Most leading cryptocurrencies have headed south over the past 24 hours, yet Hyperliquid’s HYPE is among the few to defy the latest red wave.
While it has risen by a mere 1.5%, one analyst assumed it might be gearing up for a staggering 40% pump in the near future.
The Necessary Condition
Currently, HYPE trades at around $54.70, placing it above the lower boundary of an important channel depicted by Ali Martinez. He suggested that if the asset holds the $53 level, a move up to $75 is possible. Also speaking on the matter was Altcoin Sherpa, who claimed that HYPE’s current level is “a good spot for a bounce.”
“Expecting huge tradfi trading volumes to come over the next few days too, which helps,” the analyst added.
Some on-chain signals also suggest that the asset may post additional gains in the short term. CoinGlass’s data shows that exchange outflows have dominated over inflows in the last several days, meaning that investors have transferred their holdings from centralized platforms to self-custody solutions. This is considered a bullish factor since it reduces the immediate selling pressure.
HYPE Exchange Netflow, Source: CoinGlass
The Bearish Case
The number of pessimists, though, seems even more well-represented. X user Cut recently doubted HYPE’s potential, reminding of its inability to break its all-time high and wondering if its price would make a substantial decline. Ryker joined the discussion, projecting a plunge to $32 “soon.”
Cryptorphic also gave their two cents, arguing that HYPE is showing weakness after losing its long-term trendline and its price has broken below the key ascending support. They believe that if the $57-$58 range turns into resistance, the breakdown could confirm further downside, envisioning a possible crash under $30.
Meanwhile, the whales’ activity reinforces the pessimists’ outlook. Lookonchain disclosed that large investors keep selling HYPE, revealing the case of a market participant who purchased over one million tokens at an average price of $18 17 months ago and unstaked and deposited the stash into FalconX and Coinbase, perhaps with the intention to cash out.
The waning institutional interest adds more weight to the bearish perspective. Spot HYPE ETFs, which attracted substantial capital in June, have not appealed to pension funds, hedge funds, and other conservative investors during most days of July, with outflows significantly dwarfing inflows.
BitMEX settled 35 derivatives today, July 30, closing any remaining positions and canceling open orders as the exchange moved another step toward its September shutdown.
BitMEX’s settlement log shows 33 contracts closing almost on the stroke of noon, at 12:00:05 UTC. EURUSD and USDCHF followed at 12:32:25 and 12:33:25 UTC. With prices now posted for the full 35-contract batch, the early settlement flagged in BitMEX’s July 22 notice is complete.
BitMEX attributed the delistings to insufficient trading interest and its planned exchange shutdown. It described the process as an early settlement, not a margin liquidation.
Before settlement, the contracts traded normally until 04:00 UTC, when BitMEX fixed the final funding rate, known as F0, using prices from the preceding eight hours. It then stopped calculating new funding and set the next funding rate to zero. The checkpoint established the funding input for settlement but did not end trading; that occurred at 12:00 UTC.
The table pairs each contract with the 30-minute reference index from BitMEX’s notice and the settled price now shown in the exchange’s public records.
Contract
Settlement index
Settled price
AAVEUSDT
.BAAVET30M
98.249
APEUSDT
.BAPET30M
0.1369
AUDUSD
.BAUDUSD30M
0.6979
AVAXUSDT
.BAVAXT30M
6.4892
BRENTUSDT
.BBRENTT30M
87.22
COINUSDT
.BCOINT30M
162.74
CRCLUSDT
.BCRCLT30M
62.43
CRVUSDT
.BCRVT30M
0.21052
DOTUSDT
.BDOTT30M
0.7677
EURUSD
.BEURUSD30M
1.1468
FILUSDT
.BFILT30M
0.6955
GBPUSD
.BGBPUSD30M
1.3379
GOOGLUSDT
.BGOOGLT30M
337.83
GRAMUSDT
.BGRAMT30M
1.4325
HOODUSDT
.BHOODT30M
90.55
INTCUSDT
.BINTCT30M
84.03
LINKUSDT
.BLINKT30M
8.4382
LOTUSDT
.BLOTT30M
0.006185
MSFTUSDT
.BMSFTT30M
428.84
MSTRUSDT
.BMSTRT30M
95.64
NATGASUSDT
.BNATGAST30M
2.7052
NVDAUSDT
.BNVDAT30M
193.59
OPNUSDT
.BOPNT30M
0.04626
SEIUSDT
.BSEIT30M
0.042
SHIBUSDT
.BSHIBT30M
0.000004631
TSLAUSDT
.BTSLAT30M
303.91
UNIUSDT
.BUNIT30M
4.1133
USDCAD
.BUSDCAD30M
1.4047
USDCHF
.BUSDCHF30M
0.8133
USDJPY
.BUSDJPY30M
162.97
WTIUSDT
.BWTIT30M
83.56
XBTETH
.BXBTETH30M
33.6603
XMRUSDT
.BXMRT30M
359.41
XPTUSDT
.BXPTT30M
1624.95
ZECUSDT
.BZECT30M
476.04
What settlement changed
The affected contracts expired, trading ended, and open orders were canceled. BitMEX exchanged funding based on F0 before closing remaining positions at the listed settlement prices. The exchange charged no settlement fee, added each contract’s lifetime profit or loss to the user’s Bitcoin or Tether balance, and removed the contracts from the Positions section.
The settlements were one step in a wider wind-down. BitMEX’s July 23 closure notice says new registrations stopped immediately. From 04:00 UTC on Aug. 26, users will only be able to reduce positions, and the venue may force-close positions before exchange services end at 04:00 UTC on Sept. 23. Any position remaining at closure will be force-closed, although users will retain account access to view balances and withdraw funds.
BitMEX said KYC-verified users who leave assets on the platform after closure may face an account fee, billed monthly, equal to the greater of $50 equivalent or 1% per year.
ZIGChain isn’t trying to tokenize equities for Americans who already own equities. It’s building regulated, yield-generating infrastructure for the 70–80% of the world that global finance has never served.
Guest: Abdul Rafay Gadit
Role: Co-Founder, ZIGChain
Host: Ashton Addison
Show: Blockchain Interviews
$5B+
RWA Pipeline
$70M
Tokenized in 3 Months
9–10%
USD Yield for End Users
$10
Minimum Investment
The color of your passport should not determine your future of finance. That’s not a marketing line for ZIGChain — it’s the thesis behind every architecture, compliance, and distribution decision the team has made since 2018.
Most tokenization projects solve the wrong problem. They take institutional-grade assets and make them available to a slightly different set of institutions. The capital stays concentrated, the access stays gated, and the “democratization” story stops at the press release.
ZIGChain, the Layer 1 blockchain built as the next evolution of Zignaly’s 600,000-user platform, is building toward a different outcome. Co-Founder Abdul Rafay Gadit sat down with Ashton Addison on Blockchain Interviews to break down what that actually looks like in practice — and why private credit, not tokenized Treasuries, is the most important real-world asset story nobody is telling.
Four Sides to a Problem Nobody Has Solved
Gadit’s framing is direct: tokenization is a four-sided problem, and the industry keeps treating it like a one-sided one. Technology — the thing everyone leads with — is actually the most commoditized component. “Tokenization is just five lines of code,” he said. The hard parts are the other three.
Framework
The Four-Sided Tokenization Problem
01
Origination
Finding and structuring quality real-world assets worth tokenizing. Most projects skip this entirely and rely on third-party origination they don’t control.
02
Technology
The onchain infrastructure. Commoditized. Battle-tested options exist on Ethereum and elsewhere. Differentiating here is table stakes, not a moat.
03
Regulation & Compliance
Licenses in South Africa, DIFC, and ADGM pending. VCC structure in DVI. Shariah certification. Each jurisdiction requires real operational infrastructure — not paper licenses.
04
Distribution
Getting assets to the right end users — not just institutions. A structuring problem, not a 1-to-1 problem. The same yield product delivered to banks, neobanks, DeFi protocols, and retail at $10 minimum.
ZIGChain’s position: most competitors own one side. ZIGChain is building all four.
Private Credit: The $17 Trillion Opportunity Nobody Is Talking About
When most people think about real-world asset tokenization, they think about tokenized US Treasuries, real estate, or commodities. Gadit thinks they’re looking in the wrong place.
Private credit — a $17 trillion global market — is where ZIGChain sees the biggest structural gap. Euro bonds and sovereign debt have minimum ticket sizes of $200,000 or more. That locks out everyone who isn’t an institutional investor. ZIGChain’s thesis is that the same 10%+ yields those instruments generate can be made accessible to anyone investing even $10.
“The Middle East has a $700 billion SME lending gap. These companies turn to private credit at high rates. We reduce their borrowing costs by 30% for some players.”
Abdul Rafay Gadit — Co-Founder, ZIGChain
In the last three months alone, ZIGChain has tokenized and distributed $70 million in assets. End users are earning 9–10% yield on dollar-denominated positions. The Beehive integration — tokenizing UAE SME private credit loans — is the clearest example of what this looks like in practice: institutional-grade yield, structured and distributed so that anyone can access it.
The Pipeline: Who’s Already In
Partner
Significance
Focus
Apex Group
$3.4T AUM
Fund administration & institutional asset management
Ellington Properties
UAE Real Estate
Dubai-based real estate developer exploring fractional, 24/7 real estate tokenization on ZIGChain
ADI Foundation
$1.5T (IITC)
Receivables financing, PayFi, SME working capital — ZIGChain’s first blockchain partner for ADI
Beehive
Live
UAE SME private credit loan tokenization
Wdora Finance
Live Vault
Yield generation on Zigchain + Zig Markets
Nawa Finance
Live Vault
Yield generation on Zigchain + Zig Markets
The Market Nobody Else Is Touching: Islamic Finance
ZIGChain received Shariah certification in December 2025. For most crypto projects, that would be a footnote. For ZIGChain, it’s a strategic unlock — access to a $5+ trillion Islamic finance market that operates under distinct compliance requirements most blockchain infrastructure simply hasn’t been built to meet.
This isn’t a product feature. It’s a distribution moat. Shariah-compliant DeFi products, combined with ZIGChain’s existing regulatory infrastructure across South Africa, DIFC, and the ADGM pending approval, means the team can operate across jurisdictions that are effectively closed to competitors.
Geographic Expansion: Dense, Not Wide
Region
Role
Rationale
UAE / GCC
Yield Generation
Billions already in pipeline. Regulatory relationships established. Shariah compliance live.
Saudi Arabia
Next Market
Natural extension from UAE regulatory framework.
Egypt / Pakistan
Distribution
Dense populations, dollar-based yield shields against local currency depreciation.
Bangladesh / Indonesia / India
Distribution
Fastest-growing, youngest demographics, highest internet penetration.
South Africa / Argentina / Brazil
Distribution
Existing regulatory footprint (SA). Latin America dollar demand.
Europe / Switzerland
Yield Generation
Institutional origination and compliance layer.
Gadit’s diversification philosophy comes directly from Zignaly’s playbook: at peak, their largest single market concentration was just 9% — Turkey. The geographic expansion strategy reflects the same logic. Crack local regulation in 3–4 dense markets, and $200–300 billion in scale follows quickly.
ZIG 2.0: The Revenue-Backed Token
The tokenomics story for ZIG is deliberately modeled on what Gadit sees as the defining proof of concept for this cycle: Hyperliquid. The thesis is simple — if a token is downstream of real fee revenue rather than a separate speculative layer, it holds value regardless of broader market conditions.
The Problem
Speculative Token
Token price tied to narrative and trading volume, not platform revenue. When sentiment shifts, there’s no fundamental floor. Buybacks funded from treasury, not operations.
vs
ZIGChain’s Approach
Revenue-Tied Token
Zig Markets generates real fee revenue. That revenue funds $ZIG buybacks. 50% of bought-back tokens burn. 50% goes to the ecosystem growth pool. Community governs the split via onchain vote.
The first buyback happened on the day of the Blockchain Interviews recording. The program is discretionary — community-governed via onchain votes rather than a fixed percentage commitment — which Gadit argues is structurally more sustainable than models that locked in fixed burn rates and couldn’t adapt when market conditions shifted.
The $128 Trillion Context
ZIGChain’s stated goal is $100 billion in assets under management. That sounds ambitious until you look at the denominator: the global fund administration market is $128 trillion. ZIGChain’s target is less than 0.1% of that market.
“Crack local regulation in 3–4 dense markets,” Gadit said, “and it scales to $200–$300 billion fast.” The fund administration market doesn’t require ZIGChain to displace anyone. It requires them to serve the massive portion of the world that the existing infrastructure has never reached.
“70–80% of the world’s population. Fastest-growing. Youngest. Highest internet penetration. That’s our distribution market.”
Abdul Rafay Gadit — Co-Founder, ZIGChain
That’s the bet ZIGChain is making. Not that they can out-compete Ethereum or BNB Chain for institutional assets. That they can build the infrastructure layer for the other 80% — the markets that institutional tokenization projects treat as an afterthought, if they think about them at all.
Watch the Full Interview — Blockchain Interviews
Learn More
Explore ZIGChain at zigchain.com and Zig Markets at zigmarkets.com. Follow @ZIGchain on X for updates on the buyback program, new vault launches, and geographic expansion.
The Celestia price prediction for 2026 suggests a maximum price of $1.5.
By 2029, TIA could attain a maximum price of $4.48.
In 2032, the TIA price forecast expects a maximum price of $7.53.
Celestia generated significant interest before its October 2023 launch. This was largely due to the strong backing from major crypto exchanges from the outset and the intriguing technical concepts behind the Celestia modular blockchain network.
In this article, we’ll provide a Celestia price prediction, analyze the factors driving these projections, and explore what the Celestia modular blockchain network brings to the broader crypto landscape.
Overview
Cryptocurrency
Celestia
Token
TIA
Price
$0.31 (-4%)
Market cap
$289 million
Trading volume (24-hour)
$26 Million
Circulating supply
889 Million TIA
All-time high
$20.91; Feb 10, 2024
All-time low
$0.3166; Oct 11, 2025
24-hour high
$0.332
24-hour low
$0.309
TIA price prediction: Technical analysis
Metric
Value
Current Price
$0.31
Price Prediction
$ 0.3044 (-1.35%)
Fear & Greed Index
26 (Fear)
Sentiment
Neutral
Volatility
5.59% (High)
Green Days
16/30 (53%)
50-Day SMA
$ 0.3776
200-Day SMA
$ 0.3848
14-Day RSI
58.67 (Neutral)
TIA price analysis: TIA price faces bearish pressure toward $0.31
TIA price analysis shows bearish pressure toward $0.31
Resistance for TIA is present at $0.3566
Support for TIA/USD is present at $0.2787
The TIA price analysis for 29 July confirms that TIA is witnessing bearish volatility toward the $0.31 level. Currently, sellers are controlling the price chart as they push the price toward support channels.
TIA price analysis 1-day chart: TIA price faces selling pressure toward $0.31
Analyzing the daily Celestia price chart, TIA price is facing rising selling momentum as sellers pushed the price toward $0.31 level. The recent selling pressure triggered strong liquidation among buyers today. The 24-hour volume surged to $1.31 million, showing a slight increase in trading activity today. TIA is trading at $0.31, declining by over 4% in the last 24 hours.
The RSI-14 trend line has dropped from its previous level and hovers around 33-level, showing that sellers are controlling the momentum. The SMA-14 level suggests lower volatility for the next few hours.
TIA/USD 4-hour price chart: Bears aim for a hold below moving averages
The 4-hour TIA price chart suggests TIA continues to experience bullish volatility around $0.31, creating a positive sentiment on the price chart. Currently, bears aim for a strong domination as the price prepares for a hold below EMA lines.
The BoP indicator is bullish at 0.28, suggesting that buyers are trying to build pressure near resistance levels and boost upward correction.
However, the MACD trend line has formed red candles above the signal line, and the indicator aims for positive momentum, strengthening buying positions.
Celestia price prediction: Levels and action
Daily simple moving average (SMA)
Period
Value
Action
SMA 3
$ 0.4022
BUY
SMA 5
$ 0.3935
BUY
SMA 10
$ 0.3881
BUY
SMA 21
$ 0.3800
BUY
SMA 50
$ 0.3771
BUY
SMA 100
$ 0.3717
BUY
SMA 200
$ 0.3846
BUY
Daily exponential moving average (EMA)
Period
Value
Action
EMA 3
$ 0.3993
BUY
EMA 5
$ 0.3964
BUY
EMA 10
$ 0.3905
BUY
EMA 21
$ 0.3829
BUY
EMA 50
$ 0.3779
BUY
EMA 100
$ 0.3851
BUY
EMA 200
$ 0.5113
SELL
What to expect from TIA price analysis next?
The hourly price chart confirms that bears are making efforts to prevent TIA prices from an immediate surge. However, if the TIA price successfully breaks above $0.3566, it may surge higher and touch the resistance at $0.4216.
If bulls cannot initiate a surge, the TIA price may drop below the immediate support line at $0.2787, resulting in a correction to $0.2360.
Is TIA a good investment?
Celestia and modular rollups enhance Ethereum‘s performance and expansion, impacting the competition among L1 public chains. Public chains like BNB Chain and Celo opt to integrate with Ethereum as L2 Rollups due to liquidity and cost advantages. Celestia’s scalability and user-friendly design make it an appealing choice for developers, offering additional scalability to the blockchain ecosystem.
Why is the TIA price down today?
TIA’s price is attempting to hold below $0.31 as sellers gain confidence, resulting in a downward push.
Will the TIA price reach $100?
Depending on the current market sentiment and buying demand, we might see TIA’s price touching the $100 milestone in the coming years. According to our prediction, the TIA price might hit the $100 mark in 2030.
Will the TIA price reach $1,000?
If the altcoin market remains robust in the coming years and Celestia develops more user-friendly utilities, its price might surpass $1K.
Is TIA a good long-term investment?
Yes, TIA is a good long-term investment option. As buyers’ interest grows and the network expands, we might see profitable returns. It is advised to do your own research and conduct investment advice before investing in the volatile crypto market.
Recent news/opinions on TIA
Celestia successfully completed its v9.0.4 network upgrade on July 1, with exchanges briefly pausing deposits and withdrawals while trading continued uninterrupted.
Celestia price prediction July 2026
The crypto market has been surging over the last few weeks, with BTC price aiming for $70K now. In July, we expect the TIA price to record a minimum of $0.3 and a maximum of $0.5, with an average of $0.4 in July.
Celestia Price Prediction
Potential Low
Potential Average
Potential High
Celestia Price Prediction July 2026
$0.3
$0.4
$0.5
Celestia price prediction 2026
Considering the current adoption of the crypto market and strong institutional interest, Celestia network might experience a growing adoption of modular blockchain technology. Hence, the outlook appears positive for the year ahead.
Based on a deep technical analysis of past TIA price data, the price of Celestia is predicted to reach a minimum level of $0.2, a potential maximum of $1.5, and an average trading price of $1.3 in 2026.
Celestia Price Prediction
Potential Low
Potential Average
Potential High
Celestia Price Prediction 2026
0.2
1.3
1.5
Celestia price prediction 2027-2032
Year
Minimum Price ($)
Average Price ($)
Maximum Price ($)
2027
1.8
2.54
2.59
2028
2.96
3.33
3.57
2029
3.87
4.46
4.48
2030
3.98
4.99
5.2
2031
4.77
5.2
5.48
2032
6.78
7.41
7.53
Celestia price prediction for 2027
According to price forecast and technical analysis, Celestia’s price is forecasted to range from a minimum of $1.8 to a maximum of $2.59 in 2027, with an average trading price of $2.54.
Celestia price prediction 2028
Based on deep technical analysis, the price of Celestia in 2028 is forecasted to range from a minimum of $2.96 to a maximum of $3.57, with an average trading value of $3.33.
Celestia price prediction 2029
The price of Celestia is forecasted to reach a minimum level of $3.87 in 2029. Additionally, the TIA price could reach a maximum level of $4.48, with an average forecast price of $4.46.
Celestia price prediction 2030
In 2030, the price of Celestia is predicted to range from a minimum of $3.98 to a maximum of $5.2, with an average trading price of $4.99.
Celestia (TIA) price prediction 2031
According to the forecast and technical analysis, the price of Celestia in 2031 is expected to range from a minimum of $4.77 to a maximum of $5.48, with an average value of $5.20.
Celestia price prediction 2032
In 2032, the price of Celestia is predicted to range from a minimum of $6.78 to a maximum of $7.53, with an average trading price of $7.41.
TIA price predictions 2026-2032
Celestia price prediction: Analysts’ TIA price forecast
Firm Name
2026
2027
Coincodex
$1.68
$1.38
DigitalCoinPrice
$1.06
$1.5
Cryptopolitan’s Celestia (TIA) price prediction
Based on recent market fluctuations and community hype, our analysis of TIA’s upcoming price targets is bullish. Based on a deep technical analysis of past TIA price data, the price of Celestia is predicted to reach a minimum level of $0.2, a potential maximum of $1.5, and an average trading price of $1.3 in 2026.
Celestia (TIA) historic price sentiment
Celestia price history
Token entered the market on October 31, 2023, at $2.10.
Entered the bullish phase on November 10 and peaked at $7.38 on November 18.
The price declined due to Binance’s fine news, hitting $5.30 by November 27.
Reached an all-time high of $15.14 on December 24.
Closed the year at $11.86.
Dropped to $16.23 on March 11, 2024.
Over the last few weeks in May, the price has declined below $10. However, due to Bitcoin’s robust comeback, TIA’s price recently regained the $10 mark.
TIA price declined steeply following Bitcoin’s decline toward $50K in June and recent days of July. This plunged the TIA price below $5.
In recent weeks of August, the price of TIA has been declining heavily, dropping below $4.2.
In September and October, the price of TIA witnessed massive fluctuation as it hovered between $3.5 and $6.8.
In November, the price of TIA faced increasing buying demand as its price got pushed toward $9.
In December, the price of TIA declined heavily as it closed 2024 below $5.
In January of 2025, TIA price dropped further as it recorded a low near $3.8.
In February, TIA crashed further and reached a low at around $2.3.
In March, the price of TIA again faced a correction and dropped toward $2.8; however, it later recovered.
By the end of April, the price of TIA surged toward $3. In May, TIA surged toward $3.4 but failed to maintain momentum.
As a result, the price dropped toward $2 in early June. By the end of June, TIA price declined toward $1.3.
In July, the price of TIA surged toward $2.3 but declined later toward $1.6 in early August.
By the end of August, TIA price declined below $1.5. In September’s end, the price of TIA continued to consolidate below $1.5.
In September, the price of TIA dropped significantly and touched a low below $1 in early November.
By the end of November, TIA dropped toward $0.6.
TIA price ended December 2025 at $0.45. However, its price made a surge toward $0.6 in early January of 2026.
In February, the price of TIA dropped heavily and touched a low around $0.3. By the end of March, TIA hovered around $0.3.
In April, TIA price surged toward $0.43. In May, TIA dropped toward $0.4. By the end of June, TIA hovered around $0.35.
Cardano Advances Decentralization as Specialist Partners Take Ownership of Core Infrastructure
Built by Many. Owned by All.
CARDANO / DECENTRALIZATION / VOLTAIRE ERA / IO LABS
Input Output (IO) today announced the next stage of Cardano’s decentralization, as a growing network of specialist partners takes ownership of core components including the Haskell node, Plutus, Daedalus, Hydra, and developer experience (DevRel).
Cardano has already decentralized its protocol and governance. This next step decentralizes how Cardano itself is built, extending ownership of core infrastructure to a wider base of specialist teams.
“
The last stage of the Voltaire era is full decentralization of node and reference blueprint development. Since 2024, IOG and its partners have carefully managed a process that will conclude in 2027 and will result in several independent firms maintaining at least three Cardano implementations in Haskell, Rust, and Go, alongside a complete set of formal specifications supervised by MBOs like Intersect and Pragma and subject to community review and vote.
I’m extremely proud that we have arrived at the final stage with IO Labs spinning out the Haskell Node to community curation and control. Our partners are ready and the ecosystem now has many diverse options.
Charles Hoskinson
A Wider Developer Base
Specialist partners, including Se7en Labs and Teragone, bring focused expertise to the components they take on. Named partners, public repositories, and Intersect governance make the transition a transparent, accountable process.
This broader developer base establishes Cardano as the work of many independent teams and strengthens the case for community-led treasury funding. As specialist partners take ownership of infrastructure and delivery, IO deepens its focus on research and venture creation through IO Labs and IO Ventures.
A New Film Marks the Moment
The campaign opens with a short cinematic film establishing the vision behind this stage of decentralization, built on the premise that the strongest ideas belong to the people who carry them forward, not only those who first create them.
Apple’s tightly controlled App Store is facing renewed scrutiny after three Bitcoin holders alleged they lost $1.8 million to a fake crypto wallet, adding to a growing list of malicious wallet apps that have reached users despite the company’s screening process.
The lawsuit, filed July 24 in California, accuses Apple of failing to adequately review and remove applications impersonating Sparrow Wallet while promoting the App Store as a safe and trusted source for software.
The case follows warnings dating back more than two years about fake Sparrow apps and comes months after researchers identified 26 applications impersonating major crypto brands across Apple’s ecosystem.
Together, the incidents are putting pressure on one of Apple’s longstanding arguments for maintaining tight control over software distribution: that screening applications before they reach users provides greater protection against fraud and malicious software.
Sparrow developer warned Apple more than a year before losses
Apple’s exposure in the case rests less on the initial appearance of a fraudulent app than on what the company allegedly knew before later victims were hit.
Sparrow founder Craig Raw had been flagging unauthorized mobile versions of his wallet since early 2024. Sparrow is a desktop-only product, so an iPhone app bearing its name should not have required a complex technical investigation to identify as an impersonator.
Yet the complaint says variants carrying the Sparrow name continued to surface inside the App Store over the following year.
The first plaintiff cited in the lawsuit, Jalen Delgado, allegedly downloaded one of those apps in May 2025. After supplying his seed phrase, he lost just over 1 BTC, valued at about $120,000 in the filing.
The alleged notice to Apple became more direct two months later.
James Ramirez says he lost 7.4 BTC, worth approximately $875,000, after using another Sparrow impersonator on July 25, 2025. He reported both the application and the theft to Apple that day.
Christopher Ellis allegedly encountered a Sparrow app through the App Store nine days later. He entered his recovery phrase and lost crypto assets valued at roughly $840,000, according to the complaint.
That sequence is central to the plaintiffs’ case. They are arguing that Apple was no longer dealing only with a previously reported brand impersonation by the time Ellis was targeted. It had allegedly received a fresh report linking a specific fake wallet to a major Bitcoin theft.
The complaint further claims Apple did more than distribute the app. It alleges the platform ranked the Sparrow impersonator and surfaced it within cryptocurrency app collections, potentially increasing the credibility and reach of software masquerading as an established wallet.
According to the lawsuit:
“Despite multiple reports made to Apple that its App Store hosted fraudulent and dangerous applications, Apple failed to warn consumers that spoofed wallet apps, including fake Sparrow applications, had appeared in the App Store and posed a serious risk of theft of cryptocurrency, seed phrases, private keys, wallet credentials, and other sensitive account information.”
Apple says it removed fraudulent Sparrow apps and terminated the developer accounts responsible for them.
The company has also pointed to its reporting channels and said it acts when applications are found to breach App Store rules.
Raw’s experience, however, illustrates the difficulty legitimate developers have faced in stopping the impersonations.
Last month, Raw revealed that he submitted a basic iOS listing intended to tell users that Sparrow had no official mobile version.
Apple initially treated that submission as potentially deceptive and warned that his developer account could be closed, according to Raw, before later reversing course.
The episode adds another layer to the lawsuit’s argument: Apple allegedly struggled not only to keep impersonators out, but also to distinguish the genuine wallet developer from those misusing his brand.
Apple’s App Store fake wallet problem has spread beyond Sparrow
Kaspersky Threat Research said in April that it had identified 26 fraudulent applications mimicking crypto brands including MetaMask, Ledger, Trust Wallet, Coinbase, TokenPocket, imToken and Bitpie.
Fake Crypto Applications on Apple’s App Store (Source: Kaspersky)
The campaign had been active since at least fall 2025 and was linked with moderate confidence to threat actors behind SparkKitty, according to the cybersecurity firm.
The attack was more elaborate than simply publishing a malicious wallet directly through the App Store.
Kaspersky found that the applications could redirect victims to phishing pages designed to resemble Apple’s marketplace and persuade them to install developer profiles. Those profiles could then be used to install trojanized versions of crypto wallets outside the App Store.
Once installed, the malicious software targeted the credentials controlling users’ assets.
For hot wallets, the malware monitored wallet recovery or creation screens for seed phrases. Attackers obtaining those words could then gain control over the victim’s funds.
Cold-wallet users faced a similar social-engineering threat. Fraudulent software impersonating interfaces associated with hardware wallets could persuade victims to surrender recovery credentials that should never be entered into an unverified application.
The campaign largely targeted users of Apple’s Chinese App Store, where official iOS versions of several wallets being impersonated were unavailable.
But significant losses involving fake wallet software have also emerged in the United States.
American musician Garrett Dutton, better known as G. Love, said in April that he lost 5.9 BTC after downloading what he believed was legitimate Ledger software from Apple’s App Store.
Dutton entered his recovery phrase when prompted by the application. His Bitcoin, worth roughly $424,000 at the time, was subsequently transferred away.
Blockchain investigator ZachXBT traced the stolen assets to deposit addresses associated with crypto exchange KuCoin, which temporarily froze a suspected account as the incident was investigated.
The episode closely resembles the allegations at the center of the Sparrow lawsuit: users encountered software carrying the identity of an established crypto wallet through Apple’s ecosystem, trusted it enough to enter recovery credentials and lost control of their assets.
Crypto scams challenge Apple’s App Store security pitch
The repeated incidents are increasingly colliding with how Apple markets its control over software distribution.
Apple describes the App Store as a “safe and trusted place” and says applications undergo a review process intended to protect users from fraud, malware and other security threats.
That promise has also supported Apple’s broader defense of its tightly managed ecosystem.
The company has argued that allowing unrestricted sideloading could weaken privacy and security protections on its devices, while its centralized review process allows potentially dangerous software to be intercepted before reaching customers.
Crypto wallets create a particularly difficult test for that model because an application does not necessarily need sophisticated malware to cause an irreversible loss.
A convincing imitation can be enough.
Seed phrases typically provide control over the assets associated with a self-custodied wallet. Once a user enters those words into malicious software, attackers can transfer the assets to addresses they control, with no bank or payment processor capable of reversing the transaction.
That makes the perceived legitimacy conveyed by an app marketplace especially important for crypto users.
The Sparrow plaintiffs argue that Apple’s own representations encouraged them to believe software distributed through the App Store had been sufficiently vetted. They are seeking reimbursement for their stolen assets, along with compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and legal fees.
They also want Apple to improve and publicly disclose its procedures for detecting fraudulent applications and introduce warnings about risks associated with cryptocurrency apps.
Whether Apple bears legal responsibility for the losses remains unresolved, and the company can contest both the plaintiffs’ reliance on its security representations and their decision to enter sensitive recovery credentials into third-party software.
Apple also points to the scale of threats its review process already prevents.
The company said last year that the App Store blocked more than $9 billion in potentially fraudulent transactions between 2020 and 2024, including more than $2 billion in 2024 alone.
During 2024, Apple said it rejected nearly 2 million app submissions that failed to meet standards for security, reliability and user experience, while terminating more than 146,000 developer accounts over fraud concerns and rejecting another 139,000 developer enrollment attempts.
Those figures show the scale of malicious activity Apple is attempting to keep outside its ecosystem. They also highlight the stakes when fraudulent financial software gets through.
For crypto users, where surrendering a single recovery phrase can put an entire wallet beyond recovery, the growing list of impersonators is testing how much confidence Apple’s App Store badge should inspire.
Michael Saylor said on Tuesday that Bitcoin has won, and that its gravest danger now comes from within its own ranks. His company, Strategy, has not bought a single BTC in five consecutive weeks.
Blockchain intelligence firm Arkham dissected the pause. Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) has built a $3.75 billion cash reserve instead. Two clocks are now running at once, and they point in opposite directions.
Why Michael Saylor Is Warning About Bitcoin Now
The timing is not accidental. BIP-110 is a proposed one-year soft fork that would cap the size of arbitrary data fields in Bitcoin transactions. Written by developer Dathon Ohm and shipped in Bitcoin Knots, it began miner signaling on December 1, 2025.
Miners have largely ignored it. That does not stop it.
The proposal’s own deployment schedule sets a mandatory lock-in window for around August 2026. Once that window opens, blocks that fail to signal are rejected as invalid. Lock-in becomes guaranteed. Activation follows two weeks later, and the rules expire on their own about a year after that.
In other words, Saylor is not arguing against something that needs to win a vote. He is arguing against something with a calendar. That window is days away.
What Saylor Actually Said About Consensus Rules
The Strategy executive chairman framed Bitcoin’s consensus rules as a constitution. They define property, scarcity, settlement, and power. Rewriting them to suit any faction, he argued, attacks every participant alive today and every one who comes later.
Bitcoin has won. Now it must survive victory.
Its gravest threat is not an enemy at the gates, but corruption from within: factions that invent pretexts, rewrite the rules, and seize economic rights until freedom becomes permission and law becomes loot.
BIP-110 censors valid fee-paying transactions in his reading.
Covenants create fresh attack surface.
Larger blocks thin out blockspace scarcity and raise validation costs.
His central technical claim concerns miner revenue. Block subsidies halve every 210,000 blocks. Fees must therefore carry more of the security budget over time. Weakening the fee market, he said, disarms the network.
The other side of this argument is well staffed. BIP-110’s backers say arbitrary data embedding burdens node operators and crowds out payments.
Saylor is not the only critic, and critics do not agree with each other. Blockstream chief executive Adam Back also opposes the proposal. His fork risk warning targeted the lowered 55% activation threshold, not censorship.
the reason it doesn’t have consensus is it’s stupid idea, doesn’t work, and completely fails at technical consensus. polar opposite to segwit which did have technical AND ecosystem consensus (modulo a later stage attempt to abuse the activation process to veto what was agreed)
Because equity became cheaper to sell than conviction was to abandon.
A Form 8-K filing dated July 27 confirmed a $525 million addition to the dollar reserve. The total reached $3.75 billion, which the company frames as 2.1 years of dividend coverage against roughly $1.76 billion in annual preferred obligations.
The money came from shares, not coins. Strategy sold $544.5 million of MSTR stock last week. Roughly $467 million and $263.5 million came from share sales in the two weeks before that, or about $1.26 billion across three weeks.
It sold those shares cheap. MSTR trades near $96.66, down about 76% from its 52-week high of $414.36. Every dollar raised this way costs far more equity than it would have a year ago.
Strategy has said it wants 1 million BTC by the end of 2026. It holds 843,775. The gap is 156,225 BTC.
About 22 weeks remain in the year. Closing the gap would require roughly 7,000 BTC per week, or near $447 million weekly at current prices. The company is buying none.
MicroStrategy’s plan versus its current position
Why It Matters for BTC and MSTR Holders
Strategy’s average cost sits near $75,494 per coin. Bitcoin trades around $63,817, down roughly 1.5% over 24 hours and about 49% below its October 2025 peak of $126,080. That leaves the stack close to $9.9 billion underwater on paper.
BTC would need to climb about 18% to return the position to break-even. The Bitcoin price today gives that no help.
The preferred shares explain the urgency. STRC trades near $88.86, still about 11% below its $100 par despite a dividend raised to 12% on July 1 and an authorized buyback programme.
That pressure on STRC shaped the Digital Credit Capital Framework announced on June 29, which cleared buybacks and up to $1.25 billion of Bitcoin sales.
What to Watch Over the Next 30 Days
Three dated events sit inside the window.
BIP-110’s mandatory signaling window is expected to open in August, which would guarantee lock-in regardless of miner support.
Strategy files weekly. A sixth consecutive week without a purchase would extend the longest pause of its accumulation era.
With $3.75 billion banked, the company has removed the near-term need to touch its $1.25 billion Bitcoin monetization authorization.
Strategy BTC holdings versus USD reserve, weekly, 2026, Source: BeInCrypto
Both positions can hold at once. One defends a protocol meant to last a century. The other has to fund a dividend next quarter. The tension is not hypocrisy so much as a scheduling problem, and the schedule is about to get crowded.
The WEMIX team said compromised ownership of a contract tied to its WEMIX$ stablecoin enabled approximately 5.23 million tokens to be minted without authorization, prompting it to suspend bridges, liquidity pools, and several services on the WEMIX3.0 network.
Contract-owner breach tested WEMIX$’s 1:1 design
The WEMIX3.0 whitepaper describes WEMIX$ as 100% collateralized by USDC held in a Treasury and says its supply should remain equal to the Treasury’s USDC volume. It also says minting is accessible only through Authorized Mint Access, which is granted solely to the DIOS stability protocol.
WEMIX’s preliminary incident update said the abnormal transactions began at 18:17 on July 26 (UTC+9), or 09:17 UTC, after ownership of a WEMIX$-related contract was compromised.
Taken together, the two documents show that owner-level control was used to produce tokens outside the whitepaper’s intended minting path. WEMIX has not disclosed the exact route by which that control was compromised, and its update does not establish that the USDC.e later moved by the attacker came directly from the Treasury.
WEMIX said the 5,225,525 unauthorized WEMIX$ was converted into 30,736 units of the network’s native WEMIX token and 724,198.27 USDC.e, the bridged stablecoin used on WEMIX3.0. The company specifically said the converted USDC.e was bridged to Ethereum and BNB Smart Chain, swapped into assets including ETH and USDT, and distributed among multiple addresses. Some of those assets were later deposited at centralized exchanges.
The nominal number of tokens minted does not establish a $5.23 million loss. WEMIX has not issued a final loss estimate or identified the exchanges involved. It said some exchanges froze attacker-associated addresses after receiving cooperation requests, but did not quantify the frozen amounts or state whether individual user balances suffered losses.
Containment reached bridges, trading, games and NFTs
WEMIX’s July 26 response listed every bridge connected to and from WEMIX3.0 as suspended, including its Chainlink CCIP route and PLAY Bridge. The announcement did not attribute the compromise to Chainlink or report a CCIP failure.
The update also listed trading in the WEMIX-USDC.e, WEMIX-WEMIX$, CROW-WEMIX$, TIPO-WEMIX$ and PLAY-WEMIX$ pools as halted. The WEMIX$ Module and PNIX DEX were paused, blockchain-linked features in some games were restricted, and NFT marketplace trading and bidding were disabled.
The disruption followed WEMIX’s September 2025 announcement that it would phase WEMIX$ out in favor of USDC.e while continuing conversions through the WEMIX$ Module. That module was among the services listed as suspended in the July 26 incident update.
WEMIX had not provided a reopening timetable in that update. The unresolved cause, final impact, frozen amounts and potential user losses leave the scope of the incident dependent on the company’s next findings.
The XYO ecosystem just took another major step onto the institutional stage.
Both $XL1 and $XYO are now listed by Crypto.com — bringing institutional-grade
custody and deep liquidity to the two tokens at the heart of everything XYO builds.
Powers the network’s operations, incentivizing nodes to securely gather and validate real-world location and geospatial data.
$XL1
The utility token of the XYO Layer One blockchain — powering transactions, gas fees, and core network infrastructure.
Custody & Liquidity
Crypto.com will provide institutional-grade custody and liquidity solutions for both tokens through
Crypto.com Custody — a regulated infrastructure that includes cold storage with enhanced security,
transparent audit trails, and streamlined compliance processes. Institutional clients gain immediate
access to Crypto.com’s deep liquidity pool for fast, reliable, and cost-efficient conversions.
Trusted by millions of users worldwide, Crypto.com is an industry leader in regulatory compliance,
security, and privacy — giving builders and enterprises confidence in the foundation they’re building on.
$20B
Crypto.com valuation after recent institutional round
$400M
Funding raised with Citadel Securities participation
2018
Year XYO began building its proof infrastructure
Traditional Finance Meets DePIN
The timing is significant. Crypto.com recently achieved a $20 billion valuation during
an institutional funding round of $400 million with Citadel Securities. The move has been widely
seen as evidence of the growing interest in digital assets from traditional finance institutions —
and XYO is now positioned squarely alongside those players.
A Relationship Built Over Years
For XYO, this partnership builds on a relationship that goes back years.
“We’ve had a great relationship with Crypto.com since listing XYO on their exchange, and expanding
into custody for XL1 and XYO together is a natural next step. As we build out infrastructure for AI,
robotics, and decentralized machine intelligence, having our digital assets XYO and XL1 backed by
enterprise-grade security is essential. Working with one of the most trusted names in the industry
positions XYO alongside the institutional players shaping what comes next, and gives builders and
enterprises confidence in the foundation they’re building on.”
— Markus Levin, Co-Founder, XYO
The Foundation Ahead
XYO has been building since 2018, delivering the proof infrastructure that powers geospatial,
robotics, AI, and decentralized compute applications — operating one of the largest consumer
DePIN networks in production. Institutional-grade custody for XYO and XL1 strengthens that
foundation and signals where the network is headed next.
With Crypto.com Custody now safeguarding both tokens, institutions have a secure and compliant
way to hold and manage the assets behind verifiable real-world data at scale.
Get Involved
Eligible institutions and high-net-worth clients can submit a custody inquiry, or learn more about the XYO and XL1 tokens.
The Transparent Prop Firm | CryptoCoinShow Exclusive
PROPR ◆ ONCHAIN PROP TRADING$1M REVENUE IN 60 DAYS5,000+ ACTIVE TRADERS300+ AI AGENTS LIVE80% PROFIT SPLITHYPERLIQUID INFRASTRUCTUREPOLYMARKET INTEGRATION IMMINENTMMT.GG PARTNERSHIP LIVEALGO PASS RATE: 15% VS HUMAN 13.5%PROPR ◆ ONCHAIN PROP TRADING$1M REVENUE IN 60 DAYS5,000+ ACTIVE TRADERS300+ AI AGENTS LIVE80% PROFIT SPLITHYPERLIQUID INFRASTRUCTUREPOLYMARKET INTEGRATION IMMINENTMMT.GG PARTNERSHIP LIVEALGO PASS RATE: 15% VS HUMAN 13.5%
CryptoCoinShow
Exclusive Feature
July 2026 · Blockchain Interviews
Deep Dive · Prop Trading · DeFi Infrastructure
The Prop Firm That Shows Its Work
While every other prop trading firm hides its books, changes the rules when you start winning, and denies payouts it can’t afford — Propr built the whole thing onchain, in public, for anyone to audit in real time. Louis Régis, former Credit Suisse quant and Rothschild crypto desk head, explains why that’s the only model that survives.
By Ashton Addison · CryptoCoinShow Blockchain Interviews · Exclusive
▶ WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW
$1M+Revenue · 60 Days
5,000+Active Traders
300+AI Agents Live
80%Profit Split
Onchain Verified · Transparency Dashboard Live
Prop trading is a quiet $10 billion industry in traditional finance. Hundreds of thousands of retail traders pay entry fees for the chance to trade a firm’s capital — keeping a cut of the profits if they succeed, absorbing nothing if they fail. The firms collect the fees, manage the risk, and pocket the spread. It’s a clean business model. It’s also almost entirely absent from crypto.
Louis Régis wants to know why — and he thinks he’s found the answer. “The breakthrough is liquidity,” he says. “For retail traders, it’s now very close to on par with traditional venues. You can trade the Nasdaq and S&P on Hyperliquid, and the spread and execution quality will be similar to TradFi. That’s the building block Propr is built upon. The constraint that killed earlier attempts — dYdX, GMX — was simply that the liquidity wasn’t there.”
Régis is not a crypto-native. He spent years as a quantitative analyst at Credit Suisse, then ran the crypto desk at Rothschild & Co before leaving to build Propr. He now codes the platform live on Twitch every day. Two and a half months after launch: $1 million in revenue, over 5,000 active traders, and more than 300 AI agents already trading with real funded capital.
Propr — Platform Snapshot · July 2026
Revenue (since launch)$1,000,000+
Active Traders5,000+
AI Agents Live300+
Max Funded Capital$300,000
Profit Split (trader)80%
Human Pass Rate13.5%
Algo Pass Rate15.0%
Execution VenuesHyperliquid + Lighter
InfrastructureOnchain · Fully Auditable
Upcoming IntegrationsPolymarket · MMT.gg
01 — The ProblemThe Black Box Business Model
To understand why Propr exists, you have to understand what the rest of the prop trading industry is doing wrong. The mechanics are straightforward: a firm charges a trader a fee — typically between $500 and $1,000 — for the right to attempt a funded challenge. Pass the challenge, get access to real capital. Make profits, keep a share. Sounds fair. The problem, Régis explains, is what happens when you actually start winning.
“If a firm is denying payouts, it’s about the economics of the firm. If they have rules that are too loose and don’t practice good risk management, it’s not good for them. This will still occur onchain — we already see it in quite a lot of onchain counterparts.”
Louis Régis, Founder — Propr
When a trader becomes consistently profitable, a traditional prop firm faces a problem: they now owe that person real money. If the firm has been internalizing trades — acting as the counterparty rather than hedging — a winning trader is a direct loss. The response, documented across the industry, is quiet rule-tightening: consistency requirements that materialize mid-campaign, payout delays, account flags. The rules weren’t changed officially. They were just applied differently.
Régis’s solution is deceptively simple: put the economics onchain so anyone can see them. “A very simple metric is the payout-to-revenue ratio,” he says. “If you have more payouts than revenue, it’s not sustainable in the medium term. That’s something you can now verify on onchain platforms. On Propr, you can audit that the firm is profitable and see the margin we have deployed to all traders — in real time. No other firm has this level of transparency.”
02 — The InfrastructureWhy Hyperliquid — and Why Lighter Is Coming
The choice of Hyperliquid as Propr’s primary infrastructure wasn’t sentimental. “It’s all a function of liquidity,” Régis says. “Hyperliquid is actually very expensive as a trader. But the spread and depth is so much greater than other venues that it makes sense.” When you’re running a book with large open interest, execution quality matters more than fee minimization. A firm that needs to enter or exit a position quickly can’t afford slippage. Fees are secondary.
But Propr already hedges across both Hyperliquid and Lighter — and Régis is candid about where each wins. On a $1 million position, Lighter’s spread-only model (no fees) costs roughly $400 in execution versus $700 on Hyperliquid. For retail traders doing high-frequency intraday work, that gap matters. For larger wallets trading with more capital, Hyperliquid’s depth is worth the premium.
“We don’t really care about the end venue. We go wherever the execution is best. The only thing that matters to us is: on a 1 million to 10 million order, what’s my slippage on any given asset?”
Louis Régis, Founder — Propr
The longer view is aggregation. Régis sees the perpetuals DEX landscape evolving the same way spot DEX aggregators like LlamaSwap did — routing volume to wherever execution is most efficient rather than locking into a single venue. “We’ll value perp DEXes based solely on execution quality, just like we view AMMs today,” he says. “I think that’s coming very soon.”
03 — The ExpansionPolymarket and the Prediction Market Thesis
Propr’s tagline is “get funded, trade anything.” Anything tradable onchain, Régis wants to offer prop trading infrastructure for. The next frontier: Polymarket. At the time of filming, Propr was days away from launching on the prediction market platform — a move that required building entirely new risk management frameworks from scratch.
“Risk management for Polymarket is actually a lot harder than for Hyperliquid,” Régis says. “It’s a fundamentally different structure.” Prediction markets resolve on events, not prices. The question of how and when to resolve a market — and who has the authority to challenge that resolution — is one Polymarket itself is still working through. Propr’s position: mirror Polymarket’s resolutions exactly, without taking a position. “If the market doesn’t resolve a trade, we don’t have the authority to say the market is wrong.”
04 — The SignalAI Agents Are Beating Human Traders
The most unexpected development at Propr isn’t the revenue or the trader numbers. It’s the bots. Over 300 AI agents are currently trading with funded capital on the platform — and they’re outperforming humans on the metric that matters most: the challenge pass rate.
Human Traders
Emotional decision-making under pressure
Stop-losses moved on impulse
Inconsistent rule adherence
Struggle with risk-first discipline
Reactive to market noise
AI Agents / Algos
Zero emotional interference
Strict stop-loss enforcement
Consistent rule execution
Risk-reward filtering built-in
Only takes trades that meet criteria
13.5%Human Pass Rate
15.0%Algo Pass Rate
“The number one trader on our platform is a bot — not a human,” Régis says. The economics make sense for algo builders: for $500, you can get exposure to $100,000 in capital. No developer wants to deploy an algorithm on $100,000 of their own money to test it. Prop funding provides implied leverage that makes the math work at every scale.
The agent builders coming to Propr aren’t all quants. Claude and Gemini have democratized programming to the point where retail traders with a back-tested edge can now automate it without a software background. Propr sees three distinct customer types: amateur traders bootstrapping their first algos with LLMs; sophisticated quantitative players; and small market makers using the firm’s infrastructure to deploy strategies. Platform integrations — like Nick.ai, where anyone can build a bot — are adding a fourth channel that Régis expects to dominate within a year.
“We have pretty strong conviction that AI agent traders will be the far majority of our users in the next six months to a year.”
Louis Régis, Founder — Propr
05 — The Platform PlayMMT.gg and the Funding Layer Thesis
Propr’s most significant announcement at time of publication: a full integration with MMT.gg, one of the largest order-flow tools in crypto. The implication is architectural. For the first time, traders using an existing platform they already know can access prop-funded capital without visiting Propr’s interface at all.
Régis draws the analogy to Hyperliquid’s own distribution expansion — embedded now inside Phantom, MetaMask, and dozens of other interfaces. “Think of the same happening for prop funding,” he says. “Propr will be the main supplier of this equity. You embed the capital layer the same way you embed the execution layer.”
If the thesis holds, Propr isn’t just a prop trading firm. It’s infrastructure — a funded capital primitive that any trading terminal, agent platform, or prediction market can plug into. The transparency dashboard at propr.xyz/transparency is already the clearest demonstration of what that looks like in practice: real-time hedging activity, daily P&L, affiliate payout ratios, and organic versus referral traffic breakdowns — all public, all verifiable, all the time.
“See how much money we make — and if we lose on a given day, you see how much we lose,” Régis says. “No one else is doing this to the extent we are.”