The re-closure of the Strait of Hormuz heightens geopolitical tensions, risking military escalation and impacting global oil markets.

The post Iran re-closes Strait of Hormuz as US-Iran ceasefire expires without deal appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Iran's control over Hormuz and stalled US negotiations could escalate regional tensions, impacting global oil markets and geopolitical stability.

The post Iran claims control of Hormuz as US forces retreat, negotiations stalled appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The confirmed strike escalates tensions, reinforcing market expectations of retaliatory actions and highlighting risks to civilian areas.

The post Israeli strike on Iranian hospital confirmed by CCTV footage appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The talks in Pakistan could influence geopolitical stability, impacting global markets and diplomatic relations amid fluctuating ceasefire odds.

The post Iranian officials in Pakistan for US talks, possible ceasefire extension appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Iran's refusal to engage in talks heightens geopolitical tensions, potentially destabilizing regional security and impacting global markets.

The post Iran rejects second round of US talks, impacting uranium enrichment market appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

When Quantum Computers Come for Your Bitcoin: What Classical Property Law Says Happens Next

Bitcoin’s quantum debate keeps slipping sideways because people keep arguing about two different things at once.

One question is technical: if quantum computing gets good enough to break Bitcoin’s signature scheme, the protocol can respond. New address types, migration rules, soft forks, deprecations, key rotation. That is a real engineering problem, but it is still an engineering problem.

The other question is legal: suppose someone uses a quantum computer to derive the private key for an old wallet and sweep the coins. What, exactly, just happened? Did he recover abandoned property, or did he steal someone else’s bitcoin?

In April 2026, BIP-361 proposed freezing more than 6.5 million BTC sitting in quantum-vulnerable UTXOs, including an estimated million-plus coins associated with Satoshi. No longer just an abstract discussion, it’s now a live fight over ownership, confiscation, and the meaning of property inside a system that ultimately recognizes only control.

I am not taking a position here on when a quantum computer capable of attacking Bitcoin will arrive. The narrower question is the one that matters first: if it does arrive, and someone starts moving long-dormant coins with quantum-derived keys, does the law treat that as legitimate recovery or theft?

Classical property law gives a fairly blunt answer. It is theft.

That answer will frustrate some Bitcoiners, because Bitcoin itself does not enforce title in the way courts do. It enforces control. If you can produce the valid spend, the network accepts the spend. But that only sharpens the point. The harder the network leans on control, the more important it becomes to state clearly what the law would say about the underlying act.

And on that front, the law is not especially mysterious.

Old coins are not ownerless just because they are old.

The actual quantum risk

It helps to begin with the narrower, more realistic version of the threat. Not all bitcoin is equally exposed. In the ordinary case, an address does not reveal the public key until the owner spends. That matters because a quantum attacker cannot simply look at any untouched address on the chain and pluck out the private key.

The real risk sits in a more limited category of outputs. Early pay-to-public-key outputs reveal the full public key on-chain. Some older script constructions do the same. Taproot outputs do as well: a P2TR output commits directly to a 32-byte output key, not a hash of one. Address reuse can also expose the public key once a user spends and leaves funds behind under the same key material. Those are the coins people really mean when they talk about exposed bitcoin.

The timeline for this scenario has compressed. On March 31, 2026, Google Quantum AI published research showing Bitcoin’s secp256k1 curve could be broken with fewer than 500,000 physical qubits, a twenty-fold reduction from prior estimates of roughly nine million. The same paper models the mempool attack vector directly: during a transaction, the public key is exposed for approximately ten minutes before block confirmation, giving a quantum adversary a window to derive the key before the spend confirms.

Current hardware remains far from these thresholds: Google’s Willow chip sits at 105 qubits and IBM’s Nighthawk at 120. But algorithmic optimization is outrunning hardware scaling. NIST’s own post-quantum migration roadmap calls for quantum-vulnerable algorithms to be deprecated across federal systems by 2030 and disallowed entirely by 2035. That federal timeline does not bind Bitcoin, but it supplies the benchmark against which institutional holders and regulators will measure Bitcoin’s preparedness.

A great many of those coins are old. Some are certainly lost. Some belong to dead owners. Some are tied up in paper wallets, forgotten backups, ancient storage habits, or estates that no one has sorted out. Some probably belong to people who are very much alive and simply have no interest in touching them.

That last point matters more than the “lost coin” crowd usually admits. From the outside, dormancy tells you very little. A wallet can sit untouched for twelve years because the owner is dead, because the owner lost the keys, because the owner is disciplined, because the owner is paranoid, because the coins are locked in a multi-party setup, or because the owner is Satoshi and would rather remain a rumor than a litigant. The blockchain does not tell you which explanation is true.

That uncertainty is precisely why property law has never treated silence as a magic solvent for ownership.

Dormancy is not abandonment

The casual “finders keepers” intuition that floats around these discussions has almost nothing to do with how property law actually works.

Ownership does not evaporate because property sits unused. Title continues until it is transferred, relinquished, extinguished by law, or displaced by some doctrine that actually applies. Time alone does not do that work. Inaction alone does not do that work. Value certainly does not do that work.

So if someone wants to argue that dormant bitcoin is fair game, the path usually runs through abandonment. The claim is simple enough: these coins have been sitting there forever, nobody has touched them, they are probably lost, therefore they must be abandoned.

The law is much stricter than that. Abandonment generally requires both intent to relinquish ownership and some act manifesting that intent. The owner must, in substance, mean to give it up and do something that shows he meant to give it up. Simply failing to move an asset for a long period is not enough, particularly where the asset is obviously valuable.

That is not some fussy technicality… it’s one of the core tenets of property law. If nonuse alone were enough to destroy title, the law would become a standing invitation to loot anything whose owner had been quiet for too long. That is not our rule for land, for houses, for stock certificates, for buried cash, or for heirlooms. It is not the rule for bitcoin either.

Take the easy edge case. If someone deliberately sends coins to a burn address with no usable private key, that begins to look like abandonment because there is both a clear act and a clear signal. But that example proves the opposite of what quantum raiders want it to prove. It shows what relinquishment looks like when a person actually intends it. Most dormant wallets do not look anything like that.

The better reading is the ordinary one: old coins are old coins. Some are lost. Some are inaccessible. Some are forgotten. Some are sleeping. None of that converts them into ownerless property.

And recent legislation has begun to formalize the same instinct. The UK’s Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on December 2, 2025, creates a third category of personal property explicitly covering crypto-tokens. In the United States, UCC Article 12 has now been adopted by more than thirty states and the District of Columbia, recognizing “controllable electronic records” as a distinct legal category. Neither regime treats dormancy as relinquishment. By formally classifying digital assets as property, both raise the bar for anyone arguing that old coins are ownerless by default.

Death does not erase ownership

The next move is usually to shift from abandonment to mortality. Fine, perhaps the coins were not abandoned, but surely many of these early holders are dead. Doesn’t that change the analysis? 

Not in the way the raider would like.

Some early wallets invite a kind of Schrödinger’s-heir problem: the owner is confidently declared dead when the raider wants ownerless property, then treated as notionally available whenever the burdens of succession come into view. Property law does not indulge the superposition.

When a person dies, title does not disappear. It passes. Property goes to heirs, devisees, or, in the absence of both, to the state through escheat. The law does not shrug and announce an open season. It preserves continuity of ownership even when possession becomes messy, inconvenient, or impossible to exercise.

The analogy to physical property is almost insultingly straightforward. If a man dies owning a ranch, the first trespasser who cuts the lock does not become the new owner by initiative and optimism. The estate handles succession. If there are no heirs, the sovereign has a claim. Valuable property does not become unowned merely because the original owner is gone.

Bitcoin is no different on that point. Lost keys do not transfer title. Inaccessibility is not a conveyance. A stranger who derives the private key later with better tooling has not uncovered ownerless treasure. He has acquired the practical ability to move property that still belongs to someone else, or to someone else’s estate.

That conclusion matters most for the largest block of old, vulnerable coins: Satoshi’s. Whether Satoshi is alive, dead, or permanently off-grid does not change the legal classification. Those coins belong either to Satoshi or to Satoshi’s estate. They do not become a bounty for the first actor who arrives with a quantum crowbar.

Unclaimed property law does not rescue the theory

Some people assume dormant bitcoin can be swept up under unclaimed property law. That confusion is understandable, but it misses how those statutes actually operate.

Unclaimed property law generally runs through a holder. A bank, broker, exchange, or other custodian owes property to the owner. If the owner disappears long enough, the state steps in and requires the holder to report and remit the asset, subject to the owner’s right to reclaim it later. The doctrine is built around intermediaries.

That framework works well enough for exchange balances. It works for custodial wallets. It works for assets sitting with a business that can be ordered to turn them over.

It does not work the same way for self-custodied bitcoin. A self-custodied UTXO has no bank in the middle, no exchange holding the bag, and no transfer agent waiting for instructions. There is no custodian for the state to command. There is only the network, the key, and the person who can or cannot produce the valid spend.

That means governments can often reach custodial crypto, but self-custodied bitcoin presents a harder limit. The law can say who owns it. The law can sometimes say who should surrender it. What it cannot do is conjure the private key.

The same problem defeats a more dressed-up version of the argument under UCC Article 12. A quantum attacker who derives the private key may gain “control” of the asset in a practical sense. But control is not title. It never has been. A burglar who finds your safe combination gains control too. He still stole what was inside.

Adverse possession does not fit, and salvage is worse

Two analogies get dragged out whenever someone wants to dignify quantum theft with a veneer of doctrine: adverse possession and salvage.

Neither one survives contact with the facts.

Adverse possession developed for land, and it carries conditions that make sense in land disputes. Possession must be open and notorious enough to give the true owner a fair chance to notice the adverse claim and contest it. A quantum attacker who sweeps coins into a fresh address does nothing of the sort. Yes, the movement is visible on-chain. No, that is not meaningful notice in the legal sense. A pseudonymous transfer on a public ledger does not tell the owner who is asserting title, on what basis, or in what forum the claim can be challenged.

The policy rationale also collapses. Adverse possession helps resolve stale land disputes, quiet title, and reward visible use of neglected real property. Bitcoin has none of those structural problems. The blockchain already records the chain of possession. 

Salvage is worse. Salvage rewards a party who rescues property from peril. The quantum raider does not rescue property from peril. He exploits the peril. In many cases, he is the reason the peril matters at all. Calling that “salvage” is like calling a pirate a lifeguard because he arrived with a boat: a euphemism masquerading as a legal theory.

What BIP-361 is really fighting about

This is why BIP-361 matters. It is the first serious proposal to force the issue at the consensus layer rather than wait for courts and commentators to argue over the wreckage afterward.

In broad strokes, the proposal would roll out in phases. First, users would be barred from sending new bitcoin into quantum-vulnerable address types, while still being allowed to move existing funds out to safer destinations. Later, legacy signatures in vulnerable UTXOs would stop being valid for purposes of spending those coins. In practical terms, any remaining unmigrated funds would freeze. A further recovery mechanism has been proposed using zero-knowledge proofs tied to BIP-39 seed possession, though that portion remains aspirational and incomplete.

Critically, the recovery path works only for wallets generated from BIP-39 mnemonics. Earlier wallet formats, including the pay-to-public-key outputs associated with Satoshi, have no realistic route back under the current proposal. That limitation is not incidental. It means Phase C, as currently designed, would preserve the property rights of more recent adopters while permanently extinguishing those of the earliest ones. That is a de facto statute of limitations imposed not by a legislature but by a protocol change.

The attraction of the proposal is obvious. If the network knows a category of coins is likely to become loot for whoever reaches them first, it can refuse to bless the looting. That is, in substance, a defense of ownership against a purely technological shortcut. It treats the quantum actor as a thief and denies him the prize.

But that is only half the story. The other half does not vanish merely because protocol designers would rather not observe it.

The proposal also creates a second legal problem, and it is harder to wave away. Phase B does not only stop thieves. It also disables actual owners who fail, or are unable, to migrate in time. That matters because property law does not ask only whether a rule has a good motive. It also asks what the rule does to the owner.

Calling that “theft” is too imprecise. BIP-361 does not reassign the coins to developers, miners, or some new claimant. It does not enrich the freezer in the ordinary way a thief enriches himself. But “not theft” does not end the inquiry. The closer analogy is conversion, or at least something uncomfortably adjacent to it. If the rule is that an owner had a valid spend yesterday and will have none tomorrow, not because he transferred title, not because he abandoned the coins, and not because a court extinguished his claim, but because the network decided those coins were too dangerous to remain spendable, the network has done something more than merely “protect property rights.” It has intentionally disabled the practical exercise of some of those rights.

That is what makes the freeze legally awkward. Freeze supporters can defend it as the lesser evil, and they may be right. But lesser evil is not the same thing as legal cleanliness. A rule that permanently prevents an owner from accessing his own coins begins to look less like ordinary theft and more like forced dispossession by consensus.

The strongest objections appear in the hardest cases. Timelocked UTXOs are the cleanest example. If a user deliberately created a timelock that matures after the freeze date, that owner did not neglect the coins. He did not abandon them. He affirmatively structured them to be unspendable until a future date. Yet the protocol could still freeze them permanently before that date ever arrives. Other older wallet constructions create a similar problem. If the eventual recovery path depends on BIP-39 seed possession, some earlier wallet formats may have no realistic route back at all. Estates create the same tension in another form. The owner may be dead, but title has not vanished. It passed somewhere. Freezing the coins does not eliminate the underlying property claim. It only eliminates the network’s willingness to honor it.

That is why the better description of Phase B is not “anti-theft rule” in the abstract. It is a confiscatory defense mechanism. Maybe a justified one. Maybe even a necessary one. But still confiscatory in effect for at least some owners. The proposal does not just choose owner over thief. In some cases it chooses one class of owners over another, then treats the losses of the disfavored class as the price of securing the system.

That does not make BIP-361 unlawful in any straightforward, courtroom-ready sense. Bitcoin consensus changes are not state action, so the takings analogy is imperfect unless government enters the picture directly. But as a matter of private-law reasoning, the conversion analogy lands harder. Title may remain rhetorically intact while practical control is intentionally destroyed.

That is the real symmetry at the center of the quantum debate. Letting a quantum attacker sweep dormant coins looks like theft. Freezing vulnerable coins by soft fork may be the lesser evil, but it is not costless, either materially or morally. For some owners, it begins to look a great deal like confiscation.

The legal answer is clear, even if Bitcoin’s is not

Classical property law is not going to bless quantum key derivation as some clever form of lawful recovery.

Dormancy is not abandonment. Death transfers title; it does not dissolve it. Unclaimed property law reaches custodians, not self-custody itself. Adverse possession does not map onto pseudonymous UTXOs. Salvage is a bad joke.

So if someone uses a quantum computer to derive the private key for a dormant wallet and move the coins, the legal system will almost certainly call that theft.

But BIP-361 shows that Bitcoin may not face a choice between theft and pristine protection of ownership. It may face a choice between theft by attacker and dispossession by protocol. Freezing vulnerable coins may be a defensible response to an extraordinary threat. It may even be the only response the network finds tolerable. Still, it should be described honestly. For some owners, especially those with timelocked outputs, old wallet formats, or no realistic migration path, the freeze begins to look less like protection than confiscation.

That is what makes the issue more than a simple morality play. Bitcoin collapses the distinction property law usually relies on between title and possession. Courts can say a quantum raider stole the coins. Courts can say a protocol-level freeze substantially interfered with an owner’s rights. But the chain will still recognize only the rules its economic majority adopts.

So the fight is not simply over whether Bitcoin should defend property rights during the quantum transition. The fight is over which property rights Bitcoin is willing to impair in order to defend the rest.

Welcome to classical politics.

This is a guest post by Colin Crossman. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

This post When Quantum Computers Come for Your Bitcoin: What Classical Property Law Says Happens Next first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Colin Crossman.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Whole Entire Universe: 21 Million, One Painting

There are 21 million bitcoin. That number is fixed, coded into the protocol, finite. It is one of the most consequential design decisions in the history of money, and yet for most people it remains an abstraction. Green digits cascading down a black screen like something out of The Matrix, or a talking point tossed around on a podcast.

The Japanese artist On Kawara spent nearly fifty years hand-painting a date onto a canvas every day — if he didn’t finish by midnight, he destroyed it. Anik Malcolm spent 900 hours painting 21 million beads. The impulse is the same: make the abstraction physical, make the counting matter, let the labor carry the meaning.

“The Whole Entire Universe” is a concept first conceived in early 2025 and now in its third and most ambitious incarnation: a meticulous, large-format oil painting in which every single bitcoin is represented as an individual bead, painted by hand over the course of more than 900 hours. The work will debut at Bitcoin 2026 at The Venetian Resort in Las Vegas.

The premise was somewhat simple— show 21 million of something. But in working out how to do it, Malcolm stumbled into something closer to a tesseract — a shape that revealed more dimensions the longer he looked at it. Twenty-one million does not divide cleanly into a cube — its cube root is an irrational number. But if you round up to the nearest whole number, 276, and cube it, you get 21,024,576 — exactly 24,576 more than 21 million. That surplus divides evenly by six (one for each face of the cube), yielding 4,096 beads to remove per side. The square root of 4,096 is 64 — a perfect square and a power of two. Which means those removed areas can be halved repeatedly: from 64×64, to 32×32, to 16×16, all the way down to 2×2 — mirroring, with startling precision, bitcoin’s halving mechanism.

He opened the box and the pattern was already inside. To him, the work is not an illustration of Bitcoin — it is a still life of it. The most literal depiction that could be made, rendered in a form so structurally resonant that it has drawn the attention of Adam Back.

From early drawings exhibited in Lugano to digital renderings to the oil painting debuting at B26 — and a planned monumental public sculpture in Roatán — “The Whole Entire Universe” keeps demanding a bigger canvas. 

I spoke with Anik Malcolm about how a simple question produced an extraordinary answer.

BMAG: The Whole Entire Universe began with a deceptively simple premise — make an artwork that shows 21 million of something. How did you land on that idea, and what was it like when your wife — herself an artist and jeweler — suggested a cube of beads? How does that kind of creative exchange between partners work for you? 

Anik Malcolm: The original impetus was literally that simple — it struck me that although the 21M number is so critically important to us as bitcoiners, it’s also a number that is difficult to fathom without seeing. How simultaneously large it is in volume, but also overseeably small and “human” in scale — so I wanted to find a way of bringing the number to life, of making it graspable. My wife Una and I have collaborated on many projects over the years, both in the visual and sonic arts, so we have honed the skill well of making it a constructive flow. I suggested this idea to her in conversation, and her instantaneous response was “a cube of beads.” I loved this both for the fact that a cube is such a deeply ubiquitous symbol in bitcoin, visually and metaphorically, and that the bead was one of the very first methods of exchange — the combination just made perfect sense, and was additionally manageable in scale. I immediately set to working out the practicalities, calculator in hand, and could barely believe what I found..!

BMAG: When you started working out whether 21 million could fit into a cube, you stumbled into a series of mathematical coincidences — 276 cubed, the 4,096 remainder dividing evenly by six, the square root landing on 64 (I can’t help hearing the Beatles lyric “When I’m 64” in my head), a power of two. Walk us through that moment. Did you realize right away what you were looking at, or did it unfold gradually?

Anik Malcolm:  Haha — wow, I hadn’t even made the Beatles connection yet! Fantastic. Yes, it happened very quickly. Obviously the cube root of 21M wasn’t going to be a rational number, so I knew I would have to do some tinkering to make it fit. I naturally started with the idea of rounding the cube root up to 276 and subtracting from there — as you said earlier, to reach 21,024,576, and it was already a rush when the surplus 24,576 divided cleanly into 6, meaning I could give the desired structure symmetry. That rush, however, was greatly amplified by the fact that I felt I recognized the number 4,096, and I was literally shaking when I inputted “square root of 4096” into my calculator, and when I saw the result I was absolutely dumbstruck — Una witnessing the whole process in amusement! The fact that I could not only spread the subtracted number equally over all six sides, but ALSO do so in perfect squares to obtain exactly 21,000,000 felt like a moment of divine providence, as if this symmetry had been encoded from the start and had been waiting to be found, and that there was possibly some deeper significance that someone, some day, might fathom. I knew right away that I had been entrusted with a very meaningful project.

BMAG: The pattern you found — squares halving from 64×64 down to 2×2 — mirrors bitcoin’s halving mechanism. You’ve described the piece as a “still life of Bitcoin.” How much of that connection did you set out to find, and how much of it felt like it was already embedded in the number waiting to be discovered?

Anik Malcolm: Yes — I was actually so moved by the initial finding that it wasn’t until some time later that I realized, to my EVEN greater astonishment, the obvious fact that I could divide 64 into 32, 16, 8, 4, and 2 — not only making the cube much more visually interesting, but in the process also representing both the halving function so deeply integral to bitcoin’s mechanism, but simultaneously also the exponential growth that, conversely, is a direct result of that halving. It felt that this single cube embodied everything that bitcoin is and does, and in such incredible symmetrical elegance — I was, and am still, more than a year later, absolutely in awe of the beauty of it all, which is why I have made it pretty much into my life’s work, for the time being at least. So to answer the question — I didn’t set out to find it at all, which is why I really feel I’m just a messenger, a role which permits me to stand so strongly behind it as it is not my own creation but merely a discovery.

BMAG: The oil painting debuting at Bitcoin 2026 took over 900 hours — each bead representing an individual bitcoin, painted by hand. What does that kind of sustained, meticulous labor do to your relationship with the subject? Does spending that long with 21 million change how you think about the number?

Anik Malcolm: This is a very interesting question, and one I actually pondered much during the process. As it is a two-dimensional representation of a still-theoretical 3D object, I “only” had to paint the 227,701 visible beads — each one, however, three times: body, highlight, shadow, not to mention the underlying grid.

The whole process, as you can imagine, was deeply meditative, and I found that “intrusive” thoughts would affect my efficiency, so that in itself became an exercise in recognizing, accepting, and letting go — a growth process of sorts which many report encountering on their bitcoin journey.

Next, I realized that music that was more demanding of my attention would have the same effect, so over time the playlist evolved into a soundtrack which resonated with the cube’s essence rather than rubbed against it — Arvo Pärt, David Lang, Kjartan Sveinsson, and the like, which I will also provide for listening at B26, as it forms an added dimension to the artwork’s presence.

Thirdly, I started noticing many other patterns within the numbers, many of which linked with Tesla’s “3,6,9” ideas, and I even spontaneously started reciting personal mantras as I painted, dot by dot, in a 3,6,9 pattern!

So I would say that rather than actively applying meaning to the number and its cubic manifestation, I became deeply under its influence as time progressed — physically, mentally, and spiritually. There is a certain “holiness” to bitcoin upon which I feel we all agree to a greater or lesser extent, and my experience of representing it so very literally was a true reflection of that.

BMAG: This concept has moved from drawings in Lugano to digital versions and tutorial videos to a full-scale oil painting, and you’re planning a monumental public sculpture in Roatán. What is it about this particular idea that keeps demanding a bigger format?

Anik Malcolm: Actually, both the Lugano drawings and the B26 painting (each 128×128 cm — about 4’2″) are on the smallest scale at which I could accurately represent the number! Each bead is 2mm (5/64″) — even smaller on the top face — so any smaller would have been unfeasible. I would also like to make a sculpture version of the same or similar size, hopefully within the next 12 months, as 55.2cm (under 2′) is still manageable in size. However, I met someone in Lugano who had spent years looking for a suitable idea for a monumental Bitcoin sculpture in Roatán, and felt that this worked perfectly. Even at a bead size of only 1cm (roughly ⅜”) with a 1cm gap in between for visual and kinetic effect, the cube alone quickly expands to 5.52m (approx. 18′), not counting the supporting structure and elevation from the ground. I feel that being able to be in the presence of all 21 million at such a grand and imposing scale would be an experience that would do bitcoin and all it stands for the appropriate justice.

BMAG: Adam Back has taken notice of the work. But if someone walks up to this painting at B26 with no math background and no particular interest in Bitcoin’s technical architecture — what do you want them to see or infer?

Anik Malcolm: I think my teenage daughter is a good representative of that demographic! She told me the other day that she would frequently come into the room where the painting has been drying “just to look at it for a while.” As I experienced while painting — I feel there is a deeply calming effect that the cube’s sheer symmetry and pattern exudes, floating and glowing in its abyssal setting, and combined with the provided soundtrack it becomes a deeply meditative and engrossing experience. And even on a basic math entry level — there are 21 subtracted squares visible on the painting! (Another beautiful coincidence — 1 square of 64², 4 squares of 32², and 16 squares of 16².) I feel, and hope, that both visitors of B26 and eventually the painting’s future owner will derive deep and sustained pleasure from this calm that was quietly encoded into that magical number, in the way both I and my whole family have during the journey of its creation — the calm methodical truth that is reflective of the bitcoin experience as a whole.

Fix the money. Fix the world.

“The Whole Entire Universe” by Anik Malcolm debuts in the BMAG art gallery at Bitcoin 2026, April 27–29, at The Venetian Resort, Las Vegas. Preview the work and explore more from the BMAG B26 exhibition HERE.  A limited edition shirt based on the painting is available HERE.

The Bitcoin Museum & Art Gallery (BMAG) is the curatorial and cultural programming division of BTC Inc and the Bitcoin Conference. Since 2019, the BMAG conference art gallery has facilitated more than 120 BTC in art and collectible sales. Learn more about BMAG at museum.b.tc. Follow BMAG on twitter @BMAG_HQ.

Bundle your Bitcoin 2026 pass with a stay at The Venetianand get your fourth night free. Use code AFTERS for a free After Hours Pass, or get your pass alone here. 

This post The Whole Entire Universe: 21 Million, One Painting first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Dennis Koch.

Bitcoin Magazine

Congresswoman Sheri Biggs Discloses Up to $250,000 BTC Investment via iShares Bitcoin ETF

Representative Sheri Biggs of South Carolina has disclosed a purchase of up to $250,000 in Bitcoin exposure via the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), marking one of the largest single Bitcoin-related buys by a sitting member of Congress. 

The Periodic Transaction Report filed with the House shows a transaction in the $100,001–$250,000 range executed on March 4, 2026 and reported in mid‑April, in line with disclosure deadlines under the STOCK Act.

The trade places Biggs among Congress’s most aggressive adopters of Bitcoin investment products, a cohort that already includes Senator David McCormick and Representative Brandon Gill, who have collectively reported hundreds of thousands of dollars in Bitcoin ETF purchases over the past year. 

Biggs has previously been identified by crypto advocacy groups as strongly supportive of digital assets, and her latest filing underscores how lawmakers are increasingly gaining direct financial exposure to the sector they help regulate.

The move comes as BTC trades below recent highs but remains a central focus of Washington’s ongoing debate over digital asset regulation and potential federal Bitcoin reserve policy. 

Bitcoin price action 

Bitcoin price rose sharply above $77,000 today after Iran announced the Strait of Hormuz had been fully reopened under a ceasefire framework, easing fears of a potential supply shock and triggering a broad risk-on move across global markets.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the key shipping route is open to all commercial vessels for the duration of a 10-day truce tied to de-escalation efforts involving Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The announcement signaled a temporary stabilization in a region that had been on edge for weeks over escalating tensions and threats to energy flows through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints.

President Donald Trump amplified the development on social media, declaring that the “Strait of IRAN is fully open and ready for full passage,” reinforcing expectations that diplomatic momentum could continue. The White House has suggested that broader talks with Tehran remain possible within days, with additional regional meetings under discussion.

Markets reacted quickly. Oil prices fell as the geopolitical risk premium unwound, and equities and crypto moved higher in tandem. BTC pushed back into the $76,000–$78,000 range, a zone that has repeatedly acted as resistance since February’s pullback from earlier highs.

With liquidity thin and positioning crowded, BTC now sits at a key inflection point where continued geopolitical de-escalation could fuel a breakout above resistance, while renewed tensions risk sending price back toward the low-$70,000 range.

This post Congresswoman Sheri Biggs Discloses Up to $250,000 BTC Investment via iShares Bitcoin ETF first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

U.S Senator Probes Status of Binance Inquiry Over Iran Compliance Concerns

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) has asked the Justice Department and FinCEN for updates on the status of monitors overseeing Binance, citing concerns about the exchange’s compliance program and allegations of weak anti-money laundering controls, according to Fortune reporting. 

In letters sent Friday, Blumenthal referenced reports of Iranian-linked crypto flows and questioned whether Binance’s oversight structure is functioning as intended. 

As part of a 2023 settlement tied to sanctions and money laundering violations, the exchange agreed to pay a $4.3 billion fine and accept two independent monitors — one reporting to the DOJ and another to FinCEN — to oversee its compliance reforms starting in 2024.

The senator’s inquiry follows media reports alleging internal investigators at Binance were dismissed after flagging more than $1 billion in transactions linked to Iranian wallets, a claim the company disputes.

It also comes amid broader scrutiny of federal monitorships, which have faced criticism over effectiveness and cost, and reports that the DOJ has reconsidered or paused some corporate oversight programs.

Senate Democrats urge for a DOJ, Treasury Binance probe as well

Earlier this year, in a letter sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a group of U.S. senators called for a “prompt, comprehensive review” of Binance’s sanctions compliance and anti-money laundering controls, citing renewed concerns over the exchange’s handling of illicit finance risks.

The letter, led by Sen. Mark Warner and joined by Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren along with Sens. Chris Van Hollen, Jack Reed, Catherine Cortez Masto, Tina Smith, Raphael Warnock, Andy Kim, Ruben Gallego, Lisa Blunt Rochester, and Angela Alsobrooks, points to internal compliance findings reportedly identifying roughly $1.7 billion in crypto transactions connected to Iranian actors, similarly to Blumenthal’s inquiry. 

According to the senators, one case involved a Binance vendor allegedly facilitating $1.2 billion in transfers tied to Iran-linked entities. The letter further claims Iranian users accessed more than 1,500 Binance accounts and that the platform may also have been used by Russian actors to circumvent sanctions.

The lawmakers also raised concerns that employees who flagged suspicious activity were dismissed and that Binance has become less responsive to law enforcement requests, potentially undermining obligations under its 2023 plea agreement.

Binance previously pleaded guilty to federal violations involving sanctions breaches and anti–money laundering failures, agreeing to more than $4 billion in penalties and committing to extensive compliance reforms under U.S. oversight, including enhanced KYC and sanctions screening systems.

The senators argue that the latest allegations raise serious questions about whether those reforms have been effectively implemented and sustained, warning that allowing such flows would conflict with Binance’s commitments to the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

This post U.S Senator Probes Status of Binance Inquiry Over Iran Compliance Concerns first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Kraken Owner Payward to Acquire Bitnomial for $550M, Securing Full CFTC-Licensed U.S. Crypto Derivatives Stack

Kraken-owner Payward has agreed to acquire Bitnomial in a deal valued at up to $550 million in cash and stock, giving the firm control of a fully licensed U.S. crypto derivatives stack as it expands deeper into regulated markets.

The transaction values Payward at $20 billion and is expected to close in the first half of 2026, subject to customary conditions and regulatory filings with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Bitnomial stands out as the first crypto-native platform in the U.S. to secure all three licenses required to operate a full-stack derivatives business: a designated contract market, a derivatives clearing organization, and a futures commission merchant. Those approvals allow it to run an exchange, clear trades, and offer brokerage services within a single regulated framework.

By acquiring Bitnomial, Payward gains infrastructure that would take years to build. The exchange spent more than a decade developing a system designed for digital assets, including crypto settlement, crypto collateral, and continuous trading. The deal brings that foundation under Payward’s ecosystem, which includes Kraken and its recently acquired futures platform NinjaTrader.

Payward Co-CEO Arjun Sethi said clearing infrastructure shapes how markets function, pointing to settlement systems and margin models as the core of derivatives innovation. He said the U.S. lacks clearing infrastructure built for digital assets, which made Bitnomial’s platform a strategic target.

Bitnomial founder Luke Hoersten said the company built its exchange and clearinghouse from the ground up for crypto markets. He pointed to features such as perpetual futures, crypto-settled products, and a unified trading book across spot, futures, and options as capabilities that legacy systems cannot support without redesign.

Kraken’s busy week

The acquisition expands Payward’s push into derivatives, a segment that has become central to crypto trading volumes. While Kraken remains a major exchange, it trails some global competitors in spot trading and has focused on building out derivatives and multi-asset capabilities through acquisitions.

The company’s largest move came in 2025 with its $1.5 billion purchase of NinjaTrader, which gave it a foothold in U.S. futures markets and access to a large base of retail traders. The Bitnomial deal builds on that strategy by adding a fully regulated derivatives infrastructure layer.

The deal also strengthens Payward Services, the company’s business-to-business infrastructure arm. Through a single API integration, banks, fintech firms, and brokerages will be able to offer regulated U.S. derivatives alongside services such as crypto trading, staking, and tokenized equities.

Payward framed the transaction as an infrastructure play rather than a traditional acquisition, positioning Bitnomial’s regulatory stack as the foundation for building the next phase of U.S. crypto derivatives markets.

Earlier this week, Deutsche Börse acquired a $200 million stake in Kraken to expand institutional crypto services, even as the exchange disclosed limited insider-related security incidents affecting a small number of accounts. Also this week, Kraken confirmed a confidential IPO filing as its valuation dropped to $13.3 billion. 

This post Kraken Owner Payward to Acquire Bitnomial for $550M, Securing Full CFTC-Licensed U.S. Crypto Derivatives Stack first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Morgan Stanley launched its spot Bitcoin ETF on Apr. 8 on NYSE Arca, calling MSBT the first cryptocurrency ETP from a US bank-affiliated asset manager and pricing its sponsor fee at 0.14%, the lowest Bitcoin ETP sponsor fee.

By Apr. 16, Farside Investors' data showed cumulative net inflows of $116 million across seven trading sessions.

Against Morgan Stanley Investment Management's $1.9 trillion in assets under management as of Dec. 31, 2025, that figure represents roughly 0.006% of the platform. At the 0.14% fee rate, it would generate only about $162,400 in annual gross revenue if assets were held at that level.

What makes the MSBT launch harder to ignore is the competitive arithmetic.

A number that travels

At roughly $16.6 million of net inflows per session, MSBT has already surpassed BTCW, which Farside shows at $86 million in cumulative inflows.

For a late entrant launching into a choppy Bitcoin market, clearing an existing competitor's total in less than two weeks establishes that brand, price, and distribution can still generate demand in a field already dominated by BlackRock's IBIT at $64.3 billion and Fidelity's FBTC at $10.8 billion.

Morgan Stanley has converted “crypto access” into “crypto manufacturing.”

The filing was the first such move by a major US bank, and Morningstar's Bryan Armor told Reuters that a bank's entry into the crypto ETF market adds legitimacy and that others could follow.

Goldman Sachs filed for its first Bitcoin ETF product on Apr. 14, six days after MSBT launched. The timing reinforces the sense that the reputational barrier to bank-branded Bitcoin products is contracting fast.

Morgan Stanley's own launch statement frames MSBT as part of a firmwide digital asset push spanning custody, trading, and product development. The fund is both a product decision and a positioning decision.

The 0.14% fee sets a price anchor that tells the market Morgan Stanley intends to compete on cost and trust, and reveals how it expects the category to evolve.

The battlefield is wide

Bank of America announced that advisers across its Private Bank, Merrill, and Merrill Edge platforms will be able to recommend crypto allocations starting Jan. 5, with no asset threshold.

Charles Schwab said on Apr. 16 that it would begin a phased rollout of direct spot Bitcoin and Ethereum trading for retail clients in the coming weeks. Together, those moves show that the fight for Bitcoin's next wave of capital runs through advice, brokerage access, and custody-integrated client experience.

MSBT demonstrates that a bank can wrap Bitcoin in a familiar product and attract money, while Bank of America and Schwab demonstrate that a bank can also capture the same client relationship simply by controlling the recommendation or the trading interface.

Firms that do neither now face a specific competitive pressure, as rivals are accumulating either the wrapper or the client touchpoint, and in some cases both.

Citi expects US ETF assets to more than double from roughly $10.4 trillion to $25 trillion by 2030, with active ETFs gaining share. Bitcoin products are competing inside an ETF industry already organized around fee compression, distribution control, and model-portfolio inclusion.

Late entrants in that environment tend to win through price and platform relationships, which is exactly the bet Morgan Stanley's 0.14% fee implies.

The permission signal becomes a wave

If MSBT's opening pace held, Farside arithmetic would place it near $498 million after 30 trading sessions and over $1 billion after 63 trading sessions.

The straight-line projection extrapolates the current pace into a scenario, and the direction it points toward carries real strategic weight.

Goldman's filing could convert into a launched product by late June, while other firms watching two major banks move within days of each other face a weaker internal case for inaction.

The Morningstar framing that bank entry adds legitimacy, and others could follow, acquiring more force each time a new institution moves.

For Bitcoin, that path produces an outcome measured in more bank-branded wrappers, meaning more conventional allocation pathways via adviser model portfolios, standard brokerage workflows, and custody-integrated access for clients who have never opened a crypto exchange account.

That makes demand stickier, slower-moving, and less dependent on retail sentiment cycles.

Citi's 12-month base target of $112,000 and bull case of $165,000 represent the outer range of what broader institutional normalization could support if the current sequence of launches and distribution expansions continues to build.

Fed Governor Christopher Waller said a swift resolution to the Middle East conflict could keep hopes of a rate cut alive later in the year. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America all expect two cuts starting in September.

Easier financial conditions would support risk assets across the board, and Bitcoin would draw an additional tailwind from any meaningful shift in the rate path.

A crowded category

The less constructive reading of the same data holds that MSBT's early inflows confirm viability for a bank-branded launch while leaving the category leaders' distribution moat intact.

IBIT's $64.3 billion and FBTC's $10.8 billion represent advantages in scale, liquidity, and adviser familiarity that took years and a favorable regulatory moment to accumulate.

If flows flatten after the launch window, a pattern common across new ETF entrants, rivals may conclude that the distribution moat around IBIT and FBTC is wider than Morgan Stanley's launch suggested.

In that scenario, the industry response shifts from “launch our own ETF” toward “expand access through advice and direct trading,” which Bank of America and Schwab are already doing.

For Bitcoin, that outcome delivers symbolic validation. Glassnode's Accumulation Trend Score sits at 0, its language around the recovery has been cautious, and Bitcoin stays roughly 40% below its all-time high of $126,223.

In that environment, a market held together by selective flows and a narrow coalition of buyers stays vulnerable to macro reversals and sentiment shifts.

Citi's recessionary downside case of $58,000 represents the bearish 12-month outer envelope if tighter financial conditions persist and the institutional bid loses depth.

MSBT's weekly inflows staying above $50 million or compressing toward single-digit figures as the launch premium fades, Goldman's filing converting into an actual listed product, other firms responding through manufacturing or through advice and brokerage access instead, and deeper fee competition, will clarify which path is forming.

A second or third bank entrant undercutting 0.14% would point out that the category has entered a distribution war, which tends to expand access while compressing margins for all participants.

A major bank has now established, with a live product and a real asset base, that bank-branded Bitcoin exposure is commercially viable. Goldman filed days later.

Every firm watching that sequence is now calculating that the cost of moving looks lower than it did a month ago.

The post Morgan Stanley’s $116M Bitcoin ETF debut is tiny next to $1.9T, and that’s why Wall Street will notice appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Crypto traders traded more than $500 million in synthetic oil futures over the weekend on the decentralized exchange Hyperliquid, betting that renewed military conflict in the Middle East could push crude prices back to $100 a barrel.

The surge in blockchain-based trading followed Iran's abrupt decision to shut the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, reversing a reopening announced just a day earlier.

Reports of attacks on vessels near the vital waterway sent investors scrambling for ways to hedge their energy exposure while traditional global financial markets were closed.

Related Reading

Bitcoin shrugs off oil surge and geopolitical tension, setting up potential push toward $80k

Spot BTC stabilizes as speculative froth subsides, ETF flows resume, and futures hint at momentum shift.

Mar 12, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Oil prices rise on Hyperliquid

On Hyperliquid, perpetual futures tied to the international benchmark Brent crude jumped above $90 a barrel, erasing a recent 10% drop triggered by news of the brief re-opening of the Strait on Friday.

West Texas Intermediate contracts climbed to $86, up sharply from a $79 close on traditional commodity exchanges Friday afternoon.

The weekend rush highlights a growing shift among market participants utilizing blockchain infrastructure to bypass standard trading hours.

Unlike Wall Street, crypto derivatives platforms operate continuously.

Hyperliquid’s HIP-3 system allows developers to create 24/7 leveraged futures markets for traditional assets like oil, gold, and equities, provided they lock up 500,000 of the platform’s native HYPE tokens as collateral.

Driven by the ongoing geopolitical panic, open interest across these synthetic markets has reached a record of more than $2 billion.

Related Reading

While gold markets were closed, crypto traders priced the Iran war in real time

With benchmarks dark, always on metals perps became the live risk barometer and one venue tracked Sunday’s reopen best.

Mar 3, 2026 · Gino Matos

US-Iran renew hostilities on Strait of Hormuz

The renewed hostilities stem from a breakdown in a temporary ceasefire set to expire on April 22.

President Donald Trump said that a US naval blockade of Iranian ports will persist until a peace agreement is reached.

In response, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threatened to target any approaching commercial vessels, claiming it would maintain the closure until the US lifts its port restrictions.

Following the closure, Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said on X:

“We warned you, but you didn't pay attention! Now enjoy the return of the Strait of Hormuz situation to its previous state.”

Crypto betters on prediction markets quickly priced in the pessimism. On Polymarket, another blockchain-based platform, the betting odds that shipping traffic in the strait would normalize by the end of the month plummeted to 22% as of press time.

Meanwhile, the geopolitical anxiety has also halted momentum in the broader crypto market. Bitcoin hovered around $75,028 on Sunday as traders abandoned riskier digital assets in favor of defensive energy hedges.

With global inflation already a lingering concern, markets are bracing for higher manufacturing and transportation costs if Monday morning's traditional market open pushes crude past the $100 threshold.

The post Is crude heading back to $100? Crypto traders drive $500M weekend Hyperliquid oil bets over Strait of Hormuz closure appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin's network just recorded its lowest activity in eight years, and the price has barely flinched.

CryptoQuant flagged that active BTC addresses hit their lowest level since 2016 on Apr. 8. At the same time, Glassnode's latest 24-hour reading puts active addresses at 661,313, a number that, set against a price near $78,000, produces one of the more uncomfortable charts in recent crypto history.

The reading that quiet networks are quiet markets misses what has changed structurally. A growing share of Bitcoin exposure now trades without leaving any footprint on the base layer.

BlackRock's IBIT delivers Bitcoin exposure through exchange-traded shares, and CME's Bitcoin futures settle in cash. A fund manager rotating into Bitcoin through either vehicle never touches a wallet, never opens an address, never appears in Glassnode's address count.

Price discovery increasingly happens in ETF order books and futures markets. The chart mismatch is partly due to sentiment and partly to Bitcoin acquiring a second market structure on top of its original one.

Related Reading

The Bitcoin network is currently a ghost town as price is being controlled elsewhere

Fees, mempool pressure, and on-chain demand are telling a different story beneath the price recovery.

Apr 9, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

The participation picture

What the on-chain data does confirm is that broad retail engagement has faded.

Glassnode's Accumulation Trend Score sits at 0, which the firm defines as distribution or non-accumulation. Its own research from Apr. 1 described demand as remaining well below the levels typically seen at durable lows.

By Apr. 8, the language had tightened further to subdued, low-conviction, weak spot activity, and thinner derivatives participation. That is the vocabulary of a cautious, low-conviction market.

Glassnode puts illiquid BTC supply at 13.45 million coins as of Apr. 16, a large share of the circulating supply held by hands that show little inclination to sell. High illiquidity, combined with low active addresses, indicates a market where fewer coins are willing to trade in either direction.

Broad new demand would require a very different signal, as a coin that refuses to move signals supply firmness.

Glassnode's Apr. 13 market pulse reported ETF demand holding firm while on-chain activity cooled, with Bitcoin price momentum up 51.7% and futures open interest climbing 7.2%.

CoinShares reported $1.1 billion in digital asset product inflows for the same week, including $871 million into Bitcoin, the strongest weekly figure since early January.

Trading volumes at $21 billion remained well below the year-to-date average of $31 billion, which is exactly the texture of a narrow market where capital enters, and participation stays thin.

Related Reading

Bitcoin’s rally is still just a bear market bounce unless it reclaims this key level

Glassnode says bitcoin remains inside a bear-market value zone, with near-term support around $69,000-$71,500 but a more credible recovery only above $81,600.

Apr 10, 2026 · Gino Matos

The coalition holding price up

Glassnode's Apr. 15 report noted that Binance-led spot buying has been outpacing Coinbase's, complicating any clean “US institutions took over” framing.

Coinbase tends to serve as a proxy for domestic institutional and retail flows, while Binance skews toward offshore flows. A market where Binance leads, and Coinbase lags, reflects a coalition of selective institutions, offshore spot buyers, and tactical derivatives traders, rather than a uniform domestic institutional bid.

Goldman Sachs filed for its first Bitcoin ETF product on Apr. 14, joining Morgan Stanley, which filed for Bitcoin and Solana ETFs in January. Those are distribution channel decisions, consisting of banks building pipes through which client capital can reach Bitcoin without base-layer participation.

CME's Bitcoin futures open interest reached 23,827 contracts and $8.77 billion in notional value by Apr. 10, up from 21,180 contracts and $7.24 billion on Apr. 1.

The ETF flow snapshot for Apr. 16 complicates any straight-line bullish read. IBIT took in 1,088.13 BTC and MSBT added 177.76 BTC, but FBTC shed 478.92 BTC, GBTC lost 317.49 BTC, and smaller products posted further outflows.

Related Reading

Bitcoin is squeezing into the $78k ‘True Market Mean’ with Fed and retail data set to decide next move

With Bitcoin around $74,700, hotter March inflation, steady jobs data, retail sales due Apr. 21, and the next Fed meeting on Apr. 28-29, the market is heading into resistance with macro no longer offering easy help.

Apr 16, 2026 · Gino Matos

That is a mixed reading, with enough buying to offset selling but short of the persistent net inflow that signals broad conviction.

The off-chain bid becomes the bridge

If the current selective institutional positioning marks the early stage of a broader structural rotation, the path forward runs through a specific sequence, and ETF inflows would need to turn persistently positive.

CME open interest would continue to rebuild, and Coinbase's participation would improve to match Binance's offshore strength.

On-chain address activity would begin to recover from current lows as the institutional bid provides enough price stability to draw retail back in.

Glassnode puts the first meaningful technical checkpoint at the $78,100 True Market Mean and the $81,600 Short-Term Holder Cost Basis. A sustained move through both would indicate that the coalition of buyers has enough depth to absorb distribution and attract fresh capital.

In that setup, Citi's 12-month base target of $112,000 becomes a workable reference point, with the $165,000 bull case representing the outer envelope if end-investor demand broadens materially from current levels.

The macro backdrop could accelerate that path, as Fed Governor Christopher Waller said a swift resolution to the Middle East conflict could keep rate-cut hopes alive later in the year.

Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America still expect two cuts starting in September.

If energy prices stay lower and the Fed moves earlier than the market currently prices, the liquidity conditions that tend to support risk assets would improve.

In that case, Bitcoin's behavior as a liquidity-sensitive asset whose trajectory tracks Fed expectations and broader risk sentiment would benefit.

A narrow bid in a macro squeeze

The more uncomfortable reading of the same evidence is that a market held up by selective flows.

In this scenario, ETF inflows can reverse, offshore spot buyers can pull back, and derivatives traders can flip.

Glassnode's Apr. 15 note described the recovery as fragile and flow-driven, with limited conviction. If macro conditions stay tighter for longer, as Deutsche Bank still expects the Fed to be on hold through 2026, the off-chain bid lacks the fundamental tailwind that would reinforce it.

The first support pocket Glassnode identified runs from $69,000 to $71,500, a zone shaped by dealer gamma positioning. Below that, Glassnode places Bitcoin's Realized Price at $54,000, which is the average acquisition cost across the entire circulating supply and a natural stress level if the selective support base loses coherence.

Citi's recessionary downside case of $58,000 falls within that same range and represents the bearish 12-month outer envelope.

A market dominated by off-chain venues and a narrow coalition of buyers is more exposed to sentiment reversals and flow disruptions than a market with deep retail ownership distributed across millions of wallets.

High illiquid supply means fewer coins will move voluntarily, and low active addresses mean fewer participants are watching the chain and ready to step in organically.

The real exposure is that the support base may be narrower and more reversible than any headline price level implies.

The question the data leaves open

Active addresses are at an eight-year low, alongside a price holding near $78,000, describing a market that has reorganized around off-chain venues without announcing it.

Bitcoin's base layer persists while price formation has migrated toward off-chain venues.

The four signals worth watching are if on-chain activity recovers alongside price, if Coinbase joins Binance in showing sustained spot demand, if ETF inflows turn persistently positive, and if CME open interest keeps rebuilding.

When these signals move together, the off-chain support thesis gains structural depth. If they diverge, the holding pattern becomes harder to sustain on selective flows alone.

The post Bitcoin network activity just hit an 8-year low — has Wall Street replaced retail in the market? appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The SEC has approved a rule change that eliminates one of Wall Street's most recognizable barriers for small traders: the old $25,000 minimum tied to pattern day-trading restrictions.

Regulators signed off on FINRA's proposal to scrap a framework that long made it harder for smaller investors to make rapid-fire stock trades, replacing it with a system aimed at measuring intraday risk.

The change might not be a rewrite of crypto regulation per se, but it carries certain implications for Bitcoin because the same retail crowd that speculates in stocks and options often moves through crypto too.

Related Reading

Why the SEC just gave self custody crypto apps 5 years to get traditional broker licenses

A new SEC staff statement gives certain wallet-linked crypto trading interfaces a narrow way to operate without broker registration, while leaving most DeFi protocols and tokenized markets stuck waiting on Congress.

Apr 16, 2026 · Gino Matos

What the old rule was and why it existed

Day trading means buying and selling a stock on the same day, trying to profit from short-term price swings rather than holding for weeks or months.

Under the old FINRA Rule 4210 framework, anyone who executed four or more of these same-day trades within a rolling five-business-day period could be classified as a “pattern day trader.” Once that label was applied, the trader was required to maintain at least $25,000 in their margin account at all times. Fall below that threshold, and the broker would lock you out until your balance recovered.

The rule dates back to 2001, when regulators were trying to contain the fallout from the dot-com crash.

Millions of retail traders had piled into overvalued tech stocks using margin accounts, and when the bubble burst, the losses were severe. The $25,000 requirement was designed as a capital buffer, a way to ensure that people making frequent, leveraged bets had enough to absorb the inevitable hits.

It made sense a lot of regulatory sense at the time. In practical terms, it meant that wealthier traders could move fast while smaller investors were told to sit still.

For anyone with a $5,000 or $10,000 account, the PDT rule was essentially a gate, and the workarounds were miserable: spreading trades across multiple brokers, switching to cash-only accounts with slower settlement, or avoiding day trading altogether.

Related Reading

SEC reverses course on crypto enforcement and disowns its own playbook

The same agency that pointed to crypto enforcement as proof of its toughness in late 2024 is now holding up those cases as evidence of institutional overreach.

Apr 12, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

What the SEC actually changed

The SEC's Release No. 34-105226, granted on an accelerated basis, eliminates the pattern day trader designation entirely.

It also removes the $25,000 minimum equity requirement and all related day-trading buying power provisions. In their place, FINRA is introducing a new intraday margin standard under Rule 4210 that focuses on real-time calculations of actual position risk rather than counting trades.

The old system tried to control behavior by identifying and restricting smaller traders.

The new system measures the actual risk of each position as it develops during the trading day, with brokers calculating intraday margin requirements based on the size and volatility of what a trader holds at any given moment.

The minimum account equity to open a margin account now drops to $2,000, the existing baseline for standard margin accounts. Full implementation could take up to 18 months as brokers upgrade their systems, meaning adoption across the industry may stretch into late 2027.

Related Reading

New Goldman Sachs Bitcoin fund is built for advisers seeking yield, not traders chasing the next rally

Goldman plans to sell covered calls on Bitcoin-linked ETPs for yield, sometimes overwriting up to 100% exposure.

Apr 15, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

The 0DTE factor and why regulators are moving now

Markets today look almost nothing like the markets the PDT rule was built for.

Commission-free apps have eliminated cost friction. Mobile platforms have made it possible to place trades in seconds from anywhere. And one of the most dramatic shifts in market structure has come from the explosion of zero-days-to-expiration options, or 0DTE contracts, which expire on the same day they are traded.

0DTE options are bets on where a stock or index will move before the market closes. Because these contracts expire within hours, their prices can swing violently on even small moves in the underlying asset. A modest rally can produce an outsized gain, and a modest dip can wipe the position out entirely.

They represent the kind of fast, leveraged speculation that the original PDT rule was designed to curb, except they weren't part of the landscape when that rule was written.

The scale of growth these options have seen is nothing short of staggering.

According to Cboe Global Markets, 0DTE SPX options averaged 2.3 million contracts daily in 2025 and accounted for 59% of total S&P 500 index options volume, a fivefold increase over three years.

Retail traders now make up roughly 50 to 60% of SPX 0DTE activity, and total US-listed options volume topped 15.2 billion contracts in 2025, the sixth consecutive record year. Citadel Securities data shows that average daily retail options volume in early 2026 is running about 14% above 2025 and nearly 47% above the 2020-2025 average.

FINRA's own filing acknowledged the mismatch, stating that the current day-trading margin requirements are “no longer tailored to meet the regulatory objective” and “don't meet the needs of today's customers, members, and markets.”

After more than two decades of defending the old system, regulators are finally conceding that the market has outgrown it.

What this could mean for Bitcoin and crypto

This rule change doesn't alter digital asset regulation, exchange licensing, or the treatment of crypto-linked securities. But the indirect effects are worth considering through the lens of capital rotation.

Research from JPMorgan and Wintermute found a significant market shift since late 2024: retail speculative demand that once concentrated in crypto has been migrating toward equities.

US retail stock-trading volume surged to as high as 36% of total market activity in 2025, compared to a 10-year average of roughly 12%. Meanwhile, retail participation in crypto has declined, even as institutional volume in crypto derivatives has grown sharply.

The crucial detail here is that modern brokerage apps have made the boundary between these markets almost invisible. Robinhood, Webull, and Interactive Brokers all blend stock, options, and crypto trading into a single interface, so traders can move from a 0DTE SPX call to a Bitcoin position without switching apps.

If removing the $25,000 gate makes it easier for small traders to move faster in equities, the overall appetite for rapid speculation could rise across the entire retail ecosystem.

The behavioral patterns that drive 0DTE trading and meme-stock surges don't stop at asset-class boundaries. When speculation accelerates in one part of the market, some of that energy tends to spill into adjacent ones, and crypto has consistently been one of them.

Regulators removed a wall in the broader retail trading ecosystem, and Bitcoin may benefit from whatever additional speculative flow that produces.

The real tension in this decision is about what kind of market regulators believe they are governing.

The old PDT rule reflected a world where smaller traders needed to be protected from themselves, even if that protection came in the form of exclusion. The new framework reflects a world where those traders are already in the market, already taking leveraged bets, and already using instruments far more complex than simple stock day-trades.

Whether that acceptance is modernization or capitulation depends on where you stand. But if the overall culture of retail speculation expands as a result, the consequences won't stop at equities.

They could also show up in renewed flows into Bitcoin and crypto.

The post SEC removes huge pattern day trader barrier to allow retail investors to day trade Bitcoin with just $2k margin appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A White House digital assets official has slammed the traditional banking sector's continued opposition to the proposed stablecoin yield compromise in the CLARITY Act.

On April 17, Patrick Witt, the executive director of the White House Presidential Advisory Committee on Digital Assets, accused the financial institutions of “greed or ignorance” due to their intensified lobbying efforts to block yield-bearing stablecoins in the upcoming legislation.

According to him:

“It’s hard to explain any further lobbying by banks on this issue as motivated by anything other than greed or ignorance. Move on.”

US lawmakers make bipartisan sablecoin yield compromise for CLARITY Act

The unusually sharp rhetoric from the administration reflects the widening rift between the White House and Wall Street over the future of the $320 billion stablecoin market.

Over the past year, the White House has made significant efforts to reach a compromise between the banking industry and the crypto sector. However, all has proven abortive so far.

The latest is the Tillis-Alsobrooks proposed bipartisan compromise, which would ban passive yield on stablecoin balances while continuing to permit activity-based rewards.

However, unnamed banking trade associations reportedly argue that even this restricted framework poses a structural threat to the traditional financial system. As a result, they have expanded their lobbying campaign to target multiple senators on the Senate Banking Committee.

Notably, the bankers, through the American Bankers Association, previously claimed that the stablecoin yield loophole in the CLARITY Act could trigger up to $6.6 trillion in deposit outflows.

However, the banking industry's dire projections directly contradict White House data.

A report from the Council of Economic Advisers concluded that a total ban on stablecoin yield would impose a net cost of $800 million on consumers. The report also argued that the “yield prohibition would do very little to protect bank lending, while forgoing the consumer benefits of competitive returns on stablecoin holdings.”

Still, the bankers have rejected these assertions, noting that:

“As yield-paying payment stablecoins expand, households and businesses have stronger incentives to move funds out of bank deposits and into stablecoins, unless Congress prohibits yield.

Even if total deposits in the banking system remain constant, deposits will be reallocated away from smaller banks toward a smaller set of large institutions, and the share of deposits tied up in stablecoin reserves will eat into overall bank lending capacity.”

Demand for yield-bearing stablecoin rises

The legislative gridlock occurs against a backdrop of rapid market evolution, with stablecoin holders increasingly seeking yield-bearing assets.

According to Messari data, the supply of yield-bearing stablecoins has grown 15 times faster than the broader stablecoin market over the past six months.

Due to the rapid growth of the sector, time is running out for lawmakers to bridge the gap.

Sen. Thom Tillis told reporters his team is still going back and forth on the compromise text, while Sen. Angela Alsobrooks indicated a release is likely next week.

However, if the Banking Committee fails to advance the bill before the end of April, political realities make passage in 2026 highly unlikely. In fact, Sen. Cynthia Lummis has warned that the bill might not be passed until 2030 if a compromise is not reached quickly.

Meanwhile, the crypto sector maintains that capitulating to bank demands will stifle domestic innovation.

Dan Spuller, executive vice president of industry affairs at the Blockchain Association, said:

“Our industry is in the 11th hour of negotiations and the push to force everything into a bank model is real. Stablecoins are fully reserved payment tools, not deposit-taking institutions. If we get this right, America wins.”

The post White House tells “greedy” banks to “move on” from CLARITY Act stablecoin yield fight appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Crypto News: What Just Moved the Market

The latest crypto news cycle has been dominated by one key reality: macro events are now driving crypto more than crypto itself.

Over the past days, markets reacted sharply to geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. Oil prices surged, risk assets dropped, and crypto followed.

Bitcoin briefly lost momentum as fear spread across global markets — but quickly rebounded once de-escalation signals appeared. At the same time, something more important happened behind the scenes:

Institutional money continues to flow into crypto.

Large inflows into Bitcoin, combined with growing involvement from traditional finance players, are supporting prices even during macro uncertainty.

This combination is critical:

• Short-term volatility driven by headlines
• Long-term strength driven by institutional demand

This is exactly why the next move could be explosive.

Why Bitcoin Is at a Critical Level Right Now

Bitcoin is currently trading near a key resistance zone.

This level has acted as a barrier multiple times, and the market is now testing it again under very different conditions:

• Stronger institutional backing
• Higher macro uncertainty
• Increased liquidity sensitivity

If Bitcoin breaks above this level, the move could accelerate quickly due to:

• Short liquidations
• Momentum traders entering
• Increased media attention

If rejected, however, a pullback or consolidation phase is likely.

👉 In both scenarios, volatility is expected to increase.

Crypto News Alert: 3 Events That Could Move Bitcoin Next

1. U.S. Regulation Developments

Crypto regulation remains one of the most powerful catalysts for price action.

Any progress in U.S. legislation could:

• Unlock new institutional capital
• Improve market confidence
• Drive long-term adoption

On the other hand, delays or negative signals could slow momentum.

👉 This is a high-impact, long-term trigger.

2. Federal Reserve & Liquidity Shifts

Bitcoin is now highly sensitive to macro liquidity conditions.

Key drivers to watch:

• Interest rate decisions
• Inflation data (CPI, PPI)
• Market expectations for rate cuts

If liquidity increases, crypto typically benefits.
If conditions tighten, pressure returns quickly.

👉 This is the most powerful short-term driver.

3. Geopolitical Tensions & Oil Prices

Recent crypto news made one thing clear:

Markets are reacting instantly to geopolitical headlines.

Rising tensions → risk-off → crypto drops
De-escalation → risk-on → crypto rebounds

Oil prices are a key indicator here, as they directly impact inflation and global sentiment.

👉 This is the most unpredictable but fastest-moving catalyst.

While the broader crypto market in 2026 has faced significant volatility, a select group of high-cap altcoins is defying the trend. Investors are increasingly shifting focus toward projects with tangible utility, institutional backing, and robust ecosystem growth. From decentralized perpetuals to DAO governance and gold-backed stability, five assets have demonstrated remarkable resilience and growth.

Which Altcoins are Up in 2026?

As of April 2026, the standout performers in the "billion-dollar club" include DeXe (DEXE), which leads with a staggering 363% YTD gain, followed by MemeCore (M) and Hyperliquid (HYPE). These tokens have successfully captured liquidity despite a general market retraction of approximately 22% in early 2026.

1. DeXe (DEXE) – The Governance Powerhouse

DeXe has emerged as the undisputed leader among major altcoins this year. With a Year-to-Date (YTD) increase of +363.67%, the token is currently trading at $15.03.

The primary driver behind this surge is the massive influx of capital into DAO governance structures. On-chain data shows that DeXe's open interest recovered from near zero in January to over $20 million by mid-April. This indicates fresh capital inflows rather than mere speculative liquidations. The project’s focus on professionalizing decentralized autonomous organizations has made it a favorite for institutional "smart money."

2. MemeCore (M) – Culture Meets Infrastructure

Ranked #21 by market cap, MemeCore has proven that "Meme 2.0" is more than just a trend. Trading at $3.44, MemeCore has secured a 118.53% YTD gain. Unlike traditional meme coins, MemeCore operates as its own Layer 1 blockchain, turning viral culture into a governance and economic engine.

The recent hard fork in late March 2026 acted as a major catalyst, sending the M token price up significantly as speculative flows shifted toward its growing ecosystem of dApps and social-finance (SoFi) tools.

3. Hyperliquid (HYPE) – The Perpetual King

Hyperliquid has become the go-to platform for decentralized perpetuals. Currently priced at $42.88, it has seen a +68.62% YTD increase.

The sentiment around HYPE is extremely bullish due to several factors:

• Spot ETF Filings: Heavyweights like Bitwise, Grayscale, and 21Shares have filed for HYPE ETFs in the U.S.
• Institutional Adoption: Major figures, including Arthur Hayes, have been actively accumulating the token.
• HIP-4 Mainnet: The upcoming 2026 mainnet rollout is expected to introduce event-based trading and prediction markets.

4. TRON (TRX) – The Stablecoin Safe Haven

While other Layer 1s have struggled, TRON continues its steady climb. Trading at $0.3329, it maintains a +17.14% YTD performance. In a year where the total crypto market cap retracted by 22%, TRX’s positive growth highlights its status as a "safe haven."

TRON’s dominance in the USDT (Tether) supply remains its strongest fundamental. Its utility in global payments and low-cost transactions ensures constant demand, while daily token burns provide deflationary pressure on the TRX price.

5. Tether Gold (XAUt) – Hedging with Digital Gold

For investors seeking stability without leaving the blockchain, Tether Gold has been a top choice in 2026. Priced at $4,775.53, XAUt is up 10.45% YTD.

As geopolitical tensions and inflation concerns persist, the demand for gold-backed tokens has spiked. XAUt provides a seamless way to hold a hardware wallet-compatible version of physical gold, offering a 1:1 peg to London Good Delivery gold bars. Its performance reflects the broader trend of "flight to quality" during periods of crypto market uncertainty.

Top Altcoins YTD as of April 2026

RAVE Token Crash: How $6.3 Billion Vanished Overnight

There's no gentle way to put this. $RAVE just had one of the ugliest collapses we've seen all year.

RaveDAO — the token that was all over crypto Twitter last week after its near-vertical climb — went from $28.27 to roughly $1.10 in about 24 hours. That's a 95%+ drop. Nearly $6.3 billion in market cap, gone. Not over a week, not over a few days. Practically overnight.

If you were holding $RAVE when this happened, you already know the worst part: there was no time to react. Liquidity dried up faster than the price fell, which meant sell orders were either filling at catastrophic slippage or not filling at all. By the time most holders realized what was happening, the damage was already done.

Was the RAVE Crash Insider Manipulation?

So what actually triggered this? The short answer: it's looking more and more like the insiders got out while everyone else got stuck.

On-chain investigator ZachXBT flagged it almost immediately. Wallet data shows that addresses linked to the RaveDAO deployer moved large amounts of $RAVE onto exchanges — Bitget and Binance specifically — right before the token peaked. The timing is hard to explain away as coincidence.

This has reignited a conversation that keeps coming up in crypto and never really gets resolved: why are major exchanges listing tokens where 90% of the supply sits in a handful of wallets, with no meaningful vesting schedule? Critics are calling the $RAVE listing "ridiculous," and it's hard to disagree. When the token's distribution looks like that, retail traders aren't participants — they're exit liquidity.

As one TradingView analyst put it: when most of the supply is insider-controlled and there's no lock-up in place, the listing itself becomes the dump.

RaveDAO Price Drop: Retail Trap or Pro Trading Opportunity?

For the average retail buyer who jumped in on the hype? $RAVE was a textbook trap. A pump driven by exchange listing momentum, thin liquidity, and concentrated supply. The kind of setup that always ends the same way.

But for experienced traders who read the signs early? This was one of the best short opportunities of the year. We'd already pointed out the red flags in our earlier analysis — the volume-to-market-cap ratio was at levels that screamed unsustainable, and the insider concentration made the downside thesis almost too obvious. Traders who positioned short before the unwind turned what was a disaster for most into a seriously profitable trade.

That's the uncomfortable truth about crypto: the same event that wrecks one person's portfolio can fund someone else's.

RAVE Price Prediction: Is a Dead Cat Bounce Coming?

Even after a 95% collapse, $RAVE isn't going quietly. The volatility alone is keeping it on every trader's watchlist, and history tells us that tokens that drop this hard, this fast, tend to produce a mechanical bounce.

Here's the logic: shorts start taking profit, bottom-fishers and degens pile in at what looks like a psychological floor, and for a brief window, the price snaps back up — hard. Not because the fundamentals have changed, but because that's just how markets behave after extreme moves.

Our expectation: a relief rally somewhere in the range of 80% to 100% from the lows, potentially within the next 24 to 48 hours.

But we want to be very clear — this is not a recovery play. It's a mechanical reaction in a market that's been heavily manipulated. If you're trading this bounce, you need a plan, a stop loss, and the discipline to take profit before the next leg down. This is not a token you hold and hope with.

Crypto Trading Volatility: How to Protect Yourself After the RAVE Collapse

If there's one takeaway from the $RAVE collapse, it's this: a CEX listing is not a stamp of quality. Binance listing something doesn't mean it's safe. Bitget listing something doesn't mean the tokenomics are sound. Exchanges are businesses — they list what drives volume, not necessarily what protects traders.

So if you're a retail investor, the lesson is straightforward. Check the supply distribution before you buy. Look at vesting schedules. Ask yourself who's already in and what their exit plan looks like. And if you're sitting on crypto you want to protect, take a look at our hardware wallet comparison — keeping your keys offline is still the simplest way to avoid losing funds to something you didn't see coming.

For professional traders, this is just another chapter. The chart is still moving, the volatility isn't going anywhere, and where there's volatility, there's opportunity. Follow the data, size your positions carefully, and whatever you do — don't fall in love with the trade.

After surging by 4,000%, RAVE entered a parabolic phase where price action became unsustainable. This kind of vertical movement rarely holds. What followed was a classic blow-off top, where early buyers began taking profits while late entrants were still chasing upside.

Once momentum stalled, the structure quickly shifted. Selling pressure accelerated, liquidity dried up on the bid side, and the token collapsed within hours. The move wasn’t gradual—it was aggressive, emotional, and driven by forced exits.

This is the nature of hype-driven altcoins. They rise fast, but they fall even faster.

RAVE Token Crash Analysis: Where the Breakdown Happened

The chart tells a clean story of transition from euphoria to panic.

RAVE peaked in the $26–$28 zone, where price started to stall after its vertical climb. This was the first signal of exhaustion. From there, the market attempted to hold structure, but the real turning point came at $17, a key horizontal support level that had previously acted as a strong base.

Once that level broke, the entire structure collapsed.

A massive red candle followed, slicing through support and triggering a cascade of liquidations. The move extended toward the $11 zone, with a sharp wick even pushing close to $8, highlighting how aggressive the sell-off became.

Momentum indicators confirm this shift. RSI dropped rapidly from elevated levels into oversold territory, reflecting the speed of the reversal. At the same time, price lost both short-term moving averages, signaling a complete trend flip.

This breakdown wasn’t subtle—it was decisive. And for traders watching structure, it was the confirmation needed to act.

Why the RAVE Token Crash Was Predictable

The warning signs were visible before the crash even began.

RAVE’s rally lacked proper consolidation phases. Instead of building stable support levels, price moved almost vertically, fueled by speculation and rapid inflows of liquidity. These types of moves are typically driven by short-term interest rather than sustainable demand.

As the rally extended, the risk-reward profile worsened. Late buyers were entering at elevated levels, while early participants were already sitting on massive gains. That imbalance often leads to distribution, where smart money exits into retail demand.

In crypto markets, parabolic growth tends to follow a familiar cycle. The sharper the rise, the more fragile the structure becomes. When support finally breaks, the unwind is fast and unforgiving.

How to Trade the RAVE Token Crash (Long or Short)

This kind of volatility creates opportunity for traders who know how to navigate both directions of the market.

👉 You can trade RAVE (buy or short) using leverage on Bitget.

Step-by-Step: How to Start Trading RAVE

• Create an account
  Sign up on Bitget using your email or phone number.
• Complete KYC verification
  Upload your ID and complete facial verification. Approval is typically fast.
• Deposit funds
  You can deposit crypto or purchase directly using a card.
• Access Futures Trading
  Search for the RAVE/USDT pair and choose your preferred leverage. Beginners should stick to lower leverage like 3x–5x.
• Execute your trade
  Go long if you expect a bounce, or short if you expect further downside.
• Manage your risk
  Always use a stop-loss and avoid overexposure during high volatility.

What Comes Next After the RAVE Token Crash?

Following such a sharp decline, the market typically enters a period of uncertainty.

A short-term bounce is possible, especially toward the $14–$17 zone, which previously acted as support and may now serve as resistance. However, unless that level is reclaimed, the broader trend remains bearish.

If selling pressure continues, a break below $11 could open the door for a retest of the $8 region or even lower levels as liquidity fades.

Another possibility is consolidation. The market may stabilize within a range while participants reassess value and volume returns gradually.

For now, $17 remains the key level. It defines whether RAVE attempts recovery or continues its downtrend.

Final Take on the RAVE Token Crash

The RAVE token crash reinforces a fundamental market principle: preparation beats reaction.

Traders who recognized the unsustainable rally, waited for confirmation, and acted on the breakdown were able to capture one of the cleanest moves in recent altcoin trading.

This wasn’t just a collapse—it was a predictable shift in structure. And in markets like crypto, those who understand structure don’t just avoid losses—they position themselves to profit from them.

The first quarter of 2026 has proven to be a challenging period for the digital asset market. While the previous year ended with high hopes for institutional adoption, a combination of macroeconomic shifts—including hawkish Federal Reserve pivots and geopolitical trade tensions—has sent many high-profile altcoins into a tailspin.

According to recent data, the market is currently navigating a period of "leverage flushing," where over-extended positions are being liquidated, leading to double-digit Year-to-Date (YTD) losses for even the most promising Layer 1 and privacy projects. In this article, we break down the five tokens that have suffered the most significant declines since the start of the year.

Summary of the Biggest YTD Losers

The following table summarizes the performance of the five hardest-hit tokens based on current market data:

1. Midnight (NIGHT): The Privacy Paradox

Topping the list of losers is Midnight ($NIGHT), the privacy-focused partner chain of the Cardano ecosystem. Despite the high anticipation surrounding its Glacier Drop airdrop and subsequent Binance listing in March 2026, the token has seen a massive 58.64% decline YTD.

The primary cause for this "heavy red" status is the typical post-launch fatigue and a series of massive token unlocks. As of April 2026, the market is absorbing a circulating supply of roughly 16.6 billion tokens. While the technology behind its selective disclosure remains sound, the sheer volume of sell pressure from early airdrop recipients has outpaced buyer demand.

2. Sei (SEI): High Speed, Low Momentum

Sei ($SEI), often touted as one of the fastest Layer 1 blockchains for trading, has hit a major roadblock in 2026. With a YTD loss of 48.96%, the SEI price reflects a broader exit from "alternative L1" trades.

Investors appear to be rotating capital out of high-throughput experimental chains and back into "Blue Chip" assets like Bitcoin or stablecoins. Despite a minor 1.84% recovery in the last seven days, the technical outlook remains bearish as it struggles to reclaim previous support levels.

3. Bitget Token (BGB): Exchange Utility Under Pressure

The Bitget Token ($BGB) has dropped 46.10% YTD, currently trading at $1.87. This is a significant correction from its 2024 all-time high of over $8.00. The decline is largely attributed to a decrease in exchange-wide trading volumes and a shift in investor sentiment regarding exchange-native tokens.

While BGB still offers utility within its ecosystem, the lack of new "Launchpad" excitement in a bearish Q1 has left the token without a strong bullish catalyst.

4. Aptos (APT): The Scalability Struggle

Aptos ($APT) is currently down 42.68% for the year, with its price hovering under the $1.00 mark at $0.9523. Much like Sei, Aptos is suffering from the "VC Coin" narrative, where large venture capital backers and scheduled unlocks create persistent overhead resistance.

While the Move programming language continues to attract developers, the price action suggests that the market is repricing the entire Layer 1 sector. Analysts suggest that until the network sees a significant "killer app" deployment, the APT price may continue to lag behind the broader market recovery.

5. Worldcoin (WLD): Regulatory and Identity Hurdles

Rounding out the top five is Worldcoin ($WLD), which has shed 42.52% of its value since January 1st. Trading at $0.2762, WLD has been hampered by ongoing regulatory scrutiny regarding its biometric data collection.

In a 2026 landscape where privacy regulations are tightening globally, Worldcoin's "Orb" model faces logistical and legal friction. This uncertainty has led to a sharp decrease in speculative interest, despite the project's ties to the booming AI sector.

Conclusion: Is the Bottom In?

The heavy losses across these five tokens highlight the inherent volatility of the altcoin market in 2026. While YTD drops of 40% to 60% are painful for holders, they often create "oversold" conditions that attract contrarian investors.

Companies like Strategy, Twenty One, and Metaplanet hold billions of dollars' worth of Bitcoin. These are the biggest publicly traded whales.

AI-driven traffic to U.S. retail sites surged in early 2026, and those visitors are generating more revenue than regular shoppers.

Zac Prince, head of Galaxy’s retail platform, said he struggles to see prediction markets in diversified portfolios for long-term investors.

Experts warn quantum computers could someday forge Bitcoin’s digital signatures, allowing unauthorized transactions.

GPT-Rosalind is OpenAI's first domain-specific model, built for drug discovery and life sciences—and it's not for everyone.

XRP has defied the bearish $100 million "short wall" on Hyperliquid as a Tidal Whale enters a $7.6 million long.

Bitcoin continues to gain momentum after its recent rally, which has fueled investors' confidence, and high-profile individuals like Paolo Ardoino are reaffirming their bullish stance.

Michael Saylor has teased a new "even bigger" era for Strategy as on-chain data reveals a massive $2 billion Bitcoin absorption in 11 days and potentially 800,000 BTC secured already.

Over 769 million XRP tokens have been locked in ETFs' combined custody arrangements as a new institutional era takes off.

A bold Ethereum claim from Raoul Pal has sparked reactions from Bill Morgan and other X users, some of whom dismissed the bullish claims.

Online gambling is one of the biggest digital industries in the world. Millions of players log in daily to online casinos, sportsbooks and betting platforms across dozens of regulated markets. The operators behind these platforms manage complex businesses spanning technology, compliance, payments, customer service and marketing. Yet when it comes to one of the most fundamental elements of brand building — public relations — most online gambling operators have been left to fend for themselves.

Kooc Media, a PR distribution agency that has worked with gambling and crypto clients since 2017, has announced a dedicated PR support service for online gambling operators. The service covers press release writing, guaranteed publication on established news websites, international newswire distribution and detailed campaign reporting. It is available to online casinos, sportsbooks, betting platforms, poker networks, bingo operators and any other business operating in the online gambling space.

Why Online Gambling Operators Need Dedicated PR

The relationship between the PR industry and online gambling has always been difficult. Most mainstream PR agencies will not take on gambling clients. Their internal policies classify betting and casino companies as restricted categories, regardless of whether the operator holds valid licences and operates in fully regulated markets. The few agencies that do accept gambling business tend to be small outfits with limited media networks and no ability to guarantee results.

This has created a situation where online gambling operators — many of which are substantial, well-funded businesses — operate without any structured PR support at all. They invest in affiliate marketing, paid advertising, social media management and influencer campaigns, but press coverage on independent news and finance publications remains out of reach for most.

The consequences go beyond missed headlines. Without regular media coverage, online gambling brands struggle to build the kind of independent credibility that players, regulators, investors and business partners all look for. An operator can spend millions on marketing and still be viewed with suspicion by a potential player who searches the brand name and finds nothing beyond the company’s own website.

Kooc Media has provided gambling PR alongside crypto PR since the agency was founded. The decision to formalise its online gambling offering into a dedicated service reflects growing demand from operators who have recognised the gap in their marketing and want a reliable way to close it.

“Online gambling operators have been underserved by the PR industry for years,” said Michelle De Gouveia, spokesperson for Kooc Media. “These are licensed, regulated businesses with genuine news to share. They deserve proper PR support and that is exactly what we are providing.”

How the Service Works

Kooc Media has built a PR model that removes the guesswork and unreliability that online gambling operators have experienced with traditional agencies.

The process starts with content. Operators can provide their own press releases or have Kooc Media’s in-house editorial team handle the writing. The agency’s writers specialise in gambling and crypto content and produce press releases that meet the editorial standards of the publications they will appear on. Whether the announcement covers a new market launch, a licensing achievement, a platform upgrade, a major sponsorship or a promotional campaign, the content is crafted to read as credible industry news rather than marketing material.

Publication happens first across Kooc Media’s owned network of news websites. The agency operates several established publications including Blockonomi, CoinCentral, MoneyCheck, Parameter, Beanstalk and Computing. These sites cover finance, technology, cryptocurrency and iGaming and carry strong domain authority accumulated through years of consistent editorial output. Because Kooc Media owns these publications, every placement is guaranteed. There is no pitch process, no editorial rejection risk and no uncertainty about whether the story will run.

Distribution then extends through a partner network that includes hundreds of additional media outlets and thousands of syndication feeds spanning multiple regions and content verticals. Operators selecting premium packages can secure placements on major financial and business platforms including Business Insider, Bloomberg, Benzinga, MarketWatch and USA Today.

The full cycle can be completed in a single day. An operator can brief the agency in the morning and have live coverage across multiple publications by the afternoon. After distribution, a complete report is delivered listing every placement with a direct link to each published article.

The Business Case for PR in Online Gambling

Online gambling operators who invest in consistent PR gain advantages across several areas of their business simultaneously.

Player trust is the most direct benefit. Online gambling depends entirely on players trusting an operator with their money. Before signing up and depositing funds, most players conduct at least a basic search for the brand. What they find shapes their decision. An operator with articles on recognised news and finance publications appears established and legitimate. An operator with no media presence beyond its own site and a handful of affiliate reviews raises questions that many players will not bother to resolve — they will simply choose a competitor instead.

Search engine optimisation is a closely related benefit. Every article placed on a high-authority publication generates a backlink to the operator’s website. These backlinks are among the strongest signals search engines use when determining rankings. Online gambling operators compete fiercely for organic visibility on terms like “best online casino,” “top sportsbook,” “online betting sites,” “casino bonus offers” and “sports betting platform.” Operators who run consistent PR campaigns build a backlink profile that improves their rankings progressively, delivering organic traffic that does not require ongoing ad spend.

Regulatory and corporate credibility strengthens with media visibility. Online gambling is an increasingly regulated industry. Operators applying for licences, renewing existing ones or entering newly regulated markets benefit from demonstrating a visible and transparent public profile. Regulators assess brand reputation as part of their evaluation process. A documented track record of press coverage across credible publications supports that assessment. Similarly, operators pursuing investment, preparing for public listings or negotiating B2B partnerships find that media presence strengthens their position in those conversations.

Competitive differentiation rounds out the picture. The online gambling market is crowded. Thousands of casinos and sportsbooks compete for the same players, often with similar products, similar odds and similar promotional offers. Press coverage creates a layer of brand recognition that product features alone cannot replicate. The operator that a player has actually read about on a trusted website holds an advantage over the one they have never encountered outside of a banner ad.

Packages for Every Type of Operator

Kooc Media recognises that online gambling operators come in all sizes and stages. A newly licensed online casino preparing for launch has very different PR needs than a multinational betting group managing dozens of brands across multiple markets.

Standard packages provide a set number of guaranteed placements across the agency’s owned publications and partner outlets. They include optional content writing and comprehensive reporting. These packages suit operators who want steady, predictable media coverage on a regular basis — monthly announcements, quarterly updates, game launches, promotional campaigns, sponsorship news or regulatory milestones.

Custom campaigns are available for operators with specific strategic goals. A sportsbook launching operations in a newly regulated state or country needs a coordinated press push timed to the market opening. A casino group completing an acquisition needs corporate-level coverage aimed at business and financial media. An online betting platform rebranding after a merger needs press that introduces the new identity to players and industry stakeholders simultaneously. An operator adding cryptocurrency payment options needs coverage that bridges its traditional player base and the growing crypto gambling audience.

Kooc Media handles every element of these campaigns. Strategy, content creation, distribution scheduling and post-campaign reporting are all managed by the agency. Operators without dedicated PR or communications staff can use the service as a complete external press office. Those with existing marketing teams can use it as a specialist distribution channel that extends their reach beyond what internal efforts can achieve alone.

About Kooc Media

Kooc Media is a PR distribution agency founded in 2017, specialising in online gambling, crypto, fintech and technology. The company operates its own network of news publications and works with a broad partner distribution network to deliver guaranteed media coverage for clients. Services include press release writing, sponsored articles, homepage placements, newswire distribution and fully managed PR campaigns.

Kooc Media’s gambling PR packages are available now through the company’s website at https://kooc.co.uk.

The post Kooc Media Announces Dedicated PR Support for Online Gambling Operators appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• RAVE token crashed 95% from $26 to $1 in 24 hours, erasing roughly $6 billion in market cap value.
• Nine wallet addresses linked to RAVE’s initial distribution collectively control around 95% of its total supply.
• ZachXBT raised his bounty to $25K after flagging on-chain wallet ties to RaveDAO team members on Bitget and Gate.
• Tokens including SIREN, MYX, COAI, M, PIPPIN, and RIVER also show highly questionable price action on major exchanges.
  

On-chain investigator ZachXBT has raised serious allegations of market manipulation surrounding RAVE, a token that collapsed 95% in price within 24 hours.

The token fell from $26 to $1, wiping out approximately $6 billion in market capitalization. ZachXBT publicly called on major exchanges — Binance, Bitget, and Gate — to investigate the suspicious price activity. His findings point to a heavily concentrated token supply controlled by a small group of addresses.

Supply Concentration and Exchange Activity Raise Red Flags

RAVE launched in December 2025 on Binance Alpha with a total supply of one billion tokens. ZachXBT identified nine wallet addresses linked to RAVE’s initial distribution. Together, these addresses control roughly 95% of the entire supply.

On April 18, 2026, ZachXBT posted a call to action at 7:26 am UTC, offering a $10,000 bounty for information. He later raised the bounty to $25,000 by 10:56 am UTC. Bitget, Binance, and Gate each acknowledged the call within hours.

ZachXBT also found suspicious activity on centralized exchanges tied to RaveDAO team addresses on-chain. He linked specific wallet addresses to both Bitget and Gate, which potentially contradicts RaveDAO’s public statement denying involvement. The team had posted that denial at 3:06 pm UTC on the same day.

Prior to the public post, ZachXBT had confronted RaveDAO co-founder Yemu Xu, also known as wildwoomoo, on April 13 and 14. As of the time of reporting, no response had been received. ZachXBT stated he had not taken any position in RAVE and could not predict when exchanges would respond publicly.

Broader Pattern of Suspicious Token Activity Concerns Observers

A key data point from ZachXBT’s analysis involves the liquidation ratio. Around $6 billion in market cap was erased on just $52 million in 24-hour liquidations. That gap between liquidations and market cap loss points to an inflated and unsustainable valuation.

RAVE reached a top-15 market cap ranking within just ten days of its rise before collapsing nearly entirely. ZachXBT noted this made it the most blatant case he had observed recently on major centralized exchanges.

However, RAVE is not an isolated case. ZachXBT flagged several other tokens — SIREN, MYX, COAI, M, PIPPIN, and RIVER — as having similarly questionable price activity in recent months.

Exchanges, according to ZachXBT, need to act faster when manipulation appears. Each day without intervention allows retail traders to absorb losses while platforms continue to earn fees on trading volume.

ZachXBT confirmed his $25,000 bounty remains active, as no verified information with supporting evidence has been submitted yet.

The post RAVE Token Collapses 95% as ZachXBT Accuses RaveDAO of Market Manipulation appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• MORPHO broke out of a multi-year symmetrical triangle, clearing upper resistance at the $1.87 level.

• The initial price target stands at $2.65, aligning with the August 2025 highs following the breakout.

• A retest near $1.70 is considered a standard technical move and may offer a secondary entry point.

• Traders are advised to maintain a stop loss at $1.57 to keep the risk-to-reward ratio favorable.
  

MORPHO is drawing attention from technical analysts after breaking out of a multi-year symmetrical triangle pattern.

The token, currently trading around $2.02, cleared a key resistance trendline at $1.87. Analysts see this as a sign that the prolonged accumulation phase has ended.

Price targets of $2.65 and $3.91 are now on the radar for traders watching the chart structure closely.

Breakout Signals a Shift in Market Structure

Crypto analyst Ali Charts flagged the MORPHO breakout in a post on April 19, 2026. According to the analyst, the token cleared the upper resistance trendline of the symmetrical triangle at $1.87. This level now serves as the base from which the new trend is emerging.

The initial price target following the breakout stands at $2.65. That level aligns with the highs recorded in August 2025. A secondary macro target points to the previous all-time high at $3.91, should bullish momentum continue to build.

Symmetrical triangle patterns typically form during periods of price consolidation. A confirmed breakout from such a formation often attracts fresh buying interest.

The multi-year nature of this pattern adds weight to the move, as longer consolidations tend to produce stronger directional moves.

Retest Zone and Risk Management Levels to Watch

Ali Charts noted that multi-year breakouts often include a retest of the breakout zone before the next expansion phase.

A pullback toward $1.70 would fall within that range. The analyst described such a move as a standard technical development rather than a signal of weakness.

For traders who missed the initial entry, a retest near $1.70 could present a second opportunity. The area around the former resistance trendline may act as support on any dip. This is a common behavior seen across different assets following extended consolidation breakouts.

Risk management remains a priority for traders tracking this setup. Ali Charts placed a stop loss level at $1.57 to define the risk on the trade.

With a target of $2.65, the distance between entry and stop offers a favorable reward relative to the downside being risked.

The post MORPHO Breaks Out of Multi-Year Triangle: Can Bulls Push the Price to the $3.91 All-Time High? appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• The Federal Reserve recorded an $18.7 billion loss in 2025, marking its third consecutive year in the red.
• Rising interest payments on reserves and reverse repos continue to exceed income from bond holdings.
• Losses peaked in 2023 and narrowed by 2025, signaling a gradual shift as rate pressures stabilize.
• The Fed has paused Treasury remittances after years of profit, reflecting ongoing balance-sheet strain. 

The U.S. Federal Reserve reported a third straight annual operating loss in 2025, extending a rare financial stretch. The latest figures showed a loss of $18.7 billion, continuing a trend that began in 2023 after a long period of steady profitability.

Fed Losses Extend Into Third Year

Recent data shared in a post by The Kobeissi Letter confirmed the central bank’s ongoing losses. The tweet noted that total losses reached $210.3 billion over three years.

It also pointed out that 2023 recorded the deepest loss, followed by a smaller deficit in 2024 and a narrower gap in 2025.

https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2045690597764186307?s=20

The post explained that the losses stem from higher interest payments to banks and money market funds. At the same time, income from bonds and mortgage-backed securities remained lower. This gap between expenses and earnings has kept the Federal Reserve in negative territory since September 2022

Before this period, the central bank had a long record of profits. From 2000 to 2007, earnings remained stable between $20 billion and $35 billion. However, profits surged after the 2008 financial crisis as policy rates dropped and asset purchases increased.

Between 2009 and 2015, profits rose sharply, reaching a peak of around $115 billion. During those years, the Federal Reserve held large amounts of higher-yielding securities while funding costs stayed near zero. As a result, earnings remained elevated for several years.

Rate Hikes Shift Financial Structure

The financial position began to change as interest rates increased. From 2016 to 2022, profits started to decline, although they remained positive. Earnings moved within a range of $55 billion to $105 billion during that period.

Conditions shifted in 2023 when aggressive rate increases raised borrowing costs across the system. The Federal Reserve began paying higher interest on reserves and reverse repurchase agreements. Meanwhile, returns from its existing bond portfolio remained fixed at lower rates.

This shift caused expenses to exceed income, leading to the first annual loss in decades. The deficit reached about $115 billion in 2023, marking the lowest point in the data series. Losses continued in 2024 at roughly $80 billion before easing in 2025.

At the same time, the Federal Reserve stopped sending profits to the U.S. Treasury. This pause ended a long streak of remittances that had totaled over $1.36 trillion since 2008. The change reflects the current financial position rather than a structural limitation.

Despite the losses, the Federal Reserve continues normal operations. The system allows it to manage shortfalls without facing solvency concerns. The central bank records deferred assets instead of halting its functions.

Recent figures show that the scale of losses has started to narrow. The move from deeper deficits toward a smaller loss in 2025 signals a shift in pace. Future results will depend on interest rate trends and changes in funding costs.

The post Federal Reserve Reports Third Straight Loss as Interest Costs Outpace Earnings appeared first on Blockonomi.

There is a pattern forming in the online gambling market that is difficult to ignore. Players are searching for alternatives to the platforms they already know, and they are doing it in increasing numbers. FanDuel, long considered one of the pillars of the industry, is one of the brands most frequently appearing alongside the word “alternative” in search queries. This does not indicate that FanDuel has suddenly become a bad product. It indicates that the market around it has expanded and that players now have access to options that challenge the assumptions FanDuel was built on. Chief among those options is ZunaBet, a crypto-native casino and sportsbook that entered the market in 2026 with a platform so feature-rich that it immediately inserted itself into the conversation about where online gambling is heading next.

FanDuel: A Brand That Defined an Era

FanDuel helped shape what modern online gambling looks like in the United States. Its origin in daily fantasy sports gave it a head start in building a massive, engaged user base before the sports betting wave hit. When state-by-state legalization began opening the door to real-money wagering, FanDuel was ready. It expanded into sports betting and online casino gaming with speed and confidence, securing licenses across multiple states and locking in partnerships with some of the biggest names in professional sports.

Today, FanDuel operates a sportsbook that covers the full spectrum of American professional and college sports alongside international events in football, tennis, golf, motorsports, and more. Its casino section provides a solid collection of slots, table games, and live dealer experiences. The mobile app performs reliably and ranks consistently among the top gambling downloads in app stores. Brand awareness is extraordinarily high thanks to years of sustained advertising investment.

The payment experience on FanDuel reflects the era in which the platform matured. Bank transfers, debit cards, credit cards, PayPal, Venmo, and other established methods handle the movement of funds. These are familiar options that work without confusion for most users, even if they come with the processing times and transaction fees that are inherent to traditional financial systems.

FanDuel built a strong product for the conditions that existed when it grew. It optimized for US regulatory compliance, traditional payment accessibility, and broad mainstream appeal. Those were the right priorities at the time. But conditions have changed. Players now hold crypto. They expect instant transfers. They want game libraries that seem bottomless. They want loyalty programs that feel personal and exciting. The platforms meeting those new expectations do not look much like FanDuel, and that divergence is what is driving the search trend.

ZunaBet: A Platform That Arrived Ready

ZunaBet did not launch as a work in progress. When it went live in 2026, the platform presented a fully realized product that rivaled operators with years of additional runway. It is owned by Strathvale Group Ltd, managed by a team carrying more than two decades of collective industry experience, and licensed through an Anjouan gaming authority with registration in Belize. Every element of the platform reflects a deliberate decision to build for the crypto-native audience first and expand from there.

The game library is the most immediate evidence of that ambition. ZunaBet opened with 11,294 games drawn from 63 separate providers. That is not a goal or a projection. That is the number available to players from the first day. The providers contributing to this catalog include Pragmatic Play, Evolution, Hacksaw Gaming, Yggdrasil, BGaming, and a long list of additional studios that collectively ensure there is no gap in the offering. Slots naturally dominate the count, but the library extends meaningfully into RNG table games covering blackjack, roulette, baccarat, and poker variants, as well as a live dealer section that delivers the kind of real-time, studio-quality experience that has become essential for modern casino platforms.

The practical effect of having over 11,000 games is that players never hit a wall. Discovery remains part of the experience for weeks and months rather than days. New providers and titles keep the catalog fresh, and the sheer volume means that even players with very specific preferences — whether that is a particular slot mechanic, a niche table game, or a specific live dealer format — are likely to find exactly what they want without compromise.

ZunaBet pairs this casino depth with a sportsbook that stands on its own merits. Coverage extends across football, basketball, tennis, NHL, combat sports, and virtual sports. Esports receives dedicated and comprehensive treatment with betting markets on CS2, Dota 2, League of Legends, and Valorant. This is a meaningful distinction from traditional platforms that either overlook esports entirely or offer a token handful of markets. Competitive gaming is not a passing trend. It is a global entertainment category with an audience that overlaps heavily with the demographic most likely to gamble online using cryptocurrency. ZunaBet recognized this overlap and built accordingly.

Cryptocurrency sits at the center of the payment experience. The platform accepts more than 20 coins and tokens including Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT on multiple blockchain networks, Solana, Dogecoin, Cardano, and XRP. No processing fees are charged by the platform on any deposit or withdrawal. Speed is a defining feature — blockchain settlement means funds move in minutes rather than days, without the dependency on banking hours that traditional systems impose. Because ZunaBet was conceived as a crypto platform from its earliest design stages, there is no friction between the payment layer and the rest of the user experience. Everything flows from the same foundational logic.

The welcome offer provides up to $5,000 plus 75 free spins split across three deposits. The first deposit qualifies for a 100% match up to $2,000 and 25 free spins. The second delivers a 50% match up to $1,500 with another 25 spins. The third closes the package with a 100% match up to $1,500 and a final 25 spins. The multi-deposit structure serves a practical purpose beyond generosity. It gives players a reason to return after their first session, explore more of the library, and develop a relationship with the platform over time rather than treating it as a one-visit destination.

Technically, ZunaBet operates on HTML5 with a dark interface theme, fast load times, and responsive design that adapts seamlessly across screen sizes. Native applications are available for iOS, Android, Windows, and MacOS. Live chat support runs continuously, covering every hour of every day without interruption.

Crypto Infrastructure vs Traditional Payment Systems

The difference between crypto and traditional payment platforms in online gambling is not a minor technical detail. It is a core experience differentiator that affects how players interact with a platform during every single session.

Traditional payment infrastructure routes money through banks, card networks, and digital wallet services. Each intermediary in that chain introduces potential delays and costs. Deposit processing can be near-instant for some methods but slower for others. Withdrawals almost universally involve waiting periods that range from hours to several business days depending on the method selected, the day of the week, and any verification requirements the platform imposes. Transaction fees appear at various points — some charged by the platform, some by the payment provider, some by the player’s bank.

Crypto infrastructure operates on fundamentally different principles. Transactions settle on decentralized blockchain networks that run continuously. There are no business hours. There are no intermediary banks holding funds in pending status. When a player deposits Bitcoin or Solana into their ZunaBet account, the transaction confirms on the blockchain and the funds become available in minutes. Withdrawals follow the same path in reverse with comparable speed. The platform adds no fees of its own to any transaction.

This is not just faster. It is structurally different in ways that compound over time. A player who makes fifty deposits and fifty withdrawals over the course of a year saves meaningful amounts of both time and money on a crypto platform compared to a traditional one. Those savings are not theoretical. They accumulate in real terms with every transaction.

ZunaBet’s decision to build entirely on crypto infrastructure rather than bolting it onto a traditional system means the experience is consistent from end to end. There is no secondary payment path creating a disjointed experience. Every player interacts with the same streamlined, fee-free, fast-settlement system regardless of which specific cryptocurrency they choose to use.

Dragon Evolution vs Points Collection

The standard online casino loyalty program has not changed in any meaningful way in well over a decade. The formula is simple and universal — wager money to earn points, accumulate enough points to claim a reward, repeat indefinitely. It works as a basic retention mechanism, but it generates almost no emotional engagement. Players participate because the rewards exist, not because the process of earning them is interesting or enjoyable in any way.

ZunaBet designed its loyalty program to be an experience in itself. The dragon evolution system includes six progression tiers that each carry their own identity and reward structure. Squire begins at 1% rakeback. Warden increases to 2%. Champion reaches 4%. Divine climbs to 5%. Knight jumps significantly to 10%. Ultimate reaches the ceiling at 20% rakeback. At each tier, additional benefits unlock — free spins that scale from modest allocations at lower levels to 1,000 at the top, VIP club access, and double wheel spins. Tying the entire system together is Zuno, a dragon mascot that visually transforms as the player progresses upward through the ranks.

The structure mirrors the progression systems found in modern video games. There are defined levels with visible thresholds. Advancing feels like an achievement rather than an arbitrary accounting milestone. The rewards escalate meaningfully enough that reaching the next tier always feels worthwhile. And the visual evolution of the Zuno character gives players a tangible representation of their journey that a number on a screen simply cannot replicate.

This approach works because it aligns with how a large and growing portion of the gambling audience already thinks about engagement. Players who grew up with leveling systems, achievement badges, and progression-based unlocks in games understand this structure intuitively. It feels natural. It feels rewarding. And it gives them a reason to remain engaged with the platform beyond any individual session or bet.

What the Numbers Are Saying

The continued growth in searches for FanDuel alternatives tells a straightforward story about a market in transition. FanDuel built its position during a specific phase of the industry’s development and it built well. That position is not under immediate threat. The brand, the licenses, the user base, and the financial backing ensure that FanDuel will remain relevant for years.

But relevance and momentum are different things. The momentum in online gambling right now belongs to platforms that are solving the problems players actually talk about — slow payments, limited game variety, uninspiring loyalty programs, and a lack of crypto integration. ZunaBet addresses every one of those issues with solutions that are not incremental improvements but fundamental rethinks of how each element should work.

The players driving the search trend are not nostalgic for something old. They are looking forward. They want a platform that matches the speed, variety, and digital fluency they experience in every other area of their online lives. ZunaBet was built from the ground up to be that platform. It arrived with the game library of a veteran operator, the payment infrastructure of a blockchain-native fintech company, and a loyalty system that finally makes progression feel like something worth caring about. Every week, more players discover it. Every week, the search numbers confirm that discovery is accelerating. The trajectory is clear, and ZunaBet is riding it.

The post FanDuel Alternative Searches Keep Climbing and ZunaBet Is at the Center of the Conversation appeared first on Blockonomi.

Publicly listed Bitcoin mining companies sold more than 32,000 BTC in the first quarter of 2026, in what appears to be the largest quarterly liquidation on record, according to data analyzed by Miner Weekly.

The volume of sales already exceeds the total net BTC sold across all four quarters of 2025, even though first-quarter reporting from several firms is still incomplete.

Mining Sell-Off Wave

Major operators involved in the selling include MARA, CleanSpark, Riot Platforms, Cango, Core Scientific, and Bitdeer. All of these companies have collectively reduced their BTC holdings as mining conditions tightened further at the start of the year. The scale of the liquidation is similar only to earlier periods of stress in the industry, surpassing the roughly 20,000 BTC sold by public miners in the second quarter of 2022, when the sector was impacted by market disruptions following the Terra-Luna collapse.

The latest figures stand in contrast to the accumulation trend seen in last year, when miners added about 17,593 BTC to their reserves by the end of 2024, taking combined holdings above the 100,000 BTC level. The change toward selling has coincided with continued pressure on mining profitability, as hashprice – a metric that estimates mining revenue per unit of computing power – has fallen to levels near historical lows in the low $30 per petahash per second range.

At these levels, profit margins are heavily compressed, particularly for miners operating older hardware or facing higher electricity costs, which makes continued holding of mined Bitcoin increasingly difficult. The decline in profitability has been shaped by structural changes in the network over recent years, including a significant increase in total hash rate following China’s mining ban in 2021, which led to rapid global expansion in mining capacity.

At the same time, Bitcoin’s block reward was reduced in 2024, while network difficulty has risen to roughly ten times the level seen in 2021. Such a trend has amplified competition among miners. Although Bitcoin prices remain high compared with previous market cycles, even after pulling back from recent highs above $120,000, the increase in network difficulty has offset much of the revenue benefit.

As a result, overall mining economics have tightened significantly, which ended up contributing to the decision by several operators to liquidate reserves. The selling activity is not uniform across the industry. Some miners are under greater financial pressure than others, depending on fleet efficiency, energy contracts, and access to capital.

Energy Rebrand Wave

Beyond the balance sheet pressures, some industry observers argue that the identity of BTC mining is starting to change. Paul Sztorc, CEO of LayerTwo Labs, said Bitcoin mining is “dying” while highlighting several industry changes as signs of stress. He noted that “MinerMag” has been rebranded as “Energy Mag,” while the “Mining Stage” at Bitcoin 2026 has been renamed the “Energy Stage,” demonstrating a major shift in how the sector is being framed.

Sztorc also said MARA, the world’s largest bitcoin miner, removed direct Bitcoin references from its website around two years ago. According to the exec, Cormint, another major miner, dropped the “Exahash” metric from its site, which is commonly used to measure mining scale.

The post Bitcoin Mining Giants Sold More BTC in Q1 Than Entire 2025 Combined appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The overall investor sentiment improvement over the past 10 days or so, after the ceasefire between the US and Iran was announced, has materialized in terms of more profound ETF net inflows for the funds tracking some of the largest cryptocurrencies.

After weeks and even months of despair, the spot crypto ETFs marked their best week since mid-January.

Bitcoin ETFs Are Back

Data from SoSoValue reveals that Friday (April 17) was the best day in terms of net inflows for the spot Bitcoin ETFs since January 14, with just over $663 million entering the funds. Naturally, the largest such product, BlackRock’s IBIT, attracted the most ($284 million), followed by Fidelity’s FBTC with $163.4 million.

This multi-month record was most likely due to the positive developments at the time on the Middle East war front, as Iran’s foreign minister and Trump announced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

The week ended with just shy of $1 billion worth of net inflows, the highest five-day performance since the one that ended on January 16. Only Monday was in the red, with $291.11 million leaving the funds, while $411.50 million, $186.03 million, and $26.05 million went into the product on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, respectively.

ETH ETFs Follow Suit

The exchange-traded funds tracking the largest altcoin also finished the week strong, with $127.49 million in net inflows. Moreover, they are on a 7-day green streak, while the past week alone ended with $275.83 million, the single-highest (again) since the one that ended on January 16.

This time, it was actually Fidelity’s FETH that led the charge, attracting over $84 million, followed by BlackRock’s ETHA ($30.8 million). Grayscale’s ETH was third but far behind with just $5.8 million.

As we already reported yesterday, the spot XRP ETFs also marked a three-month high, gaining more than $55 million in the past week. The funds tracking Solana’s SOL posted a two-month high, as they attracted $35.17 million, which failed in comparison to the $4.44 million gained during the week that ended just before the war broke out (February 27).

Although the aforementioned numbers are quite impressive for all assets, they came on the heels of the de-escalating tension in the Middle East. Since then, though, the situation has changed, with Trump and Iranian officials issuing conflicting statements about their negotiations and the status of the Strait of Hormuz.

With just a few days left of the ceasefire deal, more uncertainty is likely to follow, which could harm the ever-volatile risk-on cryptocurrency industry.

The post Is Demand for BTC, ETH, and XRP ETFs Back as Funds Record 3-Month Inflow High? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

It has been over a year since the official launch of Pi Network, but more than half a decade since the project started attracting users.

Within this timeframe, its community, known as Pioneers, has grown into the millions, the team said, and recently outlined why their user base actually means more than those on other chains.

PI > Others?

The post on the only official X account linked to the project noted that there are over 18 million identity-verified users within the broader Pi Network ecosystem. However, although this is by far not the most significant number for any blockchain, as some of the largest have hundreds of millions of active wallets over the years, the team outlined where it differs and is supposedly superior to most.

“1 million verified users on Pi ≠ 1 million users on other networks.”

This is because most other networks measure growth in simple account numbers, and very few look at the verified users.  In contrast, the Core Team behind Pi Network said it “recognized the importance of identity verification early on and that unverified account creation is simply not enough.”

“Verified identities are needed for any meaningful transactions, especially in real-world economies.”

Whenever an asset is transferred, it “raises a basic question of identity: who is sending it, and who is receiving it.” If those identities remain unknown, it’s more difficult to trust that the transfer is valid or that it went to the correct receiver, the team added.

This is why they decided to build a “fully KYC-verified Mainnet ecosystem,” which reduces spam and increases trustworthiness.

This Time, Community Agrees

Most of the other posts from the Core Team in the past few months have faced heightened scrutiny from the community, mostly over KYC and their inability to transfer their tokens to the mainnet for a long time. However, the majority of the comments below this post were significantly more supportive.

One user noted that having over 18 million verified users even before smart contracts are fully live is “the kind of distribution that makes developers on other chains genuinely uncomfortable to think about.” Another one added, “Who else remembers when people doubted the KYC process would even work at this scale?” A third agreed that a verified network is “not just cleaner” but “fundamentally more trustworthy for any kind of economic activity.”

The post Pi Network Core Team Claims Superiority Over Other Crypto Projects: Here’s Why appeared first on CryptoPotato.

A new proposal suggests a mechanism that would trigger a freeze only on quantum-vulnerable coins if a computer of that type is proven to exist.

BitMEX Research is proposing a “canary” system as an alternative to the quantum-safe recovery schemes. The new proposal aims to avoid an unnecessary full-scale Bitcoin freeze in response to future quantum computing threats.

BIP-361 and Quantum Freeze Concerns

The ongoing debates around BIP-361 have left the community divided. It is important to note that BIP-361 was recently merged into the Bitcoin repository and pushes for a phased approach where sending funds to quantum-vulnerable addresses would first be restricted for three years, followed by a full freeze on such coins after an additional two years. This plan has drawn criticism from those who believe that users should remain responsible for their own funds and that protocol-level freezes undermine Bitcoin’s core principles, including censorship resistance.

Meanwhile, others question whether there is sufficient evidence that quantum computers capable of breaking current cryptography will emerge in the near future.

BitMEX Research, on the other hand, has proposed a “canary” system where a freeze is not triggered automatically after a set time. Instead, the network enters a canary watch state, and a freeze only happens if there is on-chain proof that a quantum computer exists.

This proof would come from a special Bitcoin address created using a Nothing-Up-My-Sleeve Number system, which ensures no one knows its private key. If any funds from this address are spent, it would indicate that a quantum computer is being used. In the absence of such an event, those coins could continue to be spent normally, potentially with additional safeguards such as temporary restrictions on the spendability of outputs.

Canary Fund

To further support the mechanism, the proposal introduces the concept of a canary fund. This would require users to voluntarily deposit Bitcoin into the special address as a form of bounty. The goal is to incentivize any entity with a functioning quantum computer to reveal its capabilities by claiming the funds rather than targeting other users’ holdings, with contributors able to retain some control over their deposits through multisignature arrangements that allow withdrawal if desired.

However, BitMEX Research acknowledges that this approach carries risks, including the possibility that the bounty may not be large enough to attract the first quantum-capable entity, which could instead choose to exploit other funds. It also stated that a regulated or reputable organization might prefer to claim the canary bounty in a transparent manner.

Alongside this, another idea being explored is that of a “safety window,” where even after restrictions on quantum-vulnerable signatures begin, transactions could still be processed but with outputs temporarily locked for a defined number of blocks, potentially as long as 50,000 blocks, or roughly one year.

The post Bitcoin Could Avoid a Full Quantum Freeze Under New ‘Canary’ Proposal appeared first on CryptoPotato.

XRP went on a wild ride after the 2024 US presidential elections on the promise of regulatory change and a more supportive leader of the world’s largest economy.

The asset blossomed for most of the first ten months and peaked in mid-July at $3.65, which became its new all-time high. This meant that it had skyrocketed by 500% from the cycle’s start to finish. Since then, though, it has been mostly downhill, as it dumped to $1.10 in early February and each rebound attempt was halted in its tracks.

The ceasefire on the US/Iran war front brought some hope, though, which, alongside the returning ETF inflows, resulted in an impressive surge from XRP to almost $1.50 at the end of the business week before it was stopped. The question now is whether the token has the strength to stage another miraculous pump by July this year.

ChatGPT’s Bullish Take

It’s worth noting that April 2025 was almost as painful as the early 2026 correction. At the time, the threat of Trump’s tariffs against essentially every nation brought XRP south to $1.60. By July, it had rocketed by 130% to mark its all-time high. So, even though the increase now has to be slightly bigger, it’s not like XRP hasn’t staged such highly impressive rallies in just months.

ChatGPT believes the most recent rebound isn’t just noise as the token has “bounced strongly from the $1.10-$1.20 lows, started forming higher lows, and reclaimed the mid-range around $1.40.” However, the catch is that it still trades below the key resistance at $1.60, which rejected its breakout attempts several times in the past few months.

To reach the coveted $3.65 level, though, XRP would also need a more profound move from the broader market. If BTC stabilizes or pumps, capital starts rotating into altcoins, and overall risk-on sentiment improves, Ripple’s asset might indeed head toward its all-time high. If even one of those factors fails, then ChatGPT predicted XRP will stall.

Realistic Scenarios

The popular AI solution said a 150% surge in the next 2-3 months is “not impossible,” but it’s highly unlikely unless the aforementioned perfect conditions align. As such, it laid out a more realistic scenario in which XRP could go to $2.00 if it breaks the aforementioned $1.60 resistance. If momentum carries out from there, it could even aim at $2.50. However, to tap or exceed $3.00, it would need a strong altseason, which doesn’t seem to be the case currently.

ChatGPT’s base case sets a range target of $1.30-$2.00 for the next few months, while its bear scenario predicts a price dip to $1.20 after another rejection at $1.50-$1.60.

The post We Asked AI: Can XRP Replicate the 2025 Rally and Match its ATH by July? appeared first on CryptoPotato.