Bitwise: This Weekend's Surge Accelerates the On-Chain Migration of the Financial World

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-03-05Обновлено 2026-03-05

Введение

Financial migration to the blockchain is inevitable, and recent geopolitical events have dramatically accelerated this shift. Traditional markets operate with delays, high costs, and limited hours, but blockchain enables 24/7 global trading, instant settlement, and lower costs. While many assumed this transition would take 5–10 years, a weekend military strike against Iran—occurring when almost all traditional markets were closed—proved a turning point. On February 28, during widespread market closures, decentralized platforms like Hyperliquid saw explosive activity. Hyperliquid’s oil perpetual contracts became a key price reference, even cited by Bloomberg. Tether’s gold token XAUT reached over $300 million in trading volume, and prediction markets like Polymarket hit record highs. For the first time, crypto markets functioned as the primary real-time financial system during a major event. This event underscores that investors, funds, and institutions can no longer ignore on-chain finance. The barrier to entry—learning wallets, stablecoins, and DeFi platforms—is diminishing as necessity drives adoption. Once engaged, users gain access to a faster, more open financial system. Critics may argue extended traditional hours could suffice, but history shows that disruptive technology, like blockchain, often outperforms incremental improvements. The move to on-chain finance is happening faster than anyone expected.

I have always believed that the migration of the financial industry to on-chain is inevitable.

Blockchain enables assets to be traded 24/7, 365 days a year, with instant settlement and costs far lower than the traditional system. It makes traditional stock trading platforms and T+1 settlement seem incredibly antiquated.

But I've always wondered: When exactly will this transition happen? And what event will catalyze the system's complete transformation?

After all, most people don't feel the delays of the current system. When my uncle buys stocks in his Charles Schwab account, he doesn't care that it takes a day to settle, nor does he care about the complex processes involving mysterious institutions like the NSCC, DTCC, and Cede & Co. He buys, the stock appears in his account, simple and straightforward, no fuss.

So I once thought that crypto-driven markets would grow on the fringes first. Over the next 5 to 10 years, they would primarily serve crypto-native users and those who don't fit perfectly into the traditional financial system, like global retail investors wanting to trade U.S. stocks. Eventually, these systems would become good enough to gradually take over the existing system, and institutions like the NYSE would transition to tokenized markets, much like they moved from floor trading to electronic trading.

This would be a classic tech story: disrupt the edges first, then take over the core. I thought this would take 5 to 10 years.

But this weekend proved me wrong. I am now convinced that this will happen much faster than anyone anticipated.

What Happened This Weekend

At 2:30 AM EST on Sunday, February 28th, Trump announced a strike against Iran. This timing is very specific for global financial markets; almost all markets were closed.


· U.S. stock markets were closed
· U.S. futures markets were closed
· Major forex markets were closed
· European markets were closed
· Asian markets were closed

Essentially, the only markets still trading were those in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Middle Eastern countries (which operate on a Sunday-to-Thursday schedule), but these markets are limited in size and scope, with little participation from Western investors and covering few assets.

In the past, if a major geopolitical shock occurred on a Sunday morning, investors would have had to wait until 6:00 PM Sunday evening for U.S. futures to open to see the market's reaction. But this weekend showed us: they now have another choice—turning to the 24/7, globally traded crypto infrastructure.

And this weekend, they actually did it.

Throughout Sunday, on-chain finance became the core of global finance. The decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, in particular, was the focal point. It offers perpetual contracts for crypto assets as well as real-world assets like crude oil.

Hyperliquid's trading volume surged so much that Bloomberg, in its coverage of the airstrike's impact on oil, directly cited the price of the crude oil contract on Hyperliquid as the most significant reference price. This was no coincidence; Hyperliquid's native token, HYPE, rose about 30% over the weekend. In my view, this is more like investors paying upfront for its future.

But it wasn't just Hyperliquid. The trading volume for XAUT, a gold token issued by Tether, soared to over $300 million in 24 hours. Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket hit record trading volumes. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other crypto assets were also in the spotlight.

In my memory, this is the first time the cryptocurrency market has truly functioned as a "market" in the real sense.

Why This Matters

If you are a hedge fund, a bank, or any investor who wants to stay competitive, you now have no choice: you must open a stablecoin wallet, you must learn to trade on Hyperliquid, you must understand XAUT, you must research tokenized stocks.

Because even if you don't, someone else will.

This trend will accelerate. The biggest barrier to participating in on-chain markets is getting used to tools like wallets, stablecoins, Hyperliquid, and Uniswap. Once you get the hang of it, all the new capabilities of DeFi and on-chain finance are within reach. Exposure leads to exploration, and exploration leads to trading.

Of course, some will surely say: Traditional markets can do this too! Nasdaq is moving towards 23-hour trading, 5 days a week! We don't offer 24/7 trading because no one needs it!

Fine, whatever. That's what Blockbuster said about Netflix, and what Microsoft said about the iPhone.

The shift to on-chain finance is inevitable. And after this weekend, I am certain: its arrival will be much sooner than any of us imagined.

Связанные с этим вопросы

QAccording to the article, what event over the weekend accelerated the migration of the financial world on-chain?

AThe announcement of a U.S. military strike on Iran in the early hours of Sunday, February 28th, a time when almost all traditional global financial markets were closed.

QWhich on-chain platform became a focal point for trading during the weekend's market closure and was even cited by Bloomberg?

AThe decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, which offers perpetual contracts for crypto assets and real-world assets like crude oil.

QWhat is the author's view on the traditional argument that 24/7 trading is unnecessary?

AThe author dismisses this argument, comparing it to past dismissals of disruptive technologies like Netflix by Blockbuster and the iPhone by Microsoft, and believes the shift to on-chain finance is inevitable and will happen sooner than expected.

QWhat specific asset, issued by Tether, saw its 24-hour trading volume surge to over $300 million during this event?

ATether's gold token, XAUT.

QWhat does the author identify as the biggest hurdle for participating in on-chain markets, and what is the consequence of overcoming it?

AThe biggest hurdle is getting accustomed to the tools like wallets, stablecoins, and platforms like Hyperliquid and Uniswap. Once this is overcome, it leads to exploration and, subsequently, more trading activity as all the new capabilities of DeFi and on-chain finance become accessible.

Похожее

Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Munger Did the Math on a 'Losing Trade'

Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Charlie Munger's Calculated "Loss-Making Account" Many traders, drawn to speculative tools like futures contracts, often face repeated failures. As the article notes, unless one is a genius, such instruments should be avoided for long-term profit-seeking. Similarly, the practice of short selling is viewed with caution. The author firmly states a policy of not shorting, even when bearish, preferring to simply wait. The core reason? Successful short selling requires exceptionally difficult conditions to profit. Legendary investors Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger have themselves reflected on painful short-selling experiences. Munger highlights two critical flaws in the mathematical logic of shorting: 1. Asymmetrical Risk/Reward: A long position has a maximum loss of 100% but unlimited upside. A short position caps profit at 100% (if a stock falls to zero) but carries theoretically unlimited loss potential. 2. The "Promoter" Problem: Fraudulent or struggling companies can prolong their decline. As Munger said, "You can run out of money before the promoter runs out of ideas," meaning short sellers may be forced to cover positions at a loss before the company's true fate unfolds. The article cites Stanley Druckenmiller, a famed hedge fund manager. He once shorted 12 companies that all eventually went bankrupt. However, intense market rallies forced him to cover his positions within three weeks, resulting in massive losses—$200 million of his capital plus an additional $600 million. He concluded he likely never made money shorting in his career. His experience perfectly illustrates Munger's points: facing unlimited losses and being wiped out before being proven right. The conclusion is clear: for most investors, complex instruments like short selling and derivatives are not viable paths to stable, long-term gains. Self-reflection is advised before repeatedly wasting time and capital on such speculative strategies.

marsbit19 мин. назад

Why Not Short Even When Bearish? Munger Did the Math on a 'Losing Trade'

marsbit19 мин. назад

For Hedging, Buy Gold and Oil; For Explosive Growth, Buy AI; Bitcoin, the 'Outdated' Asset, Enters a Bear Market

Bitcoin’s price has recently fallen sharply, hitting a two-month low near $66,000, with Ethereum also dropping to a three-month low. While surface explanations point to ETF outflows, geopolitical tensions, and corporate selling, a deeper issue is emerging: Bitcoin is losing a crucial asset competition. For years, Bitcoin thrived in a low-rate environment where investors sought alternatives amid inflation fears and dissatisfaction with traditional options. Now, the market landscape has shifted, leaving Bitcoin stuck in an "awkward middle ground," facing challenges on three fronts: 1. **As an inflation hedge, gold is winning.** Investors worried about persistent inflation are turning to tangible assets like gold, energy stocks, and commodity producers, which offer more direct pricing power and physical backing. 2. **For growth exposure, AI is winning.** Those seeking high growth now favor AI-related companies with actual revenues and profits, an area where Bitcoin's lack of cash flow puts it at a disadvantage. 3. **Within crypto, infrastructure and stablecoins are winning.** Even investors wanting crypto exposure have alternatives like exchanges, stablecoin issuers, and tokenization firms, whose performance is directly tied to real-world adoption and offers clearer operational leverage. The recent market reaction to inflation warnings highlights this shift. Instead of boosting Bitcoin as "digital gold," such news now drives flows toward traditional inflation-sensitive assets. Therefore, recent events like ETF outflows and corporate selling are seen not as causes, but as symptoms of this new reality. Capital has more compelling options, and investors are becoming more selective. The emerging bear case for Bitcoin is no longer about it being a fraud or failed technology, but rather that **scarcity alone is no longer enough**. It is no longer seen as the best hedge, the best growth asset, or the only crypto play.

marsbit36 мин. назад

For Hedging, Buy Gold and Oil; For Explosive Growth, Buy AI; Bitcoin, the 'Outdated' Asset, Enters a Bear Market

marsbit36 мин. назад

SaaS Battle Royale: The Survivors Who Win All Share One Common Trait

**Summary** The AI revolution has triggered a "SaaS apocalypse," forcing a brutal market shakeout. The key dividing line is the pricing model. Companies like Snowflake and Datadog, which charge based on consumption (e.g., data processed or compute used), are thriving. AI workloads actively *generate* more demand for their services, fueling growth. Datadog's accelerating revenue is a prime example. Microsoft and Palantir, as platform/ecosystem players, also benefit by acting as essential channels for AI deployment. In contrast, traditional SaaS firms built on per-seat or per-task licensing (e.g., Intuit, Adobe) face direct pressure, as AI threatens to automate the very human tasks their software supports. Companies like Salesforce, a per-seat giant, are caught in the middle. While showing strong AI monetization (e.g., its Agentforce platform) and experimenting with consumption-based "Flex Credits," its stock remains under pressure, illustrating that the market rewards *completed* transitions, not just the intent. The recent Microsoft Build conference underscored key trends: AI is evolving from an assistant to an autonomous "agent," and platform providers like Microsoft are consolidating their control. The market's recovery is highly selective, focused on identifying which companies are "fed by AI" versus "eaten by AI." Future focus will be on the diffusion of this recovery to transforming companies and the real-world adoption data of AI agents like Microsoft Copilot.

marsbit53 мин. назад

SaaS Battle Royale: The Survivors Who Win All Share One Common Trait

marsbit53 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片