Key Takeaways

• AppLovin shares tumbled approximately 9% Thursday, marking a 35% retreat from its $745 peak earlier this year.
• Bearish traders amplified concerns regarding competitive threats, intensifying downward momentum amid weakening investor sentiment.
• Between March 11-12, CEO Adam Foroughi executed 44 stock sales; days later, a board member offloaded more than 130,000 units.
• Fourth-quarter 2025 performance exceeded expectations: $1.66B revenue (surpassing forecasts), net profit surged 84% annually, yearly free cash flow reached $3.95B.
• Broader economic concerns, including recession possibilities and inflation estimates approaching 4.2%, contributed to the stock’s weakness.

AppLovin shares retreated approximately 9% during Thursday’s session, trading around the $396 level. No adverse company announcements triggered the decline. Instead, the selloff reflected mounting short-seller activity combined with widespread market jitters.

AppLovin Corporation, APP

Bearish investors amplified claims questioning the sustainability of AppLovin’s competitive positioning and whether its artificial intelligence-driven advertising technology can maintain market dominance. These arguments gained momentum following a notable spike in executive stock disposals.

CEO Adam Foroughi executed 44 separate stock sales on March 11-12, with transaction prices ranging from $449 to $481 per share. Board member Eduardo Vivas subsequently sold over 130,000 units on March 16, at prices between $446 and $465. During the 90-day period ending March 26, insiders completed 155 transactions with virtually zero purchase activity to counterbalance the disposals.

This selling activity provided ammunition for bearish traders, despite strong fundamental business metrics.

Financial Performance Remains Robust

AppLovin’s fourth-quarter 2025 financial results demonstrated exceptional strength. The company posted $1.66 billion in revenue, exceeding analyst projections by 3.35%. Net profit reached $1.1 billion, representing an 84% year-over-year increase. The adjusted EBITDA margin stood at an impressive 84%.

Fourth-quarter free cash flow totaled $1.31 billion. Annual free cash flow climbed to $3.95 billion—an 89% year-over-year surge. The company deployed $2.58 billion toward repurchasing 6.4 million stock units throughout 2025.

Operating expenses declined to merely 23% of revenue in Q4, compared to 37% in the prior-year period. Such dramatic margin improvement is uncommon in the technology sector.

CEO Foroughi addressed skeptics during the Q4 earnings conference: “When I look at our internal dashboards, we are delivering the strongest operating performance in our history.”

Wall Street analysts remain predominantly optimistic. Morgan Stanley maintains an Overweight recommendation with an $800 price objective. Goldman Sachs holds a Neutral stance at $710. Among all covering analysts, 24 recommend buying, 3 suggest holding, and only 1 advises selling. The average price target stands at $648.

Economic Headwinds Compound Selling Pressure

Broader economic conditions are exacerbating investor concerns. Market participants remain anxious about escalating tensions involving Iran, climbing oil prices, and materially elevated recession probabilities according to economists.

A Thursday OECD report forecast U.S. inflation could reach 4.2% this year—substantially above the Federal Reserve’s recent 2.7% projection from the previous week.

APP has declined 35% year-to-date and fallen 38% over the trailing six-month period. The stock reached approximately $745 at its 52-week high.

For the first quarter of 2026, AppLovin provided revenue guidance of $1.745–$1.775 billion with anticipated adjusted EBITDA margins of 84%. Elevated call option trading activity indicates continued near-term price volatility is probable.

Financial compliance has always been balanced on a delicate line: regulators need sufficient visibility to keep bad actors out, but users want their financial lives kept private just to make a payment or trade. In 2025, that tension is sharper than ever. We have stricter anti-money laundering (AML) rules, broader data-protection regimes, more cross-border activity and, at the same time, better privacy-enhanced technology than we’ve ever had.

The good news is we no longer have to sacrifice privacy to ensure compliance. Zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) provide a solution to the so-called privacy paradox: regulators need assurance that rules are followed, but exposing full identities and transaction details creates security, legal, and data protection risks. ZKPs let us flip the model from “show me the data” to “show me a proof,” enabling firms to demonstrate compliance without revealing underlying information.

This approach is not designed to obscure regulatory oversight. Instead, it modernizes the compliance toolset so regulated firms can demonstrate compliance with their legal duties (sanctions screening checks, KYC obligations, segregation of client assets, capital checks) without transferring or exposing the underlying data. ZKPs may be better for users and, in the long term, for regulatory compliance, because proofs are verifiable and tamper-evident.

What zero knowledge actually does

A zero-knowledge proof is a cryptographically powered way of saying: “I can prove to you that I followed rule X, but I won’t show you the sensitive information usually required to prove that.” In finance, “rule X” can be very concrete: “this wallet was screened against the current sanctions list”; “this user holds a valid KYC credential from a trusted issuer”; “this exchange holds client assets 1:1 and they reconcile to liabilities”; “this transaction is below (or within) an allowed range,” and so on.

Today, we can be required by law to report large datasets to specific regulators. We comply with applicable data protection laws, but this also increases the risk of cybersecurity breaches and misuse. A ZK-based approach proves the outcome, not all the inputs. If a regulator needs to go deeper, a process can be designed for selective disclosure of particular required data (viewing keys, time-bound access, and full audit logs, granted under due process as necessary), like a permissioned regulatory portal or window.

Why this matters now

Three trends are converging.

In the EU, supervisors are making anti-money laundering (AML) controls more granular, while GDPR and other privacy regimes emphasise data minimisation and purpose limitation. These can be complementary rather than opposing each other: compliance should provide the same or better assurance with less routine exposure of personal data. This objective may be achieved by utilising privacy-preserving reporting techniques.

Second, digital identity frameworks (such as those envisaged under eIDAS 2.0) are getting closer to reality. They are built on the same building blocks as ZK: verifiable credentials, selective disclosure and cryptographic attestations. That makes it far more realistic to issue portable “I passed KYC” or “I am not sanctioned” credentials that can be proven, not re-collected, across multiple services.

Third, supervisors are exploring privacy-enhancing technologies, including proof verification models.

What a proof-based compliance stack could look like

We already have live examples. ZK-enhanced proof-of-reserves is the best-known one: an exchange proves it has the assets to meet customer liabilities without revealing individual balances. That is a zero-knowledge assurance.

You can do the same for sanctions screening. Instead of sending the full identity every time, a wallet presents a proof that it was checked against the latest list at a specific time. The regulator, or a regulated VASP on the other side, runs a verifier node to confirm the proof is valid and up to date. It is important to note that ‘verifier nodes’ are a policy proposal that operate as an oversight infrastructure for supervisors to validate proofs without collecting bulk data.

You can also do it for segregation: a custodian proves that client assets are not co-mingled with house funds via a range or sum proof, without publishing the entire ledger. You can even layer this into smart contracts: transactions don’t execute unless the proof passes. That is “programmable compliance” – rules enforced at transaction time in ‘real time’, rather than afterwards.

For regulators, the key shift is from collecting raw data to verifying cryptographic evidence. They still get assurance, auditability and traceability when there is a legal basis to unmask. But they do not have to hold or process significant amounts of personal data by default, reducing both operational and legal risk.

Answering key questions

Regulators are already beginning to embrace targeted ZK pilots, ranging from verifiable proof-of-reserves to Travel Rule compliance that validates user attributes without exposing full datasets. As these primitives mature, they naturally scale into market-integrity controls, allowing firms to demonstrate they are within concentration and exposure limits through range and sum proofs without revealing underlying positions.

Critically, ZK is not a synonym for opacity; well-architected systems utilize selective disclosure via viewing or multi-party keys. This ensures that law enforcement access is narrow, provable and subject to due process rather than remaining universal and silent.

What regulators could require

To work across borders, we need standards: standard proof types (e.g., “not on sanctions list X as of date Y”), standard credential formats and standard verifier logic that can be inspected. That is how you avoid every exchange, wallet, or bank building its own version and creating unnecessary supervisory complexity for supervisors.

Concretely, regulators may benefit from six things:

1. Outcomes over data (tell me what you proved, not everything you hold);
2. Least-information proofs (prove only what is necessary for this obligation);
3. Programmable checks (enforced at transaction time where appropriate);
4. Strong data-availability and exit mechanisms (users can always confirm their balances and withdraw);
5. Verifiable verifier logic (inspections, test vectors, audit logs);
6. No generalized backdoors (disclosure only under lawful, narrow, logged processes).

Binance is a global exchange that already uses ZKPs for demonstrating reserves. Our proof-of-reserves (POR) system uses a Merkle tree – a cryptographic structure that condenses many account entries into a single “fingerprint” – together with zero-knowledge proofs to demonstrate that customer assets are fully backed without revealing individual balances. With each POR update, users can confirm that their balance is included in the tree, while ZKPs ensure that the overall totals are correct and that no negative or fake balances are included. The result is independent, privacy-preserving verification of reserves that builds trust without compromising personal data.

But this is bigger than one company. If we get this right, we can make financial compliance more precise, more respectful of privacy law, and easier to supervise.

This will take collaboration. Regulators will need to develop proof standards they accept; industry will need to align on, and incorporate the proof standards, and standard-setting bodies will ensure proof standards are interoperable across borders.

What success looks like

Success is when a user can prove legitimacy without oversharing; a bank, VASP, or exchange can meet AML/Travel Rule obligations with smaller data disclosures; a regulator can run a verifier node and get real-time assurance; and bad actors can be unmasked under clear, narrow, lawful conditions.

In short, assurance with less disclosure. As cyber risk rises, privacy laws evolve, and cross-border digital finance grows, moving from routine bulk data collection to verifiable proofs is a pragmatic upgrade to supervisory practice.

References to EU privacy law in this op-ed reflect the framework as of November 2025; the Commission’s Digital Omnibus proposals remain subject to change through the ordinary legislative process.

Ethena price hovers just under $0.10 as heavy futures leverage, whale withdrawals and a long unlock schedule reshape how ENA supply moves across DeFi.

Ethena (ENA), the governance token for the synthetic dollar protocol behind the USDe stablecoin, is changing hands at about $0.09831 today, with 24‑hour trading volume of $225.14 million and a market cap of $838.98 million. CoinMarketCap data show ENA’s unlocked market cap matches the headline figure at $838.98 million, while its fully diluted valuation is higher given a total and max supply of 15 billion tokens. The token’s volume‑to‑market‑cap ratio stands at 26.83%, indicating unusually brisk turnover relative to its size and pointing to active trading interest.

ENA sits at the intersection of DeFi and synthetic assets, with 8.22 billion tokens in circulation out of 15 billion total, and roughly 87.89 thousand on‑chain holders according to CoinMarketCap’s statistics page. The project is structured around USDe, a synthetic dollar instrument, and sENA, a staked token used for protocol governance and restaking‑style security, placing Ethena within the broader restaking and yield‑bearing DeFi sector rather than as a base layer or AI token. Coinbase data similarly frame ENA as part of a growing class of DeFi governance assets, with prior snapshots showing market capitalization above €2.11 billion when the token traded closer to €0.33.

On the derivatives side, CoinGlass reports Ethena trading at $0.2422 in its futures overview, with 24‑hour futures volume of $832.15 million, spot volume of $66.99 million, market capitalization of $1.93 billion, and open interest of $392.29 million at that time. Coinalyze’s aggregated open interest dashboard shows ENA open interest at approximately $952.7 million, up 7.31% over 24 hours, capturing the notional value of both coin‑ and stablecoin‑margined contracts. Together, those figures underscore a derivatives‑heavy market structure where leverage plays a central role in short‑term price action.

Whale and unlock dynamics add another layer. CoinMarketCap’s latest Ethena updates highlight a whale withdrawal of $4 million in ENA from Binance on March 24, 2026, a move interpreted as accumulation and a potential reduction in immediately sellable exchange supply. A separate analysis of token unlocks from Yahoo Finance points to a March 2 unlock of 40.63 million ENA, worth about $4.21 million at the time, representing 0.53% of released supply and allocated to the Ethena Foundation. CoinMarketCap’s token‑unlock schedule confirms monthly unlocks running until April 2027, implying a persistent supply overhang that markets must absorb over time.

Ethena’s design, centered on creating a synthetic dollar yield product that behaves more like a fixed‑income instrument, sets it alongside other DeFi protocols bridging on‑chain and traditional‑style returns. CoinMarketCap’s AI summary notes roadmap items including development of an Ethena chain using USDe as gas and expanded restaking utility for sENA, both initiatives aimed at deepening protocol usage and fee generation. In parallel, token‑unlock tracking and derivatives statistics emphasize how ENA’s near‑term price will likely continue to be driven by the interplay between unlock supply, whale positioning, and leveraged futures activity, rather than purely spot investor flows.

In today’s newsletter, Claudia Marcela Hernández analyzes how stablecoins have evolved past volatility-fixers to become the foundational settlement asset for global tokenized markets and cross-border payments, following the clarity provided by the GENIUS Act.

Then, in Ask an Expert, Morva Rohani breaks down how stablecoin regulation serves as a foundation for tokenized capital markets, why some jurisdictions see U.S. stablecoin policy as a risk, and the key factors advisors must use to assess a stablecoin’s credibility.

Learn about the latest advancements in the Clarity Act in Keep Reading.

Happy Reading.

– Sarah Morton

Are stablecoins the infrastructure reshaping global finance?

Stablecoins were originally designed to solve one of crypto’s earliest problems: volatility. By pegging their value to fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar, stablecoins gave traders a reliable unit of account that could move across blockchains without the price swings associated with assets like bitcoin. For years, they functioned primarily as liquidity tools inside crypto markets. But that role is rapidly changing.

Stablecoins are evolving from niche trading instruments into a foundational layer of global financial infrastructure. They now serve as settlement assets in decentralized finance (DeFi), payment rails for cross-border transfers and the preferred settlement currency for tokenized financial markets.

Institutions that once approached crypto cautiously are beginning to acknowledge the technology’s potential. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has noted that stablecoins could improve the efficiency of cross-border payments by reducing the number of intermediaries involved in global transactions. Meanwhile, policymakers in the United States are moving to integrate stablecoins into the regulated financial system.

Because most of these tokens are pegged to the U.S. dollar, they may also be doing something far more consequential: quietly extending the reach of the dollar across the blockchain-based global economy.

How a Stablecoin Is Issued and why they matter?

A user provides fiat currency, typically U.S. dollars, to a licensed issuer. In return, the issuer mints an equivalent amount of stablecoins on a blockchain, maintaining a 1:1 peg. The fiat received is placed into reserve accounts, usually held in cash or short-term U.S. Treasuries, which back the value of the tokens in circulation.

When a user wants to exit, the process works in reverse: the stablecoins are redeemed, and the user receives fiat from the reserves. This issuance-redemption mechanism is what anchors the stablecoin’s price to its reference asset.

Stablecoins enable near-instant, 24/7 settlement, independent of banking hours. They allow for programmable transactions, where payments can be automated and embedded into digital systems. And they provide access to dollar-denominated value, often without requiring a traditional bank account.

The World Economic Forum established that stablecoins transaction volumes have reached tens of trillions of dollars annually, underscoring their growing role as a core component of digital financial activity.

For policymakers, this presents both an opportunity and a challenge. The U.S. Treasury has noted that digital payment innovations, including stablecoins, can enhance efficiency, reduce costs and promote financial inclusion, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place.

Use cases and applications

· Cross-border payments: Stablecoins enable near-instant international transfers at a fraction of the cost of traditional correspondent banking systems.

· Remittances: In many emerging markets, stablecoins offer faster and cheaper alternatives to traditional remittance providers, which often charge significant fees.

· Decentralized finance (DeFi): Stablecoins serve as collateral, liquidity pools and settlement assets across lending protocols, decentralized exchanges and derivatives markets.

· Tokenized real-world assets: As tokenization expands to include bonds, real estate and commodities, stablecoins increasingly function as the settlement currency for digital financial markets.

· Corporate treasury and global settlement: Fintech companies and multinational firms are experimenting with stablecoins to facilitate cross-border treasury operations and instant settlement of international transactions.

In short, stablecoins are gradually becoming the base layer of digital financial activity.

The Regulatory Turning Point: The GENIUS Act

The transition of stablecoins from niche crypto instruments to recognized financial infrastructure accelerated significantly in 2025 with the passage of the GENIUS Act (the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act in the United States).

The legislation created the first comprehensive federal framework governing the issuance of payment stablecoins. Under the law, regulated entities, including banks and approved non-bank financial institutions, are allowed to issue stablecoins backed by high-quality liquid assets and subject to strict requirements including reserve transparency, regular audits, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) under the Bank Secrecy Act.

One of the most important aspects of the GENIUS Act was regulatory clarity. For years, uncertainty around whether stablecoins should be treated as securities, commodities or banking products created hesitation among institutional players. The law addressed this ambiguity by establishing stablecoins as a distinct category of digital payment instruments.

Stablecoins and monetary power

Dollar-denominated stablecoins dominate the market by a wide margin compared with those linked to other currencies. That dominance has an important implication because stablecoins may extend the reach of the U.S. dollar beyond the traditional banking system.

Other jurisdictions are responding with their own regulatory strategies. For example, the European Union, through its Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, has introduced strict requirements for stablecoin issuers operating within the EU, including reserve requirements and limits designed to protect monetary sovereignty — but is also exploring the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)

In Asia, financial hubs such as Hong Kong and Singapore are developing licensing regimes aimed at supervising stablecoin issuance and integrating the technology into regulated financial markets. China, meanwhile, has taken a different path by prioritizing the development of a central bank digital currency and exploring digital yuan settlement systems that could expand its monetary influence internationally.

The future of stablecoins will depend on trust in their reserves, in their governance and in the systems that oversee them. And ultimately, their long-term value will not be defined by how fast they scale, but by how safely and sustainably they become part of the global financial system.

– Claudia Marcela Hernández, digital assets specialist

Ask an Expert

Q. How important is stablecoin regulation to tokenized capital markets?

Stablecoin regulation is important because tokenized capital markets need a credible on-chain settlement asset. But regulation alone is not enough. For stablecoins to support institutional tokenized markets, there must also be legal certainty around settlement finality, redemption at par, issuer credit risk and how stablecoin-based settlement fits within payment system and securities laws.

In that sense, stablecoin regulation is a necessary foundation for tokenized capital markets, but not the whole framework. What institutions ultimately need is confidence that the settlement asset is reliable, that obligations are legally discharged when transactions settle on-chain and that the broader market structure can operate with clear, coordinated oversight.

Q. Are some jurisdictions starting to see U.S. stablecoin policy as a risk?

Yes, there is growing recognition that stablecoins carry geopolitical and monetary implications. Because the vast majority of fiat-backed stablecoins are denominated in U.S. dollars, their adoption could extend the reach of the dollar into blockchain-based financial systems. As U.S. policy frameworks formalize regulated dollar-backed stablecoins, this dynamic becomes more entrenched, positioning the U.S. to shape both the currency and standards of digital financial infrastructure.

In Canada, for example, proximity to the U.S., deep financial integration and broader geopolitical uncertainty have sharpened this focus. The concern is less about direct competition and more about dependency. Without a domestic framework, Canadian users and institutions could default to foreign-issued, USD-based stablecoins.

Canada’s approach has been to create a framework that enables innovation and competition while ensuring safety, consumer protection, and interoperability with global regimes. The objective is to allow both domestic and foreign stablecoins to operate under Canadian oversight, while preserving monetary relevance and ensuring Canadians have trusted, regulated options in a digital financial system.

Q. How can advisors assess whether a stablecoin is credible?

As stablecoins integrate into regulated systems, credibility comes down to a few core factors. First, reserve quality and transparency: assets should be fully backed by high-quality liquid instruments with regular disclosure or audits. Second, redemption: holders must have a clear, enforceable right to redeem at par. Third, regulatory oversight: credible issuers operate within defined legal and compliance frameworks. Governance also matters, including issuer structure, jurisdiction and custody of reserves. Ultimately, the key question is not just whether a stablecoin trades at $1, but whether its structure ensures it can consistently meet redemptions and retain user confidence during periods of stress.

– Morva Rohani, executive director, Canadian Web3 Council

Keep Reading