Connect with us

Crypto World

How Gate Is Expanding Its Crypto ETF Market Position

Published

on

How Gate Is Expanding Its Crypto ETF Market Position

Over the past two years, the landscape for crypto derivatives has shifted dramatically. A significant contraction in the supply of ETF leveraged tokens has occurred across top-tier exchanges. Platforms that previously championed these products have initiated phased suspensions, halted subscriptions, or delisted leveraged pairs entirely throughout 2024 and 2025. However, the demand for leverage among traders has not vanished. It has simply been displaced.

In this environment of market retrenchment, Gate has taken a contrarian approach. Rather than withdrawing, Gate has doubled down, treating ETF leveraged tokens not as a niche add-on, but as a core product line. By prioritizing transparent mechanisms and a unified low-fee framework, Gate has transformed what was once a complex instrument into a scalable, user-friendly tactical tool.

Why Exchanges Are Leaving

In the context of crypto, ETFs generally refer to ETF Leveraged Tokens. These are tokenized instruments traded on the spot market that track perpetual futures positions, allowing users to gain leveraged exposure (e.g., 3x Long BTC) without managing margin or liquidation prices.

Despite their utility, these products are highly structured. Without robust risk controls and clear user education, they are susceptible to volatility decay in ranging markets. Consequently, major platforms have exited the space to minimize compliance risks and user disputes. For example, exchange no. 1. phased out leveraged token services in early 2024, eventually discontinuing support, and exchange no. 2. followed suit in late 2025, issuing batch delisting announcements for BTC and other major assets.

Advertisement

This industry wide reduction has created a vacuum. As comparable platforms shrink, product availability itself has become a scarce competitive advantage. Gate has stepped in to absorb this liquidity, offering a stable home for short-term leveraged trading demand.

Simplifying Leverage With Unified Fees

Gate’s ETF architecture is designed to map professional derivatives positions into a simple tokenized format. For the user, the experience mirrors spot trading, there is no need to monitor margin maintenance or fear sudden liquidation events.

A key differentiator is Gate’s approach to cost transparency. In derivatives trading, costs are often fragmented across funding rates, trading fees, and slippage. Gate consolidates these fragmented costs into a single, understandable metric known as the unified management fee. This flat 0.1% daily fee is entirely all-inclusive, covering everything from hedging costs and funding rates to potential trading friction.

By packaging costs at the product level, Gate shifts the complexity from the user to the platform. The user gets a predictable cost structure, while the platform leverages professional expertise to manage execution and hedging.

Advertisement

Transparency in Mechanics

The sustainability of leveraged tokens relies on explainability. Two critical variables define these products: the Net Asset Value (NAV) and Rebalancing Rules.

The sustainability of leveraged tokens relies on explainability. Unlike competitors that often operated these mechanisms as “black boxes,” Gate provides explicit parameter disclosures. This includes specific leverage fluctuation ranges where rebalancing is not triggered, which significantly reduces frictional costs in choppy markets.

For instance, Gate ensures position stability by avoiding rebalancing for 3x Long tokens as long as leverage stays between 2.25x and 4.125x, while the 3x Short variant maintains a range of 1.5x to 5.25x. Similarly, for 5x tokens, no adjustments are triggered unless the leverage moves outside the 3.5x to 7x boundary. These technical parameters are vital for professional traders as they minimize the “decay” often associated with these products during range-bound price action.

Scale by the Numbers

Gate’s ecosystem is expanding. According to Gate’s 2025 annual report, the “Scale Effect” of their ETF product line is evident in the platform’s ability to support 244 different ETF leveraged tokens throughout the year. This robust supply served a cumulative user base of over 200,000 traders, driving average daily trading volumes into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This growth is supported by continuous technical iterations, including the launch of multidimensional data dashboards, rebalancing history displays, and specialized educational modules designed to reduce the learning curve for new participants.

Advertisement

The platform’s success is not merely a result of being one of the last providers standing, but rather a reflection of its commitment to product depth. Gate continues to broaden its asset coverage, ensuring that users can access leveraged exposure across a diverse range of emerging and established tokens. Looking ahead, Gate plans to build on this momentum by introducing sophisticated new formats, such as portfolio ETFs and low-leverage inverse ETFs. By retaining technical complexity at the platform level while delivering operational certainty to the user, Gate is positioning itself to capture an even larger share of the short-term leveraged trading market.

Conclusion

The industry wide contraction of leveraged tokens was not a failure of the concept, but a failure of execution regarding transparency and education. Gate has succeeded where others retreated by systematizing the product.

By offering clear disclosures, a unified 0.1% daily fee, and a spot-like user experience, Gate has built a sustainable ecosystem that preserves the utility of leverage while mitigating its complexity. As the market matures, Gate’s ETF offering stands as a testament to the value of explainable, transparent financial engineering.

Disclaimer: Investing in the cryptocurrency market involves high risk. Users are advised to conduct independent research and fully understand the nature of the assets and products before making any investment decisions. Gate is not liable for any losses or damages resulting from such investment activities.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

MSTR and ASST have big upside after major declines, says B. Riley

Published

on

Michael Saylor hints at another bitcoin purchase despite market turmoil

Investment bank B. Riley initiated coverage of bitcoin treasury firms Strategy (MSTR) and Strive (ASST) with buy ratings, setting price targets of $175 and $12, respectively.

Strategy was trading at $141.82 at publication time, Strive at $8.67.

The sector was pressured after bitcoin fell more than 45% from about $126,000 in October 2025 to roughly $69,000 in early March 2026, compressing market-to-NAV premiums and slowing the equity issuance that had fueled bitcoin accumulation, the bank said in a report published Monday.

The correction has weighed on crypto-linked equities and funds. The decline in BTC prices and broader risk-asset sentiment has contributed to volatility in shares of companies exposed to digital assets, including corporate bitcoin holders and crypto-focused investment vehicles.

Advertisement

Strategy remains the largest bitcoin treasury company, holding 738,731 BTC. The company, led by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, made a massive bitcoin purchase last week, adding 17,994 bitcoin to its holdings for a total cost of $1.28 billion, or $70,946 per coin.

The company has built a “digital credit platform” combining common equity and five series of perpetual preferred shares yielding 8% to 11.5%, backed by about $2.25 billion in cash reserves, according to analyst Fedor Shabalin.

The analyst noted that Strategy’s shares trade around 1.2 times mNAV, well below a roughly 3.4x peak in 2024, presenting an attractive entry point.

mNAV is a metric used to value bitcoin treasury companies by comparing a company’s market capitalization to the value of its underlying bitcoin holdings and related assets.

Advertisement

Strive, meanwhile, combines a bitcoin treasury of about 13,100 BTC with an asset-management business overseeing roughly $2.5 billion. The analyst pointed to its low leverage, a preferred share yield of about 12.5%, and a valuation discount, with the stock trading at around 0.9x modified NAV.

Preferred securities issued by the companies could attract yield-focused investors, given that the payouts exceed many traditional income alternatives, the report added.

Read more: Strategy logs record STRC equity issuance on Monday, buys estimated 1,420 bitcoin

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

DeFi lending platform Aave sees $27 million liquidations after wstETH price glitch

Published

on

(AAVE liquidations over last 24 hours/ Chaos Labs)

About $27 million was liquidated on the decentralized lending platform Aave over the last 24 hours, in what some market participants say may have been caused by a temporary pricing issue involving the token wstETH.

Blockchain data flagged by risk-management firm Chaos Labs shows a spike in liquidations in the past 24 hours. Some observers believe the event may have been linked to a price update in an oracle system that Aave uses to determine the value of collateral.

(AAVE liquidations over last 24 hours/ Chaos Labs)
(AAVE liquidations over last 24 hours/ Chaos Labs)

Oracles are services that feed price data from the outside world into blockchain applications. Lending protocols like Aave rely on them to decide when a borrower’s collateral is no longer sufficient to back their loan — at which point the position can be liquidated.

While such scenarios are rare, most recently, a price-oracle setup misconfigured by DeFi lender Moonwell briefly valued Coinbase Wrapped ETH (cbETH) at about $1 instead of roughly $2,200, leaving the protocol with nearly $1.8 million in bad debt.

In Aave’s case, some say the issue may have involved wstETH, a token issued by Lido that represents staked ether. Because it accrues staking rewards over time, one wstETH is typically worth slightly more than one ETH.

Advertisement

According to a post from LTV Protocol on X, at the time of the liquidations, Aave’s oracle appeared to value wstETH at roughly 1.19 ETH, while the broader market valued it closer to 1.23 ETH.

Volume remained relatively low for wstETH trading pairs, with just $10 million being traded over the past 24 hours, so it is unlikely any astute traders capitalized on the pricing mismatch before it snapped back.

Aave spokesperson didn’t reply to CoinDesk’s request for comments.

(24-hour trading volume of wstETH/ CoinMarketCap)
(24-hour trading volume of wstETH/ CoinMarketCap)

Earlier in the day, risk firm LlamaRisk briefly published a post on the AAVE forum, attributing the liquidations to an issue with Chaos Labs’ risk oracle, before deleting it.

Chaos Labs later said the underlying oracle itself reported the correct market values, and that the liquidations were instead triggered by a configuration issue in the protocol’s CAPO risk oracle, which is designed to place limits on how quickly the value of yield-bearing tokens such as wstETH can increase.

Advertisement

According to Chaos Labs, the incident was caused by a mismatch between stale parameters stored in a smart contract, including a reference exchange rate and its associated timestamp. Because those values were not updated in sync, the CAPO system temporarily calculated a maximum allowed exchange rate that was lower than the real market value of wstETH.

That effectively caused the protocol to treat wstETH as about 2.85% less valuable than it actually was, pushing some borrowing positions below their safety thresholds, triggering liquidations.

Chaos Labs said the protocol incurred no bad debt, though liquidators — traders or bots that repay risky loans in exchange for discounted collateral — captured roughly 499 ETH in liquidation bonuses and profits from the temporary price discrepancy.

A Lido contributor told CoinDesk, “We are aware of the liquidations due to an incorrect wstETH to USD price reported by this oracle mechanism. The cause has nothing to do with wstETH itself, how it works or the Lido protocol which continue to operate normally.”

Advertisement

Oliver Knight contributed reporting to this story.

Read more: Aave governance rift deepens as major governance group exits $26 billion DeFi protocol

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Kalshi Suffers Court Loss in Ohio over Sports Betting Lawsuit

Published

on

Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets

The prediction markets platform argued for an injunction against Ohio authorities, claiming that federal commodities laws superseded state laws on sport event contracts.

An Ohio federal court has denied a motion filed by prediction markets platform Kalshi for a preliminary injunction against Ohio state authorities over allegations that the company was operating in violation of gambling laws.

In an order filed Monday, US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Chief Judge Sarah Morrison denied Kalshi’s request for an injunction that would have blocked the Ohio Casino Control Commission and state attorney general from regulating contracts on the platform, specifically for sports betting.

Advertisement

According to the judge, Kalshi had failed to show that the sports event contracts available on the platform were subject to the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

“Even if this Court were to find that sports-event contracts are swaps subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, Kalshi has not shown that the [Commodity Exchange Act, or CEA] would necessarily preempt Ohio’s sports gambling laws,” said the opinion and order, adding:

“Kalshi argues that Ohio’s sports gambling laws are field and conflict preempted by the CEA when it comes to sports-event contracts traded on its exchange […] Kalshi fails to establish that Congress intended the CEA to preempt state laws on sports gambling.”

Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets
Source: Courtlistener

The denial pushed back against the narrative from CFTC Chair Michael Selig, who said in February that the federal regulator had “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets and threatened lawsuits against any authority claiming otherwise. Kalshi and prediction platforms face lawsuits in other US states over similar allegations involving unlicensed sports betting.

“This Court does not endeavor to explain why the CFTC has not exercised its authority […] with respect to the sports-event contracts,” said the Monday filing in Ohio. “But the agency’s inaction is not proof that the sports-event contracts are regulated by or permissible under the CEA—and the Court has concluded they are not.”

Related: CFTC chair backs blockchain-based prediction markets as ‘truth machines’

Advertisement

In a statement to Cointelegraph, a Kalshi spokesperson said that the company “respectfully disagree[d] with the Court’s decision, which splits from a decision from a federal court in Tennessee just a few weeks ago, and will promptly seek an appeal.”

CFTC guidance on prediction markets could be looming

Last week, Selig said that the federal regulator was working to provide guidance regarding prediction markets “in the very near future.” The CFTC chair is the sole Senate-confirmed commissioner in a panel normally consisting of five people.

Magazine: The debate over Bitcoin’s four-year cycle is over: Benjamin Cowen

Advertisement