Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

From Crypto Treasury to RWA: ETHZilla Retreats and Relaunches as Forum Markets on Nasdaq

Published

on

Nexo Partners with Bakkt for US Crypto Exchange and Yield Programs

TLDR:

  • ETHZilla rebrands as Forum Markets and begins trading under the Nasdaq ticker FRMM starting March 2, 2026.
  • Shares collapsed roughly 96% from their August 2025 peak despite a 13.3% single-day gain on the rebrand news.
  • Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund exited its 7.5% stake in Q4 2025 as ETHZilla’s Ethereum treasury strategy unraveled.
  • Forum Markets shifts focus to regulated, tokenized real-world assets, moving away from single-asset crypto exposure.

ETHZilla is pulling back from its crypto-heavy balance sheet strategy after a dramatic share price collapse. The company announced a full rebrand to Forum Markets, with trading set to begin under the Nasdaq ticker “FRMM” on March 2.

The retreat follows months of investor exits, asset sales, and a sustained decline from last year’s highs. In place of Ethereum treasury holdings, the company is now directing its focus toward tokenized real-world assets built on regulated infrastructure.

ETHZilla Scales Back Crypto Holdings After Sharp Investor Exodus

ETHZilla built its identity around holding Ethereum directly on its balance sheet as a public company. The strategy was designed to give traditional investors exposure to Ethereum without directly purchasing the asset.

Shares soared to $107 on August 13, 2025, shortly after the company revealed plans for a $425 million Ethereum treasury. That announcement followed a pivot away from its earlier biotech business model.

Advertisement

The rally, however, proved short-lived as market conditions deteriorated and enthusiasm faded. The company began selling crypto assets to reduce its exposure as the stock continued sliding.

Investor confidence took a further blow when Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund exited its 7.5% stake during Q4 2025. Accounting for a 1-for-10 stock split executed in October, shares had fallen roughly 98% from their effective peak of $174.60.

The retreat from crypto exposure was gradual but deliberate. ETHZilla reduced its Ethereum holdings while exploring alternative business lines to shore up its equity performance.

One move included entering jet engine leasing through a new subsidiary called ETHZilla Aerospace. That unit tokenized equity in leased engines via the Eurus Aero Token I, deployed on the Arbitrum layer-2 network.

Advertisement

Shares climbed 13.3% to $3.91 on the day the rebrand was announced. Despite that recovery, the stock remains down approximately 96% from its August 2025 peak.

The single-day gain reflects cautious optimism around the company’s new direction. Whether that momentum continues under the Forum Markets name remains to be seen.

RWA Strategy Positions Forum Markets for a More Stable Model

The shift toward tokenized real-world assets marks a fundamental change in how the company plans to generate and sustain value.

Forum Markets intends to develop tokenized products backed by tangible assets using regulated infrastructure. That approach moves away from the volatility associated with holding large crypto positions on a public balance sheet. The aviation leasing venture offered an early preview of where the company is headed.

Advertisement

Vincent Liu, chief investment officer at Kronos Research, addressed the structural risks that drove the retreat. “Single-asset treasury strategies are highly dependent on strong market conditions and sustained equity premiums,” Liu told Decrypt.

He added that treasury-focused firms ultimately need revenue-generating businesses and broader asset exposure to remain relevant long term.

His comments reflect a broader concern within the industry about the sustainability of crypto-only balance sheet models.

Liu also pointed to specific weaknesses tied to Ethereum-focused strategies. He described the model as fragile, noting that its value is “tightly linked to network activity,” thereby creating “a correlation trap where purchasing power weakens during ecosystem downturns.”

Advertisement

Fragmentation across Ethereum’s base layer and its layer-2 networks further dilutes the overall narrative and premium.

He added that the model is “further undermined by the absence of a hard supply cap, leaving its long-term scarcity proposition open to question.”

Forum Markets is set to begin trading under the FRMM ticker on March 2, replacing the former ETHZ symbol on the Nasdaq Capital Market.

The rebrand draws a clear line between the company’s failed crypto treasury experiment and its new asset-backed direction.

Advertisement

The transition reflects a growing recognition that public companies cannot sustain themselves on crypto price appreciation alone. Building regulated, revenue-linked products appears to be the model Forum Markets is now betting on.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Stablecoins Emerge as Financial Infrastructure, but Banks Remain Cautious: S&P Report

Published

on

Mentions of stablecoins in earnings calls surged across banking, fintech, and payments sectors. Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Stablecoins are rapidly evolving beyond their original role in crypto trading, emerging as a key layer of financial infrastructure, according to new research from S&P Global Market Intelligence.

The report highlights a growing shift toward institutional use cases, particularly in cross-border payments, treasury operations, and capital markets, while traditional banks continue to take a cautious, exploratory approach.

Stablecoins Move Beyond Trading

“Stablecoins are evolving beyond a crypto trading tool into a new layer of financial infrastructure,” said Jordan McKee, Director of Fintech Research at S&P Global Market Intelligence.

According to the report, the most meaningful adoption is happening behind the scenes, where stablecoins are improving settlement speed, capital efficiency, and liquidity movement rather than being widely used at the consumer level.

Advertisement

Market Growth Accelerates

The stablecoin market is expanding rapidly:

  • Circulation reached approximately $269 billion in 2025
  • Projected to grow to around $434 billion by 2028
  • Mentions in earnings calls surged to 107 in 2025, up from just five in 2024
Mentions of stablecoins in earnings calls surged across banking, fintech, and payments sectors. Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.
Mentions of stablecoins in earnings calls surged across banking, fintech, and payments sectors. Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

This sharp increase reflects rising interest from banks, fintech firms, and payment providers exploring the role of stablecoins in modern financial systems.

Figure 2: Stablecoins in circulation projected to exceed $400B by 2028
Figure 2: Stablecoins in circulation projected to exceed $400B by 2028

Institutional Use Cases Lead Adoption

Adoption remains concentrated in infrastructure-level applications, including:

  • Cross-border payments
  • Treasury and liquidity management
  • Tokenized capital markets

In these areas, stablecoins are helping reduce settlement times and improve capital mobility across global markets.

Consumer Adoption Still Limited

Despite the growing institutional interest, consumer adoption remains low, especially in developed markets.

Only 12% of U.S. consumers report familiarity with stablecoins, with concerns around security, fraud, and lack of clear use cases acting as key barriers.

Banks Take a Wait-and-See Approach

The report also reveals a significant gap between infrastructure development and institutional readiness.

Advertisement

Among 100 primarily smaller U.S. financial institutions surveyed:

  • Only 7% are developing internal stablecoin frameworks
  • None are actively piloting stablecoin initiatives

This suggests that while the technology is advancing quickly, many banks are still evaluating how and when to engage.

Regulation and Competition to Shape the Future

Since the start of 2025, at least 19 applications for banking charters related to digital asset services have been submitted to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

As the market matures, S&P Global Market Intelligence expects adoption to be driven less by consumer usage and more by:

  • Institutional integration
  • Regulatory frameworks
  • Competition across issuance, liquidity, and distribution

The report concludes that stablecoins are entering a critical infrastructure buildout phase, which will likely define their role in the global financial system over the coming years.

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

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Crypto Card Fees Explained: Hidden Costs To Know

Published

on

Crypto Card Fees Explained: Hidden Costs To Know

A crypto card can look simple. You tap to pay, shop online, or withdraw cash, and it works much like a regular card.

Still, the total cost is not always obvious. Depending on the provider, users may pay blockchain fees, conversion costs, foreign exchange charges, ATM fees, or merchant markups. Some of those costs appear clearly. Others are built into the rate or show up only at checkout.

That is why the real cost of a crypto card is not one single fee. It is the total cost of moving funds, converting them, and spending them.

Network fees can start before you even spend

The first cost can appear when a user moves crypto into a wallet or account linked to the card. In that case, the blockchain may charge a network fee, often called a gas fee.

Advertisement

That fee usually does not come from the card provider. Instead, it comes from the network that processes the transaction. As a result, the cost can change depending on which blockchain the user picks and how busy that network is.

So even before the card is used for a purchase, the funding step may already carry a cost.

The exchange rate can include a hidden conversion cost

Many crypto cards convert crypto into fiat at the moment of payment. In some cases, that conversion cost appears as a stated fee. In other cases, it sits inside the exchange rate itself.

That difference matters. A card may look cheap on paper, but the user may still pay more through the rate used to convert crypto into dollars, euros, or another currency.

Advertisement

So when comparing cards, users should not look only at the fee page. They should also look at how the provider handles conversion.

Foreign purchases can trigger FX fees

When a card is used in a different currency, foreign exchange fees can apply. That is common when users travel, shop on foreign websites, or withdraw cash abroad.

In some cases, the card network sets one rate and the issuer adds its own FX fee on top. That means the final cost can rise even when the transaction goes through normally.

This is one reason why cross border spending often costs more than a domestic purchase.

Advertisement

DCC is one of the clearest ways to overpay

Another common cost appears at the terminal. When a user pays abroad, the merchant or ATM may ask whether to charge the card in the users home currency instead of the local one. That is Dynamic Currency Conversion, or DCC.

It often looks convenient, but it usually costs more. BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation, said consumers are financially worse off in practically every single casewhen they accept DCC. The same paper cited research showing DCC was on average 7.6% more expensive in one study, while the highest markup reached 12.4%.

So the cleaner option is usually the local currency, not the home currency shown on the screen.

A simple DCC example

Option

Advertisement

What happens

Typical result

Pay in your home currency through DCC The merchant or ATM converts the purchase Often a worse rate than letting the card network handle it
Pay in the local currency The card network and issuer handle the conversion Usually the more standard and lower cost route

That difference may look small on one purchase. Still, it adds up across repeated payments and withdrawals. BEUCs paper also found examples where payment markups in stores ranged from 2% to 5%, while ATM DCC increases ran from 2.6% to 12% in one dataset.

ATM withdrawals can stack several fees at once

Cash withdrawals are another area where costs can pile up fast. First, the ATM operator may charge its own fee. Then the card issuer may add a withdrawal fee. If the withdrawal is in a foreign currency, an FX fee may apply as well.

Advertisement

So one ATM transaction can combine several charges in a single step. That is why withdrawing cash is often one of the more expensive ways to use a crypto card.

Users should check both the card providers fee schedule and the ATM screen before confirming the transaction.

Card holds are not fees, but they still affect spending

Not every unexpected charge is a fee. Hotels, fuel stations, car rentals, and some online merchants often place a temporary hold on the card before the final charge settles.

That hold reduces the available balance for a period of time. Later, the merchant posts the final amount and releases the unused part.

So while a hold is not a direct cost, it can still confuse users and make the card balance look lower than expected.

Advertisement

Other small charges can still matter

Some crypto cards also charge for physical card shipping, replacement cards, premium plans, or inactivity. These costs are not the same across the market, so they should not be treated as universal.

That is why the fee page matters as much as the headline promise. A provider may advertise low spending fees while charging in other places.

In short, the total cost depends on the full structure, not one line in the marketing copy.

What cost can look like in practice

A user may pay one fee to move crypto onchain, another cost through the conversion rate, another fee on a foreign purchase, and another markup if DCC is accepted by mistake. Then, if the same user withdraws cash abroad, ATM and FX charges may come on top.

Advertisement

KAST’s public fee page offers one example of how that structure can work. It says non-USD card purchases carry a foreign exchange fee of 0.5% to 1.75%, depending on the countries involved. It also says ATM withdrawals cost $3 plus 2% of the withdrawal amount, with the same 0.5% to 1.75% FX fee added for non-USD withdrawals.

That example does not make crypto cards unusually expensive. It simply shows that the total cost often comes from several layers, not one headline fee.

If you want to see how a real fee schedule is laid out before you travel or spend abroad, take a minute to explore KAST.

The main point on cost

Crypto cards are easier to understand when each cost is separated clearly. The main ones to watch are network fees, conversion costs, FX fees, DCC markups, ATM charges, and temporary holds.

Advertisement

Among them, DCC remains one of the clearest traps because it can make a transaction more expensive without adding any real benefit for the cardholder. BEUCs findings underline that point.

So the simplest rule is this: check how the card handles conversion, read the fee page before using it abroad, and choose the local currency when a terminal gives you the choice.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Enhanced Labs raises $1 million to widen on-chain options yield

Published

on

Virtuals Protocol brings AI agent commerce to Arbitrum in new integration

Enhanced Labs raised a $1 million pre-seed led by Maximum Frequency Ventures to expand options-based yield strategies across on-chain and tokenized real-world assets.

Summary

  • Enhanced Labs secures $1 million pre-seed round led by Maximum Frequency Ventures.
  • Backers include GSR, Selini, Flowdesk and several angel investors.
  • Funds will expand options-based yield strategies to more on-chain and tokenized real-world assets.

U.S.-based DeFi infrastructure startup Enhanced Labs has closed a $1 million pre-seed funding round to expand its options-based yield products across a wider range of on-chain assets, including tokenized real-world assets. The round was led by Maximum Frequency Ventures, with market-making and trading firms GSR, Selini and Flowdesk joining alongside a group of undisclosed angel investors. According to the company, the capital will be used to support product development, operations and go-to-market efforts.

Advertisement

Enhanced Labs positions itself as a provider of “options-based yield strategies” designed to sit on top of existing DeFi and tokenization rails, rather than competing directly with spot lending or simple staking. By extending these structured strategies to tokenized real-world assets, the firm is effectively betting that on-chain treasuries, credit, commodities and other RWAs will need the same kind of yield engineering and risk-transfer mechanisms that already exist in traditional markets. The goal is to package those exposures in a way that can be deployed programmatically, but still remain accessible to institutions that need clearer risk parameters than typical DeFi products offer.

Backing from names like GSR, Selini and Flowdesk suggests Enhanced Labs is targeting the intersection of market-making, derivatives and on-chain liquidity rather than retail-facing savings products. For these investors, options-based yield on tokenized assets is not just a new narrative but a potential source of structured flow if RWAs continue to move on-chain. The pre-seed size is modest by bull-market standards, but at this stage the more important signal is that specialized trading firms are willing to seed infrastructure aimed at making RWAs behave more like fully featured, hedgeable collateral.

If Enhanced Labs executes, it could help close one of the gaps in today’s tokenization pitch: plenty of projects can put a bond or a real-estate claim on-chain, but far fewer can offer a robust menu of ways to hedge, lever or generate predictable income on top of those assets. Whether a $1 million war chest is enough to build those tools—while navigating the regulatory and risk constraints that come with engineering yield on real-world exposures—remains an open question.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

DOJ and CFTC Seek Halt to Arizona Action Against Kalshi

Published

on

DOJ and CFTC Seek Halt to Arizona Action Against Kalshi

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) and Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) asked a federal court to block Arizona from enforcing state gambling law against Kalshi’s event contracts, arguing that they fall under the CFTC’s exclusive authority over swaps markets.

The Wednesday filing argues that event contracts listed on federally regulated platforms such as Kalshi are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and therefore fall within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.

The filing says Arizona’s enforcement effort unlawfully intrudes on the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over federally regulated event-contract markets.

If granted, the order would block Arizona from applying its gambling laws to prediction markets that are listed as federally regulated event contracts. An arraignment in the criminal case against Kalshi is currently scheduled for Monday.

Advertisement

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced charges against the companies behind Kalshi on March 17, accusing them of operating an “illegal gambling business in Arizona without a license” and offering illegal election wagering.

Kalshi co-founder and CEO, Tarek Mansour, claimed the charges were a “total overstep” and “not about gambling.”

Federal and state regulators clash over prediction markets

The dispute has become a major test of whether prediction market contracts belong under federal commodities law or state betting rules.

CFTC, DOJ court filing seeking a TRO against Arizona federal court in case against Kalshi, Case No: CV-26-01715-PHX-MTL. Source: Courtlistener

On April 2, the CFTC filed three separate lawsuits against the gaming regulators of Illinois, Connecticut and Arizona, claiming that the event contracts offered by the platforms violated state gambling laws and licensing requirements.

In those suits, the CFTC says it has exclusive jurisdiction over CFTC-registered designated contract markets that list lawful event contracts. Kalshi is the clearest example in the current litigation.

Advertisement

Related: Kalshi, Polymarket face trading halt in Nevada after court rulings

Prediction markets are facing growing regulatory pressure in the US, where 11 states have pursued legal action against them.

Prediction market activity has been rising since the beginning of the US and Israeli military conflict with Iran, fueling renewed insider trading allegations, after six Polymarket traders netted $1 million by accurately betting when the US would strike Iran.

In response to insider trading concerns, Democratic Party Senator Adam Schiff has introduced legislation seeking to ban prediction markets on war, death and terrorism.

Advertisement

Magazine: Train AI agents to make better predictions… for token rewards