Fed unveils a 90-day comment plan to ease Basel III and G-SIB capital rules, modestly cutting requirements for large banks and more for regional lenders.

The Federal Reserve voted Thursday morning to formally release a sweeping package of proposed bank capital reforms, launching a 90-day public comment period on changes that would modestly reduce capital requirements for the largest U.S. financial institutions — and more substantially ease the burden on smaller regional banks. The proposals, previewed by Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman in a March 12 speech at the Cato Institute, represent the most significant overhaul of the post-2008 bank capital framework in years and a clear victory for Wall Street institutions that had spent years lobbying against an earlier, more stringent version of the rules.

The package addresses what Bowman described as “the four pillars” of the regulatory capital framework for the largest banks: stress testing, the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR), the Basel III endgame rules, and the G-SIB surcharge applied to globally significant institutions. Together, the proposals would produce a net decrease in capital requirements for large banks “by a small amount,” while smaller banks focused on traditional lending would see “slightly larger reductions”. For major institutions such as JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, the modest increase from revised Basel III calculations would be more than offset by a recalibrated G-SIB surcharge — one Bowman argued had grown disproportionate to the risks these banks actually carry.

The philosophical underpinning of the reform is a conviction that capital requirements imposed after the 2008 financial crisis have gradually overshot their intended purpose. “When capital requirements become excessive, they hinder the banking system’s essential role of providing credit to the real economy,” Bowman said in her Cato Institute remarks. She described the proposals as a “sensible recalibration” designed to remove redundant standards and better align requirements with actual institutional risk profiles, rather than a wholesale rollback of post-crisis prudential safeguards.​

The eSLR reforms are particularly significant. A final rule approved by the FDIC and Federal Reserve in November 2025 — effective April 1, 2026 — had already replaced the existing 2% eSLR buffer for global systemically important banks with a buffer equal to half of each institution’s Method 1 G-SIB surcharge, capped at 1% for subsidiary banks. FDIC staff estimated that change alone would reduce aggregate Tier 1 capital requirements by $13 billion, or under 2%, for G-SIBs, and by $219 billion — or 28% — for major bank subsidiaries. The new proposals being voted on Thursday extend that logic across the Basel III and G-SIB surcharge frameworks.​

The banking industry responded favourably. The American Bankers Association, Financial Services Forum, and Bank Policy Institute issued a joint statement praising Bowman’s approach as “a thoughtful, bottom-up” resolution to the concerns raised by 97% of commenters on the prior Basel proposal, calling for a capital framework that “reflects the actual risks in the banking system, rather than over-calibrated requirements that impede economic growth”.​

The timing carries broader market significance. With the Fed holding rates steady at 3.5%–3.75% and explicitly raising its 2026 inflation forecast to 2.7% on Wednesday, the capital easing offers Wall Street a degree of policy relief that monetary policy itself is not currently providing. Freeing up capital for lending, share buybacks, and dividends — precisely the stated aim of the reform — may inject some flexibility into a financial system otherwise navigating a geopolitical oil shock and a higher-for-longer rate environment.

Critics, however, argue that loosening capital buffers during a period of elevated macro uncertainty runs counter to the spirit of prudential regulation. Bowman indicated no implementation timeline beyond coordinating with other international jurisdictions — leaving the final shape of the rules subject to the 90-day comment process.

Bitcoin (BTC) dipped under $69,000 on Thursday, sliding back into its six-week range after briefly touching highs above $76,000. The retreat comes as futures selling accelerates and demand from U.S.-based investors shows signs of stalling, though analysts argue the market could still mount a renewed rally if key levels hold and the broader setup unfolds in a favorable way.

The shift reflects a shift in market dynamics where derivatives activity increasingly dominates spot flows, underscoring the ongoing tug-of-war between leveraged traders and cash-based demand. While the immediate move raised questions about momentum, a familiar chart pattern suggests a potential path back toward the region’s previous highs if the balance of risk and reward tips back in favor of buyers.

Key takeaways

• BTC briefly fell below $69,000, pulling the price back into a six-week range after testing above $76,000 in recent sessions.
• Derivatives activity has regained influence over spot demand, with the Coinbase premium turning negative and cumulative volume delta (CVD) shifting toward sellers on both spot and perpetual contracts.
• Funding rates turned modestly positive (about 0.05%), signaling a shift toward a net long bias in the futures market even as spot liquidity wanes in the near term.
• Technical patterns echo a prior bounce in early March: lower daily lows accompanied by bullish RSI divergences, bolstering case for a retest of higher levels if the price can reclaim key pivots.
• Key levels to watch include reclaiming $70,000, a possible move to $72,000–$76,000, and protection above $68,300 to prevent a slide toward $65,000–$62,000 in a downside scenario.

Derivatives leadership matches fluctuating spot demand

Recent data from on-chain analytics show a notable shift in the relationship between spot volumes and derivatives activity. After a period of robust demand for BTC on spot venues, the Coinbase Premium gap turned negative, suggesting that U.S.-based buyers did not sustain the previous pace of purchases into the dip. That pattern aligns with observations from traders watching the balance between cash markets and the leveraged side of the market.

Analysts highlighted a stark divergence in flow across the two market segments. The cumulative volume delta (CVD) for spot BTC declined by about $40.64 million, while the CVD for perpetual futures fell by roughly $506.75 million. The discrepancy indicates stronger selling pressure from leveraged traders relative to spot buyers over the same period, a dynamic that can amplify short-term price swings even when long-term bias remains mixed.

Despite the softer near-term spot demand, the funding rate has shifted into positive territory, around 0.05%. This implies long-position holders are now paying shorts, a sign of more constructive sentiment within the derivatives market and a potential tilt toward a bullish bias if funding pressures persist in favor of long exposure.

Order-book data further shows stubborn bid support around the $70,000 mark, with market depth hinting at buyers stepping in at or near that level in both spot and perpetual markets. The dynamic suggests that even as selling pressure arises from leveraged traders, a floor exists where demand can reassert itself should prices approach the pivot region.

For context, market watchers also flagged a broader pattern tying into a Bitcoin-centric DeFi push that aims to unlock native liquidity and yield on BTC without resorting to wrapped assets. While not a certainty, such developments could contribute to deeper buyers’ interest at critical levels.

Fractal pattern hints at a potential rebound

On shorter timeframes, Bitcoin’s price movement has formed a fractal pattern reminiscent of early March, when a dip and a sweep of internal liquidity levels preceded a decisive reversal higher. The current setup mirrors that sequence: successive lower lows followed by signals that momentum may be fading and buying pressure could reemerge.

From a momentum perspective, a bullish RSI divergence is unfolding. In the previous instance, the RSI held higher than its own prior low while price dipped, signaling that selling pressure was waning even as price trended downward. A comparable divergence is developing now, reinforcing the case for a fractal rebound rather than a deeper retreat.

Liquidation activity has also framed the narrative in both episodes. In each instance, long-side liquidations have briefly reduced open interest and flushed out overleveraged positions, which can set the stage for a swift reallocation of risk once buyers regain conviction. A breach of the fractal’s boundary would be a red flag, but the current data tilt toward potential stamina in the near term.

Looking ahead, reclaiming the $70,000 area is depicted as a pivotal moment. If bulls push past $72,000 and sustain the move, the door could open to retesting the higher band near $76,000. A key risk sits at $68,300: breaking below this level would widen the path toward liquidity pockets around $65,000 and $62,000, where larger time-frame orders may offer support but where the risk of a more protracted downside expands.

Industry observers have also flagged a practical anchor for bulls: the $73,000 level as a base. Ryan Scott, founder of Trading Stables, emphasized that failure to stabilize above this threshold could signal weak buyer response and raise the odds of a test of range lows around $62,000 in a less favorable scenario.

For readers tracking market sentiment and potential catalysts, these dynamics sit within a broader context. Prediction market chatter has floated scenarios where BTC could revisit declines in the mid-to-high $50,000s in more adverse cycles, but the present fractal framework suggests a more conditional path—one that hinges on continued support near $70,000 and a successful reentry into the higher rung of the range.

Related: OP_NET launches native DeFi push for Bitcoin highlights the broader trend of on-chain options aimed at expanding BTC’s utility beyond traditional spot trading, a development that could help anchor more robust demand in the event of protracted volatility.

What this means for traders and builders

The current setup underscores a broader theme in crypto markets: price action is increasingly shaped by the tug-of-war between leveraged bets and real-money demand. While the near-term risk remains tilted toward a retest of the range’s lower boundary if liquidity dries up, the structural signals favor a rebound scenario as long as price holds above the critical supports and rotating demand persists into the next session.

From an investor standpoint, the situation calls for careful risk management around the $68,300–$70,000 area. Traders aiming for a breakout to the $76,000 vicinity should monitor the 72,000–73,000 zone as a potential pivot, watching for solid acceptance in that band that could fuel a short squeeze if weak shorts get trapped. Conversely, a break below $68,300 could shift the focus to the mid- to lower-$60,000s where higher-timeframe liquidity sits, complicating a quick recovery.

Next steps to watch

Market participants should keep a close eye on bid-ask dynamics around the $70,000 mark and the flow of funding rates in the coming sessions. A sustained positive funding environment and renewed spot demand would bolster the case for a renewed ascent toward recent highs, while a renewed deterioration in derivatives positioning could reassert the range-bound dynamic. In addition, broader adoption and on-chain DeFi developments around Bitcoin may offer extra support should buyers look to deploy capital in more diverse BTC-enabled protocols.

Readers should stay tuned for how the price responds to the pivotal $70,000 to $72,000 zone and whether the fractal pattern continues to unfold. As always, ongoing monitoring of liquidity, funding, and on-chain signals will be essential to gauge whether the market is leaning toward continuation of the uptrend or a renewed test of lower bands.

Opinion by: Arthur Azizov, founder of B2 Ventures

Transaction cost analysis (TCA) has long been an important tool in equity trading. With this instrument, traders can see the hidden costs that a transaction carries and minimize the difference between the expected and the actual price.

As crypto matures, it begins to resemble traditional financial markets and functions like other tradable instruments. Crypto transactions also come with costs: fees that investors pay every time they buy or sell crypto.

Yet there is one thing that is clearly not keeping pace with this development. Execution costs for crypto analyzed systematically. Understanding how much it actually costs to execute a deal leaves much to be desired.

This opacity demands the crypto industry urgently adopt transaction cost analysis before it kills market trust.

Invisible costs in the crypto market

To the untrained eye, major crypto pairs can seem liquid; order books are deep, and quoted spreads are competitive. In the end, however, the final execution price can deviate from the expected one due to slippage.

For example, an investor wanted to buy 1 Bitcoin (BTC) for $90,000, but because of the sudden market volatility, the final price was $90,900. The slippage, in this case, would be $900, or 1% of the intended trade amount.

This problem is inherent not only in crypto; it also exists in traditional finance. In equity markets, however, these costs are measured precisely, compared and analyzed with the use of TCA, coupled with best execution.

In contrast, for crypto, the real price of entry or exit is often hard to calculate or predict manually. This is precisely where TCA becomes valuable, as it can allow crypto traders to break down the true cost of execution, knowing exactly bid-ask spreads, market effect and order routing fees.

With TCA tools, crypto transactions can become more transparent, and traders can easily identify the sources of costs associated with executing trades.

Crypto transactions can be hard to price

If it were that easy in real life, however, TCA analysis would already be an integral part of crypto markets. The main issue is that cryptocurrency prices are highly volatile, changing every millisecond and trading happens around the clock. It has a significant influence on trade execution costs, as sometimes investors are simply not on time when making purchases.

The liquidity is low, and the fragmentation, due to the existence of a number of exchanges, remains high. This situation worsens as some platforms may have outages or less available liquidity, which causes even more slippage.

Speaking of costs, things get opaque in crypto. Some costs can often be included quietly within the trade prices, complicating the “total consideration.” It’s difficult to really know the full cost of a trade.

There is an issue of a lack of data as well. A meaningful transaction cost analysis requires standardized data. For example, in equity markets, information is typically available from centralized sources. As cryptocurrencies have a decentralized nature, trading activity is fragmented across numerous exchanges and platforms, making it difficult to aggregate data and perform reliable analysis.

The crypto market also suffers from the absence of regulation and a universal definition of TCA or best execution. As a result, the portfolio performance is highly dependent on external factors such as the speed of a trade or the “health” of the venue and not on the capabilities of an asset manager or investor.

Toward measurable execution

Regulators are beginning to recognize this gap in execution. For example, in 2025, the European Securities and Markets Authority updated its standards, including best execution, to extend beyond equities to include asset classes such as foreign exchange, commodities and, most importantly, crypto.

Related: Temple Digital Group launches 24/7 institutional trading built on Canton

This does not introduce a transaction cost analysis per se and does not prescribe specific performance indicators, but it’s an important precedent. Execution transparency becomes more mandatory for digital assets.

Although regularization alone cannot solve the problem of invisible trading costs, it still makes investors think more about the need for TCA. If market participants can see how much trading really costs and how these additional fees differ between exchanges, the market will become more efficient.

The dilemma of scattered data and lack of standardization is now being solved with cloud computing and big data analysis that made it significantly easier and more cost-effective to collect large volumes of data and process it. Powered by machine learning, platforms can conduct transaction cost analysis across venues and identify patterns that were previously inaccessible.

The massive use of TCA would help traders reduce costs and increase liquidity. Trading volume flows would gradually move to a place where there are better conditions, which would stimulate competition between the exchanges and assets.

Opinion by: Arthur Azizov, founder of B2 Ventures.