Arts

Home Arts Page 4

Hyperliquid OI Reaches 2026 High of $11B as RWA Markets Grow

0
Hyperliquid OI Reaches 2026 High of B as RWA Markets Grow


On July 13, Hyperliquid recorded a rare double milestone: total Open Interest (OI) on the platform climbed to $11 billion, its highest level of 2026, while the open interest for real-world assets (RWA) touched $3.6 billion, a new peak on the platform. This development indicates that on-chain capital is not only heating up but is also beginning to expand from crypto into tokenized real-world assets.

RWA Open Interest Breaks Out

The most notable point in this announcement lies within the RWA segment. Hyperliquid stated that the open interest for this asset class has reached $3.6 billion, the highest ever recorded on the platform. For a market that was previously discussed primarily as a narrative, this figure shows that RWAs have progressed far beyond a mere “story.” It has become a product class where traders are actively taking positions, tracking volatility, and pricing risk.

According to RWA.xyz, as of March 31, 2026, the distributed asset value of the RWA market reached $26.71 billion, the represented asset value reached $345.07 billion, the total number of holders exceeded 698,200, and the total stablecoin value hovered around $299.30 billion. While this is not data exclusive to Hyperliquid, it shows that the on-chain asset class has grown large enough to generate continuous trading demand, particularly in derivative products.

Why the $11B Print Matters

Thus, the $11 billion mark is not just a pretty number on a dashboard. It demonstrates that Hyperliquid is maintaining its role as a major trading venue within the on-chain derivatives ecosystem, right as demand for tokenized assets is beginning to establish deeper liquidity. As capital seeks out platforms offering fast execution, 24/7 trading, and sufficient liquidity, venues like Hyperliquid will hold a distinct advantage. In derivatives markets, open interest typically reflects trader participation and their level of confidence in the next trend.

Hyperliquid’s Open Interest

Hyperliquid’s Open Interest. Source: DefiLlama

Conversely, high open interest is not solely a positive signal. It also implies higher leverage, a greater potential for liquidations, and volatility amplitudes that could be amplified when the market reverses. If the increase in RWA OI is merely a short-term reaction to a hot narrative, this figure could decline just as rapidly as it rose. However, if the $3.6 billion level is sustained and expanded, Hyperliquid will have clearer proof that tokenized exposure is gradually becoming a product class that can be genuinely traded, hedged, and priced.

What Traders Should Watch

In the short term, the market will focus on three key milestones: whether total OI can hold above $11 billion following this announcement, whether RWA OI continues to chart new peaks or merely spikes due to a few large contracts, and whether the contribution of each asset group remains distributed. If the majority of the OI still stems from a few isolated markets, the sustainability of the trend will be lower compared to a more broad-based expansion.

Another aspect to monitor closely is the correlation between OI and actual liquidity. If open interest rises without a corresponding increase in volume, depth, and trader participation, the market could be more vulnerable during corrections. Conversely, if OI increases alongside volume and liquidity, it would signal that Hyperliquid is not just benefiting from a short-term wave of euphoria but is instead cultivating a more sustainable layer of trading demand. For RWAs, this is even more critical, as this asset class can only sustain its appeal if traders can actively enter and exit positions.

The Bigger Picture

While the $11 billion figure does not tell the full story of Hyperliquid, it shows that the platform continues to attract liquidity precisely where the market’s current focus lies: larger on-chain trading, a broader range of asset classes, and deeper levels of participation.

Most importantly, RWAs are demonstrating real liquidity, rather than just being a market narrative. With an open interest of $3.6 billion, this asset class has begun to take the shape of a genuine market, making it a signal worth watching in the coming sessions. Compared to many other derivative platforms, Hyperliquid is emerging as a clear destination for on-chain capital, especially as open interest continues to expand and RWAs begin to play an actual role in trading liquidity.





Source link

Bitcoin Nears Power Law Support Line Fidelity Has Tracked Since 2015 – NFT Plazas

0
Bitcoin Nears Power Law Support Line Fidelity Has Tracked Since 2015 – NFT Plazas


Bitcoin is approaching one of the most closely watched long-term technical levels in institutional crypto analysis, according to Fidelity Investments’ Director of Global Macro, Jurrien Timmer. After months of persistent selling pressure, the world’s largest cryptocurrency is trading near the lower boundary of Fidelity’s long-running Bitcoin Power Law model—a support zone that has coincided with every major market bottom since 2015.

While Timmer cautions that the market may not have reached its ultimate low, he argues that Bitcoin has entered an area historically associated with long-term accumulation rather than speculative excess. The key question, however, is not whether Bitcoin is cheap relative to its historical trend, but whether global liquidity conditions are ready to support the next sustained rally.

Fidelity’s Power Law Model Signals a Familiar Opportunity

Unlike traditional valuation models, the Bitcoin Power Law attempts to explain Bitcoin’s long-term price trajectory using logarithmic growth rather than fixed market cycles. The framework plots Bitcoin’s entire trading history inside three gradually rising curves: an upper resistance band, a central trendline representing fair value, and a lower support boundary where previous bear markets have consistently found their floor.

According to Timmer’s latest chart, that lower support currently sits around $58,000, with Bitcoin trading near $62,700, leaving the asset less than 10% above a level that has historically marked major turning points.

The model has demonstrated notable consistency over the past decade. During the 2015 bear market, Bitcoin bottomed only slightly below the projected support curve. Similar behavior occurred during the capitulation phases of 2018 and 2022, when prices stabilized close to the Power Law floor before beginning multi-year recoveries.

Although no technical model guarantees future performance, the historical alignment has made the Power Law one of the more widely followed long-term valuation frameworks among institutional investors.

Fidelity's Power Law Model Signals a Familiar Opportunity

Fidelity’s Power Law Model Signals a Familiar Opportunity

Accumulation Indicators Are Flashing Again

Beyond the support line itself, Timmer highlights two additional indicators that have reached levels previously associated with Bitcoin cycle lows.

The first measures Bitcoin’s deviation from its long-term Power Law trendline. That reading has fallen to approximately -56%, placing the asset firmly inside what Fidelity labels the “accumulation zone.” Similar readings occurred only during the market bottoms of 2018 and 2022.

A second indicator compares Bitcoin’s performance against gold over a rolling 52-week period. The Bitcoin-to-gold ratio has dropped to roughly -100%, suggesting Bitcoin has significantly underperformed the precious metal over the past year.

Historically, these extreme readings have emerged when investor sentiment toward Bitcoin reached maximum pessimism while long-term buyers quietly accumulated positions.

One important characteristic of the Power Law model is that support rises over time. That means Bitcoin does not necessarily need to fall to $58,000 for the support test to occur. If prices simply consolidate while the support curve gradually climbs, the market could still complete the historical pattern through sideways trading rather than another sharp decline.

Liquidity Remains the Missing Catalyst

Despite the encouraging technical setup, Timmer has deliberately stopped short of declaring that Bitcoin has bottomed.

His primary concern is macroeconomic liquidity.

According to Timmer, the speculative premium that propelled Bitcoin above $120,000 during last year’s rally has largely disappeared. At the same time, global money supply growth has slowed, reducing the amount of excess liquidity that typically fuels risk assets.

Without renewed monetary expansion or improving financial conditions, Bitcoin could remain trapped near its support zone for an extended period before any meaningful recovery begins.

This view aligns with previous Bitcoin bear markets. The bottoms in 2015, 2018, and 2022 were not followed by immediate V-shaped rebounds. Instead, Bitcoin spent several months trading sideways before improving macro conditions allowed a new bull market to emerge.

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Performance on July 14, 2026 (Source: CoinMarketCap)Bitcoin (BTC) Price Performance on July 14, 2026 (Source: CoinMarketCap)

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Performance on July 14, 2026 (Source: CoinMarketCap)

Capital Rotation Has Shifted Away From Bitcoin

Another observation from Timmer’s analysis is that institutional capital has not disappeared entirely—it has simply moved elsewhere.

According to Fidelity, speculative investors first rotated from Bitcoin into gold as macro uncertainty increased. More recently, capital has continued flowing toward semiconductor and artificial intelligence stocks, sectors that currently offer stronger earnings momentum.

That rotation helps explain why Bitcoin has struggled despite continued institutional adoption through spot Bitcoin ETFs and growing corporate interest in digital assets.

While short-term momentum traders have largely exited the market, longer-term investors appear to be accumulating instead. On-chain analytics from firms including Coinglass have also shown continued buying activity among larger Bitcoin holders during recent weakness, even as overall market sentiment remained subdued.

Total Bitcoin Spot ETF Net Inflow (USD) (Source: Coinglass)Total Bitcoin Spot ETF Net Inflow (USD) (Source: Coinglass)

Total Bitcoin Spot ETF Net Inflow (USD) (Source: Coinglass)

Why the Power Law Still Matters

The Power Law has attracted attention not simply because it identifies potential bottoms, but because it has historically highlighted both market extremes.

During previous bull markets, Bitcoin repeatedly approached the model’s upper boundary before major corrections followed. Likewise, the lower boundary has consistently marked periods when downside risk became increasingly limited relative to long-term upside potential.

This symmetry gives the framework more credibility than models that focus exclusively on bullish price projections.

Still, Timmer acknowledges that the Power Law should be viewed as a valuation framework rather than a precise timing tool. Different analysts produce slightly different versions of the model, placing current support anywhere between approximately $51,000 and $58,000 depending on methodology.

For long-term investors, however, those differences may be less significant than the broader conclusion: Bitcoin is trading much closer to historically attractive valuation levels than it was during last year’s euphoric highs.

What Investors Should Watch Next

Whether Bitcoin ultimately finds support around current levels will likely depend less on technical analysis than on broader macroeconomic conditions.

Investors should monitor several key indicators over the coming months, including global money supply growth, Federal Reserve policy expectations, institutional ETF flows, and changes in the Bitcoin-to-gold ratio.

A sustained recovery in liquidity would strengthen the historical case made by Fidelity’s Power Law model. Until then, Bitcoin may continue behaving as Timmer suggests—drifting near long-term support while patient investors quietly accumulate.

For now, the Power Law does not promise that Bitcoin has reached its absolute bottom. Rather, it indicates that the market has once again entered a region where previous cycles shifted from fear toward long-term opportunity, even if confirmation takes months rather than days.



Source link

Zapper, Early DeFi Portfolio Dashboard, Will Shut Down After Seven Years

0
Zapper, Early DeFi Portfolio Dashboard, Will Shut Down After Seven Years


Zapper has just confirmed that it will cease operations after nearly 7 years, according to an announcement posted on the project’s official X channel on July 9. This move closes the journey of one of the early DeFi portfolio-tracking tools that emerged in the market’s initial stages.

What Happened

Zapper stated that the platform will completely shut down on August 3, including zapper.xyz, mobile apps, and API services. At its peak, Zapper reported serving over 2 million monthly active users and processing over $13 billion in transaction volume.

For many crypto users, Zapper was one of the familiar tools to track wallets, positions, and on-chain activities in a single interface. This platform once helped aggregate many pieces of DeFi data, which were scattered across various protocols, into one place, thereby helping users quickly view their portfolios without having to open each individual app.

What Led to the Wind-Down

In its official announcement, the project stated that it had considered many different options before reaching the decision to wind down. The project said some paths had been pursued to the maximum extent, but ultimately were still not enough to keep the product operating in its old direction.

This decision was made after a process of reassessing the platform’s operational capabilities. For consumer-facing products in crypto, especially tools heavily dependent on multi-source on-chain data and a continuously changing user experience, continuing to run a platform for a long time often requires more than just a familiar community or an established brand.

User Impact

Zapper users will need to note the August 3 deadline, when the platform’s services will be completely shut down, including zapper.xyz, mobile apps, and API services. According to the team’s announcement, existing API users will receive a transition support email. Users holding balances in the Zapper Wallet can also export their private keys via Privy.

For users who have long used Zapper as a comprehensive portfolio dashboard, the closure could cause a disruption in their portfolio tracking process if they do not save the necessary data. On-chain assets still remain on the blockchain or in their respective wallets, but the familiar interface layer to quickly check portfolio status will disappear, forcing users to switch to other tools before the service completely shuts off.

Market Context

Zapper started as a portfolio tracker built by the founder for personal use before expanding into a product serving millions of users. Zapper’s exit from the game reflects the familiar competitive pressure in the DeFi tooling sector, where dashboards that help aggregate on-chain data into one place are often easily replaceable as the ecosystem expands. In the early stages, products like Zapper had an advantage because they simplified the user experience and made fragmented data easier to track.

As the number of chains, protocols, and wallets increased, first-mover advantage was no longer enough to guarantee a long-term position. Zapper’s wind-down therefore shows that tools serving DeFi must also continuously prove their demand, operational models, and adaptability if they want to survive across multiple market cycles.

This shows that consumer-facing DeFi tools must also prove their demand and adaptability across multiple market cycles.



Source link

Sony Bank Gains U.S. Approval for Stablecoin Trust Bank – NFT Plazas

0
Sony Bank Gains U.S. Approval for Stablecoin Trust Bank – NFT Plazas


Sony’s online banking arm has secured conditional approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish a national trust bank subsidiary, positioning the Japanese entertainment and technology giant to issue and manage a dollar-denominated stablecoin in the United States.

The new entity, Connectia Trust, National Association, will be based in New York and capitalized with $40 million. Sony Bank, part of Sony Financial Group, will own the subsidiary outright. The board of Sony Financial Group Inc. ratified the plan on July 6, and the company disclosed the OCC’s conditional approval the following day.

Formation of Connectia Trust is expected this month, but the subsidiary is not slated to begin commercial stablecoin operations until 2027. As a national trust bank, Connectia will be permitted to hold customer assets and manage stablecoin reserves, but it cannot accept cash deposits or extend loans — restrictions typical of this class of OCC-chartered institution. Final approval still hinges on additional OCC review and sign-off from Japanese regulators before any token can be issued.

Sony Financial Group described the trust as intended to build a “medium- to long-term business foundation” for its digital asset ambitions. The framing suggests the stablecoin is meant less as a general-purpose payment rail competing head-on with market leaders, and more as an in-house settlement tool tied to Sony’s entertainment ecosystem. The company has previously indicated that U.S. customers could eventually use the token to pay for video games, anime content, and subscriptions across its PlayStation and entertainment platforms — a way to reduce reliance on credit-card processing fees.

Sony Bank Gains U.S. Approval for Stablecoin Trust Bank

Sony Bank Gains U.S. Approval for Stablecoin Trust Bank

A Crowded Field

Sony’s move lands in an increasingly competitive corner of the crypto industry. Stablecoin transaction volume hit a record $1.79 trillion in June, more than doubling year-over-year, according to Visa’s onchain dashboard. Dollar-pegged tokens account for over 99% of the roughly $311 billion stablecoin market, per DeFiLlama data, with Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC alone representing close to $250 billion of that total.

Stablecoin Market Cap (Source: DefilLama)Stablecoin Market Cap (Source: DefilLama)

Stablecoin Market Cap (Source: DefilLama)

That dominance hasn’t stopped a wave of new entrants from pursuing federal trust charters. The OCC has granted similar conditional approvals to Circle, Ripple, Paxos, BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Stripe-owned Bridge, among others. Large traditional banks, including Morgan Stanley, have also pursued charters of their own. The rush has drawn scrutiny in Washington — Sen. Elizabeth Warren has questioned whether the OCC is extending national trust charters to companies that don’t meet the standards set out in the National Bank Act.

Sony filed its original OCC application in October 2025. Under a December 2025 agreement, Bastion Platforms is expected to handle issuance and custody infrastructure for the eventual stablecoin, according to reporting on the filing.

Regulatory Backdrop

The approval comes as U.S. stablecoin oversight solidifies under the GENIUS Act, which established the first comprehensive federal framework for payment stablecoins. That legal clarity has been a driving factor behind the recent surge of trust-bank applications, as companies look to operate under a single federal regulator rather than a patchwork of state money-transmitter licenses.

A national trust charter also keeps issuers outside the deposit-insurance and prudential capital requirements that apply to full-service banks, while still subjecting them to OCC supervision — a middle ground that has proven attractive to both crypto-native firms and traditional financial institutions entering the space.

Sony’s Broader Position

The stablecoin push is one of several notable moves for Sony this year. The company also announced plans to end production of physical PlayStation game discs starting in 2028, part of a broader shift toward digital distribution — a decision that has drawn some backlash from collectors and longtime PlayStation users.

On the market side, Sony Group Corporation (NYSE: SONY) closed at $21.15 on July 8, 2026, down from a 52-week high of $30.34 and trading closer to its 52-week low of $19.32. The stock’s decline this year comes despite a mixed fiscal Q4 report in May, which showed record annual operating income alongside a net income dip tied to the absence of prior-year tax benefits. Analysts covering the stock currently rate it a consensus “Buy,” with price targets ranging up to $34.

Whether Connectia Trust becomes a meaningful new player in the stablecoin market — or remains a niche settlement tool for Sony’s own ecosystem — will depend on how quickly the company can clear its remaining regulatory hurdles and whether it can carve out demand in a market still dominated by two established incumbents.



Source link

Zapper’s Seven-Year Run in DeFi Comes to a Close – NFT Plazas

0
Zapper’s Seven-Year Run in DeFi Comes to a Close – NFT Plazas


Zapper, one of decentralized finance’s earliest and most recognizable portfolio dashboards, is shutting down for good. Co-founder and CEO Seb Audet announced on X that the platform will wind down completely on August 3, closing its website, mobile apps, and API services after nearly seven years in the market.

An Orderly Exit After Years of Building

Audet said the team weighed several paths forward before settling on a controlled shutdown rather than a last-minute scramble. “After close to 7 years building Zapper, I regret to announce that Zapper will be winding down. We evaluated a number of different options, pursued some to the fullest extent possible, and came to the realization that an orderly wind down is the best course of action,” Audet wrote.

He didn’t offer a detailed breakdown of the internal factors behind the decision, but in a follow-up reply to a user, he pointed to softening demand as the underlying driver, stating simply that “at the end of the day, the market decides.”

Audet also used the announcement to advocate for his team, describing the group as one that had scaled a serious product with deep technical expertise. “This is a team that scaled a product to millions of users and $13B in transaction volume, with deep onchain engineering expertise alongside ops people who know how to build and run things at scale,” he said, effectively opening the door for other companies to recruit Zapper’s engineers and operations staff.

Zapper CEO Announces Orderly Wind Down After 7-Years

Zapper CEO Announces Orderly Wind Down After 7-Years

From Hackathon Win to DeFi Summer Staple

Zapper’s origin traces back to 2019, when the project built early momentum by winning a DeFi hackathon hosted by Kyber, a result that helped it raise a $1.5 million seed round shortly after. The platform was formally founded in 2020 by Seb Audet and Suhail Gangji, built as a remote-first startup during the COVID-19 pandemic — timing that placed it right at the center of the 2020 “DeFi Summer” boom, when users needed a simpler way to track fast-moving positions across multiple protocols.

That momentum carried into 2021, when Zapper closed a $15 million Series A led by Framework Ventures, with backing from Mark Cuban, Coinbase Ventures, and Ashton Kutcher’s Sound Ventures. Across its funding history, CryptoRank data cited in earlier reporting put Zapper’s total raise at roughly $16.5 million, while more recent figures place the total closer to $16.6 million across six funding rounds.

At its high point, the platform was genuinely significant infrastructure rather than a niche tool: Audet said Zapper served more than 2 million monthly active users and processed over $13 billion in cumulative transaction volume, offering features like token tracking, liquidity pool and yield farm monitoring, and airdrop discovery.

Not Without Setbacks

Zapper’s run wasn’t without turbulence. In April 2025, the platform suffered a social engineering attack in which attackers temporarily hijacked its domain and redirected users to a malicious page containing phishing traps. The company also tried to broaden its scope over time — Zapper V2 repositioned the product as a wider Web3 exploration tool covering NFTs, DAOs, and cross-chain activity, and in 2024 the team floated Zapper Protocol alongside a planned ZAP utility token, an initiative that never reached launch before the shutdown decision was made.

What Happens Next for Users

Because Zapper functioned primarily as a read-only interface rather than a custodian, the shutdown carries limited direct financial risk — the company never held user funds. The practical impact is operational: anyone relying on Zapper for wallet history, portfolio views, tax-related records, or API integrations will need to export their data and migrate to another tool before August 3. Existing API customers are expected to receive transition guidance by email ahead of the cutoff.

Part of a Broader Industry Retreat

Zapper’s closure lands amid a wider contraction across crypto infrastructure. Ctrl Wallet, a multi-chain self-custody wallet, is set to shut down on the same August 3 date, and Moonbeam is entering a wind-down transition period after July 31. Other recent casualties include Cardano analytics provider TapTools, Bitcoin-focused DeFi platform Botanix, Ordinals platform Ord.io, and NFT marketplaces including Nifty Gateway and Rodeo.

The pattern points to a structural issue for consumer-facing DeFi tools: platforms built during a venture-funded growth cycle now need durable revenue models, something that’s difficult for products historically offered for free. Notably, overall crypto venture capital actually rose 57.6% year-over-year to $4.21 billion in the second quarter, but that capital is increasingly concentrated among fewer companies, with deal counts falling in nine of the last ten quarters, according to RootData figures cited in industry reporting.

For now, Zapper’s exit closes the book on one of DeFi’s original consumer-facing success stories — a reminder that even platforms with real usage and blue-chip backing aren’t guaranteed to outlast a prolonged market downturn.



Source link

Vanguard Seeks Digital Assets Chief After Years of Crypto Caution – NFT Plazas

Vanguard Seeks Digital Assets Chief After Years of Crypto Caution – NFT Plazas


Vanguard has opened its first-ever search for a Head of Digital Assets, a senior hire that would put a single executive in charge of the roughly $12 trillion asset manager’s strategy for cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based finance. The move signals a gradual but notable shift in Vanguard’s stance on digital assets, following its recent decision to allow trading of crypto ETFs and mutual funds while still declining to launch its own crypto products.

What the role covers

According to the job posting, the firm is seeking a Head of Digital Assets in the United States to lead “digital assets strategy, roadmap, and enterprise execution” across Vanguard Personal Wealth. The successful candidate is expected to serve as Vanguard’s senior subject matter expert for digital assets across that division, tasked with building a multi-year roadmap and defining how the firm implements digital asset capabilities, products, and operating models. The posting, based in Dallas, calls for the executive to lead execution across product, technology, operations, legal and compliance teams, while also advising senior leadership on shifts in digital asset markets and representing Vanguard with regulators and industry groups.

Vanguard says the person in the role will determine how the firm participates in digital assets, covering everything from product evaluation and tokenization initiatives to custody models, blockchain settlement considerations, and the operating infrastructure needed to support such efforts. Rather than pointing toward a specific fund launch, the mandate spans much of the digital-asset stack — tokenization, stablecoins, wallets and custody, blockchain-enabled settlement, and broader operating models — with the new executive expected to weigh whether Vanguard should build these capabilities internally, partner with outside firms, or hold off entirely.

Vanguard Seeks Digital Assets Chief After Years of Crypto Caution

Vanguard Seeks Digital Assets Chief After Years of Crypto Caution

Years of public resistance

The hire stands out because of how firmly Vanguard has historically opposed crypto exposure. The firm has described Bitcoin as an “immature asset class” ill-suited to long-term investors, and it was one of the only major asset managers to decline offering a spot Bitcoin ETF after the products won U.S. approval in 2024, even as BlackRock, Fidelity and Franklin Templeton built large crypto ETF businesses. In 2024, Vanguard stated it had “no plans to offer Vanguard Bitcoin ETFs or other crypto-related products,” explaining that “cryptocurrencies’ high volatility runs counter to our goal of helping investors generate positive real returns over the long term.”

CEO Salim Ramji, who joined Vanguard from BlackRock in mid-2024 after running the iShares business behind the industry-leading iShares Bitcoin ETF (IBIT), reinforced that stance before formally taking over, telling Barron’s that Vanguard’s decision not to offer its own bitcoin ETF was “entirely consistent” with its investment philosophy and that consistency in a firm’s product lineup mattered.

That posture began softening in December 2025, when Vanguard announced it would allow trading of mutual funds and ETFs that primarily invest in crypto on its brokerage platform, with the firm’s head of brokerage and investments, Andrew Kadjeski, noting that “cryptocurrency ETFs and mutual funds have been tested through periods of market volatility, performing as designed while maintaining liquidity.” 

The contrast wasn’t lost on industry watchers. ETF analyst Nate Geraci noted on X that Vanguard had once blocked clients from buying spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs on its brokerage platform, adding simply, “Life moves pretty fast.”

Crypto ETF Net Flow (Source: Coinglass)Crypto ETF Net Flow (Source: Coinglass)

Crypto ETF Net Flow (Source: Coinglass)

A broader industry pattern

Vanguard’s move follows similar hiring by its largest rival. In December 2025, BlackRock opened a search for seven digital asset positions — six based in the U.S. and one in Singapore — as it continues deepening its footprint in crypto, with its own IBIT fund now holding roughly $46.7 billion in net assets.

The tokenization push extends well beyond the two giants. Franklin Templeton and Ondo Finance have launched tokenized ETFs built for round-the-clock trading through crypto wallets outside the U.S., Franklin Templeton has expanded its BENJI tokenized money market fund with new distribution through MoonPay Trade, and State Street has introduced a stablecoin reserve money market fund alongside a tokenized liquidity product for on-chain cash management.

Market data underscores why asset managers are paying attention. Figures from RWA.xyz put the tokenized real-world asset market at roughly $30.87 billion in distributed value, including about $14.86 billion in tokenized U.S. Treasuries — a segment where BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, WisdomTree, Ondo Finance and Fidelity-linked products are already competing.

Demand for crypto ETFs themselves has also proven resilient. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs held $74.37 billion in net assets as of July 2, and inflows returned with $221.72 million after a 10-day outflow streak, pushing total net assets to roughly $77.32 billion. Competition among issuers has separately pushed some Bitcoin ETF expense ratios as low as 0.14%.

No product commitment — yet

Despite the scope of the new role, Vanguard has not said it plans to launch its own crypto ETF or tokenized fund. Instead, the posting suggests the firm wants a senior executive to methodically study product design, risk controls, custody arrangements, servicing, pricing and client education before committing to any specific offering. For a firm long defined by caution toward speculative assets, the creation of a leadership role dedicated to digital assets — rather than another narrow ETF-distribution decision — is itself the headline: institutions of Vanguard’s scale generally don’t build out senior strategy functions for categories they intend to keep ignoring.



Source link

Binance Sees $3.3B Monthly Outflows as ETH Withdrawals Hit 3-Year High

Binance Sees .3B Monthly Outflows as ETH Withdrawals Hit 3-Year High


Binance recorded over $3.3 billion in net outflows over the past month, according to DefiLlama data, while the number of ETH withdrawal transactions from Binance surged to over 166,000 in a single day, a multi-year high of over three years, according to CryptoQuant. This development occurred as ETH traded around $1,790, highlighting a trend of asset migration away from centralized exchanges, even as Binance maintains its massive asset scale and liquidity.

Binance Records $3.3B in Monthly Net Outflows

Data from DefiLlama shows that Binance recorded approximately $3.304 billion in net outflows over the most recent month, the highest among the centralized exchange group tracked on the CEX Transparency dashboard. On the same data dashboard, Binance remains the exchange with the largest asset scale, holding approximately $136.607 billion in assets and $116.384 billion in clean assets.

Short-term capital flows have become less strained compared to the monthly timeframe. Over the past 7 days, Binance recorded approximately $553.34 million in net outflows, while capital flows over the last 24 hours turned positive with approximately $121.33 million in inflows. This variance indicates that while asset withdrawal pressure remains apparent on the monthly timeframe, it has cooled down over shorter periods.

Binance 30-day netflow

Binance 30-day netflow. Source: DefiLlama

A negative netflow indicates that the volume of assets leaving Binance’s identified wallets was larger than the volume of assets entering during the same measurement period. At $3.304 billion, the outflows over the past month are equivalent to roughly 2.4% of the total assets tracked on the exchange by DefiLlama.

ETH Withdrawals Surge to Multi-Year High

In tandem with the negative capital flows on the monthly timeframe, the number of ETH withdrawal transactions from Binance also spiked sharply. According to CryptoQuant, Binance recorded over 166,000 ETH withdrawal transactions in a single day, the highest level in more than three years.

Ethereum Withdrawing Transactions on BinanceEthereum Withdrawing Transactions on Binance

Ethereum Withdrawing Transactions on Binance. Source: CryptoQuant

This surge indicates a sudden spike in activities moving ETH off Binance during a period when the market is closely monitoring capital flows across centralized exchanges. The withdrawal transactions indicator does not directly reflect the USD value of the ETH volume leaving the exchange, but it shows that the frequency of users or related wallets executing ETH withdrawal transactions has increased sharply.

ETH is currently trading around $1,790, with a market capitalization of over $215 billion and a 24-hour trading volume exceeding $14 billion, according to the latest market data. Given the massive trading scale of ETH on exchanges, this sudden spike in withdrawal transactions serves as an additional signal for the asset migration trend away from Binance over the past month.

Why Traders May Be Moving ETH Off Exchanges

Activities withdrawing ETH from exchanges usually increase when investors want to reduce the volume of assets readily available on trading venues. For ETH, popular destinations may include self-custody wallets, staking, custody services, or DeFi protocols, where assets are used as collateral to provide liquidity or to generate yield.

Staking is a notable factor because ETH can generate yield directly on the Ethereum network or through liquid staking products. If the withdrawal transactions are connected to staking wallets or institutional custody wallets, this signal would lean more toward long-term holding rather than preparation for selling on exchanges.

However, an increase in withdrawal transactions does not automatically imply bullish pressure. A portion of the activity could stem from market makers, trading desks, or wallet rebalancing processes across platforms. DefiLlama data also shows that Binance’s 24-hour capital flow has turned positive, indicating that asset flows on the exchange remain volatile in two directions rather than being a one-way exit.

Binance Liquidity Remains Large Despite Outflows

Despite monthly outflows exceeding $3.3 billion, Binance still maintains a massive asset scale and liquidity compared to the rest of the market. DefiLlama records that the exchange holds approximately $136.607 billion in assets and $116.384 billion in clean assets. Binance’s spot volume stands at around $8.012 billion, while its 24h open interest reaches approximately $23.244 billion.

The outflow level of $3.304 billion is equivalent to roughly 2.4% of total assets and about 2.8% of clean assets tracked on Binance by DefiLlama. This ratio indicates that while the negative capital flow during the month is notable, it remains within the context of the exchange’s massive asset scale.

Binance also maintains a Proof of Reserves system to publish user asset data, while independent tracking dashboards like DefiLlama continue to record capital flow fluctuations across exchange wallets. The divergence between outflows on the monthly timeframe and positive inflows over the last 24 hours shows that capital flow pressure has not occurred uniformly across all timeframes.

What to Watch Next

In the coming days, the market will monitor whether short-term capital flows on Binance continue to improve after 24h inflows turned positive by about $121.33 million and 7-day outflows narrowed to around $553.34 million. If this trend persists, the monthly outflow level of over $3.3 billion could begin to decrease in subsequent updates.

For ETH, the key metrics are withdrawal transactions, ETH netflow, and exchange reserve on Binance. CryptoQuant data shows that the number of ETH withdrawal transactions climbed to over 166,000 in a single day, but the next direction of asset flows will depend on whether ETH continues to leave the exchange or returns to trading wallets in the upcoming sessions.



Source link

Azuki TCG: Can a Web3 Anime Brand Win Over the Local Card Shop? | NFT CULTURE | NFT News | Web3 Culture | NFTs & Crypto Art

Azuki TCG: Can a Web3 Anime Brand Win Over the Local Card Shop? | NFT CULTURE | NFT News | Web3 Culture | NFTs & Crypto Art


Azuki has always been more than a profile picture project. At its best, it has been a thesis about what happens when crypto-native communities, anime aesthetics, collectibles, gaming, and entertainment IP start to collapse into one another.

Now that thesis is being tested in one of the most unforgiving arenas in fandom: the physical trading card game market.

With the launch of Azuki TCG: Gates Awakened (AZK-01), Azuki is attempting something far more ambitious than a merchandise drop. It is trying to move from digital collectibility into analog play. From wallet flex to tabletop strategy. From Web3-native hype to the local game store ecosystem.

And that matters.

Because if Azuki TCG works, it could become one of the clearest examples yet of an NFT-born brand crossing the bridge into mainstream entertainment without requiring the audience to care about wallets, tokens, or crypto mechanics at all. Featured on CardCore.xyz the leading news source for all things collectible cards.

From The Garden to the Game Table

Azuki began as one of the most recognizable anime-inspired NFT projects in Web3. Created by Chiru Labs, the collection quickly built a passionate collector base around its distinct visual identity, lore, and “Garden” mythology.

It also came with baggage. In 2022, founder Zagabond faced significant criticism after revealing involvement with earlier NFT projects that many collectors felt had been abandoned. That history remains part of the Azuki story, and it is one reason some traditional TCG players may approach the new card game with skepticism.

But the move into physical cards is not a small pivot. It is a serious attempt to build Azuki as an entertainment franchise, not just a blockchain collection.

The official Azuki TCG site now lists Gates Awakened (AZK-01) as “out now,” with players choosing between Lightning, Water, Earth, and Fire starter decks and battling across the game’s two major zones: the Garden and the Alley. The site also emphasizes that every card is hand drawn by artists, with featured cards illustrated by creators including Arnold Tsang, also known as Steamboy33.

That detail matters because Azuki’s strongest asset has always been taste. The brand’s visual identity is polished, collectible, and immediately legible. In a TCG market where art direction can be just as important as mechanics, Azuki is entering with a real advantage.

The Art Direction Is the Hook

The first thing players and collectors will notice is the art.

Azuki TCG leans hard into a cel-shaded anime aesthetic, with premium card treatments designed to make the physical product feel like more than a simple licensing extension. For an NFT-native brand, this is a smart move. Azuki’s community was built around visual identity, scarcity, and collectibility. A physical trading card game lets the project translate those same instincts into cardboard.

That translation is important. NFTs taught a generation of collectors to care about editions, traits, provenance, metadata, rarity, and social signaling. TCGs already had many of those behaviors decades before NFTs existed. Chase foils, alt arts, serialized cards, graded slabs, tournament promos, and sealed product speculation all live in the same psychological neighborhood.

Azuki TCG sits directly at that intersection.

The question is whether the cards are merely collectible, or whether the game underneath is strong enough to sustain repeat play.

How Azuki TCG Plays

Azuki TCG is a two-player card game built around 50-card decks, Leaders, Gates, Entities, Spells, Weapons, and a separate resource system.

The most important design choice is the IKZ resource deck. Instead of relying on traditional in-deck mana or energy cards, players use a separate 10-card IKZ resource deck. That helps reduce one of the most frustrating parts of many TCGs: losing because you simply did not draw the resources needed to play your cards.

That puts Azuki closer to modern card game design trends seen in games like Hearthstone, One Piece Card Game, and other systems that try to make resource development more predictable.

The battlefield is split into two horizontal areas:

The Alley is the protected back row, where players can stage Entities and prepare future plays.

The Garden is the active front row, where combat and direct pressure happen.

The game’s signature idea is the Gate mechanic. Once per turn, a player can use their Gate to “portal” an Entity from the Alley into the Garden. When that happens, the Entity’s Gate Power can trigger, creating a tactical push-and-pull between developing your back row and committing threats to the front line.

That is where Azuki TCG gets interesting. The game is not just asking, “Can you pay for the card?” It is asking, “When do you reveal your plan?” and “How long can you afford to set up before your opponent pressures you?”

That kind of spatial tension gives the game its own identity.

Gates Awakened: The First Set

The inaugural set, Gates Awakened (AZK-01), introduces the Azuki universe through a 148-card booster set. According to ICv2’s June 2026 preview, the product launched with booster display boxes priced at $119.99 MSRP and starter decks priced at $12.99 MSRP. Booster boxes include 24 packs, with 12 cards per pack.

The four starter decks are built around Azuki’s elemental leaders:

Raizan represents Lightning.

Shao represents Water.

Bobu represents Earth.

Zero represents Fire.

The starter decks are especially important because TCGs need a low-friction entry point. A collector might buy a booster box because the art is beautiful. A player needs a deck they can open, sleeve, and learn with immediately.

Azuki appears to understand that distinction.

Organized Play Is the Real Test

A trading card game does not live on aesthetics alone.

Beautiful cards can create a launch spike. Organized play creates a community. Weekly locals, regional events, tournament coverage, prize support, judge infrastructure, and deck-building content are what turn a new TCG from a novelty into a habit.

Azuki is clearly aware of this. In March 2026, Azuki announced a $100,000 prize pool commitment for its inaugural competitive season and named CoreTCG as its official tournament organizer. CoreTCG is known for supporting large-scale TCG events, including Yu-Gi-Oh! YCS events, Bandai Nationals, and Bandai Card Fests.

That is not a casual signal. That is Azuki telling the market it wants the game to be taken seriously by competitive players, not just NFT collectors.

The official Azuki TCG site also highlights local card shop partners, store locator functionality, competitive play, event updates, and an app ecosystem around the game.

This is the part that may determine whether Azuki TCG has staying power. The game needs more than collectors ripping packs. It needs people showing up on a Tuesday night to test decks, argue matchups, trade cards, and build local metagames.

Why This Matters for NFTs

For NFTCulture, the most interesting part of Azuki TCG is not simply that an NFT project made a card game. It is that Azuki is testing a broader path for Web3 IP.

For years, NFT projects promised future games, shows, comics, toys, memberships, token-gated worlds, and entertainment ecosystems. Some delivered. Many did not. The gap between roadmap language and actual consumer products became one of the defining credibility problems of the NFT market.

Azuki TCG is different because it does not ask the mainstream player to understand Web3 first.

You do not need an NFT to play.

You do not need a crypto wallet.

You do not need to mint anything.

You can walk into a card shop, buy a starter deck or booster pack, and play a game with another person.

That is powerful because it flips the usual adoption funnel. Instead of asking mainstream consumers to enter Web3, Azuki is pushing a Web3-born brand into a format consumers already understand.

That may be the future of NFT IP: not forcing everything on-chain, but using blockchain-native communities as the launchpad for brands that can move across physical, digital, and experiential formats.

The Skepticism Is Fair

Azuki TCG will still have to earn trust.

Traditional TCG players are not easy to impress. They have seen plenty of games launch with beautiful art, big promises, and early hype, only to disappear once organized play slows down or product support becomes inconsistent.

The NFT connection cuts both ways. For Web3 collectors, it creates instant cultural relevance. For some tabletop players, it may create hesitation.

That is why Azuki’s decision to make the game fully playable as a physical TCG is so important. The product cannot rely on tokenomics. It has to stand on gameplay, art, distribution, community, and support.

That is a healthier test.

The Verdict

Azuki TCG is one of the more compelling experiments in NFT-to-mainstream IP we have seen.

It does not feel like a simple merch extension. It feels like an attempt to build a durable entertainment product around a crypto-native brand. The art is strong. The mechanics appear modern and accessible. The organized play commitment is meaningful. And the retail strategy gives Azuki a shot at reaching players far outside its original holder base.

The challenge now is consistency.

Can Azuki support the game beyond the launch window? Can it keep local stores engaged? Can it create a competitive scene that players care about? Can it convert skeptics who have no interest in NFTs but love great card games?

If the answer is yes, Azuki TCG could become a case study in how Web3 brands evolve beyond speculation and into culture.

Not by abandoning their origins.

But by building something people can actually play.

TL;DR

Azuki TCG: Gates Awakened is a major test for NFT-born intellectual property. Built around premium anime-inspired art, modern resource mechanics, spatial gameplay across the Garden and Alley, and a serious organized play push, Azuki is trying to prove that a Web3-native brand can compete in the physical trading card game market. The NFT history brings skepticism, but the game’s fiat-friendly, no-wallet-required retail approach may be exactly what Web3 IP needs to reach mainstream audiences.

 



Source link

BONK DAO Loses $20 Million After Attacker Buys Governance Vote to Drain Treasury – NFT Plazas

BONK DAO Loses  Million After Attacker Buys Governance Vote to Drain Treasury – NFT Plazas


A governance exploit has cost the BonkDAO treasury an estimated $20 million, after an attacker spent roughly $4.4 million acquiring enough BONK tokens to push through a malicious proposal that automatically transferred the funds to a wallet under their control.

The incident, which unfolded over the course of a week and culminated early Monday, has reignited debate over whether onchain governance — long pitched as a transparent, community-driven alternative to centralized control — is fundamentally vulnerable to anyone willing to pay for a temporary majority.

How the Attack Unfolded

The scheme began on June 30, when an anonymous wallet submitted a proposal titled “BIP #76 – Sowellian BonkDAO” to the project’s onchain governance platform. On its surface, the proposal read like a reform pitch, promising to “rebuild from the ashes, monetize holdings, stop the bleeding,” and install new governance members. Buried within it, however, was a single operative instruction: transfer roughly 4.426 trillion BONK tokens — the entire contents of the treasury — to a wallet ending in “JHvQ.”

To pass, the proposal needed “yes” votes equal to at least 1% of BONK’s total supply, the quorum threshold set by the DAO’s rules. Over July 4 and 5, a separate wallet methodically acquired exactly that amount, spending about $4.4 million buying BONK on the exchanges Bybit and Binance, with some reports indicating additional tokens were borrowed through DeFi lending platforms, according to onchain analytics firm Lookonchain.

When the vote closed, only seven wallets had participated — against more than 18,000 total DAO members — a turnout of just 2.9%. The proposal cleared quorum by a razor-thin margin: 882.38 billion BONK in favor against an 879.95 billion threshold, almost exactly matching the stake the attacker had spent days assembling. Effectively, the “99.9% yes” result represented a single actor voting in agreement with itself.

How the Attack Unfolded

How the Attack Unfolded

The Drain and the Aftermath

Once the proposal passed, the transfer executed automatically, moving roughly $20 million worth of BONK out of the treasury and into the attacker’s wallet. According to blockchain intelligence firm Chainalysis, about $188,000 was sent to a centralized exchange within hours, likely an attempt to begin cashing out, while the remaining roughly $19 million was moved to a multisignature wallet requiring multiple approvals to access.

Just over an hour after the drain, the attacker began selling off the BONK tokens originally purchased to manipulate the vote, offloading about $5.3 million worth — while retaining the stolen treasury holdings.

BonkDAO confirmed the attack publicly, describing it as a malicious governance proposal and stating it had identified the exchange wallets used to accumulate voting power ahead of the proposal. “During the investigation, BonkDAO identified the exchange wallets used to purchase BONK ahead of the proposal,” the project posted on X, adding that law enforcement had been notified and that it continues working with exchanges, bridges, and the Solana Foundation to trace and potentially recover funds.

BonkDAO confirmed the attack publiclyBonkDAO confirmed the attack publicly

BonkDAO confirmed the attack publicly

In response, South Korean exchange Upbit and U.S.-based Kraken both suspended deposits and withdrawals of BONK, with Upbit citing “user protection measures following the circumstances of a security incident.”

Market Impact

BONK, once a top-100 token by market capitalization, fell roughly 7% in the 24 hours following disclosure of the attack, trading around $0.0000043 — a level roughly 93% below its all-time high of $0.000058. Some reporting places the decline closer to 10%, reflecting differences in the exact measurement window as the story developed throughout the day.

BONK Price Performance on 07/7/2026 (Source: CoinMarketCap)BONK Price Performance on 07/7/2026 (Source: CoinMarketCap)

BONK Price Performance on 07/7/2026 (Source: CoinMarketCap)

A Legitimate Attack

What sets the BonkDAO incident apart from typical DeFi exploits is that no code was broken and no private keys were stolen. Every action — the token purchases, the proposal submission, the vote, and the payout — was a valid, rule-following transaction on Solana. That has fueled a familiar argument within crypto circles over whether the episode constitutes theft or simply a ruthless but technically permitted use of a DAO’s own governance mechanics.

BonkDAO and blockchain analytics firms have characterized the episode as an attack, a framing reinforced by the involvement of law enforcement. Critics within the community have also pointed to a broader governance failure: the proposal sat visible on BonkDAO’s platform for nearly six days with minimal scrutiny before the vote concluded and the transfer executed as programmed.

The underlying lesson, analysts note, is structural. Any treasury governed by a system where voting power can simply be purchased is only as secure as the cost of assembling a controlling stake — and in this case, that cost was a fraction of the treasury’s value. With $4.4 million in capital, the attacker walked away having netted roughly $20 million, minus whatever portion is eventually recovered or frozen by exchanges and investigators.

BonkDAO has not yet detailed a formal remediation plan for preventing similar governance capture in the future, though its coordination with the Solana Foundation and multiple exchanges suggests recovery efforts remain active as of this writing.



Source link

Vitalik Buterin Outlines Lean Ethereum Path for Lighter Consensus, Validator Privacy

Vitalik Buterin Outlines Lean Ethereum Path for Lighter Consensus, Validator Privacy


On July 6, 2026, Vitalik Buterin published further details on the “Lean Ethereum” direction in a new series of updates to the Ethereum community, following recent discussions between researchers and client teams. The proposal focuses on making the consensus layer lighter, easier to upgrade, and more aligned with long-term goals such as privacy and post-quantum security. Although it is not yet a finalized hard fork, this content indicates that Ethereum is expanding its L1 roadmap to reduce protocol complexity over the coming years.

What Happened

On July 6, 2026, Buterin shared an updated strawmap of Ethereum L1, stating that this document follows recent discussions among Ethereum researchers in Berlin and client teams in Svalbard. The strawmap places Lean Ethereum on a multi-year trajectory, with long-term goals including a fast L1, a post-quantum L1, and a private L1.

In a follow-up update, Buterin dove deeper into the consensus branch of the roadmap, questioning how Lean Ethereum could become “aggressively more lean” while adding stronger validator privacy. The document titled “The Extremely Lean Chain” subsequently presented design directions for a lighter consensus chain, where Ethereum reduces the amount of data that must be maintained directly within the protocol and relies more heavily on cryptographic proofs.

Nevertheless, this remains a research proposal, not an announcement of a finalized hard fork deployment or protocol changes. This series of updates indicates that Lean Ethereum is being concretized from a long-term vision of a leaner, more private, and quantum-resistant L1 into technical directions that can be discussed, verified, and later introduced into the standardization process by the Ethereum community.

Inside The Proposal

Buterin targets a core part of the beacon chain: the amount of data the protocol must maintain for each validator. Currently, each validator in the consensus state is attached to multiple data fields, ranging from a 48-byte public key, 32-byte withdrawal credentials, and an 8-byte active balance to slashed status and epoch milestones related to activation, exit, and withdrawal. As the validator count grows, this state makes epoch processing heavier, especially if Ethereum wants to move toward few-slot or single-slot finality.

The “extremely lean” design proposes reducing the per-validator state to a 1-byte effective balance and a 5-byte pubkey index. The remaining data would be handled using proofs: validators monitor their own necessary data, prove whether they participated or did not participate in an attestation, calculate their new balance, and then submit that proof to the protocol.

In the initial description, Buterin used a one-day cycle for the balance update proof. Validators submitting proofs late would not be instantly slashed or excluded, but they cannot continue to attest until the update is complete. He also suggested that a one-hour cycle is the lower bound in terms of cost, while one day is a more conservative choice.

At a scale of 1 million validators, Buterin estimates the bitfield to be only around 128 kB, and the effective-balance tree around 1 MB. According to him, these structures can be proven using STARKs, but the proofs still need to be aggregated to avoid creating too much overhead for the protocol.

Privacy And Post-Quantum Angle

In addition to state reduction, Buterin’s proposal integrates validator privacy into the core design. In the next phase, the active validator registry could become a separate structure on a day-by-day basis. Validators would use a fresh pubkey every day, causing identities to be periodically re-anonymized rather than being tracked long-term through a fixed public key.

This design also aims to use ZK-STARKs so validators can prove their connection to a previous state without exposing their entire history. According to Buterin, this model could allow a validator identity to “re-randomize each day,” where only the validator itself knows the link between the old and new identity.

This proposal aligns with the post-quantum direction of Lean Ethereum. In an Ethereum Foundation blog post from July 2025, Justin Drake described Lean Ethereum as a 10-year vision that places hash-based cryptography at the center. The new strawmap also includes “post-quantum L1” and “private L1” among the long-term goals for Ethereum L1.

Roadmap Context

The strawmap on strawmap.org is maintained by EF Architecture and is described as a “strawman L1 roadmap,” not an official roadmap adopted by the entire Ethereum ecosystem. This document serves as a coordination tool for researchers, client developers, and governance participants, with a vision extending to the end of the decade.

Ethereum L1 strawmap

Ethereum L1 strawmap. Source: Vitalik Buterin

According to ethereum.org, the closest upcoming upgrades, Glamsterdam and Hegotá, are both in the development phase, expected in H2 2026. Glamsterdam is currently tied to goals such as enshrined proposer-builder separation and block-level access lists. In the strawmap, longer-term upgrade directions are divided into three layers: consensus layer, data layer, and execution layer.

Lean Ethereum is therefore not a single upgrade, but a cluster of technical directions for L1. Lean consensus focuses on finality and a lighter beacon chain; lean data relates to data availability and blobs, while lean execution aims for an execution environment that is more friendly to proving while maintaining continuity with the EVM ecosystem.

What Comes Next

Buterin’s proposals will need to be researched, critiqued, and refined by the Ethereum community before they can enter the standardization process. Open questions include the actual proof costs for small validators, the ability to aggregate proofs at scale, the impact of validator anonymity on measuring decentralization, and how to handle slashing in a model where pubkeys change daily.

If The Merge in 2022 transitioned Ethereum from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake, Lean Ethereum focuses on a different layer of change: making L1 lighter, easier to verify, more private, and readier for post-quantum cryptography. The next steps will likely unfold through research discussions, EIPs, client implementations, testnets, and, finally, a hard fork.





Source link

Popular Posts

My Favorites

Bitcoin Whales Bought 1% of Circulating BTC Supply in Past 4...

In brief Bitcoin whales holding 10-10,000 BTC accumulated 0.9% of the total supply over four months, including 30,000 BTC over the past 48 hours. Despite...