Menu
MCAP $2.86T ▼-4.83%
BTC $83,738 ▼-2.22%
ETH $2,609 ▼-3.60%
BNB $764.72 ▼-2.22%
XRP $1.460 ▼-2.93%
SOL $117.69 ▼-2.41%
DOGE $0.0900 ▼-5.09%
ADA $0.253 ▼-5.50%
TRX $0.3337 ▼-0.73%
LINK $13.47 ▼-2.31%
AVAX $11.08 ▼-0.89%
HYPE $90.38 ▼-3.88%
DOT $1.130 ▼-7.61%

Solana

Every Crypto Coin Show story tagged Solana, newest first, alongside the guides and interviews that give it context.

Guide: Decentralized compute networks explained: GPU marketplacesGuide: How do AI agents pay eachNewsletter
From the interview archive
Shiba Inu launches on Solana via Wormhole-backed Sunrise gateway
Memecoins

Shiba Inu launches on Solana via Wormhole-backed Sunrise gateway

, , , , , , ,

MemecoinsCrypto Coin Show News Team·October 5, 2026·3 min read

Shiba Inu (SHIB), the Ethereum-based meme coin, has launched on Solana through Sunrise, a cross-chain token gateway backed by Wormhole Labs, abandoning its years-long strategy of steering holders only toward its own Shibarium network. The move drops SHIB into Solana’s meme-coin arena just as Bonk (BONK), the chain’s dominant dog-themed token, trades at its weakest level since November 2023.

  • SHIB gained 3.89% in the 24 hours after the Solana listing went live, per BeInCrypto price data, and is up 2.69% over the past week.
  • SHIB remains roughly 93% below its October 2021 all-time high despite the short-term rally.
  • Solana base transaction fees run 0.000005 SOL, a fraction of a cent, versus Ethereum fees that fluctuate with network demand.
  • 3.89% SHIB’s 24-hour gain after the Solana listing went live
  • 93% SHIB’s decline from its October 2021 record high
  • Aug ’23 BONK slid to its lowest level since November 2023 after Upbit announced a delisting

SHIB is now live on Solana for the first time, routed through Sunrise, a token gateway that lets assets move between blockchains as the original, or canonical, token rather than a wrapped copy. The bridge runs on Wormhole’s Native Token Transfers standard, and Solana confirmed the listing on its official account on Sunday, October 4, 2026, first reported by BeInCrypto. The SHIB team followed up the next day with its own post on Monday, October 5, 2026, confirming the expansion.

Sunrise Makes SHIB a Canonical Asset, Not a Wrapped Token

Sunrise’s design matters for institutional desks because it avoids the custody and redemption risk tied to wrapped assets, where a bridge contract holds the original token while issuing a synthetic version elsewhere. Monad’s MON token was Sunrise’s first listing before SHIB became its second, giving the gateway an early track record with at least one other major asset.

Wormhole Labs built the underlying NTT standard specifically to let tokens retain a single, verifiable supply across chains rather than fragment liquidity into competing wrapped markets.

For SHIB, that distinction is the entire pitch to traders.

Shibarium’s Collapse Pushed SHIB Toward a Rival Chain

The expansion breaks years of SHIB strategy that funneled holders exclusively toward Shibarium, the project’s in-house layer-2 network. Earlier in 2026, on-chain data showed Shibarium usage collapsing at the same time SHIB traded near multi-year lows, leaving the token without a strong home-chain narrative.

Solana offers a ready-made alternative audience and a cost advantage: its 0.000005 SOL base fee per transaction compares favorably with Ethereum, where fees swing with network congestion and can spike during busy periods.

That cost gap is the same dynamic drawing other projects to Solana’s infrastructure, including the OUSD stablecoin launch and the rise of perpetuals trading tools built for the chain’s retail user base.

Solana Warns of Fake SHIB Tokens on tokens.xyz

Unofficial tokens using the SHIB name already circulate on Solana, a risk the network addressed directly by urging traders to verify the official contract address on tokens.xyz before transacting.

That warning underscores the practical hazard of chain-hopping meme assets: liquidity migrates faster than verification tools can keep pace, leaving an opening for impersonator contracts to capture mistaken volume.

Whether SHIB’s Solana debut draws durable trading volume, rather than a one-day price pop, will determine if other Ethereum-based tokens follow the same Sunrise route.

The CCS read. We read this less as a Solana story than a Shibarium one. A token team abandoning its own layer-2 for a rival chain’s liquidity signals Shibarium failed to generate the usage needed to retain holders, and treasury strategy built around that network now looks weaker than the price chart suggests.

The next signal to watch is whether SHIB’s Solana trading volume holds once the announcement-driven rally fades, and whether Sunrise lands a third major token after Monad’s MON and SHIB to prove the gateway can scale beyond its first two listings.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Drift opens recovery token claims at one cent per dollar lost from $285 million exploit
DeFi

Drift opens recovery token claims at one cent per dollar lost from $285 million exploit

, , , , , , , ,

DeFiCrypto Coin Show News Team·October 4, 2026·4 min read

Drift Protocol has begun paying out its DFX recovery token at roughly one cent per dollar of verified loss from April’s $285 million exploit, drawing on a pool that only grows as fast as trading revenue allows. For institutional desks weighing DeFi tail risk, the launch shows that even a Tether-backed rescue converts into a slow, revenue-linked repayment schedule rather than an immediate bailout.

  • Drift opened DFX claims and redemptions on October 1, 2026, exactly six months after the April 1 exploit.
  • The Recovery Pool held about 3.1 million USDT against 299,500,810.998 DFX tokens tied to verified losses.
  • Tether has committed up to $127.5 million and partners up to $20 million toward a roughly $150 million plan.
  • 1.04% of each verified dollar lost, paid per DFX at launch
  • $150M combined Tether and partner commitment against $285M in losses
  • Jan 2028 deadline before unclaimed DFX tokens are burned

Drift Protocol said in its launch announcement that DFX claims and redemptions went live on October 1, 2026, giving victims of the April 1, 2026 exploit a way to pull USDT out of its Recovery Pool, a mechanism first detailed by CryptoSlate. DFX is a standard SPL token on Solana, issued one-for-one against each verified dollar lost in the attack, separate from Drift’s DRIFT governance token and tradable on exchanges such as Raydium. Redeeming it is final: the USDT payout and the token burn happen in a single transaction, and burned DFX no longer shares in future deposits.

Drift Pays 0.0104 USDT per DFX as Pool Opens Near 3.1M USDT

At launch the Recovery Pool held about 3.1 million USDT against the full 299.5 million DFX supply, producing a redemption rate of roughly 0.0104 USDT per token, or about 1.04% of each dollar of verified loss. Drift’s recovery dashboard defines the Redemption Amount as the pool balance divided by outstanding supply, a ratio that rises only when fresh deposits land and stays flat when tokens are redeemed, since redemption removes cash and burns DFX in the same proportion.

Selling DFX on a secondary market such as Raydium is a separate transaction from redeeming it against the pool. A transfer changes who holds the claim but does not touch the pool balance or the per-token ratio.

The exploit adds to a run of 2026 DeFi security incidents that have pushed other protocols toward tighter controls, including Arbitrum’s Security Council halt on new Stylus contracts over attack risk. Drift’s design instead focuses on compensation mechanics after the fact, with the pool funded daily at 00:00 UTC from Velocity’s net protocol revenue and any recovered stolen funds.

Tether Backs $150 Million Plan as Drift Shifts to USDT Settlement

Tether announced in April 2026 a support plan including up to $127.5 million from Tether itself and up to $20 million from strategic partners, to support Drift’s relaunch after $285 million in user losses.

Tether’s role in the digital assets ecosystem is to provide a platform for individuals and institutions alike that is ready to step forward to help the industry in the moment of darkness. This collaboration reflects our confidence in Drift and its role in the DeFi ecosystem.

Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether

Tether framed the capital as revenue-linked rather than upfront, tying user recovery to Drift’s actual trading activity rather than a single transfer, and pointed to more than $800 million it has recovered working with over 310 law enforcement agencies across 64 countries. As part of the relaunch, Drift moved its settlement asset from USDC to USDT, bringing more than 128,000 users and over 35 ecosystem teams, including Gauntlet, Neutral and M1, onto USDT-based trading, a shift that parallels other issuers expanding Solana rails such as Open Standard’s recent OUSD stablecoin launch.

In practice, the $127.5 million figure is a commitment ceiling rather than cash already in the pool. Drift’s April recovery framework described a package combining a revenue-linked credit facility, an ecosystem grant and market-maker loans, which can fund a relaunch without putting the headline amount directly in DFX holders’ hands. Against prior exchange hack recoveries built on a single insurance payout, Drift’s model ties every dollar of outside backing to daily revenue splits, leaving unresolved how long it will take the pool to approach the $285 million victims are owed.

DFX Claim Window Runs to January 1, 2028

Drift’s terms set the claim deadline at 00:00 UTC on January 1, 2028, nearly 27 months after the October 1 launch. Any DFX left unclaimed when the window closes will be permanently burned, shrinking supply and raising the redemption ratio for everyone still holding.

Insurance Fund claims run on separate terms and are not part of DFX, according to the dashboard. That split matters for institutional claims teams reconciling which recovery track applies to which exposure.

The CCS read. DFX effectively converts hack victims into revenue-share creditors of Velocity rather than claimants in a fixed settlement, which is a meaningfully different risk profile for any treasury modeling DeFi counterparty exposure. Holders who redeem early lock in roughly one cent on the dollar; those who hold are betting on trading volume they cannot control, with no guarantee the pool ever approaches $285 million.

Whether Velocity’s daily revenue ever closes the gap between the $150 million committed and the $285 million lost remains an open question that only trade-by-trade deposits into the Recovery Pool, visible on Drift’s dashboard, will answer before the January 1, 2028 claim deadline.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Bank of North Dakota launches Roughrider Coin stablecoin on Solana
Institutional

Bank of North Dakota launches Roughrider Coin stablecoin on Solana

, , , , , , , ,

InstitutionalCrypto Coin Show News Team·October 2, 2026·3 min read

Fiserv’s stablecoin infrastructure is now live with a financial institution client for the first time, powering Bank of North Dakota’s new Roughrider Coin on Solana. For institutional investors, the launch shows a regulated state bank moving straight to production issuance on a public blockchain, ahead of final Federal Reserve rules for payment stablecoins.

  • Roughrider Coin settles on Solana and is available to more than 90 banks and credit unions across North Dakota.
  • VersaBank issues the token and handles custody, including minting, burning and reserve management, while Fireblocks supplies the tokenization layer.
  • The Federal Reserve’s GENIUS Act reserve proposal remains open for public comment for 60 days after Federal Register publication.
  • 90+ banks and credit unions in North Dakota now have access
  • 56% of surveyed Americans had never heard of stablecoins, per Visa
  • 45% said they would use one offered by their existing bank

Fiserv, the Milwaukee-based payments processor whose software runs online banking for thousands of U.S. financial institutions, said Thursday (October 1) that its digital asset platform is live with bank clients, and that Bank of North Dakota’s Roughrider Coin is the first product running on it. The dollar-backed stablecoin settles on Solana, a high-throughput blockchain more commonly associated with retail trading than interbank settlement, and gives more than 90 banks and credit unions across the state a new rail for moving money between each other. The deployment, first reported by CryptoPotato, pairs a state-owned bank founded in 1919 with infrastructure built for crypto-native exchanges.

VersaBank Mints and Custodies the Token, Fireblocks Tokenizes It

Participating institutions reach Roughrider Coin through Commercial Center, the same commercial online banking system many Fiserv clients already use for traditional interbank transfers. There is no separate crypto interface for participating banks to learn.

VersaBank, a federally regulated bank, issues the token and handles custody, a role that covers minting, burning and managing the reserve assets backing each coin in circulation. Fireblocks, a digital-asset infrastructure provider used widely by banks and exchanges for custody and tokenization, supplies the technology layer underneath, while transactions themselves settle on Solana.

Bank of North Dakota chief executive Don Morgan framed the launch as an upgrade to existing interbank plumbing rather than a consumer crypto product.

a new tool to move money more efficiently across North Dakota’s interbank network.

Don Morgan, CEO, Bank of North Dakota

VersaBank founder and president David Taylor said Fiserv’s scale paired with his firm’s regulated capabilities gives stablecoins a trusted foundation inside established banking systems. Sunil Sachdev, Fiserv’s head of embedded finance and digital assets, said in the company’s announcement that the platform helps clients unlock new efficiencies in banking and payments while keeping the security and regulatory standards they expect.

Fiserv Platform Also Targets Cross-Border Payments and Card Issuance

Roughrider Coin is one application of a broader Fiserv platform that also supports stablecoin card issuance, cross-border payments, programmable commerce and treasury automation for banks, corporates and fintechs. It additionally covers tokenized deposits and global currency account services, including dollar accounts for financial institutions outside the U.S. The bet mirrors a wider push to put stablecoins directly on Solana, following moves such as Open Standard’s launch of the OUSD stablecoin on the same network earlier this year.

Fed’s GENIUS Act Rules Face 60-Day Comment Window

The launch arrives as regulators work out how bank-issued stablecoins should be backed and supervised. The Federal Reserve proposed two rules under the GENIUS Act: one requiring Fed-supervised issuers to fully back tokens with approved reserves such as short-term Treasury bills, and another covering applications from supervised banks that want to issue payment stablecoins, with comments accepted for 60 days after Federal Register publication. The custody question sits alongside other recent regulatory moves, including the SEC’s proposed crypto custody rule for investment advisers and the CFTC’s new FAQs on tokenized investments and recordkeeping.

Consumer awareness remains a separate hurdle. Visa’s Money Travels 2026 study found 56% of surveyed Americans had never heard of stablecoins, yet 45% said they would use one if offered by an existing financial provider, versus 36% in a scenario without bank-level fraud protection and deposit insurance.

The CCS read. This is less a Solana adoption story than a VersaBank business-model story. A small federally regulated bank is positioning itself as the custody and issuance layer for state-level stablecoin programs, a niche that scales well beyond North Dakota if other states follow and could matter more to VersaBank’s balance sheet than to Solana’s transaction volume.

The Fed has not announced when its GENIUS Act comment period closes or when final reserve and issuance rules will take effect, leaving VersaBank, Fiserv and Bank of North Dakota operating under proposed rather than finalized federal standards while Roughrider Coin scales across the state’s banking network.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

trendtraderpro-Emerald token burn rally
Agentic Finance

TrendTrader Pro wants half of a $1M fund’s profits to buy and burn its token

, , , , , , , , ,

Solana Foundation logo
Blockchain

Open Standard launches OUSD stablecoin on Solana

, , , , , ,

SolanaCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 30, 2026·2 min read

Open Standard’s dollar stablecoin, OUSD, is now live on Solana. Coinbase, Mastercard, Shopify, Stripe and Visa signed on as founding partners with equal stakes and have committed more than $1 billion to seed its liquidity.

  • OUSD mints and burns 1:1 for dollars at no cost, per the release
  • Reserves sit at BlackRock, Lead Bank and BNY with monthly attestations
  • More than 200 companies, including UBS, SBI Holdings and Jeeves, plan to integrate it
  • $1B+ committed by five founding partners to OUSD liquidity
  • $17.4B total Solana stablecoin supply, up 18.8% year over year
  • $0.0013 median Solana transaction fee cited in the release

OUSD is a dollar-pegged stablecoin meant for corporate payments, settlement and treasury balances rather than retail trading. It is issued by Bridge and now lives on Solana as its home network, according to the release from Open Standard.

No Wrapped Version

The release is explicit that OUSD has no wrapped counterpart on Solana. “A dollar of OUSD on Solana is the instrument itself,” the document states, meaning there is no proxy token and no separate liquidity pool to reconcile.

The mint address is ousd2mJsPEckLHcSCDxyKD7NDGARZcfLbDZkKiatYHB, and the token runs on Token-2022, the standard Solana says PayPal, Fiserv and Western Union already use for regulated stablecoins.

Token-2022 And Confidential Transfers

Token-2022 supports extensions such as confidential transfers built into the protocol rather than bolted on through a separate contract. That is the mechanism the release points to when it argues OUSD inherits existing enterprise plumbing rather than building new rails.

The document does not specify which of the 200-plus companies planning to integrate OUSD have signed binding agreements versus expressed intent, nor does it give a total OUSD supply issued at launch.

Five Partners, One Network

Coinbase, Mastercard, Shopify, Stripe and Visa each took an equal initial stake as founding partners. Stripe’s presence is notable given that Bridge, the issuer of OUSD, is the stablecoin infrastructure firm Stripe acquired in 2024, putting one founding partner on both sides of the cap table.

Jamal Raees’ quote in the release attributes Solana’s stablecoin activity this year to more than $5 trillion in volume processed, and cites Western Union, Visa, PayPal and Fiserv as enterprises already running payment products on the network.

“A stablecoin is only as useful as the counterparties it can settle with. That is why every major stablecoin launch is happening on Solana: issuers understand it is where liquidity, neutrality, and ecosystem depth live.”

Jamal Raees, General Manager of Payments, Solana Foundation

What The Fee Number Buys

The release puts Solana’s median transaction fee at roughly $0.0013 and argues that cost structure makes a $3 payout worth sending and per-transaction rebates worth calculating. It names card settlement, foreign exchange and cross-border payments as the volume businesses where per-transaction cost decides what is viable.

That framing is the Foundation’s, attached to a launch it is promoting; the document does not disclose Open Standard’s own fee schedule for institutional redemption, nor any minimum ticket size for direct minting with Bridge.

The CCS read. Native issuance without a wrapped layer removes a genuine credit-memo headache for treasury desks, and Stripe sitting on both the issuer’s parent and the founding-partner list shows how concentrated this stablecoin’s early distribution actually is. Watch whether the other 200 named integrators convert into live settlement volume or stay logos on a press release.

Bridge’s first monthly reserve attestation for OUSD is the next checkpoint to watch.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Tokenized stocks in DeFi vaults reach $262.4 million, up from $14.66 million in January
Blockchain

Tokenized stocks in DeFi vaults reach $262.4 million, up from $14.66 million in January

, , , , , , , ,

BlockchainCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 30, 2026·3 min read

Tokenized equities deposited into decentralized finance protocols have surged to $262.4 million, up from $14.66 million at the start of 2026, a nearly 18x increase that signals institutional-grade collateral standards are taking hold on-chain. For institutional investors, the shift matters because a growing share of that capital now backs loans rather than sitting idle, a sign that lenders trust tokenized stock pricing and liquidation mechanics enough to extend credit against it.

  • Tokenized stocks locked in DeFi protocols rose from $14.66 million in January to $262.4 million now, a roughly 1,690% year to date gain.
  • Solana leads all chains with $95.9 million (36.6% share), while Robinhood Chain has climbed to $79.9 million (30.5%), almost entirely added in September.
  • Lending protocols hold $68 million of tokenized stock as collateral, up from under $15 million in January, led by Kamino Lend at $54.1 million.
  • $262.4M total tokenized stock TVL versus $14.66M in January
  • 36.6% Solana’s DeFi share versus Robinhood Chain’s 30.5%
  • 1,495 distinct tokenized stock assets tracked by Token Terminal

Tokenized stocks deposited into DeFi protocols have climbed to $262.4 million, according to data from Token Terminal first reported by Cryptopolitan. That figure stood at just $14.66 million on January 1, 2026, putting the year to date gain at close to 1,690 percent, or nearly 18 times, with most of the acceleration concentrated in the past month. The number excludes idle holdings: a tokenized Nvidia share sitting untouched in a wallet does not register, only capital actively supplying liquidity, posted as loan collateral, or deployed into yield strategies.

Uniswap V4 Captures 22.7% of DEX-Held Tokenized Stock

Decentralized exchanges hold the largest single slice of the market, with roughly 58% of the $262.4 million sitting in DEX pools where tokenized equities trade around the clock. Uniswap V4 leads with $59.5 million, or 22.7% of the total, followed by Uniswap V3 at $26.7 million. Raydium, PancakeSwap, Aerodrome and Meteora account for most of the remainder.

Lending protocols rank second at roughly 26% of total value locked, a share that carries more weight than its size implies. An asset only functions as usable collateral once lenders trust its pricing, liquidation triggers and redemption process.

Kamino Lend leads lending venues at $54.1 million, with Fluid Jupiter Lend adding $14.2 million, while Pendle’s yield strategies hold another $33.7 million, close to 13% of the total. The move from under $15 million to more than $68 million in lending-backed tokenized stock since January reflects growing confidence among lending protocols in tokenized equities as collateral.

Robinhood Chain Jumps to $79.9 Million in a Single Month

Solana remains the largest chain for tokenized stocks in DeFi at $95.9 million, a 36.6% share of the market. Robinhood Chain sits close behind at $79.9 million, or 30.5%, with nearly all of that volume appearing in September alone.

BNB Chain holds $35.3 million and Ethereum holds $34.7 million, each around 13% of the total. Base trails at $16 million.

Uniswap V4’s own trajectory mirrors the chain-level shift. For most of the year Kamino and Solana-based DEXs dominated the chart, with Uniswap V4 a thin sliver at the top, before its total value locked roughly doubled through September as Robinhood Chain activity accelerated.

STRCx Leads All Tokenized Assets at $34.3 Million

The single largest tokenized asset in DeFi is STRCx, a tokenized version of Strategy’s STRC preferred stock, with $34.3 million deployed. FWDI, tied to Solana treasury firm Forward Industries, follows at $25.4 million, and MSTRx, tokenized Strategy common stock, adds $9.6 million.

Crypto treasury stocks together account for roughly a quarter of all tokenized equity TVL, a concentration that reflects overlap between existing DeFi users and Strategy shareholders. Mainstream equities are narrowing the gap: S&P 500 trackers SPYx and SPY hold a combined $30.1 million, Nvidia tokens across two issuers hold $15.6 million, and Tesla’s TSLAx sits at $6.2 million.

Token Terminal tracks 1,495 separate tokenized stock assets in DeFi, and everything outside the top 10 still makes up 48.9% of total value locked. The float is wide, and most of it has been put to work within the past few weeks.

The CCS read. The lending share, not the headline growth rate, is the number that matters for allocators. Protocols only extend credit against collateral they can price and liquidate reliably, so $68 million in tokenized-stock-backed loans signals infrastructure maturity ahead of any broader institutional pilot, more than the 18x figure does on its own.

Whether this pace holds depends on Robinhood Chain sustaining its September surge and on whether lending protocols continue to extend tokenized equity collateral to more chains before year end.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Solana’s transaction ordering proposal stalls without client approvals needed to merge
Blockchain

Solana’s transaction ordering proposal stalls without client approvals needed to merge

, , , , , , ,

BlockchainCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 27, 2026·4 min read

Solana’s SIMD-0649 proposal, which would have forced block producers to record transactions in strict fee-priority order within each entry batch, closed on Sept. 25 without merging, leaving leaders free to pick which trades enter a block and when a batch ends. For market makers and high-frequency desks routing volume through Solana, the stalled fix means execution order remains a matter of validator discretion rather than a code-enforced, auditable queue.

  • The SIMD-0649 pull request closed Sept. 25 pending more client-developer approvals, per the GitHub thread.
  • The draft requires every non-final entry batch to span at least two forward error correction sets, or 64 data shreds.
  • A Sept. 23 reviewer argued a leader could still close a batch strategically to separate conflicting transactions, undercutting the rule.
  • Sept. 25 date SIMD-0649 closed without merging into Solana’s codebase
  • 64 minimum data shreds required per non-final entry batch
  • 2 FEC sets Agave and Firedancer already target per batch today

The proposal would not decide which transactions a block producer, known as the leader, chooses to include. It would only make the order of transactions inside a completed batch inspectable and enforceable against a fee-based priority score. A validator replaying the block would compare recorded priorities and reject the block as invalid if a non-exempt transaction appeared out of sequence.

SIMD-0649 Needs More Acks From Anza and Firedancer

The pull request required at least one approval from an Anza team member and one from a Firedancer developer. Neither threshold was met by Sept. 25, and the author closed the request “pending more discussion” and asked for “more ACKs by client devs,” according to the document.

The draft grew out of an August discussion on Solana’s GitHub. That thread turned informal debate into a formal specification defining priority as the leader’s reward per unit of requested execution cost.

The reward calculation folds in both the priority fee a user names and the unburned portion of the base fee, using an integer formula with a multiplier and a one-unit guard in the denominator. That makes the enforceable score narrower than a simple fee ranking, and it means the same replay math must produce identical results across every client.

Leaders Retain Full Discretion Over Batch Boundaries

The proposal’s stated non-goals leave leaders free to select which transactions to include, defer any transaction to a later batch, and choose where one batch ends and the next begins. A high-priority transaction placed in a later batch would not be moved ahead of a lower-priority one sitting in an earlier batch, even though its score is higher.

Within-batch ordering is therefore narrower than slot-wide ordering or any guarantee of best execution.

SIMD-0649 also does nothing to stop a leader from paying priority fees to itself. The document confirms those fees return to the leader while only the burned share of the base fee is a real cost, so the rule cannot be read as protection against preferential treatment, MEV or slippage.

The two-FEC-set minimum, or 64 data shreds, targets the most obvious workaround: shrinking batches until there is nothing left to compare.

But the Sept. 23 reviewer noted that a leader “could still close a batch when it was advantageous to separate conflicting transactions,” and asked the author for present-day batch-size data broken down by scheduler, client and market conditions, plus a sensitivity test for alternate minimums.

The document says Agave and Firedancer already target roughly two FEC sets per batch, but neither the proposal nor the review supplies a measured distribution showing how often real batches fall short of that today, leaving the rule’s practical bite unquantified. That gap is the material open question the record does not resolve.

Firedancer’s Partial-Data Replay Raises a Latency Trade-Off

The August discussion flagged a separate concern: a validity check that had to wait for a whole batch could interfere with Firedancer’s practice of replaying data as it arrives. The revised draft lets validators compare and execute transactions as received, then invalidate the block later if a comparison fails, avoiding a hard stall.

The document also concedes that forcing a leader to reach the two-FEC-set minimum could add broadcast delay when throughput is low. Neither the discussion nor the pull request measures how large that delay would be.

The CCS read. The unresolved question here is not fairness on paper but who bears execution risk in practice. Institutional desks trading Solana perpetuals or spot pairs still cannot treat batch placement as neutral, since a leader can defer or split transactions before any ordering check applies. Until someone publishes batch-size data across schedulers, order-routing risk on Solana stays a discretionary cost, not a measured one, a gap regulators tracking market structure may eventually probe.

The pull request remains closed, and the author has signaled it will return only once more Anza and Firedancer developers register approval on the underlying draft specification. Whether a revised version ships with the requested batch-size distribution is the next thing to watch in Solana’s client-developer discussions.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Visa rewrites stablecoin volume figures without disclosing transaction data shifts
Blockchain

Visa rewrites stablecoin volume figures without disclosing transaction data shifts

, , , , , , ,

BlockchainCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 27, 2026·3 min read

Visa’s Onchain Analytics platform quietly rewrote its stablecoin volume numbers on September 18, while transaction counts barely budged, and the company has not published the before-and-after figures needed to explain why. For institutional investors who cite Visa’s dashboard as a proxy for stablecoin payment adoption, the reset shows how easily a headline metric can shift without any change in real-world activity.

  • Visa’s adjusted stablecoin transaction count fell by less than 2% after the September 18 refresh, far less than the volume measure.
  • The underlying Allium identity set grew from about 15 million labeled addresses to roughly 600 million in the new full set.
  • Visa’s live transaction methodology page still cites “over 3 million” labeled addresses, a figure unreconciled with the 600 million changelog number.
  • <2% drop in adjusted transaction count versus the volume-measure decline
  • 600M labeled addresses now, up from about 15 million previously
  • 60% of 2025 Ethereum stablecoin transfers sat inside complex transactions, per BIS

Visa’s September 18 data refresh lowered its adjusted stablecoin volume figure sharply, while its adjusted transaction count moved by under 2%, according to CryptoSlate’s analysis of the release. The divergence stems from reclassification, not a documented change in payment behavior. Visa’s changelog attributes the reset to a fuller set of address labels and revised filters, rather than any shift in underlying blockchain activity.

Allium’s Labeled Address Set Jumps From 15 Million to 600 Million

Visa says the definition of adjusted volume itself has not changed. The metric still aims to exclude labeled exchanges, contracts, bots, bridges, other infrastructure, and minting and burning activity. What changed is coverage: with far more addresses now identified, a larger share of recorded transfers falls outside the adjusted total than before.

The refresh also added heuristics for short-term routing. It changed how Visa separates organic activity from payment-labeled activity.

Visa’s own example illustrates the mechanism at scale. An automated program on Solana cycled the same stablecoins through thousands of throwaway wallets, moving very large sums across relatively few transactions.

That pass-through pattern is now excluded from adjusted volume across multiple chains, though Visa does not say whether the same program ran on other networks, or quantify how much it moved on Solana specifically.

Transaction Methodology Page Still Cites 3 Million Addresses, Not 600 Million

The mismatch between the dated changelog and Visa’s live transaction methodology page is unresolved. That page still describes “over 3 million” labeled addresses, less than 1% of the changelog’s new 600 million figure. Visa’s public text does not clarify whether the 3 million figure refers to a narrower subset or simply has not been updated, so it cannot serve as the pre-reset baseline.

Visa does not publish matched pre- and post-refresh adjusted volume totals in the changelog. The size of the value revision cannot be calculated from that disclosure alone.

The gap matters most in cross-chain comparisons. Visa’s published material offers no matched-window, same-definition results showing how much of the revision landed on Ethereum, Tron, Solana or any other network, a limitation relevant to institutions using the dashboard to weigh chain-level exposure.

BIS Study Finds 60% of Ethereum Transfer Events Sit Inside Complex Transactions

A separate Bank for International Settlements study of 2025 Ethereum activity involving USDT, USDC and PYUSD found that nearly 60% of transfer events occurred inside complex transactions bundling multiple token movements. Counting each event as a standalone payment overstates activity, though the finding applies only to that Ethereum sample, not to Tron, Solana or Visa’s broader adjusted total.

A related BIS study found the same stablecoin can serve different purposes by chain. Ethereum use ties more closely to smart-contract interactions, Tron more to holdings outside contracts.

Visa’s own “retail sized” bucket, covering adjusted transfers below $250, is not automatically a purchase or a distinct user either.

Even market size is measured differently: CryptoSlate listed USDT market capitalization at about $183.79 billion on September 26, a stock figure that cannot fill the gap left by Visa’s missing volume series, which measures value transferred over time rather than tokens outstanding at a moment.

Firms weighing on-chain settlement infrastructure face the same reconciliation problem Visa has yet to solve publicly.

The CCS read. We think institutions citing Visa’s dashboard in due-diligence memos should stop treating the adjusted volume line as a payments indicator until Visa reconciles its 3 million and 600 million address counts. A metric that can swing on a labeling update without a matching transaction-count move is a data-quality signal, not evidence that stablecoin settlement demand from banks or payment firms changed at all.

Visa has not said whether it will publish a reconciled address count or a matched, same-definition chain breakdown to close the gap between its two conflicting methodology pages. Until it does, comparisons of Ethereum, Tron and Solana stablecoin activity built on the September 18 reset remain unverifiable against any prior baseline.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

All 15 institutions in Bitwise survey maintained crypto exposure through 50% bitcoin decline
Bitcoin

All 15 institutions in Bitwise survey maintained crypto exposure through 50% bitcoin decline

, , , , , , ,

BitcoinCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 26, 2026·3 min read

None of the 15 institutional investors surveyed by Bitwise reduced their crypto allocations during a stretch in which the market fell roughly 50% between the fourth quarter of 2025 and the second quarter of 2026. The finding suggests institutional conviction in crypto has decoupled from short-term price swings, a shift that matters for asset managers weighing whether volatility still scares off allocators.

  • Bitwise interviewed 15 institutions and found zero reduced crypto exposure despite a roughly 50% bitcoin drawdown.
  • Allocations across the surveyed portfolios range from 0.5% to 13% of investable assets, with most institutions holding 1% to 2%.
  • Every institution that owns crypto owns bitcoin, and market-cap-weighted baskets still leave around 80% of exposure in BTC.
  • 15 institutions interviewed by Bitwise for its adoption survey
  • 50% bitcoin price decline from Q4 2025 to Q2 2026
  • 80% share of crypto exposure still held in bitcoin even in diversified baskets

A survey of 15 institutional investors conducted by Bitwise, first detailed by CryptoPotato, found that none trimmed their crypto positions even as bitcoin dropped about 50% over roughly two quarters. Allocations among the group span 0.5% to 13% of investable assets, though most sit at the low end, between 1% and 2%. Exposure is distributed across spot ETFs, direct token holdings, venture capital and hedge funds rather than concentrated in a single vehicle.

Zero of 15 Institutions Cut Exposure Through a 50% Drawdown

Bitwise’s research note describes a group holding steady rather than retreating. Some institutions are maintaining existing targets while others are still building toward higher allocations, and the firm found no evidence of anyone stepping back from the asset class entirely.

Several investors are shifting away from illiquid private placements. Some are layering in market-neutral strategies specifically to dampen volatility and clear internal investment-committee approvals.

Bitwise frames the internal debate at these institutions as having moved past whether to hold crypto at all.

Bitcoin Holds 80% of Exposure Even in Diversified Baskets

Bitcoin remains the unanimous holding. Every institution in the survey that owns any crypto owns BTC, typically framed as a store of value or a hedge against currency debasement comparable to gold.

Some hold bitcoin as a standalone position; others run a market-cap-weighted basket that still leaves roughly 80% of total crypto exposure in BTC alone, versus a much thinner allocation split across other tokens. Ethereum and Solana get a different treatment.

Institutions that hold them tend to run smaller position sizes and shorter investment horizons, tying their decisions to specific expectations around network adoption and value accrual.

Some investors avoid ETH and SOL entirely, arguing there is no clear link between blockchain usage and token value.

Spot ETFs Draw Institutions Away From Direct Custody

Spot crypto ETFs have become the default entry point. Almost every institution interviewed either already uses these funds or plans to, with several describing a migration from direct custody to ETF wrappers.

The cited reasons are lower operational cost, less internal workload, and simpler reporting compared with self-custodied holdings or bespoke private vehicles. Institutions still sitting in private crypto structures are also evaluating ETFs for the added liquidity and rebalancing flexibility they offer over illiquid placements.

Not every institution can make the switch. Some operate under mandates that bar holding spot commodities in any form, ETF included, while others prefer direct control and are building proprietary custody systems instead.

The CCS read. The steadier signal here is not bitcoin’s price but the plumbing around it: allocators who once needed a bull run to justify exposure are now holding through a halving of value without a committee revisiting the mandate. That is the precondition for ETF flows to become sticky rather than momentum-driven, and it raises the bar for what would actually trigger institutional selling next cycle.

One surveyed institution flagged a specific friction point still unresolved: public disclosure of ETF holdings through 13F filings, which some allocators view as an unwanted transparency cost of moving from private custody into regulated funds. How that concern plays out as more institutions weigh ETF conversion, and whether regulators or fund sponsors address it, remains an open question in Bitwise’s ongoing tracking of institutional adoption.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Ondo expands USDY yield token across Solana DeFi protocols as productive collateral
DeFi

Ondo expands USDY yield token across Solana DeFi protocols as productive collateral

, , , , , , ,

DeFiCrypto Coin Show News Team·September 24, 2026·3 min read

Ondo Finance is embedding its yield-bearing Treasury token USDY deeper into Solana’s DeFi ecosystem, signaling a broader shift toward measuring tokenized real-world assets by their utility and composability rather than issuance volume alone. The expansion tests whether regulated, yield-bearing instruments can circulate as productive collateral across decentralized venues without sacrificing compliance or redemption integrity.

  • USDY is a yield-bearing tokenized note backed by US Treasuries and bank deposits, not a fixed-value stablecoin like USDC or USDT
  • Ondo is expanding USDY across Solana lending, liquidity and trading venues to enable productive collateral use rather than passive holdings
  • Solana’s low-cost settlement and active DeFi ecosystem are attracting tokenized real-world assets, though liquidity depth during redemptions remains unresolved
  • USDY yield-bearing Treasury-backed token expanding across Solana DeFi venues for productive collateral use
  • Solana emerging as RWA distribution layer due to low transaction costs and fast settlement
  • Compliance and redemption structure preservation while increasing onchain composability for regulated assets

Ondo Finance is pushing its USDY tokenized yield product deeper into Solana’s decentralized finance ecosystem, according to reporting on the integration. The move signals a strategic shift: institutional tokenized assets are now being measured on utility, their ability to function as productive collateral across DeFi protocols, rather than on issuance volume alone. USDY differs fundamentally from conventional stablecoins; it represents exposure to short-term US Treasuries and bank deposits while accruing yield, making it a yield-bearing tokenized note rather than a fixed-value instrument pegged to the dollar.

USDY Designed to Generate Yield While Functioning as DeFi Collateral

USDY’s structural distinction matters for institutional deployment. Unlike USDC or USDT, which aim to maintain a stable $1 redemption value, USDY is intended to accrue yield over time while retaining that underlying exposure.

As the token integrates with Solana lending markets, liquidity pools and trading venues, holders can deploy it as productive collateral while preserving exposure to the yield profile of the underlying Treasury and deposit assets. That layering, combining regulated asset yield with DeFi composability, represents an important maturation step for the tokenized real-world assets category.

Ondo’s strategy is to make Treasury-linked products circulate through the same workflows as crypto-native collateral, where they can capture value across DeFi rather than remaining dormant in institutional wallets.

Solana Emerges as Primary RWA Distribution Layer on Low-Cost Settlement

Solana’s appeal for tokenized assets is rooted in economics. Fast settlement times, low transaction costs and an established DeFi ecosystem create conditions where institutional-grade assets can actually circulate onchain instead of sitting isolated. That efficiency advantage is crucial for products like USDY, which require regular redemptions and deep liquidity to function as collateral.

The technical challenge is different: preserving the compliance and redemption structure of a regulated asset while making it composable enough for DeFi workflows.

Ondo has been building toward this bridge systematically, expanding into tokenized equities and establishing new institutional minting routes. Bringing USDY into more Solana applications extends that same approach to yield-bearing dollar assets. For Solana’s DeFi protocols, the opportunity is to broaden their collateral options.

A lending market accepting a yield-bearing Treasury-linked token can offer users lower-volatility building blocks alongside SOL and crypto-native stablecoins, enabling new product construction for users seeking onchain liquidity without full exposure to volatile token price movements.

Maintaining Liquidity Depth During Redemptions Remains the Critical Test

The harder operational challenge is sustaining liquidity deep enough to preserve utility during redemptions and periods of market stress.

Integrating a regulated, yield-bearing instrument into multiple DeFi protocols works only if the underlying token remains sufficiently liquid to absorb redemptions without significant slippage. That liquidity requirement differs from pure trading volumes; it demands depth across venues and consistent availability during both normal operation and market dislocations.

The real test emerges in stress conditions, when collateral withdrawal demand typically spikes and liquidity can evaporate.

The CCS read. We see institutional tokenized assets shifting from a volume play to a utility one, which means the next winners will be those proving their products function across multiple DeFi venues without bleeding liquidity. For Solana, this validates its role as an RWA settlement layer, but it also highlights that yield-bearing Treasury tokens will compete directly with tokenized stocks and other regulated instruments arriving in DeFi, not just stablecoins.

Watch whether USDY maintains depth across Solana’s lending markets during the next period of redemption pressure or market volatility. The expansion only becomes sustainable if institutions can reliably use the token as collateral without worrying that liquidity will vanish when they need to exit.

Get this in your inboxThe Crypto Coin Show newsletter covers the policy and market moves institutional crypto investors are pricing in.

Subscribe

Load More