Khurshid Alam Momand

Brasa just crossed $2M in total value staked. For a protocol that's been live for a relatively short time on a new L1, we're proud of that number. It tells us that stakers on Fogo want liquid staking, and that they trust Brasa to do it well.
Thank you to everyone who has staked so far. For those who haven't heard of us yet, here's what we're building and why it matters for your #FOGO .
What is Brasa?
Brasa is a liquid staking protocol on Fogo. You deposit FOGO, receive stFOGO, and your tokens get staked across the validator set while you keep a liquid token you can use elsewhere. Staking rewards accrue in the background. You don't give up access to your capital.
We distribute stake evenly across well-performing validators to keep the network decentralized and avoid concentration risk. A small reserve of unstaked $FOGO is maintained at all times so withdrawals can happen instantly.
Staking through Brasa is gasless. You pay nothing to deposit, and the whole process takes a single transaction.
How stFOGO Works
stFOGO is a liquid staking token that goes up in value relative to FOGO over time. It doesn't rebase or airdrop rewards into your wallet like some staking tokens do. Instead, the exchange rate between stFOGO and FOGO increases as the underlying stake earns rewards.
So if 1 stFOGO is worth 1.05 FOGO today, it might be worth 1.08 FOGO a month from now and 1.20 FOGO in six months. You don't need to claim or restake anything. Just hold it. This is the same model used by Solana LSTs like jitoSOL and mSOL.
stFOGO is a standard FPL token, so it works with any DeFi protocol on Fogo. Every token is backed by staked FOGO in the Brasa pool. When you want your FOGO back, you can redeem directly through the protocol or swap on a DEX.
What You Can Do with stFOGO
You earn staking rewards just by holding stFOGO. But you can also put it to work in DeFi.
@fogo

Coinbase baru saja mengunci SEMUA pengguna dari membeli, menjual, dan mentransfer crypto.

Meskipun Brian Armstrong tidak memiliki masalah menjual saham senilai $550M.

Inilah yang terjadi:

> Gangguan teknis dari 10:07 hingga 11:26 PST
> Pengguna tidak bisa mengakses uang mereka sendiri
> Hasil Q4: $667M kerugian bersih
> Saham turun 8% setelah jam perdagangan (terima kasih Brian)

Izinkan saya mengulang: sementara ANDA tidak bisa mengakses uang ANDA, CEO sedang mencairkan uangnya.

Lihat... saya sudah mengatakan ini selama bertahun-tahun.

Crypto CEX adalah bank TradFi yang hanya berpakaian berbeda.

Fogo didirikan berdasarkan keyakinan sederhana: desentralisasi sejati dan kinerja tinggi dapat ada bersama-sama. Misi ini adalah untuk membangun SVM Layer 1 yang paling berkinerja, membuktikan bahwa kecepatan, skalabilitas, dan kepemilikan komunitas dapat selaras tanpa kompromi.

Sejak hari pertama, #Fogo telah fokus pada memberikan kinerja nyata. Jaringan diluncurkan dengan klien Firedancer khusus yang dioptimalkan untuk stabilitas dan kecepatan. Validator beroperasi di pusat infrastruktur berkinerja tinggi untuk memastikan waktu aktif dan ketahanan. Pembuat dapat melakukan penyebaran tanpa izin dan berlokasi berdampingan dengan validator, menciptakan lapangan permainan yang setara untuk kinerja.

Whether you’re a seasoned trader or a beginner, slippage can quietly change your fill price, which affects risk, costs, and outcomes.

In crypto, slippage occurs when your expected price is different from the price your order executes at, often due to fast market moves or limited liquidity.

In this article, you'll learn what causes slippage, how it differs across platforms, how to calculate it, and how to reduce it with practical settings and strategies.

Key Takeaways

Slippage is the gap between the expected price and the executed price, and it can be positive or negative.

Volatility, liquidity, order size, and transaction delays are the most common drivers of slippage.

You can reduce slippage with limit orders, better timing, smaller trade sizing, and thoughtful slippage tolerance settings.

Types of Slippage
Positive Slippage – When It Works in Your Favor
Positive slippage means you execute at a better price than you expected at the time you submitted the trade. You receive more tokens than quoted or pay less than anticipated because the market moved in your favor.

This can happen on both centralized exchanges (CEXs) and decentralized exchanges (DEXs), especially when prices are changing quickly. It is still slippage, even if it benefits you, because the execution differs from the initial quote.

Negative Slippage – Risks to Your Trades
Negative slippage means you execute at a worse price than expected, such as paying more for a buy or receiving less on a sale. This is the slippage most traders notice because it directly reduces the value of the trade.

Negative slippage is most visible when you use market orders, trade illiquid pairs, or trade during sharp moves. The delay between click and fill can be enough for prices to change.

Price vs Liquidity Slippage – Different Impacts
Price slippage is driven by the market price moving while your order is being executed. Fast volatility can move the quote before the exchange or the network finalizes your fill.

Liquidity slippage is driven by limited depth at the current price, so the trade “walks the book” or shifts a pool price. You consume available liquidity tiers and end up filling across multiple prices instead of one.

Causes of Slippage in Cryptocurrency Trading
Market Volatility and Rapid Price Fluctuations
When prices move quickly, the quoted price you see may already be stale by the time your order reaches the matching engine (CEX) or the network’s transaction queue/validator pipeline (DEX). Volatility creates timing risk between submission and execution.

This is why slippage often spikes around major news, macro events, or sudden liquidations. A “normal” market can change in seconds, even for large-cap assets.

Low Market Liquidity and Order Book Depth
Liquidity is the ability to buy or sell without moving the price too much. Shallow order books amplify slippage because there are fewer resting orders near the current price.

On a DEX, the same idea appears as “thin” liquidity pools, where a swap meaningfully changes the pool ratio. Limited pool reserves increase price impact, which shows up as slippage for the trader.

Large Order Sizes and Their Effects
A large order can cause slippage even in calm conditions because it consumes liquidity at multiple price levels. Trade size relative to liquidity matters more than the absolute size of the trade.

On AMM-based DEXs, the pricing rule means bigger trades push the pool price further along the curve. Large swaps move the price because the pool must maintain its invariant, meaning reserves update to keep the AMM’s formula balanced (for example, keeping the product of the two token reserves constant).

Network Congestion and Transaction Delays
Even if you submit a trade instantly, settlement can still take time, especially for onchain swaps. Transaction delays widen the window in which prices can move before your trade finalizes.

For example, on Proof of Stake networks, block space is still finite, so high demand can slow confirmations or raise fees. Congestion increases execution uncertainty because the market can drift while you wait.

How Slippage Manifests on Different Platforms
Centralized Exchanges (CEXs) – Order Books and Limit Orders
On a CEX, your trade executes against an order book, which is a list of bids and asks at different prices. Market orders prioritize execution, so they can fill across multiple levels if the top of the book is thin.

Limit orders let you set the worst price you will accept, which can reduce negative slippage. A limit order controls your price but can also fail to fill if the market moves away.

Some exchanges also add protections that reject market orders when the spread is very wide. Kraken’s Exchange Trading Rules state that Market Price Protection can reject market orders when the bid/ask spread is unusually wide (typically 2.5-20% depending on the pair).

Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs) – AMMs, Liquidity Pools, and Tolerance Settings
Many DEXs use automated market makers (AMMs) instead of order books. AMMs price trades by formulas, and Uniswap v2-style pools use a constant product relationship that adjusts price as the pool balances change.

Because the pool price moves as your trade size increases, you will usually see a “price impact” estimate before confirming. Price impact is not the same as slippage, but both can reduce your final output.

DEX interfaces also include a slippage tolerance setting that defines how far execution can deviate before the swap fails. As of September 2025, typical slippage tolerance defaults are often between 0.1% and 5%, depending on conditions and swap size.

Slippage Tolerance and Risk Management
Setting the Right Slippage Tolerance
A reasonable tolerance depends on liquidity, volatility, and whether the asset is widely traded. Higher volatility pairs need more buffer because the price can move before confirmation.

For many liquid pairs, small tolerances can work, but you should watch for failed swaps, especially on DEXs. A failed swap still costs resources on some networks because you may pay fees even if execution reverts.

Tools and Settings to Control Execution Price
On CEXs, the core tools are limit orders, stop-limit orders, and sizing that avoids eating the book. Order type selection is your first lever for controlling slippage.

On DEXs, you can also adjust settings like “Max slippage” and review the minimum received value before confirming. The “minimum received” line matters because it converts tolerance into a concrete worst-case output.

Calculating Slippage
Slippage Percentage Formula
A common way to express slippage is as a percentage difference between expected and executed price. This formula matches how many platforms describe slippage as a price change between quote and fill:

Slippage % = ((Executed Price − Expected Price) / Expected Price) × 100

For a buy, a positive result means you paid more than expected, which is negative slippage for you. Sign conventions can be confusing, so many traders track absolute value as the “size” of slippage.

Practical Examples for Buyers and Sellers
Suppose you place a market buy for a token quoted at $100, and it executes at $101. Your slippage is about 1% because (101−100)/100 equals 0.01.

For a sell, suppose you expect $100 and receive $99 at execution. You effectively lost 1% to slippage, even if fees are excluded from the calculation.

Here’s a more detailed example. Let’s say you submit a market buy for 3 tokens. The last quoted price is $100, so you expect to pay about $300.

But the available sell orders (or AMM liquidity) look like this:

1 token available at $100

1 token available at $102

1 token available at $105

Your order fills across multiple price levels:

1 × $100 = $100

1 × $102 = $102

1 × $105 = $105 Total paid = $307 → average execution price = $307 / 3 = $102.33

Slippage (using the quote as reference) = (102.33−100) / 100 = 0.0233 ≈ 2.33%

This teaches that even if the “price” shows $100, a larger market order can push you into worse prices when liquidity is thin, so you end up paying an average above the quote.

Here’s one more example. You try to market sell a token quoted at $100. Right as you submit, other sellers hit the market (or the pool price shifts), and your sell executes at $96.

Slippage = (96−100) / 100 = −4% negative slippage; 4% in absolute terms)

This shows that slippage isn’t only about fees, it’s often about timing and price movement between quote and execution. In fast markets, the execution price can be meaningfully worse even if you’re trading a small amount.

Strategies to Minimize Slippage
Using Limit Orders Effectively
Limit orders are one of the most direct ways to cap slippage on a CEX. You define the worst acceptable price, which turns slippage into a fill probability question.

If you need certainty of execution, consider a limit order close to the current price rather than a pure market order. You may accept partial fills in exchange for better price control.

Splitting Large Orders and Timing Trades
If your order is large relative to available liquidity, splitting it can reduce the price you push through. Smaller chunks can reduce market impact, especially in thinner books and smaller pools.

Timing can also help because liquidity and volatility vary by hour and event. Avoid trading into obvious spikes like major announcements, sudden pumps, or liquidation cascades.

Choosing High-Liquidity Assets and Platforms
High-liquidity pairs tend to have deeper books or larger pools, which usually reduces slippage for typical trade sizes. Liquidity is a practical advantage because it improves execution consistency.

If you are swapping a niche token, route selection matters, including which pool you use and whether aggregators find better paths. Routing can change effective slippage by accessing deeper combined liquidity.

Monitoring Market Conditions and Volatility
Before trading, check recent price movement, spread, and depth for the pair you want. A wide spread is a warning sign that slippage risk may be higher than usual.

On DEXs, also consider network conditions, because a congested mempool can increase confirmation time. Longer confirmation windows increase slippage risk, especially for volatile pairs.

Real-World Examples and Case Studies
Popular Cryptocurrencies vs Low-Liquidity Altcoins
Liquidity differences show up fastest when you compare the same trade size against how much depth is available near the current price.

CoinGecko displays “+2% depth” and “-2% depth” in the Markets table to summarize how much liquidity is available within a 2% move up or down.

For BTC/USD on Coinbase Exchange, CoinGecko shows +2% depth of $27,516,713 and -2% depth of $21,753,219. A $10,000 market buy is roughly 0.04% of the +2% depth, so it is less likely to move far from the top-of-book price in normal conditions.

For a low-liquidity altcoin example like BADGER/USD₮ on Gate, CoinGecko shows +2% depth of $141 and -2% depth of $121. A $1,000 market order is about 7.1× the +2% depth, which helps explain why small orders can still experience multi-percent slippage when the visible book is thin.

Venue can matter as much as the asset. In the same January 2026 snapshot, CoinGecko shows BADGER/WBTC on Uniswap V3 (Ethereum) with +2% Depth of $121,365 and -2% Depth of $121,000, alongside a higher displayed spread than the Gate market for BADGER.

Comparing Slippage Across Exchanges
Even for the same asset, slippage can differ across exchanges because liquidity and execution rules vary.

As of January 2026, CoinGecko shows BTC depth of $27,516,713 (+2%) on Coinbase Exchange (BTC/USD), $24,894,946 (+2%) on Binance (BTC/USD₮), and $6,159,063 (+2%) on KuCoin (BTC/USD₮); a $5,000,000 buy is roughly 18%, 20%, and 81% of those +2% depth figures, respectively.

Execution rules can also shape outcomes when markets move quickly.

Coinbase’s Advanced Trade documentation describes a 10% market protection point for non-stable pairs and a 1% protection point for stable pairs, where market orders may stop executing and return a partial fill if the protection threshold would be exceeded.

Key Takeaways: What Is Slippage in Crypto?
Slippage is the difference between the price you expect and the price you get, and it tends to increase in volatile markets, in situations where liquidity is limited, when your order is large relative to available depth, or the trade takes longer to confirm and settle.

To manage slippage well, you need to understand what is driving it in each trade and measure it consistently using a clear baseline, such as the quoted price or best available price at submission.

Practical controls like limit orders and sizing can reduce exposure on centralized exchanges, while careful slippage tolerance settings, minimum received checks, and attention to network conditions can help on decentralized exchanges.

Over time, slippage awareness becomes part of a broader trading approach that includes risk management and cost control. Strong execution habits reduce surprises more reliably than any single toggle, because they account for both market structure and changing conditions.

Clear settlement expectations improve decision-making whether you are trading or moving value onchain. When you plan for slippage up front, you can set more realistic entries and exits, size positions with less guesswork, and avoid letting execution noise derail an otherwise sound strategy.

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes. It is not legal, tax, or investment advice.

@Vanarchain $VANRY #Vanar

In this article, you’ll learn how each is backed, where it trades, how networks differ, and what today’s availability means when choosing one.
Key Takeaways
As of December 2025, USD₮ is the liquidity baseline for many crypto markets, with broad exchange coverage and multi-chain distribution, as of December 2025.

BUSD is mostly a wind-down story: issuance stopped in 2023, and many venues have reduced support, so access matters as much as peg mechanics.

Choosing between USD₮ and BUSD comes down to practical factors like reserve reporting scope, chain support, liquidity depth, redemption access, and how each token behaves during market stress, rather than the peg alone.

What Is USD₮?
Origins and Evolution of Tether
Issuer Background and Early Story
Tether is issued by Tether-related entities and became widely used as “onchain dollars” on exchanges as the crypto market structure matured. Its role grew alongside spot and derivatives markets that needed a dollar-like unit without relying on bank rails.

Reserve Composition and Transparency Journey
Reserve reporting has been a major focus for USD₮ discussion. Tether publishes periodic reserve reports, and it has released third-party assurance reports describing procedures and conclusions at specific reporting dates.

Market Reach and Liquidity Strength
Trading Dominance Across Exchanges
Liquidity is USD₮’s key advantage for many traders. As of December 2025, CoinMarketCap lists USD₮ at roughly $180B+ market cap with very large daily trading volume, reflecting its deep integration across venues.

Supported Blockchains and Ecosystem Integration
USD₮ is deliberately multi-chain. Tether’s supported-protocol list includes Ethereum (ERC-20), TRON (TRC-20), Solana, and other networks it documents for integration and redemption support.

Broad chain coverage makes USD₮ easier to route through different wallets, exchanges, and payment stacks, which can reduce friction when “dollars” need to move across ecosystems.

What Is BUSD?
How BUSD Was Created and Its Regulatory Foundations
Paxos Partnership and Compliance Framework
Paxos issued “Paxos-issued BUSD” under New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) supervision, and NYDFS states it ordered Paxos to cease minting due to unresolved issues tied to the Binance relationship. That order is the core reason BUSD issuance stopped in 2023.

Reserve Verification and Audit Standards
BUSD disclosures center on attestations, not a full audit. Paxos maintains a BUSD transparency page that explains how its posted reports are conducted (including the accounting firm and standards referenced for the engagement).

Where BUSD Is Used in the Crypto Ecosystem
Exchange Integration and DeFi Presence
BUSD’s strongest distribution was Binance-led. Binance’s own communications describe phasing out BUSD-related product support after issuance stopped, which changed where and how users could deploy BUSD across exchange features.

Declining Supply and Its Market Implications
Supply decline is measurable. As of December 2025, CoinMarketCap lists BUSD with a much smaller circulating supply and market cap than its peak-era levels, reflecting ongoing redemptions and reduced venue support.

Reserve Backing and Transparency Comparison
How USD₮ Manages Its Collateral
Cash, Short-Term Securities, and Mixed Asset Reserves
USD₮ reserves can include multiple asset types. In its published assurance materials (as of specific reporting dates), Tether describes reserves and liabilities then, and the assurance report describes the standard and procedures used.

How BUSD Structures Its Backing
Cash-Equivalent Reserves and Regulated Custody
Paxos describes segregated backing for its USD stablecoins and frames BUSD as 1:1 backed during its support period, with reserves segregated from corporate funds. Paxos also stated in 2023 that BUSD would remain redeemable through at least February 2024.

As of December 2025, Paxos still states it allows eligible customers to redeem BUSD for U.S. dollars or convert BUSD to USDP, even though it no longer mints new BUSD.

Transparency Practices: Audits, Attestations, and Reporting
In the BUSD vs USD₮ comparison, “transparency” mostly comes down to what kind of third-party work exists and what it actually proves.

An audit is typically a full audit of financial statements under audit standards, while an attestation/assurance engagement can be narrower, focused on specific reserve figures or criteria at a defined point in time.

For USD₮, the key artifacts are reserve reports paired with assurance opinions (often under frameworks like ISAE 3000) tied to an “as of” date. For BUSD, transparency was centered on Paxos’s attestation-style reporting during its active issuance period.

The practical check: compare cadence, scope, asset detail, and whether prior reports are archived, because consistency over time matters as much as any single report.

Blockchain Support and Technical Infrastructure
Networks Supported by USD₮
TRON, Ethereum, and Multi-Chain Expansion
USD₮ is issued on multiple networks that Tether documents for integrations, including Ethereum and TRON among others. This helps exchanges and wallets offer more routing options for deposits and withdrawals.

Networks Supported by BUSD
Ethereum and BNB Chain Ecosystem
BUSD usage has been closely tied to Binance infrastructure. Binance has described BUSD and “Binance-Peg” variants in its educational materials and has also published support changes that reduced BUSD product availability over time. BUSD was issued on Ethereum (ERC-20) and was also widely used on BNB Chain through Binance-led distribution. Over time, Binance reduced its support for the BUSD product and encouraged migration away from BUSD, which resulted in lower availability across both ecosystems.

Transaction Costs, Speed, and Interoperability Differences
Fees and speed are chain-dependent. Sending $50 of USD₮ on a low-fee network can feel “app-like,” while sending $50,000 may prioritize liquidity and settlement certainty more than saving a few dollars in fees.

Practical examples:

Exchange withdrawals: the same USD₮ balance may be withdrawable on several networks, so the cheapest route can change by venue.

Bridging: using a service or app to move a token from one blockchain to another can add extra risk, because the bridge’s code (a smart contract) could fail or be exploited, even if the stablecoin itself keeps its $1 target.

Market Capitalization and Liquidity Depth
USD₮’s Liquidity Advantage
Impact on Trading Pairs and Global Settlement
USD₮ is a common base pair (meaning many crypto-to-crypto trades are priced and settled against USD₮ on exchanges).

USD₮ consistently exhibits a high 24 hour trading volume relative to market cap; as of December 2025, CoinMarketCap data continued to reflect this pattern, underscoring its role as a primary settlement asset.

BUSD’s Liquidity Dynamics
Declining Circulation and Reduced Pair Dominance
BUSD liquidity contracted as supply fell. As of December 2025, BUSD’s market cap is about $55 million, down from over $20 billion at its 2022 peak. This smaller and largely stable footprint reduces the number of deep order books that can support large trades.

Why Market Depth Matters for Traders and Institutions
Market depth shows how much you can buy or sell near the current price without moving the market. For traders, shallow depth turns into real execution pain:

Slippage: Your expected price vs your actual fill can diverge fast, especially with market orders or during volatility. A $10k market buy in a thin book can “walk the book” and fill progressively higher.

Wider spreads: Thin books usually mean bigger bid–ask gaps, so you start each trade at a disadvantage (you pay up to buy, sell down to exit).

Messier exits: Stops and liquidations can trigger into low liquidity, causing worse-than-planned fills and sharper wick moves.

In deeper books, there are more resting bids/offers close to spot, so fills are closer to your target price and the market absorbs size with less impact.

A quick mental model:

Check pairs: where is the token quoted with size?

Check routes: can you withdraw on the chain you need?

Check exit: can you redeem or convert reliably where you live and trade?

Stability, Depegs, and Risk Profile
USD₮ Price Stability History
Market Events That Influenced Past Deviations
USD₮ has had temporary price deviations during periods of market stress and issuer-related concerns.

October 15, 2018: USD₮ traded below $1 in a widely reported deviation (one report cited trading around ~$0.92).

May 12, 2022: During the Terra-related market shock, Reuters reported that USD₮ dropped below its peg.

March 11, 2023: During the USDC banking stress, USD₮ briefly traded above $1 as users rotated into it.

Typical causes are liquidity and redemption friction. Even a well-arbitraged token can move if traders rush for exits and the fastest onchain route differs from the cleanest fiat redemption path.

BUSD Price Stability History
Regulatory Effects and Redemption Policies
BUSD’s main “risk story” is policy and availability, not repeated deep price deviations. In February 2023, NYDFS ordered Paxos to stop minting Paxos-issued BUSD, and Paxos said it would halt issuance effective February 21, 2023, while continuing redemption support.

Evaluating Counterparty Risk and Issuer Reputation
Issuer risk is real because both tokens depend on offchain institutions for reserves and on policies for redemption.

Reserves: What assets back the token at the reporting date?

Reporting: Is there an assurance or attestation, what reporting period does it cover, and how often is it updated?

Access: Can you redeem directly, or do you rely on exchange conversions?

Use Cases: Which Stablecoin Fits Which Need?
Best For Active Traders and High-Volume Settlement
USD₮ often fits traders who prioritize deep markets and flexible deposits and withdrawals across chains. That usually means fewer hops when moving between venues and more pair availability. In practice, this makes USD₮ the better fit for active trading and frequent cross-venue settlement.

Best For Compliance-Focused or Regulated Environments
BUSD was positioned around regulated issuance through Paxos and recurring attestation reporting. The tradeoff is that ongoing support and availability changed meaningfully after 2023.

BUSD was positioned for compliance-focused use cases, but changes after 2023 materially reduced its availability, limiting its usefulness in active or growing environments.

Considerations for Payments, Remittances, and Onchain Transactions
Network and wallet coverage matter for payments more than ticker familiarity. If a recipient can only accept a certain network, a multi-chain token can reduce coordination costs.

This is one reason payment-focused infrastructure emphasizes predictable settlement on rails built for “digital dollars,” not just trading. The correct choice then depends less on the stablecoin brand and more on chain and wallet support, though broader network coverage often favors USD₮.

DeFi Compatibility and Yield Opportunities
DeFi depends on current liquidity and integration. If a stablecoin’s supply and venue support are shrinking, pools can thin out, incentives can migrate, and routing can worsen over time.

Simple decision guide (3 scenarios):

Scenario 1 (active trader): You want the widest pairs and fastest exchange routing. Pick USD₮ if your venues support your preferred chain.

Scenario 2 (legacy BUSD holder): You still hold BUSD from past Binance usage. Plan an exit route based on current exchange and redemption access.

Scenario 3 (payments): You need to pay someone on a specific chain with minimal friction. Start with chain support first, then choose the token.

BUSD vs USD₮: Core Differences at a Glance
Transparency and Reserve Quality
Both tokens publish reserve-related reporting, but the format, scope, and cadence differ by issuer and regime. USD₮ publishes periodic reserve reports and posts third-party assurance opinions tied to specific reporting dates.

BUSD’s transparency was also rooted in Paxos’ disclosures and attestation-style reporting during its active issuance period.

Liquidity and Exchange Support
Liquidity is where USD₮ typically leads. It is widely used as a base trading pair across major exchanges, which tends to support deeper order books and broader pair coverage.

BUSD’s footprint is now comparatively small. With a much lower outstanding supply than at its peak, it appears in fewer deep markets, and larger trades are more likely to face wider spreads or slippage.

Regulatory Status and Issuer Oversight
BUSD’s current status is largely shaped by the 2023 halt in new issuance, which narrowed its distribution and venue support over time.

USD₮ is governed primarily by issuer policies and disclosures, including reserve reporting and the issuer’s documented supported protocols and operations.

For most users, the “oversight” they experience is practical: which venues support it, on which chains, and what redemption routes exist for their account type.

For a deeper view of how stablecoin rules vary by jurisdiction and what that can mean for issuance, listings, and redemption access, see the Regulation Map here.

Long-Term Viability and Ecosystem Growth
USD₮’s viability is reinforced by distribution. It remains one of the largest stablecoins by market cap and is issued across multiple networks, which supports continued exchange and wallet integration.

BUSD’s long-term outlook is constrained by its wind-down dynamics. Since new issuance stopped and supply has continued to shrink, many users treat BUSD as a legacy holding to convert rather than a stablecoin to build new workflows around.

How to Choose Between BUSD and USD₮
Matching a Stablecoin to Your Goals
If your goal is trading execution, prioritize liquidity and pair coverage first, then choose the chain that your exchange supports for withdrawals.

If your goal is holding short-term “cash,” prioritize clear reserve reporting, credible assurance/attestation, realistic redemption and conversion routes for your geography and venues.

Risks to Consider Before Holding Either Stablecoin
The key risks are operational.

Venue risk: your exchange can change support.

Issuer risk: reserves and policies are centralized.

Chain risk: fees, congestion, and bridging risk can add friction.

Factors Traders, Investors, and Businesses Should Evaluate
Use this checklist:

Availability: Can you deposit/withdraw on your preferred chain today?

Liquidity: Are there deep pairs where you trade?

Transparency: What reports exist, and what is their scope?

Exit plan: How will you convert back to fiat or another stablecoin if rules change?

Conclusion
USD₮ and BUSD both aim at $1, but they are not interchangeable in practice. USD₮ is defined by scale and distribution across exchanges and chains, which supports deep liquidity and flexible routing.

BUSD’s role has narrowed over time. Changes to issuance and platform support have shifted it from a broadly usable trading and settlement asset to a more situational token, primarily relevant for managing existing balances rather than new activity.

Practical takeaway: for most users who need wide market access, cross-chain flexibility, or active trading support, USD₮ is typically the more useful option today. BUSD may still matter for legacy holders with a specific supported route, but it is less commonly used as a primary stablecoin.

This article is for educational purposes. It is not legal, tax, or investment advice.
#Plasma @Plasma $XPL

Pembayaran stablecoin adalah transaksi yang menggunakan cryptocurrency yang terikat pada aset stabil, seperti Dolar AS. Dolar digital ini hidup di blockchain publik dan menciptakan jembatan antara uang tradisional dan keuangan onchain.

Alih-alih langkah-langkah pemrosesan pesan, penyelesaian, dan penyelesaian yang terpisah, pembayaran stablecoin menggabungkan semuanya dalam satu transaksi onchain atomik. Satu pembaruan buku besar baik mengirimkan instruksi dan memindahkan nilai, sehingga orang dapat memegang dan mengirim dolar digital melintasi batas dalam beberapa klik.

Dalam tulisan ini, kita akan melihat bagaimana pembayaran stablecoin bekerja, bagaimana mereka dibandingkan dengan jalur pembayaran tradisional, mengapa orang dan bisnis memilihnya untuk transfer sehari-hari, serta risiko dan pertanyaan terbuka yang masih membentuk masa depan mereka.

In the ever-evolving realm of technology, few stories captivate like that of Jawad Ashraf, CEO of #vanar . His journey, marked by an early fascination with computers, has led him to pioneer in virtual reality (VR), gaming, and blockchain. In an insightful interview with Rare Network’s RandCorp, Ashraf shared his experiences and visions, painting a picture of the future in these technologies.

Early Fascination with Technology
“It all started with the ZX Spectrum in the UK,” Jawad recalls. His childhood was not just about playing games but creating them. This passion for computers led him to a computer science degree and a brief stint in full-time employment before venturing into freelance software development.

Transition to Entrepreneurship and Virtua’s Genesis
Jawad’s transition from employee to entrepreneur involved diverse experiences, including antiterrorism software development. These ventures culminated in creating Virtua. “I set up a VR company just to play with the market and understand what people were doing in VR,” he explains, showing how initial curiosity sparked a groundbreaking enterprise.

Evolution of Virtua and Blockchain Integration
Initially focused on VR, Virtua quickly recognized blockchain and NFTs’ potential. “We launched a metaverse in VR on blockchain with NFTs, and no one knew what we were doing,” Jawad shares, highlighting the pioneering spirit of the company. Despite early challenges, Virtua adapted its strategies, waiting for the market to evolve.

The $VANRY Blockchain: A Paradigm Shift in Blockchain Technology
One of the most groundbreaking ventures discussed by Jawad Ashraf is the development of the Vanar blockchain. This blockchain platform is not just another addition to the existing array of blockchain technologies; it represents a paradigm shift. “We want it to be the world’s biggest blockchain that nobody knows about, in the same way you dont know about AWS, or Google cloud. The products that run on it are more important” says Jawad, emphasizing the goal of seamless integration and user-friendliness.

Design Philosophy and Technical Innovation

@Vanarchain is designed with a focus on accessibility and efficiency. It’s environmentally conscious, acknowledging the growing importance of sustainable technology. Jawad elaborates, “No blockchain is green out the gate. So we were, okay, let’s look at the landscape. We forked Ethereum and then locked the gas to a fraction of a cent.” This approach ensures a stable and predictable transaction cost, a critical factor for widespread adoption.

Balancing Multiple Ventures and The Importance of Teamwork
Balancing responsibilities at Vanar and Virtua, Jawad underscores the importance of collaboration. “It’s tiring, but what you realize is, there is no such thing as a weekend when you’re running your own business” he says, reflecting the commitment and team support needed in tech entrepreneurship.

The Future of Gaming and Technology
Jawad envisions a future where AR, VR, and mobile gaming offer immersive experiences. “People want the absolute movement between places… a rich, immersive AR light experience” he predicts, aligning Virtua with these technological trends.

Conclusion
Jawad Ashraf’s story is a narrative of passion, adaptability, and foresight. As Vanar continues to innovate in VR, gaming, and blockchain, its impact on the tech industry is poised to be significant and far-reaching.

$XPL pandangan bercampur, terjebak antara pembukaan pasokan utama dan adopsi ekosistem yang lambat di pasar yang menghindari risiko.

1. Pembukaan Token Utama - 2.5B XPL (25% dari pasokan) dibuka untuk peserta AS pada 28 Juli 2026, berisiko menyebabkan tekanan jual yang signifikan jika permintaan menurun.

2. Pertumbuhan Ekosistem vs. Kompetisi Integrasi terbaru seperti NEAR Intents meningkatkan utilitas, tetapi rantai saingan seperti STABLE semakin mendapatkan daya tarik, menantang posisi pasar Plasma.

3. Sentimen Pasar & Penggunaan - Ketakutan "ekstrem" yang persisten dan dominasi Bitcoin menekan permintaan altcoin, sementara aktivitas on-chain yang tipis gagal mendukung valuasi tinggi token tersebut.