Bitcoin — short term (3–5 months). $77,466, up 0.67% on a day that by yesterday’s logic should have hurt it badly. The Sept 16 FOMC is now priced at roughly 90% for a 25bp hike, which inverts the setup this digest has been describing all week. The hike is no longer the risk — it is the base case. The risk is a hold, and a hold would arrive as a shock into positioning that has stopped hedging for one. $83,000 on a daily close confirms the range; $72,000 breaks it, and the two are now equidistant at about 7% either way.
Bitcoin — long term (1–3 years). For most of its history bitcoin’s deepest structural advantage was that you could read the holders. Cost basis, dormancy, capitulation, accumulation — all of it legible on a public ledger, in a way no equity or commodity has ever offered. That legibility is eroding. On-chain data showed an unusually muted HODL-waves reaction to July’s break below $58,000, an anomaly sharp enough to raise questions about whether that level ever functioned as a bear-market floor at all #16. The mechanical reason is simple: as coins migrate into ETFs, custodians, wrapped products and treasury companies, the decision to sell stops touching the chain. An ARKB redemption is a share transaction. Over three years you are underwriting an asset whose transparency premium is being quietly spent down — the ledger stays public while the behaviour it used to record moves off it.
Ethereum — short term. $2,550.62, up 4.60% — roughly seven times bitcoin’s move, on no Ethereum-specific news whatsoever. Treat that as a positioning outcome rather than a rerating: an asset that outruns the benchmark sevenfold without a story of its own is being covered, not accumulated. The practical effect is that the $2,300 invalidation line, which sat 5.7% away on Thursday, is now 9.8% below spot. The cushion that did not exist yesterday was rebuilt in a single session, and it was rebuilt by short sellers rather than buyers.
Ethereum — long term. Standard Chartered published a forecast this week that Sky will pass roughly five times as much value to token holders by 2028 as USDS adoption and borrowing capacity expand, putting a $0.325 target on SKY #17. Set aside whether the number is right and notice its shape: a global bank modelling an application token as a claim on a growing stream of distributed value. That model does not exist for ETH, because ETH lacks the mechanism it describes. Over three years the base asset competes for the same institutional dollar against things built on top of it that can be underwritten with a spreadsheet. The app layer is learning to pay. The chain is not.
Cardano — short term. $0.2073, up 0.28% — the weakest major for the third consecutive session, and this time it happened on a fully green board. The previous two sessions could be explained as macro beta, since ADA falls hardest when everything falls. That explanation is now spent. On a day when every other major caught a bid of 0.67% to 4.60%, ADA caught 0.28%, which is what thin two-way books look like when the flow arrives and routes elsewhere. Nothing Cardano-specific broke. Nothing Cardano-specific showed up either.
Cardano — long term. Bitwise is closing its Dogecoin ETF less than a year after launch, with trading halting October 14 #18. The fund did about $3 million of volume on its opening day and never came close again. Much of the institutional case for every large altcoin — Cardano included — rests on the assumption that a listed wrapper eventually unlocks demand sitting on the sidelines. Dogecoin just ran that experiment to completion: the wrapper existed, the access was real, and nobody showed up. The question for ADA over three years is not whether a product gets approved. It is whether there is a buyer waiting behind it. Cardano’s market cap is $7.78B. Draw your own conclusion about which of those two is the binding constraint.
Solana. $101.43, up 2.29%, back above the $100 handle it lost on Thursday. Reclaiming a round number in two sessions says the break was liquidation rather than a change of view.
BNB and XRP. $727.82 (+3.13%) and $1.37 (+1.70%). Both mid-pack, which is the whole story — on a day driven by a macro release, the majors sorted themselves by how much leverage had to unwind, not by anything either network did.
August CPI landed at 0.4% for the month and 3.4% year over year, both in line with consensus #2. Core, which is the number the Fed actually watches, rose 0.3% against a 0.2% forecast — a tenth hot, with the 12-month core at 2.4% #1. That single tenth did the work. Rate-hike odds for Wednesday’s meeting went from roughly a coin flip to about 90% inside one session #3. Bond yields printed fresh multi-decade highs intraday on the release #5.
And then everything went up.
The S&P added 1.00%, the Nasdaq 1.12%, gold 0.91%, and every major crypto closed green. The 30-year Treasury yield touched 5.36% and finished lower on the day at 5.349%. Most telling of all, the VIX fell 11.04% to 15.87 — a volatility crush, on the day the Fed’s path turned hawkish.
Yesterday this digest argued that crypto is the most junior claim in the macro stack — no earnings underneath it, so it absorbs a discount-rate shock in full and then some. Today the discount-rate news got unambiguously worse and bitcoin went up. The juniority thesis does not survive that tape in its simple form.
Here is the repair, and it is the more durable frame. Crypto is not priced off the level of the policy rate. It is priced off the variance around it. On Thursday you owned a coin flip four days out from a decision — the single most expensive thing a portfolio can hold, because it cannot be hedged cheaply in either direction. On Friday you own a decision. The rate is worse and the distribution is narrower, and for risk assets the second of those was worth more than the first cost. An 11% volatility crush on a hawkish print is not a market that disagrees with the Fed. It is a market that has stopped paying for insurance against an argument that just ended.
That framing has one weakness, and it belongs in the open rather than in a footnote. The argument has not ended — it has only been priced as though it has, and the revision markets made on Friday was performed on a chair who has never endorsed it. Kevin Warsh’s preferred inflation gauge continues to tell a materially different story from the headline CPI #4. Ninety percent is not a forecast of what Warsh believes. It is a forecast of what the market thinks an energy shock will force him to do. That gap is the widest it has been all cycle, and the entire volatility crush is standing on top of it.
The geopolitics delivered the same lesson from the opposite direction. Houthi forces took control of essentially the whole of Yemen’s Red Sea coastline #8, a development serious enough that the live question is now whether they can close the Red Sea outright rather than merely harass it #9. Brent fell 2.32% to $105.13 on the news. A chokepoint changed hands and the barrel went down.
Two events that should have hurt, and neither did. The common thread is not optimism. It is that both were already carried in the price — the hike since Tuesday, the Bab el-Mandeb risk premium for weeks. Markets stop responding to a risk at the point where they have finished buying it, not at the point where it stops being real.
Underneath the rally, the household transmission kept tightening. Fuel costs are still doing the squeezing #10, and the 30-year mortgage rate crossed 7% for the first time in over a year while home sales hit their 2026 low against a seven-year inventory high #11. A tape can crush volatility and a housing market can freeze in the same week. They are answering different questions.
The flows went the other way from the price. US spot bitcoin ETFs shed roughly $449 million across three sessions, with Thursday’s $282.6 million the largest single-day outflow since July. ARK 21Shares accounted for $164 million of it, ahead of Grayscale at $36 million and Fidelity at $33.6 million; ether and solana funds also ran net negative #7.
So the visible institutional channel was a net seller into a week that ended green. Whoever bid Friday’s tape was not the ETF investor. CoinDesk attributed part of bitcoin’s recovery toward $77,300 to zcash leverage unwinding #6 — which is to say, a chunk of the move was positions closing rather than capital arriving, the same mechanic driving ETH’s outperformance above.
The sharpest print of the day was a company destroying its own paper. Metaplanet cut its executive reward pool by 41%, extinguishing about $220 million in value and scrapping its employee warrant plan, after the stock fell roughly 17% across two sessions #13. A bitcoin treasury company’s compensation structure is a leveraged claim on its own share premium, and when the premium compresses the incentive package stops functioning before the balance sheet does. The coins on Metaplanet’s books did not move. The instrument built on top of them lost a fifth of its value in two days.
Meanwhile India’s SEBI launched its Demat 2.0 pilot with more than $100 million of tokenized corporate bonds settled via wholesale CBDC #19. A sovereign regulator now has a working tokenized settlement stack with a central-bank money leg and no public chain anywhere in it.
On what the flow tables miss. The ETF numbers above measure one access route — the retail-and-advisor wrapper — not the whole building. A sovereign bond pilot, a compensation restructuring at a treasury company and a leverage unwind on a privacy coin all moved capital through crypto this week, and none of them appear in a netflow chart.
Three events, one week, and they overlap.
FOMC, Sept 15–16. Roughly 90% priced for a 25bp hike. The trade is no longer directional — it is about whether the resolution the market bought on Friday actually gets delivered.
Bank of Japan, Sept 16–17. MarketWatch makes the case that the BoJ, not the Fed, is the more likely source of next week’s genuine shock #12. With USDJPY at 153.68 and the Fed expected to tighten the day before, the yen carry trade gets repriced twice in twenty-four hours.
CLARITY Act, Senate vote Sept 15. Senate Republicans circulated a revised draft ahead of the initial vote, adding registration requirements for controlled trading protocols while leaving ethics provisions largely intact #14. The vote lands the day before the Fed decision, which means the most consequential crypto legislation of the cycle will be scored by a market whose attention is elsewhere.
The hold is now the shock. This is the cleanest asymmetry on the board. If Warsh holds on Wednesday against 90% pricing, the volatility crush reverses instantly and crypto is positioned wrong in the direction that usually hurts most — long into an unhedged surprise. A hike delivers what is priced and should be close to a non-event.
A second quantum result landed in one day. Yesterday’s note here was that one halved benchmark is not a crisis but a pattern of them is a schedule, and to watch for a second result this quarter. It arrived the next morning: an AI-agent challenge cut a resource benchmark for one component of a quantum attack on bitcoin by 86% #15. Two results, two days, 50% then 86%. The relevant variable is no longer cryptographic research throughput — it is how much of that research AI agents can do unsupervised.
Zcash wrapper premium — concluded. This tracker was opened on Sept 8 and ran three quiet sessions. It has now resolved, in the least interesting way available: the leverage unwound, as noted above. No structural signal, no persistent premium, just positioning that got too large and then did not. Dropping it.
Bab el-Mandeb freight and war-risk insurance — still no print. An entire coastline changed hands and there is still not a single published war-risk premium or freight spread in the feed to price it with. When that number finally appears it will not confirm what the oil price already told you; it will be the first honest read on whether shipping treats this as a spike or a new base.
A green board on a hawkish print, four days before a central bank meeting that is 90% priced and one day before a second central bank that is not, is not a setup that rewards conviction sizing. It is a setup that rewards being already positioned and not touching it.
Hold actual coins. Not ETF shares, not equity proxies.
This is how I’d think about it. Make your own call.
Asset Price 24h
──────────────────────────────────────
Bitcoin (BTC) $77,466 +0.67%
Ethereum (ETH) $2,550.62 +4.60%
Cardano (ADA) $0.2073 +0.28%
Solana (SOL) $101.43 +2.29%
BNB $727.82 +3.13%
XRP $1.37 +1.70%
Fear & Greed: 56 — Greed (was 69 yesterday)
S&P 500: +1.00% · Nasdaq: +1.12% · DXY: 99.07 (-0.02%) · Gold: $4,404 (+0.91%)
Brent: $105.13 (-2.32%) · US 10Y: 4.955% (+1.1bp) · US 30Y: 5.349% (-1.2bp)
VIX: 15.87 (-11.04%) · USDJPY: 153.68
Equity, gold, oil and yield figures are intraday prints as of 12:26pm ET — the US cash session was still open at the close of this data window. Fear & Greed fell 13 points on a day every major rose, the mirror image of yesterday’s divergence; a sentiment survey lagging a two-day reversal is doing exactly what a sentiment survey does.
Chain of Thought is a daily crypto and macro market digest. Not financial advice.
The Hike Hit 90% And Every Major Went Green was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
In 2001, PayPal’s single biggest revenue line was not fees. It was the yield on money that was just sitting there. AI agents are about to recreate that problem at machine speed.
Read PayPal’s S-1 filing from 2001 and you find something strange.
Its single biggest revenue line at the time was not transaction fees. It was the blended yield, roughly 3.8%, that PayPal earned on customer balances sitting inside the system. Money nobody was spending paid the bills.
Every financial intermediary since has rediscovered the same lesson. Idle money is a business.
Hold that thought, because the AI agent economy is about to produce a very large pile of idle money, and almost nobody is budgeting for it.
The “will AI agents use crypto” debate ended quietly, in production, sometime last year.
Look at what is running today:
That last figure is the whole story. A 26 cent payment cannot survive card rails, where interchange alone often exceeds 20 cents per swipe.
The math simply does not work. So the traffic went somewhere the math does work.
The last hundred days turned that into standard infrastructure. Mastercard launched Agent Pay for Machines in June 2026 with more than thirty partners.
Cloudflare shipped Wallets on 1 August, giving agents a stablecoin balance and a human-readable name.
AWS took Bedrock AgentCore Payments to general availability on 18 August, built with Coinbase and Stripe.
Agents spending stablecoins is a solved problem. Agents holding stablecoins is not. Those are two different questions with two different answers.
Here is the part that never makes the headlines.
An agent cannot pay from an empty wallet. Settlement clears in milliseconds. A funding approval does not. So every production agent runs with a pre-funded buffer sitting underneath it.
Three reasons that buffer can never be zero:
And here is the uncomfortable arithmetic. Float does not scale with revenue. It scales with agent count.
At a modest $250 buffer per wallet, a 2,000-agent fleet is sitting on half a million dollars doing nothing at any given moment.
Now scale the flow. Gartner expects AI agents to intermediate around $15 trillion in B2B purchases by 2028.
McKinsey QuantumBlack puts global agentic commerce at $3 trillion to $5 trillion by 2030.
You do not need to believe either forecast precisely. You only need to accept the direction, because float is a roughly fixed percentage of flow.
For context on what that pool is worth to whoever captures it: Circle reported $653 million in reserve income in Q1 2026 on around $77 billion of USDC in circulation. Idle balances are not a rounding error. They are a revenue line.
So yes, agents will hold stablecoins. Not because it is elegant. Because they have no alternative.
Now the half that should make you pause.
Spending exposes one transaction. Holding exposes the balance. Those are completely different risk shapes, and 2026 has been rough on the second one.
The structural flaw is not exotic. A language model cannot reliably separate an instruction from content it is reading. A spending cap written into a system prompt is a suggestion, not a control.
Security researchers now push what some call the outside-the-model standard: enforce limits at the wallet or custody layer, never inside the prompt.
Which is a polite way of saying the industry assumes the agent will eventually be tricked, and designs around that assumption.
Follow that logic and you get thin agent wallets by default, with the real balance parked somewhere the agent’s reasoning cannot reach.
Here is the rule most agentic payment write-ups skip entirely.
Under the GENIUS Act, US payment stablecoin issuers are barred from paying interest directly to holders. Section 4(a)(11) closes that door.
The practical consequence is blunt. An agent’s idle float, held in a mainstream payment stablecoin, earns exactly nothing.
Every dollar of buffer is a drag on margin, and that drag grows with every agent you deploy.
Which reframes the question. It is no longer “which stablecoin should an agent hold.” It is “which structure can compensate a holder at all.”
Sky Protocol is built differently, and the difference is mechanical rather than cosmetic:
How regulators treat each structure over time is genuinely unsettled, and anyone telling you otherwise is selling something.
But the plumbing is not the same, and that is worth understanding before the agent fleet doubles.
Sky Agents are not AI agents.
Spark, Grove, Keel, Obex and Osero are independent businesses that borrow USDS and deploy it into yield strategies. They are run by people. They compete under risk parameters set by governance and published onchain.
The word collision is unfortunate. The distinction matters, because the interesting thing about the Sky Agent Network is not that it is autonomous. It is that the rules governing it are already machine-readable.
Strip away the narrative and a holding asset has to clear four tests before software will touch it:
Most yield products fail test two or test three. Anything with a lock-up is useless to an agent that might need the balance in four seconds.
Rates funded by token emissions do not survive contact with a treasury policy. So it is fair to ask what funds this one.
For Q2 2026, Sky Frontier Foundation reported Gross Protocol Revenue of $107.35M, up 10.5% year over year and the second straight quarter above $100M. Net Protocol Revenue reached $40.09M at a 37.3% net margin.
Protocol Collateral stood at $12.32B, up 45.5%. sUSDS supply hit $5.52B, up 149%.
Net Protocol Surplus came in at $33.29M, the fifth consecutive positive quarter, with cumulative Sky Savings Rate distributions past $250M since inception.
Live figures sit on the public dashboard. Check them rather than trusting a paragraph.
Partially. And the split will be functional, not ideological.
The genuinely interesting shift is not that software can spend money. It already does, 160 million times over.
Software is about to become a category of holder. And holders ask questions spenders never bother with. What backs this. Who sets the rate. Can I leave.
Those are the questions this ecosystem has been answering onchain for almost a decade. The audience just changed.
Your turn. If you were architecting a 500-agent fleet tomorrow, where would you park the float? Thin wallets with frequent refills, or a pooled treasury sitting in a readable rate? And be honest: would you let an agent hold a five-figure balance today? Comments are open.
Will AI Agents Hold Stablecoins? The Case For and Against was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Every four years, a single line of code fires, and the entire crypto market holds its breath.
It’s called the halving. It has preceded every major Bitcoin bull run since 2012. And it has turned a decade of skeptics into believers, because the pattern looked almost too clean to be coincidence: halving, rally, euphoric peak, brutal crash, repeat.
But in 2026, something is different. Bitcoin trades in the high-$70,000s, roughly 40% below its October 2025 all-time high near $126,000 — and instead of the market simply “waiting for the next halving” like it always has, a real debate has broken out among analysts, on-chain researchers, and Wall Street desks: is the four-year cycle still driving Bitcoin’s price, or has it quietly died, replaced by something closer to a traditional macro asset?
If you’ve ever typed “when is the next Bitcoin halving” or “does the 4-year cycle still work” into Google, this is the article that actually answers it — with the historical data, the current on-chain reality, and the honest uncertainty that most “guru” content skips.
Bitcoin’s supply isn’t controlled by a central bank. It’s controlled by code written by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009. Roughly every four years, or every 210,000 blocks mined, the reward paid to Bitcoin miners for validating transactions gets cut in half.
That’s it. That’s the whole mechanism. But the implications are enormous, because it directly throttles how much new Bitcoin enters circulation.
Here’s the halving schedule so far:
Every 210,000 blocks, new issuance is cut in half again — a slow march toward Bitcoin’s hard cap of 21 million coins, with the final fraction of a coin expected to be mined around the year 2140.
The economic logic is straightforward: if demand stays constant while new supply entering the market gets cut in half, price should, in theory, rise. For three consecutive cycles, that’s more or less exactly what happened.
This is the part most explainers get wrong — they treat the halving cycle as one story, when it’s really four increasingly different stories.
Cycle 1 (2012): Bitcoin traded around $12 at the halving. Within about a year, it was pushing toward $1,000. That’s a roughly 100x move — a number so extreme it’s only possible in a market that small and immature.
Cycle 2 (2016): Bitcoin sat near $650 at the halving. By the euphoric peak of December 2017, fueled by retail mania and the ICO boom, it touched almost $20,000 — about a 30x multiplier.
Cycle 3 (2020): Bitcoin was trading around $8,500 at the halving, in the depths of pandemic uncertainty. It went on to hit roughly $69,000 in late 2021 — close to an 8x return.
Cycle 4 (2024): Bitcoin was already near $64,000 on halving day — itself remarkable, since previous halvings had happened in bear or recovery markets, not near record highs. It later touched a new all-time high near $126,000 in October 2025. The multiplier from halving day to peak: roughly 2x.
Lay those four numbers next to each other — 103x, 30x, 8x, 2x — and the trend is unmistakable. Each cycle has delivered a dramatically smaller percentage return than the one before it. That’s not a bug in the data; it’s the natural result of a market that keeps getting bigger, deeper, and more institutionally owned.
The other consistent historical pattern: every halving has been followed by a new all-time high within roughly 12–18 months. That streak is intact — four for four. The open question is whether it stays intact for a fifth time in 2028.
Three structural shifts separate the current cycle from everything that came before it, and they’re worth understanding individually rather than lumping them together as vague “this time it’s different” talk.
In 2012, the halving removed about 3,600 BTC per day from new issuance — a massive deal in a market where daily trading volume was thin and illiquid. By the 2024 halving, that number had shrunk to roughly 450 BTC per day, worth around $28 million against a market moving billions of dollars daily. By the 2028 halving, daily issuance drops again, from roughly 450 BTC to about 225 BTC.
Compare that 225 BTC/day figure to spot Bitcoin ETF demand, which has swung between 5,000 and 20,000 BTC per day in active buying months. The math is stark: the halving’s direct supply impact is now a rounding error next to institutional flows. CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju has publicly argued the cycle theory is effectively “dead” for exactly this reason — the mechanism that mattered in a thin 2012 market is arithmetically trivial in a multi-trillion-dollar one.
The approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024 fundamentally rewired how demand enters the market. For the first time, pension funds, RIAs, and corporate treasuries could buy Bitcoin exposure through a regulated brokerage account instead of a crypto exchange. That pulled demand forward — Bitcoin hit its cycle-four all-time high before the traditional post-halving euphoria phase even really got going, breaking the old script where prices climbed for a year-plus after the halving before topping out.
This also means Bitcoin now correlates more tightly with traditional risk assets, interest-rate expectations, and global liquidity conditions than with its own internal supply schedule. When the Fed cut rates in December 2025, Bitcoin didn’t rally the way old playbooks predicted — a signal that macro forces are now competing with, and sometimes overriding, crypto-native catalysts.
A growing camp of analysts now argues Bitcoin has shifted from one long four-year cycle to shorter, overlapping cycles driven by global liquidity expansion and contraction — compressed boom-bust patterns that front-run the halving rather than follow it. Under this framework, institutional access and faster information flow mean the market “prices in” the halving’s effects well before the event itself, making the old calendar-based timing models far less reliable for entry and exit decisions.
None of this means the halving is irrelevant. Every analyst tracking this debate agrees it still shapes long-term scarcity. What’s changed is whether it’s still the dominant short-term price driver — and the honest answer, based on the data, is probably not anymore.
As of September 2026, Bitcoin trades in the upper-$70,000 range, roughly 40% below its October 2025 peak near $126,000. Based on the structure of prior cycles, several analysts place the current bear-market bottom window somewhere between October 2026 and January 2027 — though, as always with Bitcoin, that’s a pattern-based estimate, not a guarantee.
The next halving is projected for around April 2028, with block 1,050,000 marking the moment the reward falls to 1.5625 BTC. If the historical 12–18 month post-halving rally pattern holds a fifth time, that points toward a potential cycle peak sometime between late 2029 and early 2030 — though given how dramatically cycle four already deviated from the script, treating that as a confident prediction rather than a rough historical echo would be a mistake.
The takeaway isn’t “the halving doesn’t matter” or “the four-year cycle is dead.” It’s more nuanced, and more useful:
Bitcoin isn’t repeating its history. It’s rhyming with it — same underlying mechanism, wildly different market wrapped around it. Understanding that distinction is the difference between using the halving as one useful data point among many, and treating it as a crystal ball it was never built to be.
When is the next Bitcoin halving?
The next halving is projected for around April 2028, at block height 1,050,000, when the block reward drops from 3.125 BTC to 1.5625 BTC. The exact date shifts slightly based on network hash rate and block times.
Does the Bitcoin four-year cycle still work?
It’s genuinely debated. The pattern of a new all-time high within 12–18 months of each halving has held for four consecutive cycles, but the percentage returns have shrunk dramatically each time, and institutional/ETF demand now overshadows the halving’s direct supply impact.
Why does each Bitcoin halving cycle produce smaller returns?
Because Bitcoin’s market has grown from a thin, illiquid niche market in 2012 to a multi-trillion-dollar asset class. The same fixed percentage cut in new supply has a much smaller relative impact on a much larger, more liquid market.
What’s different about the current Bitcoin cycle compared to past ones?
Spot Bitcoin ETFs (approved January 2024) pulled institutional demand forward, Bitcoin hit its cycle all-time high with a much smaller multiplier than prior cycles, and macro factors like interest rates now compete with the halving as primary price drivers.
This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile — always do your own research before making investment decisions.
Bitcoin’s Halving Cycle: What History Says vs. What’s Different This Time was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
The crypto wallet is changing.
What started largely as a tool for storing private keys and sending digital assets is increasingly becoming an access layer for trading, payments, stablecoins, Web3 applications, and broader digital-asset services.
That shift is creating a much bigger opportunity for businesses — but it is also raising the standard for what it takes to launch a wallet people will actually trust.
According to Grand View Research, the global crypto wallet market is estimated to reach $19.3 billion in 2026, compared with $15.5 billion in 2025. The market is projected to reach approximately $100.8 billion by 2033, representing a 26.6% compound annual growth rate between 2026 and 2033.
Those numbers make the opportunity difficult to ignore.
But market growth alone does not make a wallet business viable.
The harder question for founders is:
What does a company actually need to build before it can launch a crypto wallet that is secure, usable, scalable, and commercially competitive?
The traditional definition of a crypto wallet is simple: a software or hardware product that enables users to manage blockchain-based assets.
The business opportunity is much broader.
Modern wallets can become gateways to:
This expansion matters because it changes the economics of the product.
A wallet does not necessarily have to generate revenue simply by charging users for holding or transferring assets. The wallet can become the front door to an entire ecosystem of financial services.
Stablecoins are an important example of this evolution. TRM Labs reported that stablecoins represented around 30% of crypto transaction volume between January and July 2025, with more than $4 trillion in stablecoin transaction volume during that period.
For businesses, that suggests an important shift:
The future wallet may be less about “where users store crypto” and more about “how users access digital financial services.”
Launching a wallet can look deceptively straightforward from the outside.
There is a mobile interface. Users create accounts. Assets appear in balances. Transactions are sent to a blockchain.
But the visible application is only one layer of the product.
Behind that interface sits an infrastructure stack responsible for:
This is where many wallet projects become significantly more complex than expected.
A polished interface cannot compensate for weak infrastructure.
For a financial product handling customer assets, the backend architecture is part of the product itself.
One of the earliest decisions a founder should make is whether the wallet will be custodial, non-custodial, or use a hybrid model.
In a custodial model, the business — or an infrastructure partner acting on its behalf — has responsibility for managing access to customer assets.
This can make certain experiences easier to build, particularly when the product includes trading, payments, recovery mechanisms, or other managed services.
But custody introduces significant operational and regulatory responsibilities.
For example, under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework, providers offering custody and administration services have obligations around custody policies, security systems, client asset records, segregation, and procedures for returning crypto-assets or access credentials.
With a non-custodial wallet, users generally maintain control over their private keys or signing credentials.
This can reduce some responsibilities for the platform operator, but it creates a different product challenge:
How do you make self-custody understandable and secure for mainstream users?
Key recovery, backup, transaction signing, phishing protection, device security, and user education suddenly become core parts of the customer experience.
A hybrid architecture can combine different custody and access models depending on the product’s requirements.
The right model depends on the target customer, jurisdiction, assets, services, risk appetite, and business model.
There is no universally correct custody architecture.
For a normal consumer application, a security incident may mean compromised accounts or exposed personal information.
For a crypto wallet, a security failure can potentially translate directly into irreversible financial loss.
That changes the design philosophy.
A serious wallet business should consider security across multiple layers:
The important point is that security should not be treated as a feature added immediately before launch.
It is an architectural requirement.
And the business case for taking it seriously is becoming stronger as wallets become connected to larger transaction flows.
Supporting more blockchains sounds like an obvious competitive advantage.
It isn’t always.
Every additional blockchain can introduce another set of technical requirements, transaction models, network conditions, asset standards, fee structures, indexing requirements, and security considerations.
A better question is:
Which networks matter to the customers this business is trying to acquire?
For one wallet, Ethereum and stablecoins may be critical.
For another, Solana could be central to the product.
A payments-focused wallet may prioritize stablecoin networks and transaction costs. A Web3 wallet may prioritize ecosystem compatibility. An institutional product may care more about supported assets, custody controls, reporting, and compliance integrations.
The strongest wallet strategy therefore begins with the customer — not with a checklist of every blockchain available.
Crypto infrastructure is complicated.
The user experience should not be.
A wallet can have sophisticated backend technology and still struggle commercially if users cannot understand:
This is especially important as crypto moves toward broader mainstream financial use.
The winning products may not necessarily be those with the most features.
They may be the ones that hide the underlying complexity most effectively without hiding important risks from users.
One of the biggest mistakes founders can make is treating compliance as something to address after the technology has been built.
The regulatory requirements attached to a wallet can depend heavily on what the business actually does.
A simple non-custodial software wallet may have a very different regulatory profile from a platform that:
That distinction matters.
For example, the EU’s MiCA framework establishes specific requirements for crypto-asset service providers involved in custody and administration, including client asset segregation and controls around the safekeeping of crypto-assets or access mechanisms.
The lesson for founders is straightforward:
Do not design the technology first and ask regulatory questions later.
The intended business model should influence the technology architecture from the beginning.
A wallet can be technically successful and still be commercially weak.
Founders therefore need to determine how the product will generate revenue.
Potential models include:
Transaction fees: Revenue from transfers or wallet activity
Swap fees: Revenue from asset exchange transactions
Trading spreads: Margin generated through trading activity
Premium accounts: Paid features or enhanced services
Staking services: Revenue associated with supported staking products
Payment services: Fees from merchant or payment transactions
Card services: Revenue from crypto-linked card activity
Institutional services: Premium custody, treasury, or infrastructure offerings
API access: Charging businesses for wallet infrastructure
Not every model fits every wallet.
A consumer wallet may prioritize scale and transaction volume.
An institutional wallet may prioritize higher-value accounts and service fees.
A payments wallet may build its economics around transaction processing.
The important thing is to decide the business model before piling features onto the product.
This is where the economics of wallet development become especially interesting.
Building a wallet entirely from scratch gives a company maximum control over its architecture.
It can also require substantial investment across:
And the cost does not stop when the first version launches.
Blockchain networks change.
Security threats evolve.
New assets emerge.
Regulatory expectations develop.
Users expect new features.
Infrastructure has to keep up.
For a startup trying to validate a business model, building every underlying component internally may therefore create a difficult capital and time equation.
That is why infrastructure-based approaches have become increasingly relevant.
A business can focus more of its resources on the parts that actually differentiate the company — its market, customer acquisition, user experience, partnerships, and revenue model — while relying on established infrastructure for foundational wallet capabilities.
For companies evaluating white label crypto wallet development, the important question is not simply “Can we build it?”
A white-label approach does not mean removing the need for business strategy or technical decision-making.
It means starting from an existing technology foundation rather than recreating every component internally.
Depending on the provider and product architecture, this can give businesses access to capabilities such as:
The advantage is primarily about reducing the amount of foundational infrastructure that has to be engineered before the business can reach the market.
That can matter enormously for companies competing in fast-moving digital-asset markets.
The objective should not be to launch quickly at any cost.
It should be to launch with enough infrastructure maturity that speed does not create avoidable operational risk.
For businesses exploring White Label Crypto Wallet Software, the advantage is starting with an established technology foundation rather than recreating every underlying wallet component internally. This allows the business to concentrate its resources on product differentiation, customer acquisition, partnerships, compliance, and the overall user experience.
Choosing infrastructure based solely on a feature list can be a mistake.
A better evaluation framework is broader.
Ask how keys, credentials, transactions, administrative access, and sensitive operations are protected.
Can the infrastructure support growth in users, transactions, assets, and supported networks?
Does it support the networks and assets your target customers actually need?
Can the business create a differentiated product instead of presenting users with an identical interface used by everyone else?
Can the wallet connect with exchanges, payment providers, banking infrastructure, analytics tools, compliance systems, or other services?
Does the platform provide the operational visibility needed to manage users, transactions, permissions, and risk?
Does the infrastructure support the workflows and controls required by the business model and target markets?
What happens if the business grows? Can the infrastructure continue supporting the product at a larger scale?
These questions are often more important than simply asking how many wallet features are available.
Perhaps the most important realization for a founder is this:
A crypto wallet is not the business. It is the infrastructure layer through which the business delivers its value.
A wallet startup might ultimately be building:
The wallet is the interface connecting the customer to that broader proposition.
That means founders should avoid starting with:
“What wallet features can we add?”
A better question is:
“What financial or digital-asset problem are we solving, and what does the wallet need to enable it?”
That change in perspective can completely alter the product roadmap.
Before committing significant resources to a wallet business, founders should be able to answer these questions:
Market
Product
Infrastructure
Security
Compliance
Revenue
Launch strategy
If these questions do not have clear answers, the business is probably not ready to start development.
The $19.3 billion projected crypto wallet market in 2026 is a useful indicator of where the industry is heading.
But market size alone does not guarantee success.
The next generation of wallet businesses will compete on much more than the ability to generate blockchain addresses.
They will compete on:
Security.
Trust.
Usability.
Infrastructure.
Compliance.
Supported financial services.
And the ability to turn a wallet into a useful financial experience.
That is why the most important decision for a founder is not simply whether to build a wallet.
It is deciding what kind of business the wallet is going to become.
The crypto wallet market is entering a different phase.
The opportunity is no longer simply about giving users somewhere to hold digital assets.
It is about building an interface through which people and businesses can access an increasingly broad digital financial ecosystem.
For founders, that creates both an opportunity and a warning.
The opportunity is a rapidly expanding market.
The warning is that customers will expect far more than a wallet address and a send button.
The businesses most likely to stand out will be the ones that understand the difference between launching a wallet and building a business around one.
$19.3B and Growing: What It Really Takes to Launch a Crypto Wallet Business in 2026 was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Launching a crypto exchange can look straightforward from the outside.
You choose the trading model, add a few cryptocurrencies, connect wallets, build a trading interface, and prepare for launch.
But founders who have worked on real exchange projects know that the difficult part usually starts after the basic platform is in place.
A trading engine that slows down during high-volume periods. A wallet architecture that creates unnecessary security risks. Liquidity that looks sufficient during testing but disappears when real users arrive. Compliance requirements that were considered too late. These issues can turn an exciting launch into an expensive rebuild.
That is why a proper crypto exchange checklist matters before development begins.
Here are the areas founders should evaluate before committing resources to an exchange project.
Not every crypto exchange should be built the same way. Your first decision should be the type of exchange you want to operate.
Common models include:
Each model affects the technology architecture, liquidity strategy, custody approach, security requirements, trading functionality, and regulatory considerations.
For example, a centralized exchange generally requires components such as user accounts, custodial wallets, an order book, matching engine, admin controls, and liquidity integrations.
A decentralized exchange has a very different architecture because trading logic can rely heavily on smart contracts and blockchain infrastructure.
Choosing the model after development has already started can create unnecessary changes to the entire platform.
A beautiful exchange with poor liquidity will struggle to retain traders.
Users expect orders to execute at competitive prices without excessive slippage. If the order book is thin, traders may move to another platform even if your interface and features are excellent.
Before development, decide how liquidity will be sourced.
Possible approaches include:
The right approach depends on the exchange model and target market.
Liquidity should be considered part of the initial business and technical strategy, not something added immediately before launch.
The matching engine is one of the most important components of a centralized exchange.
It determines how buy and sell orders are processed and matched.
Founders should ask:
A platform can have an impressive frontend while still delivering a poor trading experience if the backend cannot handle real market activity.
Performance testing should therefore happen before launch, not after users start complaining about delays.
Security shouldn’t be a final development phase.
An exchange handles valuable assets, sensitive user information, authentication credentials, transaction data, and trading activity. A weakness in any of these areas can have serious consequences.
A security checklist may include:
Cold and hot wallet management also deserves careful planning, particularly for custodial exchanges.
The goal isn’t simply to add security features. The architecture itself should be designed to reduce unnecessary attack surfaces.
Wallet functionality is another area founders sometimes underestimate.
If the exchange supports multiple cryptocurrencies and blockchain networks, wallet infrastructure can become increasingly complex.
You may need to manage:
Supporting an asset isn’t just a matter of displaying its symbol on the trading screen.
The backend needs to correctly handle blockchain transactions and maintain accurate balances across the platform.
Compliance requirements can influence the architecture of an exchange.
Depending on the target market and operating model, founders may need to consider areas such as KYC, AML, transaction monitoring, user verification, data protection, licensing, and reporting requirements.
This is where a common mistake happens.
A founder builds the platform first and starts thinking about compliance later.
That can force major changes to onboarding flows, transaction monitoring, user management, reporting systems, and administrative controls.
Compliance requirements should therefore be mapped against the product architecture from the beginning.
A competitor may have 200 trading pairs, advanced charts, copy trading, staking, bots, margin trading, and multiple payment options.
That doesn’t mean your first release needs all of them. Start by identifying the features that directly support your target users.
For example, an initial exchange may prioritize:
Additional features can be introduced as the user base and trading activity grow.
A focused platform is often easier to test, secure, and operate than an overloaded first release.
This decision can affect almost every other item on the checklist.
Don’t evaluate a development company only by its portfolio screenshots or quoted development cost.
Ask about its experience with:
It is also useful to understand whether the team has experience building the specific exchange model you are planning.
If you’re comparing development teams, reviewing a company’s cryptocurrency exchange development services can give you a better idea of the technologies, exchange models, and functionality that can be included in a platform.
The important point is to evaluate technical capability, not just marketing claims.
A platform working correctly with ten test users doesn’t prove much. Before launch, test scenarios that resemble real activity.
For example:
Load testing and failure testing can reveal problems that aren’t visible during normal development.
The earlier these issues are found, the cheaper they usually are to fix.
Scalability doesn’t mean building the biggest possible infrastructure from day one.
It means creating an architecture that can grow without forcing a complete rebuild.
Think about future requirements such as:
A modular architecture makes it easier to introduce these capabilities over time.
Founders often focus heavily on the trader interface and overlook the administration system.
But exchange operators need strong internal tools to manage the platform.
An effective admin dashboard may include:
The admin panel is effectively the control center of the exchange. It needs the same level of planning as the user-facing application.
Before moving toward launch, ask yourself:
Exchange model: Is the platform architecture appropriate for the trading model?
Liquidity: Do we have a realistic strategy for maintaining liquidity?
Performance: Can the matching and trading infrastructure handle growth?
Security: Have wallet, API, authentication, and transaction risks been addressed?
Compliance: Have applicable requirements been considered from the beginning?
Wallets: Can the infrastructure safely support the assets and networks we plan to offer?
Scalability: Can the platform handle more users and trading activity without a major rebuild?
Admin tools: Can the operations team actually manage the exchange efficiently?
Testing: Has the platform been tested under realistic traffic and failure conditions?
Development partner: Does the technical team have relevant exchange development experience?
The biggest mistake isn’t forgetting one feature.
It’s starting development before understanding how all the important components fit together.
A crypto exchange is more than a trading interface. It is a combination of trading infrastructure, wallet systems, blockchain connectivity, liquidity, security, compliance, administration, and scalability.
If these areas are planned independently, problems tend to appear later when they are more expensive to solve.
A good checklist forces founders to think beyond the launch screen.
Before asking how quickly an exchange can be built, ask a more important question:
Will the architecture still work when real users, real transactions, and real trading volume arrive?
That question can save months of development time and prevent costly decisions from becoming permanent problems.
The Crypto Exchange Checklist Most Founders Skip — And Regret Later was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Ever wondered how centralized crypto exchanges make money while running zero fee promotions and free withdrawal days? Most traders assume it all comes down to trading fees. Founders who try to build an exchange learn fast that it runs deeper than that.
A CEX does not need a single revenue source. Many exchanges spread out across trading fees, withdrawal charges, listing fees, margin interest, derivatives commissions, staking margins, launchpad fees, and premium data services. This piece covers all eight. It also covers what actually decides whether a CEX turns a profit in 2026.
At its core, a CEX offers trading, custody, and liquidity. It earns through transaction fees, plus extra services layered on top. Users bring volume. Volume deepens liquidity. Liquidity pulls in serious traders. Those traders bring even more volume. Revenue rides that loop.
Rules can shift by jurisdiction. Competitors race each other on fees until margins thin out. Trading activity can fall hard in a bear market. None of this is hypothetical. It has already happened to plenty of platforms. Exchanges that lean into lending, derivatives, staking, and data services keep earning even when spot trading goes quiet.
Most platforms run a maker taker model. Makers rest orders on the book and add liquidity. They pay less for it. Takers execute against those orders right away. They pay a bit more for the convenience.
Fees usually drop as a trader’s monthly volume climbs. VIP tiers reward the heaviest traders with fractions of a percent per trade. It sounds small. Multiply it by a busy exchange’s daily volume and it adds up fast.
Crypto deposits are often free at the exchange level. Users can still run into network or payment provider costs, though. Withdrawals are the quieter earner. Crypto withdrawals usually include a network transaction fee. Depending on the exchange, a service margin gets added on top.
Not every blockchain prices this the same way. Bitcoin and Ethereum handle network fees differently, and other chains differ again. Fiat withdrawals often carry a banking partner fee too. Push withdrawal costs too far, and active traders quietly move to whoever charges less.
Getting listed costs money. How much depends on the exchange, the project, and what the listing package covers. Some platforms charge modest amounts. Others charge far more. Several major exchanges have said publicly that they charge no listing fee at all.
Listing costs vary too widely to pin down a single number. What draws projects to a high volume exchange is exposure. A strong listing can bring real liquidity and visibility. It is not guaranteed, though.
Margin lets a trader borrow funds to size up a position. The exchange earns interest on that loan. If a position falls below the required maintenance margin, the exchange may liquidate it. This follows the platform’s own risk rules.
Some platforms also charge a liquidation fee on top of the interest already earned. This revenue pays well. It also leans hard on a liquidation engine that works when markets move fast.
Futures and perpetuals run on their own fee track, separate from spot trading. Perpetual contracts use a funding rate. It transfers payments between long and short traders directly. The exchange does not take a cut of that transfer. Instead, it earns from trading commissions, other derivatives related charges, and settlement fees when contracts expire.
Running a validator node is not for most people. Staking through an exchange skips that step. Users lock their tokens with the exchange. The exchange stakes them, often through its own setup or a partner’s. It keeps a portion of the rewards as a service fee.
That share varies by platform, asset, and jurisdiction. This is not a hands off business either. It involves validator management, custody, slashing risk, and compliance. Done well, it builds steady recurring revenue and keeps users on the platform longer.
Launchpads give early stage projects fast access to an exchange’s user base. Revenue models here vary. Some exchanges charge a project fee. Others take a token sale commission or sell promotional packages. A launch that performs well often pulls in new signups too. That ripple effect can outlast the launch itself.
Trading bots and institutional desks need higher rate limits and faster data than a free API tier offers. Exchanges package this into premium API plans, institutional desks, OTC services, and data subscriptions.
For some platforms this stays a small add-on. For others built around institutional flow, it becomes a real, high margin revenue line that goes well beyond retail trading fees.
Here is a simple estimate. Multiply monthly trading volume by a blended fee rate to get gross trading fee revenue. A platform running 500 million dollars a month at a blended 0.08 percent fee works out to roughly 400,000 dollars monthly from trading alone. Real revenue usually lands lower than this simple math suggests. VIP discounts, maker rebates, zero fee campaigns, and fee exemptions all chip away at the blended rate.
Treat these as illustrations, not benchmarks. Real fee rates and volume mixes shift by exchange and by region.
For many retail focused exchanges, trading fees carry the biggest share of revenue. They scale directly with activity. That is not universal, though. Some exchanges lean more on institutional services, lending, or custody instead. Listing fees and launchpad commissions show up in large, irregular bursts. Staking and lending grow slower. They compound quietly as more users opt in.
These ratings are directional, not fixed. They shift by exchange model, market, and jurisdiction. No single row wins on its own. The exchanges with the strongest margins run several at once. They do not bet the business on one.
A million dormant accounts earn less than a few thousand daily traders. Revenue follows activity, not headcount.
Thin order books widen spreads. Serious traders notice fast and leave. Deep liquidity keeps execution clean, and that is what keeps volume coming back.
Fee tiers are not really a pricing decision. They are a retention tool wearing a pricing decision’s clothes. Exchanges that forget this lose traders to whoever undercuts them next.
Custody systems, KYC and AML checks, security audits, and licensing are not optional line items. Cutting corners here can cause security incidents and regulatory penalties. In serious cases, it can cost the license to operate at all.
One high volume institutional client can outearn many inactive retail accounts combined. Growth numbers look good in a pitch deck. Retention is what actually pays the bills.
Map the revenue streams to the actual target users first. Do this before a single line of code gets written. Retail beginners respond to trading fees and staking. Professional traders respond to derivatives, margin, and API access. Building for the wrong audience wastes both.
Most of these revenue streams need strong infrastructure underneath them. That means a matching engine, wallet and custody infrastructure, a configurable fee engine, liquidity integrations, an admin dashboard, KYC and AML workflows, risk management tooling, security infrastructure, and payment integrations.
Skip any of this early, and monetization gets bolted on later, badly. Working with an experienced centralized exchange development company from the start usually saves that rebuild.
Hardcoded fees are a trap. Fee tiers, VIP pricing, promotions, and withdrawal charges all need to flex without a dev sprint. Markets move faster than most release cycles.
Bolting derivatives or staking onto a spot only exchange is slow and expensive. It usually costs more than designing for growth from day one. Build for multiple modules early. Adding a new revenue stream later becomes a configuration change, not a rebuild.
Relying Only on Trading Fees: One revenue line, one bear market, one collapse.
Setting Fees Too High for Users: Aggressive fees chase away the exact traders generating the most revenue in the first place.
Ignoring Liquidity and Market Making Costs: No amount of fee tuning matters if the order book is too thin for serious volume to show up.
Adding Revenue Features Without Regulatory Review: Skip legal review before launching margin or derivatives. A single fine can undo months of revenue.
Focusing on Revenue Before User Trust and Security: Get hacked once, and most users never come back. It does not matter how well the revenue model was designed on paper.
Recent data backs this up, this is not guesswork. Institutional trading now makes up most crypto volume, not a niche slice of it. One 2026 industry report put institutional participation above 70 percent of total trading volume in the first half of the year. Tokenized real world assets are following a similar path. Tokenized Treasuries alone showed sharp year to date growth in 2026. Stablecoin settlement is moving the same way on the payments side.
Real economy stablecoin payment volume roughly doubled year over year, according to recent analysis. AI powered trading tools are also showing up on more platforms. This one is earlier stage and harder to size with hard numbers yet. Exchanges building toward institutional access, tokenized assets, and stablecoin rails now are setting up for revenue that outlasts the old fee only model.
A centralized crypto exchange can be profitable in 2026. Profitability is far from guaranteed, though. It rests on trading volume, liquidity depth, competitive positioning, compliance, security spend, and how far an exchange pushes past basic trading fees.
Exchanges leaning on one revenue lever tend to struggle the moment that lever weakens. The ones still standing when the market cycle turns usually built a layered model and earned real user trust along the way.
1.How do centralized crypto exchanges make money?
Mostly trading fees. Withdrawal charges, listing fees, margin interest, derivatives commissions, staking margins, launchpad fees, and premium API services fill out the rest.
2.What is the biggest source of CEX revenue?
For many exchanges, trading fees from spot and derivatives markets bring in the largest share. This varies by platform and business model.
3.How much does a crypto exchange earn per trade?
It varies widely by exchange, user tier, market, and order type. Many platforms use maker taker pricing with lower rates for higher volume traders.
4.Do centralized exchanges charge withdrawal fees?
Most do. They cover network transaction costs plus a margin. Promotions with reduced or waived fees show up often too.
5.How do crypto exchanges make money from token listings?
Projects pay for access to the exchange’s user base and liquidity. Whether a fee applies, and how much, varies significantly by exchange.
6.Are centralized crypto exchanges profitable?
Plenty are. It comes down to volume, liquidity, fee structure, compliance costs, and how well the revenue is spread out.
7.How do CEXs make money from staking?
The exchange keeps a portion of the staking rewards earned on a user’s behalf as a service fee. The exact amount varies by platform and asset.
8.How can I build a centralized crypto exchange with multiple revenue streams?
Design for trading, derivatives, staking, launchpad, and API modules from day one. Do not bolt them on after launch.
If you are past understanding these revenue streams and actually planning to build one, the real work sits in how the fee engine, liquidity layer, and compliance stack come together from day one. That is usually where an exchange either sets itself up for revenue that lasts, or ends up rebuilding its core a year in.
How Centralized Crypto Exchanges Actually Make Money: 8 Revenue Streams Explained i was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Inside the false positives, bias, and liability gaps AI creates in crypto compliance
The expansion of financial activities related to digital assets has created a difficult compliance problem.
Virtual asset service providers (VASPs) process large volumes of transactions across wallets, exchanges, blockchains, and jurisdictions – simultaneously, regulators expect them to verify customers, monitor transactions, detect suspicious activity, screen for sanctions, and keep detailed records.
Traditional compliance systems weren’t built for that kind of speed and volume.
Artificial intelligence offers a possible solution.
It can process large datasets, identify transaction patterns, assess risk, and automate parts of compliance. For crypto businesses, this creates an opportunity to make compliance faster and more responsive.
However it also creates a legal problem.
If a VASP relies on an AI system to make or support compliance decisions, who remains responsible when the system gets it wrong?
That question is becoming increasingly important as AI moves from assisting compliance teams to influencing decisions that can directly affect customers and transactions.
Compliance in crypto markets presents some characteristics that are different from traditional financial services.
Blockchain transactions run 24/7, across borders, often between wallet addresses that don’t obviously reveal who’s actually behind them. A VASP may therefore need to assess not only its customer but also the transaction history associated with a wallet and a single customer may interact with multiple wallets, decentralised protocols, exchanges, and other services.
That’s an enormous amount of information for a human team to review by hand – which is exactly the kind of problem AI is good at.
AI can support several stages of the compliance process.
AI can assist with customer onboarding by automating parts of identity verification.
The systems can analyse identification documents, compare information across databases, detect inconsistencies and, where appropriate, support biometric or liveness verification. This can reduce the amount of manual work involved in onboarding customers but automation does not eliminate the need for proper customer due diligence.
A system can verify the authenticity of a document without confirming the identity of the presenter. Thus, the quality of the data and the design of the verification process are crucial.
This may be one of the most significant applications of AI in crypto compliance.
Instead of reviewing transactions one at a time, AI can scan for patterns across thousands of wallets at once – rapid movement between addresses, connections to high-risk wallets, behavior that looks designed to dodge reporting thresholds, or links between addresses that seem unrelated on the surface.
The system can then assign a risk score or generate an alert for further investigation.
An AI-generated alert doesn’t confirm money laundering or fraud; it just indicates a pattern that may need human investigation.
AI can assist crypto businesses with sanctions and risk screening. A compliance system may compare wallet addresses, transaction histories, and customer information against relevant sanctions lists and other risk databases.
It can also help identify relationships that are not immediately apparent from a simple name or address search. This can be particularly useful in a market where transactions may involve pseudonymous blockchain addresses rather than conventional bank-account identifiers but the reliability of the outcome depends heavily on the information being used.
An incomplete database misses real risks, and an oversensitive model buries compliance teams in false alarms.
AI can also assist with the process that follows transaction monitoring.
Where a system identifies potentially suspicious activity, it can help compliance teams organise the relevant information, prepare internal case files and support regulatory reporting.
Natural language processing can also assist in reviewing regulatory guidance and identifying changes in compliance requirements.
Automated reporting comes with its own risks. A suspicious transaction report is more than a technical output; it can carry regulatory and legal implications. A VASP must therefore understand how the automated system makes decisions and ensure proper oversight of the reporting process.
A VASP can use AI for compliance tasks, but the AI does not become the regulated entity; the business still holds the regulatory responsibility.
If an AI system fails to identify suspicious transactions, incorrectly classifies customers as low-risk, or produces defective reports, the VASP may still have to answer to its regulator.
Using someone else’s AI tool doesn’t transfer your compliance obligations to them.
This follows a fundamental principle in financial regulation that outsourcing or automating a function does not equate to relinquishing accountability for that function.
In practice, that means a crypto business needs to actually understand its own AI system – what it does, what data it uses, how it was tested, and where a human needs to step in.
AI systems can sometimes miss detecting suspicious activity or misidentify legitimate actions as potentially harmful.
Imagine a customer who regularly transfers digital assets between several wallets because they use different wallets for different purposes. An AI model may interpret the pattern as suspicious because it resembles behaviour associated with layering or asset movement.
The customer’s account may then be restricted or subjected to additional review. If this happens repeatedly, legitimate customers get fed up with unnecessary friction, and the compliance team drowns in false alarms.
The objective therefore is to create a system capable of distinguishing between unusual activity and genuinely meaningful risk.
AI systems learn from data.
If the data used to train or configure a system is incomplete, inaccurate or biased, the resulting compliance decisions may also be problematic.
For example, a risk model may disproportionately classify certain transaction patterns as high risk because of the way its historical data was constructed.
How then does a VASP know that its AI compliance system is producing fair and reliable results?
The answer requires more than purchasing an AI compliance tool. Businesses may need appropriate testing, validation, monitoring and periodic review of the system.
A human compliance officer can generally explain why a customer was flagged for review.
An AI system may produce a risk score without providing an explanation that a human reviewer can easily understand.
That’s a real problem when the AI’s decision affects someone’s account or blocks their transaction. If a business restricts a customer because a model called them high-risk, someone inside that business needs to be able to explain why – in plain terms, to the customer and potentially to a regulator.
This means that the business should have sufficient understanding and documentation to explain and defend the compliance process.
AI-powered compliance systems may process significant amounts of personal and financial information.
This can include: identity documents, biometric information, transaction histories, wallet addresses, device information, IP addresses, behavioural patterns and information about counterparties.
When these datasets are combined, a VASP may be able to create a detailed picture of a customer’s financial behaviour.
That creates data-protection and privacy concerns.
The fact that blockchain transactions may be publicly visible does not mean that every piece of information derived from those transactions can be processed without restriction.
A VASP using AI therefore has to consider not only whether the system is effective but also whether the data is collected, processed, stored and shared lawfully.
Picture three failures: the AI misses genuine fraud, wrongly tags a legitimate customer as high-risk, or blocks a real transaction on a false positive.
In each case, the technology may have failed.
However, the legal responsibility does not necessarily stop there.
The VASP chose the system.
The VASP integrated it into its compliance process.
The VASP relied on its output.
The VASP remains subject to the regulatory obligations applicable to its business.
This does not mean an AI provider can never be liable. Where the provider’s system fails to perform as contractually promised, contains a material defect, or the provider’s own conduct contributes to the compliance failure, liability may arise under the applicable law.
However, the VASP remains responsible for its regulatory obligations because it chose to use an AI system.
The most workable model right now is AI and humans working together, not AI replacing the team outright.
Let AI do what it’s good at: collect, analyze, detect, score, flag. Human compliance professionals can then investigate, assess context, and make decisions where human judgment is necessary.
Human involvement is crucial for high-impact decisions, and the required level varies based on the function being automated.
The key is to ensure that automation does not become a substitute for accountability.
If AI is becoming part of the compliance infrastructure of a VASP, then AI governance itself should become part of the compliance framework.
Any business using these tools should be able to answer some basic questions:
What compliance function does the AI perform? What data does it rely on? How was the system tested? How accurate is it? How are false positives handled? Who reviews its decisions? How are errors corrected? How is the system monitored after deployment? What happens when the model changes?
These questions are critical because AI systems can significantly accelerate and expand the scale of compliance decision-making.
Regulators aren’t against AI in compliance – used well, it can make AML systems faster and more effective at catching real risk. However, regulators also need assurance that businesses are not using AI as a black box.
A VASP should not be able to say:
“The algorithm made the decision.”
That defense may be insufficient where the business remains responsible for the underlying compliance function.
Regulatory attention will continue to shift toward governance, accountability, data quality, testing, explainability, and audit trails, not just whether a company has “AI-powered compliance” on its website.
The use of AI in crypto compliance is not necessarily a choice between humans and machines.
AI is genuinely well-suited to problems involving huge volumes of data and constant monitoring. Human judgment still matters wherever context, discretion, and real consequences are on the line.
The real challenge is deciding where the boundary should be. AI can make crypto compliance faster, broader, and sharper.
What it can’t do is absorb the responsibility that comes with getting it wrong. The real test for crypto companies is whether they can use it without turning it into a gap where accountability quietly disappears.
If you enjoy analytical commentary on digital asset regulation, crypto markets, and emerging financial technologies, consider subscribing to my newsletter where I share additional research, commentary, and industry insights.
https://samuel-ayodeji.kit.com/profile
Also, if your company, startup, or publication needs clear, well-researched content on blockchain, digital assets, fintech, or emerging technology law, my inbox is always open.
Can Crypto Companies Outsource Compliance to AI? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
A year ago, Zcash was crypto’s forgotten anonymity project — a niche coin traders mentioned in the same breath as “delisted” and “dead narrative.” Today, it’s outperforming every major sector in crypto, Wall Street’s biggest asset managers are racing to list it, and a handful of short sellers are watching their positions get vaporized in real time.
ZEC just crossed $1,000 for the first time in nearly a decade — and it didn’t stop there. Within days, the price pushed past $1,200, putting Zcash’s market cap north of $20 billion and vaulting it into the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market value. For an asset that traded below $30 as recently as early 2025, that’s not a rally. That’s a full-blown institutional re-rating.
So what changed? Why is the same “privacy coin” category that regulators spent years trying to strangle suddenly the hottest trade on the Street? Here’s the full breakdown.
On the first weekend of September 2026, ZEC surged roughly 20% in 24 hours, blowing through the psychological $1,000 level after opening the day near $828. Trading volume spiked to over $1.2 billion in a single day, and roughly $35 million in leveraged short positions were liquidated almost instantly.
That was just the opening move. Within a week, ZEC was trading above $1,200, with intraday highs near $1,255. Zoom out further and the numbers get even more staggering: ZEC is up more than 2,400% over the past year, and the privacy coin sector as a whole has now outpaced Bitcoin’s own October 2025 all-time high by more than 200%. No other major crypto sector can say the same.
This isn’t retail FOMO chasing a meme. This is a structural repricing — and it has a clear catalyst.
Here’s the headline institutional investors actually care about: Grayscale converted its Zcash Trust into a publicly listed, NYSE Arca-traded exchange-traded product.
For years, the biggest barrier keeping traditional finance away from privacy coins wasn’t performance — it was access and compliance. Fund managers, pension funds, and RIAs can’t just buy a token off a decentralized exchange. They need a regulated, exchange-listed wrapper that fits inside existing custody and compliance frameworks. Bitcoin got that unlock with spot ETFs in 2024. Zcash just got it in 2026 — the first privacy coin ever to cross that bridge.
Since the ETF conversion, Grayscale’s Zcash product has already pulled in hundreds of millions of dollars in net assets, and that number is climbing by the week. Every dollar that flows into that fund has to be backed by real ZEC, which mechanically tightens available supply at the exact moment demand is exploding.
This is the same playbook that took Bitcoin from a “risky internet money” narrative to a boardroom conversation. Zcash is now walking that same path — just faster.
For most of the last decade, privacy-focused cryptocurrencies carried a stigma. Exchanges delisted them under regulatory pressure. Compliance teams treated shielded transactions as a red flag. The category was functionally radioactive for institutional capital.
Several forces have quietly dismantled that stigma:
Put those four forces together and you get exactly what we’re seeing: a sector re-rating from “compliance risk” to “compliance-ready privacy exposure” — practically overnight.
Every explosive rally has a losing side, and this one is no exception. Traders who bet against ZEC on the way up are now facing brutal, mounting losses. One whale’s roughly $47 million short position is reportedly staring down a liquidation level near $2,292 — meaning if ZEC keeps climbing at even a fraction of its recent pace, that position gets wiped out entirely.
This kind of short squeeze dynamic tends to feed on itself. As shorts get liquidated, exchanges automatically buy back the asset to close those positions, which pushes the price up further, which triggers the next wave of liquidations. It’s part of why ZEC’s move has been so violent in both directions — and why volatility, not just upside, is now baked into this trade.
This is the question every trader is asking right now, and reasonable analysts land on both sides.
The bull case: Institutional ETF flows are still early. Grayscale’s ZEC product has only captured a few hundred million dollars so far — a rounding error compared to what Bitcoin ETFs eventually absorbed. If even a modest slice of institutional allocators decide privacy exposure belongs in a diversified crypto portfolio, current price levels could look cheap in hindsight. Technical indicators across multiple timeframes remain firmly bullish, with rising moving averages on both short-term and long-term charts.
The bear case: ZEC’s price has nearly doubled in a single month and is up over 20x year-over-year. Parabolic moves of this magnitude almost always see sharp corrections, and elevated leverage in the futures market means volatility could cut just as violently to the downside as it did to the upside. Broader macro pressure — including rising odds of a Fed rate hike — has already dragged the entire crypto market lower even as ZEC held up better than most.
The honest answer: nobody knows exactly where ZEC goes next. What’s clear is that the reason it’s here — a genuine institutional access unlock, tightening supply, and a growing “digital privacy” narrative — is structurally different from a typical hype cycle. That’s exactly why traders are paying attention instead of dismissing it.
Volatility like this creates opportunity — and risk — in equal measure. A coin that can rally 20% in a day can also correct 20% in a day. Manually watching charts, setting alerts, and trying to time entries and exits around ETF flow data, whale liquidation levels, and shifting macro sentiment is a full-time job most traders don’t have time for.
That’s exactly the environment automated trading strategies are built for.
ZEC’s move from under $30 to over $1,200 in a year is the kind of setup traders wait years for — and this cycle isn’t over. If you want exposure to Zcash’s momentum without babysitting every candle, subscribe to Hyperlyx AI and let automated, data-driven strategies trade ZEC for you around the clock.
Hyperlyx AI is built to spot the exact kind of volatility and momentum shifts driving this rally — executing faster and more consistently than manual trading ever could.
Get early access to Hyperlyx AI today and start putting the ZEC breakout to work in your portfolio.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile — always do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before trading.
ZEC Breaks $1,000 — Why Wall Street Now Wants Privacy Coins was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Ethereum looks unusually calm.
After climbing more than 30% in August, ETH has spent the first part of September moving in a narrow range, repeatedly testing the $2,500 mark without finding enough momentum to break higher.
But beneath that quiet price action, the Ethereum market is anything but still.
Treasury companies are continuing to accumulate ETH. Exchange balances are falling. ETF demand has cooled but remains positive overall. At the same time, developers are preparing major changes to Ethereum’s infrastructure, with Glamsterdam approaching and the longer-term Hegotá roadmap beginning to take shape.
So while ETH is moving sideways, several important pieces are falling into place.
ETH has spent much of the recent period between $2,480 and $2,520.
The repeated attempts to reclaim $2,500 show that buyers are still defending the psychological level, but resistance around $2,525–$2,535 has kept the upside contained. Beyond that, $2,550 remains the more important barrier.
A decisive move above $2,550 could put $2,600 back on the radar and potentially open a path toward the $3,000 area if momentum returns.
The downside is equally clear.
The first support zone sits around $2,475–$2,485. A break below it could expose $2,430–$2,445.
Some technical charts have also produced a golden cross, generally viewed as a longer-term bullish signal. But technical indicators alone cannot overcome weak market participation.
That is particularly important now, with investors watching the Federal Reserve meeting scheduled for September 15–16.
For the longer-term picture, current ethereum price prediction scenarios are likely to depend heavily on whether ETH can turn this consolidation into a sustained breakout rather than another temporary rally.
One of the clearest differences in the current market is happening between different groups of ETH holders.
Wallets holding between 100 and 10,000 ETH reportedly sold around 307,000 ETH last week.
Whales, meanwhile, bought roughly 82,000 ETH.
That does not necessarily mean the market is turning bearish. It may simply indicate that some investors are taking profits after August’s rally while larger players are building longer-term positions.
BitMine Immersion Technologies is perhaps the clearest example.
The company bought another roughly 28,086 ETH, worth around $69–70 million, bringing its reported holdings to approximately 5.93 million ETH.
That represents close to 4.9% of Ethereum’s total supply.
The scale is difficult to ignore. BitMine has continued buying even while its holdings remain below the average purchase price on paper, with a large portion of its ETH also being staked.
This is a very different approach from short-term trading.
Abraxas Capital has also been active.
The firm reportedly purchased around 13,000 ETH, worth roughly $32 million, in the spot market.
But the reason is particularly interesting: part of the purchase was reportedly used to hedge a much larger short position of around 141,000 ETH on Hyperliquid.
In other words, not every large ETH purchase represents a straightforward bullish bet.
Elsewhere, an early Ethereum holder reportedly sold around 11,023 ETH through Wintermute, while Justin Sun continued moving ETH after withdrawing additional funds from Lido.
The takeaway is simple: whale activity is increasing, but it is not pointing in one clear direction.
Some large holders are selling. Others are accumulating. Some are hedging.
The spot Ethereum ETF market tells a similar story.
Weekly inflows reportedly fell to around $218 million, down sharply from approximately $824 million the previous week. Some individual trading sessions also saw net outflows.
That is a noticeable slowdown.
Still, it would be premature to interpret weaker ETF flows as disappearing institutional interest.
Another part of the supply picture is moving in the opposite direction.
More than 116,000 ETH reportedly left exchanges within a 48-hour period at one point. Fewer ETH sitting on exchanges can mean less immediate selling pressure, although it does not guarantee that prices will rise.
Institutional infrastructure is also expanding. Standard Chartered has reportedly increased access to deliverable ETH spot trading for institutional clients in the UAE.
The market, therefore, is seeing slower demand in one area while institutional participation continues to develop elsewhere.
If the price chart looks boring, Ethereum’s development roadmap certainly does not.
The Ethereum Foundation’s Protocol Cluster recently released its first unified ranking of 62 proposed EIPs for the planned Hegotá upgrade.
Two proposals were placed among the highest-priority changes.
EIP-7805, or FOCIL, is aimed at strengthening censorship resistance by helping enforce transaction inclusion.
EIP-8141, known as Frame Transactions, could address one of Ethereum’s long-standing user-experience problems: needing ETH simply to pay transaction fees.
The proposal could eventually allow users to pay gas with stablecoins such as USDC or USDT while also supporting native account abstraction and new authentication approaches.
That could make interacting with Ethereum feel considerably simpler for ordinary users.
There is also a much longer-term objective behind the roadmap: quantum resistance for Ethereum’s Layer 1, with December 2029 currently highlighted as an important target.
Hegotá is still further down the road.
Before that comes Glamsterdam, Ethereum’s next major upgrade, currently targeted for Q4 2026.
The upgrade is focused heavily on improving Layer-1 performance.
Developers are working on enshrined proposer-builder separation, block-level access lists, gas repricing and higher gas limits.
One of the targets is a gas-limit floor of around 200 million, which could significantly increase Ethereum’s capacity if implemented successfully.
The Sepolia testnet fork is expected around September 28 or early October.
That makes the coming weeks important for more than just ETH traders. They will also provide another look at how Ethereum’s technical roadmap is progressing toward mainnet.
Ethereum’s broader ecosystem is changing alongside the core network.
Lido has launched the testnet for its 0x02 Community Staking Module, designed to support compounding validators with balances of up to 2,048 ETH.
If approved for mainnet, the change could improve capital efficiency for staking operators.
Scroll, meanwhile, is taking a very different path.
The Ethereum Layer-2 project has announced plans to gradually transition from a general-purpose public chain toward a more application-specific network built around its Compass AI ecosystem.
The transition is expected to take roughly nine months. Scroll also plans to move the SCR token to Ethereum mainnet without changing its existing supply or tokenomics.
Elsewhere, Trezor has added Clear Signing support through ERC-7730, another effort aimed at making blockchain transactions easier to understand before users approve them.
Ethereum does not currently have one giant catalyst capable of deciding its next move.
Instead, several smaller forces are pulling the market in different directions.
Retail holders are selling.
Treasury companies are accumulating.
ETF inflows have slowed.
Exchange balances have declined.
ETH is sitting near $2,500.
And Ethereum’s developers are preparing some of the network’s most important changes in years.
That leaves traders with a fairly simple near-term map.
A sustained move above $2,550 would strengthen the bullish case, while a break below $2,475 could shift attention toward $2,430–$2,445.
Until one of those areas gives way, Ethereum may continue to consolidate.
But the lack of dramatic price movement should not be confused with a lack of activity.
The market may be quiet on the surface, but underneath it, Ethereum is going through a period of accumulation, repositioning and infrastructure development.
The next major move in ETH may ultimately depend not on one headline, but on which of these trends gains the upper hand.
Ethereum Is Quiet at $2,500. But the Bigger Story Is Happening Underneath was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
A nonprofit once handed back roughly $500 million and dissolved itself on purpose. Here is what that taught crypto about legal structure, onchain governance and who actually holds power.
In May 2021, a nonprofit gave away 84,000 governance tokens. At the time they were worth close to $500 million.
Then it shut itself down. On purpose.
That nonprofit was the Maker Foundation. The protocol it had been stewarding is known today as Sky Protocol.
And that single decision still frames a question every onchain project eventually has to answer out loud.
Who actually runs this thing?
There are three answers in circulation. A DAO. A foundation. A company. Most people treat them as competing options.
They are not. They are layers. And the protocols that hold up under pressure tend to use all three.
Short version first.
The real dividing line is not ideology. It is far more boring than that.
Who can a court sue. Who can open an account. Who signs when a vendor asks for a signature.
A DAO, on its own, cannot sign anything. That gap is the entire story.
Here is the part most “what is a DAO” explainers skip.
If a group acts together for profit without registering an entity, most legal systems already have a default box waiting: general partnership, or unincorporated association.
In a general partnership, members are personally liable for the group’s debts.
That is not hypothetical anymore.
In CFTC v. Ooki DAO, a federal court in California accepted that a DAO could be sued in its own name as an unincorporated association made up of its token holders.
The regulator’s position was blunt: vote your governance tokens, and you are a member.
Members of a for-profit unincorporated association can be personally liable under partnership principles.
An earlier case, Sarcuni v. bZx DAO, noted that governance token holders could be treated as members of a general partnership under California law.
Read that twice if you hold governance tokens and vote with them.
This is why “we are just a DAO, we have no entity” stopped being a flex around 2023. Governance is not a shield. Governance without a legal wrapper is exposure.
Foundations exist to absorb that exposure without becoming a boss. Three shapes dominate.
The catch is honest and worth saying out loud. A foundation fixes the paperwork problem by creating a small group of humans who hold a pen. That is a genuine centralization cost.
Which is why wording matters. The footer of skyeco.com reads:
“This website is managed by Sky Frontier Foundation (SFF). The SFF is an independent entity and does not have authority over Sky Protocol, its smart contracts, or governance decisions.”
That is a foundation publicly disclaiming control over the thing it supports. Not modesty. Architecture.
Companies are still everywhere in crypto, for good reason. You can hire. You can sign an engagement letter. You can buy insurance.
What you cannot do is make the control disappear.
Regulators have not drawn a neat line between “the DAO” and “the dev shop.”
In token enforcement actions, legal analysts note that agencies have named any company involved with the token, development companies included.
If your company holds admin keys, your decentralization story is a marketing asset, not a legal defense.
So the pattern that actually emerged is not DAO or foundation or company. It is:
Three layers, deliberately kept apart.
Sky Ecosystem is a clean worked example, because each layer is named differently on purpose.
The naming discipline is not pedantry. It is the difference between “Sky Governance voted to change the rate” and “the foundation changed the rate.” Only one of those is true, and only one survives a regulator reading it.
Scale check. Sky Protocol currently shows roughly $14.15B in Total Collateral backing about $11.48B in stablecoin supply.
Across the wider landscape, DeepDAO data put all DAO onchain treasuries above $26B combined in Q1 2026. This is not a governance thought experiment.
Structure feels abstract until it touches yield. Here is exactly where it does.
So the governance question is a yield question.
If you hold sUSDS, the rate you receive is the output of a public process with a public record of who decided what and when.
You can read the forum thread. You can read the executed spell. You can check the dashboard.
Compare that to a rate that changed because an unnamed committee met on a Tuesday.
Two things moved the conversation recently.
First, the Uniswap Foundation proposed moving Uniswap Governance into a Wyoming DUNA, named DUNI. If adopted it becomes the largest DAO using the statute.
A coalition of crypto organizations then wrote to the US Treasury asking for federal recognition of the DUNA model.
Second, credit agencies started grading governance. When S&P Global assigned Sky Protocol a B- issuer credit rating, the first ever given to a DeFi protocol, it flagged governance concentration and low voter participation as risk factors. Not code quality. Governance.
That is the real trend. Governance design is now a credit input.
And the numbers deserve honesty. Most DAO proposals draw participation in the 5% to 15% range.
An OpenZeppelin governance review found that in 17 of 23 major DAOs, the top 10 delegates held enough voting power to pass a proposal on their own.
Decentralization on paper is not decentralization in practice.
A rough decision frame.
The one answer that is clearly wrong is doing nothing and hoping the word “decentralized” holds up in court. Ooki settled that argument.
Here is what I keep circling back to.
The Maker Foundation dissolved itself in 2021. Sky Frontier Foundation exists today and openly disclaims authority over the protocol.
Both were the right call at the time, which suggests these structures are not permanent identities at all. They are stages.
So, a question worth arguing about below.
If a foundation’s job is to eventually make itself unnecessary, how do you tell the difference between one genuinely winding down its influence and one quietly becoming the boss?
I have a view. I would rather hear yours first.
DAO vs Foundation vs Company: Three Ways to Run the Same Thing was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
A valid signature confirms that a wallet approved a message. Proving that the wallet belongs to a project requires more evidence.
A valid wallet signature proves a narrow fact: a specific wallet approved a specific message. It does not, by itself, prove that the wallet belongs to a crypto project, that the signer is authorized to represent the team, or that the statement is true. Verifying an official project wallet requires both cryptographic proof and a reliable link between the wallet and the project.
Editorial note: This article was developed with AI assistance and reviewed against primary technical standards.
Imagine that a new crypto project publishes a wallet address on its website. Next to the address, you see a signed message saying, “This is our official wallet.”
The signature verifies correctly. It feels like strong evidence, and it is. But it answers only one part of the question.
It shows that the wallet approved the message. It does not establish who operates the website, whether the signer represents the project, or whether the wallet still has the same role today.
A wallet signature connects three elements:
When the signature is verified, it shows that the signing authority associated with the wallet approved that message.
For a standard wallet controlled by a private key, this usually means that someone with access to the key signed it. Multisignature accounts and smart-contract wallets may use different verification methods, so the network and account type still matter.
A valid signature also protects the integrity of the message. If someone changes a word, address, or date after it was signed, the original signature should no longer verify against the modified message.
The NIST Digital Signature Standard makes an important distinction here. Verifying a signature and confirming the identity associated with a public key are separate tasks. The cryptography can validate the signature, but it cannot create the real-world identity link on its own.
A valid signature does not automatically prove that:
This last point is easy to overlook. A wallet can sign a false or exaggerated statement. The signature proves that the wallet approved the words. It does not prove that the words are true.
Think of a signature as an answer to one precise question:
Did this wallet approve this exact message?
If the real question is “Does this wallet officially represent the project?”, another layer of evidence is needed.
A signature has meaning only when you can read what was signed.
A request that simply says “Sign this message” provides very little context. It does not explain which project is involved, what the signature authorizes, or how long the claim should remain valid.
A useful signed message should identify the wallet, the requesting domain, the network, and the purpose of the signature. When appropriate, it should also include a unique nonce, an issue time, and an expiration time. These details make the claim clearer and reduce the risk of an old signature being reused in a different context.
The Sign In With Solana specification provides a structured format for wallet authentication. A Sign In With Solana message can include the domain, wallet address, statement, network, nonce, issue time, expiration time, request identifier, and related resources. The verifier receives the account, the signed message, and the signature.
Sign-In with Ethereum, ERC-4361, follows a similar approach for Ethereum accounts. Its message format includes the domain, address, URI, chain ID, nonce, and issue time. The verifier is expected to check those fields as well as the signature.
These standards focus on authentication, but they illustrate a broader rule: the wording of the message defines the limits of the proof.
A signature authorizing a login does not prove that the wallet controls a project treasury. A message confirming one website does not automatically verify every social account using the same project name. A signature created several months ago may no longer describe the wallet’s current role.
Suppose you discover an unfamiliar website claiming to represent a crypto project.
The website lists a wallet as official. That wallet then signs a message saying the website is official.
The signature may be completely valid, but the evidence is circular. The website identifies the wallet, and the wallet validates the website. If the same unknown person controls both, nothing outside that circle confirms the project’s identity.
A stronger verification starts from a source whose relationship to the project is already established. This might be a previously known domain, maintained documentation, or an official channel with a verifiable history.
That source identifies the wallet and explains its role. The wallet can then sign a fresh message that refers to the same project, domain, and purpose.
The two pieces of evidence support different parts of the claim:
Neither should be expected to do both jobs alone.
You can review an official wallet claim without connecting your own wallet or sending a transaction.
Start by asking what the wallet is supposed to represent.
Is it a treasury wallet, a contract deployer, a token authority, a profile administrator, or simply a public contact address?
The label “official wallet” is too broad if no role is given. A wallet may be official for one purpose without being authorized for every project activity.
Look for the complete wallet address on a project website, in maintained documentation, or through another channel whose history you can verify.
Do not rely only on a search result, private message, screenshot, or token name displayed inside a wallet. Those sources may help you discover the address, but they do not establish its identity.
Compare the complete address. Shortened forms are useful for display, but not for final verification.
Check exactly what the wallet approved.
The message should make the project, domain, network, wallet address, and purpose clear. If the signature is intended to confirm a current relationship, look for an issue time and a reasonable expiration time.
Do not verify a wallet signature from a screenshot alone. The original message and signature data are necessary because a screenshot can hide missing fields or remove important context.
Use a verifier that supports the relevant blockchain and account type.
Confirm that it checks the exact message you read and the exact wallet address being claimed. If a structured standard such as Sign In With Solana or Sign-In with Ethereum is being used, the expected fields should also be checked.
A “valid” label is only meaningful if you understand what the verifier actually tested.
If the project describes the wallet as a deployer, treasury, token authority, or another on-chain role, inspect the relevant blockchain records separately.
The signed message shows what the wallet claims. The blockchain can show what the wallet or related account has done.
For example, signing a message that says “We deployed this contract” does not replace checking the deployment transaction. Claiming to manage a token authority does not replace inspecting the authority recorded on-chain.
Wallet roles can change.
A project may rotate its treasury wallet, revoke an authority, replace a team member, or move to a multisignature setup. A signature that was accurate when created may become outdated later.
Save the full address, signed message, signature, source, stated role, and verification date. This turns an isolated badge into evidence that can be reviewed again.
Yes. A signature can be cryptographically valid while the conclusion drawn from it is wrong.
This may happen when the message is vague, the wrong domain or network is named, an old signature is presented as current, or the website and wallet only validate each other.
It can also happen when the signature is interpreted too broadly. A wallet may confirm control of one profile without controlling the project treasury. A founder may sign a message personally without proving that the wider team authorized the statement.
The signature remains valid. The interpretation is the part that fails.
No. Identity and safety are separate questions.
Even a well-documented project wallet can interact with risky contracts, retain powerful token permissions, manage concentrated funds, or become compromised later.
A wallet signature does not audit a smart contract. It does not explain token liquidity, holder concentration, mint permissions, or future behavior.
It should be treated as one useful piece of evidence, not as a final verdict about the project.
Before accepting an official project wallet claim, ask:
If one answer is missing, leave it marked as unknown. Do not let a verification badge answer a question the available evidence does not cover.
A valid wallet signature proves that a wallet approved a specific message. It does not independently prove that the wallet officially represents a crypto project.
To verify the broader claim, connect the wallet to an established project source, read the complete message, check its purpose and date, verify the signature correctly, and inspect any claimed on-chain role separately.
Wallet signatures are valuable because they provide precise evidence. The mistake is asking them to prove more than they can.
Save the address, message, signature, source, role, and verification date before relying on an official wallet claim.
Does a Wallet Signature Prove a Crypto Project Is Official? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Crypto card monthly volume grew 106% annually from early 2023, driven almost entirely by programs that run on Visa. Mastercard is running two separate strategies at once: consumer card agents and a B2B settlement infrastructure acquisition. The card works as a bridge for existing merchants. For new ones with no entity and no processing history, protocols like x402 are the only option that works today
Crypto card monthly volume grew 106% annually from early 2023, driven almost entirely by programs that run on Visa. Mastercard is running two separate strategies at once: consumer card agents and a B2B settlement infrastructure acquisition. The card works as a bridge for existing merchants. For new ones with no entity and no processing history, protocols like x402 are the only option that works today
What Crypto Cards Reveal About the Future of Payments
Artemis Research reported in January 2026 that total crypto card monthly volume grew from $100 million in early 2023 to over $1.5 billion by late 2025, a 106% compound annual growth rate. Annualized, the market reached $18 billion — close to the $19 billion in peer-to-peer stablecoin transfers over the same period.
By July 2026, Paymentscan tracked $691.7 million in a single month from on-chain settled card programs alone, with $8.094 billion in cumulative volume across 128.7 million transactions and 467,000 wallet addresses.
The biggest program by monthly volume is RedotPay at roughly $380 million per month. KAST ranks third. Both run on Visa. Paymentscan’s July 2026 data shows Visa at 98.5% of on-chain crypto card volume. Mastercard at 1.5%.
Visa built its position by partnering early with infrastructure providers like Rain and Reap, which issue cards for many downstream programs at once. One Visa infrastructure deal covers many products. Mastercard built its crypto card presence through direct partnerships with centralized exchanges — Bybit, Revolut, Gemini — which ties its volume more closely to exchange trading cycles.
Both networks are extending card infrastructure to AI agents. Noah Levine at a16z noted in March 2026 that Mastercard Agent Pay is live for US cardholders and Visa’s Intelligent Commerce framework is in pilot. The Agentic Commerce Protocol, built by Stripe and OpenAI, has Etsy live with over one million Shopify merchants set to follow.
At the consumer layer, both networks are converging on the same approach. At the settlement layer, they are not. Mastercard announced in March 2026 that it would acquire BVNK for up to $1.8 billion, including $300 million in contingent payments. BVNK processes $30 billion annually for clients including Worldpay, Deel, and Rapyd. The stated goal: 24/7 stablecoin settlement for processors and acquirers, and stablecoin checkout within Mastercard’s payment gateway.
A crypto card does one job: it converts a wallet balance into what a merchant already accepts. The cardholder pays from USDC. The merchant receives a standard card transaction. Artemis confirmed that the vast majority of crypto card transactions today settle in fiat at transaction time, so the merchant sees only local currency regardless of which stablecoin the user holds.
That job has real reach. RedotPay users in Southeast Asia, LATAM, and Africa can pay at any Visa-accepting terminal without the merchant needing to know anything about crypto.
But the card cannot serve every merchant. Levine at a16z put it directly:
“Cards serve every merchant a processor can underwrite. Stablecoins serve every merchant a processor cannot.”
A developer who builds an API tool in a weekend has no legal entity, no website, and no chargeback history — a profile that is very difficult to underwrite. Levine’s conclusion: “These merchants will not be choosing stablecoins over cards. They will be choosing stablecoins over nothing.”
In March 2026, a marketplace at mpp.dev opened with over 60 services built for AI agents: SEC filing search charges per query, image generation at fractions of a cent, physical letters printed and mailed from a document and address. The protocol powering it is MPP (Machine Payments Protocol), built by Stripe and Tempo, which lets agents pay using cards, stablecoins, or Lightning in a single HTTP request.
In its first week, 894 agents made 31,000 transactions at prices from $0.003 to $35 per request, according to a16z. No checkout page. Pricing embedded in the HTTP response. The agent reads the schema, pays, receives output.
Two protocols now make this model possible at the infrastructure level. x402 embeds stablecoin payments directly in HTTP requests with no merchant account or processor onboarding. MPP supports cards, stablecoins, and Lightning in the same request, with the mpp.dev marketplace as its live implementation. As a16z noted, “x402 and MPP each take a different approach, but both embed payments directly into HTTP requests.”
MoonPay’s PayBox handles the full stack for agents — MPC key sharding in a trusted execution environment, policy limits before any transaction, virtual cards scoped per merchant for fiat rails when needed.
The card worked because neither side had to change anything. As Levine, a16z, wrote: “The next generation of merchants won’t have storefronts. They’ll have endpoints.” The card serves that well for the merchants that already exist. The infrastructure being built now is for the ones that do not.
Fystack is an enterprise-grade, self-hosted MPC custody platform for fintech teams and crypto businesses. The core signing infrastructure, mpcium, is open-source. Fystack supports multi-chain wallet operations across TRON, ETH, BNB, Solana, Polygon, and more, with a policy engine that enforces spend rules before any signing happens.
If you are building payment infrastructure that involves automated signing, wallet custody, or agent payment flows, Fystack has the full product overview. The policy engine source is on GitHub.
What Crypto Cards Reveal About the Future of Payments was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
A token most traders had never heard of a week ago just ripped 250% in 24 hours and briefly touched an all-time high. No celebrity endorsement. No exchange listing. No viral tweet from a billionaire. Just a plumbing upgrade.
That’s the story of STONK, the native token of Solana launchpad StonkFun, and it’s one of the more interesting case studies in crypto market structure this year — because the rally wasn’t really about STONK at all. It was about what happens when a fast-growing app plugs directly into the dominant liquidity layer of an entire blockchain.
If you trade Solana tokens, watch DeFi, or just want to understand how integrations move markets in 2026, this one is worth unpacking in detail.
On Saturday, September 6, 2026, StonkFun announced it was integrating with Raydium’s LaunchLab, the token-launch infrastructure built by Solana’s largest decentralized exchange. The next day, the numbers told the story:
Three tokens across three different projects all moved together, in the same direction, on the same news. That’s not a coincidence. It’s how integrations work when they touch the core of a network’s liquidity.
StonkFun is a Solana-based token launchpad, but with a twist that separates it from the thousands of meme-coin factories that have come and gone: it lets users create tokens paired against real-world financial assets — tokenized stocks, ETFs, commodities, and currencies — rather than just pairing new tokens against SOL or stablecoins.
The flagship example is STONK itself, which trades against SPYx, a tokenized product from Backed Finance designed to track the S&P 500 through the SPDR S&P 500 ETF. Other pairs on the platform link tokens to assets like ZCash, Hyperliquid, and Bittensor.
It’s important to be precise about what this actually means for holders: pairing a token against a tokenized stock or ETF does not grant ownership of the underlying shares, dividends, or shareholder rights. The token’s dollar price simply reflects the value of the paired asset and the exchange rate between the two — more like a synthetic trading pair than an equity investment. That distinction matters for anyone evaluating the token, and it’s a detail worth remembering before assuming “stock-paired” means “backed by stock.”
StonkFun also runs a buyback-and-burn program, funneling a share of trading fees from its newer liquidity pools into purchasing and burning its ten largest tokens by market cap, weighted by size and executed every few minutes. As of the integration announcement, tokens paired with ZEC, HYPE, and TAO occupied the top three buyback slots, and the platform reports 78 different tokens have gone through the burn mechanism to date.
Raydium is the largest decentralized exchange (DEX) on Solana by volume, and LaunchLab is its permissionless token-launch infrastructure — a system that lets any project deploy tokens with a bonding-curve trading model that “graduates” into a full Raydium liquidity pool once it hits a volume threshold.
Before the integration, StonkFun ran its own launch mechanism. That created two problems the team had publicly acknowledged just days earlier, in a September 2 announcement:
By routing new token deployments through Raydium’s LaunchLab instead of a proprietary system, StonkFun effectively outsourced its liquidity and trust problem to the most established DEX infrastructure on Solana. New tokens launched on StonkFun now settle directly into Raydium’s order flow and, eventually, Jupiter’s aggregated routing — which explains why all three tokens moved in tandem.
Solana’s own official account publicly signaled support for the move, responding to a StonkFun post with a simple statement of backing for “Stonk Tokens” — a small detail, but one that added a layer of ecosystem-level credibility to a project that, just days earlier, was fielding user complaints.
This is the part that’s genuinely useful to understand, beyond the STONK headline number.
When a launchpad integrates directly with a major DEX’s infrastructure, it creates a flywheel effect across the stack:
In other words, a single infrastructure decision created three separate, simultaneous demand shocks — one for narrative attention, one for protocol revenue, and one for trading volume. That’s a pattern worth recognizing any time you see a launchpad-to-DEX integration announcement: check not just the launchpad’s token, but the underlying DEX and aggregator tokens too.
This is the question every trader should be asking, and it’s fair to say the honest answer is: nobody knows yet, and the early data is already showing the limits of the move.
A few signals worth watching:
For traders and researchers, the metrics worth tracking going forward are straightforward: daily trading volume on StonkFun, the pace of new token launches through LaunchLab, Raydium’s daily protocol revenue, and whether STONK’s price finds a stable range above pre-announcement levels or fully retraces.
Beyond the immediate price action, this integration is a useful data point in a broader trend: the merging of tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) with Solana’s meme-coin and launchpad culture.
StonkFun’s core pitch — pairing speculative tokens against tokenized stocks, ETFs, and commodities instead of just SOL — sits at the intersection of two of crypto’s biggest 2025–2026 narratives: real-world asset tokenization and permissionless token launches. Whether that combination produces durable products or just a faster way to speculate on volatility remains an open question, and it’s one worth watching regardless of which side of that debate you land on.
What’s clear is that infrastructure integrations are becoming one of the most reliable short-term catalysts in Solana DeFi. When a launchpad plugs into a major DEX’s liquidity engine, the resulting demand doesn’t stay contained to one token — it ripples across the stack. Anyone tracking Solana DeFi should be watching for the next version of this pattern, not just this one.
Ready to trade without watching the charts all day?
Subscribe to Hyperlyx AI and put your trading strategies on automation — built for traders who want to stay in the game through every twist of a rally like this one, without letting emotion drive the decision.
STONK is the native token associated with StonkFun, a Solana-based launchpad that lets users create tokens paired against tokenized stocks, ETFs, commodities, and other assets, most notably SPYx, a token tracking the S&P 500.
STONK surged after StonkFun announced an integration with Raydium’s LaunchLab on September 6, 2026, which lowered deployment costs, reduced sniping risk, and routed new token launches directly into Raydium’s liquidity infrastructure.
No. Pairing a token against a tokenized asset like SPYx means its price reflects that asset’s value and exchange rate — it does not grant ownership, dividends, or shareholder rights tied to the underlying stocks.
Because new StonkFun token launches now settle through Raydium’s LaunchLab and route through Jupiter’s aggregation layer, increased activity on StonkFun directly generates trading fees and volume for both platforms.
That depends on whether trading volume and new launches on StonkFun stay elevated after the initial news cycle. Early data already shows some pullback from the token’s all-time high, so sustained interest — not just the announcement itself — will determine whether gains hold.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile, and tokens like STONK, RAY, and JUP can experience rapid, significant price swings. Always do your own research before making investment decisions.
STONK Surges 250%: Inside the Raydium x StonkFun Integration was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Explore how Bitcoin is influencing the expectations around modern forex trading technology, from real-time data and automation to security and user experience.
See why today’s forex platforms need to focus on reliable technology rather than just basic trading features.
Forex and Bitcoin are very different markets, but the way people interact with them has started to share one important thing: they rely heavily on technology.
A forex trader may be watching currency pairs, while a crypto trader may be following Bitcoin prices. In both cases, users expect reliable market information, quick order handling, clear account details, and a platform that does not get in the way of trading.
This is changing the role of Forex Trading Software. It is no longer just a tool for viewing prices and placing orders. For brokers and trading businesses, it has become part of the overall experience they offer to users.
Bitcoin made people more familiar with a market that operates continuously. Prices can move at any hour, and users can check their positions from a phone in seconds.
Forex follows a different market structure, so the two cannot be treated as the same. Still, Bitcoin has influenced what users expect from financial platforms. Traders are more comfortable with real-time dashboards, mobile access, instant notifications, and digital account management.
That means forex businesses have to think beyond the basic trading terminal. The platform needs to feel dependable whenever users access it.
A trading platform can have dozens of features, but they are not very useful if the underlying market data is delayed or inconsistent.
Forex software usually depends on external price feeds, broker systems, liquidity providers, and APIs. Keeping these connections stable is important because traders use the information on the screen to make decisions.
Bitcoin trading platforms have also shown how useful real-time data aggregation can be. For forex businesses, the practical lesson is not to copy crypto platforms, but to make sure the data reaching the trader is timely, consistent, and easy to understand.
Automation is another area where crypto and forex platforms are moving in a similar direction.
Traders now use alerts, automated strategies, risk controls, and APIs to reduce repetitive tasks. Brokers can also use automation for account processes, reporting, order workflows, and monitoring.
This does not mean every forex platform needs complicated AI or fully automated trading. In many cases, simple automation that reduces manual work can make the platform more useful.
The important part is choosing automation based on a real need rather than adding it just because it sounds advanced.
Financial software deals with information that users expect businesses to protect. Account credentials, personal data, trading activity, and transaction details all need proper safeguards.
Bitcoin has made security a familiar topic for a much wider group of users, but the same principle applies to forex platforms. Secure authentication, controlled access, encrypted communication, API protection, and regular testing should be considered during development.
Good security is not only about preventing attacks. It also helps users feel confident that their accounts and information are being handled responsibly.
Trading platforms have also become easier to access. A trader may move between desktop and mobile devices throughout the day, which means the experience should remain consistent across both.
Clear dashboards, readable charts, simple navigation, order history, account information, and useful alerts can make everyday trading easier.
This is one place where businesses should listen carefully to their users. A platform does not become better simply by adding more screens. Often, removing unnecessary steps can make a bigger difference.
Bitcoin did not replace forex, and forex is not becoming a crypto market. What is changing is the technology expectations around both.
For businesses, the takeaway is fairly practical: build software that is reliable first, then make it useful, flexible, and easy to maintain. Real-time connectivity, dependable order handling, security, automation, and a sensible user experience are more valuable than a long list of features that nobody needs.
The role of Forex Trading Software is therefore moving beyond basic trade execution. As financial markets become more digital, the platforms supporting them will need to keep improving with user expectations rather than simply following old trading models.
Forex Meets Bitcoin: The Changing Role of Trading Software was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Have you ever tried to “stake” your tokens, adjust your “gas fees,” or back up your “mnemonic phrase,” and wondered if you accidentally stepped into a foreign language class? Welcome to crypto, where even the most enthusiastic newcomers can feel like they’re solving a riddle just to send a few dollars. Among this confusing terminology and intimidating design is where UX (or user experience) comes in.
Simply put, UX is how a product feels to use. Is it intuitive, simple, pleasant? Or does it leave you frustrated and confused? UX is about the journey of the user, making sure every step flows naturally. Don’t confuse it with UI (user interface), which refers just to what the screens look like. You can have a beautiful interface but a terrible user experience if the steps don’t make sense or the language is hard to understand.
And that’s the heart of the problem: crypto is full of powerful, promising technology, but it’s often locked behind confusing menus and jargon that scare people away.
You might think UX is just a “nice touch,” like a fancy design on your coffee cup. But actually, besides the actual need for the product, it’s what makes people stick around in the digital world. If a software product is useful and also feels easy and enjoyable, they’ll keep using it. If not, they’ll quit — fast. And in crypto, that difference can mean millions of potential users deciding to stay in traditional systems or worse, with none at all.
According to the World Bank, “about two-thirds of unbanked adults said that if they opened an account at a financial institution, they could not use it without help.” The total of those unbanked adults is around 1.4 billion, who also face barriers of distance and documentation when trying to open bank accounts. You might think that crypto could easily win over those users (only the Internet is needed), but there’s still the thing about the difficulty of use. All those unbanked people could find a useful alternative in crypto, but the UX is in the middle.
Think about how the iPhone revolutionized smartphones. Before it, phones were clunky and only tech enthusiasts explored their advanced features. Apple made the experience smooth, even delightful, for everyone. That’s great UX at work: you don’t need to read a manual, and you feel confident while using it.
Crypto should aim for the same. Many fixes are simple, but they require product designers to focus more on regular people instead of just insiders and developers.
So why does crypto feel so awkward to use today? There are a few common culprits. First, the jargon. Terms like “rollups,” “mnemonic phrases,” “staking,” and “slippage” confuse even experienced users. Then, there are the many steps just to do something simple: opening a wallet, buying tokens, and transferring them often feels like learning advanced mathematics from scratch.
Let’s not forget the complex wallet addresses: long strings of random letters and numbers. Would you feel confident sending your money to ‘0x5a1F…7bC9’ without triple-checking it? That’s why the lack of human-readable addresses makes users nervous. They can’t even dream about ‘reading’ smart contracts written in a programming language, but they should be able to, since these systems are doing all kinds of things with their money.
And mistakes in crypto can be permanent. If you send coins to the wrong address or lose your keys, there’s often no way to recover them. No friendly “undo” button here.
Even crypto’s biggest names agree this is a problem. Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, admitted that their platforms still need improvements and require more simplification to attract new users. Likewise, Changpeng Zhao, ex-CEO of Binance, has said that the exchange has suffered from a bad user experience.
If you’ve ever tried bridging your first coins or using DeFi protocols, you know what they mean. It may seem intimidating, even for someone who’s comfortable online.
Thankfully, there are plenty of ways to improve UX in crypto. First, providers should minimize the jargon wherever possible. If they must use technical terms, explaining them in plain language right in the app would be a good idea.
Next, the education of users as they go is essential. Little inline tips, confirmation screens, and progress indicators help make the experience less stressful. Avoiding costly mistakes can be done through clearer warnings and descriptions before transactions, and by defaulting to safer settings. For example, pre-selecting higher security or suggesting conservative fees can help protect users from themselves.
Another helpful principle is progressive disclosure: show the basic, necessary options first and hide advanced settings behind a “more options” button. That way, providers don’t overwhelm beginners but still serve power users.
Inclusivity is also crucial. Not everyone speaks English, has perfect eyesight, or is under 30. Thinking about accessibility and diverse users is good for everyone. Having those same users test the apps and provide feedback is probably the best option, since developers will never have the same experience as them.
On the other hand, users also need to consider the custodial vs. non-custodial trade-off. Custodial wallets (like those on centralized exchanges) are often easier because the company handles security, but they’re less private and secure. Non-custodial wallets give more control but demand more knowledge from the owners. A good UX can help guide users to what fits them best.
We have to admit that it hasn’t always been this way. Back when Bitcoin first launched, there weren’t even “seed phrases.” People often just kept (or lost) an unencrypted file of their private key. Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) were once more complex, clunky tools; today, they have interfaces resembling apps. This progress shows how much can change with a focus on usability.
One great example is the rise of crypto domain name services. Instead of copying and pasting a 42-character address, you can send crypto to ‘alice.eth’ thanks to services like Ethereum Name Service (ENS), Unstoppable Domains, and SPACE ID. They replace intimidating addresses with short, human-readable names. However, the trick is that those domains are available only for those who can buy them and/or pay for them yearly. It’s not exactly a native, free feature.
For their part, wallets and exchanges are also doing things to improve. Ready Wallet (previously Argent) focuses on a mobile-first design, friendly support, and replacing seed phrases with an “off-chain recovery” feature from the cloud to help users recover access if they lose their devices. MetaMask introduced “Smart Transactions” for pre-simulated transactions and to make them more cost-efficient. Coinbase has simplified its app dramatically to appeal to beginners, even removing some advanced options until users feel ready.
Some chains are experimenting with making smart contracts readable to humans or have already done that. Platforms like CSPR.live aim to present contract actions in plain English so users can understand what they’re signing before clicking confirm — similar to what already exists in Obyte since 2020 (see below). Researchers are working on this too, proposing new ways to make smart contracts easier to use and readable by humans.
These efforts prove that better UX isn’t just possible, it’s already happening in several platforms. The challenge now is making these improvements the norm, not the exception.
Obyte has been quietly building user-friendly crypto features for years, making it much easier for anyone (even complete beginners) to send and use digital money. One of its most approachable tools is textcoins. These are like little wallets you can send over email, chat, or even print on paper. You don’t need the recipient’s crypto address; they just click a link or type in a simple 12-word phrase to claim the funds. If nobody claims the textcoin, you can even take it back with a tap.
Another thoughtful feature is the ability to replace long, intimidating addresses with usernames or shortcodes. Instead of sending funds to a random string of letters and numbers, you can register a customized username via wallet chatbot or, if you own a house in Obyte City, claim a unique shortcode to receive payments. These names and shortcodes do come with a small, one-time fee, but it’s affordable and yours to keep without subscriptions.
Obyte also helps you avoid mistakes when interacting with dapps (like bridges or DEXes). Before you hit send, the wallet shows you a preview of the expected transaction result, including amounts of the coins to be sent in response, changes in the agent’s state (such as balance records), and even the website of the agent you are interacting with. This transparency gives you peace of mind when dealing with complex smart contracts or agents.
Lastly, Obyte makes creating human-readable smart contracts easy. You don’t have to be a programmer; you just fill out a simple template in plain language, set the conditions, and send it to the other party for approval. Whether you’re sending coins, creating agreements, or claiming funds, many of these features have been live, tested, and open to everyone for years. They all are both powerful and easy to use, making Obyte a welcoming corner of the crypto world –including user experience.
Featured Vector Image by pikisuperstar / Freepik
Originally Published on Hackernoon
The Problem of UX in Crypto, or How to Make It Look More User-Friendly was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Login