DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 1115

Circle Launches CPN Mainnet To Enable Traditional Financial Institutions to Settle Cross-border Transactions In Real Time

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Circle has launched the Circle Payments Network (CPN) mainnet, a blockchain-based coordination protocol designed to enable financial institutions—such as banks, neobanks, payment service providers, and digital wallet operators—to settle cross-border transactions in real time using regulated stablecoins like USDC and EURC.

The network, which went live as announced on May 21, 2025, aims to address inefficiencies in traditional cross-border payments, which can take over a day to settle and incur fees exceeding 6%, according to World Bank data. By leveraging blockchain technology, CPN facilitates near-instant settlements, operating 24/7, and reduces reliance on intermediaries, enhancing transparency and cost-efficiency.

CPN operates as a chain-agnostic protocol, initially supporting Ethereum, Solana, and EVM-compatible chains, with financial institutions selecting their preferred blockchain based on compliance and operational needs. Transactions are settled using smart contracts and APIs, ensuring compliance with strict eligibility standards, including licensing, AML/CFT protocols, and cybersecurity measures.

The network supports various use cases, such as supplier payments, remittances, payroll, and capital markets settlement. Major banks like Banco Santander, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale, and Standard Chartered have advised on CPN’s design, alongside fintech partners like dLocal, WorldRemit, and Coins.ph. Initial participants, including Alfred Pay and Conduit, are already facilitating USDC payment corridors in regions like Latin America and Asia.

This launch positions CPN as a competitor to systems like Ripple Payments, with Circle emphasizing compliance and programmability to modernize global financial infrastructure. However, challenges like onboarding complexity and regulatory scrutiny remain, and its success will depend on adoption and the strength of its partnerships.

The launch of Circle’s Payments Network (CPN) enables near-instant settlement of transactions using stablecoins like USDC and EURC, reducing settlement times from days to seconds and cutting costs significantly compared to traditional systems, where fees can exceed 6%. This could disrupt legacy systems like SWIFT, benefiting banks, fintechs, and end-users with more efficient remittances, supplier payments, and payroll processing.

By involving major banks like Banco Santander, Deutsche Bank, and Standard Chartered, CPN bridges traditional finance and blockchain, encouraging regulated institutions to adopt decentralized technologies. This could accelerate mainstream acceptance of stablecoins and blockchain for institutional use, potentially reshaping financial infrastructure. CPN directly competes with established players like Ripple Payments and emerging blockchain-based solutions. Its chain-agnostic approach (supporting Ethereum, Solana, and EVM chains) and focus on compliance give it a unique edge, but it must overcome onboarding complexities and compete for market share among banks and fintechs.

CPN’s strict eligibility standards (licensing, AML/CFT, cybersecurity) align with global regulatory demands, which could foster trust among financial institutions. However, navigating diverse regulatory environments across jurisdictions may pose challenges, especially as stablecoin oversight tightens globally. Partnerships with fintechs like dLocal, WorldRemit, and Coins.ph, and early adopters like Alfred Pay and Conduit, suggest CPN could enhance financial inclusion in regions like Latin America and Asia. Real-time, low-cost settlements could improve access to global markets for smaller players and underserved populations.

Widespread adoption depends on network scalability, interoperability, and managing risks like smart contract vulnerabilities or regulatory pushback. Additionally, reliance on stablecoins introduces exposure to their underlying stability and issuer (Circle’s) operational risks. By streamlining cross-border payments, CPN could reduce friction in global trade, lower costs for businesses, and enhance liquidity in capital markets. This may encourage further innovation in programmable money and tokenized assets, reshaping financial services.

OKX Web3 Wallet To End Support For Runes Tokens From June 2025

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

OKX Web3 Wallet announced it will end support for the Runes trading market and related functions on June 5, 2025. This means trading functions like listing and delisting Runes tokens will be discontinued, and all pending orders will be canceled. Runes, a fungible token protocol built on Bitcoin using its UTXO model and OP_RETURN scripts, was developed by Casey Rodarmor, the creator of the Ordinals protocol.

The decision may stem from factors like liquidity or compliance, potentially impacting Runes adoption by reducing a major trading platform. Users can still trade Runes on native decentralized exchanges like RichSwap or DotSwap. The termination of OKX Web3 Wallet’s support for Bitcoin Runes on June 5, 2025, carries significant implications for the Runes ecosystem and highlights an emerging divide in the Bitcoin-based token landscape.

OKX is a major centralized platform, and its exit from the Runes trading market will likely reduce liquidity for Runes tokens. This could lead to lower trading volumes, wider bid-ask spreads, and potentially decreased price stability for Runes-based assets. Retail and institutional users who relied on OKX’s user-friendly interface for trading Runes may face barriers, as they’ll need to shift to decentralized platforms like RichSwap or DotSwap, which may have steeper learning curves or less robust infrastructure.

Impact on Runes Adoption

Runes, built on Bitcoin’s UTXO model and OP_RETURN scripts, were designed to create fungible tokens on Bitcoin’s blockchain, leveraging its security and decentralization. OKX’s withdrawal could signal skepticism about Runes’ long-term viability, potentially discouraging developers and investors from building or supporting Runes-based projects. This move may slow the momentum of Runes as a competitor to other token protocols like Ethereum’s ERC-20 or BRC-20, especially if other centralized exchanges follow suit.

OKX’s announcement emphasizes that users can still trade Runes on native DEXs like RichSwap or DotSwap. While this aligns with Bitcoin’s ethos of decentralization, these platforms may lack the same level of user support, liquidity, or regulatory compliance that centralized exchanges offer, potentially limiting their appeal to mainstream users. The transition could spur innovation in decentralized trading infrastructure but may also expose users to higher risks, such as lower liquidity or potential security vulnerabilities in less-established platforms.

While OKX’s announcement doesn’t explicitly state the reason for ending Runes support, it could be driven by regulatory pressures, compliance concerns, or a strategic shift in focus toward more profitable or widely adopted protocols. For example, OKX may prioritize other blockchain ecosystems (e.g., Ethereum, Solana) or Bitcoin-based protocols like Ordinals or BRC-20, which may have stronger market traction. This decision could prompt other exchanges to reassess their support for Runes, further isolating the protocol if regulatory scrutiny increases.

Impact on Bitcoin’s Token Ecosystem

Runes, created by Casey Rodarmor (also behind Ordinals), aimed to simplify and improve upon earlier Bitcoin token standards like BRC-20. OKX’s exit may weaken confidence in Bitcoin-based fungible tokens, reinforcing the dominance of non-Bitcoin blockchains for tokenization use cases like DeFi or stablecoins. However, it could also galvanize the Runes community to double down on decentralized solutions, potentially strengthening the protocol’s resilience if community-driven platforms gain traction.

OKX’s decision highlights a broader divide within the Bitcoin ecosystem regarding tokenization and its role in Bitcoin’s future. Platforms like OKX provide ease of use, high liquidity, and regulatory compliance but can unilaterally withdraw support for protocols like Runes, as seen here. This underscores their control over market access and highlights the fragility of relying on CEXs for niche protocols.

Runes’ reliance on DEXs like RichSwap or DotSwap post-OKX aligns with Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos but exposes challenges like lower liquidity, user experience hurdles, and potential security risks. This divide pits Bitcoin’s ideological purity against practical adoption barriers. Some Bitcoin purists argue that Bitcoin’s primary role is as a store of value and peer-to-peer currency, not a platform for complex token ecosystems like Runes or Ordinals. OKX’s decision may resonate with this group, as it could signal a retreat from speculative token protocols on Bitcoin.

Developers like Casey Rodarmor and supporters of Runes/Ordinals see Bitcoin as a versatile blockchain capable of supporting tokens, NFTs, and DeFi. OKX’s exit could be seen as a setback, deepening the divide between those who want Bitcoin to remain “pure” and those pushing for broader utility. Runes was designed to be a leaner, more efficient alternative to standards like BRC-20, leveraging Bitcoin’s UTXO model.

However, OKX’s withdrawal suggests that Runes may struggle to compete with more established token ecosystems (e.g., Ethereum’s ERC-20) or even other Bitcoin-based standards like BRC-20, which may have stronger exchange support. This creates a divide between Runes’ potential as a lightweight, Bitcoin-native protocol and the market’s preference for more mature or widely adopted standards.

Centralized exchanges like OKX operate under strict regulatory frameworks, which may limit their ability to support experimental protocols like Runes, especially if regulators view them as risky or speculative. This creates a divide between innovation-driven protocols and the compliance-heavy environment of CEXs, pushing Runes toward decentralized platforms that may be less regulated but also less accessible to mainstream users.

OKX’s decision to end Runes support on June 5, 2025, could hinder the protocol’s liquidity, adoption, and mainstream appeal, pushing it toward decentralized platforms with both opportunities and challenges. The move highlights a divide between centralized and decentralized infrastructure, Bitcoin’s traditional role versus its potential for tokenization, and the tension between regulatory compliance and innovation.

Strategy Plans To Raise Up To $2.1B By Issuing 10% Series A Perpetual Stock

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

MicroStrategy, operating as Strategy, announced on May 22, 2025, plans to raise up to $2.1 billion by issuing 10% Series A Perpetual Strife Preferred Stock (ticker: STRF) through an at-the-market (ATM) offering. The stock, priced at $0.001 par value per share, offers a 10% annual dividend, paid quarterly if declared by the board, with a $100 liquidation preference.

Proceeds are intended for general corporate purposes, including potential Bitcoin purchases, aligning with the company’s strategy to bolster its Bitcoin treasury, which held 576,230 BTC as of May 18, 2025. The sale, managed by TD Securities, Barclays Capital, and The Benchmark Company, will occur gradually under SEC Rule 415(a)(4), with agents earning up to 2% commission. This move follows earlier offerings, including a $21 billion ATM program for 8% perpetual strike preferred stock (STRK), and is part of Strategy’s broader 21/21 Plan to raise $42 billion for Bitcoin acquisitions and corporate purposes.

The proceeds are primarily earmarked for general corporate purposes, with a strong likelihood of further Bitcoin purchases, as seen in Strategy’s 21/21 Plan to acquire $42 billion in Bitcoin. This reinforces the company’s identity as a “Bitcoin Treasury Company,” with its current 576,230 BTC holdings (valued at approximately $57 billion at $100,000 per BTC as of May 2025). This strategy ties Strategy’s financial health closely to Bitcoin’s price volatility. A rising Bitcoin market could boost its valuation, but a downturn could exacerbate financial strain, especially with high dividend obligations.

Financial Structure and Risk

The 10% dividend on the preferred stock is high, reflecting the risk profile and Strategy’s need to attract investors. However, dividends are not guaranteed and depend on board approval, introducing uncertainty for investors. The perpetual nature of the stock, combined with a $100 liquidation preference, prioritizes preferred shareholders over common shareholders in a bankruptcy scenario, potentially diluting common equity value.

The high dividend yield could strain cash flows if Bitcoin underperforms or if operational revenues (from Strategy’s software business) falter. This could lead to increased leverage, as the company has been funding Bitcoin purchases partly through debt and equity offerings. Strategy’s stock (MSTR) has become a proxy for Bitcoin exposure, often moving in tandem with BTC prices. The ATM offering allows gradual sales, potentially minimizing immediate market impact, but large-scale issuances could still pressure the stock price.

Investors may view this as a bold bet on Bitcoin’s long-term value, but it also amplifies volatility, especially for retail investors holding common shares. The offering could attract institutional investors seeking high-yield securities, but they may demand a premium for the associated risks. Strategy’s aggressive Bitcoin acquisition strategy signals confidence in cryptocurrency as a store of value, potentially influencing other corporations to follow suit. It also increases Bitcoin’s institutional legitimacy.

Large purchases could drive Bitcoin prices higher in the short term, but they also concentrate market risk, as a sell-off by Strategy could trigger significant price drops. Strategy’s strategy creates a divide among stakeholders, reflecting differing priorities and risk tolerances. Those bullish on Bitcoin, including crypto enthusiasts and hedge funds, support Strategy’s pivot to a Bitcoin-centric model. They see the preferred stock offering as a way to fund further BTC accumulation, potentially amplifying returns if Bitcoin’s price surges.

Investors focused on Strategy’s core software business may view the Bitcoin strategy as a risky distraction. The high dividend on preferred stock and potential dilution of common shares could erode their returns, especially if Bitcoin underperforms. The 10% dividend and liquidation preference make the preferred stock attractive to income-focused investors, such as pension funds or high-yield seekers. However, the perpetual nature and discretionary dividends introduce risks.

Common Shareholders face subordination to preferred shareholders in liquidation scenarios and potential dilution from ongoing ATM offerings. Their returns are more tied to Bitcoin’s performance and MicroStrategy’s stock price, which has been volatile (e.g., MSTR’s market cap was $99 billion as of May 18, 2025, despite software revenues of ~$500 million annually).

Crypto advocates on platforms like X celebrate Strategy’s CEO, Michael Saylor, for his bold Bitcoin strategy, viewing it as a hedge against inflation and fiat devaluation. Posts on X highlight Saylor’s vision of Bitcoin as “digital gold.” Critics, including some financial analysts, argue that Strategy’s leveraged Bitcoin bets resemble a speculative hedge fund rather than a stable corporation. They warn of systemic risks if Bitcoin crashes or if Strategy faces liquidity issues servicing its obligations.

The ATM structure allows Strategy to sell shares opportunistically, potentially stabilizing MSTR’s stock price compared to a large one-time offering. However, market reactions will depend on Bitcoin’s price trajectory and investor sentiment toward crypto. Strategy’s heavy Bitcoin exposure makes it vulnerable to regulatory changes like stricter crypto laws, market corrections, or operational challenges in its software business.

The offering may widen the gap between crypto-aligned investors and those prioritizing traditional financial metrics, as Strategy’s valuation increasingly decouples from its core business fundamentals.

Hong-Kong Legislative Council Passed Stablecoin Bill

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed the Stablecoins Bill, establishing a licensing regime for fiat-referenced stablecoin (FRS) issuers. The new law requires entities issuing stablecoins in Hong Kong, or those tied to the Hong Kong dollar (HKD) anywhere, to obtain a license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA).

Key requirements include full reserve backing with high-quality, liquid assets, proper segregation of client funds, robust stabilization mechanisms, and timely redemption at par value with reasonable fees. Only licensed institutions can offer FRS to retail investors, and advertising is restricted to licensed issuers to prevent fraud.

The legislation aims to enhance financial stability, protect investors, and foster innovation in Hong Kong’s virtual asset sector, aligning with international standards. It builds on the HKMA’s stablecoin sandbox launched in 2024, which includes participants like Standard Chartered, Hong Kong Telecom, Animoca Brands, JD.com’s Coinlink, and RD Innotech. The ordinance is expected to take effect later in 2025, with transitional arrangements allowing existing issuers to apply for licenses within three months and continue operations for up to six months pending approval.

This move positions Hong Kong as a global leader in regulated digital finance, competing with jurisdictions like the EU and Singapore. The passage of Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Bill on May 21, 2025, carries significant implications for the stablecoin market, financial innovation, and investor protection in Hong Kong, while also highlighting a divide between regulated and unregulated players in the crypto space.

The requirement for stablecoin issuers to hold full reserve backing with high-quality, liquid assets and segregate client funds minimizes risks of insolvency or mismanagement, as seen in past stablecoin failures like TerraUSD. Strict licensing by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) ensures only credible entities operate, reducing fraud and enhancing trust among retail investors. Timely redemption at par value with reasonable fees protects consumers from losses due to de-pegging or excessive costs.

Boost to Hong Kong’s Crypto Hub Ambitions

The bill positions Hong Kong as a global leader in regulated digital finance, competing with jurisdictions like the EU (with its MiCA framework) and Singapore, which also regulate stablecoins. By fostering a clear regulatory framework, Hong Kong attracts institutional players, such as Standard Chartered and JD.com’s Coinlink, already testing in the HKMA’s stablecoin sandbox. The legislation could drive adoption of HKD-pegged stablecoins, strengthening Hong Kong’s role in cross-border digital trade and payments.

The sandbox and licensing regime encourage innovation by allowing issuers to test stablecoin products under supervision, balancing experimentation with risk management. The focus on fiat-referenced stablecoins (FRS) tied to HKD or issued in Hong Kong creates a controlled environment for blockchain-based financial products, potentially spurring fintech development.

The extraterritorial scope—requiring licenses for HKD-pegged stablecoins issued globally—extends Hong Kong’s regulatory reach, potentially influencing international issuers to align with its standards. The framework aligns with global recommendations from bodies like the Financial Stability Board, enhancing Hong Kong’s credibility in international finance.

The Stablecoin Bill creates a clear divide between regulated, licensed issuers and unregulated or non-compliant entities, with significant consequences for the market. Licensed issuers, such as those in the HKMA sandbox (e.g., Standard Chartered, Animoca Brands), gain legitimacy and access to retail markets, boosting investor confidence. Compliance with reserve and transparency requirements positions them as trusted players, likely attracting institutional and retail capital.

They benefit from Hong Kong’s reputation as a regulated crypto hub, potentially drawing global partnerships and investment. High compliance costs (e.g., maintaining reserves, audits, and reporting) may deter smaller firms or startups with limited resources. Strict advertising rules limit marketing flexibility, potentially slowing retail adoption compared to less-regulated jurisdictions.

Unlicensed issuers are barred from offering stablecoins to retail investors in Hong Kong, severely limiting their market access. Those issuing HKD-pegged stablecoins globally without a license face enforcement actions, risking fines or exclusion from Hong Kong’s market. The ban on advertising by unlicensed entities reduces their visibility, pushing them to less-regulated jurisdictions with weaker investor protections.

Some may pivot to issuing non-HKD stablecoins (e.g., USD-pegged) to skirt Hong Kong’s rules, though this limits their relevance in HKD-based markets. Others might operate in jurisdictions with lax regulations, creating a fragmented global stablecoin market where trust and interoperability vary widely. The divide could consolidate the stablecoin market in Hong Kong around a few licensed, well-funded players, reducing competition but increasing stability.

Unregulated stablecoins, like Tether (USDT) or USDC, may face scrutiny if they seek to operate in Hong Kong without licenses, potentially reshaping their market strategies. The transitional period (three months to apply, six months to operate pending approval) offers a grace period but pressures non-compliant issuers to either align or exit. The divide may push unregulated issuers to jurisdictions with minimal oversight, creating a two-tier global market: regulated hubs (e.g., Hong Kong, EU) versus unregulated ones (e.g., certain offshore jurisdictions).

Retail investors gain safer access to stablecoins but may face fewer choices due to the exclusion of unlicensed issuers. The bill widens the gap between traditional finance (e.g., banks like Standard Chartered) and crypto-native firms, with the former better equipped to meet regulatory demands. Hong Kong’s move strengthens its financial autonomy within China, where crypto trading remains banned, signaling a strategic push to capture global digital asset markets.

The Stablecoin Bill enhances Hong Kong’s position as a regulated crypto hub, prioritizing stability and trust but creating a stark divide between compliant and non-compliant issuers. This could reshape the stablecoin landscape locally and globally, favoring institutional players while challenging smaller or unregulated entities to adapt or relocate.

BYD Overtakes Tesla in Europe for The First Time as Musk Admits Regional Weakness

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

Tesla’s long reign as Europe’s top-selling electric vehicle brand has come to an end—at least for now. Chinese automaker BYD edged past the American company in April, registering 7,231 battery electric vehicles (BEVs) on the continent, just ahead of Tesla’s 7,165, according to data from research firm JATO Dynamics.

The milestone is all the more significant given that Tesla has long dominated Europe’s BEV segment, while BYD only expanded beyond Norway and the Netherlands in late 2022.

Although the margin is slim, analysts say the implications are anything but. JATO analyst Felipe Munoz described the development as a watershed moment for Europe’s car market.

“This is a watershed moment for Europe’s car market, particularly when you consider that Tesla has led the European BEV market for years, while BYD only officially began operations beyond Norway and the Netherlands in late 2022,” Munoz said in the report.

Tesla’s numbers in April were not just a dip—they represented a collapse. The company’s BEV registrations in Europe fell by a staggering 49 percent year-on-year. Country-by-country data showed major contractions, including a 59 percent decline in France, 67 percent in Denmark, 81 percent in Sweden, 62 percent in the United Kingdom, and 46 percent in Germany.

These declines are happening as European buyers gravitate toward more affordable or better-equipped alternatives—many of them Chinese—and amid growing dissatisfaction with Tesla’s brand image.

The drop in demand comes at a politically sensitive time for CEO Elon Musk. His vocal right-wing affiliations, open support for President Donald Trump, and inflammatory remarks on X have alienated some European customers.

Speaking at the Qatar Economic Forum earlier this week, Musk acknowledged the situation bluntly, stating: “Europe is our weakest market.”

Meanwhile, BYD’s 169 percent surge in BEV registrations in April happened despite the presence of steep import tariffs. The European Union currently imposes a 10 percent base tariff on imported vehicles and an additional 17 percent surcharge on BEVs from China, bringing the total tariff load to 27 percent. Nevertheless, the Chinese company has found a sweet spot with European buyers through a combination of competitive pricing, expanding product range, and strategic market positioning.

The success has spurred BYD to go further. The automaker recently announced plans to build a manufacturing plant in Hungary, which would allow it to assemble vehicles within the European Union and reduce tariff burdens. The company also confirmed it will bring its best-selling electric vehicle, the Dolphin Surf, to European markets. The vehicle is expected to start at around $26,000, offering a value proposition that could further disrupt the market and accelerate its gains over Tesla.

Tesla’s woes are not solely tied to Chinese competition. Legacy European automakers are also eating into its market share, armed with expanding EV lineups and the advantage of brand loyalty. Volkswagen’s BEV registrations jumped 61 percent in April, while Audi rose 48 percent and BMW gained 5 percent. Munoz noted that while the electric vehicle segment was a bright spot for Europe’s new passenger car market last month, these gains were offset by significant declines among internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

Across all powertrains, Europe is moving steadily toward electrification. BEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) combined accounted for 26 percent of all new car registrations in Europe in April, setting a new record. BEVs alone made up 17 percent of this share, up from 13.4 percent in April 2024. PHEVs contributed 9 percent, compared to 6.9 percent a year earlier. Much of this growth is attributed to the proliferation of Chinese brands and a wider array of model offerings across price points, underscoring the extent to which the EV transition is accelerating in Europe—even if Tesla is failing to keep pace.

Beyond the European market, Musk is facing challenges on multiple fronts. His attention is increasingly divided between Tesla, his artificial intelligence venture xAI, the social media platform X, and other ventures including SpaceX and Neuralink. Analysts and investors are concerned that Tesla may be losing its focus at a time when competition in the EV industry is becoming more intense, particularly from Chinese automakers that have the backing of robust domestic supply chains and state subsidies.

Even as Tesla shares rose by 2 percent in early trading, perhaps buoyed by broader market trends or short-term investor optimism, the company’s long-term dominance—especially in Europe—is no longer guaranteed. The rise of BYD and the success of other Chinese EV brands are sending a clear message that Tesla’s grip on the global electric vehicle market is slipping. And unless it can regain momentum, the company may find itself outpaced by a new generation of global competitors.

1...1,1141,1151,116...7,972Page 1,115 of 7,972

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy