Why is it so hard to predict a Black Swan? 🦢

We’re used to cycles in crypto. At some point, we even start waiting for them. Sometimes we make money on them. The market goes up, then it goes down, liquidity builds. And the loop starts again.

😟 But on October 10, something happened that Web3 hadn’t seen before. Something we now call a Black Swan. For thousands of years, scholars were convinced all swans were white. Until Australia was discovered. Until the first black swan was seen on the Swan River.

That’s the core of the idea.

We mistake what’s familiar for what’s inevitable. And we don’t believe in what we haven’t seen yet.

That’s why Black Swans are so dangerous. They arrive suddenly. And their impact can be unlimited.

They can’t be predicted because no one knows what the next Black Swan will look like. Or what, exactly, it will affect.

Unless someone does? 🤔

P.S. Highly recommend reading The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb.

❓ What does the market lack to grow?

Spoiler: liquidity.

Liquidity means new money. Money that buys tokens. But where does it come from, and what can bring it into the market?

Historically, fresh money entered the market during Bitcoin rallies. But let’s be honest: BTC is no longer a multiple-upon-multiple asset. It has grown into a large, mature market with limited upside. And without the promise of outsized returns, traditional capital has little reason to move into Web3.

That’s why the market can only grow through ideas with a low entry threshold. Products you can step into immediately, without long explanations or heavy onboarding.

And we’ve already seen this pattern before.

🎨 NFTs – tokens that could be launched by a street musician or a real estate owner alike. Simple mechanics, clear value, and visible upside pulled in both builders and investors. As a result, millions of new users followed.

🎮 Play-to-earn games – hard to build, easy to play. From Stepn to Axie Infinity, simple token farming attracted huge audiences looking for online income.

Yes, these models had flaws. And yes, many tokens eventually collapsed and people lost money. But they scaled the crypto audience fast. Very fast.

So what’s next?

The market needs ideas with a simple entry point. No blockchain lectures or loud promises.

People want simplicity and scale. Here and now ⏳

What do you think still doesn’t exist – but if it did, people would gladly pay for it? 🤔

🏦 State Street and deposit tokenization: banks move into on-chain defense

State Street is launching an institutional tokenization platform focused on money market funds, ETFs, and tokenized assets. The bank manages over $5.4 trillion in AUM.

At first glance, this looks like another step toward tokenizing liquid instruments that already have no shortage of demand.

👀 But that’s not the most important part.

Among all directions, State Street explicitly highlights the tokenization of bank deposits.

This is where tension starts to build. If stablecoins and DeFi continue offering higher yields, capital will begin flowing out of traditional bank deposits and into Web3. For banks, losing deposits isn’t about product competition. It means reduced lending and, at scale, a risk to economic growth itself.

In this context, tokenized banking products don’t look like experiments. They look like a necessity.

If a traditional deposit yields 3% annually, while an on-chain product from the same bank offers 7% annually, the question is no longer about technology.

❓ The real question is how banks plan to pull liquidity back into their own ecosystems.

💰Bitcoin is on the balance sheet, but the money isn’t: Strategy’s new reality

Michael Saylor is hinting at another Bitcoin purchase, just days after the $1.25B buy that pushed Strategy’s balance to 687,000 $BTC.

On paper, everything still looks perfect. The company is profitable, Bitcoin trades above $90,000, and the balance sheet keeps growing. But the market isn’t reacting the way it used to.

Since January 8, MSCI, one of the largest global index providers followed by ETFs and institutional funds, has paused the automatic inclusion of Strategy shares into its indices.

That pause matters. It temporarily shuts off passive capital flows.

So even if Strategy buys more $BTC, increases its holdings, and issues new shares, the next round of inflows may take time. Shares now need to be placed manually, instead of being absorbed automatically through index demand.

In this setup, Saylor’s public hints don’t function as a growth strategy anymore. They function as a way to hold the market’s attention.

There’s no shortage of discussion in the market right now (as always). But it’s way more interesting to look at where capital is moving.

Fund activity for January 12-18:

💰 Over the week, funds invested $420M across just 10 deals. Among the participants were Tier-1 funds Coinbase and Paradigm.

Largest checks this week:

Alpaca: $150M
LMAX Group: $150M

By sector, the picture looks like this:

DeFi: $12.1M
CeFi: $193M
Blockchain infrastructure and services: $215M

What stands out here is fairly clear ☝️

Funds are still allocating most of their capital to infrastructure and centralized solutions. Early-stage projects received less than 3% of total investment, with the bulk of capital going into Strategy rounds and later.

Let’s see how this week closes 👀

🎼 Cointelegraph says that memecoin trading volume has jumped to $5.6B. At the same time, total market cap is down 6%. Traders are taking profits, and the speculative impulse is cooling off.

And every time we read news like this, there’s a classic joke we can’t help thinking about 👇

A guy sees a stock priced at $0.01 and thinks, “It can’t go any lower. Risk is minimal.” So he buys. The price goes up, he buys more. Then more.

On paper, it’s thousands of Xs, so he decides to sell. But… to whom?

That’s exactly what’s happening with memecoins right now.

Rising volume without new capital isn’t a bullish signal. It’s an exit signal. Everyone sees the gains. And then, at some point, the buyer just disappears.

🏦 Banks vs yield-bearing stablecoins: why the CLARITY Act is stuck

The CLARITY Act in the US is stalling for one simple reason – banks want stablecoins stripped of passive yield.

Their position is pretty straightforward: investors should only earn through staking, farming, or liquidity provision. In other words, the same mechanics as a bank deposit, just without any real alternative 🔒

Crypto companies, on the other hand, want to issue stablecoins with yield built in by default. Coins that generate returns simply by sitting in your wallet. That is a direct analogue of savings accounts.

If banks accept staking as a deposit equivalent, then rebasing should be accepted as the equivalent of savings accounts too.

🚫 Otherwise, this doesn’t look like regulation. It looks like protecting banks from competition and limiting investor choice.

Want funding? Show the MVP 😎

VCs are no longer backing ideas.

Last week, a demo day showcased 15 projects supported by three major ecosystems: TON, Solana, and Avalanche. Officially, these were grants. In reality, it was a very clear signal to the market.

All the projects were different, but they shared one thing.

Every single one already had an MVP.

▪️Ideas used to be fundable. Now they’re just a starting point.
▪️What used to take 6-9 months from idea to MVP now has to happen in days ⏱️
▪️Backing an idea early used to be a plus. Now it’s a lag.

Why the shift?

AI compressed the entire build cycle. The definition of “early stage” moved up. An idea on its own doesn’t cut it anymore. And a product alone often isn’t enough either.

The edge now belongs to teams that show an MVP backed by real demand and real revenue metrics.

The market no longer funds “someday.” It funds what already works 😏

🪄 What if it is not random?

People love taking risks. And they love being right even more.

That is why the market is full of similar yet very different business models built around one thing – letting people test their luck 🎲

Prediction platforms, unlike casinos or loot boxes, promise equal rules for everyone. The idea sounds simple. Predict an outcome. But in reality, things turned out far more complicated 👀

Even market leaders have repeatedly faced situations where the outcome of a bet changed because information was replaced, deadlines shifted, or conditions were suddenly interpreted differently.

On Polymarket, battle maps unexpectedly changed, election outcomes sparked disputes. Wording, timing, and tiny details suddenly decided who won.

At the same time, prediction markets moved far beyond Web3. Bets now include wars, changes of power, movie awards, real estate in specific cities, and other real world events.

On one hand, this scale attracts attention. On the other, it opens the door to insiders. When someone can influence an event and then place a bet on its outcome, the market stops being neutral. Insiders make money and avoid responsibility.
️
☹️ But there is another problem.

A growing number of markets spreads liquidity too thin. Payouts get smaller, interest fades, and users begin to leave.

If participants can create events they are able to influence themselves, prediction markets start looking dirtier than casinos. So does this market have a future or will it simply be banned?

Some countries and several US states have already classified prediction markets as unlicensed gambling and banned them. To clean up their reputation, platforms would need to:

🔸strictly limit the types of events;
🔸fully eliminate insider influence;
🔸clearly lock down conditions and wording.

Otherwise the outcome is familiar. Just like binary options, prediction markets risk being labeled as gambling and shut down across most of the world 🌎

🪙 Stablecoins are becoming core infrastructure for UN humanitarian payments

With support from Circle, the UN is building digital financial infrastructure for humanitarian aid.

Using stablecoins can cut costs by up to 20% compared to traditional banking systems, which currently process around $38 billion in humanitarian payments every year 💸

And this is not an experiment. $USDC has already been used for direct payments to refugees, and now this approach is being scaled across the entire UN ecosystem. Stablecoins are increasingly seen not as crypto exotica, but as payment rails for cross border transfers.

Crypto feels almost purpose built for aid. You can’t donate one cent through the banking system, but you can send 0.000001 $USDC. The only question is network fees.

Remove gas costs, and crypto payments make aid targeted, almost instant, and genuinely effective.

And at that point, this is no longer about technology. It is about millions of lives that are still lost today because of inefficient financial infrastructure.

🔍 Private credit tokenization could become the core RWA use case

The private credit market is growing faster than traditional banking. Banks are pulling back on risk, and private funds and crowdlending platforms are stepping in.

That’s also where the problems pile up: low liquidity, opaque reporting, and weak pricing. And that’s exactly why tokenization makes more sense in private credit than in notes or funds.

🔗 Onchain infrastructure can make loans transparent, auditable, and potentially tradable on a secondary market. But the next few years will bring defaults. And that will be a real stress test for onchain credit models.

Only structures with proper risk design will survive.

⚠️ One more thing worth saying – private credit tokenization isn’t new.

The market has already seen failed attempts, Goldfinch included. Lending from people to businesses became scalable back when stablecoins removed FX risk and simplified settlements.

What didn’t disappear was credit risk itself.

Last year at 8Blocks, we worked on the product logic and token economic model for the Swiss crowdlending platform 8Lends. And we can say this clearly: private credit tokenization is one of the most promising RWA segments out there.

But it doesn’t work on promises. It works on strict risk management, clear recovery mechanics, well structured loans, and tokenomics that are built into the product, not wrapped around it.

RWA only works when the token is part of the system, not just a label on top of the asset.

There was plenty of talk this week, as always 🤷‍♂️

But what matters is what actually happened. Filings, deals, licenses, capital shifting – that’s what this week looked like:

▪️ Ledger is reportedly in talks with Goldman Sachs and Barclays about a potential US IPO valued at around $4B, as growing fraud and hacks increase demand for hardware wallets.

▪️ Capital One acquired stablecoin focused fintech Brex for $5.15B, just months after Brex launched support for stablecoin payments.

▪️ The UN received a grant from Circle to upgrade cross border refugee aid, with stablecoins expected to reduce humanitarian payment costs by up to 20% 🌎

▪️ Maple is bringing syrupUSDC to Coinbase’s Base network, adding institutional credit rails and aiming for a listing on Aave V3 on Base.

▪️ According to Elliptic, the Russia linked A7A5 stablecoin processed over $100B in transactions before sanctions, acting as a bridge into USDT markets prior to regulatory and exchange restrictions.

▪️ Revolut dropped plans to acquire a US bank and instead plans to apply for a banking license in the USA 🏦

▪️ BitGo shares jumped 24.6% on their public debut, valuing the crypto custodian at $2.2B, before closing just slightly above IPO, showing strong interest paired with cautious pricing.

▪️ Pi Network rolled out new App Studio features and a reward based survey to boost app creation and engagement, while Pi Coin remains down over 78% since its exchange debut.

Put it all together, and the pattern is obvious.

Stablecoins, licenses, custody, IPOs, and real-world connections with traditional finance defined this week. Web3 no longer lives in isolation. It’s integrating into a system that already works.

Last week didn’t bring any surprises from funds. Early bets were almost nonexistent. And capital went right back to where things already work.

📊 Here’s how funds moved between January 19 and 25:

$372M deployed across just 8 deals. Among the active players were Tier-1 funds: The Spartan Group, Galaxy, YZi Labs, a16z.

The biggest check of the week went to BitGo – $212.8M via its NYSE IPO.

By sector, the picture looks like this:

Blockchain infrastructure and services: $258.3M
DeFi: $94.5M
CeFi: $9.3M
GameFi: $5M

Same pattern as the week before.

Most of the money stayed at later stages and flowed into infrastructure. More than half of all capital went into BitGo through a public listing. A very traditional institutional move.

🎯 Akedo Games stands out in this picture. $5M raised through a token sale. A single case, but a telling one given the broader focus on infrastructure.

Let’s see whether this remains an exception or if next week brings more cases like this 🧐

✨ Tokenized gold is accelerating as the US dollar weakens

Demand for tokenized gold is rising in lockstep with physical gold.

Tether reports that XAUt now accounts for more than half of the “gold-backed” stablecoin market, with over $2.2B in circulation. Against this backdrop, gold has crossed $5,000 per ounce for the first time ever, while the dollar continues to lose ground. The DXY index has just posted its worst annual performance since 2017.

The main driver here is central banks. They are rapidly increasing gold reserves and steadily reducing their reliance on the dollar.

But there’s another layer to this story 🧐

Tether has already accumulated more than 116 tons of gold to back its stablecoins: roughly 12 tons for XAUt and another ~104 tons backing $USDT.

Gold is priced in dollars. So when the dollar’s purchasing power declines, gold prices rise automatically.

That creates a closed loop 🌀

the dollar weakens → gold rises → collateral value increases → more room opens up to issue additional “crypto-dollars”.

Traders buy XAUt with $USDT, building a multi-layered derivative structure that, in logic, closely resembles US mortgage-backed securities circa 2006.

If gold prices pull back sharply, liquidity risks could surface very quickly. That’s why Tether should be thinking about hedging in advance, while the market still believes in the steady rise of defensive assets.

🎰 Why options look like a casino to some and a business to others

An option is a contract that gives you the right to buy or sell an asset at a pre agreed price. And the key word here is right, not obligation.

That’s exactly why traders love options: some use them to hedge against downside, others chase upside and big multiples.

An option can be profitable in two cases:

📈 when the asset price goes up (Call)
📉 when the asset price goes down (Put)

And you can both buy and sell them. Here’s a simple example 👇

You buy a Call option on BTC, Bitcoin starts going up. The option begins to generate potential profit for you and potential loss for the seller.

But profits and losses only become real in two cases:

▪️when the option is exercised
▪️or when you close the position with an opposite trade

If the option is already in profit and you don’t want to wait until expiration, you can simply sell it on the market and lock in the gain.

All of this is familiar to anyone trading perps or derivatives.

But there’s one thing most people miss 👀

The one who buys options is playing roulette.
The one who sells options is building a business.

And this is where the obvious question appears. How can you sell options without blowing up?

If you sold a Call option on 1 BTC and Bitcoin moves up by 10%, you’d have to buy BTC at market price and sell it to the option holder at a discount.

And once you remember that options include leverage, a 10% price move can turn into losses measured in multiple BTC.

At first glance, this logic really doesn’t look intuitive. But only until you look deeper.

Tomorrow we’ll show why this isn’t as crazy as it sounds 🔜

While some people gamble with options, others run the math 🧪

Professional traders don’t just sell options. They know one small detail, the one beginners usually ignore. The Greeks:

∙Δ (delta) shows how an option’s price changes when the underlying asset moves
∙G (gamma) shows how fast that delta changes
∙Θ (theta) shows how time to expiration affects the option’s value
∙Vega shows how the option price reacts to a 1% change in volatility

Once you understand how these parameters shape a position, you start seeing what beginners miss.

An option isn’t a bet on direction. It’s a set of variables you can manage.

Put simply, an option seller can take part of the premium earned and use it to buy futures, hedging potential losses. If the option starts losing money, the futures position starts making it. And vice versa.

That’s how a delta neutral position is built.

Risk stays under control, while the option premium stays with you. That’s why option sellers:

▪️don’t try to guess the market
▪️don’t chase big multiples
▪️and stick to small but consistent profits

And those profits can be scaled by increasing option volume and constantly managing delta. This is the point where options stop looking like a casino and start behaving like a business 😏

🌎 $USDT for the world, $USA₮ for the US: Tether’s new strategy

Instead of dragging out battles with US regulators or rebuilding its entire reserve structure to fit the GENIUS Act, Tether chose a far more pragmatic route.

It simply launched a new token: $USA₮.

🏦 Issued via Anchorage Digital Bank and fully backed by US dollars, $USA₮ fits neatly into the new regulatory framework. Boiled down, the move does one thing: it reopens the US market for Tether, where $USDT had long been boxed out by regulatory constraints.

Globally, nothing changes. $USDT keeps its position as the dominant stablecoin.

🇺🇸 In the US, the strategy shifts. $USA₮ enters as a separate product, competing directly with $USDC inside a fully regulated environment.

👀 And that’s the interesting part.

Tether didn’t try to build a “next-generation stablecoin” — the idea Brian Armstrong talks about so often.

Instead, it shipped a deliberately utilitarian product. Built for compliance first. No big narratives, no loud promises, just a clear structure and a very understandable path to growth.

🏦 Fidelity is entering stablecoins, and the yield still stays with the issuer

Fidelity, one of the largest asset managers in the world, with nearly $6T under management and $15T under administration, is planning to launch its own stablecoin as early as next month.

The project will comply with the GENIUS Act and is designed to plug directly into institutional payment and settlement infrastructure.

But technology isn’t the point here. The economics are.

The GENIUS Act quietly opens a massive opportunity for large asset managers. Fidelity is a perfect example. Today, Fidelity manages trillions, invests those funds, passes the yield back to clients, and earns money through management fees.

Now imagine a different setup.

Fidelity issues, say, $1T worth of FIDD stablecoins. That capital gets parked in US Treasuries. Investors receive payouts, Fidelity takes its management cut, and the yield effectively stays inside the firm 💰

Why does this work? Because the GENIUS Act explicitly allows banks and asset managers to:

▪️ raise capital via stablecoins;
▪️ invest it in US Treasuries;
▪️ avoid paying yield to stablecoin holders.

In other words, it’s the same financial playbook as before, just without the need to share profits.

Stablecoins are no longer just a payment tool. They’re becoming a powerful mechanism for reallocating yield toward the largest players in the system.

And Fidelity is likely just the first move. Not the last ⏳