Category: Crypto

• Cryptos rebound with Bitcoin, Ethereum surging as tariff delay bolsters market confidence.
• Ethereum nears breakout at $1,720 EMA with SEC, Pectra updates as potential catalysts.
• XRP tests $2.25 resistance; Ripple lawsuit outcome crucial for upward trajectory.
• Looking for actionable trade ideas to navigate the current market volatility? Subscribe here to unlock access to InvestingPro’s AI-selected stock winners.

The recent uncertainty caused by global trade wars has reduced risk appetite and deeply affected the cryptocurrency market. The total cryptocurrency market capitalization fell as low as November 2024 levels in the first week of April, giving back all the gains made by the Trump rally.

In the process, gained as much as 15% on a move towards $85,000 after testing below $75,000. Among the altcoins with large market capitalization, recovered close to 20%, 15%, and 30%.

However, given the bearish trend since December, the current rebound does not yet signal a clear trend reversal. Nevertheless, technically critical levels have been reached, and the possibility of a new directional breakout is strengthening.

Cryptocurrencies started to recover after US President Donald Trump announced a 90-day delay on tariffs. This helped ease market pressure and boosted investor confidence. News over the weekend about possible tax exemptions for the tech sector also lifted the mood. However, there is still a lot of confusion and mixed information about this.

At this point, although uncertainty about tariffs continues, the fact that the markets have largely priced in these developments and the lack of new negative news may create an opportunity for a short-term recovery.

Ethereum Gains Support

Ethereum continues to move by maintaining the falling channel pattern. Finally, with the purchases coming from the average level of $ 1,420, which corresponds to the lower band of the channel, ETH rose to $ 1,600. However, the recovery has slowed down in the middle band of the channel.

In order for the recovery to continue, the 21-day EMA (average $ 1,720) level corresponding to the middle band is critical. Daily closes above this level could be an important signal for the trend to break to the upside. In this case, with a test of the $1,900 level and an upside breach of the channel, it may be possible for ETH to head towards the $2,200-2,400 band.

On the other hand, selling pressure at the $1,700 level could push ETH back to lows below $1,400. Two important developments may affect the Ethereum market in the coming period: The postponement of the Pectra update and the SEC’s postponement of the staking decision for Ethereum ETFs until June. If successful, these developments could be important catalysts for ETH.

XRP Stuck at Critical Thresholds

XRP has climbed back to the $2 level after falling as low as $1.62 in recent days. However, the rise is limited at the resistance of $ 2.15. Currently, $ 2.11 stands out as support and $ 2.25 as resistance.

The persistence of the XRP price above $ 2.25 may technically bring the $ 2.36-2.50-2.75 targets to the agenda, respectively. Otherwise, the $2 level will act as a critical support. If this point is broken, the price may fall back to the $ 1.60-1.80 band and then to $ 1.15.

If the deal is formalized in Ripple’s ongoing lawsuit with the SEC, it could be a significant upside trigger for XRP. However, uncertainty remains and possible selling pressure is still on the table.

Price Squeezes on BNB

BNB Although it tested below $550 in the first quarter of the year, support was maintained with purchases from this region. Technically, this level is still the critical lower limit. However, the downward trend continued with lower peak formations in the rises.

The last recovery seems to have slowed down in the $585-590 band. Exceeding this region and crossing the $ 615 level may be the beginning of an upward trend in the short term. Otherwise, the price is likely to head towards $550 again and fluctuate within the triangle formation range. This movement should be carefully monitored as it approaches the pattern’s boundary levels.

SOL Completes the Double Top Pattern

SOL completed the $260 double top pattern it formed in November and January, falling to $100 in February. In this process, the neckline at $ 180 was broken and the target fell to the levels required by the pattern.

While the recovery process started with reaction purchases from $ 100, the cryptocurrency finally gave a signal of strength by breaking the $ 125 resistance. This level is now being monitored as the closest support. Above, the $140 level stands out as a critical resistance zone.

If $140 is exceeded, the $160-180-200 levels could be potential targets. However, if the $ 125 support is broken, there will be a risk of sagging below $ 100.

****

Be sure to check out InvestingPro to stay in sync with the market trend and what it means for your trading. Whether you’re a novice investor or a seasoned trader, leveraging InvestingPro can unlock a world of investment opportunities while minimizing risks amid the challenging market backdrop.

Subscribe now and instantly unlock access to several market-beating features, including:

• ProPicks AI: AI-selected stock winners with proven track record.
• InvestingPro Fair Value: Instantly find out if a stock is underpriced or overvalued.
• Advanced Stock Screener: Search for the best stocks based on hundreds of selected filters, and criteria.
• Top Ideas: See what stocks billionaire investors such as Warren Buffett, Michael Burry, and George Soros are buying.

Disclaimer: This article is written for informational purposes only. It is not intended to encourage the purchase of assets in any way, nor does it constitute a solicitation, offer, recommendation or suggestion to invest. I would like to remind you that all assets are evaluated from multiple perspectives and are highly risky, so any investment decision and the associated risk belongs to the investor. We also do not provide any investment advisory services.

In the United States, the twentieth century began with a centralization of power that replaced key elements of the tradition of American liberty with a new interpretation of federal authority. Participants in the 1910 Jekyll Island Conference wrote the Federal Reserve Act, passed into law in 1913, which established the Federal Reserve, the US Central Bank. The Fed was given the dual mandate of keeping inflation low and employment high, and the main tools it had at its disposal were control over the money supply and control over the price of money via the federal funds rate. Before long, the Fed was put to the test when an unprecedented financial crisis in 1929 metastasized into the economic crisis we call the Great Depression. The Fed neither prevented nor ameliorated either crisis, but the conclusion many economists and political leaders drew from this was that the state needed to exert more control over American economic life. The subsequent authoritarian turn in the United States mirrored the trajectories of other countries: When US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) issued Executive Order 6102 in 1933, which ordered everyone living in the United States to surrender their gold to the US Treasury and suspended the redeemability of dollars for gold, he was engaging in asset confiscations that mirrored those executed by other authoritarian leaders of the same era, including Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler.^,

During the First and Second World Wars, countries allied with the United States purchased American-made weapons with gold. This led the US to amass the world’s largest gold stockpile. As the Second World War drew to a close, allied nations met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to determine the outlines of a postwar international monetary order. They decided to establish the US dollar—once again redeemable for gold—as the global reserve currency. The same conference also resulted in the foundation of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, multinational lending institutions whose mandate was ostensibly to facilitate and balance trade between nations while promoting international development, but whose mixed legacy has included the ensnaring of dozens of poor countries in webs of inescapable debt peonage.

Meanwhile, in the United States, a postwar military-industrial complex emerged that ensured both the normalization of a wartime posture in peacetime and GDP-enhancing arms dealing to allies and others. The routinization of war as a central pillar of American anticommunist foreign policy—beginning with the Korean War and continuing in Vietnam, Laos, Lebanon, Cambodia, Grenada, Libya, Panama, and other countries, not to mention the countless clandestine operations and proxy wars that occurred during this time—had to be funded somehow. This imperative led the Nixon administration to suspend the redeemability of dollars for gold in 1971 and, a few years later, to strike an informal agreement with the government of Saudi Arabia to denominate oil purchases in dollars and recycle those dollars back into the US economy. This petrodollar agreement, although it had the characteristics of a treaty, was concluded entirely in secret by the executive branch, in part to bypass the constitutional requirement that Congress approve all treaties into which the United States enters.

The petrodollar system is now itself unraveling, as major oil producers around the world have begun pricing oil in other currencies. That is a predictable international response to US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, which has insisted on unipolar American dominance in the conduct of international trade and military operations. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in particular, became the pretext for the United States to declare an open-ended war on terror and to spend trillions of dollars on foreign wars, to remilitarize or fragment countries that would otherwise have been on trajectories toward greater stability, and, most consequentially, to formally militarize the US homeland via the establishment of a new military command (USNORTHCOM) and new executive department (the Department of Homeland Security).

The militarization of the homeland—anathema to the founders of the United States—has entailed snuffing out the last vestiges of a citizen’s right to privacy in the name of counterterrorism via the AML/KYC of everything. The roots of this development extend to the 1970s, long before the war on terror. Indeed, the 1970s can be seen as the decade in which the Banker Revolution came into full maturity and the American experiment in liberty truly unraveled. The Bank Secrecy Act kicked off the decade with its passage by Congress in 1970. It required US-based financial institutions to keep records of all financial transactions that “have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, and regulatory investigations or proceedings,” as interpreted by the US Treasury, and to share those records with any law enforcement agency upon request. Likewise, financial institutions had to report the transfer of any amount over $5,000 into or out of the United States. The Treasury subsequently promulgated a rule under the legislation that all domestic transactions over $10,000 had to be reported. That reporting threshold has remained unchanged until the present day, despite the fact that even under conservative estimates, the US dollar has lost nearly 90% of its purchasing power since 1970.^,

The Bank Secrecy Act represented an unprecedented erosion of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless search and seizure. Although it was challenged, the Supreme Court upheld the law in United States v. Miller (1976), which established the third-party doctrine: That Americans have no reasonable expectation of constitutional protections for records held by a third party. This ruling surprised and outraged some, which in turn led Congress to pass the Right to Financial Privacy Act two years later (1978). However, this act carved out twenty substantial exceptions to the right to financial privacy, which ended up weakening privacy protections even further. In the same year, Congress also passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), whose stated purpose was curtailing illegal surveillance practices by federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the wake of abuses by the Nixon administration. However, the FISA purported to achieve this by establishing a kangaroo court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a secret court that issues classified warrants for virtually any surveillance activity requested by the state.^,,,

The Bank Secrecy Act (1970), United States v. Miller (1976), the Right to Financial Privacy Act (1978), and the FISA (1978) were the seeds of the full surveillance system of government we have today in the United States. These four legal maneuvers killed American liberty long before personal computers or the internet had any meaningful traction in the world, but they have been used to justify the full collection and sharing of financial-transaction data (and communication data more broadly) that occur via software platforms and digital networks—the virtually inescapable infrastructures of modern life. They have also given rise to, at minimum, eight additional federal laws that have vastly broadened the scope of legal surveillance: The Money Laundering Control Act (1986); the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (1988); the Annunzio-Wiley Anti-Money Laundering Act (1992); the Money Laundering Suppression Act (1994); the Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act (1998); the USA PATRIOT Act (2001); the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (2004); and the FISA Amendments Act (2008), which includes the infamous Section 702 amendment, which authorizes the circumvention even of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when authorized by the attorney general and the director of national intelligence. Finally, these laws and legal decisions have served as justification for the formation of at least three new intelligence agencies with the mandate to collect and share financial-transaction data worldwide: The Financial Action Task Force (1989), FinCEN (1990), and the US Treasury Office of Intelligence and Analysis (2004).

In short, within a generation, the US banking system, which had been centralized at the beginning of the twentieth century, became an extension of the policing function of the state. The revolving door between Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury—a career circuit in which elites cycle between appointments at these institutions—has only accelerated the flywheel of collusion between those who make and enforce laws and those who control money. This has ensured that the machine first built by the Banker Revolution and then bolstered by the petrodollar system keeps running well for elites via unofficial coordination and official bailouts. The actions taken by nation-states worldwide following the 2008 Great Financial Crisis did not right any of these wrongs. Bankers were bailed out in virtually all countries, save in outliers like Iceland. They were bailed out again, along with much of industry, in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the US, these bailouts get sanctioned, renewed, and funded through zero-debate omnibus bills endorsed by leaders of both political parties.

But the 1970s did not just merge banks with the state and usher in the end of financial privacy; the decade also inaugurated rule by state of emergency, a practice in which US presidents declare national emergencies in order to arrogate to themselves powers that would otherwise be prohibited them by the Constitution. In 1976, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act (NEA), which formalized the process by which a president could declare a state of emergency. Although ostensibly intended to limit the president’s emergency powers, the formalization was so procedurally precise and broad in scope that it resulted in presidents declaring national emergencies with much greater frequency. President Jimmy Carter declared the first national emergency under this law in 1979—Executive Order 12170—imposing sanctions on Iran in the wake of the Iranian hostage crisis. To do this, he also relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that authorizes presidents to freeze the assets of and block transactions with any entity outside of the United States if they decide that it poses an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

This combination of laws effectively gave US presidents unilateral power to prohibit and punish economic activity by anyone, anywhere in the world, simply by declaring a national emergency. Because transactions in US dollars generally pass through a US-controlled financial network, and because the dollar remains the world’s primary commercial unit of account and sovereign reserve currency, the NEA and IEEPA—domestic US laws—have been used to punish people and organizations otherwise operating outside of US jurisdiction. As a result, the executive branch of the US government—US presidents and the US Treasury Department, the cabinet agency that enforces presidential orders pertaining to financial transactions—extend a form of effective rule over most of the world.

Executive Order 12170 was only the first instance of the United States imposing sanctions on a foreign nation via executive order. Since that time, the executive order has become a routine way for US presidents to bypass the lengthy legislative process to impose sanctions quickly. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, always invoked in conjunction with the National Emergencies Act, has been used to legitimate nearly seventy separate emergency declarations, amounting to a roster of over fifteen thousand sanctions, and counting.^, In addition, the US has also used its influence over the United Nations Security Council to pass a host of resolutions imposing multilateral sanctions on specific entities and those associated with them; member states are then obligated to enforce these sanctions under chapter 7 of the UN Charter. UN sanctions are implemented without legal due process, and many of their target entities have never been accused or convicted of a crime. The ease with which sanctions can be imposed and their popularity as a tool of punishment and coercion, which on the surface appears to have few downsides for American politicians, have contributed to their accelerating proliferation. As of this writing, the United States has sanctioned approximately one-third of all countries in the world. The enforcement of these sanctions has become so onerous that the Treasury Department is experiencing record staff turnover and an unmanageable caseload. Another revolving door has emerged: Between the Treasury and private legal, consulting, and lobbying firms, as former Treasury officials leverage their understanding of the byzantine sanctions system and their government connections to secure better political and legal outcomes for their clients.

Perhaps most importantly, however, sanctions appear to have little political effect on the regimes they target. With few exceptions, autocratic regimes remain in place, while democracies subject to sanctions tend to react by spending more on defense, further entrenching existing regime power. The sheer number of countries sanctioned by the United States has incentivized dozens of countries to forge new geopolitical alliances and to build alternative financial systems that can avoid the US-controlled banking system entirely. What sanctions have been shown to achieve, however, is routinized poverty, if not economic collapse, that affects the people of sanctioned countries.^, This reliably turns the hearts and minds of sanctioned populations against the United States, breeding resentment and enmity for decades. Even so-called smart sanctions, which target specific industries or specific entities, are usually ineffective politically; their limited scope and weak incentives for those in power create insufficient pressure to force the desired change in policy or regime turnover. Moreover, their actual implementation tends to have binary effects on targeted parties: Travel bans and asset freezes can be relatively minor inconveniences for powerful actors who have planned ahead, while arms embargoes and bans on commodity exports from targeted countries create more collateral damage than they purport to. This obviously calls into question whether such sanctions can be called smart in the first place.
There is a perversity to the consolidation of bank-state power since the 1970s: Most of the legislation recounted above was introduced with the ostensible public objective of limiting the power of seemingly unaccountable actors. The Bank Secrecy Act was intended to limit the power of banks. The National Emergencies Act was intended to limit the power of the presidency. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was intended to limit the power of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. However, all of these attempts produced exactly the opposite of their publicly intended effects because they suffered from a fundamental and fatal error: Seeking to achieve by statute a limit that was already in the framework of the Constitution. By overriding the Constitution with federal law, lawmakers have created a legal, political, and military environment that has returned political assumptions to what they were prior to the American Revolution. The primary political actor is now understood to be the state; individual rights have been reconceptualized as privileges; the individual is now presumed guilty before the law; and the state is now seen as the holder of rights, money, and power, which it deploys imperially and unaccountably. These are symptoms of a political culture in deep crisis.

The Satoshi Papers is now available in the Bitcoin Magazine Store – order the paperback today or pre-order the limited Library edition, shipping mid-June 2025.

[6] Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Executive Order 6102—Forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates,” The American Presidency Project, April 5, 1933, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-6102-forbidding-the-hoarding-gold-coin-gold-bullion-and-gold-certificates.

[7] Elites largely did not lose their gold in this national asset seizure because they had alternative ways of holding the asset through trusts, companies, and custodians.

[8] For the summative historical narrative that follows, see Josh Hendrickson, “The Treasury Standard: Causes and Consequences,” in The Satoshi Papers: Reflections on Political Economy after Bitcoin, edited by Natalie Smolenski (Nashville, TN: Bitcoin Policy Institute, 2024), XX-XX; Michael Hudson, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire, Third Edition (Dresden: Islet, 2021); and Jamie Martin, The Meddlers: Sovereignty, Empire, and the Birth of Global Economic Governance (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2022).

[9] Norbert Michel and Jennifer J. Schulp, “Revising the Bank Secrecy Act to Protect Privacy and Deter Criminals,” Cato Institute, July 26, 2022, https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/revising-bank-secrecy-act-protect-privacy-deter-criminals.

[10] Aaron O’Neill, “Purchasing power of one US dollar (USD) in every year from 1635 to 2020*”, Statista, July 4, 2024, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1032048/value-us-dollar-since-1640/.

[11] US Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Purchasing Power of the Consumer Dollar in U.S. City Average,” FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, October 29, 2024,  https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SA0R.

[12] Nicholas Anthony, “The Right to Financial Privacy,” Cato Institute, May 2, 2023, https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/right-financial-privacy#right-financial-privacy-act-1978.

[13] Congressional Research Service, “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): An Overview,” April 11, 2024, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/intel/IF11451.pdf.

[14] Carol D. Leonnig, Ellen Nakashima, and Barton Gellman, “Secret-Court Judges Upset at Portrayal of ‘Collaboration’ with Government,” The Washington Post, June 29, 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-court-judges-upset-at-portrayal-of-collaboration-with-government/2013/06/29/ed73fb68-e01b-11e2-b94a-452948b95ca8_story.html.

[15] Evan Perez, “Secret Court’s Oversight Gets Scrutiny,” The Wall Street Journal, June 9, 2013, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324904004578535670310514616.

[16] Electronic Privacy Information Center, “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979–2022,” https://epic.org/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-fisc/fisa-stats/.

[17] Dan Roberts, “US Must Fix Secret Fisa Courts, Says Top Judge Who Granted Surveillance Orders,” The Guardian, July 9, 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jul/09/fisa-courts-judge-nsa-surveillance.

[18] Electronic Privacy Information Center, “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC),” https://epic.org/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-fisc/.

[19] Congressional Research Service, “The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use,” March 25, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45618/8.

[20] Congressional Research Service, “The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.”

[21] Among numerous examples, see, for instance, US Department of Justice, “Credit Suisse Agrees to Forfeit $536 Million in Connection With Violations of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and New York State Law,” Press Release, December 16, 2009, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/credit-suisse-agrees-forfeit-536-million-connection-violations-international-emergency.

[22] Brennan Center for Justice, “A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use,” September 4, 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20200401070744/https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-emergency-powers-and-their-use.

[23] Jeff Stein and Federica Cocco, “The Money War: How Four U.S. Presidents Unleashed Economic Warfare Across the Globe,” The Washington Post, July 25, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2024/us-sanction-countries-work/.

[24] See, for example, United Nations Security Council, “Resolution 1267,” Adopted October 15, 1999, 4051st Annual Meeting, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n99/300/44/pdf/n9930044.pdf.

[25] Joy Gordon, “Smart Sanctions Revisited,” Ethics & International Affairs 25, no. 3 (2011), 315–35, doi:10.1017/S0892679411000323.

[26] Agathe Demarais, Backfire: How Sanctions Reshape the World Against US Interests (New York: Columbia University Press, 2023).

[27] Stein and Cocco, “The Money War.”

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Demarais, Backfire.

[31] Jerg Gutmann, Matthias Neuenkirch, and Florian Neumeier, “The Economic Effects of International Sanctions: An Event Study,” Journal of Comparative Economics 51, no. 4 (December 2023), 1214–31.

[32] Demarais, Backfire. BRICS+ is the most notable recent example of this geopolitical and financial realignment.

[33] Francisco R. Rodríguez, “The Human Consequences of Economic Sanctions,” Center for Economic and Policy Research, May 4, 2023, https://cepr.net/report/the-human-consequences-of-economic-sanctions/.

[34] Gordon, “Smart Sanctions Revisited.”

Key takeaways

• Stablecoin attestation reports provide third-party verification that each token is backed by real-world assets like cash and US Treasurys.

• Attestation ≠ audit: Attestations are point-in-time checks, not deep financial audits, so users should still perform broader due diligence.

• Not all tokens are redeemable. Time-locked, test or frozen tokens are excluded from reserve calculations to reflect only actively circulating coins.

• USDC sets an industry benchmark with regular third-party attestations, transparent reserve reporting and compliance with MiCA regulations.

Stablecoins play a crucial role in the digital asset ecosystem, bridging traditional fiat currencies and the decentralized world of cryptocurrencies. 

How can you be confident that each stablecoin is backed by real-world assets? This is where stablecoin attestation reports come in. 

Understanding how to read attestation reports is essential for anyone interacting with stablecoins like USDC (USDC) or Tether USDt (USDT). 

This guide explains everything you need to know about stablecoin attestation reports, how they work and why they matter.

What is a stablecoin attestation report?

A stablecoin attestation report is a formal document issued by an independent third party  —  a certified public accountant (CPA) firm — that verifies whether the stablecoin issuer holds sufficient reserves to back the coins in circulation. 

Unlike full audits, which evaluate broader financial systems and controls, attestations are narrower in scope. They confirm specific facts, like whether reserve balances match circulating supply at a single point in time.

Think of an attestation as a snapshot taken by accountants saying, “Yes, we’ve checked, and the money is there right now.”

It’s not as deep or wide as an audit, but it still builds trust.

For example, if a stablecoin issuer claims that each token is backed 1:1 by US dollars, an attestation report would provide evidence supporting that claim. Stablecoins like USDC regularly publish such reports to prove that their coins are fully backed, helping to build trust in their ecosystem.

Attestation reports are especially critical for investors and institutions that depend on stablecoins for cross-border settlements, collateral in lending protocols and participation in decentralized finance (DeFi) applications. Without confidence in the reserves’ authenticity, the stablecoin system risks collapse, which can impact the broader crypto market.

Purpose of stablecoin attestations: Why transparency matters?

Transparency is essential in the crypto space, especially for stablecoins, which serve as a medium of exchange, a store of value and collateral on DeFi platforms. Attestation reports offer a window into a stablecoin issuer’s reserves and disclosure practices, allowing users, regulators and investors to evaluate whether the issuer is operating responsibly.

Issuers like Circle, the company behind USDC, publish attestation reports to demonstrate compliance with regulatory expectations and assure users that the coins they hold are not only stable in name but also in substance. In doing so, they promote stablecoin investor safety and support market integrity.

This transparency builds the foundation for regulatory trust and helps attract traditional financial institutions into the space. It also aligns with broader industry goals for increasing stablecoin compliance, particularly as governments worldwide explore stablecoin-specific regulations.

Who conducts the attestation?

Stablecoin attestation reports are prepared by independent accounting firms. For instance, Circle’s USDC attestation reports are conducted by Deloitte (as of April 13, 2025), a leading global audit and advisory firm. These firms follow professional standards set by bodies like the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants).

Independent attestors are essential because they remove conflicts of interest. Having a third-party review reserves ensures that the information is unbiased, credible and aligned with global assurance standards.

AICPA’s 2025 criteria: Standardizing stablecoin attestations

In response to growing concerns over inconsistent stablecoin disclosures, the AICPA introduced the 2025 Criteria for Stablecoin Reporting, a standardized framework for fiat-pegged, asset-backed tokens. 

These criteria define how stablecoin issuers should present and disclose three key areas: 

1. Redeemable tokens outstanding.

2. The availability and composition of redemption assets.

3. The comparison between the two.

What makes the 2025 Criteria important is its emphasis on transparency and comparability. For example, token issuers must clearly define redeemable versus nonredeemable tokens (such as time-locked or test tokens), identify where and how reserves are held and disclose any material legal or operational risks affecting redemption.

By aligning attestation reports with this framework, accounting firms ensure that evaluations are conducted using suitable, objective and measurable criteria, a key requirement under US attestation standards. This gives investors, regulators and DeFi users a more consistent and reliable basis for evaluating stablecoin solvency and trustworthiness.

As adoption grows, the 2025 Criteria may become the industry benchmark, especially as regulatory bodies increasingly rely on standardized reporting to assess stablecoin risks and enforce compliance.

Did you know? Not all stablecoins in circulation are redeemable. Some, like time-locked tokens, are temporarily restricted and can’t be accessed until a specific date. Others, known as test tokens, are used only for internal system testing and are never meant to be redeemed. These tokens are excluded from reserve calculations in attestation reports to ensure an accurate picture of what’s backing user-accessible stablecoins.

Behind the peg: How to read a stablecoin report and spot real backing

Reading a stablecoin attestation report isn’t just about scanning numbers. It’s about knowing whether the stablecoin you’re holding is backed. 

Here’s how to break it down step by step and spot what really matters:

• Check the report date: Attestations are point-in-time reviews. Look for the exact date the report covers (e.g., Feb. 28, 2025). It confirms reserves on that day only, not before or after.

• Compare circulating supply vs reserves: Find the number of tokens in circulation and the total value of reserves. The reserves should be equal to or greater than the supply. If not, that’s a red flag.

• Look at what backs the reserves: Reserves should be held in safe, liquid assets like US Treasurys or cash in regulated financial institutions. Watch out for risky or vague asset descriptions.

• Review custodian and asset details: Check who’s holding the funds (e.g., major banks or money market funds) and where they’re stored. Remember, reputable custodians add credibility.

• Understand the methodology: The report should explain how the review was conducted, what data was verified, what systems were used and which standards (like AICPA) were followed.

• Identify excluded tokens: Some tokens, like test tokens or time-locked tokens, are excluded from circulation counts. Look for notes explaining these exceptions.

• Check who performed the attestation: An independent and recognized accounting firm (like Deloitte or Grant Thornton) adds legitimacy. If the attestor isn’t disclosed or independent, treat with caution. A signed statement from the accounting firm verifies the accuracy of the issuer’s claims.

Investors may also look for supplementary notes within the report, such as jurisdiction of reserve accounts, legal encumbrances on assets or clarification of valuation techniques. All these elements help paint a fuller picture of risk and reliability.

What the February 2025 USDC attestation report reveals

In March 2025, Circle released its latest reserve attestation report, offering a transparent look at what backs one of the most widely used digital dollars in crypto.

The report was independently examined by Deloitte, one of the “Big Four” global accounting firms. Deloitte confirmed that, as of both Feb. 4 and Feb. 28, 2025, the fair value of Circle’s reserves was equal to or greater than the amount of USDC in circulation.

The below snapshot from Circle’s February 2025 attestation report shows that the amount of USDC in circulation stood at $54.95 billion on Feb. 4 and $56.28 billion on Feb. 28. The fair value of reserves held to back USDC exceeded these figures, totaling $55.01 billion and $56.35 billion on the respective dates.

What’s in the reserves?

Circle holds its USDC reserves mainly in:

These assets are kept separate from Circle’s corporate funds and are managed through the Circle Reserve Fund, a regulated money market fund.

The attestation also accounts for technical factors like “access-denied” tokens (e.g., frozen due to legal or compliance reasons) and tokens not yet issued, ensuring an accurate measure of circulating USDC.

For users, this means greater confidence that every USDC token is backed by high-quality, liquid assets, just like the company claims.

Did you know? As of Feb. 4 and Feb. 28, 2025, 993,225 USDC remained permanently frozen on deprecated blockchains, including the FLOW blockchain. These tokens are excluded from the official USDC in circulation totals reported by Circle.

How are stablecoin reserves verified?

Stablecoin attestation reports serve as a form of proof of reserves, providing independent confirmation that a stablecoin issuer holds enough assets to back the tokens in circulation. The verification process typically involves several key steps:

• Reviewing bank statements and financial records.

• Confirming cash balances held by custodians.

• Cross-checking reported reserves with third-party documentation.

• Comparing the supply of stablecoins onchain with the reported reserve amount.

As mentioned, these procedures are carried out by independent accounting firms and are designed to ensure that the reserves are not only sufficient but also liquid and accessible.

Some attestation reports also include details on the tools and technologies used to maintain transparency, such as real-time API integrations with custodians and onchain monitoring systems. These advancements are helping bridge the gap between traditional finance and blockchain, reinforcing trust through verifiable, tamper-resistant data.

What happens if reserves don’t match supply?

If an attestation report reveals that a stablecoin issuer does not hold sufficient reserves, the consequences can be severe. The issuer may face:

• Regulatory scrutiny: Noncompliance with financial regulations.

• Market sell-offs: A drop in user confidence may lead to mass redemptions.

• Price instability: The stablecoin may lose its 1:1 peg.

These concerns highlight the need for regular, transparent crypto reserve reports. For instance, Tether has faced ongoing criticism for the lack of clarity surrounding its reserves, fueling demands for greater disclosure. This opacity has also led to Tether’s delisting in Europe under Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulations as exchanges brace for stricter compliance requirements.

Lack of transparency can also invite speculation and misinformation, which can cause unnecessary panic in the markets. As a result, proactive disclosure is not just a best practice; it’s a business imperative for stablecoin issuers.

Limitations of stablecoin attestation reports

While attestation reports are crucial, they are not a cure-all. Here are some limitations:

• Point-in-time snapshots: Reports only verify reserves on a specific date.

• No forward-looking guarantees: Attestations don’t predict future solvency.

• Limited operational insight: They typically don’t cover risks like hacking, mismanagement or liquidity issues.

For example, the latest USDC attestation (as discussed in this article) confirms full reserves as of Feb. 4 and Feb. 28, 2025, but it says nothing about what happens on March 1 or any day after. Users must understand these limitations and avoid assuming that attestation equals absolute safety.

This is why combining attestation reports with other forms of due diligence like reading legal disclaimers, following regulatory updates and tracking company behavior is key for responsible crypto participation.

Not just a report — A roadmap to trust in crypto

Reading a stablecoin attestation report is more than scanning numbers; it’s a key step in assessing the trustworthiness of a digital asset. By understanding how to read attestation reports, crypto users can make informed decisions, avoid unnecessary risks and support projects that prioritize stablecoin compliance and transparency.

With clearer frameworks from institutions like the AICPA and growing public pressure for stablecoin disclosure practices, the ecosystem is moving toward greater accountability. As regulators sharpen their focus and investors demand more visibility, learning to navigate crypto attestation reports will become an essential skill for all participants in the crypto economy.

Whether you’re a retail investor, developer or institutional player, mastering these reports helps protect your assets and support a more transparent and trustworthy crypto future.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.

• Tariff uncertainty and weak inflation data continue to weigh on the dollar’s short-term outlook.
• DXY struggles to hold 100 level; technical signals suggest risk of further downward move.
• Fed policy direction remains unclear amid stagflation concerns and conflicting economic signals.
• Looking for actionable trade ideas to navigate the current market volatility? Subscribe here to unlock access to InvestingPro’s AI-selected stock winners.

The continues to be under pressure due to President Donald Trump’s protectionist trade policies, especially his aggressive rhetoric and frequently changing stance on tariffs. Trump’s announcement that there will be no exceptions to tariffs on electronic products creates uncertainty in global markets and continues to undermine investor confidence.

The dollar started the new week at 100 after dropping to 99 last week. But early trades showed another decline, and it moved back toward the 99 level.

This means the dollar is now at its lowest level in three years. The dollar’s losses are especially noticeable against the and the . The exchange rate also started testing the 1.14 level, showing that the dollar is losing its image as a safe investment.

Looking at macroeconomic data, the decline in both headline and core and data released in the US signaled a temporary weakening in inflationary pressures. This has increased expectations for an cut by . While the markets are pricing a 25 basis point rate cut in May at 20% probability, this rate rises to 80% in June.

Markets expect a total rate cut of 80 basis points in the US this year, which could keep the dollar under pressure.

However, the European Central Bank (ECB) is also expected to cut by 25 basis points at its meeting on Thursday. This may limit the euro’s gains against the dollar. The ECB is now focusing more on supporting growth than fighting inflation, showing a dovish approach. This could slow down the euro’s rise in the short term and help the dollar find some balance.

Trade War Undermines Dollar’s Safe-Haven Status

US President Trump’s mixed messages on tariffs—being tough one day and pulling back the next—are hurting investor trust in US economic policy. This loss of confidence is causing short-term market swings and even raising doubts about the dollar’s role as the world’s main reserve currency.

The recent tax exemption debate on electronic products is another sign of the ongoing uncertainty. President Trump said there would be no exemptions, which conflicted with earlier reports that some tech products might be spared. These contradictions make it hard for the market to understand or follow his policies.

At the same time, Trump’s unclear trade stance with China and his aggressive trade moves are putting pressure on the US economy’s growth outlook. If inflation rises while growth slows, it could lead to stagflation—a risky situation with both inflation and weak growth.

This makes it very hard to set the right course for monetary policy. The Fed needs to cut interest rates to support the economy, but it might also need to raise rates if inflation picks up. These opposite needs could leave monetary policy tools stretched thin.

Still, some members of the Federal Reserve are trying to calm markets, saying the bank has other tools beyond interest rates to manage the economy.

Falling Inflation Provides Temporary Relief

The decline in CPI and PPI data released last week led to further pressure on the dollar. The decline in headline and core inflation on an annual basis has eased the pressure on the Fed, at least for now. This led to the repricing of interest rate cut expectations and paved the way for the to fall below the 100 level. However, market professionals are not sure whether this decline is permanent. Because a “stagflation” scenario, in which growth will slow down due to the impact of trade wars and this slowdown may simultaneously increase inflation, is being increasingly pronounced.

This week, markets will focus on the US , Eurozone and ECB interest decision. In the Eurozone, headline inflation is expected to fall to 2.2% and remain stable at 2.4%. Over the weekend, US and European markets will be open for 4 days due to the Easter holiday, which may increase volatility.

Technical Outlook on DXY

From a technical perspective, the Dollar Index (DXY) dropped sharply after losing support in the 103–104 range earlier this month. It quickly fell to the key psychological level of 100, which may continue to act as an important short-term support.

On the daily chart, both the short-term moving averages and the Stochastic RSI are still showing bearish signals. The dollar’s recovery attempts at 100 are weakening, suggesting that if the index fails to hold above this level in the coming days, the downward move could continue toward the Fibonacci expansion zone between 94 and 97.

If Federal Reserve Chair Powell makes hawkish comments on interest rates this week, it could help support the dollar, triggering buying interest and possibly pushing the DXY back above 100. In such a scenario, we might see a move up to the 101.5–102 range. Additionally, any signals from the European Central Bank (ECB) could also influence short-term dollar movements.

However, the current environment still points to a downward trend for the dollar in the near term. The direction will largely depend on how Trump handles tariff issues, the progress of US-China trade talks, and the Fed’s communication.

Looking at the latest developments, pressure on the dollar is likely to continue in the short term. For a lasting recovery, a pause in the trade war and greater political stability in the US will be necessary.

****

Be sure to check out InvestingPro to stay in sync with the market trend and what it means for your trading. Whether you’re a novice investor or a seasoned trader, leveraging InvestingPro can unlock a world of investment opportunities while minimizing risks amid the challenging market backdrop.

Subscribe now and instantly unlock access to several market-beating features, including:

• ProPicks AI: AI-selected stock winners with proven track record.
• InvestingPro Fair Value: Instantly find out if a stock is underpriced or overvalued.
• Advanced Stock Screener: Search for the best stocks based on hundreds of selected filters, and criteria.
• Top Ideas: See what stocks billionaire investors such as Warren Buffett, Michael Burry, and George Soros are buying.

Disclaimer: This article is written for informational purposes only. It is not intended to encourage the purchase of assets in any way, nor does it constitute a solicitation, offer, recommendation or suggestion to invest. I would like to remind you that all assets are evaluated from multiple perspectives and are highly risky, so any investment decision and the associated risk belongs to the investor. We also do not provide any investment advisory services.

Bitcoin (BTC) made a brilliant comeback this week, rising more than 7%, indicating solid buying at lower levels. BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes said in a post on X that the US bond market crisis could be setting the stage for more policy response, and that could result in an “up only mode” for Bitcoin.

Blockchain and intelligence platform Glassnode said in a post on X that Bitcoin had built solid support at $79,000, with roughly 40,000 Bitcoin accumulated there. Bollinger Bands creator John Bollinger also echoed similar views. In a post on X, Bollinger said that Bitcoin was forming a “classic Bollinger Band W bottom,” but it needed confirmation.

Market participants will be closely watching the performance of the US dollar index (DXY), which is trading below the 100 level. Any further weakness in the US dollar could be bullish for Bitcoin. 

If Bitcoin manages to hold on to the higher levels, it is likely to boost the sentiment in the cryptocurrency sector. That could trigger a recovery in select altcoins. What are the cryptocurrencies that may benefit from Bitcoin’s strength?   

Bitcoin price analysis

Bitcoin broke and closed above the resistance line on April 12, which is the first indication that the corrective phase may be ending.

The bears are unlikely to give up easily and will try to pull the price back below the 20-day exponential moving average ($82,885). If they manage to do that, it suggests that the bears remain active at higher levels. The BTC/USDT pair could then drop to $78,500.

Buyers are likely to have other plans. They will try to defend the 20-day EMA on the way down. If the price rebounds off the 20-day EMA, it will signal a change in sentiment from selling on rallies to buying on dips. That enhances the prospects of a rally to $89,000 and, after that, to $95,000.

The 20-EMA is sloping up, and the relative strength index (RSI) is in the positive territory, indicating an advantage to the bulls. A rebound off the 20-EMA suggests that the bulls are trying to flip the resistance line into support. The pair may face selling at $89,000, but it is likely to be crossed. That could propel the pair to the $92,000 to $95,000 zone.

On the downside, the moving averages are the crucial support for the bulls to defend. If they fail in their endeavor, the pair could plummet to $78,500.

Hyperliquid price analysis

Hyperliquid (HYPE) closed above the 50-day SMA ($15.14) on April 11 and reached the overhead resistance of $17.35 on April 12.

The 20-day EMA ($13.84) has started to turn up, and the RSI has risen near 56, suggesting buyers have the edge. Sellers are trying to defend the $17.35 resistance, but if the bulls prevail, the HYPE/USDT pair could start a rally to $21 and subsequently to $25.

This optimistic view will be negated in the near term if the price turns down from $17.35 and breaks below the 20-day EMA. The pair could then fall to $12, which is expected to attract buyers.

The pair has pulled back to the 20-EMA, which is a critical near-term support to watch out for. If the price bounces off the 20-EMA with strength, it signals buying on dips. The bulls will then make one more attempt to overcome the barrier at $17.35. If they succeed, the pair may rise to $21. There is minor resistance at $18, but it is likely to be crossed. 

Sellers will have to pull and sustain the price back below the 20-EMA to weaken the bullish momentum. The pair could then descend to the 50-SMA.

Ondo price analysis

Ondo (ONDO) has broken out of the downtrend line, suggesting that the bears may be losing their grip.

The recovery is facing selling near $0.96 but may find support at the 20-day EMA ($0.83) on the way down. If the price rebounds off the 20-day EMA, the bulls will again try to drive the ONDO/USDT pair above $0.96. If they manage to do that, the pair could pick up momentum and rally toward $1.20.

Sellers are likely to have other plans. They will try to pull the price back below the 20-day EMA. If they can pull it off, the pair could drop to $0.79 and later to $0.68.

The 4-hour chart shows that the pair is facing selling in the $0.93 to $0.96 resistance zone. Buyers will have to keep the price above the 20-EMA to maintain the upper hand. If the price rebounds off the 20-EMA with strength, the possibility of a break above $0.96 increases. The pair may then climb to $1.05 and later to $1.20.

Instead, if the price skids below the 20-EMA, it suggests that demand dries up at higher levels. The pair may then descend to the 50-SMA.

Related: Bitcoin price tags $86K as Trump tariff relief boosts breakout odds

Render price analysis

Render (RNDR) has reached the overhead resistance of $4.22, where the bears are expected to mount a strong defense.

The moving averages are on the verge of a bullish crossover, and the RSI has risen into the positive zone, signaling an advantage to buyers. If the price rises above $4.22, the RNDR/USDT pair will complete a double-bottom pattern. There is minor resistance at $5, but it is likely to be crossed. The pair could then climb to the pattern target of $5.94.

Contrary to this assumption, if the price turns down sharply from $4.22 and breaks below the moving averages, it signals a range-bound action in the short term.

The pair is facing selling at $4.06, but the pullback is likely to find support at the 20-EMA. If the price rebounds off the 20-EMA with strength, it will suggest that the sentiment remains positive. That improves the prospects of a break above $4.22. The pair may face resistance between $4.60 and $5, but if the price does not dip back below $4.22, it signals the start of a new up move.

Alternatively, a break and close below the 20-EMA suggests the bulls are losing their grip. The pair may then slump to the 50-SMA, signaling a consolidation in the near term.

Kaspa price analysis

Kaspa (KAS) rose and closed above the 50-day SMA ($0.07) on April 12, indicating that the selling pressure is reducing.

The 20-day EMA ($0.07) has started to turn up, and the RSI has risen into the positive territory, suggesting that the path of least resistance is to the upside. If buyers drive the price above $0.08, the KAS/USDT pair will complete a double-bottom pattern. This bullish setup has a target objective of $0.12.

Contrarily, if the price turns down from $0.08 and breaks below the 20-day EMA, it will signal a range formation. The pair may swing between $0.08 and $0.05 for some time.

The pair has turned down from $0.08 but is likely to find support at the 20-EMA. If the price rebounds off the 20-EMA, the pair could rally to the top of the range, which is a crucial resistance to watch out for. If buyers overcome the overhead barrier, the pair could start a new upmove toward $0.09.

This positive view will be invalidated in the near term if the price turns down and breaks below the $0.07 support. That could keep the pair stuck inside the range for a while longer.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.