DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 3

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.

Economic Implications of WTI Oil Hitting Below $55 per Barrel

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the primary U.S. crude oil benchmark, fell below $55 per barrel during trading, hitting an intraday low of $54.98 and closing around $55.27—marking the first time below $55 since February 2021 during the post-COVID recovery period.

This drop reflects growing concerns over a global oil supply surplus, driven by increased production from OPEC+ and non-OPEC countries including record U.S. output, combined with softer demand growth, particularly from China.

Progress in potential Ukraine-Russia peace talks has reduced geopolitical risk premiums, raising the possibility of more Russian oil returning to the market including ~170 million barrels currently in floating storage.

The global benchmark Brent crude also slid, briefly falling below $60 per barrel on the same day. WTI has seen a slight rebound, trading around $56 per barrel today.Broader ImpactsU.S. gasoline prices have dropped below $3 per gallon nationally—the lowest in four years—providing consumer relief ahead of the holidays.

Year-to-date, WTI is down about 23%, its worst annual performance since 2018. This decline aligns with forecasts from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which anticipates further pressure on prices into 2026 due to inventory builds.

The drop in U.S. crude oil (WTI) below $55 per barrel in mid-December 2025—driven by global supply surpluses, OPEC+ production increases, softer demand especially from China, and reduced geopolitical risks—has wide-ranging effects.

Forecasts from the EIA and others suggest prices could average around $55 or lower for Brent through 2026 due to ongoing inventory builds exceeding 2 million barrels per day.

Lower oil prices translate directly to cheaper gasoline and diesel. U.S. national average gasoline prices have fallen below $3 per gallon—the lowest in four years—saving drivers money on fuel and holidays travel. This reduces transportation costs for goods, easing pressure on household budgets and broader consumer prices.

Falling energy costs help tame inflation, with the EIA projecting retail gasoline around $2.90/gallon and diesel below $3.50/gallon in 2026 down ~20 cents from 2025. Cheaper energy supports sectors like manufacturing, shipping, and aviation by lowering input costs. It acts as a de facto stimulus, boosting disposable income and potentially cushioning against other pressures.

As the U.S. is now a net oil exporter, low prices hurt revenues more than in past decades. Shale operators face reduced profitability—many need $60–70/barrel for new wells, with breakevens in the Permian around $55–60.

This has led to declining rig counts down sharply in 2025, idled equipment, layoffs, and scaled-back drilling. U.S. production peaked near 13.6 million bpd in 2025 but is forecast to plateau or decline slightly in 2026. Energy stocks have underperformed, dragging on markets.

Lower export revenues worsen the U.S. trade deficit in energy products. Job losses in oil-producing states e.g., Texas, Permian Basin could ripple to related industries. Budget strains intensify for oil-dependent economies. Saudi Arabia and others are unwinding cuts to regain market share and discipline overproducers, accepting lower prices despite fiscal needs.

Russia faces steeper revenue hits from discounted sanctioned oil, potentially falling below $50/barrel effective price. This could limit funding for ongoing conflicts or domestic spending. Non-OPEC growth led by U.S., Brazil, Guyana and potential return of Russian/Venezuelan barrels exacerbate surpluses, pressuring prices into 2026.

Low oil can indicate weak demand e.g., slowing global economy, China slowdown, raising recession risks, though it also provides relief amid uncertainties like tariffs. Cheaper oil may slow shifts to renewables/EVs short-term but highlights volatility, encouraging diversification.

Overall, while consumers benefit immediately, prolonged low prices risk hurting investment in U.S. energy security and straining producer nations’ finances. A rebound would require stronger demand or supply disruptions.

A Look At the Proposed SAFE Crypto Act

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

U.S. Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) introduced the bipartisan Strengthening Agency Frameworks for Enforcement of Cryptocurrency (SAFE Crypto) Act, often referred to as the SAFE Act.

The bill aims to combat the sharp rise in cryptocurrency-related fraud—Americans lost over $9.3 billion to such scams in 2024 alone, a 66% increase from the prior year, with seniors particularly vulnerable over $2.84 billion in losses for those aged 60+.

Key provisions include: Establishing a dedicated interagency task force led by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Involving the FBI, FinCEN, Secret Service, other regulators, law enforcement (federal, state, and local), and private-sector stakeholders e.g., exchanges, custodians, blockchain intelligence firms, and victim representatives.

Focusing on identifying emerging scam trends, enhancing investigative tools for local law enforcement, improving public awareness and education, and coordinating real-time disruption of illicit networks using blockchain analytics.

Requiring annual reports to Congress on progress and threats. Supporters, including blockchain firm TRM Labs, argue it enables effective public-private collaboration to track and stop fraud without broadly regulating the crypto industry.

The bill is still in the early stages— introduced but not yet passed committees, and its narrow focus on fraud enforcement has drawn praise for addressing a clear bipartisan concern amid ongoing debates over wider crypto regulation.

The Strengthening Agency Frameworks for Enforcement of Cryptocurrency (SAFE Crypto) Act, introduced by Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Jerry Moran (R-KS), is a narrowly focused bipartisan bill aimed at combating cryptocurrency fraud without imposing broad new regulations on the industry.

If enacted, it would establish an interagency task force led by the Treasury Department, including the FBI, FinCEN, Secret Service, other regulators, law enforcement, and private-sector participants e.g., blockchain analytics firms like TRM Labs and Chainalysis, exchanges, custodians, and victim advocates.

The task force would prioritize real-time identification and disruption of scams e.g., phishing, pig butchering, rug pulls, Ponzi schemes, which caused over $9.3 billion in U.S. losses in 2024 up 66% from prior year, including $2.84 billion for seniors.

Mandated public campaigns and tools for local law enforcement could reduce vulnerability, especially among older Americans and new users. Enhanced blockchain tracing and coordination might improve asset recovery rates, though crypto’s pseudonymous nature remains a challenge.

Addresses current silos—SEC/CFTC focus on securities/commodities fraud, but everyday scams (hacks, phishing) often fall through gaps. The task force fills this with shared intelligence and private-sector analytics.

Requires progress reports to Congress on threats and enforcement, increasing accountability and potentially securing more funding. Focuses on enforcement against illicit activity, not market structure or innovation.

For the Crypto Industry

Widely viewed as “quietly bullish” in community discussions. By targeting bad actors, it could clean up the space, build public trust, and pave the way for mainstream adoption/institutional investment. Supporters like TRM Labs praise public-private collaboration for disrupting illicit networks without stifling innovation.

Exchanges and custodians may face more scrutiny or voluntary data-sharing expectations, raising operational costs. Removing fraudulent elements could boost investor confidence, as noted in analyses—distinguishing scams from compliant assets.

Signals rare agreement on crypto amid polarized debates e.g., stablecoin rules via GENIUS Act, market structure bills like CLARITY/FIT21. Could pass more easily than comprehensive regulation. Critics worry about challenges like defining task force boundaries or international cooperation for cross-border scams. No major opposition reported yet—early reactions are supportive.

Reinforces U.S. shift toward targeted anti-fraud measures rather than blanket restrictions, aligning with pro-innovation trends under recent administrations. Its fraud-specific focus makes it less controversial than wider crypto bills, increasing passage odds.

Overall, implications lean positive: stronger safeguards against scams while supporting industry growth by enhancing legitimacy.

1234...7,959Page 3 of 7,959

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy