In this episode of Saffron Files, Justin Roberti and Dingo discuss Bitcoin’s response to macroeconomic uncertainty, the stalled Clarity Act, stablecoin yield, tokenized financial infrastructure and the risk of TradFi absorbing DeFi on unfavorable terms. They also examine the rapid growth and darker incentives of prediction markets before sharing updates on Saffron’s internal testing, upcoming audit and participation at EthCC.
Transcript:
Justin Roberti (00:01)
Welcome, welcome, welcome. This is Justin Roberti. Welcome to The Saffron Files. I have my co-host Dingo with me.
Dingo, good morning. How are you, sir?
Dingo:
Good morning, good morning, good morning (laughs). I’m doing fine. How are you, Justin?
Justin:
Good. It’s fantastic to be here. I love doing The Saffron Files. Thank you to everyone who’s listening today.
We’re going to give you a little update on where the market has been. It’s been a weird bear market, hasn’t it, Dingo?
Every bear market is unwelcome, but this one has had a strange feeling. There are so many macro reasons, especially with the oil shock, for people to feel bearish, and yet it isn’t quite the same cycle that we’ve seen before, is it?
Dingo:
No. This is something we could never really have anticipated, although in retrospect, I feel like we should have seen it coming.
All of a sudden, the institutions that were so antagonistic and didn’t want us playing in their space for so long were suddenly welcoming us with open arms. It probably should have set off more warning bells than it did.
It’s really interesting where we are right now because there’s a lot of despair in the markets. People are really disappointed with Bitcoin. People are really disappointed that the Clarity Act didn’t get passed.
There’s a lot to talk about here.
Justin:
Yeah, definitely.
Not to opine too much at the beginning of the show, but I think it’s arguable that part of what’s going on is that we’ve heard people we’ve interviewed—and people on shows you’ve been on—talk about a price correction in crypto.
But honestly, I think some of the best predictions have come from people who are more involved in TradFi. I think that goes to show who is steering the ship a little bit right now.
Let’s talk about that dichotomy.
Crypto in the second quarter of 2026 is being pulled in two directions at once. Prices are jittery because of macro fears, the oil shock and liquidation risk, while stablecoins, yield products, tokenized securities and institutional payment rails are quietly becoming more real.
One thing that happens during these periods of capitulation, folks, when prices are down, is that those who have the means continue to buy.
There was a headline today about MicroStrategy, which is now just called Strategy, continuing to buy. I think we’re going to find that everybody who has a great deal of liquidity is continuing to buy because it’s cheaper for them right now.
Now is the time to dig in.
The big question for this show is simple: if infrastructure keeps improving while price action stays this messy, what actually wins first in 2026—the market, the rails or the business models built on top of them?
Let’s get into the macro conditions, Bitcoin and market fear.
According to a late-March analysis by Finance Magnates, Bitcoin spent the latter part of March trapped in the $60,000 to $72,000 range, with a weekend sell-off tied to oil, gold, forced liquidations and Middle East headlines. It then rebounded after signs of a pause in U.S. military action toward Iran.
The fact that there has been a rebound every time there’s any indication of a cessation or de-escalation in the war in Iran shows how much that has everyone concerned right now.
Dingo:
Yeah.
Justin:
As soon as officials signal that there might be a deal, people become optimistic again.
According to CoinDesk on March 25, market anxiety remained high even as regulation improved. VanEck data showed that traders were paying record prices for downside protection, while the put-to-call open-interest ratio was at its highest level since June 2021.
We have all this progress. We have the Dow potentially ready to be tokenized, essentially, after receiving SEC approval. We have these amazing leaps forward, and yet there are still all these things making people afraid.
According to a March 23 report from AMB Crypto, fear among U.S. investors was reflected in a falling Coinbase Premium Index, while Glassnode data pointed to profit-taking and weakening accumulation as Bitcoin struggled to hold the psychological $70,000 level.
My question to you, Dingo, is this: if Bitcoin is still trading like a macro asset every time oil spikes or rate cuts get delayed, what exactly do people mean when they call it a hedge?
Is Bitcoin officially not a hedge at this point?
Dingo:
I think people tend to use the word “hedge” too loosely, especially over the past few years.
I don’t think Bitcoin behaves like a short-term hedge against every single macro shock. In fact, risk-on assets such as Bitcoin can get hurt badly during periods like this.
It isn’t a short-term hedge in the way that gold or cash can sometimes be.
Right now, it still trades like a high-volatility global-liquidity asset. When oil jumps, when people tweet that the war is about to end and then there’s another escalation, when rate cuts get pushed back or bills fail to pass, traders often end up selling it along with everything else.
The stronger case for Bitcoin as a hedge is a long-term one.
You have currency debasement. If you look at the history of Bitcoin’s price action since 2009, I think that argument is irrefutable.
You can see it as a hedge against distrust in the financial system. You can see it as a hedge against capital controls.
Bitcoin simply isn’t mature enough yet to be an effective hedge against these short-term events. It’s still pretty new, all things considered.
Justin:
Right.
It doesn’t seem to be untethered from the broader traditional market.
People have made speculative, positive claims about Bitcoin—and I’m still a huge fan—but they’ve been trying to determine what Bitcoin’s utility would ultimately be since its inception.
Maybe it doesn’t fit every category that we originally discussed, but it is still useful, and adoption is continuing to grow.
If traders are paying record prices for downside protection right now, is smart money or institutional money preparing for more pain in the market, or is this just late-stage panic?
Does institutional money know something that we don’t, or is it simply preparing for how frightened the average retail investor might become?
Dingo:
I think it’s usually a mixture of both.
We’re seeing prices rise, particularly with oil and gas, and there is talk of oil moving well into triple-digit prices per barrel.
I think institutions are preparing for some pain, but some of that pain may come from late-stage panic.
I’m seeing other people I follow in the industry who are well-connected reporting that they’re continuing to buy. Obviously, Michael Saylor is continuing to buy.
Another major issue hitting us is that David Sacks, the crypto czar, is now out of the White House. That follows Coinbase rejecting support for the Clarity Act.
They couldn’t reach a definitive agreement on how stablecoin yield would be handled or who would have jurisdiction over it, so that has definitely set us back.
I think a lot of people were buying in anticipation of that bill passing.
I know Brian Armstrong is receiving a lot of criticism on Twitter. I’ve seen people say that he only opposed the bill because he wants a monopoly on stablecoin yield so Coinbase can make money from it.
I think the issue is much more existential than that.
If we simply defer to the banks and let them control yield, I think that affects DeFi. I think it affects centralized exchanges as well.
There is a lot of uncertainty right now about what will happen in our industry, the macroeconomy, the global economy and the war.
Justin:
Right, definitely.
Let’s talk a little bit about tokenization and the Clarity Act.
According to a CoinDesk article on March 25, the SEC approved Nasdaq’s move to support tokenized-securities trading, while U.S. senators said they had reached a compromise on yield to help advance the Clarity Act.
That is a sign that Washington may be moving from vague hostility—I don’t know that it was very vague under Gary Gensler; I think it was fairly open hostility—toward more direct market design.
According to a16z’s January 5 piece, “Six Trends for 2026: Stablecoins, Payments and Real-World Assets,” Jeremy Zhang argues that stablecoins are shifting from a niche tool into the internet’s settlement layer after handling an estimated $46 trillion in transaction volume last year.
That’s really amazing.
Dingo:
Yeah.
Justin:
Sam Broner added that banks are using stablecoins, tokenized deposits, tokenized Treasuries and on-chain bonds to innovate without rewriting their legacy core systems.
That’s a huge number, and it shows how quickly we scale as soon as we move outside our relatively small Web3 space and into TradFi, which is a much larger ocean than the one we’ve been swimming in until now.
According to Dominic Basulto’s March 23 article in The Motley Fool, Mastercard launched a blockchain-payment initiative with 85 crypto partners, including Ripple and PayPal, aimed at cross-border payments, business-to-business payments and global payouts.
That matters because it suggests that TradFi isn’t simply tolerating blockchain rails. It is actively wiring them into existing payment infrastructure.
Everyone is also looking toward the FIFA World Cup as a stress test for global payment systems.
Dingo, my question is this: if regulators allow crypto to scale but restrict yield—something near and dear to Saffron’s heart—on stablecoin balances, is that clarity or is it selective permission?
Is our government choosing which Web3 companies get to continue into the future and picking the winners and losers?
Dingo:
That’s the major problem I have with it, and I think anyone in DeFi shares the same sentiment, or some variation of it.
If this is allowed to move forward, Washington appears more willing to let crypto scale where it improves payments, market plumbing and transparency.
On the other hand, it is much less willing to allow stablecoins to compete directly with bank deposits through passive yield.
We’re getting a much clearer picture than we did during the old era of regulation by enforcement under Gary Gensler.
But now it feels like mafia-style selective permission over who gets to win and who gets to succeed, because the state is still deciding which parts of crypto are allowed to become systemically important.
At least in my eyes, that isn’t what crypto should be about. It’s some kind of Frankenstein’s monster.
I feel strongly about this. I genuinely believe that introducing competition—even if we’re only talking about stablecoin yield—is going to benefit the end user, the regular person, at the end of the day.
Banks would have to compete with one another and with another industry over who gets to hold your cash.
Competition is good. I think it’s healthy. I think it’s what America was founded on.
If we have the government picking winners and losers, then we’re introducing new technology while preserving the same old practices.
Justin:
Definitely.
It seems like TradFi is very happy to pick up what we’ve been doing and then take whatever portion of the business it can back for itself.
The way they’re positioning stablecoins—as global payment rails and potentially the settlement layer for the entire internet, not just Web3—is very exciting on its face.
But who captures the value? Is it the issuer, the application, the chain or the last company controlling the on-ramp?
Does the money flow into TradFi, or does it stay within our space?
Dingo:
I think that’s something we have to be very careful about as we pursue these integrations.
I touched on this during the last show. I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it is very convenient for TradFi that all of this is happening while our industry is down and out and desperate for an olive branch or any kind of good news.
That may make us more susceptible to accepting terms and offers that we wouldn’t have accepted if we were in a stronger position.
That is what I’m constantly worried about.
I don’t want our entire industry, and especially DeFi, to be absorbed into the traditional banking system because that defeats the purpose of DeFi.
This period of bad news will pass. The market will eventually recover.
But if we make concessions through legislation or other agreements, those decisions could last much longer than a market downturn.
It’s important that we remain cognizant of who we are, our ethos and what brought us here in the first place.
Justin:
Let’s talk about yield, prediction markets and what is actually growing in 2026.
According to that a16z crypto report, 2026 will be about origination, not simply tokenization.
That means more asset-backed credit and lending structures created on-chain instead of simply packaging off-chain products for on-chain distribution.
Maggie Hsu added that tokenized money-market funds, stablecoins and DeFi tools such as Morpho vaults are pushing wealth products toward more active, yield-bearing on-chain allocation.
That connects directly with what Saffron often discusses.
Yield is no longer simply passive income. It becomes a designed, priced and tradable product layer.
According to CoinDesk’s March 25 edition of Crypto Long & Short, the CEO of Global Settlement Network argued that crypto prediction markets are no longer simply forecasting tools. They are systems that can financialize instability, especially when platforms such as Polymarket allow users to speculate on war, regime change and public disorder with fast on-chain settlement.
We’re reaching a kind of crazy place with these prediction markets.
What’s your feeling about them?
It’s very close to gambling—or it simply is gambling. On one hand, people arguably have the right to participate. On the other, is this really a strong, sustainable market, or is it simply where people are turning because conditions are so bad right now?
Dingo:
That’s a really good question.
I think there is a lot of value in prediction markets. I’m writing an op-ed about how prediction markets can be used to determine public sentiment in a way that can’t necessarily be manipulated in the same manner as an isolated study.
But prediction markets for everything—including grotesque and morbid subjects such as people dying or wars—feel like the 2021 memecoin season.
The general public has found this new thing. It’s fun and exciting.
As the market matures, I hope we start to see fewer graphic and macabre things being offered for prediction.
The major issue that worries me is that, because there isn’t definitive regulation yet, we’re seeing certain accounts that appear to have inside information—or are at least extraordinarily lucky—placing bets on events that occur hours later and making a killing.
There’s no regulation governing that yet.
That market is currently in a very memecoin-like phase. I don’t mean “niche” in terms of dollars, but in terms of how new it is and how limited its history has been.
It will be interesting to see how prediction markets evolve over the years.
I don’t think they’ll always be this crazy. It’s like a caveman discovering fire and then setting his cave on fire because he loves it so much.
Justin:
When you say “memecoin-like,” you mean it’s a relatively new thing and people are smitten with it. We’re in the honeymoon phase right now.
Dingo:
Yes. That’s exactly what I was trying to get across.
Justin:
I could definitely see that.
There was a smaller story last week that got pushed aside because there were bigger things to discuss.
A reporter was covering whether an actual strike had occurred in Iraq. A syndicate or cabal of people who had invested something like $90 million anonymously threatened the reporter and told him to change his reporting because the outcome was going to cause them to lose money.
I love that prediction markets give us insights or snapshots into what’s happening.
But it makes me crazy that we’re creating an incentive for people to influence the news itself.
Dingo:
That’s the worrying part for me, and it’s something we could devote an entire episode to because I find it fascinating.
But some aspects of it become dark very quickly.
Memecoins weren’t dark in the same way as betting on someone’s death or something similar, but prediction markets do share that impulsive, fun, honeymoon-period quality.
I think we’ll see them evolve over the years because they are such an interesting tool.
Anyone can say whatever they want about any position. But if you’re willing to put money behind it, that represents a whole new level of commitment and conviction.
Justin:
Definitely.
I know you’re on the road this week. I think you’re traveling to an event for Saffron.
Would you like to give us a Saffron news update?
Dingo:
Yeah.
A few of us are going out to EthCC to do some business development and meet with developers, creators and others in the industry.
I’ll personally be flying out within the next few hours, so I have to wrap this up here. A few of us are already out there.
It will be a lot of fun.
The way I feel about these events, whether they’re domestic or international, is that you often get the most value out of them when the market is down.
You really get to see who is committed, who is working on something interesting and who isn’t simply relying on hype. It cuts through all the noise.
I’m looking forward to it.
We’re still working on internal testing and working through the beta. We have an Orca audit that should be wrapping up soon.
We’re going to be pretty busy over the next few weeks, but we’ll have to publish another update soon.
It would also be cool to do an on-location episode.
Justin:
Yeah, that would be cool.
One last question before you go.
Is 2026 the year that yield becomes a real product, perhaps more important than simply following price action?
Dingo:
I don’t think it’s only 2026.
I think it’s going to be 2026, 2027, 2028 and onward. This is more of a directional change in how the market views crypto and other assets.
The market is beginning to care less about pure price speculation and more about earning returns on assets, generating yield and structuring that yield within a portfolio.
More importantly, people are beginning to understand why it matters to know where their yield actually comes from.
Who is paying it? What risk is being taken? Is it sustainable?
That shift is what really excites me.
It plays directly into what I view as DeFi’s strengths, especially with Saffron Vaults and models like ours, where structured yield is priced and divided between participants instead of simply coming from token emissions.
That gives users much more control over how they interact with a product, DeFi and crypto generally.
Based on the conversations I’ve heard at conventions and in the market, people are very interested in yield.
They believe in these assets and want to accumulate more of them, but they also want a lower-risk environment in which to do that.
Justin:
Definitely.
Dingo, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us while you’re traveling.
Safe flying, and we hope that you have a great show.
Dingo:
Absolutely. Thank you. I’ll keep you guys updated.
Justin:
You’re going to Paris, so that’s very cool.
Thank you to everyone for tuning in this week. It’s been great speaking with you.
Leave us comments on the board if you have any questions or anything you want us to address.
In the meantime, we’re going to keep you apprised of our view of what’s happening in the market and what’s happening with Saffron itself.
We love you guys. We would be nowhere without our community, and we thank you for joining us this week.
All right, Dingo, we’re going to wrap it up there. Good talking to you, man.
Dingo:
Good talking to you, too. Take it easy. Bye.
Justin:
Take care.
Dingo breaks down Kraken Financial becoming the first crypto institution to receive a Federal Reserve master account, and what direct access to the Fed's payment rails actually means. He unpacks why this is more significant than the hype suggests, and what it signals for the future boundary between TradFi and crypto.
Dingo breaks down why range matters in Uniswap v3, using a farmers-market analogy to explain how liquidity concentration shapes returns. He also connects it back to Saffron Vaults, showing how fixed and variable participants can customize their exposure on top of the same underlying position.
Justin Roberti, Dingo and Tupelo dig into how the unwinding Japanese yen carry trade could pressure stocks, real estate, crypto and other risk assets. They also cover Kraken Financial's direct access to the Federal Reserve's payment system and what it signals for crypto's integration with TradFi.
