DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 20

CFTC Releases FAQ for Crypto Assets for Registered Entities

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0
Signage is seen outside of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 30, 2020. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly

The CFTC’s Market Participants Division (MPD) and Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) released a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) addressing registrant and registered entity activities involving crypto assets and blockchain technologies under the Commodity Exchange Act.

The FAQs clarify and expand on two prior staff letters: Staff Letter 25-39 — Tokenized Collateral Guidance. Staff Letter 26-05 — No-action position on accepting certain non-security digital assets (including Bitcoin, Ether, and qualifying payment stablecoins) as margin collateral in derivatives markets.

They were issued after market participants sought additional details following the December 2025 release of those letters. The document draws alignment with the SEC’s FAQs on crypto asset activities and distributed ledger technology, aiming to promote regulatory consistency.

The FAQs approximately 11 questions focus on practical implementation for Futures Commission Merchants (FCMs), Derivatives Clearing Organizations (DCOs), and swap dealers, particularly around using crypto as collateral, capital treatment, residual interest, and operational requirements.

Highlights include: FCMs and Customer Margin/Deficits — An FCM relying on the no-action position in Staff Letter 26-05 may apply the post-haircut value of a customer’s non-security crypto assets including payment stablecoins deposited as margin in futures, foreign futures, or cleared swaps accounts to cover the customer’s debit or deficit balance. Valuation and haircuts follow the letter’s framework.

FCMs may deposit their own payment stablecoins as residual interest in customer segregated accounts, subject to at least a 2% capital charge on market value aligned with SEC treatment. FCMs may not deposit other proprietary crypto assets as residual interest—only payment stablecoins qualify. Payment stablecoins cannot be used to invest customer funds under Regulation 1.25; they are permitted only as the FCM’s own residual interest.

Crypto assets including stablecoins remain ineligible as initial or variation margin for uncleared swaps under Regulation 23.156. However, tokenized versions of otherwise eligible collateral may be accepted if they provide equivalent legal and economic rights per Staff Letter 25-39.

For an FCM’s own holdings: Minimum 20% capital charge for Bitcoin and Ether inventory positions. Minimum 2% for payment stablecoins (again, harmonized with SEC approach). DCOs may accept crypto assets including payment stablecoins as initial margin if they meet Regulation 39.13(g)(10) requirements for minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks. DCOs set and regularly review appropriate haircuts, considering stressed conditions.

File a notice via WinJammer before starting. Initial 3-month ramp-up: Limited to accepting only payment stablecoins, Bitcoin, or Ether as customer collateral; only proprietary payment stablecoins as residual interest. Weekly reporting on digital asset holdings for the first 3 months.

Prompt notice of any significant operational, system, or cybersecurity issues affecting crypto collateral use. Payment stablecoins are narrowly defined; USD-denominated, with strict reserve requirements involving cash and Treasuries, attestations, etc., and tied to the GENIUS Act framework where applicable.

These FAQs supplement existing rules and the two staff letters without creating new binding regulations or no-action relief beyond what’s already stated. They emphasize robust risk management, proper custody/segregation, liquidity, and operational resilience including for blockchain/DLT-specific risks like cybersecurity.

The release supports broader efforts to integrate crypto into regulated derivatives markets while maintaining customer protections and financial stability. CFTC Chairman remarks via related coverage highlighted the goal of clear, consistent rules across agencies.

Market participants should review the full document and consult counsel, as the FAQs represent staff views only and may be updated. This development is part of ongoing coordination between the CFTC and SEC on crypto taxonomy and activities.

 

Wintermute Outlines BTC Scenario tied Directly to Developments around the Strait of Hormuz 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Wintermute, a major crypto market maker, has outlined Bitcoin (BTC) price scenarios tied directly to developments around the Strait of Hormuz amid ongoing geopolitical tensions involving Iran, the US, and Israel.

If shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz resumes normally and oil prices stabilize around $100 per barrel, BTC could test resistance in the $74,000–$76,000 range. This would ease inflation concerns, potentially revive expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts, and support risk assets like crypto.

Worst-case (prolonged closure or escalation): If the strait remains blocked, shipping restrictions tighten, or conflict renews, BTC risks retracing to the mid-$60,000s around $64,000–$66,000, with some mentions of downside toward $60,000. Higher energy costs could lock in elevated inflation, delay Fed easing, and pressure growth assets.

These targets reflect the market’s sensitivity to oil price spikes which have recently pushed Brent crude well above $90–$100+ in volatile periods and second-order macro effects. Crypto has shown relative strength compared to equities in recent flare-ups but remains vulnerable to prolonged stagflation risks.

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly 15–20% of global oil supply. Disruptions there (tanker traffic has been heavily impacted in this scenario) drive oil and gold higher while weighing on risk appetite.

BTC recently recovered toward the $70,000–$71,000 level as some de-escalation signals reduced the immediate risk premium, but it remains headline-driven. Ethereum (ETH) has traded in tandem, with similar macro sensitivities noted in Wintermute commentary.

Wintermute’s view aligns with observations from other traders: short-term conflict may allow rebounds, but extended Hormuz issues amplify inflation fears and hurt crypto’s performance as a growth asset. Markets are watching oil stabilization and any diplomatic progress closely for the next leg in BTC.

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. It serves as the only maritime exit for oil and gas exports from the Gulf region, making it one of the world’s most critical chokepoints for global energy trade.

The strait lies between Iran (to the north) and Oman (including the Musandam Peninsula, to the south). It stretches about 104 miles (167 km) long, with its narrowest point at roughly 21 nautical miles (about 39 km or 24 miles) wide.

Shipping follows a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) with inbound and outbound lanes (each 2 miles wide) separated by a buffer zone. Depths allow passage for the world’s largest supertankers. Iran controls several strategic islands in or near the strait which it has militarized, giving it potential oversight of key passages.

This tight geography makes the strait highly vulnerable to disruption—whether by mines, anti-ship missiles, fast-attack boats, drones, or naval harassment. The strait handles an enormous share of global energy flows: Approximately 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products.

Significant volumes of liquefied natural gas (LNG)—nearly all of Qatar’s massive exports, plus other Gulf supplies about 20% of global LNG trade in normal times. Annual value of oil and gas transiting the strait exceeds $500 billion. Primary destinations: Asia especially China, India, Japan, South Korea, which rely heavily on these imports.

Europe and the US are less directly dependent but still feel ripple effects through global markets. Few realistic alternatives exist for rerouting this volume quickly. Some Gulf producers have limited pipeline capacity to bypass the strait (to Red Sea or other ports), but these cannot handle full volumes and are themselves vulnerable.

Geopolitical Dynamics and Iran’s Leverage

Iran has long viewed the strait as a key asymmetric weapon in regional conflicts. Because much of the world’s oil must pass Iranian-controlled waters or within range of its forces, Tehran can threaten or partially enact disruptions to raise costs for adversaries and deter attacks. Iran’s capabilities: Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy operates swarms of fast boats, anti-ship missiles, naval mines, coastal defenses, and drones.

Iran has practiced “closing” the strait in exercises and has seized or harassed vessels in the past. During the 1980s “Tanker War” (Iran-Iraq War), both sides attacked shipping; the US reflagged tankers and escorted them, leading to direct clashes.

The strait sits amid longstanding rivalries involving Iran, the US which maintains a strong naval presence via the 5th Fleet, Israel, and Gulf Arab states. Disputes over islands, nuclear issues, sanctions, and proxy conflicts amplify risks. Other actors have interests in keeping the strait open but limited direct military leverage there.

The strait has become a central flashpoint in the ongoing 2026 Iran conflict, triggered by US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets starting around February 28, 2026. These included operations that killed senior Iranian leaders.Iran’s response: Tehran declared the strait “closed” as retaliation. IRGC officials threatened to “set ablaze” any ships attempting passage.

Iranian forces have attacked or targeted vessels with missiles, drones, or projectiles at least 21 incidents reported. Traffic has plummeted from a pre-conflict average of ~138–153 vessels per day to just a handful often 2–13 transits daily, with many days near zero for commercial tankers. Even Chinese vessels have largely stayed out.

Oil prices have spiked sharply; Brent crude pushing toward or above $100/barrel in volatile periods. Shipping giants rerouted around Africa or halted Gulf operations; insurance premiums soared. Some limited “dark” or sanctioned Iranian/affiliated traffic continues, but overall flows are severely disrupted.

Gulf exporters are trying to ramp up bypass pipelines, but capacity is insufficient for full replacement. The US has vowed to defend freedom of navigation, with President Trump issuing ultimatums e.g., 48-hour deadlines tied to threats against Iranian power plants or infrastructure. US forces have targeted Iranian naval/minelaying assets.

International coalitions may escort ships, but reopening fully would likely require sustained military effort. The situation remains fluid and escalatory: Iran has signaled it could fully close the strait or expand attacks if the US strikes energy/power facilities. De-escalation depends on diplomacy, military outcomes, and economic pain thresholds.

Disruptions here create second-order effects: Higher energy costs feed into inflation, transportation, and manufacturing worldwide. Asian economies face acute risks of shortages or rationing if prolonged. Stock markets, crypto, and risk assets react to oil spikes and uncertainty. It tests international law versus raw geopolitical power.

 

The Strait of Hormuz exemplifies how a small geographic bottleneck can hold outsized influence over the global economy—especially when wielded in great-power or regional conflict. Events there evolve rapidly; monitoring oil flows, naval movements, and diplomatic signals is key to anticipating broader impacts. This is not financial or military advice—geopolitics in the region can shift quickly.

France’s Recovery Falters as Demand Slumps, War Disruptions Stoke Costs

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

France’s private sector slid into a deeper contraction in March, with business activity shrinking at its fastest pace since October as weakening demand, geopolitical disruptions, and rising cost pressures combined to stall momentum in Europe’s second-largest economy.

Preliminary data from S&P Global showed the Flash France Composite PMI Output Index fell to 48.3 in March from 49.9 in February, slipping further below the 50-point threshold that separates growth from contraction. The reading signals that the fragile rebound seen at the start of the year has lost traction.

The downturn was not confined to a single sector. Services activity, which accounts for the bulk of French economic output, deteriorated further, with its index falling to 48.3, the weakest level in five months. Manufacturing, which had offered tentative signs of recovery earlier in the year, also faltered.

Output slipped back into decline, with the subindex dropping to 48.5 from 51.6, even as the headline manufacturing PMI remained marginally in expansion territory at 50.2. The divergence suggests production pipelines are weakening even where sentiment appears superficially stable.

Underlying demand conditions paint a more concerning picture. Total new business declined at the sharpest rate since July, while export orders fell at their fastest pace in 15 months, reflecting both softer global demand and heightened uncertainty among trading partners. Firms reported that clients are increasingly delaying or scaling back spending decisions, citing both geopolitical risks and caution ahead of domestic political developments.

The ongoing Middle East conflict, particularly tensions involving Iran, is emerging as a key external shock. Although there is hope for de-escalation, following the move for talks between Washington and Tehran, some officials believe chances for an agreement are low.

Businesses pointed to renewed supply chain disruptions, with supplier delivery times lengthening at the most pronounced rate in more than three years. These delays are feeding directly into cost structures. Composite input price inflation accelerated to its strongest level since November 2023, reversing a period of relative stability.

Companies are responding by passing costs on to customers. Manufacturers raised selling prices at the fastest pace since March 2023, an indication that pricing power remains intact in parts of the economy even as demand softens. This combination, rising prices alongside falling output, complicates the broader macroeconomic outlook and risks entrenching a form of stagflationary pressure.

Joe Hayes, economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said the latest data cast doubt on the durability of the recovery seen earlier this year.

“April may give us a better indication of the true state of the economy, but for now, France’s burgeoning recovery looks to be on ice,” he said.

Business confidence has already begun to adjust. Sentiment weakened markedly in March, reversing much of the optimism that had built up since January. Firms increasingly cited concerns about persistent inflation, fragile demand, and the risk of further geopolitical escalation.

This development introduces a fresh challenge for policymakers. Economists note that a cooling economy would typically strengthen the case for looser financial conditions, but the resurgence in input costs and output prices may constrain room for maneuver.

The March survey suggests that France, and potentially the broader euro area, is entering the second quarter with growth under pressure and inflation risks re-emerging—an uncomfortable mix that could shape policy debates in the months ahead.

Gold Has Now Fallen $1000 From Peak All-Time High

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Gold has fallen sharply from its all-time peak, though the exact drop is closer to $1,100–$1,200 per ounce at its deepest point rather than precisely $1,000 depending on the exact peak and through dates

All-time high: Approximately $5,595–$5,608 per ounce, hit in late January 2026 various sources peg it around Jan 28–29. Recent price: Hovering around $4,350–$4,430 per ounce today, with intraday fluctuations. Drop from peak: Roughly $1,150–$1,250 at the lows seen in recent weeks from ~$5,608 to as low as ~$4,400 or below in mid-March. That’s about a 20–22% correction or more at the absolute through.

It has posted its worst weekly decline in over 40 years since 1983, with multi-day losing streaks and double-digit percentage drops in short order. This pullback follows an explosive rally: gold surged over 60% in 2025, breaking $4,000, then $5,000, and setting repeated records into early 2026 amid central bank buying, geopolitical tensions, inflation worries, and dollar diversification.

The recent sell-off accelerated with: Escalating Middle East conflict, which initially boosted safe-haven demand but later fueled higher oil prices and inflation fears; leading markets to price in fewer Fed rate cuts or even higher-for-longer rates. Higher real yields are typically a headwind for non-yielding gold. Profit-taking after the euphoric run-up. A stronger U.S. dollar in spots.

Liquidation in leveraged positions including among hedge funds and retail. Even with the drop, gold remains up ~44–46% year-over-year and well above 2024 levels. It’s not uncommon in bull markets for sharp corrections to occur—gold has seen plenty of 10–20%+ pullbacks historically while still trending higher over time.

Many analysts still see a bullish longer-term case, with forecasts pushing toward $5,000+ by end-2026 or even higher, driven by ongoing structural demand from central banks, geopolitical risks, and potential currency debasement themes. Short-term, support levels to watch include the $4,200–$4,300 zone near the 200-day moving average or 50% retracement of the 2025 rally.

A break below could open more downside, while stabilization or de-escalation in tensions could spark a rebound. Volatility like this is par for the course in commodities, especially after parabolic moves. If you’re holding physical gold or long-term exposure, this is often viewed as a healthy (if painful) reset rather than the end of the uptrend.

Silver has experienced an even more dramatic and volatile recent performance than gold, with sharper rallies, bigger single-day crashes, and larger percentage corrections—typical for the “volatile cousin” of gold due to its dual role as a precious metal (safe-haven/investment) and industrial metal (solar, electronics, etc.). All-time high: $121.67/oz (hit late January 2026, around Jan 29–30).

Recent price: Trading in the $66–$70/oz range e.g., ~$68–$69 on March 23–24, with intraday swings and recent stabilization attempts. Drop from peak: Roughly $51–$55/oz decline, or about 42–45% at the deepest troughs; some reports note a 35% pullback to mid-$78 levels earlier in March, with further weakness since.

This includes a notorious 30–31% single-day crash on January 30, 2026, triggered by margin hikes on futures that sparked forced liquidations. Gold peaked near $5,600/oz and has fallen 20–22% ($1,150–$1,250 drop) to the $4,350–$4,430 area. Silver’s percentage correction from its peak has been roughly twice as severe in relative terms, reflecting its higher beta.

Gold: +60–67%; strong, but silver significantly outperformed. Into Early 2026 Peak: Silver continued surging, up another ~70%+ in January alone at one point, for a cumulative ~320% rally from early 2025 lows in nominal terms. Gold’s move was impressive but less parabolic.

Silver: Down ~35–45% from the $121+ high, with multiple double-digit weekly drops and one of the worst single-day plunges in decades (second-worst on record). Gold: Down ~20–22% from its high, with its own worst weekly decline in over 40 years, but milder in percentage terms.

Both metals sold off amid the same catalysts: escalating Middle East tensions; pushing oil/inflation higher ? fewer expected Fed rate cuts ? higher real yields, profit-taking after euphoria, stronger USD periods, and leveraged position liquidations. Silver’s industrial demand component added extra volatility when sentiment shifted.

 

Year-to-Date (2026) and Longer-Term: Both remain sharply higher than 2024/early 2025 levels. Silver is still up ~100–150%+ over the past 12–15 months despite the pullback; gold is up ~40–46% YOY. Gold-to-silver ratio: Compressed significantly during the rally; silver outperforming, but the correction has seen some widening again.

Silver futures trading often involves more retail/hedge fund momentum players, leading to sharper blow-offs. Over 50% of silver demand is industrial (solar panels, EVs, electronics), which can amplify reactions to economic data or policy shifts, unlike gold’s purer monetary/safe-haven profile.

Lower liquidity relative to gold: Smaller market means bigger percentage swings on the same flows. Shared drivers with gold but amplified—silver often “levers” gold’s moves 1.5–3x in bull or bear phases. Many analysts remain structurally bullish on silver longer-term due to persistent supply deficits, surging green energy demand (solar alone is a major tailwind), and potential for gold-silver ratio compression if the bull market resumes.

Forecasts for 2026 averages range widely, with some seeing new highs later in the year if industrial demand holds and investment flows return. However, near-term risks include further liquidation if yields stay elevated or tensions escalate.

This kind of volatility is common in silver’s history—big corrections (30%+) have occurred inside larger bull markets, often followed by strong recoveries for those who held through the noise. Markets are fast-moving; these are snapshots based on recent data. This isn’t investment advice—prices can swing wildly, so consider your risk tolerance, do your own research, or consult a professional.

Strategy Announces $21B ATM Program to Fund Bitcoin Purchases

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Strategy formerly MicroStrategy, ticker MSTR announced a major expansion of its capital-raising capacity, via two new $21 billion At-The-Market (ATM) equity programs—one for common stock (MSTR) and one for its STRC preferred stock—potentially providing up to $42 billion in fresh funding, largely earmarked for Bitcoin acquisitions.

This comes on top of prior ATM programs including earlier $21B common stock and preferred issuances, giving the company substantial ongoing firepower to buy more BTC without traditional debt raises. The company explicitly intends to use net proceeds for general corporate purposes, including Bitcoin purchases, continuing its long-standing “Bitcoin Treasury” strategy led by Executive Chairman Michael Saylor.

$21B STRC ATM: For Variable Rate Series A Perpetual Stretch Preferred Stock (STRC), which offers yield features and is convertible in some cases. Combined with existing programs, total ATM capacity now exceeds $40B+ in some reports including smaller STRK components.

These are “at-the-market” offerings, allowing Strategy to sell shares gradually into the market at prevailing prices over time, minimizing immediate dilution impact compared to large block offerings. Strategy also disclosed purchasing $70M–$76.6M worth of Bitcoin last week.

This continues its weekly buying habit, even as it scales up financing. The company already holds hundreds of thousands of BTC; recent figures put it in the 600k–700k+ range, with ambitions toward much higher targets like 1M BTC. Strategy has turned itself into a leveraged Bitcoin proxy. Issuing equity/preferred ? buying BTC ? higher BTC price and MSTR premium often supports further issuance.

The STRC preferred adds a yield-bearing layer that appeals to income-focused investors while still funding BTC accumulation. Scale: $42B at current BTC prices ~$70k–$71k range recently theoretically supports hundreds of thousands of additional BTC, though actual deployment depends on market conditions, share prices, and pacing.

MSTR stock rose modestly around 2% in some reports on the news, reflecting investor familiarity with the playbook. This is consistent with Strategy’s evolution from a business intelligence software firm into the largest corporate Bitcoin holder and a dedicated Bitcoin treasury vehicle. It dilutes existing shareholders over time but bets heavily on long-term BTC appreciation outpacing dilution and preferred yields.

The move underscores Saylor’s aggressive stance: treat equity markets as a tool to stack more sats, especially in a maturing crypto capital markets environment. Expect continued weekly BTC purchase updates alongside ATM usage disclosures.

Michael Saylor’s Bitcoin philosophy revolves around viewing Bitcoin not as a speculative cryptocurrency or “digital gold,” but as the superior form of property and monetary energy in the digital age—the ultimate long-term store of value and capital asset that outperforms every alternative in a world of fiat debasement.

Saylor often compares Bitcoin to prime real estate in cyberspace: scarce, desirable, and non-replicable. Just as Manhattan has finite land that appreciates as more people want to live there, Bitcoin has a hard cap of 21 million coins. It represents immutable property rights that anyone with a smartphone can own, free from physical theft, government seizure, or dilution.

Unlike gold which is heavy and hard to move or real estate, Bitcoin combines scarcity with perfect portability and divisibility. Saylor frames money as stored energy—the crystallized work and time of human effort. Fiat currencies lose energy through inflation, while Bitcoin conserves it perfectly due to its fixed supply and proof-of-work mechanism.

He ties this to the laws of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed arbitrarily. Bitcoin is “digital energy” that abides by those laws, making it the most efficient way to transport value across time and space without permission or decay. Saylor’s thesis starts with a deep skepticism of fiat money. In a low-interest, high-printing environment, cash and bonds erode purchasing power.

Bitcoin, with its predictable issuance schedule; halving every ~4 years, asymptotically approaching zero new supply, is the only asset engineered with absolute scarcity. He calls diversification a “losing game” for serious capital allocators—Bitcoin is the apex property that should form the core of a treasury, not a side bet.

Short-term price swings are not a bug but a feature. Saylor says “volatility is vitality”—it attracts attention, drives adoption, and creates opportunities to raise capital. For Strategy (the company he leads), this volatility allows the stock to act as a leveraged Bitcoin proxy, enabling equity and debt raises to buy more BTC in a self-reinforcing flywheel.

Bitcoin Treasury Strategy: Buy, Hold, and Compound Forever

The practical application is simple and relentless: Convert excess cash (and later raise debt/equity) into Bitcoin. Hold indefinitely (“HODL” for 4 years minimum, ideally forever). Never sell the Bitcoin; use financial innovation (convertibles, preferred stock, ATMs) to acquire more.

Saylor has repeatedly stated the company will “buy Bitcoin every quarter forever.” The goal is to turn the balance sheet into a Bitcoin amplifier, creating “BTC Yield” (growth in Bitcoin holdings) as the key performance metric, analogous to net income on a Bitcoin standard.

What began in 2020 as an inflation hedge for Strategy’s treasury evolved into a full corporate transformation. Saylor now envisions layered financial products on top of Bitcoin: Digital capital; raw Bitcoin holdings. Digital credit; yield-bearing instruments like Strategy’s preferred stock backed by BTC. Digital money; stable, productive accounts in the future Bitcoin economy.

He sees this as building a new financial system where Bitcoin becomes the settlement layer for an AI-driven world, potentially reaching $200 trillion in value. Companies and even nations should adopt Bitcoin treasuries to capture this shift rather than fight it. Saylor ties Bitcoin to bigger ideas: Freedom vs. control — property rights, individual sovereignty, capitalism over socialism.

He promotes education aggressively via his “Bitcoin for Corporations” and public talks and argues that Bitcoin is inevitable as adoption cascades from individuals ? companies ? governments. In short, Saylor’s philosophy is not short-term trading—it’s a civilizational bet: Bitcoin is the best engineered monetary technology in human history.

The strategy is straightforward—stack as much as possible, as consistently as possible, and hold through all cycles—because time and scarcity are on its side. This conviction has turned Strategy into the world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holder and inspired a wave of “Bitcoin treasury” companies.

1...192021...8,408Page 20 of 8,408

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy