While Tether remains the undisputed heavyweight in the stablecoin market, USDC has become the primary lubricant for the actual movement of capital across the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Related Reading

USDC is catching Tether where crypto’s next money wave may begin

USDC supply surged 8% in a month, tightening Circle’s challenge to Tether’s long-held stablecoin dominance.

Mar 14, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

According to a recent research note from Mizuho, USDC accounted for 64% of the transfer volume between the two major stablecoins.

That translates to roughly $2.2 trillion in adjusted transaction volume for USDC, compared to $1.3 trillion for USDT. Mizuho noted this is the first time since 2019 that USDC has led by this metric.

The gap became impossible to ignore in February. Data compiled by Allium pegged total stablecoin transfer volume at $1.8 trillion for the month. Within that pool, USDC was responsible for approximately $1.26 trillion, while USDT accounted for just $514 billion.

Yet the broader market's supply structure continues to heavily favor Tether.

CryptoSlate's data shows that USDT has a massive $184 billion in total market capitalization, while USDC's supply is at roughly $79 billion. By those figures, the circulating supply of USDT remains 2.36 times that of USDC.

This stark divergence between dormant supply and active transfer volume has become the defining feature of the current market. It also highlights the growing importance of underlying settlement rails.

Mizuho researchers attributed the transfer flip to significantly faster on-chain usage, noting that adjusted stablecoin volumes grew more than 90% year-over-year. According to the firm, transaction velocity is increasing rapidly, signaling that stablecoins are changing hands more frequently across a much wider array of financial workflows.

Solana metrics highlight record turnover

While Circle issues USDC natively across 30 different blockchains, one network sits at the undeniable center of this newfound velocity.

By the numbers, the Solana blockchain provides the clearest link between the rising USDC transfer totals and the underlying market structure that demands constant, repeated movement.

Data from Grayscale illustrates the sheer scale of this activity. Solana processed a staggering $650 billion in stablecoin transactions in February, more than doubling its previous record and leading all competing blockchains for the month.

What makes that headline number remarkable is the relatively small base of capital parked on the network, a dynamic that points to extreme asset turnover.

According to DeFiLlama, the entire stablecoin base on Solana sits at a modest $15.7 billion. USDC represents 53.81% of that local liquidity pool, amounting to roughly $8.4 billion. Outside of Ethereum, where USDC maintains a massive $55 billion supply, Solana is the network with the token's largest absolute presence.

The intensity of USDC circulation on Solana is unprecedented. Token Terminal reported that monthly USDC transfer volume on the network skyrocketed 300% year-over-year, hitting $880 billion in February 2026 alone.

These figures describe a blockchain architecture specifically optimized for repeated, high-speed settlement. Token Terminal also noted that Solana’s median transaction fee fell to a one-year low of $0.00047 during the same period.

Related Reading

Solana registers new all-time high in daily transaction-related fees

The new record comes amid the AI-related memecoin trading, prompting Solana to dominate daily trading volumes for 13 days straight.

Oct 26, 2024 · Gino Matos

Indeed, ultra-low fees naturally support frequent routing, algorithmic rebalancing, and complex settlement strategies between market makers and trading venues throughout the trading day.

Meanwhile, it is worth noting that USDC transfer activity also surged on its largest home base. Token Terminal data showed monthly USDC transfer volume on Ethereum surpassed $1.7 trillion in February, reflecting a 250% year-over-year increase.

Essentially, the complete flow picture clearly spans multiple networks. However, the data coming out of Solana is drawing immediate industry attention because it puts stationary balances and hyper-active movement into the same frame.

This is because a relatively small pool of stablecoins is generating a torrent of transfers, which perfectly explains how USDC built a commanding lead in volume without coming close to matching Tether’s footprint in total supply.

Solana DEXs pivot from memes to stables

The spike in Solana transfer volume coincides with a fundamental change in what is actually driving activity on the network’s decentralized exchanges.

In late 2024 and early 2025, memecoins were the dominant force. Data from Blockworks shows that highly speculative tokens accounted for more than 60% of all decentralized exchange activity on Solana during that window.

That retail-driven surge pushed trading volumes to record highs, briefly doubling those on Ethereum.

Related Reading

Why Solana's crypto casino changed hands from memecoins to prediction markets

Kalshi and Polymarket just had their biggest month ever as Solana's memecoin share fell to cycle lows. We chart the flows and test the rotation thesis.

Dec 2, 2025 · Gino Matos

More recently, the landscape has matured. Blockworks data now indicates that stablecoin-related swaps have taken over, accounting for about 70% of all blockchain activity on the network.

This structural shift perfectly aligns with the February stablecoin transaction records tracked by Grayscale and the massive jump in USDC transfer volume tracked by Token Terminal.

This change in composition has massive implications for how transfer volume accumulates.

Workflows that rely heavily on stablecoins tend to involve repeated transfers among a web of intermediaries. Trading flows routinely split across multiple legs to find the best available price. Every single hop between exchanges, market makers, hedge funds, and payment applications adds to the aggregate transfer totals as balances relentlessly rotate.

Because Solana’s median transaction fee is practically zero, these microscopic, multi-step routing strategies can scale without eating into profit margins.

Regulatory moats and traditional finance rails

Meanwhile, the blockchain technology is only half the story. Policy shifts and platform rules have heavily influenced stablecoin routing over the last year, particularly for institutions operating under strict compliance frameworks in the United States and Europe.

The United States permanently altered the landscape in July 2025 by enacting the GENIUS Act, which established a comprehensive federal framework for payment stablecoins. Across the Atlantic, Circle secured a highly coveted Markets in Crypto-Assets license in Europe in January 2025.

Those regulatory milestones had immediate market consequences. Binance and other leading crypto trading platforms delisted all non-compliant stablecoin pairs, specifically targeting USDT, before March 31, 2025.

Since then, Tether's USDT trading access on some of the world's largest exchanges was severely curtailed within the European bloc. This compliance moat naturally redirected a massive portion of European exchange flow toward regulated alternatives like USDC.

Traditional payment infrastructure has also deeply intersected with the USDC and Solana routing ecosystem.

In December, Visa announced that its United States issuer and acquirer partners had begun settling fiat obligations in Circle’s USDC directly over the Solana blockchain. Initial participants included Cross River Bank and Lead Bank, with a broader domestic rollout scheduled throughout 2026.

Circle is simultaneously pushing a major cross-border expansion to strengthen its institutional plumbing.

The company is actively scaling the Circle Payments Network, a system that allows traditional financial institutions to send USDC internationally and convert it directly into local fiat currencies via banking partners. The network currently boasts 55 institutional members and reached $6 billion in volume this year.

These developments present why the USDC competitive signal flashing in the 2026 data is undeniable. It shows that stablecoin dominance is no longer a single-variable equation, and that the market now measures success through two metrics that can, and clearly do, diverge for extended periods.

The post Tether still holds more cash, but Circle’s USDC is now moving more of crypto’s money appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The move comes even as crude remains above $100, supply through the Strait of Hormuz has been disrupted, and investors have cut back expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts.

As of press time, CryptoSlate data shows Bitcoin at about $70,470, up 0.33% over 24 hours, 1.09% over seven days, and 5.7% over 30 days.

The price action stands out because the chart structure does not yet show a clean trend in the market. The market has mostly respected defined reaction zones.

About three-quarters of all tests of support and resistance levels over the last few months have ended in rejection rather than acceptance. That gives the current test of the upper band a narrower meaning than a simple breakout call. Bitcoin has repaired the panic damage. It still has to prove it can stay above the panic ceiling.

Related Reading

Bitcoin price projected to bottom at $35,000 in December by model that timed the last two market tops

Bitcoin Monte Carlo backtest nailed the last drawdown then exposed the one metric that keeps breaking.

Feb 28, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The clearest near-term resistance sits at $73,500 and $73,800. Those two levels form a top channel pair in the active zone and have produced repeated rejections in the recent stretch of the data.

The first support band below sits at $72,000 and $71,500. Below that, $68,000 remains the next major line where price repeatedly found buyers during February and early March.

The immediate question is whether Bitcoin can convert resistance into support, given the still-hostile macro backdrop.

That backdrop has not eased. Oil has surged after the Iran conflict disrupted flows, with AP reporting disruption of more than 12 million barrels per day across the Gulf system. The same shock has fed into inflation expectations and raised doubts about how much room the Fed has to cut this year.

Bitcoin is rising into a heavy resistance band before the outside world has improved. The structure says buyers have regained control of the upper half of the range. It does not yet show that they have escaped it.

Support, resistance, and the difference between a break and acceptance

The recovery through $68,000 looks accepted. So does the later move back through $71,500 and $72,000. Those levels did not hold as one-off spikes. Price spent time above them, built higher lows, and kept returning to the upper part of the structure.

That sequence carries more weight than the latest wick into the $73,500 to $73,800 band because it shows where buyers already proved they would defend the market.

The current move into $73,500 and $73,800 looks more vulnerable. The data is bounce-heavy, the overhead zone is tight, and the market is reaching it while oil, inflation, and trade-policy stress are still unresolved. A rejection here would fit the pattern better than an immediate straight-line run to the next band.

The broader market picture offers a partial explanation for why Bitcoin could keep pressing higher even in that setup. U.S.-listed Bitcoin ETFs did not lose their demand base during the latest macro shock.

After outflows of $227.9 million on March 5 and $348.9 million on March 6, the funds posted five straight positive sessions: $167.1 million on March 9, $246.9 million on March 10, $115.2 million on March 11, $53.8 million on March 12, and $180.4 million on March 13. Those figures show that larger buyers did not disappear when macro pressure rose.

That distinction helps frame the current setup. If ETF demand had collapsed at the same time price hit the upper band, the chart would look more like a short-covering bounce running out of fuel. Instead, the latest flow numbers show steady support from fund inflows while Bitcoin retests the highs of the post-shock recovery.

That is one reason the $72,000 to $71,500 floor now carries more weight than the latest intraday print above $73,500. Support shows where buyers are willing to defend size. Resistance shows where sellers are still active.

In that sense, the most important recent move was the reclaiming of $71,500 and $72,000 after the macro panic, rather than reaching $74,000. That recovery showed that buyers were willing to absorb supply while the oil shock was still live and rate-cut expectations were still being marked down.

What the macro backdrop changes, and what it does not

The macro climate still argues for caution. The oil shock continues to ask questions about inflation, growth, and how long high rates might stay in place.

Recent FT reporting cited estimates that put the likely inflation effect at 0.5 to 0.6 percentage points, while projecting a 0.3-point hit to global GDP growth. The Fed is still expected to hold rates steady, with markets rethinking how many cuts remain plausible this year.

Meanwhile, the Trump tariff fight is still running. The Supreme Court decision that disrupted key tariff measures has forced the administration to reopen trade probes and look for new legal paths.

Put simply, the outside-world pressure has not gone away. Bitcoin is rising while the macro picture remains messy.

Related Reading

Bitcoin shrugs off oil surge and geopolitical tension, setting up potential push toward $80k

Spot BTC stabilizes as speculative froth subsides, ETF flows resume, and futures hint at momentum shift.

Mar 12, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

The base case from the channel data is a range-acceptance fight between $72,000 and $73,800. Buyers have already shown they can defend the lower part of that band. Sellers have not yet given up the upper edge. If that continues, Bitcoin can keep grinding higher in steps without producing a decisive breakout.

The bull case needs more than a print above resistance. It needs time above resistance. If Bitcoin holds $73,500 on a retest and stops falling back under $73,800, the next obvious structural target is $77,100. That level sits as the next upper channel boundary in the framework and would be the first place to test whether the move is becoming a broader trend rather than another rejection cycle.

The bear case is simpler. A rejection from $73,500 to $73,800, followed by a loss of $72,000, would bring $71,500 back into focus. If that fails, the market would likely revisit $68,000, which has served as the most durable support line. That would not erase the medium-term recovery, but it would weaken the view that Bitcoin is already trading as a stronger macro hedge through this shock.

There is also a low-probability, high-impact case that sits outside the chart. If the Iran conflict widens further, if oil spikes again, or if rate expectations reset sharply higher, forced selling could overwhelm the channel structure in the short run. The chart would still matter, but headline risk would likely take over first.

What comes next for Bitcoin

The most defensible conclusion from the data is that Bitcoin has staged a real recovery but has not completed a clean breakout.

The upper resistance band is still the key test. Traders who want confirmation should watch for acceptance above $73,500 and $73,800, not just another touch. Traders looking for early weakness should watch whether the market can still hold $72,000 on the next pullback.

That leaves the market with a straightforward map.

For now, the clearest take is simple. Bitcoin has climbed back to the top of its recent range even as war, oil, inflation pressure, and tariff uncertainty continue to pull on global markets. The recovery through $68,000, $71,500, and $72,000 looks real. The market has not yet shown the same acceptance above $73,500 and $73,800.

If Bitcoin can live above that band, $77,100 becomes the next measured target inside this framework.

If it cannot, the move still looks like a strong recovery inside a range that has rejected the price more often than it has released it.

The post Bitcoin price confirms recovery hitting highest price since start of Iran war and Trump tariff chaos appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The arrangement creates what the project calls “Super Nodes,” a tier that sits above ordinary governance participants and gets prioritized treatment for partnership discussions.

At current prices, that means staking 50 million WLFI tokens and committing to a 180-day lockup. In return, Super Node holders get governance voting power weighted by amount and duration, plus front-of-the-line access to the team handling business development and compliance.

This is the same venture that says its mission is to “democratize access to financial opportunities” and is seeking a US national trust bank charter.

And the same venture that generated more than $460 million for President Donald Trump's family in the first half of 2025, with 75% of new token sale proceeds flowing to the family.

A project tied to the sitting president's family is monetizing proximity at a posted price while trying to move deeper into regulated finance.

What changed

The governance staking proposal passed on Mar. 12 with 99% of ballots cast in favor, though Reuters could not independently verify how many individual token holders participated.

The Feb. 25 proposal restructures the way WLFI allocates governance power and commercial attention.

Unlocked token holders must now stake for at least 180 days to vote. The proposal eliminates existing voting power limitations in favor of a new weighted formula based on the amount staked and remaining lockup duration.

The proposal creates two tiers above ordinary participants: “Nodes” require 10 million WLFI (about $1 million), while “Super Nodes” require 50 million WLFI (about $5 million) and provide guaranteed direct access to the WLFI team for partnership discussions.

Reuters reported that WLFI later clarified that the access is to business development and compliance teams, not to Trump or his family members.

The project's “Meet our team” section, which had listed Trump family members, was removed from the website following the questioning.

The venture is selling a commercial fast lane while branding itself as an open finance platform. At the same time, it seeks federal regulatory approval for a banking charter.

The regulated finance overlap

In January, a WLFI subsidiary filed an application with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to establish a national trust bank focused on USD1 stablecoin issuance, redemption, and digital asset custody.

A trust bank moves a crypto business deeper into the federally supervised perimeter.

In February, lawmakers pressed the OCC over the application and raised conflict-of-interest concerns. Crypto.com received conditional approval for a similar charter in February, showing WLFI's bank push sits within a broader trend.

Related Reading

White House sets February deadline to settle $6.6 trillion fight between Coinbase and banks

Even “crypto” is split now, and the winner sets the template for every future fight on custody, DeFi, and taxes.

Feb 4, 2026 · Gino Matos

This is a Trump-linked venture that monetizes access and simultaneously seeks a regulatory stamp that would make it appear to be infrastructure. Even without evidence of quid pro quo, the appearance problem is legible to anyone who understands how proximity works in regulated industries.

Reuters reported that WLFI generated more than $460 million for the Trump family in the first half of 2025 and that 75% of new token sale proceeds go to the family under current terms.

WLFI's own Mar. 3 token terms use slightly broader wording, stating that DT Marks DeFi and affiliates are entitled to 75% of “net protocol revenues” after deductions.

Even using a narrower framing, a $5 million Super Node purchase implies roughly $3.75 million flows to the Trump family.

The proposal frames Super Nodes as more than prestige. Its rationale says Super Nodes help “prioritize partnership deal flow” and create a USD1 distribution network in which each Super Node acts as a “mini-distributor.”

The $5 million lane is a commercial channel strategy to expand stablecoin adoption.

World Liberty put a dollar figure on being prioritized. It structured that prioritization as a distribution franchise for a stablecoin the venture wants to issue through a federally chartered trust bank.

The democratization problem

WLFI's Gold Paper says its mission is to “democratize access to financial opportunities” and “democratize finance.”

The same document discloses that tokens were offered in the US only to accredited investors.

The Super Node tier makes the contradiction impossible to miss. The project moved from an implied hierarchy, accredited investors only, to an explicit hierarchy with a posted $5 million threshold.

Everyone understands what pay for access means. Finance is being wrapped in new technology, and the core mechanism remains familiar: pay more, get heard faster, gain governance weight, and secure commercial opportunities others do not.

Related Reading

Trump’s WLFI is pivoting to “narrow banking,” a move that exposes the fatal flaw of competitors

WLFI’s move to become a "narrow bank" reveals the hidden mechanism that will soon gatekeep crypto wealth.

Jan 8, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Reuters noted that critics say the arrangement clashes with World Liberty's stated mission.

The venture clarified that access is for business development teams, but this clarification does not address the tension between democratization branding and stratified access.

World Liberty Financial is stress-testing one of crypto's oldest claims: that tokenized governance distributes power more fairly than traditional finance. In this model, governance depends on how much capital you can lock in for how long and what strategic value you can offer.

If WLFI's version works, other projects may copy the playbook. Stake a large size, get governance preference, distribution rights, and access to business development channels.

The industry would move toward a model in which tokens function as a hybrid of a lobbying budget, a channel-partner franchise, and a private membership card.

The Super Node proposal already passed. The trust bank application is alive. The most natural outcome is normalization: pay-for-access mechanics become standard inside crypto governance, even if critics keep attacking the optics.

If the bank charter process advances and USD1 adoption expands, institutional partners may decide that the access tier filters serious counterparties. WLFI becomes a politically branded stablecoin platform, and the $5 million lane starts to look like a business development fee.

If ethics pressure and charter scrutiny intensify, the access product becomes a reputational drag.

Crypto's newest premium product is access. World Liberty Financial is making that explicit with a $5 million price tag, a six-month lockup, and a governance system that ties voting power to committed capital.

The venture promised to democratize finance, but it sold tokens only to accredited investors. Now it is charging $5 million to skip the line while seeking a federal banking charter.

The post Trump-backed WLFI is selling $5 million access while pitching finance for everyone appeared first on CryptoSlate.

That fundraising chatter is taking place in the middle of a political storm.

Iran-related contracts turned prediction markets from a quirky forecasting niche into a question about insider information and incentives around war. Reuters reviewed Polymarket markets tied to the timing of attacks and Khamenei's removal and found about $529 million wagered on timing-of-attack contracts and about $150 million on Khamenei-related contracts, alongside claims of unusually well-timed trading that generated about $1.2 million in profit across six accounts.

Now lawmakers are drafting legislation, and the CFTC said it's also moving toward new rulemaking.

Wall Street believes that probabilities will become part of the information system. But Washington is standing in its way because it believes the system can reward the wrong people at the worst moments.

Wall Street is buying the probability layer story

Prediction markets convert attention into transactions and transactions into fees, while also producing a live probability feed that can be packaged as data.

That second product is the part that pulls prediction markets out of the gambling bucket and into the same group as market data, polling, and financial terminals, because the output is designed to look and behave like a quote.

Media partnerships have started doing the distribution for them. CNBC signed a multi-year deal with Kalshi to integrate its probabilities into TV and digital programming starting in 2026, which puts event-contract pricing into the everyday flow of business news.

Dow Jones signed an exclusive deal with Polymarket to bring prediction market data into The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, and MarketWatch products, which effectively treats a contract price like a piece of reporting infrastructure that can sit next to earnings, rates, and election coverage.

Those deals also tighten the consequences of a scandal, because the markets are no longer a novelty that people can ignore. Once probabilities are embedded in mainstream outlets, they start shaping what readers think is plausible, urgent, or imminent. This is why regulators believe the platforms have to answer a higher standard around integrity, surveillance, and settlement.

It also explains why the companies' valuation kept rising even as the Iran markets drew political heat.

Iran turned prediction markets into a Washington problem

The market's cleanest edge is early knowledge, and the Iran contracts clearly showed that these platforms deal with the kind of information governments try to control.

On March 2, there was about $529 million wagered on timing-of-attack markets and around $150 million on contracts related to Khamenei's death and removal from office. Just six accounts made $1.2 million in profit from these contracts, all funded just several hours before the raids that killed the Iranian leader.

Multiple other reports of newly created accounts making unusually well-timed Iran bets also began popping up as the conflict escalated. This kind of mainstream reporting pulled Polymarket out of the crypto novelty category and landed it in the midst of government surveillance and enforcement.

The main issues these platforms now face are trust and fairness.

A prediction market only works when people believe the rules are stable, the outcomes are adjudicated consistently, and the playing field isn't tilted toward insiders. When the underlying event is military action, that trust problem becomes political, because the incentive to trade early becomes an incentive to leak sensitive and even classified information.

That's why the policy response escalated so fast.

Rep. Mike Levin and Sen. Chris Murphy are already working on legislation aimed at reining in prediction markets after the Iran bets. This puts Congress directly in charge of defining what event contracts should be allowed to cover.

Separately, CFTC Chair Michael Selig said the agency submitted an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to the White House budget office and would move soon on a prediction-markets rule proposal. This tells us a regulatory framework is in the works that could affect everything from contract design and monitoring to enforcement priorities.

The choice Washington faces is pretty straightforward, even if the implementation is technical.

Regulators can treat prediction markets as legitimate event contracts and build stronger monitoring and clearer limits, which could help the category keep scaling with a more defined rulebook.

They can also fence off categories tied to war, assassination, and leadership removal, because those contracts concentrate the insider-information risk and create ugly incentives.

A snapshot shows why this collision is hard to smooth over:

Kalshi’s own dispute shows why regulation alone doesn't end the trust question.

On March 5, Kalshi was sued for failing to pay $54 million to users who bet that the Iranian Supreme Leader would leave office before March 1. The class action suit, filed in California, alleges that the company didn't invoke a “death carveout” provision until after the Iranian leader was killed to avoid paying customers.

Kalshi, however, says its rules about trading on death outcomes were explicit, and that it reimbursed fees and losses so users didn't lose money.

That's the kind of tension investors and policymakers are now dealing with.

Investors want growth, distribution, and a clean case for a probability feed that belongs in the mainstream.

Users want rules that feel stable when outcomes become contentious and emotionally loaded.

Regulators want to prevent a market from turning sensitive state action into a tradable instrument where the best trade is the best leak, because that risk becomes a governance problem the moment these prices start shaping the information environment.

The post Iran war bets turned Polymarket and Kalshi into the next fight over what people should be allowed to trade appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Traders and analysts often interpret that as renewed selling, fresh distribution, or signs that the market hasn't bottomed. That logic helped turn HODL Waves, Coin Days Destroyed, and long-term holder supply into some of the most widely used metrics in Bitcoin cycle analysis.

The problem with that is that Bitcoin’s blockchain records movements and has no way of showing the motive behind them.

On Nov. 22, 2025, Coinbase said it was transferring BTC and ETH from its legacy wallets to new internal wallets as part of a routine security practice. The company said the transfers were planned, internal, and unrelated to any breach or market event.

But on-chain, it looked like a huge block of old coins suddenly waking up. If Coinbase hadn't published the announcement beforehand, it would have taken some time before the movement stopped looking like pure selling pressure.

At the time, CryptoSlate reported that the company moved nearly 800,000 BTC, representing roughly 4% of Bitcoin's circulating supply and worth around $69.5 billion at the time. That's large enough to overwhelm raw age-based readings and distort the story traders think the chart is telling.

Why Bitcoin traders trust age-based signals so much

HODL Waves are one of the most widely used metrics because they compress a wide range of holder behavior into a single view.

It's a macro snapshot of coin age across the total supply. As coins remain dormant, they mature into older age bands. So, when those same coins move, they leave those older bands and re-enter the youngest category. Analysts use that shift to judge whether long-term holders are still sitting tight and whether older supply is being spent.

That framework became popular because it fit the rhythm of Bitcoin cycles.

In bear markets, traders look for signs that weak hands are gone, long-term holders are absorbing supply, and the available pool of sellers has thinned out. High levels of long-term holder supply often support that interpretation.

That's why these metrics carry so much weight in down markets. They often appear cleaner than price alone, because price can bounce and fail, and derivatives can quickly turn into noise.

Age-based supply, on the other hand, is slower, sturdier, and looks much closer to actual conviction.

That is also why it's such a massive event when one custodian’s wallet reorganization can shift the data and create a false impression of real holder behavior.

Coinbase said on-chain data would show very large volumes of BTC and ETH moving from existing to new wallets, and that deposit addresses and normal customer activity wouldn't be affected. It said it was a planned internal migration tied to security standards and said explicitly that it was unrelated to any data breach or external threat.

CryptoSlate’s reporting explained why the move looked so dramatic on-chain even though the beneficial owner didn't change: Bitcoin analytics tools register spent outputs, transaction volume, and age resets immediately, while wallet labels and entity-level interpretation often catch up later.

If a large holder sells, ownership changes, and the potential sell-side liquidity changes with it. But if a large exchange moves coins from one internal wallet cluster to another, the blockchain still records those coins as spent and recreated. For age-sensitive charts, those two events can look nearly identical at first glance, even though one reflects genuine distribution and the other is just internal wallet maintenance.

Why a wallet reshuffle can look like Bitcoin holders are selling

HODL Waves change when dormant coins mature into older age bands, and they also change when old coins are spent, resetting their age into the youngest category. Coin Days Destroyed follows the same basic logic: every day a coin remains unspent, it accumulates coin days, and once it is spent, those accumulated coin days reset to zero and are counted as destroyed.

That means a large internal wallet migration can create the same mechanical footprint as long-dormant investors finally spending, even when no sale happened at all. Old supply wakes up, young supply thickens, and coin days get destroyed. A trader looking only at the raw chart can come away with a bearish read or decide the bottom is still farther off, even though actual ownership never changed.

This is a clear example of the fact that some of the market's favorite holder-behavior charts are also wallet-behavior charts unless they are adjusted carefully and read with enough context.

That doesn't mean HODL Waves or other age-based indicators aren't useful.

The bigger issue here is methodology. Glassnode says both its LTH and STH supply metrics are entity-adjusted, use an entity’s average purchase date, and exclude supply held on exchanges. That's a meaningful safeguard against exactly the kind of false signal raw address-level data can produce.

That nuance splits the debate into two fairly reasonable camps.

One side argues that age-based metrics still work when analysts use entity-aware versions and understand exactly what's being measured.

The other sees the Coinbase episode as a reminder that any bottom call built from a single chart deserves more skepticism than it usually gets.

What loses credibility is the lazy version of the argument: old coins moved, therefore long-term holders are dumping, therefore the bottom is still out of reach. That was always too neat. Coinbase’s migration just made the flaw much harder to miss.

What traders should trust more than a single bottom signal

A much stronger indicator of where Bitcoin is in the bull/bear cycle comes from confirmation across a few different methods, rather than faith in one chart.

Age-based signals still have value, though, especially when they're entity-adjusted, and the exchange supply is filtered out. But they work best when they are checked against market structure and flow data. If old coins appear to move, the next question should be whether exchange balances actually increased, whether ETF flows weakened, whether realized behavior changed, and whether price reacted the way it usually does during genuine distribution.

That's the broader lesson from Coinbase’s migration.

Bitcoin’s transparency is real, but meaning still has to be extracted carefully. The chain records movement with precision, but interpretation is where mistakes happen.

In a market obsessed with calling bottoms, a routine wallet migration can end up exposing something larger than one noisy chart: that on-chain analysis still depends heavily on knowing who moved the coins, not simply that they moved.

The blockchain can show that coins have moved. It can't, on its own, tell traders whether anyone actually sold.

The post Coinbase’s $70B Bitcoin move made it look like investors were selling — but no one actually did appeared first on CryptoSlate.

On March 2, senators voted 84-6 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6644, a broad housing and banking package that would bar the Federal Reserve from issuing a CBDC until the end of 2030.

Only six senators voted no. Cory Booker voted present, and nine senators did not vote.

That margin meant that a CBDC stopped being a crypto-policy side fight. CBDCs are now at the center of every Senate-floor fight over privacy, state reach, and control.

The procedural caveat still matters to the legal reading of the vote. March 2 wasn't the final passage, and the roll call doesn't prove that the six holdouts actually support a Fed digital dollar.

However, it shows that a Senate supermajority was comfortable advancing a package that includes anti-CBDC language.

The six holdouts, and what their votes actually show

The six senators who voted no were Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Rick Scott of Florida, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.

All of them voted against moving H.R. 6644 forward at that stage, inside a package that stretches well beyond digital-money policy.

• Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). Wisconsin Republican first elected in 2010. Johnson’s Senate biography centers on manufacturing, fiscal policy, and oversight work, and he has held senior roles on Budget and investigations-related committees.

• Mike Lee (R-Utah). Utah Republican first elected in 2010. Lee has built much of his public identity around constitutional structure, civil liberties, and limits on federal power, which makes his inclusion in this six-senator bloc especially notable in a fight over state control of money.

• Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
Connecticut Democrat and one of only two Democrats in the March 2 no bloc. Murphy is better known nationally for foreign policy and gun legislation than for crypto or payments debates, which leaves room for multiple readings of his vote absent a direct office explanation.
• Rick Scott (R-Fla.).
Florida Republican and former governor, elected to the Senate in 2018. Scott’s vote stood out because anti-CBDC politics have often found a particularly friendly home among Florida Republicans.
• Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.).
Alabama Republican elected in 2020. Tuberville still carries the “Coach Tuberville” nickname from his long football career, and he joined the small group that broke from the larger Senate wave on March 2.
• Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
Maryland Democrat and the second Democrat in the no bloc. Van Hollen serves on the Senate Banking Committee, which gives his vote added weight inside a package that blends housing, finance, and CBDC language.

H.R. 6644’s size and breadth are the reason a simple ideological scorecard doesn't quite fit here.

The anti-CBDC provision sits inside the “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” and the substitute amendment goes well beyond digital currency.

The package includes housing-supply and affordability measures, disaster-recovery block grant structures, rural housing data, modernization provisions, and support aimed at manufactured housing communities.

In other words, none of these senators were voting on a single-question referendum on a Fed digital dollar, but on whether to move a much larger package onto the floor.

Why the CBDC language is bigger than the roll call

Still, the CBDC language is uncharacteristically direct.

The Senate amendment defines a CBDC as a digital asset denominated in US dollars, treated as US currency, carried as a direct liability of the Federal Reserve System, and widely available to the general public.

It then says the Fed Board or any Federal Reserve Bank may not issue or create such a currency, or a substantially similar digital asset, either directly or indirectly. The provision sunsets on Dec. 31, 2030.

That sunset date shows that Congress wants to fence off this issue for the rest of this decade, not settle the issue of digital dollars forever.

But the Fed's own stance towards CBDC makes this entire effort almost obsolete.

The Federal Reserve has publicly said it made no decisions on issuing a CBDC. In a 2022 paper, it laid out strict requirements for any potential CBDC in the US, but noted that it doesn't authorize direct Fed accounts for individuals.

A later research note repeated that point, saying that the central bank doesn't intend to proceed with a CBDC without clear support from the executive branch and Congress, in the form of a specific authorizing law.

So, senators are now moving to block a form of money that the Fed says it has chosen not to issue and couldn't issue on its own anyway. This makes the vote an effort to settle the ground rules early, while the idea of CBDCs is still abstract enough to shape and controversial enough to gain support.

When it comes to the effects this will have on the crypto industry, the interesting part starts here.

Every harder line against a government-backed digital dollar sends attention back toward private-sector dollar rails: bank deposits, tokenized deposits, exchange cash infrastructure, and stablecoins.

CryptoSlate has already tracked different pieces of that argument.

When the House passed its own anti-CBDC bill in 2024, it was an attempt to stop unelected officials from building a digital dollar without explicit congressional authorization. More recently, CryptoSlate's report on whether stablecoins can become “CBDCs in disguise” pushed the debate one step further, arguing that private digital dollars can carry many of the same control levers people fear in a state-issued version.

Kraken gaining a direct link to Federal Reserve payment rails made the same point, but in operational terms: whoever controls access to dollar settlement controls far more than branding.

Access shapes speed, resilience, predictability, and competitive advantage. That's part of the same Washington fight, only viewed from the infrastructure side rather than the Senate floor.

The same policy logic runs through the White House's stablecoin timetable slipping and the Senate’s broader CLARITY Act gridlock. Washington is trying to decide what kind of digital-dollar system it wants, who gets to operate it, and how far federal control should reach into the machinery. The CBDC vote sits neatly inside that bigger struggle.

Then came the follow-through. On March 4, the Senate agreed to the motion to proceed by 90-8.

That second vote gave the March 2 result a second anchor point, as it showed it wasn't just a one-day spike built around an 84-6 split. We can now see that the second vote is the proof of real floor momentum behind a package carrying anti-CBDC text.

While the six holdouts make this an interesting partisan debate, the bigger story is with the 84 who helped pull anti-CBDC language into the center of Senate politics, and with the broader message behind that vote. Washington wants the digital-dollar argument constrained before the Fed ever gets close to testing how far it can go.

The post Washington is trying to stop a government digital dollar before the Fed even builds one appeared first on CryptoSlate.

However, underneath, its structure looks much less comfortable.

Data shows spot activity fading while derivatives keep doing more of the work. Almost every day this month saw derivatives trading at roughly nine times the spot volume, and that's not the profile of a market pushed forward by spot demand. What we're seeing now is a market propped up almost exclusively by leverage.

Related Reading

Bitcoin options just overtook futures for the first time, and the new way institutions hedge is trapping retail leverage

Options just became Bitcoin’s largest derivatives position.

Jan 18, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

While the distinction between Bitcoin spiking due to spot demand and spiking due to increased leverage might sound too technical, the consequences of this setup are very simple and affect everyone and everything.

Spot trading means that someone buys BTC that's been put up for sale and takes possession of the coins. It's a very binary way of assessing demand: if a lot of people want to pay to own Bitcoin and keep it, its price will inevitably increase. If nobody wants it, the sellers have to lower their prices until they find willing buyers, decreasing its global value.

But derivatives are different. They're sophisticated financial instruments that enable traders to run complex trading strategies with futures, options, basis trades, and short-term hedges, often with leverage layered on top.

These strategies keep activity high and the price moving, but they create a market that looks deeper than it really is. When too much of the action sits in derivatives, price becomes more volatile, dependent on positioning, and more vulnerable to abrupt air pockets once liquidations start.

Related Reading

Why Bitcoin keeps snapping back to $70k — and the $13B options “magnet” behind it

The Iran and Hormuz headlines hit first, then the options market took over, pulling Bitcoin back above $70,000 as positioning tightened.

Mar 7, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

A Bitcoin rally built on contracts, not coins

The combined spot and derivatives volume on centralized exchanges fell by around 2.4% to $5.61 trillion in February, its lowest level since October 2024.

Spot trading volume was responsible for a better part of that drop, as trading remained heavily skewed towards derivatives.

The global spot exchange complex saw a notable drop in its volumes while synthetic exposure kept rising. That's a very different backdrop from a rally built on expanding spot demand. While this kind of price spike can look good from a distance, the foundations underneath it are much, much thinner.

The price action we've seen from Bitcoin last week is a perfect illustration of this. BTC recovered back above $70,000, and for a moment, it looked as though buyers were stepping in with much-needed conviction. However, the rebound showed up in leveraged activity more than in spot.

The issue here is not that futures or options volumes are inherently bad. Bitcoin has matured into a market where derivatives are central to price discovery. Nevertheless, when price steadies while spot stays soft, the rally can be much more fragile than it appears.

A move like that is easier to reverse because the support comes from positioning that can be reduced quickly, not just from investors absorbing coins and sitting on them.

The institutional adoption of derivatives has made this bigger than a crypto-native issue.

Earlier in February, CME said that its crypto products were posting record volumes in 2026, with the average daily volume of crypto derivatives up 46% from the previous year. That tells you that there's still room for growth in institutional exposure to Bitcoin. It also tells you where the largest share of that growth is happening: through regulated derivatives.

fInstitutions aren't necessarily expressing weak conviction when they use futures. In most cases, they're doing exactly what large, regulated players prefer to do, which is to gain exposure and hedge risk as efficiently as possible.

However, the effect on the market is still the same. More of Bitcoin’s day-to-day behavior is being shaped through contracts rather than through direct buying of the asset.

Why this gets dangerous for Bitcoin when the outside world turns

That shift wouldn't feel awkward in a calm macro environment. However, Bitcoin is now trading through a period when the outside backdrop has become harder to trust.

On March 13, US equity funds posted a second straight week of outflows as the Iran war and the oil shock darkened sentiment across risk assets. In that kind of atmosphere, leverage stops being a background feature of the market and becomes its main vulnerability.

A market supported by steady spot demand absorbs fear more gradually. But a market supported by derivatives reprices much faster because positions get cut and margins tighten.

That's the real risk now. Bitcoin can keep grinding higher in a derivatives-heavy setup, as it's done many times before.

However, a market carried by leverage depends on these calm conditions staying calm.

That leaves less room for error. A macro scare, another wave of ETF outflows, a jump in yields, a sharp equity selloff, or a sudden hit to sentiment can all produce the same effect: positions unwinding faster than cash buyers can step in.

We saw that in February, when the crypto market was hit by a burst of liquidations during a global risk unwind. While the trigger came from outside crypto, the speed of the reaction was very much a function of how the market was positioned. That's what makes the current imbalance worth watching, as the danger isn't just that Bitcoin is now volatile, because it's always volatile. The danger is that the thing propping up the price is transmitting stress quickly.

There's also a perception problem here.

Bitcoin has spent years building a stronger institutional base. Spot Bitcoin ETFs reached $100 billion in AUM, crypto derivatives on CME are setting records, and more and more corporate treasuries hold BTC.

However, better access to regulated crypto products doesn't automatically produce a sturdier foundation for day-to-day trading. What it does produce is a quick and efficient way to take large leveraged positions. The market is mature because the infrastructure is more mature, but the fragility in behavior is still there.

That's why the spot-versus-derivatives split deserves more attention than it usually gets.

It's one of the best ways to judge what's actually carrying the market at any given moment. Right now, the answer is definitely not spot or retail demand, but leverage, hedging, and synthetic exposure.

Bitcoin remains very liquid, but most of that liquidity is now synthetic, and it's usually the first kind to thin out when the market gets stressed.

That doesn't guarantee a breakdown, though. Bitcoin can stay resilient for longer than skeptics expect, and leverage can keep feeding rallies as long as the flows line up.

Nevertheless, the setup is less sturdy than the price alone makes it look. If spot buying doesn't return in a more visible way, the market may keep climbing with a weaker foundation than many traders realize.

The post Bitcoin price jumped over $71k – but most of the rally isn’t coming from real buyers appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Simultaneously, the regulator opened a 45-day rulemaking process that asks pointed questions about inside information, manipulation, and whether some markets serve the public interest at all.

Two weeks earlier, the agency had spotlighted two Kalshi disciplinary cases involving traders who appeared to hold decisive informational edges.

One is a California gubernatorial candidate who bet on his own race, the other a YouTube editor who traded contracts tied to “Mr. Beast” while likely holding material nonpublic information.

The Mar. 12 move treats prediction markets as a real market-structure problem.

When prices influence news coverage, political narratives, and investor sentiment, insider edges and weak guardrails become public trust issues.

Growth without guardrails

From 2006 through 2020, designated contract markets listed about five event contracts a year on average. That jumped to 131 in 2021 and hit roughly 1,600 event contracts certified for listing in 2025, representing 12 times the 2021 level and 320 times the historical baseline.

Applications for exchange registration have more than doubled over the past year, largely from firms focused on running prediction markets.

Under current rules, an exchange can self-certify a new contract by giving the CFTC written notice just one business day before launch. In a market that can scale overnight, the burden of integrity falls on exchanges before problems become public.

The CFTC is not speaking in the abstract about insider-style abuse.

In the Langford case, Kalshi found a California gubernatorial candidate traded on his own candidacy and imposed a five-year suspension plus a $2,246.36 penalty.

In the Kaptur case, Kalshi found a YouTube editor traded “Mr. Beast” contracts while likely possessing material nonpublic information and imposed a two-year suspension plus a $20,397.58 penalty.

The enforcement division said both fact patterns could implicate the Commodity Exchange Act anti-fraud rules.

The advance notice of proposed rulemaking goes further.

It explicitly asks whether asymmetric information can ever serve the public interest, whether prediction markets are especially vulnerable to cross-market manipulation, whether participants skew younger, and whether self-exclusion programs, monetary or time limits, ad restrictions, disclaimers, and warnings should be factored into the Commission's public-interest analysis.

The line between crowd wisdom and single-actor vulnerability

The Mar. 12 advisory offers the sharpest frame for understanding what the CFTC now considers risky.

Some prediction markets still look like information aggregation, but others resemble insider-sensitive micro-markets.

The advisory says sports and other event contracts are often consistent with anti-manipulation standards when settlement depends on the aggregate performance of multiple participants over an extended period, because breadth makes manipulation harder.

It warns that contracts tied to injuries, unsportsmanlike conduct, physical altercations, officiating actions, or outcomes driven by a single person or small group pose a heightened risk of manipulation or price distortion.

That distinction separates broad contracts, which can plausibly claim price-discovery value, from narrow contracts that begin to look like monetized access to privileged information.

Prediction markets are moving into ordinary retail finance distribution. Robinhood offers event contracts through CFTC-regulated partner exchanges across politics, sports, culture, crypto, climate, economics, and health.

Interactive Brokers' ForecastTrader is live for political, economic, finance, and climate contracts.

They are also moving into mainstream media. In January, Dow Jones signed an exclusive deal with Polymarket to bring real-time prediction data to The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, and MarketWatch, and CNBC signed a similar deal with Kalshi.

These prices are becoming headline inputs.

Once market-implied odds are embedded in coverage of elections, company events, the economy, wars, or sports, a distorted market can become a distorted news signal.

The rulemaking request itself asks how event contracts should be judged under the Commodity Exchange Act's public interest goals of price discovery, price dissemination, anti-manipulation, and protection against abusive sales practices.

The CFTC is warning that prediction markets are becoming too important to run on trust-based mechanics.

Reuters Breakingviews framed the risk in classic adverse-selection terms: people may choose not to participate if they think the other side knows more than they do.

The central tension is whether prediction markets can stay useful once insiders know the public is watching the odds.

The regulatory subtext

The CFTC is effectively asking whether prediction markets are a derivatives market, a gambling-adjacent consumer product, or both.

The rulemaking request asks about “gaming,” whether sports competitions should be treated differently from award competitions, whether responsible-gaming tools should matter, and how the Commission should weigh the needs of younger participants.

The language signals a regulator testing how far financial market logic can stretch before it collides with gambling-style consumer protection.

The state-federal fight makes this more urgent. Massachusetts blocked Kalshi's sports markets in January and February, and Nevada sued in February, arguing that the contracts constitute illegal gambling under state law.

The CFTC has insisted it has exclusive federal jurisdiction over many event contracts traded on registered markets.

A recent American Gaming Association analysis said nearly 43% of digital sports betting ads seen by US consumers in the first two months of 2026 came from prediction market operators and therefore were not subject to state gaming rules requiring responsible-gaming messaging.

The same analysis said Kalshi generated about 5.2 billion digital ad impressions this year, versus 2.9 billion for FanDuel.

What comes next

The CFTC says comments are due 45 days after Federal Register publication, and the rulemaking notice was filed for public inspection on Mar. 12, with a scheduled publication date of Mar. 13, which suggests a likely deadline of Apr. 27.

The most natural outcome is that the CFTC allows growth but pushes narrower guardrails.

In this scenario, the market can expect tougher scrutiny of single-person and small-group markets, more explicit restricted-trader lists, stronger settlement-source requirements, and heavier exchange surveillance.

Broad macro, election, climate, and full-game contracts likely survive. At the same time, the most integrity-sensitive micro-markets are squeezed.

The alternative paths are clear. If the process produces durable rules, broker distribution expands, and prediction markets become a normalized retail derivatives category.

Robinhood and IBKR distributions are already live.

Cboe is launching a new prediction market framework in the second quarter, Nasdaq has sought SEC approval for binary index options, and ICE has invested up to $2 billion in Polymarket.

However, if the federal framework remains muddy while states keep litigating, product menus fragment by state, and regulated operators hesitate to list anything that resembles a prop bet or a gambling-adjacent micro-market.

One high-profile scandal could settle the debate overnight. A case involving political insiders, league insiders, military information, or a market-resolution fiasco could trigger emergency freezes, category-level prohibitions, or rapid bipartisan calls for tougher laws.

Broad public forecasting versus narrow, insider-sensitive micro markets may define the future more than the distinction between crypto and traditional finance.

The CFTC acknowledges the potential informational value of informed trading while also asking whether the same asymmetry can lead to unfairness and the misuse of inside information.

The agency's warning is clear: prediction markets are influential enough that the same problems people understand from traditional markets now apply. This includes insider information, weak surveillance, conflicts of interest, and the risk that ordinary users stop trusting the market if they believe they are trading against better-informed insiders.

The post The CFTC says prediction markets have an insider trading problem appeared first on CryptoSlate.

But the relief came with a catch.

By the time the report arrived on March 11, the picture had already changed. The labor market weakened, last year's payroll data was revised lower, and the conflict in Iran pushed oil to record highs.

That's the real issue the Fed has to face. February CPI may have looked calm, but it described an economy that already felt out of date by the time the report was published.

The Fed now heads into its March 17-18 meeting with a soft inflation print in one hand and a rough growth and energy backdrop in the other.

Related Reading

The Fed is readying to punish banks for holding Bitcoin as US crypto tensions boil over

Basel’s thresholds and punitive risk weights can make direct Bitcoin exposure prohibitively expensive even when it’s legally permitted.

Mar 13, 2026 · Gino Matos

A soft print on a hard backdrop

The market’s first reaction made sense.

February CPI didn't reopen the inflation scare, as core inflation stayed contained on a monthly basis, and the rent components that drove so much of the last two years’ price pressure kept cooling. The BLS said rent rose just 0.1% in February, the smallest monthly increase in the past five years, while the shelter index rose 0.2%.

The report was stable, it felt reassuring, and looked like a clean signal that rates would keep dropping. But it arrived at the wrong time. It gave markets a picture of the economy from before one of the most important inflation inputs started moving again.

A spike in oil prices can't be contained in the energy complex. It feeds into gasoline, transport, logistics, business costs, inflation expectations, and household spending. When tanker attacks in the Strait of Hormuz intensified, crude rose to its highest level since 2022 and dragged global equities lower.

The pressure on the market was large enough that the International Energy Agency called it the biggest supply disruption in oil market history. March supply is expected to fall by around 8 million barrels per day because of the fighting and disruption around the Strait of Hormuz. Brent, which briefly hit $119.50 earlier in the week, was still trading near $97 on March 12.

That leaves February CPI looking like a snapshot of a time before the next inflation risk was fully visible.

The labor market already broke the easy story

The second problem for the Fed is that the labor market stopped supporting the soft-landing narrative just as CPI cooled.

The February jobs report showed payrolls falling by 92,000, after a January gain of 126,000, and the unemployment rate rising from 4.3% to 4.4%.

That alone is enough to complicate the inflation story. A softer CPI print paired with outright job losses isn't the disinflation markets like to celebrate, because it means demand may be cooling for less comfortable reasons.

Then there are the revisions. In February, the BLS finalized its benchmark revision, showing that the March 2025 payroll level had been overstated by 862,000 jobs. This recast last year’s labor market as much weaker than previously understood. The BLS said the total change in nonfarm employment for 2025 was revised down to 181,000 from 584,000.

That changes the context for everything. It means the economy entered 2026 with less labor-market strength than the headlines implied for months. It also means the Fed isn't weighing a soft CPI print against a strong labor cushion, but against a labor market that may have been weaker all along.

Iran made the CPI print feel old on arrival

The Middle East conflict is what turns this into a policy risk.

If oil had stayed quiet, the Fed could have looked at February CPI and argued that inflation was still bending lower while the economy gradually slowed. That wouldn't solve the policy problem, but it would at least give officials a coherent narrative.

The conflict in Iran changed that. As the war intensified, crude spiked, Wall Street sold off, and bond yields climbed as investors absorbed the risk of a larger supply shock.

That's why the Fed now looks boxed in.

If it leans too much on the softer CPI print, it risks treating stale inflation data as proof that price pressure is fading on its own. If it leans too much on the oil shock and keeps policy tight for longer, it risks pressing harder on an economy where jobs are already deteriorating.

Goldman Sachs pushed back its first Fed cut call to September from June because the Middle East conflict lifted inflation risk even as labor data softened.

Nonetheless, a soft CPI print is still useful. It's real data, and it tells you inflation wasn't accelerating in February. However, it doesn't settle the bigger question facing markets or the Fed.

Was February the start of a durable move lower in inflation, or simply the last calm reading before oil starts feeding into prices and labor weakness gets worse?

Even the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, PCE, didn't provide much clarity. January consumer spending rose 0.4%, while core PCE increased 0.4% on the month and 3.1% from a year earlier, a much firmer underlying inflation signal than the softer February CPI print implied.

That means the Fed is still looking at sticky price pressure before the latest oil shock is fully visible in the data, which makes any market relief tied to one calm CPI report look even more fragile.

CryptoSlate made that point from the crypto side, and the same logic applies to macro more broadly. When oil, jobs, and inflation stop moving in sync, headline-driven optimism gets shaky fast.

February CPI gave markets relief, but it failed to give the Fed a clean answer. The report looked calm because it described February. The Fed has to make its next decision in a March economy shaped by weaker jobs and a Middle East oil shock. That is why the real risk here is false comfort.

The post The latest US inflation report looked like good news, but the Fed may already have a bigger problem appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Additionally, USDC is gaining ground in the places where the next wave of crypto money is likely to show up most clearly: regulated payments, institutional settlement, and high-velocity on-chain transfers.

Tether’s USDT still holds the largest stock of digital dollars in circulation, but the contest is shifting from a simple market-cap race to a fight over which issuer controls the rails that move new capital through crypto.

That split is now visible in both the long-term structure and the last month of market-cap movement. The stablecoin market stands at about $315 billion, giving the sector a much larger base than earlier in the cycle.

Within that pool, USDT still leads with 58% market share by supply, keeping Tether firmly in command of the largest crypto cash reserve.

Related Reading

Stablecoins just eclipsed Bitcoin in the one metric that matters, exposing a $23 trillion global fault line

Cross-border flows have finally overtaken Ethereum, proving these tokens are no longer just for crypto gambling.

Dec 8, 2025 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Supply, however, is only one part of the picture. The more revealing question is where fresh dollars are going, which token they move through, and which issuer is building infrastructure institutions can use at scale.

That is where Circle has started to build a stronger case. Circle's financial statements confirm USDC circulation reached $75 billion at the end of 2025, up 72% year over year, while Q4 on-chain transaction volume climbed to $12 trillion, up 247% from a year earlier. Those figures indicate a stablecoin moving through wallets, venues, and payment flows more quickly.

Tether, for its part, remains too large to dismiss. In its latest quarterly disclosure, Tether stated USDT circulation topped $186 billion, reserve assets approached $193 billion, and its total US Treasury exposure reached $141 billion.

It also said it issued nearly $50 billion in new USDT during 2025. Those figures show a business that still dominates the inventory side of crypto dollars, especially across exchanges, offshore trading venues, and markets where users want a dollar-linked asset without relying on local banking systems.

Over the past month, USDC’s market cap has risen around 8%, pushing it to roughly $79 billion and a fresh all-time high.

Tether has remained far larger, but USDT is still sitting about $3 billion below the roughly $187 billion peak it reached in December 2025, a gap that gives Circle a clearer opening to chip away at Tether’s lead than the headline supply table alone suggests.

So the tension is real. Tether still controls the biggest pile of crypto cash. Circle is building faster in the parts of the market most closely aligned with the next phase of regulation and institutional adoption.

Related Reading

‘We wear your loathing with pride:' Why S&P downgraded Tether after it bought more gold than any country

Despite a downgrade from S&P, Tether's gold and Bitcoin stockpile is seen as strength by crypto markets.

Nov 27, 2025 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

For traders and Bitcoin investors, stablecoins remain the main form of dollar liquidity inside crypto.

Whoever captures more of the next inflow can shape where liquidity thickens, how collateral is posted, and which rails become the default path for new capital entering the market.

USDT still owns supply, while USDC is winning more of the flow

The cleanest way to understand the shift is to separate supply from velocity. USDT still leads in outstanding supply, meaning more dollars are parked in Tether than in any rival stablecoin. But transaction data suggests USDC is gaining influence over how money moves.

Bloomberg, citing Artemis Analytics, reported that stablecoin transaction volume rose 72% to $33 trillion in 2025, with USDC accounting for $18.3 trillion and USDT for $13.3 trillion.

That divergence carries more weight than a simple supply table. A stablecoin that wins more transaction flow can become the preferred medium for settlement, treasury movement, and short-duration capital rotation, even while another token still holds a larger long-term balance.

Put differently, Tether still looks stronger as stored crypto cash, while Circle is making a case to become the preferred token for moving crypto cash.

The market is also assigning the two issuers different jobs. Tether’s edge remains distribution. It has the deepest footprint across global exchanges and a large user base in emerging markets, where demand for dollar-linked assets often reflects local currency weakness, capital controls, or banking friction.

Circle’s edge is legibility. It has built a reserve model and disclosure framework that fit more naturally with banks, regulated payment firms, and institutions that need cleaner lines around custody, compliance, and audits.

Circle’s own transparency page makes that pitch directly. The company says the bulk of USDC reserves sit in the BlackRock-managed Circle Reserve Fund, with the rest primarily in cash at regulated financial institutions, and notes that its financial statements are audited by Deloitte.

That does not erase market competition, and it does not guarantee that USDC will overtake USDT by supply. It does give Circle a stronger position in the regulated lane of the market at a moment when regulation is beginning to sort winners by use case.

Related Reading

The GENIUS Act’s $250M battle begins now: Bitcoin stands as the last bastion against censorship

The law is signed, but the real fight starts in rulemaking and phased rollouts through 2026–27. Here’s the timeline, the winners, and how flows could reroute crypto rails.

Nov 7, 2025 · Gino Matos

The policy backdrop is moving in that direction. A Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis review of the GENIUS Act framework says payment stablecoin issuers face tight reserve rules, monthly disclosures, and annual audited financial statements once issuance passes $50 billion.

State-qualified issuers above $10 billion would also need to move toward federal oversight within a year. Those thresholds do not decide the market on their own, but they make compliance architecture more important than it was during the earlier, more crypto-native phase of stablecoin growth.

That split is already visible in payments. Visa launched USDC settlement in the United States with Cross River Bank and Lead Bank and plans broader U.S. expansion through 2026. It also said its monthly stablecoin settlement volume had reached a $3.5 billion annualized run rate as of November 30.

That is not the same as saying USDC will dominate all crypto activity. Circle, however, is gaining share in one of the most important growth lanes outside exchange trading.

The Bitcoin implication centers on liquidity, collateral, and who captures the next inflow

For Bitcoin, the stablecoin contest is not a side issue. Stablecoins fund exchange balances, back collateral positions, and give traders a dollar-linked unit that can move around the clock without leaving the crypto system.

When stablecoin supply grows, the market’s pool of deployable dollar liquidity tends to deepen. When one stablecoin gains more of that growth, the question becomes which venues and user groups will control the new liquidity.

Glassnode has described the Stablecoin Supply Ratio as a gauge of stablecoin-denominated buying power relative to Bitcoin supply, with lower readings implying greater potential purchasing power. That supports a practical point: stablecoins are one of the clearest ways to measure how much dollar liquidity is sitting inside crypto and how ready that liquidity may be to rotate into BTC.

If USDT remains the main store of offshore trading cash while USDC gains ground in regulated settlement and enterprise finance, Bitcoin liquidity could become more segmented over the next year. Offshore spot and derivatives venues may remain heavily USDT-centric.

Meanwhile, institutionally mediated Bitcoin activity could lean more toward USDC as banks, payment firms, and treasury desks choose the stablecoin that best fits compliance, reserve transparency, and settlement requirements.

That would not weaken Bitcoin. Tether would still matter most for the largest reservoir of crypto-native trading capital, and it could broaden the set of rails that feed Bitcoin demand.

Circle would matter more for the next tranche of regulated capital seeking a stablecoin bridge to digital assets without stepping outside traditional financial guardrails.

Standard Chartered has projected that the stablecoin market could reach $2 trillion by the end of 2028. From a base of roughly $315 billion today, that implies about $1.7 trillion of additional room for growth.

The key question is which issuer, reserve model, and regulatory framework will capture the next $1.7 trillion.

There are several plausible paths from here.

• USDT keeps the largest share of outstanding supply because its exchange and international distribution remain hard to replace, while USDC continues to gain in institutional payments and regulated settlement.
• Policy clarity and more bank integrations allow USDC’s lead in transaction velocity to translate into much bigger gains in outstanding supply.
• The market keeps assigning USDT the role of dominant crypto trading cash, and USDC’s gains remain meaningful but narrower, concentrated in regulated channels rather than across the full market.

The evidence today supports the first path more than the others. Tether is still too large, too embedded, and too useful across crypto’s global trading stack to call this an imminent overthrow.

Related Reading

How BlackRock lost control of the $10B tokenized Treasury market to Circle for one simple, mechanical reason

USYC hit $1.69B AUM on Jan. 22, narrowly topping BUIDL’s $1.684B. The real advantage is buried in collateral rails.

Jan 25, 2026 · Gino Matos

Circle, though, has enough momentum in transactions, reserve design, and institutional integrations to argue that the next phase of stablecoin growth may not belong to the same issuer that dominated the last one.

Circle’s case also rests on recency, not just structure. USDC has hit a new market-cap high near $79 billion after roughly 8% monthly growth, while USDT has yet to reclaim the peak it reached in December 2025.

The broader takeaway for Bitcoin and the wider market is straightforward. USDT still owns the largest share of crypto’s cash inventory. USDC is making a stronger claim on crypto’s future cash plumbing.

If stablecoins are heading toward a multi-trillion-dollar market, the fight is no longer just about who is biggest now. It is about who captures the next wave of money, and which version of the dollar becomes the preferred bridge into Bitcoin, exchanges, payments, and on-chain finance.

The post USDC is catching Tether where crypto’s next money wave may begin appeared first on CryptoSlate.