Crypto World
Why HYPE is different: inside Hyperliquid’s buyback
Most crypto tokens have “buyback” mechanisms that are either nominal, sporadic, or theoretical. HYPE has something genuinely different.
Summary
- Hyperliquid’s Assistance Fund uses 97% of protocol trading fees to buy HYPE tokens directly from the open market through an automated on-chain system.
- The fund has spent more than $1.3 billion on HYPE buybacks, with the mechanism running at an annualized rate estimated near 7% of the token’s market cap.
- Analysts tracking HYPE’s tokenomics say the continuous buyback structure has created one of the most aggressive revenue-driven value accrual models in the crypto market.
The Assistance Fund directs 97% of Hyperliquid’s protocol fees into continuous, automated market purchases of (HYPE), removing tokens from circulation every day. By May 2026, the Fund had spent over $1.3 billion buying back HYPE, holding roughly 28.5 million tokens worth $1.5 billion at peak prices.
At an annualized rate of roughly 7% of market cap, HYPE’s buyback intensity is four to five times Ethereum’s and BNB’s. That math is the structural reason behind the rally that most price commentary cannot explain. This is how the mechanism actually works, why it scales differently from every other major crypto token, and what would have to break for the model to fail.
The mechanism in plain terms
The Hyperliquid Assistance Fund is a part of the protocol that makes HYPE’s tokenomics genuinely different from every other large-cap cryptocurrency, and almost no coverage explains it properly.
In plain terms: every time someone trades on Hyperliquid, they pay a fee. That fee gets aggregated into a protocol-controlled pool called the Assistance Fund. The Fund then uses 97% of those accumulated fees to buy HYPE tokens directly from the open market. The purchases run continuously, automated by on-chain logic, with no manual intervention from the team. The HYPE bought back is held by the Fund itself, removing those tokens from the active circulating supply.
The numbers are not theoretical. By October 2025, the Assistance Fund’s total purchases had passed $1.3 billion. Daily buybacks averaged around $1 million, with single-day peaks reaching $3.97 million. By Q3 2025, the Fund held nearly 29.8 million HYPE tokens, valued at over $1.5 billion. By March 2026, the Fund had accumulated roughly 28.5 million HYPE through systematic open-market purchases.
Hyperliquid accounted for 46% of all token buyback activity across the crypto industry in 2025, with monthly buybacks averaging $65.5 million.
That last statistic is worth pausing on. Almost half of all crypto buyback activity in 2025 came from a single protocol. The scale is genuinely different from anything else in the industry.
The mechanism is automated and transparent. Validators publish the rules. The smart contracts execute the purchases. Every buyback transaction is visible on chain. There is no “we will buy back tokens when we feel like it” element. The 97% allocation is encoded in the protocol’s economic design, and the Fund operates as a continuous market participant, always bidding, always buying.
A December 2025 governance vote, passed by 85% of validators, raised the allocation to 99% for certain fee categories and committed to permanent token burns on a portion of the Fund’s holdings.
The vote was significant for two reasons. First, it took the buyback model from “policy that could change” to “governance-enforced commitment.” Second, it added a deflationary component: tokens bought back and then burned are permanently removed from supply, which is structurally different from tokens bought back and held in a treasury that could theoretically be resold.
This is the engine. The rest of the piece explains why it matters more than most readers realize.
Why this is not just another buyback program
Crypto has a long history of token buyback announcements that turn out to be less than they appear. Some are one-time events. Some are sporadic and tied to discretionary team decisions. Some are funded by token treasury sales rather than real revenue, which is roughly equivalent to printing money to buy back money. The market has, reasonably, learned to discount buyback announcements as marketing rather than substance.
HYPE is genuinely different on three dimensions.
First, the source of the funding is real. The Assistance Fund’s purchases are funded entirely by trading fees from actual transactions. Hyperliquid’s protocol revenue runs at roughly $1.3 billion in annualized fees as of mid-2026, with the platform regularly beating Ethereum and Solana on weekly blockchain fee generation. The buybacks are not subsidized by token issuance, treasury depletion, or external capital.
They come from users actually using the protocol and paying actual fees. If trading volume goes up, buybacks go up. If trading volume goes down, buybacks go down. The mechanism is mechanically tied to real economic activity, not to founder discretion or marketing cycles.
Second, the share of revenue going to buybacks is exceptional. Most crypto tokens with buyback or burn mechanisms route a small percentage of revenue toward token economics. BNB burns roughly 20% of its quarterly profits. Ethereum burns a variable share of gas fees via EIP-1559, with the rate depending on network congestion. Solana directs roughly 50% of priority fees to burns. HYPE’s 97% allocation is, by a wide margin, the most aggressive fee-to-token-economics ratio of any major crypto asset. The protocol effectively treats trading fees as token holder revenue rather than operating budget.
Third, the execution is fully automated and transparent. The Assistance Fund runs on chain. Every purchase is visible. Every transaction is verifiable. There is no off-chain accounting, no discretionary timing, no “we’ll announce the burn next quarter” framing. The mechanism runs like an algorithmic market participant always bidding for HYPE, funded by the trading activity of the network it runs on.
To use a comparison that makes the difference concrete: when Binance burns BNB, it makes a quarterly announcement, calculates the burn amount based on metrics it controls, and executes a single transaction. When Hyperliquid buys back HYPE, it happens every day, in continuous small purchases, funded by every trade that ran since the last buyback. The Binance model gives BNB holders four discrete moments of supply reduction per year. The Hyperliquid model gives HYPE holders a constant supply-reduction force that scales with network usage.
The implications of that difference are substantial, and they show up in the math.
The math compared to other major tokens
The clearest way to see why HYPE is structurally different is to look at the buyback or burn rate as a%age of market capitalization, annualized. This normalizes for the fact that bigger tokens can buy back more in absolute terms while still doing less relative to their size.
Ethereum burns approximately 1.5% of its market cap annually through EIP-1559, depending on network usage. The burn rate scales with congestion, so it varies, but the long-term average sits in that range.
BNB burns approximately 1.2% of its market cap annually through its quarterly burn program. The rate is moderately stable because it is tied to Binance’s overall profitability, which scales more slowly than network usage.
Solana burns roughly 0.5% of its market cap annually through priority fee burns. The rate is lower than Ethereum’s because the share of fees burned is smaller and the protocol relies more heavily on issuance for validator rewards.
HYPE’s buyback rate is approximately 7% of market cap annually at current revenue levels. This is four to five times Ethereum’s rate, six times BNB’s rate, and fourteen times Solana’s rate. The disparity is not marginal. It is structurally different.
What this means in practice is straightforward. For every $100 of HYPE you hold, the Assistance Fund is, on average, buying back roughly $7 worth of HYPE from the market each year on your behalf. That buy pressure is funded by protocol revenue, scales with trading volume, and runs regardless of HYPE’s price or your individual actions. It is the closest thing to a dividend that exists in major crypto, except it shows up as supply reduction and accumulated treasury holdings rather than as cash distributions.
The 7% figure understates the structural intensity in another way. The buyback rate is computed against current market cap. As Hyperliquid’s trading volume grows, the absolute size of the buybacks grows. As the buybacks grow against a finite supply, the supply shrinks. As the supply shrinks against constant or rising demand, the price rises. As the price rises, the same absolute buyback in dollar terms removes fewer tokens, which means the supply pressure stabilizes at higher prices rather than running away to infinity. The math is self-balancing, but the balance point is meaningfully higher than what a pure fundamental valuation would suggest.
This is what Arthur Hayes meant when he called HYPE “fundamentally de-risked” in his Valhalla thesis from earlier in 2026. He was not saying HYPE has no risk. He was saying the buyback mechanism creates a structural floor that scales with adoption, which is a feature most tokens do not have.
Why this matters for the token unlock schedule
One of the most common bear arguments against HYPE is the token unlock schedule. The argument goes like this: HYPE has a maximum supply of approximately 1 billion tokens. The circulating supply is around 254 million as of late May 2026. That means roughly 75% of the total supply has not yet entered circulation. As tokens vest from team, investor, and reward allocations, they will enter the market over the coming years and create persistent selling pressure that the protocol cannot offset.
The argument is not wrong, but it is incomplete. The honest analysis requires comparing the inflation rate from unlocks against the deflation rate from buybacks.
The token unlock schedule for HYPE is back-loaded. The largest tranches of vesting do not begin until 2027 and beyond, with team and investor allocations subject to multi-year cliffs and gradual release. This is different from many recent crypto tokens, where significant unlocks hit in the first 12 to 18 months of trading and produce structural selling pressure during the period when the token is most fragile.
Between now and the start of major team and investor unlocks, the Assistance Fund keeps buying. At the current rate of roughly $65.5 million per month in buybacks, the Fund accumulates approximately 1.3 million HYPE per month at current prices, or roughly 15 to 16 million HYPE per year. If that pace holds unchanged through the next eighteen months, the Fund will have absorbed an additional 25 million HYPE from the market by the time major unlocks begin.
This does not eliminate the unlock pressure. It does shift the balance. The unlocks will create selling pressure when they arrive. The buybacks have been creating buying pressure all along. The question is which force is larger at any given moment, and the answer depends on how Hyperliquid’s trading volume scales between now and then.
If trading volume keeps growing, the Assistance Fund’s buying pressure grows proportionally, and may offset more of the unlock supply than skeptics expect. If trading volume stagnates, the unlock pressure dominates. The protocol’s success or failure as a derivatives venue is therefore the key variable. The tokenomics are not the bull case in isolation. They are the bull case conditional on continued protocol growth.
The HLP, the Assistance Fund, and the staking layer
There are three distinct components of Hyperliquid’s tokenomics that get conflated in most coverage, and they are worth distinguishing because each operates differently.
The Assistance Fund is the buyback engine described above. It collects 97% of trading fees and uses them to buy HYPE from the open market. The Fund holds the purchased HYPE in a protocol-controlled wallet. A portion of holdings is subject to governance-approved permanent burns.
HLP (Hyperliquidity Provider) is the protocol’s market-making vault. Users deposit USDC into HLP and earn returns from market-making activities, including spreads, funding payments, and liquidation profits. HLP serves as the counterparty to traders on the protocol. Its returns are inversely correlated with trader profitability, meaning HLP earns more when traders lose money and earns less when traders are profitable. HLP is separate from the Assistance Fund. It does not buy HYPE. It is a yield-generating product for USDC depositors.
HYPE staking lets HYPE holders stake their tokens to earn additional rewards. Stakers receive a portion of certain protocol fees not routed to the Assistance Fund, plus inflationary rewards from the network’s reserve allocation. Staking also confers governance rights, including voting on protocol changes and Assistance Fund parameters. As of mid-2026, HYPE staking is increasingly used by ETF issuers (Bitwise, in particular) to enhance fund returns and align with the protocol.
The interaction between these three components is what creates Hyperliquid’s full economic flywheel. Traders pay fees. Fees fund the Assistance Fund buybacks. HLP captures the counterparty side of trading activity. Stakers earn from fees not routed to the Assistance Fund. The flywheel is self-reinforcing: more trading produces more buybacks, which support price, which attracts more capital, which enables more trading.
The May 14 AQAv2 deal added a fourth component: reserve yield from USDC balances on the platform, redirected back to the protocol and ultimately to HYPE holders. This is structurally separate from the Assistance Fund but adds to the total economic value flowing to the token. The combined effect is that HYPE holders capture revenue from three distinct streams: trading fees (via buybacks), stablecoin reserves (via AQAv2), and ETF management fees (via the Bitwise allocation).
Three structural revenue streams are unusual in crypto. Most tokens have one source of value accrual, if any. HYPE has three. Each runs continuously. Each scales with adoption.
What could break the model
A fair piece on HYPE’s buyback mechanism has to name the conditions under which the model could fail or degrade. There are several worth taking seriously.
The first risk is trading volume decline. The buyback mechanism is mechanically tied to trading fees. If Hyperliquid’s trading volume drops significantly (because of competition, regulatory pressure, or a broader crypto market downturn), the Assistance Fund’s purchases drop proportionally. The mechanism does not have a floor. It scales with usage in both directions. A sustained 50% drop in trading volume would cut buyback intensity from 7% of market cap annually to roughly 3.5%. Still better than most tokens. Less compelling than the current rate.
The second risk is fee compression. Hyperliquid’s competitive position currently lets it charge meaningful fees for trading. If centralized exchanges (Binance, Coinbase, OKX) lower their fees aggressively, or if competing decentralized perpetual protocols (Aevo, dYdX, GMX) capture market share, Hyperliquid may need to reduce fees to stay competitive. Lower fees would mean lower buybacks at the same volume.
The third risk is governance changes. The 97% allocation is set by validator vote. A future governance vote could lower the allocation, redirect fees to other purposes, or alter the Fund’s burn policy. The December 2025 vote that raised the allocation toward 99% was supportive, but the same governance system could reduce it. The protocol’s commitment to the buyback model is real but not constitutional. It is policy, not bedrock.
The fourth risk is technical or operational failure. The Assistance Fund runs on Hyperliquid’s Layer-1 blockchain. A serious failure of the chain, the validator set, or the smart contracts that automate the buyback would interrupt the mechanism. Hyperliquid has run cleanly so far, but the protocol is younger than Ethereum or Solana, and the next major operational issue is, by base rate, eventually coming.
The fifth risk is regulatory. Token buybacks funded by protocol fees occupy an ambiguous space in U.S. securities law. If a regulator chose to characterize the buyback mechanism as a security distribution to token holders, the legal pressure on Hyperliquid would be significant. The protocol’s defense (it is a permissionless decentralized exchange and the buybacks are automated by smart contracts) is similar to Uniswap’s defense and has held up so far, but the broader regulatory environment for DeFi tokenomics in the U.S. is still evolving.
None of these risks invalidates the model. They are the conditions under which it could weaken. The honest read is that HYPE’s buyback mechanism is the most aggressive and structurally interesting in major crypto, but its continued effectiveness depends on Hyperliquid’s trading volume holding up, governance keeping the policy intact, and regulators not taking adverse action. All three conditions can be met. None is guaranteed.
The comparison nobody runs
The most useful exercise for understanding HYPE’s tokenomics is one nobody in mainstream crypto coverage runs: comparing HYPE directly to a hypothetical equity with similar cash flow characteristics.
Consider Hyperliquid’s economics in equity terms. The protocol generates roughly $1.3 billion in annualized revenue (trading fees). 97% of that revenue is used to buy back the token, which is the equivalent of an equity issuer using 97% of its revenue to buy back its own stock from the open market.
For a public equity, this would be extraordinary. Apple, by comparison, returns roughly 25 to 30% of its revenue to shareholders through buybacks and dividends. Berkshire Hathaway returns close to 0% (Buffett famously prefers reinvestment). The typical S&P 500 company returns somewhere between 5 and 15%. A company that returned 97% of revenue to shareholders would be an outlier so extreme that analysts would assume either fraud or imminent operational collapse.
HYPE’s “operational expenditure” is largely covered by the network’s validator and infrastructure rewards, which come from inflationary token allocation rather than trading fees. This is what makes the 97% number sustainable in a way it would not be for a traditional company. The protocol’s growth investments, validator payments, and ecosystem development are funded by token issuance to specific allocations, while trading fees flow almost entirely to existing token holders via buybacks.
In equity terms, this is a structure where the company’s growth is funded by issuing new shares while existing shareholder value is supported by aggressive buybacks of existing shares. The combined effect is dilution for new participants and concentration for existing holders. Whether this is sustainable depends on whether the growth funded by issuance generates enough new value to offset the dilution.
So far, it has. Hyperliquid’s revenue has grown faster than its dilution, which means existing holders have benefited net-net from the structure. The question is whether this keeps going as the protocol matures and as the token unlock schedule accelerates.
The comparison to traditional equity is imperfect (crypto tokens are not equity, and the legal structures differ in important ways), but it is useful for understanding what HYPE’s tokenomics are actually doing economically. The token is, in effect, a high-payout-ratio claim on a fast-growing piece of financial infrastructure. The closest traditional analog might be a high-yield REIT that retains very little capital and distributes nearly everything to shareholders, except that HYPE distributes via buybacks rather than dividends, and the underlying business is decentralized derivatives trading rather than real estate.
That is what makes HYPE genuinely different. Most crypto tokens are either pure speculation (no underlying cash flow) or low-payout infrastructure plays (Ethereum, Bitcoin). HYPE is a high-payout, high-growth cash flow claim. It is not pretending to be something else. The tokenomics are real, the cash flow is real, and the math is unusual enough that most crypto coverage simply does not have a framework for it.
What this means going forward
For HYPE holders specifically, the buyback mechanism implies a few things.
The structural buy pressure is real and continuous. As long as trading volume holds up, the Assistance Fund will keep absorbing HYPE from the market every day. This is supportive of price during normal market conditions and somewhat protective during downturns, because the buyback keeps running regardless of sentiment.
The unlock schedule is a real concern, but partially offset. The team and investor unlocks beginning in 2027 will add selling pressure. The buyback mechanism will offset some of that pressure, but how much depends on trading volume at that point. Holders watching the unlock schedule should also be watching the buyback run-rate.
The governance commitment to the model is the variable to monitor. The 97% allocation is not constitutional. A future governance vote could change it. So far, the validator base has consistently voted to keep or strengthen the buyback policy, but this is the lever that matters most for long-term HYPE holders.
For the broader crypto market, the implications are larger than they appear. Hyperliquid’s model is being studied by other DeFi protocols as a template. If similar fee-to-buyback mechanisms get adopted by other major venues, the era of “token economics as marketing” may finally be giving way to “token economics as cash flow.” That would be a significant shift in how crypto tokens are valued, and Hyperliquid would be the inflection point.
For analysts, the lesson is that the standard frameworks for valuing crypto tokens (multiples of TVL, multiples of trading volume, comparisons to similar tokens) do not capture what is happening with HYPE. The token is closer to a high-payout-ratio financial instrument than to a typical L1 governance token.
Valuing it requires modeling the cash flow, the buyback rate, and the unlock schedule, then comparing the result to traditional equity benchmarks. Most analysts have not done this work, which is part of why coverage of HYPE is still structurally underdeveloped.
The bottom line
HYPE’s buyback mechanism is not a marketing gimmick. It is not a sporadic burn program. It is not a discretionary commitment that can be reversed when convenient.
It is a continuously running, on-chain, automated mechanism that takes 97% of Hyperliquid’s protocol revenue and converts it into open-market purchases of HYPE. The Assistance Fund has accumulated $1.3 billion in HYPE since launch. It buys roughly $1 million worth of HYPE per day on average. It scales with trading volume. It is governance-enforced. It produces an annualized buyback rate of approximately 7% of market cap, four to five times Ethereum’s burn rate and six times BNB’s.
That is the structural reason behind the rally that most price commentary cannot explain. The protocol generates real revenue. The revenue funds real buybacks. The buybacks support the token. The token’s value reflects the cash flow.
This is unusual in crypto. Most tokens have value accrual mechanisms that are theoretical, sporadic, or marketing-driven. HYPE has one that operates continuously, scales with adoption, and converts protocol success directly into token holder value.
Whether this justifies HYPE at $58 (its level as of late May 2026, after retracing from the $62.24 all-time high) is a separate question. The argument for “yes” is the cash flow generation, the back-loaded unlock schedule, and the multiple structural revenue streams (buybacks, AQAv2 reserve yield, ETF allocation). The argument for “no” is the fully diluted valuation against eventual unlock supply and the conditionality of the model on continued trading volume growth. Reasonable analysts disagree on the valuation, and many do.
What is not reasonable is to evaluate HYPE without understanding the buyback mechanism. The price chart shows what happened. The Assistance Fund explains why.
This is the part most readers have not internalized yet. The crypto press has spent eighteen months treating HYPE as another speculative altcoin rally. The structural picture is that HYPE has the most aggressive and durable cash flow mechanism of any major crypto token, and the protocol that generates that cash flow is currently the dominant venue for on-chain derivatives.
That is not a meme. That is not speculation. That is real economics, encoded in smart contracts, running every day.
The buyback mechanism is the part that most people do not understand. Once you understand it, everything else about HYPE makes more sense.
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets and protocol dynamics evolve quickly; the figures and milestones described reflect reporting available as of late May 2026. Always do your own research.
China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) said it will study new adjudication rules for virtual currency and cross-border finance cases as part of a broader push to clarify how courts handle digital economy disputes.
“We will conduct in-depth research on the adjudication rules for new cases such as virtual currencies and cross-border finance, formulate judicial interpretations on civil compensation involving insider trading and market manipulation as soon as possible,” said Liu Guixiang, Judicial Committee member of the SPC, during a press conference, reported Chinese news outlet Yicai on Wednesday.
The court also plans to study judicial protection rules for artificial intelligence cases and data property rights, including disputes involving data ownership, data transactions and AI-generated content.
The development aims to draft clearer internal judicial standards on how courts should decide disputes and liability in crypto and AI intellectual property rights-related lawsuits. The promised guidelines may improve the court’s consistency in the growing number of crypto and AI-linked cases in the country.
The comments come months after a high-profile lawsuit involving Chen Zhi, the Chinese-born founder and chairman of Cambodia’s Prince Group, who was arrested in Cambodia on Jan. 6, 2026, and extradited to China shortly after, where he faces charges related to operating pig butchering scam compounds.
In October 2025, the US Department of Justice seized about $15 billion worth of Bitcoin (BTC) from Zhi’s suspected operations.
US authorities charge Chen Zhi and seize $15 billion in Bitcoin. Source: Justice.gov
China’s ban on all crypto transactions remains in place
Mainland China has had a rocky relationship with the cryptocurrency industry.
In December 2013, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) banned financial institutions from offering Bitcoin-related services and stated that Bitcoin was not recognized as a currency, in its first major prohibitive step against the crypto industry.
Related: South Korean funeral company records $33M unrealized loss on leveraged ETH ETFs
In September 2021, ten Chinese agencies, including the central bank and securities regulators, issued a blanket ban on all crypto transactions, Bitcoin mining and activities tied to initial coin offerings (ICOs) in the country.
In February, the PBOC banned the issuance of unauthorized offshore Chinese yuan-pegged stablecoins and the unapproved issuance of tokenized real-world assets (RWAs).
The structure of the digital yuan, China’s CBDC. Sources: Cointelegraph
The latest ban came shortly after the Chinese government approved commercial banks to share interest with clients holding the country’s digital yuan, a central bank digital currency (CBDC) managed by state authorities.
The development signal that the PBOC is doubling down on its efforts to launch its own yuan-backed CBDC as a new form of digital fiat money, instead of stablecoins.
Magazine: 50K investors fight Korean crypto tax, Singapore cancels Bsquared: Asia Express
South Korea, Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office has arrested and indicted operators behind Catfi. This is the country’s first-ever rug pull prosecution tied to a decentralized exchange.
The case, brought under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, charges the group with market manipulation after 256 investors lost 900 million won($586,000), when liquidity was drained following an artificial price surge.
The scheme began on Pump.fun in early 2025, where the main suspect, identified by the surname Park, operating online as the influencer ‘Eth Father,’ created Catfi before listing it on a decentralized exchange. Park allegedly posed as an unrelated third party to recommend purchases, inflated follower counts, managed project social accounts, and spread tokens across multiple wallets while using circular trading to obscure issuer control.
Catfi’s price surged 1,001-fold within 26 hours of issuance, with 6,000 investors buying in before the liquidity vanished. The group used approximately 10 million won in criminal funds and walked away with 400 million won, or $260,000, in proceeds.
Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio
South Korea Catfi Arrest and DeFi Regulation
Until this Catfi case, South Korea virtual asset enforcement had concentrated almost entirely on centralized exchanges. DEX fraud occupied a legally murky space: non-custodial design, pseudonymous wallet operators, and the absence of a regulated intermediary made it structurally difficult to assign criminal liability under frameworks built for traditional finance or even CEX abuse.
The Virtual Asset User Protection Act, which took effect in July 2024, gave prosecutors a statutory basis, covering “the use of fraudulent means, plans, or techniques” and false statements about material facts in digital asset trading, regardless of venue.
The Catfi prosecution is only the second known matter under the Act, following the January 2025 ACE token manipulation case on Bithumb, but the first to reach into a DEX environment.
Seoul Southern District prosecutors framed the enforcement mandate explicitly, stating the office would “resolutely deal with acts that disrupt the digital asset market and undermine public trust.”
DeFi regulation in South Korea has now moved from exchange oversight to on-chain conduct, and operators who assumed decentralization meant immunity are reading that statement very carefully right now.
The Tracing Mechanism
The Catfi case illustrates the investigative template that makes on-chain forensics increasingly dangerous for rug pull operators. Prosecutors identified circular trading patterns, coordinated wash trades across wallets controlled by the issuing group, which created artificial volume and masked insider ownership concentration.
From there, the off-ramp is typically the exposure point: converting criminal proceeds into fiat or stablecoins requires touching a centralized exchange with KYC obligations, and that intersection is where pseudonymous operators become identifiable individuals.
South Korea’s enforcement bodies have developed this pattern across prior cases; the 149-arrest USDT laundering ring announced earlier this year demonstrated that prosecutors can map complex multi-wallet schemes at scale. The Catfi group’s use of approximately 10 million won in traceable criminal funds suggests the on-chain trail was coherent enough to anchor the indictment.
Two suspects were arrested and indicted for market manipulation; one was indicted without detention; two others were charged for helping the main suspect flee. Similar reconstruction methods were visible in the Squid protocol exploit, where on-chain tracing helped identify the flow of drained funds across multiple hops.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
The post South Korea Makes First DEX Rug Pull Arrest in Catfi Case appeared first on Cryptonews.
South Korean prosecutors have charged a group linked to the Solana-based memecoin CATFI, also known as Catpie, in what local outlets described as the country’s first prosecution tied to a rug pull on a decentralized exchange. The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office, through its Virtual Asset Crime Joint Investigation Division, arrested the core suspects. The lead figure, identified by the surname Park, allegedly posed online as “Eth Father” and promoted CATFI as an independent third-party project before the scheme unfolded, according to Digital Asset Works.
Investigators say the defendants used social media to hype CATFI, driving the token’s price up more than 1,000-fold within about 26 hours. They then sold their holdings for roughly 400 million won in illicit profits, while the rug pull inflicted about 900 million won ($599,000) in losses on at least 256 investors. The case represents a rare legal action in South Korea against memecoin price manipulation under the Virtual Asset User Protection Act.
Prosecutors noted that rug pulls are deceptive exit scams in which project creators cultivate investor interest, only to abandon the project and siphon away funds. Cointelegraph reached out to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office for comment but had not received a response by publication as the investigation unfolds.
The case adds to the ongoing scrutiny of domestic crypto markets and comes as South Korea’s crypto trading activity has cooled. Digital Asset Works highlighted a broader market backdrop in which won-based exchanges have seen trading volumes shrink relative to the KOSPI stock market, underscoring heightened regulatory attention to market manipulation and investor protection.
Key takeaways
- .li>First confirmed arrest in a memecoin rug pull under South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act, tied to the CATFI/Catpie case.
- CATFI surged over 1,000 times in price within 26 hours before promoters sold approximately 400 million won in illegal profits; roughly 900 million won in losses reported across at least 256 investors.
- The token’s market profile collapsed from an all-time peak to a dramatic 99% decline, with on-chain data showing 1,512 holders remaining as of now and the largest holder controlling about 18% of supply.
- Domestic market context features a notable drop in won-based trading volume, highlighting regulatory and market headwinds for memecoins and similar high-risk assets.
- Related incidents this year underscore ongoing risk in meme tokens, including high-profile rug pulls tied to social media-driven hype and influencer-linked projects.
CATFI’s rise and fall in context
CATFI briefly reached an all-time market capitalization of about $8.99 million in February 2025, but the subsequent rug pull and exit scam knocked the token back into a lurching decline. Data from Pump.fun indicates that, despite the collapse, a significant portion of investors—about 1,512 holders—still appear to be holding CATFI in hopes of recovery. The largest known address, a wallet labeled “5Q54,” reportedly held around 18% of the token’s supply at the time data was compiled. The project’s former promoter’s X (Twitter) account has since been deleted, reflecting the erasure of public-facing outreach tied to the campaign.
The legal action signals that authorities are increasingly willing to pursue coordinated manipulation cases in the memecoin space. Rug pulls—where developers promote a token to attract funds and then abruptly abandon the project—have long threatened retail investors, particularly in communities built around social media-driven hype. The CATFI case is positioned as a test of South Korea’s enforcement under evolving crypto consumer protection standards.
However, the CATFI saga is not isolated. In May, Cointelegraph reported on another Solana memecoin linked to Keith Gill’s Roaring Kitty persona that experienced a separate rug pull, with the anonymous developer cashing out about $729,000 while investors saw steep losses. The episode, alongside the CATFI case, underscores the volatility and risk profile of meme-oriented assets even as markets evolve and regulators scrutinize suspicious activity more closely.
For individual traders, the CATFI episode illustrates how quickly momentum-based tokens can flip from rapid gains to devastating losses. One trader reportedly saw a loss approaching six figures in a short period during a recent memecoin event, highlighting the real-world stakes involved in these crowded, speculative spaces.
Regulatory backdrop and market dynamics in South Korea
The CATFI case arrives amid a downturn in domestic digital asset trading activity. Digital Asset Works’ coverage notes that won-based exchanges have seen shrinking volumes, with overall activity in the Korean market growing more cautious in the face of regulatory scrutiny and increased risk awareness among investors. The development underscores a broader tightening environment where authorities emphasize consumer protection, anti-manipulation measures, and accountability for project teams behind high-risk tokens.
South Korea’s enforcement trajectory—with the CATFI investigation marking a potential precedent—could influence how future memecoin launches are treated under existing laws. While the case does not conclusively determine the long-term legality of memecoins themselves, it demonstrates that orchestrated price manipulation and exit schemes are increasingly susceptible to legal repercussions, potentially reshaping project funding dynamics and investor diligence in the domestic market.
What comes next for CATFI and the market
As prosecutors proceed with the case, observers will be watching how charges unfold, whether additional arrests follow, and what implications this may have for the broader memecoin ecosystem in South Korea. The outcome could influence how exchanges assess listing risk, how influencers disclose promotional activity, and how investors evaluate exit risk in hype-driven tokens. In the near term, CATFI’s holders face a challenging landscape: questions about potential refunds, recovery pathways for defrauded investors, and the sustainability of token liquidity in the wake of the rug pull remain unresolved.
Readers should watch for further updates from South Korean authorities as the investigation progresses, along with any court rulings that could redefine enforcement norms for memecoins and similar schemes. The CATFI case may serve as a bellwether for how regulatory regimes balance innovation and investor protection in a fast-moving, social-media-driven segment of the crypto market.
DMG Blockchain mined 69 bitcoin in its fiscal Q2 2026 but is betting its future on transforming those mining operations into AI-ready data centers serving Canadian government and enterprise demand.
Summary
According to its latest earnings release, DMG Blockchain Solutions generated 69 Bitcoin (BTC) in self-mining during the second quarter of fiscal 2026, essentially unchanged from the prior quarter but down about 25% compared to the same period a year earlier. The company reported revenue of $7.3 million, a 35% decline from $11.2 million in Q1 2026 and lower than the comparable quarter in 2025, reflecting both softer BTC economics and the deliberate winding down of legacy hosting revenue as it retools its business.
Management used the Q2 update to sharpen a strategic narrative that has been building for over a year: DMG is no longer just a bitcoin miner, but a vertically integrated data center and digital asset services firm that wants to sell AI compute as aggressively as it once sold hash rate. The company says its future operating model will revolve around two main segments, core data center operations and digital asset financial services, with AI infrastructure and services increasingly dominating the first bucket.
Bitcoin mining as AI infrastructure subsidy
In previous operational updates and AI strategy documents, DMG has laid out a plan to gradually transition its Christina Lake facility from pure bitcoin mining toward a mix of AI compute and traditional data center workloads. A November 2025 strategy update, filed with OTC Markets, described a “gradual transition” of Christina Lake from bitcoin mining to artificial intelligence, while still maintaining roughly 1.8 exahashes per second of BTC hash rate and a balance of around 380–400 bitcoin as a treasury and funding source.
A separate investor note on DMG’s AI ambitions highlighted the purchase of 2 megawatts of SCIF-rated prefabricated data center units and a broader vision to develop more than 50 megawatts of AI compute capacity at Christina Lake and other sites. In that same analysis, CEO Sheldon Bennett framed the model bluntly: hydro-powered bitcoin mining provides the cash flow “in a turbulent market,” while AI compute services, particularly for Canadian defense and government clients, represent the high-margin growth leg the firm hopes will eventually dominate revenue.
In Q2 2026, that vision is hardening into a concrete go-to-market plan. DMG says its AI and computing power platform is being built to provide infrastructure and services to Canadian government agencies, enterprises and research institutions, effectively turning a once-speculative bitcoin mine into a domestic, regulated AI data center operator. The strategy echoes a broader trend in the sector where miners try to repurpose energy contracts and data center footprints into AI hosting, a shift already visible at larger players courting hyperscalers and sovereign clients.
Can a 69 BTC quarter really fund AI ambitions?
The uncomfortable question is whether a business that mined just 69 BTC in the quarter, roughly $4.8 million at a hypothetical $70,000 spot price, can realistically bankroll a capital-intensive AI pivot that involves modular data centers, high-end GPUs and stringent security requirements. DMG’s own disclosures show revenue down 35% quarter-on-quarter and a steady pattern of BTC liquidations to fund operations and capex; in April 2026, for example, the company mined 21 BTC, held 389 BTC at month-end, and explicitly noted that it had sold coins to cover expenses.
That tension between bitcoin-denominated cash flow and AI capex has been a recurring theme in DMG’s communications. In an August 2025 earnings commentary, Bennett described the company as “first and foremost a Bitcoin miner” but emphasized that “future bets lie in artificial intelligence,” with recent purchases of modular data center hardware framed as the first steps in “positioning DMG to expand into AI in a meaningful way.” The Q2 2026 report essentially doubles down on that thesis: mining remains the cash engine, but the story DMG wants public markets and Canadian policymakers to buy is that those 69 quarterly BTC are a down payment on a domestic AI infrastructure champion.
For investors and counterparties, the calculus is clear. On one side of the ledger sits a relatively small-cap miner with shrinking bitcoin output and revenues; on the other, a long-duration AI data center build that assumes steady access to capital, government demand and a willingness to treat crypto-derived cash flows as politically acceptable funding for national compute infrastructure. For now, DMG is trying to straddle both worlds, but if bitcoin’s next cycle stumbles, the question in the headline becomes more than rhetorical: can a miner that mints 69 BTC a quarter really afford to become an AI data center company, or is the AI pivot just a narrative hedge on top of a structurally stressed legacy business?
Manuel Aráoz, co-founder of smart contract security firm OpenZeppelin, went public on May 26 with a blunt recommendation that people should get out of DeFi, all of it, including the blue chips.
According to him, AI-powered coding agents have tilted the security game so far toward attackers that no protocol can currently be trusted to hold user funds.
Aráoz’s Warning
The software engineer wrote in a post on X;
“PSA: I now consider all of DeFi unsafe.”
He also said he has been privately advising friends and family to exit all DeFi positions, naming Aave, MakerDAO, and Compound as protocols he no longer considers safe.
His reasoning is based on asymmetry: defenders must find and fix every vulnerability, while attackers need only one to cause damage. Now, with AI coding agents capable of scanning smart contracts faster and more thoroughly than any human security team can, Aráoz feels the asymmetry has become unworkable.
OpenZeppelin itself recently noted that crypto companies lost more than $3.4 billion to hacks in 2025; however, it blamed most of that theft on compromised credentials, operational failures, and code shipped between audits, rather than on smart contract bugs.
This year has also seen a rollercoaster of attacks, with more than $650 million stolen in April alone. Of that amount, $292 million came from an exploit on KelpDAO, with another $285 million siphoned from Drift Protocol following what experts say were months of social engineering.
Pushback From X Users
Against that backdrop, Aráoz’s warning landed hard, but people immediately pushed back. One of those criticizing the post was Aave Chan Initiative founder Mark Zeller, who held nothing back.
His counter was data-driven: he pointed out that fewer than 10% of DeFi issues in the past year stemmed from code-level vulnerabilities, with most failures, according to him, tracing back to poor risk parameters, collateral mismanagement, and weak operational security, not AI-assisted exploits.
Several others echoed Zeller’s view, though with slightly less heat. Phoenix Lab co-founder Sam McPherson indicated that smart contracts of blue-chip DeFi platforms were “quite safe these days” and pointed to opsec failures as the real culprit behind most of the major hacks that have happened recently.
Another X user, Polaris Finance developer Robert, made a similar distinction, saying that actual smart contract exploits are “almost non-existent these days.” He added that recent breaches have largely involved centralized components that allow human control rather than the immutable code beneath them.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin also has a different view on AI and its effect on crypto security, writing earlier this month that AI-assisted formal verification could actually make crypto systems more secure over time. According to him, developers can use AI to write both the code and the mathematical proofs of its correctness.
The post AI Coding Agents Have Made All DeFi Unsafe, Security Expert Says appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Crypto World
Your AI agent can now trade for you on Robinhood. And buy stuff with your credit card too
Vlad Tenev, CEO and co-founder of Robinhood, speaks during the Robinhood Markets, Inc. event in New York City, U.S., March 4, 2026.
David Dee Delgado | Reuters
Retail investors may soon be able to hand the keys to their portfolios, and even their wallet, to artificial intelligence.
Robinhood unveiled tools on Wednesday that let AI agents trade stocks and make purchases on users’ behalf, marking one of the first attempts to bring autonomous finance technology to ordinary investors rather than institutions.
The new products — Agentic Trading and an Agentic Credit Card — allow customers to connect third-party AI assistants to carry out investing strategies or spending instructions with minimal human involvement. Users can instruct agents to rebalance portfolios, monitor themes such as AI stocks or execute trading strategies automatically.
Separate AI agents can also search for deals and complete purchases using designated credit cards.
“Our mission has always been to democratize finance for all, and now, that mission extends to AI agents,” CEO Vlad Tenev said in a statement.
The rollout comes as hedge funds and exchange-traded fund providers increasingly deploy AI-driven and quantitative systems to automate investment decisions, but such technology has largely remained out of reach for retail customers.
The Robinhood move raises some safety issues, putting autonomous trading in the hands of the less sophisticated smaller trader without the same risk controls as a Wall Street institution. Robinhood tried to address this with some guardrails.
The company said the dedicated “agentic trading” accounts are separated from their main portfolios, limiting access to only the capital users specifically allocate. The system also provides notifications whenever trades occur and lets customers immediately disconnect an agent if needed. Initial beta support covers stock trading, with plans to add options, cryptocurrency and futures later.
Robinhood also said investors will retain control through spending limits, manual approvals and fraud-monitoring systems that can review both user instructions and an agent’s actions if disputes arise.
— CNBC’s Kate Rooney contributed reporting.
TLDR
- Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF recorded $19.05 million in daily investor inflows.
- Hunter Horsley confirmed the fund became the largest Hyperliquid ETF globally.
- Bitwise surpassed 21Shares in cumulative Hyperliquid ETF inflows.
- The ETF distributes 67% of staking rewards directly to investors.
- Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs recorded $1.64 billion in combined outflows since May.
Bitwise confirmed its Hyperliquid ETF now leads the global market for HYPE-linked investment products. The Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF recorded $19.05 million in daily inflows, according to CEO Hunter Horsley. The fund also surpassed rival products after attracting strong institutional demand during its first weeks of trading.
The Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF reached $55 million in cumulative inflows after launching earlier this month. CEO Hunter Horsley shared the update through a public statement on social media.
The fund posted $22 million in daily trading volume during the latest session. Horsley said nearly all trading activity came from net inflows.
That structure reflected strong buyer demand throughout the session. It also showed limited selling pressure from larger market participants.
Bitwise overtook 21Shares in cumulative inflows during the recent trading period. The company now manages the largest Hyperliquid-focused exchange-traded fund globally.
The ETF sector linked to Hyperliquid currently holds $117.38 million in combined assets. However, Bitwise now controls the largest share of that market.
Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF Gains Market Share
Bitwise introduced native staking within the regulated ETF structure after launch. The company distributes 67% of staking rewards directly to investors.
The asset manager also removed management fees temporarily for early participants. That pricing strategy helped the ETF attract additional liquidity quickly.
Horsley described the inflow figures as a strategic achievement for the company. He also linked the result to Bitwise’s early positioning in emerging crypto assets.
The Hyperliquid ETF products launched in the United States roughly two weeks ago. Bitwise used that short launch window to expand market share rapidly.
The company also tied future business growth to the Hyperliquid ecosystem directly. Bitwise committed 10% of future management revenue toward HYPE token buybacks.
That mechanism links fund growth with demand for the underlying token. The structure also separates the product from many traditional crypto ETFs.
Hyperliquid ETF Sector Outpaces Bitcoin and Ethereum Funds
The Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF gained traction while major crypto ETFs faced capital withdrawals. Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs recorded combined outflows of $1.64 billion since May 2026 began.
BHYP and THYP products moved against the broader market trend during that period. Investors shifted capital toward newer on-chain ecosystem products instead.
Bitwise said the ETF structure focused on regulated access and staking rewards. The company also emphasized exposure to the Hyperliquid ecosystem through the product.
Horsley confirmed the inflow data after the latest trading session closed. Bitwise currently remains the world’s largest manager of Hyperliquid-linked ETF assets.
- RAIN coin price has surged 63% to $0.01318, setting a new ATH.
- $100M liquidity plan ahead of V2 and World Cup is fueling demand.
- Key support sits at $0.011, with $0.010 as the downside risk level.
RAIN coin has recorded a sharp move in the past 24 hours, climbing 63.2% to $0.01324 and setting a new all-time high in the process.
The token’s trading activity also picked up meaningfully, with 24-hour volume rising more than 50% to over $39 million, signalling active participation rather than a thin-liquidity spike.
$100M liquidity plan is the main catalyst
The biggest driver behind RAIN’s move is a $100 million liquidity commitment tied to the upcoming Rain V2 protocol upgrade and expansion into event-driven markets ahead of the FIFA World Cup cycle.
According to details released by Rain Foundation, the liquidity package is split evenly into $50 million in USDT and $50 million in RAIN tokens.
This structure is designed to deepen trading pools and improve execution quality for users interacting with prediction markets on the platform.
The funding is also positioned to support market-making activity ahead of expected demand spikes tied to global sporting events.
The announcement also framed Rain as moving into a stronger competitive position within the sector, claiming it would rank among the top three prediction markets globally by total value locked (TVL), alongside established platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi.
That positioning has added weight to the current rally, as traders increasingly price in a larger role for Rain in the prediction market sector heading into the V2 rollout.
Technical breakout confirms strong buying pressure
Beyond the fundamental catalyst, RAIN’s price action shows a clear technical breakout pattern.
The token moved from below the $0.008 region to above $0.013 within a short window, breaking through its previous all-time high near $0.01195 set on May 26, 2026.
The rally suggests aggressive buying rather than gradual accumulation.
Price acceleration occurred in stages, with early resistance levels failing to hold once liquidity expanded into the market following the announcement.
RAIN coin price forecast
RAIN coin is now trading in a stretched but strongly trending structure after breaking into new all-time highs.
The key technical level to watch on the downside is $0.011, which is the immediate support zone following the breakout.
If price continues to hold above that level with sustained volume, the next short-term resistance area sits around $0.0125, which aligns with recent intraday congestion during the breakout phase.
A stronger continuation move would require the market to maintain momentum above the current high region near $0.013, particularly if liquidity deployment updates from Rain Foundation are confirmed in the coming sessions.
On the downside, a clean break below $0.011 would weaken the current structure and open the door for a pullback toward $0.010, where earlier consolidation took place before the breakout accelerated.
Kraken has launched Bitcoin Vault, an on-chain yield product on Kraken Earn that lets users keep spot exposure to bitcoin while earning BTC‑denominated returns sourced from DeFi strategies.
Summary
- Bitcoin Vault allows users to earn on-chain yield in BTC without managing DeFi strategies themselves.
- The product targets long-term bitcoin holders via the existing Kraken Earn and Auto Earn infrastructure.
- It expands Kraken’s broader push into yield products, alongside DeFi Earn vaults and BTC staking integrations.
According toreports, Kraken has unveiled a new Bitcoin Vault product that sits inside Kraken Earn and is designed to “allow users to maintain exposure to Bitcoin (BTC) prices while earning BTC‑denominated yields through DeFi strategies.” The exchange describes the vault as a way for clients to automatically route their bitcoin into curated on-chain yield strategies without having to bridge assets or directly operate complex DeFi protocols themselves, extending the approach it already uses in its DeFi Earn vaults.
In its own materials on DeFi Earn, Kraken explains that by depositing eligible assets into DeFi Earn vaults, users “earn rewards directly from decentralized finance (DeFi) lending markets,” with the platform handling protocol selection, risk management and on-chain interactions. The new Bitcoin Vault appears to apply that same framework to BTC specifically, using a vault structure that sources yield from audited DeFi strategies while keeping rewards and pricing explicitly denominated in bitcoin rather than stablecoins or governance tokens.
Aimed squarely at “set-and-forget” bitcoin holders
Kraken has positioned Bitcoin Vault primarily for long-term bitcoin holders who want to put otherwise idle BTC to work but are unwilling or unable to manage multi-step DeFi workflows. In an overview of its Auto Earn system, the exchange pitches the feature as “a simple way to grow your crypto holdings with no additional effort,” noting that Auto Earn can be toggled on for eligible assets so rewards are generated automatically without lock-up periods in many cases.
The exchange has already built a reputation around yield and staking products, including BTC-focused offerings powered by Babylon’s Bitcoin-native staking, where users can stake BTC “without bridging or giving up custody,” and earn additional rewards in Babylon’s $BABY token. With Bitcoin Vault, Kraken is now layering a DeFi yield vertical on top of that stack, plugging bitcoin directly into on-chain lending and strategy vaults in a curated, custodial wrapper similar to what its DeFi Earn product does for assets like USDC and other major tokens.
Exchanges race to package on-chain yield
Kraken’s move lands in a broader context where both centralized exchanges and TradFi issuers are scrambling to package on-chain yield into simple, compliant products that feel familiar to mainstream investors. In a recent crypto.news explainer, yield-generating crypto products, from liquid staking to yield-bearing ETPs, were flagged as one of the defining trends of the current cycle, as more investors look beyond simple buy‑and‑hold exposure. Other players are experimenting with similar structures: a recent crypto.news interview with DeFi Technologies’ CEO, for instance, highlighted how non‑custodial bitcoin staking on Core Chain underpins a BTC yield‑bearing ETP aimed at regulated markets.
At the same time, competition among exchanges is intensifying around subscriptions, rewards and bundled perks. Kraken itself has experimented with this model via its Kraken+ membership, which offers fee discounts and boosted yields to subscribers, a trend analyzed in a crypto.news opinion piece on how exchanges are weaponizing subscriptions to lock in high‑value users. Bitcoin Vault fits neatly into that arms race: for long-term BTC holders already on Kraken, it turns basic price exposure into a yield-bearing position, while keeping the operational complexity and protocol selection buried under the hood.
For investors, the product underscores how the line between “simple exchange account” and “on-chain yield aggregator” is blurring. Instead of manually deploying BTC into vaults, bridges and lending protocols, Kraken’s Bitcoin Vault effectively packages that entire stack behind a single button in the Earn tab, offering BTC‑denominated yield for as long as users are comfortable outsourcing strategy and risk management to a centralized platform.
Crypto platform Kraken is offering customers an easier way to earn yield on their bitcoin holdings without selling or actively managing assets across decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols.
The Bitcoin Vault product within Kraken Earn allows users to win rewards denominated in bitcoin while maintaining exposure to BTC’s price. It is aimed at long-term holders looking for passive income opportunities tied to assets they already plan to keep over time, Kraken said in the Wednesday press release.
The new offering is powered by DeFi infrastructure provider Veda and operated by Sentora, with customer assets allocated across established onchain lending and yield protocols including Aave, Morpho and Tydro.
“Many bitcoin holders on Kraken have made it clear they want simple, safe ways to earn on the bitcoin they already plan to hold,” John Zettler, GM of Payward Services and head of Kraken Earn Products, said in the statement. “Bitcoin Vault is built for that mindset,” he added.
The structure is intended to abstract away much of the operational complexity typically associated with DeFi participation, allowing customers to access yield opportunities directly through their Kraken accounts.
In crypto, vaults are pooled investment products that automatically deploy users’ assets across DeFi protocols to generate yield. Rather than requiring users to manually move funds between lending, staking or liquidity platforms, they package those strategies into a single product, often with automated risk management and rebalancing.
Crypto exchanges and DeFi firms have increasingly rolled out vault products as demand grows for passive yield opportunities tied to long-term holdings like bitcoin and ether.
Bitcoin Vault marks the latest step in Kraken’s broader push into onchain financial products as exchanges compete to attract users seeking yield-generating strategies beyond spot trading. While centralized crypto lending products largely collapsed during the 2022 market downturn, exchanges and DeFi platforms have increasingly repositioned yield products around transparent onchain infrastructure and overcollateralized lending markets.
Kraken said the product is designed to appeal both to existing customers and to bitcoin holders outside the platform who may be looking to consolidate assets with a large exchange while generating additional yield. The company added that onboarding into Bitcoin Vault is integrated directly into the Kraken and Krak apps.
The firm’s broader DeFi Earn offering has surpassed $240 million in assets under management since launching in January, which it attributed to organic customer adoption rather than token incentives.
Bitcoin Vault is now available in eligible jurisdictions through Kraken Earn.
Read more: Kraken parent Payward’s Q1 revenue climbs despite crypto market slump
China’s Supreme Court to Formulate New Rules for Digital Currency, AI cases
Real Madrid: Enrique Riquelme outlines plans as he launches presidential campaign
Most Americans want digital shelf labels and surveillance pricing banned amid grocery price fears
-
Crypto World6 days agoBlockchain.com files with SEC for U.S. IPO
-
Fashion5 days agoHoliday Weekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World5 days agoBitcoin Accumulation Weakens as BTC Realized Losses Hit $600M
-
Business5 days agoDell Technologies DELL Stock Surges 15% on AI Server Momentum and Analyst Upgrades in 2026
-
Crypto World4 days agoRobinhood crypto COO Tanya Denisova exits
-
Politics5 days agoMakerfield: a tale of two social-media histories
-
Business3 days agoNYT Strands Answers May 24 2026 Revealed for Puzzle No. 812 Theme Summer Essentials
-
Crypto World5 days agoSpace X IPO Is ‘Bad News’ for Tech Stocks: But What About Bitcoin?
-
Tech2 days agoMicrosoft’s quiet Claude Code retreat and the real cost of enterprise AI
-
Crypto World5 days agoMicroStrategy’s Saylor Says Miners No Longer Set Bitcoin Price, Another Force Has Taken Over
-
Tech6 days agoWhatsApp ads could make Irish debut after discussions with DPC
-
NewsBeat6 days agoCharity run by Reform leader Malcolm Offord accused of ‘law breaking’ over Scottish registration
-
Tech5 days agoA 0.12% parameter add-on gives AI agents the working memory RAG can’t
-
Crypto World5 days agoAI infrastructure race heats up as IREN pitches full-stack strategy, WhiteFiber lands $160M deal
-
Crypto World2 days agoNvidia (NVDA) CEO Calls on Super Micro to Strengthen Export Controls Amid Smuggling Probe
-
Tech5 days agoYou Can Now Add ChatGPT To PowerPoint
-
Business5 days agoTrump Invests $1M-$5M in Kura Sushi USA Chain With 27 California Locations
-
Tech2 days agoWestone Audio and Etymotic Acquired by Fidelity Collective in Major IEM Market Move
-
Tech1 hour ago
The Samsung pay deal is the moment Korean unions changed register
-
Sports6 days ago2026 CJ Cup Byron Nelson leaderboard: Brooks Koepka finds putting stroke in Round 1
You must be logged in to post a comment Login