Crypto World
What is a stablecoin? USDC, USDT, RLUSD, and how they hold a dollar
A stablecoin is crypto that is supposed to be worth exactly one dollar, always. That sounds simple, but how a token holds a steady value, and whether it actually can, is one of the most important and misunderstood questions in crypto. Here is the complete answer.
Summary
- Stablecoins are designed to maintain a $1 value, giving users a way to move and hold funds on blockchains without the price swings common in cryptocurrencies.
- USDT, USDC, and RLUSD use dollar backed reserves to maintain their peg, while other stablecoins rely on crypto collateral or algorithmic mechanisms.
- A stablecoin’s reliability depends on the quality of its backing, with depegs, issuer risks, and regulatory requirements remaining key factors for users to consider.
A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency designed to hold a steady value, almost always pegged to one US dollar, so that one unit is meant to always be worth one dollar regardless of what the rest of the crypto market is doing.
If Bitcoin is like a stock that swings every day, a stablecoin is meant to behave like the cash in your wallet, a digital dollar that moves on blockchain rails. This stability is what makes stablecoins quietly essential: they are the bridge between volatile crypto and stable money, the safe harbor traders move into when markets crash, the dollars that flow through decentralized finance, and increasingly a payment rail that moves enormous volumes of money around the world.
As of 2026, stablecoins represent a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars and, by some measures, already move more annual volume than major card networks.
This guide explains stablecoins in plain English: what they are and why they matter, the three fundamentally different ways a stablecoin can hold its peg to a dollar, the major stablecoins including USDT, USDC, and RLUSD and how they differ, the mechanisms that keep the value steady, the real risks including the depegs that have destroyed billions, the regulation now taking shape around them, and how to use them sensibly.
It assumes no prior knowledge, and it takes the risks seriously instead of treating stablecoins as the risk-free digital cash they are sometimes presented as, because the single most important thing to understand about a stablecoin is that its stability is only as good as whatever is backing it, and not all stablecoins are backed equally.
What a stablecoin is, and why it matters
To understand why stablecoins exist, you have to understand the problem they solve, which is the central inconvenience of cryptocurrency.
Most cryptocurrencies are volatile, swinging in value by large percentages in short periods, and that volatility, while attractive to speculators, makes them impractical for many everyday purposes. You cannot easily price a coffee in an asset that might be worth ten percent less by the afternoon, you cannot comfortably hold your savings in something that swings wildly, and you cannot smoothly trade in and out of positions if the only alternative to a volatile coin is another volatile coin.
A stablecoin solves this by offering the benefits of cryptocurrency, fast, borderless, programmable digital money that moves on a blockchain, without the volatility, because its value is anchored to a stable asset, almost always the dollar. It is digital cash that lives on the same rails as the rest of crypto.
This stability makes stablecoins useful in several distinct ways, which is why they have become foundational. For traders, a stablecoin is where capital waits: when a trader wants to exit a volatile position without converting back to traditional banking, they move into a stablecoin, locking in their value in dollar terms while staying inside the crypto ecosystem, ready to redeploy instantly.
For decentralized finance, stablecoins are the essential unit of account and the most important form of collateral and liquidity, because lending, borrowing, and trading protocols need a stable value to function, and a volatile token would make them unworkable. For payments and transfers, stablecoins enable fast, low-cost movement of dollar value across borders without the delays and fees of traditional banking, which is why they are increasingly used for remittances, settlement, and cross-border commerce.
A stablecoin, in short, is the dollar made native to crypto, and that simple capability turns out to be one of the most important things in the entire ecosystem, the stable foundation on which much of the rest is built.
The three ways a stablecoin holds its peg
Not all stablecoins work the same way, and the differences are the single most important thing to understand, because how a stablecoin maintains its dollar peg determines how safe it is. There are three fundamentally different mechanisms.
The first and largest category is fiat-backed stablecoins, which hold their value through real-world reserves. The idea is simple: for every stablecoin in circulation, the issuing company holds one dollar, or a dollar’s worth of safe assets like cash and short-term government bonds, in reserve. When you want to redeem your stablecoin, you can exchange it for an actual dollar from those reserves, and it is this redeemability, the promise that each token is backed one-to-one by a real dollar you can claim, that keeps the price anchored at a dollar.
USDT and USDC are the dominant examples, and they work this way: a regulated or semi-regulated entity holds the dollars, issues tokens against them, and redeems them on demand. The strength of this model is simplicity and directness, real dollars backing real tokens; the tradeoff is centralization, because you must trust the issuer to actually hold the reserves it claims and to honor redemptions, which is why reserve transparency matters so much for these coins.
The second category is crypto-collateralized stablecoins, which back their value with other cryptocurrencies instead of dollars. Because crypto is volatile, these stablecoins use overcollateralization: to mint a dollar’s worth of the stablecoin, you must lock up more than a dollar’s worth of crypto, often around a hundred and fifty dollars of an asset like Ether for a hundred dollars of stablecoin, in a smart contract.
That extra cushion absorbs the price swings of the underlying crypto, and if the value of the locked collateral falls too far, the system automatically sells some of it to keep the stablecoin fully backed. DAI is the classic example. The strength of this model is decentralization, since it runs on smart contracts instead of relying on a company holding bank reserves; the tradeoff is capital inefficiency, because you must lock up more value than you receive, and exposure to the volatility of the crypto collateral if markets crash sharply.
The third category is algorithmic stablecoins, which try to hold their peg through code instead of through any reserves at all, using algorithms that automatically expand or contract the token’s supply to push its price toward a dollar. These are the riskiest and least proven, and the category suffered a catastrophic failure in 2022 when a major algorithmic stablecoin called TerraUSD collapsed, losing its peg and destroying tens of billions of dollars in value in days, because the algorithmic mechanism could not hold under stress and unraveled in a death spiral.
That collapse is why most people today prefer fiat-backed or crypto-collateralized stablecoins, and why algorithmic models are treated with deep suspicion. The three mechanisms, real dollars in reserve, overcollateralized crypto, and algorithmic supply adjustment, represent a spectrum from simplest and most centralized to most experimental and most dangerous, and knowing which mechanism a stablecoin uses is the first thing to check before trusting it to hold a dollar.
The major stablecoins: USDT, USDC, RLUSD, and more
With the mechanisms understood, the specific major stablecoins become easy to place, and knowing the differences among them helps you choose which to trust.
USDT, issued by Tether, is the largest stablecoin by far, with a market value well over a hundred billion dollars, and it is used in a large share of all crypto trades, making it the dominant medium of exchange across global exchanges. It is fiat-backed, holding reserves of cash, government bonds, and other assets, and it publishes periodic attestations of those reserves. USDT’s strength is its enormous liquidity and ubiquity, it is accepted nearly everywhere in crypto, while its history of questions about the exact composition and transparency of its reserves has made it the most debated stablecoin, even as it continues to dominate.
USDC, issued by Circle, is the second largest, also fiat-backed, and is generally regarded as the more transparency-focused and regulation-friendly option, backed by cash and short-term US government bonds with regular reserve reporting from major accounting firms. USDC is often preferred by institutions and in the United States precisely for that transparency and regulatory posture, trading some of USDT’s raw ubiquity for a stronger reputation on reserves.
RLUSD, issued by Ripple, is a newer entrant that has grown into a significant stablecoin, reaching well over a billion dollars in value and ranking among the larger stablecoins. It is a dollar-backed stablecoin built with a focus on regulatory compliance and institutional and payment use, live across many networks and integrated into payment infrastructure, including a notable integration with a major card network’s settlement system.
RLUSD represents the wave of newer, compliance-first stablecoins entering as the sector matures and as regulation takes shape, positioning itself for institutional settlement and payments rather than primarily for trading. Beyond these three, the landscape includes DAI and similar crypto-collateralized coins, other fiat-backed entrants from payment companies and exchanges, and yield-bearing stablecoins that pass through returns from their reserves to holders.
The pattern across the major stablecoins is that the largest and safest tend to be fiat-backed with transparent reserves, that USDT leads on liquidity while USDC leads on transparency, and that newer compliance-focused coins like RLUSD are entering to serve institutional and payment needs as the regulated era arrives.
How the peg actually holds
It is worth understanding the mechanism that keeps a fiat-backed stablecoin at a dollar, because it is more dynamic than simply holding reserves and it explains both the stability and the fragility.
The core of the peg is redeemability and arbitrage. For a fiat-backed stablecoin, the issuer promises to redeem each token for a dollar, and this promise creates a powerful market force that holds the price near a dollar even as the token trades freely. If the stablecoin’s market price drifts below a dollar, traders can buy it cheaply and redeem it with the issuer for a full dollar, pocketing the difference, and this buying pushes the price back up toward a dollar; if the price drifts above a dollar, the issuer can mint and sell new tokens, or traders can, increasing supply and pushing the price back down.
This arbitrage, the profit opportunity that appears whenever the price strays from the peg, is what continuously pulls the price back to a dollar, as long as the underlying promise of redeemability is credible. The peg is held not by magic but by the constant economic incentive for traders to profit from any deviation, which only works if everyone believes the tokens are truly backed and redeemable.
This is precisely why the credibility of the backing is everything. The arbitrage that holds the peg depends on the belief that each token can actually be redeemed for a real dollar, so the moment that belief weakens, if people doubt the reserves exist or fear the issuer cannot honor redemptions, the mechanism can break down, because no one will pay a dollar for a token they fear is not actually backed. A stablecoin’s peg, in other words, rests on confidence in its backing, and that confidence is the thing that can evaporate in a crisis.
For crypto-collateralized stablecoins, a similar dynamic holds, maintained by the overcollateralization and automatic liquidation in the smart contract, while for algorithmic stablecoins the peg rests entirely on the algorithm and on market confidence in it, with no hard asset backing to fall back on, which is why they are the most fragile. Understanding that the peg is a confidence-and-arbitrage mechanism rather than a guarantee is the key to understanding why stablecoins can fail.
The real risks: depegs and what they teach
Stablecoins are often treated as the safe, boring corner of crypto, but they carry genuine risks, and the history of depegs, moments when a stablecoin loses its dollar peg, is the most important thing to study before trusting one.
A depeg happens when a stablecoin’s price falls away from its intended dollar value, and depegs range from brief, minor wobbles to total, permanent collapses. The most catastrophic was the 2022 failure of TerraUSD, an algorithmic stablecoin that lost its peg and spiraled to near zero, destroying tens of billions of dollars in days, a collapse that showed how an algorithmic peg with no hard backing can unravel completely under stress.
But even backed stablecoins can depeg temporarily: a major fiat-backed stablecoin briefly lost its peg in 2023 when some of its cash reserves were caught in a collapsing bank, and the price dropped meaningfully until confidence was restored when the funds proved safe, showing that even well-backed coins are exposed to the quality and accessibility of their reserves. These episodes teach a clear lesson: a stablecoin is only as stable as its backing, and the safety of that backing, what it consists of, whether it truly exists, whether it can be accessed, is the real determinant of a stablecoin’s reliability.
The specific risks worth understanding flow from this. Reserve risk is the danger that a fiat-backed stablecoin’s reserves are not what they claim, are of poor quality, or cannot be accessed when needed, which is why transparency and the quality of reserves matter so much. Counterparty and centralization risk is the danger that the issuing company fails, freezes redemptions, or acts against holders, since with a centralized stablecoin you are trusting that company. Smart-contract risk affects crypto-collateralized stablecoins, where a flaw in the protocol’s code could undermine the system.
Algorithmic risk is the danger, proven catastrophic, that a code-based peg simply fails under stress. And regulatory risk is the possibility that changing rules affect a stablecoin’s operation or availability. The practical takeaway is that stablecoins are not uniformly safe, that fiat-backed coins with transparent, high-quality reserves are generally the most reliable, that crypto-collateralized coins carry smart-contract and collateral risk, and that algorithmic coins carry the gravest risk of all.
Treating any stablecoin as guaranteed to hold a dollar is a mistake the depeg history exists to correct.
The regulation taking shape
Stablecoins have grown large enough that governments are now regulating them seriously, and this regulatory wave is reshaping the sector in ways worth understanding.
As stablecoins became a significant part of the financial system, moving enormous volumes and holding large reserves, regulators recognized that a stablecoin failure could harm many people and even pose risks to financial stability, and they began building frameworks to govern them. In the United States, legislation has moved to set rules for stablecoin issuers, including requirements around reserves, redemption, and oversight, aiming to ensure that stablecoins are truly backed and that issuers operate responsibly.
In Europe, a comprehensive framework has set rules for stablecoins as part of a broader crypto regulation. The general thrust of this regulation is to require that stablecoins, especially the large fiat-backed ones used for payments, hold high-quality reserves, honor redemptions, disclose their backing, and operate under supervision, which is intended to make them safer and more trustworthy as they become part of mainstream finance.
This regulatory shift matters for users in concrete ways. Regulation tends to favor the transparent, well-backed stablecoins and to pressure or exclude the opaque or riskier ones, which over time should make the stablecoins available to ordinary users safer, because the ones that survive regulation will be those that truly hold the reserves they claim. It also drives the emergence of compliance-focused stablecoins built specifically to meet the new rules, part of why newer entrants emphasize regulatory alignment.
The tradeoff is that regulation brings more oversight, more identity requirements, and a more controlled experience than the early, lightly governed days of stablecoins. For most users, the regulatory wave is a net positive for safety, pushing the sector toward truly backed, transparent, redeemable stablecoins and away from the opaque and the experimental, even as it brings the compliance overhead that regulated financial products carry.
Understanding that regulation is actively reshaping which stablecoins are trustworthy is part of understanding the sector as it stands in 2026.
How to use stablecoins sensibly
For anyone using stablecoins, a few principles drawn from everything above turn the theory into practical safety.
The first principle is to favor transparent, fiat-backed stablecoins with high-quality, well-disclosed reserves for most purposes, because they are the most reliable, and to understand the backing of any stablecoin before trusting it with significant value. Knowing whether a stablecoin is fiat-backed, crypto-collateralized, or algorithmic, and how transparent its reserves are, is the single most useful thing you can know about it, because that mechanism is what determines whether it will hold its dollar when stressed.
The second principle is to remember that no stablecoin is entirely risk-free, that even backed coins can depeg temporarily and centralized ones carry counterparty risk, so holding very large amounts in a single stablecoin, or treating any stablecoin as identical to insured bank money, overstates their safety. Spreading exposure and staying aware of the issuer’s reserves and reputation is sensible for larger holdings.
The third principle is to use stablecoins for what they are genuinely good at, parking value out of volatility, moving money across borders, transacting in DeFi, and serving as a stable unit within crypto, while recognizing they are not an investment that grows, since a stablecoin is designed to stay at a dollar, not to appreciate.
Yield-bearing stablecoins that pass through reserve returns exist, but any yield carries its own risks that should be understood rather than assumed safe. And whatever stablecoin you use, the same crypto security basics apply: protect your wallet and keys, since a stablecoin is still a crypto asset that can be stolen if your security fails. Used with these principles, favoring transparent backing, respecting the risks, using them for their real purpose, and securing them properly, stablecoins are a useful tool, the stable dollar layer of crypto.
None of this is financial advice; it is a frame for using stablecoins with an accurate understanding of what they are and what can go wrong.
The dollar, made native to crypto
A stablecoin is, at its simplest, a cryptocurrency built to be worth one dollar, always, bringing the stability of cash to the speed and reach of blockchain. That capability, a stable digital dollar that moves on crypto rails, turns out to be foundational: it is where traders shelter from volatility, the unit that makes decentralized finance work, and a payment rail moving enormous sums across borders.
The largest stablecoins, USDT and USDC, hold their value with real dollar reserves, newer entrants like RLUSD bring a compliance-first approach for institutional and payment use, and together they have grown into a market worth hundreds of billions that increasingly touches mainstream finance.
But the central lesson is that a stablecoin is only as stable as whatever backs it, and the three mechanisms, real reserves, overcollateralized crypto, and algorithms, are not equally safe. Fiat-backed coins with transparent, high-quality reserves are the most reliable; crypto-collateralized coins add smart-contract and collateral risk; and algorithmic coins, as the 2022 collapse of TerraUSD proved by destroying tens of billions, carry the gravest danger of all. The peg holds through redeemability and arbitrage as long as confidence in the backing survives, and it can break when that confidence fails.
Regulation is now reshaping the sector toward the transparent and well-backed, which should make the surviving stablecoins safer over time. Used with an understanding of what backs them and respect for their real risks, stablecoins are one of crypto’s most useful inventions, the dollar made native to the blockchain, valuable precisely because, when they are built right, they are boring.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a stablecoin in simple terms?
A stablecoin is a cryptocurrency designed to hold a steady value, almost always pegged to one US dollar, so one unit is meant to always be worth a dollar regardless of crypto market swings. It brings the speed, reach, and programmability of crypto to a stable, dollar-like value, functioning as digital cash on blockchain rails. Stablecoins are used to shelter from volatility, power decentralized finance, and move money across borders, and the market is worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
How do stablecoins hold their value at a dollar?
Through one of three mechanisms. Fiat-backed stablecoins like USDT and USDC hold real dollar reserves, redeemable one-to-one, and arbitrage keeps the price near a dollar. Crypto-collateralized stablecoins like DAI lock up more than a dollar of crypto per token, with automatic liquidation maintaining the backing. Algorithmic stablecoins use code to expand or contract supply, with no hard reserves, which makes them the riskiest. The peg ultimately depends on confidence that the backing is real and redeemable.
What is the difference between USDT, USDC, and RLUSD?
USDT (Tether) is the largest and most liquid stablecoin, used in a large share of crypto trades, fiat-backed but historically the most debated over reserve transparency. USDC (Circle) is the second largest, also fiat-backed, and generally regarded as more transparency-focused and regulation-friendly, often preferred by institutions. RLUSD (Ripple) is a newer, compliance-first dollar-backed stablecoin focused on institutional and payment use, integrated into payment infrastructure. All three are fiat-backed; they differ mainly in liquidity, transparency, and focus.
Can a stablecoin lose its value?
Yes. A stablecoin can “depeg,” losing its dollar value, ranging from brief wobbles to total collapse. The 2022 failure of the algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD destroyed tens of billions of dollars as its peg spiraled to near zero. Even backed stablecoins can depeg temporarily, as one major coin did in 2023 when some reserves were caught in a failing bank. A stablecoin is only as stable as its backing, so the quality and credibility of its reserves determine its reliability.
Are stablecoins safe?
Not uniformly. Fiat-backed stablecoins with transparent, high-quality reserves are generally the most reliable, but no stablecoin is entirely risk-free. Risks include reserves not being what they claim, the issuing company failing or freezing redemptions, smart-contract flaws in crypto-collateralized coins, the proven danger of algorithmic models failing, and regulatory changes. Treating any stablecoin as identical to insured bank money overstates their safety. Understanding what backs a given stablecoin is the key to judging it.
Why are stablecoins being regulated?
Because they have grown large enough that a failure could harm many people and affect financial stability. Governments are building frameworks, including US legislation and Europe’s comprehensive crypto rules, requiring stablecoin issuers to hold high-quality reserves, honor redemptions, disclose backing, and operate under supervision. The aim is to ensure stablecoins are truly backed and responsibly run. This tends to favor transparent, well-backed coins and pressure opaque or risky ones, making the surviving stablecoins safer over time.
This guide is educational information, not financial advice. Stablecoins carry real risks, including depegs and issuer failure. Understand what backs any stablecoin and secure your assets before relying on it.
BTC USD sits at $64,000, down -1.5% on the day, still pinned under the ceiling that’s frustrated bulls for weeks. The bigger story: a labor market miss that should have triggered a relief rally instead got shrugged off entirely. That disconnect matters more than the headline number for this week’s Bitcoin price prediction.
Employers cut 23,000 jobs in July, the first net loss since the pandemic-era recovery, badly missing the 95,000 gain economists penciled in. Markets read the miss as rate-cut fuel and Treasury yields dropped.
Risk assets were supposed to catch a bid. Bitcoin tapped its 50-day average and rolled straight back over, rejecting the level cleanly on the daily candle.
The rejection fits a pattern that’s held since the May peak near $80,000: lower highs, lower lows, a death cross that macro tailwinds can’t seem to dislodge. That’s the technical backdrop worth understanding before deciding what comes next.
Bitcoin Price Prediction: Can BTC USD Hit $65,000 This Week?
BTC is trading in a tight band, with CoinLore showing support at $63,766 and resistance at $65,000. A break above that ceiling opens room toward $67,081, and eventually $78,085, according to CoinLore’s model. The 7-day forecast lands at $63,935, essentially flat, which tells its own story.
The RSI reads 50, dead neutral. Neither camp has conviction right now. The 50-day EMA still trades below the 200-day, and bulls needed a daily close above that shorter average to even start flipping the read, they didn’t get it.
Bull case: a clean reclaim of $65,000 opens a path toward $67,000-plus.
Base case: continued consolidation between $63,766 and $65,016, chopping traders on both sides.
Bear case: a break below $62,216 (the prior swing low) confirms the downtrend has legs. For deeper technical context, this breakout analysis and this CPI-driven forecast are worth a read before positioning either direction.
LiquidChain Targets Early Mover Upside as Bitcoin Tests Key Levels
A death cross that shrugs off a jobs miss isn’t a market begging to be bought at these levels. Bitcoin at a $1.3 trillion market cap doesn’t offer the kind of asymmetric upside early-stage capital tends to chase; the coin’s most explosive growth phases are, arguably, behind it. That’s pushing more traders toward presale-stage infrastructure plays where the ceiling hasn’t been priced in yet.
LiquidChain ($LIQUID) is building a Layer 3 execution environment that fuses Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana liquidity into one unified layer; developers deploy once and access all three ecosystems rather than fragmenting liquidity across chains.
The presale has raised $936,891.74 at a current token price of $0.01489. Core features include Single-Step Execution and Verifiable Settlement, both aimed at solving the liquidity fragmentation problem that’s plagued cross-chain DeFi since its inception.
Visit the LiquidChain Presale Website Here.
This is not financial advice. Crypto markets are highly volatile and presale tokens carry elevated risk. Always conduct independent research before investing.
The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: Will $64K Hold Ahead of Tomorrow’s CPI Data? appeared first on Cryptonews.
The first bad block appeared at height 4,487,776 at 15:44 UTC on Aug. 7. Once the weakness had been demonstrated on the live network, others appeared to copy it and produce invalid blocks of their own. Ravencoin has since released a fix, but patching the software does not undo what is already written.
The two pools, 2Miners and RavenMiner, are building their version from block 4,487,775, the last one before the exploit. The project said it asked them to restart from a more recent point, which would put less history at risk, but they declined.
Some transactions caught in the gap may be picked up again and recorded on the replacement chain. Ravencoin further warned exchanges and other services not to assume that deposits or withdrawals wiped out this way will return on their own, and advised them to suspend both until the network settles on a single version.
Exchanges have started responding. Bitvavo suspended RVN deposits and withdrawals as a precaution, citing the exploited vulnerability. South Korea’s Upbit placed an investment warning on RVN across its won, bitcoin and tether markets and also stopped deposits.
The project stopped short of endorsing the pools’ plan, saying the details were being shared for transparency rather than as support for any particular version of the chain.
Australia’s financial crime watchdog suspended crypto ATM operator Cryptolink Pty Ltd for three months, forcing the firm to shut down 96 machines across the country.
The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, known as AUSTRAC, said the suspension took effect Aug. 9. Cryptolink cannot provide virtual asset services while the order remains in place.
Crypto ATMs allow customers to use cash to buy cryptocurrency, serving as a bridge between fiat currency and crypto. AUSTRAC said it remains concerned about Cryptolink’s ability to manage transactions that carry a higher risk of money laundering or terrorism financing.
The regulator said Cryptolink initially met the terms of an enforceable undertaking imposed in October 2025. The company later failed to submit required threshold transaction reports and did not respond to an AUSTRAC information request.
AUSTRAC CEO Brendan Thomas said those failures made the business “too high risk to continue operating at present.”
The earlier undertaking followed an investigation by AUSTRAC’s Cryptocurrency Taskforce into alleged breaches of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing rules. The regulator cited late transaction reports and weaknesses in Cryptolink’s risk assessments.
AUSTRAC also issued Cryptolink a fine of 56,340 Australian dollars ($36,600), which the company paid.
Bitcoin price fell below $64,000 on Aug. 11 as rising oil prices and uncertainty before the U.S. inflation report weakened risk appetite, leaving traders focused on whether the $63,900 support level can prevent a deeper correction.
Summary
- Bitcoin price fell about 2% to $63,780 before recovering above $64,000 during the session.
- The $63,900–$64,000 region is the main short-term pivot ahead of the July CPI report.
- Daily RSI remains neutral at 50.31, while BTC trades below its 100-day and 200-day moving averages.
- Liquidation clusters near $63,700 and $65,600 could attract price during the next volatility spike.
Bitcoin price drops below $64,000
According to data from crypto.news, Bitcoin (BTC) price traded as low as $63,852 on Binance before recovering to approximately $64,281 at the time the daily chart was captured. The intraday rebound reduced the loss, but BTC remained below the $65,000 level that buyers had attempted to establish as support over the previous four days.
The decline followed another deterioration in U.S.-Iran negotiations over reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude rose above $89 a barrel as reduced hopes for an agreement renewed concerns about energy supplies and inflation.
Higher oil prices can complicate the Federal Reserve’s inflation outlook by raising transportation and production costs. That pressure reduced demand for risk assets as U.S. traders prepared for the July Consumer Price Index report.
Broader crypto markets also weakened during the move. Ether and XRP fell more than 2%, while Bitcoin lost the $64,000 level after failing to hold above $65,000.
SoSoValue data shows that institutional demand offered limited support. U.S. spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded $144.6 million in net outflows on Aug. 10, ending five consecutive sessions of positive flows. The reversal reduced one source of spot demand as macroeconomic uncertainty increased.
Daily chart shows Bitcoin trapped in consolidation
The daily chart shows that Bitcoin’s price remains locked inside the broad range formed after the June decline. BTC has repeatedly found buyers near $60,000–$63,000, but attempts to establish a sustained recovery above $65,000 have failed.
The asset was trading slightly above its 20-day simple moving average at $64,219 and its 50-day SMA at $63,392. Holding both averages would keep the short-term recovery structure intact despite the latest sell-off.
However, the wider trend remains under pressure. Bitcoin continues to trade below the 100-day SMA at $67,628 and the 200-day SMA at $69,918. Those averages are also sloping downward, creating a large resistance area between approximately $67,600 and $70,000.
The daily relative strength index stood at 50.31, almost level with its signal line at 50.10. The reading shows that neither buyers nor sellers have decisive momentum. It also supports the view that Bitcoin remains in consolidation instead of entering a confirmed directional trend.
A daily close below the 50-day SMA at $63,392 would weaken the recovery and expose $62,000, followed by the June-July demand zone between $57,500 and $60,000. Conversely, a close above $65,500 would give buyers another opportunity to challenge the 100-day SMA.
$63,900 is the key Bitcoin support
The 4-hour chart places immediate support between $63,900 and $64,000. Bitcoin briefly moved that region below during the sell-off before recovering, indicating that buyers were still active around the weekly midpoint.
Trader Lennaert Snyder described $63,900 as an important level because it represents the 50% mark of the previous weekly candle. He said holding or losing that price could determine momentum for the remainder of the week.
Under the bullish scenario, continued support near $63,900 could produce another move toward the previous weekly high around $65,500. That level rejected Bitcoin during its latest advance and remains the first major barrier above the current range.
A bearish break would become more convincing if BTC loses $63,900 and falls below the recent $63,200 low. Such a move could send BTC price toward $62,000 and allow sellers to target the lower part of the wider consolidation range.
The 4-hour Supertrend has turned bearish, placing resistance at $65,210. Bitcoin also slipped below the indicator’s former support near $64,344 during the decline. Bulls must reclaim both levels before the short-term trend can return to a stronger position.
Bull-bear power stood at negative 612, confirming that sellers had regained short-term control. However, the negative reading was smaller than the extreme levels recorded during earlier June sell-offs, suggesting that bearish momentum had not yet reached capitulation conditions.
Trader Daan Crypto Trades similarly identified $64,000 as the main pivot. He noted that BTC had closed slightly below the 4-hour 200-period moving averages but had started to stabilize, with several large-cap altcoins still showing relative strength.
Liquidation heatmap points to $63,700 and $65,600
The one-week CoinGlass liquidation heatmap shows large concentrations of leveraged positions on both sides of Bitcoin’s current price.
The closest downside liquidity cluster sits around $63,600–$63,800. Bitcoin tested this region during the latest decline but did not produce a sustained breakdown. A second pocket is visible between $63,200 and $63,400.
If $63,700 fails, forced selling could accelerate the move toward the lower cluster. However, the concentration of liquidity can also attract buyers looking to enter after leveraged long positions have been cleared.
The largest nearby upside band sits around $65,500–$65,700. A rebound through $65,000 could therefore trigger short liquidations and help BTC revisit the weekly high. Additional liquidity appears near $66,200 and $67,000, but those levels would require a confirmed breakout from the current range.
This positioning leaves Bitcoin vulnerable to a sharp move in either direction. Price is trading between the closest major liquidation pools, while the upcoming inflation release provides a clear catalyst for volatility.
U.S. CPI could decide Bitcoin’s next move
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will publish July CPI data on Aug. 12 at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The report could influence expectations for the Federal Reserve’s September policy decision, particularly after rising oil prices renewed inflation concerns.
A cooler reading could ease pressure on Treasury yields and help Bitcoin recover $65,000. Breaking $65,500 would expose the $65,600 liquidation cluster, followed by the 100-day SMA near $67,628.
A hotter reading would strengthen the case for restrictive monetary policy and could pressure speculative assets. Under that outcome, a confirmed loss of $63,900 would shift attention toward $63,200, $62,000, and eventually the $60,000 psychological support.
Regulatory uncertainty also remains in the background. The CLARITY Act’s procedural vote was delayed until Sept. 15, removing a near-term policy catalyst that some U.S. investors had expected before the Senate recess.
For now, Bitcoin remains range-bound rather than decisively bearish. The $63,900–$64,000 zone separates a possible recovery toward $65,500 from a deeper move toward $62,000. The CPI release will likely determine which liquidity pool the market tests first.
Disclosure: This article does not represent investment advice. The content and materials featured on this page are for educational purposes only.
Biggest stablecoin Tether (USDT) has shed $4 billion in market cap in just two months, but history suggests that the downturn is nearly over.
Key points:
- Tether’s 60-day rolling market-cap contraction stays near $4 billion in one of its heaviest drawdowns.
- Analysis suggests that the worst of bear-market selling pressure could be over as a result.
- Comparison to 2022 bear-market highlights an ongoing RSI divergence.
USDT drawdown puts “acceleration” of Bitcoin selling in doubt
Onchain analytics platform CryptoQuant in a blog post last week flagged market cap “undergoing one of its sharpest contractions on record.”
“The deterioration has also accelerated at the margin: nearly $870 million of USDT supply disappeared over the latest 11-day period, showing that the contraction is not merely a legacy effect from earlier redemptions,” analysts wrote.
CryptoQuant data puts the 30-day simple moving average (SMA) of 60-day USDT market-cap change at minus $4.88 billion as of Aug. 10.
USDT 60-day market-cap change vs. BTC/USD. Source: CryptoQuant
The extent of the drawdown echoes crypto bear markets and rivals the largest ever seen. Its severity has implications for Bitcoin and the broader market recovery. Stablecoins provide a key source of liquidity, and when this evaporates, less capital or “dry powder” is available for deployment, showing a lack of interest among investors in stepping in at a given price.
“The caution is that correlation between USDT flows and BTC price doesn’t settle causality. Both likely respond to the same risk-off conditions, with redemptions accelerating alongside spot selling rather than strictly ahead of it,” CryptoQuant analysts said. They added:
“Periods of sustained USDT expansion have generally coincided with stronger Bitcoin price regimes, while prolonged contractions have accompanied weaker demand, deeper corrections, and deteriorating market conditions.”
Expanded USDT 60-day market-cap change vs. BTC/USD. Source: CryptoQuant
The steepest 60-day contraction period for USDT market cap completed on July 13, when it reached minus $5.72 billion.
Zooming out, CryptoQuant notes that the most pronounced contraction phases have historically occurred in the final phases of macro market downturns.
“Historically, the market’s deepest USDT contraction phases have also marked points where selling pressure was closer to exhaustion than to further acceleration,” it added.
Weekly RSI divergence echoes 2022 reversal
The findings add to the mounting body of evidence that suggests the current bear market is in its final stages.
Related: Binance Bitcoin volume ratio hits record as futures outweigh spot eight times over
As Cointelegraph continues to report, consensus among market participants increasingly favors a new Bitcoin macro bottom forming before the end of 2026. Both comparisons to previous bear markets and onchain indicators, however, see the downturn continuing in the short term.
Independent analyst William Clemente’s Aug. 8 BTC outlook echoed the prognosis while describing the Bitcoin network as “fundamentally healthy.”
“I think Bitcoin is ‘cheap’ although we could have a leg lower at some point throughout the year,” he summarized.
Two days later, he highlighted an unfolding bullish divergence between BTC/USD and the relative strength index (RSI) on weekly time frames — a classic leading indicator for a market reversal which accompanied the end of the 2022 bear market.
BTC/USD one-week chart with RSI divergences marked. Source: William Clemente on X.com
The Senate passed a short-term funding measure by a 90-6 vote, reducing the immediate odds of a US government shutdown and removing one macro overhang for risk assets heading into the fall. Bitcoin is just about managing to hold onto $64,000, with Government shutdown odds increasing.
The bill funds federal agencies at current levels through December 11, but it still needs House approval and Trump’s signature before the threat is actually removed.
That distinction matters more than the headline vote count. A Senate funding bill passing by a wide bipartisan margin is a signal of intent, not a resolved outcome, and for Bitcoin, which has spent the past year trading as a rate-and-liquidity proxy as much as a risk-on tech asset, the gap between “Senate passed it” and “it’s law” is exactly where volatility tends to live.
Discover: Everyone’s Got a Take. Join Kalshi and Get a Free $25 to Actually Trade Yours
Government Shutdown Odds and Why the House Vote Still Matters
The House has already passed its own version of a continuing resolution that funds the government only through December 4, a week earlier than the Senate’s December 11 target.
Reconciling those two bills is not a formality; the chambers will need to work out the actual funding date and any policy riders attached to it before either version reaches the president’s desk.
Senate leadership moved unusually early, nearly two months ahead of the typical eleventh-hour scramble, in part to avoid repeating a shutdown during election season.
That urgency followed a stretch of shutdown fights that have already tested market patience once this year, and traders are unlikely to fully exhale until the House sends something Trump can sign.
Discover: Your Market Calls Are Worth Something. Start With Free $25 on Kalshi
Government Shutdown Odds On Polymarket: What Reduced Shutdown Risk Actually Does for Crypto Markets
A government shutdown does two things that matter directly to crypto markets: it delays official economic data releases- CPI, jobs reports, GDP revisions- that traders use to price Fed policy, and it stalls regulatory and legislative work at agencies like the SEC and CFTC, along with congressional efforts on market-structure legislation.
Both are Bitcoin-relevant. Delayed data widens the uncertainty band around rate expectations, and stalled legislative work pushes back timelines on the kind of regulatory clarity crypto markets have been pricing in for months.
Removing near-term shutdown odds doesn’t create a bullish catalyst on its own; it removes a tail risk. That’s a meaningful but narrow distinction: Bitcoin isn’t rallying because Washington avoided a crisis; it’s simply not pricing in one additional source of macro noise for the next several weeks.
Traders watching how BTC reacts to shifting liquidity conditions should keep an eye on current key price levels for signs of whether that removed risk is actually translating into positioning.
The bigger question is whether reduced political noise changes anything about the Fed’s data dependency. If shutdown risk had escalated, delayed CPI and payrolls prints would have forced the market to trade rate expectations on stale information, a dynamic already explored in the context of upcoming CPI-driven price scenarios for BTC/USD.
With that scenario pushed back, at least temporarily, the macro calendar reasserts itself as the dominant driver over the next stretch.
The December 11 Deadline Is the Real Test
Nothing about this vote eliminates shutdown risk; it deferred it. December 11 is now the operative date, and if the House and Senate can’t reconcile their competing bills before then, the same volatility setup returns with less runway and higher stakes given year-end liquidity conditions.
This isn’t the first time this year that legislative friction has bled into crypto positioning. The pattern of Senate-level delays complicating market-structure timelines showed up recently with the CLARITY Act’s own stalled progress, another example of Capitol Hill gridlock functioning as an indirect but real headwind for digital-asset regulatory certainty.
Three scenarios are worth tracking into December. If the House adopts the Senate’s December 11 timeline cleanly, expect the shutdown discount to stay compressed and crypto markets to trade primarily on rate expectations and spot flows rather than political risk.
If negotiations drag and reconciliation slips toward the deadline itself, expect the same pre-deadline jitteriness that hit risk assets earlier this year to resurface, with Bitcoin likely to trade defensively alongside equities. And if the two chambers can’t agree at all, the shutdown clock resets entirely, pushing regulatory work, economic data, and the broader risk-on setup crypto traders have been counting on right back into limbo.
Don’t Miss Out on Our $1,000 USDT Airdrop on ByBit
The post Bitcoin Gets a Brief Reprieve as Shutdown Risk Moves to December appeared first on Cryptonews.
Crypto World
The New Race for Cross-Chain Liquidity: Why the Future of DeFi May Depend on Moving Capital Seamlessly
For years, blockchain ecosystems competed largely on one question: Which network can attract the most users, developers, and capital?
Ethereum built a massive DeFi economy. Solana became known for high-speed transactions and low fees. Layer-2 networks expanded Ethereum’s capacity, while newer chains introduced alternative approaches to scalability, interoperability, and application development.
But the competitive landscape is changing.
The next major battle may not be about which blockchain has the most liquidity locked inside its ecosystem. Instead, it may be about which networks, protocols, and infrastructure providers can move liquidity between ecosystems most efficiently, securely, and intelligently.
This is creating a new race for cross-chain liquidity.
As the number of blockchains continues to grow, liquidity becomes increasingly fragmented. Assets that once existed primarily within a single ecosystem can now move across multiple chains, creating new opportunities—but also new technical and security challenges.
The winners of the next phase of DeFi may therefore be the platforms that can make blockchain fragmentation feel invisible to users.
What Is Cross-Chain Liquidity?
Cross-chain liquidity refers to the ability to move, access, or utilize capital across different blockchain networks.
Imagine a user holding USDC on one blockchain who wants to participate in a lending protocol on another network. Without interoperability infrastructure, the user may need to:
- Move assets through a bridge.
- Convert the asset into another token.
- Pay multiple transaction fees.
- Wait for confirmations.
- Navigate different wallets or applications.
- Accept additional smart-contract and bridge risks.
Cross-chain infrastructure attempts to simplify this process.
Instead of treating every blockchain as an isolated financial island, interoperability protocols aim to connect liquidity across ecosystems.
The goal is simple:
Liquidity should be able to follow opportunity.
If lending yields are better on one chain, trading volume is higher on another, or a new application launches somewhere else, capital should ideally be able to move there efficiently.
That concept could become one of the most important foundations of mature DeFi.
Why Liquidity Fragmentation Is Becoming a Bigger Problem
The blockchain industry has evolved from a relatively small number of major networks into a highly fragmented environment.
There are Layer-1 blockchains, Ethereum Layer-2s, appchains, rollups, sidechains, modular networks, and specialized execution environments.
This creates an interesting paradox.
More blockchains create more opportunities.
But:
More blockchains can also create more fragmented liquidity.
A trader may find the best liquidity for one asset on Ethereum, the lowest transaction costs on another network, and the most attractive DeFi opportunity somewhere else.
Capital becomes scattered.
This fragmentation can produce several problems:
- Lower liquidity on individual applications
- Higher slippage
- More complicated user experiences
- Increased transaction costs
- Liquidity trapped inside isolated ecosystems
- Greater reliance on bridges and interoperability infrastructure
- More difficult capital management for DeFi users
For decentralized finance to become a truly interconnected financial system, liquidity cannot remain permanently trapped within individual chains.
The Evolution of Cross-Chain Infrastructure
Cross-chain technology has gone through several generations.
Early blockchain bridges largely focused on one objective:
Move an asset from Chain A to Chain B.
The process often involved locking an asset on one network and creating a corresponding representation on another.
For example:
Native Asset → Lock → Wrapped Asset → Destination Chain
Although this approach enabled interoperability, it also introduced additional points of failure.
The industry has since experimented with more sophisticated architectures.
Modern interoperability systems can involve:
- Cross-chain messaging
- Liquidity networks
- Intent-based systems
- Shared security models
- Decentralized verification
- Relayers
- Validators
- Proof-based verification
- Native asset transfers
- Cross-chain swaps
The broader trend is moving from simple token bridging toward programmable interoperability.
That distinction matters.
The future isn’t necessarily about simply moving tokens.
It is about allowing applications on different blockchains to communicate, coordinate, and execute financial actions across networks.
Cross-Chain Messaging Could Be More Important Than Bridging
One of the most important developments in interoperability is the shift from asset movement toward cross-chain messaging.
A bridge answers:
“How do I move this asset?”
Cross-chain messaging asks:
“How can this application communicate with another blockchain?”
That difference opens up much larger possibilities.
For example, a decentralized application could potentially:
- Trigger transactions on another chain
- Verify information from another blockchain
- Coordinate liquidity between ecosystems
- Manage cross-chain positions
- Execute governance instructions
- Automate treasury strategies
- Synchronize application states
This creates the possibility of cross-chain applications rather than simply cross-chain assets.
In such an environment, blockchains become less like isolated networks and more like interconnected components of a larger financial infrastructure.
The Rise of Intent-Based Liquidity
Another important development is the growing interest in intent-based systems.
Traditional DeFi often requires users to specify every step of a transaction.
For example:
Swap Token A → Bridge → Change network → Swap Token B → Approve transaction.
An intent-based system can instead allow the user to express the desired outcome:
“I want 1,000 USDC on this chain.”
The infrastructure can then determine how to execute the transaction.
Different liquidity providers, solvers, market makers, and routing systems can compete to fulfill that intent.
This introduces a new model for liquidity:
Users specify the destination. Infrastructure determines the route.
If this model scales successfully, cross-chain complexity could increasingly disappear behind the interface.
Users may not even need to know which blockchain is handling the transaction.
Liquidity Is Becoming Programmable
Traditional liquidity is relatively passive.
A pool contains assets, and users interact with that liquidity.
Cross-chain liquidity introduces something more dynamic.
Liquidity can potentially be:
- Routed
- Rebalanced
- Aggregated
- Optimized
- Automated
- Allocated according to demand
- Directed toward higher-value opportunities
This means liquidity itself is becoming increasingly programmable.
Imagine a system monitoring dozens of blockchains simultaneously.
If a particular market suddenly experiences high demand, the system could identify available liquidity elsewhere and route capital toward that opportunity.
The resulting architecture begins to resemble a global liquidity layer rather than a collection of isolated decentralized exchanges.
Why Stablecoins Are Central to the Cross-Chain Race
Stablecoins may become one of the most important assets in cross-chain liquidity.
Unlike highly volatile tokens, stablecoins are primarily used as:
- Trading pairs
- Settlement assets
- DeFi collateral
- Payment instruments
- Treasury assets
- Cross-border transfer mechanisms
This makes them natural candidates for interoperability.
A trader may hold stablecoins on one network but want to use them on another.
A DeFi protocol may accept stablecoins from multiple ecosystems.
A payment application may need to settle transactions across different chains.
As stablecoin usage expands, the ability to move stablecoin liquidity efficiently could become a major competitive advantage for blockchain ecosystems.
The race may therefore increasingly revolve around a simple question:
Which infrastructure can make stablecoin liquidity available wherever users need it?
The Security Problem: Liquidity Creates a Bigger Target
Cross-chain liquidity creates enormous opportunities, but it also creates enormous security risks.
Bridges have historically been among the most attractive targets for attackers because they often control significant amounts of assets or coordinate complicated cross-chain verification mechanisms.
The challenge comes from the fact that a cross-chain system must answer a difficult question:
How can one blockchain securely trust information originating from another blockchain?
If that verification process fails, the consequences can be severe.
Potential vulnerabilities include:
- Smart-contract exploits
- Validator compromise
- Private-key failures
- Malicious relayers
- Incorrect message verification
- Oracle manipulation
- Economic attacks
- Liquidity-provider exploits
- Governance attacks
- Replay attacks
- Poorly designed token representations
This means cross-chain liquidity cannot simply be optimized for speed and capital efficiency.
It must also be optimized for security and trust minimization.
The Liquidity Trilemma
Cross-chain infrastructure faces a difficult balancing act.
Users want:
1. Security
Funds should remain protected.
2. Capital Efficiency
Liquidity should not sit idle unnecessarily.
3. Speed
Transactions should settle quickly.
But improving one dimension can sometimes create trade-offs elsewhere.
For example, highly secure verification mechanisms may introduce additional latency.
Extremely fast systems may rely on additional assumptions.
Capital-efficient systems may require complex liquidity management.
The next generation of interoperability protocols will therefore compete not simply on the number of supported chains, but on how effectively they balance these three objectives.
The Battle for Liquidity Providers
Cross-chain infrastructure also creates a new competitive environment for liquidity providers.
Liquidity providers are the capital behind many decentralized markets.
They can earn fees by supplying assets to:
- Automated market makers
- Cross-chain pools
- Lending markets
- Liquidity networks
- Settlement systems
- Intent-based trading systems
But cross-chain liquidity introduces additional considerations.
A liquidity provider must evaluate:
- Yield
- Trading volume
- Impermanent loss
- Bridge risk
- Smart-contract risk
- Chain-specific risk
- Liquidity utilization
- Withdrawal conditions
- Token volatility
Higher yields may compensate for higher risk—but not always.
This means sophisticated liquidity providers will increasingly evaluate risk-adjusted returns, rather than simply chasing the highest advertised APY.
Cross-Chain DEX Aggregation
Decentralized exchanges are another major battleground.
Instead of searching for liquidity on a single chain, cross-chain aggregators can potentially search across multiple liquidity sources.
Consider a user wanting to exchange Asset A for Asset B.
The optimal route might involve:
Chain A → Liquidity Pool → Cross-Chain Network → Chain B → DEX
The user may not need to manually execute each step.
Routing infrastructure can compare:
- Liquidity depth
- Price impact
- Fees
- Gas costs
- Execution speed
- Available routes
- Bridge costs
The result is potentially better execution for users and more efficient utilization of fragmented liquidity.
Why Developers Care About Cross-Chain Liquidity
Cross-chain liquidity isn’t only a user problem.
It is also a developer problem.
A new DeFi application launching on a smaller blockchain may have excellent technology but insufficient liquidity.
Without enough capital, users experience:
- High slippage
- Low borrowing capacity
- Poor trading execution
- Limited market depth
Cross-chain infrastructure can potentially help applications access liquidity beyond their native ecosystem.
This creates a powerful network effect.
More liquidity attracts users.
More users create more volume.
More volume attracts liquidity providers.
More liquidity attracts more developers.
This cycle can accelerate ecosystem growth.
Cross-Chain Liquidity Could Change Blockchain Competition
For years, blockchain ecosystems competed by trying to retain users inside their own environments.
But interoperability creates a different competitive model.
Instead of asking:
“How do we keep liquidity inside our chain?”
Networks may increasingly ask:
“How do we become an attractive destination within a larger liquidity network?”
This is a significant philosophical shift.
A blockchain does not necessarily need to own all liquidity.
It may simply need to become the best place for liquidity to operate.
For example, a chain could specialize in:
- Derivatives
- Gaming
- Stablecoin payments
- Institutional settlement
- Real-world assets
- Lending
- Trading
- AI applications
Cross-chain infrastructure can then connect that specialized economy to the rest of Web3.
The Institutional Opportunity
Cross-chain liquidity could also become increasingly important as institutional capital enters blockchain markets.
If institutions eventually interact with multiple blockchain ecosystems, they will need infrastructure capable of managing liquidity across networks without requiring manual processes for every chain.
This could create demand for sophisticated cross-chain treasury and liquidity-management systems.
Instead of managing isolated wallets across dozens of networks, institutions could potentially use unified infrastructure to monitor and allocate capital across multiple blockchain environments.
Real-World Assets Add Another Layer
The growth of tokenized real-world assets could make interoperability even more important.
Tokenized:
- Treasury products
- Bonds
- Funds
- Credit instruments
- Commodities
- Real estate
- Other financial assets
may eventually exist across different blockchain environments.
If these assets become fragmented across networks, interoperability becomes essential.
Imagine a tokenized financial asset issued on one blockchain while investors use another network for trading, collateralization, or settlement.
Without efficient interoperability, the market becomes fragmented.
With strong interoperability, these assets could potentially participate in a broader digital financial ecosystem.
The Future May Be Chain-Agnostic
One of the most interesting possibilities is that users eventually stop caring which blockchain they are using.
Today, crypto users often think about:
- Which chain?
- Which wallet?
- Which bridge?
- Which DEX?
- Which gas token?
- Which network fee?
For mainstream adoption, that complexity may need to disappear.
The ideal experience could look more like traditional internet applications.
Users simply choose what they want to accomplish.
The infrastructure handles:
Chain selection → Liquidity discovery → Routing → Execution → Settlement
Behind the scenes, multiple blockchains may be involved.
But from the user’s perspective, there is simply one application.
That is the promise of chain abstraction.
Chain Abstraction: The Next Step
Chain abstraction aims to hide blockchain-specific complexity from users and applications.
Instead of forcing users to understand individual networks, applications can provide a unified experience.
This could involve:
- Unified balances
- Automated gas management
- Cross-chain transactions
- Smart routing
- Intent-based execution
- Unified liquidity
- Account abstraction
- Cross-chain messaging
If successful, chain abstraction could transform how people interact with Web3.
Users would no longer think:
“I need to bridge my assets to another chain.”
They would simply think:
“I want to trade, borrow, pay, invest, or transfer.”
The underlying infrastructure would handle the complexity.
What Will Determine the Winners?
The race for cross-chain liquidity will likely not be won by the project supporting the largest number of chains alone.
Several factors will matter.
Security
A cross-chain system managing billions in liquidity must have robust security assumptions.
Capital Efficiency
Idle liquidity is expensive.
The best systems will find ways to maximize the productive use of capital.
Execution Quality
Users care about the final result: price, fees, speed, and reliability.
Liquidity Depth
Deep liquidity reduces slippage and improves execution.
Developer Experience
Infrastructure needs to be easy for applications to integrate.
Composability
Cross-chain systems should allow applications to interact with other protocols rather than operating as isolated services.
Decentralization
Users and institutions may increasingly demand systems that reduce dependence on centralized intermediaries.
Scalability
As more chains and applications connect, interoperability infrastructure must handle increasing transaction and messaging volumes.
The New Competitive Moat: Liquidity Connectivity
In traditional finance, liquidity is a competitive advantage.
The same principle applies to DeFi.
But in a multi-chain environment, simply possessing liquidity may not be enough.
The more important advantage may be liquidity connectivity.
A protocol with access to multiple liquidity sources can potentially offer:
- Better execution
- More trading pairs
- Greater capital efficiency
- More opportunities
- Lower slippage
- Better user experiences
This creates a new kind of network effect.
The more chains connected to a liquidity network, the more valuable that network can become.
And the more users and applications use it, the more attractive it becomes to liquidity providers.
The emerging cross-chain economy could create a powerful flywheel:
More Chains Connected
↓
More Liquidity Available
↓
Better Execution
↓
More Users
↓
More Transaction Volume
↓
More Fees and Opportunities
↓
More Liquidity Providers
↓
Even Deeper Liquidity
This flywheel could become one of the defining economic mechanisms of the next generation of DeFi infrastructure.
What Could Go Wrong?
Despite the enormous potential, cross-chain liquidity is not guaranteed to become a seamless global system.
Several challenges remain.
Fragmented Standards
Different chains may use different architectures, messaging systems, and security models.
Security Failures
One major exploit could undermine confidence in an interoperability network.
Liquidity Fragmentation
Ironically, adding more interoperability systems could create even more fragmentation.
Economic Attacks
Protocols must defend against attackers exploiting incentives rather than traditional software vulnerabilities.
Regulatory Uncertainty
Cross-border digital asset movement may attract increasing regulatory attention.
Complexity
Even if infrastructure becomes sophisticated, poor user interfaces could keep cross-chain applications difficult to use.
The industry therefore needs to solve not only the technical problem of interoperability, but also the economic, security, governance, and user-experience problems surrounding it.
The Bigger Picture
The race for cross-chain liquidity is ultimately about something bigger than bridges.
It is about whether blockchain networks remain isolated economies or evolve into an interconnected financial system.
If interoperability succeeds, liquidity could become increasingly mobile.
Capital could move toward the applications, markets, and opportunities offering the best combination of risk and return.
Developers could build applications without worrying that their users are trapped on a single chain.
Liquidity providers could access markets across multiple ecosystems.
Institutions could manage blockchain-based assets through unified infrastructure.
And users could interact with Web3 without needing to understand every technical layer underneath the application.
Conclusion: Liquidity Wants to Move
Blockchain ecosystems are no longer competing in isolation.
Ethereum, Layer-2 networks, Solana, and other chains are increasingly becoming pieces of a much larger digital economy.
The next stage of DeFi may therefore be defined not by how much liquidity a chain can attract, but by how efficiently that liquidity can connect to the rest of the ecosystem.
The winners of this race will likely be the networks and infrastructure providers that can combine:
Security + Liquidity + Speed + Capital Efficiency + Interoperability + User Simplicity.
Cross-chain liquidity could ultimately transform blockchain from a collection of separate financial networks into a connected global liquidity layer.
And when that happens, the most valuable blockchain may not be the one that keeps liquidity trapped inside its walls.
It may be the one that makes liquidity flow everywhere.
REQUEST AN ARTICLE
“This is a really important time for Taiwan,” she says. “Are we going to go toward war or toward peace across the Strait? This is really why I decided to take the party chair.”
Standing 5 ft. 10 in., Cheng is an arresting presence with a reputation for chest-thumping speeches. Sure enough, during our interview, her answers betray a bombastic staccato honed on the stump. Behind the scenes, however, she is amiable and slightly introverted.
“I actually am a very, very quiet person,” she says. “I don’t like to see people, and I don’t like to talk to people. I like to keep to myself.”
It’s a surprising revelation given Cheng’s political journey under the spotlight, which in many ways reflects the complicated social dynamics of Taiwan, where political fault lines have historically been drawn between native islanders and mainland arrivals following the Civil War.
Cheng grew up in the southern city of Tainan, the daughter of a Taiwanese mother and a KMT soldier father from China’s southwestern Yunnan province, who fled to Taiwan in 1953 via Southeast Asia’s arcane Golden Triangle. “My father really hated politics, hated war, and hated the army,” Cheng says. “He hated the KMT. My father thought all politicians are assholes!”
[PRESS RELEASE – Curacao, Curacao, August 11th, 2026]
BetFury, a leading crypto casino, closed its Fury World Cup ’26 on July 27. The campaign turned the 2026 FIFA World Cup into a platform-wide event with a $600,000 prize pool spread across five parallel promotions. The final numbers show what an event scaled to the world’s biggest football tournament can deliver for a platform and its community.
Growth Across Every Core Metric
Measured against the 43 days before the event, every core participation metric rose. Active users climbed 66.06%. Total bets grew 16.93% and deposits increased 7.53%. The scale of the user gain against a far smaller deposit increase points to broad participation rather than concentrated spending. Regarding the World Cup, the final match between Argentina and Spain was the most popular in terms of users, bets and a total wager.
A Build-Up that Started Before Kick-Off
Before the main phase of the Fury World Cup ’26, users could add the event to their calendar and get No Risk Bet rewards. The Fury World Cup ’26 Giveaway brought 30 random users $100 each in Free Bets. Along with other additional activities, they fueled interest in the upcoming group stage and playoff matches.
Rewards across the main promotions
In each of the three sports Battles (First Kick, Final Whistle, and Midfield), 150 winners split $40,000 in BFG tokens and Free Bets. The Sport Missions Journey covered 115 Missions. The Mundial Prediction Event ran free to enter, awarding 2 to 12 points per correct match-winner call, based on the World Cup phase. The top 100 users shared a $20,000 prize pool. The Golden Ticket Raffle closed the campaign, handing $100,000 to random holders of lucky lottery tickets.
Why Does the Event at this Scale Matter?
The scale produced returns on three fronts. For players, all the promotions and the $600,000 pool turned six weeks of soccer into daily competition and free rewards. For the business, the rise in active users and revenue converted a global cultural moment into measurable platform performance. For the wider industry, the campaign offers an example of how a crypto sportsbook can connect predictions, missions, competitions, and rewards around a major sporting event instead of limiting its activity to advertising around the tournament.
“A tournament that comes around once every four years deserved more than a standard promotion, so we built an event on the same scale,” said the CEO of BetFury. “What matters most is how many of our users took part, and a 74.66% jump in GGR shows that engagement translated into real commercial return. That is the foundation we will keep building future events around.”
Therefore, Fury World Cup ’26 has ended, but its effect on BetFury holds: a larger active base, stronger platform metrics, and a proven blueprint for the next large-scale campaign.
About BetFury
BetFury is a leading crypto casino with 3.5M registered players and $11.5B wagered, founded in 2019. The platform offers over 13,000 games, 24 Original games with RTP up to 99.28%, and 80+ sports for betting with odds higher than the market average. Beyond gaming, BetFury provides a full suite of crypto tools: Crypto Staking with up to 60% APR, Futures, Crypto Swap, etc. Moreover, it has a BFG Staking for accumulating more native tokens or collecting payouts in BFG or USDT. BetFury continuously evolves based on user feedback and is committed to responsible gambling practices. Learn more at betfury.com.
The post BetFury Closes Fury World Cup ’26 With $600,000 Awarded and 66% User Growth appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Only 281 of 1,343 crypto service providers operating across the European Economic Area have secured MiCA authorization after the EU’s final transition period expired on July 1, leaving more than 1,000 firms without approval under the bloc’s licensing regime.
Summary
- Only 281 of 1,343 EEA crypto service providers secured MiCA authorization by July 1.
- High or Severe risk ratings applied to 12% of unauthorized firms, compared with 2% of authorized providers.
- Unauthorized firms sent $5 billion directly to sanctioned counterparties, about three times the $1.7 billion recorded among authorized firms.
- Germany authorized 55 firms, while Poland issued no authorizations despite its previous register exceeding 1,800 entries.
According to blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs, 1,062 firms in its dataset had not obtained authorization under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation by the deadline and must now leave the market, restructure their operations or transfer customers to an authorized provider.
The gap extends beyond licensing. TRM found that 12% of firms without authorization carry a High or Severe risk rating, compared with 2% of authorized providers, while every firm assigned a Severe rating belonged to the unauthorized group.
Most providers in both groups have little direct contact with illicit funds. However, TRM identified a small number of unauthorized firms sending between 1% and 12% of their volume directly to illicit addresses. No authorized provider recorded direct illicit exposure above 1%.
MiCA authorization has left more than 1,000 firms outside the regime
Before MiCA, crypto companies operated under separate registration or licensing systems maintained by individual European countries, creating major differences in the requirements firms faced depending on where they registered.
TRM identified 383 operating firms under Lithuania’s previous registration system and 241 in Poland. Poland’s official register contained more than 1,800 entries, although the blockchain intelligence firm said most showed no observable crypto activity.
At the other end, Slovenia had three identified providers and Belgium had two. TRM cautioned that its figures track firms it could identify as actually providing crypto services rather than every entry on national registers, meaning countries without public registers may be undercounted.
MiCA replaced the national systems with a common authorization framework. Companies legally operating before Dec. 30, 2024, could continue under Article 143(3) while seeking authorization during the transition period, with July 1 serving as the final EU-wide cutoff.
As crypto.news explained shortly before the deadline, individual member states were allowed to set shorter transition periods, but none could extend the grandfathering system beyond July 1. Firms without the required authorization after their applicable deadline could no longer legally provide covered crypto services in the EU.
Licensing numbers had already shown how much the market could contract. In May, the ESMA register contained 204 authorized CASPs, including 51 approved during the first five months of 2026. Germany accounted for 55 at the time, followed by the Netherlands with 25 and France with 17.
A separate June report found that more than 3,000 crypto firms had been registered across Europe before MiCA, while only 194 had secured authorization by May. Hogan Lovells estimated at the time that roughly 75% of firms registered under the previous systems could lose their status as national transition periods expired.
Germany and smaller EU states have taken more firms through MiCA
Authorization has been uneven across individual European jurisdictions, according to TRM’s July 1 dataset.
Germany authorized 55 firms, while France and the Netherlands each authorized 29. Malta approved 20 and Cyprus 19, compared with nine home authorizations issued by Italy despite 145 firms operating there.
Malta, Cyprus, Ireland and Luxembourg together accounted for 63 of 272 home authorizations identified by TRM, even though only 101 operating firms came from their previous registers.
Lithuania produced a very different conversion rate. Eight firms obtained authorization from a previous register containing more than 400 providers, while Poland issued none despite its old register exceeding 1,800 entries. Greece and Portugal also issued no home authorizations in TRM’s dataset.
The figures also show how MiCA’s passporting system can separate where a provider operates from which regulator supervises it. Germany’s BaFin authorized 55 of the 57 licensed providers operating in the country, while Italy hosted 37 licensed firms but issued nine home authorizations. Spain hosted 34 and authorized 12.
Under MiCA, a CASP approved in one member state can use passporting rights to provide covered services elsewhere in the bloc. For example, B2C2 secured Luxembourg authorization in May, allowing the liquidity provider to offer regulated over-the-counter spot crypto trading across all 27 EU member states and three additional EEA markets.
The same system has allowed firms including Coinbase, Bitpanda and Kraken to operate from different regulatory bases while serving customers across multiple European markets.
By July 3, ESMA’s interim register had expanded to 300 authorized crypto-asset service providers after 57 additional firms were added around the July 1 deadline, including Standard Chartered and FalconX.
Unauthorized firms carry higher risk ratings and sanctions exposure
Looking beyond license numbers, TRM found a clear difference in the risk profiles of the two groups.
About 12% of unauthorized firms received a High or Severe rating, six times the 2% recorded among authorized providers. Severe ratings were found exclusively among firms that failed to obtain authorization.
Direct exposure to illicit or high-risk counterparties was much closer when measured across each group as a whole. Unauthorized providers recorded 0.09% of outgoing volume directly involving such counterparties, compared with 0.07% among licensed firms.
High-risk exchanges and gambling services accounted for the largest exposures. Unauthorized firms sent $19 billion to high-risk exchanges and $15.3 billion to gambling services, while authorized providers recorded $14.2 billion and $13.4 billion, respectively.
Sanctions exposure produced a larger difference. TRM calculated that unauthorized firms sent $5 billion directly to sanctioned counterparties, roughly three times the $1.7 billion recorded among authorized firms.
Risk within the unauthorized group was heavily concentrated. Half of the firms showed no measurable direct illicit exposure, while a limited number sent between 1% and 12% of their volume directly to illicit addresses. TRM calculated that direct illicit exposure among the offboarding firms was about four times higher because of those outliers.
The unauthorized cohort also included HTX, which TRM described as a designated exchange, and Huione Pay, which has been named under U.S. special measures. Entities affected by EU measures restricting dealings connected to Russia were also among firms that held national registrations but did not obtain MiCA authorization.
The composition of the two groups differed as well. Exchanges accounted for 42% of unauthorized providers compared with 29% of authorized firms, while payment companies represented 16% and 9%, respectively.
Financial and investment service providers were more common among authorized CASPs, making up 25% and 21% of the group, compared with 9% and 7% among unauthorized firms. TRM’s High-Risk Exchange category appeared only among providers that did not obtain authorization.
Customer transfers are creating a new supervisory test
With more than 1,000 firms outside the authorization regime, the EU’s Anti-Money Laundering Authority has focused on what happens when their customers and assets move elsewhere.
AMLA said the end of the transition period would cause unauthorized virtual asset service providers to leave the market, customer relationships to be transferred or terminated, and crypto activity to become concentrated among fewer authorized CASPs.
During wind-downs, compressed exit schedules can place pressure on anti-money laundering controls and make it harder to track where customers and funds move, according to the authority. Receiving CASPs can simultaneously face changes in their customer risk profiles and additional demands on transaction monitoring systems.
AMLA has therefore asked supervisors to prioritize oversight of exit plans and customer transfers while coordinating with regulators in other jurisdictions when customers move across borders.
TRM identified 30 unauthorized providers with High or Severe risk ratings, giving receiving firms and supervisors a group that can be screened before customer migrations take place.
The firm also cautioned against treating all customers leaving unauthorized providers as equally risky. Most firms that failed to secure authorization still carried Low risk ratings and recorded negligible direct illicit exposure.
For receiving CASPs, TRM said entity-level screening can distinguish customers arriving from a Low-rated payment provider with little illicit exposure from those leaving a Severe-rated entity where a measurable share of transaction volume has moved directly to illicit addresses.
Regulators have also started examining authorized providers after completing much of the initial licensing work. In July, ESMA launched a review of a sample of MiCA-authorized crypto custodians, examining areas including custody controls, private-key management, incident response and risks tied to third-party providers.
TRM separately examined whether regulators issuing more licenses were also supervising firms with higher illicit exposure. Across 23 jurisdictions where licensed providers carried measurable transaction volume, it found no identified correlation between the number of authorizations issued and the illicit exposure of firms supervised there.
For financial institutions assessing counterparties, TRM said the number of CASP licenses granted by a firm’s home jurisdiction therefore provides little information about the individual provider’s risk. Its analysis instead found the differences at entity level, including individual risk ratings and direct exposure to illicit, sanctioned and other high-risk counterparties.
Man accused of murdering father and community pillar stands trial – live court updates
Cambridge Aerospace raises $300m at $3.4bn valuation
Bitcoin Price Prediction: Will $64K Hold Ahead of Tomorrow’s CPI Data?
Renter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
No Jackpot Winner as $257 Million Prize Rolls Over to $269 Million Monday Draw
Weekend Open Thread: Staud – Corporette.com
Whether you’re completely new to crypto, Subscribe and let’s make crypto simple.
6 Habits That Can Attract Wealth and Financial Success #youtubeshorts #trending #facts
Bitcoin: Digital Value & Trump Admin’s Crypto Policy #shorts
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Mattifying Sunscreen
-
Fashion4 days agoFrugal Friday’s Workwear Report: Cap-Sleeve Pointelle Crewneck Sweater
-
Sports5 days agoJordan Coyle & Cordiamo take Laya Arena Stakes at RDS
-
News Videos3 days agoCan Astrology Help Find Gold and Silver Trends? A Financial Astrology Guide
-
Business6 days agoUS stocks: Dow closes at record on Mideast optimism; SpaceX, AMD drag Nasdaq
-
Politics5 days agoReform UK And Greens Sink To Lowest Favourability Ratings To Date
-
Business7 days agoNvidia Stock Climbs 2.5% as Chip Sector Rally Builds Ahead of AMD Earnings, Nvidia’s Own Report Looms
-
Tech6 days agoOpenAI, Anthropic AI agents targeted real people and systems in cyber tests
-
Crypto World7 days agoPolymarket targets $20 billion valuation as competition heats up in prediction market sector
-
Business6 days agoSupply chain issues impact Ingredion
-
Tech4 days agoRinn Pharma & Biopharma to join NordicPharmaTrain network
-
Business2 days agoHow to Start a Cleaning Business: A Step-by-Step Guide
-
Crypto World6 days agoDow and S&P 500 Hit Records on AI Earnings: When Will the Bubble Burst?
-
Business2 days agoDatadog: Best Of Breed For Multiple Reasons
-
Business2 days agoBDC Weekly Review: Private BDC Q2 Numbers Are Strong
-
Crypto World7 days agoDollar Index Trapped at 100 as Hawkish Fed Meets Official Selling
-
Business6 days agoMcDonald’s (MCD) Q2 2026 earnings
-
Fashion6 days agoThe Bright Side of Black and White
-
Fashion6 days agoSuit of the Week: Me + Em
-
Business6 days agoApple UK encryption challenge filed against Home Office
You must be logged in to post a comment Login