The activity of Ethereum whales has not shown any clear trend in the last seven days, although there is high volatility, meaning whales are very much in action. In a recent analysis, no dominant buying or selling bias was seen despite the high activity.

One question that needs to be answered is whether the whales are moving their wealth into stablecoins or whether the reverse is the case. This will give us an idea of the dominant sentiment among large buyers who hold a significant portion of the market value.

We analyzed data sourced from Dune Analytics for USDT and USDC, the top two stablecoins, on decentralized exchanges (DEXs) for the last seven days and found that there is only a slight difference favoring stablecoins against Ethereum.

However, something more interesting could be going on, as USDC is also clearly preferred over USDT. We dug deeper to uncover the reason for this preference.

Whales Show Slight Bias Toward Stablecoins Against Ethereum

Just like there is no significant bias toward buying or selling of ETH on DEXs as revealed by the last study, whales seem to be buying a little more stablecoins than ETH. ETH to stablecoin transactions had a volume of $184 million, while stablecoin to ETH had $170 million. This shows a difference of roughly $14 million in favor of stablecoins.

However, the relatively small imbalance suggests cautious positioning rather than a decisive exit from ETH. A significant difference in volume would have suggested that large buyers are exiting ETH, which would raise concerns about a potential worsening of the bearish trend, but that is not the case at the moment.

Large buyers show slight bias towards stablecoins. Source: Dune.com | Analysis by author

Large Buyers Prefer USDC Over USDT

The data further revealed that large buyers are not just slightly flowing into stablecoins, but they prefer USDC by a wide margin. Of the roughly $162 million stablecoin volume traded over the last seven days, over $120 million was in USDC, while USDT only accounted for about $41 million.

Two scenarios are possible here. The first is that large buyers genuinely prefer USDC to USDT for different reasons ranging from security to fees. Secondly, the data may be showing pseudo bias toward USDC because most DEXs offered trades in USDC more than USDT, but that seems to be the case.

Large buyers prefer USDC over USDT. Source: Dune.com | Analysis by author

We analyzed the trading volume by trading platforms to see how the two stablecoins performed on platforms offering both options. Interestingly, Uniswap was the leading platform of choice, accounting for $135 million in volume (over 83%) of the total of $162 million, and offers both USDC and USDT.

USDC still outperformed USDT, accounting for over 77% of the Uniswap-bound stablecoin volume, worth over $104 million. This shows that large traders truly prefer USDC over USDT, which only had a little over $30 million in volume.

USDC volumes are significantly higher on Uniswap. Source: Dune.com | Analysis by author

Conclusion

Large buyers showing bias toward USDC could be for a number of reasons. First, it could be that USDC has deeper liquidity than USDT. This allows large traders to execute large trades running into millions with as little slippage as possible, which can save them thousands of dollars.

USDC is also commonly used as a dollar-denominated asset throughout DeFi, which is seeing significant growth, resulting in the higher volume relative to USDT.

In conclusion, large buyers are not exiting ETH. The difference in flow direction is marginal, suggesting cautious positioning rather than an outright bearish bias, despite ETH’s price decline. This is good news for retail traders, especially as we already established that the decline is not linked to whale activity.

Cointelegraph is committed to providing independent, high-quality journalism across the crypto, blockchain, AI, and fintech industries.

All news, reviews, and analyses are produced with full journalistic independence and integrity. For more details on our standards and processes, please read our Editorial Policy.

Binance Research says Gen Z traders using the exchange’s ecosystem are increasingly treating exchange-traded funds as a core part of their equity exposure. In early August, ETFs made up 25% of the cohort’s equity trading volume—an increase from earlier months—while interest in single-company stocks has eased.

The findings, based on activity across direct equities, tokenized stocks and traditional finance perpetual contracts, also highlight behavioral differences between younger traders and older generations, including how often they trade, whether they place sell orders, and the extent to which they use leveraged or inverse ETF products.

Key takeaways

• According to Binance Research, ETFs accounted for 25% of Gen Z equity trading volume in early August, up from 21.9% in July and 18.5% in June.
• Gen Z direct-equity accounts increasingly skew toward buy-only behavior, with 22% never placing a sell order—compared with 19% for Gen X and 9% for Baby Boomers.
• Gen Z traded less frequently than other working-age generations across TradFi perpetuals, averaging 13 monthly trades versus 17 for Millennials and 16.5 for Gen X.
• Leveraged and inverse ETFs appear to have limited pull among Gen Z: 88.2% of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts recorded no activity in those products.

Gen Z tilts equity activity toward ETFs

Binance’s analysis focused on how different generations allocate trading activity across three equity-related categories: direct equities, tokenized stocks, and traditional finance perpetuals. It compared account behavior across Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers using metrics such as trading frequency, net flows and leverage use.

Within that framework, ETFs gained share among Gen Z. In July, ETFs represented 21.9% of Gen Z net equity inflows. That compares with 18.5% in June, suggesting an accelerating preference for fund-based exposure rather than a rotation toward individual companies. Over the same period, the portion of Gen Z inflows allocated to individual stocks declined to 74.2% from 77%.

Binance Research did not frame this as a single-driver story, but the pattern is notable for traders deciding where to deploy capital: ETFs can offer diversified exposure, while direct equity allocation depends more heavily on idiosyncratic company performance.

Trading frequency and sell-order behavior differ by age

The report also points to structural differences in how Gen Z participates compared with older cohorts. Binance Research said Gen Z traded less frequently across all three equity products. For TradFi perpetuals, Gen Z averaged 13 monthly trades, compared with 17 for Millennials and 16.5 for Gen X.

Account behavior provides another window into how Gen Z approaches positioning. Among Gen Z direct-equity accounts, 22% had never placed a sell order. The share was lower for older groups—19% for Gen X and just 9% for Baby Boomers—while Millennials showed the highest level of buy-only behavior at 30%.

For Gen Z buy-only accounts, Binance reported that the most purchased assets by cumulative buying included Broadcom, Tesla and the Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF. The inclusion of a dividend-focused ETF among top cumulative buys aligns with the broader trend toward fund exposure rather than single-stock selection.

Binance also noted a key limitation for interpreting longer-term trends: its direct-equities offering only reached “meaningful scale” in June, leaving a comparatively short window to observe multi-month behavior changes.

Low use of leveraged and inverse ETF products

Beyond what Gen Z is buying, the report examines what it is avoiding—particularly in more complex ETF structures. Binance Research said Gen Z showed relatively little appetite for leveraged and inverse ETFs within TradFi perpetuals. Specifically, 88.2% of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts recorded no activity in leveraged or inverse ETFs.

For context, the no-activity shares were 84.5% for Millennials and 85.9% for Gen X, meaning Gen Z’s participation in these higher-risk product types appears modest relative to other cohorts. For traders, that matters because leveraged and inverse exposure can amplify volatility and risk management complexity, affecting how portfolios behave during market stress.

While the report does not provide breakdowns on whether the remaining Gen Z accounts used these products heavily or lightly, the headline takeaway is clear: for most Gen Z participants, ETF exposure—at least within these categories—has been largely non-leveraged.

Tokenized stocks: bStocks briefly overtake xStocks

Separately from the Gen Z cohort analysis, tokenized equities market data suggests shifting competitive dynamics among issuers. Binance’s bStocks briefly overtook Kraken’s xStocks as the second-largest tokenized stock issuer this week, according to Token Terminal data cited in the source.

As of Tuesday, bStocks held $610.6 million in tokenized stock value, compared with $601.2 million for xStocks. By Friday, the positions reversed: Token Terminal showed xStocks at $610.7 million and bStocks at $579.6 million. The report described these levels as about 22.3% and 21.2% of the roughly $2.7 billion tokenized stock market, respectively. Ondo Finance remained the largest issuer with $971.8 million.

Looking at the market as a whole, the source also pointed to continued expansion in distributed value tracked by RWA.xyz, which reported $2.43 billion in distributed value as of Friday—about 5% higher than over the previous 30 days. For investors, the issuer “leadership” flip between bStocks and xStocks underlines how quickly tokenized-stock balances can shift as flows move across platforms and products, even while the top issuer maintains its position.

That fast-moving ranking is also a reminder that tokenized equities remain a developing segment: total market growth is measurable, but individual issuers can move up or down quickly as their tokenized exposure rises and falls.

Going forward, traders should watch whether Gen Z’s ETF share continues to rise beyond the current early post-scale window for Binance direct equities, and whether the limited leveraged/inverse activity persists as more participants enter. In parallel, the tokenized-stock rankings may remain fluid—so changes in issuer balances could be as important as the broader market growth trend.

Coinbase and Ripple executives have been named among the expected attendees at an Aug. 19 White House meeting involving at least six crypto and prediction market companies.

Semafor reporter Eleanor Mueller said executives from Coinbase, Ripple, a16z, Chainlink, Paradigm and Kalshi were expected to attend the White House meeting, citing people familiar with the plans.

The report did not identify the individual executives who will represent each firm. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse have both supported the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which remains stalled in the Senate after lawmakers left Washington for their August recess.

President Donald Trump may attend with members of his administration, according to the original report supplied for this story. However, an earlier crypto.news report said the White House had not released a formal participant list and that Trump’s attendance remained unclear.

CFTC Chairman Michael Selig and SEC Chairman Paul Atkins are also expected to participate, according to people familiar with the planning. Neither the White House nor the two regulators had published a formal agenda for the meeting at the time of writing.

Coinbase and Ripple bring CLARITY Act interests

For Coinbase and Ripple, the meeting comes before a scheduled Senate test for legislation that could decide how the two main U.S. market regulators divide responsibility for digital assets.

The CLARITY Act would place spot markets for qualifying digital commodities under CFTC oversight while keeping crypto assets classified as securities within the SEC’s authority. It would also establish federal requirements for exchanges, brokers, dealers, advisers, and digital asset custodians.

American investors could be directly affected by that division because a token’s regulatory status can determine where it may trade, which disclosures apply, and whether a platform must register with the SEC or comply with CFTC market rules.

Coinbase has supported the legislation while continuing to raise concerns about provisions governing stablecoin rewards and decentralized finance. In an Aug. 7 statement, Armstrong called the Senate delay disappointing but said adoption would continue regardless of Congress’ timetable.

“The momentum behind this technology keeps growing with or without a congressional calendar,” Armstrong said.

An Aug. 8 report on Armstrong said the Coinbase chief pointed to stablecoin use, tokenized assets and perpetual futures as areas where activity could continue while lawmakers negotiate. He also argued that a consistent federal framework could support investment and offer stronger protections for U.S. consumers.

Garlinghouse has also backed the bill during negotiations. Ripple and Coinbase were part of a coalition of more than 120 companies that urged lawmakers to advance the proposal in April, according to a May report on Garlinghouse.

Andreessen Horowitz, better known as a16z, has also supported the legislation, while Chainlink works with financial companies on blockchain infrastructure. Paradigm invests in crypto businesses and is a backer of Kalshi, a CFTC-regulated prediction market operator.

CLARITY Act faces a Sept. 15 Senate test

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed with the CLARITY Act before the chamber began its August recess. The Senate Daily Press schedule says the motion will ripen at 2:15 p.m. on Sept. 15, one day after senators return for regular business.

The procedural vote would not pass the bill or send it to Trump. Clearing cloture would allow the Senate to begin formal consideration, after which lawmakers could debate the proposal, introduce amendments, and hold a separate vote on final passage.

At least 60 senators must support cloture. Republicans cannot reach the threshold alone, making Democratic votes necessary even if most Republican senators back the measure.

The House approved its version in July 2025 by a 294–134 vote, with 78 Democrats joining Republicans. In May 2026, the Senate Banking Committee advanced its part of the legislation by a 15–9 vote after Democratic Sens. Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks voted with Republicans.

Any text approved by the Senate that differs from the House measure would require another House vote or negotiations between the two chambers before reaching the president.

Unresolved disagreements include political ethics provisions, rules for rewards paid on stablecoin balances, protections for software developers, illicit finance controls, and consumer safeguards. The White House has not said whether any of those subjects will appear on the Aug. 19 meeting agenda.

Prediction markets remain doubtful about passage

Prediction markets have continued to price in a low chance that the CLARITY Act will become law in 2026, even as the Senate prepares for its September procedural vote.

Polymarket traders placed the probability at 19%. Since such contracts trade continuously, the figure has moved as participants respond to the White House meeting reports and the Senate timetable.

On Aug. 14, the contract briefly showed a 21% probability, rising from 17% one day earlier. Another recent reading placed the chance at 16%, down from an 82% peak in February.

Galaxy Research reportedly assigned a 10% chance of passage during 2026, citing unresolved policy disputes and the limited number of Senate working days before the midterm election recess.

A separate Kalshi contract provided a more favorable reading for an earlier procedural event. As of Aug. 11, traders assigned an 88% probability that the Senate would vote on the legislation before Oct. 1, with about $1.23 million traded on the contract. The date aligns with Thune’s Sept. 15 cloture schedule but does not indicate whether senators will ultimately approve the bill.

CFTC meeting will follow on Aug. 20

People involved in the planning have described the White House event as a kickoff for the CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee’s first meeting, which is scheduled for Aug. 20 in Washington.

According to the CFTC’s published agenda, the three-hour session will run from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern time. Committee members will attend in person, while the public will be able to watch the proceedings online.

The first 50-minute panel will examine the history of crypto regulation, state licensing requirements, overlapping jurisdictions, and the lack of a complete federal market structure framework. Members will also discuss how the CFTC could modernize existing rules within its current legal authority and support future legislation from Congress.

A second session will cover artificial intelligence in trading, compliance, surveillance and risk management, including autonomous systems capable of carrying out transactions or managing portfolios.

During the final panel, members will examine prediction markets, event contracts, market surveillance, manipulation risks, and customer protections. The agenda also lists questions involving federal and state authority, an issue directly relevant to Kalshi and other regulated event-contract platforms.

The advisory committee will not vote on a proposed crypto rule, and its recommendations do not automatically become CFTC policy. Members of the public may submit written statements about the meeting through Aug. 27, with qualifying submissions entering the public record.

Separately, the SEC canceled an Aug. 14 open meeting that had been scheduled to consider a proposed offering framework for certain crypto-related investment contracts. The agency’s cancellation notice did not provide a reason or announce another date.

Gen Z traders on Binance are allocating a growing share of their equity activity to exchange-traded funds (ETFs), with the products accounting for 25% of the cohort’s trading volume in early August, according to Binance Research.

ETFs accounted for 21.9% of Gen Z net equity inflows in July, up from 18.5% in June, while the share going to individual stocks fell to 74.2% from 77%.

The analysis examined activity across direct equities, tokenized stocks and traditional finance perpetuals, comparing Gen Z accounts with Millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers on measures including trading frequency, net flows and leverage use.

The younger cohort traded less frequently than other working-age generations across all three products. Gen Z averaged 13 monthly trades in TradFi perpetuals, compared with 17 for Millennials and 16.5 for Gen X.

Among Gen Z direct-equity accounts, 22% had never placed a sell order, compared with 19% of Gen X accounts and 9% of Baby Boomer accounts. Millennials had the highest share of buy-only accounts at 30%. Among those Gen Z buy-only accounts, top assets by cumulative purchases included Broadcom, Tesla and the Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF, according to Binance.

Net buyers by generation and product. Source: Binance

Gen Z also showed relatively little appetite for leveraged and inverse ETFs; 88.2% of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts recorded no activity in those products, compared with 84.5% of Millennials and 85.9% of Gen X.

Binance cautioned that its direct-equities product only reached meaningful scale in June, leaving a relatively short data window for establishing longer-term trends.

Related: Binance to restrict transactions involving HTX, 10 other crypto platforms

Binance bStocks briefly overtakes xStocks

Binance’s bStocks briefly overtook Kraken’s xStocks as the second-largest tokenized stock issuer this week, less than two months after launching. As of Tuesday, bStocks held $610.6 million in tokenized stock value, compared with $601.2 million for xStocks, according to Token Terminal data.

The positions had reversed by Friday, with Token Terminal showing xStocks at $610.7 million and bStocks at $579.6 million, representing 22.3% and 21.2% of the roughly $2.7 billion market, respectively. Ondo Finance remained the largest issuer at $971.8 million.

The broader tokenized stock market has continued to expand, with RWA.xyz tracking $2.43 billion in distributed value as of Friday, up about 5% over the past 30 days.

Tokenized stock market cap by issuer. Source: Token Terminal

Magazine: Solana’s fee overhaul increases burn and makes resource hogs pay

SpaceX has closed its $60 billion all-stock acquisition of Anysphere, the company behind the coding tool Cursor. The company confirmed the merger in a securities filing dated August 14. Cursor now operates as a wholly owned subsidiary under the SpaceX corporate structure.

Merger Terms Take Effect

SpaceX’s subsidiary, X67 Inc., merged directly with Anysphere to complete the transaction. This structure allowed Cursor to convert into a fully owned unit without a lengthy transition period. The filing outlines exact share conversion figures tied to the deal.

Cursor’s common and preferred stock converted into roughly 389.3 million shares of SpaceX stock. That figure reflects the $60 billion valuation set when the deal was first announced in June. SpaceX based the conversion on its average closing price over seven trading days before the merger closed.

Additional equity awards moved through the same process without exception. Vested restricted stock units converted into about 1.75 million shares of Class A common stock. Unvested awards converted into 29.1 million restricted units and 44.4 million stock options for future exercise.

Cursor Moves Under SpaceXAI

Cursor announced the completed deal directly on social media platform X. The company stated it will join the SpaceXAI division going forward. Its stated goal is to strengthen several existing products across the platform.

Those products include Grok Build, Grok Bot, the Grok application programming interface, and Cursor itself. SpaceX intends to fold these tools into a broader development ecosystem. The move follows closely behind the recent release of Grok 4.6.

Analysts see the timing as deliberate rather than coincidental. Grok 4.6 launched just before the merger reached completion. Company leadership positioned that release as an early signal of what a combined engineering team can produce.

Stock Slips Despite Recent Gains

SpaceX shares fell more than 2% at Thursday’s market open. The stock traded near $137 shortly after the opening bell. That dip followed a five-day run in which shares climbed over 23%.

Market watchers linked the earlier rally to anticipation of the merger’s completion. Grok 4.6’s release also contributed to the upward momentum during that stretch. The pullback on merger day reflects a common pattern after major corporate news breaks.

Morgan Stanley issued a bullish note on SpaceX earlier in the week. Analyst Adam Jones set a bull-case price target of $600 per share. He pointed to Cursor as a major driver behind that projected upside.

Jones also highlighted the coding tool’s position in a shifting software market. Code generation continues moving toward automated and commoditised workflows. Cursor, he noted, already holds a dominant position within that specific segment.

The completed deal marks one of the largest technology acquisitions of the year. SpaceX now controls a coding platform used widely across the software industry. How the integration performs will shape the next phase of the company’s expansion into artificial intelligence.

SpaceX has completed its $60 billion stock-based acquisition of Anysphere, bringing the Cursor coding platform into its SpaceXAI business as SPCX shares fell during Friday trading.

An SEC filing dated Aug. 14 showed that SpaceX completed the acquisition through X67 Inc., a subsidiary formed to carry out the transaction. X67 merged into Anysphere, leaving the Cursor developer as the surviving company and a wholly owned SpaceX subsidiary.

The closing came less than two months after SpaceX signed the merger agreement on June 16. Under its terms, the company valued Anysphere at an implied equity value of $60 billion and agreed to compensate its investors with SpaceX Class A common stock.

SpaceX has issued 389 million shares for Cursor

Cursor’s common and preferred shares outstanding immediately before the merger were automatically converted into rights to receive 389,289,254 SpaceX Class A shares, according to the filing.

SpaceX based the exchange on the volume-weighted average closing price of its Class A shares over the seven consecutive trading days before the acquisition closed. Rather than setting one fixed share price when the agreement was signed, the structure tied the final share count to SPCX’s recent market value.

Vested Cursor restricted stock units were separately converted into rights to receive 1,752,426 SpaceX Class A shares before applicable tax deductions. Holders will receive cash instead of fractional shares where the exchange calculation does not produce a whole share.

Unvested awards will remain tied to future service and vesting requirements. According to the filing, SpaceX assumed the outstanding awards and converted them into about 29,128,326 restricted stock units linked to its Class A shares.

Cursor employees and other holders also received approximately 44,365,047 options to purchase SpaceX Class A stock in place of their previous Anysphere options. Combined with the shares issued to existing investors, the converted awards leave Cursor’s workforce and shareholders exposed to the performance of the publicly traded company.

The SEC disclosure provides a direct U.S. angle for investors because the acquisition consideration consists of Nasdaq-listed SPCX shares. Existing shareholders will absorb the new Class A shares and converted equity awards, while former Cursor investors will gain exposure to SpaceX through the transaction.

The filing said SpaceX issued the merger consideration under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, an exemption for transactions that do not involve a public offering. Registration rights attached to the shares are governed by the merger agreement and related documents.

Cursor has joined the SpaceXAI product team

Confirming the closing in an X post, Cursor said its employees would join SpaceXAI and work on several products that already connect the two companies’ AI operations.

“Today, we have officially closed our acquisition. We will join the SpaceXAI team to help make Grok the world’s most useful AI and improve Grok Build, Grok Bot, Grok API, Cursor, and more,” the company said.

The statement points to continued use of the Cursor name, even though Anysphere now sits under SpaceX. Cursor did not announce immediate changes to customer accounts, subscriptions or access to its coding software in the post supplied with the announcement.

Work between the companies began before the merger agreement. SpaceX disclosed in earlier SEC documents that it entered into a compute and option agreement with Anysphere in April, giving the space company the right to buy the startup while the two sides worked together on AI models and related products.

SpaceX said in a quarterly filing that the compute arrangement gave Cursor access to GPU cluster capacity and supported joint work on Grok. The company also said the amount attributable to that collaboration during the three months ended June 30 was not material.

The acquisition plan became public on June 16, when the planned Cursor merger helped push SpaceX shares up more than 17% and briefly lifted the company’s market value to nearly $2.93 trillion, crypto.news reported at the time. SPCX reached an intraday record of $225.64 during the rally.

An earlier report on the company’s IPO filing language noted that SpaceX had warned investors about possible future equity issuance. The Cursor purchase has now shown how the company can use its listed shares to finance a large acquisition without paying the full $60 billion consideration in cash.

SPCX stock has slipped after the merger closed

SPCX opened Friday at $143 and moved between an intraday low of $135.53 and a high of $144.19, according to market data available after the merger announcement. Shares were last trading near $140, down about 0.9% from the previous close, after recovering from the session low.

The retreat left the stock slightly above its $135 initial public offering price but well below its June record. SpaceX sold shares to the public in June before joining the Nasdaq-100, giving American index funds and exchange-traded funds exposure to the company.

Its Nasdaq-100 index entry was expected to generate about $4.3 billion of automatic purchases by passive funds, according to a JPMorgan estimate cited in previous coverage. SPCX also trades through tokenized products and equity-linked perpetual contracts on crypto platforms, although such instruments do not always provide the same ownership or shareholder rights as the underlying stock.

For U.S. investors, the deal adds Cursor’s software business to a company already valued through its launch, satellite internet, defense, AI, and computing operations. The SEC filing does not provide a separate revenue figure, profit contribution, or post-merger valuation for Cursor beyond the $60 billion implied equity value used to calculate the transaction.

Morgan Stanley has tied its bull case to AI growth

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas has maintained an Overweight rating on SpaceX with a $300 base-case price target and a $600 bull-case target. Reaching the higher figure would value the company at about $8 trillion, according to the firm’s scenario.

In its latest assessment, Morgan Stanley projected that Cursor’s annual recurring revenue could rise from about $4 billion in June to $8 billion by the end of 2026 and approximately $33 billion by 2030. The estimates remain forecasts rather than figures reported by SpaceX in the acquisition filing.

Earlier Wall Street coverage showed that Morgan Stanley’s valuation also depended on Starship, Starlink, and space-based AI infrastructure. Goldman Sachs assigned a $205 price target at the time, while Citigroup set a $200 target.

Jonas said Cursor could account for part of SpaceX’s potential upside as investors receive more information about the company’s AI operations. His bull case also assumes lower costs for placing computing infrastructure in orbit and long-term growth in Starlink connections, conditions that SpaceX has not yet achieved at the scale used in Morgan Stanley’s model.

Crypto assets are still effectively absent from everyday commerce across the euro area, according to a new European Central Bank (ECB) survey of how businesses accept different payment methods. Even as digital payments expand, the ECB finds that only a small fraction of merchants take crypto—whether directly or via payment arrangements they describe as accepting crypto assets or stablecoins.

The ECB reports that just 0.2% of companies selling goods and services online accept crypto assets. For in-person payments, cash remains dominant: 92% of companies with physical points of sale accept it, while crypto and stablecoins together remain under 1% acceptance in both 2024 and 2026.

Key takeaways

• Crypto acceptance is minimal: the ECB survey shows 0.2% of euro area businesses accept crypto for online sales.
• Stablecoins are not catching on at physical checkout: crypto assets and stablecoins remain below 1% acceptance at physical points of sale in 2024 and 2026.
• Mobile payments are the main growth area: acceptance of mobile payment methods at physical locations rises to 68% in 2026 from 36% in 2024.
• Merchants prioritize customer demand and security: consumer preference is the top decision factor, while merchants that reject cash most often cite weak demand and cash handling frictions.
• Survey design leaves room for interpretation: the ECB does not clarify whether payments settled in traditional currency via crypto payment services should count as “crypto acceptance.”

Digital payments advance, but crypto stays sidelined

While crypto remains a marginal payment option, the ECB’s broader findings show a clear shift toward cashless methods at physical locations. Mobile payments recorded the biggest change: acceptance jumped to 68% in 2026 from 36% in 2024.

Among the mobile methods most commonly accepted are instant payments and digital wallets, including services such as Apple Pay and Google Pay. This matters because it suggests the euro area’s payment digitization is progressing through mainstream rails that consumers and merchants already understand—rather than through direct crypto settlement.

Cash’s position also changes only slightly over time. The ECB reports cash acceptance at physical points of sale edging up to 92% in 2026 from 90% in 2024. Physical card acceptance rises to 88% from 87% over the same period, reinforcing the idea that the “cashless” transition is largely coming from cards and mobile wallets rather than from crypto.

Online sales show crypto acceptance at near-zero levels

The ECB’s survey highlights an even starker picture for online payments. Across the euro area, only 0.2% of companies selling goods and services online accept crypto assets, indicating that merchants are not treating crypto as a mainstream ecommerce payment choice.

These results come from a survey of 8,205 businesses across the 21 euro area countries. The telephone interviews were carried out by Ipsos from Feb. 23 to April 10, covering merchants in categories including retail, restaurants and cafes, hotels, and arts, entertainment and recreation.

At the same time, the ECB’s findings include evidence that other payment instruments are not uniformly gaining ground. For example, bank check acceptance fell to 27% in 2026 from 36% in 2024—underscoring that “digital progress” does not simply lift every alternative method, but rather changes acceptance patterns unevenly.

Why merchants choose—or refuse—specific payment methods

The survey also sheds light on the decision criteria merchants use when selecting which payment instruments to accept. Consumer preference is cited as the most important factor, named by 26% of respondents. Security comes next at 22%, while ease of handling is third at 15%.

For businesses that do not accept cash, demand and logistics are central concerns. Weak customer demand is cited by 36%, difficulties depositing or withdrawing cash by 35%, and security risks by 29%.

Importantly, the data points to sharp country-level differences in attitudes about cash. The ECB reports that 51% of cash-accepting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Cyprus say they may stop accepting cash, compared with 23% in Greece and 18% in Bulgaria. That divergence suggests that merchants’ expectations about payment preferences vary widely across the region, even when broad trends—like rising mobile usage—move in a similar direction.

What “accepting crypto” means—and what remains unclear

The ECB survey asked companies whether they accept crypto assets or stablecoins, using examples including Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and Tether’s USDt (USDT). However, the report’s description leaves a key practical question open for interpretation.

Some crypto payment services allow merchants to receive settlement in traditional currency even when customers pay with crypto. The survey, as presented in the article, does not specify whether merchants should count such transactions as “crypto acceptance.” That matters because it affects how comparable merchant responses are: a business might technically participate in crypto payments while experiencing those payments as fiat settlement rather than as direct crypto receipt.

According to the conversation captured in the source coverage, Cointelegraph asked the ECB whether converted crypto payments could go unreported by merchants and whether regulatory uncertainty could influence how businesses answer. The ECB responded that it “prefer[s] not to speculate.”

On the regulatory question—whether euro area merchants are permitted to accept crypto under EU rules—the ECB did not take on the role of rule-maker. The ECB instead pointed to the European Commission and national lawmakers, noting that it does not set payment regulation.

Digital euro work continues as ECB studies payment behavior

The release arrives while the ECB is also advancing work on a digital euro, a central bank digital currency intended to complement cash and preserve the euro’s role. In that context, the new findings offer a useful baseline for policymakers: even as digital payments accelerate, merchants are not pivoting toward crypto or stablecoin acceptance at the checkout.

For investors and builders watching the payment sector, the main signal is not just that crypto adoption is low today—it’s that the merchant channel for payments appears to be consolidating around mainstream digital instruments (cards and mobile wallets) rather than crypto settlement. What changes next will likely depend on how payment providers improve merchant onboarding, how regulators clarify rules, and whether consumer demand grows for crypto payments in ways merchants can reliably monetize.