Weekly Crypto Market News: DeFi Infrastructure, Regulation & Capital Flows
January 5 – 11, 2026
Edge Capital’s weekly assessment of crypto markets, regulation, capital flows, and protocol developments across digital assets.
Headline: 16 projects raised $495M total.
Rain’s outsized raise and Fireblocks’ acquisition of TRES point to capital flowing into compliant payments, accounting, and control infrastructure for institutions.
Linea’s first native perps DEX went live in closed testing, validating its stack ahead of broader public access.
Temple launched as the first native trading venue on Canton, enabling private, non custodial digital asset trading.
Arbitrum deployed ArbOS Dia, improving fee stability during demand spikes and enabling higher throughput and future interop features.
Rocket Pool launched its final queued minipool, temporarily limiting new rETH issuance ahead of the Saturn One upgrade.
Yield Basis launched an impermanent loss free WETH pool with a $25 million cap that filled within minutes.
Falcon launched a BTC vault offering 3 to 5 percent APR paid in USDf while maintaining full BTC exposure.
Liminal launched xBTC, a neutral BTC carry product distributing Hyperliquid funding yield across DeFi.
Trove launched the TROVE token via an overflow ICO running Jan 8–11 with a $2.5M raise target and $20M FDV cap, supporting leveraged prediction, collectibles, and RWA markets.
According to Tokenomist:
Aave v4 shifts Aave’s lending model from uniform borrowing costs toward collateral‑sensitive risk pricing, with direct implications for user behavior, collateral mix, and protocol revenues.
Aave v3 prices credit risk only at the market level, so all borrowers in a given pool pay the same rate regardless of collateral quality, effectively forcing blue‑chip collateral users to subsidize riskier borrowers.
Aave v4 introduces a multi‑layered risk premium system that links borrowing costs to the actual risk of the collateral set, aiming to align incentives for safer collateral and more sustainable protocol economics.
In v3, borrowing rates are driven purely by asset‑level utilization curves, without any user‑specific or collateral‑specific premium. A user borrowing stablecoins against ETH pays the same rate as one borrowing against a volatile long‑tail token in the same market, even though the tail risk and liquidation behavior differ meaningfully.
This structure constrains asset onboarding: adding higher‑risk collateral raises perceived pool risk for all lenders, which can trigger withdrawals, higher volatility in rates, and balkanization of liquidity across markets. It also means the protocol cannot easily charge more for genuinely risky exposures without penalizing users posting high‑quality collateral.
v4 introduces a base rate from the Liquidity Hub, still set by supply–demand, and then applies additive risk premiums on top, so users with “safe” collateral pay close to the base rate while riskier books incur higher effective APRs. For example, ETH collateral can have 0% collateral risk and pay only the base rate, whereas assets like LINK or UNI can carry non‑zero risk scores (e.g., 30–40%) that scale up the interest owed relative to the base debt.
The system operates across three levels:
This architecture lets Aave list more diverse collateral types, including newer LRTs and RWAs, while reflecting their idiosyncratic risk via higher premiums rather than blunt LTV caps alone. It also ties protocol revenue more tightly to the actual risk taken, as incremental premium flows scale with collateral risk instead of only with utilization.
For users, v4 risk premiums create a clear pricing signal: high‑quality collateral is explicitly rewarded with lower borrowing costs, while higher‑beta or illiquid collateral becomes more expensive to lever. This should nudge sophisticated borrowers toward optimizing collateral stacks and discourage “free‑riding” on blue‑chip depositors, especially around stress events.
For the broader market, more granular risk pricing makes it easier to onboard long‑tail assets and RWAs without socializing tail risk, supporting Aave’s ambition to be a generalized credit layer rather than a blue‑chip‑only venue. If executed well, risk‑aligned premiums can improve the resilience of Aave’s liquidity during volatility spikes and potentially set a standard for risk‑based pricing across DeFi lending.
Alongside ECC, the Zcash Foundation operates as an independent nonprofit focused on community governance. The Foundation manages ZCAP, public forums, grants, and acts as a counterweight to ECC within the protocol’s governance process.
After 2020, ECC was donated at no cost to the nonprofit Bootstrap Project. The stated intent was to align Zcash development with a nonprofit governance model and remove the tension between profit motives and public good infrastructure.
Bootstrap’s 501(c)(3) status gave it legal control over ECC’s operations and major assets. In practice, this imposed nonprofit legal constraints that fundamentally altered how ECC could operate. External investment became effectively impossible, and asset privatization such as spinning out products like the Zashi wallet was blocked. Board imposed employment and governance changes further constrained management flexibility, gradually making ECC’s operating model unworkable.
Prior to the crisis, Zcash governance followed a relatively stable and transparent process. Protocol changes flowed through the ZIP framework, where anyone could propose a Zcash Improvement Proposal. Each ZIP was reviewed by two editors, one from ECC and one from the Zcash Foundation, before activation through on chain network adoption.
This dual editor model was designed to balance technical expertise with independent oversight, while keeping ultimate authority with the network itself.
_The Current Situation _
The governance structure fractured when the entire ECC team resigned following a dispute with the Bootstrap board. The team has framed the event as constructive discharge, citing governance and legal constraints rather than technical or financial failure.
Critically, the resignations do not appear to represent a loss of talent. The same engineers continue working on Zcash under a new structure, and there is no indication that core protocol expertise has exited the ecosystem.
Zashi, the flagship Zcash wallet built by ECC, remains maintained by this team. A new wallet, cashZ, is being launched from the same codebase and is positioned as its direct successor. There are no plans for a new token or economic fork.
The primary impact of the crisis is organizational. Zcash has not lost its core developers, cryptographic expertise, or roadmap intent. Instead, it has lost a formal corporate wrapper that had become incompatible with effective execution.
The main risk going forward is execution delay as the team re establishes legal, operational, and governance structures. There is no evidence of protocol risk, developer flight, or strategic abandonment of Zcash.
This communication is for information purposes only and is not an advertisement, an offer, invitation or a solicitation to buy or sell securities or investment products, an official confirmation of any kind and is not intended as investment advice or recommendation. Before making an investment decision, investors should ensure they have sufficient information to ascertain the legal, financial, tax and regulatory consequences of an investment to enable them to make an informed investment decision. The information in this communication is subject to change without notice. No warranty is made as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in this communication, and the information in this email may be erroneous, invalid and/or unsubstantiated. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors, omissions or adverse consequences in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission or for any other reason.
The performance and value of any financial product may fluctuate and may be subject to sudden and large movements that could result in a loss equal to or in excess of the amount invested. Past performance is not a guide to future performance, future returns are not guaranteed, and a loss of original capital may occur. The presented figures are based on estimates, assumptions, models and third-party data, any or all of which may prove to be inaccurate.
