Ethereum layer-2 networks need “responsive pricing” to scale to billions of users and reduce the fee swings that still accompany congestion, Offchain Labs co-founder Edward Felten said during a keynote at EthCC 2026.
Ethereum’s EIP-1559 upgrade launched in August 2021, as part of the London hard fork. It reformed the Ethereum fee market by modifying the gas fee limit and introduced a feature that burns part of the transaction fees, removing them permanently from circulation.
Felten said gas-price swings are still the main mechanism for protecting networks from being overrun during periods of heavy demand, even though that produces the kind of fee volatility mainstream users tend to reject.
“[With responsive pricing], you can see more traffic at lower gas prices without overrunning the infrastructure.”
Volatile gas prices have long been a barrier to mass adoption, particularly for users accustomed to fixed or predictable transaction costs in traditional financial systems.
The issue matters because Ethereum’s scaling story is no longer just about adding more throughput. It is increasingly about whether layer-2 networks can make transaction costs predictable enough for mainstream-style apps while still pricing congestion honestly enough to protect infrastructure under heavy demand. Arbitrum’s dynamic pricing rollout is now one of the first live tests of that tradeoff.
Responsive pricing, peak demand and peak gas price comparison among leading L2 networks. Source: Edward Felten
Arbitrum One the first L2 to adopt responsive pricing
Arbitrum One adopted dynamic pricing in January. It described the model as an “Arbitrum platform direction to make fees more predictable under demand by aligning prices with real network bottlenecks.”
Felten shared multiple charts showing how Arbitrum gas fees remained lower during peak network volumes than fees on the Base network and other L2s that rely on EIP-1559.
Fees via responsive pricing compared to EIP-1559 on Jan. 31, 2026. Source: Andrew Felten
Arbitrum One is the largest L2 with $15.2 billion in TVL, while Coinbase’s Base Chain is second with $10.9 billion, according to data from L2beat. L2s are securing over $39.7 billion in cumulative TVL, up 4.6% over the past year.
While responsive pricing may be more scalable and more transparent about underlying costs, its biggest downside is lower predictability than EIP-1559, according to Julian Kors, a senior developer and founder of execution workspace startup Pulsar Spaces.
The debate is not about one model being better, but whether networks optimise for “predictability and mechanism design purity or for efficiency and real-time cost alignment. EIP-1559 does the first very well. Responsive pricing leans into the second,” he told Cointelegraph.
Responsive pricing is a step forward, but the gas model needs replacing
Jerome de Tychey, president of Ethereum France and EthCC, told Cointelegraph that responsive pricing could improve user experience by making fees more closely reflect actual network demand.
Cyprien Grau, project lead at gasless Ethereum L2 Status Network, agreed, calling the new pricing model a “real improvement in fee accuracy.” However, the model still relies on a “fee market,” meaning that users may still face variable costs and gas spikes during congestion, he told Cointelegraph.
“It doesn’t solve the structural problem: L2 gas fees trend toward zero as scaling on L1 and L2s improves and competition intensifies. Responsive pricing makes the decline smoother, but you’re still building a revenue model on a depreciating asset.”
Grau added that responsive pricing is the “most advanced version of the gas model,” but said the gas model needs replacing. “L2s that scale to billions of users will be the ones where users never think about gas at all, and where networks’ economics don’t depend on charging them for it,” he added.
The fee model debate comes as parts of the Ethereum ecosystem are already rethinking the original rollup-centric scaling thesis. In February, Vitalik Buterin argued that some layer-2 assumptions no longer held and that future scaling should rely more heavily on the mainnet and native rollups.
L2 networks were created to scale Ethereum and offload part of the transaction load from the mainnet. However, Ethereum is now reconsidering its L2-centric approach, as these networks have siphoned significant economic value from the mainnet.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
Decentralized email platform Dmail Network is shutting down after five years of operations, citing high infrastructure costs, weak monetization, failed funding efforts and limited token utility.
The platform said it will gradually cease all services starting May 15, and urged users to export their data before then. It said all nodes will shut down after that date, making emails and accounts inaccessible.
Dmail Network positioned itself as a Web3 communication platform focused on decentralized, wallet-based email, encrypted messaging and onchain notifications. In January 2025, DappRadar ranked Dmail second among AI DApps, with 4.9 million unique active wallets for the month.
Dmail’s closure suggests that user activity alone was not enough to sustain an infrastructure-heavy Web3 product once high operating costs, weak monetization and failed fundraising converged.
Dmail points to costs, failed fundraising and weak token use
Dmail said the economics of running a decentralized communication platform had become increasingly difficult to sustain. In its shutdown note, the company said bandwidth, storage and computing costs consumed a large share of its budget, with the expenses rising as users grew.
The company said it explored different paid models and monetization paths but failed to find a business model users were willing to support at scale.
Dmail said that worsening market conditions added to the pressure. The team said multiple financing rounds failed, acquisition efforts fell through and funding was nearing exhaustion. It said departures among core staff left the team unable to keep maintaining its infrastructure.
It added that the project’s token never developed a clear, large-scale use case and that its economic design failed to create a self-sustaining loop. Following the announcement, Dmail Network’s token dropped to an all-time low of $0.0002067, according to CoinGecko.
Dmail joins growing list of Web3 closures
Dmail’s shutdown comes amid a recent wave of closures across Web3, as projects struggle with weak demand and funding pressures.
On March 18, DAO tooling platform Tally said it was winding down after concluding that there was no viable market for its products. On March 24, development company Balancer Labs said it was shutting down four months after an exploit that drained over $100 million.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
Europe’s next crypto battle is no longer about whether to regulate the industry, but who gets to hold the pen. European Union leaders are weighing a European Commission proposal to hand direct supervision of the bloc’s largest crypto asset service providers (CASPs) to the Paris-based European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), shifting front-line control away from national regulators.
France, Austria and Italy believe the move is overdue. In a joint September 2025 paper, their market authorities called for “a stronger European framework,” arguing centralized oversight is needed to address “major differences” in how countries authorize firms and curb regulatory shopping.
Malta’s Financial Services Authority (MFSA) is not convinced. A spokesperson told Cointelegraph it is “premature to introduce structural changes” like centralized supervision. The Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA) regulation has only recently become fully applicable, and its “impact on the market and market players is still being assessed,” they said.
The dispute matters because MiCA lets companies win authorization in one member state and then passport services across the EU. That means the question of who supervises crypto firms is no longer just administrative, but goes to how Europe will balance market integration, investor protection and national regulatory authority.
While a recent Bloomberg report framed the fight as one small state against the commission, Ian Gauci of Maltese law firm GTG, one of the architects of Malta’s original crypto rulebook, told Cointelegraph, “That is not what this is.” He said Malta’s arguments “are not jurisdictional” and “go to the structure itself and how it will behave wherever it is applied in the Union.” The MFSA said its position was not about national advantage but about “regulatory timing and effectiveness” and preserving Europe’s attractiveness to crypto firms.
The ESMA already leads the supervisory convergence work, coordinating peer reviews of national authorities, including a fast-track review of one of Malta’s CASP authorizations, widely reported to be OKX. The review found Malta met expectations on supervisory settings, but that the firm’s authorization “should have been more thorough.”
ESMA peer review of a Malta CASP approval. Source: ESMA
Supporters of centralization say that the episode makes the case. A spokesperson from the ESMA told Cointelegraph that a single supervisor for major cross-border companies would deliver “more efficient and harmonized supervision,” strengthen investor protection and reduce “the risk of forum shopping.” France, Austria and Italy similarly warned in their position paper that divergent practices could undermine investor protection and Europe’s digital asset market.
Gauci said he was not opposed to a stronger EU-level role where it is justified. But he argued that centralization should be targeted at genuinely systemic cross-border firms with clearly identified risks, rather than applied as a blanket fix for uneven supervision.
Malta warns centralization may go too far
OKX rejects the idea that companies pick smaller jurisdictions to capture regulators. Its European CEO, Erald Ghoos, told Cointelegraph that, unlike some competitors, the exchange had been supervised by Malta under a high-standard regime since 2021 and its MiCA authorization reflected a multi-year relationship, “not an expedited process.” With MiCA still rolling out, he argued that there was no evidence the current model is failing, making centralization look more like a “political decision.”
Ghoos said the case for concentrating supervisory power at the EU level had not yet been demonstrated.
Gauci accepts that inconsistencies exist but argues that the solution is to use existing tools. “Make peer reviews bite,” set timelines and impose consequences for persistent failure, rather than rewriting MiCA’s allocation of powers, he said.
His deeper concern is structural: Large firms operate as single systems, but the proposal would split oversight across ESMA, national authorities and the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), while the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) expects an integrated view of information technology risk. “Once you split supervision like this, that unity disappears,” he warned, leaving accountability fragmented in a crisis.
The real question, he said, is whether Europe values supervisory depth or scale. Early movers built expertise and proximity in a fast-moving industry; strip that away too quickly, and Europe risks replacing it with distance, removing the “incentive for jurisdictions to invest in serious supervisory capacity in the first place,” and encouraging the offshore drift policymakers want to avoid.
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy https://cointelegraph.com/editorial-policy
Ether (ETH) price may be at risk of a correction to new year-to-date lows, especially if the bulls fail to secure daily candle closes above the $2,150 to $2,400 range.
Ether’s price action continues to be driven by US and global macroeconomic events, along with investors’ appetite for risk assets during the US and Israel-Iran war. As data shows more than $1 billion in futures-driven sell pressure, the chance of Ether falling below $1,800 rises.
Ether’s main challenge sits at $2,400
Repeat rejections near $2,150 continue to cap Ether rallies, and the level has acted as a strong resistance seven times over the past two months. The trend and its resistance dominate the price action, despite the pattern of higher-high and higher-low candles, which can be seen on the daily chart.
A break below the ascending trendline may shift traders’ focus to $1,900, where liquidity sits near the equal lows formed during the first week of March. Losing that level introduces a bearish break of structure, exposing the external liquidity pockets to Ether’s yearly low at $1,736.
The short positioning has not increased significantly despite the recent decline. The liquidation heatmap shows an imbalance within a 10% range ($1,845–$2,255) from the current price, with approximately $2.4 billion in long liquidations clustered near the lower bound ($1,845) and $1.7 billion in short liquidations near the upper bound ($2,255).
ETH exchange liquidation heatmap. Source: CoinGlass
This skew indicates that downside liquidity is larger, but the short positioning still isn’t overcrowded, even as the price continues to weaken.
The absence of large short buildup points to a passive positioning stance rather than conviction-driven selling. The price continues to compress under resistance, with buyers unable to reclaim control above the key threshold of $2,150.
ETH derivatives spike after continued macro volatility
A surge in ETH futures selling followed comments by US President Donald Trump, which escalated tensions with Iran rather than calming markets. Trump signaled that military action will continue until late April and warned of potential strikes on Iran’s power plants.
Following the development, crypto analyst Darkfost noted that Ether futures sell volume on Binance increased by $1 billion within an hour.
Ether taker sell volume on Binance. Source: CryptoQuant
Despite the surge in selling, ETH continues to trade just below the $2,150 resistance level. A sustained move above $2,150 would open the way toward $2,400, where resistance is relatively thin.
If the price clears $2,400, the next expansion zone sits near $2,800, where little trading activity has occurred over the past six months.
ETH/USDT on a one-day chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView
For now, ETH remains range-bound, capped by repeated resistance near $2,150, with $1,900 acting as the nearest liquidity pivot, which may extend the bearish breakdown.
This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research before making any decisions. Cointelegraph makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information presented, including forward-looking statements, and will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this content.
Bitcoin (BTC) traded at $66,450 on Thursday, a 47% drawdown from its all-time high of $126,000 reached in October 2025. As a result, many BTC holders are sitting on significant unrealized losses, underscoring the risks still facing Bitcoin investors at current levels.
Key takeaways:
Bitcoin’s 47% drawdown from its $126,000 all-time high has left holders with nearly $600 billion in unrealized losses.
Apparent demand and buying from US investors remain in deep contraction, suggesting broader market distribution.
44% of Bitcoin circulating supply now in the red
BTC/USD trades 24% below its yearly open of $87,500 after it closed 2025 in the red. The prolonged weakness has pushed a significant portion of its supply underwater.
As Bitcoin trades at $66,450 on Thursday, roughly 8.8 million BTC are held at a loss, representing $598.7 billion in unrealized losses, or more than 44% of the circulating supply, according to data from Glassnode.
The magnitude of this figure implies a “structural resemblance to conditions observed in Q2 2022,” Glassnode said in its latest Week On-chain newsletter.
Glassnode explained that the 2022 bear market provides a precedent when roughly 3 million BTC needed to be redistributed before the market could recover.
“Historically, resolving a supply overhang of this scale has required a meaningful redistribution of coins from loss-realizing holders to new buyers at lower prices.”
BTC: Total supply in loss. Source: Glassnode
This mounting paper loss has eroded conviction, prompting long-term holders (LTH) to capitulate by selling below their cost basis.
LTH realized loss, a metric that measures the aggregate dollar value of Bitcoin sold at a loss by investors who have held BTC for more than 155 days, has risen to $200 million, “confirming active capitulation,” Glassnode said, adding:
“A meaningful cooldown toward levels below $25M per day would represent a more compelling signal of exhaustion in selling pressure, and a prerequisite for the base formation that historically precedes a sustainable bull market transition.”
Bitcoin LTH realized loss. Source: Glassnode
BTC’s spot price is also below the average cost basis of US spot Bitcoin ETF holders, currently at $83,408, suggesting that these investors are increasingly under strain.
US spot Bitcoin ETF cost basis chart. Source: Glassnode
The continued contraction in total apparent demand indicates persistent “selling from retail,” CryptoQuant said in its latest Weekly Crypto report, adding:
“The sustained demand contraction, now persisting since late November 2025, confirms that the broader market remains in distribution.”
Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s Coinbase Premium Index, which measures the difference in pricing between the BTC/USD pair on Coinbase and Binance, also remains in negative territory.
“The persistent negative premium indicates that US investors have not yet re-entered the market at scale,” CryptoQuant said, adding:
“This is consistent with the demand contraction seen across on-chain metrics.”
As Cointelegraph reported, Bitcoin price risks new lows in the short term amid a strengthening US dollar.
This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research before making any decisions. Cointelegraph makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information presented, including forward-looking statements, and will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this content.
IOTA’s Q1 2026 update reveals Starfish consensus on testnet, 80x indexer gains, and operational trade infrastructure across Kenya and UK ports.
IOTA has rolled out its Starfish consensus mechanism to testnet while establishing live trade infrastructure connections between Kenyan government agencies, marking the project’s most significant quarter for real-world deployment. The token trades at $0.059 as of April 2, up 6.6% in 24 hours, with a market cap of $256 million.
The Q1 2026 progress report, published April 2, details a coordinated push across protocol development and enterprise adoption. The foundation’s Trade Worldwide Information Network (TWIN) now operates multi-node connectivity between KenTrade, Kenya Revenue Authority, and TLIP Community nodes—allowing trade documentation to remain at source while enabling shared visibility across agencies.
Protocol Upgrades Target Enterprise Scale
Three technical developments stand out for traders watching IOTA’s infrastructure play.
The Starfish consensus mechanism hit testnet via version 1.16.0, providing what IOTA describes as the “high security and low latency foundation required for trade documentation.” This follows the 2025 Rebased upgrade that removed IOTA’s controversial Coordinator and transitioned to delegated proof-of-stake.
Infrastructure performance saw dramatic gains. New indexer servers delivered approximately 80x performance improvements for data-heavy applications—critical for processing trade documentation at scale. A FastCommitSyncer implementation increased node synchronization speed by 20-30x, reducing catchup time from hours to minutes.
Account Abstraction went live on devnet, alphanet, and testnet. This feature enables programmable address authentication, designed to simplify onboarding for trade participants who aren’t crypto-native. Two improvement proposals (IIP-0009 and IIP-0010) formalize these changes.
UK Government Backing Materializes
IOTA secured an agreement to establish an Information Sharing Network at Teesside Port, part of the UK’s Digital Trade Testbed. The initiative involves the UK Department of Business and Trade and the International Chamber of Commerce. Live trade transactions have been anchoring on IOTA mainnet since January 2026, according to previous reports.
The foundation launched an Expert Advisory Board bringing senior trade, customs, and logistics professionals into TWIN’s strategic development—a move to bridge the gap between DLT developers and people who actually move freight.
Institutional Interest From Major Financial Hubs
IOTA reports “significant interest” from tier-1 financial institutions in South Korea and the Middle East, specifically around tokenized trade finance and digital identity. The foundation is also trialing an advanced securitization framework for tokenizing real-world assets, though specifics remain limited.
The Bullish exchange integration completed this quarter adds institutional liquidity access. A MasterZ hackathon drew over 60 team submissions, clustering around trade, RWA, and identity use cases.
Africa Expansion Continues
Beyond Kenya, IOTA introduced Rwandan government stakeholders to TLIP for a potential coffee export pilot with TradeMark Africa. The AfCFTA-led ADAPT initiative began formal mobilization, establishing governance structures for phase 1 implementation aimed at modernizing trade systems across the continent.
Regulatory Engagement
IOTA joined Sui Foundation, Cardano Foundation, and Avalanche Policy Coalition in responding to UK Financial Conduct Authority consultations on crypto staking and DeFi regulation. The foundation also provided feedback on OECD crypto-asset reporting framework implementation across EU and Hong Kong jurisdictions.
The strategic outlook centers entirely on TWIN becoming “the world’s trusted digital infrastructure for global trade.” Coming quarters will focus on deeper deployments in existing markets rather than geographic expansion. For traders, the key catalysts to watch: mainnet rollout of Starfish consensus, expansion of the Teesside pilot, and whether institutional interest from Korea and the Middle East converts to announced partnerships.
Decentralized finance presents itself as a transparent alternative to Wall Street. Yet, what it has largely reconstructed is a simplified version of finance, engineered less around market resilience than around the constraints of gas fees. That trade-off, once treated as a technical footnote, is increasingly shaping the limits of what DeFi can become.
So long as computational minimalism remains the overriding priority, financial robustness will remain secondary, and periods of market stress will continue to expose that imbalance.
When markets move faster than the virtual machine
DeFi has rebuilt the familiar architecture of finance, including exchanges, lending markets, derivatives and stablecoins. However, the way these systems function reveals how tightly they are bound by their execution environments.
Risk parameters tend to remain static, and although collateral thresholds can adjust, they typically do so slowly, through governance processes rather than automatic recalibration. Liquidation engines currently rely on fixed formulas rather than adaptive portfolio models that account for shifting volatility or correlations. What appears as a design preference is often a concession to computational limits.
On Ethereum and similar chains, floating-point arithmetic is absent or emulated, iterative simulations are expensive, and continuously recomputing cross-asset exposure can quickly become impractical. The outcome is that financial logic is compressed into forms that are deterministic and affordable to execute, even if that compression strips away nuance.
This architecture performs adequately in stable conditions, but volatility has a way of testing its edges. During MakerDAO’s “Black Thursday” event in March 2020, vaults were liquidated at effectively zero bids, as auction mechanics struggled under collapsing prices and network congestion.
In later downturns, protocols such as Aave and Compound leaned on mass liquidations triggered by fixed collateral ratios, rather than dynamic portfolio recalculations. When Curve’s pools were destabilized in 2023 following a smart contract exploit, the stress radiated outward into lending protocols that treated LP tokens as static collateral, compounding systemic risk.
In each instance, decentralization itself was not the breaking point. Rather, rigid financial logic operated inside an execution layer that could not continuously recompute risk as conditions deteriorated.
Traditional markets evolved in the opposite direction. Banks and clearinghouses simulate thousands of stress scenarios, recalculating exposure as correlations shift and volatility regimes change. Margin requirements respond dynamically to market conditions, and the response is led by substantial computational infrastructure and mature numerical tooling. Public blockchains, by contrast, were not designed with that degree of iterative financial processing in mind.
The illusion of simplicity
Constraining computational complexity reduces certain attack surfaces. Simplicity at the protocol layer, however, does not dissolve complexity in the financial system. It merely pushes it elsewhere.
When risk cannot be modeled and recomputed transparently on-chain, it migrates off-chain into dashboards, analytics teams, discretionary parameter adjustments and emergency governance coordination. The blockchain may remain the settlement layer, but the adaptive intelligence that stabilizes the system increasingly operates outside it. During volatility spikes, protocols often depend on rapid human coordination to adjust parameters, while oracles and large token holders acquire disproportionate influence over outcomes.
The system retains its decentralized base, yet its capacity to respond flexibly depends on actors operating beyond deterministic execution. What appears structurally simple at the smart contract level can conceal a more complex and less transparent operational reality.
DeFi did not converge on simplified finance because static ratios and deterministic curves were proven superior. It converged there because richer computational models were prohibitively expensive to run. As markets deepen, leverage increases, and instruments grow more interdependent, that compromise becomes harder to ignore. Fixed thresholds and blunt liquidation engines, initially safeguards, can begin to function as amplifiers of stress.
Computation as a missing primitive
The deeper constraint, more than decentralization, is execution design.
If verifiable execution environments begin to approximate general-purpose computing systems, the financial design space expands. Native floating-point assistance, iterative algorithms and access to established numerical libraries would allow models to be expressed directly rather than translated into simplified approximations.
This change would allow lending protocols to incorporate scenario-based stress testing instead of relying primarily on fixed collateral ratios. Margin requirements may also adjust in response to observed volatility rather than governance cadence. It could also see credit systems recompute multivariable risk scores transparently, replacing binary heuristics with more granular assessments.
The aim is not to introduce complexity for its own sake. It is to keep financial intelligence inside the protocol, where it remains visible and enforceable, rather than externalizing it into operational layers that users cannot easily audit. This underscores the broader point that the limitations confronting DeFi are largely architectural choices, not inevitabilities of decentralization.
A credibility ceiling
DeFi now stands at a structural crossroads. One direction preserves gas-optimized minimalism, keeping base-layer execution clean while allowing increasingly sophisticated financial logic to migrate off-chain. That path may maintain clarity at the smart contract level, but it constrains how far decentralized finance can responsibly scale.
The alternative is to treat computation itself as a first-class primitive and to accept more capable execution environments in exchange for systems that can adapt, recompute and stress-test transparently. If complex risk logic cannot live on-chain, DeFi will continue to project simplicity in code while relying on discretion in practice.
Markets will not moderate their complexity to accommodate virtual machine constraints. If decentralized finance intends to operate at a meaningful scale, its computational foundations will have to evolve alongside the financial ambitions built on top of them.
Opinion by: João Garcia, DevReal lead at Cartesi.
This opinion article presents the author’s expert view, and it may not reflect the views of Cointelegraph.com. This content has undergone editorial review to ensure clarity and relevance. Cointelegraph remains committed to transparent reporting and upholding the highest standards of journalism. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the company.
Buyers will have to sustain Bitcoin above $69,000 to gain the upper hand in the short term.
Select major altcoins may break above their near-term resistance, signaling buying at lower levels.
Bitcoin (BTC) is facing resistance at $69,000, but the bulls continue to exert pressure. A minor positive in favor of the bulls is that the US spot BTC exchange-traded funds have recorded $186.9 million in inflows this week, according to Farside Investors data.
Is this a good level to buy BTC, or could it fall further? That’s a question troubling investors. Alphractal founder Joao Wedson said in a post on X that BTC’s previous market cycles suggest a historical bottom may form “in late September or early October 2026.”
Crypto market data daily view. Source: TradingView
Veteran trader Peter Brandt also believes that BTC could bottom in September or October. Brandt told Cointelegraph that a complete recovery to a new all-time high may happen only by the second quarter of 2027 but he added that it “is all guesswork.”
Could BTC and select major altcoins rise above their overhead resistance levels? Let’s analyze the charts of the top 10 cryptocurrencies to find out.
Bitcoin price prediction
Buyers are attempting to sustain BTC above the moving averages, indicating solid buying at lower levels.
If they succeed, the BTC/USDT pair may remain inside the bullish ascending triangle pattern. Buyers will have to thrust the BTC price above the $76,000 level to seize control. The pair may then surge to the $84,000 level.
This positive view will be negated in the near term if the BTC price turns down and breaks below the $65,000 level. That will invalidate the positive setup, resulting in long liquidation. The pair may then tumble to the $62,500 to $60,000 support zone.
Ether price prediction
Ether (ETH) closed above the 20-day exponential moving average ($2,085) on Tuesday, and the bulls are attempting to push the price to the $2,200 overhead resistance.
If buyers overcome the barrier at $2,200, the ETH/USDT pair is expected to pick up momentum and rise to $2,400. Sellers will attempt to vigorously defend the $2,400 level, as a close above it opens the gates for a rally to the $3,050 level.
Time is running out for the bears. They will have to quickly pull the price below the $1,916 level to stay in the game. If they do that, the ETH price may plummet to the critical $1,750 support.
BNB price prediction
Buyers are attempting to push BNB (BNB) above the moving averages, but the bears have held their ground.
Sellers will strive to pull the BNB price below the immediate support at $596. If they manage to do that, the BNB/USDT pair may slip to the vital support at $570. Buyers are expected to defend the $570 level with all their might, as a close below it signals the resumption of the downtrend. The next stop on the downside may be $500.
Alternatively, a close above the moving averages may push the price to the stiff overhead resistance of $687. A close above the $687 level will be the first sign of strength. The pair may then march to $730 and thereafter to $790.
XRP price prediction
XRP (XRP) is trying to form a base near the $1.29 level, but the bulls are struggling to push and maintain the price above the moving averages.
That suggests the bears have kept up the pressure. If the XRP price turns down and breaks below the $1.27 level, it signals that bears have overpowered the bulls. The XRP/USDT pair may then decline to the $1.11 level.
On the contrary, a break above the moving averages indicates that the bulls are back in the game. The pair may rise to the breakdown level of $1.61 and then to the downtrend line. A close above the downtrend line signals a potential trend change.
Solana price prediction
Solana (SOL) is attempting to form a floor at the $76 level, but the relief rally is facing stiff resistance at the moving averages.
The flattish moving averages and the relative strength index just below the midpoint do not give a clear advantage either to the bulls or the bears. If the price breaks above the moving averages, the bulls will endeavor to push the SOL/USDT pair above the $95 resistance. If they succeed, the rally may extend to the $117 level.
Contrarily, if the SOL price turns down sharply from the $95 level, it suggests that the range-bound action may continue for a while. Sellers will be back in command on a close below the $76 level.
Dogecoin price prediction
Dogecoin (DOGE) remains stuck between the moving averages and the critical $0.09 support, but the tight range trading is unlikely to continue for long.
If buyers thrust the DOGE price above the moving averages, the relief rally may reach $0.10 and then the $0.12 resistance. Sellers are expected to fiercely defend the $0.12 level. If the price turns down from the overhead resistance, the DOGE/USDT pair may consolidate between $0.09 and $0.12 for a few more days.
Sellers will seize control on a close below the $0.09 level. The pair may then sink to the Feb. 6 low of $0.08 and eventually to the $0.06 level.
Hyperliquid price prediction
Hyperliquid (HYPE) fell below the breakout level of $36.77 on Tuesday, but the bears are struggling to sustain the lower levels.
The bulls are attempting to make a comeback by swiftly pushing the HYPE price back above the 20-day EMA ($37.57). If they can pull it off, the HYPE/USDT pair may rise to $41.59 and subsequently to the $43.76 level. Sellers will attempt to halt the up move at $43.76, but if the bulls prevail, the pair may climb to $50.
This positive view will be invalidated in the near term if the price turns down and breaks below the 50-day simple moving average ($33.97). That suggests the market has rejected the break above the $36.77 level.
Buyers will attempt to overcome the barrier at the moving averages. If they do that, the ADA/USDT pair may reach the downtrend line, which is a crucial resistance to watch out for. A close above the downtrend line signals a potential short-term trend change.
Sellers are likely to have other plans. They will attempt to defend the moving averages and pull the ADA price below the $0.23 level. If that happens, the pair may slide to the Feb. 6 low of $0.22.
Bitcoin Cash price prediction
Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has been trading between the 50-day SMA ($485) and the $443 support for the past few days.
The failure of the bulls to clear the 50-day SMA suggests that the bears are active at higher levels. Sellers will attempt to strengthen their position by pulling the BCH price below the $443 level. If they manage to do that, the BCH/USDT pair will complete a bearish head-and-shoulders pattern. That opens the doors for a drop to the $375 level.
Instead, if buyers drive the price above the 50-day SMA, it signals demand at lower levels. The pair may then ascend to the $520 to $540 zone.
Chainlink price prediction
Chainlink (LINK) is facing resistance at the moving averages, but a positive sign is that the bulls have kept up the pressure.
That improves the prospects of a close above the moving averages. If that happens, the LINK price may rally toward the $10 level. Sellers will attempt to defend the $10 level and keep the LINK/USDT pair range-bound for some more time.
The next trending move is expected to begin on a close above $10 or below $8. If buyers pierce the $10 level, the pair may rise to $10.94 and later to the $11.61 level. Alternatively, a drop below the $8 support may sink the price to $7.15 and then to $6.
This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.
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.
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.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. Guides are produced without influence from advertisers, partners or commercial relationships. Content published in Guides does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals where appropriate.
Michael Saylor’s Strategy (MSTR) looks set to restart its Bitcoin (BTC) accumulation engine after a short pause, with its STRC preferred stock likely funding fresh crypto purchases this week.
Key takeaways:
Strategy may purchase at least $76.25 million in Bitcoin this week.
Combined with a technical setup, Bitcoin may rise to $80,000 in April.
Strategy may buy at least 1,111 BTC this week
On Tuesday, STRC closed at $100.02, just above its $100 par value. Trading at or above par gives Strategy room to issue new shares, raise fresh capital and deploy the proceeds into Bitcoin.
STRC price and volume. Source: STRC.LIVE
Estimates from STRC.LIVE suggest Strategy had raised enough by Tuesday’s close to fund the purchase of more than 1,085 BTC, with the weekly total rising to over 1,111 BTC. That is equivalent to around $76.25 million.
This is a shift from the previous week, when STRC traded mostly below par and generated no estimated BTC purchases.
As of late March, the company held 762,099 BTC at an average acquisition price of about $75,694, according to its latest filings.
BTC rebounds as Strategy’s buying window reopens
The renewed buying window has coincided with a bounce in Bitcoin prices.
Since Tuesday, BTC/USD has climbed more than 5%, briefly reaching nearly $69,300. The move mirrors earlier gains seen during periods when Strategy was actively raising capital through STRC to buy Bitcoin.
The opposite dynamic emerged afterward. Bitcoin fell 14.55% over the next two weeks, roughly aligning with Strategy’s pause in purchases as STRC slipped below its $100 par value.
On March 23, Strategy unveiled a $44.1 billion capital-raising capacity to buy more Bitcoin via the sales of STRC and other preferred stocks, indicating that it would remain a meaningful source of Bitcoin demand in the coming months.
Bitcoin eyes $80K after bouncing from flag support
From a technical standpoint, Bitcoin’s rebound began after it retested the lower boundary of its prevailing bear flag pattern as support.
BTC could advance toward the flag’s upper trendline near $80,000 in April if the recovery gains further traction, particularly if boosted by renewed Strategy buying and signs of easing Iran war tensions.
The $80,000 upside target also aligns with the 50-period exponential moving average on the three-day chart, making the area a key near-term resistance zone.
Conversely, Bitcoin risks losing the flag’s lower trendline support and confirming the pattern’s typical bearish breakdown if those supportive catalysts fade.
In that scenario, the measured downside target would come in near the $49,000–$50,000 zone. That aligns with the downside projections shared by multiple analysts in the past.
This article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice or recommendations. All investments and trades carry risk; readers are encouraged to conduct independent research before making any decisions. Cointelegraph makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information presented, including forward-looking statements, and will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from reliance on this content.
