MEV · 1038

Hyperliquid Policy Center Announces Support for US SEC to Abolish “Penetrative Trading Rules”

According to Twitter, the Hyperliquid Policy Center announced that it has recently submitted a joint opinion letter with Douro Labs to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to support the SEC's proposal to repeal Regulation NMS Rule 611 (“Trade-Through Rule”) and to call on regulators to establish a more clear Best Execution (Best Execution) regulatory framework for the on-chain market. The Hyperliquid Policy Center believes that the current transactional rules are based on the traditional securities market structure and are clearly incompatible with the blockchain's native transaction model. HPC and Douro Labs made three recommendations in a joint opinion: First, support the SEC's revocation of the Trade-Through Rule. The two companies believe that the rules rely on the traditional quotation system, and that the system does not accurately reflect the on-chain transaction environment, and continued application may hinder the development of the on-chain financial market. Second, the SEC should establish clear best execution guidelines for on-chain transactions. The on-chain market has new factors that don't exist in traditional markets, such as unquoted trading, 24/7 operation, blockchain network fees, and MEV (maximum extractable value). Brokers need more clear regulatory standards to ensure they can execute transactions on behalf of clients. Third, the regulatory framework should be guided by principles and recognize an independent price reference mechanism. HPC and Douro Labs suggest that when traditional NBBO is unable to cover the on-chain market, the SEC should recognize independent price reference data based on transparent, manipulation-resistant mechanisms. For example, Pyth Network, which Douro Labs participated in the construction of, provides price prediction services for the on-chain market by collecting data provided by exchanges and market participants in real time. This article is sponsored by GENG, Build Your Fortune on GENG (https://geng.one)

5d agoburnking

Grayscale Research Director: Ethereum is like a “small country”, and ETH issuance determines cybersecurity and currency trade-offs

Comparing news, Grayscale Research Director Zach Pandl published an article on the X platform comparing Ethereum to a “small country” and discussing the ETH issuance mechanism. He believes that Ethereum has only one core “government function”: protecting property rights and value exchange in the system. Unlike traditional countries that provide public services through taxation, Ethereum mainly funds cybersecurity through a “minting tax,” that is, issuing new ETH. Under this framework, stakers responsible for maintaining cybersecurity are equivalent to groups providing public services, and they are rewarded with newly issued ETH. Therefore, the staking mechanism of Ethereum and the policy of issuing ETH essentially simultaneously constitute the fiscal policy and monetary policy of the network. Zach Pandl notes that the Ethereum community needs to decide how many “new currencies” it should use to pay for cybersecurity costs. More security usually means stronger property rights protection, but at the cost of higher ETH circulation, and potentially other risks. For example, if cybersecurity increasingly relies on a small number of large pledge service providers, there is still room for discussion about whether these service providers can completely neutrally protect the assets and interests of all users. Pandl believes that no one in the traditional economy knows the “optimal level” of government spending and currency issuance, and the same goes for Ethereum. However, Ethereum has several key security thresholds, including: 1/3: attackers reaching this ratio may affect finality (finality); 1/2: affecting blockchain fork choice (fork choice); 2/3: controlling the final confirmation process. Some community members believe that Ethereum's monetary and fiscal policy design should take into account the security trade-offs brought about by these critical ratios, and the current mechanism has not fully incorporated these factors. However, the above analogy is not entirely accurate, as other important factors such as the ETH destruction mechanism, MEV, and governance have not yet been involved.

7d ago

1kx: The crypto industry's revenue in the first half of 2026 fell 23% year on year, and countercyclical sectors such as stablecoins and RWA grew

Comparatively, crypto investment agency 1kx data shows that the total revenue of the global crypto industry fell to $47 billion in the first half of 2026, down 23% year on year, and about $14 billion less than the same period last year. The agency said that the decline in revenue is in line with the characteristics of a bear market cycle, as traditional crypto revenues such as exchanges, brokerage, wallets, staking, and mining are still highly dependent on asset prices and transaction volume. 1kx pointed out that this round of revenue decline mainly comes from two major areas: On the one hand, finance-related revenue declined markedly. Revenue from centralized exchanges (CEX), derivatives platforms, and market makers decreased by $5.2 billion year over year; on-chain DeFi revenue fell by $1.8 billion, down 32% year over year; and ETF and fund management fee revenue decreased by $1.1 billion. On the other hand, blockchain infrastructure revenue continues to weaken. Staking and mining reward revenue fell by $6.2 billion, and on-chain transaction fees and MEV revenue nearly fell short. Currently, the share of blockchain infrastructure revenue in the entire crypto industry has fallen to 25%, a record low. However, not all sectors are affected by the cycle. Low-cycle businesses such as stablecoins, real-world asset (RWA) issuance, prediction markets, and decentralized physical infrastructure (DePIN) bucked the trend by 14% in the first half of the year to reach $12 billion in revenue, accounting for 26% of the industry's total revenue. Among them: stablecoin and RWA issuer revenue increased by $700 million; stablecoin payment card and payment business increased by about $100 million; predicted a 10-fold increase in market fee revenue, an increase of about $300 million; DePin fee revenue nearly doubled; and on-chain middleware revenue increased by about 70%, mainly driven by Chainlink. 1kx said that although revenue from DeFi and financial businesses declined in absolute terms, it still occupied the largest share of the industry, rising to 64%. Consumer on-chain app revenue performance was relatively more stable, down about 20% year over year. By contrast, at the lowest point of the last crypto bear cycle (second half of 2022), the industry's revenue for half a year was around $28 billion, while the current bear market still maintained $47 billion during the same period, about a quarter of which came from emerging businesses that continued to grow during the bear market. 1kx said that its revenue statistics include other revenue such as traceable on-chain fee revenue, staking income, and off-chain revenue publicly disclosed by Coinbase or estimated on platforms such as Binance. The composition of the three types of income has remained generally stable compared to last year.

9d ago

$500,000 stolen by a phishing attacker was robbed of $370,000 by MEV robots using $0.03

In comparison, according to GoPlus monitoring, a user on the Base chain lost 500,000 USDC due to phishing attacks. The attackers routed stolen money to an almost illiquid Uniswap V4 WETH/USDC pool when exchanging stolen money for WETH because the script did not have slippage protection, causing 500,000 USDC to only be exchanged for 67.9 ETH (worth $129,000), of which $370,000 was earned by MEV robots. The MEV robot hacked the transaction by paying only 0.03 USDC, but paid a gas fee of 3.5 ETH for it. The victim then sent an on-chain message to the attackers and MEV addresses, saying they had identified the attackers and were willing to pay a 10% bounty to request a refund.

15d ago#On-chain dynamics

MetaMask launches self-hosted AI wallet Agent Wallet to support independent on-chain transactions

Comparatively, MetaMask launched the self-hosted wallet Agent Wallet on Thursday, which allows AI agents to execute on-chain transactions within limits set by users. It is aimed at traders and developers who use AI agents to monitor the market, identify opportunities, and execute transactions independently. Users can set spending limits, approve specific agreements, select risk settings, and select different levels of automation between Guard Mode and Beast Mode. Agent Wallet supports Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenClaw, Hermes, OpenCode, and Hyperliquid and Ethereum virtual machine-compatible networks. Agent Wallet supports gas abstraction. Users can use the assets being transferred to pay network fees without holding the corresponding network native token. MetaMask said that supported transactions will be protected by transaction simulations, threat scans, and intelligent transaction MEV. Eligible transactions can receive transaction protection coverage of up to 10,000 USD per month if they still lose money even after passing security checks.

16d ago

Data: A wallet on the Base Chain was stolen about 500,000 USDC, and the attackers lost more than half of the money due to the MEV clip attack during the exchange

In comparison, according to on-chain analyst PeckShield (@PeckShieldAlert), the attackers control address 0x920d... 9708 to steal approximately 500,000 USDC from the Basechain victims' wallets 0x3a53... 0B5c. However, in the subsequent process of exchanging USDC for ETH, the transaction was arbitraged by the MEV robot due to insufficient slippage protection. In the end, the attackers only obtained about 67 WETH, worth about $129,000, and lost more than 75% of the stolen funds. This article is sponsored by GENG, Build Your Fortune on GENG (https://geng.one)

16d agoburnking

Coinbase's second-quarter Solana node operation report: 41.63 million SOL staked, yield and stability better than the network average

Comparatively, Coinbase released the Solana Verification Node Operation Report for the second quarter of 2026, stating that the Solana Verification Node it operates is superior to the network average in terms of yield, stability, and infrastructure distribution. According to the data, Coinbase currently pledges about 41.63 million SOL through 23 verification nodes, accounting for 9.72% of Solana's total network staking volume. The nodes are distributed in 7 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, and Singapore. The core operating data is as follows: staking scale: 41.63 million SOL, accounting for 9.72% of the entire network's staking volume; staking yield: the APY for the Q2 2026 quarter was 6.52%, higher than the network-wide average of 6.38%, leading by 14 basis points; block skip rate (skip rate): 0.035%, lower than the network-wide average of 0.136%, which is about a quarter of the network average. Coinbase said that its verification node uses a multi-client architecture and currently runs 4 types of clients, including Harmonic, Jito, JiToBam, and Firedancer. All solutions have been reviewed by the Solana Foundation and do not use aggressive MEV timing strategies that may affect the user experience. In terms of infrastructure, Coinbase deployed verification nodes on two independent bare-metal service providers and configured offsite backup for each node to reduce the risk of a single point of failure. Meanwhile, the company said it has migrated the entire validation node cluster to the DoubleZero network, achieving a session availability rate of approximately 99.9%. Coinbase also revealed that preparations are being made for the Alpenglow consensus upgrade that Solana is expected to advance in late 2026, including running community test nodes, developing new consensus health monitoring tools, and completing relevant voting account upgrade verification.

17d ago

1kx: On-chain fees fell 33% year over year in Q2, DEX fees plummeted 57%, but returns for token holders remained essentially flat

In comparison, according to an analysis by crypto venture capital firm 1kx (@1kxnetwork), on-chain fees fell 33% year over year in the second quarter of this year, with DEX fees reduced by US$625 million (-57%), mainly driven by Meteora, Raydium, and PancakeSwap, which together generated US$1.5 billion in fees in the first half of last year; blockchain and MEV fees fell by US$362 million (-40%); and platform launch fees fell 57%, of which Pump.fun contributed nearly Decreased by half. Some sectors achieved contrarian growth: Perpetual contracts and forecasted market fees increased 22% year over year, led by EdgeX and Hyperliquid, and Polymarket contributed nearly $100 million in a single quarter; the lending and asset management sector continued to grow, with Morpho, USDAI, and Maple Finance each increasing by $9 million to $19 million; Canton Network added $179 million in L1 fees, but most of them were driven by incentives. Despite the decline in overall fees in the industry and stable distribution of returns to token holders, Binance's destruction still accounts for a large share, and agreements such as Hyperliquid have included repurchase and destruction as a normal policy.

29d ago

Is crypto venture capital dying out?

Source: Token Dispatch Author: Vaidik Mandloi Compiled and collated by: BitPushNews created an era's top investor and began leaving it as one of the largest cryptocurrency exclusive funds ever formed. Paradigm recently raised $1.2 billion to begin investing in startups in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and aerospace. They've even completely removed the word “crypto” (crypto) from their website! Their investment logic is: Cryptocurrency was only their first frontier, but there are so many other new things happening right now that they must not turn a blind eye. Coincidentally, Framework Ventures also closed a $400 million fund in June and began expanding their investment reach beyond the crypto sector, and they are no exception. Over the past year, almost every leading crypto specialty fund has begun to drift towards broader topics and investment licensing. In the first quarter of 2026, only 8 new crypto-specific venture capital funds were established globally, the lowest since 2020. This article will explore in depth whether crypto-specialty venture capital is actually dying out as a fund category. If so, how does this shuffle map into the life cycle of these funds, and what does it mean for crypto startups — they will now have to compete for attention in multi-industry portfolios. The life cycle of professional funds Crypto professional funds came into being because they were willing to take the time to build a competitive advantage and were the only ones willing to take and underwrite this risk at the time. Understanding how Solidity contracts actually work and connecting with anonymous developers on the Discord channel—these aren't things Tiger Global's growth equity partners were able to touch in 2017. To understand whether crypto VC is coming to an end as an investment category, it would be beneficial to see how the specialty fund category has evolved in history, as this phenomenon has happened more than once in the past. Between 2006 and 2011, Climate Tech (Climate Tech) became mainstream as an investment logic. VCs have set up clean energy exclusive funds for the same reason that crypto VCs set up exclusive blockchain funds: they think they have keenly captured an epoch-making technological shift before generalists (generalists) reacted, and wanted to build a new investment institution around this firm belief. They poured more than $250 billion into clean energy startups, but lost more than half of their capital. Interestingly, the technology itself actually worked, and today's clean energy market is extremely large — which has caused the cost of solar energy in this sector to drop dramatically by 85% over the same period. What the VCs misunderstood, however, was that they hardwired the same model applied to software companies and threw $5 million in seed round checks to companies that actually needed $200 million in project financing and took 15 years to make a profit. The Energy Initiative (Energy Initiative) of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) conducted an ex post facto review and found that the venture capital model was fundamentally flawed in the field. Professional VCs completed the experimental phase by taking technical risk funding, funded early R&D, and gave the field credibility to attract larger capital; however, once the technology matured enough to allow infrastructure lenders and project finance facilities (project finance facilities) to underwrite, the information advantage of professional investors disappeared. Data source: MIT Energy InitiativeSpac (a special absorption merger and acquisition company) has also evolved a similar trajectory. To add background, SPAC is a “blank check company” with no actual business, raising capital through an IPO and then merging with a private company to help it go public faster than a traditional IPO. In 2020 and 2021, some investors saw it as a replicable vehicle and built entire companies around them. Chamath Palihapitiya raised $1.6 billion in SPAC exclusive capital. But by 2022, SP established in 2021...

32d agoWendy#AI #Framework Ventures #Paradigm #VC #Investment funds

Ethereum Foundation researcher Francesco D'Amato leaves to join Ethlabs

In comparison, Ethereum Foundation (EF) researcher Francesco D'Amato (fradamt) announced his departure from EF to join the newly established agreement R&D organization Ethlabs. D'Amato has been with EF for 5 years and has participated in several core research directions such as MEV, consensus mechanisms, data availability sampling (DAS), and execution level pricing.

37d ago