Dear BitMEX Users,
Today, we share with a very heavy heart that BitMEX exchange will shut down its operations, effective 23 September 2026 at 04:00:00 UTC.
The owner and operator of BitMEX, HDR Global Trading Limited, has made the difficult decision to close operations… pic.twitter.com/oWuqlh547f
— BitMEX (@BitMEX) July 23, 2026
Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.
The exchange has immediately halted all new account registrations following a strategic business review by its parent company, HDR Global Trading Limited. The wind-down ends an 11-year run for the Seychelles-incorporated venue, which debuted in 2014 and pioneered the foundational plumbing for modern digital asset derivatives trading.
The wind-down forces an immediate reduction of risk across the system, because while standard trading will continue for the next few weeks, the platform will apply strict limits on Aug. 26 to stop users from opening any new positions. Between that date and the final September deadline, operators will systematically force close all remaining open contracts to ensure the market shuts down in an orderly manner.
The main challenge BitMEX faces is how to offramp user assets into fiat currencies of their choice, as network congestion on the Bitcoin blockchain could cause significant withdrawal delays. However, the company’s current proof of reserves indicates that platform liabilities fully cover customer assets.
This exit marks the end of an 11-year run for the digital asset derivatives venue, which maintained a clean security record and lost no user funds to hacks or smart-contract exploits despite facing years of intense regulatory enforcement actions by global authorities.
The news comes just three weeks after BitMEX lost its CEO, chief financial officer and head of growth.
$BONK, the Solana-based token project, has launched Circus, a new platform for issuing tokens that could become available on Robinhood. The launch expands $BONK’s growing product ecosystem and aims to give Robinhood users access to newly issued digital assets.
Details about the platform remain limited. $BONK has not yet announced which tokens will debut on Circus or explained how allocations and listing criteria will work. The project has only described the broader concept of bringing a crypto-native launchpad model to a platform mainly used by retail investors.
The launch follows the rapid growth of $BONK’s other products. BONKtrade, the project’s trading platform, recorded more than $400 million in monthly volume in June. BONKBot, a trading automation tool that works through chat, processes around $1.5 million in transactions per day.
Image: Magnific
Ripple MiCA Authorization Opens A Wider European Payments Lane
Ripple has secured full MiCA authorization in Europe, giving the company a clearer regulatory path to expand crypto-enabled payment services across EU and EEA markets.
The authorization applies to Ripple’s corporate payment entity and allows compliant operations under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework. That is an important distinction. This is not a blanket regulatory endorsement of $XRP trading itself. It is a licensing milestone for Ripple’s business activities under MiCA.
Still, the development matters for $XRP watchers because Ripple’s payments business remains central to the token’s broader narrative.
If Ripple can operate more cleanly across Europe, it may strengthen the company’s ability to work with banks, payment firms, fintechs, and institutional clients in one of the world’s most important regulatory blocs.
MiCA has become one of the most important crypto regulatory frameworks in the world.
Instead of forcing firms to deal with fragmented rules across every European country, MiCA creates a more unified regime for crypto-asset service providers. That can make it easier for licensed firms to scale across member states while still meeting compliance obligations.
For Ripple, this is particularly relevant.
The company has spent years positioning itself as a payments and settlement infrastructure provider. Its core pitch has always depended on working with regulated institutions, not simply appealing to retail token traders.
A MiCA authorization can therefore make business conversations easier.
Banks and payment companies are more likely to work with a crypto firm when the regulatory status is clear. Compliance teams can point to a recognized framework. Legal departments can assess obligations more directly. Operational partners can understand the boundaries of what is permitted.
That is exactly the kind of clarity Ripple needs if it wants to expand deeper into European payment corridors.
The $XRP market will naturally pay attention to the authorization, but the connection needs to be framed carefully.
Ripple’s regulatory progress can improve the environment around its payment business. That may support the broader $XRP narrative if the company’s products continue to involve $XRP-related liquidity or settlement tools.
But the authorization itself does not mean regulators have approved $XRP as an investment product. It does not mean all $XRP trading has received blanket clearance across Europe. It does not guarantee token demand.
The strongest read is more measured: Ripple has gained a clearer legal route for its European crypto-asset service operations.
That matters because institutional adoption depends on trust, licensing, and compliance. $XRP’s long-term utility case is stronger when Ripple can operate in major markets without constant regulatory uncertainty.
Still, token price impact depends on actual usage, liquidity, and product adoption.
Ripple’s MiCA approval also fits into a wider industry trend.
Crypto companies are racing to secure European regulatory footing because MiCA offers something the US still lacks: a comprehensive digital asset rulebook. The framework is not light-touch, but it is relatively clear.
That makes Europe attractive for firms that want certainty.
Exchanges, custodians, stablecoin issuers, payment firms, and infrastructure providers all need to decide where to base operations and how to structure services. MiCA creates a pathway, but it also raises the bar.
Firms that secure authorization early may gain an advantage.
They can approach institutional clients with a stronger compliance story while rivals are still working through approvals. For Ripple, that could be meaningful given the company’s focus on cross-border payments.
Regulatory approval is useful, but it is not the finish line.
Ripple still needs to turn authorization into real payment volume, partnerships, and institutional usage. Licenses create permission. They do not automatically create demand.
The next thing to watch is whether Ripple uses the MiCA approval to announce new European clients, expanded corridors, or deeper integration with banks and payment providers.
That is where the story becomes more important for $XRP holders.
If authorization leads to more payment activity, the market may view it as a practical step forward. If it remains mostly a compliance milestone, the immediate effect may be limited.
Either way, it is a positive development for Ripple’s European strategy.
Crypto markets have spent years asking for regulatory clarity. In Europe, that clarity is now becoming operational. Ripple’s MiCA authorization shows how larger crypto companies are beginning to use that framework to expand regulated services rather than wait for perfect global rules.
For Ripple, Europe just became a more navigable market.
This article is based on Ripple and ESMA materials.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
A bridge is a blockchain-based tool that lets assets move between two networks that otherwise cannot interact with each other. It holds real tokens on one side and issues claims against them on the other, and its safety depends entirely on correctly verifying that every withdrawal is genuinely backed by assets locked on the other chain.
The Verus flaw let an attacker trigger payouts on the Ethereum side that were never properly backed on the Verus side, so the bridge released real money against a claim worth almost nothing.
The attacker returned most of the funds in exchange for a bounty after the May attack. Verus then redeposited the recovered money into the same bridge on July 8, according to onchain records compiled by security researchers, and the bridge was drained again two weeks later.
The cost of that trust is visible in the protocol’s own numbers. Verus held close to $100 million in total value locked at the start of 2025, according to DefiLlama. It holds about $9 million as of Thursday, a slow bleed punctuated by a fresh drop this week as the latest hack landed.
Such repeated failures do not just cost the money stolen in any single attack, but drain the confidence that keeps assets on the platform at all.
Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson made a statement following the security incident in the Midnight ecosystem that led to a sharp drop in the price of the $NIGHT token. Hoskinson stated that the attack did not affect the Midnight protocol or the $NIGHT smart contract on Cardano, but rather the problem occurred in the third-party bridge infrastructure.
Hoskinson stated, “Midnight itself wasn’t hacked. $NIGHT’s smart contract on Cardano wasn’t hacked. What was hacked was the third-party bridge.”
Hoskinson stated that initial findings indicate the incident is entirely limited to the Wanchain infrastructure, noting that the system has four core components—on-chain and off-chain—running on Cardano and BNB Chain. He emphasized the need for a comprehensive audit to determine which component was affected and how the vulnerability was exploited.
Hoskinson stated that they were awaiting an explanation from the Wanchain team, saying, “Questions must be answered and audits must be conducted. We will get to the truth about why this happened, who is responsible, how much the loss is, and how the damage will be remedied.”
Cardano’s founder also warned that similar attacks could become more frequent in the future due to advancements in artificial intelligence technologies. Hoskinson stated that AI has made significant progress in the field of information security, noting that vulnerabilities in systems can be found and fixed much faster than humans can.
Related News Following a Hacking Attack, the Value of an Altcoin Dropped to Nearly Zero
Hoskinson, who noted that he has been in the cryptocurrency sector for 15 years, said that the sector has started to become desensitized to these events due to the constant attacks and bridge security problems. Stating that this situation seriously undermines consumer confidence, Hoskinson argued that there is a need for next-generation financial infrastructures.
According to Hoskinson, the $NIGHT project aims to combine the regulatory mechanisms, insurance products, and asset recovery capabilities of the traditional financial system with the features of cryptocurrencies, such as individual custody and self-sovereign identity. Hoskinson stated that this model aims to give users back control over how their money works.
Hoskinson stated that the $NIGHT token has begun to recover after the sharp drop, indicating that the Midnight ecosystem has overcome its first major crisis. Hoskinson commented, “$NIGHT experienced its first major event and emerged stronger. Midnight has begun to recover and has passed its first major test.”
*This is not investment advice.
Chainlink is shifting the economics of its BUILD program toward commercial fee agreements, a move that could make $LINK’s utility more closely tied to paid oracle and infrastructure services.
The update follows the final BUILD rewards claims ending July 7, 2026. Under the new direction, participating projects are expected to move toward commercial agreements with fees paid in $LINK or other liquid tokens.
That matters because $LINK investors have long watched one question closely: how does Chainlink’s adoption translate into token utility?
This does not mean immediate price impact. It does not mean every Chainlink integration suddenly creates direct $LINK demand. But it does show the network continuing to push toward clearer commercial rails for its services.
Chainlink is one of the most widely used infrastructure networks in crypto.
Its oracle services help deliver price data, proof of reserves, cross-chain messaging, and other off-chain inputs to blockchain applications. DeFi protocols, stablecoin issuers, tokenized asset platforms, and financial institutions all rely on oracle infrastructure in some form.
But for $LINK holders, adoption alone is not the entire story.
The market wants to understand how usage connects to the token. Does more oracle demand create more $LINK-denominated fees? Do stakers benefit? Are payments made in $LINK? Are tokens held, distributed, or sold? How much of the network’s commercial activity flows through the token economy?
Chainlink’s move toward commercial fee agreements is relevant because it speaks directly to that issue.
It makes the economic relationship between projects and Chainlink services more explicit.
The BUILD program was designed to align early-stage projects with Chainlink’s ecosystem.
Projects could receive support, services, or integration help while committing a portion of their token supply or economic upside back to Chainlink’s network. That model made sense for bootstrapping adoption, especially when many crypto projects were still building toward product-market fit.
But as Chainlink matures, the network needs commercial arrangements that look less like ecosystem support and more like paid infrastructure.
That is where fee-based agreements come in.
A project that relies on Chainlink services can pay for those services. If fees are paid in $LINK or other liquid tokens, the arrangement becomes easier to evaluate and potentially easier to connect to broader network economics.
It is important not to overstate this.
A move toward fee-based agreements does not automatically mean $LINK will rally. Token price depends on many factors, including market conditions, supply dynamics, staking design, investor sentiment, and the actual size of commercial payments.
There is also nuance around “$LINK or other liquid tokens.”
If some agreements use tokens other than $LINK, the direct $LINK demand effect may vary. If fees are paid in $LINK but later distributed or sold, the market impact may also depend on the flow structure.
So the safe interpretation is not “fees equal price increase.”
The safe interpretation is that Chainlink is continuing to build a more commercial model around its infrastructure, and $LINK remains part of that model.
For long-term holders, that is still meaningful.
Chainlink has been pushing deeper into institutional finance, cross-chain messaging, tokenized assets, proof-of-reserve systems, and data services.
Those areas require reliable infrastructure. They also require clear business models.
Institutions do not want vague token incentive systems. They want service-level reliability, pricing, compliance comfort, and dependable technical support. Commercial agreements make that easier.
At the same time, Chainlink’s crypto-native community wants to know that the token continues to matter.
Balancing those two audiences is difficult. Chainlink needs to be credible to institutions without making $LINK feel disconnected from network usage.
Fee-based commercial agreements are one way to bridge that gap.
The next thing $LINK investors will watch is not just how many projects sign agreements, but how those agreements are structured.
Important details include payment token, fee size, whether fees connect to staking, how revenue is distributed, and whether enterprise adoption produces visible on-chain flows.
Until those details become clearer, the update is best viewed as a structural step rather than a complete economic answer.
Still, the direction is notable.
Chainlink is moving from early ecosystem reward alignment toward more direct commercial infrastructure relationships. That is what mature middleware networks eventually need.
For $LINK, the value of that shift will depend on execution.
If Chainlink can turn adoption into recurring fees while keeping $LINK connected to the economics of the network, the token utility debate becomes more concrete.
This article is based on Chainlink’s update on commercial agreements and BUILD program rewards.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Uniswap governance is reviewing a proposal that would route protocol fees from selected Optimism pools toward $UNI token burns, testing a more direct connection between deployment-level activity and token economics.
The proposal is specific to Optimism pools. That distinction matters because it is not a protocol-wide fee burn across all Uniswap deployments.
Still, the idea is significant.
$UNI holders have long debated how Uniswap’s massive trading footprint should connect to the $UNI token. A fee-routing and burn mechanism on Optimism would give governance a narrower test case rather than changing the entire protocol at once.
Uniswap is one of the most important decentralized exchanges in crypto, but its token economics have always been debated.
The protocol processes large amounts of trading volume, yet $UNI does not automatically capture value from every trade in a direct, simple way. Governance controls key decisions, but tokenholders have often wanted clearer links between protocol usage and token value.
That is why fee routing matters.
If protocol fees from selected pools can be used to buy and burn $UNI, the token may gain a more visible economic connection to exchange activity. Burns reduce supply, at least mechanically, and they are easy for the market to understand.
But implementation is everything.
Which pools are included? How much fee revenue is routed? How are burns executed? What are the legal and governance implications? Could the model expand beyond Optimism later?
Those are the questions governance needs to answer.
Optimism is a useful place to test the idea because it narrows the scope.
Uniswap is deployed across multiple networks. A protocol-wide change would be more complex and more controversial. Testing fee routing on a specific deployment gives governance a way to examine the mechanics without rewriting the entire system.
It also reflects how DeFi is becoming more chain-specific.
Activity on Ethereum mainnet is different from activity on Optimism, Arbitrum, Base, Polygon, or other networks. Fees, users, liquidity, incentives, and trading behavior vary by chain.
A deployment-level test may help Uniswap learn whether fee burns are practical in one environment before considering broader changes.
That does not guarantee the proposal will pass or expand.
But it gives $UNI holders a concrete experiment to debate.
The market often likes token burns because they are easy to understand.
Fewer tokens can sound bullish. But burns only matter if the underlying fee stream is meaningful, recurring, and large enough to affect supply over time.
A small burn from limited pools may be symbolically important but economically modest. A larger mechanism could matter more, but it may also raise more governance, liquidity, and regulatory questions.
That is why the Optimism-specific scope is important.
The proposal can show how the process works without overpromising immediate impact. $UNI holders should watch the mechanism, not just the headline.
If fees are routed transparently and burns are executed reliably, the model may gain support. If the impact is tiny or the process creates new complications, governance may be more cautious.
The broader issue is value alignment.
Uniswap has strong product-market fit. It is widely used, deeply integrated, and central to DeFi liquidity. But tokenholders still want to know how that usage translates into $UNI’s long-term role.
Governance power alone may not be enough for every investor.
A fee burn proposal gives the DAO another possible answer. It connects protocol activity, chain-specific revenue, and token supply mechanics in a way that is easier to track.
That does not mean every Uniswap fee should automatically flow to tokenholders. The protocol also needs liquidity, incentives, legal resilience, and sustainable governance.
But the discussion is important.
It shows that DeFi’s largest protocols are still experimenting with how to align users, liquidity providers, developers, and tokenholders.
For Uniswap, the Optimism proposal could become a small but meaningful test of whether deployment-level fee routing can support $UNI economics without disrupting the protocol’s broader market position.
This article is based on the Uniswap governance proposal for Optimism pool fee routing.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Base and Optimism are working to bring native account abstraction to the OP Stack, with developer testing already live on Base Vibenet and mainnet rollout planned for the Cobalt upgrade in September 2026.
The update centers on EIP-8130 and aims to make user accounts more flexible across OP Stack chains.
For users, the idea is simple: crypto wallets need to feel less clunky. Account abstraction can help make that happen by supporting features such as smoother onboarding, better transaction flows, and more flexible account logic.
The important caveat is that this is not fully live across mainnet OP chains yet. The feature is in testing, with broader rollout planned later.
Crypto still has a user experience problem.
Seed phrases are intimidating. Gas fees are confusing. Wallet approvals are messy. Signing flows are hard for ordinary users to understand. Even experienced crypto users can make mistakes when moving across chains and apps.
Account abstraction is one of the industry’s main attempts to fix that.
Instead of treating every wallet like a simple externally owned account with limited logic, account abstraction allows more programmable account behavior. That can support features such as sponsored transactions, session keys, recovery systems, spending limits, batched actions, and app-specific permissions.
In plain English, it can make wallets behave more like modern financial apps without giving up the benefits of blockchain infrastructure.
That is why Base and Optimism pushing native support into the OP Stack matters.
If account abstraction becomes part of the stack itself, developers may not need to build as many workarounds at the app layer.
Base has become one of the most important consumer-facing Layer 2 networks in crypto.
Its Coinbase connection gives it distribution, brand recognition, and access to a large pool of potential users. That makes Base an important testing ground for wallet and account improvements.
If native account abstraction works well on Base, it could improve onboarding for apps built on the network. Users may be able to interact with applications more easily, while developers get better tools for designing smoother experiences.
The Optimism side matters too.
The OP Stack is used by multiple chains. Improvements to the stack can spread across the broader Superchain ecosystem if adopted. That means the work is not limited to one network in theory.
But adoption will still depend on implementation, timing, and developer support.
The Vibenet testing phase is useful because it gives builders a place to experiment before mainnet rollout.
The September Cobalt upgrade is the important timeline marker.
Until then, users should not assume native account abstraction is fully available on mainnet. Developer testing is not the same as production deployment. Apps may experiment before the broader rollout, but real user impact depends on mainnet readiness.
That distinction matters because account abstraction is often discussed as if it has already solved crypto UX.
It has not.
The technology is promising, but it needs wallet support, app integration, secure implementation, and user-friendly design. A technical upgrade alone does not automatically make crypto easy.
Still, native support can remove a major barrier.
If Base and Optimism make account abstraction easier for developers to use, the next generation of apps may feel much less awkward than today’s DeFi and wallet flows.
The OP Stack conversation often focuses on scaling, fees, sequencer revenue, and network architecture.
Account abstraction brings the focus closer to the user.
Lower fees are helpful, but they do not solve confusing wallet experiences. Faster confirmations are useful, but they do not fix bad onboarding. A better account model can attack those problems more directly.
That is why this update matters for the broader Ethereum Layer 2 market.
Competition between L2s is no longer just about throughput. It is about which networks can attract real users and keep them active. Better wallet experiences may become a major differentiator.
Base and Optimism are betting that account abstraction belongs inside the infrastructure layer, not only as an optional app feature.
If the Cobalt rollout succeeds, the OP Stack could become more attractive to consumer apps, gaming projects, payment tools, and DeFi platforms that want simpler user flows.
The market should watch the testnet phase closely.
The promise is big, but the proof will come when developers turn the upgrade into products that ordinary users can actually understand.
This article is based on Base’s announcement of native account abstraction work for the OP Stack.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
Ethena [$ENA] has made some modest gains to get the week off to a good start. Since making the $0.078 low on Monday, July 20, the altcoin has rallied 13%. In the past 24 hours, its Open Interest has expanded by 7%.
On July 21, Onchain Lens observed a 16 million $ENA move, worth around $1.37 million. The wallet withdrew this from their Gnosis multisig wallet to Binance. Transfers to centralized exchanges generally point toward sell pressure.
Ethena holders have experienced profits, as seen on the daily transaction volume in profit metric. A rise in average order size also indicated potential whale interest in $ENA, AMBCrypto reported.
The $0.085 target presented has been met and cleared. However, the higher timeframe trend remained bearish.
The local highs at $0.098 and $0.118 are the potential price targets in case of a short-term uptrend. As the Fibonacci retracement levels show, the swing structure on this timeframe was bearish.
A rally could rise to $0.123, but the likelihood of this had been in question as $ENA repeatedly failed to breach the $0.085 resistance zone over the past three weeks. The gains at the start of this week were a positive sign.
The liquidation heatmap of the past three months agreed. There were two magnetic zones to keep an eye on. The $0.09 and $0.10 had dense short liquidations that traders should keep an eye on.
The $0.085 zone was flipped to support. The OBV was making new local highs to indicate increased buying pressure. The RSI showed strong bullish momentum, though a bearish divergence warned of a brief dip toward $0.085.
Such a dip would likely present a short-term buying opportunity. As noted earlier, the $0.098,$0.118, and $0.123 levels are viable targets for $ENA in a pullback within its higher timeframe downtrend.