A critical vulnerability in the Linux kernel, identified as CVE-2026-64600 and referred to as RefluXFS. This vulnerability enables an unprivileged local user to gain root access on systems that utilize reflink-enabled XFS filesystems. The flaw resides in the XFS copy-on-write path and has reportedly existed since the release of Linux kernel version 4.1 in 2017. […]
The House intel bill would establish an IC chief AI officer, illuminate how agencies fund open-source intelligence, give the IC IG new authorities and more.
The appropriately and bluntly named "Xbox Backward Compatibility on PC" program kicks off today with compatibility for BLiNX: The Time Sweeper, Conker: Live and Reloaded, Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge, and Fuzion Frenzy. PC players can download each title for $10, but those with Xbox Game Pass subscriptions or existing digital licenses for these games on console will have instant access without an additional purchase (no such luck if you simply stick an original Xbox disc in your PC drive, alas).
Playing these older Xbox titles on PC enables some bonus graphical features like Vsync support, anisotropic filtering, enhanced anti-aliasing, and up to 4x resolution scaling of the original SD signal (to 2560x1920). Games are limited to their original frame rates and aspect ratios, though, which means a 30 fps 4:3 image in most cases. Microsoft says this first batch of games should be playable with 11-year-old GTX 950 graphics hardware, but recommends a 2017-era GTX 1070 Ti with 8GB of VRAM for best performance.
Car enthusiasts want to know how quickly they can make a quarter mile. Weightlifters are forever trying to add one more plate to the bar. Internet denizens have their own favorite number to brag about: the result from a speed test.
The ritual is familiar. Close a few browser tabs, click the big “Go” button, and watch the needle climb. Perhaps you pay for gigabit service and see 940 megabits per second, which produces a satisfied nod. Perhaps you see 299 megabits and begin obsessing over network hardware. But before you get too excited either way, try another test. There is a fair chance it will give you a different answer.
That does not necessarily mean one test is lying. “Internet speed” is not a single physical quantity waiting to be measured. A speed test measures the performance of a particular device, over a particular local connection, through a particular ISP route, to a particular server, at a particular time using a particular test method. Change any of those things and the answer can change too.
The Usual Suspects
Ookla on a WiFi connection to a 1Gbit Ethernet network. The limiting factor is the 802.11s WiFi link between the computer’s Ethernet port and the router’s.
Speedtest by Ookla is probably the best-known test. It selects a nearby server, although you can choose another. It attempts to saturate the connection with multiple simultaneous transfers. That makes it good at answering the question most consumers are asking: approximately how much aggregate bandwidth can this Internet connection deliver?
Running several connections matters. A single TCP connection must gradually increase its sending rate while reacting to round-trip time, packet loss, receive-window limits, and congestion-control behavior. On a high-bandwidth or high-latency path, one connection may not fill the available pipe. Several parallel connections can ramp up independently and make it easier to reach the link’s aggregate capacity. That number is valid, but it represents something like a busy household, a large segmented download, or several applications operating at once. It does not necessarily predict the speed of one file transfer from one distant server.
Google’s built-in search speed test (search “speed test”) uses Measurement Lab’s Network Diagnostic Tool, or NDT. M-Lab describes NDT as a single-stream measurement of bulk-transport capacity. That makes it an interesting counterpoint to Ookla. A single flow may expose latency, loss, or TCP-window limitations that a multi-stream test can partially conceal. You can also use M-Lab’s own speed test directly.
While you may get similar numbers between the two approaches, you also may not get similar numbers, especially on high-latency connections where Ookla’s multiple streams will help hide latency.
Netflix’s Fast.com is deliberately simple. Open the page, and it immediately begins transferring data from Netflix infrastructure. By default it emphasizes download performance, since its original purpose was to answer a practical question: can this connection deliver Netflix video properly? Selecting “Show more info” adds upload speed and both unloaded and loaded latency.
Fast is barebones and measures speed to Netflix.
The use of Netflix servers is significant. Fast.com measures the route between you and Netflix’s content-delivery network, while Ookla may test against a server operated by your ISP only a few network hops away. A superb Ookla result and a poor Fast.com result do not prove deliberate throttling, but they do tell you that the destinations — or the routes to them — are behaving differently.
Cloudflare offers two related tests. Its Radar Network Quality Test provides a quick summary, while speed.cloudflare.com gives an extremely detailed breakdown. The latter reports download and upload throughput, idle and loaded latency, jitter, packet loss, server location, and application-oriented quality estimates.
Cloudflare provides a wealth of stats and graphs.
Loaded latency is especially useful. An otherwise fast connection can become miserable when a large upload or download fills an oversized queue in the modem or router. Your idle ping might be 12 milliseconds, but under load it may jump to several hundred milliseconds. That is the classic symptom usually called bufferbloat.
If you want more options, there is testmy.net, which allows you to test upload and download speeds separately, and speedof.me, which keeps a history for you, among others. It isn’t always obvious which ones are measuring a single connection vs multiple ones, so you may have to dig through whatever documentation you can find.
Your WiFi Is Part of the Test
A browser speed test cannot automatically tell you what’s hurting your speed. A laptop connected through marginal WiFi may report 180 megabits per second even though the router has a flawless gigabit Internet connection.
In fact, once incoming Internet service reaches several hundred megabits per second, WiFi is frequently the limiting factor. The link rate displayed by the operating system is not the same thing as usable throughput. Wireless protocols have framing overhead, acknowledgments, contention, retransmissions, and half-duplex operation. The advertised 866, 1200, or 2400 megabit link rate is therefore not a promise that application data will move at that rate.
The numbers printed on WiFi boxes add another layer of optimism. A router sold as “AC1800,” for example, does not provide an 1800-megabit connection to one device. The figure is normally the sum of the maximum advertised PHY rates on separate radios — perhaps 1300 Mb/s on 5 GHz plus 450 Mb/s on 2.4 GHz — with some rounding for marketing. A conventional WiFi client connects to one band at a time, so it cannot combine those rates. The total is better understood as the router’s theoretical aggregate capacity while serving multiple devices across both bands. Even then, protocol overhead, contention, signal quality, and client limitations make actual data throughput considerably lower. Newer WiFi 7 equipment can sometimes combine links using Multi-Link Operation, but that exception does not make the old ACxxxx arithmetic any less misleading.
WiFi also uses shared airtime. Devices on the same channel — including neighboring access points that can hear one another — must contend for opportunities to transmit. A slow or distant client takes longer to send a given amount of data and can consume disproportionate airtime while doing so. Modern access points may provide airtime fairness and other mitigations. One old device does not invariably drag every client down to its rate, but it can still reduce the capacity available to the rest of the network. Interference has a similar effect. A weak signal, a crowded channel, microwave noise, or an overlapping neighboring network causes frames to be delayed or retransmitted. Those retries consume airtime without delivering additional data.
Repeaters and wireless mesh backhaul add another complication. A simple same-channel repeater must receive each packet and then transmit it again over the same shared medium. In the worst case, each repeated hop can roughly halve the available throughput. Modern tri-band mesh systems can avoid much of that penalty by using a dedicated backhaul radio, and Ethernet backhaul avoids it almost entirely.
This means it is entirely reasonable to buy gigabit Internet service and obtain only 300 or 500 megabits per second from a WiFi laptop. Whether that represents a problem depends on the client, radio band, channel width, signal level, backhaul, and local RF environment.
For a meaningful ISP test, begin with a computer connected directly to the router by Ethernet. Stop large transfers and temporarily disable any VPN. Record the chosen server, latency, upload speed, and download speed rather than preserving only the most flattering number. Then run the same tests over WiFi. The difference is an approximate measurement of what the wireless portion of the network is costing you.
Remove the Internet From the Experiment
OpenSpeedTest running on an OpenWRT node.
Better still, remove the ISP from the test completely. OpenSpeedTest is a self-hostable, browser-based test. Run its server on a wired computer, NAS, or container, then visit it from laptops, phones, and tablets around the house. Because the traffic remains on your LAN, a slow result points toward WiFi, switching, cabling, or the client rather than the Internet connection.
It is possible to run this on the uhttpd server used with OpenWRT, although you’ll need to coax it to measure upload speeds since the server can’t handle the default method. The trick is to create a CGI script that accepts a large amount of data successfully and then configure uhttpd to run that.
A browser-based local test is convenient, but for serious diagnosis it is hard to beat iperf3, the client/server tool we recently used while testing mesh routers. On one machine (say, 192.168.1.100), start the server:
iperf3 -s
From another machine, run:
iperf3 -c 192.168.1.100
By default, iperf3 uses one TCP connection. Add -P 4 to try four parallel streams, or -R to reverse the direction so that the server sends and the client receives. Those variations can tell you something. If four streams are much faster than one, the network may have enough aggregate capacity but a single TCP flow is being limited by latency, loss, window growth, CPU performance, or offload behavior. If the reverse test is much faster, examine the weaker machine’s transmit path, drivers, antennas, or CPU.
iperf3 can also generate UDP traffic at a specified rate and report packet loss and jitter. That is often more informative for evaluating a wireless link than merely chasing the largest TCP number.
Can Linux Make It Faster?
Linux offers an impressive array of network tuning knobs, which naturally tempts us to turn them. But first, you need to understand what needs tweaking.
Check the negotiated Ethernet rate and interface counters:
ethtool eth0
ip -s link show eth0
A gigabit adapter that has negotiated 100 megabits per second usually has a cabling, connector, or switch-port problem. Increasing TCP buffers will not repair it. Rising interface errors and drops point toward a physical, driver, or congestion problem. TCP retransmits (view with ss -ti) may indicate loss elsewhere on the path.
You can inspect the active queue discipline with:
tc qdisc show
Linux supports queue disciplines such as fq_codel, which combines per-flow queueing with active queue management. It attempts to prevent one large transfer from building an enormous queue and delaying unrelated interactive packets. The kernel documentation specifically lists fq_codel as a sensible queue discipline that works without extensive configuration.
It can be selected as the default for newly created interfaces with:
sudo sysctl -w net.core.default_qdisc=fq_codel
That may improve queueing on traffic leaving the Linux machine. It does not, however, fix a large queue in the cable modem or Internet router. Queue management must be applied at the bottleneck. If the ISP link is limited to 20 megabits upstream, controlling a queue on a gigabit Ethernet interface after it has already handed packets to the router is too late.
For a home connection, the most effective bufferbloat treatment is usually Smart Queue Management on the router. OpenWrt’s SQM system supports both fq_codel and CAKE. CAKE generally provides better performance. However, fq_codel requires less CPU overhead.
High-latency paths introduce a different problem. TCP must keep enough data in flight to fill the bandwidth-delay product. Modern Linux generally autotunes TCP buffers, so the old advice to assign enormous fixed values to tcp_rmem and tcp_wmem is less universally useful than it once was. Before changing them, use ss -ti during a transfer and look for retransmissions, round-trip time, congestion-window size, and whether the receiver window is actually limiting the connection.
Linux also supports selectable TCP congestion-control algorithms:
Algorithms such as BBR can improve throughput and queue behavior on some long-distance or lossy paths. But changing the algorithm affects connections sent by that Linux machine; it does not control the remote speed-test server, repair poor WiFi, or eliminate a queue in the router. Congestion-control tuning is therefore a useful experiment for a server, VPN endpoint, or long-haul transfer machine — not a universal solution to slow networking.
Finally, inspect hardware offload features when a Linux system cannot keep up with a fast LAN:
The lesson here is that there is no universally correct speed-test result. Ookla tests how effectively multiple transfers can fill a route to one of its servers. M-Lab examines a single bulk flow. Fast.com tests the path to Netflix. Cloudflare pays unusual attention to latency under load and overall connection quality. OpenSpeedTest and iperf3 can determine whether the Internet connection is even the problem.
Run enough tests, and you will eventually obtain a number worth bragging about. Run the right tests, though, and you may find ways to truly increase real-world performance. If you want to chase that extra 1 kbit per second speed, be our guest — we know how it is. But the truth is that if the Internet is doing what you want it to do, then it is fast enough.
Microsoft has announced Xbox Backward Compatibility for PC, a new preservation program that will let players run select classic Xbox games on Windows PCs and handhelds like the ROG Xbox Ally. Tom's Hardware reports: "This marks the beginning of a broader effort to preserve XBOX games from the past and bring them to PC over time," the company said in a blog post authored by Xbox "VP next generation" Jason Ronald. Alongside backward compatibility, the company says games will also include new features. The four titles in the announcement are: BLiNX: The Time Sweeper; Conker: Live and Reloaded; Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge; and Fuzion Frenzy.
You can now buy all of these games on PC, and they're also included in all Xbox Game Pass plans. Anyone who already owns these titles digitally on console can also now play them on PC or handheld, with support for Xbox Play Anywhere and Xbox Cloud Gaming. Crucially, this appears to be a digital-only preservation effort, so it won't help anyone who only owns physical copies of these games. Xbox has reportedly been testing a way to digitize physical games as far back as Xbox One, but that hasn't yet materialized yet.
Alongside the preserved original gameplay, Xbox claims these games will let users customize graphics settings, with up to 4x resolution scaling, VSync support, Fullscreen and Windowed modes, anisotropic filtering, and enhanced anti-aliasing, with more features to come in the future. Notably, Xbox will add achievements to select original Xbox games on console and PC.
Nearly 20 years ago (!), in 2007, I published my first and only book: Microsoft 2.0. It focused on changes I expected at the company in the “Post-Gates” era. What would remain the same and what likely would be different once co-founder and CEO Bill Gates had left the building?
CEO Satya Nadella has not exited the company (yet). But there’s no question that Microsoft and its mission have morphed considerably in the past year or two. I’m not quite ready to christen this the Microsoft 3.0 era, even though Nadella handed the reins of Microsoft’s dominant commercial business to Judson Althoff nearly a year ago.
That decision resulted in Nadella moving into more of a “founder mode” role, allowing him to focus less on the day-to-day work of running the business. (Microsoft historians may recall that Gates made a somewhat similar move back in 2000 when he became Microsoft’s chief software architect.)
While it might not yet be time for Microsoft 3.0, we arguably could be in the “Microsoft 2.5” era. Windows and Office are still around and still play a big role. Microsoft still builds and sells developer tools and databases. But there’s no question that the cloud and all things AI are at the top of the pecking order now.
I’m embarking on a series here at GeekWire that will focus on what matters to Microsoft and, by extension, to its customers, partners, investors, and employees these days. Who are some of the people shaping and leading the company? What are their opportunities and challenges right now?
Over the next few weeks, I will be profiling various Microsoft execs working on plans for Microsoft’s ongoing evolution. Some are company veterans; some are newcomers. I’ll be talking with top execs from Microsoft’s Security, Copilot, Windows + Devices, Xbox, GitHub, and more.
I’m interested in their strategies for Microsoft’s key products and technologies and how they plan to try to turn Microsoft’s ambitious vision into reality. What are their teams building? What do they see as their biggest challenges and opportunities? And where do they see the technologies in their respective areas heading?
I feel like many of us who’ve been keeping track of the biggest tech companies (myself included) have fallen into the trap of blaming or attributing everything a company does to AI. Layoffs? AI is the culprit. Price increases? It’s all thanks to AI. Changing sales strategies? Chalk it up to AI …
But upon further reflection, I believe Microsoft’s strategy is more nuanced than “AI or bust.” There’s no question that Microsoft’s AI ambitions are shaping its goals and tactics. But Microsoft, as a heavily enterprise-focused entity, can’t simply stop supporting products that aren’t built from the ground up with AI (as much as it might like to do so). Nor can it just leave behind customers who aren’t 100% onboard with its AI moves.
Couple those enterprise hurdles with some not-so-popular consumer decisions, like axing 3,200 people in the gaming unit, and Microsoft’s approach to turning the ship looks a lot trickier.
Our Microsoft 2.5 series kicks off Thursday. Stay tuned.
Microsoft launched Xbox Backward Compatibility on PC, bringing four classic original Xbox games to Windows and handhelds for the first time, complete with upscaling, VSync, and achievements coming later this year.
In a recent post, I mentioned that I wanted to build some tools for a stripped-down Linux running on a 3D printer with a MIPS CPU. I had two options: build a toolchain to cross-compile, or use Zig, which, in theory, has built-in toolchains for MIPS. I had to jump through hoops to get Zig to work, and I did mention Crosstool-Ng, so you might wonder why I didn’t start there. Turns out, it had its own set of hoops to work through.
What is Crosstool-Ng?
Crosstool-NG is a build system for making cross-compilation toolchains: compilers, assemblers, linkers, C libraries, kernel headers, and all the other pieces needed to build software on one machine that will run on a different kind of machine. Instead of manually matching a particular GCC version with the right binutils, glibc, or musl release, Linux headers, patches, and configuration options, you select the target architecture and let Crosstool-NG download, patch, configure, and build the stack. The result is a self-contained toolchain with commands such as mipsel-linux-musl-gcc or arm-none-eabi-gcc, ready to produce binaries for the target system.
Stock? Zig? Crosstool-Ng? No way to tell from this picture.
The four-part name is in a particular format that is often used in the cross compiling world. For example, consider arm-none-eabi-gcc. The tool here is gcc and, as you might expect, there will also be arm-none-eabi-as and arm-none-eabi-ld, among other things. The first part, arm in this case, will be the target architecture.
The second part of the name can mean a few different things. In theory, it is a vendor name but it is sometimes “none” which often means “generic” or, in the case of a linux target, “linux,” which isn’t technically a vendor.
The third part is the calling convention and, often, some idea of the library. For example, arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc would mean the GNU library using the ARM EABI and hardware floating point. These are sometimes called “target triples” because, historically, it was CPU-VENDOR-OS, but now there are usually four or even five parts if the calling convention includes the OS, like linux-musl, for example.
That sounds simple, but cross-toolchains are unusually sensitive to version combinations and ABI details. Endianness, floating-point conventions, instruction-set variants, threading support, and C library choices all have to agree. So saying “Arm” or “MIPS” doesn’t mean much. You need to account for all the possible variations in the CPU and the libraries. Crosstool-NG does not eliminate those decisions, but it turns them into a reproducible configuration rather than a long sequence of hand-built components. I had two problems that I eventually resolved.
Problem One: Versions
One nice thing about Crosstool-Ng is that it pulls the right versions of everything for you. The problem is, when you install it from your system repositories, you are probably getting a crazy old version of the tool itself. I couldn’t find the right entries in the configuration when I did that, so I eventually uninstalled and picked up the latest version right from the source.
If that was the only problem, I would have been lucky.
Problem Two: Infinite Combinations
The CPU on the printer is an odd bird. As I noted last time, the executables use the r2 instruction set but also use the nan2008 convention which is usually found in r6. While Crosstool-Ng is good at letting you specify exactly what you want, it isn’t always clear on how you specify every detail.
To be fair, just like with Zig, some of that may be on me. I don’t use Crosstool-Ng or Zig every day, so maybe I was making either or both of them too hard. The bad news: It took me three or four attempts to get the right toolchain. The good news: It was a lot easier than manually downloading a bunch of stuff, trying to fix it up, building it, and still having to do it three or four times.
Configuration
Most, but not all, of the necessary changes were here.
Sort of like buysbox or building a custom kernel, the configuration for Crosstool-Ng uses the command: ct-ng menuconfig. This gives you a menu where you can set options about what you want and where you want it stored.
The problem is that the nan2008 setting I needed isn’t part of a standard mips32r2 setup. I suspect that if I had needed mips32r6, everything would have just worked. But, of course, I’m not that lucky.
In the target settings, I needed to match all the specifications, of course, but I also needed to add -mnan=2008 to both the CFLAGS and LDFLAGS as you can see in the figure.
So what’s so hard about that? Just those changes won’t produce a working toolchain for my printer. The C compiler also needed --with-nan2008 (in the C Compiler options screen under extra target CFLAGS) and the same option needed to be placed in the C Library screen, too.
Of course, it is like a word search puzzle. Once you see the answers, they look obvious. But when you are searching through pages of options, it is easy to miss one. It isn’t like there is a checkbox for “Use nan2008” that does it all for you because using nan2008 with mips32r2 is “strange.”
The Proof is in the Build
Once everything was set correctly, I was able to produce a toolchain (ct-ng build) that could compile busybox and even a small text editor. Everything ran fine on the printer.
To build busybox, I used:
make V=1 CC="mipsel-unknown-linux-musl-gcc -march=mips32r2 -msoft-float -static -Os" STRIP='mipsel-unknown-linux-musl-strip' -j6
Unlike Zig, no patching needed. The Zig version was about 9 kB larger than this version, so not much different there. Both were just over a megabyte total. I could probably have used hardware floating point to get a smaller executable, but given that I don’t think any of this is using much floating point at all, it didn’t seem to matter very much.
I had also threatened to compile a text editor. Turns out most have dependencies on things like ncurses, which are a pain to bundle. So I grabbed a copy of the tutorial editor kilo and extended it to look a little like emacs. Works great. Great place to start if you need a static editor that doesn’t take much space.
Lesson Learned
If the CPU on the printer had been more conventional, I think either approach would have worked fine. I prefer the Crosstool solution in this case, because I’m not lying by patching the ELF header. In this case, I don’t think that lie hurts anything, but a program that did a lot of floating-point math might not work correctly, whereas I think the one produced by Crosstool would be fine even for a floating-point program.
On the other hand, like most Unix and Linux things, there are always more ways to solve any problem. If your problem is wedging executables on an alien Linux box, there are two perfectly fine ways to solve it.
Did you know there are different Linux terminals, some with unique and special features that can genuinely improve your day-to-day experience? For the average user, the choice doesn't matter much, but if you're planning to get serious about the terminal—using terminal apps, Vim, or Emacs—the terminal you choose becomes almost as important as the Linux distribution you run. With that in mind, here's why I settled on my current terminal, along with how the other popular options compare to my daily driver.
A vulnerability in snap-confine lets an unprivileged user gain root access on affected Ubuntu Desktop systems. Install the latest snapd update to fix the issue.
For a long time I used Discord webhooks for notifications from my services. It was easy, it worked and almost every application knew how to send something to Discord. Create a private channel, copy a webhook URL, paste it into a service and wait until something breaks. Very advanced engineering.
Raytheon, the RTX-owned defense manufacturer based in Andover, Massachusetts, announced that the U.S. Navy awarded it a $1.8 billion contract extension for hardware production and sustainment of the SPY-6 family of radars, building on an initial contract the company received in March 2022. The extension carries options that, if the Navy exercises all of them, […]
The Digital Chamber has challenged Illinois’ new 0.2% digital asset transaction tax in court, arguing that the law unfairly targets blockchain-based commerce and violates constitutional protections. According to a complaint filed Tuesday in an Illinois circuit court, crypto trade association…
Samsung Galaxy Watch AGEs Index offers blood sugar-related health insight without a CGM. Learn how it works, what it tracks, and who may benefit from using it.
Samsung Galaxy Watch AGEs Index offers blood sugar-related health insight without a CGM. Learn how it works, what it tracks, and who may benefit from using it.
Jupiter Passes $1T In Cumulative Solana Swap Volume
Jupiter has passed $1 trillion in cumulative routing volume, cementing its role as one of the most important DeFi applications in the Solana ecosystem.
The milestone reflects aggregate swap volume routed across connected Solana liquidity pools. Jupiter is not just a single exchange pool. It is an aggregator, meaning it searches across venues to find better pricing and execution for users.
That role makes it central to Solana trading.
When users swap tokens on Solana, Jupiter is often part of the route. Passing $1 trillion in cumulative volume shows how much trading activity has flowed through the platform and how important aggregation has become for low-cost, high-speed DeFi.
TL;DR
Jupiter has passed $1 trillion in cumulative Solana routing volume.
The platform aggregates liquidity across connected Solana pools.
The milestone reinforces Jupiter’s role as a core Solana DeFi venue.
Liquidity is spread across pools, AMMs, order books, and protocols. If users have to manually search for the best route, trading becomes inefficient. Aggregators solve that problem by routing trades through the best available path.
Jupiter has become Solana’s most recognizable example of that model.
It helps users access deeper liquidity without needing to understand every underlying venue. That is especially useful on Solana, where low fees make smaller and faster trades more practical.
The $1 trillion milestone shows that users are not just experimenting with Jupiter. They are relying on it as part of Solana’s core market structure.
That matters because DeFi ecosystems are often judged by their liquidity layer.
If swaps are cheap, fast, and well-routed, the entire ecosystem becomes easier to use.
Solana DeFi Keeps Maturing
Solana’s early DeFi story was often overshadowed by meme coins and retail trading.
That attention brought volume, but it also made some investors question how much activity was durable. Jupiter’s cumulative volume milestone gives Solana a stronger infrastructure story.
A trillion dollars in routed volume does not happen without repeated use.
It suggests a large amount of trading activity has moved through Solana’s DeFi rails over time. That strengthens the argument that Solana is not only a speculative chain but also a serious venue for decentralized trading.
The launch of Jupiter’s Offerbook lending market adds another layer.
If Jupiter can expand from routing swaps into lending and broader market infrastructure, it may become even more central to Solana’s DeFi stack.
Cumulative Volume Needs Context
The number is impressive, but it should be understood properly.
Cumulative volume is not the same as current daily volume. It reflects all historical routing activity across connected pools. It does not mean $1 trillion is locked in the protocol, and it does not mean that every trade produced equal revenue or user value.
Still, cumulative volume is a useful adoption marker.
It shows that Jupiter has processed meaningful activity over a long period. For users, that can reinforce trust. For developers, it shows where liquidity is flowing. For Solana, it supports the network’s claim to be one of crypto’s leading trading environments.
The next question is how Jupiter maintains that position.
Competition in DeFi is constant. Aggregators need to keep routes efficient, interfaces clean, integrations broad, and execution reliable. If they fall behind, users can move quickly.
Jupiter Is Becoming More Than A Swap Router
The broader story is Jupiter’s evolution.
The platform started as a critical swap aggregator, but it has increasingly expanded into other Solana-native financial products. Offerbook is part of that shift, pointing toward a wider DeFi role beyond simple token swaps.
That matters for Solana.
A strong ecosystem needs anchor applications. Ethereum has Uniswap, Aave, Lido, and Curve. Solana needs its own set of core venues that users return to repeatedly. Jupiter is clearly one of them.
Passing $1 trillion in cumulative routing volume reinforces that position.
For traders, it shows where Solana liquidity is moving. For SOL supporters, it gives a concrete metric supporting the network’s DeFi maturity. For Jupiter, it raises expectations.
The platform now has to prove that it can keep growing beyond aggregation while maintaining the execution quality that made it important in the first place.
For now, the milestone is a strong signal: Solana DeFi has real volume, and Jupiter remains one of its main arteries.
This article is based on Jupiter’s public statement and platform data.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released in official primary source disclosures at primary source documentation.
I have broken Linux desktops in all the usual ways. I have installed a random PPA because some forum comments from 2018 sounded confident. I have removed a package that looked useless, only to discover it was holding the login screen together with tape and ancestral prayers. Not only that, but I upgraded at midnight, watched the system return with a black screen, and then pretended this was “learning” (copeeee!).
Login
