Connect with us

Crypto World

CFTC Quietly Corrects Stablecoin Guidance for US Banks

Published

on

CFTC Quietly Corrects Stablecoin Guidance for US Banks

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) expanded its digital asset collateral framework on February 6.

This update explicitly authorizes futures commission merchants (FCMs) to accept stablecoins issued by national trust banks as margin.

Sponsored

Sponsored

Advertisement

Bank-Issued Stablecoins Enter US Derivatives Margin

The revision, detailed in Staff Letter 25-40, serves as a critical course correction to guidance issued in December.

That earlier framework had inadvertently created a two-tiered system by restricting eligible payment stablecoins to those issued by state-regulated money transmitters or trust companies.

The oversight effectively sidelined federally chartered national trust banks from participating in the burgeoning market for tokenized derivatives collateral.

Consequently, their previous exclusion from the eligible collateral list was an unintentional error that required immediate rectification.

Advertisement

In light of this, this update confirms that stablecoins issued by national trust banks now have parity with assets from state-regulated issuers, such as Circle and Paxos.

CFTC Chairman Mike Selig characterized the revision as a strategic step toward cementing American dominance in the digital asset sector.

Sponsored

Sponsored

Advertisement

“With the enactment of the GENIUS Act and the CFTC’s new eligible collateral framework, America is the global leader in stablecoin innovation,” Selig said in a statement Friday.

The update is critical for the clearing industry, which has struggled to integrate digital assets into traditional settlement workflows.

Salman Banei, general counsel of Plume Network, noted the operational significance of the fix, saying:

“With this, GENIUS Act compliant stablecoins can be used as the payment leg for institutional derivatives settlement.”

The commission stated that it would not recommend enforcement action against FCMs that accept newly qualified assets. However, this leniency is conditional on their adherence to the enhanced reporting protocols outlined in the no-action letter.

Meanwhile, this latest move is part of a broader pilot program launched by the commission last year.

Advertisement

Under this initiative, FCMs are temporarily permitted to utilize Bitcoin, Ethereum, and qualified stablecoins as collateral for derivatives trading.

However, the CFTC emphasized that this relief comes with stringent oversight.

Participating FCMs must file frequent reports detailing their digital asset holdings and must immediately disclose any significant operational failures, disruptions, or cybersecurity incidents.

This reporting mechanism effectively places the industry in a regulatory sandbox, where the operational resilience demonstrated during this trial period will determine the long-term viability of crypto-collateral.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

What Caused Bitcoin Crash? 3 Theories Behind BTC’s 40% Dip in a Month

Published

on

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) has endured one of its steepest drawdowns in weeks, sinking more than 40% over the past month to a year-to-date low near $59,930 on Friday. The retreat leaves the asset roughly 50% off its October 2025 all-time high around $126,200. Market participants point to a mix of leverage, ETF-linked products, and shifting risk appetite as the accelerants behind the move. The episode has intensified scrutiny of the nexus between funding channels, hedging activity, and mining economics as liquidity tightens and option markets unwind.

Key takeaways

  • Analysts highlight Asia-linked flow dynamics—including leveraged bets tied to Bitcoin ETFs and yen funding—as potential catalysts for the sell-off.
  • Short-term risk to miners remains elevated, with BTC hovering near the $60k mark and the possibility of renewed pressure if the level fails to hold.
  • A widely discussed theory posits that banks could have been forced to unwind exposure to structured notes tied to spot BTC ETFs, amplifying selling pressure during the slide.
  • The mining sector is reportedly pivoting toward AI data-center workloads, contributing to hash-rate shifts and changing the economics of mining operations.
  • Hash-rate indicators and production-cost data suggest mounting stress for some operators if prices stay depressed, particularly for producers with higher energy costs.

Tickers mentioned: $BTC, $IBIT, $SOL, $RIOT

Sentiment: Bearish

Price impact: Negative. The price collapse has heightened risk across mining cash flows and lenders’ hedging obligations, reinforcing a downside tilt.

Market context: The move unfolds amid thinning liquidity, ongoing ETF flow considerations, and macro risk sentiment that shape crypto pricing and funding conditions.

Advertisement

Why it matters

At its core, the current bout of volatility underscores how crypto price action remains tethered to leverage cycles and funding dynamics. If large holders and miners face balance-sheet stress as prices retreat, the resilience of BTC could hinge on liquidity restoration and the capacity of major players to manage hedges and collateral calls. The episode also highlights the growing integration between traditional finance instruments and crypto exposure—for example, ETF-linked notes and over-the-counter hedges—where the mechanics of delta-hedging can intensify price moves in fast-moving markets.

From a mining perspective, the evolving energy and capacity landscape matters for network security and long-term dynamics. Reports about miners reallocating capital toward AI data-center projects signal a shift in how hardware is deployed and priced into production costs. The tension between a falling price floor and rising or variable energy expenses can widen the gap between theoretical profitability and actual cash flow for operators. This has implications for hash-rate stability, miner incentives, and the broader health of BTC mining outside of bull-market phases.

On the regulatory and institutional front, the unfolding narrative intersects with how large banks and asset managers interact with crypto products. If organized hedging around spot BTC ETFs remains sizable, any further price shocks could trigger feedback loops that amplify volatility until markets reach a clearer equilibrium between funding costs, risk appetite, and crypto demand. The conversation around Morgan Stanley and other banks’ hedging behavior—whether tied to structured notes or other instruments—adds a layer of complexity to understanding who bears the cost of volatility and how liquidity is distributed during stress episodes.

What to watch next

  • Bitcoin’s price behavior around the $60,000 level: does it defend the level, or does renewed downside pressure test nearby support?
  • Hash-rate and mining economics: will energy costs and capital reallocation toward AI data centers reshape the mining landscape in the coming weeks?
  • ETF flows and bank hedging: how do institutional exposures to BTC-linked products evolve, and what does that imply for liquidity during stress periods?
  • Corporate pivots in mining: how are operators like Riot Platforms (RIOT) and others adjusting capital plans in response to price volatility?
  • Macro and regulatory cues: what new developments could alter risk sentiment or the availability of liquidity to crypto markets?

Sources & verification

  • BTC price level and price-action narrative tied to the week’s moves and the year-to-date low near $59,930, with reference to the BTC/USD daily chart from TradingView.
  • Activity around BlackRock’s IBIT and related volume/option data cited as a trigger for stress and unwind in ETF-linked bets.
  • Discussion of structured-note hedging and potential bank involvements, anchored to the Morgan Stanley product documentation and related regulatory filings.
  • Hash-rate and mining-cost indicators, including the Hash Ribbons signal and underlying cost data for mining operations (electricity costs and net production expenditure).
  • Company-level mining shifts and past activity, such as Riot Platforms’ December actions and IREN’s pivot to AI data-center deployments, as cited in related articles.

Bitcoin price reaction and miner vulnerabilities

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) has endured a rapid re-pricing as liquidity conditions tightened and carry trades unwound. After a run that had carried the asset close to $126,200 in October 2025, BTC retraced to around $59,930 by Friday, exposing a more than 40% drop from recent highs and placing the year-to-date performance in the red. The pullback comes amid a confluence of factors: patience in risk markets, sudden squeezes in leveraged bets, and the energy of ETF-linked products that amplify price movements when flows reverse. The narrative has centered on Asia-based players who had pursued aggressive bets on BTC appreciation using options tied to Bitcoin ETFs and financing through yen borrowings. As one participant described, this funding dynamic allowed bets to scale quickly, only to reverse with the worsening price trajectory.

BTC/USD daily price chart. Source: TradingView

The tension around ETF-linked products is exemplified by BlackRock’s IBIT discussions, where a surge in volume and options activity was observed on one of the largest days for the instrument. Parker White, COO and CIO of Nasdaq-listed DeFi Development Corp. (DFDV), noted that participants used yen-based funding to support bets on BTC and related assets, recycling capital across currencies in search of outsized gains. In the period in question, IBIT recorded about $10.7 billion in trading volume, roughly doubling typical activity, while approximately $900 million in options premium changed hands—an unusually energetic display given the broader price weakness. The price action across BTC and SOL in that session underscored how sensitive the market remains to funding-driven dynamics.

Advertisement

As BTC momentum faltered and yen-funding costs rose, those leveraged bets began to sour quickly. Lenders demanded more cash, and asset liquidations accelerated, reinforcing the downturn. The episode has fed into a broader conversation about how banks and market makers hedge exposures tied to crypto products. In particular, the idea that banks—potentially including Morgan Stanley—might have needed to liquidate Bitcoin or related positions to manage structured-note exposure tied to spot BTC ETFs has gained traction among observers who see delta-hedging as a potential catalyst for negative gamma risk. When prices fall sharply, dealers must hedge by selling underlying BTC or futures, which can accelerate price declines in a feedback loop.

Source: X
Source: X

Beyond the banking-hedge narrative, some market observers have pointed to the mining sector’s evolving strategy as a factor shaping price dynamics. A school of thought argues that an ongoing mining exodus toward AI data-center capacity could reduce BTC hashing power at a pace that complicates mining economics during a prolonged bear phase. Judge Gibson emphasized this point in a recent post on X, noting that AI demand is already drawing equipment away from pure BTC mining toward data-center deployments. Riot Platforms (NASDAQ: RIOT) confirmed a broader pivot toward AI data-center infrastructure in December 2025, while IREN and other miners have reported similar strategic shifts. Hash-rate data, including the Hash Ribbons indicator, show a 30-day moving average slipping below the 60-day line, a setup historically associated with stress on miner margins and potential capitulation risk.

Current production-cost estimates place the breakeven edge for miners in the vicinity of BTC’s price level. The latest figures show the average electricity cost to mine a single BTC around $58,160, with net production expenditure near $72,700. If BTC’s price remains anchored below the $60,000 mark, some mining operations could face true financial strain, forcing balance-sheet adjustments or, in extreme cases, asset sales to cover operating costs. Meanwhile, the long-term holder cohort appears to be pruning exposure, with wallets containing 10 to 10,000 BTC representing a smaller share of circulating supply than in nine months past, a sign that large holders may be reducing positions amid heightened volatility.

BTC production and electrical cost comparison
BTC/USD daily chart vs. production and electrical cost. Source: Capriole Investments

The market remains in a fragile balance, where price levels and mining economics are inextricably linked to funding costs, energy prices, and macro risk appetite. As BTC navigates this terrain, the outcome will likely hinge on a combination of liquidity restoration, continued mining-capacity realignments, and the ability of institutional actors to manage risk without adding to volatility. If the price holds above critical thresholds, miners may regain some breathing room; if not, the financial stress could intensify across the ecosystem, with knock-on effects for crypto lending, derivatives, and the broader risk-on appetite that has defined the asset class in recent years.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Advertisement

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

What Crashed Bitcoin? 3 Theories Behind BTC’s 40% Price Dip in a Month

Published

on

What Crashed Bitcoin? 3 Theories Behind BTC’s 40% Price Dip in a Month

Bitcoin (BTC) experienced on of the biggest sell-offs over the past month, sliding more than 40% to reach a year-to-date low of $59,930 on Friday. It is now down over 50% from its October 2025 all-time high near $126,200.

Key takeaways:

  • Analysts are pointing to Hong Kong hedge funds and ETF-linked U.S. bank products as possible drivers of BTC’s crash.

  • Bitcoin could slip back below $60,000, putting the price closer to miners’ break-even levels.

BTC/USD daily price chart. Source: TradingView

Hong Kong hedge funds behind BTC dump?

One popular theory suggests that Bitcoin’s crash this past week may have originated in Asia, where some Hong Kong hedge funds were placing substantial, leveraged bets that BTC would continue to rise.

These funds used options linked to Bitcoin ETFs like BlackRock’s IBIT and paid for those bets by borrowing cheap Japanese yen, according to Parker White, COO and CIO of Nasdaq-listed DeFi Development Corp. (DFDV).

They swapped that yen into other currencies and invested in risky assets like crypto, hoping prices would rise.

Advertisement

When Bitcoin stopped going up, and yen borrowing costs increased, those leveraged bets quickly went bad. Lenders then demanded more cash, forcing the funds to sell Bitcoin and other assets quickly, which exacerbated the price drop.

Morgan Stanley caused Bitcoin selloff: Arthur Hayes

Another theory gaining traction comes from former BitMEX CEO Arthur Hayes.

He suggested that banks, including Morgan Stanley, may have been forced to sell Bitcoin (or related assets) to hedge their exposure in structured notes tied to spot Bitcoin ETFs, such as BlackRock’s IBIT.

Advertisement
Source: X

These are complex financial products where banks offer clients bets on Bitcoin’s price performance (often with principal protection or barriers).

When Bitcoin falls sharply, breaching key levels like around $78,700 in one noted Morgan Stanley product, dealers must delta-hedge by selling underlying BTC or futures.

This creates “negative gamma,” meaning that as prices drop further, hedging sales accelerate, turning banks from liquidity providers into forced sellers and exacerbating the downturn.

Miners shifting from Bitcoin to AI

Less prominent but circulating is the theory that a so-called “mining exodus” may have also fueled the Bitcoin downtrend.

In a Saturday post on X, analyst Judge Gibson said that the growing AI data center demand is already forcing Bitcoin miners to pivot, which has led to a 10-40% drop in hash rate.

Advertisement
Source: X

For instance, in December 2025, Bitcoin miner Riot Platforms announced its shift toward a broader data center strategy, while selling $161 million worth of BTC. Last week, another miner, IREN, announced its pivot to AI data centers.

Related: Crypto’s stress test hits balance sheets as Bitcoin, Ether collapse

Meanwhile, the Hash Ribbons indicator also flashed a warning: the 30-day hash-rate average has slipped below the 60-day, a negative inversion that historically signals acute miner income stress and raises the risk of capitulation.

BTC Hash Riboon vs. price. Source: Glassnode

As of Saturday, the estimated average electricity cost to mine a single Bitcoin was around $58,160, while the net production expenditure was approximately $72,700.

BTC/USD daily chart vs. production and electrical cost. Source: Capriole Investments

If Bitcoin drops back below $60,000, miners could start to experience real financial stress.

Long-term holders are also looking more cautious.

Data shows wallets holding 10 to 10,000 BTC now control their smallest share of supply in nine months, suggesting this group has been trimming exposure rather than accumulating.

Advertisement