Securitize falls 16% after earnings miss, tokenization revenue drops

cointelegraph2026-08-13 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-08-13 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Securitize shares fell 16% in premarket trading after the tokenization platform reported Q2 revenue of $14.4 million, missing Wall Street estimates of $20.6 million and marking a 5% year-over-year decline. Revenue from its core tokenization business dropped 12% to $7.8 million. The company, backed by BlackRock, posted a widened net loss of $21.7 million and a swing to negative adjusted EBITDA. Despite the financial miss, it reported record average tokenized assets under management of $4.3 billion, a 16% increase.

Securitize shares sank in premarket trading on Thursday after the tokenization platform missed Wall Street revenue estimates.

Securitize reported $14.4 million in total revenue in its second-quarter earnings, down 5% compared to the same period last year, according to its quarterly results published on Wednesday.

The revenue came in below the Wall Street consensus estimate of $20.6 million, according to analyst estimates compiled by Yahoo Finance. Securitize shares traded at $6.62 in premarket trading as of 8:10 am UTC, down about 16% from Wednesday’s $7.86 close.

Securitize reported $7.8 million in quarterly revenue from tokenization, down 12% from $8.9 million in the second quarter of 2025.

The BlackRock-backed company also reported a record average tokenized AUM of $4.3 billion in the second quarter of 2026, up 16% from the second quarter of last year.

Securitize posted a net loss of $21.7 million for the quarter, widening from $6.1 million a year earlier. Adjusted EBITDA swung to a $5.5 million loss from a $1.8 million profit.

Across the broader tokenized real-world asset market, the number of asset holders has climbed to more than 1.7 million, while distributed asset value stands at roughly $38 billion, according to data provider RWA.xyz.

Magazine: Securitize gains on NYSE debut with tokenized stocks live on Solana, Avalanche

İlgili Sorular

QWhy did Securitize's shares fall in premarket trading on Thursday?

ASecuritize's shares fell because the company missed Wall Street revenue estimates in its second-quarter earnings report.

QHow much revenue did Securitize report for Q2, and how did it compare to Wall Street's expectation?

ASecuritize reported $14.4 million in total revenue for Q2. This was below the Wall Street consensus estimate of $20.6 million.

QWhat was the percentage change in Securitize's tokenization revenue year-over-year for Q2?

ASecuritize's tokenization revenue for Q2 was $7.8 million, which is down 12% from $8.9 million in the second quarter of the previous year.

QWhat was Securitize's net loss for the quarter, and how did it compare to the previous year?

ASecuritize posted a net loss of $21.7 million for the quarter. This loss widened significantly from a net loss of $6.1 million a year earlier.

QAccording to the article, what is the current state of the broader tokenized real-world asset market?

AAccording to data from RWA.xyz, the broader tokenized real-world asset market has over 1.7 million asset holders, and the distributed asset value stands at roughly $38 billion.

İlgili Okumalar

Attention: Cryptocurrency Exchange Mistakenly Transfers User Information to Hackers

Blockchain researcher ZachXBT reports that fintech company Revolut may have inadvertently disclosed user data to hackers by falling for a spoofed legal request. The incident began when Revolut received an information request that appeared to come from a legitimate government agency, using the agency's official email domain. The email was accepted as authentic because it contained valid domain verification information. Failing to detect the fraudulent nature of the request, Revolut potentially provided user information in response. Potentially compromised data includes user names, dates of birth, occupations, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, copies of passports or driver's licenses, selfies from identity verification, account statements, IBAN information, withdrawal records, and extensive transaction history, including Bitcoin transactions. Revolut's security notice stated that facial biometric telemetry data was not affected. ZachXBT notes that while the incident appears limited so far, it may have specifically targeted high-net-worth users. Several Revolut users have reportedly received security notifications related to this event.

cryptonews.ru1 saat önce

Attention: Cryptocurrency Exchange Mistakenly Transfers User Information to Hackers

cryptonews.ru1 saat önce

CPI Ignites Rate Hike Expectations! Crypto Market Liquidates Both Long and Short Positions, Nearly 100,000 Traders Wiped Out

The release of the U.S. August CPI data, showing overall inflation at 3.4% year-on-year, has significantly increased market expectations for a Federal Reserve interest rate hike. Following the data, cryptocurrency markets experienced sharp volatility, with Bitcoin initially dropping to around $76,000 before briefly surging to nearly $80,000. This whipsaw action led to massive liquidations, with nearly 100,000 traders facing approximately $674 million in losses over 24 hours. Market pricing now indicates an 80% probability of a 25-basis-point Fed rate hike at the upcoming September meeting. While this provided some temporary clarity for risk assets like stocks, which closed higher, analysts caution that underlying inflationary pressures, particularly from energy prices, remain unresolved. In crypto markets, the brief Bitcoin rally saw its 50-day moving average cross above the 200-day average, but this "golden cross" signal quickly failed as prices retreated. On-chain analysis identifies a significant supply wall for Bitcoin between $82,000 and $85,000, which may cap near-term advances. Meanwhile, capital flows show a divergence, with Bitcoin spot ETFs seeing outflows while Ethereum spot ETFs attracted inflows.

marsbit1 saat önce

CPI Ignites Rate Hike Expectations! Crypto Market Liquidates Both Long and Short Positions, Nearly 100,000 Traders Wiped Out

marsbit1 saat önce

Google and Meta Called Out for Benchmark Gaming

Recently, analysis firm SemiAnalysis accused tech giants Google and Meta of "benchmark gaming" with their AI models Gemini 3.8 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3. The accusation stems from a dramatic performance drop between two versions of the Terminal-Bench evaluation for AI agents. On the older, public Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash scored 89.4, ranking second and beating GPT-6 Astra, while Muse Spark 1.3 scored 88.8. However, on the newly released, more secure Terminal-Bench 4.0, their scores plummeted to 19.1 and approximately 33.3 respectively, far behind competitors. SemiAnalysis argues this indicates "benchmark contamination," where companies train models not on the public test questions themselves, but on expensive, privately purchased training data specifically designed to mimic the benchmark's style. This has evolved into a lucrative industry, with specialized firms selling tailored training tasks for thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The article specifically points to Datacurve, a company that both sells expert coding data and runs its own benchmark (DeepSWE), where the accused models also performed well. Meta's Chief AI Officer, Alexandr Wang, dismissed the claims as a "silly argument," pointing out similar performance drops for other models like GPT-5.6 Sol. He stated Meta never claimed Muse Spark 1.3 was as powerful as top-tier models, only that it offered better value. The report concludes that this is the inevitable fate of all high-quality public benchmarks—they become "gamed" over time. The proposed solution of private, high-quality benchmarks comes with a significant downside: it would erode public transparency, turning open rankings into marketing tools and leaving developers without a common, fair measure to compare AI models.

marsbit2 saat önce

Google and Meta Called Out for Benchmark Gaming

marsbit2 saat önce

Crypto's Nouveau Riche Strikes Gold in the Real World: Coinbase Co-founder's Venezuelan Oil Field Adventure

Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam is venturing into the oil fields of Venezuela, a surprising shift for a prominent figure in the digital asset space. Through his company Primavera Infinita, he recently secured a production contract for the Budare-Elotes block with Venezuela's state oil firm PDVSA. This move into a politically volatile, sanction-scarred country highlights a bet on high returns from its reopening under new leadership and shifting U.S. foreign policy. Ehrsam’s investment reflects a venture capital-style appetite for risk, targeting assets deeply discounted by political uncertainty. He is not alone; smaller, politically connected U.S. firms like Aspect Holdings and Hunt Oil are also entering, while established giants like ExxonMobil remain cautious due to past expropriations. To manage the complex, capital-intensive nature of oil, Ehrsam is assembling a professional team. This trend extends beyond Ehrsam. Other crypto wealth, like BitMEX's Arthur Hayes and Tether, is diversifying into traditional hard assets—energy, metals, and agriculture—seeking physical scarcity as a long-term anchor. Tether, for instance, took a controlling stake in agricultural giant Adecoagro. These moves signify crypto capital's evolving interest: not just tokenizing real-world assets (RWA), but directly acquiring and operating them. Ultimately, Ehrsam's gamble is less on oil geology and more on the duration of Venezuela's current political window. It underscores a broader narrative where digital-era wealth seeks stability and scale in the physical world's most traditional, immovable resources.

marsbit2 saat önce

Crypto's Nouveau Riche Strikes Gold in the Real World: Coinbase Co-founder's Venezuelan Oil Field Adventure

marsbit2 saat önce

Refuting the Ethereum 'Abandoning' ETH Narrative: What Does It Really Mean to Pay Gas Without ETH?

Title: Refuting the "Ethereum Abandoning ETH" Argument: What Does Paying Gas Without ETH Really Mean? The debate sparked by Vitalik Buterin's discussion of EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions), which suggests users could pay transaction fees without holding ETH, has led to extreme claims that ETH will lose its value. However, this perspective misunderstands the proposal. Currently, an Ethereum user initiating a transaction must also pay the network's Gas fee in ETH. EIP-8141 aims to decouple these actions. It allows a transaction to be split into separate "frames." A user could sign a transaction to, for example, send USDC, while a separate Paymaster account pays the required ETH Gas fee on their behalf. The user would then settle the cost with the Paymaster using USDC or another token. From the user's perspective, they pay in a stablecoin without interacting with ETH. Crucially, from the Ethereum protocol's perspective, the Gas is still paid in ETH; only the settlement layer between the user and Paymaster changes. This concept isn't entirely new; ERC-4337's Account Abstraction already allows similar Gas sponsorship. EIP-8141 seeks to integrate this capability more natively. The core goal is to drastically improve user experience by abstracting away the complexity of Gas, similar to how one pays with a credit card abroad without handling the local currency. It also enables atomic operations, like bundling token approval with a swap, which would revert together if the swap fails. Regarding ETH's value, the argument that "no ETH is needed" is incorrect. While users may not hold ETH, Paymasters and services must still acquire and spend ETH to pay network fees on the backend. The demand for ETH shifts from being distributed across millions of user wallets to being concentrated in the balances of these service providers. The key variable is whether this improved usability attracts significant new users and increases overall network activity. If it does, total ETH burned in fees could rise substantially. If it doesn't, the change merely reshuffles who holds the ETH needed for Gas. In summary, EIP-8141 aims to lower the entry barrier by hiding Gas complexity, betting that this will drive broader adoption and increase the fundamental utility—and thus demand—for the Ethereum network and ETH itself.

marsbit2 saat önce

Refuting the Ethereum 'Abandoning' ETH Narrative: What Does It Really Mean to Pay Gas Without ETH?

marsbit2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot