DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog

The PayPal Bank and Vertical Fintechnolization

By
Ndubuisi Ekekwe
-
0

PayPal is signaling a major shift in its business model with plans to establish a bank. According to reports, the payments giant has applied for regulatory approval to create PayPal Bank, a move that would allow it to lend directly to small businesses in the United States.

Explaining the rationale, PayPal CEO Alex Chriss noted that establishing a bank would strengthen the company’s business and operational efficiency, enabling PayPal to better support small business growth and expand economic opportunity across the U.S.

At one level, this move makes perfect sense. PayPal already extends small business loans to merchants based on their average monthly transaction volumes. Relying on third-party banks to intermediate those loans increases costs and limits flexibility. Bringing lending fully in-house is therefore a logical step.

But there is a deeper dynamic at play. PayPal is feeling the pressure of fintechnolization. As digital platforms mature, they increasingly embed financial services directly into their ecosystems. Banks are now partnering with platforms to offer payments, lending, and financial products seamlessly on websites and apps, often bypassing intermediaries like PayPal. This shift is gradually eroding PayPal’s addressable market.

Fintechnolization  is the process by which every mature digital platform evolves into a financial services provider, embedding payments, lending, insurance, savings, and other financial primitives directly into its core product, often without looking like a traditional fintech company.

To counter this disintermediation, PayPal must vertically integrate. Securing a banking charter allows it to control more of the value chain, reduce dependence on partner banks, and retain economics that would otherwise be shared or lost. In doing so, PayPal also avoids “feeding” banks that are simultaneously competing with it through banking-as-a-service models. A good move for PayPal even though PayPal did not treat Nigeria well, but gracious goodness, we do not miss it in Nigeria.

PayPal Seeks Regulatory Approval to Launch PayPal Bank, Targeting Small Businesses

A Look at FIFA’s Supporter Entry Tier Ticket

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

FIFA announced a new “Supporter Entry Tier” priced at a flat $60 for every match in the 2026 World Cup hosted by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, including the final.

This came directly in response to widespread global backlash over high ticket prices, particularly for the allocation given to national federations for their most dedicated fans.

Previously, the cheapest tickets in that supporter allocation for the final were around $4,185 with general public cheapest final tickets even higher in some categories.

Now, a portion of those supporter tickets—specifically 10% of each team’s 8% allotment roughly hundreds to about 1,000 per match, split between the two teams—will be capped at $60.

These discounted tickets are distributed by the national football associations like the FA for England, US Soccer for the USA to “loyal fans” based on their own criteria, not available to the general public through FIFA’s main sales.

Fan groups like Football Supporters Europe welcomed the change as proof that pressure works but criticized it as a limited “appeasement tactic,” noting it doesn’t address broader issues like dynamic pricing for general tickets, accessibility for disabled fans, or the overall high costs which remain significantly higher than previous World Cups.

Over 20 million requests in the current sales phase but persistent criticism. Ticket accessibility issues for the 2026 FIFA World Cup have become a major point of criticism amid the broader backlash over high prices.

Football Supporters Europe (FSE) and its Disability & Inclusion Fan Network sent an open letter to FIFA President Gianni Infantino on December 15, 2025, expressing “profound concern” that current policies are effectively excluding fans with disabilities.

No access to cheapest tickets — Accessibility tickets including wheelchair spaces and easy access seats are only available in higher-priced Categories 1–3, not the lowest Category 4. This means the cheapest group-stage accessibility tickets start at around $140–$450, compared to lower general prices in some allocations.

For the first time in World Cup history, companions essential for many disabled fans must pay full price, described as an “unfair tax” on disabled supporters. In contrast, the 2022 Qatar World Cup offered accessible tickets at ~$10–$11 with a free companion ticket.

Accessibility tickets are appearing on FIFA’s official resale site at up to six times face value with no price cap, defeating the purpose of protected allocations and allowing speculation. Tickets are sold without requiring proof of disability eligibility or clear details on stadium accessibility features.

These policies contradict FIFA’s own claims that the 2026 tournament will set “new standards in diversity and inclusion,” as well as its statutes on human rights and accessibility.

Even after FIFA’s announcement of the $60 “Supporter Entry Tier” for some loyal fans, FSE noted that no specific improvements were made for disabled supporters or companion pricing.

Reports from The Athletic, The Independent, The Guardian, ESPN, and FSE’s own statement confirm these issues remain unaddressed. FIFA’s official ticketing FAQ states that limited accessibility tickets are available like wheelchair spaces with up to one or two companions, easy access amenity seats.

Varying by stadium and host country laws such as US, Canada, Mexico, but critics argue the pricing and structure make them prohibitively expensive for many.

Gold Racing Back to ATH, As Patterns Suggest Rotation from other Assets

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Gold is trading near its all-time high, hovering around $4,300–$4,305 per ounce. This puts it very close to its October 2025 peak of approximately $4,379–$4,381.

Gold has delivered exceptional performance this year, up over 55–65% YTD, driven by central bank buying, geopolitical tensions, falling interest rates, and its role as a traditional safe-haven asset.

Bitcoin, meanwhile, is trading around $87,000–$88,000, down significantly from its all-time high of $126,210 reached on October 6, 2025. This represents a roughly 30% drawdown from the peak, with BTC showing negative or low single-digit YTD returns in recent months.

It has behaved more like a risk asset, correlating with equities and suffering from profit-taking, ETF outflows, and broader market consolidation.Is a Rotation Ahead?Yes, there are strong signals pointing to a potential capital rotation from gold back into Bitcoin or risk assets more broadly in the near term.

The Bitcoin-to-Gold ratio— ounces of gold per BTC has fallen ~50% in 2025, dropping from ~40 to ~20. This highlights gold’s massive outperformance. Analysts note that Bitcoin’s relative strength index (RSI) against gold has dipped below 30 for only the fourth time in history—previous instances (2015, 2018, 2022) marked major BTC bottoms, followed by strong recoveries.

Gold appears “overvalued” relative to Bitcoin on historical metrics, with wide gaps from moving averages suggesting an imbalance ripe for correction.

Market commentary describes a “great divergence” and “major market rotation” underway in late 2025, with investors shifting to safe havens like gold amid volatility—but some predict a reversal as BTC looks oversold.

However, this isn’t guaranteed. Gold’s strength is structural— central banks projected to buy ~900 tonnes in 2025, robust ETF inflows, while Bitcoin remains volatile and sentiment-driven. If risk appetite returns via renewed ETF inflows or macro easing, BTC could catch up quickly.

Conversely, persistent uncertainty could extend gold’s dominance.In summary, the setup mirrors past cycles where extreme divergences preceded BTC rallies. A rotation toward Bitcoin seems plausible heading into 2026, but monitor key levels.

BTC support ~$86,000–$88,000, gold resistance near $4,381. Bitcoin and gold are often compared as “hard assets” or stores of value, but their performance diverges based on market sentiment: gold thrives in risk-off environments, while Bitcoin behaves more like a risk-on asset correlated with equities, driven by liquidity, adoption, and speculation.

This leads to recurring rotations, where capital shifts between them. The key metric is the Bitcoin-to-Gold ratio (BTC/XAU: how many ounces of gold one BTC buys). A rising ratio means Bitcoin outperforming gold; falling means gold outperforming.

Bitcoin emerged post-financial crisis. Ratio rose sharply as BTC went from ~$1 to $1,200, vastly outperforming gold which was stable post-2011 peak. From obscurity to BTC hype. Gold slightly outperformed during BTC’s 2014–2015 bear market. Ratio bottomed. Then, post-2016 halving, BTC surged, ratio reversed upward.

BTC bull run to $20,000; ratio hit all-time highs 15–18 oz per BTC. BTC massively outperformed. Post-peak crash (2018), ratio declined as gold held steady—gold outperformance during risk-off. Gold rallied strongly in 2020, outperforming BTC initially. BTC bottomed, then exploded post-halving up 10x to $69k in 2021. Gold peak in Aug 2020 ($2,070) coincided with BTC starting its historic ascent.

Analysts noted capital rotating from gold to BTC as risk appetite returned. Ratio peaked ~40 oz/BTC in late 2021, then plunged ~60% as BTC crashed to $16k. Gold outperformed amid inflation/Rate hikes. BTC surged with ETF approvals; ratio recovered strongly. BTC outperformed until mid-2024.

Gold has dominated YTD up ~55–65%, new ATHs ~$4,300+, driven by central banks, de-dollarization, and uncertainty. BTC down ~30% from Oct 2025 peak of $126k. Ratio ~20 oz/BTC down ~50% in 2025. Mirrors past periods where gold led during volatility, but setups = oversold RSI vs. gold echo pre-rotation bottoms.

Gold leads during uncertainty/bear phases e.g., 2018–2019, early 2020, 2022, 2025. BTC catches up explosively in bull phases (post-halving liquidity, risk-on). Extreme divergences (ratio lows) have historically preceded BTC recoveries (2015, 2018, 2022 bottoms).

2020 is the clearest precedent: Gold ATH ? rotation ? BTC multiplies. Long-term since 2011, BTC has vastly outperformed ~millions % vs. gold’s ~100–200%, but short-term rotations are common.

Current setup suggests potential shift back to BTC if risk appetite returns like ETF inflows, macro easing, but gold’s structural drivers remain strong. Monitor ratio ~20 as key support.

U.S. FDIC Approves Framework on How Banks can Apply to Custody Stablecoins

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) approved and released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) outlining a framework for how FDIC-supervised banks can apply to issue payment stablecoins through a subsidiary.

This is the first major regulatory step implementing the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, signed into law in July 2025. FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions seeking to issue payment stablecoins must submit a formal application for approval.

The process is “tailored” to evaluate the safety and soundness of the proposed activities while minimizing regulatory burden. Stablecoin issuance would occur through a subsidiary, with the FDIC acting as the primary federal regulator for approved entities known as permitted payment stablecoin issuers or PPSIs.

Applications must include details on proposed activities, the subsidiary’s ownership and control structure, business plans, risk management, and an engagement letter with a registered public accounting firm.

The proposal opens a 60-day public comment period. After reviewing comments, the FDIC will finalize the rule. A separate proposal for prudential requirements like capital, liquidity, and reserve standards is expected early in 2026.

This development follows earlier announcements by Acting FDIC Chair Travis Hill that the agency would propose an application framework by the end of 2025. It represents a shift toward clearer federal oversight of bank-issued stablecoins, aiming to integrate them safely into the banking system.

The FDIC’s, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) marks the first concrete regulatory action under the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, enacted in July 2025.

This proposal establishes a tailored application process for FDIC-supervised banks to issue payment stablecoins via subsidiaries, with a 60-day public comment period now open. A follow-up proposal on prudential standards is expected in early 2026.

Regulatory clarity and legitimization of Stablecoins provides a clear federal pathway for banks to enter the stablecoin market, shifting from prior regulatory ambiguity and de facto restrictions. Integrates stablecoins into the regulated banking system, treating bank-issued ones as extensions of traditional activities with FDIC oversight.

Signals U.S. commitment to fostering innovation while prioritizing safety, potentially positioning the dollar-backed stablecoin market as more competitive globally. Applications will be evaluated on safety and soundness, including risk management, business plans, and compliance.

Reserves must be high-quality like cash, short-term Treasuries, reducing de-pegging risks seen in past failures. Stablecoins remain not FDIC-insured, avoiding misrepresentation risks, but bankruptcy protections prioritize holders’ claims on reserves.

Reduces systemic vulnerabilities by preventing liquidity crises through upcoming capital/liquidity rules. Enables banks to issue stablecoins for payments, settlements, and tokenized assets, potentially retaining deposits and competing with nonbank issuers e.g., USDT, USDC.

Attracts institutional capital by eliminating “Wild West” perceptions, boosting participation in DeFi, cross-border payments, and real-world asset (RWA) tokenization. Could lead to bank-issued stablecoins gaining market share, with analysts predicting a multi-year shift toward on-chain banking activities.

Nonbank issuers may face pressure to seek federal charters or partner with banks for credibility. Potential deposit displacement if stablecoins offer yields via third parties, as direct interest is banned, though regulators are monitoring this.

Harmonizes with other agencies (Fed, OCC), creating a unified framework that could accelerate tokenized deposits and blockchain integration. Process adds compliance burden, potentially favoring larger banks. Coordination across regulators needed to avoid fragmentation.

Public comments may push for lighter/heavier rules, delaying finalization. Concerns about concentration if only regulated entities dominate issuance. This proposal is a watershed moment: it bridges traditional finance and crypto, promoting innovation under prudential oversight.

It could drive mainstream stablecoin adoption, strengthen USD dominance in digital payments, and attract significant investment, while mitigating past risks. Final rules, post-comments, will shape the trajectory—expect phased implementation starting mid-2026.

$3.4bn Stolen in 2025 as High-Value Crypto Hacks Surge

By
Ojukwu Emmanuel
-
0

The cryptocurrency ecosystem endured another difficult year in 2025, as the total value of stolen digital assets continued to rise.

According to a Chainalysis report, more than $3.4 billion was stolen from January through early December 2025, with a single breach, the February compromise of Bybit accounting for $1.5 billion of that figure.

The report highlights a notable shift in crypto theft dynamics, shaped by four major trends.

These include;

  • The continued dominance of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) as the leading threat actor.
  • The growing severity of attacks on centralized platforms.
  • A sharp increase in personal wallet compromises.
  • A surprising divergence in decentralized finance (DeFi) hack patterns.

Personal wallet compromises expanded significantly over recent years, rising from 7.3% of total stolen value in 2022 to 44% in 2024. In 2025, this figure would have stood at 37% were it not for the outsized impact of the Bybit breach.

At the same time, centralized services recorded increasingly severe losses, largely driven by private key compromises. Despite strong institutional resources and professional security teams, these platforms remain vulnerable to this fundamental weakness. Although such incidents are relatively rare, their magnitude is substantial, accounting for 88% of total losses in the first quarter of 2025 alone.

The persistence of high theft volumes suggests that while some areas of crypto security have improved, attackers continue to exploit multiple attack vectors successfully.

A defining feature of 2025 was the growing concentration of losses in a handful of extreme events. The ratio between the largest hack and the median incident exceeded 1,000 times for the first time, surpassing even the peak levels seen during the 2021 bull market.

Based on the USD value of funds at the time of theft, the top three hacks in 2025 accounted for 69% of all service-related losses, underscoring how single breaches can now dramatically influence annual totals.

Nation-state threats remained central to this trend. The DPRK recorded its most severe year on record for crypto theft, stealing at least $2.02 billion in 2025—an increase of 51% year-on-year and $681 million more than in 2024. DPRK-linked actors were responsible for a record 76% of all service compromises, pushing the lower-bound estimate of cumulative DPRK crypto theft to $6.75 billion.

Despite a significant reduction in the number of known attacks, North Korean hackers achieved larger impacts by increasingly embedding IT workers within crypto firms. This approach enabled privileged access, faster lateral movement, and ultimately large-scale thefts from exchanges, custodians, and web3 companies.

Personal wallet compromises accounted for an estimated 20% of total stolen value in 2025, down from 44% in 2024, reflecting a shift in both scale and strategy. Theft incidents surged to 158,000 in 2025, nearly triple the 54,000 recorded in 2022, while the number of unique victims doubled from 40,000 to at least 80,000.

These increases are largely attributed to broader crypto adoption. For instance, Solana—one of the most actively used blockchains—recorded the highest number of personal wallet incidents, with approximately 26,500 victims.

However, despite more incidents and victims, the total value stolen from individuals declined sharply, falling from $1.5 billion in 2024 to $713 million in 2025. This indicates that attackers are compromising more wallets but extracting smaller amounts per victim.

When adjusted for active wallet counts, Ethereum and Tron recorded the highest theft rates per 100,000 wallets in 2025. Ethereum combined high victim counts with elevated theft rates, while Tron exhibited a high rate despite a smaller user base. In contrast, Base and Solana showed comparatively lower victimization rates relative to their large and growing communities.

As the DPRK continues to leverage cryptocurrency theft to fund state objectives and bypass international sanctions, the industry faces a distinct and evolving threat. The country’s record-breaking performance in 2025—achieved with 74% fewer known attacks—suggests that only the most visible operations are being detected.

Looking ahead to 2026, the central challenge for the crypto industry will be identifying and disrupting these high-impact campaigns before another breach on the scale of Bybit occurs.

123...7,957Page 1 of 7,957

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy