South Korea has fined crypto exchange Bithumb 36.8 billion won (about $24.5 million) and imposed a six-month partial business suspension after finding widespread violations of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules, according to a Yonhap News Agency report.
According to Yonhap, regulators identified about 6.65 million violations during an AML inspection, including failures related to customer identity verification, transaction restrictions and record-keeping requirements. Authorities found Bithumb facilitated 45,772 crypto transfers involving 18 unregistered overseas virtual asset service providers (VASPs), in violation of South Korea’s AML rules.
The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) under the Financial Services Commission (FSC) reportedly decided on the penalties following a sanctions deliberation committee meeting reviewing the exchange’s compliance with the Act on Reporting and Use of Specific Financial Transaction Information.
The sanction includes the largest fine yet imposed on a South Korean crypto exchange, following an ongoing regulatory crackdown on AML compliance.
South Korea imposes a six-month partial ban on Bithumb
Under the measures, Bithumb will be banned from processing external crypto transfers for new customers for six months, from March 27 to Sept. 26.
However, existing users will face no trading restrictions, while new customers can still buy or sell crypto and deposit or withdraw Korean won from the exchange.
The FIU said it had repeatedly warned Bithumb to halt transactions with unregistered overseas crypto firms. However, the regulator said the exchange failed to comply and was unable to implement effective blocking measures.
Apart from Bithumb, the FIU has also previously penalized other South Korean exchanges for AML violations.
In February 2025, the regulator imposed a three-month restriction on crypto deposits and withdrawals for new Upbit customers after finding violations tied to dealing with unregistered VASPs. Upbit also received a 35.2 billion won (about $23.5 million) penalty.
The crackdown later reached crypto exchange Korbit. In December 2025, the FIU imposed a 2.73 billion won (about $1.8 million) fine and an institutional warning on the exchange over AML and customer-verification breaches.
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
Opinion by: Neil Staunton, CEO and co-founder of Superset
Crypto is one of the most innovative corners of finance. New protocols launch every week. New market designs are constantly tested, and experimentation moves fast. But innovation alone can’t build financial systems that institutions can rely on.
There’s a reason traditional finance is deliberately boring. It shouldn’t be a rollercoaster of emotions or surprises. When money is involved, reliability is much more important than novelty. Predictable settlement, consistent pricing and clear risk boundaries are what allow capital to move at scale. Without them, even the most elegant tech remains sidelined.
This is where crypto falls short. Today’s onchain market structure simply isn’t enough to support it. This is not about institutions “not getting it” (because they definitely are), but rather, it’s about meeting them where they are.
The infrastructure is there, but the ideology needs some help
Institutional hesitation toward crypto is often framed as a cultural divide, but this is a mistranslation. Banks, asset managers and payment providers adopt new technology all the time. Whether it’s real-time payment rails or cloud-based core banking systems, they’re open to innovation as long as it works reliably, repeatably and at scale.
The issue that’s been holding crypto back from institutional adoption is not merely self-custody or deeper decentralization but is actually a core industry problem: liquidity fragmentation.
Currently, liquidity is scattered across chains, venues and execution environments. Capital cannot be shared, and therefore, it needs to be duplicated. This leads to inconsistent pricing, higher slippage and risk being difficult to define (let alone manage). It’s a problem that’s been talked about a lot over the last few years, but hasn’t reliably been solved.
These issues are structural, rather than mere philosophical differences. Until they’re addressed, institutions will continue to experiment cautiously.
Market structure matters most
Regulation and user experience often dominate the crypto adoption conversation. And it’s true that both are important and need to be properly addressed. From an institutional perspective, market structure is a bottleneck that’s getting in the way of adoption.
At scale, financial systems must handle dollars and FX with precision. They must support deep liquidity, tight spreads and predictable execution even under stress. They need to behave the same way yesterday, today and tomorrow — and every day to come. But when liquidity is fragmented, none of this is possible.
Even well-capitalized institutions struggle to meaningfully deploy when execution depends on bridging risk, duplicated margin or inconsistent settlement paths. The result is higher costs, unclear exposures and hesitation to scale participation. Simply put, this is a massive failure of coordination.
Institutions need reliability
Traditional finance prefers its older systems because they have proven themselves, are familiar and dependable. If the crypto industry wants to attract institutions, it’ll need to make reliability a first-class design constraint.
Yes, some are skeptical of crypto, but the only way to prove them wrong is by earning trust through repetition and, frankly, being a bit boring. It needs to show that it can do the same thing, the same way, under a large variety of conditions. This is what institutions look for when they evaluate infrastructure. They need to be totally confident that risk is visible, liquidity is real and execution will behave as expected.
A moment of transition
Timing matters. Right now, people believe that the financial system needs to make significant changes. Institutions are demanding infrastructure that frees trapped capital and delivers predictable execution across an increasingly fragmented system.
Stablecoins are becoming increasingly used as payment rails rather than entry-level crypto tools. They currently process close to $1 trillion a year, with a volume surge of 690% year-over-year in 2025. At the same time, financial institutions have started testing, integrating and building stablecoins into their books. Even the US Federal Reserve now analyzes how stablecoin growth reshapes bank funding and credit provision, underscoring that this shift is not hypothetical but already influencing core market plumbing.
This shift changes the question. It’s no longer whether crypto can coexist with traditional finance; it’s whether its infrastructure is ready to support it.
What “growing up” actually means
Maturity doesn’t mean crypto needs to lean into centralization or abandon self-custody or composability. It just means that coordination, where markets require it, needs to be prioritized: shared liquidity, consistent pricing and capital efficiency. At the same time, decentralization must be preserved where it truly matters.
This is about function over flash when it comes to designing systems. In finance, clever ideas matter far less than dependable ones.
This isn’t a surrender to corporate whim
Putting on a suit doesn’t mean losing crypto’s identity. Crypto so far has focused on proving what’s possible, but it needs to recognize that this next phase is about proving what works.
The future of crypto will not be defined by how radical it sounds; it will be defined by operational consistency when real capital is on the line. That’s not selling out — but growing up.
Opinion by: Neil Staunton, CEO and co-founder of Superset.
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.
AAVE price prediction shows bullish momentum with targets of $131-137 by March 2026 end, supported by recent 4.27% gains and analysts forecasting 20% upside potential.
While specific analyst predictions from major KOLs are limited in the current cycle, recent forecasts from crypto analysts paint an optimistic picture for AAVE’s price trajectory. According to Terrill Dicki’s analysis from earlier this month, “AAVE trades at $109.87 amid bearish momentum, but analysts eye $137 breakout potential,” highlighting the token’s recovery potential despite previous downward pressure.
CoinCodex has provided one of the more concrete AAVE price predictions, expecting the token to “reach a price of $131.92 by Mar 15, 2026.” This target aligns closely with current technical indicators suggesting upward momentum. Additionally, analyst Aishwarya Shashikumar noted that “the price has the potential to rise 20.52% reaching $131.92 within the next five days,” emphasizing the short-term bullish outlook.
On-chain metrics from major data platforms continue to support these optimistic forecasts, with trading volume maintaining healthy levels and technical indicators showing signs of bullish divergence.
AAVE Technical Analysis Breakdown
The current AAVE price prediction is strongly supported by improving technical indicators. Trading at $118.83 with a solid 4.27% daily gain, AAVE has broken above several key moving averages, signaling potential trend reversal.
The RSI reading of 53.48 places AAVE in neutral territory with room for upward movement before reaching overbought conditions. This provides a healthy foundation for sustained price appreciation without immediate correction risks.
AAVE’s position within the Bollinger Bands is particularly encouraging, with a %B reading of 0.8508 indicating the price is trading near the upper band at $121.25. This suggests strong buying pressure and potential for a breakout above current resistance levels.
The MACD histogram currently sits at 0.0000, indicating a potential shift from bearish to bullish momentum. While the MACD line remains at -2.0791, the convergence pattern suggests we may see a bullish crossover in the coming sessions.
Key resistance levels are clearly defined at $121.96 (immediate) and $125.09 (strong resistance), while support holds firm at $113.94 and $109.05 respectively.
Aave Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
The most optimistic Aave forecast suggests targets between $131-137, representing 10-15% upside from current levels. This scenario requires AAVE to break decisively above the $125.09 resistance level with strong volume confirmation.
Technical confirmation would come from RSI pushing above 60, MACD histogram turning positive, and sustained trading above the upper Bollinger Band. The $137 target aligns with analyst predictions and represents a logical fibonacci extension from recent support levels.
Bearish Scenario
Should AAVE fail to maintain current momentum, downside targets point to $113.94 immediate support and $109.05 strong support. A breakdown below these levels could see the token retest the $105.02 lower Bollinger Band.
Risk factors include broader crypto market volatility, regulatory concerns affecting DeFi tokens, and failure to break key resistance levels with conviction.
Should You Buy AAVE? Entry Strategy
Based on current technical analysis, optimal entry points for AAVE range between $115-118, allowing traders to capitalize on potential upside while maintaining reasonable risk management.
Stop-loss levels should be placed below $113.94 to protect against downside breaks of immediate support. More conservative traders might consider $109.05 as their stop-loss threshold.
For dollar-cost averaging strategies, accumulating AAVE between $110-120 provides good risk-adjusted entry opportunities, particularly given analyst targets suggesting 15-20% upside potential.
Conclusion
The AAVE price prediction for March 2026 remains cautiously optimistic, with multiple analysts targeting the $131-137 range by month-end. Current technical indicators support this Aave forecast, showing improving momentum and healthy consolidation patterns.
With AAVE trading above key moving averages and approaching significant resistance levels, the probability of reaching these targets appears reasonable. However, traders should remain vigilant of broader market conditions and maintain proper risk management protocols.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency price predictions are inherently speculative and should not constitute sole investment advice. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before making investment decisions.
While specific analyst predictions from crypto Twitter remain limited in recent hours, several research platforms have issued updated Injective forecasts this past week.
According to Blockchain.News analysis from March 9, 2026: “Injective (INJ) eyes recovery toward $3.22-$3.60 range as technical indicators show neutral RSI at 39.93 and key resistance at $3.02. Current consolidation at $2.89 suggests potential breakout.”
Looking further ahead, CoinPriceForecast issued a bullish long-term Injective forecast on March 11, predicting that “Injective price will hit $4.5 by the middle of 2026 and then $5 by the middle of 2027.”
INJ Technical Analysis Breakdown
Injective currently trades at $3.05, showing modest gains of 0.96% in the past 24 hours within a tight trading range of $3.01-$3.09. The technical picture presents a mixed but gradually improving outlook.
The RSI reading of 46.39 places INJ in neutral territory, suggesting neither overbought nor oversold conditions. This neutral positioning provides room for movement in either direction, though the recent consolidation pattern suggests accumulation may be occurring.
MACD indicators show bearish momentum with a histogram reading of 0.0000, indicating minimal directional conviction in the short term. However, the MACD lines at -0.0988 suggest potential for a bullish crossover if buying pressure increases.
Bollinger Bands analysis reveals INJ trading near the middle band at $3.03, with a %B position of 0.5390. The upper band at $3.26 represents immediate upside potential, while the lower band at $2.81 provides downside context.
Moving averages paint a concerning longer-term picture, with INJ trading significantly below its 200-day SMA at $6.96. However, the price sits slightly above shorter-term averages, with the 7-day SMA at $3.01 and 20-day SMA at $3.03 providing immediate support.
Injective Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
The bullish case for this INJ price prediction centers on a breakout above the immediate resistance at $3.09, which could trigger momentum toward the $3.22 short-term target identified by multiple analysts.
A confirmed break above $3.13 strong resistance would likely accelerate the Injective forecast toward the $3.44-$3.60 medium-term range. The Bollinger Band upper boundary at $3.26 represents the first major hurdle in this scenario.
Technical confirmation would require sustained volume above the recent average of $1.18 million and RSI movement above 50, indicating a shift from neutral to bullish momentum.
Bearish Scenario
The bearish outlook for INJ focuses on a breakdown below the $3.01 immediate support level. Such a move could trigger selling toward the strong support at $2.97, with the critical $2.74 level representing the final defense before a more significant correction.
A break below the Bollinger Band lower boundary at $2.81 would signal increased volatility and potential for further downside. The wide gap between current prices and the 200-day SMA at $6.96 highlights the substantial distance from longer-term bullish territory.
Risk factors include broader crypto market weakness, reduced trading volume, and failure to hold above key moving averages.
Should You Buy INJ? Entry Strategy
Based on current technical levels, potential entry points for this INJ price prediction include:
Conservative Entry: Wait for a pullback to the $3.01-$3.03 support zone, which aligns with the 20-day SMA and Bollinger Band middle line. This provides a better risk-reward ratio for the anticipated move toward $3.22.
Aggressive Entry: Current levels around $3.05 offer immediate exposure to potential upside, though with less favorable risk management positioning.
Stop-Loss Placement: Position stops below $2.97 to limit downside risk while allowing for normal price fluctuation. The daily ATR of $0.14 suggests this provides adequate breathing room.
Risk Management: Given the neutral RSI and mixed technical signals, position sizing should remain conservative until clearer directional momentum emerges.
Conclusion
This Injective forecast suggests cautious optimism for INJ price prediction over the coming weeks. The convergence of analyst targets around $3.22-$3.60 and supportive technical levels provides a reasonable foundation for modest upside expectations.
However, the broader technical context, including the significant distance from long-term moving averages, suggests any rally may face resistance. Traders should monitor volume patterns and RSI development for confirmation of the anticipated breakout.
Risk Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency investments carry substantial risk. This INJ price prediction is for informational purposes only and should not constitute financial advice. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before investing.
CRV shows technical recovery signs at $0.24 with neutral RSI and key resistance at $0.25. Analysts target $0.26-$0.27 representing 12% upside potential within weeks.
Recent analyst coverage provides mixed but cautiously optimistic views on CRV’s near-term prospects. Caroline Bishop noted on March 10th that “Curve (CRV) shows technical recovery signs at $0.25 with analyst targets of $0.26-$0.27. Neutral RSI and key support levels suggest 12% upside potential within weeks,” setting a target of $0.27.
Similarly, Rongchai Wang observed on March 9th that “Curve (CRV) shows technical recovery signs at $0.24 with analyst targets of $0.26-$0.27. Neutral RSI and key support levels suggest potential 12% upside within weeks,” also targeting the $0.27 level.
While specific KOL predictions from major crypto influencers are limited in recent days, on-chain metrics suggest consolidation around current levels with potential for modest upside if key resistance levels are broken.
CRV Technical Analysis Breakdown
The current CRV price prediction is supported by several technical indicators pointing toward a neutral to slightly bullish outlook. Trading at $0.24, Curve has gained 4.29% in the past 24 hours, showing some momentum recovery.
RSI Analysis: At 42.94, CRV’s RSI sits in neutral territory, neither overbought nor oversold. This suggests room for upward movement without immediate selling pressure from technical indicators.
MACD Momentum: The MACD histogram at 0.0000 indicates bearish momentum has stalled, potentially setting up for a reversal. The MACD line at -0.0074 remains slightly negative but close to neutral.
Bollinger Bands: CRV trades at 0.32 within the Bollinger Bands, closer to the lower band ($0.23) than upper band ($0.26). This positioning often precedes upward moves as the token has room to move toward the upper band resistance.
Moving Average Structure: Short-term averages (SMA 7 and 20) both sit at $0.24, matching current price levels. However, the SMA 50 at $0.26 provides a clear target, while the SMA 200 at $0.46 shows how far CRV remains from longer-term trends.
Curve Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
In a bullish scenario, CRV targets the $0.25 immediate resistance level first. A break above this level could propel the Curve forecast toward $0.26 (upper Bollinger Band) and potentially the analyst target of $0.27.
Key technical confirmation would come from:
– RSI breaking above 50 into bullish territory
– MACD histogram turning positive
– Volume increasing above the current $3.56 million daily average
The 12% upside potential identified by analysts aligns with reaching the $0.27 target from current levels.
Bearish Scenario
Should CRV fail to hold current support, the bearish scenario targets $0.23 (pivot point) and potentially $0.22 (strong support). A break below $0.22 could signal further downside toward the lower Bollinger Band at $0.23.
Risk factors include:
– General crypto market weakness
– DeFi sector rotation away from DEX tokens
– Failure to reclaim moving average resistance levels
Should You Buy CRV? Entry Strategy
For traders considering CRV positions, the current technical setup offers defined risk-reward parameters. Entry points around $0.23-$0.24 provide proximity to support levels while targeting resistance at $0.25-$0.27.
Primary entry: $0.23-$0.24 range
Stop-loss: Below $0.22 (strong support)
Initial target: $0.25 (immediate resistance)
Extended target: $0.26-$0.27 (analyst targets)
Risk Management: Given CRV’s daily ATR of $0.01, position sizing should account for potential daily volatility. The risk-reward ratio favors long positions with tight stops below key support.
Conclusion
The CRV price prediction points toward modest upside potential in the coming weeks, with analyst targets of $0.26-$0.27 representing reasonable expectations. Technical indicators support this Curve forecast, showing neutral momentum that could turn bullish with volume confirmation.
However, traders should remain cautious given the broader crypto market conditions and CRV’s significant distance from longer-term moving averages. The 12% upside potential to $0.27 offers attractive risk-reward for those entering near current support levels.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency price predictions are speculative and should not be considered financial advice. Always conduct your own research and risk assessment before making investment decisions.
Now in line for its seventh consecutive green daily candle, BTC/USD eyed its highest daily close since March 4.
Along with $70,000, price also stayed above key long-term levels: the 200-week exponential moving average (EMA) and the old 2021 all-time high at $68,300 and $69,400, respectively.
BTC/USD one-week chart with 200 EMA. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView
“The recent correction on Friday on Bitcoin was essentially just risk-off appetite to not be having positions going into the weekend. Nothing else,” crypto trader Michaël van de Poppe wrote in his latest X analysis.
“Markets are turning back upwards again, probably we’ll see a slight pullback later today for CME gap closing appetite, but other than that, I would assume we’ll continue to grind upwards to the resistances at $75-80K.”
BTC/USDT six-hour chart. Source: Michaël van de Poppe/X
Van de Poppe correctly forecasted that the price would revisit Friday’s closing price of CME Group’s Bitcoin futures market at $71,325.
At the time of writing, BTC/USD was still up by more than 8% on the week, with March gains at 6.7%.
WTI crude oil ended the week attempting to repass $100 per barrel, with the global oil supply shock still playing out.
CFDs on WTI crude oil one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView
“If macro was calm, this sort of structure could easily turn into a relief rally. But with the current backdrop… downside risk still hasn’t really gone away,” crypto analysis host Kyle Doops commented on X last week.
Doops identified a mid-term trading range for Bitcoin that was bordered by two key boundaries: the true market mean at $78,400, and the aggregate realized price of the current supply at $54,400.
“Every time price pokes above $70K, sellers show up. Not panic selling… just steady profit-taking,” he summarized about lower time frames.
BTC/USD chart with long-term trend lines. Source: Kyle Doops/X
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.
The 2026 Iran conflict created a major geopolitical shock that triggered volatility across global markets. It pushed investors to reassess traditional safe-haven assets such as gold and emerging alternatives like Bitcoin.
Gold initially benefited from safe-haven demand but later declined as the US dollar strengthened and bond yields rose. This showed that macroeconomic forces can override crisis-driven buying.
Bitcoin experienced volatility but recovered quickly, reflecting its growing role as an alternative asset. However, its price movements remained closely tied to market sentiment and liquidity conditions.
The strength of the US dollar played a key role in shaping both gold and Bitcoin’s performance, as rising demand for dollar liquidity influenced global asset flows.
Throughout history, geopolitical conflicts and periods of political instability have consistently triggered shifts in financial markets. When geopolitical tensions escalate, investors often seek to safeguard their capital by reallocating into perceived safe-haven assets that are expected to hold or increase in value during uncertain periods.
Gold has long been the benchmark safe-haven asset, prized for its scarcity, universal acceptance and track record as a store of value. In recent years, however, the rise of Bitcoin (BTC) has prompted widespread debate. Could this decentralized digital currency eventually assume a comparable role as a modern, borderless alternative?
This article explains how Bitcoin and gold responded differently to the geopolitical shock of the Iran war. It analyzes their price movements, market behavior and safe-haven roles, and examines what this divergence reveals about investor sentiment, liquidity dynamics and the evolving debate between traditional and digital stores of value.
2026 Iran conflict: A major geopolitical shock that rattled global markets
The 2026 Iran conflict offered a high-profile, real-time case study to examine whether Bitcoin behaved like a safe-haven asset. The conflict sent shockwaves through financial markets worldwide. Escalating military actions and threats to close the Strait of Hormuz sparked fears of major disruptions to energy supplies. About 20% of the world’s oil is estimated to pass through this crucial waterway, making it highly important for global energy markets.
As tensions grew, oil prices rose sharply, and financial markets turned highly volatile. Stock indexes around the world declined as investors reevaluated risks related to inflation, supply chains and future economic growth.
In times of such uncertainty, investors typically turn to assets seen as reliable stores of value. On this occasion, however, the response across different asset classes was more complex than usual.
Gold’s mixed performance as a safe-haven asset
At first, gold reacted as expected during a geopolitical crisis. Demand increased as investors sought safety amid the uncertainty.
As the conflict worsened, gold prices climbed higher while traders shifted funds into traditional safe-haven assets.
However, the upward movement in gold did not last long. Gold prices later dropped significantly when the US dollar strengthened and US Treasury yields rose. These factors often make the precious metal less attractive since it pays no interest or dividends.
At one point, gold fell more than 1% even as tensions continued to escalate. This highlighted how broader economic pressures, such as changes in interest rates or currency strength, can sometimes override safe-haven buying in the short term.
Such swings demonstrated that even a long-established crisis hedge like gold can experience temporary ups and downs when investors focus on liquidity needs or react to shifts in macroeconomic conditions.
Why investors sometimes sell gold during crises
One notable aspect of the recent Iran conflict shock was that investors temporarily sold off gold along with other assets. During periods of of extreme market uncertainty and panic, investors tend to prioritize raising cash urgently rather than holding commodities or securities.
During the early phase of the conflict, the surge in demand for US dollars and overall liquidity temporarily surpassed the appeal of gold as a safe haven. Moreover, soaring oil prices fueled inflation concerns, which drove bond yields higher and added further downward pressure on gold prices.
This pattern highlights a key insight. Gold has historically been viewed as a long-term hedge against geopolitical instability and economic turmoil. However, in the initial stages of a crisis, investors frequently favor immediate cash and liquidity to manage risks, margin calls or portfolio adjustments.
Did you know? The US holds the largest gold reserves in the world, about 8,133 metric tons. This accounts for roughly 78% of its official foreign reserves, highlighting how deeply gold remains embedded in the global monetary system.
Bitcoin’s reaction to the crisis: Volatile yet resilient
Bitcoin responded differently from gold during the conflict. In the opening phase of the geopolitical escalation, cryptocurrencies experienced sharp volatility as traders broadly reduced risk exposure and de-risked their portfolios.
That said, Bitcoin recovered after the initial volatility. Feb. 28, 2026, when the war began, Bitcoin reached a low of $63,106. By March 5, 2026, it had rebounded to $73,156 and then followed a steady trajectory to $71,226 by March 10, 2026.
Bitcoin’s price path signals renewed investor interest in alternative hedges against economic and geopolitical instability. Historically, Bitcoin’s price action has remained closely linked to overall market sentiment and prevailing liquidity conditions rather than being driven solely by geopolitical risks.
Did you know? Central banks around the world collectively hold around 36,000 metric tons of gold in their reserves, making it one of the most important reserve assets after the US dollar.
The role of US dollar strength
A key factor affecting both assets was the performance of the US dollar during the conflict. As investors scrambled for liquidity and perceived stability, the dollar strengthened significantly. Since gold is priced in dollars on global markets, a rising dollar generally exerts downward pressure on gold prices by making it more expensive for holders of other currencies.
Bitcoin is also sensitive to dollar dynamics. When capital flows toward traditional safe havens such as cash and reserve currencies during periods of uncertainty, demand for cryptocurrencies can soften temporarily, contributing to price weakness.
These interconnected factors, including dollar strength, liquidity preferences and risk-off sentiment, help explain the performance of gold and Bitcoin in this scenario. They also clarify why neither gold nor Bitcoin delivered a clean, sustained safe-haven rally during the initial phase of the conflict, despite their differing long-term characteristics.
Oil and inflation fears drove much of the market response
Energy markets were a dominant force shaping investor behavior during the conflict. The escalation drove oil prices higher, fueled by concerns over potential disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Any significant interruption in this critical chokepoint can elevate global energy and transportation costs, feeding into broader inflation pressures worldwide.
While inflation expectations tend to support gold over the longer term as a classic inflation hedge, they can produce the opposite effect in the short term. Rising inflation fears often prompt central banks or markets to anticipate tighter monetary policy, pushing interest rates and bond yields higher. Higher yields make interest-bearing assets more competitive relative to non-yielding commodities such as gold, creating downward pressure on gold prices in the near term.
Bitcoin’s link to inflation expectations is far less consistent. Bitcoin is generally viewed as a high-beta asset rather than a mature inflation hedge. As a result, its response to inflation signals tends to be more erratic and influenced by prevailing risk sentiment.
Did you know? Gold’s role as a safe-haven asset became especially visible during financial crises such as the Great Depression, when governments restricted private gold ownership to control capital flows and stabilize monetary systems.
What the divergence reveals about safe-haven status
The Iran conflict highlighted a fundamental difference between established and emerging safe-haven assets.
Gold is deeply embedded in the global financial and monetary architecture. Its centuries-long history, widespread accumulation by central banks and enduring role as a reserve asset provide strong credibility and trust during periods of geopolitical or economic stress.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, exists within a comparatively young and evolving digital financial ecosystem. Its price movements are shaped not only by geopolitical events but also by factors such as network adoption, regulatory developments, technological milestones and overall investor risk appetite across traditional and crypto markets.
This structural difference helps explain why Bitcoin and gold show distinct responses during the early stages of a crisis.
A real-world test of the “digital gold” narrative
For years, Bitcoin advocates have positioned it as “digital gold,” referring to a modern, decentralized alternative to the traditional safe-haven asset. The Iran conflict offered a real-world test of this claim.
While Bitcoin showed resilience during the war, its behavior diverged from that of a classic safe-haven instrument. Gold’s price action, however, remained anchored in familiar macroeconomic drivers such as dollar strength, inflation expectations and bond yield movements. Bitcoin’s volatility and recovery were shaped more by shifting investor sentiment, risk appetite and prevailing liquidity dynamics across broader markets.
This episode indicates that Bitcoin, while demonstrating growing credibility as a store of value under pressure, has not yet fully matured into a consistent safe-haven asset. Instead, it continues to evolve as a hybrid asset within the global financial system.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
Strategy raised $776 million this week, which could lead to the purchase of over 11,000 BTC.
US Bitcoin ETFs had $767 million in inflows in the same period.
STRC hints at $776 million in Bitcoin buying power
As of Saturday, BTC/USD had risen more than 7% over the past week to around $70,625. Over the same period, the benchmark S&P 500 (SPX) was down 1.60%.
BTC/USD vs. SPX weekly chart performance. Source: TradingView
The divergence came as STRC.LIVE estimates indicated that Strategy may have raised enough cash through at-the-market sales of its STRC instrument this week to buy more than 11,000 BTC.
At current prices, that would amount to roughly $776 million in Bitcoin.
STRC weekly data (March 9–13). Source: STRC.LIVE
STRC is Strategy’s exchange-traded income-paying instrument that helps it raise investor cash for Bitcoin buys. When it trades at or above its $100 par value, Strategy can issue more shares and turn that demand into fresh BTC-buying capital.
Last week, Strategy had purchased 17,994 BTC, equivalent to about $1.28 billion at that time. About 30% of the BTC allocation was funded by STRC sale proceeds.
A similar sequence played out after Israel’s June 2025 strikes on Iran. Bitcoin dipped in the immediate aftermath, then flipped higher, gaining about 25% over the next two months.
During the January 2020 US–Iran flare-up after General Qasem Soleimani’s killing, Bitcoin rose more than 50% overall, even though the first reaction included a brief price drop.
Conversely, a bear flag formation on the Bitcoin chart increases the likelihood of a bull trap.
Bear flags form when the price rises inside an ascending, parallel channel after a strong downtrend. They usually resolve when the price breaks below the lower boundary and falls by as much as the previous downtrend’s height.
As of Saturday, Bitcoin showed signs of upside exhaustion near the flag’s upper boundary, also aligning with the 50-day exponential moving average (50-day EMA, the red line) at around $72,750.
BTC/USD daily price chart. Source: TradingView
Applying the bear flag principle to Bitcoin’s chart places the measured downside target at around $51,000.
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.
Tech investor and former Coinbase chief technology officer Balaji Srinivasan has called on the crypto industry to develop more financial tools for refugees and stateless people.
In a Saturday post on X, Srinivasan said the number of displaced individuals could grow as global conflicts intensify and economic migration increases. He pointed to examples ranging from Ukrainians fleeing war to workers leaving the Gulf countries amid regional tensions.
“We should build more crypto tools for refugees and stateless people,” Srinivasan wrote, suggesting that blockchain-based systems can provide financial infrastructure when traditional institutions fail or become inaccessible.
Srinivasan described crypto as “wartime mode for the internet,” arguing that decentralized networks were designed to operate even under hostile conditions such as cyberattacks, infrastructure failures or financial restrictions. He said that public blockchains can continue processing transactions even if centralized systems face disruptions.
Crypto rarely builds for refugees despite clear need
His comments came in response to a separate post from Andi Duro, founder of research site TwoCents, who argued that while crypto could serve refugees effectively, the industry rarely builds products specifically for them.
“It’s very unfortunate that crypto is a great solution for refugees who are stateless and forced to interact with crumbling institutions and payment rails,” Andi wrote. “But nobody in crypto builds for refugees because they’re not useful consumers for gambling.”
Srinivasan calls on crypto to build more tools for refugees. Source: Balaji Srinivasan
However, Srinivasan noted that crypto has had some success in building such tools. He pointed out the growing role of stablecoins, which he said are already gaining global reach as a borderless form of digital money. “But we can do more,” he added.
As Cointelegraph reported, the market capitalization of the USDC (USDC) stablecoin is nearing a record $80 billion as supply surges in recent weeks. USDC’s circulating supply reaching roughly $79.2 billion, surpassing its previous high set in December after rising from about $70 billion in early February.
One Dubai-based analyst attributed the spike to capital flight from the United Arab Emirates amid turbulence in the real estate market. The DFM Real Estate Index has dropped sharply since the start of the war.
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
Opinion by: Ana Carolina Oliveira, chief compliance officer at Venga
Crypto doesn’t have a money laundering problem on its own. At least, not when compared to traditional finance, where the practice is at least twice as prevalent and over 90% of which is believed to go undetected. Money laundering is a general problem wherever we see the transfer of funds. That’s the good news.
Blockchain records everything for posterity. When money laundering does occur, an indelible record is created that allows the illicit financial flows to be traced from end to end.
Just because crypto doesn’t have a particular money laundering problem doesn’t mean that money laundering has been eradicated. The anti-money laundering system needs to evolve as a whole to strengthen preventive and investigative measures across traditional finance as well as centralized and decentralized finance (CeFi and DeFi) environments.
This evolution requires greater communication within the sector, improved feedback mechanisms, a deeper understanding of emerging typologies and more effective dissemination of new trends.
The recently published European Union AML Regulation (Regulation EU 2024/1624) sets some rules on this matter, but more needs to be done in practice. Achieving this calls for regulators and industry leaders to create the kind of guardrails that go beyond “box-checking” compliance.
Crypto must do better
It’s not enough to have AML procedures in place. These need to be constantly enhanced to ensure that crypto overcomes its misunderstood reputation as a high-risk money-laundering environment and strengthens its barriers to keep aggressively combating this practice.
This demands a cultural change in how we approach money laundering, with an emphasis on greater information sharing. Otherwise, criminals will simply shift operations from high AML venues to softer crypto targets where they can continue to ply their trade.
Crypto “enables” money laundering in exactly the same manner as fiat. The architecture may be different, but the outcome is the same: bad actors doing bad things with funds that facilitate everything from ransomware to, in the most egregious cases, terrorism.
Blockchain’s pseudonymity may be a feature, not a bug, but it makes it hard to know who you’re dealing with when it comes to self-hosted wallets, exacerbated when mixers are used to obfuscate the source of funds.
When you can’t easily identify the origin or owner of the funds, you will struggle to prevent money laundering.
That is the reality for fiat and crypto alike. A single exchange, no matter how robust its AML and Know Your Transaction tooling, lacks the visibility into everything that’s taking place onchain. Collectively, however, all crypto platforms possess vast knowledge of who’s doing what onchain, and when that “what” strays into the realm of suspected criminality, that information must be shared.
At present, initiatives like the Travel Rule, wallet screening and onchain analytics form a powerful AML barrier, but responsibility and the costs associated with creating the pathways to combat illicit activity, are delegated to individual entities. To give just one example, the Travel Rule mandates a SWIFT/IBAN-style identification system, but the industry has been left alone to create the technology and integration to facilitate this exchange of information.
In other words, regulators have delegated the implementation of a “crypto SWIFT system” to the industry. In a sector characterized by multi-jurisdictional companies that are subject to different geo-specific regulations, this compliance burden is colossal and labyrinthine. The ideal solution is for a global compliance standard to be implemented industry-wide.
Given the difficulties of getting different regulators and regions to agree to such a framework, the onus falls to the crypto industry, once more, to self-regulate. States and other national competent authorities must do better in regulating and setting the path for the industry to comply.
Fewer loopholes, more freedom
The biggest crypto money-laundering challenge at present is the difficulty of identifying who owns the wallets, and not the technology itself. Because the United States, EU and Asia have different thresholds and rules when it comes to sharing information, performing due diligence and enforcing the Travel Rule, there are loopholes that bad actors exploit.
Closing off these loopholes won’t just curtail money laundering; it will also empower legitimate users to enjoy the financial freedom that crypto provides. The freedom to transact, to trade and to tokenize without running into brick walls every time they change exchanges or switch regions. Because crypto is borderless, compliance needs to follow suit. Compliance needs to work everywhere, every time.
That’s why the industry needs to collaborate to share information, adopt best practices and signal to the world that blockchain is open for business but closed to criminals who have nowhere to hide their ill-gotten gains.
We’ve mastered the AML tools. Now we need to master the art of talking. Exchange to exchange. Platform to platform. Region to region. FIU to obliged entities. TradFi with CeFi. That’s how crypto’s stance on money laundering goes from low-tolerance to no-tolerance.
If we can achieve that, the industry will flourish.
Opinion by: Ana Carolina Oliveira, chief compliance officer at Venga.
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.
