GN HEARTLAND |
Read to the end for a terrifying use of the phrase “increase in crypto kidnappings”. Come to think of it, pretty scary out of context, too… |
— playhaus |
TOKEN | PRICE CHANGE | PRICE |
|---|---|---|
Solana ($SOL) | +5.31% | $178.24 |
Helium ($HNT) | +4.14% | $3.21 |
Pyth ($PYTH) | -18.44% | $0.14 |
Raydium ($RAY) | +1.01% | $3.33 |
(Price changes reflect past 7 days as of 5.22.25)
Ripple and Coinbase are reportedly eyeing Circle, the company behind the USDC stablecoin, like it’s the last slice of pizza at a happy hour. Circle, which had been gearing up for an IPO, now finds itself at the center of a potential multi-billion dollar bidding war that could reshape the stablecoin landscape.
The stablecoin provider is reportedly shopping itself around at a $5 billion valuation. Ripple came out swinging with an initial offer between $4–5 billion, later upping the ante to as much as $11 billion, sweetened with a mix of cash and XRP tokens.
Coinbase hasn’t officially tossed a number into the ring, but their long-standing relationship with Circle could be a game-changer. They co-founded the Centre Consortium back in 2018 to govern USDC and still share revenue from USDC reserves.
Stablecoins are the quiet workhorses of crypto , powering everything from DeFi to global remittances. USDC is one of the most regulated and institutionally friendly stablecoins on the market.
Whoever lands Circle doesn’t just get a product . They gain control over a regulated, dollar-pegged asset that bridges crypto and traditional finance. That’s huge for global positioning.
Also: market consolidation. Fewer players with more power could mean better interoperability or, on the flip side, increased centralization. Either way, it’s a pivotal moment.
Ripple is a global payments firm focused on cross-border transactions. Adding USDC one of the most trusted stablecoins - could accelerate Ripple’s mission to modernize money movement. With the XRP Ledger evolving post-SEC, controlling a compliant stablecoin gives Ripple a serious edge in attracting new use cases and adoption.
Coinbase, meanwhile, has skin in the game. That 50/50 revenue-sharing deal with Circle means they’re already benefiting from USDC. Acquiring Circle would deepen that advantage , giving Coinbase more control over a critical piece of crypto’s financial plumbing.
For either, it’s about infrastructure and influence. Stable value is critical to crypto’s usability. With PayPal, TradFi, and governments circling the space, locking down USDC means future-proofing their position.
If Ripple wins:
If Coinbase wins:
If Circle IPOs:
For users, a successful acquisition could bring:
That said, more control in fewer hands always warrants a watchful eye.
Looming questions remain.
Will regulators get involved? This level of consolidation may attract antitrust scrutiny.
Will other bidders emerge? Don’t count out TradFi or PayPal.
Will USDC remain neutral? Ownership could influence its use and perception.
Whatever the case, stablecoins are becoming as essential as cash and credit . Whoever wins Circle may shape the rules of the road.
— Branden
SPONSORED BY THE RUNDOWN AI
This is the easiest way for a busy person wanting to learn AI in as little time as possible:
Sign up for The Rundown AI newsletter
They send you 5-minute email updates on the latest AI news and how to use it
You learn how to become 2x more productive by leveraging AI
Over the past few months, a new wave of momentum has quietly reshaped the crypto landscape, as TradFi institutions and mainstream retailers step deeper into the world of digital assets. From Overstock’s blockchain experiments to Nike’s NFTs, PayPal’s stablecoin to BlackRock’s on-chain funds, the trend is accelerating. While it may lack the explosive energy of bull market euphoria, its implications run just as deep.
Institutional integration is not a new trend. Overstock became one of the earliest corporate Bitcoin adopters in 2014. But in 2024 and beyond, the landscape looks markedly different. Institutions aren’t just dipping their toes anymore. They’re building infrastructure, shaping regulation, and in many cases, bringing the crypto rails in-house.
According to Galaxy Digital, tokenized real-world assets managed by traditional finance surpassed $11 billion in Q1 2025. BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, and JPMorgan are all developing or deploying blockchain-based investment products. At the same time, brands like Adidas and Reddit are keeping their NFT experiments alive, running on public blockchains, but with controlled user experiences.
The economic effects are measurable. More liquidity, more user acquisition, and more diversified use cases. Chainalysis data from late 2024 shows a 41% increase in institutional transaction volume year-over-year. But retail adoption has only grown 8% in the same window, suggesting a concentration of influence and activity at the top end of the ecosystem.
The flip side is there’s now a paradox at play. The very institutions crypto sought to disrupt are now key players in its mainstreaming. This isn’t inherently negative, but it invites ongoing debate about decentralization, gatekeeping, and the long-term direction of the space.
A 2024 DappRadar report found that over 70% of brand-launched NFTs are minted on custodial platforms, meaning users rarely control their assets. Meanwhile, centralized stablecoins like PYUSD offer price stability and access, but often operate within closed systems, limiting composability and self-custody.
Yet, there’s a potential upside, too. With major players onboard, the industry gains credibility and regulatory traction that could ultimately benefit all participants. For developers, this means more resources. For users, it could mean more reliable on-ramps and protections. For institutions, it’s a chance to reimagine trust.
Whatever the case, it’s happening. TradFi and DeFi are doing the fusion dance, and real ones know Gogeta never (really) lost a fight. So no matter where you stand on the philosophical side, you shouldn’t should be asking, “Is institutional integration good or bad?” Instead, you should ask, “How do I play it?”
— Muhammed
SPONSORED BY SUPERHUMAN AI
Keeping up with AI is hard – we get it!
That’s why over 1M professionals read Superhuman AI to stay ahead.
Get daily AI news, tools, and tutorials
Learn new AI skills you can use at work in 3 mins a day
Become 10X more productive
Coinbase, America’s crypto darling, is currently downplaying one of the most serious breaches of consumer privacy in recent history. Meanwhile, it is inadvertently demonstrating how anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) laws create more harm than good when it comes to storing sensitive data.
In January 2025, Coinbase’s overseas employees betrayed user trust by selling access to sensitive customer information to criminals in exchange for what was likely life-changing sums of money. It was only disclosed in May because the criminals decided to ransom the data back to Coinbase for $20 million — which the company promptly refused, instead offering the same amount as a reward for the hackers’ capture.
What’s disturbing is how easily these low-level employees accessed sensitive information including ID photos, home addresses, token balances, and the last 4 digits of personal identification numbers. Set against the backdrop of rising crypto kidnappings across Europe, this data breach highlights an incredibly dangerous practice. The centralization of personal information will never be without risk, and these risks clearly outweigh any benefits, as repeatedly demonstrated by breaches like this and the infamous Equifax breach.
Coinbase shouldn’t have made this information available to low-level employees in foreign countries. Whatever legal team approved that deserves to be fired; the risks were glaringly obvious. But using cheap overseas labor for customer support is standard practice in tech. Which is where decentralized databases, with user-controlled authorization via ZK proofs and homomorphic encryption, come in.
This technology represents a genuine opportunity to comply with KYC laws while protecting user privacy. Unfortunately, we’re still far from implementing such infrastructure. KYC laws rarely prevent crime or enable effective enforcement. Meanwhile, Coinbase — one of the primary proponents behind the GENIUS act, enabling stablecoin legislation — seems focused on preserving their market position through web2-style regulatory capture.
Rumors are spreading on Twitter about retail users pulling their tokens off the exchange in protest, hoping to trigger a bank run. Their grievances go beyond this most recent breach of trust, hinging on suspicions that Coinbase might be using fractional reserve practices with institutional finance firms. I personallycan’t advocate for something potentially so destructive to users trapped on the platform if another FTX-like implosion occurred. But I won’t be upset seeing a bad actor face consequences.
(Full disclosure: I’ve always used Coinbase for onboarding due to their user-friendly interface, but knowing my data was likely compromised and fearing my crypto might be used to back “paper crypto,” I’m now exploring alternatives like MoonPay for future transactions.)
How do I know my data was compromised? The careful wording in Brian’s announcement suggested that if you transact less than once a month on average, you were probably affected, since “only 1% of our users who trade monthly were exposed.” Reading between the lines, this likely means long-term investors who buy and hold were the primary targets. Just watch the increase in crypto kidnappings to understand how serious this issue is about to become.
— El Prof
Heart&SOL is a daily newsletter at the intersection of AI, cryptography, and online culture.
Be first to the future.
