Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) founder Michael Saylor has piled up cash for over two years of dividend payments and claims that the company can survive a bitcoin (BTC) crash all the way to $8,000.

Although the company itself might survive that crash, common shareholders will actually lose every last theoretical claim to the company’s treasury below a BTC price of $20,094 — far higher than Strategy’s $8,000 corporate survival threshold.

Claims on Strategy’s BTC are, in actual fact, entirely theoretical.

Despite the company’s proud publication of metrics like BTC per share (BPS) or multiple-to-Net Asset Value (mNAV), its lawyers carefully disclaim that neither common nor preferred shareholders have any redemption right to Strategy’s treasury.

No publicly-traded Strategy stock confers any ownership interest in the BTC the company holds.

Nonetheless, MSTR shareholders often talk about BPS or mNAV as shorthand, colloquial valuation metrics for their shares.

To that end, with BTC down over 40% in just six months and crashing below $63,000 last night, it’s worth recalculating the value of MSTR, the common stock of the world’s largest BTC treasury company.

 $16.672 billion in senior claims above MSTR

Today, there are $16.672 billion in senior claims above MSTR on Strategy’s capital stack: $8.214 billion in debt and $8.459 billion in preferred shares.

Although preferreds don’t mature, they’re senior to commons in the event of bankruptcy. The company must also make $896 million in annual interest and dividend payments, not to mention salaries, compliance obligations, legal expenses, and other costs to service real estate, equipment, and payables.

As assets for all of its series of stock outstanding, Strategy owns a small software business, 717,722 BTC, and $2.25 billion in cash, worth a combined $47.65 billion at a BTC price of $63,270.

This is excluding the small software business that was worth less than $1.8 billion for the three years prior to Strategy pivoting into becoming a BTC acquisition company.

If BTC were to fall below $20,094, bondholders and preferred shareholders would consume the entire value of the company’s BTC and USD treasuries, leaving no claim for MSTR beyond residual, pure call option-like premium on the hope that BTC might rally again. 

Here are the possible reasons behind XRP’s daily correction to under $1.35 and what’s next.

The cryptocurrency market is in retreat once again as of the start of the current business week, with BTC dumping to a new local low of under $63,000. Most altcoins have followed suit, and Ripple’s cross-border token is no exception.

The broader ecosystem’s state, in which over $150 billion left the total market cap in 36 hours, is the most apparent reason behind XRP’s 4.5% correction to $1.33. However, there might be another one lurking.

ETFs See No Action

Data from SoSoValue shows that investors who opt to gain XRP exposure through the spot Ripple ETFs in the US have seemingly disappeared. Half of the trading days last week saw no reportable net inflows, and the streak continued on February 23.

As of now, three of the last five trading days have seen an emphatic “$0.00” next to the total daily net inflow number. Consequently, the cumulative net inflows since the first such product saw the light of day in mid-November have remained flat at $1.23 billion.

The current investor behavior is entirely different than the products’ initial days, in which they surpassed the $1 billion mark in precisely a month.

XRP Price Down but Not Out

As mentioned above, XRP has declined by over 4.5% in the past 24 hours. It’s also down 8% weekly and a whopping 30% monthly. As such, it currently fights to stay above $1.30, prompting prominent analyst CryptoWZRD to conclude that the asset had, as expected, closed bearish yesterday.

However, they explained that the XRP/BTC trading pair “printed bullish,” and predicted more gains for Ripple’s token against the market leader. This, in turn, would help XRP “turn bullish.”

You may also like:

Merlijn The Trading said yesterday that the cross-border token was “holding structure while alts bleed.” He outlined the significance of the $1.36 support, but the asset has since broken below it.

Nevertheless, he added that the more macro XRP behavior is different than what people expect, as it’s trading less than a speculative altcoin at this point. In fact, it shows more signs of an infrastructure token as it’s being supported by “real utility narratives.”

“We are talking about payments, tokenization, on-chain settlement rails, and growing real-world activity on XRP.”

XRP IS HOLDING STRUCTURE WHILE ALTS BLEED.

Support: $1.36
Range high: $1.60 (no breakout yet)

This isn’t hype price action.
It’s infrastructure positioning:

Advertisement

Payments
Tokenization
Settlement rails

Utility takes time to price in.
Accumulation comes before expansion. pic.twitter.com/mGPffvRaG3

— Merlijn The Trader (@MerlijnTrader) February 23, 2026

While you read this piece, countless AI agents are furiously negotiating contracts, initiating payments, managing treasury functions, and accessing sensitive data. Their remit is expanding from advisory tools to autonomous economic actors at a frenetic pace, yet there is still no standardized way to prove who they are, what they are authorized to do, or who is accountable when something goes wrong. 

As AI agents begin to transact at scale, blockchain-based identity and authorization infrastructure will become a crucial trust layer for the digital economy, not an optional enhancement. This argument may not sit comfortably with everyone, as some folks in crypto argue that decentralized identity has failed to gain traction and that enterprises will default to centralized cloud credentials and private APIs. Others firmly believe AI agents remain experimental and years away from meaningful financial autonomy. 

Both views underestimate how quickly autonomous systems are integrating into enterprise workflows and how unprepared the current infrastructure is to manage the associated risk. Centralized infrastructure is too slow to keep pace with the unprecedented speed of AI adoption, underscoring the crucial need for decentralized infrastructure to bridge the gap.

AI agents are becoming economic actors

According to Gartner, more than 40% of enterprise workflows will involve autonomous agents in 2026. This near-term projection reflects a shift already visible across fintech, supply chain management, and treasury operations, where AI systems are increasingly authorized to execute transactions rather than merely recommend them. 

As tokenization initiatives expand across global banks and asset managers, AI agents are being positioned to rebalance portfolios, route payments, and optimize liquidity in real time. Consumer behavior signals a similar shift. 

A recent YouGov study found that 42% of US consumers would allow an AI agent to purchase on their behalf if it ensured the lowest price. At the same time, research from Keyfactor shows that 86% of cybersecurity professionals believe autonomous systems should have unique, dynamic digital identities. While demand for AI-powered commerce is accelerating, trust frameworks remain inadequate.

The missing identity and accountability layer

The core problem is not intelligence but verification. As AI agents begin to manage treasury operations, process payroll, or transact on decentralized exchanges, there is still no standardized way to verify an agent’s identity, evaluate its risk profile, or assign accountability if it misallocates funds. Traditional API keys and static credentials were designed for software tools, not for autonomous systems capable of independent decision-making.

This gap is particularly acute in blockchain environments, where transactions are irreversible and pseudonymous by design. If an AI agent interacts with tokenized assets, executes trades across DeFi protocols, or manages stablecoin flows, counterparties need cryptographic assurance about the agent’s authority and constraints. Blockchain-based identity frameworks, anchored in verifiable credentials and programmable permissions, offer a path forward by allowing agents to prove who issued their mandate, what limits apply, and how liability is structured.

Skeptics may argue that embedding identity into onchain systems risks undermining decentralization or increasing regulatory oversight. Others will contend that centralized identity providers can solve the same problem more efficiently. Yet centralized credentials do not provide the transparency, portability, or composability required for agents operating across multiple blockchains and jurisdictions.

Tokenization and AI demand new infrastructure

As ever, institutional skepticism remains strong. Many executives still treat AI agents as experimental, even as adoption accelerates across payments, treasury, and procurement. The same institutions are aggressively pursuing tokenization of real-world assets, stablecoin settlement rails, and automated compliance systems. The infrastructure supporting tokenized securities and programmable money cannot rely on ad hoc identity models if autonomous agents are expected to manage billions in digital assets.

The convergence of AI and tokenization creates a new market structure in which machine-driven actors may outnumber human traders in certain domains. Without standardized KYA (Know Your Agent) frameworks — verifying an agent’s identity, who it acts for, and what it’s authorized to do — the result will be fragmented trust silos and increased systemic vulnerability. With them, a new class of verifiable, accountable AI agents could transact across decentralized networks with clearly defined permissions and audit trails.

Looking ahead, payment providers that fail to integrate verifiable AI identity risk being sidelined as autonomous commerce scales. DeFi protocols that embed agent-level permissions and dynamic credentials may attract institutional capital seeking compliance-compatible automation. Conversely, a major failure involving an unverified AI agent could trigger regulatory backlash that slows tokenization and autonomous finance for years.

The debate now confronting the industry is not whether AI agents will transact, but how they will be trusted when they do. Blockchain’s most durable contribution may not be speculative tokens or memecoin cycles, but the ability to anchor machine identity, authorization, and accountability in tamper-resistant infrastructure. As autonomous systems begin executing payments and reallocating capital at machine speed, trust cannot remain an afterthought.

The next phase will test whether code can also carry identity, mandate, and responsibility for non-human actors. If blockchain fails to provide that foundation, centralized platforms will fill the void. If it succeeds, decentralized networks could become the default trust layer for an economy increasingly powered by autonomous agents.

The overall cost of Web3 game development is rarely about the game itself. It is about the ecosystem behind it. The cost can typically range between $40,000 and $500,000+, depending on complexity, blockchain integration, NFT systems, multiplayer architecture, smart contracts, security requirements, and production quality. A practical Web3 game development cost breakdown is as follows:

• A simple Web3-enabled game can start around $40,000
• A competitive mid-scale Web3 game often lands between $150,000 and $300,000
• Large-scale, multiplayer, token-driven ecosystems frequently exceed $400,000 to $700,000+

However, these numbers are meaningless without understanding what is being built. The cost of Web3 games is usually determined by five structural layers:

1. Game architecture
2. Blockchain architecture
3. Economic design
4. Infrastructure scalability
5. Security and compliance depth

Let us now dive deeper into understanding each layer and typically what percentage of cost it involves. 

Detailed Web3 Game Development Cost Breakdown

Let’s break down cost drivers more specifically.

Layer 1: Gameplay & Core Game Architecture (20–30%)

Before blockchain enters the conversation, it is to be kept in mind that you are still building a game. Game development cost varies based on:

• Engine selection (Unity vs Unreal)
• Visual fidelity (2D vs stylized 3D vs high-end 3D)
• Gameplay complexity (casual loop vs real-time multiplayer combat)
• AI logic systems
• Cross-platform compatibility

A simple 2D Web3 game may require a small team of:

• 1–2 game developers
• 1 designer
• 1 UI/UX resource

A 3D multiplayer Web3 game may require:

• Gameplay engineers
• Network engineers
• Technical artists
• Environment artists
• QA specialists

This is exactly where the cost of Web3 game development tends to jump significantly.

Layer 2: Blockchain Integration Complexity & Smart Contract Development (20–35%)

Web3 is not a plug-in. It changes how data flows. Traditional games store the following on centralized servers:

• Inventory
• Rewards
• Points
• Assets

On the other hand, Web3 games must decide:

• What goes on-chain?
• What stays off-chain?
• How frequently transactions occur?
• Who pays gas fees?
• How are assets validated?

Every blockchain decision affects:

• Development time
• Infrastructure cost
• Transaction efficiency
• User experience

Smart contract development alone can range from $20,000 to $80,000, depending on:

• Token complexity
• NFT minting rules
• Staking mechanisms
• Vesting logic
• Governance integration

Security audits can add another $15,000 to $60,000, depending on the overall scope of the project. However, many tend to underestimate this layer entirely.

Layer 3: Tokenomics & Economic Engineering (10–20%)

This is where Web3 projects either survive or collapse. Tokenomics design includes:

• Emission rates
• Reward balancing
• Inflation control
• Sink mechanisms
• Marketplace fee structure
• Liquidity strategy

Designing a sustainable economy is not “whitepaper work.” It directly affects:

• Backend logic
• Reward distribution
• Smart contract rules
• Player retention
• Long-term viability

Improperly designed token systems destroy ecosystems quickly. Professional economic modeling often adds $10,000 to $40,000 to total project cost. However, skipping it can cost millions later.

Layer 4: Infrastructure & Scalability (15–25%)

Web3 games often operate with a hybrid architecture:

• On-chain asset ownership
• Off-chain game logic
• Cloud-based state management
• API layers connecting wallet systems

Infrastructure must handle:

• Concurrent users
• Real-time gameplay (if multiplayer)
• Transaction logging
• Fraud detection
• Analytics pipelines

Initial backend setup may cost $25,000 to $100,000, depending on the complexity involved. In addition to this, ongoing cloud costs can range from:

• $3,000/month for moderate usage
  • $15,000+/month for large-scale operations

This is exactly where enterprise-grade projects differ from hobby builds.

Layer 5: Security & Fraud Prevention (10–20%)

Web3 games attract exploit attempts. Attack vectors include:

• Smart contract vulnerabilities
• Reward manipulation
• Wallet exploitation
• Bot farming
• Marketplace abuse

Security engineering includes:

• Smart contract testing
• Load testing
• Anti-bot systems
• Activity anomaly detection
• Secure wallet session management

Skipping serious security is one of the fastest ways to destroy trust and lose credibility. 

Web3 Game Development Cost by Project Scale

Tier 1: Web3 MVP (Startup-Level Build)

Estimated Cost: $40,000 – $80,000

This tier includes:

• Basic gameplay loop
• Simple NFT asset structure
• Wallet integration (MetaMask or similar)
• Basic smart contract for rewards
• Limited backend infrastructure
• Minimal multiplayer support

This build is ideal for:

• Concept validation
  • Token pre-launch engagement
  • Community building
  • Early-stage Web3 startups

What it does not include:

• Advanced tokenomics modeling
• Complex PvP systems
• Real-time multiplayer scaling
• In-game marketplace with high liquidity
• Multi-chain integration

Most early-stage founders fall into this category.

Tier 2: Mid-Scale Web3 Game (Growth Stage)

Estimated Cost: $100,000 – $250,000

At this level, you’re building a scalable product. This includes:

• Advanced gameplay mechanics
• NFT minting and trading
• In-game marketplace
• Token reward logic
• Multiplayer features
• Backend cloud infrastructure
• Security testing
• Analytics dashboard
• Admin control panels

This is suitable for:

• Venture-backed startups
  • Web3-native gaming studios
  • Token-launch ecosystems
  • Projects targeting 50K+ users

At this stage, blockchain development and backend engineering significantly impact the budget.

Tier 3: Enterprise / AAA Web3 Game

Estimated Cost: $300,000 – $500,000+

This includes:

• AAA-level graphics
• Unreal/Unity advanced rendering
• Complex multiplayer networking
• Cross-chain asset compatibility
• Advanced tokenomics & staking
• DAO governance integration
• Fraud prevention systems
• High-scale backend architecture
• Full smart contract auditing
• LiveOps infrastructure

This is not just a game; it’s a Web3 platform. This tier is typical for enterprises or well-funded Web3 projects.

Timeline Correlation with Cost

Web3 game development timelines typically look like:

• 3–4 months: Basic Web3 MVP
• 6–9 months: Scalable mid-tier game
• 9–15 months: Enterprise-grade ecosystem

Shorter timelines require larger teams. Larger teams increase short-term budget burn. Time compression always increases cost.

Ongoing Operational Costs

It is to be always kept in mind that only development is not the final expense. You can expect:

• Smart contract audit: $10,000 – $50,000
  • Cloud hosting: $2,000 – $15,000 monthly
  • Security monitoring
  • LiveOps management
  • Token economy balancing

Web3 games require continuous maintenance for flawless performance.

Should You Hire Web3 Game Developers In-House or Outsource?

If you try to hire Web3 game developers in-house, it involves:

• Higher fixed cost
• Long hiring cycles
• Web3 talent scarcity

On the other hand, outsourcing the task to a trusted Web3 game development company often provides:

• Faster deployment
• Cross-domain expertise
• Scalable team allocation
• Lower operational overhead
• Reduced recruitment risk

It is exactly the reason as to why many startups as well as enterprises prefer outsourcing.

The Real Risk Behind “Cheap Web3 Game Development”

Cheap Web3 builds usually mean:

• No smart contract audit
• Weak backend
• Poor token balancing
• Inadequate security
• Limited scalability

Initial savings often lead to:

• Token collapse
• Security breach
• User churn
• Rebuild costs

This, in turn, can ultimately lead to doubling total expenditure and hence not recommended.

So How Much Should You Budget?

If you are a:

• Startup founder
  Minimum realistic serious Web3 game development budget can range between: $75,000 and $150,000.
• Mid-scale company
  The budget can lie anywhere between $150,000 and $300,000.
• Enterprise-scale vision
  For enterprise-level game development, where the vision is crafting a sustainable Web3 economy, the budget can range from $300,000 to $700,000+. 

Why Choosing the Right Web3 Game Development Company Matters

Choosing solely based on lowest bid can result in increasing the long-term cost. Antier, a capable Web3 game development company ensures:

• Secure smart contracts
• Sustainable tokenomics
• Scalable infrastructure
• Audit readiness
• Optimized gas usage
• Long-term viability

Ultimately, it is the overall development quality that determines ecosystem survival.

Final Thoughts

If you want to understand how much does it cost to develop a Web3 game, the answer varies dramatically based on ambition and scale. A realistic starting budget can be something around $40,000 for MVP-level builds and can exceed half a million dollars for enterprise-grade ecosystems. The difference lies in:

• Blockchain architecture
  • Multiplayer complexity
  • NFT systems
  • Security measures
  • Infrastructure scalability

If your goal is long-term sustainability and ecosystem growth, structured engineering investment is non-negotiable. You need to understand that Web3 game development is not simply about adding NFTs or tokens to a game. It is about building:

• A functioning digital economy
• A secure blockchain architecture
• A scalable multiplayer environment
• A sustainable reward system

The cost reflects the complexity of these systems working together. Working with a reliable Web3 game development company helps you clearly understand where the money goes allows you to invest intelligently instead of underfunding critical layers.

Russian authorities have initiated a criminal investigation into Telegram co-founder and CEO Pavel Durov, according to state media reports.

Durov is being investigated in Russia as part of a criminal case involving allegations of facilitation of terrorist activities, official state publication Rossiyskaya Gazeta reported on Tuesday, citing the Federal Security Service (FSB).

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reportedly confirmed the investigation, saying the news reports were based on materials from the FSB, which was “carrying out its functions.”

The latest news adds to an ongoing pressure campaign against Telegram in Russia since state media regulator Roskomnadzor tightened messenger restrictions in early February.

Telegram had not responded to the reports by the time of publication. Cointelegraph contacted Telegram for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Telegram refuses to cooperate with Russian authorities

The reported investigation builds on Telegram’s refusal to comply with Roskomnadzor’s demands to remove what it said was extremist-linked content.

According to the state-linked Komsomolskaya Pravda, Telegram has not removed almost 155,000 channels, chats and bots flagged for illegal or harmful content locally.

The largest categories include 104,093 channels containing false information, 10,598 promoting extremism, 4,168 justifying extremist activity and 3,771 related to drugs.

The investigation could lead to the entire platform being labeled as extremist, former Russian presidential internet adviser German Klimenko reportedly warned. He said that could criminalize payments for Telegram Premium subscriptions and advertising on the platform.

Durov accuses Russia of attacking Telegram to promote state-owned messenger

Durov has previously said the pressure is aimed at steering users toward a new state-backed messenger called MAX.

He added that other countries, including Iran, have attempted similar strategies and failed. “Despite the ban, most Iranians still use Telegram and prefer it to surveilled apps,” Durov wrote on his Telegram channel on Feb. 10.

“Restricting citizens’ freedom is never the right answer. Telegram stands for freedom of speech and privacy, no matter the pressure,” Durov added.

Related: TON Pay aims to turn Telegram into a crypto checkout layer for TON

The Russian investigation comes as Durov remains under scrutiny abroad. Durov is also part of an ongoing inquiry in France since his arrest in August 2024.

French authorities lifted Durov’s travel ban in November 2025 after previously saying he could face up to 10 years in prison.

Magazine: How crypto laws changed in 2025 — and how they’ll change in 2026