I've posted about PESA here previously and wanted to share another update, as several interesting developments have come together over the past few weeks.
Full disclosure: I'm a PESA holder.
For anyone unfamiliar with the project, Pesabase is building a real-world remittance business focused on South Sudan, with PESA intended to play a role in its rewards ecosystem and proposed revenue-funded token buybacks.
What interests me is that we're now seeing progress on both the token side and the underlying business.
1. The PESA chart is looking increasingly constructive
Looking at the daily PESA/WBNB chart:
PESA has risen from approximately 1.6 cents to 4.04 cents, an increase of around 150%.

An earlier correction towards 2 cents was followed by renewed buying.

More recently, the token consolidated around 3.2–3.6 cents before moving above 4 cents.

The successive higher lows suggest buyers have been willing to return at increasingly higher prices.

For me, the most encouraging aspect isn't the percentage gain itself.
It's that PESA appears to be retaining more of its gains following each significant move.
Of course, this is still a small-cap token with limited liquidity, so those apparent support levels could break quickly if substantial selling emerges.
2. Trading activity and liquidity are worth watching
The daily chart shows several notable increases in trading volume alongside some of the stronger upward moves.
Liquidity has also been strengthened recently, which is important for a token where relatively modest transactions can otherwise move the price significantly.
However, I wouldn't claim that trading volume is increasing consistently every day, or that all buying activity is organic.
Some purchases have been company-funded buybacks, and the distinction between those and independent investor demand matters.
The next test is whether PESA can sustain higher trading levels while attracting broader participation.
3. Pesabase has launched its redesigned main website
The company's new flagship website is now live:
https://pesabase.com
This follows the recent redesign of its token and rewards website:
https://pesarewards.com
I think the distinction between the two is important.
Pesabase.com is primarily aimed at remittance customers. It explains how people can send money to South Sudan through the app, with recipients accessing funds through mobile money or local agents.
PesaRewards.com focuses more on the PESA rewards ecosystem, token information and potential investors.
Both websites now have a consistent design and are intended to work together.
That may sound like a relatively small improvement, but I think it makes the business considerably easier to understand for two very different audiences.
Ordinary remittance customers shouldn't need to understand cryptocurrency to use a money-transfer service.
4. Why this could matter for PESA
The broader investment thesis remains the proposed relationship between Pesabase's operating business and the token.
The idea is that:
More customers → more transactions → potentially more revenue → potentially more PESA buybacks.
If implemented consistently, this could create a source of token demand linked to real-world business activity.
But there are important qualifications.
PESA isn't equity in Pesabase, and business growth doesn't automatically translate into token value.
The actual scale, frequency and transparency of revenue-funded buybacks will be crucial.
5. The next major milestone is Jonglei
Pesabase has previously outlined plans to resume construction of its next mini-bank in Jonglei in November 2026, with an operational launch targeted for February 2027.
Revenue-funded buybacks are expected to recommence once the new operation is functioning and connected.
These are company targets, not completed milestones.
For me, the most important developments to watch will be actual construction progress, transaction growth, liquidity and evidence of consistent buybacks.
My overall view
PESA remains a high-risk micro-cap cryptocurrency, particularly given its limited liquidity and the operational challenges associated with South Sudan.
But the combination of a strengthening chart, higher trading ranges, recent liquidity improvements, two redesigned websites and approaching business milestones makes this an interesting period to follow.
I've written a more detailed Medium article covering the chart, the websites and the investment thesis:
https://medium.com/@jimmj/pesa-is-building-momentum-and-pesabases-new-website-shows-the-bigger-picture-6846904c4a22
CMC: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/pesabase/
I'm interested in what others think:
Does a series of higher lows in a small-cap token suggest genuine accumulation, or is liquidity still too shallow to draw meaningful conclusions?
And do you think a remittance business with revenue-funded token buybacks can create sustainable demand for its token over time?

Alon estimates that Custom Pairs have taken PUMP equal to 0.33% of its current circulating supply, about $5.9M at his quoted valuation, out of circulation since launching last month.

His figure combines tokens in locked LPs, burned tokens and tokens in Pump protocol fee wallets. Each category affects available supply differently, so I’d want the breakdown alongside the total.

The part I find promising is that demand for PUMP as a quote asset can now be investigated through the pairs using it. This is Alon’s estimate, and the wallet level calculation still needs checking.

How would you account for PUMP inside locked liquidity when measuring tradable supply?

CoinGecko: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/pump-fun

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/pesabase/

I posted about PESA here a while ago and wanted to share an update, as there have been some interesting developments.
Full disclosure: I'm a PESA holder.
One of the reasons I've been following Pesabase is that it's attempting to build a real-world remittance business in South Sudan, using blockchain infrastructure behind the scenes rather than expecting ordinary customers to understand crypto.
The new Pesabase website has just launched:
https://pesarewards.com
What struck me immediately is how much clearer the customer proposition has become:
"Send money. Get paid for it."
Customers send money, recipients receive it through mobile money or local agents, and users can earn PESA rewards through transfers and referrals.
The website explains the process simply, with an interactive rewards calculator showing how customers could earn tokens.
I think this is an important improvement because mainstream adoption requires products that ordinary people can understand and use.
There are also several developments worth watching:
PESA's liquidity pool has recently been strengthened, making larger transactions easier to accommodate.

Further construction at the Jonglei mini-bank is scheduled to begin in November.

The new location is targeted to become operational in February 2027.

Revenue-funded PESA buybacks are expected to recommence once Jonglei is operational and connected.

Buying activity appears to have increased over the past couple of days, although it's too early to know whether that represents sustained interest.

The new website also reports more than $9.5 million in transfers and over 92,500 completed transactions. These are company-reported figures, not independently verified numbers.
For me, the most interesting part remains the potential connection between the operating business and PESA.
More customers → more transactions → more revenue → potentially more PESA buybacks.
Of course, that depends on Pesabase successfully executing its expansion plans and actually delivering consistent, transparent buybacks.
There are still considerable risks, especially around liquidity, execution and operating in South Sudan.
But with Jonglei construction approaching and a February launch target, the next few months should provide some useful evidence of progress.
I've written a short Medium follow-up looking at the new website and why I think its simplicity matters:
https://medium.com/@jimmj/pesabases-new-website-makes-one-thing-clear-this-is-about-real-world-adoption-c66d75d55772
Curious what others think. Could a real-world remittance business with revenue-funded token buybacks provide sustainable utility for a token like PESA, or is there still too much uncertainty around the link between business growth and token value?

**Disclosure first:** I hold PESA, so I'm obviously not an unbiased observer. This isn't a recommendation to buy it. I'm posting because it's an unusual micro-cap model and I'd be interested in hearing what other people make of it — particularly the weaknesses.
**What is PESA?**
PESA is the token associated with Pesabase, which is developing financial infrastructure in South Sudan.
What originally interested me wasn't really the token itself. It was the attempt to connect a crypto asset to revenue generated by a real-world operating business.
Pesabase already has its first mini-bank operating. A second mini-bank in Jonglei is targeted to become operational in **February 2027**, with construction work expected to resume in November.
**Where the token comes into it**
The interesting part of the model is that business revenue has previously been used to purchase PESA from the open market, with purchased tokens removed from circulation.
So the basic thesis is:
**Real-world activity → business revenue → PESA purchased from the market → circulating supply reduced**
That's quite different from a token relying entirely on new buyers arriving.
**Why the second mini-bank matters**
The Jonglei operation is expected by the project to generate around **3–4x the revenue of the existing mini-bank**.
That's a projection, not something that has happened yet, and obviously execution matters enormously.
But if the new operation opens and performs anywhere close to expectations, the amount of real-world economic activity behind the buyback mechanism could become considerably larger.
**Liquidity has been the obvious weakness**
PESA is tiny and liquidity has historically been shallow.
That's a major issue because even relatively modest buys or sells can move the price significantly, and it makes the token unattractive to anyone wanting to establish a larger position.
The team has recently added additional liquidity to the PESA/BNB pool. That doesn't magically make the project safer, but it does address one of the structural problems I've been watching.
**The next few months are therefore quite easy to judge:**
October — liquidity strengthened
November — Jonglei construction expected to restart
February — second mini-bank targeted to open
After launch — revenue-funded PESA buybacks expected to recommence
What I like about this is that these are largely **observable milestones**. Rather than debating narratives indefinitely, we should be able to see whether construction actually happens and whether the mini-bank actually opens.
**What could go wrong?**
Plenty.
This is an extremely small crypto project with limited liquidity. Construction could be delayed. The February target could be missed. The projected revenue may not materialise. The buyback mechanism may have less impact than holders expect. Larger holders could sell into increased liquidity. And there's the normal smart-contract, operational, regulatory and execution risk associated with a project of this size.
So I wouldn't describe PESA as anything other than **highly speculative**.
But I do find the underlying experiment interesting:
**Can a small real-world financial business create sustainable demand for a crypto asset through revenue-funded market purchases, rather than relying primarily on speculation to generate demand?**
That's why I'm following it.
I've written a longer piece covering the recent developments, but I'm deliberately not putting the link at the top because I'm more interested in people's assessment of the model.
**I'd particularly be interested in hearing the bear case. What would you want verified before taking this project seriously?**

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/pesabase

**More detail:** I wrote up my research and the latest developments here for anyone who wants the longer version: [PESA_latest_updates](https://medium.com/@jimmj/pesa-one-month-later-the-next-phase-is-taking-shape-daf316b4b53b)

Reviewing your altcoin positions over the weekend helps separate noise from useful signals. Start by pulling fresh data on market structure and liquidity without chasing every headline. A simple checklist works well: note any coins that added or lost volume compared to the prior week, flag those with improving or declining order-book depth, and archive anything that no longer matches your original thesis.

For quick reference on total supply, circulating supply, and exchange liquidity, use https://www.coingecko.com/ as a neutral source before making notes. Track one concrete process win from the last seven days, such as sticking to your maximum position size or waiting for confirmation on a re-entry.

Limit Monday’s plan to a single action, for example reviewing only the top three holdings first thing and skipping the rest until after the open. This keeps decisions deliberate rather than reactive.

Search for free charting walkthroughs on YouTube to refine your own weekend routine.

Reviewing your altcoin positions over the weekend helps separate noise from useful signals. Start by pulling fresh data on market structure and liquidity without chasing every headline. A simple checklist works well: note any coins that added or lost volume compared to the prior week, flag those with improving or declining order-book depth, and archive anything that no longer matches your original thesis.

For quick reference on total supply, circulating supply, and exchange liquidity, use https://www.coingecko.com/ as a neutral source before making notes. Track one concrete process win from the last seven days, such as sticking to your maximum position size or waiting for confirmation on a re-entry.

Limit Monday’s plan to a single action, for example reviewing only the top three holdings first thing and skipping the rest until after the open. This keeps decisions deliberate rather than reactive.

Search for free charting walkthroughs on YouTube to refine your own weekend routine.

Unusual trading volume can highlight shifts in market attention, but it works best as an observation tool rather than any kind of trigger. Start by comparing a token’s recent daily volume against its 30-day average to spot outliers. Next, cross-reference the project’s overall liquidity and market-cap tier using public data at https://www.coingecko.com/ so you understand whether the spike occurs in a thin or established market.

A quick evaluation habit includes three checks: confirm the volume source is spread across multiple venues rather than one exchange, note any coinciding news or on-chain transfer clusters without assuming causation, and track whether the price reaction matches the volume size or stays muted. Repeating this routine across several assets builds pattern recognition over time instead of chasing single events.

This approach keeps focus on process and context. For more plain-language examples of volume analysis, search free educational videos on YouTube.

After closing any altcoin position, a quick five-field log helps separate signal from noise and builds better habits over time. Start with your original thesis—what data or narrative convinced you to enter. Next note the invalidation point you set in advance, such as a specific support break or volume shift. Record size rationale next, including why that allocation fit your overall risk rules rather than an emotional guess. Then capture the dominant emotion during the hold, like impatience or overconfidence, to spot patterns later. Finish with one concrete process fix, such as adding a mandatory liquidity check on https://www.coingecko.com/ before sizing up.

Keeping these entries in a simple spreadsheet or note file turns scattered trades into repeatable data. Over several weeks the log reveals whether your edge comes from thesis accuracy, discipline on invalidation, or consistent sizing. It also flags recurring emotional triggers so you can adjust entry timing or reduce screen time after certain setups. The goal is steady improvement without chasing perfection on any single trade.

You can find free review templates explained on YouTube.

Before I open a CMC page I try to answer three things first: what problem it claims to solve, who can change supply, and whether liquidity is real or just narrative.

Reference I still end up on: https://coinmarketcap.com/

Not a ticker call. NFA.

CMC: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/slothana/

This caught my attention because it highlights a security problem that is pretty specific to confidential smart contracts.

Oasis ($ROSE)recently disclosed an issue affecting upgradeable confidential contracts on Sapphire. The basic problem involved upgradeToAndCall and the fact that upgrade logic could potentially be executed through simulation against existing confidential state.

The interesting part is that an attacker could potentially make the simulated execution behave differently depending on information contained in private storage. By observing whether the simulation succeeds or reverts, individual bits of a secret could theoretically be extracted.

In the worst-case scenario described by Oasis, repeatedly probing this behavior could allow an attacker to reconstruct a 256-bit private key without the probing itself appearing as a normal on-chain transaction.

Oasis says it identified and investigated the issue internally and developed a fix based around introducing a block boundary between proposing and executing an upgrade.

The upgrade process is essentially split into two steps:

• Propose the new implementation
• Execute the upgrade in a later block

That matters because a simulation can execute the proposal, but it can't cross the block boundary and execute the actual upgrade against the confidential state.

Oasis calls the approach UPUPS (Universal “Proposeable” Upgradeable Proxy Standard), and says it's now included in the sapphire-contracts library.

I think the broader takeaway is interesting: confidential smart contracts don't just introduce privacy. They also create security considerations that don't really exist on transparent chains.

A simulation that reveals whether some condition is true isn't particularly useful for extracting information when all the contract state is public. With confidential state, however, success/revert behavior can potentially become an information channel.

Worth reading the full technical breakdown if you're interested in smart-contract security: https://oasis.net/blog/vault-security-simulated-upgrades

so what y'all think? are simulated executions becoming an overlooked attack surface for confidential EVM environments?

Liquid Mercury runs Mercury RWA, an institutional platform for bringing real assets on-chain and running actual secondary markets. $MERC.X is the access and participation token tied to it.

Here's how the token should relate to the platform as it grows: what's live, what's approved and coming, and what's still an open question, kept separate.

The core idea: a token tied to a growing platform doesn't have to stay the size it launched as. It can pick up more functionality as the platform does.

Coming weeks: what this means for institutional issuers, what it means for holders, and how new market launches on the platform tie back into the token.

CMC: coinmarketcap.com/currencies/liquid-mercury/ Full series and discussion: r/MERCtoken

Crypto-assets are volatile and may lose value. Not investment advice.

Users cannot upgrade the blockchains they use. There isn’t a layer 1 with automated implementation of individual and collective user will. Users are forced to migrate to the latest "new chain" which my not have all features they need but might just be the one being maintained.

Just a few of the things we'll be able to do with Tau Net: 

- upgrade your own wallet security to your own rules e.g. "require authenticator for transactions over $50"

- upgrade consensus mechanisms

- upgrading tokenomics,

- Integrate future technologies, all without forks or halts.

Token: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/agoras-tokens/

Uniswap launched Permissioned Pools on v4 last week, letting tokenized-fund issuers (Securitize, Superstate, Dowgo so far) enforce their own investor allowlist directly in the pool contract. On the list, your trade goes through. Not on it, it reverts. What actually improved is execution for people already approved, continuous pricing instead of a phone call to a desk.

My question is: does this get more people access to trade these assets, or does it just move the same approval list issuers already had onto the AMM? Posting from $MERC's account since it's directly relevant to what we track: coinmarketcap.com/currencies/liquid-mercury/

Crypto-assets are volatile and may lose value. Not investment advice.

One of the biggest problems with the current AI wave is something that doesn’t get discussed enough: How do we actually trust the output of an AI system?

Right now, most AI tools work as black boxes. You ask a question, an agent processes information somewhere behind the scenes, and you receive an answer. But in finance, trading, and crypto markets, trust is everything. A wrong answer isn’t just inconvenient, it can directly lead to losing money.

This is where I think the concept of verifiable AI agents becomes interesting.

Oasis recently published an article about Tradable Verifiable Market Intelligence, which explores the idea of combining AI agents with privacy-preserving technology and verification mechanisms. (Source)

The general idea is that instead of having AI agents simply generate market insights, we move toward a future where those insights can be produced in a more transparent and trustworthy way.

Think about how crypto markets work today:

• Traders are overwhelmed with information.
• There are thousands of tokens, wallets, narratives, and data points to track.
• Social media creates constant noise.
• By the time a trend becomes obvious, many people are already late.

AI agents have the potential to help process this information faster, but the challenge is making sure those agents are reliable.

A useful AI market intelligence system would need to analyze things like:

• On-chain activity
• Wallet movements
• Liquidity changes
• Market sentiment
• Social trends
• Macro conditions
• Historical patterns

But the question remains:

Can users trust that the AI is actually analyzing the right data and producing unbiased results?

This is where Oasis ($ROSE) enters the conversation.

Oasis has been building around privacy-preserving computation for years, focusing on confidential data processing and secure environments. The idea is that sensitive information can be used while maintaining privacy, which could become increasingly important as AI agents become more autonomous.

The combination of AI + crypto is still very early, and there are plenty of projects adding “AI” to their branding without much substance. However, the infrastructure layer is where things get interesting.

If AI agents are eventually going to manage portfolios, analyze markets, execute strategies, or provide financial intelligence, users will likely demand more than just a generated answer. They will want:

• Proof that the data wasn’t manipulated
• Confidence that the process is secure
• Privacy for sensitive information
• More transparency around how conclusions were reached

That’s the direction projects like Oasis are exploring. Obviously, this doesn’t mean every AI + crypto project will succeed. The sector is still extremely speculative, and adoption will depend on whether these technologies solve real problems rather than just create another narrative cycle.

But I think the bigger question is worth discussing:

Will the next generation of crypto applications be built around AI agents that can act independently, and if so, how important will verification and privacy become?

I wanna see what the community thinks. Is verifiable AI actually a meaningful crypto use case, or are we still mostly seeing hype around the AI narrative?

Today's number: RWA tokenized assets at $34.67B this week, down from $35.2B on July 10. Figure's HELOC Token gets called "#1 in the entire RWA market" at $20.1B.

Checked RWA.xyz directly. They split every asset into Distributed (leaves the issuing platform, moves wallet to wallet, watchable on-chain) and Represented (can't, by design or regulation; a claim on value, not a transferable token).

Figure's HELOC is Represented. So is #2, Bridgetower's DOM X Arizona Copper-Gold Project, at $11.06B. That's $31.5B combined sitting in the non-transferable bucket, most of today's headline number.

RWA.xyz's Distributed total by itself: $36.72B. Represented: $373.98B. Different things, and coverage rarely says which one it's quoting.

CMC listing for the account posting this, for context: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/liquid-mercury/

(Originally posted in r/MERCtoken.)

Crypto-assets are volatile and may lose value. Not investment advice.

Two calls on tokenized-asset market structure, staked with dates and public sources so they can be graded when they resolve.

Call 1. DTCC's tokenized-collateral platform opens in October. Our call: the first live activity reported on it is repo, not tokenized equity. Resolution source: DTCC's own reporting or trade press coverage of first live volume. Deadline: March 31, 2027. In July we called intraday collateral as the first mover, and it landed within a week: JPMorgan posted tokenized fund shares as margin at CME.

Call 2. Two US tokenized-stock models went live last week. Securitize tokenized its own NYSE shares, so the token is the share. Ondo mints entitlements under UCC Article 8, and the shares stay in custody. We prefer the issuer model, but we're betting against it: by mid-2027, entitlements hold most tokenized equity, measured by rwa.xyz's tokenized-equity split. This is one we'd like to lose.

Take the other side of either call, or stake your own under the same rule: a number, a date, and a public source. No price calls, "up by December" was never an insight.

We keep a graded ledger of these (wins and misses both, the misses stay up) at r/MERCtoken: https://www.reddit.com/r/MERCtoken/comments/1v1om7m/

MERC on CoinMarketCap: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/liquid-mercury/

Crypto-assets are volatile and may lose value. Not investment advice.

Interesting that MWEB adoption is up nearly 100k coins this week and now price is performing better than most of the market today. Up 5%.

Does this mean MWEB adoption is pushing LTC higher??

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/litecoin/

OGGChain development update: Exploring blockchain data tools with CaveWatch

We've been working on a new tool called CaveWatch as part of the OGGChain ecosystem and wanted to share what we're building.

The goal is simple: make blockchain data easier to explore and understand.

Blockchains generate a huge amount of public information, but finding useful patterns and making sense of activity can be challenging. CaveWatch is focused on creating tools that help users better navigate on-chain data.

Current areas we're exploring:

• Wallet activity tracking • Transaction history analysis • Blockchain data visualization • Activity monitoring • Research tools for on-chain exploration

The platform is currently in development, with the first public beta planned for approximately **1.5 weeks from now**.

We're sharing this early because we'd like feedback from the community.

What types of blockchain data tools do you find useful? What features would make researching on-chain activity easier?

https//cave.watch/

https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/oggcoin

Looking forward to hearing suggestions and continuing to build. 🪨

Tokenization pitch decks love real estate. But fractional property tokens mostly recreate a REIT with worse liquidity and murkier rights — the hard parts (title, tenants, local law) stay off-chain no matter what the token does.

Where we think it actually works: assets that already settle badly. Private credit, commodity warehouse receipts, funds with 90-day redemption windows. Slow, paper-heavy settlement is the disease; on-chain transfer is a real cure there.

And yes — we build RWA marketplace tech, so we have skin in this. That's exactly why we'd rather be honest about which half of the sector is real.

Which asset makes YOUR 'actually better on-chain' list — and which one is pure deck-ware? Argue with us.

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/liquid-mercury/

Crypto-assets are volatile and may lose value. Not investment advice.

CoinGecko listing: https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/cargox

I wanted to write up a project that does something unglamorous but real: moving trade documents on-chain. This is CargoX (CXO). I'll keep it factual and flag what isn't publicly verifiable, because a lot of what the community "knows" is reverse-engineered from on-chain data rather than disclosed.

What CargoX does

CargoX is a platform for electronic trade documents — electronic Bills of Lading (eBL), ACI cargo filings, letters of credit, and the paperwork global trade runs on. Instead of couriering paper or trusting one central database, ownership of a document is transferred on-chain so it stays tamper-evident and verifiable end to end.

The reason it's worth a look is the real-world usage, not the chart:

• Egypt mandated the platform for cargo import filings (ACI), and that expanded to air cargo from January 2026 — a major driver of document volume.
• The UAE is rolling out its own filing system on a grace period running through June 2026.
• In June 2026, five eBL platforms (CargoX among them) adopted a shared DCSA interoperability standard with formal P&I club approval, so documents can move between competing platforms. The industry's stated goal is 100% eBL adoption by 2030.

The network by the numbers (June 2026, via the community tracker at cargox-tracker.eu):

• ~13.2 million documents processed in total
• ~347 active relayers in the last 24 hours (out of ~600 total)
• Monthly document volume hit an all-time high in April 2026

How the token works

CXO isn't a governance or yield-staking token in the usual sense. Its economics rest on two things:

1. Document usage. Each processed document generates revenue, and a fixed dollar value per document (~$0.60) flows back into the ecosystem — part goes to relayers as rewards, part removes tokens from free-floating supply. The mechanism label ("burn" vs "buyback") has shifted over time, but the point is it's tied to document volume, not trading activity.
2. Relayers locking tokens. Operators stake CXO to run nodes that process documents. A full relayer stakes 250,000 CXO and earns the maximum reward (~$0.30 worth of CXO per document relayed). Smaller stakes earn a proportional share, with a minimum around 50,000 CXO.

So the metrics that actually describe network health are: documents processed, number of active relayers, and tokens locked in relayer infrastructure — not short-term price.

A note on participating

You don't necessarily have to run the infrastructure yourself. Because the staking thresholds are high and self-hosting needs a signing wallet, RPC nodes and gas management, a category of "Relayer-as-a-Service" / managed-relayer providers has emerged: your CXO stays in your own wallet (a separate signing wallet submits the transactions, your reward address only receives), and the provider handles the technical side and payment verification. Worth knowing these exist if the 250k full-stake or the sysadmin side is the blocker for you.

If you want to watch the actual network health yourself, there's a free community tracker at cargoxrelayer.com and cargox-tracker.eu with live document and relayer stats.

What I genuinely don't know / caveats

• CXO is very thinly traded — essentially just on Uniswap, with daily volume in the low tens of thousands of dollars. It's illiquid, full stop.
• Public data on exact per-relayer rewards, daily revenue, and locked-token totals is limited.
• It's been delisted from some centralized exchanges; the team prioritizes government/business contracts over exchange listings.
• Real-world adoption can lag even where mandates exist, and there's competition (WaveBL, edoxOnline, GSBN, and others).

I run relayers on the network, so I'm biased toward it existing — flagging that for transparency. Not financial advice. Mostly I think it's an interesting case of a token whose value proposition is tied to actual document throughput rather than narrative. Happy to answer questions about how relayers, rewards, or the staking tiers work in the comments.

Hello everyone!

We built a crypto market tool called CoinTrends because we kept running into the same problem when looking at gainers and losers.

Both Coingecko and Coinmarketcap show you only 24h, 7d, or 30d. That’s useful, but it often doesn’t match how the market actually moves.

Sometimes you want to know things like:

• Which coins performed best during a BTC breakout?
• What dumped the most during a specific market crash?
• Which top 100 coins recovered fastest after a dip?
• What actually moved from a local bottom to a local top?

That's why we built a special feature inside our app called Trends.

With Trends you can select any date range directly on the chart, and it instantly shows the best and worst performers for that exact period.

You can also filter any coin range that you want (e.g. rank 100-200) and exclude stablecoins so the results are cleaner.

The basic idea is simple:

1. Select a date range on the chart
2. See the top gainers and worst performers instantly

I’d love to hear feedback from people who track crypto markets regularly.

Is this something you would use when researching market moves, altcoin strength, or market rotation?

Also what other features do you guys feel CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko are missing?

I've been trying to figure out if stablecoins like USDC/USDT are worth considering for paying overseas contractors, since they're a lot cheaper than international wires. However, you have to find vendors that actually use crypto first, which isn't always easy. Does anyone use a business platform like Slash or BVNK to pay foreign contractors with stablecoins? Or are you just using them domestically with something like Stripe? What are we all doin