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.
XRP price traded near $1.14 on June 21, with the token still locked in a narrow range after failing to clear $1.20.
Summary
- XRP price traded near $1.14 as buyers defended the key $1.10 support zone after weak volume.
- Ripple adoption keeps growing through RLUSD, MXNB, Mastercard settlement links and AI payment tools.
- ETF inflows and low exchange reserves support the rebound case, but whale selling remains under pressure.
According to crypto.news data, XRP showed a 24-hour move of -0.34%, with price action between $1.13 and $1.15.
The token stayed almost flat over seven days but remained down more than 16% over 30 days. Trading volume stood near $872 million, while market value held around $70.97 billion, keeping XRP in sixth place among crypto assets.
The setup remains simple. Bulls need to protect $1.10, while a close above $1.20 would give the market a reason to revisit $1.25 and $1.30.
XRP price stays locked inside a tight range
Last week’s range view has held. XRP buyers pushed toward $1.20, but they did not secure a breakout with strong volume. Sellers also failed to break the $1.10 floor, keeping the token inside the same band.
That makes $1.10 the first level to watch. A clean move below that area could expose $1.05 and then the $1.00 zone.
The upside path also remains clear. XRP needs volume above $1.20 before bulls can target $1.25 and $1.30. Without that confirmation, the move looks more like consolidation than a new trend.
This range still matters. Long periods of flat trading often build pressure, but direction still depends on who wins the range. A breakout without volume would carry less weight than a close backed by stronger spot demand.
Ripple adoption supports the long-term case
Ripple’s ecosystem news gave bulls a stronger utility argument even as price stayed weak. The company has pushed RLUSD into more payment channels and recently backed Flutterwave’s Series E round to support stablecoin adoption in African payments.
Ripple also worked with Bitso on MXNB, a Mexican peso stablecoin on the XRP Ledger. Ripple is expanding RLUSD through Mastercard’s stablecoin settlement network and MXNB-powered cross-border payment infrastructure.
The XRP Ledger also moved deeper into automated payments. Crypto.news reported that Ripple launched the XRPL AI Starter Kit, allowing AI agents to use XRP and RLUSD for payments through the x402 protocol.
This does not guarantee higher prices. It does show that XRP’s utility story is moving beyond retail trading and into payments, stablecoins, settlement and machine-to-machine transfers.
CLARITY Act and reserves shape the catalyst
Regulation remains a key part of the XRP price analysis. As crypto.news reported, the CLARITY Act has cleared committee and now needs Senate votes, with the 60-vote threshold still ahead.
The bill matters for XRP because it could give institutions clearer rules for digital commodities and tokenized settlement. XRP is already being used in tokenized Treasury settlement pilots, but larger adoption still depends on legal certainty.
Supply data adds another layer. Crypto.news reported that XRP exchange reserves fell to a seven-year low near 1.6 billion tokens, down about 50% from October 2025. Low exchange supply can make price more sensitive when demand arrives.
Fund flows are another support point. According to SoSoValue data, XRP-linked products recorded about $10.66 million in weekly net inflows for the week ending June 18, close to $10.68 million in the prior week. Cumulative net inflows rose to about $1.45 billion, while total net assets moved closer to $1 billion.
Still, whale activity keeps risk on the table. As previously reported, whales had distributed more than 30 million XRP in five days, while network activity weakened.
Analysts watch $1.10 and $1.20
Technical analysts remain split. EGRAG CRYPTO described the two-month XRP chart as “E is the battlefield,” pointing to a structure that could support a future breakout if buyers defend the current zone.
The analyst listed much higher cycle targets, including $9.50 to $17.23, with $13 as a main focus. Those targets remain speculative while XRP trades near $1.14 and below the $1.20 breakout area.
For now, the market does not need targets to define the next move. XRP needs to hold $1.10, reclaim $1.20 and then show stronger volume. A failure at $1.10 would keep sellers in control.
ETF flows, lower exchange reserves and Ripple adoption support the rebound case. Whale selling, weak activity and a stalled breakout support the cautious case. XRP is still waiting for a clean trigger.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Bitcoin (BTC) has fallen roughly 50% since Michael Saylor’s Strategy launched Stretch (STRC), its flagship Bitcoin-funding vehicle, in late July 2025.
BTC/USD monthly chart. Source: TradingView
Key takeaways:
- STRC is acting like a classic Ponzi scheme, argue Peter Schiff and other critics.
- Other analysts disagree, noting that STRC’s drop below the $100 par is due to a leverage wipeout.
Critics say STRC looks like a “classic centralized Ponzi”
STRC was designed to trade near its $100 par value, enabling Strategy to raise capital to buy more Bitcoin. The instrument is now trading at a deep discount, suggesting that the BTC buying channel is under pressure.
On Thursday, STRC fell to a record low of $82.53 before closing at $88.59, still below the $100 par value.
STRC daily chart. Source: TradingView
Launched in July 2025, STRC was designed to trade near par through adjustable dividends, currently 11.5% annualized, with proceeds used primarily to acquire Bitcoin.
The widening discount has pushed STRC’s effective yield above 12.9% and contributed to a pause in at-the-market share issuance. That risks slowing down the capital-raising flywheel behind Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury, which now holds more than 846,000 BTC.
In finance, a “flywheel” is a self-reinforcing business model where growth in one metric directly helps grow another, compounding momentum.
But trading 13% below par has revived criticism of Strategy’s funding model.
Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff has repeatedly described STRC as “a classic centralized Ponzi,” arguing that it depends on Strategy’s ability to raise fresh capital through new share sales or sell Bitcoin to meet obligations.
Source: X/Peter Schiff
Crypto trader DonAlt also questioned STRC’s recent price action, asking why the instrument was “trading like a Ponzi” after its sharp move below par.
Strategy has not directly addressed this in recent statements, instead continuing to present STRC as preferred equity supported by its Bitcoin-focused treasury strategy.
However, the company has moved STRC to a semi-monthly dividend schedule, with payouts now designed to occur twice a month rather than monthly.
Strategy’s Bitcoin buying pace slows as STRC slumps
The pace of Strategy’s Bitcoin accumulation has slowed sharply as STRC trades below par value.
The company added 1,550 BTC for $101 million in the week ending June 8 and another 1,587 BTC for $100 million in the week ending June 15, lifting total holdings to 846,842 BTC.
Those were meaningful purchases, but they were far smaller than Strategy’s weekly buys earlier in 2026.
For instance, in April, Strategy bought 34,164 BTC for $2.54 billion in a single week. In May, it added another 24,869 BTC for roughly $2.01 billion. By contrast, June’s weekly additions have been closer to $100 million each.
The slowdown also coincided with a small but notable 32 BTC sale earlier in June, worth about $2.5 million, to help cover dividend obligations.
Related: Bitcoin price sets $64.5K week-to-date low as Strategy selling worries return
The sale was tiny compared with Strategy’s overall Bitcoin treasury, but it showed that cash obligations can still force limited BTC sales when STRC-led funding becomes less efficient.
STRC-led weekly BTC buying estimates. Source: STRC.LIVE
Analyst says STRC drop is a leverage wipeout
The STRC sell-off looked more like a leverage wipeout than a deterioration in Strategy’s fundamentals, according to Jesse Myers, head of Bitcoin strategy at The Smarter Web Company.
“Strategy is fine,” he said in a Thursday post, adding that the company could pay STRC dividends for 32 years if conditions remain unchanged, and indefinitely if Bitcoin appreciates at roughly 2% annually.
STRC’s long stretch near $99–$100 encouraged investors to use heavy leverage, with some assuming the instrument would stay above $95. Once the price slipped, margin calls and forced selling accelerated the decline.
The discount may also attract income buyers, according to analyst Scott Melker.
In a Sunday post, he noted that STRC’s dividends are based on the $100 liquidation preference, not the market price. At an 11.5% dividend rate, buyers at $90 earn about 12.8%, while buyers at $85 earn roughly 13.5%.
Source: X/Scott Melker
At current prices, STRC offers an effective yield of about 13%. Strategy may announce its next dividend rate on June 30, while retaining other options, including MSTR share issuance and cash reserves, to fund its Bitcoin purchases.
Bitcoin can survive another price crash as it has done so many times in the past, reassured the CEO of CryptoQuant, Ki Young Ju.
However, he envisions another major threat for the asset – boredom, and he linked it to Strategy’s STRC shares, which have raised some eyebrows in the past few weeks.
Boredom, Not a Crash
If you have followed the cryptocurrency industry for a few (or more) years, you are probably aware of its intense volatility at times. Bitcoin has been the object of some mind-blowing fluctuations, up or down. Of course, the skyrocketing liquidations on the way down are usually the ones people read about, and don’t get me wrong, there have been plenty of instances in which the asset has tumbled by double digits daily. However, it has also risen in the opposite direction violently before.
Naturally, the current market state and the past several months, starting with the early October massacre, the February calamity, and the June crash, are examples of bear-dominated trends. Nevertheless, BTC has managed to withstand all of those and has (for now) returned stronger than before.
Consequently, CryptoQuant’s chief exec didn’t seem too bothered about the potential of another crash. However, he believes boredom could pose a more profound threat, especially if Strategy’s controversial Stretch (STRC) fails to operate as intended.
“Strategy’s STRC structure becomes truly dangerous not when Bitcoin simply crashes, but when Bitcoin spends years moving sideways, and the bear market drags on.”
He added that “long stagnation kills the story,” as BTC can survive another crash if the market still believes in the next leg up. However, weak demand due to stagnation leads to compressed MSTR premium and makes “Saylor’s capital-raising machine much harder to sustain.”
A Reason to Believe
Young Ju further explained that the real challenge for Saylor and his company is not just to keep buying bitcoin, but to give the market “a new reason to believe.”
“After nearly a decade in this industry, I’ve realized Bitcoin’s core has not really changed. What changes every cycle is the story around why BTC price should keep going up. But, most of those stories now feel exhausted.”
He warned that BTC failed to serve as digital gold when it was needed, as it traded like a tech stock. It was supposed to be freedom money built by cypherpunks, but many OGs are now shilling other coins. It also faces the rising threat of advanced quantum computing.
Although he remains a firm believer that “the pool of capital that could flow into Bitcoin is massive,” he noted that the “sense of an inevitable catalyst feels much weaker” now compared to 10 years ago.
“It makes me a little sad to see the ideas that originally pulled me in gradually get consumed and diluted: freedom money, energy money, and institutional adoption.”
The post Bitcoin’s Biggest Risk Is Boredom, Not Another Price Crash: CryptoQuant CEO appeared first on CryptoPotato.
TLDR
- The XRP Ledger’s core server software xrpld v3.2.0 launched June 15, targeting 30–40% memory optimization
- Node operators and developers identified several technical issues via GitHub shortly after deployment
- A node operator experienced complete sync failure post-upgrade despite previous version stability
- Reported issues encompass configuration parsing problems, transaction relay defects, and validator data distribution gaps
- Adoption remains at 26% network-wide; no critical network failures documented
Following the June 15 deployment of xrpld version 3.2.0, the XRP Ledger development community has documented numerous technical issues with the network’s updated core server infrastructure.
The software update promised notable enhancements including performance optimization and a projected 30% to 40% decrease in memory consumption. The release also transitioned the server nomenclature from “rippled” to “xrpld” while incorporating enhanced security protocols.
Yet, shortly following the launch, node administrators and software engineers started documenting problems through the official GitHub issue tracker.
Synchronization Problems and Configuration Glitches
A node administrator documented that their infrastructure running v3.2.0 completely failed to retrieve ledger information following the update. The system maintained connection status but synchronization ceased entirely. Notably, identical hardware performed flawlessly under version 3.1.3. This issue, submitted June 18, awaits resolution.
Another documented problem reveals that configuration files containing inline comments trigger server crashes during initialization. The legacy parsing system fails to properly handle comments in specific parameters, generating a “BadLexicalCast” exception.
Project maintainers have validated multiple reports as legitimate defects requiring technical assessment.
Relay and Validator Network Concerns
Engineers identified a defect affecting transaction propagation mechanisms to network peers. A computational error restricts the number of peers receiving transaction broadcasts, potentially causing insufficient network distribution.
The resource fee tracking mechanism also drew scrutiny. The current implementation only preserves the maximum fee value while discarding previous entries, behavior developers classify as erroneous.
Validator list propagation presented another challenge. Currently, validator metadata transmits exclusively to inbound peer connections while excluding outbound links. This asymmetry affects validator information distribution throughout the network infrastructure.
Developers identified potential unsigned integer overflow vulnerabilities during ledger sequence validation processes. Additional reports highlighted inconsistent transaction routing parameters and compromised node identification when utilizing ephemeral cryptographic keys.
A further report outlined a logical deficiency in ledger state tracking that can strand nodes in undefined states without established recovery procedures.
Current Status Assessment
Presently, none of the documented defects have triggered network-wide service disruptions. The XRP Ledger Foundation alongside open-source development contributors continue examining all submitted reports via the project’s GitHub platform.
Network adoption of version 3.2.0 currently stands at 26%. The substantial majority of nodes continue operating on previous software releases.
The XRP Ledger Foundation has not released official communications or remediation patches at publication time. All identified issues remain under ongoing technical evaluation.
Key Takeaways
- Scaramucci anticipates Bitcoin will begin its upward momentum in Q4 2026 through early 2027
- He dismisses concerns about Michael Saylor and Strategy, calling them financially secure
- Strategy maintains approximately $52 billion in Bitcoin holdings plus $1 billion cash reserves
- Declining retail interest and reduced Google search activity represent bullish indicators in his view
- ETF capital flows and institutional accumulation have created a less volatile cycle compared to previous periods
Anthony Scaramucci, founder of SkyBridge Capital, told CNBC that Bitcoin remains aligned with its traditional four-year market cycle. He anticipates an upward price movement commencing in late 2026 and extending into the first quarter of 2027.
According to Scaramucci, the current market cycle has exhibited less volatility than previous iterations. Bitcoin experienced approximately 50% retracement from peak levels, significantly less than the 60–70% corrections observed in earlier cycles. He attributes this moderation to sustained ETF capital inflows and growing institutional participation.
“I think Bitcoin starts to rally late in the fourth quarter of 2026 into early 2027,” he said.
Scaramucci identified diminishing market attention as an encouraging development. Search volume for Bitcoin on Google has declined substantially, and retail investor enthusiasm has waned. He characterized this apathy as a pattern that typically emerges near cycle lows rather than market peaks.
He emphasized that Bitcoin’s market remains comparatively modest in size. Consequently, even limited fresh capital entering the market can generate substantial price appreciation. Scaramucci disclosed that he maintains significant personal Bitcoin exposure.
“I still like it. I own a lot of it,” he said.
Strategy’s Position Draws Support From Scaramucci
Scaramucci dismissed criticisms surrounding Strategy’s substantial Bitcoin position. He highlighted Michael Saylor’s access to robust capital markets and a solid financial foundation.
“You have to really understand the mechanisms of the balance sheet to understand that Bitcoin can go a lot lower, and he’s virtually not in trouble,” he said.
Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury stands at approximately $52 billion in current value. This reserve provides coverage for 31 months of dividend payments and interest commitments. The firm additionally maintains $1 billion in liquid cash reserves.
No significant debt obligations come due before 2028. Saylor has stated publicly that Strategy can continue servicing its preferred stock dividends and enhancing shareholder returns as long as Bitcoin appreciates by a minimum of 1.25% annually.
Scaramucci observed that Strategy’s equity continues trading at a premium relative to its underlying Bitcoin reserves. He suggested this premium provides investors with “necessary arbitrage” opportunities that justify the investment thesis.
“I like him. I think he’s going to be right,” Scaramucci said of Saylor.
He further mentioned that recent geopolitical developments and declining energy costs could suppress inflationary pressures. Should this scenario materialize, the Federal Reserve might implement interest rate reductions, potentially benefiting Bitcoin and broader risk assets.
Drawing on nearly four decades of investment experience, Scaramucci characterized the present market conditions as a late-cycle deceleration rather than the conclusion of Bitcoin’s long-term appreciation trajectory.
Quick Summary
- Total net revenue for 2025 reached $4.5B at Robinhood, representing a 52% annual increase
- First quarter 2026 brought $1.07B in revenue (up 15%), while Gold membership reached 4.3 million users
- Wall Street’s consensus 12-month target averages approximately $112, marginally exceeding today’s ~$108 trading level
- Projections for 2031 suggest a baseline target near $148, with optimistic scenarios approaching ~$293
- Probability-weighted analysis indicates a 2031 price around $156, representing potential gains of ~44% from present values
Robinhood (HOOD) stock currently hovers around the $108 mark, prompting investors to question its trajectory over the coming half-decade.
The trading platform delivered $4.5 billion in consolidated net revenue throughout 2025, marking a substantial 52% year-over-year expansion. Profitability metrics showed strength as well, with net income totaling $1.9 billion while adjusted EBITDA surged 76% to reach $2.5 billion.
Momentum carried into the first quarter of 2026. Robinhood generated $1.07 billion in quarterly revenue, reflecting 15% growth compared to the same period a year earlier. Earnings per share on a diluted basis landed at $0.38, representing a 3% improvement. The premium Gold subscription service expanded its user base by 36%, hitting an all-time high of 4.3 million subscribers.
Operational metrics from May painted an even stronger picture. The platform’s funded customer count climbed to 27.7 million, while aggregate platform assets swelled to $377 billion—a 48% year-over-year jump. During Q1 alone, net deposits totaled $17.7 billion.
The company has evolved significantly beyond its original retail equity trading roots. Today, Robinhood encompasses options trading, cryptocurrency transactions, retirement planning tools, banking services, credit card offerings, prediction market participation, and access to private market opportunities.
Exploring Three Distinct Price Scenarios
Three potential pathways illustrate where HOOD shares might trade by 2031.
Under a bearish scenario, annual revenue reaches approximately $6.5 billion, but compressed margins and subdued trading activity constrain profitability. Applying a 22x price-to-earnings ratio yields a potential stock price around $35.
The baseline projection estimates annual revenue of roughly $10 billion by 2031. Assuming net profit margins stabilize around 35% and earnings per share hit $3.90, a 38x valuation multiple suggests a price target near $148.
An optimistic scenario envisions Robinhood successfully constructing a comprehensive financial ecosystem. Should revenue climb to $14 billion with EPS reaching $6.50, a 45x earnings multiple would support a stock price approaching $293.
Balancing these scenarios through probability weighting produces a 2031 target price around $156—translating to approximately 44% appreciation from current levels, or roughly 7.5% compound annual growth.
Wall Street’s Current Perspective
Analyst sentiment toward Robinhood remains constructive, though enthusiasm appears measured.
MarketBeat data reveals HOOD holds 18 Buy recommendations, 5 Hold ratings, and no Sell opinions. The overall consensus stands at Moderate Buy. However, the mean 12-month price objective sits around $112—only marginally higher than current trading levels.
This modest near-term target despite positive ratings suggests analysts recognize the long-term opportunity while acknowledging limited immediate upside following the stock’s recent appreciation.
Several headwinds warrant consideration. Current valuation multiples appear elevated. Transaction-based revenue streams face cyclical pressures. Cryptocurrency markets exhibit high volatility. The regulatory environment remains uncertain. Established financial institutions pose formidable competitive challenges.
Conversely, Robinhood possesses meaningful competitive strengths—including a substantial, demographically young customer base, expanding subscription-driven revenue from Gold memberships, growing assets under administration, and continuous product portfolio diversification.
Realistic modeling places the 2031 price range between $150 and $160. Achieving the $293 bull case target would require Robinhood to successfully transform into a comprehensive financial super app serving next-generation consumers.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back said concerns over Strategy’s small Bitcoin sale are overblown, framing the move as normal treasury management rather than a warning sign for the company’s Bitcoin plan.
Summary
- Adam Back said Strategy’s small Bitcoin sale showed balance sheet flexibility, not bearish treasury change.
- Strategy sold 32 BTC for about $2.5 million to fund preferred stock dividend payments due.
- Crypto.news later reported Strategy bought 1,550 BTC, keeping its accumulation story active for now again.
Speaking in a Bloomberg interview shared on YouTube, Back addressed questions about Strategy selling 32 BTC to help pay preferred stock dividends. He said the sale showed the firm could meet obligations while keeping Bitcoin at the center of its balance sheet.
Back frames sale as balance sheet use
Back argued that the market should not treat the 32 BTC sale as a bearish signal. In his view, Strategy used a small part of its Bitcoin position to support investor payments and reduce pressure on the capital structure.
He also said the move showed how Bitcoin can function inside a corporate treasury. Rather than showing weak conviction, it showed that a company can hold Bitcoin, raise capital against it and use a limited amount when cash needs arise.
Back’s argument also places the sale inside a larger shift in corporate Bitcoin finance, where companies use BTC alongside preferred shares, debt, common equity, and market tools today.
Strategy’s first sale drew attention
As previously reported by crypto.news, Strategy disclosed on June 1 that it sold 32 Bitcoin between May 26 and May 31 at an average price of $77,135. The sale raised about $2.5 million.
The filing said proceeds were expected to fund distributions on the company’s preferred stock. The sale represented about 0.0038% of Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings at the time, but it drew attention because Michael Saylor had long promoted a “never sell” message around Bitcoin.
Crypto.news later reported that Saylor separated personal investor advice from corporate treasury actions. “I said to YOU never sell your bitcoin,” Saylor said at BTC Prague.
Preferred dividends remain in focus
The debate centers on Strategy’s preferred stock model. Preferred shares can give investors yield, but they also create recurring cash needs that the company must meet through cash reserves, equity issuance or limited Bitcoin sales.
Strategy’s STRC preferred stock has faced pressure after falling below its $100 par value. As crypto.news reported, Saylor defended the company’s Bitcoin-backed strategy and said its Bitcoin and cash reserves still exceeded outstanding debt by about $48 billion.
Some critics argue that dividend obligations could become harder to manage if market conditions weaken. Supporters say the 32 BTC sale showed Strategy has several funding tools and does not need to abandon its long-term accumulation plan.
Strategy remains a net accumulator
The sale did not stop Strategy from buying more Bitcoin. Crypto.news reported that the company later bought 1,550 BTC for $101.3 million, lifting its holdings to 845,256 BTC after the sale disclosure.
That purchase was nearly 50 times larger than the 32 BTC sale. It helped support Back’s view that the transaction was not a broad retreat from Bitcoin.
Saylor has also argued that Bitcoin does not need staking or protocol-based yield. In a separate post covered by crypto.news, he framed Bitcoin as the base layer for credit, money, yield and equity products.
For now, the issue is not whether Strategy still wants Bitcoin. The question is how it funds preferred dividends while keeping investor trust and managing balance sheet risk.
TLDR
- STRC, Strategy’s preferred stock instrument, plunged to an all-time intraday low of $83 on June 18, trading approximately 17% beneath its $100 par value — marking the worst performance since launching in July 2025.
- The company’s $1.5 billion convertible bond repurchase depleted Strategy’s cash reserves, slashing projected dividend coverage from an intended 24-month buffer down to approximately 6 months.
- With bitcoin declining from highs above $80,000 in May to approximately $62,500, Strategy’s BTC portfolio now carries an unrealized deficit of roughly $11.14 billion.
- CEO Michael Saylor maintained the company’s financial strength, noting that combined BTC and USD reserves surpass total debt obligations by approximately $48 billion.
- While skeptics like Peter Schiff have questioned the legality of Strategy’s approach, advocates contend STRC’s framework remains viable provided Bitcoin experiences long-term appreciation.
On June 18, Strategy’s STRC preferred shares collapsed to an unprecedented intraday bottom of $83, ultimately settling at $88.59 — approximately 17% under the $100 par value benchmark. Since its July 2025 introduction, the instrument was engineered to maintain trading levels at or close to par while delivering an 11.5% annualized return.
This sharp decline wasn’t an abrupt event. Rather, it emerged from a sequence of corporate actions and bitcoin’s persistent price deterioration spanning several weeks.
Heading into its monthly ex-dividend date on May 14, STRC maintained its $100 level while bitcoin commanded prices exceeding $80,000. Superficially, the situation appeared stable. However, BTC had already retreated significantly from its October 2024 peak of $126,000.
That identical day, competitor Strive Asset Management unveiled SATA, its own preferred instrument featuring daily distributions at a 13% yield — immediately creating competitive pressure for Strategy.
Convertible Note Repurchase Drains Cash Cushion
The following day, May 15, Strategy disclosed plans to repurchase $1.5 billion worth of its 2029 convertible bonds at an 8% discount. The company financed a portion of this transaction by tapping into cash reserves initially designated for dividend distributions and debt service obligations.
This crucial information wasn’t immediately transparent. When details surfaced on May 26, the reserve balance had contracted to $871 million — dramatically reducing STRC dividend coverage from the advertised 24-month projection to merely 6 months.
STRC slipped to $99.33 that session. Bitcoin was changing hands around $77,000.
Despite this, Strategy persisted with bitcoin accumulation. On May 18, the firm acquired 24,869 BTC while prices descended toward $76,000.
June 1 delivered another unexpected development. Strategy disposed of 32 BTC — representing its first bitcoin divestment since 2022. Though minuscule at just 0.0038% of total holdings, the transaction alarmed market participants. MSTR shares declined 5.9% that day. Bitcoin tumbled to lows near $70,500. STRC settled at $98.07.
Accelerating Bitcoin Weakness Compounds Challenges
By June 5, bitcoin had penetrated below $60,000 for the first time since October 2024. STRC touched lows of $90 before recovering to close at $93.40.
Strategy shareholders authorized a transition to semi-monthly STRC dividend distributions on June 8, an adjustment intended to minimize volatility surrounding ex-dividend periods. The company simultaneously disclosed its dollar reserve had rebounded to $1 billion following the purchase of 1,550 BTC.
On June 15, Strategy added another 1,587 BTC to its portfolio. Reserve balances reached $1.1 billion.
Then June 18 arrived. STRC plummeted to $83 during trading hours before finishing at $88.59 as bitcoin declined 2.4% to $62,880. Strive CEO Matt Coles, whose SATA instrument also suffered losses, attributed the downturn to forced liquidations from leveraged positions rather than fundamental credit deterioration.
Strategy currently maintains 846,842 BTC, accumulated at an average acquisition cost of $75,656 per unit. With bitcoin hovering around $62,500, the corporation faces an unrealized portfolio loss approaching $11.14 billion.
MSTR common equity trades near $112, representing roughly an 80% decline from its November 2024 record high.
Michael Saylor countered critics this week, declaring via X that combined BTC and USD reserves now surpass the company’s total debt burden by approximately $48 billion. He drew comparisons to 2022, when debt temporarily exceeded reserves by $300 million while BTC traded near $20,000.
Peter Schiff has advocated for shareholder litigation and suggested Saylor potentially breached SEC promotional regulations while marketing STRC. Conversely, Bitcoin proponent Samson Mow characterized STRC as a “brilliant instrument,” maintaining there are no inherent structural deficiencies unless one assumes bitcoin won’t appreciate over extended timeframes.
Key Takeaways
- Q1 2026 marked Coinbase’s second consecutive quarterly loss, posting $1.43 billion in revenue against a $394 million net deficit.
- Strategic diversification includes stablecoins, derivatives trading, payment solutions, and prediction market platforms.
- The newly launched prediction markets division achieved more than $100 million in annualized revenue within months.
- Deribit acquisition strengthens Coinbase’s competitive stance in cryptocurrency derivatives trading.
- Wall Street consensus targets approximately $250 for 12 months, with 2031 base-case projections between $300–$400.
Since going public through a direct listing in 2021, Coinbase (COIN) stock has experienced significant volatility — climbing to impressive peaks before retreating sharply. While near-term movements capture headlines, the more compelling analysis focuses on where this cryptocurrency platform could stand by 2031.
Current analyst consensus places COIN at approximately $250, derived from 33 Wall Street analysts monitored by MarketBeat. The overall rating stands at Hold, comprising 18 Buy recommendations, 12 Hold positions, and 3 Sell ratings.
Recent performance has been challenging. The stock has retreated from previous highs, and first-quarter 2026 earnings reflected this pressure. The company reported roughly $1.43 billion in revenue while recording a $394 million net loss — marking back-to-back quarters in the red. Declining cryptocurrency trading volumes directly impacted transaction-based income.
This represents the immediate reality. The extended-term narrative, however, tells a different story.
Coinbase has systematically constructed a diversified portfolio of services extending beyond its primary exchange operations. The company now operates across stablecoins, derivatives markets, institutional infrastructure, payment processing, and Base — its proprietary Ethereum Layer 2 blockchain solution.
The Deribit purchase represents a strategic milestone. As among the world’s leading platforms for cryptocurrency options and futures, Deribit’s integration significantly enhances Coinbase’s capabilities in derivatives — a rapidly expanding market segment.
Rapid Growth in Prediction Markets
One recent initiative has generated particular interest: Coinbase’s entrance into prediction markets. Company leadership revealed the segment surpassed $100 million in annualized revenue shortly after deployment. This rapid scaling demonstrates the viability of new product categories.
This development illustrates Coinbase‘s capacity to execute swiftly when identifying market opportunities, with several initiatives already delivering meaningful returns.
Constructing a 2031 Valuation Framework
Valuing Coinbase through current earnings metrics presents challenges — cryptocurrency markets operate cyclically, and the company remains in transformation mode. A more practical approach examines potential revenue generation five years forward.
In a base-case projection — assuming continued institutional cryptocurrency adoption, expanding stablecoin utilization, and growing derivatives activity — Coinbase could achieve approximately $12 billion in annual revenue by 2031. Applying roughly $9 in earnings per share with a 32x earnings multiple suggests a stock price approaching $300.
This represents the moderate scenario. A pessimistic outlook, where adoption stagnates and fee compression intensifies, could drive shares toward $20–$50. Conversely, an optimistic scenario featuring mainstream digital asset integration and Base establishing itself as a major blockchain network could propel valuations beyond $800.
Rosenblatt recently confirmed its Buy rating with a $240 target. Multiple analysts continue positioning COIN as a long-term investment thesis on cryptocurrency adoption.
Probability-weighted modeling currently suggests a base estimate near $370 by 2031, according to current analytical frameworks.
SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, widely known in the digital asset industry as “Crypto Mom,” said she will leave the agency in November and join Regent University School of Law as an associate professor.
Summary
- Peirce said she will leave the SEC in November and join Regent Law as professor.
- Her exit comes as the SEC weighs crypto rules, tokenization and a narrow innovation exemption.
- The SEC will have only Paul Atkins and Mark Uyeda as active commissioners after departure.
Peirce confirmed the plan during an appearance on The Rollup podcast, saying she will be “moving to the beach” after nearly three decades in Washington, D.C. As previously reported by crypto.news, Regent announced in May that she will teach securities regulation, financial markets, digital assets and public policy.
Peirce confirms move to Regent Law
Peirce has served as an SEC commissioner since January 2018. The Senate confirmed her for a second term in 2020, and that term expired on June 5, 2025.
SEC rules allow commissioners to remain for up to 18 months after a term expires if no successor has been confirmed, according to the SEC commissioners page. Peirce could have stayed until December 2026, but her November move means she will leave slightly earlier.
On the podcast, Peirce said she looks forward to working with students. “I’m going to be teaching law school. So, I’m excited about working with the next generation,” she said.
Crypto task force faces transition
Peirce has led the SEC’s Crypto Task Force since January 2025. The task force seeks to draw clearer lines around digital assets, token status, disclosure rules, registration paths and enforcement priorities. It also gives market participants a channel to send written input and request meetings during the current rule review.
Her departure will leave the commission with Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda as the two active sitting members, unless new nominees are confirmed before then. The SEC is designed to have five commissioners, with no more than three from the same political party.
Peirce’s final priorities include helping shape a crypto framework, changing rules so more companies can go public earlier and removing the trade-through rule. These items remain part of a wider market-structure debate at the agency.
Innovation exemption remains pending
The SEC’s possible “innovation exemption” for digital assets has drawn strong attention from crypto firms and tokenization platforms. Peirce used the podcast appearance to lower expectations around what the proposal may include.
“First, the innovation exemption has not yet been released. So that’s one myth that should be dispelled,” Peirce said. She also said synthetic securities were not part of what officials had in mind.
Her comments followed reports that the SEC could give firms limited room to test blockchain-based products while broader rules remain under review. Peirce said the exemption should not be treated as a blanket approval for every tokenized product.
Exit comes during crypto policy reset
Peirce gained the “Crypto Mom” nickname after years of criticizing enforcement-led crypto oversight and calling for clearer rules. Her public dissents made her one of the industry’s most followed SEC officials.
The agency has shifted under Atkins toward new crypto policy work, including tokenization, custody and market access. The question now is whether that work continues at the same pace after Peirce leaves.
For crypto firms, the timing matters because several rulemaking paths remain open. Peirce’s exit does not stop the SEC’s crypto agenda, but it removes one of its most visible advocates inside the commission.
World Cup 2026 news LIVE: Curacao goalkeeper makes history, Egypt coach denies rift with Salah, another team crashes out
3M Company: AI Infrastructure Buildout Demand Remains Wait-And-See
bulls defend $1.10 as Ripple catalysts grow
-
Business7 days agoNo Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Miami – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World6 days ago
Zimbabwe Requires Crypto Businesses to Register Annually Under New FIU Regulations
-
Business1 day agoWall Street Week Ahead: Investors see Micron earnings as pulse check of AI rally momentum
-
Entertainment7 days agoMatt Damon’s Viral Sci-Fi Thriller Has Taken Over HBO Max
-
Tech7 days agoAs AI companies race to go public, who else is along for the ride?
-
Business7 days agoAnthropic staff to meet White House officials next week, Axios reports
-
Crypto World1 day agoHIVE shares jump as $220M AI deal speeds Bitcoin mining pivot
-
Crypto World7 days agoBitcoin could crash to $48,000, if this historical pattern is triggered
-
NewsBeat7 days agowhat doctors are seeing in ebike crashes
-
NewsBeat7 days agoWarning of disruption as Cardiff Crossrail works to start
-
NewsBeat7 days agoTributes to former deputy head teacher at Cambridge school among death and funeral notices
-
Entertainment7 days agoKate Middleton Glare Goes Viral After Kids Booed At Royal Event
-
Politics7 days ago“Israel’s” ban on ICRC visits ruled illegal, but Knesset moves to stop them permanently
-
News Videos7 days agoFinancial Accounting | Last Day Revision Strategy and Booster | CMA Inter – June 2026
-
Crypto World7 days agoXRP ETFs Outperform As Bitcoin And Ethereum Funds Extend Outflow Trend
-
Tech6 days agoOver 400 Arch Linux packages compromised to push rootkit, infostealer
-
Business7 days agoInvesco Quality Income Fund Q1 2026 Commentary
-
NewsBeat7 days agoSinger Oliver Tree dies aged 32 in helicopter crash in Brazil
-
Crypto World7 days agoMarket Preview: SpaceX (SPCX) IPO Record, Federal Reserve Meeting, and Iran Nuclear Agreement
You must be logged in to post a comment Login