Institutions view the current crypto dip as a prime opportunity for long-term investment growth.

The post Matt Hougan: Bitcoin ETFs could reach a trillion dollars, institutions see market dips as opportunities, and wealth managers are gradually gaining Bitcoin access | The Wolf Of All Streets appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin's future hinges on retail interest as institutional access fails to spark a market revival.

The post Lyn Alden: Bitcoin’s four-year cycle is evolving, retail participation remains muted, and integration into finance is crucial for global adoption | The Wolf Of All Streets appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Flawed token models are driving short-term trading, hindering long-term growth in the crypto market.

The post Namik Muduroglu: Token models incentivize selling over holding, governance structures in DAOs are failing, and regulatory fears stifle innovation | Unchained appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Paradigm's expansion into AI and robotics highlights a strategic shift towards integrating advanced technologies with decentralized systems.

The post Paradigm plans $1.5 billion fund to expand into AI, robotics appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Escalating military actions risk destabilizing the region, potentially leading to broader geopolitical tensions and economic repercussions.

The post Trump confirms launch of operation against Iran appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

DCTRL Vancouver: Iconic Bitcoin Hackerspace Closes Downtown Location After 12 Years Due to Zoning Changes

DCTRL, a Bitcoin hub and hacker space out of Vancouver, the fair-weather Canadian city, has announced the sunset of its downtown basement location, iconic among early adopters for its tinkerer mindset and hardware hacker culture. The community will be migrating to a new location in the coming weeks, and updates to the vision of the hub. The Vancouver Bitcoin community is renowned for having set up the first Bitcoin ATM in History, with DCTRL specifically having hosted a variety of renowned characters that, over the years, gave this industry much of its cultural and innovative flair. 

Visited by some of the most influential people in the Bitcoin and broader Crypto industry in its 12 year run, DCTRL is far from done being a hub of the Canadian Bitcoin and Crypto scene. Preparing to move due to a change in zoning laws, plans to relaunch in a new location are in the works, as active members consolidate the historical moments, relationships, and lessons learnt during perhaps the longest-running Bitcoin hackspace experiment in the young industry’s history.

It all started at Waves cafe on Howe Street, in Vancouver. The Bitcoiniacs, a group of four OGs that operated a Bitcoin brokerage at the time — still active to this day — decided it was time to get the robots involved. So they rigged up an ATM to sell bitcoin to the public, rallied the local Vancouver tech, finance, and burgeoning crypto scene, and hosted a historical launch party. 

“The first Bitcoin ATM in the world was a massive event,” said Freddie Heartline, a Bitcoin enthusiast and co-founding member of the DCTRL hacker space. In an exclusive interview with Bitcoin Magazine, Heartline went on to recall the event, saying, “Oh man, the vibes were incredible. It literally felt like a really good rave. But it was smarter. Way smarter. That’s how it all came about, actually.” referring to the founding of DCTRL.  

The timing for the Bitcoin ATM event was perfect; it was October 2013, and Bitcoin had just gone from a few dollars to almost 150, consolidated for a few weeks around 100, and was getting ready to take a shot at 1,000 a coin. The energy across the Bitcoin community as electric, this was the end of the longest bear market in Bitcoin history, in a way this rise in price was proof that Bitcoin was here to stay.

The launch of the first Bitcoin ATM, as a result, made national and international news. The idea of a Bitcoin ATM being operational was considered a historical milestone in the adoption of Bitcoin as money. 

Tens of thousands of Canadian dollars worth of bitcoin were sold that day and over the coming weeks, likely creating a few millionaires over the years, spawning copycat ATM projects and even a handful of Bitcoin ATM manufacturing companies to boot. It also inspired the creation of the DCTRL hacker space, called “Decentral Vancouver” at the time. 

Cameron Gray, another Bitcoin enthusiast who was volunteering with the Bitcoiniacs event and a friend of Heartline, was the one who had the idea. “Cam was absolutely an essential part of founding Decentral.” Heartline recalled “He literally turned to me one day – as he was operating the bitcoin ATM at Waves – after I complained about the lighting at the coffee shop – and said ‘we should open a space.’ And that was it.”

Soon, they had secured a basement location in downtown Vancouver, grimy, humid, but cozy. Over the years, this spot became a hub for Bitcoin engineers, founders, crypto enthusiasts, and eventually legends. The decor got better, the leaks patched, and the walls decorated with Bitcoin art. The empty spaces filled up with hardware of all kinds, modified to operate or somehow interact with the orange coin. 

Heartline and Gray were starting a lifestyle project of sorts, and while Bitcoin may have been doing well at over $1,000, it would soon correct back to $300, another bear market, which had important consequences for the industry. During that time, the bills for DCTRL’s rent had to be paid somehow, and so Heartline moved in. Not into the basement, but onto the rooftop. In order to keep the lights on during that bear market, he literally set up a tent. Not a bad setup either if you have a look.

DCTRL started hosting meetups, the Vancouver Startup Weekend community got wind of it, and a gentleman known as Gregg Peacock began to visit the hub. Soon enough, the Startup Weekend events were taking place at DCTRL as well, pulling in the local tech startup scene. Before long, even Vitalik Buterin, founder of Ethereum and former writer for Bitcoin Magazine, showed up. 

Peacock had another important contribution to DCTRL; he made a donation that created a symbol for the local community. He donated $500 to the space with one condition: “It has to be used for something creative …” Heartline recalled, “so I found a Pepsi machine on Craigslist. Peacock even helped us move the thing in a pickup. Him, me, Cam, and Mike Olthoff moved that fucking insanely heavy and awkward thing down the stairs – lol almost killing Cam.” The Pepsi machine would soon get backwards engineered, hacked, and rebranded to the Bepsi, for obvious Bitcoin reasons.

In the above video, you can see Peacock making an on-chain transaction to the pop machine, milliseconds later dropping a soda for him on Q. The satisfying sound of Bitcoin being used as money for the small pleasures of life became a staple of DCTRL. A digital version of the Bepsi was eventually made, which fans from all over the world used to make donations. Many iterations of the underlying software took place over time, rig-wired into the Cold War era pop machine with a Raspberry Pi and some hacker ingenuity. A decade later, even the Mayor of Vancouver Ken Sim, dropped by to pay homage to this staple of Vancouver hacker culture, this time buying a soda from Bepsi with a lightning payment. 

Today, the Bepsi supports practically every Bitcoin protocol, a testing ground for the cutting edge of Bitcoin technology, including protocols like Taproot Assets, Spark, and Arcade OS. “We even issued our own Bepsi token. One Bepsi equals one soda from the Bepsi machine… it’s like a stable coin… pegged to the price of the pop can.” said Heartline. The Bepsi, which in a way was inspired by the Bitcoin ATM, also inspired copycats, such as the 21up vending machine hosted in a nearby Blockchain lab known as MintGreen. To this day, funds collected by the Bepsi machine have gone to support the operation of the hacker space and cover costs, serving as a cornerstone of the community. Control over the Bepsi’s underlying wallets and tech stack in a way setting rank among the most active members and hosts. 

Visited by Legends

Throughout the years, big names within the industry visited or engaged with DCTRL in one way or another. Vitalik Buterin personally visited the space and hung out there in the very early days of Ethereum, as demonstrated by this photograph hung on their wall, featuring Gray, Heartline, Vitalik, and another active member referred to as Kyle. 

The founders of CaVirtex, the first Canadian Bitcoin exchange, were also photographed there. This brand is little known now as they were bought out by Kraken years later, but they had a deep influence on the Canadian Bitcoin scene, selling the coin to Canadians since before the first bull run, which peaked at $30 per coin. Without this exchange, many of the big Canadian Bitcoiners may not have gotten in. 

Virtually, Bitcoin celebrities also attended DCTRL events throughout the years, answering questions from the local crowd, such as Roger Ver, before the fork wars, Andreas Antonopoulos, and Willy Woo. Erik Vorhees, who came to fame in Bitcoin for creating the first major instant swap, crypto-to-crypto exchange called ShapeShift, is seen in this video doing a fireside chat at DCTRL during a local meetup. 

Even one famous scammer attended the hub, a man who was a regular in the Canadian Bitcoin scene in the 2014 era, and who to this day remains one of the unsolved mysteries of crypto-related crime, Gerald Cotten of QuadrigaCX. Cotten, whom I personally met multiple times in Toronto at the time, was a charming and smooth-talking entrepreneur in the scene at the time, before his turbulent professional history was revealed and the exchange went down in bankruptcy, leaving millions of dollars of user funds unpaid. Cotten allegedly died suddenly and mysteriously in India just before the exchange went bankrupt, taking the crypto keys with him, but many who were personally affected by this centralized exchange collapse are skeptical of that story. 

Further evidence of DCTRL as a microcosm of the industry as a whole was seen years later during the fork wars, as Gray, the other primary co-founder of the hub, took the ‘big block’ side of the debate, resulting in intense debates and ultimately a falling out with the local community and broader Bitcoin scene. Gray, nevertheless, is highly respected and appreciated by the active members of DCTRL for his contributions to the DCTRL social scene, which would inevitably suffer from the same forks and tensions that the Bitcoin protocol went through at the time. 

During those difficult times, DCTRL served as a forum and debate space for these topics, even hosting Peter Rizun of the alternative implementation Bitcoin Unlimited — a big blocker — who debated Taylor, seen on the right in the photo below. 

Overall, DCTRL enjoyed more than 12 years of continuous operation, boasts hundreds of events hosted, over 1500 registered community members, and 69 recorded talks published on YouTube, which touched many elements of the Bitcoin and crypto industry. Throughout this whole time, the hub was operated entirely by volunteers and sustained through public donations and, of course, the Bepsi. 

As the location of DCTRL gets rezoned by the city government, and a new building will be going up in its place, the active members and hosts of DCTRL, have begun organizing a transition to a new location, alongside an update to the brand.

According to DJ, one of the active members who prefers to stay pseudonymous, the hub has had record attendance in recent months. And while the location will change, its future is brighter than ever. Those who would like to be a part of the future of DCTRL can learn more at www.DCTRL.wtf. 

This post DCTRL Vancouver: Iconic Bitcoin Hackerspace Closes Downtown Location After 12 Years Due to Zoning Changes first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Senate Democrats Press DOJ, Treasury to Probe Binance Over Trump Ties, Iran Sanctions Allegations

Eleven Democrats on the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee are pressing the Trump administration to investigate Binance over allegations that the exchange facilitated illicit finance activity tied to Iran and may be violating its 2023 federal settlement.

In a letter sent Friday to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the senators urged the Justice Department and Treasury to conduct a “prompt, comprehensive review” of Binance’s sanctions compliance controls. 

The lawmakers cited recent media reports alleging that billions of dollars in digital assets flowed through the platform to Iranian entities, including groups linked to terrorism.

The letter was led by Sen. Mark Warner and signed 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.

According to the senators, Binance compliance personnel uncovered evidence last year that roughly $1.7 billion in digital assets had been routed through the exchange to Iranian entities, including the Iran-backed Houthis and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. 

In one instance, a Binance vendor allegedly moved $1.2 billion in funds connected to Iran-linked actors. The letter also claims that Iranian users accessed more than 1,500 Binance accounts and that the platform may have been used in efforts by Russian actors to evade sanctions.

The lawmakers raised concerns that employees who identified the transactions were dismissed and that Binance has become less responsive to law enforcement requests. They argued that such actions would conflict with the company’s obligations under its 2023 plea agreement and related settlements.

In 2023, Binance pleaded guilty to federal charges including violations of U.S. sanctions laws and anti-money laundering failures. The company agreed to pay more than $4 billion in penalties and committed to sweeping reforms under U.S. supervision, including enhanced know-your-customer procedures and sanctions screening. 

The senators contend that the latest reports call into question whether those reforms have been implemented and maintained. In its settlement with the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, Binance committed to implement controls capable of identifying and blocking prohibited transactions. 

Allowing $1.7 billion in digital assets to move to sanctioned Iranian entities, they wrote, would be inconsistent with that commitment.

Binance and President Donald Trump

The letter also touched on Binance’s recent business relationships involving President Donald Trump and his family’s crypto ventures. Lawmakers pointed to the exchange’s promotion of USD1, a stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial, a Trump family-backed project.

According to the letter, Binance offered interest incentives for users holding USD1, assisted with technology related to the token and accepted a $2 billion investment tied to it.

The senators further referenced Trump’s pardon last fall of Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who had pleaded guilty to failing to implement an effective anti-money laundering program and served a four-month prison sentence. 

The lawmakers argued that these connections heighten the need for what they described as a “thorough, impartial” probe.

Binance’s dubious ties with Russia

Beyond Iran-related concerns, the letter cites Binance’s recent launch of crypto-linked payment cards in parts of the former Soviet Union. The senators warned that similar products have been used to bypass restrictions on the Russian financial system. 

They also noted the exchange’s partnership with Kyrgyzstan to launch a stablecoin and digital currency initiative, raising questions about exposure to sanctions evasion risks.

“These allegations raise grave concerns that poor illicit finance controls at Binance remain a significant threat to national security,” the senators wrote. They warned that weak safeguards at the world’s largest digital asset exchange could allow terrorist groups or sanctions evaders to access the global financial system.

A Binance spokesperson disputed the allegations, stating that the company detected and reported suspicious activity and that claims it retaliated against compliance staff are false. 

The company has said it remains committed to meeting its regulatory obligations under the 2023 agreements.

The senators requested a response from Bondi and Bessent by March 13.

This post Senate Democrats Press DOJ, Treasury to Probe Binance Over Trump Ties, Iran Sanctions Allegations first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Sora Ventures-Backed Bitplanet Reaches 300 Bitcoin, Ranks Among Asia’s Top 20 Corporate Holders

Bitplanet Inc. has accumulated 300 BTC through a structured purchase program, positioning the South Korea-listed company among the top 20 corporate Bitcoin holders in Asia.

The company, backed by Sora Ventures, began building its BTC treasury in the fourth quarter of 2025. Its most recent purchases were carried out in phases between Feb. 23 and Feb. 26 via Upbit, one of South Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges. 

The BTC will be held with a professional custody provider, the company told Bitcoin Magazine.

Chief Executive Paul Lee said Bitplanet is focused on more than balance sheet exposure. “We are not simply accumulating Bitcoin,” Lee said in a statement. He added that the company plans to explore operational strategies that could contribute to revenue generation and cash flow over time, linking BTC treasury management with artificial intelligence computing initiatives.

Bitplanet said it views Asia as a key driver of the next phase of digital asset treasury adoption and aims to position itself as a transparent, institutional-grade corporate holder of Bitcoin. 

The company said it may expand its holdings further, subject to market conditions, regulatory developments, and financing availability.

Corporate bitcoin strain

The firm counts several digital asset treasury investors among its backers, including Simon Gerovich of Metaplanet, as well as AsiaStrategy, UTXO Management, KCGI, Kingsway Capital, and ParaFi Capital.

Metaplanet did post a net loss of 95 billion yen ($619 million) for fiscal 2025, driven by a 102.2 billion yen ($665.8 million) valuation decline on its bitcoin holdings. 

The disclosure marks the latest example of a corporate bitcoin buyer facing pressure as the cryptocurrency’s price slid from record highs in October.

The company closed the year with 35,102 BTC, valued at approximately $2.4 billion, making Metaplanet the fourth-largest public corporate BTC holder globally, behind Strategy.

Since it began accumulating BTC 21 months ago, Metaplanet has spent nearly $3.8 billion, averaging $107,000 per coin, according to data from two weeks ago.

Last quarter, when Sora Ventures unveiled its plans at Taipei Blockchain Week, the firm said it plans to purchase $1 billion in BTC within six months, backed by a $200 million initial commitment from regional partners. 

Today, Bitcoin (BTC) is trading near $65,000, drifting lower from mid‑week highs near $70,000 amid persistent selling pressure across crypto markets.

This post Sora Ventures-Backed Bitplanet Reaches 300 Bitcoin, Ranks Among Asia’s Top 20 Corporate Holders first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

U.S. Government Seizes Over $580 Million in Crypto Linked to Southeast Asian Scams

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro said federal authorities have frozen and seized more than $580 million in cryptocurrency tied to Southeast Asian scam networks, marking a major escalation in the government’s campaign against cross-border crypto fraud.

The funds were restrained through the Justice Department’s Scam Center Strike Force, a task force formed in November to target cryptocurrency investment and confidence schemes linked to Chinese transnational criminal organizations. 

Officials said the groups use social media platforms and text messaging to target U.S. victims and siphon billions of dollars each year. Recent estimates place annual losses to Americans near $10 billion.

“In only three months, we have made significant progress, freezing, seizing, and forfeiting cryptocurrency worth more than $578 million from these criminals,” Pirro said in a statement. She said her office will seek forfeiture through the courts and aims to return funds to victims.

Authorities describe the schemes as “pig butchering” operations, in which fraudsters build relationships with victims before steering them into fraudulent crypto investments. Victims are persuaded to purchase legitimate digital assets and then transfer them to counterfeit trading platforms controlled by the scam networks.

The operations often run out of secured compounds in parts of Southeast Asia, including Burma, Cambodia, and Laos. U.S. officials said some workers inside the compounds are trafficking victims who are forced to carry out scams under threat of violence. In certain areas, revenue generated from scam activity accounts for a large share of local economic output.

The Strike Force is focused on identifying senior figures within the criminal networks, including organizers and money launderers who move proceeds through blockchain transactions and shell accounts. Investigators are tracing funds across exchanges and wallets to disrupt cash-out points and freeze assets before they are dispersed.

The initiative brings together the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and several Justice Department divisions, along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation unit. U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Rhode Island and the Western District of Washington are also participating.

The Justice Department said the Strike Force will continue targeting infrastructure, financial channels, and leadership structures tied to the fraud networks.

Crypto crime hit $154 Billion last year

Data from Chainalysis shows illicit crypto addresses received at least $154 billion in 2025, a 162% year-over-year increase, with sanctioned entities driving much of the surge. Nation-states including Russia, Iran, and North Korea played an outsized role, leveraging blockchain infrastructure for sanctions evasion, money laundering, and large-scale thefts.

Stablecoins accounted for 84% of illicit transaction volume, the report said. 

The report also highlights the expansion of Chinese money laundering networks offering “laundering-as-a-service” and other full-stack illicit infrastructure. Although illicit activity still represents less than 1% of total crypto volume, the scale and geopolitical dimension of the activity pose rising risks for regulators, law enforcement, and national security.

This post U.S. Government Seizes Over $580 Million in Crypto Linked to Southeast Asian Scams first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

MARA Holdings (MARA) Stock Jumps After $1.71B Loss as Firm Pivots to AI Data Centers

Shares of MARA Holdings climbed 13% in premarket trading Friday, even after the Bitcoin miner reported a $1.71 billion net loss for the fourth quarter, as investors focused on the company’s shift toward artificial intelligence and high-performance computing.

The company posted a net loss of $1.71 billion for Q4 2025, compared with net income of $528.3 million during the same period a year earlier. Revenue for the quarter fell 6% to $202.3 million, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as lower Bitcoin prices offset gains from higher network hash rate.

The largest driver of the quarterly loss was a $1.5 billion negative revaluation of digital assets following a decline in the price of Bitcoin. Under fair-value accounting rules, companies must adjust the carrying value of their digital asset holdings each quarter to reflect market prices, creating swings in reported earnings.

For the full year 2025, MARA reported a net loss of $1.31 billion, compared with net income of $541 million in 2024. Annual revenue rose to $907.1 million from $656.4 million the prior year, reflecting expanded operations and increased Bitcoin production earlier in the cycle.

During the fourth quarter, MARA mined 2,011 BTC, down 6% from the third quarter and below the 2,492 BTC mined in the year-ago period. Total production for 2025 reached 8,799 BTC, compared with 9,430 BTC in 2024.

As of Dec. 31, the company held 53,822 BTC, including 15,315 BTC pledged as collateral. Based on a quarterly price of $87,498 per coin, the value of its Bitcoin reserves stood near $4.7 billion at quarter’s end.

 Over the past six months, MARA shares have fallen roughly 45%, reflecting pressure across the mining sector tied to Bitcoin price volatility and post-halving economics.

MARA is moving to AI 

Alongside its earnings report, MARA outlined a strategic pivot aimed at transforming the firm from a pure-play Bitcoin miner into an energy and digital infrastructure company. 

The company announced a joint venture with Starwood Digital Ventures to develop AI-focused and high-performance computing data centers at select sites with access to low-cost power and grid capacity.

The first phase of the initiative targets more than one gigawatt of IT infrastructure, with potential expansion to 2.5 gigawatts.

Projects will be structured on a site-by-site basis, with MARA retaining stakes of up to 50% while continuing Bitcoin mining operations where economics support it.

Earlier this month, MARA acquired a 64% stake in Exaion, a firm that provides AI and high-performance computing solutions for corporate and government clients, signaling its intent to diversify beyond mining.

The strategy mirrors a broader industry shift as miners seek ways to make money due to tighter margins and fluctuating Bitcoin prices. Over the last couple of months, major Bitcoin mining firms like Cipher and Bitfarms have been aggressively repurposing their energy-heavy infrastructure into AI and high-performance computing data centers to diversify revenue as traditional mining margins shrink.

This post MARA Holdings (MARA) Stock Jumps After $1.71B Loss as Firm Pivots to AI Data Centers first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin held near $66,000 on Sunday, March 1, after a weekend geopolitical shock tied to U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, setting up Monday’s U.S. reopen as the first major liquidity and spot ETF flow test of the rebound.

The diplomatic alarm bell rang alongside the price rebound. At an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting, the Secretary-General warned that the escalation risked widening into a broader conflict, while the U.S., Israel, and Iran traded legal and moral accusations, a public signal that the crisis is not contained and that headline risk can stay elevated into the reopen.

Bitcoin’s trading range stayed wide in thin conditions. After printing a Feb. 28 low of $63,068 and closing at $66,999, BTC opened Sunday at $66,990.

The immediate question is whether that recovery holds once regulated U.S. venues reopen and spot ETF creations and redemptions resume.

Related Reading

Bitcoin just dumped 7% after Trump hit Iran, and the real reason has nothing to do with crypto

Bitcoin didn’t act like digital gold when the US moved on Iran, and traders know why.

Feb 28, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

The weekend also changed the macro backdrop that will greet U.S. markets. Reporting on Sunday described continued exchanges and escalation risk, while market attention shifted from the initial risk-off impulse to the energy and shipping transmission line.

There are now heightened risks around the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on vessels near the region, making crude pricing and shipping disruption the clearest mechanism for how geopolitics can tighten financial conditions into Monday.

Bitcoin trading has increasingly split into two liquidity regimes. Weekend trading can still absorb macro stress in real time, but the deepest marginal liquidity now concentrates in weekday U.S. hours, especially through ETF and institutional channels.

If the Monday open keeps a meaningful energy risk premium, Bitcoin may trade more like a high beta macro asset than a crypto-specific story. If energy fears fade and ETF flows resemble last week’s renewed inflows, the rebound can extend quickly.

The weekend shock turned into an energy and shipping trade

Geopolitical headlines did not stabilize after the first wave of strikes.

On Sunday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the opening attacks, and follow-on strikes continued. Iran’s retaliation widened beyond Israel to U.S. interests and regional targets. The U.S. confirmed three American service members were killed and others were wounded.

Those developments increased the odds that Monday’s open becomes a broader cross-asset repricing event rather than a contained weekend scare.

They also pushed the crisis into the formal U.N. arena. At the emergency Security Council session, U.N. officials warned escalation could spiral, while major powers split over legality, retaliation, and de-escalation, the sort of institutional “alarm” that tells markets we may have multiple chapters to this story rather than a one-weekend shock.

For traders, the key point is the transmission path. Energy pricing feeds inflation expectations, which feed rates and the dollar, which then shape risk appetite for Bitcoin and other high-beta assets.

Shipping risk is at the center of the weekend narrative. Business Insider described attacks affecting commercial vessels and tankers around the Strait of Hormuz area. That increases the probability of higher insurance costs, route disruptions, and a persistent crude risk premium.

For Bitcoin, the mechanism is visible in the last two days of price behavior.

BTC sold off hard during low-liquidity hours, then mean-reverted as immediate forced selling eased. But the market still faces another air pocket if fresh energy or escalation headlines hit while depth is thin.

The U.S. market opening tomorrow will add more volume and also change the type of liquidity available. Spot ETF flows, U.S. exchange depth, and futures basis adjustments tend to compress spreads and reduce the chance that one headline produces a $2,000 to $3,000 wick. They can also accelerate the next directional move if the market agrees on a macro narrative.

Traders should also watch whether producers respond in a way that caps the energy shock. Attention is on the oil price response and the role of producer decisions, while the broader market focuses on whether supply and transit can normalize quickly.

Bitcoin’s price action, the rebound held but the range stayed wide into Monday

Bitcoin’s price action fit a familiar weekend pattern: a sharp move during low-liquidity hours, followed by a fast recovery as panic selling fades. The data points define the levels traders will test when U.S. participants return.

Yesterday, BTC traded between $63,068 and $67,657. Today, has pushed to $68,159, then dipped to around $66,000.

Bitcoin recovered quickly from the crash phase, but volatility did not disappear. BTC is holding a rebound structure while still reacting to macro headlines. Monday matters because U.S. hours add deeper liquidity and shift price discovery toward regulated venues.

Related Reading

Bitcoin recovers instantly after Iran war crashes price but one Monday number could flip the next move

Bitcoin’s weekend wick shocked traders while liquidity is vanishing so why did price snap back?

Feb 28, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

That can reduce weekend air pockets, but it can also speed up the next move if ETF flows and cross-asset pricing point in the same direction.

From a levels perspective, the market is trading between competing narratives. The rebound remains intact while BTC holds the mid-$64,000 area, but the market has not yet proven it can reclaim the next zone that turns a bounce into a renewed uptrend attempt.

This is where Monday’s ETF data becomes a practical catalyst. If flows are strong, the market can clear resistance with help from systematic allocation and hedging activity. If flows disappoint or turn negative, weekend strength can fade and push price back toward the lower band.

The clean setup is this: the weekend range created reference points, but U.S. markets will decide whether those points become a floor, a pivot, or a trap. Traders should treat Sunday’s high and the rebound support shelf as the two anchors for short-term positioning.

The Monday variable, spot ETF flows and the create-redeem channel

Monday’s most important crypto-specific number is the direction and size of U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF flows once the market reopens.

My core premise holds: weekend crypto markets can absorb stress in real time, but weekday U.S. venues still provide the deepest marginal liquidity.

If authorized participants and end investors return with risk-on positioning, the rebound can harden into a trend attempt. If they return defensive, weekend strength can fade quickly.

The setup is clear because the market already has a recent example of strong flows supporting price in choppy conditions. Spot ETF flow tracking showed multiple positive inflow days ahead of the weekend, with roughly $1.1 billion in net inflows over three consecutive sessions.

Still, the most recent daily print in the Farside table showed a modest net outflow of about $27.5 million on Feb. 27. That mix matters for next week because it shows demand can reappear fast, but it can also stall quickly when risk sentiment shifts.

The short-term implication is that flows will likely matter more than commentary.

If ETFs print another large net inflow day early in the week, they can absorb spot selling tied to macro hedging and help price retest higher resistance. If flows weaken, the market can slip back into a sell-the-rally structure, especially if oil stays high and rates move up.

Traders should watch two signals in the first U.S. session. First, whether BTC holds above the rebound support shelf during U.S. morning liquidity. Second, whether flows confirm risk appetite rather than short covering.

Traders also enter the week with uneven positioning. Your earlier coverage noted year-to-date net outflows were still materially negative by mid-February even as multi-day inflow bursts returned.

That contrast helps explain why rebounds can be sharp but still capped when headline risk rises and liquidity thins. Next week will help answer whether the late-February inflow burst marked the start of a broader allocation phase or a tactical trade that fades when macro stress rises.

Key levels and scenarios for the reopen, contained escalation vs. energy shock

The most useful way to close is to connect ETF flows and cross-asset repricing to a tight set of price levels. Your level map still fits the weekend move, as the market defended the mid-$64,000 region and then traded back into the mid-to-high $60,000s.

Next week, that defense either becomes a durable base or breaks under renewed macro pressure.

A contained escalation scenario looks like this.

Energy fears cool, U.S. futures stabilize, and spot ETFs reopen with net inflows that resemble the late-February burst.

In that case, BTC can keep the rebound thesis intact as long as price holds the primary support zone and can reclaim the first trend attempt level. If that reclaim sticks during U.S. hours, the market can put the higher resistance band back in play, but it will still require sustained risk appetite and supportive flow prints.

An energy shock scenario looks different.

Crude stays elevated, shipping risk persists, and markets price higher inflation expectations into rates.

That often strengthens the dollar and tightens financial conditions, which tends to pressure Bitcoin even if the initial selloff already happened. The first signal would be a loss of the breakdown shelf. That would shift attention to deeper support, and then to round-number support if selling continues.

Here is the same level framework I laid out yesterday, presented as a checklist for tomorrow. These levels show where flows and macro repricing will likely show up first.

Another variable is the futures reopen dynamic. Weekend spot moves can create gaps and basis shifts that prompt hedging adjustments once U.S. futures and institutional desks are fully active.

That can amplify the first directional move on Monday, especially if ETF flows and macro pricing point in the same direction. If they diverge, Bitcoin may chop inside the weekend range longer than traders expect.

The post Bitcoin price rebound comes under threat from UN Security Council alarm and Hormuz oil scare appeared first on CryptoSlate.

For years, the wrong-number text arrived like clockwork. A friendly mistake, then apologies, small talk, and gradual friendship. Eventually, the investment tip was a “sure thing” on a slick platform showing returns that seemed too good to ignore.

Americans watched account balances climb on fabricated dashboards, only to discover the withdrawal button led nowhere. Life savings had vanished into a laundering network spanning continents.

The DOJ froze or seized over $580 million tied to these overseas scam networks in just three months. That figure maps the contours of an industrial fraud supply chain that has turned confidence schemes into shift work, complete with quotas, scripts, and coerced labor inside guarded compounds.

Factory model of fraud

What separates contemporary investment scams from their predecessors isn't sophistication in the traditional sense, but operational scale.

These networks don't rely on a single talented con artist. They've built a repeatable system: mass texting generates leads, scripted trust-building converts prospects into victims, fake platforms simulate legitimacy, and layered laundering disperses the proceeds before law enforcement can trace them.

The mechanics follow industrial logic. Lead generation operates at volume through automated messaging. Trust-building follows documented scripts guiding workers through weeks or months of relationship cultivation.

The handoff from a legitimate cryptocurrency purchase to a fraudulent platform happens gradually: victims first buy real crypto, building confidence, then transfer it to scammer-controlled sites that display fabricated gains.

When victims attempt withdrawals, the system pivots to extraction: fabricated tax bills, verification fees, and account unlocking charges drain whatever remains accessible.

Treasury estimates Americans lost at least $10 billion in 2024 to scam operations based in Southeast Asia alone, a 66% increase year-over-year. The FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center logged $9.3 billion in cryptocurrency-linked fraud complaints in 2024, with the largest reporting age group being 60+.

These figures represent systematic wealth transfer from retirement accounts into networks the UN Human Rights office describes as trafficking operations.

Compound economy

The organizational structure behind these numbers challenges the usual categories.

Many scam operations run from fortified compounds in Southeast Asia, where workers operate under coercion, documented by UN investigators as trafficking victims forced to execute fraud under threats and violence.

Treasury and DOJ filings describe these facilities as self-contained operations combining housing, workspace, and security infrastructure designed to prevent escape.

This labor model transforms fraud from a high-skill endeavor into a scalable business.

Workers follow scripts, hit targets, and rotate through shifts. The model's efficiency explains the volume: when scamming becomes assembly-line work, the bottleneck shifts from talent acquisition to victim supply, and cheap digital infrastructure ensures leads never run dry.

The economics reveal why enforcement struggled to contain the problem. Spinning up new domains costs almost nothing. Fake investment platforms run on templates duplicated within hours. Victim acquisition occurs at the global scale with a minimal marginal cost per contact.

Payment rails offering speed and irreversibility, such as cryptocurrency, wire transfers, and ATM deposits, complete the stack. The operation faces low barriers to entry and high barriers to enforcement, at least until recently.

Chokepoint strategy

The DOJ's strike force, launched in November 2025, delivered $580 million in freezes, seizures, and forfeitures within three months by attacking infrastructure rather than individual operators.

The shift represents a change in enforcement theory: instead of pursuing decentralized scammers one by one, the new approach targets the chokepoints where money concentrates.

Blockchain analysis enabled this pivot. The $225.3 million civil forfeiture action cited in DOJ filings demonstrates the workflow: investigators trace laundering patterns across wallet addresses, identify concentration points, and coordinate with stablecoin issuers to freeze assets before they scatter.

DOJ explicitly thanked Tether for its assistance in that case, signaling cooperation between law enforcement and the infrastructure layer.

Treasury's sanctions against Funnull illustrate the infrastructure-first approach. The company allegedly provided hosting and technical services to hundreds of thousands of scam sites, which the FBI reports are linked to over $200 million in victim losses, with an average per-person loss exceeding $150,000.

By sanctioning the enabler rather than chasing individual sites, enforcement creates friction across the entire operation.

The strike force's $580 million total includes assets frozen mid-transfer, seized during investigation, and forfeited through civil proceedings.

DOJ states it will seek to return funds “to the maximum extent possible,” though the forfeiture and restitution process offers no guarantees. The figure matters less as a recovery metric than as a signal: enforcement now operates at the same scale as the threat.

What changes when the intercept rate rises

The three-month pace, if sustained at roughly $2.3 billion annualized, would theoretically intercept approximately 23% of Treasury's estimated $10 billion annual Southeast Asia-based scam losses.

That calculation assumes several unrealistic conditions, but it establishes an upper bound for what coordinated enforcement might achieve under the current infrastructure.

More likely, the dynamic plays out as escalation rather than eradication. Higher intercept rates force adaptations: scammers shift to harder-to-freeze rails, disperse operations geographically, and invest in more sophisticated laundering.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligence lowers the cost per victim by enabling more convincing impersonation and deepfake video calls. Chainalysis data shows average scam payments rising from $782 to $2,764 between 2024 and 2025, consistent with AI-enhanced targeting pushing victims toward larger transfers.

The tension pits industrial capacity on both sides.

Scam operations scale horizontally through replicable infrastructure and coerced labor. Enforcement is enabled by data analysis, cross-border coordination, and infrastructure sanctions.

The outcome depends on which system improves faster.

The asymmetry problem

Bitcoin ATMs and peer-to-peer cash exchanges represent the exit valves that enforcement struggles to seal.

FinCEN flagged kiosks specifically as red-flag payment channels in recent guidance, noting scammers direct victims toward ATMs precisely because those transactions bypass traditional financial surveillance.

Once crypto is converted to cash at an offshore exchange or in an in-person transaction, the trail ends. The $580 million figure captures what gets frozen before that conversion, the real question is how much exists undetected.

Regulatory pressure on stablecoin issuers and exchanges creates tighter compliance around large transfers, but compliance friction drives migration toward less-regulated alternatives.

The pattern repeats across enforcement domains: pressure at one chokepoint redirects flow rather than stopping it. What matters is whether redirection increases operational cost and risk enough to compress profit margins.

What decides the outcome

The endgame turns on defaults and distribution.

If buying and transferring cryptocurrency to unknown platforms remains as frictionless as it is today, scam economics remain favorable. If exchanges implement stronger verification before allowing transfers to flagged addresses, if stablecoin issuers freeze suspicious flows more aggressively, or if hosting providers face sanctions for enabling scam infrastructure.

Each friction point degrades the factory model's efficiency.

The DOJ's $580 million represents interdicted revenue, but it also represents data: mapping laundering networks, identifying infrastructure providers, and documenting gaps in cooperation that allow scams to scale.

Enforcement doesn't need to catch every scammer, it needs to make the factory model unprofitable by targeting the supply chain that enables industrial fraud.

The question isn't whether individual scams continue. They will. The question is whether organized, compound-based fraud operations can maintain their current scale as chokepoints tighten and infrastructure enablers face sanctions.

The $580 million doesn't answer that question. It shows where the leverage points are.

The post Crypto investment cons now run like call centers and the DOJ $580M haul shows where the money pools appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin difficulty just reset about 15% higher to roughly 144.40T.

While this is neither the first nor the last, it is the largest since around 2021. The timing is important because the protocol tightened miner economics while Bitcoin has been chopping around the mid-$60,000s with repeated tests near $65,000.

When blocks arrive faster than the ten-minute target, the network raises the work required per block to normalize issuance. That mechanism is working as designed, with security improved, block timing normalized, and production costs moved higher in one adjustment.

For markets, the key detail is what a difficulty increase does when price and fees don't rise alongside it.

In that case, mining stops behaving like background infrastructure and starts behaving like a flow variable, because the fastest way to close a near-term cash gap often involves selling coins into spot markets. The setup is mechanical, but it can matter for short-run price behavior after an adjustment, especially when the weaker segment of the fleet reaches the same stress zone at the same time.

Why this matters now

Difficulty functions as a cost multiplier. A higher multiplier raises the work required to earn the same expected share of blocks, which translates into more electricity consumed and more wear per expected coin for a given machine, unless miners offset it through a higher Bitcoin price, higher transaction fees, lower power costs, or higher efficiency.

Hashprice is the clean shorthand for the combined result. It expresses revenue per unit of hashrate, typically quoted in dollars per petahash per second per day. Around the adjustment window, hashprice fell from roughly $33.5 to about $29.7 per PH/s/day, which puts a meaningful portion of the fleet in a band where outcomes depend heavily on power costs, machine efficiency, and debt service.

Nonetheless, that level doesn't imply uniform distress.

The strongest operators pair low-cost power with modern fleets and financing that preserves flexibility, while less efficient miners operate closer to break-even. This is especially true in a post-halving environment where the block subsidy is smaller, and fees have to do more work during quiet periods.

The point is simpler: the margin for error shrank quickly, and tighter weekly math can translate into more price-facing supply when operators meet liquidity needs through inventory sales.

Why a difficulty jump into flat revenue compresses margins

Higher difficulty means more hashes are required to earn the same expected output, and the adjustment arrives all at once. Miners respond through efficiency upgrades, cost renegotiation, balance-sheet financing, or coin sales, yet those channels move on different clocks.

Treasury sales sit on the shortest clock. Power and hosting agreements often behave like fixed obligations. Hardware upgrades require capital and deployment time. Capital markets can tighten when Bitcoin and miner equities weaken together.

When difficulty rises while price stays range-bound, the stress shows up as a cash-flow constraint.

Revenue in fiat terms can compress immediately, while most operating costs stay denominated in currency and electricity. Profitability can deteriorate even as network security strengthens, and that combination tends to surface as miner-related sell pressure, especially among operators with scheduled payments.

How a miner squeeze turns into scheduled selling

When revenue per hash declines, miners typically work through cost reductions, efficiency improvements, capital raises, and coin sales, but the order in which they do it is shaped by time. The bills that arrive next week take priority over projects that pay back in six months.

Public miners carry payroll, site leases, hosting bills, and interest expense. Many also hold BTC on their balance sheets as a form of working capital. These treasury coins become the most direct liquidity source when other channels look expensive or slow. A miner that needs dollars on a schedule sells into that schedule, and the transaction turns a balance-sheet asset into spot market supply.

Markets pay attention to sellers who transact on obligation rather than preference, because the flow tends to arrive during indecisive price action, when financing windows narrow and reserves matter more. Selling can also cluster, since similar cost structures and similar fleet efficiencies can push multiple operators into the same stress zone at once.

The effect can persist for a while because a softer price reduces dollar revenue per block, which can increase the number of coins required to cover the same fiat bill.

This mechanism doesn't require a network crisis. It emerges from a mismatch between a higher work requirement on the protocol side and a market that does not reprice bitcoin higher.

What ends the squeeze, and why the base case still skews constructive

A forced-seller window typically closes through price strength, fee strength, or difficulty relief, and each channel works through a different part of miner revenue.

Price strength is the fastest. Even a moderate move higher improves miner revenue in fiat terms immediately, while many costs remain relatively stable, which reduces the need to fund operations through coin sales.

Fee strength is a second relief valve. Transaction fees can rise with congestion, activity spikes, or volatility-driven on-chain demand. That top-up can turn a red week into a manageable one even if spot price stays range-bound.

Difficulty relief arrives through the protocol. If enough miners power down, block times slow, and the next adjustment can reduce difficulty. A large upward move, like 144.40T, can be followed by a downward move if the fleet contracts.

From here, the outlook splits into two coherent paths that follow from the same inputs.

In the weaker path, price continues hovering around $68,000 without follow-through, hashprice stays near the $30 per PH/s/day zone, and a portion of the fleet funds operations by selling treasury coins. That adds supply into moments when spot markets already lack momentum, which can keep price action heavy for longer than sentiment expects.

In the constructive path, a combination of modest price improvement, a sustained fee pickup, or incremental difficulty relief reduces cash-flow pressure, and the selling impulse cools.

The constructive bias rests on a straightforward observation: a large difficulty increase reflects a deep mining base that is adding hashrate and normalizing block times quickly, even in a post-halving margin environment.

Difficulty at 144.40T signals the network can absorb industrial-scale compute and preserve cadence, which tends to strengthen the security profile over time.

Squeezes also act as clearing events. Hashrate share migrates toward operators with durable power strategies, modern fleets, and flexible financing, while less efficient miners renegotiate costs, consolidate, or power down. The network emerges with a higher-quality production base.

A miner selling phase can also function as a distribution phase, where coins move from leveraged producers into the hands of buyers willing to hold through volatility. The market can dislike the flow in real time while still building a sturdier holder base under the surface.

The clean way to read this moment is to separate fundamentals from flow: fundamentals improved through higher difficulty and stronger security, while flow risk increased as a range-bound price meets tighter miner economics.

What to watch next week

If the market is going to feel this adjustment, it will show up through a small set of observable constraints.

Hashprice matters because it concentrates the revenue picture into a single number, and sustained prints around the $30 per PH/s/day region sharpen the difference between miners who can fund operations from current revenue and miners who need to monetize inventory.

Price behavior around $65,000 is relevant because range-bound action can amplify the effect of scheduled selling, while a cleaner move higher tends to relax the cash-flow constraint quickly.

Fees matter because a fee-heavy period can supplement the post-halving revenue base.

Difficulty is worth focusing on because the next adjustment will reflect whether enough operators powered down to slow blocks and trigger relief.

In practice, the question is arithmetic. Miners either pay the power bill from current revenue, or they convert bitcoin to do it, and that conversion becomes supply that can lean on spot markets for as long as the constraint stays binding.

The post Bitcoin’s 15% difficulty spike allows one on-chain metric to flip miners from sellers to hoarders in days appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A Bitcoin developer embedded a 66-kilobyte image inside a single transaction without using OP_RETURN or Taproot.

The transaction followed consensus rules. Anyone can verify the bytes using standard node software. Martin Habovštiak didn't do this to make art, but to prove that closing one data doorway doesn't remove the capability, it just changes where bytes hide.

The demonstration lands amid Bitcoin's most contentious governance fight in years. One faction wants stricter filters to keep “spam” off the blockchain.

Another argues that harsh restrictions push people into worse behaviors and advantage large miners. Habovštiak's experiment provides evidence for the second position: filtering redirects rather than preventing them.

What actually happened

Habovštiak's write-up includes a transaction ID and verification method.

Users can run bitcoin-cli getrawtransaction, then xxd -r -p to reconstruct the file. The construction avoids the two pathways most cited in data storage debates: the OP_RETURN field that Bitcoin Core recently relaxed, and Taproot's witness structure that enabled many inscriptions.

Bitcoin transactions are bytes. Nodes enforce that bytes follow structural rules, such as valid signatures, proper formatting, and legitimate spending conditions.

They don't enforce that bytes “mean money only.” If someone constructs valid transaction bytes that also form a valid image file, the network stores and relays them.

Bitcoin can discourage certain data patterns through software defaults. It cannot prevent them without directly confronting miners' economic incentives.

The distinction nobody explains

Bitcoin operates with two layers of rules. Consensus rules determine what blocks are valid. Policy rules determine what transactions individual nodes relay and what miners typically accept into mempools by default.

Policy can slow behavior, raise friction, and impose costs. It cannot guarantee prevention if a transaction remains consensus-valid and pays sufficient fees.

Miners can include any consensus-valid transaction, especially when it reaches them through paths that bypass regular node relay.

OP_RETURN size limits have always been policy choices, not consensus walls. Bitcoin Core has historically treated these as standardness nudges, with developers arguing that harsh limits push people into worse encodings, such as stuffing data into outputs that appear spendable, bloating the UTXO set that every node must maintain.

Habovštiak's demonstration makes this abstract argument concrete. Cap one method, and engineering effort flows toward another.

The pay-to-play problem

Even when many nodes refuse to relay “non-standard” transactions, economic incentives create workarounds. Mining pools accept transactions directly, bypassing the relay network. Services explicitly launched for this already exist.

MARA's Slipstream operates as a direct submission pipeline for “large or non-standard” transactions that nodes often exclude from mempools even when they follow consensus rules. The service routes around defaults rather than breaking rules.

This creates a centralization vector that stricter filters may amplify. When regular nodes won't relay certain transaction types, only miners and specialized services can reliably land them in blocks.

At 10 satoshis per virtual byte, one megabyte of blockspace costs approximately 0.1 BTC. At 50 satoshis per byte, roughly 0.5 BTC. The “ban” question becomes “what will people pay?”

BIP-110 and the governance battlefield

The demonstration arrives as Bitcoin debates BIP-110, a proposal to temporarily restrict data-carrying transaction fields at the consensus level for approximately one year.

The draft would make new output scripts exceeding 34 bytes invalid, except for OP_RETURN outputs, which can be up to 83 bytes. It also proposes limits on payload sizes and witness stack elements, generally capping them at 256 bytes with narrow exceptions.

Supporters frame BIP-110 as a measure that protects node operators from runaway storage costs.

Critics warn about side effects and implementation risks. The proposal represents an escalation from policy-level filtering to consensus-level restriction, a shift carrying governance implications beyond the immediate technical question.

Habovštiak's experiment feeds directly into this debate. It demonstrates that even consensus restrictions face pressure to adapt. He notes BIP-110 could invalidate his specific construction, but also that he could produce alternatives using different encodings.

The underlying dynamic persists: squeeze one pattern, and incentives plus ingenuity push data elsewhere.

The temporary framing, one year rather than permanent, acknowledges this reality implicitly. A permanent change would require confronting harder questions about the sustainability of enforcement.

A temporary measure admits the problem may lack a clean technical solution, only tactical management with a limited shelf life.

The worst-behavior problem

Restricting popular data pathways can backfire by pushing usage toward encodings that impose higher network costs.

When developers create outputs that look spendable to carry arbitrary data, they increase the UTXO set, which is the database of unspent outputs every full node must maintain in accessible storage.

UTXO growth represents a more persistent burden than witness data or OP_RETURN payloads, which can be pruned. An output that encodes an image file remains in the UTXO set until someone spends it, potentially indefinitely.

The node cost accumulates rather than aging away.

This explains Bitcoin Core's historical reluctance to impose harsh limits on OP_RETURN. The alternative isn't necessarily better. Filters that seem protective can increase long-term operating costs for nodes, undermining the decentralization goal they aim to preserve.

Three paths forward

The enforcement economics suggest three scenarios.

The first path maintains the status quo: price it, don't ban it. Arbitrary data persists, governed primarily by fee markets. When blockspace becomes scarce, data-heavy transactions are naturally priced out. The lever becomes economic rather than technical.

The second path tightens policy filters while leaving consensus unchanged. Data shifts toward harder-to-filter encodings and direct-to-miner submission. Centralization risk rises because only miners and specialized pipelines can reliably confirm these transactions.

The third path implements consensus restrictions, such as those outlined in BIP-110. Popular patterns may temporarily decline, but adaptation continues as new encodings emerge. Collateral damage increases if limits push data into outputs that bloat the UTXO set.

Governance risk escalates as contentious consensus changes raise coordination challenges and the potential for network splits.

What decides the outcome

Three indicators signal which scenario materializes.

First, miner behavior. Do mining pools continue accepting non-standard transactions through direct channels? Services like Slipstream exist specifically for this, as their sustained operation reveals miner priorities.

Second, governance trajectory. Does BIP-110 gather meaningful adoption beyond debate? The proposal requires coordinated activation across a decentralized network, making political viability as important as technical merit.

Third, second-order effects. Do restrictions push more data into encodings that increase node burden? UTXO growth rates during policy tightening periods would provide empirical evidence.

The uncomfortable reality

If you oppose on-chain data storage beyond financial transactions, Habovštiak's demonstration delivers an uncomfortable message: you probably can't ban it.

You can price it through fee markets. You can discourage it through policy defaults. You can raise friction through implementation complexity.

But full prevention requires either accepting economic constraints you cannot control or implementing consensus restrictions that carry their own risks.

Bitcoin validates transaction structure, not meaning. The protocol doesn't distinguish between “money transactions” and “data transactions” because that distinction requires interpretation that the network cannot perform.

The real debate isn't whether Bitcoin can technically prevent arbitrary data, as the demonstrated answer is “not easily, and perhaps not at all.”

The debate is which tradeoffs the network accepts: centralization toward miners who bypass filters, governance risk from contentious consensus changes, or higher long-term costs from worse encoding choices.

Habovštiak's image proves the filters don't work as advertised. What comes next depends on whether Bitcoin's users and developers accept that reality or continue pursuing technical solutions to what increasingly appears to be an economic and governance problem.

The post Bitcoin developer hides a 66KB image in a transaction to expose a governance blind spot vulnerable to spam appeared first on CryptoSlate.

For the better part of the last two years, spot Bitcoin ETFs were treated like a one-way door. They took Bitcoin out of keys and operational hassle and turned it into a ticker that fit inside every normal portfolio. Money came in, shares got created, and Bitcoin had a steady, legitimate source of demand.

Across five straight weeks leading into late February, investors pulled close to $3.8 billion from US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs, the longest weekly outflow run since early 2025. Bitcoin stayed pinned around the mid-$60,000s through much of that stretch, with recent trading near $68,000 while markets tried to regain balance.

The size of these outflows is huge, and it matters a lot, but the timing matters more here. The outflow run landed as tariff policy uncertainty seeped into rates, equities, and commodities, turning the macro tape jumpy again.

Since Feb. 20, however, the flow picture has shifted, at least temporarily.

Between Feb. 20 and Feb. 27, U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded approximately $875.5 million in net inflows, including several consecutive strong creation days. That doesn’t erase the prior five-week bleed, but it does complicate the narrative.

What looked like a one-way de-risking cycle may instead be transitioning into a reset, with institutional demand tentatively reappearing even as macro uncertainty lingers.

What did ETFs actually do to Bitcoin’s market?

A spot ETF sits inside a creation and redemption system. When demand for ETF shares rises, authorized participants create new shares by delivering value into the fund. When demand fades and shares get redeemed, the system shrinks. That process connects stock-market buying and selling to Bitcoin exposure in the background, which is why ETF flow prints became a daily scorecard for Bitcoin.

This got more concrete after the SEC approved orders that allow in-kind creations and redemptions for certain crypto ETP shares, meaning APs can exchange shares for the underlying asset instead of routing everything through cash. The SEC’s framing leaned on efficiency and lower costs.

But even when day-to-day execution still leans cash-heavy, the core point stays the same: ETF flows are one of the cleanest bridges between institutions and the Bitcoin market.

Here's a useful way to hold it in your head.

On an inflow day, the ETF complex expands as shares get created and exposure grows. The market feels a buyer that doesn't need a fresh catalyst every morning.

On an outflow day, the ETF complex contracts as shares get redeemed and exposure shrinks. The market loses that default buyer, and it has to pick up the extra selling pressure.

Why do five straight weeks land differently than one ugly week?

A single rough week is easy to discount. There are always calendar effects, rebalancing, or a temporary mood shift. Five straight weeks is a different animal because it lasts long enough to chew through all of the short-term causes and start telling you something about positioning.

The cumulative five-week pull sat at around $3.8 billion at the time of writing, a record outflow streak for the recent cycle. A stretch of weekly outflows this long hasn't shown up since early 2025.
The macro backdrop is what gives it weight.

Trade policy has again begun influencing the crypto market. Uncertainty around tariffs has created a kind of headline-driven environment where a sudden repricing in one asset quickly affects everything else.

In circumstances like these, portfolios tend to get managed with much tighter guardrails. When volatility increases, managers cut what they can cut fast, creating a negative feedback loop that leads to even lower prices and outflows. The fact that they often tend to get back to the assets they cut first to reevaluate the strategy does little to calm the outflows.

Like it or not, Bitcoin lives in that “cut it fast” bucket, and ETF flows are one of the first places you see that decision show up.

The other comparison that keeps haunting this period is to gold. Gold has drawn safe-haven demand due to tariff uncertainty, with recent dollar weakness and geopolitical risk only increasing it.

But it doesn't mean Bitcoin has failed in this cycle. The market is obviously sorting assets by behavior, and Bitcoin has been behaving more like a risk position than a shelter.

When the ETF pipe stops buying, what replaces it?

To understand this, we need to drop the grand narratives and ask one question:

When Bitcoin drops 3% in a day, who shows up as the buyer that does not need persuasion?

In 2024, ETFs gave the market a clear answer. Inflows served as the default demand. They didn't require leverage, memes, or perfect sentiment, just a committee decision and a brokerage implementation.

But when that lane narrows, two concrete things happen.

First, the dip gets lonelier.

Without persistent ETF inflows, price discovery leans more on discretionary spot buyers and on liquidity providers who demand more compensation for taking the other side. That's why drawdowns feel sharper and recoveries can feel more reluctant, even when the news doesn't look that dramatic at all.

Second, outflows can carry real market force.

Redemptions aren't a reflection of the market's vibe; they're a mechanical shrinkage of institutional positions. Depending on how the product is structured and how participants hedge, a redemption can translate into actual Bitcoin being sold, hedges being adjusted, and basis positions being unwound.

The consequence looks the same from the outside: less support, more supply, and a weaker bounce.

We can tie Bitcoin’s rough patch to a broader cooling of US institutional participation, and say it was exacerbated by ETF outflows and an overall lighter positioning in regulated venues. You can disagree with the tone and framing of this, but it matches what the ETF tape is already saying.

This breaks the misconception that ETFs serve as a floor for Bitcoin. A floor requires a buyer who keeps buying. A buyer that exits for five consecutive weeks is a buyer who was always conditional.

What to watch?

To fully understand the implications of this, you need to look for four tells, and you need to know what each one means.

Watch the weekly net flow print. One positive week is a pulse, but two or three in a row is a channel reopening. If the weekly print turns consistently positive again, that suggests the institutional pipe is reopening. If it slips back into sustained negatives, rallies will likely feel like they're climbing without a handrail because the cleanest institutional pipe is still shrinking.

Watch how Bitcoin behaves on macro-red days. In a tariff-driven tape, equities move on headlines, rates reprice, and volatility jumps. When that happens, Bitcoin either holds up like a scarce asset or trades like risk beta.

Watch whether the price can rise without ETF inflows. If Bitcoin starts pushing higher while ETF flows are flat-to-negative, that tells you another buyer has taken the baton. Sometimes it's derivatives positioning resetting, and sometimes it's crypto-native spot demand returning. Either way, that is the moment it stops being purely about ETFs.

Watch the shape of the outflows. A slow drip is different from a sudden flush. A slow drip is allocation trimming, but a flush usually means forced selling or fast de-risking.

None of this will predict price, but it'll tell you whether the market’s biggest demand engine is running, idling, or reversing.

So what happens from here?

The answer is no longer as one-sided as it looked a week ago.

The five-week, $3.8 billion outflow streak marked a clear contraction in institutional positioning. But the tape since Feb. 20 has introduced a new variable: nearly $875.5 million in net inflows in just over a week.

That doesn’t negate the prior unwind, but it does suggest the institutional pipe isn’t broken, it may simply have been pressure-tested.

There are now three realistic paths forward.

1. The first is confirmation. If inflows continue for multiple weeks and begin stacking consistently, the five-week outflow run will look more like a positioning reset than a structural exit. In that scenario, ETFs resume acting as a steady allocation channel, Bitcoin holds up better during macro stress, and the recent wobble gets reframed as a volatility shakeout rather than a demand collapse.
2. The second path is fragility. A brief inflow bounce followed by renewed outflows would imply that last week’s creations were tactical rather than strategic, fast money reacting to price levels rather than long-horizon capital rebuilding exposure. If that happens, rallies may continue to feel heavy, especially in a tariff-sensitive macro environment where managers are quick to trim risk.
3. The third path is stabilization without acceleration. Flows flatten near zero, the extremes on both sides fade, and Bitcoin trades in a compression phase while positioning quietly rebuilds. That kind of sideways repair can be less dramatic but often more constructive, because it removes forced flows from the equation and allows price discovery to normalize.

The key shift is this: the market is no longer dealing with a one-directional ETF bleed. It is now testing whether the institutional demand engine is restarting.

The $3.8 billion drawdown was attention-grabbing. The more important question today is whether the marginal buyer has returned, and whether those buyers are early allocators rebuilding exposure, or simply traders stepping in front of a perceived floor.

ETF flows won’t predict price. But they will continue to signal whether Bitcoin’s cleanest institutional bid is expanding, idling, or slipping back into reverse. That’s the pipe that matters most when macro uncertainty turns the tape jumpy.

The post After Bitcoin ETFs drained $3.8 billion in five weeks it suddenly flipped positive, changing who controls the next move appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The geopolitical landscape in the Middle East has reached a boiling point following claims by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that it has targeted and struck three oil tankers linked to the United States and Great Britain. The incident, occurring in the strategic Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf, comes on the heels of the reported death of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As traditional markets prepare for the Monday open, the crypto industry is bracing for a potential "risk-off" wave that could send digital asset prices into a tailspin.

How Will Crypto Prices React?

Historically, during periods of acute military escalation, Bitcoin and the broader crypto market behave more like high-risk technology stocks than "digital gold." With the Strait of Hormuz handling approximately 20% of global oil supply, a blockade or sustained strikes usually trigger an immediate spike in crude oil prices. For crypto investors, this typically translates to a liquidity exit, as institutional players move capital into safe-haven assets like gold or US Treasuries, potentially leading to a sharp decline in the Bitcoin price when global markets fully open on Monday.

The Strait of Hormuz and Market Volatility

The Strait of Hormuz is the world's most vital energy chokepoint. Any disruption here leads to a "Geopolitical Risk Premium" being added to commodities. In the context of 2026, where Bitcoin has become more integrated into institutional portfolios, it is highly sensitive to macro shocks. When energy costs rise abruptly, inflation fears resurface, prompting a sell-off in speculative assets to cover margins in more stable sectors.

From Tankers to Tokens

The escalation began on March 1, 2026, with reports of the Palau-flagged tanker Skylight and the MKD Vyom being struck by projectiles. While the US and UK have yet to officially confirm all Iranian claims, the psychological impact on the market is already visible in perpetual futures.

• Oil Prices: Projections suggest Brent crude could surge toward $120 per barrel if the Strait is deemed "effectively closed."
• Crypto Sentiment: On-chain data often shows a spike in "stablecoin inflows" to exchanges during these events, not for buying, but as a precursor to selling volatile assets like Ethereum and Solana.

Monday Market Predictions

Previous instances of Middle Eastern conflict (such as the 2025 escalations) saw Bitcoin drop between 5% and 10% within the first 24 hours of traditional market resumption.

Why This Time is Different...

Unlike previous "contained" skirmishes, the 2026 conflict involves direct strikes on Western-linked merchant vessels and the reported death of the Iranian head of state. This level of instability suggests that the crypto market's reaction might be more prolonged than a simple "dip." Investors should keep a close eye on latest crypto news to see if the US military initiates "Operation Epic Fury" or similar retaliatory measures, which would further dampen appetite for risk assets.

The crypto market in early 2026 has been nothing short of a rollercoaster. After the euphoric highs of late 2025, where Bitcoin flirted with the $130,000 mark, a "diffuse cocktail of macro anxieties" has sent prices into a steep correction. As of late February 2026, $Bitcoin has retraced nearly 50% from its All-Time High (ATH), trading in the $63,000 to $70,000 range.

Is it a Good Time to Buy Crypto?

Historical cycles suggest that corrections of 50% to 70% are healthy "purges" that wipe out over-leveraged traders. With Bitcoin currently sitting at a 50% discount, the risk-to-reward ratio for March 2026 has shifted heavily in favor of the bulls.

As geopolitical tensions and tariff uncertainties stabilize, capital is expected to rotate back into "risk-on" assets. Investors who missed the 2025 rally now have a second chance to enter the market. If you are looking to build a portfolio, diversifying across these five projects offers a balance of stability, utility, and explosive recovery potential.

1. Ethereum (ETH) – The Infrastructure King

Despite the rise of "Ethereum killers," Ethereum remains the undisputed home of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization. In 2026, the successful rollout of the "Prague" upgrade has further slashed Layer-2 costs, making the network more scalable than ever.

• Why Buy Now? ETH has followed Bitcoin’s slide, dropping from its 2025 high of $4,950 to under $2,000.
• The Catalyst: Major financial institutions like BlackRock and JPMorgan are increasingly using Ethereum for tokenized deposit pilots. At current prices, you are buying the "settlement layer of the internet" at a 60% discount.

2. Solana (SOL) – The Speed Demon

Solana has proven its resilience after the network reliability concerns of previous years. With the Firedancer upgrade now fully integrated in 2026, Solana can process over 1 million transactions per second.

• Status: While it reached $260 in the last bull run, SOL is currently trading significantly lower, creating a "gap" that savvy traders are eager to fill.
• Use Case: It has become the primary chain for consumer AI-crypto applications and high-frequency trading.

3. Chainlink (LINK) – The Oracle Essential

You cannot have a functional DeFi ecosystem without accurate data, and Chainlink owns 90% of that market. In 2026, its Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) has become the standard for banks moving data between private and public blockchains.

• The Play: LINK often lags behind the initial BTC pump but rallies hard once the ecosystem matures. It is one of the most undervalued "blue-chip" utility tokens heading into March.

4. Sui (SUI) – The Emerging Contender

Sui has emerged as the breakout Layer-1 of the 2025-2026 cycle. Utilizing the Move programming language, it offers a level of security and parallel processing that older chains struggle to match.

• Growth Potential: Sui's Total Value Locked (TVL) has remained stable even during the February crash, suggesting a loyal and committed developer base. As the market recovers, SUI is positioned to be a top performer.

5. Fetch.ai (FET/ASI) – The AI Narrative

2026 is the year of "AI Agents." Fetch.ai, as part of the Artificial Superintelligence Alliance, is at the forefront of this movement. Their autonomous agents are now being used in logistics and decentralized energy grids.

• Why March 2026? The "AI plus Crypto" narrative is the strongest secular trend in the market. With FET down along with the broader market, it offers a high-beta play for those betting on the continued AI revolution.

Conclusion: Strategy for March 2026

Investing during a 50% Bitcoin drawdown requires a long-term mindset. While volatility may persist in the short term, the fundamental value of these projects remains unchanged. Consider using a regulated exchange to dollar-cost average into these positions throughout the month.

The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East shifted violently on March 1, 2026, as Iranian state media confirmed the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The 86-year-old cleric was reportedly killed during a massive military campaign involving US and Israeli airstrikes. While the world watches for a potential regional war, the digital asset market has reacted with surprising resilience.

Why are Crypto Prices Up?

Contrary to the "flight to safety" into gold and oil, the crypto market saw a sharp "relief rally" following the confirmation of the regime leader's death. Bitcoin (BTC), which had initially plummeted to $63,000 during the strikes, rebounded roughly 5%, reclaiming the $68,000 level. This suggests that traders may be pricing in the end of a regime that has long been a source of global instability and illicit financial flows.

The "Shadow" Crypto Economy of Iran

To understand the impact, one must distinguish between the two Iranian crypto economies:

• State-Sponsored Laundering: Used by the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) to bypass sanctions and fund regional proxies.
• Citizen Survival: Used by ordinary Iranians to protect their savings from the collapsing Rial.

Historically, Iran has been a massive hub for crypto-enabled sanctions evasion. Reports from early 2026 indicated that nearly $1.7 billion moved through major exchanges like Binance to Iranian-backed groups.

US Surveillance and the Shrinking Laundering Pipeline

The death of Khamenei marks the beginning of what many analysts believe will be a period of unprecedented US surveillance and "Operation Epic Fury." With the supreme authority gone, the centralized networks used by the IRGC to move funds are expected to shrink.

• Increased Oversight: The US Treasury (OFAC) is already tightening the noose on "shadow banking" networks in Hong Kong and the UAE that facilitated Iranian crypto transfers.
• Exchange Compliance: Major platforms are under immense pressure to freeze any accounts linked to the Iranian leadership council.

The Result: A significant reduction in "toxic" liquidity. While this might lower total transaction volumes, it improves the long-term legitimacy and regulatory standing of the broader crypto market.

Is This Significant for the Global Crypto Market?

In the short term, the answer is "not so much" in terms of total market cap. While Iran's crypto ecosystem reached approximately $8 billion in 2025, this represents only a fraction of the global $3 trillion market.

"Bitcoin acted as a liquidity pressure valve during the weekend escalation," noted analysts at 10x Research. "The real price discovery happens on Monday when Bitcoin ETFs and US equity markets reopen."

However, the psychological impact is profound. The removal of a key player in the "axis of sanctions evasion" removes a major talking point for anti-crypto regulators in Washington.

A Mixed Bag for Digital Assets

The killing of Khamenei is a double-edged sword for the industry. While it triggers short-term volatility and risks a wider conflict involving the Strait of Hormuz, it also promises a future where crypto is less associated with state-sponsored money laundering.

Investors seeking immediate clarity on the price action saw Bitcoin ($BTC) tumble from the $65,000 level to a local low of $63,038 within an hour of the first confirmed strikes. However, as unconfirmed reports surfaced suggesting that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was eliminated in the strikes, the market sentiment shifted from fear of escalation to a speculative "regime change" rally, pushing BTC back toward the $67,000 mark.

From $63k to $67k: The Anatomy of a Geopolitical Dip

The initial reaction to the strikes, codenamed "Operation Roaring Lion," was a classic "risk-off" move. As explosions were reported near Tehran, traders liquidated leveraged positions, leading to over $128 billion being wiped from the total crypto market cap.

• The Dip: Bitcoin dropped 3.8% to hit $63,038.
• The Catalyst: Confirmed airstrikes on Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure.
• The Recovery: Prices surged past $65,000 and reached $67,000 as rumors of Khamenei's death gained traction on social media and certain Israeli news outlets like Channel 12.

While the Iranian government has officially denied these reports, claiming the Supreme Leader is in a "secure location," the market has historically reacted positively to the potential removal of geopolitical bottlenecks.

Why Bitcoin Price Reacts to Middle East Instability

In the current 2026 economic landscape, Bitcoin has often behaved more like a "high-beta" tech asset rather than "digital gold." Geopolitical shocks typically trigger an immediate liquidity drain in crypto as investors flee to traditional havens like physical gold, which recently hit an all-time high of $5,595.

However, the speed of the BTC recovery suggests that crypto remains the primary tool for "weekend hedging." Since traditional stock markets are closed, the 24/7 nature of the crypto market makes it the first responder to global breaking news.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: Resistance and Support

Despite the recovery to $67,000, Bitcoin remains in a broader correction phase from its 2025 peak of $126,000.

The current "short squeeze" risk remains high. If the news of the Iranian leadership's status is officially confirmed, analysts anticipate a potential run toward the $70,000 zone. Conversely, if Iran launches a "crushing response" as promised by state media, a retest of the $60,000 support is likely.

Turbulent geopolitical events are rattling financial markets — and the crypto sector is no exception. On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes against Iran, a significant escalation in long-standing Middle East tensions that has wide-reaching implications for global markets. Major airlines have halted flights over the region as conflict intensifies, and world leaders urge diplomacy to prevent broader war.

This surge in geopolitical risk has led to risk-off sentiment across many assets, including cryptocurrencies. Investors are shifting toward safe-haven assets like gold and the U.S. dollar, prompting sell-offs in riskier digital assets.

Why Are Cryptos Falling?

The markets are reacting to a sudden escalation in conflict after the U.S. and Israel conducted military strikes inside Iran. This has:

1. Increased global geopolitical risk, a key driver of asset price swings.
2. Triggered flight to safety, dampening demand for risk assets like crypto.
3. Upended investor confidence across equities, commodities, and digital assets.

With airlines cancelling flights and political alliances issuing global statements, uncertainty remains high. Economic instability often leads traders to move capital into safer instruments, which can put downward pressure on cryptos, especially altcoins.

Below are the top five cryptocurrencies that have fallen the most in the past 24 hours — likely influenced by these macro concerns:

Top 5 Cryptos by Biggest 24-Hour Losses

1. Stable (STABLE)

• Price: $0.03085
• 24h Change: -14.71%
• Market Cap: $543M

Despite a relatively strong position, STABLE saw the most significant drop, suggesting broader market flight from even stablecoin-linked assets.

2. Decred (DCR)

• Price: $29.78
• 24h Change: -14.10%
• Market Cap: $515M

Decred’s large decline underscores traders pulling back from mid-cap cryptos during heightened uncertainty.

3. KuCoin Token (KCS)

• Price: $7.55
• 24h Change: -10.13%
• Market Cap: $998M

Even exchange-linked assets like KCS saw notable losses, indicating broad risk aversion.

4. Arbitrum (ARB)

• Price: $0.09386
• 24h Change: -8.35%
• Market Cap: $557M

Layer-2 tokens tied to DeFi activity and sentiment tend to be more volatile — and ARB’s drop reflects downturns in both sectors.

5. Aptos (APT)

• Price: $0.8915
• 24h Change: -7.11%
• Market Cap: $695M

Still in the top 5 losers, Aptos likely felt pressure from the overall market pullback.

Crypto Future Outlook

While crypto markets are known for volatility, major global events like military conflicts can sharply amplify risk aversion:

➡️ Short term: Expect continued volatility and potential further downside if conflict escalates.
➡️ Long term: If tensions cool and diplomacy regains traction, risk assets including crypto could recover.

Markets often reflect not just fundamentals, but sentiment, and right now sentiment is skewed toward caution.

Attention has shifted to whether the Iran conflict remains contained, as Bitcoin traders weigh elevated oil prices and a rising gold price.

Big Tech AI tools treat your data like a buffet. Here are nine alternatives that don't—and which one wins for your specific threat model.

Bitcoin Empire on iOS and Android pays out real BTC to players, but is the digital mining grind worth the meager rewards?

Backpack co-founder Can Sun said the exchange's upcoming token-to-equity conversion program threads the needle on securities laws.

The price of Bitcoin plummeted to nearly $63,000 overnight amid U.S. and Israel strikes on Iran, but has mostly recovered in the hours since.

The market bounced just a bit, but it already sparked a debate about a potential long-term recovery of the whole industry.

The proposed XRPL options sidechain will bring American-style options, up to 200x leveraged margin trading and a cross-chain bridge to the XRP Ledger ecosystem.

Elon Musk intensified the AI arms race by endorsing a viral critique that compares Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei to disgraced FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried.

Shiba Inu (SHIB) sees rare equilibrium among top-20 users of Binance as they split 50/50 on the cryptocurrency ahead of March.

February ends for XRP in an unfortunate way both on USD and BTC charts, and it is the latter that now flashes a -53% signal on the monthly time frame with Bollinger Bands.

TLDR:

• UAE regulators shut both exchanges for two days to prevent panic selling after missile and drone strikes.

• The Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange holds roughly $700 billion in market cap, putting billions at risk of loss.

• Polymarket puts the probability of a Strait of Hormuz closure at 48.5%, threatening global oil and LNG supply.

• War-risk insurance has jumped 50% and Hapag-Lloyd suspended strait transit, signaling rising market concern.
  

UAE markets have been ordered closed for Monday and Tuesday following a large-scale missile and drone attack on the country.

The UAE Capital Market Authority directed both the Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange and the Dubai Financial Market to suspend trading.

This move came after 165 ballistic missiles, 541 drones, and two cruise missiles struck the UAE over 48 hours. Three people died, and 58 others sustained injuries. Fires broke out at the Port of Jebel Ali, and debris hit the Burj Al Arab hotel.

Exchange Closure Signals a Confidence Crisis

The regulator’s decision to halt trading was not due to a holiday or technical failure. It was a direct response to the threat of panic selling on the exchange floor.

The Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange alone carries roughly $700 billion in market capitalization. A single session of fear-driven selling could have erased billions in value within hours.

Analyst Shanaka Anslem Perera noted on X that this marks the first time the Dubai Financial Market has gone dark outside of a pandemic.

He wrote that “financial markets do not operate by military standards,” adding that they run on confidence instead. That confidence took a visible hit when shrapnel killed a civilian and debris landed on a Palm Jumeirah hotel.

Saudi Arabia’s Tadawul index dropped more than 4% on Sunday, while Egyptian markets fell over 5%. UAE regulators chose to avoid a similar outcome by keeping screens off entirely. The move bought time, but the deeper question about investor confidence remains unanswered.

Regional markets had long relied on Gulf stability to attract global capital. That stability is now under direct pressure from ongoing military activity.

Strait of Hormuz Risk Adds to Financial Pressure

Beyond the exchange closures, broader energy market risks are now in focus. Polymarket currently prices the probability of a Strait of Hormuz closure by March 31 at 48.5%.

War-risk insurance has reportedly climbed 50%, and Hapag-Lloyd has suspended vessel transit through the strait. Around 20 million barrels of oil and nearly 20% of global LNG exports move through this narrow waterway daily.

A closure of the strait would push oil prices past $100 per barrel almost immediately. That would drive US consumer price inflation toward 5%, contradicting stated US policy goals on energy costs. The financial ripple effects would extend well beyond the Gulf region.

Iran reportedly targeted the UAE not over a bilateral dispute, but because the country hosts Al Dhafra Air Base. The US security umbrella, long seen as a shield for Gulf commerce, became a target instead. That shift changes how global allocators view risk in the region.

UAE markets are expected to reopen by Wednesday. Whether institutional capital returns at the same pace remains the central question facing Gulf financial centers.

The post UAE Capital Market Authority Orders Exchange Closures as Missile Strikes Threaten Gulf Financial Stability appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• JPMorgan analysts say the CLARITY Act could be approved by mid-year and lift crypto markets in H2 2026.

• The bill would classify tokens under CFTC or SEC oversight, easing compliance for assets like XRP and Solana.

• New crypto projects could raise up to $75 million annually without full SEC registration under a grace period rule.

• JPMorgan warns the bill may shift institutional focus from stablecoins toward tokenized deposits if enacted into law.
  

The crypto market structure bill may receive U.S. approval by mid-year, according to JPMorgan analysts. Their report suggests the legislation could serve as a positive catalyst for crypto markets later in 2026.

Despite weak sentiment across digital assets, analysts remain constructive on the sector’s outlook for the year ahead.

Crypto Market Structure Bill: What the Legislation Covers

The proposed legislation, widely known as the CLARITY Act, aims to build a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets.

The House has already advanced the bill, while Senate discussions remain ongoing. Two key sticking points continue to slow progress on the final version.

One concern involves stablecoin yield. Crypto firms want to reward users who hold stablecoins, but banks warn this could draw deposits away from traditional institutions.

The other issue centers on conflict-of-interest rules, with Democrats pushing to bar senior government officials and their families from certain crypto financial activities.

JPMorgan analysts led by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou stated, “While sentiment remains negative in crypto markets, we continue to believe that a potential approval of the market structure legislation most likely by mid year could serve as a positive catalyst for crypto markets into the second half of the year.” The team remains broadly constructive on crypto for 2026 despite current headwinds.

The White House has held multiple closed-door meetings between crypto firms and banking groups. A compromise remains possible, though no final agreement has been reached yet.

Eight Catalysts That Could Follow a Crypto Bill Passage

JPMorgan outlined eight potential positive outcomes if the bill becomes law. The analysts wrote that passage would fundamentally reshape the digital asset space, stating: “If passed it will reshape market structure by providing regulatory clarity, ending ‘regulation by enforcement,’ promoting tokenization, and facilitating greater institutional participation.”

The legislation would classify tokens under either CFTC or SEC oversight, easing compliance for major digital assets. A grandfather clause could place tokens like XRP, Solana, and Dogecoin under the lighter CFTC framework.

New projects would receive a grace period allowing up to $75 million in annual fundraising without full SEC registration.

This could support venture activity within U.S. borders rather than pushing it offshore. A pathway also exists for tokens to transition from securities to commodity status once sufficiently decentralized.

Clearer custody rules could allow institutions like BNY Mellon and State Street to directly hold digital assets. On stablecoins, the analysts noted that enacted provisions “could weigh on U.S. stablecoins by recasting them more as digital cash instruments rather than investment deposits,” potentially shifting attention toward tokenized deposits or offshore alternatives like Ethena’s USDe.

Small-transaction tax exemptions for everyday crypto payments are also included in the proposal. Miners, validators, and developers would be exempt from broker reporting requirements during development phases.

JPMorgan’s long-term bitcoin price target remains at $266,000, based on a volatility-adjusted comparison to gold.

The post Crypto Market Structure Bill Approval by Mid-Year Could Spark Second-Half Rally, JPMorgan Says appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Strategy raised its STRC preferred stock dividend by 25 basis points, bringing the annual rate to 11.50%.

• MSTR fell 14% in February, marking eight straight months of losses as Bitcoin dropped nearly 20% that month.

• Strategy now holds 717,722 BTC at an average cost of $76,020, carrying an unrealized loss of around $6.5 billion.

• Saylor posted “The Turn of the Century” on X, signaling a potential new Bitcoin purchase may be disclosed soon.

Strategy has lifted the dividend rate on its preferred stock, STRC, by 25 basis points to 11.50%. Executive Chairman Michael Saylor led the decision amid continued pressure on the company’s common stock, MSTR.

The move marks the seventh dividend increase since STRC began trading in July 2025. Bitcoin’s sharp decline in February added urgency to the adjustment.

Seventh Dividend Hike Targets Price Stability

Strategy raised the annualized payout on its perpetual preferred stock, STRC, to 11.50%. The 25 basis point increase keeps the shares trading close to their $100 par value. STRC closed at $100 on Friday after dipping below that level during February.

The company positions STRC as a short-duration, high-yield savings instrument. Monthly cash distributions are adjusted regularly to reduce price swings. This structure has largely worked, keeping STRC in a tight range since its launch.

The dividend rate is reviewed each month based on market conditions. When STRC trades below par, Strategy typically boosts the payout to attract buyers. This latest adjustment follows the same pattern seen in prior months.

MSTR Posts Eighth Straight Monthly Decline

Strategy’s common stock, MSTR, fell 14% in February, extending a losing streak to eight consecutive months. Bitcoin dropped nearly 20% during the same period, pulling MSTR lower alongside it. The correlation between the two remains strong, as Bitcoin makes up the bulk of Strategy’s balance sheet.

The company holds 717,722 BTC as of mid-February, after purchasing 592 BTC at an average price of $67,286. This purchase marked the firm’s 100th recorded Bitcoin acquisition. The average entry price across all holdings now stands at $76,020 per coin.

With Bitcoin currently trading well below that cost basis, Strategy is sitting on an unrealized loss of around $6.5 billion.

Saylor shared a tracker showing the treasury valued at approximately $48 billion. The gap between cost and current value has grown as the market retreat continues.

Saylor Signals More Bitcoin Buying Ahead

On March 1, Saylor posted “The Turn of the Century” on X, a phrase that has drawn attention from market watchers.

Based on past patterns, Strategy typically discloses a new Bitcoin purchase the day after such posts. Traders and analysts closely follow these signals ahead of official filings.

Despite the losses, Saylor suggested another weekly purchase could be coming. The firm has maintained a long-term approach to its Bitcoin treasury program, even under market stress. Strategy stated it could sustain operations even if Bitcoin dropped to $8,000.

The company has also shifted its funding strategy in recent months. Rather than issuing common stock to finance Bitcoin purchases, Strategy has leaned more heavily on preferred capital.

Executives noted this structure may take on an even larger role throughout the year as volatility continues.

The post Strategy Raises STRC Dividend to 11.50% Amid Bitcoin Losses and Mounting Pressure on MSTR appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• The Altcoin Season Index shows 24 out of 55 altcoins outperforming Bitcoin on a rolling 60-day basis.

• Altcoin bear markets historically last 7 to 11 months, while Bitcoin bear markets typically run closer to 12 months.

• Many altcoins have already dropped 80% to 90% from cycle highs, leaving less room to set new lows.

• The index measures relative performance, meaning altcoins are falling less than Bitcoin, not necessarily recovering yet.

The Altcoin Season Index is rising, and the numbers behind it tell a specific story. At 24 out of 55 altcoins outperforming Bitcoin over a rolling 60-day period, the index sits just below the midpoint between Bitcoin season and altcoin season.

The direction from its recent low is upward. Understanding what the index actually measures helps explain why this reading matters in the current market environment.

What the Index Measures and Why the Current Reading Stands Out

The Altcoin Season Index tracks relative performance, not absolute price movement. When more altcoins outperform Bitcoin over a 60-day window, the index rises.

That does not mean altcoins are going up in price. It means they are falling less than Bitcoin during the same period.

This distinction is critical for reading the current data correctly. Crypto markets remain under broad pressure, with fear at historically high levels. Yet the index has been climbing from its recent trough.

That combination points to altcoins holding ground better than Bitcoin, not staging independent recoveries.

Analyst Joao Wedson addressed this pattern directly in a recent post. He noted that altcoin bear markets historically last between 7 and 11 months, while Bitcoin bear markets run closer to 12 months.

That shorter cycle duration means a portion of the altcoin market can complete its bear phase while Bitcoin is still declining. The index rising during Bitcoin weakness is consistent with that historical pattern.

The chart history of the index shows it can move from the neutral zone into altcoin season territory quickly. It can also reverse just as fast. The current reading reflects what is happening across the altcoin market right now, not what comes next.

The Floor Dynamic Behind the Data

A second factor helps explain the index behavior. Many altcoins have already declined 80% to 90% or more from their cycle highs.

Assets that have fallen that far carry less downside risk in percentage terms, even if Bitcoin drops further. That arithmetic shapes how the index moves.

Wedson noted that two thirds of altcoins may not set new lows even if Bitcoin makes fresh cycle lows. That observation is not a bullish call.

It reflects the reality that deeply discounted assets have proportionally less room to fall further. The index rising during this period is partly a result of that floor dynamic playing out across the altcoin market.

During the middle phase of Bitcoin bear markets, history shows that many altcoins rally and outperform BTC. That mid-cycle divergence is visible in the current data.

The index moving upward while Bitcoin remains under pressure aligns with how this phase has unfolded in previous cycles.

Wedson also noted that altcoins can serve as a vehicle to accumulate more Bitcoin in this environment. Rotating through discounted altcoins that outperform Bitcoin can grow BTC holdings over time.

He acknowledged the strategy carries complexity for most investors, but the data behind the index supports the broader market dynamic he describes.

The post Altcoin Season Index Is Rising While Bitcoin Remains Under Pressure: Here is Why appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Stablecoins like USDC and PYUSD now offer yields above 4%, far outpacing bank savings rates near 0.01%.

• The CLARITY Act missed its March 1, 2026 deadline amid heavy banking industry resistance in the Senate.

• Tokenized T-bills settle instantly and globally, cutting out SWIFT fees and traditional multi-day windows.

• JPMorgan analysts flagged CLARITY Act passage as a potential trigger for major crypto inflows in late 2026.

Stablecoins are reshaping how retail and institutional investors think about deposit alternatives. Digital dollar assets like USDC and PYUSD now offer yields above 4%, delivered through exchanges, wallets, and decentralized protocols.

Meanwhile, traditional savings accounts at major banks remain near 0.01%. The growing gap has sparked fierce debate in Washington, with the CLARITY Act stalling past its March 1, 2026 White House deadline amid continued banking industry resistance.

Yield Competition Puts Banks Under Pressure

Banks have long profited by collecting deposits at low rates and lending them out at 5–7%. That spread model is now facing a direct challenge from stablecoin issuers.

Treasury-bill reserves backing these digital assets generate 4–5% returns, which platforms pass along to holders through revenue-sharing programs.

Crypto analyst Adam Livingston argued on X that the banking sector is losing this battle by choice. He wrote that stablecoins offer “zero branches, zero tellers, and zero KYC theater for every transaction” while reserves sit in actual T-bills that return yield directly to users.

The cost structure difference between banks and stablecoin issuers is hard to ignore. Legacy systems, compliance teams, and physical infrastructure drive overhead costs for traditional banks. Stablecoin platforms, by contrast, operate with far leaner models and pass savings to users.

Regulatory Battles Reflect Industry Tensions

The GENIUS Act attempted to prevent stablecoin issuers from paying direct interest to holders. However, the market adapted quickly.

Exchanges and smart contracts now route Treasury returns to users without issuers paying interest directly.

The CLARITY Act, which would have established broader crypto market structure rules, missed its March 1 deadline. Banking lobbyists remain active in Senate Banking Committee discussions.

Critics say the industry is pushing for regulatory barriers rather than competing on product quality.

Livingston was pointed in his criticism, writing that banks “pressured the OCC into a 376-page rulemaking precisely to close loopholes” that allowed customers to earn market-rate yields. He suggested the banking lobby prefers legislative protection over innovation.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency rulemaking referenced in that critique targeted programs like Coinbase’s revenue-sharing model. Whether regulators will sustain that approach remains an open question as the debate continues in Congress.

Market Shifts Signal Long-Term Structural Change

Tokenized real-world assets are already settling on-chain at faster speeds and lower costs than traditional systems.

Products like tokenized T-bills allow investors to hold interest-bearing instruments globally without SWIFT fees or multi-day settlement windows. This represents a fundamental change in how capital moves.

JPMorgan’s internal analysts, according to Livingston, have quietly acknowledged that CLARITY Act passage could trigger significant crypto inflows in the second half of 2026.

Meanwhile, both retail and institutional money continues moving toward yield-bearing digital assets. The trend is gaining momentum regardless of legislative outcomes.

The Silicon Valley Bank collapse in 2023 added a new dimension to the stablecoin conversation. Fully reserved stablecoins carry a different risk profile than fractional-reserve bank deposits, and that distinction is drawing attention from investors who lived through recent bank failures.

The deposit flight narrative is no longer theoretical — it is showing up in capital flow data across the financial sector.

The post Stablecoins Challenge Traditional Banks as Yield Gap Widens and Regulatory Debate Intensifies appeared first on Blockonomi.

World Liberty Financial has proposed a new staking-focused governance system for WLFI holders – the WLFI Governance Staking System. It makes WLFI tokens the primary tool for community governance, and allows holders to influence the ecosystem while promoting long-term participation.

The proposal’s main goals are to encourage active governance, require staking for voting with unlocked tokens, reward participation, create a tiered node system for committed holders, and prioritize partnerships with supportive projects.

Tiered Governance

According to the official announcement, the initiative aims to redirect value from intermediaries and market makers, who captured millions in arbitrage profits during the USD1 expansion phases, to long-term participants, while also applying structural pressure on competing stablecoins.

Under the system, holders of unlocked WLFI tokens must stake to participate in governance. The minimum lock-up period is 180 days. Voting power depends on both the staked amount and the remaining lock-up period. Governance rights adjust dynamically as the lock-up period decreases. Stakers must vote at least twice during the lock-up period to receive staking rewards, which target an annual percentage yield of around 2%. This will be paid from the WLFI treasury.

The proposal introduces a Node tier for participants staking 10 million WLFI (about $1 million). Nodes gain access to over-the-counter USD1 conversion through licensed market makers, receive team-building rights, and earn rewards based on USD1 conversion volume. WLFI subsidizes market makers to maintain 1:1 parity and redirects arbitrage benefits to long-term participants.

Super Nodes are holders staking 50 million WLFI (approximately $5 million). They receive all Node privileges, guaranteed access to the WLFI team for partnership discussions, and potential eligibility for economic incentives on approved integrations. Super Node status does not guarantee a partnership with WLFI.

Implementation is planned in three phases. First is the governance staking for unlocked tokens with rewards and USD1 incentives. Second, includes node tier activation with KYC onboarding and OTC conversion rights. Third, Super Node tier activation with partnership access and revenue-sharing frameworks.

Timelines for each phase will be shared by the WLFI team after voting concludes.

Pakistan Explores USD1 Stablecoin

The latest proposal comes a month after Pakistan signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with SC Financial Technologies, an entity affiliated with World Liberty Financial, to explore the use of its USD1 stablecoin. The agreement aims to support technical dialogue and understanding around digital payment systems.

SC Financial Technologies will work with Pakistan’s central bank to integrate USD1 into regulated digital payments, allowing it to operate alongside the country’s digital currency infrastructure.

The post World Liberty Financial Introduces Tiered Node System for Governance Staking appeared first on CryptoPotato.

On February 26, Lighter, a decentralized crypto exchange, announced that its upgraded liquidity pool system successfully resisted a $50 million ARC perpetual long squeeze attempt.

This occurred after approximately 600 traders reversed a whale’s position, resulting in an $8.2 million loss, and the episode tested Lighter’s newly launched LLP Strategies, capping the downside risk for liquidity providers at just $75,000.

LLP Strategies Face First Stress Event

In a February 17 post on X, Lighter announced changes to its LLP infrastructure, splitting liquidity into separate strategies for different market types, including RWAs. Risk, liquidations, and auto-deleveraging are now handled at the strategy level rather than across the entire pool.

That structure faced what the platform called its “first battle test” on February 26. According to Lighter, a trader had built a large long position in ARC perpetuals over several days, with around 600 other traders and market makers taking the short side and pushing total open interest to $50 million.

ARC perp trading was assigned to Strategy #7, a high-risk strategy with about $75,000 in allocated USDC. Lighter said this meant only that portion of LLP deposits could be exposed if auto-deleveraging occurred.

As ARC’s price fell around 6 p.m. ET on February 26, the large long position was first liquidated on the order book for roughly $2 million. Lighter said LLP was initially in profit on the position, but further downside depleted Strategy #7, triggering another ADL at 0.071123. In the end, the whale lost about $8.2 million, LLP lost its capped $75,000 allocation, and short traders who held their positions were profitable.

ARC Price Collapse

The unwind left visible scars on the ARC price chart, with data from CoinGecko showing the token experienced a flash crash in the early hours of February 27, sliding from around $0.031 to $0.025 before recovering to $0.0348.

At the time of writing, ARC, which powers the Ryzome agentic AI “app store,” was down over 9% in 24 hours and nearly 59% across seven days. The token has also lost more than 63% of its value in the past two weeks, as well as falling 42% over 30 days. It currently sits 95% below its January 2025 all-time high of $0.62, having shed nearly 88% off its price in the past year.

This turbulence matches up with observations from crypto commentator Simon Dedic, who noted that ARC’s value had dipped overnight by about 80% on volumes approaching $400 million, which was nearly ten times its fully diluted valuation.

Dedic pointed out that before dumping, the token had been “massively outperforming” despite a weak market, even suggesting it had been “heavily manipulated.”

The concerns raised by Dedic echo a broader industry debate about market integrity. Just last month, Base co-founder Jesse Pollak rejected the idea of behind-the-scenes manipulation, stating his team won’t coordinate or deploy capital to influence prices because markets “deserve to be free, open, and fair.”

The post Inside Lighter’s New Strategy System First Major Test: Handling $50M in ARC Perpetual Volume appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Stablecoin issuer Circle reported sharp growth in USDC circulation and transaction activity in the fourth quarter of 2025, as revenue and operating profitability surged year-over-year.

USDC in circulation reached $75.3 billion at year-end, which is a 72% rise from a year earlier, while on-chain transaction volume climbed 247% to $11.9 trillion in Q4 alone.

Circle Revenue Climbs

The company posted $770 million in total revenue and reserve income for the quarter ending December 31, 2025, a 77% increase compared to Q4 2024. Net income from continuing operations rose to $133 million, up $129 million year-over-year, while adjusted EBITDA jumped 412% to $167 million.

For the full fiscal year 2025, Circle recorded revenue and reserve income of $2.7 billion, which is a surge of 64% from 2024. However, the company reported a net loss of $70 million for the year, compared to net income of $157 million in FY24. The loss was primarily driven by $424 million in stock-based compensation tied to vesting conditions triggered by the company’s initial public offering.

Commenting on the financial results, Circle co-founder and CEO, Jeremy Allaire, said,

“USDC adoption continued to expand globally as more enterprises, developers, and public institutions integrated digital dollars into real-world payments, treasury, and onchain financial workflows. We saw strong engagement across our platform, meaningful progress toward launching Arc mainnet, continued growth in CPN TPV, and growing momentum for EURC and USYC.”

Beyond Financial Performance

Regarding its infrastructure and payments initiatives, Circle’s Arc public testnet launched with more than 100 participants across the banking, capital markets, digital assets, payments, and technology sectors.

As of February 20, 2026, the testnet recorded nearly 100% uptime, half-second transaction finality, and a trailing 30-day daily average of 2.3 million transactions. Meanwhile, total transactions have surpassed 166 million since launch. The company said Arc remains on track for a mainnet launch this year.

Additionally, Circle’s Payments Network expanded to 55 enrolled financial institutions, with 74 under eligibility review, and reported $5.7 billion in annualized transaction volume based on trailing 30-day activity. The company also cited partnerships with Visa, Intuit, the Government of Bermuda, and Polymarket, and confirmed conditional approval from the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to establish a national trust bank.

The post Circle’s Q4 Revenue Skyrockets 77% as USDC Supply Nears $75 Billion appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Although they have ended the underwhelming zero-inflow-day streak, the spot XRP ETFs are still far away from their initial glory in terms of net inflows.

At the same time, the underlying asset continues to fight with BNB for the fourth spot in the cryptocurrency market cap ranking, but it sits inches below a crucial resistance.

Ripple ETF Inflows Still Missing

CryptoPotato has reported on several occasions on the diminishing activity on the XRP ETF front. The financial vehicles saw under $8 million in net inflows during the trading week that ended on February 13, and less than $2 million in the following one. Moreover, it had three days with zero inflows during this time, a streak that extended to February 23.

However, investors finally picked up the pace in the next four trading days, albeit in a very modest manner. The net inflows stood at $3.04 million on Tuesday, $3.09 million on Wednesday, $1.22 million on Thursday, and $2.21 million on Friday. Overall, the week ended in the green, with $9.55 million entering the funds.

This modest amount is in stark contrast to the initial boom. After the first XRP-focused ETF went live for trading in mid-November, investors were rushing to pour funds into it and the four more such products that followed. Consequently, the cumulative net inflows skyrocketed to the $1 billion mark within a month since Canary Capital’s XRPC saw the light of day.

Since then, though, the trend has seemingly changed. The total net inflows stand at $1.24 billion now, which means that only $240 million has entered the funds in over two months.

XRP Fights BNB

Saturday was an eventful day in the crypto markets due to the strikes against Iran and the subsequent retaliation. XRP was not immune as it dumped from $1.43 to $1.27 before it rebounded to its starting point after reports that Iran’s Supreme Leader was killed during the attacks.

Popular crypto analyst CryptoWZRD noted that the asset had closed with a “dragonfly doji candle and respected the $1.30 daily support.” They believe XRP could continue higher only if it manages to close weekly above $1.3820. As of press time, the asset trades inches below that line. However, it has retaken its fourth place in terms of market cap from BNB after a quick flip on Saturday.

XRP Daily Technical Outlook:$XRP closed with a dragonfly doji candle and respected the $1.3000 Daily support. However, anything is possible due to geopolitics. Tomorrow is the Weekly transition. Above the $1.3820 resistance it can push higher if the breakout remains stable pic.twitter.com/YJaJyp0DTt

— CRYPTOWZRD (@cryptoWZRD_) March 1, 2026

The post Is the Ripple ETF Hype Over? Inflows Disappoint as XRP Fights for $1.40 appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The positive start to 2026 was quickly erased, and bitcoin began to lose value rapidly, reaching new local lows of $60,000 in early February.

Although it recovered some ground since those 15-month lows, it still ended the month in the red with a painful double-digit decline. This made it five in a row.

February Deep in Red As Well

It was almost impossible to imagine the current situation in early October. At the time, bitcoin’s price was riding high, charting fresh peaks at over $126,000, and the community was anticipating even more records during the so-called ‘Uptober.’ The reality, though, was far different and brutal.

On October 10, the cryptocurrency market experienced its worst single-day liquidation event, with more than $19 billion wrecked as prices tumbled. As many analysts claimed after that pivotal day, something in the market’s structure broke, and it was never the same.

Bitcoin started to chart frequent losses and dumped to a five-digit price territory by the end of the year. It ended 2025 in the red, making it the first post-halving year to do so. January began on the right foot, but the rejection at $98,000 resulted in another nosedive. Thus, January saw losses of just over 10%.

Another massive crash occurred in early February, pushing bitcoin south to its lowest level since October 2024 at $60,000. Although it rebounded and finished February at around $65,000-$66,000, it still ended the month with a 15% decline. This made it the fifth consecutive month in the red for the first time since 2018.

Ethereum Goes a Step Further

Data from Cryptorank shows that the landscape around the world’s largest altcoin is even more painful. ETH has been in the red for six months in a row. Moreover, it has been in the green only three out of the past 15 months.

January and February were quite violent, with a 17.7% decline during the first month of the year and a whopping 19.6% drop in the second. This is the worst monthly streak for ETH since 2018, when it was in the red for seven consecutive months.

ETH is currently fighting to stay above $2,000 after dipping below that level on numerous occasions in the past month.

The post 5 Straight Months of Losses: Bitcoin Suffers Yet Another Double-Digit Slide appeared first on CryptoPotato.