Canary files a PEPE ETF as memecoin funds expand after Dogecoins GDOG launch and BONK related ETF filings.

The post Canary files S-1 for PEPE ETF as memecoin funds expand beyond DOGE appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Visa Intelligent Commerce and Coinbase x402 power Nevermineds new system for AI agent payments across digital goods and services.

The post Visa and Coinbase team with Nevermined on AI agent commerce appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Standard Chartered's merger could enhance its competitive edge in the expanding digital asset custody market, attracting more institutional investors.

The post Standard Chartered plans to merge parts of Zodia Custody into its digital assets division appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Morpho launches Morpho Agents in beta, giving AI agents machine-readable access to read, simulate, and use its lending protocols.

The post Morpho introduces Morpho Agents to bring AI agents into DeFi lending appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Morgan Stanley's Bitcoin ETF launch signals a pivotal shift in traditional finance's embrace of digital assets, intensifying market competition.

The post Morgan Stanley launches Bitcoin ETF with lowest fees in the game, and demand is already surging appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Adam Back Says Quantum Threat to Bitcoin Is Decades Away, Urges Gradual Migration to Post-Quantum Security

Blockstream CEO Adam Back pushed back on concerns that quantum computing poses an imminent threat to Bitcoin’s cryptographic security, arguing that current progress in the field remains far from the level required to break real-world encryption.

Speaking in an interview with Bloomberg, Back noted that much of today’s quantum research is still in its early experimental phase. He pointed to the limited capabilities of existing quantum hardware, which often lacks full error correction and has only demonstrated trivial computations. “The biggest calculation it’s performed is factoring 21 into 7 times 3,” he said, emphasizing that today’s machines remain closer to laboratory prototypes than practical computing systems.

While recent academic work has highlighted potential algorithmic improvements, Back argued that these advances do not yet translate into meaningful hardware capability. 

As a result, he said, the prospect of quantum computers capable of threatening Bitcoin’s elliptic curve cryptography remains “decades off,” though he acknowledged uncertainty around exact timelines.

Earlier today, Adam Back was named by the New York Times as the most credible candidate for Satoshi Nakamoto based on stylometric analysis of early cypherpunk writings, but Back and other experts strongly denied the claim, noting there is no hard evidence linking him to Bitcoin’s creation.

Bitcoin should prepare for quantum computing risks

Despite that long horizon, Back stressed that the Bitcoin ecosystem should begin preparing now. He advocated for a gradual migration path toward quantum-resistant signature schemes, giving users and custodians ample time to update keys and infrastructure without disruption. 

He noted that Blockstream’s research team has been actively working on post-quantum approaches and has already contributed implementations to Liquid, a Bitcoin layer-two network that has historically served as a testing ground for new features.

Back also referenced recent progress in standardization efforts, pointing to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s approval of post-quantum cryptography standards in late 2024 as a key milestone that could accelerate industry adoption.

Beyond quantum computing, Back dismissed concerns that artificial intelligence or artificial general intelligence pose structural risks to Bitcoin, characterizing AI instead as a productivity tool that can assist researchers and engineers rather than compromise cryptographic systems.

Shifting to Bitcoin’s global role, Back described the asset as best understood as “digital gold,” coexisting alongside national monetary systems rather than replacing them. He pointed to ongoing sovereign interest in Bitcoin, including debates around national reserves and monetary frameworks in countries such as El Salvador, as evidence of gradual institutional adoption. He also referenced discussions in Switzerland about monetary reform and the historical appeal of gold-backed standards.

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

This post Adam Back Says Quantum Threat to Bitcoin Is Decades Away, Urges Gradual Migration to Post-Quantum Security first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Nunchuk Releases Open-Source Tools for Bitcoin Agents With Bounded Authority

Nunchuk has released two open-source repositories aimed at reshaping how AI agents interact with Bitcoin wallets, introducing a model that limits agent control while preserving human oversight.

The release includes Nunchuk CLI, a command-line interface for managing Bitcoin wallets, and a companion “Agent Skills” repository designed to help AI systems operate the CLI across common workflows. Both tools are licensed under MIT and target developers building automated financial systems on Bitcoin, Nunchuk said. 

The core premise challenges a growing trend in AI wallet design. Rather than granting agents full control over funds with basic safeguards, Nunchuk proposes a shared custody model where agents operate within strict policy limits. Human users retain final authority over transactions that exceed predefined thresholds.

Under this structure, wallets are configured as group wallets with multiple keys. A user key, an agent key, and a policy co-signer work together to authorize transactions. The agent can initiate actions such as creating wallets, inviting participants, and constructing transactions, but spending authority remains constrained by rules set at the policy level.

AI-driven bitcoin use

These policies define limits such as daily spending caps, approval requirements, and signing delays. Transactions that fall within allowed parameters can proceed without intervention, while larger or sensitive actions require explicit user approval.

Nunchuk separates custody from automation. The wallet structure governs ownership and control of funds, while policy layers define what an agent can execute. This distinction ensures that funding a wallet does not grant broader authority to the agent managing it.

The CLI supports a range of functions including key generation, wallet creation, transaction workflows, and policy configuration. It also allows users to export wallet descriptors and backups using standard formats, which supports portability and recovery outside the Nunchuk ecosystem.

The Agent Skills repository serves as an interface layer for AI systems. It provides predefined commands and prompts that guide agents through tasks such as setting up wallets, managing participants, and executing transactions. This reduces the need for custom integrations and lowers the barrier for developers experimenting with Bitcoin-based automation.

Nunchuk positions the dual-repository approach as a response to two distinct challenges: execution and usability. The CLI acts as the execution layer tied to the Nunchuk API, while the skills layer focuses on how AI systems interact with that infrastructure.

The release reflects a broader effort to define safe design patterns for AI in financial contexts. By enforcing bounded authority, Nunchuk aims to enable practical automation without introducing full custodial risk.

Potential use cases include shared human-agent wallets, automated bill payment systems, treasury management tools, and multi-agent coordination. While these applications remain in early stages, the underlying model provides a framework for controlled experimentation.

As AI systems gain access to financial tools, the question of control becomes central. Nunchuk’s approach suggests that the path forward may depend less on restricting capability and more on structuring authority.

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

This post Nunchuk Releases Open-Source Tools for Bitcoin Agents With Bounded Authority first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bernstein Pushes Back on Bitcoin Quantum Threat Fears, Says It’s Not a Crisis: Report

Wall Street research firm Bernstein is pushing back on alarm over quantum computing’s threat to Bitcoin, framing the challenge as a scheduled protocol evolution rather than a crisis in waiting.

In a note to clients on Wednesday, analysts led by Gautam Chhugani acknowledged that cryptographically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs) pose a genuine challenge to Bitcoin and the broader digital asset ecosystem — but stopped short of treating that challenge as an emergency. The team estimates Bitcoin and other crypto protocols have three to five years to implement post-quantum security measures, a window they describe as sufficient given current technical and cost constraints.

The note arrives in the wake of fresh research from Google, which last month published a paper showing that future quantum machines could break the elliptic curve cryptography underpinning Bitcoin’s transaction signatures with fewer resources than earlier models suggested. 

Google’s team estimated the barrier could fall below 500,000 physical qubits — a reduction of roughly 20 times compared to prior estimates. The finding drew attention to a narrower category of risk: so-called “on-spend” attacks, where a transaction’s public key is exposed in the mempool before confirmation, creating a brief window of potential vulnerability.

Bernstein’s analysts did not dismiss Google’s findings. “Recent breakthroughs seem to have accelerated the timeline, as the challenge is no longer ‘a decade away’ as thought earlier,” the analysts wrote. 

At the same time, they noted that scaling from tens of logical qubits to the thousands required for a real attack involves breakthroughs across hardware, error correction, and manufacturing — dimensions that remain unsolved. 

“Quantum timelines may still be more optimistic than reality,” the note cautioned.

The firm placed particular weight on cost and scalability constraints, suggesting the transition could run into the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars. Those figures, they argued, point toward preparation time rather than panic. 

Bitcoin has evolved and will continue to do so

Bernstein also identified well-capitalized institutional players — Strategy, BlackRock, and Fidelity — as likely to take a “constructive role” in reinforcing security standards. That framing reflects a broader shift in how the Bitcoin ecosystem has evolved: institutional ownership has given the network stakeholders with both the resources and the incentives to support defensive upgrades.

Not all risks are equal. Chhugani pointed to an estimated 1.7 million BTC sitting in Satoshi-era legacy wallets as the highest-exposure segment. 

These addresses have permanently visible public keys, making them defined targets under certain attack models. For newer protocols and wallet structures, the exposure is more contained — dependent on specific unsafe practices that the developer community is working to address.

The emerging consensus, shared by both Bernstein and Google’s own research team, points toward 2029 as a target for post-quantum cryptography migration. 

BIP 360, a draft proposal already in experimental implementation, introduces transaction formats designed to reduce exposure to vulnerable cryptographic assumptions.

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

This post Bernstein Pushes Back on Bitcoin Quantum Threat Fears, Says It’s Not a Crisis: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

NYT Names Adam Back as Bitcoin’s Creator, but Back Says No

The New York Times published an investigation Tuesday arguing that Adam Back, a British cryptographer and longtime figure in the Bitcoin community, is the most credible candidate yet for Satoshi Nakamoto — the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin. 

Back denied the claim before the story ran, denied it inside the story, and denied it again in a public post on X after publication.

“I’m not satoshi, but I was early in laser focus on the positive societal implications of cryptography, online privacy and electronic cash, hence my ~1992 onwards active interest in applied research on ecash, privacy tech on cypherpunks list which led to hashcash and other ideas,” Back wrote on X.

The Times investigation leans on textual analysis of old emails and forum posts. The methodology focuses on writing patterns, including the use of double hyphens and British spelling conventions. The Times noted that early researchers had explored concepts such as peer-to-peer systems, proof-of-work, and routing models that looked like prototypes for Bitcoin, and that Back’s archived writing contained a high density of those overlaps.

Back, who developed Hashcash in 1997 — a proof-of-work system later incorporated into Bitcoin’s design — acknowledged the surface-level similarities but offered a structural counter. 

Because he wrote at length on the cypherpunks mailing list about electronic cash and privacy from around 1992 onward, he argued, his old writing is simply easier to match against Satoshi’s than the writing of contributors who posted far less. 

“The rest is a combination of coincidence and similar phrases from people with similar experience and interests,” Back wrote on X.

He also addressed a specific passage in the Times story that treated one of his remarks in a reporter interview as a possible slip. Back said the comment was about confirmation bias in the research process, not an accidental self-disclosure.

Adam Back, Satoshi identity claim faces skepticism

The report did not produce documentary proof — no private key demonstration, no verified direct communication from Satoshi’s wallet address, and no corroborating witness on the record. The case rests on stylometric analysis and pattern matching, tools that carry real analytical weight but have not, in prior Satoshi investigations, produced conclusions that the broader Bitcoin community has accepted.

Several credible voices expressed skepticism. Joe Weisenthal, a Bloomberg columnist and co-host of the Odd Lots podcast, said he was “not 100% convinced by the evidence or the conclusion.” He noted that shared political views on privacy and internet architecture were common across the cypherpunk cohort and do not single out any one person. He also pointed out that hyphenation habits vary and are a fragile basis for attribution.

Nicholas Gregory, an early Bitcoin participant in the U.K., said he did not believe Back was Satoshi based on personal interactions, according to CoinDesk reporting. He also raised a practical concern: public identification of the person behind the pseudonym, whoever that is, could put that individual and their family in physical danger. According to crypto exchange Arkham, Satoshi’s Bitcoin holdings are worth roughly $73 billion.

This is not the first time a major outlet has believed it solved the mystery. A 2024 documentary pointed to developer Peter Todd, who also denied the claim and whose case ultimately failed to persuade. 

This post NYT Names Adam Back as Bitcoin’s Creator, but Back Says No first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

White House Says Banning Stablecoin Yield Would Hurt Consumers More Than It Helps Banks

The federal government’s own economists at the White House have thrown cold water on one of the central justifications for restricting stablecoin returns — and their findings run counter to a provision already written into law.

The GENIUS Act, signed in July 2025, established the first comprehensive federal framework for stablecoins. The law requires issuers to hold reserves on a one-to-one basis — meaning every dollar in circulation is backed by a real dollar in safe assets like Treasury bills, cash, or money-market funds. It also contains a blunt prohibition: issuers cannot pay holders any form of yield or interest on their coins.

The logic, at least as its advocates have framed it, is straightforward. If stablecoins start paying rates competitive with savings accounts, households may move money out of bank deposits and into tokens. Banks would lose that funding and, in turn, lend less. Community banks — smaller institutions without Wall Street’s wholesale funding options — would take the hardest hit.

Some academic analyses put that lending contraction as high as $1.5 trillion. Those numbers circulated in congressional testimony and in the press. They shaped the debate.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) built a model to test the claim, and the results are striking.

Simply put, “a yield prohibition would do very little to protect bank lending, while forgoing the consumer benefits of competitive returns on stablecoin holdings.”

White House tests stablecoin yields

At current conditions, banning stablecoin yield would increase bank lending by just $2.1 billion — a 0.02% change against a $12 trillion loan book. The welfare math runs in the other direction: consumers would lose $800 million more in forgone returns than borrowers would gain from slightly lower rates. 

The cost-benefit ratio the White House CEA calculated was 6.6 — meaning the policy costs more than six times what it delivers.

The reason the numbers are so small comes down to how stablecoin reserves actually move through the financial system. When a household converts dollars into stablecoins, the issuer doesn’t bury that money in a vault. 

Most of it gets reinvested — in Treasury bills, repo agreements, and money-market funds. Those dollars flow back into the banking system through dealers and counterparties. The White House CEA traced three balance-sheet scenarios and found that in the most common cases, aggregate deposits across the banking system remain essentially unchanged. The money reshuffles; it doesn’t disappear.

The critical variable is what fraction of stablecoin reserves end up truly locked out of lending. The White House CEA calibrated that number — called theta in their model — at 12%, based on Circle’s December 2025 reserve report for USDC. Tether holds even less in bank deposits: $34 million against a $147 billion reserve pool. The other 88% of stablecoin reserves circulates through normal credit channels. A prohibition on yield redirects a flow that, in large part, was never blocked to begin with.

The gap between theory and reality

The earlier trillion-dollar estimates made a modeling choice that the White House CEA says distorts the picture. They calculated what happens to the bank that loses deposits when a customer buys stablecoins — and then stopped. They didn’t model what happens to the bank or dealer that receives the money when the stablecoin issuer invests its reserves. In a complete model, the receiving bank expands. The net effect on system-wide lending is far smaller.

The White House CEA also found that current monetary conditions blunt the impact further. Banks today hold more than $1.1 trillion in excess liquidity above regulatory minimums. When deposits reshuffle between institutions, no bank is forced to contract because they all have slack. If the Federal Reserve were operating with scarce reserves — as it did during earlier eras — the dynamic would shift. 

Under that scenario, the model produces $531 billion in additional lending from a yield ban. But reaching that number requires four conditions to hold at once: the stablecoin market grows to six times its current relative size, all reserves shift into locked deposits, substitution between stablecoins and savings accounts is at the high end of estimates, and the Fed abandons its current framework.

The White House CEA calls this combination “implausible.”

A loophole nobody has closed…yet 

There is a complication that the White House report addresses with some candor. The yield prohibition in the GENIUS Act may not fully bind. The law bars issuers from paying yield directly to holders — but it does not bar third parties from doing so. 

Coinbase, for instance, offers “USDC Rewards” to customers who hold the coin in its wallets, funded through a revenue-sharing agreement with Circle. As of February 2026, those rewards match the rates on high-yield savings accounts, since both ultimately pass through returns on Treasuries.

Some versions of the proposed CLARITY Act would close this channel by banning intermediaries from passing yield along to holders. Whether that stricter approach would survive the political and legal scrutiny it would face remains an open question.

The White House CEA report nods toward a dimension the yield-prohibition debate has mostly ignored: what stablecoins do outside the United States. More than 80% of stablecoin transactions occur internationally, driven by users in countries with weak currencies or limited banking access who hold dollar-backed tokens as savings tools. 

Stablecoin issuers already hold more Treasury bills than sovereign nations like Saudi Arabia. Research from the Bank for International Settlements found that stablecoin inflows compress short-term Treasury yields — a structural source of cheap U.S. government financing that a yield ban would suppress by reducing adoption.

The White House CEA did not quantify this foreign-demand channel. But it makes the arithmetic of the yield prohibition harder to defend: whatever small gains domestic bank lending might see could be offset by higher borrowing costs for the federal government itself.

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

This post White House Says Banning Stablecoin Yield Would Hurt Consumers More Than It Helps Banks first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

A two-week conditional ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran has forced a rapid rewrite of the Strait of Hormuz trade, but it has not fully restored the pre-war macro backdrop.

Oil has fallen sharply from the panic highs, global equities have rallied, and Bitcoin has rebounded with them. That is a clear break from the pre-ceasefire view that markets were giving up on any near-term reopening.

What has changed is the headline path for energy. What remains unresolved is the normalization path for physical flows, insurance, shipping, and inflation.

JPMorgan, UBS, and U.S. government energy forecasters are still describing a slower repair process beneath the ceasefire headline. Their research no longer reads as a live argument against any reopening at all. It reads as a warning that reopening and normalization are different things.

JPMorgan's base case still keeps oil elevated through the second quarter and warns that crude could top $150 if disruptions re-escalate or persist into mid-May.

UBS expects the conflict to wind down , but says infrastructure damage means restoring production to pre-conflict levels will take considerably longer.

The EIA says that full restoration of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz , even when the conflict concludes.

None of those three institutions is describing a full snapback in energy-market plumbing, and that is now the central point for markets. The ceasefire has reduced immediate tail risk. It has not yet guaranteed normal cargo movement, normal inventories, or normal inflation pass-through.

The Strait of Hormuz carried 20.9 million barrels per day in the first half of 2025, equal to about 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption and one quarter of all seaborne oil trade. It also handled 11.4 billion cubic feet per day of LNG, more than 20% of global LNG trade.

U.S. intelligence assessed on April 3 that Iran showed on the strait, because control over global energy flows is Tehran's primary card.

That assessment mattered more before the ceasefire than it does now as a directional market call, but it still matters as a structural reminder that formal de-escalation does not automatically produce free navigation without friction.

Physical oil markets are still the place to watch for whether reopening becomes normalization. The ceasefire has eased the headline shock, but prompt cargo pricing, insurance terms, and routing friction remain more informative than front-month futures alone.

Earlier this week, North Sea Forties crude hit $146.09 per barrel, Dated Brent reached $141.365, and some prompt cargoes traded above $150, while European jet fuel hit $226.40 and diesel $203.59. Brent futures were near $110 at the peak of the panic.

That gap between prompt physical and the headline futures screen is still where the inflation transmission lives.

In Morgan Stanley's consumer math, a 10% rise in oil prices from a supply shock lifts U.S. headline consumer prices by roughly 0.35% over the next three months, with real consumption starting to and staying depressed for the following five to six months.

The EIA's April outlook puts U.S. gasoline and averaging above $3.70 for 2026, with diesel peaking above $5.80 and averaging $4.80 for the year.

The macro chain

Bitcoin's trade still goes through oil, then inflation, then Fed policy, then risk appetite. The difference after the ceasefire is that the chain has loosened. It has not broken.

Bitcoin reached an intraday low at $67,769.96 on April 7, when the oil shock, firmer dollar, and higher Treasury yields compressed risk appetite across markets.

Since the ceasefire, BTC has rebounded alongside equities as traders price a lower probability of an immediate worst-case energy spiral. That move makes sense. It does not yet settle the next question, which is whether lower oil headlines translate into a durable easing in inflation pressure and rate expectations.

Earlier this year, BTC snapped back above $70,000 as , the same logic now running again. For now, liquidity conditions, and liquidity conditions are still pricing energy.

UBS pushed its Fed rate cut expectations from June and September . raised its probability of a U.S. . IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva said that even a swift resolution would lead and higher inflation forecasts.

Dallas Fed economists of the Strait of Hormuz as lifting average WTI to $98 in the second quarter and cutting annualized global real GDP growth by 2.9% that quarter. A two-quarter disruption pushes WTI to $115 in the third quarter, and a three-quarter disruption brings it to $132 by year-end.

That modeling now works best as a risk map for ceasefire failure or incomplete normalization rather than as the live base case. The market has stepped back from the pure closure scenario. It has not yet priced a full return to pre-conflict macro conditions.

As a result, the rate-cut question has shifted. Traders are no longer asking whether the oil shock is still intensifying. They are asking whether the relief move lasts long enough to reopen Fed room later this year.

When gasoline averages above $3.70 and diesel averages above $4.80, the spending hit runs through every sector of the real economy, and financial conditions tighten well before the Fed formally acts.

Likely scenarios

The base case has changed. It is no longer outright market surrender on a near-term reopening. It is a ceasefire relief rally with incomplete normalization underneath it.

That middle path still matters for Bitcoin because lower oil is helpful only if it keeps feeding through into lower inflation pressure, steadier growth expectations, and a more credible rate-cut path.

The bear case now runs through ceasefire failure or a prolonged period where shipping resumes only partially and the physical market keeps pricing scarcity. If disruptions hold into JPMorgan's mid-May threshold, the returns to the front of the market.

Dallas Fed modeling shows WTI hitting $115 in the third quarter under a two-quarter closure. Morgan Stanley warns that if Iran retains structural control over cargo flows even in a nominal reopening, oil markets can keep trading a higher risk premium.

For Bitcoin, that setup still maps to the clearest near-term path lower: oil stays elevated, inflation expectations grind higher, the Fed stays cautious, and risk assets lose the relief bid.

Options demand clustered around $60,000 to $50,000 downside strikes during the last acute risk-off episode. A retest of that range becomes more plausible again if the configuration deteriorates back toward the pre-ceasefire stress path.

The bull case is still tied to Morgan Stanley's view that if flows return genuinely and freely, Brent could fall toward $70, as global oil had looked oversupplied before the conflict began.

In that setup, the inflation shock reverses more quickly, Fed easing returns to view, and Bitcoin recovers alongside equities. That is the logic the current relief rally is trying to price.

The condition remains decisive: genuine freedom of navigation is the requirement.

A ceasefire that leaves physical cargo movement constrained by security risk, insurance friction, congestion, or operational control produces a different oil market, where part of the risk premium stays embedded and Bitcoin's path higher remains capped by the same inflation headwind.

That distinction between reopening and normalization is where the institutional research now converges.

The EIA says full restoration of flows will take months, even when the war ends, as supply routes and output normalize. Morgan Stanley says real consumption stays depressed for five to six months after an oil shock of this scale.

For Bitcoin traders, the relevant question is no longer whether markets believe in any reopening at all. It is whether the oil-and-inflation overhang cools fast enough to restore rate-cut expectations before the ceasefire premium fades.

The post Bitcoin’s rebound may be fragile as Wall Street warns Hormuz disruption is not really over appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Polymarket put the odds of President Donald Trump being impeached before his term ends at 64% on Apr. 7, near the contract's high-water mark since its Mar. 19 launch.

A comparable Kalshi contract, which resolves against Library of Congress records and runs through Jan. 1, 2028, was priced around 67% in the same window.

Driving the markets, beyond current events, are the Polymarket odds of the Democrats taking both the House and the Senate in the November mid-term elections. With odds above 80% of the House and 55% of the Senate, a genuine path to impeachment and removal from office in 2026 is now a genuine possibility.

Together, the numbers compress a sprawling geopolitical saga for Bitcoin traders into a real-time political stress gauge, but the market regime that matters for BTC changed after Washington, Tehran, and Israel agreed to a two-week ceasefire.

Related Reading

Traders poured $3 billion into Binance after Bitcoin hit $72,734 on ceasefire headlines – what are they betting on?

The buy spike was immediate, yet options signals look more like crash fear fading than a confident new breakout.

Apr 8, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

Trump's Apr. 7 ultimatum to Iran had pushed Brent crude above $109 and WTI above $114 as markets priced the risk of a wider conflict centered on the Strait of Hormuz, which carries roughly 20% of global oil and LNG flows.

That shock began to reverse after the ceasefire announcement. Oil fell sharply as markets repriced the immediate risk of a prolonged supply disruption, easing the macro pressure that had dominated the prior session.

Bitcoin responded in the same direction as the broader risk complex. The asset rebounded as oil fell, Treasury yields eased, and equities rallied, reinforcing that the transmission mechanism for crypto still runs through energy, inflation expectations, and the Federal Reserve rather than through impeachment chatter itself.

Axios reported renewed demands for the Cabinet to consider the 25th Amendment and a push to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, showing that removal rhetoric can remain elevated even as the macro pressure on Bitcoin begins to ease.

Republicans control both the House and Senate, so elevated odds still function as the market's fastest read on political confrontation, but they remain secondary to oil, rates, and liquidity as direct BTC drivers.

The chain that actually moves Bitcoin

Bitcoin's price action during geopolitical crises still runs through a specific sequence.

A war-driven oil spike revives inflation fears, pushes rate-cut expectations further out, and tightens financial conditions for risk assets. That was the dominant market logic heading into Trump's Apr. 7 deadline.

By Apr. 8, the ceasefire had shifted that chain in the other direction. Falling oil prices eased immediate inflation pressure, helped Treasury yields move lower, and supported a broad rebound in equities and other risk-sensitive assets.

That rate path revision feeds directly into Bitcoin's environment, as risk assets price on liquidity expectations. When the Fed's flexibility narrows, and real yields edge higher alongside oil, capital rotates out of speculative positions. When that pressure eases, BTC usually stabilizes with equities.

As Bitcoin and the broader crypto market recovered after the ceasefire, the market stopped reflecting a live escalation shock and started reflecting a relief rally with conditions attached.

The same pattern appeared in February, when Bitcoin rebounded above $70,000 after an intraday plunge to $60,017, a move tied to stabilization in tech shares and other risk assets.

Bitcoin's correlation to the broader risk complex in 2026 has been consistent enough to retire the “digital gold in every crisis” framing.

Goldman Sachs had already raised its US recession probability to 30% before the Apr. 7 deadline, and IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva said that even a swift resolution would still leave slower growth and higher inflation risks in place through the shock.

The macro backdrop remains fragile even after the relief move.

Potential pathways

The ceasefire changes the base case, but it does not remove the core variables traders need to track.

If the two-week truce holds, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz normalizes, and oil stays below $100, the inflation and rates headwind eases further.

Citi's Nathan Sheets said that recession risks sharpen if oil clears $110 to $120. That threshold still matters, but after the ceasefire it sits as the downside trigger rather than the live market condition.

For Bitcoin, the consequence still runs in the same direction regardless of what drives the headlines: higher oil, stickier inflation, delayed easing, and further de-risking from speculative positions.

Earlier this year, options demand clustered around $60,000 to $50,000 downside strikes during the last period of acute BTC pressure. A retest of the low-$60,000 range remains the defensible downside scenario if oil reclaims the $110 area and the Fed stays on hold through summer.

The political noise still rides atop a macro configuration already in motion, and the sustained macro penalty would still drive the asset reaction if the truce fails.

The version of this situation in which impeachment chatter helps Bitcoin now runs through de-escalation that actually sticks. If the ceasefire holds, oil cools, rate-cut expectations return to view, risk appetite recovers, and Bitcoin lifts alongside equities.

Hope of de-escalation had already driven over $15 billion in global equity fund inflows for the week through Apr. 1. The ceasefire reinforced that same template, with oil down sharply and risk assets rebounding together.

That precedent carries a condition: de-escalation only turns bullish for BTC when it removes the oil and rates headwind.

A diplomatic pause that leaves energy markets unstable does not clear the macro overhang, even if it reduces constitutional-risk pricing for a news cycle.

Impeachment odds staying elevated while oil falls would still represent a net positive for Bitcoin. If crude stays below $100 and rate-cut expectations for 2026 return, BTC can recover toward higher ranges even with prediction markets still elevated.

Polymarket and Kalshi's relevant contracts still have editorial value as fast-moving public reads on political stress, but the clearer directional signal for crypto comes from oil, yields, and whether broader market relief holds.

Traders watching for a directional setup should now track whether Brent and WTI stay below the danger zone, whether the Fed's next communication allows rate-cut expectations to stabilize, and whether the ceasefire survives long enough for markets to treat the move as more than a one-day repricing.

Those variables will determine BTC's direction long before any House resolution reaches the floor.

The post Bitcoin rebounds as oil cools but Trump impeachment odds show markets still on edge appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Another mainstream attempt to identify the creator of Bitcoin has landed on Adam Back, the British cryptographer and Blockstream co-founder.

This week, The New York Times published a sprawling investigation arguing that Back is the person behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym, leaning heavily on stylometric analysis of writing and decades-old online records.

Back immediately and categorically denied the claim on X, saying:

However, inside the Bitcoin development ecosystem, the louder question is no longer whether this latest theory is clever or conclusive. It is a question of physical safety: what happens to the next living person targeted?

For the cypherpunks and developers maintaining the world's largest cryptocurrency network, being unmasked as Satoshi Nakamoto is not an abstract honor. It is a massive security liability.

Data from Arkham Intelligence showed that dormant wallets associated with Satoshi hold an estimated 1.1 million Bitcoin. With the asset currently trading above $72,000, attributing that stash to an individual implies a net worth of roughly $78 billion.

And considering Bitcoin's most recent all-time high was above $126,000, the perceived fortune is often calculated to be much higher.

So, falsely portraying ordinary people as the owners of this immense, inaccessible wealth exposes them to extortion, robbery, and cartel-level kidnapping risks.

Related Reading

Peter Todd slams HBO for putting his life in danger by calling him Bitcoin's creator

Todd has gone into hiding due to safety concerns after HBO documentary falsely accused him of being Satoshi Nakamoto.

Oct 22, 2024 · Assad Jafri

The stylometric dragnet

The latest unmasking attempt was spearheaded by John Carreyrou, the investigative journalist famous for exposing the Theranos fraud, alongside AI projects editor Dylan Freedman.

The duo spent over a year compiling a database of 134,308 posts from 620 candidates discussing digital money on cryptography mailing lists between 1992 and 2008.

The investigation applied three separate writing analyses, filtering for grammatical quirks, British spellings, double-spacing between sentences, and the alternating usage of terms like “e-mail” and “email.”

The dragnet identified 325 distinct hyphenation errors in Satoshi’s corpus; Back allegedly shared 67 of them, narrowing a pool of hundreds down to one.

Technically, the Times highlighted that Back outlined nearly every core Bitcoin feature on the Cypherpunks list between 1997 and 1999, which was a decade before the top crypto's whitepaper.

They also noted that he proposed a decentralized electronic cash system with privacy, built-in scarcity, and a publicly verifiable protocol, eventually suggesting combining his Hashcash invention with Wei Dai’s b-money concept.

Additionally, the piece pointed to Back's sudden silence on the mailing lists when Satoshi announced Bitcoin in late 2008, only to return to public commentary in June 2011, six weeks after Satoshi vanished.

Confirmation bias and the “yakking” defense

Back’s rebuttal highlights the inherent flaws in using data to retroactively profile a hyper-niche, highly active community.

On the social media platform X, Back explained that his early, laser-focused interest in the societal implications of cryptography naturally led to a massive digital footprint. He noted that prototype ideas for decentralized e-cash were rampant in those circles.

Addressing the grammatical overlaps, Back pointed out a glaring statistical blind spot, saying:

Considering this, there is strong confirmation bias toward finding his comments that match Satoshi's. Back argued that someone posting twenty times less frequently would naturally register fewer matching hyphenation errors.

The Blockstream co-founder said he offered this explanation to Carreyrou as one that should be statistically corrected for, attributing the remaining similarities to a combination of coincidence and the shared vernacular of cryptographers with similar interests.

However, the broader Bitcoin security community was much less diplomatic.

Jameson Lopp, Co-founder and Chief Security Officer at Casa, lambasted the publication, saying:

Related Reading

HBO documentary ignites controversy with ‘disgusting' Satoshi Nakamoto claim

The Bitcoin community has dismissed HBO's Satoshi claim as "ludicrous."

Oct 9, 2024 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

A cycle of real-world harm

The industry’s hostility toward these investigations is rooted in recent, dangerous precedents.

The Times report arrives less than two years after HBO’s documentary, The Money Electric, pointed the finger at Canadian developer Peter Todd.

Todd publicly denied the claim, calling it baseless. But the damage was immediate. As WIRED subsequently reported, Todd was forced to go into hiding due to the severe physical threats associated with the sudden, false perception of his wealth.

This cycle has followed Bitcoin almost from birth, dating back to Newsweek’s infamous 2014 unmasking of Dorian Nakamoto, which triggered a media circus outside the California man's home.

In each instance, a major outlet assembles a pattern; the named individual is forced to deny it; the market largely shrugs; and the subject is left to navigate the severe personal fallout.

The institutional threat to open source

Beyond physical danger, attributing a living founder to Bitcoin presents a dire institutional threat. If Peter Todd’s case showed the personal risk, the saga of Craig Wright showcased the legal weaponization of the Satoshi identity.

For years, Wright used his self-proclaimed status as Satoshi to launch a barrage of lawsuits, threats, and intimidation against Bitcoin Core developers.

However, it took a massive, coordinated legal effort by the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) to stop him.

The UK High Court eventually ruled that Wright had repeatedly lied and forged documents, describing his actions as a campaign of fraud, harassment, and oppression that actively deterred cryptocurrency development.

That court record helps to explain why developers fear the revival of a founder mythology. Attaching Bitcoin to a living person serves as a mechanism to assert ownership, control, or moral authority over an open-source protocol explicitly designed to survive without centralized leadership.

Even now, alternative theories continue to bubble up. Matthew Sigel, Head of Digital Assets Research at VanEck, recently pointed to Twitter founder Jack Dorsey as a candidate, citing circumstantial timelines and technical similarities.

But within the crypto ecosystem, Bitcoin’s lack of a central figure is its most vital, load-bearing pillar.

As Back himself noted, remaining leaderless is what allows Bitcoin to be viewed cleanly as a new asset class: a mathematically scarce digital commodity.

So, every new attempt to unmask Satoshi Nakamoto pulls the network back toward the centralized, founder-centric fiat systems it was designed to escape.

The post Back to Back: New York Times puts Satoshi target on Adam Back again as $78 billion BTC stash triggers security fears appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Iran’s reported Bitcoin tolls at Hormuz point to a new use case for crypto, sanctions-resistant trade infrastructure

Iran is reportedly planning to charge oil tankers a Bitcoin-denominated toll for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. The move would be significant as it extends beyond price action, ideology, or adoption rhetoric.

The development places Bitcoin inside a coercive trade corridor, where settlement speed, sanctions exposure, maritime access, and state leverage converge in one of the world’s most strategically sensitive waterways.

According to the Financial Times, Hamid Hosseini, spokesperson for Iran’s Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Products Exporters’ Union, said Iran would require tankers to email authorities with cargo details, receive an assessed tariff, and then pay in Bitcoin before being allowed to pass.

Hosseini reportedly said,

“Once the email arrives and Iran completes its assessment, vessels are given a few seconds to pay in bitcoin, ensuring they can’t be traced or confiscated due to sanctions.”

The reported tariff is $1 per barrel, while empty tankers would pass freely. The same report says ships in the Gulf received an English-language radio warning that vessels attempting transit without Iranian approval would be destroyed.

Iran’s apparent objective is clear enough. It wants to convert control over a physical chokepoint into a settlement regime that sits outside the ordinary reach of dollar clearing and sanctions enforcement.

However, can Bitcoin function as the rail for the regime in a durable way, or is the claim an opening negotiating position that eventually resolves into a broader crypto stack, likely involving brokers, OTC desks, or stablecoin conversion at the edges?

The distinction carries weight because the reported mechanism arrives during a fragile ceasefire, with passage through Hormuz still contested, throughput still impaired, and shipping participants still waiting for operational clarity.

The Associated Press has described the ceasefire terms as disputed and unstable, while the FT report suggests Iran is trying to formalize a “protocol for secure passage” in coordination with its armed forces.

Within that framework, Bitcoin is less a symbol than a tool, a settlement instrument proposed at the point where legal ambiguity and commercial urgency meet.

That framing places the development in a different category from the Iran-Bitcoin cycle that has appeared in markets throughout the year. Previous episodes ran through macro channels, oil spikes, inflation fears, safe-haven narratives, sanctions scrutiny, or domestic monetary stress inside Iran.

This time, the point of contact is much narrower and more operational. A loaded tanker is a time-sensitive asset.

A delayed cargo affects refiners, freight schedules, insurance assumptions, and working capital. A settlement rail that can move outside standard banking channels becomes valuable under those conditions, even when every participant understands that value comes with compliance and political risk attached.

Hormuz has now become a testing ground for crypto amid sanctions pressure on trade infrastructure. This is not some broad shift toward Bitcoin as sovereign money.

Iran is trying to price access to a critical artery. Bitcoin appears in that design because sanctions shape which rails are available, how quickly funds can move, and how exposed counterparties are to seizure, delay, or refusal.

That is a narrower proposition, and it also carries more analytical weight.

Hormuz turns a payment rail into a geopolitical instrument

The Strait of Hormuz is uniquely suited to expose what a sanctions-resistant settlement system looks like under stress. According to the International Energy Agency, around 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and oil products moved through the strait in 2025.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration says the corridor handles roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption, while UNCTAD describes it as carrying around a quarter of global seaborne oil trade, alongside major LNG and fertilizer flows.

The strategic significance of the route is well understood. What is new here is the proposed mechanism for monetizing access to it.

The FT’s reported tariff of $1 per barrel supplies a direct economic anchor. A very large crude carrier carrying 2 million barrels would face a toll of roughly $2 million.

That is a meaningful charge, yet still within a range that cargo owners could rationalize if it unlocks trapped inventory and restores movement through a congested corridor. Scale is what gives the Bitcoin angle force.

The FT cites Kpler data showing 175 million barrels of crude and refined products loaded on 187 tankers in the Gulf, and reports that industry executives estimate 300 to 400 ships are waiting to leave once safe passage becomes possible.

The same article quotes EOS Risk as saying that only 10 to 15 ships per day may be able to transit under the current process, compared with about 135 ships before the war. That is a dramatic compression in throughput.

Under those conditions, any channel that shortens delay or resolves uncertainty acquires immediate commercial value.

Pipeline alternatives are too limited to neutralize the chokepoint. The IEA estimates that only about 3.5-5.5 million barrels per day can bypass Hormuz through alternative routes, depending on availability and operating conditions.

The EIA similarly notes that bypass infrastructure from Saudi Arabia and the UAE covers only a fraction of the normal flow. That leaves maritime transit through the strait as the dominant route, which in turn gives Iran leverage over time, sequencing, and access.

This is where the settlement design becomes the central issue. Iran is attempting to move from informal wartime control to a more structured protocol in which movement depends on prior disclosure, route compliance, and payment.

A Bitcoin toll fits that architecture because it can, at least in principle, be transmitted without the direct involvement of correspondent banks, which would almost certainly refuse to process a sanctioned transaction. For Tehran, the attraction is straightforward.

A controlled crossing, a sanctioned counterparty, and a time-sensitive cargo create demand for a rail that reduces banking friction.

Related Reading

Bitcoin derivatives flash warning as $46B market pulls back from Iran ceasefire rally

Stocks rallied on ceasefire hopes, but derivatives positioning shows traders reducing risk, not adding it.

Apr 4, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The commercial side of the equation is equally clear. Owners and charterers do not need to embrace the political logic behind the system to make a practical calculation around cargo movement.

They need a workable method for clearing a bottleneck. That explains why the reported development deserves attention, even if the mechanism changes in execution.

Bitcoin, in this context, is functioning as a proposed bridge between physical control and financial settlement. That shift broadens the crypto discussion, because it embeds the asset in an operational trade corridor rather than a macro narrative about reserves, inflation, or ideological adoption.

There is also a second-order consequence for Gulf power dynamics and the broader oil complex. The FT notes concern that any formalized Iranian control over Hormuz could alter the balance inside Opec+, giving Tehran something close to a veto point over rivals’ exports.

Saudi-linked voices have already signaled that “unimpeded” access would be a red line. In that sense, the demand for Bitcoin payments is part of a broader architecture of leverage.

Iran is trying to convert military and geographic position into a ruleset for passage, and it is selecting a settlement rail that reflects the financial constraints imposed by sanctions.

Bitcoin’s role is plausible, its claimed invisibility is far weaker

The part of the reported Iranian design that deserves the most scrutiny is the explanation for using Bitcoin. Hosseini told the FT that vessels would be given only a few seconds to pay in Bitcoin, “ensuring” the funds could not be traced or confiscated because of sanctions.

The compression of the payment window makes sense inside a coercive access regime. The claim about traceability stands on weaker ground.

Bitcoin is a public-ledger infrastructure. Every transaction is permanently recorded on-chain.

The entire compliance and analytics industry around crypto was built on that visibility. Bitcoin is traceable, and its tools are used by exchanges, compliance teams, and law enforcement to trace flows, identify clusters, and screen for exposure.

The concern for a sanctioned actor is therefore not whether the transfer can be seen. The concern is whether the transaction can be completed, whether the recipient can custody value without immediate interference, and whether conversion into usable liquidity can happen through intermediaries willing to assume the risk.

That difference is crucial. Sanctions resistance and opacity are separate properties.

Bitcoin can help with the first under certain conditions because it allows value transfer without a bank approving the payment. It offers far less on the second, because the trail is visible to anyone watching the chain.

The practical logic behind Iran’s proposal, therefore, rests less on secrecy than on reduced dependence on conventional financial rails. That remains meaningful, yet it is a different argument from the one embedded in Hosseini’s quote.

Related Reading

Traders poured $3 billion into Binance after Bitcoin hit $72,734 on ceasefire headlines – what are they betting on?

The buy spike was immediate, yet options signals look more like crash fear fading than a confident new breakout.

Apr 8, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

In its 2026 sanctions report, Chainalysis said sanctioned and illicit addresses received at least $154 billion in 2025, with state-linked actors playing a larger role in blockchain-based trade and cross-border transfers.

The same report says IRGC-linked addresses accounted for more than half of the value received by Iranian entities in Q4 2025, totaling more than $3 billion. Those figures show two things at once.

First, blockchain rails are already part of Iran-linked financial activity at a meaningful scale. Second, those rails are under continuous analytical scrutiny.

That combination supports a measured conclusion. Bitcoin as a payment rail for a Hormuz toll is plausible. Bitcoin as an invisible rail is far harder to defend.

If the system described by Hosseini is genuine, it probably relies on urgency, fragmented counterparties, layered intermediaries, and the simple commercial reality that a trapped cargo has a high cost of delay. Those conditions can make Bitcoin useful.

They do not make it unobservable.

This is also where execution risk enters. Large commercial shipping players, insurers, and commodity traders operate inside layered sanctions and compliance frameworks.

The U.S. Treasury’s OFAC maritime advisory on Iranian oil movement lays out clear red flags for maritime participants and stresses the risk of facilitating sanctioned trade. A toll payment to an Iran-linked address tied to passage through Hormuz would raise immediate questions for P&I clubs, compliance desks, brokers, and any exchange or OTC venue used to source or deliver Bitcoin.

The existence of a settlement route, therefore, does not mean the route scales smoothly across the mainstream shipping system.

The next test is whether Bitcoin holds, or a broader crypto settlement stack takes over

That leaves open the possibility that Bitcoin functions as the nominal unit while the actual workflow becomes more hybrid in practice. Payment could be quoted in BTC, routed through intermediaries, or dynamically converted from other digital assets depending on what counterparties can source and what risks they are prepared to take.

The next step is to determine whether verified evidence emerges of actual BTC settlement, on-chain receipt patterns, wallet clustering, or market color from brokers dealing with Gulf-linked counterparties.

The market context around the reported toll regime helps clarify what comes next. Oil continues to set the first-order risk signal.

Following the ceasefire announcement, Brent crude fell 16.6% to $91.11, while Bitcoin rebounded alongside the reduction in immediate macro stress. That pattern is familiar.

When Iran risk rises, oil tightens, inflation assumptions shift, and crypto reprices through the macro channel. The Hormuz toll issue adds a second layer.

It inserts Bitcoin into the physical infrastructure of trade itself.

That second layer deserves the closest attention over the coming days. A workable settlement regime needs more than a quote in a newspaper interview.

It needs counterparties, throughput, wallet infrastructure, sufficient liquidity to quickly source payments, and a surrounding services layer to handle custody, conversion, and operational errors. Maritime trade runs on procedures, documentation, and a very low tolerance for ambiguity when cargoes are large and legal exposure is high.

The system Hosseini described would need to fit into that reality.

There is also the legal setting. Under UNCLOS, ships passing through international straits enjoy a right of transit passage that shall not be impeded.

Several governments have already signaled that any Iranian attempt to formalize the control of passage would be unacceptable. That means the proposed Bitcoin toll falls within a regime whose legitimacy will be disputed even if some ships decide that the commercial need to move outweighs the political and legal objections.

In practice, contested systems often develop first through exception, then through routine, then through negotiation or rollback. Hormuz may now be entering that first stage.

For crypto markets, the broader implication is straightforward. Bitcoin’s relevance in global commerce may expand through stress points where traditional rails are constrained, rather than through conventional corporate treasury adoption or state reserve experimentation alone.

Chokepoints, sanctions zones, and politically contested trade corridors create conditions where settlement optionality has immediate value. That does not produce a universal bullish thesis.

It does, however, widen the field of real-world use cases into domains that sit much closer to geopolitical risk.

The next test is specific. Confirmation will come from evidence that Bitcoin remains the actual settlement rail once the process moves from declaration to execution.

If ships begin transiting under an Iranian approval system, yet market intelligence, broker color, or wallet analysis suggests settlement is being routed through stablecoins, OTC swaps, or off-chain arrangements, then the current framing will need refinement.

The core thesis would still hold, as crypto would continue to function as a sanctions-resistant trade infrastructure.

The asset mix would simply look different from the initial claim.

That is the most likely line of development to watch. Bitcoin has the recognizability, liquidity, and political signaling power to serve as the named instrument.

Stablecoins or intermediary structures may prove more practical at scale if participants need tighter value transfer, reduced slippage, or easier operational handling. For now, the most defensible conclusion is narrow and substantial.

Iran appears to be trying to attach a crypto-denominated toll regime to passage through one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints. If that effort holds, even briefly, it would mark a meaningful expansion in how digital assets are used, from speculative instruments and sanctions workarounds into the mechanics of coercive global trade.

The post Iran wants Bitcoin as payment to guarantee ships safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz – FT appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Drift exploit and Stabble’s precautionary warning point to a difficult crypto security problem: the next major breach may begin long before funds move on-chain.

That is what makes these incidents more than isolated alarms. They suggest that some protocols may still be looking for smart contract flaws, while the real exposure lies in hiring, access, governance, and trusted relationships.

On Apr. 1, Drift suspended deposits and withdrawals and told users it was under an active attack.

By Apr. 5, the team said with medium-high confidence that the same threat actors behind the October 2024 Radiant Capital hack had executed the operation.

TRM Labs estimated the drain at approximately $285 million, and the Drift post-mortem described a complex scheme in which individuals used $1 million of their own capital and met in person with Drift team members to infiltrate the protocol's structure.

On the technical side, TRM identified the critical weakness as social engineering of multisig signers combined with a zero-timelock Security Council migration. This governance design enabled attackers to execute privileged actions without the delays intended to catch unauthorized changes.

Elliptic said the laundering patterns and network indicators matched those of prior DPRK-attributed operations and pointed to a probable compromise of administrator keys that enabled privileged withdrawals and administrative control.

Related Reading

Hackers sneak crypto wallet-stealing code into a popular AI tool that runs every time

Compromised LiteLLM versions 1.82.7 and 1.82.8 stole SSH keys, cloud creds, Kubernetes secrets, env vars, and crypto wallet material.

Mar 26, 2026 · Gino Matos

Attackers earned enough trust to convert ordinary access into a 12-minute, $285 million drain.

On Apr. 7, the Solana-based liquidity protocol Stabble told its liquidity providers to withdraw funds as a precaution.

The new team that recently acquired the protocol said it had discovered that a former CTO appeared to be the same person ZachXBT had publicly flagged as a North Korean IT worker.

The protocol promised new audits before resuming operations. What Stabble demonstrated was that alleged insider exposure now moves users fast enough to constitute a live funds event on its own.

Related Reading

Circle under fire as $230M in stolen USDC flows unblocked days after freezing legitimate accounts

The Drift exploit exposes a growing contradiction in how stablecoin issuers enforce control during crises.

Apr 3, 2026 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo

The operating manual already exists

Treasury's Mar. 12 sanctions release put numbers on the problem: DPRK IT-worker fraud schemes generated nearly $800 million in 2024, using fraudulent documents, stolen identities, and fabricated personas.

The Department of Justice separately said North Korean operatives obtained employment at more than 100 US companies using fake and stolen identities. In one Atlanta blockchain R&D case, workers stole more than $900,000 in virtual currency.

These were workforce infiltrations sustained across multiple firms over extended periods.

Flare and IBM X-Force published their operational breakdown on Mar. 18. The research describes a tiered structure of recruiters, facilitators, IT workers, and collaborators who assist with identity verification and onboarding.

Once embedded, operatives use remote access tools, VPN and proxy services, and internal communication channels, leaving detectable but often-missed traces in device logs.

Flare and IBM frame this as a shared problem owned jointly by security teams and HR, requiring coordination across hiring, onboarding, access controls, and offboarding disciplines.

Reuters reported on Mar. 31 that a North Korea-linked operation compromised the widely used Axios npm package in a supply chain attack that could have affected millions of environments.

The actor behind that compromise, UNC1069, is distinct from UNC4736, the cluster Drift tied to the Radiant hack. Yet both cases exploit a trusted relationship comprising a trusted person, a trusted signer, and a trusted package before touching funds or systems.

What to expect

The bear case runs through what Drift's staging timeline exposes about latent exposure across DeFi.

If attackers spent from Mar. 11 to Apr. 1 embedding pre-signed authorizations and engineering approvals before executing the drain, this adds to months of complex social engineering. Other protocols may already host compromised signers, contractors, or contributors they have yet to identify.

Stabble's situation, where a suspected link to a flagged identity surfaced in ZachXBT's public research before the team's own controls caught it, illustrates how often organizations learn about their own exposure from the outside.

Treasury's $800 million figure for a single year puts a floor on the threat's already cost. DOJ's 100-plus-company figure suggests the target distribution is broad.

In that environment, the next major loss may already be inside the perimeter, waiting on a governance window or an admin key rotation.

The bull case is grounded in the sector's capacity to adapt once the threat model becomes concrete. Drift is the concrete proof, and the countermeasures are well documented.

Protocols can add timelocks to governance migrations, reduce signer powers, segment permissions across functions, and treat onboarding as a security checkpoint with the rigor applied to code audits.

Flare and IBM supply the operational framework: verify identity aggressively, monitor device logs and remote-access indicators, segment contractor access, and build offboarding discipline that revokes credentials and signing authority on exit. The zero-timelock governance design identified by TRM as central to Drift's exploit is fixable.

Protocols that fix it and add organizational controls alongside it materially narrow the attack surface.

If Drift becomes a forcing event, as the 2016 DAO hack did, forcing a reckoning with smart contract risk, the sector could close the gap between known DPRK tactics and actual defenses within a reasonable window.

The harder constraint on the bull case is institutional habit. Crypto teams built their security culture around audits, bounty programs, and formal verification.

Adding identity verification, access minimization, device controls, signer separation, and HR security coordination demands a different operating posture, one that most small-to-medium protocols have yet to build.

The market will price this in, with protocols that demonstrate governance hygiene and operational controls attracting a trust premium.

The gap above the code layer

Treasury, DOJ, Flare, IBM, TRM, and Elliptic are each, in different ways, pointing to the same structural gap: smart contract audits address only the code layer.

Who holds signing keys, who vouches for contractors, who reviews device logs, and who has the authority to push a governance migration without a timelock are steps that live above that layer. The current generation of security tooling barely reaches it.

The next exploit may begin with a hiring decision, contractor onboarding, a trusted npm package, or a signer who, over months, earned enough confidence to authorize the one transaction that mattered.

Protocols that close that gap before the next attribution update lands will still have their users' trust when it does.

The post After the $285M Drift hack, new Solana scare shows crypto’s next security risk may already be inside appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Why Iran’s Bitcoin Move Is Shaking Global Markets

A new geopolitical development is quietly reshaping how investors think about cryptocurrency. Reports suggest that Iran may require ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz to pay transit tolls in Bitcoin.

This is not just another crypto headline. It represents a potential shift in how global trade is conducted, especially in a region responsible for nearly 20% of the world’s oil supply.

If confirmed and enforced, this would mark one of the first real-world use cases of Bitcoin in a state-level economic strategy tied directly to energy markets.

What Is Happening in the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most critical chokepoints in global trade. Any disruption there immediately impacts oil prices, shipping routes, and financial markets.

Recent developments indicate:

• Iran is asserting control over transit conditions
• Ships may be required to pay tolls to pass safely
• Reports suggest payments could be requested in Bitcoin
• Hundreds of vessels are currently facing delays in the region

At the same time, geopolitical tensions remain elevated, with threats of escalation involving multiple countries and trade restrictions.

👉 This is no longer just a military or political issue — it is becoming a financial one.

Why Bitcoin? The Strategic Logic Behind It

The choice of Bitcoin is not random. It solves several key challenges for countries operating under financial pressure:

• Sanctions resistance: Bitcoin cannot be easily blocked by traditional financial systems
• Fast settlement: Payments can be completed within minutes globally
• Neutral infrastructure: No central authority controls the network
• Liquidity access: Bitcoin can be converted into other assets worldwide

For a country facing restrictions in the global banking system, Bitcoin becomes a practical alternative for enforcing payments in international trade.

Is This the Beginning of a New Financial System?

For decades, global oil trade has been dominated by the US dollar. This system, often referred to as the “petrodollar,” has shaped global finance and monetary policy.

However, if oil-related transactions begin to integrate Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies, the implications could be massive:

• A shift toward alternative settlement systems
• Reduced reliance on USD-based trade
• Increased demand for decentralized assets
• New regulatory and geopolitical tensions

👉 This could mark the early stages of a parallel financial system emerging alongside traditional markets.

How Are Crypto and Traditional Markets Reacting?

Interestingly, markets are showing mixed signals:

• Bitcoin is holding strong above key levels
• Ethereum and altcoins are seeing renewed momentum
• US stock markets are rebounding sharply
• Oil prices remain elevated due to supply concerns

This divergence suggests that markets have not fully priced in the long-term implications of this development.

In other words, investors are reacting to short-term headlines, but the structural shift may still be underestimated.

What Should Investors Watch Next?

The situation is evolving quickly, and several key factors will determine its impact:

• Whether Bitcoin payments are officially enforced
• How global powers respond to this move
• Potential sanctions or countermeasures
• Reactions from shipping and energy companies
• Regulatory responses toward crypto usage in trade

If more countries begin experimenting with crypto in international transactions, this trend could accelerate faster than expected.

Final Thoughts: A Turning Point for Bitcoin?

Bitcoin has long been described as digital gold or a store of value. But this development suggests a new role is emerging — Bitcoin as a tool for global trade and geopolitical strategy.

While it is still early, the implications are significant.

👉 This is not just about crypto markets anymore.
👉 This is about the future of global finance.

Ethereum (ETH) has outperformed the broader market today, surging past the critical $2,200 resistance to reach a current price of $2,250. This 6.5% gain over the last 24 hours comes as a direct response to President Trump’s announcement of a two-week ceasefire with Iran, which has significantly lowered the global "risk-off" sentiment.

As geopolitical tensions ease, investors are rotating capital back into high-beta assets. While Bitcoin’s move past $71,000 grabbed headlines, Ethereum’s breakout is arguably more significant for the altcoin market, as it signals a potential shift in the mid-term trend.

Ethereum Price Analysis: Why ETH is Outperforming

The jump to $2,250 was catalyzed by reports that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen for commercial traffic during the truce. According to Bloomberg, the sudden drop in oil prices has lowered global inflation expectations, allowing the Federal Reserve more room to maintain its current interest rate trajectory—a massive win for Ethereum’s ecosystem.

Key market reactions include:

• Ethereum ($ETH) up 6.2% at the time of writing.
• Network Activity: Gas fees have seen a slight uptick as decentralized finance (DeFi) activity increases alongside the price.
• Total Crypto Market Cap: Rose 4% to approximately $2.44 trillion.

Technical Analysis: The $2,200 Support Flip

Looking at the recent price action, Ethereum has finally broken out of a multi-week descending channel. The move above $2,200 is a bullish signal, as this level had acted as a "brick wall" resistance throughout March.

However, the rapid nature of this 6% pump suggests that a short-term cooling period is likely. Technical indicators like the Relative Strength Index (RSI) are approaching overbought territory. A normal market adjustment could see ETH/USD retest the $2,200 to $2,180 zone to confirm it as new support. If this level holds, the next major target for bulls is the $2,400 psychological resistance.

Institutional Interest and Liquidations

The rally was further fueled by a "short squeeze." Data from major exchanges shows that over $150 million in Ethereum short positions were liquidated in the last six hours alone. This forced buying accelerated the move from $2,150 to $2,250.

Bitcoin (BTC) has staged a dramatic comeback, surging past the psychological $71,000 mark during early trading on Wednesday, April 8, 2026. The rally comes directly on the heels of an announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding a temporary two-week ceasefire in the ongoing conflict with Iran. This diplomatic shift has immediately injected liquidity and "risk-on" sentiment back into the digital asset markets.

Bitcoin Up: Ceasefire Details Spark Market Optimism

The surge was triggered after President Trump confirmed that the U.S. would suspend military strikes for 14 days, contingent on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. According to reports from Al Jazeera, talks to finalize a peace deal are scheduled to begin this Friday in Pakistan.

As geopolitical tensions cooled, the crypto market responded with high volatility:

• Bitcoin ($BTC) jumped nearly 5%, reaching a local high near $72,300.
• Ethereum ($ETH) followed suit, gaining over 6% to trade near $2,250.
• Oil prices plummeted by approximately 12%, easing global inflation fears that had previously weighed on risk assets.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: Is the Rally Sustainable?

Despite the bullish momentum seen in the attached chart, the rapid ascent suggests a potential short-term "blow-off top." Analyzing the BTC/USD price action, the candle reached a peak of $72,000+ before showing signs of stabilization around the $71,646 level.

Historically, such news-driven pumps often lead to a "sell the news" event or a technical retracement. Investors should watch the $68,000 to $69,000 support zone. A healthy adjustment back to these levels would be a normal market response to consolidate recent gains before attempting a permanent breakout toward the all-time high of $74,000.

Institutional Reaction and ETF Inflows

Market data indicates that institutional players were quick to capitalize on the de-escalation. Major exchanges like Binance and Coinbase reportedly saw massive buy orders totaling over $4.5 billion shortly after the announcement. Furthermore, spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded their highest inflows in six weeks, suggesting that professional traders are viewing this ceasefire as a window for continued accumulation.

Crypto Market Stalls as Global Tensions Reach a Turning Point

The crypto market is entering a critical phase as geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran intensify. While headlines around oil prices, military developments, and diplomatic talks continue to shift rapidly, Bitcoin and major altcoins remain relatively stable.

This stability is not a sign of strength — it reflects uncertainty.

Bitcoin price is currently holding near key levels, while Ethereum and altcoins are showing mild weakness. Despite major macro developments, the market is not making a decisive move yet.

👉 The reason is simple: markets are waiting for a clear outcome.

Why Bitcoin Is Not Moving (Yet)

Recent developments have created a highly unstable macro environment:

• Oil prices surged above $110 following strikes on Iran-linked infrastructure
• Prices then dropped sharply within minutes after mediation headlines
• Diplomatic talks are now described as “critical” with tight deadlines
• New threats around global trade routes, including the Strait of Hormuz, are emerging

Under normal conditions, such volatility would trigger large moves in crypto. But instead, Bitcoin is consolidating.

👉 This signals a compression phase, where volatility builds before a major breakout.

Traders are holding back, waiting for confirmation before committing capital. This creates a temporary “calm before the storm” effect.

Crypto Market Prediction: 3 Scenarios That Could Move Bitcoin Next

The current market structure suggests that Bitcoin’s next move will depend heavily on geopolitical outcomes. Three main scenarios are now being priced in:

Scenario 1: De-escalation and Diplomatic Deal

If negotiations between the US and Iran lead to a de-escalation:

• Oil prices are likely to drop
• Global markets could shift back to risk-on
• Investor confidence would return quickly

👉 In this case, Bitcoin could rally toward the $72,000–$75,000 range, with altcoins outperforming.

This would trigger a relief rally across crypto markets.

Scenario 2: Prolonged Uncertainty (No Clear Deal)

If talks continue without a clear resolution:

• Oil remains elevated
• Market uncertainty persists
• Liquidity stays cautious

👉 Bitcoin could trade sideways or gradually decline toward the $64,000–$66,000 zone.

Altcoins may continue to underperform, showing signs of weakness beneath the surface.

Scenario 3: Escalation and Global Risk-Off Event

If tensions escalate further — especially involving critical oil routes:

• Oil could spike toward $120+
• Global equities may drop sharply
• Investors move away from risk assets

👉 Bitcoin could experience a rapid sell-off, potentially testing the $60,000 level or lower.

Altcoins would likely see stronger declines due to higher risk exposure.

Why Altcoins Are Already Showing Weakness

While Bitcoin remains relatively stable, altcoins are quietly declining:

• $SOL and $ADA are down significantly
• $LINK and other majors are under pressure
• Capital is rotating toward Bitcoin

👉 This divergence is an early warning signal.

Historically, when altcoins weaken before Bitcoin, it often indicates a risk-off shift within crypto itself.

Investors are moving into perceived “safer” crypto assets, anticipating potential downside.

Oil Prices and Crypto: A New Market Driver

One of the most important developments in recent days is the increasing correlation between oil and crypto markets.

Oil is no longer just a macro indicator — it has become a real-time trigger for market movements.

• Oil spikes → inflation fears → crypto pressure
• Oil drops → relief → crypto bounce

👉 Crypto is now reacting instantly to geopolitical headlines affecting energy markets.

This marks a shift in how Bitcoin behaves within the global financial system.

What Investors Should Watch Next

The next 24–72 hours are critical.

Key factors to monitor:

• Updates on US-Iran negotiations
• Oil price movements and volatility
• Any disruption to the Strait of Hormuz
• Statements from global leaders and central banks

👉 These events will likely determine the next major move in Bitcoin and the broader crypto market.

Final Outlook: A Market Waiting for Confirmation

The crypto market is not directionless — it is waiting.

Bitcoin’s current stability reflects a broader pause across global markets as investors assess the next major geopolitical development.

👉 The next move will not be gradual — it will be decisive.

Whether Bitcoin rallies or crashes from here depends on one key factor:
the outcome of the current geopolitical tensions.

Facing an unprecedented blockade from the global SWIFT banking network and a collapsing national currency, Tehran has institutionalized digital assets to facilitate international trade, procure dual-use technology, and fund military operations. Following recent military escalations in early 2026, blockchain data has revealed massive capital movements within the Islamic Republic, proving that digital ledgers are now the "front line" of modern financial warfare.

Is Iran Using Crypto to Bypass Sanctions?

Yes, Iran is actively and systematically using cryptocurrency to bypass US-led economic sanctions. According to the Chainalysis 2026 Crypto Crime Report, Iran’s on-chain ecosystem reached a staggering $7.78 billion in 2025. By integrating crypto-mining into its state energy grid and utilizing dollar-pegged stablecoins for cross-border settlements, the Iranian government has created a parallel financial system that operates largely outside the reach of the US Federal Reserve.

The Mechanics of State-Sponsored Evasion

To understand how a nation-state "uses crypto" to evade sanctions, we must define the three primary pillars of Tehran’s strategy:

• State-Sanctioned Mining: Iran utilizes its vast, underpriced energy reserves to mine Bitcoin ($BTC). This "freshly minted" Bitcoin is untainted by previous transaction history, making it highly valuable for international markets where "clean" coins are required.
• The Service Layer Infrastructure: Rather than just using individual wallets, Iran has developed state-backed exchanges like Nobitex (which manages over 11 million users) and international nodes like Zedcex to process billions in volume.
• Stablecoin Settlement: While Bitcoin is used for wealth storage, dollar-pegged stablecoins (like USDT) and the newer ruble-backed A7A5 are the preferred medium for actual trade payments due to their price stability.

The Rise of the IRGC in the Digital Economy

A significant shift occurred throughout 2025: the total dominance of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) over the Iranian crypto market.

"In Q4 2025, IRGC-linked addresses accounted for over 50% of all value received by Iranian crypto services, moving more than $3 billion to support regional networks and oil sales." — Chainalysis 2026 Report.

This represents a transition from "civilian" crypto use (citizens protecting their savings from a Rial that hit 1.75 million per dollar in 2026) to "state" crypto use. The IRGC uses these funds to:

1. Circumvent oil export bans by accepting crypto payments.
2. Procure hardware and electronics for defense through non-sanctioned intermediaries.
3. Fund proxy groups across the Middle East without leaving a traditional banking trail.

Global Response and the Future of Enforcement

The US government is aggressively countering these moves. In February 2026, the US Treasury stepped up enforcement against platforms found to be functioning as critical nodes for Iranian state-backed finance.

However, the challenge for regulators is the "whack-a-mole" nature of decentralized finance. When one exchange is sanctioned, new liquidity hubs emerge in gray-market jurisdictions. Furthermore, the collaboration between Iran and Russia on the A7A5 stablecoin has created a bilateral corridor that processed over $100 billion in its first year, providing a blueprint for other sanctioned nations.

A New Era of Financial Warfare

Iran’s use of cryptocurrency has evolved from a survival tactic into a strategic weapon. By leveraging the borderless nature of blockchain, Tehran has managed to maintain its military funding and essential imports despite being "disconnected" from the world. For investors following the latest crypto news, this highlights the dual nature of digital assets: a tool for individual financial freedom and a vehicle for state-level geopolitical maneuvering.

As the conflict in West Asia continues, the world is watching to see if digital assets can truly replace the US Dollar as the primary settlement currency for the "sanctioned bloc" of nations.

The Bitcoin ATM operator disclosed a hack two weeks after attackers gained control of settlement account credentials and stole BTC.

A newly proposed agentic settlement standard would hold fees in escrow and bring underwriters into AI agent transactions.

NYSE-listed miner Cango reduced costs by 19% by shutting down inefficient equipment, and sold Bitcoin to pay down debt.

Meta's first model from its Superintelligence team is natively multimodal, built for health reasoning, and genuinely competitive—but it doesn't top every leaderboard.

The proposed rule prohibits people with criminal backgrounds from serving as the head of stablecoin issuers’ compliance programs.

A bombshell investigative report published by The New York Times claiming to have finally unmasked Bitcoin's pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, has been met with skepticism from the cryptocurrency industry.

Recent warnings from Google researchers showing that quantum computers could break cryptocurrency security sooner and with fewer resources than previously expected have sent ripples through the digital asset market..

Ethereum Foundation sells 5,000 ETH for stablecoins, but the 70,000 ETH staking surge tells a different story.

Polygon Labs is looking to secure a massive capital injection to aggressively expand its footprint in the digital payments sector.

After months of burning, Ripple Labs has made a shift to mint close to 10 million RLUSD.

TLDR:

• Muse Spark is Meta’s first multimodal reasoning model supporting tool use, visual chain of thought, and multi-agent tasks.

• Meta collaborated with over 1,000 physicians to strengthen Muse Spark’s health reasoning and medical response accuracy.

• Contemplating mode runs parallel AI agents, scoring 58% on Humanity’s Last Exam to rival top frontier AI models.

• Muse Spark uses ten times less compute than Llama 4 Maverick while delivering comparable performance across key benchmarks.

Muse Spark, Meta’s newest AI model, marks a major step in the company’s push toward personal superintelligence.

Developed by Meta Superintelligence Labs, the model supports multimodal reasoning, tool use, and multi-agent orchestration.

It is now available at meta.ai and the Meta AI app. A private API preview is open to select partners. Meta also plans to open-source future versions of the model, widening access to its growing AI ecosystem.

Multimodal Reasoning and Health Applications Define Muse Spark’s Early Rollout

Muse Spark is built from the ground up to process visual information across multiple domains and tools. It performs well on visual STEM questions, entity recognition, and localization tasks.

These abilities enable interactive experiences, from troubleshooting home appliances to building custom minigames. Meta positions this as a foundational part of its personal superintelligence roadmap.

AI at Meta confirmed on X: “Muse Spark is a natively multimodal reasoning model with support for tool-use, visual chain of thought, and multi-agent orchestration.”

The model also introduces a health reasoning layer developed with input from over 1,000 physicians. Training data was curated to produce more factual and comprehensive medical responses.

Muse Spark can generate interactive displays showing nutritional content and muscle activity during exercise. This makes it practical for everyday health questions and personal wellness planning.

Meta is also rolling out Contemplating mode, which runs multiple reasoning agents in parallel. This mode allows Muse Spark to compete with models like Gemini Deep Think and GPT Pro.

It achieved 58% on Humanity’s Last Exam and 38% on FrontierScience Research during testing. The feature is rolling out gradually to users on meta.ai.

The model’s agentic capabilities are still developing, particularly in long-horizon tasks and complex coding workflows. Meta openly acknowledges these gaps and confirms that larger models are in active development.

Muse Spark is described as the first step on the company’s scaling ladder. Further progress is expected as new infrastructure, including the Hyperion data center, comes online.

Scaling Research and Safety Evaluations Back Meta’s Confidence in Muse Spark

Meta rebuilt its pretraining stack over nine months, improving model architecture, optimization, and data curation. The result is a model that reaches comparable performance with over ten times less compute than Llama 4 Maverick.

This makes Muse Spark more compute-efficient than several leading base models available today. Scaling laws applied to smaller models were used to verify these gains.

Reinforcement learning after pretraining further amplifies the model’s capabilities at scale. Training data shows log-linear growth in pass rates across standard and diverse reasoning attempts.

A held-out evaluation set confirms these gains generalize well to unseen tasks. Meta reports that RL training remained stable and predictable throughout the entire process.

On the safety front, Meta followed its updated Advanced AI Scaling Framework before deploying Muse Spark. Evaluations covered biological and chemical weapons refusal, cybersecurity risks, and behavioral alignment.

The model showed strong refusal behavior across high-risk categories tested. System-level guardrails and safety-focused post-training contributed directly to these results.

Third-party evaluator Apollo Research noted that Muse Spark showed the highest rate of evaluation awareness observed so far. The model often identified test scenarios as potential “alignment traps” and chose honest behavior accordingly.

Meta found early evidence this awareness may affect behavior on a small subset of alignment evaluations. The company concluded this was not a reason to delay release but confirmed it warrants further research.

The post Meta Launches Muse Spark: The AI Model Built to Deliver Personal Superintelligence appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Fed held rates at 3.50–3.75%, cutting expected 2026 reductions from four down to one.

• Oil surging to $115 per barrel during the Iran conflict pushed short-term inflation further from the 2% target.

• A ceasefire sent oil below $95 within hours, raising hopes that the one remaining rate cut could arrive sooner.

• Kevin Warsh, known for favoring lower rates, replaces Jerome Powell in May, adding a new variable to Fed policy.

Fed rate cuts have become a closely watched topic as Middle East tensions reshape the economic outlook for 2026.

The Federal Reserve held rates unchanged at 3.50% to 3.75% at its latest policy meeting. Markets had previously anticipated four reductions this year.

Escalating conflict in the region, however, has brought that number down to just one. Oil prices surged to $115 per barrel at the height of the Iran conflict, worsening an already stubborn inflation reading of 3.0%. A fragile ceasefire has since changed the near-term picture, though uncertainty persists.

Oil Shock or Structural Problem? The Fed Weighs In

The decision to hold rates was not unanimous inside the Federal Reserve. Two members pushed for a cut but were outvoted by the majority. Most policymakers preferred waiting for clearer data before adjusting the rate path.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell addressed the oil price situation directly in the meeting minutes. He acknowledged that Middle East tensions are pushing short-term inflation numbers higher.

At the same time, he stressed that long-term inflation expectations have remained relatively stable. The Fed is treating the current situation as a temporary oil shock, not a structural inflation problem.

Market analyst account Bull Theory captured the shift on X, writing, “The Iran war just killed four Fed rate cuts” — with only one cut now remaining on the table for 2026.

That distinction between short-term and long-term inflation matters for markets and policymakers alike. Oil-driven inflation typically reverses once prices stabilize. The Fed’s current framework leaves room for cuts once that reversal shows up clearly in the data.

Ceasefire, Falling Oil, and a Change at the Top

The ceasefire announcement triggered a sharp drop in oil prices, from $115 to below $95 within hours. That move represents a meaningful shift in the near-term inflation outlook. Markets responded quickly by reassessing rate cut probabilities for the remainder of 2026.

April and May oil price trends will be the key numbers to watch going forward. If prices hold below $95, inflation could begin trending closer to the Fed’s 2% target. That outcome would likely pull the one remaining rate cut forward from late 2026 into an earlier window.

Another variable entering the equation is the scheduled change in Fed leadership. Powell steps down in May, with Kevin Warsh set to take over as chair.

Warsh is widely known to favor lower interest rates, a stance that could accelerate any easing if inflation data cooperates.

That said, the ceasefire is a two-week arrangement, not a permanent agreement. Iran has already declared three violations since the deal was announced.

Israel continues military operations in Lebanon, and the Strait of Hormuz remains partially restricted. The April Consumer Price Index report will serve as the first real test of whether the oil shock is easing.

Until that data arrives, Fed rate cuts in 2026 will remain unsettled.

The post Fed Rate Cuts Shrink to One as Iran War Rattles Oil Markets and Inflation Outlook appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• • Foreign panda bond issuance tripled year on year in March 2026, reaching 27.8 billion yuan in one month alone.

  • China’s 10-year bond yield of 1.82% makes yuan borrowing roughly 60% cheaper than equivalent U.S. dollar debt.

  • The U.S. dollar’s share of global reserves dropped to 56.32% in 2025, its lowest recorded level since 1995.
  • Iran now requires oil tanker transit fees through the Strait of Hormuz to be paid in yuan or Bitcoin only.

Panda bonds recorded a dramatic rise in foreign issuance in March 2026, tripling year on year to 27.8 billion yuan. That equals roughly $4 billion in a single month.

Total yuan-denominated financing by foreign borrowers reached a record 218 billion yuan in the opening weeks of 2026.

The full year of 2025 produced only $167 billion through yuan notes and loans combined. The shift spans sovereign governments, global banks, and multilateral development institutions.

Record Deals Signal a Structural Turn in Yuan Borrowing

Deutsche Bank issued the largest single panda bond ever placed by a foreign bank, totaling 5.5 billion yuan. The three-year tranche was oversubscribed 1.55 times and the five-year 1.63 times.

Indonesia sold 9.25 billion yuan at roughly one percentage point below its euro-denominated debt issued the same week.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank placed 3 billion yuan, with 58% allocated to overseas investors. Morgan Stanley, Barclays, and Hungary also joined as new or repeat yuan issuers in 2026. The Asian Development Bank had already raised a record 8.3 billion yuan in March 2025.

The cost advantage is a key factor. China’s 10-year bond yield sits at 1.82%, against 4.46% for the U.S. Treasury equivalent. That spread of 260 basis points is the widest recorded since August 2025.

As @BullTheoryio noted on X, “Borrowing in yuan is approximately 60% cheaper than borrowing in dollars right now.” For governments with heavy trade exposure to China, that arithmetic is difficult to overlook. The yuan now accounts for 34.5% of China’s cross-border goods trade settlements, up from 10% in 2017.

China is the dominant trading partner for more than 120 countries. When trade with the largest partner settles in yuan, holding that currency as a working reserve follows naturally. The offshore dim sum bond market hit a record 870 billion yuan in 2025, its eighth straight year of growth.

Dollar Weakness and Treasury Market Signals Add Further Pressure

The U.S. dollar index fell 9.6% in full year 2025, its worst annual result since 2017. In the first half of 2025 alone, it dropped 10.7%, the worst first-half performance in over 50 years. The dollar’s share of global reserves fell to 56.32%, the lowest since 1995.

China’s U.S. Treasury holdings fell to $682.6 billion in November 2025, down from $1.32 trillion in 2013. China has been selling U.S. Treasuries for nine consecutive months as of late 2025. That steady reduction reflects a deliberate portfolio rebalancing by the world’s second-largest economy.

Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that Treasuries’ convenience yield turned negative, sitting at -0.25% for 10-year maturities.

That premium once saved the U.S. government hundreds of billions in annual borrowing costs. State Street confirmed that since April 2025, rising Treasury yields now reflect fiscal risk rather than economic strength.

During a global bond sell-off in March 2026, U.S. Treasury yields spiked to 4.4055%, a near eight-month high. China’s 10-year yield moved only from 1.80% to 1.84% across the same period. The contrast in stability was widely noted across international fixed income markets.

Iran now charges oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz $1 per barrel of cargo. Payments are accepted only in Bitcoin or Chinese yuan.

A very large crude carrier with 2 million barrels owes up to $2 million per transit. Iran’s National Security Committee passed legislation codifying this fee structure, and at least two vessels paid in yuan before the ceasefire was announced.

The post Panda Bonds Surge as Global Borrowers Ditch Dollar Debt for Cheaper Yuan Financing in 2026 appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Ripple recently minted 9.9 million RLUSD tokens on the Ethereum blockchain.
• The minting follows a series of large RLUSD token burns conducted by Ripple.
• The newly minted RLUSD tokens are backed 1:1 by USD cash and equivalents.
• Ripple’s strategy of minting and burning tokens helps balance RLUSD supply and demand.
• The recent minting expands RLUSD’s availability for trading and use on the Ethereum network.

Ripple has recently minted 9.9 million RLUSD tokens on the Ethereum blockchain. This follows weeks of RLUSD burns and comes as part of Ripple’s ongoing supply management. The minting process is initiated when there is demand for more RLUSD from exchanges, institutions, or retail users.

New RLUSD Minting Follows Burn Process

The official Ripple USD (RLUSD) Treasury account added 9.9 million RLUSD tokens to the Ethereum blockchain. This action comes after a series of significant burns in March and April, where Ripple removed over $230 million in RLUSD tokens from circulation. These token burns were part of Ripple’s strategy to balance the supply of RLUSD between the XRP Ledger and Ethereum.

“Minting occurs when there is demand for RLUSD, and the issuer, the Ripple Treasury smart contract, creates new tokens,” Ripple explained. These new tokens are backed 1:1 by USD cash and equivalents, held in regulated custody accounts. As such, the minted tokens are fully supported by traditional assets, ensuring their value.

With this minting, the total RLUSD supply increases, and the tokens are now available for use and trading. Ripple’s approach of minting and burning tokens is designed to keep the supply of RLUSD in line with market demand. The goal is to maintain the stablecoin’s value and ensure liquidity within Ripple’s ecosystem.

Ripple Strengthens RLUSD Presence in the Crypto Market

Ripple’s RLUSD continues to strengthen its position in the crypto market with increased demand. The recent minting adds to the ongoing expansion of RLUSD, a stablecoin designed to facilitate cross-border payments. According to a recent report, Bitrue exchange now supports trading RLUSD against tokenized gold options like PAXG and XAUT.

The stablecoin’s reserves are valued at $1.56 billion, surpassing the market supply of $1.49 billion tokens. This highlights Ripple’s ongoing growth in the stablecoin sector. Binance has also integrated RLUSD on the XRP Ledger, allowing users to transact RLUSD directly on the network.

Ripple launched RLUSD on December 17, 2024, with the aim of providing liquidity and improving cross-border payments. With multiple exchange integrations and strong backing, RLUSD is becoming more embedded in the broader crypto ecosystem.

The post Ripple Mints 9.9 Million RLUSD Tokens to Ethereum Blockchain appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• Ripple has launched a Treasury Management System with native digital asset capabilities, allowing businesses to manage both fiat and digital assets.
• The new system integrates Digital Asset Accounts and Unified Treasury, making it the first TMS to directly support on-chain digital asset management.
• CFOs and treasury teams can now manage traditional cash balances alongside digital assets like XRP and RLUSD in a single system.
• Ripple’s Treasury platform addresses the growing demand for seamless digital asset solutions among fintech platforms and financial leaders.
• The new solution provides regulated Ripple-native accounts, simplifying asset management and ensuring compliance with industry standards.

Ripple, the San Francisco-based blockchain firm, has announced the launch of its Treasury Management System (TMS) with native digital asset capabilities. This new development is designed to support businesses in managing both fiat and digital assets efficiently. Ripple’s new offering aims to enhance enterprise blockchain solutions, simplifying the process of integrating digital assets into corporate treasuries.

Ripple’s Treasury Management System to Revolutionize Corporate Finance

Ripple’s new Treasury Management System is set to change how CFOs and treasury teams manage digital assets. The platform integrates on-chain digital asset capabilities, allowing businesses to handle both traditional fiat currencies and digital assets in a single system. Ripple’s solution eliminates the need for separate custody platforms and reconciliation processes, streamlining treasury operations.

The addition of Digital Asset Accounts and Unified Treasury within Ripple Treasury makes it the first TMS to directly integrate digital asset management. CFOs can now manage their assets more seamlessly, avoiding the complexities of using separate systems for digital currencies like XRP and RLUSD. This innovative move allows companies to focus on financial strategy rather than on the technicalities of asset management.

According to Ripple, this system addresses the growing demand from fintech platforms and financial leaders who are seeking smoother gateways for digital asset integration. Reece Merrick, Ripple’s top executive, highlighted that 72% of finance leaders believe offering a digital asset solution is critical to staying competitive in the market. As companies face uncertainty about implementing these solutions, Ripple aims to fill this gap with its new product.

Digital Asset Accounts Offer New Opportunities for Businesses

Ripple’s new Treasury platform provides businesses with the ability to create Ripple-native Digital Asset Accounts. These accounts allow companies to hold and manage digital assets like XRP and RLUSD in a regulated environment. By integrating digital assets into the corporate treasury, Ripple simplifies how businesses manage their cash and crypto balances in one unified system.

The introduction of these accounts comes at a time when companies are seeking to diversify their asset portfolios. The platform’s seamless integration of digital assets alongside traditional fiat currencies offers a more straightforward way for businesses to engage with the growing digital economy. Ripple’s new system ensures that businesses are equipped to stay ahead in a rapidly changing financial landscape.

The post Ripple Unveils First Treasury Management System for Digital Assets appeared first on Blockonomi.

Argentine authorities are reviewing phone records linked to President Javier Milei as part of an ongoing probe into the LIBRA token. The logs have become central to the investigation and may clarify his level of involvement during the project’s launch.

The case centers on LIBRA, a token built on the Solana network that launched in February 2025. The token drew attention after Milei shared details about it on X before the information became widely available.

Milei’s Calls With Novelli

Promoters linked to the LIBRA project include entrepreneur Mauricio Novelli and Hayden Davis of Kelsier Ventures. Critics argue that insiders exited early, raising concerns about a possible rug pull.

Following Milei’s tweet, the token’s price surged sharply within minutes before collapsing soon after. Estimates suggest that about $250 million in market value was wiped out during the decline.

Investigators say the reviewed phone logs may challenge Milei’s earlier public statements. Notably, records indicate he held several calls with Novelli on the night the token was launched.

The calls reportedly began shortly before Milei’s post and continued as the token’s price moved rapidly, raising questions about whether the communication was linked to the market activity.

Milei later deleted his post and said he had no prior knowledge of the project’s structure. The call data, however, has prompted prosecutors to examine the timeline more closely.

Messages Suggest Possible Payments to Milei

Attention has also turned to messages recovered from Novelli’s devices during the investigation. Some exchanges reference recurring payments to Milei during his earlier political career.

One message described the payments as a form of monthly compensation, while draft proposals suggested links between financial incentives and endorsements. Separate reports also cite claims by Davis about access to Milei’s inner circle. These claims referenced possible payments involving Karina Milei, though no transfers were confirmed.

All parties have denied wrongdoing and maintain that their interactions were routine. Meanwhile, Milei has not been charged but remains under review as a person of interest.

The case has renewed debate about how public officials engage with digital assets. Regulators in Argentina and beyond are monitoring the situation as the investigation develops.

The post Argentina Reviews Phone Logs in LIBRA Case Linked to Javier Milei (Report) appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Adam Back has once again denied claims that he is the mysterious Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto.

The latest denial comes after an investigation by New York Times reporter John Carreyrou pointed to him as the most likely candidate.

Back Pushes Back

Following the NYT’s publishing of Carreyrou’s piece, Back took to X to reject its conclusion.

“I’m not Satoshi,” he said flatly.

The Blockstream founder also explained that he had been one of the most active posters on the Cypherpunks mailing list, loudly interested in electronic cash and cryptographic privacy from around 1992 onwards.

Two things are important here: first, his focus on e-cash and online privacy meant that people looking into Satoshi’s true identity would have found many Bitcoin-like elements in his past work; and second, the fact that he posted on the lists so often left a big enough paper trail that those same researchers would keep finding his fingerprints.

According to him, his posting volume meant that he would have likely weighed in on any given thread more than someone else with identical interests but who posted twenty times less.

On the question of who Satoshi actually is, Back reiterated that he doesn’t know and that, for him, that is the right state of affairs.

“I think it is good for bitcoin that this is the case,” he wrote, “as it helps bitcoin be viewed a new asset class, the mathematically scarce digital commodity.”

What the Investigation Claims

Carreyrou’s argument runs through several layers. Back is British, was active on the Cypherpunks mailing list in the 1990s, and invented Hashcash, the proof-of-work system Satoshi cited in the Bitcoin white paper.

The journalist also claimed to have matched more than a hundred words and phrases from Satoshi’s writings to Back’s archived mailing list posts.

In addition, he drew a line between Satoshi’s habit of embedding political messages in Bitcoin’s design and a 2002 post in which Back, apparently out of curiosity, asked about the 1933 U.S. gold seizure. This was the same event Satoshi encoded into Bitcoin as a statement about government monetary overreach.

Carreyrou also pointed out that Back had a background in distributed computing and C++, the language used to write BTC’s original code, which fitted Satoshi’s known profile.

However, in a post on X responding to a user, he acknowledged that such connections did not necessarily add up to certainty.

“The only true smoking gun is cryptographic proof and only Adam can provide that,” he wrote.

Back’s emails with Satoshi, made public during the London fraud trial of Craig Wright, the Australian entrepreneur ruled not to be Satoshi by a UK judge in 2024, show Satoshi reaching out to Back in August 2008 to check a citation before publishing his white paper.

Most people would read those emails as evidence that Back and Satoshi were two different people. However, Carreyrou’s counter is that Back could have sent them to himself as cover. That argument has not gone over well.

The post Adam Back Denies Being Satoshi Amid NYT Probe appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Altcoins are flashing technical signals not seen since 2020, with a multi-year wedge breakout and a looming MACD crossover drawing attention across crypto markets this week.

The setup has fueled renewed speculation that a broader altcoin rally could be forming.

Breakout Pattern and Momentum Signals Return

Analyst Mark Chadwick highlighted the signals in question in a post on X on April 8, where he claimed that altcoins were “starting to look insane.” His analysis is centered on a falling wedge pattern across several years on the TOTAL2 chart, which tracks the combined market cap of altcoins minus Bitcoin.

The structure, which has formed since the market peak in 2021, shows a prolonged downtrend with weakening selling pressure, and according to Chadwick, altcoins have now broken above this wedge, a move usually considered by market watchers as a reversal signal.

In addition, the analyst pointed out that the MACD indicator is also approaching a bullish crossover, and if confirmed, it would mirror a previous setup in 2020 that triggered the last major altcoin rally.

“If MACD flips green and confirms the crossover in the coming weeks… Follow the arrow for directions. Higher,” he wrote.

There were also others echoing similar views, with one of them, Crypto Patel, noting on the same day that altcoins are bouncing off a long-term trendline that started from lows recorded in 2022, adding that “the bottom is in.”

Meanwhile, CoinGecko’s data from earlier today showed that the market was getting stronger in the short term. Several altcoins, such as Zcash (ZEC), LayerZero (ZRO), Ethena (ENA), and Arbitrum (ARB), all saw their prices rise by more than 10% in the last 24 hours.

The wider market also turned higher, with the total crypto market cap going up by more than 4% to about $2.5 trillion, and Bitcoin going back up above $72,000 following gains of more than 5%.

Open interest has also risen by over 7% to $113 billion per CoinGlass, and it came alongside an increase in liquidations, suggesting heightened speculative activity.

Mixed Backdrop After Months of Weakness

The recent optimism has come after a rather difficult stretch for altcoins. Data published toward the end of March showed that over 40% of tokens were trading near all-time lows, which was a deeper drawdown than during the previous bear market. At the time, analysts blamed the situation on liquidity fragmentation, with tens of millions of tokens competing for capital.

Even in the past week, conditions were still uneven, with BTC turning down yesterday near $70,000, causing several altcoins, including AVAX and ADA, to drop.

On the other hand, analyst Ash Crypto recently pointed out that the ALT/BTC charts are gaining momentum, with multiple green MACD bars for the first time in years. They did not, however, say that a full altcoin cycle was underway, stating that factors like Bitcoin’s dominance and overall liquidity still need to change.

The post Altcoins Echo 2020 Rally Setup as Wedge Shatters appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin saw a sharp recovery on Wednesday after Iran’s Supreme National Security Council accepted a two-week ceasefire. The crypto asset briefly climbed above $72,700 after posting over 5% daily gains before stabilizing near $71,600.

The rebound was particularly visible in the derivatives market, where sentiment indicators indicated a strong upward reversal. But the overall structure may still be weak.

Risks of Rejection Still Loom

During this period, the Bitcoin Futures Advanced Sentiment Index rose significantly from 23.4 to 53.1, according to the latest findings by analyst Axel Adler Jr. This index, which aggregates multiple components including price action, taker flow, open interest, and signed volume delta, revealed that the recovery was not limited to price alone.

The market was found to have exited a short-term pressure phase and entered a period of renewed risk appetite. However, despite this rebound, the sentiment index had previously reached a higher local peak of 65.6 before easing slightly, which means that some momentum has already cooled.

While the smoothed version of the index continued to trend upward and currently holds near 41.8, the latest data shows stabilization rather than continued acceleration. Therefore, a “sustained” strength is needed to maintain the recovery.

At the same time, Bitcoin’s underlying price structure has improved at a slower pace compared to derivatives. The Structure Shift Composite Signal, which measures the position and strength of price within a 21-day trading channel, moved from -0.58 to -0.03 over the same period.

This change demonstrates that the market has transitioned from a clearly negative structure to a near-neutral state. However, price remains positioned at roughly 29% of its 21-day range, meaning it is still trading in the lower portion of the channel rather than approaching the upper boundary. Such a trend formation hints that while downside pressure has eased and the structure has stabilized, it has not yet confirmed a sustained upward regime.

For a more definitive reversal, the market would need to maintain its position above crucial medium-term moving averages, establish a consistently positive structural signal, and push higher within the channel.

There is a clear divergence between derivatives sentiment and price structure. It highlights that while futures data points to a rapid improvement in sentiment and positioning, the underlying price action has not yet fully aligned with this optimism. This imbalance suggests that the recent rally may still be in a transitional phase rather than a confirmed trend reversal. In practical terms, the market now appears stronger than it did a few days ago, but it has not yet established the conditions necessary for sustained growth.

Short-Term Direction at Crossroads

Amid this slightly improved but still uncertain outlook, another analyst, Ted Pillows, said that as Bitcoin moved back above the important $70,000 resistance level, the next area to watch is between $72,000 and $74,000. This range is expected to play a major role in deciding where the price heads next.

If the asset manages to break above and hold this zone, it could pave the way for a move back toward its March highs. On the other hand, if the price struggles to stay above this range and faces rejection, it could slip back down toward the $68,000 level.

The post Bitcoin Rebound Gains Strength, Yet This Key Signal Warns It’s Not Over appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin is showing signs of tentative recovery after holding $60k support. The price is now located around the low $70k region once again. The overall macro situation just shifted slightly with news of a temporary ceasefire emerging in the Iran conflict, which has previously influenced risk sentiment and commodity markets.

This geopolitical development could ease immediate macro risk premia. However, the ceasefire is widely described as fragile and conditional, with key disputes unresolved.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

On the daily timeframe, BTC price remains in a long‑term downtrend. The direction is defined by the 100‑day (~$75k) and 200‑day (~$90k) moving averages, which continue to slope lower.

With the RSI also showing bullish momentum, the price is now on its way to retest the $75k-$80k supply zone. This zone is accompanied by the higher boundary of the long-term descending channel and the 100-day moving average. This confluence makes the $75k level a key area to watch.

A breakout above the aforementioned zone could pave the way for a rally toward the 200-day moving average, and potentially a retest of the $100k level. On the other hand, if the price gets rejected from the $75k zone, another drop toward the $60k support level could be expected in the coming weeks.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

On the 4‑hour chart, Bitcoin remains range‑bound within an ascending channel, with a lower boundary near $66k and an upper boundary near $78k. The price has recently tested the lower boundary and rebounded. The internal trend shows short‑term higher highs over the recent sessions, indicating a move toward the $75k horizontal resistance level.

Momentum is also showing buyers’ dominance, but with the RSI hovering around the overbought region, the market might take more time than expected to clear the mentioned resistance. On the contrary, a rejection from this level without the price even reaching the higher boundary of the channel could be a warning signal that drags the price back to the $60k area and potentially lower.

On-Chain Analysis

From an on-chain perspective, the Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL) metric sits in a low profit‑share zone similar to levels seen during prior major accumulation phases, suggesting many holders are not realizing significant gains. This often points to a cautious market that has absorbed more of the previous downturn without renewed speculative excess.

That backdrop could provide a foundation for choppier consolidation rather than a sustained selloff. However, if the price begins to print higher highs and lows soon, this could indicate that the current stage is a heavy accumulation, and could set the market up for a sustainable recovery in the coming months.

The post Bitcoin Price Analysis: What Are BTC’s Next Targets After Surging Past $70K? appeared first on CryptoPotato.