Crypto World
Stablecoins Are the Real DeFi Infrastructure
“DeFi isn’t built on ETH—it’s built on dollars.”
That line sounds provocative—almost heretical in a space obsessed with native tokens and Layer 1 wars. But if you zoom out and actually trace where value flows, settles, and compounds in decentralized finance, one truth becomes unavoidable:
👉 Stablecoins are the real foundation of DeFi.
Not ETH. Not governance tokens. Not even the chains themselves.
Dollars—tokenized, programmable, and always-on—are the system
The Invisible Backbone of DeFi
Every major DeFi primitive runs on stablecoins:
- Lending: Borrowers don’t want volatility—they want predictable debt. That’s why protocols like Aave and Compound are dominated by stablecoin markets.
- Trading: Most liquidity pairs route through stablecoins. They are the base layer of price discovery.
- Yield farming: Yields are benchmarked, optimized, and stabilized using dollar-denominated assets.
Strip away stablecoins, and DeFi doesn’t collapse gracefully—it breaks entirely.
ETH may be the engine, but stablecoins are the fuel.
The Three Faces of Stablecoin Power
Not all stablecoins are created equal. In fact, their design reveals something deeper: on-chain monetary systems competing in real time.
1. Fiat-Backed: The Off-Chain Anchors
Examples: USDT, USDC
These are backed by real-world reserves—cash, treasuries, and equivalents.
- Strength: Stability and trust (assuming reserves are legit)
- Weakness: Centralization and regulatory exposure
They’re essentially banks with APIs, plugging traditional finance into crypto rails.
2. Crypto-Backed: The Overcollateralized Machines
Example: DAI via MakerDAO
These rely on excess crypto collateral to maintain stability.
- Strength: Transparency and decentralization
- Weakness: Capital inefficiency
They behave like algorithmic central banks, managing collateral ratios instead of interest rates.
3. Algorithmic: The Experimental Economies
These attempt to maintain pegs through supply-demand mechanics alone.
- Strength: Scalability and capital efficiency
- Weakness: Fragility (sometimes catastrophically so)
They are the closest thing crypto has to pure monetary theory in production—and sometimes, that theory breaks under pressure.
On-Chain Monetary Policy Is Already Here
Here’s where things get interesting.
Stablecoins aren’t just passive assets—they are active policy systems:
- Collateral ratios adjust supply
- Interest rates influence borrowing demand
- Liquidity incentives shape capital flows
- Peg mechanisms act as market stabilizers
This isn’t hypothetical economics. It’s live monetary policy, executed by smart contracts.
And unlike traditional central banks:
- It’s transparent
- It’s programmable
- It runs 24/7
- It’s globally accessible
In other words, stablecoins don’t just mimic fiat systems…
👉 They compete with them.
The Shadow Central Banks of Crypto
Think about it:
- USDC influences liquidity across chains
- USDT dominates global trading volume
- DAI governs decentralized credit creation
These aren’t just tokens.
They are issuers of money, controlling supply, stability, and trust within digital economies.
That makes them something far bigger:
👉 Shadow central banks of the internet.
The Quiet Takeover
“Stablecoins are quietly taking over global finance.”
That’s not hype—it’s already happening:
- Cross-border payments settle faster and cheaper via stablecoins
- Emerging markets increasingly rely on them as dollar substitutes
- Institutions are integrating them as settlement layers
While headlines chase memecoins and AI narratives, stablecoins are doing something far more important:
They’re rebuilding the dollar system—on-chain.
Final Thought: Follow the Stability
Crypto loves volatility. It thrives on speculation.
But infrastructure?
Infrastructure demands stability.
And in DeFi, stability has a name.
Not ETH.
Not BTC.
👉 Stablecoins.
They are the rails, the liquidity, the accounting unit, and increasingly—the policy engine.
Everything else is just built on top.
REQUEST AN ARTICLE
Pharos Network raises $44m to build institutional RWA rails across Asia and beyond, pushing its EVM Layer 1 toward a near‑$1b valuation.
Summary
- Pharos Network closes a $44 million Series A, lifting total funding to $52 million.
- Asian institutions and strategic corporates back its RWA-focused Layer 1.
- Funds will scale infrastructure in Asia and globally ahead of its public testnet.
Layer 1 blockchain Pharos Network has raised $44 million in a Series A round to build institutional-grade infrastructure for tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), bringing its total funding to $52 million after an $8 million seed round in November 2024.
The EVM-compatible chain, which targets regulated finance and large asset managers, plans to use the capital to expand RWA rails across Asia and key global markets, with a public testnet launch scheduled for May 2025.
The latest round follows a strategic deal that valued Pharos at roughly $950 million after Hong Kong–listed GCL New Energy subscribed about $24.7 million in equity.
Backers in the fresh raise include Asian private equity funds, renewable energy firms listed in Hong Kong, regulated financial institutions from the city, a subsidiary of Japan’s Sumitomo Corporation, crypto-native investor SNZ Holding, oracle provider Chainlink, and trading firm Flow Traders, underscoring the project’s bid to sit at the junction of traditional finance and DeFi.
Pharos positions itself as “a high‑throughput, EVM‑compatible Layer‑1 blockchain built to connect TradFi, DeFi, and real‑world assets,” aiming to “bridge over $50 trillion in RWAs and cross‑chain capital into a modular, on‑chain economy at internet scale,” as the team describes in its technical materials.
Pharos has spent the past year stitching together an institutional RWA stack that goes beyond this funding round. In February, it launched the RealFi Alliance with partners including Chainlink and Centrifuge to “standardize the development of RWA infrastructure for institutional players” and close what it calls the “trust gap” around onchain asset data. The network has also announced a partnership with Centrifuge to distribute tokenized U.S. Treasuries and AAA-rated credit products onchain, positioning Pharos as a liquidity and distribution layer for assets such as JTRSY and JAAA.
The raise lands as tokenized real-world assets accelerate, with sector reports projecting RWA outstanding to approach $60 billion in 2026 amid growing interest from banks and asset managers. In March alone, crypto startups secured more than $4.28 billion across 129 funding rounds, signaling that capital is still flowing aggressively into infrastructure plays despite volatile token markets. Against that backdrop, Pharos’ near‑$1 billion valuation and $52 million war chest place it among the more heavily funded RWA‑focused Layer 1s, as it races to convert institutional interest into actual onchain issuance and secondary liquidity.
A White House report found that banning yield on stablecoins would have a marginal impact on bank lending while creating clear economic downsides.
According to the Council of Economic Advisers, a three-member agency within the Executive Office of the President tasked to offer the president economic advice, moving funds from stablecoins back into bank deposits would not translate into significant new lending. Under its baseline scenario, total bank lending would increase by about $2.1 billion, roughly 0.02% of the $12 trillion loan market.
The report, published Wednesday, says that community banks would see even smaller gains. Lending at these institutions would increase by roughly $500 million, or about 0.026%.
The findings come amid an ongoing clash between banks and the crypto industry over stablecoin yields. Banking organizations, including the Independent Community Bankers of America, have warned that stablecoin yields could significantly reduce bank lending, while crypto groups have rejected the claim.
Related: CLARITY Act 2026 odds ‘extremely low’ if not passed before April: Exec
Stablecoin lending ban could cost $800 million per year
However, banning stablecoin rewards could carry a greater cost. The report estimates a net welfare loss of around $800 million per year, mainly because users would lose access to yield on stablecoins. The cost-benefit ratio is about 6.6, meaning the economic costs would far exceed any gains in lending.
“Producing lending effects in the hundreds of billions requires simultaneously assuming the stablecoin share sextuples, all reserves shift into segregated deposits, and the Federal Reserve abandons its ample-reserves framework,” the report concludes.
In July 2025, President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law. The law prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders, but third-party platforms (like exchanges) can still offer yield on stablecoins. The proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act could close that gap by clarifying whether yield should be restricted across the board or allowed under certain conditions.
Related: Crypto investor sentiment will rise once CLARITY Act is passed: Bessent
CLARITY Act nearing Senate markup hearing
The US House of Representatives passed the CLARITY Act on July 17, 2025. In January, Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott delayed a planned markup, which has yet to be rescheduled.
Last week, Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal said the CLARITY Act could be nearing a markup hearing in the US Senate Banking Committee, with lawmakers close to agreement on key provisions. He noted that progress hinges on resolving disagreements over stablecoin yield.
Magazine: Bitcoin may take 7 years to upgrade to post-quantum — BIP-360 co-author
South Korea’s financial watchdog is tightening the rules around withdrawal-delay exemptions offered by crypto exchanges, after data showed that scam-linked accounts granted exemptions were responsible for a large share of voice-phishing losses. The Financial Services Commission (FSC), in coordination with the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) and the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA), unveiled a unified framework designed to standardize when users may bypass withdrawal delays.
Previously, exchanges could apply their own criteria for exemptions with no clear minimum standard, creating openings for bad actors to move funds quickly if a user met basic thresholds such as account age or trading history. The new regime aims to close those gaps by imposing consistent, objective criteria for eligibility and by bolstering ongoing oversight of exemption recipients.
Key takeaways
- Between June and September 2025, accounts granted withdrawal-delay exemptions accounted for 59% of fraudulent accounts and 75.5% of related losses on crypto exchanges in South Korea, according to the FSC.
- The revised framework requires exchanges to assess specific factors, including trading frequency, account history, and deposit/withdrawal amounts, before granting an exemption from withdrawal delays.
- Simulations cited by the FSC project a sharp reduction in eligible exemption recipients—roughly 1% of users—once the new rules are in place, though the regulator did not provide a baseline for comparison.
- In addition to standardizing criteria, the FSC will bolster ongoing monitoring of exemption recipients, including source-of-funds verification and detection of suspicious withdrawal activity.
Unified rules aim to curb misuse of withdrawal-delay exemptions
The FSCsaid the move is part of a broader effort to tighten control over how withdrawal-delay exemptions are used, especially in cases tied to voice-phishing scams. By centralizing the criteria in concert with the FSS and DAXA, the regulator intends to eliminate the previous practice of exchanges applying disparate, non-standard thresholds that could be exploited by criminals.
Under the new guidance, exchanges must apply uniform thresholds and objective evidence when evaluating exemption requests, rather than relying on opaque internal criteria. The objective measures highlighted by the authorities include a user’s trading activity, the history of the account, and typical deposit and withdrawal patterns. The objective aim is to prevent rapid transfers that often accompany phished accounts and other social-engineering frauds.
Fraud data underlines the risk
Data cited by the FSC illuminate why regulators consider withdrawal-delay exemptions a critical control point. The agency reported that the period from June to September 2025 saw a disproportionate share of fraud tied to exemptions. Specifically, accounts with exemptions comprised 59% of fraudulent accounts and 75.5% of related exchange losses. That concentration suggests that the exemptions, if left unstandardized, can amplify the impact of scams on users and on exchange balance sheets.
The figures also underscore the risk that a relatively small subset of users—those granted exemptions—could drive outsized losses if their activity escapes robust monitoring. By codifying eligibility criteria and enhancing oversight, the FSC and its partners aim to make it harder for illicit actors to exploit the exemption framework without detection.
Regulatory momentum and broader safeguards
The withdrawal-delay framework is part of a wider tightening of Korea’s crypto regulatory regime, which has accelerated amid recent incidents and exposure of control gaps. In a related move, the FSC ordered exchanges to reconcile internal ledgers with actual asset holdings at five-minute intervals following an inspection tied to a payout error at Bithumb. The aim is to close gaps in risk management and ensure that reported holdings reflect real, verifiable assets on hand.
Additional steps have been announced as part of a broader licensing and oversight push. On Jan. 29, South Korea expanded crypto-licensing scrutiny to cover not only exchanges but also major shareholders, signaling a more comprehensive approach to market integrity and compliance across the sector. These regulatory actions collectively reflect a deliberate shift toward tighter scrutiny as the domestic market seeks to curb misuse and strengthen ring-fenced protections for investors and users.
In this context, the FSC emphasized that it will continue reviewing the rule set to identify new circumvention methods and to adjust the framework as needed. The agency signaled willingness to iterate policy in response to evolving fraud tactics, with the objective of preserving legitimate access to crypto services while raising the bar for security and compliance.
Stakeholders should also watch how exchanges implement the new criteria in practice. While the rule changes aim to reduce the number of users eligible for withdrawal-delay exemptions, they may also affect users who rely on legitimate, time-sensitive access to funds. Balancing fraud prevention with user usability will be a key test as the regime rolls out across the market.
For readers tracking regulatory developments, the convergence of standardization efforts with enhanced surveillance signals a durable shift in South Korea’s crypto governance. The question now is how quickly exchanges can translate the policy into operational changes—especially regarding real-time monitoring, source-of-funds verification, and the ongoing audits of exemption recipients—and what this implies for the pace of legitimate deposits, withdrawals, and broader market liquidity in the months ahead.
The debate around centralized and decentralized exchanges has always generated more heat than clarity. CEX defenders point to DEX failures and declare the experiment incomplete. Proponents of self-custody treat centralized platforms as institutions to be dismantled. Both camps miss what actually matters: where the risk lives, and who agreed to carry it.
That is the real distinction between a CEX and a DEX. Not the technology, not the product surface, not the fee structure. It is a contract about responsibility.
The Trade-Off CEX Users Accept
When a user deposits on a centralized exchange, they are outsourcing operational complexity. The exchange handles custody, execution, fiat onboarding, and cross-chain access. You can deposit and withdraw through virtually any chain. Fiat flows in and out without requiring wallet management or on-chain knowledge. The friction inherent to crypto infrastructure largely disappears.
But the more significant transfer is less visible. By using a CEX, the user is also handing over accountability, and in doing so, gaining a kind of institutional caregiver. If a liquidation cascade wipes out positions and questions arise about how the platform performed, the exchange can choose to step in with bonuses, fee rebates, or direct compensation.
We have done this at Phemex, even during periods when the platform was operating at full capacity, when the pressure was highest and the easiest thing would have been to do nothing. That decision exists because there is a business that can make it, a team that can be held accountable, a relationship between platform and trader that goes beyond code.
Exchanges like Binance and Bitunix went down during those same events. We did not. On a centralized exchange, the user’s experience is something the business is personally invested in managing well.
That relationship does not exist on a DEX, by design. Rules are encoded and cannot be negotiated, adjusted for exceptional circumstances, or appealed to a support team. If you deposit to the wrong chain, the funds are gone. If a liquidation cascade hits and the protocol executes against you, no one will step in. The code ran. That is the final answer. There is no one to call, and that is exactly what the protocol’s users agreed to when they connected their wallet.
The Scope DEXs Unlock
The same conditions that remove the safety net also remove the intermediary, and for many users that is the point.
DEXs meaningfully expand what is possible in crypto. Liquidity provision, governance participation, and fee generation are all accessible to anyone willing to engage with the mechanics, not just to market makers or institutions.
A user who is not a trader can still participate in how markets function by providing liquidity to a pool. Someone holding an asset long-term can earn yield without trusting a third party with custody. When the tokenomics are structured well, users do not just trade on a protocol, they own part of it.
The counterweight is full responsibility. You manage your own wallet, you verify the chain before every transaction, and you accept the fixed parameters of the protocol regardless of whether those parameters favor you in a given situation. DEXs do not make exceptions, and that predictability is genuinely valuable.
But it demands a level of technical awareness and risk tolerance that is not realistic for every user in the market. Not all traders have traded on a DEX, and many have no interest in doing so because they simply do not want the burden of managing all of that themselves. That is a legitimate position, not a failure of ambition.
In my view, DEXs are a net positive for the ecosystem because they broaden the scope of what is possible by a lot. But users need to enter that environment with a clear understanding of what they are signing up for.
Where Centralized Exchanges Broke the Contract
Centralized exchanges have lost significant credibility over the past two years. FTX was the inflection point, but what came after made clear it was not an isolated failure. The pattern that emerged, platforms operating with backdoor arrangements, extracting value from users, managing reserves in ways that contradicted their public statements, damaged the confidence of retail participants in ways that have not fully recovered.
I have watched the sentiment shift in real time. Two or three years ago, the message of crypto was clear: alternative infrastructure, more freedom, more transparency, against institutions that resisted all of it. The adversary was traditional finance, the banks, the suits. That message has changed. What I see now is users against crypto scammers, honest participants against extractive ones. The adversary is no longer external. Platforms like Binance, which is now navigating a serious PR crisis of its own making, have become the entrenched incumbents that users are pushing back against. The very thing crypto was built to challenge, opaque institutions that operate in their own interest, has emerged inside the industry.
This is the responsibility that falls on those of us running centralized exchanges. The users who deposit on our platforms are making a specific bet: that the caregiver model is worth the trade-off, that handing over custody and self-sovereignty is worth the protection and the managed experience they get in return. When platforms violate that implicit agreement, they do not just hurt themselves. They push users toward self-custody and decentralized protocols, and given what some of those platforms did, that response is completely rational. The leaders of this industry failed to hold that trust. That is simply true.
The DEX market share relative to CEXs has grown month over month throughout 2025. Users are not moving to DEXs because on-chain execution suddenly became easier. They are moving because they stopped trusting the people running centralized platforms.
The Honest Framework
Neither model is inherently superior, and anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
The question worth asking is much simpler: what kind of relationship does this user actually want with their trading environment? Someone who wants cross-chain deposits, fiat access, and a platform that takes responsibility when things go wrong will be better served on a centralized exchange like Phemex.
Someone who wants direct protocol interaction, self-custody, and participation in the underlying economics will be better served on a DEX, provided they understand the technical responsibility that comes with it.
These are different users making different choices about where risk should sit. The industry owes both of them honesty about the terms of that choice. Centralized exchanges cannot promise security while operating without transparency. Decentralized platforms cannot promise freedom while downplaying the responsibility users absorb in exchange.
What the next cycle requires from both sides is straightforward: say clearly what you are, deliver on it, and stop pretending the other model does not exist or does not serve a real purpose.
At Phemex, that is the standard we hold ourselves to. Not because it makes for a useful message. Because it is the only version of this business worth running.
The post CEXs and DEXs Are Not Competitors. They Are Different Contracts. appeared first on BeInCrypto.
Crypto World
Morgan Stanley’s bitcoin ETF opens today, giving BlackRock’s $55 billion IBIT fund its toughest rival yet
BlackRock’s most successful exchange-traded fund (ETF) is facing its clearest challenge yet, as Morgan Stanley rolls out a cheaper rival with direct access to trillions in client capital.
Morgan Stanley’s ETF, trading under MSBT, began trading Tuesday with a 0.14% expense ratio, below the iShares Bitcoin Trust’s (IBIT) 0.25%. The difference is narrow but lands in a market where price is one of the few levers investors can pull.
Each spot bitcoin ETF holds bitcoin and tracks its price. That leaves cost, liquidity and access as the main points of difference. IBIT has led on scale and trading activity since launch, becoming the most liquid vehicle for both shares and options tied to bitcoin ETFs with roughly $55 billion in assets-under-management.
That liquidity gives IBIT an edge that may be hard to replicate.
“The launch will impact things but it will be interesting to see if it can actually siphon assets from other funds,” said James Seyffart, ETF analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. “IBIT is the most liquid ETF for trading and in the options market and it’s unlikely MSBT will ever compete with that. At least not anytime remotely soon.”
Still, Morgan Stanley’s entry changes the competitive balance.
The bank can tap its vast wealth management network, where advisors can shift client allocations with a single trade. In practice, that means new demand may be directed toward MSBT rather than existing funds like IBIT.
“Distribution is king in the ETF space, and Morgan Stanley has that in spades with its army of wealth managers,” said Nate Geraci, president of the ETF Store. “Combined with MSBT being the lowest-cost spot bitcoin ETF on the market, that’s a strong recipe for success.”
Geraci added that MSBT, which uses undercuts IBIT by 11 basis points, a gap large enough to draw attention from both investors and BlackRock.
IBIT’s position reflects how the market has evolved. Early inflows favored large, trusted issuers with deep liquidity. Over time, as more trusted names have entered the market, fee sensitivity has grown.
Morgan Stanley’s launch may speed up that shift, even if IBIT retains its lead in trading volume.
The result is a more defined split in the market. IBIT offers depth and liquidity for active traders.
Newer entrants like MSBT compete on cost and distribution. Morgan Stanley’s wealth management arm oversees trillions in client assets and has one of the largest adviser networks in the industry, giving the bank a steep advantage. As more capital moves through financial advisors rather than direct trading, that channel may carry increasing weight.
For now, IBIT remains the benchmark. But with fees falling and new entrants targeting its position, its grip on flows may face its first sustained test.
South Korea’s financial regulator said it will tighten the exception rules under crypto exchanges’ withdrawal-delay system after finding that scam-linked accounts granted exemptions accounted for most voice-phishing-related losses.
The Financial Services Commission (FSC) said Wednesday that the strengthened framework, developed with the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) and the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA), will impose unified standards on when users can bypass withdrawal delays.
The regulator said exchanges had been applying their own exception criteria with no clear minimum standard, creating loopholes that let bad actors quickly move funds if they meet easy requirements such as account age or trading history.
From June to September 2025, accounts granted withdrawal-delay exemptions made up 59% of fraudulent accounts and 75.5% of related losses at crypto exchanges, the FSC said.
The move follows a wider South Korean push to tighten crypto exchange controls after voice-phishing abuse and operational-control failures, including fresh reforms announced this week after Bithumb’s Bitcoin (BTC) payout error.
Unified rules aim to curb misuse of withdrawal-delay exemptions
The FSC said that under the new rules, exchanges must assess factors like trading frequency, account history and deposit and withdrawal amounts when determining whether a user qualifies for a withdrawal-delay exemption.
The regulator said the change is expected to reduce the number of users eligible for exemptions sharply. The FSC said a simulation showed the share of users eligible for exemptions would fall to around 1% under the new rules, but did not provide a baseline for comparison.
Related: South Korean brokerage Korea Investment & Securities eyes Coinone stake: Report
The FSC said it will also strengthen oversight of users granted exemptions through periodic checks, including verification of the source of funds, and by building systems to monitor suspicious withdrawal activity.
The regulator added that they will continue reviewing the rules to prevent new circumvention methods and adjust as needed.
The move adds to a broader push by South Korean regulators to tighten oversight of crypto exchanges following recent incidents.
On Tuesday, the FSC ordered exchanges to reconcile internal ledgers with actual asset holdings every five minutes after an inspection linked to the Bithumb payout error found gaps in internal controls and risk management systems.
On Jan. 29, South Korea expanded crypto licensing scrutiny to cover exchanges and major shareholders.
Magazine: ‘Phantom Bitcoin’ checks, Drift hack linked to North Korea: Asia Express
- Zcash surged above $336 after breaking key resistance as cryptocurrencies rose.
- The US-Iran ceasefire and fresh institutional interest have buoyed ZEC bulls.
- A potential short squeeze could catapult the ZEC price to above $500.
Zcash price has jumped 24% in the last 24 hours to $336, positioning ZEC as the top performer among the top 100 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization as of writing.
This sharp rally, which follows US President Donald Trump’s decision to abandon threats of military action against Iran in favour of a two-week ceasefire announcement, aligns with a pump across risk assets, including cryptocurrencies.
Zcash’s gains see it test the highest levels since late January 2026, and it currently sits 18th among the largest coins by market capitalization.
ZEC pumps amid crypto uptick
Zcash has pushed decisively beyond $300, delivering double-digit gains in 24 hours as its short-term outlook shifts bullish amid de-escalation in the US-Iran war.
The privacy-focused coin rose to intraday highs of $336, having cleared a major supply barrier as it tracked altcoins that echoed Bitcoin’s climb past $72,000.
ZEC traded at lows of $250 on Tuesday, and today’s uptick comes amid a 170% spike in daily volume.
Notably, geopolitical developments have added fuel to the upside spark of fresh institutional interest.
For instance, Foundry, operator of the world’s leading Bitcoin mining pool, has revealed plans to enter Zcash mining.
Also notable is the Zcash Open Development Lab’s unveiling of a $25 million ecosystem fund, with the initiative boasting the backing of global venture powerhouses like a16z crypto, Paradigm, and Coinbase Ventures.
Zcash price analysis
Zcash was holding above $330 on April 8, 2026, up on the day, as the broader near-term sentiment hints at bullish bias.
The positive picture aligns with the token’s powering through the convergence of its 100-day and 200-day Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs)
ZEC’s rebound means bulls can now eye the February 14 peak as a support level.
A firm close beyond this previous resistance-turned-support mark could unlock further upside, potentially triggering a short squeeze toward $500. Buyers now dominate as shorts suffer.
Leading into the breakout, Zcash had traced higher lows after a dip to a low of $193 on March 7, 2026.
Despite a long-term descending trendline, gains signal steady accumulation by investors. Momentum indicators back this recent outlook.
As well as the RSI, the Awesome Oscillator (AO) has flipped positive with expanding green bars.
That said, the steep vertical advance over the past two days hints at short-term overextension, particularly with the RSI in overbought territory.
In any case, such explosive moves typically invite minor retracements or sideways action.
Zcash price could thus revisit the $250-$230 region, before resuming higher.
Global markets moved unevenly as geopolitical tensions intensified and energy prices climbed sharply. Oil prices surged above key levels while Bitcoin maintained stability despite pressure. Meanwhile, equities fluctuated as traders reacted to escalating rhetoric and uncertain diplomatic outcomes.
Oil Market Reacts to Supply Disruption
Oil prices climbed above $110 per barrel as supply concerns deepened across global markets. Brent crude traded near $110 while West Texas Intermediate hovered above $112 during volatile sessions. These levels marked the highest range since 2022 and reflected tightening supply conditions.
The Strait of Hormuz remained partially disrupted, which affected nearly one-fifth of global oil shipments. Tanker delays increased, and shipping insurance costs rose sharply as risks intensified across the region. As a result, energy markets experienced strong upward pressure and persistent volatility.
The crisis also raised concerns about inflation and economic stability across major economies. Higher energy costs pushed production expenses upward and strained supply chains globally. Consequently, policymakers faced increasing pressure as inflation risks expanded alongside slower growth expectations.
Bitcoin Shows Stability Amid Market Stress
Bitcoin traded around $68,400 and held firm despite broader financial market volatility. The digital asset showed resilience even as sentiment indicators reflected heightened fear across markets. This divergence highlighted strong underlying demand from long-term holders and institutions.
Institutional participation supported Bitcoin’s price as large entities accumulated significant volumes in recent weeks. Exchange-traded funds absorbed substantial inflows earlier, though recent sessions showed moderate outflows. Even so, the overall structure remained stable as buyers maintained key support levels.
Leverage activity contributed to recent price movements, yet Bitcoin avoided sharp declines seen in other risk assets. This stability positioned the asset as a potential hedge during geopolitical uncertainty. As a result, Bitcoin maintained relative strength while traditional markets showed mixed performance.
Equities Fluctuate as Geopolitical Pressure Builds
Equity markets posted mixed results as geopolitical developments shaped market direction throughout the session. Major indices moved between gains and losses before stabilizing near closing levels. This pattern reflected uncertainty around potential escalation and diplomatic efforts.
Energy-driven inflation concerns weighed on sentiment while economic data added further pressure. Reports showed weaker demand in key sectors, which increased concerns about slowing economic activity. At the same time, rising input costs signaled continued inflationary pressure across industries.
Late-session momentum improved after signs of possible diplomatic engagement emerged from international leaders. Markets responded positively to any indication of reduced tension and potential negotiation. However, uncertainty remained high as the situation continued to evolve.
Crypto World
DOJ Says Tornado Cash Developer Made 250 Changes to the Protocol: Is the Immutable Code Defense Dead?
The DOJ core legal theory in the Roman Storm crypto case has never been that writing code is a crime. It’s that exercising operational control over a platform that processes more than $1 billion in illicit funds – while explicitly declining to implement feasible anti-money-laundering controls – constitutes running a criminal business.
That distinction is the mechanism that makes this case matter far beyond Tornado Cash.
Prosecutors filed a letter Tuesday rejecting Storm’s attempt to leverage a March Supreme Court ruling in Sony Music v. Cox Communications as grounds for dismissal.
The DOJ called the analogy “inapposite” – and the reasoning behind that rejection defines exactly what level of developer involvement triggers federal criminal liability under the current enforcement framework.
The unresolved question: where is the legal floor for DeFi developers who upgrade protocols, manage governance, and selectively respond to compliance inquiries? After Tuesday’s filing, that floor is still undefined – and prosecutors are pushing to make Storm’s retrial the place where it gets drawn.
- The Dismissal Attempt: Storm’s attorneys cited the Supreme Court’s Cox ruling – which shielded the ISP from liability for users’ copyright infringement – as precedent for dismissing criminal charges. DOJ prosecutors rejected the parallel as inapplicable to Storm’s conduct.
- The Control Argument: Prosecutors documented over 250 changes made to the Tornado Cash infrastructure during the charged period, directly contradicting Storm’s defense that the protocol was immutable code beyond his control. That operational record is central to the money laundering conspiracy charge.
- The Partial Conviction: A jury in August 2025 convicted Storm on conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business but deadlocked on money laundering conspiracy and sanctions evasion – the two charges prosecutors now want retried in October 2026.
- The Privacy Protocols Precedent: DOJ’s framing – that developers who implement changes and knowingly forgo compliance measures are operators, not bystanders – applies directly to any upgradeable DeFi protocol with identified founders or core teams.
- The Exposure: Storm faces up to 40–45 years in prison if convicted on all counts. The retrial scope covers the two deadlocked charges; the money transmitting conviction stands.
- What to Watch: The conference between Storm’s defense and Judge Katherine Polk Failla’s court will determine whether October 2026 becomes a firm retrial date – the specific scheduling order is the next legal trigger that confirms or compresses the timeline.
Explore: The best pre-launch token sales with asymmetric upside potential
What the DOJ’s Cox Rejection Actually Establishes – and Why the ‘Immutable Code’ Defense Is Running Out of Road
Storm’s legal team drew a specific parallel: the Supreme Court found Cox Communications shouldn’t be held liable for its users’ infringing activity because Cox had a robust, 98%-effective termination policy for repeat infringers.
The argument was that Storm, like Cox, was a neutral infrastructure provider. Prosecutors dismantled that comparison in a single filing.
The DOJ’s letter to Judge Failla emphasized that Cox actively discouraged the illegal conduct occurring on its network – while Storm and his co-conspirators at Tornado Cash did the opposite.
Prosecutors stated that Storm “actively lied in response to inquiries from victims, telling them he had little control over the protocol when in fact he and his co-conspirators implemented over 250 changes to Tornado Cash infrastructure during the charged time period and explicitly discussed – but forwent – feasible measures to curb criminality on their platform.”
That last clause is the legal weight-bearing element. Under the money laundering and unlicensed money transmission statutes at issue, the question isn’t whether a developer wrote code – it’s whether they operated a system they knew was being used for money laundering, had the capacity to limit that use, and chose not to.
The Bank Secrecy Act’s anti-money-laundering compliance obligations attach to operators, not passive bystanders. Prosecutors’ position is that Storm was an operator by every functional measure.
“In short, the defendant’s reaction to criminal use of his company was window dressing at best and outright misdirection at worst” – prosecutors’ letter to Judge Failla, filed Tuesday.
The August 2025 jury conviction on the unlicensed money transmission count already rejected Storm’s passive-developer framing once.
The October 2026 retrial targets the money laundering conspiracy and sanctions evasion charges directly – the counts where the jury deadlocked, not where it acquitted. That distinction matters: deadlock means twelve jurors couldn’t reach unanimity, not that the evidence was insufficient to convict.
Discover: The Best Crypto Presales Live Right Now
The post DOJ Says Tornado Cash Developer Made 250 Changes to the Protocol: Is the Immutable Code Defense Dead? appeared first on Cryptonews.
Evernorth has moved its XRPN merger plan forward with a fresh SEC filing. The amended S-4 keeps the company on course for a Nasdaq market debut. The transaction would combine Evernorth with Armada Acquisition Corp. II.
The move follows the SPAC route rather than a standard IPO. It gives the market another formal step in the listing process. If the deal closes, stock investors could access Evernorth’s XRP-focused strategy through a public company. For now, the filing serves as a process update, not a final approval.
Evernorth Advances Merger Process With Amended S-4 Filing
On April 7, 2026, Evernorth filed “Amendment No. 1” to its “Form S-4” with the SEC. The filing relates to its proposed merger with Armada Acquisition Corp. II. Armada already trades on Nasdaq under the ticker XRPN. The amendment keeps the registration path active.
A Form S-4 is used in business combinations that involve new securities. In this case, Evernorth is using a SPAC structure. That route differs from a traditional IPO. It links the market debut to the merger close.
The amended filing adds to earlier paperwork in the same transaction. It may include revised terms, updated disclosures, or responses to Sec comment. Such changes are common during review. They also give the market a clearer record before any shareholder vote.
The filing does not mean the merger is complete. The SEC review must continue, and other approvals may still be needed. Shareholders may also need to vote on the transaction. Closing terms remain part of the process.
XRPN Route Gives Evernorth a Public Market Path
XRPN is the current Nasdaq ticker for Armada Acquisition Corp. II. Evernorth plans to reach the market through that listed vehicle. If the transaction closes, the combined company would gain public market access. That is the core purpose of the merger.
The company has drawn attention because of its focus on XRP. Evernorth has described a business model tied to XRP exposure and treasury strategy. That approach differs from most recent SPAC deals. It also connects the transaction to digital asset markets.
Market attention has grown because few public companies center their strategy on XRP. No official filing text provided here confirms a direct partnership with Ripple. Even so, the company’s XRP focus remains central to the deal story. That keeps the merger in view across crypto markets.
For some investors, a listed stock can be simpler than direct token ownership. Shares can be bought through standard brokerage accounts. That structure may widen access for investors who avoid crypto custody. It may also increase attention on future treasury disclosures.
Next Steps Remain Before Any Nasdaq Debut
The next stage will center on SEC review and deal approvals. The parties may need to answer more staff comments. They may also need to update risk factors and financial details. Those steps are normal in a SPAC merger.
Market watchers are also tracking potential fundraising around the transaction. Reports have said Evernorth may seek more than $1 billion. Public confirmation on the final amount remains limited. Future filings may provide clearer numbers.
Reports have also mentioned interest from crypto-focused firms. However, the terms and participants remain unconfirmed in the provided details. Investors usually wait for named commitments in official documents.
AT&T and Fanatics partner to offer sports fans exclusive rewards and perks
Pharos Network raises $44M to push institutional RWAs onchain
Baftas N-Word Broadcast Breached BBC’s Editorial Standards, Investigation Finds
Why Israel is blocking foreign journalists from entering
Bitcoin: We’re Entering The Most Dangerous Phase
Alan Cumming Brands Baftas Ceremony A ‘Triggering S**tshow’
Why Crypto is the Future: Banks Can’t Be Trusted Anymore! #shorts
Moti chain mota paisa #pawansahu #naturalbodybilding #money
These 6 simple rules can change your financial future #MoneyRules #FinancialFreedom #MoneyManagement
-
NewsBeat6 days agoSteven Gerrard disagrees with Gary Neville over ‘shock’ Chelsea and Arsenal claim | Football
-
Business6 days agoNo Jackpot Winner and $194 Million Prize Rolls Over
-
Fashion5 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Spanx – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World7 days agoGold Price Prediction: Worst Month in 17 Years fo Save Haven Rock
-
Business3 days agoThree Gulf funds agree to back Paramount’s $81 billion takeover of Warner, WSJ reports
-
Business4 days agoExpert Picks for Every Need
-
Sports4 days agoIndia men’s 4x400m and mixed 4x100m relay teams register big progress | Other Sports News
-
Business6 days agoLogin and Checkout Issues Spark Merchant Frustration
-
Tech16 hours agoHow Long Can You Drive With Expired Registration? What Florida Law Says
-
Business3 days ago
No Jackpot Winner, Prize to Climb to $231 Million
-
Tech6 days agoCommonwealth Fusion Systems leans on magnets for near-term revenue
-
Fashion2 days agoMassimo Dutti Offers Inspiration for Your Summer Mood Board
-
Crypto World7 days agoRipple rolls out enterprise crypto treasury platform for corporates
-
Tech7 days agoDrawing Tablet Controls Laser In Real-Time
-
Crypto World7 days agoWhy It’s Partnering, Not Issuing
-
Politics5 days ago
Wings Over Scotland | The quality of mercy
-
Sports7 days agoSteal Gary Woodland’s subtle power move for longer drives
-
Fashion20 hours agoLet’s Discuss: DEI in 2026
-
Tech7 days agoBattery Tester Outperforms Cheaper Options
-
Business4 days agoAkebia Therapeutics, Inc. (AKBA) Discusses Pipeline Progress and Strategic Focus on Kidney Disease Treatments at R&D Day – Slideshow
You must be logged in to post a comment Login