TLDR

• Jamie Dimon said JPMorgan may enter the prediction markets sector in the future.
• He ruled out offering contracts tied to sports or political events.
• Goldman Sachs confirmed it is actively reviewing prediction market opportunities.
• Polymarket and Kalshi remain leading platforms as competition expands.
• Coinbase and Robinhood have added prediction trading to their services.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said the bank may enter prediction markets as large institutions assess the fast-growing sector. He shared the update during a CBS interview on Tuesday. His remarks place JPMorgan alongside Goldman Sachs in reviewing potential offerings.

JPMorgan Reviews Prediction Markets Strategy

Dimon confirmed JPMorgan is studying the space but set clear limits. “It’s possible one day we’ll do something like that,” Dimon said. However, he ruled out markets tied to sports or politics.

He stressed that the bank would follow strict internal standards. “There’s a bunch of stuff we won’t do,” Dimon said. He added, “We have strict rules around insider information.”

Goldman Sachs has also advanced its review of prediction markets. CEO David Solomon addressed the topic during the bank’s January earnings call. He said the firm has engaged directly with industry leaders.

“I personally met with the two big prediction companies,” Solomon said. He said he spent hours learning about their models and leadership. He added that a team continues to evaluate the sector.

Neither bank has disclosed launch timelines. They have also not detailed technology choices or regulatory structures. However, their statements confirm active internal discussions.

Polymarket, Kalshi, and Rising Crypto Platforms

Prediction markets were once centered on two main platforms. Polymarket and Kalshi dominated the sector for years. Now, competition has expanded quickly across crypto and traditional firms.

Coinbase and Robinhood have integrated prediction market trading. These companies offer retail access through existing platforms. Their entry has increased user participation and market volume.

Polymarket operates on blockchain infrastructure using Polygon. Users deposit stablecoins and place outcome-based trades. Smart contracts record transactions and settle payouts automatically.

Kalshi uses a regulated exchange model without blockchain systems. It offers event contracts under centralized order matching. The platform handles settlement through traditional mechanisms.

Polymarket has secured partnerships and investment backing. It maintains ties with Intercontinental Exchange, which owns the New York Stock Exchange. The company holds an estimated $20 billion valuation.

Kalshi recently closed a funding round led by Coatue Management. The round valued the platform at about $22 billion. These figures reflect growing capital flows into prediction markets.

Regulation in the United States continues to evolve. Authorities assess how event contracts should be classified. Banks have indicated they will monitor policy developments closely.

Earlier this month, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission advanced oversight efforts. The agency outlined steps to build a regulatory framework. These actions mark the latest formal move shaping prediction markets in the U.S.

A crypto governance critique argues that token voting has not fulfilled its decentralized promise, and markets may offer a better coordination mechanism. In a perspective piece, Francesco Mosterts, co-founder of Umia, outlines why the early dream of “on-chain democracy” via token-weighted votes faces fundamental flaws—and how a market-based approach could reshape how on-chain organizations decide what to build and fund.

Mosterts emphasizes that crypto’s strength lies in markets: prices, incentives, and capital flows already coordinate almost every facet of the ecosystem, from token valuations to lending rates and blockspace demand. Yet when governance arrives, the system often abandons markets. He points to ongoing governance frictions across major protocols and a troubling pattern of participation and influence in DAOs. A recent study covering 50 DAOs found a persistent engagement gap: token holders vote inconsistently, and a single large voter can sway about 35% of outcomes, while four voters or fewer can influence two-thirds of decisions. In practice, this means governance power remains highly concentrated even as a decentralization narrative remains loud.

Key takeaways

• Token voting suffers from chronic underparticipation: most token holders abstain, leaving decisions to a small, active minority.
• Whales wield outsized influence, undermining the egalitarian premise of decentralized governance and risking outcomes dominated by a few large holders.
• There is no price signal attached to governance votes, creating misalignment between information, conviction, and action.
• Markets-based governance—where outcomes are priced and funded—could transform governance from expression of opinion into a mechanism of measurable conviction.

The promise and limits of token governance

The original vision of DAOs began with a simple idea: token holders would govern by voting on proposals, thereby aligning ownership with decision rights. The first wave of experiments—DAOs launched in 2016 and beyond—sought to replace centralized management with code-driven governance. Tokens, in theory, would symbolize both ownership and influence, enabling any participant to steer a protocol’s direction by casting a vote.

In practice, however, token voting has struggled to live up to that promise. Three core challenges repeatedly surface: participation, the dominance of whales, and incentive misalignment. Participation remains uneven, as many governance decisions require significant time and effort to review and analyze. The result is governance fatigue, with the majority of token holders remaining passive while a narrow cadre of participants makes the call on key proposals.

Whales compound the problem. Large holders can and do tilt outcomes, demoralizing ordinary voters who feel their input matters less than those with bigger balance sheets. This dynamic starkly contrasts with the ideal of a broad, democratic process where every tokenholder has a meaningful voice.

Then there’s the incentive issue. Governance voting lacks a direct economic signal—votes carry equal weight regardless of a voter’s information, due diligence, or risk tolerance. There is little price for being right or penalty for being wrong, which can encourage speculative or uninformed participation rather than careful, conviction-driven decision-making.

Why pricing decisions could fix governance

The argument pivots on a simple observation: crypto already uses markets to allocate capital, price risk, and signal conviction across a spectrum of activities. If governance can be integrated with pricing mechanisms, it could convert opinions into measurable expectations and align participation with real economic incentives. In other words, decision markets could monetize governance outcomes by letting participants buy and sell bets on proposed directions or policies, thereby revealing collective conviction through market activity.

Advocates of this approach point to several possible benefits. First, decision markets would incentivize participants to research proposals more thoroughly, because their capital at stake would fluctuate with the perceived success of a given outcome. Second, pricing governance outcomes would help surface true preferences and risk assessments, reducing the influence of uninformed voting and opportunistic behavior. Finally, markets could extend beyond mere protocol decisions to broader capital allocation—funding the most promising initiatives with transparent, incentive-aligned mechanisms from inception.

There is a growing sense in the ecosystem that the governance bottleneck—characterized by protracted debates, treasury disputes, and stalled proposals—is a symptom of the misalignment between how decisions are made and how value is created. If crypto wants governance to be a true coordination engine, it may need to borrow from markets more aggressively. Predictions markets, futures-like payoffs on governance outcomes, and futarchy-inspired mechanisms are increasingly revisited as potential pathways to price governance bets and coordinate action around credible forecasts.

What changes when governance is priced, not just voted on

Framing governance as a pricing problem could shift the dynamic from passive endorsement to active, informed risk assessment. By attaching economic signals to decisions, participants would be exposed to the consequences of their bets in real-time, incentivizing careful evaluation of proposals and potential trade-offs. The broader implication is a move from “vote for my preferred outcome” to “trade for the outcome you expect to materialize.”

Beyond improving participation and alignment, decision markets could influence how on-chain organizations allocate resources from day one. Startups and protocols might raise capital with built-in incentive structures for governance that reflect the true costs and benefits of proposed initiatives. In this view, token voting remains valuable for signaling preferences, but it becomes part of a wider system where markets determine which directions receive support and funding, and within what conditions.

As the ecosystem debates these ideas, it’s worth noting that some observers have already flagged governance tensions at prominent protocols. For example, coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted governance disputes around Aave’s exit from a DAO governance framework, underscoring the fragility of current models when high-stakes decisions collide with real-world incentives. The ongoing tug-of-war between governance control and treasury strategy illustrates how far the current approach is from a scalable, market-informed model.

What to watch next as markets reshape on-chain governance

The broader market is watching for experiments that meaningfully integrate pricing into governance. If decision markets can demonstrate durable improvements in decision quality and coordination speed without compromising decentralization, they could become a central feature of the next generation of on-chain organizations. The revival of discussions around futarchy, prediction markets, and other market-based coordination tools points to a phase of crypto where governance becomes less about voting rituals and more about economically rational decision-making under uncertainty.

Still, several questions remain unresolved. How would such markets be designed to prevent manipulation or collusion? What safeguards would ensure that price signals reflect diverse risk tolerances and long-term value creation rather than short-term speculation? And how would regulators treat on-chain decision markets that directly influence capital allocation and product strategy?

What’s clear is that token voting, while historically significant as crypto’s first big governance experiment, is unlikely to be the final answer to decentralized coordination. The next era could see governance complemented, or even superseded, by markets that price outcomes, align incentives, and actively guide what gets built with transparent, market-driven signals.

In the meantime, readers should monitor ongoing debates about how to harmonize decentralization with effective governance, particularly where treasury management, proposal execution, and cross-chain coordination are concerned. The direction crypto takes next—whether sticking with traditional voting or embracing a pricing-based framework—will shape how communities decide and fund the protocols they rely on every day.

• Rule Scope: OCC Bulletin 2026-4 takes effect April 1, expanding national trust bank authority to include non-fiduciary activities – custody and safekeeping of digital assets now explicitly in scope.
• Ripple’s Position: Ripple National Trust Bank holds conditional OCC approval from December 2025, pending satisfaction of AML, KYC, capital adequacy, and risk control conditions before full operations begin.
• Regulatory Background: XRP was classified as a digital commodity by the SEC and CFTC on March 17, 2026, clearing the legal ambiguity that had shadowed Ripple’s institutional adoption narrative for years.
• XRP Market Impact: XRP price sat at $1.3364 on April 1, with bullish technicals emerging for the first time in two weeks; exchange outflows signal accumulation among holders amid the regulatory catalyst.
• What to Watch: Ripple’s Federal Reserve master account application is the next gating variable – Kraken’s approval sets a precedent, and Ripple’s clearance would give it direct access to Fed payment rails.

TLDR

• Gnosis, Zisk, and the Ethereum Foundation launched the Ethereum Economic Zone at EthCC 2026 in Cannes.
• The framework aims to connect more than 20 Ethereum layer two networks under a unified structure.
• The Ethereum Economic Zone enables synchronous smart contract calls across rollups and the mainnet.
• The system uses ETH as the default gas token and removes separate bridge requirements.
• Early partners include Aave, Centrifuge, and a Swiss-based EEZ Alliance.

The Ethereum Economic Zone launched on March 29 at EthCC in Cannes to address layer-2 fragmentation. Gnosis, Zisk, and the Ethereum Foundation introduced the rollup framework at the Palais des Festivals. The initiative aims to unify liquidity and restore synchronous composability across the Ethereum mainnet and participating rollups.

Ethereum Economic Zone framework targets L2 fragmentation

Gnosis, Zisk, and the Ethereum Foundation presented the Ethereum Economic Zone during EthCC 2026 in Cannes. They introduced a rollup framework that connects multiple layer-2 networks under a shared structure. The project seeks to reduce fragmentation across more than 20 operational Ethereum L2s.

Those networks currently secure about $40 billion in assets but operate as isolated systems. Each L2 maintains separate liquidity pools, deployments, and bridge infrastructure. As a result, users and developers navigate disconnected environments.

Gnosis co-founder Friederike Ernst addressed this issue during the conference. She said, “Ethereum doesn’t have a scaling problem. It has a fragmentation problem.” She added that each new L2 creates another isolated liquidity pool and bridge.

The Ethereum Economic Zone enables smart contracts to perform synchronous calls across rollups and the mainnet. It allows atomic transactions that execute across networks within a single process. The framework also uses ETH as the default gas token.

Developers can remove separate bridge protocols under this structure. The system keeps security anchored to Ethereum’s base chain. Project backers said the design restores composability between rollups.

Zisk developer Jordi Baylina joined Ernst during the presentation. They described the framework as aligned with Ethereum’s scaling roadmap. The collaboration receives co-funding from the Ethereum Foundation.

Zisk CEO Maria Roberts spoke during the event. She said, “The zone will facilitate a new era of blockchain innovation.” She added that developers can integrate existing applications into the framework “pretty easily.”

Conference highlights institutional focus and market data

Early partners include Aave, Centrifuge, and a Swiss-based EEZ Alliance. Organizers confirmed these groups joined at launch. Coverage from The Block and CoinDesk reported their participation.

Ethereum’s shift toward cheaper L2 networks has reduced mainnet fee revenue. ETH trades near $2,000 according to recent market data. The network secures about $53 billion in DeFi total value locked.

Stablecoins on Ethereum account for about $163 billion in value. Market data cited by Phemex outlined these figures. Organizers positioned EEZ as a structural upgrade for capital flow efficiency.

EthCC organizers described 2026 as “the year of professionalisation of Ethereum and the wider crypto ecosystem.”

The conference relocated to Cannes for this edition. The event featured institution-focused forums.

Kaiko launched its Agora forum during the conference. Organizers said the forum targets professional market participants. They highlighted infrastructure and market structure discussions.

Separate reporting referenced Kaiko’s findings on market structure gaps. One report stated that an Alameda trading gap still exists. The conference sessions addressed transparency and liquidity topics.

The Ethereum Economic Zone framework officially went live during EthCC. Project representatives confirmed that onboarding discussions continue with other L2 teams. The launch took place on March 29 at the Palais des Festivals in Cannes.

By Omkar Godbole (All times ET unless indicated otherwise)

As the new quarter gets underway, the crypto market is sending a subtle but important signal: traders seem a bit more cautious about bitcoin BTC$68,304.63 than ether (ETH).

You can see this in the options market, where more experienced traders and institutions go to hedge risk or generate extra returns. Think of options as a kind of insurance. Traders can buy protection against price drops (puts) or bet on price increases (calls), depending on their outlook.

Right now, one key metric, called a risk reversal, is negative for both bitcoin and ether across different time frames. In simple terms, that means puts, or downside protection, is more expensive than bullish bets. When traders are willing to pay more for put options, it usually signals lingering fears of a price drop. That’s perfectly normal, considering the brutal downtrend in bitcoin and ether since October.

But here’s where it gets interesting: that caution is stronger for bitcoin. Put options on bitcoin are more expensive than those on ether across all time frames, suggesting traders are more worried about BTC’s downside risk.

The difference becomes even clearer when zooming further out. Longer-dated ether options, such as those expiring next March, are only slightly bearish, while bitcoin’s equivalent options carry a much steeper premium for downside protection.

In short, the market is betting that ether will be relatively resilient. That would signal a bullish trend change in the ether-to-bitcoin ratio, which has been in a downtrend since August (see the technical analysis section).

Ether has risen 5% over the past 24 hours, outpacing bitcoin BTC$68,304.63, XRP (XRP), solana (SOL), and the CoinDesk 20 Index. Several smaller tokens associated with quantum-computing-resistant technology have rallied by 20% or more.

Analysts said a firm breakout in BTC above its 50-day moving average of $68,680 will likely strengthen the bullish momentum.

In traditional markets, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield fell for the fourth straight day while futures tied to the Nasdaq and S&P 500 rose nearly 0.5%. Together, these things point to risk-on sentiment ahead. Stay alert

Read more: For analysis of today’s activity in altcoins and derivatives, see Crypto Markets Today

What to Watch

For a more comprehensive list of events this week, see CoinDesk’s “Crypto Week Ahead“.

• Crypto
• Macro
  • April 1, 8:15 a.m.: U.S. ADP Employment Change for March (Prev. 63K)
  • April 1, 10:00 a.m.: U.S. ISM Manufacturing PMI for March (Prev. 52.4)
• Earnings (Estimates based on FactSet data)

Token Events

For a more comprehensive list of events this week, see CoinDesk’s “Crypto Week Ahead“.

• Governance votes & calls
  • April 1: HTX to host a live X Spaces session with World Mobile.
  • April 1: KuCoin to host a live X Spaces session with Katana.
• Unlocks
  • April 1: SUI$0.8987 to unlock 1.10% of its circulating supply worth $38.29 million.
• Token Launches
  • April 1: Orexn (OXN) enters a phased exchange listing period after the token generation event.

Conferences

For a more comprehensive list of events this week, see CoinDesk’s “Crypto Week Ahead“.

Market Movements

• BTC is up 0.61% from 4 p.m. ET Wednesday at $68,622.64 (24hrs: +3.34%)
• ETH is up 1.47% at $2,136.90(24hrs: +5.27%)
• CoinDesk 20 is up 0.62% at 1,968.28 (24hrs: +3.62%)
• Ether CESR Composite Staking Rate is unchanged at 2.76%
• BTC funding rate is at 0.0033% (3.5193% annualized) on Binance

• DXY is down 0.37% at 99.59
• Gold futures are up 1.5% at $4,748.80
• Silver futures are down 0.69% at $74.40
• Nikkei 225 closed up 5.24% at 53,739.68
• Hang Seng closed up 2.04% at 25,294.03
• FTSE is up 1.63% at 10,342.45
• Euro Stoxx 50 is up 1.75% at 5,667.09
• DJIA closed on Tuesday up 2.49% at 46,341.51
• S&P 500 closed up 2.91% at 6,528.52
• Nasdaq Composite closed up 3.83% at 21,590.63
• S&P/TSX Composite closed up 2.61% at 32,768.04
• S&P 40 Latin America closed up 4.26% at 3,623.86
• U.S. 10-Year Treasury rate is down 3.2 bps at 4.279%
• E-mini S&P 500 futures are up 0.33% at 6,592.25
• E-mini Nasdaq-100 futures are up 0.48% at 24,030.25
• E-mini Dow Jones Industrial Average Index futures are up 0.36% at 46,750.00

Bitcoin Stats

• BTC Dominance: 58.72% (-0.04%)
• Ether-bitcoin ratio: 0.03111 (0.89%)
• Hashrate (seven-day moving average): 1,004 EH/s
• Hashprice (spot): $32.37
• Total fees: 2.47 BTC / $166,441
• CME Futures Open Interest: 104,900 BTC
• BTC priced in gold: 14.5 oz.
• BTC vs gold market cap: 4.58%

Technical Analysis

• The chart shows daily swings in the ether-bitcoin ratio in the candlestick format.
• The ratio has been trending lower since August, showcasing ether underperformance relative to bitcoin. This downtrend is represented by the yellow line that connects the steady decline over seven months.
• The outlook would flip bullish if the ratio rises past this trendline. Such a move would confirm renewed investor preference for ether, as suggested by the options market.

Crypto Equities

• Coinbase Global (COIN): closed on Tuesday at $174.61 (+8.60%), +1.80% at $177.75 in pre-market
• Circle Internet (CRCL): closed at $95.41 (+6.12%), +2.69% at $97.98
• Galaxy Digital (GLXY): closed at $18.45 (+7.58%), +1.94% at $18.81
• Bullish (BLSH): closed at $35.73 (+7.39%), +0.95% at $36.07
• MARA Holdings (MARA): closed at $8.16 (+4.62%), +1.35% at $8.27
• Riot Platforms (RIOT): closed at $12.36 (+4.48%), +2.35% at $12.65
• Core Scientific (CORZ): closed at $14.96 (+7.55%), -0.40% at $14.90
• CleanSpark (CLSK): closed at $8.51 (+4.03%), +2.12% at $8.69
• CoinShares Valkyrie Bitcoin Miners ETF (WGMI): closed at $34.82 (+7.70%), +1.81% at $35.45
• Exodus Movement (EXOD): closed at $6.50 (+4.84%), -0.92% at $6.44

Crypto Treasury Companies

• Strategy (MSTR): closed at $124.80 (+2.77%), +1.48% at $126.65
• Strive (ASST): closed at $10.02 (+6.94%), +1.90% at $10.21
• SharpLink Gaming (SBET): closed at $6.45 (+7.32%), +2.02% at $6.58
• Upexi (UPXI): closed at $0.99 (+3.90%), +6.49% at $1.05
• Lite Strategy (LITS): closed at $1.16 (+11.54%)

ETF Flows

Spot BTC ETFs

• Daily net flow: $117.5 million
• Cumulative net flows: $56.09 billion
• Total BTC holdings ~ 1.29 million

Spot ETH ETFs

• Daily net flow: $31.2 million
• Cumulative net flows: $11.59 billion
• Total ETH holdings ~ 5.70 million

Source: Farside Investors

While You Were Sleeping

Trump says Iran war could end in ‘two weeks’, with or without deal (euronews): Trump, who will address the nation Wednesday night, said the war in Iran could end in two to three weeks. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said its war on Tehran will continue.

Iran fires missiles across Middle East as Trump signals exit (Bloomberg): Iran fired missiles across the Middle East while Israel and the U.S. kept up their bombardment of the Islamic Republic, even as Trump fueled market optimism by signaling he’s preparing to end the war.

UAE wants to force Hormuz open and is willing to join the fight (The Wall Street Journal): The UAE is preparing to help the U.S. and other allies open the Strait of Hormuz by force, Arab officials said, a move that would make it the first Persian Gulf country to join the war.

Crypto asset manager CoinShares to list on Nasdaq after $1.2 billion SPAC deal (CoinDesk): CoinShares, a leading European digital asset manager with over $6 billion under management, is set to begin trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the ticker symbol CSHR.

EthCC 2026 has shifted decisively from a builders’ retreat to an institutional showcase, as this year’s edition in Cannes hosts the inaugural “Agora” forum curated by market data provider Kaiko for more than 60 expert speakers and roughly 600 TradFi and crypto-market professionals.

Held on March 31 at the JW Marriott and branded as a neutral stage “where the foundations of digital market structure will be examined,” the event is explicitly designed for executives from banks, asset managers, trading venues and blockchain projects to interrogate how far crypto and digital assets can underpin the next generation of financial infrastructure.

If previous EthCC editions were best known for governance wars and protocol roadmaps, Cannes has brought bankers directly into the developers’ line of sight. Reporting from French outlet CrypCool notes that “Jean‑Marc Stenger, PDG de SG Forge,” alongside Aave founder Stani Kulechov and representatives from Euroclear, Bloomberg, BNP Paribas, S&P Global, Amundi, Google and Tradeweb, are now part of the official program, with Euroclear’s Isabelle Delorme cited as evidence that “l’institution est désormais dans la salle.” A separate analysis from TechFlow captures the mood shift more bluntly: “What was new was the formal participation of traditional financial institutions… on EthCC’s official agenda for the first time,” the publication writes, arguing that developers and market-structure professionals are finally sharing the same stage rather than operating in parallel tracks.

The core of the Agora’s agenda is not token launches but plumbing. According to Kaiko’s event materials, discussion tracks span tokenization of financial instruments, perpetual futures and ETPs, collateral mobility, and the convergence between centralized and decentralized venues. As one invitation post from Kaiko’s Hadrien Comte on LinkedIn put it, the goal is “a day of conversation focusing on tokenization, market infrastructure transformation, capital efficiency in institutional crypto, and next-generation digital asset investment strategies” rather than marketing pitches.

Underpinning those debates is Europe’s maturing regulatory environment. Commentaries from TechFlow, ODaily and Moomoo all highlight a “regulatory puzzle” coalescing around the EU’s Markets in Crypto‑Assets Regulation (MiCA), which is expected to be fully implemented by mid‑2026 and will cover trading platforms, stablecoin issuers and institutional participants. Combined with new EU‑wide and national tax-reporting frameworks for digital assets, that clarity offers the legal scaffolding banks and asset managers say they need before committing more balance sheet to Ethereum-based products.

For Ethereum (ETH) itself, the message from Cannes is that future liquidity may rely as much on regulated rails as on organic DeFi flows. CrypCool argues that the involvement of SG Forge, Euroclear and Tradeweb in Ethereum debates “valide une thèse: la convergence TradFi/DeFi est un chantier opérationnel,” adding that for ETH holders “la profondeur institutionnelle du marché se construit en partie ici.” That view is echoed in a Phemex dispatch, which describes EthCC 2026 as marking “un changement significatif dans l’écosystème Ethereum, avec la participation… d’institutions financières traditionnelles” and the launch of The Agora as a forum dedicated to aligning digital assets with traditional capital markets.

In short, EthCC’s centre of gravity has moved. The same conference that once incubated “governance meme” experiments now features Bloomberg terminals, Euroclear settlement specialists and bank capital-markets teams arguing over how Ethereum’s blockspace, rollups and collateral models fit into their risk frameworks. Whether that ultimately leads to deeper, more stable liquidity for ETH or dilutes the ecosystem’s grassroots ethos is a debate that will likely continue long after the lights go down in Cannes.

Key takeaways

• Meta plans to introduce dollar-linked stablecoin payments across its platforms in late 2026. Unlike its earlier Libra attempt, the company will not issue its own cryptocurrency but instead integrate existing stablecoins.

• Regulatory opposition to the Libra/Diem project made it clear that governments were uncomfortable with Big Tech issuing private global currencies. Meta’s new strategy reflects those lessons by avoiding direct control over the currency itself.

• Instead of managing stablecoin reserves or issuance, Meta intends to work with external partners that handle infrastructure, compliance and settlement, while Meta itself focuses on user experience and payment distribution.

• With billions of users across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, Meta can embed stablecoin payments into everyday social and commercial interactions, potentially creating one of the largest digital payment ecosystems.

Meta is re-entering the stablecoin market with a revised strategy. Following the regulatory challenges that ended its previous Libra project, the company plans to introduce dollar-linked digital payments across its social media platforms in late 2026.

Rather than developing its own cryptocurrency, Meta is now opting to facilitate third-party stablecoins on its apps. This approach indicates a shift in focus. Instead of managing the currency itself, the company aims to leverage its massive user base to control how and where these transactions occur.

This article explores why Meta’s 2026 stablecoin strategy relies on partnerships rather than issuing its own currency. It examines how regulatory lessons from Libra, new stablecoin rules and Meta’s vast platform distribution are shaping a model focused on payment integration rather than monetary control.

The enduring lesson of Libra

To understand why Meta is being cautious with digital payments today, you need to look at its earlier attempt.

In June 2019, Meta, then Facebook, announced Libra, an ambitious plan to create a global digital currency linked to a basket of traditional currencies. The idea was to enable fast, low-cost payments across Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram and to build a new cross-border payment system used by billions of people.

However, regulators quickly pushed back.

Governments in the US, Europe and other regions raised several concerns. They worried that a prominent private company launching a currency could weaken national monetary control and create risks to financial stability. There were also concerns about inadequate safeguards against money laundering and illicit finance. Meta’s past controversies over data privacy, including the Cambridge Analytica scandal, further deepened distrust.

The idea that a social media company with billions of users could launch something resembling a private global currency alarmed policymakers. Under strong political pressure, several partners left the project. Libra was later renamed Diem, but the project eventually shut down in 2022.

The episode made it clear that regulators would not accept Big Tech issuing its own currency. Meta’s current strategy reflects that lesson. Instead of creating a new coin, it now plans to integrate existing regulated stablecoins from partners and act mainly as a payments platform.

An alternative stablecoin approach for 2026

Meta is renewing its efforts in stablecoins, this time by integrating stablecoin payments directly into its platforms without issuing its own coin.

The company has issued requests for proposals (RFPs) to external partners capable of handling the back-end stablecoin infrastructure. Meta’s role would center on crafting a seamless user payment experience within its apps rather than managing the currency itself.

This could involve introducing a built-in digital wallet feature, allowing users to send and receive stablecoin payments throughout Meta’s ecosystem, which includes Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.

The planned rollout targets the second half of 2026.

This strategy marks a significant shift from the earlier Libra/Diem model. Instead of attempting to launch a new global monetary system, Meta is now positioning itself as a major distribution and user interface layer for established, regulated stablecoins like USDC (USDC) or USDt (USDT), potentially through partners such as Stripe.

Did you know? The term “stablecoin” was first widely used around 2014 and 2015, as crypto developers experimented with tokens designed to maintain stable value against fiat currencies, long before large tech platforms began exploring their payment potential.

Why partners may matter more than owning the power

At first glance, Meta’s decision to outsource stablecoin infrastructure could seem like a step back from control. It may actually amplify the company’s strengths.

Meta holds a wide distribution reach. With billions of active users across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, it operates one of the planet’s largest communication and social networks. Seamlessly embedding stablecoin payments into these everyday apps could rapidly establish one of the world’s biggest digital payment ecosystems. It enables Meta to reach its objective without the need to issue a coin itself.

In this setup, real value shifts away from minting the currency and toward directing how and where it moves. Stablecoin issuers handle reserves, backing and regulatory compliance, while infrastructure providers manage settlement and back-end rails. What Meta brings to the table is the intuitive user interface, the social context and the daily transaction flow.

The Stripe angle

Stripe has become a front-runner for partnership in Meta’s revived stablecoin push. It has aggressively built its stablecoin capabilities, taking steps such as its acquisition of Bridge, a specialized crypto infrastructure firm that powers custody, transfers and blockchain-based payments at scale.

The ties between Meta and Stripe run deep. Stripe co-founder and CEO Patrick Collison joined Meta’s board of directors in April 2025, fueling speculation about closer strategic alignment between the two companies.

If Stripe, through Bridge, becomes the primary back-end partner, Meta gains instant access to a mature, regulated payments stack. This would help Meta bypass the heavy lift of building compliant infrastructure from the ground up. Stripe would own the complex financial pipeline, including settlement, compliance and reserves. Meta, on the other hand, would focus on delivering a frictionless, engaging user experience across its massive social ecosystem.

Regulatory changes have reshaped the industry

The evolution of the regulatory environment is a key reason Meta is choosing partners over power in its 2026 stablecoin push.

In 2025, the US passed the GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act). This law created a clear federal framework for payment stablecoins. It established strict requirements for 1:1 reserves with high-quality liquid assets. Other compliance requirements include issuer licensing and oversight, risk management, transparency through monthly reserve disclosures and consumer protections.

While the GENIUS Act brings much-needed clarity and promotes innovation in regulated stablecoins, it also imposes certain restrictions. Only permitted issuers, typically regulated banks, their subsidiaries or qualified nonbank entities, can legally issue payment stablecoins in the US.

This environment favors established, heavily regulated financial institutions and infrastructure providers over large consumer tech companies. By choosing to partner with compliant stablecoin issuers and infrastructure providers instead of issuing its own coin, Meta sidesteps regulatory burdens, compliance costs and intense scrutiny.

Did you know? The original Facebook payments system launched in 2009, allowing users to purchase virtual goods in games. It was one of Meta’s earliest experiments in building a payments ecosystem inside social platforms.

Stablecoins as the foundation for AI-driven commerce

Meta’s renewed focus on stablecoins also ties into a larger shift in technology. The company is making major investments in artificial intelligence (AI), with projections for 2026 indicating a capital expenditure (CapEx) range of $115 billion to $135 billion. A significant portion of this spending supports the development of autonomous digital agents. These are AI systems that can independently handle tasks such as shopping, booking services and executing payments on behalf of users.

In this scenario, stablecoins could serve as an ideal global settlement layer. These digital dollars offer instant, programmable, borderless transactions that machines can execute reliably and efficiently.

For Meta, embedding stablecoin payments could unlock several practical use cases, including:

• Fast, low-cost cross-border payouts to creators worldwide

• Seamless transactions in international marketplaces

• Automated purchases and payments initiated by AI agents

• Easier financial access and payments in emerging markets where traditional banking remains limited

In this context, stablecoins move beyond speculative crypto tools. They become essential infrastructure for machine-to-machine and AI-powered commerce.

Did you know? Stablecoins are widely used for international remittances and cross-border payments, particularly in regions where traditional bank transfers are slow or expensive.

The wider competition among platforms

Meta is not the only company exploring stablecoin payments.

Across the technology industry, major platforms are actively looking for ways to bring digital currencies into their ecosystems. The main goal is no longer to create and issue new coins. Instead, the focus is on controlling the payment systems built on top of existing stablecoins.

Shopify, for instance, facilitates payments in USDC on Base at checkout through partnerships with Coinbase and Stripe. PayPal’s PYUSD is designed for payments on PayPal and for transfers between PayPal, Venmo and external wallets or exchanges.

The reasoning is straightforward. When a platform enables and processes transactions, it gains valuable insight into users’ economic behavior. This information allows the company to develop new products and services tied to payments.

Stablecoins provide a practical solution. They enable programmable, instant and borderless payments without depending completely on traditional banks. For companies with hundreds of millions or billions of users worldwide, this represents a very large opportunity.

Risks remain significant

Even with a partnership-based approach, Meta’s stablecoin plan still faces certain risks.

• Regulatory constraints: Regulatory attention on large technology companies continues to be strong, particularly when they enter financial services. Governments could introduce new rules or limits on how platforms offer or integrate digital payments.

• Operational challenges: These include the risk of fraud, the need for strong wallet security, the high costs of regulatory compliance and the complexity of handling customer disputes at a very large scale.

• User reluctance: Finally, the entire effort depends on whether users actually choose to use it. If the sign-up process feels too difficult, or if rules add too much extra friction, many people may simply stick with familiar payment methods such as cards or bank transfers.

Meta’s task will be to meet all regulatory requirements while keeping the experience simple and easy for users.

In Jack Dorsey’s view of the world, the job most at risk from the AI revolution is the middle manager.

Dorsey argues in a new essay, “From Hierarchy to Intelligence,” published with Roelof Botha, Sequoia Capital’s managing partner, an investor in Block, that his company’s decision to cut approximately 4,000 of its more than 10,000 employees was not a cost reduction but a permanent restructuring to replace middle managers with AI.

Corporate hierarchy, the essay argues, has always existed to solve one problem: routing information through organizations too large for any single person to oversee.

Managers aggregate context from below, act as messengers from above, and maintain alignment across teams. AI can now perform those functions continuously and at scale, the authors argue, making the messenger redundant.

In place of management layers, Dorsey and Botha proposes two AI-driven “world models.”

One aggregates internal data from code, decisions, workflows, and performance metrics to create a continuously updated picture of company operations, replacing the context that managers traditionally carried.

The other maps customer and merchant behavior using transaction data from Cash App and Square.

Those models feed what Block calls an “intelligence layer” that composes financial products dynamically to fit market demand.

If done properly, the models absorb the coordination work that previously justified the existence of middle management.

Rather than building from fixed roadmaps, the essay proposes breaking Block’s business into modular capabilities, including payments, lending, card issuance and payroll.

When the system identifies a need, the essay’s example is a merchant facing a seasonal cash flow gap, it assembles a solution from existing capabilities. When it cannot, the missing capability defines what gets built next, replacing the product roadmap with a system-generated backlog.

The organizational structure is reduced accordingly. Block plans to operate with three roles: individual contributors who build the system, directly responsible individuals who own specific outcomes on 90-day cycles, and player-coaches who remain hands-on while developing people.

Dorsey told Wired in early Marchthe restructuring was triggered by a capability shift he observed in December in tools including Anthropic’s Opus 4.6 and OpenAI’s Codex 5.3, which he said was now capable of operating effectively in large codebases.

But current and former Block employees told the Guardian that roughly 95% of AI-generated code changes still require human modification, and that AI tools cannot yet lead in regulated areas like banking and money transfers.

Welcome to our institutional newsletter, Crypto Long & Short. This week:

• Nilmini Rubin on the challenge facing crypto and traditional markets to create a hybrid, shared governance structure.
• Meredith Fitzpatrick covers how financial institutions must fundamentally rethink AML risk as crypto and TradFi converge.
• Top headlines institutions should pay attention to by Francisco Rodrigues.
• Maple loans surge past $1 billion in Chart of the Week.

-Alexandra Levis

Expert Insights

Governance is the real Layer 1

By Nilmini Rubin, chief policy officer, Hedera

When Silicon Valley Bank collapsed in 2023, USDC briefly lost its dollar peg after billions in reserves were trapped in the bank. The impact spread quickly, stalling markets, repricing assets mid-transaction and triggering a broader confidence shock. While regulators stress-test traditional markets, this event exposed a new risk where failures in traditional finance can directly impact digital assets.

This episode raised fundamental questions about what happens if risk moves in the other direction, from crypto to the traditional market: who intervenes, who absorbs losses and how is confidence in markets restored?

As blockchains begin underpinning financial markets, the next phase of digital assets will be defined not only by innovation but by coordinated accountability. That accountability is shaped by how networks are designed.

The false binary

For years, blockchain debates revolved around a familiar divide: public vs. private networks.

Permissionless networks maximize openness and censorship resistance, but can struggle with coordinated upgrades, regulatory integration or emergency intervention. Private systems emphasize control and compliance over neutrality and interoperability.

As institutional adoption accelerates, hybrid models are emerging as the preferred solution.

Hybrid architectures combine public verifiability with open participation and predictable governance. This renders them more suitable for regulated use cases and compliance frameworks that require greater transparency and clear roles. Coordinated accountability, rather than simply public or private choices, is blockchain’s next major challenge.

Blockchain architecture is increasingly converging toward hybrid governance models.

When governance meets crisis

In complex systems, responsibilities are usually defined before problems emerge. Participants know who has authority, who absorbs losses and how emergencies are handled.

Blockchain networks should begin with that level of clarity. When stress arrives through sanctions enforcement, protocol failures or market crashes, effective governance proves a difficult test.

The industry has already seen early signals. During the March 2020 market crash, MakerDAO required emergency intervention after auction failures erased millions in value. The protocol recovered, but we cannot allow these incidents to occur frequently and at scale. In other cases, networks have used coordinated forks to address hacks or illicit activity, but only after the fact.

As tokenization expands, increasing resilience will require governance systems that anticipate crises and define decision-making before an event occurs to effectively mitigate.

Putting governance to the test

Mature financial systems routinely stress-test their governance structures to ensure resilience well before moments of disruption.

Hybrid networks must bring that discipline on-chain. Governance stress testing clarifies roles, aligns incentives and strengthens coordination under pressure, helping the industry prepare for scenarios such as stablecoin volatility, regulatory shifts and AI-driven governance dynamics.

Governance is the real Layer 1

Digital assets are reimagining ownership and participation. The next challenge is applying that same creativity to governance.

The networks that endure will not be the ones with the most tokens or the fastest throughput. They will be the ones that know how to govern effectively when the system comes under pressure.

Headlines of the Week

– By Francisco Rodrigues

The crypto industry has continued navigating the regulatory system over the week, making its way into the mortgage market while also seemingly being stopped from offering yields on stablecoin balances. Other major developments further build trust in the industry, even as prices drop.

Expert Perspectives

The new financial order: updating TradFi risk for crypto

– By Meredith Fitzpatrick, partner and head of cryptocurrency, Forensic Risk Alliance

The convergence of traditional finance and cryptocurrency is no longer theoretical sci-fi — it’s here. Regulatory clarity across major jurisdictions is accelerating institutional entry into digital assets, from Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework to expanding U.S. legislative momentum with the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. For financial institutions, the question is no longer whether to engage with crypto, but how to do so safely.

The critical misstep many institutions make is treating crypto as an extension of existing products. It is not. Crypto fundamentally changes how anti-money laundering (AML) risk must be assessed, monitored and controlled.

At its core, blockchain introduces three defining characteristics: immutability, pseudonymity and borderless value transfer. These reshape both financial crime risk and the tools required to manage it.

Control shifts from accounts to keys

In traditional finance, assets are secured through centralized systems and reversible transactions. In crypto, control rests with private keys. When institutions offer custody, AML risk becomes inseparable from cybersecurity risk. A compromised key is not just a breach — it is an irreversible transfer of value, often beyond recovery. This requires controls such as multi-signature authorization, cold storage, strict access governance and wallet segregation — all of which sit outside traditional AML frameworks but are critical to risk mitigation.

Non-custodial wallets mean dynamic risk assessments

Traditional AML relies heavily on customer identity and static risk profiling. In crypto, this model breaks down. Customers can transact through non-custodial wallets that exist outside institutional onboarding frameworks, and illicit activity often hides in transaction behavior rather than identity.

As a result, risk assessment must evolve from “who the customer is” to “what the wallet does.” This requires continuous monitoring of on-chain activity, including exposure to high-risk counterparties, mixers and decentralized protocols. Risk becomes dynamic, not periodic.

Crypto financial crime is structurally more complex

Cryptocurrency money laundering can involve newer technologies, such as chain-hopping and the use of privacy-enhancing technologies like mixers, that have no direct parallel in traditional finance. Transactions can traverse multiple jurisdictions in minutes, rendering legacy screening systems insufficient. Effective AML now depends on blockchain intelligence: the ability to trace funds, identify direct and indirect exposure to risky parties and interpret transaction patterns across networks.

These shifts require a corresponding evolution in governance and risk management. Boards and risk committees must redefine risk appetite to reflect crypto-specific exposures. Institutions should introduce specialized teams (e.g., digital asset approval committees and high-risk customer panels) to manage rapidly changing risks.

Most importantly, the Enterprise-Wide Risk Assessment (EWRA) must become dynamic. Static, point-in-time assessments are inadequate in an environment where risk profiles can change with a single transaction.

The table below illustrates how customer risk assessment must evolve:

Finally, institutions must invest in new capabilities. Fluency in blockchain analytics for transaction monitoring and forensic investigation are no longer niche skills — they are core AML functions. Most organizations will require a hybrid model combining internal expertise with external specialists.

Professionals in this space must recognize that cryptocurrency compliance is not merely adapting existing frameworks but requires fundamentally different approaches to transaction monitoring, due diligence and incident investigation. Success requires compliance teams to understand traditional regulatory requirements and crypto-specific investigation challenges. Institutions approaching crypto adoption with appropriate forensic rigour — treating it as a fundamental compliance transformation rather than simple product addition — will be best positioned for sustainable success.

Chart of the Week

Maple loans surge past $1B on record $350M single-day issuance

Maple’s loans outstanding jumped back above $1 billion last week as the protocol issued $350 million in loans on a single day. With total AuM now exceeding $4.6 billion, there is a divergence between the protocol’s strong fundamentals and the associated SYRUP token price action. This growth, in spite of broader market conditions, continues to highlight the resilient demand for institutional-grade lending among crypto-native firms.

Listen. Read. Watch. Engage.

Looking for more? Receive the latest crypto news from coindesk.com and market updates from coindesk.com/institutions.

Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc., CoinDesk Indices or its owners and affiliates.

• StakeStone price jumped from $0.11 to above $0.26, going vertical amid a spike in daily volume.
• The sharp gain follows a whale accumulating over 25.5 million STO tokens.
• STO price could see a steep pullback amid profit-taking deals.

StakeStone (STO) price exploded during early trading on April 1, pumping more than 130% to hit a new all‑time high.

The vertical action, which occurred amid a broader consolidation across the crypto market, saw STO’s intraday trading activity surge.

The token is in price discovery, but can the lofty levels hold?

Why StakeStone jumped 136% today

STO token posted a sharp intraday surge on Wednesday, significantly outperforming the broader altcoin market.

While most cryptocurrencies traded near key support levels, STO jumped from around $0.11 to a new all-time high above $0.26.

The move marked a gain of roughly 136% and made it the top performer among the 500 largest cryptocurrencies by market capitalisation.

The rally appears to have been driven by a large transaction linked to a newly created wallet.

Data from Lookonchain shows the wallet withdrew more than 25.5 million STO tokens, valued at over $4.85 million, from Binance.

The holdings represent approximately 11.32% of StakeStone’s circulating supply, suggesting concentrated accumulation that may have contributed to the sharp price movement.

The price of $STO surged from $0.11 to $0.26 today, a 136% increase.

A newly created wallet(0x5e2E) withdrew 25.5M $STO($4.85M) from #Binance in the past 20 hours, 11.32% of the circulating supply.https://t.co/UhTfZhT8CS pic.twitter.com/GAI5Y2L8LE

— Lookonchain (@lookonchain) April 1, 2026

The transfer acted as an immediate and powerful demand shock, with the size of the order absorbing available sell liquidity near the market price.

It forced quotes higher as market makers and sellers adjusted to the sudden imbalance between bids and offers.

With limited resting supply at higher levels, the price moved rapidly upward as each successive fill occurred at incrementally higher prices.

Data from CoinMarketCap shows a 560% increase in intraday volume, with over $190 million traded in the past 24 hours.

StakeStone’s market cap was also sharply up, as STO printed a new all-time high.

Prices hovered around $0.25 at the time of writing, up more than 390% since the all-time low of $0.049 on February 6, 2026.

STO price outlook — is a sharp decline next?

From a technical perspective, STO’s chart now reflects a near‑vertical candle following the 136% single‑day move.

Price currently hovers well above recent consolidation zones and historical trading ranges.

Such abrupt expansions in price and volume often leave the token looking temporarily extended.

In the market, this type of structure frequently precedes volatile retracements as the market digests the move and short‑term participants reassess risk and reward.

Given the magnitude and speed of the rally, a period of profit‑taking and a potential steep pullback cannot be ruled out.

A rapid unwind of intraday positions could see STO test lower levels, with $0.19 key.

If selling intensifies, the next major support zone could be $0.15-$0.11.

However, the reduced circulating supply could help support prices and allow for an extended, though volatile, ride to new highs.