Crypto World
Why Google May Have Quietly Left the AI Race to OpenAI and Anthropic
Google is no longer racing OpenAI and Anthropic to the same finish line. Its rivals want AI that improves itself. Google wants AI that understands the real world.
The split is easy to miss, because Google still ships models and still makes money. But its newest release landed 10th on one independent ranking.
What Google Has and Has Not Said About the AI Race
Google released Gemini 3.6 Flash on July 21. The pitch was speed and cost, not raw power.
Follow us on X to get the latest news as it happens
The model produces 17% fewer tokens than the version before it, Google’s blog said. Tokens are the small chunks of text an AI writes. Fewer tokens means a cheaper answer.
Power is another matter. One published reading of the Artificial Analysis index placed the model 10th. Every other major lab ranked above it.
Google is not standing still. It has begun its biggest training run yet, for Gemini 4. A larger model, Gemini 3.5 Pro, is still in testing with partners.
Sundar Pichai has pointed to a different prize. He has tied the roadmap to personalized agents rather than leaderboard wins.
Investors are less relaxed. Alphabet shares fell 6% in June after two senior researchers left for rivals.
Inside DeepMind’s Bet on World Models
A world model is AI that learns how physical things behave. Gravity, motion, cause and effect. It predicts what happens next in a room, not the next word in a sentence.
DeepMind’s own website shows the bet. It files Genie 3 and Gemini Robotics under a heading for world models and embodied AI, meaning software that controls machines.
In May the lab extended Project Genie to Street View. It also released SIMA 2, an agent that learns by playing inside virtual 3D worlds.
OpenAI and Anthropic are aiming somewhere else entirely. They want recursive self-improvement, shortened to RSI.
In plain terms, that is AI clever enough to build the next, better AI. Then that one builds the one after it.
Writer Alberto Romero argued on Tuesday that Google left this race on purpose.
“Hassabis is betting on something else: world models. Models that can understand and simulate the real world, not just predict the next token,” Alberto Romero wrote in a recent analysis.
Google has said no such thing. Demis Hassabis, who runs Google DeepMind, has never ruled out RSI in public.
Why a Rival Co-Founder Says DeepMind Is the Outlier
The sharpest outside read came from a rival, months earlier.
Jack Clark co-founded Anthropic. On May 4 he published an essay on where AI is heading.
He gave a 60% chance that AI can run its own research by the end of 2028. He put 2027 at 30%.
Clark then asked which labs are chasing that goal. DeepMind, he wrote, “appears to be the most circumspect of the big three.” Circumspect means cautious.
His evidence came from DeepMind itself. He cited its 2025 paper on AI safety, co-written by co-founder Shane Legg.
Anthropic is far bolder. It reported in a recursive self-improvement study that Claude wrote more than 80% of the code it ships by May 2026.
Before February 2025, that share was near zero.
The firm has documented AI building better AI. On one speed test, its models delivered a 52-fold gain in April, against 2.9-fold a year earlier.
A skilled engineer needs four to eight hours to manage a fourfold gain on the same task.
Why Google Might Not Have Quit the AI Race at All
Two facts cut against the whole idea:
- Google leads the test that comes closest to measuring AI research skill.
MLE-Bench asks a model to build machine-learning systems on its own. A Gemini 3 model scored 64.4% in February. That was the best result at the time. Google put 3.6 Flash at 63.9% in July.
Labs that quit a field rarely top its scoreboard.
- Google is nowhere near absent from the market.
Pichai told investors the Gemini app has 950 million monthly users. Google did skip NVIDIA’s open AI alliance this month. So did OpenAI and Anthropic.
Can Google Afford to Wait?
The case for patience is simple. Search ads pay for everything else, so DeepMind can take its time.
Alphabet’s own filing shows that cushion getting thinner.
Revenue reached $119.8 billion in the June quarter, up 24%, according to results filed July 22. Search alone brought in $63.3 billion.
Then comes the spending. Alphabet poured $44.9 billion into data centers and equipment in three months. That is roughly double a year earlier.
The result was negative free cash flow of $5.86 billion. Free cash flow is what is left after the building bills are paid.
That figure was positive $10.1 billion in March. In December it was positive $24.6 billion.
Alphabet covered the gap by selling $49.6 billion of new shares in June. It borrowed another $20.3 billion.
Long-term debt doubled in six months, from $46.5 billion to $98.2 billion.
A line in the accounts covering shared AI research lost $5.79 billion, up from $3.37 billion. Patience now carries a price tag.
What to Watch Over the Next 30 Days
- Whether Gemini 3.5 Pro ships, and how it ranks
- Whether DeepMind shows world-model results tied to Gemini 4
- Whether Alphabet cash flow turns positive again in September
- Whether Hassabis answers the self-improvement question directly
Gemini 4 is the real test. If world models work where coding agents stall, the slow pace will look smart rather than scared.
The next earnings report will show how long Alphabet can keep paying to find out.
The post Why Google May Have Quietly Left the AI Race to OpenAI and Anthropic appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Everyone covering the prediction market legal war has been watching states. The more dangerous case is being argued in the Ninth Circuit by three California tribes under a different statute entirely, and at oral argument this month a judge told Kalshi’s lawyer that its contracts sound like a bet.
Summary
- Three California tribes, Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria, and Picayune Rancheria, sued Kalshi arguing its sports event contracts constitute unlicensed Class III gaming on tribal lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
- A federal district judge denied their preliminary injunction in November, finding that the compacts and secretarial procedures did not prohibit Kalshi’s conduct and that federal internet gambling law excludes transactions on entities registered under the Commodity Exchange Act.
- The Ninth Circuit heard argument this month, and the panel questioned Kalshi sharply, with one judge stating the contracts sound like a bet subject to Native American gambling law and another suggesting it would not be unreasonable to exclude tribes from federal preemption here.
- This is analytically distinct from the state cases dominating coverage: it turns on IGRA and tribal sovereignty, not on state police powers, and more than sixty federally recognized tribes have filed amicus briefs across related proceedings.
- The stakes are the exclusivity bargain itself, under which tribes accepted regulation and revenue sharing in exchange for gaming rights, with a Brookings analysis describing prediction markets as an existential threat and California tribes planning a 2028 ballot initiative in response.
The prediction market industry has spent two years describing its legal problem as a fight with the states, and the coverage has followed: Nevada, New Jersey, Massachusetts, a dozen gaming regulators issuing orders, appellate arguments over whether federal derivatives registration preempts state police powers. That framing has produced a blind spot, and it is a large one. The most consequential case now pending against Kalshi was brought by three small California tribes, it runs on an entirely different federal statute, and at oral argument in the Ninth Circuit this month the panel appeared considerably less friendly to the exchange than the district court had been, with one judge saying flatly that the contracts sound like a bet subject to Native American gambling laws and another suggesting it would not be unreasonable to exclude tribes from the federal framework the industry is relying on. Sixty-plus federally recognized tribes have filed amicus briefs across the related proceedings. A Brookings analysis calls the sector an existential threat to Indian gaming. And virtually none of this has been covered in the crypto press, which has been reading the state docket. This piece corrects that, because the tribal front asks a question the state cases do not, and the answer reaches further.
The case
The facts are narrow, and the theory is not.
Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians sued Kalshi in California federal court in 2025, arguing that its sports event contracts function as unlicensed sports betting accessible on tribal lands, in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Their argument, as their counsel framed it at argument, turns on location: the moment a user opens the platform while physically on a reservation, the tribes contend, Kalshi is conducting Class III gaming on Indian lands without the tribal ordinances, compacts, or regulatory approvals that federal law requires of anyone doing so. They sought declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
Kalshi’s response is textual and, at the district level, it worked. Its counsel argued that the exchange is not a party to any compact or set of secretarial procedures, that those documents govern what the tribes themselves may offer, not what an independent federally regulated exchange may make available online, and that IGRA has never previously been deployed against an unrelated private company in this way.
District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the preliminary injunction in November. Her reasoning is worth precision because it defines the appeal. She found that secretarial procedures are functionally equivalent to compacts under IGRA, a point favorable to the tribes, but concluded that the relevant provisions did not prohibit Kalshi’s conduct, since the documents address internet games offered by the tribes and are silent about outside companies. She then held that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act governed the disputed transactions, and that statute’s definition of a bet or wager excludes transactions conducted on an entity registered under the Commodity Exchange Act, which placed Kalshi within the exclusion. She further concluded that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission holds exclusive jurisdiction to determine what qualifies as a covered contract.
That chain of reasoning is the industry’s entire defense in compressed form: we are a registered derivatives exchange, the statutes carve us out, and the agency that licenses us decides what we may list.
The Ninth Circuit, this month
Appellate panels do not decide from the bench and questions are not rulings, but the tenor of argument was materially different from the district court’s disposition.
The panel pressed Kalshi’s counsel on why the contracts are not simply bets. One judge stated directly that they sound like a bet subject to Native American gambling laws. Another suggested it would not be unreasonable to exclude tribes from federal oversight in this area, which, if it became the holding, would carve a sovereignty exception into precisely the preemption argument on which the sector’s American operations rest.
Counsel for the tribes pressed the point that ordinances cannot be separated from the compacts and secretarial procedures, because those agreements require gaming to comply with the tribes’ regulatory frameworks, and that IGRA would offer little protection if an outside company could conduct unauthorized gaming on tribal lands while escaping suit merely because its name appears in none of the governing documents.
The panel gave no timeline. The underlying district court case is stayed pending the decision. And the hearing followed a separate Ninth Circuit argument earlier this year in Nevada’s enforcement attempt against Kalshi, Robinhood, and Crypto.com, where the same court was similarly skeptical of the preemption arguments, which means one appellate circuit is now weighing two distinct challenges to the same legal foundation.
Why this is not the state fight
The distinction matters and is easy to miss, because both sets of cases involve sports contracts and the same defendants.
The state cases ask whether federal registration under the Commodity Exchange Act preempts state gaming law, a classic federalism question about whether Congress displaced state police powers. The tribal cases ask something different: whether one federal statute, the Commodity Exchange Act as amended in 2010, silently displaced another federal statute, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, along with the compacts negotiated under it. That is not federal-versus-state. It is federal-versus-federal, with a sovereign third party whose rights derive from treaties, statutes, and a body of law that courts have historically read protectively.
The argument that gives this its force was put sharply in international gaming law commentary: if the CFTC’s position prevails, then when Congress amended the Commodity Exchange Act in 2010, it silently erased decades of Indian gaming law without a single reference to tribes or to IGRA anywhere in the text. Courts are generally reluctant to find implied repeals, and especially reluctant where Indian law is concerned, given the canon that ambiguities are construed in favor of tribes. Kalshi’s counter is that its position requires no repeal at all, because the exchange is simply not conducting gaming under IGRA’s definitions, and that the tribes’ theory would make any nationally available financial product a per-jurisdiction licensing question the moment a user carried a phone across a boundary.
There is a third federal thread running in parallel: the Sixth Circuit is separately considering whether these contracts qualify as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, a definitional question with implications for everything above. Three circuits, three theories, one product.
What is actually at stake
For the tribes, the stakes are the bargain that Indian gaming rests on, and the arithmetic behind it is why the language has hardened.
Under IGRA, tribes negotiate compacts with states that grant exclusivity over certain gaming in exchange for regulatory compliance and, in many states, substantial revenue sharing. That exclusivity is the consideration; it is what tribes purchased with decades of negotiation and what funds government services, healthcare, education, and infrastructure across Indian Country. If federally licensed exchanges may offer functionally identical sports wagering nationwide, including to users on reservations, without negotiating a compact or complying with IGRA, then the exclusivity tribes bargained for has been rendered worthless without anyone renegotiating anything. The Indian Gaming Association’s chairman put the functional argument plainly: open the app and you see the same bets offered in every legal sportsbook. A Brookings analysis by a legal scholar described the development as an existential threat to American Indian gaming.
The response has been organized, not rhetorical. Tribal organizations and more than sixty federally recognized tribes have filed amicus briefs across the relevant cases. At this year’s Indian Gaming Association convention, leaders described a parallel path of litigation and federal lobbying, pressing Congress to require the CFTC to enforce its own rules and arguing that the agency has permitted gambling to operate under a financial label. And California’s broader tribal coalition has reaffirmed plans for a 2028 ballot initiative for tribally led sports betting, framed partly as a response to prediction markets operating in what they characterize as a regulatory gray area.
For the industry, the stakes are equally direct. Sports contracts generate the majority of retail prediction market volume, a Massachusetts court found nearly seventy percent of Kalshi’s volume tied to sports when it moved to block the app there in January, and an adverse tribal ruling would not merely add a compliance burden. It would introduce geographic carve-outs into a product whose entire architecture assumes nationwide uniformity under a single federal license, in a country with hundreds of reservations.
The honest reading
Both sides hold a genuinely strong argument, which is why this is being litigated in three circuits instead of settled.
The tribes’ best case is not the functional similarity to sportsbooks, appealing as that framing is to a panel. It is the implied-repeal problem: a 2010 amendment to a commodities statute, containing no mention of tribes, should not be read to nullify a 1988 statute and the compacts negotiated under it, particularly given the interpretive canon favoring tribes. That is a structural argument about how Congress legislates, and it does not depend on characterizing event contracts as gambling at all.
Kalshi’s best case is not the sportsbook comparison’s inadequacy either. It is Judge Corley’s chain: UIGEA expressly excludes transactions on CEA-registered entities from its definition of a bet, the compacts and procedures govern what tribes may offer rather than what third parties may, and Congress assigned the CFTC exclusive authority over what counts as a covered contract. Each link is textual, and textual arguments travel well in appellate courts.
What neither side can claim is that the current arrangement was designed. Nobody in 1988 or 2010 contemplated a federally licensed exchange offering yes-or-no contracts on football games to a phone sitting on a reservation, and the courts are being asked to allocate an authority that Congress never consciously assigned. That is the honest description of every question in this sector, and the tribal case is simply the version where the party with the strongest historical claim to the disputed ground was not at the table when the statute that may override it was written.
The exclusion that decides the case
One statutory provision is doing more work in this litigation than any argument either side has made, and it deserves its own examination because it was written for an entirely different purpose.
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, passed in 2006 to attack offshore online poker and sports betting by cutting off payment processing, defines a bet or wager and then carves out exceptions. One of those exceptions covers transactions conducted on an entity registered under the Commodity Exchange Act. The purpose in 2006 was mundane: Congress did not want a statute aimed at internet gambling to accidentally sweep in the legitimate commodity futures markets, where contracts on future prices are a normal financial activity, and so it excluded regulated derivatives venues from the definition. Nobody drafting that exclusion contemplated a CFTC-registered exchange offering contracts on football games to retail customers, because no such thing existed or was seriously proposed.
Twenty years later, that carve-out is the load-bearing element of the district court’s ruling in the tribal case, and functionally the strongest single sentence in the industry’s legal position. If transactions on a CEA-registered entity are not bets or wagers under federal internet gambling law, then a federally licensed exchange listing sports contracts is not conducting internet gambling as Congress defined it, whatever it resembles in practice.
The reasoning is textually sound and it is also a textbook example of a provision applied far outside the circumstances that produced it.
Which is why the tribes’ implied-repeal argument and this exclusion are really the same fight from opposite ends. The industry says two federal statutes, read together, plainly exclude it from gambling law. The tribes say those statutes were never written with prediction markets or Indian gaming in mind, and that reading an incidental carve-out to nullify a negotiated sovereign framework attributes to Congress an intention it never formed. Appellate courts resolve exactly this kind of dispute by choosing between text and purpose, and the Ninth Circuit’s questions this month suggested at least some appetite for the second. That choice, more than any characterization of what an event contract feels like to a user, is what the panel is actually deciding.
What to watch
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion. No timeline was given, and the panel’s questions ran against the exchange. A reversal returns the case to Judge Corley for reconsideration and immediately raises the possibility of geographic carve-outs; an affirmance largely closes the tribal theory and strengthens preemption across the board.
The Sixth Circuit’s swaps question. Whether these contracts are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act is upstream of everything, and a ruling there could reshape both the tribal and state cases before either concludes.
Congressional lobbying. Tribal organizations are pressing Congress directly, and tribal interests have historically been effective when compact rights are threatened. Any legislative language addressing tribal lands specifically, whether in the pending sports-contract bill or elsewhere, would be the fastest route to resolution.
The 2028 California initiative. A tribally led sports betting measure would change the competitive landscape in the largest state regardless of how the litigation ends, and its drafting will reveal how tribes intend to coexist with, or exclude, federally licensed event contracts.
One last observation for readers following the broader sector. The three legal challenges now running against prediction markets, the state preemption cases, the tribal sovereignty cases, and the Sixth Circuit’s swaps definition question, look like three versions of one dispute and are actually three separate bets on how a single ambiguity gets resolved. The ambiguity is that Congress created a category, event contracts on a federally licensed exchange, without deciding whether that category displaces the gambling law built around the same activity by states and tribes over decades. Each set of plaintiffs has picked the doctrine most favorable to their position, and the industry’s defense is identical in all three: we are a registered derivatives venue, the statutes say what they say, and the Commission decides what we may list.
The consequence is that the sector’s legal exposure is not additive but structural. A loss in any one forum does not merely add a compliance requirement; it proves that the federal registration defense has a limit, and every other plaintiff then argues for their own version of that limit. Which is why the industry’s compliance build, its data partnerships, and its political spending are all running in parallel rather than sequentially, and why the coming months matter more than the volume charts suggest. The category is not waiting for one verdict. It is waiting to learn whether its foundational legal claim survives contact with three different sovereigns at once.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice. It describes pending litigation whose outcome is unknown, and characterizations of oral argument reflect contemporaneous reporting rather than rulings. Nothing here predicts any judicial result. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 27, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is suing Kalshi, and on what theory?
Blue Lake Rancheria, Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, three California tribes, argue that Kalshi’s sports event contracts constitute unlicensed Class III gaming conducted on tribal lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, because users can access the platform while physically located on reservations without Kalshi holding any tribal authorization.
What did the district court decide?
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the tribes’ preliminary injunction in November. She found secretarial procedures functionally equivalent to compacts under IGRA but concluded the relevant provisions did not prohibit Kalshi’s conduct, since they address gaming the tribes offer and are silent about outside companies. She also held that federal internet gambling law excludes transactions on Commodity Exchange Act registrants and that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over covered contracts.
What happened at the Ninth Circuit?
The panel heard argument this month and questioned Kalshi closely, with one judge stating the contracts sound like a bet subject to Native American gambling laws and another suggesting it would not be unreasonable to exclude tribes from federal oversight in this area. No ruling issued from the bench and no timeline was given, and the district case remains stayed.
How is this different from the state lawsuits?
Different statutes and different sovereigns. The state cases ask whether federal derivatives registration preempts state gaming law, a federalism question about state police powers. The tribal cases ask whether the 2010 amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act silently displaced the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 and the compacts negotiated under it, which is a federal-versus-federal question involving tribal sovereignty.
Why do tribes consider this existential?
Because exclusivity is the consideration in the IGRA bargain. Tribes accepted regulation and, in many states, substantial revenue sharing in exchange for exclusive gaming rights that fund government services across Indian Country. If federally licensed exchanges can offer functionally identical sports wagering nationwide, including on reservations, without compacts, that bargained-for exclusivity is effectively voided without renegotiation.
How organized is the tribal response?
Considerably. More than sixty federally recognized tribes have filed amicus briefs across the related cases, tribal organizations described a parallel litigation and lobbying strategy at this year’s Indian Gaming Association convention, and California’s tribal coalition has reaffirmed plans for a 2028 ballot initiative for tribally led sports betting in response to prediction markets.
What is the strongest argument on each side?
For the tribes, the implied-repeal problem: a commodities amendment mentioning neither tribes nor IGRA should not be read to nullify a 1988 statute and its compacts, especially given the canon construing ambiguity in favor of tribes. For Kalshi, the textual chain the district court accepted: federal internet gambling law excludes CEA registrants, the compacts govern tribal conduct and not third parties, and the CFTC holds exclusive definitional authority.
What would an adverse ruling mean for the industry?
Potentially geographic carve-outs in a product built for nationwide uniformity under one federal license, across a country with hundreds of reservations. Sports contracts generate the majority of retail volume, with one court finding nearly seventy percent of Kalshi’s volume tied to sports, so the commercial exposure is substantial regardless of how compliance would be implemented. This is educational analysis, not legal or investment advice.
Crypto World
South Korea’s Stock Market Triggered 8th Circuit Breaker of 2026: Bitcoin Liquidated 3 Times Near $64,000
Bitcoin News: BTC price is trading at $63,582 on July 28, down 2.12% in the past 24 hours, and the level that keeps breaking traders this week just did it again.
The asset slipped back below $64,000 as a fresh wave of liquidations hit, and there’s a broader macro story behind the move that matters more than the headline number.
Roughly $100 million in leveraged positions were wiped out across crypto in a single hour on Monday, the third flush around the $64,000 zone in less than a week. The prior two episodes were not minor: an $87 million liquidation event late last week (split $70M long / $17M short) was followed by $75 million in 24-hour liquidations after three failed attempts to clear $65,500.
Today’s episode was faster than both. The trigger this time was a sharp selloff in South Korean equities; the KOSPI dropped 8.02% (542.24 points) to 6,213.51, triggering the index’s eighth circuit breaker of 2026, driven by a plunge in U.S. semiconductor stocks.
Crypto and semis have traded in close correlation for most of the year, with BTC increasingly behaving as high-beta tech exposure.
The macro overhang is compounding that dynamic: the Federal Reserve, under Chair Kevin Warsh, opened its two-day July 28 meeting with the federal funds rate at 3.50%–3.75% for a fourth consecutive hold, and projections for rate-cut timing are being pushed further out across multiple forecasts.
Can Bitcoin Price Break $65,500 Resistance or Is a Retest of $59,000 Coming?
Bitcoin is sitting at $63,582 inside a range that has rejected three breakout attempts this week. The intraday high touched $64,955 before sellers stepped in, and the session low printed at $63,108.
A roughly $1,800 band that tells the full story of current indecision.
Resistance runs from $64,000 up through $65,500, the level that has capped every recovery attempt this week. Above that, the next meaningful zone is $71,000 to $72,000, where the market broke down in prior weeks. A daily close above $71,000 is the signal that momentum buyers are waiting for.
Until then, every rally into resistance is a potential entry for shorts. On the downside, $61,500 is the pivot where a daily close reactivates downside pressure toward $59,100, with $58,000 as the next structural floor below that.
Fed language turning softer than expected on July 29, semis stabilizing, and BTC reclaiming $65,500 targets $68,000 to $70,000 in the near term.
Continued chop between $62,500 and $64,500 with no clean resolution until the Fed statement and macro data provide direction is the base case. A daily close under $61,500 opens the door to a retest of $59,100 to $58,000, especially if the KOSPI selloff spreads to broader risk-off positioning overnight.
Posted their largest net inflow since May at roughly $266 million, a signal that institutional demand hasn’t evaporated despite the chop. That’s the floor argument. Whether it holds under continued macro pressure is the open question.
Bitcoin Hyper Targets Early-Mover Upside as Bitcoin Tests Critical Infrastructure Limits
Here’s the read that traders anchored to spot BTC may be missing: every time Bitcoin congests around a resistance level, the conversation shifts to the same structural limitations, slow settlement, high fees, and zero native programmability. That’s not a bug in the current price action; it’s the use case for what’s building on top of the base layer.
(The irony is that Bitcoin’s own volatility keeps highlighting the gap between what it is and what it needs to be.)
Bitcoin Hyper (HYPER) is positioned directly at that gap. The project is building the first-ever Bitcoin Layer 2 with Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) integration, sub-second finality, and low-cost smart contract execution atop Bitcoin’s security layer, featuring a decentralized canonical bridge for BTC transfers.
The pitch isn’t that it replaces Bitcoin; it’s that it makes Bitcoin’s liquidity actually usable at speed.
Presale metrics as of July 28: $32,984,682.35 raised at a current token price of $0.0136838. Staking is live with a high APY structure, and the SVM architecture is explicitly designed to outperform Solana’s own throughput benchmarks.
The post South Korea’s Stock Market Triggered 8th Circuit Breaker of 2026: Bitcoin Liquidated 3 Times Near $64,000 appeared first on Cryptonews.
Core Scientific has reported a sharp rebound in its second-quarter financial performance as its data-center colocation business—built to support artificial intelligence (AI) and high-performance computing (HPC)—continues to drive results after the miner’s shift away from a Bitcoin-only model.
In earnings released Tuesday, the company said Q2 revenue rose to $164.2 million, compared with $78.6 million in the same quarter a year earlier. Colocation revenue made up the overwhelming majority of that figure, climbing to $136.7 million from $10.6 million, while gross profit increased to $70 million from $5 million.
Key takeaways
- Core Scientific’s revenue more than doubled in Q2, with colocation now the dominant earnings engine.
- AI- and HPC-oriented infrastructure appears increasingly central to the company’s profit trajectory, as gross profit jumped alongside colocation revenue.
- Despite strong topline growth, Core Scientific posted a large net loss driven largely by a non-cash accounting impact tied to warrant valuation.
- The company’s newly announced AMD partnership could support up to 2.5 GW of leasable capacity, with initial multi-site agreements beginning in 2027.
Revenue surge driven by colocation, not mining
The company’s results highlight how quickly Core Scientific’s operating profile has changed. According to the earnings figures, colocation revenue—rather than mining-related activity—accounted for $136.7 million of the quarter’s total $164.2 million. In the year-ago period, colocation contributed only $10.6 million, underscoring the scale of the pivot and the speed at which the business ramped.
Gross profit also rose substantially, reaching $70 million from just $5 million. While revenue growth alone can sometimes reflect mix effects or transitional capacity, the gross profit jump suggests Core Scientific’s shift is beginning to translate into a more favorable economics profile for its core infrastructure operations.
Core Scientific is no longer positioning itself as a pure-play Bitcoin miner. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that it generates the bulk of its revenue from colocation services while holding a comparatively small Bitcoin treasury of fewer than 1,000 BTC, based on industry data compiled by bitcointreasuries.net.
The net loss: accounting effects, not necessarily cash stress
Even as revenue and gross profit climbed, Core Scientific still recorded a $1.15 billion net loss. The company attributed the result primarily to a non-cash accounting charge connected to the rising value of outstanding warrants as its share price increased.
This matters for readers because the market often interprets net losses as immediate operational distress. Here, the earnings disclosure frames the loss as largely accounting-driven rather than a direct signal that the business is consuming cash faster than it generates it. In the context of a company transitioning to longer-term infrastructure contracts, that distinction can influence how investors evaluate near-term headlines versus underlying demand and contracted capacity.
Following the earnings release, Core Scientific’s shares reportedly fell by more than 4%, trimming its year-to-date gains—an indication that some investors may have focused on the net loss headline before digging into what drove it.
An AMD deal aims to lock in large-scale AI compute capacity
Alongside its quarterly results, Core Scientific announced a partnership with Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). AMD designs CPUs and AI-oriented graphics processors that compete with other major chip vendors.
The agreement is structured to support up to 2.5 gigawatts of leasable data-center capacity. The initial phase is anchored by 15-year agreements covering 530 megawatts across multiple US sites starting in 2027, with the ability to expand over time.
Core Scientific said the broader AMD partnership could generate more than $14 billion in contracted base revenue. The company also stated that its total leased customer power capacity is now roughly 1.1 GW, representing more than $24 billion in potential contracted revenue.
From an investor perspective, this type of power-and-capacity contracting is often viewed as a way to stabilize revenue in infrastructure businesses, especially when the demand side is tied to large compute requirements from AI training and inference workloads. For traders and equity holders, the key question becomes how quickly these longer-dated commitments translate into actual utilization and incremental margins—especially as the market moves from “plans” to “running load.”
Broader AI data-center competition signals shifting priorities across crypto infrastructure
Core Scientific’s quarter and its AMD partnership arrive as other infrastructure providers tied to the crypto era also expand into AI compute. Earlier this month, IREN disclosed $2.8 billion in cloud contracts with AI developers. Separately, Hut 8 unveiled a $9.8 billion lease agreement with an unnamed customer for capacity at its AI data campus.
Set against those moves, Core Scientific’s results look less like a standalone turnaround story and more like part of a sector-wide reallocation of resources. Bitcoin mining companies that secured data-center assets and power access during the mining buildout are increasingly competing on hosting, leasing, and compute-adjacent services rather than relying solely on block rewards.
Still, uncertainty remains. While contracted capacity figures and partnership announcements can support a longer-term growth narrative, the market continues to watch for execution details: how fast customers ramp usage, whether contracted power translates into sustained gross margins, and how balance-sheet dynamics—such as the accounting treatment of warrants—can affect headline profitability.
Investors should watch Core Scientific’s next reporting period for two things: whether the revenue mix continues to lean further into colocation and how management’s guidance and utilization metrics evolve as AMD-linked capacity approaches the initial 2027 ramp-up window.
Zcash researchers published more than 2,700 machine-checked theorems designed to rule out undetectable counterfeiting bugs in Ironwood.
Ten European financial institutions have formed a new jointly owned blockchain cooperative called Regulated Layer One (RL1), positioning it as a permissioned network for tokenized assets and regulated market infrastructure.
RL1 announced that it has been established as a European Cooperative Society in Luxembourg and has started operations with founding members including ABN AMRO, Cecabank, Chartered Investment, Crédit Mutuel Alliance Fédérale, DekaBank, DZ BANK, LBBW, Natixis CIB, SC Ventures and Seturion. The group says governance will be shared, with each member holding equal decision-making rights over the network’s development.
Key takeaways
- RL1 is launching as a Luxembourg-based European Cooperative Society with 10 founding financial institutions.
- The network is permissioned and aimed at institutional use cases such as tokenized bonds, collateral, and settlement.
- RL1 is built on infrastructure originally developed by German fintech Secure Worldwide Interbank Asset Transfer (SWIAT), now transferred to the cooperative.
- SWIAT reports more than 50 transactions worth over €700 million during three years of production use.
- Additional institutions are being discussed for membership, including NatWest, as RL1 begins operations.
A cooperative model for regulated blockchain infrastructure
RL1’s launch reflects a broader push among banks and other regulated players to build shared blockchain rails that can integrate with existing compliance and oversight frameworks. By organizing the network as a cooperative, RL1 is attempting to shift control away from single-operator models and toward governance shared across member institutions.
The founding structure matters for investors and market participants because governance can directly affect roadmap priorities—such as which tokenized asset standards are supported, how settlement workflows are designed, and how risk controls are maintained. RL1 says each member will have equal decision-making rights, signaling that the network is meant to evolve through collective agreement rather than unilateral changes.
From SWIAT-built infrastructure to RL1 ownership
RL1’s technical foundation traces back to infrastructure developed by German fintech Secure Worldwide Interbank Asset Transfer (SWIAT). According to the cooperative, SWIAT has transferred ownership of the network to RL1, marking a clear step from an originating build phase into an operator-and-governance phase under the cooperative structure.
SWIAT also provided performance context from its production use period, stating that the platform processed more than 50 transactions totaling over €700 million (about $808 million) across three years. While that figure is not presented as a measure of network scale in terms of daily volume or active users, it does frame the initiative as having moved beyond prototypes into live transaction processing before the cooperative launch.
Use cases designed for tokenization and settlement
RL1 says the blockchain is intended to support institutional workflows tied to digital money and tokenized financial instruments. The cooperative highlighted use cases including tokenized bonds, collateral management, and blockchain-based settlement.
One theme RL1 emphasizes is reducing fragmentation in distributed ledger efforts. Financial institutions have historically pursued separate DLT systems, often leading to interoperability challenges and duplication of integration work. RL1 argues that a shared network among regulated participants can mitigate those issues by giving members a common infrastructure layer for tokenized settlement-related activities.
For market participants, that framing matters because interoperability and shared settlement are frequently cited barriers to wider adoption of tokenized assets. A network that centralizes governance and standards among a defined group of regulated institutions can shorten the path to operational alignment—though it cannot eliminate the need for external integrations where assets or counterparties sit outside the network.
Leadership and expansion plans
RL1 named Henning Vollbehr, formerly Managing Director at SWIAT, as its leader. The cooperative also said that KfW and L-Bank will continue supporting the initiative, indicating the project retains institutional backing as it transitions into ongoing operations.
RL1 is also looking outward: the group said it is in discussions with additional institutions about joining the network, including NatWest. That expansion effort will likely be a key indicator of whether RL1 can grow beyond the initial consortium and increase its usefulness as a settlement and tokenization venue for more participants.
Going forward, readers should watch how RL1’s cooperative governance translates into concrete product decisions—especially around asset types, settlement rules, and interoperability with external systems—alongside whether the membership talks broaden participation beyond the founding banks.
Core Scientific shares fell after the Bitcoin miner agreed to provide AMD with up to 2.5 gigawatts of data center capacity for artificial intelligence deployments starting in 2027.
Summary
- AMD secured access to up to 2.5 GW of data center capacity beginning next year.
- Core Scientific and AMD will deploy Instinct GPUs, EPYC CPUs, and ROCm software.
- CORZ fell more than 4% after reversing a gain of over 5% in premarket trading.
- AMD will receive market-priced warrants to purchase Core Scientific shares under certain conditions.
AMD secures up to 2.5 GW from Core Scientific
Core Scientific and AMD have signed an agreement covering up to 2.5 GW of data center capacity for customers deploying the chipmaker’s AI systems.
Capacity will become available from 2027, according to a joint announcement from the companies. Core Scientific and AMD will also work together on the physical design of the infrastructure needed to support high-density computing workloads.
Planned deployments will use AMD Instinct graphics processing units, EPYC processors, and the company’s ROCm software platform. The announcement did not disclose the financial value of the agreement or identify the end customers expected to use the capacity.
Unlike a standard hardware order, the arrangement pairs AMD’s computing products with Core Scientific’s power and data center infrastructure. The scale of the agreement could make AMD an important customer and commercial partner as Core Scientific converts more of its sites from crypto mining to AI computing.
AMD will also receive market-priced warrants allowing it to purchase Core Scientific common stock. The warrants remain subject to commercial conditions, and the companies did not disclose the potential size of AMD’s resulting stake.
Core Scientific accelerates its shift from Bitcoin mining
Core Scientific built its business around Bitcoin mining but has increasingly redirected capital and power capacity toward high-density data center services.
As previously reported by crypto.news, the company sold 2,385 Bitcoin earlier in 2026 to provide liquidity during the transition. BitcoinTreasuries data shows that Core Scientific still holds 848 BTC.
The company continues to generate revenue by mining crypto for its own account and providing hosting services to other miners. However, it is repurposing its remaining facilities for colocation services capable of supporting power-intensive AI systems.
The AMD agreement places Core Scientific among several publicly traded Bitcoin miners pursuing AI infrastructure contracts. Limited access to large sites with substantial power connections has made miners’ existing facilities attractive to cloud providers and AI developers.
MARA recently expanded its AI infrastructure footprint through the acquisition of a site in Texas. TeraWulf also signed a 20-year data center agreement with Anthropic earlier in July.
Hut 8 and IREN announced separate multibillion-dollar AI infrastructure deals last week. Hut 8 signed a second 15-year lease worth $9.8 billion at its Beacon Point campus in Texas, while IREN disclosed $2.8 billion in new multiyear AI cloud contracts.
CORZ reverses its premarket gain
CORZ initially rose more than 5% in premarket trading after the AMD agreement was announced. The stock reversed direction after the opening bell and fell more than 4% as a broader equity market sell-off weighed on trading.
Core Scientific shares have now declined more than 12% over the past week. Despite the latest pullback, the stock remains up over 40% since the start of 2026 as investors assess its transition from Bitcoin mining to AI infrastructure.
The reversal indicates that investors are weighing the agreement’s long-term capacity against near-term execution costs and market conditions. The companies did not disclose expected revenue, construction spending, deployment stages, or a timetable for bringing the full 2.5 GW online.
For U.S. investors, AMD’s warrants introduce a potential dilution consideration if the chipmaker exercises its right to buy CORZ shares. The commercial conditions and number of shares covered will determine the eventual effect on existing holders.
Execution becomes the next test for Core Scientific
Core Scientific must now prepare its facilities for deployments scheduled to begin in 2027. Its progress will depend on power availability, construction timelines, customer demand, and the capital required to convert former mining sites.
Investors will also watch for disclosures covering the agreement’s financial value, deployment schedule, and warrant terms. These details will help determine how quickly the AMD partnership could replace declining reliance on Bitcoin mining revenue.
The wider shift among miners is increasing competition for AI tenants and financing. Core Scientific’s 2.5 GW agreement gives it substantial contracted demand, but future results will depend on how much capacity is delivered and how profitably the company operates it.
Google Gemini AI language on this predicts is unusually direct. Trading near $1.08, XRP sits at the precipice of a major institutional re-rating heading into the 2026 year-end price prediction.
The case rests on several tailwinds converging at once rather than any single event. Definitive US regulatory clearance following an SEC and CFTC digital commodity classification would remove the legal ambiguity that has followed XRP for years.
Accelerating institutional inflows into spot XRP ETFs sit alongside the full commercial rollout of Ripple’s enterprise RLUSD stablecoin. Cross-border tokenized asset pilots are expanding too, now involving institutions like JPMorgan and Mastercard.
Legislative momentum behind the US CLARITY Act adds another layer of support. Growing sovereign interest in XRPL-powered CBDC infrastructure rounds out the picture, hinting at government-level adoption rather than just corporate partnerships.
Gemini frames the real trigger as transaction velocity. If institutional usage on the XRP Ledger scales as these partnerships suggest, that combination of liquidity and adoption creates a clear path to a high-conviction target of $2.80 to $3.75 by Q4 2026.
The bear case is comparatively slight but specific. Broader macroeconomic headwinds, slow conversion of on chain utility into real volume, or stablecoins cannibalizing native token settlement could all cap momentum.
In that scenario, Gemini sees price bounded toward a multi-year support floor between $0.85 and $1.00 rather than breaking out at all.
XRP Is Sitting Almost Exactly On The Floor Gemini’s Own Bear Case Describes
Price closed at $1.09051, down 1.92%, in a session ranging between $1.08375 and $1.11404. That places XRP right at the upper edge of the exact support zone that the bear case flags, making this chart worth reading closely.
Zoom out and the trend since mid 2025 has been one long staircase down. XRP peaked near $3.66 in July 2025, and every month since has carved a lower high, with the sharpest break coming in February when the price gapped from above $2.20 down through $1.60 in a matter of weeks.
Since that February crash, price has spent five months compressing into an increasingly narrow range between roughly $1.00 and $1.60. Support sits at $1.00, the psychological floor that lines up with Gemini’s own bear target, then $0.85 below that.
Resistance stacks at $1.20, then $1.40, then the heavier ceiling near $1.60 that has capped every bounce since February. Momentum here is flat and compressed, sitting in the lower half of a range that has been narrowing for months without resolving in either direction.
For Gemini’s bull case to gain any traction, XRP first needs to reclaim $1.60, a level this chart has not closed above since before the February breakdown. Until that happens, price is doing exactly what the bear case describes, sitting near the floor rather than building toward the ceiling.
Here is what Gemini AI Predicts For LiquidChain’s Near Future
Every cycle has a moment where waiting becomes the most expensive decision you can make. That moment is now.
Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP are all pinned under the same resistance they have been testing for weeks. The macro unlock is perpetually one data point away. The institutional money keeps arriving next quarter. Large-cap traders waiting for a breakout are queuing for a decision that belongs to someone else entirely.
Grok AI has identified what experienced cycle traders already act on. Capital that registers as statistical background noise at Bitcoin’s market cap can completely reprice a small, undiscovered project.
The asymmetry is not complicated. It lives in the distance between what something is genuinely worth and what the market has currently assigned it. The moment that distance gets noticed, it collapses. Before that moment, it is fully open.
Cross-chain fragmentation has been quietly taxing every DeFi participant since the first bridge went live. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana were engineered independently with zero shared infrastructure and no design intent to communicate.
Every transaction crossing those ecosystem boundaries absorbs the cost of that decision in fees, failed execution, and slippage that hits before settlement even begins. The bridge industry did not fix this problem. It built a business model on top of it.
LiquidChain removes the business model entirely. Three networks unified inside a single execution layer. One deployment reaches all of them simultaneously. No cross-chain tax is extracted from any interaction anywhere.
Gemini AI predicts it as a coin worth watching. The presale sits at $0.01454 with just over $860,000 raised.
Execution is unproven. Adoption is an open question. Established assets offer a smoother path toward a ceiling that the entire market can already see. LiquidChain is the entry point that stops existing once the market finds it.
The post Google Gemini AI Predicts Why XRP Could Outperform Every Crypto by End of 2026 appeared first on Cryptonews.
Seagate Technology just handed the AI infrastructure trade a much-needed win, and it came from hard drives, an unlikely corner of the market.
Seagate’s shares had slid roughly 8% into Tuesday’s print as investors had soured on stretched AI valuations across chip and storage names. However, Seagate’s fiscal fourth-quarter results flipped that mood almost overnight.
A Beat That Silences the Doubters
Revenue climbed 48% year over year to $3.63 billion, beating Wall Street’s estimate near $3.5 billion. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $5.71, well above the $5.10 analysts expected.
That gap matters because it shows Seagate isn’t just selling more drives. It’s making far more profit on each one. Non-GAAP gross margin backs that up, jumping to 52.7% from 37.9% a year earlier.
Seagate also banked a record $3.1 billion in free cash flow for the full fiscal year, cash it can use to pay down debt, reward shareholders, or reinvest in its AI storage push.
CEO Dave Mosley credited the results to durable cloud demand.
“Our performance is being driven by robust cloud data center demand and disciplined execution, and we see the momentum continuing in 2027,” Mosley said.
Management’s guidance beat expectations too. Seagate expects $4.1 billion in revenue next quarter, well above analyst estimates near $3.8 billion.
Why It Matters Beyond Storage
The beat lands right as memory chip stocks wobble on fears the AI buildout is overheating. Even SK Hynix and Samsung’s chip deals haven’t stopped that slide. Seagate’s results argue the underlying demand for AI-driven data storage still holds, even as sentiment around the stocks turns shaky.
Seagate’s next quarter, and whether it hits that $4.1 billion target, will show if this confidence sticks.
The post Seagate’s 48% Revenue Surge Silences Growing AI Infrastructure Skeptics appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Microsoft, Meta, Apple, and Amazon are the four US stocks with earnings to watch this week. Investors care less about profit beats than about whether record AI spending is producing revenue.
Alphabet already set the bar on July 22. Its shares fell despite beating on nearly every line, punished for lifting full-year capital spending guidance toward $205 billion.
Why Alphabet’s Selloff Reset Big Tech Earnings Expectations
Alphabet posted second-quarter revenue of $119.8 billion, a 24% annual increase. Diluted earnings reached $9.11 a share. Google Cloud revenue climbed 82% to $24.8 billion.
The stock still dropped roughly 4% after hours. Management had raised 2026 capital expenditure guidance to a range of $195 billion to $205 billion. The prior range topped out at $190 billion.
Quarterly capital spending hit $44.9 billion, roughly double the year-earlier figure. Free cash flow turned negative at $5.9 billion.
That combination is the new market test. Beating on revenue no longer protects a stock if spending guidance rises faster.
What the Latest Filings Already Reveal About AI Capex
Most coverage treats AI spending as a forecast. The filings show it has already landed.
BeInCrypto reviewed the most recent quarterly cash flow statements for all five companies. The pattern is consistent. Capital spending is growing far faster than the cash generated to fund it.
Microsoft offers the clearest example. Additions to property and equipment reached $30.9 billion in the March quarter, according to its filing. That is up 84% from $16.7 billion a year earlier.
Operating cash flow grew far more slowly. Subtract capital spending and the remainder fell 22% to $15.8 billion, even though net income rose 23%.
Depreciation tells the same story. Microsoft’s depreciation and amortization charge rose 31% to $10.2 billion. Meta’s climbed 54% to $6.0 billion.
This is a pattern rather than a single quarter. Microsoft spent $80.1 billion on property and equipment across the first nine months of its fiscal year, up 69% from $47.5 billion.
Amazon shows the sharpest deterioration. Trailing free cash flow fell to $1.2 billion from $25.9 billion a year earlier. The company attributed the drop to a $59.3 billion rise in equipment purchases.
Combined Big Tech AI capex guidance for 2026 now runs into the hundreds of billions. The reported figures show that spending arriving on the balance sheet ahead of the revenue meant to justify it.
The revenue side is not standing still, however. Azure grew 40% last quarter, Google Cloud 82%, and Amazon Web Services 28%. The open question concerns timing rather than demand.
Why Headline Profits Are Flattering Meta and Amazon
Here is a detail that rarely surfaces in earnings previews. Both Meta and Amazon posted enormous headline profits last quarter for reasons unrelated to operations.
Meta reported diluted earnings of $10.44 a share. That figure included an $8.03 billion income tax benefit. The company disclosed that earnings would have been $3.13 lower without it.
Strip the benefit and Meta earned closer to $7.31 a share. Wednesday’s consensus of $7.13 therefore looks less like stagnation and more like a normal comparison.
Amazon reported $2.78 a share. That number included $16.8 billion in pre-tax gains from its Anthropic investment.
The lesson holds for both. Operating performance at these companies is currently harder to read from headline earnings. Investors are watching capital spending instead, because that line is unambiguous.
What Wall Street Wants From Each of the 4 US Stocks
Here is what what economists wants from Microsoft, Meta, Apple, and Amazon.
- Microsoft (MSFT) and the Azure Test
Microsoft closes its fiscal year on Wednesday. Zacks Investment Research puts consensus at $4.21 a share across 15 analysts, against $3.65 a year earlier.
Azure decides the reaction. The unit grew 40% last quarter. Management guided to constant-currency growth of 39% to 40% for the June period.
One number supports the bull case. Commercial remaining performance obligation, essentially contracted future revenue, nearly doubled to $627 billion. Chief Executive Satya Nadella also said Microsoft’s AI business passed a $37 billion annual revenue run rate.
- Meta (META) Faces Expense Scrutiny
Meta faces tighter expense discipline. It guided to full-year costs of $162 billion to $169 billion and capital expenditure of $125 billion to $145 billion. Reality Labs lost $4.03 billion last quarter alone.
The core business is still compounding quickly. Revenue rose 33% to $56.31 billion last quarter, of which advertising contributed $55.02 billion. An average of 3.56 billion people used its apps each day in March.
- Apple (AAPL) Is the Capital-Light Outlier
Apple is the control case. Analysts expect $1.88 a share, up from $1.57, on consensus revenue of roughly $109 billion.
Its March quarter showed what capital-light growth looks like. Revenue rose 17% to $111.2 billion and earnings per share climbed 22%, according to Apple’s release. Services reached an all-time high.
Apple generated more than $28 billion in operating cash flow that quarter. Rather than building data centers, it authorized a further $100 billion of share buybacks. Watch iPhone and Services for signs the iPhone 17 cycle is holding.
Thursday also marks Tim Cook’s final earnings call as chief executive. John Ternus takes over on September 1.
- Amazon (AMZN) Rests on AWS Margin
Amazon rounds out the week at $1.81 a share, against $1.68. Analysts model roughly $40.5 billion in Amazon Web Services revenue. Company guidance puts operating income between $20 billion and $24 billion.
AWS delivered $37.6 billion of revenue and $14.2 billion in segment operating income last quarter, its fastest growth in 15 quarters. Amazon’s custom chips business, spanning Graviton, Trainium, and Nitro, passed a $20 billion annual revenue run rate.
Why It Matters for the Nasdaq This Week
The Federal Reserve announces its rate decision on Wednesday afternoon, hours before Microsoft and Meta report. Rates currently sit between 3.50% and 3.75%.
Economists broadly expect no change. Traders disagree, and futures pricing splits sharply on the odds of a hike.
Precedent suggests the reaction could split the group. On April 30, Alphabet added more than $300 billion in market value, as BeInCrypto reported. Meta shed $175 billion in the same session. Both had beaten on revenue. Only their spending outlooks differed.
Options markets imply a move of roughly 6.3% for Amazon on results day, above its recent average. Similar volatility is priced across the other three.
Meanwhile the spending keeps expanding. Meta disclosed a new data center venture with BlackRock in El Paso on Tuesday, hours before its own report.
What to Watch Over the Next 30 Days
Three specific disclosures matter more than this week’s earnings per share.
- Fiscal 2027 capital expenditure guidance
Microsoft has signaled roughly $190 billion for calendar 2026. Any step up invites the treatment Alphabet received.
- AWS margin
Analysts model 33.8%. A decline would show depreciation reaching the segment that funds Amazon’s build.
- Meta’s expense range
Management has held $162 billion to $169 billion for two quarters. Widening it would echo April.
Track records diverge going in. Microsoft, Meta, and Apple have each beaten consensus in their last four quarters. Amazon has fallen short in its last two.
Therefore a headline miss would surprise on three of the four. On the question that decides the week, the filed numbers already lean one way.
Capital spending is outgrowing the revenue it funds at every company that has reported. Microsoft’s capex rose 84% while Azure grew 40%, roughly twice the pace. Alphabet’s roughly doubled against 82% cloud growth. Meta’s rose 47% against 33% revenue growth.
That gap indicates the payoff has not arrived yet. Demand signals suggest it may still be coming, and Microsoft’s $627 billion backlog is the strongest argument for patience.
Whether investors extend that patience depends on what these four guide for 2027, not on what they earned last quarter. The market is already questioning AI revenue quality.
The post 4 US Stocks Earnings to Watch This Week: Will AI Spending Finally Pay Off? appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Cloud mining platforms gain popularity in 2026 as investors seek simpler ways to access Bitcoin, DOGE, and LTC mining without expensive hardware.
Summary
- SHRMiner ranks among top cloud mining platforms in 2026, offering beginners easier access to BTC, LTC, and DOGE mining.
- Cloud mining gains popularity in 2026 as platforms like SHRMiner provide automated crypto mining without expensive hardware.
- SHRMiner highlights renewable energy mining farms and automated cloud mining services as demand for BTC mining grows.
Want to participate in Bitcoin mining in 2026 but don’t want to buy expensive mining rigs? Then cloud mining platforms remain one of the simplest and most worry-free options.
Nowadays, more and more investors are entering the market through free cloud mining platforms, easily participating in mining mainstream cryptocurrencies such as BTC, DOGE, and LTC without needing to build their own equipment or bear high electricity and maintenance costs.
However, while there are many platforms on the market, only a few are truly worth considering. A good cloud mining platform should not only have a clear and transparent profit mechanism, but also a stable data center, an automatic payment system, and a sufficiently secure operational background.
Based on the market trends and platform characteristics in 2026, SHRMiner, BitFuFu, IQMining, Binance Cloud Mining, and CCG Mining are the five platforms that deserve close attention.
1. SHR Miner: The most noteworthy cloud mining platform in 2026
For those who are looking for a service that balances security, flexibility, and beginner-friendliness, SHRMiner is a very popular choice. Launched in 2018 and headquartered in the UK, SHRMiner operates over 100 large-scale renewable energy mining farms in the US, UK, Russia, Switzerland, Iceland, Virginia, Georgia, Vancouver, Canada, and other locations, utilizing renewable energy sources such as hydropower and wind power to enhance mining efficiency.
The platform supports mining mainstream cryptocurrencies such as BTC, LTC, and DOGE. Users do not need to purchase any hardware; they only need to select a suitable contract to start. Its contract coverage is extensive, with a comprehensive range of entry-level and premium packages to suit users with different budgets.
SHRMiner Core Advantages:
Register to receive a $15 bonus and free mining experience.
- Zero learning curve: No technical skills, hardware, or complicated operations required — just click to start mining.
- Supports daily automatic settlement, with no transaction fees or maintenance costs.
- Uses advanced ASIC mining equipment, connected to green energy, improving operational efficiency.
- Provides SSL encryption and DDoS protection.
- Provides a real-time earnings dashboard, allowing users to track their earnings anytime, anywhere.
- Supports multiple contract types including BTC, LTC, and DOGE.
SHRMiner gained popularity in 2026 primarily because it was suitable for beginners to quickly get started while also supporting more advanced users for flexible configuration. Its overall performance was well-balanced, from the initial user experience to contract scalability.
2. BitFuFu: A professional platform backed by Bitmain
BitFuFu has garnered significant market attention due to its association with Bitmain. This type of platform is particularly attractive to users who value mining rig resources and hardware expertise. BitFuFu is suitable for investors seeking a more mature mining service system.
3. IQMining: A key focus for long-term contract users
IQMining has been operating for several years and is characterized by offering longer-term mining contracts. For users who prioritize long-term planning over short-term volatility, IQMining is a common choice.
4. Binance Cloud Mining: Integrated trading and mining
The biggest advantage of Binance Cloud Mining lies in its ecosystem integration. Users can manage mining and asset transfers directly within their Binance accounts, eliminating the need for frequent platform switching. This is especially convenient for existing Binance investors.
5. CCG Mining: A key platform in the European market
CCG Mining offers a comprehensive range of services, including cloud mining, mining rig sales, and hosting. It enjoys considerable brand recognition in the European market and is suitable for users looking to explore diverse mining services.
Why are more and more people choosing cloud mining in 2026?
Compared to traditional mining rigs, the biggest advantages of cloud mining are:
- No need to purchase expensive equipment
- No need to bear high electricity bills
- No need for technical maintenance knowledge
- Quick start after registration
Some platforms also offer free trials and reward mechanisms. For ordinary users, this model is obviously more convenient and more suitable for low-barrier entry into the crypto market.
Conclusion: Which cloud mining platform is worth paying attention to in 2026?
From an overall user experience perspective, SHRMiner remains one of the most competitive platforms in 2026. It excels in platform transparency, mining process, settlement efficiency, and beginner-friendly features, while supporting multiple cryptocurrencies including BTC, LTC, and DOGE, making it highly versatile.
Of course, for those who prioritize exchange integration, Binance Cloud Mining will be more convenient; for those who value long-term stable contracts, IQMining and CCG Mining are also good options.
In general, when choosing the best cloud mining platform, it is recommended to focus on the platform’s background, security mechanisms, contract flexibility, and actual user experience. For users looking to start their free cloud mining journey in 2026, prioritizing a transparent, secure platform with clear settlement is a safer bet.
In short, for those who are looking for a cloud mining platform that balances transparency, flexibility, and ease of use in 2026, SHRMiner is a wise choice.
For more platform information, service details, and cloud computing solutions, please visit the official platform or download the mobile application.
Disclosure: This content is provided by a third party. Neither crypto.news nor the author of this article endorses any product mentioned on this page. Users should conduct their own research before taking any action related to the company.
Tom Holland Used Web Fandoms For Spider-Man: A Brand New Day
FCC blocks new foreign robot dogs and humanoids over national security risks
Tribes take on prediction markets
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Brooks Brothers
-
Business7 days agoNew Jersey voter registration controversy explained: How 6,600 noncitizens got on the rolls, and what happens next
-
Tech2 days agoIntel is reversing course and bringing hyper-threading back to its server chips
-
Sports2 days agoCommonwealth Games boxing: Jadumani Singh seals dominant 5-0 win over Pakistan’s Sumama Rehman to enter quarter-finals | Commonwealth Games News
-
Crypto World6 days agoEthics, other provisions in crypto Clarity Act to be further discussed
-
Politics2 days agoLuke Littler dismantles Gerwyn Price to retain title in Blackpool
-
Sports5 days ago2026 3M Open leaderboard: Scottie Scheffler finds putter in Round 1, sits three back
-
Fashion5 days ago16 Dresses for the High Summer Event
-
Politics17 hours agoThe Part of the Electric Transition Nobody Wants to Discuss
-
Entertainment5 days agoA New Post-Apocalyptic Gundam Anime Series Blasts Into SDCC
-
News Videos2 days agoBITCOIN JUST ENTERED THIS CRITICAL ZONE…
-
Politics3 days agoSpain sweeps the board at 2026 World Cup with individual awards
-
News Videos5 days agoThe Peugeot Family: How 200 Years of an “Old Money” Dynasty Died in A Boardroom
-
Crypto World3 days agoRipple bought a bank in pieces. The $4 billion audit
-
Crypto World3 days agoXRP Ledger adds $2.6B as RWA inflows rank second
-
Crypto World5 days agoUniswap (UNI) pushes deeper into tokenized RWAs with permissioned trading pools
-
Tech4 days agoAnthropic launches Claude Opus 5, a cheaper AI model for coding, agents and enterprise workflows
-
Entertainment7 hours ago‘Stargate’ Creator’s New Sci-Fi Series Returns for Season 3 Tomorrow
-
Crypto World7 days agoSablier Labs Enters Maintenance Mode, Halts Development
-
Crypto World6 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