Bank of Italy Warns ETH Price Crash Could Disrupt Ethereum Network

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-01-13Last updated on 2026-01-13

Abstract

A Bank of Italy study warns that a severe crash in Ethereum's price could cause the entire network to fail, potentially freezing over $800 billion in assets, including stablecoins and tokenized bonds. The risk stems from Ethereum’s validator-based economy: if ETH’s value drops too low, validators may stop processing transactions due to unprofitable operations, halting the network’s ability to finalize transactions. This would render all on-chain assets immovable, even if they are inherently trustworthy. Additionally, a lower ETH price makes the network cheaper to attack, as the cost to manipulate transactions decreases significantly. In such a crisis, moving assets off-chain would be difficult due to fragile bridges and locked DeFi apps, with no central authority to intervene. The report emphasizes that since real financial assets are built on Ethereum, a crypto crash could spill over into traditional finance, and may lead regulators to require backup systems and external record-keeping.

A Bank of Italy study warns that if Ethereum prices crash badly, then the entire Ethereum network could stop working, freezing more than $800 billion worth of assets. Even assets that are supposed to be safe, like stablecoins and tokenized bonds, will be at risk. This warning comes from the research paper by the Bank of Italy, which is not just the traders’ take; it is a central bank risk analysis.

How an ETH Price Crash Could Break Ethereum’s Validator Economy

The reason behind this warning is that Ethereum runs because of the validators that process transactions. In return, they get paid in ETH. If the ETH price crashes and becomes very low, then the validators start to quit validating, as they have very high expenses in validating. Then their earnings become worthless. If this continues and many validators start quitting, then the network can’t finalize transactions. At this point, transactions can be submitted, but nothing settles, and assets will be immovable.

If this happens, it leads to the biggest risk. Ethereum now holds stablecoins, tokenized bonds, and other financial assets. Their value will be more than $800 billion. If Ethereum freezes, then it cannot move, sell, or redeem. Even if the assets are trustworthy.

Why a Falling ETH Price Makes Ethereum Cheaper to Attack

When the price of ETH crashes, it has a high possibility of hacking the network. Attacking the network is very expensive because the ETH is valuable. If the ETH price crashes, then it becomes cheap to attack Ethereum. Hackers could control the network, and they can start faking the transactions and steal or duplicate the assets.

During the crisis, people can’t easily move assets to another blockchain. Bridges may be fragile, and mass exits could break them. DeFi apps may lock the funds, and no authority can pause or fix Ethereum. There is no central bank to save it. So this is the reason the Bank of Italy is saying that if real financial assets are built on Ethereum, then the crypto crash could damage real financial assets too. So the regulators may soon require the backup system, emergency plans, and copies of ownership records outside Ethereum.

Highlighted Crypto News:

VanEck Says Policy Clarity Sets Up a Risk-On Q1 for Investors

TagsCryptocurrencyETHETHEREUM

Trending Cryptos

ctr
CitreaCTR
wstusdt
wrapped stUSDTWSTUSDT
apr
aPrioriAPR
ctx
Cryptex FinanceCTX
audio
AudiusAUDIO
comp
CompoundCOMP
mantra
MantraMANTRA
xvs
VenusXVS
waxl
AxelarWAXL
bill
Billions NetworkBILL
pyth
PYTH (Pyth)PYTH
rune
THORChainRUNE
velodrome
Velodrome FinanceVELODROME
brev
BrevisBREV
zrx
ZRX（0X）ZRX

Related Questions

QWhat is the main warning issued by the Bank of Italy regarding Ethereum?

AThe Bank of Italy warns that a severe crash in the price of ETH could cause the entire Ethereum network to stop working, freezing over $800 billion worth of assets, including stablecoins and tokenized bonds.

QHow could a crash in ETH's price lead to the Ethereum network failing to finalize transactions?

AValidators are paid in ETH to process transactions. If the ETH price crashes, their earnings become worthless compared to their high operating expenses, causing them to quit. If enough validators leave, the network loses the capacity to finalize transactions, meaning assets become immovable even if transactions can be submitted.

QWhy does a falling ETH price make the network cheaper to attack?

AAttacking the Ethereum network requires acquiring a large amount of ETH, which is expensive when the price is high. If the ETH price crashes, the cost to acquire enough ETH to attack the network becomes significantly cheaper, making it easier for hackers to potentially control it and fake transactions.

QWhat types of assets, valued at over $800 billion, are at risk if the Ethereum network freezes?

AThe assets at risk include stablecoins, tokenized bonds, and other financial assets built on the Ethereum blockchain.

QWhat solutions does the article suggest regulators might require to mitigate this risk?

ARegulators may soon require backup systems, emergency plans, and copies of ownership records to be maintained outside of the Ethereum blockchain to protect real financial assets built on it.

Related Reads

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that the core limitation of blockchain technology is not the scalability trilemma, but its fundamental lack of privacy, which acts as a barrier to institutional capital. It defines blockchain as a slow, expensive, shared computer whose primary value is "permissionlessness" (no administrator) and verifiable trust. While this is ideal for native financial assets like stable币, which now process trillions, two critical flaws remain for mainstream adoption: regulatory legitimacy and a default transparency that leaks all financial activity. The author contends that transparency is not a feature but a tax, quantified through MEV extraction, making the public ledger unusable for serious institutions. However, modern cryptography, specifically zero-knowledge proofs, now offers a solution: "provable privacy." This allows users to prove compliance (e.g., solvency, KYC) without revealing underlying data. This fusion of privacy and auditability resolves the transparency-compliant privacy-compliance dichotomy, enabling a purely upgraded system where transactions are verified but not broadcasted. Closing these flaws is presented as the essential bridge to onboard the next wave of trillions in capital.

marsbit1h ago

The Impossible Trilemma Is Basically a Pseudo-Problem

marsbit1h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手1h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手1h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit3h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit3h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手5h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手5h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit6h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit6h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片

Top Questions