Track market-moving stories before they get noisy

Polkadot Aims to Unlock DeFi Potential With Native pUSD Stablecoin

TLDR The Polkadot community is currently voting on the proposal to launch a native stablecoin backed by DOT tokens. Bryan Chen, co-founder of Acala, introduced the pUSD stablecoin proposal to reduce reliance on USDT and USDC. The pUSD proposal has gained 74.6% support but requires 79.7% approval to pass in the ongoing referendum. Community members remain divided over Acala’s involvement in the pUSD project due to the failure of aUSD Gavin Wood outlines a broader vision for stablecoins within Polkadot, emphasizing the benefits of using pUSD for validator rewards. The Polkadot community is currently voting on a major proposal to launch a native stablecoin, pUSD. This stablecoin would be entirely backed by DOT tokens, the network’s native cryptocurrency. The proposal has sparked a heated debate, drawing strong opinions both in favor and against the initiative. At present, the vote is ongoing, and it could significantly influence the future of the Polkadot network.

Polkadot’s Push for a Native Stablecoin Bryan Chen, co-founder of Acala, introduced the proposal for pUSD. The plan suggests launching the stablecoin on Polkadot’s Asset Hub using the Honzon protocol. Honzon had previously been used in Acala’s aUSD project, which faced a failed launch due to an exploit. Despite the past failure, Chen has emphasized the importance of Polkadot having a decentralized stablecoin to reduce its reliance on USDT and USDC.

Chen stated, “A native stablecoin will prevent Polkadot from losing liquidity to other chains that already have one.” He believes pUSD can maintain the network’s strategic advantage in the rapidly evolving blockchain ecosystem. Although over 74.6% of the votes are in favor of the stablecoin, the measure requires 79.7% approval to pass. With over $5.6 million in DOT already committed to the vote, the outcome remains uncertain.

Acala’s Memories and Community Doubts Despite the potential benefits of a native stablecoin, memories of Acala’s previous failure have caused skepticism. The aUSD project’s collapse in 2022 due to an exploit left a lasting impact on the community. Some members argue that Acala should not be entrusted with launching another stablecoin, given the risks involved.

A group known as TheGlobedotters expressed concerns, urging that Acala’s involvement should be avoided. Others, like The White Rabbit, have said they could support the proposal if Acala were excluded from its development. They also call for strict governance safeguards before any stablecoin is deployed.

Gavin Wood Outlines the Broader Vision for Polkadot Polkadot’s founder, Gavin Wood, has also weighed in on the stablecoin debate. He outlined a broader strategy that includes both fully collateralized stablecoins like pUSD and more flexible “stable-ish” assets. Wood believes a multi-approach strategy is necessary to address Polkadot’s volatility issues while stabilizing the network’s validator rewards.

Wood suggested that validators could be paid in pUSD instead of volatile DOT, which would stabilize their income. He argued that such a move would attract institutional participants and enhance Polkadot’s long-term security. “A DOT-backed stablecoin like pUSD could be key to strengthening Polkadot’s position,” Wood added.

ONDO Flat on MetaMask Tokenized Securities Integration Following 37% Monthly Drop

Nick Sawinyh on 16 Mar 2026

Yearn Finance launched yvUSD on January 19, 2026. It’s a V3 cross-chain, cross-asset stablecoin vault, not a simple USDC-only vault, with zero management fees, zero performance fees, and two deposit modes. At the time of writing it runs nine active yield strategies, though that number is dynamic and managed by the vault operator. If you’ve been watching the stablecoin yield space this year, those numbers alone probably caught your attention. Zero fees on a yield aggregator is unusual. Strategies spanning lending, fixed income, and points farming is ambitious. And the two-mode system (unlocked vs. locked) is a design choice I haven’t seen done quite this cleanly before.

This article breaks down how the vault actually works, where the yield comes from, what the risks look like in practice, and how it stacks up against the alternatives. I’ve tried to write the kind of analysis I’d want to read before putting real money into this thing.

What yvUSD is, mechanically At the contract level, yvUSD is a Yearn V3 Allocator Vault. That means it’s an ERC-4626 compliant smart contract that accepts USDC deposits on Ethereum mainnet, mints shares proportional to your deposit, and then deploys that capital across a portfolio of yield-generating strategies spanning multiple stablecoins and chains. Yearn’s own announcement describes it as “a cross-chain, cross-asset vault for best in class stablecoin yield.” The deposit token is USDC, but the vault’s strategies convert into sUSDS, siUSD, and other stablecoin derivatives as part of normal operation.

ERC-4626 matters here because it’s become the standard interface for tokenized vaults in DeFi. Any protocol that supports 4626 can plug into yvUSD without custom integration work. Your shares are yield-bearing ERC-20 tokens, which means they’re transferable, composable, and can be used as collateral elsewhere if a lending market accepts them.

The V3 architecture is a big upgrade from Yearn’s V2 system. In V2, strategies were locked to a single vault in a one-to-one relationship. In V3, strategies are themselves standalone ERC-4626 compliant contracts, Yearn calls them “Tokenized Strategies.” Per Yearn’s V3 docs: “strategies are now fully ERC-4626 compliant, stand-alone vaults” that “can now be connected to many different vaults simultaneously and can also be deposited into directly by an end user.” This is a meaningful architectural change: strategies can serve multiple allocator vaults, and users can deposit into individual strategies directly if they want to bypass the allocator entirely.

The practical implication: yvUSD’s current strategies are modular. They can be added, removed, or rebalanced without migrating the entire vault. The Debt Allocator contract handles capital distribution across strategies based on target allocations set by the vault manager, and an on-chain APR Oracle helps inform those allocation decisions.

Vault specs as of March 13, 2026:

Asset: USDC (Ethereum mainnet, cross-chain via Circle’s CCTP) TVL: $3.02M Fees: 0% management, 0% performance Risk score: 3/5 (Yearn’s self-assessment) Contract: 0x696d02Db93291651ED510704c9b286841d506987 (per the Yearn UI vault page; note that yvUSD may use multiple contracts across its allocator and strategy architecture, always verify the address you’re interacting with on yearn.fi directly) The unlocked/locked design This is the architectural decision that distinguishes yvUSD from a standard Yearn vault. When you deposit, you choose between two modes.

Unlocked gives you withdrawal access at any time, subject to the vault’s liquidity buffer. At the time of writing, the displayed estimated APY is around 7.14%, but this number is a trailing estimate that fluctuates based on strategy performance, incentive programs, and capital allocation. The Yearn UI may show substantially different numbers depending on the calculation window (7-day, 30-day, inception). Don’t treat any displayed APY as a fixed rate. The vault ensures it always has enough capital parked in short-duration, liquid strategies (sUSDS, basic Morpho lending) so that unlocked depositors can exit without delay.

Locked imposes a 14-day cooldown period after you signal your intent to withdraw, followed by a 5-day window during which you can actually pull your funds. In exchange, the vault can deploy your capital into longer-duration positions that pay more, things like Pendle principal tokens with fixed maturities, deeper leverage loops on Morpho, and cross-chain L2 plays.

The idea borrows from a concept that InfiniFi (one of the protocols integrated into the vault) has been developing: depositor-directed duration matching. Traditional banks take deposits and invest them into long-duration assets while hoping everyone doesn’t withdraw at once. yvUSD instead lets depositors explicitly reveal their liquidity preferences, then builds the portfolio accordingly. Locked capital funds the higher-yield, longer-duration strategies. Unlocked capital stays in liquid backstops. The vault knows exactly how much of its capital has a 14-day minimum lockup, which means it can allocate with more precision than a vault that has to assume 100% of deposits might leave tomorrow.

It’s a clean tradeoff, and worth thinking through carefully. If you’re not sure you’ll need the money in the next three weeks, locked mode is strictly better. If there’s any chance you’ll need fast access, stay unlocked and accept the lower rate.

Active strategies: where the yield comes from Everything is published on-chain, and the DeBank bundle shows live positions in real time. The vault currently runs nine strategies (this count is dynamic and managed by the vault operator). Here’s the approximate allocation as of March 13, 2026.

Morpho Yearn OG USDC Compounder (28% allocation, ~3.81% APY) This is the vault’s largest single position and its most conservative strategy. It deposits USDC into Morpho Blue’s isolated lending markets, specifically into markets curated by Yearn’s own risk team.

Morpho Blue, for those unfamiliar, is a permissionless lending primitive that launched as an evolution of Morpho’s original peer-to-peer optimization layer. Each Morpho Blue market is an isolated pair (one collateral asset, one loan asset) with immutable parameters. Risk doesn’t bleed between markets the way it can in pooled protocols like Aave. The tradeoff is that you need to pick your markets carefully, or delegate that decision to a curator.

The 3.81% APY comes from borrower interest. It’s real yield in the most traditional DeFi sense: someone is paying to borrow USDC, and you’re earning a share of that interest. Conservative, predictable, and the risk profile is well-understood after years of lending protocol history.

USD3 Pendle PT Maxi (20% allocation, ~7.99% APY) This is where the vault’s yield starts to get interesting. The strategy buys Pendle Principal Tokens (PTs) denominated in USD3 at a discount to face value and holds them to maturity.

A quick primer on how Pendle PTs work. Pendle splits a yield-bearing asset into two tokens: a Principal Token (PT) that’s redeemable 1:1 for the underlying at maturity, and a Yield Token (YT) that captures all the variable yield until that date. If you buy PT at a discount before maturity, you’ve effectively locked in a fixed yield, the spread between your purchase price and the redemption value.

So if PT-USD3 trades at $0.96 with a 6-month maturity, buying it and holding to expiration gives you roughly 8% annualized. No variable rate risk, no dependency on borrow demand staying high. The yield is encoded in the purchase price.

The risk here is duration. If the vault needs to exit this position before maturity, it has to sell the PT on the open market, potentially at a loss if rates have moved against it. This is one of the key reasons the locked/unlocked design exists. Locked capital can ride PTs to maturity. Unlocked capital stays out of these positions (or the vault maintains enough liquid buffer to cover unlocked withdrawals regardless).

Pendle has become a dominant venue for this kind of fixed-income DeFi. According to CoinMarketCap’s Pendle analysis, stablecoins now account for roughly 83% of Pendle’s TVL. The protocol also transitioned from vePENDLE to a liquid staking model (sPENDLE) on January 20, 2026, replacing multi-year lock-ups with a 14-day withdrawal period and directing up to 80% of protocol revenue to PENDLE buybacks for sPENDLE holders.

InfiniFi sIUSD Morpho Looper (19% allocation, 0% base APY) This is the most unusual position in the vault, and the one that confuses people when they look at the strategy list. It shows 0% APY. Why would the vault put 19% of its capital into something earning zero?

The answer is points farming.

InfiniFi is a DeFi protocol that replicates fractional reserve banking on-chain. Users deposit USDC, mint iUSD receipt tokens, then choose between liquid staking (siUSD) or locked positions (liUSD) with different yield profiles. Per DefiLlama, InfiniFi holds roughly $170M in TVL, and Messari reports $175M. The protocol is heading toward a token generation event (TGE) expected in early-to-mid 2026.

The vault deposits into InfiniFi, receives siUSD, then loops that position through Morpho to amplify its exposure. The 0% base APY is accurate in that no interest is being paid right now. But InfiniFi Points are accruing on the position, with enhanced multipliers for the strategies involved. Pendle’s siUSD pools are offering up to 4.5x point multipliers on YT positions.

When InfiniFi’s TGE happens, Yearn will monetize the accumulated points, likely through their signature permissionless Dutch auction system or OTC deals, and funnel the proceeds back into the vault. Your price-per-share goes up, and the retroactive APY on this strategy could end up being substantial. Or it could be modest. Nobody knows what InfiniFi tokens will be worth at launch.

This is the speculative component of the vault, and you should be clear-eyed about it. About 19% of the vault’s capital is sitting in a position that earns nothing today, betting on future token value. Yearn has historically been good at monetizing these positions (they’ve been doing it since the Curve wars era), but it’s still a bet, not a guaranteed yield stream.

USDC to sUSDS Depositor (10% allocation, ~3.82% APY) This strategy converts USDC to USDS, Sky Protocol’s stablecoin, and deposits it into the Sky Savings Rate module, receiving sUSDS in return. USDS is positioned as the successor to DAI within the Sky ecosystem (formerly MakerDAO), with a 1:1 upgrade path from DAI to USDS. Both tokens still exist; DAI has not been retired or renamed, but USDS is where Sky Protocol is directing new development and integrations.

The Sky Savings Rate is funded by Sky Protocol’s revenue, which comes from crypto collateralized loans, U.S. Treasury bill investments, and liquidity provisioning into SparkLend. As of March 2026, sUSDS yields around 4% APY. Sky Frontier Foundation’s own press release from March 6, 2026 describes sUSDS as having “+$10 Billion in supply,” making it the largest yield-generating stablecoin by market cap. (Note: this $10B figure refers to total sUSDS tokens in circulation, not to be confused with the larger DAI/USDS base stablecoin supply.)

For the vault, sUSDS serves a dual purpose. It generates reliable baseline yield (Sky Protocol’s revenue model is diversified and has operated for years under its prior MakerDAO branding), and it’s highly liquid with no withdrawal constraints. This is part of the vault’s liquidity buffer, the safe money that ensures unlocked depositors can always exit.

The risk here is mostly stablecoin peg risk: USDS could theoretically depeg from the dollar, or the conversion path USDC to USDS could involve slippage. In practice, USDS has maintained its peg reliably through years of market stress as DAI, and the conversion path is well-established.

syrupUSDC/USDC Morpho Looper (10% allocation, 0% base APY) Similar to the InfiniFi strategy, this position earns 0% in direct interest but farms points from Maple Finance’s syrupUSDC program. It’s a leveraged lending position on Morpho that amplifies exposure to Maple’s rewards program.

Maple has been rebuilding after its 2022 credit crisis, and syrupUSDC represents their new institutional lending product. The points here are a bet on Maple’s token economics and the value of being early to their relaunched ecosystem.

Same logic as the InfiniFi position: no yield today, speculative upside tomorrow. Same honest assessment: it could pay off well, or it could amount to very little.

PT siUSD March Morpho Looper (6% allocation, ~10.8% APY) This is the highest-APY strategy in the vault. It buys Pendle PT-siUSD tokens (which mature March 26, 2026) and leverages the position through Morpho to amplify the fixed yield.

The base PT yield is attractive on its own, around 9% fixed according to InfiniFi’s Pendle V2 pool data. The Morpho loop borrows against the PT position to buy more PTs, stacking the fixed yield. If the PT yield is 9% and you can borrow USDC at 4%, the spread gets amplified through leverage.

The risk here is compounded: you have PT duration risk, Morpho liquidation risk if collateral ratios move unfavorably, and the underlying InfiniFi counterparty risk, all stacked. At only 6% of the vault, this is sized as a satellite position rather than a core holding, which seems appropriate given the risk stack.

Smaller allocations (remaining ~7%) Three additional strategies round out the portfolio. The exact compositions shift as the vault rebalances, but they generally involve smaller Morpho lending positions and additional PT exposures across different maturities. They provide diversification within the strategy mix without materially changing the overall risk profile.

Where the APY numbers actually come from Here’s the honest version of what to expect.

Sustainable baseline (unlocked): roughly 6-8% APY, estimated. This range is derived from the combination of Morpho lending (~3.8%), Pendle PT strategies (~8-10%), and sUSDS (~3.8%), blended across the portfolio. Even if every points program goes to zero, this baseline should hold because it’s driven by real borrow demand, fixed-income instruments, and protocol revenue. It already beats Aave’s 3-5% and Morpho direct lending’s 4-8% after their respective fee structures. But this is an estimate based on current allocations. It is not a guaranteed rate, and it will shift as strategies are rebalanced and market conditions change.

Points premium: highly variable. The InfiniFi and syrupUSDC strategies (about 29% of the vault combined) are currently earning zero direct yield. Their eventual contribution depends entirely on token launch valuations and Yearn’s monetization execution. In a good scenario, this could add several percentage points to the annualized return. In a disappointing scenario, it might add very little.

The 54.4% 30-day APY on the vault page is misleading. It includes temporary launch incentives and early points monetization events that won’t recur. If you’re making a deposit decision based on that number, recalibrate. Plan around 6-8% and treat anything above that as a bonus.

How Yearn monetizes points (and why it matters that you don’t have to) This is one of the smartest parts of the design, and it’s worth understanding.

When you deposit into yvUSD, all points and reward tokens accrue to the vault’s contract address, not to your wallet. You never claim anything. You never pay gas to harvest. You never have to research which airdrop campaigns are running or track eligibility criteria.

When a points program converts to tokens (at TGE or during a liquidity event), Yearn’s system handles monetization. They typically use one of two mechanisms: OTC deals with market makers who want early token access, or their permissionless Dutch auction system where tokens are sold on-chain in a declining-price auction until clearing.

The proceeds flow back into the vault as additional USDC. Your share of that USDC shows up as an increase in the vault’s price-per-share (PPS). From your perspective, your yvUSD tokens are simply worth more when you redeem them.

The tradeoff is real, though. If InfiniFi’s token launches and immediately does a 50x, you don’t capture that upside, because Yearn sold the tokens at whatever price cleared the auction. You traded potential token moonshot exposure for guaranteed passivity. For most people holding stablecoins, that’s the right tradeoff. But if you’re the type who wants to hold and time individual airdrops, yvUSD isn’t designed for you.

Risk analysis Yearn rates yvUSD at 3/5 on their internal risk scale. That’s an honest number, not a conservative one. Here’s what’s driving it.

Smart contract risk: medium-high Multiple strategies (nine at the time of writing, subject to change) means a large set of smart contracts interacting with the vault. Each strategy interfaces with at least one external protocol (Morpho, Pendle, InfiniFi, Sky). The total smart contract surface area is large. Yearn’s V3 codebase has been audited and has processed hundreds of millions in TVL across other vaults, but the specific strategies in yvUSD are newer and less battle-tested.

A bug in any single strategy could result in losses to the portion of capital deployed there. Yearn’s architecture does provide some containment, since strategies can be revoked and capital recalled if issues are detected, but forced revocation during an exploit can still crystallize losses.

Leverage risk: present The Morpho looper strategies (InfiniFi looper, syrupUSDC looper, PT siUSD looper) use leverage. They borrow against their positions to amplify exposure. In normal markets, this amplifies yield. In stressed markets, it amplifies losses and can trigger liquidation.

Morpho’s isolated market design means a liquidation in one market doesn’t cascade into others, which is meaningfully better than pooled alternatives. But if a borrowed position hits its LLTV (Liquidation Loan-to-Value) threshold at oracle prices, the collateral gets sold. For looped positions, this can unwind rapidly.

Duration risk: present (especially in locked mode) Pendle PT strategies have fixed maturities. The USD3 Maxi position and the PT siUSD looper are both committed to specific expiry dates. If conditions change and the vault needs to exit early, it has to sell at market prices, which may be unfavorable.

The locked/unlocked design mitigates this significantly. Locked capital is deployed into duration-sensitive strategies with the explicit understanding that it won’t be withdrawn for at least 14 days. Unlocked capital avoids these positions. But if a large amount of unlocked capital tries to exit simultaneously and the liquid buffer is insufficient, there could be withdrawal delays.

Counterparty risk: moderate The vault depends on InfiniFi, Sky Protocol, Pendle, and Morpho functioning correctly. Each of these is a separate protocol with its own governance, codebase, and risk profile.

InfiniFi, in particular, is the youngest and least proven of the group. It has roughly $170M TVL per DefiLlama and a pre-TGE token, meaning its incentive structures are still evolving. Sky Protocol (the rebranded MakerDAO ecosystem) is at the opposite end of the spectrum, one of the most established DeFi protocols in existence.

Bridge risk: low Cross-chain activity uses Circle’s CCTP (Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol), which burns and mints native USDC rather than relying on wrapped tokens or bridges with independent validator sets. CCTP is widely regarded as the safest cross-chain mechanism for stablecoins, since it leverages Circle’s own attestation network. The risk isn’t zero (Circle is a centralized entity), but it’s meaningfully lower than most bridge alternatives.

Competitive landscape   Aave V3 Morpho direct yvUSD (unlocked) yvUSD (locked) Expected APY 3-5% 4-8% 6-8% sustainable Higher (not disclosed) Fees Variable Curator-dependent 0% / 0% 0% / 0% Withdrawal Instant Instant Instant (with buffer) 14-day cooldown Smart contract risk Very low Low-medium Medium-high Medium-high Leverage exposure None None Yes (partial) Yes (more) Effort required None Low None None Points/airdrop exposure None Possible (via curator) Yes (passive) Yes (passive) Aave remains the obvious choice if you want the simplest, most proven option. Five years of operation, enormous TVL, instant withdrawals. The yield reflects that safety, you’re paying for simplicity with lower returns. Currently around 3-5% on USDC after the protocol’s fee cut.

Morpho direct lending (via curated MetaMorpho vaults) gives you 4-8% with more granular risk selection. You choose which vault, which curator, which risk profile. The recent Telegram integration and institutional partnerships suggest Morpho’s distribution is expanding, which should sustain borrow demand. But you’re trusting a curator’s allocation decisions, and the newer isolated markets have a shorter track record.

yvUSD sits at the higher end of both yield and complexity. The 6-8% sustainable baseline comes from combining multiple yield sources that individually would be accessible but tedious to manage. The zero-fee structure means every basis point of yield goes to depositors, which is rare for an aggregator. Yearn’s V2 vaults charged 2% management and 20% performance fees. The V3 yvUSD vault charges nothing.

The competitive question is whether the additional 2-4% yield over Aave justifies the additional risk surface. For someone sitting on stablecoins they don’t need for three months, I think the answer is probably yes, especially in unlocked mode where you retain withdrawal flexibility. For someone who can’t tolerate any smart contract risk beyond the most battle-tested protocols, Aave is still the right call.

Projected returns on $100K Assuming daily compounding:

Timeframe Conservative 7% APY Boosted ~40% APY (temporary) 1 month ~$583 ~$3,300 3 months ~$1,750 ~$10,000 6 months ~$3,500 ~$20,000 12 months ~$7,000 N/A (won’t persist) The 7% column is your planning number. The boosted column is useful for understanding what the first few weeks or months might look like while incentive programs are active, but don’t build a financial plan around it.

Getting started Navigate to yearn.fi/v3/1/0x696d02Db93291651ED510704c9b286841d506987 Connect your wallet Choose unlocked or locked mode Deposit USDC and receive yvUSD shares There is no step 5. No claiming, no harvesting, no rebalancing. Your PPS increases as the vault accrues yield. To monitor positions: DeBank transparency bundle

What’s next: yvBTC Yearn has signaled that yvBTC is coming, following the same zero-fee, cross-chain, delta-neutral philosophy applied to Bitcoin. If yvUSD proves the model works for stablecoins, yvBTC would extend it to the most held crypto asset. Worth watching, though no timeline has been confirmed.

Where I land yvUSD is a well-designed product for a specific user: someone holding USDC who wants more than money-market rates, doesn’t want to actively manage positions across five different protocols, and is comfortable with a 3/5 risk profile in exchange for 6-8% passive yield.

The zero-fee structure is the detail that moves it from “interesting” to “worth seriously considering.” In most yield aggregators, fees eat 20% or more of your returns. Here, every basis point goes to depositors. That’s a meaningful edge over time.

The risk is real. Multiple strategies, leverage in the mix, points bets on pre-TGE tokens, duration exposure in Pendle PTs. None of this is Aave-simple, and the vault page doesn’t hide that (the 3/5 self-rating is refreshingly honest). But the risks are transparent, verifiable on-chain, and sized proportionally within the portfolio. The conservative core (Morpho lending + sUSDS) accounts for nearly 40% of the vault. The speculative tail (points farming) accounts for about 29%. The fixed-income middle (Pendle PTs) fills the rest.

If you’re comfortable with that structure, deposit what you can afford to have illiquid for a couple of weeks in the worst case. Start with unlocked mode if you’re cautious. And check the DeBank bundle periodically to verify the vault’s positions match what’s described here, because in DeFi, the ability to verify is the whole point.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Always conduct your own research and understand the risks before making any investment decisions.

Top 3 Crypto Airdrops For The Fourth Week of April

NEAR Protocol DeFi Hub Rhea Finance Loses $7.6 Million in Oracle Exploit

New $FUN/USDC Pair Goes Live on MEXC With Zero Fees

TLDR: Angle Protocol’s AIP-112 vote approved an orderly wind down of both EURA and USDA stablecoins. EURA and USDA holders can redeem tokens 1:1 for EURC and USDC until March 1, 2027, on Ethereum. Remaining reserves after redemption will be airdropped pro-rata to eligible Ethereum-based holders. The Angle team now operates Merkl, a leading DeFi incentive platform, as their primary focus.
Angle Protocol is officially winding down its EURA and USDA stablecoins following a community governance vote. The decision, passed under AIP-112, brings the decentralized stablecoin project to a close.

Holders of both tokens have a structured, two-year window to recover their funds at full value. The team now focuses on Merkl, a DeFi incentive platform, as its next major project. Acting quickly remains the most important step for all current holders.

What Holders Need to Know About the Redemption Period The wind-down plan begins with a one-year redemption period running until March 1, 2027. During this time, EURA holders can redeem their tokens 1:1 for EURC on Ethereum.

USDA holders can redeem 1:1 for USDC through the Angle Transmuter on the Angle App. Holders on other chains must bridge their funds back to Ethereum before initiating any swap.

Angle Protocol has been clear about what happens if holders miss this window. After March 1, 2027, the protocol will cease active operations entirely.

Both EURA and USDA are expected to depeg once the redemption mechanism is turned off. Taking action well before the deadline is the safest course for current token holders.

VaultManager position holders are included in the redemption plan as well. They can close their positions and recover collateral during the active period.

All actions must be completed through the Angle App on Ethereum. No other platforms or channels have been announced for these transactions.

The team confirmed the decision through their official channel, noting: “the Angle community has voted in favor of an orderly wind down of the EURA and USDA stablecoins (AIP-112).” This confirms the move was driven by formal governance, not a unilateral team decision.

Final Settlement and the Extended Claim Window After the redemption period ends, the protocol moves into Phase 2 for final settlement. The guardian multisig will recover all reserves remaining within the protocol at that stage.

Those reserves will then be distributed pro-rata to the EURA and USDA holders still on Ethereum. Only holders who have bridged back to Ethereum before this stage will qualify for the distribution.

The airdrop will be executed and distributed through Merkl, the incentive platform run by the Angle team. After the airdrop goes live, recipients will have one additional year to claim their EURC or USDC.

Claims can be made directly through the Merkl platform during this period. Together, both phases create a total two-year window for holders to recover funds.

The reasoning behind the wind-down traces back to declining activity on Angle Protocol stablecoins over time. The team noted that yield-bearing stablecoins now exist natively across vaults and lending protocols available everywhere.

Running dedicated infrastructure for a shrinking user base creates unnecessary smart contract risk. Operational overhead with little benefit to a diminishing community was another factor in the decision.

The Angle team now builds Merkl full-time and encourages the community to follow that project. Holders are advised to act early and not delay until deadlines approach.

Curators may now create custom lending markets by using this distinctive, institutional-grade lending infrastructure . Over the course of seven months, Gearbox users have created $2.8 billion in trading volume across Ethereum DEXs. Gearbox Protocol, which has a USDC vault curated by Re7 Labs, has debuted on Etherlink. The deployment uses treasury-backed tokens like mTBILL, mBASIS, and mRe7YIELD to provide institutional-grade strategies to the Tezos Layer 2.

As DeFi’s credit layer, Gearbox links customers looking for composable leverage across return-generating options with passive liquidity providers. Curators may now create custom lending markets by using this distinctive, institutional-grade lending infrastructure thanks to the introduction of permissionless.

“We’ve been looking for the right L2 to expand Gearbox Permissionless, and Etherlink’s performance metrics and ecosystem convinced us,” said Mikhail Lazarev, Founder and CTO at Gearbox Protocol. “When you can get soft confirmations in under 500ms with fees that are negligible, combined with well-known DeFi protocols, it opens up entirely new possibilities for capital efficiency in leveraged strategies.”

As a vault curator, Re7 Labs contributes substantial experience, overseeing more than 700 million TVL over more than 100 pools on 14 blockchains. Re7, one of the leading DeFi curators in the world, uses unique risk management frameworks to generate profits. In order to increase underlying returns while upholding cautious risk criteria, the vault technique loops return-bearing tokens against USDC.

Evgeny Gokhberg, Managing Partner at Re7 Capital, said: “Etherlink’s infrastructure and Gearbox’s credit layer give us the ideal foundation to scale our strategies. We’re bringing institutional-grade yield to a new audience with the same discipline and risk management we apply across $1B+ in DeFi capital.”

Incentives from Apple Farm Season 2 and GEAR token payouts from the Gearbox DAO will also help the vault. Over the course of seven months, Gearbox users have created $2.8 billion in trading volume across Ethereum DEXs, and the protocol’s TVL increased by 230% to $400 million in H1 2025.

“Having Gearbox launch on Etherlink was a big win for us,” said Anthony Hayot, Head of DeFi Adoption at Nomadic Labs. “They bring serious institutional credibility, four years, zero hacks, $400 million TVL, and a product that will give real value to Etherlink users.”

For more over four years, Gearbox has had a perfect security record with no vulnerabilities or bad debt. The protocol operates under stringent governance mechanisms with 24-hour timelocks for vault parameter changes, and it has made large investments in audits by respectable firms.

Following the successful launch of Apple Farm Season 2 with over $3 million in incentives, the integration of Curve Finance to enable low-slippage stablecoin swaps, the launch of Liquid Bitcoin (LBTC) by Lombard Finance, and a 68.4% TVL increase in July that placed Etherlink among the fastest-rising Layer 2s, the Gearbox deployment comes after a period of significant momentum for Etherlink.

Through Credit Accounts and carefully chosen vaults overseen by knowledgeable asset managers, the decentralized credit layer known as Gearbox Protocol makes it possible to use composable leverage across DeFi possibilities.

A devoted content writer having 3 years of crypto trading experience. Loves cooking and swimming. Stays up to date with the latest developments on blockchain technology.

PANews reported on May 27th that the Resolv Foundation announced a comprehensive recovery path for the USR security incident on March 22nd . This incident resulted in illegally minted USR tokens entering the market, forcing the protocol to suspend operations and enter recovery mode. The recovery framework follows the protocol's design principles: USR acts as the priority layer, with RLPs acting as the secondary layer to absorb the losses. The recovery plan is differentiated by user category, covering direct holders of USR/wstUSR, LP positions, lending market users, RLP holders, USR Yield Maxi vaults, Pendle positions, and other structured products. Specifically, USR/wstUSR held before the incident will be exchanged for USDC at a 1:1 ratio, while USR/wstUSR acquired after the incident will be exchanged for USDC at a 1:0.5 ratio. The RLP reference price has been reset to 55% of the last reference price before the incident, meaning 1 RLP is exchanged for 0.71 USDC, plus 2.71 RESOLV tokens per RLP.

The foundation will allocate 10% of the total RESOLV token supply for recovery, with 70% distributed to affected RLP holders. Eligible users can claim recovery payments between May 26 and August 26. Simultaneously, Resolv launched a new business line, Vault Street, focusing on the distribution of tokenized real-world assets. Its first product, primeUSD (a leveraged RWA product), has entered private testing and is expected to be fully launched publicly in June.

#Breakout2024 – The Year of Radix

The plan involves several critical steps designed to stabilize the platform and position it for future growth. First, the recovery plan focuses on repaying the operational debt through two distinct PILOT sales. The first sale is targeted at clearing the $USDC debt, while the second will address the $USK debt. This dual approach will not only resolve the existing liabilities. Also, it helps in converting the BOW leverage liquidity positions into protocol-owned liquidity, enhancing the platform’s financial stability.

Steps to Resolve Debt and Improve Stability Another significant aspect of this recovery strategy is the opportunity it provides for community members. The PILOT sales will accept bids in both $USDC or $xUSDC for the first sale, and $USK or $xUSK for the second sale. This setup allows participants with funds locked in the GHOST lend vaults to use their xAssets to bid, making the process more inclusive and providing broader engagement opportunities.

Source: X Bidders will be vying for $rKUJI (recovery KUJI) tokens through the PILOT sales. These $rKUJI tokens will be redeemable 1:1 for $KUJI once the necessary balance is freed from collateral and undelegated. This mechanism is designed to ensure that participants who contribute to the recovery effort are compensated with tokens that will have future value as the platform stabilizes.

Details regarding the specific terms of the PILOT sales, including the cliff, vesting schedules, base price, and maximum discount, are still being finalized. The Kujira team has committed to providing further information on these aspects and the overall timing of the recovery process shortly. Here are more info about the recovery plan:

Source: X Additionally, the recovery plan includes significant structural changes within Kujira. These changes will necessitate further discussions and votes from the community. To manage the treasury and ensure transparency, a trusted committee—separate from the founding team—will be established. This committee will likely employ DA0 DA0 tooling for multisig wallets and other essential features to enhance governance and security.

Disclaimer The information discussed by Altcoin Buzz is not financial advice. This is for educational, entertainment, and informational purposes only. Any information or strategies are thoughts and opinions relevant to the accepted levels of risk tolerance of the writer/reviewers and their risk tolerance may be different than yours. We are not responsible for any losses that you may incur as a result of any investments directly or indirectly related to the information provided. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are high-risk investments so please do your due diligence. Copyright Altcoin Buzz Pte Ltd.

Stargate Finance Integrates Circle’s CCTP for Instant USDC Transfers

TLDR: Wormhole offered $120M USDC to acquire Stargate, exceeding LayerZero’s $110M proposal currently up for DAO vote. LayerZero’s deal dissolves Stargate DAO and swaps $STG for $ZRO at a fixed 1:0.08634 conversion ratio. Wormhole pledged to honor Stargate’s commitments for 12 months, pushing for a competitive process for $STG holders. Stargate DAO’s vote on the LayerZero acquisition runs until August 24, requiring 70% approval with 1.2M quorum. A takeover battle is heating up in DeFi. Stargate Finance, one of crypto’s largest cross-chain liquidity projects, is now caught between two buyers. 

LayerZero has already tabled a $110 million acquisition that dissolves Stargate’s DAO. Wormhole responded with a higher $120 million all-cash proposal, calling for more time before the vote ends. 

The race leaves Stargate’s community at the center of a fast-moving tug-of-war.

LayerZero’s $110M Stargate Proposal On August 17, Stargate Ecosystem shared details of a buyout plan from LayerZero. The terms place all circulating $STG, including staked tokens, into a fixed swap for LayerZero’s $ZRO at 1 STG to 0.08634 ZRO. 

Locked and staked tokens would be released, giving holders immediate liquidity through the swap.

LayerZero have proposed to acquire Stargate (STG).

A final proposal is now live on Stargate's Snapshot.

Voting to start precisely at August 17th, 00:24 GMT.
______________

Key implications of this proposal:

Acquisition terms: All circulating STG (including staked/voting STG)… pic.twitter.com/jXAeCDCPus

— StargateEcosystem (@StargateEco) August 16, 2025

The plan also introduces a revenue split. veSTG holders captured in the snapshot receive half of Stargate’s revenue for six months. The remaining revenue supports ZRO buybacks, with full buybacks starting after the six-month window.

Governance is also part of the deal. Stargate DAO would be dissolved, with its operations moving under the LayerZero Foundation. Voting for the proposal began on August 17 and is scheduled to close on August 24.

For approval, the Snapshot requires 1.2 million veSTG votes and at least 70 percent support. Stargate’s future hinges on whether holders agree to shift fully into LayerZero’s ecosystem.

Wormhole Counters With $120M Cash Offer Just days later, the Wormhole Foundation went public with a competing proposal. 

In a post on August 22, the group announced a $120 million all-cash offer, topping LayerZero’s initial $110 million valuation. The team emphasized the bid removes conversion risks and gives holders immediate USDC liquidity.

1/ The Wormhole Foundation has arranged financing and is prepared to make an initial offer of at least $120M USDC for @StargateFinance, exceeding the initial $110M ZRO bid. An all-cash purchase provides $STG holders with maximum certainty and immediate liquidity. No delays and no…

— Wormhole Foundation (@WormholeFdn) August 22, 2025

Wormhole stated it would honor Stargate’s existing agreements for 12 months, covering counterparties, integrators, and contributors. The group stressed that Stargate deserves a competitive process instead of a quick sale at what it views as a lower valuation.

The foundation also said Stargate would remain a key part of Wormhole’s broader product line. With resources behind it, contributors see room to expand usage and integrate with other Wormhole initiatives under development.

The move places pressure on Stargate’s DAO voters. With Wormhole urging a pause in the voting process, Stargate holders must now weigh immediate ZRO integration against a higher cash payout.

Reason to trust

Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality

Created by industry experts and meticulously reviewed

The highest standards in reporting and publishing

Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality

Morbi pretium leo et nisl aliquam mollis. Quisque arcu lorem, ultricies quis pellentesque nec, ullamcorper eu odio.

Bybit is now moving its options and future contracts to Tether (USDT) and will not issue new USDC contracts from February 26 in an effort to increase liquidity on the platform.

In times when the crypto landscape is gradually moving towards USDC, Bybit seems to be doing the opposite. This is because most of the traffic on Bybit comes from the Russian Federation.

USDT is still the most liquid stablecoin with a supply of $145.2B. USDC is second on the list with a supply of $54.9B.

It’s worth mentioning that Bybit posted good numbers ($22.2B in daily trading volume) on the back of the 2024 bull run. Unsurprisingly, $BTC and $ETH are the most active pairs of derivatives on the platform.

The current shift will affect SOLUSC and ETHUSDC futures. Bybit will ensure that the expiry of USDC and UDST contracts are on different dates so as not to fragment liquidity.

Bybit’s European Dream May Soon Become a Reality Despite being restricted in countries like Canada, France, China, the USA, and the UK due to regulatory reasons, Bybit has not given up hope on becoming a force to reckon with in Europe.

Recently, the exchange was removed from the French AMF blacklist after more than 2 years of working with the regulators. The platform is now working towards getting a MiCA license, as confirmed by CEO Ben Zhou himself.

As the crypto landscape becomes more inclusive with pro-crypto regulations, a large number of new investors will join in to benefit from the upcoming bull run.

If you’re looking for the best crypto to invest in, consider rallying behind the success of the most popular crypto wallet, Best Wallet, by purchasing Best Wallet Token ($BEST).

What Is the Best Wallet Token ($BEST)? $BEST is the in-house altcoin of the Best Wallet App, which is hands down the best crypto wallet available right now.

Best Wallet gives you access to more than 60 crypto chains, allowing you to manage your entire crypto portfolio from a single place.

The wallet is also non-custodial and decentralized and does not require you to complete any lengthy KYC process to get started. This makes it very beginner-friendly and easy to use.

Since its launch in November 2024, the wallet has amassed more than 500K total users, including 250K daily active users. That’s further proof of its utility and user-friendliness.

Check out our detailed Best Wallet review for more info.

Holding $BEST, though, will put the Best Wallet App on steroids, unlocking cool exclusive perks. For starters, you get access to the best crypto presales much before they go out on sale for the general public.

This allows you to identify potential 100x meme coins and altcoins before they skyrocket. Plus, as a $BEST token holder, you’ll be able to buy these cryptos directly on the Best Wallet App and at a lower fee than on any other crypto wallet.

More good news comes in the form of security. All the tokens will be vetted by the in-house $BEST team, meaning you won’t have to worry about falling prey to hoax or scam crypto projects.

Why Should You Invest in $BEST? To understand $BEST’s growth potential, it’s important to dig into the goals of Best Wallet.

Firstly, the non-custodial wallet market sits at a massive $11B, and Best Wallet aims to capture 40% of it all by the end of 2026. Secondly, the developers also have plans to launch a Best card and Best DEX (a native decentralized exchange). As the Best Wallet App gains more traction and becomes the go-to for crypto investors worldwide, it’ll be the $BEST token that will benefit big time.

Moreover, $BEST aims to build a strong community of crypto investors with rich learning resources. Token holders can complete daily or weekly quests to get free airdrops.

During the last 5 months, the community has seen a 7,000+ strong airdrop user base with over 75,000 quests. You can join its 48.8K-strong X community or stay updated through its Discord and Telegram channels.

Analysts expect a 13,000% surge in $BEST’s value by the end of 2025, which would drive up its price to $3.25. This bullish momentum is expected to continue in 2026, where $BEST can hit highs of $6.47.

The Best Wallet presale is currently live ($10M+ already raised), and you can get 1 $BEST for just $0.024 if you get in now.

The next price increase is set to take place in less than 12 hours, so this might be your last chance to buy $BEST for such a low price.

However, it’s best to do your own research before putting your hard-earned money in crypto, as the markets can be notoriously volatile.

Also, this article isn’t a substitute for financial advice, so consider consulting a professional before making any decisions.

Top 1 On-Chain Liquidation: ETH Bull Whale Hit With 4 Consecutive Forced Liquidations, $14.11 Million in Positions Liquidated

According to Hyperinsight monitoring, today’s largest liquidation on the Hyperliquid platform involved a high-leverage Ethereum (ETH) long whale. The address opened a long position yesterday when ETH was trading at roughly $1,661, and immediately incurred losses after entry. Triggered by ETH’s short-term dip below $1,600 in the early hours of today, the whale faced four consecutive liquidations, resulting in the forced closure of a total of 8,734 ETH positions valued at approximately $14.11 million. The address now holds less than $150,000 in remaining funds, with all positions fully cleared. Address: 0x1cb0b187c14a8c0fb36ca0dcbb775dcc7f02b408

22 minutes ago

A certain on-chain address opened long positions in BTC, ETH, and silver, and purchased $10.699 million worth of BTC and ETH spot.

According to on-chain analyst Ai Yi (@ai_9684xtpa)’s monitoring, address 0x960…3f0fc simultaneously went long on both futures and spot positions this early morning, opening long positions of 102.55 BTC, 954.38 ETH, and 8,790 silver units, with total position value around $8.29 million. It also purchased spot BTC and ETH worth approximately $10.699 million. Its current take-profit levels are set at $63,000 for BTC and $1,650 for ETH.

22 minutes ago

A whale that reaped over $23.77 million in profits from the Basic Attention Token (BAT) ICO has reawakened after six years of dormancy, offloading 12,600 ETH in the past two days.

According to monitoring by EmberCN, a whale address that participated in the BAT ICO in 2017 and generated approximately $23.77 million in total profits has started selling ETH recently after six years of inactivity. Over the past two days, the address has sold 12,586 ETH, receiving 20.59 million USDS in exchange, at an average selling price of roughly $1,636. The whale invested 17,789 ETH in the BAT ICO in May 2017, acquiring around 113.8 million BAT. It then sold BAT gradually over approximately two and a half years at an average price of $0.245, netting about $23.77 million in profits, with some of the BAT converted into 27,586 ETH. Since then, the ETH has remained inactive for a long time until it resumed reducing its holdings recently. Currently, the address still holds around 15,000 ETH, valued at approximately $24.29 million.

22 minutes ago

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)

22 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.

22 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%.

22 minutes ago

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.

Chainlink and WEMIX Partner Up for Secure Cross-Chain Flow

Tether’s USDT at Risk as Coinbase Plans to Delist Non-Compliant Stablecoins in the EU

The Ethereum Foundation’s Privacy and Scaling Explorations team has rebranded as Privacy Stewards of Ethereum (PSE). Such a name change reflects its push to make end-to-end privacy an essential part of the network.

As highlighted on PSE’s new roadmap, the team’s role ‘isn’t to own every solution in the space, but to drive clarity, focus, collaborations, and outcomes across the ecosystem.’ This way, they can ensure ‘privacy is treated as a first-class feature at the application layer.’

Alongside these developments, Best Wallet emerges as an excellent partner. This non-custodial crypto wallet gives you full control of your assets on Ethereum and beyond with top-notch safeguarding measures.

Ethereum’s PSE Turns to Private Writes, Reads & Proving PSE’s ultimate vision is to make privacy on the Ethereum network a norm, not just an afterthought. It aims to achieve this through protections embedded across the entire stack, spanning protocol applications, wallets, and governance.

Their roadmap is structured around three key tracks:

Private writes: Makes private transactions, votes, and dApp interactions as easy and cost-effective as public ones; Private reads: Allows users to query balances, contracts, or data without exploring identity or intent; Private proving: Enables fast, zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) for secure, portable, and verifiable data sharing. To bring this to life, the PSE prioritizes transfers with PlasmaFold and privacy wallets, new voting systems with Aragon, and confidential DeFi standards for institutions.

They’re also working on privacy-preserving Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs), mixnets, ZK-based identity, and a faster proving system. And all while emphasizing user experience, such as making privacy tools powerful yet super easy to use.

Instead of building every solution itself, the PSE aims to collaborate openly with builders, researchers, and projects.

By steering the network while encouraging open collaboration, the PSE is laying the foundation for a privacy-first Ethereum. Given that Best Wallet shares a similar ethos, they work hand in hand to make crypto safer, more private, and user-centric.

Best Wallet Combines Security, Presales & Cross-Chain Swaps Available on iOS and Google Play, the Best Wallet mobile app positions itself as a highly secure way to manage crypto while on the move.

As a non-custodial wallet, it gives you complete access to your private keys. It also includes protections like 2FA, biometric, and local encryption, so only you can control your crypto holdings.

Even if you happen to lose account access, you’ll easily be able to retrieve your assets thanks to the wallet’s encrypted cloud backups (with no seed or recovery phrase required).

Better yet, it makes it super easy to buy, sell, manage, and swap 1K+ assets across not just Ethereum but other major chains like BNB Chain and Polygon.

In fact, it promises to support 60 networks in the future so that you can anticipate even broader crypto opportunities.

Moreover, the app has its very own launchpad, allowing you to access the best crypto presales. That, coupled with a swap engine, which scans more than 330 DEXs and 30 bridges, offers you the best possible rates.

It also plans to launch more advanced tools, including market intel analytics, stop-loss orders, and derivatives trading.

For more information on what else Best Wallet has up its sleeve, check out our comprehensive Best Wallet crypto review.

Source: Best Wallet Token By the way, Best Wallet’s native token – $BEST – makes all this possible. The reason is that a sizable 25% of its total token supply is earmarked for product development, ensuring long-term growth for the entire ecosystem.

And that’s not all. Holding $BEST unlocks additional benefits, including governance rights, staking rewards at an 84% APY, and lower gas fees.

To reap the perks, you can buy $BEST on presale for just $0.025645, using either $ETH, $BNB, $USDT, $USDC, $FLOKI, SHIB, $PEPE, $DOGE, or fiat.

Now’s a great time to do precisely that as new app developments could propel the token to $0.035215 this year – a potential ROI exceeding 35%.

Ready to jump in? Join the Best Wallet Token presale today.

Authored by Aaron Walker, NewsBTC – www.newsbtc.com/news/best-wallet-non-custodial-combo-with-ethereum-privacy

Top 1 On-Chain Liquidation: ETH Bull Whale Hit With 4 Consecutive Forced Liquidations, $14.11 Million in Positions Liquidated

According to Hyperinsight monitoring, today’s largest liquidation on the Hyperliquid platform involved a high-leverage Ethereum (ETH) long whale. The address opened a long position yesterday when ETH was trading at roughly $1,661, and immediately incurred losses after entry. Triggered by ETH’s short-term dip below $1,600 in the early hours of today, the whale faced four consecutive liquidations, resulting in the forced closure of a total of 8,734 ETH positions valued at approximately $14.11 million. The address now holds less than $150,000 in remaining funds, with all positions fully cleared. Address: 0x1cb0b187c14a8c0fb36ca0dcbb775dcc7f02b408

3 minutes ago

A certain on-chain address opened long positions in BTC, ETH, and silver, and purchased $10.699 million worth of BTC and ETH spot.

According to on-chain analyst Ai Yi (@ai_9684xtpa)’s monitoring, address 0x960…3f0fc simultaneously went long on both futures and spot positions this early morning, opening long positions of 102.55 BTC, 954.38 ETH, and 8,790 silver units, with total position value around $8.29 million. It also purchased spot BTC and ETH worth approximately $10.699 million. Its current take-profit levels are set at $63,000 for BTC and $1,650 for ETH.

3 minutes ago

A whale that reaped over $23.77 million in profits from the Basic Attention Token (BAT) ICO has reawakened after six years of dormancy, offloading 12,600 ETH in the past two days.

According to monitoring by EmberCN, a whale address that participated in the BAT ICO in 2017 and generated approximately $23.77 million in total profits has started selling ETH recently after six years of inactivity. Over the past two days, the address has sold 12,586 ETH, receiving 20.59 million USDS in exchange, at an average selling price of roughly $1,636. The whale invested 17,789 ETH in the BAT ICO in May 2017, acquiring around 113.8 million BAT. It then sold BAT gradually over approximately two and a half years at an average price of $0.245, netting about $23.77 million in profits, with some of the BAT converted into 27,586 ETH. Since then, the ETH has remained inactive for a long time until it resumed reducing its holdings recently. Currently, the address still holds around 15,000 ETH, valued at approximately $24.29 million.

3 minutes ago

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

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.

3 US Crypto Stocks to Watch After the GENIUS Act Passed

Table of contents

Alchemy Pay, a renowned cryptocurrency-fiat payment gateway, is pleased to announce its strategic partnership with Coinbase, a prominent U.S.-based cryptocurrency exchange for buying, selling, and storing digital assets. The main mission behind this collaboration is to increase access to $USDC (US-pegged stablecoin issued by Circle) by providing low-cost fiat-to-crypto mainstream adoption for global users. Alchemy Pay has released this news through its official social media X account.

🌟 #AlchemyPay and @coinbase are expanding access to USDC! Score ZERO ramp fees on USDC buys through @coinexcom! Unlock seamless fiat-to-crypto bridges today—dive in now and supercharge your portfolio without the extra costs. Rally your crew and join today—the bridge is open!… pic.twitter.com/EeTQO3n9X1

— Alchemy Pay|$ACH: Fiat-Crypto Payment Gateway (@AlchemyPay) January 7, 2026 Alchemy Pay and Coinbase to Accelerate $USDC Adoption Worldwide Alchemy Pay is widely known for its best fiat-to-crypto and crypto-to-fiat payment gateway. The partnership between Alchemy Pay and Coinbase plays a crucial role in the global adoption of $USDC. The best thing is that both platforms are giving a unique opportunity to get access to $USDC with zero ramp fees offered by CoinEx.

 Alchemy Pay and Coinbase offer users to get the $USDC via CoinEx with zero ramp fees. This golden opportunity has a limited time frame from 5th Jan 2026- 4th Feb 2026.  So, this is the best chance to grab the opportunity and take advantage of it. Now, $USDC is widely accepted for its usage in trading, decentralized finance (DeFi), payments, and on-chain savings and remittances.

Strengthen the Web3–TradFi Bridge for Cheaper Payments Due to this synergy, both fintech firms would be able to catch the attention of users in a huge number, because it is the psyche of the human mind always attracted toward the benefits that are cheaper and easily accessible. On the other hand, Alchemy Pay provides a strong bridge between traditional finance (TradFi) and Web3.

The alliance of Alchemy Pay and Coinbase is much more than an ordinary partnership; rather, it is a miracle in this material world where people think about their benefits without taking care of others. In addition, it is a chance to strengthen the portfolio status without extra costs and supercharge it fully.

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.

Top AI IPOs To Watch in 2026: OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX, and More