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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – For years, the crypto industry has searched for its next breakout moment — something on the scale of DeFi summer or the NFT boom. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence has quietly embedded itself into daily life. Developers use ChatGPT as a co-pilot. Consumers rely on AI assistants to draft emails, plan travel, and increasingly manage workflows. Crypto, by comparison, still feels infrastructural.

Illia Polosukhin, co-founder of NEAR, believes that divide is about to collapse — but not in the way many expect.

“The users of blockchain will be AI agents,” Polosukhin said in an interview. “AI is going to be on the front end, and blockchain is going to be the back end.”

His framing cuts against much of crypto’s recent experimentation with AI, which has largely centered on speculative tokens, memecoins and agent-themed trading bots. Instead, Polosukhin argues that AI will become the primary interface layer for everything online, including crypto, abstracting away wallets, explorers and transaction hashes.

“The goal is to make your AI hide all the blockchain,” he said. “The fact that we have [blockchain] explorers is effectively a failure, because we don’t abstract the technology.”

In this view, blockchain doesn’t disappear — it recedes. AI agents interact with protocols directly, executing payments, managing assets, coordinating services and even voting in governance systems. Humans, meanwhile, interact with the AI.

“AI is the front end, not just for blockchain, but for everything,” Polosukhin said. “In a few years, it’s going to be just AI, like the operating system.”

That shift, he argues, could explain why crypto hasn’t had an “AI moment” comparable to the consumer explosion of generative tools. “Blockchain is inherently financial,” he said. “It will be limited to finance, but everything we do in our life is finance.”

Rather than competing with AI platforms, crypto’s role may be to provide neutral financial rails beneath them: settlement, ownership, verifiability and programmable incentives.

Still, Polosukhin is critical of how the industry has approached both AI and governance so far — comments that come just days after Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin proposed “AI stewards” to help reinvent DAO governance.

“In blockchain, we propose technical solutions before asking: what is the core problem?” he said.

He points to decentralized autonomous organizations, or DAOs, as an example. “DAOs have dramatically failed because they have been unbounded, not really designed to solve any problem,” he said, arguing that governance tools, including AI-assisted voting agents, only make sense if they’re tied to clearly defined economic or coordination needs.

Another friction point between the AI and crypto communities has been culture. “The memecoins are ruining [the industry’s] reputation,” Polosukhin said, arguing that rampant speculation and scams have alienated serious AI researchers. “AI people are banning crypto effectively because of memecoins.”

The longer-term convergence, however, may be less about token launches and more about infrastructure. As AI systems increasingly act on users’ behalf, like paying bills, hiring services, allocating capital, they will require trusted execution, privacy and programmable financial coordination.

“Blockchain is about neutral markets and neutral infrastructure,” Polosukhin said.

If AI becomes the operating system of the internet, crypto’s future may not lie in being the app users open, but in becoming the invisible settlement layer their AI agents quietly depend on.

Read more: NEAR Launches Near.com super app, touting AI capabilities and confidential transactions

U.S. President Donald Trump said bankers are trying to undermine the GENIUS Act — the signature stablecoin legislation he signed into law last year — in a Truth Social post Tuesday, and he urged passage of Congress’ crypto market structure legislation without interference.

“The U.S. needs to get Market Structure done, ASAP. Americans should earn more money on their money,” he said in the post. “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.”

He warned banks against holding the Clarity Act “hostage” in his post, saying the bill was necessary to keep the crypto industry in the U.S.

“They need to make a good deal with the Crypto Industry because that’s what’s in best interest of the American People,” he said.

The market structure bill has been in limbo since the Senate Banking Committee indefinitely postponed a markup hearing, in which lawmakers were set to debate and vote on amendments to the bill, in January. There are a number of issues still holding up passage of the bill, but the most public fight has been between the banking and crypto sectors over whether third parties can offer yield on stablecoin deposits to customers.

Banks are concerned that allowing Coinbase and other exchanges to offer stablecoin yield to customers might lead to deposit flight from the banking sector. Crypto companies contend that people should be allowed to earn yield on their holdings, a practice they say was allowed in the GENIUS Act.

The White House has facilitated meetings between banking and crypto industry representatives to negotiate the language of the bill. Individuals familiar with the negotiations say draft language is circulating among lawmakers.

While the White House had set a tentative deadline for the end of February to get a deal together, one has not yet emerged. The Senate still has time to work on the bill, but the calendar is beginning to shrink. Lawmakers have a recess during the summer, and the 2026 election cycle is beginning to kick into full gear, which will take away from time they could dedicate to the bill otherwise.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a federal banking regulator, said in a rule proposal last week that the terms of the contracts between stablecoin issuers and their third-party associates need to be clear about what exactly these third parties are offering, but the agency did not explicitly ban yield payouts.

World Liberty Financial, a company associated with Trump and his family, offers its own stablecoin, USD1, and it recently sought to secure a trust charter under the OCC for an affiliated firm.

The post about the Clarity Act was an abrupt dip into financial policy after Trump spent the last few days overseeing U.S. military strikes against Iran, in what the U.S. government has described as a “special combat operation.” The emerging hostilities have disrupted air travel throughout the Middle East, as well as shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Read more: Bitcoin is stuck in a rut but JPMorgan says new legislation could be the ultimate spark

UPDATE (March 3, 2026, 20:25 UTC): Adds additional detail.