EXIO Institute | June 26, 2026

On June 25, 2026, it was not a day of a single event— it was 24 hours of five events occurring simultaneously. Morning: Circle announced a partnership with Japan's largest brokerage, Nomura Securities, to enter the $440 billion daily forex settlement market (annualized ~$110 trillion). Noon: Uniswap and Spark DAO launched the stablecoin "FX Layer," completing a $150 million liquidity migration. Afternoon: Kraken was reported to be negotiating for a 15% stake in the DeFi lending protocol Aave, with a valuation of $385 million. Evening: SBI Holdings fully acquired Bitbank for $289 million, becoming the largest exchange in Japan. Late night: $2.5 trillion asset management giant Invesco submitted an application to the SEC for a tokenized fund—objective: stablecoin reserve market.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin fell below $58,000, reaching a new 21-month low. The BTC ETF recorded a record net outflow for the week. Crypto Twitter was discussing "whether it’s time to cut losses." This is not market chaos. These are five independent but logically consistent synchronized strategic moves—backed by the same decision-making clock and rhythm of similar institutions. Five events, five tracks: five concurrent deployments under the same macro logic.

1. Five Scalpel Blades——Each Cut Precisely Targets the Future Pipeline of Crypto Finance

First Cut: Invesco → Stablecoin Reserve Fund

The surface fact is that the $2.5 trillion asset management giant is applying for a tokenized money market fund, addressing the reserve management needs of stablecoin issuers. Because the GENIUS Act and MiCA stablecoin provisions are expected to take effect in H2 2026-2027 (with significant uncertainty in the regulatory timeline, detailed in Section 4 Risk Assessment). If the current timeline proceeds smoothly, all compliant stablecoins must hold regulated reserve assets. USDC (~$55 billion) + USDT (~$120 billion), totaling ~$175 billion in reserve assets; just the management fee for T-bills at 5-10 bps would yield annual income = $87.5 million - $175 million—and it will continue to expand as the total market value of stablecoins grows.

Invesco is not looking at the BTC price to decide when to enter. It is looking at the Congressional legislative calendar. Whether BTC is $58K or $158K is irrelevant for a layout that only generates income in 2027. What matters is: before a regulatory framework takes shape, if approved smoothly, it becomes the first to receive SEC approval for a tokenized fund—so that when stablecoin issuers are required to "only use regulated funds," Invesco is the first option on the shelf.

In 1993, State Street launched the first ETF (SPDR S&P 500). At that time, no one understood what an ETF was. Today, State Street manages $4.3 trillion in ETF assets. What Invesco is doing is the crypto version of the first ETF—except the underlying is not stocks, but the reserve assets for stablecoins.

Second Cut: Kraken → Aave (and Maple)

The surface fact is that Kraken is acquiring a 15% stake in Aave while initiating an on-chain credit facility with Maple Finance. The founder of Aave denied the equity sale—but this instead served as a key signal: denying equity terms at the negotiation table but admitting the existence of an AAVE token buyback plan. This indirectly confirms that some strategic capital arrangement is occurring between Kraken and Aave—Kraken cannot use its own name for on-chain lending. The SEC has already taken action against Kraken’s staking-as-a-service. But it wants the income stream from DeFi lending—this track generated ~$2 billion in protocol income in 2025.

So it designed an arbitrage structure for "compliant DeFi":

· Not doing lending itself → indirectly obtaining economic benefits through holding Aave equity/tokens

· Not directly operating the protocol → influencing the protocol's compliance direction through governance votes

· Not crossing the "unregistered securities" red line → using institutional credit facilities (Maple) to meet institutional lending needs

When centralized exchanges cannot directly engage in DeFi, but the profits from DeFi are too tempting to abandon, what’s the answer? The answer is—buy a part of the DeFi protocol and then have your compliance team "tame" it. When Google acquired YouTube in 2004, it said, "We don't do video." When Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012, it said, "We don't do photos."

Third Cut: Circle × Nomura Securities → Japanese Corporate Forex

The surface fact is that Circle cooperated with Japan's largest brokerage to deploy stablecoin cross-border FX settlements as early as 2027, with the Japanese corporate forex market scale of $440 billion/day. This is not "another stablecoin pilot." This is the first time a top TradFi brokerage officially aligned with stablecoins as a settlement layer.

The math is simple:

· SWIFT cross-border payments: cost 50-100 bps, T+1 to T+3 settlement

· Stablecoin FX: cost ~0 bps (on-chain gas + liquidity pool fees), instant settlement

· Japanese corporate FX market $440 billion/day × 250 trading days = $110 trillion/year

Even if Circle-Nomura only captures 0.1% of the market share, the settlement volume would reach $110 billion/year—directly from the fee profit pool of SWIFT agents. Nomura chose USDC instead of issuing its own coin. As Japan's largest brokerage, Nomura is fully capable of issuing its own stablecoin. But it chose to partner with Circle—this means it evaluated that in the compliant stablecoin track, "issuing a coin" is less valuable than "accessing." This is the classic model of a payment network: Visa does not issue coins, but it owns the payment network.

On the same day in contrast: Uniswap + Spark DAO's $150 million "FX Layer" migration—this is a head-on collision of two tracks:

· TradFi pipeline: Circle-Nomura, compliance first, licensed entities → regulated market

· DeFi network: Uniswap-Spark, openness first, on-chain liquidity pool → borderless market

Which track runs successfully first will determine the infrastructure form of cross-border payments in the next five years. Currently, both trains are speeding up—and they might converge at some station.

Fourth Cut: SBI → Bitbank — Financial Group's "Eat the Exchange" Strategy

The surface fact is that SBI's $289 million acquisition of Bitbank makes it Japan's largest exchange. SBI's landscape has already covered—trading (Bitbank), stablecoins (SBI VC Trade obtained Japan's first stablecoin license), tokenization (in partnership with BOOSTRY), blockchain infrastructure (multiple chain verification nodes under SBI). This is the "financial holding company" model of the digital asset era. It is not about buying an exchange to speculate—it's about establishing a regulated, full-stack digital asset financial group.

Implications for the Asia-Pacific market:

· SBI model + OKX-ICE joint venture = two templates for the Asia-Pacific exchange landscape

· The independent survival space of pure exchanges is disappearing—players with licenses + traditional financial networks are capturing the market

· This is not competition between exchanges. This is a strategic game between financial groups and technology platforms. Exchanges are key nodes within this.

Fifth Cut (Hidden): Market Makers' Routine Hedging Around Options Expiration

The surface fact is that BTC fell below $58K, the ETF recorded historic net outflows, and $10 billion options expired.

The reality goes far beyond price numbers:

1. Monthly hedging routine of market makers: On the last Friday of each month, market makers have the incentive to manage spot exposure in Delta hedging to ensure more options expire out of the money. PCE inflation reached a three-year high + ETF outflow data provided the market focus. However, the market structure itself also presents real pressure—these two factors are not mutually exclusive.

2. But the panic among the public is real: A Deutsche Bank report confirmed the "new institutional headwinds"—the liquidity siphon from the AI sector (Micron's profits surged nearly 14 times, SK Hynix invested $29 billion in the U.S.) is drawing blood from crypto ETFs.

3. The direction after the expiration of $10 billion options is a true signal:

- Holding $58K after expiration and seeing a surge in both volume and price → short squeeze initiates = market makers’ hedging operations conclude

- Falling below after expiration with no rebound → true bear market deepening = the early miner prediction of $44K may not be a joke

Among these five cuts, the first four are completely unrelated to the BTC price. Only the fifth cut is price-driven—and it may be artificially manufactured.

2. The Chess Game: Why These Five Events Must Be Read Together

They Share a Hidden Logic: Synchronization of Three Clocks

The first four cuts are driven by the "regulatory clock" and "technology clock." Only the fifth cut is driven by the "price clock." This means: when you focus on the BTC price to decide "whether to enter," Invesco’s $2.5 trillion and Japan's largest brokerage are already acting according to another calendar. Those who are focusing on the BTC price to decide "whether to enter," while Invesco’s $2.5 trillion and Japan's largest brokerage are already on another calendar. This represents two types of market participants making independent decisions across different information environments and time dimensions—retail focusing on the price clock, while institutions focus on the regulatory and technology clocks. These formations create the current market's "division" characteristic.

History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. What happened during the 2000-2002 Internet bubble collapse?

· The Nasdaq fell by 78%. Pets.com went bankrupt. Retail was in panic.

· During the same period: Google was raising funds. Amazon was expanding logistics centers. Verizon was laying fiber optics—these "infrastructure assets" were built from the ruins and became the foundational pipes of the internet over a decade.

The 2008 financial crisis:

· Lehman Brothers collapsed. The S&P 500 was halved. The entire market was selling off.

· During the same period: BlackRock was acquiring iShares at low prices (now the largest ETF platform globally). JPMorgan was absorbing high-quality assets after Bear Stearns' bankruptcy.

2026 Crypto Bear Market:

· BTC $58K. ETF records outflow. Retail is discussing cutting losses.

· During the same period: Invesco ($2.5 trillion) is seizing the regulatory first-mover advantage for tokenized funds. Nomura Securities is building out the stablecoin FX pipeline. SBI is completing the acquisition of Japan's largest exchange.

Each financial market pain period is a moment when infrastructural ownership shifts from "speculators" to "institutions." Crypto is no exception. Crypto is the next case that is happening.

3. Who’s Losing? —— Three Bets Being Disproven

Bet 1: "BTC Will Walk Alone, Decoupled from TradFi"

The mainstream narrative over the past three years: Bitcoin is digital gold, a non-correlated asset, independent of macro cycles. When the AI sector surges (Micron's profits skyrocketed, SK Hynix is investing $29 billion in the U.S.), the BTC ETF shows significant net outflows—money is not disappearing, it is migrating. BTC is not digital gold; it is currently a high-beta tech asset. At least from the perspective of institutional allocation, crypto and AI/chip are using the same pool of dollar liquidity.

The Deutsche Bank report states more bluntly: Bitcoin falling below $60,000 reflects "new institutional headwinds." In other words, the inflow and outflow of institutional money are bidirectional—ETFs make BTC easier to buy and also easier to sell.

Bet 2: "DeFi Will Grow from the Margins, Eating CeFi"

DeFi’s total TVL significantly contracted in 2026. After the KelpDAO cross-chain bridge security flaw, deposits in Aave showed outflows. Meanwhile, Kraken (CeFi) is negotiating for part of Aave (the DeFi leader). DeFi will not grow from the margins—it will be acquired, integrated from within by CeFi, and then reappear in the form of "compliant DeFi." This is not DeFi's failure. This is DeFi's success as a technology + DeFi's failure as an independent organization.

The technology is too valuable to be operated by independent small teams. The regulatory pressure is too high for DAO structures to cope with. So the answer is not "DeFi will win" or "CeFi will win”—the answer is "CeFi acquires DeFi’s technology and users and then repackages it in its own compliance framework.” Kraken → Aave is the first public case of this narrative. It will not be the last.

Bet 3: "Stablecoins Are Niche Crypto Tools"

Tether's net profit surpassed most Wall Street banks in 2025, and Circle is on its way to IPO. Now, Nomura Securities is pushing USDC into Japan's $110 trillion/year corporate forex market. Stablecoins are not crypto tools. They are the next generation of protocol layers for payment networks—just like SWIFT replaced teleprocessing in the 1970s, stablecoins will replace SWIFT in the 2020s. The difference is: SWIFT took decades. Stablecoins might complete the same switch within ten years—because the economic benefits of circumventing SWIFT are too substantial. What Invesco is betting on is this: if stablecoins become the global payment layer, who will manage the reserve assets behind these stablecoins? Invesco wants to be the answer—just as BNY Mellon is the custodian for traditional securities.

4. EXIO Institute's Core Judgments

The ownership of infrastructure in crypto finance is undergoing—a straightforward word—a quiet, systematic transfer from "crypto natives" to "TradFi institutions." The price of BTC is the background noise of this transfer, not the main storyline.

Three Specific Judgments

1. This autumn (Q3 2026) is a layout window, not a bottom-fishing window

The logic premise of "bottom-fishing" is that: when prices reach a bottom, they will bounce back. But the five events we observed say: "Regardless of whether prices bounce back, we are building pipelines."

For institutions, the distinction between "layout" and "bottom-fishing" is:

· Bottom-fishing = betting on price direction

· Layout = betting on industry structure

What Invesco is doing is layout, not bottom-fishing BTC.

2. By 2027, the current "division" will reveal which directional outcomes

If half of the above four events succeed, the crypto financial map of 2027 will be completely different from today—and the main characters on that map will not be the ones discussing whether to cut losses at $58K on Crypto Twitter today.

3. The biggest risk is not where BTC falls to—it is whether regulation lands as scheduled

All “why now” analyses in this report are built on a common premise: the GENIUS Act / MiCA / Japan stablecoin law will land in H2 2026-2027.

If Congress delays, EU member states dispute, or Japanese bureaucrats drag their feet—

· Invesco's fund approval will be delayed

· Circle-Nomura's product deployment will lack legal foundation

· SBI's integration will slow due to regulatory uncertainty

The irony of this risk is: if the regulation is delayed, BTC prices may rebound (because the "crackdown" boots haven’t dropped)—but infrastructural layout will stagnate. In other words, good news for short-term prices may be bad news for long-term infrastructure. Conversely: if regulation accelerates (for example, the GENIUS Act suddenly enters the fast track), BTC may continue to face pressure in the short term (regulatory clarity = compliance costs rise = shadow markets are squeezed)—but infrastructural layout may erupt. This is truly counterintuitive judgment.

5. Industry Landscape Outlook

Structural Observation of Industry

The digital asset industry is experiencing a shift from directional exposure to value accumulation of the infrastructure value chain—this is an observation at the market structure level. The commonality across the five events points to: value accumulation is shifting from Layer 1 protocol layers to middleware and service layers—stablecoin reserve management, compliant lending facilities, cross-border settlement networks, and regulated trading platforms constitute new value capture nodes.

In this observation framework:

· BTC's positioning in institutional portfolios is undergoing repricing. ETF capital outflow and the capital siphon effect from AI/semiconductor sectors indicate that institutional investors are still rebalancing across asset classes. BTC is being corrected from "non-correlated alternative asset" to "high beta tech exposure," and this repricing process is not yet completed. This is a market structure observation and does not constitute a price direction prediction for BTC.

· A new institutional focus is emerging in the stablecoin and RWA infrastructure domains. Invesco’s entry indicates that once the regulatory framework forms, regulated on-chain reserve management may become one of the more predictable income routes in the digital asset industry. This is a market structure observation and does not constitute a preference judgment for any sector or asset.

· The trend of exchange consolidation in the Asia-Pacific region is accelerating. The SBI-Bitbank transaction reflects an observable trend: in the Asian market, group players with banking licenses and traditional financial relationships are expanding their market share with structural advantages, and independent exchanges face greater competitive pressure. This is an observation of industry competition landscape.

Implications of the Industry Landscape

The boundaries between DeFi and CeFi are disappearing—but the way they are disappearing is contrary to market expectations. The industry once broadly assumed that DeFi protocols would erode the market share of centralized platforms from the margins. The direction currently observed is the opposite: CeFi platforms are incorporating DeFi protocols into their own ecosystems through equity investments and credit facilities.

The Kraken-Aave negotiations—regardless of how they ultimately land—represent a noteworthy structural form in the digital asset industry: centralized platforms acquiring economic rights and governance influence over decentralized protocols, while protocols retain technical autonomy but accept some degree of compliance constraints. This "hybrid architecture" may become a relatively common organizational form in the industry between 2026-2028. This is an observation of industry structure and does not constitute judgment on any company or protocol.

For builders and protocol teams, the core strategic question is: in a regulatory compliance cost environment that continues to rise, should protocols choose to be integrated or operate independently? Being integrated means relinquishing some autonomy but gaining institutional distribution channels; operating independently means retaining control but bearing increasingly high compliance and safety costs. Events in Q2 2026 indicate that the market is rewarding the former—Invesco chooses Superstate rather than building in-house, Nomura chooses Circle rather than developing independently, and Kraken chooses to invest in Aave rather than self-operating lending.

Key Risk Factors

This report's investment thesis faces the following core risks:

4. Regulatory timeline risk (high impact / medium probability): If the GENIUS Act encounters substantial delays in Congress (pushed to H2 2027 or later), or if there are disagreements on MiCA stablecoin provisions at the member state level, the income confirmation timelines for projects such as Invesco, Circle-Nomura will be significantly pushed back. It is important to note that regulatory delays may offer short-term benefits for BTC prices (a reflection of "bad news being fully priced in"), but mid-term, it damages the capital returns on infrastructure investment.

5. Macroeconomic liquidity risk (high impact / already realized): A combination of PCE inflation hitting a three-year high, shifting rate cut expectations, and a strengthening DXY has created real pressure on digital asset liquidity. If Q3 inflation data continues to exceed expectations, the risk of the Fed being forced to maintain or even increase rates cannot be ignored. In this scenario, BTC may test $44K (the end-of-year bottom estimate of early miners), and ETF outflows may further accelerate.

6. Security event risk (medium impact / continuous presence): Recent DeFi cross-chain bridge security vulnerabilities and their impact on associated protocol deposits have exposed DeFi's security fragility once again. Security events at the infrastructure layer affect not only individual protocols but may also delay the timeline for institutional adoption—TradFi participants will reassess custody and settlement risks after security incidents.

7. Geopolitical risk (medium impact / to be observed): Attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz remind the market that energy price shocks may transmit through inflation channels to all risk assets, including digital assets.

We identify the following potential positive catalysts for H2 2026-2027 (in chronological order):

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。