While the White House has hosted three meetings to discuss how to address stablecoin yield in the Senate's market structure bill, there are no signs of a solution.
Ethereum is preparing to overhaul how wallets work, with co-founder Vitalik Buterin saying native “smart accounts” could arrive within a year through the network’s planned Hegota upgrade. Hegota Upgrade May Bring Account Abstraction In a Feb. 28 post on X, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin said that after more than a decade of research, Ethereum’s long-running
XRP has seen renewed attention as Ripple returned 700 million XRP to escrow after the usual monthly release. Analysts have followed the move because it came during a period of rising inflows to Binance and the sudden price jump. According to Whale Alert, “500,000,000 XRP” and “200,000,000 XRP” were moved back into escrow, respectively. Market Structure and Intraday Price Behavior XRP price is trading near $1.39 after a 3% move in the past day, as the market saw a clear change in the intraday pattern after Bitcoin crossed the $70,000 resistance. The early session carried a mild drift lower as sellers kept control and the price moved from $1.37 toward $1.34. The move lacked fast pressure, yet it shaped a short period of lower highs and kept the structure weak The move triggered buy-side interest because it broke the short-term resistance. Some short sellers covered positions as liquidity was taken above earlier levels. After the jump, XRP held most of the gain and traded between $1.38 and $1.40 while forming higher lows. This behavior gave the market a more stable tone because the price did not return to the earlier range. Source: X Moreover, according to an analyst, Chatnerd, the XRP buy-side liquidity sits above the $1.50 to $1.70 zone. They warned that the price may move into that region before any larger swing, while the $1.30 to $1.20 band must hold to support the current setup. Escrow Activity and Exchange Flows Ripple’s decision to relock 700 million XRP again drew attention because it followed the regular release process on March 1. The pattern is now common, and it often leaves only a portion of around 30% of the released amount in circulation. However, with the recent crypto market tensions due to the US-Iran war, the market kept focus on the event and new reports of large inflows to Binance. According to CryptoQuant data, net flows reached about 470 million XRP within one week. As per analyst StephIsCrypto, this move may bring near-term sell pressure if holders decide to take profit from the recent price jump. Source: X The inflows created new attention on liquidity conditions. Some traders viewed the deposits as a possible supply event, though there was no confirmation that the tokens would be sold. However, on X, users noted that exchange inflows tend to rise during periods of price compression. XRP Price Technical Outlook and Near-Term Prediction According to crypto analyst Dark Defender, the XRP chart still shows a macro downtrend because the token continues to form lower highs and lower lows. Per the analyst's chart, a long descending trendline has acted as resistance since January. Consequently, there is a possible completion of a C-wave near $1.12 to $1.15, where a sharp wick formed earlier. Since that move, the price entered a new range. Dark Defender noted that the XRP price now trades between the $1.21 Fibonacci support and the $1.47 Fibonacci resistance, which has created another compression area. However, the XRP price is also touching the descending trendline near $1.38 to $1.42, and this level is now the key decision point for the next move. A break above the line could open the way to $1.47 and then toward the supply area between $1.60 and $1.85 if volume expands. Source: X Meanwhile, the Relative Strength Index (RSI) sits near the mid-range and shows a mild upward curl. This suggests that selling pressure is not as strong as before, although buyers need more momentum for a confirmed shift. Consequently, as per the analyst, there is a chance for the XRP price to continue its recovery before the RSI is overbought. Moreover, with BTC rising, crypto analyst Javon Marks' prediction, as we reported, that a possible 600% increase for the XRP/BTC pair is incoming, may be looming, and a development like that could push XRP's price above $10
Aave’s infamous “Aave Will Win” funding proposal just cleared its first major governance hurdle today, March 1, 2026, after obtaining a slim 52.58% approval, but ACI founder Marc Zeller wasted no time challenging the legitimacy of the vote, claiming that addresses linked to Aave Labs determined the outcome. The off-chain snapshot vote closed on Sunday with 622,300 votes in favor, 497,100 votes against, and 64,200 “abstains”. The result moves Aave Labs’ request for up to $42.5 million in stablecoins and 75,000 AAVE tokens to the protocol’s Aave Request for Final Comment (ARFC) stage, where the terms can be revised before the permanent on-chain vote. However, Zeller’s comments alleged that approximately 233,000 tokens from three clusters linked to Aave Labs, including a 111,000 token delegation from co-founder Stani Kulechov, which swayed the outcome. From Zeller’s calculations, removing those votes would change the result to 387,000 votes in favor and 497,100 votes against. Vote exposes deep governance drift The narrow margins from the published vote reflect months of increasing tensions between Aave Chain Initiative and Aave Labs over protocol control, funding transparency, and the future direction of one of DeFi’s biggest lending platforms. In the proposal , tokenholders were asked to approve funding in exchange for Aave Labs redirecting all of its product revenue to the DAO treasury. This includes fees from aave.com swaps, its upcoming mobile app, Aave Card, Aave Pro, Aave Kit for enterprises, and Aave Horizon RWA market. In exchange, Aave Labs requested funding to cover operations it was previously covering through product revenue. According to the proposal, “by directing 100% of revenue to the DAO, Aave Labs will not be able to self-fund going forward. Without the ability to earn or raise revenue, there is no way to cover the costs across product development, business development, and other operational functions.” Shortly after the vote, Kulechov himself posted on his X account saying, “Temp Check for the Aave Will Win proposal has passed. This brings Aave Labs closer to a fully token-centric model, directing 100% of product revenue to the $AAVE token.” Governance power concerns increasing Zeller’s post-vote analysis identified some concerns about Aave Labs acquiring additional governance weight through the 75,000 AAVE tokens. An Aave user also commented in the forum that “The risk o f AC I consortium to milk the AAVE DAO treasury is higher as they do not have much AAVE tokens but control the daily ops (operations).” The vote came just after Zeller published an audit on February 25, where he questioned the ROI for around $86 million that Aave Labs received in previous funding rounds ($16.2 million from the 2017 ICO, $32.5 million from venture rounds, $31.93 million in direct DAO payments, and around $5.5 million from “unapproved” swap fees from aave.com). The audit used ROI analysis to assess Aave Labs’ historical funding . It credited Aave Labs with building V1, V2, and the initial V3.0 codebase, but argued that most of the following revenue growth came from upgrades by the DAO service providers. Zeller claimed that the V3.0 revenue amounted to $3.33 million, significantly less than the $179 million generated after service provider upgrades. Aave Labs then published its own report the same day, reiterating successful innovations like the liquidity pool model, Flash Loans, the Safety Module, and V3’s Efficiency Mode, which were all developed before the DAO started using a service-provider structure. BGD Labs leaves the Aave scene On February 20, BGD Labs announced that it would not renew its engagement with the AaveDAO after April 1, effectively ending a four-year tenure as the project’s main technical contributor. The firm was instrumental in building and maintaining Aave’s V3. In their departure announcement, BGD Labs mentioned centralization concerns with Aave Labs and an asymmetric organizational scenario as their main reasons for leaving. BGD Labs also criticized what it described as an aggressive promotion of V4 by highlighting “unfounded” shortcomings of V3, despite its market dominance and secure track record. The framework also proposes creating a Foundation to hold Aave trademarks and intellectual property on behalf of the DAO, which addresses concerns about Aave Labs’ exclusive legal ownership of the brand. However, details on the structure, governance, and trademark transfer would follow in a separate proposal. The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them .
Fold closed its $66.3M convertible debt, releasing 521 BTC. Balance sheet strengthened, growth focused. While BTC rose 5%, FLD shares fell 84%. Intense competition: Nexo, Coinbase, Crypto.com. Tech...
After saying for years that major accounting firms were unwilling to provide auditing services, Tether Holdings SA received a sign-off from Deloitte on the first-ever reserve report for its USAT stablecoin that was launched to comply with new US regulations.
XRP continues to hold above key support amid global geopolitical tensions. Technical indicators and whale accumulation suggest underlying buying interest at current levels. Continue Reading: XRP Holds Strong Above Key Support Despite Geopolitical Tensions The post XRP Holds Strong Above Key Support Despite Geopolitical Tensions appeared first on COINTURK NEWS .
Israeli markets achieved record peaks on March 2, 2026, bucking a global downturn despite the onset of a joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran. Markets Reach New Peaks Israeli financial markets surged Monday, March 2, 2026, just two days after the launch of a joint military operation with the United States against Iran. While global
BitcoinWorld Paxful AML indictment: US DOJ delivers crushing blow to crypto co-founder over compliance failures In a landmark enforcement action that signals a tougher regulatory stance, the United States Department of Justice has indicted Ray Youssef, co-founder of the peer-to-peer cryptocurrency exchange Paxful, on charges of willfully violating anti-money laundering (AML) and money transmission licensing laws. This pivotal development, announced in late 2024, represents one of the most significant personal prosecutions of a major crypto executive and underscores the escalating legal pressures facing the digital asset industry. Paxful AML indictment details serious compliance failures Federal prosecutors filed a detailed indictment alleging that Paxful, under its leadership, operated for years without a robust compliance framework. According to court documents, the exchange failed to implement a functional Know Your Customer (KYC) program, neglected to establish a sufficient internal compliance control system, and did not file mandatory Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Consequently, authorities claim the platform became a conduit for illicit finance. Specifically, the indictment alleges Paxful processed transactions linked to a notorious online platform associated with sex trafficking advertisements, highlighting the severe real-world consequences of compliance lapses in cryptocurrency markets. The core allegations and regulatory context The charges stem from the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), which mandates that money services businesses, including certain crypto exchanges, maintain programs to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. The DOJ’s case hinges on proving willful neglect. Prosecutors must demonstrate that Youssef and Paxful knowingly avoided implementing required controls. This case does not exist in a vacuum. It follows a pattern of increased scrutiny, as seen with other crypto entities like Binance and BitMEX. The table below contrasts key compliance requirements with the alleged failures at Paxful. Alleged Paxful Compliance Failures vs. Regulatory Requirements Regulatory Requirement Alleged Paxful Failure Implement a Risk-Based AML Program Lacked substantial internal compliance controls Verify Customer Identity (KYC) Insufficient or non-existent customer identification procedures Monitor and Report Suspicious Activity (SARs) Failed to file timely SARs for suspicious transactions Register as a Money Services Business (MSB) Operated without proper state licensing Ray Youssef’s defense and the wider crypto war narrative Ray Youssef has publicly and vehemently denied the allegations. In statements following the indictment, he framed the DOJ’s action as a political “escalation of the war on crypto,” arguing it targets innovation and peer-to-peer financial freedom. This defense resonates within parts of the crypto community that view regulatory actions as hostile overreach. However, legal experts note that the DOJ’s case appears focused on specific, long-standing legal obligations rather than the technology itself. Youssef’s argument faces the substantial context of Paxful’s recent guilty plea to three charges related to the Backpage.com case, which resulted in a $4 million fine for the corporate entity. Immediate impacts on the P2P exchange ecosystem The indictment has sent shockwaves through the peer-to-peer (P2P) cryptocurrency trading sector. Market analysts observe several immediate effects: Increased Compliance Scrutiny: Other P2P platforms are rapidly auditing and bolstering their AML/KYC procedures to avoid similar enforcement actions. User Migration: Some traders have moved to decentralized exchanges (DEXs) or offshore platforms, seeking less regulated environments, though these carry their own risks. Investor Caution: Venture capital and investment in P2P crypto ventures may face heightened due diligence regarding regulatory compliance. Legal Precedent: This case could set a precedent for holding individual executives, not just corporations, accountable for systemic compliance failures. Historical timeline of Paxful’s regulatory challenges Understanding the current indictment requires examining Paxful’s regulatory history. The exchange, founded in 2015, grew rapidly by serving global markets, including regions with limited banking access. However, its compliance infrastructure reportedly did not keep pace with its growth. In 2023, Paxful’s internal turmoil led to a temporary suspension of its marketplace. Earlier in 2024, the company pleaded guilty to charges it facilitated payments for illegal advertisements on Backpage.com. That plea agreement and fine were separate from the new indictment against Youssef personally, indicating a multi-pronged legal strategy by federal authorities. This timeline demonstrates a pattern of escalating regulatory engagement rather than a single, isolated event. Expert analysis on the future of crypto compliance Financial compliance specialists point to this case as a watershed moment. “The DOJ is sending a clear message that ‘moving fast and breaking things’ does not apply to financial regulations,” notes a former federal prosecutor specializing in cybercrime. “The expectation for cryptocurrency businesses to build compliance into their foundation from day one is now unequivocal.” Furthermore, experts emphasize that the alleged link to sex trafficking is particularly damaging, as it moves the narrative from technical violations to tangible human harm. This connection makes the case a higher priority for prosecutors and could influence sentencing if a conviction occurs. The industry’s response will likely involve greater investment in compliance technology and personnel, potentially increasing operational costs but also fostering greater institutional trust. Conclusion The Paxful AML indictment against co-founder Ray Youssef marks a critical juncture for cryptocurrency regulation. It underscores the U.S. government’s commitment to enforcing traditional financial laws within the digital asset space, particularly concerning anti-money laundering protocols. While the defense frames it as an attack on innovation, the charges detail specific, alleged failures in KYC procedures, SAR filings, and licensing. The outcome of this case will profoundly influence how crypto exchanges operationalize compliance, the personal liability of their executives, and the delicate balance between fostering financial technology and preventing its misuse. The path forward for the industry hinges on demonstrating that robust compliance and innovative finance are not mutually exclusive. FAQs Q1: What specific laws is Ray Youssef accused of violating? The indictment charges violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), specifically for willful failure to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program, willful failure to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. Q2: How does this indictment differ from Paxful’s earlier $4 million fine? The earlier fine was a corporate guilty plea related to specific transactions linked to Backpage.com. The new indictment targets co-founder Ray Youssef personally for broader, systemic failures in the exchange’s compliance program over a longer period. Q3: What is the potential penalty if convicted? While sentencing would be determined by a judge, violations of the BSA can carry significant penalties, including substantial fines and potential prison sentences of up to several years per count. Q4: How are other cryptocurrency exchanges reacting to this news? Many exchanges are likely reviewing and reinforcing their own compliance frameworks. Publicly, industry groups have called for clearer regulations while emphasizing their commitment to lawful operations. Q5: Does this mean all peer-to-peer crypto exchanges are illegal? No. The charges allege that Paxful operated illegally by not adhering to existing laws for money services businesses. Other P2P exchanges that properly register with regulators and implement required AML/KYC controls operate within the legal framework. This post Paxful AML indictment: US DOJ delivers crushing blow to crypto co-founder over compliance failures first appeared on BitcoinWorld .
Summary The Bitwise Solana Staking ETF offers the most structurally attractive long-term Solana exposure due to its low staking fees, competitive expense ratio, and largest AUM. Despite Solana’s robust network fundamentals, a ~70% drawdown and risk-off macro conditions warrant a 'Hold' rating for both SOL and Solana ETFs. Differences in fees, AUM durability, and index construction meaningfully affect compounded returns over time. While alternatives like FSOL and GSOL are viable, BSOL’s scale and fee structure make it the preferred vehicle for multi-year Solana ETF investors. While crypto exchange-traded funds came to market in January 2024 with Bitcoin ETFs, it has taken continued regulatory approvals and time for additional crypto ETFs to emerge. Investors and traders alike can now buy and sell ETFs tracking spot Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and Ripple. With the emergence of such funds, investors are presented with easier on-ramps to gain exposure to the networks that they deem to provide the most utility. For this article, we specifically examine Solana ETFs through the lens of a long-term investor. Specifically, for investors with a two-to-four-year time horizon, we argue that the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF ( BSOL ) offers the most structurally attractive exposure among the available Solana ETFs. While all funds provide access to the same underlying asset, differences in staking take-rates, sponsor fees, AUM durability, and index construction meaningfully affect compounded returns over time. With that said, price performance and network strength do not always move in tandem. Given the ~70% drawdown in SOL, it is likely that cryptocurrencies as a whole will continue to struggle in the short-to-intermediate term. For that reason, I assign “Hold” ratings to both the underlying asset and Solana ETFs but remain optimistic about future long-term returns. Important Fund Specifics To Consider For investors considering adding crypto exposure to their portfolios—specifically Solana—there are several factors to consider. Such factors include sponsor fees, staking fees, AUM, and the varying benchmark indices. In terms of both net expense ratios and net assets, the Bitwise Solana Staking ETF ( BSOL ) ranks above the rest. While some of BSOL’s success can be attributed to its first-mover advantage, being the first Solana ETF to market, other Solana ETFs were quick to follow. We acknowledge that Fidelity, in particular, stands to benefit from its large institutional infrastructure and large distribution network to bring in more capital over time. In an environment in which Crypto ETFs are still very new, scale is important. Large AUM translates to tighter spreads, improved institutional adoption, and lower risk of fund closures. BSOL’s early asset lead strengthens its competitive position and is likely to reinforce its liquidity advantage over time. For current net expense ratios, BSOL , TSOL , and FSOL rank highest, with FSOL still within the expense-waiver period, currently offering a 0% fee. With that said, expenses generally remain in line with one another, ranging from 0.20% to 0.35%. ETF Net Expense Ratio Net Assets (As of 1/31/26) BSOL 0.20% $663.84 million TSOL 0.21% $4.37 million FSOL 0.25%* $139.19 million VSOL 0.30% $26.09 million GSOL 0.35% $159.63 million *0.00% waiver until 05/2026 (Source: Fidelity) In addition to expense ratios, investors must also consider the staking fees, as they vary significantly across funds. The way these fees are implemented also tends to vary. For example, funds like VSOL currently charge a 0.28% fee on total staked Solana, whereas funds like BSOL, GSOL, and FSOL charge a percentage fee on the rewards received from staking. The table below has been included to show the various staking fees for each Solana ETF. While all funds provide access to staking rewards (ranging between 6% and 7% for SOL), the dispersion in staking fees can result in diverging compounding effects over time. Over multi-year holding periods, even a 0.5-1.0% annual difference in retained yield can result in meaningful performance gaps. To this point, BSOL’s lower staking fee structure gives it a compounding advantage over its peers. ETF Staking Fees BSOL 6% of Solana rewards FSOL 15% of Solana rewards VSOL 0.28% of total staked Solana GSOL 23% of Solana rewards (Source: etfdb) Additionally, we also must consider the total amount staked, as this varies across funds. While funds like FSOL and VSOL acknowledge that staking can be up to 100%, funds like BSOL specifically target 100% staking. This is important because the greater the expense ratio, the more yield is actually available. At the time of writing this, BSOL maintains a 100% stake rate with a net staking reward of 6.78% . With an emphasis on staking, BSOL again proves to be the best positioned for longer-term investors. Another difference among Solana ETFs is the underlying Index each fund follows. While all funds own the underlying asset, the way NAV is calculated differs across funds. For example, FSOL utilizes the Fidelity Solana Reference Rate. According to the fund’s prospectus , “this index is designed to reflect the performance of SOL in U.S. dollars (and) is constructed using SOL price feeds from eligible SOL spot markets and the volume-weighted median price (VWMP) methodology…to develop a SOL price composite.” With that said, the index aims to track the spot price and does not include staking. This is fairly common among other Solana ETFs, with VSOL utilizing the MarketVector™ Solana Benchmark Rate, GSOL utilizing the CoinDesk Indices SOL benchmark, and TSOL utilizing the CME CF Solana-Dollar Reference Rate. BSOL differs from its peers in this regard, using the Compass Solana Total Return Monthly Index, which does include staking in the index calculation. With that said, while the underlying index may not make a huge difference during times of stable market environments, we could see price-to-NAV deviate to varying degrees during times of heightened volatility. Network Specifics When considering allocating to a Solana ETF, investors must understand the underlying asset and the dynamics of the network. In doing so, we look specifically at the current supply of stablecoins, on-chain fees, and the number of active addresses. The rebound in Solana’s stablecoin market cap at the beginning of 2026 is typical of such late-cycle environments in which investors rotate from more volatile holdings into stablecoins. This increase in on-chain liquidity (i.e., stablecoin growth) is representative of deployable capital as investors’ risk appetite improves. From a market dynamics perspective, rising stablecoin balances increase potential trading and depth of liquidity, which could amplify future upside potential. In short, we are in a period in which liquidity is rebuilding, waiting to be deployed as the general environment shifts from risk-off to risk-on. However, the current environment still remains very much risk-off. Stablecoins Mcap (Source: DefiLlama) The spike in on-chain fees seen in early 2025, followed by a sharp decline, is broadly representative of the volatility surrounding Solana (and crypto in general). These spikes tend to occur during times of heightened speculation, whereas subsequent declines reflect an overall cooling off in trading activity. The recent stabilization at lower levels suggests a reset from speculative excess to a more sustainable baseline. For investors, this suggests that Solana’s fee and revenue structure is highly reflexive (i.e., expanding aggressively in bull phases and compressing sharply during bearish phases). Chain Fees (Source: DefiLlama) Active addresses remain a key indicator. As such, it serves as a gauge for the overall use and utility of the network. The number of addresses peaked during late 2024/early 2025 and has since stabilized at moderately higher levels as compared to pre-expansion. This is positive, as it shows that the overall network has retained a broader utility base. From a market structure perspective, this suggests that Solana may be transitioning from highly speculative participation to a durable network with more meaningful engagement. This sustained level of engagement is critical for deeper liquidity and improved network effects in the future. Active Addresses (Source: DefiLlama) Technicals And Risks From a structural point of view, Solana remains one of the most robust Layer-1 networks in crypto. With a demonstrated history of throughput advantages and clear use cases across DeFi, stablecoins, and RWAs, it is my opinion that it is likely to maintain its position among the top cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. However, as we have seen in the past, price performance and network strength do not always move in tandem. In the short term, risk remains elevated. With Bitcoin having completed its recent bull expansion phase, peaking at over $120,000, the broader crypto market appears to be entering a cooling-off period. With liquidity moving along the risk curve from cryptocurrencies to domestic/foreign equities and then more tangible stores of value, we are clearly in a risk-off environment. This is supported by the technicals as well. The current price of SOL sits below its 20-week, 50-week, and 200-week moving averages. Down roughly 70% from its intraweek high near $300, the weekly RSI currently shows as significantly oversold, sitting at 28.94. From a risk-reward perspective, the ~70% drawdown suggests a substantial reset in speculative positioning. However, over longer periods, if macro liquidity stabilizes and on-chain metrics such as stablecoin growth, address expansion, and fee growth begin to move higher, SOL is well-positioned to experience significant upside appreciation. Solana Weekly Chart (Source: StockCharts) Final Takeaway In conclusion, while Solana remains one of the most dynamic Layer-1 networks in the crypto space, the ETF structure introduces a second layer of differentiation that long-term investors must consider. In an asset class that remains highly volatile, small differences in staking take-rates and fee construction compound into meaningful differences over time. Among the current offerings, BSOL maintains a majority of the positive attributes. Such factors include the lowest staking take-rate, competitive fee structure, and largest AUM and liquidity profile. These factors collectively position BSOL as the most structurally attractive ETF for multi-year Solana ETF investors. However, we also acknowledge that alternatives such as FSOL and GSOL remain viable options for investors as well. Ultimately, while near-term macro conditions remain risk-off and we maintain a “Hold” position broadly, investors seeking efficient long-term exposure may find BSOL to be the superior structural vehicle in the current landscape.