Crypto World
Tom Lee Says This About ETH After Bitmine’s $100 Million Buy
BitMine Immersion Technologies (BMNR) has been experiencing sideways movement in its price for nearly a month. However, recent developments hint that this could be a turning point for the company.
A notable purchase of over 50,900 ETH has sparked new interest, potentially signaling a shift in BMNR’s price and Ethereum’s (ETH) future.
BitMine’s Bold ETH Purchase: A Strategic Move for March
On March 2, BitMine made a significant acquisition, purchasing 50,9928 ETH, bringing its total holdings to 3.71% of all Ethereum supply. This is just 1.29% short of the company’s target of holding 5% of Ethereum’s supply.
Despite Ethereum’s price being in the red at the time of the purchase, BitMine’s Chairman Tom Lee believes that March will be a pivotal month for Ethereum and the broader crypto market.
“We understand war headlines make investors nervous, but we expect stocks to be up in March: – led by MAG7, software IGV and crypto $BTC $ETH (sic),” Lee stated.
CMF Indicator Shows Potential Bullish Momentum
The Chaikin Money Flow (CMF) has shown an uptick, signaling that investor support for BMNR may be growing. While the CMF is still below zero, the rising trend indicates that outflows are declining, which is a positive sign for the company. A move into the positive territory by the CMF could confirm that BMNR holders are supporting the price, further fueling optimism about a potential price reversal.
This uptick suggests that investor confidence is strengthening and could signal an incoming period of inflows. If the CMF crosses into the positive zone, it would provide confirmation that the market sentiment is shifting in favor of BMNR.
Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.
Bullish Divergence Amidst Geopolitical Challenges
The Money Flow Index (MFI) is showing a bullish divergence since the beginning of the year. The indicator has been forming lower highs, while BMNR’s price has seen lower lows, signaling a decrease in selling pressure. Despite the ongoing geopolitical instability in 2026, which has added volatility to global markets, the MFI suggests that BMNR is on track for a potential recovery.
Although external factors like geopolitical unrest have impacted BMNR’s price, the bullish divergence in the MFI suggests that the selling pressure is waning. This reduction in selling pressure could lead to a price rebound for BMNR in the near future.
Is BMNR Price Breaking Up With ETH?
Currently, BMNR is trading at $20.40, sitting just above the $19.06 support level. Maintaining this support is vital for BMNR to eventually break out above the $22.34 resistance. If BMNR stays above the $19.06 support, it may have the potential to rally in the coming weeks.
Interestingly, the correlation between BMNR and Ethereum has been decreasing, with the correlation currently at 0.36. This suggests that BMNR is less likely to follow Ethereum’s price movements, which is a positive sign. Ethereum has been in a period of consolidation, allowing BMNR more room to move independently and potentially rally.
However, there is a risk if BMNR holders panic due to ongoing geopolitical events. If the $19.06 support is lost, BMNR could see a drop toward the next major support at $15.45. This would invalidate the current bullish outlook and require careful monitoring of market conditions.
Voters in North Carolina, Texas and Arkansas will decide on some of the first candidates for the 2026 midterm elections in the United States as primary season kicks off, potentially influencing the future of Congress and crypto legislation.
In Texas, Democratic Representative Jasmine Crockett is running for Republican John Cornyn’s US Senate seat for Texas. Crockett, a member of the House of Representatives since 2023, voted for the stablecoin payments bill GENIUS Act in July and FIT21, the previous version of the digital asset market structure bill before the CLARITY Act, which she voted against.
Crockett came under scrutiny in 2022 after the political action committee (PAC) Protect Our Future, whose backers included former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, spent $1 million supporting her run for the US House of Representatives. Web3 Forward, another PAC associated with the crypto industry, reportedly spent another $1 million on Crockett’s race.
The Democratic candidate said in a January interview that she had not accepted “any corporate PAC money” for her 2026 Senate campaign, but that doesn’t stop committees backed by the crypto industry from supporting her candidacy through media buys or criticizing her opponents through negative ads. According to political tracking platform AdImpact, the Texas Senate primary has resulted in more than $122 million in spending on both sides as of Feb. 27.
Related: BitMEX co-founder pledges $27M to London maths institute after Trump pardon
Crockett will face off in the Democratic primary against state Representative James Talarico, while Cornyn, the Republican incumbent, faces challenges from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and others. The race is just one of many in 2026 that could potentially change the balance of power in Congress, with 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats up for grabs.
A repeat of 2024 for crypto interest groups?
Fairshake, the Super PAC backed by many crypto companies including Ripple Labs and Coinbase, spent more than $133 million on media in 2024 supporting Bernie Moreno’s run for the Ohio Senate and other key races.
The result, according to advocates including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and then-Blockchain Association CEO Kristin Smith, was the “most pro-crypto Congress” in history, which went on to pass the GENIUS Act and move closer to passing a comprehensive market structure bill.
Fairshake said in January that it had $193 million in its coffers ahead of the midterm elections, some of which Fairshake has already used to attempt to influence races in Alabama and Texas. Cointelegraph reached out to a spokesperson for comment on Tuesday’s primary, but had not received a response at the time of publication.
The PAC’s affiliate, Protect Progress, reportedly said in February that it had earmarked $1.5 million to oppose the reelection of Texas Representative Al Green, specifically citing the lawmaker’s “actively hostile towards a growing Texas crypto community.”
The crypto advocacy organization Stand With Crypto listed Green as “strongly against crypto” based on his public statements and voting record in Congress, while his primary challenger, Christian Menefee, received a “strongly supports crypto” rating.
US President Donald Trump, whose campaign was also supported by many in the crypto industry, won the presidency in 2024. He went on to replace Gary Gensler as chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission with his pick, Paul Atkins, in a campaign promise to the industry, pardon crypto figures including former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao, and sign the GENIUS Act into law.
However, the president continues to face claims of conflicts of interest from many lawmakers due to his family’s ties to crypto. Trump’s term ends in January 2029.
Magazine: Clarity Act risks repeat of Europe’s mistakes, crypto lawyer warns
Monthly prediction market volumes dipped in February for the first time since August 2025.
In February, the prediction market sector recorded a drop in monthly trading volumes after five straight months of gains, as activity on BNB Chain-based Opinion Labs fell sharply to $3.1 billion from over $10 billion.
According to data from Artemis, prediction markets processed $23.4 billion of trades in February, down roughly 12% from January’s record $27.1 billion.
Kalshi solidified its lead, with its February trading volume reaching an all-time high of $9.8 billion.
Meanwhile, Polymarket volumes grew slightly to $7.9 billion in February compared to $7.7 billion in January.
Prediction markets have evolved from a niche sector to a mainstream financial tool, utilized for forecasting events such as elections and economic indicators.
It should be noted that concerns remain about Opinion Labs’ data integrity. This underscores the importance of transparency in the rapidly expanding prediction market space.
Also today, Kalshi announced a collaboration with Bezel, a luxury watch marketplace. Recent research also suggests that Kalshi’s markets have outperformed traditional Wall Street surveys, further establishing its authority in the field.
This article was generated with the assistance of AI workflows.
President Donald Trump accused US banks of threatening the GENIUS Act and holding the CLARITY Act hostage, escalating a months-long standoff between the banking and crypto industries over stablecoin yield.
The clash threatens to derail the CLARITY Act before the 2026 midterms, leaving the US crypto regulatory framework incomplete at a critical moment.
Trump Takes Aim at Banks Over Stablecoin Yield Fight
In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump said the GENIUS Act — the landmark stablecoin law he signed last July — “is being threatened and undermined by the Banks,” and called on Congress to pass market structure legislation immediately.
“Americans should earn more money on their money. The Banks are hitting record profits, and we are not going to allow them to undermine our powerful Crypto Agenda that will end up going to China, and other Countries if we don’t get The Clarity Act taken care of,” Trump wrote.
The statement marks the sharpest presidential intervention yet in the legislative battle over stablecoin rewards — a dispute that has stalled the broader crypto regulatory agenda in Washington.
Stablecoin Yield: The Core Dispute
At the center of the conflict is a provision in the GENIUS Act that prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest directly to holders. However, the law does not explicitly prevent third-party platforms such as Coinbase and Kraken from passing yield on to users — a gap that banks have labeled a “loophole.”
This arrangement allows crypto exchanges to capture yield on reserve assets such as US Treasury bills and distribute it to customers, creating a competitive edge over traditional savings accounts that often pay as little as 0.01%.
Banking trade groups, led by the Bank Policy Institute, have warned that this structure could trigger deposit outflows of up to $6.6 trillion — a figure drawn from a US Treasury Department analysis. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan echoed the concern in January, stating that interest-bearing stablecoins could divert roughly 30–35% of all commercial bank deposits.
The banking lobby has pushed to close this gap through the CLARITY Act, the crypto market structure bill currently under Senate consideration. The bill would assign specific oversight roles to the SEC and CFTC, but has become a vehicle for the stablecoin yield debate.
Dimon Draws a Line
Trump’s post came on the same day that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon delivered pointed remarks on stablecoin regulation. Speaking on CNBC, Dimon argued that firms offering yield on stablecoin balances are functionally operating as banks and should be regulated accordingly.
Dimon suggested a compromise in which platforms could offer rewards tied to transactions rather than idle balances, but drew a firm line at interest-like payments on holdings. He cited capital requirements, FDIC insurance, anti-money-laundering obligations, and community lending mandates as standards that banks must meet — but that crypto firms currently do not.
However, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has publicly rejected such framing. Armstrong predicted that banks would eventually reverse course and lobby for the ability to pay interest on stablecoins, once competitive pressure from digital assets becomes unavoidable.
A coalition of more than 125 crypto companies, including Coinbase, Gemini, and Kraken, launched a coordinated campaign against the banking lobby last year, arguing that reopening the GENIUS Act’s yield provisions would undermine the certainty that markets and innovators depend on.
Legislative Clock Is Ticking
The White House had set a tentative March 1 deadline for a deal between the two sides. That deadline passed without resolution. The CLARITY Act remains stuck in the Senate Banking Committee, with no markup date announced.
According to Elliptic’s regulatory analysis, the Senate Banking Committee had planned to vote on the bill in mid-January, but indefinitely postponed the session after Coinbase withdrew support over a proposed amendment restricting stablecoin rewards. Two White House meetings in early February failed to produce a compromise.
The OCC further complicated matters last week by publishing a 376-page proposed rulemaking under the GENIUS Act, with provisions that crypto insiders say could restrict how stablecoin issuers’ partners pay out rewards.
Senator Cynthia Lummis reposted Trump’s message, adding: “America can’t afford to wait. Congress must move quickly to pass the Clarity Act.”
With the 2026 midterm election cycle accelerating and a summer recess ahead, the legislative window is narrowing. If no deal emerges in the coming weeks, the US risks losing momentum on the crypto regulatory framework that both the White House and the industry view as critical to maintaining global competitiveness.
Brazil’s central bank will force licensed crypto exchanges to prove asset sufficiency daily from Jan. 1, 2027.
Summary
- Brazil’s central bank will require daily asset sufficiency reports from licensed crypto exchanges starting Jan. 1, 2027
- New rules mandate full segregation of client and platform assets, plus on‑balance‑sheet recognition of crypto under a dedicated accounting manual
- The announcement comes as major assets like BTC and ETH trade lower amid broader risk‑off sentiment in crypto markets
Brazil’s central bank has introduced a new regulatory framework that will require all licensed cryptocurrency trading platforms in the country to submit daily reports proving they hold sufficient assets to cover operational and security risks, starting Jan. 1, 2027. The measures, published via market communications on March 3, target exchanges’ resilience against hacking, operational failures, and misuse of client funds by aligning crypto intermediaries with commercial banking standards on capital, data protection, and confidentiality. The rules also expand oversight of cross‑border flows and aim to tighten controls on how crypto assets are recorded on balance sheets, signaling a more stringent, bank‑style prudential regime for Brazil’s growing digital asset sector.
Under the new framework, exchanges operating in Brazil will need to deliver daily attestations demonstrating they have adequate fiat and crypto reserves to withstand cyberattacks, liquidity shocks, and other material risks associated with running a trading venue. Supervisors are expected to use these reports to monitor whether platforms maintain asset sufficiency in line with internal risk models and regulatory expectations, reducing the likelihood that a sudden shortfall in funds will cascade into customer losses. The move reflects lessons learned from high‑profile failures of offshore exchanges, where lack of transparency around reserves and intra‑group flows contributed to insolvencies and prolonged withdrawals.
A core pillar of the regime is the strict segregation of customer and platform assets. Exchanges must fully separate their own fiat and cryptocurrency accounts from those belonging to clients, preventing the commingling of operational capital with custodied funds. This requirement is designed to make it harder for platforms to rehypothecate or use customer balances for proprietary trading or unsecured lending, while giving regulators a clearer view of which assets are legally attributable to users in the event of resolution or bankruptcy. In practice, this pushes Brazilian exchanges closer to a custodial model, in which they act as fiduciaries for client holdings rather than counterparties taking balance‑sheet risk.
Regulators are also mandating that crypto assets be recognized on exchanges’ balance sheets under a specialized accounting manual tailored to digital instruments. Instead of treating crypto solely as off‑balance‑sheet custodial items, platforms will have to follow standardized guidance on classification, valuation, and impairment, making financial statements more comparable across the sector. This step aligns Brazil with an emerging global trend, where supervisors in jurisdictions influenced by frameworks like MiCA are pushing for consistent accounting treatment of tokens held or intermediated by regulated entities. By clarifying how assets and liabilities are booked, authorities hope to reduce information asymmetries between exchanges, investors, and auditors.
Beyond balance‑sheet transparency, the new rules extend to data protection and confidentiality obligations that mirror those imposed on commercial banks. Exchanges will be required to implement robust controls around customer data, transaction records, and internal communications, limiting the risk of leaks or unauthorized access. This is particularly relevant in a market where on‑chain and off‑chain identifiers can be combined to build detailed profiles of user behavior, creating potential targets for cybercrime and surveillance. Treating crypto platforms more like banks in this respect underscores the central bank’s view that large exchanges play systemically important roles in Brazil’s retail investment and payments landscape.
In addition to domestic prudential rules, Brazilian authorities will impose tighter restrictions and audits on cross‑border transfers involving crypto assets. Exchanges facilitating international flows will face enhanced scrutiny of the origin and destination of funds, as well as the on‑chain pathways used to move value between wallets and jurisdictions. Supervisors intend to leverage blockchain analytics and reporting obligations to improve the traceability of transactions, making it more difficult for actors to use crypto for money laundering, tax evasion, or financing criminal networks.
This focus on traceability echoes steps taken in other jurisdictions, where regulators have pushed intermediaries to adopt travel‑rule style data sharing and transaction monitoring standards. In Brazil’s case, the central bank is likely to coordinate with tax authorities, financial intelligence units, and international partners to harmonize reporting formats and risk indicators. Exchanges will need to build or integrate compliance systems capable of flagging suspicious cross‑border flows in near real time, while maintaining sufficient documentation to satisfy audits.
The policy shift comes as global regulators intensify their attention on crypto intermediaries rather than solely targeting individual users or protocol‑level activity. Recent measures in countries such as Turkey and Japan have focused on taxation and anti‑money‑laundering controls for both centralized platforms and related service providers, reflecting concern that unregulated gateways can undermine existing capital flow and sanctions regimes. Brazil’s approach, anchored in its central bank, positions the country among those seeking to fold crypto markets into the perimeter of traditional financial supervision instead of relying purely on securities‑style oversight.
For exchanges, the daily reporting requirement and asset segregation rules will likely increase operational costs, particularly for smaller platforms that lack sophisticated risk management and compliance teams. They may need to hire additional staff, upgrade custody solutions, and integrate third‑party tools for reserve verification and transaction monitoring. Larger venues with existing institutional infrastructure, including those already serving global clients or partnering with firms like Coinbase or Visa, may find it easier to absorb these changes and use compliance as a competitive differentiator. Over time, the regulatory burden could accelerate consolidation in Brazil’s exchange market as less capitalized players exit or merge.
Market participants will be watching how the new framework interacts with broader trends in crypto prices and liquidity. At the time of the announcement, BTC and ETH were trading lower amid a wider drawdown across major tokens, with selling pressure reflecting both macro risk‑off conditions and positioning after recent rallies. While the rules do not target any specific asset like SOL, the signal that a large emerging‑market economy is imposing bank‑grade standards on exchanges could affect perceptions of regulatory risk and premium in local markets. Some institutional investors may view the clarity as a positive step toward de‑risking on‑ramp exposure, while retail traders could initially focus on potential costs or friction.
On‑chain data and exchange volume metrics in the coming months will provide clues about how Brazilian users respond to the new regime. If domestic platforms see sustained or rising spot and derivatives activity despite tighter controls, it may indicate that users value the added protections and are willing to trade under stricter oversight. Conversely, a notable shift toward offshore venues or direct peer‑to‑peer markets would suggest that some traders prefer less regulated channels, even at the cost of legal certainty. For regulators, the challenge will be calibrating enforcement and implementation timelines to avoid sudden disruptions while still closing gaps that have historically allowed misuse of crypto rails.
The Brazilian central bank’s push to require daily proof of asset sufficiency, strict client fund segregation, and enhanced cross‑border audits underscores a broader policy objective: integrating crypto asset intermediaries into the core of the country’s financial system without granting them a regulatory free pass. By aligning exchanges with commercial banking standards on reporting, data protection, and accounting, authorities hope to reduce systemic risk while preserving the innovative aspects of digital asset markets. How effectively exchanges adapt to this new environment will shape both the structure of Brazil’s crypto industry and its role in the global digital finance ecosystem over the next several years.
The price of MSTR stock has remained within a narrow range since early February, closely tracking Bitcoin’s performance, which has stagnated between $60,000 and $70,000.
Summary
- MSTR stock price has formed a triangle pattern on the 12-hour chart.
- This pattern points to a big move in either direction.
- Strategy’s short interest has jumped to 12.6%.
Strategy stock was trading at $134 on Tuesday, up by nearly 30% from its lowest level in February. It remains substantially lower than its all-time high of $545.
Seeking Alpha data shows that more investors are shorting the company, hoping to benefit from its crash. The company’s short interest rose to 12.6%, much higher than last year’s low of 5%.
Short-sellers likely see the stock having numerous red flags. The first major one is the fact that Bitcoin (BTC) could be at risk of dropping to $50,000 in the coming weeks. It has formed a bearish pennant pattern, and the ongoing war in Iran has pushed investors to dump risk assets.
Additionally, while Strategy has continued to buy Bitcoin, it has done so by selling its common stock, a move that has led to substantial dilution. Its outstanding shares have jumped to over 310 million from less than 80 million a few years ago.
Strategy has also lost the premium it had a few years ago, with the net asset value falling below 1. At the same time, analysts have continued to pare back their estimates. Mizuho slashed the target from $403 to $320, while BTIG moved it from $630 to $250.
MSTR stock price chart analysis
The 12-hour chart shows that the Strategy share price has wavered in the last month. By so-doing, the stock has formed a symmetrical triangle pattern, while the volatility has dropped. The Average True Range, which measures volatility, has continued falling.
A keener look shows that the two lines of the triangle pattern are nearing their confluence. Therefore, this triangle pattern mean that the stock is about to have a big move in either direction in the near term.
In case of a bearish breakout, the stock will likely retest the year-to-date low at $104, followed by $100. On the other hand, a strong bullish breakout may see it jump to the psychological point at $150 and above.
A new US housing bill includes a provision that temporarily bans the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital dollar to consumers until 2030.
The move represents a shift from previous strong opposition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).
Senate Advances Housing Bill With CBDC Ban
The Senate on Monday advanced the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a bipartisan bill focused on housing affordability.
The legislation aims to merge the housing priorities of both the House and Senate with the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent large institutional investors from acquiring single-family homes.
Senators voted 84-6 to move the bill forward after Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren unveiled updated legislative text for the proposal.
Of the 303 pages in the proposal, just two were dedicated to a provision banning the Federal Reserve from issuing a retail CBDC. Notably, this provision is set to expire in less than five years.
“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or a Federal reserve bank may not issue or create a central bank digital currency or any digital asset that is substantially similar to a central bank digital currency directly or indirectly through a financial institution or other intermediary,” the bill read.
According to POLITICO, the White House stated that the Trump administration strongly supports the bill. If presented in its current form, Trump’s advisers would recommend he sign it into law.
The legislation language was seen as a victory for lawmakers who have long raised privacy concerns about CBDCs. The disquiet stemmed from the possibility that digital currencies could enable government surveillance and control over individuals’ financial activities.
However, the 2030 expiration date has led some to view the ban as ineffective.
Expiry Date Undermines Trump’s CBDC Stance
If the bill is signed into law as it stands, the Federal Reserve would be allowed to issue CBDCs after the 2030 deadline. The news has upset some, who saw it as contrary to the Trump administration’s long-standing opposition to the digital dollar.
During his campaign trail, Trump emphatically opposed the creation of a US CBDC, describing it as a form of tyranny.
“Such a currency would give a federal government — our federal government — absolute control over your money. They could take your money and you wouldn’t even know it’s gone,” the president said during a January 2024 campaign stop in New Hampshire.
Just four days after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order entitled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology.” Among its many provisions, the order explicitly detailed measures to protect Americans from the risks posed by CBDCs.
The stipulations included “prohibiting the establishment, issuance, circulation, and use of a CBDC within the jurisdiction of the United States.”
The recent legislation’s 2030 expiration date created uncertainty about the ban’s long-term impact.
While offering temporary relief for those concerned about government surveillance, the bill also opens the door for future CBDC discussions.
Ethereum price faces $2,000 support as exchange withdrawals surge to the highest level since November, indicating potential shifts in market supply and momentum.
Summary
- Ethereum trades at $2,001, down 4.3% in the last 24 hours.
- Exchange withdrawals hit 31.6M ETH in February, highest since November.
- $2,000 support is critical; break below risks $1,850, upside targets $2,300–$2,400.
Ethereum (ETH) is trading at $2,001 at press time, down 4.3% in the past 24 hours. The seven-day range stands between $1,841 and $2,099. ETH is still up 7.7% over the past week but down 14% in the last 30 days.
From its August 2025 all-time high of $4,946, the price has retraced about 59%. Spot trading volume reached $25 billion in the past 24 hours, a 21% drop in the last day.
Data from CoinGlass shows a cooling in the derivatives market. Trading volume has slipped 7.8% to $59 billion, and open interest has declined 5.6% to $25 billion.
As ETH approaches a critical price zone, many traders appear to be trimming positions and lowering risk.
Exchange withdrawals surge
At the same time, on-chain activity tells a different story. According to a March 3 report by CryptoQuant contributor Arab Chain, February recorded nearly 31.6 million ETH in exchange withdrawals, the largest monthly outflow since November.
A significant portion of that came from Binance, where about 14.45 million ETH was moved off the platform. About 1.04 million ETH were withdrawn from Kraken and approximately 3.83 million ETH were removed from OKX.
Large withdrawals from exchanges usually mean the assets are being moved into cold storage or set aside for longer-term holding. Once tokens leave trading platforms, there’s less supply readily available, which can ease immediate selling pressure.
This kind of shift often suggests that investors are choosing to hold onto their positions or adjust their strategy during periods of market volatility.
Ethereum price technical analysis
The $2,000 level carries both psychological and structural importance. Because that price level coincides with an important technical area on the chart and has psychological weight for investors, both bulls and bears are pay close attention to it.
Buyers have stepped in on dips, but support is under pressure. A daily close below $1,950 would expose the $1,850–$1,900 area, where prior liquidity sits. Below that, $1,700 becomes a deeper downside target.
ETH recently moved down to the lower Bollinger Band, a level that often suggests the asset may be oversold in the short term. At the same time, the bands have begun to tighten, a pattern that usually precedes a more significant price movement in either direction.
A recovery toward the middle band in the $2,050 to $2,100 range may occur if buyers are able to hold the $2,000 level. The relative strength index has rebounded from near 30 and is attempting to recover. A push above 45–50 would show improving momentum.
Until then, the broader pattern of lower highs stays intact. ETH remains below its 50-day moving average, and a move above $2,150–$2,200 would be needed to shift short-term structure.
If ETH holds above $2,000 and breaks $2,150 with stronger momentum, upside targets sit near $2,300 and $2,400. If $2,000 fails on a daily close, the path toward $1,850 opens quickly. The next few sessions will likely decide whether ETH stabilizes or enters another leg lower.
Global payments giant Visa is expanding its partnership with Stripe-owned Bridge to scale stablecoin-backed cards to more than 100 countries.
Summary
- Visa and Stripe’s Bridge will expand stablecoin cards to over 100 countries by end of 2026.
- The cards let users spend stablecoins at 175M+ Visa merchants worldwide.
- Settlement is supported through Visa’s on-chain stablecoin pilot with Lead Bank.
In a statement published on March 3, Visa confirmed that the expanded program will allow businesses and developers to issue cards linked to stablecoins, with transactions settled on-chain through Bridge’s partnership with Lead Bank.
The product was first released in 2025 with a targeted rollout in several Latin American countries, including Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia. Since then, it has progressively expanded its global reach to operate in 18 countries.
Stablecoin Cards Move Toward Global Reach
The partnership is now preparing for its next stage of growth, with plans to extend coverage throughout Europe, Asia Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East by the end of 2026. Through Bridge, businesses can issue Visa cards that let customers spend stablecoins directly at over 175 million merchant locations across the globe.
These cards convert digital assets into payments that function like traditional debit cards, without requiring users to first move funds into a bank account.
Several major crypto platforms already use the service. Bridge-powered cards have been integrated by wallet providers like Phantom and MetaMask, allowing millions of users to make daily purchases using their cryptocurrency balances.
The expansion builds on Visa’s stablecoin settlement pilot, which lets partners settle transactions on supported blockchains using stablecoins. The aim is faster settlements, greater transparency, and lower costs than traditional banking systems.
According to Visa, the system allows faster reconciliation and more flexible settlement options for fintech firms and program managers operating across borders.
What the Expansion Means for Payments and Crypto
The wider rollout reflects Visa’s long-term push to connect blockchain-based assets with its global payments network. Cuy Sheffield, Visa’s head of crypto, said the initiative brings “speed, transparency, and programmability” into settlement processes while preserving institutional-grade security.
For Bridge and Stripe, the move supports their strategy of helping businesses launch custom stablecoins that can be used directly within card programs. Bridge chief executive officer Zach Abrams said the partnership allows companies to control more of their financial infrastructure without rebuilding payment systems from scratch.
The expansion also shows growing confidence in stablecoins as a practical payment tool rather than a niche crypto product. With cards already live in 18 countries and a roadmap toward more than 100, stablecoins are moving closer to mainstream consumer use.
At the same time, Visa is reviewing whether Bridge-issued digital assets could play a larger role in future settlement flows. If approved, this could introduce new pathways for moving funds across borders using blockchain technology.
Israel and the United States have launched a joint attack on Iran, one that has an unclear expiry date and that has already caused reverberations across the rest of the Middle East. Though Israel’s intentions are clear, those of the United States are not.
In a conversation with Steve Hanke, former Reagan advisor and economics professor at Johns Hopkins University, the consequences for US President Donald Trump are risky, potentially costing him his Make America Great Again voter base.
Trump’s Unclear Motives in the Middle East
If America’s founding fathers were alive today, they would look at the situation that unfolded over the weekend and shake their heads.
During the 18th century, Benjamin Franklin laid out his belief regarding conflict and trade with the quote, “the system of America is universal commerce with all nations, and war with none.” Thomas Jefferson reinforced this vision of foreign policy through his own quote: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.”
Today, quite the opposite vision is being carried out. Aware of Israel’s planned strike against Iran’s capital, the United States joined in preemptively.
“It was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone – the United States or Israel, or anyone – they were going to respond, and respond against the United States,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in a recent interview in Washington.
For Hanke, Israel’s intentions were also abundantly clear: to expand its influence across the Middle East. When it came to the United States, concrete reasons were harder to find. Hanke attributed this to Trump’s already unpredictable policymaking in other areas of his presidency.
“We don’t exactly know what the thinking of the president of the United States is because he changes his mind a lot,” Hanke told BeInCrypto in a recent interview held on X Spaces.
What’s more apparent, however, is Israel’s grip on Washington.
Israel’s Growing Influence Over US Policymaking
Israel-US relations can be best exemplified by the extensive lobbying efforts of certain political action committees (PACs), such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), during US election cycles.
According to the nonpartisan research group OpenSecrets, AIPAC spent over $42 million on bipartisan contributions during the 2024 federal elections. In 2025, the committee spent $3.76 million on lobbying efforts. This figure marked the highest single-year spending to date.
“The lobby has an enormous influence on what goes on with regard to foreign policy that’s taken by the United States in the Middle East,” Hanke explained.
Beyond the increasingly entangled alliances between the United States and Israel, Trump may be using this latest attack on Iran as a distraction from certain unfolding events happening back home.
Trump’s Antiwar Image Begins to Fade
Trump jump-started 2026 with a series of controversial decisions. Three days into the new year, the United States captured and extradited Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Less than a month later, the president launched an aggressive campaign to acquire Greenland, sparking direct conflict with European allies.
These two decisions came amid a broader backdrop of constant tariff threats. At the same time, the Department of Justice released its latest batch of Epstein files.
This has placed the president at the center of a debate over his ties to billionaire socialite Epstein and his knowledge of the sex trafficking charges Epstein faced in 2019.
“The Jeffrey Epstein case is not going away— it’s still all over the press,” Hanke said, adding, “It’s an exit ramp from declining poll numbers. The best way to stay in power is to start a war… that’s a pretty big distraction.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s actions could pose a significant challenge to the future strength of his political power. One of Trump’s central promises on his campaign trail was to end ongoing wars, going so far as to declare himself the “president of peace.”
This narrative has begun to unravel.
“I think politically, he’s playing a very risky hand of cards with his base… his popularity is deteriorating rapidly in the United States because of his interventionist and threatening positions,” Hanke said. “Whether he’s going to be able to wind up [the Middle East conflict] in a short period of time… we don’t know.”
The next indicator of the president’s current popularity will be the November midterm elections, which will determine whether the Republican Party can maintain control of both chambers of Congress.
Though Trump’s foreign policy decisions may have significant domestic political repercussions, their impact on the global economy, especially oil prices, seems more limited than expected.
Iran Conflict Fails to Disrupt Oil, China Keeps Balance
Contrary to popular belief, Hanke does not believe that the war on Iran will catastrophically affect oil prices in the US.
In the 20th century, disruptions in oil production had a larger impact on global economies. However, today, the US has increased its oil production, while Iran and the Gulf have seen a decrease in theirs.
Hanke noted that, since events unfolded over the weekend, the price of American oil has risen by only about $10 per barrel, translating into a 25-cent-per-gallon increase.
“What’s happening today is a kind of modest reaction,” Hanke said, adding, “The oil intensity has gone way down. Even as the price goes up, it’s not going to be as large an impact on GDP as was the case in 1978.”
Trump’s efforts to disrupt oil supply to China through his interventions in both Venezuela and Iran may not achieve the intended result against the United States’ main rival. Hanke argued that even if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, China’s strategic advantages must not be overlooked.
While the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] has oil, China has rare-earth minerals.
“If the US was wanting to play this game and cut off the Venezuelan oil and the exit of the Strait of Hormuz, believe me, the Chinese know how to play hardball,” he explained. “They would cut the rare earths off, and that would be the end. Within six months, Western economies would be in really bad shape.”
As the situation in the Middle East continues to unfold, the true impact of these geopolitical moves on global stability and US politics remains to be seen. The next few months will reveal whether Trump’s foreign policy gambles will strengthen or further erode his political standing.
The Aave Chan Initiative, one of the most active governance groups inside the Aave DAO, announced its shutdown after a dispute over transparency and voting power tied to a record budget request from Aave Labs.
Marc Zeller, founder of ACI, announced that the eight-person team will not seek renewal of its contract and will wind down operations over the next four months. The group plans to continue participating in governance during that period while handing off infrastructure and open-sourcing its tools.
The exit marks a turning point for Aave, the leading decentralized finance protocol with nearly $27 billion in total value locked across 20 blockchains.
It comes weeks after BGD Labs, the team that built and maintained Aave’s V3 codebase, said it would also step away over organizational and strategic disagreements with Aave Labs.
Aave’s governance token, AAVE, is down more than 11% in the last 24 hours over ACI’s exit to now trade at $110. It’s down more than 44% in the past year, compared to BTC’s 24% drop in the same period.
ACI’s impact
ACI said it drove 61% of governance actions over the past three years and helped deploy $101 million in incentives. During that time, Aave’s GHO stablecoin grew from $35 million to $527 million in supply, and the protocol’s DeFi market share rose above 65%, according to the group’s figures. ACI said it cost the DAO $4.6 million over three years.
The conflict centers on a proposal from Aave Labs titled “Aave Will Win.” The plan asked the DAO to approve up to roughly $51 million in stablecoins and 75,000 AAVE tokens to fund product development, marketing and expansion tied to Aave V4.
It also proposed directing all of the revenue from Aave-branded products to the DAO. That proposal has passed its first formal vote over the weekend with around 52% supporting it.
ACI said it requested four conditions before supporting the proposal, including stricter onchain milestone tracking and limits on self-voting by addresses linked to the budget recipient. Those conditions went unaddressed, Zeller wrote.
The organization argued that addresses linked to Aave Labs voted on the proposal, ultimately tipping the outcome in their favor. In a post-mortem published on the governance forum, the group said the episode showed there is “no role for an independent service provider” if the largest budget recipient can influence its own approval without full disclosure.
Aave Labs has not yet issued a response to ACI’s exit.
Winding down
To settle its remaining obligations, ACI will submit a direct proposal to cancel its GHO funding stream and transfer 120 days of funding to its treasury address, with the rest returning to the DAO.
The group said it chose a lump sum approach because it does not trust the governance process to maintain its stream during the transition. After the proposal executes, ACI will also cut its own AAVE vesting stream.
Over the next four months, ACI plans to hand off or open-source the systems it built. These include governance dashboards, incentive frameworks, delegate coordination programs and its roles on committees such as the Aave Liquidity Committee and GHO Stewards. The group will step down from those posts at the end of the wind-down period.
The departure raises broader questions about decentralization inside large DAOs. In theory, token holders control the system yet, in practice, voting power often clusters around founders, early investors and large delegates.
If a single entity holds enough influence, critics say, independent oversight becomes hard to sustain. The decentralization question in Aave began to grow after the DAO started debating who controls the protocol’s interface and who benefits financially from it.
For Aave users, lending and borrowing will continue as normal. Smart contracts remain live, and other service providers such as Chaos Labs, TokenLogic, and Certora continue their roles.
Still, the loss of two major contributors in quick succession may shift how the DAO manages risk, budgets and future upgrades.
What’s at Stake for Crypto as Three US States Kick off Party Primaries?
Google Chrome Is Switching To a Two-Week Release Cycle
BITCOIN MANIPULATION OVER
-
Politics5 days agoITV enters Gaza with IDF amid ongoing genocide
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Iris Top
-
Politics16 hours agoAlan Cumming Brands Baftas Ceremony A ‘Triggering S**tshow’
-
Tech3 days agoUnihertz’s Titan 2 Elite Arrives Just as Physical Keyboards Refuse to Fade Away
-
NewsBeat6 days agoCuba says its forces have killed four on US-registered speedboat | World News
-
Sports4 days ago
The Vikings Need a Duck
-
NewsBeat3 days agoDubai flights cancelled as Brit told airspace closed ’10 minutes after boarding’
-
NewsBeat2 days ago‘Significant’ damage to boarded-up Horden house after fire
-
NewsBeat6 days agoManchester Central Mosque issues statement as it imposes new measures ‘with immediate effect’ after armed men enter
-
NewsBeat3 days agoThe empty pub on busy Cambridge road that has been boarded up for years
-
NewsBeat3 days agoAbusive parents will now be treated like sex offenders and placed on a ‘child cruelty register’ | News UK
-
Entertainment2 days agoBaby Gear Guide: Strollers, Car Seats
-
Business6 days agoDiscord Pushes Implementation of Global Age Checks to Second Half of 2026
-
Business5 days agoOnly 4% of women globally reside in countries that offer almost complete legal equality
-
Tech5 days agoNASA Reveals Identity of Astronaut Who Suffered Medical Incident Aboard ISS
-
NewsBeat3 days agoEmirates confirms when flights will resume amid Dubai airport chaos
-
Politics3 days ago
FIFA hypocrisy after Israel murder over 400 Palestinian footballers
-
Crypto World5 days agoFrom Crypto Treasury to RWA: ETHZilla Retreats and Relaunches as Forum Markets on Nasdaq
-
NewsBeat1 day agoIs it acceptable to comment on the appearance of strangers in public? Readers discuss
-
Tech3 days agoViral ad shows aged Musk, Altman, and Bezos using jobless humans to power AI