The allegations highlight potential risks in DeFi projects, emphasizing the need for transparency and robust governance to maintain trust.

The post Justin Sun accuses Trump-backed World Liberty of hidden backdoor control appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Online gambling's rapid growth raises ethical concerns about exploitation and the industry's impact on society.

The post Nick Pell: Gambling should be legal but critically examined, the ethical dilemmas of online betting, and the historical context of sports gambling laws | Jordan Harbinger appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Hayes' investment strategy could influence market dynamics, potentially driving increased interest and volatility in the crypto sector.

The post Arthur Hayes doubles down on HYPE as he eyes $150 target by August appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The failed US-Iran negotiations highlight ongoing geopolitical tensions, impacting global markets and underscoring the fragility of diplomatic efforts.

The post US and Iran fail to reach deal after ceasefire, Bitcoin retreats appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

AI-driven customer success strategies are transforming sales teams into lean, high-efficiency revenue generators.

The post Carles Reina: Customer success must evolve into a revenue-generating function, AI will reshape sales teams, and human interaction is critical for outbound effectiveness | 20VC appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Core Issue: The Role and History of Bitcoin Core Maintainers

Don’t miss your chance to own The Core Issue — featuring articles written by many Core Developers explaining the projects they work on themselves!

In the beginning there was only Satoshi Nakamoto and a powerful idea. Nakamoto started working on Bitcoin as far back as 2007^[1], and as far as we know worked on it entirely himself, until a few weeks after his release of the Bitcoin white paper on October 31st 2008^[2], when Nakamoto took on the first Contributor to the project, Hal Finney^[3].

Finney, it turns out, was critical to Bitcoin’s early success. According to recently surfaced emails^[4] Nakamoto’s node was unable to receive “incoming connections” for a couple of days after the minting of the genesis block, resulting in Finney being the only node other users could connect to. Nakamoto told Finney in a private email “Your node receiving incoming connections was the main thing keeping the network going the first day or two.”

Finney was also one of the first known reviewers and contributors to Bitcoin, Nakamoto shared the software with him and a few other cypherpunk legends before it was shown to the world. Finney even contributed code to the project before its first release, as revealed by Ray Dillinger who Nakamoto also shared pre-released versions of the code with.

In an interview conducted by Nathaniel Popper published on Dillinger’s blog, he said^[5]; “It was when we started talking about floating-point types in accounting code that I learned Finney was involved in the effort. Finney was reviewing the transaction scripting language, and both the code he had, and the code I had, interacted with the accounting code.”

The timeline roughly matches the activity page of the oldest Sourceforge web archive we have of the Bitcoin project page, where Nakamoto added Finney to the project on December 18, 2008. This decision by Nakamoto marks the first instance of Maintainer level permissions possibly being held by anyone other than Nakamoto. It is possible and likely that Finney gained developer status within the Sourceforge Bitcoin project, allowing him to download, modify and upload versions to Bitcoin to the site.

So, besides being a Contributor, reviewer, and a node runner, was Hal Finney also a Bitcoin Maintainer?

The strictest definition of a Maintainer is someone who has ‘commit access’ or write access to the primary development branch of a software project. Contributors to a project like Bitcoin may ‘commit’ code to development branches of the project, and submit ‘pull requests’ to have the code integrated to the master branch, but those updates can only be ‘merged’ into the master branch by its Maintainers^[6] through “commit access”..

By that definition, Finney may very well count as the first Maintainer after Nakamoto, but being a Bitcoin core Maintainer is arguably a lot more than just having commit access. Maintainers must also have a good reputation among the developer community and be frequent, producing Contributors.

Bitcoin Maintainers have in some cases been active developers of the project, who were well known enough by other Maintainers and seemed to be a good fit for the role. In other cases, they have been active reviewers and auditors of the code, merging code contributions that appear to have consensus, and refusing to merge code that does not.

The Maintainer role in turn carries a high status within the Bitcoin industry, and it is vulnerable to reputation ending mistakes. In some cases, famous Maintainers have had their access revoked, when considered by other Maintainers to be compromised, as seen in the case of Gavin Andresen^[7] when he endorsed scam artist Craig Wright as Satoshi Nakamoto. In other cases, Maintainers have quit the role, in response to targeted harassment as seen with Gregory Maxwell^[8].

Generally, the Maintainer role in Bitcoin is expected by Contributors to be an engineering role and not a political one. Discussions on Github pull requests for example are expected to be about the technical and implementation details of a particular commit, rather than the person making the commit, their particular politics, allegiances. Discussions that touch consensus and are controversial or hotly debated are generally relegated to the Bitcoin mailing list and other forums, as do topics of a political nature.

It is important to note that whatever power there is embedded in the Maintainer role has arguably diminished over Bitcoin’s history, as the project has grown from the early days of Nakamoto. There are even examples of code getting merged to the master branch, only to be removed again^[9] after further review, making decisions by Maintainers far from final.

Maintainers throughout Bitcoin’s history have at times been accused of being gate keepers, refusing to merge updates to Bitcoin that factions of the community support, often in part because other factions of the community oppose them. In this sense, the Maintainer role does carry a certain kind of ‘taste making’ power, the permission to discern whether a commit has consensus or not, something not easy to quantify.  

This exclusive permission to merge or not to merge may be an unavoidable necessity of open source development, as no project would be considered safe or stable if anyone could merge any code into it at any time. In an adversarial environment, a meritocracy that filters code suggestions based only on the content of the ideas and their merit is arguably the best model we can strive for, anything else is a centralizing political system.

As such, the Maintainer role has persisted across Bitcoin development history, often held by multiple people, expanding and contracting in responsibilities. The role often draws the attention and curiosity of the broader Bitcoin community, as Maintainers as well as Contributors earn, enjoy and suffer the burdens of an emergent kind of leadership, especially in technical matters.

Unfortunately, data about the very early stage of Bitcoin development is scarce, leaving us only with glimpses into what role Finney played before the Genesis block. Maintainer permission history is actually quite opaque across open source development. Hubs like Sourceforge and Github fail to expose commit access history or detailed membership permissions to the public. Records like Nakamoto adding Finney to Sourceforge are actually a rare sight in Bitcoin Maintainer history.

Nevertheless, version control systems like SVN and Git which were implemented weeks after the first release of Bitcoin, do track commits across time and branches for the public to review, giving us public insights into what has happened. As a result, our knowledge of Bitcoin Maintainer history tends to come from first and last commits made to the master repo, announcements on Bitcointalk, or other forums, and confirmation of access revocation by active Maintainers at the time —in rare cases. A significant portion of the research on this article comes from Bitcoin Core Maintainer Ava Chow’s documentation of the relevant history^[10].

The tracking of commit access or Maintainers was improved in 2014 with the addition of the trusted-keys system,^[11] which adds a white list of PGP public keys into the master branch of Bitcoin Core. Keys can only enter and exit the list via commits merged by active Maintainers, and all commits to the master branch should be signed, by the corresponding private keys, a process that anyone in the public can verify and audit, comparing the software signature to the corresponding PGP keys.

The trusted-keys system was added as a security safeguard by Matt Corallo^[12], who told Bitcoin Magazine the feature was the result of a general process of improvements and optimizations, and not a response to any particular catalyst or event.

A Brief History of Bitcoin Core Maintainers: The Satoshi Nakamoto Era

On January 3rd 2009, Nakamoto minted the genesis block^[13], effectively launching the digital currency into public beta. He added a message to the block that anchored and time stamped Bitcoin’s launch to the physical world with a headline from the British daily national newspaper, “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”. The headline is forever embedded in Bitcoin’s blockchain, a subtle yet immutable reminder of Bitcoin’s purpose and birthright.

On the night of January 8th 2009^[14] version 0.1.0 of Bitcoin was released to the public, announced on various forums including the cypherpunk mailing list, on it Nakamoto wrote; “Announcing the first release of Bitcoin, a new electronic cash system that uses a peer-to-peer network to prevent double-spending. It’s completely decentralized with no server or central authority.”

The installable windows version of Bitcoin in this first release had been compiled by Nakamoto and the source code made available as part of a .rar file published on SourceForge.net. This act made Nakamoto the founder and Lead Maintainer of Bitcoin by default, a role built into the very nature of open source development. Nakamoto would take code commits from other developers during his time building Bitcoin, download them to his local machine, review and merge the code bases, and produce new version releases, a key task and work flow that differentiates Maintainers for Contributors throughout Bitcoin history. This process would continue until Nakamoto’s departure in December of 2010 and would impact versions 0.1.0 to 0.3.19 of Bitcoin.  

Multiple updates followed the first release of Bitcoin and by the end of January 2009, a third developer had officially become a Contributor to the project. Martti Malmi going by the username of “sirius-m” made the “First commit”^[15] to Sourceforge, bringing online the SVN source version control system — a kind of git, popular at the time. Malmi committed to the ‘Trunk’ comparable to a master branch on Github, making Malmi the second official Maintainer in Bitcoin’s open source development history. Malmi would make a variety of contributions throughout 2009 including the first Linux version of Bitcoin, with the 0.2.0 release^[16].

It wasn’t until the August of 2010 that Lazloh Hanyecz — famous for having paid 10,000 bitcoins for a pizza in 2010^[17] — would join as Maintainer^[18], a month after contributing the first iOS version of Bitcoin to the 0.3.0 release.

Part of Nakamoto’s role as Lead Maintainer of Bitcoin was the stewardship of the network. Nakamoto went as far as to personally ask Lazloh — who was one of the first to mine bitcoin with GPUs —  to slow down his production for the sake of the network. “The longer we can delay the GPU arms race, the more mature the OpenCL libraries get, and the more people will have OpenCL compatible video cards,” Nakamoto said to Lazloh in 2009^[19], looking to prolong the CPU mining era of Bitcoin, which was a major incentive to run Bitcoin nodes at a time when the future price of the coins was entirely uncertain.

On July 17th 2010 on version 0.3.2^[20][21] Nakamoto added the check pointing system, a security safeguard that hard coded a certain block height as valid and its corresponding winning hash. Its purpose was to protect the chain from miner attacks that could theoretically reorganize the chain well beyond what the “widely accepted block chain” was, Nakamoto said on the announcement, adding that “there’s no point in leaving open the unwanted non-zero possibility of revision months later.”

The checkpointing system would result in a new responsibility for future bitcoin Maintainers, who would have to hard code a new block height and its corresponding hash on future releases, well into Gavin Andresen’s era of Bitcoin development^[22]. The checkpointing system was eventually phased out, as the proof of work made deep reorgs unfeasible.

The height of Nakamoto’s power as Lead Maintainer and project founder would be demonstrated during the value overflow bug event of October 2010^[23], where three transactions created 184 billion bitcoin that did not and should not exist. The number of coins the transaction attempted to move was so large that the transaction validation code at the time “overflowed when summed”, breaking consensus.  

This is historically Bitcoin’s most famous bug, sometimes called the ‘inflation bug’ and was likely the most dangerous to the project’s survival. Various community members started noticing the transactions hours after they were mined into the network, springing Nakamoto into action, who, with the help of a few Contributors^[24] including Andresen^[25], created a patched version of Bitcoin^[26] changing the relevant validation code.

Nakamoto asked miners to move to the patched version and resync the chain^[27], resulting in a roll back of the network to a state before the invalid transactions were confirmed. This was a hard fork that rolled back 19 hours of Bitcoin blocks, and probably represents the peak of Bitcoin’s centralization under Nakamoto’s leadership, as well as the peak of power that has ever been concentrated in the Lead Maintainer role.

Following the events of the Value Overflow Bug, Nakamoto implemented the Alert System on version 0.3.11^[28]. The feature — which was somewhat controversial — would make nodes at risk of a critical bug, show a warning and would disable essential features. This Alert System used messages that would have to be signed by a key only held by Nakamoto. He justified the feature saying that “getting surprised by some temporary down time when your node would otherwise be at risk is better than getting surprised by a thief draining all your inventory.” Months later Nakamoto disabled the Alert System in his final version release.

Per the SVN records, only Nakamoto ever merged the code of other Contributors and pushed new official release versions of the Bitcoin, at least until Gavin Andresen became Lead Maintainer in December 19th 2010^[29]. Andresen had been contributing code to Nakamoto directly as early as February^[30] that year, as seen in the release of 0.3.1, and would make his first commit to the SVN Trunk on October 11th^[31], a couple of months before Satoshi Nakamoto published his final version on Bitcoin, 0.3.19^[32], disappearing into history.

At the time of writing, over 1200 individual people have contributed code to the Bitcoin Core project.

The Gavin Andresen Era

With Nakamoto no longer contributing to the project, Gavin Andresen was left as one of the only active contributors to the project with commit access. Malmi had slowed down contribution as Andresen’s accelerated, so when Nakamoto left, Andresen was left as the default Lead Maintainer. While Nakamoto never made a public statement, granting the role to Andresen, he did send an email to Mike Hearn — a frequent Contributor at the time — famously saying “I’ve moved on to other things.  It’s in good hands with Gavin and everyone.”^[33]

“With Nakamoto’s Blessing”^[34] Andresen would take the mantle of Lead Maintainer of Bitcoin and would go on to expand the Maintainer team while also initiate the official migration from Sourceforge to Github^[35], a process which would take some time. It wasn’t until July 14th of 2011 that we would see the first commit merged to Bitcoin from a branch on Andresen’s official github account^[36].

Unlike the Nakamoto era of development, this merge was done by the Github platform, putting some trust on Github.com to not do something shady with the code, a process previously done by Nakamoto manually and on his local machine. It’s important to note that the differences between versions of the code are auditable anyway, Github merge or not, since the project is open source. Code merges in this era could and should have been reviewed by developers on both sides of the process, before Github merge and after, though an abundance of caution eventually led to the creation of the trusted-keys system. Nevertheless, this began a new trend in how code was merged into Bitcoin that would last for at least three years.

On September 13th, 2011, the Sourceforge Bitcoin project was officially shut down, favoring Github as the new collaboration platform, leaving the old Bitcoin page there as an archive. Since both Malmi and Lazloh were Contributors on Sourceforge primarily without Github accounts at the time, their commit access effectively ended with the official migration, as well as their slow down in contributions around Nakamoto’s departure.

On April 27 of 2011, version 0.3.21 was released, the first under Andresen’s leadership. It was also the first to include a Readme file a PGP signed^[37] message that detailed the update, contained hashes for the released installables and gave shout outs to Contributors. Among the 16 Contributors named are well known bitcoin core developers like Luke Dashjr, Matt Corallo, Pieter Wuille and Jeff Garzik.

The next couple of years saw a flurry of new Maintainers, perhaps in an attempt to decentralize what ever perceived power and responsibility Gavin held via the Maintainer role, and to fill in the gaps left by Nakamoto, Malmi and Lazloh. Chris Moore^[38] with the username “dooglas” gained commit access for a couple of months from January 21st^[39] until March 31st 2011^[40] and still contributes to the project from time to time^[41].

A few months later on the first of June of 2011, Pieter Wuille gained commit access^[42]. Wuille discovered Bitcoin in November of 2010 and soon started contributing to the project. After gaining commit access, Wuille would become a renowned Bitcoin core developer, generally credited with many small performance optimizations that sum up over time to large improvements in user experience among many other contributions^[43]. Today Wuille holds the third most commits to Bitcoin core, under the “sipa” username according to Github.  

Jeff Garzik would join as Maintainer a few days later on June 6th, 2011^[44]. Garzik started contributing to Bitcoin as early as version 0.3.21 that year and would also become renowned Bitcoin developer, bringing his extensive experience from the Linux open source ecosystem^[45] to the Bitcoin project. Garzik is generally credited with helping improve the stability of the Bitcoin client.

Years later in the summer of 2016 Garzik had his commit access revoked after “several months of inactivity” according to Chow. During these years the Bitcoin block size war had begun to heat up and Garzik was on the side of the big blocks update^[46], leading to lots of debate, and friction with some factions of the Bitcoin community, a likely cause of his drop in development activity. Garzik would go on to lead one of the failed forks of that war a year later, version Segwit2x.

A month later on July 5th of 2011, Mara van der Laan (who identified as Wladamir at the time) was granted commit access, becoming the eighth official Maintainer of Bitcoin Core. Van der Laan started engaging in the Bitcointalk forum as early as November 2010 and started contributing to Bitcoin by May 2011^[47] initially focusing on the GUI of the Bitcoin QT client and bringing deep academic experience in computer graphics^[48].

On September 19, 2011 Nils Schneider going by the username “tcatm” gained commit access after frequent contributions focused on optimising the Bitcoin client for working in the background. During his time as a Maintainer, he made big contributions helping to internationalize the client, adding multiple language related updates^[49], and oversaw the removal of the Crypto++ library, protecting the client from unnecessary dependencies^[50]. Nils worked as a Maintainer for almost a year with his last commit made in May 31st, 2012^[51].

In February 11 of 2012^[52] Gregory Maxwell with the username “gmaxwell” merged his first commit to Bitcoin after various code contributions and a full year of active technical commentary on the Bitcointalk forum^[53], starting off a three year career as a Bitcoin Maintainer. During this time, Maxwell focused largely on the P2P networking layer of the client as well as consensus and validation related work. To date he is held in very high regard by many in the broad Bitcoin community and occasionally contributes to technical discussions and debates. Maxwell gave up commit access in December of 2015^[54] as the Bitcoin block size war was heating up, due to internet harassment and other related concerns, as he took the small block position. 

After a year or so of expanding the Bitcoin core Maintainer team, on September 27th, 2012 Gavin announced the next step in his vision for Bitcoin’s future, the Bitcoin Foundation^[55]. Made in the image of the Linux foundation, which Gavin saw as a great example of a successful large open source project, the foundation attracted a great deal of attention and support as well as criticism. In his announcement post Gavin said; “I want the Bitcoin Foundation to be an open, member-driven organization, and hope that you or your organization will not only become a member but will help the Foundation accomplish its mission”. Over the next few years, the foundation would help pay the salaries of a variety of Bitcoin core Contributors and Maintainers.

The Mara van der Laan Era

In April 2014, Mara van der Laan was chosen by Gavin Andresen as his successor to the Lead Maintainer role, as Andresen had decided to move towards a more academic role he labeled “Chief Scientist”. In a blog post, published by Andresen on the Bitcoin Foundation website^[56] he wrote; “Wladimir van der Laan has been paid to work on Bitcoin Core full-time for several months now – again, thanks to all of you Foundation members for stepping up and helping to fund core development – and has been doing a fantastic job. He has agreed to take over for me as the ‘Bitcoin Core Maintainer.’”

Under the usernames “Laanwj” and “wumpus”, Ven der Laan would oversee 9 years of Bitcoin Core developments, today holding the crown as having made the most commits to the Bitcoin repo^[57] according to Github graphs, with 7,419 commits — most of them merges — to date. Van der Laan gave up the role in February 2023 for “personal reasons” according to Chow.

One of the first and most notable changes to the Maintainer role under Van der Laan was the implementation of the trusted-keys system, which was committed by Matt Corallo^[58] on December 20th of 2014. The system helped solve the opaque nature of the Maintainer role, by adding a file with PGP public key fingerprints to the master bitcoin repository, as well as a series of related tools^[59]. One of the tools makes sure that Maintainer commits are correctly PGP signed, another script can be used to verify commit signatures against the trusted-keys list of PGP keys.

By having these keys inside the master repo, only Maintainers are able to add and remove keys to the list with valid signatures, leaving a record on Git’s version control system, while giving us pull requests for the addition and removal of Maintainers, which Contributors and commit members can comment on.  

According to Corallo, the main role of the trusted-keys system was “to avoid trusting Github” to merge developer code, a practice normalized during Andresen’s era of development. Instead, Maintainers merge the code locally and update the repository.

On November 13, 2015, Jonas Schnelli was granted commit access, with the username “jonasschnelli”. He was granted the role of GUI Maintainer by Van der Laan, who announced it in the bitcoin mailing list^[60]. Schnelli who started contributing in 2013 to Bitcoin would go on to reach the top 10 of Bitcoin Contributors by commits on github, many also likely being merges during his role as Maintainer, which lasted 6 years. Schnelli gave up commit access in October 21st, 2021 for personal reasons, writing a thread on Twitter reflecting on his experience and expressing strong confidence in the bitcoin developer community that proceeded him^[61].

On April 13, 2016, Marco Falke was given commit access under the username “maflcko” ^[62]. Van der Laan announced the decision on the Bitcoin mailing list^[63], saying “Hereby I’m announcing Marco Falke as the new Testing & QA Maintainer for Bitcoin Core.” Falke contributed to core all the way until 2023, when he decided to give up commit access and the Maintainer role, for personal reasons^[64].

Less than a month later, on May 6th 2016, Gavin Andresen had his commit access removed. The decision made by Van der Laan came after Andresen endorsed now known Satoshi Nakamoto impersonator Craig Wright^[65]. Many in the Bitcoin community were already skeptical of Wright’s claims and Andresen’s position at the time was quickly revealed to be based on deception by Wright. Months earlier, Mike Hearn, a Bitcoin Contributor who was seen as close to Andresen, advocated on a podcast that Andresen should revoke commit access from all Maintainers and become a “Benevolent Dictator” of Bitcoin^[66], as is done in many other open source projects. Andresen did not follow Hearn’s advice, but the event demonstrated the levels of tension the Bitcoin community was under, as the block size war raged on, which Wright was also a part of.  

Years later Andresen would express his regrets about the events saying “I now know it was a mistake to trust Craig Wright as much as I did. I regret getting sucked into the “who is (or isn’t) Nakamoto” game, and I refuse to play that game any more.”

It would be a couple of years until the next Bitcoin Contributor would gain commit access. On December 4th of 2018, Samuel Dobson known by the username “MeshCollider” was made wallet Maintainer by Van der Laan^[67]. Dobson had been making contributions to Bitcoin since at least the summer of 2017^[68] and would go on to make over 300 commits throughout his Bitcoin developer career, focusing on the wallet side of the Bitcoin code base. Dobson gave up commit access and the Maintainer role in February of 2023 to focus on his PHD^[69].

A year later on June 7th 2019, Michael Ford would gain commit access, the first in the latest generation Maintainers who works on the role to date. Wielding the username “Fanquake”, Ford might have been the first Contributor to gain commit access by Contributor consensus, having been nominated during a core developer meetup in Amsterdam^[70] [71]. Nomination by Contributor consensus would become a trend after this period, demonstrating Bitcoin development’s trend towards decentralization, with meetings taking place in various locations and environments, and even via IRC.

Ford started contributing to Bitcoin in February of 2012^[72] and would thereafter become one of the most prolific Maintainers in Bitcoin history, locking in second place for the most commits according to Github with 4920 to date, many of them merges and maintenance related updates to the work of other Contributors.

The Contributor Consensus Era

On January 21st, 2021 Van der Laan published a blog^[73] that would break with the tradition started by Nakamoto and Andresen, of having a Lead Maintainer for Bitcoin core development. In it, Van der Laan explained that she would start delegating many of her roles as Lead Maintainer, that Bitcoin was too large of a project now to use the model setup by Nakamoto and Andresen, and effectively that it was time to decentralize Bitcoin core development.

Van der Laan made explicit a series of duties that needed to be done by others and laid a road map for making the software release process of Bitcoin more censorship resistant, such as moving the Bitcoincore.org website to the ownership of an organization rather than be under her control, while encouraging mirrors. The setup of release distribution via torrents and possibly IPFS, skepticism towards Github.com and a call out to start looking for alternative code contribution platforms, and a threshold signing scheme for Maintainers to be able to sign releases via some kind of cryptographic consensus, rather than having one person be the final PGP signer of a release, among other ideas.

The blog post effectively marked the end of Van der Laan’s role as Lead Maintainer, and symbolized a maturation milestone in Bitcoin, which came months after the release of version 0.20.0 and only days after the version 0.21.0 release^[74].

Hannadii Stepanov known by the username “hebasto” gained commit access in March 19th 2021 to be GUI Maintainer^[75] for the Bitcoin client. Stepanov began contributing code to Bitcoin core in August 2018^[76], with over a thousand code contributions before becoming a Maintainer, placing him at 5th place in Github’s commits ranking for the project with 2070 locked in to date. Stepanov remains a Bitcoin Maintainer as of the time of writing.

Ava Chow gained commit access in December 12, 2020^[77] as the wallet Maintainer, after contributing since January 2016^[78]. Wielding the username “achow101” Chow is a well known Contributor whose efforts in the Bitcoin development community go beyond github contributions, including a significant portion of the historical research in this history of core Maintainers. Chow is also know to do Bitcoin core review livestreams on Twitch^[79] which gathers an active audience, helping further technical Bitcoin education. Chow ranks on Github as number 4 with most commits at 2198, and still has commit access as of the time of writing.

Gloria Zhao gained commit access in August 7th 2022 after being nominated by Contributor consensus^[80], for the role of mempool and policy Maintainer^[81]. Zhao started contributing in March of 2020^[82] and had at least 200 commits in Bitcoin core before gaining commit access. Today she ranks at number 9 according to Github with 777 commits in the repo. Zhao is a Maintainer to this day.

Russ Yanofsky gained commit access in June 10th of 2023^[83] after being nominated by Contributor consensus^[84], to the role of interface Maintainer. Russ specializes in modularization and multiprocess work which earned him the role, after contributing to the project since October 2016^[85], with 970 commits for 7th place in Github ranking. Yanofsky is known by the username “ryanofsky” and remains a Maintainer to this day.

Don’t miss your chance to own The Core Issue — featuring articles written by many Core Developers explaining the projects they work on themselves!

This piece is the Letter from the Editor featured in the latest Print edition of Bitcoin Magazine, The Core Issue. We’re sharing it here as an early look at the ideas explored throughout the full issue.

[1] https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014863.html 

[2] https://Nakamoto.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/1/ 

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20090106201347/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/ 

[4] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/11/26/previously-unpublished-emails-of-Nakamoto-nakamoto-present-a-new-puzzle 

[5] https://www.ofnumbers.com/2018/10/01/interview-with-ray-dillinger/ 

[6] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/99674/how-do-devs-decide-who-should-have-commit-access-what-is-the-process/99676#comment112930_99676

[7] https://web.archive.org/web/20230406134017/http://gavinandresen.ninja/Nakamoto 

[8] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x7mrr/comment/cy29vkx/ 

[9] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31908 

[10] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1774750.0 

[11] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/verify-commits/README.md 

[12] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master/contrib/verify-commits/trusted-keys 

[13] https://mempool.space/block/0 

[14] https://Nakamoto.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/16/ 

[15] https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/1/tree/ 

[16] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=16.msg73#msg73 

[17] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Laszlo_Hanyecz 

[18] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.msg2004#msg2004 

[19] https://www.bitcoin.com/Nakamoto-archive/emails/laszlo-hanec/1/ 

[20] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=437.msg3807#msg3807 

[21] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/4110f33cded01bde5f01a6312248fa6fdd14cc76#diff-118fcbaaba162ba17933c7893247df3aR1344 

[22] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/bd7d9140f915d68e0abfdcd7ebdbb681c87d18c7 

[23] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident 

[24] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0 

[25] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9524#msg9524 

[26] https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/139/log/ 

[27] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9531#msg9531 

[28] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=898.0 

[29] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2367.0;all 

[30] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=383.msg3198#msg3198 

[31] https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/165 

[32] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2228.msg29565#msg29565 

[33] https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/emails/mike-hearn/16/ 

[34] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?before=a4e96cae7d3db3f7bfffd14a7fb6754ffbbc084e+46430 

[35] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2367.msg31651#msg31651 

[36] https://web.archive.org/web/20101218045728/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/develop/ 

[37] https://web.archive.org/web/20110708091605/http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.21/ 

[38] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/86c0af514b59971f7a5c3876898165667cbbeb6b 

[39] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/86c0af514b59971f7a5c3876898165667cbbeb6b 

[40] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hvevo/comment/d2t16mh/ 

[41] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?author=dooglus 

[42] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/fbfbf94deb4224ce65bdbbc9151ddd44a4128753 

[43] https://businessabc.net/wiki/pieter-wuille 

[44] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/62b427ec5532065744f9836e6a7b1676428c3434 

[45] https://bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/jeff-garzik 

[46] https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.qgx99rxpr 

[47] https://github.com/laanwj?tab=overview&from=2011-05-01&to=2011-12-31 

[48] https://dl.acm.org/profile/81474651580 

[49] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/560078a7685b33bdc8d1a94631633cb2af841976 

[50] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6ccff2cbdebca38e4913b679784a4865edfbb12a 

[51] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/50fac686541686191647ddabd87d6dae75c24c52 

[52] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9f3de58d83f54536076be44fe945f56670ef9b60 

[53] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425;sa=showPosts;start=6000 

[54] https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x7mrr/gmaxwell_unullc_no_longer_a_bitcoin_committer_on/cy29vkx/ 

[55] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.0

[56] https://web.archive.org/web/20140915022516/https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/04/bitcoin-core-Maintainer-wladimir-van-der-laan/ 

[57] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/Contributors 

[58] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits/master/contrib/verify-commits/trusted-keys 

[59] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/contrib/verify-commits/README.md 

[60] https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/20151113073052.GB19878@amethyst.visucore.com/ 

[61] https://x.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/1451268520159875080 

[62] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7921 

[63] https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-core-dev%40lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg00003.html 

[64] https://x.com/MarcoFalke/status/1627987123788824576 

[65] https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.html 

[66] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w&t=2878s 

[67] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1ca050254145ebbbbf5910bfee2e82a45e465ca1 

[68] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/41f3e84aaca82540582fd5a93fd632e752c3e6bf 

[69] https://x.com/MarcoFalke/status/1627987123788824576 

[70] https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-core-dev-tech/2019-06-06-Maintainers/ 

[71] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16162 

[72] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/27adfb2e0c1caeef3970605f519edf9058f119ef 

[73] https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html 

[74] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases?page=3 

[75] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21615 

[76] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/11b9dbb439a15ed275cba673fdc743c612ea374f 

[77] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23798 

[78] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/5ed2f16480142f0887cc1a6257ff53e2abc3e5b6 

[79] https://www.twitch.tv/achow101/ 

[80] https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2022-06-30.log 

[81] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25524 

[82] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2455aa5d7f54befeade05795ed8f5dd89d01042a 

[83] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27604 

[84] https://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/2023-05-04.log 

[85] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/18dacf9bd25154e184b097ee4e8f786d9be25637 

This post The Core Issue: The Role and History of Bitcoin Core Maintainers first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Policy Institute Warns Quantum Advances Are Compressing Timeline for Network Upgrades

A new brief from the Bitcoin Policy Institute argues that recent breakthroughs in quantum computing are accelerating the timeline for when Bitcoin’s cryptography could face credible threats, while stressing that developers are already preparing solutions.

In its report, State of Play: Quantum Computing and Bitcoin’s Path Forward, the Bitcoin Policy Institute points to two research papers released on March 31 by Google and California Institute of Technology that reshape long-standing assumptions about the computing power required to break Bitcoin’s encryption.

For years, estimates suggested that an attacker would need around 10 million qubits to exploit Shor’s algorithm and compromise Bitcoin’s security model. According to the Bitcoin Policy Institute’s analysis of Google’s findings, that threshold could be reduced to fewer than 500,000 qubits. A separate paper involving Caltech and University of California, Berkeley indicates that specialized quantum systems could lower that requirement further, to a range between 10,000 and 26,000 qubits.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute notes that the two papers take different approaches—one emphasizing software efficiency and the other hardware design—but arrive at the same conclusion: the resource requirements for a quantum attack are declining.

Despite that shift, the organization emphasizes that Bitcoin is not under immediate threat. Current quantum machines remain far below the levels outlined in the research. Google’s most advanced processor, Willow, operates with just over 100 qubits, leaving a wide gap between theory and practical capability.

Still, the Bitcoin Policy Institute frames the findings as a signal that preparation must continue at pace. The report highlights ongoing efforts within the Bitcoin developer community to address long-term risks tied to quantum computing.

Central to that work is BIP-360, a proposal that the Bitcoin Policy Institute describes as one of the most active areas of development in the protocol’s history. The proposal introduces a new address format that prevents public keys from being exposed during transactions, removing a key vulnerability that quantum attackers could exploit.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute points to a testnet launched in March that has already attracted more than 50 miners and over 100 cryptographers. The level of participation, the group argues, reflects strong alignment across technical contributors.

The report also underscores that Bitcoin’s existing architecture provides flexibility. The Taproot upgrade, activated in 2021, includes features that can support quantum-resistant verification methods through alternative spending conditions.

Beyond the Bitcoin ecosystem, the Bitcoin Policy Institute situates the issue within a broader policy context. The National Institute of Standards and Technology finalized post-quantum cryptographic standards in 2024, offering tools that can be adapted for Bitcoin. Federal agencies have been given a 2035 deadline to transition to quantum-resistant systems, while Google has set an internal target of 2029.

Bitcoin’s decentralized structure is a challenge 

The Bitcoin Policy Institute stresses that Bitcoin’s decentralized structure introduces a distinct challenge. Unlike governments or corporations, the network cannot mandate upgrades. Any change must emerge through consensus among participants.

Even so, the report points to past upgrades as evidence that coordination is possible. With quantum security, the Bitcoin Policy Institute argues, incentives are aligned across the network, as all stakeholders depend on maintaining system integrity.

The report concludes that the quantum threat is not imminent, but the timeline is tightening. In the Bitcoin Policy Institute’s view, the technical solutions are already taking shape, and the focus now shifts to how the network reaches agreement on deployment.

Yesterday, a new research proposal from StarkWare’s Avihu Levy introduced “Quantum Safe Bitcoin” (QSB), a scheme designed to protect Bitcoin transactions from future quantum attacks without requiring changes to the network’s core protocol. 

The approach shifts security away from vulnerable ECDSA signatures toward hash-based assumptions, aiming to guard against threats like Shor’s algorithm while remaining compatible with Bitcoin’s existing system.

This post Bitcoin Policy Institute Warns Quantum Advances Are Compressing Timeline for Network Upgrades first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

BlackRock Posts Massive Bitcoin ETF Inflows as Morgan Stanley Debuts MSBT With Strong Early Demand

Inflows into U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs surged Thursday, led by BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust, which pulled in $269.3 million, its strongest single-day performance in five weeks. The move followed a period of volatility tied to geopolitical tensions and reversed two straight days of net outflows across the sector.

In total, the 12 U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $358.1 million in net inflows, signaling renewed investor demand as bitcoin trades below its recent highs, thanks to Farside data. 

Fidelity Investments’ FBTC posted the second-largest inflow at $53.3 million. Morgan Stanley’s newly launched Bitcoin Trust (MSBT) brought in $14.9 million on its second day of trading, marking what the bank described as its strongest ETF debut. The firm’s digital asset leadership indicated the product represents an early step in a broader pipeline of offerings.

Other issuers also participated in the rebound. Bitwise Asset Management and ARK Invest’s 21Shares fund added $11.7 million and $4.8 million, while Franklin Templeton and VanEck each saw about $2 million in inflows.

Year to date, BlackRock’s IBIT has attracted $1.5 billion in net inflows, even as bitcoin has declined from a 2026 peak near $97,000 to around $72,100. Company executives have said the fund’s investor base skews toward long-term holders.

U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs ended 2025 with $56.59 billion in cumulative net inflows and now stand at $56.51 billion, leaving the category about $80 million below breakeven for 2026.

Morgan Stanley launches a bitcoin ETF

Earlier this week, Morgan Stanley entered the spot bitcoin ETF market with the launch of its Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), posting strong early demand and intensifying competition across the sector.

The fund recorded about $34 million in first-day trading volume and $30.6 million in net inflows, which Morgan Stanley’s Amy Oldenburg said marked the “best first day of trading for any of our ETFs.” MSBT carries a 14 basis point fee, undercutting several rival products and adding pressure to an already competitive fee environment.

Despite the debut, U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs saw $94 million in net outflows. Fidelity’s FBTC and Ark & 21Shares’ ARKB led redemptions, while Grayscale’s GBTC also posted losses. BlackRock’s IBIT bucked the trend with $40.4 million in inflows.

The flows highlight ongoing rotation among institutional investors amid bitcoin price volatility, with traders taking profits after the asset climbed back above $70,000.

Morgan Stanley’s entry is seen as a structural shift, leveraging its $6 trillion wealth management network and thousands of financial advisors to distribute crypto exposure more broadly. Analysts say fee compression and distribution advantages will likely shape the next phase of competition.

Inflows into MSBT will be watched to see if traditional banks can challenge ETF leaders.

This post BlackRock Posts Massive Bitcoin ETF Inflows as Morgan Stanley Debuts MSBT With Strong Early Demand first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

TD Cowen Initiates Coverage on Bitcoin Treasury Companies, Frames PBTC Sector as Investable Equity Category

TD Cowen this week initiated equity research coverage on three public Bitcoin treasury companies (PBTCs) and one Ethereum digital asset treasury, publishing proprietary valuation models and KPIs specific to the sector. 

The move marks one of the more concrete steps a major bank has taken to build formal research infrastructure around Bitcoin-focused equities.

The firm’s analysts, led by Lance Vitanza, view Bitcoin as a long-term store of value — framing it in the tradition of digital gold — and project a price of roughly $140,000 by the end of 2026. 

TD Cowen’s thesis holds that PBTCs, companies that accumulate Bitcoin on their balance sheets and grow holdings on a per-share basis, now constitute a distinct and “investable equity category,” distinct from both spot Bitcoin ETFs and traditional tech stocks.

Nakamoto receives a buy rating

Among the companies covered, Nakamoto Holdings (NASDAQ: NAKA) received a buy rating and a $1.00 price target, compared to its April 8 closing price of $0.21. TD Cowen’s model projects $394 million in Bitcoin gains for fiscal year 2027, applying a 2x multiple to that estimate. 

Nakamoto differentiates from other PBTCs through minority stakes in international Bitcoin treasury firms — Metaplanet in Japan and Treasury BV in the Netherlands — and operating subsidiaries in media, Bitcoin advocacy, and digital asset management.

“We are initiating coverage of Nakamoto Holdings with a BUY rating and a $1.00 price target. Our PT is based on estimated BTC $ Gain of $394 million for FY27E, a 2x multiple, and a Bitcoin price of ~$140k at Dec-26,” the firm wrote.

SharpLink Gaming (SBET) and Strive (ASST) also received Buy ratings, with price targets of $16 and $26, respectively. 

On Apr. 9, TD Cowen also cut its price target on Strategy to $350 from $440, citing a lower bitcoin price outlook and a reduced valuation multiple on projected gains, while maintaining a buy rating. The firm lowered its forecast for Strategy’s 2026 bitcoin gains to $7.87 billion from $10.17 billion in 2025.

The decision to initiate coverage carries weight beyond the individual ratings. When a bank formalizes research coverage of a new sector, it creates the analytical foundation that supports other business lines — wealth management, investment banking, and enterprise services — in engaging with the category. 

TD Cowen’s stress on this policy cycle

TD Cowen has been vocal in recent months about digital assets’ role in the current market cycle, and the April 9 initiations represent the first instance of the firm publishing company-specific models and ratings within the PBTC space.

Back in January, the U.S. entered what TD Cowen described as a rare pro-crypto policy window, driven by aligned regulators, political momentum, and a deregulatory push under President Trump’s second term. 

The firm expects 2026 reforms to come through agency action — such as SEC exemptions, tokenization initiatives, and expanded banking access — rather than sweeping legislation. It warned, however, that these gains must be finalized quickly or risk being weakened or reversed after the 2028 election.

Bitcoin Magazine is published by BTC Inc, a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA)

This post TD Cowen Initiates Coverage on Bitcoin Treasury Companies, Frames PBTC Sector as Investable Equity Category first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Japan Moves to Classify Bitcoin and Crypto as Financial Instruments Under New Bill

Japan has taken a decisive step toward reshaping its digital asset framework after its cabinet approved a draft amendment that would classify cryptocurrencies as financial products under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA).

The proposal marks a shift from Japan’s current approach, which treats crypto primarily as a payment method under the Payment Services Act. By bringing digital assets under the same legal structure as stocks and other securities, policymakers aim to align the sector with established financial market standards.

If passed during the current parliamentary session, the law could take effect as early as fiscal year 2027.

Under the proposed rules, insider trading involving crypto assets would be explicitly prohibited. Market participants would face penalties for trading on non-public information, a measure long applied in traditional finance but absent in most crypto markets. Regulators view the change as necessary to address concerns over market fairness and information asymmetry, according to reporting from Nikkei.

The bill also introduces disclosure requirements for issuers. Companies offering crypto-related products would need to publish annual reports, increasing transparency for investors and regulators. Officials say the move reflects the growing role of digital assets as investment vehicles rather than simple payment tools.

Penalties for noncompliance would rise. Operating without registration could result in prison terms of up to 10 years, compared with the current maximum of three years. 

Financial penalties would increase to 10 million yen, or about $62,800. Authorities would also expand oversight powers, giving regulators broader authority to monitor trading activity and enforce rules.

Satsuki Katayama, Japan’s minister for financial services, said the reform aims to expand access to growth capital while strengthening investor protection. She noted that changes in financial markets and the rise of digital assets require a more comprehensive regulatory structure.

Japan’s crypto initiatives 

Japan has long been an early mover in crypto regulation, introducing exchange registration requirements and custody rules after a series of high-profile hacks in the past decade. 

The latest proposal builds on that foundation while signaling a shift toward integrating crypto into mainstream finance.

The timing reflects both domestic and global pressures. Japan now has millions of crypto accounts, and regulators receive hundreds of fraud-related complaints each month. 

At the same time, institutional interest in digital assets has increased, pushing policymakers to create clearer rules for market participants.

Editorial Disclaimer: We leverage AI as part of our editorial workflow, including to support research, image generation, and quality assurance processes. All content is directed, reviewed, and approved by our editorial team, who are accountable for accuracy and integrity. AI-generated images use only tools trained on properly license material. In Bitcoin, as in media: Don’t trust. Verify.

This post Japan Moves to Classify Bitcoin and Crypto as Financial Instruments Under New Bill first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin kept part of the ceasefire bounce, but the chain still has not confirmed the move

Bitcoin is still holding above $71,000 after the weekend’s ceasefire-driven risk bounce, even as the macro story behind that move has already started to fray. That leaves the market in an awkward middle ground. Price kept part of the upside. The chain still has not confirmed that the move reflects broad underlying demand.

That gap is the real story right now. The first reaction came from geopolitics and cross-market repricing, not from obvious on-chain urgency.

Since then, the ceasefire narrative has weakened, ETF flows have steadied, and Bitcoin has held enough ground to keep the bullish case alive. What remains unresolved is whether this is the start of a more durable demand cycle or simply a macro reflex that outran conviction.

Related Reading

Bitcoin’s rebound looks like a trap as real Hormuz threat may not be over

Banks and energy forecasters see a slower repair in oil flows, keeping inflation and Fed risk alive for Bitcoin.

Apr 8, 2026 · Gino Matos

After just a few days, the first move is already old news. On April 8, U.S. crude settled at $94.41, Brent at $94.75, the S&P 500 was up 2.5%, and the Dow was higher by 1,325 points after President Donald Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran.

By the next session, the reset was already wobbling. April 9 showed stocks recovering from early losses to finish modestly higher, while oil stayed elevated after its rebound, and the ceasefire already looked fragile.

As of Sunday, April 12, the macro backdrop looks even less settled. AP reported today that U.S.-Iran talks in Islamabad ended without an agreement, with both sides blaming each other, and the two-week truce still under strain. That pushes the market one step further away from the easy version of the bullish case that treated the ceasefire as a stable reset in risk appetite.

Bitcoin still held part of the move. CryptoSlate data shows Bitcoin price at $71,568.66 as of April 12, down 1.83% over 24 hours, up 6.81% over seven days, and down 0.65% over 30 days. The asset is still trading far above the panic low near $67,000 that framed the earlier bounce, even after the macro backdrop lost coherence.

That sequence leaves the market asking, “What happens when a geopolitical catalyst hits first, then starts to fade before the chain ever shows signs of urgent confirmation?”

So far, the evidence still points to a confirmation gap. YCharts shows Bitcoin’s average transaction fee at $0.3162 on April 11, down from $0.4525 the day before and 79.79% lower than a year earlier. Even after the ceasefire shock, the base layer still looks cheap to use.

Glassnode’s April 8 note, “Bouncing in a Bear,” described Bitcoin’s rebound from $67,000 to $72,000 as a recovery that still lacked strong conviction because spot demand remained weak and futures activity had softened. That frame still holds up today. Price moved quickly. The chain still looks restrained.

The market, therefore, has three facts sitting together at once. The initial macro impulse was real. The impulse weakened quickly. Bitcoin kept part of the move anyway. The chain has not yet repriced to signal broad settlement urgency. That combination is more useful than a simple bullish or bearish label.

Related Reading

Bitcoin enters the war as Iran wants ships to pay in BTC to get through Hormuz

The move would push Bitcoin into a live trade chokepoint where sanctions, shipping delays, and market risk collide.

Apr 8, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Macro moved first, then the ceasefire started losing coherence

Day one brought the sharp relief move, with oil plunging below $95 and the Dow surging 1,325 points. Day two brought the first visible stress, with stocks dipping early, oil rebounding, and the session finishing with a much smaller gain.

By April 12, the truce looks shakier still. The failed Islamabad talks make clear that the ceasefire did not mature into a durable political settlement over the weekend. It remained a pause under pressure.

That changes the way Bitcoin should be framed. The move cannot be treated as a stable relief rally that simply needs on-chain confirmation to catch up. It looks more like a fast macro impulse that outran conviction, then lost part of its outside support before the chain ever started behaving like a fresh demand cycle was underway.

Bitcoin’s price action still deserves respect inside that sequence. The asset is holding the low-$70,000 area even after the easiest macro tailwind weakened. A full retrace would have sent a different signal. Holding part of the move keeps the setup alive.

The distinction is that “alive” and “confirmed” are not the same thing. A market can absorb a geopolitical shock, keep part of the rebound, and still fail to show broad internal urgency. That is exactly the gap now visible between Bitcoin’s price and the condition of its fee market.

YCharts shows 558,574 Bitcoin transactions for April 8, up 3.64% from the prior day and 53.47% above a year earlier. That says the network is active in absolute terms. It does not say users are competing aggressively for scarce block space.

The fee data makes that distinction clearer. Average fees of $0.3162 on April 11 indicate a network processing transactions without the kind of squeeze usually associated with speculative urgency. Bitcoin is expensive again. Using Bitcoin is still unusually cheap.

That leaves the on-chain frame as a test rather than the whole thesis. The main driver sat outside crypto first. The chain’s job now is to show whether broader participation is actually building behind the move. Until that happens, price is carrying more of the argument than network conditions are.

Glassnode’s April 1 note, “No Catalyst, No Range Break,” describes the market before the ceasefire shock arrived. Bitcoin was rangebound between $60,000 and $70,000, spot demand showed early absorption, and conviction was still too soft for a sustained breakout. The macro shock changed the price first. It did not automatically change the deeper structure.

Related Reading

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

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

Apr 9, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Fees stayed subdued even as ETF flows turned back up

The confirmation gap becomes more revealing when the chain is placed next to the wrapper channels. Farside’s full Bitcoin ETF flow table shows how quickly ETF demand swung around the ceasefire sequence. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs took in $471.4 million on April 6, then saw $159.1 million of net outflows on April 7 and $93.9 million of net outflows on April 8.

That looked unstable at first. It looks more balanced now. Farside’s table then shows flows snapping back to $358.1 million of net inflows on April 9 and another $240.4 million on April 10.

Those figures matter for the interpretation of price. They show a demand channel large enough to support Bitcoin even while the base layer remains quiet. They also show why a price rebound can arrive faster than a fee repricing on the chain itself.

If ETF and broker rails are doing more of the lifting than the base layer, then Bitcoin can hold part of a macro move without showing broad congestion. The asset can look resilient while still carrying an open confirmation question.

The two sets of data, therefore, need to be read together. Average fees remain subdued. ETF flows have improved after a sharp wobble. Weak spot demand and softer futures activity continue. That mix says price support exists, although the support still looks more flow-driven than settlement-driven.

The chain is active. ETF demand has turned positive again after the early-week wobble. Bitcoin kept part of the move even as the truce looked less stable.

Those are constructive features. They still stop short of broad confirmation.

A fee market near $0.32 per transaction does not describe users urgently repricing block space. A market holding above $71,000 while external talks fail and ETF flows rebound does describe an asset with some resilience. Bitcoin held up better than the macro sequence alone might have implied, while the chain still has not joined price in a decisive way.

ETF flows can respond within hours. Spot and futures positioning can react just as quickly. Base-layer demand often takes longer to show up in a cleaner way, especially when the first catalyst comes from war-risk repricing rather than from a crypto-native event.

The first catalyst has already weakened. The flow picture improved. The chain still looks cheap. Bitcoin is holding enough of the bounce to keep the question open.

The next test is whether price can keep holding while the chain stays quiet

The tactical framework for the next session or two remains fairly tight. One path is that Bitcoin continues to hold a meaningful share of the ceasefire bounce, even as the macro backdrop remains unstable and the chain remains cheap to use. In that case, the move looks more like a liquid risk-asset reflex with support from ETF and exchange channels than the start of a broad new settlement-demand cycle.

The other path is that support starts to broaden. That would show up through steadier ETF inflows, calmer cross-market conditions, firmer spot participation, and some rise in fees as block-space demand begins to catch up. That sequence would give the price a stronger internal foundation.

Today’s failed U.S.-Iran talks make that test more immediate because they remove any lingering assumption that the ceasefire itself solved the market’s macro problem. It did not. The truce stayed fragile, the diplomacy broke down, and Bitcoin is now trading in the aftermath of that failed handoff.

Glassnode’s view that the rebound still lacks strong conviction, therefore, remains current. Average fees at $0.3162 on April 11 still describe a network operating without broad fee pressure. ETF inflows on April 9 and April 10 still indicate a large, improving support channel. Bitcoin at $71,568 today still shows the asset holding part of the move.

Taken together, those datapoints describe a market that absorbed a fading macro impulse better than expected, but still fell short of full validation.

If Bitcoin holds gains while fees remain subdued and the ceasefire framework continues to weaken, the move will continue to look more like a macro- and wrapper-driven reflex than a fresh demand cycle on the chain.

If flows remain firm and fees begin to rise, the rebound looks more durable.

The post Bitcoin sits on a knife edge but holds $71k as “no Iran deal” spooks market over the weekend appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The following is a guest post and opinion from Laura Estefania, Founder and CEO of Conquista PR.

From Automation to Orchestration

Bots are creating a new economy. And for the first time, it is not about replacing humans, but organizing them.

The rise of AI agents has moved quietly from novelty to structure. What we are witnessing is no longer automation in the traditional sense, but orchestration: systems that do not merely execute tasks, but coordinate actors across digital and physical domains, including humans themselves. Among the most striking expressions of this shift are what might be called “clawbot” agents, systems designed to extend their reach beyond software and into the real world through human intermediaries.

“Clawbot” is not a technical category so much as a useful metaphor. Let’s imagine an intelligence with invisible limbs, reaching outward through APIs, marketplaces, and coordination layers to act upon reality. These agents cannot pick up a package, verify an identity, or attend a site visit. But they can delegate. And at scale, delegation becomes a form of leverage.

The central thesis is as simple as it is transformative: AI is evolving from tool to “smooth” operator. Rather than replacing humans outright, it is beginning to organize them. This marks a transition from automation economies to coordination economies, where human labor is modularized, abstracted, and embedded into machine-directed workflows.

As Satya Nadella recently noted, “AI agents will become the primary way we interact with computers in the future. They will be able to understand our needs and preferences, and proactively help us with tasks and decision-making.”

Humans as Callable Infrastructure

A recent analysis by Ron Schmelzer in Forbes captures this inflection point through the case of Rentahuman.ai: The platform enables autonomous AI agents to “hire” humans for tasks they cannot physically perform, from in-person verifications and document signings to site walkthroughs and logistics. What distinguishes this model is not outsourcing itself, but its level of abstraction. Humans are no longer workers in the traditional sense. They become endpoints, callable functions within a broader system.

Schmelzer frames this as a conceptual inversion of earlier paradigms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk. Where humans once helped train algorithms, they now help them act. The implication is profound: the physical world is becoming programmable, not directly by machines, but through a hybrid interface in which human agency becomes part of a broader computational layer.

The Opportunity and the Tension

This is where the ethical tension emerges, but also where the opportunity begins.

On one hand, this model can be read as empowering. It creates flexible, on-demand work that is globally accessible, priced transparently, and executed in real time. For individuals in emerging economies, it could unlock entirely new income streams, decoupled from geography and traditional employment structures. It also opens the door to a more fluid conception of work itself, one where individuals can participate in global systems without intermediaries, contracts, or rigid institutional barriers.

On the other hand, it challenges long-standing assumptions about labor, identity, and value. When human effort becomes modular and invocable, the question is no longer just “what job do you have?” but “what capabilities can you expose to the network?” This shift may ultimately redefine professional identity from static roles to dynamic participation in distributed systems.

If designed thoughtfully, this paradigm could enable new forms of economic inclusion. Imagine a world where individuals anywhere can plug into global demand in real time, contributing to logistics, verification, data collection, or localized intelligence. Ideal matchmaking: Entirely new markets could emerge around physical task execution, reputation systems, and specialized human capabilities that complement machine intelligence.

Designing Guardrails for Agent Economies

To reach that future, however, guardrails cannot be optional. They must be foundational.

Transparency is essential. Individuals must know who or what they are working for. Fair compensation must be protected, ensuring that global accessibility does not devolve into global exploitation. Accountability frameworks must clearly define responsibility when machine-coordinated actions produce real-world consequences. And consent must remain central, with clear boundaries on what can and cannot be delegated.

Technically, this requires embedding policy engines, identity layers, reputation systems, and auditability directly into agent architectures. Done right, these systems could create not only efficiency, but trust, a prerequisite for any scalable economic model.

Crypto as the Coordination Layer

The crypto layer adds another dimension, accelerating both coordination and possibility.

Crypto is emerging as the native infrastructure for this model, enabling instant, borderless payments and programmable coordination. AI agents can hold wallets, execute transactions, and interact with smart contracts autonomously, hiring and compensating human labor without reliance on traditional financial systems.

More importantly, crypto allows these agents to function as independent economic actors. They can manage treasuries, allocate capital, and interact with decentralized financial systems. Human labor becomes a service that can be accessed permissionlessly, but also verified, priced, and governed in new ways.

This creates a powerful bridge between agent economies and Web3. Tasks can be issued as on-chain bounties, completed with verifiable proofs, and tied to portable reputation systems. DAOs or agent-controlled systems could continuously coordinate human activity at scale, funding and directing real-world execution in real time.

The New Labor Architecture

In such a system, humans do not disappear. They evolve into a distributed network of physical interfaces, connecting digital intelligence with real-world action.

The challenge, of course, is that technology tends to scale faster than governance. Permissionless systems do not inherently encode ethics. Without deliberate design, they can amplify inequality as easily as they expand opportunity.

Yet the trajectory is clear. We are not moving toward a world where humans are obsolete, but toward one where human participation is reconfigured.

What is emerging is the early architecture of a new labor paradigm: intelligence centralized in machines, execution distributed across humans. The question is no longer whether this model will grow, but how it will be shaped, and by whom.

If clawbot agents become the invisible hands of this economy, then design becomes destiny. Without guardrails, they will optimise for speed and cost. With them, they can optimise for agency, inclusion and human potential. The task ahead is not to resist this shift, but to shape it before the architecture hardens and the rules become implicit.

The post Rent a human: The day bots started hiring us appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Ray Dalio's Apr. 9 TIME essay carries a geopolitical surface and a monetary argument underneath.

Dalio explicitly writes that his indicators point to a simultaneous breakdown of the monetary order, some domestic political orders, and the geopolitical world order.

The Iran conflict is the immediate trigger, but the structural claim below that is that investors expect conditions to stabilize quickly, underpricing the depth of the transition already underway.

Dalio's July 2025 TIME essay “Defending the Value of Money” argued that the dispute between President Donald Trump and Fed Chair Jerome Powell was fundamentally about the value of money.

When debt burdens grow too large, the classic response is to push real rates down and devalue currency.

In that same essay, he noted the dollar had fallen roughly 27% against gold and 45% against Bitcoin since the prior summer.

His January 2026 LinkedIn post argued that the monetary, domestic political, and international geopolitical orders were all moving through a single Big Cycle, with the current phase representing the pre-breakdown transition.

Dalio's April warning is another chapter in that argument.

What the breakdown means for hard money

Once the frame moves from war shock to monetary-order transition, investors should start questioning which assets retain value as debt instruments appear less reliable and fiat systems look more politically exposed.

In a June 2025 LinkedIn essay, “How Countries Go Broke,” Dalio laid out the allocation logic for holding underweight debt assets, an overweight in gold, and a small amount of Bitcoin.

In an October 2025 TIME essay titled “Gold Is the Safest Money,” Dalio made the hierarchy explicit, describing gold as the monetary asset least at risk of devaluation or confiscation.

Bitcoin's claim inside this framework rests on scarcity and sovereignty, operating outside any issuing authority, central bank, or state balance sheet.

In a world where Dalio believes fiat systems face mounting pressure from debasement, those properties become more relevant to investors seeking monetary exposure outside the traditional system.

The dollar falling 45% against Bitcoin in roughly a year, as Dalio himself cited, gives the theoretical case concrete grounding.

Bitcoin's non-sovereign properties are a forward-looking argument describing what Bitcoin could become as a monetary asset over a full cycle. That forward case runs directly into the reality of how Bitcoin has behaved in acute stress, and the difference between aspiration and behavior builds the gold hierarchy.

Gold wins the first round

On Apr. 7, as tensions with Iran deepened, gold rose while Bitcoin fell by close to 2% alongside broader risk assets.

That single session alone cannot support a structural conclusion, but it fits a pattern documented during the current conflict period, consisting of gold rallying on safe-haven demand and Bitcoin moving with equities and technology shares.

In February, Bitcoin's rebound above $70,000 came alongside a recovery in tech stocks.

Dalio's own words capture the distinction more precisely than any market commentary, as he calls gold the safest money, while he calls Bitcoin “a bit of Bitcoin.”

Gold offers reserve manager depth, central bank credibility, and 5,000 years of monetary precedent. Bitcoin has an emergent institutional base, regulatory uncertainty, and a price history that still leans closer to venture-stage risk.

Reserve manager data makes Dalio's gold-first case even harder to contest.

Reuters reported that nearly 70% of surveyed central banks now see geopolitics as the top global risk, up from 35% in 2024. Close to 75% of those central banks hold gold, and almost 40% are considering increasing exposure.

China's central bank added to its gold holdings for a seventeenth consecutive month as of March. Those flows describe an institutional monetary preference Bitcoin has still to match at comparable scale.

The macro regime behind the argument

The practical context for Dalio's thesis emerged from the same week as his essay.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said the conflict would push prices higher and growth lower even with a swift resolution. World Bank President Ajay Banga said that some degree of slower growth and higher inflation would flow regardless of how quickly the war ended.

UBS pushed back its expected Fed rate cuts to September and December, citing higher energy prices that would keep inflation firmer and modestly weigh on output.

That trio describes a macro regime with specific portfolio implications, as slower growth and firmer inflation compress the return on duration, and delayed Fed easing extends the period of pressure on leveraged balance sheets.

In that environment, assets free of duration risk and credit risk hold a more favorable structural position than in a world of easing financial conditions and normalizing growth.

The World Gold Council reported that total gold demand in 2025 exceeded 5,000 tons for the first time, with ETF holdings up 801 tons and investment demand up by 84%. Gold surged 64% in 2025, and analysts see room for $6,000.

Those figures establish that Dalio's framework tracks a re-monetization of gold that is already underway in institutional markets.

Bitcoin has benefited from some of the same forces, but with higher volatility, shallower institutional depth, and less central bank participation.

What could follow

In the bull case for Bitcoin, markets move from pricing a war shock to pricing a monetary order repricing.

Investors who have absorbed the IMF's growth warnings, the World Bank's inflation expectations, and UBS's delayed-easing outlook are starting to ask which assets belong in a portfolio built for chronic debasement.

Bitcoin's fixed supply, its position outside sovereign balance sheets, and Dalio's explicit inclusion in the relevant portfolio bucket all provide a credible entry point.

The dollar's documented decline against both gold and Bitcoin supports the case that this repricing has already begun in price terms, even as institutional flows build toward it.

In the bear case, energy shocks and tighter financial conditions hold as the dominant market forces. Bitcoin keeps trading with technology equities and broader risk sentiment, while gold captures the safe-haven allocation that a fragmented monetary world drives toward it.

Investors seeking hard-money protection reach for the asset with five thousand years of precedent and direct central-bank demand, leaving Bitcoin as a higher-beta satellite that participates in the eventual repricing but lags in the initial flight to safety.

The documentation of Bitcoin's tech-correlated behavior and gold's safe-haven performance across the current conflict period supports this as the more immediate trajectory.

Dalio's own wording resolves the ambiguity as cleanly as anything can, treating gold as the safest money and Bitcoin as “a bit of Bitcoin.”

That hierarchy is a precise placement of Bitcoin within a framework built for the breakdown of an old order, one that belongs in the portfolio for the world Dalio sees coming.

The post Ray Dalio issues economic “war thesis” showing dollar-debasement against Bitcoin appeared first on CryptoSlate.

First Lady Melania Trump’s unexpected White House address forcefully denying any ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and her unprecedented call for congressional hearings for his victims has sparked a political firestorm.

In a surprise April 9 announcement, the first lady addressed reporters at the White House to categorically dismantle rumors regarding her past. She declared:

“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today.”

However, the politically charged statement has failed to lift market sentiment around the MELANIA token.

Melania Trump denies links with Jeffrey Epstein

The first lady also took aim at what she described as “mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation” by individuals she called devoid of ethical standards.

Melania Trump's remarks were sweeping in their scope. She forcefully rebutted persistent online rumors that Epstein was the one who introduced her to Donald Trump.

“I am not Epstein’s victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump,” she said, noting that her initial encounter with her husband occurred by chance at a New York City party in 1998, a meeting documented in her book, MELANIA. A book by Michael Wolff had claimed she was first introduced to her husband through a modeling agent tied to Epstein.

The first lady also clarified that her first encounter with Epstein was in 2000 at a shared event, noting that “overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.”

Attempting to sever any perceived ties to Epstein’s inner circle, Melania Trump minimized her past communications with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted accomplice. She stated:

“My email reply to Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence.”

The first lady also addressed a widely circulated, digitally altered image that social media users falsely claimed was shared by French President Emmanuel Macron, purporting to show her alongside Epstein.

She warned:

“Numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me have been circulating on social media for years now. These images and stories are completely false.”

In her speech, she noted that her legal team has already successfully forced retractions and apologies from entities such as The Daily Beast, James Carville, and Harper's Collins UK.

At the end of her speech, the first lady made a direct appeal to lawmakers to investigate the broader network surrounding the disgraced financier. She stated:

“I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors. Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress, with the power of sworn testimony… Then, and only then, will we have the truth.”

Notably, President Donald Trump has also repeatedly denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein. However, the president has faced sustained pressure to detail his knowledge of Epstein's sprawling web of influence.

MELANIA price struggles continue

However, the political spectacle has landed with a thud in the crypto market.

The first lady’s namesake cryptocurrency, the MELANIA token, continues to languish near historic lows, entirely unfazed by the renewed media spotlight.

The failure of such a high-profile, controversy-laden public appearance to generate even a temporary uptrend reflects the evaporating speculative interest in politically themed meme coins.

Related Reading

MELANIA memecoin insiders reportedly make over $150 million including pre-sale trades

Financial Times reports regulatory gaps and political branding in digital assets challenge crypto market integrity.

May 6, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

According to CryptoSlate data, the token is currently trading at roughly $0.10, down more than 3% over the past 24 hours despite wall-to-wall cable news coverage of her remarks. More notably, MELANIA has plunged approximately 99% from its January 2025 peak of $13.70.

The disconnect between the political uproar and the crypto market's indifference is stark.

In the crypto ecosystem, the “attention economy” typically dictates that this kind of public appearance is good for meme coins, which thrive on virality and name recognition rather than underlying utility.

Yet, the gravity of the Epstein scandal appears to have overridden the typical market mechanics.

The post Melania Trump’s surprise Epstein denial fails to halt 99% crash of her memecoin appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin might trade around the clock, but its liquidity doesn't anymore. The asset that was supposed to become more resilient after absorbing billions in institutional capital through ETFs has instead developed a split personality, one that looks deep and orderly during New York trading hours and considerably more fragile once Wall Street's desks go dark.

Fresh data from Kaiko published this week quantifies what many traders have felt for a while: the same ETF-driven maturation that deepened Bitcoin's weekday market has hollowed out its weekend trading, creating a two-tier trading environment where smaller participants absorb a disproportionate share of risk.

Since spot Bitcoin ETFs launched in January 2024, institutional participation has concentrated during US weekday sessions, pushing the share of trading volume occurring in those hours to roughly 47%, according to Kaiko's analysis.

Weekday volumes now consistently run at double weekend levels, a gap that has widened throughout 2025 and into 2026 as institutional allocations have grown. The promise of a uniform 24/7 market, the feature that was supposed to distinguish crypto from everything else in finance, is weakening in practice because Bitcoin is still open every Saturday and Sunday, while the capital that provides its depth isn't.

BTC still trades 24/7, but serious liquidity is becoming more selective

The shift is seen in what traders call orderbook depth, the total dollar value of buy and sell orders sitting within a given distance of the current price. It's an important measure of liquidity, as it functions as a rough measure of how much selling or buying a market can absorb before the price starts moving against you.

Kaiko tracks depth at 1% from the midpoint, meaning all the resting orders within one percent above and below the current Bitcoin price, and that figure varies enormously depending on where you trade. Binance consistently provides around $30 million in depth at that level, while Coinbase ranges between $16 million and $20 million.

Secondary exchanges, including Gemini, Bybit, and OKX, typically show $10 million to $15 million in volume, producing a two-to-three-times differential that translates directly into worse prices for anyone placing a meaningful order on the wrong platform.

That differential doesn't remain stable under stress, and in fact, it tends to blow out almost exactly when it would be most costly. During the tariff-driven sell-off last October, BTC spot prices diverged materially across venues within minutes, with Binance quoting $102,318, OKX showing $102,142, and Bybit lagging at $101,675, a $643 spread that persisted for several minutes rather than the seconds one would expect if the usual automated arbitrage mechanisms were closing gaps efficiently.

The pattern repeated during March 2026's geopolitical escalation in the Middle East, when the cost of trading BTC-USDT on Bybit surged 230% from its normal level, with similar spikes on OKX and Binance. Both episodes began on weekends, when institutional participants had already stepped away, and order books were at their thinnest.

Related Reading

Bitcoin’s rebound looks like a trap as real Hormuz threat may not be over

Banks and energy forecasters see a slower repair in oil flows, keeping inflation and Fed risk alive for Bitcoin.

Apr 8, 2026 · Gino Matos

When Wall Street closes, the gap between “the price” and your price can widen fast

This has some very real and tangible consequences. On Feb. 1, Bitcoin price plunged below $78,000 on a Saturday afternoon, triggering roughly $2.2 billion in liquidations across more than 335,000 traders within 24 hours.

The drawdown was amplified by structurally thin weekend liquidity rather than by any crypto-specific fundamental breakdown, meaning the market wasn't responding to bad news about Bitcoin so much as to the mechanical reality that fewer participants were present to absorb selling pressure.

A subsequent VanEck analysis of the broader February sell-off found that Bitcoin's single-day price move on Feb. 5 ranked among the fastest crashes in the asset's recorded history by statistical measures of speed and magnitude, the kind of extreme event that probability models would predict almost never occurs, yet has now surfaced twice in five months.

A trader buying or selling on a Saturday evening, or on any secondary venue during elevated volatility, may not receive anything close to the consensus Bitcoin price they believe they're transacting at.

The gap between the quoted price and the executed price tends to widen when the consequences of a bad fill are most severe, and that asymmetry falls hardest on the participants who lack the institutional infrastructure to wait for better conditions.

Related Reading

Bitcoin whales are dumping massive amounts of supply on exchanges as liquidations mirror the 2022 FTX market collapse

Traders scramble for “smoking gun” as rumors fly, but ETF outflows and whale deposits offer clearer clues to Bitcoin's steep decline.

Feb 6, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

While retail traders clearly still participate in crypto, Kaiko's research suggests they've been pushed into the thinner, less protected parts of it. In terms of time, retail is more exposed during off-hours and weekends, the periods when ETF flows are inactive and institutional market-making retreats.

In terms of geography, retail remains dominant in markets that don't resemble the US ETF-driven Bitcoin trade at all, with South Korea continuing to run heavily on retail participation and altcoin volume while Turkey's crypto activity reflects macro-stress hedging and stablecoin demand rather than the institutional activity we've seen surge in the US.

There's also an asset dimension to the split.

Institutional capital, channeled through ETFs and prime brokerage arrangements, has standardized Bitcoin trading more than anything else in crypto, concentrating sophisticated market-making and deep liquidity around BTC, leaving the rest of the landscape (altcoins, local-currency pairs, smaller platforms) with thinner coverage and less professional support. Speculative and fragmented activity persists in abundance across the broader market, just not in the same exchanges and hours that institutions have colonized.

Same Bitcoin, different market quality

What emerges from this data is something that's increasingly difficult to deny: there may now be two Bitcoin markets running in parallel. A deeper, more efficient, institution-shaped weekday market accessible through ETFs and prime venues, and a thinner, more volatile off-hours market where smaller traders are more likely to be present and more likely to bear the cost of poor execution.

In theory, Bitcoin is the same asset for everyone, but in practice, the quality of the market you encounter depends heavily on when you trade and where you trade.

None of this is an argument that ETFs broke Bitcoin. Institutional participation has brought real benefits, including deeper aggregate liquidity, tighter average spreads during normal conditions, and a degree of legitimacy that none of the previous cycles had.

Cumulative net inflows into US spot Bitcoin ETFs still sit around $53 to $54 billion since launch, even after heavy outflows in early 2026, and they've absorbed enormous capital and survived genuine volatility without collapsing.

But the same forces that improved Bitcoin's best hours appear to have exposed how uneven the market becomes when that participation recedes, delivering maturity for some sessions while leaving fragility in others.

The post How institutions made Bitcoin a weekday market so retail takes on all the weekend risk appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Saudi Arabia has officially announced the full restoration of its East-West pipeline. By successfully bypassing the volatile Strait of Hormuz, the Kingdom is now pumping approximately 7,000,000 barrels per day (bpd) toward Red Sea terminals. While the immediate reaction in the financial markets has been focused on crude prices, the implications for the digital asset space are profound.

This restoration isn't just an infrastructure win; it represents a major shift toward regional stability and lower energy-driven inflation. For investors watching the latest crypto news, this development serves as a foundational pillar for a medium-term bullish environment in the cryptocurrency market.

How Does Oil Affect Crypto?

The primary question investors ask is: Does cheaper oil mean higher crypto prices? The answer is a qualified yes, but with a delay. Historically, lower energy costs reduce global inflation expectations. When inflation cools, central banks—including the US Federal Reserve—often pivot toward a more dovish monetary policy.

As interest rate hikes pause or reverse, global liquidity increases. Since Bitcoin and Ethereum are highly sensitive to liquidity cycles, the stabilization of oil supplies through the East-West pipeline creates the exact macro conditions needed for a sustained crypto uptrend.

The Strategic Importance of the East-West Pipeline

The East-West pipeline, spanning 746 miles from the Eastern Province to the port of Yanbu, allows Saudi Arabia to avoid the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint often subject to geopolitical tensions.

Key Data Points of the Restoration:

• Total Capacity: 7 million barrels per day.
• Strategic Shift: Quadrupling shipments via the Red Sea to mitigate Persian Gulf risks.
• Operational Resilience: Restoration follows the rehabilitation of pumping stations previously impacted by regional conflict.

By securing this "lifeline," Saudi Arabia reduces the "risk premium" typically priced into global commodities. According to reports from Bloomberg, this bypass is a primary reason why oil prices have avoided crisis-level spikes despite ongoing regional uncertainties.

Will Crypto Prices go UP?

While the news is fundamentally positive, the Bitcoin price might not jump overnight. The transmission from oil stability to crypto growth follows a specific "medium-term" logic:

• Energy Prices Drop: Increased supply via the Red Sea stabilizes Brent crude.
• Inflation Cools: Lower transport and manufacturing costs lead to lower CPI readings.
• Monetary Policy Eases: Central banks stop "draining the swamp" of liquidity.
• Risk-On Sentiment Returns: Investors move capital from "safe havens" like gold back into growth assets like Bitcoin and Altcoins.

Crypto and Pil Future: Institutional Confidence and Vision 2030

Saudi Arabia isn't just stabilizing oil; it’s aggressively diversifying. Under Vision 2030, the Kingdom has shown increasing interest in blockchain and digital finance. Recent collaborations involving the Saudi Central Bank in projects like mBridge—a cross-border CBDC platform—highlight a shift toward a digitized financial future.

As the Kingdom secures its oil revenue through smarter infrastructure, its ability to invest in emerging technologies increases. This "petro-liquidity" often finds its way into global venture capital, eventually trickling down into the crypto ecosystem.

The global financial landscape shifted early Sunday morning as marathon diplomatic sessions between the United States and Iran failed to produce a lasting peace agreement. After 21 hours of intense negotiations in Islamabad, Pakistan, the temporary optimism that had recently pushed the $Bitcoin price toward yearly highs has evaporated.

Why Did Crypto Prices Crash?

Crypto prices decreased primarily due to the breakdown of high-stakes negotiations between US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian officials. This failure ended the brief "ceasefire rally" that had seen Bitcoin surge past $73,000 earlier this week. As the "Risk-Off" sentiment returned to global markets, Bitcoin retraced from its peak of $73,000 down to approximately $71,500 within hours of the official announcement.

Geopolitical Tension and Market Volatility

Geopolitical instability has historically acted as a double-edged sword for digital assets. While Bitcoin is often touted as "digital gold," its current price action reflects its status as a high-beta risk asset. The failure in Islamabad has led to:

• A reversal of the "Peace Premium": Market participants who bought into the ceasefire news are now liquidating positions.
• Rising Oil Prices: As reported by MarketWatch, oil futures surged as the prospect of a reopened Strait of Hormuz faded.
• Liquidity Exodus: Traders are moving capital toward traditional safe havens, momentarily cooling the crypto news cycle’s bullish momentum.

The "Ceasefire Retracement"

A retracement in this context refers to a temporary reversal in the direction of Bitcoin's price. Following the news of the initial two-week ceasefire on April 7, BTC gained over 5%. However, the inability to turn that ceasefire into a permanent deal caused a "bull trap," where the price hit $73,000 before falling back to the $71,500 support zone.

Impact on Major Altcoins

The ripple effect was felt across all major trading pairs. As Bitcoin slipped, other assets followed:

• Ethereum (ETH): Struggling to maintain the $2,200 level.
• Solana (SOL): Saw a sharp rejection after testing the $85 mark.
• Market Sentiment: The "Fear and Greed Index," which had briefly recovered, is once again trending toward "Extreme Fear" as uncertainty regarding the Strait of Hormuz persists.

Key Data Points

Is Magic Eden Really Closing?

Recently, headlines have suggested that Magic Eden is shutting down, sparking concern among NFT collectors. However, the reality is more nuanced. While Magic Eden is not disappearing entirely, it has made a drastic decision to "sunset" major parts of its business, including its Bitcoin and Ethereum-compatible marketplaces.

This move is part of a broader trend in 2026 where even the largest blockchain projects are forced to cut costs and narrow their focus to survive a competitive landscape.

The Short Answer: What’s Staying and What’s Going

Magic Eden has officially closed its trading platforms for Bitcoin (Ordinals/Runes) and EVM chains (Ethereum, Polygon, and Avalanche).

Crucially, the platform is keeping its Solana marketplace open. Solana has always been the heart of Magic Eden’s volume, and the company is returning to its roots. However, for users of their multi-chain wallet, the situation is urgent: the wallet is now in "export-only" mode and will be completely inaccessible by May 1, 2026.

Why did Magic Eden Shut Down its Services?

In the crypto industry, a "pivot" is often a polite way of saying a project is scaling back unsuccessful ventures. For Magic Eden, managing a multi-chain empire proved too expensive. By discontinuing support for Bitcoin and Ethereum, they can stop spreading their engineering team too thin.

Instead, they are moving into "crypto entertainment." This includes a new iGaming and gambling platform called Dicey. The goal is to integrate their upcoming $ME token into a smaller, more profitable ecosystem rather than trying to be a general-purpose exchange platform for every blockchain in existence.

How This Fits Into the Global Crypto Market

Magic Eden isn't alone. In the first half of 2026, over 20 significant blockchain projects have announced either full or partial shutdowns. As the market matures, the "expand at all costs" strategy of 2021-2024 is being replaced by a focus on sustainable revenue.

We are seeing a massive consolidation. Just as some users move back to traditional bitcoin hardware wallets for safety, platforms are moving back to the single chains where they have the most users. For Magic Eden, that is Solana.

Important Deadlines for Users

If you have assets on Magic Eden, you must act before the following dates to avoid losing access to your funds:

• March 2026: Trading for Bitcoin and EVM NFTs officially ended.
• April 1, 2026: The Magic Eden Wallet entered "Export-Only" mode. You can no longer send or receive; you can only view your recovery phrase.
• May 1, 2026: Final Shutdown. The wallet app will be removed from app stores, and any keys not backed up will be lost forever.

Steps You Should Take Right Now

To ensure your assets are safe, follow these steps immediately:

1. Export your Seed Phrase: Open your Magic Eden wallet and write down your 12 or 24-word recovery phrase.
2. Import to a New Wallet: Use that phrase to "import" your assets into a compatible wallet like MetaMask (for EVM) or Xverse (for Bitcoin).
3. Monitor Your Solana Assets: While the Solana marketplace is safe, it’s always a good idea to keep high-value NFTs in a cold storage solution.

What’s Next for Magic Eden?

The company is betting big on the $ME token and its new gambling ventures. Magic Eden hopes to become a leader in the intersection of finance and gaming. While the loss of the Bitcoin marketplace—where they once held 80% market share—is a blow to the Ordinals community, the company believes this leaner model is the only way to remain a "serious" player in the crypto news cycle of the future.

However, the price of ME tokens is down approximately 80% over the past 6 months, which makes it harder to get back on track.

Following a period of consolidation, Ethereum price is currently trading around the $2,240 mark, showing a steady climb from its March lows. As institutional interest remains a driving force, particularly through Ethereum spot ETFs, technical patterns on the 4-hour chart suggest that a major volatility event is on the horizon.

Ethereum Price Analysis: Important Levels to Consider

The 4-hour chart reveals a classic "stairs up" pattern. After the sharp dip highlighted by the green circle at the $1,800 level, $Ethereum has formed a series of higher highs and higher lows.

Key Support Levels

• Primary Support ($1,800): This is the "floor" for the current trend. A daily close below this would invalidate the bullish thesis.
• Intermediate Support ($2,150): This level acted as resistance earlier in the month and has now been successfully retested as support.

Resistance Zones

The Target ($2,400): Highlighted by the yellow circle, this is the "make or break" point. A breakout above this level, supported by high volume, could open the doors toward the $2,800 range.

Why is Ethereum Price Up?

While the technicals look promising, the "Why" behind the move is equally important. According to data from Bloomberg, institutional accumulation of Ethereum has stabilized after a volatile Q1.

Furthermore, Ethereum's ecosystem continues to expand following the "Glamsterdam" upgrade scheduled for the first half of 2026. The reduction in exchange-held supply suggests that investors are moving ETH into hardware wallets for long-term storage, effectively reducing selling pressure.

Is Ethereum a Good Investment?

No analysis is complete without considering the downside. While the RSI at 61.71 is healthy, a spike above 70 often precedes a local "top" or a cool-off period. If Ethereum fails to clear the $2,400 resistance on its first attempt, we might see a return to the $2,100 level to shake out late "long" positions.

A Bullish Outlook with Caution

Ethereum remains in a structurally sound uptrend. The combination of rising RSI, successful support retests, and positive institutional sentiment positions ETH as a frontrunner for the next leg of the crypto market rally.

• Bullish Scenario: A clean break above $2,400 targets $2,650.
• Bearish Scenario: A rejection at resistance leads to a consolidation between $2,050 and $2,200.

Bitcoin (BTC) has successfully reclaimed the $73,000 mark, bolstered by substantial institutional interest and a cooling of geopolitical tensions. While the broader market shows signs of recovery, the focus remains on the "institutionalization" of digital assets, with major players like BNY Mellon and CME Group expanding their footprints.

Crypto Price Today: Bitcoin and Altcoins Performance

As of this morning, the global crypto market cap sits near $2.51 trillion.

• Bitcoin ($BTC): Trading at approximately $73,010, up following a $350 million net inflow into spot ETFs.
• Ethereum ($ETH): Rising 2.01% to reach $2,230, as developers prepare for upcoming 2026 network upgrades.
• Altcoins: Solana ($SOL) and BNB have posted modest gains, while CME's recent listing of AVAX and SUI futures has shifted professional trading focus toward mid-cap assets.

Why is Bitcoin Rising Today?

The primary driver behind today's price action is a combination of institutional capital and regulatory clarity progress in the United States. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently urged Congress to pass the CLARITY Act, a move that would finally distinguish between digital commodities and securities.

"The lack of a clear regulatory framework is eroding U.S. leadership," Bessent stated, signaling that the "trust layer" for big banks is finally being built.

Furthermore, Bank of New York Mellon (BNY) has expanded its "Crypto-to-Treasury" corridor. This allows crypto-native clients 24/7 access to U.S. Treasury bills, effectively bridging the gap between decentralized finance and traditional fixed-income markets. You can track these real-time movements on our Bitcoin price ticker.

Crypto News Today: CME Lists New Altcoin Futures

In a move that caught many retail traders off guard, the CME Group officially launched regulated futures for Avalanche (AVAX) and Sui (SUI). This follows the path blazed by Bitcoin and Ethereum, moving these tokens into the category of "tradeable commodities" for Wall Street.

This expansion is a double-edged sword. While it provides deep liquidity and hedging tools for institutions, it also marks the end of the "wild west" era for these specific assets.

Ethereum's 2026 Roadmap: Glamsterdam and Hegotá

While Bitcoin dominates the headlines, Ethereum is quietly preparing for its next evolution. Following the 2025 "Pectra" and "Fusaka" updates, the community is now eyeing two major upgrades for 2026:

• Glamsterdam (H1 2026): Focused on optimizing Layer 2 scaling and further reducing gas fees for rollups.
• Hegotá (H2 2026): Aimed at transaction parallelization to increase the network's throughput.

These technical milestones are essential for Ethereum to maintain its dominance against high-speed competitors like Solana. For those holding large amounts of ETH or BTC, ensuring security is paramount—check out our hardware wallet comparison to find the best storage solution.

Risks to Watch: The Stablecoin Yield Debate

Despite the bullish sentiment, the market faces a potential hurdle: the proposed ban on stablecoin yield rewards. Leaked drafts of the CLARITY Act suggest that regulators might prohibit stablecoins from offering interest to prevent "deposit flight" from traditional banks. This uncertainty has caused minor volatility in shares of companies like Coinbase and Circle.

Morgan Stanley’s Amy Oldenburg signaled that the Wall Street giant’s crypto journey has a long way to go.

A new initiative by Matterhorn and the ASI Alliance adds auditing tools and safety checks for AI-generated smart contracts.

A new multi-university study surveyed 69 economists, 52 AI experts, and 38 superforecasters. All three groups agree: faster AI means fewer jobs.

A new free-to-play web game based on an arcade classic will give you the chance to earn real Bitcoin—but it won't be easy.

Police say a 20-year-old man also threatened to burn down OpenAI’s headquarters shortly after the incident.

XRP has made a comeback to the market's top four, and has a strong foundation for a further recovery.

Shiba Inu welcomes back the pain — the price deviates from the ascending path on the market.

For now, the SkyBridge founder's message to the market is clear: ignore the short-term noise, avoid dangerous leverage and recognize that the underlying asset has not changed.

A fake Instagram account posing as the Ripple CEO has been debunked in a fresh warning to the XRP community.

Craig Wright, self-proclaimed Satoshi, and Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz clashed again, with the former accusing the XRPL architect of projecting XRP-style control onto Bitcoin's design principles.

TLDR:

• Kenya’s VASP Regulations 2026 operationalize the Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, covering crypto licensing rules.

• Consumer protection rules mandate clear risk disclosures, transparent pricing, and strict segregation of customer assets.

• Market integrity measures enforce zero tolerance for manipulation, insider trading, and false trading on all platforms.

• The National Treasury, Central Bank of Kenya, and Capital Markets Authority will jointly oversee VASP compliance.

Virtual Asset Service Providers regulations in Kenya have moved closer to becoming law. The National Treasury recently concluded public participation on the Draft VASP Regulations, 2026.

The framework operationalizes the Virtual Asset Service Providers Act, 2025. It sets out clear rules for licensing, regulating, and supervising virtual asset businesses in and from Kenya. The regulations address cryptocurrencies, tokenized assets, and stablecoins.

A Framework Built on Safeguards and Consumer Protection

The VASP Regulations introduce several safeguards to maintain trust in the sector. These include fit and proper ownership requirements and adequate capital thresholds.

Strong governance frameworks and risk management standards are also required. Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing compliance apply to all operators.

Consumer protection sits at the center of the draft regulations. Licensed businesses must give clients clear risk disclosures ahead of any engagement.

Transparent pricing and effective complaint-handling mechanisms are mandatory for all providers. Strict rules on segregation and protection of customer assets are also included.

The National Treasury shared the framework details through its official X channels. It noted that Kenya aims to harness innovation while safeguarding financial stability and protecting consumers.

The tweet came as public participation on the draft rules recently concluded. The Treasury described the framework as one that establishes a fair and transparent competitive market.

Beyond consumer protection, the regulations aim to strengthen investor confidence. The framework is expected to unlock new economic opportunities in Kenya’s digital asset space.

Kenya’s move aligns with global trends as more nations establish formal regulatory structures for virtual assets. A structured market tends to draw institutional participants and broader investor engagement over time.

Market Integrity, Oversight, and Coordinated Supervision

Market integrity measures form another key part of the draft VASP Regulations. Fair and orderly trading rules apply to all licensed virtual asset service providers.

Due diligence must be completed before any virtual asset is listed on a platform. Continuous market monitoring remains a standing requirement under the proposed framework.

The regulations carry a zero-tolerance stance on manipulation, insider trading, and false trading. This mirrors standards found in traditional securities markets globally.

Continuous reporting and disclosures are required from all licensed entities. Both onsite and offsite supervision will be employed by regulators to ensure compliance.

Cybersecurity and incident reporting frameworks are embedded in the regulations. Mandatory audits, insurance coverage, and prudential requirements further support operational resilience.

These measures address risks historically tied to unregulated digital asset markets. They also bring Kenya’s approach in line with international regulatory standards.

Implementation follows a whole-of-government approach. The National Treasury, Central Bank of Kenya, and Capital Markets Authority will provide coordinated oversight.

The next step involves reviewing and consolidating all stakeholder submissions before finalization. Stakeholders are encouraged to follow updates as Kenya advances this regulatory process.

The post Kenya Advances Virtual Asset Regulation as Draft VASP Regulations 2026 Conclude Public Participation appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Justin Sun, WLFI’s largest private investor with $75M in, claims his wallet was blacklisted without prior notice or disclosure.

• A hidden smart contract function allegedly gave World Liberty Financial unilateral power to freeze any token holder’s assets.

• Sun challenged WLFI’s governance votes, arguing key information was withheld and the team predetermined outcomes.

• Sun demanded the immediate unlocking of his tokens and called on WLFI to rebuild trust through full transparency and integrity.

World Liberty Financial is under scrutiny after its largest private investor raised serious allegations of misconduct. Justin Sun, founder of the TRON blockchain, invested over $75 million in the platform.

He claims the project used a hidden backdoor in its smart contract to blacklist his wallet. Sun says no investor was informed about this feature beforehand.

The situation raises pressing questions about transparency and investor protections in the decentralized finance space.

Sun Exposes a Hidden Blacklist Function in WLFI’s Smart Contract

Justin Sun went public with his allegations through a post on his official social media account. He stated that World Liberty Financial embedded a blacklisting function inside the WLFI token smart contract.

This function gave the company unilateral power to freeze any token holder’s access without notice. According to Sun, investors were never told about this capability before committing their capital.

Sun described the mechanism as a direct contradiction of the project’s stated mission. World Liberty Financial had publicly positioned itself as a decentralized finance platform promoting financial freedom.

A hidden freeze function, he argued, runs counter to everything decentralization stands for. He called it “a trap door marketed as an open door.”

In his post, Sun wrote that the function allows the company to “freeze, restrict, and effectively confiscate the property rights of any token holder, without notice, without cause, and without recourse.”

He identified himself as the first and single largest victim of this practice. His wallet was reportedly blacklisted back in 2025. He stated this violated basic investor rights and core blockchain principles.

Sun also challenged the governance votes the project used to justify its decisions. He argued that key information was withheld from participants and meaningful involvement was restricted.

The results, he claimed, were predetermined rather than genuinely community-driven. These votes, in his view, served the interests of the team — not the broader investor base.

Sun Demands Token Unlock and a Return to Transparency

Beyond his personal dispute, Sun raised wider concerns about the WLFI team’s overall conduct. He accused the team of extracting fees from users without proper community authorization.

He further claimed they treated the crypto community as a personal revenue source. None of these actions, he said, were approved through any fair governance process.

Sun was careful to separate his dispute from his broader political support. He reiterated his backing for President Trump’s crypto-friendly policy direction.

His grievance, he stressed, lies specifically with bad actors operating within the WLFI team. He maintained that their conduct has nothing to do with him or fellow investors who believed the project’s promises.

Sun called the team directly to reverse the blacklisting of his wallet. He also urged the project to adopt genuine transparency going forward.

He wrote: “Unlock the tokens and uphold transparency for the community. Let’s build with integrity, not misconduct.” As of publishing, World Liberty Financial had not issued any public response to his allegations.

The post Justin Sun Accuses World Liberty Financial of Blacklisting His Wallet After $75 Million Investment appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Covenant AI’s exit from Bittensor’s top subnets triggered a sharp $TAO price drop near $265.

• Co-founder Jacob Steeves denied centralization claims but apologized for losses suffered by holders.

• Community miners are reviving subnets 3, 39, and 81 using open-source code after Covenant’s departure.

• The Locked Stake upgrade would tie subnet ownership to time-locked $TAO to ensure team commitment.

Bittensor co-founder Jacob Steeves issued a public apology on April 11 after Covenant AI’s exit sent $TAO prices sharply lower.

Covenant AI had operated three of the network’s top-performing subnets, including Templar for large-model AI training.

The firm accused Steeves of centralizing control through emission suspensions and timed token sales. Steeves denied the claims but acknowledged the financial harm to $TAO holders. The token has since stabilized near $265 as community miners work to revive the affected subnets.

Covenant AI’s Departure and the Accusations That Followed

Covenant AI operated subnets 3, 39, and 81, which ranked among Bittensor’s most active and recognized nodes. The firm’s sudden exit left miners and investors without clear direction on those critical subnets. Its departure marked one of the most disruptive events in Bittensor’s recent history.

Samuel Dare, a central figure at Covenant AI, was identified by Steeves as the source of the conflict. Dare allegedly took deliberate steps to cause maximum harm to the protocol and its wider community. The accusations made against both parties quickly drew attention across the crypto space.

The specific claims against Steeves included suspending subnet emissions and conducting timed token sales. These actions, Covenant AI argued, contradicted Bittensor’s core permissionless and decentralized design. Steeves rejected all allegations and addressed them across multiple posts on X.

The exit triggered a sharp price drop in $TAO, rattling confidence among long-term holders and active miners. Community members quickly turned to the open-source codebase to assess how subnet operations could continue. The episode exposed real vulnerabilities in how subnet ownership and commitment are currently structured.

Steeves Issues Personal Apology to $TAO Holders

Steeves addressed $TAO holders directly, acknowledging the financial and emotional damage caused by the crisis. He described the events as deeply personal, calling Dare a former trusted colleague and friend. His statement was candid and notably free of corporate deflection.

Steeves wrote that those one helps most can sometimes inflict the greatest harm. He connected the betrayal to broader human failures that inevitably arise within open, permissionless systems. Despite that, he stated he could not regret building Bittensor on principles of radical openness.

Community miners moved quickly, organizing to restart the three suspended subnets using publicly available code.

Former Covenant AI team members were reportedly in discussions to help continue the original work. The open-source foundation of those subnets made a technical recovery genuinely possible.

Locked Stake Proposal Aims to Prevent Future Subnet Exits

Steeves proposed a protocol-level upgrade called Locked Stake to close accountability gaps in subnet ownership. The feature would tie subnet control to time-locked $TAO, making team commitment verifiable on-chain. Ironically, it was reportedly one of the last initiatives Dare worked on before leaving.

Under the proposal, subnet owners would signal long-term conviction through the duration of their token lock. Investors would gain greater predictability before committing capital to any team’s subnet. Teams with longer lock periods would effectively compete on commitment, not just technical performance.

Steeves acknowledged that failing to implement the upgrade sooner was a genuine error on his part. He suggested earlier adoption might have prevented the current breakdown entirely. A detailed community discussion is planned for the upcoming Thursday call on the Bittensor Discord.

The proposal targets one of crypto’s oldest unsolved problems: measuring team commitment in open systems without relying on legal contracts.

Steeves argued that legal accountability is too slow and too corruptible for the pace of modern AI development. A cryptographic solution, he maintained, is the only credible path forward for decentralized AI networks.

The post Bittensor Co-Founder Apologizes as Covenant AI Exit Sends $TAO Crashing appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• Chainalysis estimates stablecoin transaction volumes may reach $719 trillion by 2035 based on organic expansion alone
• Under favorable macroeconomic conditions, transaction volumes could soar to $1.5 quadrillion — a dramatic increase from 2024’s $28 trillion
• Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is pressing Congress to advance the Clarity Act, legislation designed to establish crypto market structure
• An intergenerational transfer of wealth totaling up to $100 trillion toward younger, crypto-savvy demographics could generate $508 trillion in yearly stablecoin activity
• Expanding retail merchant acceptance for stablecoin payments could contribute an additional $232 trillion to annual transaction volumes

A groundbreaking analysis from Chainalysis suggests stablecoin transaction activity could skyrocket from last year’s $28 trillion to an astonishing $1.5 quadrillion within the next decade. This forecast has captured the attention of senior U.S. government officials and financial policymakers.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent published a compelling opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, directly challenging Congress to take immediate action. His message centered on the urgent need to approve the Clarity Act, legislation currently under review by the Senate banking committee.

“The U.S. didn’t become the world’s financial center by hesitating in moments of technological change,” Bessent emphasized. He stressed that enacting this legislation would guarantee “the next generation of financial innovation is built on American rails.”

According to reports, the Senate banking committee intends to schedule a hearing and vote on the Clarity Act by the close of April. Bessent characterized Senate floor availability as “scarce” and emphasized the critical nature of immediate legislative movement.

The comprehensive Chainalysis analysis, entitled “The New Rails: How Digital Assets Are Reshaping the Foundations of Finance,” received its initial preview on April 8. The research positions stablecoins as transformative settlement infrastructure capable of revolutionizing international payments, cross-border remittances, and enterprise treasury management.

According to Chainalysis projections, natural market evolution alone will push stablecoin volumes to $719 trillion by 2035. Should broader economic catalysts materialize, the total could climb toward $1.5 quadrillion.

Even the conservative baseline figure represents an extraordinary expansion from present-day metrics. The $28 trillion in stablecoin volume recorded last year pales in comparison to what industry researchers now consider achievable.

Wealth Migration Across Generations

A primary catalyst identified in the research involves a historic redistribution of wealth across age demographics. As much as $100 trillion in assets are anticipated to transition from Baby Boomers and older generations to Millennials and Gen Z cohorts — populations characterized as inherently comfortable with cryptocurrency.

Chainalysis calculates this demographic shift could independently contribute $508 trillion to yearly stablecoin transaction activity by 2035. Younger capital holders demonstrate significantly higher propensity to utilize blockchain-powered financial infrastructure instead of conventional banking channels.

As this wealth migration unfolds, financial liquidity may increasingly flow toward decentralized, on-chain platforms rather than traditional financial intermediaries.

Retail Integration Drives Mainstream Adoption

The second critical growth engine involves widespread merchant integration. Chainalysis forecasts that stablecoin acceptance at retail checkout systems could inject $232 trillion into annual transaction volumes by 2035.

As stablecoins penetrate everyday commerce, established payment processors may encounter intensifying competitive pressure. When deployed at scale, blockchain-based payment systems have potential to compress profit margins for traditional payment intermediaries.

Chainalysis also notes that Bitcoin and the wider cryptocurrency ecosystem stand to gain substantial benefits from expanded stablecoin utilization.

The Clarity Act builds upon groundwork established by the previously enacted Genius Act, which Bessent referenced as demonstration that meaningful regulatory advancement remains achievable.

The Senate is expected to conduct its vote on the Clarity Act before April 2026 concludes.

The post Stablecoin Volume Could Surge to $1.5 Quadrillion by 2035, Chainalysis Report Reveals appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Takeaways

• Historical Bitcoin bear markets have witnessed declines ranging from 77% to 85% from their peaks; applying similar metrics to the 2025 high of $126,198 suggests potential lows between $19,000 and $29,000.
• Market experts believe the current downturn resembles a mid-cycle correction rather than the beginning of a prolonged bear market phase.
• The primary support zone is projected between $58,000 and $68,000, though a more aggressive selloff could push prices down to $48,000–$58,000.
• Historical cycle analysis suggests Bitcoin typically reaches its trough approximately 12–13 months following peak valuations, indicating a potential October–November 2026 timeframe — though current technical indicators don’t strongly validate this projection.
• Confirmation signals for a genuine bottom include robust weekly candle closes, successful reclamation of resistance zones, and bullish reversal in weekly RSI readings.

On October 6, 2025, Bitcoin reached its record peak of $126,198, as tracked by CoinGlass data. The cryptocurrency has since retreated to approximately $71,000, prompting the perennial market question: are we witnessing a standard pullback or the onset of a deeper bear phase?

Looking at previous cycles provides valuable perspective. Bitcoin experienced an 85% crash from its 2013 top, an 84% plunge from its 2017 summit, and a 77% drawdown from its 2021 high. Applying comparable percentage drops to the $126,198 peak would theoretically bring Bitcoin down to a range of $19,000 to $29,000 under worst-case conditions.

However, weekly chart technicals indicate this cycle might deviate from that trajectory. The long-term ascending channel structure remains unbroken. The present price action appears more consistent with a rejection near the upper boundary of this formation rather than a complete structural collapse into multi-year bearish territory.

Nevertheless, market analysts don’t consider the bottom to be established yet. The weekly RSI indicator continues showing weakness without signs of momentum reversal. The market structure appears compromised but hasn’t reached complete capitulation levels.

Projected Support Zones

Based on current chart structure, the most probable support area sits between $58,000 and $68,000. This range would constitute approximately a 46% to 54% retracement from the October 2025 all-time high.

A more severe capitulation scenario could drive prices into the $48,000 to $58,000 territory — representing a 54% to 62% correction. While both outcomes would be substantial, they remain considerably less severe than the 80%-plus collapses witnessed in previous bear cycles.

There’s also a bullish alternative scenario. Should demand resurge rapidly, a shallower bottom formation between $68,000 and $74,000 remains within the realm of possibility.

Historical cycle patterns show Bitcoin typically establishes its bottom roughly 12 to 13 months following the preceding cycle peak. Extrapolating this timeline from the October 2025 high suggests a potential low forming around October to November 2026 if that truly marked the cycle culmination.

Current Technical Picture

That said, present chart characteristics don’t strongly resemble a completed parabolic blow-off followed by total collapse. The structure appears more aligned with a significant retracement within an overarching uptrend that maintains its integrity.

If this interpretation proves accurate, the bottom formation may materialize within weeks to several months rather than extending into late 2026.

Technical confirmation indicators that would validate a genuine bottom include strong weekly candle closes, successful recapture of nearby resistance thresholds, and upward inflection in weekly RSI momentum. Currently, none of these confirmation signals have materialized.

Bitcoin trading at $71,000 offers better value relative to recent highs, but analysts haven’t identified a clear, high-probability bottom formation at this juncture.

Conclusion

Traders and investors searching for a market bottom should approach this using price zones rather than precise single targets. The optimistic scenario points to a shallow low around $68,000–$74,000. The baseline expectation centers on $58,000–$68,000. Should prices breach below $48,000, the market dynamics would begin resembling a genuine bear market rather than a cyclical correction phase.

The post Bitcoin (BTC) Price Analysis: Potential Bottom Zones After 43% Decline From Peak appeared first on Blockonomi.

A lot was said about quantum computing over the past several years, and although the technology is not fully here yet, many industry experts believe it could be threatening to numerous cryptocurrencies because it uses algorithms like Shor’s to break the public-key cryptography (ECC/RSA) that secures them.

A powerful device could, in theory, reverse-engineer private keys from public keys, allowing attackers to steal funds, while Grover’s algorithm could undermine mining security and enable 51% attacks. But which of the top cryptocurrencies are under the biggest threat? Here’s what ChatGPT had to say.

BTC – Most Exposed, but Misunderstood

Bitcoin appears as the most susceptible to the quantum threat as it uses ECDSA, which is directly breakable by Shor’s algorithm. The danger is even greater when it comes to old/dormant BTC, as they could already be exposed.

The positive news is that Bitcoin’s proof-of-work is not directly breakable and only signatures are at risk. Additionally, multiple industry participants have launched different initiatives to protect the world’s largest blockchain from potential future threats. Binance’s Changpeng Zhao also opined recently that “At a high level, all crypto has to do is upgrade to quantum-resistant algorithms.”

However, he also acknowledged the fact that older and dormant BTC could be a problem, especially the ones stored in Satoshi Nakamoto’s wallet, an estimated one million units.

“If those coins move, then it means he/she is still around, which is interesting to know,” he said. However, if they don’t move in a certain period of time, “it might be better to lock or effectively burn those addresses so that they don’t go to the first hacker who cracks it.”

Ethereum – High Exposure, Bigger Attack Surface

Google’s recent report indicated that quantum could crack the top 1,000 largest Ethereum wallets in just days. ChatGPT noted that ETH could be even more exposed than BTC structurally, as it has a much larger attack surface. All of the niches within its operation – from smart contracts and DeFi protocols to validators, bridges, and layer-2s.

In fact, the aforementioned report specifically reads that “smart contracts and PoS expand the attack surface.” Similar to the Bitcoin ecosystem, though, prominent names working on Ethereum’s broader development, such as co-founder Vitalik Buterin, recently unveiled plans on how to protect the network against the quantum threat.

XRP – Least Exposed (Relatively)

Although XRP also uses elliptic curve cryptography, which makes it vulnerable, ChatGPT determined that it’s the least exposed out of the three, given its usage model and different architecture. The faster transaction finality results in a smaller attack window. It also relies less on smart contracts, has a lower DeFi complexity, and its validator ecosystem is more controlled. This statement also aligned with what crypto researcher Vet said last week.

The XRP Ledger allows multi-signing and flexible key structures, and the general consensus is that it’s easier to implement coordinated upgrades than on Bitcoin, for example.

The post BTC, ETH, XRP: Ranking the Most and Least Quantum-Resistant Assets appeared first on CryptoPotato.

In a major development on the war in the Middle East from earlier this week, the US and Iran announced a cease-fire that would lead to negotiations for an eventual permanent peace deal.

Although the subsequent actions by the two sides, as well as Israel, have been controversial to say the least and have put the cease-fire in danger, including the failure of the peace talks in Pakistan, the landscape now is still significantly more positive than it was a week ago. As such, it’s time to speculate on which of the two popular alts will perform better in peacetime.

ADA’s Case

The popular AI model categorized ADA’s situation as being the “slow burner that could suddenly ignite.” This is because Cardano’s native token plays a “different game” than XRP. It’s less tied to macro headlines and more driven by ecosystem growth, developer activity, and long-term narratives.

As such, OpenAI’s solution said ADA tends to outperform during the second phase of a more profound full-blown altcoin rally as it typically “lags at first.” It happens when retail FOMO kicks in and capital starts rotating into “cheaper-looking” high-cap alts, and ADA “fits that profile perfectly.”

ChatGPT predicted that a decisive peace deal followed by a crypto market rally could push ADA toward key levels, such as $0.80 or even $1.00, depending on the cycle’s strength.

XRP’s Case and Conclusion

Although both large-cap alts are quite popular with a massive fanbase, ChatGPT noted that XRP is different in its core and purpose, as it is often seen as the “macro-sensitive” choice – one that reacts strongly to global liquidity, regulation, and institutional flows. If the war is to end conclusively, oil prices will likely drop, inflation pressure will ease, and markets will flip into “risk-on mode,” which ChatGPT categorized as “XRP’s territory.”

“Ripple’s aggressive global expansion, across the US, Asia, and Latin America, positions XRP as a bridge asset for cross-border finance, and that narrative tends to shine when macro fear disappears.”

In terms of price predictions, the AI model said XRP could reclaim the coveted $1.60 resistance and aim for “$2.00+ quickly.”

Its conclusion on the question of which of the two alts is likely to perform better noted that XRP would have the upper hand in the beginning, while ADA “follows later.” As such, it says the winner will depend on the timing – XRP for the short-term and ADA for the mid-term if the altseason fully kicks in.

The post XRP or ADA in a Post-War Rally? ChatGPT Reveals the (Un)Surprising Winner appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s gradual price increase that began after the US and Iran announced a two-week ceasefire came to an end earlier this morning when the two sides failed to reach a permanent peace agreement.

Most altcoins have followed suit, with ETH sliding toward $2,200, while HYPE, ADA, BCH, and LINK have marked more substantial declines.

BTC Slid $2K in Minutes

After the slow previous weekend, BTC began the business week on the right foot, surging from $67,000 to $70,000 amid reports that the US and Iran had begun negotiations for a ceasefire. More volatility ensued as the report was initially denied, and BTC slipped below $68,000.

However, once US President Donald Trump announced the ceasefire on Tuesday morning, bitcoin rocketed to over $72,000. It climbed to almost $73,000 later that day as the FT suggested Iran would want BTC payments from ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

With peace talks scheduled for Saturday in Pakistan, bitcoin continued to climb gradually by the end of the week and peaked at nearly $74,000 late last night. However, it dumped by over two grand in minutes after US VP Vance announced both sides had failed to reach an agreement.

As of now, bitcoin stands at $71,500 after a 1.5% daily decline. Its market cap is down to $1.430 trillion, while its dominance over the alts has remained above 57% on CG.

RAVE Keeps Pumping

Most larger-cap alts are slightly in the red today. Ethereum is down by 1% but has managed to maintain above $2,200. XRP is down to $1.33 after a similar decline, while BNB has lost the $600 support. SOL is down by over 2%, while HYPE, ADA, and BCH have slipped by more than 3%. Even more profound declines are evident from RAIN and DOT.

In contrast, RaveDAO’s native token has exploded by another 40% today. The asset has gained more than 1,000% since last Sunday and is now well within the top 100 alts by market cap.

The total crypto market cap is down by over $30 billion and is down to $2.510 trillion on CG.

The post RAVE Defies Altcoin Correction With Another 40% Surge, BTC Dipped Toward $71K: Weekend Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s weekend price ascent came to a halt hours ago after the peace talks between the US and Iran fell apart, and the asset slipped by over two grand from top to bottom.

Meanwhile, a few analysts outlined possible reasons why BTC could be on the verge of a more profound correction.

Is BTC Heading South?

After yesterday’s bullish article, in which we cited several on-chain reasons that could lead to a price pump, now it’s time for the different and contrasting perspective as noted by a few popular analysts.

Ted Pillows, for example, predicted that a reclaim of the $73,000-$74,000 level could give BTC one final push before it reverses to new lows. However, the asset couldn’t even go beyond $74,000 before it slipped to $71,500 over the past 12 hours.

In a separate post, he noted that BTC’s ‘electrical cost’ has dropped further to $47,000, and noted that the cryptocurrency has formed a lower floor.

Bitcoin “Electrical Cost” has almost dropped to $47,000.$BTC bottom floor is going lower. pic.twitter.com/6uTlNy388J

— Ted (@TedPillows) April 10, 2026

Pillows is highly bearish on BTC’s price performance and outlined another chart that “isn’t looking good” for the asset. He compared bitcoin’s moves to software stocks, noting that the two asset classes tend to move along, which could spell trouble for the cryptocurrency.

Meanwhile, Crypto Rover outlined a bullish crossover for BTC on the weekly timeframe MACD. However, the analyst claimed this “does NOT mean the bear market bottom is in,” as when it happened twice during the 2022 crash, BTC plunged by 60% and 40%, respectively.

The Dark Horse (Again)

As with our bullish article, we also need to talk about the big elephant in the room: the war in the Middle East. No matter what on-chain data is showing at the moment, BTC has been predominantly impacted by the developments in the US/Israel vs Iran front, and the past 12 hours only proved that narrative.

BTC had climbed from $68,000 to almost $74,000 from Tuesday to Saturday evening after the two-week ceasefire announced by the US and Iran. However, the failure of the peace talks in Pakistan led to an immediate crash of over $2,000 in minutes. As such, it’s expected that bitcoin will continue to follow the developments in the Middle East and its price will be more influenced by Trump’s comments rather than fundamentals, at least for now.

The post The $2K Drop Today Was Just the Beginning: Why This Analyst Says Bitcoin Isn’t Done Crashing appeared first on CryptoPotato.

US Vice President JD Vance said after the prolonged meeting that both parties have not reached an agreement as Iran chose “not to accept our terms.”

Bitcoin’s price reacted with an immediate drop, tanking from the new three-week high of over $73,500 to under $71,500. The cryptocurrency exploded on Tuesday morning when US President Donald Trump announced the two-week ceasefire, going from $68,000 to almost $73,000.

Although it slipped there in the following days, it remained above $70,000 before it jumped during the weekend to $73,700 (on Bitstamp). However, the failure in the peace talks brings back the uncertainty, which dominated all market moves in the past month and a half.

VP Vance added that the US needs to see a “fundamental commitment” from the Iranian side to abandon its nuclear weapon strategy. In contrast, Iran’s foreign ministry said that the talks were “intensive,” but called on the US to refrain from “excessive demands and unlawful requests.”

The Kobeissi Letter also commented on the development from the markets’ perspective. The analysts believe oil prices will rocket once again as markets open, while stocks will head south. They added that The Nasdaq 100 was already up 5% on expectations of a peace deal this weekend, but the ‘worst-case scenario’ could send it crashing again.

The question is now whether the POTUS will choose to “push harder for a deal and reassure markets or will he ramp up military operations in Iran,” which will likely lead to more volatility and corrections for most assets.

The post Peace Talks Fail: Why Bitcoin Just Tanked and What Happens Next appeared first on CryptoPotato.