Crypto World
Why stablecoin wallets have no deposit insurance
The FDIC protects bank depositors, and through a mechanism called pass-through insurance, it can protect people who hold money through intermediaries. Stablecoin holders assumed they were next in line. The FDIC has now said, in a speech and a proposal, that they are not, and the reasons teach you exactly what a stablecoin is.
Summary
- Pass-through deposit insurance extends FDIC protection through an intermediary to the underlying owners of money, which is how fintech app balances held in custodial bank accounts can be insured even though the app is not a bank.
- It only works when strict conditions are met: the account must be properly titled as custodial, records must identify each owner and their share, and the funds must actually sit at an insured bank.
- FDIC leadership stated in March, and an April proposal would codify, that stablecoin reserve arrangements do not qualify: holding a stablecoin makes you a creditor of the issuer, not a depositor of any bank.
- The GENIUS Act reinforces the line from the other side, prohibiting issuers from marketing stablecoins as insured or government-backed, while substituting different protections: full reserves and first-in-line priority if an issuer fails.
- The contrast that makes it all click: tokenized deposits are insured because they are deposits. The insurance question is a test of what the instrument legally is, and stablecoins fail it by design.
There is a sentence buried in the fine print of the American banking system that most stablecoin holders have never read and are implicitly betting on: deposit insurance can pass through an intermediary to reach the real owner of the money. It is why the balance in a fintech app can be FDIC-insured even though the app is not a bank, and why brokerage cash sweeps carry insurance even though the broker is not a bank. For years, a reasonable person could assume the same logic would eventually reach stablecoins, digital dollars whose reserves sit substantially in banks and Treasury bills. Crypto.news has also explained how the products actually hold value. In March, the FDIC’s chairman addressed the assumption directly, and in April the agency proposed to write the answer into its rules. The answer is no. A stablecoin holder is not an insured depositor, not through pass-through, not through the issuer’s accounts, not at all. Understanding precisely why is the single most clarifying exercise available for understanding what a stablecoin actually is, and this guide walks through it.
What deposit insurance actually covers
Start with the base layer, because pass-through only makes sense on top of it.
The FDIC insures deposits at member banks up to the statutory limit, currently $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, per ownership category. The insured object is a deposit: a claim on a bank arising from money placed with it. The insured party is a depositor: the person or entity holding that claim. When an insured bank fails, the FDIC pays depositors up to the limit, typically within days, funded by the Deposit Insurance Fund that banks themselves pay into through assessments. The system’s entire purpose is run-prevention: depositors who know they will be made whole do not race to withdraw, so failures stay orderly instead of cascading.
Notice what the definition excludes. Insurance attaches to deposits at banks, not to money-like claims in general. A money market fund share is not insured. A prepaid card balance may or may not be. A bond issued by a bank is not. The perimeter is legal form, not economic resemblance, and everything in the stablecoin story turns on that.
How pass-through works, and when it does not
Pass-through insurance is the doctrine that lets the FDIC look through an intermediary to the real owners of pooled money.
The canonical setup: a company that is not a bank, a payments app, a broker, a benefits administrator, collects money from thousands of customers and places it in a single custodial account at an insured bank, often titled for benefit of its customers. If the bank fails, the question is whose deposit that was. Pass-through says: if the account records show that the intermediary held the money as custodian, and if the ownership records identify each customer and their share, then each underlying customer is treated as the depositor for their portion, each separately insured up to the limit. One $50 million custodial account can thus represent thousands of fully insured small balances.
The conditions are strict because the doctrine is easy to abuse. The account titling must disclose the custodial relationship. The records, at the bank or the intermediary, must actually identify the beneficial owners and amounts. And the money must genuinely sit as deposits at the insured bank. When those conditions fail, the protection fails with them, a lesson American fintech customers learned brutally in the Synapse collapse of 2024, where a middleware company’s ledgers were too broken to prove who owned what, and thousands of app users with FDIC-insured marketing discovered that insurance they thought followed their balance could not attach through defective records. Pass-through is real, and it is a machine with parts, and every part has to work.
Note also what pass-through insures against: the bank failing. It has never protected against the intermediary failing. If the fintech collapses but the bank is fine, the money is at the bank and the fight is over records and bankruptcy, not insurance. This distinction, which failure are you protected from, is about to do all the work.
One refinement completes the base layer, because the $250,000 figure is less absolute than it sounds. Coverage applies per depositor, per insured bank, per ownership category, and the categories, single accounts, joint accounts, certain retirement accounts, trust arrangements, stack. A couple with individual and joint accounts at one bank can hold well over a million dollars fully insured; a business with accounts at four banks is covered at each. Sophisticated cash management builds on this arithmetic deliberately, through sweep networks that spread large balances across many insured banks in insured-size pieces, a service sold precisely because the coverage architecture rewards distribution.
The detail matters for this guide because it defines what insurance is for: it is a retail and operational protection, engineered to make ordinary balances safe and runs unnecessary, not a guarantee for concentrated institutional money. Every instrument discussed below inherits its position from where it sits relative to that design. A tokenized deposit slots into the architecture natively, category rules, sweep logic, and all. A stablecoin sits entirely outside it, and no amount of reserve quality changes which side of the perimeter the holder’s claim lives on.
Why stablecoins do not qualify
Now run a stablecoin through the machine, and watch which parts fail.
A stablecoin holder owns a token: a claim against the issuer, redeemable for a dollar under the issuer’s terms. The issuer holds reserves, under the GENIUS Act, full reserves in liquid assets, some portion of which sits as deposits at insured banks, with the rest in Treasury bills, repo, and government money funds. The question is whether the holder’s coin is, through pass-through, an insured deposit for the holder’s benefit.
FDIC Chairman Travis Hill answered publicly in a March 11 speech, and the agency’s April proposal would codify the position: no. The holder of a stablecoin is a creditor of the issuer, not a depositor of the issuer’s banks. The reserve deposits belong to the issuer; they back the issuer’s obligations generally rather than being held as custodial property of identified coinholders; and the coinholder’s claim is against the issuer’s promise to redeem, not against any bank. Structurally, the arrangement fails the custodial-titling and beneficial-ownership requirements at once, because it was never built as a custody chain. It was built as an issuer with a balance sheet, which is a different animal wearing similar clothes.
The practical consequences stack up quickly. The issuer’s own accounts at any bank are insured only up to $250,000 for the issuer itself, a rounding error against tens of billions in reserves, which is why most reserve assets sit in instruments that never pretended to be insured. If a reserve bank fails, the issuer eats the uninsured exposure, and the coin’s fate depends on the size of the hole, which is precisely what the world watched in March 2023 when $3.3 billion of Circle’s reserves were trapped at Silicon Valley Bank and USDC traded to 87 cents. And if the issuer itself fails, insurance is not even the right vocabulary; the holder is in an insolvency, holding whatever the law of that insolvency provides.
Congress, for its part, closed the loop from the marketing side: the GENIUS Act prohibits presenting payment stablecoins as FDIC-insured or backed by the government, an acknowledgment that the confusion is foreseeable enough to legislate against.
What protects holders instead
None of this means stablecoin holders are naked. It means their protection is a different machine, and it is worth naming its parts as precisely as the insurance it replaces.
The first part is reserve composition. The GENIUS Act requires full backing in high-quality liquid assets, cash, short Treasuries, and similar, so that redemption demands can be met by selling assets whose value is not the question. After 2023, major issuers also restructured where reserves live, shifting toward government money funds and custody arrangements and away from concentrated uninsured bank deposits, shrinking the exact exposure that broke USDC’s peg.
The second part is the priority rule. If a permitted issuer fails, the Act pays stablecoin holders ahead of other creditors, first claim on the reserve pool. That is a genuinely strong legal position, closer to a secured creditor than to a shareholder, and it is the Act’s deliberate substitute for insurance: not a guarantee that a dollar is there, but a guarantee about who gets the dollars that are. For more context, crypto.news has covered the priority rule that substitutes for insurance.
The third part is disclosure and supervision, monthly reserve reporting and, eventually, the full supervisory regime, though here the honest caveat is dated: the agencies missed the Act’s July 18 rulemaking deadline, so the operational details of custody, redemption, and examination remain proposals, and the protective machine is running with several parts still on the workbench.
The comparison that makes the whole topic click is the one banks are building on purpose. A tokenized deposit, a bank deposit represented as a token, is insured, up to the limit, like any deposit, because it is one; the FDIC’s current rulemaking addresses its treatment explicitly. Insurance follows legal form. A token that is a deposit gets a depositor’s protections. A token that is an IOU from an issuer gets a creditor’s protections, however good the issuer’s assets. The entire regulatory architecture of digital dollars, the GENIUS reserve rules, the marketing prohibition, the banks’ tokenized-deposit push, is downstream of that one distinction, and a holder who understands it will never again be surprised by what the fine print says.
The Synapse lesson, in full
The 2024 Synapse collapse deserves more than the passing mention above, because it is the closest thing American finance has produced to a controlled experiment in what happens when pass-through protection is assumed instead of verified, and every dynamic it exposed has a stablecoin analogue.
Synapse was middleware: a banking-as-a-service company that sat between consumer fintech apps and the insured banks actually holding customer money. Millions of end users held balances in apps advertising FDIC insurance, their funds pooled in custodial accounts across partner banks, with Synapse keeping the ledger of who owned what. When Synapse failed, the banks were solvent and the money was, in aggregate, mostly there, and none of it could move, because the ledger reconciling individual ownership was incomplete, contradictory, and in bankruptcy. Users spent months locked out of balances, and a shortfall in the tens of millions of dollars emerged between what the apps’ records said users held and what the banks’ accounts contained, a gap that pass-through insurance could do nothing about, because no bank had failed. The FDIC’s later record-keeping rulemaking for custodial accounts was a direct response: the protection had proven only as strong as the intermediary’s books.
Hold that episode against the stablecoin structure and the instructive differences emerge on both sides. In one respect stablecoins are more honest than the Synapse-era fintechs: nobody with a compliant product claims your USDC is insured, and the GENIUS Act now forbids the claim outright, so the assumption Synapse users were lured into is legally off the table. In another respect the structures rhyme uncomfortably: a stablecoin holder’s position also depends on an intermediary’s internal records and asset segregation, the issuer’s reserve accounting, its custody arrangements, the cleanliness of the line between corporate assets and reserve assets. The GENIUS holder-priority rule is powerful precisely to the degree that the reserve pool is identifiable, segregated, and provably matched to outstanding coins on the day it matters. A priority claim on a commingled mess is the Synapse experience with extra steps.
That is the practical translation of all the doctrine in this guide. The question a holder should carry is not the abstract is it insured, the answer is settled and negative, but the operational one Synapse taught: if this intermediary froze today, how fast could anyone prove what I am owed, and from what identified pool would I be paid? For bank deposits, the answer is institutionalized, insured, and measured in days. For fintech balances, the answer post-Synapse depends on record-keeping rules written in its aftermath. For stablecoins, the answer currently lives in attestation reports, custody disclosures, and a rulebook the agencies have not finished. The instruments are converging in user experience and remain far apart in that one dimension, and that dimension is the entire subject.
How to think about it practically
Three habits of mind follow for anyone who holds or uses stablecoins, offered as orientation rather than advice.
Think in failure modes, not in blanket safety. The question is never is this safe but what fails, and what happens to me when it does. If a reserve bank fails: the issuer absorbs uninsured losses, and the coin’s stability depends on the hole’s size relative to the buffer, the 2023 scenario. If the issuer fails: holders stand first in line against a full-reserve pool under the GENIUS priority, strong but slower and less certain than insurance. If a platform holding your coins fails: neither insurance nor the priority rule addresses your custody arrangement at all, which is a separate risk with its own literature.
Read claims of insurance as a red flag, not a comfort. Under the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin marketed as FDIC-insured is either lying or describing something narrow, like the issuer’s own operating accounts, in a misleading way. The presence of the claim tells you about the marketer.
And watch the rulemaking, because the substitute protections are only as real as their implementation. The priority rule and reserve requirements are statute; the mechanics that make them operational in a weekend crisis are in the unfinished rules the agencies owed by July 18. The distance between a legal right and a working process is exactly where the 2024 fintech customers lived for months, and the stablecoin version of that distance is what the current rulemaking exists to close.
Deposit insurance is the quiet technology that makes bank money boring, and its absence is the honest price of stablecoins’ openness. The instruments that carry insurance require a bank in the loop. The instruments that require no bank cannot carry the insurance. Everything else in the digital-dollar debate is a negotiation over that trade, and now you can read it fluently.
Frequently asked questions
What is pass-through deposit insurance?
It is the FDIC doctrine that extends deposit insurance through a custodial intermediary to the true owners of pooled money. When a non-bank places customer funds in a properly titled custodial account at an insured bank, and records identify each customer’s share, each customer is treated as the depositor for their portion, separately insured up to $250,000. It is how fintech app balances and brokerage sweeps can be insured.
What conditions does pass-through require?
Three essentials. The account must be titled to disclose the custodial or fiduciary relationship. Ownership records, at the bank or the intermediary, must identify each beneficial owner and their exact share. And the funds must actually be deposits at an insured bank. If any condition fails, coverage fails, which the 2024 Synapse collapse showed in practice when broken records left fintech customers unable to prove their claims.
Why do stablecoin holders not get pass-through insurance?
Because the structure is not a custody chain. A stablecoin holder is a creditor of the issuer, holding a redemption claim, while the reserve deposits belong to the issuer and back its obligations generally rather than being held as identified customers’ property. FDIC Chairman Travis Hill said as much in a March 2026 speech, and an April FDIC proposal would codify it. The arrangement fails the custodial-titling and beneficial-ownership requirements simultaneously.
Is any part of a stablecoin arrangement insured?
Only trivially. The issuer’s own accounts at an insured bank are covered up to $250,000 for the issuer, which is negligible against reserves in the tens of billions, and most reserve assets, Treasury bills, repo, government money funds, are not deposits at all. That is why a reserve bank’s failure, as with Silicon Valley Bank holding $3.3 billion of Circle’s reserves in 2023, hits the issuer as uninsured exposure.
What protects stablecoin holders instead of insurance?
Three things under the GENIUS Act. Full reserves in high-quality liquid assets, so redemptions are met from assets whose value is stable. A priority rule paying stablecoin holders ahead of other creditors if a permitted issuer fails, a strong first-claim position on the reserve pool. And disclosure plus supervision, though the detailed implementing rules remain unfinished after regulators missed the July 2026 rulemaking deadline.
Can a stablecoin legally advertise itself as FDIC-insured?
No. The GENIUS Act prohibits marketing payment stablecoins as insured by the FDIC or backed by the US government. Congress included the ban precisely because the confusion is foreseeable: the products feel deposit-like, and issuers had incentives to blur the line. A stablecoin promoted with insurance claims is a warning sign about the promoter, not a feature of the product.
Are tokenized deposits insured, then?
Yes, up to statutory limits, because they are deposits: bank money represented as a token while remaining on the bank’s balance sheet, with the FDIC’s current rulemaking addressing their treatment explicitly. The contrast is the cleanest way to see the principle. Insurance follows the instrument’s legal form. A token that is a deposit carries a depositor’s protection; a token that is an issuer’s IOU carries a creditor’s.
Does the SVB episode mean the government will protect stablecoins anyway?
It means something narrower. USDC recovered in 2023 because regulators invoked the one time protection arrived anyway to protect all depositors of a failing bank, and Circle happened to be a depositor. The rescue targeted banking contagion; the stablecoin benefited as a spillover. Reserve reforms since then have moved issuer assets away from bank deposits, narrowing that accidental channel instead of institutionalizing it. Nothing in current law insures holders directly. This is educational information, not financial advice.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Insurance treatment, regulatory proposals, and issuer practices described here are subject to change, and individual products differ. Always do your own research. Information is accurate as of July 20, 2026.
Bitcoin is trading at just a nod above $66,000 after a 3% rally since yesterday morning, with price prediction pointing at a $70K target. That may not look dramatic at first glance, yet the weekly trend tells a stronger story. Bitcoin has added 6% over the past seven days, while improving on-chain positioning and whale accumulation continue supporting the bullish case. Unsurprisingly, $70,000 is becoming the next target.
Meanwhile, the total crypto market cap has climbed to around $2.25 trillion, recovering ground lost earlier this month. A decisive move above June’s local high could open the door to another leg higher. Cardano led the major gainers after the Van Rossem hard fork went live on the mainnet. This was a meaningful network upgrade that reduced the cost of executing Plutus smart contracts.
Elsewhere, FTX’s fifth creditor payout remains scheduled for July 31, releasing roughly $900 million to eligible users. That will bring total distributions to about $10 billion. Some recipients could lock in profits, while others may redeploy capital into crypto. Either way, the payout is one event traders will keep on their radar.
Even so, the macro backdrop still deserves attention. Stablecoin outflows from Binance and Bybit reached roughly $2.3 billion over the past month, leaving less sidelined capital available for fresh buying. That partly explains why Bitcoin has struggled to clear resistance despite improving sentiment. Still, the longer-term bullish structure remains intact. Sometimes the market prefers a short breather before making its next move.
Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio
Bitcoin Price Prediction: $70K This Week?
Bitcoin is pressing against the $66K to $68K zone, a former support area that flipped into resistance after the recent breakdown. The 61.8% Fibonacci retracement of the May to June decline sits near the upper end of that range. Price action has remained steady rather than explosive, which often hints at accumulation rather than a panic-fueled squeeze.
Meanwhile, options positioning still favors the bulls. Call buying around the $70K to $75K strikes has increased, suggesting traders are paying for upside exposure instead of downside protection. Large whale wallets have continued accumulating for weeks, while mid-sized holders have trimmed positions. Sometimes the big fish really do eat first.
If Bitcoin pushes above $68K and turns that level into support, momentum could carry it toward $70K. That level has become the next obvious magnet for traders. However, bulls still need a convincing close above resistance before popping the champagne.
The base case remains a period of consolidation between $64K and $68K as liquidity rebuilds. Markets rarely move in straight lines, no matter how much traders wish they would. If that range holds, the eventual breakout could simply arrive a little later than expected.
On the flip side, a firm rejection from the $66K to $68K resistance zone could drag Bitcoin back toward the $61K to $62K support area. A break below $60K would weaken the current market structure and force traders to reassess the trend. Spot ETF flows and macroeconomic data remain the key swing factors.
Trade BTC on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop
Bitcoin Hyper Targets Early Mover Upside as Bitcoin Tests Key Levels
Bitcoin at $66K is a meaningful recovery, but at its market cap, the math on percentage gains is unavoidably different from what early BTC holders experienced. Traders who want Bitcoin-correlated exposure with asymmetric upside potential are increasingly looking at infrastructure projects built on top of Bitcoin itself, where the upside multiples are structurally larger.
Bitcoin Hyper ($HYPER) is one project drawing serious attention in that category. It positions itself as the first Bitcoin Layer 2 with Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) integration. The argument being that it can deliver faster transaction performance than Solana while inheriting Bitcoin’s security model.
Hyper boasts a sub-second finality and low-cost smart contract execution on a Bitcoin-secured network, addressing three of Bitcoin’s persistent limitations simultaneously: slow throughput, high fees, and limited programmability.
The presale has raised $32,97 million at a current token price of $0.0136834, with staking available for early participants. It’s a no-brainer of an investment at the current Bitcoin price prediction.
For traders wanting to research the thesis: explore Bitcoin Hyper’s presale details here.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: Now, $70K is the Target appeared first on Cryptonews.
An Argentine federal judge ordered the identification and freezing of 25 cryptocurrency wallets tied to the LIBRA memecoin case, targeting accounts routed through exchanges including Binance, Bybit, OKX and Bitfinex, according to a court document reviewed by Clarín. Judge Marcelo Martínez de Giorgi… Read the full story at The Defiant
Ant International has completed a roughly $1.2 billion Series A funding round, securing backing from Ant Group, Alibaba, existing shareholders, and global investment firms to expand its international fintech business and AI capabilities.
Summary
- Ant International has completed a roughly $1.2 billion Series A funding round backed by Ant Group, Alibaba, existing shareholders, and global investors.
- The company said the capital will expand its international business, increase AI investment, and strengthen cross border payment and global account services.
- The financing comes as Ant International continues building its blockchain payments network and advances stablecoin licensing plans across multiple markets.
Chinese media outlet Yicai reported on Tuesday that the financing will support Ant International’s global expansion, increase investment in artificial intelligence, and extend services including cross-border payments and global accounts. The company said the capital will also help merchants grow through its international financial technology offerings.
The financing follows months of investor interest in Ant International as the Singapore-based unit continued expanding outside mainland China. In June, Bloomberg reported that the company had been exploring a fundraising round of about $1 billion at a valuation of at least $10 billion after recording eight consecutive quarters of profitability, citing people familiar with the matter.
Funding backs AI and international payments strategy
The newly completed Series A round included participation from Ant Group, several existing shareholders including Alibaba, and multiple international investment institutions, according to Yicai. The company did not identify the outside investors participating in the financing.
According to the report, the fresh capital will be directed toward growing Ant International’s presence across overseas markets while increasing spending on AI technologies. The company also plans to expand inclusive fintech products focused on cross-border payments and global account services for businesses operating internationally.
Ant International has become the centerpiece of Ant Group’s overseas business after the parent company reorganized several units into independently governed businesses. On March 19, 2024, Ant Group Chairman Eric Jing announced that Ant International, OceanBase, and Ant Digital had each established separate boards of directors to operate independently in the market.
The current leadership team includes Jing as chairman, Yang Peng as chief executive officer, and Douglas Feagin as president, according to the local report.
Operating from Singapore, Ant International now serves markets across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. The company says its network connects more than 150 million merchants with over 2 billion consumer accounts through innovation, settlement, and operational centers in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia.
Its business is organized into four operating units: Alipay+, merchant payments platform Antom, cross-border financial services provider WorldFirst, and Bettr, which develops AI-powered treasury management and fintech products for businesses.
Global expansion builds on blockchain and stablecoin plans
The latest financing comes as Ant International continues expanding its blockchain-powered payments infrastructure and regulated digital asset initiatives.
Bloomberg reported in June that Ant International generated an estimated $3.7 billion in revenue during 2025, an increase of about 25% from the previous year. Although the business accounted for roughly one-tenth of Ant Group’s total revenue, Bloomberg said its international operations had been growing faster than several of the company’s domestic businesses.
A large part of that international strategy centers on cross-border payments. Ant International previously said its Alipay+ network operates in more than 100 markets, allowing consumers to pay with their existing digital wallets while merchants receive settlements through local payment systems.
Supporting that network is Whale, the company’s blockchain platform. According to previous company figures cited by Bloomberg, Ant International processed more than $1 trillion in global transactions during 2024, with about one-third of those payments settled through blockchain infrastructure.
The company has also been extending the platform into enterprise treasury management. Previous collaborations with Standard Chartered included blockchain-based liquidity transfers denominated in Singapore dollars after earlier Hong Kong dollar settlement trials under the Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s Ensemble Sandbox initiative for tokenization.
At the same time, Ant International has been incorporating regulated digital assets into its payment infrastructure. Earlier this year, the company integrated Circle’s USDC stablecoin into parts of its cross-border settlement network, allowing selected transactions to settle over blockchain rails instead of relying entirely on traditional correspondent banking systems.
Regulated stablecoins are expected to become another part of Ant International’s international strategy. Bloomberg reported in June 2025 that the company planned to apply for stablecoin issuer licenses in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Luxembourg. A company spokesperson confirmed at the time that it would seek a fiat-referenced stablecoin issuer license in Hong Kong after the city’s Stablecoins Ordinance took effect, with applications in Singapore and Luxembourg expected to follow.
Speaking previously at the Singapore FinTech Festival, Ant Group Chairman Eric Jing said artificial intelligence and tokenized settlement technologies could make financial services more accessible, underscoring the technologies the company continues to prioritize as it expands its international business.
A Stripe takeover of PayPal would fold two of the payments industry's crypto operations into one company, pairing Stripe's Bridge stablecoin infrastructure with PayPal's PYUSD token and crypto-trading business. Stripe and private-equity firm Advent International made an unsolicited joint offer to… Read the full story at The Defiant
United Stables has adopted Chainlink as the official oracle and cross-chain infrastructure for its U stablecoin after the asset surpassed $1 billion in circulating supply and more than $2.5 billion in daily trading volume.
Summary
- United Stables has adopted Chainlink as the official oracle and cross chain infrastructure for its U stablecoin after the asset surpassed $1 billion in supply.
- Chainlink Data Feeds and Proof of Reserve are now live, while CCIP will support future cross chain transfers of U.
- The integration builds on Chainlink’s expanding institutional presence as more stablecoin and DeFi projects adopt its interoperability and data services.
According to an announcement from United Stables, the company has integrated Chainlink’s data and interoperability products to strengthen pricing, reserve verification, and future cross-chain transfers for U, its dollar-pegged stablecoin launched on BNB Chain and Ethereum in December 2025.
The rollout includes Chainlink Data Feeds and Proof of Reserve, both of which are now live. United Stables said it also plans to integrate Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) to support secure transfers of U between blockchain networks as the stablecoin expands across the multi-chain ecosystem.
The company said the decision followed a review of security standards across the industry after recent incidents exposed weaknesses in legacy oracle and bridge infrastructure. According to United Stables, fragmented liquidity, unverified pricing, and vulnerabilities in cross-chain transfers were among the issues it sought to address by adopting Chainlink’s infrastructure.
Data feeds, reserve verification go live
Under the integration, Chainlink Data Feeds now provide decentralized pricing data that United Stables said supports more than 20 lending protocols. At the same time, Chainlink Proof of Reserve allows users and protocols to verify the collateral backing U through on-chain cryptographic checks.
United Stables launched U in December 2025 as a fully backed stablecoin designed for trading, payments, decentralized finance, institutional settlement, and AI-driven applications. At launch, the company said U was backed one-to-one by cash and audited stablecoins including USDC, USDT, and USD1, with reserves held in segregated accounts and verified through on-chain Proof of Reserve alongside quarterly independent audits.
Athena, chief executive officer of United Stables, said the Chainlink integration allows users, institutional partners, and decentralized finance protocols to access verified pricing data, independently confirm U’s collateral around the clock, and eventually transfer the stablecoin securely across multiple blockchain networks.
She added that the company views cryptographic verification as a core requirement for building trust as U expands beyond its initial deployments.
Johann Eid, chief business officer at Chainlink Labs, said the infrastructure would allow United Stables to extend U across decentralized finance while relying on Chainlink’s decentralized oracle and interoperability network. According to Eid, the platform is designed to support institutional-scale stablecoin activity across multiple blockchains.
CCIP planned for future multi-chain transfers
Beyond the services already deployed, United Stables said it intends to adopt Chainlink CCIP to power cross-chain transfers of U. According to the company, the protocol is expected to reduce friction when liquidity moves between supported blockchain networks while providing an additional security layer for interoperability.
For United Stables, the announcement builds on the roadmap introduced when U launched late last year. Alongside decentralized finance integrations with platforms including PancakeSwap, ListaDAO, Aster, and Four.meme, the company said it plans to add confidential balances and AI-focused payment capabilities through technologies such as EIP-3009 and delegated transaction execution.
According to United Stables, combining its liquidity infrastructure with Chainlink’s oracle, reserve verification, and interoperability products is intended to provide transparent collateral verification, secure pricing data, and future cross-chain functionality as U continues expanding across BNB Chain, Ethereum, TRON, and other supported blockchain networks.
CCIP has become one of Chainlink’s main products for blockchain interoperability over the past year. Earlier this month, Aave expanded its use of the protocol by making CCIP the default cross-chain infrastructure across the Aave App and Stable Vaults. According to Aave, the same infrastructure now handles token transfers, vault rebalancing, governance execution, deposits, withdrawals, and yield optimization instead of relying on separate systems for different cross-chain functions.
Aave also said CCIP already powers transfers of its GHO stablecoin across supported networks through Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Token standard. Cross-chain governance proposals are also executed through the Aave Delivery Infrastructure, which uses CCIP to relay approved governance actions from Ethereum to other blockchain networks where Aave operates.
Security has remained a key part of CCIP’s design. According to Aave, every bridge lane is secured by at least 16 independent node operators distributed across different organizations and regions, while built-in rate limits restrict the amount of value that can move during abnormal conditions.
Chainlink continues institutional expansion
The latest integration adds to Chainlink’s growing presence across both decentralized finance and institutional financial infrastructure.
In June, Chainlink joined Project Pangea, a bank-backed initiative focused on testing stablecoin-based foreign exchange settlement between Europe and South Korea. According to Chainlink, the project includes FairSquareLab, UniKA, and Qivalis, representing more than 50 banks with over $10 trillion in assets under management. The initiative uses Chainlink infrastructure alongside ISO 20022 messaging and existing SWIFT systems to test atomic payment-versus-payment settlement using compliant euro and South Korean won stablecoins.
Chainlink has also expanded into traditional market infrastructure. In January, BitMEX said it would use Chainlink Data Streams to provide pricing for its planned Equity Perpetuals, allowing the exchange to support perpetual contracts linked to stocks and exchange-traded funds using continuous market data from multiple sources.
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, the market infrastructure that clears and settles most U.S. securities trades, began running live production trades of tokenized stocks and Treasurys on Wednesday, moving its tokenization effort out of testing and into a live environment. More than two… Read the full story at The Defiant
CoinShares has entered Europe’s €26.3 trillion UCITS fund market with the launch of a regulated Bitcoin mining ETF, opening its digital asset strategies to institutional investors whose mandates previously restricted access to its products.
Summary
- CoinShares has launched a UCITS platform with a Bitcoin mining ETF listed on Deutsche Börse Xetra.
- The new structure opens access to pension funds, insurers, and private banks restricted by existing investment mandates.
- CoinShares said it plans to use the UCITS platform to launch more regulated digital asset investment funds.
Digital asset investment firm CoinShares announced on Tuesday that it has launched a UCITS platform alongside the debut of the CoinShares Bitcoin Mining UCITS ETF, a move that allows the company to offer regulated investment funds under one of Europe’s most widely used fund structures.
The first product under the platform, the CoinShares Bitcoin Mining UCITS ETF, began trading on Deutsche Börse Xetra on Tuesday. The company said the launch is intended to make its investment strategies available to institutional investors across Europe, including pension funds, insurance companies, and private banks that generally invest through UCITS-compliant vehicles.
For CoinShares, the change is less about introducing a new investment strategy than removing a structural barrier that limited access to existing ones. The company said many institutional mandates prohibit investments in debt securities, including exchange-traded products backed by physical digital assets, preventing a large pool of investors from allocating capital despite growing interest in the sector.
By using the UCITS framework, CoinShares said those investors can now access regulated digital asset investment products through a structure already accepted under their internal investment rules.
“This is not simply the launch of another investment product. It marks our entry into the UCITS market with a platform that allows us to develop and launch regulated investment funds under one of the world’s most widely recognised fund frameworks,” said CoinShares co-founder, president and CEO Jean-Marie Mognetti.
The company added that the platform operates on a largely fixed cost base and is designed to generate operating leverage as additional funds are introduced. It also said the UCITS structure will support future launches covering both digital asset products and thematic investment strategies.
Platform targets regulated institutional capital
UCITS, short for Undertakings for the Collective Investment in Transferable Securities, is the European regulatory framework governing investment funds that can be marketed across member states. Because many institutional investors already allocate capital through UCITS funds, the structure has become one of the region’s standard formats for cross-border investment products.
CoinShares said adopting the framework allows it to reach investors that previously could not participate because of mandate restrictions rather than a lack of interest in digital assets.
The company’s latest annual report also points to a period of financial expansion. CoinShares generated more than $165.7 million in revenue during 2025, its first full year after listing in the United States earlier this year. Shares of the Nasdaq-listed company closed 2.1% lower at $4.11 on Monday before the announcement.
Against that backdrop, the UCITS platform gives CoinShares a regulated framework that aligns with existing investment mandates instead of requiring institutions to modify internal policies before gaining exposure to digital asset strategies.
The company said it intends to build on that foundation by introducing additional regulated funds over time as institutional demand for digital asset investment products continues to develop.
The launch also follows several initiatives by CoinShares to deepen its presence in institutional markets beyond exchange-traded crypto products.
Earlier this year, the company published research showing that many traditional wealth managers still struggle to incorporate clients’ digital asset exposure into portfolio management because of internal compliance rules.
A June survey conducted by CoinShares among 261 wealth management professionals across Europe found that 52% of UK financial advisers said most of their clients’ cryptocurrency holdings remained outside their visibility. Across France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland, the figure fell to 25%.
The same survey found that 61% of respondents worked at firms that either restricted digital assets or had no formal policy governing them.
At the time, Mognetti argued that internal firm policies, rather than adviser knowledge or client demand, had become the primary obstacle. According to him, many advisers cannot account for crypto holdings when managing portfolios because company rules prevent them from discussing or supervising those assets, leaving them without a complete view of client wealth.
CoinShares said such restrictions create operational challenges because advisers are expected to manage portfolios while lacking visibility into part of their clients’ investments.
Institutional adoption continues to evolve
Institutional participation in digital assets has remained uneven over the past several months as investment flows responded to changing market conditions.
In a June research report based on U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 13F filings, CoinShares said hedge funds reduced their exposure to U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds by 39% during the first quarter. The report showed professional investors lowered combined holdings from approximately 313,000 BTC to 261,000 BTC after Bitcoin declined sharply during the period.
According to CoinShares digital asset analyst Matt Kimmell, the reduction resembled previous Bitcoin downturns, when leveraged and tactical investors typically trimmed positions as prices weakened.
The same report also showed different behavior across institutional groups. While hedge funds and brokerages reduced exposure significantly, banks increased their Bitcoin ETF holdings during the quarter, suggesting not all professional investors responded to market volatility in the same way.
Alongside market developments, European regulation has continued to shape how investment firms package crypto-related products for institutional clients.
Ostium, an Arbitrum-based perpetuals exchange for trading real-world assets that raised about $27.8 million from backers including General Catalyst and Jump Crypto, halted all trading Wednesday after an attacker manipulated its oracle system to drain as much as $18 million in USDC from its… Read the full story at The Defiant
Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.
All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.
Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz just reminded the market why conviction is the hardest edge to hold. XRP price is trading around $1.12, up about 1% over the past 24 hours after reclaiming the $1.10 level. That move has shifted momentum back toward the bulls, making the timing of Schwartz’s admission hit a little closer to home.
In yesterday’s post on X, Schwartz confirmed he sold XRP at $0.10 and unloaded 40,000 ETH at roughly $1.05 each. Those decisions came from a risk reduction agreement with his wife, not from losing faith in either asset. As every trader eventually learns, your portfolio rarely argues with your spouse and wins.
“Obviously, I wish I hadn’t done those things,” Schwartz wrote. He added that he genuinely dislikes financial risk and followed a rule to sell whenever an asset reached a new all-time high. Later, he admitted that assigning even a 1% chance to Ethereum reaching $2,368 would have kept him from selling at $1.05. The same lesson applies to XRP, which has long left that $0.10 exit behind.
The irony has not gone unnoticed. XRP is climbing after reclaiming a key technical level just as Schwartz reflects on selling too early. It is a familiar reminder that timing the market sounds easy until the market starts proving you wrong. Sometimes the hardest trade is simply doing nothing.
Discover: The Best Token Presales
Can XRP Price Push Toward $1.50 After Breaking $1.10 Resistance?
The current $1.12 level is now the line in the sand. Buyers pushed XRP from around $1.08 to roughly $1.12, locking in a modest daily gain. The next job is keeping that level as support, which is never automatic after weeks of heavy selling. Momentum has improved, but the market still wants proof.
Meanwhile, the daily RSI remains near oversold territory, while a TD Sequential buy signal on the three-day chart hints that bearish momentum may be fading. That points to possible trend exhaustion instead of a confirmed breakout. Sometimes the first bounce grabs attention, but the second one earns respect.
Institutional demand also remains part of the story. XRP ETPs recently attracted nearly $40 million in fresh inflows, lifting assets under management to about $2.6 billion. At the same time, spot trading volume jumped sharply during the move above $1.10, suggesting larger players were not sitting on the sidelines.
Three scenarios remain in play. The bullish case sees $1.12 holding as support before XRP clears price resistance around $1.18. If buyers keep pressing, a sustained move above $1.20 could expose the $1.30 to $1.35 region next. One green candle is nice. A few more are what pay the bills.
The base case is a period of consolidation between $1.10 and $1.18 while the market confirms that selling pressure has eased. However, a daily close below $1.10 would shift attention back to the $1.04 to $1.08 support zone. The late session volume surge showed buyers arrived with conviction, but one good session alone does not make a lasting trend.
Trade XRP on Bybit and Get a Chance to Win Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop
Bitcoin Hyper Targets Early-Stage Entry as XRP Tests Critical Levels
XRP at $1.13 is a better position than Schwartz’s $0.10 exit, but at a $70 billion+ market cap, the asymmetry available at genuine early stages simply isn’t there anymore. That’s the structural trade-off every trader running rotational strategies weighs when an asset reclaims resistance rather than breaks into discovery.
The question isn’t whether XRP can go higher; it’s whether the risk-reward at current prices matches what early participants captured.
Bitcoin Hyper is positioning itself in a different part of the risk spectrum entirely. The project is building the first Bitcoin Layer 2 with full SVM integration, meaning Solana Virtual Machine-grade smart contract execution anchored to Bitcoin’s security model, targeting performance that competes with Solana’s throughput while preserving BTC’s trust layer.
The presale has raised $32.9 million at a current token price of $0.0136834, with a staking program live for participants. That combination of infrastructure utility and early pricing is the setup Schwartz described missing, except it’s available now, not in retrospect.
Research Bitcoin Hyper before committing capital.
Discover: The Best Crypto to Diversify Your Portfolio
The post David Schwartz Regrets Selling XRP at 10 Cents as Price Broke $1.10 Resistance appeared first on Cryptonews.
Matt Walker: Sussex appoint new head coach to succeed Paul Farbrace
Assassin’s Creed Shadows for the Switch 2 is almost half price, but you’ll need to be quick
New 20mph zones in Dales villages set to be agreed
-
NewsBeat5 days agoLondon Mayor Sadiq Khan handed a peerage by Keir Starmer alongside 15 other Labour figures… just days before the PM leaves No10
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Politics3 days agoThe House | The City of London can help the new chancellor deliver growth in every postcode
-
Politics6 days agoYoung campaigners urge incoming PM to act on outdoor junk food ads
-
Crypto World5 days agoCFTC blocks Kalshi from unwinding Michigan trades after court order
-
Crypto World4 days agoTwo July Windows Left: The CLARITY Act’s Senate Fight and What Failure Means
-
Crypto World3 days agoRipple Payments Joins MiCA With 14 Firms, Does It Mean Anything For XRP?
-
Business5 days agoNvidia Stock Slips After Big Tuesday Rally as Huang Confirms Vera Rubin Chip Is Now in Production Today
-
Politics2 days agoDemocrats look to World Cup watch parties to register thousands of voters
-
Entertainment6 days agoDisney’s Most Ambitious Failed Star Wars Attraction Is Coming to SDCC
-
Crypto World4 days agoRipple wins EU-wide access as ESMA adds it to MiCA register
-
Crypto World5 days agoInjective Submits SEC Transfer-Agent Registration to Onchain Ownership Records
-
Business5 days agoPalantir Shares Rise After Expanded Nvidia Partnership and Fresh Analyst Upgrades Ahead of Earnings Day
-
Tech10 hours agoSail Virtually Aboard The “Itanic” With IA-64 Emulator
-
Tech7 hours agoTurtle Beach Command Series KB7 review: a nifty screen-equipped gaming keyboard
-
Tech7 days agoDark Secrets Emerge When Jailbreaking LLMs
-
News Videos7 days agoXRP BOMBSHELL… XRP OMBOARDED FOR TRANSACTIONS!!!
-
NewsBeat4 days agoRegistration is now open for March for Men with Kev 2026
-
NewsBeat23 hours agoUnregistered fitter used Gas Safe logo on business flyers
-
Sports6 days agoNew Cornerback Enters Vikings Trade Rumor Mill
You must be logged in to post a comment Login