BeInCrypto Global

A new UK tax reporting rule that came into force in January requires crypto exchanges to hand over detailed user data to HMRC and to tax authorities in over 70 countries. Industry experts are now warning that the framework may be putting ordinary crypto holders in physical danger.

The concern is not unprecedented. In France, a nearly identical data-sharing regime has already been linked to a wave of violent crimes targeting crypto holders.

What CARF Actually Requires

The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, known as CARF, is an OECD-designed global standard that the UK formally embedded into law two months ago.

The law legally requires any UK-based crypto exchange or custodial wallet provider to collect and annually report a standardised set of user data to HMRC, the UK’s tax authority.

That data includes full name, address, date of birth, tax residency, taxpayer identification number, and a comprehensive record of every purchase, sale, exchange, and transfer a user makes.

So far, 76 countries have committed to the framework, with that number still growing. From 2027, HMRC will begin sharing that information automatically with tax authorities in jurisdictions that have also implemented CARF.

Major platforms like Binance and Kraken operating in the UK are among those now obligated to report.

Regulators argue the framework closes a gap that has long enabled crypto tax evasion. Exchanges must also notify users that their data may be shared with foreign governments.

The France Precedent

Freddie New, chief policy officer at Bitcoin Policy UK, argued that CARF creates something far more dangerous than a tax database. In his view, it creates a target list.

Security researchers have a term for what happens next. 

A wrench attack is when criminals use physical violence to force a crypto holder to hand over their assets. Once criminals threaten a person or their family, the technology offers no protection. Unlike a hacked bank account, nobody can freeze, reverse, or recover a coerced crypto transfer.

“A bad actor that got hold of that data would immediately be able to sort it very quickly by softness of target and by amount of money,” New said during a recent legal and regulatory panel hosted by BeInCrypto. “And then they can merely pack their bags and go off and physically harm people.”

He pointed to France as a country that has already lived this scenario. France operates a similar crypto reporting regime, and it has recorded a sharp rise in violent crimes targeting crypto holders in recent years. 

The attacks have included kidnappings, finger amputations, and torture. Investigations also identified at least one corrupt employee at the French tax authority who allegedly sold the personal data of crypto holders to criminal networks.

The problem is not confined to France. 

A July 2025 report by blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis found that 2025 was on track to record potentially twice as many physical attacks on crypto holders as any previous year. 

Analysts noted a clear correlation between rising Bitcoin prices and the frequency of violent incidents. The firm also cautioned that many attacks go unreported, suggesting the true figures are likely higher.

What makes the situation particularly difficult to resolve is that CARF was never a British policy design to begin with.

A Global Framework, A Local Vulnerability

CARF is not a uniquely British invention, and that is precisely what makes it so difficult to challenge. All 27 EU member states adopted it through a parallel directive, known as DAC8, which also came into force in January.

Dion Seymour, crypto tax director at Andersen and a former HMRC crypto policy lead, noted during the same panel that the constraints are structural. 

“The problem is now CARF has already been created by the OECD,” Seymour said. “It’s been ratified by the G20 around the world.” 

That ratification, he explained, limits how much any single country can unilaterally change.

For now, the framework is live, data collection is underway, and exchanges have started reporting. The question of whether that data stays in the right hands remains to be seen in the UK.

Meta has walked back its decision to pull Horizon Worlds from Quest VR headsets, just one day after announcing the platform’s shutdown. The reversal, however, does little to mask a broader and ongoing retreat from the metaverse vision that once defined the company.

The about-face comes as Meta doubles down on artificial intelligence and mobile experiences, redirecting billions in capital away from the immersive virtual reality push that led it to rename the entire company in 2021.

Meta Reverses Course on VR Shutdown

A day after announcing it would remove Horizon Worlds from Quest headsets by June 15, Meta reversed course.

Chief technology officer Andrew Bosworth confirmed the decision in an Instagram story, citing fan feedback. He stated that existing VR games would remain accessible for the foreseeable future.

The original plan would have made Horizon Worlds exclusively available through its standalone mobile app, which launched in 2023.

Under the updated stance, worlds built using the Horizon Unity game engine will remain playable in VR, though no new games will be added to the platform.

“Most of our energy is going towards mobile and the Meta Horizon Engine there,” Bosworth said.

However, the partial reversal does not change the underlying trajectory. 

A Metaverse Vision Running on Empty

Reality Labs, Meta’s VR and metaverse division, posted $19.2 billion in operating losses in 2025 alone. Cumulative losses have approached $80 billion since late 2020, while annual revenue has totaled just $2.2 billion.

Horizon Worlds never surpassed a few hundred thousand monthly users, a stark contrast to Roblox, which regularly reports over 100 million daily active users.

Meta has instead guided capital expenditure of $115 to $135 billion for 2026, with the bulk aimed at AI infrastructure. In January, the company eliminated roughly 1,000 Reality Labs positions and shut down several VR game studios.

The metaverse may still be technically alive, but Meta has clearly stopped betting on it.

The World Gold Council (WGC), the organization that helped launch the first US gold-backed exchange-traded fund (ETF) in 2004, proposed a shared infrastructure framework on March 19 designed to standardize the tokenized gold market currently dominated by Tether and Paxos.

The initiative, detailed in a white paper co-authored with Boston Consulting Group (BCG), introduces “Gold as a Service,” an open platform connecting physical gold custody with digital issuance systems. If adopted, it could reshape a $4.9 billion market that crypto-native firms built from scratch.

Tether Gold’s Head Start May Not Be Enough Anymore

Tokenized gold has grown entirely through individual issuers solving their own custody issues.

Tether houses reserves for Tether Gold (XAUT) in a Swiss vault that once operated as a Cold War-era nuclear bunker.

Paxos parks reserves PAX Gold (PAXG) in London through vaults managed by the security firm Brink’s.

These arrangements work, but they create fragmentation. Each product has its own custody pipeline, audit process, and redemption framework. That limits fungibility across products and raises the barrier to entry for new issuers.

The WGC’s platform would standardize those processes, including custody coordination, reconciliation, compliance, and redemption, into a shared backend that any issuer can plug into.

Seeing the WGC’s standard on a gold token would signal to investors that it has verified physical backing.

A $163 Billion Track Record

The WGC is not a newcomer to making gold accessible. It helped establish SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) in 2004, the first US-listed ETF backed by physical gold. GLD now carries a market cap of $163 billion.

Market capitalization of SPDR Gold Shares (GLD). Source: Companies Market Cap

Tokenized gold, by contrast, remains small. XAUT ($2.6B) and PAXG (2.2B) have a combined market cap of $4.9 billion after five years on the market, according to CoinGecko.

The gap between the two formats reflects structural barriers that the WGC believes its platform can remove.

Gold does not generate income while in storage, unlike cash and US Treasuries that back stablecoins. Vault costs, insurance, and logistics make it expensive to launch each new tokenized product independently.

The WGC argues that shared infrastructure changes the math.

What It Means for Tether and Paxos

The WGC’s framework does not target XAUT or PAXG directly. It positions itself as a complementary infrastructure for new entrants.

However, standardization inherently challenges first movers who built competitive advantages through proprietary systems.

If hundreds of issuers can launch gold tokens using the WGC’s backend, the custody moats that Tether and Paxos built become less defensible.

Continuous audits, interoperability across platforms, and consistent redemption rights built into shared infrastructure would raise the floor for the entire market.

The WGC has 29 member companies across the gold mining industry and describes itself as a neutral convener.

It called on “innovators and market participants from inside and outside the gold industry” to help build the platform.

No timeline or implementation roadmap was disclosed. The proposal remains conceptual, and its success depends on industry-wide adoption and alignment across jurisdictions.

BCG Managing Director Matthias Tauber framed the challenge directly. The question, he said, is no longer whether gold will go digital.

“The question is no longer whether gold will be digital; it’s how it can participate in modern financial systems without compromising physical integrity. Together with the World Gold Council, we explored what it takes to build trusted rails for digital gold, at market scale,” read an excerpt in the press release, citing Tauber.

For Tether and Paxos, the answer to that question will determine whether their five-year head start becomes a lasting advantage or a legacy system.

Hyperliquid (HYPE) is trading around $39.71 after breaking out of a multi-month symmetrical triangle on the 2-day chart, with a measured move pointing 68% higher to $52.27.

The breakout follows a sustained compression between converging trendlines dating back to late January. The token is up roughly 19% over the past week, but a key momentum indicator now contradicts the bullish price structure.

Bearish Divergence Signals Weak Demand For HYPE

The Chaikin Money Flow (CMF) on the 2D chart is currently reading -0.08, placing it below the zero line. This negative reading indicates that capital is flowing out of HYPE, not into it, despite the price trading near recent highs above $39.

CMF is forming a bearish divergence with HYPE. While price has formed higher highs since early March, CMF has continued to trend downward along a descending trendline visible since late January. That divergence warns that the breakout may lack the institutional buying pressure needed to sustain momentum into the $47–$52 zone.

Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.

HYPE CMF. Source: TradingView

For the signal to flip bullish, CMF would need to close back above 0.00 and hold. Until that happens, the indicator paints the current rally as a liquidity-driven move rather than one backed by genuine demand accumulation.

Will The Short Liquidation Cluster Fuel or Stall the Next Move?

The liquidation map for Binance HYPE/USDT Perpetual over the past 30 days reveals a significant short liquidation cluster between $45 and $48. At the $47 level specifically, cumulative short liquidation leverage stands at $18.30 Million.

This cluster acts as a magnet. If HYPE pushes above $43–$44 with volume, cascading short liquidations in that $45–$48 range could inject fast-moving buy pressure and propel the token upward. That level also sits directly inside the densest liquidation band.

HYPE Liquidation Map. Source: Coinglass

However, the current price at $39.61 also sits at a notable point on the map where a large concentration of long liquidations was recently cleared. That suggests the immediate overhead is less crowded than the $47–$48 zone, but getting there requires pushing through the $40–$43 with conviction.

HYPE Price Needs To Breach This Barrier

HYPE broke above a symmetrical triangle that had formed between mid-January and early March. The pattern’s lower trendline acted as rising support from the $20.48 low, while a descending upper trendline capped each rally attempt until the breakout in early March.

The measured move from this triangle targets the Fibonacci 1.786 extension at $52.27, representing a 68% gain from current levels near $39.71. The chart also marks an intermediate target at the 1.5 extension of $47.40, which aligns closely with the heavy short liquidation cluster identified on the liquidation map.

HYPE Price Analysis. Source: TradingView

HYPE recently saw Hyperliquid introduce prediction markets and options support in February 2026 — both developments that could serve as catalysts if broader market conditions turn supportive. If $38.42 holds and CMF recovers above zero, the path to $47.40 opens. A breakdown below that support puts the entire breakout thesis in question.

The critical support level is the Fibonacci 1.0 retracement at $38.42. A daily close below that level would signal a failed breakout and likely send HYPE back toward the 0.786 level at $34.59. Above that, the 1.236 extension at $42.66 is the first resistance to clear before the $47 zone becomes accessible.

Republican senators on the Senate Banking Committee reportedly pressed White House Crypto Council Executive Director Patrick Witt on Thursday to publicly release a study by the Council of Economic Advisers examining stablecoin yield and its potential impact on bank deposits.

Sources familiar with the report say its findings lean positive for crypto, potentially undermining the banking lobby’s core argument that stablecoin rewards threaten deposit flight and bank lending.

Where’s This Report That Could Reshape the Stablecoin Yield Debate?

Senator Thom Tillis and other Banking Committee Republicans confronted Witt during a closed-door meeting about the study, which lawmakers on the committee have been briefed on but which remains classified.

Crypto In America podcast host Eleanor Terrett reported that there has been a push for weeks within both the White House and the Senate to make the findings public.

Allegedly, the report includes economic analysis from the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), the same body whose acting chair, Pierre Yared, said publicly at the DC Blockchain Summit on March 17 that the effects of stablecoin rewards on the banking system would be “small” while the effects on stablecoin adoption “could be potentially large.”

If the full study confirms that framing, it would directly contradict the position of the American Bankers Association and allied trade groups, which have argued for months that any form of stablecoin yield would trigger deposit outflows and weaken lending capacity.

A Standard Chartered estimate previously projected that stablecoins could drive roughly $500 billion in deposit outflows by 2028.

Reportedly, some GOP senators are planning direct calls to the White House to press for the report’s release.

Bessent Signals a ‘Regulatory Reset’ for Banks

Hours before the Senate meeting, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent praised a new Basel capital proposal from the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

The proposal simplifies and eases capital requirements for large banks.

Bessent called the previous administration’s approach an attempt to “reverse-engineer ever-higher capital requirements without rhyme or reason.”

He described the new proposal as part of a broader “regulatory reset” that fosters “a level playing field for banks of all sizes.”

“Today’s outdated capital requirements are needlessly complex and misaligned with their actual objective. Rather than solving for safety and soundness, they are pushing lending out of the regulated banking system while simultaneously impeding economic growth,” wrote Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

The timing is significant.

The administration is loosening bank capital rules while simultaneously sitting on a study that reportedly shows stablecoin yield poses minimal risk to bank deposits.

Together, these moves could remove the two pillars supporting the banking lobby’s opposition to the CLARITY Act.

The Clock Is Ticking

The stablecoin yield dispute has stalled the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act since January, when the Senate Banking Committee postponed its first markup.

Senator Lummis said earlier on March 19 that “major light bulbs were switched on” during the same meeting, describing an unexpected path forward.

Yet Witt himself left the room visibly frustrated and declined to comment, suggesting the emerging compromise may not align with the White House’s preferred approach.

Rep. Dusty Johnson, chair of the House Agriculture Digital Assets Subcommittee, estimated the Senate has roughly six weeks left to pass the bill before midterm election politics freeze legislative activity.

Releasing the CEA study could break the deadlock. Keeping it hidden preserves the ambiguity that has given the banking lobby room to stall.

Which path the White House chooses in the coming days may determine whether the crypto industry’s top legislative priority survives or dies on the Senate floor.

Morgan Stanley filed its second S-1 amendment with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin (BTC) Trust, a spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) set to trade under ticker MSBT on NYSE Arca.

If approved, MSBT would be the first spot Bitcoin ETF issued by a major US bank, marking a shift from distributing third-party products like BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) to capturing management fees directly.

Morgan Stanley Moves From Distributor to Issuer

Morgan Stanley began allowing its financial advisors to recommend Bitcoin ETFs to clients in August 2024, initially directing them toward existing products from BlackRock and Fidelity.

By early 2026, the bank’s more than 15,000 advisors had been authorized to proactively pitch Bitcoin ETFs rather than wait for client requests.

The economics explain the pivot. By issuing its own ETF, Morgan Stanley captures management fees estimated between 0.20% and 0.30% instead of earning distribution commissions on a competitor’s product.

The bank manages approximately $1.8 trillion in wealth management assets, making even a small allocation shift significant.

The updated filing confirms key operational details that earlier versions left open.

Share prices will be calculated daily using the CoinDesk Bitcoin Benchmark at the 4 PM New York settlement rate.

The trust will seed with 50,000 initial shares, generating roughly $1 million in starting proceeds.

Custody Split Between Coinbase and BNY Mellon

Morgan Stanley divided custody responsibilities between two institutions.

Coinbase Custody Trust Company will handle physical Bitcoin storage in offline cold wallets.

Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon) will serve as cash custodian, administrator, and transfer agent.

The fund will support both cash and in-kind creations and redemptions, a structure designed for institutional authorized participants who need flexibility in how they enter and exit positions.

Morgan Stanley is not stopping at Bitcoin. The bank filed for a spot Ethereum (ETH) ETF on January 7, 2026, which will include staking provisions. A Solana (SOL) Trust filed one day earlier plans to stake a portion of its holdings and distribute rewards to shareholders quarterly.

A Crowded Queue With 126 Applications

The SEC is currently reviewing more than 126 pending crypto ETF applications as of March 2026. Morgan Stanley enters a field where competition is accelerating rapidly.

Goldman Sachs acquired Bitcoin ETF issuer Innovator for $2 billion in 2025 and now holds $2.4 billion in crypto exchange-traded products.

Merrill Lynch cleared its wealth advisors to recommend spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2026.

Fidelity amended its Ethereum ETF filing in March to add staking.

Eight XRP ETF applications remain pending, with analysts estimating approval could unlock $5 billion to $7 billion in immediate inflows.

JPMorgan analysts project that pension funds and endowments could drive up to $130 billion in annual inflows into regulated crypto products during 2026.

The management fee, which the filing left undisclosed, will determine how competitive MSBT is against BlackRock’s IBIT at 0.25% and Fidelity’s FBTC at 0.25%.

Whether Morgan Stanley prices below, at, or above that threshold will signal how aggressively the bank intends to compete for assets it currently helps its rivals collect.

US Senator Cynthia Lummis reportedly told reporters that “major light bulbs were switched on” during a closed-door Senate Republican meeting on crypto market structure legislation on Thursday, describing an unexpected path forward on the stalled stablecoin yield debate.

White House Crypto Council Executive Director Patrick Witt, who attended the same meeting, reportedly emerged looking frustrated and declined to comment. The contrasting reactions suggest the compromise may not align with the administration’s preferred position.

Crypto Bill’s Stablecoin Yield Compromise May Clash With the White House Position

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, commonly known as the CLARITY Act, has been stalled since January when the Senate Banking Committee postponed its first markup session.

The core dispute pits the crypto industry against the banking lobby over whether platforms can offer yield or rewards on stablecoin holdings.

Banks, led by the American Bankers Association, argue that stablecoin rewards function like deposit interest and threaten traditional banking’s core business model.

Crypto firms counter that the GENIUS Act, signed into law last summer, only barred stablecoin issuers from paying yield, not affiliated platforms or exchanges.

Senator Lummis, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee’s crypto subcommittee, reportedly told reporters that yield negotiations are making progress but remain in a “delicate state.”

Reportedly, she described the focus as shifting away from imminent legislative text toward identifying “who we need to be reaching out to.”

That language signals the breakthrough may involve new stakeholders or compromise partners that neither side had previously considered.

“I think some major light bulbs were switched on during this meeting. So, there’s a path forward that is not a path that I would have expected to encounter when I walked in the room,” wrote Eleanor Terrett, citing Sen. Cynthia Lummis.

Two Smiles, One Frown, and No Text

According to Terrett, host of the Crypto In America podcast, the body language of leaving the room told a split story.

Lummis was openly optimistic.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott emerged smiling but declined to comment, citing his policy of not speaking to reporters in hallways.

Witt, the White House’s point person on crypto legislation, offered nothing.

Just one day earlier, Lummis had told reporters she believed the bill could advance from committee by late April and pass the Senate before year-end.

She indicated that the yield compromise would ban crypto platforms from using banking terminology such as “interest” or “deposit yield” and would prohibit tying rewards to the size of a user’s holdings.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has reportedly shown a willingness to concede on the yield language.

The company’s stablecoin-related revenue accounted for nearly 20% of its total revenue in Q3 2025, making the outcome of these negotiations material to its business.

Coinbase Q3 2025 Earnings. Source: Coinbase Shareholder Letter

The Senate’s window is tightening. Midterm elections later this year will compress floor time, and the Iran war has already consumed significant legislative bandwidth.

Prediction markets currently price the odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law in 2026 at 61%.

Odds of Clarity Act Passing in 2026. Source: Polymarket

Whatever switched on in that room still has to survive in daylight. No bill text has emerged, and the White House’s visible frustration suggests the “unexpected path” may require concessions the administration did not plan to make.

Silver price is showing clear signs of weakness even as market sentiment remains tilted to the bullish side. While options data suggests traders still expect upside, price structure and demand signals tell a different story.

This creates a key conflict. Can bullish positioning hold, or is silver moving toward a fresh low?

Price Breakdown Signals Downside Risk as Structure Weakens

Silver price, using OANDA: XAGUSD as a spot proxy, has broken below a head-and-shoulders pattern with an upward-sloping neckline. This breakdown occurred around March 13 and has since led to continued downside pressure.

An upward-sloping neckline usually reflects steady buying support. When that support fails, it often leads to sharper declines. That is what silver is now showing. The projected move from this structure points to nearly a 20% drop, with a target near $66. This level sits close to recent lows, keeping further downside firmly in play.

XAG Price Structure: TradingView

At this stage, price action alone suggests that silver is no longer in a recovery phase. Instead, it is shifting into a weaker trend. But price structure alone is not enough. The next question is whether the broader market is supporting or resisting this move.

Futures Contango Shows No Urgency, Allowing Weakness to Persist

The COMEX futures structure helps answer that question. The spread between the front-month and second-month contracts (SI1 − SI2 is around -0.54) shows that silver remains in contango. This means future silver prices are higher than near-term prices.

In simple terms, the market is not rushing to buy silver now. If demand were strong, front-month contracts would trade at a premium. That would signal urgency and possibly support a rebound. Instead, traders are comfortable waiting.

Contango Brings Risk: TradingView

This lack of urgency matters. It suggests that the breakdown is not being challenged by strong demand. With futures showing no pressure to absorb selling, the weakness seen in the silver price action is more likely to continue rather than reverse. This becomes clearer when looking at where demand is actually flowing.

Gold Strength and Weak Industrial Demand Leave Silver Without Support

Silver’s weakness is not happening in isolation. It is losing support from both of its key demand drivers.

First, the gold-to-silver ratio has broken out of an inverse head-and-shoulders pattern and is holding above 65. This indicates that gold is outperforming silver. In other words, capital is moving toward gold as a safer asset, while silver is being left behind.

Gold-Silver Ratio: TradingView

At the same time, industrial demand is weakening.

BeInCrypto’s proprietary silver-to-solar lag model, which tracks silver’s performance relative to solar-driven demand, has dropped sharply. The Z-score has fallen from around +2.0 in late January (when Silver peaked at $121) to about -1.18 now.

Silver-Solar: TradingView

This shift shows that silver is no longer benefiting from its industrial use case. So, silver is now stuck between two weak forces:

Monetary demand favors gold

Industrial demand is losing momentum

With both drivers weakening, the bearish setup gains stronger support. However, despite all this, market positioning still tells a different story.

Bullish Positioning Holds, but Key Silver Price Levels Now Decide the Outcome

Options data shows that traders have not fully turned bearish.

The SLV put-call ratio remains around 0.69 for volume and 0.65 for open interest. This means call options still dominate, reflecting a mild bullish bias. The SLV put-call ratio refers to options data on the iShares Silver Trust (SLV), an exchange-traded fund that tracks silver prices and reflects investor sentiment.

Put-Call Ratio: Bar Chart

But this is not a strong conviction. It suggests that traders are still holding onto upside expectations rather than aggressively buying into strength.

This creates a mismatch. Price is weakening. Demand signals are fading. Yet positioning remains slightly bullish. That gap is where risk builds.

Now, key price levels will decide what happens next.

On the upside:

Silver needs to reclaim $75 to regain short-term strength

$78–$80 is the next resistance zone

A move above $90 signals a broader shift

A break above $96 would fully invalidate the bearish structure

Silver Price Analysis: TradingView

On the downside:

Failure to reclaim $75 opens the path toward $71

A break below $71 exposes $66

Further weakness could push silver toward $63 (the current 2026 low) and even $59

For now, the signals are clear. Silver’s structure is weak, futures show no urgency, and demand is fading. Yet bullish positioning still holds. If the silver price continues to fall, that positioning may start to unwind, adding further pressure to the downside, exposing the current 2026 low.

The crypto industry’s political machine hit a wall in Illinois this week, as millions spent by Fairshake failed to sway Democratic primary voters. The losses marked a rare and early stumble for one of the most powerful political spenders in modern US election history.

Fairshake and its affiliated political action committees (PACs) flooded Illinois races with nearly $20 million, backing candidates seen as friendly to light-touch crypto regulation. Voters largely didn’t bite.

Stratton Survives Crypto Assault

The sharpest rebuke came in the Democratic Senate primary on Tuesday, where Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton defeated her rivals despite Fairshake spending over $10 million against her. 

Stratton won the nomination to succeed retiring Sen. Dick Durbin, becoming the most expensive target of the crypto PAC’s Illinois campaign. She walked away victorious.

Fairshake and its affiliate Protect Progress also poured millions into boosting Stratton’s main rivals, US Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly. Neither prevailed. 

In Illinois House primaries, State Rep. La Shawn Ford won his race despite nearly $2.5 million in crypto spending against him. In the days leading up to his victory, Ford sent a cease-and-desist order to the PAC, demanding it stop disseminating political attack ads against him.

Fairshake did see a few wins, however. 

Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller prevailed after the PAC spent over $800,000 against her progressive rival, state Sen. Robert Peters. Former representative Melissa Bean and incumbent representative Nikki Budzinski also secured victories. 

All three are labeled “strongly supportive of crypto” on the Coinbase-backed NGO Stand With Crypto’s politician scoreboard.

A Stumble for a Usually Dominant Force

The Illinois results stand in stark contrast to Fairshake’s recent and well-documented track record of reshaping Congress. In the 2024 cycle, the PAC nearly $140 million across congressional races, toppling high-profile crypto skeptics like former Senate Banking Committee chair Sherrod Brown. 

It also helped bury Katie Porter’s California Senate bid with over $10 million in outside spending. The PAC then entered 2026 with a staggering $193 million war chest, one of the largest in the country.

However, the results in Illinois suggest that Fairshake’s core formula is not as bulletproof as its 2024 results implied. The PAC’s approach of running ads that barely reference crypto drew fierce pushback from rival campaigns and voters alike.

Public opinion on crypto regulation remains deeply unsettled among Democratic primary voters, and that uncertainty appears to be creating openings for candidates the industry opposes.

Major League Baseball (MLB) named Polymarket its exclusive prediction market exchange partner on March 19. They signed a multiyear deal reportedly worth up to $300 million alongside a first-of-its-kind agreement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The announcement landed just two days after Arizona filed the first criminal charges against Polymarket rival Kalshi, turning America’s oldest pastime into the highest-profile endorsement yet for a crypto-native industry under legal siege.

MLB’s Polymarket Deal Puts Baseball Behind Crypto in a Federal vs. State Showdown

MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred and CFTC Chairman Michael Selig signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU), the first between the federal regulator and a professional sports league.

The agreement establishes information sharing and regular discussions on market integrity related to baseball.

Manfred framed the CFTC’s federal jurisdiction as the key differentiator from state-regulated sports betting.

The distinction matters. More than 20 civil lawsuits and cease-and-desist orders from states challenge whether prediction markets fall under gambling regulations.

Arizona escalated the fight on March 17 by filing 20 criminal misdemeanor counts against Kalshi, calling it an unlicensed gambling operation.

CFTC Chairman Selig responded, calling the criminal prosecution “entirely inappropriate” and a “jurisdictional dispute.” He added that the agency was “watching this closely.”

MLB’s timing sends a signal. By signing with the CFTC and Polymarket simultaneously, the league effectively endorsed the position that prediction markets belong under federal derivatives law, not state gaming commissions.

A Crypto Platform Goes Mainstream

Polymarket operates on the Polygon blockchain and settles all trades in USDC, the stablecoin issued by Circle. Users trade yes/no outcome shares priced between $0.01 and $1.00, with prices reflecting crowd-sourced probability estimates.

The platform processed $33.4 billion in global trading volume in 2025. In October of that year, Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the operator of the New York Stock Exchange, invested $2 billion in Polymarket at a $9 billion valuation.

Under the MLB deal, Polymarket and its brokers gain exclusive access to league logos, marks, and official data distributed by Sportradar. The platform also receives promotion across MLB’s digital ecosystem and at league events.

Sources told Front Office Sports the deal could be worth $300 million over three years, though another source placed the initial figure closer to $150 million with extension options.

MLB follows the National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Soccer (MLS), and the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) in formalizing prediction market partnerships.

The National Football League (NFL), the National Basketball Association (NBA), the PGA Tour, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) have not signed similar deals.

The Kill Switch in the Fine Print

The deal includes a clause that would void the partnership if courts rule prediction markets violate state law. That provision acknowledges the legal uncertainty still surrounding the industry.

Both MLB and Polymarket agreed to restrict markets that pose integrity risks, including those tied to individual pitches, manager decisions, and umpire performance.

Polymarket will also embed integrity controls into its US rulebook to ensure the same standards are applied across all its brokers.

“Integrity was at the foundation of this deal. It wasn’t something that we figured out after the fact,” stated Ari Borod, president of sports for Polymarket (ESPN)

The irony is hard to miss.

Last summer, MLB warned its own players against using prediction markets, framing the practice as a violation of sports betting rules. Now the league is getting paid to legitimize the very platforms it once prohibited.

A bipartisan bill introduced in the House would prohibit event contracts on sports unless a state specifically permits them, and would ban prediction markets on elections entirely.

Meanwhile, a recent Ipsos poll found 61% of Americans view prediction market event contracts as closer to gambling than investing.

Whether MLB’s bet pays off hinges on a legal fight likely headed to the Supreme Court.

Conflicting federal court rulings across multiple states have created a jurisdictional split that the Court typically resolves.

Until then, Polymarket has baseball’s blessing, a federal regulator in its corner, and a kill switch in the contract just in case.

Institutions had options. The permissioned vs permissionless blockchain debate framed every decision.

Private chains offered privacy, compliance, and controlled settlement. Public chains offered composability, liquidity, and open infrastructure. As of March 19, 2026, data suggests the answer is already here. Almost $16 billion in distributed real-world asset (RWA) value sits on Ethereum.

Permissioned vs Permissionless Blockchain Debate Gets Real Numbers

Two types of on-chain asset value exist. Understanding the difference is central to the permissioned vs permissionless blockchain debate.

Distributed assets use the blockchain as a distribution layer where investors subscribe, hold, and manage assets through their own wallets. These assets are transferable and composable with lending protocols and decentralized exchanges (DEXs). Represented assets use the blockchain as a record-keeping layer for transparency and reconciliation, without enabling investor transfer or distribution.

As of March 19, 2026, rwa.xyz shows Ethereum leads distributed value at almost $16 billion. BNB Chain follows at $3.2 billion and Solana at $1.8 billion. Tokenized funds, including treasury bills (T-bills), bonds, and money market funds (MMFs), drove most of that growth. But now comes the big part!

Distributed Assets Lead On Ethereum: RWA.XYZ

Canton dominates the represented side at $352 billion. And that number itself dwarfs Ethereum $16 billion. But that figure is not fund inflows or investor-held capital. It is institutional record-keeping on a closed network.

Canton Leads Represented Assets: RWA.XYZ

In an exclusive quote to BeInCrypto on this topic, Sandy Kaul, Head of Innovation at Franklin Templeton, said, without singling out any specific private blockchain.

“I believe very strongly that private blockchains will not be part of the future ecosystem. When you look at a private blockchain, it is typically built by a small team of 50 or 60 people. One entity runs it, and one entity is responsible for all transaction verification,” she said.

Her view cuts to the core of the permissioned vs permissionless blockchain question.

Canton runs 13 Super Validators. Ethereum runs over 10,000 nodes. The security and decentralization gap between private and public infrastructure is not incremental. It is orders of magnitude.

Every Major Tokenized Fund on Ethereum Is Permissioned, and That’s the Point

The Rwa.xyz asset table on Ethereum shows why distributed value is concentrating on public rails. BlackRock BUIDL holds $785 million in active market cap. WisdomTree Treasury Money Market holds $619 million. BlackRock USD Institutional (BUIDL-I) holds $481 million. Plus, the likes of Fidelity, Ondo, and Superstate have millions on Ethereum.

RWA On Ethereum: DeFillama

All are tagged as permissioned access, requiring wallet whitelisting and KYC (know your customer) verification. Regulated securities require KYC. That part is non-negotiable.

But institutions also need global liquidity, 24/7 settlement, and the ability for third-party protocols to build around their products without permission. Only a permissionless base layer delivers all three.

On the BeInCrypto Expert Council video panel, Matt Hougan, Chief Investment Officer at Bitwise Asset Management, highlighted the trigger that might change even the gated constraint:

“My ultimate view is that permissionless, open architecture of blockchains will win, particularly as we unlock AML KYC, maybe using zero-knowledge proofs. The world wants to be in an open ecosystem. That’s the way tech has generally played out over time.”

He further added:

“You are going to see these more permissioned experiments because institutions are just sort of putting their toes into the water. And it takes comfort to get to the far end. My base case, though, is permissionless.”

Geoff Kendrick, Global Head of Digital Asset Research at Standard Chartered, reinforced this on the same panel:

“I agree with Matt that in the long term, permissionless wins. And I think even more directly than that, I think Ethereum probably wins for the next little while on the back of TradFi getting involved.”

Even the builders of private chains recognize this shift.

R3 Corda, which holds over $10 billion in tokenized RWAs on permissioned networks used by HSBC and Bank of America, announced a partnership with Solana in 2025, possibly to access public liquidity.

Kaul’s exclusive to BeInCrypto reinforces what R3’s pivot confirms. She said:

“Contrast that with a public chain like Ethereum or Solana. Ethereum has over 4,000 developers and pays bug bounties to incentivize the discovery of security flaws. With over 10,000 different nodes verifying transactions, you need a 51% consensus to validate data. The odds of a fraudulent transaction are statistically lower because the decentralization required to manipulate the network is so vast.”

Issuance is growing. Migration is underway. But capital sitting in permissioned tokens on open rails is only half the equation. The other half is whether that capital gets put to work inside DeFi. Aave Horizon is the live experiment testing exactly that.

Horizon Shows the Hybrid Model Is Still Early

Aave Horizon tests whether hybrid models work at the protocol level. It allows permissioned institutional borrowing using RWA collateral alongside permissionless stablecoin lending, all on Ethereum. The concept is sound. The early numbers tell a more complex story.

Aave’s permissionless protocol holds roughly $42 billion in TVL (total value locked) as of March 2026, according to DefiLlama. Horizon, the permissioned RWA arm of the same protocol, peaked near $600 million in market size in December 2025 and has since declined toward $350 to $400 million. That puts Horizon at less than 1% of Aave’s total TVL despite being the product specifically designed for institutions.

State Of AAVE Horizon: Dune

Dune Analytics data from @entropy_advisors and @mrvega14 shows collateral inflows dropped from roughly $300 million in late 2025 to $141 million by February 2026. Superstate Crypto Carry Fund (USCC) accounts for $123 million of that, meaning one product carries nearly 87% of all remaining collateral.

Collateral Inflows Weakening: Dune

Janus Henderson’s treasury product (JTRSY) and US Yield Coin (USYC) both went to zero. Active addresses peaked above 70 per day in October 2025 and now average 20 to 30. Borrowed liquidity peaked around $200 million in January 2026 and is falling.

AAVE Horizon Addresses: Dune

Aave’s permissionless protocol processes trillions. Its permissioned RWA layer is still finding its footing. But the fact that institutional collateral is flowing into DeFi protocols on Ethereum, not into private ledgers, tells you where this is heading. The permissioned vs. permissionless blockchain debate has already produced a clear winner, in terms of numbers. It is where the capital is.

Three weeks into the Iran conflict, global oil markets have fractured along geographic lines. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude sits near $97 per barrel while physical crude in Oman trades at a record $167.

The gap between US and international benchmarks has widened to levels not seen in over a decade. The split reflects a deeper structural divide between a relatively self-sufficient American energy market and a world scrambling for supply.

A $70 Barrel Gap With No Precedent

The Brent-WTI spread blew out to roughly $18 per barrel on March 19, its widest level since the mid-2010s. But that figure understates the dislocation in physical markets. Oman crude trades near $167, Dubai at $137, and Brent at $113, while WTI remains below $100.

That divergence has no modern parallel. When the Iran conflict began on February 28, US oil initially surged toward $120 per barrel. However, as the Strait of Hormuz closed and roughly 18% of global crude supply went offline, international benchmarks broke away.

WTI vs Brent vs Oman crude price comparison chart since Feb 28. Source: BeInCrypto

“This could increase tension between the U.S. and its European allies who are suffering a greater consequence when it comes to energy prices,” warned goldbug Peter Schiff.

The US gets less than 8% of its oil from the Persian Gulf, roughly 500,000 barrels per day. That figure has fallen sharply from 2 million barrels per day just 9 years ago.

Domestic production near 13.7 million barrels per day and a shift to net exporter status have created a buffer that no other major economy enjoys.

Europe Faces an Inflation Reversal

The energy shock has hit Europe and Asia far harder. European natural gas prices surged over 30% after Iran struck Qatar’s Ras Laffan facility, which handles roughly 20% of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply.

Swap markets now fully price two European Central Bank (ECB) rate hikes in 2026, totaling 50 basis points. Just weeks ago, the consensus pointed toward further cuts.

ECB Governing Council member Madis Muller acknowledged that the probability of a rate hike has increased.

“This is not our war,” the Daily Star reported, citing European leaders to President Trump.

That message from European capitals highlights a growing rift. The situation is that the continent is facing a full energy crisis, with physical crude in some markets trading above $150 per barrel, and the EU is pivoting from rate cuts to potential hikes.

Meanwhile, US rate cuts in 2026 have been almost entirely priced out. Core Producer Price Index (PPI) inflation on pre-war data rose to its highest level since February 2023.

A Shield With an Expiration Date

Washington has moved aggressively to protect its advantage. The US announced the release of 172 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), and International Energy Agency (IEA) member countries followed with a combined 400 million barrel drawdown, the largest coordinated release in history.

However, that move carries significant risk. US oil reserves are set to fall roughly 41% to their lowest since the 1980s, leaving stockpiles at about 34% of total capacity. Further releases would leave a minimal buffer.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled the administration may remove sanctions on Iranian oil currently at sea, a move that could ease Brent pressure slightly but would do little to address the physical bottleneck at Hormuz.

Six nations, including France, Germany, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan, have reportedly said they are ready to join efforts to secure safe passage through the strait.

Whether a naval escort mission materializes remains uncertain.

J.P. Morgan analysts warned this week that the apparent stability in WTI and Brent should not be mistaken for adequate global supply.

If the strait does not reopen, Atlantic basin benchmarks will eventually reprice higher as inventories drain.

Analysts at The Kobeissi Letter estimate that US inflation could reach 3.2% if current prices hold for another 2 months.

With strategic reserves depleting and no resolution in sight, the gap between America’s discount and the world’s crisis may not last much longer.

NVIDIA (NVDA) shares fell 1.37% to $177.93 on March 19, dragging semiconductor stocks lower despite Jensen Huang’s bullish GTC keynote just days earlier.

The selloff follows Micron Technology’s (MU) after-hours drop and surging oil prices tied to the escalating Iran war, adding fresh headwinds to a chip sector already struggling with “sell the news” fatigue.

Semiconductors Break Their Pattern

CNBC’s Mad Money host Jim Cramer noted that NVIDIA’s price action on March 19 broke a persistent pattern where the stock would open higher only to reverse lower throughout the session. This time, it opened red from the start and kept falling.

“Nvidia breaking the pattern of opening up and then reversing and going down. Today it went down from the get go and then goes lower…. could it be the opposite today?” Jim Cramer observed.

Cramer described the semiconductor sector as “very oversold,” suggesting traders should expect attempts to test the moving average “at least once or twice.”

Owing to the “inverse Cramer” effect, the comment signals a contrarian view that the current dip could set up a reversal rather than further downside.

NVIDIA Stock Performance. Source: TradingView

On Micron specifically, Cramer pushed back against bearish calls, arguing that competitors like Applied Materials (AMAT), KLA, and Lam Research were not ramping equipment output, and memory rivals SanDisk, Western Digital (WDC), and Seagate (STX) were not expanding capacity.

“That’s why when the smoke clears, you buy, not sell,” stated Jim Cramer.

Micron’s Record Quarter Meets Sell-the-News Reaction

Micron reported fiscal Q2 revenue of $23.86 billion, nearly tripling from $8.05 billion a year earlier. Adjusted earnings hit $12.20 per share, smashing the $8.60 consensus estimate by more than 41%. The company also guided Q3 revenue to $33.5 billion, well above Wall Street’s $24.3 billion projection.

However, MU shares slid roughly 4.4% in after-hours trading. The stock had already surged 62% year to date before the report, and investors focused on a revised capital expenditure outlook exceeding $25 billion for fiscal 2026, up from a prior $20 billion projection.

Trader Gareth Soloway flagged the Micron selloff as a warning sign, pointing to oil near $100 per barrel and spiking inflation as reasons investors could face another rough session. He noted that charts “still remain very bearish.”

GTC Hype Meets Geopolitical Reality

Jensen Huang’s GTC keynote on March 16 delivered significant announcements, including $1 trillion in projected orders for Blackwell and Vera Rubin systems through 2027, a new inference chip based on Groq’s language processing unit technology, and the NemoClaw enterprise AI agent platform.

Yet NVIDIA stock has failed to hold gains since the event. TD Cowen analysts noted that NVIDIA’s $4.45 trillion market cap may have crossed a threshold where traditional equity dynamics no longer apply.

Among them, fund-flow and portfolio-construction constraints capping upside even as business fundamentals strengthen.

Compounding the pressure, Brent crude spiked above $119 per barrel on March 19 after Iran attacked energy facilities in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.

The broader conflict has disrupted roughly 20% of global oil supplies transiting the Strait of Hormuz, pushing inflation expectations higher and weighing on growth-sensitive sectors like semiconductors.

Whether Cramer’s “very oversold” call proves correct may hinge on whether the moving average support holds and whether oil-driven inflation fears ease in the sessions ahead.

Bitcoin’s path is not linear. It moves up, corrects, and moves again, often within the same cycle. That idea gained attention after Geoff Kendrick, Global Head of Digital Asset Research at Standard Chartered, said in a BeInCrypto Expert Council discussion that dips below $60,000 look attractive.

However, he warned that Bitcoin could still fall toward $50,000 before recovering. That kind of range makes timing difficult. AI trading bots are now being used to track these swings.

Instead of guessing bottoms, they focus on when real accumulation occurs. BeInCrypto has developed a similar bot, Accumulation Cycle, using Pine Script, which we break down in this analysis.

Note: This AI trading bot highlights potential entry and exit zones based on market data. It does not guarantee profits or predict outcomes. This is not financial advice.

How AI Trading Bots Identify Real Buying Zones

Kendrick’s view clearly highlights the problem. Bitcoin can drop, recover, and drop again within the same cycle. That is exactly what the model is built for.

BeInCrypto’s Accumulation Cycle system does not predict the bottom. It waits for confirmation that strength has returned.

It uses a very specific mix of structure and momentum (proprietary logic):

EMA (Exponential Moving Average): shows trend direction

RSI (Relative Strength Index): tracks buying strength

In simple terms, three things must align. BTC price must reclaim a key level with a daily close. Momentum must start rising.

And the price must stabilize instead of breaking lower. Only then does an accumulation signal (A) appear.

That is why Bitcoin’s February 2026 low near $60,000 did not trigger a signal. The market was still weak.

The signal only appeared after the price reclaimed $70,000 in mid-March 2026. That was the first sign of strength. The same logic applied in November, 2025.

Bitcoin Price Alerts: TradingView

Bitcoin bottomed near $80,500, but the model stayed inactive. The signal only appeared after the $84,600 level was reclaimed with a daily close.

From there, the price moved toward $92,800, where the model marked the end of that cycle (E), capturing around an 8% move. It did not capture the exact top near $94,100. Across cycles, most signals fall in the 8% to 12% range, where moves are more stable.

The latest accumulation, which began in mid-March after reclaiming $70,000, remains active. It has no percentage yet because the ending signal has not appeared.

What This AI Trading Bot Has Already Captured

Looking back, the model has identified multiple strong cycles. In October 2024, it captured a move of around 60%. In April 2025, it identified another phase that led to a 35% rally. Each accumulation signal was backed by a clear ending.

What AI Trading Bots Can Predict: TradingView

More recent cycles, including November and early 2026, delivered 8% to 12% moves.

Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.

Why It Does Not Track Exact Bottoms

The model avoids bottom picking by design. At market lows, selling pressure is still active, and momentum is weak. That makes early signals unreliable.

The market could even go lower in a bearish phase. This is why it ignored levels like $60,000 in February and $80,500 in November. It also shows that this AI trading bot doesn’t pick a bottom but the right trigger before a sign surfaces.

Instead, it waits for reclaim and momentum shift. That improves signal quality and reduces false entries.

On-Chain Data Verifies About Entries And Exits

The signals align with long-term BTC holder behavior, one key on-chain sign. Glassnode’s Long-Term Holder Net Position Change metric, one used to track the positioning of holders sitting with BTC for 365 days or more, is used here.

During the November cycle, long-term holder selling peaked near 75,000 BTC. Selling pressure started easing before the signal appeared. Accumulation sign per BIC’s trading bot flashed on November 23, and the cycle ended near December 5. That was the phase when the long-term holders slowly reduced their selling. A bullish sign validating the accumulation trigger.

On-Chain Data Meets Trading Bots: Glassnode

Shortly after, long-term holder activity briefly turned positive before selling resumed, aligning with the model’s exit signal.

In the current cycle, the signal appeared around March 15, while the long-term holder net position change is now positive and rising.

How Holders Validate Bot Logic: Glassnode

Even though the price has pulled back, the holder accumulation remains active. That is why no exit signal has appeared yet. The accumulation signal on the technical chart also remains active.

How To Use Alerts From AI Trading Bots

To use the model in real time, alerts can be set directly on TradingView. Add the indicator (BIC Accumulation Cycle Final Pro), then create alerts for both

Accumulation Start (A) for entry

Accumulation End (E) for exit

Setting Up Alerts: TradingView

Set the interval to match your chart and use once per bar close, so signals are confirmed.

Accumulation Ending Alert: TradingView

Expiry should be set at least one to three months ahead, and extended if needed. Notifications can be received through the app, email, or sound.

If Bitcoin follows the path Kendrick outlined, moving between $50,000 and $100,000, the move will not be straight. It will include multiple swings.

Bitcoin can move from $60,000 to $75,000, correct again, and still remain in the same broader cycle.

AI trading bots like these focus on those swings. They track where strength begins and where it starts fading. That allows traders to act within the move instead of sitting through the entire cycle, round-tripping their portfolios.

Ethereum has posted a modest price recovery, but the move lacks the foundational strength needed to sustain it. Market conditions continue to show deterioration rather than improvement, particularly from the investor side. 

The risk of a correction looms large as underlying sentiment fails to align with the surface-level price appreciation currently visible on ETH’s charts.

Ethereum Holders Are Losing Confidence

Despite Ethereum’s recent price uptick, the realized profit/loss data tells a sobering story. Over the past two months, ETH holders have experienced just one day of realized profits, which quickly reverted to losses. This near-total absence of profitable exits reflects a holder base that is overwhelmingly underwater on their positions.

Investors selling at a loss are exhibiting classic panic behavior rather than strategic repositioning. This persistent loss realization creates a negative feedback loop where selling pressure remains elevated regardless of short-term price gains. The bearish sentiment generated by two months of sustained losses will continue weighing on Ethereum’s recovery trajectory until holders meaningfully return to profitability.

Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.

Ethereum Realized Profit/Loss. Source: Glassnode

New address creation on the Ethereum network has dropped 16%, reaching a near three-month low of 231,867. This decline signals that potential new investors are stepping back rather than entering the market. The consistent losses experienced by existing holders appear to be deterring fresh participation, as new entrants are reluctant to buy into a persistently loss-generating asset.

Declining new address growth directly impacts the flow of fresh capital into Ethereum. New addresses represent demand from first-time buyers, and their absence removes a critical source of incremental buying pressure. Without this fresh capital injection, Ethereum’s ability to sustain price advances above key resistance levels becomes increasingly dependent on existing holders changing their behavior, an unlikely near-term development.

. Source: Glassnode ETH Price Set To Lose Key Support

Ethereum is trading at $2,189, holding above the $2,158 support level after losing the 50-day exponential moving average as structural backing. The loss of EMA support is a technically significant development, confirming that the short-term trend has deteriorated. This structural weakness makes the $2,158 floor the last meaningful defense before a deeper decline.

ETH Price Analysis. Source: TradingView

Continued selling pressure from underwater investors could breach the $2,158 support, exposing Ethereum to a decline toward $1,917. Whether this scenario materializes depends on whether holders choose to continue panic selling or stabilize their behavior at current levels. Sustained selling below $2,158 would confirm that the recovery attempt has failed.

Ethereum CBD Heatmap. Source: Glassnode

A bounce off $2,158 that successfully flips the $2,348 resistance into support would change the outlook significantly. That structural shift would position Ethereum for a rally toward $2,500, invalidating the current bearish thesis. As the CBD Heatmap shows, Ethereum has no major supply wall until $2,850, giving it enough room to rally.

Bitcoin has slipped below the critical $70,000 level, falling more than $5,000 within 24 hours and erasing recent gains in a sharp move that has caught traders off guard.

The decline in Bitcoin is not being driven by a single catalyst. Rather, a convergence of macroeconomic pressures is reshaping global risk appetite.

A Macro-Driven Bitcoin Selloff, Not a Crypto-Specific Event

As of this writing, Bitcoin was trading at $69,913, down almost 5% in the last 24 hours and revisiting levels last seen over a week ago.

Bitcoin Price Performance. Source: TradingView

Unlike previous corrections driven by crypto-native factors, this downturn reflects broader global market stress. Specifically:

Rising inflation

Delayed interest rate cuts, and

Tightening liquidity conditions

All these factors are forcing investors to reassess their risk exposure and explain why BTC was unable to hold $70,000 before the next leg up.

With central banks maintaining a “higher for longer” stance, capital is flowing out of speculative assets and into safer instruments such as bonds and cash.

Historically, this environment has been unfavorable for Bitcoin, which tends to perform best when liquidity is expanding.

Energy Crisis Triggers Global Market Repricing

A key driver behind the selloff is an escalating energy shock in the Middle East. Disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz have reportedly cut off a significant portion of global oil supply, triggering what analysts describe as one of the most severe supply shocks in modern history.

Physical crude markets are signaling extreme stress. Oman crude surged to $173 per barrel while Dubai crude climbed above $150, levels far exceeding widely quoted benchmarks like Brent and WTI. This disconnect suggests that global oil markets have not yet fully priced in the severity of the shortage.

Oman Crude Oil, Dubai Crude Oil, Brent, and WTI Price Performances. Source: TradingView

As energy prices surge, inflation expectations rise, forcing markets to push back anticipated rate cuts even further.

Gold and Silver Confirm Broader Market Stress

The selloff is not isolated to crypto. Traditional safe-haven assets are also under pressure, reinforcing the idea that this is a macro-driven event.

Gold fell 5%, while Silver dropped more than 10% in a single day. These declines suggest investors are not rotating into safe havens, but instead liquidating positions across asset classes.

Gold and Silver Price Performances. Source: TradingView

Gold is now down nearly $1,000 per ounce from its recent peak, highlighting how quickly sentiment has shifted.

Oil Market Signals Point to a Hidden Global Shock

One of the most important signals in the current environment is the widening divergence between Brent and WTI oil prices.

Brent crude (used as the global benchmark) has surged to around $115–$119 per barrel, while WTI remains lower near $95–$99. This gap reflects a “war premium” tied to disruptions in Middle Eastern supply chains, particularly affecting Europe and Asia.

Analysts warn that the full impact has yet to hit Western markets. If supply disruptions persist, U.S. and European inventories could tighten further, potentially pushing global prices even higher.

Liquidity Conditions Turning Against Risk Assets

The Federal Reserve’s decision to hold rates steady while signaling no immediate cuts has reinforced the “higher for longer” narrative.

This is tightening financial conditions at a time when markets had already priced in rate cuts by mid-2026.

According to market observers, this shift has forced a rapid repricing of risk assets, with Bitcoin dropping from $72,400 to below $70,000 in a matter of hours.

Historically, such environments tend to suppress speculative assets as capital seeks stability and yield elsewhere.

What Happens Next for Bitcoin?

Despite the short-term volatility, analysts argue that this type of macro-driven drawdown is not new. During previous rate hiking cycles, Bitcoin experienced significant declines before eventually recovering once liquidity conditions improved.

Crypto strategist Michael van de Poppe notes that while further downside is possible if energy markets continue to deteriorate, current levels may represent long-term accumulation zones.

“…markets have been tumbling as another escalation is unfolding in the Middle East. If this doesn’t consolidate, I don’t see a reason for the markets to run higher. I would assume we’ll see all markets, including Bitcoin, move lower towards the lower regions. However, in the long term, buying at these regions for Bitcoin is great,” the analyst wrote.

Key macro catalysts to watch include the upcoming Fed Chair Jerome Powell speech on March 21 and developments in Middle East tensions.

These factors will determine whether rate-cut expectations return, or whether the current selloff deepens further.

The Bottom Line

Bitcoin’s drop below $70,000 is not just a crypto correction. It reflects tightening liquidity, rising energy-driven inflation, and global geopolitical stress.

As markets continue to reprice risk, Bitcoin remains highly sensitive to macroeconomic conditions.

Monero has been gradually climbing, building modest upward momentum over recent sessions. This steady price appreciation follows a familiar pattern that historically precedes a corrective pullback. 

However, an unusual development in investor sentiment suggests that XMR holders may have both the will and the means to interrupt that typical sequence this time around.

XMR Holders Show Conviction

Weighted sentiment data shows XMR holders are exhibiting meaningful bullishness following the recent price rise, the first sustained uptick in nearly two months. This positive sentiment shift is significant because investor conviction plays a direct role in determining whether price advances attract new buyers or simply invite profit-taking. Bullish sentiment at this stage creates a supportive psychological environment for continued gains.

The importance of this sentiment reading extends beyond simple optimism. When holder sentiment aligns with price direction, it typically generates a self-reinforcing cycle of accumulation that can sustain rallies.

Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.

XRP Weighted Sentiment. Source: Santiment

The Chaikin Money Flow indicator is showing a notable reduction in outflows, with the metric trending toward the zero line. Typically, bullish sentiment unsupported by capital inflows creates a speculative environment that lacks durability. XMR’s situation differs because the improving CMF trajectory suggests the sentiment is backed by real capital movement rather than empty optimism.

Once the CMF crosses above zero, confirmed inflows would be established, providing XMR, the fundamental support needed to sustain a meaningful price advance. This convergence of positive sentiment and improving capital flows creates a credible bullish setup.

Monero CMF. Source: TradingView XMR Price May Not Take a Hit

XMR price is trading at $345, pressing below the $357 resistance level while forming a flag pattern that projects a 16% decline targeting $271. This technical formation would typically signal a high probability of a corrective move. However, the improving sentiment and CMF trajectory introduce a meaningful bullish counterargument to that bearish projection.

Sustained investor bullishness could allow XMR to bounce off the $335 support level. A push past $387 would confirm a pattern escape, nullifying the bearish flag projection entirely and opening the path to further gains.

Monero Price Analysis. Source: TradingView

Broader market deterioration or fading investor conviction could trigger the pattern’s bearish resolution. A slide through $335 followed by a loss of the $314 support would invalidate the bullish thesis and confirm the flag breakdown.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has delivered one of the biggest shocks to the global gas market in recent years. Gas prices in Europe and Asia have surged by more than 70%, and analysts say this may be just the beginning.

Experts consulted by the BeInCrypto editorial team warn that high gas prices risk persisting throughout all of 2026, and for European industry, this could trigger a new wave of deindustrialization.

Qatar Trapped

Qatar has emerged as the primary victim of this crisis. Igor Yushkov, a leading analyst at the National Energy Security Fund and an expert at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, explains the scale of the problem:

“Qatar has completely halted gas production because there is nowhere to put it. There are no underground storage facilities, and storing it in liquefied form is pointless: you have to maintain a temperature of -162°C and spend energy doing so. It makes no sense.”

The consequences extend far beyond gas alone. Along with production, output of gas condensate, helium, propane, butane, and ethane has also stopped.

The price of helium, according to Yushkov, has already doubled, and Qatar is the world’s second-largest producer of the rare gas. The entire gas-chemical sector has also ground to a halt, including fertilizer production.

Unlike the region’s oil producers, who managed to pump oil into storage and will be able to quickly resume exports once the strait reopens, Qatar faces a long recovery of its gas capacity:

“Plants that are undamaged will take at least two weeks to reach full capacity, while damaged ones could take several more months to repair.”

Europe’s Problems

Approximately 80% of Qatari LNG has traditionally been directed to Asian markets. However, as Yushkov explains, the Asian and European gas markets function as communicating vessels, and prices have risen across the board.

The seasonal factor makes the situation worse:

“We are now at the end of the heating season, the remaining gas in underground storage is already very low — gas needs to be purchased for injection, and prices are currently high. The longer countries delay purchasing, hoping for a price drop or the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the more they will need to buy and inject per day later on.”

This creates a risk that high gas prices will persist throughout 2026. Kirill Bakhtin, head of the Russian equities analytics center at BCS World of Investments, also points to the long-term outlook for rising gas prices:

“If the conflict drags on for even a few months, the gas price forecast has upside potential not only for 2026 but also for 2027, given the currently low fill levels at consumer underground storage facilities.”

The industrial consequences for Europe, according to Yushkov, could be systemic:

“High prices mean fairly expensive electricity, heating, and everything else that is produced from gas. Most importantly, the cost of goods manufactured in Europe using expensive gas will make those goods uncompetitive on the global market. Europe could face a new round of deindustrialization.”

Russia’s Trump Card

Against the backdrop of gas market tension, the Russian president proposed considering the withdrawal of Russian LNG from the European market. Yushkov considers this statement strategically well-timed:

“The tension on the European gas market is already very high. When the president even threatens Europeans that we might prematurely halt our LNG supplies, it rattles the market — we are the second-largest LNG supplier.”

Europe had been counting on fully filling its gas storage by January 1, 2027, the date when a ban on Russian LNG imports takes effect. Now that plan is under threat even at the stage of preparing for the heating season.

At the same time, unlike pipeline gas, LNG is easy to redirect. As Yushkov explains:

“LNG will go to Asian markets — to India in the summer, to China via the Northern Sea Route. Pipelines cannot be rerouted: when gas supplies to Europe were halted, we simply cut production — which is bad for the budget. LNG is more flexible in this regard.”

No final decision on leaving the European market has been made yet, the analyst adds.

What This Means for Investors

Against the backdrop of all these events, Kirill Bakhtin draws attention to the balance of power among Russian gas companies:

“NOVATEK shares, from the perspective of developing supplies from Arctic LNG 2 in the medium term, look more attractive than Gazprom shares, which could lose the EU market by the end of 2027.”

Nevertheless, over a one-year horizon, the analyst takes a cautious position: under the base-case scenario of BCS World of Investments, the outlook on NOVATEK shares remains neutral.

NOVATEK (NVTK) Stock Performance. Source: TradingView

As of this writing, NOVATEK’s NVTK stock was trading for $1,412, after recording a new local top above $1,476.

Crypto.com has cut roughly 12% of its workforce as CEO Kris Marszalek frames the reduction as essential for enterprise-wide artificial intelligence adoption.

The Singapore-based exchange becomes the second major crypto trading platform in 2026 to explicitly tie job cuts to an AI-driven restructuring, following Gemini in February.

AI Pivot Claims Second Crypto Exchange

Marszalek announced the cuts on March 19, describing eliminated roles as positions that no longer fit an AI-first operating model.

With a workforce exceeding 4,000, the reduction translates to roughly 480 positions.

“Companies that do not make this pivot immediately will fail. Companies that move slowly will be left behind. Companies that move immediately and pair the best AI tools with top-performers will achieve a level of scale and precision that was previously impossible,” said Marszalek.

The announcement follows Crypto.com’s $70 million purchase of the AI.com domain in February, signaling broader ambitions around the technology.

Gemini set the template on February 5, cutting 25% of its staff while citing AI-driven productivity gains.

That move, however, coincided with market exits from the UK, EU, and Australia, and a $159.5 million quarterly loss.

A Broader Pattern Takes Shape

The exchange layoffs mirror a wider wave across crypto and fintech. Block Inc. cut nearly 4,000 jobs in late February, explicitly citing AI. Messari restructured around an AI-first model, and the Algorand Foundation cut 25% of staff, partly citing the rise of AI.

Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken have not announced comparable AI-pivot layoffs so far.

Whether the remaining teams at Crypto.com and Gemini deliver the promised efficiency gains will determine if this pattern accelerates.

Solana price dropped around 9% over the past three days after a pullback signal flashed on the daily chart. The same signal earlier in March led to a deeper 14% correction. But this time, something changed.

Solana holders didn’t look ready for this drop, something they were reactive to during the previous pullback. More importantly, they did not react the same way. That raises a key question. Are they seeing something else?

Bearish Divergence Triggers Pullback Below Key Levels

Solana flashed a hidden bearish divergence between February 2 and March 16.

During this period, price formed a lower high, while the Relative Strength Index (RSI), a momentum indicator that tracks buying and selling strength, formed a higher high: a hidden bearish divergence. This setup usually signals a pullback. It shows momentum is rising, but the price is failing to follow.

A similar signal appeared between February 2 and March 4. That move led to a sharp drop of nearly 14.7%.

This time, the pattern repeated. Solana dropped around 9.15% after March 16.

Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here.

RSI Divergence And Pullback: TradingView

At the same time, price lost the 50-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA), which is a trend line that gives more weight to recent prices and helps track short-term direction. This level sat near $93 and acted as support. Losing it signaled weakness. However, the drop slowed near the 20-day EMA around $88, which is now acting as immediate support, with the price near $89.

So the signal worked again. But the holder reaction behind the move did not.

Solana Holders Were Not Ready for This Price Drop

The key difference lies in holder behavior. The Hodler net position change metric, which tracks the wallets holding assets for more than 155 days, reacted very differently this time. These are mid- to long-term Solana holders, and this metric tracks whether they are adding or reducing positions over time.

On March 4, when the same divergence appeared, these holders immediately flipped to wallet outflows (selling) between March 4 and March 5. The drop that followed confirmed the bearish setup.

But on March 16, the reaction flipped.

Instead of selling, holders accumulated. Net position change increased from around 1,501,793 SOL to 1,651,613 SOL. That is an increase of roughly 10%. Even after a slight Solana price dip, the metric remains positive. This shows that holders were not ready for this drop.

SOL Holders Behaving Differently: Glassnode

Not because they missed the signal, but because they were positioned for something else. That makes this setup different. The signal points to a pullback, but positioning suggests expectation of continuation.

So the next question is clear. What are holders seeing that supports this view?

Solana Price Pattern Shows What Holders Are Positioning For

The answer likely lies in the broader structure. From the February 6 swing high to the March 16 high, Solana seems to be forming a cup-and-handle pattern. The current drop fits into the handle phase, which is typically a short consolidation before continuation.

Price Structure: TradingView

This suggests the 9% decline may not be a breakdown. Instead, it may be part of a larger bullish setup. That is the key difference from early March. Back then, the structure was weaker. This time, it is more defined.

This also explains why holders did not sell. They are likely positioning for the continuation of this pattern. Now, key SOL levels decide whether that view holds.

On the downside, $88 remains the first support, aligning with the 20-day EMA. A break below this level could extend the pullback. Below that, $80 becomes the next key level. If $75 breaks, the entire bullish structure would be invalidated.

Solana Price Analysis: TradingView

On the upside, $93 is the first reclaim level, aligning with the 50-day EMA. Above that, $99 is the key breakout point. A move above $99 could confirm the pattern and trigger a rally of around 24%, with a potential target near $124.