Khurshid Alam Momand

Coinbase acaba de bloquear a TODOS los usuarios de comprar, vender y transferir cripto.

Aunque Brian Armstrong no tuvo problemas vendiendo $550M en acciones.

Esto es lo que sucedió:

> Fallo técnico de 10:07 a 11:26 PST
> Los usuarios no podían tocar su propio dinero
> Resultados del Q4: $667M de pérdida neta
> Las acciones cayeron un 8% después del horario (gracias Brian)

Déjame repetir: mientras USTED no podía acceder a SU dinero, el CEO estaba cobrando SU dinero.

Mira... he estado diciendo esto durante años.

Los CEX de cripto son solo bancos TradFi vestidos con un traje diferente.

Fogo se fundó sobre una creencia simple: la verdadera descentralización y el alto rendimiento pueden existir juntos. La misión es construir el SVM Layer 1 más eficiente, demostrando que la velocidad, la escalabilidad y la propiedad comunitaria pueden alinearse sin compromisos.

Desde el primer día, #Fogo se ha centrado en ofrecer un rendimiento real. La red se lanza con un cliente Firedancer personalizado optimizado para la estabilidad y la velocidad. Los validadores operan en centros de infraestructura de alto rendimiento para asegurar el tiempo de actividad y la resiliencia. Los constructores pueden desplegar sin permisos y co-localizarse junto a los validadores, creando un campo de juego nivelado para el rendimiento.

Whether you’re a seasoned trader or a beginner, slippage can quietly change your fill price, which affects risk, costs, and outcomes.

In crypto, slippage occurs when your expected price is different from the price your order executes at, often due to fast market moves or limited liquidity.

In this article, you'll learn what causes slippage, how it differs across platforms, how to calculate it, and how to reduce it with practical settings and strategies.

Key Takeaways

Slippage is the gap between the expected price and the executed price, and it can be positive or negative.

Volatility, liquidity, order size, and transaction delays are the most common drivers of slippage.

You can reduce slippage with limit orders, better timing, smaller trade sizing, and thoughtful slippage tolerance settings.

Types of Slippage
Positive Slippage – When It Works in Your Favor
Positive slippage means you execute at a better price than you expected at the time you submitted the trade. You receive more tokens than quoted or pay less than anticipated because the market moved in your favor.

This can happen on both centralized exchanges (CEXs) and decentralized exchanges (DEXs), especially when prices are changing quickly. It is still slippage, even if it benefits you, because the execution differs from the initial quote.

Negative Slippage – Risks to Your Trades
Negative slippage means you execute at a worse price than expected, such as paying more for a buy or receiving less on a sale. This is the slippage most traders notice because it directly reduces the value of the trade.

Negative slippage is most visible when you use market orders, trade illiquid pairs, or trade during sharp moves. The delay between click and fill can be enough for prices to change.

Price vs Liquidity Slippage – Different Impacts
Price slippage is driven by the market price moving while your order is being executed. Fast volatility can move the quote before the exchange or the network finalizes your fill.

Liquidity slippage is driven by limited depth at the current price, so the trade “walks the book” or shifts a pool price. You consume available liquidity tiers and end up filling across multiple prices instead of one.

Causes of Slippage in Cryptocurrency Trading
Market Volatility and Rapid Price Fluctuations
When prices move quickly, the quoted price you see may already be stale by the time your order reaches the matching engine (CEX) or the network’s transaction queue/validator pipeline (DEX). Volatility creates timing risk between submission and execution.

This is why slippage often spikes around major news, macro events, or sudden liquidations. A “normal” market can change in seconds, even for large-cap assets.

Low Market Liquidity and Order Book Depth
Liquidity is the ability to buy or sell without moving the price too much. Shallow order books amplify slippage because there are fewer resting orders near the current price.

On a DEX, the same idea appears as “thin” liquidity pools, where a swap meaningfully changes the pool ratio. Limited pool reserves increase price impact, which shows up as slippage for the trader.

Large Order Sizes and Their Effects
A large order can cause slippage even in calm conditions because it consumes liquidity at multiple price levels. Trade size relative to liquidity matters more than the absolute size of the trade.

On AMM-based DEXs, the pricing rule means bigger trades push the pool price further along the curve. Large swaps move the price because the pool must maintain its invariant, meaning reserves update to keep the AMM’s formula balanced (for example, keeping the product of the two token reserves constant).

Network Congestion and Transaction Delays
Even if you submit a trade instantly, settlement can still take time, especially for onchain swaps. Transaction delays widen the window in which prices can move before your trade finalizes.

For example, on Proof of Stake networks, block space is still finite, so high demand can slow confirmations or raise fees. Congestion increases execution uncertainty because the market can drift while you wait.

How Slippage Manifests on Different Platforms
Centralized Exchanges (CEXs) – Order Books and Limit Orders
On a CEX, your trade executes against an order book, which is a list of bids and asks at different prices. Market orders prioritize execution, so they can fill across multiple levels if the top of the book is thin.

Limit orders let you set the worst price you will accept, which can reduce negative slippage. A limit order controls your price but can also fail to fill if the market moves away.

Some exchanges also add protections that reject market orders when the spread is very wide. Kraken’s Exchange Trading Rules state that Market Price Protection can reject market orders when the bid/ask spread is unusually wide (typically 2.5-20% depending on the pair).

Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs) – AMMs, Liquidity Pools, and Tolerance Settings
Many DEXs use automated market makers (AMMs) instead of order books. AMMs price trades by formulas, and Uniswap v2-style pools use a constant product relationship that adjusts price as the pool balances change.

Because the pool price moves as your trade size increases, you will usually see a “price impact” estimate before confirming. Price impact is not the same as slippage, but both can reduce your final output.

DEX interfaces also include a slippage tolerance setting that defines how far execution can deviate before the swap fails. As of September 2025, typical slippage tolerance defaults are often between 0.1% and 5%, depending on conditions and swap size.

Slippage Tolerance and Risk Management
Setting the Right Slippage Tolerance
A reasonable tolerance depends on liquidity, volatility, and whether the asset is widely traded. Higher volatility pairs need more buffer because the price can move before confirmation.

For many liquid pairs, small tolerances can work, but you should watch for failed swaps, especially on DEXs. A failed swap still costs resources on some networks because you may pay fees even if execution reverts.

Tools and Settings to Control Execution Price
On CEXs, the core tools are limit orders, stop-limit orders, and sizing that avoids eating the book. Order type selection is your first lever for controlling slippage.

On DEXs, you can also adjust settings like “Max slippage” and review the minimum received value before confirming. The “minimum received” line matters because it converts tolerance into a concrete worst-case output.

Calculating Slippage
Slippage Percentage Formula
A common way to express slippage is as a percentage difference between expected and executed price. This formula matches how many platforms describe slippage as a price change between quote and fill:

Slippage % = ((Executed Price − Expected Price) / Expected Price) × 100

For a buy, a positive result means you paid more than expected, which is negative slippage for you. Sign conventions can be confusing, so many traders track absolute value as the “size” of slippage.

Practical Examples for Buyers and Sellers
Suppose you place a market buy for a token quoted at $100, and it executes at $101. Your slippage is about 1% because (101−100)/100 equals 0.01.

For a sell, suppose you expect $100 and receive $99 at execution. You effectively lost 1% to slippage, even if fees are excluded from the calculation.

Here’s a more detailed example. Let’s say you submit a market buy for 3 tokens. The last quoted price is $100, so you expect to pay about $300.

But the available sell orders (or AMM liquidity) look like this:

1 token available at $100

1 token available at $102

1 token available at $105

Your order fills across multiple price levels:

1 × $100 = $100

1 × $102 = $102

1 × $105 = $105 Total paid = $307 → average execution price = $307 / 3 = $102.33

Slippage (using the quote as reference) = (102.33−100) / 100 = 0.0233 ≈ 2.33%

This teaches that even if the “price” shows $100, a larger market order can push you into worse prices when liquidity is thin, so you end up paying an average above the quote.

Here’s one more example. You try to market sell a token quoted at $100. Right as you submit, other sellers hit the market (or the pool price shifts), and your sell executes at $96.

Slippage = (96−100) / 100 = −4% negative slippage; 4% in absolute terms)

This shows that slippage isn’t only about fees, it’s often about timing and price movement between quote and execution. In fast markets, the execution price can be meaningfully worse even if you’re trading a small amount.

Strategies to Minimize Slippage
Using Limit Orders Effectively
Limit orders are one of the most direct ways to cap slippage on a CEX. You define the worst acceptable price, which turns slippage into a fill probability question.

If you need certainty of execution, consider a limit order close to the current price rather than a pure market order. You may accept partial fills in exchange for better price control.

Splitting Large Orders and Timing Trades
If your order is large relative to available liquidity, splitting it can reduce the price you push through. Smaller chunks can reduce market impact, especially in thinner books and smaller pools.

Timing can also help because liquidity and volatility vary by hour and event. Avoid trading into obvious spikes like major announcements, sudden pumps, or liquidation cascades.

Choosing High-Liquidity Assets and Platforms
High-liquidity pairs tend to have deeper books or larger pools, which usually reduces slippage for typical trade sizes. Liquidity is a practical advantage because it improves execution consistency.

If you are swapping a niche token, route selection matters, including which pool you use and whether aggregators find better paths. Routing can change effective slippage by accessing deeper combined liquidity.

Monitoring Market Conditions and Volatility
Before trading, check recent price movement, spread, and depth for the pair you want. A wide spread is a warning sign that slippage risk may be higher than usual.

On DEXs, also consider network conditions, because a congested mempool can increase confirmation time. Longer confirmation windows increase slippage risk, especially for volatile pairs.

Real-World Examples and Case Studies
Popular Cryptocurrencies vs Low-Liquidity Altcoins
Liquidity differences show up fastest when you compare the same trade size against how much depth is available near the current price.

CoinGecko displays “+2% depth” and “-2% depth” in the Markets table to summarize how much liquidity is available within a 2% move up or down.

For BTC/USD on Coinbase Exchange, CoinGecko shows +2% depth of $27,516,713 and -2% depth of $21,753,219. A $10,000 market buy is roughly 0.04% of the +2% depth, so it is less likely to move far from the top-of-book price in normal conditions.

For a low-liquidity altcoin example like BADGER/USD₮ on Gate, CoinGecko shows +2% depth of $141 and -2% depth of $121. A $1,000 market order is about 7.1× the +2% depth, which helps explain why small orders can still experience multi-percent slippage when the visible book is thin.

Venue can matter as much as the asset. In the same January 2026 snapshot, CoinGecko shows BADGER/WBTC on Uniswap V3 (Ethereum) with +2% Depth of $121,365 and -2% Depth of $121,000, alongside a higher displayed spread than the Gate market for BADGER.

Comparing Slippage Across Exchanges
Even for the same asset, slippage can differ across exchanges because liquidity and execution rules vary.

As of January 2026, CoinGecko shows BTC depth of $27,516,713 (+2%) on Coinbase Exchange (BTC/USD), $24,894,946 (+2%) on Binance (BTC/USD₮), and $6,159,063 (+2%) on KuCoin (BTC/USD₮); a $5,000,000 buy is roughly 18%, 20%, and 81% of those +2% depth figures, respectively.

Execution rules can also shape outcomes when markets move quickly.

Coinbase’s Advanced Trade documentation describes a 10% market protection point for non-stable pairs and a 1% protection point for stable pairs, where market orders may stop executing and return a partial fill if the protection threshold would be exceeded.

Key Takeaways: What Is Slippage in Crypto?
Slippage is the difference between the price you expect and the price you get, and it tends to increase in volatile markets, in situations where liquidity is limited, when your order is large relative to available depth, or the trade takes longer to confirm and settle.

To manage slippage well, you need to understand what is driving it in each trade and measure it consistently using a clear baseline, such as the quoted price or best available price at submission.

Practical controls like limit orders and sizing can reduce exposure on centralized exchanges, while careful slippage tolerance settings, minimum received checks, and attention to network conditions can help on decentralized exchanges.

Over time, slippage awareness becomes part of a broader trading approach that includes risk management and cost control. Strong execution habits reduce surprises more reliably than any single toggle, because they account for both market structure and changing conditions.

Clear settlement expectations improve decision-making whether you are trading or moving value onchain. When you plan for slippage up front, you can set more realistic entries and exits, size positions with less guesswork, and avoid letting execution noise derail an otherwise sound strategy.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes. It is not legal, tax, or investment advice.

@Vanarchain $VANRY #Vanar

En este artículo, aprenderás cómo cada uno está respaldado, dónde se comercia, cómo difieren las redes y qué significa la disponibilidad de hoy al elegir uno.
Principales conclusiones
A partir de diciembre de 2025, USD₮ es la base de liquidez para muchos mercados de criptomonedas, con una amplia cobertura de intercambio y distribución multi-cadena, a partir de diciembre de 2025.

BUSD es principalmente una historia de reducción: la emisión se detuvo en 2023, y muchos lugares han reducido el apoyo, por lo que el acceso es tan importante como la mecánica del peg.

Elegir entre USD₮ y BUSD se reduce a factores prácticos como el alcance de los informes de reservas, el apoyo de la cadena, la profundidad de liquidez, el acceso a la redención y cómo se comporta cada token durante el estrés del mercado, más que el peg por sí solo.

Stablecoin payments are transactions that use cryptocurrencies tied to stable assets, like the U.S. Dollar. These digital dollars live on public blockchains and create a bridge between traditional money and onchain finance.

Instead of separate messaging, clearing, and settlement steps, stablecoin payments combine them in one atomic onchain transaction. One ledger update both sends the instruction and moves the value, so people can hold and send digital dollars across borders in a few clicks.

In this piece, we will look at how stablecoin payments work, how they compare to legacy payment rails, why people and businesses choose them for everyday transfers, and the risks and open questions that still shape their future.

Why Stablecoins Are Transforming Payments
Stablecoins are changing how businesses and individuals move money. They can offer a practical alternative when traditional payment systems are slow, costly, or hard to access.

Stablecoins combine the stability of fiat currencies (such as USD, GBP, or EUR) with the speed and transparency of blockchain networks.

When reliable off-ramps are available, this can create a more seamless payment experience, letting users convert stablecoins back to fiat through exchanges, cards, or bank transfers.

The Problems with Legacy Rails
People often point to SWIFT, ACH, and wire transfers as the main traditional payment systems. In practice, they sit in the messaging and clearing layers, not on the ledger where money finally settles.

Final settlement usually happens on a central bank RTGS system, or between banks through nostro and vostro accounts for cross-border flows. These extra steps add time, cost, and operational complexity.

With SWIFT instructions and wire messages, banks still need to update balances later on their correspondent accounts or central bank ledger. This can take one to several days, especially for cross-border transfers and weekend cut-offs.

Cross-border transfers often involve high fixed fees, for example 20 to 80 USD per payment at many banks, plus FX spreads taken at each step in the chain. For large payments, total costs can reach hundreds of dollars.

By contrast, a stablecoin transfer settles onchain in one step. Sender and receiver see final balances within seconds or minutes, and network fees are often a few cents to a few dollars, depending on the chain.

Domestic payments in the United States also involve several layers. ACH is a batch clearing network. Banks send files with payment instructions, the network nets positions, and settlement later occurs over the central bank RTGS system.

End users often experience ACH transfers as taking one to three business days. Delays come from batch windows, weekends, holidays, and extra risk checks or holds that banks apply before posting funds.

These multi-step processes create friction for eCommerce, gig workers, and any use case that needs fast settlement. Limited tracking tools also create a transparency gap, so businesses may not know where a payment sits until it arrives.

This uncertainty and cash flow risk is hard for modern businesses and individuals to manage. It is one reason why some choose stablecoins and other onchain rails for cross-border payouts, treasury flows, or frequent small transfers.

Stablecoin Advantages
Compared with the multi-step messaging and clearing flows in legacy rails, stablecoins can offer a simpler path from instruction to final settlement.

Onchain, the same transaction both sends the message and moves the value, so counterparties often see final balances within seconds or minutes.

Because transfers settle on a shared global ledger that runs 24/7, users do not wait for batch windows, cut-off times, or weekends. This matters for cross-border salaries, vendor payments, and remittances that need predictable timing.

Network fees for popular stablecoin rails are often much lower than wire fees. On many blockchains, a transfer can cost cents or less, compared with typical cross-border bank fees of 20–80 USD plus FX spreads for wires. The exact cost still depends on the chain and congestion, and tools like our Remittance Race compare these costs across routes in real time.

Stablecoins can also expand reach in markets where banking access or cross-border rails are limited. For people who find it hard to receive international wires or card payouts, accepting a stablecoin into a mobile wallet can be simpler. In well-served corridors, though, traditional bank transfers may be just as accessible in practice.

For migrant workers, lower fees and faster settlement can translate into more money arriving at home. The ILO estimates there were 167.7 million international migrant workers in 2022, many of whom send regular remittances.

Industry studies (FGV Europe, Coinlaw, etc.) suggest that blockchain and stablecoin channels still handle a minority of global remittance volume, though case studies show fast growth in South and Southeast Asia and Latin America.

Overall, stablecoins offer a way to move digital dollars at internet speed, with final settlement, lower fixed fees, and global reach bundled into a single onchain transaction. They do not remove all risks, but they give people and businesses a different starting point than legacy rails.

The State of Stablecoins in 2025
Stablecoins have moved from a niche crypto tool to a mainstream financial asset in under a decade. They now sit at the intersection of trading, savings, and global payments.

As of late 2025, global stablecoin supply is around USD 300 billion. Most of this comes from fiat-backed USD coins like USD₮ and USDC, which together hold the majority of market share.

Market Growth and Adoption
Onchain activity is already measured in the trillions. Recent research puts 2024-2025 stablecoin transaction volumes in the multi-trillion-dollar range, with some estimates above $40 trillion once trading flows are included.

User adoption is rising just as quickly. The number of active stablecoin addresses grew by about 53% in a year, from 19.6 million to roughly 30 million by early 2025, showing that usage is spreading beyond early crypto users.

Institutions are no longer on the sidelines. A 2025 Fireblocks survey of 295 financial institutions found that 90% are taking action on stablecoins, with 49% already using them for payments and a further group running pilots or planning deployments.

Card networks and payment providers are starting to plug in. Visa and Mastercard now run stablecoin settlement pilots that let selected clients settle obligations in USDC or similar tokens, while merchants still receive funds in fiat if they choose.

Regulatory Landscape
Regulation is catching up with usage. Policymakers now treat payment stablecoins as part of the core financial system, rather than a side-experiment.

In the United States, the GENIUS Act created a federal framework for payment stablecoins in July 2025.

It requires 1:1 high-quality reserves, licensing, regular disclosures, and clear marketing rules, and it clarifies that compliant payment stablecoins are regulated under a dedicated regime rather than as traditional securities or commodities solely by virtue of being stablecoins.

In the European Union, MiCA now governs euro-area stablecoins. Its rules for asset-referenced and e-money tokens have applied since June 30, 2024, with full application for service providers from December 30, 2024, including authorization, reserve, and transparency requirements.

Globally, standard-setters have issued high-level frameworks for stablecoins. The Financial Stability Board finalized recommendations on global stablecoin arrangements in 2023 and reviewed implementation progress in 2025, highlighting both advances and remaining gaps.

Many jurisdictions are now building their own regimes on top of this. The U.K., Hong Kong, and others are consulting on or implementing stablecoin rules that treat them as potential payment instruments, while also addressing financial-stability and consumer risks.

For a visual overview of GENIUS and many other regimes, our interactive Stablecoin Regulation Map summarizes the key rules by country.

Key Use Cases for Stablecoin Payments
Stablecoins are already being used to solve practical problems in many industries. Businesses use them to streamline operations, reduce costs, and improve cash flow.

Below are some of the most common use cases today.

Cross-Border Payments and Remittances
Cross-border payments are one of the clearest fits for stablecoins. They can be cheaper, faster, and more predictable than many legacy options, for both businesses and individuals.

Some remittance providers now use stablecoins or other onchain assets inside their own systems. They keep the user experience in local currency, while using stablecoins in the background to lower costs and speed up settlement.

Individual users can send funds home within minutes, often at a fraction of traditional fees. More of each paycheck can reach the people and communities that need it, instead of being lost to fixed charges and FX spreads.

B2B Transactions and Supplier Payments
For businesses, slow or expensive payments can hold back entire supply chains. Stablecoins help by reducing delays, especially across borders, and by providing 24/7 settlement.

With more on and off-ramps available, it is easier for companies to convert stablecoins into local currency when needed. This can improve working capital management, because funds arrive sooner and with fewer intermediate fees.

Onchain records also make reconciliation more straightforward. Invoices, payment references, and settlements can be matched more easily when they share the same transparent ledger.

eCommerce and Retail
In eCommerce and retail, stablecoins give another way to pay and get paid. Payment providers and platforms have started to integrate stablecoin options, often next to cards and bank transfers.

Consumers can pay in stablecoins from a wallet, while merchants may choose to receive either stablecoins or fiat. For some merchants, this offers a cheaper payment rail and reduces chargeback risk.

Around the world, there are pilots at online stores, marketplaces, and even small physical merchants. These experiments test whether onchain payments can reduce fees and speed up settlement without adding complexity for users.

Payroll and Treasury Management
Payroll has become a popular use case, especially for remote and globally distributed teams. Some workers choose to receive part of their salary in stablecoins so they can hold or spend digital dollars directly.

For employers, stablecoins can bypass high bank fees and FX costs when paying people in multiple countries. Funds can arrive on time and in full, without long settlement delays.

Treasury and finance teams also use stablecoins as a liquid onchain asset for operating expenses. Specialized providers now offer custody and treasury services built around stablecoins, tailored to both domestic and international firms.

Gateway to Other Digital Assets
Stablecoins can act as a gateway to Web3. Once people are comfortable holding and sending digital dollars, they are more likely to explore other tokens, savings products, or dApps.

This lowers the barrier to entry. Users do not need to start with volatile assets; they begin with familiar currency units and gradually learn how onchain applications work.

For many, stablecoins are the first step from traditional finance into the broader digital asset ecosystem.

Risks and Challenges of Stablecoin Payments
Stablecoins offer clear benefits, but they also come with risks and open questions.

These need to be managed carefully for sustained growth and wider adoption.

Regulatory Uncertainty
Stablecoin rules are still developing country by country. Some jurisdictions move quickly, while others are only starting to design frameworks.

Regimes like the GENIUS Act in the U.S. and MiCA in the EU bring important clarity. At the same time, global standards are not yet fully aligned, especially for cross-border use.

This patchwork can create confusion for international businesses and may slow large-scale deployments, even when the underlying technology is ready.

On/Off-Ramp Frictions
One major friction point is the on and off-ramp between fiat and stablecoins. Users often need to go through exchanges, payment providers, or banks to move in and out.

These steps can be slow, costly, and subject to local rules and cut-off times. In some markets, they can offset part of the speed and cost advantages that stablecoins offer onchain.

Innovation here is ongoing, from cards and neobanks to improved local payout networks. Lower-friction ramps are key if stablecoin payments are to reach more everyday users and businesses.

Counterparty and Market Risks
Using a fiat-backed stablecoin always involves issuer risk. Users rely on the issuer to hold and manage reserves and to honour redemptions at par.

If reserves are incomplete, low-quality, or poorly managed, the token can lose its peg. The collapse of TerraUSD in 2022, an algorithmic stablecoin, is a widely cited example of how quickly confidence can break when the design is fragile.

Many leading issuers now provide regular reserve reports and third-party attestations. These steps help, but they do not fully remove counterparty or market risk, especially in stress events.

Cybersecurity and Fraud
The broader crypto ecosystem remains a target for fraud, phishing, and hacking. Attackers focus on users, wallets, exchanges, and smart contracts rather than the stablecoin token alone.

Common threats include fake websites, approval scams, and social-engineering attacks that trick users into signing malicious transactions.

Exchanges, wallets, and analytics firms have responded with education, monitoring tools, and risk filters, and research suggests that illicit activity is a small share of total stablecoin volume. Even so, losses can be severe for those affected.

Some users and businesses now run pre-transaction wallet checks, using analytics services to see whether an address is linked to known illicit activity before sending funds.

Integration Barriers
For many firms, the main challenge is not the concept, but integration work. Accepting or sending stablecoins often requires new software, APIs, controls, and staff training.

Smaller companies may find this complex and resource-intensive, especially when they must also meet compliance and reporting obligations.

Specialized payment and treasury providers are emerging to bridge this gap, packaging stablecoins into more familiar tools. Even so, integration remains a barrier in regions with limited infrastructure or unclear local rules.

The Future of Stablecoin Payments
Stablecoin activity is likely to keep growing as technology improves, regulation matures, and more people and institutions use digital dollars in daily operations.

Many analysts expect stablecoins to become a standard building block of the global financial system, especially where they connect to banks, fintech apps, and merchant platforms.

Smart contracts already extend stablecoins beyond simple peer-to-peer transfers. They are used to automate payroll, support supply chain and trade finance, run onchain treasuries, and help issue or settle tokenized assets.

Each new use case highlights how programmable digital dollars can support financial workflows that are difficult or expensive to run on legacy rails.

Public and private experiments are also converging. Many central banks are exploring central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) as a sovereign form of digital money for households and businesses.

A future ecosystem could be hybrid, with CBDCs used for high-level public money functions, while stablecoins remain flexible tools for cross-border commerce, platforms, and user-facing applications.

Some observers see this mix as a way to improve efficiency and financial inclusion. Others are concerned about privacy and financial surveillance, especially if CBDCs enable very granular tracking of payments.

How these technologies evolve will depend on policy choices, regulation, and market trust. For now, stablecoins already act as a bridge between legacy finance and internet-native money, and their role in payments continues to expand.

Summary
Stablecoin payments offer a faster, cheaper, and more programmable way to move digital dollars compared with many legacy rails. By combining messaging, clearing, and settlement in a single onchain transaction, they help reduce delays, fixed fees, and cash flow uncertainty.

At the same time, regulatory uncertainty, on/off-ramp frictions, and integration work remain real constraints.

Even so, for cross-border payouts, B2B flows, eCommerce, and payroll, stablecoins are already becoming a useful complement to traditional payment systems in an increasingly digital economy.

@Plasma #Plasma $XPL

En el siempre cambiante ámbito de la tecnología, pocas historias cautivan como la de Jawad Ashraf, CEO de #vanar . Su trayectoria, marcada por una temprana fascinación por las computadoras, lo ha llevado a ser pionero en realidad virtual (VR), videojuegos y blockchain. En una entrevista perspicaz con RandCorp de Rare Network, Ashraf compartió sus experiencias y visiones, pintando un cuadro del futuro en estas tecnologías.

Fascinación Temprana por la Tecnología
“Todo comenzó con el ZX Spectrum en el Reino Unido,” recuerda Jawad. Su infancia no se trataba solo de jugar juegos, sino de crearlos. Esta pasión por las computadoras lo llevó a una licenciatura en informática y a una breve etapa en un empleo a tiempo completo antes de aventurarse en el desarrollo de software freelance.

$XPL la perspectiva es mixta, atrapada entre grandes desbloqueos de suministro y una lenta adopción del ecosistema en un mercado reacio al riesgo.

1. Desbloqueo de Token Mayor - 2.5B XPL (25% del suministro) se desbloquea para participantes de EE. UU. el 28 de julio de 2026, arriesgando una presión de venta significativa si la demanda disminuye.

2. Crecimiento del Ecosistema vs. Competencia Integraciones recientes como NEAR Intents aumentan la utilidad, pero cadenas rivales como STABLE están ganando tracción, desafiando la posición de mercado de Plasma.

3. Sentimiento del Mercado y Uso - "miedo extremo" persistente y la dominancia de Bitcoin suprimen la demanda de altcoins, mientras que la actividad en cadena es escasa y no apoya la alta valoración del token.

According to recent announcements, @Vanarchain is executing its roadmap to transition from a conceptual project to a live, utility-driven AI blockchain ecosystem.

Here are the key developments from the last few months:

🤖 Official AI Infrastructure Launch (January 2026)
#Vanar Chain has officially launched its full AI-native infrastructure stack. This launch integrates its core intelligence layer—the Kayon AI reasoning engine and Neutron data compression—into the base blockchain, aiming to create a foundational platform for intelligent Web3 applications.

🛠️ Key Technical Integrations & Product Shifts
Recent months have seen several significant partnerships and product updates designed to drive utility and adoption:

· Pilot Agent Integration (October 2025): The AI platform Pilot integrated Vanar into its private beta, allowing users to perform on-chain actions (like checking balances) using natural language commands.
· Humanode Biometric SDK (July 2025): Integration of private, Sybil-resistant biometric verification to enable human-aware AI applications on the chain.
· ConftApp for Usernames (July 2025): Integration enabling human-readable wallet addresses (e.g., alice.vanar) to improve user and AI agent interaction.
· myNeutron Subscription Model (November 2025): The team transitioned its myNeutron AI compression tool to a paid subscription model. This is a strategic move to create direct, recurring economic demand for the VANRY token, as users need it to pay for services.

🧭 Upcoming Roadmap Focus
Looking ahead, Vanar Chain's development is focused on scaling its AI infrastructure and proving its economic model.
The immediate goals for 2026 include expanding its Neutron data compression layer to work with other blockchains (while keeping Vanar as the settlement layer) and solidifying the shift of its core AI tools into utility-driven subscription services.
The long-term vision is to establish Vanar as the default AI infrastructure layer for Web3.

💎 Understanding Vanar Chain's Core Proposition

If you're new to the project, it helps to know that $VANRY Chain is not a general-purpose blockchain retrofitted with AI features. It was built from the ground up as a 5-layer AI infrastructure stack for Web3.

Its unique value lies in making blockchains "intelligent" by embedding AI logic directly into the protocol. The two core technical components that enable this are:

· Neutron: An AI-powered "semantic memory" layer that compresses complex files (like legal deeds or invoices) into compact, queryable data "Seeds" stored directly on-chain.
· Kayon: An on-chain AI reasoning engine that allows smart contracts and agents to analyze and act upon the data stored by Neutron.

This architecture is targeted at complex use cases like compliant payments (PayFi) and tokenized real-world assets, where automated, intelligent logic is critical.

🔍 How to Stay Updated

For the most current information, you can monitor these primary sources:

· Official Channels: The Vanar Chain website and their official social media accounts (like X/Twitter) are the most reliable sources for announcements.
· Developer Activity: Watch for updates on their official GitHub repository or developer portal for technical progress.
· Crypto News Aggregators: Sites like CoinMarketCap often compile recent news and social sentiment, which can provide a broader view of community reaction and market developments.

Would you like a deeper explanation of how any of its specific technologies, like Neutron or Kayon, work in practice?

Los inversores en el incipiente espacio de las criptomonedas necesitan un documento único y autoritativo que les ayude a entender el valor y la premisa tecnológica de un proyecto. Este documento debería servir como un plano técnico y empresarial.
Un libro blanco de criptomonedas es un documento central que describe la misión, la tecnología y el modelo económico de un proyecto. Se publica de forma independiente como un documento integral y oficial que proporciona información detallada sobre conceptos, metodologías, tecnologías y tokenómica.
En esta guía, aprenderás los elementos fundamentales de un buen libro blanco, los fundamentos de las criptomonedas para evaluar las afirmaciones de un proyecto y por qué se utilizan para evaluar la legitimidad de un proyecto. Sigue leyendo para convertirte en un experto en realizar la debida diligencia.