Ether’s correction is accompanied by significant long liquidations across the crypto market totaling $492.8 million over the last 24 hours. More than $144 million in long ETH positions were liquidated with Ether’s move to $2,100.
Ether’s decline came amid fresh selling in US-based spot ETH exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which recorded more than $55.5 million in net outflows on Wednesday, snapping a six-day inflow streak, according to data from Farside Investors.
Ether’s downward momentum may increase if spot and institutional buyers don’t step back in soon.
Ether’s downside may hinge on the key $2,000 support, as a correction below would trigger over $2.5 billion worth of leveraged long liquidations across all exchanges, CoinGlass data shows.
ETH exchange liquidation map. Source: CoinGlass
This means a significant amount of bullish bets would get wiped out on a move lower, leaving ETH vulnerable to a sharper downside cascade if bearish momentum takes hold.
ETH price stays sensitive to FOMC risks
Ether’s bearishness today follows the decision by the US Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to leave interest rates unchanged after the March 18 meeting.
The chart below shows that the ETH/USD pair has declined after seven of the last eight FOMC meetings, establishing one of the clearest macro-driven fractals in its history.
ETH has set a consistent pattern as it stabilizes or rallies ahead of the meeting, then corrects sharply once the decision and the accompanying commentary hit news wires.
Typical post-FOMC drawdowns ranged between 16% and 23%, while deeper deleveraging phases pushed ETH price losses to 33%-43%.
From a technical perspective, Ether remains cautiously bullish despite macro risks. The price is retesting a key support zone near $2,100, which aligns with the upper trendline of an ascending triangle and the 50-day simple moving average (SMA).
Bulls are required to hold ETH above this level to regain their footing. It will then open the path toward the next major resistance at $2,575, where the 100-day SMA is.
Higher than that, the price could rise toward the measured target of the triangle at $2,700, 24% above the current price.
Conversely, failure to hold above $2,100 would weaken the setup, pushing ETH/USD back toward the triangle’s support line near $2,000, while putting the broader recovery at risk.
As Cointelegraph reported, a close below the 20-day exponential moving average near $2,000 would suggest that the bears are back in control, risking a deeper correction toward the next major support area around $1,800.
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.
Ether staking has grown significantly, with nearly 1 million validators and around 30% of ETH staked. However, operational complexity continues to prevent many institutions from participating directly, despite the potential yield opportunity.
Developers are working toward “one-click staking,” a simplified deployment model that allows institutions to run validators through automated, standardized systems without requiring deep technical expertise.
A key enabler of this shift is DVT-lite, which allows multiple nodes to jointly manage a validator, improving fault tolerance while reducing setup complexity and minimizing risks such as slashing penalties.
If successfully implemented, one-click staking could drive institutional adoption, increase validator diversity, strengthen network resilience and support Ethereum’s next phase of growth.
The Ethereum network’s proof-of-stake (PoS) framework has become a core part of the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. Following the landmark transition from proof-of-work (PoW) during the 2022 Merge, a major software upgrade that eliminated energy-intensive mining, validator participation has increased significantly.
However, as Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has suggested, a critical barrier remains. The technical complexity of staking is still prohibitively high for both retail participants and large institutions.
To bridge this gap, engineers are exploring ways to streamline validator setup. In particular, they are moving toward a one-click user experience. This initiative, using “DVT-lite” or simplified distributed validator technology, would allow organizations to manage nodes without needing specialized technical staff.
This article explores why Ethereum developers are pushing for one-click staking to simplify validator setup for institutions, reduce reliance on intermediaries, enhance decentralization and unlock broader validator participation.
Why Ethereum is revisiting the institutional staking user experience
Ethereum is revisiting the staking user experience (UX) for institutions because, despite significant growth in participation, major players remain reluctant to engage directly due to operational hurdles.
Ether (ETH) staking has expanded substantially in recent years. As of early 2026:
Approximately 37 million to 38 million Ether is staked.
This equates to roughly 30% to 32% of the circulating supply.
The network now supports nearly one million active validators.
Typical base staking yields fall in the 2% to 3% annual range.
These figures demonstrate the ecosystem’s increasing maturity. Yet the staking ratio also suggests considerable room for further expansion.
Large organizations such as crypto funds, fintech firms and corporations holding Ether on their balance sheets tend to avoid direct staking. The deterrent lies less in the potential rewards and more in the operational complexities involved.
Direct validator operation typically demands:
Detailed infrastructure setup and planning
Robust key management protocols
Ongoing validator client updates and maintenance
Constant monitoring to ensure uptime
Careful risk assessment and mitigation against slashing penalties
For institutions familiar with the streamlined processes of traditional finance, these technical and ongoing responsibilities often appear overly burdensome and misaligned with their standard operating frameworks.
Did you know? The concept of distributed validator technology has roots similar to multi-signature wallets, in which control is shared across participants. Instead of relying on a single key holder, multiple nodes cooperate, reducing the risks tied to a single point of failure.
What one-click staking means
When Buterin refers to one-click staking, he means simplifying the deployment of native validators, not custodial earn products offered by centralized exchanges.
The approach is designed to make direct validator operation easier for institutions. Under this model, an institution would:
Choose the computers or servers that will run the validator nodes.
Prepare a configuration file containing shared validator details, such as a common key across nodes.
Launch a standardized, containerized setup.
Once initiated, the system would automatically manage:
Buterin has proposed using Docker containers, Nix images or similar standardized formats. This would allow node operators to deploy validators much like modern cloud applications, with a single click or a simple command on each node.
This would turn staking infrastructure into something closer to routine software deployment rather than a niche blockchain operation.
Why today’s validator setup still intimidates institutions
Ethereum’s current validator setup continues to deter many institutions, despite the protocol’s emphasis on security and decentralization, primarily because of its technical complexity.
Operating a validator requires managing several distinct software components:
Consensus clients: Handle the Beacon Chain, proof-of-stake logic, validator duties and network consensus
Institutions must also contend with key operational risks, including:
Slashing penalties: Losses triggered by protocol violations such as double-signing or other forms of misbehavior
Downtime penalties: Reduced rewards or inactivity leaks when validators fail to attest or propose blocks because of outages
Security vulnerabilities: Particularly those involving the exposure or compromise of validator private keys
Even organizations with substantial resources often lack the specialized in-house blockchain expertise needed to manage these requirements efficiently. As a result, they frequently turn to third-party staking providers.
If too many validators are operated by the same large service providers, this reliance can create concentration risks.
Did you know? Some institutional investors already earn yield on idle assets through traditional systems such as repo markets. Ether staking is often compared to this, acting as a crypto-native yield layer for treasury-held Ether.
Why Buterin opposes expert-only staking
Buterin strongly opposes a staking ecosystem limited to specialist or professional operators, viewing it as a direct threat to Ethereum’s core decentralization principles.
He has criticized the idea that validator operation should remain a complex, expert-only task, describing that mindset as harmful and explicitly opposed to decentralization.
If staking infrastructure ends up dominated by a narrow set of professional providers:
Validation power could become excessively concentrated in a few hands.
The network could become more vulnerable to regulatory pressure or coercion directed at those dominant operators, potentially affecting the entire chain.
Overall system resilience could suffer, as failures, attacks or coordinated downtime among large operators could disrupt consensus more severely.
For these reasons, Buterin sees simplifying validator deployment through approaches such as one-click setups and lower operational barriers as a deliberate strategy to preserve decentralization.
This is why simplifying validator deployment is viewed not just as a user experience upgrade but also as a decentralization strategy.
How DVT helps
DVT plays a central role in efforts to make staking more accessible.
Rather than relying on a single machine that controls a validator through one private key, DVT allows multiple nodes to operate a single validator collaboratively.
In this setup:
Signing responsibilities are shared across several machines
No individual node possesses the full validator key
If one node goes offline, the remaining nodes can continue operations
This structure enhances fault tolerance and significantly reduces the risk of slashing penalties caused by downtime or failures.
Various projects in the Ethereum ecosystem have advanced DVT implementations in recent years.
Did you know? Ethereum validators do not compete the way miners once did. Instead of racing to solve puzzles, validators are randomly selected to propose and attest to blocks, making the system more energy efficient and predictable.
What sets DVT-lite apart
Full DVT can deliver significant benefits, but it often involves substantial technical complexity. To accelerate broader adoption, Buterin has advocated a streamlined variant called DVT-lite.
This simplified approach preserves the core advantages while eliminating more burdensome elements:
Shared validator responsibilities distributed across multiple nodes
Automatic network configuration
Built-in distributed key generation
The goal is to minimize unnecessary complexity, allowing institutions to deploy validators rapidly and efficiently.
Instead of building bespoke, highly customized staking setups, organizations can use standardized, automated tools that handle most of the configuration process.
The Ethereum Foundation’s 72,000 Ether experiment
The Ethereum Foundation has already begun testing this simplified approach. According to Buterin, the Foundation is currently staking 72,000 Ether through a DVT-lite system.
This real-world pilot evaluates whether streamlined distributed staking can function reliably at an institutional scale.
A successful outcome could offer a practical template for crypto funds, corporations and digital asset treasuries seeking to stake their Ether directly rather than through intermediaries.
The experiment also underscores that Ethereum developers view improved validator accessibility as a critical priority for the network’s future development.
Why institutions may finally begin staking
If one-click staking materializes, it could fundamentally alter the economics of institutional Ether holdings.
Entities already sitting on substantial Ether reserves would be able to earn staking yield internally without delegating to third parties.
Key potential advantages include:
Significantly lower infrastructure and operational overhead
Reduced reliance on centralized staking providers
Greater operational transparency
Stronger resilience enabled by distributed validator configurations
For organizations managing thousands of Ether, these changes could tip the balance decisively in favor of direct staking participation.
From a protocol standpoint, expanding validator participation strengthens the Ethereum network.
A larger and more diverse set of participants running validators leads to:
Greater geographic distribution of nodes
Reduced concentration of validation power
Greater resistance to censorship
Increased resilience in the face of failures or disruptions
By lowering barriers through easier staking tools, both institutions and individual operators can participate more readily as validators, reinforcing Ethereum’s security model.
This approach is consistent with Ethereum’s longstanding emphasis on broad participation over reliance on centralized infrastructure.
Why the timing is significant in 2026
Several concurrent developments across the network are making direct institutional staking more feasible.
Upcoming Ethereum upgrades focus on improving validator efficiency and scalability. For instance, proposals tied to the Pectra upgrade would raise the maximum effective balance for validators from 32 Ether to 2,048 Ether. This would allow operators to manage larger stakes within a single validator instance and reduce the operational burden of running numerous separate validators.
When paired with simplified DVT deployments, these changes could substantially reduce the technical and managerial hurdles involved.
Meanwhile, the staking ecosystem continues to show momentum:
Validator entry queues occasionally hold millions of Ether awaiting activation
Exit queues remain relatively small
Annual staking rewards now exceed $2 billion
Such indicators reflect sustained, long-term confidence in Ethereum’s staking mechanism.
Did you know? The idea of “one-click deployment” in crypto is inspired by cloud computing platforms such as Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Kubernetes, where complex infrastructure can be launched with minimal manual setup.
Challenges that persist in Ethereum development
Even with the potential of one-click staking, hurdles remain. Among the primary challenges are:
User interface design: Institutions require interfaces that streamline deployment while still surfacing essential security considerations
Regulatory uncertainty: Entities must navigate and comply with evolving cryptocurrency regulations in their respective jurisdictions
Operational oversight: Automated systems still require ongoing monitoring, auditing and adherence to security best practices
Developers must carefully balance ease of use with adequate safeguards to ensure automation does not create unforeseen vulnerabilities.
Could simpler staking introduce new risks?
Overly simplified tools might inadvertently create new centralization risks:
Widespread adoption of the same staking software stack among institutions could reduce infrastructure diversity
Standardized systems could emerge as high-value targets for exploits or attacks
Users could become overly reliant on automation, potentially overlooking underlying operational risks
Ethereum developers must therefore prioritize accessibility while also maintaining a diverse and resilient validator infrastructure.
What success would look like
If the one-click staking vision comes to fruition, it could lead to several changes:
Increased direct staking by institutions holding Ether
Broader distribution of validators across diverse organizations and geographic regions
Reduced dependence on centralized staking services
Greater overall network resilience
In that scenario, running a validator would become a standard infrastructure task rather than a highly specialized technical undertaking.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
Not all voters are sold on crypto, and in Illinois, the crypto industry lobby failed to secure a victory, despite spending millions.
On Tuesday, Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton won a primary election for a rare open US Senate seat in her state. She is expected to win in the general election and take the seat of retiring Democratic Senator Dick Durbin.
In the primary, she won over two other candidates, Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, who currently represents Illinois’ 8th Congressional district, and Representative Robin Kelly from Illinois’ 2nd.
The crypto lobby spent millions on ads supporting Krishnamoorthi. But ties to the industry may have been more of a liability among progressive voters.
“MAGA-backed crypto bros” finance Krishnamoorthi
In the months leading up to the election, Stratton ran on a progressive platform to oppose US President Donald Trump, and according to the Chicago Sun Times, was the only candidate to openly oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She also supported a higher minimum wage than Krishnamoorthi or Kelly.
As the primary race got closer, political action committees (PACs), notably Fairshake and Protect Progress, began to pour millions of dollars into the election.
Their motivations were clear. Ensuring that the industry has another crypto-friendly senator could be crucial as the Senate continues to work on the CLARITY Act.
Krishamoorthi was a strong supporter of the GENIUS Act, which provided favorable regulations for stablecoins. He also voted for the CLARITY Act and the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act. This earned him an “A” rating with Stand With Crypto, a cryptocurrency advocacy organization tracking legislative records and attitudes.
Stratton’s campaign drew particular attention to the crypto dollars in the final weeks of the election. The Chicago Sun Times estimated that Fairshake spent over $8 million.
In a March 3 video posted to X, Stratton said that Krishnamoorthi was “relying on his Trump-aligned allies” to tear her down with millions of dollars in attack ads. “His MAGA-backed crypto bros are dumping $7 million into this race to try to stop me. Illinoisans aren’t buying it,” she wrote.
The connection of crypto with Trump and Republicans more broadly is understandable. Marc Andreesen, one of the founders and major donors to Fairshake, has previously expressed his support for Trump, and said he’d be voting for him in 2024. Trump and his family members are themselves part of crypto investment schemes.
And the money doesn’t lie. Fairshake is technically non-partisan, but it has spent more in support of Republican candidates. According to Open Secrets, some 62% of its expenditures support Republicans and oppose Democrats, while 37% of its expenditures support Democrats and oppose Republicans.
This didn’t appear to sit well with voters, nor with other officials representing Illinois. Senator Tammy Duckworth claimed that Krishnamoorthi could be “compromised” by industry interests, an idea the representative denied.
A 2025 poll found that Illinois voters held largely favorable opinions about cryptocurrencies, but many also supported restrictions. Some 47% of Democratic voters would support “policies restricting the growth of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.”
Overall, 36% of Illinois voters “would be more likely to support elected officials who support restrictions on cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.”
Some election observers pointed out that Stratton had taken significant donations from current Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. But one Chicago voter told The Washington Post, “How many billionaires are supporting Raja?” The governor, by contrast, was “supporting his own lieutenant governor. That’s a nonissue for me. He should be doing it.”
Crypto lobby ramps up as midterms approach
The Illinois primary is just one of many races in which the crypto industry will spend money on ads and other support materials this year.
At the end of 2025, Fairshake alone had $190 million in cash on hand, $131 million of which it raised in the last half of the year.
Lawmakers and activists alike are concerned about the undue influence this could have on the midterm election outcomes. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a noted skeptic of the crypto industry, said that the Illinois primary would be “the test case for whether or not they can buy whatever candidate they want for Senate in Illinois and many of the congressional seats.”
Saurav Ghosh, the director of the Campaign Legal Center, previously told Cointelegraph, “This kind of influence buying ultimately undermines the democratic process by marginalizing everyday Americans, ensuring that their voices and interests take a backseat to the crypto industry’s deregulatory desires.”
The increasing association with crypto, MAGA and Trump could also prove problematic for keeping industry interests in Washington. Trump has negative approval ratings in all but 8 of the 50 states. Republicans are also facing predominant disapproval in the polls. If crypto becomes a byword for a Republican economic agenda, it may not work favorably in the midterms.
Political operatives have noted that, for the crypto lobby to retain influence, it needs to remain bipartisan. Democratic Representative Sam Liccardo told Politico last year, “I don’t think anybody in this town would recommend that an industry put their eggs in one party’s basket.”
In Congress, there are still a significant number of Democrats who are pro-crypto, or at the very least, not entirely opposed to the blockchain industry.
Filecoin Foundation chair Marta Belcher said, “Many policymakers on both sides of the aisle support crypto. I don’t think crypto is a partisan issue, just like ‘the internet’ isn’t a partisan issue. I don’t think, in 2025, either party can be ‘anti’ an entire technology if they’re thinking seriously about America’s future.”
Cointelegraph Features publishes long-form journalism, analysis, and narrative reporting produced by Cointelegraph’s in-house editorial team with subject-matter expertise. All articles are edited and reviewed by Cointelegraph editors in line with our editorial standards. Research or perspective in this article does not reflect the views of Cointelegraph as a company unless explicitly stated. Content published in Features does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals where appropriate. Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning, and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners, or commercial relationships. This content is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy.
This came in markedly above expectations at 0.7% month-on-month and 3.4% year-on-year, extending a trend from recent months. Markets had foreseen 0.3% and 3%, respectively.
“On an unadjusted basis, the index for final demand rose 3.4 percent for the 12 months ended in February, the largest 12- month advance since increasing 3.4 percent in February 2025,” an official statement from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) confirmed.
US PPI one-month % change. Source: BLS
The timing of the release was pertinent, coming just hours before the Federal Reserve was due to release its decision on interest-rate changes.
While markets saw practically no chance of a rate cut or hike, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting could still spark volatility based on the tone of Chair Jerome Powell’s accompanying statement and press conference.
“Macro remains the dominant driver into what is arguably the most important central bank week of the year,” trading company QCP Capital wrote in its latest “Market Color” analysis on the day.
QCP noted that other major central bank rate moves were scheduled for the day after the Fed.
“Markets have sharply pared easing expectations as higher oil prices complicate the path for rate cuts, even as growth and labour data soften,” it continued.
“For crypto, the implication is straightforward: the rates backdrop is becoming less supportive, not more.”
Fed target rate probabilities for March 18 FOMC meeting (screenshot). Source: CME Group FedWatch Tool
Lower interest rates imply better liquidity prospects for crypto and risk assets, while a hawkish Fed tends to pressure prices.
”Caution pays” for BTC price into FOMC
Going into FOMC, Bitcoin traders were firmly risk-off.
“$BTC hovering below weekly resistance; FOMC later today – I think caution pays here,” trader Jelle wrote in his latest commentary on X.
BTC/USD chart. Source: Jelle/X
An accompanying chart showed the risk of a fresh BTC price support breakdown, with Jelle and others having stated that Bitcoin remains in a bear market.
Crypto analyst Michaël van de Poppe, meanwhile, was more optimistic, still seeing a chance of $80,000 reappearing.
“Very strong move on $BTC this month, and now it’s consolidating. Nothing wrong with that, the opposite actually,” he told X followers.
“It’s very likely that we’ll continue to test higher, as resistances are still above us.”
BTC/USDT one-day chart. Source: Michaël van de Poppe/X
Van de Poppe acknowledged that he also “wouldn’t be surprised” at a test of range lows.
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.
Opinion by: Vikram Arun, co-founder and CEO of Superform
Crypto cards aren’t the future of payments. They’re a temporary interface for a world that hasn’t fully accepted cryptocurrencies.
They rely on banks as issuers, Visa or Mastercard as gatekeepers, and compliance rules that look exactly like TradFi.
In most cases, crypto is sold into idle USD, the assets stop earning and every swipe creates a taxable event.
That’s not innovation. That’s a debit card with extra steps.
As digital banks built with blockchain rails scale, crypto cards that behave like debit cards will become obsolete, replaced by systems that treat cards as a thin interface on top of robust onchain credit.
The problem with current crypto cards
To understand why this shift is necessary, consider what happens with current crypto cards. When systems force users to liquidate holdings to spend, they reinforce the paradigm crypto was meant to escape: the false choice between liquidity and ownership.
Debit-style crypto cards recreate this same trade-off because they require assets to become spendable balances, which halts yield and makes the system structurally negative-sum without subsidies.
The IRS treats converting cryptocurrency to fiat currency as a taxable disposal, meaning each coffee purchase triggers capital gains reporting and permanently removes assets from productive use. Card issuers typically earn 1% to 3%, plus a flat fee per transaction, from interchange fees. The infrastructure looks decentralized on the surface, but the dependencies run deep.
Onchain credit fixes these issues
Instead of selling assets to spend, onchain credit enables people to deposit yield-bearing assets, open a credit line and spend against it. When people swipe the card, their debt increases, but their assets keep earning. Nothing is sold unless the person fails to repay. If the position falls below governance-defined parameters, liquidation is deterministic and transparent. This shift toward wallet-native credit shows onchain credit moving from concept to practice.
In this model, spending doesn’t reduce ownership; it increases debt. Collateral continues to compound until the credit line is repaid or liquidated. There are no forced conversions and no idle balances. Yield-bearing stablecoins currently offer about 5% yield, and DeFi protocols range from 5% to 12%, depending on demand and token incentives.
Users holding these assets in credit accounts keep earning while maintaining spending power.
Any earning asset can be collateral
This shift from debit to credit fundamentally changes what’s possible. Once credit becomes the primary primitive, the question stops being “what can I spend?” and becomes “what can safely secure my credit?” Eligibility is no longer about whether an asset can be instantly liquidated into cash. It’s about whether it can be priced continuously, risk bounded and unwound deterministically.
This allows productive assets to compete for inclusion. Vault shares, yield-bearing dollars, US Treasury-backed assets and strategy positions are first-class collateral that don’t need to be converted into idle balances. These assets remain productive until liquidation becomes required. When assets keep earning, users don’t have to choose between liquidity and yield, credit lines become cheaper to maintain and protocols earn from management and performance, not interest spreads.
The card is just an interface
The card is not the product. A card is simply a consumer-facing compatibility layer, a thin authorization surface, and not the source of truth. What actually matters is the credit line itself: the ability to price a user’s onchain balance sheet and decide, in real time, whether a spend should be allowed.
Cards serve merchants and consumers. Once credit is the primitive, however, interfaces become interchangeable. Software and autonomous agents can already request payment programmatically. Whether through cards or APIs, the underlying question is the same: Is this spend authorized against the user’s credit?
If credit logic lives within the card, people remain locked into interchange fee structures, closed payment rails and rigid KYC requirements. If credit lives onchain, cards become optional. Collateral stays in user-controlled accounts, spending is authorized in real time and liquidation is deterministic.
Managing risk through transparency
Of course, this system raises questions about safety. The most immediate objection is volatility. If collateral can fluctuate in value, what protects people from being liquidated while they are buying groceries?
Governance sets conservative loan-to-value ratios in advance, ensuring users can only borrow against a fraction of their collateral. As collateral earns yield, this buffer grows automatically. Pricing happens continuously, not at arbitrary intervals, and liquidation triggers are transparent from the beginning.
Traditional credit obscures risk through adjustable interest rates, surprise fees and terms buried in legal documents. Onchain credit makes risk explicit. Governance-set parameters mean the community decides what’s acceptable, not a bank’s risk committee behind closed doors.
The path forward
The answer to managing this risk lies in how the system is governed. Governance controls which assets can be used as collateral, how they’re priced, acceptable risk levels and when liquidations occur. People opt in by depositing collateral, and from that point on, the protocol enforces the rules without blanket access to funds or quietly changed parameters.
Crypto cards will not disappear because they failed. They will disappear because they succeeded by bridging crypto into a world that still runs on legacy rails. As wallets improve and crypto-native payments become standard, spending won’t require banks, issuers or card networks at all. Interfaces will change. Payment rails will evolve. But onchain credit will remain: the ability to spend without selling, to keep assets productive and to enforce risk transparently.
Cards are an interface. Credit is the system.
Opinion by: Vikram Arun, co-founder and CEO of Superform.
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.
Bitcoin (BTC) traded at $74,000 on Wednesday, 2.6% below its six-week high of $76,000 reached on Tuesday, as traders brace for volatility following the US interest rate decision.
Key takeaways:
The odds of the US Federal Reserve leaving interest rates unchanged today are 100%.
BTC price may drop as low as $60,000 if support between $72,000 and $65,000 breaks.
With the ongoing Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on March 17-18, markets could see volatile price swings toward key BTC price levels over the next few days. The interest rate decision will be announced on Wednesday at 2:00 PM ET.
Polymarket bettors price in a 100% chance that the current interest rates will remain between 3.5% and 3.75%, leaving less than 1% probability of a 0.25% rate cut.
Target rate possibilities for the March 18 FOMC meeting. Source: Polymarket
Futures market traders have also locked in a 98.9% chance that the Fed will leave the interest rates unchanged, with virtually no chance of a 25 bps reduction.
However, market participants say that any downside price action from unchanged interest rates is already priced in.
Meanwhile, there are other sources of volatility that traders have to contend with, including the US and Israel-Iran war, US inflation concerns and oil price spikes, along with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s speech after the FOMC meeting.
US President Donald Trump has again pressured Powell to cut interest rates, saying on Truth Social on Thursday that the Fed chair should reduce borrowing rates immediately.
The market will keenly watch Powell’s language at the FOMC news conference to see if there is any shift in tone.
🇺🇸 TODAY: FOMC decision at 2:00 PM ET, followed by Powell’s press conference at 2:30 PM ET.
“The rate decision is fully priced in so low surprise risk,” veteran trader Matthew Dixon said in an X post on Wednesday.
The “real volatility catalyst is Powell’s tone,” whether hawkish or dovish, Dixon added.
“Jerome Powell is going to make things sound as good as he can on his last meeting. This is his legacy,” crypto analyst Sykodelic said, adding:
“I think we see a big unwinding of hedges after the meeting and both equities and Bitcoin continue to juice.”
Crypto trader BitcoinHyper said that the BTC price moved lower after the last six FOMC meetings.
BTC/USD price action after FOMC. Source: BitcoinHyper
Key Bitcoin price levels to watch
Bitcoin must flip the $76,000 resistance level into support to target higher highs above $80,000.
For this to happen, BTC/USD must first hold its position above the 50-day simple moving average (yellow line) on the daily chart. BTC price broke above the 50-day SMA on March 1 for the first time since January 1.
If the bulls can push the price above the $76,000-$80,000 resistance level, the next target is the 200-day SMA at $87,411.
One catalyst for higher prices could be continued demand from spot Bitcoin ETFs. On March 17, Bitcoin ETFs registered $199 million in inflows, marking the seventh consecutive day of net inflows.
The bears, meanwhile, will attempt to keep the $76,000 resistance in place, increasing the likelihood of a drop back into the $72,000-$65,000 range, where the 200-week exponential moving average (EMA) is.
Below $65,000, the next key area of interest remains between $62,500 and $60,000, which would erase all the gains since Feb. 6.
As Cointelegraph reported, a close below the moving averages would tilt the advantage back in favor of the bears, turning the rally over the past week into a bull trap.
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.
Strategy paused its Bitcoin (BTC) accumulation via STRC preferred stock after failing to raise fresh capital since Friday, marking a notable shift after two aggressive weeks of buying.
Strategy’s STRC dashboard ft. at-the-market sales. Source: STRC.LIVE
Key takeaways:
STRC has dipped below its $100 par value, forcing Strategy to halt its Bitcoin buying spree.
Previous STRC dips below $100 have coincided with declines in BTC prices.
STRC drops below $100 par value
The pause coincided with STRC trading below its $100 par value, a key threshold for Strategy’s at-the-market (ATM) issuance model.
Strategy typically issues new shares only when STRC trades at or above par to raise capital efficiently. When the price falls below $100, the company must offer better terms or sell at a discount, making issuance unattractive.
As a result, the funding channel shuts off, stalling STRC-backed BTC buys, which appears to be the case since Friday.
In total, Strategy added over 40,000 BTC in two weeks, with STRC serving as a key funding source. That’s roughly six times the total Bitcoin mined over the same two-week period.
STRC fractals hint at BTC dipping below $70,000
Historically, pauses in Strategy’s STRC-driven Bitcoin accumulation aligned with short-term BTC pullbacks.
For instance, after STRC slipped below its $100 par value in January, Bitcoin fell nearly 40% over the next three weeks.
BTC/USD vs. STRC daily performance chart. Source: TradingView
A similar setup in November 2025 preceded a BTC price decline of around 25%, suggesting that the latest STRC move below $100 could again raise the risk of a near-term BTC price pullback.
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.
World’s AgentKit lets AI agents carry cryptographic proof of human backing, integrating with Coinbase’s x402 protocol to combat Sybil attacks in agentic commerce.
World has partnered with Coinbase to release AgentKit, a developer toolkit enabling AI agents to carry cryptographic proof that a verified human stands behind them. The beta launch addresses a fundamental problem as autonomous agents become economic actors online: how do platforms distinguish legitimate automated traffic from coordinated bot swarms?
The timing matters. McKinsey projects agentic commerce could hit $3 to $5 trillion globally by 2030, while Bain estimates AI agents may handle up to 25% of U.S. e-commerce within that timeframe. Yet most websites still block automated traffic entirely, unable to separate helpful AI assistants from malicious bots.
The Sybil Problem Micropayments Can’t Solve
AgentKit builds on Coinbase and Cloudflare’s x402 protocol, which processed over 100 million micropayments in its first six months after launching in 2025. Micropayments work as a rate limiter, but they reveal nothing about uniqueness. One person could operate thousands of agents, each paying individually, and platforms would have no way to distinguish them from a thousand different users.
“Payments are the ‘how’ of agentic commerce, but identity is the ‘who,'” says Erik Reppel, Head of Engineering at Coinbase Developer Platform and Founder of x402. “By integrating World ID with the x402 protocol, developers now have a complete trust stack.”
World points to real-world examples of the problem. On Moltbook, a small number of individuals deployed large agent swarms to amplify specific tokens and distort engagement metrics. Without human verification, the platform couldn’t distinguish organic activity from coordinated manipulation.
How Human-Backed Agents Work
The mechanics are straightforward. A verified World ID holder registers their agent through standard verification. When that agent accesses an x402-enabled website, the site can request proof of human backing alongside or instead of payment. Valid proof grants access.
One person can delegate to multiple agents—that’s expected. The critical feature is that websites can see all those agents trace back to the same unique human. If someone spins up a hundred agents to flood a platform, the site recognizes it’s dealing with a single person and can set limits accordingly.
World claims nearly 18 million verified humans across 160+ countries in its network, making it the largest real human verification system available.
Practical Applications Beyond Spam Prevention
Restaurant reservation platforms like Resy or OpenTable could let human-backed agents book tables while blocking scalpers who deploy hundreds of bots to hoard reservations. Ticketing platforms face the same dynamic with concert sales.
Phone number allocation presents another use case. Agents increasingly need numbers for two-factor authentication. Without human verification, thousands of agents could each acquire unique numbers, overwhelming telecom infrastructure. AgentKit allows services to issue one number per verified human, shared across their agents.
Free trials get similar protection. Rather than letting any wallet-holding agent burn through limited offers, platforms can extend five free requests per unique human.
What’s Next
AgentKit beta is available now through docs.world.org/agents/agent-kit for developers with verified World IDs. A more robust 1.0 version is planned alongside World ID 4.0’s rollout.
The broader question facing every major platform—from e-commerce to social media to financial services—remains the same: how do you let productive agents in while keeping bad actors out? AgentKit offers one answer, though adoption will determine whether it becomes standard infrastructure for the agentic web or remains a niche tool for privacy-conscious developers.
Mastercard has agreed to acquire stablecoin infrastructure company BVNK in a deal valued at up to $1.8 billion, further expanding into blockchain-based payments.
The deal includes up to $300 million in contingent payments and is intended to strengthen Mastercard’s ability to connect fiat payment rails with onchain transactions, the company said on Tuesday.
“We expect that most financial institutions and fintechs will in time provide digital currency services, be it with stablecoins or tokenized deposits,” Jorn Lambert, chief product officer at Mastercard, said.
BVNK, founded in 2021, provides infrastructure that allows businesses to send and receive payments across major blockchain networks in more than 130 countries. Its platform is designed to bridge fiat currencies and stablecoins, enabling use cases such as cross-border payments, payouts and business transactions.
In November 2025, Coinbase and BVNK announced they had mutually walked away from a proposed $2 billion acquisition that had reached the due diligence stage. No reason was disclosed for the cancellation of the deal.
Top stablecoins by market cap. Source: CoinMarketCap
BVNK has received investment from a number of major traditional payment firms. In May 2025, Visa made a strategic investment in the company through its Visa Ventures arm, which came after the stablecoin infrastructure company closed a $50 million Series B funding round led by Haun Ventures.
In October 2025, Citigroup’s venture arm, Citi Ventures, also invested in BVNK. While the investment size was not disclosed, BVNK said at the time that its valuation had surpassed $750 million.
Stablecoins could power global payments within 15 years
Last week, billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller said stablecoins and blockchain technology could reshape global payments within the next decade, citing their speed, efficiency and lower costs compared to traditional systems. He argued that stablecoins could eventually replace existing payment rails, even as he remains skeptical about crypto’s role as a long-term store of value.
His comments come as traditional financial firms increasingly explore stablecoin-based systems following regulatory progress, including the GENIUS Act in the US.
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
Bitcoin’s price reflects short-term marginal buying and selling, while adoption reflects long-term structural shifts. Ownership expansion, institutional integration and merchant growth can accelerate even when the market price remains flat or declines.
In 2025, Bitcoin expanded significantly across institutions, banks, corporations, merchants and sovereign entities. These shifts represent deeper entrenchment within global financial systems, even as headline price performance appeared underwhelming.
Institutions accumulated substantial amounts of Bitcoin, but much of this demand was offset by distribution from long-term holders. As supply changes hands between cohorts, price may consolidate instead of surge.
Merchant adoption and Lightning Network expansion improve Bitcoin’s real-world functionality. However, widespread instant conversion to fiat limits sustained net buying pressure unless merchants retain the Bitcoin they receive.
The contrast between Bitcoin’s (BTC) market price and its network adoption has never been more stark. While the price chart has spent much of the past year well below its peak, the underlying data reveals a different reality. In 2025, Bitcoin witnessed a massive, quiet expansion across banks, corporations and sovereign states.
This paradox exists because short-term marginal price formation is often driven by speculative noise, whereas structural adoption is driven by long-term institutional entrenchment. Bitcoin’s fundamentals are compounding at record speed even when the ticker remains stagnant.
This article explores why Bitcoin’s structural adoption across institutions, advisors, corporations and merchants has accelerated even as price action underperforms. It explains how ownership transfer, small allocation sizes and macro liquidity can delay adoption’s impact on short-term price movements.
Bitcoin adoption and price track fundamentally distinct phenomena
When people refer to Bitcoin adoption, they are typically describing gradual, long-term structural shifts:
Who is accumulating and holding Bitcoin?
Which companies or platforms are launching Bitcoin-related products and services?
Who is beginning to accept it as payment?
Which institutions, corporations or even governments are incorporating it into their balance sheets or reserves?
These underlying changes evolve slowly, building incrementally over many months or years.
Price, by contrast, is determined at the margin in real time. It responds primarily to:
Immediate buyers and sellers in the market
Current liquidity dynamics
Leverage, futures and derivatives positioning
Broader macroeconomic sentiment and risk appetite
Supply being released or withheld by long-term holders
Strong adoption can steadily broaden the ownership base without necessarily driving prices higher. It can even coincide with flat or declining prices if distribution from seasoned holders matches incoming demand from newcomers. Ownership can shift between cohorts without triggering sharp repricing.
Did you know? As of March 15, 2026, more than 20 million Bitcoin had been mined out of a maximum total supply of 21 million, representing more than 95% of all BTC that will ever exist. The final Bitcoin is not expected to be mined until around 2140.
How expansion dynamics seem to be unfolding
While Bitcoin’s price action had been relatively weak as of March 2, 2026, adoption trends continued to show strength:
Institutions are accumulating at scale
In 2025, institutions reportedly accumulated roughly 829,000 Bitcoin across businesses, governments, funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). This was not a marginal change but a meaningful shift in ownership structure.
Importantly, institutional exposure represents millions of underlying individuals gaining access through brokerage accounts, retirement plans, sovereign wealth funds and corporate balance sheets.
Much of this demand was absorbed by distribution from long-term holders and early adopters. When early whales sell into deeper liquidity, the price does not necessarily surge. Instead, supply shifts from one cohort to another.
Investment advisors have been net buyers for eight consecutive quarters
Registered investment advisors (RIAs) oversee roughly $146 trillion in client assets globally. Since Bitcoin ETFs launched, RIAs have steadily allocated capital, reportedly around $1.5 billion per quarter, without a single net-selling quarter.
That consistency matters.
However, average allocations remain extremely small. Many advisors hold Bitcoin at just basis-point levels in diversified portfolios. Until allocations move from fractions of a percent toward 1% to 2% model weights, the price impact may remain gradual.
In other words, the pipeline is open, but the flow rate is still increasing.
Banks are once again developing Bitcoin-related products
A growing share of major US banks are actively developing Bitcoin custody, trading, advisory and related services. Improved regulatory clarity compared with previous years has reduced institutional reluctance and opened the door to broader participation.
This growing involvement from traditional banks marks a key step toward normalization. Bitcoin is evolving from a speculative, peripheral asset into one that is increasingly embedded within mainstream financial systems and infrastructure.
That said, building products is not the same as achieving widespread availability. Initial launches often target ultra-high-net-worth individuals, institutional clients or remain in limited pilot phases. Rolling out full retail access requires significant time, compliance and operational scaling.
Ultimately, this infrastructure serves as a foundational enabler of future adoption rather than an immediate trigger for rapid market shifts.
Corporate Bitcoin adoption and the weight it brings
Corporate accumulation of Bitcoin can influence the market in several ways:
It steadily removes Bitcoin from liquid, circulating supply.
It demonstrates high-conviction, treasury-level endorsement from established businesses.
It fosters peer benchmarking, encouraging more companies to follow suit.
However, a large portion of these purchases occurs over-the-counter (OTC) or through carefully structured, gradual accumulation programs designed to avoid disrupting spot markets. This measured approach means corporate buying often reshapes long-term ownership patterns far more than it drives short-term explosive price action.
In short, corporate buying may influence long-term ownership patterns more than short-term price action.
Did you know? Bitcoin mining now consumes less energy than many traditional industries, including gold mining and the global banking system, according to several comparative energy studies.
Surge in merchant adoption of Bitcoin
Merchant acceptance of Bitcoin expanded rapidly in 2025. In November 2025, the Bitcoin Lightning Network reached a record $1.17 billion in volume. This suggests that the network is no longer used only for experimental “coffee” payments, but has also become a layer for high-value institutional settlements.
For merchants, Bitcoin offers clear operational advantages, including:
Drastically lower processing fees compared with traditional card networks
Elimination or near-elimination of chargeback risk
A large majority of merchants still opt for instant conversion of received Bitcoin payments into fiat currency through payment processors. As a result, incoming transaction volume does not reliably translate into sustained net buying pressure on Bitcoin itself.
Payments adoption meaningfully enhances Bitcoin’s real-world utility. However, utility alone does not generate lasting scarcity or upward price pressure unless merchants choose to hold the BTC they receive.
Bitcoin adoption by countries continues to grow
Throughout 2025, Bitcoin’s role as a strategic reserve asset expanded significantly as five more countries added it to their reserves. This wave of adoption spanned diverse regions and financial structures, including sovereign wealth funds in Saudi Arabia and Luxembourg, the Czech Republic’s central bank and direct acquisitions by Taiwan and Brazil.
Government involvement in Bitcoin adoption carries significance for several reasons. Countries operate on multidecade time horizons rather than quarterly earnings cycles. They typically adopt strategic, long-term holding policies rather than short-term trading. Adoption by sovereign entities confers powerful legitimacy on any asset class, signaling to markets, institutions and the public that Bitcoin is becoming part of mainstream financial frameworks.
Did you know? Lost Bitcoin is estimated to total several million coins, permanently reducing the effective circulating supply and increasing long-term scarcity.
Bitcoin’s volatility continues to decline
One of the most underappreciated indicators of maturing adoption is Bitcoin’s steadily declining volatility. Over the past decade, Bitcoin’s annualized volatility has fallen. Successive market cycles have produced progressively narrower percentage drawdowns and rallies compared with the extreme swings seen in earlier bull and bear phases.
This structural decline in volatility reflects several reinforcing developments:
Markedly deeper and more resilient market liquidity
More diversified distribution of ownership across holder cohorts
Growing institutional and professional participation
More sophisticated, liquid derivatives markets (futures, options and perpetuals) that help absorb shocks
Bitcoin’s volatility profile now increasingly resembles that of established asset classes such as stocks, commodities and foreign exchange. This aligns with the preferences of conservative capital allocators, including pension funds, endowments and risk-averse institutions.
Why hasn’t Bitcoin price reacted more aggressively?
While institutional and sovereign adoption increased in 2025, the market’s immediate price action remained muted. This quiet accumulation phase suggests that the true impact of large capital inflows was masked by macroeconomic headwinds.
Ownership transfer absorbs demand: When long-term Bitcoin holders distribute into institutional demand, the market can absorb large volumes without sharp upward price moves. Supply simply changes hands as adoption grows and price consolidates.
Adoption widens the base, not the margin: Marginal buyers and sellers play a key role in setting the price of cryptocurrencies. Structural adoption broadens the ownership base but does not always shift the aggressive marginal bid right away. Until fresh demand exceeds available supply, price can remain range-bound.
Allocation sizes remain small: Many institutions and advisors now allocate to Bitcoin, but at very modest weights. If that changes, marginal demand could increase.
Macro liquidity matters: Bitcoin exists within a broader macro environment. Factors shaping capital flows include liquidity conditions, interest rate expectations and global risk appetite. Greater Bitcoin adoption does not mean it is insulated from macro cycles.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
