Bitcoin’s price tumbled before the news went out but it staged a minor recovery.

In alignment with most experts’ beliefs, the United States Federal Reserve kept the key interest rates unchanged for the second consecutive time in 2026.

BTC already experienced some volatility in the hours leading up to the second FOMC meeting of the year, dropping by $5,000 at one point. However, it has bounced toward $72,000 since the news went out.

America’s central bank maintained the federal funding rate, meaning what banks are charging each other for short-term loans, in the current range between 3.50% and 3.75%.

Experts noted before today’s announcement that the likely justification for this is the war that began in the Middle East, which has immediately impacted oil prices.

“The conflict with Iran has dramatically altered the backdrop to the March Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting and significantly increases the risks to inflation and the economy,” commented Oxford Economics’ chief US economist, Michael Pearce.

Bitcoin’s price reacted immediately to the news, even though it was expected. The asset had lost $5,000 earlier today in the hours leading up to the second FOMC meeting of the year, but bounced to $72,000 after the Fed’s decision went live.

Key Takeaways

• Cryptocurrency exchange Kraken postpones its anticipated $20 billion public offering due to unfavorable market conditions.
• Strategic acquisitions and platform expansion remain priorities as the company prepares for eventual market debut.
• Reduced trading activity and falling cryptocurrency valuations influence the timing delay.
• While some crypto companies proceed with listings, Kraken opts to wait for improved market sentiment.
• The exchange continues bolstering its infrastructure through key acquisitions ahead of future IPO attempt.

The cryptocurrency exchange Kraken has decided to postpone its public offering plans as digital asset markets experience an extended period of weakness. Following the submission of a preliminary S‑1 registration document to the Securities and Exchange Commission this past November, the company now faces challenging conditions characterized by depressed asset valuations and diminished trading activity.

Payward, the entity behind Kraken, achieved a $20 billion valuation following a successful $800 million capital raise. The financing round included a substantial $200 million investment from Citadel Securities, demonstrating institutional confidence in blockchain technology development. However, the cryptocurrency sector’s turbulence following Bitcoin’s peak price levels has created an unfavorable environment for public offerings.

Executives at the exchange have indicated plans to reconsider the public listing when market fundamentals demonstrate sustainable improvement. The combination of compressed valuations and subdued trading volumes has directly influenced decisions regarding IPO timing. Numerous cryptocurrency enterprises are carefully monitoring market dynamics before proceeding with their own public market debuts.

Cryptocurrency Sector Public Offering Landscape

The previous year witnessed an explosion of crypto-related IPO activity in 2025, with companies collectively securing $14.6 billion in capital. Notable participants included Circle, Bullish, and Gemini. This figure represented a dramatic leap from the modest $310 million accumulated during 2024. Positive regulatory developments from the SEC during that period created momentum for digital asset firms seeking public markets.

Currently in 2026, companies emphasizing infrastructure and compliance capabilities are leading the charge in public offering preparations. These organizations emphasize regulatory adherence, operational stability, and predictable revenue streams. Such characteristics resonate more effectively with conventional public market investors and meet stricter governance requirements.

BitGo emerged as 2026’s inaugural significant cryptocurrency public listing, successfully raising $213 million with shares priced at $18. Subsequently, the stock price declined roughly 44% amid broader market headwinds. This performance demonstrates how sensitive investor sentiment remains to cryptocurrency market fluctuations.

Strategic Positioning and Future Public Market Plans

Kraken has aggressively pursued strategic acquisitions to enhance platform capabilities, completing transactions for NinjaTrader and Backed Finance. The exchange also secured token management specialist Magna to diversify its digital asset service portfolio. Additionally, Kraken launched tokenized equity perpetual futures trading through its xStocks platform for international clients.

The postponement of public listing plans corresponds with organizational restructuring, including the earlier departure of CFO Stephanie Lemmerman this year. Leadership continues assessing optimal market timing for the eventual public debut. The acquisition strategy serves to strengthen operational infrastructure and market positioning ahead of renewed IPO efforts.

Meanwhile, other cryptocurrency platforms such as Securitize are advancing with public offering timelines despite challenging market dynamics. Securitize anticipates receiving SEC clearance and completing its Nasdaq listing during the second quarter. The company’s $225 million private investment in public equity (PIPE) financing provides financial cushioning amid ongoing market uncertainty.

Kraken’s public offering remains suspended as cryptocurrency markets work toward stabilization. Industry observers expect more favorable conditions will eventually emerge, catalyzing additional public offerings. The exchange’s current emphasis centers on operational excellence and sustainable expansion before ultimately pursuing its public market ambitions.

Kalshi co-founder Tarek Mansour has called Arizona’s criminal case against the company a “total overstep,” casting the move as an attack on a federally regulated exchange rather than a standard gambling enforcement action.

Mansour said the charges “have nothing to do with gambling or the merits” and argued that Arizona is trying to short-circuit a broader court fight over who controls prediction markets. Speaking to Bloomberg, he said Kalshi will continue to defend the business even as the legal battle expands.

Kalshi didn’t reply to CoinDesk’s request for comments.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed 20 criminal counts against Kalshi this week, accusing the company of operating an illegal gambling business and offering election wagering in the state.

Her office said Arizona law bars both unlicensed wagering operations and election betting.

Kalshi lets users trade contracts tied to real-world outcomes such as elections, sports and economic data. The company says those products are event contracts overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which recently signaled a more supportive federal stance toward these platforms. Kalshi, along with Polymarket, accounts for the lion’s share of prediction market activity, commanding more than 90% of notional volume, according to Dune data.

In a post on social media, CFTC Chairman Mike Selig called the matter a jurisdictional dispute and said criminal prosecution was “entirely inappropriate.” He said the agency is watching closely and evaluating its options.

State officials in Arizona and elsewhere have argued that some of them look more like wagers and should fall under state gambling rules.

That split now sits at the center of a larger national fight involving various states, including New York, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. Most state actions against Kalshi so far have relied on cease-and-desist orders, injunction requests or civil claims. Arizona’s case goes further by bringing criminal charges.

“It’s not surprising at all that states would bring new tools to bear in attempting to chill the federally regulated markets,” Aaron Brogan, founder and managing attorney of Brogan Law PLLC, told CoinDesk. “Because there is a fundamental conflict between states, which regulate and draw tax revenue from state-regulated gambling markets, and these federally regulated markets that are outside of state control.”

To Brogan, the question is ultimately whether or not federal law applies, meaning at the end of the day, “ this is a dispute between the federal government and state government and that’s where it should be determined.”

Visa has unveiled Visa CLI, the first product out of its newly branded Visa Crypto Labs division, targeting the emerging market for AI agent payments. The tool is currently in closed beta, with access available by request through GitHub authentication.

The product positions Visa’s payments infrastructure as a native layer for “command line commerce” — a term Cuy Sheffield, Visa’s head of crypto, has used to describe a new era in which AI agents transact autonomously rather than humans navigating web interfaces. The CLI tool is designed to let agents pay for external API calls on demand, removing the need for pre-configured accounts or credentials.

Initial use cases listed on the product page include image-generation APIs, music-generation endpoints, and proprietary data feeds, such as market data and research databases, locked behind paywalls.

The launch arrives as incumbent payment networks converge on agentic commerce from multiple angles. Stripe’s Tempo blockchain launched its mainnet today, simultaneously unveiling the Machine Payments Protocol, an open standard for agent-to-service micropayments that lets agents authorize a spending limit upfront and stream payments continuously.

Mastercard last week unveiled Verifiable Intent, an open trust framework co-developed with Google that creates a cryptographic record of what a user authorized when an AI agent acts on their behalf.

Meanwhile, Circle launched Nanopayments on testnet last week, built on the x402 standard, designed for sub-cent, gas-free USDC transactions for AI agents paying for pay-per-call APIs without accounts or credentials.

The competing approaches reveal a fault line emerging in how the industry envisions settling agent payments. Traditional finance players are building trust layers on top of existing payment rails, while crypto proponents argue blockchain infrastructure is better suited to a world where AI agents are first-class economic actors — a point underscored by Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, who noted that AI agents can own crypto wallets but cannot open bank accounts.

Visa CLI straddles that divide: card network rails with a developer-native, command-line interface designed for the same autonomous agent use cases crypto protocols are targeting.

This article was written with the assistance of AI workflows. All our stories are curated, edited and fact-checked by a human.

Crypto cards have gained attention as a convenience layer for spending digital assets, but a prominent founder argues they’re a transitional interface built on legacy rails. In a recent perspective, Vikram Arun, co-founder and CEO of Superform, makes the case that the real innovation lies in on-chain credit—where users can spend against productive, yield-bearing assets without selling them, and where risk is governed in public, transparent ways.

Arun’s central thesis is simple: the card is not the product. The true value comes from a credit line calibrated against a user’s on-chain balance sheet. As wallet infrastructure matures and on-chain credit becomes more capable, crypto cards risk becoming obsolete as a spender’s primary connection to value, replaced by systems that treat the card as a thin interface atop robust on-chain lending primitives.

Key takeaways

• Current crypto cards force asset liquidation to enable spending, creating taxable events and a false choice between liquidity and ownership.
• On-chain credit allows users to deposit yield-bearing assets, borrow against them, and spend without selling, so assets keep earning while debt increases with usage.
• Yield-bearing assets—such as certain stablecoins and DeFi positions—can provide meaningful returns (roughly 5% yield on staking-like yields, with DeFi strategies fluctuating around 5%–12%).
• Collateral can be diverse and productive, including vault shares, yield-bearing dollars, U.S. Treasuries, and strategy positions, enabling continuous earning until liquidation is required.

The problem with current crypto cards

According to Arun, today’s crypto cards rely on traditional financial rails: banks issue the cards, Visa or Mastercard anchor the networks, and compliance standards mirror conventional finance. This arrangement pushes users toward liquidating crypto to fiat to cover everyday purchases, which undermines the very premise of holding crypto-as-ownership.

From a tax perspective, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service treats conversions from cryptocurrency to fiat as taxable disposals. In practice, that means many routine purchases can trigger capital gains reporting, extracting value from productive holdings rather than letting assets compound. Even the revenue model for card issuers hinges on interchange fees—roughly 1% to 3% per transaction plus fixed fees—sustained by the existing interchange ecosystem. In short, the underlying architecture remains tethered to legacy liquidity and fee structures that reward selling over earning.

While the surface may appear decentralized, the dependencies run deep. The system’s friction comes not only from taxation and spend mechanics but from the incentive alignment that privileges immediate liquidity over long-term yield. The consequence is a spend interface that is compelling in the moment but structurally negative-sum for asset holders over time.

On-chain credit fixes these issues

The proposed alternative flips the paradigm. Instead of liquidating holdings to spend, users deposit yield-bearing assets and access a credit line against them. As the card is swiped, the user’s debt rises, yet the deposited assets continue to earn, and no asset is sold unless repayment fails. In this model, the “card” serves as an authorization surface, while the true product is the on-chain credit line, governed by transparent, programmable rules.

With on-chain credit, the spend is backed by a continually priced balance sheet. There are no forced conversions and no idle balances draining potential returns. Yield-bearing stablecoins can deliver about 5% yields, and DeFi lending and staking protocols historically offer roughly 5% to 12% returns depending on demand and incentive structures. This arrangement keeps users’ purchasing power intact while their assets keep generating value.

Crucially, this approach expands the set of eligible collateral beyond cash equivalents. Vault shares, yield-bearing dollars, Treasury-backed tokens, and strategy positions can all serve as collateral, allowing productive assets to compete for inclusion. The result is a system where the objective is to maximize productive use of capital, not simply convert assets into spendable fiat.

The card is just an interface

Under on-chain credit, the card becomes one of many possible interfaces to access credit. The essential question shifts from “What can I spend?” to “What can safely secure my credit?” Eligibility hinges on continuous pricing of collateral, risk bounds that are defined and enforced on-chain, and deterministic liquidation rules rather than discretionary, opaque risk assessments.

As Arun points out, the interface—whether a card, API, or wallet integration—can evolve without altering the core credit mechanism. If credit logic lives on-chain, cards become optional conveniences rather than essential rails. The same real-time authorization and risk checks can operate through programmable interfaces, while the collateral remains under the user’s control and continues to earn yield.

Visa’s recent coverage on crypto card usage—where spending surged in a growing ecosystem—illustrates both demand and friction: users want convenience, but the underlying model still adheres to traditional financial incentives. The move toward on-chain credit seeks to align incentives with user value: spending should not force asset liquidation, and risk should be transparent and governed by the community rather than a closed committee.

Managing risk through transparency

Risk and volatility are the immediate questions raised by any on-chain credit design. If collateral fluctuates, how can users avoid liquidation during a grocery run? The proposed solution is governance-driven conservatism: pre-set loan-to-value ratios that cap borrowing against collateral, paired with continuous pricing to reflect real-time risk. As collateral accrues yield, the buffer against liquidation can grow automatically, reducing sudden forced liquidations.

Unlike traditional credit models that mask risk behind adjustable rates and opaque terms, on-chain credit makes risk explicit. Governance parameters determine acceptable collateral types, pricing models, risk tolerances, and liquidation triggers. This transparency allows participants to opt in with a clear understanding of how their assets are protected (or liquidated) under stress scenarios.

In this framework, the card ceases to be the central product and becomes a user-friendly access point to a broader, programmable credit system. The long-term implication is a shift away from closed payment rails toward interoperable credit primitives that can be accessed via cards, wallets, or APIs, all anchored to on-chain governance and real-time risk management.

As Arun emphasizes, crypto cards won’t vanish simply because they fail; they’ll fade as on-chain credit proves to be a more productive, efficient, and transparent way to convert value into spendable power. The evolution—wallet-native credit with cards as optional interfaces—reads as a pathway to a more fluid, resilient on-chain economy where spending doesn’t require surrendering ownership prematurely.

Opinion by: Vikram Arun, co-founder and CEO of Superform.

The conversation around on-chain credit is ongoing. As wallets become more capable and the broader ecosystem experiments with programmable lending, readers should watch how governance frameworks mature, how collateral types expand, and how real-world spending adapts to a system that prioritizes continuous yield and transparent risk.

SBI Holdings’ crypto arm, SBI VC Trade, is rolling out a USDC lending product in Japan, enabling retail users to lend Circle’s stablecoin to the platform under fixed-term agreements in exchange for interest. The offering limits per-user exposure to 5,000 USDC, with the loan treated as an asset to SBI VC Trade rather than a traditional bank deposit. As such, customers bear counterparty risk, and funds cannot be withdrawn or transferred during the fixed term. SBI noted that borrowed USDC may be re-lent as part of its operational use.

The launch represents another step in Japan’s ongoing stablecoin rollout, bringing a consumer-accessible USDC yield product to market via a licensed domestic platform. While the product offers yield relative to typical cash deposits, it carries different protections and risk profiles compared with traditional deposits, a distinction SBI emphasized in its communication with users.

Key takeaways

• SBI VC Trade introduces a USDC lending product in Japan, offering fixed-term yields to retail users with a maximum of 5,000 USDC per offering.
• Participants lend USDC directly to SBI VC Trade, meaning they assume counterparty risk rather than enjoying bank-like deposit protections.
• Funds are not withdrawable or transferable during the fixed term, and SBI may re-lend the borrowed USDC as part of its operations.
• The move aligns with Japan’s broader strategy to expand stablecoin use, building on regulatory approvals that allowed a full-scale USDC launch in March 2025 and related partnerships to promote USDC adoption.
• Past milestones include a Circle joint venture announced in August to widen USDC usage in Japan and a December agreement with Startale to explore a yen-denominated stablecoin for tokenized assets and cross-border settlement.

A new yields channel within Japan’s stablecoin push

According to SBI VC Trade, the new USDC lending product is designed as a fixed-term loan to the trading platform. Retail users who participate will receive periodic interest payments, with the caveat that their principal remains tied up for the term’s duration. The 5,000 USDC cap per offering provides a practical limit intended to balance retail participation with the platform’s liquidity management.

From SBI’s perspective, the arrangement enables the company to monetize borrowed USDC through its business operations, which could include further lending or other use of the stablecoin within its ecosystem. For users, the arrangement differentiates itself from a traditional bank deposit by not offering typical deposit protections or insurance and by introducing explicit counterparty risk. The lack of withdrawal or transfer capability during the term further underscores the product’s fixed nature and the need for careful risk assessment by potential participants.

Japan’s evolving stablecoin landscape and SBI’s strategic cadence

Japan’s stablecoin framework has gradually matured over the past year, with USDC receiving regulatory clearance to operate as a fully licensed dollar stablecoin in the country. Circle announced that approval enabled USDC to be used as a fully approved global dollar stablecoin in Japan, marking a notable policy shift toward formalized stablecoin use in consumer and business finance.

In parallel with the USDC licensing progress, SBI has been advancing its broader stablecoin strategy. The firm previously disclosed plans in November to pursue a USDC lending product and to explore exchange-traded fund (ETF) offerings via its domestic network. The trajectory continued with a March 2025 milestone: SBI VC Trade launched a full-scale USDC service in Japan after receiving regulatory clearance earlier in the month, signaling a more formalized entry of USDC into Japan’s financial fabric.

Additionally, SBI’s collaboration slate includes notable partnerships aimed at expanding USDC utility in Japan. In August, SBI announced a joint venture with Circle to accelerate USDC adoption and develop new use cases for the stablecoin within the Japanese market. Later in December, SBI partnered with Startale to develop a regulated yen-denominated stablecoin intended for tokenized assets and settlement on a global scale, with a planned launch in 2026’s second quarter. These developments illustrate SBI’s multi-pronged approach to integrating stablecoins into everyday finance and cross-border settlement workflows.

What this means for users and the market

For retail participants, the new lending product offers a structured pathway to earn interest on USDC holdings, presenting a tangible yield option beyond cash equivalents. However, the fixed-term and counterparty-risk profile differ from traditional deposits. Users should weigh the potential yield against the absence of typical bank protections and the inability to react to market shifts during the term.

From a market perspective, the move reinforces Japan’s position as a testing ground for regulated stablecoins with consumer-facing products. It also underscores SBI’s ongoing commitment to expanding stablecoin infrastructure and use cases—aligning with regulatory clearances and partnerships that broaden USDC’s reach in Japan. For traders and builders, the evolving framework highlights a growing ecosystem where stablecoins can be leveraged beyond transfers and payments, into yield-bearing and asset-financing structures that require robust risk disclosures and clear regulatory alignment.

As SBI continues to expand its stablecoin footprint, observers will be watching for further details on risk management, liquidity provisions, and protection measures for users in future offerings. Market participants will also be keen to see how other licensed players in Japan respond—whether more fixed-term lending or yield-bearing products emerge, and how these services interact with evolving regulatory expectations and consumer protections.

Overall, SBI VC Trade’s USDC lending pilot reflects a broader shift toward productized stablecoin utilities in regulated markets, where consumer access to yields sits alongside explicit risk disclosures and the necessity for strong counterparty governance. The coming months should reveal how this model scales and how users balance return opportunities with the attendant risk framework in one of the world’s most scrutinized crypto jurisdictions.

Since the Iran war began, the market narrative has been simple: the oil spike, inflationary impulse and wider market volatility will be temporary and die down once the conflict halts, allowing central banks to grease the economy and markets with easy money, as they have consistently done post-2008.

But there is a counter view that says scars from the Iran war will persist for long in the form of a structurally elevated global inflation floor. This could impact returns across all asset classes, including stocks, crypto and bonds.

The answer to that lies in the biggest takeaway from the Iran war: energy markets are fragile, and major economies are exposed to oil price spikes and energy supply disruptions.

For decades, several countries, including major economies, relied on global energy supply chains, price-driven markets, and comparative advantage. That model worked, but it has now crumbled amid the latest disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, which has led to massive energy shortages across the world, including in major economies like India, Japan and South Korea. If the conflict drags on, eventually countries like China, which have sizeable reserves, could suffer too, including the supposedly energy-independent U.S.

The result: Going forward, every nation is likely to make energy independence and security central to its national security strategy.

According to Energy Market Expert Anas Alhajji, this trend will trigger rapid de-globalisation of energy markets, prioritising control over cost and breeding sticky inflation.

“Once that mindset takes hold, global energy markets will never return to the old model of open, price-driven, largely commercial trade. Instead, capitalist economies—historically reliant on market efficiency, global supply chains, and comparative advantage—will increasingly mirror the Chinese approach: heavy state direction, strategic stockpiling, vertical integration, subsidies for domestic champions, and prioritization of self-reliance/control over pure cost minimization,” he said in an explainer on X.

He added that most nations lack China’s centralized supply chain, industrial base, and decision-making, which could result in slower innovation, fragmented markets, and higher costs.

“The result: higher costs, slower innovation in some areas, fragmented markets, and reduced overall efficiency for Western-style economies, all in the name of ‘security.’ Energy stops being just another commodity; it becomes a geopolitical weapon and a domestic fortress,” he noted.

In other words, the impact of the Iran war goes beyond the short-term oil price volatility.

There are already signs of widespread fallout, affecting everything from fertilisers and food production to industrial production and perhaps even chipmaking and the semiconductor industry, as the disruption in the Hormuz Strait chokes off supplies of helium and sulfur, which are crucial to chipmaking.

On top of that, the UN has already warned of higher food prices worldwide.

Impact on assets

All this means is that central banks may no longer have the room they once had to turn on the liquidity tap quickly to support the economy and asset prices.

From 2008 to 2021, the global consumer price index (CPI) or inflation rate averaged under 3% (briefly rising to 8% in 2022, only to fall back to 3% in 2024), according to data source St. Louis Fed. This allowed central banks, including the Fed, BOJ and others, to pursue ultra-easy monetary policies that set interest rates at or below zero, and pump liquidity via aggressive bond buying or quantitative easing, fueling epic gains across all markets. Bitcoin, for one, went from a single-digit dollar-denominated price in 2011 to $126,000 in October last year.

But with an expected structurally higher inflation floor, that paradigm shifts. Central banks can no longer assume they can always cut rates to drive growth. Liquidity could be more constrained, capping returns across asset classes.

The message is clear: Investors should brace for a world where inflation is sticky, monetary policy is less accommodative, and market volatility is the new normal.