The post Ethereum Plans a New Way to Pay Gas Without Holding ETH appeared first on Coindoo.

A user could pay in USDC while a sponsor pays in ETH

EIP-8141, or Frame Transactions, is a draft proposal for a new Ethereum transaction type. It separates the steps of a transaction into programmable frames that can verify a user’s approval, select a payer and execute the intended call.

The Hegotá Meta EIP lists Frame Transactions as scheduled for inclusion. Vitalik Buterin also shared a recent update on the proposal’s progress. The specification remains a draft, and Hegotá has not yet activated.

A lot of important progress on Frames (EIP-8141) has been quietly happening over the last few months. Highly recommend reading this, also the updated EIP https://t.co/jYqeS55j6P
https://t.co/CPYONKnWZc

— vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) September 5, 2026

The change would allow a user to make a transaction without personally holding ETH, provided their wallet, the application and a sponsor support the format. The sponsor could charge the user in USDC or another ERC-20, or the application could cover the fee as part of its service.

Ethereum block space would still be paid for in ETH. Frame Transactions change who provides and manages that ETH, not the underlying fee market.

What a token-paid transaction could look like

The EIP includes an example in which a sponsor pays the network fee and receives an ERC-20 payment from the user. A wallet holding USDC but no ETH could, in principle, submit a swap or transfer through the following sequence:

Putting these steps into one transaction avoids forcing the user to acquire ETH before the intended action can begin.

For a new user, that removes a common obstacle: a wallet may contain tokens but lack the native asset needed to move them. It does not remove transaction costs; it packages them in a form that the wallet or application can present more clearly.

Gas payment becomes a product decision

Frame Transactions would give wallets and applications several ways to handle the same cost. These are possible implementation models, not features that the EIP requires:

A transaction shown as gasless is still funded by an application, a sponsor or a separate token charge. EIP-8141 could give applications a standard way to subsidise that cost or recover it in an asset the user already holds.

What changes beyond earlier smart-account tools

Ethereum already supports forms of account abstraction. Pectra’s EIP-7702 gave externally owned accounts access to smart-account features such as transaction batching, sponsorship and improved recovery options.

EIP-8141 takes a different step: it introduces a dedicated transaction format in which validation and payment rules can be included natively. The proposal is designed to support alternative fee-payment schemes without depending on a centralised third-party relayer, although individual wallets and applications may still use service providers.

Gas flexibility is only one use of the same programmable structure. The proposal also aims to support key rotation, spending limits, social recovery and alternative signature systems. Hegotá’s potential privacy applications show why Frame Transactions are being considered for uses beyond flexible gas payments.

Programmable payments need clear security rules

The draft warns that custom validation code must bind an approval to the complete set of frames it authorises. Otherwise, an approval could be reused with a different set of later actions.

This does not mean Frame Transactions are inherently unsafe. It means wallets will need to show users what a signature permits, whether an application is paying the fee, and which token will be charged. Those details are essential when one transaction combines validation, payment and execution.

Sponsors also take on a practical risk. In the EIP’s ERC-20 example, a user could reduce their token balance before the sponsored transaction reaches a block. The proposal includes paymaster-solvency and public-mempool rules because a sponsor needs protection before it can fund gas for many users.

READ MORE:

DBS and Citi Test 24/7 Tokenized USD Payments

What the change could mean for ETH

Frame Transactions would shift ETH management toward wallets, sponsors and applications. A user may see a fee in USDC or no direct fee at all, but the paying account still needs ETH to settle the transaction on Ethereum.

That does not make the proposal an automatic catalyst for ETH demand. Its longer-term effect depends on whether simpler wallet flows attract more users and whether applications see enough value in covering or processing gas costs this way.

The test is adoption, not the specification

Before the feature changes the everyday wallet experience, Hegotá must activate with EIP-8141 included. Compatible wallets and applications will then need to provide clear pricing, refund logic and transaction previews.

The proposal will matter only if users can complete a safe transaction with the assets already in their wallet, without first acquiring ETH solely to pay gas.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

The post Ethereum Plans a New Way to Pay Gas Without Holding ETH appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/ethereum-pay-gas-without-holding-eth/

The post XRP Ledger Fix Nears Activation: What Changes appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

A maintenance update for existing XRPL features

fixCleanup3_3_0 touches vaults, lending-related transactions and automated market makers, but it is not a new product launch. It bundles fixes for edge cases in existing XRPL code, intended to make those features operate more reliably.

For XRP holders, the amendment does not introduce a new use case or create automatic demand for the token – it corrects identified issues in transaction handling before these features see wider use.

Why the September 11 date is not final

The code must be available in supported server software before validators can vote to enable it. XRPL amendments then require at least 80% support from trusted validators for two consecutive weeks before activation.

The waiting period gives operators time to review the change and confirm that the network has sustained support for it. The current voting position points to September 11, but that date will move if support drops below the threshold before the period ends.

The live vote and projected activation date are available on the XRPScan amendment tracker. The amendment process applies the new transaction rules across the network only after the required consensus is reached.

What fixCleanup3_3_0 changes

The technical details are set out in the official fixCleanup3_3_0 amendment notes.

Why the technical details matter

One group of fixes applies the same freeze and deep-freeze checks when restricted assets move through vault, AMM and lending-related transaction paths. A pseudo-account is a ledger-controlled address used by a protocol feature, rather than a normal user wallet.

Other changes concern AMM operations. The amendment makes an affected AMM withdrawal return a defined transaction result instead of risking an internal exception, while adding checks around precision loss and deletion.

The amendment also changes how permissioned markets handle access and liquidity estimates. It removes certain hybrid offers when an account loses access to a permissioned domain and corrects how AMM liquidity is considered in quality estimates for permissioned order books.

Most XRP holders will not notice the update in a wallet interface. It matters more to applications using AMMs, vaults or permissioned markets, where transaction failures and incorrect liquidity calculations can affect execution.

Why lending is part of the conversation

Some of the fixes cover Single Asset Vaults and lending-related transaction flows. These are also building blocks for XRPL’s proposed native lending design, which would use vaults and loan brokers to support fixed-term loans.

The amendment does not activate native lending, which would require its own amendment and separate validator approval. Its role is narrower: it cleans up infrastructure that future lending products may use.

READ MORE:

Solana Price Analysis September: Death Cross on the Horizon

What to watch after activation

The first question is whether validator support holds long enough for the amendment to activate. After that, the practical measure is whether applications using the affected transaction types report fewer failed or inconsistent outcomes.

Broader use of vault-based products, AMMs and permissioned-market tools would be a stronger sign that the corrected infrastructure is proving useful. The amendment’s importance will show in how reliably these features work as developers and users adopt them.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

The post XRP Ledger Fix Nears Activation: What Changes appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/xrp-ledger-fix-nears-activation-what-changes/

The post Cronos Rollback Reverses $111M, Leaves $9.2M Unrecovered appeared first on Coindoo.

Cronos says the attacker borrowed $120.4 million

According to Cronos’ post-mortem, an attacker manipulated collateral on the Tectonic lending protocol and borrowed $120.4 million across nine markets before validators halted the network on August 30.

Cronos had initially halted block production after the Tectonic exploit, when the scale of the incident was still based on early on-chain estimates. The post-mortem now separates the value borrowed, the value reversed on Cronos and the amount that left the network before the halt.

The response window explains why some funds escaped

Cronos’ timeline shows how quickly the attack progressed. The attacker first deployed contracts and manipulated the price of TONIC. About 10 minutes later, the inflated collateral was used to borrow $120.4 million across nine markets.

The network team identified the malicious activity roughly 36 minutes after the attack began. Block production was halted later at block 90,907,150, but $9.19 million had already left Cronos by then. The amount remaining on the network could still be reversed; assets transferred beyond it could not.

Cronos resumed block production about 11 hours after the attack began, using the last pre-exploit block as the restored state.

https://t.co/h7gGiB0cw2

— Cronos Network (@CronosNetwork) September 8, 2026

How inflated TONIC collateral enabled the borrowing

Tectonic lets users deposit collateral and borrow against its value. Cronos said the attacker drove up the price of TONIC, Tectonic’s thinly traded token, then used the inflated value as collateral.

A lending protocol calculates borrowing capacity from the reported value of a user’s collateral. If that price rises sharply, the position may appear able to support a much larger loan even when the underlying market cannot sustain the valuation.

By making TONIC appear more valuable to the protocol, the attacker increased the borrowing capacity of the position and withdrew liquid assets from nine lending markets. The $120.4 million figure refers to those borrowed assets, not to the market value of TONIC itself.

Mango Markets showed a similar collateral risk

The structure has a precedent in the 2022 Mango Markets manipulation. According to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the price of the thinly traded MNGO token rose more than thirteenfold during a 30-minute period. The artificially inflated value of the attacker’s positions was then used as collateral to withdraw more than $110 million in digital assets.

The two incidents were not identical. Mango involved manipulated MNGO spot and perpetual markets, while the Cronos account describes inflated TONIC collateral used within Tectonic’s lending markets. The shared risk is that a sharp move in a low-liquidity token can create borrowing power far beyond the amount that could be realized by selling that token in the open market.

The rollback reversed assets still on Cronos

Validators rolled the chain back to block 90,896,188, the last block before the attack. The move reversed about $111.2 million that had not left Cronos and returned affected balances to their pre-exploit state.

A validator decision on Cronos cannot rewrite transactions that have already settled on another network. Cronos said the $9.19 million that left before the halt remains beyond the rollback’s reach, leaving recovery dependent on measures outside the chain restoration.

The response also reversed unrelated transactions

The rollback removed 10,961 blocks from Cronos history, covering 1 hour and 54 minutes. Every transaction recorded during that period was reversed, including transactions unrelated to Tectonic.

Cronos said validators made the decision after weighing the finality users expect from a blockchain against the risk of leaving the borrowed assets under the attacker’s control. Restarting without restoring the earlier chain state would have left the position intact.

The important questions concern the price sources used for TONIC, the collateral and borrowing limits applied to low-liquidity assets, and the conditions under which borrowing can be paused.

Lending protocols can limit this type of exposure through several controls:

• Conservative collateral factors that cap how much can be borrowed against volatile assets
• Asset-specific borrowing caps for low-liquidity tokens like TONIC
• Isolated markets that contain the damage to a single pool
• Circuit breakers that react to abnormal price movements

No single control removes oracle-manipulation risk, but these measures can restrict how much value can be borrowed before a manipulated price is detected.

Confirmation of which safeguards were active, which ones failed and what will change would provide a clearer assessment of whether the same route could be used again. The rollback restored the chain state, but it did not by itself correct the conditions that allowed the borrowing.

What remains unresolved

Block production has resumed, and Cronos says its explorer, public RPC endpoints, indexers and subgraphs are operating. The network is working with exchanges, bridges and other affected services to reconcile their records.

Cronos says users do not need to take action while that process continues. Cronos did not identify the attacker in its post-mortem or explain how the unrecovered $9.19 million may be recovered. The rollback resolved the assets still on Cronos; the remaining amount depends on tracing and recovering funds beyond the network’s control.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

The post Cronos Rollback Reverses $111M, Leaves $9.2M Unrecovered appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/why-cronos-could-recover-tectonic-exploit/

The post Robinhood Takes Stakes in Crypto.com and OG.com appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

Robinhood is buying exposure, not control

Robinhood agreed to take minority stakes in Crypto.com and its prediction-market business, OG.com, according to a September 8 report from The Wall Street Journal.

Under the multiyear agreement, Robinhood will add event contracts backed by OG.com to its app. Crypto.com also told the newspaper that it had separated OG.com into a standalone company.

The companies did not disclose Robinhood’s ownership percentages, investment amounts or governance rights. A minority position gives Robinhood an economic interest in the businesses without necessarily giving it operational control.

As of publication on September 8, neither company had issued a separate announcement, and Robinhood had not filed the investment terms with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The WSJ report, which includes comments from executives involved in the agreement, remains the main public source.

Event contracts generated more Q2 revenue than crypto

Robinhood earned more from event contracts than cryptocurrency transactions during the second quarter.

Event contracts supplied $156 million of Robinhood’s $776 million in transaction-based revenue, or roughly one-fifth of the total. The company also reported a record 13.6 billion event contracts traded during the quarter.

That contract count measures activity rather than revenue or total trading value. Robinhood defines it as the number of contracts bought or sold through its Prediction Markets Hub, with each contract worth $1 when it settles.

A distribution agreement allows Robinhood to earn fees from customer activity. The minority stakes add a separate source of exposure to the value of Crypto.com and OG.com, although the undisclosed investment terms prevent that exposure from being measured.

OG.com is the platform, while CDNA runs the market

OG.com is the consumer-facing platform and brand. When Crypto.com launched OG in February, the service offered contracts covering sports, financial data, politics, entertainment and other real-world outcomes.

The regulated market behind those contracts is Crypto.com Derivatives North America, or CDNA. The Crypto.com affiliate is registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as a designated contract market and derivatives clearing organization.

Robinhood currently distributes event contracts to its customers through Robinhood Derivatives, a registered futures commission merchant. The companies have not disclosed whether the new OG.com-backed contracts will use exactly the same operating structure as Robinhood’s existing products.

How an event contract works

Most event contracts present two possible outcomes, usually “yes” and “no.” A “yes” position bought for $0.70 pays $1 if the specified outcome occurs, producing a 30-cent profit before fees. It settles at zero if the outcome does not occur.

The CFTC explains that these contracts have a fixed payout and an expiration linked to a date or the conclusion of an event. Robinhood says customers can also sell eligible positions before the event ends, with prices moving as market expectations change.

Federal oversight does not end state disputes

CDNA operates within the federal derivatives framework, allowing its products to be offered as regulated event contracts rather than conventional sportsbook wagers.

That federal status has not prevented challenges from state gaming regulators. Connecticut previously ordered Robinhood, Crypto.com and Kalshi to stop offering certain sports contracts, arguing that the products fell under state wagering laws.

The dispute affects what customers can access. A contract available through Robinhood in one state may be unavailable in another, even when the exchange listing it operates under CFTC oversight.

OG.com adds another source of Robinhood contracts

Robinhood’s existing disclosures name KalshiEX, ForecastEx and Rothera as exchanges through which Robinhood Derivatives offers event contracts. The OG.com agreement appears to add contracts backed by CDNA to that network.

Rothera is also connected to Robinhood through a joint venture with Susquehanna International Group. The exchange and clearinghouse was created through the acquisition of the CFTC-licensed MIAXdx business, and Robinhood began routing selected contracts to Rothera in June.

Robinhood has not announced changes to its relationships with KalshiEX, ForecastEx or Rothera. OG.com therefore appears to expand its venue network rather than replace one of its existing providers.

Ownership makes routing disclosures more important

Robinhood will have financial interests connected to more than one business behind the contracts distributed through its app. It already participates in the Rothera joint venture and now plans to own stakes in Crypto.com and OG.com.

Customers need clear disclosure of where each contract is listed, how orders are routed and which exchange fees apply. Robinhood currently charges its own commission, while the exchange supporting a contract may impose an additional fee.

The contract rules also matter. Two markets can ask what appears to be the same question while using different deadlines, data sources or settlement conditions. They are therefore not automatically interchangeable, even when their wording and prices look similar.

READ MORE:

Cronos Halts Chain After $75M Tectonic Exploit

Crypto.com’s reported valuation needs clarification

Crypto.com announced in July that Citadel Securities had invested $400 million at a $20 billion company valuation.

The WSJ report instead places Crypto.com’s valuation at $15 billion and OG.com’s at $5 billion. The available public information does not explain the difference between Crypto.com’s official figure and the valuation reported by the newspaper.

The figures cannot be reconciled without further disclosure. Robinhood’s investment amount and ownership percentages are also needed before the cost or value of its stakes can be calculated.

What changes for Robinhood customers

The clearest customer-facing change is access to a broader range of event contracts. JB Mackenzie, Robinhood’s vice president and general manager of futures and prediction markets, told the WSJ that the agreement would help the brokerage provide more variety and better pricing.

Several practical details have not been published:

The companies have also discussed equity-linked perpetual futures, according to the WSJ. Those discussions are not a product announcement. Any launch would require regulatory approval, and no timetable or contract terms have been disclosed.

The next material disclosures are the size of Robinhood’s stakes, the launch date for OG.com-backed contracts, the venue-routing rules and the fees customers will pay.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.

The post Robinhood Takes Stakes in Crypto.com and OG.com appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/robinhood-stakes-crypto-com-og/

The post Binance Adds 1,000 Stock Options With a Key Expiry Rule appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

Exercise is not automatic

Binance is introducing options tied to more than 1,000 selected US-listed stocks and exchange-traded funds. Access is limited to eligible users outside the United States, extending the platform’s move into traditional financial markets.

The launch announcement places responsibility for exercise on the holder. Anyone seeking delivery of the underlying shares must submit an instruction through Binance no later than 30 minutes before the contract expires. In-the-money options will not be exercised automatically.

A contract left without an exercise instruction enters auto-liquidation instead. Binance will try to sell the position before the market closes, but the process is performed on a best-efforts basis. The company warns that an option can expire without being exercised even when it is in the money.

This rule is particularly important because the options settle physically. Exercising a call can deliver shares to the holder, while exercising a put can require shares to be delivered at the agreed strike price. Before that step, the trader holds a contract—not stock in the underlying company.

Once an exercise request is submitted, the transaction moves through the regulated brokerage chain operating behind the Binance interface.

Who handles the trade behind Binance

Binance provides the account and trading screen, but two other entities perform the securities work:

Nest Trading acts as the introducing broker and does not custody the securities. Binance therefore controls the customer-facing experience, while Alpaca performs the execution, settlement and custody work required behind it.

That separation becomes more important as Binance adds several ways to trade the same companies. A familiar ticker can now lead to very different forms of ownership and exposure.

One ticker can leave traders with four different positions

The options service follows Binance’s earlier expansion into direct equities. As Coindoo reported when US stock trading launched, eligible users outside the United States can already access more than 7,000 listed stocks and ETFs through Nest Trading and Alpaca.

Those direct positions now sit alongside tokenized securities, equity-linked perpetuals and physically settled options. Although all four can follow the price of the same company, they do not give their holders the same rights:

This is the practical difference hidden by the convenience of a single account. Buying Apple exposure, for example, could mean owning a brokerage position, holding a token issued under separate terms, trading a perpetual contract or purchasing a time-limited right to acquire the shares.

Why options came next

Binance’s own figures show that its users were already trading large volumes of products tied to traditional markets. The company placed TradFi perpetual-futures volume at approximately $433.4 billion in August, compared with $29.5 billion in January.

Equity-linked contracts accounted for about $342.9 billion, or 79%, of the August total. Their reported volume had increased from $410.9 million in January, indicating that demand for stock-price exposure was already concentrated in derivatives before options arrived.

Binance also said emerging markets produced more than 80% of direct stock-trading volume during the service’s first week. The new contracts give that international audience access to strategies with fixed strike prices and expiry dates, including calls for upward exposure and puts that can be used when prices fall or existing positions need protection.

Eligible retail users will initially be able to buy calls and puts, according to the announcement. For these long-option positions, the maximum potential loss is the premium paid.

The Binance account does not turn the contracts into a round-the-clock crypto product. Most US stock options trade from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, while certain ETF and exchange-traded note options remain open until 4:15 p.m. Traders must therefore manage their positions around US market hours as well as Binance’s exercise cutoff.

READ MORE:

Ripple and SettleMint Tackle What Comes After Token Issuance

What traders still need to know

As activity grows, the quality and cost of execution become more important than the number of available contracts. Binance’s disclosure states that Nest Trading may receive payment for routing orders to an execution partner.

That arrangement does not determine whether an individual trade receives a good or poor price. It does make spreads, routing practices and execution quality relevant when comparing the service with other options platforms. The release does not state the amount of any routing payment.

The launch announcement also leaves several practical details to the platform and separate product documentation:

Listing more than 1,000 options establishes breadth, but liquidity will determine how easily traders can enter and leave individual contracts. Thin activity could produce wider spreads and make a last-minute exit more difficult.

Binance’s larger move is becoming the access point for products that still rely on traditional financial infrastructure. Nest introduces the trade, Alpaca completes the regulated brokerage work and Binance keeps the experience inside its own platform.

For options holders, the exercise instruction is the detail that cannot be left to the interface. The account may be familiar, but deciding whether and when the contract becomes shares still belongs to the trader.

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

The post Binance Adds 1,000 Stock Options With a Key Expiry Rule appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/binance-stock-options-key-expiry-rule/

The post 21 Financial Giants Plan Dollar Stablecoin for 2027 appeared first on Coindoo.

The network exists before the product

Citi, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and 18 other financial institutions have committed to establish a company supporting the issuance of stablecoins. The unnamed business is expected to be formed during the second half of 2026, subject to closing conditions, with its first dollar-denominated token targeted for the first half of 2027.

The joint announcement presents the token as money for cross-border payments and digital-asset settlement across wholesale, institutional and retail markets. A euro-denominated stablecoin is the next priority, followed by possible tokens linked to other Group of Seven currencies.

Here, the participant network is clearer than the product it plans to distribute. The venture already has 21 institutions but no public name, blockchain, issuer, reserve policy or redemption terms.

Its members span North America, Europe, East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Alongside global banks are Fidelity Investments and WisdomTree, giving the group exposure to payment services and investment products. That reach is the project’s clearest potential advantage, provided the members actively distribute and support the token.

One coin could prevent 21 separate money islands

Banks already have another way to put money onchain: tokenized deposits. A tokenized deposit issued by one bank remains a claim connected to that institution, while another bank’s token represents a separate liability.

That structure preserves the relationship between each bank and its customer, but it can divide digital liquidity among separate issuers. Moving value from one bank’s token to another may still require conversion, settlement arrangements and shared technical standards.

A jointly supported stablecoin offers a different route. Instead of asking every institution to issue its own digital money, the group could use one reserve-backed token that participating banks, asset managers and their clients recognize. The same asset could move between payment platforms, trading venues and tokenized markets without changing form every time it crosses an institutional boundary.

JPMorgan’s recent stablecoin review shows why banks are keeping both models open. Tokenized deposits preserve the relationship with an individual bank, while stablecoins can circulate outside one institution’s systems.

The consortium has not said how freely its token will travel. It may support public-blockchain transfers, approved institutional wallets or a mixture of both. The original ten-bank exploration announced in October 2025 described a fully reserved payment asset available on public blockchains, but the latest release does not confirm a final network or access model.

The venture has assembled only half the solution

Its members can provide distribution

Creating a token that tracks one dollar is no longer technically unusual. The harder work begins with reserves, reliable redemptions, market liquidity and enough places where institutions can use it. The consortium has members capable of covering much of that chain.

None of those roles has been assigned publicly. Twenty-one participants do not automatically create 21 distributors, and their involvement does not prove that clients have agreed to use the token. The announcement establishes the services available within the group without showing how they will be connected at launch.

Holders still need redemption terms

Distribution matters only after holders know which entity owes them redemption and what claim the token gives them against its reserves. Support from major banks would not necessarily make the stablecoin a deposit at Citi, Goldman Sachs or any other participant. Its legal character will depend on the issuing company and the redemption rights written into the token’s terms.

Before users can judge that claim, the venture must answer several practical questions:

These details determine whether the token behaves like broadly accessible onchain cash or a settlement instrument reserved mainly for approved institutions. They also determine what happens if a holder needs dollars while the banks supporting the network are closed.

The GENIUS Act and the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework establish the intended regulatory route, but compliance cannot be evaluated until the issuer, reserves and operating markets are named. An intention to meet both frameworks is not the same as receiving the licenses required to launch in each jurisdiction.

The euro plan creates an overlapping map

The decision to begin with dollars reflects where stablecoin liquidity already sits, but the euro expansion may be more revealing. Europe already has another bank-led project, Qivalis, preparing a euro-denominated stablecoin with a separate group of financial institutions.

BBVA appears in both initiatives. That overlap suggests large banks may not treat institutional stablecoins as an exclusive bet. They may support several networks serving different customers, jurisdictions or settlement systems, much as banks connect with more than one card, payment or messaging network today.

The outcome may therefore be a collection of interoperable tokens rather than one global bank coin. That would make conversion and cross-network settlement as important as issuance itself. The overlap also shows why founding members alone cannot guarantee liquidity: the same institutions may distribute several competing digital currencies.

READ MORE:

CME Emerging Crypto Index Starts Without Bitcoin or Ethereum

Can the token leave its founding circle?

The consortium can create activity among its own members. The harder test is whether companies and financial institutions outside the group choose to hold and accept the token.

A stablecoin confined to approved transfers between participating banks could still improve settlement. It would, however, resemble a specialized institutional rail more than widely circulating stablecoins such as USDT or USDC. Wider circulation would require external wallets, exchanges, custodians and tokenized-asset platforms to support it.

Swift’s blockchain ledger already offers banks a route to round-the-clock blockchain settlement without creating a separate stablecoin. That gives the consortium a practical benchmark: its token must provide something that deposit-based infrastructure cannot.

The answer may be portability. If the token can move between banks, public blockchains and digital-asset markets without requiring a new banking relationship at every step, it would fill a gap that tokenized deposits struggle to cross. If access remains narrow, the difference becomes harder to see.

The first customer matters more than the founders

The venture begins with an advantage most stablecoin issuers spend years trying to build: access to banks, investment firms and international clients. Its success will depend on whether those institutions turn their reach into direct redemptions, usable liquidity and settlement demand.

The issuer and reserve terms will reveal what the token is. Its first customers will reveal whether the shared network solves a problem its members could not address through existing payment rails.

Ths article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice.

The post 21 Financial Giants Plan Dollar Stablecoin for 2027 appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/financial-giants-plan-dollar-stablecoin/

The post G20 Puts Stablecoins Inside the Global Payments Rebuild appeared first on Coindoo.

The September 1 G20 Chair’s Statement calls for clearer regulatory paths for digital assets, longer operating hours for large-value payment systems, wider use of the ISO 20022 messaging standard and stronger implementation of global financial-crime rules.

The statement shows how G20 officials now view stablecoins: as one part of cross-border finance whose performance depends on the banking, messaging and compliance systems surrounding them.

Key Takeaways

Why the G20 language matters, but does not make law

The Group of Twenty, or G20, is a forum for the world’s major economies. It consists of 19 countries, the European Union and the African Union. Together, its members represent approximately 85% of global GDP, 75% of international trade and two-thirds of the world’s population, according to the G20’s official membership overview.

Its finance ministers and central bank governors can coordinate priorities and direct work toward organizations such as the Financial Stability Board, the Financial Action Task Force and the Bank for International Settlements. The group is not a global legislature, however. Its statements do not create licenses, authorize issuers or automatically alter national payment systems.

The September 1 statement therefore matters as a map of where policy work is heading. Officials committed to establishing “clear pathways for sound digital financial and digital assets innovation” while requesting further FSB work on the cross-border effects of global stablecoins and gaps in the available data.

The document was agreed by the G20 members present except China, which recorded objections to four other paragraphs. The digital-asset, payment and FATF provisions were not among those listed objections. That does not guarantee agreement on how every country will implement them, but it shows that crypto was not the source of the recorded dispute.

A 24/7 token can still run into banking hours

Stablecoins are often described as continuously available because their blockchains do not close overnight or for weekends. That is true for transfers already taking place onchain, but it does not cover the entire payment.

A buyer may first need to send conventional currency to an issuer or intermediary before new tokens are created. A recipient who wants dollars rather than tokens must later redeem them. Institutional settlements can also require money to move between commercial-bank accounts or through a central bank’s large-value payment system.

Those fiat movements form the other side, or cash leg, of the transaction. If the relevant banking system is closed, a token may arrive while the recipient still waits to complete redemption or move the corresponding money.

This is why the G20’s call to expand operating hours for large-value payment systems belongs in the same paragraph as its stablecoin work. Longer hours could reduce the gap between an always-open blockchain and banking infrastructure that still follows local schedules. The statement does not require immediate round-the-clock operation, and extending hours in one country would not help every corridor unless connected systems also become available.

The limits of the cash leg also affect cost. Reserve management, foreign-exchange conversion, redemption and compliance can add expenses that are not visible in an onchain transaction fee. Our examination of the Bank of Italy’s stablecoin warning showed why a cheap token transfer does not necessarily make the complete cross-border payment cheaper.

Faster payments still need a shared language

Keeping payment systems open longer addresses availability, but banks must also exchange information that other institutions can interpret. A payment can slow down when the sender’s bank, intermediary and recipient’s bank use different formats for names, account details, transaction purposes or compliance data.

ISO 20022 provides a structured standard for carrying that information. Consistent fields can reduce manual repairs and preserve more transaction data as a payment passes through several institutions. The G20 statement encourages countries to use the harmonized ISO 20022 model as part of the wider cross-border roadmap.

That does not turn ISO 20022 into a blockchain, nor does it certify a token as compliant. Sharing a messaging format also does not make every bank, ledger and stablecoin automatically interoperable. Institutions still need compatible technology, legal arrangements and rules governing how the information can cross borders.

The Bank for International Settlements has warned that inconsistent implementation could limit the standard’s benefits. The value comes from institutions using the relevant fields in the same way, rather than merely saying that their systems support ISO 20022.

Compliance follows the transaction

Faster operating hours and more consistent messages can improve a payment’s route, but regulated institutions must still determine who sent the funds, where they are going and whether the transfer can legally be processed.

The Chair’s Statement therefore asks the Financial Action Task Force to prioritize jurisdictions where virtual-asset use is significant but implementation of FATF standards remains inadequate. It also supports risk-based supervision for anti-money-laundering, terrorist-financing and proliferation-financing controls.

This completes the connection among the G20’s proposals. Payment systems provide the settlement route, ISO 20022 carries structured information, and compliance rules determine whether institutions can process the transfer. A stablecoin may become another asset moving through that framework, but it does not remove those functions.

There is still room for disagreement over how much information should accompany an onchain transfer, which entities should collect it and how data-protection laws apply when it crosses borders. The G20 statement points toward closer coordination without resolving those questions.

READ MORE:

21 Financial Giants Plan Dollar Stablecoin for 2027

The 2027 targets expose the execution gap

The cross-border payments project predates the latest stablecoin discussion. The G20 launched its roadmap in 2020 and later established targets covering cost, speed, access and transparency, with most scheduled for the end of 2027.

Among them, 75% of cross-border wholesale and retail payments are supposed to reach recipients within one hour, while users should receive clearer information about costs, delivery times and payment status. Yet the FSB’s 2025 progress report found that years of policy work had not produced substantial improvements for users at the global level. It said satisfactory progress was unlikely within the existing 2027 timetable.

That record places the September statement in context. The remaining problem is less about identifying what should change than persuading countries, central banks, financial institutions and infrastructure operators to make compatible changes at the same time.

Stablecoins could expose that gap more clearly because they create an expectation of continuous movement. When the token arrives quickly but redemption, screening or conventional settlement does not, the delay becomes easier for the user to see.

Stablecoins are joining the system, not replacing it

The G20 has not produced an international stablecoin license or a finished regulatory framework. It has placed work on global stablecoins inside the same agenda as payment availability, common financial messages and cross-border compliance.

That framing rejects two easy conclusions. Stablecoins are not being treated solely as speculative crypto products, but they are also not being presented as a shortcut around banks, regulators and national payment systems.

The practical test now sits outside the statement. National authorities and financial institutions must keep the cash side available for longer, use payment data consistently and apply rules that can work across borders. Until those changes reach operating systems, a stablecoin may move continuously while the financial infrastructure around it still keeps business hours.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice.

The post G20 Puts Stablecoins Inside the Global Payments Rebuild appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/g20-puts-stablecoins-inside-the-global-payments-rebuild/

The post Wyoming Brings Its Stablecoin Reserve Checks Onchain appeared first on Coindoo.

Wyoming is changing who can use the reserve data

The Wyoming Stable Token Commission has adopted Chainlink Proof of Reserve for Frontier Stable Token, or FRNT. The Network Firm will examine the reserves and circulating supply, while Chainlink will make the resulting data available onchain.

FRNT already had daily reserve reporting. Its public transparency dashboard allows people to compare outstanding tokens with the cash, US Treasuries and repurchase agreements held by the state’s custodian. The latest integration changes the audience for that information: software will be able to read it alongside the people reviewing the dashboard.

A lending protocol could check the reserve figure before accepting FRNT as collateral. An exchange could use it when setting risk limits, while a payment application could pause certain activity if backing fell below a predetermined level. None of those reactions happen automatically simply because a feed exists; developers must decide what their applications should do with the information.

The phrase “near real time” also needs context. Chainlink may deliver each approved reading quickly, but Wyoming’s existing dashboard has relied on end-of-day financial data. Unless the source schedule changes, the blockchain could receive the latest available figure almost immediately without that figure representing a continuous view inside the custody accounts.

Secure Mint is the part that could prevent damage

Publishing a reserve figure allows markets to see a potential mismatch. Wyoming’s planned Secure Mint integration could stop one from growing by requiring verified reserves to equal or exceed total FRNT supply before additional tokens are created.

Suppose the latest examination supported $100 million of FRNT and the same amount was already circulating. Secure Mint would be designed to reject another mint until additional backing appeared in the verified data. That would place the reserve requirement inside the issuance process instead of leaving users to discover an unsupported mint afterward.

The safeguard could help contain a compromised minting credential, software defect or operational mistake. It would not recover missing assets, redeem tokens for holders or correct an existing shortfall, but it could prevent further issuance from making the imbalance worse.

That protection remains prospective. Wyoming said it is “in the process of adopting” Secure Mint and did not announce an activation date, contract address or fallback procedure. The current announcement should therefore be read as a reserve-data integration accompanied by a planned minting control—not confirmation that unsupported FRNT issuance is already blocked.

An onchain feed still begins with offchain records

Proof of Reserve can compare two reported numbers: the value of examined backing assets and the amount of FRNT in circulation. Chainlink transports that comparison to public blockchains, but it does not independently inspect the bank accounts, Treasury holdings or custody records behind the result. That work remains with The Network Firm.

This boundary is also why an attestation, a reserve feed and a full financial audit should not be treated as interchangeable. The distinction became important when Tether moved from recurring reserve attestations toward a full KPMG audit: faster publication can improve the visibility of a specific figure without expanding the scope of the underlying examination.

The feed also says little about what happens after a holder asks for dollars. A reserve portfolio may cover every token on paper while redemption is slowed by banking hours, custody disruption or the time needed to convert securities into available cash. Understanding FRNT therefore requires its reserve ratio to be read alongside its redemption process and custody arrangements.

Wyoming’s announcement does not claim that Proof of Reserve resolves those issues. It argues that monthly disclosures leave an information gap, while daily examination and onchain delivery give institutions and blockchain applications a more current view of reported backing.

READ MORE:

Hyperliquid Strategies Opens a $2.5B Funding Door – Will HYPE Benefit?

FRNT makes this a public-sector test

FRNT differs from USDT, USDC and other privately issued stablecoins because its issuer is an instrumentality of the Wyoming state government. It is redeemable for one US dollar and is backed by permitted assets including cash, short-duration Treasuries and short-term Treasury repurchase agreements.

It is not a Federal Reserve-issued central bank digital currency. Wyoming created a separate state commission to manage the token, its reserve arrangements and its redemption rules. Interest generated by the backing assets supports the state’s School Foundation Program rather than being passed directly to FRNT holders.

Readers unfamiliar with the project can find the earlier design, reserve model and supported networks in Coindoo’s explanation of Wyoming’s state-backed stablecoin. That multi-chain structure makes aggregate supply especially important: reserve coverage must account for total FRNT across its supported networks, not only the tokens visible on one blockchain.

The Proof of Reserve adoption also deepens Wyoming’s reliance on Chainlink. The commission previously selected Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol as FRNT’s exclusive system for moving the token between networks. Chainlink is now positioned between two critical parts of the design: tracking FRNT across blockchains and delivering the reserve information meant to support it.

The first rejected mint will matter more than another dashboard

The reserve feed improves how quickly blockchain applications can receive FRNT’s examined backing data. The harder test will arrive when Wyoming activates Secure Mint and the system must decide whether to approve or reject new issuance.

Before then, the commission still needs to explain how the control handles a stale reading, a delayed examination or a temporarily unavailable feed. Automatically blocking minting would be the cautious response, but the exact behavior matters when the same token operates across multiple networks.

FRNT’s next transparency milestone is therefore not another reserve number. It is evidence that the number can constrain issuance when backing is insufficient—and that the restriction behaves predictably when fresh information cannot reach the contract.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice.

The post Wyoming Brings Its Stablecoin Reserve Checks Onchain appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/wyoming-stablecoin-reserve-checks-onchain/

The post Solana Backs 18.9M Less SOL Issuance by a 0.334-Point Margin appeared first on Coindoo.

Kraken’s late reversal rescued SGP-0002

SGP-0002 closed with 67.001% support, narrowly clearing the 66.667% requirement. According to the official Solana announcement, the result gave the network a mandate to pursue faster disinflation.

The final tally included 176.29 million SOL in favor, 66.19 million against and 20.63 million abstaining, Solana Compass reported. Participation reached 60.7% of eligible stake, with 1,326 validators represented.

Solana Validator Governance has concluded.

Results:

SGP-0001: The Solana Constitution
SGP-0002: Double Disinflation
SGP-0003: Resource and Inclusion Fee

— Solana (@solana) August 28, 2026

The result looked very different shortly before voting ended. With about 70 minutes remaining, the proposal was reportedly losing by 58 million SOL after Kraken moved approximately 8.9 million SOL into opposition.

Kraken changed course again during the closing stretch, returning roughly 8.1 million SOL to the supporting side. JitoSOL holders also used Solana’s override mechanism to cast votes separately from the validators managing the underlying stake. The reported vote analysis found that the proposal would have failed without those overrides.

Kraken co-CEO Arjun Sethi summarized the exchange’s final position after the vote: “Custodians should be conduits, not voices.”

SGP-0002 was one of three Solana proposals covering supply, transaction fees and delegated voting rules. Voters approved the Solana Constitution with 86% support but rejected the proposed resource-fee overhaul, which received 53.9% and missed the two-thirds threshold.

The 18.9 million SOL figure is not a burn

SGP-0002 changes how quickly Solana’s inflation rate declines. It does not remove tokens from current holders or reduce the circulating supply on the day of activation.

Solana’s existing schedule reduces the inflation rate by 15% each year until it reaches a long-term floor of 1.5%. Once the approved change is activated, that annual reduction will increase to 30%. The floor itself remains unchanged.

The official proposal estimates that the network would reach 1.5% inflation in approximately 2.8 years. The existing path requires about 5.7 years.

Across six years, the faster schedule would result in approximately 18.9 million fewer SOL being created, leaving projected supply about 2.6% below the previous path. Unlike a token burn, this reduction applies to future issuance. Solana will continue creating new SOL, only at a rate that slows more quickly.

Fewer issued tokens will not translate into an identical reduction in market selling. Some staking rewards are sold to cover costs or realize income, while others are restaked or held. The proposal changes how many tokens become available, not what recipients do with them.

Lower issuance changes the staking calculation

Stakers will receive fewer newly created tokens under the faster schedule, but their holdings will also face less dilution. A lower nominal yield can still leave them with a similar share of the network when total supply is expanding more slowly.

Validator expenses create a harder problem. Server capacity, staffing and maintenance costs remain in place even as inflation-funded rewards decline. Operators that depend heavily on commissions from those rewards could face tighter margins.

The proposal notes that 41% of validators already charge no commission on inflation rewards, limiting the direct effect on that group. Other operators may respond by adjusting commissions, attracting more delegated stake or relying more heavily on transaction fees and maximum extractable value.

SGP-0002 does not rewrite those other revenue sources. Validator commissions, transaction fees, MEV income and the existing reward mechanism remain in place. The first evidence of pressure will come from changes in staking yields, validator commissions and the distribution of stake across operators.

READ MORE:

ECB Board Member Calls for Central Banks to Go Onchain

JitoSOL overrides show who controls delegated votes

Solana’s governance rules assign delegated stake to the validator’s position by default. That default is not final. A holder can override the validator before or after it votes, or cast a separate vote if the validator remains inactive.

The official governance FAQ describes this as vote sovereignty. Only the portion controlled by the delegator moves; the validator retains the rest of its stake-weighted position.

SGP-0002 showed what that mechanism can do when the margin is thin. A validator or custodian can move millions of SOL with one decision, but active delegators can break away and alter the tally.

That adds a new consideration when selecting a validator. Commission rates and performance still affect staking returns, but the operator’s governance policy now determines where delegated SOL will vote unless the holder intervenes.

SIMD-0550 still has to reach Solana mainnet

The ballot approved a policy direction, not an immediate protocol update. SGP-0002 answers whether Solana should pursue faster disinflation; SIMD-0550 defines how the network will implement it.

Client teams still need to add the change to Solana’s validator software. The network must then coordinate its feature-gate activation and identify the epoch in which the new schedule begins.

Until that activation occurs, the existing 15% annual disinflation rate remains in force. August 28 settled the governance question, but it did not start the new issuance curve.

The next governance vote begins with validator choice

Operators and staking providers may now face pressure to disclose their voting positions before future ballots open. That gives delegators time to accept the default, override it or move their stake elsewhere.

The issuance change will unfold over several years. The lesson for delegators arrived in a single vote: leaving their stake untouched still assigns its voting power to someone else.

The post Solana Backs 18.9M Less SOL Issuance by a 0.334-Point Margin appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/solana-backs-18-9m-less-sol-issuance-by-a-0-334-point-margin/

The post XRP Ledger’s Quantum Roadmap Is Back in Focus – Now Comes the Hard Part appeared first on Coindoo.

Key Takeaways

Why quantum security is back in focus

Ripple does not want the XRP Ledger waiting for a working cryptographic quantum computer before preparing its response. “The goal is not to wait until quantum computing becomes an immediate threat,” RippleX Senior Director of Engineering Ayo Akinyele told CoinDesk.

Researchers use “Q-Day” to describe the point at which a quantum computer becomes capable of breaking public-key cryptography used by production systems. No publicly known machine has reached that capability.

Preparation has nevertheless become more visible across major networks. Bitcoin recently tested two different quantum-security approaches, while Ethereum has moved quantum safety higher in its architectural planning.

A separate development has complicated the choice of replacement cryptography. Anthropic’s Claude Mythos Preview found an improved key-recovery attack against HAWK, a post-quantum signature candidate under consideration by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

For the smallest HAWK-256 configuration, expected attack work fell from approximately 2⁶⁴ operations to 2³⁸, a reduction of roughly 67 million times. The model produced the result after about 60 hours, according to Anthropic’s research report.

HAWK was not deployed on XRPL or any other production system, so the finding did not expose live accounts. It instead showed how quickly a candidate can lose ground even after surviving years of expert review.

AI does not bring Q-Day closer. It can, however, disqualify proposed defenses sooner. XRPL therefore needs more than one secure replacement for its current signatures; it needs a reliable way to change cryptography again if later research weakens the first choice.

Why exposed public keys create the risk

XRPL currently relies on elliptic-curve signatures to prove that the account holder authorized a transaction. Signing reveals the public key used to verify that authorization.

A sufficiently capable quantum computer could theoretically calculate the corresponding private key from the public key. An attacker could then produce signatures that satisfy the network’s existing rules.

The threat is not practical today. The concern is the time required to move active accounts away from exposed classical keys before such an attack becomes possible.

XRPL can rotate the key without replacing the account

An XRPL account address and the key authorized to control it are separate. Accounts have a master key pair, but they can also assign and later replace a regular key through a SetRegularKey transaction.

The address remains unchanged after another signer is assigned. Balances, trust lines, settings and ledger history stay connected to the same account.

During a planned post-quantum migration, that separation could reduce the need to transfer assets solely to adopt stronger cryptography.

What that could spare users

The limitation is that XRPL can rotate only into signature systems mainnet already recognizes. Accounts cannot select a post-quantum signer until developers implement one and the network activates it.

Keeping the same address also works best when migration begins before an emergency. Ripple’s contingency planning allows for a harder response if classical signatures fail unexpectedly, potentially requiring funds to move under post-quantum protection.

Sui is examining the same user problem through another design. Its planned post-quantum signers could preserve existing account addresses, showing why account continuity is becoming part of migration planning across multiple networks.

XRPL has two possible migration scenarios

Ripple’s original post-quantum roadmap prepares for an orderly transition while keeping an emergency route available if quantum hardware advances faster than expected.

A planned transition

Ripple plans to compare several NIST-standardized signature schemes against real XRPL workloads. Security is only one test. Public-key size, signature size and verification speed determine whether a candidate can operate without placing excessive pressure on ledger storage or transaction processing.

Work with Project Eleven includes Devnet benchmarking, validator tests and an early custody-wallet prototype. Candidate post-quantum signatures are expected to operate beside the existing systems during this stage.

That overlap would give service providers time to update their signing infrastructure before classical signatures are retired. It would also reveal whether the new format creates problems for transaction throughput or validator hardware.

Ripple is targeting full post-quantum readiness by 2028, although that target does not guarantee when a mainnet amendment will activate.

An emergency recovery

The second scenario begins if quantum hardware threatens classical signatures before the planned transition is ready.

XRPL could stop accepting the affected signatures, but a valid classical private key might no longer establish who owned an account first. An attacker could possess a mathematically correct key calculated from public information already visible on the ledger.

Ripple is investigating whether seed-derived information and post-quantum zero-knowledge proofs could provide a separate ownership test. That method remains exploratory; no finished recovery specification or user process has been released.

READ MORE:

Solana Backs 18.9M Less SOL Issuance by a 0.334-Point Margin

Mainnet activation requires validator agreement

Individual accounts can choose an authorized key, but they cannot decide which signature algorithms XRPL accepts. Adding another verification system changes the network’s transaction rules and therefore requires an amendment.

Under the official XRPL amendment process, a protocol change must maintain more than 80% support from trusted validators for two weeks before activation.

The new code must already be included in the software those validators run. Servers that lack support after activation can become amendment-blocked because they can no longer process the ledger under the updated rules.

Akinyele told CoinDesk that the transition would reach beyond swapping one algorithm for another. The supporting infrastructure must let accounts and financial services adopt new security without interrupting payments or access to funds.

HAWK explains why that process must be repeatable. An algorithm can survive extensive review and still be weakened later. XRPL cannot build its migration around the assumption that the first post-quantum system it selects will remain the final one.

What XRP holders should watch today

Ripple has not asked XRP holders to move funds, create replacement accounts or rotate into post-quantum keys. Ordinary XRPL accounts do not yet have that option on mainnet.

Four developments would show that migration is approaching: a selected signature scheme, published performance benchmarks, supported wallet tools and a live amendment vote. Until those appear, XRP holders have no quantum-specific transaction to perform.

XRPL can replace the key controlling an account without rebuilding the account around it. That could prevent an orderly security upgrade from turning into a mass address migration.

The roadmap succeeds when ordinary accounts can adopt the new signer through supported software on a network whose validators already agree on the rules.

The post XRP Ledger’s Quantum Roadmap Is Back in Focus – Now Comes the Hard Part appeared first on Coindoo.

Check our Market Overview 

Source: https://coindoo.com/xrp-ledgers-quantum-now-comes-hard-part/