The potential ceasefire extension highlights ongoing diplomatic challenges and the fragile nature of US-Iran relations, impacting regional stability.

The post Iran-US ceasefire talks near completion, need extension: Turkey’s FM appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Pezeshkian's stance heightens geopolitical tensions, impacting market confidence and complicating diplomatic negotiations with the US.

The post Iran’s Pezeshkian defends nuclear rights, challenges US demands appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Iran's military buildup suggests increased regional tensions and potential for conflict, impacting geopolitical stability and market dynamics.

The post Iran replenishes missile, drone platforms, signaling military readiness appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz complicates diplomatic efforts, reducing the likelihood of a US-Iran peace deal and impacting global stability.

The post Iran tightens control over Strait of Hormuz, impacting US peace deal prospects appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Pakistan's mediation role could stabilize US-Iran relations, reducing market volatility and fostering diplomatic engagement opportunities.

The post Pakistan emerges as key mediator in US-Iran diplomacy amid ceasefire talks 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.

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.

Charles Schwab announced this week that it will begin selling Bitcoin and Ethereum directly to its 39 million brokerage clients. They will appear in the same account view as stocks, ETFs, and retirement funds, in the same app, under the same brand, one click from the S&P 500 index fund a customer bought for their IRA.

What makes that arrangement so consequential is that the assets will arrive in one of the most familiar and trusted environments in American finance, while carrying a very different set of protections from what customers are used to seeing there.

Schwab's own disclosures say so plainly: the cryptocurrencies sold on its platform are not deposits, not FDIC-insured, not SIPC-protected, not backed by any central bank, and carry the risk of total loss of principal. That gap, between how crypto will feel to a Schwab customer and what it actually is, is the most consequential thing here. It is also the clearest illustration yet of the way crypto is entering mainstream American finance.

Related Reading

US Bitcoin ETFs pull in $664M in largest daily inflow since January, because Iran reopened Hormuz for a few hours

The Strait of Hormuz reopening eased energy shock fears and triggered institutional rotation into Bitcoin exposure.

Apr 18, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Charles Schwab's crypto rollout, and what it actually changes

The product, called Schwab Crypto, will begin a phased launch in the coming weeks. At launch, it will support only two assets: Bitcoin and Ethereum, which together account for roughly three-quarters of the total crypto market cap.

While a big part of the crypto industry lamented the exclusion of altcoin heavyweights like Solana and XRP, the short list of supported coins is a smart and calculated decision. A company managing $12.2 trillion in client assets has every reason to avoid the headline risk that would come with a more speculative token imploding inside a retirement account.

Trades will cost 75 basis points, or 0.75 percent, which Schwab says is one of the lowest fees available at a major brokerage. That undercuts Fidelity Crypto at $1 and competes with Robinhood and Coinbase, though it remains far above the near-zero commissions Schwab charges on stocks.

A separate crypto account, offered through Charles Schwab Premier Bank, will sit linked to the regular brokerage account. Paxos, a federally regulated blockchain infrastructure provider, will handle execution and sub-custody in the background. Residents of New York and Louisiana will be excluded at launch.

Deposits and withdrawals of outside crypto will be disabled, meaning customers can only trade what they buy through Schwab.

If this were Coinbase or Kraken adding a new feature, it would remain largely contained within the crypto industry. Having a company as large and influential as Schwab do this changes the frame entirely, because Schwab is where ordinary Americans keep retirement money, college savings, and the accumulated capital of a long working life.

Its brand is heavily regulated, familiar, and, in the best sense of the word, boring. That matters more here than the product list or the fee schedule, because the real story is not simply that Schwab is offering crypto, but that it is placing crypto inside an environment customers already associate with steadiness, oversight, and backstops.

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

When a platform with that kind of customer base adds crypto to its core offering, access becomes part of the default financial experience rather than something users have to actively seek out.

Roughly 20% of all US spot crypto ETP assets are already held by Schwab clients, according to the company's own count, suggesting significant demand for crypto exposure within its customer base. The new offering removes most of the friction that stood between that demand and direct ownership.

That is the most important change here, because the barrier being removed did more than keep crypto out. It also preserved a clearer distinction between assets investors treated as part of the traditional brokerage world and those that sat outside it.

Schwab built its reputation on investor protection. Deposited cash is swept into FDIC-insured programs, and securities sit under SIPC coverage up to statutory limits. The psychological contract a user has with a traditional brokerage like this is that when something breaks, whether a firm failure, a bank collapse, or a fraud, there is an established framework of protections standing behind the account. Crypto does not enter that framework just because it appears in the same interface.

Schwab clearly states this in its disclosures, as regulators require, so the legal distinction is laid out in plain language. The more significant issue is behavioral. An investor opening the app sees a single portfolio, where the Bitcoin tile looks much like the ETF tile and sits beside the same retirement holdings, cash balances, and stock positions they have spent years learning to trust.

The interface makes the assets feel operationally similar even though the protections behind them are categorically different. That is where the real risk begins, because the mismatch lives less in the legal fine print than in the expectations formed by the setting itself.

What mainstream absorption actually means

Schwab is not a first mover when it comes to crypto adoption. The company is joining a wave that began a few years ago and has gathered substantial momentum more recently. Morgan Stanley launched its Bitcoin Trust ETF last week, Goldman Sachs filed for a Bitcoin Premium Income ETF days later, and Fidelity already offers crypto to retail.

Regulators cleared much of the runway in 2025: the SEC rescinded Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, removing the accounting penalty for custodians holding client crypto, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reaffirmed that national banks can handle crypto custody and stablecoin activity.

For a company the size of Schwab, the calculation has shifted. Offering crypto now looks less like an expression of institutional conviction and more like a competitive response to demand that has already established itself elsewhere.

Clients who want Bitcoin and Ethereum can already get them through Robinhood, Coinbase, or a competitor's ETF. Declining to offer direct access in that environment starts to look less like caution and more like strategic delay.

This is what crypto's mainstreaming actually looks like from inside a large company like Schwab. Bitcoin treasuries and crypto ETPs were once products associated with firms willing to signal conviction in a relatively narrow market. Now, crypto exposure is moving into the large, regulated platforms that define ordinary investing for millions of people.

What changes under those conditions is not just the number of buyers, but the terms under which the asset is encountered. Crypto starts to arrive wrapped in the visual language and institutional setting of traditional finance, even though the old protections do not automatically travel with it.

That change has consequences beyond convenience. A consolidated brokerage interface makes it easier to rotate among stocks, ETFs, and Bitcoin within a single account structure and familiar brand environment.

Over time, that kind of access is likely to draw crypto even further into the same portfolio behavior that governs the rest of retail investing, especially around rate decisions, jobs reports, geopolitical shocks, and broad risk-off moves. In calm conditions, that may look like greater efficiency and deeper integration. In a selloff, it means the same investors can trim equities, sell ETFs, and dump crypto from one unified portfolio in a single bout of stress.

What is being normalized here, then, is not simply ownership but expectation. Schwab is helping move spot crypto deeper into the retail plumbing of American finance, into the same screens, habits, and mental categories that customers already use for protected savings and conventional investments.

The launch will likely be celebrated as another milestone for adoption, and in one sense it is. In a more important sense, it marks the moment when uninsured, fully loss-bearing crypto begins to appear within one of the most trusted brokerage environments in the country, alongside assets customers have been taught for decades to regard as part of a safer, more regulated system.

That distinction may not matter much on launch day, and it may remain easy to overlook while markets are stable and enthusiasm is high.

It becomes far more important in the next period of stress, when customers look at one account holding retirement funds, ETF positions, cash programs, and direct crypto, all under the same brand, and discover that the protections they associate with the account stop at the edge of the Bitcoin allocation.

Schwab is giving its customers direct access to Bitcoin and Ethereum in the coming weeks, but the larger significance of that decision lies in the expectations that access will reshape. The question is not whether crypto has arrived inside mainstream American finance, because it clearly has.

The question is how that new familiarity will hold up when the first real downturn forces investors, under pressure, to learn which parts of the modern portfolio were never protected in the same way to begin with.

The post Charles Schwab is bringing Bitcoin to its 39 million clients – but without the protections they expect appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Washington isn't trying to solve every crypto policy fight at once, but it appears to be carving out a workable path for one specific category of digital asset: the regulated, dollar-pegged stablecoin.

The GENIUS Act established the first federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, and a bipartisan House tax discussion draft now proposes friendlier tax treatment for those same tokens when people actually use them.

Together, the two efforts point toward a deliberate, stablecoins-first lane in American crypto policy that could reshape how users, merchants, and issuers interact with digital dollars in the years ahead.

What the stablecoin tax draft actually proposes

The draft legislation is the Digital Asset PARITY Act, a bipartisan discussion draft first released in December 2025 by Representatives Max Miller (R-Ohio) and Steven Horsford (D-Nevada), both members of the House Ways and Means Committee. An updated version was re-released on March 26, 2026, with significant revisions to its core stablecoin provision.

In the revised March draft, gains from selling a “regulated payment stablecoin” generally wouldn't be included in gross income, and losses wouldn't be recognized, unless the taxpayer's basis in the token falls below 99% of its redemption value.

For exchanges, the recipient would take a deemed basis of $1. To qualify, the stablecoin must be issued by a permitted payment stablecoin issuer under the GENIUS Act, pegged only to the US dollar, and have demonstrated tight price stability over the prior 12 months. Brokers and dealers are excluded.

For ordinary people, this means spending a qualifying dollar stablecoin could stop triggering a small, irritating tax event every time the token's value drifts a fraction of a cent.

The draft is trying to give stable, regulated dollar tokens the kind of practical flexibility that cash already enjoys, rather than subjecting every micro-fluctuation to the capital gains framework applied to volatile crypto assets.

This is a narrow carve-out for tokens that behave, by design and by regulation, as digital representations of the dollar.

Why the GENIUS Act is the foundation

The tax draft can't be understood in isolation because its scope is explicitly tied to the regulated stablecoin category that the GENIUS Act already created.

That law, which passed the Senate 68-30 and the House 308-122 with substantial bipartisan support, established who can issue payment stablecoins in the United States, what reserves they must hold, and what compliance obligations they must meet. It requires 100% reserve backing with liquid assets, subjects issuers to Bank Secrecy Act obligations, and mandates all kinds of anti-money-laundering and sanctions compliance programs.

The regulatory machinery behind this new draft is already moving.

The OCC proposed its implementing rules in early March 2026, covering standards for reserves, capital, liquidity, and risk management. Treasury and FinCEN/OFAC followed in April with a joint proposed rule establishing anti-money-laundering and sanctions compliance requirements for permitted payment stablecoin issuers. The FDIC has also begun laying out application procedures for FDIC-supervised institutions seeking to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries.

The tax draft's own explanatory notes acknowledge that its narrow focus on regulated payment stablecoins follows existing statute, specifically citing the GENIUS Act.

Congress appears to be building in sequence: first define the legal stablecoin, then make it practical to use.

No stablecoin issuer has received formal “permitted payment stablecoin issuer” status yet, because the regulatory machinery is still being assembled, and final implementing rules aren't required until July 2026.

But the leading candidates are already visible.

Circle's USDC is the clearest frontrunner: the company already publishes monthly reserve attestations verified by a Big Four accounting firm, holds reserves in US Treasuries and cash at regulated banks, and operates under existing state money transmitter licenses. USDC is widely expected to meet GENIUS Act compliance requirements without any major structural changes.

Rather than restructuring USDT for US compliance, Tether took a different route by launching USA₮ in January 2026 through Anchorage Digital Bank, creating a separate US-compliant token rather than restructuring its offshore flagship.

The GENIUS Act also opened a door that didn't previously exist for traditional banks.

Any FDIC-insured institution can now apply to issue payment stablecoins through a subsidiary, and some major players are already exploring that path. JPMorgan's blockchain arm Kinexys has been developing a deposit token aimed at institutional on-chain settlements, and Bank of America has publicly described stablecoin regulation as the beginning of a multi-year shift toward on-chain banking.

If those efforts produce tokens that qualify under the GENIUS Act's framework, they would also be eligible for the PARITY Act's proposed tax treatment. While it's unlikely that these bank-issued stablecoins would see the kind of volumes USDC and USDT have, it's still a significant change for the stablecoin market that has been dominated by crypto-native issuers since its inception.

What this means for users, merchants, and issuers

The benefit this will have for users is straightforward friction reduction.

Under the current framework, every sale or exchange of a digital asset can generate a reportable gain or loss, no matter how trivial.

The PARITY Act draft is aimed at eliminating that burden for qualifying regulated dollar stablecoins, because tiny value fluctuations around $1 would generally stop being a tax problem.

If the token stays close enough to its peg and the user acquired it near $1, the special rule would apply. If the token breaks away from the peg and the transaction occurs outside that narrow band, it wouldn't.

The benefit for merchants is simpler acceptance. A payment method works better when customers don't feel that every transaction creates an accounting problem, and stablecoins have struggled with that perception in the US for years.

If the tax treatment becomes simpler for customers, merchants have one less obstacle when considering stablecoin adoption.

But issuers would be the ones who would most likely benefit the most, as this combination of acceptance and regulation could be quite transformative.

The GENIUS Act provides the rulebook: permitted issuers know what reserves they need, what compliance programs they must run, and what regulators expect.

But a stablecoin issuer's business model only works if people actually hold and spend the token. If the tax draft passes, compliant issuers would have a considerably stronger case that their tokens are practical to use in everyday American commerce, and that distinction between regulatory permission and real-world usability is exactly where the commercial value sits.

However, it's important to note that a discussion draft isn't law. It's much closer to a public working version of a bill, released by lawmakers to signal policy direction, invite feedback, and test political support before formal legislative movement.

The PARITY Act still contains explanatory notes and unfinished technical provisions, showing that the policy ideas behind it are real, but the legislative language is still being refined. Representatives Miller and Horsford said they intend to introduce the draft as a formal bill, and there's been discussion about crypto tax provisions potentially fitting into a broader reconciliation package, but passage isn't guaranteed.

The draft shows where influential lawmakers want policy to go, and discussion drafts can carry political weight without becoming law quickly, or at all.

What happens to stablecoins either way

If the PARITY Act's stablecoin provision becomes law, certain regulated dollar stablecoins would become genuinely easier to use in routine transactions across the US economy. The bill text indicates the provision would apply to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025.

If it fails, it most likely won't cause any negative effects for stablecoins.

The GENIUS Act is already law, and implementation is moving through Treasury, the OCC, the FDIC, and FinCEN. Issuers would still have a federal regulatory framework to operate under, and the infrastructure buildout would continue.

What would be missing is the tax simplification layer for users and businesses. The US could still become a regulated stablecoin market without becoming an easy-to-use stablecoin payment market.

The system would have legal rails for issuers, but retail users and merchants would continue facing the kind of tax ambiguity that discourages routine adoption.

Without the tax piece, the country may regulate stablecoins faster than it normalizes using them.

That tension captures the central question in American stablecoin policy right now. The country has already defined what a legal stablecoin is and who can issue one. What remains undecided is whether those regulated dollar stablecoins will sit as licensed financial products on a regulatory shelf or function as everyday digital dollars that people and businesses can use without hesitation.

The GENIUS Act built the framework. The tax draft, if it ever becomes law, would bridge the gap between regulation and routine use, and that gap is exactly where the future of American stablecoin payments will be decided.

The post Congress on verge of making regulated dollar stablecoins act almost like digital cash appeared first on CryptoSlate.

For most of its life, crypto lived outside the financial system. If you wanted to move dollars in or out of an exchange, that money still had to pass through a regular bank somewhere along the way. Most people assumed it would stay that way until Washington finally decided how to regulate it.

But that assumption is now breaking down. In March 2026, a regional Federal Reserve bank approved a limited account for Kraken, the first time a crypto exchange has ever been allowed to plug directly into the US central bank's payment system. More approvals could follow, and the GENIUS Act, passed last year, has cleared a path for ordinary banks to start issuing their own digital dollars.

None of this needed a sweeping “crypto law”: it was a series of smaller, technical decisions that have added up and changed the picture entirely.

Crypto may not be waiting for permission anymore. It may already be finding a way in.

What a “backdoor into the system” actually means

The US financial system runs on a set of payment networks operated by the Federal Reserve. Banks use them to move money between each other, settle transactions at the end of the day, and tap dollar liquidity when they need it. The most important, called Fedwire, moves trillions of dollars between banks every single day.

To use those networks, an institution needs an account at the Fed, which was historically reserved for licensed banks. Everyone else had to rent access by going through a partner bank that already had one.

That's what just changed. Kraken's banking unit now has its own direct line into the Fed's payment system, without routing dollars through another bank first. The account is limited, which means it won't have interest on reserves or access to the Fed's emergency lending, but it lets Kraken settle its own dollar transactions on the same infrastructure banks use.

Think of the difference this way: instead of using a third-party app to talk to your bank, you have your own connection to the bank's back end. Faster, cheaper, and no longer dependent on a middleman that can say no.

For years, US crypto policy has moved slowly, pulled between agencies that didn't agree on the basics. At the same time, demand for crypto services from big institutional investors hasn't gone away. They want cleaner, regulated ways to touch the asset class.

So the system is adapting practically, not politically.

The GENIUS Act gave digital dollars their first real federal rulebook and effectively invited regulated banks into the market. Regulators began handing out special charters that let nonbank firms like Circle operate with bank-like privileges.

The Fed opened a public comment period on a lighter-weight account designed for payment-focused firms. Wyoming's crypto-friendly bank charter, once treated as an experimental oddity, became the legal vehicle that carried Kraken through the door.

All of this means that your bank's exposure to digital assets is going up, either through partners, products, or its own tokens. Citi has said it's targeting a 2026 launch of crypto custody. A group of major global banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs, has explored a jointly-backed digital dollar. Even if you never buy crypto, it will now sit on the edges of the account you already have.

This comes with quite a few risks for markets, though. When the pipes between crypto and traditional finance get wider and shorter, money moves faster in both directions, and so do shocks.

For crypto, direct access to payment systems is a stamp of legitimacy that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. But it also means it loses the “outside the system” identity that defined it, and takes on some of the same responsibilities.

The more connected crypto becomes, the less isolated its risks are.

The real tension: stability or contagion for crypto?

One view (call it the normalization case) is that pulling crypto inside the regulated perimeter makes everyone safer. Companies with direct Fed access have to meet stricter standards, and reserves get easier to monitor. This is a net positive for users, as they end up with fewer opaque middlemen between their dollars and the exchange. When seen through this lens, integration reduces risk rather than creating it.

The other view is hard to ignore, as the scares from the 2008 financial crisis are still fresh for many.

The US banking lobby reacted to the Kraken decision by warning that lightly regulated companies like this with direct access to the payment system introduce all kinds of money-laundering and operational risks. However, they would also open a Pandora's box of new risks: in a panic, money could actually flood into these new accounts, draining deposits from the community banks and credit unions that fund the real economy.

The Bank Policy Institute, representing the country's largest banks, said the approval happened before the Fed Board had even finished writing its own rulebook for these accounts.

The question underneath this fight is pretty simple: if crypto becomes part of the system, does it make the system stronger or more fragile?

Financial crises are rarely about the risk everyone is watching. They're a result of the connections no one modeled, and many believe that the new direct connection between crypto markets and the Fed's payment rails is exactly that kind of linkage.

The subtle part

Part of what makes a huge shift like this hard to see is that nobody is announcing it as one.
There's no press conference where “crypto joins the banking system,” because there doesn't need to be. A regional Fed approval here, a stablecoin rulebook there, and a charter granted to a firm most people have never heard of.

Each of these items is boring on its own terms, which is why they clear without the kind of political fight that most comprehensive crypto laws have been stuck in for years.

More crypto firms will almost certainly follow Kraken once the Fed finalizes its lighter-weight account framework, and the approvals will be granted one at a time, in different Federal Reserve districts, with conditions that take pages of legal language to unpack.

Big banks will keep rolling out custody services and their own digital dollars as ordinary product launches, not ideological statements, while the Kraken cybersecurity incident this spring (an extortion attempt built around insider access) hands the banking lobby exactly the kind of material it needs to argue that lightly regulated firms shouldn't be sitting on the same rails as JPMorgan.

A comprehensive crypto market-structure law may still pass, and probably will eventually, but by the time it does, the thing it's meant to govern will already have been built around it, and the interesting question will no longer be what the rules say but how much of the system has stopped needing them.

The post Crypto to enter the US banking system through a backdoor, not through regulation appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Kevin Warsh is set to become the first Federal Reserve chair with disclosed crypto holdings, and the first whose policy instincts could still squeeze the sector harder than his predecessors.

Most Americans don't follow Fed personnel drama closely, but they feel its aftershocks every month through mortgage rates, savings yields, and the temperature of equity markets.

Bitcoin feels those same currents even more acutely than most traded assets, which is why the question of who leads the central bank matters to crypto long before that person says a word about digital assets. When Warsh's odds of becoming Fed chair were rising, Bitcoin sold off, as traders read him as a central banker who favors a smaller Fed balance sheet and a tighter monetary regime.

That reaction shows just how high the stakes are. The next Fed chair will shape Bitcoin's fate through the price of money, the amount of liquidity in markets, and the willingness of the financial system to let crypto move closer to its core.

Warsh's financial disclosure added more weight to this. The document revealed holdings tied to several crypto-related ventures, including Polymarket, and Warsh has pledged to divest those positions under Fed ethics rules if confirmed by the Senate.

That makes him the first nominee to reach the chair's seat with visible sector exposure at a moment when crypto is pushing closer to the mainstream American financial system. The unusual part is that the same figure who appears optically closer to crypto could still end up presiding over the kind of monetary environment that tends to weigh on it most heavily.

Warsh could matter more to Bitcoin than past Fed chairs

The clearest consequence of a Warsh chairmanship will most likely arrive through macro policy rather than doctrine. Reuters has reported that he favors a smaller Fed balance sheet and a tighter monetary regime, and that framing alone hit Bitcoin prices when his nomination odds climbed.

Bitcoin tends to perform better when liquidity is abundant and investor risk appetite is high, and it tends to struggle when the Fed pulls liquidity back. So a chair whose instincts lean toward a smaller balance sheet matters to crypto in the cold arithmetic of markets, because tighter money usually leaves less room for speculative assets to run.

That's also legible well beyond crypto. The same institution that influences borrowing costs, market sentiment, and the value of financial assets more broadly also shapes the backdrop in which Bitcoin trades. Even those who care little about digital assets still understand the underlying mechanism, because they see the Fed's influence in mortgage payments, savings returns, and stock-market swings.

Bitcoin sits on that same map of risk, only a little bit closer to the edge.

A second consequence reaches deeper into the financial system itself. The Federal Reserve influences whether crypto firms can connect more directly to the core of American finance, and the tone set by the chair filters down to banks, custodians, and regulators deciding how much exposure to permit.

Earlier this month, Kraken became the first crypto firm to secure a Fed master account, giving it direct access to Fed payment rails with restrictions. Regional Fed banks manage those accounts, while the Fed board sets the guidelines and has signaled openness to more restricted models for crypto and fintech firms. A Warsh-led Fed will inherit that opening question, and its answers will help determine whether crypto becomes a more established fixture of the financial system or remains closer to its edges.

That same tone also shapes the broader climate around bank custody of digital assets, stablecoin scrutiny, and supervisory attitudes toward firms operating at the border of banking and crypto.

Warsh's direct authority over crypto legislation will be limited, yet his stance will still influence how willing banks feel to work with digital-asset businesses and how quickly the compliance burden eases or tightens. This is one reason the choice of Fed chair carries more significance for crypto than a narrow reading of the job title might suggest.

Why this represents a break from the Fed's recent pattern

Recent Fed chairs largely kept crypto at institutional arm's length even as it moved from novelty to something large enough to attract sustained official attention.

In the early years of Bitcoin, the response inside the Federal Reserve was one of cautious interest, with digital-payment innovation treated as a technology worth watching while remaining outside the center of policy.

Janet Yellen spoke more firmly about the limits and concerns surrounding cryptocurrencies, and Jerome Powell later developed a framework that acknowledged potential efficiency gains in areas such as payments while continuing to emphasize financial-stability risks and the absence of traditional protections. By late 2024, Powell was also clear that the Fed was legally unable to own Bitcoin and had no plans to seek legislative changes that would allow it.

Warsh arrives with a different kind of profile. His disclosed holdings reflect personal proximity to a part of the sector, and his divestment pledge shows an awareness of how sensitive those optics will be. What sets him apart is the combination of visible crypto ties and a macro worldview that markets already read as hawkish. That mix makes him feel different from previous chairs without making him easier for the industry to live with.

The forward signals will land soon. Warsh is scheduled to appear before the Senate Banking Committee on April 21, and Powell's term ends on May 15. Several signals in the hearing will carry weight for crypto markets, including whether Warsh frames financial innovation as something to accommodate or contain, whether he emphasizes balance-sheet shrinkage as a central objective, whether he addresses bank access and stablecoin oversight with specificity, and how directly he speaks about his disclosed crypto holdings and divestment commitments.

Pull back, and you see the big picture. The next Fed era will shape crypto through three forces ordinary Americans already understand, which are the price of money, the amount of liquidity moving through markets, and the degree of access crypto firms have to the institutions most Americans trust.

Previous chairs treated crypto as peripheral, experimental, or risky. Warsh arrives at a moment when that distance is harder to maintain, even as the policy instincts associated with him could make the environment more difficult for Bitcoin and the firms around it.

His confirmation carries the weight of a larger argument about crypto's next American chapter and about whether that chapter will be defined more by deeper access to the financial system or by tighter money flowing through it.

The post Why Kevin Warsh should become Bitcoin’s most impactful Fed chair yet appeared first on CryptoSlate.

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.

Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have reached a boiling point today, April 18, 2026, as the Iranian military officially announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This move comes less than 24 hours after the waterway was briefly declared "open" during a fragile ceasefire. The Iranian military command stated that the strategic passage has now "returned to its previous state" due to the United States' refusal to lift a naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Impact on Global Energy and Crypto Markets

The sudden escalation triggered an immediate reaction across global financial markets. WTI Crude Oil prices, which had softened during the brief reopening, quickly pumped back to the $83/barrel mark. Simultaneously, the risk-off sentiment hit the digital asset space hard; Bitcoin (BTC), which had been testing major resistance levels, saw a sharp correction down to $76,000.

Why the Strait of Hormuz is Closed Again

According to a statement published via the state-backed Fars media outlet, the Iranian military accused the U.S. of "banditry and piracy" by maintaining its blockade despite the temporary truce. The military command emphasized that until the U.S. ensures full freedom of movement for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the strait will remain under "strict management and control" of Iranian armed forces.

This reversal has effectively caught markets off guard. Just yesterday, President Trump had claimed on Truth Social that Iran had agreed to never use the strait as a weapon again. The current "previous state" implies a full military blockade of one of the world's most vital energy arteries.

Bitcoin and Crypto Under Pressure

The crypto market's reaction has been swift and decisive. Before this news broke, Bitcoin was struggling to maintain momentum at its psychological resistance level.

• Bitcoin (BTC): Slipped to $76,000, erasing recent gains.
• Altcoins: Most major tokens followed suit, with liquidations spiking as traders fled to "safe-haven" assets like gold.
• Outlook: Analysts warn that if the conflict escalates further, BTC could test support levels near $71,000.

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.

The price of Bitcoin breaks a seven-month downtrend as geopolitical shifts and prediction markets point to $84K next.

More than $1.2 million worth of wrapped XRP tokens (wXRP) have been minted on Solana as the Ripple-linked asset gains greater DeFi utility.

Hashcash creator Adam Back has laughed off Nic Carter's claims that Bitcoin will lose the quantum race by 2029.

XRP is seeing a substantial surge of institutional interest, with great recovery potential that can push the asset forward.

Shiba Inu has crossed a key milestone in token burns with 41.08% of its initial supply now effectively removed.

Vocal Bitcoin critic Peter Schiff and billionaire Frank Giustra are sounding the alarm on MicroStrategy's aggressive Bitcoin acquisition strategy.

Since its launch in 2014, the digital asset has cemented itself as the gold standard for financial anonymity.

Key Highlights

• Intel shares have soared 220% over twelve months, reaching $70.32—the highest price in twenty-five years
• New CEO Lip-Bu Tan slashed over 20,000 positions and restored positive free cash flow during the latter half of 2025
• Nvidia committed $5 billion to Intel’s operations; partnerships include Alphabet and Elon Musk’s Terafab initiative
• First quarter 2026 financial results arrive April 23—elevated expectations may trigger price swings
• A single analyst projects shares could reach $150 by 2029 if margin expansion and profit growth materialize

Intel’s recent performance represents one of the semiconductor industry’s most striking comebacks. After touching a multi-year bottom near $18 in June 2025, shares rocketed to $70.32—a twenty-five-year peak—with a remarkable 58% spike compressed into just nine trading sessions. Many investors are now questioning whether the opportunity has passed or if upside remains.

Intel Corporation, INTC

The transformation narrative revolves primarily around Lip-Bu Tan, who assumed the CEO role in March 2025. A veteran venture capitalist with expertise in corporate turnarounds, Tan previously guided Cadence Design Systems to a staggering 3,200% appreciation during his twelve-year tenure. Upon joining Intel, he acted decisively. Workforce reductions exceeded 20,000 employees while capital expenditures were trimmed. Free cash flow, which had posted a combined negative $44 billion drain from 2022 through 2025, finally turned positive in the second half of the previous year.

Intel’s product portfolio has gained fresh momentum as well. The chipmaker unveiled its Core Series 3 mobile processors utilizing the advanced 18A manufacturing process, designed to handle routine AI workloads while extending battery performance for consumer laptops.

Strategic AI Collaborations Mark New Direction

Intel’s strategy extends beyond expense reduction—it’s mounting a serious challenge in the artificial intelligence sector. The firm has forged partnerships with Alphabet focusing on AI capabilities and cloud computing infrastructure. Additionally, Intel is collaborating with Elon Musk on “Terafab,” a semiconductor manufacturing joint venture connecting SpaceX and Tesla.

Then comes Nvidia. Last September, Nvidia poured $5 billion into Intel to manufacture specialized x86 server processors designed to work seamlessly with Nvidia’s graphics processing units. Ben Reitzes, analyst at Melius Research, stated bluntly: “The demand for the x86 server CPU has gone through the roof at hyperscalers. The x86 became an AI chip.”

This represents a fundamental transformation in market perception regarding Intel’s position within AI infrastructure.

Yet the dramatic rally has pushed valuation metrics into stretched territory. Intel currently commands approximately 95 times projected earnings—surpassing valuations for Nvidia, Taiwan Semiconductor, Broadcom, and AMD. Gross profit margins hover below 40%, contrasting sharply with Taiwan Semi’s 55% and Nvidia’s 75%.

Production Efficiency Presents Ongoing Challenge

A significant portion of the margin disadvantage stems from manufacturing capabilities. Intel currently farms out roughly 30% of its wafer production to Taiwan Semiconductor while expanding internal fabrication capacity. Yield rates on its cutting-edge manufacturing process are estimated around 70%, compared to Taiwan Semi’s 90%.

Should these yields climb as the technology matures, profitability margins would likely follow suit. Analyst Reitzes forecasts Intel could generate $7 in earnings per share by 2029. Applying a standard semiconductor industry multiple of 22 times forward earnings produces a theoretical price target of $150.

Wall Street sentiment remains measured. Roughly one in five analysts tracking Intel maintains a Buy recommendation, significantly trailing the S&P 500 average of 55%. The consensus target price stands at $51.25—markedly below current trading levels.

Institutional money managers are quietly building positions. ZEGA Investments established a fresh stake during Q4. Executive Vice President David Zinsner purchased approximately $250,000 in shares this past January.

Intel will announce Q1 2026 results on April 23.

The post Intel (INTC) Stock Soars 220% to 25-Year Peak Under New Leadership appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Amazon shares reached $250.56, sitting just 1.4% beneath the record closing high of $254.
• The e-commerce giant’s stock has climbed 20% during April, finishing higher in nine out of the past 10 trading days.
• Truist Securities lifted its target to $285, forecasting 25% AWS revenue expansion in Q1.
• TD Cowen analyst John Blackledge maintained his Buy stance with a $300 target price.
• Amazon announced plans to purchase Globalstar for approximately $12 billion and partnered with Apple on satellite services.

Amazon has been building impressive momentum over recent weeks. Shares concluded Friday’s session at $250.56 — the highest closing price since November 3, 2025 — leaving the stock within striking distance of its all-time record close of $254, just 1.4% away.

Amazon.com, Inc., AMZN

The upward trajectory has been consistent and methodical. AMZN shares have finished in positive territory for nine of the last ten trading sessions, accumulating a remarkable 20% gain throughout April. For the year, the stock has advanced approximately 8.6%.

As Amazon prepares to report Q1 results on April 29, investor focus has intensified. Wall Street analysts are projecting earnings per share of $1.63 — a slight uptick from the $1.59 posted in the same period last year — alongside total revenue of approximately $177 billion, marking roughly 14% year-over-year expansion.

Truist Securities analyst Youssef Squali upgraded his price objective Friday to $285 from $280, reaffirming his Buy recommendation. His forecast anticipates AWS revenue climbing 25% in Q1, representing an acceleration from the 23% growth achieved in Q4 2024, fueled by expanding AI collaborations with companies including OpenAI and Anthropic.

Squali further projects North America marketplace revenue will expand approximately 10% compared to last year, characterizing economic pressures such as elevated fuel prices as “manageable” assuming they remain temporary.

Financial commentator Jim Cramer offered his perspective over the weekend, labeling Amazon “ascendant” while drawing a sharp contrast with Microsoft, which he characterized as becoming viewed as a “chronic underperformer.” Cramer positioned Amazon as the superior investment choice currently, citing its growth momentum against Microsoft’s decelerating revenue trends.

Wall Street Eyes $300 Price Level

John Blackledge from TD Cowen, recognized as a 5-star analyst, reaffirmed his Buy recommendation alongside a $300 price objective — representing approximately 20% potential upside from Friday’s closing price. His projections suggest Q1 revenue will marginally exceed consensus estimates, with operating income tracking roughly 4% ahead of expectations.

Blackledge highlights high-margin advertising revenue and AWS as primary profit catalysts, supplemented by ongoing improvements in fulfillment operations.

Looking toward Q2 2026, his revenue forecast sits 1.5% above Street consensus while his operating income estimate runs 5% higher — indicating expectations for continued AWS growth acceleration.

Across Wall Street, Amazon commands a Strong Buy consensus rating derived from 42 Buy recommendations and only 3 Hold ratings. The average analyst price target registers at $284.77, suggesting approximately 14% upside potential from present levels.

During Q4 2025, AWS delivered 24% year-over-year revenue growth. CEO Andy Jassy characterized this performance as the division’s “fastest growth in 13 quarters” — a metric that analysts are incorporating heavily into their Q1 projections.

Amazon Enters Satellite Communications Market

Beyond the upcoming earnings report, Amazon executed a significant strategic transaction this week. Tuesday brought the announcement of an agreement to purchase Globalstar at an equivalent price of $90 per share — establishing a valuation approaching $12 billion for the satellite communications company.

This acquisition positions Amazon to develop its own space-based internet infrastructure, challenging the market dominance currently held by Elon Musk’s Starlink operation.

Additionally, Amazon finalized an arrangement with Apple to deliver satellite connectivity capabilities for existing and upcoming iPhone and Apple Watch products. This partnership leveraged a pre-existing Globalstar relationship that Apple had previously established.

The consensus Wall Street price target of $284.77 implies approximately 14% potential appreciation from AMZN’s latest closing price of $250.56.

The post Amazon (AMZN) Stock Surges 20% in April as Cramer Favors It Over Microsoft (MSFT) appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Shares of Boeing advanced more than 2% Friday following announcements that CH-47 Chinook helicopters will receive drone swarm deployment capabilities.
• A contract worth approximately $324M from the U.S. Army for Chinook helicopters strengthened Boeing’s defense order book.
• Millennium Space Systems and Boeing introduced a mid-class satellite platform with plans for approximately 26 units in 2026.
• Oak Harvest Investment Services expanded its Boeing position by 44.5% during Q4, bringing holdings to 28,933 shares valued at approximately $6.28M.
• Analysts maintain a “Moderate Buy” rating on BA stock with a consensus price target of $252.48.

Friday proved eventful for Boeing as shares gained more than 2% following several significant announcements across its defense and aerospace divisions.

The Boeing Company, BA

The primary catalyst came from revelations that the CH-47 Chinook helicopter platform will receive substantial capability enhancements. Boeing is integrating what it describes as “launched effects” technology into the Chinook fleet — an umbrella term encompassing drones, electronic decoys, and loitering munitions. These capabilities can be deployed from both piloted and autonomous aircraft platforms.

The Chinook platform has maintained operational relevance for over 60 years and continues generating new orders. This technological enhancement aims to extend its strategic value. Reports indicate the U.S. Army has expressed substantial interest in these enhanced vertical-launch capabilities.

That interest translates into tangible financial commitments. The Army recently granted Boeing a contract valued at approximately $324 million for Chinook helicopters, bolstering the company’s defense sector pipeline. However, the program faces some uncertainty — congressional members have questioned the CH-47F Block II program’s trajectory, prompting Boeing to advocate for firmer Army commitments.

New Satellite Platform Unveiled

In aerospace developments, Boeing partnered with its Millennium Space Systems division to reveal a mid-class satellite platform designed for the “micro GEO” segment. The platform serves both defense and commercial markets, combining Boeing’s payload technology with Millennium’s accelerated manufacturing capabilities.

The initiative targets delivery of approximately 26 satellites throughout 2026. Boeing has been aggressively pursuing this market segment, and Millennium’s rapid production methodology provides competitive advantages as communications satellite demand accelerates.

Boeing’s most recent quarterly results exceeded market expectations considerably. The aerospace giant reported Q4 earnings per share of $9.92, substantially surpassing the consensus forecast of -$0.40. Quarterly revenue reached $23.95 billion — representing 57.1% year-over-year growth and exceeding the $22.41 billion analyst projection.

Despite the exceptional quarterly performance, Wall Street forecasts remain cautious with a projected -$2.58 EPS for the full fiscal year, creating a complex earnings outlook as the company approaches its April 22 Q1 earnings release.

On the manufacturing front, Boeing continues ramping workforce additions, hiring between 100 and 140 factory employees weekly to accelerate 737 MAX production and populate a newly established assembly line.

Institutional Activity Intensifies

Institutional stakeholders control 64.82% of Boeing’s outstanding shares. Oak Harvest Investment Services increased its position by 44.5% in the fourth quarter, elevating holdings to 28,933 shares with an approximate value of $6.28 million. Multiple additional institutional investors similarly expanded their Boeing allocations during Q3.

This institutional accumulation coincides with some insider divestment. Executive Vice President Howard McKenzie divested 10,497 shares in February at $233.99 each, while Senior Vice President Ann Schmidt sold 6,281 shares at $243.37. Collectively, company insiders have sold 21,012 shares totaling approximately $4.98 million over the past 90 days.

Boeing commenced Friday trading at $223.17. The stock’s 52-week trading range extends from $156.47 to $254.35. The 50-day moving average currently stands at $219.27.

Wall Street price targets span from the $252.48 consensus to $290.00 from Tigress Financial, which maintains a Buy rating. Susquehanna established a $280 target with a “positive” outlook, while Royal Bank of Canada elevated its target to $275 with an “outperform” designation.

Additionally, El Al expanded its 787 Dreamliner order by six aircraft this week, contributing incremental demand to Boeing’s widebody production backlog.

The post Boeing (BA) Stock Jumps Over 2% on Chinook Drone Capabilities and Satellite Expansion appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Shares of MRVL have climbed 55% since the start of the year and 168% over the trailing twelve months, fueled by AI data center infrastructure demand.
• On March 31, Nvidia made a $2 billion private placement investment in Marvell, establishing a strategic collaboration centered on NVLink Fusion technology.
• The semiconductor company closed two major acquisitions: $540 million for XConn Technologies and $1 billion for Celestial AI to strengthen AI interconnect capabilities.
• Marvell generated $1.5 billion from custom silicon sales in Fiscal 2026, with leadership targeting this segment to comprise at least 25% of total data center revenues.
• Management projects data center networking revenue will exceed $600 million in Fiscal 2027, representing a doubling from the prior fiscal year.

Marvell Technology has delivered exceptional performance throughout 2025 and into 2026. Shares have rallied over 55% year-to-date and posted gains of 168% across the past year. April proved particularly explosive, with MRVL climbing more than 50% during the month alone.

Marvell Technology, Inc., MRVL

Such extraordinary price action stems from a series of tangible business catalysts rather than speculation.

The March 31 announcement that Nvidia would invest $2 billion in Marvell via private placement marked a watershed moment. Alongside the capital infusion, the companies forged a strategic alliance to expand Nvidia’s NVLink Fusion infrastructure and collaborate on semi-customized AI solutions. The partnership solidifies Marvell’s position as a critical design collaborator within Nvidia’s expanding ecosystem.

Wall Street responded enthusiastically. Oppenheimer lifted its price objective for MRVL to $170 post-announcement. Barclays took an even more bullish stance, elevating the stock from Equal Weight to Overweight while raising its target from $105 to $150, highlighting momentum in Marvell’s optical components and port technologies.

Jim Cramer offered his perspective on the stock’s trajectory, describing Marvell as among the data center plays that “was good and then became unbelievable.” He highlighted CEO Matt Murphy’s prescient stock acquisitions around the $70 level and the company’s strategic purchase of optical assets at attractive valuations as catalysts behind the surge.

Custom Silicon Segment Generates Substantial Revenue Growth

Hyperscale cloud providers are pivoting from off-the-shelf GPUs toward application-specific custom silicon optimized for AI inference tasks. Marvell has emerged as a leading beneficiary of this architectural shift.

During Fiscal 2026, which concluded in January 2026, custom silicon operations delivered $1.5 billion in revenue. Company executives have established a target for this division to account for no less than 25% of aggregate data center sales moving forward. Marvell asserts that custom accelerators provide total cost of ownership advantages exceeding 40% compared to traditional GPU solutions, driving rapid customer adoption.

The firm has secured custom accelerator design partnerships with every major cloud infrastructure provider. Internal projections indicate that shipment volumes of custom accelerators will surpass GPU units by 2028.

To accelerate innovation in this domain, Marvell finalized a $1 billion all-cash acquisition of Celestial AI, which specializes in AI interconnect technology development.

Data Center Networking on Track to Double

Marvell’s data center networking operations are experiencing robust expansion. This segment generated over $300 million during Fiscal 2026. Leadership has provided guidance calling for networking revenue to surpass $600 million in Fiscal 2027.

The recently completed $540 million acquisition of XConn Technologies plays a central role in this growth trajectory. Marvell’s Structera S 60260 switching platforms now deliver double the lane density relative to rival offerings.

Demand for the company’s retimer products remains particularly strong. Alaska PCIe retimers from Marvell have become standard components in hyperscale server deployments. Management forecasts that combined revenue from retimers and active electrical cables will double during Fiscal 2027.

Consensus price targets from 27 Wall Street analysts currently average $126.12, suggesting approximately 9.7% downside from present trading levels.

The capital from Nvidia’s investment will support research and development initiatives at the 3nm and 5nm process nodes, where Marvell plans to manufacture its next-generation custom silicon portfolio.

The post Why Marvell (MRVL) Stock Surged 55% YTD: Nvidia Partnership and AI Chip Demand Fuel Rally appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Russia’s dominant financial institution, Sberbank, has completed technical preparations to launch digital asset custody and trading platforms for its massive customer base of 110 million users, awaiting only regulatory clearance.
• Retail investors without qualified status will face annual purchase restrictions of approximately $4,000 in cryptocurrency transactions under proposed legislation.
• Privacy-oriented digital currencies including Monero, Zcash, and Dash face complete prohibition within the upcoming regulatory structure.
• The financial institution has already ventured into crypto-collateralized lending, providing a loan to mining operation Intelion last December with plans for program expansion.
• Russian authorities target June for finalizing comprehensive cryptocurrency regulations, with enforcement scheduled to begin July 1, 2027.

The dominant player in Russia’s banking sector is positioning itself to make a significant entrance into the digital asset industry, awaiting only regulatory authorization to begin providing cryptocurrency trading and custody solutions to its client base.

Russia’s Largest Bank Sberbank Prepares for Crypto Trading Rollout

According to TASS, Sberbank is ready to offer cryptocurrency trading services once regulation and organized exchange trading are introduced, Senior Vice President Ruslan Vesterovsky said at a Moscow Exchange… pic.twitter.com/CJxKym0lBx

— Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) April 19, 2026

With a customer base exceeding 110 million retail clients, Sberbank operates under majority state ownership. According to bank officials, the necessary technological framework has been established and is operational. The institution stands ready to deploy margin trading capabilities, artificial intelligence-driven investment tools, and robust custody solutions immediately upon regulatory confirmation.

The announcement came from Senior Vice President Ruslan Vesterovsky during the Moscow Exchange forum. Vesterovsky stated that the bank anticipates organized exchange trading will deliver enhanced liquidity and competitive pricing to the marketplace. He emphasized the institution’s readiness to act swiftly once structured trading regulations receive approval.

While Russia’s Central Bank continues to designate cryptocurrencies as elevated-risk instruments, it has authorized restricted deployment of digital assets within certain financial operations. Sberbank’s current cryptocurrency initiatives demonstrate the institution is already functioning within the boundaries of existing permissions.

Last December, Sberbank extended one of Russia’s inaugural crypto-collateralized loans to Intelion, a cryptocurrency mining enterprise. Intelion operates over 300 megawatts of electrical capacity and maintains approximately 1,500 client relationships. Subsequently, Sberbank revealed intentions to extend comparable financing arrangements to additional corporations.

Framework Details for Cryptocurrency Trading

Russian legislative bodies are advancing toward completing a comprehensive digital asset regulatory structure by June. Should the timeline proceed as planned, implementation would commence on July 1, 2027.

The proposed framework would permit both certified and non-certified investors to participate in cryptocurrency purchases and sales. Non-certified investors would encounter annual acquisition caps of approximately 300,000 rubles, equivalent to roughly $3,934. Additionally, these investors must successfully complete a competency evaluation before gaining trading authorization.

Certified investors would operate without volume constraints, though mandatory risk evaluation procedures would remain required.

The approved asset roster is anticipated to encompass Bitcoin and Ethereum. However, the central banking authority strictly prohibits digital currency usage for domestic commercial transactions within Russian borders.

Prohibited Digital Assets

Anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrencies face total exclusion from both investor classifications. The proposed regulatory framework bans Monero, Zcash, and Dash completely, citing anti-money laundering protocols as justification.

The legislation additionally establishes sanctions for unauthorized intermediary operations within the cryptocurrency sector. These sanctions mirror existing penalties applied to unlicensed banking activities, providing licensed institutions such as Sberbank with enhanced legal clarity.

The regulatory approach establishes a two-tier classification system separating retail and certified investors. This framework design minimizes exposure for general investors while permitting greater latitude for sophisticated market participants.

Sberbank’s cryptocurrency market participation depends directly on the completion of regulatory guidelines drafted in December. The financial institution has already broadened its crypto-backed lending operations and continues developing its platform infrastructure to accommodate additional corporate clients.

Russian cryptocurrency regulation is projected to reach finalization by June, with comprehensive implementation targeted for mid-2027.

The post Sberbank Poised to Launch Crypto Services for 110 Million Russian Customers appeared first on Blockonomi.

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.

Bitcoin’s rejection at $78,400 continues to haunt the asset as it just dipped toward $75,000 following the latest tension escalation on the Middle East war front.

Most altcoins have followed suit, as the total crypto market cap has erased roughly $100 billion since the Friday high.

BTC Drops Toward $75K

The primary cryptocurrency dipped from $73,600 to under $70,500 last weekend after the first peace talks between the US and Iran failed. However, it went on an impressive run by Tuesday evening when it surged to just over $76,000 as reports emerged that the two sides had actually made some progress on finding a more permanent solution.

BTC remained sideways between $73,200 and $75,500 for the next few days before the bulls took complete control of the market and drove it to $78,400 on Friday. This substantial rally to a 10-week high came after Iran’s foreign minister announced that the country had reopened the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump later thanked him and made several other claims that appeared as if the US had the upper hand in the negotiations. However, Iran denied all seven of them, and seemingly closed the Strait on Saturday, which resulted in a price rejection and a subsequent correction. As of now, bitcoin trades more than $3,000 south from its local peak, and more volatility is expected later today when the legacy financial markets start to open.

For now, BTC’s market cap has slipped toward $1.5 trillion on CG, while its dominance over the alts is up to 57.5%.

Alts in Red

Most altcoins have mimicked BTC’s performance over the past day, with losses dominating the charts. Ethereum has dipped toward $2,300 after a 3.5% daily decline, XRP is below the $1.43 resistance, and BNB is back to $620 after similar price drops. SOL, HYPE, ADA, DOGE, LINK, CC, ZEC, and AVAX are also well in the red.

AAVE has dumped the most from the top 100 alts following the KelpDAO hack, plunging by over 20% to $92 as of now. M is down by 18% to $3.50, followed by PUMP and WLD. Pi Network’s native token was rejected at $0.185 yesterday and now struggles below $0.175 after another substantial decline of over 8%.

The total crypto market cap is down by $100 billion since Friday and now sits at $2.620 trillion on CG.

The post Pi Network’s PI Token Tanks Hard, Bitcoin Drops $3K From Local Peak: Weekend Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The cryptocurrency industry saw the most violent hack of 2026 on Saturday evening when an unknown perpetrator breached KelpDAO’s security and drained almost $300 million worth of its liquid staking token, rsETH.

They managed to act quickly, depositing the stolen funds into several lending protocols, borrowing money against them, and one of them just experienced a massive investor exodus as its own token crashed hard.

CryptoPotato explained in detail the events that took place on Saturday evening from information provided by the security experts at Cyvers. The bad actor compromised KelpDAO’s bridge contract, deposited the stolen rsETH into Aave V3, Compound V3, Euler, and other lending protocols, used it to borrow substantial amounts of WETH, and created more than $236 million in debt.

Although Aave, alongside SparkLend and a few other protocols, reacted by freezing certain affected markets, it seems investors were more than dissatisfied by the events, especially whales.

Lookonchain data show that several large market participants holding a sizable portion of AAVE went on a selling spree as the asset’s price started to nosedive. A whale identified as smaugvision sold $2.06 million worth of the token for USDC, another one disposed of $2.05 million, and a third one swapped $1.95 million worth of AAVE for $1.18 million in ETH and 10.11 WBTC.

Due to the KelpDAO exploit creating bad debt on #Aave, $AAVE has dropped over 18% today.

Whales are dumping $AAVE.

• smaugvision sold 20,015 $AAVE for 2.06M $USDC at $103 avg.

• Whale 0xFC56 sold 20,000 $AAVE for 2.05M $USDC at $103 avg.

• Whale 0xA2E4 sold 19,666 $AAVE… pic.twitter.com/NUjWxIgdp0

— Lookonchain (@lookonchain) April 19, 2026

These considerable market sales only exacerbated AAVE’s price decline. The token had peaked at almost $120 yesterday, but crashed to $103 when the initial sales began. Shortly after, it plunged to $92, which represented a 22% decline from top to bottom so far.

AAVE has fallen out of the top 50 alts by market cap as its own has plummeted to just over $1.4 billion on CoinGecko.

The post Whales Are Bailing: Why AAVE Just Crashed 22% After the $294M KelpDAO Hack appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Multiple on-chain security companies and industry sleuths reported late on Saturday that the liquid restaking protocol KelpDAO had fallen victim to a major hack in which the perpetrators drained nearly $300 million.

The team behind the project confirmed the incident hours later, and added that they have partnered with LayerZero, Unichain, their auditors, and ‘top security experts’ to resolve the issue.

The Biggest Hack of 2026

Cyvers was among the security resources that detected the breach in its initial phase and later provided a more detailed explanation of what happened. According to a post they shared with CryptoPotato, the attacker exploited the protocol’s bridge contract and siphoned roughly $293.7 million from its liquid restaking token, rsETH.

The bad actor moved quickly after taking hold of the funds and swapped them into ETH. They spread them across Ethereum and Arbitrum, with the on-chain activity showing that the attacker split the funds into two batches: $178 million on the former and $72 million on the layer-2 chain.

The stolen rsETH was deposited into lending protocols like Aave V3, Compound V3, and Euler. By using the illicitly obtained funds, they borrowed substantial amounts of WETH, creating more than $236 million in debt.

Cyvers explained that an attacker can end up creating unbacked rsETH and then use it to borrow real assets like ETH, which is “exactly how this kind of exploit blows up so fast.” The security experts added that this immediately became a cross-protocol contagion event, not just a single protocol exploit. Such assets that are deeply integrated across lending, vaults, and liquidity protocols are particularly susceptible to similar incidents, and one failure “does not stay contained.”

“It spreads instantly, creating bad debt, forcing market freezes, and impacting multiple platforms at once.”

Aave V3 froze rsETH markets, SparkLend froze exposure, while Fluid, Compound, Euler, and others moved to contain risk. Cyvers said that at least 9 protocols were affected.

KelpDAO Talks

The project’s official X account confirmed the breach after they had “identified suspicious cross-chain activity involving rsETH.” They said they paused those contracts across the mainnet and several layer-2s as the investigation continued.

Although they are working with LayerZero, Unichain, auditors, and other security experts on the matter, there hasn’t been another update in the past 10 hours as of press time on what’s next and what users might expect.

Earlier today we identified suspicious cross-chain activity involving rsETH. We have paused rsETH contracts across mainnet and several L2s while we investigate.

We are working with @LayerZero_Core, @unichain, our auditors and top security experts on RCA.

We will keep you…

— Kelp (@KelpDAO) April 18, 2026

KelpDAO’s hack became the largest in the industry so far in 2026, surpassing the previous ‘record-holder’, Drift Protocol, whose exploit was for $280 million.

The post The Biggest Hack of 2026: What We Know About the $294M KelpDAO Exploit appeared first on CryptoPotato.