🪙 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 ⏳

🫥 $TON is NOT the crypto the world was waiting for. It’s a short-term solution, held together with workarounds

Back in 2018, Telegram raised over $1.8B to launch its own cryptocurrency, $GRAM. The project was ambitious, carefully structured, and economically thought through. Then the SEC stepped in. GRAM was shut down.

The problem was that a large part of the ICO funds had already been spent. Telegram had no choice but to move forward, under a new name, on a tight timeline, and with limited resources. That’s how TON Foundation appeared, along with the $TON token.

To fund the launch, Telegram turned to debt. It issued €1B+ in eurobonds at 7%, with maturity set for March 22, 2026. To make that repayment manageable, the company raised another €1.7B in 2025, this time at 9%, extending maturities to June 5, 2030.

As of today, Telegram already has the funds to repay the first bond issue. The money is sitting on the balance sheet, waiting for March 22. There’s no need for the company to sell $TON to raise fiat liquidity. But that doesn’t mean $TON isn’t being sold by others.

Think back to the $GRAM ICO. Everything was structured in advance: logic, economics, distribution.

$TON sales followed a very different path 🧐

The token was sold over a long period of time, including after exchange listings. Large investors bought $TON at market prices, but with lockups and vesting.

❗️Those allocations are exactly what’s creating pressure today.

Investors who entered in summer 2024 receive 25% of their allocation per year and, judging by behavior, are selling into the market rather than waiting for upside in the current geopolitical environment.

Many funds bought $TON at discounts of up to 40%, around $3-4, and still ended up over 50% underwater.

So yes, in March 2026, TON will handle the bond repayment without drama. But the price is unlikely to benefit. At the same time, another wave of allocations unlocks. Many of those investors have waited long enough and are now looking to sell.

The countdown is already on ☹️

🗓 Weekly crypto recap: stablecoins, tokenomics, and a disappointed market

It was a busy week, but market sentiment clearly tilted negative.

The main storyline was the fight over stablecoin yield.

Tether insists that returns generated from reserves should stay with the issuer, just like they always have. Coinbase, on the other hand, is pushing the idea of sharing that yield with stablecoin holders.

What’s really being decided here is who ends up controlling the returns on trillions of dollars in liquidity: issuers or users.

The outcome of this standoff should become clear soon ⏳

Overall, the week revolved around stablecoins:
▪️ Fidelity is preparing to launch its own digital dollar
▪️ Coinbase is expanding infrastructure and partnerships for new stablecoin issuance
▪️ Tether is rolling out a “Made in America” stablecoin under the GENIUS Act
▪️ The UAE central bank has approved the issuance of the dollar-backed USDU
▪️ Standard Chartered forecasts up to $500 billion in bank deposits shifting into stablecoins by 2028

🔧 At the same time, major projects started revisiting their tokenomics:
▪️ HYPE cut team token unlocks by nearly 90%
▪️ Optimism is launching OP buybacks funded by Superchain revenue

The market is increasingly asking for discipline and balance instead of endless issuance.

Against the backdrop of all these debates and adjustments, investor sentiment stayed heavy. While large players argued over regulation and frameworks, retail watched gold and silver rally from the sidelines. By the end of the week, metals corrected sharply as traders took profits, but liquidity never found its way back into crypto.

📉 Bitcoin moved lower alongside metals. Gold pulled back, and “digital gold” followed right after.

Funds didn’t try to reinvent the wheel again. Last week’s capital flows were calm, structured, and fairly predictable.

🗓 Here’s how the period from January 26 to February 1 played out:

A total of $303.5M was deployed across 8 deals.

The lineup included Tier-1 names: Pantera Capital, Coinbase Ventures, Galaxy, a16z, Dragonfly, and Paradigm. The largest ticket went to Propy: $100M raised (debt financing).

📊 By sector, the split looked like this:

CeFi: $155M
Infrastructure & services: $100M
DeFi: $48.5M


At the Seed stage, activity stayed muted: just 3 deals totaling $23M.

Most capital flowed into projects where the product already exists and the focus is no longer PMF, but scaling mature ecosystems.

Propy stands out here.

The company secured $100M in debt from Metropolitan Partners Group to expand a platform that automates specific stages of real estate transactions using blockchain and AI.

😐 The market, however, wasn’t impressed. Following the announcement, the PRO token dropped by roughly 12%.

Once again, the week highlighted a clear pattern. Funds continue to favor growth through infrastructure and scale – even when the deal structure isn’t classic equity, but debt.

📉 $BTC drawdown exposed Strategy’s weak spot: up to $1B in paper losses

Bitcoin slipping below $75,000 briefly pushed Strategy into nearly $1 billion in unrealized losses. The company holds 712,647 $BTC, and some analysts are now openly discussing a deeper pullback toward $58-55K.

But Strategy’s problem isn’t just the price of Bitcoin.

In the past, whenever $BTC dipped, Michael Saylor could move fast. Issue shares, raise fresh dollars, buy more $BTC. That playbook no longer works.

Today, Strategy can’t instantly tap the market. New share placements require finding buyers manually and negotiating prices behind closed doors.

That comes with consequences:
▪️different prices and discounts within the same issuance;
▪️ slower execution;
▪️ growing pressure from dividends on preferred shares.

Strategy’s average $BTC entry sits at $76,037, while the current price is around $77,692. If Bitcoin drops below that level and stays there, dividend payments quickly become a problem.

🔻 From there, the path is uncomfortable but clear: investor pressure builds, financial stress escalates, and BTC sales start locking in losses.

🌎 The e-rupee is ready to go global. Is the world?

India clearly sees the e-rupee as more than a domestic payment tool. The ambition goes further. Cross border transfers, trade, tourism. All the areas where today’s system is still clogged with intermediaries and fees.

Sovereign digital money cuts through that. Direct settlement. Faster. Cheaper.

Technically, India is already there. The global system is not. Much of the world’s banking infrastructure still runs on outdated foundations and will take years to modernize.

📍 Right now:
∙ only 5 countries have fully launched a CBDC
∙ another 7 are still testing
∙ the US and the EU have paused CBDC plans and focused on stablecoin regulation instead

So taking the e-rupee beyond India is not limited by India’s tech. The bottleneck is the rest of the world. At this stage, real partners are mostly limited to a few BRICS countries.

✨ Still, the e-rupee matters. It shows that digital currencies are not a hype cycle or an experiment anymore. They are the next step in how money works. India just moved first.

And the world will catch up.
Just not overnight.

🚀 Solana is back on top for DEX volume. But $SOL is telling a different story.

Once again, Solana took the lead in DEX trading. According to CryptoRank, the network processed $117.7B in January. That’s +20% MoM and nearly 35% of total onchain volume.

And just to be clear, this isn’t empty volume. These are real users, real demand, and real activity happening on the network.

From a product perspective, Solana looks genuinely healthy. The ecosystem keeps expanding, scaling, and attracting new projects, partnerships, and use cases. The network is alive and doing its job.

😠 But there’s still one unresolved issue.

$SOL’s tokenomics are clearly lagging behind the growth of the ecosystem itself. The link between network usage and token value remains weak. So yes, reading headlines about Solana feels good. Watching $SOL in your trading terminal… not so much.

At some point, the product has to start sharing its success with the token.

Solana needs a real bridge between ecosystem growth and $SOL’s value. The token should play a role in the network’s progress, not just sit on the sidelines and watch.

While $BTC is sliding and dragging Strategy down with it, the MSDD ETF is doing just fine and printing new all time highs.

💥 This is a simple setup (and also a very risky one). MSDD delivers double exposure to downside in Strategy shares. When MSTR drops by $1, MSDD moves up by $2.

Since May 2025, MSDD has generated over 420% annualized returns.

So while crypto natives are sitting tight waiting for a “BTC bounce” and riding out the drawdown, equity traders are quietly turning that same volatility into cash ☺️

📉 Outflows from spot Bitcoin ETFs reached $2.9 billion as $BTC hit a new low in 2026

Chart: Daily net flows for Bitcoin spot ETFs (USD). Source: CoinGlass

Bitcoin tested the $70,000 level. Over the past 30 days, open interest in Bitcoin ETFs has declined by $55 billion, while rising demand for put options has pushed their delta coefficient up to 13%.

This is the exact risk we warned about as far back as 2018 ☝️

While ETFs have increased market transparency and expanded institutional access to Bitcoin, during periods of sharp spot price declines they tend to amplify downside pressure.

The mechanism is straightforward: $BTC falls → investors sell ETFs → funds liquidate $BTC from reserves to meet redemptions → $BTC prices decline further.

We refer to this process as the “pressure carousel.”

Bitcoin broke below $70,000 for the first time since November 2024.

Looking at the chart now, it’s hard not to think that in 2020 Saylor could’ve started buying gold… 🤔