Stellar’s native token, XLM, fell below the $0.20 mark. It is currently trading in a range of approximately $0.17–$0.19, even as network metrics reached new highs.
XLM’s drop below $0.20 is primarily due to oversold conditions, reflecting record levels of activity within the Stellar network. The 20, 50, and 200-day SMAs are above the current price, and momentum indicators point to a downward move.
The Ichimoku Kijun provides nearby dynamic resistance at $0.2064. Open interest in XLM futures fell sharply, with an estimated 11% drop in the last 24 hours. This further underscores the reduction in leveraged holdings.
In addition, there were also liquidations of long positions, indicating that the rollout of Protocol 25 was a stabilizing factor that helped prevent a deeper break below $0.20. This suggests that the protocol updates are mitigating extreme risk even as price action weakens.
Increased on-chain activity, TVL, and institutional use
On-chain Stellar saw significantly higher engagement, with TVL measured in XLM exceeding 900 million XLM, while a USD-denominated TVL figure was cited at approximately $163 million. Weekly active users remained stable at around 60,000, and weekly transactions surpassed 69 million.
Adoption drivers that fueled the surge included the tokenization of real-world assets. Tokenized RWAs on Stellar had reached approximately $1 billion by the beginning of 2026. Institutional integrations and custody use cases were also mentioned, with firms selecting Stellar rails for on-chain vaults and derivatives liquidity, indicating growing interest from larger counterparties.
For traders and fund managers, the short-term outlook is binary: price action remains under seller control until the key technical resistance is retested, while on-chain adoption mitigates some of the downside fundamentals by increasing long-term utility and optionality.
A decisive break above the Ichimoku Kijun near $0.2064 and a return of open interest in futures would change the risk profile; failing that, leverage reduction and decreased holdings could keep volatility suppressed but leave downside risk if macroeconomic liquidity conditions deteriorate.
