<div><div style="text-align:center"><img style="max-width:100%;height:auto" src="https://multilingual.mocortech.com/cms-content-file/2026-09-04/F20260904171511770m8R2lWSWzkeEgP" /></div><div> </div><div>I run a centralized exchange, so I obviously have a position in this.</div><div> </div><div>When a retail financial platform with nearly 28 million customers launches its own Layer 2, my first thought is not that Robinhood has decided to build a blockchain. It is a more practical question. If brokers start building chains, wallets start handling trades, and exchanges start connecting to a widening range of onchain and traditional assets, how much meaning is left in the categories we have been using to describe this industry?</div><div> </div><div>On July 1, Robinhood launched the public mainnet of Robinhood Chain. It is a permissionless Ethereum Layer 2 built with the Arbitrum stack, settling back to Ethereum, running 100-millisecond blocks and aimed primarily at financial services and tokenized real-world assets. Uniswap deployed an AMM on day one as a public liquidity venue, Pleiades deployed a proprietary AMM, and Alchemy, BitGo and Chainlink integrated at the same time. The public testnet, running since February, cleared more than 200 million transactions before mainnet went live.</div><div> </div><div>That is not a small investment, but the technical specifications are not the part I find most interesting. What makes Robinhood Chain worth discussing is that a financial platform is moving from using blockchain infrastructure to making it part of its own business architecture.</div><div> </div><div>That shift runs deeper than the arrival of one more Layer 2.</div><div> </div><h2>Robinhood had the users and the products before it had the chain</h2><div> </div><div>Robinhood did not start from an empty network. In June 2025 it launched its first generation of Stock Tokens on Arbitrum One, offering European customers more than 200 tokenized US stock and ETF products. The range expanded from there, and only afterwards did Robinhood extend its onchain business onto a Layer 2 of its own. Arbitrum describes this kind of path as "launch-and-migrate."</div><div> </div><div>The sequence matters. For most of the past decade the default was the opposite: build the chain first, then go looking for users. Recruit developers, subsidize liquidity, stand up an ecosystem fund, court projects, and only at the end find out whether real demand would stay. Plenty of networks have been through the phase where activity falls away once the incentives taper.</div><div> </div><div>Robinhood took a different route. Before the chain existed there were already customers, an account system, a wallet and a mature product surface. The chain is not the starting point of the business model. It is a further extension into infrastructure, made after the existing business reached a certain scale.</div><div> </div><div>So I would not read Robinhood Chain as evidence that dedicated chains are becoming fashionable among traditional brokers. What it shows is narrower: for financial platforms with enough users, enough transaction demand and a clear product case, building a chain is no longer a technical experiment. It has become an infrastructure option that can enter a management-level strategy discussion.</div><div> </div><h2>A dedicated chain is a commercial decision before it is a technical one</h2><div> </div><div>Engineering teams obviously have a say in whether a financial company should run its own chain, but the decision is ultimately about capital allocation and business architecture.</div><div> </div><div>Using an existing network has direct advantages: security, developer tooling, an established ecosystem and some liquidity all come ready-made, with nothing to rebuild from scratch. The cost is equally direct — the platform accepts that network's execution environment, fee mechanics and technical limits. A dedicated chain buys back control instead. How fast transactions confirm, how fees are designed, how products connect to one another, which capabilities live onchain: all of it can be reconfigured around the business.</div><div> </div><div>But control and responsibility increase together. Who is accountable for network security, how bridging works, where market makers come from, how liquidity is routed, why third-party developers would stay, whether the network holds up in extreme market conditions — none of that disappears simply because you built the chain yourself.</div><div> </div><div>Nor does building your own chain mean independence. Under the Arbitrum Expansion Program, Robinhood Chain returns 10 percent of net protocol revenue to the Arbitrum ecosystem. That number tells the story: operating your own network is not a leap from dependence to full autonomy. It is a redivision of control, cost and responsibility within the same technical system.</div><div> </div><div>So I do not expect dedicated Layer 2s to become standard equipment for brokers and trading platforms. They will be an option, but the long-term investment only holds up when the commercial case is strong enough. The test is not complicated. If a platform cannot say which key products a dedicated chain would meaningfully improve — in performance, cost, control or integration — then shared infrastructure is almost certainly the more efficient choice.</div><div> </div><h2>Arriving with users changes how Layer 2s compete</h2><div> </div><div>Chains have traditionally been judged on throughput, gas costs, total value locked, developer counts and onchain activity. Those measures still matter, but a case like this one adds a variable that used to sit further in the background: existing distribution.</div><div> </div><div>At mainnet launch Robinhood covered 38 countries with close to 28 million customers, and its subsequently disclosed July operating metrics put that figure above 28.5 million. Its new Stock Tokens are available through Robinhood Wallet to eligible users in more than 120 countries. That is not the same as a network starting from zero. A conventional Layer 2 builds infrastructure first and then looks for applications and users; a financial platform building its own chain may have the users, the products and the traffic first, and then decide which parts of the business are worth moving onchain.</div><div> </div><div>None of which means the ecosystem will succeed. Customers willing to use Robinhood are not developers willing to build around Robinhood Chain for years, and 28.5 million accounts do not make onchain liquidity deep by themselves. Market makers, DeFi protocols, bridging infrastructure and third-party applications still accumulate through real demand and time. But the starting line has moved. The hardest question for a new chain has usually been where users come from, and for a platform like this one that question already has a partial answer.</div><div> </div><div>This may also change how the Layer 2 market competes. Some of the most significant networks may not appear to ordinary users as independent blockchain brands at all, sitting instead behind a broker, a payments platform, an exchange or a large financial application. The user knows Robinhood, or a bank, or a wallet; whether the Arbitrum stack or another architecture is running underneath is not something most people will ask. Mature infrastructure tends to go through exactly this process.</div><div> </div><div>The more important it becomes, the less it needs to be seen.</div><div> </div><h2>More chains, and a growing premium on organizing liquidity</h2><div> </div><div>If financial platforms keep moving down the stack, the market runs into a second problem. The number of chains goes up. Liquidity does not appear out of nowhere.</div><div> </div><div>Every additional execution environment is potentially another pool. Digital asset markets are already fragmented enough, with capital spread across centralized exchanges, DEXs, different Layer 1s, different Layer 2s and a long list of onchain protocols. If more brokers, fintechs and trading platforms begin operating their own networks, the underlying structure only gets more complicated.</div><div> </div><div>Which produces a tension worth watching:</div><div><strong style="font-weight:bolder">The base layer keeps fragmenting while the layer users see keeps consolidating.</strong></div><div> </div><div>Nobody wants to research which chain the liquidity is on before placing a trade, and no one should have to work out whether their order ended up on an order book, an AMM or some other onchain venue. Users care about a short list of concrete things: whether the asset is there, whether the price is fair, whether the trade completes, whether their money is safe. Where the liquidity ultimately comes from should be the platform's problem to solve.</div><div> </div><div>Traditional finance works the same way. An investor opening a brokerage app rarely investigates which venue the order reached or which clearing system processed it. The simpler the front end, the more complex the market structure behind it usually is. Crypto is now building its own version of that arrangement, and if the direction holds, one of the most valuable capabilities will not be creating more isolated pools of liquidity but reconnecting the ones that exist. Bridging, routing, aggregation, settlement and unified account systems all become more important as a result.</div><div> </div><h2>Centralized exchanges are not disappearing, but matching alone is no longer enough</h2><div> </div><div>The simplest narrative is that as onchain finance matures, centralized exchanges become more marginal.</div><div> </div><div>I do not accept that linear reading.</div><div> </div><div>Centralized exchanges solved a very specific set of problems early on: they concentrated liquidity, simplified custody and trading, and let ordinary users enter this market without understanding private keys, gas or complex onchain operations. Not one of those needs has disappeared. What has changed is that no exchange can now assume every asset, every pool of liquidity and every user behaviour will stay inside its own order book for good — and equally, no DEX or Layer 2 can assume users will interact with base-layer protocols directly just because the technology is more open.</div><div> </div><div>The reality is more likely to be mixed. Some trades continue to clear on centralized order books while other assets move onchain; some users prefer custodial accounts, some prefer self-custody, and a great many use both. Financial markets have rarely relied on a single trading mechanism, and digital assets will not be the exception.</div><div> </div><div>So I think of the exchange less as a venue and more as an entry point. It has to offer good execution and sufficient liquidity first, of course. But it also has to answer a second question: as assets, networks and markets grow more distributed, can a user still reach those opportunities through a reasonably simple front door?</div><div> </div><div>This is not abstract for us. In my letter earlier this year I described a MEXC user who started out trading only crypto and later began following IPOs, gold and oil. That example convinced me of something I keep returning to: today's retail investors are not simply crypto investors anymore. They are opportunity investors. Over the past period we have been widening the markets those users can reach beyond crypto, including equity-linked products and prediction markets. That is the same direction as the "Infinite Opportunities" idea MEXC has been building around: users should not have to move between disconnected platforms to find opportunities in different markets. The aim is not an endlessly longer product list. It is that users stopped organizing their own decisions around the industry's categories some time ago.</div><div> </div><h2>Tokenization puts brokers, exchanges and chains in the same market</h2><div> </div><div>Robinhood Chain carries one further implication: it was not built simply to add another way to trade crypto assets, but with tokenized real-world assets at the centre from the start.</div><div> </div><div>The two generations of Stock Tokens need to be kept apart here. The Classic Stock Tokens launched in 2025 are, in substance, derivative contracts between the customer and Robinhood Europe. The new Stock Tokens launched in 2026 are issued by Robinhood Assets (Jersey) Limited as tokenized debt securities, giving holders economic exposure to the underlying securities without granting any legal or beneficial rights in those securities or against their issuer.</div><div> </div><div>The legal structures of the two products are not the same.</div><div> </div><div>That distinction should not be blurred. Tokenization changes the technical container of an asset, making it easier to program, transfer and use across onchain applications. It does not rewrite the legal relationships underneath, and it does not make any jurisdiction's regulatory requirements disappear. The technical layer and the legal layer remain two different things.</div><div> </div><div>From a competitive standpoint, though, the effect is already visible. Crypto exchanges, brokers, wallets and Layer 2 providers used to occupy separate tracks; now they are entering the same market. Exchanges list equity-linked and other traditional asset products. Brokers build their own blockchains. Wallets carry trading and DeFi functions. Layer 2 providers increasingly resemble enterprise infrastructure vendors sitting behind financial institutions.</div><div> </div><div>If a broker holds securities accounts, crypto trading, a wallet, stock tokens and its own Layer 2, is it still a broker in the traditional sense? If a crypto exchange connects digital assets, equity-linked products, commodities and prediction markets, is it still just a spot trading venue? What needs redefining may not be the classification of any single company, but the boundary of the financial platform itself.</div><div> </div><h2>What is really being rewritten is the role of the platform</h2><div> </div><div>I would not conclude from this launch that every broker should have its own Layer 2. Most companies have no reason to. Shared infrastructure remains cheaper, more mature and easier to plug into an existing ecosystem and its liquidity.</div><div> </div><div>But Robinhood has moved a previously marginal question into mainstream strategic discussion:</div><div><strong style="font-weight:bolder">How much infrastructure should a financial company use, and how much should it own?</strong></div><div> </div><div>That question will get harder to avoid. Layer 2 technology may gradually recede behind financial products. Wallets will keep extending into trading and financial services. Tokenization will bring more traditional assets onchain. Exchanges will have to connect markets and liquidity far more complex than before. The resulting structure is not hard to describe: what users see keeps getting simpler while the systems underneath keep getting more complicated.</div><div> </div><div>For a trading platform, the job therefore stops being just running a good matching engine. You also have to know where assets are issued, where liquidity forms, how users want to hold what they own, and how those assets move across different networks and markets.</div><div> </div><div>It is far too early to say whether Robinhood Chain grows into an onchain financial ecosystem of real scale. But it has already made one thing clear to the industry: brokers, exchanges, wallets and blockchains are moving from adjacent tracks onto the same competitive map. The next phase of competition between financial platforms may not be decided by trading volume and user counts alone, but by who can organize assets, liquidity, accounts and underlying infrastructure most effectively.</div><div> </div><h2>About the Author</h2><div> </div><div>Vugar Usi is the CEO of MEXC, where he leads the company's global strategy, business growth, and long-term vision to build a more open and inclusive digital asset ecosystem. Prior to joining MEXC, he served as Chief Operating Officer at Bitget, where he played a key role in expanding the platform's global operations and user base. With more than 15 years of experience in marketing, communications, and brand strategy, Vugar has worked with leading global brands including Carlsberg, Facebook, Coca-Cola, and Twitter. He holds a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University and previously served as an advisor to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on minority issues.</div><div> </div><h2>Disclaimer</h2><div> </div><div>This article reflects the personal views of the author and is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment, financial, legal, or tax advice and should not be relied upon when making any investment or business decision. The stock tokens referenced in this article are financial products with a specific legal structure that differs from direct ownership of the corresponding shares, and their issuance, sale and use may be restricted in certain jurisdictions. Digital asset markets are highly volatile, and participation involves substantial risk, including the possible loss of principal. Readers should conduct their own research and seek independent professional advice before making any financial decisions. MEXC assumes no responsibility or liability for any losses arising from the use of the information contained in this article.</div></div>

After Robinhood Chain: How Much Infrastructure Should a Financial Company Own?

I run a centralized exchange, so I obviously have a position in this. When a retail financial platform with nearly 28 million customers launches its own Layer 2, my first thought is not that

<div><div style="text-align:center"><img style="max-width:100%;height:auto" src="https://multilingual.mocortech.com/cms-content-file/2026-07-22/F20260722163425433yRL2TnQZDCAWoM" /></div><div> </div><h2>Reach Was Never Presence</h2><div> </div><div>For most of this industry's history, going global meant something fairly simple. A single platform, operating from a single jurisdiction, could distribute the same products to users in dozens of countries over the internet. Scale arrived quickly and cheaply, and very little of it was anchored anywhere.</div><div> </div><div>Reach and presence are different propositions. Operating in a market requires regulatory approval, a connection to local banking and payment infrastructure, products adapted to how people in that market actually transact, and relationships with institutions and supervisors that hold up over time. None of that can be distributed remotely. It has to be built jurisdiction by jurisdiction, and it takes years.</div><div> </div><div>That is the structural shift underway. Regulation is not closing crypto's borders. It is redefining what it takes to cross them.</div><div> </div><h2>A License Is Only the Beginning</h2><div> </div><div>Years of operating a global exchange have made me cautious about licenses. They are necessary, and increasingly they determine which markets a platform can serve at all. But a license is not a competitive moat. It is an entry ticket, and as more are issued within a given market, the advantage of holding any single one declines.</div><div> </div><div>The test begins after approval. Can regulatory access be converted into products people want, payment channels that clear reliably, liquidity deep enough to support efficient price discovery and quality execution, and the operational consistency that earns trust over several years? Licenses are granted at a point in time. The capabilities behind them are demonstrated continuously, which is a far harder standard to meet.</div><div> </div><h2>Global Infrastructure, Local Execution</h2><div> </div><div>The operating model that follows is reasonably clear. Technology, cybersecurity, liquidity management, and group-level risk standards can and should remain global; fragmenting them would raise costs while weakening the very controls regulators expect firms to maintain. Payment rails, product design, customer service, institutional relationships, and market operations are moving in the other direction and will increasingly need to be local.</div><div> </div><div>Running both at once is harder than running either. It requires shared infrastructure with genuine local accountability layered on top, and capital committed to markets that may take years to become meaningful contributors. Platforms that treat localization as a compliance exercise tend to end up with licensed entities that conduct very little business.</div><div> </div><h2>Institutions Need Predictability, Not Permissiveness</h2><div> </div><div>Regulatory maturity also changes who is willing to participate. Banks, asset managers, payment companies, and corporate treasuries do not require rules to be lenient. They require them to be predictable. An institution can operate within a demanding framework; what it struggles with is uncertainty, because internal governance depends on knowing which obligations apply, how risks are allocated, and who is ultimately accountable.</div><div> </div><div>Clear standards on custody, segregation of customer assets, reporting, governance, and operational responsibility allow institutions to write internal policy and commit with greater confidence. The same standards strengthen user protection, which raises the level of trust the industry operates on. These effects reinforce one another, though both take time to become visible in market data.</div><div> </div><h2>Compliance Costs Are Reshaping Competition</h2><div> </div><div>The cost of this transition should not be underestimated. Compliance functions, external audits, cybersecurity, local teams, capital requirements, and risk systems all demand sustained investment, and none of them generate revenue directly. Consolidation is a likely consequence. Fewer platforms will be able to sustain that expenditure across multiple jurisdictions, and some will choose to operate in fewer markets rather than spread limited resources too thin.</div><div> </div><div>That is not necessarily a negative development. Regulation cannot guarantee quality, but it raises the cost of irresponsible behavior, and competition appears to be shifting away from short-term user acquisition toward long-term operating capability. It is a slower race, and one that places a greater premium on execution.</div><div> </div><div>For an exchange, the resulting advantage rests on three connected capabilities. Compliance is the starting point, because it determines access to markets and institutions. Liquidity defines the quality of the product, shaping pricing, execution, and the experience users receive. Brand is the long-term outcome of consistent operations rather than marketing expenditure. The platforms most likely to lead the next phase will not be those holding the most licenses or reporting the largest user numbers, but those able to convert regulatory access into trusted liquidity at global scale.</div><div> </div><h2>Trust Must Be Earned</h2><div> </div><div>This changes what a global crypto platform looks like. The next generation is unlikely to be a single offshore entity serving every market through one operating model. It is more likely to consist of locally operated businesses connected by shared technology, liquidity, risk management, and brand standards, much as global banks and payment networks have long been organized.</div><div> </div><div>In the early years, trust in this industry was largely promised through technology. Code was auditable, and that alone was often considered sufficient. The next phase asks for something less elegant and more demanding. Trust will have to be earned through execution: risk management that holds under stress, durable institutional relationships, local execution, cross-border coordination, and the capacity to protect users across changing market conditions rather than only in favorable ones.</div><div> </div><div>The first phase of crypto globalization was built on market access. The next will be built on trust.</div><div> </div><h2>About the Author</h2><div> </div><div>Vugar Usi is the CEO of MEXC, where he leads the company's global strategy, business growth, and long-term vision to build a more open and inclusive digital asset ecosystem. Prior to joining MEXC, he served as Chief Operating Officer at Bitget, where he played a key role in expanding the platform's global operations and user base. With more than 15 years of experience in marketing, communications, and brand strategy, Vugar has worked with leading global brands including Carlsberg, Facebook, Coca-Cola, and Twitter. He holds a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University and previously served as an advisor to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on minority issues.</div><div> </div><h2>Disclaimer</h2><div> </div><div>This article reflects the personal views of the author and is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment, financial, legal, or tax advice and should not be relied upon when making any investment or business decision. Digital asset markets are highly volatile, and participation involves substantial risk, including the possible loss of principal. Readers should conduct their own research and seek independent professional advice before making any financial decisions. MEXC assumes no responsibility or liability for any losses arising from the use of the information contained in this article.</div></div>

Regulation Is Opening a New Era of Crypto Globalization

Reach Was Never Presence For most of this industry's history, going global meant something fairly simple. A single platform, operating from a single jurisdiction, could distribute the same products

<div><div style="text-align:center"><img style="max-width:100%;height:auto" src="https://multilingual.mocortech.com/cms-content-file/2026-07-17/F20260717165516840Qq50Ht25EQsTH8" /></div><div> </div><div>Within ten days this summer, a consortium of more than 140 companies proposed sharing the reserve income that has made stablecoin issuers rich, and Circle won final federal approval for a national trust bank. Two very different models for the digital dollar are now heading toward each other.</div><div> </div><h2>From Issuance to Distribution</h2><div> </div><div>On June 30, a coalition of payment networks, banks, fintech platforms, and technology companies unveiled Open USD, a proposed stablecoin whose defining feature is not its peg but its economics. Income from its reserves is meant to flow to the institutions that help it circulate. On July 10, Circle received final OCC approval to establish a federally supervised national trust bank, bringing the infrastructure behind USDC under direct federal oversight. Neither event alone marks a turning point. Taken together with MiCA now in force across Europe, South Korea's continuing debate over won-denominated stablecoins, and the steady arrival of banks and payment companies, they confirm that stablecoins have outgrown their original role as plumbing for crypto trading.</div><div> </div><div>The first phase of this market rewarded whoever could issue the most trusted dollar token. The second rewarded whoever built the deepest liquidity. The next is likely to reward whoever gives banks, payment companies, and merchants the strongest commercial reason to carry one token rather than another. That contest, over the economics of distribution, is only starting to take shape.</div><div> </div><h2>Open USD's Design</h2><div> </div><div>Open USD remains a planned launch rather than a proven ecosystem, and any assessment should start from that fact. Its design nonetheless challenges the industry's most profitable arrangement. Rather than one issuer keeping most of the reserve economics while others handle circulation, participating businesses are expected to receive a share of reserve income under the proposed model. Minting and redemption are designed to carry no volume-based fees, and governance is meant to sit with the consortium rather than a single corporate issuer.</div><div> </div><div>The stakes are considerable because stablecoins are not ordinary software. Their economics derive from the assets held against their liabilities, and at scale reserve income becomes a substantial pool of value, along with influence over digital-dollar liabilities, Treasury demand, settlement flows, and user relationships. Seen in that light, how reserve economics are divided matters far more than any competition over transaction fees.</div><div> </div><h2>Circle's Regulatory Strategy</h2><div> </div><div>Circle has taken the opposite approach, and it should not be underestimated. Final OCC approval establishes a national trust bank, a fiduciary and custody institution rather than a conventional commercial bank, with reserve management planned as a future capability. The approval embeds USDC more deeply in the regulated U.S. financial system, adding to advantages Circle already holds: regulatory credibility, a global brand, institutional liquidity, and an ecosystem built over a decade.</div><div> </div><div>The market will now test whether trust concentrated in one regulated issuer outweighs incentives spread across many institutions. The answer is not obvious.</div><div> </div><h2>The Exchange Perspective</h2><div> </div><div>Running a global exchange gives me a particular vantage point on this question. For platforms, the practical issue is no longer which stablecoin to support but which network can consistently deliver deep liquidity, efficient redemption, cross-chain interoperability, payment acceptance, and durable incentives. Exchanges are unlikely to commit to a single issuer. The more probable outcome is that platforms connect several stablecoin rails and let users and market structure determine where volume settles. Once the infrastructure layer declines to pick a winner, competition shifts toward whoever offers distributors the best terms.</div><div> </div><div>None of this guarantees that the consortium model succeeds. A board of many partners can improve neutrality, but larger alliances tend to decide slowly in a market that moves daily. Sharing reserve income does not by itself create trading depth; USDT and USDC still rest on market makers, cross-chain infrastructure, and user habits accumulated over years. A consortium must also answer the questions regulators put to any issuer: who issues the token, who manages the reserves, who guarantees redemption, and who is accountable when something fails. The quality of those answers will determine whether the model can scale.</div><div> </div><h2>Regulation as Monetary Strategy</h2><div> </div><div>Europe's MiCA, a more prescriptive framework with tighter issuer requirements, was never solely about consumer protection. Dollar-backed tokens raise questions of monetary sovereignty. The more European payments and settlement run through them, the further the dollar's reach extends inside Europe's financial system. Stablecoin regulation is in that sense also monetary strategy, and it is likely to accelerate regulated euro-denominated alternatives and bank-backed coalitions. South Korea's continuing policy debate reflects a similar concern about preserving the relevance of a domestic currency once money becomes programmable.</div><div> </div><h2>Competing Ecosystems</h2><div> </div><div>Banks face a version of the same choice: resist stablecoins, issue their own, provide custody and reserve services, or join shared networks. Open USD suggests the fourth path will gain importance. Few institutions want to launch another fragmented proprietary token if a neutral rail with liquidity, interoperability, and aligned incentives already exists. The market may therefore divide less along the lines of USDT versus USDC, or crypto versus banks, than among rival ecosystems led by issuers, banks, payment companies, and consortia.</div><div> </div><div>Artificial intelligence could compress the timeline. AI agents paying for data, compute, and services will generate global, continuous, machine-initiated transactions, an environment well suited to stablecoins. Even then, technology alone will not decide the outcome. AI platforms will choose on reliability, compliance, liquidity, and acceptance, criteria on which a token carried by a broad coalition of institutions may hold an advantage over any standalone issuer.</div><div> </div><div>Circle may yet become one of the most important institutions in the digital-dollar economy. But the future is unlikely to produce a single new digital bank. A more plausible outcome is a small number of competing monetary ecosystems, each binding issuers, banks, payment networks, and technology platforms to the same incentives.</div><div> </div><div>The first era of stablecoins rewarded issuers. The second rewarded liquidity. The next may reward those who can align institutions. The winner may not be the company that owns the token, but the network that gives everyone else the strongest reason to build on it.</div><div> </div><h2>About the Author</h2><div> </div><div>Vugar Usi is the CEO of MEXC, where he leads the company's global strategy, growth, and long-term vision to build a more open and inclusive digital asset ecosystem. Prior to joining MEXC, he served as Chief Operating Officer at Bitget, where he played a key role in expanding the platform's global operations and user base. With more than 15 years of experience in marketing, communications, and brand strategy, Vugar has worked with leading global brands including Carlsberg, Facebook, Coca-Cola, and Twitter. He earned a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University and served as an advisor to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on minority issues.</div><div> </div><h2>Disclaimer</h2><div> </div><div>This article represents the personal views of the author and is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, legal advice, or tax advice, and should not be relied upon as the basis for any decision. Digital asset prices are highly volatile and may fluctuate significantly; participation in digital asset markets involves substantial risk, including the possible loss of principal. Readers should conduct their own research and consult independent professional advisors before making any financial decisions. MEXC assumes no responsibility or liability for any investment losses arising from the use of this content.</div></div>

Stablecoin Competition Is Changing and the Biggest Issuer May Not Win

Within ten days this summer, a consortium of more than 140 companies proposed sharing the reserve income that has made stablecoin issuers rich, and Circle won final federal approval for a national

<div><div style="text-align:center"><img style="max-width:100%;height:auto" src="https://multilingual.mocortech.com/cms-content-file/2026-07-06/F20260706164526499MZvdYB8qob8vGu" /></div><div> </div><div>On Thursday, July 2, the highly anticipated US Nonfarm Payrolls report arrived a day early because of the Independence Day holiday. The June Nonfarm Payrolls data showed the economy added just 57,000 jobs — roughly half of what economists expected. Within hours of the release, the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed more than 1% to a record close, while the Nasdaq fell, weighed down by semiconductors and AI heavyweights.</div><div> </div><div>Same data. Same day. Opposite outcomes.</div><div> </div><div>Much of the commentary I read afterward focused on the number itself: whether the labor market is genuinely cooling, and what that might mean for policy. From where I sit, that misses the more interesting signal. The market did not choose a direction on Thursday. It chose a rotation. And that distinction may say more about where global markets are heading than any single payrolls print could.</div><div> </div><h2>What the Latest Nonfarm Payrolls Report Reveals</h2><div> </div><div>The headline was soft. According to the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/02/jobs-report-june-2026-.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bureau of Labor Statistics release covered by CNBC</a>, June payrolls rose by 57,000 — the weakest pace since February, against a consensus near 115,000. April and May were revised down by a combined 74,000. The unemployment rate slipped to 4.2%, though largely because fewer people were looking for work, not because hiring strengthened.</div><div> </div><div>Over the years, one thing I've consistently observed is that markets rarely trade the economy itself. They trade the change in expectations about the economy. Thursday was a case in point. The softer report changed how markets priced the rate outlook. Expectations shifted within minutes; the dollar and short-term yields moved with them.</div><div> </div><div>The number mattered less than what it changed.</div><div> </div><h2>Why the Dow Rose While the Nasdaq Fell</h2><div> </div><div>This is where Thursday became instructive.</div><div> </div><div>The Dow — weighted toward industrials, financials, healthcare, and consumer businesses — rallied as markets reassessed the likely path of rates. These are companies that tend to benefit when financial conditions appear to be easing.</div><div> </div><div>The Nasdaq faced a different question. Semiconductor and AI-related stocks had run hard for months on a story priced, in some corners, close to perfection. When capital saw an opening in cheaper, rate-sensitive sectors, some of it exited what had become one of the most crowded trades in the market. As <a target="_blank" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/01/stock-market-today-live-updates.html" rel="noopener noreferrer">CNBC's market coverage</a> noted, investors described it plainly: a rotation out of a red-hot sector, and a partial revaluation of the AI trade itself.</div><div> </div><div>Neither index was right or wrong. The Dow priced the rate outlook. The Nasdaq priced valuation risk. One jobs number fed both calculations and produced opposite answers.</div><div> </div><div>That is not noise. That is what a maturing, interconnected market often looks like.</div><div> </div><h2>From Risk-On to Cross-Asset Rotation</h2><div> </div><div>For much of the past decade, a simple mental model worked well enough: good liquidity news lifted everything risky; bad liquidity news sank everything risky. Crypto, tech stocks, and high-beta equities often moved as one bloc.</div><div> </div><div>I have increasingly come to believe that this model is breaking down. Capital is no longer asking only "should I take risk?" It is asking "which risk is paying me appropriately?" The answers differ across sectors, geographies, and asset classes — and on Thursday, they diverged within a single session.</div><div> </div><div>This is what I mean by cross-asset rotation: a market where relative value matters as much as direction, and where one macro data point can reward one asset class while repricing another.</div><div> </div><div>For digital assets, the implication is worth sitting with. Crypto no longer trades in isolation, and it increasingly trades as more than an appendage of the Nasdaq. It is developing its own position within the rotation — shaped by dollar liquidity, rate expectations, and institutional flows. That is a sign of maturity. It also asks more of the investor.</div><div> </div><h2>What This Means for Digital Asset Investors</h2><div> </div><div>I want to be careful here, because this is where market commentary often goes wrong.</div><div> </div><div>One mistake investors often make is treating macro data as a directional signal: weak jobs number, therefore crypto up; strong number, therefore crypto down. Markets rarely work that way anymore — if they ever did. A single report moves several forces at once: rates, the dollar, risk appetite, sector positioning. Those forces frequently pull against each other. Thursday's session in digital assets was contested, not clean. That was not a malfunction. That was the point.</div><div> </div><div>The investors who will be better prepared for this environment are not the ones predicting each reaction. They are the ones who treat a jobs report as a repricing event — and who ask what got repriced, rather than which way prices moved in the first hour.</div><div> </div><h2>What We See From Where We Sit</h2><div> </div><div>Running a global exchange offers an unusual vantage point on capital flows. We serve users across almost every time zone, and the overwhelming majority of them are retail participants.</div><div> </div><div>One trend that stands out from our vantage point is how quickly user behavior around macro events has evolved. A few cycles ago, US jobs data barely seemed to register outside American trading hours. Today, user attention increasingly clusters around major macro events — FOMC meetings, payrolls releases — across many of the regions we serve. More retail participants are recognizing, often faster than the industry gives them credit for, that digital assets now operate within the global liquidity system, not beside it.</div><div> </div><div>That shift shapes how I think about responsibility. In a connected market, access alone is not enough. A platform that gives users exposure to a macro-sensitive asset class also owes them the context to understand it: why a jobs report can move their portfolio, why the dollar matters, why the same headline can lift one asset and pressure another. Informed participation begins with understanding how markets connect — not simply how prices move.</div><div> </div><div>The next phase of competition in this industry is likely to be shaped less by listing speed or product breadth, and more by those who take that responsibility seriously.</div><div> </div><h2>Final Thoughts</h2><div> </div><div>Step back from Thursday's session and a larger picture comes into focus.</div><div> </div><div>Digital assets spent their first decade largely as an isolated market with its own internal logic. They are spending this decade being woven, step by step, into the global capital allocation system — alongside equities, bonds, currencies, and commodities. The days when a jobs report in Washington felt irrelevant to a crypto portfolio in Singapore or São Paulo are increasingly behind us.</div><div> </div><div>I consider that progress. An asset class that responds to the same forces as the rest of the world's capital is one that broader capital pools can begin to evaluate within diversified portfolios. The rotation we watched that day — one number, multiple markets, capital moving deliberately between them — is what integration looks like in practice.</div><div> </div><div>The market didn't disagree with the jobs report. It repriced risk. And that may be the quiet lesson of this era: markets tend to reveal their deepest changes not in the numbers themselves, but in how capital responds to them.</div><div> </div><h2>Disclaimer</h2><div> </div><div>This article represents the personal views of the author and does not constitute investment advice or financial guidance of any kind. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile and involve substantial risk of loss, including the potential loss of all invested capital. Before making any investment decision, please conduct independent research and consult a qualified, licensed financial advisor where appropriate. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Data and third-party analysis cited in this article are sourced from publicly available materials; MEXC makes no warranty regarding their accuracy or completeness.</div><div> </div><h2>About the Author</h2><div> </div><div><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Vugar Usi</strong> is the CEO of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.mexc.com" rel="noopener noreferrer">MEXC</a>, where he leads the company's global strategy, growth, and long-term vision to build a more open and inclusive digital asset ecosystem. Prior to joining MEXC, he served as Chief Operating Officer at Bitget, where he played a key role in expanding the platform's global operations and user base. With more than 15 years of experience in marketing, communications, and brand strategy, Vugar has worked with leading global brands including Carlsberg, Facebook, Coca-Cola, and Twitter. He earned a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University and served as an advisor to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on minority issues.</div></div>

Beyond Nonfarm Payrolls: What Capital Rotation Is Really Telling Us

On Thursday, July 2, the highly anticipated US Nonfarm Payrolls report arrived a day early because of the Independence Day holiday. The June Nonfarm Payrolls data showed the economy added just 57,000

<div><div style="text-align:center"><img style="max-width:100%;height:auto" src="https://multilingual.mocortech.com/cms-content-file/2026-06-18/F20260618181658821LxQiA0Zkt0QFSA" /></div><div> </div><div>Kevin Warsh's arrival as Federal Reserve Chair shouldn't be read simply through the hawk-versus-dove lens. What stands out to me is something more structural: we may be entering an era where the Fed is genuinely less willing to over-guide markets, less inclined to use its balance sheet as a permanent backstop, and more comfortable letting uncertainty do its job.</div><div> </div><div>That's a meaningful change — not just for rates, but for how risk assets are priced.</div><div> </div><h2><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Key Takeaways</strong></h2><div> </div><div>● The Warsh era may mark a structural shift in how the Fed communicates and supports markets — with significant implications for crypto valuations.</div><div>● A large portion of crypto has historically been priced on future liquidity expectations, not current fundamentals. That logic faces more pressure in a less accommodative environment.</div><div>● Falling oil prices improve the macro backdrop, but don't replace the need for asset-level conviction.</div><div>● Capital is likely to become more selective, concentrating in projects with real users and sustainable economics rather than narrative-driven assets.</div><div>● Crypto ETFs deepen crypto's integration with traditional financial markets — bringing legitimacy, but also the scrutiny that comes with it.</div><div>● For exchanges and market participants alike, liquidity structure and asset quality matter more than ever.</div><div> </div><h2>The Assumption Markets Have Been Pricing In</h2><div> </div><div>Over the past decade, a lot of capital was allocated not purely on fundamentals, but on the assumption that central banks would always lean in. Clear signals, abundant liquidity, timely support during stress — these became background assumptions that quietly inflated valuations across most asset classes. If the Warsh era erodes that assumption, markets will have to start pricing uncertainty on their own terms. Risk premiums may drift higher. Liquidity will become more selective.</div><div> </div><div>For Web3, this matters more than most people acknowledge. A significant portion of crypto has historically been priced not on what it does today, but on what it might be worth once the next liquidity cycle arrives. That logic is harder to sustain when the Fed is less committed to providing that signal in the first place.</div><div> </div><div>I'm not saying the opportunity in Web3 disappears. I think the filter just gets stricter.</div><div> </div><h2>Why Falling Oil Prices Help — But Only So Much</h2><div> </div><div>The U.S.-Iran peace agreement and falling oil prices offer a useful offset. When energy costs ease, inflation pressure tends to follow, and that generally creates more room for risk assets to breathe. It's a real positive. But it doesn't automatically translate into durable capital inflows across every corner of crypto. The environment improves; the need for asset-level conviction doesn't go away.</div><div> </div><div>What I find increasingly interesting is how these two forces interact. Easing energy inflation nudges sentiment in the right direction. But a more disciplined Fed forces assets to prove their own case rather than waiting for the tide to come in. That's not a bad thing — it's probably healthier over the long run.</div><div> </div><h2>The Projects That Will Struggle</h2><div> </div><div>In my experience, the assets that struggle most in this kind of environment are the ones that never really had to justify themselves. Projects that were variations on something already built, narratives that worked mainly because capital was cheap — these face a harder road when money actually has a cost. I suspect the market is beginning to figure that out.</div><div> </div><div>Capital tends to find its way toward projects with real users and sustainable economics. One area that may deserve closer attention is privacy infrastructure, as crypto becomes more embedded in regulated financial systems. The AI-crypto intersection remains genuinely important, but I expect the conversation will shift away from concepts and toward things that actually work.</div><div> </div><blockquote><div>"Markets don't rise because the story is compelling. They rise when real capital decides to stay."</div></blockquote><div> </div><h2>What ETFs Actually Mean for Crypto</h2><div> </div><div>Crypto ETFs reinforce this trajectory. They bring institutional access and legitimacy. They also embed crypto more deeply into global dollar liquidity — Treasury yields, institutional flows, broader risk cycles. That's not a bad thing. But it does mean accepting the discipline that comes with it. The scrutiny is part of the deal.</div><div> </div><div>Perhaps the bigger shift is this: macro is no longer just background context. Fed communication, oil prices, dollar liquidity, institutional flows — these increasingly shape whether narratives gain real traction and whether valuations can hold. You don't need to predict every central bank move. But it's worth recognizing that markets don't rise because a story is compelling; they rise when real capital decides to stay.</div><div> </div><h2>How This Changes the Role of an Exchange</h2><div> </div><div>From where I sit, this changes how I think about the responsibility of a global exchange. Speed and trend capture will always matter. But in an environment like this, how a platform thinks about liquidity structure, asset selection, and risk communication matters just as much — maybe more.</div><div> </div><blockquote><div>"You can't have the legitimacy without the scrutiny."</div></blockquote><div> </div><div>Liquidity has always been cyclical. The harder question is which assets can give it a reason to stay.</div><div> </div><h2><strong style="font-weight:bolder">About the Author</strong></h2><div> </div><div>Vugar Usi is CEO of MEXC, where he leads the company's global strategy, growth, and long-term vision to build a more open and inclusive digital asset ecosystem. Prior to joining MEXC, he served as Chief Operating Officer at Bitget, where he played a key role in expanding the platform's global operations and user base. With more than 15 years of experience in marketing, communications, and brand strategy, Vugar has worked with leading global organizations including Carlsberg, Facebook, Coca-Cola, and Twitter. He holds a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University and serves as an advisor to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on minority issues.</div><div> </div><div><strong style="font-weight:bolder">The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of MEXC. This article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice.</strong></div></div>

The Warsh Era and Fed's Structural Shift: Repricing Uncertainty

Kevin Warsh's arrival as Federal Reserve Chair shouldn't be read simply through the hawk-versus-dove lens. What stands out to me is something more structural: we may be entering an era where the Fed

<div><div style="text-align:center"><img style="max-width:100%;height:auto" src="https://multilingual.mocortech.com/cms-content-file/2026-06-17/F202606171641561673vfCPdPL0COk28" /></div><h2> </h2><h2>Opening Thoughts</h2><div> </div><div>Over the past several market cycles, I've come to believe that many of the changes that matter most are structural rather than cyclical.</div><div> </div><div>Because more often than not, what looks like a market problem is really a deeper shift in disguise.</div><div> </div><div>In my view, today's higher-rate environment is one of those shifts.</div><div> </div><div>It is not simply a temporary headwind waiting to be resolved by the next Fed pivot. It reflects a more fundamental reality: capital has a real cost again. And when that happens, the way an industry understands value, risk, and innovation must also change.</div><div> </div><div>That is what I've been reflecting on.</div><div> </div><h2>Key Takeaways</h2><div> </div><div><div>● Structurally higher global capital costs have fundamentally changed how risk assets, including crypto, must justify their valuations</div><div> </div><div>● The market is shifting from narrative-driven to capital efficiency-driven: verifiable revenue, real users, and sustainable economics are becoming the dominant filter</div><div> </div><div>● Crypto ETFs mark genuine market maturation, but entry into mainstream capital markets comes with mainstream disciplines</div><div> </div><div>● AI and crypto convergence is a legitimate long-term direction, but the market is beginning to separate real builders from narrative borrowers</div><div> </div><div>● As crypto integrates more deeply with regulated financial systems, privacy technology is taking on growing strategic importance</div><div> </div><div>● In a filtering environment, the role of exchanges is evolving from access provider to trusted educator</div></div><div> </div><h2>When Narratives Were Enough — And Why They No Longer Are</h2><div> </div><div>Looking back across several market cycles, one observation has been held consistently: every period of abundant liquidity produces a cohort of assets that survive on narrative rather than fundamentals.</div><div> </div><div>In a near-zero rate environment, that logic had internal coherence. When safe assets offer negligible returns, investors are structurally pushed toward uncertainty. A compelling vision, an unproven market opportunity — could attract real capital before any product existed, before any user had been acquired, before any revenue had been earned. The harder questions could wait for the next cycle.</div><div> </div><div>But when low-risk assets begin offering meaningful real yields, calculus shifts.</div><div> </div><div>Capital does not care whether a story is well told. Capital asks whether the risk premium here is justified relative to alternatives with greater certainty. Based on what I have observed across multiple cycles, projects with sustainable revenue, real users, and clear value propositions are attracting more durable support. Those that rely primarily on sentiment and narrative are being exposed in ways the previous liquidity environment obscured.</div><div> </div><div>This is not pessimism about crypto's future. It is what maturation looks like from the inside.</div><div> </div><h2>The Next Cycle Rewards Verification, Not Imagination</h2><div> </div><div>Across the industry, I have noticed a growing convergence of language among people who have been through multiple cycles. The phrase "show me" has replaced "tell me your vision" as the operating expectation.</div><div> </div><div>This shift is structural, not cyclical.</div><div> </div><div>In narrative-driven environments, projects could raise capital on the basis of "the next generation of infrastructure" or "a new DeFi paradigm" without presenting any operational data. That is no longer sufficient. The market's questions have become more direct: who are the users? Are they paying? Are they coming back?</div><div> </div><div>I believe a higher-rate environment may actually produce a net benefit for the industry over time. It accelerates a filtering process that was long overdue — separating projects genuinely solving real problems from those consuming liquidity without creating proportionate value. Projects that can answer the direct questions tend, in my experience, to be more durable than those that cannot.</div><div> </div><div>Innovation has not lost its place. It has simply been asked to earn it.</div><div> </div><h2>AI and Crypto: The Right Direction Requires the Right Lens</h2><div> </div><div>AI and crypto convergence is one of the long-term themes I find most structurally compelling. But it deserves a more rigorous lens than it often receives.</div><div> </div><div>Every major narrative in crypto's history has attracted two distinct types of participants: those genuinely building the infrastructure the narrative describes, and those borrowing the narrative's credibility without delivering its substance. The AI and crypto space has been no exception.</div><div> </div><div>What I find encouraging is that the market's filtering mechanism is beginning to function as it should. Some projects in this space have started producing verifiable usage and real revenue. Others remain primarily narrative-driven. That divergence is not accidental — it is the early signal of a maturing evaluation standard.</div><div> </div><div>The part of this space worth sustained attention is not the most thematically appealing. It is the part with genuine industrial demand behind it, and the operational metrics to prove it.</div><div> </div><h2>Privacy Infrastructure: A Strategic Gap Worth Watching</h2><div> </div><div>One area that deserves more attention than it currently receives is privacy technology.</div><div> </div><div>As crypto becomes more integrated with regulated financial systems, privacy infrastructure is quietly taking on greater strategic importance. This is not an abstract technical argument. It is the practical reality facing institutional capital as it enters on-chain environments, and the challenge facing regulatory frameworks attempting to reconcile transparency requirements with data sovereignty.</div><div> </div><div>In my view, functional demand in this area is beginning to outpace market awareness. For that reason, it strikes me as a direction whose strategic value may not yet be adequately reflected in how the market currently prices it. Worth watching closely.</div><div> </div><h2>Crypto ETFs: The Privilege and the Discipline of Maturity</h2><div> </div><div>The emergence of regulated crypto investment products is among the clearest signals that this industry has crossed a meaningful threshold. The broader access, institutional capital, and regulatory legitimacy they have brought represent genuine progress.</div><div> </div><div>But joining mainstream capital markets has always come with mainstream responsibilities.</div><div> </div><div>The institutional integration that ETFs represent means that crypto pricing is now embedded more deeply in the same macro framework that governs other risk assets. Central bank decisions, liquidity conditions, global risk appetite — these are no longer background variables. They are increasingly direct inputs into how crypto is priced and how capital flows through it.</div><div> </div><div>Maturity always carries obligations. I do not see this as a cost. I see it as the natural consequence of an industry that has spent years asking to be taken seriously, and is now being held to the standards that come with that.</div><div> </div><h2>A Note on the Evolving Role of Exchanges</h2><div> </div><div>I have said publicly that the true measure of success for an exchange is not how many users it has — it is whether those users genuinely trust it and choose to trade on it.</div><div> </div><div>In a period of structural industry filtering, that statement has taken on more specific meaning for me.</div><div> </div><div>In earlier cycles, exchange competition was primarily about speed and coverage — who listed faster, who offered more pairs, who had deeper liquidity. Those things still matter. But I am increasingly convinced that helping users genuinely understand market structure — where liquidity comes from, why certain risk premiums shift, how macro conditions connect to asset pricing — is as important as providing access, and in some ways more fundamental.</div><div> </div><div>The market is filtering. Retail participants' right to navigate that filtering well depends on real understanding, not just low barriers to entry.</div><div> </div><h2>Closing Thoughts</h2><div> </div><div>Across every market cycle I have observed, one question keeps returning in different forms: what is worth capital's risk?</div><div> </div><div>In a near-zero rate world, that question had an easy answer — almost anything, because not risking was itself a cost. When capital has a real cost again, the question becomes harder. And more honest.</div><div> </div><div>Higher rates will not end this industry. What they will do is clarify it — compress the premium on inefficient narratives, surface the structural weaknesses in projects without real demand, and make the innovations genuinely creating value more visible in a cleaner competitive environment.</div><div> </div><div>Narratives helped build this industry. Verification may ultimately be what allows it to mature.</div><div> </div><div>Capital is now demanding proof. And in the long run, that may be the healthiest thing that has ever happened to crypto.</div><div> </div><h2>Disclaimer</h2><div> </div><div>This article represents the personal views of the author and does not constitute investment advice or financial guidance of any kind. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile and involve substantial risk of loss, including the potential loss of all invested capital. Before making any investment decision, please conduct independent research and consult a qualified, licensed financial advisor where appropriate. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Data and third-party analysis cited in this article are sourced from publicly available materials; MEXC makes no warranty regarding their accuracy or completeness.</div><div> </div><h2>About the Author</h2><div> </div><div><strong style="font-weight:bolder">Vugar Usi</strong> is the CEO of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.mexc.com" rel="noopener noreferrer">MEXC</a>, where he leads the company's global strategy, growth, and long-term vision to build a more open and inclusive digital asset ecosystem. Prior to joining MEXC, he served as Chief Operating Officer at Bitget, where he played a key role in expanding the platform's global operations and user base from a top-20 exchange to the world's fourth-largest crypto platform. With more than 15 years of experience in marketing, communications, and brand strategy, Vugar has worked with leading global brands including Carlsberg, Facebook, Coca-Cola, and Twitter. He holds a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University and serves as an advisor to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on minority issues.</div></div>

After the Fed Meeting, Crypto Faces a New Reality: Proof Matters More Than Narratives

Opening Thoughts Over the past several market cycles, I've come to believe that many of the changes that matter most are structural rather than cyclical. Because more often than not, what looks like

注目トピック

市場インサイト

ミームコイン

ビットコイン

トークン化株式

米国株式

トークン化ゴールド

イーサリアム

ソラナ

ステーブルコイン

その他

カードやモバイル決済で売買

クイック購入/売却

現地決済、ベストプライスで取引

BRL、COP、EURなどで入金

法定通貨の入金

地元の銀行経由での売買

グローバル銀行送金

世界中で暗号資産を自由に決済

MEXC Card

暗号資産を購入

市場

暗号資産を手軽に売買

現物

暗号資産で米国主要株式を直接取引

株式

手数料0で人気トークンを即時スワップ

変換

公式上場前にいち早く参入

プレマーケット

MX限定特典をアンロック

MXゾーン

変動の中でも安定した成長

現物DCA

24時間365日、安値買い・高値売り

現物グリッド

オンチェーンの有望トークンをいち早く発見

Meme+

オンチェーン資産の発見・取引・管理のための統合ハブ

オンチェーン

USDTで決済される無期限先物

USDT-M

USDCで決済される無期限先物

USDC-M

USD1建て無期限先物

USD1-M

他の暗号資産で決済される無期限先物

Coin-M

先物資金で最大20%のAPRを獲得

先物Earn

アイデアを形にする戦略的アクション

AIストラテジー

自動取引でボラティリティを捉える

グリッド取引

熟練トレーダーをフォローするか、AIで戦略を立てよう

コピートレード × AI

リスクなしで先物取引をシミュレート

デモ取引

先物のツール、商品、機能をご覧ください

先物概要

24時間365日アクセス、最高の流動性とレバレッジ

GOLD先物

24時間365日、最高水準の流動性とレバレッジ取引へのアクセスを

OIL先物

手数料0、最高水準の流動性、柔軟なレバレッジで取引。

SILVER先物

業界最低水準の手数料と高レバレッジ

BTC先物

ETH先物

先物取引

暗号資産で高APRを獲得

MEXC Earn

資産を保有し、毎日利息を獲得

保有して獲得

残高に応じて収益、取引に応じて高APR

先物 Earn

簡単ステーキング。リアルなオンチェーン利回り

オンチェーンEarn

低金利ですぐ借り入れ

MEXCローン

最大APR 600%を獲得

$10,000のボーナスで始めよう

報酬ハブ

高報酬、手数料0

イベントセンター

友達招待で、1人につき140 USDT獲得

招待して獲得

NVDAx、TSLAx、CRCLAxなどを獲得

$100万 xStocks 祭

トップトークンを早期、または割引価格で入手

Launchpad

ZEC、DASHなどを獲得！

$20万 プライバシーフィーバー

入金して取引し、新エアドロップを獲得

Airdrop+

MXを保有して新トークンを獲得

Kickstarter

最大$5,000のMOVE、400% APR など

$100万 MOVE 祭

株式、ZECなどの人気先物を期間限定で取引しよう！

手数料0

先物取引で、毎日報酬を獲得

先物 M-Day

3重の保護で、$5,000相当のXAUTを獲得しよう

先物損失補償プラン シーズン3

手数料0で、より高い報酬を獲得

友達を招待して、40%以上のキャッシュバック

招待プログラム

トップクラスのアフィリエイトキャッシュバック、最大70%

アフィリエイトプログラム

Mスコアを資産に、10以上のエリート特典を継続強化

MEXC VVIP

MEXCを連携してTradingView上で直接取引

MEXC × TradingView

暗号資産ニュース

MEXCの最新情報をチェック

お知らせ

初心者向け暗号資産の基礎知識

学ぶ

機関投資家向けソリューション

MEXC機関

米鉱工業生産プレビュー：FRB利上げ後も製造業の底堅さは続くか？

概要について グローバル金融市場は、2026年9月の第3金曜日にトリプルウィッチングを迎えることで、年間で最も変動の激しいデリバティブ決済イベントの1つに向かって収束しています。この単一の取引日には、株式オプション、株価指数先物、株価指数オプションの契約が同時に期限切れになります。標準的な月次期限切れとは異なり、2026年9月の四半期サイクルは、メガキャップテクノロジー構成要素の主要な評価再評価、

2026年9月「トリプル・ウィッチング」到来：オプション満期で市場のボラティリティ急上昇か

概要 生成されたAIインフラストラクチャへの投資が、単純なチップラッシュの段階からキャピタルリターンとバランスシートの健全性に焦点を当てた成熟期に移行するにつれて、プロのAIクラウドベンダーの株価動向と評価システムは急激に分かれています。Nasdaqで取引されているNebiusの株価は最近、上向きのブレイクアウトの勢いが強いことを示していますが、新しいクラウドコンピューティング能力のベンチマークと

なぜNebius株は急騰しCoreWeaveは失速するのか？AIクラウドの価格決定力と資金調達リスク

概要 暗号通貨業界のインフラの急速な反復と競争が激化するにつれて、取引所が独立した公共チェーンを構築する黄金時代は加速的に幕を閉じている。CoinEx傘下のイーサリアム仮想マシンと互換性のある分散化公共チェーンとして、CoinEx Smart Chainは正式にネットワーク終了実行プログラムを起動し、関連検証ノード、公共RPCインタフェースと公式クロスチェーンブリッジサービスはすべて停止したタイマ

CoinEx Smart Chain（CSC）がサービス終了へ：CET保有者とユーザーが知るべき注意点

概要 デジタル資産業界の発展の過程で、中央化取引プラットフォームのコンプライアンスリスクと返済能力は常に市場参加者が取引相手のリスクを評価する核心的な次元である。プラットフォームのネイティブトークンは通常、取引所の営業収入、手数料減免、買戻し破棄メカニズムを深く結び付けているため、取引所が業務停止や清算プロセスに直面すると、関連トークンの内在的な支持論理は破壊的な挑戦に直面する。CoinExは現在

CoinExがサービス終了｜取引所トークンCETはどうなる？買い戻し価格と出金期限を徹底解説

暗号資産パルス

必読

米鉱工業生産プレビュー：FRB利上げ後も製造業の底堅さは続くか？

2026年9月「トリプル・ウィッチング」到来：オプション満期で市場のボラティリティ急上昇か

なぜNebius株は急騰しCoreWeaveは失速するのか？AIクラウドの価格決定力と資金調達リスク

CoinEx Smart Chain（CSC）がサービス終了へ：CET保有者とユーザーが知るべき注意点

CoinExがサービス終了｜取引所トークンCETはどうなる？買い戻し価格と出金期限を徹底解説