Crypto World
How much does an RWA tokenization platform cost?
The acceleration of blockchain adoption in capital markets has transformed tokenization from a conceptual innovation into a strategic infrastructure decision. Enterprises, asset managers, and fintech startups are increasingly exploring tokenized securities, fractional ownership models, and programmable financial instruments. Yet before initiating development, a critical question arises: what is the true cost to build a tokenization platform?
Costs of developing the tokenization platform include far more than just the basic development time. The tokenization platform development cost are influenced by how complex the asset is, the depth of compliance required, how the product will be secured, how many integrations are required, and what level of scalable solutions will be required for the future. If the asset is a security or a tangible asset in the real world, the real-world asset tokenization cost will also include the costs associated with regulatory compliance, reporting requirements, and custodial obligations.
This blog covers the cost factors associated with tokenization and the various applications of tokenization platforms on several types of assets as well as the timelines of implementing a tokenization project. This guide will provide an extensive continuation of how an organization can effectively build compliant digital asset ecosystems, including some sample vendors (third party organizations) that have designed tokenization platforms.
What Is a Tokenization Platform and How Does It Work?
A tokenization platform development is a blockchain-enabled infrastructure that digitizes ownership rights and represents them as programmable tokens. These tokens can symbolize equity shares, debt instruments, real estate fractions, commodities, funds, or other regulated assets.
Unlike basic crypto token issuance, enterprise tokenization platforms operate within strict financial and legal frameworks. They combine blockchain immutability with compliance automation, investor management systems, and custody safeguards.
The foundational components of a tokenization platform include:
1. Blockchain Infrastructure
This serves as the ledger where token ownership and transactions are recorded. Organizations may choose:
- Public chains (Ethereum, Polygon) for liquidity and ecosystem access
- Private or permissioned chains for enhanced control and compliance
- Hybrid models for balancing transparency and confidentiality
Infrastructure decisions directly influence tokenization software development pricing, as private networks require node setup, governance models, and dedicated maintenance.
2. Smart Contract Engine
Smart contracts govern token issuance, transfer restrictions, dividend distribution, governance voting, and compliance checks. Advanced programmable securities increase the tokenization platform development cost, especially when they include:
- Lock-up periods
- Jurisdiction-based transfer rules
- Corporate action automation
- Automated yield calculations
3. Compliance & Identity Layer
This layer integrates KYC/AML providers, accreditation verification systems, and regulatory screening tools. Since regulated assets demand strict adherence, compliance modules significantly impact the overall real-world asset tokenization cost.
4. Custody & Wallet Systems
Institutional investors require bank-grade custody solutions, including:
- Multi-party computation (MPC) wallets
- Cold storage
- Key recovery systems
- Custodial integrations with regulated entities
Advanced custody frameworks elevate the RWA tokenization platform cost, particularly when insurance-backed storage is involved.
5. Investor Dashboard & Admin Controls
User interfaces manage onboarding, portfolio monitoring, dividend tracking, and reporting. Administrative dashboards handle asset issuance, investor approvals, and regulatory documentation.
Each of these modules contributes cumulatively to the total cost to build a tokenization platform.
Get a Detailed RWA Tokenization Platform Cost Estimate
Key Factors That Influence Tokenization Software Development Pricing
Tokenization software development pricing varies depending on several technical and operational factors:
1. Blockchain Selection
The blockchain framework determines performance, scalability, and cost structure.
- Public chains may reduce setup time but require gas optimization and scalability considerations.
- Enterprise blockchains demand custom node configurations and governance protocols.
- Cross-chain compatibility increases development complexity but improves liquidity access.
Selecting the appropriate blockchain architecture can significantly alter the tokenization platform development cost.
2. Smart Contract Complexity
Basic token contracts are relatively straightforward. However, security token standards with regulatory logic require deeper engineering and testing.
Complex smart contracts often include:
- Dividend automation
- Revenue-sharing logic
- Investor voting rights
- Automated cap table updates
- Compliance-based transfer gating
Extensive testing, formal verification, and third-party audits elevate the RWA tokenization platform cost, but they are essential for institutional trust.
3. Regulatory Framework & Jurisdiction
Compliance obligations differ across countries. Platforms targeting cross-border investors must integrate:
- Multi-jurisdictional accreditation rules
- Transfer restrictions
- Reporting frameworks
- Licensing requirements
Legal structuring often runs parallel to development, increasing the real-world asset tokenization cost. However, ignoring regulatory requirements can lead to costly revisions later.
4. Security Architecture
Security extends beyond smart contracts. It includes:
- API encryption
- Infrastructure firewalls
- DDoS mitigation
- Database protection
- Continuous monitoring tools
For institutional-grade deployments, third-party security audits are mandatory. These measures increase upfront costs but reduce long-term operational risk.
5. Integration Ecosystem
Tokenization platforms rarely operate in isolation. They require integration with:
- Payment gateways
- Banking APIs
- Identity verification providers
- Secondary trading platforms
- Reporting tools
Each integration expands development scope, influencing both the cost to build a tokenization platform and the overall deployment timeline.
How to Choose the Right RWA Tokenization Platform Development Company for Cost Efficiency ?
It is important to choose a qualified RWA tokenization platform development company when you’re considering the cost of developing a tokenization platform and ensuring its sustainability over time. Tokenizations take place at many intersections – Blockchain Engineering, Financial Regulations, Cybersecurity, and Enterprise Architecture.
Choosing a vendor who is not an expert in this area could expose you to compliance issues, security issues, budget overruns, and ultimately an increased total cost to create your RWA tokenization platform.
When making a decision on cost-effectiveness, do not focus so much on the lowest dollar option that you select a Vendor who cannot deliver an infrastructure that is secure, compliant, scalable, all without unnecessary rewriting/rework and/or hidden costs.
Evaluate Proven Domain Expertise
A qualified development partner should demonstrate experience in:
- Real-world asset structuring (real estate, private equity, debt instruments, funds)
- Securities token standards and regulatory mapping
- Smart contract security implementation
- Institutional-grade custody integrations
A vendor unfamiliar with regulated token issuance may underestimate compliance layers, leading to scope changes mid-project. This directly increases the cost to build a tokenization platform through extended development cycles and additional audit requirements.
Assess Technical Architecture Capability
A reliable partner should offer clear documentation on:
- Blockchain framework selection
- Node management architecture
- Scalability models
- Interoperability with exchanges and custodians
Cost efficiency is achieved when the technical foundation is designed for long-term scalability. Poor architecture decisions often require rebuilding components later, drastically inflating tokenization software development pricing.
Examine Security & Audit Readiness
Enterprise tokenization platforms must meet institutional security standards. The development company should have structured processes for:
- Smart contract audits
- Penetration testing
- Infrastructure hardening
- Secure key management
If audit readiness is not embedded in development from the beginning, remediation costs may exceed initial estimates, raising the total real-world asset tokenization cost.
Consider Post-Launch Support & Upgradeability
Tokenization ecosystems require ongoing updates due to:
- Regulatory changes
- Feature expansion
- Security enhancements
- Asset diversification
A development partner offering structured maintenance models reduces long-term uncertainty in tokenization platform development cost and prevents unexpected operational disruptions.
Analyze Transparency in Pricing Structure
An experienced RWA tokenization platform Development company will provide:
- Clear scope documentation
- Defined deliverables
- Milestone-based pricing
- Separate cost allocation for audits and integrations
Transparent pricing avoids ambiguity and stabilizes the projected RWA tokenization platform cost, ensuring alignment between business objectives and budget allocation.
Start Planning Your Tokenization Platform Today
What Is the Typical Tokenization Platform Development Timeline?
The tokenization platform development timeline depends on asset complexity, regulatory jurisdiction, customization level, and integration depth. While smaller MVPs may launch within a few months, institutional-grade ecosystems require structured, multi-phase execution to ensure compliance and scalability.
A realistic timeline typically ranges between 4 to 8 months, with enterprise-scale builds extending further depending on regulatory approvals.
Phase 1: Discovery, Feasibility & Regulatory Assessment (3–6 Weeks)
This foundational phase defines project viability. Activities include:
- Asset class feasibility evaluation
- Regulatory landscape mapping
- Legal structuring coordination
- Technical architecture planning
- Preliminary cost modeling
A well-structured discovery phase reduces scope ambiguity and creates clarity around the expected cost to build a tokenization platform. Skipping this stage often results in timeline extensions later.
Phase 2: Architecture Design & Compliance Framework (4–6 Weeks)
During this stage, the platform blueprint is finalized. Key deliverables include:
- Smart contract logic frameworks
- Compliance automation rules
- Custody integration planning
- Data security architecture
- UI/UX workflow designs
Proper planning at this stage prevents reengineering during development and helps control tokenization software development pricing.
Phase 3: Core Development & System Integration (8–16 Weeks)
This is the most resource-intensive phase. It involves:
- Smart contract coding and internal testing
- Backend system development
- API integration with payment, KYC, and custody providers
- Investor dashboard and admin panel development
Customization requirements significantly affect both the tokenization platform development cost and timeline. Multi-asset support, cross-chain functionality, or multi-jurisdiction compliance layers can extend this phase.
Phase 4: Security Audits & Quality Assurance (4–8 Weeks)
Institutional tokenization platforms require:
- Independent third-party smart contract audits
- Infrastructure penetration testing
- Load and performance testing
- Compliance validation
Audit timelines depend on contract complexity. While this stage adds to the overall real-world asset tokenization cost, it is essential for investor trust and regulatory approval.
Phase 5: Deployment, Launch & Optimization
Once audits are cleared:
- Mainnet deployment occurs
- Monitoring tools are activated
- Operational governance begins
- Performance metrics are analyzed
Post-launch support ensures smooth scaling and prevents unexpected increases in long-term RWA tokenization platform cost.
Building a Future-Ready Tokenization Ecosystem
Building a tokenization platform requires more than estimating the immediate cost to build a tokenization platform—it demands strategic planning for scalability, compliance, and long-term operational resilience. Organizations that prioritize modular architecture, automated regulatory controls, and secure custody frameworks are better positioned to manage evolving asset classes and investor growth without inflating future tokenization platform development cost.
A structured approach to the tokenization platform development timeline, combined with security-first engineering, ensures sustainable deployment and controlled RWA tokenization platform cost over time.
At Antier, as a trusted RWA tokenization platform Development company, the focus is on delivering compliant, scalable ecosystems while optimizing tokenization software development pricing and minimizing overall real-world asset tokenization cost. Through enterprise-grade architecture and regulatory alignment, Antier enables businesses to launch secure, future-ready tokenization platforms with confidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
01. What is a tokenization platform?
A tokenization platform is a blockchain-enabled infrastructure that digitizes ownership rights and represents them as programmable tokens, which can symbolize various assets like equity shares, debt instruments, or real estate fractions.
02. What factors influence the cost of developing a tokenization platform?
The cost of developing a tokenization platform is influenced by the complexity of the asset, compliance requirements, security measures, necessary integrations, and the scalability needed for future growth.
03. How do tokenization platforms ensure compliance and security?
Tokenization platforms ensure compliance and security by operating within strict financial and legal frameworks, utilizing blockchain immutability, automation for compliance, investor management systems, and custody safeguards.
The US Senate could soon hear testimony to confirm financier Kevin Warsh as the new chair of the Federal Reserve.
Warsh, who previously served on the Fed’s Board of Governors from 2006 to 2011, has criticized the central bank’s policies under current chair Jerome Powell. Warsh has called for “regime change” and lower interest rates.
Regarding crypto, Warsh has a somewhat nuanced approach. He hails Bitcoin as a sustainable store of value, but claims it doesn’t function as money.
Lower interest rates and a fairly open attitude toward crypto could be good news for digital asset prices, which most investors perceive as risk-on. But even if Warsh passes his nomination, there’s no guarantee he’ll affect the changes expected.
Warsh wants to lower Fed interest rates, but can he?
Warsh, a graduate of Stanford and Harvard, started his career at Morgan Stanley, where he eventually became a VP and executive director. He then served as an executive secretary of the White House National Economic Council under President George W. Bush.
Bush nominated him to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve in 2006, where his hawkish views on inflation often differed from his colleagues. He was critical of the aggressive use of its balance sheet, which he said led to a period of “monetary dominance” that artificially depressed rates.
Some of this appears to have changed in recent years. In a November 2025 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Warsh criticized Powell’s leadership at the Fed, claiming that “inflation is a choice, and the Fed’s track record under Chairman Jerome Powell is one of unwise choices.”
He said “credit on Main Street is too tight” and that the Fed’s balance sheet, which is “bloated” due to past crisis-management efforts, “can be reduced significantly.”
“That largesse can be redeployed in the form of lower interest rates to support households and small and medium-size businesses,” he said.
Plans for cutting interest rates come at an economically fraught time. The US and Israel’s joint attack on Iran, which could soon escalate into an invasion if US President Donald Trump so decides, has wreaked havoc on oil prices.
Increasing oil prices had a direct effect on the core inflation metrics the Federal Reserve uses when considering rate changes. This could put the damper on any plans for rate cuts, at least certainly under Powell.
Warsh told Barron’s that the “core theory of inflation that the Fed is using” is “mistaken.” He said that “we need to fundamentally rethink macro, which is a fundamental rethink of the core economic models that the Fed is using.”
In his accounting, rising wages and commodity prices are not to blame for inflation. Rather, “at the core, I think inflation comes about when the government spends too much and prints too much.”
Returning to monetarism, as well as dumping some of the debt held by the Federal Reserve, could help address inflation concerns, in his view.
Bankers and former Bush administration officials have congratulated Warsh on the nomination. Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the Fed would “benefit from his steady, principled leadership.”
“He understands the central bank’s key role for the United States and our allies around the world,” she said.
Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey has also welcomed Warsh’s nomination. He said that he knew both Powell and Warsh well, and that “They’re both very qualified.”
Qualifications aside, Warsh may find it difficult to enact his preferred policies.
Roger W. Ferguson Jr., the Steven A. Tananbaum Distinguished Fellow for International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Maximilian Hippold, a research associate for international economics at CFR, wrote that Warsh won’t revolutionize the Fed.
They said that the chair alone does not make inflation rate decisions. “They are determined by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), a twelve-member body that includes seven Fed governors and five regional Fed presidents.” The chair can’t change policy without convincing a majority.
Others argue that Warsh’s interest in lowering interest rates is a recent pivot and may not be a core conviction around which he will focus central bank policy. A December 2025 analysis from Deutsche Bank noted Warsh’s response to the global financial crisis in 2008, when he was a Governor at the Fed.
“His views while he was a Governor around the GFC [global financial crisis] at times skewed more hawkish than his colleagues,” the report read. “Although Warsh has argued for lower rates recently, we do not view him as structurally dovish.”
They further questioned Warsh’s plans to lower interest rates and cut assets on the Fed balance sheet. “This trade-off would only be feasible if regulatory changes are made that lower banks’ demand for reserves. While several Fed officials have made this argument recently, including Vice Chair of Supervision Bowman and Governor Miran, it is not obvious these changes are realistic in the near-term.”
“The chair has just one vote amongst a particularly divided committee.”
Warsh’s nomination and Fed independence
Commentators have also drawn attention to Warsh’s connection to the Trump administration. Warsh’s father-in-law, Ronald Lauder, is a classmate of Trump and a major donor to his political campaigns.
His relatively recent opinions on low interest rates also make him uniquely suited to the role, at least in Trump’s eyes. Ferguson and Hippold wrote, “Trump believes he has found a successor who will align with his economic priorities in Warsh.”
The president has long bemoaned Fed officials who supposedly promise rate cuts, but then raise them once in office. “It’s too bad, sort of disloyalty, but they got to do what they think is right,” he said in a speech at Davos last year.
Trump has long pushed for lower interest rates, claiming that they are needed to spur his economic development plans. Powell’s refusal to acquiesce to the White House’s request led to political scandal.
Last year, the Department of Justice (DoJ) opened a criminal investigation into Powell, alleging that he misappropriated billions of dollars for new offices for the Federal Reserve.
A federal judge recently quashed the DoJ’s subpoenas in the case. Judge James Boasberg wrote in a memorandum opinion, “A mountain of evidence suggests that the dominant purpose is to harass Powell to pressure him to lower rates. For years, the President has publicly targeted Powell because the Fed is not delivering the low rates that Trump demands.”
Regarding his pick, Trump said in a January press event in the Oval Office that it would be “inappropriate” to ask Warsh about his stance on interest rates. “I want to keep it nice and pure, but he certainly wants to cut rates, I’ve been watching him for a long time.”
Just a couple of weeks later, in an interview with NBC, Trump said Warsh understands that he wants to lower interest rates. “But I think he wants to anyway. If he came in and said ‘I want to raise them’ […] he would not have gotten the job.”
But Warsh hasn’t “gotten the job,” at least not yet. He will face tough questioning from Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee, possibly as soon as April 13.
In a letter lambasting Warsh’s role in bailing out banks in 2008, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who serves on the committee, said, “I have no doubt that you will serve as a rubber stamp on President Trump’s Wall Street First agenda.”
Warren expected written responses to this, and to Warsh’s opinion about Trump’s “witch hunts” against Powell and Fed Governor Lisa Cook, by April 2.
Magazine: Nobody knows if quantum secure cryptography will even work
Hong Kong’s first stablecoin licences failed to materialize by the expected end of March target, with the HKMA saying only that it is still advancing the process.
Hong Kong has missed an earlier end of March target for awarding its first stablecoin licences, with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority saying only that the licensing process is advancing and decisions will be announced shortly.
A spokesperson for the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) told Cointelegraph that the HKMA is “actively taking forward the licensing matter and will announce further details in due course,” without offering a revised timetable.
The HKMA’s public register still showed no licensed stablecoin issuers at the time of writing.
The March timetable had been set out earlier by HKMA chief executive Eddie Yue, who reportedly told lawmakers in February that only a very small number of issuers would be approved initially and that reviews were focusing on use cases, risk management, anti-money laundering controls and backing assets.
HKMA misses March stablecoin target
Earlier reports indicated that global banking giants HSBC and a Standard Chartered-backed venture were among the frontrunners to receive approvals in the initial cohort, although the HKMA did not confirm the names of any successful applicants.
Hong Kong’s caution is partly a function of how strict the regime is. Cointelegraph previously reported that the city’s stablecoin framework requires issuers to fully back tokens with high-quality liquid reserves, process redemptions within one business day and maintain a physical presence in Hong Kong, alongside broader Know Your Customer and transaction monitoring controls.
The missed deadline comes as Hong Kong places stablecoin regulation at the heart of its strategy to become a global crypto and fintech hub.
China pressure clouds Hong Kong rollout
Cointelegraph previously reported that major fintech players, including Ant International, were preparing to seek Hong Kong stablecoin licenses as the city rolled out its new regime.
Related: How Hong Kong is turning tokenized bonds into real market infrastructure
In October 2025, the FT reported that Ant Group and JD.com had paused their Hong Kong stablecoin plans after regulators in mainland China, including the People’s Bank of China and the Cyberspace Administration of China, raised concerns about privately controlled digital currencies.
Big Questions: Is China hoarding gold so yuan becomes global reserve instead of USD?
Michael Saylor’s Strategy (MSTR) looks set to restart its Bitcoin (BTC) accumulation engine after a short pause, with its STRC preferred stock likely funding fresh crypto purchases this week.
Key takeaways:
-
Strategy may purchase at least $76.25 million in Bitcoin this week.
-
Combined with a technical setup, Bitcoin may rise to $80,000 in April.
Strategy may buy at least 1,111 BTC this week
On Tuesday, STRC closed at $100.02, just above its $100 par value. Trading at or above par gives Strategy room to issue new shares, raise fresh capital and deploy the proceeds into Bitcoin.
Estimates from STRC.LIVE suggest Strategy had raised enough by Tuesday’s close to fund the purchase of more than 1,085 BTC, with the weekly total rising to over 1,111 BTC. That is equivalent to around $76.25 million.
This is a shift from the previous week, when STRC traded mostly below par and generated no estimated BTC purchases.
As of late March, the company held 762,099 BTC at an average acquisition price of about $75,694, according to its latest filings.
BTC rebounds as Strategy’s buying window reopens
The renewed buying window has coincided with a bounce in Bitcoin prices.
Since Tuesday, BTC/USD has climbed more than 5%, briefly reaching nearly $69,300. The move mirrors earlier gains seen during periods when Strategy was actively raising capital through STRC to buy Bitcoin.
One example came in the week ending March 15, when Bitcoin rose more than 10% despite weak broader risk sentiment. Over the same period, Strategy purchased 22,337 BTC worth about $1.57 billion.
The opposite dynamic emerged afterward. Bitcoin fell 14.55% over the next two weeks, roughly aligning with Strategy’s pause in purchases as STRC slipped below its $100 par value.
On March 23, Strategy unveiled a $44.1 billion capital-raising capacity to buy more Bitcoin via the sales of STRC and other preferred stocks, indicating that it would remain a meaningful source of Bitcoin demand in the coming months.
Stretch Dividend Rate maintained at 11.50% for April 2026. $STRC pic.twitter.com/8Jl0QlfNhK
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) April 1, 2026
Bitcoin eyes $80K after bouncing from flag support
From a technical standpoint, Bitcoin’s rebound began after it retested the lower boundary of its prevailing bear flag pattern as support.
BTC could advance toward the flag’s upper trendline near $80,000 in April if the recovery gains further traction, particularly if boosted by renewed Strategy buying and signs of easing Iran war tensions.
The $80,000 upside target also aligns with the 50-period exponential moving average on the three-day chart, making the area a key near-term resistance zone.
Related: Bitcoin ETFs post $1.3B in March inflows, first monthly gain of 2026
Conversely, Bitcoin risks losing the flag’s lower trendline support and confirming the pattern’s typical bearish breakdown if those supportive catalysts fade.
In that scenario, the measured downside target would come in near the $49,000–$50,000 zone. That aligns with the downside projections shared by multiple analysts in the past.
This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research before making any decisions. Cointelegraph makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information presented, including forward-looking statements, and will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this content.
Global asset manager Franklin Templeton is set to expand its crypto footprint by acquiring a spinoff of the crypto-native investment firm CoinFund.
Franklin Templeton said Wednesday it plans to acquire 250 Digital, a CoinFund spinoff that runs liquid crypto investment strategies, expanding the asset manager’s digital asset business. The deal will form part of a new unit called Franklin Crypto once it closes.
The move follows CoinFund’s decision earlier this year to spin out its liquid strategies business into 250 Digital as the company sharpened its focus on venture investing.
Christopher Perkins will lead the new Franklin Crypto, and Seth Ginns will serve as chief investment officer alongside Franklin Templeton digital assets veteran Tony Pecore, as the company broadens its crypto investment platform for institutional clients.
The deal will incorporate BENJI tokens, which represent ownership shares in the Franklin OnChain US Government Money Fund (FOBXX), a regulated money market fund tokenized by Franklin Templeton in 2021.
Acquisition involves all liquid strategies previously run by CoinFund
Franklin said the undisclosed transaction includes the 250 Digital investment team and all liquid cryptocurrency strategies previously run by CoinFund, and that it will also invest in those strategies as part of the agreement.
The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2026, subject to the execution of definitive transaction agreements, client consents and other customary closing conditions.
Franklin Templeton’s digital asset arm manages around $1.8 billion in assets and is a major institutional player in the crypto industry, where it has been building a presence since 2018.
The company is known for being one of the first to launch a US-listed spot Bitcoin ETF alongside other major asset managers such as BlackRock in 2024.
Related: Franklin Templeton, Ondo to launch tokenized ETFs with 24/7 trading via crypto wallets
The acquisition comes during a prolonged slump in the crypto market, with Bitcoin down around 45% from its peak above $126,000 recorded in October 2025.
However, Franklin Templeton says the environment is attracting talent and creating opportunities to build long-term infrastructure.
Franklin’s head of innovation, Sandy Kaul, told The Wall Street Journal the recent market selloff helped create an opening to expand.
“This big selloff that we had in the crypto markets is creating a very unique opportunity that really made us all decide that this is the right time to pull the trigger,” Kaul said.
Ripple has added digital asset capabilities to its treasury management platform, allowing corporate finance teams to hold, track and manage cryptocurrencies and fiat balances within a single system, the company said.
According to a company announcement, the update introduces Digital Asset Accounts and a unified dashboard that aggregates balances across bank accounts, custody providers and onchain wallets, giving treasury teams real-time visibility into both cash and digital assets.
The system supports assets including XRP (XRP) and Ripple USD (RLUSD), with balances updated in real time and recorded alongside fiat transactions. APIs connect external custodians and sync activity into the platform, according to Ripple.
Ripple said the update embeds digital asset functionality directly into its treasury system, rather than requiring separate crypto platforms. The company said this could reduce reliance on manual reconciliation and fragmented reporting across banking and custody systems.
Mark Johnson, chief product officer at Ripple, told Cointelegraph the shift is about making digital assets “a core part of treasury operations,” allowing companies to manage them alongside traditional balances while enabling use cases such as stablecoin settlement and yield on idle cash.
The launch follows Ripple’s October acquisition of GTreasury for $1 billion. The company said the product is already live for customers in beta ahead of a broader rollout, with availability varying by jurisdiction depending on regulatory requirements and geography.
Related: Ripple CEO says stablecoins could be crypto’s ‘ChatGPT moment’ for businesses
Digital assets move into financial infrastructure
A survey published by Ripple in March found that 72% of more than 1,000 global finance leaders believe companies must offer digital asset solutions to remain competitive, reflecting growing focus on custody, security and infrastructure.
The findings point to a broader shift from adoption to integration, as institutions look to incorporate these assets into existing financial systems rather than manage them separately.
That transition is driving increased activity across financial infrastructure. In July, Visa expanded its settlement platform to support additional stablecoins and blockchain networks, building on its initial use of USDC (USDC) for settlement in 2021.
Banks have also begun integrating tokenized money into their operations. In November, JPMorgan expanded access to its JPM Coin deposit token, allowing institutional clients to move funds on blockchain networks for real-time settlement.
Similar efforts are emerging in credit and capital markets. In October, Securitize and BNY said they would collaborate to bring instruments such as collateralized loan obligations onchain.
Magazine: XRP yet to ‘price in’ 3 bullish catalysts, Bitcoin to $80K? Trade Secrets
XRP crypto is trading at $1.32, and while the price chart looks fragile, the on-chain data underneath it is telling a different story.
Chain’s scarcity indicator for XRP on Binance has hit 0.59 – its highest reading since 2024 – as coins leave exchanges at a pace that is mechanically compressing the available sell-side pool.
The magnitude is not subtle. On March 10 alone, approximately $738 million worth of XRP was withdrawn from major platforms in a single 24-hour window, described by analysts as one of the most substantial single-day net outflows recorded year-to-date.
February saw 7.03 billion XRP exit centralized exchanges entirely, with Binance accounting for roughly 3.38 billion of that volume. The supply mechanics are shifting – but the price hasn’t fully priced it in yet.
Discover: The best pre-launch token sales
XRP Crypto Price Prediction: Can $1.40 Hold as Exchange Balances Drop?
XRP is pressing against the $1.40 resistance zone that analysts have flagged as the critical battleground. Below it, the $1.27–$1.30 band represents the next meaningful support cluster.
The RSI on the daily is hovering near 42 – not oversold, but not generating momentum signals either. The 50-day EMA sits just above spot price, capping intraday recovery attempts.
The on-chain divergence is the real tension here. Whale wallets accumulated approximately 40 million XRP in March even as US-listed XRP spot ETFs – now holding a combined $1.02 billion in assets – recorded $30.12 million in net outflows over the same period.
CoinShares data puts global XRP fund outflows at $130 million for the month. Institutional selling and whale buying are colliding directly at $1.40.
On the chart, $1.27 is the line that really matters, because as long as price holds above it, the accumulation story stays intact, especially with whales stepping in and ETF flows starting to stabilize, which could open the door for a push through $1.40 and a move higher if momentum follows.
But right now it is more of a tug of war, with XRP likely chopping between $1.27 and $1.40 while the market figures itself out, because you have strong accumulation on one side and lingering sell pressure on the other, and neither has fully taken control yet.
If that $1.27 level breaks clean with volume, the whole setup starts to fall apart fast and opens the door for a deeper pullback, because at that point price is no longer respecting the accumulation zone, and that always takes priority over any on chain signal.
What makes this cycle different is the institutional layer, with players like Bitwise holding massive chunks of XRP through ETF products, meaning even small outflows can hit the order book hard, while Ripple keeps building out its infrastructure in the background, which is exactly the kind of long term story bigger players tend to front run.
Explore: Best crypto assets to diversify your portfolio
The post XRP Crypto Holders Pull Coins Off Exchanges, On-Chain Data Signals Supply Shock appeared first on Cryptonews.
Pearl is Olas’s consumer gateway to a future where narrow AI agents quietly trade, curate and create prediction markets at a scale humans will never touch, says co‑founder David Minarsch.
Summary
- Olas co‑founder David Minarsch traces Pearl back to early agent work at Fetch.ai and Valory, then pivots from B2B DAO tools to a consumer app for owning AI agents.
- Pearl backs tightly scoped, long‑running agents like Polystrat, which filters Polymarket markets, applies prediction tools and has at times outperformed human traders by 2–3x.
- Minarsch sees prediction markets as economic training grounds for AI, with agents already a large share of activity and the long tail of markets increasingly served by machines, under real regulation.
David Minarsch sat down with crypto.news on March 31 on the sidelines of ETHCC to explain why Pearl’s narrow, long‑running AI agents are remaking prediction markets from the inside out.
From Fetch.ai to Pearl
Minarsch’s route into autonomous agents is textbook crypto‑AI convergence. “I got drawn into the space by my background in economics and game theory,” he told crypto.news, recalling his move into crypto after several years working on machine learning applications.
At Fetch.ai, where he spent two years, his team built one of the first agent frameworks in crypto, anchored on a simple but loaded idea: wallets controlled by machines, not humans.
“We actually wrote a detailed paper on this, which was way ahead of its time,” he adds. In 2021, he spun those lessons out into Valory, the core lab behind Olas, which has since experimented with a range of applications and go‑to‑market strategies.
The first bet was B2B: autonomous agents sold to DAOs such as CowSwap, Balancer and Ceramic. “That went okay but never sort of really took off,” Minarsch concedes. The real pivot came in 2023, when “general purpose usable large language models like ChatGPT” landed and Olas “switched more to B2C.” Pearl is the result: “a B2C application which has different agents in it,” built for users, not governance forums.
By the time Pearl launched in February 2025, the rest of the industry had caught up to Olas’s early agent thesis. “The crypto space and the AI space had moved towards agents, now everyone is building agents or using agents or both,” Minarsch says. But he argues most people’s idea of an agent is still shaped by chat interfaces like ChatGPT: “a co‑pilot synchronous experience” where you prompt and it replies, in front of you, in real time.
Olas is explicitly betting against that dominant pattern. “When you have long long‑running agents with like autonomy but tightly scoped so they can’t just do anything but they can do interesting things within a certain scope. That’s where it becomes very interesting,” he says. Pearl is designed around those tightly scoped, background processes rather than generalist assistants, Minarsch points out.
“With Pearl we intentionally go very narrow in terms of the capabilities of an agent,” he explains. He points to new tools like OpenClaw—as both validation and warning. “OpenClaw validated a lot of our core assumptions that people do want llocal first experiences with AI agents,” he says, but “the product can do too much, which causes a bunch of problems, including secruity, but also just a problem for the user.”
In his view, that kind of system is built for tinkerers “who just sort of want to mold this thing into something that’s useful to them.” The “low friction user” wants to “just press a button” and get a consistent result. “I have one and I asked it to send me daily report and half the time it’s broken,” he says of OpenClaw. “That’s not a good product experience.” Pearl’s agents, by contrast, are designed to do one thing—trading, yield seeking, market creation—reliably. Limited scope, high definition, low problem latency.
Polystrat is the cleanest demonstration of that philosophy. Polystrat is an example because here’s just the idea: provide some capital, have it trade in prediction markets,” Minarsch says. Instead of facing Polymarket’s UX—wallet setup, funding, market selection, position sizing—the user delegates funds to Polystrat and lets the agent do the work.
“Polystrat is just like a user of Polymarket,” he stresses. “If you want to use Polymarket you as a human need to set up a wallet, fund it and then you’re faced with the decision of what market to trade in. Polystrat abstracts all this and the idea is for it to simply trade on your behalf.” The agent focuses on geopolitical and political news markets, “not so short‑lived” and generally closing “within the next four to five days.”
Technically, the flow is simple but ruthless. The agent filters markets using rules like liquidity and time to close, then applies “prediction tools,” which Minarsch describes as “workflows that sit on top of models and data sources.” “There’s many different prediction tools and the agent learns over time which ones to take and which ones not to take,” depending on the market. A local pricing and sizing engine converts those predictions into positions and the system trades autonomously on your behalf.
Performance wise, Polystrat ranges between 56 and 69% accuracy, Minarsch says. As a fleet, “our agents… have performed two to three times as well as human traders,” although they are “not yet at a fleet‑wide break even.” Individual Polystrat instances, however, can deliver “up to 100% ROI overall and like several 100% ROI per individual trade.” The goal is not anecdotes but a statistical edge: “to have a Polystrat fleet on average a positive ROI.”
Trading is only half the story. As more agents enter Polymarket and its predecessors, Minarsch sees prediction markets becoming “early prototypes for these market‑driven AI systems… environments that encode truth discovery at an economic scale.”
He doesn’t pretend the rails are clean. On controversial questions—or markets with contested outcomes—information lags and disputed outcomes are common. Polystrat nor other agents on Pearl attempt to solve that. “Polystrat itself is just a trading agent on top of Polymarket,” it’s neither consensus building nor a truth serum.
But AI is already reshaping participation, creation and policing. “It’s unclear exactly how many traders in prediction markets are already AI agents but it’s probably more than 30%,” Minarsch believes. “Potentially already more than half,” he adds. As such, humans have limited attention, so “the whole long tail of prediction markets will basically be served to AI agents,” he predicts.
Crucially, Minarsch breaks from crypto libertarianism on governance. “We take the view that there should be regulation of prediction markets,” he says flatly, citing markets that “effectively look like assassination markets” or “incentivizing bad behaviors.” With “a certain degree of regulation or self‑regulation,” more markets and more AI participants should “drive prices to equilibrium” and “improve the information embedded in the markets,” opening the door to derivatives, hedging and other instruments built on top.
Asked whether Olas agents could become “data liquidity providers operating autonomously across multiple networks,” Minarsch shrugs off the distinction. “Liquidity provision is effectively also trading strategy,” he says.
In that framing, Pearl is less a single app and more an operating system for narrow, long‑running agents: Polystrat for prediction markets, Optimus for yield, Omenstrat for market creation and whatever comes next for liquidity across venues. The consistent design choice is scope: each agent does one thing, over long horizons, with as little human intervention as possible.
“We were just very early to something that a lot of people are now doing,” Minarsch says of the agent wave. The difference now is that Pearl is pushing those agents into retail‑facing products, turning prediction markets into both a playground and a proving ground for AI‑driven liquidity and truth discovery.
Elon Musk’s aerospace company SpaceX has reportedly filed confidentially for an initial public offering, moving it closer to what could be the biggest public listing in US history.
SpaceX submitted its IPO confidentially to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, according to a report from Bloomberg on Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter. The IPO could be finalized as early as June, the sources said.
SpaceX could seek a valuation exceeding $1.75 trillion in the IPO, sources told Bloomberg in February. A valuation of that size would make the aerospace company more valuable than Meta (META), Tesla (TSLA) and Bitcoin (BTC).
SpaceX could also raise up to $75 billion from the IPO, a size that would more than double Saudi Aramco’s record $29 billion debut in 2019.
SpaceX’s potential IPO follows its acquisition of Musk’s AI startup xAI in early February, putting the company in an AI race against OpenAI, Anthropic and other private AI startups.
OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, closed its last funding round with $122 billion in committed capital on Tuesday, bumping its valuation to $852 billion.
IPO investors to be briefed on more details this month
SpaceX reportedly told prospective IPO investors to expect briefings from company executives later this month, Bloomberg noted.
SpaceX is weighing a dual-class share structure that would give insiders, including Musk, greater voting control.
The IPO is expected to allocate up to 30% of shares for individual investors.
Wall Street firms Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are expected to be involved in SpaceX’s transition to a public company.
SpaceX also continues to hold 8,285 Bitcoin worth more than $565 million on its balance sheet.
However, the company shifted its Bitcoin to a new wallet address in October, prompting speculation over whether it intends to hold the cryptocurrency in the long term.
Related: OpenAI kills off AI video app Sora after 6 months
Trading platforms such as Robinhood and Kraken have been seeking to offer tokenized shares in high-profile private companies like SpaceX, OpenAI and others on the blockchain, giving retail investors a way to invest in nonpublic companies.
Robinhood CEO Vladimir Tenev said in February 2025 that investors have had limited access to these private tech firms, but that blockchain tokenization could help broaden participation.
However, OpenAI is expected to file for an IPO in 2026, and Anthropic is also exploring a public listing, which would make their shares available for trading on regular stock exchanges.
Magazine: IronClaw rivals OpenClaw, Olas launches bots for Polymarket — AI Eye
Opinion by: Francesco Mosterts, co-founder of Umia.
Crypto prides itself on being a market-driven system. Prices, incentives, and capital flows determine everything from token valuations to lending rates and blockspace demand. Markets are the industry’s primary coordination mechanism. Yet, when it comes to governance, crypto suddenly abandons markets altogether.
Recent governance disputes at major protocols have once again exposed the tensions inside DAO decision-making. Participation remains extremely low and influence is highly concentrated. A study of 50 DAOs found “a discernible pattern of low token holder engagement,” showing that a single large voter could sway 35% of outcomes and that four voters or fewer influence two-thirds of governance decisions.
This is not the decentralized future crypto originally set out to build. The early vision of the industry was to remove concentrated power and replace it with systems that distributed influence more fairly. Instead, DAO governance often leaves most tokenholders passive while a small group determines the protocol’s direction.
Token voting was crypto’s first attempt at decentralized governance. It is a broken incentive system, and it needs to change.
The promise of token governance
The original “DAO” launched in 2016 as a decentralized venture fund where token holders would vote on which projects to finance. The earliest DAOs were inspired by the idea that organizations could run purely through code.
At crypto’s conception, token voting felt intuitive. It borrowed from familiar concepts like shareholder voting, yet DAOs promised a new form of management called “decentralized governance.” Tokens would represent both ownership and decision rights, meaning anyone who held them could participate in shaping the direction of a protocol.
Related: ‘Raider’ investors are looting DAOs
Token voting was supposed to solve problems seen across many industries, including centralized control, opaque decision-making, and misalignment between teams and users. It offered a simple promise: if the community owned the token, the community would run the project. In practice, however, this miraculous solution hasn’t delivered on its promise.
The reality of why token voting fails
Token voting comes with three core problems: participation, whales, and incentives.
Participation is self-explanatory: most token holders don’t vote. With lots of material to review, particularly when many governance decisions need to be made, governance fatigue is a real problem. The result of this, which we now see every day in crypto, is that most token holders are ultimately passive and a small minority decides the outcomes.
When it comes to whales, it is obvious that large holders are dominating. It’s demoralizing for ordinary voters who feel like their opinions don’t matter, even though the original promise of DAOs was that they would have a real voice. What is the point of voting if whales have the final say?
Finally, there’s an incentive problem. Voting has no economic signal. Votes hold the same weight whether you’re informed or not. There’s no cost to being wrong and no incentive for being right. There’s nothing motivating participants to research and vote according to their beliefs.
Realistically, in current governance, voting simply expresses opinions. It does not express conviction.
The missing piece lies in pricing decisions
Crypto is fundamentally market-driven, and it works remarkably well. Markets aggregate information, price risk, and reveal conviction in ways few other systems can. The industry has built markets for practically everything, including tokens, derivatives, blockspace, and lending rates. They sit at the core of how crypto coordinates economic activity. Yet when it comes to governance, the system suddenly abandons markets entirely.
Decision markets introduce pricing into governance. Instead of merely voting on proposals, participants trade outcomes, pricing the possible decisions and backing their views with capital. This transforms governance from a system of expressed preferences into one of measurable conviction.
By tying decisions to economic incentives, participants are encouraged to research proposals and think carefully about outcomes. The result is a governance process that reflects informed expectations rather than passive opinion.
This matters now
Crypto is reaching a turning point in how it coordinates decisions. Governance conflicts, treasury disputes, and stalled proposals have exposed the limits of token voting. Even major protocols struggle to translate tokenholder input into clear, effective action. This has left governance slow, contentious, and dominated by a small group of participants.
At the same time, interest in market-based coordination is resurging across the ecosystem. Prediction markets have demonstrated how effectively markets can aggregate information, while broader discussions around mechanisms like futarchy are returning to the forefront. These systems highlight markets as powerful tools for revealing conviction and aligning incentives.
If crypto believes in markets as coordination engines, the next step is applying that same logic to governance. The next phase of crypto coordination will move beyond simply trading assets and toward pricing and executing decisions themselves.
Token voting was crypto’s first attempt at decentralized governance, and it was an important experiment. It gave tokenholders a voice, but it didn’t solve the deeper incentive problem.
Markets already power nearly every part of the crypto ecosystem. They aggregate information, reveal conviction, and align incentives at scale. Extending that same mechanism to decisions is the natural next step.
Decision markets also extend beyond governance votes into capital allocation itself. If markets can price decisions about a protocol’s direction, they can also price decisions about what to build and fund. This opens the door to a new generation of ventures built directly on crypto rails, where projects can raise capital and allocate resources through transparent, incentive-aligned mechanisms from day one. Instead of relying on passive token voting, markets can actively guide how onchain organizations form and grow.
Governance without pricing is incomplete. If crypto truly believes in markets as coordination engines, the future of onchain organizations cannot be decided by votes alone, but by markets.
Opinion by: Francesco Mosterts, co-founder of Umia.
This opinion article presents the author’s expert view, and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance. Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
Summary
- Gnosis, Zisk and the Ethereum Foundation unveiled the Ethereum Economic Zone (EEZ) at EthCC in Cannes to unify fragmented Ethereum layer-2 networks.
- The framework targets over 20 L2s securing roughly $40 billion in value, enabling synchronous composability without relying on bridges and standardizing ETH as gas.
- Early backers include Aave and Centrifuge, with developers calling EEZ a “new era” for on-chain applications as Ethereum grapples with slowing fee revenue and a weaker deflationary narrative.
The Ethereum (ETH) ecosystem took aim at one of its biggest structural weaknesses at EthCC 2026, as Gnosis, Zisk and the Ethereum Foundation publicly launched the Ethereum Economic Zone (EEZ), a rollup framework designed to knit together an increasingly fractured layer‑2 landscape. Revealed on March 29 at the Palais des Festivals in Cannes, the initiative seeks to make dozens of Ethereum L2s behave “like one unified system,” in the words of project backers, by restoring synchronous composability between rollups and Ethereum mainnet while keeping security anchored to the base chain.
Ethereum Economic Zone launches
More than 20 operational Ethereum L2s currently secure about $40 billion in assets, yet function largely as isolated ecosystems, each with its own liquidity pools, deployments and bridge infrastructure. “Ethereum doesn’t have a scaling problem. It has a fragmentation problem,” Gnosis co‑founder Friederike Ernst said in comments shared with crypto media, arguing that “every new L2 that goes live has its own liquidity pool and bridging, creating another isolated walled garden.” The EEZ framework instead allows smart contracts on participating rollups to perform synchronous calls with each other and with Ethereum mainnet in a single atomic transaction, using ETH as the default gas token and removing the need for separate bridge protocols.
At EthCC, Ernst and Zisk developer Jordi Baylina presented the EEZ as an explicitly Ethereum‑aligned answer to the user‑experience and capital‑efficiency frictions created by the network’s L2‑centric scaling roadmap. According to coverage from outlets such as The Block and CoinDesk, the collaboration is co‑funded by the Ethereum Foundation and launches with Aave, Centrifuge and a Swiss‑based EEZ Alliance among its early partners, underscoring that DeFi blue chips see value in shared liquidity and cross‑rollup settlement. “The zone will facilitate a new era of blockchain innovation,” Zisk’s CEO Maria Roberts told conference attendees, adding that developers will be able to plug existing applications into the framework “pretty easily.”
The timing is not accidental. Ethereum’s shift of activity toward cheaper L2s has reduced fee revenue on mainnet and softened the narrative of ether as a strongly deflationary asset, with ETH trading near $2,000 even as the network still secures roughly $53 billion in DeFi total value locked and about $163 billion in stablecoins, according to recent market data cited by Phemex. By unifying L2 liquidity and simplifying cross‑network flows, EEZ’s architects are betting that a more cohesive Ethereum stack can keep capital and users inside the ecosystem, even as competing smart contract platforms and modular architectures fight for market share.
Kaiko reports Alameda gap still existsIn separate reporting on EthCC, organizers have described 2026 as “the year of professionalisation of Ethereum and the wider crypto ecosystem,” with the conference’s move to Cannes and the launch of institutional‑focused forums like Kaiko’s Agora strengthening the sense that Ethereum’s next phase will be defined as much by market structure and infrastructure as by new token launches.
Tim Cook Discovers Apple’s Own Past in a Private Archive Tour with Rarely Seen Prototypes
Roundabout lane closures for city redevelopment project could cause delays
Unilever acquisition fulfills McCormick’s global ambitions
-
Business6 days agoInstagram, YouTube Found Responsible for Teen’s Mental Health Struggle in Historic Ruling
-
Tech6 days agoIntercom’s new post-trained Fin Apex 1.0 beats GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 at customer service resolutions
-
NewsBeat5 days agoThe Story hosts event on Durham’s historic registers
-
Sports5 days agoSweet Sixteen Game Thread: Tide vs Michigan
-
Entertainment2 days ago
Fans slam 'heartbreaking' Barbie Dream Fest convention debacle with 'cardboard cutout' experience
-
Entertainment4 days agoLana Del Rey Celebrates Her Husband’s 51st Birthday In New Post
-
Crypto World2 days ago
Dems press CFTC, ethics board on prediction-market insider trades
-
Tech3 days agoThe Pixel 10a doesn’t have a camera bump, and it’s great
-
Crypto World5 hours agoGold Price Prediction: Worst Month in 17 Years fo Save Haven Rock
-
Sports1 day agoTallest college basketball player ever, standing at 7-foot-9, entering transfer portal
-
Tech2 days agoEE TV is using AI to help you find something to watch
-
Tech2 days agoApple will hide your email address from apps and websites, but not cops
-
Entertainment7 days agoHBO’s Harry Potter Series Will Definitely Fail For One Big Reason, And It’s Not J.K. Rowling Or Snape
-
Tech2 days agoHow to back up your iPhone & iPad to your Mac before something goes wrong
-
Tech2 days agoFlipsnack and the shift toward motion-first business content with living visuals
-
Fashion6 days agoEn Vogue in Brown Leather and Tailored Neutrals by Atelier Savoir, Styled by J Bolin
-
Politics2 days agoShould Trump Be Scared Strait?
-
Crypto World2 days agoU.S. rule change may open trillions in 401(k) funds to crypto
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekly News Update, 3.27.26 – Corporette.com
-
Fashion6 days agoWhat Are Your Favorite T-Shirts for the Weekend?
You must be logged in to post a comment Login