The approval moves the stablecoin infrastructure company toward federal supervision after meeting the regulator’s remaining conditions. 

It also brings stablecoin issuance, custody, and conversion services under one federally regulated entity. However, the charter does not give Bastion the full powers or protections of a traditional commercial bank.

Bastion charter covers stablecoin issuance and custody

The OCC approved Bastion’s conversion from a New York trust company to Bastion Platforms National Trust Company. The company submitted its application on March 30, 2026, under Charter Number 27198, according to OCC Corporate Decision #1391.

Bastion will operate from 216 Bowery in New York City once it satisfies the remaining approval conditions. The OCC also approved a citizenship waiver requested by one of Bastion’s directors.

The approved business model covers white-label stablecoin issuance, fiduciary custodial wallets, and fiat-to-USDC conversion. Bastion can also provide services to other regulated stablecoin issuers under the national trust charter.

The structure allows companies to access stablecoin infrastructure through one federally regulated counterparty. Bastion does not issue its own stablecoin, but it has partnered with Sony Bank. The company also counts Andreessen Horowitz and Coinbase Ventures among its backers.

Bastion CEO Nassim Eddequiouq said the company’s federal approval reflects the growing role of stablecoins in financial infrastructure. He said the sector now requires stronger standards around trust, governance and regulatory oversight.

Bastion has pursued federal supervision since receiving its New York trust charter in February 2025. The company later added four board members and advisors with experience at American Express, Morgan Stanley, EY and Optum.

National trust charter has banking limits

The OCC approval does not allow Bastion to accept deposits or provide FDIC insurance. Bastion must also acquire stock from a Federal Reserve bank before beginning operations.

The charter also does not provide automatic access to Federal Reserve payment systems. A proposed special-purpose payment account would not expand the organizations eligible to open Federal Reserve accounts.

Instead, the national trust charter places Bastion’s custody and stablecoin services under federal oversight. Its structure differs from traditional banks because it does not center on deposits and lending.

Bastion joins a growing group of digital-asset companies seeking national trust charters. OCC Comptroller Jonathan Gould said in August that regulators received 40 new-bank charter applications over roughly 18 months.

Of those applications, 23 involved digital-asset activity, marking an eightfold increase from the previous four years. Circle received final approval for Circle National Trust on July 10 after gaining conditional approval in December 2025.

BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets and Paxos also received conditional approvals in December, according to Davis Wright Tremaine.

The GENIUS Act has helped shape the regulatory environment surrounding the applications. Enacted on July 18, 2025, the law covers stablecoin requirements and reserve standards.

The OCC proposed rules in February covering reserves, redemption, custody, risk management, and issuer oversight. Gould said the regulator expects to finalize those rules by November.

Meanwhile, Brookings researchers Nellie Liang and Brent Neiman estimated the stablecoin market at about $270 billion in June 2026. They noted that reserve requirements could increase demand for U.S. Treasury bills and influence bank funding.

The Bank for International Settlements also warned that wider dollar-pegged stablecoin use could increase digital dollarization. It said the trend could weaken monetary sovereignty in some economies.

The charter expansion has also drawn criticism from lawmakers. Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote to Gould on May 18, arguing that some crypto companies could exceed traditional trust-company powers.

The OCC reached a different legal conclusion in Bastion’s decision. It determined that Bastion’s proposed custody, conversion, stablecoin issuance and issuer services qualify as permissible trust-company activities.

The post Bastion receives conditional OCC approval for national trust bank first appeared on Coinfea.

The growing artificial intelligence industry is increasing demand for electricity, land, and connected power facilities. 

Bitcoin miners with established energy assets are finding new opportunities beyond cryptocurrency production. The shift is turning mining sites into potential AI and high-performance computing infrastructure hubs.

OpenAI expects to use about $278 billion in cash between 2026 and 2030. The company also projects around $856 billion in computing infrastructure spending during the same period.

The expansion highlights a major change in AI development. Access to electricity and grid connections is becoming as important as access to advanced chips. Many Bitcoin miners already own facilities with power agreements, land access, and operational infrastructure.

According to OpenAI, AI infrastructure requires more than servers. Companies also need energy capacity, permits, transmission lines, construction partners, and suitable locations. These requirements have increased the value of existing power-connected sites.

AI demand shifts focus from chips to power infrastructure

OpenAI launched its Stargate project in January 2025 to build 10GW of AI infrastructure in the United States by 2029. The company later reported that it exceeded its initial target after adding 3GW within 90 days.

OpenAI and SoftBank also invested $500 million in SB Energy in January. The partnership supports a planned 1.2GW data center project in Milam County, Texas.

Gartner estimates global data center electricity usage will reach 565 TWh in 2026. The figure represents a 26% increase from 2025 levels. AI-focused servers are expected to account for about 31% of that consumption.

The International Energy Agency forecasts data center electricity demand could reach nearly 945 TWh by 2030. The agency warned grid limitations could delay around 20% of planned projects.

VanEck said electricity is becoming the main constraint for AI growth. CoinShares also identified land, power, and existing facilities as critical factors for future AI deployment.

These conditions are increasing the value of Bitcoin mining sites with active grid connections. Miners that spent years developing energy infrastructure now hold assets that AI companies require.

Bitcoin miners convert facilities into AI and HPC assets

CoinShares reported that its acquisition of three leased AI facilities in Northern Virginia valued stabilized infrastructure at about $27 million per megawatt. Some miners with energized but unused capacity trade near $3 million per megawatt.

The difference reflects the difficulty of securing new grid connections. CoinShares noted that the US interconnection queue stands near 2,600GW.

Regulatory limits are also affecting new data center construction. New York introduced restrictions on new hyperscale data centers in July.

As a result, existing mining facilities have gained strategic value. Companies including Core Scientific, Keel, Cipher, and IREN are shifting capacity toward AI and high-performance computing.

CoinShares found companies with contracted AI or HPC capacity trades at an average of 12.9 times enterprise value to next-12-month sales. Miners without AI contracts traded at about 3.7 times.

The transition requires significant investment. CoinShares estimates AI infrastructure upgrades cost $8 million to $15 million per megawatt. Mining infrastructure costs between $700,000 and $1 million per megawatt.

Core Scientific paid $41.9 million to cancel about 15 EH/s of future mining equipment. Keel, formerly Bitfarms, ended mining operations on June 29 and expects no mining revenue in the third quarter.

Cipher plans to exit mining by the end of 2027. IREN expects to complete its transition by December 31, 2026.

Crusoe has become an example of this shift. The company moved from Bitcoin mining powered by stranded natural gas toward AI infrastructure.

Crusoe now reports more than $140 billion in contracted value and 6GW of gross contracted capacity. Robinhood Ventures Fund I invested about $25 million in Crusoe’s $3.9 billion Series F round.

The changing market shows that Bitcoin mining infrastructure is being valued for its power access. As AI demand rises, connected megawatts are becoming a key asset for future computing expansion.

The post OpenAI compute surge turns Bitcoin mining sites into AI infrastructure assets first appeared on Coinfea.

The token gained momentum after regulatory, lending, and distribution updates arrived within a short period. Market attention has shifted toward Hyperliquid’s growing role in decentralized derivatives infrastructure. 

The recent moves highlight expanding use cases beyond traditional decentralized exchange activity.

HYPE surpassed its previous all-time high recorded on September 6, rising more than 15% over two days. 

The token has gained over 250% year to date, making it one of the strongest performers among the top ten cryptocurrencies by market capitalization.

Three major developments contributed to the latest momentum around HYPE. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a tokenized securities exemption, Hyperliquid launched manual borrowing features, and NEAR connected its perpetual futures platform to Hyperliquid’s order book.

SEC exemption opens new path for tokenized stock trading

The SEC announced an Innovation Exemption on September 17, creating a temporary five-year conditional exemption for tokenized securities venues. The order allows eligible platforms to trade tokenized National Market System stocks through permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools.

The exemption applies to tokenized stocks where holders maintain traditional shareholder rights. These rights include voting privileges and dividend payments. However, synthetic products such as tokenized security swaps remain outside the exemption’s scope.

Hyperliquid has positioned its HIP-3 framework around new perpetual markets built by external developers. The framework allows builders to stake HYPE and create markets on Hyperliquid’s order book.

Trade.xyz has already used HIP-3 to list tokenized equity perpetual contracts. Hyperliquid data showed that real-world asset markets have expanded rapidly. RWA markets accounted for about 2% of platform volume in January. That share has now grown to around half of overall volume.

The SEC decision does not directly approve equity perpetual products. However, it provides a regulatory signal around blockchain-based stock trading. Hyperliquid has already developed infrastructure supporting similar market activity.

Borrowing launch and new distribution deals boost HYPE demand

Hyperliquid introduced manual borrowing on HyperCore, allowing users to supply HYPE or Bitcoin as collateral. Users can borrow USDC or USDT against their assets through the new feature.

The platform set HYPE collateral at a 65% loan-to-value ratio and Bitcoin collateral at 50%. Hyperliquid reported that users borrowed about $269 million on the first day.

The borrowing system could affect large HYPE holders by offering liquidity without requiring asset sales. Users can keep their HYPE positions while accessing stablecoins through collateralized loans.

Meanwhile, NEAR integrated its perpetual futures platform with Hyperliquid’s infrastructure. The partnership uses Hyperliquid’s order book, matching system, and more than 50 markets.

NEAR provides the user interface while allowing traders to access markets across more than 30 chains. The integration directs trading activity into Hyperliquid’s liquidity system.

Payward, Kraken’s parent company, also announced plans to bring onchain perpetual futures to U.S. clients. The company identified Hyperliquid and HIP-3 markets as part of its planned route, pending regulatory approval.

The latest developments have strengthened Hyperliquid’s position as a derivatives infrastructure provider. The combination of lending features, external integrations, and regulatory developments has increased attention around HYPE’s expanding ecosystem.

The post HYPE price hits fresh record high above $90 with Hyperliquid adoption rising first appeared on Coinfea.

Investors, developers, and cryptographers disagree over whether protocol-funded grants strengthen or weaken the ecosystem. 

The dispute also reflects growing support for treating ZEC more like a long-term store of value. Meanwhile, developers are preparing a major upgrade that could change how the network operates.

The Zcash Dev Fund receives 20% of every block reward generated by the network. The pool finances grants for teams working on ecosystem development.

Developer Maxime Desalle challenged the model in his September 9 essay, “Contra the Zcash Dev Fund.” He argued that grant funding reduces rewards available to miners securing Zcash.

Desalle also criticized the incentives created by the system. He said it can encourage dependency, bureaucracy, political selection, and competition for grant approvals.

He argued that guaranteed funding reduces pressure to seek alternative financing. Teams could focus on grant reviewers instead of building products users want.

Desalle said he canceled a Zcash Community Grants award obtained about six months earlier. He said keeping the funding no longer seemed right.

He cited Tachyon, Shielded Labs, and ZODL as projects that attracted private capital without protocol subsidies.

Paradigm co-founder Matt Huang disagreed with Desalle’s position. Huang called inflation-funded developer support an elegant mechanism for financing long-term public goods.

Economist Alex Tabarrok offered a mixed assessment. He acknowledged Desalle’s governance concerns while pointing to challenges surrounding public-goods funding.

Governance questions sharpen the Zcash Dev Fund debate

Investor Haseeb Qureshi focused on who should control the Zcash Dev Fund. He argued that allocations should not depend entirely on token voting.

Instead, Qureshi proposed a system similar to representative democracy. Tokenholders would elect delegates or council members on a regular schedule.

He said those representatives should remain accountable to holders. Qureshi also warned that lifetime appointments generally undermine effective governance.

Qureshi and Desalle agreed on concerns involving coinholder grants. Recipients receive ZEC, which can increase their influence over later funding votes.

That influence can compound when the same recipients secure repeated grants. ZIP 1016 currently places no restrictions on anyone voting their coins.

‘Encrypted Bitcoin’ identity shapes ZEC’s next phase

The Zcash Dev Fund dispute also overlaps with changing views about ZEC’s purpose. Qureshi said the community increasingly sees ZEC as “encrypted Bitcoin.”

That identity favors monetary simplicity and fewer additional protocol features. Qureshi argued that a dependable store of value may eventually need to ossify.

Starknet co-founder Eli Ben-Sasson offered another perspective on September 17. He linked ZEC’s rally partly to concerns about Bitcoin becoming too ossified.

ZEC has traded close to $1,500 following a roughly 20% Thursday increase. The rally has brought further attention to Zcash’s direction.

Meanwhile, developers are targeting November 5 for the NU7 upgrade after reaching unanimous agreement on its contents. Testnet activation is scheduled for October 6.

Developers expect a final mainnet decision on October 20. NU7 would cut target block spacing from 75 seconds to 25 seconds.

The upgrade would also introduce the Network Sustainability Mechanism while preserving Zcash’s existing halving schedule.

Community voting has already supported both proposals. Developer Sean Bowe said 98.9% backed keeping the halving schedule. Bowe also said 99.9% of the ZEC-weighted vote supported faster blocks.

The post Zcash Funding Clash Intensifies as ZEC Embraces ‘Encrypted Bitcoin’ first appeared on Coinfea.

The deal links retail investors with a business now focused on power, computing, and large-scale data centers. It also reflects growing competition between artificial intelligence and crypto for energy, capital, and infrastructure. Crusoe’s transition shows how mining assets can gain new uses as AI demand accelerates.

Robinhood adds Crusoe to its private-market portfolio

Robinhood Ventures Fund I invested about $25 million in Crusoe as part of its planned $3.9 billion Series F. The transaction closed on August 31 and valued Crusoe at about $30.9 billion post-money.

Crusoe called the financing the first closing of the Series F round. Atreides Management, Mubadala Capital, and Valor Equity Partners co-led the financing.

Nvidia, Founders Fund, Qatar Investment Authority, and RVI also participated.

RVI President Sarah Pinto said the fund focused on Crusoe’s infrastructure rather than AI models alone. She described Crusoe as a vertically integrated AI infrastructure business using new energy sources for data centers.

Robinhood Chairman Vlad Tenev made a similar point on X. He said AI infrastructure matters as much as the models running on it.

RVI began trading on the NYSE on March 6. The closed-end fund does not require accredited-investor status or a stated minimum.

Robinhood says customers can invest from $1 through fractional shares. RVI holds OpenAI, SpaceX, Stripe, Databricks, Canva, and Crusoe.

The fund invested $75 million in OpenAI in April. Pinto previously described OpenAI as a frontier artificial intelligence company.

Crusoe gives RVI exposure to the energy and data-center layer supporting those models.

Crusoe reworks Bitcoin infrastructure for AI growth

Crusoe started in 2018 by turning flared natural gas into electricity for modular data centers. Those operations initially supported Bitcoin mining.

By March 2025, Crusoe had deployed more than 425 modular data centers across seven U.S. states and Argentina.

The company later sold its Bitcoin mining operations and Digital Flare Mitigation subsidiary to NYDIG. Crusoe then increased its focus on AI infrastructure.

Crusoe now reports more than $140 billion in total contracted value. It also has 6 gigawatts of gross contracted capacity, with 1 gigawatt operational.

CoinShares said listed miners with contracted AI or high-performance computing capacity trade at 12.9 times forward sales. Miners without such contracts trade near 3.7 times.

The sector carries more than $100 billion in AI and HPC backlog. However, that backlog represents only $1.1 billion in annualized revenue.

S&P Global has also recorded miners repurposing sites for AI and HPC use. Electricity remains a major constraint for both industries.

Gartner expects global data-center electricity use to rise 26% in 2026 to 565 terawatt-hours. AI-optimized servers could contribute 31% of that demand.

That trend increases the value of existing powered and permitted sites. It also strengthens the case for converting former mining infrastructure.

Crypto funding remains active. Galaxy Research said investors committed $5.683 billion across 384 crypto and blockchain deals during the second quarter.

That total rose 31% from the previous quarter, with later-stage funding driving much of the increase. AI now competes with crypto for capital, electricity, and data-center locations.

The post Robinhood Invests $25M as Crusoe Pivots From Bitcoin to AI first appeared on Coinfea.

The latest action targets service providers rather than focusing only on individual blockchain addresses. 

Officials say the approach aims to disrupt firms helping sanctioned actors move funds through digital assets. 

The shift also increases compliance risks for foreign exchanges, brokers, banks, and infrastructure companies handling Iran-linked activity. 

Treasury targets BitBank and Zanjani network

The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctioned BitBank on September 17 under Operation Economic Outcast. 

Treasury described BitBank as an Iranian exchange controlled by sanctioned financier Babak Zanjani. Between June and July, Treasury said Zanjani used BitBank to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in Bitcoin. The agency said the funds went to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

OFAC also designated BitBank developer Pishtaz Simorgh Electronic Trade Company and three Zanjani associates. 

They were Hossein Ali Zaker Hossein, Mohammad Mahdi Zaker Hossein, and Seyed Adel Heidari. 

Treasury said the companies and executives formed part of Iran’s digital-asset sanctions-evasion infrastructure. Secretary Scott Bessent said cryptocurrency financing for Iran remained within OFAC’s enforcement reach. 

Treasury said Hormuz Safe Marine Services Authority has used BitBank since June to transfer payments to Iran. 

Zanjani received a death sentence in Iran in 2016 over embezzlement involving the National Iranian Oil Company. Iran commuted that sentence in 2024, and Treasury said he later returned to regime-linked business projects. 

Investigations also linked Zanjani to Zedcex and Zedxion, two UK-registered cryptocurrency exchanges. OCCRP reported that the network used a fictitious executive represented with stock footage. TRM Labs estimated the exchanges processed about $1 billion in funds linked to the IRGC. 

Operation economic outcast widens foreign crypto exposure

Treasury launched Operation Economic Outcast on August 24 and targeted nearly 60 Iran-linked entities, people, and vessels. TRM Labs said OFAC issued five sectoral determinations under Executive Order 13902. Those determinations covered digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping. 

The digital-assets determination expands secondary sanctions exposure beyond listed wallets and named companies. Treasury warned that entities facilitating Iranian sanctions evasion could lose access to the U.S. financial system. The risk extends to non-U.S. exchanges, OTC desks, banks, and infrastructure providers handling significant Iranian transactions. 

Earlier enforcement targeted Zedcex and Zedxion in January, followed by major Iranian exchanges in June. Treasury later sanctioned Shelbit and Aban Tether in August as pressure on Iran’s crypto sector increased. 

However, blockchain data suggests tougher enforcement may redirect activity instead of eliminating it. Chainalysis said IRGC-linked addresses represented more than half of Iran’s crypto value received during fourth-quarter 2025. Those addresses received more than $3 billion during 2025, according to the firm. 

TRM Labs found nearly 95% of 2025 inflows to sanctioned entities and jurisdictions used stablecoins. Centralized-exchange flows fell nearly 30%, while high-risk, no-KYC, and decentralized-service flows increased more than 200%. 

FATF also found uneven global enforcement. Its 2026 survey showed 91 of 109 jurisdictions had passed Travel Rule legislation. Yet 55 of those 91 jurisdictions had not taken focused supervisory or enforcement action. Those gaps can leave room for flows to shift toward weaker jurisdictions and harder-to-monitor services. 

The post US Treasury Sanctions Iran-Linked BitBank Over Crypto Transfers first appeared on Coinfea.

The exchange now anchors growing spot activity across real-world assets and tokenized equities. 

New integrations and broader network support have expanded its role beyond conventional token swaps. The shift also shows how permissionless markets are gaining ground across the RWA sector.

Uniswap captures majority of decentralized RWA trading

Uniswap handled more than 50% of DEX-based real-world asset volume, while its share recently reached 60%. The protocol processed more than $743 million in RWA volume during peak trading by September 4.

Daily RWA volume later eased toward roughly $300 million. Uniswap first took control of decentralized RWA spot trading in August and retained its influence in September.

Uniswap emerged as the leading venue for RWA trading in the past month, with recent volume records as of September 7 | Source: Dune Analytics.

HIP-3 remained the main venue for RWA perpetual futures. However, Uniswap became the leading decentralized platform for RWA spot trading.

Uniswap V4 and third-party deployments now support specialized markets, while Unichain continues expanding as a trading venue. The protocol also captures activity across Ethereum, Solana, Base, and other major networks.

RWA activity accelerated after reflection tokens linked to tokenized stocks entered the market. That trend lifted volumes across established tokenization platforms.

Uniswap also benefited from Robinhood Chain connections and its presence within the wider Robinhood ecosystem. The supplied report said this growth could support RWA trading moving from Binance toward other markets.

RealityFi rStocks expand Uniswap tokenized asset market

Uniswap already offered tokenized stocks from Ondo Finance and XStocks before adding RealityFi’s rStocks. RealityFi has also expanded to Arbitrum, Morph Network, and Bitget Wallet.

Bitget Wallet provides another retail gateway that may increase access to Uniswap. The rStocks integration adds more than 1,700 assets.

The offering covers about 95% of major US equities. Those equities rank among popular assets for spot trading, perpetual swaps, and reflection meme tokens.

FINRA-registered custodians back rStocks, while the products operate under El Salvador’s jurisdiction. US persons cannot directly trade the stocks, although the permissionless DEX remains accessible.

UNI also rallied alongside stronger RWA activity. The token climbed from about $3.24 one month earlier to $6.28 on September 16.

UNI traded close to its higher range for 2026, after getting a boost from Robinhood activity and accelerating RWA trading. | Source: Coingecko.

UNI reached $7.29 on September 7, leaving it up 10.9% during 2026. However, around 1,400 wallets hold most of the UNI supply.

That concentration weakens the narrative of widespread retail ownership and exposes the recovery to large-holder selling pressure. Stronger trading and fees have nevertheless supported renewed activity.

The rebound follows years of underperformance and slower trading. Uniswap has since expanded through new networks, financial infrastructure, and tokenization markets.

By September 16, Uniswap V3 on Robinhood Chain recorded more than $743 million in trading volume. Ethereum V3 carried about $640 million, while Robinhood V4 reached $278 million.

DeFi Llama data showed daily Uniswap volume rising during the previous 30 days toward its 2026 high during September. Uniswap holds $3.59 billion in value locked.

The protocol also produces about $14.9 million in monthly revenue and has generated more than $182 million in fees.

The post Uniswap Rises as Leading Venue for Tokenized Asset Trading first appeared on Coinfea.

The asset receives greater exposure when Bitcoin remains outside the portfolio mix. Grayscale designed the models to simplify digital asset allocation while leaving investment decisions with advisors. XRP also ranks among the three largest holdings across Grayscale’s two flagship strategies.

Grayscale Investments launched four crypto model portfolios on September 14, according to a company announcement. The suite includes Core Plus, Leaders, Next Gen, and Infrastructure strategies.

Grayscale markets the products as pre-built allocations covering asset selection, diversification, sizing, and rebalancing. Financial platforms receive the models before making them available to advisors.

Laurie Katz, Grayscale’s Global Head of Distribution, said advisors increasingly want simpler ways to introduce digital assets. She said many advisors prefer avoiding the work required to maintain individual asset allocations.

Each strategy follows market-cap weighting and receives quarterly rebalancing. Grayscale also limits any single eligible asset to 40% of each portfolio.

Advisors retain full discretion over whether they use the portfolios and their suggested allocations.

XRP weight climbs sharply without Bitcoin

Grayscale’s Next Gen model excludes Bitcoin, pushing the Grayscale XRP Trust ETF higher within the portfolio. Grayscale’s August 31 allocation sheet assigns GXRP a 26.11% target weight.

That allocation places XRP second behind the Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF. Ether carries a 42.34% allocation in the model.

The Grayscale Solana Staking ETF follows at 21.09%. Hyperliquid Staking ETF accounts for 5.76%, while Chainlink Trust ETF receives 2.66%.

Avalanche Staking ETF holds a 1.08% allocation, while Sui Staking ETF receives 0.96%. Grayscale allows the Next Gen strategy to hold up to 10 eligible assets.

XRP represents the portfolio’s entire “Currencies” category, giving that segment a 26.11% weighting. Smart-contract platforms account for 65.47% of the allocation.

The Digital Assets Next Gen fact sheet shows GXRP at 26.11%. Source: Grayscale.

Grayscale reported a 30.69% return for the Next Gen model since inception. The firm has not yet provided longer-term performance figures.

XRP remains third when Bitcoin returns

XRP receives a smaller allocation in Grayscale’s Digital Assets Leaders model because Bitcoin returns to the investment mix. GXRP holds an 11.92% target weight in that strategy.

Ether leads the Leaders portfolio with 38.57%, followed by Bitcoin at 37.25%. Solana represents 9.63%, while Hyperliquid accounts for 2.63%.

Bitcoin and Ether therefore control more than three-quarters of the Leaders allocation. That structure leaves a smaller portion available for XRP and other assets.

Without Bitcoin, XRP’s portfolio share more than doubles compared with its Leaders allocation.

Grayscale launched the models as regulated XRP investment products, continuing to attract capital. XRP ETFs recorded $12.29 million in inflows during one early-September session.

Bitcoin ETFs recorded $120.24 million in outflows during the same period. Grayscale’s GXRP contributed $2.98 million to the XRP ETF inflow total.

XRP funds have also attracted capital during previous Bitcoin declines. The first US spot XRP ETF began Nasdaq trading in November 2025.

That product attracted $243 million during its first trading day, while Bitcoin fell below $100,000.

Grayscale’s model portfolio suite now creates another channel for advisors seeking XRP exposure through regulated investment products. Advisors can gain price exposure without directly holding XRP.

XRP traded around $1.30, according to CoinGecko data supplied for the report. The token had fallen 7.8% over 24 hours but remained 30% higher over 30 days.

The post XRP claims a 26.11% weight in Grayscale’s new Bitcoin-free crypto model first appeared on Coinfea.

The latest surge reflects rapid growth in short-dated crypto and index contracts across major retail trading platforms. 

Distribution through mainstream brokerage apps has widened Kalshi’s reach beyond users who visit prediction-market platforms directly. 

However, differing tracking methods mean reported market-share figures can vary across data providers.

Kalshi captures 96% of weekly non-sports volume

Weekly non-sports prediction market volume across Kalshi and Polymarket reached $10 billion in the week ending September 13. 

Artemis data showed the combined figure marked the sixth consecutive weekly record for the category. 

Kalshi generated $9.6 billion, while Polymarket recorded about $344.2 million in tracked activity. That gave Kalshi roughly 96% of the measured market, extending a sharp shift seen since early June.

The balance looked very different only three months earlier, when weekly volumes across both platforms were much closer. 

Polymarket also held the stronger position last year before Kalshi’s non-sports activity accelerated. 

Kalshi’s expansion has coincided with distribution agreements across Robinhood, Coinbase, Webull and Moomoo. 

Those retail platforms place Kalshi contracts before users who may never visit Kalshi directly.

The products promoted through those channels also shape the reported non-sports prediction market volume. 

Webull’s prediction markets section features Kalshi-powered hourly contracts tied to major financial benchmarks and cryptocurrencies.

Those markets include the S&P 500, Nasdaq, Bitcoin, and Ethereum. Polymarket lacks comparable distribution across those mainstream retail platforms, limiting its exposure beyond crypto-focused users.

Hourly contracts and tracking rules inflate turnover differences

Short-dated contracts can generate repeated trading volume from the same pool of capital. An hourly Bitcoin contract can open and settle within 60 minutes before traders move into another contract. 

The same account balance can therefore create fresh notional volume repeatedly throughout a trading day. By comparison, a Federal Reserve contract expiring in November can lock capital for weeks before settlement.

Both types still count toward reported volume, despite very different holding periods and capital turnover. Multi-leg combinations can create similar classification effects when several legs settle as one contract. 

Trackers may classify the full notional under non-sports based on the contract structure rather than underlying components.

Measurement methods also complicate comparisons between Kalshi and Polymarket. Artemis tracks onchain activity, while Polymarket’s CFTC-regulated US. 

venue does not settle trades through the same system. As a result, volume from that regulated venue does not appear inside the reported $344.2 million figure. Other data providers also classify crypto contracts, combinations, and exotic markets differently.

Those differences can change the estimated size of Kalshi’s lead, although trackers show the same broad direction. 

Kalshi also faces potential distribution risk as some partners develop competing market infrastructure. 

Robinhood has been developing Rothera with Susquehanna International Group as an exchange and clearing venture. 

The project could eventually let Robinhood list event contracts without relying on an outside venue.

That matters because Robinhood reportedly accounts for roughly one-third of Kalshi’s daily trading flow. 

That concentration shows how strongly distribution and contract duration now influence headline volume statistics. It also highlights why turnover requires context when comparing competing prediction markets.

The post Non-sports prediction market volume hits $10 billion as Kalshi pulls away from Polymarket first appeared on Coinfea.

Growing institutional participation has expanded supply, but liquidity and practical onchain use now shape the sector’s next phase. 

Market participants increasingly want assets that can move between platforms, support lending, and trade efficiently. 

That shift could determine whether tokenized RWAs develop into functional financial infrastructure or remain digital versions of traditional products.

Castle Labs said in a September 14 report that the industry’s next phase will depend on utility rather than additional listings. 

The research firm highlighted liquidity, collateral use, accessibility, and interoperability as critical areas for future growth.

That distinction matters for institutions exploring tokenization and DeFi protocols seeking yield-bearing collateral. 

Greater utility could help tokenized assets generate value across financial markets instead of functioning mainly as wrappers.

US Treasuries anchor the growing tokenized RWA market

RWA.xyz reported $38.86 billion in distributed asset value as of September 15, up 1.00% over 30 days. The market also included about 4.24 million asset holders.

Castle Labs said US government debt represents more than $15.9 billion of tokenized real-world assets. Commodities account for roughly $4.9 billion, while active strategies represent another $3.6 billion.

Asset-backed credit totals about $2.56 billion, while tokenized stocks account for approximately $2.52 billion.

Blockchain distribution also highlights the market’s fragmentation. RWA.xyz data from September 14 showed Ethereum leading with $17.3 billion in tokenized assets.

BNB Chain ranked second with $5.6 billion, followed by Solana with approximately $4.3 billion. That distribution creates challenges when investors need liquidity across different blockchain networks.

Earlier growth had already accelerated sharply. CoinGecko reported that tokenized RWAs exceeded $19.3 billion by the end of 2026’s first quarter.

That represented more than threefold growth from January 2025 levels.

Castle Labs said asset supply no longer represents the main obstacle. Kraken, Robinhood, Ondo, Securitize, Franklin Templeton, and BlackRock already provide tokenized exposure through different products.

Instead, the industry now faces questions about what investors can actually do after acquiring those assets.

Castle Labs divides tokenized RWA utility into accessibility and composability. Tokenization has expanded access to trading venues, but access alone does not create meaningful onchain utility.

Assets need deep liquidity and the ability to move between venues. They must also work as collateral and interact efficiently with other blockchain-based financial products.

Longer trading hours in traditional markets have also reduced one historical advantage held by cryptocurrency markets. Round-the-clock access alone may therefore become less important as traditional infrastructure evolves.

Tokenized assets remain dominated by wrappers as liquidity lags

Pantera Capital found that tokenized RWA infrastructure still remains relatively immature despite rapid market growth.

Its first-quarter report tracked 593 assets, including 542 live products. The average Tokenization Progress Index reached only 2.04 out of five.

Pantera classified 77.6% of tracked assets as wrappers. Another 11.1% qualified as hybrid products, while only 2.7% achieved fully native status.

The firm compared today’s tokenization market with the internet’s early “newspaper-on-a-website” period. Existing products have moved onto new infrastructure without fully using its technological capabilities.

As a result, many tokenized assets still operate much like their traditional counterparts. That structure helps explain why liquidity and market infrastructure have struggled to match asset growth.

The OECD identified similar barriers to adoption. It pointed to thin liquidity, custody gaps, limited payment networks, legal uncertainty, and weak interoperability.

Tokenization alone does not automatically create liquidity. Markets still require market makers, two-sided order flow, and reliable price discovery.

Policy developments could support further expansion. TRM Labs said stablecoin regulation progressed across more than 70% of 30 jurisdictions during 2025.

The firm also reported that about 80% of financial institutions had announced digital asset initiatives.

Meanwhile, IMF economist Tobias Adrian said in April 2026 that tokenization could support atomic settlement and continuous liquidity management. He also highlighted embedded compliance as another potential benefit.

However, Adrian warned that inadequate legal frameworks and unsafe settlement assets could increase financial instability. Faster banking processes could also deepen concentration and fragmentation risks.

BCG reached a similar long-term view in its May report. It said digital RWAs remain relatively small but could gain major structural importance within banking over the next decade.

The market’s next test will therefore extend beyond the value of assets placed onchain. Liquidity, interoperability, collateral use, and reliable settlement will determine how much of that value becomes financially useful.

The post Tokenized RWAs top $38 billion as market shifts from listings to utility first appeared on Coinfea.