News

PANews reported on March 7th that, according to the Wall Street Journal, prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket are reportedly in talks with potential investors for a new round of funding, each targeting a valuation of approximately $20 billion. Sources familiar with the matter indicated that the two companies were valued at about half that level at the end of last year. As competition intensifies in the prediction market, both companies are accelerating their efforts to gain user growth and thereby drive these new funding negotiations.

BlockBeats news, March 7, stablecoin issuer Tether announced co-leading a $7.5 million funding round for startup Utexo. This round of investment also includes Big Brain Holdings, Portal Ventures, and Franklin Templeton.Utexo is developing infrastructure to enable USDT to settle directly on the Bitcoin network and support payments via the Lightning Network. The solution offers pre-confirmable fixed fees and utilizes Bitcoin network security for transactions through atomic and private settlement mechanisms.Paolo Ardoino stated that enabling native USDT settlement on Bitcoin and the Lightning Network will further strengthen Bitcoin's role as a global dollar transaction settlement network. Currently, USDT supply is approximately $1.84 trillion, making it the largest dollar stablecoin by market size.

BlockBeats news, March 7, CleanSpark, Cango, and BitFuFu disclosed operational data, stating that the three companies collectively produced approximately 1,250 Bitcoin in February 2026, valued at around $86 million at current prices.Among them, CleanSpark produced 568 BTC that month, the highest among the three companies, with a peak hash rate of about 50 EH/s, and sold 553 BTC, cashing in approximately $36.7 million; Cango produced 454.83 BTC that month, holding 3,313 BTC at the end of the period; BitFuFu produced 227 BTC that month, with 190 BTC coming from cloud mining customers.Meanwhile, multiple mining companies are accelerating the expansion of hash rate, power resources, and data center infrastructure into AI and high-performance computing (HPC) fields to seek more stable long-term revenue sources.

Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim’s push to make the city more Bitcoin-friendly has hit a much harder wall than market volatility: municipal law. A city staff report set to go before Vancouver City Council on March 10 recommends closing the motion tied to the mayor’s 2024 “Bitcoin Friendly City” proposal after concluding that Bitcoin is not an allowable investment asset for the city under the Vancouver Charter. That finding sharply narrows what the city can realistically do with crypto, even after months of political attention around the idea. The result is a reminder that, for all the momentum Bitcoin has built in markets and institutional portfolios, public-sector adoption still depends on something more basic than bullish sentiment. It depends on whether local governments are actually allowed to hold it. What Vancouver originally wanted to explore The political story started in December 2024, when Sim introduced a motion asking staff to study how Vancouver could become a “Bitcoin Friendly City.” The motion did not just talk about symbolic support. It explicitly asked staff to look at options such as accepting taxes and fees in Bitcoin and exploring whether a portion of the city’s financial reserves could be converted into BTC as a way to preserve purchasing power. At the time, the proposal tapped into a familiar Bitcoin argument: that holding part of a treasury in BTC could serve as a hedge against currency debasement and inflation. That idea has already been embraced, at least in part, by some corporations and by a small number of public officials elsewhere. But what works as a talking point does not always survive a legal review once public money is involved. Why the proposal was blocked The key issue was not whether Bitcoin has long-term upside. It was whether the city is legally allowed to buy it at all. In the March 10 staff report, city officials say they have “conclusively determined” that under the Vancouver Charter, Bitcoin is not an allowable investment asset for the city, and they recommend that the work be concluded. That line matters because it turns the issue from a policy debate into a statutory one. If the asset is not allowed under the charter, the city does not have much room to improvise around it. The legal constraint is not hard to trace. Section 201 of the Vancouver Charter sets out the categories in which the city may invest money not immediately required. The list includes instruments such as securities of Canada or a province, guaranteed securities, and certain municipal or regional district securities. Bitcoin is nowhere on that list. More broadly, British Columbia’s municipal investment framework points in the same direction. Section 183 of the Community Charter also limits what municipalities may invest in, again focusing on traditional government and related securities rather than cryptocurrencies. What this says about public-sector Bitcoin adoption The Vancouver case is a useful reality check for the broader crypto market. Bitcoin’s legitimacy has expanded quickly in parts of finance, especially after spot ETF adoption in the U.S. and rising institutional participation. But municipalities do not operate like hedge funds, family offices or even public companies. Their money is usually governed by statutes written to prioritize liquidity, stability and capital preservation over upside. That makes city-level Bitcoin reserve ideas much harder to implement than they may sound on social media. Even where there is political support, local governments often have narrow legal mandates around what they can own, how they can invest, and what risks they are allowed to take with public funds. For crypto traders following the story on platforms like Tapbit, the headline may seem disappointing at first glance. But the deeper lesson is more structural: mainstream adoption does not move in one straight line. In some parts of the market, Bitcoin is being normalized. In others, especially government finance, the rulebooks still have not moved. Why the story still matters for the crypto market This is not a market-moving event in the same way as an ETF approval or a major exchange listing. But it does matter because it shows where the next bottleneck in adoption may be. Bitcoin no longer has to prove it can attract capital. It has to prove that institutions, pension frameworks, municipalities and public bodies can legally and operationally hold it. In Vancouver’s case, the political ambition was there, but the legal framework was not. That gap is likely to show up again in other cities and jurisdictions as more officials test whether Bitcoin can move from a reserve idea to an actual treasury asset. That is also why these stories tend to resonate beyond Canada. They are really about the difference between crypto acceptance in principle and crypto ownership in law. The first is becoming easier. The second is still highly uneven. Bitcoin-friendly branding is easier than Bitcoin reserves There is also a practical distinction buried in this story. It is one thing for a city to market itself as tech-forward, blockchain-friendly or open to digital-asset innovation. It is another thing entirely to convert part of the public balance sheet into Bitcoin. That second step triggers a much tougher standard. Once public reserves are involved, the discussion shifts away from innovation branding and toward statutory authority, fiduciary duty and financial risk controls. Vancouver’s review shows how quickly that transition can shut the door on a proposal that may have sounded plausible at the motion stage. For market participants, that distinction is worth remembering. Public officials may continue talking about Bitcoin as a modern treasury tool, but unless the legislation changes, many cities may find that their enthusiasm ends where the charter begins. The bigger takeaway Vancouver’s failed Bitcoin reserve push is less a rejection of Bitcoin than a reminder that law still sets the outer boundary for public adoption. The market can keep moving ahead. Retail traders can keep positioning. Institutional products can keep expanding. Users who want to stay close to day-to-day crypto moves can log in to Tapbit or register for an account to follow market developments as they unfold. But when it comes to city treasuries, bullish conviction is not enough. The asset has to fit the law. That is what happened in Vancouver. The city may have wanted to explore Bitcoin. The charter appears to have answered first. FAQ Why was Vancouver’s Bitcoin reserve proposal blocked? City staff concluded that Bitcoin is not an allowable investment asset under the Vancouver Charter, so the city does not have legal authority to hold it as part of municipal reserves. What did Mayor Ken Sim originally propose? Sim’s December 2024 motion asked staff to explore making Vancouver a “Bitcoin Friendly City,” including studying whether the city could accept taxes and fees in Bitcoin and convert part of its reserves into BTC. Did Vancouver officially buy Bitcoin? No. The proposal did not reach the stage where the city could buy Bitcoin, because staff concluded the idea is not permitted under the current legal framework. What law was central to the decision? The key law was Section 201 of the Vancouver Charter, which limits how the city may invest funds that are not immediately required. Why does this matter for crypto markets? It highlights a broader issue: Bitcoin adoption may be growing in private markets, but public-sector balance-sheet adoption still depends heavily on local laws and investment mandates. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile.

Ripple is pushing further into institutional market structure, this time by adding access to Coinbase Derivatives contracts to its broader trading network. According to the latest update, Ripple Prime clients can now access Coinbase-listed crypto futures, including contracts tied to bitcoin, ether, solana and XRP. On the surface, that may look like a product expansion. In practice, it says something bigger about where the market is heading: the next phase of crypto competition is no longer just about tokens or exchange volume, but about who can offer institutions a more complete trading stack. That matters because institutional crypto demand has become more infrastructure-driven than narrative-driven. Firms are paying closer attention to regulated access, clearing arrangements, collateral efficiency and execution quality. On platforms like Tapbit, traders may focus on real-time market opportunities, but at the institutional end of the market, the conversation is increasingly about how to connect liquidity, brokerage and risk management in a way that looks familiar to traditional finance. What Ripple is adding The new integration gives Ripple Prime clients access to Coinbase Derivatives contracts in the U.S. market, adding another regulated route for institutions that want exposure to crypto futures without stepping outside a more traditional trading framework. That point is easy to miss. This is not just about listing another product menu. It is about plugging regulated crypto futures into a larger institutional workflow. Coinbase Derivatives has been building out its U.S. futures business across a range of crypto products, while Nodal Clear serves as the clearing house behind those contracts. Once those rails are connected to a prime brokerage-style environment, the offering becomes much more relevant for funds, trading firms and other professional participants. Why this matters more than it looks The significance of this move comes from the plumbing, not the headline. Institutional markets rarely change because of one flashy launch. They change when access, clearing and execution start to line up in a way that reduces friction. Ripple has been trying to move deeper into that layer of the market. Last year, Reuters reported that Hidden Road, the prime broker Ripple agreed to buy, clears about $3 trillion annually across markets and serves more than 300 institutional clients. That scale matters because prime brokerage is where a lot of serious trading activity becomes operationally manageable. Add regulated futures access to that kind of setup, and Ripple is no longer just pitching a crypto product story. It is pitching infrastructure. For the broader market, that is part of a familiar trend. Crypto firms are increasingly trying to look less like standalone exchanges and more like full-service financial venues. That includes execution, custody, lending, collateral, clearing and regulated derivatives. Retail traders looking to stay active across fast-moving crypto markets can still use platforms such as Tapbit’s trading portal to track momentum and manage positions, but the institutional race is now shifting toward who owns more of the back-end stack. A bet on regulated crypto futures There is also a timing angle here. In the U.S., regulated crypto derivatives have become a more important part of the market conversation as institutions look for cleaner and more familiar ways to gain exposure. Coinbase has been steadily building out its derivatives business, and its materials describe Coinbase Derivatives as a CFTC-regulated futures exchange offering crypto-centric contracts across different sizes and asset classes. That matters because regulation is still one of the biggest dividing lines in crypto market access. For institutions, the difference between offshore leverage and U.S.-regulated futures is not cosmetic. It affects compliance, risk controls, reporting and internal approval. By connecting to Coinbase’s regulated contracts, Ripple is strengthening its pitch to firms that want crypto exposure without relying entirely on the offshore model that dominated earlier cycles. Why XRP is part of the story XRP’s inclusion also gives the move a Ripple-specific edge. Bitcoin and ether futures alone would already be meaningful, and adding solana reflects broader market demand, but XRP turns the rollout into more than a generic partnership headline. For Ripple, this helps reinforce the idea that its ecosystem is not only about payments or blockchain settlement anymore. It is increasingly trying to position itself as an institutional access layer across multiple parts of crypto finance. In that sense, offering XRP futures alongside other major contracts makes strategic sense. It keeps Ripple’s own asset inside the same institutional product frame as BTC, ETH and SOL rather than leaving it outside the main derivatives conversation. The bigger picture for the market What makes this development worth watching is that it reflects how crypto market structure is maturing. The industry is moving beyond the phase where growth depends only on new token launches or retail trading spikes. More of the competition is now happening around who controls the infrastructure that serious money uses. That includes access to futures, high-quality clearing, capital-efficient collateral, and relationships with institutional clients that already expect prime-broker-style services. In that environment, each new connection between regulated exchanges and institutional venues matters more than it would have a few years ago. For everyday market participants, that does not necessarily mean an immediate price reaction. It does mean the industry is continuing to build out the kind of structure that tends to matter more over time than any single headline. Users who want to stay close to daily crypto moves can create an account on Tapbit to follow market developments and trading opportunities as infrastructure trends like this filter through the broader ecosystem. Why this story matters now Ripple’s latest move is part of a larger reshaping of crypto market infrastructure. The companies that win the next cycle may not be the ones with the loudest branding, but the ones that make institutional participation easier, safer and more scalable. That is why adding Coinbase futures to Ripple’s institutional network matters. It is not just another partnership headline. It is another sign that the crypto industry is trying to rebuild itself around more durable rails — regulated products, institutional workflows and deeper links between execution and clearing. And in a market that increasingly wants to be taken seriously by traditional finance, that may matter more than any short-term buzz. FAQ What did Ripple add to its platform? Ripple added access to Coinbase Derivatives crypto futures for Ripple Prime clients, including contracts tied to bitcoin, ether, solana and XRP. Why is this important for the crypto market? The move shows that competition in crypto is increasingly shifting toward institutional infrastructure, including regulated futures access, clearing and brokerage-style services. What is Coinbase Derivatives? Coinbase Derivatives is a CFTC-regulated U.S. futures exchange that offers crypto-focused futures products across multiple contract sizes and assets. What role does Nodal Clear play? Nodal Clear acts as the clearing house for Coinbase Derivatives contracts, providing the clearing layer behind the regulated futures products. Why does Hidden Road matter in this story? Hidden Road is central because it represents the prime brokerage side of the institutional stack, and its scale shows why Ripple’s infrastructure push is being taken more seriously. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile.

U.S. banking regulators have drawn a clearer line around one of the biggest questions in tokenized finance: does putting a security on blockchain automatically make it harder for banks to hold? For now, the answer looks like no. In fresh guidance released this week, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the OCC said the U.S. bank capital framework is “technology neutral,” meaning the technology used to issue or transfer a security does not, by itself, change how that asset should be treated for capital purposes. For the tokenization market, that is a meaningful signal. It does not create a special lane for blockchain-based assets, but it does remove the idea that tokenized securities should face an automatic penalty simply because they live on distributed ledger rails. The timing matters. Tokenization has moved well beyond a niche crypto talking point and is now showing up in serious conversations across both Wall Street and digital-asset markets. Products tied to tokenized Treasuries, tokenized funds and tokenized stocks have gained attention over the past year, and traders on Tapbit and other major exchanges have been watching the trend as the line between traditional finance and crypto infrastructure gets thinner. What the Fed actually said The regulators’ message was narrower than some of the market headlines suggested, but still important. Their point was not that tokenized securities deserve lighter treatment. It was that banks generally should not treat them differently from the traditional version of the same asset if the legal rights are the same. That means an eligible tokenized security should generally receive the same capital treatment as its non-tokenized equivalent. The same logic also applies to certain derivatives linked to those securities. In addition, regulators said a tokenized security can still qualify as financial collateral under the existing capital rule if it meets the same requirements that would apply in traditional form. In practical terms, that reduces uncertainty for banks that may want exposure to tokenized assets but were unsure whether blockchain alone would trigger a tougher capital outcome. Why the market cares This is one of those regulatory updates that sounds technical at first glance but carries broader implications. Tokenization has long been pitched as a way to modernize financial plumbing — faster settlement, lower operational friction, wider access and, eventually, more liquid secondary markets. That thesis gets much harder to sell if regulated institutions face extra balance-sheet costs just for touching the blockchain version of an otherwise familiar asset. That is why this week’s clarification landed well with the market. It does not suddenly open the floodgates, but it removes one obvious obstacle. For crypto investors, it is another sign that parts of the U.S. regulatory system are leaning toward fitting digital wrappers into existing financial frameworks instead of inventing an entirely separate rulebook every time blockchain enters the picture. That broader tokenization story has also been reflected across the market infrastructure side of crypto. Tapbit users following crypto market trends have seen how quickly narratives around real-world assets and tokenized finance can spill over into sentiment around exchanges, custody, and on-chain settlement rails. No special treatment, but no automatic punishment either The most important nuance here is that regulators did not hand tokenized securities a free pass. They also did not create a new crypto-specific capital framework. Instead, they chose a simpler route: if the substance of the instrument is the same, the capital treatment should generally be the same too. That approach matters because it keeps the focus on legal rights and risk characteristics instead of technology branding. A blockchain-based wrapper does not make an asset magically safer. But under this guidance, it also does not make the asset automatically more punitive from a capital standpoint just because it is issued or transferred onchain. Regulators also said this treatment does not hinge on whether the tokenized security sits on a permissioned blockchain or a permissionless one. That point may matter over time as more institutions experiment with different issuance and settlement models. The SEC has been moving in a similar direction The banking agencies’ position also fits with the broader U.S. regulatory tone around tokenization this year. In late January, SEC staff said tokenized securities are still securities under federal securities laws, even when ownership records are maintained in whole or in part on crypto networks. In other words, putting the asset onchain may change the delivery mechanism, but it does not erase the underlying legal character of the instrument. That is the thread tying these moves together. Washington is not treating tokenization as a legal reset button. It is signaling that existing frameworks still apply, and that what matters most is whether the tokenized product really carries the same rights, obligations and risk profile as the traditional version it is meant to represent. Why this matters for crypto traders For most retail crypto traders, this is not the sort of headline that sends Bitcoin jumping 10% in an afternoon. But that does not make it unimportant. Tokenization has become one of the most credible long-term bridges between crypto infrastructure and traditional capital markets. Every time regulators make that bridge easier to understand, the sector gets a little more investable. That is especially relevant at a time when crypto markets are increasingly sensitive to institutional flows, product structure and regulatory tone. A clearer framework for tokenized securities does not guarantee mass adoption, but it does give banks, issuers and market participants one less reason to stay on the sidelines. For exchanges and trading platforms, it also reinforces the idea that the next phase of crypto growth may not come only from speculative tokens, but from blockchain infrastructure being used to move familiar financial products more efficiently. That is one reason tokenization remains a closely watched theme across both traditional finance desks and crypto-native platforms like Tapbit. The bigger takeaway The real takeaway from this week’s guidance is not that U.S. regulators have suddenly become permissive. It is that they are starting to answer tokenization questions in a more practical way. Rather than treat every blockchain-based financial product as something entirely foreign, they are asking a simpler question: is this economically and legally the same instrument, or not? That may sound modest, but for tokenized finance it is a meaningful development. Markets rarely shift because of one dramatic regulatory breakthrough. More often, they move because the rules become a little clearer, the language gets less hostile and institutions get more comfortable testing the edges of what is possible. That is what happened here. The wrapper changed. The rulebook, at least for now, mostly did not. Ready to dive into crypto? Sign up on Tapbit today and kick off your trading journey in seconds. FAQ What did the Fed say about tokenized securities? The Fed, together with the FDIC and OCC, said the bank capital framework is technology neutral. In general, tokenized securities with the same legal rights as traditional securities should receive the same capital treatment. Does this mean tokenized securities get special treatment? No. Regulators did not create a special benefit. They clarified that tokenized securities generally should not face a harsher capital treatment solely because they use blockchain technology. Does this only apply to permissioned blockchains? No. The guidance indicates that the capital treatment does not generally depend on whether the tokenized security is issued on a permissioned or permissionless blockchain. Why is this important for crypto markets? It supports the broader tokenization narrative by reducing uncertainty for banks and institutions that may want to work with blockchain-based versions of traditional assets. Did the SEC also comment on tokenized securities? Yes. SEC staff recently said tokenized securities remain securities under federal securities laws, even when ownership records are maintained on crypto networks. Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Crypto markets are highly volatile, and small-cap tokens can move sharply in both directions.

The crypto market has no shortage of narratives this month, but one date is still sitting above the rest: March 18. That is when the Federal Reserve will publish its next rate decision after the March 17–18 FOMC meeting, followed by Chair Jerome Powell’s press conference. For crypto traders, this is not really about whether the Fed suddenly delivers a surprise cut. It is about whether the central bank sounds comfortable enough to open the door to easier policy later this year — or whether it keeps the market stuck in the same higher-for-longer mindset that has capped risk appetite for weeks. As of March 6, Bitcoin is trading near $70,939 after rebounding from February’s deep sell-off, which makes this meeting feel even more important. Traders on Tapbit and other major crypto exchanges are closely watching the upcoming Federal Reserve meeting, as macro signals from the FOMC often drive short-term volatility across the Bitcoin and altcoin market. Why the market is focused on this FOMC meeting The March meeting matters because it comes with updated economic projections. Traders are not only watching the rate decision itself, but also the dot plot, inflation forecasts, growth expectations, and Powell’s tone at the press conference. On paper, the schedule is straightforward: the Fed’s two-day meeting runs from March 17 to March 18, the statement is due at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 18, and Powell is scheduled to speak at 2:30 p.m. ET. Right now, the broad expectation is that the Fed keeps rates unchanged. Reuters reported in late February that CME FedWatch was implying a 94.1% probability that the central bank would leave the fed funds target range at 3.50% to 3.75% in March. That means the real market question is no longer whether the Fed holds, but what comes next. The base case is still a hold, but the language matters more The Fed kept the federal funds target range at 3.50% to 3.75% at its January 28 meeting and said it would continue to assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks before making further adjustments. That is why the March headline itself may not be the real mover. Markets have mostly priced in no change already. What they have not fully priced in is how policymakers describe inflation, growth, and uncertainty from here. If the statement and Powell’s press conference leave room for a mid-year easing window, crypto could take that as a green light for risk. If the Fed doubles down on sticky inflation and pushes back again on easing hopes, the market may have to postpone those expectations one more time. Why this matters so much for Bitcoin Bitcoin still trades with its own crypto-native catalysts, but it is also behaving more and more like a global liquidity-sensitive risk asset. When macro stress rises, crypto usually feels it quickly. When rate-cut hopes return, it tends to benefit just as quickly. That link was obvious in February. Bitcoin briefly slid toward the low-$60,000 area before rebounding back above $70,000 as broader risk sentiment steadied. The message from price action was clear: capital has not disappeared, but the market still needs a friendlier macro backdrop before it can fully commit to a stronger trend. source: Coinmarketcap For traders, that makes March 18 a tone-setting event. A softer Fed could help Bitcoin hold higher levels and pull fresh money back into majors and high-beta altcoins. A hawkish Fed could do the opposite and turn the current rebound into another round of choppy repricing. The real swing factor is not the rate number The crypto market is unlikely to move sharply just because the Fed holds rates steady again. That is already the consensus outcome. What matters more is whether policymakers start sounding less attached to restrictive policy, or whether they continue stressing inflation risks and the need for patience. That question has become more important because recent Fed commentary has not offered traders much clarity. Reuters reported that Richmond Fed President Thomas Barkin said sticky inflation and stronger labor data could shift the Fed’s risk outlook, while Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid warned there was no room for complacency on inflation. Reuters also reported that New York Fed President John Williams said further cuts were still possible, but only if inflation continues to move lower as expected. That mix is exactly why this meeting feels like a dividing line. The market does not need an immediate cut. It needs confidence that the next phase of policy will become less restrictive, not more uncertain. The data before the meeting could still change positioning There is another reason traders are reluctant to make oversized bets too early. Key U.S. macro data arrives just before the Fed meeting. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has the February nonfarm payrolls report scheduled for March 6 and the February CPI report scheduled for March 11. Those releases can still reshape expectations heading into March 18. A hotter inflation print or another firm labor report would strengthen the case for Fed patience. A softer set of numbers would make it easier for markets to revive hopes that the easing window opens later in 2026. That leaves crypto in a familiar spot: it is trading not only on what the Fed does, but on what the data allows the Fed to say. What crypto traders should actually watch on March 18 There are three things worth watching more closely than the headline rate decision. First, the dot plot. If policymakers still leave room for easing later in 2026, markets may read that as constructive even without an immediate cut. Second, the statement language. Even a subtle softening around restrictive policy, inflation progress, or balance-of-risks wording could be enough for traders to treat the meeting as mildly dovish. Third, Powell’s press conference. This is where markets often get the real signal. If Powell leans into caution, says inflation risks remain uncomfortable, or refuses to validate easing expectations, crypto could struggle to extend gains. If he sounds more open to policy normalization later this year, risk assets may respond positively. For active traders, events like the March FOMC decision often lead to sharp price movements in Bitcoin and major altcoins. Many investors monitor these macro catalysts while trading on platforms such as Tapbit, where real-time market data and derivatives markets make it easier to react quickly to macro-driven volatility. X sentiment: March 18 is being treated as a macro trigger for crypto On X, discussion around the March 18 FOMC meeting has centered less on the odds of an immediate cut and more on the possibility of a post-meeting repricing in risk assets. A widely shared post tracking CME FedWatch expectations highlighted how strongly the market still leans toward a hold, while a Cointelegraph post on X linked Bitcoin’s recent hesitation to the same mix of macro stress and policy uncertainty now shaping trader positioning. https://twitter.com/ItsBitcoinWorld/status/2024812678082937122 Across the broader #FOMC feed on X and live rate-cut discussions, the tone has been broadly similar: traders are not positioned for a dramatic March surprise, but they are clearly bracing for volatility if Powell shifts the market’s view on how long policy will stay restrictive. For crypto, that matters because when expectations are already skewed toward a hold, the real swing factor is no longer the rate decision itself, but the language that comes with it. Why March 18 feels like a line in the sand Calling one meeting a turning point can sound dramatic, but this one genuinely has the ingredients to matter. Crypto is coming into the event after a period of heavy macro sensitivity. Bitcoin has already shown it can rebound sharply when broader risk appetite steadies, but it has also shown how quickly it can lose altitude when the rate outlook hardens. By mid-March, traders should have a better read on labor data, inflation, the Fed’s projections, and Powell’s policy framing all at once. That combination could give the market a cleaner answer to one question it has been wrestling with for weeks: is 2026 gradually shifting toward easier financial conditions, or is the crypto market still stuck under the shadow of restrictive policy? March 18 may not settle that question for the entire year. But it could do a lot to define how Bitcoin and the broader crypto market trade for the rest of this month. FAQ When is the March 2026 FOMC meeting? The March 2026 FOMC meeting runs from March 17 to March 18. The Fed is scheduled to release its rate decision at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 18, followed by Jerome Powell’s press conference at 2:30 p.m. ET. Is the Fed expected to cut rates in March 2026? The market consensus has been that the Fed will likely leave rates unchanged in March. The more important issue is whether the Fed’s language opens the door to cuts later in 2026. Why does the FOMC matter for Bitcoin? Bitcoin has become increasingly sensitive to macro liquidity, real yields, and overall risk sentiment. A more dovish Fed usually helps high-beta assets, while a more hawkish tone can pressure crypto prices. What should crypto traders watch besides the rate decision? Focus on the dot plot, the Fed’s economic projections, the wording in the statement, and Powell’s comments during the press conference. Those often matter more than the unchanged rate itself. What U.S. data releases matter before the meeting? The February nonfarm payrolls report is scheduled for March 6, and the February CPI report is due on March 11. Both releases could shift expectations before the Fed decision. Trade responsibly on Tapbit: Sign Up on Tapbit (0% maker fees) Login & Deposit JPY/USDT Live BTC/USDT & ETH/USDT Charts Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency trading involves significant risk of loss. Prices are highly volatile and can change rapidly. Regulatory policies and implementation details are subject to change. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal or financial advice. Always conduct your own research (DYOR) and consult qualified professionals before making decisions.

Published: March 6, 2026 If you’ve ever looked at a prediction market and thought, “This is just options with better packaging,” Nasdaq is basically agreeing — in public, on paper, to the SEC. Nasdaq MRX has filed a rule change asking for approval to list what it calls Outcome-Related Options (OROs) on the Nasdaq-100 (NDX) and the Nasdaq-100 Micro Index (XND). The pitch is simple: a contract that settles to a fixed amount if a condition is met at expiration, and to zero if it isn’t. What Nasdaq is proposing (the parts that matter) Nasdaq’s filing describes OROs as cash-settled, European-style binary options — meaning there’s no early exercise and settlement happens at expiration. It explicitly says MRX wants to list OROs on NDX and XND.、 The pricing model is what makes this “prediction-market-ish.” Reuters and Bloomberg both highlighted the same key detail: the contracts would be priced between $0.01 and $1.00, where the price effectively reflects the market’s view of the outcome being true, and they pay a fixed amount if the condition is met. In human terms: it’s a yes/no contract on an index outcome — except it’s being delivered through a listed-options exchange, under the SEC’s regime, inside the plumbing brokers already understand. Why Wall Street is chasing the yes/no format The yes/no interface is a cheat code for engagement. It takes something intimidating (options chains, greeks, volatility surfaces) and turns it into a single number that feels like probability. That’s why event contracts took off on platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket — and why traditional exchanges are now racing to offer something that looks similar but lives in a more familiar regulatory wrapper. There’s also a market-structure reason: binary-style contracts can be attractive when traders want defined risk and a clean expression of a short-term view. You don’t need to pick a strike and model delta; you’re paying a premium for one outcome. The regulatory subtext: SEC rails vs. “event contract” rails Nasdaq’s choice matters because it’s drawing a clear boundary: this is an index-linked option product filed with the SEC, not a broad marketplace for politics, sports, or cultural events. That distinction is not academic. Reuters has reported on the tension around event-style contracts and how they can attract scrutiny depending on category and jurisdiction. Meanwhile, other incumbent exchanges are moving in parallel. The Federal Register recently published a Cboe filing notice (a reminder that this “prediction-market moment” isn’t a one-off Nasdaq experiment). What traders should watch next SEC process and timing: the key question is whether the SEC approves as filed, delays for comment, or asks for changes. The filing status can be tracked via Nasdaq MRX’s rule filings page. Contract definition: in binary products, the exact settlement language is everything (what condition, what time, what calculation agent). Liquidity design: spreads and market maker incentives will determine whether this trades like a useful tool or a gimmick. Copycat products: if one major index gets a yes/no wrapper, others tend to follow quickly. How X reacted (and what people actually focused on) On X, this didn’t travel as “Nasdaq filed a rule change for a new options product.” It traveled as “Nasdaq is building a prediction-market-style interface.” The yes/no framing is what stuck — not the acronym (ORO), not the exchange (MRX), and not the fine print. The mainstream headline version came from major news accounts. Bloomberg’s business feed framed it as Nasdaq bringing “yes-or-no bets” to one of the most-watched U.S. equity benchmarks. https://twitter.com/business/status/2028474976366473636 Crypto-native accounts quickly translated the mechanics into prediction-market language. CoinMarketCap’s official account highlighted the 1-cent-to-$1 pricing and the resemblance to probability-style contracts. https://twitter.com/CoinMarketCap/status/2028572830263128515 Another thread of discussion focused on the rails: “this looks like prediction markets, but it’s being filed through SEC-listed options.” In other words, the product may feel familiar to anyone who’s used Kalshi/Polymarket, but the regulatory wrapper is different. Posts from Milk Road and Coinpaper leaned hard on this distinction while summarizing the basic contract format. A smaller but interesting angle tied the filing to the broader “markets becoming more always-on” narrative, pointing to Nasdaq’s wider push toward extended trading access and more simplified trading interfaces. If you want the primary source rather than social summaries, start with the filing itself: SR-MRX-2026-05 (PDF). Tapbit angle: why crypto traders should care Even though the product is equities-native, the direction is familiar to crypto: markets are being redesigned around outcomes. Whether it’s “BTC above X,” “CPI above Y,” or “NDX closes above Z,” traders clearly like contracts that compress a view into a single number. The growth of event-style interfaces also tends to pull more short-term, narrative-driven capital into the system — and that can spill into crypto during big macro weeks. If you’re trading around macro headlines and fast moves, you can monitor markets and manage positions on Tapbit. Existing users can sign in via Tapbit Login, and new users can get started here: Tapbit Register. FAQ Are these “prediction markets” or “options”? Nasdaq is filing them as listed options — specifically “Outcome-Related Options” — under the SEC framework. They may feel like prediction markets because of the yes/no payoff, but the venue and rulebook matter. SR-MRX-2026-05 (PDF) How does pricing from $0.01 to $1.00 work? Think of the price as the market’s implied chance of the outcome being true at expiration, expressed in dollars. A $0.40 price looks like “about 40%” in simple intuition (fees and spreads aside). If the condition is met, the contract pays the fixed amount; if not, it goes to zero. What’s the difference between NDX and XND? NDX is the Nasdaq-100 index. XND is the Nasdaq-100 Micro Index (a smaller-sized benchmark often used for micro-style products). Nasdaq’s filing says it wants OROs on both. Why is Wall Street doing this now? Demand for simple, outcome-driven trades has surged. Traditional exchanges want to offer that interface inside familiar brokerage rails, while keeping products tied to well-defined underlyings (like major indexes). Bloomberg and Reuters both framed Nasdaq’s move as an attempt to bring prediction-market mechanics into a regulated listed-options format. What should traders be careful about with yes/no contracts? The simplicity can be misleading. Binary-style contracts can still lose 100% of premium at expiration, and pricing can move sharply near the cutoff. The most important details are settlement language, fees, and spreads — not the headline format. Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency trading involves significant risk of loss. Prices are highly volatile and can change rapidly. Regulatory policies and implementation details are subject to change. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal or financial advice. Always conduct your own research (DYOR) and consult qualified professionals before making decisions.

PANews reported on March 6th that, according to The Block, the Federal Reserve released a Q&A document clarifying that banks should treat tokenized securities according to existing capital rules, emphasizing that the existing framework is "technology-neutral." The Fed stated that the technology used to issue or transfer securities (including blockchain technology) will not affect its regulatory capital treatment, and eligible tokenized securities should be treated under the same rules as non-tokenized securities. Tokenized securities can be used as financial collateral if they meet the same legal and risk management requirements as traditional securities. The Fed added that capital rules do not provide differential treatment regardless of whether permissioned or permissionless blockchains are used. This move follows the SEC's clarification in January that tokenized securities must still comply with federal securities laws, providing further guidance from regulators on the on-chain application of traditional assets.

BlockBeats News, March 6th - According to an official announcement from Solv Protocol, a limited exploit occurred in a single BRO Vault, affecting a very small number of users (less than 10). The amount impacted is 38.0474 SolvBTC, approximately equivalent to $2.7 million. All other vaults and user funds remain secure and unaffected. Solv Protocol is actively investigating with security partners and has taken measures to prevent any recurrence of such incidents. Solv Protocol will cover the related losses for the affected users.Additionally, the official team has sent a message to the hacker, offering a 10% white hat bounty if the funds are returned promptly.