Bermuda’s government is sticking to their plan of migrating their national economy onchain and is now partnering with the Stellar Development Foundation to move payments and other financial services onto its network, XLM.
The island mentioned that its residents were facing processing costs of up to 10%, making the move onchain not just an attempt at modernizing the system, but a necessary step for retaining economic value.
Bermuda moves onchain
The Stellar Development Foundation and the Government of Bermuda announced today that Bermuda will begin moving its payment and financial activities onto the Stellar network (XLM). Bermuda revealed its plans to become the world’s first fully onchain national economy at the World Economic Forum in January this year.
The announcement explains that local merchants currently pay 3% to 5% per transaction in card fees, and effective payment processing costs can reach as high as 10% in some categories. Introducing the use of digital assets and infrastructure will keep more of that value on the island.
Under the plan, Bermudian residents will be able to receive wages, pay local merchants, settle government fees, and hold, send, and receive digital assets through digital wallets on the Stellar network.
Government agencies expect to pilot stablecoin-based payments, financial institutions will be able to integrate tokenization tools, and residents can participate in nationwide digital literacy programs. Digital assets may also be used for government payment systems related to social service disbursements.
“The lack of mobile money applications and reliance on legacy payments infrastructure has left Bermudians paying high payment processing fees and hindered additional economic growth opportunities,” The Hon. E. David Burt, JP, MP, Premier of Bermuda said.
Denelle Dixon, the CEO and Executive Director of the Stellar Development Foundation, added that Stellar was built for the purpose of seamlessly connecting the global financial system.
Before Bermuda, the Philippines had also launched a blockchain transparency system called Integrity Chain for its Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) after citizens held mass protests over corruption in flood-control projects.
An estimated 130,000 people protested on September 21, 2025, demanding accountability after reports of overpriced contracts, substandard construction, and ghost projects. The Australian Institute of International Affairs shared that the Philippines allocated over $33 billion to flood-control projects across 15 years.
What other blockchain initiatives is Bermuda working on?
Cryptopolitan recently reported that the Bermuda Monetary Authority (BMA), the island’s central bank and financial regulator, recently completed an “Embedded Supervision Solution” with Chainlink (LINK), Apex Group, Bluprynt, and Hacken.
The solution, announced earlier this month, demonstrates how rules can be built directly into digital asset infrastructure and enforced in real time. The system uses Chainlink’s Automated Compliance Engine (ACE) to check every transaction against Bermuda’s policies.
With Proof of Reserve, it verifies that digital dollars are backed by real money in a bank account. It also uses Secure Mint to stop new coins from being issued when reserve limits have been reached.
Apex Group, acting as an independent fund administrator with $3.5 trillion in assets serviced across 52 countries, supplies authenticated reserve data from third-party custodians. Hacken’s Extractor platform provides real-time onchain monitoring with a detection speed of 250 to 500 milliseconds.
The market has not shown significant price action following today’s announcement. XLM is trading around $0.1622, down approximately 4.82% over 24 hours, according to CoinMarketCap data.
XLM has spent most of 2026 trading below $0.20, fluctuating primarily within the $0.15 to $0.18. The 0.20 level now serves as both technical resistance and a major psychological barrier. Above this level, the next resistance zone sits around $0.22 to $0.25. On the downside, support clusters around the $0.15 to $0.16 range.
Notably, the CME Group began rolling out futures for XLM in February 2026, but the impact on XLM’s price has remained limited, and the futures listing has not yet generated enough buying momentum to push the token out of its sideways range.
According to the Stellar Foundation, the network surpassed $2 billion in onchain real-world asset (RWA) value in the first quarter of 2026. Data from DeFiLlama shows that the network currently has a stablecoin market capitalization of approximately $ 415 million, with its daily decentralized exchange (DEX) volume around $1.83 million.
S&P 500 payments business Corpay has today announced it is integrating stablecoin wallets and settlement into its global platform. This will give its +800,000 business clients payment rails that are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, excluding bank holidays and weekend cutoffs.
The integration comes via a partnership with BVNK, a stablecoin infrastructure provider. Corpay customers will be able to keep stablecoin balances alongside their fiat currencies. They’ll be able to send, receive, store and convert stablecoins, all without ever leaving the Corpay interface, according to the release.
Corpay (NYSE: CPAY) processes +$12 billion in corporate payments each month. It also handles ~$26 billion in foreign exchange volume across over 145 currencies. The Canadian company plans to wire stablecoin rails into its own treasury operations too. This will cut its dependence on pre-funded accounts and speed up fund movement across its global network.
“At our scale, the ability to move liquidity quickly and reliably is critical,” said Mark Frey, Group President of Corpay Cross-Border Solutions. “Stablecoins introduce a 24/7 settlement capability that strengthens our existing infrastructure. BVNK provides the technology and compliance framework we need to deliver this securely and at scale.”
Jesse Hemson-Struthers, BVNK’s CEO, said Corpay’s reach makes the company a strong partner for pushing stablecoin payments into broader corporate adoption. He added, “Together, we’re enabling faster, more efficient ways for businesses to move and manage money across borders.”
BVNK attracts Mastercard, Visa, and Citi
Mastercard announced plans to acquire the company in a deal that could reach $1.8 billion by the time it closes at the end of 2026. Mastercard CEO Michael Miebach cited BVNK’s network of stablecoin stakeholders, liquidity providers, and hard-to-get licenses as the primary reasons for the purchase. He discussed the acquisition during the company’s Q1 2026 earnings call.
Visa Ventures, the investment arm of Visa, has invested in BVNK. Citigroup started backing BVNK in October 2025, according to Cryptopolitan. Arvind Purushotham, head of Citi Ventures, said that stablecoins are becoming more popular as a way to settle on-chain and crypto deals. He called out BVNK’s enterprise-grade infrastructure as a draw.
BVNK co-founder Chris Harmse said that the demand for stablecoin infrastructure has surged. The U.S. represents the company’s fastest-growing market. He pointed to the passage of the GENIUS Act as a catalyst for institutional confidence.
Stablecoins expand corporate payments integration
The Corpay deal lands as stablecoins continue to expand beyond crypto native use cases.
Dollar pegged stablecoin supply has reached $301 billion, according to data from CoinGecko. Tether’s USDT accounts for $189.6 billion of that total. Circle’s USDC sits at ~$77 billion.
Visa recorded a $7 billion annual run rate in stablecoin settlement volume during its most recent earnings call. That figure jumped +50% quarter over quarter. The card network now has +160 stablecoin card programs running globally with partners including Rain, Reap, and Bridge.
Citi raised its stablecoin market forecast in September. The bank projected the sector could hit $4 trillion by 2030 under a bullish scenario, up from earlier estimates of $1.6 trillion and $3.7 trillion, per Cryptopolitan.
A senior White House official has accused major banking trade leaders of refusing to join earlier talks on stablecoin rewards, escalating a dispute that has become one of the final pressure points ahead of the Senate Banking Committee taking up the CLARITY Act this week.
In a May 11 post on the social media platform X, Patrick Witt, executive director of the White House Presidential Advisory Committee on Digital Assets, said he had asked American Bankers Association President Rob Nichols and other bank trade CEOs to attend the February meetings aimed at resolving the question of stablecoin rewards and yield.
“I specifically requested the attendance of Mr. Nichols and other bank trade CEOs at the meetings we hosted back in February to resolve the stablecoin rewards/yield issue. They refused. I guess the White House was beneath them?”
The criticism injected the White House more directly into a fight that has divided banks, crypto companies, and lawmakers ahead of a scheduled May 14 markup of the CLARITY Act.
The bill is designed to create a broader market structure framework for digital assets, but the treatment of stablecoin rewards has become a flashpoint over competition for deposits, consumer yield, and the future shape of dollar-based payments.
Witt’s comments also reframed the timing of the banking industry’s objections. Rather than a new technical concern emerging before a committee vote, the White House official cast the dispute as an unresolved issue that banking leaders had an opportunity to address months earlier.
Banks reopen stablecoin rewards fight before markup
Over the weekend, the American Bankers Association (ABA) urged bank executives and employees to press senators for tighter restrictions in the CLARITY Act before the committee vote, warning that the current bill could still allow crypto firms to offer reward structures that resemble interest on deposit-like products.
Nichols told bankers that lawmakers needed to hear from the industry before the legislation advanced.
The ABA’s concern is that stablecoin issuers, exchanges, or related companies could attract customer funds by offering returns on assets that compete directly with traditional bank deposits.
Banks rely on deposits as a funding base for loans to households, small businesses, farms, and corporations. If customers move cash into stablecoins that offer rewards, banks argue that lenders could face higher funding costs, tighter margins, and less capacity to extend credit.
The banking industry has described the current compromise language as leaving a loophole.
In its view, a ban on stablecoin issuers paying yield would be insufficient if affiliated exchanges, brokers, or other crypto platforms could deliver similar economic benefits through rewards, rebates, or incentive programs.
That position has put banks at odds with crypto companies that see the rewards language as a basic competition issue.
Stablecoin reserves are typically held in cash, short-term Treasuries, or other liquid instruments that generate income. The policy fight centers on whether consumers should be able to receive part of that return, and which type of institution should be allowed to offer it.
The recent Senate compromise has attempted to separate passive yield from activity-based rewards.
That distinction was meant to prevent stablecoins from becoming direct substitutes for interest-bearing deposits while preserving room for crypto platforms to reward users for participation, payments, or other services.
White House analysis undercuts the lending warning
The Council of Economic Advisers said in an April report that banning stablecoin yield would provide only a marginal lift to bank lending under its baseline assumptions. The CEA estimated that such a ban would increase bank lending by about $2.1 billion, equal to roughly 0.02% of total lending in the base case.
That finding gives the administration a counterweight to the banking sector’s claim that stablecoin rewards could meaningfully damage credit creation.
The report argued that most stablecoin reserves would not be permanently removed from the banking system. Instead, reserves held in cash, bank deposits, or Treasury instruments would continue to circulate through financial markets in different forms.
The CEA also said a more severe impact would require a much larger stablecoin market and more restrictive assumptions about how reserves are held. In the administration’s framing, stablecoin rewards may affect bank margins, but the baseline effect on lending capacity appears limited.
Moreover, a separate analysis by Galaxy Research furthered the argument by focusing on the international flow of dollars.
Galaxy said banks were overstating the risk that stablecoin growth would simply drain domestic deposits. Its model projected that much of the growth under a regulated stablecoin framework would come from offshore users seeking easier access to dollar-denominated assets.
That finding changes the economic lens. If stablecoins mostly draw funds from US bank accounts, banks face a direct deposit migration problem.
However, if much of the growth comes from foreign users moving into dollar stablecoins, the effect could be an inflow into US financial infrastructure rather than a one-way drain from domestic lenders.
Galaxy estimated that 60% to 70% of stablecoin growth under the GENIUS Act framework could originate offshore. It also projected that imported deposits from foreign demand could exceed domestic deposit migration by roughly 2:1.
The firm said each newly minted stablecoin dollar could generate about 32 cents of net US credit, with total credit expansion reaching about $400 billion through 2030 in its base case and as much as $1.2 trillion in a stronger growth scenario.
GENIUS Act Impact on Stablecoin (Source: Galaxy Digital)
It also projected that stablecoin reserve demand could compress Treasury bill yields by 3 to 5 basis points, potentially lowering federal borrowing costs.
Meanwhile, Galaxy did not dismiss the pressure on banks. The report said some low-cost deposits would likely migrate, funding costs could rise at the margin, and net interest margins could compress in business lines sensitive to rate competition.
Still, the firm concluded that stablecoins could pressure banks that rely on cheap deposits, increase demand for US Treasury bills, import offshore dollar capital, and expand the reach of the US financial system.
Crypto allies accuse banks of protecting margins
Crypto advocacy groups have seized on the ABA’s push as evidence that banks are trying to block competition days before the committee vote on the CLARITY Act.
Coinbase-backed Stand With Crypto urged supporters to contact senators, saying banking lobbyists were trying to weaken stablecoin rewards language before the markup.
The group framed the dispute as a consumer-rights issue, arguing that users should be able to earn returns on their own digital assets rather than have that value captured by intermediaries.
Cody Carbone, CEO of The Digital Chamber, said banks had months to negotiate over the issue and were now trying to force changes late in the process. He described the ABA campaign as an attempt to shield incumbents from competition after earlier opportunities to engage had passed.
Sen. Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican on the Banking Committee and a supporter of crypto legislation, used sharper language about the bank’s opposition to CLARITY Act.
He accused the “banking cartel” of trying to preserve a system in which banks pay depositors little while earning profits from lending and securities portfolios.
Moreno wrote on X:
“During the Biden era, these same banks worked hand-in-glove with Sen. Warren and her allies to debank Americans, including President Trump’s own family. They shut down accounts of conservatives, patriots, and anyone who dared challenge the regime, all while regulators applied pressure under schemes like Operation Choke Point 2.0. It wasn’t about risk. It was about political control. Now that innovative stablecoins threaten to break their monopoly and give you actual financial freedom? They’re running to Congress again, screaming about ‘threats to economic growth and financial stability.’”
Moreno’s statement showed how the stablecoin rewards dispute has moved beyond technical drafting.
The fight now carries a broader political message about financial competition, consumer returns, and resentment toward large banking institutions.
That rhetoric could help crypto advocates rally support, especially among Republicans who view stablecoins as part of a broader agenda around financial innovation and dollar competitiveness.
However, it also risks hardening opposition from lawmakers who are already concerned that crypto firms are seeking bank-like privileges without equivalent oversight.
Markup will test whether the stablecoin compromise can hold
If the committee advances the CLARITY Act with the current language largely intact, crypto firms will claim momentum, and banks will likely shift their campaign to the full Senate.
If lawmakers tighten the rewards provisions, the banking industry will have succeeded in reopening one of the most contested parts of the bill at the final stage before markup.
Meanwhile, the vote will also test the broader coalition behind the CLARITY Act. Republicans have pushed digital-asset legislation as a priority, while some Democrats have remained open to a market-structure bill if it includes stronger consumer protections, ethics, and anti-money-laundering provisions.
The stablecoin fight complicates that effort because it cuts across several policy lines at once. It raises questions about bank funding, consumer yield, Treasury demand, offshore dollar usage, and the role of crypto firms in payments.
That gives senators several reasons to demand changes, but also makes the issue difficult to settle cleanly.
Senator Bernie Moreno on Monday accused the U.S. banking lobby of full panic mode over CLARITY Act stablecoin yields. The American Bankers Association is urging bank CEOs to pressure senators against the provisions.
The Ohio Republican sits on the Senate Banking Committee. He published the criticism on X ahead of Thursday’s CLARITY Act markup.
ABA Letter Targets CLARITY Act Stablecoin Yield Language
ABA CEO Rob Nichols sent a Sunday letter to every bank CEO in the country. He called for “immediate engagement” on stablecoin yield policy.
Nichols warned that the current proposal would prompt deposit flight into payment stablecoins, citing risks to growth and stability. His note described what banks call a stablecoin loophole in the committee’s draft.
“we believe committee members may not be fully aware of the risks to the economy by the stablecoin loophole,” read an excerpt in the letter, citing Nicholas.
Moreno rejected that framing, saying the question was already litigated during the GENIUS Act debate led by Senator Bill Hagerty.
🚨 The banking cartel is in full panic mode. 🚨
While Americans were celebrating Mother’s Day with their families, the CEO of the American Bankers Association sent a frantic alert to every bank CEO in the country, demanding “immediate engagement” to lobby Senators and kill… pic.twitter.com/Phd6HsdBXR
The Senate Banking Committee marks up the CLARITY Act on Thursday, May 14, at 10:30 a.m. ET. Polymarket bettors now give the bill a 73% chance of becoming law this year.
Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks brokered the disputed compromise text. It bars yield “economically or functionally equivalent” to deposit interest. The provision still permits rewards from bona fide platform activity.
“I specifically requested the attendance of Mr. Nichols and other bank trade CEOs at the meetings we hosted back in February to resolve the stablecoin rewards/yield issue. They refused. I guess the White House was beneath them? In their defense, I wouldn’t want to have to defend their position in public either,” he said.
A successful markup would advance the bill toward a full Senate floor vote. A stall could sideline U.S. crypto legislation for the rest of the session.
Our ENA price prediction expects a maximum of $0.82 in 2026.
In 2032, we expect the ENA price to achieve $7.38.
Ethena is a stablecoin project built on Ethereum that offers USDe, a fully decentralized coin pegged to the US dollar.
Unlike stablecoins such as USDC or USDT, USDe doesn’t depend on banks or centralized companies for reserves. Instead, it uses a cash-and-carry trading strategy to keep its value equal to the dollar.
For investors who prioritize decentralization, USDe could be an appealing choice — especially since it currently offers staking rewards above 9%. However, critics caution that since the project is still new, it’s uncertain whether USDe’s high yields and dollar peg can remain stable during a market downturn.
Based on these developments, we’ve compiled our Ethena price prediction from 2026-2032. In this article, we’ll find out “Will ENA reach $10?” and explore the factors behind ENA price prediction.
Overview
Cryptocurrency
Ethena
Ticker
ENA
Price
$0.13 (-2.3%)
Market cap
$917 million
Trading volume (24-hour)
$50 million
Circulating supply
8.49B ENA
All-time high
$1.52 (11 April, 2024)
All-time low
$0.09428 (24 February, 2026)
ENA technical analysis
Metric
Value
Current Price
$0.13
Price Prediction
$ 0.07926 (-25.13%)
Fear & Greed Index
40 (Fear)
Sentiment
Bearish
Volatility
11.29% (Very High)
Green Days
13/30 (43%)
50-Day SMA
$ 0.09998
200-Day SMA
$ 0.1973
14-Day RSI
45.85 (Neutral)
ENA price analysis
Resistance for ENA is at $0.1389
Support for ENA/USD is at $0.1267
The ENA price analysis for 11 May confirms that ENA witnessed bearish pressure as it dropped toward $0.13. However, the ENA price is preparing for a recovery rally.
Ethena price analysis 1-day chart: ENA price triggers bearish momentum
Analyzing the daily price chart of ENA tokens, ENA witnessed a bearish correction after sellers pushed the price toward support lines. Sellers are now aiming for a hold below the immediate Fib channels around $0.13. The 24-hour volume surged toward $24 million, showing an increase in trading interest today. Ethena’s price is currently trading at $0.13, which has dropped by over 2.3% in the last 24 hours.
The RSI-14 trend line has dropped from its previous level but hovers within the neutral region at 67, showing that bulls are controlling momentum. The SMA-14 level suggests volatility in the next few hours.
ENA/USDT 4-hour price chart: Buyers aim big above EMA levels
The 4-hour ENA price chart suggests that ENA experienced a bullish activity around EMA lines, creating a positive sentiment on the price chart. Currently, buyers aim for a strong rebound above the EMA20 trend line.
The BoP indicator trades in a bearish region at 0.39, suggesting that sellers are trying to build pressure near support levels and trigger downward correction.
Additionally, the MACD trend line has formed red candles below the signal line, and the indicator aims for negative momentum, strengthening selling positions.
ENA price predictions: Levels and action
Daily simple moving average (SMA)
Period
Value
Action
SMA 3
$ 0.1018
BUY
SMA 5
$ 0.1024
BUY
SMA 10
$ 0.1051
SELL
SMA 21
$ 0.1076
SELL
SMA 50
$ 0.09998
BUY
SMA 100
$ 0.1108
SELL
SMA 200
$ 0.1973
SELL
Daily exponential moving average (EMA)
Period
Value
Action
EMA 3
$ 0.1017
BUY
EMA 5
$ 0.1026
BUY
EMA 10
$ 0.1043
SELL
EMA 21
$ 0.1042
SELL
EMA 50
$ 0.1057
SELL
EMA 100
$ 0.1304
SELL
EMA 200
$ 0.1917
SELL
What to expect from ENA price analysis next?
The hourly price chart confirms bears are making efforts to prevent the ENA price from an immediate surge. However, if the ENA price successfully breaks above $0.1389, it may surge higher and touch the resistance at $0.1484.
If bulls fail to initiate a surge, ENA price may drop below the immediate support line at $0.1267, resulting in a correction to $0.1155.
Is ENA a good investment?
Whether ENA is a good investment depends on your goals and how much risk you’re comfortable with. Ethena has been ranked among the 100 cryptocurrencies. Still, there are questions about its demand, given its similarity to algorithmic stablecoins — a concept that lost trust after LUNA’s collapse in 2022. Even so, Ethena has shown strong performance during market surges, making it a solid project in the crypto market.
If you believe in the project’s future and don’t mind the ups and downs, it might be worth putting in a small amount.
Why is the ENA price down today?
ENA’s price gained selling pressure around recent highs, resulting in a strong downward push. This created a push toward $0.13.
Will Ethena price recover?
If buyers hold above the $0.15 level, we might see a comeback in buying demand.
Will ENA reach $10?
ENA price might reach the $10 mark in 2035 if buying demand surges and ENA attracts altcoin investors.
Will ENA reach $100?
The $100 mark is a distant dream for ENA. This price level is achievable in the long run if ENA continues to expand its offerings and attract buying demand.
Is Ethena a good long-term investment?
ENA has gained popularity due to strong community support. However, conducting thorough research into their long-term potential is crucial to determine if they represent a viable long-term investment.
Recent news/ Opinion on ENA
BlackRock sent a letter to regulators, defending a proposed rule that would limit tokenized reserve assets to 20%. It said this cap could impact its BUIDL fund, which supports Ethena’s USDe and Jupiter’s JupUSD.
Ethena (ENA) price prediction May 2026
Over the last few days, ENA prices have aimed to surge above crucial Fib levels. If the BTC price aims for a hold above $80K in May, we might see a solid surge in the ENA price.
According to technical analysis, the ENA price might record a maximum level of $0.17 and a minimum of $0.075, with an average value of $0.13 throughout May.
ENA price prediction
Potential low
Potential average
Potential high
ENA Price Prediction May 2026
$0.075
$0.9
$0.12
Ethena Forecast 2026
By the end of 2026, ENA price is expected to attain an average level of $0.64. The Ethena price prediction 2026 expects a minimum price of $0.06 and a maximum price of $0.82.
ENA price prediction
Potential low
Potential average
Potential high
ENA Price Prediction 2026
0.06
0.64
0.82
Ethena Price Predictions 2027-2032
Year
Minimum Price ($)
Average Price ($)
Maximum Price ($)
2027
0.9001
0.9258
1.1
2028
1.3
1.35
1.55
2029
1.98
2.03
2.31
2030
2.85
2.95
3.46
2031
4.26
4.37
5
2032
6.24
6.42
7.38
Ethena Price Prediction 2027
Ethena’s price forecast expects a minimum value of $0.9001 in 2027. The maximum value could be around $1.10, with an average trading price of approximately $0.9258.
Ethena Price Prediction 2028
Ethena’s price in 2028 is expected to reach a minimum level of $1.30 and a maximum level of $1.55, with an average forecast price of about $1.35.
Ethena Price Prediction 2029
The price of Ethena in 2029 is predicted to reach a minimum value of $1.98. It could rise to a maximum of $2.31, with the average trading price estimated at $2.03.
Ethena Price Prediction 2030
According to forecasts and technical analysis, Ethena is expected to reach a minimum price of $2.85 in 2030. The token could achieve a maximum level of $3.46, while the average trading price is projected to be around $2.95.
Ethena Price Prediction 2031
Based on in-depth technical analysis of past data, the price of Ethena in 2031 is expected to reach a minimum of $4.26. The maximum price could be $5.00, with an average value of about $4.37.
Ethena Price Prediction 2032
In 2032, Ethena’s price is forecasted to reach a minimum level of $6.24, a maximum level of $7.38, and an average trading price of approximately $6.42.
Ethena Price Prediction 2026-2032
Ethena market price prediction: Analysts’ ENA price forecast
Firm Name
2026
2027
Coincodex
$0.6829
$0.5555
CoinDCX
$0.8
$1
Cryptopolitan’s Ethena price prediction
At Cryptopolitan, we are bullish on the ENA price movements as the coin is expected to surge to new highs by the end of this year. By the end of 2026, ENA price is expected to attain an average level of $0.64. The Ethena price prediction 2026 expects a minimum price of $0.06 and a maximum price of $0.82.
ENA historical price sentiment
ENA Price History: Coinmarketcap
Ethena’s price history from mid-2024 to late 2025 shows a period of intense volatility marked by sharp fluctuations in both price and market capitalization. In early 2024, Ethena traded strongly, reaching highs around $1.20 in April, supported by high trading volumes exceeding $8 billion.
However, by mid-2024, the token began to decline steadily, closing near $0.38 by July as investor sentiment weakened and market activity cooled.
The latter half of 2024 saw further instability. Ethena’s price dropped as low as $0.20 in September, reflecting a major correction phase in the broader crypto market.
Despite these setbacks, the token demonstrated resilience, climbing back above $1.00 by December 2024. This late-year rally suggested renewed interest from traders and potential ecosystem developments.
In 2025, Ethena continued to experience wide swings. The token opened the year near $1.25 but faced sustained downward pressure through the spring, dipping below $0.30 by June.
A strong recovery followed in the third quarter, with prices surpassing $0.70 in August and stabilizing near $0.50 by October. Throughout this period, Ethena’s market cap ranged from $1 billion to over $5 billion.
In early November, the price of ENA declined toward $0.3. By the end of November, ENA declined below $0.23.
ENA ended December on a bearish note by trading around $0.2. By January 2026, the price of ENA dropped toward $0.13.
In February, the price of ENA dropped toward $0.1. ENA price declined further in March and touched a low around $0.08 in early April.
A third-party provider failure caused Revolut’s app to show wildly inaccurate crypto prices on Friday, the company confirmed, after users flooded social media with screenshots of Bitcoin listed at just 2 cents.
Third-Party Provider Blamed For Pricing Chaos
Revolut acknowledged the problem in a public statement, saying engineers were working on a fix and urging customers to check its status page for updates.
Hi. We want to help resolve the issues you’re facing with the Bitcoin price notification. We’re currently experiencing issues affecting some of the app’s functionalities. Please be assured that our colleagues are working on this as we speak. Please keep an eye on our status page…
The glitch wasn’t limited to Bitcoin. Users reported seeing simultaneous price drops across XRP, Solana, and even stablecoins like USDT and USDC — assets designed to hold steady at one dollar.
Screenshots shared on X and Reddit showed Bitcoin’s 24-hour chart registering a roughly 50% intraday plunge, with the price briefly anchoring near $39,900 before snapping back.
Some users also received push notifications warning that BTC had hit a 52-week low of 2 cents.
According to Revolut, The price of Bitcoin has just dropped to $0.02
Pricing data on major aggregators showed nothing unusual during the same window. Bitcoin’s price on CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko held steady, with no sign of any crash in derivatives markets either. The anomaly appeared entirely contained within Revolut’s app.
Ranveer Arora, a former PwC quantitative trading lead and co-founder of Altura.trade, told reporters two explanations are in play.
The first is a corrupt data tick pushed through Revolut’s pricing system — a single bad data point that briefly anchored the chart before being corrected.
Because Revolut is not an exchange and pulls prices from outside providers, one faulty input can be enough to produce exactly this kind of chart distortion.
The second possibility is a transient liquidity gap. Revolut’s order book is shallower than what you’d find on a full exchange, so a large sell order could theoretically exhaust available bids and print a sharp downward wick before prices recover.
Arora noted, however, that the lack of matching prints on any other platform makes the data feed explanation more likely.
Why Retail Apps Face Unique Data Risks
Marc Tillement, director of blockchain price oracle Pyth Data Association, said the episode shows how quickly a single bad data point can distort price perception — particularly in retail-facing systems where users may not think to cross-check what they’re seeing.
Tillement said that as markets grow more data-dependent, the reliability of pricing infrastructure becomes central to how much traders can trust what’s in front of them.
Transparent, verifiable data layers, he argued, are what separate a glitch from a crisis.
Featured image from Pixabay, chart from TradingView
Visa said its settlement pilot for stablecoins now supports nine blockchains and has reached a run rate of $7 billion a year.
The company announced on April 29 that it added Arc, Base, Canton, Polygon and Tempo to a pilot that already used Avalanche, Ethereum, Solana and Stellar.
Visa said the annualized settlement run rate is up 50% from the prior quarter.
The pilot remains bounded by Visa’s own language, but the signal is in where the volume sits. Stablecoins are entering the part of payments consumers rarely see, the settlement layer that moves value between issuers, acquirers, banks, program managers and treasury systems after a transaction has already been authorized.
That makes the update a settlement-infrastructure signal as much as a blockchain support list. Visa is testing whether stablecoins can become a parallel settlement option inside payment infrastructure that already touches banks, card programs and merchants across markets.
The operational point is direct: crypto adoption is moving into the back office before it becomes visible at the checkout screen.
The conclusion has limits. The company described a pilot and support, gave a run rate for stablecoin settlement, and left the split by chain, stablecoin, partner, and geography undisclosed.
That keeps things bounded: the network is adding optional settlement rails, while traditional settlement remains part of the stack.
Visa has been building toward this point for several years. In 2023, the company said it had moved millions of USDC between partners over Solana and Ethereum to settle fiat-denominated VisaNet payments.
That announcement followed an earlier Crypto.com issuer pilot and expanded the settlement work to merchant acquirers Worldpay and Nuvei.
The operational issue is familiar in card payments. A consumer gets near-instant authorization at the point of sale, but funds still have to move between the issuing bank and the merchant’s bank.
Visa’s treasury and settlement systems sit inside that process, moving value across currencies and institutions.
In December 2025, U.S. issuer and acquirer partners gained the ability to settle with Visa in USDC, with Cross River Bank and Lead Bank initially settling over Solana.
The company cited faster funds movement, seven-day availability, and resilience across weekends and holidays.
The April release also connected the chain expansion to Visa’s stablecoin-linked card programs, which it said numbered more than 130 programs across more than 50 countries.
That makes the nine-chain footprint part of a broader payment operating model, beyond a ledger experiment.
The new run rate gives that timeline a sharper shape. The December 2025 U.S. launch put the prior annualized stablecoin settlement baseline above $3.5 billion.
The April update puts the run rate at $7 billion, with five more blockchains added to the pilot.
Before the April update
Added in April
Operational signal
Avalanche, Ethereum, Solana, Stellar
Arc, Base, Canton, Polygon, Tempo
Visa is widening the settlement pilot across public chains, payment-focused networks and institution-oriented infrastructure.
The table serves as a footprint rather than a volume map. The run rate applies to the pilot as a whole; the available disclosure leaves that volume undivided across the nine supported networks.
The sequence also shows a shift in who the product is for. The early work proved that USDC could move between card ecosystem participants.
The current phase asks whether the same settlement logic can be offered across a wider menu of rails while reducing the need for each partner to build separate crypto operations from scratch.
What the chain mix shows
The five additions suggest the types of environments Visa wants available to partners.
Arc is a stablecoin-native Layer 1 created by Circle. It brings USDC-denominated fees, optional privacy, sub-second deterministic finality and direct integration with Circle’s stack.
That makes Arc relevant to payment flows where predictable costs, stablecoin liquidity and transfer guarantees count more than token speculation.
Arc’s public materials also describe public testnet status, which keeps production claims bounded.
Base brings a different route into the same problem. Visa described Base as powered by Coinbase, while Base offers USDC payments that settle in seconds, use low gas costs and can be funded from a Base Account or Coinbase Account.
Base connects wallets, payment tooling, and exchange-linked liquidity into a consumer and developer surface.
Canton adds the institutional privacy layer. Visa had already said in March that it would become a Canton Super Validator, helping banks and financial institutions explore privacy-preserving payments, settlement and treasury use cases.
Canton centers stablecoin payments on need-to-know privacy, so counterparties, amounts and strategies can remain visible only to the parties that need them, unlike many open blockchains.
As an analytical reading of the chain mix, Polygon and Tempo fit the payment-infrastructure side of the roster. Polygon emphasizes global payments, stablecoin liquidity and lower-cost transactions.
Tempo emphasizes dedicated payment lanes, stablecoin-native gas, payment metadata for reconciliation and deterministic settlement.
Together, the additions create a wider operating menu across chain types. One partner may need low-cost stablecoin movement.
Another may need privacy controls for regulated finance. Another may value Coinbase-connected payment tooling.
Visa’s role is to make those differences usable through a common settlement layer.
The result is a portfolio of settlement options across chain types. That portfolio lets Visa present stablecoins as infrastructure that can adapt to partner constraints, from regulated privacy to low-cost throughput, while keeping the payment-network relationship in the center.
The adoption signal is operational
The broader market context supports the shift while keeping price moves out of the frame. As of April 30, the crypto market stood at around $2.55 trillion, while DefiLlama put total stablecoin market capitalization at around $319.802 billion.
USDC sits in that context as a core settlement asset used for payments, treasury management, collateral, and cross-chain liquidity.
Ethereum, Solana, and Polygon Ecosystem Token are large or payment-relevant networks and tokens that can carry settlement infrastructure while keeping price data in the background.
Stablecoins already have enough liquidity and operating history for large payment networks to treat them as infrastructure options.
The adoption test shifts from whether a consumer chooses a wallet over a card to whether payment firms can use stablecoins to move value after the customer-facing transaction is done.
The market-side thesis has been building. A January analysis of BlackRock’s stablecoin thesis argued that dollar tokens were shifting from trading utility to settlement infrastructure within and alongside traditional finance.
Visa’s update provides a current operating example for that thesis. The company is connecting stablecoin settlement to issuers, acquirers, U.S. banks, and stablecoin-linked card programs.
Its March expansion with Bridge said stablecoin-linked Visa cards were live in 18 countries, with planned expansion to more than 100 countries.
That release also said issuers and acquirers involved in those programs could settle with Visa using stablecoins over supported networks.
Regulation sits in the background. Treasury framed the U.S. GENIUS Act as providing regulatory clarity for a market it expects could become much larger.
Visa tied the expansion to pilots, banks, partners, and supported networks, while the policy debate helps explain why payment stablecoins are drawing more mainstream attention.
The $7 billion run rate shows real activity, while the lack of a chain-by-chain breakdown leaves the depth of each rail unclear.
The nine-chain footprint shows optionality, while the pilot label keeps the conclusion bounded.
The adoption signal is therefore specific. Stablecoins are taking on a role beyond trading-market distribution.
Within Visa’s settlement pilot, they are becoming a treasury and settlement option for institutions already within mainstream payments.
The next test is whether that option remains a specialist rail for selected partners or becomes a routine part of how global payment firms move value after the consumer never sees the transaction again.
This month, Israel and Pakistan supplied a quieter test for crypto than the one playing out in US capital markets. What if the more important 2026 shift is happening where digital assets meet local money and bank accounts?
Israeli crypto firm Bits of Gold said Israel’s Capital Market Authority approved the issuance and distribution of BILS, a shekel-pegged stablecoin, after a two-year pilot. Days earlier, the State Bank of Pakistan issued BPRD Circular Letter No. 10 of 2026, replacing its 2018 virtual-currency prohibition.
The Pakistan circular allows regulated entities to open bank accounts for PVARA NOC or licensed VASPs and their customers under defined compliance conditions.
Those two moves sit far from the US spot ETF cycle. Yet they point to the operational layer that decides whether crypto becomes more than an investment wrapper. The US has supplied legitimacy, liquidity, and a powerful digital-dollar debate.
Other jurisdictions are testing a different operating layer: whether crypto can connect to local money, bank accounts, merchant checkout, and enforceable market rules.
That distinction changes how global adoption should be evaluated. A Bitcoin ETF lets investors buy exposure. A regulated shekel stablecoin lets users hold a domestic currency on-chain.
A central bank circular that lets licensed crypto firms open accounts gives the sector a bridge back into supervised banking. The first validates an asset class. The second and third test whether crypto can become usable financial infrastructure.
The test remains early. BILS still needs proof of issuance and usage. Pakistan still needs licensed VASPs with actual bank relationships. Hong Kong’s new licensees still need business launches.
The UAE still needs clearer public mapping between dirham-token announcements and Central Bank register entries. Still, the pattern is becoming harder to dismiss: in 2026, the practical crypto work is increasingly about where digital assets touch money, banks, merchants, and settlement systems.
Local money and bank access
Bits of Gold says the approved BILS project is a shekel-pegged stablecoin designed initially on Solana, with Fireblocks, QEDIT, EY, and the Solana Foundation involved in the pilot.
The policy signal is the local-currency component. BILS brings the shekel into an on-chain market still dominated by dollar stablecoins and asks whether a national currency can gain a programmable version without ceding the entire payments layer to USD tokens.
That is the monetary-sovereignty angle. Dollar stablecoins have become the working unit of much of crypto’s settlement activity.
A shekel token, if issuance and adoption follow approval, gives Israel a way to test domestic-currency rails inside that same infrastructure. The result would be measured less by market attention and more by whether wallets, exchanges, payment firms, and regulated counterparties find a reason to use it.
Pakistan supplies the banking half of the opening. The State Bank of Pakistan circular is concrete because it replaces FE Circular No. 3 of 2018 and permits SBP-regulated entities to open accounts for PVARA NOC or licensed VASPs and their customers.
The circular also ties access to bank controls, documentation, monitoring, customer-risk checks, and compliance with Pakistan’s virtual-asset framework.
That changes the operating surface for licensed crypto firms. Bank accounts are basic financial plumbing. They determine whether a regulated VASP can hold client money, reconcile flows, satisfy due diligence, and bring activity into monitored channels.
The HKMA register lists both with effective dates of April 10, 2026. That moves the jurisdiction from policy design to named licensed issuers, while leaving the business-launch and user-adoption tests ahead.
The early map is straightforward:
Jurisdiction
2026 signal
Rail being tested
Open test
Israel
Bits of Gold approval statement
Local-currency stablecoin
Issuance, redemption, and user uptake
Pakistan
SBP Circular Letter No. 10
Bank accounts for licensed VASPs
PVARA licensing and bank controls
Hong Kong
HKMA stablecoin issuer licenses
Named licensed issuers
Launches and market use
Japan, UK, EU
Rulemaking and implementation clocks
Market conduct and authorization
How rules behave under stress
UAE, South Korea
Payment-token and merchant-payment activity
Settlement and checkout rails
Scope, transaction flow, and adoption
Rulebooks are becoming operating layers
The same movement shows up in conduct rules. Japan’s Financial Services Agency has published materials pointing toward a shift from Payment Services Act treatment to Financial Instruments and Exchange Act-style oversight for crypto-assets.
The working-group report recommends information provision, crypto-asset service-provider controls, market-abuse rules, insider-trading rules, SESC powers, and stronger user protection. The FSA’s weekly review also notes draft Acts submitted to the Diet tied to FIEA and PSA amendments.
Japan’s signal is about classification and conduct. Crypto assets are being pulled toward a framework where disclosure, surveillance, and misconduct rules shape participation. That makes access conditional on behavior, supervision, and accountability.
It also shows why regulatory design can be a form of infrastructure. Markets use law as a routing layer when participants need to know who can list assets, who can custody them, who can market them, and which forms of trading behavior create liability.
The UK is building a similar operating layer with a longer runway. The FCA says firms that want to carry on new regulated cryptoasset activities can apply from Sept. 30, 2026 to Feb. 28, 2027.
The new regime is expected to come into force on Oct. 25, 2027. A related consultation notice shows the regulator moving through authorization, supervision, consumer-duty, custody, prudential, and market-abuse work.
Europe already has the broader framework in place. ESMA says MiCA establishes uniform rules for crypto-assets covering transparency, disclosure, authorization, supervision, consumer information, market integrity, and financial stability.
A broader global regulatory map has already shown regulation moving as a multi-market process. The 2026 layer adds a sharper point: rulebooks are starting to decide how crypto products enter ordinary financial channels.
The UAE adds a payment-token example, but scope remains the constraint. The Central Bank’s Payment Token Services Regulation provides the rulebook for payment-token activity, while a February CBUAE register provides a public check on licensed entities.
Separately, an ADX-hosted release says IHC, Sirius, and FAB received CBUAE approval to launch the dirham-backed DDSC on ADI Chain for institutional payments, settlement, treasury, and trade flows.
For now, the evidence points to a regulated payment-token framework and institutional settlement ambition; broad retail usage would need separate evidence.
South Korea adds a merchant layer. Crypto.com and KG Inicis said in March that they would integrate Crypto.com Pay across KG Inicis’s merchant network for foreign travelers and K-commerce users, with merchants able to receive fiat or digital assets.
South Korea’s K Bank partnership with Ripple points to another rail where bank and payments activity intersects with crypto. Both examples still need transaction data.
Their relevance is that they move the adoption debate toward checkout, settlement, remittance, and consumer-facing access.
The US-centered interpretation remains powerful because the numbers are large. On April 29, total crypto market capitalization stood near $2.59 trillion, with Bitcoin around $1.56 trillion.
Dollar stablecoins still dominate the working liquidity layer, with Tether‘s 24-hour volume near $111.50 billion and USDC near $47.84 billion.
Those figures explain why US policy and dollar rails keep pulling attention. The dollar stablecoin system is already large. US capital markets supply legitimacy at scale.
The CLARITY Act stablecoin fight shows that the US debate is also about who captures the economics of digital dollars. That benchmark remains essential, because global crypto infrastructure still depends heavily on dollar liquidity.
Usage data complicates that benchmark. Chainalysis said adjusted stablecoin economic volume reached $28 trillion in 2025, with a baseline projection of $719 trillion by 2035 and a catalyst scenario approaching $1.5 quadrillion.
As projections, those figures are scenario math rather than proof of future payment flows. Their direction changes the operating question: stablecoins are being evaluated as payments infrastructure, treasury infrastructure, and settlement infrastructure, alongside their role as trading collateral.
The Chainalysis adoption work shows why emerging markets sit near the center of that debate. It ranked India first, followed by the US, Pakistan, Vietnam, and Brazil, and described adoption as broad-based across income brackets.
It also tied durable adoption to on-ramps, regulatory clarity, and financial and digital infrastructure. Those are the variables being tested by Pakistan’s banking circular and by local-currency stablecoin efforts such as BILS.
The IMF adds the risk side. Its March paper on stablecoin inflows and FX spillovers finds that stablecoin flows can affect parity deviations, local currency depreciation, dollar premia, and financial stability.
Put simply, stablecoins become more consequential once they start behaving like a segment of the FX market.
That creates the live policy tension. Local-currency stablecoins can help keep domestic units relevant in on-chain finance. Banking access can pull VASPs into monitored channels.
Payment integrations can move crypto from portfolio exposure to checkout and settlement. Each rail also creates new supervisory demands around reserves, redemption, money laundering controls, market abuse, and currency pressure.
The evidence points to a specific split. US ETFs and Wall Street adoption have helped financialize crypto by improving access to exposure. The harder adoption test is happening where regulators decide whether crypto can touch local money, bank accounts, merchants, and FX markets.
That test is still early. BILS needs issuance and usage. Pakistan needs licensed VASPs operating through bank accounts. Hong Kong’s new licensees need launches. Japan, the UK, and the EU need rules that work under market stress.
The UAE needs clean issuer and register mapping. South Korea needs merchant activity beyond announcements.
If those signals appear, the global crypto map will look less like a US-led investment-product cycle and more like a set of regional financial systems absorbing crypto under local rules. If they fail to appear, the dollar and US capital markets will keep doing most of the work.
The next test is usage, measured against attention.
Washington is turning stablecoins into regulated payment instruments while trying to keep issuer-paid yield away from holders. That combination changesthe economics of digital dollars and puts the value of user balances up for grabs across the intermediary stack.
The GENIUS Act bars permitted payment stablecoin issuers and foreign payment stablecoin issuers from paying holders any form of interest or yield solely for holding, using, or retaining a payment stablecoin.
The FDIC’s April 7 proposal would turn parts of that law into operating standards for FDIC-supervised issuers, including reserves, redemption, capital, risk management, custody, pass-through insurance, and tokenized-deposit treatment.
That leaves a practical question for a market that reached roughly $320 billion in stablecoin supply in mid-April. If holders cannot receive direct issuer-paid yield, the value created by tokenized dollars still has to land somewhere.
The redistribution runs through the operating stack. The fight shifts to issuers, exchanges, wallets, custodians, banks, asset managers, card networks, and tokenized-deposit providers. They are the parties positioned to collect reserve income, distribution payments, custody fees, payment fees, settlement benefits, loyalty economics, or deposit economics.
The rulebook pushes yield into the plumbing
The stablecoin framework begins with reserves. GENIUS requires permitted issuers to maintain identifiable reserves backing outstanding payment stablecoins at least 1:1, with reserve categories that include cash, bank deposits, short-term Treasuries, certain repo arrangements, government money market funds, and limited tokenized reserve forms.
It also requires reserve disclosures and redemption policies, restricts reserve reuse, and calls for capital, liquidity, risk management, AML, and sanctions controls.
That makes compliant payment stablecoins look more like regulated cash-management products than free-form crypto instruments. Issuers can hold large pools of income-producing assets. At the same time, the statute blocks those issuers from paying stablecoin holders direct interest or yield merely for holding or using the token.
The economic trade-off looked uneven in the White House’s April 8 yield-prohibition note, which estimated a baseline $2.1 billion increase in bank lending from eliminating stablecoin yield, equal to a 0.02% lending effect, alongside an $800 million net welfare cost.
The same note said affiliate or third-party arrangements could remain unless CLARITY variants close that channel.
That caveat is where the post-CLARITY money map starts. A direct issuer-yield ban controls the issuer-holder relationship. It leaves open the harder economic question of how platforms, partners, payment apps, and bank structures treat the same value once it moves through distribution or product design.
CryptoSlate has already explored how the CLARITY fight is tied to stablecoin yield, regulatory control, market structure, and banking-sector pressure.
The commercial layer asks whether the law captures only the obvious form of yield, or also the ways a platform can turn stablecoin economics into something that feels like rewards, pricing power, or bundled financial service access.
The split runs through two layers. One side of the stack is statutory and prudential: reserve assets, redemption rights, capital standards, and supervision. The other side is commercial: distribution, wallet placement, exchange balances, merchant pricing, and settlement liquidity.
The policy debate becomes sharper when those layers are separated, because a ban at the issuer level can still leave value moving through the rest of the stack.
Issuers and exchanges already show the money trail
One clear example is USDC. Circle’s public filings describe a business built around reserve income, distribution costs, and partner economics. Its 2025 Form 10-K says Coinbase supports USDC usage across key products and that Circle makes payments to Coinbase tied principally to net reserve income from USDC.
The mechanics are more explicit in Circle’s S-1/A. The payment base is generated from reserves backing the stablecoin after management fees and other expenses.
Circle keeps an issuer portion, Circle and Coinbase receive allocations tied to stablecoins held in their own custodial products or managed wallets, and Coinbase receives 50% of the remaining payment base after approved participant payments.
That structure is the money map in miniature. A holder may see a stable dollar token. In the reserve and distribution structure, the reserve yield can move through issuer retention, platform-balance economics, ecosystem incentives, distribution agreements, and payments to approved participants.
Coinbase’s own filing shows why that channel is economically meaningful. Its 2025 Form 10-K reported stablecoin revenue as a business line and said a hypothetical 150 basis-point move in average rates applied to daily USDC reserve balances held by Circle would have affected stablecoin revenue by $540 million for 2025.
The point is specific: a large platform with distribution, balances, liquidity, and a deep issuer relationship can capture economics that the statute keeps away from holders in direct form.
Asset managers and custodial infrastructure sit on the same map. BlackRock’s Circle Reserve Fund showed a 3.60% seven-day SEC yield as of April 27, while Circle’s filing describes BlackRock as a preferred reserve-management partner and discusses the reserve-management relationship.
Stablecoin economics can accrue to the reserve stack, the manager, the custodian, the issuer, and the distributor before a user ever sees a token in a wallet.
Intermediary
Economic lane
User-facing form
Policy constraint
Issuer
Reserve income and issuance scale
Stable dollar token and redemption promise
Issuer-paid holder yield is barred under GENIUS
Exchange or wallet
Distribution payments, platform balances, loyalty incentives
Rewards, fee offsets, product access, liquidity
Third-party reward treatment remains the live CLARITY fork
Custodian or asset manager
Reserve management, custody, safekeeping
Operational trust and reserve transparency
FDIC and issuer rules shape permitted reserve and custody practices
Payment integration raises intermediation and resiliency questions
Bank or tokenized-deposit provider
Deposit economics and insured-bank balance-sheet activity
Deposit-like digital dollars with bank treatment
FDIC says qualifying tokenized deposits would be treated as deposits
Wallets and payment rails turn yield into product economics
The Fed’s April 8 FEDS Note gives the policy version of that table. It identifies complex intermediation chains, vertical integration, and accelerating retail adoption through wallet partnerships as structural stablecoin vulnerabilities.
It also points to integration with payment networks, banks, retail applications, broker-dealer funding, and card networks.
The Fed is studying a market where the issuer is only one node. Wallet providers, infrastructure firms, payment processors, brokers, banks, and card networks can all sit between the reserve asset and the user experience.
The company described instant crypto-to-stablecoin or fiat conversion, a 0.99% merchant transaction rate through July 31, 2026, support for more than 100 cryptocurrencies and wallets, and PYUSD rewards for funds held on PayPal at the time of the announcement.
That is a different economic shape from direct issuer yield. The holder sees payment access, merchant savings, wallet connectivity, or rewards attached to a platform. The platform can monetize conversion, distribution, customer balances, merchant pricing, and product stickiness.
Visa’s December 2025 USDC settlement launch shows the card-network version of the same intermediary lane. Visa said U.S. issuer and acquirer partners could settle VisaNet obligations in USDC, with Cross River and Lead Bank among initial banking participants.
It described more than $3.5 billion in annualized stablecoin settlement volume as of Nov. 30, 2025, and framed the product around seven-day settlement, liquidity timing, treasury automation, and operational resiliency.
Those benefits accrue through payment networks, issuing banks, acquiring banks, fintech partners, and corporate treasury operations. The user-facing return is payment access, faster settlement, or better pricing rather than issuer-paid yield.
That distinction is central to the policy fight. A yield ban can reduce the visible consumer return on a token while allowing platforms to compete through pricing, access, loyalty, and settlement benefits. The economics remain, but the claim on them becomes mediated by the platform relationship.
Banks gain leverage if the third-party channel closes
The banking lobby understands that channel. The Bank Policy Institute argued in August 2025 that GENIUS’s issuer-yield prohibition could be undermined if exchanges, affiliates, or distribution partners are still able to pay interest indirectly on stablecoins.
BPI framed that as a loophole that could increase deposit-flight risk and weaken credit creation.
Crypto trade groups answered from the other side. Their August 2025 response argued that third-party rewards are competitive consumer benefits rather than evasion of the statute.
The dispute determines whether the post-GENIUS stablecoin market becomes a platform-rewards market or a bank-protected payments market.
The FDIC proposal adds the second bank lane. It says tokenized deposits that satisfy the statutory definition of deposit would be treated no differently from other deposits under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
That gives banks a cleaner argument if stablecoin rewards face stricter limits: deposit tokens can keep the economics inside the banking perimeter, where interest, insurance, and lending relationships already have a legal home.
CLARITY’s market-structure section-by-section summary points to another intermediary layer. Digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers would face registration, listing, custody, segregation, disclosure, and customer-election requirements.
Customers could elect into blockchain services such as staking under conditions, while access to the exchange could not be conditioned on that election.
Those provisions reinforce the same intermediary shift by moving economic activity into supervised channels. The contested issue is who owns distribution, customer balances, wallet access, custody, settlement, and optional services.
As of press time, USDT was around $189.71 billion in market capitalization and USDC around $77.63 billion.
CryptoSlate rankings also showed USDe around $3.79 billion, PYUSD around $3.42 billion, and RLUSD around $1.6 billion. That scale means the issuer-yield rule lands first on the largest payment-stablecoin rails.
The next test is the definition of indirect yield. If lawmakers and regulators allow third-party rewards, the advantage sits with platforms that own users, balances, payments, and distribution. If they limit those arrangements, banks and tokenized-deposit providers get a stronger path to keep digital-dollar returns inside deposit products.
The emerging U.S. framework decides whether stablecoin holders can receive yield and how much of the economics of digital dollars becomes visible to users. The rest is absorbed by the intermediaries that move, custody, package, and settle those dollars.
The European Union has been cautioned that the restrictive nature of the MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) regulation will harm the bloc’s global competitiveness when it comes to stablecoin development and proliferation.
Despite the digital euro facing heavy skepticism, euro-dominated stablecoins have experienced an increase in popularity due to increased regulatory clarity. Meanwhile, the digital euro’s pilot has been delayed until late 2027, as the ECB tries to cut costs by using open standards and officials refuse to disclose the project’s current spending.
Is the digital euro failing before it even launches?
A new report from Blockchain for Europe, co-authored by former ECB Director General Dr. Ulrich Bindseil, warns that the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework is too restrictive.
The paper argues that the overly strict requirements are weakening the EU’s competitiveness and pushing business outside the bloc, risking placing Europe on the wrong side of the regulatory “Laffer curve.”
Erwin Voloder, Director of Research & Strategy at Blockchain for Europe, is proposing targeted reforms to ensure MiCA supports a globally relevant euro stablecoin ecosystem.
Policymakers are being urged to consolidate recent growth in digital assets rather than relying on a central bank digital currency (CBDC) that critics argue is dead on arrival.
The ECB recently signed agreements with three European standards bodies, namely European Card Payment Cooperation (ECPC), nexo standards, and the Berlin Group. The goal is to reuse existing open payment standards for contactless payments, merchant system links, and alias-based transactions.
The ECB argues that using open standards will cut adoption costs for banks and merchants, ensuring a uniform user experience across the euro area.
ECB Executive Board member Piero Cipollone stated that this “provides a European free alternative to current proprietary standards,” making it easier for new providers to enter the market.
Cryptopolitan recently reported that the Cato Institute’s Nicholas Anthony was denied access to spending records after the bank refused to process his request because he was not an EU citizen.
A subsequent request from a European citizen was also rejected. Based on limited public figures, estimates suggest at least €1.12 billion (approximately $1.28 billion) has already been set aside for the project, with another €2.62 billion (approximately $2.99 billion) expected in the launch year.
A pilot for the digital euro is not expected to start until the second half of 2027, with a 12-month timeline involving only a limited number of banks and merchants.
Meanwhile, the ECB has confirmed that if issued, the digital euro will be free for basic services, but the central bank has no plans to let people make programmed payments for regular bills to avoid competing with commercial banks.
Are euro stablecoins actually taking over the market?
According to TRM Labs’ Q1 2026 Global Crypto Adoption Index, global retail crypto activity slowed for the second consecutive quarter. Total volume fell to $979 billion, down 11% from the previous year.
However, data shows that the volume of euro-denominated stablecoins from January 2025 to March 2026 grew from $69 million to $777 million. TRM Labs attributes this growth directly to MiCA regulatory clarity, which has reduced uncertainty for issuers and users.
EUR stablecoin volume has exploded since January 2025. Source: TRM Labs
Circle’s EURC now holds over 50% of the euro stablecoin market share after securing an early French EMI license, allowing it to operate across all 27 EU member states. Cryptopolitan reported that transaction volume for EURC has surged over 1,100%, while Société Générale-FORGE’s EURCV has seen growth of over 340%.
EUR stablecoins have grown in capitalization relative to USD stablecoins. Source: TRM Labs
Ten major European banks, including BNP Paribas, ING, and UniCredit have formed a consortium to launch a euro-backed stablecoin by mid-2026 through a new entity called Qivalis.
The consortium has already applied for an electronic money institution license with the Dutch Central Bank to provide a regulated, euro-pegged alternative to U.S. dollar stablecoins.
Your bank is using your money. You’re getting the scraps. Watch our free video on becoming your own bank
