A growing number of Web3 founders are turning to KPI bonds as a way to raise capital based on what their startups actually deliver on-chain. This model replaces optimistic forecasts and milestones with smart contracts that track verifiable performance data. Investor returns depend on measurable outcomes, making execution the central requirement for repayment. As Web3 ecosystems continue to develop with improved data availability and automation, this approach is becoming a viable funding option for startups seeking capital structures based on transparent and verifiable performance. For Web3 startups, this funding structure aligns capital directly to measurable progress while ensuring that all performance conditions are fully auditable on chain. While it does not replace traditional fundraising methods, it represents a larger shift toward accountability-driven finance in decentralized ecosystems and highlights how KPI bonds are introducing new standards for transparency and execution in startup funding. Key Takeaways • KPI bonds link investor returns to verifiable on-chain performance metrics. • Smart contracts automate payouts and enforcement without intermediaries. • Founders gain credibility by committing to transparent and measurable goals. • Investors gain clearer downside protection tied to real execution. • This model introduces new operational and data integrity responsibilities for startups. On-Chain KPI Bonds On-chain KPI bonds are financial instruments designed to tie debt repayment directly to measurable performance metrics recorded on the blockchain. Essentially, they are smart contract‑governed bonds where returns for investors are contingent on predefined key performance indicators. These KPIs are monitored through on chain data or reliable decentralized oracles, and when the agreed thresholds are met, the bond automatically pays out according to the rules encoded in the contract. Unlike conventional venture debt, these bonds do not rely on periodic updates or subjective assessments of progress. Performance is either achieved or it is not, based on verifiable data that anyone can access. This clear, objective structure makes KPI bonds particularly attractive in Web3, where transparency and automation are central to operational design. However, the metrics used as KPIs can vary widely depending on the startup and its goals. Examples include protocol revenue, total value locked, active users interacting with a smart contract, or transaction volume over a specific period. The key requirement is that the chosen metric can be reliably measured and securely fed into the smart contract, ensuring that performance tracking remains tamper‑proof and fully auditable on chain. How On-Chain KPI Bonds Work The lifecycle begins when a startup defines its funding needs and selects specific KPIs that reflect meaningful progress. These KPIs are written into a smart contract alongside repayment terms, timelines, and yield conditions. Investors purchase the bond, providing capital upfront. Once deployed, the contract periodically checks performance data through on-chain sources or oracle networks. If the startup meets or exceeds the KPI targets, repayments are triggered automatically. If targets are missed, the contract may reduce yield, delay repayment, or enforce alternative outcomes depending on how the bond was structured. This automation removes discretionary power from both founders and investors. KPI bonds operate more like deterministic financial instruments than negotiated agreements. For startups, this approach allows teams to dedicate more time to delivering results rather than preparing frequent investor updates, while investors benefit from reduced reliance on subjective judgment and manual monitoring. Why KPI Bonds Are Becoming Essential for Web3 Startups New Web3 startups often face challenges in establishing credibility, especially when products are experimental and markets are volatile. By leveraging KPI bonds, founders can demonstrate certainty in their roadmap while showing a commitment to achieving measurable results. This funding model allows startups to raise capital without immediately giving up ownership. Unlike traditional equity financing, KPI‑based debt does not dilute token supply as long as performance targets are met and obligations are fulfilled. For protocol teams generating early revenue, KPI bonds can complement token launches or grants, promoting financial discipline and encouraging a focus on sustainable metrics. Challenges and Operational Considerations 1. Selecting appropriate KPIs  Metrics must be relevant, resistant to manipulation, and aligned with long‑term value creation, as poorly chosen indicators can compromise the effectiveness of the bond. 2. Ensuring reliable data feeds Oracles and other data sources can introduce risks such as latency, outages, or inaccurate reporting. Poorly designed dependencies can compromise the bond’s integrity. 3. Legal and regulatory considerations While the logic of KPI bonds operates on-chain, startups must still address jurisdictional compliance and understand how these instruments are classified under existing financial regulations. 4. Radical transparency requirements Founders must accept that missed targets are visible to everyone, and smart contracts enforce outcomes automatically without room for negotiation or excuses. Conclusion On‑chain KPI bonds provide Web3 startups with a way to secure funding that is directly tied to measurable performance, bringing transparency and accountability to the process. By linking capital to real outcomes, this model changes focus from speculation to execution and encourages sustainable growth. For startups that embrace this approach, KPI bonds have the potential to redefine how capital is allocated and measured in the Web3 ecosystem.

Haseeb Qureshi, a managing partner at the crypto-focused venture firm Dragonfly, has released a comprehensive market outlook projecting that Bitcoin will finish 2026 above the $150,000 mark. In a detailed analysis published on December 29, 2025, Qureshi argues that while the asset may account for a smaller share of the total crypto market cap, its role as the industry’s central anchor will only be solidified by the end of next year. This forecast is rooted in the belief that the "four-year cycle" theory is dissolving in favor of a sustained institutional growth model driven by spot ETFs and corporate treasury adoption. Qureshi highlights that the current market structure is transitioning from retail-led speculation to a more durable phase where Bitcoin serves as a primary collateral asset for the global financial system. By the end of 2026, Dragonfly expects Bitcoin to be fully integrated into the treasury operations of numerous Fortune 100 companies, providing a level of price support that was absent in previous cycles. Institutional Momentum and the End of the Historical Halving Cycle A primary pillar of the Dragonfly thesis is the emergence of "digital asset treasuries" (DATs), which have raised nearly $30 billion in 2025 to scale their Bitcoin holdings. This institutional momentum is expected to reach a crescendo in 2026 as regulatory clarity in the United States enables bipartisan market structure legislation. Qureshi notes that the supply shock from the 2024 halving is now fully realized, and with exchange reserves at their lowest levels since 2018, the market is poised for a significant supply-side squeeze. Unlike previous years where price action was largely driven by internal crypto-native hype, the path to $150,000 is now being paved by macroeconomic shifts, including global monetary easing and a flight toward scarce digital commodities. As institutional capital goes "vertical," Dragonfly anticipates that Bitcoin will successfully decouple from traditional tech stocks, further enhancing its appeal as a unique, non-correlated diversification tool for global wealth managers. The Rise of High-Throughput Infrastructure and Corporate Integration While Bitcoin serves as the value anchor, Dragonfly’s 2026 outlook also emphasizes the rapid growth of high-throughput networks like Solana and the newer "Solana-killer" Monad. Qureshi expects these platforms to capture the lion's share of on-chain activity, particularly as major technology firms begin acquiring or launching their own crypto wallets to facilitate stablecoin settlements. The prediction that Bitcoin will hit $150,000 is inextricably linked to this broader infrastructure maturation; as the "application layer" of crypto becomes more usable for the average person, the demand for the underlying settlement asset naturally scales. Dragonfly remains non-ideological regarding specific chains, focusing instead on the innovation of market structures that make blockchain capabilities "invisible" to the end-user. By late 2026, the firm expects the convergence of AI-driven digital commerce and institutional-grade custody to create a "perfect storm" for Bitcoin’s valuation, cementing its status as a trillion-dollar pillar of the modern economy.

The blockchain gaming sector faced a sobering reality check in 2025, with total investment volume collapsing by more than 55% year-over-year. According to a year-end report from Delphi Digital, the era of explosive, hype-driven funding for "play-to-earn" models has officially ended, giving way to a brutal but necessary market correction. This contraction saw venture capital and private equity firms shift their focus from speculative token launches to projects with proven player retention and sustainable economic designs. Many high-profile titles that secured massive funding rounds during the 2021-2022 bubble officially shut down operations in 2025, unable to maintain the runway required to complete development in a high-interest-rate environment. This "liquidity winter" has forced developers to move away from over-financialized gameplay that often prioritized short-term token pumps over actual entertainment value, leading to a significant pruning of the ecosystem's weakest projects. The Stealthy Rise of Web2.5 and Infrastructure-First Gaming Despite the sharp decline in overall funding, Delphi Digital highlights the "stealthy rise" of a hybrid model known as Web2.5 as a resilient growth vector for 2026. These studios, including Fumb Games and Mythical Games, treat blockchain purely as an infrastructure layer rather than a central marketing gimmick, often skipping complex token designs in favor of real product experience and traditional revenue. By using NFTs solely for verifiable cosmetic items and leveraging stablecoins for global microtransactions, these projects have avoided the "inflationary death spirals" that plagued earlier generations of GameFi. Analysts note that while the native Web3 player base remains small and largely composed of bots, these hybrid games are beginning to attract million-dollar revenues by making blockchain features invisible to the average gamer. This shift toward "blockchain-as-a-service" is expected to define the next phase of investment, where capital is concentrated in teams that prioritize gameplay retention over speculative incentives. Hardware Integration and the Future of Consumer Gaming Consoles A final significant development in the 2025 GameFi landscape was the push into consumer hardware, led by the launch of the Play Solana PSG1 and the SuiPlay0X1 handheld consoles. These devices aim to bridge the gap between portable gaming and secure digital asset storage, providing a hardware-level integration for the next generation of on-chain applications. While these launches were met with mixed market results and initial token volatility, they represent a strategic attempt to move GameFi out of the browser and into the hands of traditional gamers. Market experts believe that the success of these hardware initiatives in 2026 will depend on their ability to host high-fidelity titles that compete with established Web2 platforms. As the sector enters its "quality era," the remaining capital is being deployed into a smaller number of dominant venues, signaling a maturation of the industry where infrastructure and real-world usability finally take precedence over speculative novelty.

The US spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF markets faced modest selling pressure on Monday, December 29, 2025, as institutional investors continued to adjust their portfolios ahead of the new year. According to the latest data from Farside Investors, spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a total net outflow of $19.3 million, marking a cautious start to the final trading week of 2025. BlackRock’s IBIT led the redemptions with $7.9 million leaving the fund, while Bitwise’s BTCO and Ark Invest’s ARKB recorded outflows of $10.4 million and $6.7 million respectively. This negative momentum was slightly offset by Fidelity’s FBTC, which managed to attract $5.7 million in new capital. Market analysts suggest that these movements reflect tactical tax-loss harvesting and profit-taking rather than a structural shift in sentiment, especially as Bitcoin remains consolidated near the $87,000 to $89,000 range. Ethereum ETFs and the Rotation Toward Selective Conviction The Ethereum spot ETF market mirrored the cautious sentiment of its Bitcoin counterpart, recording a total net outflow of $9.6 million on December 29. BlackRock’s ETHA experienced the most significant withdrawal at $13.3 million, while Fidelity’s FETH provided a minor counterweight with $3.7 million in inflows. The remainder of the US-listed Ethereum products, including those from Grayscale and VanEck, reported zero net flows for the session, indicating a period of stagnation in broader institutional interest for the leading smart-contract platform. Traders are closely monitoring these figures as they often serve as a proxy for institutional risk appetite. With total digital asset product outflows reaching $446 million over the past week, the current trend suggests that allocators are rotating risk and securing gains before fresh liquidity is expected to return in the first weeks of January 2026. Institutional Resilience and the Rise of Niche Asset Inflows Despite the broader outflows in major assets, selective institutional conviction has emerged in smaller niches, most notably in XRP-linked investment products. While Bitcoin and Ethereum faced holiday-related withdrawals, XRP ETFs surpassed $1.25 billion in cumulative inflows, including $70.2 million in the final week of December alone. This rotation highlights a market that is becoming increasingly granular, with investors seeking specific narratives such as post-quantum cryptographic readiness to justify new allocations during a period of thin liquidity. As the total assets under management for US spot Bitcoin ETFs sit at approximately $113.5 billion, the year-end de-risking is viewed as a healthy reset. Analysts at Galaxy Digital and other research firms remain optimistic that the improved regulatory signals expected for 2026 will eventually reverse the current outflow regime and drive a new wave of capital into the regulated crypto ecosystem.

New statistical analysis released in late December 2025 has provided a sobering look at the profitability of decentralized prediction markets, revealing that the vast majority of participants on Polymarket are currently trading at a loss. According to recent data from DefiOasis, approximately 70% of the 1,733,785 unique trading addresses on the platform have recorded negative realized returns. This high failure rate underscores the significant challenges inherent in prediction markets, which function as zero-sum environments where for every winning bet, there must be a corresponding loss. The report highlights that while the platform has processed over $9 billion in total volume and successfully predicted major geopolitical events, the financial benefits of these insights are concentrated among a very small fraction of the user base. Extreme Profit Concentration Among a Tiny Elite of Traders The most striking finding in the year-end report is the extreme concentration of wealth at the top of the Polymarket leaderboard. A mere 0.0385% of the most profitable addresses account for over 70% of the total profits generated on the platform, amounting to a staggering $3.7 billion. This elite group includes sophisticated traders like the French investor "Théo," who reportedly earned over $85 million by leveraging specialized "neighbor effect" polling during the 2024 US election cycle. For the vast majority of "winners," the gains are far more modest, with nearly 25% of profitable addresses earning less than $1,000. This disparity suggests that while Polymarket is an effective tool for aggregating public sentiment and forecasting outcomes, it operates similarly to professional trading venues where information arbitrage and high-frequency strategies—such as microstructure arbitrage—are the primary drivers of significant wealth accumulation. Retail Participation and the Psychology of Prediction Losses On the opposite side of the profit spectrum, over 1.1 million addresses have realized losses, with the majority of these users losing amounts not exceeding $1,000. Analysts suggest that these retail participants often treat the platform more as a form of social engagement or ideological expression rather than a disciplined investment vehicle. This mirrors historical trends seen in retail stock trading, where a large influx of new participants often leads to uneven results and steady, small-scale losses for the average user. Despite the high loss rate, the platform continues to grow in influence, recently securing a $2 billion investment from Intercontinental Exchange that values the company at $9 billion. This institutional backing indicates that the underlying value of the data generated by these markets remains high, even if the individual participants frequently find themselves on the wrong side of the probability curve.

As of late December 2025, the Bitcoin network has reached a critical milestone in its monetary issuance schedule, with exactly 120,000 blocks remaining until the next halving event. Based on current network data and the standardized ten-minute block interval, this supply-side shift is projected to occur in late March or early April 2028. This upcoming event will mark the fifth halving in Bitcoin’s history, further cementing its deflationary nature by reducing the block reward from 3.125 BTC to 1.5625 BTC. Market analysts view this specific countdown marker as a psychological turning point, as it signifies that more than 98% of the total 21 million Bitcoin supply will have been mined by the time the next epoch begins. The 120,000-block threshold often serves as a catalyst for long-term holders to begin their multi-year accumulation strategies, anticipating the supply shock that has historically preceded significant price discovery. The Evolution of Mining Economics and Hardware Efficiency Cycles The transition toward the 120,000-block mark is also driving a massive overhaul in the industrial mining sector, as operators race to deploy hardware capable of remaining profitable under a 1.5625 BTC reward regime. Firms such as Bitmain and MicroBT are already marketing next-generation ASIC miners with energy efficiency ratings below 15 joules per terahash, specifically targeting large-scale facilities that require the highest possible margins to offset the impending reward reduction. As the "hashprice" remains compressed near historic lows, only the most vertically integrated operations—those with direct access to renewable energy or specialized cooling infrastructure—are expected to thrive as the countdown progresses. This period of the cycle is historically defined by a "efficiency arms race," where the network hashrate continues to hit new highs even as the individual profitability per machine decreases, reflecting a maturing industry that is increasingly dominated by institutional-grade capital. Dissolving Cycles and the Shift to Institutional Scarcity Models While previous 120,000-block countdowns were characterized by retail-led speculation, the current phase is being shaped by the massive absorption of Bitcoin into regulated financial products. The presence of spot ETFs and the emergence of corporate digital asset treasuries have introduced a level of constant, non-speculative demand that did not exist during the 2020 or 2024 cycles. Analysts at firms like Dragonfly and Bitwise suggest that the traditional "boom-and-bust" cycle may be evolving into a more stable "institutional scarcity" model, where the halving acts less as a sudden shock and more as a periodic validation of Bitcoin's fixed-supply thesis. This maturation of the market suggests that the lead-up to the 2028 halving will be defined by lower volatility and a greater focus on Bitcoin's role as a global macro hedge, especially as sovereign debt concerns continue to drive investors toward assets with transparent, immutable issuance schedules.

The year 2026 is poised to be a landmark period for the maturation of the digital asset industry, as several of its most prominent firms prepare for their debuts on public stock exchanges. Leading the charge is Kraken, the veteran U.S.-based exchange, which reportedly filed confidential paperwork for an initial public offering in late 2025 with a target valuation of approximately $20 billion. Joining Kraken in this institutional surge are the Ethereum-focused infrastructure giant Consensys and the Web3 gaming conglomerate Animoca Brands. These companies are pivoting toward public markets to gain access to broader capital pools and to provide a "clean" entry point for traditional investors seeking exposure to the crypto-economy without direct asset ownership. The anticipated $35 billion in collective market value from these listings represents a significant shift from the high-risk trading platforms of the past toward firms that prioritize compliance, custody, and core infrastructure. Consensys and the Strategic Transition to Infrastructure-First Revenue Consensys, the developer behind the widely used MetaMask wallet and Infura developer tools, is reportedly collaborating with JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs for a mid-2026 listing. After years of functioning as a multifaceted software studio, the firm has successfully pivoted to a high-margin infrastructure provider model, capitalizing on the massive growth of Ethereum-based transactions. Its IPO filing is expected to highlight the substantial revenue generated by MetaMask Swaps and the enterprise traction of its Layer 2 network, Linea. By positioning itself as a "pure-play" crypto-software company, Consensys offers public investors a unique way to bet on the growth of the Ethereum ecosystem and the broader adoption of decentralized identity. This move is seen as a test of whether public markets are ready to value blockchain-based software services with the same multiples traditionally reserved for legacy SaaS companies. Animoca Brands and the Institutional Test of Digital Property Rights Animoca Brands is expected to pursue a Nasdaq listing in 2026, potentially through a strategic reverse merger that would value the Hong Kong-based firm at over $6 billion. Unlike its peers who focus on trading or wallet infrastructure, Animoca has built its reputation as a prolific investor and developer in the Web3 gaming and metaverse sectors. The firm’s public debut will serve as a critical barometer for investor sentiment regarding digital property rights and the long-term viability of gaming-linked tokens. Having streamlined its operations in late 2025 to focus on sustainable in-game economies, Animoca aims to demonstrate that digital ownership can be a profitable and stable business model. As 2026 approaches, the success of these public listings will likely determine whether the crypto industry can fully bridge the gap with traditional finance and establish a permanent, regulated presence on Wall Street.

We actually wanted to spend the holiday season without any updates. But recent developments in the silver market were simply too exciting to ignore. Last Friday, the price of silver exploded by more than 10%. As is so often the case, it didn't take long for speculation to spread across the web that certain banks had been forced to cover their short positions at a massive loss. In the last few hours, there have even been rumors that a bank has gone under. This has not yet been confirmed – and based on our current knowledge, we consider this scenario to be very unlikely. In the last edition of our Thoughts, we explained how the COMEX futures exchange and its parent company CME work – and the central role that margin plays when purchasing a futures contract. The increase in margin from USD 20,000 to USD 22,000 at that time was the main trigger for the silver sell-off of over 6% on December 12, 2025. As a reminder, a futures contract covers 5,000 ounces of silver. At a silver price of USD 70 per ounce, this corresponds to a value of USD 350,000. However, only USD 22,000 needs to be deposited for this – just 6.3%. Given daily price movements of several percentage points, this is, viewed objectively, a very thin safety margin. Against this backdrop, the next reaction came as little surprise: After the price jump of over 10% on Friday, the CME raised the margin again after the close of trading – from USD 22,000 to USD 25,000. But even with this increase, the ratio remains unchanged: with a silver price of USD 80, the contract value is now USD 400,000, while only 6.3% still needs to be deposited as collateral. Per contract, futures investors must now add USD 3,000 in cash within a few hours – otherwise the position will be liquidated immediately. The situation becomes even more critical if the silver price falls by more than this 6.3%. It is precisely this scenario that is likely to cause considerable stress in US silver trading today, Monday. Margin calls force market participants to sell, which inevitably leads to massive selling pressure. However, this only happens in the paper market. Few investors are likely to sell their physical silver. Even though Friday's price explosion is already history and much of the movement has since been corrected, it is worth understanding this process in detail. Such mechanisms will continue to occupy us in the near future – with increasing significance. It was reported on the web that a very large call position of around 41,000 contracts with a strike price of USD 75 and expiry on January 16, 2026 was open. We tried to verify this information, but were unable to obtain confirmation from any exchange. However, it is possible that this position was established over-the-counter (OTC). Given the price movements observed, we consider this scenario to be plausible. There are many indications that a classic “delta hedge” triggered the price jump on Friday – and is now generating additional selling pressure in return. For a better understanding: As we already explained in the last Thoughts, we do not believe that a bank would take the immense risk of speculating with large amounts of money on one side or the other in the silver market. What they do do, however, is act as market makers, taking the opposite position in the derivatives market. If the rumor is true that one or more clients have entered into the huge call position mentioned, the market maker had to hedge accordingly. Here are a few important points: The call option mentioned above gives the right to buy silver at USD 75 until January 16, 2026. An option contract refers to 5,000 ounces of silver. With 41,000 contracts, we are therefore talking about 205 million ounces – around a quarter of annual global production. However, the market maker does not hedge with the entire nominal value. Instead, he/she uses the so-called delta ratio, which indicates how much the option price changes in percentage terms when the silver price moves by one dollar. The hedge is also carried out to exactly this extent. If the delta changes with the silver price, an algorithm adjusts the hedge continuously and automatically – by buying or selling silver on the market. If the silver price is USD 70, the delta of a 75 call option is only around 27%. Accordingly, the market maker hedges with around 55.35 million ounces. If the silver price rises to USD 75, the delta increases to around 62% – and the hedge grows to 127.1 million ounces. The more the price rises, the more aggressively additional purchases must be made. This delta hedge is absolutely necessary to avoid incalculable risks. It goes without saying that with Friday's steep price rise, market makers were increasingly forced to buy additional silver. The USD 75 mark played a key role in this and was stubbornly defended for a long time. This is because only above this level does the probability increase that option buyers will actually demand physical delivery. When the price nevertheless exceeded this level in late trading, the option trader(s) had to significantly increase his/their purchases of additional silver due to the rising delta. Today's trading shows the flip side of the same coin: the more the silver price falls, the more silver market makers have to sell again – which further accelerates the price decline. This effect is reinforced by futures investors, who on the one hand have to deposit higher margins and on the other hand, with a daily loss of around 9%, have effectively already lost their previous security deposit – the margin. At the opening of Chinese trading, attempts were already being made to quickly push the silver price back towards USD 75. During the European session, the market remained under control. With the start of US trading, the expected selling pressure then set in – triggered by margin calls that forced futures investors to sell. This explains the violent movements of the last two days from a technical perspective. The crucial question now is: What happens next? One thing is certain: the recent swings are primarily a product of paper trading – futures and options. Unlike previous silver rallies, such as in 1980 or 2011, however, there is now an acute shortage of physical silver. In India, pension funds are now also allowed to invest in silver – interest is likely to be correspondingly high. Even more significant, however, is that China will only be allowed to export silver on a limited basis from January 1, 2026. If high demand continues, China will be forced to increase its purchases of physical silver in the West. The spread between Shanghai and New York has risen back above 10% in recent days – a clear signal that physical silver is valued significantly higher in China. The fundamental shortage of physical silver remains unchanged. On the contrary, it will further increase pressure on Western paper markets. This is particularly evident in the continuing negative swap rates, which are of central importance for delivery availability and market tension. Additional confirmation is provided by the so-called after-open action, which shows that professional market participants continue to accumulate silver on a large scale behind the scenes. Bottom line: Many silver bugs are likely to be unsettled by today's correction – and yes, it hurts when Friday's gains have been almost completely wiped out. But this movement is almost exclusively technical in nature. The peace talks surrounding Ukraine are likely to have taken additional geopolitical pressure off the market. However, the decisive factor remains whether China continues to be on the buying side. Given that Chinese buyers were willing to pay the equivalent of over USD 80 per ounce this morning and that the demand is not a one-day fluke, this question should be relatively easy to answer at a price of around USD 71.

Why Are Tokenized Equities Gaining Traction Now? Demand for tokenized equities has picked up sharply since their broader rollout earlier this year, lifting the total market capitalization of onchain stocks to a record $1.2 billion. Data from Token Terminal shows the bulk of that growth arrived in two waves, September and December, suggesting adoption is no longer confined to early pilots. “Tokenized stocks today are like stablecoins in 2020,” Token Terminal said, pointing to how early the market remains. At the start of the decade, stablecoins were a niche tool inside crypto trading circles. Five years later, they underpin a sector worth roughly $300 billion and are used across payments, settlement, and DeFi. Tokenized equities are following a similar early pattern: limited scale, narrow product sets, and heavy experimentation. But the pace of growth suggests interest is spreading beyond crypto-native users toward institutions and exchanges looking to test new market structures. Investor Takeaway At $1.2 billion, tokenized stocks remain small, but the growth profile mirrors earlier crypto-native markets that later became core financial infrastructure. What Changed in September? The jump in activity during September was tied to concrete product launches rather than speculation. Backed Finance rolled out its xStocks suite on Ethereum, introducing around 60 tokenized equities through distribution partnerships with exchanges including Kraken and Bybit. The offering gave users exposure to real-world stocks through blockchain-based tokens, with backing and custody handled through regulated structures. This marked a shift from earlier proof-of-concept models toward exchange-supported distribution. Instead of standalone token projects, tokenized equities began appearing inside platforms where crypto users already trade, lowering friction and improving liquidity. December brought a second leg of growth as more firms outlined plans to bring public equities onchain under clearer regulatory frameworks. The market’s expansion suggests tokenized stocks are moving from isolated launches to a competitive segment drawing attention from infrastructure providers, exchanges, and traditional market operators. How Are Institutions Entering the Market? Several established players have moved to stake claims across different layers of the stack. Securitize announced plans to introduce compliant, onchain trading for public equities, promising direct share ownership rather than synthetic exposure. The firm has framed its approach as issuing real shares onchain, recorded on official cap tables, with shareholder rights intact. Ondo Finance has also outlined plans to launch tokenized U.S. stocks and exchange-traded funds on Solana in early 2026, adding another venue focused on high-throughput settlement and institutional-grade distribution. Crypto exchanges are watching closely. Coinbase said this month that it plans to offer stock trading as part of its push to become an “everything exchange,” blending crypto, traditional assets, and onchain infrastructure inside a single platform. Binance has hinted at stock-based perpetual products, signaling interest even where direct equity tokenization remains complex. Perhaps the clearest institutional signal came from Nasdaq, which disclosed it had filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to offer tokenized stocks. The exchange’s digital assets leadership has described tokenization as a strategic priority, placing the concept firmly on the agenda of traditional market operators. Investor Takeaway When exchanges and market operators get involved, tokenized equities shift from niche products to market-structure experiments with broader implications. What Problem Are Tokenized Stocks Trying to Solve? Advocates point to several advantages: faster settlement, continuous trading, and fractional ownership. Onchain equities can, in theory, settle instantly rather than through multi-day clearing cycles. They can trade outside standard market hours, and they allow smaller position sizes without relying on intermediaries. Critics counter that many current offerings blur the line between ownership and exposure. Some products rely on derivatives, custodial wrappers, or offshore entities, introducing counterparty risk and regulatory complexity. As a result, the market remains fragmented, with different models competing for acceptance. That tension mirrors earlier phases of DeFi and stablecoins, where multiple designs coexisted before standards emerged. The next phase for tokenized stocks will depend on which structures attract liquidity, regulatory approval, and issuer participation. Is This an Early Signal of Broader Adoption? While tokenized equities are still a small slice of global equity markets, their growth comes at a time when blockchain adoption is spreading beyond payments and crypto-native assets. Institutions are increasingly testing where onchain infrastructure fits into trading, settlement, and custody workflows. If tokenized stocks continue to gain traction, they could become a bridge between traditional capital markets and blockchain systems, much as stablecoins did for payments. The sector remains early, uneven, and experimental—but the involvement of exchanges, issuers, and regulators suggests it is no longer fringe.

What Happened at Eclipse—and Why Now? Neel Somani, the founder of Ethereum layer-2 protocol Eclipse Labs, has stepped down as Executive Chairman effective October 2025, formally ending his leadership tenure at the company. The decision follows a multi-year transition away from day-to-day management and comes as Eclipse moves deeper into a new phase centered on application development rather than infrastructure expansion. In a joint statement, Somani said the move reflects his plan to focus full-time on machine learning research and other intellectual work. Eclipse confirmed that governance authority now sits fully with the current executive team and board, removing any remaining overlap from earlier leadership arrangements. The departure closes a long chapter for Eclipse, which has undergone repeated strategic and organizational changes since its founding. What began as an ambitious scaling project has narrowed into a more focused effort built around a single product thesis. Investor Takeaway Somani’s exit ends a gradual transition rather than a sudden break. For Eclipse, it clarifies decision-making at a moment when execution matters more than architecture. How Did Eclipse’s Strategy Evolve After the Terra Collapse? Eclipse was founded in 2022, shortly after the collapse of the Terra ecosystem reshaped crypto priorities. In the aftermath, builders and investors shifted attention toward modular blockchain designs that separate execution, settlement, and data availability. Eclipse entered that debate with a clear technical bet. The project set out to combine Ethereum’s settlement and liquidity layer with the Solana Virtual Machine, the high-performance execution engine originally developed for Solana. Early on, Eclipse marketed itself as a rollup-as-a-service provider, pitching its stack to teams that wanted fast execution without abandoning Ethereum’s economic base. By 2023, that plan changed. Eclipse pivoted toward building a dedicated, high-throughput Ethereum layer-2 powered by SVM execution. The idea gained attention late that year as developers looked beyond EVM-only scaling models and searched for new performance paths. What Role Did Capital and Governance Changes Play? Eclipse raised a $15 million seed round before closing a $50 million Series A in early 2024. The Series A was co-led by Placeholder and Hack VC, with participation from Polychain Capital, Delphi Digital, Maven 11, Fenbushi Capital, and other crypto-focused funds. After the funding round, Somani moved from Chief Executive Officer to Executive Chairman and appointed Vijay Chetty as CEO. People familiar with the matter said the change was planned ahead of the raise and did not affect Somani’s ownership or board seat. Eclipse declined to provide detailed commentary at the time, which led to mixed readings outside the company. Such transitions have become common among infrastructure-heavy crypto startups as they grow beyond their founding phase. Founders often step back from operations while retaining influence through equity and board roles, especially once products move from research into delivery. Why Did Eclipse Narrow Its Focus to One Application? Eclipse launched its mainnet in 2025, hitting a major technical milestone. But by then, the layer-2 landscape had changed. Competition intensified, user retention proved difficult, and performance improvements alone no longer translated into durable traction. Later that year, Eclipse reassessed its direction. With board backing, Somani helped guide a pivot toward application development and appointed Sydney Huang as Chief Executive Officer. Under Huang, the company said it would concentrate on building a single flagship application on top of its own infrastructure instead of operating as a general-purpose network. “Eclipse’s main focus needs to be on one app,” Huang wrote in a recent essay. “Not a few apps, not all the apps that have been deployed — one app.” The application has not been publicly disclosed. Eclipse has said further details will be shared in the coming months. Investor Takeaway Layer-2 networks are learning that throughput alone does not drive adoption. Eclipse’s bet now rests on whether a single product can create sustained user demand. What Comes Next for Eclipse Without Its Founder? Somani’s step down formalizes a gradual withdrawal that began when he left the CEO role in 2024. While he remains the founder, the move removes any ambiguity around executive authority as Eclipse pushes ahead with its revised plan. In his statement, Somani pointed to growing interest in research spanning large language models, formal verification, and mechanistic interpretability—areas closer to academic and lab-driven work than running a scaling blockchain project.

Seven workers of PAO Rosseti Moscow Region, a major subsidiary of Rosseti, the national grid operator, have been arrested on suspicion of helping with unlawful operations. This is a big step up in Russia's efforts to stop illicit cryptocurrency mining. The arrests show how much more strain the country's electricity system is under due to illegal mining, which has cost energy companies significant money. Employees Accused of Giving Secret Help The people who were arrested, who worked as electricians and lead engineers, are said to have supplied paid services to owners of illegal mining fields. Reports say these services included changing electricity meter readings to make it appear less power was being used and assisting in activities to avoid both planned and unplanned inspections by regulators. The personnel were paid in cash, allowing the illegal actions to continue unnoticed. The Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs found that this assistance enabled two illicit Bitcoin mining data centers to operate successfully since 2024 on private property in the city of Chekhov. These facilities didn't have to answer to regulatory authorities, which caused an estimated initial harm of about 10 million rubles to the electrical grid. The instance shows how weak energy firms are, where employees working together can make the problems caused by energy-intensive crypto mining even worse. Rosseti has been complaining about the financial damage caused by illicit mining, which has cost them millions of rubles in losses due to high and unaccounted-for electricity use. This new development fits with those allegations. Authorities have stepped up efforts to stop these businesses because they view them as a direct threat to the stability of the national grid. Broader Crackdown on Illegal Mining Farms The arrests of Rosseti come right after previous law enforcement measures in Russia. The Federal Security Service (FSB) and police took down an illegal mining farm in the Transbaikalia region just a few days before. The Priargunsky Industrial Mining and Chemical Association (PIMCHO), named for E.P. Slavsky, lost over 5 million rubles because of this operation. Investigators said the Transbaikalia farm used a network of Bitcoin mining machines directly connected to the PIMCU power grid. People used electricity without adequate metering and lied about how much they used, causing significant property damage through fraud and breach of trust. Authorities seized the mining equipment during a search of the premises. They initiated criminal prosecution under Article 165, Part 2, Clause "b" of the Russian Criminal Code, which provides for causing large-scale property damage. Russian officials are getting ready to take tougher steps to stop these operations in the future. A draft protocol from the government's electric power commission says that Bitcoin mining will be banned year-round in southern Buryatia and the Trans-Baikal Territory starting in 2026. The goal of this program is to curb illicit activity in high-risk locations, but it's unclear how well it will work in the long run, since people are still drawn to making money with crypto. These events show how Russia's strict rules on cryptocurrencies are at odds with the clandestine economy they create. As enforcement grows, energy companies like Rosseti continue to push for tougher protections against such abuses. They stress the importance of being alert to protect vital infrastructure.

KEY TAKEAWAYS LP locking secures liquidity in smart contracts to prevent rug pulls and build investor trust in DeFi projects. It involves transferring LP tokens to time-bound contracts, ensuring funds remain immovable for a set period. Benefits include enhanced credibility, reduced volatility, and rewards for providers, though impermanent loss poses a risk. Unlike token burning, which permanently reduces supply, locking is temporary and focuses on trading stability. Investors should verify locks using tools like DeFiLlama to assess project legitimacy amid crypto's high-risk environment.   In decentralized finance (DeFi), where trust is hard to come by, and rug pulls—when project developers suddenly take away liquidity—can ruin investors, the idea of "LP locked" has become an important symbol of confidence. Liquidity Pool (LP) locking is putting some of a project's token liquidity into smart contracts for a set amount of time. This stops developers from taking money out and wrecking the token's value.  This strategy, which became popular during the DeFi boom of 2020, protects against bad activities and helps the ecosystem stay stable in the long term. This article looks at the technical details, benefits, possible downsides, and bigger signals that liquidity lockups send to investors. It does this by using existing glossaries and industry studies. What does LP Locked Mean In The Crypto World? LP locked, which stands for "Liquidity Pool locked," is a security protocol in DeFi where project developers lock up a part of their token's liquidity pairs in smart contracts that can't be changed. The Gate.io Blockchain & Cryptocurrency Glossary says that it is "a security mechanism in DeFi where project teams lock a portion of their token liquidity pairs in smart contracts for a predetermined period to prevent sudden liquidity withdrawal (rug pulls), protecting investors and building credibility." This procedure usually includes Liquidity Provider (LP) tokens, which show how much of a liquidity pool a user owns on decentralized exchanges (DEXs) like Uniswap or Pancakeswap. Liquidity pools are pools of tokens that are locked up in smart contracts. They make trading easier by using Automated Market Maker (AMM) models instead of traditional order books. People who put money into these pools, called liquidity providers, put in pairs of assets that are worth the same amount (such as ETH and a project token) so that swaps can happen.  In return, they get fees and prizes. When a project "locks" its LP tokens, it gives ownership to a smart contract that only lasts for a certain amount of time. This means that the liquidity can't be moved until the lock runs out. This technique shows dedication because it discourages developers from using the money for their own benefit. A Technical Overview of How Liquidity Locking Works The first step in locking liquidity is to build a liquidity pool on a DEX. To make LP tokens, project developers add tokens and a base asset (such as ETH or BNB) to them. Then, they send the tokens to a locking service or smart contract. Team Finance and Unicrypt are two platforms that do this. They let you set lock periods that can last anywhere from months to years, and in certain situations, they can even be extended automatically. For example, locking liquidity means giving up control of the LP tokens by delivering them to a time-lock smart contract, as industry resources describe. This renunciation makes sure that even the people who developed the project can't get the tokens back early.  When the time is up, the liquidity can be released, although extensions or permanent burns (destroying tokens) are typical to keep people trusting. The approach helps DEXs with liquidity problems by adding depth to the market and keeping prices stable. However, it also brings up issues like impermanent loss, which is the loss of value that happens as prices change and pools are rebalanced. Liquidity Locking Has Benefits For Both Investors and Projects Locking liquidity has a number of benefits that make projects more legitimate and give investors more confidence. First and foremost, it lowers the danger of rug pulls, which happen when developers take away liquidity and make token prices drop. Projects show that they want to be around for a long time by locking up capital, which brings more people into the ecosystem. Bitbond's research says that "locked liquidity" means putting money in a tamper-proof smart contract, usually in the form of liquidity pool (LP) tokens. This stops immediate sales and stabilizes trade. This means less volatility and better exit options for investors, since locked liquidity makes sure that trade is always available. Liquidity providers get fee shares and mining rewards, which encourage people to take part. For example, in memecoin techniques, locked liquidity is an important measure of success because it shows that developers can't "rug" the community. Overall, it fosters trust, as seen by how widely used it has been in DeFi protocols since 2020, when liquidity mining by Compound brought in billions in locked value. Risks and Limits Linked to Liquidity Lockups There are still hazards involved with liquidity locking, even while it protects. One big worry is impermanent loss, which happens when token prices go up or down a lot, and providers lose value. This only happens when they withdraw, but it can make people less likely to participate. Also, if lock periods are too short, investors may not feel completely safe, which could lead to exploitation once the lock period ends. Critics say that locking doesn't get rid of all concerns. For example, smart contracts might still be hacked, and projects could make false lock assertions. People on community sites like Reddit talk about "locked liquidity" a lot. This is because it indicates that the contract owner or developer can't get to the liquidity pool to steal money. However, false statements might be misleading if they aren't checked with tools like Etherscan.  Also, locked funds tie up money, which could make it harder for projects to be flexible when the market goes down. In sectors with a lot of volatility, like memecoins, relying too much on locking as a trust signal can cause you to miss other warning signs, such as teams that are anonymous or token distributions that aren't fair. Key Differences Between Liquidity Locking and Token Burning People often get liquidity lockup and token burning mixed up in the crypto world. Both of them want to lower supply and create scarcity, but they are very different. When you burn a token, you send it to a dead address, which takes it out of circulation for good. This lowers the overall supply and may raise the value. On the other hand, liquidity locking is only transitory and is more about protecting pool reserves than changing supply. For instance, burning LP tokens after locking can make the lock last forever, which combines both methods. But according to DEXTools' terminology, "A Liquidity Lock in crypto trading refers to locking tokens in a smart contract to secure liquidity in decentralized exchanges (DEXs)," which emphasizes its role in keeping trade stable rather than lowering supply. Investors should check both processes with blockchain explorers to see how committed a project is. Examples From Real Life and Tools For Putting Them Into Action DeFi projects like Uniswap are well-known examples of this. For new token releases, locking liquidity has been the norm. Tokens with locked liquidity often get more use at first in memecoin ecosystems. For example, studies of Solana-based tokens show that when locked liquidity starts to go down, it can mean that people are selling, even if the tokens were initially secured. Team Finance is one of the tools that locks funds. It stops LP token holders from taking money out. Kaia Docs' services also help keep "funds in a liquidity pool secure, preventing rug pulls." Verification solutions like DeFiLlama keep track of locked liquidity throughout chains, which helps investors figure out how healthy a project is. In real life, projects publish locks on social media or in whitepapers, and third-party audits make them more believable. What Liquidity Lockups Say About the Health of a Project: Signaling Effects Liquidity lockups mean more than just mechanics; they also show what the project is trying to do. High locked percentages (such as 80–100% of initial liquidity) show commitment, while low or no locks make people suspicious. In markets that are changing quickly, locked liquidity is linked to steady trade volumes and lower pump-and-dump concerns. Gate.io's glossary says that it is connected to other ideas, such as liquidity mining, where users get rewards for their contributions, which helps the ecosystem expand. According to research, initiatives with confirmed locks get more attention from institutions since they fit with DeFi's quest for openness. But putting too much focus on locking can hide problems that are already there. Investors should use it with other measures, such as total value locked (TVL) and community participation. FAQs What does "LP locked" mean in cryptocurrency? LP locked refers to locking liquidity provider tokens in a smart contract to prevent withdrawal, ensuring trading stability and protecting against rug pulls. How can I check if a token's liquidity is locked? Use blockchain explorers like Etherscan or tools such as DeFiLlama to verify the lock status and duration of LP tokens. What is the difference between liquidity locking and liquidity mining? Liquidity locking secures funds to prevent removal, while liquidity mining rewards users for providing liquidity to pools. Are there risks to providing liquidity in locked pools? Yes, impermanent loss from price fluctuations and potential smart contract vulnerabilities can affect returns. Why do projects lock liquidity? To signal long-term commitment, build trust, and attract investors by reducing the chance of sudden liquidity drains. References Gate.io : Blockchain & Cryptocurrency Glossary Bitbond: What Is Locked Liquidity?  Team Finance Blog: Lock or Burn Tokens - What's the difference?

What Are the Allegations Against Kim Byung-kee? Kim Byung-kee, floor leader of South Korea’s Democratic Party, is facing political and public scrutiny after a local media report alleged he sought to pressure Dunamu, the operator of cryptocurrency exchange Upbit, while attempting to help his son secure employment at a rival exchange. According to a Sunday report by Kyunghyang Shinmun, Kim—who sits on the National Assembly’s Political Affairs Committee—allegedly tried to arrange a job for one of his sons at crypto exchange Bithumb. At the same time, he was raising concerns in parliament over Upbit’s market dominance, particularly after South Korean internet giant Naver agreed in November to acquire Dunamu in a deal valued at roughly $10 billion. The report claims Kim instructed his staff to “attack Dunamu” by framing the company as a monopoly risk. The proposed acquisition has not yet received final regulatory approval and remains under review. Why Does Kim’s Role Raise Conflict Concerns? Kim’s position on a parliamentary committee that oversees financial institutions has drawn attention because of its direct relevance to the crypto sector. Critics argue that a lawmaker involved in shaping financial policy should avoid actions that could appear to benefit personal or family interests, particularly in a sector already under regulatory scrutiny. The Kyunghyang Shinmun report suggested that Kim’s simultaneous involvement in parliamentary criticism of Upbit and his son’s alleged job search at Bithumb created at least the appearance of a conflict. Such concerns are especially sensitive in South Korea, where crypto exchanges have become systemically important to retail investors and are closely watched by regulators. Kim has denied any wrongdoing. “The company’s work, including hiring [my son], has absolutely nothing to do with me,” he said, according to the report. “It is deeply regrettable that my legislative activities are being linked to my son’s employment through open recruitment.” Investor Takeaway Political scrutiny of lawmakers involved in crypto oversight can translate into regulatory uncertainty for exchanges, particularly during mergers or market-concentration debates. How Have the Companies Responded? Bithumb rejected any suggestion that its recruitment process was influenced by political pressure. A company spokesperson said hiring was “conducted transparently, openly, and fairly,” according to Kyunghyang Shinmun. The spokesperson added that concerns over monopolies in South Korea’s crypto market had been raised by policymakers since at least 2021 and were not unique to the current situation. Dunamu has not publicly commented on the allegations. The company, which operates Upbit, remains South Korea’s largest crypto exchange by volume and user base. Any regulatory pushback tied to monopoly concerns could have material implications for its proposed acquisition by Naver. What Does This Mean for South Korea’s Crypto Regulation? The controversy arrives as South Korea continues to refine its crypto regulatory framework. Unlike the United States, which passed comprehensive legislation for payment stablecoins in July, South Korean regulators and the Bank of Korea have yet to agree on how won-backed stablecoins should be issued or whether banks should play a central role. Talks between regulators and the central bank stalled in November, missing a key policy deadline. The ruling party is now expected to introduce an alternative draft bill in January, leaving the regulatory outlook unsettled heading into 2026. Against this backdrop, allegations involving senior lawmakers risk further complicating the policy environment. Market participants already face uncertainty around stablecoin issuance, exchange oversight, and competition rules. High-profile political disputes may slow legislative progress or trigger more aggressive reviews of large crypto firms. Investor Takeaway South Korea’s crypto market remains large and active, but political controversy can delay regulation and weigh on corporate actions such as mergers and licensing. What Happens Next? No formal investigation has been announced, and Kim has rejected the accusations. Still, the episode adds pressure on lawmakers as they revisit stalled crypto legislation and competition policy. With stablecoin rules unresolved and exchange oversight under review, political credibility will matter as much as technical design in the next phase of regulation. For the crypto industry, the situation highlights how closely business outcomes can be tied to political dynamics in key Asian markets. As South Korea works through its next regulatory draft, scrutiny of both lawmakers and major exchanges is likely to remain intense.

Alex Smirnov, the founder of deBridge, has asked Flow blockchain validators to stop processing transactions until the Flow Foundation presents a concrete plan to address customer concerns about the proposed chain rollback. The suggestion stems from a $3.9 million hack on December 27, when an attacker exploited a weakness in Flow's execution layer to generate fake tokens and steal funds across several cross-chain bridges. As one of Flow's leading bridge providers, deBridge highlighted hazards, such as customers having twice as much money if they bridged assets out during the rollback period. Network Stops at Important Block According to Flowscan data, the blockchain has been stuck at block height 137,385,824 since 11:24 pm UTC on Saturday. This means that validators can't instantly follow Smirnov's instructions.  At that time, the Flow Foundation said a restart would occur in 4 to 6 hours, but the network is still stuck while work is underway to restore it. According to CoinGecko data, the FLOW token price has dropped 42% since the attack due to the exploit and rollback. Critics Slam Quick Rollback Chain rollbacks get a lot of bad press because they undo completed transactions, which makes people less trusting of decentralization and makes it harder to know how much money users have. Smirnov criticized the "rushed decision," saying that Flow didn't inform partners, such as bridges and exchanges, in advance.  He also warned that it could cause more damage than the exploit itself: "A rollback introduces systemic issues that affect bridges, custodians, users, and counterparties who acted honestly during the affected window."He talked a lot about the risks exchanges face when handling FLOW deposits and withdrawals during the window. Gabriel Shapiro, the chief counsel for Delphi Labs, said the same thing, accusing Flow of "creating unbacked assets to cover their asses and expecting bridges and issuers to take the hit or do their own separate mitigations." Dapper Labs, the company that made Flow, said that the attack didn't affect any customer balances or assets, even its own treasury. Flow's Past and Problems Dapper Labs launched Flow in 2020, and investors, including Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures, invested $725 million to expand its ecosystem. But the network hasn't done well, with only $85.5 million in total value locked and FLOW's market valuation dropping below $167.3 million, putting it outside the top 300 tokens. The event shows that scaling blockchain security remains hard, even as people have high hopes.

What Did BlackRock’s Tokenized Fund Achieve? BlackRock’s first tokenized money market fund has paid out more than $100 million in cumulative dividends since its launch, offering a clear data point on how tokenized securities are being used beyond pilots and proofs of concept. The milestone was confirmed by Securitize, which acts as the fund’s issuer and tokenization partner. The BlackRock USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund, known as BUIDL, launched in March 2024 and was first issued on Ethereum. The fund invests in short-term, US dollar–denominated instruments such as Treasury bills, repurchase agreements, and cash equivalents. Investors hold tokens pegged to the dollar and receive dividend payments directly onchain, reflecting income from the underlying portfolio. The $100 million figure represents lifetime distributions sourced from real Treasury yields, paid to token holders without relying on offchain reconciliation. For market participants tracking real-world asset adoption, the number matters less for its size than for what it shows: tokenized funds can deliver familiar financial outcomes using blockchain rails. Investor Takeaway BUIDL’s payouts are tied to real cash flows, not incentives. That distinction is central as institutions assess whether onchain funds can match traditional products at scale. Why Is BUIDL Seen as a Breakout Example? Since launch, BUIDL has expanded well beyond its original chain. After starting on Ethereum, the fund added support for Solana, Aptos, Avalanche, Optimism, and other networks. This multi-chain footprint reflects how institutional issuers are testing liquidity and access across different blockchain environments rather than committing to a single stack. Adoption has followed. Earlier this year, the value of assets in BUIDL passed $2 billion. At its peak in October, the fund held more than $2.8 billion. That scale places it among the largest tokenized investment products to date and well ahead of most onchain funds that remain below institutional size thresholds. Operational features have played a role. Settlement occurs faster than in traditional fund structures, ownership records are visible onchain, and distributions are programmable rather than processed through layers of administrators. For large asset managers, those efficiencies are increasingly part of the discussion as they evaluate tokenized real-world assets. How Do Tokenized Money Market Funds Fit Into the Broader Market? Tokenized money market funds have become one of the fastest-growing segments of the onchain RWA space. Their appeal lies in offering cash-like returns while keeping assets within a blockchain environment that supports composability, instant settlement, and integration with other digital systems. Some observers see these products as a counterweight to stablecoins. In July, J.P. Morgan strategist Teresa Ho argued that tokenized money market funds preserve the role of “cash as an asset,” even as regulatory changes were expected to speed up stablecoin usage. The view reflects a divide in how institutions approach digital dollars: stablecoins for payments and transfers, tokenized funds for yield-bearing cash management. The distinction matters for balance sheets. Unlike stablecoins, tokenized money market funds expose investors to short-duration assets that generate income. That makes them closer to traditional cash management tools, but with onchain settlement and distribution. Investor Takeaway Tokenized money market funds sit between stablecoins and traditional cash products, offering yield while staying inside onchain infrastructure. What Risks Are Regulators and Institutions Watching? Growth has also brought scrutiny. The Bank for International Settlements has warned that tokenized money market funds could introduce operational and liquidity risks, particularly if they become a major source of collateral in digital markets. Concerns include how redemptions would behave under stress and how onchain liquidity might interact with offchain asset sales. BUIDL’s dividend milestone does not resolve those questions, but it does anchor the debate in real numbers. Tokenized funds are no longer theoretical. They are paying out cash, holding billions in assets, and attracting sustained institutional interest. As asset managers weigh how far to take tokenization, BUIDL stands as one of the clearest examples that onchain securities can mirror traditional products while operating on a different set of rails.

What Is Bitmine Doing With Its Ether Treasury? Bitmine Immersion Technologies has started staking a portion of its ether holdings, placing more than 400,000 ETH into yield-generating contracts as it builds toward a larger validator strategy planned for 2026. The move comes as the company continues to accumulate ether at scale, positioning itself as one of the largest concentrated holders of the asset. In a disclosure released Monday, Bitmine said it added another 44,463 ETH over the past week, lifting its total holdings to more than 4.11 million ETH. That figure represents roughly 3.41% of Ethereum’s circulating supply. The company crossed the 4 million ETH threshold last week and has stated that its longer-term objective is to acquire 5% of the network’s total supply. At current prices, Bitmine’s ether position alone is valued at just over $12 billion. Including bitcoin and cash, total crypto and cash holdings stand at $13.2 billion. As of Dec. 28, the balance sheet includes 4,110,525 ETH, 192 bitcoin, and $1 billion in cash. Investor Takeaway Bitmine is shifting from pure accumulation toward active yield generation, turning part of its ETH treasury into a recurring onchain income source. Why Is Bitmine Buying Ether During Market Weakness? Chairman Tom Lee said the company used year-end market softness to continue adding to its ether position, pointing to tax-loss selling as a key driver of short-term pressure. According to Lee, Bitmine was the largest source of “fresh money” buying ether over the past week while other holders sold to realize losses before year-end. This strategy contrasts with more passive treasury approaches that simply hold crypto assets without adding during drawdowns. Bitmine’s purchases suggest the firm views late-December selling as temporary rather than structural, and that it expects long-term demand for ether to absorb the additional supply. The timing also reflects confidence in Ethereum’s role as a yield-bearing network. Unlike bitcoin, ether can generate native returns through staking, making large-scale holdings more than just a directional price bet. By accumulating during periods of weakness, Bitmine is positioning itself to benefit from both price recovery and ongoing staking rewards. How Does Staking Fit Into the MAVAN Plan? The company confirmed that more than 408,000 ETH is now staked as part of its preparation for the launch of the Made in America Validator Network, or MAVAN, expected in early 2026. The initiative is designed to give Bitmine a direct role in validating Ethereum transactions while keeping operations based in the United States. Staking ahead of MAVAN serves two purposes. First, it allows Bitmine to begin earning yield immediately rather than leaving all holdings idle. Second, it provides operational experience at scale before the full validator rollout. Running validators across hundreds of thousands of ETH requires infrastructure, monitoring, and risk controls that go well beyond retail staking setups. By the time MAVAN launches, Bitmine aims to have a mature staking operation already in place, reducing execution risk and smoothing the transition from passive holder to active network participant. Investor Takeaway Large-scale staking ties Bitmine’s fortunes more closely to Ethereum’s network economics, not just its market price. Why Are BMNR Shares Lagging Ether? Despite continued accumulation, Bitmine’s stock has not tracked ether’s recent price behavior. BMNR shares were recently trading near $28.50, down nearly 13% over the past week, while ether hovered around $2,950 over the same period. The divergence highlights a familiar tension for crypto-heavy public companies. Equity investors often focus on near-term dilution risk, execution costs, and valuation multiples rather than underlying token holdings. Large crypto treasuries can create volatility in reported results, especially when asset prices move faster than equity markets can reprice. There is also a timing gap between strategy and payoff. While staking generates yield, those returns may not immediately translate into earnings metrics that equity investors prioritize. For now, the market appears to be discounting future benefits while reacting to short-term price moves and broader risk sentiment. What Comes Next for Bitmine? With more than 3% of Ethereum’s circulating supply already under its control, Bitmine is approaching a scale where its actions carry network-level implications. Continued accumulation toward the 5% target would place the firm among the most influential single holders of ether globally. The next milestones will likely center on expanding staking participation and providing more detail on MAVAN’s structure, economics, and regulatory posture. How Bitmine balances liquidity, staking lockups, and market exposure will matter both for Ethereum markets and for shareholders assessing risk.

Why Is Zcash Back in Focus? Zcash has re-entered the spotlight after a sharp rally tied to renewed interest in privacy-focused crypto assets. The move follows comments from Arthur Hayes, former CEO of BitMEX, who said ZEC could be headed toward a “first stop” near $1,000 if liquidity conditions turn supportive again. Since Hayes shared his view on Dec. 19, ZEC has climbed about 40%, rising to the $540–$550 area. The advance adds to an 82% rebound from a local low near $300 recorded roughly one month earlier. The price action stands out in a market where many large-cap assets have struggled to find momentum. Hayes’ thesis is rooted less in Zcash itself and more in macro liquidity. In a December interview, he argued that liquidity can return to markets even without an explicit announcement of quantitative easing in 2026. Instead, he said policymakers may rely on short-term funding operations and reserve-management purchases to inject cash quietly. In that environment, Hayes said privacy and zero-knowledge technologies could regain attention, with Zcash acting as a liquid way to express that theme if risk appetite improves. Investor Takeaway ZEC’s rally has followed a clear narrative trigger tied to liquidity expectations. Moves driven by macro themes can travel far, but they also tend to reverse sharply when momentum cools. How Strong Is the Current ZEC Price Move? The recent jump echoes a pattern seen earlier this cycle. In October, Hayes flagged ZEC as a potential beneficiary of shifting liquidity conditions, after which the token surged from roughly $75 to a multiyear high near $775. That episode left a lasting impression among traders watching privacy coins. This time, the structure looks different but the speed is familiar. ZEC has advanced quickly over a short period, pushing well above intermediate resistance levels. The rally has also brought price back into zones last seen during the early stages of its previous breakout. From a momentum perspective, the move has been clean, with little time spent consolidating. That has helped fuel upside follow-through, but it also increases the risk of sharp pullbacks as leveraged positions build. Do the Charts Support a $1,000 Target? On higher time frames, several technical signals still point higher. Crypto trader Crypto Curb highlighted ZEC breaking out of an ascending triangle pattern while reclaiming its 50-week moving average as support. In his view, that structure leaves room for an extension toward the $1,000 zone, especially if privacy-related narratives strengthen into 2026. Ascending triangles often resolve in the direction of the broader trend, and ZEC’s recovery from its long base has improved its longer-term profile. A sustained hold above key weekly levels would keep the bullish case intact. However, not all analysts see a straight line higher. Eric Van Tassel noted that on lower time frames, ZEC appears to be tracing a rising wedge pattern, which can precede a pullback. He said a move back toward the $400 area would be consistent with a “normal reset” rather than a breakdown. “Keep in mind that we did not see an actual retest of $400 as the price was just short of that at $404.60 on this chart,” Van Tassel wrote. He added that market makers often revisit such levels, and that the wedge’s measured move aligns with a dip into that zone. Investor Takeaway Longer-term charts keep $1,000 in view, but near-term structures allow room for a pullback toward $400. Both scenarios can coexist in a volatile trend. What Should Traders Watch Next? The next phase likely depends on whether ZEC can hold recent gains without accelerating leverage. A shallow consolidation above former resistance would strengthen the bullish case, while a fast rejection could trigger the reset some analysts expect. Beyond charts, the durability of the privacy narrative will matter. Hayes’ call tied ZEC’s prospects to liquidity returning through indirect channels rather than headline policy shifts. If markets begin to price in that outcome, privacy-focused assets could remain in focus.

Diverging central banks, holiday liquidity, geopolitical tensions, and cooling AI optimism challenge dollar dominance, distort volatility, and dampen market momentum. The Great Central Bank Divergence of 2026 The global financial landscape is currently defined by a widening rift in monetary policy expectations. While the Federal Reserve appears to be under siege by both market speculators and political pressure—with traders pricing in aggressive rate cuts for 2026—the Bank of England and Bank of Japan are maintaining far more "hawkish" postures. The BoE remains hamstrung by UK inflation that refuses to sit down quietly at the 2% target, forcing a "gradual" approach to easing. Meanwhile, the BoJ is actively looking to tighten, moving rates to their highest levels in decades. This friction is creating a clear hierarchy in the currency markets, where the US Dollar’s long-term dominance is being challenged by central banks that aren't yet ready to hit the "reset" button on interest rates. Holiday Lethargy and the Thin Liquidity Trap As 2025 draws to a close, the markets have entered a treacherous "thin liquidity" phase where low trading volumes are masquerading as stability. This environment has turned technical movements into high-drama corrections; most notably, Gold’s sharp 4.5% plunge from record highs wasn't a fundamental collapse, but a textbook example of profit-taking amplified by a lack of buyers in the holiday lull. Major pairs like GBP/USD and USD/CAD are essentially "treading water," consolidating recent gains as institutional desks remain empty. For the retail investor, this "quiet" period is deceptive—it is less about meaningful economic shifts and more about the mechanical volatility of a market with nobody at the wheel. Geopolitical Friction vs. The AI "Whimper" The "Santa Claus rally" that typically buoys year-end equities is facing a double-edged sword of geopolitical tension and tech exhaustion. The optimism surrounding a potential peace deal in Ukraine remains fragile, overshadowed by escalating military maneuvers between China and Taiwan that have kept the "safe-haven" bid under the US Dollar alive. Simultaneously, the artificial intelligence fever that propelled the 2025 bull market is showing signs of a year-end hangover. With Nvidia and other AI heavyweights cooling off, the major US indexes are ending the year with a whimper rather than a bang, suggesting that while the structural bull case for AI remains, the market's "irrational exuberance" may finally be meeting its match in the reality of high valuations and geopolitical risk. Top upcoming economic events:   1. 12/30/2025 — FOMC Minutes (USD) The FOMC Minutes are a detailed record of the Federal Reserve's most recent interest rate meeting. This document is crucial because it provides the "why" behind recent policy decisions, revealing the internal debate among Fed members regarding inflation and the labor market. Investors scrutinize these minutes for clues on whether the Fed will pause, cut, or hike interest rates in early 2026, making it often the most volatile event for the US Dollar and global equity markets. 2. 12/31/2025 — NBS Manufacturing PMI (CNY) The NBS Manufacturing PMI (Purchasing Managers' Index) is a leading indicator of China’s industrial health. Because China is the world’s "factory," a reading above 50 indicates expansion, while below 50 indicates contraction. Coming at the very end of the year, this report is vital for gauging whether China’s economy is stabilizing or slowing down, which directly impacts global commodity prices and trade-dependent currencies like the Australian Dollar (AUD). 3. 12/30/2025 — Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices YoY (EUR) The Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) is the standardized measure of inflation for the Eurozone. This "Year-over-Year" (YoY) figure is the primary gauge the European Central Bank (ECB) uses to set monetary policy. If inflation remains stubbornly high or drops too quickly, it could force the ECB to adjust interest rates, causing significant movement in the Euro (EUR) and European bond markets. 4. 12/31/2025 — Initial Jobless Claims (USD) Initial Jobless Claims measure the number of individuals filing for unemployment insurance for the first time. While this is a weekly report, it is currently a "high-focus" metric as markets look for signs of a cooling US labor market. A higher-than-expected number could signal economic weakness, while a low number suggests the labor market remains tight, potentially giving the Fed more room to keep interest rates higher for longer. 5. 12/30/2025 — Housing Price Index MoM (USD) The Housing Price Index (HPI) tracks the monthly change in the price of single-family homes in the US. This is a critical indicator of the health of the real estate sector and consumer wealth. Because housing is a massive part of the US economy, rising prices can lead to increased consumer spending (the "wealth effect"), while falling prices often signal a broader economic slowdown and cooling demand.     The subject matter and the content of this article are solely the views of the author. FinanceFeeds does not bear any legal responsibility for the content of this article and they do not reflect the viewpoint of FinanceFeeds or its editorial staff. The information does not constitute advice or a recommendation on any course of action and does not take into account your personal circumstances, financial situation, or individual needs. We strongly recommend you seek independent professional advice or conduct your own independent research before acting upon any information contained in this article.

Given the strength of the nearby resistance level 1.1810 and the and the bullish US dollar sentiment seen across the FX markets today, EURUSD currency pair can be expected to fall further to the next support level 1.1700 (low of the previous correction 2).   EURUSD  reversed from resistance zone Likely to fall to support level 1.1700 EURUSD currency pair recently reversed from the resistance zone located between the strong long-term resistance level 1.1810 (which has been reversing the price from July, as can be seen from the daily EURUSD chart below) and the upper daily Bollinger Band. The downward reversal from support resistance created the daily Japanese candlesticks reversal pattern Dark Cloud Cover  – which follows the earlier daily Shooting Star near the same resistance level. Given the strength of the nearby resistance level 1.1810, bearish divergence on the daily Stochastic indicator and the and the bullish US dollar sentiment seen across the FX markets today, EURUSD currency pair can be expected to fall further to the next support level 1.1700 (low of the previous correction 2). [caption id="attachment_180413" align="alignnone" width="800"] EURUSD Technical Analysis[/caption] The subject matter and the content of this article are solely the views of the author. FinanceFeeds does not bear any legal responsibility for the content of this article and they do not reflect the viewpoint of FinanceFeeds or its editorial staff. The information does not constitute advice or a recommendation on any course of action and does not take into account your personal circumstances, financial situation, or individual needs. We strongly recommend you seek independent professional advice or conduct your own independent research before acting upon any information contained in this article.    

What Changed in Trust Wallet’s Response? Trust Wallet has entered a verification phase following a Christmas Day exploit that targeted its browser extension, as the number of reimbursement claims now exceeds the number of confirmed affected wallets. The shift reflects a move away from estimating losses toward managing the operational risk of compensating users without opening the process to abuse. Chief executive Eowyn Chen said the company has identified 2,596 wallet addresses linked to the compromised extension. Yet Trust Wallet has received nearly 5,000 reimbursement claims, raising concerns about duplicate or false submissions. “Because of this, accurate verification of wallet ownership is critical to ensure funds are returned to the right people,” Chen wrote. “Our team is working diligently to verify claims; combining multiple data points to distinguish legitimate victims from malicious actors.” Chen added that the company is prioritizing accuracy over speed and plans to provide further updates as the investigation continues. Investor Takeaway The reimbursement challenge has shifted from funding to verification. Trust Wallet’s ability to filter false claims may influence how future wallet providers handle post-exploit compensation. What Do We Know About the Hack? Trust Wallet disclosed last week that its browser extension had been compromised in a targeted attack affecting desktop users, resulting in $7 million in losses. Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao said the full amount would be covered. Binance owns Trust Wallet. The incident involved a malicious update to the extension, rather than a vulnerability triggered through user behavior alone. Cybersecurity firm SlowMist reported that the extension not only enabled fund theft but also exported personal user data, increasing concerns about the depth of access involved in the attack. SlowMist co-founder Yu Xiam said the attacker appeared to have prepared the exploit weeks in advance and demonstrated detailed knowledge of the extension’s source code. That level of preparation has fueled speculation across the industry about whether the breach involved more than a standard external compromise. Onchain investigator ZachXBT previously estimated that hundreds of users were affected, though that figure did not account for the surge in claims now being reviewed. Some observers have questioned how a malicious update could pass through distribution channels without elevated access. Why Are False or Duplicate Claims a Risk? Large-scale reimbursement programs in crypto have repeatedly drawn opportunistic behavior, especially when wallet addresses and transaction histories are publicly visible. In Trust Wallet’s case, the gap between confirmed compromised wallets and submitted claims suggests attempts to exploit the payout process itself. Chen said Trust Wallet is combining multiple verification methods to assess claims, though she did not detail the criteria being used. The company has also stressed that verification is tied to wallet ownership rather than claim submission alone. The process highlights a recurring issue in self-custody ecosystems: while blockchain transparency allows incidents to be traced, linking addresses to verified users without centralized records remains complex. That tension becomes more acute when reimbursement decisions involve millions of dollars. Investor Takeaway Reimbursement mechanics are becoming a security layer of their own. Weak verification can turn a hack into a secondary drain through fraudulent claims. Is Insider Involvement Being Ruled Out? Trust Wallet has not confirmed whether the attack involved insiders. Chen said the company is conducting a broader forensic investigation alongside the verification process to assess how the malicious extension update was prepared and distributed. “This process is ongoing today and is being carried out alongside the broader forensic investigation,” Chen wrote. “While some data is still being finalised, we already have strong working hypotheses for a portion of the cases.”