CoinRank

CoinRank is recruiting independent writers worldwide 💥

What we’re looking for:
→ Deep research & trend analysis
→ Data-driven or on-chain insights
→ Web3 / Crypto / Market narratives
→ English content (self-pitched or guided topics)

What you get:
Global exposure via CoinRank website & media network
Promotion on Twitter, Telegram & partner channels
Official CoinRank contributor identity
Featured articles & social shoutouts
Dedicated author profile with your links

If you want your writing seen by real crypto readers, this is for you.
Apply now: https://forms.gle/j2U7zait2gWQdEAo7

#CoinRank #CryptoWriters #Web3Content #WriteToEarn

Jack Yi: Will continue to deploy $1 billion in funds to buy Ethereum on dips as planned.

CryptoQuant: Bitcoin's RSI is approaching bear market territory; a break below the 4-year moving average usually signals a potential deeper bear market phase.

Nano Labs Founder: Bitcoin bear market bottoms often occur around Christmas.

Streamflow launches interest-bearing stablecoin USD+ on Solana.

Anchorage becomes a USDe custodian and will provide public proof of custody monthly starting in January next year.

The offshore yuan broke through the 7 mark against the US dollar for the first time since 2024, while the onshore yuan hit a new high in over a year.

The NFT market hit a 2025 low, with a 72% drop in market capitalization for the year.

A major bull market is expected in 2026, and $1 billion will continue to be invested in buying ETH on dips.

Welcome to CoinRank Daily Data Report. In this column series, CoinRank will provide important daily cryptocurrency data news, allowing readers to quickly understand the latest developments in the cryptocurrency market.

 

The offshore yuan broke through the 7 mark against the US dollar for the first time since 2024, while the onshore yuan hit a new high in over a year.

 

The offshore yuan broke through the 7 mark against the US dollar for the first time since 2024. The onshore yuan broke through 7.01 against the US dollar, reaching a new high since September 2024. The central parity rate of the yuan against the US dollar was 7.0392, an increase of 79 basis points, the highest since September 30, 2024, and the largest increase since August 27, 2025.

 

Market analysts believe that the weakening US dollar index, the increased resilience of the Chinese economy, and the release of year-end demand for foreign exchange settlement have driven the strong appreciation of the yuan. In the short term, the yuan is expected to maintain a relatively strong trend against the US dollar, but whether it can hold above the 7.0 mark remains to be seen.

 

The NFT market hit a 2025 low, with a 72% drop in market capitalization for the year.

 

According to CoinGecko data, the NFT market continued its downward trend in December 2025, with its total market capitalization falling to $2.5 billion, the lowest point of the year and a 72% drop from its January peak of $9.2 billion. Weekly NFT sales in the first three weeks of December did not exceed $70 million, lower than November levels, indicating a significant decline in market participation.

 

CryptoSlam data shows that the number of unique buyers in the first week of December fell to 184,302 from 204,032 at the end of November, and further decreased to 135,120 in the third week; the number of unique sellers decreased by 35.6% year-on-year, falling below 100,000 for the first time. Transaction volume also declined accordingly, with total transactions falling to 800,000 in the third week, lower than the 1 million transactions at the beginning of the month.

 

A major bull market is expected in 2026, and $1 billion will continue to be invested in buying ETH on dips.

 

Trend Research founder Jack Yi tweeted that unrealized losses are short-term, and the long-term trend is bullish. 

ETH is currently in a bottoming-out phase, and the team’s research indicates a major bull market is on the horizon in 2026.

 

He emphasized that their bottom-fishing and top-selling operations this year have been transparent, and stated that they will not miss long-term growth opportunities due to short-term fluctuations.

 

Jack Yi reiterated that the team plans to continue investing $1 billion to buy ETH on dips, aiming to capture potential gains of thousands of dollars in the future.

〈CoinRank Daily Data Report (12/25)｜The offshore yuan broke through the 7 mark against the US dollar for the first time since 2024〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Logan Paul agrees to auction off $5.3 million worth of Pokémon cards on January 12th, potentially setting a new record price.
The most profitable crypto narratives of 2025: RWA and Layer 1 lead the way, AI and Meme coins experience significant pullbacks, while GameFi and DePIN lead the decline.
Alleged "1011 insider whale" Garrett Jin: Profit-taking in precious metals is driving capital back into BTC and ETH.
Two major Russian exchanges plan to launch compliant crypto trading in 2026.
Institutions: Global spending on generative AI is expected to reach $699 billion by 2030.
#CoinRank #GM

Bitcoin’s fourth halving on April 20, 2024 reduced the block reward from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC, cutting daily issuance from roughly 900 BTC to 450 BTC.

 

As a result, Bitcoin’s annualized supply inflation fell to around 0.83%, with more than 93.8% of the total 21 million BTC already issued by the end of 2024.

 

The halving permanently shifted miner economics toward transaction fees and locked Bitcoin into a lower issuance baseline that will remain in place until the next halving around 2028.

Bitcoin’s fourth halving has permanently reduced new supply. This article examines the post-halving issuance schedule, inflation rate, miner economics, and why Bitcoin’s supply dynamics are now mathematically fixed.

 

BITCOIN’S FOURTH HALVING OCCURRED ON APRIL 20, 2024

 

Bitcoin’s fourth block reward halving took place on April 20, 2024, at block height 840,000, when the block subsidy was reduced from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC, in accordance with Bitcoin’s protocol-defined issuance schedule that triggers a halving every 210,000 blocks.

 

This supply adjustment was executed automatically by consensus rules embedded in Bitcoin’s protocol, without any governance vote or discretionary intervention, reinforcing the network’s predetermined and transparent monetary policy.

 

 

DAILY BITCOIN ISSUANCE DROPPED BY 50%

 

Following the April 2024 halving, Bitcoin’s daily issuance was mathematically reduced from approximately 900 BTC per day to 450 BTC per day, based on a fixed block reward of 3.125 BTC and an average block time of ten minutes.

 

On an annualized basis, this change lowered new Bitcoin issuance from roughly 328,500 BTC per year to 164,250 BTC per year, permanently constraining new supply growth regardless of market demand, miner behavior, or macroeconomic conditions.

 

ANNUAL BITCOIN INFLATION FELL BELOW 1%

 

As a direct consequence of the halving, Bitcoin’s annualized supply inflation rate declined to approximately 0.83%, calculated using circulating supply levels and post-halving issuance rates.

 

For comparison, the annual supply growth rate of gold is commonly estimated at 1–2%, while fiat currency supply growth is determined by central bank policy rather than fixed issuance rules.

 

 

TOTAL BITCOIN SUPPLY STOOD AT 19.7 MILLION BTC BY END-2024

 

Blockchain data shows that Bitcoin’s circulating supply reached approximately 19.7 million BTC by December 31, 2024, leaving fewer than 1.3 million BTC yet to be mined before the protocol-defined maximum supply of 21 million BTC is reached.

 

At this point, more than 93.8% of all Bitcoin that will ever exist had already been issued, underscoring the diminishing absolute impact of future halvings while increasing their relative importance in percentage terms.

 

MINER REVENUE STRUCTURE SHIFTED AFTER THE HALVING

 

The halving also altered Bitcoin miners’ revenue composition by cutting block subsidy revenue in half overnight, increasing the relative importance of transaction fees in total miner income.

 

In the months following the halving, transaction fees accounted for a materially higher share of miner revenue compared to pre-halving periods, aligning with Bitcoin’s long-term design in which network security is expected to transition gradually from subsidy-driven to fee-supported economics.

 

SUPPLY IS FIXED, ADJUSTMENT IS COMPLETE

 

Unlike monetary policy in traditional financial systems, Bitcoin’s supply adjustment following the April 2024 halving is final and irreversible, with no mechanism for accelerating issuance during periods of high demand or slowing issuance during downturns.

 

By the end of 2024, the market was no longer anticipating the halving as a future event; instead, it had fully absorbed the new issuance baseline, which will remain in effect until the next halving, expected around 2028, when the block reward will fall again to 1.5625 BTC.

 

 

This chart shows the number of bitcoins that will exist in the near future. The Year is a forecast and may be slightly off.

 

FROM EVENT TO BASELINE

 

With the fourth halving fully in the past, Bitcoin’s reduced issuance rate has transitioned from a forward-looking narrative catalyst into a baseline condition, reshaping the asset’s long-term supply profile in a manner that is transparent, predictable, and independently verifiable.

 

This shift does not depend on sentiment, policy signals, or institutional adoption cycles; it is enforced directly by Bitcoin’s code and consensus rules, making post-halving supply dynamics one of the few variables in global finance that can be described with mathematical certainty.

 

Read More：

Is the Bitcoin Crash Just Beginning? Three Macro Risks Threatening BTC

Fundstrat Addresses Bitcoin Outlook Debate: Different Frameworks, Different Clients

〈BITCOIN’S POST-HALVING SUPPLY SHIFT IS NOW MATHEMATICALLY LOCKED IN〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

In December 2025, JPMorgan Chase & Co. brought its deposit-backed token JPMD into live operation on Base, marking the first time a major global bank’s balance-sheet deposits operated on a public blockchain.

 

Unlike stablecoins, deposit tokens represent direct claims on regulated bank deposits, embedding on-chain settlement within existing supervisory, accounting, and audit frameworks at a potential trillion-dollar scale.

 

Together with the launch of MONY, JPMorgan’s tokenized money market fund, these developments show RWA evolving from tokenization experiments into continuously operating, institution-controlled blockchain financial infrastructure.

JPMorgan moves bank deposits on-chain as JPMD goes live on Base and launches the MONY tokenized money market fund, signaling RWA’s shift from pilots to institutional-grade blockchain financial infrastructure.

 

BANK DEPOSITS MOVE ON-CHAIN IN DECEMBER 2025

 

Until recently, real-world asset (RWA) adoption on public blockchains was largely confined to tokenized Treasuries, money market funds, and structured investment products, while commercial bank deposits—the most systemically important and heavily regulated form of money—remained firmly inside closed banking systems; this boundary was broken in December 2025, when JPMorgan Chase & Co. confirmed that its deposit-backed token, commonly referred to as JPM Coin (JPMD), had entered live operation on Base, the Ethereum Layer-2 network developed by Coinbase.

 

Unlike prior internal ledger experiments, JPMD on Base supports real institutional settlement activity, allowing whitelisted clients to conduct on-chain payments, margin settlement, and collateral movements, marking the first time a major global bank’s balance-sheet deposits have operated in a public blockchain environment rather than a closed or permissioned network.

 

 

WHY DEPOSIT TOKENS MATTER MORE THAN STABLECOINS

 

For years, stablecoins have served as the primary form of on-chain cash, yet for regulated financial institutions they remain structurally separate from the banking system, raising ongoing questions around issuer credit, reserve transparency, and regulatory treatment; deposit tokens differ fundamentally because they represent direct claims on commercial bank deposits, fully embedded within existing supervisory, accounting, and audit frameworks.

 

In JPMorgan’s case, this distinction is not theoretical: according to disclosures published on November 12, 2025, JPMD on Base entered production use with initial trial transactions involving Mastercard, Coinbase, and B2C2, while supporting 24/7 on-chain settlement, demonstrating that deposit-backed money can function as a live settlement asset on a public blockchain rather than a conceptual pilot.

 

SCALE MAKES THE DIFFERENCE

 

The systemic significance of deposit tokenization becomes clearer when viewed through balance-sheet data rather than blockchain narratives.

 

According to JPMorgan Chase’s 2024 Form 10-K, as of December 31, 2024, the bank reported total deposits of USD 2,406,032 million, equivalent to USD 2.406032 trillion, meaning that even a limited migration of deposit-based settlement activity to blockchain infrastructure would eclipse the scale of most existing on-chain RWA products.

 

For context, while tokenized Treasuries and money market funds have grown rapidly, their combined on-chain value remains measured in tens of billions, whereas commercial bank deposits operate at the trillion-dollar level within the global financial system.

 

MONY BRINGS YIELD ON-CHAIN

 

Deposit tokens address settlement, but yield remains a separate challenge; this gap was addressed on December 15, 2025, when JPMorgan Asset Management announced the launch of My OnChain Net Yield Fund (MONY), the firm’s first tokenized money market fund issued on public Ethereum.

 

According to the official announcement, MONY is a 506(c) private fund available to qualified investors, with assets invested exclusively in U.S. Treasuries and Treasury-backed repurchase agreements, and an initial seed investment of USD 100 million provided by JPMorgan itself, allowing investors to hold yield-bearing dollar assets directly on-chain under a fully regulated structure.

 

RWA DATA SHOWS A SHIFT FROM PILOT TO OPERATION

 

Quantitative data reinforces the view that RWA has moved beyond proof-of-concept.

 

According to RWA.xyz, as of December 25, 2025, the platform reports a Distributed Asset Value of USD 19.10 billion, a Represented Asset Value of USD 414.66 billion, and 592,638 total asset holders, providing a verifiable snapshot of the on-chain RWA market at that point in time.

 

Focusing specifically on government debt, the same dataset shows that Tokenized Treasuries reached a total on-chain value of USD 9.00 billion, across 62 assets and 59,214 holders, with a 7-day annualized yield of 3.82%, positioning them as a credible on-chain equivalent to traditional cash-management instruments.

 

 

THE MACRO BACKDROP FOR INSTITUTIONAL ADOPTION

 

The broader banking environment helps explain the timing of this shift.

 

According to the Federal Reserve’s H.8 statistical release, as of December 10, 2025, total deposits across all U.S. commercial banks stood at USD 18,518.5793 billion, or USD 18.5185793 trillion, underscoring the scale of the settlement and liquidity systems now being examined for efficiency gains through blockchain-based infrastructure.

 

In this context, the emergence of deposit tokens and on-chain money market funds reflects less a technological experiment and more a structural response to the operational demands of large financial institutions.

 

 

FROM TOKENIZATION TO FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

 

Viewed together, JPMD and MONY form a coherent institutional blueprint rather than isolated product launches: deposit tokens transform bank liabilities into 24/7 on-chain settlement instruments, while tokenized money market funds provide regulated, low-risk yield within the same blockchain environment, supported by an expanding pool of tokenized Treasuries that can function as collateral and liquidity buffers.

 

Between November and December 2025, these developments collectively signal a transition for RWA—from assets that can be tokenized, to assets that can operate continuously as part of a public-blockchain financial system, under institutional control and regulatory oversight.

 

Read More:

JPMorgan MONY: institutional cash goes on-chain

Institutions Blur DeFi and TradFi as Capital Markets Move On-Chain

〈JPMD AND MONY MOVE BANK MONEY ON-CHAIN〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Market Sentiment & Rate Cuts: Explore why investor confidence remains low despite anticipated interest rate reductions, highlighting risk-aversion and macroeconomic concerns.

 

Liquidity & Financial Conditions: Analyze how liquidity constraints, credit flows, and policy expectations are shaping slow market responses even with easing signals.

 

Economic Indicators & Outlook: Break down key economic data—employment, inflation, corporate earnings—and their mixed signals, contributing to muted bullish momentum.

A concise 160-character summary that naturally includes your focus keyword and entices clicks from search results.

Why is the market still so sluggish even though the path of interest rate cuts is already clear?

 

Why did Bitcoin continue to fall despite three consecutive interest rate cuts by the US?

 

Are macroeconomic indicators really useless?

 

Today we’ll talk about this major event: interest rate cuts.

 

First, interest rate cuts reduce nominal interest rates, while professional institutions focus more on real interest rates, which also take into account inflation.

 

I won’t go into detail about this point, as I’ve mentioned it many times before.

 

The actual interest rate can be seen here.

 

Market Yield on U.S. Treasury Securities at 10-Year Constant Maturity, Quoted on an Investment Basis, Inflation-Indexed (DFII10) | FRED | St. Louis Fed

 

In a real business environment, interest rate cuts do not necessarily mean immediate easing of liquidity.

 

Every FOMC meeting’s interest rate cut decision, dot plot, and various statements from Fed officials are now answering the same question—”Will interest rates fall?”

 

But the more important question – “Will the money actually flow out?” – remains unanswered, and they have no say in it.

 

There are three key logical links in the two questions.

 

1. POLICY LEVEL: IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY ENTERED A PERIOD OF INTEREST RATE CUTS.

 

This layer is for viewing:Is the interest rate path trending downwards, and is the policy stance shifting towards “more accommodative”?。

 

The last FOMC meeting lowered the target range for the federal funds rate to3.50%–3.75%This is the third consecutive time the 25bp rate has been lowered

 

Furthermore, according to the dot plot, the United States aims to reduce its FFR to 3 by 2030.

 

Therefore, inThe policy transition has been completed.—Whether interest rates will fall is not speculation in the United States; it’s a fact.

 

It could even be said that the biggest driving force and essence of the bull market before October 2025 originated from this.

 

The market’s advance pricing of whether the path of interest rate cuts is certain.

 

2. FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARIES: NOT FULLY “CONNECTED” YET, BUT CRUCIAL.

 

This layer is for viewing:Has the money truly expanded through the banking/credit system to the “underlying financing” of the real economy and broad risk assets?。

 

Let’s start with the traditional capital context: the question is whether banks/financial systems are willing to lend money.

 

This is the real “faucet”.

 

The key indicators are bank lending, lending standards (SLOOS), commercial bank balance sheets, and credit spreads (HY/IG).

 

The reality is that in the early stages of an interest rate cut cycle, banks remain cautious, businesses are still hesitant to borrow, and money remains tied up in short-term debt.

 

This is why, when interest rate cuts actually begin, risky assets often fall instead of rising.

 

(The expectation of an interest rate cut has already been priced in; now the market is waiting for actual monetary easing.)

 

Let’s take a look at the professional report released by the Federal Reserve—(those who are not interested can skip to the crypto market section below).

 

Second QuarterWith tightening lending standards, demand for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans is weak across businesses of all sizes.Banks generally report that commercial real estate (CRE) lending standards are tightening and demand is weak.

 

 

Monthly Balance of Commercial and Industrial Loans (C&I)2025-11: 2,698.7 billion US dollarsIt is almost at the same level as in October and September, which is a “sideways and slow change”.

 

The central bank’s balance sheet does not show a “flood-like expansion,” and its balance sheet as of December 17, 2025, was $6.5569 trillion.

 

 

The above three points show that although interest rates are generally decreasing for the middle class, banks have not relaxed their risk control measures accordingly.

 

The water pipe didn’t burst; it was just slowly seeping through.

The above is the logic of traditional assets, mainly stocks and credit markets. So what is the situation like in the crypto market?

 

The encryption logic is actually the same as the mid-term indicator I wrote before, and the conclusion is still that the intermediary layer is blocked.

 

In cryptography, the intermediary layer is not a bank lending platform, but rather:

Is the supply of stablecoins expanding in a trend (adding purchasing power)?

Is there a net inflow (marginal increase) into ETFs/institutional channels?

 

Those who follow me should know that the current situation is that stablecoins are hardly rising, while ETFs are experiencing outflows.

 

You can find the data in my previous posts.

 

So, although the data metrics used by middle-level managers in crypto and traditional assets differ, the underlying situation is the same.

 

It’s all blocked, it hasn’t exploded yet.

 

3.MARKET BEHAVIOR LAYER – THE REAL DETERMINANT OF PRICES

 

The next issue is whether institutions are willing to invest; this is a crucial point.

 

Even if institutions have the funds, for them, encryption is merely an option, not a necessity.

 

This is a crucial point, which is why I’ve consistently advocated for looking beyond the cryptocurrency space and researching global assets.

 

Including a radical viewpoint I expressed in my previous post, among crypto capital’s investment options, crypto is only slightly better than leftovers.

 

I’ll discuss this in the next article.

 

4. SUMMARY

 

Therefore, connecting these three points reveals a very practical order.

 

Interest rate cuts → (not necessarily) lending → (even less certain) risk-taking

This explains the question I raised at the beginning, why…An easing cycle is not a straight-line bull market.

 

The above viewpoints are referenced from @Web3___Ace

〈Why Markets Lag Despite Clear Interest Rate Cuts〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Architect is redefining market structure by applying perpetual futures and continuous trading to traditional assets within a regulated framework.

 

By eliminating contract expiry and enabling 24 hour collateral movement, Architect reduces rollover friction, liquidity fragmentation, and timing risk in institutional trading.

 

Architect’s core strength lies in regulatory sequencing, allowing innovation to move forward without waiting for structural reform in traditional markets.

WHEN MARKET STRUCTURE FALLS BEHIND GLOBAL ASSETS

 

For more than a decade, financial innovation focused on better interfaces and faster execution. Trading became cheaper. Screens became cleaner. Access widened. However, the structure underneath barely changed. Stocks still follow fixed trading hours. Futures remain segmented by expiry dates. Meanwhile, capital across asset classes stays locked inside separate systems.

 

Crypto markets exposed this gap first. When Bitcoin moved sharply over weekends, or when global events unfolded while traditional markets were closed, the mismatch became clear. Assets now operate on a global and continuous basis. Market infrastructure does not.

 

Against this backdrop, Architect enters the conversation with a different premise. Rather than building another crypto exchange, the company raises a more basic question. If engineers designed a trading system today, without legacy constraints, would it resemble the one institutions still depend on?

 

THE QUESTION THAT EMERGED AFTER FTX, NOT THE STORY

 

Architect’s origin connects closely to its founder Brett Harrison. Yet the relevance lies less in his resume and more in the conclusions he drew after witnessing two opposing truths inside the same system.

 

On one side, crypto markets demonstrated that certain structures worked better. Perpetual futures removed rollover friction. Continuous trading enabled real time risk management. API first design allowed capital and strategies to move instantly. On the other side, weak governance and regulatory blind spots undermined those advantages.

Rather than defending crypto exchanges, Architect separates structure from stewardship. The core belief remains simple. Market design itself was not the problem. Where and how firms deployed that design caused the failure.

 

From the start, Architect avoided positioning itself as a crypto company. Instead, its ambition narrowed and intensified. The goal became clear. Take the most efficient trading structures crypto produced and reintroduce them inside a regulated financial framework.

 

PERPETUAL FUTURES AS STRUCTURE, NOT PRODUCT

 

To understand Architect, it helps to move past product features and focus on structure. AX Exchange matters not because it offers new instruments but because it changes how institutions express exposure.

 

Traditional futures markets fragment liquidity by design. Each expiry date creates a separate pool. As a result, institutions must roll positions repeatedly while absorbing cost and basis risk. Decades ago, this system made sense. Today, it mostly creates friction.

 

AX removes expiry entirely. By applying the perpetual futures model to stocks, foreign exchange, and commodities, liquidity concentrates into a single contract. Funding rates now replace rollover events. Price alignment becomes continuous rather than periodic.

Operational simplicity follows. Market depth improves. Capital efficiency rises. Risk management responds faster.

 

For this reason, Architect does not target retail traders. Instead, macro funds, high frequency firms, and institutions constrained by traditional prime brokerage systems form its core audience. For them, efficiency is not a feature. It defines the business.

 

STABLECOINS AS A TIME STRUCTURE SOLUTION

 

One AX design choice often draws misunderstanding. The platform accepts stablecoins as collateral. At first glance, this appears crypto friendly. In practice, it addresses a long standing flaw in traditional finance.

 

Margin systems still depend on banking hours. When extreme moves occur during weekends or overnight sessions, capital often fails to move when traders need it most. Risk exists. Liquidity does not.

 

By allowing compliant stablecoins alongside fiat, AX enables continuous collateral management. Margin adjusts when markets move, not when banks reopen. As a result, timing risk declines sharply.

 

Architect does not position stablecoins as replacements for the financial system. Instead, it deploys them where they work best. They act as a bridge between continuous markets and discrete settlement rails.

 

THE REAL MOAT IS REGULATORY DESIGN

 

Ultimately, Architect’s strongest advantage is not engineering talent. Regulatory sequencing defines its moat. The company does not attempt to outrun regulators. It builds within the gaps already present.

 

In the United States, Architect operates as a registered broker under established rules. Outside the US, a regulated offshore exchange structure supports products that current frameworks have not yet approved but do not explicitly prohibit.

 

This approach does not rely on regulatory arbitrage. Instead, it reflects regulatory timing.

 

Investor composition reinforces this positioning. Traditional exchange infrastructure capital signals confidence in system integrity. Meanwhile, crypto infrastructure investors recognize a pathway for stablecoins and modern settlement to enter institutional finance.

 

Rather than betting on sudden deregulation, Architect prepares infrastructure ahead of inevitable structural change.

 

AN EXPERIMENT IN PROGRESS, NOT A FINISHED NARRATIVE

 

Architect still faces real risk. Liquidity must remain durable. Systems must perform under stress. Regulatory boundaries must hold under scrutiny.

 

Even so, short term outcomes do not define its importance. The company forces markets to confront a deeper question.

 

If perpetual structures prove more efficient. If continuous trading reflects reality. If capital no longer respects banking hours. Then existing market design is not neutral. It has become outdated.

 

Architect does not seek to overthrow traditional finance. Instead, it updates it. Quietly. Structurally. And in plain sight.

 

〈When Perpetual Futures Leave Crypto: How Architect Is Redesigning Market Structure for Traditional Finance〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

#Circle has refuted claims that it launched a tokenized precious metals trading platform called “#CircleMetals .” According to CoinDesk, the announcement released on Christmas Eve was false, using fabricated Circle branding and executive quotes.
The fake release directed users to connect wallets to swap #USDC for so-called gold (#GLDC ) and silver (#SILC ) tokens. Circle confirmed it has never offered such a service, and the related website has since been taken offline. The company urged users to stay alert and avoid unverified links or wallet connection requests.
#CryptoScam

Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission lists two types of Maotai-flavor liquor RWA tokens as suspicious investment products
Vitalik predicts: Bug-free code will be available in the 2030s
#BlackRock : Fed rate cuts in 2026 may be limited
CZ: Crypto industry should eradicate address poisoning attacks; Binance now supports identifying malicious addresses
Philippines cracks down on unlicensed virtual asset service providers, blocking #Coinbase and #Gemini
#CoinRank #GN

Polymarket’s move is less about “leaving Polygon” and more about owning the full stack—product control plus value capture.

 

Multiple data points suggest Polymarket may have contributed roughly ~25% of Polygon’s activity in key dimensions (TVL share and gas spend).

 

Timing likely ties to an upcoming TGE: migrating before token issuance avoids higher coordination costs and expands the valuation narrative.

Polymarket plans to leave Polygon and launch its own Ethereum Layer 2, POLY. Here’s the product and economic logic, plus how much value Polymarket likely contributed to Polygon.

 

 

On December 22, an update from leading prediction market Polymarket drew widespread attention across the market. In its Discord community, team member Mustafa confirmed that Polymarket plans to migrate away from Polygon and launch an Ethereum Layer 2 network called POLY—now the project’s top priority.

 

A BREAKUP THAT WASN’T EXACTLY UNEXPECTED

 

Polymarket’s decision to move beyond Polygon is hardly surprising. One is a breakout, headline-grabbing application at the forefront of the market; the other is an aging base layer that has been losing momentum. The gap in market attention and value expectations between the two has long felt misaligned. As Polymarket has grown into a new heavyweight, Polygon’s less consistent network performance (with the most recent outage on December 18) and comparatively thinner ecosystem have increasingly become real constraints.

 

For Polymarket, building its own network is a win-win—both as a product choice and as an economic strategy.

 

On the product side, beyond simply seeking a more stable operating environment, launching its own Layer 2 allows Polymarket to tailor underlying features around its platform’s specific needs, making future upgrades and iterations far easier to execute.

 

More importantly, the bigger value lies in the economics. A self-owned network enables Polymarket to internalize the economic activity and surrounding services generated by its platform—preventing value from leaking to external networks and instead steadily compounding into a long-term, system-level advantage.

 

>>> More to read: What is Polymarket? Web3 Prediction Market

VISIBLE AND HIDDEN ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS

 

As an application-layer heavyweight, Polymarket’s breakout success delivered clear, direct economic value to Polygon. Historical data compiled by Dune analyst dash shows:

 

419,309 monthly active users; 1,766,193 total users historically

 

19.63 million transactions this month; 115 million total transactions historically

 

$1.538 billion in trading volume this month; $14.3 billion in total historical volume

 

As for how to estimate Polymarket’s share of Polygon’s broader economic activity, Odaily Planet Daily noticed a rather striking “coincidental” ratio when comparing the two ecosystems.

 

First, in terms of capital retained on-chain: DefiLlama data shows Polymarket’s total open positions across the platform at roughly $326 million, which is about one quarter of Polygon’s total TVL of $1.19 billion.

 

Second, in terms of gas consumption: Coin Metrics reported in October last year that transactions related to Polymarket were estimated to account for 25% of Polygon’s total gas usage.

 

Since that dataset is somewhat dated, we also checked more recent figures. Dune analyst petertherock shows that in November, Polymarket-related transactions consumed roughly $216,000 in gas, while Token Terminal estimates Polygon’s total gas spend for the same month at about $939,000—again, close to one quarter (around 23%).

 

Of course, this similarity could be partly driven by differences in methodology and time windows. Still, seeing a comparable ratio across multiple dimensions provides a reasonable reference point for approximating Polymarket’s economic significance to Polygon.

 

 

Beyond measurable indicators such as active users, retained capital, transaction volume, and gas contribution, Polymarket’s economic significance to Polygon also shows up in a set of “hidden” contributions—harder to quantify, but just as real.

 

First is its role in activating stablecoin liquidity. Since all Polymarket trades are settled in USDC, the platform’s high-frequency, continuous trading behavior has objectively increased demand for USDC circulation on Polygon and expanded real usage scenarios for the stablecoin on the network.

 

Second is the spillover value of retained users. Even beyond prediction markets, these users may, for convenience, start using other products in the Polygon ecosystem—such as DeFi—thereby strengthening the network’s overall ecosystem value.

 

These contributions are difficult to capture with clean, concrete metrics, but they represent exactly the kind of “real demand” that base-layer networks value most—and struggle the most to attract.

 

>>> More to read: What is POL? Polygon’s Ecosystem Upgrade

WHY NOW? THE ANSWER ISN’T HARD TO GUESS

 

In reality, based on user scale, performance metrics, and market mindshare alone, Polymarket already has the confidence to stand on its own. This is no longer a question of “whether to leave,” but “when to leave.”

 

Choosing to begin the migration at this moment likely comes down to the approaching Polymarket TGE. On one hand, once Polymarket issues a token, its governance structure, incentive framework, and economic model tend to become more fixed—making any underlying migration later significantly more costly and complex. On the other hand, evolving from a “single application” into a full-stack system of “application + base layer” implies a shift in valuation logic. Building its own Layer 2 clearly raises the ceiling for Polymarket, both narratively and from a capital-markets perspective.

 

Ultimately, Polymarket’s departure from Polygon is not merely a straightforward infrastructure move—it’s a snapshot of structural change in the crypto industry. When top-tier applications become capable of independently carrying users, traffic, and economic activity, base-layer networks that fail to provide additional value will inevitably be sidelined.

 

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Polymarket Ditches Polygon: The Economics Behind Its Exit〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

A Sidechain is an independent parallel blockchain connected to a main chain via two-way bridging for asset and token transfers.

 

A Sidechain can improve scalability and cost efficiency by customizing consensus and block parameters for faster throughput.

 

A Sidechain may support EVM compatibility for easier DApp deployment, but it introduces trade-offs in decentralization, security responsibility, and complexity.

Learn what a Sidechain is, how it connects to a main chain via two-way bridges, why it improves scalability, and the key trade-offs in decentralization, security, and complexity.

 

WHAT IS SIDECHAIN?

 

Sidechain is essentially a parallel blockchain that operates independently from the main blockchain (also called the main chain). While it runs with its own execution environment and rules, it can still stay connected to the main chain through a two-way bridging mechanism, which enables digital assets or tokens to move between the main chain and the sidechain in a seamless way.

 

🔍 How does a Sidechain work?

 

A Sidechain stands out because it operates with a high degree of autonomy. Unlike a main chain, which typically follows more fixed rules and constraints, a Sidechain can adopt its own consensus algorithm and block parameters tailored to a specific purpose. This design freedom often enables more efficient transaction processing, offering faster confirmation times and lower fees in practice.

 

On the consensus side, a Sidechain may use mechanisms such as Proof of Authority (PoA) or Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS), among others. While these systems differ in how they reach agreement, they share a common structure: validators on the Sidechain are responsible for verifying transactions, producing blocks, and helping maintain the overall security of the network.

 

Block parameters are another area where a Sidechain can diverge from the main chain. While a main blockchain may impose strict limits on block time and block size, a Sidechain can adjust these settings to achieve higher throughput. However, this flexibility comes with trade-offs—looser block parameters may rely on a smaller set of more powerful nodes, which can reduce the network’s level of decentralization.

📌 EVM Compatibility

 

One notable feature of some Sidechain designs is Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) compatibility. This compatibility allows a Sidechain to run smart contracts written in languages like Solidity, giving developers a familiar environment to build and deploy applications.

 

In practical terms, if a Sidechain is EVM-compatible, it can run decentralized applications (DApps) and execute smart contracts originally designed for the Ethereum blockchain with minimal friction, making it easier to reuse existing tools, codebases, and development workflows.

 

>>> More to read: What is the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM)?

SIDECHAIN PROS & CONS

 

Like any technical innovation, a Sidechain comes with both strengths and limitations. Here’s a clear breakdown of the main advantages and trade-offs.

 

🚩 Advantages

 

▶ Scalability: A Sidechain can offload part of the transaction processing from the main chain, offering a more scalable setup. By moving activity away from the main chain, it helps reduce congestion and can improve overall performance.

 

▶ Flexibility: Because a Sidechain operates independently, it has the freedom to experiment with different consensus mechanisms and network parameters. This autonomy supports innovation, customization, and faster iteration compared to making changes directly on a main chain.

 

▶ EVM Compatibility: For EVM-compatible Sidechain networks, developers can transition more smoothly by deploying existing Ethereum smart contracts. This makes it easier to reuse Solidity-based code, tooling, and familiar development workflows.

❗ Disadvantages

 

▶ Potential decentralization trade-offs: To achieve higher throughput, a Sidechain often sacrifices some degree of decentralization. This can lead to validator power becoming more concentrated, which may introduce risks to network neutrality and security.

 

▶ Security considerations: A Sidechain is responsible for its own security. While issues on a Sidechain do not directly compromise the main chain, the fact that it does not rely on the main chain’s security can introduce additional risk.

 

▶ Complexity: Building and maintaining a Sidechain typically requires significant effort and resources. Both the initial setup and ongoing operational requirements can increase friction and become a real challenge for adoption.

 

>>> More to read: What is a Cross-chain Bridge & Why We Need It

SIDECHAIN CONCLUSION

 

In the fast-evolving blockchain landscape, Sidechain solutions stand out for their potential to address scalability challenges. By operating independently and supporting features like EVM compatibility and bridging, a Sidechain can unlock a wide range of applications and real-world use cases, offering more room for efficiency and customization beyond what a main chain can easily provide.

 

That said, a Sidechain is not “scaling for free.” Users and developers still need to weigh the key trade-offs carefully—especially around decentralization, security responsibilities, and implementation complexity. As the broader ecosystem matures, Sidechain networks are likely to play an increasingly important role in shaping a more scalable and versatile blockchain environment, but their value ultimately depends on how well these compromises are managed.

 

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈What is Sidechain? How Does it Work〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

PoW secures consensus through mining-based computation, while PoS secures consensus through validator staking.

 

PoW rewards miners with new coins plus fees, while PoS typically rewards validators with transaction fees from the blocks they validate.

 

PoW faces hash-power concentration concerns, while PoS attacks require majority token ownership, making them extremely costly and self-damaging.

Compare PoW and PoS consensus: how mining and staking validate blocks, distribute rewards, shape security risks, and why many new networks favor PoS.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

PoW (Proof of Work)

PoS (Proof of Stake)

 

PoW and PoS are the 2 most widely used consensus mechanisms in crypto. Major cryptocurrencies rely on them to keep their networks secure and to ensure that on-chain transactions are validated under a shared set of rules.

 

Because a blockchain needs a reliable way to confirm that every recorded transaction is legitimate, different networks adopt different consensus designs. PoW was the earliest model, introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto, and many people still view it as one of the most secure approaches available. PoS was developed later, but it has since become common across most major digital asset projects—especially outside of BTC.

 

>>> More to read: What is Proof of Staked Authority(PoSA)?

PROOF OF WORK (POW) | HOW DOES IT WORK?

 

📌 PoW

 

PoW (Proof of Work) is the consensus algorithm used by the Bitcoin network and many other cryptocurrencies, designed to prevent double-spending. Satoshi Nakamoto introduced this mechanism in the Bitcoin whitepaper published in 2008.

 

At its core, PoW defines how the Bitcoin blockchain reaches decentralized consensus. It allows peer-to-peer transactions to be verified in a trust-minimized way—without relying on any third-party intermediary.

 

In PoW-based networks like Bitcoin, miners are responsible for validating transactions. These participants commit significant resources to help keep the network secure and operating correctly. One of their key tasks is to assemble transactions into blocks and verify them. But to earn the right to add the next block, miners must use highly specialized mining hardware to solve difficult mathematical puzzles.

 

The first miner to find a valid solution gets to append their block to the blockchain and receives what’s known as a block reward. This reward is made up of newly issued cryptocurrency plus transaction fees. The amount of newly issued coins varies by network. For example, on Bitcoin, a successful miner could receive 6.25 BTC per block reward, plus fees (as of December 2021).

 

Bitcoin also includes a mechanism called “halving,” where the number of new BTC created per block is reduced by 50% every 210,000 blocks (roughly every 4 years).

 

>>> More to read: What is Proof of Work (PoW)?

WHAT IS PROOF OF STAKE (POS) | HOW DOES IT WORK?

 

📌PoS

 

PoS (Proof of Stake) is a consensus algorithm introduced in 2011 as an alternative to PoW. It was designed to address some of the scalability limitations seen in PoW-based networks. Today, PoS is widely used across major crypto projects—often cited as the second most popular consensus model—and can be found in networks such as BNB, Solana (SOL), and Cardano (ADA).

 

While PoW and PoS share the same goal—helping a blockchain reach consensus and confirm valid transactions—PoS uses a different method to decide who gets to validate the next block. In a PoS blockchain, there are no miners. Instead of competing with powerful hardware to “win” block production rights, validators are chosen based on the amount of cryptocurrency they commit to the network.

 

To become eligible to validate blocks, participants lock a certain amount of tokens into a designated smart contract on the blockchain. This process is known as staking. The PoS protocol then assigns validators to confirm the next block. Depending on the network, selection may be random or weighted by the size of a participant’s stake.

 

Validators who are selected can earn rewards from the blocks they validate—typically in the form of transaction fees. In general, the more tokens a validator stakes, the higher their chances of being chosen.

 

>>> More to read: What is Proof of Stake (PoS)?

KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN POW AND POS

 

🔍 Who can mine/validate blocks?

 

PoW: The more computing power you have, the higher your chances of mining (validating) a block.

 

PoS: The more tokens you stake, the more likely you are to be selected to validate a new block.

🔍 How are blocks mined/validated?

 

PoW: Miners compete by using computational resources to solve complex mathematical puzzles; the first to find a valid solution earns the right to add the next block.

 

PoS: A validator is typically selected by an algorithm; the process may include randomness while also factoring in the amount staked.

🔍 What equipment is needed?

 

PoW: Specialized mining hardware is commonly used, such as ASICs, CPUs, and GPUs.

 

PoS: Participation can be done with any internet-connected computer or mobile device.

🔍 How are rewards distributed?

 

PoW: The first miner to successfully produce a block receives the block reward.

 

PoS: Validators can earn a share of transaction fees from the blocks they validate.

🔍 How does each model secure the network?

 

PoW: In general, more hash power is associated with a more secure network.

 

PoS: Security is supported by staking—locking cryptocurrency on-chain as part of the network’s protection mechanism.

SECURITY RISKS

 

✅ PoW

Beyond the general concern of centralization, one risk often discussed is that the top 4 mining pools control a large share of Bitcoin’s total hash power. When so much computing power is concentrated in a small number of pools, it can theoretically increase the risk of a 51% attack.

 

A 51% attack refers to a potential security threat where a malicious actor or group manages to control more than 50% of a network’s total hash rate. If that happens, attackers could manipulate how the consensus process plays out and engage in harmful actions for profit—such as double-spending, rejecting or altering transaction records, or preventing others from mining. That said, given the scale of the Bitcoin network, this scenario is generally considered unlikely to occur in practice.

✅ PoS

In contrast, to attack a PoS blockchain, an attacker would need to own more than 50% of the network’s tokens. Buying that much supply would likely drive demand—and the token price—significantly higher, potentially costing tens of billions of dollars. Even if a 51% attack were carried out, the attacker’s staked tokens could lose substantial value as the network and market confidence are damaged.

 

Because of these economic constraints, cryptocurrencies that use PoS consensus are generally seen as less likely to face a 51% attack, especially in large-cap networks.

 

>>> More to read: What is 51% attack? How to Prevent It

SUMMARY

 

Both PoW and PoS have earned a solid place in the crypto ecosystem, and it’s hard to definitively say that one consensus model is universally “better.” PoW is often criticized for the higher carbon emissions associated with mining, but it has also proven itself as a robust security mechanism for protecting blockchain networks.

 

That said, as major networks like Ethereum have transitioned from PoW to PoS, it’s increasingly likely that PoS will become the preferred choice for new projects going forward—especially for teams prioritizing scalability and efficiency.

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Proof of Work (PoW) vs Proof of Stake (PoS): What’s the Difference?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Garrett Jin, the "1011 Insider Whale": Precious Metals Reversal Will Trigger Fund Flows to BTC and ETH
US Government Takes Three-Day Holiday, EIA Data Release Delayed to Next Week
Hong Kong Financial Services and Treasury Bureau and Securities and Futures Commission: Virtual Asset Trading and Custody Services Expected to be Included in Regulatory Framework
#Solana Foundation to Launch New Wallet Connectivity SDK ConnectorKit
#OpenAI : AGI Progress by 2026 Requires Not Only Technological Breakthroughs, but Also Bridging the Gap in AI Application Deployment

#CoinRank

Stablecoins have entered a global regulatory expansion phase driven by the U.S. GENIUS Act and rapid adoption in Asia and Europe.

 

Ethereum captures over half of all stablecoin supply and dominates on chain liquidity inflows, becoming the core beneficiary of the new stablecoin cycle.

 

DeFi on Ethereum is accelerating again with rising TVL and stable yields, making stablecoins a mainstream yield instrument for global investors.

THE GLOBAL STABLECOIN WAVE HAS ALREADY STARTED

 

As the United States passes the GENIUS Act, the path forward for regulated stablecoins becomes clearer. Traditional and crypto native capital now have a compliant instrument for payments, settlement and liquidity provisioning.

 

The United States sets the tone with the GENIUS Act

 

On July 18, President Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act). The law recognizes stablecoins backed 1:1 by cash, bank deposits or U.S. Treasury bills. Issuers must operate under banking oversight or federal approval and publish monthly reserve reports with third party audits.

 

The U.S. has clearly chosen to advance regulated private stablecoins instead of a centralized CBDC. Key benefits include:

 

• Strengthening the dollar’s global currency position • Increasing demand for U.S. Treasuries • Accelerating cross border settlement and economic efficiency

 

Global regions move quickly on stablecoin regulation

 

Hong Kong enacted its stablecoin bill on August 1 The European Union began enforcing MiCA in 2024 Japan approved USDC as the only legally compliant dollar stablecoin South Korea is preparing a domestic won stablecoin through a consortium of eight banks

 

These developments indicate one direction: stablecoins are becoming a standardized global instrument for payments and financial infrastructure.

 

STABLECOIN MARKET SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION

The total stablecoin market cap has reached 270 billion dollars, doubling the 2021 peak. USDT leads with 164.5 billion dollars (60 percent market share). USDC follows at 65.2 billion dollars. New generation stablecoins like USDe and USDS contribute additional momentum.

Across ecosystems, USDT and USDC capture over 85 percent market share. On Ethereum, USDT accounts for 49 percent and USDC for 29 percent.

ETHEREUM BECOMES THE BIGGEST BENEFICIARY

Ethereum hosts over half of all stablecoins in circulation, giving it unmatched DeFi liquidity depth.

 

On chain capital flows confirm Ethereum’s dominance

 

Artemis data shows strong liquidity concentration:

• Inflows: 21.2 billion dollars • Outflows: 12.8 billion dollars • Net inflow: 8.4 billion dollars

 

Other chains remain largely unchanged, highlighting Ethereum’s clear advantage in capturing stablecoin driven liquidity.

 

Ethereum DeFi enters a new growth phase

 

As inflows accelerate, TVL across major Ethereum DeFi protocols grows by roughly 50 percent month over month. Institutional and traditional finance participants increasingly allocate to lower risk and yield stable on chain products.

 

Ethereum’s DeFi ecosystem is becoming the preferred environment for stable yield strategies.

HOW USERS CAN EARN YIELD WITH STABLECOINS

 

Holding stablecoins is no longer only about trading convenience. Users can earn yield through:

 

Centralized exchange products

 

Platforms like Binance, Bybit and OKX offer stablecoin earn programs and structured products.

Decentralized DeFi protocols

 

Users can earn through DEX LP positions, perps DEX liquidity, lending protocols like AAVE or ecosystems like Hyperliquid.

 

Typical yields range from 4 to 10 percent annually, with higher returns available in DeFi for users comfortable with protocol risk.

CONCLUSION

 

The global stablecoin wave is fully underway. Ethereum stands as the earliest and biggest winner. ETH returned above four thousand dollars and major protocols continue expanding. For institutional and traditional investors seeking low risk and stable yield, Ethereum remains the preferred on chain destination.

 

As more jurisdictions finalize stablecoin regulation, holding regulated fiat stablecoins will become a global habit. Payments and on chain financial applications will accelerate. Stablecoins are evolving into a universal digital money layer with Ethereum at the center of this transformation.

 

〈The Global Stablecoin Wave Arrives and Ethereum DeFi Emerges as the Biggest Winner〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。