The debate over CBDCs highlights tensions between privacy concerns and global competitiveness, impacting both financial systems and crypto markets.

The post Tom Emmer calls CBDC the ‘ultimate surveillance tool’ for America appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Agentic AI's rapid integration across industries could redefine software operations, boosting demand for advanced computing infrastructure.

The post Nvidia CEO Huang says agentic AI is producing real value and scaling fast across industries appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

AI's breakthrough in solving complex math problems signals a transformative shift in computational capabilities, impacting fields like cryptography.

The post General-purpose AI model reportedly solves major open problem in mathematics appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

SpaceX's governance structure may limit shareholder influence, raising concerns about unchecked leadership and potential investor risks.

The post SpaceX to keep Elon Musk as CEO, CTO, and chairman after IPO, with 79% voting control appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

SpaceX's aggressive spending on ambitious projects highlights the risks of high cash burn rates, impacting investor confidence and Musk's ventures.

The post SpaceX reports $4.6B revenue, $4.2B net loss in Q1 appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Hunter Biden Now Accepts Bitcoin for Artwork on His Official Website

Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, is now accepting Bitcoin as payment for his artwork on his official website. 

The homepage of Hunter Biden’s official website, hunterbiden.com, features his signature bright, large-scale floral paintings, while the footer now includes a simple but striking notice: “BITCOIN ACCEPTED,” listed alongside links to the site’s privacy policy, terms of use and “Verisart Authentication.”

Verisart provides blockchain‑based certificates of authenticity designed to permanently record provenance and ownership of artworks, both physical and digital.

Biden’s art career has been politically fraught from the start, with initial shows in New York and Los Angeles pricing works between roughly 75,000 and 500,000 dollars despite being a novice painter.

Subsequent reporting revealed that one prominent buyer, Democratic donor and Los Angeles real‑estate investor Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali, later received a presidential appointment from Joe Biden, prompting oversight hearings and accusations of influence‑peddling surrounding the art sales.

Court filings in March 2025 paint a starkly different picture of his current fortunes: Biden told a federal judge that he now has “significant debt in the millions of dollars” and had managed to sell only one painting for 36,000 dollars since late 2023, after selling 27 works in earlier years at an average of nearly 55,000 dollars.

He cited crashing art sales as a reason he could no longer afford to pursue some of his lawsuits over the publication of materials from his infamous laptop.

Hunter Biden: Addiction, tragedy and a life of scandals

Hunter Biden’s controversies are rooted in a life marked by early trauma and long‑running addiction struggles. He survived the 1972 car crash that killed his mother and baby sister, an event that left both him and his brother Beau grievously injured and shaped the family’s narrative for decades.

As an adult, Hunter Biden has spoken openly about his battles with alcohol and crack cocaine, which intensified after Beau’s death from brain cancer in 2015 and led to multiple stints in rehab.

These struggles spilled into public view through his divorce from Kathleen Buhle, who described repeated relapses and drug use, and later through his controversial relationship with Beau’s widow, Hallie Biden, which drew intense media scrutiny.

In 2018, Hunter Biden fathered a child with Lunden Roberts, an Arkansas woman he initially claimed not to know; a DNA test confirmed paternity and sparked a long‑running child‑support fight frequently cited by Republican critics. 

His overseas business dealings generated even greater backlash. Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma in 2014, reportedly earning up to 1.2 million dollars a year while his father handled Ukraine policy, and also pursued ventures with Chinese investors. Republicans alleged these arrangements monetized access to Joe Biden. 

The furor intensified after files from a laptop Biden allegedly abandoned at a Delaware repair shop surfaced, appearing to show drug use and negotiations over foreign deals.

Federal prosecutors separately charged him with failing to pay more than 1.4 million dollars in taxes and lying about drug use on a 2018 gun form; he was convicted on three gun felonies in 2024 before receiving a sweeping presidential pardon from his father. 

This post Hunter Biden Now Accepts Bitcoin for Artwork on His Official Website first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

VerifiedX Brings Native Bitcoin Redemption and FROST Privacy to Base DeFi with Fireblocks Integration

The VerifiedX foundation has announced the launch of vBTC.b on Base with support for Fireblocks, aimed at bringing Bitcoin’s digital gold qualities and world-class brand recognition to Defi and the Institutional self-custody markets.  

According to a press release shared with Bitcoin Magazine, VerifiedX is the first “Non-Synthetic Bitcoin Asset” with built-in native bitcoin redemption, compatible with Base, Coinbase’s increasingly popular EVM blockchain and Defi platform. “vBTC is now live as a canonical asset on Base under the ticker vBTC.b and is officially listed inside the Fireblocks platform with self-custody enabled.”

While the integration with Base makes vBTC available to the public. The integration with Fireblocks unlocks institutional interest, as Fireblocks is a leading institutional digital asset custodian and a powerful brand in the Western market. 

According to DefiLlama, the Defi market today holds over 80 billion in value. While Bitcoin remains the king of the crypto markets, its representation in Defi remains small; only 5 billion worth of value is held in Bitcoin across the broader crypto-defi ecosystem, while Ethereum holds over 43 billion of the same. 

VerifiedX believes there is strong demand for Bitcoin inside Defi, with institutions increasingly interested in self-custody solutions that can satisfy their needs for regulatory compliance as well as privacy from onchain analysis and front running. VerifiedX has been designed around these expectations, while innovating beyond traditional bridges, synthetic bitcoin wrappers and trusted federations. 

Their novel approach leverages a large open network of FROST multiparty computation (MCP) nodes that arguably set a new standard for cross-chain technologies. The VerifiedX tech stack has received “an institutional full-stack audit via Halborn.”

Bitcoiners can expect enhanced integration with Defi rails from vBTC, with new utility such as “programmable settlement, collateralized borrowing, yield strategies, and AI-agent commerce” among other potential features, while leveraging a far more decentralized and self-custody oriented cross-chain technology than has been available to date. The VerifiedX chain also has zero-knowledge proof technology built in natively, providing a privacy benefit to its users as they move BTC in and out of the system, shielding them from onchain analytics. 

FROST Multi-Party Computation and Self-Custody 

The VerifiedX network leverages breakthroughs in cryptography built around Bitcoin’s taproot upgrade. Each VerifiedX validator runs a FROST multi-party computation (MCP) server, a sophisticated and scalable form of Shamir secret sharing developed independently of VerifiedX. 

FROST, which stands for “Flexible Round-Optimized Schnorr Threshold Signatures,” unlocks a technology similar to multi-signature addresses in Bitcoin, but without leaving an obvious onchain footprint. FROST-generated addresses are cryptographically indistinguishable from other taproot addresses, providing significant privacy benefits. 

But the real value of FROST is its threshold signature technology, which allows party members to easily add and remove key shares (shards) to the group (as long as a majority agrees), without having to do on-chain transactions. Keeping the related computation off-chain allows a lot more parties to participate in the security scheme than previously possible, while keeping costs low and leaving no on-chain footprint on Bitcoin. When more than the threshold of shards are used in this MCP process, a valid Bitcoin transaction can be assembled. 

New members can join the public VerifiedX network as validators at any time, though they must jump through a few hoops. Users would need to sign a variety of transactions on the VerifiedX blockchain and need to hold 5000 VFX, the native asset of this blockchain. Once the right onchain transactions are signed, the network welcomes the new validator and their corresponding shard, growing the number of parties needed to pass the threshold. The result is a dynamic and large multi-signature bitcoin wallet that avoids corporate federated whitelists or small high-trust custodians. If members remove their 5000 VFX from the address, their node is removed from the active validators, and the FROST scheme adjusts accordingly. 

It’s important to note that while it is a breakthrough in decentralization, this public network scheme does not pass the technical definition of on-chain self-custody, since it does not give Bitcoin holders unilateral withdrawal rights to the underlying Bitcoin. If, for some catastrophic reason, the whole VerifiedX public FROST pool went offline, holders of vBTC would be unable to redeem their bitcoin. However, the scheme is arguably far more decentralized than current alternatives, often relying on simple single-digit multisignature addresses, synthetic bitcoin tokens backed by altcoins or trusted federations. In the current bootstrap phase, there are over 100 active validators, and the number can technically go up well over an order of magnitude.

The VerifiedX tech does, however, open the door for a self-custodied path from Bitcoin to Defi. According to Jay Pollak — Head of Strategy and Business Development at the VerifiedX Foundation — the VerifiedX protocol can allow users to set up their own “self-sovereign smart contracts” with shards and the corresponding smart contract that mints 1:1 collateralized vBTC 100% under their control, though this specific capability will be announced in more detail and made easier in upcoming updates. Such a ‘self-sovereign smart contract’ setup would arguably pass the self-custody standard, unlocking a direct path from onchain Bitcoin to the Defi ecosystem under the same vBTC ticker. 

The VFX Governance Token

VFX, the governance token of the VerifiedX blockchain, is a critical security component of the whole equation, especially for the public FROST pool. Some kind of cost needs to be imposed on new validators to prevent a swarm of fake accounts from overwhelming the network. To that end, the current implementation of the protocol demands 5000 VFX coins to be held by validators. However, according to Pollak, this number is very likely to go down soon.

The value of VFX has seen a sharp rise since January 2025, though Pollak points out that Bitmart is the only exchange that lists it, and better price discovery will come as it enters bigger markets and more liquidity is made available. He was adamant that VFX is a governance token and has no interest in competing with Bitcoin in any way. Today, VFX trades at about $69, making the cost of being a validator quite high, though Pollak also said the amount of VFX required was very likely to change to a much lower amount soon, making the self-sovereign smart contract self-custody path far more accessible. 

200 million units of VFX were minted in 2023 during the founding of the protocol, with 67.5 million going to the VerifiedX foundation and the rest being mined for active participation and in the test network. Today, the foundation holds about 32.3 million VFX coins. According to Pollak, the current lifetime supply of VFX is approximately 169.9 million, with the remaining 30 million effectively burned in the early days for security reasons. The circulating supply is much smaller, he added, as the testnet era mints are constrained and can only move small amounts at a time, “subject to an on-chain unlocking schedule, limiting sales to no more than the burn rate per block.” 

Bitcoin Magazine has a financial relationship with The VerifiedX Foundation. This article was not commissioned or reviewed by The VerifiedX Foundation and reflects the independent judgment of the author.

This post VerifiedX Brings Native Bitcoin Redemption and FROST Privacy to Base DeFi with Fireblocks Integration first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Minnesota Law Opens Crypto Custody to Banks, Credit Unions — One Credit Union Already Has a Head Start

Minnesota has become the latest state to grant banks and credit unions the legal authority to offer cryptocurrency custody services, a move that proponents say ends years of regulatory ambiguity that kept institutions on the sidelines of a market now worth trillions.

Governor Tim Walz signed HF 3709 into law. The legislation takes effect August 1, 2026. The law permits state-chartered banks and credit unions to hold virtual currency and the cryptographic keys that control it on behalf of customers and members. 

Minnesota joins New York, Wyoming, and Virginia, which have established similar frameworks.

According to the law, institutions seeking to offer custody services must adopt written policies covering risk management, internal controls, and cybersecurity before launching. They must also file written notice — including a description of their risk management program — with the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce at least 60 days in advance.

The law mandates strict segregation of client digital assets from an institution’s own holdings, a standard requirement in traditional custody law extended to crypto.

Rep. Bernie Perryman, a lead author of the bill, said the legislation ensures Minnesota financial institutions can “evolve alongside their customers and members,” rather than forcing residents to turn to unregulated out-of-state or offshore providers.

The Minnesota Credit Union Network said the law “gives Minnesotans a safer way to manage crypto” by routing digital asset activity through regulated institutions subject to established oversight.

One institution was already operating 

St. Cloud Financial Credit Union launched its CU-Digital Asset Vault in March— more than three months before the law’s passage — making it the first credit union in Minnesota to offer members institutional-grade crypto custody.

As of this month, St. Cloud Financial members are safeguarding approximately 13.5 Bitcoin through the platform, the union told Bitcoin Magazine.

The Vault runs on Coin2Core©, an infrastructure product built by DaLand CUSO, a credit union-owned technology cooperative whose stated mission is to keep community financial institutions connected to emerging digital payment and settlement networks.

Chase Larson, an executive at St. Cloud Financial, told Bitcoin Magazine that the new law resolves a structural problem that had blocked many institutions from moving forward, even when leadership wanted to.

“For too long, credit unions and community banks in Minnesota have been operating in a regulatory gray zone where the absence of clear guidance was itself a barrier to action,” Larson said. “What it practically changes is the liability posture.”

The Vault’s architecture was designed around compliance before regulatory clarity existed, according to Larson. The system uses a collaborative safekeeping model in which no single party — not the credit union, not the member, and not DaLand — holds independent control over a member’s assets.

Larson said member feedback has centered on three consistent themes: trust in the institution, ease of use, and comfort in having a local, relationship-based organization involved in the custody experience.

“Members engaging with the CU-Digital Asset Vault are having broader discussions around financial strategy, long-term asset ownership, security, and the future of digital finance,” he said. “That is exactly the type of deeper relationship a core-centric philosophy is designed to foster.”

Broader crypto implications

The law’s passage is drawing attention from institutions across Minnesota and potentially beyond. Larson said conversations that once started with “is this even allowed?” are now beginning with “how do we do this responsibly and strategically?”

He framed the law as part of a national pattern, noting a growing wave of state-level crypto legislation working through legislatures across the country.

“Financial infrastructure, money movement, and the storage of value are evolving, and digital asset networks will increasingly exist alongside traditional financial systems,” Larson said. 

St. Cloud Financial’s longer-term roadmap — internally called the R-Path© — envisions expanding from custody into blockchain-enabled payments, real-time settlement, stablecoin frameworks, and other digital financial services as the regulatory environment matures.

Larson said the legislation does not alter that plan. “The legislation does not fundamentally change our direction,” he said. “It validates the strategic path we were already on.”

The law takes effect August 1. Institutions that want to offer custody services by that date must submit their 60-day notice to the Commerce Commissioner no later than June 2.

This post Minnesota Law Opens Crypto Custody to Banks, Credit Unions — One Credit Union Already Has a Head Start first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

The 2036 Issue: Bitcoin Mining Is Dead, Long Live the Miners!

As I write this, Bitcoin is coming off of conceivably its worst week ever.

It started out with the January 31, 2026 release of batch number two of the Epstein files, which implicated none-too-few Bitcoiners and early stage Bitcoin companies (I wonder, will we still be talking about Epstein in 2036?).

The release now reads like a nasty omen. Because on Thursday of the same week, bitcoin suffered its fourth worst drawdown ever, a 21% bludgeoning that bled $16,000 from its price as it went from $76,000 to $60,000 in a single day. 

This was gnarly for bitcoin holders, of course, but it was gnarlier still for Bitcoin miners, who were already suffering under historically low revenue compression.

Bitcoin hashprice – a measure of mining revenue in either USD or BTC per unit of hashrate – hit an all-time low of $28.90/PH/day, according to Bitcoin mining data platform Hashrate Index. This means that 1 petahash of hashrate (roughly five new generation ASIC miners) would net you a paltry 28 dollars and 90 cents.

A bum can make a better daily wage panhandling.

It’s no surprise, then, that Bitcoin’s difficulty experienced 6 negative difficulty adjustments (out of 7 total) in three months between November 12, 2025 and February 7, 2026 (and the only positive adjustment was 0.04% on Christmas Eve). The last time we had a string of adjustments like that? 2011.

2011, y’all – when early tinkerers were mining with the computing power equivalent of a toaster compared to modern ASIC miners.

Now, bitcoin’s anemic price isn’t the only factor weighing on difficulty. Bitcoin miners are also pivoting to AI, and they are starting to decommission their ASIC fleets to make room for The Next Big Thing.

But the economic stress miners are facing right now offers a decent glimpse into the future of an industry whose underlying commodity trades in backwardation on a long enough timeframe. Put another way, hashprice is trending to zero, so what does that mean for Bitcoin?

Nothing good. But also, nothing bad, either.

For sale, blockspace. Used once.

Before we prognosticate, let’s examine where the Bitcoin mining industry is now.

I said earlier that hashprice is trending to zero. This is due to a combination of Moore’s law – as semiconductors improve, so too does the energy efficiency of ASIC miners, meaning miners can produce more hashrate with fewer electrons, which puts pressure on Bitcoin’s difficulty and reduces the rate of mining rewards per unit of hashrate – and the Halving.

The block subsidy will eventually hit zero. By 2036, it will be 0.78125, so for the block subsidy to offer the same nominal payout under today’s 3.125 BTC subsidy given current BTC prices (roughly $212,000), bitcoin will need to be $272,000. 

Failing that, Bitcoin miners better pray for fat transaction fees. But even here, the trend is working against them. Right now, you can get a transaction confirmed for under 1 satoshi per virtual byte (sat/vbyte). 

Bitcoin adoption is at an all-time high but the mempool is a ghosttown. Part of this is thanks to data-efficient upgrades like SegWit and Taproot, but it’s also because Bitcoin is scaling as Hal Finney predicted: via Bitcoin banks, be those exchanges, other custodians, or paper products like the ETFs.

The only truly meaningful on-chain use of the last three years has come from what some Bitcoiners call shitcoins: ordinals and inscriptions, which ironically were largely adopted by “shitcoiners” from the realms of Ethereum and Solana.

Please set aside any moralizing, kvetching, and pearl clutching for a moment. It doesn’t matter if you love or hate monkey JPEGs on Bitcoin, but you need to acknowledge that they were a boon for miners and they buoyed block rewards before and after the 2024 Halving.

This market is dead now, though, and so far no Layer 2 or alternative use case for the blockspace has filled the vacuum they left. Given the lack of adoption for the swathes of Layer 2 projects that were paraded out during the ordinals mania to great fanfare, I think it would be wise to not count on such platforms generating meaningful fees in 10 years. Hopefully they will! But I wouldn’t bet on it. 

Maybe in the age of AI people will start using Bitcoin timestamps for content and identity attestation – or some other, unforeseen use of blockspace will pop up – but again, I’m not holding my breath. 

It is likely, however, that AI produces at least some positive externalities for Bitcoin miners, even if it also brings with it negative ones.

The coming domin(AI)tion blackpill

The biggest trend in Bitcoin mining over the last year has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

The largest Bitcoin miners in the world – Core Scientific, Riot, IREN, Cipher, CleanSpark, Hut 8, TeraWulf, among others – have started swapping ASICs for GPUs to cash in on the LLM gravytrain.

It’s almost a retrograde movement, except the GPUs aren’t producing nonces for miners as they once did  – they’re running AI or high-performance computing loads. 

I’m not sure how many Bitcoiners have played this tape through, or pondered the implications of it. Publicly traded Bitcoin miners – the ones making these pivots, or at least the ones making the most noise about them – account for roughly 40% of Bitcoin’s hashrate. And they’re trying to find a way to convert every basis point of this total into computing fodder for Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, etc. 

If you’re wondering why, it’s simple dollars and cents. They can monetize their megawatts for much greater sums than mining bitcoin. Sorry if that shatters any illusions you may have about the fabled altruistic miner who is hashing to defend the network against those dastardly bad actors. 

This is a good thing actually. Firstly, it’s a headwind for hashrate growth, which is a tailwind for mining profitability. Fewer mega miners means more satoshis to go around for everyone else, but perhaps more importantly, it takes a cohort of Bitcoin miners out of the game who have lopsided operational and financing advantages.

Specifically, I’m talking about public miners’ access to capital markets, which allows them to aggressively scale their hashrate even if they are not profitable. Not making enough from mining to cover your costs? No problem – just dilute your shareholders! For years, public Bitcoin miners have issued new equity, sold it into the open market, and used the proceeds to shore up operation costs and expand their operations more quickly than private miners. 

The end result is that Bitcoin’s hashrate has grown much more quickly than we might otherwise expect. When China dominated mining, Bitmain fueled meteoric hashrate growth with its self-mining and via the proxies in its spoils system. Since the China Mining Ban in 2021 shifted hashrate to the U.S., the rapid proliferation of public miners has had the same effect.

But the promise of an AI payday will be too tempting for these companies to ignore, so this new computing application will take these public miners out of the game. And this shift will be as dramatic as The Great Hashrate Migration after China’s 2021 Bitcoin mining ban.

The megaminer disintermediation whitepill 

This coming change isn’t a blackpill, though. It’s a whitepill.

As mega-miners fade into the background, the smaller and medium-sized miners, those who operate on the margins, on the outskirts, and who have little chance of converting their operations into another form of data center, will thrive – or at least survive. 

Ten years from now, the majority of hashrate should come from these Bitcoin miners, not the publicly traded companies who could mine without regard for actual profitability. Those miners who are around in 2036 will be scrappy, shrewd, and nimble. They will have some edge that makes their operations economical, be that recycling heat; mining off-grid on oil and gas wells, wind farms, or solar arrays; or be integrated on the power-plant level.

For the few large scale miners that will still exist at this time, they will likely be among the last bunch in that list: Bitcoin mining operations that run on energy-producing assets, from nuclear sites to natural gas plants, to soak up excess electricity whenever there is a bumper crop of production. 

Perhaps it goes without saying, but of course, this assumes that block rewards are healthy enough to sustain hashrate even on the margins. To return to our math in the second section, bitcoin will need to be at least $272,000 to match the value of the current block subsidy. 

Ideally, transaction fees make up more than ~1% of the block subsidy, which has been the theme for more than a year, but there’s no guarantee that this will be the case. (Even if they don’t, though, miners with the lowest cost energy will still be mining assuming bitcoin isn’t totally worthless.)

Energy efficiency gains from ASICs will help pick up the slack for overall profitability, but only so much, as the watt-per-terahash ratio is improving at a slower and slower rate and will virtually plateau at some point in the future given the current trajectory. 

The last five years have been the exception, not the rule

But again, all of this is a good thing, actually, because it will disintermediate the largest actors in the Bitcoin mining industry, which consequently serve as potential chokepoints that could compromise the network.

The public miners are an obvious centralization point here. These are highly scrutinized, legally compliant firms that will bend the knee to Uncle Sam if it threatens their business. (Lest we forget, MARA (formerly, Marathon Digital Holdings) started mining OFAC-compliant blocks – blocks that censored any transaction connected to an OFAC-sanctioned Bitcoin wallet – in 2021, despite the fact that there was no law or legal precedent to mandate such an action).

Less obvious, though, is the threat that Bitcoin mining pools present to Bitcoin’s permissionless and censorship-resistant ethos. The vast majority of mining pools operate using a full-pay-per-share (FPPS) payout method. This means that miners are paid regardless of how many blocks the pool mines, using the hashprice metric we covered in the introduction. This model, the obverse of the pay-per-last-n-share (PPLNS) that Slushpool (now Braiins Pool) pioneered in 2011, means that the pool assumes all of the risk of mining, and they act as insurance companies of sorts for miners by guaranteeing income regardless of how much bitcoin the pool is actually mining. For example, if an FPPS pool mines 10 blocks a day and is responsible for 9 blocks worth of payouts, they pocket the difference, but if they mine 8 blocks, they eat the difference. 

As hashprice becomes increasingly compressed with each successive block subsidy halving, it will become increasingly difficult for FPPS providers to cover the risk of mining luck while guaranteeing payouts. This becomes even more difficult if transaction fees start making up even a modest amount of total mining revenue, because FPPS pools typically calculate hashprice using the base block subsidy plus a rolling average of transaction fees over a given period. Put another way, what happens when an FPPS pool has to pay its miners using a hashprice that assumes transactions make up 10% of mining revenues, but the blocks this pool mines only make half of that?

Pool solvency becomes a mounting concern, and so FPPS pools will have to either adapt, or another model – either old or new – will take its place out of necessity. 

This is another positive still, because it neutralizes another weak point for Bitcoin. Right now, Foundry, a U.S.-based mining pool, mines 1/3rd of Bitcoin blocks. What do you think would happen if the U.S. government tells Foundry to censor certain transactions, and create a white and black list for approved or sanctioned Bitcoin wallets? 

If FPPS fades into the background, we might expect self-mining and PPLNS-esque payouts to dominate, and this should eat into the market share of large FPPS pools and mitigate the above risk. (The counterfactual to this hypothetical, just to be intellectually honest, is that as Bitcoin mining becomes more variable, one or two pools end up dominating marketshare, as only the largest companies have enough sway to attract users and make good on their payout promises). 

Ultimately, Bitcoin mining just isn’t a good business, and that’s actually a good thing. A dwindling block subsidy and hashprice will push mining to the margin, to the lowest cost of energy possible, with operators that can only scale with prudence and diligence. In ten years, Bitcoin mining will likely be much more distributed than it is now as a result.

It’s entirely possible, then, that we look back on the mega-mining meta that became popular in the U.S. after the China Mining Ban as an aberration rather than the norm – another product of a fiat-warped, zero-percent interest rate policy economy that was doomed to expire when the accounting stopped making sense. 

Don’t miss your chance to own The 2036 Issue — featuring articles written by many influential figures in the space pondering the challenges of the next decade!

This piece is featured in the latest Print edition of Bitcoin Magazine, The 2036 Issue. We’re sharing it here as an early look at the ideas explored throughout the full issue.

This post The 2036 Issue: Bitcoin Mining Is Dead, Long Live the Miners! first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Colin Harper.

Bitcoin Magazine

Tether Takes Control of Twenty One Capital After Buying Out SoftBank

Tether International has acquired SoftBank’s entire stake in Twenty One Capital, the Bitcoin treasury company co-founded by Jack Mallers, consolidating control over one of the most prominent public Bitcoin vehicles to emerge in the past year.

The transaction, announced May 20, removes the last major outside ownership bloc from Twenty One’s founding three-party structure. SoftBank’s representatives on the company’s board stepped down at closing, per the terms of XXI’s shareholder agreement. No financial details of the deal were disclosed.

Twenty One Capital launched in April 2025 through a business combination with Cantor Equity Partners, with the three founding sponsors — Tether, SoftBank, and Bitfinex — contributing Bitcoin in exchange for shares priced at $10 each.

At inception, Tether was expected to contribute roughly 24,000 BTC, SoftBank 10,500 BTC, and Bitfinex around 7,000 BTC. The company was built to debut with more than 42,000 BTC — enough to rank as the third-largest corporate Bitcoin treasury in the world at the time, with an implied enterprise value of $3.6 billion based on an 84-day average Bitcoin reference price.

Before its listing, Tether added a further 4,812 BTC worth approximately $458.7 million to Twenty One’s treasury, bringing its holdings to 36,312 BTC at that stage.

With SoftBank’s exit, Twenty One moves from a coalition-backed vehicle to what is, in practical terms, Tether’s public Bitcoin operating arm. 

The shift is structural: a company once held up by three institutional pillars now rests almost entirely on Tether’s balance sheet and strategic direction.

Paolo Ardoino, Tether’s CEO, acknowledged SoftBank’s role in shaping the company’s early formation but framed the buyout as the beginning of a new phase. “They leave behind a company with a stronger foundation, a clearer mandate, and an ambitious path ahead,” he said in a statement.

More than a bitcoin treasury 

That path appears to extend well beyond Bitcoin treasury accumulation. In April, Tether proposed merging Twenty One with Strike — Jack Mallers’ Bitcoin payments company — and Elektron Energy, a Bitcoin mining operation.

The combination would place a Bitcoin treasury, a payments and financial services layer, and mining infrastructure under one corporate umbrella, transforming Twenty One from a balance-sheet trade into an integrated Bitcoin holding company.

Twenty One has positioned itself as a direct counterpoint to Michael Saylor’s Strategy, adopting performance metrics like Bitcoin Per Share and Bitcoin Return Rate rather than conventional earnings benchmarks. 

This post Tether Takes Control of Twenty One Capital After Buying Out SoftBank first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin's 2026 macro setup just flipped from waiting for relief to pricing a renewed threat.

As of May 20, 2026, CME FedWatch showed a 54.1% chance of a rate hike at the December 2026 Federal Open Market Committee meeting, against 44.4% odds of no change and only 1.5% odds of easing.

For Bitcoin, the important signal is the direction of travel, not the precision of one futures-market snapshot.

The trade many holders expected was simple: inflation would cool, the Federal Reserve would eventually ease, liquidity would improve, and Bitcoin would benefit from both its hard-money narrative and its new access point inside brokerage accounts through spot ETFs.

That setup now has a more difficult opponent: a rates market that has stopped treating easier money as the obvious next step.

The Fed's latest policy anchor raises the stakes. On April 29, the central bank held its target range at 3.50% to 3.75%.

If December futures are leaning toward a higher target range from there, the market is debating renewed tightening rather than only fewer cuts.

That turns Bitcoin near $77,000 into more than a price level. It becomes a test of whether ETF-era BTC demand can absorb a stronger dollar, higher Treasury yields, and visible fund outflows at the same time.

The macro trapdoor opened under the ETF trade

The rate move is already showing up outside crypto. The Treasury Department's May 19 curve showed the 10-year yield at 4.67%, the 20-year at 5.19%, and the 30-year at 5.18%.

Those levels make cash and government debt more competitive with assets that do not pay income.

Related Reading

US Treasury yields surge to new highs as liquidity tightens, pushing Bitcoin back below $82,000 resistance

Higher US yields are weakening institutional demand while stablecoins and tokenized Treasurys attract cautious crypto capital.

May 15, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

At the same time, Reuters reported that the dollar was heading for its largest weekly gain in more than two months as rising energy prices and Treasury yields fueled Fed hike bets. The report said traders were then pricing more than 55% odds of a December hike.

For Bitcoin, that combination weakens the liquidity case from several sides. A higher 10-year yield raises the hurdle for holding a volatile non-yielding asset.

A stronger dollar tightens global financial conditions. A Fed path that tilts back toward hikes delays the easier-money story that helped support risk appetite.

The current market snapshot shows how large the test has become. CryptoSlate's aggregate market page showed the crypto market near $2.57 trillion, with 24-hour volume around $70.49 billion and BTC dominance at 60.3%.

Its Bitcoin price page shows BTC around $77,300 on May 20, roughly 38.7% below its October 2025 all-time high.

Before spot ETFs, Bitcoin's macro sensitivity was harder to read through traditional portfolio plumbing. Price, derivatives, stablecoin liquidity, and exchange flows all counted, but they did not show the same regulated wrapper behavior that equity and bond investors already understand.

The ETF era changed that. Spot Bitcoin funds gave investors a familiar way to hold BTC, and they also gave the market a daily scoreboard for marginal demand.

That scoreboard has turned red again. Farside Investors showed U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs posting $648.6 million of outflows on May 18 and another $331.1 million on May 19.

Together, that is nearly $980 million leaving the products across two trading days. The move followed earlier CryptoSlate coverage showing $1 billion in weekly exits that ended a six-week inflow streak.

Related Reading

Bitcoin ETF flows reverse as US funds shed $1B amid inflation fears

US spot Bitcoin ETFs lost roughly 14,000 BTC this week, ending a six-week inflow streak as hotter inflation data forced markets to reassess risk exposure.

May 16, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

That flow reversal does not prove that the ETF demand channel has disappeared. It shows that the buyer base has become easier to stress-test.

If higher yields and a stronger dollar keep pulling capital toward defensive or income-producing assets, spot ETF flows can show whether Bitcoin's regulated demand is pausing, rotating out, or merely waiting for the next macro signal.

The distinction is important. A temporary outflow run after a strong inflow period would look like risk management.

A longer stretch of redemptions while Fed hike odds remain elevated would point to something more uncomfortable for bulls: ETF-era demand may be more rate-sensitive than the hard-money narrative alone suggests.

Bitcoin's price map is now part of the Fed story

The $76,000 area has become the near-term support zone to watch, with a break raising the risk of a slide toward $70,000.

Related Reading

Bitcoin price risks slide toward $70,000 as $76,000 support weakens

Bitcoin price remains caught between long-term holder accumulation and weakening short-term demand as ETF outflows, rising yields, and leverage pressure the $76,000 zone.

May 19, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

On the upside, the failure to reclaim the $82,000 area has kept the rally from clearing a level that would make the latest weakness look like routine consolidation.

Those levels now carry a macro meaning. A hold near $76,000 to $77,000 while ETF outflows continue and Treasury yields stay elevated would suggest that structural demand is still absorbing pressure.

It would not settle the digital-gold debate, but it would show that buyers are willing to defend BTC even when the rate-cut story is losing force.

A break would send a different signal. It would make the recent ETF outflows look less like tactical hesitation and more like a transmission channel from the bond market into Bitcoin.

In that version of the story, BTC is trading less as a simple inflation hedge and more as a liquidity asset whose marginal buyer is still sensitive to the same forces moving equities, credit, the dollar, and Treasurys.

That is the uncomfortable part of Bitcoin's mainstreaming. The ETF wrapper did not just bring more capital into the market.

It made Bitcoin easier to compare against everything else a portfolio can own. When Treasurys offer higher yields, and the dollar is rising, BTC has to justify its place in portfolios without relying only on the promise of future liquidity relief.

This does not invalidate Bitcoin's longer-term scarcity case. A market worried about inflation, deficits, and sovereign debt can still leave room for a fixed-supply asset.

But that argument is easier to hold over the years than over trading days. In the short run, ETFs, yields, and the dollar are setting the test.

The next signal is whether the outflows become a pattern

One December hike would not automatically break Bitcoin. The more practical warning is that the market has started pricing punishment before many holders had finished positioning for relief.

That makes the next few data points unusually important. If FedWatch pricing stays above the 50% line for a December hike, the macro pressure remains live.

If Treasury yields or the dollar keep rising, the hurdle for BTC exposure stays high. If ETF outflows continue, the institutional demand channel that supported Bitcoin's mainstream adoption will look more cyclical than many bulls expected.

The opposite path is still possible. A retreat in yields, a softer dollar, or a return to ETF inflows would weaken the bearish interpretation quickly.

A reclaim of the $82,000 area would also change the tone, especially if it happened while rate-hike odds remained elevated.

For now, Bitcoin is caught between two claims about what it has become. One says ETF-era BTC is maturing into a macro asset that can survive a hawkish Fed repricing because structural demand is deeper than before.

The other says the new access channel has made Bitcoin more exposed to the same allocation math that governs conventional risk assets.

The market is now testing both claims in real time. A Fed futures curve that has stopped pricing relief and started pricing renewed tightening has turned Bitcoin's $76,000 to $77,000 zone into the place where the ETF-era thesis has to prove its resilience.

The post Bitcoin is left stranded as Fed projections flip to 54% chance of rate hikes this year appeared first on CryptoSlate.

In traditional markets, the VIX gives traders a way to hedge or trade expected stock-market volatility rather than take a direct view on the S&P 500. CME Bitcoin volatility futures now give Bitcoin traders a regulated version of that idea: a way to bet on volatility without betting on Bitcoin’s price.

The exchange plans to list Bitcoin Volatility futures to start trading on June 1, while a May 14 Commodity Futures Trading Commission product record lists the contract as Certified.

That makes the launch a market-structure test: whether Bitcoin is ready for a regulated futures contract tied to expected turbulence itself.

The contract, ticker BVI, will settle financially to the CME CF Bitcoin Volatility Index – Settlement, or BVXS. The index is designed to reflect a 30-day forward view of implied volatility drawn from CME Bitcoin and Micro Bitcoin options order books.

In practical terms, a trading desk can express whether it expects Bitcoin's next month to be calmer or more volatile without using Bitcoin futures, spot ETFs, or options to take a direct price view.

The product carries a VIX-style feel, but it does not make BVI a proven Bitcoin fear gauge before trading begins. It puts a regulated contract around something traders already watch: how much movement the market expects from Bitcoin, independent of whether the next move is higher or lower.

The VIX became important in traditional finance because it turned expected volatility into a common risk language. Portfolio managers use it to hedge shocks, options desks use it to price stress, and analysts use it as a shorthand for market fear. BVI is attempting to bring a similar layer to Bitcoin, but it still has to prove that traders will use it in size.

CME's new contract shifts the trade away from price direction

The certification detail updates CME's May 5 launch announcement without changing the basic timeline. The contract moved from planned pending regulatory review in the announcement to a CFTC product record marked Certified.

CME's corresponding May 14 filing says the contract will be available on CME Globex and CME ClearPort from Sunday, May 31, ahead of the June 1 trading session.

The certification is a listing milestone: CME has certified the contract under the relevant CFTC process, while regulatory endorsement and future liquidity remain separate questions.

It gives institutional desks a familiar exchange and clearing framework for a Bitcoin volatility trade.

For most readers, the key terms are simpler: BVI is the futures contract, BVXS is the index it settles to, and each contract is worth $500 times the BVXS level.

The initial listed months are June 2026 and July 2026.

The practical difference is exposure. Bitcoin futures let traders take a view on where BTC will trade. Bitcoin ETFs give investors spot-linked exposure inside brokerage accounts.

Bitcoin options can express both price and volatility views, but they require options execution and options-risk management. BVI packages a volatility view into a listed futures contract that rises or falls with the market's expectation for Bitcoin movement rather than with Bitcoin's spot price alone.

CME's product page makes that distinction explicit, saying the contract is meant for hedging Bitcoin exposure against rising or falling volatility and for trading expectations of market turbulence independent of Bitcoin's price direction.

Related Reading

CME Group to introduce options on Bitcoin Friday futures starting Feb. 24

CME goal is to offer more tools for traders looking to hedge against Bitcoin's volatility.

Jan 29, 2025 · Gino Matos

BVXS turns options prices into the reference point

The futures contract is only as useful as the benchmark underneath it. BVXS is the daily settlement version of the CME CF Bitcoin Volatility Index.

CF Benchmarks describes BVXS as a once-a-day benchmark representing a forward-looking, 30-day constant-maturity implied volatility measure based on CME Bitcoin and Micro Bitcoin options order books.

In practice, the Bitcoin volatility index converts CME options pricing into a daily reference point for expected BTC turbulence.

BVXS does not track Bitcoin itself. It tracks what options prices imply about how much Bitcoin could move over the next 30 days. That makes BVXS a Bitcoin implied volatility benchmark rather than a spot-price benchmark.

If options traders price in more uncertainty, the index can rise even before Bitcoin makes a large move. If options traders demand less protection or expect calmer trading, the index can fall even while Bitcoin remains directionally active.

That distinction makes the product more than another access rail. A fund that owns Bitcoin exposure through spot holdings, ETFs, futures, or structured products may not want to sell the underlying exposure every time market stress rises.

It may instead want a tool that targets volatility directly. Conversely, a trader may expect turbulence around a macro print, regulatory event, ETF-flow reversal, or market dislocation without having conviction on whether BTC breaks higher or lower.

As of publication on May 20, the latest CF Benchmarks figure available before the session showed BVXS at 41.01, down 0.99%.

Bitcoin now has a CME-linked implied-volatility benchmark sitting under a listed futures product.

Why institutions may care about a Bitcoin fear trade

For institutions, BVI offers a simpler way to separate a trade that Bitcoin futures, options, and ETFs often mix together.

In a directional product, the trader is usually exposed to Bitcoin's level. A long Bitcoin futures position benefits if BTC rises and loses if it falls. A spot ETF holder is tied to the asset's direction.

Options can isolate volatility, but the trade is more complex and carries exposure to strike selection, expiry, time decay, and position management.

BVI gives desks a cleaner listed expression of the question: will Bitcoin move more or less than the market currently expects?

That can help desks hedge portfolios, price structured products, manage options books, or position around events where the size of the move matters more than the direction.

The timing also fits CME's broader crypto market-structure push. CME says 24/7 cryptocurrency futures and options trading is scheduled to begin May 29, shortly before the BVI launch. It also extends CME’s Bitcoin derivatives stack beyond directional futures, options, and ETF-adjacent market exposure.

The two developments point in the same direction: regulated crypto derivatives are becoming less like a side session attached to traditional market hours and more like infrastructure designed around how crypto actually trades.

Related Reading

CME to start trading crypto futures 24/7: What changes for Bitcoin?

Round-the-clock trading could narrow gaps with crypto-native venues. We chart who benefits and when.

Oct 3, 2025 · Andjela Radmilac

CryptoSlate's recent Bitcoin coverage has largely followed the directional and access questions that have dominated the market: ETF-flow reversals, inflation pressure, options liquidity around spot ETF products, institutional accumulation, and the fading economics of some retail ATM models.

Related Reading

Japan Bitcoin ETF plan ready to open route into household savings

SBI’s Bitcoin ETF Japan roadmap could move crypto exposure from exchanges into brokerage accounts, tax wrappers, and one of the world’s largest household savings markets.

May 19, 2026 · Gino Matos

CME's volatility contract moves the discussion into a different layer. It asks whether Bitcoin's risk can become a product in its own right.

Bitcoin's scale makes the question meaningful. CryptoSlate's market pages showed Bitcoin near $77,000 on May 20, with a market capitalization around $1.54 trillion and 24-hour volume around $27 billion.

The broader crypto market stood around $2.56 trillion, with BTC dominance near 60%. In that context, a regulated volatility future is an attempt to make the market's expectation of Bitcoin movement tradable in a more direct form.

The launch test is liquidity, not branding

Comparing CME BVI futures to the VIX can, however, overstate the product before trading data exists.

VIX futures and options are established instruments for trading or hedging volatility risk. BVI has not earned that status yet.

The test after June 1 will be practical: whether the contract attracts volume, open interest, block activity, and enough institutional participation to become a meaningful signal.

CME's filing says trading volumes, open interest levels, and price information will be published daily. Those figures will carry more weight than the launch label.

If volume builds, BVI could give market participants a cleaner way to hedge Bitcoin exposure when they expect turbulence, or to express a view that expected volatility is too high or too low.

It could also give analysts another signal on market stress alongside ETF flows, options positioning, futures basis, and spot liquidity.

If trading is thin, the product may remain useful for some desks without becoming a broad sentiment gauge. That outcome would still add a regulated tool to the Bitcoin derivatives stack, but it would fall short of turning Bitcoin volatility into a widely followed market instrument.

CME has a CFTC-certified Bitcoin Volatility futures contract scheduled for June 1, tied to a 30-day implied-volatility benchmark built from CME Bitcoin options data.

It gives institutions a way to trade Bitcoin's expected turbulence without making a direct price bet. Whether it becomes Bitcoin's fear trade depends on what happens once traders can actually use it.

The post CME is launching a VIX style fear trade to Bitcoin. Now comes the hard part appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The CLARITY Act is moving toward the Senate floor with a promise crypto has spent years asking for: a clearer federal map for digital asset markets.

The under-covered risk is that the map runs through the CFTC, making CFTC crypto regulation a capacity test for spot-market oversight after its payroll workforce fell by more than one-fifth.

The Senate Banking Committee advanced H.R. 3633 on May 14 by a 15-9 vote, putting the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 closer to floor consideration after the House passed the bill in July 2025.

Votes and signing timelines have dominated the crypto market structure bill debate. The implementation test is capacity.

Related Reading

How CLARITY Act survived a chaotic Senate markup after Warren, Banks and Democrats tried to slow it down

Clarity Act faced a gauntlet of last-minute objections over national security, stablecoin yields, and Trump's personal wealth.

May 15, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

The bill would make the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the main federal overseer for a large slice of crypto spot-market activity. It requires the CFTC to generally regulate digital commodity transactions, including digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers, with trade monitoring, recordkeeping, and customer-asset commingling restrictions.

That is a broad operating mandate for an agency whose own watchdog has already flagged digital-asset legislation and human-capital management as top FY2026 challenges.

Expanded digital-asset jurisdiction may require new registrant categories, rulemakings, cooperative regulatory efforts, qualified staff, institutional expertise, additional data systems and analytics, and management of added budget resources, according to the CFTC Office of Inspector General.

However, the same OIG report said CFTC payroll full-time equivalents fell from roughly 708 at the end of FY2024 to about 556 at the end of FY2025, an approximate 21.5% reduction.

The mandate is larger than the vote

The bill would shift jurisdiction from the SEC to the CFTC while forcing an operating buildout.

A new spot-market regime means exchanges and intermediaries would need rules for registration, trade surveillance, recordkeeping, conflicts, customer assets, conduct standards, and anti-fraud enforcement.

Some of that work can be adapted from futures-market supervision. Much of it would still have to be written, staffed, reviewed, and updated for crypto market plumbing.

The House-passed text sets a 270-day effective date for Title IV unless otherwise provided and directs the CFTC to issue conflict-of-interest rules within 360 days of enactment.

Those timelines may change as Senate negotiations proceed, but the House baseline shows the gap between statutory clarity and agency execution. Congress can assign the job in one bill; the regulator still has to hire, write rules, register firms, build systems, and supervise markets.

Related Reading

CLARITY Act explicitly leaves DeFi rules blank, risking a total retail protection collapse if negotiations fail

A January markup is the start of the sausage-making process, not the finish line Sacks claims.

Dec 21, 2025 · Gino Matos

That is where the capacity issue becomes more than a budget footnote.

The numbers also complicate the easy version of the pro-CLARITY Act argument.

CFTC's FY2027 request seeks $410 million, up from a $365 million FY2026 enacted base for salaries and expenses, and requests 650 FTEs against a 636-FTE FY2026 baseline.

That is a real funding increase, but the requested headcount change is only 14 FTEs over the FY2026 baseline.

That increase sits beside an OIG report describing a far larger operational load and a recent payroll FTE drop of more than one-fifth.

Resource tools still need money

The House-passed bill acknowledges the resource problem. Section 410 would authorize filing fees and annual fees tied to digital commodity regulation and registration, and it would create expedited hiring authority for positions requiring digital commodities or specialized market knowledge.

Those tools still have to become usable resources. The fee authority is tied to amounts provided in advance by appropriations, and the section's authorities sunset after the fourth fiscal year beginning after enactment.

In plain English, the CLARITY Act contains mechanisms to help the CFTC scale, but they still depend on Congress making the money available and on the agency converting authority into people, systems, and supervision.

That distinction is crucial because the bill's market effect depends on the second step.

Practical clarity starts when rules are final, registration pathways are open, compliance expectations are known, and enforcement lines are visible enough that market participants can price legal risk.

Senate Agriculture leaders have already recognized the issue.

A Boozman-Booker market-structure draft release said the approach would create a new CFTC funding stream, while Sen. John Boozman said the agency would need staffing and resources in place on day one to handle expanded authority.

The CFTC digital-assets agenda is also advancing while Congress negotiates.

Chairman Michael S. Selig told the House Agriculture Committee in April that the agency was working on areas including crypto guidance, tokenized collateral, prediction markets, payment stablecoin capital treatment, enforcement, and market surveillance.

That agenda may help the agency prepare, but it also shows that the CLARITY Act would land on top of an already active policy and supervision workload.

The enforcement line is especially important for retail users. The CLARITY Act would give tokens and venues a cleaner legal home while also promising federal guardrails for spot markets.

The FY2027 request would leave enforcement FTEs below the FY2025 actual level even as spot-market jurisdiction is expected to expand, meaning Congress may have created a cleaner rulebook faster than it created the staff needed to police it.

Commission depth is part of capacity

Staffing is only one side of implementation. Governance bandwidth is the other.

The CFTC's commissioners page says the agency consists of five commissioners and, as of May 19, lists Selig as chairman in its current commissioners section.

Selig was sworn in on Dec. 22, 2025. The current page display should be treated as institutional-depth evidence rather than a legal conclusion about what the agency can or cannot do.

House Agriculture leaders made that point explicit in a May 15 letter to President Donald Trump.

The letter said legislation expanding the CFTC's mandate to bring spot digital commodity transactions under federal oversight would require significant rulemaking. It also said a full five-member commission would help produce better and more durable rules.

The broader crypto market is measured in trillions, which gives the implementation risk real scale while keeping price reaction outside the record.

CryptoSlate market pages show the total crypto market capitalization around $2.56 trillion, with Bitcoin alone around $1.54 trillion.

Commission depth also intersects with political risk.

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, who voted to advance the bill in committee, said that vote did not guarantee support on the Senate floor and flagged unresolved financial-crime and ethics issues.

Senate Banking minority staff separately argued the draft leaves illicit-finance and DeFi vulnerabilities.

Those critiques could reshape final text, and any unresolved conduct risks Congress leaves in the statute can become supervisory problems for the agency asked to run the regime.

Timing makes the capacity risk more concrete.

Galaxy Digital's early-August signing scenario, recently reported by CryptoSlate, would turn the CFTC's staffing, funding, and commissioner depth from a policy concern into a countdown if Congress keeps pace.

Related Reading

CLARITY Act could be signed into law by President Donald Trump in early August — Galaxy Digital

Galaxy says the CLARITY Act could become law this year if lawmakers resolve ethics demands and move quickly before the recess.

May 18, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

The CLARITY Act already gives the CFTC some tools for the job. The House text includes funding and hiring mechanisms, Senate Agriculture has tied market-structure authority to resources, and CFTC leadership is already building a digital-asset agenda.

Execution is the pressure point.

A market-structure bill paired with weak appropriations, thin commission depth, or a short hiring runway could leave crypto with more statutory clarity than operational clarity.

Firms would know which regulator controls the next phase, then still wait for the rules, registrations, reviews, and enforcement posture that make the regime usable.

The next test for the CLARITY Act reaches beyond Senate passage or a presidential signature.

The post CLARITY Act will give crypto a new regulator before the CFTC has the staff to run it appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin's ETF flows just absorbed its first serious macro shock in seven weeks, and last week's Bitcoin ETF outflows could constitute a temporary capital retreat or the opening move of a broader institutional de-risking cycle.

CoinShares reported over $1 billion in outflows from digital asset investment products, the first negative week in seven and the third-largest weekly outflow of 2026.

Bitcoin products accounted for $982 million of that total, Ethereum products $249 million, and total crypto ETP assets under management fell to $157 billion from $159 billion. Taken together, Bitcoin ETF flows moved from steady demand to a stress test for institutional risk appetite.

CoinShares tied the reversal explicitly to Iran-related risk-off, framing it as the end of a six-week positive streak, while Bitfinex described Bitcoin as facing weakening Bitcoin ETF demand, higher oil prices, and a higher-for-longer rate environment.

US investors drove $1.14 billion in withdrawals, exceeding the global net total. Can-Luca Köymen, Investment Strategist at Sygnum Bank, stated in a note:

“Strip the US out and the picture flips: Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada all recorded net inflows. XRP took in $67.6 million globally, Solana $55.1 million, and 11 individual assets attracted meaningful inflows.”

With BTC up considerably over April, Köymen reads a portion of last week's outflows as sensible profit-taking into a moment of stress, capital that captured gains and could return at lower entry points.

Progress on the CLARITY Act, he adds, also cushioned the broader tone at the margin, keeping the crypto regulatory backdrop constructive even as the macro backdrop deteriorated.

The macro chain that turned Bitcoin ETF flows

Iranian escalation pushed Brent crude above $110 as traders monitored disruption risk around the Strait of Hormuz, and oil at those levels reset inflation expectations upward, as the 10-year climbed to 4.687% before settling near 4.65%, while the 30-year reached 5.131%.

As yields moved higher, market-implied odds of Fed rate hikes climbed, with December pricing near 40% for a 25-basis-point hike and 14% for a 50-basis-point hike. That combination turned risk appetite negative across liquid assets, and Bitcoin absorbed the selling first.

Bitfinex noted the $80,000-$83,000 as a resistance zone turned sellers back, Bitcoin closed the week 4.6% lower, and US spot Bitcoin ETF weekly net outflows reached nearly $1 billion.

Institutional conviction fell short of absorbing macro shocks and rate volatility at current flow levels. An ETF bid that retreats when yields spike and oil surges is treated by allocators as a discretionary risk allocation.

Glassnode identified immediate Bitcoin support near $76,900 on a 30-day cost basis and near-term resistance near $86,900 based on the November-to-February accumulation range.

Its Realized Cap 30-Day Net Position Change had recovered to $2.8 billion per month as BTC climbed above $80,000, but that figure sat well below the $10 billion-plus levels associated with stronger bull market expansions.

Bitcoin was trading near $77,000 on May 19, inside that stress zone, with Bitfinex's shorter-term framework putting BTC in a $72,000-$80,000 corridor until it reclaims the Short-Term Holder Realized Price and True Market Mean area around the prior rejection zone at $80,000-$83,000.

Köymen noted that selected altcoin perpetual funding rates turned positive during the sell-off, even as Bitcoin and Ethereum funding rates stayed negative, though both showed signs of recovery.

Bitcoin responded to geopolitical risk, dollar strength, and higher yields while selected altcoins and crypto sectors ran on distinct catalysts, insulating them from the BTC-specific macro forces that drove US Bitcoin ETF redemptions.

Where oil and yields decide

If Iranian tensions ease, oil retreats from above $110, and Fed-hike pricing fades, the same allocators who trimmed last week can rebuild exposure quickly, as six weeks of inflow momentum have built a baseline strong enough to withstand a single shock.

ETF inflows would restart within one to two weeks, BTC would reclaim the $80,000-$83,000 repair zone, and the over $1 billion outflow would become a one-week macro air pocket.

Glassnode's $86,900 resistance zone becomes the next target once the repair zone clears, and Köymen's profit-taking framing reinforces the view that outflows were partly driven by rational position management, which carries its own ceiling.

If oil holds above $110 and the 10-year yield pushes back toward its 4.687% peak, real-rate drag on Bitcoin persists without a macro catalyst for reversal.

Allocators who trimmed last week have no reason to rebuild, and weakness in BTC below $76,900 would trigger additional ETF redemptions from investors managing mark-to-market exposure.

Another week of large ETF outflows would confirm that institutional de-risking extends beyond a single shock response, pushing BTC into Bitfinex's lower $72,000-$80,000 trading range.

The $2.8 billion monthly inflow rate Glassnode recorded before last week's outflow would deteriorate further under sustained weekly redemptions at the $1 billion-plus pace, stripping the structural demand narrative of its factual anchor.

BTC holding onto Glassnode's $76,900 support while outflows slow would confirm that allocators have finished trimming, while BTC losing it with redemptions continuing would confirm that the de-risking cycle has more runway.

The forward test for Bitcoin ETFs

The next week of CoinShares flow data and US spot Bitcoin ETF flows provide the cleanest read on which path is unfolding.

Outflows slowing while BTC holds $76,900-$78,000 would frame last week as a shock absorbed at support, and outflows continuing while BTC loses the high-$70,000s would frame the six-week inflow streak as the entry point into a broader institutional risk-budget cut.

Köymen said short-horizon Bitcoin ETF flows constitute a single data point within a larger allocation picture, with European flows, altcoin inflows, and recovering derivatives positioning kept intact even as US products sold off that same week.

Bitcoin's ETF bid is macro-sensitive, and the next CoinShares report will determine whether that sensitivity produced a blip or a cycle.

The post Bitcoin ETF flows expose the split inside crypto’s $1 billion selloff appeared first on CryptoSlate.

President Donald Trump has pushed the Federal Reserve to revisit one of the most contested gateways in US finance, escalating a fight over whether crypto and fintech firms should be allowed to connect directly to the central bank’s payment system.

On May 19, Trump signed an executive order directing the Fed to evaluate its policies on granting payment-account access to non-bank financial companies, including firms involved in digital assets, blockchain services, and other financial technology businesses.

The order, titled “Integrating Financial Technology Innovation into Regulatory Frameworks,” asks federal agencies to identify rules and supervisory practices that may place unnecessary limits on financial innovation.

The directive does not immediately grant crypto firms access to the Fed’s payment rails. However, it gives the central bank a clear mandate to review whether existing law permits broader access and, if so, how the application process should work.

The outcome could determine whether companies such as Kraken, Ripple, Coinbase, Circle, Anchorage, Wise, Paxos, and BitGo can reduce their reliance on intermediary banks and move closer to the infrastructure that handles high-value dollar settlement.

Related Reading

Crypto to enter the US banking system through a backdoor, not through regulation

Apr 18, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

Trump order turns master accounts into a White House priority

At the center of the order is the Fed master account, a payment account that allows eligible institutions to access Federal Reserve payment services directly.

Those services include Fedwire, the high-value payment system used by banks and financial institutions to move dollars across the US financial system.

Under current Fed rules, access is generally limited to depository institutions. That has led some crypto firms to seek special-purpose bank or national trust bank charters to qualify for direct access.

Trump’s order asks the Fed to conduct a comprehensive review of its framework for granting access to Reserve Bank payment accounts and payment services. It also directs the central bank to clarify whether the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks have the legal authority to independently approve or deny applications.

That question has become more urgent after the Kansas City Fed approved a limited-purpose payment account for Payward, Kraken's parent company, in March.

The approval gave the crypto exchange’s banking unit a restricted connection to the Fed’s payment system, creating a precedent for other digital asset companies seeking similar access.

The order also directs regulators to examine broader barriers facing fintech firms, including licensing practices, third-party risk-management guidance, and policies that may limit partnerships between banks and technology companies.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis framed the directive as a correction to years of restricted access for financial technology companies.

She said fintech firms had long been shut out while legacy institutions benefited from privileged access, adding that the administration’s order was aimed at creating a more level playing field, stronger competition and lower payment costs for consumers.

Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal also supported the move, saying the White House had acknowledged that outdated rules on payment access and third-party risk management favored incumbents over innovators. He described the existing framework as protectionist and said regulators should update it.

Those comments capture the crypto industry’s argument that access to payments has become a competitive bottleneck. Firms that cannot connect directly to Fed payment systems must route activity through banks, which can increase costs, slow settlement, and expose companies to bank-specific risk.

Kraken gives crypto firms a working model

Kraken’s approval gives the industry a practical example of how expanded access could work.

In March, the Kansas City Fed granted Kraken Financial a limited-purpose account that allows access to core payment rails used for high-value dollar settlement.

The account could help the exchange process institutional deposits and withdrawals more efficiently, particularly for clients moving large balances between trading venues, custodians, and banking partners.

The arrangement is limited. Kraken does not have access to all services available to insured banks, and the account reportedly excludes benefits such as interest on reserves and access to Fed credit.

Those limits are designed to reduce risk to the central bank while giving a crypto firm a narrower connection to payment infrastructure.

That model could become the template for other digital asset companies. A restricted account would allow firms to move dollars through Fed payment systems while withholding privileges that regulators and banks consider more sensitive, including overdrafts, reserve interest, or emergency lending access.

Caitlin Long, CEO of Custodia Bank, welcomed Trump’s intervention, saying the order recognized a continuing problem at the Fed with blocking legally eligible institutions from the US payment system. Custodia has spent years fighting for access after the Fed denied its application to join the Federal Reserve System in 2023.

The Custodia decision remains a warning for the sector. The Fed concluded at the time that the bank’s business model and crypto focus were inconsistent with the statutory requirements.

The rejection showed how difficult it could be for firms with digital asset exposure to obtain full access even when they pursue regulated charters.

Kraken’s limited approval changed the tone of that debate. Rather than full access or full rejection, regulators now have a narrower account structure they can use to bring crypto firms closer to the payment system while imposing safeguards.

Ripple, Coinbase, and Circle are positioned for the next phase

Ripple, Coinbase, and Circle are among the companies with the clearest business reasons to benefit from a broader Fed access framework.

Ripple has applied for a Fed master account and supports the idea of a restricted or “skinny” account that would give non-bank financial companies access to payment services without extending all central bank privileges.

Such access could support Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin business by allowing faster reserve movement and redemption activity.

For stablecoin issuers, speed and certainty around reserve settlement are central to market confidence. A direct or limited Fed account could reduce reliance on bank intermediaries and make it easier to manage dollar liquidity during periods of heavy redemptions or market stress.

Coinbase and Circle have a similar interest through USDC and its broader payments infrastructure.

The companies have a federal trust-bank structure that could deepen their integration with regulated financial plumbing.

If finalized, that kind of charter could place stablecoin operations under clearer federal oversight while positioning the firms for direct or restricted access to payments.

Meanwhile, other firms are also in the queue. Anchorage Digital already operates as a federally chartered crypto bank. Paxos, BitGo, and Fidelity Digital Assets have sought or received approvals tied to national trust bank structures from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

Those approvals do not automatically grant access to Fed payment accounts, but they move the firms closer to the kind of regulated status that could support an application.

The business case is straightforward. Crypto exchanges want faster fiat settlement. Stablecoin issuers want more direct reserve operations. Custodians want more efficient asset movement for institutional clients. Payment companies want lower dependence on correspondent banks.

Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, argued that the idea that only Fed-supervised, deposit-taking lenders should process wire transfers is a modern regulatory choice rather than a permanent rule of finance. He said banks are trying to preserve a payments monopoly as competition emerges from several directions.

That view reflects a growing industry argument that payment access should be based on function, supervision, and risk controls rather than the traditional bank model alone.

Banks warn access should come with bank-grade standards

However, the banking industry is preparing to challenge that argument.

On May 19, the American Bankers Association (ABA) said any company offering bank-like services should be required to meet the same rigorous regulatory and consumer-protection standards as banks.

ABA President and CEO Rob Nichols urged regulators to conduct the review in a way that allows innovation without compromising the safety and soundness of the financial system. He said:

“Unless everyone is held to the same high standards, the financial system and consumers will be at risk. In light of today's White House Executive order on financial innovation, we urge the banking regulators to conduct their requested review in a way that allows for innovation but doesn't compromise the safe and sound financial system we have today.”

That position goes to the core of the banking sector’s objection. Banks argue that direct access to Fed payment systems is a privilege tied to intense supervision, deposit insurance, capital requirements, liquidity rules, and examination standards.

They contend that firms with narrower charters or limited-purpose licenses could create risk if they gain access without equivalent obligations.

The risks are not theoretical for regulators. Fedwire is a central component of US dollar settlement. A cyberattack, operational failure, compliance breakdown, or liquidity problem at a firm with direct access could create settlement disruptions with consequences beyond that company’s own customers.

Money-laundering controls are another concern. Banks spend heavily on compliance systems, customer monitoring, and suspicious-activity reporting.

If crypto firms gain direct access, regulators will need confidence that those companies can meet equivalent expectations while operating across trading, custody, stablecoin, and payment markets.

Liquidity is also part of the debate. Banks have warned that broader access could pull funds away from the traditional banking system, especially if stablecoin issuers and fintech companies can hold balances or move funds more efficiently through the Fed.

Restricted accounts that do not pay interest or offer credit could reduce that concern, but banks are unlikely to accept the shift without a fight.

The Fed has signaled that limited-purpose accounts could mitigate some of these risks by denying access to reserve interest, Fed credit, and other privileges.

However, the structure still raises a policy question: how much access can regulators grant before a non-bank starts to look like a bank for payment purposes?

The post Trump order puts Kraken, Ripple, Coinbase and Circle in line for Fed payment rails appeared first on CryptoSlate.

In a move that could fundamentally alter the plumbing of the United States financial ecosystem, President Donald J. Trump has officially signed an executive order titled "Integrating Financial Technology Innovation into Regulatory Frameworks." The directive aims to systematically dismantle the regulatory walls that separate financial technology (fintech) firms and digital asset companies from traditional banking infrastructure.

President Trump Orders Crypto Integration Into US Payment Systems

The executive order explicitly instructs federal financial regulators to update and streamline rules to merge digital assets and innovative technologies into traditional finance. For the digital asset markets, the immediate focus is on eliminating the "gatekeeper" status held by legacy tier-1 commercial banks, which have historically dictated which tech firms could access dollar liquidity and payment rails.

Streamlining Fintech Partnerships and Licensing

Under the first core mandate of the executive order, the heads of all federal financial regulatory agencies—including the SEC, CFTC, and OCC—have exactly 90 days to review existing guidelines, supervisory practices, orders, and no-action letters. The objective is to identify and modify rules that unduly impede fintech firms from entering into operational partnerships with insured depository institutions, broker-dealers, and investment advisers. Furthermore, the order demands a streamlined application process for alternative entities seeking national bank trust charters and federal insurance.

The Federal Reserve Master Account Mandate

The most critical aspect of the order is directed toward the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The central bank has been requested to deliver a comprehensive evaluation within 120 days regarding the legal, regulatory, and policy frameworks that govern access to Reserve Bank payment accounts and payment services.

Crucially, this evaluation must explore how non-bank financial companies and uninsured depository institutions—specifically those managing digital assets—can directly access the Fedwire system and other central bank payment rails.

Why Fed Payment Access Matters for Crypto

For over a decade, the digital asset industry has suffered from localized "debanking" measures, often referred to by industry executives as Operation Chokepoint 2.0. Because digital asset firms could not gain direct access to Federal Reserve Master Accounts, they were forced to rely on intermediary partner banks under a Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) model.

This infrastructure configuration introduced notable structural vulnerabilities:

• Counterparty Risk: Crypto companies remained exposed to the solvency and risk tolerances of third-party regional banks.
• Layered Transaction Fees: Multiple intermediaries increased the net cost of settlement for end-users transferring capital between fiat and digital assets.
• Single Points of Failure: Regulatory crackdowns on a handful of fintech-friendly partner banks routinely disrupted liquidity pipelines for the entire digital asset economy.

By evaluating direct access to Reserve Bank payment accounts, the administration is laying the groundwork for digital asset custodians and stablecoin issuers to settle transactions directly at the central bank level. This could effectively harmonize the legal standing of compliant digital asset institutions with that of traditional commercial banks.

The Broader Impact on Digital Assets and Markets

The regulatory restructuring comes at a time when institutional adoption of digital assets is already accelerating. Following the conditional approval of several crypto-related national trust bank charters by the OCC, this executive order provides a clear policy runway for top-tier digital asset service providers.

Institutions utilizing deep liquidity pools across major assets will benefit from more robust fiat on-ramps and off-ramps. Traders checking the Bitcoin price or assessing overall market shifts can expect reduced tracking errors and tighter spreads as institutional settlement bottlenecks disappear. For those seeking safe custody options amid these sweeping systemic upgrades, evaluating secure storage via the hardware wallets comparison remains a recommended baseline.

Furthermore, direct integration into payment channels gives clear utility advantages to compliant stablecoin issuers and settlement networks. This operational framework complements legislative progress in Washington, positioning the domestic digital dollar ecosystem to effectively scale commercial settlement speeds.

A major wave of geopolitical relief is sweeping through global financial markets. According to an official White House Pool Report, US President Donald Trump stated that the United States is currently in the "FINAL STAGES" of negotiations to end the ongoing conflict with Iran. This sudden pivot toward de-escalation comes just days after tense rhetoric left markets bracing for renewed military strikes.

For macro investors and digital asset traders, this news represents a significant reduction in the global risk premium. Historically, severe geopolitical tension in the Middle East drives institutional capital toward defensive postures. A verified breakthrough in these peace talks removes a massive layer of uncertainty, clearing the path for an immediate risk-on rally across both equities and digital assets.

Crypto Markets React as Geopolitical Risk Fades

The cryptocurrency market has historically acted as a highly sensitive gauge for global liquidity and macroeconomic sentiment. Following the distribution of the pool report, digital asset markets showed immediate signs of positive momentum.

With the threat of a widening conflict officially being neutralized at the diplomatic table, capital is expected to rapidly rotate back into high-beta risk assets. Analysts suggest that the timing of this diplomatic breakthrough could not be more ideal for crypto bulls, as market liquidity had been tightly coiled waiting for a clear directional catalyst.

Technical Outlook: Bitcoin Targets $82,000 After $80,000 Reclaim

From a technical perspective, $Bitcoin has been consolidating just under key overhead resistance. The macroeconomic relief provided by the Trump-Iran development is the exact fundamental driver needed to push the asset over the edge.

Key Levels to Watch

• The $80,000 Psychological Barrier: Reclaiming this level convincingly will confirm that the correction is over and that buyers are firmly back in control.
• The $82,000 Target: Once $80,000 flips from resistance into support, the path toward $82,000 is open, backed by short-liquidations and fresh retail momentum.

Traders looking to capitalize on this volatility should keep a close eye on live updates via the CryptoTicker BTC Tracker. Furthermore, evaluating market execution costs across the CryptoTicker Exchange Comparison Matrix will be vital as trading volumes spike in response to the news.

The cryptocurrency market is closely examining its structural footing following a sharp correction from recent all-time highs. After a powerful multi-week expansion that propelled the digital currency past key milestones, the asset encountered aggressive overhead resistance.

For market participants assessing bitcoin news today, the primary focus centers on the daily candlestick chart structure. After breaching the psychological $80,000 mark and posting local highs near $83,000, the daily Bitcoin price underwent a clear multi-day retracement. The premier digital asset is hovering at $77,371, registering a modest intraday green candle (+0.80%) as buyers attempt to stabilize the market at a historically significant technical crossroads.

Bitcoin Daily Chart Analysis: Understanding the Moving Average Breakdown

• The Price Action: BTC/USD hit an apex near $83,000 before breaking down beneath its short-term moving average, bottoming locally at a low of $76,440.
• The Technical Catalyst: A bearish crossover of the short-term Moving Average (MA 9) below the longer-term Moving Average (MA 21), signaling a momentum shift on the daily timeframe.
• The Macro Context: Over $800 million in bullish derivatives positions were liquidated as a strengthening US Dollar Index (DXY), rising 30-year Treasury yields, and unresolved geopolitical tensions in the Middle East chilled risk appetite.

The daily chart reveals that Bitcoin has slipped beneath its 9-day Moving Average (orange line at $78,502) and its 21-day Moving Average (green line at $79,301). This layout defines the current retraction as a structural shift: the moving averages have transitioned from dynamic support levels into immediate overhead resistance hurdles.

BTC Technical Analysis: Historical Consolidation Zones from April to May

Analyzing the asset's trajectory over the past two months showcases a clear technical rhythm marked by three critical consolidation zones highlighted by green circles on the daily chart:

1. The Early April Foundation

In early April, Bitcoin established a definitive macro floor inside the $65,581 demand zone. This area saw massive accumulation, forming a "higher low" structure that laid the groundwork for the subsequent impulse wave.

2. The Early May Launchpad

As April turned into May, Bitcoin aggressively broke upward, using the daily moving averages as a launchpad. A brief consolidation near the mid-$70,000 zone flipped prior resistance into support, sparking the parabolic run that ultimately targeted the major liquidity pocket above $80,000.

3. The Current Mid-May Rejection

After peaking at the $82,800 horizontal resistance line, buyers exhausted their momentum. The daily candles printed a series of lower highs, forcing a breakdown beneath the moving averages. The current consolidation loop near $77,371 mimics past consolidation structures, determining whether bulls can engineer another structural rebound.

Why Is Bitcoin Dropping?

Supporting this structural view is the Relative Strength Index (RSI 14), which sits at a cool 46.96. This reading confirms that the extreme overbought conditions present during the run to $83,000 have been completely erased. The indicator has dipped below the 50-median line, confirming that short-term sellers hold the operational edge, though the asset is far from technically oversold.

This technical cooldown coordinates perfectly with shifted institutional sentiment. Spot Bitcoin ETFs saw over $1 billion in net weekly outflows for the first time since January, as macro traders cut risk profiles due to soaring bond yields and shifting timelines regarding Federal Reserve interest rate paths. Simultaneously, high liquidations on derivative platforms forced over-leveraged longs to unwind, compounding the spot price decline.

Bitcoin Support Levels to Watch: Technical Targets for Bulls and Bears

As Bitcoin fights to reclaim its bullish posture, two distinct scenarios present themselves on the daily timeframe:

• The Bullish Recovery Case: To nullify the immediate bearish momentum, buyers must drive daily candle closes back above the moving average cluster between $78,500 and $79,300. Reclaiming this zone would re-energize a run toward the $82,800 ceiling.
• The Bearish Continuation Case: The absolute line in the sand for the current bullish macro structure rests at the $76,086 horizontal support. A decisive break below this level could accelerate selling pressure, opening the door for a deeper correction toward the low $70,000s.

During periods of heightened daily volatility, executing trades on liquid and fundamentally sound platforms is imperative. Traders can verify fees and pairs using our updated crypto exchange comparison. For long-term market participants looking to insulate their assets from counterparty risk during market shakeouts, utilizing premium cold storage setups remains a gold standard; discover optimal models in our hardware wallets comparison.

As of May 19, 2026, the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization is hovering at $2,116.7, leaving many retail and institutional investors asking a blunt question: Is Ethereum a bad investment?

To understand why sentiment has flipped so aggressively to the bearish side, one only needs to look at the historical comparisons circulating through the trading community. A popular visual contrast highlights Ethereum’s valuation exactly five years ago versus today.

At first glance, a 50% decline over a five-year horizon paints a grim picture for an asset often touted as "ultrasound money." However, evaluating whether an asset is a poor investment requires digging beneath the surface of raw price data into technical indicators, macroeconomic pressures, and on-chain health.

Is ETH Coin a Bad Investment?

Whether $Ethereum is a bad investment depends entirely on your trading time horizon and risk tolerance.

For short-term swing traders, ETH is currently exhibiting a highly volatile, bearish structure that carries significant downside risk toward the $2,000 support level. For long-term investors, however, historical data and on-chain fundamentals suggest this deep correction represents a classic cyclical re-accumulation phase rather than a permanent structural failure.

Ethereum Price Analysis over the Years

Looking at the multi-year ETHUSD chart, the asset has established a wide, macro-scale trading range. Following its peak near $4,946 earlier in the cycle, Ethereum has retraced roughly 57%, landing it back into the critical liquidity pocket between $2,000 and $2,300.

Key Support and Resistance Levels

• Immediate Support ($2,088): This represents the critical 0.5 Fibonacci retracement level. Daily and weekly candle closes must defend this area to prevent a deeper capitulation event.
• Psychological Floor ($2,000): If $2,088 fails to hold, the active impulse wave is highly likely to flush out leveraged long positions down to the flat $2,000 support mark.
• Primary Upside Target ($2,462 - $2,561): A successful defense of the current floor exposes a path to the 0.618 Fibonacci level, which acts as the initial validation gate for a structural trend reversal.

A significant silver lining on daily timeframes is the Gaussian Channel, which has recently flipped from purple (bearish) to green (bullish). Statistically, when ETH sits at the lower boundary of a green Gaussian Channel—similar to the market structure observed in mid-2025—it has historically served as a Launchpad for multi-month rallies.

Macroeconomic Headwinds: Why is Crypto Crashing?

The current downward trajectory of the broader crypto market is not happening in a vacuum. Ethereum’s price drop is heavily correlated with shifting global macroeconomic factors and sudden geopolitical escalations.

1. The Crude Oil Price Shock

The single biggest short-term headwind for Ethereum right now is the price of oil. Since late February, crude oil has surged over 66%, climbing from $65 to over $110 per barrel (Brent crude).

This massive energy spike triggers immediate inflation anxieties across traditional financial systems. When inflation threats loom, central banks—including the Federal Reserve—are forced to keep interest rates elevated for longer. This directly drains liquidity out of high-beta risk assets like technology stocks and cryptocurrencies. The inverse correlation between ETH and crude oil recently hit an all-time high of -0.40, showcasing exactly how macro factors are suppressing token valuations.

2. Geopolitical Tensions & Liquidations

Recent political friction in the Middle East has triggered widespread risk-off behavior. Warnings regarding stalled ceasefire talks led to over $580 million in overnight liquidations across the crypto market, forcing leveraged traders to sell off assets rapidly and driving the spot price of Ethereum straight through its $2,200 support floor.

Divergent On-Chain Data: Price vs. Ecosystem Health

While the spot price looks weak, Ethereum's underlying network fundamentals tell a completely different story. There is a glaring divergence between negative price action and positive ecosystem growth:

• Record Staking Participation: Despite ETH declining significantly year-to-date, the total supply of Ethereum locked in staking contracts has actually increased from 29% to 31%. Long-term holders are opting to earn yield rather than dump their tokens into the market.
• Supply Scarcity: This steady influx of staked capital actively removes millions of ETH from liquid circulation on cryptocurrency exchanges, lowering the structural sell pressure.
• Institutional Tokenization: Major financial institutions continue to deploy tokenized funds on the Ethereum mainnet. Financial analysts like Fundstrat's Tom Lee maintain that tokenization and the rise of decentralized, agentic AI applications will serve as the core structural drivers for Ethereum throughout the remainder of 2026.

Before executing a long-term strategy, investors should review their execution venue via an exchange comparison and ensure assets are secured using offline infrastructure, which you can verify in our comprehensive hardware wallets review.

Ethereum Price Prediction: What Lies Ahead?

The Bearish Case

If crude oil remains above $110 and institutional capital continues to flow out of spot ETH ETFs, the asset will likely lose the $2,088 Fibonacci support line. This will drag the price down to the psychological floor of $2,000, where a broader market panic could temporarily wick the price down to $1,850 to sweep liquidity.

The Bullish Case

If Ethereum successfully prints a daily close above the current $2,116 node and the broader markets stabilize from geopolitical shocks, a relief rally to $2,462 is expected via Elliott Wave analysis. In the longer term, assuming the green Gaussian Channel structure mirrors past cycles, the current $2,100 level could be remembered as a generational macro bottom before an eventual push toward five-digit valuations.

Verdict: Is Ethereum a Bad Investment?

Ethereum is not a bad investment, but it is currently a painful one.

The asset is caught in a macro-driven liquidity squeeze. However, given its structural deflationary mechanics, expanding institutional tokenization use cases, and a rising staking ratio that locks up supply, the token retains some of the strongest risk-adjusted upside potential in the digital asset sector. Investors looking to enter the market should avoid over-leveraged positions and focus on dollar-cost averaging (DCA) around key structural support zones.

Track real-time valuations and historic performance curves directly on our ETH-USD Ticker Page.

Crypto Market Reversal Begins After Heavy Market Pressure

The crypto market is showing early signs of recovery after a sharp risk-off move triggered by geopolitical tension, stock market volatility, and renewed uncertainty around global liquidity. Bitcoin is currently trading near $77,000, with only a slight daily gain, while several altcoins are already turning green.

This creates an important question for traders: is this a real crypto market reversal, or just a temporary relief bounce after the latest sell-off?

The shift comes after President Donald Trump signalled that a potential Iran deal may still be possible, easing some immediate market fears. Reuters reported that Gulf and European markets moved higher after Trump’s comments calmed investor nerves, while oil prices also eased from recent highs.

Why Bitcoin Is Staying Flat Around $77K

Bitcoin remains the key market indicator, but its movement is still limited. According to the latest market data, BTC is trading around $77,000, up only slightly over the past 24 hours. This shows that traders are not fully convinced that the correction is over.

There are a few reasons why Bitcoin is not moving aggressively yet.

First, BTC was hit by macro fear after the market reacted to the geopolitical situation. Second, institutional flows remain a concern after reports of major Bitcoin ETF outflows. Third, Bitcoin is still facing technical pressure, with traders watching whether it can reclaim stronger resistance zones above the current range.

In simple terms, Bitcoin is stabilising, but it has not yet confirmed a strong bullish breakout.

Why Altcoins Are Turning Green Faster Than Bitcoin

While Bitcoin is moving sideways, some altcoins are showing stronger momentum. In the latest market performance, coins like Hyperliquid ($HYPE), Zcash ($ZEC), Bitcoin Cash ($BCH), and Chainlink ($LINK) are outperforming the broader market.

This usually happens when traders start looking for higher-risk, higher-reward opportunities after a market correction. Once Bitcoin stops falling, liquidity can rotate into altcoins that already have strong narratives or technical momentum.

For example, $HYPE is gaining attention due to its role in decentralized derivatives trading. $ZEC is benefiting from renewed interest in privacy-related crypto assets. $BCH is showing strength as one of the older Bitcoin-related coins, while $LINK remains tied to the broader real-world asset and oracle narrative.

This does not mean the full altcoin season has started, but it does show that selective altcoins are reacting faster than Bitcoin.

Crypto Market Reversal or Relief Bounce?

The current crypto market reversal still needs confirmation. Bitcoin holding above the $77K zone is positive, but the market remains fragile. A stronger recovery would likely require BTC to move back above key resistance levels, ETF flows to stabilise, and macro fears to ease further.

For now, the market appears to be in a cautious recovery phase. Altcoins are bouncing, but Bitcoin is not yet leading the move with strong conviction.

This is important because a real crypto market reversal usually needs Bitcoin strength first. If BTC stays flat while altcoins pump too quickly, the move could become unstable. However, if Bitcoin holds its range and gradually moves higher, altcoins could continue to outperform in the short term.

What Traders Should Watch Next

The next major signals are Bitcoin’s ability to hold the $77K area, whether ETH can recover above stronger support levels, and whether high-momentum altcoins can keep their gains.

Traders should also watch macro headlines closely. The latest market reaction shows that crypto is still highly sensitive to geopolitical developments, oil prices, stock market moves, and institutional flows.

If tensions continue to ease, Bitcoin may stabilise further and give altcoins more room to recover. But if new risk-off headlines appear, the crypto market could quickly return to selling pressure.

Conclusion: Altcoins Are Recovering, But Bitcoin Must Confirm the Move

The crypto market is showing signs of recovery, but the move is not fully confirmed yet. Bitcoin remains flat near $77K, while selected altcoins are already turning green and attracting fresh attention.

This makes the current setup interesting but risky. The altcoin rebound suggests that traders are slowly returning to risk assets, but Bitcoin still needs to prove that the market has moved beyond a simple relief bounce.

For now, the crypto market reversal is developing, but confirmation depends on whether Bitcoin can break out of its current range and bring stronger momentum back to the market.

$BTC, $ETH, $HYPE, $ZEC, $BCH, $LINK, $SOL, $XRP

The rocket maker’s IPO filing outlines billions in AI spending, Starship development, and Elon Musk’s effort to combine launch systems, satellite internet, social media, and artificial intelligence under one company.

SpaceX is gearing up for what's likely to be a blockbuster IPO, and Elon Musk's aerospace and AI firm holds more Bitcoin than expected.

Fairshake said six primary victories on Tuesday revealed a “powerful bipartisan mandate” for pro-crypto policies. But other factors appear to have been at play.

De-extinction startup Colossal claims it has built an artificial womb capable of supporting mammal development—and it's nearly complete.

Members linked to the Sinaloa Cartel responsible for turning cash from drug proceeds into crypto were added to the sanctions list.

Arthur Hayes mocks Zcash bears as the privacy coin surges past $670 to become the 13th largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization.

Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Group is celebrating the one-year anniversary of its XRP futures suite with a massive milestone.

Ripple CLO Stuart Alderoty argues the Clarity Act must protect 67 million U.S. crypto holders, as approval is expected to clear regulatory overhangs for XRP.

South Carolina signs a senate bill into law, prohibiting authorities from implementing unfriendly crypto rules and the use of government-controlled digital currencies.

Japanese regional lender Tohoku Bank has officially partnered with SBI Remit to overhaul its cross-border payment services as domestic financial institutions increasingly retreat from the remittance market due to mounting regulatory and compliance costs.

TLDR:

• Italian investigators uncovered over €1 million in undeclared capital gains tied to Bitcoin Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens.
• Chainalysis Reactor mapped a complex inscription-monetization cycle from a single seized Ledger hardware wallet.
• Common-input-ownership heuristics linked multiple pseudonymous wallet addresses back to one controlling suspect.
• KYC records from centralized exchanges provided the final identity link needed to unmask the tax fraud suspect.

Bitcoin Ordinals are increasingly being used to conceal untaxed wealth, as a landmark Italian case now shows. Investigators from Italy’s Guardia di Finanza uncovered a multi-year tax fraud scheme.

A suspect reportedly used the Ordinals protocol and BRC-20 tokens to accumulate over €1 million in undeclared capital gains. The suspect also received public subsidies unlawfully during this period.

Using Chainalysis Reactor, law enforcement traced the funds and unmasked the individual responsible.

Italian Authorities Track Down a Complex Ordinals Scheme

The investigation started as a routine inquiry into unreported income in Italy. Officers from the Economic and Financial Police Unit of Foggia led the case.

Rome’s Special Unit for Privacy Protection and Technological Fraud also participated. Together, they uncovered a scheme far more complex than initially expected.

The suspect had been using the Ordinals protocol to generate and conceal undeclared earnings. Introduced in 2023, Ordinals assign a unique serial number to each satoshi on Bitcoin.

This allows data like images and text to be permanently embedded within a transaction. BRC-20 tokens extend this, enabling fungible token creation on Bitcoin without smart contracts.

Chainalysis confirmed the development on its official platform, stating: “Recently, investigators in Italy used Chainalysis to uncover a multi-year, €1 million tax fraud and subsidy scheme fueled by Ordinals and BRC-20 tokens.” The disclosure drew wide attention from the blockchain intelligence and law enforcement communities globally.

Chainalysis Reactor served as the central tool for reconstructing the suspect’s financial activity. Investigators visualized a recurring monetization cycle involving inscription services and crypto marketplaces.

The suspect funded inscriptions, listed the resulting assets, then collected Bitcoin profits. Those earnings were reinvested repeatedly, netting over €1 million in undeclared gains.

Blockchain Transparency Closes the Door on Crypto Tax Evasion

The forensic trail started with a single Ledger hardware wallet seized during a home search. By design, Ledger devices generate a new receiving address for every incoming transaction.

This creates many addresses that appear unrelated at first glance. Using common-input-ownership heuristics, investigators linked all addresses back to one controlling entity.

While the on-chain map was detailed, connecting it to a real identity required one more step. Blockchain wallet addresses are pseudonymous and do not directly reveal the owner’s identity.

Investigators needed additional off-chain data to make that final connection. This is where centralized exchanges became critical to the case.

The suspect had used regulated exchanges to off-ramp crypto profits into usable funds. These platforms are required by law to collect Know Your Customer (KYC) documentation from users.

After judicial disclosure orders were issued, the exchanges provided the necessary identity records. Cross-referencing this data with on-chain patterns allowed investigators to definitively unmask the suspect.

Chainalysis further noted that “no matter how new or technically complex an asset class may be, the fundamental transparency of the blockchain — paired with advanced blockchain intelligence — ensures that illicit financial flows can always be traced.”

This statement captures exactly what this Italian case demonstrated in practice. Digital assets may be new, but public ledgers leave every transaction permanently recorded. Tax authorities worldwide are taking notice.

The post Italian Investigators Bust €1 Million Bitcoin Ordinals Tax Fraud Using Chainalysis Reactor appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Uniswap’s temp check vote targets BNB Chain, Polygon, and Celo, expanding the fee-and-burn to 13 chains.
• Every swap generates a protocol fee that bridges to Ethereum and permanently burns UNI at a dead address.
• CryptoQuant data shows rising UNI net outflows on Binance, pointing to smart money accumulation near lows.
• The governance vote closes May 21st with 18.1M UNI cast, 100% in favor, and the 10M quorum already cleared.

Uniswap is moving to extend its fee-and-burn mechanism to BNB Chain, Polygon, and Celo. A temp check vote is currently underway, drawing strong community support.

Meanwhile, on-chain data from CryptoQuant shows rising net outflows on Binance as UNI trades near its lower price range. Together, these developments are drawing fresh attention to the token’s near-term outlook.

Governance Vote Targets 13-Chain Fee-and-Burn Rollout

The proposal, shared via Snapshot.eth on behalf of Uniswap’s governance, aims to bring the fee-and-burn system to three additional networks. If passed, the rollout would cover 13 chains in total.

Every swap on these networks generates a protocol fee, which bridges back to Ethereum and permanently burns UNI at a dead address.

The system has been live since December across Ethereum and nine other networks. BNB Chain and Polygon would connect through Wormhole’s Native Token Transfer setup.

Celo was approved in an earlier vote but failed due to a configuration error. This proposal corrects that path and re-runs the execution.

Forum member Abel189 described the move as “a coherent next step” given Uniswap’s “increasingly multi-chain reality.”

He supports incremental, chain-by-chain expansion but flagged growing cross-chain messaging complexity as a key watch item going forward.

L2BEAT’s governance team, including members Kaereste and Manugotsuka, voted in favor after their research team verified the implementation, contracts, and expected governance payloads.

They noted the unchanged fee structure and continuity with the previously approved framework as reasons for their support.

On-Chain Outflow Data Points to Accumulation Activity

On the market side, CryptoQuant data on the Uniswap Exchange Netflow chart for Binance is showing notable movement.

As UNI’s price corrected deeply, netflow bars grew denser with large net outflows becoming more frequent. This pattern tends to reflect behavior from longer-term holders and smart money participants.

These outflows typically mean UNI is being withdrawn from Binance and moved to personal wallets for holding. That reduces the available supply on the exchange and lowers direct selling pressure over time. Analyst Rei Researcher noted this trend as a potential setup for an accumulation zone near the bottom.

Source: Cryptoquant

Currently, UNI is seeing a mild price recovery. If the outflow trend continues and exchange supply tightens further, buying demand could push the price higher.

The combination of reduced sell-side pressure and growing protocol utility through the burn mechanism adds a structural layer to that potential move.

The governance vote closes on May 21st at 5:30 PM UTC. As of the latest update, 258 wallets have cast 18.1 million UNI votes, with 100% in favor and the 10 million quorum already cleared.

The post Uniswap Pushes Fee-and-Burn to 13 Chains as Binance Net Outflows Signal Accumulation appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• NVIDIA Q1 FY2027 revenue reached a record $81.6 billion, rising 85% year-over-year and 20% sequentially.
• Data Center revenue surged 92% annually to $75.2 billion, with networking revenue climbing 199% year-over-year.
• NVIDIA raised its quarterly dividend from $0.01 to $0.25 per share and approved an $80 billion buyback program.
• Q2 FY2027 revenue guidance stands at $91 billion, excluding all Data Center compute revenue sourced from China.

NVIDIA reported record first-quarter fiscal 2027 revenue of $81.6 billion, marking an 85% year-over-year increase. Data Center revenue reached $75.2 billion, up 92% annually.

The company also guided Q2 revenue to $91 billion. Non-GAAP diluted EPS climbed 140% to $1.87. Operating cash flow hit $50.3 billion, while free cash flow totaled $48.6 billion during the quarter.

Record Revenue Driven by AI Infrastructure Demand

NVIDIA’s Q1 FY2027 results reflect growing demand for AI computing infrastructure worldwide. Revenue rose 20% sequentially from $68.1 billion in Q4 FY2026. The company’s GAAP gross margin stood at 74.9%, up 14.4 percentage points year-over-year.

Data Center compute revenue alone reached $60.4 billion, rising 77% from a year ago. Networking revenue within the segment hit $14.8 billion, up 199% annually. These numbers show strong adoption of NVIDIA’s Blackwell GPU platform across hyperscale clients.

Jensen Huang, NVIDIA’s founder and CEO, described the moment as a turning point for global infrastructure. He stated that “the buildout of AI factories — the largest infrastructure expansion in human history — is accelerating at extraordinary speed.” Huang further noted that agentic AI is now doing productive work and generating real value across industries.

NVIDIA returned approximately $20 billion to shareholders through buybacks and dividends during Q1. The Board also approved an additional $80 billion share repurchase authorization on May 18, 2026, with no expiration date.

Huang added that NVIDIA is “uniquely positioned at the center of this transformation” as the only platform running across every major cloud.

Dividend Increase and Shareholder Returns Signal Confidence

NVIDIA raised its quarterly cash dividend from $0.01 per share to $0.25 per share. The dividend will be paid on June 26, 2026, to shareholders of record as of June 4, 2026. This marks a notable shift in NVIDIA’s capital return strategy.

As of Q1’s close, the company had $38.5 billion remaining under its prior share repurchase authorization. The new $80 billion addition further strengthens NVIDIA’s buyback capacity. Together, these moves reflect management’s confidence in sustained earnings growth.

GAAP net income for the quarter came in at $58.3 billion, up 211% year-over-year. Non-GAAP net income reached $45.5 billion, rising 139% from the same period last year. Both figures point to strong profitability alongside revenue growth.

GAAP diluted EPS of $2.39 compares to $0.76 in Q1 FY2026, a 214% increase. Non-GAAP diluted EPS of $1.87 reflects a 140% annual gain.

Huang noted that NVIDIA’s platform “runs in every cloud, powers every frontier and open source model, and scales everywhere AI is produced.”

Q2 Outlook and Structural Reporting Changes

NVIDIA guided Q2 FY2027 revenue at approximately $91 billion, plus or minus 2%. The company stated that this outlook excludes any Data Center compute revenue from China. GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins are expected to remain near 74.9% and 75.0%, respectively.

Operating expenses for Q2 are projected at around $8.5 billion on a GAAP basis and $8.3 billion non-GAAP. For the full fiscal year 2027, NVIDIA expects tax rates of 16% to 18%, excluding discrete items. These projections reflect continued investment in research and operations.

NVIDIA also announced a new reporting framework splitting its business into Data Center and Edge Computing platforms. Within Data Center, it will now report Hyperscale and ACIE sub-markets separately. Edge Computing will cover PCs, game consoles, robotics, and automotive devices.

Edge Computing revenue for Q1 reached $6.4 billion, up 29% year-over-year and 10% sequentially. New partnerships with Hyundai, Kia, BYD, and Uber support growth in autonomous driving. Expanded collaborations with Google Cloud and Marvell also continue to broaden NVIDIA’s ecosystem reach.

The post NVIDIA Q1 FY2027 Revenue Hits Record $81.6 Billion as AI Infrastructure Demand Accelerates appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Binance recorded a $1.2 billion stablecoin outflow, with $1 billion of that total consisting solely of USDT.
• The withdrawal follows a recent Bitcoin sell-off, pointing to either short capitulation or spot profit realization.
• Weekend low-liquidity conditions raise the risk of stop-hunts and leveraged liquidations around the $77,600 zone.
• Reduced stablecoin reserves on Binance limit near-term buying pressure, making sustained upward momentum unlikely soon.

Bitcoin is trading around the $77,600 level as a $1.2 billion stablecoin outflow exits Binance. Of that total, $1 billion consists of USDT alone.

The movement follows a recent downward price wave. Stablecoin flows on derivative-heavy exchanges like Binance are closely watched by traders. They often signal what major market participants are planning next.

What the $1 Billion USDT Withdrawal Reveals About Market Sentiment

Stablecoin flows on exchanges act as leading indicators for price movement. When stablecoins leave exchanges, it often means traders are pulling capital rather than preparing to deploy it.

That shift in behavior tells a story about current market confidence. The timing here, coming after a sell-off, makes it worth examining closely.

Two scenarios stand out as the most probable explanations for this outflow. The first is short capitulation, where bearish derivative traders close profitable positions and withdraw proceeds.

The second is spot profit realization, where investors who recently sold Bitcoin are moving their USDT to cold storage or external wallets. Both scenarios point toward reduced near-term buying pressure on Binance.

Analyst BorisD flagged the move noting that stablecoin inflows near resistance zones typically prepare the ground for short positions or profit-taking.

Meanwhile, inflows near market bottoms tend to support upward price action. The current outflow does not fit either of those setups cleanly, which adds to the uncertainty.

This ambiguity is what makes the $1 billion USDT exit particularly notable. Rather than a clear directional bet, it reads more as a withdrawal of capital from the field entirely. That kind of behavior tends to precede consolidation phases rather than sharp moves in either direction.

Weekend Price Action Could Bring Liquidity Sweeps on Both Sides

With the weekend approaching, lower liquidity conditions are expected across crypto markets. Thinner order books make it easier for large players to push price through key levels temporarily.

That environment often produces stop-hunts on both long and short positions. Traders holding leveraged exposure should factor this in.

Consolidation around the $77,600 zone is the most likely short-term outcome. The market needs time to rebuild liquidity pools after the recent wave of selling.

Sideways price action, punctuated by sharp spikes in either direction, fits this pattern well. Neither bulls nor bears currently hold a decisive edge at this level.

Leveraged traders face the highest risk during this kind of environment. A brief wick above or below a key level can trigger cascading liquidations before price returns to range.

Managing position size and stop placement becomes more important than direction calls during consolidation. The data from Binance supports a cautious stance for now.

As Bitcoin holds at $77,600, the market appears to be in a wait-and-see mode. The $1.2 billion stablecoin outflow has removed a layer of potential buying fuel from Binance.

Until fresh capital re-enters the exchange, sustained directional momentum remains unlikely. Traders are advised to monitor stablecoin flow data closely over the coming sessions.

The post Bitcoin Stablecoin Outflow: $1.2 Billion Leaves Binance as BTC Holds at $77.6K appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Bybit’s XRP transaction delta returned close to zero around May 16, ending a month-long deposit trend.
• Sustained deposit activity on Bybit from mid-April to mid-May signaled potential sell-side pressure.
• Binance and Coinbase have shifted back to negative delta, meaning withdrawals now outpace deposits.
• The metric tracks transaction count, not token volume, offering a directional but partial market view.

XRP exchange-flow behavior is showing a notable shift across major trading venues. After weeks of persistent deposit activity on Bybit, the platform’s transaction delta returned close to zero around May 16.

Meanwhile, Binance and Coinbase have moved back into negative territory. This change reflects a clear rotation in exchange behavior, suggesting that the broad selling pressure seen during the mid-April to mid-May period has cooled considerably.

Bybit’s Month-Long Deposit Trend Comes to a Halt

XRP deposit activity on Bybit remained consistently elevated from mid-April through mid-May. During that stretch, the exchange recorded strong and persistent positive readings in its transaction delta.

Sustained deposit-side activity is often associated with potential sell-side pressure in crypto markets. Coins moving into exchanges are typically more available for trading or liquidation.

The shift became apparent around May 16, when Bybit’s delta returned near zero. That move marked a clear break from the previous pattern of heavy deposit imbalance.

On a transaction-count basis, the deposit pressure that defined the prior period has now faded. This change removes one of the more visible sources of supply-side activity in recent weeks.

Crypto analyst Amr Taha shared the observation based on the XRP Multi-Exchange Daily Depositing/Withdrawing Transactions Delta. The data tracks transaction counts rather than total token volume.

So it does not confirm exact amounts of XRP moved in or out. However, the directional shift across multiple venues remains a notable development.

The end of Bybit’s deposit wave does not guarantee a price move in either direction. Rather, it removes a layer of exchange-side pressure that was present for roughly a month.

Traders watching supply dynamics will likely monitor whether this neutral reading holds or reverses in the coming sessions.

Binance and Coinbase Withdrawal Activity Points to a Different Flow Structure

As Bybit’s deposit activity cooled, Binance and Coinbase moved back into negative delta territory. Negative readings indicate that withdrawal transactions are now outweighing deposit transactions on those platforms.

This is a different flow structure compared to what was seen during the Bybit-led deposit phase. The shift suggests coins are moving away from those exchanges rather than toward them.

Withdrawal-side behavior on major exchanges like Binance and Coinbase can reflect reduced near-term selling intent. When more tokens leave an exchange than enter, available supply on that platform tends to tighten.

That dynamic, when sustained, can shift the balance between buyers and sellers over time. However, short-term readings should be interpreted carefully without additional context.

The combination of Bybit cooling and Binance and Coinbase turning negative creates a different setup for XRP. The market is no longer showing the same broad exchange-deposit pressure from the prior period.

Instead, a rotation in flow behavior is now visible across major venues. This metric tracks transaction direction, making it a useful but partial view of overall market activity.

The post XRP Exchange Flow Shifts as Bybit Deposit Wave Ends, Binance and Coinbase Turn Negative appeared first on Blockonomi.

Earlier today, hackers gained access to GitHub’s internal repositories by exploiting an employee’s computer with the use of a tainted VS Code extension.

Following the incident, reports emerged that a threat actor using the alias TeamPCP was now allegedly selling what they claim is roughly 4,000 of GitHub’s private repositories on a cybercriminal forum, with a minimum asking price of $50,000.

What GitHub Says Happened

GitHub confirmed the breach through several tweets posted on its X account, where it detailed what it knew thus far. As per the hosting platform, the attacker gained access to its internal repository via a malicious extension of VS Code loaded onto one of the devices of its employees.

GitHub claims that once it realized there was an attack, it promptly deleted the malicious software from the infected machine. Critically, it pointed out that there is currently no evidence that customer data held outside its internal systems, meaning individual users’ enterprises, organizations, or repositories, was accessed.

The hosting service also confirmed it moved quickly to rotate credentials, moving the highest-impact secrets first. It will also be examining logs to see whether there has been any additional activity, and it will be providing more details on the matter after the investigation concludes.

Meanwhile, French researcher Sébastien Latombe flagged a listing on a criminal message board by a threat actor calling themselves “TeamPCP,” claiming to be the one behind the hack, containing mentions of repositories related to GitHub Actions, GitHub Enterprise, GitHub Copilot, Azure, CodeQL, billing, and authentication services.

Allegedly, they are not looking to ransom GitHub but want a single buyer for the stolen data, with the minimum asking price being $50,000.

However, it must be noted that there has been no official confirmation of the content in the forum listing from GitHub or Microsoft, and any claims made in such cybercriminal sites may be taken with a pinch of salt, as any data they provide in such cases may be out of date or overblown to inflate its perceived value.

Security Concerns Spread Through Crypto

The reaction online to the breach was swift, with Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) posting a direct message to crypto developers:

“If you have API keys in your code, even private repos, now is the time to double check and change them.”

The replies painted a familiar picture of an industry-wide problem. Topaz DEX founder Aaron Shames called it “bad practice to have API keys in any repo, private or not,” though he acknowledged the heads-up.

Others pointed out that for builders managing hundreds of keys across projects, this is not a simple fix.

“This entire practice of key storage needs an update,” wrote digital artist Tuteth_.

Security commentator Dhanush Nehru went further:

“No one knows what all permissions each VS Code extension owns. The cybersecurity threat landscape is scary.”

The timing of this incident also contributed to pre-existing worries about crypto security following multiple high-profile hacks this month, which included an attack on Echo Protocol, where hackers managed to mint $76.7 million worth of eBTC.

That particular incident came just days after two other multimillion-dollar attacks were carried out on THORChain and the Verus-Ethereum Bridge.

This spate of events has led to renewed debates on the issues of code verification and software supply chain vulnerabilities, where Vitalik Buterin asserts that with the help of AI, formal verification can make software safer by mathematically proving its behavior.

The post GitHub Internal Repos Breached; Binance’s CZ Urges Urgent Key Rotation appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan described Hyperliquid as one of the most important crypto projects to emerge in recent years.

He believes that investors continue to underestimate both the platform’s long-term impact and the valuation of its native HYPE token.

Growth Trajectory

In a recent memo, Hougan said Hyperliquid has evolved beyond a crypto perpetual futures exchange into a financial “super-app” offering exposure to multiple asset classes, including commodities, S&P 500 futures, pre-IPO stocks, and prediction markets. According to Hougan, the platform’s growth has been driven in part by the regulatory environment emerging under SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, whose November 2025 remarks supported the development of multi-asset trading platforms operating outside conventional SEC structures.

The Bitwise exec noted that Hyperliquid now derives nearly half of its trading volume from non-crypto assets and claimed the figure could rise to 70% by year-end. Despite the platform remaining unavailable to US users, he described it as “one of the fastest-growing financial businesses” he has seen, while citing approximately $170 billion in monthly trading volume.

Hougan also stated that Hyperliquid represents a “Gen 2” token designed from Day 1 to accrue value, as he highlighted the platform’s reported policy of directing 99% of trading fees toward buying back HYPE tokens. This is very different from tokens launched during former chair Gary Gensler’s tenure. Hougan explained that those “governance tokens” that had little or no economic tie to the underlying blockchain or application, as they sought to remove any expectation of profit.

“In the future, I suspect this will be the norm for token design. In the meantime, it’s one of the reasons Hyperliquid is the best-performing large-cap crypto asset in the world over the past year.”

Hougan further claimed HYPE is currently one of the most mispriced assets in crypto due to category as well as anchoring error.

Institutional Momentum

His comments come days after 21Shares rolled out the first US spot ETF tracking Hyperliquid’s token under the THYP ticker. Bitwise followed suit with another exchange-traded fund tracking HYPE, under the ticker BHYP on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).

While other leading crypto assets continue to struggle, HYPE is leading the market rally. Over the past week alone, the token has amassed over 25% in gains.

The post Why Bitwise CIO Thinks Investors Are Mispricing Hyperliquid and HYPE Token appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Many leading altcoins, including Ethereum (ETH), Ripple (XRP), and Solana (SOL), have headed south over the past 30 days, moving in step with the market’s predominantly bearish tone.

However, Zcash (ZEC) has defied the overall pullback, posting a roughly 90% price increase during this period.

How Much Higher?

The privacy coin ZEC was the talk of the town towards the end of last year when its price surged from mere $50 to over $700 in a matter of two months. Back then, though, the entire crypto market was booming (even if Zcash was among the standout performers), whereas the recent surge appears far more unexpected.

Earlier this month, the token’s valuation briefly exceeded $630 before slightly retreating to the current $585 (according to CoinGecko’s data). Its market capitalization neared $10 billion, making ZEC the 14th-biggest cryptocurrency after flipping Cardano (ADA) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH). One factor that could have played a role in the ascent is the overall uptrend in privacy coins, with Monero (XMR) and Dash (DASH) also well in the green on a monthly scale.

Somewhat expected, crypto X is once again rammed with users envisioning further gains for ZEC. CryptoJack, for example, claimed that the asset has broken out of a descending channel, suggesting it could be starting a major move up.

Sjuul | AltCryptoGems and JAVON MARKS also gave their two cents. The former said ZEC looks “pretty bullish” as it’s potentially breaking out of a bull flag. JAVON MARKS noted the token’s strong progress and forecasted a possible rise above $700.

A Desired Correction?

Contrary to the bullish predictions made by the aforementioned market observers, ZEC’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) suggests the asset may cool off in the near term. The technical analysis tool ranges from 0 to 100, with ratios above 70 signaling that the coin is overbought and due for a potential pullback. On the other hand, readings below 30 are often considered buying opportunities. ZEC’s RSI briefly spiked beyond 80, while now it stands at roughly 66.

Such a correction, though, seems to be something that certain analysts would actually welcome. Altcoin Sherpa, for instance, said they want to hop on the bandwagon should the price drop to $470 or even lower.

The post Zcash (ZEC) Explodes 90% in a Month: Bull Trap or Major Rally Ahead? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

A long-time Ethereum investor and community figure has pushed back against growing alarm over the string of departures from the Ethereum Foundation (EF), arguing that the organization’s commitment to the network is as firm as ever.

Ryan Berckmans, who has worked full-time in the Ethereum space for eight years, offered one of the more detailed community-level defenses of the EF’s current direction since the exits started mounting this year.

Departures Caused by Differences of Opinion

According to Berckmans, people are misreading the situation.

“The EF departures are not because the people departing feel differently about Ethereum and our trajectory vs. the people staying at EF or vs. community folks like me,” he wrote.

What actually drove them, in his view, was a mix of internal disagreements over sub-strategies rather than any loss of faith in Ethereum itself, plus a deliberate generational shift.

“Some folks disagreed. Some tiny number were asked to leave for Reasons. Some few others left immediately due to Reasonable Net Feelings. Some more are leaving because the Wheel is Turning,” he explained.

Further, Berckmans added that new, younger contributors are ready to step into leadership across teams and departments. He also addressed a persistent piece of community frustration, that the EF and Vitalik Buterin do not care about ETH’s price, calling it a misconception.

According to him, they care deeply, but across a much longer time horizon than most community members track.

“They want to know, ‘How will Ethereum remain dominant after quantum computers?’ and, ‘How will Ethereum be the world’s economic hub for trillions in assets and thousands of L2s across a hundred countries?'”

His conclusion was that these are questions that can only get asked if you believe the outcome is achievable, and the EF’s programs in response to them are “gigabullish.”

Four Prominent Contributors Left in Just Four Weeks

The wave of exits has included Carl Beek, Julian Ma, Barnabé Monnot, Tim Beiko, Trent Van Epps, Josh Stark, and former co-Executive Director Tomasz Stańczak.

Stańczak’s departure, in particular, drew quite a lot of attention, considering that it came just 11 months after he’d taken the role. In addition, the exits have been concentrated, with four of the more prominent ones landing within roughly four weeks of each other in April and May.

Meanwhile, a detailed analysis by crypto researcher Nick Sawinyh pointed to unconfirmed claims circulating online that staff were asked to formally align with the Foundation’s new mandate. However, the EF has not publicly confirmed those claims, and none of the departing contributors cited the mandate as their reason for leaving.

People are also focusing on the coming Glamsterdam upgrade to Ethereum that is still under test. The protocol update includes changes tied to scaling and validator infrastructure, although some anticipated features, including FOCIL and native account abstraction, have already been delayed to a later upgrade cycle.

Despite this, many Ethereum backers believe that the entire ecosystem can now take leadership changes in stride without posing a risk to the network as a whole. One of them, author William Mougayar, described the Foundation’s shrinking role as a deliberate attempt to remove Ethereum’s remaining central point of control rather than a sign of institutional decline.

The post ETH Insider Explains Wave of 2026 Ethereum Foundation Departures appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Tether International has announced acquiring Japanese multinational investment firm SoftBank’s minority stake in the Bitcoin-focused treasury company, Twenty One Capital (XXI).

At the closing of the transaction, SoftBank’s representatives on the XXI Board of Directors stepped down in line with the shareholder agreement.

Tether Absorbs SoftBank Position

In its official blog post, Tether stated that the transaction “reflects the continued development of XXI as the company builds on its foundation and advances its long-term Bitcoin strategy.”  With the transaction finalized, SoftBank’s role in governance has now concluded.

Commenting on the latest development, Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said,

“SoftBank’s involvement gave XXI the kind of institutional depth that few early-stage companies ever have. Their experience backing some of the most consequential technology companies in the world brought credibility, perspective, and discipline to XXI during a critical period of formation. They leave behind a company with a stronger foundation, a clearer mandate, and an ambitious path ahead. Tether’s conviction in XXI has only deepened, and we look forward to building on that foundation as the company enters its next chapter.”

In April 2025, Twenty One Capital was launched as a new crypto venture with Strike founder Jack Mallers named as CEO. The company was backed at launch by Tether International and Bitfinex as majority owners, alongside SoftBank Group and Cantor Fitzgerald as initial investors. It was disclosed that the company would begin with about $3.6 billion in Bitcoin held in its treasury. SoftBank was included as a minority stakeholder at formation, while Tether held controlling ownership.

Twenty One Capital went public in December of the same year through a SPAC merger in New York.

Merger Proposal

Last month, Tether put forward a multi-step plan involving Twenty One Capital, which included merging the company first with Strike. After that initial step, the plan proposes a second stage where the combined entity would then merge with the bitcoin mining company Elektron Energy.

Meanwhile, according to the latest data, Twenty One Capital is currently the second-largest public company holder of Bitcoin, with 43,514 BTC. It trails Michael Saylor-led business intelligence firm, Strategy, which holds 843,738 BTC.

The post Tether Acquires SoftBank Stake in Bitcoin-Focused Treasury Company XXI appeared first on CryptoPotato.