Key Takeaways

• Nvidia commands the AI accelerator market with exceptional revenue performance, profit margins, and free cash generation
• Nvidia’s competitive moat stems from its integrated software-hardware platform, extending beyond processor performance alone
• AMD represents the strongest competition but remains significantly behind in AI chip revenue
• AMD’s investment thesis centers on securing secondary supplier status rather than market leadership
• Investment risks differ: Nvidia confronts growth deceleration while AMD battles execution challenges

Nvidia has established itself as the go-to hardware provider for organizations developing artificial intelligence infrastructure. The company’s data center segment currently generates the majority of its revenue, earnings, and operating cash flow. This positioning has transformed it into one of the most financially dominant hardware enterprises ever created.

The current debate among investors has shifted beyond questioning AI market viability. Instead, the focus centers on whether Nvidia can sustain its aggressive growth trajectory and if AMD possesses the capability to narrow the competitive divide meaningfully.

Why Nvidia’s Competitive Edge Extends Beyond Silicon

Nvidia delivers far more than processing units. The company provides an integrated ecosystem encompassing GPUs, networking infrastructure, complete systems, software frameworks, and comprehensive developer support. This holistic approach has become deeply woven into enterprise AI deployment strategies.

NVIDIA Corporation, NVDA

For most enterprises, migrating away from Nvidia would require reconstructing significant portions of their AI technology stack, extending well beyond simple hardware substitution. These elevated transition costs represent Nvidia’s most enduring strategic advantage.

The company’s financial performance validates this market position. Nvidia’s data center segment operates at revenue levels that AMD hasn’t approached. Its profitability and cash flow capabilities provide ongoing resources for continuous innovation and product development.

Understanding AMD’s Position as the Primary Alternative

AMD stands as Nvidia’s most formidable competitor in the AI accelerator landscape. The company operates a well-balanced semiconductor portfolio spanning data center processors, personal computers, gaming hardware, and embedded solutions. AMD’s historical success capturing CPU market share demonstrates proven execution capabilities.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD

AMD doesn’t require complete market dominance to deliver shareholder value. Success means establishing itself as a dependable alternative supplier in AI infrastructure while maintaining strength across CPUs and adjacent markets.

This represents an achievable objective. Major cloud providers and enterprise buyers typically prefer vendor diversification for mission-critical components. AMD stands positioned to capitalize on this preference as AI spending patterns stabilize.

Understanding Investment Risks for Both Companies

Nvidia’s primary threat isn’t business failure but rather growth normalization. With revenue concentration in data center AI expenditures, any customer spending slowdown following aggressive buildout phases could dramatically reduce growth rates.

Restrictions on advanced chip exports to Chinese markets continue presenting genuine regulatory headwinds. Additionally, margin compression may emerge as revenue composition shifts toward complex system-level offerings.

AMD’s central challenge revolves around execution capability. The company still trails Nvidia substantially in software ecosystem maturity and the customer integration depth built through years of market leadership. AMD’s investment proposition depends more heavily on future potential than current accomplishments.

While AMD’s AI software tools show improvement, they haven’t achieved the development maturity or market penetration that characterizes Nvidia’s established platform.

Current Competitive Landscape Assessment

Nvidia maintains superiority across most financial benchmarks. The company demonstrates higher profitability, stronger balance sheet cash positions, larger AI-related revenue streams, and deeper ecosystem entrenchment.

AMD presents a compelling growth narrative but operates from a position of market disadvantage. The revenue gap between both companies in AI acceleration remains substantial.

For investment consideration, Nvidia represents exposure to current AI market leadership. AMD offers participation in long-term AI infrastructure market expansion and diversification trends.

Quick Summary

• TD Cowen launched coverage with a Buy recommendation and $425 price objective, adding Ciena to its Top Picks roster
• Wall Street consensus stands at Moderate Buy with an average price objective of $320.65 following widespread target increases
• First quarter results exceeded expectations with EPS of $1.35 versus $1.17 estimate and $1.43B revenue — representing 33.1% annual growth
• Cloud segment contributed approximately 32% of quarterly sales driven by hyperscaler network expansion
• Company insiders divested approximately 156,235 shares valued at ~$36.9M during the last three-month period

Ciena delivered impressive quarterly performance and is now attracting considerable analyst attention, with TD Cowen becoming the latest firm to express confidence. The optical networking equipment provider surpassed both profit and sales projections, with market watchers attributing the momentum to surging AI infrastructure investment.

Ciena Corporation, CIEN

On March 11, TD Cowen analyst Sean O’Loughlin launched coverage with a Buy recommendation and established a $425 price objective — suggesting approximately 25% potential appreciation from recent trading levels. He designated Ciena for TD Cowen’s Top Picks portfolio and characterized the firm as “a key beneficiary of AI infrastructure demand.”

The investment thesis centers on Ciena’s commanding position in datacenter interconnect (DCI) — the optical networking infrastructure that bridges datacenter facilities. With AI computing requirements expanding and hyperscale operators continuously building capacity, the need for high-bandwidth transport between sites is accelerating rapidly.

O’Loughlin highlighted Ciena’s Nubis transaction as strategically valuable. This acquisition broadens Ciena’s capabilities into intra-datacenter networking, supplementing its established DCI competencies. The move positions the company across multiple networking tiers both within and between AI datacenter environments.

The analyst identified opportunities in “scale across” networking — infrastructure connecting numerous datacenters to enable large-scale AI model training and inference operations. TD Cowen views this segment as naturally adjacent to conventional DCI, where Ciena already maintains strong positioning.

Strong Quarterly Performance Drives Price Target Increases

Ciena unveiled fiscal first quarter performance on March 5. Earnings per share reached $1.35, exceeding the $1.17 Street consensus by $0.18. Sales totaled $1.43B compared to $1.40B expectations, marking a 33.1% year-over-year increase. During the comparable period last year, EPS registered just $0.64.

Cloud-oriented revenue represented roughly 32% of quarterly sales, climbing as hyperscale providers expand transport infrastructure. Wall Street now projects full-year EPS around $1.60.

The quarterly outperformance sparked numerous price target revisions across major financial institutions. Bank of America upgraded from Neutral to Buy while raising its objective from $260 to $355. JPMorgan elevated its target from $250 to $380 while maintaining an Overweight stance. Barclays increased from $279 to $372, also Overweight. Needham lifted its target from $280 to $370 with a Buy rating, and Stifel reaffirmed its Buy designation at $320, up from $280.

Currently, twelve analysts maintain Buy ratings on Ciena. Seven assign Hold recommendations. The consensus price objective across all analysts sits at $320.65.

Institutional Holdings Stay Elevated

Institutional stakeholders control approximately 92% of CIEN shares. Vanguard represents the largest position holder with roughly 15.1 million units. JPMorgan, State Street, and T. Rowe Price have each expanded their stakes in recent reporting periods.

However, company insiders have been reducing holdings. During the previous three months, insiders liquidated approximately 156,235 units representing roughly $36.9M in value. SVP Joseph Cumello divested 11,929 units at $229.82 in January. Director Patrick Gallagher sold 11,618 units at $227.45 during the same timeframe.

CIEN began Thursday trading at $340.02. The equity has established a 52-week low of $49.21 and a 52-week high of $365.90. Current valuation stands at a PE ratio near 216 — an elevated multiple that captures growth projections rather than present earnings power.

Regulatory ambiguity around stablecoins is constraining traditional banks from fully deploying their digital-asset infrastructures, even as the industry remains bullish about the potential to streamline payments and treasury operations. Industry observers say banks have already invested heavily in the rails needed to support tokenized money, but official classifications—whether stablecoins are treated as deposits, securities, or a distinct payment instrument—continue to hold back scale. Colin Butler, executive vice president of capital markets at Mega Matrix, argues that the hesitation is real: without clear guidance, counsel and boards hesitate to authorize large capital expenditures for infrastructure that might have to be rebuilt in response to evolving rules.

The reality on the ground is nuanced. Several heavyweight banks have already laid down significant groundwork. JPMorgan has advanced its Onyx blockchain payments network, a pathway for faster, blockchain-enabled transfers. BNY Mellon has rolled out digital asset custody services, signaling a move toward custody-ready digital money. Citigroup has tested tokenized deposits, a step toward integrating digital representations of cash into traditional banking workflows. Yet even with this progress, the broad deployment of these systems across the balance sheet remains tempered by the regulatory fog over classification and treatment of stablecoins. As Butler notes, “the infrastructure spend is real, but regulatory ambiguity caps how far those investments can scale because risk and compliance functions will not greenlight full deployment without knowing how the product will be classified.”

Beyond the bank wall, the broader market continues to reflect the tension between stablecoin infrastructure investment and regulatory clarity. The article’s context notes that stablecoins remain the backbone of a growing segment of digital payments, with ongoing attention from policymakers and industry groups about how to codify their use in everyday commerce. Among the tangible signals cited are the large-scale efforts by institutions to build the rails that would support stablecoins, juxtaposed with the lack of a final decision on their status—that is, whether they should be treated as deposits, as securities, or as a new category altogether. In the meantime, the industry’s posture remains one of cautious progress rather than wholesale transformation.

On the macro side, executives and analysts point to a persistent yield gap between stablecoins and traditional bank deposits. The article highlights that exchanges commonly offer roughly 4%–5% yields on stablecoin balances, while a typical U.S. savings account yields less than 0.5%. That divergence matters because it shapes deposit flows and risk appetite. The historical reference to the 1970s—when investors rotated into money market funds in search of higher yields—serves as a reminder that capital can be nimble when returns are attractive enough and the transfer process is frictionless. Today, the transfer from a bank account to a stablecoin wallet can be completed in minutes, amplifying any yield-driven migration across the ecosystem. Still, observers caution against expecting a sudden, destabilizing wave of deposits. Fabian Dori, chief investment officer at Sygnum, cautions that trust, regulation, and operational resilience remain prerequisites for large-scale shifts, even as the yield differential creates meaningful competitive pressure.

As regulators weigh policy options, one potential consequence is a shift toward alternative structures that aim to preserve yield even when stablecoins themselves face tighter rules. The article discusses synthetic dollar tokens and derivatives-based yield mechanisms as possible complements or substitutes for traditional stablecoins. Ethena’s USDe, for instance, is cited as a product that can generate yield through derivatives markets rather than through traditional reserves. If policymakers tighten the no-yield rules for stablecoins, some market participants might gravitate toward these more opaque, offshore-style structures. Butler warns that such a shift could have the opposite of the intended effect: capital seeking returns may migrate to less-regulated spaces, potentially diminishing consumer protections in the process. The dynamics imply that regulators must weigh not only the benefits of limiting certain activities but also the possibility that overreach could inadvertently channel funds into riskier, harder-to-track corners of the market.

Key takeaways

• Banks have built significant stablecoin infrastructure, but deployment is throttled by unresolved regulatory classifications that block full-scale capital expenditure.
• Major financial institutions have progressed in tokenized money workflows (Onyx by JPMorgan, digital asset custody by BNY Mellon, and tokenized deposits explored by Citi), signaling readiness to scale pending rules.
• The yield gap between stablecoins and bank deposits could incentivize faster deposit migration, particularly among corporates and fintechs, if risk controls remain manageable.
• Policy moves to restrict yields could unintentionally drive activity into less-regulated or offshore structures unless safeguards are strengthened.
• As the debate evolves, the most consequential outcomes will hinge on how regulators articulate the treatment of stablecoins and related digital assets within the existing financial framework.

Tickers mentioned: $USDC

Market context: The debate over stablecoin classification sits at a crossroads of regulation, institutional treasury strategy, and crypto-market liquidity. With banks edging toward production-ready digital rails but awaiting a definitive policy framework, market participants are watching how policy shapes the economics of stablecoins and their utility in everyday payments.

Why it matters

The central question is whether stablecoins can function as bridges between fiat and digital cash within a regulated banking system. If policymakers settle on a formal, bank-like treatment—as deposits or a payment instrument—banks could deploy full-scale digital-cash rails, reducing settlement times, lowering counterparty risk, and enabling more efficient treasury operations. The potential for widespread adoption could reshape wholesale payments and cross-border settlement, offering a path to faster, cheaper, and more auditable transfers.

At the same time, the industry faces the risk that overly restrictive interpretations could dampen innovation or push activity into less transparent channels. The interplay between regulation and technology will likely define whether stablecoins act as productive digital cash or remain a niche instrument for speculative trading and yield optimization. For users and builders, the key takeaway is that the value of stablecoins in the real economy depends on a clear, risk-balanced framework that preserves consumer protections while enabling scalable infrastructure.

For bankers, the alignment of regulatory expectations with practical deployment is a gauge of whether digital assets become a mainstream tool for corporate treasuries and consumer payments. If the rules cohere with how banks already operate—risk controls, capital requirements, and compliance protocols—the adoption curve could accelerate. If not, the industry may endure a bifurcated market in which banks proceed cautiously while crypto-native firms continue to operate under a lighter regulatory regime.

What to watch next

• Regulatory proposals or legislation clarifying how stablecoins will be classified and treated for capital, deposits, and securities.
• Announcements from major banks on scaled deployments of Onyx-like rails or custody services as guidance becomes clearer.
• Any shifts in yield restrictions or supervisory expectations that could influence stablecoin issuer strategies and investor behavior.
• Emergence of synthetic-dollar products or derivatives-driven yield mechanisms and how regulators respond to these alternatives.
• Broader adoption signals from corporates and fintechs evaluating stablecoin-based treasury solutions or payment rails.

Sources & verification

• Colin Butler, executive vice president of capital markets at Mega Matrix, comments on regulatory ambiguity and bank deployment constraints.
• JPMorgan’s Onyx payments network development and its role in supporting stablecoin infrastructure.
• BNY Mellon’s digital asset custody services and the OpenEDEN initiative for tokenized assets.
• Citi’s SDX tokenization efforts for private markets and related pilot programs.
• Notes on the yield differential between stablecoins (4%–5%) and traditional bank deposits (<0.5% on average savings accounts).

Regulatory uncertainty and the bank-stablecoin battleground

Regulatory clarity remains the linchpin for accelerating or curbing the evolution of stablecoins in the banking system. Banks have signaled readiness by building the infrastructure to support faster settlement, improved liquidity management, and more versatile treasury operations. Yet without a concrete policy framework, risk and compliance teams cannot greenlight expansive deployment. The balance sheet implications—capital requirements, risk-weightings, and liquidity rules—depend on how regulators categorize these digital currencies. If stablecoins are designated as a form of payment instrument, banks could treat them similarly to short-term cash equivalents. If they are securities, the implications would shift toward investor protection and custody standards. A distinct category might offer a hybrid path but would require new supervisory guidance. In practice, the industry is waiting for a decision that could unlock or constrain tens of billions in investment that have already been mobilized toward digital-asset rails.

Meanwhile, market participants are testing the waters with what is already permissible. JPMorgan’s Onyx initiative demonstrates how far large institutions have progressed in integrating blockchain-enabled transfers into mainstream banking workflows. BNY Mellon’s digital custody ventures underscore the demand for secure, regulated storage of tokenized assets. Citi’s exploration of tokenized deposits signals a broader interest in tokenized cash within the regulated banking ecosystem. Taken together, these signals show that the infrastructure is not theoretical: it exists and is ready for scale, contingent on regulatory clarity.

As the debate continues, the risk-reward calculus for banks hinges on whether yields in the stablecoin space can be managed alongside traditional cash-management objectives and risk controls. If policymakers move toward a framework that favorably accommodates stablecoins as digital cash or as a permissible payment instrument, the banking sector could accelerate collaboration with crypto-native entities to deliver faster, cheaper, and more auditable payment flows. If, however, the rules dampen commercial incentives or impose heavy restrictions on yield and liquidity management, the incentive to invest in these rails could wane, slowing the migration of treasury functions to digital assets. In that scenario, crypto-native platforms may continue to operate under different risk regimes, while banks maintain a cautious stance until policy aligns with their risk appetite and capital planning. The stakes are high because the outcome will shape not only the speed of adoption but also the degree to which the broader financial system embraces or resists tokenized money as a core component of modern finance.

TLDR

• President Trump dismisses Iran’s ceasefire proposal, stating current conditions are inadequate
• Kharg Island oil terminal targeted by U.S. forces; Trump claims facility was destroyed
• Crude prices hover around $100/barrel with Strait of Hormuz blockade continuing
• International coalition requested including China, France, Japan, South Korea, and UK for strait reopening
• Saudi Arabia intercepts drones near capital while Qatar suspends LNG operations

President Trump announced Saturday that he remains unwilling to halt military operations against Iran, despite indications from Tehran suggesting interest in a ceasefire agreement. In remarks to NBC News, the president stated “the terms aren’t good enough yet” while refusing to detail specific requirements. He acknowledged that Iran’s complete dismantlement of its nuclear program would be a prerequisite for any agreement.

The military confrontation has entered its third week following coordinated U.S.-Israeli operations against Iranian targets earlier this month. Regional casualties have reached approximately 3,750 people. American military losses include thirteen service members, with six additional fatalities from a refueling aircraft that went down in Iraq on Friday.

According to Trump, American forces targeted Kharg Island on Saturday, which serves as Iran’s primary oil export facility. The president claimed the installation was “totally demolished,” though he noted deliberate efforts to preserve certain oil infrastructure to prevent extended reconstruction challenges. He suggested additional strikes on the location remain possible.

The Strait of Hormuz continues its effective closure. Iranian forces have utilized naval mines and unmanned aerial vehicles against commercial vessels, impacting at least 16 ships. Major petroleum-producing nations including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait have reduced production levels accordingly. International oil prices are positioned close to $100 per barrel.

Trump indicated diplomatic efforts with multiple nations to forcibly reopen the strategic waterway if necessary. Via a Truth Social message, he requested naval support from China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the UK. While claiming several nations have already pledged assistance, he declined to identify specific participants.

Gulf Energy Infrastructure Under Pressure

The United Arab Emirates disclosed successfully intercepting 1,600 unmanned aerial vehicles and 300 missiles since hostilities commenced. Dubai residents reported hearing explosions. Iranian officials accused the UAE of permitting American military operations to launch from Emirati territory.

Fujairah port, representing a critical alternative shipping route bypassing the strait, restarted operations Sunday following a drone-triggered fire that caused temporary closure. Qatar has suspended liquefied natural gas operations. Saudi Arabia successfully intercepted unmanned aerial vehicles approaching Riyadh on Sunday.

Iran’s newly appointed supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, released his inaugural statement in written format but avoided video appearances. Trump publicly questioned whether Khamenei remained alive. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested Khamenei sustained injuries and probable disfigurement. Khamenei’s written declaration pledged continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Defense Stocks and Energy Markets in Focus

Defense industry companies including Lockheed Martin and RTX have experienced stock price fluctuations since the conflict’s beginning. Crude prices sustained near $100 per barrel continue impacting global energy markets.

During the same conversation, Trump addressed Ukraine, characterizing Zelenskyy as “far more difficult to make a deal with” compared to Putin. Washington has relaxed restrictions on Russian petroleum exports attempting to counterbalance escalating global fuel costs resulting from the Iranian confrontation.

Trump asserted U.S. military forces have eliminated the majority of Iranian missiles and drones, projecting Tehran’s production capabilities for both weapon systems would be “totally decimated” within forty-eight hours. Fujairah port successfully resumed loading activities Sunday after controlling the drone-related blaze.

Key Takeaways

• Wells Fargo expresses optimism for NVDA before GTC 2026, referencing historical data showing 3-month outperformance versus the SOX index ranging from +12% to +45%
• Bank of America maintains its Buy recommendation with a $300 price target, highlighting NVDA’s valuation at approximately 17x forward PE — a historical low point
• The chipmaker is anticipated to showcase its next-generation co-packaged optic switch along with developments in its Feynman GPU architecture and Kyber NVL576 systems
• The rise of agentic AI is creating renewed demand for CPUs — Nvidia’s Vera CPU has entered production and is operating in Meta facilities, with broader deployment scheduled for 2027
• A developing supply shortage is affecting the CPU sector, with AMD and Intel reporting extended lead times of up to six months and price increases exceeding 10%

Nvidia (NVDA) is approaching its yearly GTC conference scheduled for next week, and market analysts are paying close attention. The gathering, taking place March 16–19 in San Jose, California, has the potential to serve as a significant catalyst for the semiconductor giant’s shares — and possibly the wider chip industry.

NVIDIA Corporation, NVDA

Analysts at Wells Fargo, under the leadership of Aaron Rakers, stated they are “NVDA buyers ahead of the event.” The investment bank highlighted a trend of robust equity performance during the three-month period following previous GTC gatherings, with NVDA beating the SOX semiconductor index by approximately 30% on average, spanning a range from +12% to +45%.

Vivek Arya, analyst at Bank of America, also confirmed a Buy rating alongside a $300 price target. He observed that the stock is presently valued at roughly 17x forward earnings — approaching a historical floor — after a successful Blackwell product launch that reportedly delivered an estimated $500 billion in aggregate revenue.

CEO Jensen Huang is scheduled to present a keynote speech at 2 p.m. ET on Monday. He will additionally lead an industry discussion panel on Wednesday afternoon. Major technology firms participating in main stage presentations include OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Meta, Microsoft, and Tesla.

Regarding product announcements, Nvidia is anticipated to introduce its second-generation co-packaged optic switch, incorporating Taiwan Semiconductor’s co-packaged optic capabilities. Mass production is not projected to scale until 2027, targeting approximately 80,000 units. The corporation may also share progress on its Feynman GPU architecture and the Kyber NVL576 rack configuration.

Wells Fargo anticipates Nvidia will revise its pipeline projections, potentially increasing its cumulative revenue forecast from $500 billion to beyond $600 billion through 2026. Rakers also questioned whether Nvidia will adjust its projection of $3–$4 trillion annually in worldwide AI infrastructure investment by 2030.

CPU Technology Takes Priority

Beyond graphics processing units, a more subtle transformation is occurring. Agentic AI — workflow-oriented artificial intelligence that coordinates tasks across numerous agents — demands a distinct computing architecture compared to conventional AI inference. This trend is elevating demand for central processing units to unprecedented recent levels.

Dion Harris, Nvidia’s head of AI infrastructure, informed CNBC this week that “CPUs are becoming the bottleneck in terms of growing out this AI and agentic workflow.” The firm’s Vera CPU has reached production status and is currently operational at Meta data centers through a multi-year agreement revealed in February. Nvidia intends to broaden that implementation in 2027.

Thousands of independent Nvidia CPUs are currently functioning at the Texas Advanced Computing Center and Los Alamos National Lab. Bank of America forecasts the CPU sector could more than double in size, expanding from $27 billion in 2025 to $60 billion by 2030.

At GTC, Nvidia is anticipated to display a CPU-exclusive rack on the exhibition floor — an indication of the company’s commitment to standalone CPU configurations.

Supply Constraints Intensify

The wider CPU marketplace is experiencing pressure. AMD and Intel have both alerted customers about supply limitations, with procurement lead times extending as long as six months and pricing climbing more than 10%, based on Reuters reporting.

Forrest Norrod, AMD’s head of data center, told CNBC that demand surges during the past six to nine months have been “unprecedented.” Intel indicated inventory levels are projected to reach their nadir this quarter, though the company anticipates supply conditions will improve throughout Q2 2026.

Presently, Nvidia reports it has not experienced substantial CPU shipment interruptions. Harris explained the company’s supply chain has successfully accommodated demand, partially because the majority of its CPUs are delivered together with GPUs in complete rack-scale configurations.

Mercury Research calculates Nvidia commanded a 6.2% portion of the server CPU market in Q4 2025, trailing Intel at 60% and AMD at 24.3%. Additional stocks that may react to GTC revelations include AMD, Taiwan Semiconductor, Broadcom (AVGO), Intel, and Marvell (MRVL).

Meanwhile, PI continues to lose value daily, dropping below $0.20 despite the Pi Day celebration.

Despite the latest developments in the Middle East war, bitcoin’s price has shown strong resilience and even neared $72,000 earlier today.

Most larger-cap altcoins are in the green today, with ETH climbing above $2,100. TAO has become the top performer from the larger caps, gaining over 12% daily.

BTC Eyes $72K

The previous business week began with a short-lived correction that drove BTC to $65,600 as the asset reacted to the weekend actions on the US/Israel-Iran war front. However, the cryptocurrency rebounded in the following days and surged past $70,000 on Wednesday after the release of the latest CPI data and Trump’s rather promising words that the war could be coming to a close.

Bitcoin slipped below $70,000 a day later, but the bulls took complete control on Friday, initiating another impressive leg up that pushed it to a 10-day peak of $74,000. However, it was immediately rejected there and dropped toward $70,000 as the US carried out a massive targeted attack against a key Iranian island.

Nevertheless, BTC remained above that level even as Trump urged other countries to send ships to defend the oil export through the Strait of Hormuz, and France responded positively. Moreover, it charted some gains in the past several hours as bitcoin challenged $72,000 but to no avail yet.

Its market cap has climbed to nearly $1.440 trillion, while its dominance over the alts is up to 57%.

TAO Flies

As the graph below will demonstrate, most larger-cap alts are slightly in the green. ETH has climbed above $2,100, BNB is north of $660, while XRP trades at $1.415. Similar gains come from the likes of SOL, TRX, DOGE, ADA, BCH, while LINK is up by over 3.5% to $9.2.

MNT, TAO, and ZEC are the top performers from the larger-cap alts. TAO has even pumped by double digits and now trades close to $270.

The total crypto market cap has added roughly $40 billion since yesterday and sits well above $2.5 trillion on CG.

In this week’s edition of the weekly recap, Token2049 organizers postponed the Dubai edition until 2027 citing safety concerns from escalating Iran-Israel-U.S. tensions, Robinhood reported February crypto notional volumes increased 9% to $25 billion and the Ethereum Foundation published a formal mandate establishing its role as steward of a censorship-resistant, privacy-first protocol.

Token2049 Dubai delayed amid regional conflict

• Event organizers postponed the Dubai edition until 2027 after citing safety concerns linked to rising geopolitical tensions from the Iran-Israel-U.S. military confrontation.
• The decision follows cancellation of another major industry gathering, the TON Gateway event, which had also been scheduled for Dubai.

Robinhood shows crypto trading dominance

• February data revealed crypto notional volumes increased 9% to $25 billion while equity, options, and event contracts experienced contraction.

Ethereum Foundation establishes written doctrine

• The organization published an “EF Mandate” formalizing its role as steward of a censorship-resistant, privacy-first, open-source base layer.
• The document signals zero appetite for surveillance-chain compromises as the protocol scales to accommodate broader adoption.

Buterin explains 2021 donation circumstances

• Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin clarified the massive 2021 Shiba Inu donation to the Future of Life Institute while distancing himself from the group’s recent artificial intelligence policy approaches.
• Buterin explained the tokens surged in value during the 2021 meme coin boom with peak “book value” exceeding $1 billion, prompting him to access cold storage funds, sell portions for Ether, and donate to various causes.

Hong Kong prepares banking stablecoin licenses

• Banking giants HSBC and Standard Chartered are expected to be among the first institutions receiving stablecoin issuer licenses in Hong Kong.
• The licensing approach positions Hong Kong to compete with other jurisdictions for regulated stablecoin issuance and operations.

DeFi user loses millions in slippage error

• A user attempting to swap $50 million USDT for AAVE through the protocol’s interface received only 324 AAVE after accepting a quote with extreme price impact.
• The transaction prompted Aave to review safeguards and refund a portion of transaction fees following the catastrophic slippage outcome.

Prosecutors oppose Bankman-Fried retrial request

• U.S. prosecutors asked a federal judge to deny a new trial for the disgraced crypto entrepreneur, arguing he has not shown legal basis for overturning his FTX-related conviction.
• As per the report, prosecutors told the court Bankman-Fried’s motion fails to showcase his original trial was unfair or that new evidence would meaningfully alter the verdict.

Bonk.fun warns users of domain compromise

• The Solana-based meme coin launch platform team alerted users to avoid its website after hackers reportedly compromised the domain and deployed a malicious wallet drainer.
• At least one trader claimed losses of $273,000 after connecting their wallet to the compromised interface.

Indian authorities arrest GainBitcoin fraud suspect

• The Central Bureau of Investigation arrested Ayush Varshney, co-founder and chief technology officer of Darwin Labs Private Limited, in connection with alleged GainBitcoin cryptocurrency fraud.
• Investigators allege Darwin Labs helped build technical infrastructure for the scheme including the MCAP token and GBMiners platform.
• Varshney was intercepted at Mumbai airport while allegedly attempting to leave India after a Look Out Circular was issued.

Ripple acquires Australian payments firm

• The company announced plans to secure an Australian financial services license through acquisition of BC Payments Australia Pty Ltd, a payments company linked to the European Banking Circle Group.
• The deal remains underway and is expected to close April 1 after standard closing processes finalize.

Anthropic sues government over AI blacklist

• The artificial intelligence developer filed a lawsuit against multiple U.S. government agencies, accusing federal authorities of unlawfully blacklisting its technology.
• The legal action alleges the blacklisting occurred after Anthropic refused to allow certain military uses of its AI systems.

Bitcoin was (again) called dead six years ago during the COVID-19 flash crash and it’s now lightyears ahead. Do you see any resemblance with the current landscape?

The more things change, the more they stay the same. You have probably heard that saying at some point in your life. Bitcoin’s price has certainly felt it, as it has experienced countless crashes over the years under (slightly) different circumstances, only to be called dead again.

Yet, after each such instance, it has come back stronger than before, providing substantial (paper or not) gains for those who persevere and stay away from all the noise.

6-Year Anniversary

Six years ago, it was the COVID-19 crash. The panic of an unprecedented outbreak that essentially halted the world led to a massive crash in the ever-volatile cryptocurrency sector. Bitcoin, for one, experienced arguably its worst single-day performance in terms of percentage losses, going down by almost 50% from $8,200 to under $4,700.

Its overall calamity at the time was even more profound. In the span of less than a week, it tumbled from $9,000 to a bottom of $3,720, losing roughly 60% of its value. Experts were quick to pick up this mind-blowing crash, proclaiming it dead again. Some argued that BTC had lost its safe-haven crash in those trading hours due to its intense volatility.

And, if you are looking only at those market moves, you would probably have to agree, even if you are a Maxi. However, if you zoom out and track what happened since then, it might not be such a straightforward agreement.

Not only has bitcoin never gone down to those levels in the six years that followed, but it had 10x-ed by January 2021, and kept climbing to $69,000 just a year and a half later. Fast-forward to late 2025, and it peaked at over $126,000 – or more than 3,300% higher than its COVID-induced low. Even with the current correction dragging it to $70,000, its gains since those dark times were pretty impressive, as Davinci Jeremie asserted.

Exactly 6 years ago, $BTC experienced its most brutal crash.

Everyone called #Bitcoin “dead.”

Those who bought on that day are up 1,600% today. pic.twitter.com/uZa1xmMax5

— Davinci Jeremie (@Davincij15) March 13, 2026

You may also like:

Ring Any Bells?

As mentioned above, BTC currently trades nearly 50% away from its October 2025 ATH. Naturally, people are calling it dead again or predicting that it “is going to die” soon. What else is new? … the more they stay the same, right?

Yes, bitcoin ended 2025 in the red – the first such occasion in a post-halving year. Yes, it’s on a 5-month red streak. Yes, gold and silver stole the show. Yes, even the stock markets have charted notable gains despite the ongoing uncertainty, wars, threats, tariffs, Epstein files, and everything in between.

But is bitcoin dead (again)? Is it really? How many times would it have to come back from those proclaimed deaths to earn investors’ trust? Or maybe it doesn’t matter. A few former critics have been turned, but many remain skeptical. And maybe that’s how it’s supposed to be, because bitcoin is not for everyone, at least not yet.

So, if you believe in it, your faith shouldn’t be dismantled during yet another correction. If such retracements are evident even when BTC has become a trillion-dollar asset, they would likely continue for years ahead. Don’t judge it by its worst days, but enjoy the good ones, as they usually follow the darkest hours.

Regulatory uncertainty around stablecoins could place traditional banks at a greater disadvantage than crypto companies, according to Colin Butler, executive vice president of capital markets at Mega Matrix.

Butler said financial institutions have already invested heavily in digital asset infrastructure but remain unable to deploy it fully while lawmakers debate how stablecoins should be classified. “Their general counsels are telling their boards that you cannot justify the capital expenditure until you know whether stablecoins will be treated as deposits, securities, or a distinct payment instrument,” he told Cointelegraph.

Several major banks have already developed parts of the infrastructure needed to support stablecoins. JPMorgan developed its Onyx blockchain payments network, BNY Mellon launched digital asset custody services, and Citigroup has tested tokenized deposits.

“The infrastructure spend is real, but regulatory ambiguity caps how far those investments can scale because risk and compliance functions will not greenlight full deployment without knowing how the product will be classified,” Butler argued.

On the other hand, crypto firms, which have operated in regulatory gray zones for years, would likely continue doing so. “Banks, by contrast, cannot operate comfortably in that gray area,” he added.

Related: USDC market cap nears record $80B amid ‘capital flight’ in UAE: Analyst

Yield gap could drive deposit migration

Another concern is the growing difference between returns available on stablecoin platforms and those offered by traditional bank accounts. Exchanges often offer between 4% and 5% on stablecoin balances, Butler said, while the average US savings account yields less than 0.5%.

He said history shows depositors move quickly when higher yields become available, pointing to the shift into money market funds in the 1970s. Today, the process could happen even faster, as transferring funds from bank accounts to stablecoins takes only minutes and the yield gap is larger.

Meanwhile, Fabian Dori, chief investment officer at Sygnum, said the competitive gap between banks and crypto platforms is meaningful but not yet critical. He said a large-scale deposit flight is unlikely in the immediate term, as institutions still prioritize trust, regulation and operational resilience.

“But the asymmetry can accelerate migration at the margin, especially among corporates, fintech users, and globally active clients already comfortable moving liquidity across platforms,” Dori said. “Once stablecoins are treated as productive digital cash rather than crypto trading tools, the competitive pressure on bank deposits becomes much more visible,” he added.

Related: Stablecoins could form backbone of global payments in 10 years: Billionaire

Restrictions on yield could push activity offshore

Butler also warned that attempts to restrict stablecoin yield could unintentionally drive activity into less regulated areas. Under current US law, stablecoin issuers are prohibited from paying yield directly to holders. However, exchanges can still offer returns through lending programs, staking or promotional rewards.