Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Best Crypto to Buy Now 18 July – FLEX Coin, Chainlink, Sui

ENS Price Drops 2% as Bitcoin Correlation Weakens Amid Fed Decision

What is the difference between TradFi (traditional finance) and DeFi (decentralized finance)? Proponents of each often see one or the other as inherently superior. Native crypto users tend to ride hard for decentralization over everything; those in web2 and banking often argue that DeFi simply replicates TradFi but worse. This guide gets into the nitty gritty, covering the strengths and weaknesses of TradFi vs. DeFi. Here’s what to know in 2026.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
➤ TradFi and DeFi offer fundamentally different architectures — one built on institutions and law, the other on code and decentralization.
➤In DeFi, liquidity is a programmable primitive, whereas in TradFi, it is controlled and distributed through siloed institutions.
➤ Both systems rely on different trust models: TradFi assumes institutional reliability; DeFi minimizes trust through transparency and incentives.
➤ Rather than replacing TradFi, DeFi reimagines its core functions with new assumptions about access, risk, and control.

In This Guide:

What is TradFi?What is DeFi?A brief history of financeTradFi vs. DeFiTradFi vs. DeFi: Which one is better?Finance is not a zero-sum gameFrequently asked questionsWhat is TradFi?TradFi is a combination of the words traditional and finance; it refers to the established financial system predating blockchain technology. Traditional finance encompasses all financial institutions, products, and services that operate within regulated frameworks, including:

Central banks Commercial banks Payment networks Money markets TradFi includes lending, investing, clearing, and settlement mechanisms and monetary policy, typically mediated by centralized entities such as banks, brokers, and regulatory bodies.

Some of the markets that collectively make up TradFi include equities (encompassing stocks, ETFs, options, futures, and swaps); fixed income (such as corporate bonds, sovereign debt, and municipal bonds); foreign exchange (FX); commodities (including energy, metals, and agricultural products); real estate; and interbank money markets.

What is DeFi?Decentralized finance (DeFi) refers to a system of financial services built on blockchains that operates without centralized intermediaries.

DeFi replicates functions of traditional finance, such as lending, borrowing, trading, asset issuance, and payments, using smart contracts and decentralized protocols.

Governance and operations are typically enforced through code and consensus mechanisms, rather than through centralized institutions or legal contracts.

At its core, DeFi mirrors the products and services of TradFi, but reimplements them using open-source software, transparent ledgers, and programmable logic. DeFi does not simply recreate financial primitives like borrowing or lending; it also reinvents TradFi’s more abstract or structural elements.

The total value locked (TVL) of DeFi often exceeds $100 billion.

A brief history of financeTradFi is a concept that exists in contrast to DeFi; its definition emerged retrospectively rather than from a single point of origin. Still, important historical developments in traditional finance laid the groundwork for DeFi’s rise.

The trajectory of TradFi — toward increasing abstraction, complexity, and dependence on centralized infrastructure — ultimately created the conditions for its alternative: DeFi. Each stage of TradFi’s development left a structural or philosophical gap that DeFi attempts to address through code and decentralization.

For this guide, we refer to TradFi’s history in relation to the rise of centralized banking (e.g., Bank of England, Bretton Woods, and the Federal Reserve). Centralized banking refers to a system where a single institution, known as a central bank, manages a country’s monetary policy and controls the money supply.

Central banking laid the foundation for the modern financial system. While there were many tradeoffs, the emergence of central banks helped:

Standardize monetary policy Stabilize currency issuance Introduce a baseline of safety to the system Simply put, this meant that people could use fiat currencies and procure loans with ease and safety. This shift made fiat broadly usable and bank deposits more trustworthy, which in turn led to the growth of institutional finance.

However, the same institutions that made modern finance possible also introduced new forms of risk and exclusion.

Centralization created single points of failure, opaque governance led to mistrust, and growing reliance on intermediaries concentrated power into the hands of a few.

The 2008 financial crisis was a turning point and made these vulnerabilities apparent, exposing how complex, interconnected systems built on trust and opacity could fail.

Shortly thereafter, the enigmatic figure Satoshi Nakomoto created Bitcoin in 2009. This marked the beginning of crpto and blockchain technology and created the technological primitives and philosophical principles upon which DeFi eventually built.

16 years ago, Satoshi encoded “Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks” into bitcoin's genesis block, at a time when “Eat Out from £5” was still a standard deal.

Each anniversary, this headline reminds us how bailout-driven monetary expansion erodes purchasing power. pic.twitter.com/27OQidXY0A

— Onramp (@OnrampBitcoin) January 3, 2025 TradFi vs. DeFiHow does DeFi organize and compose financial activity differently from TradFi? In the following sections, this guide covers how DeFi differs from TradFi in philosophy, core primitives, assets, and risk management.

PhilosophyAt their core, TradFi and DeFi are not just different in how they operate, they are built on different philosophies. In TradFi, rules are enforced through laws. Banks are audited, exchanges follow rules because of regulators, and contracts are enforced through courts.

On the other hand, DeFi is governed by protocols and economic incentives. It operates based on the principle of trust minimization (i.e., why trust when you can verify). In this scenario, trust is placed in code, cryptography, and math, and game theory becomes the mechanism for aligning interests.

DeFi’s ethos is rooted in open-source transparency, censorship resistance, and accessibility. Whereas TradFi asks users to trust institutions.

It is important to keep in mind that both philosophies have tradeoffs. TradFi offers legal recourse and protections but can selectively enforce rules. DeFi offers transparency, self-custody, and availability but introduces unique attack vectors.

Institutions vs. protocolsIn TradFi, financial activity revolves around institutions. Liquidity flows through a network of banks, exchanges, broker-dealers, and clearinghouses — each siloed and bound by trust. However, the core of DeFi is the decentralized exchange (DEX), specifically pools of liquidity.

DEXs were initially and solely created as peer-to-peer (P2P) marketplaces where users could trade crypto without needing an intermediary. Today, other protocols integrate with DEXs to source liquidity, manage collateral, and create new financial primitives.

In other words, they have evolved beyond their traditional role and now function more like modular liquidity infrastructure as opposed to mere trading venues.

Flow of liquidity in DeFi: BeInCryptoIn traditional finance, liquidity flows through banks, exchanges, shadow banks, and similar institutions. Each of these institutions are fragmented, requiring licenses, credit relationships, legal agreements, and intermediaries.

Flow of liquidity in TradFi: BeInCrypto In summary, the financial system is built around regulated entities. These institutions are the building blocks that hold and move capital. In DeFi, the liquidity itself is the primitive. As a result, DEXs become public, programmable liquidity layers that other protocols can plug into.

TradFiDeFiTraditional finance is institution-centricDecentralized finance is protocol-centricLiquidity is fragmented across multiple institutionsLiquidity is concentrated in liquidity poolsRequires institutional trust and contractual arrangementsAccess is open and permissionlessCoordination via legal infrastructureCoordination via programmable infrastructureAssetsTradFi and DeFi don’t just differ in architecture, they differ in the composition and trust assumptions of the assets that underpin their systems. In TradFi, the assets that make up the foundation of liquidity are composed of fiat currencies, sovereign debt, and credit instruments, backed by trust and legal enforcement.

USD, for, example, is a fiat currency that serves as a global settlement layer. It is backed by the economic activity of the U.S. (and its military).

Share of global reserve currencies: wolfstreet.comIn DeFi, the analogues to these assets emanate from protocol design. For example, ETH is a base currency of the Ethereum network (analogous to USD and the U.S.). However, it is also a yield-bearing asset through staking — similar in function to a sovereign bond, such as U.S. treasuries.

LP tokens are like claims on underlying capital and have similar functionality to equity or structured notes. Lending protocol receipt tokens, like aUSDC or cDAI, are on-chain debt instruments backed by collateral in smart contracts.

CategoryTradFiDeFiBase assetFiat currencies (USD, EUR, JPY)Native tokens (ETH, SOL, BTC)Risk-free yield Sovereign bonds (e.g., U.S. Treasuries)Staked ETH / LSTs (e.g., stETH)Credit instrumentsCorporate bonds, commercial paperLending protocol debt (e.g., aUSDC, cDAI), undercollateralized loans (Maple)Equity-likeStocks, ETFsProtocol tokens (e.g., UNI, AAVE), LP tokens (claim on revenue/yield)Collateral InstrumentsRepo securities, margin accountsLP tokens, vault shares, wrapped assets The big difference lies in the trust assumptions. TradFi relies on solvency of the nations and institutions issuing and custodying the assets; DeFi relies on code and incentive alignment.

StablecoinsStablecoins are somewhat of an anomaly, as they have ties to both worlds. They are the bridges between TradFi and DeFi. They allow DeFi protocols to price assets and settle trades, all while functioning on-chain.

Fiat-backed stablecoins (USDC and USDT) are on-chain liabilities of off-chain institutions, similar to how eurodollars are liabilities held in foreign banks. They rely on off-chain solvency, legal enforcement, and trust in the custodian. Because of this, fiat-backed stablecoins are more like a hybrid asset: neither fully DeFi nor TradFi.

Tell me without telling me you live in America.

Stablecoins have many use cases in the eurodollar system.

I have personally used them to pay for things in SE Asia and South America. They were preferred to local currency or bank dollars.

Walt is burying his head in the sand and… https://t.co/ZDPOYbxNlv

— Austin Campbell (@CampbellJAustin) December 13, 2024 Decentralized stablecoins (DAI and crvUSD), on the other hand, fit natively into DeFi’s trust model. They are backed by on-chain collateral, managed by smart contracts, and governed by decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).

Risk management and designOne of the most important questions we must ask about every financial system is what happens when things go wrong? A financial system’s design addresses how it operates under both normal conditions and stress.

In traditional finance, a network of institutions and regulations manage risks. Banks have capital reserves, trading firms have margin requirements, so on and so forth. In this system, trust relies on legal enforcement and solvency.

Conversely, DeFi does not delegate risk management, it is resolved in real time. Protocols like Sky (formerly MakerDAO) and Aave mitigate credit risk through:

Over-collateralization Decentralized oracles Time weighted average prices (TWAP), Bots that execute liquidations automatically In this system there are no bailouts — just code and game theory.

Liquidation bot on Aave: app.blocksec.comOne of the tradeoffs of this design is that protocols and assets are more volatile in the short term, but resilient over time. On the other hand, TradFi buffers risk through institutional control. This design effectually hides risk until it reaches a breaking point.

one thing crypto has over tradfi is the high frequency of liquidations. liquidate early, liquidate often. accumulate data, improve at risk management, reduce systemic risk

tradfi does the opposite, putting the whole system at risk with just a couple days of bad price action

— juthica (@juthica) April 5, 2025 Both systems acknowledge that risk cannot be eliminated, only designed for. Each approach takes a different philosophy of control.

GFC vs. Terra-Luna and Celsius contagionThe Great (or Global) Financial Crisis (GFC) is an event that began in 2007 and peaked in 2008. It was a financial crisis that originated in the U.S., spread to other countries, and became widely recognized as the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The GFC exposed how interdependence and the lack of transparency can allow risk to accumulate quietly and spread systemically. Bailouts and quantitative easing ensured that the system remained operational. However, this also taught the world an important lesson: in TradFi, risk is socialized.

Much like the GFC spread to global financial markets, the Terra-Luna collapse was the catalyst for widespread contagion in crypto markets. This led to the collapse of Celsius, Voyager, Three Arrows Capital, and many other CeFi platforms.

The contagion revealed the systemic risks of centralized lending platforms operating under the banner of DeFi. Though this event spread throughout the crypto markets, leading to a collapse in asset prices, actual DeFi platforms remained operational.

TradFi vs. DeFi: Which one is better?Rather than question whether DeFi or TradFi is better, it’s smarter to consider what each system is designed for. TradFi is more mature and deeply embedded into the global economy. It supports everything from insurance, banking, real estate, and more. Entire industries rely on TradFi.

By contrast, DeFi is nascent, experimental, and narrow in practical application. Most of its activity centers around trading and lending. Its adoption is still niche and real-world application is still in its early phases.

However, DeFi reimagines core functions of the financial system. It is not meant to replace it entirely. TradFi builds around institutions and laws, whereas DeFi builds around protocols and minimized trust. It encodes rules on the blockchain, opens access to anyone, and allows users to hold and trade assets without intermediaries.

TradFi dominates in stability in scale, while DeFi is structurally more egalitarian. The real question is how will they influence each other in the future.

CategoryTradFiDeFiMaturityMature EmergingScopeBroadNarrowSystem designInstitution-centricProtocol-centricAccessPermissionedPermissionlessTransparencyOpaque systems, private ledgersFully transparent, real-time, on-chain dataRisk managementCentralized oversightOn-chain risk mitigationPhilosophyTrust in institutions and legal frameworksTrust minimized through open-source code and cryptographyValue propositionStability, scale, and economic integrationTransparency, composability, and financial inclusivityFinance is not a zero-sum gameTradFi and DeFi have two fundamentally different approaches to organizing and managing financial systems — one built on trust, the other on code. DeFi is still early but has introduced new possibilities. Conversely, TradFi is essential to global economies but subject to human error. The outcome of TradFi vs. DeFi is not a zero-sum game. The future of finance may not be one or the other but a marriage of both; something evidenced in the recent institutional adoption of crypto and popularity of Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs.

Frequently asked questions Both TradFi and DeFi have tradeoffs. While DeFi is better for transparency, TradFi is better for real world use. Both have strengths and weaknesses, however, TradFi is the more widely used of the two.

TradFi is the established financial system that predates DeFi. The term was created retrospectively as the alternative to DeFi. It comprises multiple institutions, such as banks, insurance, equities, real estate, and more.

DeFi is the collection of financial services on the blockchain. It replicates the function of traditional finance, such as lending, borrowing, trading, payments, and more. What separates DeFi from traditional finance is the decentralization of the systems that are built out from blockchain protocols.

Yes, it is possible to make money in DeFi. There are many protocols that replicate familiar products and services in traditional finance. Some of these include lending, borrrowing, and trading.

Fidelity’s MetaPlanet Stake, Chang’s Legal Victory, and More | APAC Morning Brief

Best Crypto to Buy: Top XRP Alternatives as SEC Delays Decision on Spot XRP ETFs

Price analysis 1/26: BTC, ETH, BNB, SOL, XRP, ADA, AVAX, DOGE, DOT, LINK

3 Best Altcoins To Buy Today 30 Jan: SEI, LINK, DOGE

Cover image via u.today Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by our writers are their own and do not represent the views of U.Today. The financial and market information provided on U.Today is intended for informational purposes only. U.Today is not liable for any financial losses incurred while trading cryptocurrencies. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. We believe that all content is accurate as of the date of publication, but certain offers mentioned may no longer be available.

The market went through something similar to a reset that is essentially making a proper recovery possible in March when multiple breakthroughs line up properly. 

Bitcoin between liquidity clustersThe $70,000 range has essentially turned into the most fiercely defended price level on the chart, as Bitcoin is once again trapped in a narrow battle zone. The way the market is currently set up, Bitcoin is wedged between fierce overhead resistance and liquid support below.

Source: CoinglassTechnically speaking, Bitcoin is still trading below major moving averages as it tries to level off following a steep drop. A narrow consolidation pattern, that shows hesitation rather than unambiguous directional confidence, is being formed by the sideways grinding price action.

HOT Stories

Every attempt to push higher is met with strong selling pressure close to the upper boundary, strengthening the resistance wall between $69,000 and $70,000. The structure implies that although buyers are active, they are not yet powerful enough to take back control.

Key BTC zonesThis range is particularly significant because of the enormous liquidity concentration shown by the most recent 24-hour BTC liquidation heatmap. The battlefield is characterized by two major liquidity clusters: the first is located around $69,000, a heavy short liquidation zone, and the second cluster, situated at about $66,000, is full of lengthy dense liquidations that might be swept if the price falls. 

You Might Also Like

The market is responding to leverage positioning as well as price levels. Liquidations increase momentum, so whichever side breaks first could start a domino effect. A breakdown below support could hasten selling pressure through lengthy liquidations.

The image of indecision is reinforced by volume behavior, as sharp moves cause spikes to appear, but they soon disappear, suggesting that big players are holding off on making a commitment until they have confirmation.

Ethereum moves forwardFollowing months of structurally lower highs and numerous attempts to sustain recovery, the most recent move above the 100 EMA represents a significant shift in short-term momentum.

According to the chart, Ethereum had been trading below important moving averages for a while, and the 26, 50 and 200 EMAs were all stacked in a bearish manner.

ETH/USDT Chart by TradingViewPrice action broke sharply from the previous support zone near $2,800 and then gradually compressed near the $1,900-$2,000 region.

The decline accelerated, and a bearish continuation phase was confirmed when that zone, which had served as a long-standing floor, gave way. The recent surge above the 100-day mark indicates that there is less pressure to sell in the near future.

Ethereum's potential for moreThe push higher resulted in an increase in volume, which is significant because prior attempts at recovery were unpopular and quickly faded. This time the move followed a string of smaller higher lows and consolidation, suggesting that sellers were losing control prior to the breakout.

The 200-day average is still above as a significant resistance level, and Ethereum is still trading below the longer-term moving averages. In the past, recovering the 100-day average has frequently signaled the start of a transitional phase, as opposed to an abrupt trend reversal.

You Might Also Like

The breakout, in this case, should be seen as a technical advancement rather than an indication of a complete recovery. If buying pressure continues, momentum may continue, as it has recovered from oversold territory and is entering neutral levels.

Keeping the price above the recently recovered average and turning it into dynamic support will be Ethereum's next major challenge.

Shiba Inu's direction unclearWith price action confined inside a declining structure that has determined its short-term direction for weeks, Shiba Inu enters March at an intriguing technical crossroads. SHIB is still under a lot of pressure on the longer time frame chart, trading below important moving averages that are still sloping lower.

SHIB/USDT Chart by TradingViewHowever, if one particular condition is met, namely a clean breakout from the descending triangle formation, the lower time frame, especially the four-hour chart, shows early indications that momentum could shift. The classic conflict between persistent sellers and stabilizing demand is reflected in the descending triangle that can be seen on the four-hour time frame.

Although bears are still in control of the overall trend, lower highs continue to push the price toward a comparatively flat support zone, indicating that they have been progressively losing strength. The current configuration is noteworthy because, as the pattern develops, volatility has been declining.

For March to be bullish, SHIB must break above the declining trendline with strong volume. Prior recovery attempts were swiftly rejected, primarily due to insufficient buying pressure to validate reversal attempts.

Bitcoin and crypto market twist has brought unexpected changes to almost all assets. Prices have been declining with little or no hope for a reversal. The FTX exchange fiasco intensified the performance as several losses have been recorded in the entire crypto space.

Following the events, the price of Bitcoin dipped below its critical resistance level of $20K. Since then, the primary cryptocurrency has plummeted as the value slipped toward the $17K region.

Over the past 24 hours, BTC could not make any significant positive movement. Hence, the token has resolved to consolidate around the $17K level. But many doubts are brewing if a storm could follow this new calmness in the future.

Bitcoin Calms Around $17K Bitcoin has failed to trigger enough volatility that could push the price higher. The cryptocurrency has stalled around the $17K level during some trading hours. As of yesterday, BTC managed to hit up to $17,424. But the surge couldn’t last long as the bears suddenly took over.

According to data from Binance, the primary crypto dropped to an intraday low of $16,867. However, the coin is gradually climbing upward. At the press time, Bitcoin is trading at around $16,835, indicating a drop. It boasts a market cap of about $326.81 billion, and its dominance over the altcoin is at 38.33%.

Bitcoin price fails to surge above $17,000 l BTCUSDT on Tradingview. com Over the years, several interpretations for prolonged periods of reduced volatility have been given. One such is that it stands as a precursor toward a massive surge. Hence, the speculation on Bitcoin’s current consolidation could represent the calm before the storm.

Altcoins In Red Zone The crypto market has experienced an overall drop as prices keep dropping. With the strong presence of the bears, the altcoins have painted the market red. This declining trend has cut down the overall market cap more.

At the time of writing, the cumulative market cap sits at $853.33 billion. It shows a drop of about 1.39% over the past 24 hours.

The performance of the altcoin has not been impressive. Most recorded a decline between 2% and 6% over the last day.

The worse performers over the past day are BTSE Token and GMX. While the former dipped by 8.3%, the latter plummeted by over 7.2 % within 24 hours.

Other losers include ETH with a 3.41% drop, DOGE dipped by 6.47%, XRP by 2,57%, BNB by 2.38%, MATIC by 3.17%, ADA by 3.11%, and others.

However, the market saw just a few exceptions to the southward move. The best performers are Axie Infinity’s AXS and Synthetix Network’s SNX. While AXS surged by 4.4%, SNX recorded an increase of 5.4% in the last 24 hours.

Featured image from Pixabay, chart from TradingView.com

Table of contents

The crypto market is witnessing renewed optimism, as the latest 24-hour data points out. Hence, the total crypto market capitalization has surged by 1.75%, reaching $2.24T. In addition to this, the 24-hour crypto volume shows a 31.09%, accounting for $63.82B. At the same time, the Crypto Fear & Greed Index stands at 23 points, indicating “Fear” among the market participants.

Bitcoin ($BTC) Drops by 0.04%, While Ethereum ($ETH) Sees 1.62% Rise Bitcoin ($BTC), the leading cryptocurrency, is currently changing hands at $65,838.45. This price level highlights a modest 0.04% decrease while Bitcoin’s ($BTC) market dominance sits at 58.8%. However, the flagship altcoin, ETH/USDT, is now trading at $1,793.10, presenting a 1.62% rise. In the meantime, the market dominance of Ethereum ($ETH) is 9.3%.

$BPX, $RDNT, and $AZZ Lead Crypto Gainers of Day The list of today’s key crypto gainers includes Black Phoenix ($BPX), Radiant Capital ($RDNT), and Arena-Z ($AZZ). Particularly, $BPX has surged by a staggering $1900.34%, hitting the $0.09142 mark. Following that, a 417.69% jump has placed $RDNT’s price at $0.001757. Subsequently, $AZZ is hovering around $0.00008048 after a 219.58% increase.

DeFi TVL Jumps by 0.80%, and NFT Sales Volume Records 38.0% Spike Today, DeFi TVL has witnessed a 0.80% growth, attaining the $74.623B spot. Additionally, the top DeFi project in terms of TVL, Lido, has hit $16.14B, displaying a 1.20% increase. Nonetheless, when it comes to 1-day TVL change, XY Finance has become the top DeFi player, claiming a stunning 843% surge over the past twenty-four hours.

Similarly, the 24-hour NFT sales volume has jumped by 38.0%, reaching $2,062,096. In the same vein, the top-selling NFT collection, Bored Ape Yacht Club, has climbed by 227.7%, touching $406,304.

GameStop Investor Challenges CEO Pay Vote, US Blocks Chinese AI Firms Moving on, the crypto landscape has also experienced many other crucial developments across the globe over the past 24 hours. In this respect, a GameStop ($GME) investor has filed a lawsuit to block a vote concerning the $35B pay package of the CEO, Ryan Cohen, until the shareholders get adequate disclosures.

What’s more, New York Magazine has disclosed the claim of a fellow inmate who says SBF is planning his exclusive coin after completing his imprisonment period. Furthermore, the US authorities are reportedly holding off on the inclusion of Chinese AI venture DeepSeek and over 100 other entities flagged as posing risks to national security.

AUTHOR

Crypto journalist with years of experience providing in-depth analysis and news on blockchain and decentralized finance. With a keen eye for detail, Shahzaib delivers insightful articles that explore the latest trends, market movements, and innovations within the crypto and blockchain ecosystem. His work focuses on educating readers while offering expert commentary on the evolving landscape of digital assets, DeFi protocols, and the broader impact of blockchain technology.

The Great XRP Retirement: Testing the Math Behind the Hoax

Published: April 23, 2024

Last Updated: April 23, 2024

Paypal research proposes economic incentives for sustainable Bitcoin mining. “Green miners” using clean energy get priority for certain transactions. Locked rewards in transactions incentivize miners to go green. PayPal’s Blockchain Research Group in collaboration with Energy Web and DMG Blockchain Solutions is proposing a novel approach to address the environmental concerns surrounding Bitcoin mining. The research uses the power of cryptocurrency’s core economic principles to incentivize miners towards sustainable practices.

Bitcoin’s robust security relies on its Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism, but this process comes at a significant cost – immense energy consumption. This new research proposes a system that integrates seamlessly within the existing PoW structure, promoting a shift towards clean energy usage by miners.

The system identifies miners utilizing sustainable energy sources as “green miners.” These miners are assigned unique public keys, referred to as “green keys,” which act as identifiers within the network. 

Transactions with lower fees are then routed towards these green miners. However, a key element differentiates these transactions: a portion of the mining reward for these transactions is “locked” in a special multisignature payout address.

This locked reward becomes the crucial incentive for green miners. Only miners with green keys can unlock and claim this additional reward, creating a strong economic motivation to prioritize transactions that specifically support sustainable mining practices. 

The research emphasizes that this approach does not require any fundamental changes to Bitcoin’s core functionality. Instead, it builds upon the existing economic framework to influence miner behavior.

The successful implementation of this system has the potential to significantly improve the environmental footprint of Bitcoin mining. Furthermore, this research demonstrates the power of cryptoeconomic incentives to promote positive change within established blockchain networks. The researchers hope this approach can serve as a model for implementing similar sustainability-focused solutions across various industries moving forward.

Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.

Paypal plans to reward Bitcoin mining firms who take steps to reduce the environmental effects of their operations.

PayPal’s Blockchain Research Group, in partnership with Energy Web and DMG Blockchain Solutions, has proposed utilizing “cryptoeconomic incentives” to encourage Bitcoin miners to use low-carbon energy sources, according to a blog post from April 22.

The company expects that the experimental incentive will spark greater discussion and innovation around Bitcoin, and it is soliciting industry feedback on potential improvements.

Bitcoin mining is the process by which individuals known as “miners” solve cryptographic puzzles to generate new blocks of transactions on a cryptocurrency’s blockchain, with the fastest miners earning bitcoins for their efforts. Miners utilize big, energy-hungry computers to break through such puzzles fast.

According to the plan, “green miners” who use sustainable energy sources would be granted unique “green keys,” which are linked to their public keys.

Bitcoin transactions would be preferentially directed to environmentally friendly miners by attaching lower fees, along with an additional BTC reward locked in a multisig payout address that only these green miners can access.

“Green miners will be incentivized to mine these transactions since they will be the only ones eligible for the additional “locked” BTC reward,” the proposal explained.

This incentivizes sensible, profit-driven miners to use low-carbon energy sources in order to earn more Bitcoin. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, utilizing low-carbon mining technologies reduces carbon emissions and slows global warming.

According to the paper, the proposed solution will use Energy Web’s “Green Proofs for Bitcoin” platform to help miners obtain certification based on their clean energy and grid impact scores. Green miners can participate in the incentive scheme by registering and sharing their green keys on the platform.

“The solution outlined here aims to achieve a good degree of decentralization, ease of implementation and trust independence while distributing incentives,” the company said.

According to critics, the solution is being developed at a time when Bitcoin creation places an enormous burden on local power systems and taxpayers in the US.

Critics have attempted to prohibit Bitcoin mining, claiming that it causes air, water, and noise pollution, among other environmental hazards. According to the Rocky Mountain Institute, the process requires an estimated 127 terawatt-hours (TWh) of energy every year, which is more than Argentina’s total energy consumption.

Meanwhile, a New York Times article revealed that Bitcoin miners utilize about seven times the energy Google uses for its global operations each year.

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

PayPal’s Blockchain Research Group has joined Energy Web and DMG Blockchain Solutions to support “sustainable” Bitcoin mining. According to the paper, the collaboration “presents an opportunity to accelerate the clean energy transition” using crypto-economic incentives.

PayPal Research On Bitcoin Mining In a recently published paper, PayPal’s Blockchain Research Group (BRG) proposed “the possibility for a more sustainable future” in Bitcoin mining. The investigation revealed that, as of April 2, data estimates the annualized emissions to be over 85 million metric tons of carbon dioxide due to Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism:

The reason behind this significant impact is the proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism that secures the Bitcoin network. In PoW, miners engage in a competitive race to find solutions (i.e., cryptographic hashes) for Bitcoin blocks, requiring powerful computational hardware like ASIC machines.

This race and its demand for robust computational power require significant electricity. Miners’ use of carbon-based energy sources consequentially “results in the underlying greenhouse gas emissions footprint of the Bitcoin network.”

As a solution, PayPal’s BRG aims to “incentivize desired activity with crypto-economics” to improve and optimize “existing, proven strong networks.” Additionally, the firm wishes to support “more environmentally responsible” mining and encourage other miners to shift towards cleaner energy sources.”

The paper suggests routing on-chain transactions to “green miners” via low transaction fees with a BTC reward “locked” in a multisig payout address. The rewards would serve as an incentive to mine these transactions, as only green miners would be eligible to receive them.

The solution is based on identifying miners that use low-emissions energy sources. After identification, their public keys, referred to as “green keys,” would be used to reward miners with Bitcoin in a trust-independent method through a “1-of-n multisig script.” As a result, the payout address would allow the miners with green keys to claim the rewards.

Proposed solution to incentivize green Bitcoin mining. Source: PayPal's BRG Providers such as Energy Web would help to identify the green miners and onboard them to the solution. The non-profit organization offers a “Green Proofs for Bitcoin” initiative that promotes transparency and “supports alignment between Bitcoin mining and global decarbonization effort.”

Miners would apply for and share their sustainable mining certifications through the Green Proofs for Bitcoin validation platform.

Moreover, the proposed solution has been successfully tested with DMG. The firm broadcasted multiple low-fee transactions to test how effectively they would operate under different levels of on-chain transaction volumes.

Depending on the transaction volume, the low-fee ones would “either take a long time to confirm or eventually be dropped by the network.” This would increase the green miners’ chances to pick them up.

Per the paper, the trade-offs were “acceptable,” however, alternative solutions could be evaluated:

It is possible to design alternative solutions where transactions and rewards can be sent to miners via a private mechanism rather than using the public mempool.

Exploring technologies like smart contracts or the lighting network is also proposed as an alternative way to address the issues. However, they could come at the expense of “trust dependence and a more complex implementation.”

However, it is worth noting that Bitcoin mining has been controversial. While many legacy companies, such as PayPal and others, have targeted the network due to its alleged intense electrical consumption and carbon emissions, other research has pointed to the increasing use of renewable energy and the low carbon emissions the nascent industry produces, as seen in the chart below.

Bitcoin mining carbon emissions are much lower than those of other industries. Source: Cambridge Research In an article posted by Forbes, analyst Jonathan Buck pointed out:

the CCAF has determined that the bitcoin industry uses a significant amount of renewable energy, sometimes more than half, depending on the jurisdiction. This is a testament to the industry’s commitment to sustainability and its potential role in the green revolution.

BTC is trading at $65,972.43 on the one-day chart. Source: BTCUSDT on TradingView Featured Image from Unsplash.com, Chart from TradingView.com

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Nick Sawinyh on 11 Mar 2026

Stablecoins are blockchain tokens pegged 1:1 to a fiat currency, usually the U.S. dollar. They give you the programmability and speed of crypto without the price swings. That simple combination has turned them into plumbing for DeFi, cross-border payments, remittances, treasury management, and on-chain settlement.

The market crossed $250 billion in total supply by mid-2025 and has continued growing. As of early 2026, total stablecoin market capitalization is above $310 billion according to DefiLlama data. Tether’s USDT sits around $183-187B (roughly 60% of the market), Circle’s USDC around $74-76B. Growth has been driven by regulatory clarity in the U.S. and EU and a wave of institutional adoption.

This article is for anyone considering issuing a stablecoin, evaluating the infrastructure to do so, or trying to map the competitive field. It covers issuance models, regulatory frameworks, technical architecture, service providers, the new “stablechains,” step-by-step launch guidance, and the risks worth planning for.

How stablecoin issuance works Issuing a stablecoin means designing, launching, and operating a token where new units are minted only when equivalent reserves or collateral are locked up. Tokens can be burned (destroyed) when someone redeems. The issuer’s job is keeping that mint-burn cycle trustworthy, transparent, and compliant.

You can either build it yourself with custom smart contracts, banking partnerships, and compliance infrastructure, or use a turnkey platform (often called “Stablecoin-as-a-Service”). Most organizations in 2026 choose the turnkey route, at least to start. But understanding both matters. Even turnkey solutions force architectural decisions that stick with you for years.

Which issuance model fits? Every stablecoin starts with a model decision. Your choice determines capital requirements, regulatory burden, revenue mechanics, and risk profile.

Fiat-backed (custodial / off-chain reserves) The dominant model, accounting for over 90% of the market. Also the one regulators prefer.

Users or institutions deposit fiat (USD cash, Treasuries, repos, money market funds, or insured bank deposits) with the issuer or a qualified custodian. The issuer mints an equivalent number of tokens on-chain. When someone redeems, the tokens get burned and the reserves are released. Reserves sit in segregated, audited accounts.

The economics: issuers earn yield on reserves, primarily from short-term Treasuries. That’s how Circle, Tether, and Paxos make money.

The trade-off is centralization. You depend on banks and custodians, you need licenses, and you’re subject to ongoing audits. But for most businesses, this is the right starting point. USDC, USDT, PayPal’s PYUSD, and newer entrants like KlarnaUSD (issued via Bridge) all use this model.

Crypto-collateralized (on-chain, over-collateralized) Users deposit volatile crypto (typically ETH) into smart contracts at 120-200% collateralization ratios. Price oracles are central to this model. They’re external data feeds (Chainlink is the most widely used) that supply real-time asset prices to on-chain contracts. If oracle data is stale, manipulated, or delayed, liquidations can misfire or fail entirely, potentially threatening the peg. Oracle risk is one of the less-discussed but more dangerous failure modes in crypto-collateralized stablecoins. If the collateral ratio drops below a threshold, automatic liquidation kicks in. Minting and burning happen entirely through smart contracts.

This model is fully transparent and doesn’t need traditional banking relationships. The downside is capital inefficiency: you lock up significantly more value than you mint. Liquidation risk during volatile markets is real. MakerDAO’s DAI is the best-known example. Ethena’s USDe is a newer hybrid.

Revenue comes from stability fees and liquidation penalties rather than reserve yield.

Algorithmic / hybrid Pure algorithmic stablecoins use smart contracts to expand and contract supply through incentive mechanisms, with little or no collateral backing. After the TerraUSD collapse in 2022, this model is largely discredited. Most regulators have banned or restricted it. The EU’s MiCA framework prohibits purely algorithmic stablecoins outright.

Hybrids like FRAX combine partial reserves with algorithmic mechanisms, but adoption remains niche. Unless you have a very specific reason, avoid this model in 2026.

Tokenized deposits / bank-integrated Tokens represent direct claims on insured bank deposits or tokenized reserves on permissioned or public chains. JPMorgan’s JPM Coin (now JPMD) is the primary example. These stablecoins integrate directly with traditional banking rails.

The advantage is deposit insurance and the trust infrastructure of established banks. The downside is ecosystem lock-in and limited multichain reach. This model works best for large financial institutions that already have a banking charter and want to extend their rails onto blockchain.

Regulatory frameworks in 2026 Regulation is simultaneously the biggest barrier and biggest enabler of stablecoin issuance. If you don’t understand the regulatory environment, the rest of this article won’t matter much.

The global picture has converged around a few core requirements: 1:1 reserves in high-quality liquid assets, licensing, redemption rights at par, regular audits, and AML/KYC compliance. Most frameworks also restrict or prohibit yield payments directly to stablecoin holders, keeping the instrument classified as a payment tool rather than a security. But the specifics vary by jurisdiction, and the debate around yield-bearing stablecoins is active (the White House held closed-door meetings on this topic as recently as February 2026).

United States: the GENIUS Act and federal/state oversight The GENIUS Act, passed in 2025, created the first comprehensive federal framework for stablecoin issuance. Only “permitted” issuers can operate: FDIC-insured banks and their subsidiaries, or federally/state-qualified non-bank issuers.

An important structural detail: oversight is split between federal and state regulators depending on issuer type and size. Non-bank issuers with under $10B in circulation can be regulated at the state level under existing money transmitter frameworks. Larger issuers and bank-affiliated issuers fall under federal oversight via banking regulators, with the OCC playing a role for non-bank issuers at the federal level. It’s not a single-regulator model.

Requirements: 1:1 reserves in cash, Treasuries, repos, and insured deposits. Monthly attestations and annual audits for large issuers. Redeemable at par. No interest payments to holders under the current framework. Foreign issuers face restrictions unless their home jurisdiction has equivalence arrangements.

European Union: MiCA The Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation took effect across 2024-2025 and creates two categories: e-money tokens (EMTs, pegged to a single currency) and asset-referenced tokens (ARTs). Issuers must be EU credit institutions or authorized electronic money institutions. Reserves must be held in high-quality liquid assets at EU banks.

Pure algorithmic stablecoins are banned. Redemption at par is mandatory, often without fees. The ECB has oversight authority for systemically important stablecoins. Full authorization is required by July 1, 2026 for all issuers operating in the EU.

Other jurisdictions The UK is building its framework through FCA and Bank of England e-money rules, with caps for systemic stablecoins. Singapore requires a MAS license and full backing. Japan restricts issuance to banks and trust companies. Hong Kong has introduced HKMA licensing for HKD-pegged stablecoins.

The pattern across all of these: convergence on reserves, redemption rights, and licensing. Differences mainly come down to issuer eligibility and acceptable reserve assets. The U.S. favors Treasuries, the EU favors bank deposits.

Technical architecture: what a modern stablecoin stack looks like Whether you build or buy, you need to understand the components.

Core smart contracts Deployed on one or more blockchains (Ethereum, Solana, Algorand, others), these handle minting, burning, and transfer logic. For 2026 compliance, your contracts need role-based access control (minter, burner, pauser, blacklister, clawback roles), pause and freeze functionality for AML and sanctions enforcement, and blacklisting and clawback for court orders.

Most teams start with audited frameworks like OpenZeppelin’s ERC-20Upgradeable combined with Pausable, AccessControl, and UUPS proxy patterns for upgradeability. Some blockchains offer built-in compliance controls at the protocol level. Algorand, for instance, has native freeze and clawback functions that make it attractive for institutional issuers without requiring custom contract logic.

Advanced standards like Tempo’s TIP-20 (on their payments-first L1) add native protocol-level features: built-in mint/burn/transfer restrictions, RBAC, transfer memos for reconciliation, and native yield distribution, all without extra contract complexity.

Issuer backend system A secure, centralized system (typically API-driven) that authorizes minting and burning events. It verifies that fiat deposits arrived before instructing the smart contract to mint, and confirms burn events before releasing fiat for redemption. This is the operational core that ties on-chain activity to off-chain banking.

Custody and reserve layer Fiat and other reserve assets sit in custody accounts at regulated banks or trust companies. Qualified custodians provide regular attestations. Typical reserve composition includes cash, short-term U.S. Treasuries, repos, money market funds, and insured bank deposits. Increasingly, reserves also include tokenized Treasuries from providers like BlackRock, WisdomTree, and Superstate, which generate yield while maintaining liquidity. As a point of reference, Tether’s Q4 2025 attestation reported $141 billion in total U.S. Treasury exposure (direct holdings plus overnight reverse repos), making it one of the largest holders of U.S. sovereign debt globally.

Compliance and identity layer KYC/AML checks and transaction monitoring tools integrate with the issuance and redemption flow. Only verified users can mint or redeem. All on-chain activity gets screened for illicit finance. Blockchain analytics providers like Chainalysis and Blockaid are standard parts of the stack.

Fiat on/off-ramps The bridges between blockchain and traditional finance. Licensed money services businesses like Coinme provide the infrastructure to move funds between bank accounts, cards, and on-chain stablecoins.

Multichain deployment Most stablecoins in 2026 operate across multiple chains. You can deploy natively on each chain, use cross-chain bridges or interoperability protocols (Axelar, LayerZero, Circle’s CCTP), or issue on specialized payment-focused L1s. The choice depends on your target users and use cases.

Security Multiple independent audits are table stakes. Beyond that: timelocks on critical contract functions, multi-sig governance, invariant checks, and HSM or MPC-based key custody. Daily reconciliation between on-chain supply and off-chain reserves is standard practice, along with monthly attestations.

Stablecoin-as-a-Service providers Most businesses in 2026 use a turnkey provider rather than building from scratch.

Paxos The most established player, operating since 2018. Paxos is the issuer behind PayPal’s PYUSD and has partnerships with Interactive Brokers and other large enterprises. They handle regulatory compliance, reserve custody, and minting/redeeming technology across multiple blockchains.

They’ve processed over $180B in activity and focus on enterprise partnerships. Expect enterprise-level pricing to match.

Circle Circle is first and foremost the issuer of USDC, the second-largest stablecoin. They don’t offer white-label issuance of fully custom-branded stablecoins the way Brale or Bridge do. What they do offer is programmable wallets, Circle Mint for institutional USDC access, and the Circle Payments Network (CPN) for connecting financial institutions. If you want to build payment products on top of an existing, highly regulated stablecoin rather than issuing your own, Circle’s stack is the natural choice.

Circle supports 20+ blockchains, offers API-based integration, and charges transaction-based fees. Their cross-chain transfer protocol (CCTP) is a real differentiator for multichain deployments. Circle also went public on the NYSE in 2025, adding another layer of transparency.

Brale A U.S.-regulated issuance platform that lets businesses create and manage their own fiat-backed stablecoins. Brale acts as the legal issuer under its money transmitter licenses, handling custody, reserve management, and compliance while providing APIs for minting and burning across 20+ blockchains.

Good option for organizations that want a custom-branded stablecoin without building the regulatory infrastructure themselves. Revenue-share pricing model.

Bridge (Stripe-acquired) Bridge offers an Open Issuance API to launch and manage a branded stablecoin with minimal code. They handle reserves, liquidity, compliance, and fiat on/off-ramps. Stripe’s acquisition gives Bridge access to an enormous merchant network.

Bridge has received preliminary approval to establish a national trust bank, which would let them offer regulated custody and reserve management under a federal framework.

Coinbase Custom Stablecoins Launched December 18, 2025, this is Coinbase’s “stablecoin-as-a-service” offering. It lets businesses create custom-branded stablecoins backed 1:1 by USDC and other USD-stablecoins, with Coinbase handling issuance, smart contracts, compliance, and custody. First partners include Flipcash, Solflare, and R2. Separately, Coinbase is also powering stablecoin-denominated institutional funding for Klarna via USDC.

Important nuance: at launch, Custom Stablecoins use USDC as the underlying collateral rather than direct fiat reserves. That means Coinbase is acting as an issuance layer on top of Circle’s stablecoin, not as a direct fiat-to-stablecoin issuer like Paxos or Brale. Coinbase has applied for an OCC national trust charter, which could eventually allow it to custody reserves directly.

Frax Finance Known for its hybrid stablecoin model, Frax now offers “GENIUS-compatible” white-label infrastructure. Per project announcements, Sonic Labs used Frax’s framework to launch a USSD stablecoin backed by tokenized Treasuries. Frax provides modular smart contract infrastructure with built-in composability through LayerZero.

The DeFi-native option, designed for teams comfortable with on-chain tooling.

Stably A primary partner for blockchain platforms like Algorand and Stacks. Stably provides a Stablecoin-as-a-Service suite including fiat on/off-ramps, multi-chain issuance, and compliance. They specialize in stablecoins pegged to various fiat currencies beyond the dollar.

M0 M0 is a programmable stablecoin issuance protocol that separates token logic from reserve custody. It lets businesses build “stablecoin extensions,” which are custom-branded tokens with their own compliance rules, yield mechanics, and access controls, all built on a shared liquidity and interoperability layer. M0 raised a $40M Series B and has over $779M in on-chain supply minted. Bridge (Stripe) uses M0’s protocol under the hood for stablecoin issuance, as confirmed when MetaMask launched mUSD. MoonPay’s PYUSDx framework also runs on M0 infrastructure.

Worth watching closely. M0’s approach of decoupling reserve management from token issuance could become the default pattern for application-specific stablecoins.

Other providers worth noting Agora offers regulated stablecoin issuance with a trust-based approach. Bastion takes a similar regulated trust posture. Anchorage Digital is primarily a federally chartered crypto bank providing qualified custody and regulated banking services. It’s not a full stablecoin issuance platform, but it plays a role in the custody and compliance layer that issuers need. Fireblocks provides infrastructure and custody tooling (MPC wallets, workflow automation, settlement) across 100+ chains. It processes roughly 15% of global stablecoin volume and is used by 300+ banks and payment providers, but it’s infrastructure plumbing, not a legal issuer of stablecoins. BitGo offers qualified custody infrastructure. Cobo provides full-suite payment operations, combining MPC custody, payment APIs, and Wallet-as-a-Service across 80+ chains. Tassat focuses on tokenized deposits and real-time settlement for institutional digital asset operations, including its Link platform for real-time collateral and settlement workflows.

The stablechains: purpose-built L1s for stablecoin payments This is probably the most interesting development in stablecoin infrastructure right now. Starting in 2025, a new category of “stablechains” appeared: Layer-1 blockchains built specifically for stablecoin payments and issuance. Instead of deploying on general-purpose chains like Ethereum or Solana, issuers can use infrastructure where stablecoins are first-class citizens rather than an afterthought.

Three projects lead this category: Tempo, Circle Arc, and Tether Plasma. All three are EVM-compatible, target sub-second finality, and aim to make stablecoin transactions competitive with Visa, ACH, and SWIFT. They differ in philosophy, ecosystem, and who they’re designed for.

A word of caution: this category is very early. As of March 2026, only Plasma has a live mainnet with real production volume. Tempo and Arc are on public testnet with mainnet launches expected later in 2026. Performance claims (TPS targets, finality times) are based on testnet data or design targets, not proven production metrics at scale. Partnership announcements reflect stated intentions and early pilots, not necessarily live integrations processing real money. That said, the backers (Stripe, Circle, Tether) have the resources and distribution to make these projects matter, which is why they’re worth tracking closely.

Tempo Incubated by Stripe and Paradigm with over $500M raised. Tempo is a payments-first L1 that takes a deliberately neutral approach. No native token. Gas fees can be paid in any stablecoin through an enshrined AMM that auto-swaps to validators. Issuers aren’t forced into any single stablecoin ecosystem.

Tempo’s native TIP-20 token standard includes built-in mint/burn restrictions, protocol-level compliance (TIP-403 Policies), delegatable RBAC with on-chain audit logs, transfer memos for off-chain reconciliation, and native yield distribution. Design targets include 100,000+ TPS and roughly 0.6-second deterministic finality (no re-orgs), though these are pre-mainnet projections, not production-verified metrics.

Other protocol primitives: a Fee AMM (pay gas in any stablecoin, creating structural demand), a native stablecoin DEX for on-chain liquidity and FX (on roadmap), dedicated payment lanes with guaranteed blockspace, and account abstraction with passkey support.

Per Tempo’s announcement materials, the ecosystem roster includes Stripe, Shopify, Nubank, Klarna, DoorDash, Deel, Revolut, Visa, Anthropic, and Deutsche Bank. These are announced partnerships, not necessarily confirmed live integrations. Klarna’s involvement is separately confirmed through its Coinbase stablecoin funding announcement.

Status: public testnet live, mainnet expected H1 2026.

Best for issuers who want maximum flexibility, multi-stablecoin support, and deep payments integration with minimal vendor lock-in. Contact: [email protected].

Circle Arc Circle’s own L1, announced August 2025. Arc makes USDC the native gas token, creating a fully dollar-denominated chain. It uses Malachite BFT consensus for sub-second finality (around 780ms) and targets over 50,000 TPS.

The defining feature is a built-in FX engine with on-chain RFQ and PvP settlement, which makes it attractive for cross-currency treasury operations. Arc deeply integrates Circle’s stack: CCTP, native mint/burn, Gateway, and on/off-ramps. It also offers opt-in privacy designed for compliance-ready institutional use.

Partners include BlackRock, Visa, Goldman Sachs, Mastercard, HSBC, AWS, Coinbase, and OpenAI.

Status: public testnet with 100+ institutional participants, strong activity since October 2025. Mainnet expected 2026.

Best for institutions already in the USDC ecosystem, or those needing on-chain FX and capital markets infrastructure.

Tether Plasma The only stablechain with a fully live mainnet as of March 2026. Plasma is Tether’s chain, built around USDT with a zero-fee transfer model using a Paymaster contract. Sub-second finality at 1,000+ TPS. Over $373M raised.

Plasma supports 25+ stablecoins but is clearly USDT-centric. Per Tether’s communications, it has attracted significant deposits and become one of the larger USDT networks by balance. It includes a native Bitcoin bridge and optional confidential transactions. The ecosystem spans 100+ DeFi partners (including Aave) per project announcements.

Best for USDT-focused use cases, retail and emerging-market payments, and anyone who wants live production volume today.

How to choose between them The decision comes down to a few questions.

What’s your primary stablecoin? USDT points to Plasma. USDC points to Arc. Multi-stablecoin or custom-branded points to Tempo.

Who are your target users? Retail and emerging-market payments: Plasma. Enterprise and institutional capital markets: Arc. Fintechs, merchants, embedded finance: Tempo.

How much execution risk can you tolerate? Plasma is live but carries heavier regulatory scrutiny as a Tether-affiliated project. Tempo and Arc have strong backers but are pre-mainnet.

Many issuers are hedging by testing or launching on multiple chains simultaneously.

End-to-end launch stacks Several providers bundle token issuance, reserve management, compliance, and payment rails into a single integrated offering.

Polygon’s Open Money Stack bundles blockchain settlement, enterprise-grade wallets, and regulated fiat on/off-ramps (via Coinme) into one API. Transactions settle in under 2 seconds at roughly $0.002 each. Institutions can move money from a bank account into a stablecoin, settle on-chain, and convert back to fiat without juggling multiple vendors.

Cobo combines MPC custody, payment APIs, and Wallet-as-a-Service for high-volume stablecoin operations. It supports 80+ chains and plugs into existing treasury systems.

Brale’s unified platform lets an enterprise launch a stablecoin and have it instantly provisioned with on/off-ramps, pricing, APIs, and reporting, all under Brale’s regulatory umbrella.

Step-by-step: how to issue a stablecoin in 2026 The practical sequence, from concept to production.

1. Define purpose and structure. What is the stablecoin for? Payments, treasury management, loyalty programs, embedded finance? Your answer determines which issuance model, platform, and chain make sense. Fiat-backed is the right choice for most use cases. Pick your platform early since switching later is expensive.

2. Secure banking and reserves. Partner with qualified custodians or banks. Set up segregated 1:1 reserve accounts holding cash, short-term Treasuries, repos, money market funds, or insured deposits. Diversify across custodians where possible. Stress-test your liquidity for redemption spikes. Turnkey providers like Brale or Paxos handle much of this, but you still need visibility into the reserve structure.

3. Develop or integrate the technology. If building custom: write and audit your smart contracts (start with OpenZeppelin frameworks), implement compliance controls (RBAC, pause, freeze, clawback), choose your target chains, and get multiple independent security audits. If using a platform: integrate via API (Bridge, Brale) or deploy using native token standards (TIP-20 on Tempo).

4. Set up issuance and redemption flows. Mint tokens when verified fiat deposits arrive. Burn tokens on redemption and release corresponding reserves. Build continuous reconciliation between on-chain supply and off-chain reserves. Publish monthly attestations.

5. Ensure compliance and transparency. Obtain the necessary licenses (or confirm your turnkey provider holds them). Implement KYC/AML for all mint and redeem operations. Set up transaction monitoring. Publish reserve reports and audit results. Under the GENIUS Act, large issuers need monthly attestations and annual audits. MiCA requires full authorization by mid-2026.

6. Launch and distribute. Deploy on your target chain(s). Get listed on exchanges and DEXs. Provide initial liquidity. Monitor the peg continuously. Integrate into real payment flows: payroll via Deel on Tempo, merchant checkout through Stripe, remittance corridors.

7. Ongoing operations. This is where most of the work lives. Regular audits, risk monitoring, smart contract upgrades, regulatory reporting, and responding to compliance events (sanctions, court orders, suspicious activity). It never stops.

Provider comparison Provider Core capability Target customers Supported chains Complexity / cost Paxos Regulated issuance, custody, proven at scale Large enterprises, fintechs Ethereum, others Medium. High cost (enterprise contracts) Circle USDC issuer, programmable wallets, CPN, high liquidity Startups to enterprises 20+ chains Low. Transaction-based fees Brale Full-stack issuance, acts as legal issuer, multi-chain Startups to enterprises 20+ chains Low. Revenue-share pricing Bridge (Stripe) Open Issuance API, fiat on/off-ramps, Stripe distribution Enterprises, fintechs Multiple chains + Tempo Low. Transaction-based fees M0 Programmable issuance protocol, shared liquidity layer Developers, fintechs, wallets Ethereum, multi-chain Low-medium. Protocol-based Coinbase Custom Stablecoins Stablecoin-as-a-service, USDC-collateralized branded tokens Enterprises, fintechs Base, Ethereum (expanding) Low. Revenue-share Frax White-label modular infrastructure, RWA backing Blockchain networks, protocols EVM-compatible via LayerZero Medium. Variable cost Polygon End-to-end “Open Money Stack” Institutions, payment companies Polygon, multi-chain via Agglayer Low. Volume-based pricing Cobo Enterprise payments, MPC custody, treasury automation High-volume institutions 80+ chains Medium. Institutional pricing Fireblocks Infrastructure/custody tooling, MPC wallets, settlement (not an issuer) Large institutions 100+ chains Medium. Institutional licensing Stablechains comparison Aspect Tempo Circle Arc Tether Plasma Backing Stripe + Paradigm ($500M+) Circle Tether/Bitfinex ($373M+) Status (March 2026) Public testnet, mainnet H1 2026 Public testnet, mainnet 2026 Mainnet live Performance 100k+ TPS target (unverified), ~0.6s finality (design) 50k+ TPS target, ~780ms finality (testnet) 1k+ TPS, sub-second finality (production) Gas model Any stablecoin (no native token) Native USDC USDT-native + Paymaster (zero-fee USDT) Stablecoin focus Issuer-agnostic, multi-stablecoin USDC-centric USDT-centric (25+ supported) Key primitives Stable DEX, payment memos, dedicated lanes, TIP-20 FX engine, opt-in privacy, CCTP integration Zero-fee USDT, Bitcoin bridge, confidential txs Target users Fintechs, merchants, embedded finance Institutions, capital markets Retail, emerging markets, DeFi Real-world examples A few cases that show how this infrastructure comes together in practice. Note: some of these are announced projects or early-stage deployments, not fully scaled production systems. Where possible, I’ve verified against public announcements and press coverage.

MetaMask USD (mUSD) on M0/Bridge. Announced August 2025 by Consensys, MetaMask’s native stablecoin is the first issued by a self-custodial wallet. It uses Bridge for issuance and reserve management with M0’s protocol for the on-chain infrastructure. Planned to launch on Ethereum and Linea, with spending via MetaMask Card at Mastercard merchants.

Klarna’s stablecoin initiatives. Klarna partnered with Coinbase in December 2025 for USDC-denominated institutional funding. Separately, Tempo’s announcement materials list Klarna as an ecosystem partner launching “KlarnaUSD” via Bridge on Tempo, but public documentation of that specific deployment is limited beyond Tempo’s own communications. Worth monitoring but not yet a confirmed live product.

Sonic Labs’ USSD via Frax. Per Frax and Sonic project communications, Sonic used Frax’s white-label infrastructure and backed USSD with tokenized Treasuries. Independent documentation is thin, but it illustrates the modular approach: a blockchain network launching a native stablecoin by composing existing infrastructure rather than building from scratch.

Stablecorp’s QCAD. A Canadian dollar stablecoin that uses VersaBank as federally regulated custodian for reserves through VersaBank’s VersaVault platform. Stablecorp manages issuance and compliance while leaning on established banking infrastructure for credibility.

Stable Sea with BitGo. A B2B infrastructure platform that partners with BitGo for regulated custody and trading. Newer platforms can assemble best-in-class services from existing providers rather than building everything internally.

Risks worth planning for Good infrastructure reduces risk. It doesn’t eliminate it. Here’s what actually goes wrong.

Depegging. Market shocks, collateral liquidation cascades, or loss of confidence can push a stablecoin off its peg. Even fiat-backed stablecoins aren’t immune. USDC briefly lost its peg in March 2023 when Silicon Valley Bank failed with a portion of Circle’s reserves held there.

Custody and banking failures. Your stablecoin is only as safe as your custodian. Diversify where possible and understand the insolvency protections (or lack thereof) for your reserve accounts.

Smart contract bugs. A vulnerability in your minting or burning logic can be catastrophic. Multiple independent audits are the minimum. Timelocks, multi-sig controls, and bug bounty programs add layers of defense.

Regulatory changes. The GENIUS Act and MiCA are still relatively new. Rules will evolve. Non-compliance carries real consequences: fines, loss of license, blocked market access. Build compliance into the product from day one, not as an afterthought.

Sanctions and illicit finance exposure. Stablecoins are tools, and bad actors use them. You need transaction monitoring and the ability to freeze or clawback assets when legally required.

Operational risk. Stablecoin operations run around the clock. Reconciliation errors, oracle failures (for crypto-collateralized models), and infrastructure outages compound quickly.

Algorithmic model risk. If you’re considering an algorithmic or lightly collateralized design, this carries the highest systemic risk. The TerraUSD collapse proved that incentive mechanisms alone can’t maintain a peg under stress.

Best practices for 2026 issuers Automate reconciliation between on-chain supply and off-chain reserves. Manual processes break at scale.

Use bankruptcy-remote structures for reserve accounts. If your company has financial trouble, the reserves should be legally protected for token holders.

Build compliance into the product. Freeze, clawback, and blacklisting capabilities aren’t just regulatory checkboxes. They’re what institutional customers and regulators look for before working with you.

Partner with blockchain analytics providers from day one. Chainalysis, Blockaid, and similar firms provide transaction monitoring that regulators expect.

Publish clear redemption policies. Specify timelines, fees (if any), minimum amounts, and the process for large redemptions. Ambiguity erodes trust.

Start with a USD peg for maximum liquidity and market access. Non-USD pegs have their place, but infrastructure, liquidity, and regulatory clarity are all strongest for dollar stablecoins.

Plan for multichain or dedicated-chain deployment from the start. Retrofitting cross-chain support later is painful.

Consider starting on a turnkey platform or specialized L1 for speed, then evaluate custom infrastructure as you scale.

Where this is heading The infrastructure to launch a compliant stablecoin in 2026 exists. You can go from concept to live product in weeks through turnkey providers and purpose-built L1s. That speed would have been absurd even two years ago.

The decisions you face: which issuance model fits (fiat-backed for almost everyone), which platform or chain to deploy on (determined by your target users and stablecoin preference), and how much infrastructure to own versus rent.

White-label platforms like Bridge, Paxos, Brale, and Coinbase, issuance protocols like M0, or payments-optimized L1s like Tempo, offer the lowest barrier for most businesses. Custom builds still make sense for large institutions that need complete control and have the engineering team to maintain it.

One thing I’d flag: the temptation to over-engineer early is strong, especially for technical teams. The businesses actually getting stablecoins into production in 2026 are the ones that started with a turnkey provider, shipped, and iterated from there. The fundamentals, robust reserves, transparent operations, and clear redemption policies, matter more than the specific technology stack underneath.

Crypto Market Price Analysis Today: Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Golem (GLM), aelf (ELF), Solana (SOL)

BeInCrypto community recently had the pleasure of hosting Alon Muroch, SSV Labs Founder and a key contributor to SSV Network, in an insightful AMA session. As SSV celebrates its first year, Alon shared exciting developments, including the groundbreaking SSV2.0 upgrade and the introduction of Based Applications (bApps). Here’s a recap of the session, highlighting the major takeaways.

A Year of Growth and Success SSV Network has experienced rapid adoption, securing over 2 million ETH and establishing 1,200+ globally distributed node operators. Major projects like Lido, ether.fi, and various exchanges are already leveraging the network.

Introducing SSV2.0: A New Era for Ethereum Security With SSV2.0, the focus shifts from traditional staking and restaking to an innovative concept called Based Applications (bApps). These applications allow developers to tap directly into Ethereum’s validator set to secure various out-of-protocol services.

“Essentially, if you build something important like Oracles, Co-processors, AI agents, bridges, data availability, etc., you should get as close to Ethereum’s security as possible. That’s how the SSV2.0 roadmap was created, revolving around ‘Based Applications’, or bApps in short.” — Alon explained the shift

How bApps Revolutionize Security SSV2.0 extends validator participation beyond Ethereum, enabling multi-chain validation across Solana, Cosmos, and even Bitcoin. This approach transforms validators into a new asset class, fostering a more collaborative and secure ecosystem.

Risk Expressive Model (REM): It allows validators to allocate security based on a bApp’s specific needs dynamically. Based Applications Chain: A neutral app chain that enables multiple L1 validators to contribute security. Yield Opportunities: Validators can now opt into securing multiple bApps without slashing risks, creating a win-win model for both stakers and developers. The Economic Shift: SSV Tokenomics in SSV2.0 The upcoming changes in SSV economics introduce three new fee categories—validator operations, bApp security, and gas fees for the Based Applications Chain. This evolution will drive higher demand for the SSV token, making it ultra-sound (deflationary) similar to Ethereum.

“Currently SSV is used for paying fees for running validators on the SSV network. SSV2.0 will introduce two more fee categories (bApps and gas fees for the chain). That’s more than tripling the fees collected. Some of the collected fees (in SSV) will also be burnt.” — Alon elaborated

Bridging Multi-Chain Security SSV2.0 introduces a paradigm shift, allowing blockchain validators to collaborate in securing key infrastructure like oracles and bridges. This unlocks cross-chain security and enhances decentralization across different ecosystems.

“Imagine Solana and Ethereum validators working hand in hand to secure a really big oracle service between the two chains… That’s a type of collaboration that is not possible today. Multi-chain validators in SSV2.0 will usher in a new era of collaboration and a type of security which is greatly missing. Potentially that can even mean that Ethereum validators will secure Solana, and Solana validators will helpe secure Ethereum” — Alon illustrated the vision.

Incentivizing Developers & Ecosystem Growth SSV’s early adoption success stems from strategic incentives and partnerships. The SSV DAO has played a crucial role in onboarding developers, and Alon hinted at major incentive programs coming soon to further accelerate bApp development:

“We have some very big plans that I can’t disclose yet, haha. But I think the SSV DAO did an excellent job in incentivizing devs in the early days of SSV, which brought us to 2M ETH staked. I’m confident we can replicate that.” — Alon added.

Final Thoughts SSV2.0 is set to redefine blockchain security by making decentralized validation more accessible, capital-efficient, and multi-chain. The introduction of bApps, REM, and the Based Applications Chain marks a monumental leap for Ethereum’s security landscape.

“Based applications will profoundly change the restaking market and give rise to the Based Economy, unifying Ethereum and unlocking new sources of yield for validators.” — Alon said.

Stay tuned for further updates, and be sure to explore SSV Network’s website to get involved!

Crypto in 2025: Messari Predicts Key Trends Driving Growth

Crypto Market Price Analysis Today: Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Polymesh (POLYX), IOTA, ONDO

With Nof1’s live AI trading competition and Coinbase’s newly launched x402 protocol becoming major industry talking points, AI Agents are rapidly expanding their use cases across finance and payments.

As a representative protocol for AI payments, how does x402 differ from traditional payment systems? What scenarios does it serve? And as AI payments mature, what other foreseeable applications might AI Agents unlock? This Guest Expert piece summarizes perspectives shared by Haipo Yang, Founder and CEO of ViaBTC, on the feasibility of x402 and the future potential of AI collaboration networks.

Q: x402 has recently become a hot topic in the industry. What is the view on using token payments—like x402—to solve payment problems for AI?

Haipo Yang: From an engineering standpoint, x402 is a relatively simple protocol. Its core value is not inventing a new payment method, but packaging on-chain payments as a standardized web service—and introducing a Facilitator to address trust and execution challenges in on-chain payments.

Many comparisons are made between x402 and traditional payment systems, but these systems serve different “users.” Alipay and Visa offer excellent payment experiences, but they are designed for humans, not for AI Agents. For AI Agents, traditional payment systems currently create two obvious obstacles:

1) High entry barriers: It is difficult for scripts to open bank accounts and complete KYC, while generating a wallet address capable of paying on-chain can be done with a single line of code. 2) High friction costs: AI interactions are high-frequency and fragmented. An Agent might call a data API once and pay $0.0001. Routing that through card networks can introduce fees that exceed the payment itself. In practice, x402 leverages token programmability—together with the intermediary role of the Facilitator—to enable automated micropayments. In this context, the Facilitator functions like “Alipay for the machine world,” absorbing on-chain confirmation complexity so Agents can complete high-frequency transactions in milliseconds.

In conventional on-chain payments, interactions can be slow and complex. x402’s approach allows a Facilitator to operate as an execution layer for on-chain transactions: verifying signatures, fronting gas, submitting transactions, and handling on-chain details. The payer submits a signature to the Facilitator rather than directly performing on-chain operations. For both buyers and sellers, this reduces integration complexity by centralizing trust and settlement in the Facilitator.

Q: What is the outlook for x402, and what limitations might it face in real-world adoption?

Haipo Yang: x402’s long-term value primarily lies in an Agent-to-Agent economic network rather than consumer-facing payment experiences. For end users, payments should become invisible. In the future, an AI Agent is unlikely to ask a user to “scan to pay.” Instead, a user might set an instruction such as “Analyze the market every morning at 9 a.m.” The Agent could then call multiple service providers in the background for news or social data. Fees generated by high-frequency API calls can be settled automatically through x402, enabling service consumption end-to-end with minimal human intervention.

This model can shift API monetization from subscription memberships to truly pay-as-you-go usage, because x402 naturally fits machine-to-machine collaboration that is high-frequency and highly fragmented.

There is also an often-overlooked security advantage. Allowing an Agent to transact using a credit card number creates effectively unlimited liability. If an Agent is compromised or behaves incorrectly, it could generate uncontrolled spending. With a token wallet, spending limits can be enforced—for example, a capped “pocket money” balance of 100 USDC—keeping potential losses controllable.

However, x402’s simplicity also makes its limitations clear. The protocol relies heavily on Facilitators such as Coinbase. This simplifies development but introduces a centralization risk and a potential single point of failure. If a Facilitator goes offline, behaves maliciously, or censors transactions, the payment flow can break.

In addition, because x402 is designed to be simple, it does not cover certain real-world commerce requirements—such as refunds—within the protocol itself. Disputes around unfinished services or defective goods often require reversals, and irreversibility can make such flows harder to implement.

In parallel, broader Agent payment protocols are being explored, including Google’s AP2, with goals such as accommodating card networks, supporting cryptocurrencies, and handling complex flows like refunds. In the long run, more comprehensive standards may be desirable—but multi-stakeholder complexity can slow deployment. x402’s advantage is immediate usability: a wallet plus code is sufficient to start.

Q: In practice today, where are AI Agents delivering real value?

Haipo Yang: At present, the biggest beneficiaries of AI Agents remain developers. AI pair programming has become routine for many engineers, and tools such as Cursor have seen broad adoption. For large, architecturally complex projects, full responsibility is typically not delegated to Agents at this stage. But for tedious, time-consuming tasks—such as code review, unit testing, and parts of algorithmic logic generation—Agents can meaningfully reduce workload and save time.

Another notable area is enabling non-technical users. “Vibe coding” has attracted attention because it allows people without programming backgrounds to translate ideas into code through natural language. That said, Agent output often requires repeated debugging. Rapid prototyping becomes possible, but after many iterations codebases can become bloated and harder to maintain. Even so, a partial success rate can still be valuable because it enables a 0-to-1 leap for non-technical creators.

Agents are also increasingly useful for small, common workplace needs. For example, generating an icon, a button style, or a simple UI sketch previously required designer support. Agents can now produce quick drafts, reducing back-and-forth and accelerating iteration.

Despite current limitations, these capabilities are already sufficient for small teams and independent developers building demos or MVPs.

Q: Looking ahead, where is the biggest opportunity for AI Agents—and could crypto see similar new experiments?

Haipo Yang: Over a longer cycle, the opportunity for AI Agents is unlikely to remain confined to developer assistance. Future possibilities include more autonomous collaboration and autonomous procurement.

Industry experiments are emerging. For example, Nof1’s live AI trading competition effectively allows Agents built on different models to test strategy capabilities in real market environments. In this setting, Agents move beyond providing information to humans and begin forming closed loops of perception and action.

More exchanges are also starting to support MCP (Model Context Protocol). CoinEx, within the ViaBTC ecosystem, has published an MCP service on GitHub. With MCP services, an Agent can directly access an exchange’s real-time quotes, candlestick (K-line) data, and news feeds, then combine that data with model reasoning for deeper analysis. In principle, an Agent can generate strategies based on a user’s risk preferences and—when deployed locally—can also place orders automatically.

This trajectory enables automated trading and more intelligent market making. By observing real-time market depth, volatility, and trading volume, an Agent can dynamically adjust order prices and sizes, improving market efficiency and liquidity. These developments indicate a shift from “helping with research” to “supporting decisions and execution.”

Within this model, x402 can provide the economic rail for Agent collaboration. For example, an Agent tasked with producing an in-depth Bitcoin research report may lack certain data inputs. It can automatically call other Agents for on-chain position and transaction datasets, or for sentiment summaries aggregated from news, completing micropayments for each service behind the scenes. The end user receives a single report, while multiple Agent-to-Agent microtransactions occur in the background.

Taken together, Nof1 highlights decision-making in live environments, MCP supports data access and execution, and x402 enables economic collaboration among Agents. As Agents become capable of finding resources, purchasing services, invoking tools, and completing full task chains, the result increasingly resembles a digital economic system composed of many cooperating Agents.

HONG KONG, March 20, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The crypto market may still be obsessed with old cycle scripts, but the next phase could look very different.

For years, Bitcoin’s trajectory has been framed through the lens of the four-year halving cycle: supply shock, euphoric rally, brutal crash, repeat. That framework helped explain much of the market’s behavior in its earlier, retail-driven phases. But as institutional capital deepens its presence, regulated vehicles expand access, and crypto-native infrastructure matures, the old narrative may no longer be enough.

CoinEx Research has been among the voices arguing that the market is entering a structurally different era. In its annual outlook, Crypto Market Outlook 2026: Unlock Certainty in Volatility , the firm set out a base-case scenario in which Bitcoin could reach $180,000 by the end of 2026. The projection drew attention, but the broader thesis behind it may be more important than the number itself: Bitcoin is increasingly being shaped by a combination of macro liquidity, institutional flows, and crypto-native catalysts rather than by halving alone.

According to Jeff Ko, Chief Analyst at CoinEx , that target should not be mistaken for a promise. It is, he says, a probability-weighted outcome built on several conditions that have yet to fully align.

“The $180,000 base case is not a guarantee,” Ko says. “We maintain that view based on the macro backdrop, the supply cycle, and the continued buildout of institutional infrastructure. But we follow data, not narrative.”

In CoinEx’s view, the single most important variable remains the global liquidity cycle. For Bitcoin to move toward that higher-end scenario, the Federal Reserve would need to do more than deliver a token rate cut or two. What matters is a sustained easing posture that materially loosens dollar liquidity conditions. Historically, when real yields fall and the U.S. dollar weakens, capital tends to rotate toward both risk assets and hard assets, creating a more constructive environment for Bitcoin.

Regulation is the other key variable. Markets often price uncertainty more harshly than bad news. A clearer legal framework for digital assets in the United States, especially if the CLARITY Act were to advance meaningfully, could help reduce one of the most persistent structural drags on institutional participation. Combined with regulatory progress in Europe and major Asian markets, CoinEx believes that would support deeper engagement from asset managers, corporate treasuries, and other allocators that have so far remained cautious.

Paradoxically, some of the market’s most fearful sentiment readings do not necessarily invalidate that thesis. Ko argues that they may actually fit it.

“Historically, periods of extreme fear have more often marked accumulation zones than distribution zones,” he says.

Still, CoinEx is explicit about what would force a reassessment. If inflation were to reaccelerate sharply, pushing the Fed back toward aggressive tightening and removing the prospect of meaningful easing through mid-2026, then the macro basis for the forecast would weaken materially. In that scenario, the firm says it would likely revisit the target.

Why CoinEx Thinks the Halving Script Is Breaking Down

Skeptics might argue that the market does not look so different after all. Bitcoin has still experienced a severe correction, and visually, the pattern can resemble previous bear phases. But CoinEx believes the underlying structure of the market has changed in ways that matter.

The first and most visible difference is the role of spot Bitcoin ETFs. In previous cycles, there was no continuously operating, regulated institutional buying mechanism of comparable scale. For CoinEx, the significance of ETFs lies not only in the size of inflows, but in how those flows behave under stress.

Earlier corrections were often dominated by retail capitulation, cascading liquidations, and limited institutional counterbalance. In the current environment, however, CoinEx points to continued ETF net inflows even during periods of market weakness. That, Ko argues, suggests the emergence of a structural bid that can absorb some selling pressure rather than allowing every correction to spiral into the kind of collapse seen in past cycles.

That helps explain why CoinEx does not expect another 80% Bitcoin drawdown of the kind that defined earlier eras. A 47% correction may still be painful, but in the firm’s framework, it does not automatically imply the old cycle is intact.

The derivatives market is another area where CoinEx sees meaningful change. In earlier cycles, derivatives often acted as a volatility amplifier, magnifying price swings as leveraged traders rushed in and out of positions. Today, the composition of activity appears different, especially in markets such as CME Bitcoin futures.

In 2020 and 2021, open interest on CME was driven more heavily by directional traders and hedge funds expressing momentum views. CoinEx believes that a larger share now appears to come from basis traders running cash-and-carry arbitrage strategies. These participants are generally less likely to panic during price declines, and their presence may help stabilize rather than intensify volatility.

CoinEx also points to earlier-than-usual volatility compression as a sign of a maturing market with deeper liquidity and a broader holder base. The firm’s view is reinforced by Bitcoin’s changing relationship with equities. Rather than maintaining a fixed correlation with the Nasdaq, Bitcoin increasingly appears to move in a regime-dependent way: more independently during crypto-specific developments, and more closely with equities during broad macro shocks.

That behavior matters. It suggests Bitcoin is no longer simply replaying a neat post-halving template. Instead, it is increasingly influenced by a layered interaction between macro conditions, institutional allocation behavior, and internal crypto market developments.

A More Selective Market, Not a Broad Altcoin Revival

That same logic of structural change also informs CoinEx’s view on altcoins.

In late 2025, Ko said liquidity would become “ruthlessly selective,” flowing primarily into blue-chip projects with real utility. At first glance, that may seem difficult to reconcile with an exchange model that supports a wide range of altcoins. But CoinEx argues that research and exchange operations serve different purposes.

The research view is essentially a statement about return dispersion. CoinEx does not expect a broad, indiscriminate altseason in which liquidity lifts all tokens at once. Instead, it expects capital to become increasingly concentrated in projects with stronger adoption, clearer use cases, and more resilient positioning.

That does not mean an exchange should narrow its market offering to match only its highest-conviction research calls. Exchanges exist to provide access, liquidity, price discovery, and risk transfer across a broad set of assets for different kinds of users. Some want long-term exposure. Others want tactical trading opportunities, ecosystem access, or early-stage optionality.

In that framework, listing breadth is not endorsement breadth. Supporting a wide universe of assets does not mean telling users they all deserve the same long-term allocation.

The distinction is increasingly important in a market where capital may no longer reward indiscriminate speculation. If CoinEx’s thesis is right, the coming phase will be defined less by market-wide exuberance and more by selective flows, durability, and utility.

CoinEx’s Product Strategy: Extending the Core, Not Chasing a New Narrative

That emphasis on practicality also shapes CoinEx’s recent product expansion.

In 2025, the company launched three products aimed at different user needs: CoinEx Vault , an institutional self-custody solution; CoinEx OnChain , which allows users to trade DEX-linked assets through a CEX interface; and CoinEx Pay , a payment product designed for real-world crypto settlement.

Rather than describing these products as a separate growth engine, CoinEx frames them as infrastructure extensions of its core business. The company’s main growth priority, it says, remains the continuous improvement of the trading experience. In that sense, Vault, OnChain, and Pay are not a pivot away from exchange services but a way of making the exchange ecosystem more complete.

Among the three, CoinEx appears to see OnChain as the closest extension of its central trading business. The product is designed to serve users who want exposure to long-tail or early-stage assets without waiting for a formal spot listing. More importantly, it reflects CoinEx’s broader view that centralized exchanges still have a long-term role in an increasingly on-chain market.

That role, however, is changing.

CoinEx argues that CEXs will no longer define themselves purely as the sole venue of execution. Instead, they may increasingly function as an access layer, trust layer, and service layer around decentralized liquidity. Even if decentralized exchange interfaces improve dramatically, many users will still prefer not to manage seed phrases, bridge assets manually, sign multiple transactions, or optimize gas and routing themselves. Products such as OnChain aim to abstract that complexity while preserving access to on-chain opportunities.

If that model works, the future of the centralized exchange may be less about competing with DeFi directly and more about packaging decentralized market access into a more usable, safer, and more compliant user experience.

Why CoinEx Thinks BTCFi Has Long-Term Potential

One of the clearest examples of that hybrid future is BTCFi.

Bitcoin-backed DeFi activity has grown significantly, and Bitcoin now ranks prominently in total value locked across DeFi ecosystems. But CoinEx is careful not to overstate what those numbers mean. A meaningful share of that TVL still comes from wrapped or bridged forms of Bitcoin such as WBTC and cbBTC , rather than from native Bitcoin programmability on Bitcoin’s own settlement layer.

That distinction matters. It shows that Bitcoin’s value is already being deployed in decentralized finance, but it does not necessarily mean Bitcoin’s own infrastructure is yet powering DeFi at scale. In CoinEx’s view, the more meaningful signal is the direction of innovation toward more native programmability and more trust-minimized Bitcoin-linked infrastructure, including projects such as Babylon and designs associated with BitVM.

CoinEx believes its connection to ViaBTC’s mining roots gives it a natural advantage in this area. Compared with exchanges that are more altcoin-centric, the company argues it has a deeper relationship with miners, long-term BTC holders, and Bitcoin-native users. But it also acknowledges that becoming a BTCFi hub would require much more than listing BTCFi tokens.

To play that role meaningfully, CoinEx would need to function as a practical access point for BTCFi exposure, simplifying discovery, trading, education, and capital rotation while filtering risk across a landscape that is still early and uneven in quality. In Ko’s view, a credible BTCFi platform should help users distinguish between serious Bitcoin-adjacent infrastructure, higher-quality yield opportunities, and more speculative wrappers or weak tokenization models that may not survive a full cycle.

The long-term case for BTCFi, CoinEx says, rests on a simple structural observation: Bitcoin remains the largest pool of relatively idle collateral in crypto. If even a modest share of that capital moves into lending, borrowing, structured yield, stablecoin backing, or cross-chain utility, the addressable market becomes enormous. But for BTCFi to endure, it has to offer real utility to Bitcoin holders without pushing them too far out on the risk curve.

The Killer App Question

CoinEx’s broader market worldview also shapes how it thinks about mass adoption.

The industry has spent years searching for a “killer app” that could bring Web3 into the mainstream in the same way that Facebook, Instagram, or Visa did for earlier waves of internet and financial infrastructure. CoinEx’s answer is not a social media clone or consumer super-app. Instead, it sees the strongest product-market fit emerging in two areas: cross-border payments based on crypto and stablecoins, and crypto-native financial infrastructure such as automated market makers, next-generation liquidity pools, and decentralized perpetuals.

That is a notably pragmatic answer. Rather than trying to build a consumer lifestyle brand inside Web3, CoinEx is positioning itself around infrastructure, access, and execution. It argues that its competitive edge lies in doing exchange-related functions exceptionally well, while enabling participation in the broader ecosystem rather than attempting to replace it.

That stance may not sound as glamorous as promising the “Instagram of Web3.” But it may be more consistent with where real adoption has already begun.

Where CoinEx Sees Overvaluation and Undervaluation in RWA

CoinEx applies a similarly practical filter to tokenized real-world assets.

The company remains cautious on tokenized private equity and venture capital, even though those segments often attract attention because they appear to promise liquidity for historically illiquid asset classes. CoinEx’s objection is straightforward: tokenization does not solve the core drivers of private market returns. Governance influence, operational value creation, information asymmetry, and manager quality still matter far more than whether an asset is wrapped in a token.

Nor does tokenization automatically solve the liquidity problem. At current market depth, CoinEx argues, the promised secondary market for tokenized private assets often remains more theoretical than real. In many cases, spreads and market depth still fall well short of what a mature secondary market would require. For that reason, the firm believes parts of the segment may be overvalued relative to the actual liquidity being delivered.

On the other hand, CoinEx remains constructive on tokenized Treasuries and short-duration government paper. In its view, these instruments already show real product-market fit and may still be underappreciated as the emerging base layer for on-chain cash management, collateral, and settlement. They combine legal clarity, yield visibility, institutional relevance, and relative operational simplicity in a way few other tokenized assets currently can.

The firm is also positive on tokenized trade finance , arguing that blockchain infrastructure maps directly onto longstanding pain points in that sector: slow settlement, documentation-heavy workflows, opaque counterparty risk, and constrained access for smaller businesses. In the same vein, CoinEx sees long-term potential in tokenized SME lending , where on-chain repayment histories, programmable collateral management, and transparent pool reporting could eventually open a new credit channel for smaller businesses while creating a potentially attractive asset class for investors.

A Market Defined Less by Hype Than by Structure

What emerges from CoinEx’s view is not simply a bullish call on Bitcoin or a product roadmap for one exchange. It is a broader argument that the crypto market is moving into a less theatrical and more structurally demanding phase.

In this version of the cycle, old narratives still matter, but they no longer explain enough on their own. Bitcoin is increasingly shaped by liquidity, institutions, and regulation rather than by halving alone. Altcoin markets may remain active, but capital is likely to become more selective. On-chain infrastructure is expanding, but usability, trust, and risk filtering still matter. And some of the most important growth segments may be the ones tied not to speculation, but to collateral, settlement, and practical financial plumbing.

If CoinEx is right, the next crypto cycle may not belong to the loudest story. It may belong to the strongest structure.

About CoinEx

Established in 2017, CoinEx is a user-centric cryptocurrency exchange backed by the industry-leading mining pool ViaBTC. Since its launch, CoinEx has been among the earliest exchanges to release proof-of-reserves and implement a 100% reserve policy, ensuring the security of user assets. Today, CoinEx serves over 10 million users across 200+ countries and regions and supports more than 1,100 cryptocurrencies with professional-grade features and services, establishing itself as a trusted crypto trading expert.

To learn more about CoinEx, visit: Website | Twitter | Telegram | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram  | YouTube

Contact: 
CoinEx 
[email protected]

Disclaimer: This sponsored content is provided by the content provider and does not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. The information is shared for general informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency and mining-related activities carry risks, including the potential loss of capital, and readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and seek professional advice where appropriate. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose. The media platform and publisher assume no responsibility for any losses or claims arising from reliance on this content. GlobeNewswire does not endorse any content on this page.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided on an “as-is” basis, without warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. The media platform assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented. Any complaints, claims, or copyright concerns related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/fef8d7a5-d614-4420-95df-345b33e14a0f

Markets Insider and Business Insider Editorial Teams were not involved in the creation of this post.

2026.05.21 11:22:52

May 21. On May 20, the U.S. Spot Hyperliquid ETF notched $25.5 million in net inflows—its largest single-day haul since launch. In the days leading up to that date, the ETF had posted net inflows of $4.4 million on Monday and $11 million on Tuesday. Data shows the 21Shares Hyperliquid ETF (THYP), which launched on May 12, brought in $16.7 million in net inflows that same day—up from the $5.3 million it saw the prior day. The Bitwise Hyperliquid ETF (BHYP), launched on May 14, took in $8.8 million, a jump from the $5.7 million it recorded the day before. Over its first seven trading days, the entire category has pulled in a total net inflow of $54 million. Peter Chung, research director at Presto Research, noted that when adjusted for market capitalization, institutional flows into the HYPE ETF have outpaced the speed of inflows into Bitcoin ETFs so far this year. Dominick John, an analyst at Zeus Research, added that these inflows signal investors are capitalizing on entry points tied to the infrastructure narrative, while recognizing the asset’s transparent, usage-driven revenue model. Fueling this momentum, HYPE’s token price surged 17.3% in the past 24 hours to $55.91, with a current market cap of roughly $13.4 billion. The token previously hit an all-time high of around $59.3 in September 2025. Per CoinGecko data, HYPE’s fully diluted valuation briefly reached about $54.7 billion, momentarily surpassing Solana’s $54.2 billion valuation at the time. Tim Sun, a senior researcher at HashKey Group, believes the sustained inflows into the HYPE ETF show the market is forming a new consensus: decentralized trading platforms are starting to be integrated into broader overhauls of financial infrastructure. Jeff Ko, chief analyst at CoinEx, pointed out that HYPE and its related ETFs have structural investment logic distinct from Bitcoin and Ethereum. He explained: Bitcoin acts as a non-yielding store of value; Ethereum centers on staking rewards; HYPE, meanwhile, operates more like equity in a cash-flow-generating trading platform—since the protocol uses most of its fees for open-market token buybacks, giving investors a more familiar valuation framework to work with. On-chain metrics confirm Hyperliquid has become a dominant player in on-chain perpetual contract and derivative trading. So far this week, the network has captured approximately 42% of total blockchain fees, outperforming Tron (22.6%), Solana (10.6%), and Ethereum (8%) in that key metric.

Relevant content

Japanese storage firm Kioxia plans to list American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) in the U.S. in April or May next year.

Market news: Japanese storage chip maker Kioxia plans to list its American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) in the U.S. in April or May next year. (Jinshi)

3 minutes ago

Micron's earnings report lifts SK Hynix's stock price 11%, trader 'yixie' expands their unrealized profit to $1.3 million.

According to Hyperinsight monitoring, Micron’s Q3 financial results exceeded all expectations, driving peer SK Hynix’s stock to rally nearly 11% from its recent low. On the Hyperliquid platform, SKHYNIX is currently trading at $1,821, up 6.2% in the past 24 hours. Prominent trader yixie (X: @yixie10) nearly doubled his principal during this rally; he is now holding a 2x long position of 2,289 SKHYNIX contracts at an average entry price of ~$1,239.9. Fueled by the rally, the position’s unrealized profit has expanded to $1.37 million, a 96% gain. As of press time, the trader boasts an 85% win rate in semiconductor storage stock trades since opening positions this year, with total historical profits of $6.68 million, including $4.25 million from Micron Technology trades. Address: 0xa65ce1d604fa901c13aa29f2126a57d9032e412b – HyperInsight Bot is now live. Add @HyperInsightBot to your Telegram group and set it as an admin (enable message sending permission) to automatically sync on-chain news.

3 minutes ago

STRC drops to near $80, marking another new all-time low.

According to Bitget market data, Strategy’s preferred stock STRC has dropped to a low of $80.26, hitting a new all-time low since its listing. Calculated based on a $100 par value, the current discount has reached 20%.

3 minutes ago

OKX will launch CARDS spot trading today.

According to an official announcement, OKX will launch spot trading for CARDS (Collector Crypt) today. CARDS deposits will open at 18:00 UTC+8 on June 25, pre-ordering for the CARDS/USDT trading pair will run from 19:00 to 20:00 UTC+8, spot trading will officially commence at 20:00 UTC+8, and withdrawal functions will be available at 22:00 UTC+8.

3 minutes ago

Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps warned that any vessels using the Strait of Hormuz route without Tehran's approval will be targeted.

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) issued a stern warning to international shipping on Wednesday, stating that any new shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz established without coordination with Tehran is unacceptable and dangerous, and threatening to take direct action against vessels that ignore its orders. The IRGC declared that vessels can only safely transit the Strait of Hormuz via routes designated by Iran. The IRGC Navy added that all vessels seeking to transit the strait must coordinate with the Iranian military via International Maritime Distress and Safety Frequency Channel 16, a requirement that effectively places Iranian military approval at the core of all commercial shipping transiting this key chokepoint. (Jinshi)

3 minutes ago

A crypto whale holding 120,000 ETH long positions has an unrealized loss of over $77 million, and added $8 million in margin in the early hours.

According to on-chain analyst ai_9684xtpa’s monitoring, a whale holding 120,000 ETH in long positions added $8 million in margin in the early hours. Currently, the total unrealized loss on its ETH long positions across four linked addresses stands at approximately $77.047 million, with an average entry price of around $2,265. Data shows the liquidation prices for the four addresses are $1,174.6, $1,059.1, $1,064.7, and $1,143.6 respectively. Despite the significant paper losses, there remains a large buffer before liquidation, and over 6 million USDC is still held on-chain to replenish margin, resulting in low short-term liquidation risk.

3 minutes ago

Hot feeds

Hot Articles

Follow us

PANews reported on May 26th that, according to Cointelegraph, crypto analytics platform Swissblock stated that Bitcoin is sliding into a high-risk environment due to continued institutional selling. Its Bitcoin Risk Index currently stands at 33, placing it in the high-risk zone. Swissblock points out that every time the risk index signals structural selling pressure overwhelming the market, it's because of institutional selling. Glassnode reported that since May 7th, US Bitcoin ETFs have recorded net outflows almost every trading day, with over two weeks of continuous institutional selling signals adding pressure to the supply side without any demand offsetting it. CoinEx's chief analyst, Jeff Ko, stated that spot ETFs have seen outflows exceeding $2 billion in the past two weeks, indicating that institutional risk appetite remains marginally sensitive. News of a new US strike against Iran on Tuesday morning further exacerbated the risk, causing Bitcoin to fall 1%, from $77,000 to below $76,500.

Bitcoin’s roughly 50% drop from its October 2025 peak of $126,080 is its shallowest bear market ever versus 74% to 90% in prior cycles, but analysts at CoinEx, DWF Labs, and B2PRIME say the bottom isn’t in.

Posted June 10, 2026 at 5:43 am EST.

Bitcoin trades around $62,593, down roughly 50% from its October 2025 all-time high of $126,080, according to CoinGecko data cited by Decrypt. By that measure, the current drawdown is the shallowest bear market in Bitcoin’s history.

The trend across cycles is clear. In 2012, the drawdown exceeded 90%, according to CryptoQuant data. The next two cycles bottomed at 82%, and the 2022 cycle reached 74%. Each successive bear market has been shallower than the last. “Bitcoin is now a more institutionalized macro asset, supported by ETFs, deeper liquidity, and a larger base of long-term allocators,” Jeff Ko, chief analyst at CoinEx, told Decrypt. He said he does not expect another 80% drawdown this cycle. Martin Lee of DWF Labs echoed the point, citing the presence of institutions and corporations holding Bitcoin on their balance sheets.

This story is an excerpt from the Unchained Daily newsletter.

Subscribe here to get these updates in your email for free

The shallower drawdown does not mean the bottom is in, analysts cautioned. Ko pointed to ETF outflows, macro tightening, and liquidity rotation as the factors that will determine how prolonged the bear market becomes. Alex Tsepaev, chief strategy officer at B2PRIME Group, said the current picture is bearish given the combination of ETF outflows and macro pressure, noting that since May 18, there has been only one day of ETF inflows, on June 4. The drawdown extends a stretch in which Standard Chartered called the bottom “almost in” after a sharp weekly slide.

On price levels, both Ko and Tsepaev flagged $60,000 as the first key psychological support, with a bearish scenario involving a retest of the $55,000 and $45,000 levels. Market maker Wintermute noted in a Tuesday note that $62,000 support had come undone. Meanwhile, corporate buyers continue to step in, with Strategy buying 1,550 BTC below its cost basis for the first time last week.

A separate CoinDesk analysis framed the recent bounce as a corrective move rather than a reversal. Analysts at HEX Trust said Bitcoin needs to reclaim $79,000 to $80,000 to confirm a regime shift, while FxPro’s Alex Kuptsikevich put the nearer-term rebound level at $68,000. Both views condition any recovery on ETF outflows slowing and softer inflation data.

Related Listen: Was the SpaceX IPO Really to Blame for Bitcoin’s Worst Week Since FTX?

Top 3 Crypto Airdrops for the Last Week of May