Cryptocurrency Posts
Crypto Briefing
Nvidia has invested over $6.5 billion in silicon photonics companies as AI clusters outgrow copper wiring, reshaping data center and crypto infrastructure.
The post Silicon photonics investment surges as AI clusters outgrow copper wiring appeared first on Crypto Briefing.
Argentina defender Cristian Romero was substituted during the 2026 World Cup Final due to a knee injury, spotlighting risks in sports fan tokens and crypto.
The post Argentina’s Cristian Romero exits 2026 World Cup Final with injury, raising questions about crypto-linked fan tokens appeared first on Crypto Briefing.
Moonshot AI's Kimi K3 model paused new subscriptions after demand overwhelmed GPU capacity within 48 hours of its July 2026 launch.
The post Kimi K3 faces GPU capacity crunch as demand overwhelms Moonshot AI’s infrastructure appeared first on Crypto Briefing.
US expands military presence in the Middle East with largest buildup since 2003. Houthi attacks on shipping by August 31, 2026 at 45.5% YES.
The post US expands Middle East military presence with largest buildup since 2003 appeared first on Crypto Briefing.
US Central Command resumed its naval blockade on Iran, redirecting six vessels in 24 hours. Here's what it means for oil prices and crypto markets.
The post US Central Command redirects 6 vessels as Iran naval blockade resumes, rattling oil and crypto markets appeared first on Crypto Briefing.
Bitcoin Magazine
Bitcoin Magazine
Bitcoin Sentiment Is Turning Bullish — But It’s Too Early to Celebrate: Report
The Bitcoin bottom may be in — but don’t get your hopes up: It might struggle to go up anytime soon, according to one investment firm.
A Friday report from European asset management firm CoinShares said that investors last week threw fresh cash at Bitcoin — and other crypto — exchange-traded products, indicating a change in sentiment.
But other factors may hold digital asset markets from going higher, James Butterfill, head of research at CoinShares, wrote.
“We have said for some time that Bitcoin has probably reached, or is close to, its floor,” the report read. “But we see no significant upside potential from here.”
The report added that current macroeconomic headwinds, such as the US bombing Iran and rising oil prices, could see inflation go up again.
Bitcoin’s price was up earlier this week, hitting a seven-day high of $65,501 on news that inflation in the US was softer than expected. It has since erased those gains and was recently trading for $64,010.
The price of Bitcoin has typically done well on news that inflation is coming down because investors expect interest rates to come down. But Butterfill said that “a rate cut does not look probable at this stage.”
Bitcoin’s worst run on record
CoinShares’ data showed that investors pulled a total of $8 billion out of funds giving crypto exposure — “the worst run on record.”
Last week, though, things reversed when $287 million hit crypto funds, CoinShares said, with the data so far showing that this week looks likely to be another positive streak.
The price of Bitcoin has typically done well when US investors — previously excluded from crypto investing — have bought shares in exchange-traded funds approved in 2024.
The products — handled by the likes of BlackRock, Fidelity, and Grayscale — allow more traditional investors or Wall Street institutions to buy positions in Bitcoin via shares that trade on stock exchanges.
Since BTC’s October all-time high of $126,080, crypto markets have faced a battering as those investors have fast cashed out of the funds. Bitcoin has struggled to make gains, especially after the US and Israel started bombing Iran, leading to a surge in the price of oil.
The leading cryptocurrency is now nearly 50% below its record.
“The dominant picture is that the current setup is prompting interest in adding positions, but caution prevails while sentiment remains broadly negative,” CoinShares added.
This post Bitcoin Sentiment Is Turning Bullish — But It’s Too Early to Celebrate: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.
Bitcoin Magazine
Ocean Mining VP Jason Hughes: BIP-110 on Track to Fail as Miner Signaling Stays Below 1%
BIP-110 – My Notes to Miners
This is a guest post by Jason Hughes, VP of Development and Engineering at Ocean Mining. Opinions expressed are entirely his own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine. The article originally appeared on X.com and has been published with the permission of the author.
Let me start off by saying I’m not pro BIP110, and I’m not anti-BIP110. If it actually succeeds as something that gains true consensus within the network and ends up being enforced by a majority of the network… cool. If so, then we’ll go with it because the network has spoken and accepted it, and all nodes, including non-BIP110 nodes, will be pulled along for the ride. Unfortunately for proponents of the proposal, that simply isn’t currently the case by any measurable metric, nor does it appear to have a trajectory suggesting that will change, either.
There’s been a lot of misleading information about this whole thing, especially in the context of mining. A few quick key bullet points to briefly counter some hyperbole from proponents: BIP110 is NOT inevitable. It CAN fail. BIP110 can and will cause a chain split/fork in a minority hashrate situation. BIP110 is NOT without risk to miners choosing to adopt it. Miners not supporting BIP110 are not suddenly mining “invalid” blocks just because a proposal that isn’t yet adopted simply exists. You’re not a bad person or evil simply because you don’t like or support BIP110. (The fact that I feel the need to point out that last part is actually kind of sad…)
I was going to write a long post to help keep miners informed about things they need to remain aware of as this all plays out… before realizing I already did so months ago, as a document I authored that I had hoped could be put out as a miner education piece at OCEAN. Sadly, it never got published. So I went ahead and updated it, and well, here it is.
Again, keep in mind this was written months ago, intended to be as agnostic as possible in an effort to make it acceptable as a corporate post. That effort failed, so I’m posting it as a personal document today instead. As a miner making important decisions about your operations, you need to be aware of all of this without the sugarcoating and, frankly, outright misleading information coming from some of the BIP110 proponents. You must be vigilant and decide what’s right for you.
While there is certainly some misleading information from the opposition as well, nothing I’ve seen is nearly as egregious as the extremely premature claims of victory and accompanying hyperbole pushed by the BIP110 side. Summarizing my doc a bit, my personal suggestion to miners is this: Signal if you support BIP110. Do not signal if you don’t support BIP110 or don’t care. Either way, monitor the network on/around/before block 961632.
If you continue to see non-signaling blocks from major pools, you can be reasonably certain they’re not going to suddenly decide later to throw away millions of dollars’ worth of revenue to backtrack and signal for BIP110. If they do, by some chance, start to signal for BIP110, you should monitor that and consider switching as required to stay on the heaviest chain. The key point is that, realistically, only one side can win. It’s either BIP110 succeeds, and miners not on the BIP110 side fail, or BIP110 fails, and miners on the non-BIP110 side succeed.
Moving on, let’s dive into a small fraction of my rationale.
QUICK FACT: Between 7 and 15% of Bitcoin Nodes are signaling support for BIP110.
Depending on which centralized crawler you look at… no way to know for sure [how many BIP110 nodes are signaling support]. My personal private crawler puts this number much lower, but that’s a discussion for another day. Suffice it to say, I think it’s logical and correct to say that even 15% is not a majority.
“But Jason! UASF got Segwit activated with fewer nodes!”
Yep, because many miners, merchants, users, etc., all actually wanted Segwit. There was tremendous economic and community weight behind it. Without rehashing that whole thing, as plenty of resources on the topic from before BIP110 are worth a read, suffice it to say that BIP110 and Segwit activations are not quite comparable, as many have already pointed out. Segwit, for example, went into its UASF territory with around 1/3rd of the network’s hashrate already signaling support. With that kind of backing, the UASF to help push the MASF over the tipping point made a lot of sense. It doesn’t make sense here for BIP110.
QUICK FACT: 0.6% of blocks over the past 60 days have signaled support for BIP110.
[0.6% is a] pretty stark contrast to even Segwit’s low baseline support. Yes, I know it’s increased slightly in the past couple of weeks, but no new entrants. Just more clearly rented hashrate from one of the same small proponents.
Something to keep in mind is that mining BIP110 signaling blocks via DATUM on OCEAN carries virtually no risk to the miner up until the fork point at block 961632. The cost is negligible, as you’re effectively guaranteed to recoup rental costs, etc.
It’s awesome that the ability to do so exists, and I wouldn’t have it any other way… but just something to keep in mind when weighing signaling from such blocks in the grand scheme of things from a risk-reward, money-on-the-table perspective.
“But Jason! Miners have no incentive to signal until the last minute!”
I also see no evidence to suggest that this could be the case. Subjectively, I disagree with the premise, as it’s not in a mining pool’s best interest to destabilize the network in such a way. Part of the reason for early signaling and lock-in periods is to help coordinate upgrades in a smooth fashion. Waiting until the last minute negates that benefit entirely. I see no compelling rationale or upside to doing so.
Continuing on this, as part of my personal node monitoring setup, I specifically monitor nodes known to belong to various entities, such as other mining pools, exchanges, large lightning nodes, merchants, etc. A supermajority of which are monitored with explicit permission and confirmation/coordination.
QUICK FACT: All major mining pools I monitor are currently running some variant of Bitcoin Core v30 or v31 (except OCEAN).
Expanding on that, most [mining pools] have updated their nodes since the proliferation of BIP110’s release, even since the release of Knots 29.3. Additionally, it is known that many mining pools run modified versions of their node software to facilitate various requirements of their specific infrastructure. Such changes would need to be ported to a BIP110-compatible client, tested, evaluated, and deployed ahead of time. I currently see no evidence that this is the case currently.
As far as I can tell, the pools are aware but ignoring.
“But Jason! Miners don’t determine consensus! Nodes do! Otherwise, they’ll just cancel halvings!”
This is one of the funniest and most ridiculous arguments I’ve heard from the pro-BIP110 crowd. Comparing a consensus change that can be unilaterally enforced upon the network by miners and accepted by 100% of existing nodes (a soft fork), with a hard fork which no existing node will accept… is disingenuous at best. T
ightening rules (like BIP110): Soft fork, can be enforced by miners if they choose to do so. Loosening rules (like canceling a halving): Hard fork, can not be enforced by miners without effectively 100% buy-in from the entire network… which isn’t likely to happen. Comparing the two is, bluntly, just stupid.
“But Jason! If you don’t upgrade to the latest consensus rules, you’re insecure! You’ll lose funds! You’ll mine invalid blocks! You’ll [insert additional hyperbole here]!”
This would be true of a consensus change that has, well, consensus. While BIP110 has made a valiant effort to gain that consensus, it has yet to have any measurable majority at what is now arguably the 11th hour. Not in nodes, not in hashrate, not in the social layers (consensus.health has a cool visual there where you’ll find me in the middle).
If somehow BIP110 gains 51%+ of the network hashrate on/before block 961632… then, alright. It’s enforced, since as a soft fork a majority of miners can unilaterally enforce it in the absence of a fully adopted URSF (effectively a misnomer, as this would kind of be a hard fork).
“But Jason! It can’t gain consensus by already having consensus! You have to give it a chance!”
Firstly… no I don’t, even though I have. Second, it’s a rushed proposal that never had the time to even try and gain real consensus. It’s been 7 months since the release of the first BIP110 client. There’s ~3 weeks to go before “mandatory” signaling starts as of now (less by the time you read this). 90% of the time available has passed with no change in overall sentiment from any relevant players. If it hasn’t gained sufficient adoption in the past 7 months, it’s not likely to do so in the next 3 weeks.
“But Jason! CSAM! CSAM! Pedophiles! CSAM!”
I’ll be the first to say, even I personally overstated the risk here early on when Core proposed its OP_RETURN change. I personally expected something particularly egregious to hit the chain almost immediately, and to the best of my knowledge, that’s not yet happened. Could it still happen? Yeah, I suppose.
But considering from a technical perspective, byte-for-byte the same contiguous arbitrary data can provably end up stored in the current chain or the BIP-110 chain without much issue… this particular argument for BIP-110 falls pretty flat to me at this point.
Do I want CSAM in the chain? Of course not. Am I a pedophile if I don’t support BIP110? Also not.
Concluding Thoughts
I could continue to go on and on and on, but I’ll stop here. I’ve wasted enough time on this. I’m sure I’ve done plenty to annoy both sides of the BIP110 debate at this point, as I don’t adopt either stance. I’m sure I’ll catch flak from all angles simply for daring to speak my mind on it.
Overall, I mostly think it was silly to approach addressing a real problem (the OP_RETURN default change in Bitcoin Core) with the maximum anti-spam manifesto based soft fork proposal… which provably cannot stop spam, arbitrary data, etc. 
(Yes, I know, proponents will claim it’s not about spam… and will also make semantic arguments that it does stop data as well… neither of which appears to be correct.)
I’ll close with the concession that I could be wrong. I’m not Nostradamus, and I can’t accurately predict the outcome with 100% certainty. I can only go by what the data tells me, and so I give BIP110’s success less than a 5% chance of actually succeeding… and I consider that generous. You can take my opinions on this however you wish, but I highly recommend you don’t discount the actual data points, remain vigilant, and do what’s best for you and your mining revenue. Don’t be gaslit by either side of the debate, and make your own decisions.
Here’s a link to the same document linked above for ease of access.
This post Ocean Mining VP Jason Hughes: BIP-110 on Track to Fail as Miner Signaling Stays Below 1% first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Jason Hughes.
Bitcoin Magazine
SBI Holdings Takes Majority Stake in Singapore’s Coinhako After MAS Approval
SBI Holdings has completed the acquisition of a majority stake in Coinhako, a Singapore-based cryptocurrency platform, after securing approval from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS).
The Japanese financial group made the purchase through its subsidiary SBI Ventures Asset Pte. Ltd., which injected capital into Coinhako parent Holdbuild Pte. Ltd. and bought shares from existing shareholders. The transaction closed July 16, making Coinhako a consolidated subsidiary.
Coinhako operates through Hako Technology Pte. Ltd., holder of a Major Payment Institution license from MAS, and Alpha Hako Ltd., a crypto asset service provider registered with the British Virgin Islands Financial Services Commission.
The platform spent a decade building a customer base across Southeast Asia, a region SBI now positions as a base for its digital asset strategy.
SBI plans to combine Coinhako’s customer base, operational expertise, and regional network with its own financial services, technology, and global footprint. The company intends to expand a digital asset corridor that starts with Japan and Southeast Asia, and to develop services tied to its JPYSC yen-denominated stablecoin. SBI also flagged opportunities in tokenization, on-chain finance, and cross-border trading.
“Our group aims to create a global corridor for digital assets by connecting exchanges around the world, enabling investors worldwide to make optimal investments without being hindered by national borders or currency barriers,” Chairman Yoshitaka Kitao said. He described Singapore as a crucial region because its digital asset regulations are ahead of the curve.
Coinhako co-founder and CEO Yusho Liu called the deal a natural step. “For the past 10 years, we have built from the ground up Southeast Asia’s most trusted and legally compliant cryptocurrency platform in the world’s most advanced regulatory environment,” he said, adding that SBI’s backing gives the firm a stronger foundation.
SBI Holding’s crypto moves
The acquisition caps a run of crypto moves by the conglomerate, which holds more than 14 million users and $308 billion in assets under custody. In the past month, SBI led EDX Markets’ $76 million Series C, backed risk manager Gauntlet, launched JPYSC, and partnered with the Solana Foundation on an on-chain financial market in Japan.
In June, the group agreed to buy Tokyo exchange Bitbank for about $289 million, and this week it teamed with Ondo Finance to tokenize Japanese equities.
One limit remains: JPYSC does not yet support withdrawals to external wallets, which confines its use to SBI’s own platform.
This post SBI Holdings Takes Majority Stake in Singapore’s Coinhako After MAS Approval first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.
Bitcoin Magazine
Bitcoin Mining Giant Foundry Asks Miners To Vote on BIP-110 Soft Fork
Foundry Digital, the world’s leading Bitcoin mining pool operator, has said it will allow mining clients how the pool should signal on the BIP-110.
The Rochester, New York-based firm said Friday in an email to miners that they will be able to vote by using their hashrate — literally computing power — to vote either for or against the proposal.
BIP-110, or the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110, is a proposal aimed at temporarily restricting spam on the blockchain. If it goes through, a soft fork — a backward-compatible rule change — would take effect, restricting the amount of non-monetary data on the network.
“As miners, it’s important for you to have a voice and participate in the governance of the network,” Foundry said in its announcement.
“It’s one of the more actively debated proposals in Bitcoin right now, and miners play a direct role in whether it activates,” the company added.
Also known as the “reduced data temporary soft fork,” the proposal would cap the amount of arbitrary, non-monetary data that transactions can carry.
Its rules limit most new outputs to 34 bytes, restore an 83-byte limit on OP_RETURN outputs, and reject data pushes above 256 bytes.
Those for the proposal say that the soft fork would allow Bitcoin to function as pure peer-to-peer money.
But opponents, including Strategy founder Michael Saylor and Blockstream co-founder Adam Back, argue it converts a policy dispute into a consensus change that could invalidate fee-paying transactions.
Foundry’s process
Under Foundry’s process, each vote carries weight based on an account’s average 10-day hashrate on the pool between July 6 and July 15. Foundry said it will signal based on the majority of hashrate-weighted votes across the signaling period, which it expects to run through early August at block 961,632.
The company’s starting position is no. It said that until “Yes” votes cross 51% of voting hashrate, Foundry signals “No” with all of its blocks. A crossing of that threshold switches the pool to “Yes” with all of its blocks.
Foundry controls about a third of network hashrate, a share that makes its position consequential for the outcome. Analysts at BGeometrics identified decisions by Foundry and Antpool as capable of moving daily signaling into a meaningful range. A mandatory signaling window near block 961,632, projected for early August, will force the question before the activation timeline closes.
Accounts that do not respond count as “No” votes. Foundry said owners can change their choice while the window remains open, and that individual votes stay confidential, though aggregate results may be shared.
This post Bitcoin Mining Giant Foundry Asks Miners To Vote on BIP-110 Soft Fork first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo and Micah Zimmerman.
Bitcoin Magazine
Bitcoin Price Falls Under $63,000 on U.S.-Iran Strikes and Trump’s China Charge, but Onchain Data Points to Buyers
Bitcoin price fell below $63,000 on Friday, as a fresh wave of U.S. airstrikes on Iran and a new political dispute between Washington and Beijing pushed investors out of risk assets.
Bitcoin price traded near $62,800, an extension of Thursday’s 1.4% slide from $65,000, according to Bitcoin Magazine Pro data. The token slipped under its 50-day simple moving average, a gauge of near-term momentum that many traders watch.
The bitcoin price retreat tracked a broad decline across global markets. Japan’s Nikkei 225 dropped 4% and entered a correction, a fall of more than 10% from its June 25 peak, as memory-chip maker Kioxia lost 16.1%. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng shed 2%, while the Shanghai Composite fell 3.1% to an 11-month low.
Futures tied to the Nasdaq pointed to a decline of 1.6%, an echo of Thursday’s drop on Wall Street, where chip shares from Nvidia, Micron, Broadcom and Qualcomm came under pressure on fears that the AI rally has run past its earnings.
Bitcoin price, Iran escalations, and uncertainty in Washington
Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency, citing the Hormozgan province governorate, said U.S. airstrikes hit five bridges in the southern province.
A separate missile strike damaged the maritime control tower at Iran’s Chabahar port. WTI crude climbed near $79 a barrel, a rise close to 15% across five sessions, a move that revived concern about inflation and the path of interest rates.
A second front of uncertainty opened in Washington. President Donald Trump declassified intelligence reports that allege Chinese interference in U.S. elections and claimed Beijing obtained 220 million voter records, a threat he cast as a danger to democracy. China’s embassy denied the allegations.
The dispute itself carries little market weight, though traders fear it could strain ties before Trump’s September meeting with Xi Jinping. The Australian dollar, a proxy for China-linked trade, weakened against the greenback.
Bitcoin price market dynamics
Against that backdrop, some analysts argue the sell-off masks a market whose core drivers have changed little. Nicolai Sondergaard, a research analyst at Nansen, said the bitcoin price tape reflects macro data more than a geopolitical hedge.
“The inflation and liquidity channel is doing more work here than the geopolitical hedge narrative,” Sondergaard said. He pointed to the June CPI report released July 14, which showed headline inflation of 3.5% against a 3.8% forecast and a core reading of 2.6% against 2.9%. The dollar index sank to near 100.77, a multi-month low, and the 10-year Treasury yield eased to 4.57%.
The softer print reset Fed expectations. Odds of a rate hike at the July 28-29 meeting fell from above 40% to the low teens, according to CME FedWatch data.
“The FOMC meeting on July 28 to 29 is the actual binary,” Sondergaard said. “If the CPI data holds and the Fed signals a credible pivot path, the conditions for sustained ETF inflows are back in place.”
Onchain flows support his read. Spot bitcoin ETFs drew $510 million across three sessions this month, an end to a $2.73 billion outflow streak, with BlackRock’s IBIT in the lead. Nansen’s data shows large wallets held their ground through the strike.
“Net outflows hit -18.3 BTC in the strike hour, then reverted to a post-shock average of +0.67 BTC per hour, meaning buyers returned within the same session,” Sondergaard said.
Sondergaard framed positioning as constructive rather than fragile. Funding rates sat near zero, a sign that leveraged longs are not crowded, and smart-money long/short ratios ran at 1.58 with no rotation into stablecoins. Retail traders held a ratio of 1.79, a step ahead of the pros but in the same direction. Seven-day inflows concentrated in liquid staking, DeFi lending and decentralized exchanges, a risk-on allocation.
Sondergaard said the sequence rhymes with past shocks. “Prior Middle East escalations produced the same pattern: short-duration flush, accumulation resumes,” he said.
“MVRV sits at 1.205 with realized price at roughly $53,000 and the long-term holder cost basis around $49,900, which defines the structural floor,” Sondergaard said. “That is not the profile of a market running on geopolitical sentiment.”
At the time of writing, the bitcoin price is $62, 836.
This post Bitcoin Price Falls Under $63,000 on U.S.-Iran Strikes and Trump’s China Charge, but Onchain Data Points to Buyers first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.
CryptoSlate
The UK's designation of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps took effect on July 17, creating a new criminal exposure for UK-linked people and businesses that receive or retain value supplied by or on behalf of the group.
Under the designation instrument, the IRGC became one of the first three bodies added to Schedule 6A of the National Security Act 2023.
The new section 17C offense can carry as much as 14 years in prison when a person obtains, accepts or retains a qualifying material benefit and knows, or in light of other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, that it came from the designated body.
The rules still leave some room for judgment. An Iran-linked payment is not automatically a crime, and a Schedule 6A designation does not itself trigger the asset freezes and dealing restrictions used under UK sanctions. The key questions are whether the value can be tied to the IRGC and what the recipient knew at the time. Freezing stablecoins would still require separate action from an issuer or another legal authority.
The law never mentions crypto assets, but its wording is broad enough to catch them. It covers money or anything of value supplied directly or indirectly, including through companies, which could bring stablecoins and other on-chain transfers within scope.
For an exchange, custodian, issuer, payments business or UK user, that makes wallet attribution and timing the operational problem. A blockchain network may settle an incoming transfer before the recipient can refuse it, and an address may be linked to a designated body only later.
The central questions become what was known about the wallet and counterparty, when it became known, and what happened to the value afterward.
The offense follows the value, not the payment rail
Section 17C(1) goes beyond payments made directly to someone. It can also apply when a person secures or accepts a benefit for someone else, or keeps a benefit already received. The key question is whether the benefit came from a designated body and whether the recipient knew, or should reasonably have known, about that link.
The words “by or on behalf of” and “directly or indirectly” matter in a market built around intermediaries. A payment need not arrive from a wallet labeled “IRGC” or from an entity using the group’s name.
The chain of provision can run through companies or other intermediaries. Yet an Iranian counterparty, an Iran-linked wallet or a crypto payment alone does not establish that the IRGC supplied the benefit. The prosecution would still need the designated-body connection and the required mental element.
The maximum sentence depends on the conduct. On conviction on indictment, a section 17C(1) offense involving obtaining, accepting or retaining the benefit carries up to 14 years and a possible fine.
The section 17C(2) offense of agreeing to obtain, accept or retain it carries up to 10 years and a possible fine. The Home Office announcement describes the regime generically as carrying up to 14 years, while the statutory text supplies that split.
Sending value in the other direction follows a separate statutory route. Section 17B covers conduct intended materially to assist a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities. It also reaches conduct likely to provide that assistance when the person knows, or ought reasonably to know from matters known to them, that it is likely to do so. Receipt and assistance are distinct offenses with distinct elements, and neither creates a blanket prohibition on Iranian crypto activity.
The law also preserves targeted protections. A financial benefit is excluded when it is reasonable consideration for goods or services and providing them is not itself an offense. Other provisions cover reasonable excuses for retention or information, qualifying legal obligations and public functions, and humanitarian activity conducted consistently with internationally recognized applicable principles and standards. Their application remains fact-specific.
On-chain settlement makes timing the hard part
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s cryptoassets threat assessment, which concerns sanctions rather than the new designated-body offence, says crypto firms cannot reject incoming blockchain transactions. It also notes that addresses may be attributed later and that analytics can identify historical direct or indirect exposure.
Those observations describe the same technical sequence that UK-linked recipients now need to consider. A deposit can settle before a custodian has a reliable identity for the sending wallet. New intelligence may then connect that address, or a cluster of related addresses, to a designated body after completion.
An initially unidentified receipt is not automatically criminal. The timeline instead becomes potentially important evidence.
A defensible record may need to show the transaction time, wallet risk data available then, counterparty information, when an attribution alert appeared, the basis and confidence for that alert, whether the value remained accessible, and the response after escalation.
Receipt and retention can also occur at different points. Network-level finality may prevent a recipient from unwinding the original transfer, while separate account or token controls can affect what happens next.
A custodian may be able to restrict account access, stop a later withdrawal, investigate the source or seek an appropriate consent route. The necessary response depends on the facts and on which legal regime applies.
The UK connection follows the money
Section 17C can apply to conduct carried out wholly overseas when the benefit is provided in or from the UK, when the actor is a UK person, or when the specified Crown connection exists. UK persons include UK nationals, individuals who live in the UK, bodies incorporated under UK law and unincorporated associations formed under UK law.
That reach brings more than regulated trading venues into the review population. UK-linked exchanges and custodians are the clearest examples because they receive and hold customer assets.
Payment processors, OTC desks, merchants and other businesses may facilitate or retain on-chain value. Some stablecoin issuers, depending on their token architecture and authority, can restrict later token use after an attribution. Ordinary UK-linked users can receive value too, subject to the same designated-body nexus and knowledge threshold.
The government’s impact assessment says the Act creates no new business reporting duty. It nevertheless considers businesses that receive, hold or transfer funds on behalf of a designated body and encourages existing suspicious-activity and consent processes. Applying the same logic to crypto goes beyond what the law explicitly requires.
Governance can affect the exposure. Under section 35 of the National Security Act 2023, an officer can face liability alongside a body when a Part 1 offense is committed with the officer’s consent or connivance, or is attributable to the officer’s neglect. Directors are not automatically responsible for every flagged wallet, but escalation ownership and documented follow-through now carry higher stakes.
Designation is separate from a sanctions freeze
Schedule 6A and UK financial sanctions perform different legal functions. The government factsheet says an organization listed only under sanctions is outside the designated-body offenses unless it is also designated for those offenses.
Adding a body to Schedule 6A does not itself trigger the asset-freeze, non-dealing and reporting duties that arise under financial-sanctions law. It also leaves stablecoin smart contracts unchanged. An issuer freeze depends on a separate sanctions obligation, another legal basis, or action taken under the issuer’s own controls.
CryptoSlate’s earlier coverage of Tether freezing 134 wallets illustrates that technical layer. The issuer used control over its token to freeze addresses in a sanctions context. The new UK question is different: whether a person accepted or retained a benefit tied to a designated body with the required knowledge, including when no issuer has frozen anything.
A sanctions-only workflow therefore leaves a gap. A firm may need to separate a Schedule 6A attribution alert from an OFSI asset-freeze match, then determine which legal and operational escalation paths apply.
One wallet can raise questions under both regimes, but the presence or absence of a sanctions freeze does not resolve section 17C liability.
Controls need an evidentiary timeline
For UK-linked crypto businesses that receive, hold, transfer or facilitate value, a practical response may be to review how existing controls preserve the chronology behind a decision.
The Act itself does not impose this crypto-specific checklist, but the offense and official crypto risk material support scrutiny of how a business:
- maps designated bodies, aliases and relevant counterparties separately from financial-sanctions lists;
- records the source, confidence and time of a wallet attribution;
- re-screens earlier deposits when reliable attribution changes;
- connects on-chain findings with customer, corporate and intermediary information;
- escalates uncertain matches without treating proximity to an Iran-linked wallet as proof; and
- documents decisions about access, retention, withdrawal and existing reporting or consent routes.
UK cryptoasset exchanges and custodian wallet providers already operate within an FCA anti-money laundering framework that expects proportionate transaction monitoring and internal escalation. Schedule 6A adds a separate potential criminal exposure to facts those systems may surface.
The targeted statutory protections do not amount to a generic safe harbor for due diligence, unsolicited transfers or network-level irreversibility. A suspicious activity report or a request through an existing consent process may form part of an escalation, but the official material does not present either as an automatic defense to section 17C. The analysis remains tied to the benefit, its connection to the IRGC, the facts known to the person, and the conduct that followed.
Recipients generally cannot reject or unwind an incoming blockchain transfer at network level, although separate account or issuer controls may restrict its later use.
The designation’s first crypto test will therefore center on whether UK-linked recipients and intermediaries can reconstruct a defensible account of attribution and knowledge as wallet intelligence changes.
Since July 17, that evidentiary timeline can sit behind criminal exposure measured in years even when the transfer itself settled in seconds.
The post UK turns delayed wallet identification into a 14-year criminal risk for crypto firms appeared first on CryptoSlate.
Grayscale wants to turn staking rewards from its Ethereum and Solana funds into cash payouts at least once a quarter, starting around Aug. 7. That would give investors a straightforward way to compare what each fund actually delivers.
In July 17 SEC filings for the Grayscale Ethereum Staking ETF and Grayscale Solana Staking ETF, the asset manager said it intends to amend both trust agreements. If executed, each trust would convert the ETH or SOL received as staking rewards into cash at least quarterly, and promptly distribute the proceeds after expenses not covered by the sponsor.
That requirement sets a minimum, not a fixed payment date or return. Grayscale could distribute more frequently, with each payout depending on the staking rewards actually received during the period. The filings say those amounts cannot be predicted with certainty, so the regularity applies to the process rather than the outcome.
From one payout to a comparable cadence
The proposed structure would make recurring a cash-distribution mechanism ETHE used earlier this year. On Jan. 6, the fund paid about $0.083 per share, or $9.39 million in total, from staking rewards earned between Oct. 6 and Dec. 31, 2025, and sold for cash, according to CryptoSlate's January coverage.
That January distribution showed staking rewards converted into cash for shareholders. Adding GSOL and a minimum schedule would create a like-for-like basis for comparing actual net cash payouts, disclosed expense drag and timing across Ethereum and Solana, rather than judging the structure from a single ETHE event.
The design also reflects the IRS framework for staking inside qualifying grantor trusts. Revenue Procedure 2025-31 allows a compliant trust to distribute net staking rewards consistently either in kind or after a cash sale no less frequently than quarterly. Grayscale's proposed agreements specifically choose cash, requiring the trusts to sell the native-asset rewards before passing the net proceeds to shareholders.
Cash distribution does not defer all tax consequences until payment. Assuming grantor-trust treatment, the ETHE and GSOL disclosures say U.S. holders would recognize their pro rata share of staking rewards as taxable income when the trust receives them, regardless of when cash is later distributed. Selling ETH or SOL to fund the payout can also produce a pro rata capital gain or loss.
The investor gain is comparability: a recurring cash record across two assets. The remaining tradeoffs are the variable rewards, expenses, conversion and holder-specific tax consequences behind each payment.
The post Grayscale is setting up a quarterly cash showdown between Ethereum and Solana staking appeared first on CryptoSlate.
A contractor brought in through a third-party provider worked on MetaMask code from March 9 until Consensys cut off access in April. Consensys later described the person as linked to North Korea.
Consensys said its investigation found no misappropriation of assets or data, no malicious code deployment and no impact to user safety or security. General counsel Matt Corva said the company identified the threat quickly, terminated access, launched a comprehensive investigation and notified law enforcement.
Drop Site reported that an internal April alert ordered all product releases suspended pending the investigation and told staff not to interact with the consultant. Corva called the service provider relationship reputable and said Consensys has since reviewed its third-party service practices, so the rigorous standards applied to employees also cover more complex outside relationships.
Contractor checks need repository limits
The incident gives no indication that user accounts or wallet assets were compromised. Consensys’ existing relationship with the vendor still left a gap: every contractor and account needed its own safeguards.
MetaMask's general security guidance warns that malicious workers can use false identities and forged documents to obtain remote roles. It recommends checks using actual documents, multiple interviews, hardware authentication, IP and location verification, reference checks, and limits on access to critical systems.
The FBI has separately warned that North Korean IT workers have used company-network access to copy code repositories. Its guidance calls for identity verification during interviews, onboarding and throughout employment, routine audits of third-party staffing firms, least-privilege access and monitoring for unusual remote connections or repository exfiltration.
After onboarding, repository permissions and review become the core safeguards. UK National Cyber Security Center guidance recommends making repository activity attributable, reviewing every production-bound change, applying extra scrutiny to external contributions, and revoking access quickly when it is no longer required. Hardware-backed credentials can protect an account from credential theft, while tightly scoped permissions and independent review limit what an authorized account can change.
CryptoSlate reported on July 5 that operational compromises around keys, custody, signing and approval systems accounted for roughly 76% of stolen value during the first half of 2026, even though smart-contract exploits were more frequent. That gap shows why access and operational controls matter even when they account for fewer incidents.
Wallet and protocol teams should treat contractor access as continuously conditional. Identity checks should extend through employment, third-party firms should be audited, repository privileges should remain narrow and observable, every production-bound change should receive independent review, and access should be revoked as soon as it is no longer required.
Consensys's April release pause also shows the value of retaining a predefined way to halt changes while suspicious access is investigated.
The post MetaMask code was open to a North Korea-linked contractor for a month before Consensys halted releases appeared first on CryptoSlate.
For two decades, the American investor essentially got a free insurance policy. When equities fell, Treasuries rallied, and the loss on one side of the portfolio was partly covered by the gain on the other. That relationship became so reliable that an entire industry built products on it, and an entire generation of allocators started treating it as a given.
However, it stopped working around 2020, and it hasn't really worked since.
UBS now puts the two-month rolling correlation between the S&P 500 and the 10-year Treasury yield at -0.69, the lowest reading since 1996.
That means stocks and bonds are moving together to a degree not seen in thirty years, and the asset that exists to offset an equity loss has now become a source of one.
What's a safe haven now if bonds aren't?
It's easy to say that the reason why bonds and equities have converged is that investors lost faith in US government debt. However, as always, the answer is much more complicated than that. The data tells us that investors still want the safety they got from bonds, but now they want it without the duration.
Duration is the sensitivity of a bond's price to a change in interest rates. A 30-year Treasury protects the holder from default in nominal terms and exposes them completely to inflation and to the path of policy rates. Even though those are two different risks, the distinction didn't really matter after the financial crisis of 2008, because inflation was mostly dormant.
Once we start seeing inflation go up, the hedge breaks apart. The correlation between stocks and bonds doesn't depend that much on the actual level of inflation, but on its volatility. It also depends on what drives the markets: news about growth or news about inflation.
When growth dominates, equities and bonds respond in opposite directions, because weaker growth hurts stocks and helps bonds. When inflation dominates, they move in the same direction because higher inflation hurts both of them equally. Research at AQR found that this explains roughly 70% of the long-term variation in the US stock-bond correlation, with similar results internationally.
Since 2022, inflation has been the dominant input, and it has remained dominant longer than we've ever seen. Even a cooling inflation print, like the June report that pulled headline CPI to 3.5% and left long yields drifting back toward 5% at the 30-year, didn't change anything, because the volatility of inflation is the problem rather than any single reading of it.
The 30-year Treasury yield crossed 5% for the first time since 2007, has spent much of 2026 above that line, and sits near 5.1% as of July 16. A $25 billion auction of new 30-year bonds cleared above 5% earlier in the year, the first time investors were paid that much on the long bond in eighteen years.
US deficits are projected to widen from roughly 5.8% of GDP in 2026 toward 6.7% by 2036, with net interest payments growing as a share of the economy every year in between. OECD governments collectively need to raise something in the region of $18 trillion this year.
Foreign demand is thinning just as the supply is thickening. Japanese investors sold $29.6 billion of US government, agency and local authority debt in the first quarter, the largest net sale since 2022, as domestic yields finally became worth owning. Japan's 10-year climbed above levels last seen in 1997, and Germany's 10-year Bund reached 15-year highs. The global bid that suppressed long-end borrowing costs for two decades is being withdrawn in several places at once, and term premium is the price of that withdrawal.
All of this tells us that investors are buying dollars, bills, and short-dated paper, which are liquid and carry almost no duration. They're selling the long end, which carries all of it. That's a 180-degree rotation of the haven trade, and it explains how the dollar can stay firm in a week when the 30-year is being sold.
Where does this leave Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is now as sensitive to macro conditions as the dollar and gold are.
BTC performs when real yields fall, when the dollar weakens, when financial conditions loosen, and when investors go looking for alternatives to conventional assets. A Treasury rally delivers the first three at once, which is why a falling bond market removes three pillars of support at a time. The recovery that carried Bitcoin back above $64,000 this week came when a soft inflation report pulled front-end yields lower.
Societe Generale's research identifies roughly 4.5% on the 10-year as the level where the relationship between yields and equities turns hostile. Below it, rising yields and rising stocks can coexist. Above it, further increases drag equities down through the discount-rate channel.
Goldman Sachs reached a similar conclusion from another angle, warning that the rise in yields has compressed the equity risk premium to the point where investors are barely compensated for owning stocks relative to risk-free assets. The 10-year has spent most of 2026 above that threshold, easing only to around 4.55% after this week's cooler data.
Bitcoin sits further out on the same curve than equities, which means it absorbs both pressures at once. Higher risk-free yields raise the opportunity cost of holding an asset that pays no coupon. Falling equities reduce the appetite for risk that would fund a stock position.
Neither of those is a crypto-specific problem, so neither can be solved by crypto-specific news, which is why regulatory progress in Washington has repeatedly failed to hold a bid this year.
But despite their correlation, this isn't a fight between Bitcoin and Treasuries. In an inflationary risk-off regime, they compete for nothing. They're on the same side of a single position that sells duration and volatility, raising cash. Gold, long bonds, and Bitcoin can all fall in the same week while the dollar stays strong, telling us just how much interest-rate and volatility exposure anyone currently wants to own.
The fiscal conditions producing 5% long yields, deficits, interest burden, and the fading foreign bid are the same conditions that make a fixed-supply asset outside the sovereign credit system attractive to institutional holders.
Some of that capital is already visible in the $15 billion of tokenized US Treasuries now held on-chain, which is a crypto-native bet on yield rather than on scarcity. The problem for Bitcoin is that the conditions strengthening its long-term case hurt it in the short run.
Treasuries can reclaim the role they held from 2000 to 2019. It would require inflation volatility to subside, growth risk to become the dominant input again, and the Fed to have room to ease into weakness.
We saw that combination of factors after every previous inflation shock, and so far nothing rules out that it'll come after this one. A single soft inflation month is not that combination, though it's the kind of data point that would eventually build toward it.
Until it does, Bitcoin trades in a market where the deepest asset class in the world no longer absorbs a shock on anyone's behalf. That removes a floor beneath every risk asset, and it removes it fastest beneath the assets that pay nothing to wait.
The post Treasuries are amplifying market selloffs and Bitcoin is paying the price appeared first on CryptoSlate.
The FBI is seeking potential victims who downloaded eight games named in its Steam malware investigation, a case that shows crypto custody can fail before a wallet ever opens.
In a separate federal complaint reported by Local 10, agents allege an eight-game campaign infected about 8,000 devices, gained unauthorized access to roughly 80 crypto wallets, and stole at least $220,000.
Local 10 reported that agents arrested 21-year-old Zyaire Dontaevious Zamarion Wilkins on July 14 and accused him of financing and procuring malware and helping market the infected games. The complaint describes the venue only as a “popular digital distribution software company.” Wilkins is presumed innocent unless convicted.
The FBI notice lists BlockBlasters, Chemia, Dashverse, DashFPS, Lampy, Lunara, PirateFi and Tokenova, and places the suspected Steam activity between May 2024 and January 2026. Local 10 reported that the complaint dates its broader alleged campaign through February 2026.
Custody begins at software distribution
According to the complaint, the alleged group promoted the games on Discord, Telegram, X, and LinkedIn. Bots identified people with large crypto holdings and sent targeted messages encouraging them to download. Once installed, the malware allegedly captured private data and credentials; the group also discussed tricking victims into authorizing transactions that emptied wallets.
One FBI-listed title shows how a trusted download could expose wallet data. A February 2025 cyber advisory said PirateFi was available on Steam from Feb. 6 to Feb. 12, 2025, and that it contained the Vidar infostealer, which could steal credentials, session cookies, and crypto wallet information.
The attack chain creates two control layers. Valve's onboarding documentation says initial builds are checked for harmful behavior, but its review documentation says approved games can later be updated without another review. Those documents do not establish how the games in this case allegedly bypassed controls, but they show that scrutiny must cover both initial and updated builds.
For wallet users, an official marketplace cannot be the only trust boundary. Keeping wallet secrets and authenticated sessions away from gaming endpoints limits what an infostealer can reach, while deliberately reviewing transaction prompts addresses the separate risk of approving a malicious transfer. Neither control replaces marketplace screening.
The alleged payment trail exposes the reverse side of the attack. Local 10 reported that investigators followed Bitcoin payments from a scheme-linked wallet to Bitrefill, an online service used to buy more than 150 digital gift cards, mostly for Uber Eats. A subpoena to Uber then allegedly connected those cards to an account with deliveries to addresses associated with Wilkins.
Blockchain transparency did not prevent the thefts, but it allegedly preserved a traceable path until the funds touched an identity-linked service. Software distribution is therefore part of custody security before an incident; on-chain records and off-ramp data can become investigative evidence after one.
The post Crypto malware in 8 Steam games steals tokens after leaving trail to Uber Eats deliveries appeared first on CryptoSlate.
CryptoTicker.io
Bitcoin just went through one of its roughest stretches in years. After starting 2026 above $93,000, BTC bled through the first half of the year and dropped roughly 20% in June alone, sliding to around $58,000 on July 1 — its lowest level in more than 21 months. It even closed a full week below its 200-week moving average for the first time in about four years, a line that has historically only broken during deep bear phases.
So why is anyone talking about altcoins right now? Because the market has since steadied, with $BTC clawing back toward the $60,000–$65,000 zone, and because July has historically been one of Bitcoin's stronger months — green in 9 of the last 13 years with an average return north of 7%. If that seasonal pattern plays out and Bitcoin turns its recent low into support, capital tends to rotate down the risk curve into altcoins. That's where the bigger percentage gains usually show up.
This article focuses on five altcoins that fit three strict filters: a market cap under $2 billion (room to grow), a price under $10 (no psychological "too expensive" barrier), and genuine, demonstrable utility (not just hype). Every price and market cap below reflects early-July 2026 levels and will move — treat them as a snapshot, not a promise.
A necessary reality check first: this is a conditional setup, not a confirmed bull run. Bitcoin is still trading below major moving averages, spot ETFs saw record outflows in June, and several banks have cut their targets. Small-cap altcoins fall harder than Bitcoin when the market turns risk-off. Everything below assumes the recovery continues — if BTC loses its recent lows instead, these coins would likely drop faster than the market. Position accordingly.
Why do altcoins sometimes outperform Bitcoin?
When Bitcoin is falling or uncertain, money hides in BTC or leaves crypto entirely. But when Bitcoin stabilizes and confidence returns, traders start hunting for higher returns, and that capital flows into altcoins. Because these projects have far smaller market caps than Bitcoin, a relatively small amount of new money can move their prices sharply — the same dynamic that makes them fall harder on the way down. This rotation is what people mean by "altseason," and it typically favors coins with real usage and a clear story, not just the biggest names.
1. Render (RENDER) — decentralized GPU power for the AI boom
- Price: ~$1.48
- Market cap: ~$768 million
- Sector: AI / decentralized compute (DePIN)
Render connects people who need heavy graphics and AI computing power with those who have spare GPUs to rent out. As demand for AI training and rendering explodes, decentralized compute networks are one of the clearest "picks and shovels" plays in crypto. Render recently expanded its network capacity significantly through a governance proposal that added tens of thousands of GPUs via a new subnet, directly boosting what the network can handle. With AI infrastructure being one of the hottest narratives heading into the second half of 2026, Render sits right in the middle of it — and at under $1B, it has room to run if that theme keeps attracting capital.
2. Ondo (ONDO) — bringing real-world assets on-chain
- Price: ~$0.35
- Market cap: ~$1.7 billion
- Sector: Real-world asset (RWA) tokenization
Ondo is a leader in tokenizing real-world assets — think U.S. Treasuries, stocks, and ETFs turned into on-chain tokens. It has built serious institutional credibility, with partnerships and pilots involving names like BlackRock, JPMorgan, and Mastercard, and its platform now spans hundreds of tokenized equities. RWA is widely seen as one of the most durable long-term narratives in crypto because it connects blockchain to trillions of dollars in traditional finance. The one thing to watch: Ondo has significant token unlocks scheduled through 2028, which can add selling pressure even when fundamentals are strong.
3. Injective (INJ) — the finance-focused Layer 1
- Price: ~$5.03
- Market cap: ~$504 million
- Sector: DeFi Layer-1 blockchain
Injective is a blockchain built specifically for financial applications — decentralized exchanges, derivatives, prediction markets, and lending. It offers fast, low-cost transactions and a fully on-chain order book, and it's interoperable with major chains like $Ethereum and $Solana. With one of the smaller market caps on this list (under $500M) but a mature, working ecosystem and over a billion transactions processed, Injective is the kind of established-but-undervalued project that can move fast if DeFi activity picks back up in a recovery.
👉 Compare the best exchanges to buy INJ and other altcoins in our broker comparison.
4. Kaspa (KAS) — one of the fastest proof-of-work networks
- Price: ~$0.027
- Market cap: ~$766 million
- Sector: Layer-1 (proof-of-work, now programmable)
Kaspa is a proof-of-work Layer 1 built on its GHOSTDAG protocol, designed for extremely fast block times and high throughput. Its big recent catalyst is the Toccata hard fork (activated June 30, 2026), which added native smart contracts and token support — transforming Kaspa from a pure payments chain into a programmable one. That upgrade opens the door to a whole new wave of apps and developer activity. Kaspa also had a fair launch with no pre-mine and its emissions are winding down toward zero, which reduces future dilution — a rare structural positive among small-caps.
5. XTB-listed majors as your recovery anchor
- Sector: Diversified exposure
Not every allocation in a recovery needs to be a small-cap moonshot. Pairing the higher-risk picks above with exposure to established assets — and using a regulated platform — is how experienced traders manage the downside if the recovery stalls. If you want to trade crypto-related instruments alongside stocks and ETFs on a regulated, MiCA-era-compliant broker, XTB is one option worth reviewing.
👉 Trade on a regulated platform: Open an account with XTB.
Which altcoin is the best buy in July 2026?
There's no single "best" — it depends on which narrative you believe in most. If you're betting on AI, Render is the cleanest exposure. If you want the most durable long-term story, Ondo and RWA lead. If you want a small, established DeFi network with room to grow, Injective stands out. And if you're drawn to a freshly upgraded, fair-launched Layer 1, Kaspa just became a lot more interesting. The smart move for most people is diversification across narratives rather than betting everything on one coin.
Crypto is closing the week in cautious green after a whipsaw few days. A softer-than-expected inflation print early in the week pushed Bitcoin briefly above $65,000 and Ethereum over $1,900, before a sixth straight day of U.S. airstrikes against Iran pulled risk assets back down. As of now, the majors are holding modest weekly gains, but the market remains firmly below where it started 2026.
Here's what moved this week and what to watch next.
Where are crypto prices right now?
As of this weekend, here's the snapshot for the majors:
- Bitcoin ($BTC): ~$64,300, up roughly 3.3% on the week but still down around 27% year-to-date
- Ethereum ($ETH): ~$1,860, the standout performer of 2026 with a positive YTD near +40% while the rest of the majors sit in the red
- $XRP: ~$1.14, the most muted weekly move among the majors, holding just above the $1 support level
- Solana ($SOL): leading the majors on the week with gains near +5%, trying to reclaim its previous trading range
- $BNB: ~$610, up over 1% on the day
Bitcoin dominance sits around 57%, and total 24-hour market volume is hovering near $36 billion. Sentiment has recovered from June's "Extreme Fear" lows but remains fragile.
What drove the market this week?
Three forces defined the week. First, a softer inflation report early in the week reignited hopes of a less hawkish Fed, sparking the mid-week surge that briefly took Bitcoin over $65K. Second, geopolitics reasserted itself — a sixth day of U.S. airstrikes against Iran, with the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed and oil prices climbing, dampened appetite for risk-based assets like crypto. Third, ETF flows kept whipsawing: after June's record $4.5 billion in net outflows — the worst month on record for U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs — early July saw flows partially reverse, and the market is watching closely for the first sustained "consecutive net inflow week" that many analysts see as the signal to re-engage.
Ethereum continued to quietly outperform. Analysts point to ETH's historical tendency to lead broader crypto recoveries, and its technical setup — having reclaimed key moving averages while pressing toward 100-day EMA resistance near $1,944 — looks stronger than Bitcoin's right now.
Why is Bitcoin still underperforming?
The short version: Bitcoin's 2026 pain hasn't come from crypto fundamentals — it's come from flows and macro. ETF outflows removed a large structural source of demand, a hawkish Fed under Chair Kevin Warsh kept the dollar firm, and capital rotated into AI stocks for much of the year. Warsh's June meeting delivered an unambiguously hawkish message, with the dot plot now pointing toward a possible hike in 2026 rather than a cut. Until ETF flows turn durably positive, Bitcoin's biggest structural bid remains a swing factor rather than a tailwind.
What to expect next week
The calendar is dominated by one event: the Federal Reserve's July 28–29 FOMC meeting. Markets are now pricing a meaningful probability of a rate hike, a stark shift from the rate-cut expectations that carried into the year. This meeting is widely viewed as the decider for whether the recent bottom holds or another leg lower opens up.
Key things to watch:
- The Fed meeting (July 28–29): the single biggest catalyst. A hawkish hold or hike keeps the dollar elevated and pressures crypto; any dovish surprise could be the relief catalyst risk assets are waiting for.
- ETF flows: watch for a sustained multi-day inflow streak — that's the signal many institutions want before re-engaging.
- Key Bitcoin levels: support around $58,000 and resistance near $63,800–$65,000. Holding above $61,000 keeps the recovery case alive; a clean break above the 100-day EMA opens the door toward the $68,000–$70,000 zone.
- Ethereum: a break above ~$1,944 resistance would confirm ETH's leadership narrative.
- Geopolitics: developments around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz remain a live risk-off wildcard that can override the technical picture at any time.
Expect range-bound, headline-driven trading in
Federal prosecutors have charged a 21-year-old Florida resident and student, Zyaire Wilkins, over an alleged scheme that hid crypto-stealing malware inside video games uploaded to Steam. Once victims downloaded and installed the games, the malware quietly harvested passwords and personal data and drained their crypto wallets. On Tuesday, the FBI arrested Wilkins, and on Wednesday prosecutors accused him and a number of unnamed co-conspirators of hacking crimes.
What actually happened on Steam?
According to a federal criminal complaint, Wilkins and his alleged partners published multiple malware-laced games over roughly two years. Over the past two years, Wilkins and his partners allegedly published several malware-laden video games on Steam, including BlockBlasters, Dashverse, Lampy, Lunara, and PirateFi. Some reporting on the broader FBI investigation lists additional titles including Chemia, DashFPS and Tokenova.
The games weren't broken shells — they were built to pass as the real thing. All the games were designed to look legitimate, to the point that players could install them and play them, but they all contained malware. That's what made the operation effective: victims had no obvious reason to suspect the title they were playing was siphoning their credentials in the background.
How much crypto was stolen?
The numbers are significant for a scheme run through consumer gaming titles. Using that malware, says the FBI, Wilkins and his accomplices infected around 8,000 victims, and then hacked around 80 cryptocurrency wallets to steal at least $220,000 worth of crypto. The alleged campaign ran between May 2024 and February 2026.
The infected games were pushed hard across social channels. The FBI said the group promoted the games on Discord, Telegram, X, and LinkedIn while using bots to identify users with large cryptocurrency holdings and send targeted messages encouraging them to install the games. In other words, the operation didn't just wait for random downloads — it appears to have deliberately hunted high-value crypto holders.
How did the FBI track him down?
This is where the case gets almost comical. Investigators followed the money out of the scheme's Bitcoin wallet and into gift cards. Investigators put a name to the scheme by following stolen Bitcoin to more than 150 gift cards, most of them spent on Uber Eats.
From there, the trail led straight to Wilkins' door. A subpoena to Uber matched the cards to an account with deliveries at Wilkins' family home and his addresses at the University of West Florida. When agents searched the North Lauderdale residence, they seized several devices and three cryptocurrency wallet seed phrases, one belonging to a Monero wallet. The complaint also notes his crypto history: Wilkins' transaction history showed $382,000 in cryptocurrency sent or received, per the complaint.
What charges does he face?
Wilkins was arrested Tuesday and charged with conspiracy to obtain information by computer for private financial gain — a count that carries up to a decade in prison. The case is being prosecuted in Seattle, near the Washington headquarters of Steam owner Valve. It's the first arrest tied to the FBI's broader Steam malware investigation, which the bureau went public with back in March. Wilkins' attorney has not commented on the allegations.
The US national debt has climbed to a fresh record, rounding to roughly $39.5 trillion as of mid-2026 — with the Treasury's daily "Debt to the Penny" figures setting new highs through July. It's a number so large it stops meaning anything. So let's do the only thing that makes it real: break it down to what it does to your household, your money, and your crypto.
What does $39.5 trillion actually mean?
Start with the per-household math, because that's where the abstraction ends. Total gross national debt now works out to roughly $115,000 per person and about $292,000 per household in the US. Over the past year alone, the debt grew by around $2.8 trillion — roughly $7.7 billion per day.
Two data points matter more than the headline number:
- The pace. The debt crossed $39 trillion in March 2026 and is on track to hit $40 trillion before the end of the year — a level the US isn't projected to reach in annual GDP until the 2030s. The gap between what the country produces and what it owes keeps widening.
- The interest bill. This is the part that actually touches households. Net interest on the debt is projected near $1.04 trillion for FY2026 — about $7,700 per household just to service the tab, and rising. Interest is on track to eat close to 14% of all federal spending.
That last point is the bridge from a government ledger to your kitchen table.
How does this hit normal households?
The debt doesn't send you a bill directly. It reaches you through three quieter channels.
- Higher borrowing costs. The $31+ trillion in publicly held debt competes with households and businesses for the same pool of lendable money. When Washington borrows this heavily, it puts upward pressure on interest rates across the board — meaning a more expensive mortgage, pricier car loans, and higher credit-card rates for ordinary people.
- Inflation pressure and the value of your cash. When a government owes this much, there's a persistent political temptation to let inflation run slightly hot, because inflation quietly shrinks the real value of the debt — and, at the same time, the real value of the dollars sitting in your bank account. Debt this large makes hard money discipline politically harder to sustain.
- Crowded-out priorities. Every dollar going to interest is a dollar not going to anything else. As debt service climbs toward 14% of the federal budget, it competes with everything from infrastructure to tax relief — and that structural squeeze is a drag on wage growth and job creation over time.
The through-line: a debt this size is fundamentally a story about the long-term purchasing power of the dollar. And that is exactly where it collides with crypto.
How does this change people's crypto habits?
This is where the debt stops being a macro headline and starts shaping behavior. When people lose confidence in the long-term value of fiat, they look for assets that governments can't print more of. That instinct drives a few very real shifts:
- The "debasement trade." A fixed-supply asset like $BTC — capped at 21 million coins — becomes attractive precisely because no central authority can inflate its supply to paper over a fiscal hole. Rising debt is one of the cleanest arguments in the Bitcoin-as-hard-money thesis.
- A hedge, not just a bet. For a growing share of ordinary holders, crypto shifts from a speculative flyer to a deliberate hedge against currency debasement — the same psychological slot gold has occupied for centuries, but easier to buy in small amounts.
- Dollar-cost averaging over timing. When the worry is a slow erosion of fiat rather than a single event, people tend to accumulate steadily rather than trade the news — treating $BTC and hard assets as a savings behavior, not a trade.
None of this is automatic, and it's worth being honest: crypto has often traded like a risk asset, selling off alongside stocks when markets get scared, rather than acting as a clean safe haven. The debasement thesis is a long-term argument, not a guarantee that $BTC rises every time the debt clock ticks up.
And ultimately — what does it mean for the price?
The logic that connects a government ledger to a crypto chart runs through the dollar. If persistent, structural debt gradually weakens confidence in fiat and pushes real interest rates lower, that is historically a tailwind for scarce assets — gold first, and increasingly $BTC alongside it.
The bull case is straightforward: an ever-growing debt pile strengthens the core argument for a fixed-supply asset, and as more institutions and households treat $BTC as "digital gold," structural demand meets fixed supply — the textbook setup for higher prices over a long horizon.
The honest counterweight matters just as much. In the short term, crypto still moves on Federal Reserve policy, liquidity, and overall risk appetite far more than on the debt figure itself. A rising debt number does not translate into a rising $BTC price on any predictable timeline — and if the debt burden ever forced sharply higher interest rates, that could actually pull money out of risk assets, crypto included, at least temporarily.
The takeaway for a normal person isn't to panic-buy on a headline. It's to understand why so many people now hold a slice of hard assets: not because $39.5 trillion guarantees the next rally, but because a debt growing faster than the economy is a long-term bet against the purchasing power of cash — and crypto is one of the few ways an ordinary household can position on the other side of that bet.
Want to add $BTC and other assets to your portfolio on a regulated European platform? Open a free XTB account and get a free NIKE share →
XRP is trading around $1.09, grinding against a descending trendline that has capped every rally since spring. The two-hour chart tells a tidy story: a lower-highs ceiling running down from the $1.30 zone, a hard floor at $1.00, and price boxed in the middle with RSI near 46 — momentum that is committed to neither a breakout nor a breakdown. So the real question for investors isn't just where $XRP goes next week. It's whether, at these levels, Ripple's token is actually worth buying in 2026.
Where is XRP right now?
The structure is a textbook squeeze. Since the June sell-off that dragged $XRP from roughly $1.30 down toward $1.00, price has carved out a consolidation range between $1.00 support and $1.15–$1.20 resistance, all of it underneath that yellow descending trendline.
The key levels to watch are clear:
- $1.00 — the psychological floor and the line separating a bounce from a deeper flush. A daily close below it opens an air pocket toward $0.80.
- **1.15–$1.20** — the overhead band XRP must reclaim and hold to argue the year-long downtrend is over.
- The descending trendline — currently the immediate lid on price. A clean break above it is the first technical signal bulls actually need.
RSI near 46 confirms the stalemate: buyers and sellers are balanced, volatility is compressed, and the market is waiting for a catalyst rather than trending on its own.
What could move the XRP price?
The chart is coiled, but the trigger is fundamental, not technical. The single biggest swing factor remains the CLARITY Act — the U.S. bill that would lock $XRP's status as a commodity into federal law and, in theory, unlock the institutional demand that ETFs and on-chain accumulation have been quietly building toward.
The catch is timing. The bill has cleared the House and the Senate Banking Committee, but it missed its July 4 target and now sits on the Senate calendar with a narrow window before the August recess. Prediction markets have been skeptical, and a slip past recess risks pushing the whole question toward 2027 as midterm politics take over.
On the numbers, forecasts cluster around a few scenarios:
- Bullish (CLARITY passes in the window): a re-rating toward $1.45–$2.20, with some analysts eyeing higher if ETF inflows reaccelerate and the Fed softens.
- Base case (consolidation): continued chop between $1.00 and $1.20 while the market waits.
- Bearish (vote stalls, BTC weak): a break of $1.00 exposing the $0.80 zone, with deeper levels below.
It's worth remembering that Standard Chartered cut its year-end 2026 target from $8.00 to $2.80 earlier this year — a reminder that even long-term bulls have reset expectations.
Is there still hope for XRP in 2026?
Yes — but hope here is conditional, not automatic. The bullish case rests on a genuine disconnect: while price has been flat-to-down, the fundamentals underneath have quietly improved. XRP ETFs pulled in well over $1 billion across a multi-week inflow streak, whale accumulation and XRPL wallet growth hit multi-month highs, and Ripple secured full MiCA authorization in Luxembourg, giving it a regulated foothold across the EEA.
Seasonality adds a small tailwind — July has historically been one of $XRP's stronger months. But that edge is far less reliable this year, because $XRP's price has become tightly correlated to the broader crypto tape. As several analysts have put it, no amount of good Ripple news has been able to override overall market mood — the token trades on Bitcoin's floor and the Fed's next move as much as its own story.
So the hope is real, but it lives or dies on two switches flipping: regulatory clarity arriving, and the broader market steadying. Fundamentals are loading the spring; they just haven't released it yet.
So, is XRP a good investment?
That depends entirely on your risk tolerance and time horizon — and this isn't financial advice. What the setup offers is a relatively defined risk/reward: a well-established $1.00 floor beneath current price, and a binary catalyst (CLARITY) that could re-rate the token sharply higher if it lands. For a risk-tolerant investor, that asymmetry is the appeal.
The counterweight is equally clear. The catalyst is genuinely uncertain — legislative outcomes are binary and can stall, weaken, or slip past their window entirely. Below $1.00 there is little technical support until the $0.80 area, and $XRP remains deeply correlated to a fragile broader market. Anyone treating this as a guaranteed rebound is ignoring how many things have to go right.
The honest summary: $XRP in 2026 is a catalyst trade wrapped around a strong support level. If you believe clarity is coming and the market steadies, the current range looks like accumulation. If you don't, you're paying for a bet that keeps getting delayed. Position size accordingly, and never risk more than you can afford to lose.
Ready to trade $XRP and other assets on a regulated European platform? Open a free XTB account and get a free share →
Decrypt
OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol or Anthropic's Claude Fable 5: Which one is right for you? The answer depends on your needs. Here's our review.
ECB board member Piero Cipollone laid out the three-layer threat banks face from digital payments, and pitched the digital euro as the only structural answer.
Input Output is handing its core infrastructure to outside teams as ADA gets a lift from an imminent protocol upgrade.
Moonshot AI's 2.8-trillion-parameter open-weight model sent chip stocks tumbling and gave Wall Street a Friday it would rather forget.
Moonshot AI's 2.8-trillion-parameter model tops Fable 5 on a creative writing benchmark and leads Arena AI's frontend code leaderboard—at Claude Sonnet pricing.
U.Today - IT, AI and Fintech Daily News for You Today
Ethereum software firm Consensys is pushing back against rumors following a recent security incident involving a North Korea-linked IT worker.
Discussion emerges in the Dogecoin community on merge mining with Litecoin, with developers and co-founder Billy Markus weighing in.
July is historically Shiba Inu coin's strongest summer month, but 2026 pressure puts the cycle at risk.
With a $54 billion Bitcoin stash at a 15% paper loss, Michael Saylor hints at Strategy’s next move following a rare BTC sale.
The bullish signal coincides with the first hard fork approved entirely through onchain governance being activated on the Cardano mainnet.
Blockonomi
TL;DR
- Binance and Bybit lost nearly $2.3 billion in stablecoin reserves over the past 30 days.
- Binance recorded approximately $1.55 billion in outflows, while Bybit lost around $786 million.
- Declining stablecoin reserves suggest weaker incoming liquidity and reduced buying power.
- Bitcoin’s inability to sustain moves above key levels is being linked to a lack of fresh market capital.
- A recovery in stablecoin inflows could become an important catalyst for renewed crypto market momentum.
Bitcoin’s prolonged struggle to escape its current consolidation range is being accompanied by a worrying trend in exchange liquidity, with billions of dollars in stablecoins leaving major trading platforms.
Data from CryptoQuant shows that stablecoin reserves across exchanges have continued declining, signaling that investors are pulling capital away from centralized platforms rather than preparing for increased exposure to digital assets.
The latest figures show Binance and Bybit recorded combined stablecoin outflows of nearly $2.3 billion over the past 30 days. Binance experienced the largest decline, losing approximately $1.55 billion in stablecoin reserves, while Bybit saw around $786 million leave its platform.
The sharp reduction in available stablecoin liquidity comes as Bitcoin remains trapped below key resistance levels, with the market struggling to attract the fresh capital needed for a sustained breakout.
Binance Stablecoin Reserves Point to Falling Market Liquidity
Stablecoins such as USDT and USDC are often viewed as the primary source of liquidity within crypto markets. Traders typically move stablecoins onto exchanges when preparing to buy assets, making exchange reserves an important indicator of potential purchasing power.
When reserves rise, it can suggest that investors are positioning themselves for market exposure. However, declining reserves often indicate that capital is being withdrawn, either into private wallets, alternative investments, or out of crypto entirely.
The recent decline across major exchanges suggests that demand for immediate crypto exposure remains limited.
According to CryptoQuant’s data, the broader exchange stablecoin reserve trend has been negative since the beginning of the year, with outflows consistently outweighing inflows.
The chart shows that after periods of strong stablecoin accumulation during previous market rallies, exchange reserves have shifted into a prolonged contraction phase, particularly heading into 2026.
Bitcoin Faces Liquidity Problem Despite Holding Key Levels
Bitcoin has spent nearly 165 days testing the $60,000 region, with attempts to regain stronger upside momentum failing to produce a decisive breakout.
Although BTC briefly moved above $80,000 in May, the rally lost momentum as buyers failed to maintain sufficient demand pressure.
Market analysts have increasingly pointed toward liquidity conditions as one of the major factors limiting Bitcoin’s upside potential.
Unlike previous bullish cycles where increasing stablecoin reserves provided additional buying power, the current environment reflects cautious positioning among investors.
The lack of fresh stablecoin inflows means exchanges have fewer readily available funds from traders looking to accumulate Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.
This creates a difficult environment where even positive catalysts may struggle to generate sustained price movements without renewed capital entering the market.
Binance and Bybit Lead Exchange Stablecoin Exodus
Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, has seen one of the most significant reductions in stablecoin reserves.
A $1.55 billion decline over 30 days represents a substantial withdrawal of available trading liquidity. Meanwhile, Bybit’s $786 million decline highlights that the trend is not isolated to a single platform.
Combined, the two exchanges have lost close to $2.3 billion in stablecoins, suggesting a broader shift in investor behavior.
Rather than keeping capital available on exchanges, many market participants appear to be moving funds into self-custody wallets or reducing their exposure to crypto markets.
This behavior typically reflects a more defensive market environment where investors are waiting for clearer signals before committing additional capital.
Weak Demand Keeps Crypto Market Sentiment Fragile
The stablecoin outflow trend adds to other signs of cautious positioning across the cryptocurrency market.
Bitcoin’s inability to establish a strong breakout above major resistance levels has reduced confidence among traders, while declining liquidity has made it harder for buyers to create meaningful upward momentum.
Lower exchange reserves do not necessarily indicate a bearish long-term outlook. In some cases, withdrawals can represent investors moving assets into long-term storage rather than selling.
However, the timing of the decline suggests that immediate market demand remains weak.
For Bitcoin to regain a stronger bullish structure, analysts believe the market will likely need renewed liquidity injections, whether through institutional demand, retail participation, or increased stablecoin deployment. The current liquidity environment highlights one of the biggest challenges facing Bitcoin’s next potential move higher.
While institutional adoption, spot Bitcoin ETFs, and broader regulatory developments continue shaping the industry, price momentum ultimately depends on available capital entering the market.
For now, declining stablecoin reserves indicate that investors remain cautious, limiting the buying pressure required for Bitcoin to break decisively out of its long consolidation phase.
Until exchange liquidity begins recovering, Bitcoin may continue facing resistance as the market waits for fresh demand to return.
The post Binance and Bybit Lose $2.3B in Stablecoins as Crypto Liquidity Weakens and Bitcoin Struggles to Break Higher appeared first on Blockonomi.
- USDT must qualify as a foreign issuer before July 18, 2028, to retain access across U.S.-based exchanges.
- Tether may need OCC registration, U.S. oversight, examinations, and compliance with asset-freeze orders.
- Proposed reserve rules could separate U.S.-backing assets from Tether’s gold, Bitcoin, and other holdings.
- USA₮ gives Tether a regulated U.S. route, but it does not automatically preserve USDT exchange listings.
Tether’s USDT is approaching a regulatory deadline that could determine whether American exchanges may continue offering the stablecoin after July 18, 2028. The GENIUS Act does not impose an automatic prohibition, but it creates a three-year transition for payment stablecoins serving United States customers.
After that date, domestic digital asset providers may offer only tokens issued by approved American companies or qualifying foreign issuers. As of July 19, 2026, several essential regulations remained unfinished, leaving the compliance route incomplete despite the approaching deadline. The unfinished rulebook remains central to how exchanges assess access and compliance before the transition ends.
Foreign Issuer Approval Defines USDT’s 2028 Access Test
To preserve USDT access through American platforms after the transition, Tether must qualify under the law’s foreign issuer framework. That process requires more than maintaining sufficient assets behind the token.
The issuer must demonstrate the technical ability and formal commitment to follow lawful United States orders, including freezes and asset seizures. Treasury must also recognize Tether’s home jurisdiction as operating a stablecoin regime comparable to the American system.
Tether would then register with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and consent to United States legal jurisdiction. That registration would introduce reporting requirements, regulatory examinations, ongoing supervision, and closer scrutiny of reserves linked to American customers.
In addition, the OCC’s March proposal sets out another operational condition. A qualifying foreign issuer would generally need to maintain sufficient reserves at United States financial institutions to meet local liquidity demands.
However, a Treasury-approved reciprocal arrangement could permit a different structure. Even so, the final rules will determine whether that alternative is available and how regulators assess foreign-held reserves.
Reserve Rules Could Reshape Tether’s U.S. Compliance Path
Meanwhile, Tether reported about $183 billion in token-related liabilities at the end of March 2026. In addition, the company disclosed an $8.23 billion excess reserve buffer.
Its holdings included roughly $20 billion in physical gold and $7 billion in Bitcoin. Although those assets strengthened Tether’s overall coverage, they did not fall within the proposed reserve categories for supervised payment stablecoins.
Under the OCC proposal, qualifying reserves would generally include cash, demand deposits, short-term Treasury securities, overnight repurchase agreements, and eligible government money-market funds. Treasury securities would also need no more than 93 days remaining until maturity.
As a result, Tether may need to separate reserves supporting American activity from its gold, Bitcoin, and other nonqualifying assets. However, the company would not necessarily need to sell every holding that falls outside the proposed categories.
Instead, those assets could remain outside the required one-to-one reserve pool or continue operating as excess corporate assets. Ultimately, final regulations will determine how issuers must calculate, locate, and disclose reserves backing tokens held by United States customers.
Meanwhile, Tether has already established a separate domestic route. In January 2026, it launched USA₮ through Anchorage Digital Bank as a federally regulated, dollar-backed stablecoin.
That structure provides the company with a product designed for the GENIUS Act framework. Nevertheless, the launch of USA₮ does not automatically preserve USDT listings on American exchanges.
Platforms would still need assurance that USDT’s foreign issuer satisfies every final legal condition before the 2028 cutoff. With major rules still at the proposal stage, Tether has about two years to register, adjust its reserve structure, expand USA₮, or combine those approaches.
The post USDT Faces July 2028 U.S. Exchange Access Test Under the GENIUS Act appeared first on Blockonomi.
TL;DR
- CryptoQuant’s 14-day average altcoin-Bitcoin correlation has fallen to around 0.26–0.27, indicating weaker co-movement.
- Analysts say the low correlation reflects market dispersion, not a confirmed altcoin season or bullish decoupling.
- The current setup resembles early May, when altcoins briefly moved more independently before market dynamics shifted.
- Narrow market leadership suggests capital is flowing into select altcoins instead of the broader market.
The relationship between Bitcoin and the wider altcoin market has weakened significantly, according to fresh on-chain data, but analysts say investors should avoid interpreting the trend as evidence of an impending altcoin season.
CryptoQuant’s latest 14-day average correlation metric shows altcoins currently have a correlation of roughly 0.26–0.27 with Bitcoin, one of the lowest readings in recent months. While lower correlation means altcoins are moving more independently from BTC, analysts argue the data reflects increasing market fragmentation rather than widespread strength across alternative cryptocurrencies.
Altcoins are no longer moving in lockstep with Bitcoin
Correlation measures how closely assets move together. A reading close to 1.0 indicates nearly identical price movements, while lower values suggest the assets are behaving more independently.
CryptoQuant’s latest data shows the average correlation between Bitcoin and major altcoins has dropped to approximately 0.26, well below the levels seen during periods when the broader crypto market moves as a single asset class.
The accompanying chart shows a similar decline occurred in early May, when Bitcoin and altcoins briefly decoupled before market dynamics shifted again. Although lower correlation often sparks speculation about an approaching altcoin rally, analysts caution that the metric alone does not signal that altcoins are outperforming Bitcoin across the board.
Instead, it indicates that price action has become increasingly dispersed, with only select tokens attracting meaningful investor attention.
Narrow leadership replaces broad participation
Historically, strong crypto bull markets tend to lift most digital assets together.
However, as market rebounds mature, leadership frequently narrows, with capital rotating into a smaller number of outperforming projects while the majority of altcoins struggle to keep pace.
The current low-correlation environment appears consistent with that pattern.
Rather than signaling widespread bullish momentum, the data suggests investors are becoming increasingly selective, concentrating capital in a handful of stronger-performing assets while many other cryptocurrencies trade independently or lag behind.
This type of market fragmentation has become more common as institutional investors focus on projects with stronger fundamentals, clearer regulatory positioning, or growing real-world adoption.
Bitcoin remains the market’s primary driver
Despite the weakening correlation, Bitcoin continues to set the broader direction of the digital asset market.
Recent weeks have seen Bitcoin benefit from renewed institutional demand, with U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs returning to net inflows after several sessions of volatility. At the same time, whale wallets have continued accumulating BTC, while exchange reserves have remained relatively subdued, reinforcing the view that long-term investors are maintaining confidence.
Against that backdrop, analysts warn that today’s low-correlation environment could quickly reverse if Bitcoin experiences a meaningful correction.
Should BTC begin to decline, independent altcoin performance may fade as investors reduce risk across the sector, causing the market to return to its more familiar Bitcoin-led trading behavior.
Dispersion remains the key signal
The current data does not necessarily point to weakness in the crypto market, but it does suggest investors should avoid assuming that all altcoins will benefit equally from improving sentiment.
Periods of low Bitcoin-altcoin correlation often coincide with increased dispersion, where a limited number of projects outperform while many others underperform or trade sideways.
For traders and portfolio managers, this places greater emphasis on asset selection rather than relying on broad market exposure.
Until correlation begins rising again or participation expands across a wider range of cryptocurrencies, analysts say the market is likely to remain highly selective.The next major signal may come from Bitcoin itself.
If BTC continues climbing steadily, the current fragmented environment could persist, allowing market leadership to remain concentrated among a small group of altcoins.
However, if Bitcoin experiences renewed volatility or a broader pullback, analysts expect correlations to increase again as risk appetite weakens across the crypto market.
For now, CryptoQuant’s latest data suggests the current environment is better described as one of dispersion rather than decoupling, reminding investors that low correlation alone should not be mistaken for evidence of a broad-based altcoin rally.
The post Low Altcoin–Bitcoin Correlation Points to Market Fragmentation Rather Than a Broad Rally appeared first on Blockonomi.
TL;DR
- Wallets holding 1,000–10,000 BTC accumulated approximately 66,700 BTC, marking their strongest buying activity since February.
- Addresses holding 100–1,000 BTC distributed around 77,800 BTC, one of the largest selling waves in recent months.
- The divergence suggests Bitcoin supply is shifting from mid-sized holders to larger whale wallets, reducing potential exchange-side selling pressure.
- Analysts say continued whale accumulation could strengthen Bitcoin’s medium-term outlook if the trend persists.
Bitcoin’s largest investors are quietly increasing their holdings even as another major group of holders accelerates selling, creating one of the clearest divergences in on-chain activity seen in recent months.
Fresh blockchain data shows wallets holding between 1,000 and 10,000 BTC accumulated approximately 66,700 BTC over the past 60 days, while addresses with 100 to 1,000 BTC distributed roughly 77,800 BTC during the same period. The contrasting behavior suggests Bitcoin supply is gradually moving from mid-sized investors into the hands of larger whale wallets, a trend analysts say has historically carried bullish medium-term implications.
Bitcoin whales accumulation approaches June highs
According to on-chain data, the 1,000–10,000 BTC cohort has lifted its 60-day net accumulation to around 66,700 BTC, nearing the 68,000 BTC recorded on June 16. The figure also represents the strongest buying activity from this group since February 17, when net accumulation briefly climbed above 106,000 BTC.
Large whale wallets are often viewed as smart-money participants because they typically have longer investment horizons and greater market influence. Sustained buying by this cohort can reduce the amount of Bitcoin readily available for sale, particularly when coins are withdrawn into long-term storage.
The latest accumulation trend comes as institutional demand for Bitcoin continues to remain resilient. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recently returned to net inflows after several volatile sessions, highlighting continued interest from professional investors despite ongoing price consolidation.
Mid-sized holders move in the opposite direction
While larger whales have been adding to their positions, wallets holding between 100 and 1,000 BTC have taken the opposite approach. This cohort recorded net distributions totaling roughly 77,800 BTC, making it one of the strongest selling waves visible in recent on-chain data.
Historically, this group has often reacted more actively to short-term market movements than larger whale addresses.
The latest selling suggests many mid-sized holders are taking profits or reducing exposure while Bitcoin trades within a relatively narrow range following months of elevated volatility. The current divergence becomes even more notable when compared with previous market cycles.
On April 25, wallets holding between 100 and 1,000 BTC accumulated more than 92,000 BTC. Roughly 10 days later, Bitcoin entered a short-term correction that eventually reached approximately 29%.
This time, the behavior has reversed. Instead of accumulating aggressively, the same holder cohort is now selling heavily, while the largest whale wallets continue expanding their positions.
Although on-chain metrics alone cannot predict future price movements, shifts in ownership between different wallet groups have historically provided valuable insight into changing market sentiment.
Bitcoin supply continues migrating to larger investors
The latest data indicates Bitcoin ownership is increasingly concentrating among larger holders.
When whale wallets absorb supply released by smaller cohorts, the amount of Bitcoin immediately available on exchanges can decline, potentially easing selling pressure if demand remains stable or improves.
Recent exchange reserve data has also pointed to declining balances across centralized trading platforms, reinforcing the view that many long-term investors continue moving coins into self-custody rather than preparing to sell.
Meanwhile, institutional adoption has continued to expand in 2026, with asset managers increasing their digital asset offerings and tokenized investment products attracting fresh capital. Analysts say these developments have helped strengthen Bitcoin’s long-term investment narrative despite periodic market corrections.
The current divergence between whale accumulation and mid-sized holder distribution does not guarantee Bitcoin’s next move, but it offers another indication that long-term participants remain confident even as some investors lock in profits.
If wallets holding between 1,000 and 10,000 BTC continue accumulating while selling pressure from the 100–1,000 BTC cohort eases, analysts believe Bitcoin could enter a stronger supply environment that supports higher prices over the medium term.
For now, the on-chain data suggests ownership is gradually shifting toward larger investors—a pattern that has historically attracted close attention from market participants looking for early signs of changing market dynamics.
The post Bitcoin Whales Add 66,700 BTC as Mid-Sized Holders Ramp Up Selling appeared first on Blockonomi.
TLDR:
- CLARITY Act Senate vote expectations have moved into next week, although the public Senate schedule still does not list a confirmed floor vote.
- Lawmakers are merging Senate Banking and Agriculture proposals while ethics language and stablecoin rewards remain key negotiation points.
- Kalshi traders show stronger confidence in a Senate vote before recess than Polymarket traders show in the bill becoming law during 2026.
- The bill would divide digital asset oversight between the SEC and CFTC while setting clearer rules for exchanges, custodians, and token issuers.
Former CFTC Commissioner Summer Mersinger says a CLARITY Act Senate vote could happen early next week. Her comments place the crypto market structure bill near a decisive test before the August recess. Senate Banking and Agriculture leaders are working to merge their versions and settle final policy disputes.
The remaining fight centers on ethics language, stablecoin rewards, and the votes needed to advance the measure. Prediction markets show a clear divide. Traders expect near-term Senate action, yet they remain less confident that President Donald Trump will sign the bill in 2026. The outcome could influence regulation across major crypto markets.
CLARITY Act Senate Vote Faces Ethics and Cloture Test
Mersinger said lawmakers are combining the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committee proposals into one package. Negotiators are also addressing last-minute concerns from Democrats. The ethics section remains one of the largest barriers to a broader agreement.
The Senate Banking Committee advanced H.R. 3633 by a 15-9 bipartisan vote on May 14. The committee said the measure would now move toward the Senate floor. Its framework seeks clearer oversight for digital assets and stronger consumer safeguards.
The CLARITY Act Senate vote still needs enough support to overcome a likely 60-vote cloture threshold. Mersinger described the legislation as being near the finish line. She expects the first vote during the week beginning July 20. No official floor vote appears on the public Senate schedule yet.
The CLARITY Act Senate vote timing matters as the Senate’s summer state work period starts on August 10. Missing that window could push negotiations into the election season. That shift would leave lawmakers with less floor time and more competing political demands.
Stablecoin rewards also remain part of the negotiations. Banking groups have argued that yield-bearing products could pull deposits from traditional lenders. Crypto groups say prior talks already produced major concessions. Mersinger indicated that many lawmakers do not want to reopen that agreement.
CLARITY Act Senate Vote Odds Split on Final Passage
Prediction markets around the CLARITY Act Senate vote show stronger confidence in action than enactment. Kalshi traders place about 68% odds on a recorded Senate vote before the August recess. The contract counts cloture votes but excludes voice votes and procedural rulings.
Polymarket traders show greater caution about the final outcome. The market gives the bill about a 38% to 39% chance of becoming law by December 31, 2026. Nearly $2 million has moved through that contract.
That gap reflects the crypto market structure bill’s remaining procedural risks. A Senate vote would not guarantee passage. It would also not ensure that the Senate text matches the House-approved version. Any material changes could require another House vote or a formal effort to reconcile both versions.
The bill would divide digital asset oversight between the SEC and CFTC. It would also define when tokens fall under securities or commodities rules. Exchanges, custodians, brokers, and developers would gain clearer federal requirements under the planned framework.
A broader Kalshi market prices a 61% chance that crypto market structure legislation will become law before April 2027. Odds fall near 54% for passage before July 2027 and roughly 58% before October 2027.
Mersinger also identified crypto tax reform as the industry’s next major legislative target. She described stablecoin rules, market structure, and tax changes as three linked policy goals. Current tax provisions were written before digital assets became a large financial market.
The post CLARITY Act Senate Vote Could Arrive Next Week as Odds Split appeared first on Blockonomi.
CryptoPotato
After a violent eight-week streak with nothing but substantial withdrawals, the spot Bitcoin ETFs changed their course in the middle of July and now extended their recovery period with another green performance.
However, the funds tracking the largest altcoin managed to beat the market leader in terms of weekly net inflows.
BTC ETF Green Wave Endures
Perhaps due to the rising tension in the Middle East over the previous weekend, Monday began with a massive $424.66 million net outflow from the spot BTC ETFs. This was the single-largest withdrawal since June 26. Thus, the good news from the previous week started to look like a fluke that cannot be repeated.
However, investors’ behavior changed in the following four days, and fresh capital started to flow in. Data from SoSoValue shows that $181 million entered the funds on Tuesday, another $107.8 million on Wednesday, $79.15 million on Thursday, and $132.30 million on Friday. As such, the weekend ended in the green, with net inflows of $75.67 million.
Nevertheless, these numbers are nowhere near the mass exodus experienced from the middle of May and the beginning of July. In five out of these eight weeks, investors pulled out $1 billion or more, with the week that ended on June 26 registering the second-highest net outflows of $1.79 billion. Overall, the funds lost more than $8 billion in approximately two months.
The cumulative total net inflows dumped from $59.34 billion to $51.08 billion before they recovered some ground to $51.35 billion as of July 17.
ETH Funds Do Even Better
While the financial vehicles tracking BTC attracted just over $75 million last week, those following the largest altcoin did even better. The spot Ethereum ETFs gained $105.44 million, building on the previous week’s $84.42 million.
Monday was also in the red, but in a more modest manner. Investors took out $15.41 million. Thursday saw $28.04 million in net outflows, but the $58.34 million on Tuesday, $53.83 million on Wednesday, and $36.73 million on Friday offset all the losses.
Similar to the BTC ETFs, the Ethereum counterparts were on an eight-week red streak, in which they lost well over $1.1 billion in cumulative total net inflows, going from $12.09 billion to $10.89 billion. However, the figure has risen to $11.08 billion after the two consecutive weeks in the green in mid-July.
The post 2 in a Row: Bitcoin ETFs Mark Another Green Week, but Ethereum Wins appeared first on CryptoPotato.
The spot exchange-traded funds tracking the performance of Ripple’s cross-border token took their first hit last week in over two months, but net inflows have returned.
However, there’s still an evident investment exodus that we need to discuss, as the financial vehicles had no reportable data for too many days.
XRP ETFs Are Back
For roughly two months, during which the spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs bled heavily, with billions of dollars leaving both, the XRP counterparts enjoyed investors’ attention by gathering fresh capital. In fact, as we repeatedly reported, they set a 9-week green-only streak, in which they attracted almost $200 million.
This all changed during the second week of July when data from SoSoValue showed that investors pulled out just over $7 million from the funds for the first time in over two months.
However, green is back on XRP’s street as the past week almost offset all the losses from the previous one. The net inflows for the five-day trading period stand at $6.78 million. This means that the cumulative total net inflow is back to its ATH levels of almost $1.5 billion.
Bitwise’s XRP ETF continues to increase the gap between itself and the first such fund to reach Wall Street – Canary Capital’s XRPC. The former now holds almost $500 million in AUM, while the latter is below $470 million.
The Big Catch
Although the week as a whole was indeed in the green, all $6.78 million in net inflows came in just one day: July 16. The rest (four) trading days saw no reportable action, according to SoSoValue. Although the XRP ETFs have seen many such days in the past, there were never four in the same week.
Moreover, seven of the last 10 business days have seen net flows of $0.00. This is a rather concerning trend, clearly showing that interest and demand for the financial products have declined significantly.
Perhaps a portion of the blame can be put on the overall sluggish summer season, in which trading volumes traditionally drop, as investors wait for better times. XRP’s sluggish price performance might also turn investors away, as the asset has failed to break out above the $1.10 resistance despite a few attempts. It remains down by 3% monthly, with a market cap of well under $70 billion.
The post Ripple (XRP) ETFs Resume Inflow Streak, but There’s an Elephant in the Room appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Pi Network’s native token has stolen the show in the cryptocurrency markets with a massive price surge that drove it to a weekly high of roughly $0.10.
This is rather unexpected given the asset’s latest price performance, which included dumping to several consecutive all-time lows. The question is whether this is a profound recovery or another dead-cat bounce.
PI Pumps Hard on Sunday
CryptoPotato has repeatedly reported over the past week or so the adverse price developments around Pi Network’s PI token. The asset broke below the key $0.10 support last weekend, and the bears took complete control of the market. In the following days, they pushed it below $0.09 and $0.08.
PI rebounded only after it dumped to $0.07, which turned out to be a strong support. The token marked a new all-time low, which meant that it had plunged by over 97% since its ATH over a year ago, but rebounded immediately.
As reported yesterday, it showed some resilience and climbed above $0.08. It remained there for about 24 hours before it went on the aforementioned rally today. It skyrocketed by almost 20% and is now close to $0.10 for the first time in a week. This has become a key resistance level, which has to be reclaimed before the asset has any chance of a bigger rebound.
Recovery or Dead-Cat Bounce?
Although today’s rather unexpected but impressive surge has given some hope to the bulls, PI’s history has repeatedly shown that it’s not that simple, and the hype could come to an end soon.
The asset has posted similar gains on numerous occasions in the past, especially after prolonged downturns. Once it becomes the top performer, though, it crashes and burns to its starting level or even lower within days. The latest such example was in mid-March when it rocketed from $0.20 to $0.30 during the Kraken-listing hype.
It was rejected immediately and slumped below $0.20 within 72 hours. It has been unable to reclaim its former glory since then, and the recent crash to $0.07 only proved that. The Pi Network investors and believers would have to wait and see if this rally now is any different.
The post Pi Network’s PI Suddenly Explodes by 20%: Recovery or Dead-Cat Bounce? appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Michael Saylor rattled the community cages on X once again with a cryptic post containing a graph showcasing his company’s countless BTC purchases completed over the past six years, with the text “What’s next?”
Although many translated this message as a new hint that Strategy has made a new bitcoin purchase, the reality from the past several weeks tells a different story.
What’s next? pic.twitter.com/bNl0xX0obw
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 19, 2026
Buy or Sell Next?
The firm’s co-founder and former CEO has been publishing such posts for years. We didn’t pay much attention to them before, as they were always followed by a major purchase announcement on the next business day. However, this all changed a few weeks ago when, instead of bragging about the latest bitcoin acquisition, Strategy announced its biggest BTC sale to date by disposing of over 3,500 units.
The perception changed immediately. It came just a week after the firm had launched the Digital Credit Capital Framework to enhance liquidity and long-term BTC exposure. The idea was simple – the firm had a USD reserve of $2.55 billion, which was enough to cover 17.4 months of dividend payments. However, it wanted to raise that, and included potential BTC sales of up to $1.25 billion to expand the dividend payment period to over 25 months.
Saylor published a similar hint last weekend, which led to no bitcoin move. Instead, Strategy increased its USD reserve to $3 billion by raising funds via an at-the-market common stock offering. All eyes have now turned to the world’s largest corporate holder of BTC, and speculation is running wild about what tomorrow’s announcement will be.
113 Purchases
We called them countless above, but in fact the actual number of purchases is 113 (we counted them slowly; hopefully we are not wrong). They began almost six years ago, and the firm has accumulated 843,775 BTC since then after it ramped up its efforts following the 2024 US presidential elections and the promise of a friendlier regulatory environment.
Despite the DCA strategy, the company remains down on its major bitcoin bet, given the asset’s price correction over the last 9 months or so. The firm has spent roughly $64 billion to accumulate its stash, but its current value is nearly $10 billion lower. This means that the company’s unrealized loss stands at around 15%.
The post Buy or Sell? What Michael Saylor’s Cryptic New Tweet Means for Bitcoin appeared first on CryptoPotato.
Bitcoin continues to recover from its June capitulation but remains trapped beneath a major resistance cluster. Although buyers have managed to defend higher lows on the lower timeframe, the market is still approaching a critical confluence that could determine whether the recovery extends or transitions into another rejection.
BTC Price Analysis: The Daily Chart
On the daily timeframe, BTC continues to trade below the 100-day and 200-day moving averages, keeping the broader trend tilted to the downside.
The asset is now approaching the $65K-$66.5K supply zone, which also coincides with the descending long-term trendline. This confluence has capped every recovery attempt since the sharp breakdown in early June, making it the key barrier that bulls must reclaim to shift the higher-timeframe structure.
A successful breakout above this region would expose the next resistance between $72K and $74K. However, another rejection from the current supply zone would likely trigger a corrective move toward the $58K-$60K support area, which now represents the most important demand zone on the daily chart.
BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart
The 4-hour chart shows Bitcoin consolidating within a rising channel after establishing a series of higher lows throughout July.
BTC is once again testing the upper boundary of the channel while simultaneously approaching the higher-timeframe supply zone around $65K-$66.5K. This creates a significant confluence of resistance, suggesting that bullish momentum is entering an important decision area.
As long as Bitcoin remains above the $61K-$62K support zone, buyers maintain a short-term advantage and another attempt to break the overhead resistance remains likely.
However, failure to overcome the confluence of the channel resistance, descending trendline, and supply zone could result in another pullback toward the $58K-$60K demand region. Since this price action pattern typically hints at a potential decline, Bitcoin is poised for another bearish leg, testing the lower demand zones.
Sentiment Analysis
The Realized Price UTXO Age Bands indicate that the realized prices of the 1-3 month and 3-6 month holder cohorts have converged near the current market structure, both sitting around the low $70K area.
Historically, the convergence of these younger holder cost bases often reflects a period of market transition, as recently accumulated coins begin to change hands at similar prices. At present, both realized price levels remain well above Bitcoin’s spot price, implying that these cohorts are still holding unrealized losses.
This reinforces the technical picture. While Bitcoin has recovered from its June lows, it remains below the realized cost basis of recent investors, suggesting that sentiment has not fully shifted back in favor of sustained accumulation.
A recovery above these realized price levels would strengthen the case for a broader trend reversal, whereas continued rejection below them would support the view that the current advance is still a relief rally within the broader bearish structure.
The post Bitcoin Price Analysis: Here’s the Most Likely BTC Scenario for Next Week appeared first on CryptoPotato.
