Key takeaways

• Ethereum trades near $1,918 with a mildly bullish short-term outlook.
• ETH holds above the 50-day EMA at $1,864 but remains capped by the 100-day EMA near $1,924.
• The RSI at 56 signals steady buying momentum without overbought conditions.

Ethereum consolidates near $1,918

Ethereum (ETH) trades around $1,918, maintaining a mildly constructive outlook as buyers defend the area above its 50-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA).

The second-largest cryptocurrency is currently caught between the 50-day EMA at approximately $1,864 and the 100-day EMA near $1,924. This narrow range reflects an ongoing battle between buyers seeking to extend the recovery and sellers defending the longer-term resistance level.

Ethereum’s ability to hold above the 50-day EMA suggests that traders continue to buy price declines. However, ETH must decisively overcome the 100-day EMA to establish stronger bullish momentum.

ETH buyers defend the 50-Day EMA

The 50-day EMA at $1,864 provides Ethereum’s most important near-term support. ETH’s position above this indicator signals that the short-term trend is improving and that buyers remain active during pullbacks. 

Continued support above the moving average would preserve the possibility of a breakout toward $2,000.

However, Ethereum remains below the 100-day EMA at $1,924. This moving average has emerged as an immediate barrier and could continue to limit the recovery unless trading volume and buying pressure strengthen.

A sustained daily close above $1,924 would provide an early indication that bulls are gaining control.

Ethereum’s momentum indicators support a cautiously optimistic outlook. The Relative Strength Index stands near 56, above its neutral midpoint of 50. 

This reading points to steady bullish momentum while remaining comfortably below the overbought threshold of 70.

The RSI therefore leaves Ethereum with room to advance before the rally becomes technically overstretched.

Meanwhile, the Moving Average Convergence Divergence line remains slightly negative but continues to improve. This setup indicates that bearish momentum is weakening, although it does not yet confirm a fully established bullish trend.

Together, the RSI and MACD suggest that buyers are gradually strengthening their position.

Ethereum faces its first immediate resistance at the 100-day EMA near $1,924. A decisive move above this level could clear the way toward the psychological and horizontal resistance at $2,000. 

This area will likely represent a significant test because round-number levels often attract increased selling and profit-taking.

A sustained breakout above $2,000 would improve Ethereum’s technical structure and bring the 200-day EMA at approximately $2,124 into focus.

The 200-day EMA is particularly important because it serves as a broader measure of the long-term trend. ETH would need to reclaim this level to signal a more significant bullish reversal.

Ethereum’s recovery faces three major overhead barriers:

• The 100-day EMA at $1,924
• The psychological resistance at $2,000
• The 200-day EMA at $2,124

Breaking through $1,924 would strengthen the short-term outlook, while a move above $2,000 could attract additional buying interest.

However, the 200-day EMA at $2,124 remains the broader trend cap. Failure to clear this moving average could leave Ethereum vulnerable to renewed selling pressure after any short-term rally.

The current pivot area around $1,918 provides Ethereum’s initial support. If ETH loses this level, the 50-day EMA at $1,864 would become the next important defensive zone. Buyers must protect this moving average to preserve the constructive short-term structure.

A decisive break below $1,864 could weaken momentum and increase the risk of a deeper correction. In that scenario, the distant horizontal support at $1,385 could eventually come into focus, although intermediate support levels may slow the decline.

For now, Ethereum maintains a mildly bullish bias above the 50-day EMA. A confirmed close above $1,924 is needed to open the path toward $2,000 and potentially the 200-day EMA at $2,124.

Key takeaways

• XRP trades around $1.03 after falling more than 5% during the previous week.
• The token remains below its 50-day, 100-day, and 200-day EMAs, maintaining a bearish technical structure.
• An RSI reading near 39 and a negative MACD signal indicate persistent selling pressure.

XRP trades near $1.03 on Monday, recording a modest rebound after declining more than 5% during the previous week.

Despite the intraday recovery, XRP retains a bearish near-term outlook because it remains below all three major Exponential Moving Averages. Weak momentum indicators also suggest that sellers continue to control the broader price trend.

The $1.00 psychological level is now crucial. Buyers must defend this support to prevent another leg lower, while XRP needs to reclaim the 50-day EMA at $1.10 to improve its short-term outlook.

XRP remains below all major moving averages

XRP currently trades below the 50-day EMA at $1.10, the 100-day EMA at $1.18, and the 200-day EMA at $1.37

Trading below all three moving averages reflects weakness across short-, medium-, and long-term time frames.

The positioning also creates a wide zone of overhead resistance. Any XRP recovery is likely to face renewed selling as the price approaches these moving averages.

The 50-day EMA at $1.10 represents the first major test. A sustained daily close above this level would suggest that short-term momentum is beginning to improve.

XRP’s momentum indicators remain bearish despite Monday’s slight recovery. The Relative Strength Index stands near 39, below its neutral midpoint of 50. 

This reading shows that selling pressure remains dominant, although XRP has not yet entered the conventional oversold zone below 30.

The Moving Average Convergence Divergence indicator is also negative, reinforcing the bearish outlook.

Together, the RSI and MACD suggest that XRP’s rebound may remain limited unless buyers return with stronger trading volume. Any short-term rallies could attract selling while the token remains beneath its major moving averages.

XRP approaches critical $1 support

The psychological and horizontal level at $1.00 provides XRP’s most important immediate support.

Buyers may attempt to defend this area because round-number levels often attract increased demand. Holding above $1 could allow XRP to consolidate and make another attempt to reclaim its 50-day EMA.

However, a decisive daily close below $1.00 would weaken the technical structure and could accelerate selling pressure.

The absence of another specified nearby support means that a breakdown could expose XRP to a deeper correction as traders search for the next demand zone.

XRP must break above the 50-day EMA at $1.10 to begin reversing its bearish short-term trend.

The move from $1.03 to $1.10 would require a gain of nearly 7%. Clearing this moving average could encourage buyers to target the 100-day EMA at $1.18.

If XRP breaks above $1.18, the horizontal resistance at $1.30 would become the next upside target.

However, each of these levels could attract profit-taking and renewed selling, making a sustained recovery dependent on strong demand and improving momentum.

The 200-day EMA at $1.37 represents XRP’s most substantial technical barrier. This moving average serves as an important gauge of the broader trend. XRP would need to reclaim it to signal a meaningful shift away from its long-term bearish structure.

Beyond $1.37, the next major resistance is located around $1.90. However, this target remains distant while XRP trades below its nearer moving-average barriers.

For now, the more immediate recovery path runs through $1.10, $1.18, and $1.30.

XRP’s technical outlook remains bearish despite its modest recovery to $1.03. The token’s position below all major moving averages and its weak momentum indicators suggest that sellers retain control. The $1.00 support level will determine whether XRP can stabilize or faces another wave of losses.

Holding above $1 could support consolidation and a recovery toward the 50-day EMA at $1.10. Conversely, a decisive breakdown would confirm renewed bearish momentum and increase the risk of a deeper correction.

The Clarity Act has been punted to September after lawmakers missed the August window due to disagreements over ethics provisions, stablecoin yields, illicit finance measures, banking industry concerns, and a packed Senate calendar.

According to a statement by US Senator Jim Risch, the Senate will hold a procedural vote on the act on September 15. The delay brings the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) rule-making agenda in the spotlight. SEC Chair Paul Atkins has stated that the commission can, in partnership with the CFTC, provide a regulatory bridge while the Senate continues working on the act.

Clarity Act Faces Another Delay

The Clarity Act has been delayed yet again after lawmakers failed to agree on several key issues, including stablecoin yields and ethics provisions, the two sticking points. Senate Democrats have ruled out supporting the bill, arguing it does not satisfactorily address potential conflicts of interest involving federal officials, including the president, and their digital asset holdings. They have demanded stronger language in the bill, highlighting President Trump’s 2025 financial disclosure, which reported $1.4 billion in crypto-related income.

Additionally, the banking lobby introduced last-minute changes to key provisions dealing with stablecoin rules, while a packed legislative schedule meant the Senate prioritized other legislation, including funding extensions, Russia sanctions, and federal nominations over the Clarity Act.

Senators Ruben Gallego and Thom Tillis sent a bipartisan ethics proposal to the White House. The proposal would give state attorneys the authority to enforce restrictions on federal officials issuing digital assets. The proposal also requires President Trump to divest his crypto interests. However, President Trump has yet to approve the proposal.

Vote Set For September

Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed the delay on Thursday, while Senator Jim Risch stated that the Senate will begin the process of passing the Clarity Act on September 15.

“On September 15th, the U.S. Senate will start the process of passing the Clarity Act. The stakes couldn’t be higher. We must advance this important bill and make it law.”

Risch argued that the delay in passing the legislation could leave US citizens vulnerable to scam and fraud attempts, while shifting jobs and investments abroad.

Democratic support is crucial in ensuring the bill passes the Senate. The Republicans hold only 53 seats, significantly short of the 60 seats needed to invoke cloture and defeat a filibuster. While Republicans and crypto-friendly Democrats try to iron out a compromise, Senator Elizabeth Warren wants the Clarity Act to be rejected because it does not offer enough protection for investors and the financial system.

SEC Takes Center Stage

The legislative deadlock puts regulatory responsibility on the SEC while Senators continue efforts to get the legislation passed. SEC Chair Paul Atkins proposed working with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to provide a regulatory bridge and create a parallel regulatory track. Atkins stated that the collaboration would include token classifications and potential exemptions, permitting some on-chain transactions under specific federal requirements. The agencies issued joint guidance in March, stating that most cryptocurrencies are not securities.

The SEC’s July regulatory agenda targeted specific policy areas, including crypto, custody, fundraising, and tokenized securities. Separately, it is creating rules governing how crypto can be held, traded, and issued under federal securities laws.

However, the SEC Chair has clearly distinguished agency rules from a market framework, calling Congressional legislation “the way to future-proof” crypto regulation in the US. Atkins outlined the SEC’s authority regarding crypto, stating that the agency could clarify how securities laws could apply to crypto, address custody rules, establish exemptions, and create rules for securities-related on-chain activities.

Crypto Industry Not Worried

While the delay may have disappointed the industry, key figures believe crypto will thrive even if the Clarity Act fails to pass. Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan believes the industry will move forward despite regulatory uncertainty and legislative delays. Hougan stated,

“Crypto will be fine. Even if Clarity doesn’t pass, the crypto industry will find a way forward.”

Investors, market watchers, and analysts are hopeful after Senator Thune said the Senate will vote on the bill in September. However, with a packed legislative schedule, it might be difficult for the bill to pass this year.

Chris Niebuhr, analyst at Beacon Policy Advisors, stated,

“Nothing is dead until the year is up, technically speaking, but it’s hard to see the issues that have come up being solved in the time they have left.”

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

For years, banks ignored stablecoins. Then they tried to regulate them. Now they’re buying them for $1.8 billion. That’s not adoption. That’s capitulation.

The Acquisition Nobody’s Framing Correctly

Mastercard just acquired BVNK for $1.8 billion.

The headlines called it a “strategic move into digital payments.” A “bold bet on stablecoins.” An “expansion of Mastercard’s crypto infrastructure.”

All technically accurate. All missing the point.

Here’s the correct framing: one of the most powerful financial institutions on the planet just paid $1.8 billion to buy something it spent years trying to make irrelevant.

That’s not a strategic move. That’s a surrender with a press release.

What BVNK Actually Is

BVNK is a stablecoin infrastructure company. It allows businesses to send, receive, and settle payments using stablecoins, without the friction of traditional banking rails.

It’s fast. It’s global. It settles in seconds, not days. It doesn’t close on weekends. It doesn’t charge $25 wire fees. It doesn’t require the sender and receiver to have accounts at the same institution or even the same country.

In other words: it does everything that Mastercard’s network does, but without Mastercard.

That’s what Mastercard just paid $1.8 billion for.

Not to build better technology. To eliminate a competitor before it eliminated them.

The Timeline Of Denial

To understand what this acquisition means, you have to understand how long it took the traditional finance world to take stablecoins seriously.

2018-2019: Stablecoins are dismissed as a crypto curiosity. Useful for traders to park funds between positions. Not a real payments threat.

2020: USDC and Tether volumes start growing. Banks notice but frame it as a niche use case. “Real businesses use real banks.”

2021: Stablecoin transaction volumes surpass Visa’s annual volume for the first time. Banks start paying attention, not to adopt, but to lobby against.

2022-2023: Regulatory pressure mounts. Banks argue stablecoins are unsafe, unregulated, a systemic risk. The implicit message: regulate them out of existence.

2024: Stablecoins settle $46 trillion annually. The regulatory campaign fails. Congress starts moving toward legitimizing stablecoins rather than banning them.

2025: JPMorgan, Citigroup, and others begin building their own stablecoin products. The strategy shifts from “kill it” to “become it.”

2026: Mastercard pays $1.8 billion for BVNK.

That’s not a story about innovation. That’s a story about an industry losing a war and buying peace.

Why $1.8 Billion Is An Admission

Every acquisition has a story underneath the press release. Usually it’s one of three things:

Acqui-hire: We want your team. The product is secondary.

Market access: We want your customers. Cheaper to buy than build.

Threat elimination: You were going to hurt us. Now you won’t.

The BVNK acquisition is the third.

BVNK wasn’t just building a payments product. It was building a payments product that didn’t need Mastercard. Its infrastructure routes around the card networks entirely, no interchange fees, no network rails, no Mastercard.

Mastercard paying $1.8 billion for BVNK doesn’t add BVNK’s technology to Mastercard’s arsenal. It removes BVNK’s technology from the competitive landscape.

That’s what $1.8 billion buys: the absence of a threat.

What Mastercard Is Actually Afraid Of

Mastercard’s business model is elegant and simple: sit between buyers and sellers, charge a small percentage of every transaction that crosses your network, and collect that fee billions of times per day.

The model has worked for 60 years because there was no alternative. If you wanted to accept payments, you needed a card network. Period.

Stablecoins are the first credible alternative.

A merchant who accepts USDC doesn’t pay interchange fees. A business that settles invoices in stablecoins doesn’t need a correspondent bank. A company that pays international contractors in stablecoins bypasses the entire wire transfer system.

Every transaction that settles on stablecoin rails is a transaction that doesn’t cross Mastercard’s network.

At $46 trillion in annual stablecoin volume and growing, this isn’t a rounding error. It’s an existential question about whether the card network model survives the next decade.

Mastercard’s answer: buy the infrastructure before it scales beyond reach.

The Pattern Across Financial Services

Mastercard isn’t alone. The pattern is consistent across traditional finance:

JPMorgan spent years dismissing Bitcoin, then launched its own blockchain (JPM Coin), then integrated crypto products for wealth clients.

BlackRock called Bitcoin a “money laundering index” in 2017. It now manages $175 billion in Bitcoin ETF products.

PayPal fought crypto regulation for years. Now it issues its own stablecoin (PYUSD).

Visa called Bitcoin “not a payment system.” Now it runs stablecoin settlement pilots.

The sequence is always the same: dismissal → regulation attempts → failed regulation → build your own → acquire the competition.

Every institution eventually reaches the same conclusion: the technology works. The users want it. You can’t stop it. So you buy it.

BVNK at $1.8 billion is just the latest data point in a pattern that’s been playing out for five years.

What This Means For Crypto’s Future

The BVNK acquisition has implications beyond a single deal.

Stablecoins are no longer a crypto product. When Mastercard pays $1.8 billion for stablecoin infrastructure, stablecoins become financial infrastructure. The distinction between “crypto” and “payments” collapses.

The regulatory argument shifts. Banks argued that stablecoins were dangerous because they were unregulated. Now that banks are buying stablecoin companies, that argument becomes self-undermining. You can’t argue an asset class is too dangerous to exist while simultaneously acquiring it.

The innovation cycle accelerates. When incumbents start buying challengers, the challengers that weren’t acquired build faster. BVNK being acquired doesn’t eliminate the threat; it signals to every stablecoin startup that they’re worth acquiring. That’s fuel for more innovation, not less.

The price of independence goes up. Every stablecoin startup just got a new benchmark. If BVNK is worth $1.8 billion to Mastercard, what’s the next one worth? The acquisition creates a market for exactly the kind of infrastructure banks are trying to buy.

The Irony Worth Noting

The entire premise of crypto was disintermediation. Remove the middlemen. Let value move directly between people without banks taking a cut.

Now Mastercard, the quintessential financial middleman, owns a stablecoin company.

The technology that was supposed to eliminate Mastercard is now inside Mastercard.

That’s not a failure of crypto. That’s what happens when technology works well enough that the incumbents can’t ignore it. They integrate it, wrap it in their existing infrastructure, and charge for access.

This is what happened to the internet. The open web became the platform economy. Free communication became mediated by Google, Facebook, and Amazon. The technology remained. The disintermediation didn’t.

Stablecoins are following the same path. The technology is real. The utility is proven. And now the institutions are buying it, which means they’ll also control access to it.

Whether that’s good or bad depends on what you thought stablecoins were for.

The Question Crypto Has To Answer

If Mastercard owns BVNK, and JPMorgan owns its blockchain, and PayPal issues its own stablecoin, at what point does “crypto” just become “finance with better infrastructure”?

That’s not a rhetorical question. It has real implications for everyone who believed in the original premise: a financial system that doesn’t require institutional permission.

Every acquisition of a crypto company by a traditional institution is a step toward a world where the technology is decentralized but the access is not.

You can use stablecoins, as long as you use the ones Mastercard controls. You can hold Bitcoin, as long as you hold it through a BlackRock ETF. You can access DeFi, as long as you access it through a compliant on-ramp.

The rails are being bought. One acquisition at a time.

What Comes Next

Expect more acquisitions. Not because traditional finance suddenly loves crypto. Because the alternative, competing against it, is increasingly expensive.

BVNK at $1.8 billion is a bargain compared to what it would cost Mastercard to lose 10% of global payment volume to stablecoin rails over the next five years.

This is how incumbent industries absorb disruption: not by fighting it, but by buying it.

The crypto industry should take note. Because every acquisition is also a validation and a warning.

Validated: the technology works. The use case is real. The value is undeniable.

Warning: the infrastructure you built to escape the system is being bought by the system.

The question is whether there’s enough left outside the perimeter to still call it a revolution.

Miners quickly chose the more profitable version, the original Bitcoin. The new chain, which inherited Bitcoin’s massive mining difficulty, attracted only a tiny fraction of hashpower and produced just two blocks before grinding to a halt. Meanwhile, the original Bitcoin network continued uninterrupted, retaining virtually all activity, liquidity and security.

“Bitcoin worked exactly as designed,” Michael Saylor, the founder of BTC-holding company Strategy (MSTR), said on X.

Contrast that with the so-called free-market economies of the world. Falling corporate profitability should trigger cost-cutting and layoffs, but electoral politics often leads governments to block that adjustment, resulting in prolonged industrial sickness. Or, when high inflation hits, governments issue subsidies that artificially prop up demand, fueling even higher inflation. The usual free-market response of reduced consumption and price discipline never gets a chance to play out.

Bitcoin’s takeaway for the real economy is clear. The free market economy works when you let it run its course.

As for the coin’s spot price, it continues to trade near $65,000 alongside a continued demand for downside protection. This week’s U.S. inflation data is expected to influence the price trajectory.

Stay alert!

Read more: For analysis of today’s activity in altcoins and derivatives, see Crypto Markets Today . For a comprehensive list of events this week, see CoinDesk’s “Crypto Week Ahead.”

A.I. Data Center Backlash

Standard Chartered has initiated coverage of Chainlink with a $200 LINK price target for the end of 2030, a roughly 25-fold increase from its current price near $8, as the bank expects tokenization and decentralized finance activity to drive higher demand for Chainlink’s services.

According to Standard Chartered Global Head of Digital Assets Research Geoff Kendrick, LINK could rise to $13 by the end of 2026 before reaching $41, $82 and $133 in the following years and eventually hitting $200 by the end of 2030.

The forecast would put LINK ahead of the bank’s expected returns for Bitcoin and Ethereum over the same period. Standard Chartered has projected Bitcoin at $500,000 and Ethereum at $40,000 by the end of the decade.

LINK was trading around $8.25 at the time of the report, down 0.8% over the previous 24 hours, according to CoinGecko data.

Standard Chartered sees Chainlink fees rising 25-fold

Kendrick’s Chainlink valuation rests partly on the bank’s expectations for tokenized assets and decentralized finance. Standard Chartered expects the value of tokenized assets held on blockchains to increase from roughly $340 billion currently to $4 trillion by the end of 2028.

For DeFi, the bank expects deployed assets to increase 37-fold to $2.7 trillion by 2030. Chainlink could benefit from both markets because its infrastructure supplies blockchain applications with external data and supports transfers between different networks, according to the report.

Based on those projections, Standard Chartered estimated that fees generated by Chainlink could increase about 25 times by 2030. The bank’s LINK valuation assumes the token price will broadly track that increase in fees.

The forecast also depends on Chainlink retaining its position in the oracle market. Standard Chartered estimated that Chainlink currently secures more than $110 billion in value, representing roughly 70% of oracle-dependent DeFi value globally and more than 80% of such value on Ethereum.

Aave V3 alone accounts for about 44% of the value secured by Chainlink, according to the bank.

Kendrick has used the same 37-fold DeFi growth forecast in several recent digital asset research notes. In June, he set a $100 target for Uniswap’s UNI and a $3,500 target for Aave’s AAVE, followed by a $60 target for Morpho in July.

UNI recorded a double-digit gain after Standard Chartered published its coverage, while LINK’s reaction to the latest report has remained more limited.

Institutional clients support the Chainlink thesis

Standard Chartered also based part of its forecast on Chainlink’s work with traditional financial institutions, where the network can provide data needed to operate tokenized funds, bonds and other financial products.

The bank identified Swift, DTCC, Euroclear, JPMorgan, Mastercard, UBS, Fidelity and S&P Global among institutions using Chainlink services. Kendrick expects customers outside crypto-native markets to account for an increasing portion of Chainlink fees as tokenization projects move into production.

Unlike many crypto assets, tokenized financial products can require recurring access to information such as net asset values, interest rates and reserve attestations. Standard Chartered expects those requirements to increase demand for oracle services if more securities and funds move on-chain.

The institutional argument follows several Chainlink projects involving banks and financial market infrastructure.

In June, Chainlink joined Project Pangea alongside FairSquareLab, UniKA and Qivalis to test stablecoin-based foreign exchange settlement between Europe and South Korea. Chainlink said the initiative involves more than 50 banks representing over $10 trillion in assets under management.

The project combines blockchain infrastructure with ISO 20022 messaging and existing Swift systems to test payment-versus-payment settlement using compliant euro and South Korean won stablecoins.

Chainlink CCIP has gained assets from rival bridges

Cross-chain infrastructure forms another part of Standard Chartered’s valuation case, although the bank said Chainlink continues to trail LayerZero in interoperability.

Kendrick reported that more than $7 billion in token value has migrated from legacy bridge infrastructure to Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol following a $292 million exploit in April. CCIP quarterly volume reached $4.9 billion during the second quarter, an increase of 353% from a year earlier, according to the note.

Some of those migrations have involved major DeFi protocols and token issuers.

On Aug. 4, BitGo selected Chainlink CCIP as the exclusive cross-chain infrastructure for Wrapped Bitcoin, replacing LayerZero for WBTC transfers. WBTC had a market capitalization of roughly $7.4 billion at the time, making the change one of the largest announced migrations involving Chainlink.

BitGo said it would standardize WBTC deployments around Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Token standard and use CCIP as the default interoperability infrastructure for future digital assets it issues. The structure allows BitGo to retain control over token contracts, transfer limits and operational settings.

Including earlier announcements from Mantle, Lombard, Aave and Kraken, publicly announced migrations from LayerZero to Chainlink infrastructure had reached roughly $14.6 billion after BitGo’s decision.

The migration activity followed the $292 million exploit involving KelpDAO’s LayerZero-powered bridge. KelpDAO blamed LayerZero for the incident and said it planned to rebuild using Chainlink, while LayerZero disputed that characterization.

Aave and stablecoins have expanded Chainlink usage

Chainlink has also added usage through existing DeFi relationships rather than relying only on projects switching infrastructure providers.

In July, Aave expanded its use of CCIP by making it the default cross-chain infrastructure for activity across the Aave App and Stable Vaults. The integration extended an existing setup under which CCIP already handled transfers of Aave’s GHO stablecoin and cross-chain governance messages.

Aave said the expanded deployment allows CCIP to process deposits, withdrawals, vault rebalancing, yield optimization and asset transfers. Stable Vaults use the infrastructure to move deposits between Ethereum, Base and Arbitrum without requiring users to manually bridge assets.

GHO and Savings GHO also use Chainlink’s Cross-Chain Token standard. Aave said GHO was available across eight blockchain networks in July, with CCIP responsible for transfers between supported chains.

United Stables adopted Chainlink infrastructure the same month after its U stablecoin surpassed $1 billion in circulating supply and $2.5 billion in daily trading volume.

Chainlink Data Feeds and Proof of Reserve went live for U, while United Stables said it planned to integrate CCIP for future cross-chain transfers. The company said its Data Feeds support pricing information used across more than 20 lending protocols, while Proof of Reserve lets users and applications verify U’s collateral on-chain.

Standard Chartered’s projections assume deployments of this type continue expanding as tokenized assets and DeFi grow. However, the bank identified several conditions that could prevent LINK from reaching its targets.

Kendrick said institutional tokenization could develop more slowly than the bank expects, while pilot projects may fail to become recurring production workflows. Standard Chartered also identified competition from specialist data and interoperability providers as a risk to Chainlink’s market position.

Technical failures could also damage confidence in Chainlink’s infrastructure, according to the report, particularly as more financial assets depend on its oracle and cross-chain services.

Under Kendrick’s staged forecast, LINK would first need to reach $13 by the end of 2026 before advancing to $41, $82 and $133 on the path to Standard Chartered’s $200 target in 2030.