TL;DR: Solana DvP offers an open-source route to atomic securities settlement, with JPMorgan providing input on institutional requirements.
When a security and the money paying for it move in separate steps, one party can be exposed while waiting for the other. Solana’s newly announced delivery-versus-payment programme is designed to make those two movements part of one atomic blockchain transaction.
Released by the Solana Foundation on October 6 under the MIT licence, the tool offers isolated escrow, time limits and support for SPL Token and Token-2022 assets. It aims to provide a reusable standard for banks and other institutions rather than forcing each project to build a bespoke settlement contract.
JPMorgan provided feedback on settlement practices. That should not be described as the bank operating, certifying or guaranteeing the software: the Foundation’s own disclaimer explicitly limits the nature of its involvement. The programme has undergone external security reviews, while broader production adoption and planned privacy features remain matters for future implementation.
The opportunity is significant for tokenised securities, where the time between asset delivery and payment can create capital and counterparty costs. Whether the open-source model wins institutions over will depend on legal finality, custody integrations and how errors are handled beyond the smart contract. Fast code alone cannot replace the rest of settlement infrastructure.
More from NewsBTC: Cryptocurrency news · Ethereum coverage · Crypto research and categories
TL;DR: Samsung’s planned USDC remittance feature is due to begin rolling out to eligible US Galaxy users in the final week of October.
Solana’s next payments test will happen on an interface ordinary smartphone owners already recognise. Samsung and the Solana Foundation announced that Samsung Wallet would add cross-border USDC transfers, with availability scheduled to begin during the final week of October 2026.
The feature is intended for Samsung Wallet on 82 million US Galaxy devices, according to the announcement. Users would see a familiar wallet experience, with fiat on- and off-ramps handling conversion to and from local money. Solana would provide underlying blockchain infrastructure rather than requiring every customer to understand network fees or token addresses.
That headline device figure is potential reach, not a count of active stablecoin users or completed remittances. Availability can depend on the rollout, region and supporting payment services. With the launch window now arriving, the useful questions shift to completion rates, fees, payout speed and whether customers can resolve failed transfers.
For SOL observers, the development supports a real-world application narrative, but it is not proof of a corresponding increase in token demand. A successful payments product is measured by repeat transfers and satisfactory consumer outcomes. This rollout finally offers a setting in which those measures could become visible.
More from NewsBTC: Cryptocurrency news · Ethereum coverage · Crypto research and categories
TL;DR: Solana’s October 16 changelog confirms Web3.js v3.1 alongside validator-client releases and developer tooling updates.
A major blockchain upgrade attracts the headlines, but everyday development friction can hold back adoption just as effectively. Solana’s October 16 changelog confirms the arrival of Web3.js v3.1, an update intended to work more closely with the growing set of tools used to build applications on the network.
The release improves interoperability with Solana Kit, Wallet Adapter, Surfpool, Anchor, Codama and SPL interfaces. For application teams, the attraction is not a promised jump in token prices; it is having fewer incompatible pieces between wallet interaction, transaction construction and local testing.
The same changelog lists Agave and Firedancer releases, updates to testing libraries and discussion of validator performance. It also describes proposals around computation limits and post-Alpenglow improvements. Those proposals should not be mistaken for features that have already been deployed. In particular, release numbers and discussion notes describe several distinct stages of the protocol’s engineering pipeline.
Developer experience rarely translates into an immediate market catalyst. It can, however, change the cost of shipping a working financial product. As Solana asks builders to support more complicated payments and tokenised assets, a stable, interoperable JavaScript library is part of the infrastructure that makes those use cases realistic.
More from NewsBTC: Cryptocurrency news · Ethereum coverage · Crypto research and categories
TL;DR: Research into a geo-aware leader schedule suggests quicker validator handovers, but also warns that grouping leaders by location introduces security trade-offs.
Solana’s push for lower latency is moving beyond shorter slots. A new study of SIMD-0675 considers rearranging its validator leader schedule so that consecutive leaders are more likely to be geographically close, reducing the time it takes information to travel between them.
This is not a proposal to give particular validators more production slots. The researchers keep each validator’s allocation unchanged and instead reconsider the order in which those windows occur. Their analysis uses 6,250 synthetic networks based on the chain’s existing 124 validator locations.
The appealing result is a reduction in average handover delay, around 29 milliseconds in one highlighted configuration. But grouping leaders by proximity can leave the schedule concentrated in one region for longer. Because validator locations are declared, it also creates an incentive to misreport geography. The study weighs these costs against the milliseconds saved and identifies a relatively modest grouping range as a potential compromise.
The work remains research, not evidence that this scheduling system has been activated on mainnet. It shows how scaling decisions get harder as a network becomes faster: shaving milliseconds is useful, but only if the randomness and geographical distribution that help preserve resilience are not quietly sacrificed.
More from NewsBTC: Cryptocurrency news · Ethereum coverage · Crypto research and categories
Reflect’s Create launch, promoted by Solana on October 22, offers a fast route to issuing a branded yield-bearing token. The interface can simplify issuance, but the economics still come from the collateral behind the token and the way its interest is shared.
TL;DRSolana’s launch post points to Create’s availability. Reflect’s product documentation describes a single-transaction issuance flow using approved, freely transferable collateral. A project can issue a branded dollar product or a token representing a basket of assets.
The design also lets an issuer retain a share of generated interest. That share is a division of the underlying income stream, not an additional source of income. If the collateral produces less, there is less to divide between the issuer and holders.
This matters because a familiar brand can make an unfamiliar financial claim feel simple. A user may recognize an application’s name without understanding the lending markets, asset issuers or contracts that ultimately determine the token’s value.
Reflect’s FAQ explicitly distinguishes a yield-bearing stablecoin wrapper from the stablecoin it contains. It says the wrapped position adds the risks of the lending markets receiving the reserves. That qualification belongs beside the product’s convenience claims.
It is the same underlying-versus-wrapper distinction seen in tokenized equities: the token’s appearance cannot explain all the rights and dependencies behind it.
Reflect says its issuance system connects to Jupiter and Titan routing, allowing minting and redemption to form part of a swap route. The operational aim is to avoid requiring a separate liquidity pool for every branded token.
That can reduce a distribution obstacle. It does not make every collateral position equally liquid or establish that every redemption can be completed at a value a holder expects. The quality of the backing assets remains central to what the wrapper can deliver.
The documentation also warns that a basket can contain correlated risks. Several assets exposed to the same issuer, market or failure mode may provide less diversification than their separate names suggest.
Changes in exchange routing illustrate how infrastructure can improve access to liquidity. They do not settle the separate question of what an asset is worth.
Similarly, tokenized-deposit products need to be read through their legal and economic structure, even when the user experience resembles a digital dollar balance.
Create lowers the technical work involved in launching a token. For holders, the durable questions remain concrete: what backs it, where the interest originates, how much the issuer keeps and what happens when the collateral underperforms.
Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
TL;DR: Anza says Alpenglow activated on Solana mainnet-beta on October 21. The consensus change targets roughly 150-millisecond finality; further networking and post-quantum improvements remain planned work.
Solana has replaced the consensus protocol it used from launch, bringing a long-discussed change in transaction finality onto the live network.
Core engineering firm Anza announced the Alpenglow activation at slot 459,653,000, around 14:00 UTC on Wednesday. According to the company, validators retired TowerBFT during the transition without moving activity to a separate chain.
Anza describes the design as reducing the path to finality from approximately 12.8 seconds to around 150 milliseconds. That is the developer’s stated performance target, not a network-wide latency measurement independently reproduced for this article.
Finality concerns when a transaction can be treated as irreversible under the network’s consensus rules. It is different from the moment a wallet displays a transaction or an application gives a user an initial confirmation.
That difference is particularly relevant to payments and trading. An interface can appear responsive before the recipient is willing to treat the transfer as settled. Shortening that second interval can reduce the period in which an exchange, merchant or application waits before acting on a payment.
It does not make every application instant. Wallet signing, internet connections, transaction inclusion and the application’s own checks still contribute to the time a user experiences. Nor does a lower finality target, by itself, establish higher transaction throughput.
Anza lists Rotor, geographically aware leader rotation and the post-quantum research design Quantumglow as further developments, with no committed release dates in the announcement.
Their inclusion should not blur the scope of Wednesday’s event. Alpenglow’s activation is the completed milestone being reported; the additional work describes where the engineering team wants to take the system next.
For applications built on Solana, the practical question now is how the new consensus behaves under real traffic and varying network conditions. Operational evidence will determine how closely users’ settlement experience matches the design’s headline speed.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
TL;DR: DefiLlama’s chain-revenue figures put Tron at roughly $23.4 million over 30 days, ahead of Ethereum and Solana combined on that specific measure.
A look at blockchain fee revenue offers a different picture of the market from token prices and headline transaction counts. In DefiLlama’s latest 30-day chain figures, Tron recorded approximately $23.4 million, compared with around $6.3 million for Ethereum and $3.4 million for Solana in the same category.
That is a substantial gap, but the category needs explaining. The dashboard’s figures reflect its defined chain-revenue methodology, including TRX fees burned on Tron. They are not a comprehensive comparison of every dollar earned by applications, validators or infrastructure providers across the three ecosystems.
Tron’s position is closely tied to stablecoin usage, particularly USDT. The network has become an important route for moving dollar-denominated tokens, especially in markets where transfer costs and familiarity matter more than the latest DeFi application.
Revenue can tell us something about how much economic activity a network captures, though it does not measure decentralisation, developer adoption or the long-term value of a token. Fee policy also differs considerably between chains.
That’s why the comparison is worth watching rather than turning into a sweeping conclusion about which blockchain has won. A network can generate more revenue in one category while its rivals lead on liquidity, application activity or other measures.
As with all live dashboards, the figures will continue moving after publication.
Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
TL;DR: DefiLlama’s chain-revenue figures put Tron at roughly $23.4 million over 30 days, ahead of Ethereum and Solana combined on that specific measure.
A look at blockchain fee revenue offers a different picture of the market from token prices and headline transaction counts. In DefiLlama’s latest 30-day chain figures, Tron recorded approximately $23.4 million, compared with around $6.3 million for Ethereum and $3.4 million for Solana in the same category.
That is a substantial gap, but the category needs explaining. The dashboard’s figures reflect its defined chain-revenue methodology, including TRX fees burned on Tron. They are not a comprehensive comparison of every dollar earned by applications, validators or infrastructure providers across the three ecosystems.
Tron’s position is closely tied to stablecoin usage, particularly USDT. The network has become an important route for moving dollar-denominated tokens, especially in markets where transfer costs and familiarity matter more than the latest DeFi application.
Revenue can tell us something about how much economic activity a network captures, though it does not measure decentralisation, developer adoption or the long-term value of a token. Fee policy also differs considerably between chains.
That’s why the comparison is worth watching rather than turning into a sweeping conclusion about which blockchain has won. A network can generate more revenue in one category while its rivals lead on liquidity, application activity or other measures.
As with all live dashboards, the figures will continue moving after publication.
Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
TL;DR: Solana is approaching its planned Alpenglow consensus upgrade, which targets transaction finality of roughly 150 milliseconds — a goal, not a guarantee of live-network performance.
Solana’s next big technical change is scheduled for October 21. Alpenglow would replace the network’s existing consensus approach with a redesigned system intended to make transactions final far more quickly.
The advertised target is about 150 milliseconds, compared with the multi-second finality associated with the current design. That’s a striking number, but it should be treated as an engineering objective. The real test comes when validators run the software under actual mainnet conditions.
Alpenglow also changes the mechanics of voting. It is designed to move much of the validator-vote overhead away from ordinary user transactions, meaning some headline transaction-count metrics could change even when economic activity does not.
That distinction matters for anyone trying to judge blockchain performance from a dashboard. A lower count of recorded transactions after a consensus migration could reflect different accounting rather than fewer users.
The underlying code has been developed by Anza and tested through a public security-review process, with a dedicated bug bounty competition earlier this year. Validators face the practical work of adopting compatible software and managing a major network transition.
For Solana users, the promise is a faster confirmation experience. For developers and node operators, the immediate priority is a stable changeover. Faster settlement is valuable only if the network remains dependable while delivering it.
Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
TL;DR: SkyAI says it has sold all its SOL and started a cash tender offer that could cost roughly $201.3 million if fully subscribed.
SkyAI’s experiment as a Solana treasury company has taken a dramatic turn. Rather than simply holding through market volatility, the Nasdaq-listed firm says it has sold its entire SOL position and is offering to buy back as much as 95% of certain outstanding shares and warrants.
An October 19 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission puts the proposed cash purchase price at $3 per share or warrant. If everyone eligible tenders the maximum amount, the purchase would total approximately $201.3 million.
The company disclosed $223.8 million in cash as of October 16 and confirmed that its Solana sales were complete by that point. Consequently, the tender offer is no longer conditional on the price of SOL — a material change from an earlier version of the plan.
The decision is noteworthy because many listed cryptocurrency treasury companies have spent recent months explaining why they intend to keep accumulating tokens. SkyAI is moving in the opposite direction and returning cash to investors through an offer whose terms are defined in its SEC documents.
Shareholders still have choices to make. The tender is scheduled to expire on October 29 unless it is extended or terminated earlier, and the offer remains subject to its stated conditions.
SkyAI’s move is not a verdict on Solana’s technology. It is a reminder that the capital structures wrapped around crypto holdings can change much faster than the networks underneath them.
Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
TL;DR: Research attributed to Castle Labs puts Solana’s real-world asset market at about $4.3 billion, versus $700 million a year earlier. Ethereum remains substantially larger, but the gap has narrowed sharply.
Solana’s next growth story may have less to do with meme coins and more to do with assets that already exist in the traditional financial system.
According to a recent Castle Labs assessment of the ecosystem, the value of real-world assets represented on Solana rose from approximately $700 million to $4.3 billion over twelve months. That is more than a sixfold increase in the market’s size, although it should not be confused with a 600% mathematical gain: the increase from those rounded figures is about 514%.
The comparison with Ethereum is revealing. The same report put Ethereum’s tokenized asset value at roughly $16.6 billion, against $15.5 billion a year earlier. Ethereum remains almost four times Solana’s size by this measure, but Solana’s total now equals about 26% of Ethereum’s, up from approximately 4.5%.
The category includes assets such as tokenized securities, credit and yield-bearing instruments, rather than a single kind of token. The figures can shift as new products are issued, underlying market values move and data providers change how they categorize assets.
It is tempting to treat the increase as a direct forecast for SOL’s price, but that leap would be unjustified. Tokenization can grow without every dollar of additional asset value translating neatly into demand for a network’s native token.
The more useful conclusion is that Solana is becoming a meaningful venue for financial instruments beyond cryptocurrencies themselves. Whether it can close more of the gap with Ethereum will depend on issuers, liquidity and the quality of the applications built around those assets.
TL;DR: Stock-linked tokens deployed in DeFi reached an estimated $262.4 million across blockchains at the end of September, up nearly 18-fold from the start of 2026. Base accounted for about $16 million, not the entire total.
Tokenized stocks are starting to do more than sit in digital wallets. A September 30 snapshot put approximately $262.4 million of stock-linked assets into decentralized finance applications across multiple blockchains, compared with around $14.66 million at the beginning of the year.
The figures describe assets being used in DeFi, not the total value of all tokenized equities outstanding. That distinction is important as the category grows more complicated, with different issuers, networks and financial rights behind products that can look similar on a trading screen.
Solana accounted for about $95.9 million of the DeFi amount in the tracked figures, while Robinhood Chain held approximately $79.9 million. Base’s reported portion was closer to $16 million. The growth story, in other words, is spread across several networks rather than belonging exclusively to one exchange or Layer 2.
Once stock-linked tokens can be exchanged in automated markets or pledged as collateral, investors gain new ways to put positions to work. The trade-off is exposure to protocol risks and liquidity conditions that do not exist in the same form in an ordinary brokerage account.
It is also important not to assume that every token represents direct legal ownership of an underlying share. Rights, redemption mechanisms and eligibility rules vary by issuer.
The $262 million figure is still small beside conventional equity markets. But its significance lies in what those assets are being used for: programmable financial activity, not simply a blockchain-branded way to hold a stock.
Login