137Labs Global

Kad es pirmo reizi ieraudzīju, ka Andreessen Horowitz (@a16zcrypto) 2025. gadā ieguva 15 miljardus ASV dolāru, mana reakcija nebija „iepriekšēja“.
Tas bija nesapratne.

Tas notika tajā laikā, ko daudzi sauc par vājāko ASV vērtspapīru finansēšanas vidi kopš 2017. gada. Kopējā ASV vērtspapīru finansēšana samazinājās līdz apmēram 66 miljardiem ASV dolāru — par 35% mazāk salīdzinājumā ar iepriekšējo gadu. Un tomēr a16z viens pats ieguva aptuveni 18% no kopējā gada kopējās summas.

Vēl interesantāk tas, ka Ben Horowitz šo neuzskatīja par parasto finansēšanas panākumu. Viņš skaidri saistīja to ar ASV–Ķīnas konkurenci un raksturoja AI un kriptovalūtas kā „kritisku nākotnes infrastruktūru.“

USD1 is positioned as a fiat-backed, 1:1 USD-redeemable stablecoin, with its issuer emphasizing institutional custody, reserve attestations, and regulatory alignment. On paper, it sits closer to USDC than to any algorithmic or synthetic stablecoin.

Yet market discussion around USD1 has been dominated not by peg stability, but by liquidity structure and transparency cadence. These concerns are not abstract — they stem from how USD1’s supply, trading venues, and disclosure practices interact in practice.

1. Where #USD1 Looks Strong: An Institutional-Oriented Design

USD1’s design choices signal a clear intent to appeal to regulated and professional capital.
· Reserve framing focuses on cash and high-liquidity U.S. government instruments.
· Custody and disclosure are routed through institutional providers, with third-party attestation reports published rather than vague self-statements.
Distribution channels include both major centralized exchanges and large on-chain venues, giving USD1 real transactional reach rather than niche usage.
· From a structural standpoint, this puts USD1 firmly in the “institutional pathway” camp. The project understands that for stablecoins at scale, credibility is built on documentation, not narratives.

2. Why Liquidity Became the Core Question

The market’s skepticism around USD1 liquidity is often misunderstood.
It is not about whether USD1 trades, nor about day-to-day peg behavior.
The real question is:
How resilient is USD1’s liquidity under stress or large directional flows?
Three structural factors drive this concern.

3. Supply Concentration: Single-Chain Dependency

For a significant period, USD1 supply has been heavily concentrated on a single chain, with only marginal circulation elsewhere.
This has two implications:
Liquidity is operationally efficient in the dominant ecosystem.
Systemic risk is also concentrated in that same ecosystem.
Concentration is not inherently negative — many assets bootstrap liquidity this way — but for a stablecoin aspiring to institutional usage, it increases sensitivity to chain-specific disruptions, policy changes, or liquidity migration events.
A globally usable stablecoin typically converges toward multi-chain distribution, not because of ideology, but because diversification improves arbitrage reliability and confidence in redemption pathways.

4. Trading Concentration: Depth vs. Distribution

USD1 trading activity has been highly concentrated in a small number of pools, particularly on a single dominant DEX.
This creates a misleading signal:
· Headline volume can look large, even impressive.
· Effective depth, however, may still be shallow when flows are directional or one-sided.
When over 80–90% of activity is tied to one venue, liquidity becomes fragile. If a single pool’s market makers reduce exposure, spreads widen immediately. The issue is not volume — it is redundancy.
Healthy stablecoin liquidity is characterized by:
· Multiple deep pools
· Cross-venue arbitrage
· Competitive market-maker participation
USD1 has volume; it is still building redundancy.

5. Transparency Cadence and the “Liquidity Discount”

Perhaps the most underappreciated factor is disclosure timing.
Even with credible attestation frameworks, delays or gaps in regular reporting introduce uncertainty. For professional market makers, uncertainty is not philosophical — it is priced.
When reserve confirmations lag:
· Market makers widen spreads
· LPs reduce inventory
· Large trades face higher slippage
In other words, transparency gaps translate directly into a liquidity discount, even if reserves are ultimately sound.
This dynamic explains why liquidity concerns can persist even without any visible peg instability.

6. Is This a Structural Flaw or a Transitional Phase?

Importantly, none of the above necessarily imply fatal weakness.
USD1 currently looks like a stablecoin in mid-transition:
· It has moved beyond niche issuance.
· It has achieved meaningful trading adoption.
· But it has not yet completed the shift toward diversified, institution-grade liquidity structure.
Historically, stablecoins that succeed at scale tend to converge toward:
Multi-chain issuance
Multi-venue depth
Predictable, uninterrupted disclosure cycles
USD1 is partially there — but not fully.

7. How to Tell If Liquidity Risk Is Improving

For observers and analysts, four signals matter more than narratives:
1. Consistency of reserve attestations (on time, every cycle)
2. Declining chain concentration of circulating supply
3. Emergence of multiple deep liquidity pools, not just one dominant venue
4. Sustained tight spreads on major CEX pairs, beyond event-driven spikes
If these improve in parallel, liquidity concerns will naturally fade — without any need for marketing.

Conclusion

USD1’s challenge is not credibility in principle, but credibility at scale.

Its institutional framing, custody choices, and disclosure intent are real strengths.
Its current liquidity profile, however, reflects concentration risk and transitional structure, amplified by imperfect transparency cadence.

In short:
USD1 does not lack demand — it lacks fully mature liquidity architecture.
Whether it becomes a durable institutional stablecoin will depend less on announcements, and more on whether its liquidity and disclosure structures can evolve faster than market skepticism.

#BTC #ETH

Institucionālās viedokļi, tirgus iekļaušana un debates par publisko stabilā kriptovalūtas izdevēju

Circle Internet Group (NYSE:

) publiskā izdevēja izvēle atklāja retu brīdi, kad pamatā esošā kriptovalūtas infrastruktūra tieši iekļāvās tradicionālajā akciju tirgū. Kā USDC izdevējs, pasaules otrā lielākā stabilā kriptovalūta, Circle ieņem pozīciju, kas nav ne tīrā fintek kompānija, ne parasta kriptovalūtu apmaiņas vietne.

No IPO laika CRCL ir kļuvis par vienu no visvairāk apspriestajām kriptovalūtas saistītām akcijām ASV tirgū — nevis tāpēc, ka ir stabilas cenas noteikšanas, bet gan tāpēc, ka ir strauja atšķirība institucionālajos viedokļos par tās ilgtermiņa lomu.

From Simple Yield Tools to a Multi-Strategy Income Framework
Over the past few years, centralized exchanges have increasingly positioned yield products as a way to retain users and improve capital efficiency. Among them, OKX has built one of the more comprehensive “Earn” product suites in the market.
Rather than offering a single fixed-income product, OKX has gradually expanded into a range of yield mechanisms, each with different risk profiles, return sources, and market dependencies. This article reviews OKX’s major Earn products and looks at how yields have behaved historically.
 1. Overview of the #OKX Earn Framework
OKX’s yield products are grouped under its Earn section, designed to help users generate returns from idle crypto assets. The core categories include:
· Simple Earn (Flexible & Fixed)
· Dual Investment
· On-chain Earn (staking and #DeFi participation)
· Other structured or strategy-based products
Each category sources yield differently, including lending interest, protocol rewards, and platform-level incentives. As a result, returns are variable rather than guaranteed.
 2. Simple Earn: The Primary Entry Point
How It Works
Simple Earn is the most widely used OKX yield product and serves as the entry-level option for most users. Assets such as USDT, #BTC , and #ETH are deposited into OKX-managed pools and may be:
· Lent to margin or borrowing markets
· Used in staking or protocol-level yield generation
· Supplemented by platform incentives during high-demand periods
Users can choose between:
· Flexible deposits, which allow instant redemption but offer floating yields
· Fixed-term deposits, which lock assets for a set period in exchange for higher expected returns
 3. Historical Yield Performance: Volatility and Peak Periods
Yields on OKX Earn products fluctuate based on market conditions, borrowing demand, and liquidity stress.
Normal Market ConditionsDuring relatively stable market periods, Simple Earn products typically offer moderate yields aligned with lending and staking rates across the industry.
Short-Term Yield Spikes
In periods of heightened market activity or liquidity imbalance, yields have shown sharp but temporary spikes:
· In late 2024, USDT Simple Earn annualized yields briefly exceeded 20–27%
· During episodes of extreme volatility in 2025, reported flexible USDT yields temporarily surged into the 40–50%+ range
These spikes were driven by sudden increases in leverage demand and short-term capital shortages, rather than structural yield changes. Rates generally normalized quickly once market conditions stabilized.
 4. Beyond Simple Earn: Product Expansion
Dual Investment
Dual Investment products allow users to earn higher yields by taking on conditional price exposure. Returns depend on whether the underlying asset settles above or below a predefined price at maturity.
This structure can enhance yield in sideways or range-bound markets, but it introduces directional risk, making it less suitable for passive investors.
On-chain Earn
On-chain Earn enables users to participate in proof-of-stake networks and selected DeFi protocols directly through OKX’s interface. Returns are tied to:
· Network staking rewards
· Protocol incentives
· Smart contract performance
While potentially attractive, these products carry additional protocol and smart contract risks.
 5. User Experience and Yield Transparency
OKX provides users with relatively granular visibility into their Earn performance:
· Daily and cumulative yield tracking
· Asset-level breakdowns
· Integration with overall portfolio PnL views
However, yields are displayed in percentage terms and do not account for underlying asset price volatility, which can materially impact real returns.
 6. Risk Considerations
Despite their convenience, OKX Earn products are not risk-free. Key considerations include:
1.Market Risk
Yield may be positive while asset prices decline.
2.Platform Risk
Assets are custodial. Users are exposed to operational and liquidity risks during extreme market events.
3.Yield Variability
High historical yields do not imply persistence. Most rates are demand-driven and highly dynamic.
Understanding these risks is essential when evaluating historical performance.
7. Conclusion
OKX’s Earn products have evolved from basic yield tools into a diversified income framework covering lending, staking, and structured strategies.
Historically, they have delivered:
· Stable yields during normal market conditions
· Occasional high-yield spikes during liquidity stress
· A wide range of options catering to different risk preferences
While past performance highlights the potential for attractive returns, yields remain market-dependent and should be assessed alongside risk management considerations rather than in isolation.
 
 

How Tokenized U.S. Stocks Are Reshaping Liquidity and Market Structure
The tokenization of U.S. equities is no longer a theoretical discussion.
In 2025, it has become an operational reality — one that is quietly reshaping crypto infrastructure, liquidity provision, and the role of market operators.
As traditional financial assets move on-chain, crypto-native systems are being forced to adapt. This shift is less about product novelty and more about market plumbing.
1. From Concept to Execution: U.S. Stocks on-Chain
Historically, U.S. equity trading has been constrained by fixed market hours, T+2 settlement cycles, and geographically fragmented access. Tokenization introduces a fundamentally different operating model:
· Continuous (24/7) trading availability
· Near-instant settlement
· Programmable ownership and composability
In 2025, tokenized equities are increasingly backed by real shares or ETFs held via regulated custodial structures, rather than synthetic price references. This distinction matters. It shifts tokenized stocks from “crypto derivatives” toward financial infrastructure extensions.
2. Liquidity Is the Bottleneck — Not Asset Issuance
While issuing tokenized equities has become technically straightforward, liquidity remains the primary constraint.
Tokenized stocks differ from native crypto assets in several ways:
· Order sizes are larger, but participation is thinner
· Price discovery must stay tightly aligned with traditional markets
· Market quality expectations are closer to equities than to DeFi tokens
This creates friction for existing DeFi liquidity models. AMMs designed for volatile, retail-driven assets struggle to provide efficient depth for equity-like instruments.
3. Infrastructure Adapts: From Trading Layers to Market Systems
To address these challenges, crypto infrastructure is evolving along three main axes.
First, asset registration and settlement layers.
Tokenized equities increasingly rely on dual systems that synchronize on-chain records with off-chain legal ownership. This is not a full replacement of traditional registries, but an extension of them.
Second, liquidity coordination layers.
Rather than relying purely on AMMs, platforms are experimenting with hybrid models that combine on-chain settlement with off-chain or semi-centralized liquidity management.
Third, collateral and financing primitives.
Tokenized equities are beginning to appear as collateral in on-chain financing structures, allowing holders to unlock liquidity without exiting positions.
4. The Role of Operators: Why Canada Matters
While the U.S. remains cautious on retail-facing tokenized securities, operators in jurisdictions like Canada have taken a more infrastructure-first approach.
Rather than marketing tokenized stocks as trading products, these operators focus on:
· Blockchain-based settlement systems
· Transparent record-keeping
· Integration with existing financial compliance frameworks
In practice, this positions them as liquidity coordinators and infrastructure providers, not just exchanges.
5. What This Means for Crypto Markets
The rise of on-chain equities signals a broader transition:
· Liquidity provision becomes more professionalized
· Infrastructure competes on reliability, not speed alone
· Regulatory compatibility becomes a design constraint, not an afterthought
Crypto infrastructure is no longer serving only crypto-native assets. It is being retooled to support traditional capital markets — incrementally, and often invisibly.
 
Tokenized equities are not about replacing stock exchanges overnight. They are about rewiring how capital moves, settles, and interfaces with global liquidity.
As U.S. stocks move on-chain, crypto infrastructure is being pulled into a new phase — one defined less by experimentation and more by market discipline.

#BTC #ETH #加密市场观察

No tirgus signālu uz ķēdes kapitāla pārstrādi
2025. gadā tokenu atpirkumi kļuva par vienu no visbiežāk apspriestajām — un arvien izpildītajām — finansiālajām darbībām visā Web3 ekosistēmā.
Atšķirībā no iepriekšējiem cikliem, kur atpirkumi bieži kalpoja kā īstermiņa tirgus signāli, pašreizējā viļņa saikne ar protokola ieņēmumiem, kases pārvaldību un tokenu ekonomikas restrukturizāciju ir skaidrāka. Centrālajās platformās, DeFi protokolos, infrastruktūras projektos un izvēlētajās lietojumprogrammu kārtās atpirkumi pakāpeniski tiek traktēti mazāk kā paziņojumi un vairāk kā operacionālas mehānismas.

Kad 2025. gads tuvojas beigām, Web3 nozare nesabrūk — bet tā skaidri samazinās dažās vietās.

Saskaņā ar @RootDataCrypto 2025. gada Web3 nozares gada pārskatu, pagājušais gads bija noteikts mazāk ar sprādzienveidīgu izaugsmi un vairāk ar strukturālu pārdali.
Visā tirgus snieguma, finansēšanas aktivitātes, sektoru sadalījuma un projektu izdzīvošanas rādītāju kontekstā nozare virzās prom no naratīvu virzītas paplašināšanās un uz daudz zemāku toleranci pret neefektivitāti.
Šī pāreja ir bijusi klusa, bet izšķiroša.

🎉Happy New Year 2026~

In a previous post, we summarized A16z’s view on the overall trajectory of crypto in 2026, covering everything from payments and asset forms to infrastructure. The post highlighted the main areas institutional players are focusing on as the industry evolves.
See the original here: https://x.com/137LabsCN/status/2003795134698360924?s=20

Building on that, A16z released an update yesterday with a more detailed checklist for 2026.
Titled “17 things we’re excited about for crypto in 2026”, the update lists 17 specific directions across stablecoins and payments, real-world assets (RWA), identity and privacy, AI, communications infrastructure, and legal/technical alignment.

Compared with the previous high-level outlook, this update focuses more on concrete issues and implementation paths, showing A16z’s attention to crypto moving from concept to execution.

A16z’s 17 Signals for 2026

1、More efficient stablecoin onramps/offramps
Adoption depends heavily on how efficiently and cheaply funds move on and off-chain. Competition will focus on who can provide smoother, compliant access.

2、Looking at RWA and stablecoins in a crypto-native way
Instead of copying traditional finance, the focus is on whether assets are truly chain-native—composable, automatically settled, and programmable.

3、Stablecoins driving upgrades to banking ledgers
Stablecoins act as a ledger upgrade for traditional banking systems, supporting faster settlements and new payment scenarios.

4、The internet taking on banking functions
As stablecoins, payment protocols, and wallet infrastructure develop, some traditional banking functions are being handled natively online.

5、Wealth management for a wider audience
On-chain finance can lower the barrier to wealth management, letting more users access automated, low-cost services.

6、From KYC to KYA (Know Your Agent)
With AI agents participating in trading, research, and asset management, systems need to recognize and control agents, not just individuals.

7、Using AI for substantive research
AI is moving from support tools to active participants in data analysis, research, and decision-making.

8、Invisible costs on open networks
Open networks carry hidden cost structures that affect user behavior and system efficiency.

9、Privacy as a core moat
Privacy is now a fundamental factor in whether a system can be sustainable.

10、Decentralized, quantum-resistant communication
Future messaging systems need both quantum resistance and decentralization.

11、Secrets-as-a-service
Key and sensitive information management is evolving into a service, forming part of infrastructure.

12、From “code is law” to “spec is law”
System rules are defined not only by code but also by clear specifications and standards.

13、Expansion of prediction markets
Prediction markets will cover more areas and become more sophisticated in structure and intelligence.

14、Staked media
Content combined with financial mechanisms, creating media models based on staking and incentives.

15、Crypto as a reusable technical primitive
Blockchain capabilities can be called by broader systems beyond the chain itself.

16、Trading as a waypoint, not the end
Trading becomes a step within a larger business model rather than the final product.

17、Alignment of legal and technical frameworks
Blockchain potential is fully realized when legal structures better match technical systems.

From these 17 points, it’s clear A16z is focused on building core capabilities rather than chasing short-term market trends. Payments, asset forms, identity, privacy, and legal structures appear repeatedly, signaling areas that need solving.

Overall, A16z’s view on 2026 emphasizes long-term, structural development. The focus is on usability, sustainability, and better integration with the real world. Progress might be subtle, but it will shape the industry’s path.

Finally, wishing everyone a happy new year. Stay safe, keep building, and may 2026 bring steady progress.

For years, the crypto industry faced a recurring question: can it be truly understood, evaluated, and held by traditional capital markets over the long term?
As we move into 2025, the market is starting to provide an answer. According to DLNews, crypto companies raised roughly $3.4 billion through IPOs in 2025. Looking ahead to 2026, expectations are for even larger and more frequent listings.
Which Web3 / crypto companies are eyeing IPOs, and what does this wave of listings signal? Let’s dive in.

6 Crypto IPO Candidates to Watch in 2026
A common thread among these companies: they are largely infrastructure-focused, regulatory-compliant, or positioned as core gateways into the ecosystem.
1️⃣ Kraken

A leading U.S. crypto exchange, valued at around $20 billion, planning a H1 2026 IPO.

As a veteran platform, Kraken has long prioritized compliance, risk management, and institutional services. A successful IPO could serve as a key proof point that the exchange model remains commercially viable even under heavy regulatory scrutiny.
2️⃣ ConsenSys

The parent company of MetaMask and Infura, valued at about $7 billion, currently preparing its IPO in partnership with JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs.

If successful, it will mark the first time crypto software and developer infrastructure are integrated into Wall Street’s mainstream pricing frameworks.
3️⃣ BitGo

Specializing in custody, settlement, and asset security, serving almost exclusively institutional clients.

These “boring” services are nonetheless critical to enabling large-scale capital flows into crypto. BitGo’s IPO prospects highlight that compliance and security have become core capabilities that can be explicitly valued by the market.
4️⃣ Animoca Brands

A major player in Web3 gaming and digital assets, valued around $6 billion, planning a reverse merger to go public.

The real question is whether the company can demonstrate that its application layer has sustainable cash flows independent of subsidies or speculative hype.
5️⃣ Ledger

A hardware wallet maker with over 6 million units sold.

With clear product logic, a trusted security brand, and real paying users, Ledger stands out as unusually “traditional” in crypto. Its potential IPO offers a tangible benchmark for the industry.
6️⃣ Bithumb

A leading South Korean exchange, planning a local IPO.

This move signals that crypto exchange capitalization paths are becoming regionalized and not solely focused on U.S. markets.
Taken together, these IPO candidates send a clear message: capital currently favors exchanges, wallets, custody, security, and developer tools—the core infrastructure layer.
The rationale is straightforward: these companies have clear revenue streams, well-defined compliance boundaries, and long-term customers. Their growth scales with the overall crypto market. In contrast, models relying solely on narratives and cyclical hype are being pushed to the margins.
While 2026 is unlikely to produce overnight crypto legends, one trend will persist: companies capable of gaining mainstream capital acceptance will be gradually and selectively validated.
The question remains: who will reach mainstream first—“infrastructure plays” like exchanges and custody solutions, or application-layer companies that have already proven their business models? 🤔

Yesterday, Uniswap disclosed that fees across its app and API have been reduced to zero, signaling not just a pricing change, but a broader reconfiguration of its protocol-level value capture model.

I. Underlying Logic

The first reaction might be “front-end is free, users save money,” but the real rationale is deeper:
▪️Front-end fees zeroed: App and API no longer charge for access.
▪️Fee Switch activation imminent: Protocol-level revenue becomes the primary value driver.
▪️UNI deflationary mechanism: Large-scale UNI burns lock value capture back to the token.

Key takeaway: Front-end revenue exits, value and revenue return to the protocol and its holders.

II. Market & Community Focus

1. Value Capture Mechanism
Who will ultimately receive Fee Switch revenue? LPs, UNI holders, or the foundation?
Will the revenue mechanism be auctioned or dynamically adjusted?
These questions are more critical than the front-end fee cut itself because they determine UNI’s long-term value anchor.

2. UNI Deflation Impact
100 million UNI burned—a historic-level deflation event.
Market attention is on post-burn circulating supply and price reaction.
This serves as a real-world test in the DeFi community of how deflation impacts token value.

3. Protocol Revenue Restructuring
Front-end fees zeroed + Fee Switch activation + UNI burn all happening together mean that future revenue sources become more transparent, and markets will start pricing UNI based on real protocol income and cash flow, rather than narratives.

III. Potential Chain Reactions

▪️Other protocols may adjust revenue structures: Sushiswap, Balancer, Curve, Aave, etc., may reconsider front-end vs. protocol-layer revenue allocation, following Uniswap’s example.
▪️Lower barriers for developers and aggregators: Free APIs encourage deeper integrations and may accelerate the growth of second-layer apps and data services.
▪️UNI valuation becomes usage- and revenue-driven: Future pricing may shift from “short-term hype + wallet counts” to a model closer to equity valuation: Trading Volume × Protocol Revenue × Deflation Expectations.

IV. Summary

Uniswap’s zeroing of front-end and API fees is not a simple user benefit—it is a protocol-level economic restructure:

Front-end revenue exits
Protocol income and deflationary mechanisms anchor token value
Long-term impact for the ecosystem, developers, and market

It also sets a standard for the DeFi ecosystem: protocols that can reliably and stably return revenue to tokens are positioned to become top-tier infrastructure in 2026.

Recently, there has been significant discussion around the “Aave vote failure” event. Based on reports from multiple media sources, this article provides a full breakdown of the event, key participants, and critical factors, helping to understand how this governance dispute unfolded step by step.

The incident centers on a key governance proposal within Aave DAO, which addressed control of Aave’s brand assets, front-end products and revenue streams, and the informal division of responsibilities between Aave DAO and Aave Labs.

Aave operates as a hybrid model: the DAO, via AAVE token voting, handles protocol governance and strategic decisions, while Aave Labs manages front-end development, brand operations, and user-facing platforms. No formal codified boundaries exist between the two; their relationship has evolved through historical collaboration and implicit consensus.

Event Timeline: Phase 1 – Front-End Update Sparks Discussion
The incident began with a front-end update by Aave Labs, integrating the swap functionality on aave.com into CoW Swap. Community members noticed that fees from this front-end were directed to wallets controlled by Aave Labs rather than the DAO treasury.
This triggered discussions around front-end revenue ownership and gradually expanded to broader governance questions: whether the DAO truly controls economic rights associated with the protocol’s brand and entry points, and the DAO’s role within the Aave ecosystem.
Attention also turned to control over brand assets, domains, social accounts, and related IP. Opinions diverged: some argued that the DAO should have ultimate control; others noted legal, operational, and liability considerations that make full delegation uncertain.
A formal governance proposal was then submitted to Aave DAO, aiming to transfer brand asset control to the DAO and align associated revenue streams under DAO governance. The proposal sparked active discussion in the governance forum even before voting.

Phase 2 – Proposal Discussion and Voting Preparation
Debates during this stage focused on proposal feasibility, potential legal/operational considerations, redefining DAO–Labs responsibilities, and governance process transparency.
During voting, discussions arose around voting power and token holdings. On-chain data showed that Aave founder Stani Kulechov purchased a substantial amount of AAVE tokens before and during the vote, prompting community speculation about influence. Stani clarified that the purchases were personal long-term investments, unrelated to the proposal, which addressed some concerns but discussions on voting power concentration persisted.
Controversy also arose regarding proposal initiation: it was attributed to former Aave Labs members, some of whom later clarified they had not consented to advancing it in its submitted form, highlighting DAO mechanisms for proposal authorization and process transparency.

Phase 3 – Vote Outcome
The vote concluded with the proposal rejected: 55.29% against, 41.21% abstained, and 3.5% supported. Under current governance rules, abstentions prevent proposals from passing, resulting in formal rejection.
This vote failure was not an isolated incident but the result of gradual escalation: front-end updates, revenue allocation discussions, governance debates, voting power scrutiny, and procedural controversies all contributed to this concentrated governance event.
The vote marks the end of this proposal in its current stage, but discussions around DAO–Labs responsibilities, brand and front-end control, and governance processes remain ongoing.

As the community continues to examine governance boundaries and transparency, additional discussions or proposals may arise. Future developments will be monitored and summarized to provide a complete view of Aave DAO’s governance dynamics. Stay tuned for updates to track the latest progress within Aave DAO.

As the year comes to a close, let’s review how various institutions are looking at 2026. Today, we’ll focus on Bitwise’s outlook.
Bitwise’s “10 Crypto Predictions for 2026” highlights structural drivers, institutional inflows, ETF dynamics, product maturity, and regulatory developments shaping the next market cycle.

Core Thesis:

2026 is expected to move beyond single narrative cycles. Market dynamics are increasingly defined by supply-demand imbalances, ongoing allocation flows, and infrastructure upgrades, rather than hype-driven sentiment.

I. BTC Price Dynamics
The traditional 4-year halving cycle may no longer dictate BTC price trends. Persistent institutional inflows and ETF demand could support new all-time highs independent of historical cycles.

II. Volatility Moderation
As liquidity providers and long-term allocators increase exposure, BTC volatility may stabilize, reflecting portfolio asset behavior rather than speculative swings.

III. Spot ETFs and Supply Absorption
Spot ETFs could absorb more than 100% of new BTC, ETH, and SOL issuance, according to Bitwise estimates, generating structural support for prices through real demand absorption.

IV. Crypto Equities Outperformance
Public companies in exchanges and infrastructure are likely to outperform broader tech indices, driven by growth momentum and ecosystem expansion.

V. Prediction Market Growth
On-chain prediction and derivatives markets continue to mature, with open interest surpassing previous US election highs, indicating robust adoption of decentralized betting infrastructure.

VI. Stablecoins Scaling to Macro Relevance
As total value locked (TVL) grows, stablecoins will become central to discussions on global liquidity and emerging market currency impacts.

VII. On-Chain Vaults (“ETF 2.0”)
Automated, yield-bearing on-chain strategies provide institutions with risk-managed exposure, creating a decentralized alternative to traditional investment rails.

VIII. Regulatory Clarity as a Catalyst
Legislation such as the CLARITY Act could significantly rerate valuations of major layer-1 protocols, including ETH and SOL, by reducing regulatory uncertainty.

IX. Institutional Mainstreaming
University endowments and large allocators are increasingly integrating crypto as a core portfolio component, transitioning it from a speculative side bet to a strategic allocation.

X. Expansion of Crypto-Linked ETFs
The launch of 100+ crypto ETFs in the U.S. will facilitate seamless onboarding for both retail and traditional financial institutions.

Structural Implications
Demand is increasingly institutional and less driven by retail FOMO.
Investment tools are evolving from spot trading to layered DeFi/TradFi hybrids.
Regulatory clarity and infrastructure improvements reinforce long-term market stability.
Market narratives are shifting from price speculation to operational understanding, portfolio allocation, and compounding strategies.

Bottom Line:
Bitwise’s base case for 2026 is a market powered by structure, regulation, and infrastructure—not hype. Expect steadier, deeper, and more sustainable growth.
Full Report: https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/static.bitwiseinvestments.com/Research/Bitwise-The-Year-Ahead-10-Crypto-Predictions-for-2026.pdf

I’ll be sharing more insights and forecasts from leading institutions on the direction of 2026. Piecing together these different perspectives could be more useful than staring at daily charts. If you’re interested, hit follow