The post Open USD Adds Ethereum to Its Multichain Rollout appeared first on Coindoo.

The July 30 announcement from Ethereum Institutional confirms the network’s inclusion and highlights its role in the stablecoin’s business-focused settlement infrastructure.

As we previously reported, more than 140 companies have joined Open Standard, including Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, BlackRock and BNY. Under the proposed model, most reserve income would be shared with businesses that distribute and use the stablecoin instead of remaining entirely with a single issuer.

Why Ethereum Matters to Open USD

Ethereum offers payment companies a shared settlement network without placing the underlying ledger under the control of any one participant.

That matters when companies such as Visa, Mastercard and Stripe are expected to use the same infrastructure. Each can verify the asset and its settlement rules without relying on a private system operated by a direct competitor.

Ethereum also brings established liquidity, mature infrastructure and familiarity among institutional market participants. Other supported networks can then handle transfers where lower fees or faster execution matter more.

Breaking: Open USD will launch on @ethereum on day one.

Over 140 businesses, including Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, BlackRock and BNY. All reserve earnings flow to the partners that grow it.

A shared asset needs neutral ground.

We’re excited to be working with @openstandard on… pic.twitter.com/WF3ure6Dhb

— Ethereum Institutional (@ethereuminsti) July 30, 2026

Open USD Is Being Built for Business Use

Consumers may therefore use it without interacting with the stablecoin directly. A merchant, payroll platform or remittance service could settle through Open USD behind the scenes while customers continue paying and receiving funds in local currency.

Its business model is also different from those of USDT and USDC. Participating companies that help distribute Open USD are expected to receive a share of the reserve earnings. That could give exchanges, payment firms and fintech platforms a financial reason to integrate it, although ordinary token holders are not automatically entitled to yield.

READ MORE:

How to Convert USDT to USDC on OKX Europe: Step-by-Step Guide

Ethereum Fees Will Matter Most to Businesses

Ethereum transaction costs remain a practical consideration, especially for treasury desks, payment processors and other companies handling large volumes.

These firms can reduce costs by batching transfers, settling larger amounts less frequently or routing smaller transactions through cheaper supported networks. Ethereum is more likely to serve high-value settlement and liquidity needs than individual purchases at checkout.

Its inclusion from day one gives Open USD access to a major institutional market. Support for several networks broadens the stablecoin’s potential use across payments, trading and treasury operations without requiring all activity to pass through Ethereum mainnet.

The post Open USD Adds Ethereum to Its Multichain Rollout appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/open-usd-adds-ethereum-to-its-multichain-rollout/

The post How Blockchain and Tokenization Are Changing Traditional Banking appeared first on Coindoo.

“This is the end of banker hours. Your batch processing mentality is going to be a thing of the past,” Graseck said, according to CoinDesk’s report on the discussion.

Two executives on a panel represent two views rather than an institutional position, and the transformation they describe has been arriving for roughly a decade. The numbers underneath it tell a more complicated story than the quote suggests.

What the Banking Day Actually Was

Banks have accepted instructions outside office hours for years. A customer places an order at night, schedules a transfer on Sunday, agrees a cross-border trade from another time zone. The delay begins after the instruction is submitted.

One firm updates the cash balance. Another records ownership of the security. Custodians, payment networks and clearing houses exchange messages and reconcile separate databases before the trade becomes final. The banking day was never really about opening hours; it was about how long those reconciliations took.

Blockchain changes the sequence by giving authorized participants a shared transaction record. Once the network accepts a valid transfer, the relevant parties work from the same updated state instead of waiting for several internal ledgers to agree.

Tokenization applies that structure to traditional assets. A bond, fund share or bank deposit gets represented by a digital token whose ownership and transfer history sit onchain, letting the asset and the payment for it move together. Delivery-versus-payment logic completes both legs at once, closing the window in which one party has handed over an asset while waiting for the money.

Instant Payment Rails Got There First

The strongest objection to Graseck’s framing is that round-the-clock clearing arrived without any blockchain involved.

Brazil’s Pix, India’s UPI, the US FedNow service and SEPA Instant in Europe all clear payments continuously, including weekends and public holidays. Pix alone processes billions of transactions annually. None of them uses a token or a chain. Any argument that blockchain ended banker hours has to explain why those systems did not end them first.

The honest answer narrows the claim considerably. Instant rails are domestic, single-currency and carry only the cash leg. They clear a payment; they do not deliver an asset against that payment, and they stop at the national border.

That is where tokenization’s actual case lives. Delivery-versus-payment across jurisdictions, with collateral and securities moving on the same infrastructure as the money, is a harder problem instant rails were never built to solve. Banker hours are ending for assets, and the payments half of the job was largely finished before blockchain arrived.

The Numbers, Including the Awkward One

Tokenized real-world assets reached roughly $36.7 billion in onchain value by June 2026, close to triple the figure a year earlier, per RWA.xyz data. US Treasuries lead the category at about $16 billion, with BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, Apollo, Hamilton Lane and WisdomTree all running live products. The DTCC began piloting tokenized securities in May, and the SEC approved a Nasdaq proposal allowing certain stocks to trade and settle as tokens.

That is real commitment from firms that move slowly by design. It is also small against the balance sheets involved.

Forbes reported in July that across a tokenized market of about $60 billion spanning 7,000 products, more than $32.9 billion across 910 assets recorded zero weekly transfer activity. On a broader definition than the $32 billion figure above, more than half the value sits entirely still.

Separately, only about 10% of tokenized real-world assets currently see use in DeFi, according to Standard Chartered research projecting that share reaching 30% by 2030.

An asset that can move at 3am on a Sunday and never does has been tokenized without being mobilized. The infrastructure argument and the usage evidence point in different directions, and anyone claiming the banking day is over needs to account for the gap.

Programmable Ownership Is the Substantive Change

Most financial assets were already digital before blockchain. Stocks, bonds and bank balances have existed as electronic database entries for decades. What those systems lacked was shared programmability.

A conventional electronic asset stays inside the database of the firm maintaining it, and moving it elsewhere requires messages, confirmations and reconciliation between platforms never designed to talk directly. With tokenization, more of the asset’s operating rules travel with the asset. Its code can determine who may hold it, when transfers are allowed, which jurisdictions qualify and how interest, dividends or redemptions get distributed.

A regulated tokenized fund can restrict access to verified investors while clearing continuously. A tokenized bond can block a transfer failing the issuer’s conditions. Compliance becomes part of the asset’s design instead of a separate process run after each trade.

The practical applications span a financial product’s whole life:

Morgan Stanley Wealth Management strategist Denny Galindo argued during the same panel that tokenized stocks and money market funds could become many investors’ first meaningful contact with blockchain, ahead of buying cryptocurrency directly.

Collateral Moves Faster, and So Does Stress

Collateral may be where tokenization creates the largest operational change. Banks and institutional investors hold substantial pools of government bonds and cash equivalents supporting lending, derivatives and trading obligations. Those assets are economically valuable and operationally trapped inside a particular custodian, legal entity or clearing system.

Representing them on a shared network makes ownership and status visible to approved participants, so eligible collateral gets pledged or transferred when required. Capital that sat idle overnight or across weekends becomes available for another permitted use.

The same speed accelerates a crisis. Automated margin calls and continuous liquidations remove the overnight cooling-off period during which risk committees, clearing houses and central banks have traditionally assessed a liquidity problem and coordinated a response. Blockchain reduces counterparty exposure while compressing the time available to contain market stress. A market that never closes needs supervision, liquidity management and emergency procedures that never close either.

Stablecoins Forced Banks to Rebuild the Cash Side

Continuous asset trading is hard to achieve when the money still waits for bank cutoffs and correspondent-payment windows.

Stablecoins gave crypto markets an early answer. Dollar-pegged tokens move between wallets at any hour, letting investors, companies and software transfer value without waiting for the banking system to reopen. Tokenized deposits are the industry’s response: instead of a claim against a stablecoin issuer, the customer holds a blockchain representation of money deposited at a regulated commercial bank, with funds staying on the bank’s balance sheet while the token moves through compatible infrastructure.

Similar technology, different legal relationships. Stablecoin holders depend on the issuer and its reserves. A tokenized deposit stays a direct claim against the issuing bank and may keep the regulatory treatment attached to conventional bank money.

Coindoo previously explored this in its analysis of how banks are building tokenized deposit systems in response to stablecoin competition, and in its coverage of Swift’s blockchain ledger for round-the-clock bank payments. Banks are reproducing the speed and programmability crypto introduced while keeping customer money inside regulated balance sheets.

The pressure lands hardest on correspondent banking, where cross-border payments pass through several intermediaries, each screening the transaction, charging a fee and updating a separate ledger. Onchain transfer reduces the number of parties needed purely to relay payment information. Banks still provide identity checks, currency conversion, custody and regulated access; what disappears is the chain of firms confirming that value moved.

Onchain Finality Is Not Legal Finality

Speed is one part of the problem. Banks also need certainty that a completed trade will be recognized by courts, regulators, custodians and insolvency administrators.

A blockchain confirms within seconds that a token moved between wallets. That entry leaves open who legally owns the underlying asset, whether the transfer survives a fraud claim, and how the token gets treated if its issuer, custodian or holder becomes insolvent.

Cross-border cases are hardest. A smart-contract transfer may be operationally final onchain while courts in Delaware, London and Frankfurt apply different property, custody and insolvency rules to the same economic event. One jurisdiction looks at control of the wallet; another at the registered owner in an offchain record, the token holder’s contractual rights, or where the underlying asset sits. Blockchain produces one technical record of what happened and no single legal reading of what it means.

Fragmented liquidity compounds it. An asset tokenized on one network may not work as collateral on another, and bridging adds smart-contract, custody and counterparty risk. Issuing several digital versions of one security divides trading activity across platforms, so a deeply liquid traditional instrument can become less useful once its onchain representations cannot clear with each other.

Privacy adds a further constraint. Public networks provide transparency, and banks cannot expose customer balances, positions and trading relationships to the whole market. Systems have to protect commercially sensitive information while giving regulators and authorized participants enough visibility for oversight.

These problems explain the dormancy figures better than any technical shortcoming does. Rewiring the plumbing turned out to be the easy part.

What Banks Become

Blockchain was initially pitched as a technology that would remove financial intermediaries. Adoption by banks has produced something more complicated.

Tokenization still requires regulated custody, enforceable ownership, investor verification and asset servicing. A token representing a bond is useful only when investors trust it corresponds to a valid claim enforceable under applicable law. What changes is the reason the bank remains necessary.

Historically, banks controlled the infrastructure required to move money and assets. Proprietary databases, restricted payment networks and fixed clearing windows made the firm an unavoidable route between two parties. Shared networks weaken that control, forcing competition on the services surrounding the trade:

How much of that control actually shifts depends on the network. Many bank consortia run permissioned ledgers restricted to approved participants, and where every node is a known, vetted firm, the advantage over a well-designed shared database with good APIs is genuinely arguable. The industry has not settled that question, and the answer determines whether tokenization rebuilds market structure or simply modernizes the existing one.

Either way, once one bank moves collateral at midnight, another has a harder time explaining why the same operation takes three business days.

The Direction Is Clearer Than the Timeline

Graseck’s claim holds at the level of infrastructure and overstates where the market currently is. Tokenized assets tripled in a year, major asset managers run live products, and the DTCC and Nasdaq are building rails for them. More than half that market by value has also gone a week without moving.

Banks are rebuilding around continuous operation because the alternative eventually becomes indefensible to customers. The legal, liquidity and privacy problems underneath will decide how long the rebuild takes, which means batch processing is ending at a pace set by courts and market structure rather than by the technology.

The post How Blockchain and Tokenization Are Changing Traditional Banking appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/blockchain-tokenization-traditional-banking/

The post How Crypto Lets Traders Bet on China’s Biggest Chip IPO appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

According to a Financial Times report, tradeXYZ and Gate launched perpetual futures tied to CXMT, China’s leading domestic DRAM manufacturer, ahead of its July 27 debut on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Roughly $19 million of CXMT contracts changed hands in one 24-hour window.

Gate’s official product announcement confirms the contract settles in USDT. It tracks changes in CXMT’s expected valuation, and none of the collateral posted to trade it ever reaches the company.

So the exchanges are not widening foreign access to China’s equity market. They are cloning its price action inside a separate, stablecoin-funded venue that needs no mainland brokerage account.

An Observable Test, With One Missing Mechanism

CXMT is scheduled to begin trading on Shanghai’s STAR Market under the code 688825. The company priced its shares at RMB8.66 (approx. $1.28). According to China’s official capital-market disclosure platform, the base offering could raise about RMB57.9 billion (approx. $8.5 billion) before expenses, rising to roughly RMB66.6 billion (approx. $9.8 billion) if the over-allotment option is fully exercised.

The listing is unusually observable: the issue price is public, the debut date is fixed, and Shanghai will soon post a share price anyone can check the contract against. That makes it a useful case to watch.

It is not, however, a functioning pre-market in the sense traditional finance uses the term. Grey markets and when-issued trading stay tethered to the equity because participants can eventually deliver or receive shares. Here, holders cannot buy, borrow, short or deliver CXMT stock, and no institution can bridge the two venues to close a gap.

Without that mechanism, the perpetual is not discovering CXMT’s price. It is recording what a self-contained pool of leveraged traders believes the price will be. The $19 million of early volume marks an active speculative market, not evidence that crypto flows are shaping the official valuation.

How the Pre-IPO Contract Works

A perpetual future is a derivative built to track a reference price without a fixed settlement date. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s description of perpetual contracts explains that funding payments between longs and shorts keep the contract near its reference market.

Before CXMT trades publicly, no continuous cash price exists, so the perpetual reflects what traders expect the shares to be worth at the open. The estimate can fold in the issue price, IPO demand, comparable chipmakers and expectations for China’s domestic memory industry. A trader expecting a stronger listing goes long; one expecting a weaker open takes the short side.

Profit does not hinge on CXMT simply opening above its IPO price. It depends on the entry price, the exit price, accumulated funding, and whether the position survives any adverse swing before the expected move arrives.

Once the shares trade, the contract can switch its main reference to the public market. Even then, the holder owns a derivative position against the trading venue, not an equity interest recorded through a securities custodian. That separates the product from a tokenised stock, which may be structured to represent ownership or a custodial claim over real shares.

One scenario the product documentation should answer before a trader commits: what happens if the listing is postponed or withdrawn. A contract referencing a security that never begins trading has no price to converge on, and the resolution depends entirely on the venue’s own contract terms rather than on any market mechanism.

The Contracts Bypass Access Rules, Not Securities Law

Foreign access to mainland equities stays controlled, though the official routes differ.

Northbound Stock Connect lets eligible investors trade selected Shanghai and Shenzhen shares through Hong Kong. Under Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing’s current rules, purchases remain subject to daily net-buy quotas of RMB52 billion (approx. $7.7 billion) each for Shanghai and Shenzhen Connect.

The Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor framework is permissioned rather than quota-capped. China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange removed QFII and RQFII investment quotas in 2020, though participants still need regulatory approval, custodians and compliant securities accounts.

Domestic retail investors face a different bar. The Shanghai Stock Exchange requires individual STAR Market participants to hold at least RMB500,000 (approx. $73,800) in eligible assets and to have two years of investment experience.

A stablecoin-settled perpetual sidesteps those stock-market requirements because no share purchase occurs: the trader posts collateral with a crypto platform and opens a contract linked to the stock. Gatekeepers still exist, but they are different ones, identity checks, regional blocks, sanctions screening, collateral rules and the laws of the trader’s home jurisdiction.

For mainland residents, technical access is not legal permission. China’s 2021 virtual-currency notice classifies cryptocurrency derivatives and services offered by overseas exchanges to mainland residents as illegal financial activity. An offshore venue may be harder for Chinese authorities to shut directly, but that offers no recognised exemption from domestic financial rules.

Shanghai’s Trading Rules Create a Specific Oracle Problem

The reference index becomes critical the moment CXMT lists, and the STAR Market’s own mechanics make that harder than tracking an ordinary stock.

The exchange applies no daily price limit during a new listing’s first five trading days, moving to a 20% band afterwards. Debut day therefore has no ceiling, but it does have circuit breakers. Trading halts automatically when the price first moves 30% from the opening level, and again at 60%, with each suspension lasting ten minutes.

Those halts are the practical risk for a leveraged offshore contract. During a ten-minute suspension the reference market produces no price at exactly the moment it is moving fastest. Whether the perpetual keeps trading through the blackout, how it treats the stale quote, and which fallback source it uses are decisions made by the venue, not by any market.

The exposure runs longer than ten minutes. Crypto derivatives trade through evenings, weekends and Chinese exchange holidays, when the share price cannot absorb news while the perpetual keeps trading. The mismatch can force abrupt resets when Shanghai reopens, and an accurate directional call can be stopped out on that gap before the official market reflects it.

At 10x leverage, an adverse move of about 10% can erase the initial margin before maintenance requirements, fees and funding costs are counted, and a thin index reaches that threshold faster than the underlying stock would.

No Expiry Does Not Mean Free Exposure

Perpetual contracts avoid fixed settlement dates, but holding one can turn expensive. Funding payments shift between longs and shorts to hold the contract near its reference, so when long demand dominates and funding runs positive, longs pay shorts at each interval.

That matters around a hyped listing. If most traders expect CXMT to climb, staying long can cost more even before the shares open. A trader can be right on direction and still bleed capital as funding accrues and steadily offsets an unrealised gain. This is a different failure from a leverage-driven liquidation: the call is correct and the position stays open, but the running cost eats the return.

Skipping expiry removes the roll into a later contract. Holding the perpetual still differs from owning CXMT outright.

Equity Perps Are Drawing Regulatory Attention

Running on crypto rails does not switch off securities or derivatives law, but it does change who can enforce it and how.

In February 2026, the European Securities and Markets Authority warned that products marketed as perpetual futures may fall under existing rules for contracts for difference. Where that classification applies, providers face leverage caps, margin close-out rules, mandatory risk warnings and a duty to assess client suitability.

Those obligations bind authorised firms. An offshore venue settling in stablecoins is not one, and no European regulator can compel it to change a contract specification. What regulators can do is act on the routes into the product: warning lists, payment-processor pressure, app-store removals, advertising restrictions and conditions on any licensed entity the same group operates locally. That indirect leverage is why several offshore exchanges geo-block European users without ever being fined.

China’s position is similar in structure. The CSRC’s domestic derivatives framework, due to take effect in November 2026, adds licensing, real-name accounts, investor-suitability tests and stronger risk controls, all of which govern the onshore market. Mainland authorities can pursue residents who trade offshore and the intermediaries that serve them, but they cannot compel a foreign platform to delist a ticker.

The gap between the two systems is the product’s operating space. As volume grows, it becomes harder to argue that equity-linked perpetuals are pure crypto instruments with no connection to regulated securities markets, and that argument, rather than any single enforcement action, is what these venues ultimately depend on.

The Real Test Comes After CXMT Lists

The first signal is convergence: whether the contract tracks CXMT’s public share price once Shanghai trading opens on July 27. A functioning market should let traders enter and exit without severe slippage while the reference index keeps the perpetual close to the stock during official hours. A persistent gap would show the contract trading its own expectations rather than the equity.

Funding is the second signal. A contract that tracks the share price but grows prohibitively expensive to hold would offer little as a longer-term access tool.

Post-IPO volume will tell more than the pre-listing burst. Some traders only want to bet the opening valuation and would leave once ordinary market data arrives; sustained participation would point to real demand for synthetic exposure to equities that stay hard to reach through traditional brokerage accounts. A fast decline would mark CXMT as a short-lived pre-market event.

The listing does not make Chinese shares borderless; it makes their price movements tradable outside the market where ownership is legally recorded. That buys investors a bet, not a stake in the company. In exchange for fewer account barriers, they take on leverage, funding costs, platform risk and dependence on an index bridging two markets with different hours and rulebooks.

The post How Crypto Lets Traders Bet on China’s Biggest Chip IPO appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/crypto-lets-traders-bet-chinas-biggest-chip-ipo/

The post Tokenized Stocks Boom on Solana as Network Revenue Falls 43% appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

Solana ended the second quarter with two very different stories. Trading in tokenized assets on the network more than doubled to a record $5.8 billion in quarterly volume, but overall decentralized exchange activity, lending and revenue generated from network use all declined.

The contrast is not necessarily contradictory. Tokenized-asset volume measures how much tokenized financial exposure changed hands on Solana’s exchanges, while total DEX volume, lending and Real Economic Value show how much of the network’s activity converted into fees and borrowing demand.

Together, the figures suggest that Solana’s capital-markets ecosystem expanded faster than the revenue the network earns from it.

Tokenized Equities Became Solana’s Main Growth Story

Tokenized-asset trading volume increased by 114% quarter over quarter and set a record for a sixth consecutive quarter, according to Blockworks Advisory’s Q2 2026 Solana Tokenholder Report. The report was commissioned by the Solana Foundation, which may provide input on its content, although Blockworks Advisory states that it retains editorial control. That funding relationship is worth keeping in mind when weighing the report’s framing, even where the underlying data is verifiable.

The $5.8 billion figure describes trading volume, not the market value of assets held on Solana and not revenue earned by the network. It measures how much tokenized exposure was bought and sold through Solana’s decentralized exchanges during the quarter.

Tokenized equities dominated that activity with $4.8 billion, or 84% of the total, roughly four times their Q1 volume. The report estimates that Solana now processes approximately 97% of tokenized-equity trading across all blockchains. June alone contributed $3.3 billion of equity volume, a surge catalyzed by the tokenized listing of SpaceX following its June 12 public offering. Private credit added $803 million, with smaller contributions from commodities and collectibles.

The market continued expanding after the quarter ended. On July 10, 2026, tokenized exposure to SK Hynix went live on Solana through Backpack Securities, xStocks and Ondo Finance.

Those products provide similar economic exposure through different legal, custody and redemption structures. That distinction matters because tokenized assets are not a single standardized product category. As our guide to RWA tokenization platforms explains in detail, investors still need to examine who issued each token, what backs it, whether it can be redeemed and which users are eligible to hold it.

Solana Kept Its DEX Lead as Trading Slowed

Solana decentralized exchanges processed $160.8 billion in spot volume during Q2. That was down 44% from $288.5 billion in the previous quarter, but the network still handled approximately 32% of spot DEX volume across the blockchains measured.

Ethereum followed with 25%, while Base and BNB Chain accounted for 16% and 12%, respectively. Q2 was the eighth consecutive quarter in which Solana controlled more than 30% of the measured spot market.

This combination requires context. Solana did not lose its relative position against competing networks, but the overall market became less active. Maintaining market share in a contracting market is different from generating absolute growth. The monthly path was more constructive than the quarterly total: volume fell from $52.3 billion in April to $48.0 billion in May, then rebounded 26% to $60.5 billion in June as tokenized-asset activity accelerated.

Application revenue also fell 31% to $228.4 million. Perpetual futures presented a different picture, with notional volume increasing 60% quarter over quarter to $183 billion, but that recovery did not offset weaker activity across the rest of the ecosystem.

The composition of that revenue also complicates the diversification story. Pumpfun, the memecoin launchpad, remained the ecosystem’s largest business with $90.1 million, or 39% of all application revenue, and accounted for 97% of launchpad revenue. Tokenized equities may be the growth story, but the single biggest earner on Solana is still the speculative category the network is described as moving beyond. That concentration reached a new high in Q2 precisely because the rest of the market shrank faster.

Network Revenue Fell Faster Than Market Share

Solana’s Real Economic Value, or REV, totaled $51 million in Q2, down 43% from the previous quarter. REV measures transaction fees and out-of-protocol tips paid by users while excluding inflationary token issuance.

Monthly REV declined from $18.6 million in April to $18.1 million in May and $14.3 million in June. Priority fees fell 45% to $30.8 million, while Jito tips dropped 50% to $9.9 million. Base and vote fees contributed another $10.3 million.

The decline also cost Solana relative position among blockchains. The report ranks Solana fourth in quarterly network revenue with a 12% share, behind Hyperliquid at 33% with $141.4 million, Tron at 21% and Ethereum at 15%, down from Solana’s 18% share in Q1. Hyperliquid’s lead rests on the trading-fee engine we examined in our analysis of the platform’s $1.2 billion in cumulative fees. The comparison is uncomfortable for Solana’s economics: a network processing billions of transactions earned roughly a third of what a single derivatives-focused chain collected in the same quarter.

Solana still processed 9.8 billion non-vote transactions during the quarter, with a median transaction fee near $0.0004. However, 27% of those transactions reverted, a share the report attributes to automated arbitrage strategies and describes as a feature rather than a bug. That characterization is the report’s reading, not a settled fact. Daily active addresses also fell from 2.4 million in Q1 to 2.0 million, meaning the network processed nearly as many transactions from a noticeably smaller user base. The network remained heavily used, but high transaction counts did not automatically produce high revenue because individual transactions remained extremely inexpensive.

Lending Has Not Followed Tokenization Higher

Deposits across Kamino and Jup Lend ended the quarter near $4.1 billion, while outstanding loans stood at approximately $1.6 billion. Deposits declined 8.3%, and loans fell 7.9%.

The pullback was more pronounced in real-world asset lending. Deposits connected to RWA markets dropped from $1.23 billion in Q1 to $640 million in Q2, a decline of 48%.

This exposes an important gap in the tokenization narrative. Solana can host record trading in stocks, credit products and funds without those assets immediately becoming widely used as collateral or generating substantial borrowing demand.

A stronger confirmation of adoption would involve tokenized-asset growth occurring alongside expanding collateral use, higher borrowing demand and deeper secondary-market liquidity. Q2 delivered the first part, but not the others.

Staker Income Still Came Mostly From Inflation

SOL’s nominal staking yield ended the quarter near 5.5%, down from 5.8% at the end of Q1. With inflation around 3.8%, the estimated real staking yield was approximately 1.7%.

Stakers earned $487 million during Q2, down 23% from $630 million in the previous quarter. More than 98% of that revenue came from token issuance, while Jito tips contributed roughly $8.2 million.

This means staking rewards continued to depend primarily on newly issued SOL rather than fees generated by network activity. For long-term token economics, the balance between issuance, fee income and token burning is more informative than the headline staking percentage alone.

READ MORE:

Bitcoin Whale Losses Hint at a Broader Market Reset

The Proposed Burn Increase Is Not Yet Active

The report estimated that SIMD-553 could burn between 7,500 and 9,000 SOL per day under current activity assumptions, roughly ten times the existing rate and equivalent to around 12% to 15% of daily issuance.

That is a modeled scenario, not the current burn rate or a guaranteed outcome. SIMD-553 remains a proposal and would need to pass the necessary governance and implementation stages before changing SOL’s supply dynamics.

Under Solana’s current fee structure, 50% of the base transaction fee is burned. The remaining half and all priority fees are paid to the validator producing the block.

A larger burn could strengthen the connection between network activity and SOL demand, but it would not automatically make the token deflationary. Even the report’s estimated burn remains below total daily issuance.

Investment Products Attracted Capital Through the Downturn

SOL spot investment products recorded approximately $120 million in net inflows during Q2, extending positive flows for a third consecutive quarter. Over the same period, Blockworks data showed $3.7 billion of outflows from Bitcoin products and $500 million from Ethereum products.

The comparison should be treated carefully because the products differ substantially in size, age and investor base. Still, the direction of flows suggests that some investors continued building regulated Solana exposure despite weaker onchain revenue and lower market activity.

Official SEC filings confirm the expansion of that investment infrastructure. The Grayscale Solana Staking ETF trades on NYSE Arca under GSOL, while the 21Shares Solana ETF trades on Cboe BZX under TSOL. The pipeline is still growing: Morgan Stanley filed a third round of SEC amendments on July 14 for spot Ethereum and Solana ETFs expected to trade under MSSE and MSOL. Traditional financial institutions are building similar infrastructure on other networks as well, as we covered in out report on JPMorgan’s tokenized money market fund.

Positive fund flows do not guarantee higher SOL prices or stronger network revenue. They show demand for regulated exposure, which is separate from activity taking place inside Solana applications.

What Solana’s Q2 Results Actually Show

Q2 was not simply strong or weak. Solana gained ground as infrastructure for trading tokenized assets and retained its lead in decentralized spot trading, but the network generated less revenue and experienced weaker lending demand.

The constructive interpretation is that Solana is broadening beyond the speculative activity that powered its earlier revenue peaks. The more cautious interpretation is that tokenized-asset growth has not yet translated into enough borrowing, trading intensity or fee generation to strengthen the network’s underlying economics, that the user base contracted during the quarter, and that the largest single source of application revenue remains a memecoin launchpad.

The next confirmation would come from several metrics improving together: continued tokenized-asset growth, recovering REV, greater use of tokenized securities as collateral, sustained investment-product inflows and a larger share of staking rewards funded by actual fees instead of issuance.

Until then, Solana’s institutional expansion is real, but the economic value captured by the network remains the part that still needs to catch up.

The post Tokenized Stocks Boom on Solana as Network Revenue Falls 43% appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/tokenized-stocks-solana-network-revenue-falls/

The post Cardano’s Bitcoin DeFi Push Faces Its First Delivery Test appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson is backing Pogun, a development initiative intended to bring Bitcoin liquidity into Cardano-based credit and yield markets.

Led by Omer Husain and the team behind Input Output’s open-source Cardinal bridge specification, Pogun plans to combine a non-margin credit market, a yield application and a trust-minimized Bitcoin bridge.

The project’s central test is not whether Cardano can advertise access to Bitcoin’s market value. It is whether Pogun can launch a useful credit market, attract borrowers and lenders, and give BTC holders a reason to cross the bridge when it becomes available.

The $1.6 Trillion Bitcoin Claim Needs Context

Pogun’s official proposal describes Bitcoin as a vast pool of capital that is “almost entirely idle.” The phrase refers to Bitcoin’s limited use in native decentralized lending and credit markets, not to every BTC sitting unused.

Some coverage has rounded the opportunity to $1.6 trillion, while Pogun’s own governance proposal described Bitcoin as a roughly $1.5 trillion asset. Either figure is a time-sensitive estimate of Bitcoin’s total market capitalization which as of 19 July, 2026, is around $1.3T, not an amount that Pogun has secured or expects to move into Cardano in full.

Bitcoin is already used through self-custody, exchanges, corporate treasuries, exchange-traded products and centralized lending arrangements. Pogun’s argument is narrower: only a relatively small portion of that capital participates in decentralized credit and yield markets without relying on a centralized custodian.

Pogun is therefore competing for the subset of Bitcoin holders willing to use BTC as collateral or deploy it into financial strategies. It is not integrating Bitcoin’s entire market value into Cardano.

Pogun Plans to Build the Market Before the Bridge

Pogun’s published roadmap contains three connected stages:

Pogun’s sequence is deliberate. The credit market is intended to establish demand, the yield application would make that market easier to access, and the bridge would then introduce Bitcoin as additional collateral and liquidity.

That gives incoming BTC an intended use from the beginning, but it also creates dependency between the milestones. Delays or weak adoption in the first two products could reduce the reason for Bitcoin holders to use the bridge when it arrives.

The First Roadmap Deadline Has Passed

The proposal stated that the non-margin credit market would launch on Cardano’s mainnet in the second quarter of 2026 after completing a formal security audit.

That quarter ended on June 30.

As of July 19, Pogun’s official website continues to describe the platform as “coming soon.” The official project pages reviewed for this article do not provide a public mainnet announcement, deployed contract address or completed audit report.

That does not establish that development has stopped. It means the Q2 milestone cannot yet be treated as publicly delivered based on the evidence currently available.

In a June 11 video, Hoskinson said work had not been paused after the project failed to secure treasury funding and described Pogun as a commercial initiative that could continue without the proposed community investment.

His comments indicate that development is continuing, but they do not establish that the credit market has launched publicly or completed the formal audit described in the original proposal.

The Cardano Treasury Did Not Fund Pogun

Pogun requested ₳12.29 million from the Cardano Treasury, valued at approximately $2.95 million when the proposal was prepared.

The proposed funding was divided into milestone-based tranches. Later bridge funding would have depended on verified progress in the credit market, while the proposal included provisions for returning undisbursed funds if milestones failed, the team dissolved or the bridge was found to be technically infeasible.

Pogun also proposed returning 20% of EBITDA to the Cardano Treasury until the original investment had been repaid, followed by 5% of EBITDA from Cardano-related products in perpetuity.

That arrangement was never activated.

The onchain governance action expired on May 24, 2026, without receiving the support required for ratification. No ₳12.29 million treasury withdrawal was approved for Pogun.

The failed vote did not remove money that had already been granted. It meant that this specific treasury withdrawal was never authorized.

If Pogun continues as a privately funded commercial initiative, the Cardano Treasury will not automatically receive the proposed revenue share unless a separate agreement is approved in the future.

How Pogun’s Credit Market Is Supposed to Work

Pogun’s first planned product differs from the pooled, overcollateralized lending markets commonly found across DeFi.

Smart contracts would enforce those agreed terms. According to Pogun, the model would not depend on external price oracles or automatic margin calls, meaning temporary market volatility would not by itself liquidate a borrower’s collateral.

The structure resembles fixed-term private credit more closely than a continuously rebalanced DeFi lending pool.

Active loan positions would be represented by transferable Bond Tokens issued as Cardano native assets. That could allow a lender to transfer or sell exposure before a loan matures, creating the foundation for a secondary market in tokenized debt positions.

Removing automatic price-based liquidation does not remove financial risk.

A borrower can still default, collateral can lose value before it is recovered, and Bond Tokens may have little secondary-market liquidity. Smart-contract vulnerabilities, weak borrower assessment and disputes involving real-world counterparties could add further risk.

The model exchanges the danger of rapid oracle-driven liquidation for longer-duration credit, liquidity and enforcement risks. Its usefulness will depend on how clearly those risks are disclosed and priced.

The Bridge Is Trust-Minimized, Not Trustless

Pogun’s final stage is intended to move Bitcoin into the Cardano environment without placing the underlying BTC under the control of a single custodian.

The roadmap describes a 1-of-N security model. Under that design, a fraudulent withdrawal can be blocked as long as at least one verifier in the operator set remains honest and available.

Although the proposal labels the component a BitVM-powered bridge, a later technical explanation from Input Output says the team moved toward a custom implementation based on BABE after identifying production constraints in the BitVM family of designs.

At a high level, the design is intended to prove what happened on Cardano, compress that evidence into a smaller cryptographic proof and make the result verifiable through a Bitcoin-side mechanism without giving one custodian control of the underlying BTC.

Mithril certificates allow external systems to verify authenticated information about Cardano without independently replaying the entire blockchain. Pogun intends to use proofs built over that certificate chain to establish what occurred on Cardano before a corresponding Bitcoin-side action is accepted.

The architecture is technically detailed, but a design document is not proof of production security.

Bridge implementations can be exposed to software bugs, proof-system failures, operator outages, configuration errors and weaknesses in the applications holding bridged assets. Public code, independent audits, testnet performance and the composition of the verifier set will matter as much as the cryptographic design.

Calling the bridge trust-minimized is therefore more accurate than calling it trustless.

Why Cardano Sees an Architectural Fit With Bitcoin

Cardano argues that it is a natural environment for Bitcoin-based finance because the two networks share a related accounting structure.

As Cardano’s official documentation explains, Bitcoin and Cardano both use versions of the Unspent Transaction Output model. Bitcoin transactions consume existing outputs and create new ones, while Cardano extends that structure through its EUTXO model to support programmable conditions, native assets and smart contracts.

That shared lineage can make some financial logic easier to express across the two systems. It does not mean that Cardano can control native Bitcoin directly or that other smart-contract networks cannot support Bitcoin-based applications through different architectures.

Pogun still requires a bridge to connect two separate ledgers. Its success will depend on implementation quality, security and market demand rather than the UTXO connection alone.

READ MORE:

 

FTX Sets $900 Million Creditor Payout for July 31

 

What Pogun Could Mean for Cardano and ADA

Pogun is partly an attempt to expand Cardano’s relatively small DeFi economy.

At the time of writing, DefiLlama records approximately $72 million in total value locked across Cardano applications. Even a modest amount of BTC deployed into Cardano-based credit markets could therefore be material relative to the ecosystem’s present size.

That possibility should not be confused with a guarantee that billions of dollars will arrive.

Claims that Pogun could push Cardano’s TVL to $10 billion or $15 billion are not supported by the project’s formal proposal. Its own end-of-2027 scenarios projected approximately:

• $100 million in Pogun TVL under a bearish scenario;
• $450 million under its base scenario;
• $765 million under its bullish scenario.

Those are project forecasts rather than assured outcomes. Actual adoption will depend on bridge security, borrowing demand, available returns, liquidity, regulatory access and competition from other Bitcoin DeFi platforms.

The effect on ADA also needs careful framing.

Under Cardano’s current rules, ADA is accepted as payment for network fees. Pogun activity executed on Cardano could therefore generate additional transaction-fee demand.

The scale of that effect would depend on transaction volume, fee levels and whether applications require users to hold ADA directly or abstract the payment process on their behalf. Bridged Bitcoin sitting inactive in a contract would not create the same recurring network demand as an actively used credit market.

Pogun could add utility to Cardano, but publishing a roadmap does not by itself create substantial or sustainable demand for ADA.

What Would Confirm the Bitcoin DeFi Thesis

The strongest evidence will come from delivered products and measurable usage rather than the total market value of Bitcoin.

The thesis would become more credible if Pogun provides:

For now, Pogun remains a development initiative rather than evidence that significant Bitcoin liquidity has entered Cardano.

The next decisive proof point is a publicly verifiable launch of the credit market, followed by its audit results and measurable lending activity. Only then will the planned yield layer and Bitcoin bridge have an operating market to connect to.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice.

The post Cardano’s Bitcoin DeFi Push Faces Its First Delivery Test appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/cardanos-bitcoin-defi-push-faces-its-first-delivery-test/

The post Why Central Banks Keep Testing Chainlink appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

That pattern appears in experiments involving the Central Bank of Brazil, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Singapore’s Project Guardian, Swift, UBS Asset Management and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

These projects do not amount to broad central-bank adoption. They do, however, reveal why Chainlink continues to appear in public-sector and regulated financial experiments.

The Harder Problem Begins After a Digital Currency Is Created

A central bank can build a domestic digital-currency or tokenized-settlement platform. The more difficult question is how that platform interacts with foreign currencies, commercial-bank systems, tokenized funds, trade documents, public blockchains and established payment networks.

The Bank for International Settlements has found that there is no universal model for connecting central bank digital currencies across borders. Each jurisdiction has its own legal framework, access rules, policy objectives, privacy requirements and technical architecture.

Its more recent work on tokenization reaches a similar conclusion. Multiple ledgers are likely to coexist, but fragmented systems could create isolated pools of money and assets unless institutions develop reliable ways to coordinate transactions between them. The BIS has warned that the benefits of tokenization depend not only on the technology but also on interoperability, governance and effective risk management. Its analysis is available in the report on tokenization in payments and financial markets.

Chainlink approaches this problem through several connected services.

The proposition is therefore broader than the familiar description of Chainlink as a price oracle. It is attempting to become an orchestration layer for financial processes that span several technological environments.

Brazil and Hong Kong Connected Two Sovereign Platforms

In October 2024, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Central Bank of Brazil announced plans to connect Hong Kong’s Ensemble Sandbox with Brazil’s Drex pilot.

The collaboration focused on cross-border payment-versus-payment and delivery-versus-payment settlement. The first mechanism coordinates the exchange of two currencies, while the second ensures that the transfer of an asset occurs together with its payment.

A subsequent trade finance experiment involved Banco Inter, Chainlink and the Global Shipping Business Network. It connected the Drex environment with Hong Kong’s Ensemble infrastructure, a trade finance platform and an electronic bill of lading system.

CRE coordinated payment instructions and translated messages into the formats required by the participating systems, including ISO 20022. It also triggered an external API to update the electronic bill of lading.

CCIP synchronized events between the platforms so that contract execution, credit release, payment and the transfer of ownership over the traded goods could form part of the same workflow.

This was more complex than sending a token from one blockchain address to another. The transaction depended on money, ownership records, banking instructions and trade documentation changing in the correct order across several independent platforms.

The experiment demonstrated that these actions could be coordinated technically. It did not establish whether the architecture can operate at production scale, how responsibility would be divided after an operational failure or whether central banks would use the same infrastructure in a live deployment.

Singapore Kept the Existing Payment Rails

A separate experiment examined whether institutions could use tokenized assets without requiring every participating bank to adopt an onchain currency.

In November 2024, Swift, UBS Asset Management and Chainlink completed a pilot under the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Project Guardian. The project automated subscriptions and redemptions for a UBS tokenized investment fund.

Chainlink coordinated the conditions needed to mint or burn the fund tokens. Swift carried the payment instructions through conventional fiat settlement infrastructure already connected to more than 11,500 financial institutions.

The payment leg therefore remained within established banking rails even though the investment fund was represented through blockchain-based tokens.

This addresses a practical barrier to institutional adoption. A bank should not need to rebuild its payment stack or hold a specific stablecoin simply to process a transaction involving a tokenized fund. Institutions can introduce tokenized products gradually while continuing to use infrastructure that already supports their operational and regulatory requirements.

The pilot involved a controlled process rather than an open commercial deployment. Its value lies in demonstrating a possible migration path, not in proving that the model has already achieved market-wide adoption.

Official Economic Data Can Now Be Read by Smart Contracts

Chainlink’s work with the U.S. Department of Commerce concerns data rather than cross-border settlement.

On August 28, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce published a cryptographic hash of its second-quarter GDP release across nine blockchains. The headline GDP figure was also included on networks that supported the additional data.

The department worked with Chainlink and Pyth to distribute the information more broadly. Chainlink subsequently made six data series from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis available through its Data Feeds across ten blockchain ecosystems.

A government report published on a website is readable by people. A standardized onchain feed can also be read directly by software.

A prediction market could use the official figure to settle a contract. A macro-linked financial product could calculate a payment from a published economic indicator. Lending or portfolio-management systems could incorporate the release into predefined risk rules.

That oracle role extends beyond economic data: on June 9, 2026, ADI Predictstreet, the official prediction market partner of the FIFA World Cup 2026, adopted Chainlink as its exclusive oracle infrastructure to automate market resolution, settlement and payouts.

Those examples describe potential applications rather than established demand. The publication proves that official government data can be delivered in a format smart contracts can consume; it does not show that financial protocols are already using those feeds at meaningful scale.

READ MORE:

Cardano’s Bitcoin DeFi Push Faces Its First Delivery Test

Compliance Is More Difficult Than Moving the Asset

Interoperability alone is not sufficient for regulated finance.

A bank may need to confirm the identity, jurisdiction, sanctions status, investor classification and transfer eligibility of both parties before allowing a tokenized asset to change hands. Publishing the underlying customer records on a public blockchain would create serious privacy and data-protection problems.

Chainlink’s Automated Compliance Engine is designed to separate the compliance result from the sensitive information used to produce it.

A trusted institution could issue a credential confirming that a customer has completed the necessary checks. The transaction system would receive proof that the condition has been met without placing the customer’s name, passport information, address or complete banking record onchain.

The policy layer could then determine whether the transaction is permitted. Rules might cover investor eligibility, sanctions screening, geographic restrictions, transfer limits or the validity period of a credential.

ACE does not automatically make a financial product compliant with GDPR, MiCA, the Bank Secrecy Act or any other regulation. Legal compliance still depends on which rules are encoded, who supplies the identity information, where personal data is stored, how exceptions are handled and which institution remains responsible for the final decision.

Its purpose is narrower: giving institutions a technical way to translate some compliance requirements into enforceable transaction conditions.

The Evidence Supports a Role, Not a Final Winner

The experiments show that Chainlink can perform several functions relevant to institutional tokenization:

They do not show that central banks have selected Chainlink as permanent global infrastructure.

Most of the evidence still comes from pilots, sandboxes, technical demonstrations and announcements involving a limited number of institutions. Production systems would also need to resolve questions involving operational resilience, cybersecurity, governance, transaction reversals, legal responsibility, vendor dependence and incorrect external data.

The U.S. Department of Commerce explicitly stated that publishing its GDP data on blockchains did not endorse any particular blockchain, service or associated activity. Participation by a central bank or government body should therefore not be interpreted as support for the LINK token.

The more defensible conclusion is architectural. Central banks and regulated institutions are exploring tokenized finance, but the resulting system is unlikely to consist of one blockchain controlled by one operator. Sovereign platforms, commercial-bank ledgers, public networks and traditional payment rails may continue to coexist.

Chainlink is being tested as one possible way to make transactions work across those boundaries. Whether it becomes permanent infrastructure will depend less on the number of pilots announced and more on whether those experiments progress into resilient, legally defined and production-scale systems.

The post Why Central Banks Keep Testing Chainlink appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/central-banks-testing-chainlinks/

The post Franklin Templeton Takes the Lead in Wall Street’s Tokenization Race appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

The market is no longer being built mainly by crypto-native companies. Circle, BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, Janus Henderson and other established financial firms now operate several of its largest products, turning tokenized government debt into a competition between asset managers, fintech platforms and blockchain infrastructure providers.

The appeal extends beyond placing Treasury securities on a blockchain. These products are designed to preserve yield while capital is transferred, used as collateral or moved through institutional settlement systems.

Seth Ginns, Chief Investment Officer of Franklin Crypto, believes corporate treasurers are beginning to recognize that advantage.

In a recent Brand New Rails interview, Ginns described the potential of a “portable money market fund” that can “continue to earn interest as it’s moving.”

A conventional money market fund can preserve capital and generate income, but withdrawing money for settlement, collateral or operational spending may interrupt that yield and introduce banking cut-off times. Tokenization attempts to make the investment itself transferable within approved financial networks.

Ginns said the “product-market fit for tokenized money markets is very much here right now,” although he acknowledged that several steps remain between current demand and broad implementation.

Franklin Leads the 2026 Growth Ranking

Data from Token Terminal placed five organizations clearly ahead of the rest by year-to-date growth in tokenized U.S. Treasury assets:

Together, the five providers added roughly $5.79 billion during the period shown. Their positions also reveal two distinct ways to compete in the market.

Franklin, Circle and Ondo combine financial products with their own distribution channels and varying levels of blockchain infrastructure. Their growth is tied primarily to assets issued or distributed under their brands.

Securitize and Centrifuge operate more heavily as infrastructure providers. They supply issuance, compliance, transfer and distribution technology for products sponsored or managed by companies such as BlackRock and Janus Henderson.

Securitize’s position is closely connected to BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, while Centrifuge supports the Janus Henderson Anemoy Treasury Fund and other tokenized investment pools.

The growth ranking therefore does not compare five identical businesses. An asset manager may control the portfolio and brand, while another company operates the technology used to issue tokens, verify investors and process transfers.

Five Products Control Nearly Two-Thirds of the Market

The five largest tokenized Treasury products according to data from rwa.xyz, held approximately $10.27 billion combined, equal to 64.3% of the entire category:

These products belong to the same broad category but use different legal and operational structures.

Circle’s USYC is designed to support conversions between a yield-bearing asset and USDC, subject to available liquidity. That structure targets trading firms and institutions that want Treasury exposure while keeping capital accessible for margin or settlement.

BlackRock’s BUIDL offers qualified investors U.S. dollar yield, daily dividend accrual and peer-to-peer transfers between approved participants. Its use in collateral arrangements shows how tokenized funds can become part of trading infrastructure rather than remaining isolated investment accounts.

Ondo’s USDY provides economic exposure to short-term U.S. Treasuries and bank deposits. Ondo specifies that the token is not itself a Treasury security and does not provide direct ownership of the underlying government debt.

Franklin’s model centers on blockchain-recorded fund shares, while the Janus Henderson product combines traditional portfolio management with tokenization infrastructure provided by Anemoy and Centrifuge.

Investor eligibility, legal ownership, redemption conditions, supported networks and collateral integrations differ across all five products. Their balances should therefore not be treated as deposits in equivalent financial instruments.

Franklin’s Position Extends Beyond One Token

In addition to iBENJI, the RWA.xyz snapshot showed approximately $734.3 million in BENJI and another $54.5 million in gBENJI. Combined, Franklin’s three listed entries accounted for roughly $2.41 billion.

The foundation is the Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund, launched in 2021. The fund invests at least 99.5% of its assets in U.S. government securities, cash and repurchase agreements fully collateralized by government securities or cash.

Each fund share is represented by one BENJI token, while Franklin’s transfer agent maintains the official ownership record through a blockchain-integrated system.

Franklin later enabled peer-to-peer transfers, allowing eligible investors to move shares between approved wallets. Its system can also distribute accrued yield through additional fund shares recorded onchain.

This gives Franklin exposure across multiple tokens, investor groups and blockchain networks rather than concentrating its activity in a single product. It also helps explain why the company led issuer growth even though Circle operated the largest individual Treasury product in the snapshot.

READ MORE:

Bitcoin’s Bottom Is Still Building, Glassnode Says

The Next Test Is How the Assets Are Used

Rising assets under management confirm demand for tokenized Treasury exposure, but they do not show how frequently the tokens move through corporate funding and settlement systems.

Evidence supporting Ginns’ portable-money thesis would include higher transfer volumes, broader acceptance as collateral, regular conversions into tokenized cash and repeated use within treasury operations.

Corporate adoption will also depend on practical questions that market-value charts cannot answer:

Transferability remains conditional. Many tokenized fund shares can move only between verified and approved investors. Blockchain settlement does not remove securities laws, know-your-customer requirements or jurisdictional restrictions.

The products also retain the risks of the funds and infrastructure behind them. Franklin’s official disclosures state that its fund is not a bank account, is not insured by the FDIC and carries risks related to issuance, redemption, custody, transfers and blockchain-based record keeping.

A market approaching $16 billion shows that tokenized Treasuries have attracted real institutional capital. Franklin’s early advantage comes from combining asset management, transfer-agent infrastructure and distribution across several networks.

The lasting advantage will belong to the providers whose assets become easiest to transfer, redeem and use inside existing financial operations—not simply those that issue the largest number of tokens.

The post Franklin Templeton Takes the Lead in Wall Street’s Tokenization Race appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/franklin-takes-the-lead-in-wall-streets-tokenization-race/

The post RWA Tokenization Platforms: How to Choose in 2026 appeared first on Coindoo.

What Is an RWA in Simple Terms?

RWA stands for real-world asset. It is something that exists outside the blockchain and has financial value, such as a US Treasury bill, company share, loan, property, commodity, or money market fund.

Tokenization creates a digital token that represents a legal or economic claim connected to that asset. The token can then be held or transferred through a blockchain wallet, subject to the issuer’s rules and regulatory restrictions.

The Treasury bill itself is not placed on the blockchain. It remains in the traditional financial system. The blockchain token acts as the digital ownership or distribution layer connecting the investor with the fund, custodian, and underlying asset.

Why Tokenize an Asset at All?

Tokenization can make traditional financial products easier to hold, transfer, divide, and use inside digital markets.

The token does not automatically make the underlying investment safer, more liquid, or legally simpler. Its value still depends on the real asset, the company holding it, the investor’s legal rights, and the ability to redeem the token for cash or the underlying security.

What Is an RWA Tokenization Platform?

An RWA tokenization platform is the infrastructure that connects the offchain asset with its onchain token.

Platform Operational Stack

Legal & Compliance

Entity creation & KYC/Sanctions vetting.

Asset Custody

Secure coordination of underlying holdings.

Token Lifecycle

Issuing, burning & ownership tracking.

Liquidity Flow

Subscription & redemption processing.

Blockchain Data Feeds

Real-time updates for prices, yields, and reserves.

Platforms such as Securitize, Ondo, Centrifuge, and Franklin Templeton’s Benji system all operate in the RWA market, but they do not provide the same service. Some issue regulated fund shares, some distribute tokenized exposure, and others build the infrastructure used by asset managers.

How Large Is the RWA Market in 2026?

Real-world asset tokenization moved beyond isolated blockchain trials in 2026. RWA.xyz tracks 199 tokenization platforms as of July 17, 2026, with approximately $34.96 billion in distributed assets and $370 billion in represented assets.

Those figures describe two different markets. Distributed assets use blockchain as a delivery layer, allowing approved investors to receive and manage tokens through wallets or custodians. Represented assets use blockchain mainly for recordkeeping, reconciliation, or operational processing without necessarily allowing investors to transfer the assets onchain.

Combining the two figures into a single “tokenized asset market” total can therefore exaggerate the amount of capital that is actually available inside wallets, decentralized applications, or secondary markets.

BlackRock Chairman and CEO Larry Fink described the practical goal in his 2026 letter to investors as updating “the plumbing of the financial system.” Tokenization can reduce administrative friction, but it does not remove the legal, custodial, and credit structures supporting the asset.

The First Question Is Not Yield – It Is Ownership

A token’s ticker and blockchain address do not reveal what the holder legally owns.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s January 2026 statement separates tokenized securities into two broad categories:

• Issuer-sponsored tokens: The company, fund, or its authorized agent integrates blockchain into the official ownership record.
• Third-party tokens: An outside company holds the underlying security or creates a separate instrument linked to its value.

Those structures can produce very different rights.

An issuer-sponsored fund token may represent an actual share recorded by the fund’s transfer agent. A custodial token may instead provide an indirect entitlement to an asset held by another company. A synthetic token can track the price of a stock or bond without giving its holder ownership of the underlying security.

The SEC states that changing the format or recordkeeping system does not change the application of federal securities law. A security remains a security when represented on a blockchain.

A technically sophisticated token can still provide weak investor protection when its legal claim is unclear.

How an Offchain Asset Becomes an Onchain Token

Tokenization does not normally place a Treasury bill, loan agreement, building, or company share directly inside a smart contract. It coordinates an onchain token with several offchain institutions and records.

The smart contract controls the digital representation. It does not independently prove that the custodian holds the claimed assets or that a court will recognize the token holder’s rights.

Why Oracles and Reserve Data Matter

Blockchains cannot independently read a fund administrator’s books, bank balance, property appraisal, or loan-servicing records.

Oracle infrastructure can transmit information such as net asset value, prices, ownership data, and reserves into smart contracts. Accurate NAV data is required to calculate how many tokens should be issued during a subscription and how much an investor should receive during redemption.

Proof-of-reserve systems can also provide evidence that offchain collateral exists. They may be used as automated controls that stop new minting when reported reserves fall below a required level.

Proof of reserves is not a complete audit. It may confirm a reported asset balance without establishing:

• Whether the issuer has undisclosed liabilities.
• Whether the assets are pledged elsewhere.
• Whether token holders have a legally enforceable claim.
• Whether reserves can be liquidated quickly during stress.
• Whether the custodian’s data is accurate and timely.

The oracle solves a data-delivery problem. It does not replace legal due diligence, audited financial statements, custody controls, or redemption terms.

The Main RWA Platforms Do Different Jobs

Calling Securitize, Franklin Templeton, Ondo, Centrifuge, and J.P. Morgan “RWA platforms” can suggest they are interchangeable. They operate at different points in the tokenization process.

Some provide regulated issuance and transfer-agent services. Others distribute tokenized products, manage funds, connect assets with DeFi, or build institutional settlement infrastructure.

Securitize: Issuance and Regulated Market Infrastructure

Securitize provides infrastructure for issuing, administering, and distributing tokenized securities. Its role can include investor onboarding, transfer-agent functions, compliance controls, token issuance, and regulated secondary-market services.

The platform became widely known through BlackRock’s BUIDL fund, which holds cash, US Treasury bills, and repurchase agreements while issuing blockchain-based fund shares to eligible investors.

A February 2026 integration made BUIDL available through UniswapX’s request-for-quote infrastructure. The integration permits 24/7 bilateral trading and atomic onchain settlement, but it is not an unrestricted liquidity pool. Participants must be pre-qualified and whitelisted through Securitize.

That distinction captures the current institutional model: blockchain settlement with regulated access controls.

• Best suited to: Asset managers, institutions, and eligible investors seeking regulated tokenized fund infrastructure.
• Main limitation: Products may require substantial minimum investments, accreditation, wallet approval, and jurisdictional eligibility.

Franklin Templeton BENJI: A Tokenized Registered Fund

The Franklin OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund, represented by BENJI, is a registered US government money market fund rather than a token merely tracking Treasury prices.

Its portfolio invests in government securities and repurchase agreements collateralized by government securities or cash. Franklin Templeton uses blockchain within the system that records and processes fund-share ownership.

According to the company’s April 2026 update, BENJI represented more than $650 million and offered peer-to-peer share transfers, daily onchain dividend distribution, and intraday yield calculations when tokens moved between approved investors.

That model gives the token a closer connection to an established regulated fund than many third-party RWA wrappers.

• Best suited to: Investors seeking a tokenized money market fund with a regulated fund structure and blockchain-based ownership records.
• Main limitation: Transferability remains subject to eligibility, compliance, platform support, and the fund’s own rules. It is not equivalent to a permissionless stablecoin.

Ondo: Distribution Across Treasuries and Tokenized Markets

Ondo Finance focuses heavily on bringing traditional financial exposure into wallets and blockchain applications.

Its main product categories include:

• OUSG: A product for qualified purchasers offering exposure to short-term US Treasuries and money market funds.
• USDY: A yield-bearing token backed by short-term Treasury and bank-deposit exposure, subject to geographic restrictions.
• Ondo Stocks: Tokenized exposure to hundreds of publicly traded securities and exchange-traded products.

As of July 2026, Ondo’s official dashboard reported approximately $2.16 billion in USDY, $405 million in OUSG, and more than $1 billion across Ondo Stocks. The stock platform listed more than 440 assets and approximately 80,100 holders.

Access is not universal. OUSG is designed for accredited investors and qualified purchasers, while USDY and Ondo Stocks are not offered to US persons.

The legal distinction is also important. Ondo’s product disclosures explain that a token providing economic exposure does not necessarily give the holder direct ownership of the underlying Treasury or public company share.

• Best suited to: Eligible non-US users and institutions seeking transferable Treasury, stock, or fund exposure that can interact with blockchain infrastructure.
• Main limitation: Availability and investor rights vary by product. Economic exposure should not be confused with direct ownership of the underlying asset.

Centrifuge: Infrastructure for Funds and Private Credit

Centrifuge provides infrastructure that allows asset managers to launch compliant tokenized funds and connect them with blockchain-based investors and DeFi protocols.

Its ecosystem covers Treasury strategies, structured credit, private credit, and alternative assets. Products displayed through the Centrifuge application include the Janus Henderson Anemoy Treasury Fund and an AAA collateralized loan obligation strategy.

Centrifuge’s model is particularly relevant to private credit, where tokenization can automate subscriptions, distributions, investor permissions, reporting, and collateral use.

It cannot eliminate the underlying loan risk. Private-credit tokens still depend on borrower repayment, underwriting quality, servicing, recovery procedures, valuation methods, and the legal enforceability of loan documents.

• Best suited to: Asset managers, institutional allocators, and DeFi organizations seeking structured or private-credit exposure.
• Main limitation: Token transferability does not make an illiquid loan portfolio liquid. Redemptions may remain limited by lockups, cash availability, and the maturity of the underlying assets.

J.P. Morgan: Institutional Liquidity on Public Blockchain Rails

J.P. Morgan illustrates a more institution-controlled model. Its products use public blockchain infrastructure without removing the firm’s traditional subscription, administration, and investor-eligibility systems.

In May 2026, J.P. Morgan Asset Management launched JLTXX on Ethereum with a $100 million initial investment. The registered government money market fund invests in Treasury securities and fully collateralized overnight repurchase agreements.

Investors subscribe through Morgan Money and receive token balances at blockchain addresses. The token exists on Ethereum, but the fund’s legal and operational structure still depends on J.P. Morgan Asset Management, its transfer records, qualified-investor controls, and service providers.

John Donohue, J.P. Morgan’s Head of Global Liquidity, described the objective as allowing investors to “modernize liquidity management without changing the fundamentals of what they own.”

• Best suited to: Qualified institutional investors already using J.P. Morgan’s liquidity-management infrastructure.
• Main limitation: Public blockchain issuance does not mean open retail access or unrestricted DeFi participation.

Choose the Asset Before Choosing the Platform

The underlying asset determines most of the financial risk. The tokenization platform determines how the investor accesses, holds, transfers, and redeems that exposure.

Tokenized Treasuries and Money Market Funds

Tokenized US Treasury products reached approximately $15.94 billion by July 16, 2026, making government debt one of the largest non-stablecoin RWA categories.

These products became popular because their yield comes from Treasury bills, government money market instruments, or repurchase agreements rather than newly issued incentive tokens.

In crypto terminology, this is often called “real yield.” It should not be confused with the economic definition of real yield, which adjusts returns for inflation.

The quoted yield is not guaranteed and normally changes with short-term interest rates. Platform fees, fund expenses, redemption delays, custodian risk, and smart-contract failures can also reduce the investor’s effective return.

Tokenized Private Credit

RWA.xyz reported approximately $7.03 billion in distributed tokenized credit and $35.63 billion in represented credit as of July 2026.

Private-credit yields may exceed Treasury yields because investors accept additional default, duration, liquidity, and servicing risk. The higher return is compensation for those risks, not a free benefit created by blockchain.

A 24/7 token interface cannot guarantee a 24/7 buyer for an illiquid loan.

Tokenized Stocks and Funds

Tokenized equities can provide extended trading hours, fractional access, faster settlement, and compatibility with blockchain wallets.

The investor must determine whether the product represents:

• A direct share issued or recognized by the company.
• A regulated security entitlement backed by shares in custody.
• A fund or certificate holding the shares.
• A derivative or synthetic product linked to the share price.

These structures affect voting, dividends, tax reporting, corporate actions, insolvency treatment, and the right to convert the token into a conventional security.

Trading a token when the primary stock exchange is closed also introduces stale-price and liquidity risks. Twenty-four-hour availability does not guarantee that the execution price accurately reflects the market value the stock will have when its primary exchange reopens.

Tokenized Real Estate

Real estate tokenization can divide ownership into smaller units and automate rental distributions. It does not remove property law, maintenance costs, vacancies, local taxes, insurance, or the time needed to sell a building.

A token may represent equity in a company that owns the property rather than direct title to the property itself. Investors should verify the corporate structure, debt seniority, appraisal policy, rental assumptions, property manager, and procedure for selling the underlying asset.

Tokenizing an illiquid building creates smaller digital claims. It does not automatically create a liquid market for them.

A Practical Checklist for Comparing RWA Platforms

A useful platform review should answer the following questions before comparing advertised yields.

1. What Does the Token Legally Represent?

Read the offering documents, not only the product page. Identify whether the token is a fund share, debt obligation, beneficial interest, security entitlement, receipt, derivative, or synthetic exposure.

2. Who Holds the Underlying Assets?

The platform, asset manager, issuer, transfer agent, custodian, and broker may be separate companies. Each creates a different operational or counterparty dependency.

3. How Does Redemption Work?

Check:

• Minimum redemption amount
• Settlement currency
• Processing deadlines
• Weekend and holiday treatment
• Redemption fees
• Lockups or notice periods
• The issuer’s right to suspend redemptions

A token may trade continuously while direct redemptions remain limited to banking or market hours.

4. Who Is Eligible?

“Available onchain” does not mean available to everyone. Products may be limited by nationality, residence, accreditation, qualified-purchaser status, wallet screening, sanctions rules, or minimum investment.

Never attempt to bypass geographic or investor-eligibility restrictions with a VPN or an unidentified wallet. Doing so can breach the product terms and complicate redemption.

5. Is There Real Secondary-Market Liquidity?

A platform may advertise 24/7 transfers even when only a small group of approved market makers can trade the token.

Total value locked measures the size of the product. It does not measure how easily an investor can exit.

6. Can the Token Be Used Outside the Issuer’s Application?

Restrictions may be embedded in the smart contract. A wallet can hold the token while remaining unable to send it to an unapproved address.

7. What Is the Complete Fee Stack?

Compare the expected net return after all costs rather than the displayed gross yield.

8. What Happens When Something Breaks?

Read the documents governing smart-contract upgrades, paused transfers, oracle failures, lost wallet access, chain outages, custodian insolvency, and legal disputes.

A credible platform should explain which record is authoritative when the blockchain and the transfer agent’s records disagree.

Regulation Is Becoming Clearer, Not Simpler

The 2026 regulatory shift is not that tokenized assets have escaped traditional financial rules. Regulators are increasingly explaining how those rules apply to blockchain-based records.

The SEC’s tokenized-securities statement confirms that the economic and legal substance matters more than the token’s format. Issuer-sponsored, custodial, and synthetic models can have different obligations and investor rights.

In March, the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC clarified the bank capital treatment of eligible tokenized securities. A qualifying tokenized security generally receives the same treatment as its conventional version, regardless of whether it uses a permissioned or permissionless blockchain.

That technology-neutral approach may make it easier for regulated financial institutions to hold and process eligible tokenized securities. It does not approve every RWA token or eliminate platform-level risk.

Broader crypto market-structure proposals such as the CLARITY Act should not be treated as blanket authorization for tokenized stocks, funds, or private-credit products. Registration, exemptions, custody, transfer-agent responsibilities, investor rights, and trading-venue rules remain product-specific.

In the European Union, the DLT Pilot Regime provides a controlled framework for trading and settling financial instruments through distributed-ledger market infrastructure. MiCA mainly covers crypto-assets not already regulated as financial instruments, so it should not be used as the sole legal framework for tokenized securities.

DTCC Is Bringing Existing Market Infrastructure Onchain

The strongest evidence that tokenization has moved beyond experimentation came from DTCC rather than a DeFi startup.

On July 15, DTCC converted DTC-held securities into tokens and processed them through live production trades. More than 30 traditional and digital financial firms participated across use cases involving equities, exchange-traded funds, Treasury securities, collateral transfers, trading, and repo transactions.

The assets remained connected to securities held at DTC. Participants could convert positions between traditional and tokenized formats, creating digital twins with the ownership rights and investor protections attached to the conventional assets.

DTCC plans to launch its Tokenization Service commercially in October 2026.

DTCC CEO Frank La Salla said the firm had applied the “same institutional rigor” to tokenization as it does to traditional assets. That approach is materially different from issuing an unregulated wrapper around a security held by an unrelated third party.

The DTCC launch could improve interoperability between existing market infrastructure and blockchain networks. It does not mean every retail investor will immediately be able to move US stocks into a self-custodied wallet or trade them through DeFi.

Its significance is operational: one of the central institutions in US securities settlement is preparing tokenization as production infrastructure rather than a separate experimental market.

The Best Platform Depends on the Job

There is no single best RWA tokenization platform because the platforms solve different problems.

The platform should be evaluated after the investor has chosen the asset, risk level, jurisdiction, and required degree of liquidity.

A Treasury-backed token with predictable redemption may be appropriate for short-term liquidity management. A private-credit token can offer a higher return but may remain locked during stress. A tokenized stock may provide extended access while delivering fewer shareholder rights than the conventional share.

The useful question is not simply whether an asset is onchain. It is whether the token improves access, settlement, transparency, collateral use, or ownership without creating counterparty and liquidity risks that outweigh those benefits.

The post RWA Tokenization Platforms: How to Choose in 2026 appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/rwa-tokenization-platforms/

The post How Stablecoins Could Become AI’s Native Payment Rail appeared first on Coindoo.

A joint Visa and Artemis analysis published on July 14 divides this emerging market into two categories. The first resembles ordinary online commerce, with an agent booking travel or managing a subscription for a person. The second consists of frequent software-to-software payments, often worth less than $1, for resources such as API calls, data and short periods of computing time.

Stablecoins have an early advantage in the second category. Their programmable settlement and low blockchain fees can support transactions too small or frequent for conventional checkout systems. That does not mean cards and bank payments will disappear. The more likely outcome is a multi-rail economy in which agents choose different payment methods according to the size, purpose and risk of each transaction.

Key Takeaways

AI Commerce Is Splitting Into Two Markets

Not every payment initiated by an AI agent requires a new financial system. When an agent purchases a flight, renews business software or orders goods for a person, the transaction still resembles conventional e-commerce. The amount is large enough to support existing authorization, fraud detection, refund and chargeback processes.

Visa describes this as macro commerce. The agent changes who navigates the purchase, but the underlying payment remains a familiar consumer or business transaction. Card networks are already developing tools that allow authorized agents to use payment credentials while preserving spending controls and merchant verification.

Micro commerce has different economics. An agent may need one database query, three minutes of GPU capacity or temporary access to a software function. The service could cost $0.05 rather than $50, with the agent repeating similar purchases hundreds or thousands of times.

The Visa analysis says these machine-to-machine payments frequently fall below $1. Newer blockchain networks have reduced settlement costs to fractions of a cent, making payments between approximately one cent and one dollar practical in situations where processing overhead would otherwise consume much of the transaction value.

The distinction points toward two parallel payment layers. Cards may remain well suited to agents buying products for people, while stablecoins could handle the smaller transactions that software makes to other software.

What a Five-Cent Agent Payment Could Look Like

An agent purchasing information from a paid data service could complete the entire exchange through an open payment protocol:

No account, monthly subscription or manually entered card number is required. The agent purchases one unit of value precisely when it needs it.

Traditional Checkout Was Designed for People

The limitation is not that existing payment systems cannot process transactions initiated by software. It is that their commercial workflows were built around human behaviour.

Stripe noted when it introduced its Machine Payments Protocol that a normal online purchase may require an agent to create an account, navigate a pricing page, choose a subscription plan, enter payment details and establish a billing relationship. Those steps are manageable for a person making an occasional purchase but become a bottleneck when software needs one small service for a few seconds.

Subscriptions are also a poor fit for agents that interact with many providers unpredictably. An autonomous research system might use one data source today and a different one tomorrow. Requiring it to maintain an account and monthly plan with every potential provider would recreate the same friction that automation is supposed to remove.

Machine commerce instead requires the price, authorization and payment instructions to be readable by software. The transaction must be small enough to match the resource being consumed and fast enough that settlement does not interrupt the agent’s task.

x402 Makes Payment Part of a Web Request

The development of open payment standards suggests that machine payments are moving beyond isolated experiments. On July 14, 2026, the Linux Foundation announced the operational launch of the x402 Foundation, placing the protocol under formal, vendor-neutral governance.

x402 uses the internet’s existing HTTP structure to include payment within the exchange between a client and a server. A service can respond to a request with payment instructions, while the agent can authorize the charge and provide proof of payment before receiving the resource.

The protocol takes its name from the HTTP 402 “Payment Required” status code. According to the official x402 documentation, it allows APIs and online services to charge for individual requests without requiring conventional accounts, sessions or credential management.

The comparison with an “HTTP for payments” is useful but incomplete. HTTP standardized how information moves across the web; x402 is attempting to standardize how a payment request and its response are communicated. It does not require every transaction to use the same company, blockchain or payment asset.

The x402 Foundation launched with 40 participating organizations across payments, cloud infrastructure, AI and blockchain. Its membership includes Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Stripe, Coinbase, Cloudflare, Amazon Web Services, Google, Circle and Shopify. The variety is important because the protocol is designed to support payment methods ranging from stablecoins to traditional cards rather than locking the machine economy into one rail.

Cloudflare Is Turning the Protocol Into Infrastructure

Cloudflare has already announced a practical implementation. Its forthcoming Monetization Gateway will allow customers to charge for web pages, datasets, APIs and Model Context Protocol tools protected by Cloudflare.

Payments will settle in stablecoins through x402 at launch. Cloudflare will handle payment verification and access enforcement at the network edge, reducing the need for each publisher or developer to build an independent blockchain payment system.

The model could change how online information is monetized. A provider would no longer need to choose only between advertising, a monthly subscription or free access. It could sell a single article, database query or software action directly to an agent at the moment of use.

Why Stablecoins Fit the Micro-Payment Layer

Stablecoins combine the programmability of blockchain networks with a unit of account intended to track currencies such as the U.S. dollar. An agent can therefore evaluate a price, compare it with its budget and settle the transaction without managing the volatility of an unbacked crypto asset.

The institutional infrastructure supporting this model is also expanding. Open USD launched with backing from more than 140 financial and crypto companies, including Visa, Mastercard and BlackRock, showing that major payment and asset-management firms increasingly view stablecoins as infrastructure for broader internet commerce, including future machine-to-machine transactions.

Their strongest advantage is not simply that they operate continuously. It is that payment instructions, authorization and settlement can be incorporated into the same software workflow that requests the underlying service.

Stripe’s machine-payment documentation already supports individual charges as low as 0.01 USDC. That price level allows services to sell resources in units that would have little reason to exist under a conventional checkout model.

The Machine Economy Changes What Can Be Sold

Machine payments do more than automate an existing transaction. They allow businesses to divide digital products into much smaller units and price them according to actual use.

Once agents can discover prices and settle automatically, providers could also adjust prices in response to demand. Computing capacity might become more expensive during periods of congestion, while rarely used datasets could be sold cheaply without requiring a salesperson or bilateral contract for every customer.

Open protocols reduce the technical integration required before two systems can transact. They do not remove the need for contracts, compliance or commercial accountability in higher-risk relationships, but they can make low-value digital services accessible without a separate negotiation between every buyer and seller.

MPP Shows Stablecoins Will Not Be the Only Rail

x402 is not the only standard being developed. Stripe and Tempo launched the Machine Payments Protocol, or MPP, in March 2026 to support programmatic microtransactions, recurring payments and other agent-driven purchases.

MPP can coordinate payments through stablecoins as well as fiat-based methods supported by Stripe. This reflects a broader industry direction: agents may not care which rail completes a payment as long as it meets their requirements for cost, speed, reliability and authorization.

Adoption remains small compared with the infrastructure being built. Circle and Stripe are developing stablecoin infrastructure for autonomous AI payments, while roughly 40,000 on-chain agents account for only 0.0001% of stablecoin settlement volume. Agentic commerce has therefore moved beyond theory but remains economically insignificant compared with the wider stablecoin market.

Visa’s position is similarly multi-rail. Its research does not argue that stablecoins will replace cards throughout agentic commerce. Card infrastructure may remain better suited to larger purchases made on behalf of consumers, while machine-native settlement becomes more relevant for software-to-software transactions.

The claim that stablecoins will become the native payment rail of the AI economy is therefore most credible when applied to micro commerce. A $0.03 API call and a $3,000 airline booking create different risks and require different protections. There is little reason to expect both to use an identical payment system.

READ MORE:

Bitcoin’s Bottom Is Still Building, Glassnode Says

Autonomous Payments Create New Risks

Giving an AI agent control over money introduces problems that faster settlement alone cannot solve. A compromised agent could make unauthorized purchases at machine speed, while a poorly configured budget could turn a small recurring charge into a large cumulative loss.

Visa’s Intelligent Commerce framework is focused on bringing familiar controls into agent-led transactions, including authenticated credentials, spending limits, approval workflows and trusted identity signals.

Disputes may be harder to adapt. The Visa and Artemis report notes that conventional evidence and chargeback windows assume a human-speed purchase with a recognizable order. When multiple agents pay one another through a chain of services, determining which transaction failed and who should absorb the loss becomes more difficult.

Stablecoins also introduce risks beyond the agent itself. The International Monetary Fund has warned that their value can come under pressure if reserve assets lose value or confidence in redemption weakens. Low-cost settlement does not eliminate issuer, liquidity, legal or operational risk.

Developers, Businesses and Investors

Stablecoins Have an Edge, Not a Monopoly

The early evidence supports a narrower conclusion than the claim that all AI commerce will move onto crypto rails. Stablecoins appear particularly well suited to the emerging market for sub-dollar transactions between software systems, where conventional accounts, subscriptions and checkout procedures create disproportionate friction.

Cards and fiat payments retain advantages in consumer protection, acceptance, credit and dispute handling. Stablecoins offer different strengths: granular pricing, programmable authorization and settlement that can operate within an automated workflow.

The decisive shift is not an AI agent receiving its own bank account. It is the development of open standards that allow software to discover a service, understand its price, pay within an approved budget and receive the result without human intervention.

If x402, MPP and related systems achieve broad adoption, stablecoins could become an invisible settlement layer beneath parts of the internet. Users may never see the wallet or blockchain involved. They will simply see agents that can purchase the data, computing power and digital services required to complete a task.

The post How Stablecoins Could Become AI’s Native Payment Rail appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/stablecoins-become-ai-native-payment-rail/

The post JPMorgan Flags Trouble for USDC on Hyperliquid appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

Hyperliquid Gains the Yield Without Issuing USDC

Under the revised structure, Coinbase becomes the official USDC treasury deployer on Hyperliquid. Circle remains responsible for the technical infrastructure needed to mint, redeem and move USDC across supported networks.

The arrangement preserves USDC as Hyperliquid’s primary collateral and quote asset across its spot, perpetual and other on-chain markets. It also gives the protocol access to most of the income generated by the underlying reserves.

Hyperliquid’s Aligned Quote Asset framework states that deployers share approximately 90% of cost-adjusted reserve yield generated by their supply with the protocol. Aligned assets receive trading advantages including lower taker fees, improved maker rebates and greater volume contribution toward fee tiers.

The payment is not interest distributed directly to USDC holders. It is protocol-level revenue derived from the cash and short-term government securities backing the stablecoin. Hyperliquid captures much of that income in exchange for making USDC the preferred dollar asset across its markets.

That distinction explains why the agreement can strengthen USDC’s utility while weakening its economics for Circle. The stablecoin gains volume, collateral demand and distribution, but its issuer retains a smaller portion of the reserve income attached to those balances.

Why JPMorgan Sees a Prisoner’s Dilemma

JPMorgan described the arrangement as a “prisoner’s dilemma” because Circle and Coinbase both benefit from wider USDC adoption but can compete over which company gives more of the economics to major distributors.

If neither company offers favorable terms, a large platform could support another stablecoin or create its own. If one side accepts a lower margin to secure the platform, the other risks losing distribution unless it participates in the concession.

JPMorgan estimates that Hyperliquid holds around $6 billion in USDC, equal to roughly 8% of the token’s circulating supply. At the time of writing, DefiLlama showed approximately $5.5 billion in stablecoins on Hyperliquid L1, with USDC representing 93.87% of the total.

Coinbase previously treated much of the USDC held outside its platform differently from balances held directly on Coinbase. JPMorgan said that classifying Hyperliquid’s USDC as on-platform allows Coinbase to collect the associated reserve income before transferring 90% of the adjusted amount to Hyperliquid.

The structure may still benefit Coinbase strategically. Acting as treasury deployer strengthens its role in minting, redemption, liquidity management and fiat access around one of the largest pools of on-chain dollars. The trade-off is that securing that position requires Coinbase and Circle to give up most of the reserve yield generated there.

The $160 Million Estimate Needs Qualification

The estimate that as much as $160 million in annual revenue could move toward Hyperliquid did not originate in JPMorgan’s July report. Compass Point produced the estimate in May, when Hyperliquid held approximately $5 billion to $5.5 billion in USDC.

The figure represented an estimate of reserve income that could be redirected under the yield-sharing arrangement. It should not be treated as a confirmed reduction of the same size in Circle and Coinbase earnings.

The eventual impact depends on several variables:

The concern is still material because reserve income dominates Circle’s financial model. In its first-quarter filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Circle reported $652.5 million in reserve income and $405.4 million in distribution and transaction costs.

The Hyperliquid terms add to costs that already consume a substantial portion of the income generated by USDC reserves. JPMorgan consequently sees the agreement as a larger long-term issue for Circle than for Coinbase, which has a broader mix of trading, custody, subscription and infrastructure revenue.

Robinhood Shows How Quickly Distribution Can Shift

Hyperliquid is not the only platform gaining leverage over stablecoin providers. Robinhood launched the public mainnet of Robinhood Chain on July 1, only 13 days before the latest DefiLlama comparison.

By July 14, Robinhood Chain had accumulated approximately $161.7 million in DeFi TVL, $327.6 million in stablecoins and $3.9 billion in seven-day spot DEX volume. Hyperliquid L1 recorded approximately $1.31 billion in spot volume over the same period.

Robinhood Chain launched and the numbers are astounding.

We dug into the metrics in this week’s edition of the DefiLlama newsletter.https://t.co/1Hs2HHmxTR pic.twitter.com/FLyJ5XNYgK

— DefiLlama.com (@DefiLlama) July 14, 2026

Robinhood therefore generated nearly three times Hyperliquid’s weekly spot DEX activity despite being less than two weeks old. The comparison is limited to spot trading. Hyperliquid remained substantially larger in its core perpetual-futures market, processing approximately $42.5 billion over seven days compared with $24.5 million on Robinhood Chain.

The quality of Robinhood’s early activity also remains unproven. Its seven-day spot volume was roughly 24 times its TVL, an unusually high turnover rate that may reflect launch activity, short-lived speculation or repeated trading through a relatively small pool of liquidity.

The stablecoin composition is more relevant to JPMorgan’s argument. USDG represented around 68% of Robinhood Chain’s stablecoin supply, while Robinhood Earn uses USDG rather than USDC for its on-chain lending product.

A new distribution platform can therefore build substantial liquidity without making USDC its default dollar asset. That increases the pressure on Circle and Coinbase to offer better economics when negotiating with exchanges, wallets, fintech applications and blockchain operators.

READ MORE:

Trump Urges Senate to Pass Clarity Act as August Recess Nears

Longer-Term Threat

JPMorgan’s argument becomes stronger if USDC distribution continues expanding while Circle’s retained income per dollar in circulation declines. The next Circle and Coinbase earnings reports should show whether distribution costs rise faster than the revenue created by additional USDC balances.

The margin-pressure thesis would gain support if USDC balances on Hyperliquid remain near or above $6 billion, making the yield-sharing concession a recurring cost rather than a temporary arrangement. Disclosures showing reserve income flowing into Hyperliquid’s Assistance Fund or being used for HYPE purchases would make the agreement’s economic effect more visible. Continued growth of USDG on Robinhood Chain, or of other regulated stablecoins on competing platforms, would further increase the value of distribution access. For Circle, the clearest financial warning would be distribution expenses rising faster than reserve income, confirming that wider USDC adoption is being achieved at the cost of lower retained margins.

The agreement does not show that USDC is losing relevance. Hyperliquid’s dependence on the stablecoin confirms its importance as trading collateral and on-chain dollar liquidity. The risk is that USDC becomes more widely used while a growing share of the value it generates is captured by the platforms controlling access to users and trading volume.

The post JPMorgan Flags Trouble for USDC on Hyperliquid appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/jpmorgan-flags-trouble-usdc-hyperliquid/