A new report from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) warns that crypto service providers operating offshore pose risks of money laundering, sanctions evasion and other illicit financial activity.
In the report, titled “Understanding and Mitigating the Risks of Offshore Virtual Asset Service Providers (oVASPs),” the FATF said some offshore firms exploit gaps and differences in regulatory and supervisory coverage, making it harder for authorities to monitor activity and enforce Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing rules.
“As a result, effective international co-operation may not be possible, including with the relevant oVASP supervisor, thereby limiting the effectiveness of domestic risk-mitigation measures,” the report said.
The watchdog said the issue is particularly challenging because many offshore crypto firms operate across multiple jurisdictions. A company may be incorporated in one country, host infrastructure in another and serve customers worldwide through online platforms, leaving regulators uncertain about which authority has responsibility.
The FATF also said some countries struggle to identify offshore platforms providing services to local users. Without a local legal presence, authorities may have limited visibility into these businesses or the transactions they process.
To address the problem, FATF urged countries to strengthen oversight of crypto firms serving their markets, even if those companies are based abroad.
FATF survey found that 83% of jurisdictions require licensed or registered crypto service providers. Source: FATF
The organization recommended that governments require offshore VASPs to register or obtain licenses when offering services to domestic users. It also called for stronger cooperation between regulators and law enforcement agencies across borders.
The warning follows a separate FATF report last week on stablecoins and unhosted wallets, which said peer-to-peer transfers can weaken AML oversight when transactions occur without regulated intermediaries such as exchanges or custodians.
The FATF said this structure creates gaps in AML oversight as stablecoins expand into payments and cross-border transfers. The watchdog urged countries to assess the risks and introduce safeguards.
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
Ray Dalio argues that Bitcoin cannot replace gold as the world’s primary store of value because gold has thousands of years of history as money and remains deeply embedded in the global financial system.
Gold’s role in central bank reserves gives it institutional legitimacy that Bitcoin currently lacks, making governments more likely to rely on gold during periods of economic uncertainty.
Dalio believes Bitcoin behaves more like a risk asset, often moving alongside technology stocks and other speculative investments rather than acting as a traditional safe-haven during market turmoil.
The size and maturity of the gold market far exceed those of Bitcoin, with gold supported by central banks, sovereign funds, industrial demand and investment markets developed over centuries.
For years, investors and analysts have discussed whether Bitcoin (BTC) could one day take over from gold as the world’s main store of value.
Supporters of Bitcoin often call it “digital gold,” arguing that its fixed supply and decentralized design could make it a modern inflation hedge.
However, billionaire investor Ray Dalio has opposed this view. While Dalio recognizes Bitcoin’s distinct features and its growing presence in financial markets, he believes it cannot replace gold. His arguments are based on gold’s long historical role, its position in global markets, the actions of central banks and its place in the world’s monetary system for centuries.
Dalio’s viewpoint provides a useful framework for investors to think about the continuing debate between established safe-haven assets like gold and digital alternatives like Bitcoin.
This article examines why Ray Dalio believes Bitcoin cannot replace gold as the world’s primary store of value. It highlights concerns about central bank adoption, market behavior, privacy and technological risks, while explaining why he still sees Bitcoin as a complementary asset in diversified portfolios.
Who Ray Dalio is and why his views matter
Ray Dalio is the founder of Bridgewater Associates, one of the leading hedge funds in the world. Over the years, he has earned a reputation as one of the most influential thinkers in macroeconomics and finance.
Dalio is best known for his in-depth study of long-term debt cycles, monetary policy and shifts in global economic power. His analysis of how currencies rise and decline over centuries has influenced the investment decisions of institutions, governments and major asset managers.
Because of his expertise, Dalio’s views on stores of value, particularly during periods of economic uncertainty, receive significant attention.
Dalio’s key view: “There is only one gold”
While expressing his views on Bitcoin’s possible role in the global financial system, Dalio has been clear about the unique position of gold as a monetary asset.
He argues that gold should not be treated as directly comparable to Bitcoin, as if the two were interchangeable. In his view, gold is not just another commodity or speculative asset.
Instead, Dalio describes gold as “the most established form of money” in human history. For thousands of years, the metal has served as a reliable store of value across different civilizations, financial systems and political changes.
Because of this long historical role, Dalio believes no new asset can replace gold, digital or otherwise.
Did you know? Gold has been used as money for more than 4,000 years. Ancient civilizations such as Egypt and Mesopotamia valued it for its rarity, durability and divisibility, making it one of the earliest universally recognized stores of wealth.
How demand by central banks makes gold unique
Dalio highlights that central banks’ demand for gold helps position it as a unique asset. Central banks around the world hold significant amounts of gold as part of their foreign exchange reserves. They use it to diversify their assets and maintain stability during times of financial stress.
The widespread institutional use of gold gives it state legitimacy that Bitcoin has not yet gained.
Dalio is skeptical about central banks accumulating Bitcoin as a reserve asset in the near future. Governments generally prefer assets with long histories, deep and stable liquidity and well-established markets.
Bitcoin, being relatively new, is still evolving both technologically and in terms of regulation. Without adoption by central banks, Dalio argues, Bitcoin is unlikely to achieve the same monetary status as gold.
Bitcoin behaves more like a risk asset
Dalio points to differences in how Bitcoin performs during market cycles.
Gold has often been treated as a safe-haven asset. During periods of market volatility, currency weakness or geopolitical stress, investors have frequently turned to gold as a hedge.
Bitcoin, however, has demonstrated a different pattern.
Dalio observes that Bitcoin frequently moves in line with technology stocks and other risk assets. In times of market stress or liquidity tightening, investors tend to sell Bitcoin along with equities rather than use it as a hedge.
To Dalio, this pattern suggests Bitcoin currently behaves more like a speculative growth asset than a traditional store of value.
The scale and maturity of gold markets
Gold markets are far larger and more mature than Bitcoin markets.
The global gold market has evolved over thousands of years and attracts extensive institutional involvement, including central banks, sovereign wealth funds, jewelry demand, industrial users and investment funds.
This depth provides strong liquidity and greater price stability.
By comparison, Bitcoin’s market, though significant within cryptocurrencies, is much smaller and more vulnerable to shifts in investor sentiment. It remains subject to sharp price volatility, leveraged trading and speculative cycles that heavily influence its value.
Dalio sees this gap in market maturity as another reason gold maintains its leading role as a store of value.
Did you know? Bitcoin’s supply is permanently capped at 21 million coins, a design feature that mimics the scarcity of precious metals. This programmed scarcity is one reason supporters often compare Bitcoin with gold.
Privacy concerns with Bitcoin
Dalio has also pointed to issues around Bitcoin’s transparency.
Because Bitcoin runs on a public blockchain, every transaction is permanently recorded and can be traced using blockchain analysis tools. While users are identified only by wallet addresses, transaction patterns can often be linked and monitored.
In Dalio’s view, this level of visibility may make Bitcoin less appealing to certain institutions or governments as a long-term reserve asset.
Gold, being a physical asset, does not depend on a publicly visible transaction ledger.
The potential threat from quantum computing
Ray Dalio has also highlighted quantum computing as a risk to Bitcoin.
Bitcoin’s security relies on cryptographic algorithms to protect private keys and validate transactions. Future breakthroughs in quantum computing could potentially compromise or break these existing cryptographic systems.
Although quantum computing remains a theoretical concern, Dalio suggests that such technological risks should be factored into any long-term assessment of Bitcoin’s viability as a store of value.
Gold, being a physical asset, does not depend on software or cryptography. It is therefore unaffected by these kinds of technological vulnerabilities.
Did you know? Central banks hold gold in their reserves. Countries maintain these reserves as a hedge against currency instability, geopolitical risk and financial crises.
Dalio’s broader macroeconomic perspective
Dalio’s preference for gold over Bitcoin is also influenced by his broader view of the global economy.
He has cautioned that the world could be entering an era of significant economic and geopolitical disruption, marked by escalating debt burdens, currency instability and shifts in global power dynamics.
In such conditions, Dalio argues that investors should prioritize assets with a proven track record of preserving value during times of financial system stress.
For centuries, gold has consistently served this purpose amid inflation, currency devaluation and geopolitical uncertainty.
This long historical record is a key reason Dalio continues to view gold as a relatively resilient store of wealth.
Bitcoin still has a role in portfolios
While Dalio remains skeptical about Bitcoin ever overtaking gold, he still considers it a viable component of an investment portfolio. He recognizes that Bitcoin’s unique attributes, namely its fixed supply and decentralized nature, mirror some of the strengths associated with gold.
Rather than choosing one over the other, Dalio suggests that both assets serve a similar purpose.
Portfolio allocation: Dalio has recommended that investors might allocate approximately 15% of their portfolio to a combination of gold and Bitcoin.
Hedging strategy: This allocation acts as a safeguard against the loss of purchasing power and general economic instability.
Complementary assets: In his view, Bitcoin does not replace gold. Instead, the two assets can play complementary roles in diversification.
The ongoing debate between Bitcoin and gold
The positions of Bitcoin and gold highlight a significant divide in the financial world. While Bitcoin emphasizes digital portability, scarcity and technological innovation, gold is associated with a multigenerational history, physical tangibility and institutional trust.
Ultimately, this debate centers on how society defines and trusts money. While new technology can create efficient financial tools, the deep-rooted trust required for a global monetary standard is often built over centuries, not years.
Cointelegraph maintains full editorial independence. The selection, commissioning and publication of Features and Magazine content are not influenced by advertisers, partners or commercial relationships.
Aave (AAVE) trades at $110.90 with analysts eyeing $131-137 breakout potential. Technical indicators show neutral RSI at 44.63 but bearish MACD momentum requires caution.
Aave (AAVE) is currently trading at $110.90, showing modest gains of 0.80% in the past 24 hours. Despite recent bearish momentum, several analysts are maintaining optimistic price targets for the decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol token in the coming weeks.
Recent analyst reports have highlighted significant upside potential for AAVE despite current market conditions. Luisa Crawford noted on March 11, 2026: “Aave (AAVE) eyes $131-137 targets as analysts project breakout potential despite current bearish momentum.”
Supporting this bullish outlook, Terrill Dicki observed on March 7, 2026: “AAVE trades at $109.87 amid bearish momentum, but analysts eye $137 breakout potential.” This sentiment aligns with CoinCodex’s technical forecast from March 10, which projected “AAVE is expected to reach a price of $131.92 by Mar 15, 2026.”
The consistency in these AAVE price prediction targets around the $131-137 range suggests growing analyst confidence in a potential breakout scenario for the DeFi token.
AAVE Technical Analysis Breakdown
Current technical indicators present a mixed but cautiously optimistic picture for Aave’s near-term price action:
RSI Analysis: At 44.63, AAVE’s RSI sits in neutral territory, indicating neither overbought nor oversold conditions. This neutral positioning suggests room for upward movement without immediate selling pressure.
MACD Momentum: The MACD histogram reading of 0.0000 indicates bearish momentum has stalled, potentially signaling a shift toward consolidation or reversal. The MACD line at -4.0261 matches the signal line, suggesting momentum equilibrium.
Bollinger Bands: AAVE is positioned at 0.3464 within the Bollinger Bands, trading closer to the lower band ($104.90) than the upper band ($122.28). This positioning often precedes moves toward the middle band at $113.59 or higher.
Moving Average Structure: The price sits below key resistance levels, with the SMA 20 at $113.59 and SMA 50 at $123.12 presenting immediate challenges. However, recent trading above the SMA 7 at $109.28 suggests short-term bullish bias.
Aave Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
In the bullish case, AAVE must first break through immediate resistance at $114.11, followed by the strong resistance level at $117.33. A successful break above $117.33 would likely trigger momentum toward the analyst targets of $131-137.
The Aave forecast becomes particularly compelling if the token can reclaim the SMA 20 at $113.59 and sustain trading above this level. Volume confirmation would be crucial, with the current 24-hour volume of $9.54 million needing to expand significantly to support such moves.
Key bullish catalysts include RSI breaking above 50, MACD histogram turning positive, and a move toward the upper Bollinger Band at $122.28.
Bearish Scenario
The bearish case for this AAVE price prediction centers on a failure to hold current support levels. Immediate support sits at $107.60, with strong support at $104.31. A break below $104.31 would invalidate the bullish thesis and could trigger selling toward the lower Bollinger Band.
Given the significant gap between current price and the SMA 200 at $197.59, any major market downturn could pressure AAVE significantly. The Average True Range of $8.12 indicates substantial daily volatility that could work against position holders in adverse conditions.
Should You Buy AAVE? Entry Strategy
Based on current technical levels, potential entry strategies include:
Conservative Entry: Wait for a pullback to $107.60-109.00 support zone with confirmation of holding these levels before entering long positions.
Momentum Entry: Consider entries on a break above $114.11 with volume confirmation, targeting the $117.33 resistance level.
Stop-Loss Strategy: Position stops below $104.31 for long positions, as this represents the critical support level that would invalidate the bullish case.
Risk management remains crucial given AAVE’s volatility profile, with position sizing appropriate to the $8.12 daily ATR.
Conclusion
This AAVE price prediction suggests moderate optimism for the token’s prospects through mid-March 2026. While technical indicators show mixed signals, the consistency of analyst targets around $131-137 provides a compelling upside case.
The key catalyst will be AAVE’s ability to break above the $117.33 resistance level with sustained volume. Until then, traders should expect continued consolidation between $104.31 support and $117.33 resistance.
Price predictions are speculative and based on technical analysis. Cryptocurrency investments carry significant risk, and past performance does not guarantee future results. Always conduct your own research and consider your risk tolerance before making investment decisions.
Circle launches native USDC and Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol on Morph L2, adding another Ethereum scaling solution to its growing multichain infrastructure.
Circle has expanded USDC’s footprint to Morph, a payments-focused Ethereum layer-2 network, bringing both native stablecoin support and Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol infrastructure to the platform. The integration marks another addition to Circle’s aggressive multichain expansion strategy as USDC’s market cap sits at $78.72 billion.
Morph positions itself as a settlement layer optimized for everyday financial activity—payments, remittances, and consumer DeFi applications. The L2 now gains access to USDC without relying on wrapped token bridges, a meaningful upgrade for developers building payment rails.
What’s Actually Live
The deployment includes native USDC issuance with a mainnet contract address at 0xCfb1186F4e93D60E60a8bDd997427D1F33bc372B. More importantly for builders, CCTP enables USDC transfers between Morph and other supported chains without the security overhead of traditional bridges. Developers can choose between Standard Transfer and Fast Transfer modes depending on speed requirements.
Day-one integrations include Bitget, Bulba, and Stargate—giving the network immediate liquidity access points. Circle Mint remains available for institutional on/offramps, though it’s restricted to qualified businesses.
Timing and Context
This launch comes during a busy period for Circle. The company has issued over 8 billion USDC since February 2026, according to recent reports, reflecting sustained demand for dollar-denominated digital assets. Circle’s stablecoin adoption continues outpacing the broader crypto sector.
For Morph specifically, USDC integration creates the foundation for DeFi activity that requires stable settlement. Trading pairs, lending protocols, and liquidity pools typically need a reliable dollar proxy—and USDC’s regulatory positioning (Circle maintains licenses across multiple jurisdictions with monthly reserve attestations by a Big Four firm) makes it the default choice for compliance-conscious platforms.
Practical Implications
The real test comes from actual usage patterns. Payments-focused L2s have struggled to differentiate themselves from general-purpose rollups, and Morph’s success will depend on whether its target users—merchants, remittance services, fintech applications—actually show up.
CCTP availability does solve a genuine friction point. Moving stablecoins between chains without wrapped assets eliminates a category of bridge risk that has cost users billions in exploits over the years. Whether that’s enough to drive meaningful adoption on a newer L2 remains an open question.
Developers can access integration documentation through Circle’s developer portal for both USDC and CCTP contracts.
The February print of the US Consumer Price Index (CPI) was in line with expectations at 2.4% year-on-year, per data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
“Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 2.4 percent before seasonal adjustment,” it confirmed in an official statement.
US CPI 12-month % change. Source: BLS
This was a relief for risk assets already on edge over geopolitical instability and its potential impact on inflation. The Middle East conflict and global oil supply squeeze, however, were likely only to be truly reflected in March’s inflation data.
“The market will now await March’s data,” trading resource The Kobeissi Letter thus wrote in a response on X.
Other recent inflation gauges missed anticipated levels both to the upside and downside, making for a shaky overall picture of inflationary forces even before events in Iran.
Oil, a key risk factor for CPI going forward, stayed below the $90 mark on the day as the International Energy Agency (IEA) approved the emergency release of 400 million barrels — the largest such release ever recorded.
CFDs on WTI crude oil one-hour chart. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView
Trader eyes BTC price “breakout upwards” in March
With price still rangebound, Bitcoin market participants chose not to bet big up or down.
Data from monitoring resource CoinGlass put 24-hour crypto market liquidations at $240 million, with short positions accounting for a larger slice of the total.
Crypto liquidation history (screenshot). Source: CoinGlass
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.
Aave (AAVE) eyes $131-137 targets as analysts project breakout potential despite current bearish momentum. Technical indicators show mixed signals with key resistance at $118.26.
While specific analyst predictions from major KOLs are limited in recent trading sessions, several technical analysts have provided compelling AAVE price prediction targets for March 2026.
According to recent analyst reports, Terrill Dicki noted that “AAVE trades at $109.87 amid bearish momentum, but analysts eye $137 breakout potential,” setting a target of $137. This aligns with CoinCodex projections, which forecast “AAVE is expected to reach a price of $131.92 by Mar 15, 2026.”
Earlier technical analysis from Terrill Dicki suggested that “AAVE trades at $115.90 with neutral RSI at 45.89. Technical analysis suggests potential rally to $135-140 range, but must break $122.81 resistance first,” indicating consistent bullish sentiment among technical analysts.
On-chain data from major analytics platforms continues to support these optimistic projections, with trading volume maintaining healthy levels at $10.9 million on Binance spot markets.
AAVE Technical Analysis Breakdown
AAVE’s current technical picture presents mixed signals that require careful analysis for accurate price prediction. Trading at $113.33, the token shows a modest 1.74% daily gain but remains constrained by several technical factors.
The RSI reading of 46.77 places AAVE in neutral territory, suggesting neither overbought nor oversold conditions. This neutral RSI provides room for upward movement without immediate selling pressure concerns.
However, the MACD histogram at 0.0000 indicates bearish momentum continues to persist, creating headwinds for immediate price appreciation. The convergence of MACD lines suggests a potential trend change may be developing.
Aave’s position within the Bollinger Bands shows interesting dynamics. With a %B position of 0.4628, AAVE trades closer to the middle band ($113.99) than either extreme, indicating balanced market sentiment. The upper Bollinger Band at $122.50 represents a key technical target for bullish momentum.
Moving average analysis reveals AAVE trading below most significant timeframes. The 50-day SMA at $124.16 and 200-day SMA at $198.79 highlight the longer-term downtrend that needs reversal for sustained upward movement.
Aave Price Targets: Bull vs Bear Case
Bullish Scenario
The bullish Aave forecast centers around breaking the immediate resistance at $115.79, which would open the path toward the strong resistance level at $118.26. Successfully clearing this barrier could trigger momentum toward analyst targets of $131-137.
Key technical confirmation for the bull case requires:
– RSI breaking above 50 to confirm momentum shift
– MACD histogram turning positive
– Volume expansion above the current $10.9 million daily average
– Price reclaiming the 20-day SMA at $113.99 as support
If these conditions align, AAVE price prediction models suggest potential for testing the upper Bollinger Band at $122.50 within the next week, followed by the analyst targets of $131-137 by mid-March.
Bearish Scenario
The bearish case for AAVE centers on the failure to hold immediate support at $109.88. A break below this level could accelerate selling toward strong support at $106.44, representing a potential 6% downside from current levels.
Risk factors include:
– MACD remaining in bearish territory
– Failure to reclaim moving average resistance
– Broader crypto market weakness
– DeFi sector rotation concerns
A breakdown below $106.44 could extend the decline toward the lower Bollinger Band at $105.49, representing approximately 7% downside risk.
Should You Buy AAVE? Entry Strategy
Based on current technical levels, strategic entry points for AAVE present several opportunities:
Conservative Entry: Wait for a successful test and hold above $115.79 resistance, confirming bullish momentum before entering positions.
Aggressive Entry: Current levels around $113.33 offer reasonable risk-reward, with tight stop-loss placement below $109.88 support.
DCA Strategy: Scale into positions between $109-113 range, taking advantage of any volatility within this consolidation zone.
Risk management remains critical given AAVE’s daily ATR of $8.58, indicating significant intraday volatility. Position sizing should account for this volatility with stop-losses placed beyond the daily average true range.
Conclusion
The AAVE price prediction for March 2026 suggests cautious optimism, with technical analysts targeting $131-137 levels despite current mixed signals. The convergence of multiple analyst forecasts around these levels provides confidence in the medium-term bullish outlook.
However, immediate price action depends on breaking the $118.26 resistance level and confirming the shift in MACD momentum. The neutral RSI provides room for upward movement, while healthy trading volumes support potential breakout scenarios.
Traders should monitor the key levels outlined above, with particular attention to how AAVE responds at the $115.79 immediate resistance. A successful break could validate the bullish Aave forecast, while failure may extend the current consolidation phase.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency price predictions are speculative and based on technical analysis. Digital asset markets are highly volatile and unpredictable. Always conduct thorough research and consider your risk tolerance before making investment decisions.
US banking giant Wells Fargo has filed a trademark application covering a wide range of cryptocurrency trading, payments and blockchain software services.
A filing submitted to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on Tuesday seeks protection for the name “WFUSD.” The application is currently awaiting assignment to an examining attorney, according to official trademark records.
The filing outlines a broad list of potential products and services linked to digital assets, including “cryptocurrency trading services; cryptocurrency exchange services; cryptocurrency payment processing; financial brokerage services for cryptocurrency trading; electronic transfer of virtual currencies.”
The trademark also covers software tools designed for blockchain ecosystems. The application lists downloadable software for staking digital assets, accessing non-fungible tokens (NFTs), managing crypto wallets and executing digital asset trades.
Wells Fargo filing includes staking and tokenization
Other services mentioned in the filing include cryptocurrency payment processing, electronic transfers of virtual currencies and financial data feeds providing price information to blockchain-based smart contracts.
In addition to trading infrastructure, Wells Fargo’s trademark application references software-as-a-service platforms for tokenizing assets, verifying blockchain transactions and enabling cryptocurrency staking operations. The filing also includes authentication services and blockchain-based data transmission tools used in decentralized applications.
Wells Fargo files for WFUSD trademark. Source: USPTO
While trademark filings do not guarantee a product launch, companies often use them to secure branding for potential future offerings.
Wells Fargo is a prominent American multinational financial services company and one of the “Big Four” US banks.
The new trademark filing comes after several major US banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo itself, reportedly discussed a joint stablecoin project in 2025.
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
XRP’s (XRP) weekly price chart is starting to resemble a technical pattern that previously marked a major cycle low and preceded a sharp upside reversal.
Key takeaways:
XRP’s weekly chart fractal resembles the 2017 cycle low before a 1,577% surge.
An XRP price breakout requires a sustained move above the $2 resistance zone.
A long-term fractal comparison between the 2017-2018 and 2024-2026 cycles suggests that XRP’s sharp sell-off from $3.66 multi-year highs mirrors a pattern that formed a price bottom, before a sharp reversal.
On the weekly chart, XRP’s drop to $1.10 resembles a retest of the lower trendline of a symmetrical triangle from 2017 when the price dropped to $0.12, marking the local bottom.
Commenting, crypto analyst Javon said, “There is potential we see this overall run unfold in an identical manner,” adding:
“Doing so means that right now is only a temporary pullback before a move well above the $20 mark.”
In 2017, XRP consolidated inside the triangle as leverage reset, eventually breaking above the triangle’s upper trend line and rallying 1,577%.
Applying this framework, XRP bulls will be required to push the price above the $1.78-$2.30 resistance to confirm a sustained upward breakout.
Note that this is where the upper trendline of the triangle at $2, the 100-week simple moving average (SMA), and the 50-day SMA converge.
XRP’s UTXO realized price distribution (URPD) data shows large supply clusters that remain above the spot price. The $2 level accounts for 3.6% of the XRP supply, and $1.80 comprises 3.15%, forming heavy overhead resistance.
XRP: URPD ATH-partitioned. Source: Glassnode
As Cointelegraph reported, buyers will have to break and sustain the XRP price above the downtrend line of the descending channel pattern at $2 on the daily chart to signal a long-term trend change.
XRP supply on exchanges continues downtrend
XRP’s multi-exchanges daily depositing/withdrawing transactions delta, a metric that tracks the net number of XRP transfer transactions across 15 major crypto exchanges, has dropped to record lows, according to data from CryptoQuant.
“When the metric declines, it suggests that more investors are withdrawing XRP into external wallets,” CryptoQuant analyst Amr Taha said in a QuickTake analysis, adding:
“This behavior often reflects accumulation and long-term confidence.”
This was echoed by fellow analyst Darkfost, who said the “number of XRP withdrawal transactions on Binance has shown several sudden spikes in recent days.”
This includes more than 14,000 withdrawal transactions from Binance on March 6, as shown in the chart below.
This indicates investors are “accumulating and then choosing to transfer their tokens to private wallets rather than keeping them on the exchange,” Darkfost added.
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.
Republicans in the US Congress want to ban any possibility of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). To do so, they’re threatening progress on a bipartisan housing bill.
A group of Republican members of the US House of Representatives wrote a letter dated March 6, expressing the “dire need to prohibit a Central Bank Digital Currency from ever happening in the United States.”
The letter cited familiar arguments claiming a CBDC would threaten financial privacy and grant the US Federal Reserve unprecedented financial surveillance powers.
Critics question why Republicans are so eager to ban a CBDC, particularly as other global economic centers like the European Union and China develop their own digital forms of money. Still, the Republicans are ready to pull support from a bipartisan housing bill to get their way.
Republicans hang CBDC ban on 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act
Twenty-eight Republican representatives signed a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson. In it, they noted that the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, a bill making its way through the Senate Banking Committee, contained a provision that would ban CBDCs.
But the lawmakers said it wasn’t strong enough. The ban would sunset in 2030, they noted, adding that the new language does not prohibit the Fed from studying a CBDC, which a bill introduced last year by Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer sought to block.
The representatives demanded that both provisions be removed in the Senate before the bill reaches the House, claiming that a “prohibition on a Central Bank Digital Currency must be permanent.” If not, they threatened the success of the housing bill:
Otherwise, we will do everything to ensure that the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is dead-on arrival.”
Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna said, “This will probably get nasty so I am telling everyone now. We would appreciate your air support on this.”
This move puts a still-niche and relatively unknown monetary question onto a bill that would at least nominally address concerns over housing affordability in the US.
According to a June 2025 survey from fintech firm Aevi, 61% of Americans haven’t even heard of a CBDC. The number is even higher among older respondents, with over 70% of 55- to 64-year-olds having never heard of one.
Meanwhile, housing costs in the US are getting higher. Data from the Fed and the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index collated by LongtermTrends shows that a typical single-family home currently costs 7.14 times the median annual household income.
This is the highest home price-to-median household income ratio on record going back to the late 1940s, higher than at the height of the 2006 housing bubble.
Part of this is due to a supply squeeze. Homebuilding crashed after the 2008 financial crisis. This has continued to decline during the second Trump administration.
The new, bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act contains several proposals to make building new housing easier and therefore cheaper. This includes expedited environmental reviews and increased Federal Housing Administration family loan limits.
“The package includes the vast majority of the Senate’s unanimously supported ROAD to Housing Act, incorporates bipartisan housing ideas from the House, and takes a good first step to rein in corporate landlords that are squeezing families out of homeownership,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said in a statement.
The presidential administration has already signaled its support of the bill, including a ban on CBDCs.
Holding up a housing affordability bill over a CBDC, something voters know very little about, may not play well, especially as President Donald Trump and Congress slip in the polls and the economy remains a central concern.
Does the US need a CBDC to ensure the dollar stays on top?
Republicans claim to be concerned about the privacy implications of a CBDC, and they aren’t alone. Regarding the digital euro, the European Central Bank’s planned CBDC, Luxembourg-based economist Elisabeth Krecké said that it’s unclear how the tradeoff between privacy and functionality could be managed.
“The digital euro drafters simply assert that Europe’s legal framework offers the ‘strongest privacy protections in the world,’” she said. “The real question is: What happens to the data in the end? Who will have access to it and, ultimately, who will control it?”
Democrats are far less skeptical of a CBDC than their Republican colleagues. Particularly as, according to Krecké, over 90% of the world’s central banks are investigating the technology.
In a criticism of Emmer’s early efforts to ban a CBDC, Congresswoman Maxine Waters said in a statement, ”When Republicans raise concerns about CBDCs they are talking about retail CBDCs, but because they are so averse to knowledge and studying things, they have no idea that their bill blocks research into other forms of digitizing the dollar that could truly cut costs for people.”
She added that with a functional and operating digital currency, China could provide an attractive alternative to the dollar as the global reserve currency.
Congress is still hammering out the details of the CLARITY Act, the long-awaited crypto framework bill, and now the future of a CBDC is being balanced with more affordable housing ahead of a midterm election.
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.
