore the speed at which tokenization-linked activity is growing, even as cryptographic migration planning remains at an early stage.
That combination—rapid adoption of tokenized rails alongside an acknowledged lack of post-quantum preparation—helps explain why HKMA’s framework is structured as a measurable readiness programme with a target by 2030.
For readers watching this space, the key question is how HKMA will turn the QPI into action: whether institutions will formalize post-quantum migration plans at scale, and how quickly banks move from proof-of-concept work to system-wide inventories and upgrade roadmaps as tokenized settlement continues to expand.
Crypto World
What is an event contract? The yes/no trade explained
A contract that pays one dollar if something happens and nothing if it does not is the simplest instrument in finance and the most legally contested. Here is how event contracts work, where the price comes from, who is allowed to list them, and why regulators still cannot agree whether they are derivatives or bets.
Summary
- An event contract is a binary derivative that settles at $1 if a stated outcome occurs and $0 if it does not, so its price between one cent and ninety-nine cents reads directly as the market’s implied probability.
- The buyer never owns an underlying asset: the contract references a real-world outcome, an election result, a rate decision, a match, a data release, and settles in cash against a named resolution source.
- Maximum loss is the purchase price, which makes the risk profile closer to a bought option than to a leveraged futures position, with no margin call and no liquidation.
- In the United States they trade on exchanges licensed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as designated contract markets, including Kalshi, Polymarket’s domestic venue, Crypto.com’s derivatives arm, ForecastEx, and Robinhood-affiliated Rothera.
- The unresolved question is categorical: federal derivatives law treats them as contracts, a dozen state gaming regulators treat them as wagers, and a bipartisan bill would ban the sports versions outright.
The instrument at the center of the fastest-growing market in American finance can be described in one sentence: a contract that pays one dollar if a stated thing happens and nothing if it does not. That simplicity is the reason event contracts spread from an academic curiosity to tens of billions of dollars in monthly volume, and it is also the reason they have generated more legal argument per dollar traded than any product in modern derivatives. A yes-or-no claim on a future outcome is, depending on which statute you read, a binary option, a futures contract, an information instrument, or a bet. This guide explains the mechanics from the ground up: what the contract is, where its price comes from and what that price means, how the venues are licensed, what the legal fight is actually about, and what a careful participant checks before putting money into one.
The instrument, precisely
Start with the payout structure, because every other property follows from it.
An event contract has two possible settlement values: $1 if the specified outcome occurs, $0 if it does not. Because the payoffs are fixed, the only variable is the price you pay to acquire the claim, which trades between one cent and ninety-nine cents. Buy a Yes contract at 60 cents and you risk 60 cents to make 40, an implied 40-cent profit on a 60-cent stake if you are right. Buy a No contract on the same market and the two prices sum to roughly a dollar, since one of the two must be true, and the small gap between them is the spread the venue and its market makers earn.
Three consequences of that structure matter more than any strategy discussion. First, maximum loss is the amount paid, always. There is no margin call, no liquidation price, no possibility of owing more than you staked, which distinguishes event contracts sharply from the perpetual futures that dominate crypto derivatives and gives them a risk profile closer to buying an option. Second, no underlying asset is ever owned or delivered. The contract references an outcome, and settlement is cash, which is why participants can hold a position on a Federal Reserve decision without touching a bond, or on an election without owning anything at all. Third, the outcome must be defined precisely enough to be adjudicated, which is why every serious contract specifies its resolution source in the rules, the official release, the certified result, the named data provider, and why a market can appear obviously settled in the world while remaining unresolved on the venue.
That third property is where most surprises live. The contract does not pay on what happened; it pays on what the named source says happened, according to the criteria written before trading began. Reading the resolution language is the single most valuable habit a new participant can build.
Where the price comes from
Event contract markets are order books, not bookmakers, and the distinction changes what the price means.
A sportsbook sets odds and takes the other side, earning a margin built into the line. An event contract exchange matches buyers with sellers, charging a fee, and takes no position: for every Yes contract someone holds, someone else holds the corresponding No. Price therefore emerges from participants disagreeing with each other at the margin, which is the mechanism that gives these markets their information reputation. When a contract on a Fed rate cut trades at 72 cents, it means the marginal dollar of capital in that market is willing to pay 72 cents for a claim worth a dollar if the cut happens, which is a probability estimate backed by money instead of opinion.
Liquidity comes from a mix of retail participants, professional market makers quoting both sides, and increasingly institutional flow. Deeper books produce tighter spreads and more reliable prices; thin books produce the opposite, which is why the same nominal price carries very different information content on a heavily traded macroeconomic market than on an obscure cultural one. Volume concentrates: political and macroeconomic contracts have accounted for a majority of trading on the largest regulated venue, and those are the markets where the price-as-probability reading is most defensible.
The reading is defensible, though, and not exact. Academic work on hundreds of thousands of settled contracts finds prediction market prices well calibrated overall while showing systematic distortions at the extremes, together with effects from fees, capital lock-up, and thin liquidity. Those distortions deserve their own treatment, and this publication covers them separately; for the purposes of this guide, the practical summary is that a price of 72 cents is a good estimate of a 72% chance and a bad substitute for one. That is what the price actually means.
Hedging, speculating, and the third use
Participants come to these markets for three distinct reasons, and the legal argument turns partly on which one dominates.
Hedging is the use that justifies the instrument in derivatives law. A farmer hedges weather, an importer hedges a tariff decision, a business exposed to a regulatory outcome buys the contract that pays if the unfavorable result lands. This is the classic economic purpose of any derivative: transferring a risk from a party who does not want it to one willing to price it, and event contracts extend it to categories no traditional futures market covers, since there has never been a way to hedge an election or a rate decision as directly.
Speculation is the use that dominates volume, as it does in every derivatives market ever created, and it is not a defect: speculators supply the liquidity that makes hedging possible. The distinguishing question, which the legal fight keeps returning to, is whether speculation in outcomes that participants have no economic exposure to is meaningfully different from wagering, and there is no settled answer.
The third use is the one the industry markets hardest: information. Prices aggregate dispersed knowledge into a continuously updated public number, and institutions increasingly consume that number as data, with exchange operators building distribution products around it. That informational role is what separates the strongest case for these markets from the gambling comparison, and it is why the sector’s largest investors have been buying data rights, not only trading fees.
Where they trade, and under whose license
In the United States, event contracts are federally regulated derivatives, and the venue matters as much as the contract.
Trading happens on designated contract markets, exchanges licensed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the Commodity Exchange Act, which must clear their contracts through a registered clearinghouse. That is the license that lists them. Kalshi became the first purpose-built prediction market to hold that license in 2021. Polymarket, historically an offshore blockchain venue, acquired a licensed exchange to operate domestically. Crypto.com’s derivatives arm, Interactive Brokers’ ForecastEx, Gemini’s newly certified entity, and Rothera, the exchange affiliated with Robinhood and Susquehanna, all operate on the same regulatory footing. Outside the United States, blockchain-based venues settle in stablecoins with outcomes determined by decentralized oracle processes, a materially different resolution architecture that this publication covers separately.
The license is what separates an event contract from an offshore bet in legal terms, and it carries real consequences for participants: segregated customer funds, clearinghouse guarantees, exchange surveillance obligations, and a federal regulator with examination authority. It does not, however, settle the categorical question, which is the subject of the next section and of an unusual amount of current litigation.
The unsettled question: derivative or wager
Every element described so far is technically uncontroversial. What remains contested is what these instruments are, and the disagreement runs along the federal-state seam of American law.
Federal derivatives law treats event contracts as products a licensed exchange may list, subject to a special provision added by the Dodd-Frank Act that lets the CFTC prohibit contracts involving certain enumerated activities, including gaming and activity unlawful under state law, when they are contrary to the public interest. The Commission has used that authority against political contracts before, and it proposed a rulemaking this June to define the terms more clearly, a process this publication tracks in its coverage of contract listing procedures. That is how a market appears in days. Meanwhile a dozen-plus state gaming regulators argue that sports event contracts are wagers requiring state licenses regardless of federal registration, producing cease-and-desist orders and litigation across multiple jurisdictions. And in Congress, a bipartisan bill would ban CFTC-regulated exchanges from listing sports contracts outright, alongside separate legislation targeting contracts where a participant can influence or foreknow the outcome.
The honest framing for a reader is that the instrument’s mechanics are settled and its legal category is not. That uncertainty is not academic: it determines which contracts exist, which states residents can trade from, and whether the sports markets that generate the majority of retail volume survive the next Congress. Anyone participating should treat product availability as subject to change on a timescale of months.
The family tree
Event contracts are often described as a brand-new instrument, and understanding what they are related to clarifies both their appeal and the regulatory suspicion around them.
Their closest financial relative is the binary option, a derivative paying a fixed amount if a condition is met and nothing otherwise. That lineage carries baggage: offshore binary option platforms became one of the most prolific consumer fraud categories of the 2010s, marketed as simple trading and operating in many cases as unlicensed bucket shops with manipulated pricing, prompting bans on retail binary options in several jurisdictions and years of enforcement. The structural resemblance is real, and it is one reason regulators approach yes-or-no products with a caution that their simplicity does not obviously warrant. The material difference is venue: a contract listed on a licensed exchange, matched against other participants, cleared through a registered clearinghouse and surveilled under statutory core principles is a fundamentally different arrangement from an offshore platform quoting its own prices against its own customers. The instrument is similar; the market structure is not.
Their closest structural relative in traditional markets is the futures contract, which is why they sit under derivatives law at all. A futures contract obliges settlement against a reference price at a future date; an event contract settles against a reference outcome. Both transfer risk, both are standardized and exchange-traded, both clear centrally. The difference is that a futures contract’s underlying is usually something a participant can own, which supports the classic hedging story, while an event contract’s underlying is a fact about the world, which is why the hedging story requires more explanation and why the gaming comparison has traction.
And their closest relative outside finance is the parimutuel pool used in racing and lotteries, where all wagers form a pot and payouts derive from the distribution of bets. The distinction is important and often missed: parimutuel odds are determined entirely by how money is distributed among outcomes, so they measure sentiment among participants. Event contract prices are set by continuous two-sided trading against a fixed payout, which means arbitrage and informed capital can push the price toward an accurate estimate, and it is the reason these markets have a forecasting record that a betting pool does not. When the industry defends itself as information infrastructure, this is the distinction it is invoking, and it is a legitimate one.
The family tree explains the regulatory posture better than any argument about intent. Event contracts inherit the fraud history of binary options, the legal framework of futures, and the public perception of betting pools, and the sector’s entire legal project is to be treated as the second while shaking off the first and third.
What to check before trading one
Five things, in order of how often they cause avoidable losses.The resolution criteria. Read the rules, not the headline. The contract pays on what the named source reports under the stated criteria, and ambiguity in the wording is the raw material of every settlement dispute. That is how contracts finally settle, especially on blockchain-based markets with oracle processes.
The liquidity. Check the spread and the depth, not just the last price. A two-cent spread on a busy macroeconomic market is a different instrument from a fifteen-cent spread on a thin cultural one, and the wider the spread the more of your expected value the round trip consumes.
The fees. Venue fee structures differ, and on a contract priced in cents, fees are a large percentage of the potential return. Maker and taker treatment differs too, and the difference is measurable in the academic return data.
The capital lock-up. Money in a contract that settles in six months is money unavailable elsewhere for six months, with no interest. That opportunity cost is real and systematically ignored, and it is one reason long-dated contracts trade below their apparent fair probability.
The venue’s legal footing. Licensed domestic exchange, offshore book, or something in between changes your protections completely, and in a category under active legislative threat, it also changes the odds that your market still exists next quarter. This is the legal fight over the category.
One further practical note on position sizing, since the instrument’s simplicity invites a specific error. Because maximum loss equals the price paid, event contracts feel safer than leveraged products, and in one narrow sense they are: nothing can liquidate you. But the fixed-payout structure hides a different risk profile, which is that the loss rate is high by design. A strategy of buying contracts at 20 cents will, if the market is well calibrated, lose the entire stake four times out of five, and the profitable fifth outcome has to cover all of it. That distribution is psychologically punishing in a way a slowly bleeding leveraged position is not, and it is the reason experienced participants size these positions as a portfolio of small independent bets, never as conviction trades. The comparison worth holding is to buying options rather than to buying stock: defined risk, high probability of total loss on any single position, and profitability that depends entirely on the pricing being wrong in your favor often enough to pay for the losses. Anyone approaching event contracts with the mental model of a savings account with a yes-or-no switch has misunderstood the instrument in a way the interface will not correct for them.
Frequently asked questions
What is an event contract in simple terms?
A binary derivative that pays $1 if a specified real-world outcome occurs and $0 if it does not. It trades between one and ninety-nine cents, so a price of 65 cents implies the market sees roughly a 65% chance of the event. The buyer never owns any underlying asset, settlement is in cash, and the maximum loss is the price paid.
How is an event contract different from a bet with a bookmaker?
Structurally, in who takes the other side. A bookmaker sets odds and is your counterparty, earning a margin built into the line. An event contract exchange matches you with another participant and charges a fee, holding no position itself, so the price is set by traders disagreeing rather than by a house. In the United States, these venues are also federally licensed derivatives exchanges with clearinghouses and segregated customer funds.
Does the price really mean the probability?
Approximately, and with known distortions. Studies of hundreds of thousands of settled contracts find prices well calibrated overall, while showing systematic bias at the extremes, cheap contracts winning less often than their prices imply, plus effects from fees, thin liquidity, and the cost of capital locked until settlement. A price is a good estimate of probability and a poor substitute for one.
Can I lose more than I put in?
No. Because settlement values are fixed at $1 and $0, the maximum loss is the purchase price of the contract. There is no margin call and no liquidation mechanism, which makes the risk profile closer to buying an option than to trading leveraged futures, and it is one of the instrument’s genuine advantages for inexperienced participants.
Where can event contracts be traded legally in the US?
On CFTC-licensed designated contract markets that clear through registered clearinghouses. Kalshi holds the longest-standing prediction-market license, and other venues include Polymarket’s domestic exchange, Crypto.com’s derivatives arm, Interactive Brokers’ ForecastEx, a newly certified Gemini entity, and Rothera, the exchange affiliated with Robinhood and Susquehanna. Availability of specific contract types varies by venue and by state.
Why are sports event contracts controversial?
Because they sit exactly on the federal-state seam. Federal law permits licensed exchanges to list them subject to a public-interest review provision, while a dozen or more state gaming regulators argue they are wagers requiring state licensing, producing orders and litigation. A bipartisan bill in Congress would ban sports contracts on CFTC-regulated venues outright, and sports generates a large share of the category’s retail volume.
What are event contracts actually used for?
Three purposes. Hedging real exposure to outcomes no traditional futures market covers, such as a regulatory decision or an election result. Speculation, which supplies most volume and most liquidity. And information, since aggregated prices function as continuously updated public probability estimates, a product exchange operators are now packaging and distributing to institutional clients.
What is the most common mistake new participants make?
Trading the headline rather than the rules. Contracts resolve according to a named source and pre-written criteria, so a market can look obviously decided in the real world while resolving differently, or slowly, on the venue. Reading resolution language, checking spreads before sizing, and accounting for fees on cent-denominated contracts prevent most avoidable losses. This is educational information, not investment advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Event contracts carry risk of total loss of the amount invested, product availability varies by venue and jurisdiction, and the legal treatment of these instruments is subject to active litigation and pending legislation. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 27, 2026.
Crypto World
SparkKitty turns phone photos into a crypto wallet security risk
A mobile spyware campaign known as SparkKitty has returned to attention after reports warned that infected iOS and Android apps can expose crypto wallet recovery phrases stored in phone galleries.
Summary
- SparkKitty steals gallery images, seeking wallet seed phrases, passwords and other sensitive information stored digitally.
- Malicious iOS and Android apps reached official stores, while sideloaded versions expanded the campaign further.
- Researchers advise offline seed storage, limited photo permissions and immediate wallet migration after suspected exposure.
The malware gains photo access, collects images and sends them to attacker-controlled servers.
However, this is not a newly discovered July 2026 threat. Kaspersky published a technical report on June 23, 2025, after finding SparkKitty in Apple’s App Store, Google Play and unofficial channels. A recent Cyberint article has renewed attention around the same malware family.
SparkKitty campaign dates back to 2024
Kaspersky linked SparkKitty to SparkCat, an earlier mobile stealer that used optical character recognition to search screenshots for wallet seed phrases. SparkKitty used related delivery methods, but many samples uploaded gallery images rather than selecting only files containing recovery words.
Researchers also found a related cluster that used OCR to choose particular images. The malware may therefore expose passwords, identity documents and QR codes. Kaspersky said it “believe[s]” the main goal involved crypto assets, while noting that some samples lacked direct proof.
The campaign had operated since at least February 2024 and mainly targeted Southeast Asia and China. As crypto.news reported in June 2025, it spread through fake crypto tools, modified social apps, gambling products and other applications.
In April 2026, Kaspersky reported a new SparkCat variant in two App Store apps and one Google Play app. That finding showed continued use of OCR-based gallery theft, but it did not confirm that SparkKitty itself had returned.
Malware uses photo permissions to steal data
On iOS, researchers found malicious code inside modified frameworks that imitated common development libraries, including AFNetworking and Alamofire. Other versions hid the payload in an obfuscated file named libswiftDarwin.dylib or placed it directly inside an application.
After launch, the malware contacted remote infrastructure and requested access to the photo gallery. Once a user approved the request, it monitored photos and uploaded files that it had not previously sent. It could also collect newly added images.
On Android, SparkKitty appeared in Java and Kotlin versions. Some samples operated as Xposed modules on rooted devices. They contacted command servers and transferred images with information about the infected device and application.
This approach differs from malware that records keystrokes or replaces copied wallet addresses. As crypto.news reported in June 2026, Microsoft tracked separate clipper malware that watched the clipboard, stole wallet credentials and supported backdoor commands.
Infected apps reached official stores
Kaspersky found an Android messaging app with crypto exchange functions on Google Play. The app, named SOEX, recorded more than 10,000 installations before Google removed it after receiving the researcher’s report.
The team also found an iOS crypto app called 币coin in Apple’s App Store. Kaspersky alerted Apple and updated its report on June 25, 2025, to say that Apple had removed the app. Researchers did not determine whether developers knowingly added the malware.
Other versions spread through fake websites, modified TikTok apps, gambling products and directly installed Android packages. Some iPhone campaigns abused enterprise provisioning tools, which let organisations distribute internal apps outside the public App Store.
The latest reporting does not establish that the named applications returned to official stores in July 2026. It also provides no confirmed victim count or total crypto losses. The original listings were removed, while sideloaded copies may still circulate.
Offline seed storage remains the main defence
A seed phrase usually contains 12 or 24 words that can restore every private key linked to a self-custody wallet. Anyone who obtains those words can recreate the wallet and transfer its assets. Changing an app password cannot secure an exposed recovery phrase.
Users should not keep seed phrases in screenshots, cloud albums, email drafts or notes apps. The crypto.news 2026 wallet guide recommends writing the phrase on paper or recording it on metal, then storing it offline securely.
Users should review photo permissions and remove access from apps that do not need it. They should avoid unofficial stores, modified apps and unknown download links. An official listing lowers some risks but does not remove the need to check the developer and requested permissions.
Anyone who believes SparkKitty exposed a seed phrase should create a new wallet on a clean device and move remaining assets immediately. The user should then remove the suspected app, update the device and rotate credentials stored in gallery images.
Current reports have renewed the warning around SparkKitty, but the public technical record traces the campaign to Kaspersky’s 2025 disclosure rather than a new July 2026 discovery.
Crypto World
Tom Lee Says the AI Capex Fear Is Actually the Bullish Tell
Tom Lee, Fundstrat Global Advisors’ head of research, calls the market’s AI capex fear a bullish sign. He does not read it as a warning of an approaching top.
Steve Eisman, known for shorting the 2008 housing bubble, warned this week that markets could fall sharply. He said the risk comes if hyperscalers cut artificial intelligence (AI) spending. Lee, however, sees that outcome as unlikely soon.
Widespread Doubt Isn’t a Top Signal, Lee Argues
Lee flips the usual market logic. He argues that widespread skepticism about the AI trade shows the cycle still has room to run. Investors rarely question a story’s durability right before it peaks, in his view.
“The fact that many people are saying that is a sign that we’re not at a top because people are questioning the longevity of the cycle … I think that’s actually a bullish thing.”
Tom Lee, CNBC
That view directly counters Eisman’s capex warning, which centers on Nvidia’s exposure to hyperscaler spending. In contrast, Eisman put the risk in blunt terms on CNBC.
“I think the market will go straight down. At the end of the day, it all boils down to, in a sense, Nvidia.”
Steve Eisman, CNBC
The Fed Meets as the AI Trade Faces Its Test
Lee spoke a day before the Federal Reserve’s two-day July meeting begins. Traders currently price roughly a one-in-three chance of a hike, up from 16% a week earlier.
Lee expects the Fed to lean on quantitative tightening instead. He therefore sees a balance sheet shrink as a way to pressure growth without deliberately slowing the economy.
Lee also draws a historical parallel. He compared today’s AI durability doubts to the late 1990s, when investors repeatedly questioned Cisco and other internet stocks. That skepticism, historically, preceded further gains rather than a collapse.
The Fed’s rate decision this week will test Lee’s read. So will the next round of hyperscaler earnings, part of the broader AI spending arms race Wall Street is tracking. For now, Lee is betting that doubt, not conviction, keeps the AI trade alive.
The post Tom Lee Says the AI Capex Fear Is Actually the Bullish Tell appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Crypto World
Arthur Hayes Buys $6.39M More Ethereum, Then the ETH Market Starts to Tumble
Arthur Hayes bought 3,298 more Ether (ETH) worth $6.39 million hours before Ethereum’s spot price slid from $1,960 to $1,872.
The purchase extends a buying streak that began July 15. Hayes has now spent $13.87 million on 7,213 ETH at an average price of $1,923, leaving him roughly $368,000 underwater.
A Buying Streak Built in Pieces
Hayes assembled the position through a string of over-the-counter trades. Onchain trackers flagged transfers to Galaxy Digital, FalconX, and Cumberland since mid-July. Single purchases ranged from roughly 645 ETH to about 1,330 ETH.
The accumulation followed a reversal. Hayes closed his ETH position in late June at a loss of about $606,000. He then started rebuying on July 15, as Ether recovered above $1,750.
Hayes’ rebuilding lines up with a broader institutional case for Ether. Fundstrat’s Tom Lee has made a similar argument, saying institutions are moving past simply trading Ethereum toward building on it. His Ethereum bull case points to BlackRock’s tokenized fund and Robinhood’s ETH-based fee token.
Ether Slides With the Broader Market
Ether’s drop came as broader crypto markets pulled back Tuesday. The Federal Reserve’s two-day policy meeting concludes this week, and traders are watching for signals on interest rates.
Whether this marks a bottom or another early entry is unclear. That depends on whether Ether can reclaim the $1,900 level it lost in the selloff.
A Track Record of Bold Reversals
The Bitmex co-founder built his reputation on bold trades. He often exits a position just as fast as he enters it.
Hayes has talked up tokens like Hyperliquid’s HYPE, Zcash, and Worldcoin in the past. He then quietly closed those positions once sentiment turned.
Hayes and his Bitmex co-founders pleaded guilty in 2022 to Bank Secrecy Act violations tied to the exchange’s anti-money-laundering failures. President Trump pardoned all three in March 2025, wiping out the convictions.
The post Arthur Hayes Buys $6.39M More Ethereum, Then the ETH Market Starts to Tumble appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Crypto World
KOSPI Crashes 8% as AI Chip Selloff Slams Asian Markets
The KOSPI plunged 8.10% to 6,208.34 on Tuesday morning, deepening a global semiconductor rout.
SK Hynix sank 11.01%, and Samsung Electronics dropped 9.45%, a day before the memory giant reports quarterly earnings.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
Chip Selloff Spreads From Wall Street to Seoul
The Korea Exchange triggered a sell-side sidecar after the open, its 22nd this year. A similar mechanism tripped on the Kosdaq shortly afterward. The index was down 6.6% at press time.
Japan followed Seoul lower. Kioxia cratered 16.5%, Tokyo Electron dropped over 9%, and Advantest slid 8%.
SoftBank Group, an AI proxy through its Arm stake, fell nearly 5%. Overall, the Nikkei 225 lost 3.90%, while the Topix shed 2.49%.
The rout extends Monday’s weakness in US chip stocks, where the VanEck Semiconductor ETF lost over 2%, according to CNBC. AMD and Teradyne led declines, falling 5% and 4% respectively.
Investors remain skeptical about tech giants’ heavy AI spending. The selloff comes days after SK Hynix and Samsung announced $950 billion AI deals.
Earnings Gauntlet Meets Crypto Spillover
The timing raises the stakes. SK Hynix reports on Wednesday, July 29, its first earnings since a record Nasdaq debut. Microsoft, Meta, and a Fed rate decision land the same day. Apple and Amazon close Big Tech’s earnings week on Thursday.
The pressure has spilled into crypto markets. Bitcoin (BTC) traded near $63,199, down 2.9% over 24 hours. Meanwhile, US futures pointed to further weakness, with S&P 500, Nasdaq 100, and Dow futures down 0.1%, 0.42%, and 0.04%, respectively.
Whether Wednesday’s results from SK Hynix restore confidence or confirm the doubts driving the unwind may set the tone for the week.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to watch leaders and journalists provide expert insights
The post KOSPI Crashes 8% as AI Chip Selloff Slams Asian Markets appeared first on BeInCrypto.
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Crypto World7 days agoGrayscale Files For Worldcoin ETF, WLD Registers Sharp Rise
-
NewsBeat6 days agoHow a former Blue Peter presenter stunned America’s Got Talent judges
-
Tech1 day agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Business6 days agoNew Jersey voter registration controversy explained: How 6,600 noncitizens got on the rolls, and what happens next
-
Entertainment6 days agoJohnny Depp’s R-Rated Gothic Cult Classic Gets New Release Ahead of Sydney Sweeney Remake
-
Crypto World5 days agoEthics, other provisions in crypto Clarity Act to be further discussed
-
Politics16 hours agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Sports4 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
Sports1 day agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Fashion4 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
News Videos4 days agoThe Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
-
Politics2 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
Entertainment4 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
News Videos1 day agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Crypto World2 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
NewsBeat7 days agoNADINE DORRIES: I have witnessed first-hand what happens to new Prime Ministers when they enter No 10… and this is why Andy Burnham will be out by May
-
Crypto World5 days agoUniswap (UNI) pushes deeper into tokenized RWAs with permissioned trading pools
-
Crypto World6 days agoSablier Labs Enters Maintenance Mode, Halts Development
-
Crypto World5 days ago
SEC Agrees to Overhaul Recordkeeping After Settling Coinbase Lawsuit Over Gensler’s Lost Texts

You must be logged in to post a comment Login