Warning Savings protection Warning The AMF and the ACPR warn the public against the activities of several entities offering investments in Forex and in crypto-assets derivatives in France without being authorized to do so

1.3 Wed 30/09/2020 - 12:00 Reference texts Articles 318-44, 321-77, 321-81 and 323-39 of the General Regulation Articles 47, 48 and 92 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 231/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2012 …

The data from New Zealand is all that is on the calendar. These are unlikely to move the kiwi too much upon release. This article was written by Eamonn Sheridan at investinglive.com.

Four countries across the Middle East and Africa advanced separate digital asset regulatory frameworks in the first quarter of 2026, a new FM Intelligence analysis found, positioning the region alongside the EU's MiCA regime and Asia-Pacific licensing efforts in the global push to bring crypto under formal supervision.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)The four frameworks, covering Dubai, Kenya, South Africa, and Nigeria, differ widely in maturity and approach, from a fully operational licensing regime with 300 approved firms in South Africa to a six-entity pilot program in Nigeria. But taken together, they represent the broadest regulatory acceleration in the MEA crypto space to date, according to the FM Intelligence research.Dubai Writes the Region's First Crypto Derivatives RulebookDubai's Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority published Exchange Services Rulebook Version 2.1 on March 31, introducing a 5:1 retail leverage cap for crypto derivatives. The framework covers listed futures, perpetuals, and options across the 45 firms currently holding VARA licenses, nearly double the 23 recorded in December 2024. Major licensees include Binance FZE, Crypto.com, OKX ME, Deribit, and Backpack.The 5:1 cap sits between offshore exchanges that historically offered up to 100:1 leverage and the ESMA 2:1 cap applied to crypto CFDs in the European Union. Enforcement has been running in parallel: VARA issued penalty notices against 36 firms between August 2024 and August 2025, with fines ranging from approximately $13,600 to $163,000, the analysis noted.Kenya's Capital Thresholds Draw Sharp Industry PushbackKenya's draft VASP Regulations 2026, published March 17, propose KES 500 million ($3.86 million) in capital requirements for stablecoin issuers and descending thresholds for exchanges, wallet providers, and investment advisors. The Virtual Asset Association of Kenya warned the thresholds could eliminate over 90% of the country's current operators.The stakes are high. According to Chainalysis data cited in the analysis, Kenya received $19 billion in cryptocurrency inflows between July 2024 and June 2025, ranking 21st on the Global Adoption Index, with over 6 million crypto users. Final regulations are expected between Q2 and Q3 2026.South Africa Leads with 300 Licensed Crypto FirmsSouth Africa's FSCA has built what the analysis describes as the largest regulated crypto ecosystem in the developing world. Out of 512 applications received, the regulator approved 300 by December 2025, a 59% approval rate, while opening 81 enforcement investigations into unlicensed operators. Penalties for operating without a license reach ZAR 10 million (approximately $550,000) or 10 years imprisonment.Two compliance milestones arrived in early 2026: the OECD's Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework took effect on March 1, and the Financial Intelligence Centre confirmed a zero-threshold Travel Rule for crypto transfers. South Africa exited the FATF grey list in October 2025, with crypto regulation cited among the contributing reforms. VALR, the country's largest crypto exchange, secured a derivatives license in October 2025, becoming one of the first entities licensed for crypto derivatives under the Financial Markets Act.Nigeria Shifts from Prohibition to Structured EngagementNigeria's Central Bank launched an AML supervision pilot on March 31, enrolling six entities including KuCoin, stablecoin issuer cNGN, and payment platforms Flutterwave and Paystack. The pilot requires monthly AML performance indicators, governance reviews, and FATF Travel Rule implementation plans, and follows Nigeria's removal from the FATF grey list in October 2025.The shift is notable given the country's history. Nigeria's central bank ordered banks to close crypto-related accounts in February 2021, a stance that persisted for years. The country processed $92.1 billion in crypto transactions between July 2024 and June 2025, according to PwC data cited in the analysis, nearly three times South Africa's volume.What Remains UnresolvedThe FM Intelligence analysis notes that cross-border recognition between the four jurisdictions is not formalized, and the frameworks vary in enforcement readiness. Kenya's capital thresholds, if enacted as drafted, may produce a market dominated by foreign-capitalized operators rather than local firms, the research warns, inverting the framework's stated objective of fostering domestic participation.The full analysis, including detailed regulatory comparisons, leverage cap benchmarks, and compliance timelines, is available on FM Intelligence DataLab. This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.

WTI and Brent Crude Oil Technical Analysis with key levels as US-Iran news are still awaitedDespite extreme positivism in Stock Markets, Energy commodities remain doubtfulVolatility continues to shrink, but the latest progress has largely stalled The pricing of a peace deal between the US and Iran is continuous but also quite coarse.While Equity Markets have gone on an absolute frantic rally, boosted by short-covering, options delta hedging, TACOs, and an ever-hungrier investor, Commodities are subject to very different dynamics.Particularly when it comes to Energy products, Supply and Demand play their own very influential role. While Futures pricing helps to dictate expectations, Traders have to remember that, before anything else, real products are needed for production, consumption, and much more around the world – Hence, physical demand has an immense influence on prices.A major narrative that has emerged throughout the War is the large difference between physical and futures pricing, which has raised questions about a disconnect between Market pricing and the real-life issues faced by large buyers. WTI Futures Backwardation from April 15, 2026 – Source: CMEGroup The Futures Market has been in a large backwardation (where front contracts trade well above later contracts) – A natural formation amid supply fears, but no less damaging for hedgers. I invite you all to discover such dynamics throughout this fantastic CME piece.Add to this gigantic regional discrepancies in Barrel prices, particularly in Asia, and you get a Market pulled higher by relentless demand while supply remains in a large drought. This has created another wave of rallying throughout the session, with selloffs remaining supported by fresher bids – As long as Hormuz remains closed, a grind higher on pullbacks in Oil remains the path of least resistance.Meanwhile, US-Iran talks that were supposed to start again today, are finally set to only start throughout the weekend. This did come with its fair share of good news, with Israel and Lebanon agreeing to a ceasefire, a final step before the discussions. Gulf Oil Delivery Issues since End-February. Source: IEA With these factors in mind, let's dive right into an intraday outlook for both WTI and Brent Oil, highlighting their technical levels and outlining scenarios for their breakouts or breakdowns. Discover:The US Dollar is stalls as the world awaits Ceasefire news – DXY OutlookChart alert: AUD/USD 360 pips rally at risk of a minor mean reversion decline below 0.7200 before new uplegCable eyes 1.3696 after reclaiming key moving averages, bulls defend 1.3500Crude Oil Market Check and Technical LevelsWTI 4H Chart WTI Oil 4H Chart – April 16, 2026. Source: TradingView WTI Crude has once again fallen below Brent after an irregular Market pricing throughout the past week, tumbling to $87.20 with Israel-Lebanon Peace talks boosting sentiment.Nevertheless, as expressed in the introduction, the path of least resistance is to the upside, hence, bulls have pushed the commodity right back towards the 4H 200-period moving average (~$94.30). Having rejected it, sellers will want to see extension back towards $90.Failing to do so could see a large $90 to $100 range as traders await for clear instructions on where to look next.Resistance and Support levels remain the best guides to navigate these volatile environments.WTI Technical Levels:Resistance LevelsDaily highs $113.50 to $114.50 (small channel top)2022 and Monday highs $117 to $120 (larger channel top)Ukraine War Spike $120 to $124Support LevelsWar Support $93.00 - $95 (testing)$87 to $90 mini-Support (recent bounce)$82.80 to $84 micro-Support2025 Highs Key Support $78 to $80$69 to $70 Final War SupportBrent 4H Chart Brent Oil 4H Chart – April 16, 2026. Source: TradingView Brent is still in a more contained price action compared to WTI, with the range now extending to $95 to $107.Now testing its key 50 and 200-4H MAs, the action remains quite undecided.Breakout traders will want to see a daily close below $95 (for sellers) and a clean break above $107 for buyers.If the situation remains uncertain, the range should maintain.Brent Technical Levels:Resistance Levels$100 - $102 End-March PivotMini Resistance $105 - $107Range Resistance $111 to $114War Highs $117 to $120Support LevelsEnd-March Support $95 to $97$92.39 Recent dip$88 - $92 March 10 Bounce and 200-MA$80 - $82 Key War SupportPre-War Gap $75Keep track of the headlines as the talks come closer by the second.Safe Trades!Follow Elior on Twitter/X for additional Market News, Insights and Interactions @EliorManier Opinions are the authors'; not necessarily that of OANDA Business Information & Services, Inc. or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers or directors. The provided publication is for informational and educational purposes only.If you would like to reproduce or redistribute any of the content found on MarketPulse, an award winning forex, commodities and global indices analysis and news site service produced by OANDA Business Information & Services, Inc., please refer to the MarketPulse Terms of Use.Visit https://www.marketpulse.com/ to find out more about the beat of the global markets.© 2026 OANDA Business Information & Services Inc.

Orange County-based criminal defense firm earns recognition for a client-first DUI defense approach that treats every client as a person, not a case file. ORANGE, CALIFORNIA — ALL Trial Lawyers, a Southern California criminal defense firm led by trial attorney Mohammad “Mo” Abuershaid, has been recognized among Orange County’s leading DUI defense firms. The recognition […] The post ALL Trial Lawyers Recognized Among Orange County’s Leading DUI Defense Firms for Humanizing Clients and Fighting for Not-Guilty Outcomes appeared first on TechBullion.

Commerzbank’s Michael Pfister notes that G10 and Gelişen Piyasalar (EM) carry trades have delivered strong paper gains, helped by Iran-related market moves and high-yield currencies like the Brazilian Real and Mexican Peso.

The latest build of the MT5 platform offers a redesigned trading dialog and improved operations with CSV in MetaEditor. The post New MT5 build offers redesigned trading dialog and improved operations with CSV in MetaEditor appeared first on FX News Group.

Linking Gemini directly to a user's photo library represents a bigger step in the AI chatbot link to private information.

Minnesota state prosecutors continue to investigation the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis.

Airwallex launched Airwallex POS Payments, a physical point-of-sale device. The device will enable physical, in-store payments that integrate with Airwallex’s broader commerce stack. The new launch helps Airwallex compete with Square and Stripe, but Airwallex has an advantage in regions where it holds banking licenses. While the rest of the payments world is racing toward agentic payments, Airwallex is bringing its focus back to the physical world. The Singapore-based company announced this week that it has launched Airwallex POS Payments, a physical point-of-sale (POS) device. The new, physical device integrates with the company’s commerce stack to unify online and in-store payments. Bringing everything together will help merchants offer consistent payment flows, reporting, and customer experiences across multiple channels. Enterprise retailers will gain more visibility and control across channels, while SaaS platforms will gain the ability to embed in-store payments directly into their products. “By extending our global financial platform to the physical countertop, we’re bringing online and in-store payments together, reducing the fragmentation that has long held in-store payments back, and giving enterprises a truly global foundation for growth,” the company said in its announcement. Adding physical POS devices places Airwallex directly in competition with Square, a pioneer in the mobile POS hardware space, and Stripe, which offered to acquire Airwallex in 2019 for $1.2 billion. Airwallex has an advantage over these two legacy players in certain regions, however. In Japan, for instance, where the company holds a banking license, the fintech owns both the backend banking infrastructure, as well as the front-facing software. So when a merchant is paid, Airwallex can hold the funds instead of having to transfer them to the merchant’s primary bank account. Founded in 2015, Airwallex holds nearly 90 regulatory licenses and permits across 50 markets that enable customers to operate in 200+ countries and regions and support multi-currency checkout at scale. In 2025 alone, the company extended its regulated and local capabilities across 12 new markets, securing licenses and launching products in France, the Netherlands, Israel, Canada, Korea, Japan, New Zealand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brazil, Mexico, and the UAE. The new POS payments device is now available across the UK, Europe, Hong Kong, and Singapore, with plans to launch in Australia and the US, where it currently serves 46,000 businesses. The post Airwallex Launches Physical Point of Sale Device appeared first on Finovate.       

These four travel insurance companies have the best coverage for Caribbean adventures.

The Artificial Intelligence Consortium (AIC) provides a platform for public-private engagement to further dialogue on the capabilities, development, deployment, use, and potential risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in UK financial services. As stated in the AIC’s Terms of reference, the views expressed by the members in these minutes and any subsequent outputs do not reflect the views of their institutions, the Bank of England (Bank) or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The activities, discussions, and outputs of the members should not be taken as an indication of future policy by the Bank or FCA. Date of meeting: 9 February 2026 Item 1: Welcome Co-chair Sarah Breeden opened the session by welcoming attendees to the AI Consortium’s (AIC) third quarterly meeting held virtually. Sarah welcomed new Co-chair David Geale, the FCA’s Executive Director for Payments and Digital Finance & Managing Director for the PSR, and congratulated member Harriet Rees on her recent appointment by the Government as an AI Champion for Financial Services. David introduced himself, thanked departing members, and welcomed new membersOpens in a new window and an observer from Ofcom. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that regulatory and industry approaches to AI are safe and responsible. The contributions during the session were under Chatham House Rule. Item 2: Workshop presentations Each group provided an update on their progress followed by discussion. Workshop 1: Concentration risk Workshop leads provided an interim update on their work on concentration risks arising from reliance on a small number of AI providers, models, and infrastructure. The workshop is exploring how such reliance can create vulnerabilities where firms have limited visibility over model design, performance changes and update schedules, constraining their ability to assess risk and maintain control. Members also discussed how the concentrated provision of compute capacity and specialist expertise could limit firms’ ability to respond to stress events or disruptions affecting widely used AI services. Members discussed the limited control firms may have over updates and changes introduced by third‑party vendors, often at short notice. These dependencies were identified by members as a potential source of correlated risk, raising questions about resilience, assurance and effective oversight. The workshop is also working with the Cross Market Operational Resilience Group (CMORG) AI Taskforce to consider how to improve the transparency in AI supply chain, that is, the components and services that AI systems depend on such as hardware, cloud infrastructure, data, and foundation models. Workshop 2: Evolution of AI edge cases In their substantive update, the Evolution of AI Edge Cases workshop presented practical methods for identifying and controlling ‘AI edge use cases’ – novel, high impact AI applications. The members plan to explore the monitoring and governance systems needed to manage risks from applications that introduce greater autonomy for AI models in executing decisions. Workshop members acknowledged while advanced AI use cases can deliver important benefits, including efficiency gains and cost reductions, they can also introduce novel risks. Members suggested that agentic workflows may be used in material decision making and may autonomously act across multiple systems, potentially posing operational risks. The workshop members were asked whether there is a shared understanding of what failure looks like in advanced AI use cases, in order to help identify higher risk “edge” applications. Members noted that failures can arise from a combination of speed, increased autonomy, and dependencies that create shared attack surfaces and correlated failure modes. These characteristics can create similar vulnerabilities and lead to correlated operational failures within and between firms, even where the underlying AI models differ. Members also queried whether their approach of tailoring governance and controls to specific AI edge cases is compatible with the principle of technology neutrality. Some members noted that longstanding principles such as financial stability, consumer protection and data protection continue to apply regardless of technology. The workshop members noted, however, that for certain higher-risk edge cases, it may be appropriate for firms to implement system-specific control measures, such as predefined circuit breakers, to manage risks effectively. Workshop 3: Explainability and transparency in generative AI Workshop leads provided an interim update on their work which aims to clarify what meaningful explainability and transparency could look like for AI systems used in financial services. One member highlighted large language models (LLMs) can offer traceability, and that the ability to track reasoning by an LLM could be helpful in assessing how decisions have evolved when developing AI models. Members discussed how existing model risk management expectations such as SS1/23 apply to AI systems and their components, including generative AI models, prompts, and retrieval layers. One member commended the user-research approach taken by the Government in developing the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (Complete transparency, complete simplicityOpens in a new window) as a potential model for thinking about how to communicate AI system behaviour clearly. Some members explored how terms such as human in the loop (HiTL) should be interpreted as systems become more autonomous. Members noted that maintaining a ‘human in the loop’ may become increasingly strained as firms adopt agentic AI and move from back office to market-facing applications. The workshop members were asked about the importance of consistent definitions of HiTL where use cases span different sectors and may require different forms of explainability, meaning a single approach may not be appropriate. One member noted that caution is needed to avoid definitions that are sector-specific since clarity is required for AI providers delivering tools and services across sectors. Another member added the importance of distinguishing between explaining a system’s overall behaviour (global explainability) and explaining its individual decisions or outputs (local explainability). The workshop leads confirmed these concepts have been a part of their discussions. Workshop 4: AI-accelerated contagion Workshop leads provided an interim update on their work exploring how AI adoption may alter contagion pathways across the financial system, with potential impacts such as price volatility, changes in participant behaviour, and system-wide disruption during periods of stress. The workshop is examining how increased automation, speed, and shared technical dependencies may affect transmission channels in a financial market stress. Members discussed how AI – especially agentic AI systems – may compress decision-making latency in ways that challenge traditional escalation and oversight mechanisms such as kill switches and circuit breakers. Some members questioned whether controls such as kill switches could unintentionally disrupt critical functions, providing the example of a kill switch that shuts off a system but simultaneously impedes payments across the financial system. Members of this workshop also highlighted how reliance on shared infrastructure, cloud providers, and energy resources could interact with stress scenarios. Members noted that scenario analysis and wargaming are some approaches to explore how AI-driven systems might behave under stress. Some members encouraged the workshop to consider whether AI-driven market scenarios did indeed pose novel risks as compared to algorithmic trading more generally, though members also noted the important distinction that AI introduces non-determinism and scale effects that differ from traditional deterministic systems. Item 3: Consortium discussion on key trends The Co‑chairs invited members to discuss potential implications for the financial system arising from firms’ efforts to create returns on AI investments (ROI). The discussion was framed around agent‑to‑agent commerce, agentic trading tools, reliance on third parties, and regulatory barriers or uncertainty. One member noted that some commentary on ROI may over‑emphasise downside risks, observing that some financial firms are already seeing returns from their investments in AI adoption. It was suggested that capital is being deployed rapidly due to perceived first‑mover advantages, although there may currently be relatively limited areas in which AI can deliver value at scale. Other members questioned whether first‑mover advantage is as relevant in financial services as in the technology sector, suggesting that for financial firms, access to and governance of underlying data is a more significant differentiator for ROI than the speed of AI deployment. Members discussed the relationship between risk and return in financial services use cases. It was suggested that current deployments tend to focus on lower‑risk, lower‑return applications, but that firms may, over time, move towards higher‑risk use cases with greater potential returns. One member proposed that attention should focus on new actors entering traditional systems, particularly in areas such as payments and commerce. Members observed differences in adoption dynamics across firm sizes. Members perceived smaller firms may be more willing to adopt a quicker, ‘fail fast’ approach and, as a result, be less willing to build in-house models and more comfortable relying on third‑party solutions. It was further noted that pressure to adopt AI quickly may make it challenging for smaller firms to develop governance arrangements and build the necessary skills and expertise at pace. By contrast, members noted that ROI may materialise more slowly in larger firms, which may face higher internal barriers to adoption. Members debated the sufficiency of HiTL as AI systems become more complex. One member opined that as AI adoption increases, the number and types of errors may become difficult to detect and real-time monitoring of individual components of a system (rather than its outputs) may become necessary. Members acknowledged these governance challenges and noted that a principles-based approach could accommodate the rapid technological change including scenarios where agentic systems act autonomously or learn dynamically. Several members discussed the importance of harmonised regulatory approaches internationally, in order to encourage responsible innovation. Wrap up The Co‑chairs thanked members for a constructive discussion and for their contributions outside formal meetings. They noted the importance of workshops continuing to develop practical, tangible outputs and of building a shared understanding of how AI investment, adoption and risk are evolving across the financial system. The next AIC quarterly meeting was expected to take place in June 2026. Attendees Co-chairs & Moderators Breeden, Sarah – Bank of EnglandGeale, David – Financial Conduct Authority Members Ahmed, Ratul – Commerzbank AG Beliossi, Giovanni – Axyon AI SRL Bhatti, Tanveer – IndependentBrink, Suzanne – Lloyds Banking GroupBuchanan, Bonnie Gai – University of Surrey Daley, Sue – techUK Dunmur, Alan – Allica Bank Heffron, Sarah – JP MorganHughes, Clara – Pension Insurance Corp Jefferson, Michael – Amazon Web Services Jones, Matthew – Nationwide Building SocietyKazim, Emre – Holistic AI Li, Feng – Bayes Business School Patel, Parimal – Independent Pearce, Luke – Santander Rees, Harriet – Starling Bank Limited Rosenshine, Kate – Microsoft Szpruch, Lukasz – The Alan Turing Institute Taylor, Neil – MastercardValane, Jeffrey – HSBC Wade, David – Goldman Sachs Xu, Justin – MillTech   Apologies Kazantsev, Gary – Bloomberg LP Mullins, Inga – FluencyPearce, Christopher – Ageas UK Prince, Emily – LSEG Observers Fairburn, James – HMTIgnatidou, Sophia – ICOUnderhill, Michael – Ofcom Bank of England Gharbawi, MohammedGraham, GeorgetteLee, AmyMutton, Tom Financial Conduct Authority Jordan, VickiLevett, FreddieSimon, ChristopherThorman, Libby

Two of the biggest chipmakers, TSMC and ASML, failed to catch major tailwinds from strong earnings. It could be a bellwether for the chip industry as a whole.

Why Is Zonda’s Cold Wallet Inaccessible? Crypto exchange Zonda said a cold wallet holding more than 4,500 Bitcoin is currently inaccessible, raising concerns as the platform faces a surge in withdrawal requests. The issue centers on the wallet’s private keys, which were never transferred to current management. Zonda CEO Przemysław Kral disclosed the wallet address in a public video, stating that the keys were supposed to be handed over by founder and former CEO Sylwester Suszek, who has been missing since March 2022. The wallet holds 4,503 Bitcoin, valued at roughly $334 million, with its last recorded transaction dating back to November 2025. The disclosure marks the first time the exchange has publicly identified the address amid growing scrutiny. While Kral did not confirm that the funds are permanently lost, the absence of key access leaves the assets effectively frozen, introducing operational risk for the exchange. How Did Withdrawal Pressure Escalate? The situation intensified following reports of a potential probe by Polish authorities and analysis from blockchain firm Recoveris, which suggested Zonda may have faced solvency issues after a sharp decline in hot wallet balances. Kral rejected those claims, stating that the exchange remains fully solvent and holds more than 4,500 BTC. He attributed the withdrawal pressure to a sudden spike in requests triggered by negative media coverage. According to Kral, Zonda typically processes around 100,000 withdrawal requests annually, but saw more than 25,000 requests within a short period around April 6. “So for all those who claim that I had anything to do with Sylwester's disappearance, this is the prime argument that I care the most about Sylwester being found,” Kral said. Investor Takeaway Loss of access to private keys represents a critical operational failure in custodial infrastructure. Even without confirmed insolvency, restricted access to cold storage can trigger liquidity stress and user-driven bank-run dynamics. What Role Does the Missing Founder Play? The inability to access the wallet is tied directly to the disappearance of Sylwester Suszek, who has reportedly been missing since 2022. The private keys to the cold wallet were never transferred during the leadership transition, leaving current management without control over a substantial portion of reserves. Polish lawmaker Tomasz Mentzen said the exchange may have lost access to the wallet entirely due to the missing keys, though Zonda has not confirmed this outcome. The situation adds a layer of uncertainty that extends beyond operational issues into governance and custody practices. Reports have also referenced alleged criminal ties among certain shareholders of the exchange, previously known as BitBay, further complicating the narrative around ownership and control. Investor Takeaway Custody risk in crypto is not limited to hacks or exploits. Governance failures, including incomplete key transfers during leadership changes, can result in permanent loss of access to assets. What Are the Broader Regulatory and Market Implications? The incident has drawn attention from regulators and lawmakers, feeding into a broader debate around crypto oversight in Poland. Zonda had previously moved its registration to Estonia, citing regulatory uncertainty and delays in implementing the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework. Kral said the company plans to pursue legal action over what it described as false claims and reiterated that Zonda will meet its obligations to customers despite the withdrawal surge.

The US Dollar stalls its correction as Traders hold their breath, awaiting for Ceasefire newsAfter a 2.50% correction in the Dollar Index, FX remains quite stuckUS Dollar Index (DXY) in-depth Technical Analysis The US Dollar is under some complex dynamics, still moving along with Crude Oil prices, and both are just stuck in the mud.The talks, supposed to begin today in Islamabad, haven't made it to the news yet, so it seems that there are some delays – The US is still eager to reach a deal, but Pete Hegseth, Head of the Department of War just issued a address to reaffirm that the most powerful army is "to restart combat if Iran doesn't agree to a deal".Amid the borderline-insane price action in the Stock Markets, with two of the three Major Indexes reaching all-time highs (Nasdaq just set a new record in overnight trading), Participants are taking a break to await clearer developments.After all, at current levels, whether for the USD, Stocks, or WTI, risks to the upside and downside are both extreme. WTI Crude and Dollar Index (DXY) Correlation since April 5 – Source:TradingView For now, Crude has stopped its move to the downside and is even moving higher, keeping the broader Market awaiting – You can see how significant the WTI-Dollar correlation has remained throughout the entire Ceasefire. Hence, tracking Oil is almost more important than the headlines themselves for Forex trading.Stock markets, on the other hand, did own heavily, lifting, having relatively decoupled from Black Gold, but will be looking at the commodity for the next phase.In terms of pure geopolitics, the Israel-Lebanon talks under US supervision seems to be progressing smoothly, with a potential ceasefire in the coming hours/days. Hezbollah will have to be put on the side, and they are reportedly exerting heavy pressure to not enter into deals with Israel. The terrorist organization has prevented deals ever since 1993, the year when Jordan and Israel reached a Peace deal that has held since.There have been reports that there are no more deadlocks in the US-Iran mediated negotiations – But these headlines haven't been as decisive to provide further clarity on the situation. Hence, from here, all that traders will wait to see is a proper resolution. FX Performance (10:15 A.M. ET) – Source: TradingView. April 16, 2026 With WTI now catching a bid, the US Dollar is extending higher on the session, with moves still quite timid for now. We’ll explore a few scenarios for a potential large reversal in an in-depth technical analysis of DXY. Discover:S&P 500 to 7,000 & Nasdaq 100 points to ATH – Are Markets getting ahead of themselves?Chart alert: AUD/USD 360 pips rally at risk of a minor mean reversion decline below 0.7200 before new uplegCable eyes 1.3696 after reclaiming key moving averages, bulls defend 1.3500Dollar Index (DXY) Multi-Timeframe AnalysisDaily Chart Dollar Index (DXY) Daily Chart. April 16, 2026 – Source: TradingView In the bigger picture, the large 95.50 to 100.00 range is holding extremely well, with a double top last at the most recent test that led to the ongoing correction in the US Dollar.As always, it is more than advised to keep an eye on the bigger timeframes to see if any particular trend dictates the price action, as they offer some setups and allow to reduce if not discard the noise.After the 2.50% correction, the move is stalling and this comes right around the middle of the range, an important level for the bull/bear intermediate outlook.4H Chart and Technical Levels Dollar Index (DXY) 4H Chart. April 18, 2026 – Source: TradingView The Dollar Index is forming an immediate bullish divergence, boosting prospects for an immediate pullback higher.The 98.50-98.70 War Pivot and Psychological level would offer strong opportunities in to rejoin the trend in other FX pairs.Extending to 98.80 (4H 50-period MA) offers the best entries, however, any close above could entice a pursued rally in the USD.Keep a close eye on other FX pairs to position yourself – GBP/USD, USD/CAD and USD/JPY offer favorable setups on pullbacks.Levels to place on your DXY charts:Resistance Levels98.50 to 98.70 War Pivot98.80 4H 50-period MA99.40 to 99.50 Resistance100.00 to 100.50 Main resistance and Range highsWar Highs 100.544 (Double Top)Support Levels98.00 Major Support (rejecting)Support 97.40 to 97.602025 Lows Major support 96.50 to 97.00Range lows at Early 2022 Consolidation just below 96.00Safe Trades and keep track of the latest headlines!Follow Elior on Twitter/X for Additional Market News, interactions and Insights @EliorManier Opinions are the authors'; not necessarily that of OANDA Business Information & Services, Inc. or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers or directors. The provided publication is for informational and educational purposes only.If you would like to reproduce or redistribute any of the content found on MarketPulse, an award winning forex, commodities and global indices analysis and news site service produced by OANDA Business Information & Services, Inc., please refer to the MarketPulse Terms of Use.Visit https://www.marketpulse.com/ to find out more about the beat of the global markets.© 2026 OANDA Business Information & Services Inc.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) today published a draft technical package for version 4.3 of its reporting framework, covering anti-money laundering (AML) and third country branches (TCB) reporting. This early release is intended to support reporting entities in preparing for upcoming changes ahead of the final publication, scheduled for June 2026. The EBA The EBA invites stakeholders to provide feedback on both the draft technical package and the accompanying glossary.

The fintech industry is moving past the "ChatGPT for support" phase. We are entering the e...