hodler

8 May 2026, 23:00

US Dollar Index Steadies Above 98.00 as Iran Ceasefire Uncertainty Lingers

BitcoinWorld US Dollar Index Steadies Above 98.00 as Iran Ceasefire Uncertainty Lingers The US Dollar Index (DXY) held steady above the 98.00 mark on Wednesday, consolidating recent gains as traders weighed the fragility of a ceasefire agreement between Iran and its regional adversaries. The index, which measures the greenback against a basket of six major currencies, edged up 0.1% to 98.15, reflecting cautious optimism in currency markets. Geopolitical Risk Keeps Dollar Supported The dollar’s resilience comes amid reports that the Iran ceasefire, brokered last week through international mediators, is showing signs of strain. Both sides have accused each other of violating terms, raising the risk of renewed hostilities. For forex markets, geopolitical instability typically drives safe-haven flows into the US dollar, and this pattern has held steady since the ceasefire was announced. Market participants are closely monitoring diplomatic channels. Any escalation could push the DXY toward the 98.50 resistance level, while a durable peace might trigger a mild pullback toward 97.80 as risk appetite returns. Technical Outlook: Support and Resistance Levels From a technical perspective, the 98.00 round number has acted as a psychological floor. The index has bounced off this level three times in the past two weeks, reinforcing its importance. On the upside, the 98.30–98.50 zone represents a key resistance area, where sellers have emerged previously. The 50-day moving average sits near 97.90, providing additional support. A break below that could open the door to 97.50, but the prevailing geopolitical backdrop suggests buyers are likely to defend the 98.00 handle. Why This Matters for Forex Traders The DXY’s stability above 98.00 has implications beyond the dollar itself. A stronger dollar tends to weigh on commodities priced in USD, including gold and oil. Gold prices have already slipped 0.5% this week as the dollar held firm. Conversely, emerging market currencies, particularly those in the Middle East, face additional pressure if tensions persist. For traders, the key takeaway is that the ceasefire narrative is not yet fully priced in. Until a clear resolution emerges, the dollar is likely to remain bid on any dips, making short-dollar positions riskier in the near term. Conclusion The US Dollar Index is treading water above 98.00 as the Iran ceasefire wobbles. With no clear diplomatic breakthrough in sight, the greenback retains its safe-haven appeal. Traders should watch for headlines out of the region, as any shift in ceasefire credibility will likely trigger the next directional move in the DXY. FAQs Q1: Why is the US Dollar Index important for forex traders? The DXY provides a broad measure of the dollar’s strength against major currencies. It helps traders gauge overall market sentiment and is often used as a benchmark for hedging and positioning. Q2: How does the Iran ceasefire affect the dollar? Geopolitical uncertainty, such as a fragile ceasefire, tends to increase demand for safe-haven assets like the US dollar. If the ceasefire collapses, the dollar could strengthen further. If it holds, risk appetite may improve, weakening the dollar slightly. Q3: What are the key levels to watch on the DXY? Support is at 98.00 and 97.90 (50-day moving average). Resistance is at 98.30–98.50. A break above 98.50 could signal a run toward 99.00. This post US Dollar Index Steadies Above 98.00 as Iran Ceasefire Uncertainty Lingers first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

8 May 2026, 22:30

EUR/HUF Downtrend Deepens: Societe Generale Flags 352/350 Targets

BitcoinWorld EUR/HUF Downtrend Deepens: Societe Generale Flags 352/350 Targets The Hungarian forint continues to strengthen against the euro, with analysts at Societe Generale projecting further downside for the EUR/HUF pair. In their latest technical analysis, the French investment bank has set new target levels at 352 and 350, extending the current downtrend that has characterized the pair in recent weeks. Technical Breakdown and Key Levels Societe Generale’s currency strategy team notes that the EUR/HUF pair has broken below several key support levels, confirming a bearish momentum. The 352 level represents a psychological and technical support zone, while 350 marks a deeper target that could be tested if selling pressure persists. The analysis is based on standard technical indicators including moving averages, Fibonacci retracements, and momentum oscillators. The pair’s decline comes amid a broader shift in investor sentiment toward Central and Eastern European currencies. The Hungarian forint has benefited from improved economic data and a more hawkish stance from the Magyar Nemzeti Bank (MNB), which has kept interest rates elevated compared to the European Central Bank. Fundamental Drivers Behind the Move Several macroeconomic factors are supporting the forint’s appreciation. Hungary’s inflation rate, while still elevated, has shown signs of moderating, reducing pressure on the central bank to maintain ultra-loose policy. Additionally, the country’s current account deficit has narrowed, improving external balances and reducing the need for foreign capital inflows. On the euro side, the European Central Bank’s recent policy signals have been interpreted as dovish by markets, with expectations of rate cuts later this year. This interest rate differential has made the forint more attractive to carry traders, further fueling the downtrend in EUR/HUF. Implications for Traders and Investors For forex traders, the Societe Generale analysis suggests a continued bearish bias on the EUR/HUF pair. Short positions targeting the 352-350 zone may offer favorable risk-reward ratios, particularly if the pair fails to reclaim the 360 level. However, traders should remain cautious of potential reversals, as the forint’s rally may be overextended in the short term. Hungarian exporters, who benefit from a weaker forint, may face headwinds if the downtrend continues. Conversely, importers and companies with euro-denominated debt will find relief as the forint strengthens. The tourism sector could also see increased inbound travel as Hungary becomes cheaper for eurozone visitors. Conclusion Societe Generale’s bearish outlook on EUR/HUF reflects a combination of technical weakness and fundamental support for the Hungarian forint. The 352 and 350 targets represent the next major milestones in what appears to be an established downtrend. Traders and businesses with exposure to the pair should monitor these levels closely, as a break below 350 could open the door to further declines toward the 340 area. However, any unexpected shift in central bank policy or economic data could quickly alter the trajectory. FAQs Q1: What does EUR/HUF represent? EUR/HUF is the currency pair representing the exchange rate between the euro (EUR) and the Hungarian forint (HUF). A lower rate means the forint is strengthening against the euro. Q2: Why is Societe Generale targeting 352/350? Societe Generale’s technical analysis identifies these levels as key support zones based on historical price action, Fibonacci retracements, and momentum indicators. The targets reflect the expected continuation of the current downtrend. Q3: What factors could reverse the EUR/HUF downtrend? A reversal could occur if the Hungarian central bank signals a dovish shift, if eurozone economic data surprises to the upside, or if global risk appetite deteriorates, leading to capital outflows from emerging markets like Hungary. This post EUR/HUF Downtrend Deepens: Societe Generale Flags 352/350 Targets first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

8 May 2026, 22:25

CAD: Market Overpricing BoC Rate Cuts, Says BBH

BitcoinWorld CAD: Market Overpricing BoC Rate Cuts, Says BBH Analysts at Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) have pushed back against market expectations for aggressive interest rate cuts by the Bank of Canada (BoC), arguing that the Canadian dollar (CAD) is being undervalued by overly dovish pricing. In a note released this week, BBH stated that the market is ‘too aggressive’ in its bets on BoC easing, suggesting that the central bank may hold rates higher for longer than currently anticipated. Market Expectations vs. BoC Reality Current market pricing implies a series of rate cuts beginning as early as the second quarter of 2024, with some forecasts projecting a total reduction of 100 basis points or more over the next 12 months. However, BBH contends that this outlook is inconsistent with the BoC’s recent communication and the underlying economic data. The central bank has repeatedly emphasized that its fight against inflation is not yet won, particularly with core inflation measures remaining sticky above the 2% target. BBH’s analysis points to several factors that could keep the BoC on hold: persistent wage growth, a still-tight labor market, and resilient consumer spending. ‘The market is pricing in a much more aggressive easing cycle than the BoC has signaled,’ the note stated. ‘We see a higher probability that the BoC holds rates steady through the first half of 2024, which would be a positive for the Canadian dollar.’ Implications for the Canadian Dollar The divergence between market expectations and potential BoC policy has direct implications for the CAD. If the BoC holds rates higher than expected, the yield advantage of Canadian assets could attract foreign capital, supporting the currency. Conversely, if the market is correct and the BoC cuts aggressively, the CAD could weaken further. Key Data Points to Watch Investors should monitor upcoming Canadian inflation reports, particularly the CPI and core CPI readings, as well as monthly GDP data and the BoC’s Business Outlook Survey. Any upside surprises in inflation would likely force the market to recalibrate its rate cut expectations, providing a tailwind for the loonie. BBH also highlights the importance of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s policy path, as a more hawkish Fed relative to the BoC could also weigh on CAD/USD. Conclusion While the market has priced in a dovish BoC, BBH’s contrarian view underscores the uncertainty surrounding the timing and magnitude of rate cuts. For traders and businesses exposed to the Canadian dollar, the key takeaway is that current market pricing may be overly pessimistic on the CAD. A repricing of BoC expectations could lead to a significant move in the currency, making this a critical theme to watch in the coming months. FAQs Q1: Why does BBH think the market is wrong about BoC rate cuts? BBH argues that the market is ignoring persistent inflation, wage growth, and the BoC’s own cautious language. They believe the central bank will hold rates higher for longer to ensure inflation is fully under control. Q2: How could this affect the Canadian dollar? If the BoC holds rates higher than expected, the CAD could strengthen as yield-seeking capital flows into Canada. If the market is correct and cuts happen, the CAD could weaken. Q3: What data should investors watch to gauge BoC policy? Key indicators include monthly CPI and core CPI, GDP growth, employment data, and the BoC’s Business Outlook Survey. Any sign of inflation reacceleration would reduce the likelihood of early cuts. This post CAD: Market Overpricing BoC Rate Cuts, Says BBH first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

8 May 2026, 21:21

Swiss Bitcoin reserve campaign set to lapse after failing to gather signatures

Organizers failed to collect enough signatures to trigger a referendum that would have required the Swiss National Bank to hold Bitcoin in its reserves.

8 May 2026, 21:05

USD Recovery Supported by Escalation Risk, ING Analysts Say

BitcoinWorld USD Recovery Supported by Escalation Risk, ING Analysts Say The US dollar is finding renewed support from heightened geopolitical tensions, according to analysts at ING. In a note to clients, the bank highlighted that the risk of further escalation in global conflicts is driving safe-haven flows into the greenback, helping to stabilize its recent recovery. Safe-Haven Demand and Dollar Strength ING’s analysis points to a direct correlation between rising geopolitical uncertainty and increased demand for the US dollar. As investors seek refuge from volatile markets, the dollar often benefits from its status as the world’s primary reserve currency. The bank notes that while the dollar had been under pressure earlier in the year due to shifting expectations around Federal Reserve interest rate cuts, the current environment is shifting the narrative. “The escalation risk is a key factor supporting the dollar’s recent recovery,” ING strategists wrote. “We see this as a near-term driver that could keep the dollar bid, especially if tensions continue to rise.” Fed Policy and Market Expectations The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy path remains a critical variable. While the market has priced in rate cuts for later this year, any delay or reversal in that outlook could further boost the dollar. ING suggests that if escalation risks persist, the Fed may adopt a more cautious tone, potentially slowing the pace of easing. “A more hawkish Fed, combined with safe-haven flows, creates a supportive backdrop for the dollar,” the note added. However, the analysts also cautioned that the recovery remains fragile and heavily dependent on the trajectory of geopolitical developments. What This Means for Traders and Investors For currency traders, the current environment suggests a potential for continued dollar strength in the short term. Safe-haven currencies like the Japanese yen and Swiss franc may also see demand, but the dollar’s liquidity and yield advantage make it a primary beneficiary. Investors should monitor headlines related to conflict escalation, as well as any Fed commentary that might signal a shift in policy expectations. The broader implication is that the dollar’s trajectory is now closely tied to geopolitical risk, rather than purely economic fundamentals. This makes the outlook more unpredictable and event-driven. Conclusion ING’s assessment underscores the renewed importance of geopolitical risk in driving the US dollar’s recovery. While the fundamental outlook for the dollar is mixed, the current escalation premium provides a clear, if temporary, tailwind. Traders and investors should remain alert to shifts in the geopolitical landscape, as any de-escalation could quickly reverse the dollar’s gains. FAQs Q1: Why does geopolitical risk support the US dollar? Investors often buy US dollars during times of uncertainty because it is the world’s primary reserve currency and offers high liquidity. This safe-haven demand pushes the dollar’s value higher. Q2: How does the Federal Reserve’s policy affect the dollar? Higher interest rates or a slower pace of rate cuts make the dollar more attractive to investors seeking yield. A hawkish Fed typically strengthens the dollar. Q3: Is the dollar’s recovery sustainable? ING suggests the recovery is supported by escalation risk, which is a near-term factor. If geopolitical tensions ease, the dollar could lose this support and resume a weaker trend. This post USD Recovery Supported by Escalation Risk, ING Analysts Say first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

8 May 2026, 21:03

Stablecoin Regulatory Clarity: Can Disruptors Be Disrupted?

Summary Regulatory clarity from the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act may not favor stablecoin issuers, as yield payments are likely to be restricted. Banks are defending their funding base by ensuring stablecoin issuers cannot offer interest, maintaining traditional deposit advantages and limiting crypto competition. Big Tech and banks may ultimately cooperate, leveraging banks' regulatory status and tech firms' distribution to issue stablecoins, rather than compete directly. Investors should be wary of extrapolating early fintech growth rates, as regulatory shifts and competitive dynamics can quickly disrupt disruptors. A few days ago, my algorithm pushed an article from Politico across my notifications bar. Politico reports that Wall Street banks are at war with the cryptocurrency industry regarding the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act - apparently, the banks are losing. I was somewhat surprised, not that there is a war, or that the banking industry is losing it, but rather, that the banking industry is opposed to certain measures contained in the proposed bill. Banks have issued private currencies for centuries - indeed, the last time I passed through Chek Lap Kok Airport, the ATM spit out Hong Kong Dollars issued by HSBC Holdings (HSBC), and anyone who visits Scotland will likely come across Scottish Pounds issued by the Royal Bank of Scotland ( NWG , RBSPF ). Why wouldn’t private banks want to earn seigniorage, take advantage of blockchain related cost savings, and be at the forefront of change and innovation? Perhaps the answer is that they are trying to protect their moat, not just from the existing stablecoin players, but also from deep-pocketed tech companies. Support for this notion is provided by the fact that soon after the GENIUS Act was passed last year, the Bank Policy Institute, a non-profit advocacy group funded by the banking industry, wrote that, ‘Using reasonable assumptions, the Baumol-Tobin model suggests that the demand for stablecoins would double if stablecoins pay interest’, and that, ‘ … if stablecoins are backed mostly by Treasury securities and reverse repos, there could be a substantial decline in deposits. In a worst-case scenario where all stablecoin growth came from deposits, it would be a 20 percent decline (Huther and Wang (2025)). But even if some of the funding came from money market funds or other sources, a substantial decline in deposits would seem likely. ’ BPI further warned that if stablecoin issuers were able to offer yield, i.e. pay interest on deposits, the resultant increased cost of funding for the banking industry would lead to increased loan rates of 42 bps. Moreover, systematic risk and runs on stablecoin issuers were possible, meaning that, “ The resulting financial crisis is not hypothetical – such a buildup and collapse closely resembles the dynamics that led to the Global Financial Crisis. ” What politician would want that? Increased lending costs – bad. A Financial Crisis – BAD. Letting Stablecoin issuers pay interest – BAD BAD BAD! Stop the madness! I don’t know if the banking industry really is losing the overall war, but with regard to the specific battle concerning the ability of stablecoin issuers to offer yield, the banks appear to be winning. As currently drafted, the act specifies that the two lead regulators of the industry will be the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). There is no role for the Fed, the OCC, or state regulators, all entities that oversee and regulate deposit taking institutions that pay interest. As well, according to CoinDesk , an agreement has been in place since March that will prevent crypto firms from offering yield that looks like deposit interest. PayPal Holdings Inc. ( PYPL ) will likely be the company most affected by this. Language reproduced from the draft legislation makes this point clear, though it also specifies that stablecoin issuers will be able to have loyalty reward programs similar to those offered by credit card issuers. Phew! Yet another financial crisis prevented, I know I’ll sleep better. While I was digesting all of this, my thoughts ran to the legalization of marijuana in Canada. It wasn’t the bonanza for the shareholders of early entrants that had been forecast. Quite the opposite in fact, increased competition wiped many of them out. I don’t have a crystal ball, but maybe the cryptocurrency industry should be careful about what it wishes for. In any case, as I reflected upon the nature of competition, in both nature and in business, I also thought about how cooperation is sometimes the model that emerges; think of symbiosis in nature, and how companies behave in industries where oligopolies are the dominant type of business organization. My purpose in writing this article isn’t to recommend buying or selling the equity of stablecoin issuers such as Circle Internet Group ( CRCL ), PayPal Holdings ( PYPL ), or other crypto companies. Instead, I want to convey the message that a consolidation will come, as will new entrants. There will be winners and losers from deregulation, and hopefully this article will give some hints on how to identify them. Here are some thoughts on how things might eventually shakeout. I. Sometimes The Early Bird Doesn't Get The Worm I see parallels with the state of the crypto industry today with the early days of the internet. Regulatory uncertainty, pioneering firms replaced by bigger rivals, a lack of product differentiation, leading to technological innovations and features that allowed new players to dominate the space. I’m old enough to remember when the conventional wisdom was that since browsers were going to be the gateway to the internet, Netscape was going to be the most valuable company in the world. Ultimately, Navigator was supplanted by Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, which in turn also lost its market leading position, and today Alphabet's Chrome has a 64% global market share. When do the advantages that second movers like Google ( GOOG ) possess start to outweigh the first mover advantages of pioneers such as Yahoo? The concept of Network Effects is instructive. No one used Blackberry Messenger because no one used Blackberry Messenger. If your friends weren’t on it, what value did it have? Are there any stablecoins in the market today that are likely to become ubiquitous, merely because most people use them? In the 1970s Betamax and VHS competed for leadership in the home video market, each having roughly half of the market. Despite having an inferior picture quality compared to Betamax, VHS was the ultimate winner. Several explanations are often given. First, consumers preferred the smaller size of a VHS cartridge because they were easier to store. Second, while both systems could record a standard TV show, a VHS cartridge’s smaller size meant that it could record an entire NFL game, whereas a Betamax cartridge would often stop recording halfway through the fourth quarter. Finally, it’s sometimes said that the porn industry played a part in VHS reaching a tipping point. A smaller cartridge meant a smaller camera and other recording equipment, which apparently had utility to movie makers who had to move from bedroom to bedroom. The slightly inferior picture quality wasn’t an issue, because it was still better than the grainy images that consumers were used to. What, if any, features will a stablecoin issuer of today be able to offer that will differentiate its currency from others? Will consumers care about loyalty programs in the same way that consumers in the 70s valued a smaller cartridge? A strong brand helps to maintain dominance, so ask yourself, how many of today’s stablecoins have widespread consumer recognition, and which ones merely fill a geographic or other niche? For years, Microsoft ( MSFT ) dominated the browser market until competition authorities intervened, because every PC and Windows based laptop came pre-loaded with Explorer, and switching to a new browser involved a lengthy and complicated process. So switching costs are relevant when assessing how well an existing player will be able to defend its market share from new entrants. Is there a cost in switching from one stablecoin to another? II. Lessons From Meta (Facebook) The big tech company that has put the most work into starting its own cryptocurrency / stablecoin is Meta ( META ) . “ When Facebook unveiled Libra in 2019 , the ambition was sweeping – a proprietary stablecoin backed by a basket of global currencies that would function as a parallel financial system for the company’s billions of users.” If launched, Libra would have had similarities with both contemporary stablecoins such as USCoin ( USDC-USD ), Tether ( USDT-USD ), and PayPal USD ( PYUSD-USD ) , and also with the Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) that are issued by the International Monetary Fund. Like today’s stablecoins, it would have been: i) issued on a blockchain, ii) designed to provide stability, iii) developed with a value proposition of delivering secure, low-cost transfers and global payments, and iv) backed by real world assets such as fiat currencies and government securities. Unlike today’s stablecoins, it would not have been a single currency stablecoin, but instead, it would have been backed by a trade weighted basket of currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD etc.) in the same way as SDRs are. Another difference was governance. Instead of having a single issuer, after initial resistance from politicians, a large consortium of over 100 corporations was envisaged as the body that would provide oversight. In essence, it had the potential to become a global currency, with Facebook and its 3 billion strong userbase being the main trading platform. Libra also had one key difference when compared to SDRs. The IMF is a non-profit entity, Meta, and the companies in the proposed governing consortium clearly are not. Governments pushed back hard. Libra was seen as a competitor to national currencies that would be a threat to monetary sovereignty and the ability of countries to manage interest rates. Emerging market countries worried about capital flight. As mentioned, governance was an issue. Finally, Meta’s reputation wasn’t stellar at the time, and privacy concerns were also raised. Meta went back to the drawing board, and “ the project was rebranded Diem in 2020 in an attempt to distance itself from the backlash." As well as changing the governance model to a consortium, Diem was also changed from being backed by a basket of currencies, to a single currency stablecoin, the model that is currently most prevalent in the market today. Nevertheless, “ Payment giants including Visa and Mastercard withdrew from the consortium under regulatory pressure … By early 2022, Meta sold the Diem intellectual property to Silvergate Bank and walked away entirely.” It's worth noting that Meta’s stablecoin project failed due to political pushback from both Republican and Democrat Congresses and administrations – this isn’t a Red / Blue issue. What lessons can be learned? From Meta’s perspective, it now plans to integrate regulated third-party stablecoins onto its platforms by the second half of 2026, and " a pilot [is] currently running in Colombia and the Philippines, two markets where traditional banking infrastructure is both slow and expensive for cross-border transactions", which entails Meta paying developers with Circle's USDC-USD. Under this arm’s length approach, Meta will be an enabler of payments, and not a monetary authority. Presumably this will allow for Meta to avoid the regulatory oversight issues and concerns that it faced in the past. I for one, though, would have concerns about purchase and payment data sourced from transactions I made on Instagram, WhatsApp, or Facebook being used by Meta or third parties to predict my behavior, or to push advertisements my way. I can see regulators having similar reservations, so perhaps Meta’s timeline is a bit aggressive. III. What Might A Potential Big Bank / Big Tech Stablecoin Model Look Like? Three models come to mind. The first is the third-party arm's length model that Meta is pursuing. In this model, there is no need for a banking partner because there are no banking type products being offered. This strategy is the lowest risk for a tech company, both in terms of potential reputational damage, and also, the capital commitment that is required. Rather than competing with the stablecoins of incumbents, or with other tech companies, it's merely offering a distribution platform to an exclusive partner stablecoin, or, offering an open platform to all stablecoins. This is probably the best scenario for existing stablecoin issuers. A second potential model is that tech companies issue their own stablecoins and compete with each other, and with existing incumbents. Bearing in mind Meta's experience with Libra, these would have to be single currency stablecoins. Even this measure, however, wouldn't guarantee positive regulatory approval. Diem was supposed to be a single currency USD stablecoin with a large body of over 100 entities overseeing it, and there was still no political appetite. Would things be different this time around? Possibly, but the issue is scale. One could see five or six tech companies having a combined float of stablecoins in the $ trillions, and this would inject an element of systemic risk into the economy and uncertainty to the banking system, in a way that currently isn’t the case. Although the global stablecoin market is estimated to have a float of $300 billion, this is small beer compared to the size of traditional currencies. For example, US M2 is $22.7 trillion, the Eurodollar market is circa $5 trillion, and there is also the black market. Factoring in global currencies like the Euro, JPY, etc., the global money supply exceeds $100 trillion. How would existing players fare in this type of a world? Theoretically, Amazon could pass on some of the cost savings from its own stablecoin to its customers. Could existing stablecoins compete with an X / SpaceX combination that bundled an X-Coin with cellphone and internet services? There is still plenty of physical commerce that occurs, not everything is bought online and delivered. Apple Pay is widely accepted, and this could help speed the adoption of "CORE." Get it? Apple Core? Okay, pretty bad, they are the branding experts, not me. The third model is cooperation between big banks and big tech. The logic seems compelling - everyone does what they're good at. Banks would be the issuers of single currency stablecoins. There is a tradition of private currencies in the US, and at one time there were over 8,000 of them. As noted, banks like RBS and HSBC currently issue their own money, with their currencies being exchangeable on a one-to-one basis with GBP and HKD. Similar types of JPMorgan ( JPM ), Citigroup ( C ), or Bank of America ( BAC ) stablecoins would be seen as enhancing America's currency, not harming it. Further, rather than being seen by politicians as a threat to the banking system, such coins would be seen as complementary. Paying interest wouldn't be a threat. Banks have FX trading desks and large treasuries that already handle almost every currency in the world. They're also regulated and if need be, have FDIC insurance - these mountains have already been climbed. Finally, they have large custodial operations that benefit from economies of scale - it's a natural fit for them to hold any necessary collateral. Big tech is great at UX, user adoption , and many companies have user bases numbering in the billions. Further, as noted, many have real services or products that banks don't. These can be bundled with a stablecoin to deliver value to clients that banks can't do on their own. So Big Tech handles distribution. Perhaps this type of scenario seems far-fetched. It's not, it's already happening in one form or another. Goldman Sachs ( GS ) and Apple ( AAPL ) already offer the Apple Card , and Apple has recently announced that they will transition to Chase in two years. Although there is no stablecoin involved, it is Big Tech partnering with a big bank to offer a banking product that is used for payments. As for "offering yield" or paying interest on stablecoins, the banking industry's big bad bogeyman? PayPal has effectively already been doing it by using reverse repos entered into with highly regulated creditworthy banks, to fund "yield rewards". While there is no formal deposit being held by PayPal, and technically no interest is being paid, the ultimate source of funding is deposits held at a regulated bank, that are passed through to a stablecoin holder, via a reverse repo. Notably, this is exactly the type of activity that it seems will be prohibited under the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. In the future, if a stablecoin issuer wants to pay interest to its customers, its best bet will likely be to team up with a bank issuer. In which case, one has to ask, who’s the most attractive partner, Apple, Amazon, Meta etc., or PayPal, Circle, Tether? IV. Conclusion - Sometimes Disruptors Get Disrupted I love me my Wise ( WPLCF ). A debit card that works in over 100 countries, mid-market FX Rates, seamless cross-border transfers with no fees, and my wallet has balances in USD, GBP, CAD, THB, MYR, and VND. I even thought about investing in it, which is why I did a deep dive into stablecoins and other potential payment models. After looking at Figure 1, I've decided to remain a customer, and to not become an investor. Figure 1. Revenue Growth Of Select Fintechs Vs. Traditional Payment Platforms V ), Mastercard ( MA ), Wise (WPCLF) and Pay Pal" width="640" height="299" contenteditable="false" data-width="640" data-height="299"> Seeking Alpha I guess my advice is that regulatory clarity doesn’t always open up a brave new world that is dominated by incumbents. So be wary of valuations made on spreadsheets that show early-stage growth rates continuing ad infinitum, and that also use discount rates that don’t have a risk premium built in, to account for the possibility of disruptors being disrupted.