Latest news with #DAI
Coin Geek
8 hours ago
- Business
- Coin Geek
The stablecoin Tower of Babel—why fragmentation is fatal
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... When stablecoins first came onto the scene in the blockchain industry, they promised global money. Finally, commerce would be frictionless, and we could use the USD and other currencies on peer-to-peer blockchains with low fees, fast settlement times, and next-to-no friction. Yet that isn't what came to pass. Today, while stablecoins are a big deal, the ecosystem is a tangled mess—unscalable blockchains, insecure bridges, and more tokens than anyone can track. Instead of speeding things up, it's slowing everything down. Instead of one global currency we can all use, we have a dollar divided across dozens of ledgers: fragmenting liquidity, introducing security vulnerabilities, and reintroducing the very friction stablecoins were meant to eliminate. The stablecoin explosion: promise turns into pandemonium Stablecoins were supposed to fix a problem—digital currencies like BTC and Ethereum are inherently volatile due to their fixed supply. However, what started with BitUSD and Tether has morphed into a chaotic flea market of USDC, USDT, DAI, FDUSD, crvUSD, and dozens of other dollar derivatives. These are spread across Ethereum, Solana, Tron, Base, Binance Chain, and dozens of other ledgers. What started as a quest to create one unified, global, stable form of money has turned into monetary balkanization. Which makes you wonder—why not just use the USD instead? The problems with the stablecoin ecosystem in 2025 The biggest problem with stablecoins being spread across so many different ledgers is liquidity fragmentation. Each blockchain has its own pools, markets, and arbitrage quirks. This increases fees, limits the potential of DeFi, and destroys the seamless experience digital cash should offer. Since these blockchains are inherently limited in transaction processing capacity, the different stablecoins must cross bridges and roll up to layer two solutions. A quick look at the Ronin bridge hack and others like it will show why these security black holes are a bad idea. The next problem is that many chains and coins have led to regulatory chaos. What's legal and clear in one jurisdiction may not be in another, and while some stablecoins like USDC are fully audited and backed, some refuse to prove it. Yet others, like DAI and crvUSD, are algorithmic. After the chaos unleashed by Do Kwon's UST in 2021, the recently passed GENIUS Act in the USA has banned them while they remain legal elsewhere. All of these, the regulatory uncertainty, the bridges and rollups, and the fragmentation caused by ever-increasing options across dozens of chains, lead to a subpar user experience. Imagine how much simpler it could be to have half a dozen interoperable stablecoins operating on a single scalable ledger. 'Imagine every WhatsApp message had to be wrapped, bridged, or translated before delivery. That's stablecoins today.' – Gavin Lucas, Interoperability across ledgers is a myth Regarding the ever-vague term Web3, the go-to answer for how it will work is 'interoperability.' Industry bigwigs tout Chainlink, bridges, and shared APIs as the solutions to the problems that multiple ledgers have introduced. However, interoperability isn't the same as unity. Just as the internet needed TCP/IP, global money needs a shared protocol. Compatible interfaces won't do when a single unified ledger is an option. The entire patchwork quilt of solutions dreamed up by industry leaders is nothing more than kicking the can down the road. Just as the competing networks that made up the early internet folded as TCP/IP ate the world, so too will most blockchains and the tokens that live on them. Make no mistake: this fragmentation isn't some hypothetical problem that only concerns blockchain purists—it has real-world consequences. It slows down DeFi, causes transactions to fail, makes institutions skeptical of the technology, and causes users to shrug and wonder what all the hype was about. What it could and should look like Those of us who call for unity aren't talking about having a single stablecoin issuer—we're talking about all of them operating on a unified scalable ledger. There's plenty of room for competition, and the market can decide which issuers they trust and want to use. However, there's no need for dozens of ledgers or any of the bridges between them. The original Bitcoin protocol, now known as BSV, is capable of one million transactions per second with fees of $0.0001 per transaction. With token protocols like 1Sat Ordinals and STAS, it's possible to issue stablecoins directly on a legally compliant, scalable blockchain. Imagine if all the value and liquidity on all the different blockchains merged onto one—we'd have super liquidity pools, seamless token swaps, DeFi dominance, and stablecoins we could use in every type of application, from games to cybersecurity tools to Web3 apps. There's no future for stablecoins without scalable infrastructure. Eventually, everything will have to move onto one chain, and there's currently only one capable of delivering the scalability required to make it work. Rebuilding the tower The dream of global electronic cash is still alive, but not if we keep building silos. While this author questions whether on-chain fiat is an innovation, he accepts that it's a necessary bridge between inflatable fiat and hard money like Bitcoin. Like it or not, most users don't want to use currencies that change value in real-time, so stablecoins will be a necessary stepping stone if mass adoption is to occur. What we need now is a shared language on a single base-layer—a tower built on a foundation that can scale. Until then, stablecoins will remain a fragmented illusion, and the path to adoption will remain slower than it should be. Watch: Blockchain is much more than digital assets title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Tether (USDT) and USDC Dominate the Stablecoin Market, but Is This Concentration a Risk for Investors?
Key Points Just two stablecoins (Tether and USDC) account for 90% of the market value of the stablecoin industry. Now that stablecoins are being integrated into the traditional financial system, investors need to be aware of the risks. New stablecoin legislation could fix any potential problems of concentration by encouraging many more issuers to emerge. 10 stocks we like better than USDC › According to the latest stablecoin research from The Motley Fool, just two stablecoins -- Tether (CRYPTO: USDT) and USDC (CRYPTO: USDC) -- account for a whopping 90% of the $250 billion stablecoin market. In terms of market cap, nobody else even comes close. That might not have mattered as much just 12 months ago, before stablecoins started to go mainstream. But stablecoins are steadily being integrated into the traditional financial system, so any concentration in the stablecoin industry now has potential implications for investors everywhere. Let's take a closer look. What's so bad about concentration? Within the crypto industry, one of the rallying cries has always been "decentralization." The only way to eliminate risk, according to the original crypto purists, was to decentralize everything as much as possible. For example, when Bitcoin launched back in 2009, ownership was supposed to be as decentralized as possible, to eliminate the risk of any individual, corporation, or government controlling it. In fact, the ultimate goal was to create a "trustless" system, in which you did not have to trust any single market participant for the crypto system to work. That's what made Bitcoin (and every other cryptocurrency) special. In comparison, the traditional financial system is all about counterparty risk. It is a system based on trust. In other words, you have to be very careful about who you do business with. So that's why concentration of any kind tends to raise warning flags within the crypto industry. Look at what's happening now with the ownership of Bitcoin -- instead of being completely dispersed, Bitcoin is now falling into the hands of a few big players, such as Bitcoin treasury companies and the investment firms that run the spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). And, of course, concentration now exists within the stablecoin industry. Tether has a staggering $164 billion market cap, while USDC has a market cap of $64 billion. The next closest competitor is Dai (CRYPTO: DAI), with a tiny market cap of just $5.4 billion. If you were an economist, you'd probably call this a duopoly. And, as you learned in your Economics 101 class, there's only one thing worse than a duopoly: a monopoly. A worst-case scenario for stablecoins It's easy to ignore the potential risk that stablecoins might pose to the financial system. After all, the word "stable" is hard-coded right into their name. A stablecoin always trades for $1, right? So what could possibly be risky about stablecoins? As it turns out, a lot. Stablecoins must maintain their 1-to-1 peg to the dollar at all costs. In theory, at any time, an investor can exchange one stablecoin for $1, no questions asked. To do that, issuers back their stablecoins with cash and cash equivalents. But here's the thing: There have been several cases in the past few years when stablecoins dramatically lost their peg. For example, amid the regional banking crisis of 2023, USDC briefly depegged. As it turns out, $3.3 billion of the cash that was supposed to back the stablecoin was in the bank vault of Silicon Valley Bank, and that caused a brief panic in the market. Tether, too, has had multiple instances when it lost its peg. One of the most catastrophic depeggings of all time took place in 2022, when TerraUSD (UST) lost its peg to the dollar, wiping out $45 billion in value and bringing down the entire crypto market. It turns out that TerraUSD was an algorithmic stablecoin that relied on algorithms, not cash, for backing. Needless to say, what once seemed like a stroke of financial genius now seems like an act of financial insanity. Even before TerraUSD lost its peg, finance professors at Yale warned of the potential risks of stablecoins. As they saw it, stablecoins could unleash financial chaos that could take down the entire financial system. Think of a classic bank run, and apply this analogy to stablecoins. Holders of stablecoins panic, rush to redeem them for $1 in cash each, only to find out that there is not enough cash to go around for everyone. If someone doesn't step in immediately to provide a liquidity backstop, bad things happen. Washington to the rescue? That's why the new stablecoin legislation, known as the Genius Act, is so important. It is supposed to remove all the obvious weak links in the system. For example, it specifically says that all stablecoins must be backed 1-for-1 with cash or cash equivalents. No funny business with algorithms or anything else. And it mandates monthly audit reports on those reserves, just to make sure that all the cash that's supposed to be in the bank vault is actually in the bank vault. The Genius Act also opens the door for many more participants to issue their own stablecoins. Already, a mix of retailers, fintech giants, and Silicon Valley companies have hinted that they might launch stablecoins of their own. The introduction of so many stablecoins at one time might be a bit confusing for investors, but they might end up saving the modern financial system because this diversification will spread risk rather than concentrate it. Should you invest $1,000 in USDC right now? Before you buy stock in USDC, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and USDC wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $630,291!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,075,791!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,039% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Dominic Basulto has positions in Bitcoin and USDC. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Tether (USDT) and USDC Dominate the Stablecoin Market, but Is This Concentration a Risk for Investors? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21-07-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Decoded: What are stablecoins, and why is the US regulating them?
On July 18, United States (US) President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act—Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins—introducing America's first federal framework for dollar-pegged cryptocurrencies. The act mandates full reserve backing in liquid assets, monthly audits, and stronger consumer safeguards. While signing the act into law, Trump said that it creates "a clear and simple regulatory framework to establish and unleash the immense promise of dollar-backed stablecoins". He further stated that the act "could be perhaps the greatest revolution in financial technology since the birth of the internet itself". What are stablecoins? Stablecoins are digital assets, which means they have a value attached to them and can be used for transactions. They are designed to maintain a stable value relative to a specific reference asset, like a fiat currency such as the US dollar. Unlike cryptocurrencies, which experience significant price fluctuations due to speculation and limited supply mechanisms, stablecoins intend to provide price predictability. What backs stablecoins? Stablecoins can be broadly categorised based on their collateral mechanisms. Each category presents a different method for maintaining price stability: 1. Fiat-collateralised stablecoins: These stablecoins are backed by reserves of fiat currency held in bank accounts or other arrangements. The most common examples—such as Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC)—are pegged to the US dollar. For every unit of stablecoin issued, an equivalent amount in fiat currency is supposedly held in reserve. These stablecoins rely heavily on trust in the issuer and the auditing of reserve holdings. Concerns have been raised in the past regarding the transparency and adequacy of these reserves, prompting countries to explore regulatory frameworks for the same, like the GENIUS Act. 2. Crypto-collateralised stablecoins: These are backed by other cryptocurrencies, which are typically over-collateralised to account for price volatility. For example, DAI, a widely known decentralised stablecoin, is backed by Ethereum and other crypto assets held in smart contracts on the blockchain. Blockchain is a distributed digital ledger that records transactions in a secure way, allowing assets to be tracked across a network. Smart contracts are digital contracts stored on a blockchain that are automatically executed when predetermined terms and conditions are met. For example, DAI is liquidated when the value of the cryptocurrency backing it falls below a certain threshold. These are still exposed to the inherent volatility of the underlying crypto assets and may face issues during market stress. 3. Algorithmic (non-collateralised) stablecoins: Algorithmic stablecoins use mathematical formulas and incentive mechanisms to manage the coin supply and maintain a peg without relying on actual collateral. They automatically expand or contract the supply of tokens based on demand. TerraUSD (UST), which collapsed in 2022, was one such example. 4. Commodity-collateralised stablecoins: Some stablecoins are backed by physical commodities such as gold or silver. These include coins like PAX Gold (PAXG), where each coin represents ownership of a specific amount of physical gold held in reserve. Uses of stablecoins Stablecoins serve several purposes across retail, institutional, and decentralised finance sectors: Payments: Due to lower transaction fees and faster settlement times, stablecoins are increasingly used for cross-border transfers, particularly in regions with limited access to banking infrastructure. Stablecoins are also integral to decentralised finance platforms, where they serve as collateral for loans, liquidity provision, and decentralised exchanges. Hedging against volatility: Investors often convert volatile crypto holdings into stablecoins to preserve value during market downturns. Risks associated with stablecoins Despite their intended stability, stablecoins are not without risks. As their market capitalisation has grown, regulators and policymakers have raised several concerns. One of the most prominent concerns is whether stablecoin issuers actually hold sufficient, liquid, and accessible reserves to honour redemptions. Here's where legislation like the GENIUS Act steps in. It requires 100 per cent reserve backing with liquid assets like US dollars or short-term Treasuries and requires issuers to make monthly, public disclosures of the composition of reserves. According to the White House press release, "In the event of insolvency of a stablecoin issuer, the GENIUS Act prioritises stablecoin holders' claims over all other creditors, ensuring a final backstop of consumer protection". Alternatives to stablecoins As stablecoins gain popularity, several alternatives are being explored to address their risks and limitations—particularly by regulators and central banks. Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) are the most prominent alternative. Unlike stablecoins, CBDCs are issued by central banks and carry sovereign backing. They aim to offer secure, programmable digital payments without the volatility of crypto. India also has a CBDC backed by the Reserve Bank of India, known as the digital rupee or e-rupee. Tokenised deposits: These are digital versions of regular bank deposits issued on blockchain platforms, allowing instant settlement and integration with smart contracts. E-money and digital wallet balances, while not blockchain-based, are widely used. These are backed by fiat reserves and regulated under existing financial rules. As countries continue to shape regulatory frameworks and central banks explore digital alternatives, the journey ahead for stablecoins will likely depend on their ability to operate securely and transparently within the financial system.
Economic Times
21-07-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
System vs System: Why crypto needs a culture of relentless security
In the early years of crypto, the dominant narrative was often adversarial: crypto vs. traditional systems, decentralization vs. control, innovation vs. regulation. But that framing is no longer useful—nor is it accurate. What we are witnessing today is not a battle of ideology, but of resilience. This shift reflects a growing realization: the long-term viability of crypto depends on building systems that are not just open and inclusive, but fundamentally secure. ADVERTISEMENT In this new age, cybersecurity isn't a support function—it is the foundation. Whether you're an exchange safeguarding billions in user assets, a developer launching a smart contract, or a retail investor using self-custody wallets, security determines whether your system can withstand stress, fraud, and attacks. Without traditional intermediaries, the burden of protection moves to the edge—to platforms, protocols, and people. A recent scam I discussed on X illustrates the risks we face when this responsibility is ignored. On the surface, it appears harmless: someone shares a wallet seed phrase on a forum or in a comment section, asking for help withdrawing funds. Curious users import the wallet and see a balance—often in stablecoins like USDT or DAI. The catch? There's no native token for gas fees. Driven by the urge to extract the funds, users send ETH or TRX to enable the transfer. Instantly, those tokens are drained by bots monitoring the wallet. The user thought they were exploiting a mistake—when in fact, they were the target all along. This isn't a flaw in the blockchain. It's a flaw in human behavior. There was no technical breach—just psychological bait and an ecosystem not yet equipped to protect people from types of scams are becoming more frequent and more sophisticated. They don't rely on code exploits, but on exploiting curiosity, greed, and a lack of security awareness among everyday users. That's why building a security-first culture across the Web3 ecosystem is non-negotiable. We cannot wait for regulators or law enforcement to react. The responsibility begins with us—the builders, founders, and platforms that power this platforms must improve on the security front, no amount of backend protection can compensate for a lack of user awareness. If crypto is about empowerment, that empowerment must come with education. We need public campaigns, product nudges, default safety mechanisms, and consistent messaging that puts user protection front and center. Security should not be something users opt into—it should be something they cannot opt out of. ADVERTISEMENT The ultimate question we must ask is this: when the pressure rises, which systems will hold—and which will fail? The answer won't depend on hype cycles, price rallies, or even regulation. It will depend on how well we've designed our infrastructure, protocols, and user journeys to withstand inevitable a world where financial systems are increasingly digital and decentralized, we are not just competing on innovation—we are competing on integrity. Crypto will not succeed because it is new. It will succeed because it is stronger. ADVERTISEMENT And that strength will come from one thing above all else: security. (Neeraj Khandelwal is co-founder of CoinDCX) ADVERTISEMENT (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of
New York Post
12-07-2025
- General
- New York Post
How Greece and Germany helped make archeology modern
Watching an American icon like Indiana Jones battle Nazis in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark,' it's hard to believe that it was actually a German cultural institute which played a pivotal role in transforming reckless Jones-style treasure hunting into the modern science of archaeology we know today. That institute, the German Archaeological Institute at Athens (DAI Athens), has just completed the year-long celebration of its 150th anniversary — just as Greece welcomes record numbers of summer tourists to marvel at the archaeological wonders the institute helped unearth. Widely regarded as one of the birthplaces of modern archaeological science, the DAI pioneered the transition from indiscriminate digging at archaeological sites to the systematic excavation and meticulous study that continues to inspire researchers and amateur archaeology buffs across the globe. Advertisement 11 Archaeological Site of Olympia in Greece, excavated by the Germans in 1875 in what is regarded as the first 'dig' to employ the rigorous academic and scientific practices now used in archeology across the globe. dudlajzov – 11 The ruins of Ancient Olympia. elgreko – 11 The headquarters of the DAI Athens, the German-run archeological institute which helped establish modern archeology. DAI Athens, Photographer H. Birk Until the mid-19th century, archeology was often more about treasure hunting and indiscriminate looting than detailed research and science. Advertisement Take Lord Elgin's controversial removal of sculptures from the Parthenon in Athens, between 1801 and 1812. Although Elgin claimed to have obtained permission from Ottoman authorities — a claim recently refuted by the Turkish government — his sale of the sculptures to the British Museum remains a major cultural and diplomatic dispute between Greece and Britain. Many view Elgin's deeds as one of the most notorious colonial-era lootings, alongside famous antiquities brought to museums around the world like the Rosetta Stone. 11 'Greece's allure was such that many countries fought to establish archaeological institutes at the time. Today, there are 20 foreign institutes based in Athens,' says DAI Director Katja Sporn. DAI Athens, Photographer N. Chrisikakis Advertisement Even Luigi Palma di Cesnola, the first director of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, was accused of looting classical treasures from Cyprus, where he served as US Consul General in the mid-1860s. Many of the artifacts di Cesnola was said to have plundered were sold, ironically, to the Met itself. During this period, Greece, newly independent from the Ottoman Empire in 1830, was rich in history but in economic decline owing to decades of war. But it was finally possible for the philhellenists (lovers of Greek culture) to travel to Greece and study its ancient remains. In the later part of the 19th century, Greece's ancient ruins also became magnets for the era's great expansionist powers like the United Kingdom and France. Their ultimate goal? Securing rights to excavate Greece's most coveted archaeological sites while bolstering diplomatic ties through what we now call 'cultural diplomacy.' 11 Luigi Palma Di Cesnola, the first director of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, who was accused of looting ancient relics from Cyprus. Getty Images Advertisement Germany was just one of the many countries aspiring to gain excavation rights in Greece. 'The oldest foreign archaeological institute in Athens is the French School of Athens, founded in 1846,' explains Katja Sporn, director of the DAI Athens. 'But Greece's allure was such that many countries fought to establish archaeological institutes at the time. Today, there are 20 foreign institutes based in Athens.' The DAI Athens was founded in 1874, just three years after German unification, during a period of growing German nationalism. Part of the German Archaeological Institute based in Berlin, the DAI Athens' creation reflected the importance of Greek history to Kaiser Wilhelm I and the close political ties between Germany and Greece, whose first king, Otto, hailed from a Bavarian royal family. Many Germans at the time saw parallels between Greece's struggle for independence from the Ottoman Empire and their own aspirations for national unification. In the same year the DAI Athens was founded, Sporn explains, the 'DAI became subordinate to Germany's Foreign Office 'as a permanent base for internationally active research.' 11 While the Germans were successful in securing and excavating Olympia, their French institutional counterparts were able to excavate Delphi (above). Getty Images Today, the DAI Athens is housed in a neoclassical building in downtown Athens where an exhibition for its 150th anniversary showcases its storied history. Among the figures featured is Heinrich Schliemann, an 'amateur' archaeologist and businessman who promoted archaeology to a wider public by his emblematic excavations in Troy and Mycenae. The figure who truly transformed archaeology was the institute's fourth director, Wilhelm Dörpfeld, who arrived at the DAI Athens in 1887. An architect trained at the excavations in Olympia, Dörpfeld pioneered stratigraphic excavation and both archaeological and architectural documentation methods. These revolutionized the field by allowing archaeologists to piece together detailed site histories while preserving them for future study. 'Dörpfeld's work was a turning point,' says Sporn. 'Archaeologists then worked methodically rather than destructively.' Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan, the Doreen C. Spritzer Director of Archives at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA), agrees. 'Dörpfeld's techniques were taught to archaeologists from Germany, Britain, France and the United States, who then applied and passed them on worldwide,' she says. Advertisement 11 A map of where the discoveries were made. Toni Misthos/NY Post Design This shift — from looting the ancient world to rigorous excavation and research — became the gold standard, paving the way for discoveries such as the tomb of King Tutankhamen by Howard Carter in 1922 and inspiring the swashbuckling tales of Indiana Jones. Some 150 years ago, in 1875, the German Kaiserreich began excavating the ancient sanctuary of Olympia, the birthplace of the Olympic Games — and the place from which the Olympic torch is now lit 100 days before the start of the modern Olympics every four years. Olympia wasn't just another dig; it was governed by a bilateral treaty between Greece and Germany, setting unprecedented levels of oversight for excavation and preservation. Funded by the German government and backed by King George I of Greece, the dig benefited from both financial investment and diplomatic backing. Advertisement 11 Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan, the Doreen C. Spritzer Director of Archives at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. American School of Classical Studies at Athens/Facebook 'Olympia remains one of the most important archaeological sites in Greece,' says Sporn. The excavation uncovered iconic treasures like sculptures from the Temple of Zeus and the statue of Hermes by Praxiteles, but mainly the actual buildings and places where the famous Olympic games were held in antiquity. Yet the dig — partially overseen by Dörpfeld before he led the DAI — is not only important for what it found, but how it was conducted. An interdisciplinary team, including archaeologists, architects, historians and conservators, ensured a holistic approach to the study of the site and created a global model for archaeological collaborations that remains the gold standard to this day. Starting from the old excavations in Olympia, the DAI Athens sought to preserve the fragile remnants of Olympia's past by systematically recording findings and by publishing results in a series of reports. The approach facilitated scholarly research across Europe, shaped future standards for transparency and data-sharing and established archaeology as a rigorous academic discipline. Advertisement 11 Wilhelm Dörpfeld, the fourth DAI Athens director, who pioneered stratigraphic excavation and both archaeological and architectural documentation methods. Archive of the City of Wuppertal, photographer anonymous Crucially, the collaboration with the Greek state ensured that artifacts remained in Greece rather than being shipped off to a museum or private collection abroad, as was common practice at the time. This led to the creation of a dedicated museum at Olympia financed by a Greek patron as early as 1886 — the first on-site museum in the Mediterranean — where the site's most important finds could be studied and displayed in their original cultural context. Today, museums aligned with excavation sites have become common across the globe. Ultimately, the dig established 'responsible excavation' standards and early conservation techniques that remain in practice to this day. Back then, Olympia's success sparked fierce competition among nations vying for other important Greek sites. 'A rivalry developed between Germany, France and the United States over the most significant excavations,' says Vogeikoff-Brogan. Advertisement They became a battle for prestige among great powers, fueling political alliances between Greece and other countries. For the first time, economic considerations, like trade, would be factored in by Greece to determine who would get the rights to dig the most coveted archaeological sites. Archaeology became an expression not just of Greek national culture — but its newly emerging political might. 11 German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier speaking at the 150th Anniversary celebrations of the DAI Athens. Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung/ Guido Bergmann The French secured Delphi, aided by trade negotiations involving, of all things, Zante currants, while the Americans started excavations in Corinth and eventually the Agora in Athens, leveraging political alliances and personal relationships. 'Social capital and political connections were just as important as archaeological merit in these decisions,' Vogeikoff-Brogan adds. The positive relationship between the Greek state, its people and the DAI Athens faced a severe setback during WWII. The institute's ties to Nazi Germany through its director being leader of the German Nazi party in Greece deeply damaged its standing in the country — underscoring the entanglement between DAI Athens and Germany's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 'After WWII, it took time for the DAI Athens to regain the trust of the Greek community and reopen,' Sporn explains. The war left lasting scars, and Greeks remained wary of German institutions due to the atrocities committed during the occupation. Meanwhile, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA) gained prominence in Greece by deliberately distancing itself from politics, establishing itself as another of Greece's most prominent foreign archaeological and historical education and research institutes. 11 Otto, the first King of Greece, who ruled the nation after its independence from the Ottoman Empire and helped establish Greece as an archeological the DAI Athens has long embraced modernity, digitizing its vast archives for global access and integrating new technologies into its research, particularly in the context of past human-nature relations, ancient land use and climate change. Like all Greek foreign archeological institutions, the DAI works in close collaboration with the Hellenic Ministry of Culture. And by studying how ancient communities adapted to environmental shifts, the institute aims to offer insights into resilience strategies relevant today. 'By examining the past, the DAI Athens continues to research important topics of the present, which may offer perspectives for the future,' Sporn says. Cheryl Ann Novak is deputy chief editor at BHMA International Edition — Wall Street Journal Publishing Partnership
