Fomo, a social trading startup built for on-chain users, has emerged as one of the faster-growing crypto consumer products during a weak market cycle. According to figures cited from Dune, the platform had processed about 28.644 million trades, more than $4.69 billion in cumulative volume, and over $31.79 million in fees as of Aug. 12. Its sharpest growth came in late Q2 2026 and accelerated in July, when weekly volume climbed from the millions into the hundreds of millions, with the latest week topping $550 million. The report ties much of that surge to the launch of Robinhood Chain’s mainnet, which brought a wave of new traffic. Fomo co-founder Se Yong Park said one in every two active wallets on Robinhood Chain came from Fomo. At one point, the chain accounted for 64.8% of Fomo’s volume, while Dune data showed Fomo represented 35% of trading bot volume on Robinhood Chain and more than 92.9% of the chain’s daily active wallets. More recently, Solana regained the top spot, contributing about 51.2% of trading volume. Fomo’s founders came from dYdX and built the product around lower-friction onboarding, dollar-denominated balances, and social discovery features designed to make trading feel like content. The company, which the report said has a team of about 17 people, completed a $75 million Series B in June led by Index Ventures at a $550 million valuation.

Fomo has emerged as one of crypto’s fastest-growing trading products during a weak market cycle, according to PANews. The company, backed by a team of roughly 17 people, has raised a cumulative $94 million in a little over a year and turned a social trading app into a new onchain trading gateway. Data cited from Dune shows that as of Aug. 12, Fomo had processed about 28.644 million trades, more than $4.69 billion in cumulative volume, and over $31.79 million in fees. Its growth accelerated sharply at the end of the second quarter of 2026, then expanded rapidly in July as volume climbed from the millions into the hundreds of millions of dollars on a weekly basis. In the latest trading week, weekly volume topped $550 million. PANews said Fomo benefited from two major demand centers: fresh user flow from the launch of Robinhood Chain mainnet and sustained high-frequency Meme trading activity on Solana. The report also highlighted Fomo’s product design, including wallet abstraction, gasless onboarding, fiat-denominated balances and a feed-driven social experience, as well as its community fundraising strategy that doubled as a distribution channel during cold start.

Ondo Finance has decided it will not run both Ondo Chain and Ondo Network in parallel, with CEO Ian De Bode confirming the company has abandoned the blockchain-based execution model and will keep Ethereum as the settlement layer instead. The revised design moves execution into trusted execution environments, where approved code runs inside hardware-isolated enclaves and key material is split across operators, while asset transfers continue to settle on Ethereum. The argument behind the shift is straightforward: for order matching, Ondo sees blockchain as an expensive bundle of consensus, replication, transparency, and final-state settlement. In its view, consensus and replication add latency, while transparency exposes information that a trading venue does not want to publish in real time. The piece contrasts this approach with examples from traditional finance and crypto, including ASX’s failed CHESS replacement, DTCC’s tokenization push, Coinbase’s Base, Robinhood’s tokenized stock effort, dYdX’s app-chain move, Hyperliquid’s validator model, and Unichain’s struggle to capture Uniswap activity. The article also notes that trusted execution environments come with their own risks. Recent hardware attacks against Intel and AMD, including the TEE.fail research, showed that physical access can break assumptions around enclave security. Ondo’s next phase will separate code attestation, key custody, and server hosting across different entities, while posting final state on-chain and adding proof-of-stake and slashing later.

ChainFeeds’ Aug. 13 research roundup pulls together five separate market narratives that are shaping crypto in Asia and beyond. One report argues that Upbit’s once-powerful listing effect is losing force as the exchange accelerates token additions while trading activity keeps shrinking. Another examines Li Lin’s path from Avenir Group to UMX, framing it as a push toward unified accounts that connect crypto collateral, U.S. equities, and cross-market risk management in one system. The package also looks at South Korea’s persistent outbound crypto demand. Tiger Research says unmet domestic demand for derivatives and broader digital asset products is increasingly being served by offshore exchanges and on-chain venues such as Hyperliquid, with billions of dollars in identifiable capital flows and fee revenue moving abroad. Coin Metrics, meanwhile, breaks down the source of this year’s $41.7 trillion in adjusted stablecoin transfer volume, showing that a large share comes from liquidity provision and flash loans rather than straightforward payment activity. The final piece from Foresight Ventures questions whether perpetual DEXs can rely on token rewards indefinitely, arguing that post-TGE value distribution often shifts away from actual trading contribution toward token ownership.

A Foresight News analysis argues that the rise of perpetual DEXs has been driven in large part by token incentives, especially during the cold-start phase when platforms need traders, liquidity providers and distribution channels at the same time. Before token generation events, points programs, airdrops and trading mining help pull in volume and liquidity by offering claims on future token value. After TGE, fee revenue often shifts into buybacks, burns and staking rewards, sending value back into the ecosystem, but still largely through the exchange token itself. The piece says the core issue is not whether incentives should exist, but whether rewards match actual market contribution. It reviews how dYdX, Hyperliquid, Aster and Lighter structured early growth, and argues that post-TGE performance is the first real test of whether incentive-fueled attention can turn into durable trading relationships. It also points to data showing that token holding, yield participation and derivatives trading are not the same kind of demand. From Foresight Ventures’ investment perspective, PopDEX is presented as an alternative approach. Rather than making token expectation the starting point of growth or requiring token holding as a condition for trading rights, PopDEX is described as building a framework in which 100% of distributable value created by trading fees flows back according to real contribution, with more details to be disclosed in later product stages.

Foresight Ventures argues that perpetual DEX growth has relied heavily on token incentives, but the core issue is not whether incentives should exist. In its view, the bigger question is how those incentives are structured and whether rewards actually match real economic contribution. Before token generation events, many platforms use points, airdrops and trading mining to pull in order flow and liquidity with the promise of future token value. After TGE, fee revenue often shifts into buybacks, burns and staking rewards, which sends value back into the ecosystem but still routes distribution through the platform token. The firm reviews models used by dYdX, Hyperliquid, Aster and Lighter, and argues that points-based growth can blur the line between genuine trading demand and reward-driven activity. It also highlights post-TGE data as a pressure test for whether users stay once incentive expectations fade. The article then examines fee recycling and token buybacks, noting that token ownership, wealth management participation and derivatives trading do not necessarily represent the same kind of demand. Using PopDEX as an example, Foresight Ventures presents a different framework in which distributable value generated by trading fees is directed more explicitly toward real contributors and actual traders rather than being used first to support the platform token.

ChainFeeds’ Aug. 11 research roundup brought together five separate market and policy discussions that are shaping current crypto debate. The package led with the fallout from Bitcoin’s BIP-110, where nodes enforcing the proposal began rejecting blocks without bit 4 signaling even though support in the prior 2,016-block window was only 51 blocks, or 2.53%. The result was a chain split, with the higher-work main chain moving ahead while the BIP-110 branch lagged. The report also reviewed the competitive battle between Pump and FOMO over the social trading interface, arguing that the real contest is not token issuance alone but control over discovery, amplification, distribution, and execution. A separate Bitcoin market note focused on ETF flows, hash rate, node distribution, MVRV, the 200-week moving average, and three portfolio approaches ranging from dollar-cost averaging to options hedging. On Ethereum, ChainFeeds highlighted a debate around EIP-8363 and whether staking rewards should eventually rely only on execution-layer revenue once network staking surpasses 50%. The final section examined Robinhood Chain, which generated $3.6 million in REV in July and out-earned several established Layer 2 networks, though early activity was dominated by meme coin trading rather than RWA usage.

A commentary published by Foresight and written by imToken argues that crypto has entered a period in which project shutdowns need to be discussed as seriously as launches. The piece points to closures or wind-downs across trading venues, DeFi, wallets, NFTs, and infrastructure, citing BitMEX, Satori Finance, Botanix, and POAP as examples of projects that reached an endpoint for very different reasons. Its central argument is that a product can have funding, users, uptime, brand recognition, and even sound technology, yet still fail to build a business model that covers long-term operating costs. The article says that reality has direct implications for ordinary users. Holding assets in a self-custodial wallet solves account control, but not necessarily redeemability or exitability. It contrasts native assets such as ETH with deposit receipts, LP tokens, wrapped assets, and bridged representations like renBTC, where the token in a wallet may only be a claim on something else. Using dYdX v3, Ren Protocol, and network-level shutdown examples, the piece breaks asset control into three layers: control of keys, claim on the underlying asset, and the practical ability to exit when a protocol or network is no longer maintained. Its conclusion is straightforward: users should not tie their ultimate control over assets to the assumption that any one project will operate forever.