Crypto World
Crypto stakes rise as 3 US states kick off primaries
Voters in North Carolina, Texas and Arkansas head to the polls as the 2026 midterm cycle begins to take shape, with crypto policy emerging as a cross-cutting issue in several congressional contests. In Texas, Democratic Representative Jasmine Crockett is pursuing a risky bid for the Senate seat held by Republican John Cornyn. Crockett’s campaign intersects with a broader narrative about funding from crypto-aligned groups and industry money aimed at shaping regulatory outcomes. The primary season features debates over stablecoin payments, market structure bills, and the balance between innovation and consumer protections. As crypto-focused political action committees mobilize substantial fundraising and media campaigns, the question for voters is whether these interests will tilt policy in Washington in the run-up to the 2026 midterms.
Key takeaways
- Texas’s Senate primary has drawn substantial crypto-connected spending, with AdImpact reporting more than $122 million in total on both sides as of February 27.
- Representative Jasmine Crockett’s voting history includes support for the GENIUS Act stabilizing payments and for FIT21, the former iteration of a digital asset market structure bill, while she opposed the CLARITY Act.
- Crypto-focused PACs, including Fairshake and Web3 Forward, have deployed large sums in past cycles—Fairshake alone reported hundreds of millions in activity to influence media coverage and candidate support.
- Advocacy groups and crypto donors have claimed that the 2024 cycle produced a notably pro-crypto Congress, a claim tied to subsequent legislative momentum on GENIUS Act provisions and related market frameworks.
- The 2026 landscape features a wide slate of contests—33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats are up for grabs—making crypto-aligned fundraising a more persistent factor in down-ballot races beyond Texas.
Sentiment: Neutral
Market context: The intersection of political fundraising and crypto policy is increasingly prominent as lawmakers weigh stablecoin regulation, asset definitions, and market infrastructure bills amid broader macro and regulatory uncertainties.
Why it matters
The Texas race encapsulates a broader trend wherein crypto donors and advocacy groups are actively seeking to shape who sits in Congress and, by extension, the policy environment around digital assets. Crockett’s prior support for GENIUS Act-related provisions signals a willingness to engage with federal efforts aimed at simplifying or clarifying how stablecoins and other digital assets operate within traditional financial rules. Her voting history, including positions on FIT21 and CLARITY Act, provides a hinge point for how a Democratic candidate might approach a closely watched policy corridor as 2026 unfolds. The infusion of crypto money into the race—via committees backed by the industry and independent groups—highlights a persistent strategy: use media influence and targeted messaging to press for favorable regulatory outcomes, even as some campaigns insist they accept no corporate PAC money.
The broader backdrop is equally instructive. The rise of crypto-aligned PACs like Fairshake and its affiliates has underscored how fundraising can translate into policy visibility, particularly when a field is navigating complex questions about whether crypto should be treated as a security, a commodity, or a new category altogether. In the 2024 cycle, Fairshake and allied groups reported significant media spending to bolster pro-crypto candidates, a pattern described by industry advocates as contributing to what some labeled the “most pro-crypto Congress” in history. That sentiment fed into legislative activity around the GENIUS Act and related market structure initiatives, signaling that money and policy are increasingly entwined in the crypto policy conversation. For readers watching the Texas contest or statewide dynamics, this confluence matters because it can alter committee priorities, regulatory tempo, and the speed with which new laws or amendments are considered.
The narrative is reinforced by ongoing disclosures and public statements from PACs and industry figures. A January interview with Crockett, coupled with media investments from crypto-aligned groups, illustrates how candidates navigate a crowded field of political support while maintaining positions on core issues. The scene is further complicated by the involvement of well-known industry players and donors, including those linked to high-profile campaigns and political action committees that have historically funneled significant sums into pivotal races. This environment implies a higher degree of scrutiny on any candidate’s external funding sources and on how policy platforms align with those financial backers.
In parallel, the political rhythm around crypto policy remains dynamic. The original GENIUS Act line, the FIT21 framework, and the CLARITY Act have all featured in debates over how federal regulation should intersect with digital assets and stablecoins. The evolving narrative around those bills—along with public endorsements and criticisms from industry players—shapes not only candidate strategies but also the posture of regulators and the timing of potential policy updates. It is not just about one seat or one state; the 2026 cycle is shaping expectations for how Congress will respond to rapid changes in the crypto landscape and how those responses might affect market access, compliance costs, and innovation pipelines across a wide cross-section of the U.S. economy.
The discussion is further enriched by frequent references to related developments, including high-profile mentions such as the BitMEX co-founder pledge and other industry-linked contributions that have fed into broader debates about governance, accountability, and the role of money in politics. The evolving policy conversation—spurred by committee hearings, executive leadership changes, and continuing advocacy—may determine how quickly the U.S. moves from broader principles to concrete regulatory action. This is the kind of environment where a few primary races can become bellwethers for the future balance of power on crypto policy and, by extension, the direction of the sector in the years ahead.
To get a sense of the media and political dynamics at play, viewers can reference a related discussion that ties crypto fundraising to policy outcomes, including coverage of PAC activity and industry perspectives. The material includes a YouTube discussion and related reporting on how donor networks influence campaign messaging and policy debates. The ongoing conversation underscores that the 2026 cycle is as much about narrative control and fundraising strategy as it is about concrete policy proposals.
As the primary season continues, observers will also watch for additional data points on how crypto donors organize around specific candidates and districts. The narrative around Alabama, Texas, and other key states—where crypto-linked committees have already signaled intent to engage—offers a window into the mechanics of political influence in the digital-asset space. In the months ahead, campaigns and policymakers alike will need to address a complex matrix of questions: How will stablecoins be regulated? Will Congress advance a comprehensive market-structure framework? And how will donors calibrate their support in a way that aligns with voters’ broader economic priorities?
The broader context includes conventional political dynamics, such as party competition and voter sentiment, but the crypto dimension adds a distinct layer of financial leverage to the electoral process. The 2026 midterms will test whether the crypto-policy impulse can translate into durable legislative changes or if it remains a financing and messaging force within a noisy, highly scrutinized political environment. For readers tracking policy evolution, the coming weeks and months will be a critical period to observe where the money flows, which ideas gain traction, and how candidates like Crockett position themselves on one of the most volatile segments of the policy spectrum.
What to watch next
- Follow the Texas primary results for Crockett, Cornyn, Paxton and other contenders as crypto donors weigh their preferred outcomes.
- Monitor committee actions and floor votes related to the GENIUS Act, FIT21/FIT era bills, and the evolving market structure framework.
- Track forthcoming disclosures from crypto PACs and their media allocations ahead of key primaries and the broader 2026 cycle.
- Observe statements and ratings from Stand With Crypto and similar groups about candidates’ crypto stances, particularly in Texas and Alabama.
Sources & verification
- AdImpact data showing more than $122 million in spending on the Texas Senate primary as of February 27.
- Crockett’s voting history on GENIUS Act, FIT21, and CLARITY Act-related measures.
- Reports on Fairshake and related PACs’ 2024 media spend and $193 million treasury ahead of the midterms.
- Public statements and coverage related to the “most pro-crypto Congress” narrative and its connection to GENIUS Act progress.
- Affiliates and ratings from crypto advocacy groups, including Stand With Crypto’s positions on specific lawmakers.
Election finance and crypto policy momentum in 2026
The Texas Senate race illustrates how campaign finance dynamics and policy ambitions converge in a high-stakes political environment. Crockett’s engagement with GENIUS Act-style provisions signals a willingness to engage with federal policy that could influence not only how stablecoins are treated but how the broader digital-asset market is defined and regulated. Her opponents’ positions, the industry’s fundraising playbook, and the broader narrative around what constitutes a pro-crypto Congress all feed into a broader pattern: money, messaging, and policy formulation are increasingly entangled as crypto assets move from niche technology to a mainstream political issue.
In the weeks ahead, the story will pivot on concrete legislative steps—whether committees will advance a cohesive framework for digital assets, where new regulatory guardrails may form, and how voters assess candidates’ ties to crypto money alongside traditional policy platforms. The 2026 midterms are not just about party lines; they are about how much weight the crypto policy perspective carries in determining the balance of power in Congress and, ultimately, the shape of regulation that could influence the technology’s adoption and the market’s competitive landscape.
Ripple is no longer just moving money. It wants to be the entire pipe.
The company shared with CoinDesk on Wednesday a press release that outlines a major expansion of Ripple Payments which turns the platform into a full-stack infrastructure layer for fiat and stablecoin money movement.
Businesses can now collect, hold, exchange, and pay out in both traditional currencies and stablecoins through a single provider, rather than stitching together separate vendors for custody, collections, conversion, and settlement.
The new capabilities come from two recent acquisitions. Palisade, which handles custody and treasury automation, powers the managed custody layer that lets businesses provision wallets at scale and sweep funds into operational accounts.
Rail, a virtual accounts and collections platform, enables businesses to accept fiat and stablecoin pay-ins through named virtual accounts with automated conversion and settlement.
The result is that a fintech doing cross-border payouts no longer needs one provider for custody, another for foreign exchange, a third for stablecoin liquidity, and a fourth for local payout rails. Ripple is consolidating all of that into one platform with one integration.
“For the global financial system to evolve, fintechs and financial institutions need infrastructure that treats digital assets with the same rigor as traditional finance,” said Monica Long, president at Ripple, said in a prepared statement. “Ripple has built the blueprint for blockchain-based enterprise solutions designed to operate at global scale for regulated finance.”
Meanwhile, Ripple said the platform has now processed more than $100 billion in total volume. That milestone lands against a broader backdrop of stablecoin adoption accelerating across the financial system, with global annual transaction volumes reaching $33 trillion last year and stablecoins now accounting for 30% of all onchain transaction volume.
The expansion comes at an interesting time for Ripple specifically.
XRP has been under pressure, down roughly 5% over the past week, according to CoinDesk market data, amid the broader market sell-off driven by the U.S.-Iran conflict.
But the payments business operates largely independently of the token’s price, and the institutional adoption trajectory suggests Ripple’s enterprise strategy is gaining traction regardless of what the spot market does.
A Bitcoin Policy Institute study delves into how artificial intelligence models choose among money forms in a variety of hypothetical scenarios, revealing a strong inclination toward Bitcoin and digital money over fiat in most cases. The research tested 36 models across six providers and generated more than 9,000 responses across a spectrum of monetary tasks, from long-term value preservation to everyday payments. The findings show Bitcoin outpacing stablecoins in many contexts, while stablecoins regain sway in transactional use cases like micropayments and cross-border transfers. The study’s authors emphasize that the results reflect training data patterns and framing rather than widespread real-world adoption, but they nonetheless offer a unique lens on how AI interprets money in a digital era, with results released via MoneyForAI.org.
Key takeaways
- 36 AI models across six providers produced 9,072 responses to monetary scenarios; Bitcoin was selected in 48.3% of cases, the most-used instrument overall.
- When asked to preserve purchasing power over multi-year horizons, 79.1% of responses favored Bitcoin, the study’s most lopsided result.
- In payments, micropayments, and cross-border transfers, stablecoins were chosen 53.2% of the time versus 36% for Bitcoin, highlighting a transactional edge for stablecoins in certain contexts.
- Nearly 91% of responses preferred digitally native instruments (including Bitcoin or other digital assets) over fiat, with zero models rating fiat as their top choice.
- Model-provider differences emerged: Anthropic models averaged 68% BTC preference; OpenAI 26%; Google 43%; and xAI 39%, illustrating how training data shapes outputs rather than deterministic financial forecasting.
Tickers mentioned: $BTC
Market context: The study arrives amid ongoing experimentation with digital money in AI-assisted scenarios, underscoring how institutional and research communities are evaluating Bitcoin’s role as a borderless, programmable asset alongside stablecoins and other digital instruments.
What to watch next – The Bitcoin Policy Institute plans to broaden the model set and providers, test different prompt framings, and explore additional monetary scenarios to validate whether these preferences hold under varied conditions.
Why it matters
For users and investors, the findings offer a nuanced view of how AI systems—trained on vast data corpora—perceive money forms in a digital economy. The recurring tilt toward Bitcoin in long-horizon scenarios reinforces Bitcoin’s narrative as a non-sovereign store of value that can operate independently of any single country’s monetary policy. Yet the study also highlights practical reasons stablecoins remain appealing for transactions: near-instant settlement, compatibility with existing payment rails, and the ability to freeze or limit access in certain jurisdictions, which some participants see as a drawback for a universally accessible currency. The methodological caveats matter for interpretation: the results reflect synthetic prompts and model training data rather than current market adoption or consumer behavior.
From a development perspective, the research underscores how AI agents—when asked to optimize for efficiency or resilience in simulated economies—tend to converge on a small set of digital money forms. This convergence could inform the design of wallet interfaces, AI-driven financial planning tools, and cyber-physical systems that rely on digital value transfers. It also raises policy questions about the role of programmable money in cross-border ecosystems and how guardians of financial stability might respond to AI-generated preferences that favor digital currencies in abstract decision environments. In other words, the study is less about predicting the next price move and more about understanding how AI framing shapes perceptions of what “money” should look like in a digitized world.
The research also points to distinct differences across AI families. Anthropic models leaned most toward Bitcoin, while other providers displayed broader variance. These disparities remind readers that the results are contingent on the models’ training data and internal prompts rather than a universal forecast for asset demand. While some may interpret the Bitcoin bias as an endorsement of BTC in all contexts, the authors are careful to emphasize that the observed preferences do not translate directly into real-world adoption or policy outcomes. They describe the results as patterns emerging from the interplay between model design and the digital money landscape rather than a prescriptive verdict on fiat, stablecoins, or Bitcoin itself.
What to watch next
- Expanded model coverage: expect the BPI to include more AI models and more providers to test whether the BTC preference persists across the broader AI ecosystem.
- Framing sensitivity: researchers will experiment with alternative prompts to determine how wording and context influence outcomes.
- Broader scenarios: additional situations—such as storing earnings across multiple countries and complex settlement schemes—could further illuminate how AI perceives money in varied environments.
- Implications for tooling: developers building AI-assisted financial tools may use these insights to shape asset-selection features and risk disclosures in simulated environments.
Sources & verification
Bitcoin’s role in AI-driven monetary tests: what the study reveals
Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) emerged as the leading instrument across the majority of prompts, appearing in 48.3% of the 9,072 responses generated by 36 models across six providers, according to the Bitcoin Policy Institute’s report released on MoneyForAI.org. The exercise probed a range of economic scenarios—from preserving purchasing power over years to everyday payments—testing how AI agents allocate value across money forms. The result is a strong tilt toward digital money, particularly Bitcoin, as the substrate for economic activity that can function across borders and regulatory regimes.
In long-horizon scenarios, the study found 79.1% of AI responses favored Bitcoin, marking the most pronounced bias in any tested category. This constellation of results suggests that, when asked to optimize for durability and sovereignty, AI agents consistently gravitate toward assets that retain value independently of any single country’s monetary policy. The digital-money axis appears to be the most favored frame for multi-year planning within the tested prompts, hinting at how future AI tools might simulate or advise on wealth preservation in a world where fiat policies are volatile or opaque.
Conversely, when the focus shifts to payments and transactions—whether micropayments or cross-border transfers—stablecoins win a higher share: 53.2% of responses favored stablecoins, while Bitcoin attracted 36%. The transactional efficiency and network familiarity of stablecoins explain their appeal in these contexts, where rapid settlement and compatibility with existing systems can matter as much as asset selection in a simulated environment. A prominent industry observer noted that stablecoins’ ability to be frozen is a double-edged sword: it provides control in certain regulatory settings but removes a layer of confidence for users seeking an uninterrupted transfer capability. Jeff Park, the chief investment officer at Bitwise, framed the context succinctly: the “most obvious explanation” for stablecoins’ relative performance in these scenarios is the ability to freeze, whereas Bitcoin cannot be frozen, offering a durable trust anchor in a digital suite of tools.
Across all responses, the AI agents favored digitally native instruments—Bitcoin, stablecoins, altcoins, tokenized real-world assets, or compute units—over fiat in roughly 91% of cases. The study’s authors emphasize that fiat relevance did not appear as a top overall choice in any of the 36 models tested. They caution readers that these results reflect patterns in training data and prompt design more than real-world adoption patterns. In other words, the study captures how AI systems interpret monetary constructs when asked to optimize for hypothetical outcomes, rather than a forecast of consumer behavior or regulatory impact.
The analysis also reveals notable differences among model families. Anthropic models averaged a Bitcoin preference of 68%, with OpenAI at 26%, Google at 43%, and xAI at 39%. These numbers illustrate how distinctive training corpora and prompt engineering shape outputs, reinforcing the study’s central caveat: responses are indicative of data patterns rather than prescriptive predictions about the future of money. The researchers acknowledge that the prompt framing used in several scenarios may have steered results toward certain instruments, and they plan to explore alternative framings in future work to measure sensitivity and robustness of the observed preferences. Aside from the methodological note, the study contributes to a growing discourse about how AI agents conceptualize money in a highly digitized financial landscape, where fiat, stablecoins, and digital assets coexist in a rapidly evolving ecosystem.
TLDR
- American Bitcoin purchased 11,298 ASIC miners to expand its bitcoin mining operations.
- The new equipment will increase the company’s total mining capacity by about 12%.
- The miners will add approximately 3.05 exahashes per second to the company’s hashrate.
- American Bitcoin will deploy the machines at its Drumheller site in Alberta in March 2026.
- The company’s total owned fleet will grow to 89,242 miners with 28.1 EH per second of capacity.
American Bitcoin confirmed the purchase of 11,298 ASIC miners to expand its bitcoin mining operations. The company said the new equipment will increase total capacity by about 12%. The machines will deploy at its Drumheller, Alberta, site in March 2026.
American Bitcoin Expands Fleet With 11,298 New Miners
American Bitcoin said the purchase will add about 3.05 exahashes per second of capacity. The miners will operate at an efficiency of 13.5 joules per terahash. As a result, the company’s total owned fleet will reach 89,242 units. The combined capacity will represent about 28.1 EH/s at an average efficiency of 16 J/TH.
The company stated that the equipment will arrive and be deployed in March 2026. Once installation finishes, the operational fleet will include 58,999 active miners. These machines will run at about 25 EH/s with an efficiency of 14.1 J/TH. Based on current network data, the added capacity equals about 0.3% of global hashrate. That share could produce about 42 bitcoin each month, or roughly 515 bitcoin each year.
Operational Strategy and Bitcoin Holdings
Eric Trump, co-founder and chief strategy officer, outlined the company’s focus. He said, “As bitcoin matures, the priority is clear: grow American-owned, professionally operated hashrate.” He added that this strategy will protect the network and support innovation in the United States.
Matt Prusak, president of American Bitcoin, described the firm’s mining approach. He said, “Every decision we make is oriented around maximizing Bitcoin accumulation.” The company reported that it mined bitcoin at a 53% discount to spot prices in the fourth quarter of 2025. During that period, bitcoin reached an all-time high above $126,000 in early October.
By year-end 2025, the firm reported revenue of $185.2 million. It posted a net loss of $153.2 million. The loss stemmed mainly from an unrealized $227.1 million loss on bitcoin holdings under fair value rules. The company closed the year with 5,401 bitcoin on its balance sheet.
American Bitcoin later reported holding 6,039 bitcoin valued at nearly $402 million. The company also posted a quarterly loss of $59.45 million. At recent prices near $68,000 per bitcoin, the projected annual output could generate about $35 million in gross revenue before costs.
Shares of American Bitcoin traded lower on Tuesday. The stock declined about 2.6% to $0.99 during trading. In later trading, the shares fell nearly 6% to below $0.96. Over the past month, the stock has dropped nearly 29%.
David Bailey, a former crypto advisor to the Trump administration, argues that the US government could be doing more to support Bitcoin adoption.
“At the end of the day, liking Bitcoin is not enough,” Bailey said during the Bitcoin Investor Week Conference in New York, which was published to YouTube on Tuesday.
“The Trump administration was a very important first step, but you know there is so much further for us to go and not just in talk but in actual delivery,” said Bailey, who now serves as CEO and Chairman of KindlyMD, a Bitcoin treasury company.
Bailey points to stalled Strategic Bitcoin Reserve plan
Trump repeatedly voiced his support for Bitcoin (BTC) and the broader crypto industry during his presidential campaign appearances.
While he signed an executive order for a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve in March 2025, it is understood that the US government has yet to begin accumulating Bitcoin outside of the funds seized through illicit activity.
“We’re sitting here a year later, the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve was signed into an executive order,” Bailey said.
“Last time I checked, we don’t even know how much Bitcoin we have exactly,” Bailey added. Data from Arkham Research shows it currently holds 378,372 Bitcoin, worth approximately $22.48 billion at the time of publication.
Just two months after Trump signed the executive order, White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks said the process of accumulating wouldn’t be so straightforward, explaining that the US could buy more Bitcoin if the government could fund the purchase in a “budget-neutral” way, without a tax or adding to the growing national debt.
Industry participants became more divided on the possibility as the year progressed. Some stayed optimistic. Galaxy Digital’s head of firmwide research, Alex Thorn, said in September that there was a “strong chance” it would still happen before the end of 2025.
Bailey said that while Trump has been the first politician to champion “our worldview,” an opinion alone isn’t enough to drive Bitcoin’s price to $1 million.
“Just because you like Bitcoin doesn’t mean that you’ve invested the political capital necessary for things to happen,” Bailey said.
“Unless you’re willing to bear the political capital necessary to mobilize the different gears necessary to move the ball forward, then at the end of the day, you can like Bitcoin, you cannot like Bitcoin, you’re going to get the same outcome achieved.”
Bitcoin will succeed either way, says Bailey
However, even without action from the US government, Bailey said Bitcoin will eventually succeed. “It’s not like we need the government to cater for us for Bitcoin to be successful,” Bailey said.
“Whether it’s four years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we will get to the point where we actually have a government that is conducive to the rules we need for Bitcoin to be successful,” he said.
Related: Bitcoin futures demand falls to 2024 lows: Are institutions exiting the market?
“I’m bullish on what we can accomplish in this administration. If we really want the progress to continue, we need more people to own Bitcoin every year,” Bailey said.
“We need more voters to own Bitcoin every year. And then it is just inevitable,” he added.
Bitcoin is currently trading at $68,220, approximately 45% below its October all-time high of $126,000, according to CoinMarketCap.
Outside the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, Bitcoiners are eyeing the potential passage of the US CLARITY Act, which aims to provide the industry with more regulatory clarity. Trump said in a Truth Social post on Tuesday that “the U.S. needs to get Market Structure done, ASAP.”
Magazine: Would Bitcoin really be at $200K if not for Jane Street? Trade Secrets
Bettors have long been able to speculate on the chance of a nuclear weapon detonating on Polymarket, but the current conflict with Iran – and scrutiny about insiders trading on war – has apparently caused the platform to remove the contracts.
Polymarket has created a market that would monetize a nuclear attack amid increasing concerns that bets are happening among government insiders who can make military decisions. pic.twitter.com/r1CbWaLWcw
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) March 3, 2026
The markets, which asked users to assign probabilities to whether a nuclear weapon would detonate by specific dates, have circulated on Polymarket for years and historically have resolved to “No.”
But renewed attention to the contracts comes as prediction markets face criticism after a trader reportedly made more than $400,000 betting on Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro’s ouster shortly before the U.S. operation that led to his capture, raising questions about whether insiders could exploit the platforms to trade on the outbreak of war – such as the start of this current conflict with Iran – and other military actions.
Historical trading suggests the contracts occasionally priced meaningful risk.
A Polymarket contract in 2023 at one point implied roughly a 19% chance that a nuclear weapon would detonate before the end of the year, according to platform data.
A later market expiring in June 2025 traded near 12%.
The markets also attracted significant trading activity. The 2025 contract alone recorded more than $1.7 Million in volume, while the 2023 version drew nearly $700,000 in wagers.
All this comes as U.S. regulators consider how to oversee prediction markets.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposed rules in 2024 that would bar exchanges it regulates from listing event contracts tied to war, terrorism, assassination, or other activities deemed contrary to the public interest.
Chairman Mike Selig said the Commission plans to issue clearer guidance on prediction markets in the near future.
Australia could unlock 24 billion Australian dollars ($17 billion) annually from advances in tokenized markets and digital assets, but only if lawmakers move forward with regulation. A new study by the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre (DFCRC) outlines regulatory uncertainty, coordination hurdles, and a limited pathway for pilots as the primary constraints. The research argues that a well-designed sandbox for testing tokenized financial market use cases could catalyze ongoing collaboration between regulators and industry players, help refine licensing frameworks, and accelerate real-world adoption of tokenized rails for markets, payments, and collateral management.
Key takeaways
- The DFCRC projects up to A$24 billion in annual economic gains from tokenized markets and digital finance if regulatory frameworks are clear and supportive.
- A dedicated sandbox for testing tokenized financial market use cases is recommended to foster regulator–industry collaboration and to mature licensing for institutional participants.
- Tokenized instruments, including government bonds and CBDCs, could underpin the growth of tokenized markets, enabling more efficient collateralized lending, settlement, and cross-border payments.
- Without a more predictable regulatory regime, the projected gains could shrink significantly; the study cautions that gains depend heavily on the pace and scope of policy reform.
- The report notes the project was launched in collaboration with the Digital Economy Council of Australia and financed by OKX, highlighting industry interest and the potential role of private partners in advancing a regulatory-ahead regime.
Tickers mentioned:
Sentiment: Bearish
Market context: The findings reflect a broader global push toward regulated tokenized finance, with sandbox approaches and pilot programs shaping how markets, settlements, and collateral management could evolve as liquidity and interoperability improve across digital assets.
Why it matters
The Australia study frames tokenization not merely as a technology upgrade but as a foundational shift in how capital markets, payments, and asset ownership operate. By linking regulatory clarity with technical experimentation, the DFCRC argues that tokenized markets could unlock liquidity that today remains constrained by legacy infrastructures and custodial frictions. In practical terms, tokenization could widen investor access to a broader set of instruments, improve market depth, and facilitate faster settlement cycles—benefits that, in turn, could widen the pool of available capital and deepen secondary markets.
More specifically, tokenized money—encompassing stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)—could streamline cross-border and domestic transactions by diminishing reliance on traditional correspondent banking rails, which can carry high fees. The DFCRC notes that tokenized rails promise greater transparency, traceability, and resiliency, with smart contracts automating processes such as collateral management, margining, and settlement. In this vision, assets become not only more liquid but more programmable, enabling new forms of automated lending, repo arrangements, and invoice financing that could reduce transaction costs and expand financing options for businesses and institutions alike.
Crucially, the report emphasizes the distribution of gains across three core areas—collateralized lending, repo, and invoice financing—where tokenized rails could yield the most measurable improvements. In such ecosystems, smart contracts handle collateral evaluation, threshold triggers, and settlement on a continuous basis, reducing counterparty risk and improving capital efficiency. If regulators provide a clear, interoperable framework, these gains could translate into tangible improvements for the broader economy, from faster settlement times to lower financing costs for infrastructure projects and small-to-medium enterprises.
The authors acknowledge that projected gains are contingent on regulatory unfoldings. The report highlights that, absent substantial regulatory reform, Australia could see far more modest economic benefits. If the current trajectory persists, DFCRC estimates that crypto-related economic gains may plateau at around A$1 billion by 2030, well short of the aspirational A$24 billion. Kate Cooper, chief executive of the crypto exchange OKX, underscored this view, stressing that robust regulation is a prerequisite for material gains, as uncertain rules can choke investor confidence and slow the deployment of tokenized services. The media release accompanying the study reiterates that the most significant upside emerges from well-defined licenses and infrastructure built to institutional standards. For readers seeking the full economic analysis, the DFCRC Economic Impact Report is available here: https://dfcrc.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/260303_DFCRC_Economic+Impact+Report_V7_Single.pdf.
The discussion sits within a broader international context where policymakers are balancing innovation with consumer protection, market integrity, and systemic risk concerns. While Australia contemplates a regulatory path, the underlying message is consistent with global trends: for tokenized markets to scale, regulators and industry participants must co-create frameworks that reduce friction without sacrificing safeguards. The DFCRC’s partnership with the Digital Economy Council of Australia and its funding from OKX signal both a public and private appetite for experimentation—paired with a clear-eyed recognition that policy design will ultimately determine the speed and scale of adoption. The study’s emphasis on three pillar areas also resonates with other research suggesting that tokenized collateral and automated settlement can transform capital markets by unlocking liquidity and reducing operational risk.
As the authors point out, the estimated gains could be higher or lower depending on regulatory outcomes, and the direction of policy evolution will shape both the pace and the geographic footprint of any rollout. The report’s cautions aside, the proposed sandbox model offers a concrete pathway to de-risk experimentation, offer a platform for pilots, and create license-ready infrastructure that could invite institutional participants to participate in tokenized markets at scale. In the near term, observers will watch how regulators respond to proposals for pilot projects, licensing regimes, and pilot-friendly capital-raising mechanisms that could accelerate the transition from theory to practice in tokenized finance. The collaboration behind the report reflects a broader industry push for practical regulatory reform that can foster innovation while preserving market integrity.
References to the DFCRC and its associated documents appear in links within this article, including the economic impact report and related materials that discuss tokenization and CBDCs in the Australian context. The broader ecosystem benefits described by the DFCRC align with ongoing discussions about how tokenized assets could reshape payments, lending, and collateral management, underscoring the importance of clear, institutionally aligned frameworks as Australia contemplates the next era of digital finance.
What to watch next
- Regulatory progress in Australia: any new guidelines or licensing reforms that enable sandbox participation by banks and non-bank financial institutions.
- Launch of tokenized-government-bond pilots or wholesale securities pilots within a sandbox framework.
- Deployment and testing of CBDCs in controlled environments to support settlement, collateralization, and cross-border flows.
- Announcements of further collaborations between regulators, industry groups, and crypto firms to evolve licensing standards for institutional players.
Sources & verification
- Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre Economic Impact Report PDF: https://dfcrc.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/260303_DFCRC_Economic+Impact+Report_V7_Single.pdf
- OKX media release on the DFCRC economic impact collaboration: https://dfcrc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Economic-impact-report-media-release-digital.pdf
- Tokenization explained overview: https://cointelegraph.com/explained/tokenization-explained
- CBDCs overview for beginners: https://cointelegraph.com/learn/articles/what-are-cbdcs-a-beginners-guide-to-central-bank-digital-currencies
- Stablecoins market cap and growth data: https://cointelegraph.com/news/stablecoins-300-billion-market-cap-47-growth-ytd
- Additional reference: Australian crypto industry perspectives and related policy discussions: https://cointelegraph.com/news/australia-crypto-adoption-regulation-smsf-growth-2026
Unlocking Australia’s $24 Billion Digital Finance Opportunity
The DFCRC’s analysis positions tokenization as a potential lever for widening participation in capital markets and for improving the efficiency of financial plumbing through programmable assets. A well-structured sandbox could serve as a bridge between high-level policy goals and the day-to-day realities of banks, fintechs, and asset managers exploring tokenized markets. By enabling controlled experiments with tokenized government bonds, collateralized lending, and cross-border settlement, Australia could build a scalable blueprint for modernizing its financial infrastructure while maintaining robust investor protections. The study emphasizes that gains are not just about faster settlements or better liquidity; they hinge on a broader regulatory architecture that supports innovation without compromising financial stability. If policymakers can align on licensing standards, interoperability, and risk controls, the country could position itself as a measured, forward-looking hub for digital finance at the regional level and beyond.
Crypto World
Bitcoin Nears Historic Sixth Red Month as Gold and Silver Shed $2.4 Trillion in a Single Day
TLDR:
- Bitcoin has recorded five straight monthly red candles in 2025, pushing sentiment to historically exhausted levels.
- Gold and silver erased $2.4 trillion in market value in one session after a parabolic rally through early 2025.
- Dollar strength overrode geopolitical fear, revealing gold as a macro trade rather than a pure crisis hedge.
- A strong Bitcoin monthly reversal could trigger sharp altcoin gains, especially in assets that held technical structure.
Bitcoin continues to face mounting pressure as traditional safe-haven assets experience a sharp reversal. Gold and silver together erased roughly $2.4 trillion in combined market value in a single trading session.
The selloff followed a parabolic rally that both metals staged earlier in 2025. Bitcoin, by contrast, has now recorded five consecutive monthly red candles throughout the year.
Dollar strength has become the dominant force shaping price action across both crypto and commodity markets.
Dollar Strength Exposes the Limits of Traditional Safe Havens
Gold and silver have long been considered reliable hedges during times of geopolitical uncertainty. However, recent price action across both metals tells a different story about their true nature.
Despite tensions involving Iran, global shipping disruptions, and persistent inflation talk, dollar strength overrode fear-driven demand for metals.
Gold climbed as much as 96% since the start of 2025, while silver surged approximately 191% over the same period.
Both assets had entered parabolic territory before the sharp correction ultimately took hold. The pullback effectively flushed excess leverage from an already overstretched market position.
One analyst on X wrote that dollar strength “overpowered fear,” arguing gold behaves more like a macro trade.
According to the post, gold remains tied to yields and the dollar, not a pure crisis hedge. The comment reflects how macro traders are reassessing the metal’s role in uncertain conditions.
Five Red Months Push Bitcoin Toward Historic Exhaustion
The digital asset has fallen approximately 27% since the start of 2025, even as metals posted strong gains. The nature of that decline, however, differs sharply from the selloff metals experienced this week. Rather than a sudden forced liquidation, the drop has resembled a slow and sustained liquidity drain.
Forced selling in overleveraged markets typically produces violent, sharp price drops within short timeframes. Bitcoin’s five-month slide has been more measured and gradual by comparison. That distinction carries weight when evaluating where the asset stands heading forward.
Bitcoin is now trading at historically stretched levels across multiple timeframes. Sentiment has been steadily drained throughout several months of consecutive losses. In effect, the asset has already completed the reset cycle that metals are only now beginning.
What a Reversal Could Mean for BTC and Altcoins
A strong monthly close for Bitcoin at current levels would carry considerable upside momentum. Historically, when a price breaks out after extended compression, the move tends to be sharp rather than gradual.
Altcoins that maintained structure during the prolonged bleed are best positioned to benefit from any rotation.
The same analyst noted that when Bitcoin moves aggressively after long compression, altcoins tend not to follow quietly. Instead, they often surge alongside the broader shift in market sentiment. Assets that held technical structure through the downturn are likely to see the largest moves.
Risk factors, however, remain present. If dollar strength continues building and equities weaken, Bitcoin will not escape the broader fallout. Oversold conditions build potential energy, but a macro catalyst is still needed to confirm a sustained reversal.
A new study from the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) suggests that artificial intelligence models prefer Bitcoin over stablecoins and other forms of money for different financial situations, with very few showing a preference for fiat currency.
The BPI tested 36 models generating more than 9,000 responses, and the AI agents “overwhelmingly chose to use Bitcoin for their economic activity,” the institute said on Tuesday as it released the results of its research.
The study found that 48.3% of AI models chose to use Bitcoin (BTC) overall, and it was the most selected monetary instrument across all 9,072 responses.
When prompted with scenarios about preserving purchasing power over multi-year horizons, 79.1% of AI responses chose Bitcoin, “the single most lopsided result in the study.”
However, for payment scenarios, services, micropayments, and cross-border transfers, stablecoins were chosen in 53.2% of responses compared to just 36% for Bitcoin.
Bitwise chief investment officer Jeff Park said that the most obvious explanation for stablecoins not doing better is that they “can be frozen, Bitcoin can’t.”
Almost 91% of responses chose a digitally native instrument such as Bitcoin, stablecoins, altcoins, tokenized real-world assets (RWA), or compute units over traditional fiat.
“Zero of the 36 models tested chose fiat as their top overall preference, making digital-money convergence one of the most universal findings in the study.”
Methodology had limitations
The Bitcoin Policy Institute said the current study was limited to 36 models tested across six providers, and it would look to expand to additional models in the future.
It also acknowledged that system prompt framing may have influenced the results, adding that “future work will test alternative framings and measure sensitivity.”
This was apparent in some of the “open-ended monetary scenarios” presented to the AI models.
Related: OpenAI pits AI agents against each other to detect smart contract flaws
For example, one scenario asked what financial instrument an AI would choose if it were operating across multiple countries with “75,000 units of accumulated earnings” wanting to store them in a way that is “not tied to any single country’s monetary policy or banking system,” which would already rule out fiat currency.
BPI also said that the AI models’ preferences do not reflect real-world adoption and that the results instead indicate training data patterns.
The study revealed that Anthropic models averaged a 68% Bitcoin preference, whereas OpenAI models averaged 26%, Google’s 43%, and xAI 39%.
Magazine: 6 massive challenges Bitcoin faces on the road to quantum security
XRP price is retesting range lows as open interest drops 70%, putting $1.30 support in focus.
Summary
- XRP trades at $1.34, down sharply from its July 2025 high of $3.65.
- Open interest has fallen from $660M to $203M in five months, led by Binance.
- A daily close below $1.30 could open the door to $1.00, while $1.50 is key for recovery.
XRP (XRP) is back near the bottom of its range amid continued selling pressure. At press time, the token trades at $1.34, down 4.4% in the past 24 hours.
The seven-day range is between $1.28 and $1.48. XRP has fallen 50% over the last week and is now 63% below its July 2025 all-time high of $3.65. Market volatility and risk-off sentiment, partly tied to geopolitical tensions, have weighed on price action.
Open interest drops sharply
A Mar. 3 analysis by CryptoQuant contributor Amr Taha shows a major shift in the futures market. Total XRP open interest across exchanges fell from $660 million on Oct. 6, 2025, to $203 million on March 3, 2026. That’s a 70% drop in five months.
Binance led the decline, while Bitfinex and BitMEX now show only a few million dollars in open contracts.
Open interest tracks the number of active futures positions. When both price and open interest fall together, it often means traders are closing positions or getting liquidated.
The last time Binance XRP open interest dropped to similar levels, around April 2025, price later formed a bottom near $1.80 before rallying. Large leverage wipes have often reset the market in the past, potentially pointing to an upcoming trend change.
XRP price technical analysis
On the daily chart, XRP is testing the $1.30–$1.35 support zone. This level forms the base of the current multi-month range. A daily close below $1.30 would break the structure and expose $1.00–$1.10 as the next downside area. If support holds, price stays in consolidation.
The trend still shows lower highs and lower lows. XRP trades below declining moving averages. For a real shift, price must reclaim the $1.50–$1.60 supply zone and break the last lower high.
Bollinger Bands expanded during the sell-off and are now tightening. When volatility contracts after a sharp move, a larger move often follows. Price sits near the lower band, which shows pressure but can also signal exhaustion.
RSI bounced from oversold levels and is now near 40. Momentum is still weak below 50. A push above 50 would show stronger buying strength.
The current area also holds past liquidity. Stop losses could be triggered and the decline accelerated by a clean break below support. Short covering could lead to a rapid bounce if sellers don’t push lower.
A range recovery and a shift in the short-term momentum would be indicated by a daily close above $1.50. If the price closed below $1.30, there would likely be more drops. XRP is at a crucial turning point, and volatility may soon increase.
YZi Labs commits $100m to Hash Global’s BNB Holdings Fund, pitching BNB as institutional-grade yield infrastructure.
Summary
- YZi Labs commits $100m to Hash Global’s BNB Holdings Fund, positioning BNB as institutional-grade yield infrastructure asset.
- Fund described as “institutional version of BNB Yield Fund,” marking BNB’s formal transition into a structurally advanced stage of its lifecycle.
- BNB trades as both exchange proxy and yield-bearing infrastructure play, with institutional capital now prioritizing structural returns over speculative narratives.
YZi Labs is putting a nine‑figure stamp on its BNB (BNB) thesis, committing $100m to Hash Global’s new BNB Holdings Fund and openly pitching BNB as a yield‑bearing core asset for future financial infrastructure. In an announcement on X, the firm said it is “committing $100M to @HashGlobal’s BNB Holdings Fund,” with head of YZi Labs Ella Zhang arguing that “BNB has become a foundational utility asset with attractive yield, powering the future of financial infrastructure.” The fund is positioned as an institutionalized, yield‑oriented vehicle, with YZi explicitly “inviting more traditional capital to participate in its structural returns and long‑tergrowth.
Hash Global, in its own statement, framed the commitment as a turning point for the BNB capital stack, describing the BNB Holdings Fund as the “institutional version of the BNB Yield Fund” and saying the fresh capital “marks the formal transition of BNB into a structurally advanced stage” of its lifecycle. That language was quickly amplified by market commentators. One observer summarized the shift by noting that “the shift from pure utility to a structural asset class is what most people are missing. Institutionalizing the yield is the real game changer here.” Another called it “BNB’s $100M institutional yield fund,” arguing it “marks BSC’s real maturation” and ties the same infrastructure to “verifiable agricultural yields” and other real‑world on‑chain cash flows.
Not everyone is convinced. One critic pushed back bluntly, asking “why? $bnb literally cripples the market with manipulation why would you align with it?”, capturing the lingering concerns around concentration risk and governance. But even skeptics acknowledge that where capital goes, narratives follow. A widely shared reaction put it this way: “utility acts like gravity for capital. 100M is a solid data point confirming the ecosystem’s maturity. The suits are finally doing the math right.” Another commentator argued that the move “shows how institutional capital is now prioritizing structural alignment with foundational utility assets that deliver real yields rather than chasing speculative narratives,” effectively turning “traditional money into active participants” in BNB’s on‑chain economy.
BNB’s latest price action reflects that tension between structural bid and headline risk, with the token trading as both an exchange proxy and, increasingly, a yield‑bearing infra play watched closely by funds looking for repeatable basis trades. For day‑to‑day traders, the takeaway is simple: if YZi’s $100m check is the opening salvo rather than the full story, BNB’s cost of capital — and its perceived role in crypto’s funding stack — just changed.
Breanna Stewart, Kelsey Plum criticize WNBPA’s handling of CBA negotiations, per report
Quantum Chemistry: AI and Quantum Transform Research
ETFs vs. Stocks EXPLAINED In 30 Seconds #finance
-
Politics5 days agoITV enters Gaza with IDF amid ongoing genocide
-
Politics20 hours agoAlan Cumming Brands Baftas Ceremony A ‘Triggering S**tshow’
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Iris Top
-
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’
-
NewsBeat3 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
-
NewsBeat4 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
-
Business6 days agoDiscord Pushes Implementation of Global Age Checks to Second Half of 2026
-
Entertainment2 days agoBaby Gear Guide: Strollers, Car Seats
-
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
-
NewsBeat2 days 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