A regulatory push in South Korea over a 22% tax on crypto investment gains has entered a pivotal phase. A petition urging the government to scrap or revise the levy has surpassed the threshold for the Finance and Economic Planning Committee to formally review objections to the new tax regime. The petition’s momentum signals growing domestic scrutiny of a policy designed to tax crypto profits alongside broader asset classes.

The 22% tax, scheduled to take effect in January 2027, aims to formalize a long-debated approach to crypto earnings. Critics argue the levy would create financial and reporting burdens for investors and could hamper mobility for younger people already priced out of housing markets, according to the petition’s authors. The push has gained significant traction on social platforms and government portals, highlighting a regulatory moment as authorities weigh implementation and potential carve-outs or exemptions.

The petition now exceeds 52,000 signatures, well above the initial threshold, according to official records from the South Korea Assembly. The growing backing underscores concerns that the tax might shift capital flows or talent away from the domestic crypto sector if implemented as proposed.

“If taxation is enforced in order to secure short-term tax revenues, it is likely to lead to greater losses in the long term, namely, a contraction of industry and an outflow of capital and talent abroad.”

The debate occurs as South Korea cements its status as a central hub for crypto activity in the Asia-Pacific region. Yonhap, citing local data, noted that about 32% of the population owned cryptocurrencies in March 2025. While ownership has cooled somewhat in the face of ongoing price pressure, the country remains a focal point for exchange activity, innovation, and regulatory development.

In context, the broader policy landscape continues to trend toward tighter controls and higher compliance burdens for the industry. A related development referenced by observers concerns forthcoming rules around tokenized securities as part of broader regulation of digital assets, which regulators have signaled will be accompanied by risk-based oversight and licensing considerations.

Key takeaways

• The South Korean 22% crypto gains tax faces formal review after a petition threshold was met, signaling intensified regulatory scrutiny ahead of a 2027 rollout.
• Petition authors argue the tax, coupled with narrower favorable treatment for other assets, could undercut market share and long-term growth, warning of potential capital and talent outflows.
• Market indicators show a material contraction in domestic crypto activity, with holdings and daily volumes declining as regulatory measures tighten.
• Regulators have proposed stricter AML/KYC controls, including automatic flagging of large transfers involving foreign wallets, prompting pushback from exchanges on operational burdens.

Market dynamics and tightening controls

Industry data indicate a sharp decline in the value of crypto held domestically, dropping from about 121.8 trillion won in January 2025 to roughly 60.6 trillion won in February 2026. Daily trading volumes on South Korea’s five largest exchanges—Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit and Gopax—fell from about $11.6 billion in December 2024 to around $3 billion in February 2026, underscoring a tightened market environment amid evolving regulatory requirements. CoinGecko data cited the volumes as a barometer of relatively cautious investor activity during a period of policy flux.

Regulatory authorities have also sharpened oversight through AML and KYC measures. In March, the Financial Services Commission and the Financial Intelligence Unit proposed automatic flagging of all crypto transactions over 10 million won ($6,630) sent to or from foreign wallets. Industry associations have argued that such reporting would impose operational burdens on exchanges and could raise compliance costs without delivering commensurate risk mitigation.

These steps come as the country contends with a broader push to balance innovation with investor protection and financial stability. The dynamic is being watched closely by exchanges, institutional investors, and global observers who are weighing how South Korea’s approach fits into evolving cross-border regulatory standards and potential alignment with broader market frameworks.

Beyond domestic measures, observers note a broader regulatory cadence shaping the sector—one that intersects with international standards and regional policy initiatives. While details vary by jurisdiction, the global trend toward enhanced transparency, licensing, and supervisory oversight remains a central driver of strategic planning for crypto firms seeking to operate in multiple markets. In related coverage, Cointelegraph reported on forthcoming July rules for tokenized securities in South Korea, illustrating how policy shifts can redefine product categories and licensing requirements for market participants.

Policy context and institutional implications

South Korea’s evolving regime sits within a global environment of intensified crypto regulation. The country’s tax policy, AML/KYC enhancements, and licensing expectations intersect with international efforts to standardize oversight and enforcement. For exchanges and financial institutions, the immediate implications lie in compliance design, tax reporting complexities, and capital-planning considerations tied to a potentially more burdensome operating landscape. Firms operating in or with exposure to the Korean market must assess licensing trajectories, cross-border transaction controls, and the interplay between domestic rules and international regulatory expectations.

For policymakers, the central questions include how to calibrate tax policy to support innovation while preserving tax revenue and financial stability, and how to align domestic rules with evolving international standards without stifling growth. The petition’s momentum highlights the importance of stakeholder engagement in shaping the practical dimensions of taxation, reporting obligations, and enforcement priorities in a fast-moving sector.

Institutions should monitor not only the petition’s progression through the Finance and Economic Planning Committee but also the government’s response to tightening AML/KYC rules and the potential for phased or alternative frameworks that could soften the impact on smaller participants while preserving safeguards.

What changes next is contingent on committee deliberations, regulatory consultations, and the industry’s ability to demonstrate cost-effective compliance and robust risk controls. The coming months will reveal whether adjustments to the tax design or transitional relief measures emerge, or whether the 2027 implementation timeline remains unchanged.

Closing perspective: As South Korea navigates a pivotal policy crossroads, lenders, exchanges, and funds with exposure to the Korean market should prepare for ongoing regulatory development, heightened reporting expectations, and potential shifts in investment strategies in response to the evolving tax and compliance regime.

South Korea’s planned 22% tax on crypto investment gains is moving into a new phase as a petition against the regime surpasses the threshold for a formal review. The petition, calling for scrapping or revising the tax, has crossed 50,000 signatures and now sits above 52,000, triggering the Finance and Economic Planning Committee to consider objections to the new framework. The tax is slated to take effect in January 2027, a timeline critics say could burden investors and curb innovation at a time when Korea remains a major crypto hub in the Asia-Pacific region.

The petition’s authors argue that taxing crypto gains at 22% while granting other asset classes preferential treatment undermines Korea’s competitiveness in the global crypto market. In a translated statement included with the petition, they warned that short-term revenue motives could backfire, leading to long-term losses for the economy as talent and capital move abroad.

“If taxation is enforced in order to secure short-term tax revenues, it is likely to lead to greater losses in the long term, namely, a contraction of industry and an outflow of capital and talent abroad.”

The growing support for the petition underscores a broader debate about how to tax digital assets without stifling growth in a sector that many investors view as a strategic pillar for the country’s future fintech ecosystem. The petition’s momentum comes alongside other policy headlines and a broader tightening of regulatory controls on crypto activity.

Key takeaways

• Petition against the 22% crypto tax has surpassed 52,000 signatures, meeting the threshold that triggers official consideration by Korea’s Finance and Economic Planning Committee.
• The tax is scheduled to begin in January 2027, with critics arguing it imposes burdens on investors and could dampen Korea’s crypto innovation and talent retention.
• Market data show a notable contraction in Korea’s crypto sector, even as the country remains a regional hub; total holdings and trading volumes have declined since late 2024.
• Tighter AML/KYC measures are tightening the regulatory envelope, including automatic flagging of crypto transfers above 10 million won to or from foreign wallets.
• Ownership remains sizable but fragile: Yonhap reported about 32% of the population owned crypto as of March 2025, a figure under pressure as prices and regulations weigh on participation.

Policy review in motion as petition grows

At the heart of the current debate is a straightforward question: how should Korea tax gains from digital assets in a manner that preserves competitiveness while funding public needs? The petition asserts that the 22% levy, which would apply to investment gains on crypto assets, would add a disproportionate burden on individual investors and could distort tax equity when compared with other asset classes. The petition’s authors contend that a rushed or overly aggressive approach could deter participation in Korea’s crypto markets and push builders and capital toward friendlier jurisdictions.

The formal review triggered by the petition does not guarantee a change in policy, but it does elevate the policy discussion to the legislative stage. Stakeholders across the crypto industry—exchanges, wallets, and advisory firms—have been watching closely as the country tests a balance between tax stability, consumer protection, and market vitality.

Market dynamics amid tighter rules and a cooling market

Even as policy discussions intensify, industry data paints a picture of a sector under pressure. Korea has long been a major crypto participant, but several metrics point to a contraction in recent years. Yonhap, citing local data, reported that ownership of cryptocurrencies stood at about 32% of the population in March 2025. While that figure signals broad familiarity with digital assets, it also sits against a backdrop of price volatility and regulatory scrutiny that has tempered enthusiasm.

Numbers on market size and activity illustrate the trend. Industry data show that the total value of crypto held by Koreans declined from around 121.8 trillion won (approximately $83.3 billion) in January 2025 to about 60.6 trillion won (roughly $41.4 billion) in February 2026. In the same period, daily trading volumes on the country’s five largest exchanges—Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax—fell sharply, from about $11.6 billion in December 2024 to around $3 billion in February 2026. Analysts describe a move toward the broader stock market or other asset classes as part of a shifting investment calculus amid regulatory tightening and crypto price pressure.

Analysts and industry observers point to a tightening regulatory regime as a key factor. In particular, Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) proposed measures in March 2026 that would require automatic flagging of crypto transactions above 10 million won ($6,630) sent to or from foreign wallets. While policymakers argue these steps improve AML outcomes and market integrity, critics say the operational burden could dampen exchange activity and complicate cross-border trading for ordinary investors. Industry associations have pushed back against such reporting requirements, cautioning that they could impose substantial compliance costs and hinder everyday usage of crypto services.

South Korea’s regulatory trajectory sits within a broader regional context where jurisdictions are recalibrating how to treat digital assets—balancing consumer protection, tax revenue, and market growth. The effect on korean exchanges, liquidity, and competitiveness will be an important reference point for other markets watching for federal or provincial-level policy templates.

What comes next for policy and participation

With the petition now positioned to prompt formal consideration, observers will be watching not only for a potential revision to the tax rate but also for any adjustments to enforcement timelines, reporting requirements, or grace periods that might accompany a policy shift. The government’s stance remains that tax policy should reflect risk management, revenue needs, and fair treatment of different asset classes; the counterargument emphasizes the need to protect Korea’s market share as a leading crypto hub and to avoid inadvertently driving activity underground or abroad.

Readers should monitor statements from the Finance and Economic Planning Committee, as well as updates from the FSC and FIU, for signals about any forthcoming amendments or clarifications. In parallel, industry groups and users will likely rally behind or challenge specific provisions, particularly around reporting obligations and the treatment of gains versus other investment instruments.

For context, Korea’s policy environment continues to evolve in tandem with related developments, including reported moves toward tokenized securities rules slated for July and ongoing debates about how best to tax and regulate digital assets. As the landscape shifts, market participants will weigh how any potential changes could affect holdings, liquidity, and the practicalities of trading across borders.

Related reading: coverage of Korea’s tokenized securities framework and broader regulatory stance offers additional context for how crypto policy is evolving in one of Asia’s most active markets.

In the near term, the main watch is how the Finance and Economic Planning Committee interprets and acts on the petition, and whether policymakers offer adjustments that could steer the tax regime toward a balance between revenue needs and market vitality. The outcome will likely influence not only investors’ approach to Korea’s crypto markets but also the strategic considerations of exchanges, developers, and users navigating Korea’s increasingly complex regulatory terrain.

Bitget has launched a global campaign called the “Gold Fast or Go Home Challenge” to promote faster access to gold CFD trading through its mobile application. The campaign follows the company’s decision to move traditional finance products to a first-level homepage tab inside the app.

The update allows users to access gold CFDs, forex pairs, commodities, and indices with fewer navigation steps. As a result, Bitget aims to improve execution speed for traders who actively monitor macro-sensitive markets such as gold.

The challenge asks participants to record themselves opening the Bitget app, entering the TradFi section, and completing an XAUUSD trade in the shortest possible time. Users then share their attempts on social media platforms as part of a global speed-focused trading competition.

Bitget designed the campaign around accessibility and execution efficiency. The exchange also linked the initiative to the growing popularity of short-form trading content across digital platforms.

Bitget Expands Unified Multi-Asset Access

The campaign also reflects Bitget’s wider strategy to integrate traditional financial products into crypto-native trading environments. The platform currently supports crypto assets, tokenized stocks, ETFs, forex products, commodities, and precious metals within one trading ecosystem.

Users can access multiple asset classes through a single account structure instead of switching between separate platforms or wallets. According to the company, this setup reduces trading friction and improves capital movement between markets.

Gracy Chen said users increasingly move between crypto and traditional markets during periods of macroeconomic volatility. She stated that the platform aims to simplify access to these products while supporting faster execution inside the app environment.

Bitget repositioned its TradFi section to the homepage earlier in 2026 as part of a broader effort to streamline trading activity across asset categories. The company stated that execution speed and market accessibility remain central to its Universal Exchange strategy.

Gold Trading Activity Gains Momentum

Global gold trading activity has continued to increase as investors monitor inflation trends, interest rate expectations, geopolitical tensions, and central bank gold purchases. During volatile market periods, many traders use gold CFDs to gain exposure to macro-sensitive assets without leaving digital trading ecosystems.

Across crypto platforms, demand for gold-related products has expanded alongside interest in diversified trading options. Exchanges now compete to provide unified access to crypto and traditional financial products through a single interface.

Bitget stated that its TradFi expansion aligns with broader market demand for integrated multi-asset trading. The platform currently serves users across more than 150 regions and continues expanding access to tokenized and traditional financial instruments within one ecosystem.

Ripple Prime expanded its institutional strategy after integrating with crypto platform EDX Markets. The partnership introduced unified access to spot trading and perpetual futures through centralized clearing and netting services. However, Ripple USD (RLUSD) became the main settlement asset, while XRP remained absent from the public-facing framework.

RLUSD Takes Center Stage in Institutional Expansion

Ripple Prime confirmed that the EDX integration supports institutional trading with centralized operational infrastructure. The framework combines spot markets and perpetual futures under one settlement structure. Consequently, RLUSD now serves as the preferred collateral and settlement asset within the system.

EDX Markets operates with backing from major financial firms, including Citadel Securities and Fidelity Investments. These firms continue supporting regulated digital assets with lower volatility exposure. Therefore, RLUSD fits institutional compliance demands more effectively than XRP.

Ripple structured RLUSD as a dollar-backed stablecoin for regulated financial environments. The asset provides predictable settlement conditions for clearing operations and margin management. Meanwhile, the company positioned the stablecoin as a bridge between traditional finance and digital asset infrastructure.

XRP Shifts Away from Public Settlement Narrative

The EDX announcement triggered debate across the XRP community and institutional trading circles. Market participants questioned XRP’s absence from the partnership’s settlement structure and marketing material. Consequently, discussions emerged about XRP’s long-term role inside Ripple’s institutional strategy.

Evernorth Treasury, identified as a large institutional XRP holder, responded with a technical document addressing the issue. The report argued that RLUSD and XRP serve separate functions within Ripple’s broader ecosystem. Furthermore, the document described RLUSD as an external compliance-friendly layer for regulated finance.

The report also positioned XRP as a decentralized bridge asset operating beneath institutional settlement systems. According to the analysis, XRP continues to support instant asset conversion across different liquidity environments. However, the token no longer appears positioned as the primary public settlement product for Wall Street partnerships.

Ripple Separates Compliance Layer from Core Infrastructure

Ripple’s latest institutional direction reflects growing pressure from regulators and financial institutions across the digital asset sector. Stablecoins continue attracting interest because they reduce volatility risks during large-scale settlement operations. As a result, RLUSD now occupies a stronger position in Ripple’s enterprise-facing strategy.

RLUSD remains connected to banking reserves and compliance oversight through centralized issuer controls. Authorities can freeze wallets or enforce regulatory actions under existing financial rules. Therefore, traditional financial firms consider the stablecoin more compatible with institutional risk frameworks.

XRP operates differently because the token functions through a decentralized ledger infrastructure without centralized issuer intervention. Ripple now appears to separate its regulated financial products from its decentralized liquidity network. Consequently, RLUSD leads the institutional narrative, while XRP continues to support backend liquidity and cross-asset transfers.

Ripple Balances Institutional Demand and Crypto Infrastructure

Ripple has continued expanding its institutional business following years of regulatory disputes in the United States. The company increasingly focuses on payment infrastructure, tokenized finance, and regulated digital asset products. Meanwhile, RLUSD represents Ripple’s strongest push into traditional financial settlement markets.

The broader crypto industry also shows rising demand for stablecoin-based settlement systems among exchanges and institutional firms. Several trading platforms now prefer dollar-backed digital assets for collateral and operational efficiency. Therefore, Ripple’s RLUSD strategy aligns with the broader industry movement toward regulated digital dollar products.

XRP remains one of Ripple’s core ecosystem assets despite reduced visibility in institutional marketing campaigns. The token continues supporting liquidity operations across Ripple’s blockchain infrastructure and payment systems. However, RLUSD now dominates the company’s Wall Street-facing expansion strategy and institutional clearing narrative.

MoonPay is launching MoonPay Trade, a new institutional platform that promises banks and fintechs unified access to tokenized assets, DeFi protocols and stablecoin liquidity across more than 200 blockchains.

According to CoinDesk, MoonPay introduced on May 21 MoonPay Trade as a dedicated trading and execution stack for its institutional clients. The platform is aimed at banks, fintech companies and enterprise clients, offering a single gateway to tokenized assets, DeFi protocols and stablecoin liquidity that spans more than 200 blockchain networks.

According to Keith Grossman, President of Moonpay, the new layer of crypto payments will contain built in execution layers able to seamlessly integrate and provide the ability to make retail payments.

The President recently posted on social media a Fox News anchor making the argument that “stablecoins are the future.”

Accordingly, MoonPay said MoonPay Trade will act as the core execution layer for its newly launched MoonPay Institutional business, which the company built on top of its recent acquisition of Israeli digital asset security firm Sodot.

In this way, MoonPay Institutional is designed to serve financial institutions, asset managers, trading firms and exchanges, providing secure key management, cross‑chain collateral management and access to digital asset markets and DeFi.

From retail on‑ramps to institutional rails, where does Moonpay stand?

Since its inception, MoonPay has been best known as a retail fiat‑to‑crypto on‑ramp embedded in wallets, exchanges and consumer apps. MoonPay Trade marks a shift toward deeper infrastructure: rather than just selling crypto to end users, the company now wants to power banks and fintechs as they plug into tokenized capital markets and DeFi liquidity.

Advertisement

MoonPay now says Trade will support tokenized fund subscriptions, allowing institutions to buy into tokenized funds and structured products directly on chain, using stablecoins and tokenized cash equivalents as rails.

The platform also supports collateral transfers, enabling institutions to move tokenized collateral across chains and venues, and integrates with DeFi protocols such as Aave, Morpho and Maple Finance so that clients can lend, borrow and generate yield directly on chain through a single interface.

Under the hood, MoonPay is leaning on the multi‑party computation (MPC) wallet technology it acquired with Sodot to secure institutional keys and automate complex on‑chain workflows without exposing private keys or requiring clients to manage raw wallets. The company says it now serves more than 30 million customers across 180 countries and works with over 500 enterprise clients, experience it plans to leverage as it pivots toward being an institutional DeFi access layer.

Advertisement

Competing for institutional DeFi flow, how do other DeFi players stack up?

This all comes as only an estimated 10% of RWA Liquidity is active in DeFi protocols. As of May 21, research by Tanaka shows the RWA market is exploding, but DeFi is barely participating: only about 10% of tokenized assets sit in DeFi, and of roughly 7 billion dollars in tokenized gold and commodities on-chain, just 184 million dollars is actually deployed in DeFi protocols.

MoonPay Trade thus drops into an increasingly crowded field of institutional DeFi access platforms, where players like Fireblocks, Circle, Coinbase and BitGo are all vying to become the default pipes into tokenized funds and on‑chain credit markets.

The company’s pitch now seems to be a combination of consumer reach, stablecoin infrastructure, and new institutional custody and execution stack can make it an all‑in‑one gateway for banks and fintechs that do not want to stitch together multiple vendors.

In that sense, MoonPay Trade is both a product launch and a strategic reorientation, signaling that the company intends to compete not just as a retail checkout button, but as a full‑stack infrastructure provider for the era of tokenized and composable finance.

Advertisement

Harvard Management Company, which oversees Harvard University’s endowment, disclosed in its first-quarter 2026 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has exited Ethereum exposure and reduced its Bitcoin holdings. The filing shows Harvard no longer holds approximately $87 million worth of BlackRock iShares Ethereum Trust ETF shares that were active in Q4 2025. By contrast, Harvard trimmed its Bitcoin ETF stake by about 2.3 million shares in Q1 2026, while continuing to own more than 3 million shares of BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF, valued at around $117 million.

These moves unfold amid a period of volatility for Ethereum, which price-wise has pulled back from late-2025 peaks, and as the Ethereum ecosystem faces leadership changes. In March, the Ethereum Foundation published a mandate outlining priorities around decentralization, privacy, open-source software, and censorship resistance—a framework that sparked a mixed reception within the crypto community.

Key takeaways

• Harvard fully exited its Ethereum exposure via the BlackRock iShares Ethereum Trust ETF, removing a position previously valued at about $87 million.
• The endowment reduced its Bitcoin ETF exposure by roughly 2.3 million shares in Q1 2026, but still holds more than 3 million shares of the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF, worth about $117 million.
• Ethereum’s price action has cooled after its August 2025 highs, with a decline of more than 50% from the all-time peak, as the ecosystem undergoes organizational changes at the Ethereum Foundation.
• Eight Ethereum Foundation departures were recorded in 2026 to date, including researchers Julian Ma and Carl Beek, with Josh Stark leaving earlier in April, signaling ongoing governance and staffing pressures.
• The Foundation’s March mandate outlining decentralization, privacy, open-source code, and censorship resistance drew debate about whether the EF should broaden its focus to tokenomics and price signaling to sustain ecosystem growth.

Harvard’s ETH exit and BTC position rebalancing

According to Harvard Management Company’s Q1 2026 13F filing with the SEC, Harvard eliminated its Ethereum-related exposure through the BlackRock iShares Ethereum Trust ETF. The stake, previously reported as about $87 million in Q4 2025, no longer appears in the latest disclosure. At the same time, Harvard reduced its exposure to Bitcoin by selling roughly 2.3 million Bitcoin ETF shares in Q1 2026.

Despite the reductions in ETH and BTC ETF positions, Harvard’s portfolio maintains a sizable stake in crypto via the BlackRock iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF—more than 3 million shares valued at around $117 million. The portfolio shift suggests a tilt away from single-asset crypto sleeves toward broader, issuer-backed ETF exposure and potential liquidity considerations amid volatile price action.

For readers tracking the SEC filings, the ETH-focused holding is documented in Harvard’s Q1 2026 13F filing here: Harvard’s Q1 2026 13F (ETH), and the BTC-focused filing is here: Harvard’s Q1 2026 13F (BTC).

Ethereum Foundation: leadership changes and a charged mandate

Beyond Harvard’s portfolio moves, the Ethereum Foundation (EF) has faced a sustained wave of departures in 2026. Two researchers, Julian Ma and Carl Beek, announced their exit, joining Josh Stark, a longtime EF researcher and former project manager, who left in April. Together with other departures since early 2026, the EF has seen eight exits this year, underscoring ongoing governance and staffing pressures that intersect with broader ecosystem dynamics.

The EF’s March mandate laid out core ambitions for the foundation, emphasizing decentralization, privacy, open-source software, and censorship resistance as enduring pillars. Public reception within the crypto community was mixed: while some observers highlighted the aspirational value of these principles, others urged a stronger emphasis on tokeneomics and the price trajectory of Ethereum to sustain ecosystem momentum. In commentary on the mandate, journalist Laura Shin characterized the pillars as “great” and “worth fighting for” but suggested the EF should not overlook practical strategy, including tokenomics and market signals, as competition intensifies in the sector. See Shin’s remarks here: Laura Shin on the EF mandate.

The broader narrative around EF leadership underscores a tension: maintaining decentralized governance and openness while remaining relevant in a market where developers, users, and capital are competing for traction. The March mandate signals a reaffirmation of foundational ideals, even as market participants and scholars debate how these ideals translate into real-world incentives for developers, validators, and investors.

Context and what to watch next

Harvard’s retreat from ETH and the EF’s ongoing staffing shifts come against a backdrop of crypto market volatility and evolving regulatory scrutiny. The endowment’s actions suggest a cautious stance toward crypto exposure, favoring bundled, institutionally backed vehicles over direct single-asset bets in a landscape where policy developments and market sentiment can swing quickly. For investors and builders, the next few quarters will be telling: will large, traditional endowments continue to recalibrate crypto allocations in favor of diversified ETF access, or will they re-enter targeted bets as liquidity and regulatory clarity improve?

As for the Ethereum ecosystem, observers will be watching how EF leadership decisions align with the network’s development roadmap, ecosystem health, and tokeneconomics, especially given the price dynamics since the August 2025 peak. The coming quarterly filings and ongoing EF governance developments will help gauge whether the foundation’s stated principles translate into tangible incentives for network growth and participant engagement.

Readers should monitor Harvard’s next SEC filing and any further shifts in EF leadership or policy direction to determine whether the current trend signals a broader institutional recalibration of crypto exposure or a temporary repositioning within a longer-term strategic framework.

Kraken has launched AVAX staking for eligible users globally, offering up to 10% APY on bonded positions.

Kraken announced AVAX staking on May 21 with three earning options: Bonded Staking up to 10% APY for a limited time, then 7% APY. Auto Earn and Flexible Staking each offer up to 3.5% APY.

“Staking AVAX has always been possible, but for most holders it’s meant managing validators and technical complexity. We made it simple for clients to participate in protocol staking across various Earn offerings. Kraken runs the infrastructure,” said John Zettler, Kraken Director of Earn Products.