CoinTalk

Key Takeaways:

• Tornado Cash uses Zero-Knowledge proofs to break the on-chain link between the sender and receiver of funds.
• The US government sanctioned the protocol in 2022, arguing it was a tool for money laundering by state-sponsored hackers.
• The legal battles surrounding the developers have set a critical precedent regarding whether open-source code is protected speech.

Tornado Cash is arguably the most controversial protocol in the history of cryptocurrency. To privacy advocates, it is a vital tool for human rights, allowing users to transact on Ethereum without exposing their entire financial history to the world.

To government regulators, it is a weapon. In 2022, the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned the protocol. This marked the first time a piece of code, rather than a person or country, was added to a sanctions list. Even in 2026, the legal shockwaves of this decision are still shaping how developers build privacy tools.

What Is Tornado Cash?

At its core, the protocol is a "coin mixer." On a public blockchain like Ethereum, every transaction is visible. If you pay someone, they can see your wallet balance and your entire transaction history.

Tornado Cash solves this transparency problem. It breaks the link between the source and the destination addresses.

Users deposit cryptocurrency into a shared pool (the "smart contract"). The funds sit there, mixing with funds from thousands of other users. Later, the user withdraws the funds to a brand new, clean wallet.

How Does the Technology Work?

The magic behind the protocol is Zero-Knowledge Proofs (zk-SNARKs). This cryptography allows a user to prove they own funds in the pool without revealing which specific deposit was theirs.

When you deposit, you get a secret "note" (like a password). When you want to withdraw, you provide a cryptographic proof derived from that note.

The smart contract verifies the proof is valid and releases the funds to your new address. Because the contract never sees the link between the deposit and the withdrawal, the on-chain trail is effectively cold.

Why Was It Sanctioned?

The anonymity provided by Tornado Cash attracted legitimate users, but it also attracted criminals. The Lazarus Group, a North Korean state-sponsored hacking organization, used the mixer to launder hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from crypto bridges.

OFAC argued that the protocol was a national security threat. By placing it on the SDN list, they made it illegal for any US citizen or entity to interact with the smart contracts. This forced major infrastructure providers like Infura and Circle (USDC) to blacklist the protocol's addresses immediately.

Is Code Free Speech?

The sanctions led to the arrest of the developers behind Tornado Cash, sparking a massive legal battle that continues to define the industry in 2026. The core legal question is simple: Is writing open-source code protected by the First Amendment?

Defenders argue that the developers simply built a tool (like a hammer) and shouldn't be jailed because someone else used it for a crime. Prosecutors argue that the developers profited from the laundering and failed to implement controls. This case has drawn a line in the sand between decentralized privacy and centralized compliance.

Conclusion

The story of Tornado Cash is a tragedy of the dual-use nature of technology. It proved that perfect privacy is possible on a public blockchain, but it also highlighted the severe consequences when that privacy collides with national security.

Key Takeaways:

• Every trade in crypto is an exchange of two assets, known as a pair (e.g., BTC/USDT).
• Fiat pairs are used for entering the market, while stablecoin pairs offer the deepest liquidity for active trading.
• Crypto-cross pairs (like ETH/BTC) allow traders to profit from the relative strength of altcoins against Bitcoin without touching dollars.

Trading pairs are the fundamental language of the cryptocurrency market. When you open an exchange, you are instantly bombarded with tickers like BTC/USDT, ETH/BTC, or SOL/USD.

To the beginner, this can look like a confusing wall of code. But understanding how to read these pairs is the first step to becoming a profitable trader.

In crypto, you never just "buy" something in isolation. You are always selling one asset to purchase another. The relationship between these two assets determines the price, the liquidity, and the risk of your trade.

How Do Trading Pairs Work?

A pair consists of two parts: the Base Currency and the Quote Currency.

In the pair BTC/USDT, Bitcoin is the Base. Tether (USDT) is the Quote. If the price is 95,000, it means it takes 95,000 units of the Quote currency (USDT) to buy 1 unit of the Base currency (BTC).

When you look at a chart, you are watching the battle between these two assets. If the chart goes up, the Base is getting stronger. If the chart goes down, the Quote is getting stronger.

Why Are Fiat Pairs Important?

Fiat pairs (like BTC/USD or ETH/EUR) are the gateways. These are typically found on Spot markets that have banking integrations.

They serve one primary purpose: On-ramping and Off-ramping. When you first enter the ecosystem using a credit card via Quick Buy, you are using a fiat pair.

However, professional traders rarely trade these actively. They are slower and often have lower liquidity compared to their digital counterparts.

Why Do Stablecoin Pairs Dominate?

The vast majority of volume in 2026 happens on Stablecoin pairs (e.g., BTC/USDT or ETH/USDC).

Stablecoins are the oil of the crypto engine. Because they are pegged to the dollar but move on the blockchain, they allow traders to exit volatile positions instantly without withdrawing to a bank.

Trading pairs denominated in stablecoins offer the tightest spreads. This makes them ideal for day trading and using automated tools like a Trading Bot, which relies on deep liquidity to execute frequent orders.

What Are Crypto-Cross Pairs?

This is where the pros play. A crypto-cross pair (like ETH/BTC) does not involve any fiat or stablecoins. It measures the value of an altcoin directly against Bitcoin.

Why trade this? It removes the noise of the dollar. If the entire market is crashing, ETH might be down in dollar terms, but it might be up against Bitcoin.

By trading the ETH/BTC pair, you can grow your stack of Bitcoin regardless of the dollar price. It is a strategy focused on accumulating the hardest asset rather than accumulating fiat currency.

How Does Arbitrage Work Between Pairs?

Sometimes, the price of Bitcoin is different on the BTC/USDT pair than it is on the BTC/EUR pair. This discrepancy creates an opportunity called arbitrage.

Traders buy the asset on the cheaper pair and sell it on the expensive pair. This activity is vital for the market. It ensures that prices remain consistent across all trading pairs and exchanges, creating a unified global price for digital assets.

Conclusion

You cannot trade effectively if you don't understand what you are swapping. Whether you are pricing assets in dollars, Satoshis, or stablecoins, the pair dictates your strategy.

Key Takeaways:

• Fundraising has matured from the "Wild West" of 2017 ICOs to safer, exchange-vetted IEOs and IDOs.
• Crypto fundraising allows retail investors to access early-stage venture capital opportunities previously reserved for the rich.
• Understanding the difference between these models is critical for managing risk and avoiding scams.

Crypto fundraising is the engine that powers the blockchain industry. Unlike the traditional stock market where only accredited millionaires get to invest in startups like Uber or Facebook early, crypto democratizes this process.

It allows anyone with an internet connection to fund the next big technology. However, the methods for raising capital have changed drastically over the last decade.

We have moved from the chaotic days of 2017 where anyone with a website could raise millions, to the regulated environment of 2026. Understanding these acronyms is the first step to finding the next 100x gem without getting wrecked.

What Happened to the ICO?

The Initial Coin Offering (ICO) was the original form of crypto fundraising. It works like a Kickstarter campaign. A developer writes a whitepaper, creates a website, and asks users to send Bitcoin or Ethereum to a wallet address.

In exchange, the user gets the project's new token. This model exploded in 2017, but it had a fatal flaw: zero accountability.

Because there was no middleman, thousands of projects turned out to be scams. Developers would raise millions and simply disappear. Today, ICOs are rare due to strict regulations from the SEC and a lack of trust from investors.

Why Are IEOs Considered Safer?

To solve the trust problem, the market evolved into the Initial Exchange Offering (IEO). In this model, a centralized exchange (like Binance or BYDFi) acts as the gatekeeper.

The exchange vets the project, checks the code, and interviews the team. If the project passes the audit, the exchange sells the tokens to its own users.

This adds a massive layer of safety. The exchange puts its reputation on the line. While an IEO is not a guarantee of profit, it is a guarantee that the project is real and the team is verified.

How Do IDOs Democratize Access?

The Initial DEX Offering (IDO) is the decentralized version of crypto fundraising. Instead of a centralized exchange, a Decentralized Exchange (like Uniswap) or a Launchpad hosts the sale.

This is the most open model. Anyone can participate, usually by staking a specific launchpad token to get a lottery ticket for allocation.

IDOs are high-risk, high-reward. Because there is no central authority vetting the projects, scams can slip through. However, this is also where the earliest and cheapest entry prices are often found before the token hits major exchanges.

What Are SAFTs and Private Rounds?

Before the public ever sees a token sale, there is usually a Private Round. This is crypto fundraising targeting Venture Capital (VC) firms and angel investors.

They use a legal contract called a SAFT (Simple Agreement for Future Tokens). These investors get the cheapest price, but their tokens are usually locked (vested) for years.

When analyzing a project, always check the vesting schedule. You don't want to buy a token on the public market just as the VCs are unlocking their cheap tokens to dump on you.

Conclusion

The landscape of capital raising is constantly shifting. From the lawless ICOs to the curated IEOs, the goal remains the same: connecting innovation with capital.

Key Takeaways:

• Abstraction hides technical complexities like gas fees, chain switching, and private keys from the end user.
• The industry is moving toward "Intent-Centric" design, where users simply state what they want to do rather than how to do it.
• This technology is essential for onboarding the next billion users who do not care about how the blockchain works.

Blockchain abstraction is the buzzword that promises to finally fix the user experience of cryptocurrency. For the last decade, using crypto has been a technical nightmare. To buy an NFT or play a game, you had to understand gas fees, bridge tokens between networks, and manage complex seed phrases.

It was like trying to send an email in 1980 by typing raw code into a command line. It worked, but only for geeks.

In 2026, the industry is having its "iPhone moment." The goal is to make the technology invisible. Users shouldn't know they are on Base, Arbitrum, or Solana; they should just know they are sending money or buying art. This invisible layer that handles the messy work in the background is called abstraction.

How Does Account Abstraction Work?

The first pillar of blockchain abstraction is upgrading the wallet itself. Traditional wallets are rigid. If you lose your key, you lose your money.

Account Abstraction (ERC-4337) turns your wallet into a smart contract. This allows for features we take for granted in Web2, like password recovery via email or two-factor authentication.

It also enables "sponsored transactions." Imagine playing a blockchain game where the game studio pays your gas fees for you. You play for free without ever needing to buy ETH just to move a character. This removes the biggest friction point for new adopters.

What Are "Intents" in Crypto?

The next evolution is "Intent-Centric" architecture. Currently, crypto is imperative. You have to tell the blockchain exactly how to execute a trade (e.g., "Swap Token A for Token B on Uniswap using 1% slippage").

With blockchain abstraction, you simply express an "Intent." You say, "I want Token B."

A network of third-party solvers then competes to find the best route for you. They handle the bridging, the swapping, and the gas optimization. You just get the result. It is similar to using Uber; you don't tell the driver which streets to take, you just tell them your destination.

Why Is Chain Abstraction Necessary?

We live in a multi-chain world. Liquidity is fractured across hundreds of different blockchains. Without blockchain abstraction, users are stuck on islands.

Chain abstraction unifies these islands. It allows you to hold USDC on Ethereum and instantly pay a merchant on Solana. The protocol handles the swap and bridge instantly in the background.

This unifies global liquidity. It prevents users from feeling "trapped" on one network and allows applications to access customers regardless of which wallet they use.

Conclusion

The future of crypto is boring, and that is a good thing. Blockchain abstraction ensures that the difficult technology fades into the background, leaving only the utility. We are moving from a world of "managing keys" to a world of "managing assets."

Will XRP Price Double Again as Hidden Buying Pressure Builds?

XRP is once again under the spotlight as traders debate whether history is about to repeat itself. After months of sideways movement and heavy downside pressure, derivatives data is flashing signals that closely resemble conditions seen before XRP’s most explosive rallies. While price action remains subdued for now, a growing imbalance beneath the surface suggests that short sellers may be underestimating the risk ahead.

Negative Funding Rates Reveal a Crowded Trade

Over the past two months, XRP funding rates on major exchanges have remained consistently negative. This indicates that a large portion of leveraged traders are positioned for further downside, paying a premium to maintain their short exposure. Historically, such conditions have not been sustainable for XRP.

Similar funding environments appeared ahead of sharp rebounds in previous cycles. In mid-2024, negative funding preceded a rally of roughly 50%, while in early 2025, the same setup was followed by a surge of more than 100%. These patterns suggest that excessive pessimism among derivatives traders has often created the foundation for aggressive upside moves.

How Falling Prices Created Latent  Buy Pressure

The current bearish bias emerged after XRP suffered a steep decline from its multi-year high near $3.66, losing roughly half of its value. That correction reinforced negative sentiment and encouraged traders to pile into short positions. However, this collective positioning may now be working against the bears.

When shorts accumulate at scale, they create what analysts describe as latent buying pressure. As price begins to rise, even modestly, these short positions can be forced to close, triggering liquidations that convert selling pressure into rapid buying. This dynamic has repeatedly fueled XRP’s strongest rallies over the past two years.

Why the $2 Zone Matters More Than Ever

XRP recently rebounded from the lower boundary of its long-standing trading range, stabilizing around the $1.80 to $2.00 area. This zone has acted as a critical inflection point throughout 2025, serving as the launchpad for XRP’s last major rally toward $3.66.

Despite this bounce, the $2 level remains psychologically and technically decisive. Previous retests of this area were often accompanied by large realized losses, indicating that many holders chose to exit rather than accumulate. For the bullish thesis to regain strength, XRP must not only hold this support but reclaim higher levels with conviction.

Technical Levels That Define the Bullish and Bearish Paths

From a broader technical perspective, XRP’s outlook hinges on its ability to reclaim key moving averages. A sustained move above the $2.22 region would signal that buyers are regaining control and could open the door to a renewed push higher. Failure to do so, however, would leave XRP vulnerable to a deeper pullback toward longer-term support levels near $1.40.

This tension between structural support and overhead resistance explains why the market feels compressed. Volatility is being stored, and once released, it is unlikely to be subtle.

Where Traders Are Positioning for the Next Move

ETH Funding Rate Turns Negative: A Contrarian Signal or a Warning Sign?

Ethereum has once again found itself at a critical crossroads. After weeks of volatile price action and growing macroeconomic uncertainty, ETH’s funding rate in perpetual futures briefly slipped into negative territory, a development that traditionally excites contrarian traders. Yet this time, the market response feels different. Instead of aggressive dip-buying, hesitation dominates sentiment, raising an uncomfortable question: are Ether bulls truly ready to take the bait?

A Sharp Correction Shakes Market Confidence

Ether’s price recently endured a three-day correction of nearly 14%, dragging ETH back toward the $2,900 level for the first time in almost a month. This move did not occur in isolation. It coincided with a broader pullback across the crypto market as traders grew increasingly risk-averse amid deteriorating economic and geopolitical conditions.

Although ETH briefly reclaimed the psychological $3,000 level following announcements that the US administration would pause import tariff hikes on several European Union countries, the relief rally lacked conviction. Within just 48 hours, more than $480 million worth of bullish leveraged positions were wiped out, reinforcing fears that the downside pressure may not be over.

What a Negative Funding Rate Really Means for ETH

In perpetual futures markets, a negative funding rate means that short sellers are paying a premium to maintain their positions. Under normal conditions, ETH funding rates tend to remain in positive territory, typically ranging between 6% and 12% annually, reflecting demand for leveraged long exposure.

The brief shift into negative funding territory suggests a clear lack of confidence among traders. However, this signal alone does not automatically translate into bearish dominance. Historically, negative funding rates have often preceded short-term rebounds, especially when excessive pessimism takes hold. The key difference today is the absence of strong catalysts capable of reigniting bullish momentum.

Institutional Appetite for Ethereum Appears to Be Cooling

One of the most significant drags on sentiment comes from the institutional side. US-listed Ether spot exchange-traded funds currently hold more than $17 billion worth of ETH, creating a sizable overhang on the market. Recent data shows that these ETFs experienced $230 million in net outflows in a single day, abruptly reversing the prior week’s inflow trend.

Crypto at Davos 2026: When Power, Politics and Money Collide

The World Economic Forum in Davos has always been a stage for global power dynamics, but in 2026, cryptocurrency quietly emerged as one of the most revealing fault lines between governments, central banks and the private sector. While geopolitical disputes and security tensions dominated headlines, digital assets surfaced as a secondary theme that exposed deep disagreements over who should control the future of money.

Crypto was not the headline act at Davos this year, yet its presence was impossible to ignore. From presidential speeches to tense panel discussions, the industry became a mirror reflecting broader anxieties about sovereignty, competition and the balance between innovation and control.

Trump’s Davos Message: Crypto as a Strategic Weapon

US President Donald Trump used his appearance at Davos to reinforce a message he has repeated since returning to office: the United States intends to lead the global crypto race. Speaking to an audience of political leaders and financial executives, Trump framed digital assets not as a speculative trend, but as a geopolitical necessity.

According to Trump, crypto regulation is no longer a domestic policy issue. It is a strategic competition, particularly against China. He expressed confidence that the US would soon finalize a comprehensive crypto market structure bill, commonly referred to as the CLARITY Act, despite recent delays and resistance from major industry players.

Trump’s rhetoric made one thing clear. In his view, whoever controls the regulatory framework for crypto will shape the future of global finance. Allowing rival nations to take the lead, he warned, could permanently weaken US influence over emerging financial infrastructure.

Notably, crypto occupied only a small portion of Trump’s lengthy Davos speech. Yet the symbolism was powerful. His appearance was introduced by BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, underscoring how deeply traditional finance and political leadership are now intertwined with the digital asset conversation.

Central Banks Push Back: Sovereignty Over Innovation

If Trump’s speech framed crypto as opportunity, the response from Europe’s central banking establishment emphasized risk. Nowhere was this contrast clearer than during a panel discussion featuring Banque de France Governor François Villeroy de Galhau and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong.

Villeroy de Galhau acknowledged that tokenization and stablecoins are likely to play a major role in modernizing financial infrastructure. He even described tokenization as one of the most significant financial innovations of the coming year, particularly for wholesale and institutional markets. Europe’s progress on central bank digital currencies was presented as evidence that innovation can occur within state-controlled systems.

The tone shifted sharply when the conversation turned to monetary sovereignty. Villeroy de Galhau argued that money cannot be separated from democratic authority. Allowing private entities to issue widely used digital currencies, especially yield-bearing stablecoins, would undermine a core function of the state.

In his view, financial stability depends on governments maintaining control over money creation. Surrendering that role to decentralized or corporate systems would weaken democracy itself.

Bitcoin, Gold and the Battle Over Trust

Brian Armstrong offered a fundamentally different interpretation. He described Bitcoin as a modern evolution of the gold standard, a decentralized alternative that protects societies from excessive government spending and long-term currency debasement.

According to Armstrong, Bitcoin’s structure makes it more neutral and independent than fiat currencies, which are subject to political incentives and fiscal pressure. He framed the debate not as a threat to democracy, but as a healthy competition between systems of trust.

The exchange highlighted the core ideological divide that ran through Davos 2026. While US political messaging increasingly treats crypto as a strategic asset, European monetary authorities remain deeply cautious about private money gaining systemic importance.

Yield-bearing stablecoins became a particular point of contention. European officials warned that interest-paying digital currencies could disrupt banking systems by drawing deposits away from traditional institutions. US crypto executives countered that such incentives are necessary to remain competitive, especially in a world where China is advancing its own state-backed digital currency.

Tokenization Takes Center Stage

While debates over sovereignty dominated headlines, tokenization emerged as one of the few areas of broad consensus. Central bankers and crypto executives alike described tokenization as the next major phase of financial evolution.

Real-world assets, from bonds to state-owned enterprises, are increasingly being represented on blockchain networks. Zhao revealed that he is in discussions with multiple governments about tokenizing public assets as a way to unlock value and fund economic development.

This convergence was notable. Even critics of private digital money acknowledged that blockchain-based infrastructure could improve efficiency, transparency and settlement speed in traditional markets.

Stablecoins and the Fear of Bank Runs

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire addressed one of the most persistent criticisms of stablecoins: the fear that they could trigger bank runs. Speaking at Davos, Allaire dismissed these concerns outright.

He argued that the incentives offered by interest-paying stablecoins are too small to meaningfully disrupt the banking system. According to Allaire, such rewards function primarily as customer retention tools rather than mechanisms capable of draining deposits at scale.

He pointed to money market funds as a historical comparison. Despite decades of warnings, trillions of dollars have flowed into these instruments without collapsing the banking sector. In his view, the shift away from banks toward private credit and capital markets was already underway, independent of stablecoins.

What Davos 2026 Revealed About Crypto’s Future

Just a few years ago, stablecoins were associated with crisis and collapse, most notably during the implosion of the Terra ecosystem in 2022. That episode damaged the public image of digital dollars and fueled skepticism among regulators.

Davos 2026 painted a different picture. Stablecoins and tokenization were no longer fringe topics. They were embedded in discussions among presidents, central bankers and corporate leaders shaping global policy.

The divide remains clear. The US political establishment increasingly views crypto as a tool of strategic competition, while European central banks emphasize caution, sovereignty and control. Regulation continues to move slowly, constrained by domestic politics and ideological disagreement.

Yet one conclusion stood out. Crypto is no longer asking for a seat at the table. It is already there, influencing debates about power, money and the future of the global financial system.

Could Europe Really Weaponize U.S. Debt Over Greenland?

The recent geopolitical tension between the United States and Europe has pushed an old, uncomfortable question back into the spotlight: what happens if allies start using finance as a weapon? As Washington’s ambitions around Greenland stirred political nerves across Europe, whispers began circulating in policy circles about extreme countermeasures — including the once-unthinkable idea of selling off U.S. debt.

While a temporary cooling of tensions followed discussions at Davos, European leaders are no longer assuming stability as a given. Instead, they are quietly assessing how much leverage they truly possess in a world where economics, finance, and geopolitics are increasingly intertwined.

From Trade Wars to Financial Warfare

Europe’s first instinct has been economic retaliation through trade. The so-called  trade bazooka — a mechanism that could effectively restrict U.S. companies from accessing the EU’s vast single market — remains on the table. Such a move would hurt American corporations immediately, cutting off revenues worth billions.

But beyond tariffs and trade barriers lies something far more explosive: finance. Europe collectively holds trillions of dollars in U.S. assets, including Treasury bonds that help fund Washington’s deficits. Some policymakers have begun asking whether those holdings could be transformed from a symbol of trust into a source of pressure.

The Nuclear Option: Selling U.S. Treasurys

The idea gained traction after prominent voices suggested that dumping U.S. debt could destabilize the dollar, spike inflation, and ultimately hurt American voters. The logic is straightforward on paper: if a major bloc like Europe suddenly reduces exposure to U.S. Treasurys, borrowing costs would rise and confidence in the dollar could weaken.

Deutsche Bank’s FX strategists have pointed out that despite America’s military and economic dominance, it relies heavily on foreign capital to finance its persistent external deficits. Foreign investors hold an enormous share of U.S. bonds and equities, making the system sensitive to sudden shifts in sentiment.

Yet financial systems rarely behave like political theories.

Why Dumping U.S. Debt Is Easier Said Than Done

In practice, Europe faces enormous structural barriers to executing such a strategy. Much of the U.S. debt held in Europe does not sit on government balance sheets. Instead, it belongs to pension funds, banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, and institutional investors whose primary mandate is performance, not politics.

For European governments to force these entities to sell would require unprecedented regulatory intervention — a move that could undermine investor confidence in Europe itself. Financial experts widely agree that such steps would only be considered if tensions escalated far beyond current levels.

Even more importantly, investors hold U.S. Treasurys for one overriding reason: there is no true substitute.

The Absence of a Real Alternative to U.S. Debt

Despite ongoing discussions about de-dollarization, the U.S. Treasury market remains unparalleled in size, liquidity, and perceived safety. Even countries like Germany, often cited as alternatives, simply do not issue debt at a scale capable of absorbing global demand.

Asia, meanwhile, lacks the capacity to replace Europe as a buyer if a mass sell-off occurred. China has already slowed its Treasury purchases, and emerging Asian markets are far too small to absorb trillions of dollars in displaced capital.

In short, a coordinated exit from U.S. debt would create chaos — but not necessarily a clean escape route for Europe.

Stablecoins Quietly Step Into the Picture

While governments debate strategy, a new class of buyers has been rapidly accumulating U.S. debt: stablecoin issuers.

Recent U.S. legislation has cemented the role of Treasurys as core reserves backing dollar-pegged stablecoins. As digital dollars grow in adoption, issuers are required to hold increasing amounts of U.S. government debt, effectively turning crypto infrastructure into a major pillar of Treasury demand.

This shift creates an unusual feedback loop. On one hand, it strengthens U.S. debt markets by introducing a fast-growing buyer base. On the other, it ties the health of Treasury liquidity to the stability of the stablecoin sector — a market that has already shown signs of stress during periods of panic.

When Liquidity Becomes the Real Risk

History has already provided warnings. Liquidity shocks in the U.S. Treasury market have surfaced during moments of extreme stress, including the global crisis of 2020 and more recent disruptions in 2025. If Europe were to significantly reduce its exposure while stablecoin issuers faced redemption pressure, the system could be pushed into dangerous territory.

In such a scenario, forced selling could overwhelm available buyers, threatening both Treasury market stability and the credibility of dollar-backed digital assets.

Where Crypto Platforms Like BYDFi Fit In