This transaction highlights the enduring symbolic value of Bitcoin's origins and raises questions about the motivations behind such gestures.

The post Anonymous holder sends $181K in Bitcoin to Satoshi Nakamoto’s wallet appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Tether's new stablecoin aims to transform liquidity and bridge the gap between crypto and traditional finance.

The post Paolo Ardoino: Stablecoins are core financial infrastructure, Tether’s USAT enhances liquidity for US users, and the inevitability of stablecoin adoption | The Wolf Of All Streets appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Block's workforce reduction reflects a broader tech industry trend of streamlining operations amid economic challenges and strategic shifts.

The post Jack Dorsey’s Block may cut workforce by 10%: Report appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Vietnam's crypto tax could enhance market transparency but may restrict exchange growth due to high capital requirements.

The post Vietnam plans 0.1% tax on crypto trades, equating them to stocks appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

New ERC-8004 standard aims to revolutionize trust and interactions among AI agents on Ethereum

The post Davide Crapis: ERC 8004 enables decentralized AI agent interactions, establishes trustless commerce, and enhances reputation systems on Ethereum | Unchained appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Reclaims $71,000 as Institutions Buy the Dip and Retail Interest Surges

The Bitcoin price climbed back above $71,000 over the weekend, extending its rebound after one of the sharpest sell-offs of the cycle sent the price briefly plunging toward $60,000 earlier this week.

The recovery comes as institutional investors appear to be treating sub-$70,000 bitcoin as a renewed buying opportunity, even while retail traders search for signs the market has reached a bottom.

Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley said in a CNBC interview that bitcoin’s pullback is landing differently with large investors than with long-time holders.

“I think long-time holders are feeling unsure,” Horsley said. “And I think the new investor set, institutions are sort of getting a new crack at the apple.”

Horsley added that some institutional buyers are now seeing price levels they believed they had permanently missed, as bitcoin gets “swept up” in a broader macro-driven selloff across liquid risk assets.

Retail traders are searching for a signal

While institutions have been stepping in, retail participants have been scanning the market for confirmation that the sell-off has fully exhausted itself.

Sentiment platform Santiment said in a weekend report that retail traders are “meta-analyzing” the downturn, looking for proof that others are quitting before re-entering the market — behavior that often emerges near market lows.

“Retail traders are trying to meta-analyze the market, looking for signs of others quitting to time their own entries,” Santiment wrote.

Google Trends data reflects the spike in attention. Worldwide searches for “Bitcoin” hit a score of 100 for the week starting Feb. 1 — the highest level in the past 12 months — as bitcoin’s price whipsawed from above $81,000 down to $60,000 before rebounding.

Searches for the term “crypto capitulation” also surged, rising from 11 to 58 in the week ending Feb. 8.

Federal Reserve cuts are coming for the bitcoin price

Adding to all this, ProCap Financial CIO Jeff Park suggested bitcoin price’s next major bull-market catalyst may not come from Federal Reserve rate cuts — but from bitcoin’s ability to rise even in a tightening environment.

Park described a scenario where the bitcoin price climbs alongside higher interest rates as the asset’s “holy grail,” challenging traditional assumptions about liquidity and the global monetary system.

Last week, crypto exchange Bithumb said it accidentally sent out more than $40 billion worth of Bitcoin during a promotional rewards event after a payout error gave some users thousands of BTC instead of a small cash reward.

The exchange quickly restricted trading and withdrawals, recovering 99.7% of the excess Bitcoin and stressing the incident was not caused by hacking or a security breach.

A small amount — about 125 BTC worth roughly $9 million — remains unrecovered, and Bithumb said it will cover the losses with corporate funds.

Bitcoin price was trading above $71,400 at the time of publication, stabilizing after days of extreme volatility that rattled both crypto and broader financial markets.

This post Bitcoin Price Reclaims $71,000 as Institutions Buy the Dip and Retail Interest Surges first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bithumb Bitcoin Blunder Sends $44 Billion to Users, Rattles Crypto Markets 

South Korean crypto exchange Bithumb said it mistakenly distributed more than $40 billion worth of Bitcoin to customers during a promotional rewards event, triggering sharp price volatility last week for bitcoin’s price.

The exchange said the incident occurred when a planned giveaway of small cash rewards was processed incorrectly. Instead of awarding about 2,000 Korean won, or roughly $1.40, some users received at least 2,000 Bitcoin each.

The error resulted in the accidental distribution of roughly 620,000 Bitcoin, valued at approximately $44 billion at current prices.

Bithumb apologized for the mistake and said it has now recovered 99.7% of the excess Bitcoin. The exchange said it restricted trading and withdrawals for 695 affected customers within 35 minutes of the erroneous payout.

“We would like to make it clear that this incident is unrelated to external hacking or security breaches,” Bithumb said in a statement. “There are no problems with system security or customer asset management.”

Despite the quick response, reports said a small number of recipients sold or traded the coins before restrictions were imposed. Bithumb told local media it had not yet recovered 125 Bitcoin, worth around $9 million, from a small group of customers.

The exchange said it would cover those remaining losses using its own corporate funds.

Bithumb’s Bitcoin disruptions 

The incident caused an immediate disruption in Bitcoin trading on the platform. Charts from Bithumb showed Bitcoin briefly slumped 17% to 81.1 million won or roughly $55,000 during the selloff before recovering. The price later rebounded to around 104.5 million won.

South Korea’s financial regulators responded swiftly. The Financial Services Commission said the incident exposed vulnerabilities in the virtual asset sector. Officials said they would review internal control systems at domestic exchanges and launch on-site inspections if irregularities were found.

South Korean newspaper Kookmin Ilbo reported regulators had already begun an inspection at Bithumb’s offices on February 7. Investigators reportedly requested a list of employees authorized to issue crypto payments.

Unnamed sources quoted by the newspaper described the incident as revealing “structural vulnerabilities” in the exchanges operational processes.

Reports indicated that Bithumb’s internal system allowed employees to issue loyalty points, Korean won, Bitcoin, and Ethereum without formal settlement procedures, increasing the risk of payout errors.

Executives acknowledged internal shortcomings. In an email to employees, Exchange Business Division Vice President Hwang Seung-wook said the mistake demonstrated weaknesses in the company’s processes.

“The fact that a single error in setting an event reward unit can destabilize an entire crypto exchange demonstrates the current state of our systems,” he wrote. He said the company would focus on eliminating failures in oversight rather than blaming individuals.

Bithumb’s compensation plan

Bithumb announced compensation measures for customers affected by abnormal trading conditions during the incident.

The exchange said users who sold Bitcoin at unusually low prices during the disruption would receive the full sale amount plus an additional 10%. Bithumb also said it would waive trading fees across all markets for seven days beginning February 9.

The company said it would provide 20,000 Korean won, or about $15, to customers who were actively using the platform at the time of the incident.

The error comes at a sensitive time for the exchange. The exchange has been pursuing plans to become the first South Korean crypto exchange to go public in the United States this year. 

Earlier this month, South Korea’s consumer protection watchdog launched a probe into Bithumb’s marketing claims.

For now, Bithumb is in damage control mode. The exchange has promised to compensate users who lost money from panic selling during the glitch. The company also says it will review and upgrade its internal systems to prevent future errors. Details on specific fixes have not yet been released.

This post Bithumb Bitcoin Blunder Sends $44 Billion to Users, Rattles Crypto Markets  first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strategy ($MSTR) Soars 25% as Bitcoin Rebounds

Shares of Strategy ($MSTR) surged sharply Friday, lifting more than 25% at times, trading near $133, after a brutal prior session left the bitcoin‑linked stock deeply oversold. 

The jump comes as markets stabilized and bitcoin rebounded from multi‑week lows to around $71,000, injecting newfound demand into equities tied to digital assets.

Friday’s rally reversed a dramatic sell‑off on Thursday, during which MSTR shares plunged to multi‑year lows on earnings losses and renewed pressure in crypto markets. 

From a macro perspective, Strategy’s stock movement has tracked bitcoin’s sharp swings. As the leading corporate holder of bitcoin, MSTR’s performance is highly correlated with BTC price action. 

Declines in digital assets earlier in the week sent the stock tumbling, with bears pushing Strategy prices as low as the $105 range Thursday. 

Strategy’s earnings losses 

Strategy posted a $12.4 billion loss for the fourth quarter of 2025, largely driven by unrealized declines in the value of its vast bitcoin holdings.

The headline loss dwarfed market expectations and weighed heavily on the share price, contributing to the Thursday slump.

Despite the earnings shortfall, executives remained committed to their long‑term bitcoin strategy. 

Executive Chairman Michael Saylor said that the company is starting a Bitcoin Security Program to coordinate with global cyber and crypto communities, framing quantum computing as a long-term challenge unlikely to threaten Bitcoin for over a decade. 

The company said that quantum fears are the latest form of Bitcoin “FUD,” noting ongoing global investment in quantum-resistant security and potential protocol upgrades through broad consensus.

Strategy’s leadership stressed resilience, saying the company could withstand extreme bitcoin price drops without immediate solvency concerns. 

Executives, like CEO Phong Le, highlighted long-term strategy, ongoing capital raises, and confidence that Bitcoin will emerge stronger from future technological or market challenges.

Le said Bitcoin would need to fall to around $8,000 per coin and stay at that level for five to six years before the company would face serious difficulty servicing its convertible debt.

“In the extreme downside, if we were to have a 90% decline in bitcoin price, and the price was $8,000, that is the point at which our bitcoin reserve equals our net debt,” Le said. He noted that under such conditions, the company could consider restructuring or raising additional capital.

At the time of writing, the price of Bitcoin is $70,040, with a 24-hour trading volume of 157 B. BTC is 7% in the last 24 hours.

It is currently -2% from its 7-day all-time high of $71,258, and 16% from its 7-day all-time low of $60,256. BTC has a circulating supply of 19,985,218 BTC and a max supply of 21,000,000 BTC.

This post Strategy ($MSTR) Soars 25% as Bitcoin Rebounds first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Roars Above $71,000 After Days of Sell-Offs

The bitcoin price rebounded sharply Friday after a steep sell-off over the previous 24 hours, climbing briefly climbing above $71,000, a jump of $11,000 from its $60,000 low earlier in the 24-hour session. 

The move came after several turbulent market sessions that saw the flagship cryptocurrency break key psychological support levels in a matter of hours. On Thursday, February 5, the Bitcoin price plunged as global financial markets deteriorated, with major stock indices sliding sharply and pushing investors out of riskier assets. 

The sudden downturn was linked to broader macroeconomic stress, including weak earnings reports and steep declines in technology stocks, which intensified a flight to safety among traders. 

Data compiled Thursday showed Bitcoin’s value dipping to its lowest since late 2024, signaling growing bearish sentiment among market participants. 

The digital asset had retreated more than 40% from its all-time high above $126,000 reached in October 2025, underscoring the severity of the downturn.

Also, as the bitcoin price collapsed yesterday, forced liquidations boomed with over $1 billion in positions wiped out over the past 24 hours, predominantly long bets facing automatic close-outs as BTC broke key levels.

Crypto stocks rebound as Bitcoin price recovers

Despite Thursday’s losses, Bitcoin price’s rebound Friday saw prices climb from the $60,000 region back above the $70,000 mark, reflecting a nearly 15% recovery from intraday lows. 

Crypto-related stocks saw massive gains as well. Strategy ($MSTR) shares were up 21% on the day, while Coinbase ($COIN) and Circle ($CRCL) and Robinhood ($HOOD) shares all jumped 10-15% 

Bitcoin-linked equities also posted sharp gains, led by MARA Holdings (MARA), which climbed 21.03% to $8.14, and TeraWulf (WULF), up 19.55% to $14.25. Riot Platforms (RIOT) rose 16.54% to $14.05, while Cipher Mining (CIFR) added 15.47% to $14.66. 

Bitmine Immersion Technologies (BMNR) increased 15.43% to $20.08, and Core Scientific (CORZ) gained 10.43% to $16.36. Neptune Digital Assets (NDA) also advanced, rising 11.43% to $0.78

During the drop, the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), a spot Bitcoin ETF managed by BlackRock that lets investors gain exposure to Bitcoin without holding the crypto directly, crushed its daily volume record with about $10 billion worth of shares traded — even as its price plunged 13%, marking the second‑worst one‑day drop since the fund’s launch.

Currently, bitcoin is trading at $70,661. 

This post Bitcoin Price Roars Above $71,000 After Days of Sell-Offs first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Michael Saylor Says Strategy ($MSTR) Will Lead Global Bitcoin Effort Against Quantum Threats

Strategy’s ($MSTR) Executive Chairman Michael Saylor said on the company’s fourth-quarter 2025 earnings call that Strategy will initiate a Bitcoin Security Program. The effort is meant to coordinate with the global cyber, crypto, and Bitcoin security community.

In the call, Saylor framed quantum computing as a long-term engineering challenge rather than an immediate danger. He said the technology is likely more than a decade away from posing a serious risk to Bitcoin’s cryptography.

During the call, Strategy displayed a slide titled “Quantum and our Commitment to Bitcoin Security.” It listed quantum concerns as the latest form of Bitcoin “FUD,” alongside past fears the network and Strategy as a whole have endured.

The company outlined its position that many industries, including financial services and defense, still depend on traditional cryptography. It noted that global investment is already flowing into quantum-resistant security research.

Saylor said the Bitcoin community is already engaged in work on quantum-resistant protocols. He added that if Bitcoin ever requires an upgrade, it would come through broad global consensus.

Strategy’s announcement comes during a volatile period for both Bitcoin and crypto-linked equities. The company reported a net loss of roughly $12.4 billion for the quarter, driven by mark-to-market declines in its bitcoin holdings.

Shares of Strategy fell 17% on Thursday, trading as low as $104 during the session.  The stock rebounded today, currently trading up 21%.

Strategy remains the largest corporate holder of bitcoin. The firm has accumulated more than 713,000 BTC under its treasury strategy led by Saylor and CEO Phong Le.

While quantum computing remains in early stages, researchers have warned that advanced machines could eventually challenge the encryption systems used across finance, communications, and blockchain networks.

Saylor argued that Bitcoin will emerge stronger after any future upgrade. He said the network has repeatedly adapted through past technical and regulatory challenges.

Strategy isn’t worried about the bitcoin dip

Executives used the earnings call to address investor concerns about balance sheet pressure during Bitcoin’s downturn.

Le said Bitcoin would need to fall to around $8,000 per coin and stay at that level for five to six years before the company would face serious difficulty servicing its convertible debt.

“In the extreme downside, if we were to have a 90% decline in bitcoin price, and the price was $8,000, that is the point at which our bitcoin reserve equals our net debt,” Le said. He noted that under such conditions, the company could consider restructuring or raising additional capital.

Strategy’s leadership emphasized the long-term nature of its approach. Saylor said the firm is built to withstand sharp quarter-to-quarter swings. The company’s bitcoin reserves remain valued in the tens of billions of dollars despite unrealized losses reported in the quarter.

Strategy has continued raising capital to support further acquisitions. It raised more than $25 billion last year and purchased additional bitcoin in early 2026.

Currently, Bitcoin trades far below its 2025 highs, but the asset is up $10,000 on the day. 

This post Michael Saylor Says Strategy ($MSTR) Will Lead Global Bitcoin Effort Against Quantum Threats first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin’s next big options gravity well sits on Mar. 27 (260327), and the reason is simple: this is where the market has parked a thick stack of conditional bets that will need to be unwound, rolled forward, or paid out as the clock runs down.

The Mar. 27 expiry carries about $8.65B in notional OI and flags $90,000 as max pain, a rough reference point for where, in aggregate, option holders would feel the most pain at settlement.

The broader options complex is enormous, with total BTC options open interest around $31.99B across exchanges, led by Deribit at roughly $25.56B, with the rest split across CME, OKX, Binance, and Bybit.

That concentration can shape how price behaves on the way there, particularly when liquidity thins and hedging flows start to matter more than anyone wants to admit.

Options can often sound like some kind of private language of institutional traders, which is convenient right up until they start influencing spot price. Our goal here is to translate a crowded derivatives calendar into something legible: where the bets are concentrated, how that concentration can change behavior in spot markets, and why March 27 stands out.

Related Reading

My $49k Bitcoin prediction playing out but BTC is closing in on a major BUY ZONE

My September Bitcoin call played out like clockwork, now we all need to remember what's most likely to come next.

Feb 6, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

March 27 and the shape of the bets

On Mar. 27 (260327), data shows more calls than puts, roughly 69.85K calls versus 53.25K puts, with puts carrying far more market value than calls in that moment.

That combination might look strange and even contradictory, until you translate it into everyday incentives.

Calls can be plentiful because they offer defined-risk upside exposure that feels emotionally painless to hold, while puts can be more expensive because downside protection is often bought closer to where it actually hurts, and it tends to get repriced more aggressively when the market is nervous.

The volume data adds a second clue about what was happening at the margin. For the same Mar. 27 expiry, CoinGlass data shows puts around 17.98K versus calls around 10.46K in trading volume, again with puts carrying the heavier market value.

That tells us the flow that day leans more toward paying for protection than chasing upside, even while the outstanding inventory still looks call-heavy on count.

Now place that against spot and the broader pile.

March can feel far away in calendar terms, especially when the market is this volatile, but in options terms, it's close enough to exert gravity once nearer expiries finish shuffling positions forward.

When one date holds several billion in notional, it becomes a focal point for rolling, hedging, and all of the other quiet mechanical work market makers do to stay roughly neutral as customers buy and sell convexity. While this doesn't guarantee a particular price, it does increase the odds of price behaving as if there are invisible grooves in the road, because in a derivatives-heavy market, hedging flows can add friction in some ranges and remove it in others.

That brings us to max pain. It's a bookkeeping-style calculation across strikes, not a law of nature and not a trading signal with a motor attached.

It can be a useful reference in the way a median can be useful, as a single marker that tells you something about the distribution, but it's blunt, and blunt tools are almost never the ones moving price.

What tends to matter more is where positions are crowded by strike, because crowding changes how much hedging needs to happen when spot moves. CoinGlass data shows a put/call ratio around 0.44, one more hint that the distribution is lopsided rather than smooth, and lopsided is the whole point because it's how a date stops being a calendar fact and becomes a market event.

There's a simple, non-trader way to hold all of this without turning it into fortune-telling.

As March approaches, crowded strikes can behave like zones where price movement feels oddly damped, then oddly jumpy, because the hedging response is not steady.

If Bitcoin wanders into a heavily populated region, the market’s automatic risk management can reinforce a range, and if Bitcoin moves hard enough to escape it, those same mechanics can flip into something that amplifies momentum instead of resisting it.

Related Reading

Binance trading data reveals why Bitcoin prices are sliding even as spot buyers flood the market with bids

Leveraged liquidations and synthetic exposure are overhauling the scarcity narrative and forcing a brutal reality check for holders.

Feb 7, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

What's gamma doing while everyone argues about max pain

If options talk has a single word that scares off otherwise capable people, it's gamma, which is unfortunate because the idea is straightforward when you keep it tied to consequences rather than algebra.

Options have deltas, meaning their value changes with price, and gamma describes how quickly that sensitivity changes as price moves.

Dealers who sit on the other side of customer trades often hedge to reduce directional risk, and the practical version is that hedging can turn them into automatic buyers on dips and sellers on rallies near crowded strikes. This is one of the clearest explanations for why price can look magnetized to certain regions.

The reason this matters for a large expiry like Mar. 27 is that hedging intensity isn't constant through time.

As expiry approaches, near-the-money options tend to become more sensitive, and that can make hedging adjustments more frequent and more meaningful in size. That's where the idea of pinning comes from, the observation that price can spend suspiciously long periods hovering near certain strikes as hedgers lean against small moves.

It's often just a risk-control habit showing up in the tape, and it becomes easier to notice when open interest is large and concentrated.

CryptoSlate has covered similar episodes as the options market has matured, emphasizing that expiry effects are most visible when positioning is heavy and clustered, also noting that the calm can disappear after settlement as hedging pressure resets and new positions get rebuilt.

More traditional market reporting often treats max pain as a reference point while focusing attention on how expiry, positioning, and volatility interact.

The key is that the mechanism itself isn't mystical. A large options stack creates a second layer of trading activity that reacts to spot moves, and sometimes that reactive layer is large enough to be felt by everyone, including people who never touch derivatives.

Options greeks charts, with their stepped shapes, are a visual reminder that sensitivity changes in regimes rather than smoothly. They suggest exposure is concentrated around specific strike regions, so the hedging response can change character as spot crosses those zones.

That's why a single headline number like max pain is usually less informative than a sense of where open interest is thickest, because the thick zones are where hedging flows are most likely to show up as real buying or selling, regardless of what the settlement meme says.

February reshuffles, June anchors, March decides

Mar. 27 is the main event in your snapshot, but the supporting beats matter because they help explain how the March setup can change before it arrives.

The same max pain view shows a meaningful late-February expiry, Feb. 27 (260227), at about $6.14B notional with max pain around $85,000.

It also shows notable size further out, including a high concentration at late June (Jun 26, 260626), which serves as a reminder that positioning is not only about the next few weeks, it is also about the market’s longer-dated posture.

February matters because it's close enough to force real decisions.

Traders who don't want positions to expire often roll them, and rolling isn't just a calendar action, it's a change in where exposure sits.

If February positions get rolled into March, the March pile grows heavier, and the gravity well can deepen. If February positions are closed or shifted to different strikes, March can look less crowded than it does today, and the options map will change in a way that has nothing to do with headlines and everything to do with inventory management.

Either way, February is a likely moment for hedges to be adjusted and for the strike distribution to be reshaped, which is why it deserves attention even in a March-focused story.

June matters for a different reason. Far-dated size tends to decay more slowly and can function like an anchor for risk limits, which can affect how aggressively desks manage near-dated risk in March.

The presence of meaningful longer-dated positioning suggests the market is warehousing views about where Bitcoin could be by early summer. That kind of positioning doesn't dictate day-to-day price, but it can influence the tone of the market around March, including how quickly hedges are rolled forward and how much risk dealers are willing to wear.

So the practical takeaway is that the headline numbers aren't the story on their own.

The $8.65B notional on Mar. 27 and the $90,000 max pain marker tell you there's a crowded event on the calendar, but the mechanism worth watching is where the crowd is standing by strike and how hedging pressure behaves as time shrinks.

The path to March runs through February, when positions can be reshuffled, and it stretches toward June, where longer-dated size can shape how the market carries risk.

None of this replaces macro, flows, or fundamentals, and it doesn't need to. It's a layer of explanation for why Bitcoin can look oddly well-behaved.

When the options stack is this large, you can often see the outlines of the next pressure point in advance, as long as you treat max pain as a rough signpost and focus instead on the crowding that can make price feel sticky in one moment and surprisingly slippery in the next.

The post Bitcoin bears could sleepwalk into a $8.65 billion trap as options max pain expiry nears $90,000 appeared first on CryptoSlate.

On Jan.30, 2026, US spot Bitcoin ETFs saw $509.7 million in net outflows, which looks like pretty straightforward negative sentiment until you look at the individual tickers and realize a few of them stayed green.

That contradiction aged fast over the next few days. Feb. 2 snapped back with $561.8 million in net inflows, then Feb. 3 flipped to -$272.0 million, and Feb. 4 sank to -$544.9 million. The totals went up and down, but the more useful clue was the same one hiding in plain sight on Jan. 30: the category can look like one trade from a distance, while the money inside it moves in very different rhythms.

By the time Bitcoin slid below $71,000, ETF flows and price finally started to rhyme.

If you're trying to read the ETF flow table like a mood ring, the table will definitely mislead you. The total number you see in the table is a scoreboard, not the play-by-play, and it can easily be dragged around by one large exit even while smaller pockets of demand keep persisting. The green islands in the deep red sea are real, but it's rarely the heroic resistance signal people want it to be.

Related Reading

Bitcoin bear market ends when 3 signals flip, and one is already starting to twitch

Watch for sustained closes back above long term averages, steady inflows, and a clear fade in downside hedging premiums.

Feb 4, 2026 · Gino Matos

Why “total flows” lie on the days you care most about

Secondary-market trading is people swapping ETF shares with each other, while primary-market creations and redemptions are what change the share count. Flow tables almost always aim at the second layer, the net creation or destruction of shares. The SEC’s investor bulletin makes the key distinction very clear: ETF shares trade on an exchange, but supply changes through the creation and redemption process.

That split matters because a day can see crazy volumes and price action and still print zero flows for a given fund if buyers and sellers just match each other in the secondary market. And a day can print a huge outflow because one or a few large holders decide to redeem, even if there's steady buying elsewhere.

This is why dispersion is worth tracking. Instead of staring at the net number, count how many funds are green versus red, then ask how concentrated the red is. On Jan. 30, the numbers were brutal everywhere: IBIT -$528.3 million versus a -$509.7 million total, which means the rest of the complex was slightly positive when you add it up. FBTC's $7.3 million, ARKB's $8.3 million, and BRRR's $3 million inflows were small, but they were still inflows.

At the beginning of February, we saw a much cleaner example of what broad-based demand looks like and what a concentrated exit looks like.

On Feb. 2, net inflows were spread across the leaders, including IBIT's $142.0 million and FBTC's $153.3 million, BITB's $96.5 million, and ARKB's $65.1 million inflows joining in. That's what a category-wide “buy day” looks like in the flow data: more than one desk, more than one platform, and more than one fund.

On Feb. 3, the table turned into a lesson in internal conflict. IBIT was still up $60.0 million, while FBTC printed -$148.7 million and ARKB -$62.5 million, pulling the total to -$272.0 million. The category was net red while the biggest vehicle stayed green, which is the mirror image of Jan. 30’s story. The takeaway here is not that one ticker smart money and the others aren't, but that the ETF market now has different buyer types with different rules, and they don't all hit the button at the same time.

On Feb. 4, the outflows deepened to -$544.9 million, with IBIT -$373.4 million and FBTC -$86.4 million leading the day, plus smaller outflows across other funds. That was the day Bitcoin dipped under $72,000 in a broad risk-off backdrop.

When analyzing the ETF market, it's important not to treat every green print as fresh conviction. A micro-inflow can be real demand, but it can also be allocation drift getting corrected, a model portfolio topping up a sleeve, or a platform with scheduled behavior that doesn't really care what crypto Twitter is doing this week. Big totals are often driven by a much smaller number of actors than people assume, and small prints can be driven by a much larger number of small accounts than the headlines imply.

The real reasons micro-inflows happen, and what February’s slump did to them

The easiest explanation is the least satisfying and the most frequent: one large redemption can dominate the day. Jan. 30 was a single-ticker gravity well, with IBIT’s $528.3 million outflow overwhelming everything else. Feb. 4 did something similar, with IBIT's $373.4 million outflowdoing most of the work.

Next comes distribution behavior. Some funds get embedded in advisor platforms and model portfolios where allocations update on schedules, sometimes monthly, sometimes quarterly, sometimes when a portfolio crosses a risk band. That sort of demand can remain steady even when fast money is de-risking, and it can show up as small greens on days when the total looks ugly.

Then there's internal switching. Investors rotate between products for reasons unrelated to Bitcoin’s fundamentals: fees, familiarity with a particular issuer, operational comfort, or an institution consolidating exposure for reporting simplicity. A switch day can look like there are buyers in one fund and sellers in another, while the true story is that it's the same exposure, just with a different wrapper.

The Feb. 4–5 slump adds one more ingredient that makes dispersion louder: forced deleveraging in the rest of the crypto market. When the market slides quickly and liquidations pick up, desks that need to raise cash sell what they can, and that can include ETF positions.

That backdrop helps explain why a flow table can look chaotic across tickers even when price action looks like one clean slide into the red. A risk-off day is never just one single decision to sell BTC; it's a pile of different constraints hitting different players at different times.

By Feb. 5, the price drop itself became the headline, with Bitcoin trading around $70,900 after falling below $71,000, and mainstream coverage tying the move to a broader selloff across markets.

So, how do you tell when a green print matters?

A single small inflow on a red-total day is usually weak evidence of anything except the fact that not everyone left at once. It starts to matter when the greens repeat across multiple red-total days, and when the greens broaden across multiple funds, because that tends to mean demand is coming from more than one channel. That is what made Feb. 2 stand out inside this short window.

So when the total is red, ask three questions before you jump to any conclusions.

How concentrated is the outflow, meaning how much of the day is explained by the single biggest red print?

How many funds are green, because broad greens usually mean broader participation rather than one platform doing a scheduled top-up?

And does it repeat, because one day can be calendar effects, routing, or one institution moving size, while repetition is where behavior starts to show?

Jan. 30 taught the core idea with a paradox, and Feb. 3 and Feb. 4 sharpened it. The ETF market is now big enough to hold multiple agendas at once, and the flow table will keep looking contradictory as long as people insist on reading it as one crowd with one opinion.

The post Bitcoin ETF flow numbers are fundamentally broken and most traders are missing the specific sign of a crash appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin trades every minute of every day, but CME Bitcoin futures stop for the weekend. That mismatch is how a CME gap is born, and why it keeps turning up in the middle of the most stressful weeks.

A CME gap is the blank space on a CME futures chart between Friday’s final traded level and the first traded level when the market reopens Sunday evening (US time). CME futures trade on a weekly schedule with a weekend break, while spot Bitcoin keeps moving. When the first CME print lands far from Friday’s close, the chart draws a jump and leaves an empty zone in between. That zone is the gap.

CryptoSlate’s report on this topic made the key point that the gap is not a mystical force, but a record of time when one market was closed, and the other was still trading. This is not about prophecy. It’s about a calendar mismatch that becomes visible on charts.

This week gave us a clean, real-world demo.

On the continuous CME Bitcoin futures chart, the Friday (Jan. 30) close printed around $84,105, and the first Sunday reopen printed near $77,730, leaving a roughly $6,375 weekend gap. Then the drawdown accelerated.

Bitcoin slid from about $72,999 at the start of Feb. 5 to a low of $62,181 on Coinbase, and then printed near $60,000 early Feb. 6 before rebounding into the mid $60,000s. CME’s 30-minute series shows the same shape, with a low near $60,005 and a rebound toward $66,900.

Even with that kind of volatility, the prior Friday level in the mid $80,000s stayed far overhead. The gap remained open through Feb. 6 because the price never got close enough to revisit it.

That’s a good place to start, because it answers the question most non-traders are really asking when they hear the term “gap.” They're asking why two prices that both say BTC can look like they live in different universes for a moment, and why that mismatch sometimes disappears as the week goes on.

How a gap forms when one Bitcoin market takes the weekend off

CME lists cash-settled Bitcoin futures that trade in a near-continuous weekly session: Sunday evening through Friday afternoon, with a daily break, and a hard weekend stop. But spot Bitcoin doesn’t have that off switch, so if a big move hits on Saturday, CME can’t print it in real time. The chart just has no data for that stretch.

When CME reopens, it doesn’t resume trading from the Friday close. It resumes from wherever the market is at the opening hour. If spot is down 8% or up 6% while CME was closed, the first futures trade will reflect that, plus whatever premium or discount futures carry at the reopen. The result is a visible jump, and the empty zone between Friday’s last level and Sunday’s first level becomes the gap.

The important part is what happens next, because the gap existing in the first place is a calendar fact, but the gap getting filled is market behavior.

Think of the gap as a skipped page in a book. Friday ends on a cliffhanger, the weekend writes three chapters somewhere else, and CME comes back with a whole new chapter. The skipped pages are still missing on the CME chart, but the story has already advanced on spot exchanges.

This is also why the gap meme can feel persuasive in weeks like this one. When Bitcoin is calm, the reopen is close to Friday’s close, so there is no dramatic blank space to talk about. When Bitcoin is violent, the blank space is big, and the human brain treats big blank spaces as unfinished business.

Myth vs. reality:

• Myth: “CME gaps have to fill.”
• Reality: Gaps often fill because markets tend to converge once CME liquidity returns, but they do not have to fill on any schedule. In trend weeks, the gap can sit open for a long time.

Why gaps often get filled, and why this week shows the limits

A “gap fill” simply means price later trades back through the empty zone, often all the way to the prior CME close. CryptoSlate’s explainer argued that this happens so often because, once CME is live again, there are practical incentives to pull futures and spot back toward each other.

That pull is just a set of boring, repeatable reasons that tend to show up during staffed market hours.

If futures and spot are far apart, there’s money to be made in narrowing the difference. Companies that can access both markets can buy low and sell high, aiming to profit as the spread compresses.

This is a convergence process driven by arbitrage and relative-value positioning rather than a belief that Bitcoin must go up or down. You can understand the intuition without touching the trade, because two linked markets rarely tolerate a huge disagreement for long once liquidity is back, and risk limits are active.

Then there’s the attention effect. Gaps are now widely tracked and shared, which emphasizes their importance during price volatility. When lots of people watch the same level, liquidity tends to gather there. That liquidity can make it easier for the price to revisit the area, especially in choppy markets where mean reversion is already in play.

CryptoSlate’s previous report backed the claim that gaps fill with numbers from its own study, showing a high fill rate and a tendency for many fills to happen quickly once CME sessions resume. That helps explain why the gap myth survives: it has enough historical reinforcement to feel like a rule, even though it isn’t one.

This is where Feb. 5 and Feb. 6 matter, because they show the boundary case that keeps the story honest.

Bitcoin dropped hard, touched $60,000, and then snapped back, causing over $1 billion in liquidations in just 24 hours.

That is the kind of environment where the CME gap starts mattering less. When the market is dumping and leverage is being forced out, price doesn’t care about a few missing candles in CME’s chart from the week before. It cares about where bids actually exist right now.

Both Coinbase and CME fell into the low $60,000s, then bounced toward the mid $60,000s. So, the old CME Friday close near $84,105 stopped being a magnet for price and started looking more like a distant marker.

This is also why the open gap can be a better explaining tool than predicting one.

In a calm market, fills can happen quickly because the price is already oscillating and liquidity is comfortable revisiting prior levels.

In a stressed market, the open gap is a reminder that the price has moved so far that the old close is simply out of reach in the near term. That’s not a failure of the concept; it’s just the concept doing its job: showing the consequences of a weekend move that never got retraced.

The Feb. 6 coverage of corporate Bitcoin treasuries adds a second layer that makes the story feel bigger than chart culture. CryptoSlate reported that the slide toward $60,000 pushed corporate holders deeper underwater on paper, and it singled out the stress this creates for companies whose equity story is built around Bitcoin exposure.

This gives us a very grounded reason why this drawdown felt different. It didn’t stay contained inside crypto venues, but kept bleeding into balance sheets and public narratives. That isn’t the kind of week where price just returns to a Friday close because a gap exists.

Treat the CME gap as a level traders notice, not a level Bitcoin owes you. Gaps matter most when the market is already mean-reverting, and liquidity is comfortable revisiting old prices.

In liquidation regimes and trend weeks, the gap can stay open because the market is busy dealing with something bigger than chart symmetry.

The post Do CME gaps always have to fill? Bitcoin’s $60k flush says no appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin keeps knocking on $71,500, sooner or later the door opens

Bitcoin made a familiar but stressful move this week; it bounced hard enough to make the skeptics quiet and the dip buyers loud again.

After the crash down to around $60,000, the price clawed its way back to the a spot that has become the center of gravity, the $71,500 zone.

It has already been there three times.

Each time, the market hesitated, traders leaned in, and the rally ran out of oxygen. Now Bitcoin is back around $70,900, it looks like it wants to test $71,500 again, and this is the moment worth paying attention to, even if you don’t trade, even if you only check the price once a week.

Because some levels are more like shared memories than simple numbers on a screen.

$71,500 is one of those.

Why $71,500 keeps showing up

When a level gets tested again and again, it becomes a kind of public square.

Everyone sees it on their chart. But not everyone discusses it in group chats or has a plan for it.

That matters because Bitcoin is a market that runs on emotion as much as math.

When price approaches a level like $71,500 after a violent drop, you get a mix of people who want out, people who want in, and people who want confirmation. That creates friction, and friction creates the stalling you can see on the chart.

For traders, this is where decisions get made quickly, stops get placed tightly, and leverage gets bold.

For long-term holders, this is where the story gets rewritten. A market that couldn’t get above $71,500 starts to feel weak, a market that reclaims it starts to feel repaired.

That difference in feeling is why the zone matters.

The lines on my chart are not decoration

The horizontal lines in the chart are the top and bottom of channels I’ve tracked over the last two years.

They are areas where Bitcoin has repeatedly found support or slammed into resistance. They are built from a blend of historical leverage behavior, order-book dynamics, psychological price levels, and the familiar entry and exit points many traders use when trading with size.

I’m not pretending this is a magic formula, it’s a map. It gives me a way to stop guessing and start planning.

And right now, that map says $71,500 is the next major checkpoint.

If you’ve been following my work this cycle, you’ll recognize the theme. I’ve spent months writing about how cycle highs form, how risk leaks out of the system, and how bear markets often feel obvious in hindsight but rarely feel obvious in the moment.

Back in the fall, I argued that the market was showing signs the cycle had already topped, even while the mood was still euphoric. That case is laid out in ‘Time is up: The case for why Bitcoin bear market cycle started at $126k.'

I also talked about the time window that tends to surround a cycle peak, and whether ETFs could bend that history, in ‘Bitcoin’s cycle clock points to a final high by late October, will ETFs rewrite history?.'

Related Reading

Time is up: The case for why Bitcoin bear market cycle started at $126k

Market top signal reached: This time last cycle Bitcoin entered a bear market.

Oct 16, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Then I made the call that upset a lot of people, the idea that Bitcoin could still fall toward $49,000 during this phase of the downturn. That thesis lives in ‘Akiba’s medium term $49k Bitcoin bear thesis – why this winter will be the shortest yet,' and I followed up in January when I started seeing the kind of structural stress that makes selloffs accelerate, in ‘I predicted Bitcoin falling to $49k this year and January delivered some very concerning red flags.'
.

Most recently, after the drawdown deepened, I wrote that my $49k view was still on track, while also pointing out that Bitcoin was approaching a zone where I expected real demand to start showing up again, in ‘My $49k Bitcoin prediction playing out but BTC is closing in on a major BUY ZONE.'

Related Reading

My $49k Bitcoin prediction playing out but BTC is closing in on a major BUY ZONE

My September Bitcoin call played out like clockwork, now we all need to remember what's most likely to come next.

Feb 6, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

This new piece is the next chapter of that same story, the market is trying to decide whether it’s healing or simply catching its breath.

$71,500 is where that decision becomes visible.

What a fourth test usually means

Three failed attempts at the same level can mean two different things, and the difference is all about how price behaves on the next approach.

Sometimes repeated tests weaken resistance, sellers get absorbed, the wall gets thinner each time, and eventually price pushes through.

Other times repeated tests create a trap, buyers get impatient, leverage piles up, stops stack underneath, and a rejection becomes the spark for a sharper move down.

You can feel that tension in the way the chart looks right now, the rally has been steady, it has lacked the explosive urgency that usually shows up when the market is fully confident.

That can change quickly, and that’s why this is a useful moment to talk about levels instead of predictions.

Here’s how I’m framing $71,500

I’m treating $71,500 as a line where the market has to prove itself.

A clean move above it means something only if it holds. In Bitcoin, wicks are common, breakouts that fail are common, and the difference between strength and noise is whether price can stay above a reclaimed level long enough for traders to stop treating it as a short.

If Bitcoin breaks above $71,500 and builds acceptance above it, the upside targets become the next bands on my map.

On my chart, the next zones above are around $73,700, then $77,000, then just under $79,000.

Those levels matter because they are where the market has historically paused, reversed, or accelerated. They are the next places where profit-taking tends to concentrate and where leveraged traders tend to set their next triggers.

If Bitcoin fails at $71,500 again, the tone changes.

It tells you that the bounce from $60,000 has not yet repaired the structure, it tells you sellers are still defending the same ceiling, and it raises the odds that price drifts back into the mid-range areas where it has already spent time during this recovery.

On my chart, the nearer shelves below are around $70,000 and $66,900, and deeper support memory sits down closer to the low $61,000s.

This is why $71,500 matters, it sits right at the edge of the recovery channel, and it’s the simplest way to separate continuation from rejection without forcing a narrative onto the chart.

The human part traders forget

Every time Bitcoin approaches a level like $71,500, there’s a crowd of people behind the candles.

There’s the retail trader who bought late in the cycle, watched the drawdown, promised themselves they’d sell the next time they got close to break even.

There’s the long-term holder who has seen this movie before, who doesn’t panic, but still feels the tension in their stomach when price returns to a spot that has already failed multiple times.

There’s the new investor who only learned what a “liquidity sweep” is last month, who is trying to figure out whether this bounce means safety has returned.

There’s the desk trader who doesn’t care about narratives, who only cares where stops are likely to be clustered, and how much liquidity is sitting in the book around a known level.

All of those people behave differently, and all of them interact at the same price.

That’s why charts work, they’re just a record of human behavior.

And that’s why I keep coming back to these channel bands. They give me a way to anchor human emotion to repeatable areas of interest.

How this fits the bigger cycle story

I don’t view $71,500 as a permanent ceiling. I view it as the next checkpoint inside a broader cycle that has already gone through the euphoric top phase and into the damage control phase.

That was the heart of my argument in my bear market call, and it’s why I was comfortable putting a controversial number like $49,000 on paper in my thesis.

The crash to $60,000 does not invalidate that bigger idea. It confirms something more important, the market is capable of fast, violent repricings again.

In January, I wrote about the kinds of red flags that show up when the system is stressed, from the way flows shift to the way miners and market plumbing behave.

Related Reading

I predicted Bitcoin falling to $49k this year and January delivered some very concerning red flags

Bitcoin heading to $49k? The “dip” looks worse when the plumbing is already breaking - Akiba's 2026 bear thesis update

Jan 30, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Those things don’t resolve overnight.

What does happen, though, is that markets breathe, they sell off, they bounce, they lure people back in, and then they reveal whether the bounce had real strength behind it.

That is the moment we are approaching now.

The $71,500 zone is where the bounce gets tested in public.

Levels to watch, simple version

If you want the cleanest way to follow this without getting lost in indicators, here’s how I’d simplify it.

• $71,500, the line the market keeps rejecting, a reclaim that holds changes the tone.
• $73,700, the next resistance band above, the first place I expect sellers to test a breakout.
• $77,000 to $79,000, the higher bands, where a stronger continuation would likely run into heavier friction.
• $70,000, the nearest shelf below, if the market loses this after another rejection it signals weakness.
• $66,900, the deeper mid band, a level that often becomes relevant when momentum fades.
• Low $61,000s, the post-crash memory zone, where the market showed its hand during the capitulation move.

That’s the map.

The rest is watching how Bitcoin behaves when it touches the line, and resisting the urge to invent certainty.

What I’m watching when we get there

When price hits $71,500 again, I’m watching for three simple things.

1. First, speed. Does Bitcoin slice through quickly, or does it grind and hesitate?
2. Second, follow through. A breakout that can’t hold often leads to sharper moves, because it creates trapped positions.
3. Third, reaction. The market tells you what it thinks about a level by how aggressively it defends or reclaims it.

If Bitcoin clears $71,500 and holds, the story shifts toward recovery and continuation. If it rejects again, the story shifts back toward a market that is still working through damage.

And either way, that matters more than a thousand hot takes.

Because in a cycle like this, the most valuable thing you can have is a plan, and the most expensive thing you can have is confidence with no map.

Closing thought

Bitcoin does not announce what it’s about to do. It leaves clues, and those clues tend to gather around the same zones, again and again.

Right now, $71,500 is the clearest clue on the board.

It has already been tested three times since the $60,000 crash. Price is approaching again. Traders will treat it like a battlefield. Long term holders will treat it like a barometer.

And the market will treat it like what it is, a level that decides whether this bounce becomes something bigger, or whether Bitcoin still has more winter left to show us.

Disclosure, this is market commentary, not financial advice. Risk management matters more than narratives.

[UPDATE: Bitcoin failed its fourth retest of $71,500 on Sunday afternoon, just after this article went live.]

The post Bitcoin must retake $71,500 very soon or the mid-range drift back toward $61,000 begins appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Bitcoin’s slide through $65,000 and toward $60,000 felt like a stress test the market had been postponing. The move was sharp enough to force a reset in positioning, and broad enough to pull the conversation away from single-catalyst explanations.

Even mainstream media described the week as Bitcoin’s worst weekly performance since late 2022, with price briefly testing the $60,000 area before rebounding back above $65,000.

The most important question we can ask here isn’t whether this was capitulation, but which of the signals that usually accompany seller exhaustion showed up in this selloff, and which confirmations are still missing if you’re looking for an explanation that's better than just a rebound driven by positioning.

Capitulation is a tempting label because it implies finality, but markets rarely oblige. They offer a scoreboard instead: leverage that gets forced out, risk measures that jump, flows that either stabilize or accelerate, and on-chain behavior that shows whether recent buyers are selling at a loss in size.

Cross-asset risk-off set the stage for a high-beta crypto selloff

Start with the cross-asset backdrop, because it helps explain why crypto traded like a high-beta risk position rather than a closed ecosystem.

In the days leading into Feb. 5, equities were already leaning risk-off. Nasdaq 100 saw a decline of about 4.6% over three sessions, while the S&P 500 dropped about 2.6% over that same window.

At the same time, the VIX saw a jump of roughly 33%. These are the kinds of shifts that tighten liquidity across markets and make leverage expensive right when speculative positions are most exposed.

That context matters because it points toward a familiar mechanism. When risk appetite is falling broadly, a selloff in the crypto market tends to be less reactive to a single crypto headline and more to positioning built during calmer conditions.

We can easily trace Bitcoin's decline to the unwinding of leveraged and speculative positions and to weakness in other risk assets. That’s the first ingredient in any true washout: the trade has to be crowded enough, and liquidity has to be thin enough, so that some sellers become forced sellers.

Deleveraging signals: liquidations, open interest, and funding cooldowns

You can see the second ingredient in liquidation data, which acts like a thermometer for forced activity. Earlier in the week, the market saw over $3.3 billion in liquidations after a selloff in other risk assets.

Even if you treat any single liquidation figure with caution, the pattern matters. A washout that clears leverage tends to leave footprints.

Open interest compresses, funding rates cool, and liquidations cluster around the same window that price makes an air-pocket move. Those conditions can create a tradable low, even if they don’t guarantee a durable one.

ETF flows as the key bridge between TradFi sentiment and crypto demand

The third ingredient is the behavior of ETF money, which has become one of the clearest bridges between crypto and traditional risk sentiment.

Bitcoin ETFs saw more than $3 billion in withdrawals in January, a figure that helps explain why weakness persisted rather than snapping back on dips.

From Jan. 20 through Feb. 5, ETFs saw $3.5 billion in net outflows, even after counting the $561.8 million inflow on Feb. 2.

That pattern isn’t a verdict by itself, but it clarifies the market’s problem. In a selloff, you want reliable dip buyers. When the dominant flow channel is net negative, rebounds tend to be thinner and more conditional.

ETF flows also help separate two different kinds of capitulation that often get blurred together.

The first is flow capitulation, where redemptions accelerate as investors hit pain thresholds or reduce exposure for risk management.

The second is holder capitulation, where underlying selling becomes large enough to overwhelm other sources of demand and show up in realized loss measures.

In practice, you can have one without the other. Outflows can be steady without being panicked, while leveraged traders are the ones getting forced out.

Or you can see a genuine investor exodus where flows stay negative even after leverage has already been cleared.

On-chain stress checks: short-term holder SOPR and supply in profit

This is where on-chain metrics help, as long as they’re used with restraint.

One of the most interpretable stress gauges for short-term behavior is the short-term holder SOPR, which measures whether coins moved by recent holders are being sold at a profit or at a loss.

CryptoQuant data showed short-term holder SOPR fell to about 0.93 on Feb. 5. A reading below 1.0 implies recent buyers are realizing losses, and a dip into the low 0.9s often shows periods when weaker hands are getting shaken out.

SOPR's 30-day moving average sat near 0.985, meaning the spot reading was below its short-term trend. That doesn’t prove a bottom is in, but it does show that by Feb. 5, the selloff had moved beyond mild profit-taking and into a regime where many recent entrants were exiting at a loss.

A second on-chain angle that helps translate price into behavior is the share of supply in profit. Supply in profit was about 55.26% on Feb. 4 and dropped to roughly 52.11% on Feb. 5.

A three-point move in a day is meaningful because it tells you the drawdown was severe enough to push a fresh slice of the market from green to red.

Broadly, washout phases are characterized by the transition happening quickly. A large cohort that had been comfortable becomes underwater, and the question becomes whether they can hold through volatility or whether they’re forced out by time, leverage, or risk limits.

What confirmation is still missing for a durable washout

Taken together, those ingredients describe what the Feb. 5 to Feb. 6 move clearly did.

It tightened the link between crypto and the broader risk-off move in equities. It triggered forced selling consistent with deleveraging.

It occurred against a backdrop of net-negative ETF flows that had already been draining marginal demand.

It pushed short-term holders deeper into realized-loss territory and knocked the share of profitable supply down toward the low 50s.

If you were looking for signs that the market experienced real pain, they’re there.

What’s less clear, and what makes this a useful thought experiment rather than a neat story with a bow on it, is whether the market has shown the kind of confirmation that usually follows a durable washout.

Seller exhaustion is a process, not a moment. In cleaner capitulation events, you often see a sharp liquidation spike followed by a rapid drop in liquidation volumes even if price remains volatile.

You see open interest stabilize after a steep contraction. You see funding rates stay subdued while price stops making fresh lows, suggesting that sellers have already done their work.

On the flow side, you want to see ETF outflows slow, or at least stop accelerating, because persistent redemptions can turn each rebound into a supply event.

That’s why the move back above $70,000 on Feb. 6 is best treated as information, not a conclusion.

In environments where implied volatility has jumped, and equities have absorbed a multi-day hit, rebounds can arrive fast as positioning gets cleaned up, but they can fade just as fast if underlying demand hasn’t returned.

A framework for the next phase: flows, forced selling, and risk conditions

The practical takeaway isn’t a price target. It’s a framework for reading the next phase without forcing a narrative onto every move.

If ETF flows remain meaningfully negative, it means the market is still fighting a headwind that didn’t exist in earlier cycles.

If liquidation intensity drops and stays lower while price holds a range, that’s a sign the forced-selling phase is ending.

If short-term holder SOPR begins to climb back toward 1.0 while supply in profit stabilizes, that suggests recent buyers are no longer exiting in a rush.

If equities regain their footing and volatility retreats, crypto gets breathing room even without a crypto-specific catalyst.

Cross-asset data already shows how tightly these regimes can line up. By Feb. 5, the VIX was up about a third in three sessions, and the Nasdaq 100 had slid more than 4.5% from Feb. 2.

Capitulation stories are tempting because they promise a clean ending, but the market rarely offers one.

What it does offer is a set of observable stress signals, and this week delivered several at once: a sharp risk-off move, a leverage flush, persistent ETF outflow pressure, and on-chain evidence that recent buyers were selling at a loss.

Whether this becomes a turning point depends on what happens after the violence, when forced selling should subside, and the market has to show it can attract marginal demand again.

That’s the question worth tracking, because it’s the one that separates a rebound from the start of a base.

The post Bitcoin short term holders are panic selling at a loss but was this capitulation or just a leverage reset? appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The banking regulator will revise transparency policies to settle Coinbase's "Operation Choke Point 2.0" lawsuit.

Authorities in France launched the manhunt after a magistrate and her mother were abducted overnight and found injured.

Analysts maintain a cautious stance even after Bitcoin’s 12% relief rally clawed back recent losses amid a surging Coinbase Premium.

New research says today’s quantum computers are far too weak to threaten Bitcoin’s cryptography, leaving the network years to prepare.

Crypto-native brand Pudgy Penguins is hosting a pop-up Valentine's Day event in New York City, complete with a plush bouquet.

Bitcoin mining difficulty has plummeted to 125.86 T following a major "miner capitulation.".

XRP showing mixed signals on the market as volume drops 63%.

The market might be ready for a proper recovery, even though the relative strength it is showing right now is somewhat premature.

The Financial Times has argued that the supply of "greater fools" is finally drying up.

Can the bounce back of Bitcoin (BTC) continue to the $80,000 zone?

TLDR:

• ECB targets mid-2029 for digital euro issuance pending legislative approval with pilot launch in 2027. 
• Nearly 70% of European card transactions rely on non-European processors raising sovereignty concerns. 
• Digital euro will use encrypted codes ensuring ECB cannot identify individual payers or transaction recipients. 
• Waterfall mechanism and holding limits designed to prevent bank deposit outflows and maintain stability.
  

The European Central Bank continues development of the digital euro despite other central banks pausing similar projects.

Piero Cipollone, ECB Executive Board member, explained the currency’s purpose and timeline in a recent interview.

The digital euro aims to provide a pan-European payment solution while reducing reliance on non-European payment processors. Cipollone emphasized that legislation must be completed before any issuance occurs.

Timeline and Legislative Progress Move Forward

The digital euro project has reached critical legislative stages. Cipollone clarified the current status: “We have not yet issued a digital euro and we will not do so until we have the legislation in place.”

The European Commission issued its original proposal in June 2023. The Council of the European Union reached agreement in December 2025.

The European Parliament is expected to vote on its position in May 2026. Negotiations between institutions should conclude by year-end.

The ECB targets mid-2029 for potential issuance if legislation passes. “We are already working to be prepared to be able to issue the digital euro, if the legislation is in place, by mid-2029,” Cipollone stated.

A pilot program will begin in 2027 to test payment functionality. The infrastructure development timeline matches the legislative process duration.

The ECB is preparing internal systems simultaneously. This parallel approach ensures readiness when legal frameworks are established.

The legislative process involves multiple stakeholders. The European Parliament is currently reviewing amendments. The Council and Commission have aligned their positions. All parties must reach consensus before implementation proceeds.

Addressing Banking Concerns and Privacy Protections

Financial institutions have raised liquidity concerns about potential deposit outflows. The ECB designed safeguards to maintain banking stability. Cipollone explained: “The stability of banks is a major concern for the ECB, as our monetary policy transmits via banks.” The digital euro will not pay interest, removing incentives for large-scale transfers.

A waterfall mechanism will automatically draw funds from bank accounts during transactions. Users won’t need to prefund their digital euro wallets for online payments.

Offline payments require pre-loaded funds in the wallet. Holding limits will further restrict the maximum balance per user.

The specific holding limit remains under discussion. The ECB, European Commission, and Council will determine this jointly.

The process ensures no sudden changes can occur. “Even for relatively high holding limits, we don’t see any financial instability,” Cipollone noted.

Privacy protections form a core design principle. “We have built the whole project around privacy,” Cipollone stated. The ECB will only see encrypted codes, not personal identities.

“All the ECB will see is encrypted codes that represent the payer and the payee, but we will not be able to identify the individuals behind these codes,” he explained.

European payment systems currently rely heavily on non-European processors. “Almost 70% of card-initiated transactions are processed by non-European companies,” Cipollone revealed.

The digital euro addresses this dependency. Merchants, especially small businesses, face high costs from international card schemes. The ECB will not charge scheme fees, reducing transaction costs substantially.

The post ECB Sets 2029 Target for Digital Euro Launch as Legislative Process Advances appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Copy-trading high-probability outcome traders and supposed insiders led to consistent losses 
• Two specialized traders focusing on MicroStrategy and geopolitics generated bulk of profits 
• Manual copy-trading proved unsustainable requiring automation for 24/7 market monitoring 
• Traders with fewer than 100 bets and 80-90% win rates in single niches proved most profitable

Copy-trading on Polymarket generated approximately $650,000 in profits for one crypto trader over seven months.

The trader, posting under the handle @crptAtlas, shared detailed insights into a strategy that focused on following specialized market participants rather than bots or supposed insiders.

The approach centered on identifying traders with deep knowledge in specific niches like corporate actions and geopolitical events. This method contrasts sharply with common copy-trading tactics that often result in losses.

Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Prediction Market Copy-Trading

Atlas detailed three critical mistakes that initially led to losses before the profitable strategy emerged. The first involved copying traders who purchased extremely high-probability outcomes at 99.5 cents.

These positions offered minimal edge and suffered from execution timing issues and slippage problems. Manual copying could not match the speed required for such narrow-margin trades.

The second mistake centered on chasing accounts claiming insider knowledge. Most insider screenshots circulating on crypto Twitter proved to be fabricated or exaggerated.

Atlas noted that real insiders “start from empty wallets” and “stay invisible” without attracting public attention. Every attempt to follow these supposed insider accounts resulted in zero advantage.

The third error was attempting to replicate high-frequency traders and scalpers. These accounts executed dozens of trades per minute across multiple markets.

Atlas explained that “by the time your trade executes, price already moved” and spreads disappeared. The structural design of these strategies made them impossible to copy effectively.

After these failures, Atlas asked a pivotal question: “If bots, insiders, and scalpers don’t work – who does?” The answer proved straightforward: “Normal traders with asymmetric knowledge in one narrow niche.”

The new filtering criteria included fewer than 100 total bets and win rates between 80-90 percent. Medium position sizes of $40,000-$50,000 per bet proved more reliable than million-dollar wagers.

Targeting Specialized Knowledge Over Market Noise

Two specific traders drove the bulk of the reported profits. The first specialized in MicroStrategy-related predictions with eight trades and a 100 percent win rate.

Each position tied to company announcements or Bitcoin purchases. Atlas attributed success to “deep understanding of MSTR behavior” and “pattern recognition around timing and disclosures.” This trader alone generated approximately $140,000 in profits.

The second trader focused exclusively on global politics and international relations. With 43 predictions and 42 wins, this account demonstrated consistent accuracy in geopolitical outcomes.

Atlas noted that one single trade produced roughly $211,000 in profit. The trader referenced a Foresight News interview where similar strategies were publicly discussed.

Atlas initially copied trades manually but found the approach unsustainable for 24/7 market monitoring. A Telegram-based automation tool handled execution while human judgment guided wallet selection and position sizing. Starting with small positions allowed pattern validation before scaling to $10,000-$30,000 per trade.

The trader emphasized that prediction markets represent structural inefficiencies not yet fully professionalized. Atlas stated that “prediction markets are not just crypto gambling” but rather unexploited opportunities. The trader believes Polymarket will expand in 2026 regardless of broader crypto market conditions.

Probabilistic betting on real-world outcomes offers opportunities distinct from traditional cryptocurrency trading dynamics.

The post Crypto Trader Reports $650,000 Profit Through Polymarket Copy-Trading Strategy appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• MegaETH launched with Chainlink integration, enabling immediate access to $14B in DeFi assets and protocols. 
• Chainlink’s oracle infrastructure powers 70% of DeFi markets with over $27 trillion in transaction value. 
• CCIP enables cross-chain liquidity for Lombard and Lido assets across MegaETH and other blockchain networks. 
• Aave and GMX protocols are now available on MegaETH through Chainlink’s data and interoperability standards.
  

MegaETH has joined the Chainlink Scale program and integrated Chainlink’s data and interoperability infrastructure at launch.

The collaboration provides immediate access to leading DeFi protocols, including Aave and GMX. Users can now interact with nearly $14 billion in flagship assets such as Lido’s wstETH and Lombard’s BTC.b and LBTC.

The integration went live on Monday, marking a strategic partnership between the real-time blockchain platform and the oracle network.

Chainlink Infrastructure Powers MegaETH’s DeFi Ecosystem

The integration brings Chainlink Data Feeds, Data Streams, and Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) to MegaETH. These services enable developers to build high-performance decentralized applications on the platform.

The oracle infrastructure has facilitated over $27 trillion in onchain transaction value across the industry. Currently, Chainlink powers approximately 70% of existing DeFi markets globally.

MegaETH users gain access to multiple DeFi protocols through this partnership. Aave and GMX are among the prominent platforms now available on the network.

Additionally, HelloTrade and Avon have joined the ecosystem at launch. The integration creates opportunities for lending protocols, derivatives markets, and decentralized exchanges to operate efficiently.

The platform features a custom integration designed to deliver fast market data. This setup supports MegaETH’s objective of becoming the first real-time blockchain.

Developers can now build applications requiring accurate price feeds and reliable data sources. The infrastructure ensures consistency across various financial products and services.

CCIP enables secure cross-chain asset transfers for MegaETH users. Asset issuers like Lombard and Lido can provide liquidity across multiple blockchain networks.

The protocol offers compliance-enabled interoperability for developers building composable applications. This functionality extends MegaETH’s reach beyond its native ecosystem into broader multi-chain environments.

Scale Program Benefits and Industry Adoption

The Chainlink Scale program provides MegaETH developers with low-cost oracle services. Institutions building on the platform receive access to secure data infrastructure from day one.

Oracle nodes supply trusted information to support both traditional and decentralized finance applications. The program reduces barriers for teams developing on MegaETH.

Johann Eid, Chief Business Officer at Chainlink Labs, commented on the partnership’s scope. “MegaETH joining Chainlink Scale and adopting the Chainlink data and interoperability standards is a major moment for our ecosystem,” Eid stated.

He added that the infrastructure has enabled tens of trillions in onchain transaction value. The integration brings users access to protocols like Aave and GMX alongside key DeFi assets.

Stani Kulechov, Founder of Aave Labs, addressed the upcoming Aave launch on MegaETH. “The upcoming Aave launch on MegaETH with Chainlink live from day one will give users access to the high-quality data,” Kulechov explained.

He noted that Chainlink’s standards have been foundational to Aave’s multi-ecosystem growth. The integration enables seamless extension onto MegaETH’s next-generation blockchain platform.

Lei Yang, Co-Founder and CTO of MegaETH, outlined the strategic rationale behind joining Chainlink Scale. “Joining Chainlink Scale ensures that our developers have access to high-quality data and secure interoperability,” Yang said.

He emphasized the importance of providing developers with necessary tools from day one. The partnership supports MegaETH’s goal of becoming the leading blockchain platform in the industry.

The post MegaETH Joins Chainlink Scale Program With $14B in DeFi Assets at Launch appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Breaking Bitcoin encryption requires quantum computers 100,000 times more powerful than today’s technology
• Only 10,200 BTC in legacy addresses could cause market disruption if suddenly compromised by quantum attack
• Cryptographically relevant quantum computers unlikely to emerge before 2030s, according to CoinShares analysis
• Bitcoin can adopt post-quantum signatures through soft forks while maintaining defensive adaptability
  

Quantum computing poses no immediate threat to Bitcoin’s security infrastructure, according to digital asset manager CoinShares.

The firm’s latest analysis dismisses concerns about near-term vulnerabilities in the cryptocurrency’s cryptographic foundation.

Current quantum technology remains decades away from breaking Bitcoin’s encryption protocols. CoinShares estimates only 1.7 million BTC faces potential exposure, representing 8% of total supply.

The research suggests institutional investors should view quantum risks as manageable engineering considerations rather than existential crises.

Technology Requires Decades Before Becoming Cryptographically Relevant

CoinShares’ analysis reveals breaking Bitcoin’s secp256k1 encryption demands quantum systems with millions of logical qubits.

Current quantum computers operate at approximately 105 qubits, falling dramatically short of required thresholds.

Source: CoinShares

Researchers estimate attackers would need machines 100,000 times more powerful than today’s largest quantum systems.

Reversing a public key within one day requires 13 million physical qubits and fault tolerance levels not yet achieved.

Breaking encryption within one hour would demand quantum computers 3 million times more advanced than current capabilities.

Each additional qubit makes maintaining system coherence exponentially more difficult, according to technical experts.

Cybersecurity firm Ledger’s Chief Technology Officer Charles Guillemet provided expert perspective on the technical challenges facing quantum development.

Speaking to CoinShares, Guillemet emphasized the massive scale required for cryptographic attacks. “To break current asymmetric cryptography, one would need something in the order of millions of qubits. Willow, Google’s current computer, is 105 qubits. And as soon as you add one more qubit, it becomes exponentially more difficult to maintain the coherence system,” Guillemet confirmed.

CoinShares projects cryptographically relevant quantum computers may not emerge until the 2030s or beyond. Long-term attacks on vulnerable addresses could take years to complete even after technology matures.

Short-term mempool attacks would require computations finishing in under 10 minutes, remaining infeasible for decades ahead.

Limited Vulnerability Concentrates in Legacy Address Formats

The digital asset manager’s research identifies exposure primarily in legacy Pay-to-Public-Key addresses holding roughly 1.6 million BTC.

Modern address formats including Pay-to-Public-Key-Hash and Pay-to-Script-Hash conceal public keys behind cryptographic hashes. These contemporary formats maintain security until owners actively spend their funds.

CoinShares determined only 10,200 BTC sit in outputs potentially causing market disruption if compromised suddenly.

Source: CoinShares

The remaining vulnerable coins distribute across 32,607 individual outputs of approximately 50 BTC each. Breaking into these addresses would require millennia even under optimistic quantum advancement scenarios.

Bitcoin’s security framework relies on elliptic curve algorithms for authorization and SHA-256 hashing for protection.

Quantum algorithms cannot alter Bitcoin’s fixed 21 million supply cap or bypass proof-of-work validation requirements.

Grover’s algorithm reduces SHA-256 security effectively but brute-force attacks remain computationally impractical.

Renowned cryptographer Dr. Adam Back addressed Bitcoin’s capacity for defensive evolution in response to future quantum threats.

The Blockstream CEO and Bitcoin contributor explained the network’s adaptability to CoinShares. “Bitcoin can adopt post-quantum signatures. Schnorr signatures paved the way for more upgrades, and Bitcoin can continue evolving defensively,” Back told CoinShares.

Users retain sufficient time to migrate funds voluntarily to quantum-resistant addresses. Market impact appears minimal, with vulnerable coins likely resembling routine transactions rather than systemic shocks.

The post Quantum Computers Need Millions More Qubits to Break Bitcoin, CoinShares Reports appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Staking entry queue reaches 4.05M ETH, exit queue only 38K ETH, showing overwhelming demand. 
• ETH price remains under $2,000 despite record network activity and staking growth. 
• Large holders and ETFs increase selling pressure, adding short-term market volatility. 
• Selective accumulation occurs during dips, supporting medium-term stabilization in ETH supply.

Ethereum staking demand is reaching unprecedented levels, with over 4 million ETH waiting to enter while exit orders remain minimal.

This surge reflects strong long-term conviction, structural scarcity, and growing network participation despite recent price declines below $2,000.

Staking and Network Activity

Ethereum’s staking queue shows a clear imbalance between entries and exits. The entry queue holds 4.05 million ETH, while exit requests total only 38,000 ETH. 

This demonstrates overwhelming demand. Validators choose long-term yield and network alignment over liquidity. 

The 70-day wait to stake confirms that protocol limits cannot match current demand. Meanwhile, exit orders clear in hours, showing no panic.

This situation reduces circulating ETH and limits immediate sell pressure. When combined with Ethereum’s burn mechanism, structural scarcity increases. 

Therefore, staked ETH effectively leaves the liquid supply, supporting potential upward movement.

Ethereum network usage remains strong. Transfer counts reached 1.1 million on a 14-day average, demonstrating active token movement. 

However, network activity alone cannot reverse recent price declines or short-term selling.

Retail participation is declining. Futures open interest dropped from $26.3 billion to $25.4 billion in one day. 

As a result, network activity contrasts with weak capital flows, causing temporary price compression despite higher usage.

Large Holders, ETFs, and Price Dynamics

Large holders have added to short-term selling pressure. Trend Research sold 170,033 ETH, while Vitalik Buterin and Stani Kulechov sold smaller amounts. 

Consequently, supply increased amid weaker market demand. BitMine Immersion Technologies holds 4.28 million ETH, of which 2.9 million is staked. 

This generates an estimated $188 million annualized revenue. Therefore, staking reduces liquid supply while maintaining long-term treasury support.

Spot ETH ETFs experienced outflows totaling $80.79 million on February 5, with Fidelity’s FETH accounting for $55.78 million. Consequently, passive selling continues steadily, adding supply pressure without quick reversals.

Derivatives data show liquidation risk between $1,509 and $1,800. Leveraged positions could trigger forced selling if prices drop further. 

Meanwhile, selective accumulation occurs as long-term investors buy during dips. ETH may test $1,500–$1,800 if selling persists. 

Simultaneously, staking reduces liquid supply, and high network activity provides gradual stabilization. Thus, structural scarcity continues even while short-term volatility remains.

The post Ethereum Staking Demand Hits Record Levels as Exit Queue Remains Minimal appeared first on Blockonomi.

Crypto and blockchain venture capital witnessed a sharp rebound in Q4 2025, driven predominantly by large late-stage deals. Galaxy Digital’s report, authored by Alex Thorn, Head of Firmwide Research, found that venture capitalists deployed $8.5 billion across 425 deals in the quarter – an 84% increase in capital invested and a 2.6% rise in deal count compared to Q3 2025.

This represents the strongest quarterly investment in the sector since Q2 2022, although deal counts remain well below 2021-2022 levels.

Crypto VC Surge in Q4

Thorn reported that later-stage companies captured 56% of total capital invested, while earlier-stage startups accounted for the remaining 44%, a proportion unchanged from the previous quarter.

Eleven deals in Q4 raised over $100 million each, which collectively represented $7.3 billion, or roughly 85% of the quarterly total. The largest raises included Revolut at $3 billion, Touareg Group at $1 billion, and Kraken at $800 million.

Other prominent transactions included Ripple and Tempo at $500 million each, Erebor at $350 million, MegaHoot at $300 million, Rain at $250 million, EXUGlobal and TradeAlgo at $120 million each, and RedotPay at $107 million. Across 2025, venture capitalists invested a total of $20 billion into crypto and blockchain startups through 1,660 deals, making it the largest annual investment since 2022 and more than double 2023’s total.

The Trading/Exchange/Investing/Lending category remained the largest recipient of venture capital as it drew over $5 billion, led by Revolut and Kraken, while sectors including stablecoins, AI, and blockchain infrastructure also attracted notable investment.

Pre-seed deal counts remained healthy at 23% of total deals, which means continued entrepreneurial activity, while later-stage deal share has steadily increased as the sector matured. During this quarter, median pre-money valuations climbed to $70 million, and the median deal size reached $4 million. Valuation data existed for just 10% of deals, biased toward bigger, later-stage companies.

Global Crypto VC

Geographically, 55% of capital went to US-headquartered companies, followed by the United Kingdom at 33%, Singapore at 2%, and Hong Kong at 1.7%. A similar pattern was seen across deal counts as well, with 43% completed by US companies, 6% in the UK, and 4% in Hong Kong.

Fundraising for crypto-focused venture funds reached $1.98 billion across 11 funds in Q4, which contributed to $8.75 billion raised for the full year, the largest since 2022. Average fund size rose to $167 million, with a median of $46 million.

The post Crypto VC Explodes in Q4 2025: $8.5B Floods Later-Stage Startups appeared first on CryptoPotato.

A South Korean court has sentenced Jong-hwan Lee, CEO of a local crypto asset management firm, to three years in prison for manipulating cryptocurrency prices to secure illicit profits.

The Seoul Southern District Court ruled on Wednesday that Lee violated the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, earning approximately 7.1 billion Korean won (which is worth around $4.88 million) through price manipulation.

Court Findings

In addition to the prison term, the court imposed a fine of 500 million won, nearly $344,000, and ordered the forfeiture of around 846 million won, or $581,900 in criminal proceeds. However, Lee was not taken into custody during the court proceedings, as the judges cited his good behavior throughout the trial.

The court found that between July 22 and October 25, 2024, Lee employed an automated trading program to inflate trading volumes and repeatedly place wash trades in the ACE cryptocurrency. Investigators reported that the daily trading volume of ACE jumped from roughly 160,000 units to 2.45 million units overnight, and Lee was responsible for 89% of the activity.

Min-cheol Kang, a former employee of the firm also indicted in the case, received a two-year prison sentence with three years of probation. While the court confirmed the defendants’ involvement in manipulating ACE for unfair profits, it partially acquitted them regarding the exact 7.1 billion won figure due to insufficient evidence.

Interestingly, this case is the first enforcement under South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act, which came into effect in July 2024.

South Korea Crypto Mishap

As courts move to punish crypto market abuse, other branches of the legal system are grappling with the risks tied to handling digital assets. In January, South Korean prosecutors were investigating the disappearance of a large amount of Bitcoin that had been seized and stored as part of a criminal case.

The issue was discovered during a routine internal inspection at the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office, where officials check access details for confiscated assets, including credentials stored on removable devices like USB drives. While authorities have not confirmed the exact amount lost, local media estimates the missing Bitcoin could be worth around 70 billion won, or roughly $47.7 million.

According to officials cited in local reports, the loss may have occurred after an agency worker accessed a fraudulent website, which raised suspicion of a phishing attack rather than a direct breach of government systems. It is believed that wallet passwords or access credentials may have been exposed, allowing attackers to drain the seized funds.

The post South Korea Jails Crypto CEO in First-Ever Case Under New Virtual Asset Law appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Stani Kulechov, founder of decentralized finance protocol Aave, has purchased a five-story Victorian mansion in London for around £22 million (worth approximately $30 million).

This is one of the city’s priciest residential deals over the past year, according to Bloomberg.

Kulechov’s London Buy

The property is located in the upscale Notting Hill area, which was acquired in November at roughly £2 million below its initial asking price, shortly before the UK’s autumn budget. The transaction stood out against a cooling luxury housing market, which has been weighed down by higher stamp duties and policy changes introduced under the Labour government, including the rollback of tax advantages for wealthy foreign residents.

Data from property research firm LonRes revealed that sales of homes priced above £5 million slowed significantly toward the end of last year. It remains unclear whether any digital assets were used in the purchase.

Kulechov founded Aave in 2017 under its original name, ETHLend, which was later rebranded as Aave. In 2023, the company behind Aave briefly adopted the Avara umbrella brand to manage multiple Web3 initiatives. Aave has grown into one of the largest DeFi lending platforms. Beyond lending, Kulechov has been involved in several crypto initiatives, including the GHO stablecoin and consumer-facing blockchain products. He had also publicly expressed support for the UK as a potential hub for crypto innovation.

Brand Overhaul

The purchase comes as Aave Labs is narrowing its focus to its core lending business. Earlier this month, the company said it would shut down the Avara umbrella brand, which previously grouped several Web3 projects, including the Family crypto wallet and the Lens decentralized social platform.

Under the change, all products will operate solely under the Aave Labs name, including the Aave mobile app, Aave Pro, and Aave Kit. The company said that the main objective behind the move is to simplify its brand and concentrate resources on growing the Aave protocol and expanding its user base.

The decision also follows ongoing questions around control within the DeFi ecosystem. The Aave DAO, governed by AAVE token holders, manages the protocol’s smart contracts and on-chain revenue, while Aave Labs controls the official website, branding, and other off-chain assets.

Tensions emerged last year after the company made changes to the official interface that redirected certain fees away from the DAO treasury. A community proposal to take control of Aave Labs’ intellectual property later failed, though discussions around revenue sharing and branding continue.

The post Aave Founder Drops £22M on London Mansion as UK Luxury Market Cools appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Tether’s USDT stablecoin reached a market capitalization of $187.3 billion in Q4 2025, which marked the eighth consecutive quarter of adding more than 30 million users despite broader crypto market challenges.

Total estimated USDT users increased by 35.2 million during the quarter. This pushed the cumulative user base to 534.5 million, a figure that includes both on-chain wallet holders and users on centralized platforms.

USDT Smashes Records

On-chain holders increased by 14.7 million in Q4 to reach 139.1 million, which is the largest quarterly growth ever. Among these wallets, 30.8% were 100% savers who retained all USDT received. Another 6.7% were savers holding between two-thirds and the full amount. The remaining 62.6% were senders, keeping less than two-thirds of the USDT they received.

Monthly active on-chain users averaged 24.8 million and accounted for 68.4% of all stablecoin monthly active users, the highest level recorded to date.

Tether’s total reserves rose to $192.9 billion in Q4, including 96,184 BTC, an increase of 9,850 BTC, 127.5 metric tons of gold, up 21.9 metric tons, and $141.6 billion in US Treasuries, up $6.5 billion. The stablecoin issuer’s net equity stood at $6.3 billion. In 2025, the company added $28.2 billion of US Treasuries, ranking as the seventh-largest purchaser globally. It even surpassed countries including Taiwan and South Korea.

Following the October 10, 2025, crypto liquidation cascade, the total crypto market capitalization declined by more than one-third through February 1, 2026. Despite this, the report said that USDT continued to grow after increasing 3.5% compared with declines of 2.6% and 57% for the second- and third-largest stablecoins.

Centralized exchanges held the largest share of USDT at 36%. Savers held 33% and senders 26.5% at quarter-end. Savers increased holdings by $2.9 billion to $62.1 billion, while senders added $2.2 billion. Meanwhile, USDT held in decentralized exchanges and DeFi declined by $3 billion to $7.1 billion.

Tether Cuts Fundraising Target

Earlier this month, reports emerged that Tether scaled back its planned fundraising after investor pushback on a proposed $500 billion valuation. Advisers are now exploring a raise of around $5 billion, down from the $15-$20 billion initially discussed.

CEO Paolo Ardoino stated that the higher figure was never a firm target and that Tether does not urgently need outside capital. While some investors questioned the valuation, talks remain early, and no final decision has been made on the size or timing of any fundraising.

The post Tether Adds 35M Users While Crypto Loses One-Third of Market Value appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Although it was created over half a decade ago, the controversial Pi Network project and its native token officially launched just under a year ago. Since then, the Core Team has deployed numerous updates, it has dabbled with AI, tried to improve some of its sluggish systems, but the results have been… mixed, so far.

The latest post from the Core Team was meant to be more positive and to celebrate a valid portion of the vast Pi Network community. However, it attracted significant backlash immediately.

Celebrating Pi Network Moderators

Every First Friday of February (FFF day), Pi celebrates Moderator Appreciation Day! Today is about recognizing the moderators who make the Pi Network community what it is. Thanks to all Pi moderators for their incredible volunteer efforts in supporting the Pi community—assisting…

— Pi Network (@PiCoreTeam) February 6, 2026

The video itself tried to recognize moderators who “make Pi Network’s community what it is,” as they are volunteers and are not employed or paid by the Core Team. They help moderate charts, answer Pioneers’ questions, monitor Pi apps and products, report bugs, and test new features.

Additionally, they translate Pi into other languages, moderate Fireside Forums, and try to keep the conversations helpful, safe, and respectful.

“Behind answered questions, updates, and chatrooms, Moderators help ensure the Pi experience runs smoothly for everyone!”

The Backlash

It was a statement like that last one that caught the attention of some of the Pi Network Pioneers. While many users agreed that Moderators should be praised and respected, some raised valid questions about the lack of tangible progress on several fronts.

Joann&Joe urged the Core Team to “speed up the progress-it’s been dragged out over and over again,” after indicating that they should “stop messing around with all that superficial nonsense.”

Chialo20’s approach was similar, indicating that the team behind Pi Network has been holding him for “7years plus now not to migrate my Pi coins, just migration stage, and this is not fair.”

A. A. Gada tried to remind the Core Team that “many pioneers are still stuck in ‘tentative approval’ for their KYC status. We hope you can improve this situation.”

It’s worth noting that the team recently published an update claiming that they have unblocked millions for mainnet migration, and promised new changes are coming soon.

The post ‘7 Years Waiting’: Pi Network Users Criticize Core Team After Celebratory Post appeared first on CryptoPotato.