Key Takeaways

• Bank of America lifted Intel’s price target from $56 to $96 while maintaining an Underperform rating
• The Wall Street Journal disclosed that Apple and Intel secured a preliminary manufacturing deal for chip production
• Intel shares surged 14% on Friday, reaching an all-time closing high of $124.92, marking approximately 240% gains this year
• BofA projects the Apple partnership could generate roughly $10B in yearly foundry revenue for Intel by 2030
• A senior Intel executive offloaded $4M in company shares at $99.53 per share prior to Friday’s stock surge

Intel (INTC) shares reached an unprecedented all-time peak on Friday following a Wall Street Journal disclosure revealing that Apple and Intel have finalized a preliminary manufacturing partnership for producing chips destined for Apple products. Shares concluded trading at $124.92, representing a remarkable 14% single-session increase and pushing year-to-date performance to approximately 240%.

Intel Corporation, INTC

Bank of America reacted by adjusting its Intel price forecast upward — from $56 to $96 — while maintaining its Underperform designation on the equity. The firm’s research team believes investors have already accounted for the potential benefits from the Apple collaboration.

BofA projects the partnership could ultimately deliver approximately $10 billion in yearly foundry revenue for Intel by decade’s end, assuming Intel secures around 25% of Apple’s semiconductor production volume. While this represents a substantial opportunity, analysts caution that significant challenges remain.

In the immediate future, M-Series processors for MacBooks and iPads are anticipated as the initial manufacturing focus. A-Series chips powering iPhones could eventually be included, though that timeline extends considerably further.

BofA has refrained from incorporating the Apple partnership into its official financial projections yet, pointing to insufficient details regarding contract specifics. The firm also highlighted a two-to-three year period required for capital investment, production qualification, and manufacturing scale-up.

Profitability Concerns in Initial Phases

Gross profit margins are anticipated to suffer during the initial implementation period. Equipment depreciation, lower production yields, and launch-related expenses will pressure bottom-line results. Intel’s target of achieving foundry operating profitability by 2027 may be delayed by one to two years, BofA’s research team suggests.

“We reiterate Underperform as we believe these upsides are already fully valued,” the analysts stated. They emphasized that AMD and ARM are better situated to capitalize on the expanding server CPU marketplace, which BofA now forecasts will achieve $120 billion by 2030, revised upward from a previous $80 billion projection.

The price target revision stemmed from an updated sum-of-parts valuation methodology and the revised server CPU market forecast — not directly from the Apple partnership announcement.

Executive Stock Sale Draws Attention

Separate from the partnership announcement, another development merits consideration. Executive VP April Miller Boise divested approximately $4 million in Intel shares at an average transaction price of $99.53 — representing a 28% decrease in her stake. This transaction marked the most substantial insider divestment at Intel over the preceding twelve-month period.

The transaction occurred at a valuation significantly beneath Friday’s closing price of $124.92. Although insider sales occur for various personal and financial reasons, such activity is typically interpreted as a bearish indicator — especially when the sale price falls considerably below subsequent trading levels.

Intel executives as a group control roughly 0.08% of the corporation, presently valued at approximately $483 million. No company insider has acquired Intel shares during the past three months.

As of Monday’s pre-market session, Intel was changing hands at $130.80, representing an additional 4.71% increase beyond Friday’s record finish.

The Australian government appears poised to replace the current 50% capital gains tax (CGT) discount on assets held for more than 12 months with an inflation-indexed taxation approach. The proposed reform, part of the Albanese administration’s FY2027 budget blueprint, would shift how long-term gains are taxed and could raise the tax burden on crypto and other asset holders over time, according to the Australian Financial Review’s coverage of confidential budget briefings.

Under the plan, the CGT discount would be scrapped in favor of tax treatment that applies to full real gains, adjusted for inflation, over the period that an asset is held. The reform is anticipated to affect long-term investors across asset classes, with crypto included in the scope of assets subject to the new regime. The changes are scheduled to take effect at the end of the 2027 fiscal year, with a transitional arrangement providing a one-year grace period for assets acquired after May 10 of the budget year. During the transition, the existing 50% CGT discount would continue to apply for those assets.

Australian investors currently enjoy a 50% CGT discount on qualifying assets held for more than a year. The AFR report indicates the budget would replace this incentive with an inflation-indexed framework, which could significantly alter long-horizon tax outcomes for high-income earners and for assets whose real returns lag inflation. The shift has already drawn immediate commentary from market participants and tax analysts alike.

The proposal has drawn criticism from some market observers. Chris Joye, portfolio manager at Coolabah Capital Investments and a commentator for the AFR, argued on social media that the overhaul would push Australians away from a broad range of investment forms and toward tax-favored assets such as owner-occupied housing. Joye stated that “After the budget doubles the capital gains tax on productive businesses and assets from about 23.5% to 46-47%, investors will understandably pull money from businesses, shares, commercial property and rental housing and plough it into their tax-free owner-occupied home.” He added that “The single biggest winner from the budget: the tax-free owner-occupied home, which is where people will put their money.”

Scott Phillips, chief investment officer at The Motley Fool, offered a different perspective, noting that while tax obligations could rise, investors would still seek substantial returns and maintain incentives to invest. “Not for nothing, but when people say a CGT change would hit founders and growth investors, they’re not wrong. But implicit in that argument is that those groups will be making a motza in the first place. That’s all the incentive they will need,” Phillips commented in coverage cited by the AFR.

The transitional policy contemplates that assets purchased prior to May 10 would be partially exempt, with the final CGT discount calculated on a proportional basis reflecting the time held under each regime. In practical terms, this means a blended tax outcome for assets accumulated across the transition, with the new inflation-adjusted regime applying for the period after the grace window. The AFR’s reporting indicates the budget’s design aims to phase in the new regime while preserving a degree of continuity for existing holdings.

For context, coverage in Cointelegraph has highlighted ongoing discussions around crypto licensing and regulatory milestones in Australia, including developments related to crypto services for retirement accounts and other financial products. While the budget framework focuses on tax design, the shift intersects with broader regulatory and compliance considerations facing crypto firms, exchanges, and institutional investors operating in Australia. The policy move thus sits at the nexus of fiscal design and financial-sector oversight, with potential implications for AML/KYC frameworks, licensing, and cross-border operations as markets seek clarity on how crypto assets are taxed over extended holding periods.

In parallel, industry observers note that any move toward inflation-indexed taxation elevates the importance of robust cost-basis reporting, transparent valuation, and rigorous tax risk management for both investors and platforms. The transition raises questions for custodians, brokers, and exchange operators about how to communicate, calculate, and report real gains in real time, especially across multi-asset portfolios that include crypto, equities, and real estate-linked exposures. Regulators and tax authorities are expected to scrutinize these mechanisms to ensure accurate real-time reporting and to prevent opportunities for misreporting or tax avoidance during the transition.

Key takeaways

• The budget reportedly intends to replace the 50% CGT discount with an inflation-indexed regime that taxes full real gains over the holding period; crypto would be affected under the new framework.
• Changes would take effect at the end of the 2027 fiscal year, with a one-year grace period for assets acquired after May 10; assets held before that date receive partial exemptions based on holding duration.
• Industry reaction is mixed: critics warn of higher tax burdens and potential reallocation of investment elsewhere, while some observers expect continued substantial returns that sustain investment incentives.
• Regulatory and compliance considerations loom large for crypto firms, exchanges, and financial institutions, particularly around cost-basis reporting, AML/KYC obligations, and cross-border operations as tax rules evolve.
• The reforms exist within a broader, global policy conversation on crypto taxation and asset-based levies, highlighting the need for clear licensing regimes and robust enforcement to support investor protection and regulatory oversight.

Policy design and transition mechanics

The core design change under consideration would substitute the existing 50% CGT discount with an inflation-indexed approach that taxes real gains, adjusted for inflation, over the duration that an asset is held. The proposal, described by the AFR as part of the budget framework, signals a shift from a favorable tax treatment for long-term holdings to a regime that measures gains in real terms. The mechanism is intended to align tax outcomes with price-level changes, potentially reducing the parity between nominal gains and actual purchasing-power growth.

Key transitional details include a July 2027 implementation target, a one-year grace period for assets acquired after May 10 of the budget year, and a partial exemption for assets purchased before that date. The final CGT discount would be calculated proportionally to reflect the time under each regime, resulting in a blended tax outcome for holdings straddling the transition. The intention appears to provide a controlled path toward the new regime while preserving some protection for existing investments during the transition.

Investor impact and market response

The tax design change carries potential consequences for how crypto assets are managed within diversified portfolios. Long-horizon holdings could see elevated tax obligations if inflation outpaces nominal gains, especially for assets with relatively modest inflation-adjusted returns. The discourse around this shift has drawn prominent voices from financial commentary circles. Joye’s critique emphasizes a broader reallocation pressure, suggesting that a higher CGT burden could deter investment in a wide range of productive assets beyond crypto, with housing potentially benefiting from the tighter tax environment for other asset classes. As Joye stated in a public post cited by AFR, the impact would extend beyond crypto, reshaping investor behavior across equities, commercial property, and rental markets.

Conversely, some market observers argue that, despite higher taxes, investors have historically achieved substantial absolute returns and would adapt to the new regime. Phillips of The Motley Fool remarked that the sustained profitability of ventures and growth opportunities could preserve incentives to invest, even if the tax environment becomes more stringent. The framing suggests a nuanced outcome: higher tax exposure for some, but continued capital formation driven by core investment objectives.

Regulatory environment and compliance considerations

The fiscal proposal sits alongside Australia’s ongoing regulatory evolution in the crypto space. While the budget focuses on taxation, the broader policy landscape emphasizes licensing, AML/KYC compliance, and oversight of crypto-related financial services. For exchanges, custodians, and financial institutions operating in Australia, the shift underscores the need for transparent tax reporting, accurate cost basis calculations, and clear guidance on how inflation indexing will be applied to diverse asset classes, including digital assets. The policy momentum also intersects with global regulatory dialogues on crypto tax, licensing, and cross-border coordination, where jurisdictions are increasingly aligning on reporting standards and enforcement frameworks to mitigate risk and safeguard investor interests.

Public and industry commentary highlights the importance of robust data, clear interpretation of transitional rules, and consistent enforcement to prevent ambiguous tax outcomes. As authorities move toward implementing inflation-indexed taxation, firms will need to adapt tax-technology infrastructure, ensure compliant disclosure practices, and monitor any cross-border implications for clients with holdings overseas or with foreign-sourced portfolios.

Broader policy context and next steps

The proposed fiscal changes appear in the context of a wider policy debate about how crypto assets should be taxed and regulated in Australia. Observers note that tax design choices can influence market structure, capital formation, and the relative attractiveness of different asset classes. In the global policy environment, such measures are part of a broader discourse on crypto taxation, licensing, and financial stability, with cross-border differences shaping how investors, exchanges, and banking partners operate across jurisdictions.

As the FY2027 budget cycle progresses, stakeholders will be watching how the inflation-indexation concept is operationalized, how transitional rules are implemented, and what guidance regulators publish to support compliant reporting and enforcement. The evolving framework will influence compliance programs, tax advisory services, and the strategic planning of institutions with exposure to Australian markets.

Closing perspective

Australia’s contemplated shift from aCGT discount to inflation-indexed taxation marks a significant policy pivot with material implications for crypto investors, tax professionals, and financial institutions. The final design, transition mechanics, and regulatory clarifications will determine whether the change sharpens tax certainty or introduces new compliance complexities. Monitoring forthcoming official guidance and regulatory updates will be essential for institutional players navigating this transition.

Crypto investment firm Galaxy Digital said seven Democratic lawmakers on the US Senate Banking Committee could be key to advancing the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act when it goes to markup on Thursday, sending it to the Senate for a vote.

In an X post on Sunday, Galaxy Digital labeled Democratic lawmakers Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks as “constructive/pro-framework” when it comes to crypto. Four other lawmakers are seen as “deal-makers,” while one lawmaker is seen as “mixed.” 

“If Democrats vote for the bill in markup, likelihood of ultimate passage on the Senate floor increases significantly,” Galaxy Digital said. 

Passing the CLARITY Act through the Senate and into law would create clearer federal rules for the US crypto industry, potentially reducing years of regulatory uncertainty and encouraging more projects to build in the country.

Galaxy Digital speculates that seven Democrats on the US Senate Banking Committee could be swayed to approve the CLARITY Act. Source: Galaxy Digital

Galaxy listed Mark Warner, Catherine Cortez Masto, Andy Kim and Raphael Warnock as “deal-maker/conditional,” saying they have shown support for a crypto framework and voted to pass the GENIUS Act.

Galaxy said they also want stronger safeguards against illicit finance and money laundering risks.

Lisa Blunt Rochester, who was labeled “mixed,” is considered a possible swing vote because she has backed the crypto framework but voted against the GENIUS Act.

At least four are likely to vote against the bill

Jack Reed, Elizabeth Warren, Tina Smith and Chris Van Hollen all voted against the GENIUS Act, and Galaxy predicts they will follow a similar path on the CLARITY Act based on past statements.

The CLARITY Act has been scheduled for markup on Thursday. To pass through the Senate Banking Committee, at least half of the 24-member group, which is made up of 13 Republicans and 11 Democrats, will need to approve it.

After passing through the committee, the bill heads to the Senate floor for scheduling, debate and possible further amendments before a vote. Kara Calvert, vice president of US policy at crypto exchange Coinbase, told attendees at the Consensus 2026 conference that the bill needs at least 60 votes to pass in the Senate and bipartisan support to become law.

Stand With Crypto, a US crypto advocacy and tracking platform that scores politicians on their crypto stance based on past statements and actions, lists Warner, Cortez Masto, and Alsobrooks as strongly supportive of crypto.

Related: ‘Visible flaws’ in Bitcoiners’ mid-bear market forecast: Analyst 

Kim is considered neutral, and Reed, Warren and Smith are all considered strongly opposed to crypto. Warnock, Blunt Rochester, Gallego, and Van Hollen are not ranked due to insufficient data, according to Stand With Crypto.

The CLARITY Act, introduced in July 2025, was expected to progress but stalled in January after Coinbase withdrew its support for the legislation, citing concerns over a lack of legal protections for open-source software developers, a prohibition on stablecoin yields and decentralized finance regulations.

Magazine: Guide to the top and emerging global crypto hubs — Mid-2026 

Tokenized gold trading has moved past last year’s total in only three months. 

CoinGecko’s RWA Report 2026 said spot trading volume for tokenized gold reached $90.70 billion in Q1 2026, above the $84.64 billion recorded for the full year of 2025.

The report linked the growth to demand from crypto traders seeking exposure to gold and easier access across exchanges. CoinGecko also said centralized exchanges account for most tokenized asset spot trading, showing that large trading venues still lead activity in this market.

PAXG and XAUT remain the main drivers

PAXG and XAUT remain the leading names in tokenized gold activity. CoinGecko said PAXG accounted for 34.2% to 82.5% of monthly tokenized gold spot volume over the last 15 months, while XAUT accounted for 14.8% to 64.6%.

Tokenized commodities also grew from $1.43 billion to $5.55 billion in market value over the same period. CoinGecko said XAUT and PAXG accounted for 89.1% of that expansion, adding $1.87 billion and $1.80 billion respectively.

Moreover, recent crypto.news coverage shows that tokenized gold is moving beyond basic trading. On March 30, Tether launched XAUt on BNB Chain, with each token backed 1:1 by one troy ounce of physical gold stored in Swiss vaults. Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino described the move as “integrating gold into the digital financial system with instant settlement.”

As crypto.news reported, Singapore’s OCBC launched GOLDX on Ethereum and Solana in April. The token gives institutional investors access to the LionGlobal Singapore Physical Gold Fund, which held about $525 million in assets as of April 16.

Institutions test gold on-chain

The World Gold Council has also proposed a “Gold as a Service” platform to support tokenized gold issuance and operations. Its plan seeks to connect physical custody with digital systems used for issuance, compliance, reconciliation, and redemption.

The wider RWA market gives the gold trend more context. CoinGecko said tokenized real-world assets reached $19.32 billion by March 31, 2026, up from $5.42 billion at the start of 2025. Tokenized commodities held 28.7% of the sector by the end of Q1, behind tokenized Treasuries but ahead of tokenized stocks and ETFs.

The market remains tied to gold prices, exchange access, and demand for assets that can move on-chain. crypto.news reported in March that PAXG and XAUT gained attention during Middle East tensions, while Bitcoin and other major tokens weakened. That contrast may explain why traders continue to watch gold-backed tokens during risk-off periods.

Still, CoinGecko’s month-by-month data shows uneven activity. Tokenized gold spot volume climbed to $21.38 billion in October 2025 as gold reached new highs, then eased to $14.07 billion the next month. The latest numbers show fast growth, but trading remains sensitive to market conditions.

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey warned that international regulators will need to “wrestle” with the United States over global rules for stablecoins, which are largely denominated in and backed by U.S. dollars. The comment reflects growing calls for harmonized standards as central banks and financial authorities contemplate stablecoins as potential payment rails beyond the traditional banking system.

“If we want stablecoins to be part of the architecture of payments globally, they’re only going to work if we have international standards,” Bailey said, signaling that alignment with U.S. policy will be a central hurdle in any global framework. “Frankly, that, I think, is going to be a coming wrestle with the [U.S.] administration,” he added. These remarks were reported by Reuters at a conference address, underscoring the cross-border regulatory tensions surrounding stablecoins.

In the United States, the policy landscape features an emphasis on attracting crypto activity while imposing oversight. The GENIUS Act—promoted as a vehicle to bring the crypto industry to the U.S.—is cited as a framework to regulate stablecoin issuers. Regulators outside the U.S. are pursuing stricter controls on stablecoins relative to traditional banking, given concerns that these tokens could introduce systemic risk if not properly regulated. The sector remains dynamic as lawmakers and regulators weigh how to balance innovation with financial stability and consumer protection. The market for stablecoins has grown rapidly, with the largest projects pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by USD-denominated assets. CoinGecko estimates the stablecoin sector at more than $317 billion in value, reflecting a broad mix of USD-pegged tokens and liquidity arrangements anchored in U.S. Treasuries and dollars.

Bailey, who chairs the Financial Stability Board, indicated that stablecoins could pose a threat to financial stability if left without robust international oversight. He stressed concerns about convertibility in stressed conditions, noting that some stablecoins might not be easily redeemable for cash without the involvement of crypto exchanges. The implication is that cross-border use—especially in cross-border payments—could shift capital flows toward jurisdictions with stringent convertibility rules, such as the United Kingdom, which has signaled it intends to implement strong laws governing stablecoin conversion. Bailey warned of potential knock-on effects from a run on a stablecoin, arguing that liquidity crises could push flows toward jurisdictions perceived as having tougher safeguards.

Key takeaways

• Global standards for stablecoins are increasingly viewed as a prerequisite for widespread use in international payments, with potential friction anticipated between the U.K./EU approaches and U.S. policy positions.
• The U.S. stance on stablecoins—informing a framework for issuers under the GENIUS Act—will shape the pace and nature of international regulatory alignment, especially as the Senate weighs a crypto-market structure bill.
• Market size signals broad adoption: stablecoins are currently valued in the hundreds of billions of dollars, with most assets backed by U.S. dollars and U.S. Treasuries, raising implications for central banks, clearing rails, and banking integration.
• Convertibility risk remains a core concern: if stablecoins cannot be readily redeemed for cash in stressed market conditions, regulatory authorities worry about stability and consumer protections, particularly in cross-border contexts.
• Regulatory dynamics will influence institutions’ licensing, oversight obligations, and cross-border operations, including how exchanges, banks, and investors interact with USD-pegged tokens across jurisdictions.

Global standards vs. national frameworks: regulatory tensions and practical implications

International standard-setting bodies and national regulators are contending over how to treat stablecoins as an infrastructural element of global payments. Bailey’s comments, as reported by Reuters, emphasize a view that credible, interoperable standards are essential for stablecoins to mature as legitimate payment rails rather than speculative or siloed financial products. The Financial Stability Board’s mandate to coordinate macroprudential oversight places additional pressure on harmonized rules that can withstand cross-border capital flows and potential liquidity stress scenarios.

Beyond theory, practical considerations loom for regulators and firms. If stablecoins become widely used for cross-border settlement, divergent convertibility standards could lead to a concentration of flows in jurisdictions with favorable or robust frameworks, potentially exposing less-prepared markets to rapid shifts in liquidity or regulatory direction. The United Kingdom’s stated aim of imposing stringent convertibility rules further underscores the policy divergence that international regulators must reconcile to avoid systemic fragmentation.

U.S. policy developments and the legislative horizon

The U.S. policy narrative around stablecoins centers on balancing innovation with safeguards. The GENIUS Act has been cited as a policy pathway to clarify the regulatory status of stablecoin issuers, aiming to attract the crypto sector while providing a framework that reduces ambiguity for market participants. As part of broader congressional oversight, the Senate Banking Committee has scheduled a markup of related legislation, signaling ongoing scrutiny of how stablecoins should be integrated within the existing financial regulatory system.

Disagreement persists on specific provisions, including whether third-party platforms should be restricted from offering yield-bearing services on stablecoins. A recent version of the related bill would ban stablecoin rewards on idle balances, while permitting other forms of customer rewards. The legislative process remains fluid, with lawmakers weighing the balance between consumer protections and the attractiveness of the U.S. regulatory environment for digital-asset firms. This dynamic is likely to influence how other jurisdictions calibrate their own frameworks, particularly in areas of licensing, AML/KYC compliance, and supervisory oversight of stablecoin issuers and their networks.

Market structure, risk, and institutional considerations

From a risk-management perspective, the stablecoin space highlights several critical considerations for financial institutions and policymakers. The market’s USD-centric backing structure—largely funded by U.S. dollars and U.S. Treasuries—creates interdependencies with banking and custody infrastructure. In stressed conditions, convertibility and liquidity become central concerns for risk officers, compliance teams, and regulators seeking to prevent liquidity spirals or runs that could spill over into the broader financial system.

For banks and crypto-asset service providers, the evolving regulatory landscape will determine licensing requirements, permissible activities, and the nature of cross-border settlement arrangements. As authorities sharpen their focus on stablecoins as potential systemic assets, firms must align their risk governance, liquidity management, and customer-on-boarding procedures with anticipated regulatory expectations—particularly around AML/KYC standards and protections against consumer harm. The regulatory emphasis also reinforces the need for transparent reserve disclosures, auditability of backing assets, and robust contingency planning for fast-moving market conditions.

In parallel, policymakers are weighing broader policy implications—how stablecoins intersect with monetary sovereignty, cross-border banking relationships, and the resilience of payment infrastructures. While the United States positions itself as a hub for crypto innovation, other economies are pursuing stricter controls on conversion, custody, and exchange activity, potentially shaping a fragmented but interconnected global playfield. The resulting policy mosaic will require ongoing monitoring by financial institutions, auditors, and compliance teams to ensure alignment with evolving standards and supervisory expectations.

Overall, the trajectory suggests that international collaboration will be essential to meaningful, durable regulation of stablecoins. The coming years are likely to feature continued tension between national interests and the push for harmonization that can support trusted, interoperable payment ecosystems while safeguarding financial stability.

Closing perspective: As regulatory dialogues advance, institutions should anticipate a steadily tighter, more coordinated framework for stablecoins that emphasizes safety, transparency, and cross-border compatibility, with real implications for licensing, reporting, and cross-jurisdiction operations.

Global regulators are increasingly positioning stablecoins as a test case for cross-border payments, with Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey saying any workable framework will require international standards. Speaking at a conference, Reuters reported, Bailey warned that the architecture around dollar-denominated stablecoins must be anchored in coordinated rules, or the financial system could face new forms of risk as these tokens scale globally. He also signaled that the regulatory tussle with the United States is likely to intensify as both sides shape how stablecoins are issued, used, and supervised.

Bailey, who chairs the Financial Stability Board, cautioned that stablecoins could threaten financial stability if their use expands beyond local markets without robust guardrails. He emphasized the risk that a sector-wide run on a stablecoin could disrupt liquidity and conversion pathways, particularly for tokens designed to be easily exchanged for cash. In his view, the lack of readily redeemable cash equivalents could complicate a rapid unwind during stressed market conditions, potentially drawing users and capital toward jurisdictions with stronger convertibility rules—such as the United Kingdom—while raising questions about where the dollars backing these tokens ultimately reside.

The conversation unfolds as the global stablecoin market remains dominated by tokens pegged to the U.S. dollar. CoinGecko estimates the sector’s total value at more than $317 billion, a figure that underscores the material stake regulators have in ensuring resilience and transparency behind these assets. The majority of USD-pegged stablecoins rely on Treasury securities and dollar-denominated assets to maintain their pegs, a structure that heightens the importance of stable and reliable settlement channels across borders.

Bailey’s remarks come amid broader regulatory debates about how to supervise stablecoins compared to the traditional banking system. He warned that if stablecoins are used extensively for cross-border payments, dollar tokens with limited convertibility could migrate to other markets, prompting domestic authorities to tighten conversion controls. “We know what would happen if there was a run on a stablecoin; they’d all turn up here,” Bailey said, highlighting a potential concentration of risk within the domestic financial system even as technology and digital liquidity routes expand globally.

Key takeaways

• International standards are seen as essential for stablecoins to function as part of a global payments architecture, setting up a potential regulatory fork with U.S. approaches.
• The stablecoin market sits at roughly $317 billion in value, with the bulk of USD-pegged tokens backed by U.S. Treasuries and dollars, anchoring confidence in their pegs but also tying them to U.S. monetary policy.
• Convertibility risk is a central concern: if some tokens cannot be redeemed for cash quickly, they may face heightened liquidity pressures in stressed market conditions.
• Regulatory momentum in the United States—via the GENIUS Act and ongoing debates around the Clarity Act and related bills—could shape how issuers operate internationally and how cross-border flows are managed.
• The UK signals it will pursue strict conversion rules for stablecoins, potentially creating friction with U.S.-led regulatory frameworks and influencing where stablecoins are used for cross-border settlements.

Global rules in the balance: Bailey’s warning and the US-UK dynamic

Bailey’s call for international standards reflects a broader tension in the crypto policy landscape. The Bank of England governor argued that stablecoins will only achieve widespread use in payments if there is a coherent set of global guidelines that govern reserve backing, liquidity, disclosure, and convertibility. The Reuters report quotes him as describing an inevitable “wrestle” with the U.S. administration over how these tokens should be regulated, especially given the United States’ own efforts to nurture the crypto sector while tightening oversight of stablecoins.

The rhetoric dovetails with recent U.S. policy signals. Former President Donald Trump has championed a pro-innovation agenda for crypto and has advocated for a regulatory pathway around stablecoins through the GENIUS Act, which is framed as giving issuers a structured framework. Supporters argue that clear rules can unlock legitimate use cases—ranging from cross-border remittances to on-chain settlement—while critics warn of regulatory metaphorical walls that could stifle innovation or push activities offshore. The divergence in policy philosophy between the U.S. and the U.K. underscores a broader question: will global stablecoin activity be steered by American market access ambitions or by a broader, harmonized regulatory regime?

Regulatory rails in motion: U.S. bills, hearings, and cross-border concerns

Beyond the GENIUS Act, U.S. policymakers are actively weighing additional measures to govern stablecoins. Banking groups have pressed Congress to advance a framework, including proposals to ban “yield-bearing” features on idle stablecoin balances, while permitting other forms of customer rewards. The debate centers on whether yield opportunities should be accessible on stablecoins, potentially altering the risk and return profile of these tokens and influencing how users deploy them in everyday payments and liquidity management.

On the legislative front, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee has been moving pieces of the regulatory puzzle forward. After delays earlier this year, the committee scheduled a markup on updates to the so-called Clarity Act, a draft bill aimed at clarifying the regulatory status of crypto assets, including stablecoins. The outcome of these proceedings will help determine whether stablecoins face stricter supervision, more explicit reserve requirements, or tighter restrictions on programmatic features like staking or rewards. The resulting policy mix will shape how issuers structure reserves, disclosures, and redemption mechanics across international markets.

In parallel, global regulators are watching the U.S. approach closely, mindful that a lighter regulatory touch in one jurisdiction can attract activity that undermines stability elsewhere. The BoE’s warning about convertibility risk echoes a larger concern: stablecoins that are easy to deploy across borders could accelerate capital flows, while gaps in convertibility could create de facto regional friction, complicating cross-border settlement and potentially amplifying shocks in periods of stress.

Market structure, adoption, and the path forward

The current scale of stablecoins—measured in hundreds of billions of dollars—means any shift in the regulatory regime carries real market consequences. If major jurisdictions converge on robust reserve standards, transparent disclosure, and enforceable redemption guarantees, stablecoins could become a more trusted complement to traditional settlement rails. Conversely, a fragmented regulatory environment or a stiffer U.S. stance could drive issuers to reconfigure their operations, potentially concentrating activity in markets with more favorable rules or prompting a quicker retreat from the cross-border use-case altogether.

For investors and builders, the implications are clear. Stablecoins remain a critical liquidity layer for DeFi, cross-border payments, and institutional settlement demonstrations. The outcome of policy debates—particularly around convertibility, reserve quality, and consumer protections—will influence how and where stablecoins are deployed, the cost of on-ramps and off-ramps, and the resilience of the broader crypto ecosystem in times of market stress.

As the regulatory horizon unfolds, market participants should watch two intertwined threads: first, how international coordination evolves to prevent regulatory arbitrage and preserve financial stability; second, how the U.S. and the U.K. implement concrete rules around conversion and redemption to ensure stablecoins remain reliable for everyday use. The balance between encouraging innovation and safeguarding systemic integrity will shape the next phase of stablecoin adoption and the willingness of institutions to participate in cross-border digital payments.

Source-linked context and ongoing coverage indicate that the dialogue around stablecoins will intensify through 2026, with regulatory bodies seeking practical benchmarks that can be implemented globally. For readers tracking policy risk, developments in the U.S. Senate markup, the GENIUS Act’s evolution, and the BoE’s stance on cross-border convertibility will be crucial signals of where the market is headed next. In the coming months, investors and users should expect sharper clarity around what constitutes an acceptable reserve, how quickly redemptions can be honored, and where the line is drawn between innovation and systemic risk.

What remains uncertain is how quickly international consensus can be achieved in a landscape marked by competing national interests. Bailey’s warnings suggest that, while the technology will continue to mature, the rules of the road for stablecoins—and the incentives for cross-border use—will be shaped as much by political negotiation as by technical evolution.

Major financial assets and the American consumer are moving in opposite directions, telling two very different stories about the U.S. economy.

Bitcoin, the leading cryptocurrency by market value and a macro asset, jumped 11.8% last month, the largest gain since April 2025 and has since extended the rally by nearly 6% to $80,700, CoinDesk data show.

This upswing has come alongside record risk-taking on Wall Street, as the tech-heavy Nasdaq index has jumped 22% since April 1, hitting a lifetime high of 23,235 points. The broader index, S&P 500, has rallied over 12% to 7,398 points, according to data source TradingView.

The combined rally in stocks and crypto is normally expected to lift the spirits of the American consumer, who is known to invest in both assets. Reports suggest approximately 30% of American adults, or 70.4 million people, own cryptocurrency. Further, on average, 62% of adults have owned stocks since 2023.

But that’s not the case, as highlighted by the University of Michigan’s closely watched survey of consumers released Friday. The survey posted a preliminary record-low reading of 48.2 points, down 7.7% from a year ago and extending the decline from April’s reading of 49.8 points.

In simple terms, the American consumer is more downbeat than ever, and it’s mainly due to inflation fears. One-third of respondents cited gas prices as the biggest concern, and another one-third cited tariffs.

The growing disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street reflects two very different economic realities, according to Alvin Kan, COO at Bitget Wallet.

“Institutional capital continues flowing into AI, semiconductors, and digital assets, pushing the Nasdaq and Bitcoin higher as markets price in long-term productivity growth and technological transformation. At the same time, consumer confidence remains weak as households continue dealing with inflation, high living costs, and economic uncertainty. In effect, markets are trading the future while consumers are still focused on present-day financial pressure,” Kan told CoinDesk.

An AI capex boom and strong corporate earnings from mega-cap tech companies have driven the Nasdaq rally, stoking demand for other emerging technologies such as bitcoin. The U.S.-listed spot ETFs have pulled in billions in recent weeks amid the Nasdaq rally.

“This divergence is being driven by strong tech earnings, sustained ETF and institutional inflows into Bitcoin, and the growing role of digital assets as both growth and diversification plays. It also shows how crypto is increasingly tied to macro liquidity and innovation cycles instead of purely retail sentiment,” Kan said.

Bitcoin and Nasdaq are known to share a strong positive correlation. The crypto market began as a grassroots movement, often moving independently of Wall Street and traditional financial markets. But the rapid institutionalization following the launch of spot ETFs two years ago has made its price action increasingly correlated with broader equity markets.

That shift in how investors view BTC, decoupling it from Main Street sentiment, is evidence of the fading promise of financial democratization, according to Markus Thielen, founder of 10x Research.

“The democratization of finance was once one of crypto’s defining promises, yet reality has moved in the opposite direction. Wealth remains heavily concentrated in the hands of a small minority, a trend that is even more pronounced in the US stock market, where gains have increasingly accrued to the wealthiest participants,” Thielen told CoinDesk.

What next?

When rising costs squeeze households, it may seem natural to expect markets to align with the dour sentiment on Main Street. But that’s not necessarily promised.

“This gap is expected to persist,” Gracy Chen, CEO of Bitget, said.

She added that digital assets are increasingly diverging from traditional cycles and attracting fresh capital seeking asymmetric returns, suggesting promising long-term structural growth.

“While risks such as monetary policy tightening, geopolitical macro events, or regulatory shifts could add near-term pressure. However, the emerging ecosystem is maturing and becoming a core tool for diversification and active risk management in volatile markets,” she noted.

Capital B has raised €15.2 million ($17.8 million) from institutional investors, including Blockstream CEO Adam Back and French asset manager TOBAM.

According to Capital B’s May 11 press release, the company issued 23 million shares with attached warrants at €0.66 per ABSA through a private placement reserved for institutional investors in the U.S., Europe, and other jurisdictions. The company said the offering was subscribed by global investors, with Maxim Group acting as lead placement agent and Marex serving as co-manager.

Net proceeds from the transaction are expected to reach about €14.4 million ($17 million) after fees, according to the company. Capital B said the funds, together with existing operations, could support the purchase of another 182 BTC and raise its total holdings to 3,125 BTC. The firm currently holds 2,943 BTC, according to bitcointreasuries.net data cited in earlier company disclosures.

Each newly issued share carries four warrants split across three exercise price levels. Capital B stated that two Warrant 2026-03 instruments can be exercised at €0.86 per share, while Warrant 2026-04 and Warrant 2026-05 carry exercise prices of €1.12 and €1.46, respectively. If all warrants are exercised, the company said it could secure an additional €99.1 million through the issuance of more than 92 million new shares.

Fresh participation from Adam Back adds to an existing position that has grown steadily over recent months. Earlier in May, Capital B disclosed that Back subscribed to 10 million warrants worth €1.1 million ($1.28 million), with each warrant carrying a share purchase right at €0.84.

Following the latest raise, Capital B said Back is expected to control 13.43% of the company on an ordinary basis, while Blockstream Capital Partners, advised by Back, would hold 14.42%. TOBAM’s ownership would rise to 4.20% after completion of the transaction.

Company filings also show the placement of diluted existing shareholders. Capital B clarified that an investor holding 1% of the company before the issuance would see that stake reduced to 0.92% on a non-diluted basis after the placement closes. Full warrant exercise would reduce the same holding to 0.71%, according to the filing.

Originally operating as The Blockchain Group, the company rebranded to Capital B in July 2025 after restructuring around a bitcoin treasury model. Its stated strategy focuses on increasing the amount of bitcoin held per fully diluted share over time.

Recent disclosures across listed bitcoin treasury firms have shown mixed approaches toward balance sheet management. 

While Capital B and UK-listed Connecting Excellence Group both raised capital with backing from Adam Back in recent weeks, Nasdaq-listed Nakamoto disclosed in April that it had launched a derivatives strategy tied to its bitcoin reserves after previously reporting the sale of 284 BTC in an SEC filing. 

Meanwhile, Genius Group said in February that it liquidated its entire bitcoin treasury to repay debt obligations.