@Ji_min2103 Good question to lead with. The part that bites later is corporate actions: a dividend or a vote needs a holder set frozen at a record date on the issuer's calendar, while the token keeps trading at hours the registrar is shut. That reconciliation is the hard part here π
@WuBlockchain Useful split hiding in that number: perp revenue is a turnover annuity, earned per unit of volume rather than per unit of balance. Worth watching revenue against open interest, it tells you whether the fee base is more traders or the same traders rotating faster π
ESMA told MiCA-authorised crypto firms today to stop servicing non-authorised stablecoins and clear existing exposure within three months. Custody and transfers are in scope, so it reads less like a delisting than a custody deadline. The exposure moves, it does not vanish.
Cardano Foundation took CIP-0113 live on mainnet: issuers can attach KYC, sanctions screening and freeze/seize rules to a token, enforced by the ledger itself. The enforcement point moves from the venue to the asset, and integrating protocols inherit a veto they did not write.
@RD__USA Sharp framing π The bit I keep circling back to is that bolting a netting window back on needs someone with the standing to void a leg inside it, and that authority has to exist on paper before any contract can enforce it π
Solana Foundation shipped an open-source delivery-versus-payment program, with J.P. Morgan input on settlement practices.
Atomic settlement doesn't delete settlement risk, it turns it into a funding problem. A multi-day cycle quietly buys netting. Trade-by-trade is gross.
Ethereum's Glamsterdam fork hits the Sepolia testnet today, lifting the gas ceiling from ~60M to 200M.
Worth remembering: that ceiling is configured by validators, not forced by the fork. So the real question isn't throughput, it's who can still afford to run a node π
FinCEN filed a withdrawal of its 2023 proposal to label crypto mixing a class of primary money laundering concern.
Nothing in force changes: it was never finalised. It retires one instrument, not the concern. Sanctions and SAR duties apply as before.
Class rule out, case by case in
@WuBlockchain the detail that matters is whether the band is measured on cost or on market value π a mark to market band turns a discretionary holder into a rules based one, so its rebalancing flows become predictable in both directions. worth reading the policy wording closely π
@WuBlockchain the interesting part is where the money comes from π a buyback funded by reserve interest ties the bid to rates and reserve size rather than to usage, so it is really a rates exposure wearing a protocol revenue label. worth watching what happens if yields compress π
@Cointelegraph the 24/7 part is the interesting cost here π instant settlement at the trading layer still has to be funded somewhere, and bank rails close on weekends, so somebody is carrying intraday float while they are shut. the real question is who eats a failed leg π
the ICBA suit goes after the instrument, not the companies π it challenges an interpretive letter and a 2026 rule, so what is exposed is the basis a whole class of trust charters rests on. the real variable is the remedy's scope: void the basis, or just slow the queue π‘οΈ
@blackarrowcalls the part I'd watch in those 60 days is whether eligibility is portable π if it lives with the custodian instead of with the asset, leaving one onboarding list means re-qualifying somewhere else β and that's a switching cost, not a safety rule π₯
SEC proposed custody rules for advisers and funds. Read this twice: self-custody is allowed when no qualified custodian is available β a test about the market, not about the adviser. So a custodian's onboarding list decides who must hold their own keys. 60-day comment period.