MSTR holders just funded a $1.59 billion cash pile that may never become Bitcoin
Strategy, the Bitcoin treasury company formerly known as MicroStrategy, raised $2.0065 billion by selling common shares from Aug. 17 through Aug. 23 and bought no Bitcoin. The transaction left its $1.59 billion USD Cash balance at the center of a wider capital-allocation contest.
The company sold 18,261,118 shares of MSTR, its common stock, then used $136.4 million to repurchase 1,431,212 shares of STRC, a variable-rate preferred stock. It transferred another $300 million to its separately designated USD Reserve. The remainder, $1.5701 billion, went into USD Cash, according to Strategy's Aug. 24 filing.
Strategy reported ending balances of $5.10 billion in the reserve and $1.59 billion in USD Cash. Those balances included expected proceeds from ATM shares that had not yet settled. The company held 840,447 BTC after making no Bitcoin purchase or sale during the week, with an aggregate cost of $63.36 billion and an average cost of $75,385 per coin.
Related Reading Strategy’s $4.6 billion cash buffer gives it almost 3 years before Bitcoin sales create real stress The two dollar accounts serve different purposes. The USD Reserve remains designated for preferred dividends and interest on outstanding debt. USD Cash is flexible: Strategy may use it to acquire Bitcoin, cover those obligations, repurchase MSTR or preferred stock, repay, repurchase or redeem convertible notes, increase the reserve, or pursue similar Bitcoin Treasury Company purposes.
Because those are permitted uses rather than commitments, Bitcoin is one potential destination for the pool, not a promised one.
The flexibility came with a measurable common-share cost. Strategy's share dashboard reported 415.929 million basic shares outstanding on Aug. 23. Subtracting the 18.261 million shares issued during the week produces an implied pre-week basic count of 397.668 million, meaning the issuance increased that count by about 4.59%. The calculation uses reported and rounded share totals and is not a GAAP diluted-earnings measure. The filed sale totals also imply average net proceeds of about $109.88 per share.
MSTR holders are financing several potential uses at once. Strategy retained $516.6 million of preferred-security repurchase authorization and $1 billion of MSTR repurchase authorization after the latest transactions. Neither authorization commits USD Cash, but both compete with Bitcoin and debt actions as possible uses.
Related Reading Strategy sells $395 million in Bitcoin and MSTR stock to buyback $81 million in STRC and build cash reserve to $4 billion What would trigger deployment? The filing says the flexible pool is intended to help management respond to market conditions, including dislocations in Bitcoin or Strategy securities, without setting a fixed threshold.
STRC offers one visible test. Its Aug. 25 close of $97.15 and after-hours quote of $97.10 placed it about 2.9% below its $100 stated amount. In recent remarks reported by CryptoSlate, management used STRC prices of $95 or $90 as examples of levels that could warrant support and said it would consider MSTR repurchases at a sufficiently deep discount to net asset value. Those were guideposts, not binding rules.
Related Reading Strategy has $785 million left to close STRC’s final $5 gap after selling $213 million in Bitcoin Bitcoin was about $78,780 on Aug. 26, above Strategy's $75,385 average acquisition cost. Strategy has disclosed no price-based Bitcoin buying trigger for USD Cash.
The next deployment will show which use management prioritizes: Bitcoin, discounted preferred or common shares, convertible debt, or additional protection for dollar obligations. Until then, the $1.59 billion is optionality rather than a Bitcoin order waiting to be filled.
The post MSTR holders just funded a $1.59 billion cash pile that may never become Bitcoin appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/mstr-holders-just-funded-a-1-59-billion-cash-pile-that-may-never-become-bitcoin/
Strategy, the Bitcoin treasury company formerly known as MicroStrategy, raised $2.0065 billion by selling common shares from Aug. 17 through Aug. 23 and bought no Bitcoin. The transaction left its $1.59 billion USD Cash balance at the center of a wider capital-allocation contest.
The company sold 18,261,118 shares of MSTR, its common stock, then used $136.4 million to repurchase 1,431,212 shares of STRC, a variable-rate preferred stock. It transferred another $300 million to its separately designated USD Reserve. The remainder, $1.5701 billion, went into USD Cash, according to Strategy's Aug. 24 filing.
Strategy reported ending balances of $5.10 billion in the reserve and $1.59 billion in USD Cash. Those balances included expected proceeds from ATM shares that had not yet settled. The company held 840,447 BTC after making no Bitcoin purchase or sale during the week, with an aggregate cost of $63.36 billion and an average cost of $75,385 per coin.
Related Reading Strategy’s $4.6 billion cash buffer gives it almost 3 years before Bitcoin sales create real stress The two dollar accounts serve different purposes. The USD Reserve remains designated for preferred dividends and interest on outstanding debt. USD Cash is flexible: Strategy may use it to acquire Bitcoin, cover those obligations, repurchase MSTR or preferred stock, repay, repurchase or redeem convertible notes, increase the reserve, or pursue similar Bitcoin Treasury Company purposes.
Because those are permitted uses rather than commitments, Bitcoin is one potential destination for the pool, not a promised one.
The flexibility came with a measurable common-share cost. Strategy's share dashboard reported 415.929 million basic shares outstanding on Aug. 23. Subtracting the 18.261 million shares issued during the week produces an implied pre-week basic count of 397.668 million, meaning the issuance increased that count by about 4.59%. The calculation uses reported and rounded share totals and is not a GAAP diluted-earnings measure. The filed sale totals also imply average net proceeds of about $109.88 per share.
MSTR holders are financing several potential uses at once. Strategy retained $516.6 million of preferred-security repurchase authorization and $1 billion of MSTR repurchase authorization after the latest transactions. Neither authorization commits USD Cash, but both compete with Bitcoin and debt actions as possible uses.
Related Reading Strategy sells $395 million in Bitcoin and MSTR stock to buyback $81 million in STRC and build cash reserve to $4 billion What would trigger deployment? The filing says the flexible pool is intended to help management respond to market conditions, including dislocations in Bitcoin or Strategy securities, without setting a fixed threshold.
STRC offers one visible test. Its Aug. 25 close of $97.15 and after-hours quote of $97.10 placed it about 2.9% below its $100 stated amount. In recent remarks reported by CryptoSlate, management used STRC prices of $95 or $90 as examples of levels that could warrant support and said it would consider MSTR repurchases at a sufficiently deep discount to net asset value. Those were guideposts, not binding rules.
Related Reading Strategy has $785 million left to close STRC’s final $5 gap after selling $213 million in Bitcoin Bitcoin was about $78,780 on Aug. 26, above Strategy's $75,385 average acquisition cost. Strategy has disclosed no price-based Bitcoin buying trigger for USD Cash.
The next deployment will show which use management prioritizes: Bitcoin, discounted preferred or common shares, convertible debt, or additional protection for dollar obligations. Until then, the $1.59 billion is optionality rather than a Bitcoin order waiting to be filled.
The post MSTR holders just funded a $1.59 billion cash pile that may never become Bitcoin appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/mstr-holders-just-funded-a-1-59-billion-cash-pile-that-may-never-become-bitcoin/
Ethereum Devs Propose Deposit Contract Overhaul to Quantum-Proof Staking
The proposal would let validator keys grow to 8,192 bytes and adds a switch that permanently retires today's BLS signatures.
https://decrypt.co/376599/ethereum-devs-propose-deposit-contract-overhaul-to-quantum-proof-staking
The proposal would let validator keys grow to 8,192 bytes and adds a switch that permanently retires today's BLS signatures.
https://decrypt.co/376599/ethereum-devs-propose-deposit-contract-overhaul-to-quantum-proof-staking
XRP Leads Crypto Pullback as Leverage Unwind Tests Rally
XRP led losses among the 10 biggest cryptocurrencies today. The charts show the real test for its rally is only getting started.
https://decrypt.co/376601/xrp-price-leverage-unwind-tests-rally
XRP led losses among the 10 biggest cryptocurrencies today. The charts show the real test for its rally is only getting started.
https://decrypt.co/376601/xrp-price-leverage-unwind-tests-rally
Why this XRP ETF could drift from XRP price as fees, trading costs and fund structure stack up
REX-Osprey’s XRP ETF held 40.25% of its assets in the CoinShares Physical XRP ETP on Aug. 24, routing $22.87 million of a $56.68 million portfolio through another listed product. That structure means XRP ETF fees and trading costs can stack up across two listed products. The same holdings snapshot reported 59.74% as XRP, with 4.7 million XRPR shares outstanding, a $12.09 net asset value and a $12.06 closing price.
That split is not evidence that the CoinShares position lacks XRP backing. CoinShares says its product is 100% physically backed. Nor should XRPR’s XRP line be read as proof that the parent fund directly owns every token: its February shareholder report consolidates a Cayman subsidiary used for XRP exposure.
The allocation is consistent with XRPR’s disclosed mandate. Its June 30 prospectus says the fund seeks to keep at least 80% of assets in XRP and instruments providing XRP exposure, while investing at least 40% in securities such as ETFs and non-U.S. exchange-traded products. At 40.25%, the CoinShares sleeve sits just above that floor.
Related Reading Rex-Osprey hybrid spot XRP ETF makes 2025 record-breaking debut How XRP ETF fees stack up in the second layer XRPR discloses a 0.75% total annual operating expense ratio. CoinShares lists a 1.50% annual fee for its XRP ETP. Applying that fee to the Aug. 24 weight produces an estimated 0.60375 percentage-point annual drag inside XRPR before changes in allocation, prices or expenses.
That estimate is not a fixed all-in XRPR fee. The underlying product’s charge is reflected in its own value, while XRPR’s 0.75% is the fund’s disclosed operating expense figure. REX-Osprey’s statement of additional information says shareholders indirectly bear acquired-vehicle fees in addition to the fund’s own expenses, but the weight can change daily and accounting treatment can affect how the cost appears.
Related Reading Investors poured $82 million into Canary’s XRP ETF, but falling prices erased double what they put in The sleeve can also create tracking differences beyond the stated fee. XRPR investors trade a U.S.-listed ETF, while part of its exposure comes through a Jersey-domiciled debt security listed on European exchanges. CoinShares reported $168.75 million of product assets on Aug. 21, but the XRPR holdings snapshot does not show the position’s current bid-ask spread, market depth or execution price.
Those market frictions matter when XRPR has to rebalance, create or redeem shares, or trade while the underlying venue is less liquid or operating on different hours. The extra security also adds an issuer, custody and trading-venue chain between XRPR and the XRP backing. CoinShares’ physical-backing disclosure addresses the asset backing; it does not eliminate the legal and execution differences between holding XRP exposure through an ETP and obtaining it elsewhere.
Related Reading XRP extends the longest active ETF inflow streak in crypto as rival funds struggle for fresh cash For shareholders, the practical impact of XRP ETF fees is return divergence: how closely XRPR’s net asset value follows XRP after its own expenses, the weighted CoinShares fee, and the trading costs of maintaining the required securities sleeve.
The post Why this XRP ETF could drift from XRP price as fees, trading costs and fund structure stack up appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/why-this-xrp-etf-could-drift-from-xrp-as-fees-trading-costs-and-fund-structure-stack-up/
REX-Osprey’s XRP ETF held 40.25% of its assets in the CoinShares Physical XRP ETP on Aug. 24, routing $22.87 million of a $56.68 million portfolio through another listed product. That structure means XRP ETF fees and trading costs can stack up across two listed products. The same holdings snapshot reported 59.74% as XRP, with 4.7 million XRPR shares outstanding, a $12.09 net asset value and a $12.06 closing price.
That split is not evidence that the CoinShares position lacks XRP backing. CoinShares says its product is 100% physically backed. Nor should XRPR’s XRP line be read as proof that the parent fund directly owns every token: its February shareholder report consolidates a Cayman subsidiary used for XRP exposure.
The allocation is consistent with XRPR’s disclosed mandate. Its June 30 prospectus says the fund seeks to keep at least 80% of assets in XRP and instruments providing XRP exposure, while investing at least 40% in securities such as ETFs and non-U.S. exchange-traded products. At 40.25%, the CoinShares sleeve sits just above that floor.
Related Reading Rex-Osprey hybrid spot XRP ETF makes 2025 record-breaking debut How XRP ETF fees stack up in the second layer XRPR discloses a 0.75% total annual operating expense ratio. CoinShares lists a 1.50% annual fee for its XRP ETP. Applying that fee to the Aug. 24 weight produces an estimated 0.60375 percentage-point annual drag inside XRPR before changes in allocation, prices or expenses.
That estimate is not a fixed all-in XRPR fee. The underlying product’s charge is reflected in its own value, while XRPR’s 0.75% is the fund’s disclosed operating expense figure. REX-Osprey’s statement of additional information says shareholders indirectly bear acquired-vehicle fees in addition to the fund’s own expenses, but the weight can change daily and accounting treatment can affect how the cost appears.
Related Reading Investors poured $82 million into Canary’s XRP ETF, but falling prices erased double what they put in The sleeve can also create tracking differences beyond the stated fee. XRPR investors trade a U.S.-listed ETF, while part of its exposure comes through a Jersey-domiciled debt security listed on European exchanges. CoinShares reported $168.75 million of product assets on Aug. 21, but the XRPR holdings snapshot does not show the position’s current bid-ask spread, market depth or execution price.
Those market frictions matter when XRPR has to rebalance, create or redeem shares, or trade while the underlying venue is less liquid or operating on different hours. The extra security also adds an issuer, custody and trading-venue chain between XRPR and the XRP backing. CoinShares’ physical-backing disclosure addresses the asset backing; it does not eliminate the legal and execution differences between holding XRP exposure through an ETP and obtaining it elsewhere.
Related Reading XRP extends the longest active ETF inflow streak in crypto as rival funds struggle for fresh cash For shareholders, the practical impact of XRP ETF fees is return divergence: how closely XRPR’s net asset value follows XRP after its own expenses, the weighted CoinShares fee, and the trading costs of maintaining the required securities sleeve.
The post Why this XRP ETF could drift from XRP price as fees, trading costs and fund structure stack up appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/why-this-xrp-etf-could-drift-from-xrp-as-fees-trading-costs-and-fund-structure-stack-up/
Tokenized Deposits Could Drain $700 Billion From Bank Lending, Dallas Fed Warns
A shift toward faster, more rate-sensitive deposits could push banks into safer assets, constrain lending, and raise borrowing costs, Dallas Fed researchers said.
https://decrypt.co/376609/tokenized-deposits-bank-lending-dallas-fed
A shift toward faster, more rate-sensitive deposits could push banks into safer assets, constrain lending, and raise borrowing costs, Dallas Fed researchers said.
https://decrypt.co/376609/tokenized-deposits-bank-lending-dallas-fed
Banks found a way to copy stablecoins without losing the money that funds their loans
Banks defend themselves against stablecoins by saying they are building tokenized deposits to modernize payments, with programmable money and around-the-clock settlement.
Falcon Finance chief RWA officer Artem Tolkachev told CryptoSlate that the explanation covers only half the reason:
“It is the balance sheet, not the technology.”
A tokenized deposit keeps the money a stablecoin would move off a bank's balance sheet, leaving it as a deposit the bank can still lend against. Tolkachev said:
“A stablecoin competes with the deposit. A tokenized deposit is the deposit, just programmable.”
Underneath stablecoins and tokenized deposits Tolkachev said that, to whoever is holding them, a tokenized deposit, a reserve-backed stablecoin, and an overcollateralized synthetic dollar look identical.
In the case of a tokenized deposit, the $100 million sits on one bank's balance sheet. The bank earns the return by lending it out, and the holder carries that bank's credit risk, though the position still counts as an insured deposit.
The FDIC's position backs that reading, saying tokenization changes a deposit's form while leaving its substance intact.
In a reserve-backed stablecoin, the money moves into the issuer's reserves, and the issuer earns the yield on those reserves. The holder carries the issuer's operational and reserve risk with no claim on the upside, since the GENIUS Act bars issuers from paying that yield to holders. No deposit insurance sits behind the position.
In an overcollateralized synthetic dollar, the token is backed by more collateral than its face value, held apart from the issuer. The return depends on how that collateral is managed, and the holder's protection comes from the size of the overcollateralization and the separation between custody and the issuer itself.
Tolkachev noted that this is the “same face value” with “three different risk owners,” adding that the key question is where the money sits and who can touch it.
Digital dollar format Where the $100M sits Who earns the economics What the holder relies on Tokenized deposit On the issuing bank’s balance sheet The bank, through lending and balance-sheet use Bank credit, supervision, and applicable deposit insurance Reserve-backed stablecoin In the stablecoin issuer’s reserve assets The issuer/reserve structure Reserve quality, issuer operations, and redemption process Synthetic dollar In a separate collateral/custody structure Depends on the collateral strategy Overcollateralization, custody separation, and liquidation mechanics The fight is over funding, and it starts before deposits leave The Dallas Fed said in July that a deposit token stays a commercial-bank deposit, remains on the issuing bank's balance sheet, settles at par, and sits inside the same supervisory framework as any other deposit.
The FDIC's April proposal stated that deposits held as stablecoin reserves would be insured to the stablecoin issuer as a corporate deposit, with individual stablecoin holders carrying no pass-through insurance claim of their own.
Deposit insurance itself should apply the same way regardless of which technology records the underlying deposit liability.
Tolkachev also argued that, if stablecoins pull deposits away from banks, the first effect is higher funding costs, and it shows up before anyone notices deposits leaving. A bank that loses cheap, sticky deposit funding has to replace it with pricier wholesale money to keep lending at the same level, compressing margins before lending itself gets cut back.
He added that the pattern is “argued over more than measured,” with current research treating it as a plausible channel still awaiting real documentation.
Banks defend themselves against stablecoins by saying they are building tokenized deposits to modernize payments, with programmable money and around-the-clock settlement.
Falcon Finance chief RWA officer Artem Tolkachev told CryptoSlate that the explanation covers only half the reason:
“It is the balance sheet, not the technology.”
A tokenized deposit keeps the money a stablecoin would move off a bank's balance sheet, leaving it as a deposit the bank can still lend against. Tolkachev said:
“A stablecoin competes with the deposit. A tokenized deposit is the deposit, just programmable.”
Underneath stablecoins and tokenized deposits Tolkachev said that, to whoever is holding them, a tokenized deposit, a reserve-backed stablecoin, and an overcollateralized synthetic dollar look identical.
In the case of a tokenized deposit, the $100 million sits on one bank's balance sheet. The bank earns the return by lending it out, and the holder carries that bank's credit risk, though the position still counts as an insured deposit.
The FDIC's position backs that reading, saying tokenization changes a deposit's form while leaving its substance intact.
In a reserve-backed stablecoin, the money moves into the issuer's reserves, and the issuer earns the yield on those reserves. The holder carries the issuer's operational and reserve risk with no claim on the upside, since the GENIUS Act bars issuers from paying that yield to holders. No deposit insurance sits behind the position.
In an overcollateralized synthetic dollar, the token is backed by more collateral than its face value, held apart from the issuer. The return depends on how that collateral is managed, and the holder's protection comes from the size of the overcollateralization and the separation between custody and the issuer itself.
Tolkachev noted that this is the “same face value” with “three different risk owners,” adding that the key question is where the money sits and who can touch it.
Digital dollar format Where the $100M sits Who earns the economics What the holder relies on Tokenized deposit On the issuing bank’s balance sheet The bank, through lending and balance-sheet use Bank credit, supervision, and applicable deposit insurance Reserve-backed stablecoin In the stablecoin issuer’s reserve assets The issuer/reserve structure Reserve quality, issuer operations, and redemption process Synthetic dollar In a separate collateral/custody structure Depends on the collateral strategy Overcollateralization, custody separation, and liquidation mechanics The fight is over funding, and it starts before deposits leave The Dallas Fed said in July that a deposit token stays a commercial-bank deposit, remains on the issuing bank's balance sheet, settles at par, and sits inside the same supervisory framework as any other deposit.
The FDIC's April proposal stated that deposits held as stablecoin reserves would be insured to the stablecoin issuer as a corporate deposit, with individual stablecoin holders carrying no pass-through insurance claim of their own.
Deposit insurance itself should apply the same way regardless of which technology records the underlying deposit liability.
Tolkachev also argued that, if stablecoins pull deposits away from banks, the first effect is higher funding costs, and it shows up before anyone notices deposits leaving. A bank that loses cheap, sticky deposit funding has to replace it with pricier wholesale money to keep lending at the same level, compressing margins before lending itself gets cut back.
He added that the pattern is “argued over more than measured,” with current research treating it as a plausible channel still awaiting real documentation.
Related Reading JPMorgan just put JPM Coin bank deposits on Base – and beat the Fed to 24/7 settlement Both the Federal Reserve and the Bank for International Settlements have separately identified the same mechanism, tying stablecoin-driven deposit migration to higher funding costs and, eventually, loan repricing.
Tolkachev said:
“This is a fight over the cheapest liability in the system, and the cost of credit is downstream of who wins it.”
Wells Fargo announced plans in early August to launch tokenized deposits for corporate and commercial clients this fall, starting with USD-to-GBP transactions before expanding further in 2027.
The bank says the product will carry the same regulatory protections and deposit-insurance eligibility as its existing deposit products.
JPMorgan already runs JPM Coin as a deposit token on the Base blockchain, letting institutional clients move money and post collateral on public rails while the underlying balance stays a commercial-bank deposit.
Step What changes Why it matters 1. Customer money leaves deposits Cash moves from bank deposits into stablecoin reserves Banks lose cheap, sticky funding 2. Bank replaces funding Wholesale or market funding fills the gap Replacement funding is typically more expensive 3. Margins compress Net interest margin comes under pressure Lending becomes less profitable 4. Credit reprices Banks charge more or tighten standards Borrowers feel the impact downstream 5. Banks respond Tokenized deposits offer programmable money without losing deposits The product becomes defensive, not just innovative Which side of the balance sheet wins the next few years Tolkachev said that a stablecoin still makes more sense for money that needs to move, cross-border, around the clock, into onchain settlement or between counterparties instantly.
A bank deposit still makes more sense for money that needs to sit, with insurance, a lending relationship and a balance sheet behind it.
He said:
“Most treasurers will use both, matched to the job.”
Tolkachev also warned that a bank deposit comes with a lender assessing risk and a regulator watching the reserves behind it. A stablecoin hands over a dollar without that machinery, which is why it moves faster and why a treasurer should check the collateral behind it before trusting the yield on it.
The bull case has large banks building interoperable tokenized-deposit networks that keep corporate treasury balances inside bank rails, adding 24/7 programmable settlement without giving up the underlying funding.
In that scenario, tokenized deposits become the banking industry's real answer to stablecoins, matching the technology while keeping the deposit base that funds their lending.
Use case Stablecoin advantage Tokenized deposit advantage Cross-border payment Fast, 24/7, easier onchain movement Strong if bank networks become interoperable Corporate treasury reserves Less natural unless funds need to move quickly Better fit for money that needs to sit with a bank relationship Onchain settlement Stronger current interoperability Useful where counterparties accept bank deposit tokens Collateral movement Fast and composable Strong for regulated institutional workflows Cash-like holding Depends on reserve quality and redemption confidence Backed by bank balance sheet, supervision, and deposit treatment The bear case has even a modest 1% to 3% move out of US commercial-bank deposits, worth roughly $195 billion to $586 billion against the current $19.5 trillion deposit base. That capital moves into stablecoins faster than tokenized deposits can hold the line.
Under that path, funding costs rise first, margins compress, and loan repricing follows. The market is starting to treat stablecoins as a genuine threat to the liability side of bank balance sheets, well beyond their current reputation as a payments product alone.
Banks are building tokenized deposits because stablecoins proved what a programmable dollar can do for customers. The fight now underway is over which side of the transaction gets to keep the money while it waits.
Tolkachev said:
“This is a fight over the cheapest liability in the system, and the cost of credit is downstream of who wins it.”
Wells Fargo announced plans in early August to launch tokenized deposits for corporate and commercial clients this fall, starting with USD-to-GBP transactions before expanding further in 2027.
The bank says the product will carry the same regulatory protections and deposit-insurance eligibility as its existing deposit products.
JPMorgan already runs JPM Coin as a deposit token on the Base blockchain, letting institutional clients move money and post collateral on public rails while the underlying balance stays a commercial-bank deposit.
Step What changes Why it matters 1. Customer money leaves deposits Cash moves from bank deposits into stablecoin reserves Banks lose cheap, sticky funding 2. Bank replaces funding Wholesale or market funding fills the gap Replacement funding is typically more expensive 3. Margins compress Net interest margin comes under pressure Lending becomes less profitable 4. Credit reprices Banks charge more or tighten standards Borrowers feel the impact downstream 5. Banks respond Tokenized deposits offer programmable money without losing deposits The product becomes defensive, not just innovative Which side of the balance sheet wins the next few years Tolkachev said that a stablecoin still makes more sense for money that needs to move, cross-border, around the clock, into onchain settlement or between counterparties instantly.
A bank deposit still makes more sense for money that needs to sit, with insurance, a lending relationship and a balance sheet behind it.
He said:
“Most treasurers will use both, matched to the job.”
Tolkachev also warned that a bank deposit comes with a lender assessing risk and a regulator watching the reserves behind it. A stablecoin hands over a dollar without that machinery, which is why it moves faster and why a treasurer should check the collateral behind it before trusting the yield on it.
The bull case has large banks building interoperable tokenized-deposit networks that keep corporate treasury balances inside bank rails, adding 24/7 programmable settlement without giving up the underlying funding.
In that scenario, tokenized deposits become the banking industry's real answer to stablecoins, matching the technology while keeping the deposit base that funds their lending.
Use case Stablecoin advantage Tokenized deposit advantage Cross-border payment Fast, 24/7, easier onchain movement Strong if bank networks become interoperable Corporate treasury reserves Less natural unless funds need to move quickly Better fit for money that needs to sit with a bank relationship Onchain settlement Stronger current interoperability Useful where counterparties accept bank deposit tokens Collateral movement Fast and composable Strong for regulated institutional workflows Cash-like holding Depends on reserve quality and redemption confidence Backed by bank balance sheet, supervision, and deposit treatment The bear case has even a modest 1% to 3% move out of US commercial-bank deposits, worth roughly $195 billion to $586 billion against the current $19.5 trillion deposit base. That capital moves into stablecoins faster than tokenized deposits can hold the line.
Under that path, funding costs rise first, margins compress, and loan repricing follows. The market is starting to treat stablecoins as a genuine threat to the liability side of bank balance sheets, well beyond their current reputation as a payments product alone.
Banks are building tokenized deposits because stablecoins proved what a programmable dollar can do for customers. The fight now underway is over which side of the transaction gets to keep the money while it waits.
The post Banks found a way to copy stablecoins without losing the money that funds their loans appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/banks-found-a-way-to-copy-stablecoins-without-losing-the-money-that-funds-their-loans/
https://cryptoslate.com/banks-found-a-way-to-copy-stablecoins-without-losing-the-money-that-funds-their-loans/
Crypto CEO Faces US Extradition Over Alleged $20 Million Token Scheme
Manpreet Kohli, accused of making $20 million from an alleged scheme to manipulate the Saitama token, is a step closer to facing trial in Boston.
https://decrypt.co/376617/crypto-ceo-extradition-20-million-scheme
Manpreet Kohli, accused of making $20 million from an alleged scheme to manipulate the Saitama token, is a step closer to facing trial in Boston.
https://decrypt.co/376617/crypto-ceo-extradition-20-million-scheme
'The Government Doesn't Own Our Data': Prosecuted GrapheneOS User
Samuel Tunick, facing five years over a wiped phone, said he was secretly placed on a watch list as a suspected terrorist.
https://decrypt.co/376631/the-government-doesnt-own-our-data-prosecuted-grapheneos-user
Samuel Tunick, facing five years over a wiped phone, said he was secretly placed on a watch list as a suspected terrorist.
https://decrypt.co/376631/the-government-doesnt-own-our-data-prosecuted-grapheneos-user
Bitcoin’s security risk starts when one block gets far more fees than the next
Bitcoin’s security-budget debate usually starts with one total: how much miners collect in transaction fees as the block subsidy shrinks.
A July 2026 NBER working paper by Fabian Schär, Dario Thürkauf, and David Yermack points to a second variable. Using data from 2017 through 2025, the authors report that larger fee differences between adjacent Bitcoin blocks are associated with more competing blocks at the same height and a longer wait for the next block.
The evidence is observational and identifies a network-level relationship, while miner intent and the cause of any individual block race remain unresolved. The finding still gives wallets, miners, and users a measurable signal: Bitcoin security incentives respond to how fees arrive from block to block, as well as how much the network pays over time.
Fee gaps create a different mining incentive Bitcoin currently pays miners a fixed subsidy of 3.125 BTC for each block, plus the transaction fees included in that block. Successive subsidy reductions place more long-run weight on fees as a source of mining revenue.
As of Aug. 26, a daily Glassnode measure put transaction fees at about 0.70% of miner revenue. A BTC.network report covering Aug. 14 through Aug. 21 calculated a 0.67% share for the week. The two snapshots cover different periods, but each places fees below 1%.
Related Reading Bitcoin is getting too expensive to mine profitably: What breaks first? Block-level data can show much sharper variation than those aggregate readings. An Aug. 26 Blockchain.com block snapshot showed 0.0077 BTC in fees in block 964,120 and 0.0536 BTC in block 964,121, an almost seven-fold change between adjacent blocks. The comparison illustrates how sharply fee rewards can vary from one block to the next, while the fee values alone leave miner behavior unresolved.
That prize shapes the choice described by Bitcoin Optech’s fee-sniping reference. A miner can extend the newest block and compete for the transactions currently waiting in the mempool. It can also attempt to recreate a valuable prior block, claim that block’s fees, and then extend the alternative chain.
The attempt begins behind the accepted tip, and its economic appeal rises when fees in the prior block greatly exceed the expected fees in a new tip-extending block. Hash-rate share, propagation, and other miners’ reactions affect the odds, so the incentive is probabilistic. Variable fees can change the payoff calculation even during periods when the network’s aggregate fee revenue is low.
The working paper tests whether that logic appears in historical network behavior. In a co-author explanation of the research, Thürkauf defines a block race as competing blocks at the same height. The authors associate larger adjacent-block fee gaps with more of those races.
They also report a lower probability that the next block appears in the first seconds after a large fee gap, a timing pattern consistent with some hash rate contesting the prior height. Since the analysis is observational, the result establishes an association at the network level and leaves individual miner motives unresolved.
That distinction shifts the measurement focus because monthly or annual fee totals describe Bitcoin’s overall security income, whereas adjacent-block fee gaps isolate brief periods when revisiting the prior height can carry a larger potential payoff.
Signal Security relevance Interpretive limit Fee gap between adjacent blocks Approximates the extra prize in a valuable prior block Miner intent remains unknown Competing blocks at the same height Shows that multiple versions briefly existed Routine network behavior can also produce a race Delay in the next block’s first seconds Matches the timing window highlighted by the study A single delay has multiple possible causes Fee share of miner revenue Measures aggregate reliance on transaction fees Fee distribution remains outside the aggregate measure
Bitcoin’s security-budget debate usually starts with one total: how much miners collect in transaction fees as the block subsidy shrinks.
A July 2026 NBER working paper by Fabian Schär, Dario Thürkauf, and David Yermack points to a second variable. Using data from 2017 through 2025, the authors report that larger fee differences between adjacent Bitcoin blocks are associated with more competing blocks at the same height and a longer wait for the next block.
The evidence is observational and identifies a network-level relationship, while miner intent and the cause of any individual block race remain unresolved. The finding still gives wallets, miners, and users a measurable signal: Bitcoin security incentives respond to how fees arrive from block to block, as well as how much the network pays over time.
Fee gaps create a different mining incentive Bitcoin currently pays miners a fixed subsidy of 3.125 BTC for each block, plus the transaction fees included in that block. Successive subsidy reductions place more long-run weight on fees as a source of mining revenue.
As of Aug. 26, a daily Glassnode measure put transaction fees at about 0.70% of miner revenue. A BTC.network report covering Aug. 14 through Aug. 21 calculated a 0.67% share for the week. The two snapshots cover different periods, but each places fees below 1%.
Related Reading Bitcoin is getting too expensive to mine profitably: What breaks first? Block-level data can show much sharper variation than those aggregate readings. An Aug. 26 Blockchain.com block snapshot showed 0.0077 BTC in fees in block 964,120 and 0.0536 BTC in block 964,121, an almost seven-fold change between adjacent blocks. The comparison illustrates how sharply fee rewards can vary from one block to the next, while the fee values alone leave miner behavior unresolved.
That prize shapes the choice described by Bitcoin Optech’s fee-sniping reference. A miner can extend the newest block and compete for the transactions currently waiting in the mempool. It can also attempt to recreate a valuable prior block, claim that block’s fees, and then extend the alternative chain.
The attempt begins behind the accepted tip, and its economic appeal rises when fees in the prior block greatly exceed the expected fees in a new tip-extending block. Hash-rate share, propagation, and other miners’ reactions affect the odds, so the incentive is probabilistic. Variable fees can change the payoff calculation even during periods when the network’s aggregate fee revenue is low.
The working paper tests whether that logic appears in historical network behavior. In a co-author explanation of the research, Thürkauf defines a block race as competing blocks at the same height. The authors associate larger adjacent-block fee gaps with more of those races.
They also report a lower probability that the next block appears in the first seconds after a large fee gap, a timing pattern consistent with some hash rate contesting the prior height. Since the analysis is observational, the result establishes an association at the network level and leaves individual miner motives unresolved.
That distinction shifts the measurement focus because monthly or annual fee totals describe Bitcoin’s overall security income, whereas adjacent-block fee gaps isolate brief periods when revisiting the prior height can carry a larger potential payoff.
Signal Security relevance Interpretive limit Fee gap between adjacent blocks Approximates the extra prize in a valuable prior block Miner intent remains unknown Competing blocks at the same height Shows that multiple versions briefly existed Routine network behavior can also produce a race Delay in the next block’s first seconds Matches the timing window highlighted by the study A single delay has multiple possible causes Fee share of miner revenue Measures aggregate reliance on transaction fees Fee distribution remains outside the aggregate measure
Bitcoin wallet protections shrink the prize unevenly Bitcoin transactions can reduce the incentive to revisit a prior block through lock fields. A wallet can set a lock so the transaction first becomes mineable in the block after the current tip, which excludes it from a replacement of the current tip.
Widespread use changes the economics of fee sniping because a miner rebuilding the earlier height loses access to some of the newest pending transactions, lowering the revenue available in its alternative block. The protection shrinks the available prize and leaves reorganization attempts technically possible.
Bitcoin Optech’s technical overview says developers see current protections as incomplete. Their effectiveness depends on which wallets and transaction-creation systems set the relevant fields, how consistently they do so, and which transaction types they cover.
BIP 326 describes anti-fee-sniping behavior for Taproot transactions through nLockTime or nSequence. It remains a draft informational proposal, and wallets can adopt the approach gradually under existing consensus rules, leaving real-world coverage dependent on implementation choices.
An open Bitcoin Core issue from April 2026 documents one concrete inconsistency. The issue says the send RPC and GUI wallet flow set nLockTime near the current block height, whereas the createrawtransaction and walletcreatefundedpsbt paths default to zero. The proposed consistency change remains open.
The difference means Bitcoin Core’s anti-fee-sniping default is applied unevenly across transaction-creation paths. Estimating the network-wide effect would require data on how much transaction volume each path represents, which the issue does not provide.
Implementation coverage therefore belongs inside the security-budget discussion because a mitigation can be technically available while its network effect depends on the share of pending transactions that use it. Broader and more consistent lock-field behavior would reduce the fees available to a miner trying to rebuild the previous height.
Miners also face a coordination problem because the return from contesting a block depends partly on whether other miners extend the accepted tip. A broad migration toward protective transaction construction changes the available reward directly and can occur under existing consensus rules, avoiding a miner-coordination requirement.
Signals to watch before the next subsidy cut The next subsidy reduction provides a useful monitoring horizon, though its security effects will depend on fee demand, fee distribution, miner behavior, propagation, and mitigation adoption.
Four signals provide a better view than aggregate revenue alone:
Adjacent-block fee gaps. Persistent or extreme gaps mark the periods when a prior block carries the largest extra prize.
Competing-block frequency. A change in same-height races shows shifting network behavior while leaving the cause open.
Immediate next-block timing. The first seconds after a high-fee block are the interval highlighted by the study.
Lock-field coverage. More consistent use across wallet and automated transaction-creation paths can reduce the revenue available in a rebuilt prior block.
Each signal captures a different part of the incentive because fee gaps describe the prize, block races and timing describe network outcomes, and lock-field use describes a defense.
Bitcoin’s fee market can produce occasional outlier blocks even while fees remain a small share of miner revenue. Those outliers deserve closer attention because mining incentives emerge in each block interval, while monthly revenue charts blur the short-lived extremes.
The post Bitcoin’s security risk starts when one block gets far more fees than the next appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoins-security-risk-starts-when-one-block-gets-far-more-fees-than-the-next/
Widespread use changes the economics of fee sniping because a miner rebuilding the earlier height loses access to some of the newest pending transactions, lowering the revenue available in its alternative block. The protection shrinks the available prize and leaves reorganization attempts technically possible.
Bitcoin Optech’s technical overview says developers see current protections as incomplete. Their effectiveness depends on which wallets and transaction-creation systems set the relevant fields, how consistently they do so, and which transaction types they cover.
BIP 326 describes anti-fee-sniping behavior for Taproot transactions through nLockTime or nSequence. It remains a draft informational proposal, and wallets can adopt the approach gradually under existing consensus rules, leaving real-world coverage dependent on implementation choices.
An open Bitcoin Core issue from April 2026 documents one concrete inconsistency. The issue says the send RPC and GUI wallet flow set nLockTime near the current block height, whereas the createrawtransaction and walletcreatefundedpsbt paths default to zero. The proposed consistency change remains open.
The difference means Bitcoin Core’s anti-fee-sniping default is applied unevenly across transaction-creation paths. Estimating the network-wide effect would require data on how much transaction volume each path represents, which the issue does not provide.
Implementation coverage therefore belongs inside the security-budget discussion because a mitigation can be technically available while its network effect depends on the share of pending transactions that use it. Broader and more consistent lock-field behavior would reduce the fees available to a miner trying to rebuild the previous height.
Miners also face a coordination problem because the return from contesting a block depends partly on whether other miners extend the accepted tip. A broad migration toward protective transaction construction changes the available reward directly and can occur under existing consensus rules, avoiding a miner-coordination requirement.
Signals to watch before the next subsidy cut The next subsidy reduction provides a useful monitoring horizon, though its security effects will depend on fee demand, fee distribution, miner behavior, propagation, and mitigation adoption.
Four signals provide a better view than aggregate revenue alone:
Adjacent-block fee gaps. Persistent or extreme gaps mark the periods when a prior block carries the largest extra prize.
Competing-block frequency. A change in same-height races shows shifting network behavior while leaving the cause open.
Immediate next-block timing. The first seconds after a high-fee block are the interval highlighted by the study.
Lock-field coverage. More consistent use across wallet and automated transaction-creation paths can reduce the revenue available in a rebuilt prior block.
Each signal captures a different part of the incentive because fee gaps describe the prize, block races and timing describe network outcomes, and lock-field use describes a defense.
Bitcoin’s fee market can produce occasional outlier blocks even while fees remain a small share of miner revenue. Those outliers deserve closer attention because mining incentives emerge in each block interval, while monthly revenue charts blur the short-lived extremes.
The post Bitcoin’s security risk starts when one block gets far more fees than the next appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoins-security-risk-starts-when-one-block-gets-far-more-fees-than-the-next/
Solana Treasury Firm Invites Investors to Look 'Beyond the Price of SOL'
Nasdaq-listed SOL treasury company DeFi Development Corp launched a free network dashboard on Wednesday. Its pitch: judge Solana on more than just price.
https://decrypt.co/376619/solana-treasury-sol-data-beyond-price
Nasdaq-listed SOL treasury company DeFi Development Corp launched a free network dashboard on Wednesday. Its pitch: judge Solana on more than just price.
https://decrypt.co/376619/solana-treasury-sol-data-beyond-price
Bitcoin Wallets Dormant for Over a Decade Move $40M in One Week
Six wallets that slept through Bitcoin's entire boom woke up between Aug. 16 and Aug. 26, moving tens of millions in BTC.
https://decrypt.co/376641/bitcoin-wallets-dormant-decade-move-40m
Six wallets that slept through Bitcoin's entire boom woke up between Aug. 16 and Aug. 26, moving tens of millions in BTC.
https://decrypt.co/376641/bitcoin-wallets-dormant-decade-move-40m
A 2,712 BTC treasury company just lost its Bitcoin strategy chief with no successor named
The Smarter Web Company, which reported holding 2,712 BTC earlier this month, said Jesse Myers, Head of Bitcoin Strategy, will leave on Sept. 1 while its Bitcoin Treasury Policy remains unchanged under board oversight.
The Aug. 25 notice did not give a reason for Myers’ departure, name a successor or say how his responsibilities would be reassigned. Those unanswered questions matter because Myers held a documented operational role in the company’s Bitcoin strategy.
In January, Smarter Web identified Myers as part of the senior executive team responsible for day-to-day management of the group. His remit included implementing the treasury strategy, improving Bitcoin per share, managing its data and analytics repository, and producing investor materials and relations work.
The board, however, retains overall authority for management, strategy and risk. Smarter Web said directors regularly review the Bitcoin Treasury Policy and monitor the company’s market value relative to its Bitcoin holdings when considering capital deployment.
Related Reading Bitcoin treasury firms race to buy more BTC, but shareholders may pay the price That leaves the strategic accountability clear but the operating handoff unresolved. Neither the departure notice nor the company’s current team roster identifies who will take over Myers’ duties after Sept. 1. That does not rule out an internal arrangement; it means the company has not disclosed one.
A material balance sheet needs an execution owner Smarter Web’s Aug. 3 treasury update put its net Bitcoin purchases at £224.8 million and its net average purchase price at £82,886 per coin.
The company also had £18.5 million drawn under a Coinbase credit facility, equal to about 17% leverage. The loan carried a 6% variable interest rate and was secured against existing Bitcoin holdings.
Related Reading Why two public companies quietly liquidated 511 Bitcoin in 24 hours to escape $31.7 million in debt Smarter Web does not self-custody its Bitcoin. It uses a group of institutional providers and said allocations are reviewed under its treasury-governance and risk-management framework. That limits direct key-person custody risk, but it does not identify who now owns internal analysis, capital-allocation support and execution coordination.
Financing decisions have already affected the treasury. On July 23, Smarter Web sold 177.8909127 BTC to repay $11.7 million under a financing instrument called Smarter Convert, eliminating 7,718,551 potential shares. The separate Coinbase facility remained drawn in the Aug. 3 update.
Related Reading Bitcoin treasury company erases 7.7M shares after selling 177 BTC – yet Bitcoin per share fell Alliance News reported that Smarter Web shares were down 5.8% at 33.20 pence around noon on Aug. 25, after the 7 a.m. departure notice. The timing does not establish that Myers’ exit caused the decline.
The next governance signal is therefore not whether the policy survives; Smarter Web has said it does. It is whether the company names a successor or explains how Myers’ implementation and analytics duties will be divided while the board retains final accountability.
The post A 2,712 BTC treasury company just lost its Bitcoin strategy chief with no successor named appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/a-2712-btc-treasury-company-just-lost-its-bitcoin-strategy-chief-with-no-successor-named/
The Smarter Web Company, which reported holding 2,712 BTC earlier this month, said Jesse Myers, Head of Bitcoin Strategy, will leave on Sept. 1 while its Bitcoin Treasury Policy remains unchanged under board oversight.
The Aug. 25 notice did not give a reason for Myers’ departure, name a successor or say how his responsibilities would be reassigned. Those unanswered questions matter because Myers held a documented operational role in the company’s Bitcoin strategy.
In January, Smarter Web identified Myers as part of the senior executive team responsible for day-to-day management of the group. His remit included implementing the treasury strategy, improving Bitcoin per share, managing its data and analytics repository, and producing investor materials and relations work.
The board, however, retains overall authority for management, strategy and risk. Smarter Web said directors regularly review the Bitcoin Treasury Policy and monitor the company’s market value relative to its Bitcoin holdings when considering capital deployment.
Related Reading Bitcoin treasury firms race to buy more BTC, but shareholders may pay the price That leaves the strategic accountability clear but the operating handoff unresolved. Neither the departure notice nor the company’s current team roster identifies who will take over Myers’ duties after Sept. 1. That does not rule out an internal arrangement; it means the company has not disclosed one.
A material balance sheet needs an execution owner Smarter Web’s Aug. 3 treasury update put its net Bitcoin purchases at £224.8 million and its net average purchase price at £82,886 per coin.
The company also had £18.5 million drawn under a Coinbase credit facility, equal to about 17% leverage. The loan carried a 6% variable interest rate and was secured against existing Bitcoin holdings.
Related Reading Why two public companies quietly liquidated 511 Bitcoin in 24 hours to escape $31.7 million in debt Smarter Web does not self-custody its Bitcoin. It uses a group of institutional providers and said allocations are reviewed under its treasury-governance and risk-management framework. That limits direct key-person custody risk, but it does not identify who now owns internal analysis, capital-allocation support and execution coordination.
Financing decisions have already affected the treasury. On July 23, Smarter Web sold 177.8909127 BTC to repay $11.7 million under a financing instrument called Smarter Convert, eliminating 7,718,551 potential shares. The separate Coinbase facility remained drawn in the Aug. 3 update.
Related Reading Bitcoin treasury company erases 7.7M shares after selling 177 BTC – yet Bitcoin per share fell Alliance News reported that Smarter Web shares were down 5.8% at 33.20 pence around noon on Aug. 25, after the 7 a.m. departure notice. The timing does not establish that Myers’ exit caused the decline.
The next governance signal is therefore not whether the policy survives; Smarter Web has said it does. It is whether the company names a successor or explains how Myers’ implementation and analytics duties will be divided while the board retains final accountability.
The post A 2,712 BTC treasury company just lost its Bitcoin strategy chief with no successor named appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/a-2712-btc-treasury-company-just-lost-its-bitcoin-strategy-chief-with-no-successor-named/
US Banks Join Forces to Build a Blockchain of Their Own
The BankChain Alliance aims to give smaller financial institutions access to tokenized deposits and blockchain payments through a shared network targeted for 2027.
https://decrypt.co/376644/banks-build-blockchain-bankchain-alliance
The BankChain Alliance aims to give smaller financial institutions access to tokenized deposits and blockchain payments through a shared network targeted for 2027.
https://decrypt.co/376644/banks-build-blockchain-bankchain-alliance
Strategy’s MSTR quietly outperforms Bitcoin’s $80,000 rally as STRC closes in on $100
Bitcoin's sharp two-week recovery, which briefly pushed its value above $80,000, has brought Michael Saylor's Strategy BTC treasury back into profit and lifted its common stock faster than the cryptocurrency.
BTC's price rebound accelerated after the US Treasury moved to expand buybacks of longer-dated government debt, easing pressure on yields and weakening the dollar.
Renewed optimism around US crypto policy, heavy short liquidations, and stronger demand for spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds added further momentum to the upward move.
As a result, Bitcoin briefly topped $81,000 on Tuesday, its highest level in more than three months, after spending much of the first half of August near the low-$60,000 range. It has slightly retraced to $78,772 as of press time.
Still, the price recovery has reached a critical point for Strategy, which spent the summer rebuilding liquidity and supporting its preferred securities after falling Bitcoin prices raised questions about its financing model.
The company has not resumed Bitcoin purchases, but the value of its existing holdings has risen enough to put more than $3 billion of unrealized gains back on its balance sheet.
MSTR outruns Bitcoin despite heavy share issuance Strategy's common MSTR stock has rebounded even faster than Bitcoin despite the company continuing to issue large amounts of new equity.
MSTR closed at $92.52 on Aug. 18 before climbing to $126.79 on Tuesday, a gain of about 37%. Bitcoin gained roughly 22% over the same period, rising from about $64,700 to around the $79,000 to $80,000 range.
Strategy's MSTR vs Bitcoin Price Performance (SaylorTracker) That performance marks a reversal from the pressure that surrounded MSTR earlier in the summer, when declining Bitcoin prices and concerns about Strategy's preferred-stock obligations weighed on confidence in the company's capital structure.
Strategy holds 840,447 Bitcoin acquired for $63.36 billion at an average price of $75,385. At Bitcoin prices around $80,000, the position is worth roughly $67 billion, leaving the company with more than $3 billion in unrealized appreciation over its aggregate purchase cost.
However, these gains have come without fresh Bitcoin accumulation. Strategy has not purchased Bitcoin since June and has sold a total of 6,948 Bitcoin for roughly $432.5 million since beginning its new monetization program in May 2026
Instead, Strategy has continued leaning on its common stock for capital.
Between Aug. 17 and Aug. 23 alone, the company sold 18.26 million MSTR shares through its at-the-market program and raised $2.01 billion in net proceeds. Since adopting its Bitcoin strategy, Strategy has sold about 139.45 million common shares and raised approximately $42.12 billion.
Strategy's MSTR Raises (Source: CryptoQuant) The scale of the latest issuance makes MSTR's rally notable because shareholders absorbed substantial new supply as the stock climbed.
It also underlines the trade-off embedded in Strategy's financing model: common-stock sales provide liquidity without requiring Bitcoin sales, but dilute existing shareholders when the proceeds do not immediately increase Bitcoin exposure per share.
Strategy has used that trade-off to reduce balance-sheet pressure. The company now says its net leverage is near zero, a significant change from the conditions that fueled concern during Bitcoin's earlier decline.
Strategy channels equity gains into STRC recovery The stronger equity market has given Strategy another advantage beyond the rebound in MSTR: it has allowed the company to raise fresh capital and use part of it to shore up the preferred-stock structure that came under pressure during the summer.
Of the $2.01 billion raised through MSTR sales last week, Strategy directed $136.4 million toward repurchasing 1.43 million STRC shares and added $300 million to its USD Reserve, lifting that pool to $5.10 billion. Most of the remaining proceeds went into a new $1.59 billion USD Cash pool.
Bitcoin's sharp two-week recovery, which briefly pushed its value above $80,000, has brought Michael Saylor's Strategy BTC treasury back into profit and lifted its common stock faster than the cryptocurrency.
BTC's price rebound accelerated after the US Treasury moved to expand buybacks of longer-dated government debt, easing pressure on yields and weakening the dollar.
Renewed optimism around US crypto policy, heavy short liquidations, and stronger demand for spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds added further momentum to the upward move.
As a result, Bitcoin briefly topped $81,000 on Tuesday, its highest level in more than three months, after spending much of the first half of August near the low-$60,000 range. It has slightly retraced to $78,772 as of press time.
Still, the price recovery has reached a critical point for Strategy, which spent the summer rebuilding liquidity and supporting its preferred securities after falling Bitcoin prices raised questions about its financing model.
The company has not resumed Bitcoin purchases, but the value of its existing holdings has risen enough to put more than $3 billion of unrealized gains back on its balance sheet.
MSTR outruns Bitcoin despite heavy share issuance Strategy's common MSTR stock has rebounded even faster than Bitcoin despite the company continuing to issue large amounts of new equity.
MSTR closed at $92.52 on Aug. 18 before climbing to $126.79 on Tuesday, a gain of about 37%. Bitcoin gained roughly 22% over the same period, rising from about $64,700 to around the $79,000 to $80,000 range.
Strategy's MSTR vs Bitcoin Price Performance (SaylorTracker) That performance marks a reversal from the pressure that surrounded MSTR earlier in the summer, when declining Bitcoin prices and concerns about Strategy's preferred-stock obligations weighed on confidence in the company's capital structure.
Strategy holds 840,447 Bitcoin acquired for $63.36 billion at an average price of $75,385. At Bitcoin prices around $80,000, the position is worth roughly $67 billion, leaving the company with more than $3 billion in unrealized appreciation over its aggregate purchase cost.
However, these gains have come without fresh Bitcoin accumulation. Strategy has not purchased Bitcoin since June and has sold a total of 6,948 Bitcoin for roughly $432.5 million since beginning its new monetization program in May 2026
Instead, Strategy has continued leaning on its common stock for capital.
Between Aug. 17 and Aug. 23 alone, the company sold 18.26 million MSTR shares through its at-the-market program and raised $2.01 billion in net proceeds. Since adopting its Bitcoin strategy, Strategy has sold about 139.45 million common shares and raised approximately $42.12 billion.
Strategy's MSTR Raises (Source: CryptoQuant) The scale of the latest issuance makes MSTR's rally notable because shareholders absorbed substantial new supply as the stock climbed.
It also underlines the trade-off embedded in Strategy's financing model: common-stock sales provide liquidity without requiring Bitcoin sales, but dilute existing shareholders when the proceeds do not immediately increase Bitcoin exposure per share.
Strategy has used that trade-off to reduce balance-sheet pressure. The company now says its net leverage is near zero, a significant change from the conditions that fueled concern during Bitcoin's earlier decline.
Strategy channels equity gains into STRC recovery The stronger equity market has given Strategy another advantage beyond the rebound in MSTR: it has allowed the company to raise fresh capital and use part of it to shore up the preferred-stock structure that came under pressure during the summer.
Of the $2.01 billion raised through MSTR sales last week, Strategy directed $136.4 million toward repurchasing 1.43 million STRC shares and added $300 million to its USD Reserve, lifting that pool to $5.10 billion. Most of the remaining proceeds went into a new $1.59 billion USD Cash pool.
Together, the two pools give Strategy about $6.69 billion in dollar liquidity.
The $5.10 billion USD Reserve is earmarked for preferred-stock dividends and interest on outstanding debt, while USD Cash can be used more broadly for Bitcoin purchases, security repurchases, debt management or other treasury purposes.
Strategy said the larger cushion increased its internal USD Duration measure to about 3.9 years, extending the period its dollar resources could cover fixed obligations under its capital framework.
That strengthened liquidity position is particularly important for STRC, Strategy’s flagship variable-rate preferred stock and a security that has already played a significant role in financing its Bitcoin accumulation.
Strategy designed STRC to trade around its $100 stated amount, using a variable dividend policy and repurchases to help keep the security near par. The company currently does not intend to issue new STRC below $100, while proceeds from future issuance can be used for general corporate purposes, including Bitcoin acquisitions.
Restoring STRC toward par therefore has implications beyond the preferred stock itself. A sustained recovery toward $100 could reopen a financing channel Strategy has already used to help fund the acquisition of more than 100,000 Bitcoin, without requiring the company to rely solely on common-stock issuance.
That channel had become less attractive after STRC fell as low as $71.25 during the June market stress. The preferred stock has since recovered to around $97.2, a gain of roughly 35% from its lows and leaving it within about 3% of the level Strategy has been trying to restore.
STRC Price Performance (Source: STRC.live) Strategy has helped drive that recovery directly through its STRC purchases. The company has now spent approximately $483.4 million under its $1 billion Digital Credit Securities Repurchase Program, leaving $516.6 million available. Its separate $1 billion authorization to repurchase MSTR common shares remains untouched.
The company said in July that it would buy STRC more aggressively when the shares traded at deeper discounts and taper those purchases as the price approached $100. Its longer-term goal is for STRC to trade consistently near par with greater liquidity and lower volatility.
The combination of Bitcoin’s rebound, stronger MSTR shares, direct STRC repurchases and a $6.69 billion liquidity buffer has therefore eased several of the pressures that weighed on Strategy earlier in the summer.
Rather than immediately using the improved market backdrop to resume Bitcoin purchases, the company has concentrated on reinforcing the financing structure that could support future accumulation.
That leaves the next stage tied partly to whether the recovery holds. A sustained Bitcoin rally that keeps MSTR strong and carries STRC back toward par could restore one of Strategy’s most important funding channels for future Bitcoin purchases.
However, a renewed downturn would instead test whether the cash reserves and preferred-share support built during the summer are sufficient to keep that structure intact.
The post Strategy’s MSTR quietly outperforms Bitcoin’s $80,000 rally as STRC closes in on $100 appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/strategys-mstr-quietly-outperforms-bitcoins-80000-rally-as-strc-closes-in-on-100/
The $5.10 billion USD Reserve is earmarked for preferred-stock dividends and interest on outstanding debt, while USD Cash can be used more broadly for Bitcoin purchases, security repurchases, debt management or other treasury purposes.
Strategy said the larger cushion increased its internal USD Duration measure to about 3.9 years, extending the period its dollar resources could cover fixed obligations under its capital framework.
That strengthened liquidity position is particularly important for STRC, Strategy’s flagship variable-rate preferred stock and a security that has already played a significant role in financing its Bitcoin accumulation.
Strategy designed STRC to trade around its $100 stated amount, using a variable dividend policy and repurchases to help keep the security near par. The company currently does not intend to issue new STRC below $100, while proceeds from future issuance can be used for general corporate purposes, including Bitcoin acquisitions.
Restoring STRC toward par therefore has implications beyond the preferred stock itself. A sustained recovery toward $100 could reopen a financing channel Strategy has already used to help fund the acquisition of more than 100,000 Bitcoin, without requiring the company to rely solely on common-stock issuance.
That channel had become less attractive after STRC fell as low as $71.25 during the June market stress. The preferred stock has since recovered to around $97.2, a gain of roughly 35% from its lows and leaving it within about 3% of the level Strategy has been trying to restore.
STRC Price Performance (Source: STRC.live) Strategy has helped drive that recovery directly through its STRC purchases. The company has now spent approximately $483.4 million under its $1 billion Digital Credit Securities Repurchase Program, leaving $516.6 million available. Its separate $1 billion authorization to repurchase MSTR common shares remains untouched.
The company said in July that it would buy STRC more aggressively when the shares traded at deeper discounts and taper those purchases as the price approached $100. Its longer-term goal is for STRC to trade consistently near par with greater liquidity and lower volatility.
The combination of Bitcoin’s rebound, stronger MSTR shares, direct STRC repurchases and a $6.69 billion liquidity buffer has therefore eased several of the pressures that weighed on Strategy earlier in the summer.
Rather than immediately using the improved market backdrop to resume Bitcoin purchases, the company has concentrated on reinforcing the financing structure that could support future accumulation.
That leaves the next stage tied partly to whether the recovery holds. A sustained Bitcoin rally that keeps MSTR strong and carries STRC back toward par could restore one of Strategy’s most important funding channels for future Bitcoin purchases.
However, a renewed downturn would instead test whether the cash reserves and preferred-share support built during the summer are sufficient to keep that structure intact.
The post Strategy’s MSTR quietly outperforms Bitcoin’s $80,000 rally as STRC closes in on $100 appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/strategys-mstr-quietly-outperforms-bitcoins-80000-rally-as-strc-closes-in-on-100/
Galaxy Opens Retail Crypto-Backed Credit Lines on Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana
GalaxyOne clients can borrow cash against Bitcoin, Ethereum, and staked Solana at 8.99% APR without selling a coin.
https://decrypt.co/376646/galaxy-crypto-credit-lines-bitcoin-ethereum-solana
GalaxyOne clients can borrow cash against Bitcoin, Ethereum, and staked Solana at 8.99% APR without selling a coin.
https://decrypt.co/376646/galaxy-crypto-credit-lines-bitcoin-ethereum-solana
What Traders Are Watching for Bitcoin's Next Move
Bitcoin's monster rally just hit its first real test. Here's why each catalyst matters and how it could move the price from here.
https://decrypt.co/376649/what-traders-watching-bitcoin-next-move
Bitcoin's monster rally just hit its first real test. Here's why each catalyst matters and how it could move the price from here.
https://decrypt.co/376649/what-traders-watching-bitcoin-next-move
A hidden Bitcoin node database just shrank by 40 GB, but only if runners rebuild it
Bitcoin Core has merged a redesign of its optional transaction index that cut about 40 GB from the database in one contributor's mainnet test. Operators using -txindex retain their existing indexes through an upgrade; capturing the full saving requires recreating the database.
Pull request #35531, merged into Bitcoin Core's master branch on Aug. 15, reduced the author's rebuilt mainnet txindex from about 66 GB to 26 GB. The roughly 61% reduction is confined to this optional index. Bitcoin's blockchain and the rest of a node's data directory remain outside the measurement.
The code is merged upstream. Stable binaries follow a separate release process, and Bitcoin Core's release index leaves the first version containing the change unspecified. Operators will need the migration notes for the release that ships it.
Related Reading Bitcoin Core considers dropping encrypted routing support as poor node health exposes users to eclipse attacks How the smaller index works Bitcoin Core's -txindex option maintains a database for retrieving transactions by their full transaction ID. The old format stored each 32-byte transaction ID as a database key alongside transaction disk-position data.
The redesign stores a much shorter lookup key: a five-byte prefix derived from a salted SipHash, followed by a six-byte suffix encoding the block sequence and transaction offset. The full transaction ID is still checked before Bitcoin Core returns a match.
That verification step protects against collisions created by the shorter prefix. Bitcoin Core scans entries sharing the prefix, locates candidate blocks through its block index, reads the candidate transactions from disk and compares their full IDs. Bitcoin Optech's technical summary described collisions as extra read and verification work, with full-ID checks preventing false transaction matches.
Performance held steady in the author's test. Lookups took about 0.2 milliseconds. The mainnet rebuild finished in 1 hour 19 minutes versus 1 hour 50 minutes with the prior format. Hardware, storage, chain height and software version can all change those results.
Related Reading Bitcoin has 185 blocks left before BIP-110 rules begin rejecting blocks Existing txindex databases remain readable after an upgrade, avoiding an immediate forced rebuild. Their legacy entries also keep the larger footprint, so realizing the full 40 GB benchmark saving requires recreating the index.
A later downgrade carries a second migration cost. Bitcoin Core's merged release-note fragment says previous releases cannot read entries written in the compact format. Returning to an older release after rebuilding would trigger another txindex rebuild in the old format.
Related Reading Four unpatched bugs, a 5-year quantum clock, and a miner standoff are pushing Bitcoin to a critical crossroad The operator payoff is substantial within its narrow scope: a much smaller optional index and a faster rebuild in the contributor's test. Capturing it requires planned recreation of the database, plus another rebuild if a rollback becomes necessary.
Release-specific notes should control the exact recreation and downgrade procedure once the change reaches a stable Bitcoin Core binary.
The post A hidden Bitcoin node database just shrank by 40 GB, but only if runners rebuild it appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/a-hidden-bitcoin-node-database-just-shrank-by-40-gb-but-only-if-runners-rebuild-it/
Bitcoin Core has merged a redesign of its optional transaction index that cut about 40 GB from the database in one contributor's mainnet test. Operators using -txindex retain their existing indexes through an upgrade; capturing the full saving requires recreating the database.
Pull request #35531, merged into Bitcoin Core's master branch on Aug. 15, reduced the author's rebuilt mainnet txindex from about 66 GB to 26 GB. The roughly 61% reduction is confined to this optional index. Bitcoin's blockchain and the rest of a node's data directory remain outside the measurement.
The code is merged upstream. Stable binaries follow a separate release process, and Bitcoin Core's release index leaves the first version containing the change unspecified. Operators will need the migration notes for the release that ships it.
Related Reading Bitcoin Core considers dropping encrypted routing support as poor node health exposes users to eclipse attacks How the smaller index works Bitcoin Core's -txindex option maintains a database for retrieving transactions by their full transaction ID. The old format stored each 32-byte transaction ID as a database key alongside transaction disk-position data.
The redesign stores a much shorter lookup key: a five-byte prefix derived from a salted SipHash, followed by a six-byte suffix encoding the block sequence and transaction offset. The full transaction ID is still checked before Bitcoin Core returns a match.
That verification step protects against collisions created by the shorter prefix. Bitcoin Core scans entries sharing the prefix, locates candidate blocks through its block index, reads the candidate transactions from disk and compares their full IDs. Bitcoin Optech's technical summary described collisions as extra read and verification work, with full-ID checks preventing false transaction matches.
Performance held steady in the author's test. Lookups took about 0.2 milliseconds. The mainnet rebuild finished in 1 hour 19 minutes versus 1 hour 50 minutes with the prior format. Hardware, storage, chain height and software version can all change those results.
Related Reading Bitcoin has 185 blocks left before BIP-110 rules begin rejecting blocks Existing txindex databases remain readable after an upgrade, avoiding an immediate forced rebuild. Their legacy entries also keep the larger footprint, so realizing the full 40 GB benchmark saving requires recreating the index.
A later downgrade carries a second migration cost. Bitcoin Core's merged release-note fragment says previous releases cannot read entries written in the compact format. Returning to an older release after rebuilding would trigger another txindex rebuild in the old format.
Related Reading Four unpatched bugs, a 5-year quantum clock, and a miner standoff are pushing Bitcoin to a critical crossroad The operator payoff is substantial within its narrow scope: a much smaller optional index and a faster rebuild in the contributor's test. Capturing it requires planned recreation of the database, plus another rebuild if a rollback becomes necessary.
Release-specific notes should control the exact recreation and downgrade procedure once the change reaches a stable Bitcoin Core binary.
The post A hidden Bitcoin node database just shrank by 40 GB, but only if runners rebuild it appeared first on CryptoSlate.
https://cryptoslate.com/a-hidden-bitcoin-node-database-just-shrank-by-40-gb-but-only-if-runners-rebuild-it/