The IRGC's dominance over Iran's foreign policy could escalate regional tensions and impact US-Iran diplomatic negotiations.

The post Iran’s IRGC clashes with Foreign Minister Araghchi as tensions rise appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The celebration highlights Iran's military confidence amid geopolitical tensions, potentially influencing future regional stability dynamics.

The post Iran celebrates Army Day amid US, Israel conflicts appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Iran's aggressive actions may deter international shipping and escalate geopolitical tensions, impacting global trade and security dynamics.

The post Iran fires on Indian ships in Strait of Hormuz, forcing retreat appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

The reinforced blockade signals prolonged economic strain and geopolitical tension, complicating swift diplomatic resolutions and trade normalization.

The post US forces turn back 23 vessels to Iran, reinforcing Hormuz blockade appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Iran's actions could escalate geopolitical tensions, impacting global trade routes and prompting potential military or diplomatic responses.

The post Iran attacks commercial vessels, tightens grip on Strait of Hormuz appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin Magazine

When Quantum Computers Come for Your Bitcoin: What Classical Property Law Says Happens Next

Bitcoin’s quantum debate keeps slipping sideways because people keep arguing about two different things at once.

One question is technical: if quantum computing gets good enough to break Bitcoin’s signature scheme, the protocol can respond. New address types, migration rules, soft forks, deprecations, key rotation. That is a real engineering problem, but it is still an engineering problem.

The other question is legal: suppose someone uses a quantum computer to derive the private key for an old wallet and sweep the coins. What, exactly, just happened? Did he recover abandoned property, or did he steal someone else’s bitcoin?

In April 2026, BIP-361 proposed freezing more than 6.5 million BTC sitting in quantum-vulnerable UTXOs, including an estimated million-plus coins associated with Satoshi. No longer just an abstract discussion, it’s now a live fight over ownership, confiscation, and the meaning of property inside a system that ultimately recognizes only control.

I am not taking a position here on when a quantum computer capable of attacking Bitcoin will arrive. The narrower question is the one that matters first: if it does arrive, and someone starts moving long-dormant coins with quantum-derived keys, does the law treat that as legitimate recovery or theft?

Classical property law gives a fairly blunt answer. It is theft.

That answer will frustrate some Bitcoiners, because Bitcoin itself does not enforce title in the way courts do. It enforces control. If you can produce the valid spend, the network accepts the spend. But that only sharpens the point. The harder the network leans on control, the more important it becomes to state clearly what the law would say about the underlying act.

And on that front, the law is not especially mysterious.

Old coins are not ownerless just because they are old.

The actual quantum risk

It helps to begin with the narrower, more realistic version of the threat. Not all bitcoin is equally exposed. In the ordinary case, an address does not reveal the public key until the owner spends. That matters because a quantum attacker cannot simply look at any untouched address on the chain and pluck out the private key.

The real risk sits in a more limited category of outputs. Early pay-to-public-key outputs reveal the full public key on-chain. Some older script constructions do the same. Taproot outputs do as well: a P2TR output commits directly to a 32-byte output key, not a hash of one. Address reuse can also expose the public key once a user spends and leaves funds behind under the same key material. Those are the coins people really mean when they talk about exposed bitcoin.

The timeline for this scenario has compressed. On March 31, 2026, Google Quantum AI published research showing Bitcoin’s secp256k1 curve could be broken with fewer than 500,000 physical qubits, a twenty-fold reduction from prior estimates of roughly nine million. The same paper models the mempool attack vector directly: during a transaction, the public key is exposed for approximately ten minutes before block confirmation, giving a quantum adversary a window to derive the key before the spend confirms.

Current hardware remains far from these thresholds: Google’s Willow chip sits at 105 qubits and IBM’s Nighthawk at 120. But algorithmic optimization is outrunning hardware scaling. NIST’s own post-quantum migration roadmap calls for quantum-vulnerable algorithms to be deprecated across federal systems by 2030 and disallowed entirely by 2035. That federal timeline does not bind Bitcoin, but it supplies the benchmark against which institutional holders and regulators will measure Bitcoin’s preparedness.

A great many of those coins are old. Some are certainly lost. Some belong to dead owners. Some are tied up in paper wallets, forgotten backups, ancient storage habits, or estates that no one has sorted out. Some probably belong to people who are very much alive and simply have no interest in touching them.

That last point matters more than the “lost coin” crowd usually admits. From the outside, dormancy tells you very little. A wallet can sit untouched for twelve years because the owner is dead, because the owner lost the keys, because the owner is disciplined, because the owner is paranoid, because the coins are locked in a multi-party setup, or because the owner is Satoshi and would rather remain a rumor than a litigant. The blockchain does not tell you which explanation is true.

That uncertainty is precisely why property law has never treated silence as a magic solvent for ownership.

Dormancy is not abandonment

The casual “finders keepers” intuition that floats around these discussions has almost nothing to do with how property law actually works.

Ownership does not evaporate because property sits unused. Title continues until it is transferred, relinquished, extinguished by law, or displaced by some doctrine that actually applies. Time alone does not do that work. Inaction alone does not do that work. Value certainly does not do that work.

So if someone wants to argue that dormant bitcoin is fair game, the path usually runs through abandonment. The claim is simple enough: these coins have been sitting there forever, nobody has touched them, they are probably lost, therefore they must be abandoned.

The law is much stricter than that. Abandonment generally requires both intent to relinquish ownership and some act manifesting that intent. The owner must, in substance, mean to give it up and do something that shows he meant to give it up. Simply failing to move an asset for a long period is not enough, particularly where the asset is obviously valuable.

That is not some fussy technicality… it’s one of the core tenets of property law. If nonuse alone were enough to destroy title, the law would become a standing invitation to loot anything whose owner had been quiet for too long. That is not our rule for land, for houses, for stock certificates, for buried cash, or for heirlooms. It is not the rule for bitcoin either.

Take the easy edge case. If someone deliberately sends coins to a burn address with no usable private key, that begins to look like abandonment because there is both a clear act and a clear signal. But that example proves the opposite of what quantum raiders want it to prove. It shows what relinquishment looks like when a person actually intends it. Most dormant wallets do not look anything like that.

The better reading is the ordinary one: old coins are old coins. Some are lost. Some are inaccessible. Some are forgotten. Some are sleeping. None of that converts them into ownerless property.

And recent legislation has begun to formalize the same instinct. The UK’s Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on December 2, 2025, creates a third category of personal property explicitly covering crypto-tokens. In the United States, UCC Article 12 has now been adopted by more than thirty states and the District of Columbia, recognizing “controllable electronic records” as a distinct legal category. Neither regime treats dormancy as relinquishment. By formally classifying digital assets as property, both raise the bar for anyone arguing that old coins are ownerless by default.

Death does not erase ownership

The next move is usually to shift from abandonment to mortality. Fine, perhaps the coins were not abandoned, but surely many of these early holders are dead. Doesn’t that change the analysis? 

Not in the way the raider would like.

Some early wallets invite a kind of Schrödinger’s-heir problem: the owner is confidently declared dead when the raider wants ownerless property, then treated as notionally available whenever the burdens of succession come into view. Property law does not indulge the superposition.

When a person dies, title does not disappear. It passes. Property goes to heirs, devisees, or, in the absence of both, to the state through escheat. The law does not shrug and announce an open season. It preserves continuity of ownership even when possession becomes messy, inconvenient, or impossible to exercise.

The analogy to physical property is almost insultingly straightforward. If a man dies owning a ranch, the first trespasser who cuts the lock does not become the new owner by initiative and optimism. The estate handles succession. If there are no heirs, the sovereign has a claim. Valuable property does not become unowned merely because the original owner is gone.

Bitcoin is no different on that point. Lost keys do not transfer title. Inaccessibility is not a conveyance. A stranger who derives the private key later with better tooling has not uncovered ownerless treasure. He has acquired the practical ability to move property that still belongs to someone else, or to someone else’s estate.

That conclusion matters most for the largest block of old, vulnerable coins: Satoshi’s. Whether Satoshi is alive, dead, or permanently off-grid does not change the legal classification. Those coins belong either to Satoshi or to Satoshi’s estate. They do not become a bounty for the first actor who arrives with a quantum crowbar.

Unclaimed property law does not rescue the theory

Some people assume dormant bitcoin can be swept up under unclaimed property law. That confusion is understandable, but it misses how those statutes actually operate.

Unclaimed property law generally runs through a holder. A bank, broker, exchange, or other custodian owes property to the owner. If the owner disappears long enough, the state steps in and requires the holder to report and remit the asset, subject to the owner’s right to reclaim it later. The doctrine is built around intermediaries.

That framework works well enough for exchange balances. It works for custodial wallets. It works for assets sitting with a business that can be ordered to turn them over.

It does not work the same way for self-custodied bitcoin. A self-custodied UTXO has no bank in the middle, no exchange holding the bag, and no transfer agent waiting for instructions. There is no custodian for the state to command. There is only the network, the key, and the person who can or cannot produce the valid spend.

That means governments can often reach custodial crypto, but self-custodied bitcoin presents a harder limit. The law can say who owns it. The law can sometimes say who should surrender it. What it cannot do is conjure the private key.

The same problem defeats a more dressed-up version of the argument under UCC Article 12. A quantum attacker who derives the private key may gain “control” of the asset in a practical sense. But control is not title. It never has been. A burglar who finds your safe combination gains control too. He still stole what was inside.

Adverse possession does not fit, and salvage is worse

Two analogies get dragged out whenever someone wants to dignify quantum theft with a veneer of doctrine: adverse possession and salvage.

Neither one survives contact with the facts.

Adverse possession developed for land, and it carries conditions that make sense in land disputes. Possession must be open and notorious enough to give the true owner a fair chance to notice the adverse claim and contest it. A quantum attacker who sweeps coins into a fresh address does nothing of the sort. Yes, the movement is visible on-chain. No, that is not meaningful notice in the legal sense. A pseudonymous transfer on a public ledger does not tell the owner who is asserting title, on what basis, or in what forum the claim can be challenged.

The policy rationale also collapses. Adverse possession helps resolve stale land disputes, quiet title, and reward visible use of neglected real property. Bitcoin has none of those structural problems. The blockchain already records the chain of possession. 

Salvage is worse. Salvage rewards a party who rescues property from peril. The quantum raider does not rescue property from peril. He exploits the peril. In many cases, he is the reason the peril matters at all. Calling that “salvage” is like calling a pirate a lifeguard because he arrived with a boat: a euphemism masquerading as a legal theory.

What BIP-361 is really fighting about

This is why BIP-361 matters. It is the first serious proposal to force the issue at the consensus layer rather than wait for courts and commentators to argue over the wreckage afterward.

In broad strokes, the proposal would roll out in phases. First, users would be barred from sending new bitcoin into quantum-vulnerable address types, while still being allowed to move existing funds out to safer destinations. Later, legacy signatures in vulnerable UTXOs would stop being valid for purposes of spending those coins. In practical terms, any remaining unmigrated funds would freeze. A further recovery mechanism has been proposed using zero-knowledge proofs tied to BIP-39 seed possession, though that portion remains aspirational and incomplete.

Critically, the recovery path works only for wallets generated from BIP-39 mnemonics. Earlier wallet formats, including the pay-to-public-key outputs associated with Satoshi, have no realistic route back under the current proposal. That limitation is not incidental. It means Phase C, as currently designed, would preserve the property rights of more recent adopters while permanently extinguishing those of the earliest ones. That is a de facto statute of limitations imposed not by a legislature but by a protocol change.

The attraction of the proposal is obvious. If the network knows a category of coins is likely to become loot for whoever reaches them first, it can refuse to bless the looting. That is, in substance, a defense of ownership against a purely technological shortcut. It treats the quantum actor as a thief and denies him the prize.

But that is only half the story. The other half does not vanish merely because protocol designers would rather not observe it.

The proposal also creates a second legal problem, and it is harder to wave away. Phase B does not only stop thieves. It also disables actual owners who fail, or are unable, to migrate in time. That matters because property law does not ask only whether a rule has a good motive. It also asks what the rule does to the owner.

Calling that “theft” is too imprecise. BIP-361 does not reassign the coins to developers, miners, or some new claimant. It does not enrich the freezer in the ordinary way a thief enriches himself. But “not theft” does not end the inquiry. The closer analogy is conversion, or at least something uncomfortably adjacent to it. If the rule is that an owner had a valid spend yesterday and will have none tomorrow, not because he transferred title, not because he abandoned the coins, and not because a court extinguished his claim, but because the network decided those coins were too dangerous to remain spendable, the network has done something more than merely “protect property rights.” It has intentionally disabled the practical exercise of some of those rights.

That is what makes the freeze legally awkward. Freeze supporters can defend it as the lesser evil, and they may be right. But lesser evil is not the same thing as legal cleanliness. A rule that permanently prevents an owner from accessing his own coins begins to look less like ordinary theft and more like forced dispossession by consensus.

The strongest objections appear in the hardest cases. Timelocked UTXOs are the cleanest example. If a user deliberately created a timelock that matures after the freeze date, that owner did not neglect the coins. He did not abandon them. He affirmatively structured them to be unspendable until a future date. Yet the protocol could still freeze them permanently before that date ever arrives. Other older wallet constructions create a similar problem. If the eventual recovery path depends on BIP-39 seed possession, some earlier wallet formats may have no realistic route back at all. Estates create the same tension in another form. The owner may be dead, but title has not vanished. It passed somewhere. Freezing the coins does not eliminate the underlying property claim. It only eliminates the network’s willingness to honor it.

That is why the better description of Phase B is not “anti-theft rule” in the abstract. It is a confiscatory defense mechanism. Maybe a justified one. Maybe even a necessary one. But still confiscatory in effect for at least some owners. The proposal does not just choose owner over thief. In some cases it chooses one class of owners over another, then treats the losses of the disfavored class as the price of securing the system.

That does not make BIP-361 unlawful in any straightforward, courtroom-ready sense. Bitcoin consensus changes are not state action, so the takings analogy is imperfect unless government enters the picture directly. But as a matter of private-law reasoning, the conversion analogy lands harder. Title may remain rhetorically intact while practical control is intentionally destroyed.

That is the real symmetry at the center of the quantum debate. Letting a quantum attacker sweep dormant coins looks like theft. Freezing vulnerable coins by soft fork may be the lesser evil, but it is not costless, either materially or morally. For some owners, it begins to look a great deal like confiscation.

The legal answer is clear, even if Bitcoin’s is not

Classical property law is not going to bless quantum key derivation as some clever form of lawful recovery.

Dormancy is not abandonment. Death transfers title; it does not dissolve it. Unclaimed property law reaches custodians, not self-custody itself. Adverse possession does not map onto pseudonymous UTXOs. Salvage is a bad joke.

So if someone uses a quantum computer to derive the private key for a dormant wallet and move the coins, the legal system will almost certainly call that theft.

But BIP-361 shows that Bitcoin may not face a choice between theft and pristine protection of ownership. It may face a choice between theft by attacker and dispossession by protocol. Freezing vulnerable coins may be a defensible response to an extraordinary threat. It may even be the only response the network finds tolerable. Still, it should be described honestly. For some owners, especially those with timelocked outputs, old wallet formats, or no realistic migration path, the freeze begins to look less like protection than confiscation.

That is what makes the issue more than a simple morality play. Bitcoin collapses the distinction property law usually relies on between title and possession. Courts can say a quantum raider stole the coins. Courts can say a protocol-level freeze substantially interfered with an owner’s rights. But the chain will still recognize only the rules its economic majority adopts.

So the fight is not simply over whether Bitcoin should defend property rights during the quantum transition. The fight is over which property rights Bitcoin is willing to impair in order to defend the rest.

Welcome to classical politics.

This is a guest post by Colin Crossman. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

This post When Quantum Computers Come for Your Bitcoin: What Classical Property Law Says Happens Next first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Colin Crossman.

Bitcoin Magazine

The Whole Entire Universe: 21 Million, One Painting

There are 21 million bitcoin. That number is fixed, coded into the protocol, finite. It is one of the most consequential design decisions in the history of money, and yet for most people it remains an abstraction. Green digits cascading down a black screen like something out of The Matrix, or a talking point tossed around on a podcast.

The Japanese artist On Kawara spent nearly fifty years hand-painting a date onto a canvas every day — if he didn’t finish by midnight, he destroyed it. Anik Malcolm spent 900 hours painting 21 million beads. The impulse is the same: make the abstraction physical, make the counting matter, let the labor carry the meaning.

“The Whole Entire Universe” is a concept first conceived in early 2025 and now in its third and most ambitious incarnation: a meticulous, large-format oil painting in which every single bitcoin is represented as an individual bead, painted by hand over the course of more than 900 hours. The work will debut at Bitcoin 2026 at The Venetian Resort in Las Vegas.

The premise was somewhat simple— show 21 million of something. But in working out how to do it, Malcolm stumbled into something closer to a tesseract — a shape that revealed more dimensions the longer he looked at it. Twenty-one million does not divide cleanly into a cube — its cube root is an irrational number. But if you round up to the nearest whole number, 276, and cube it, you get 21,024,576 — exactly 24,576 more than 21 million. That surplus divides evenly by six (one for each face of the cube), yielding 4,096 beads to remove per side. The square root of 4,096 is 64 — a perfect square and a power of two. Which means those removed areas can be halved repeatedly: from 64×64, to 32×32, to 16×16, all the way down to 2×2 — mirroring, with startling precision, bitcoin’s halving mechanism.

He opened the box and the pattern was already inside. To him, the work is not an illustration of Bitcoin — it is a still life of it. The most literal depiction that could be made, rendered in a form so structurally resonant that it has drawn the attention of Adam Back.

From early drawings exhibited in Lugano to digital renderings to the oil painting debuting at B26 — and a planned monumental public sculpture in Roatán — “The Whole Entire Universe” keeps demanding a bigger canvas. 

I spoke with Anik Malcolm about how a simple question produced an extraordinary answer.

BMAG: The Whole Entire Universe began with a deceptively simple premise — make an artwork that shows 21 million of something. How did you land on that idea, and what was it like when your wife — herself an artist and jeweler — suggested a cube of beads? How does that kind of creative exchange between partners work for you? 

Anik Malcolm: The original impetus was literally that simple — it struck me that although the 21M number is so critically important to us as bitcoiners, it’s also a number that is difficult to fathom without seeing. How simultaneously large it is in volume, but also overseeably small and “human” in scale — so I wanted to find a way of bringing the number to life, of making it graspable. My wife Una and I have collaborated on many projects over the years, both in the visual and sonic arts, so we have honed the skill well of making it a constructive flow. I suggested this idea to her in conversation, and her instantaneous response was “a cube of beads.” I loved this both for the fact that a cube is such a deeply ubiquitous symbol in bitcoin, visually and metaphorically, and that the bead was one of the very first methods of exchange — the combination just made perfect sense, and was additionally manageable in scale. I immediately set to working out the practicalities, calculator in hand, and could barely believe what I found..!

BMAG: When you started working out whether 21 million could fit into a cube, you stumbled into a series of mathematical coincidences — 276 cubed, the 4,096 remainder dividing evenly by six, the square root landing on 64 (I can’t help hearing the Beatles lyric “When I’m 64” in my head), a power of two. Walk us through that moment. Did you realize right away what you were looking at, or did it unfold gradually?

Anik Malcolm:  Haha — wow, I hadn’t even made the Beatles connection yet! Fantastic. Yes, it happened very quickly. Obviously the cube root of 21M wasn’t going to be a rational number, so I knew I would have to do some tinkering to make it fit. I naturally started with the idea of rounding the cube root up to 276 and subtracting from there — as you said earlier, to reach 21,024,576, and it was already a rush when the surplus 24,576 divided cleanly into 6, meaning I could give the desired structure symmetry. That rush, however, was greatly amplified by the fact that I felt I recognized the number 4,096, and I was literally shaking when I inputted “square root of 4096” into my calculator, and when I saw the result I was absolutely dumbstruck — Una witnessing the whole process in amusement! The fact that I could not only spread the subtracted number equally over all six sides, but ALSO do so in perfect squares to obtain exactly 21,000,000 felt like a moment of divine providence, as if this symmetry had been encoded from the start and had been waiting to be found, and that there was possibly some deeper significance that someone, some day, might fathom. I knew right away that I had been entrusted with a very meaningful project.

BMAG: The pattern you found — squares halving from 64×64 down to 2×2 — mirrors bitcoin’s halving mechanism. You’ve described the piece as a “still life of Bitcoin.” How much of that connection did you set out to find, and how much of it felt like it was already embedded in the number waiting to be discovered?

Anik Malcolm: Yes — I was actually so moved by the initial finding that it wasn’t until some time later that I realized, to my EVEN greater astonishment, the obvious fact that I could divide 64 into 32, 16, 8, 4, and 2 — not only making the cube much more visually interesting, but in the process also representing both the halving function so deeply integral to bitcoin’s mechanism, but simultaneously also the exponential growth that, conversely, is a direct result of that halving. It felt that this single cube embodied everything that bitcoin is and does, and in such incredible symmetrical elegance — I was, and am still, more than a year later, absolutely in awe of the beauty of it all, which is why I have made it pretty much into my life’s work, for the time being at least. So to answer the question — I didn’t set out to find it at all, which is why I really feel I’m just a messenger, a role which permits me to stand so strongly behind it as it is not my own creation but merely a discovery.

BMAG: The oil painting debuting at Bitcoin 2026 took over 900 hours — each bead representing an individual bitcoin, painted by hand. What does that kind of sustained, meticulous labor do to your relationship with the subject? Does spending that long with 21 million change how you think about the number?

Anik Malcolm: This is a very interesting question, and one I actually pondered much during the process. As it is a two-dimensional representation of a still-theoretical 3D object, I “only” had to paint the 227,701 visible beads — each one, however, three times: body, highlight, shadow, not to mention the underlying grid.

The whole process, as you can imagine, was deeply meditative, and I found that “intrusive” thoughts would affect my efficiency, so that in itself became an exercise in recognizing, accepting, and letting go — a growth process of sorts which many report encountering on their bitcoin journey.

Next, I realized that music that was more demanding of my attention would have the same effect, so over time the playlist evolved into a soundtrack which resonated with the cube’s essence rather than rubbed against it — Arvo Pärt, David Lang, Kjartan Sveinsson, and the like, which I will also provide for listening at B26, as it forms an added dimension to the artwork’s presence.

Thirdly, I started noticing many other patterns within the numbers, many of which linked with Tesla’s “3,6,9” ideas, and I even spontaneously started reciting personal mantras as I painted, dot by dot, in a 3,6,9 pattern!

So I would say that rather than actively applying meaning to the number and its cubic manifestation, I became deeply under its influence as time progressed — physically, mentally, and spiritually. There is a certain “holiness” to bitcoin upon which I feel we all agree to a greater or lesser extent, and my experience of representing it so very literally was a true reflection of that.

BMAG: This concept has moved from drawings in Lugano to digital versions and tutorial videos to a full-scale oil painting, and you’re planning a monumental public sculpture in Roatán. What is it about this particular idea that keeps demanding a bigger format?

Anik Malcolm: Actually, both the Lugano drawings and the B26 painting (each 128×128 cm — about 4’2″) are on the smallest scale at which I could accurately represent the number! Each bead is 2mm (5/64″) — even smaller on the top face — so any smaller would have been unfeasible. I would also like to make a sculpture version of the same or similar size, hopefully within the next 12 months, as 55.2cm (under 2′) is still manageable in size. However, I met someone in Lugano who had spent years looking for a suitable idea for a monumental Bitcoin sculpture in Roatán, and felt that this worked perfectly. Even at a bead size of only 1cm (roughly ⅜”) with a 1cm gap in between for visual and kinetic effect, the cube alone quickly expands to 5.52m (approx. 18′), not counting the supporting structure and elevation from the ground. I feel that being able to be in the presence of all 21 million at such a grand and imposing scale would be an experience that would do bitcoin and all it stands for the appropriate justice.

BMAG: Adam Back has taken notice of the work. But if someone walks up to this painting at B26 with no math background and no particular interest in Bitcoin’s technical architecture — what do you want them to see or infer?

Anik Malcolm: I think my teenage daughter is a good representative of that demographic! She told me the other day that she would frequently come into the room where the painting has been drying “just to look at it for a while.” As I experienced while painting — I feel there is a deeply calming effect that the cube’s sheer symmetry and pattern exudes, floating and glowing in its abyssal setting, and combined with the provided soundtrack it becomes a deeply meditative and engrossing experience. And even on a basic math entry level — there are 21 subtracted squares visible on the painting! (Another beautiful coincidence — 1 square of 64², 4 squares of 32², and 16 squares of 16².) I feel, and hope, that both visitors of B26 and eventually the painting’s future owner will derive deep and sustained pleasure from this calm that was quietly encoded into that magical number, in the way both I and my whole family have during the journey of its creation — the calm methodical truth that is reflective of the bitcoin experience as a whole.

Fix the money. Fix the world.

“The Whole Entire Universe” by Anik Malcolm debuts in the BMAG art gallery at Bitcoin 2026, April 27–29, at The Venetian Resort, Las Vegas. Preview the work and explore more from the BMAG B26 exhibition HERE.  A limited edition shirt based on the painting is available HERE.

The Bitcoin Museum & Art Gallery (BMAG) is the curatorial and cultural programming division of BTC Inc and the Bitcoin Conference. Since 2019, the BMAG conference art gallery has facilitated more than 120 BTC in art and collectible sales. Learn more about BMAG at museum.b.tc. Follow BMAG on twitter @BMAG_HQ.

Bundle your Bitcoin 2026 pass with a stay at The Venetianand get your fourth night free. Use code AFTERS for a free After Hours Pass, or get your pass alone here. 

This post The Whole Entire Universe: 21 Million, One Painting first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Dennis Koch.

Bitcoin Magazine

Congresswoman Sheri Biggs Discloses Up to $250,000 BTC Investment via iShares Bitcoin ETF

Representative Sheri Biggs of South Carolina has disclosed a purchase of up to $250,000 in Bitcoin exposure via the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), marking one of the largest single Bitcoin-related buys by a sitting member of Congress. 

The Periodic Transaction Report filed with the House shows a transaction in the $100,001–$250,000 range executed on March 4, 2026 and reported in mid‑April, in line with disclosure deadlines under the STOCK Act.

The trade places Biggs among Congress’s most aggressive adopters of Bitcoin investment products, a cohort that already includes Senator David McCormick and Representative Brandon Gill, who have collectively reported hundreds of thousands of dollars in Bitcoin ETF purchases over the past year. 

Biggs has previously been identified by crypto advocacy groups as strongly supportive of digital assets, and her latest filing underscores how lawmakers are increasingly gaining direct financial exposure to the sector they help regulate.

The move comes as BTC trades below recent highs but remains a central focus of Washington’s ongoing debate over digital asset regulation and potential federal Bitcoin reserve policy. 

Bitcoin price action 

Bitcoin price rose sharply above $77,000 today after Iran announced the Strait of Hormuz had been fully reopened under a ceasefire framework, easing fears of a potential supply shock and triggering a broad risk-on move across global markets.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the key shipping route is open to all commercial vessels for the duration of a 10-day truce tied to de-escalation efforts involving Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The announcement signaled a temporary stabilization in a region that had been on edge for weeks over escalating tensions and threats to energy flows through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints.

President Donald Trump amplified the development on social media, declaring that the “Strait of IRAN is fully open and ready for full passage,” reinforcing expectations that diplomatic momentum could continue. The White House has suggested that broader talks with Tehran remain possible within days, with additional regional meetings under discussion.

Markets reacted quickly. Oil prices fell as the geopolitical risk premium unwound, and equities and crypto moved higher in tandem. BTC pushed back into the $76,000–$78,000 range, a zone that has repeatedly acted as resistance since February’s pullback from earlier highs.

With liquidity thin and positioning crowded, BTC now sits at a key inflection point where continued geopolitical de-escalation could fuel a breakout above resistance, while renewed tensions risk sending price back toward the low-$70,000 range.

This post Congresswoman Sheri Biggs Discloses Up to $250,000 BTC Investment via iShares Bitcoin ETF first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

U.S Senator Probes Status of Binance Inquiry Over Iran Compliance Concerns

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) has asked the Justice Department and FinCEN for updates on the status of monitors overseeing Binance, citing concerns about the exchange’s compliance program and allegations of weak anti-money laundering controls, according to Fortune reporting. 

In letters sent Friday, Blumenthal referenced reports of Iranian-linked crypto flows and questioned whether Binance’s oversight structure is functioning as intended. 

As part of a 2023 settlement tied to sanctions and money laundering violations, the exchange agreed to pay a $4.3 billion fine and accept two independent monitors — one reporting to the DOJ and another to FinCEN — to oversee its compliance reforms starting in 2024.

The senator’s inquiry follows media reports alleging internal investigators at Binance were dismissed after flagging more than $1 billion in transactions linked to Iranian wallets, a claim the company disputes.

It also comes amid broader scrutiny of federal monitorships, which have faced criticism over effectiveness and cost, and reports that the DOJ has reconsidered or paused some corporate oversight programs.

Senate Democrats urge for a DOJ, Treasury Binance probe as well

Earlier this year, in a letter sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a group of U.S. senators called for a “prompt, comprehensive review” of Binance’s sanctions compliance and anti-money laundering controls, citing renewed concerns over the exchange’s handling of illicit finance risks.

The letter, led by Sen. Mark Warner and joined by Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren along with Sens. Chris Van Hollen, Jack Reed, Catherine Cortez Masto, Tina Smith, Raphael Warnock, Andy Kim, Ruben Gallego, Lisa Blunt Rochester, and Angela Alsobrooks, points to internal compliance findings reportedly identifying roughly $1.7 billion in crypto transactions connected to Iranian actors, similarly to Blumenthal’s inquiry. 

According to the senators, one case involved a Binance vendor allegedly facilitating $1.2 billion in transfers tied to Iran-linked entities. The letter further claims Iranian users accessed more than 1,500 Binance accounts and that the platform may also have been used by Russian actors to circumvent sanctions.

The lawmakers also raised concerns that employees who flagged suspicious activity were dismissed and that Binance has become less responsive to law enforcement requests, potentially undermining obligations under its 2023 plea agreement.

Binance previously pleaded guilty to federal violations involving sanctions breaches and anti–money laundering failures, agreeing to more than $4 billion in penalties and committing to extensive compliance reforms under U.S. oversight, including enhanced KYC and sanctions screening systems.

The senators argue that the latest allegations raise serious questions about whether those reforms have been effectively implemented and sustained, warning that allowing such flows would conflict with Binance’s commitments to the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

This post U.S Senator Probes Status of Binance Inquiry Over Iran Compliance Concerns first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Bitcoin Magazine

Kraken Owner Payward to Acquire Bitnomial for $550M, Securing Full CFTC-Licensed U.S. Crypto Derivatives Stack

Kraken-owner Payward has agreed to acquire Bitnomial in a deal valued at up to $550 million in cash and stock, giving the firm control of a fully licensed U.S. crypto derivatives stack as it expands deeper into regulated markets.

The transaction values Payward at $20 billion and is expected to close in the first half of 2026, subject to customary conditions and regulatory filings with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Bitnomial stands out as the first crypto-native platform in the U.S. to secure all three licenses required to operate a full-stack derivatives business: a designated contract market, a derivatives clearing organization, and a futures commission merchant. Those approvals allow it to run an exchange, clear trades, and offer brokerage services within a single regulated framework.

By acquiring Bitnomial, Payward gains infrastructure that would take years to build. The exchange spent more than a decade developing a system designed for digital assets, including crypto settlement, crypto collateral, and continuous trading. The deal brings that foundation under Payward’s ecosystem, which includes Kraken and its recently acquired futures platform NinjaTrader.

Payward Co-CEO Arjun Sethi said clearing infrastructure shapes how markets function, pointing to settlement systems and margin models as the core of derivatives innovation. He said the U.S. lacks clearing infrastructure built for digital assets, which made Bitnomial’s platform a strategic target.

Bitnomial founder Luke Hoersten said the company built its exchange and clearinghouse from the ground up for crypto markets. He pointed to features such as perpetual futures, crypto-settled products, and a unified trading book across spot, futures, and options as capabilities that legacy systems cannot support without redesign.

Kraken’s busy week

The acquisition expands Payward’s push into derivatives, a segment that has become central to crypto trading volumes. While Kraken remains a major exchange, it trails some global competitors in spot trading and has focused on building out derivatives and multi-asset capabilities through acquisitions.

The company’s largest move came in 2025 with its $1.5 billion purchase of NinjaTrader, which gave it a foothold in U.S. futures markets and access to a large base of retail traders. The Bitnomial deal builds on that strategy by adding a fully regulated derivatives infrastructure layer.

The deal also strengthens Payward Services, the company’s business-to-business infrastructure arm. Through a single API integration, banks, fintech firms, and brokerages will be able to offer regulated U.S. derivatives alongside services such as crypto trading, staking, and tokenized equities.

Payward framed the transaction as an infrastructure play rather than a traditional acquisition, positioning Bitnomial’s regulatory stack as the foundation for building the next phase of U.S. crypto derivatives markets.

Earlier this week, Deutsche Börse acquired a $200 million stake in Kraken to expand institutional crypto services, even as the exchange disclosed limited insider-related security incidents affecting a small number of accounts. Also this week, Kraken confirmed a confidential IPO filing as its valuation dropped to $13.3 billion. 

This post Kraken Owner Payward to Acquire Bitnomial for $550M, Securing Full CFTC-Licensed U.S. Crypto Derivatives Stack first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Iran's Friday announcement that the Strait of Hormuz would be opened during the current ceasefire triggered one of the sharpest oil reversals of the year.

Brent crude fell 12.95% to $86.52, and WTI dropped 14.26% to $81.19, both their lowest levels since Mar. 11 and the largest single-day declines since Apr. 8. US stocks surged, bond yields dropped, the dollar weakened, and Bitcoin registered an intraday high of $78,336.

Traders stripped the war premium they had spent weeks layering into crude prices, and risk assets repriced accordingly.

Yesterday, the Strait was opened on Iranian terms. Commercial vessels required authorization from Iran's Ports and Maritime Organization and the IRGC and had to transit through Iran-designated safe lanes, but the US blockade on Iranian shipping remains fully in place until a broader diplomatic settlement.

That window has already narrowed. As of Apr. 18, Iran said it had closed the Strait again after the US left its blockade in place, pushing the market back into a countdown toward the Apr. 22 ceasefire deadline.

Only eight oil and gas tankers moved during the reopening, underscoring how far the route remains from anything resembling normal traffic.

Related Reading

Bitcoin faces critical weekend test as Iran closes Strait after immediately disputing the US narrative on Hormuz deal

Bitcoin’s post-Hormuz rally faces a weekend test as Iran disputes Trump’s deal claims and shipping, oil, and bond risks remain unresolved.

Apr 17, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

During the brief window, the IMO was not able to confirm that the arrangement met freedom-of-navigation standards.

Shipping companies were waiting for legal and safety clarity before resuming normal passage, and the US Navy stated that the mine threat in parts of Hormuz is not fully understood.

One Pakistani-flagged tanker carrying roughly 440,000 barrels of UAE crude exited the Gulf on Apr. 17, providing concrete data that passage was possible.

That brief test never became normalization. AP reported that only eight oil and gas tankers transited during the short reopening before Iran reimposed restrictions, leaving Bitcoin with just four days to see whether the ceasefire can produce real shipping recovery before Apr. 22.

Bitcoin is now caught between a market that priced reopening fast and a Strait that, as of Apr. 18, is closed again ahead of the Apr. 22 ceasefire deadline.

The arithmetic of fear

EIA data puts average daily oil flow through the Strait at 20 million barrels in 2024, roughly 20% of global petroleum liquids consumption, with 84% of crude and condensate and 83% of LNG flowing onward to Asian markets.

That is the concrete threshold behind the market’s countdown: unless traffic recovers before Apr. 22, the route that carries about one-fifth of global petroleum liquids remains functionally impaired.

Since the conflict began, the war has knocked more than 500 million barrels of crude and condensate out of the global market, about $50 billion in lost output. In comparison, global onshore crude inventories fell roughly 45 million barrels in April alone.

As recently as Apr. 7, the EIA projected Brent averaging $115 in the second quarter. On Apr. 13, Morgan Stanley held Brent at $110 in the second quarter and $100 in the third quarter, modeling only a gradual export recovery through October.

At $86.52, Brent sits materially below every major published baseline from less than two weeks ago. The market has front-run a normalization path that neither the EIA nor Wall Street had priced.

That asymmetry shapes the financial premium, which can dissipate much faster. The IEA's chief said overall Middle East energy output may take roughly two years to recover to pre-war levels.

Why the reopening is still fragile

Iran's operational message on Apr. 17 closely mirrors what its deputy foreign minister said on Apr. 9, when ships could pass with Iranian coordination but actual traffic ran below 10% of normal. This is roughly seven vessels per day versus the usual 140.

The diplomatic probability distribution changed while the passage rules stayed broadly the same. A 10-day ceasefire and revived US-Iran diplomacy caused markets to reread the same basic operational framework as de-escalation.

The Lebanon truce, which forms part of the diplomatic backdrop, still leaves Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon and Hezbollah's disarmament unresolved.

The blockade stays in force until a broader deal, and even if vessels begin moving, it takes roughly 21 days for ships to travel from the Gulf to Rotterdam, meaning physical supply relief follows diplomatic headlines with a lag of weeks.

Insurance premiums have not yet normalized, no official authority has downgraded the mine warnings, and no major liner has publicly declared the route cleared.

The Bitcoin transmission channel

Bitcoin's move today runs through a specific macro chain. Oil fell, reducing the near-term inflation outlook and reorienting expectations around the Federal Reserve's rate path.

Traders moved from pricing the Fed as sidelined until well into 2027 to pricing cuts by December 2026, a meaningful compression in the expected tightening window.

The March FOMC minutes had already flagged that higher crude prices were expected to lift inflation in 2026 and that a prolonged Middle East conflict risked making pass-through to core inflation more persistent.

When oil fell, that hawkish risk partially unwound. Bonds rallied, the dollar weakened, equities surged, and Bitcoin moved in step with the broader risk-on repricing.

Bitcoin has spent the past several months behaving as a liquidity-sensitive risk asset whose trajectory tracks Fed expectations, tech sentiment, and the size of the monetary backdrop.

A durable de-escalation that keeps oil prices falling long enough to soften inflation and revive the Fed-cut story is a genuine macro tailwind for Bitcoin.

The paths ahead

While rhetoric has deteriorated quickly after the initial announcement, talks have not yet officially failed, and the ceasefire still holds.

If that extends into a broader US-Iran settlement, traffic resumes along lanes approaching internationally accepted standards, mine warnings fade, and insurers soften their stance, the oil relief could extend beyond today's price.

The EIA already viewed the market as oversupplied before the conflict began. A durable reopening could bleed out more premium than most traders currently expect, with Brent potentially drifting into the mid-$70s to mid-$80s.

In that setup, Fed-cut expectations would move further forward, the dollar would stay under pressure, and Bitcoin would have the cleanest macro tailwind available in the current cycle.

Citi's 12-month bull case of $165,000 represents the outer envelope of what a sustained macro thaw of that magnitude could support.

The more underpriced negative outcome is a ceasefire that holds in name but never produces shipping normalization.

Mine warnings persist, politically controlled lanes keep insurers cautious, tanker counts stay well below the 140-per-day threshold, and the operational reality never matches the diplomatic headline.

In that scenario, oil rebounds toward the $100-$115 range that informed EIA and sell-side forecasts as recently as last week.

The inflation relief stalls before reaching the Fed's decision calculus, rate-cut expectations drift back out, and Bitcoin surrenders its de-escalation premium.

Citi's recessionary downside case of $58,000 marks the outer bound for Bitcoin re-entering a tighter-for-longer macro regime.

These two paths will first become visible in ship counts, insurer behavior, and whether the US blockade language shifts over the next 72 hours.

The ceasefire's 10-day window gives this trade a built-in expiry.

Points to watch include whether vessel counts move materially above Apr. 9 levels, whether the IMO formally endorses the transit arrangement, whether the US-Iran talks produce any revision to the blockade language, and whether Bitcoin continues to price oil relief as a Fed-relief narrative.

The post Bitcoin now has just 4 days before ceasefire deadline risks price reversal with Hormuz closed again appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Quantum computing has long served as Bitcoin’s most cinematic threat. It has the right ingredients for a high-drama warning, strange machines, broken cryptography, and the possibility of a future rewrite of digital trust.

Yet the greater danger facing Bitcoin today looks far more ordinary and far more commercial. It is artificial intelligence, and the pressure point is electricity.

That pressure is already visible. As of today, Bitcoin is trading at $77,845 on CryptoSlate, up 5% over 24 hours, 6.7% over seven days, and 9.2% over 30 days.

Price has recovered over the past month, but the mining side of the network is still operating under tighter economics than the market’s casual surface suggests.

In its Q1 2026 mining report, CoinShares said the weighted average cash cost to produce one Bitcoin among publicly listed miners rose to about $79,995 in Q4 2025. The same report said the current hashprice around $30 per petahash per day leaves an estimated 15% to 20% of the global fleet underwater if power costs are high enough.

That is where AI enters the picture with a much sharper edge than quantum. Quantum remains a serious long-term cryptographic issue. NIST has already finalized its first post-quantum standards because the migration clock is real, and IBM’s roadmap targets the first large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computer by 2029.

Those milestones deserve attention. They also describe a technology path that still has to arrive.

AI is already bidding for the same powered campuses, the same substations, the same fiber routes, and the same land positions that gave industrial Bitcoin miners their strategic value in the first place.

One threat sits on the roadmap. The other is already signing leases, funding conversions, and changing how these companies use their best assets.

AI is already taking the premium sites

The strongest evidence comes from what miners are physically doing with their facilities. In March, Bitdeer said decommissioning of Bitcoin mining rigs had begun at its Tydal, Norway site to make room for a new AI data center.

That carries more weight than a lot of future doom posts about “Q-Day“. A miner with deep roots in Bitcoin chose to remove rigs from a live mining site because the economics of AI infrastructure made better use of the space.

Bitdeer also disclosed roughly $21 million in annual recurring revenue from external GPU cloud subscriptions as of Feb. 28, with negotiations ongoing with additional colocation tenants. The move was concrete, and it had already begun.

Riot has reached a similar conclusion from another angle. In its full-year 2025 results, Riot said its data center lease with AMD became operational and had been generating revenue since January 2026.

The company has also been clear that Rockdale can evolve into a much larger data center campus over time.

Core Scientific is even further down that road. In its fourth-quarter 2025 results, the company said around 350 MW had already been energized under its CoreWeave contract and that it remains on track to deliver around 590 MW by early 2027.

MARA’s partnership with Starwood was equally revealing in a different way, because it described campuses designed to operate both Bitcoin mining and AI compute, with the ability to toggle workloads depending on pricing and customer demand.

The pattern extends well beyond one company. According to the current public miner hashrate ranking, the top public miners by operating scale include Bitdeer at 69.5 EH/s, MARA at 61.7 EH/s, CleanSpark at 47.3 EH/s, IREN at 43 EH/s, and Riot at 36.4 EH/s.

This is a meaningful slice of the industrial Bitcoin mining landscape, and it is already splitting into three camps. Some miners have signed real AI or HPC contracts and are moving capacity. Some have frameworks and early pilots. Some are still largely tied to Bitcoin.

CoinShares estimates that more than $70 billion in cumulative AI and HPC contracts have now been announced across the public mining sector, and that listed miners could derive as much as 70% of revenue from AI by the end of this year, up from roughly 30% today.

This reversal now shapes the sector. The public companies once pitched as leveraged bets on Bitcoin increasingly look like owners of scarce power infrastructure that can be rented to a richer customer base.

That shift does not require anyone to stop believing in Bitcoin. It only requires a board to compare the cash flow from mining against the cash flow from leasing out premium power and compute space. Fiduciary duty does the rest.

The danger for Bitcoin is immediate

I ran the numbers across the top 10 public miners using hashrate, annual Bitcoin output, and the AI revenue that is actually visible in public filings and company statements.

The result points to a simple near-term conclusion: at the sector level, Bitcoin still pays more, but the threat from AI is already real, as premium sites have signed infrastructure deals.

The comparison uses a narrow, near-term framework rather than a broad growth narrative. Companies are ranked by publicly disclosed operating or self-mining hashrate, cross-checked against company disclosures where possible, while any additional deployable capacity is treated as a short-range proxy based on disclosed installed capacity minus current operating hashrate.

The dataset also distinguishes between hard commercial AI/HPC contract values and softer financing, conversion, or strategic agreements, which means the figures are directionally useful but not fully like-for-like.

Above an average Bitcoin price of around $80,000, the revenue picture still skews toward mining at the sector level.

Using the current hashrate distribution for the top 10 public miners and allocating annual block rewards in proportion to operating hash, the group still throws off a larger Bitcoin revenue pool than the AI contract base currently visible across the same cohort.

That leaves Bitcoin in front on aggregate revenue even after the sector’s high-profile move into AI and HPC.

The balance changes once the comparison shifts from the whole group to the companies with the strongest signed infrastructure deals, because a small number of names already have AI economics that can rival or exceed what their Bitcoin fleets are likely to generate at this price level.

That split is the important part. The sector is no longer moving in one direction at one speed. For miners without a large contracted AI revenue stream, Bitcoin still looks like the main engine of top-line performance if price holds around current levels.

For the subset that has already locked in major AI leases or cloud agreements, the income mix starts to look very different.

The result is a two-track market. One track still depends primarily on Bitcoin’s price and network economics. The other increasingly depends on whether a miner controls premium power sites that can be turned into long-duration compute revenue.

The comparison becomes even sharper when Bitcoin is modeled at $160,000. At that level, mining revenue expands fast enough that the top 10 group’s Bitcoin business pulls well clear of the current AI contract base, even when the larger signed AI agreements are annualized for comparison. That does not erase the attraction of AI.

It changes the relative urgency of the pivot. A stronger Bitcoin price gives miners more room to keep their best sites pointed at hashing and still justify the opportunity cost. It also raises the bar AI has to clear before boards feel pressure to repurpose prime campuses away from Bitcoin.

The more revealing sensitivity test comes from doubling the AI contract base.

Under that scenario, annual AI revenue moves much closer to what the group could make from mining at an $80,000 Bitcoin price. That is the zone where the business model starts to look genuinely contested.

Bitcoin still holds the larger aggregate pool in the base case, but the gap narrows as site quality, contract duration, financing terms, and execution start carrying more weight than ideology. Once that happens, the debate stops being about whether miners “believe” in Bitcoin and shifts toward which use of power produces the better return over the next several years.

That is also where the company-level results matter more than the sector average. The aggregate numbers still show Bitcoin with the stronger hand, especially in a higher-price environment.

The company-level numbers show something else: a small group of miners already has AI revenue potential that can outrun mining revenue at today’s Bitcoin price assumptions. Those are the names that make the broader threat credible.

They show that AI does not need to displace the whole mining industry to reshape it. It only needs to pull enough premium capacity away from Bitcoin to change who mines, where mining happens, and how much of the public miner complex still behaves like a direct proxy for Bitcoin itself.

Taken together, the revenue math supports a more precise conclusion than either extreme allows.

Bitcoin mining still offers the larger top-line opportunity for the top 10 group in aggregate, and that advantage widens further if Bitcoin enters a materially higher price regime.

AI still has a powerful claim on the best campuses because the economics are already superior for a subset of operators, and that advantage grows quickly if contract values continue to expand.

The likely result is a hybrid sector rather than a clean break, with some miners staying Bitcoin-first and others becoming power-and-compute businesses that treat Bitcoin as a secondary workload.

Why AI reaches Bitcoin’s security budget first

The clearest way to understand the comparison is to separate engineering risk from economic risk. Quantum is an engineering risk to cryptography. AI is an economic risk to Bitcoin’s industrial security base.

One points toward a future need to upgrade signature schemes and harden the protocol over time. The other is already changing where capital goes, where machines are deployed, and which activities deserve the best power on the grid.

That makes AI the more immediate pressure point for Bitcoin’s security budget. Bitcoin stays secure because miners spend real money to produce hash and defend block production under known attack assumptions.

Difficulty adjustment keeps blocks coming, yet it does not erase the underlying economics. A network whose best-connected industrial operators increasingly treat Bitcoin as the lower-value use case for premium campuses faces a slower and more practical problem.

The security layer can continue to function while the best sites, the best interconnection rights, and the most financeable infrastructure migrate toward AI tenants.

Over time, that pushes Bitcoin mining toward cheaper, more interruptible, and often lower-quality power. CoinShares says exactly that in its sector review, arguing that AI is likely to drive Bitcoin mining toward more intermittent and cheaper power sources over the long term.

The scale of outside demand helps explain why. In its Energy and AI outlook, the International Energy Agency said global electricity consumption for data centers is projected to roughly double to around 945 TWh by 2030 in its base case.

That is a vast increase in power demand, making it even harder to assemble sites that are already difficult to assemble. Land, interconnection, permits, cooling design, and transmission access all take time. Bitcoin miners spent years collecting exactly those ingredients.

AI now wants them too, and AI customers often bring longer contracts, larger balance sheets, and smoother revenue visibility than mining can provide in a post-halving environment.

Quantum lacks that near-term commercial pull on the Bitcoin mining fleet. It may one day force a protocol transition and a broad wallet migration, and that prospect is serious.

Yet quantum does not currently offer miners a higher-return alternative for the same substation. AI does.

Quantum does not show up today as a tenant willing to sign for hundreds of megawatts of critical IT load. AI does.

Quantum does not produce a board-level argument for removing miners from a live site this quarter. AI already has.

How the next decade could reshape miners and the network

A full exodus from Bitcoin remains the low-probability extreme, because the network adapts and because many miners will keep one foot in both worlds for as long as the numbers justify it.

The more realistic path is a prolonged sorting process where premium, always-on campuses drift toward AI, while Bitcoin mining concentrates in flexible-power environments where interruption is acceptable, and site economics are harder for hyperscale AI tenants to use.

That outcome still changes Bitcoin in important ways.

First, public miner equities become less direct proxies for Bitcoin itself. Investors buying listed miners have often treated them as amplified expressions of the Bitcoin cycle. That relationship weakens as a larger share of enterprise value comes from data center leasing, power monetization, and AI execution risk.

Second, the composition of Bitcoin’s industrial hash shifts. Public miners may still mine significant amounts of Bitcoin, but more of the marginal security spend could come from operators with cheaper power, smaller footprints, or lower-cost geographies.

Third, treasury behavior may change. When companies are funding campus conversions, cooling systems, and higher-density compute buildouts, Bitcoin on the balance sheet starts looking more like a funding source than a sacred reserve. Riot’s earlier decision to sell Bitcoin to finance the Rockdale land purchase offered a clear preview of that logic.

The biggest live variable is still Bitcoin price. A return toward Bitcoin’s previous all-time high near $126,000 could lift hashprice toward $59 per petahash per day. A move like that would improve mining economics and slow the urgency of the pivot.

Yet even that would not erase the structural shift underway.

AI demand is feeding on a global infrastructure buildout that extends far beyond crypto. The IEA’s demand curve, the large signed contracts already on miner balance sheets, and the physical repurposing of real campuses all point in the same direction.

Over the next decade, the question may no longer be whether miners leave Bitcoin entirely. The sharper question is which parts of the mining stack remain worth dedicating to Bitcoin once AI is willing to pay more for the best land, the best power, and the best grid positions.

Quantum still belongs on Bitcoin’s list of strategic risks.

AI belongs on the list of operational and financial risks right now.

One threatens the code if the technology arrives at scale. The other is already competing for the machines, the megawatts, and the people who keep the network secure.

For the next several years, that is the threat with the more direct line into Bitcoin’s security budget, and it is already rewriting the miner business model in plain sight.

The post Data proves Bitcoin must retake $80k soon or risk BTC miners being shut down and replaced with $4B in AI revenue appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) is warning that global markets could be heading toward a chain reaction in which tighter funding, war-driven volatility, and deepening cracks in non-bank finance converge into what its chair calls a possible “double or triple whammy” for financial stability.

In a letter sent ahead of the April 16 G20 meeting, FSB Chair Andrew Bailey laid out a scenario in which several fragile parts of the financial system crack at the same time rather than one by one.

Bailey, who also serves as governor of the Bank of England, said the Middle East conflict has already increased energy prices and government bond yields, and that these shocks could collide with stretched asset valuations, concentrated leverage in the non-bank financial sector, and growing anxiety over private-credit pricing.

He identified three areas that require heightened monitoring: sovereign bond markets, asset valuations, and private credit.

Related Reading

New US credit crisis looms as more firms limit withdrawals – and Bitcoin could be hit first

Redemption pressure is forcing gates across major private credit funds, tightening liquidity and exposing structural fragility in a $1.7T market.

Apr 13, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Private credit is cracking first

Much of the recent attention on financial fragility has centered on private credit.

Private credit is a large and fast-growing corner of non-bank finance in which funds lend directly to companies rather than routing them through traditional bank channels. The sector has grown to roughly $1.8 trillion, and the past few weeks have exposed just how quickly that confidence can deteriorate.

Blue Owl Capital limited withdrawals from two of its largest private-credit funds after investors sought to redeem roughly $5.4 billion in the first quarter. At its flagship $36 billion fund, redemption requests hit 21.9% of shares outstanding, while its smaller, technology-focused vehicle saw requests reach a staggering 40.7%.

Blue Owl, like most of its peers, capped redemptions at 5%. A Barings-managed fund did the same the next day, limiting withdrawals after investors asked to withdraw 11.3% of shares. Apollo, Ares, and BlackRock all imposed similar caps during the first quarter of the year.

These aren't isolated incidents that happened by chance. These redemption caps are a real structural test of what happens when funds hold assets that take weeks or months to sell at a fair price, yet promise investors periodic access to their cash.

In calm markets, the arrangement is smooth, and few have issues with it. But in times of crisis and heightened volatility, when too many investors head for the exit at once, the mismatch between what a fund owns and what it can quickly liquidate becomes dangerous.

However, Bailey's letter made clear that private credit is only one of the vulnerabilities he's tracking.

The FSB is concerned that redemption pressure at private-credit funds could reinforce tighter funding conditions and overstretched valuations elsewhere, producing a cascading sequence in which each problem makes the next one worse.

The danger looming outside traditional banks

Traditional banks are heavily regulated and hold capital buffers under frameworks such as Basel III, which were built after the 2007-09 financial crisis to strengthen resilience. Bailey said that this enabled banks to remain resilient through the current shock.

The bigger concern now sits outside the banking perimeter, in what regulators call non-bank financial intermediation, or NBFI. This broad ecosystem includes hedge funds, insurers, pension funds, and private lending vehicles, and since 2008, a significant share of credit creation and risk-taking has migrated into it. The rules are different, leverage can be higher, and transparency is often limited.

Leverage is the main accelerant here. When borrowed money amplifies positions and prices move sharply, leveraged investors are forced to sell at the same time, which pushes prices down further and radiates stress into adjacent markets.

In sovereign bond markets, the FSB warned that a limited number of funds pursuing similar high-leverage strategies have increased the risk of a disorderly unwinding that could drain liquidity from core government bond markets and trigger cross-border spillovers.

The connections between banks and non-bank lenders make this harder to contain than it might appear.

US bank lending to non-depository financial institutions has almost quadrupled over the past decade, surging to about $1.4 trillion as of the end of 2025, according to Moody's Ratings. That lending now accounts for roughly 11% of total bank loans and is the fastest-growing portion of bank balance sheets.

The Federal Reserve is now asking major US banks for details about their exposure to private credit following the surge in redemptions and a rise in troubled loans. The Treasury Department is separately planning discussions with state insurance regulators about exposures in the same sector.

How the contagion spreads, and what it means for crypto

The chain that concerns the FSB follows a familiar path.

A geopolitical or macroeconomic shock raises uncertainty, oil and bond yields move sharply, and funding costs rise. Investors then begin questioning whether asset prices still reflect reality, and redemption requests rise, usually first at less-liquid private credit funds.

Those funds then gate withdrawals or sell assets in weak markets to raise cash. Banks and insurers reassess their exposures, credit becomes harder to get for companies and borrowers, and risk assets reprice aggressively.

Bailey specifically warned about a scenario in which markets begin to price a much larger hit to global economic growth, triggering abrupt repricing in equities at the same moment that scrutiny of private-asset valuations intensifies. Global asset prices, he noted, are still significantly elevated by historical standards, and sectors where valuations were stretched even before the conflict are particularly vulnerable if economic conditions deteriorate.

The consequences reach well beyond Wall Street.

Businesses face more expensive refinancing and pickier private credit lenders, weaker firms struggle to roll over loans, and hiring and expansion plans can stall. Retirement portfolios can take hits through indirect exposure to non-bank assets even without a single bank failure.

For crypto, this type of broad financial stress tends to weigh on liquidity-sensitive assets in the near term. This is especially important for Bitcoin. When markets shift into risk-off mode, Bitcoin and Ethereum have historically sold off alongside equities, and tighter funding conditions make leverage both more dangerous and more expensive across all markets.

We might see the demand for stablecoins rise as a defensive measure, but it's the speculative appetite that usually disappears first.

The timing of Bailey's letter is also important in its own right.

The warning arrived just days before G20 finance ministers and central bank governors convene in Washington alongside the IMF spring meetings. The FSB said that it will publish a dedicated report on private-credit vulnerabilities in the near future. It's also collaborating with the International Association of Insurance Supervisors to address risks posed by growing interlinkages among private equity, private credit, and the life insurance sector.

Earlier this year, the FSB separately warned about vulnerabilities in government-bond-backed repo markets, a further signal that the connective tissue among financial institutions can become fragile during periods of stress.

The central paradox of Bailey's warning is hard to ignore. Banks may be stronger than before 2008, but the financial system can still be fragile because the risks have migrated to places where they are harder to see, harder to regulate, and almost impossible to contain once they start moving.

The post FSB warns of ‘triple whammy’ crisis as private credit threat to global markets worsens appeared first on CryptoSlate.

UPDATE Saturday 9 am UTC: After markets closed Friday, the Speaker of Iran's parliament announced that the Strait of Hormuz would not remain open while the US blockade remained in place. So far, Bitcoin has retraced part of its gain, falling from $78,500 to $76,500.

Bitcoin rallied hard after Iran said it was reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping.

Bitcoin hit the highest level since February, oil prices dropped, Wall Street notched another record, and the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield slipped to 4.24%. But here’s the catch: markets acted as if the reopening had solved the core standoff between Washington and Tehran.

Look closer, though, and the story gets more complicated. The opening is only temporary, the blockade is still in place, mine-clearing operations are ongoing, and there’s plenty of confusion about what Iran has actually agreed to.

That matters even more heading into the weekend. U.S. stocks, Treasuries, and most major markets shut down after Friday, but Bitcoin keeps trading.

So once again, Bitcoin becomes the first big, liquid market to test whether Friday’s rally was built on real progress or just hope.

The public messaging from Washington also leaves room for a reversal. Trump told Axios he expects a deal “in a day or two”, and the same report said the outline under discussion could involve the U.S. releasing $20 billion in frozen Iranian funds in exchange for Tehran giving up its enriched uranium.

The Washington Post reported that Iran had not confirmed Trump's claim that it would hand over what he calls “nuclear dust,” while also noting that earlier U.S. claims about Iranian commitments had already proved unreliable or had fallen apart.

Related Reading

Bitcoin weekend liquidity has vanished even as BTC leads out of hours markets because institutions dominate weekdays

ETF-era Bitcoin is deeper on weekdays and thinner on weekends, leaving smaller traders more exposed when volatility hits.

Apr 11, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The deal narrative is already under strain

Tehran's public posture still sits well short of the version of events that calmed markets. In the Al Jazeera liveblog, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei was quoted as rejecting any transfer of enriched uranium to the United States and dismissing U.S. statements on Hormuz as contradictory.

Even before that, Tasnim reported on April 15 that Baghaei was still defending enrichment as a non-negotiable sovereign right.

There’s still a big gap between what traders are hoping for and what’s actually been agreed to. Friday’s rally made sense as a relief move: an open Strait of Hormuz means less immediate risk for oil.

But it’s a stretch to say the big issues, like uranium, compensation, or the Lebanon ceasefire, are anywhere close to settled. That gap is hard to ignore. Trump said the American blockade on Iranian ships and ports will stay in place until Tehran reaches a deal with Washington, including on its nuclear program.

So while the Strait might be open for some ships, the bigger restrictions haven’t gone anywhere.

That’s the real setup as we head into the weekend. Oil finished lower, stocks hit new highs, and investors felt bolder, but the story behind those moves is still shaky.

We’ve seen optimism turn into doubt more than once during this conflict. The question now is whether this latest rally can actually last.

Related Reading

Bitcoin flash crashes below $65,000 in delayed reaction to more Trump tariff hikes during low weekend liquidity

Bitcoin price stalls today because Trump just bypassed the Supreme Court with a 15% tariff spike.

Feb 22, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Shipping and oil have improved, but they have not normalized

The physical market is still flashing caution. Back on April 11, CENTCOM said U.S. forces were preparing for mine-clearing in the strait, with more equipment and underwater drones on the way.

If traders really thought the Strait was back to normal, they wouldn’t still be glued to live mine-clearing updates, with shipping firms still cautious of crossing.

The last ceasefire window showed just how slow the shipping recovery can be. Only five ships made it through on Wednesday and seven on Thursday, while more than 600 vessels, including 325 tankers, were still stuck in the Gulf. Daily passage was still just 10 to 15 ships, far below the 120 to 140 before the conflict.

Friday’s late reality check didn’t really change that picture. Kpler still saw ship movement limited to approval-based corridors on Friday evening, hours after the full reopening claims, and warned that getting back to normal could take months, not weeks.

Maersk had already said in its own update that even with ceasefire news, there’s no guarantee of smooth sailing. Every transit decision is still a judgment call.

That’s why Friday’s oil drop made sense, but also why it’s fragile. U.S. crude closed at $82.59 and Brent at $90.38, a big turnaround from the stress earlier this month.

But those prices are still higher than before the conflict, and they don’t prove that shipping is back to normal or that the risk premium has disappeared for good.

The other big channel is interest rates. Friday’s oil drop helped pull the U.S. 10-year yield down to 4.24%, easing a bit of pressure just before the weekend.

But as CryptoSlate pointed out previously, if energy shocks keep coming, the next round of market moves could show up in government bond yields as well as oil prices.

That still matters because if oil bounces back over the weekend, the whole inflation and liquidity debate will be back on the table by Monday.

Related Reading

Bitcoin focus flips from oil to bonds as US and Japan 10-year yields spike into a critical week

A cross-market reset is underway, with rising sovereign yields tightening conditions and forcing a repricing of risk.

Mar 23, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Bitcoin becomes the live weekend test

Bitcoin sits right in the middle of all this. It keeps trading while stocks and bonds are closed, and while most big markets are waiting for Monday to roll around.

That makes Bitcoin the first place traders can show whether they think Friday’s news was real progress or just another pause built on mixed messages. That’s especially important given how traders are positioned.

CryptoSlate’s first look on Friday showed the rally was fueled by a surge in short liquidations and a shift toward more bullish bets. A squeeze like this can keep going if the story holds up, but it can also unwind quickly if the news turns out less solid than traders had hoped.

The constructive case for the weekend is pretty simple. If there’s no new military escalation, if Tehran and Washington keep the rhetoric from getting worse, and if ship movements improve beyond the controlled corridors Kpler has been tracking, then Bitcoin can continue to serve as a de-escalation asset.

In that case, Friday’s squeeze was just the first leg of a cleaner repricing, not just a reflexive bounce into the close.

The bearish case is just as clear. If Iran’s pushback grows from denial into a visible collapse in talks, or if the Lebanon ceasefire starts to fray and undermines the political basis for opening Hormuz, then the market will have to rethink the oil risk premium it just removed.

Bitcoin would then be trading alone through the weekend as the first broad risk proxy available to price that gap is easing. But it didn’t prove that Washington and Tehran have settled the arguments that matter most.

Bitcoin heads into the April 18-19 weekend as a live relay for unresolved macro risk. The real signal will come from what happens after the headlines, on the water, in the talks, and in crude itself.

The post Bitcoin faces critical weekend test as Iran closes Strait after immediately disputing the US narrative on Hormuz deal appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Crypto rhetoric has long prized the ability to transact without gatekeepers, to move value across borders without asking permission, and to hold assets no institution could seize.

Crypto culture treated these as design virtues, properties that builders embedded with ethical weight by deliberate architectural choice. Then the Drift exploit happened, and the backlash told a different story.

On Apr. 1, Drift suffered a major exploit. Circle later described the publicly reported losses as exceeding $270 million, while other reports put the figure around $285 million and documented criticism that Circle had not frozen stolen USDC as it moved across its cross-chain rails.

The attacker routed roughly $232 million in USDC from Solana to Ethereum using Circle's Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol. The backlash stemmed from users and observers wanting to know why Circle had not intervened sooner.

Days later, Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino posted that Tether had frozen 3.29 million USDT tied to the Rhea Finance attacker, framing the intervention as proof that “Tether cares.”

The contrast landed hard.

Related Reading

Compromised developers lying dormant within crypto projects risks next major crypto exploit

The bigger risk after Drift may be the access attackers gain before a protocol knows it has a problem.

Apr 8, 2026 · Gino Matos

Two responses, two philosophies

Circle published its formal response on Apr. 10, and its core argument was that USDC freezes occur when the law requires action. Circle is legally compelled by an appropriate authority through a lawful process.

Circle pushed back on the idea that an issuer should act as an ad hoc chain police force, arguing that open access to permissionless infrastructure is a feature, and that the bigger problem is that legal frameworks have not yet kept pace with the speed of on-chain exploits.

The stablecoin issuer also made a property-rights argument, claiming that arbitrary freezes set dangerous precedents for lawful users, and the power to freeze is a compliance obligation, constrained by lawful process and legal compulsion, authorized only through formal legal channels.

The complication is that Circle's own legal documents tell a more layered story.

USDC terms state that transfers are irreversible and that Circle carries no obligation to track or determine the provenance of balances.

Those same terms also reserve Circle's right to block certain addresses and, for Circle-custodied balances, freeze associated USDC in its sole discretion when it believes those addresses may be tied to illegal activity or terms violations.

Circle holds meaningful freeze power and frames it as a tightly bound compliance function, constrained by legal process and compulsion.

Ardoino's Rhea post was a boast, and Tether's terms grant it broad discretion by stating that the company may freeze tokens as required by law or whenever it determines, in its sole discretion, that doing so is prudent, and authorizing it to blacklist token addresses.

In February, Tether froze approximately $4.2 billion in USDT due to links to illicit activity, with $3.5 billion of that since 2023.

Related Reading

Circle’s USDC freeze powers face fresh scrutiny after blocked wallets and delayed theft response

Circle can freeze USDC fast, but critics say recent cases exposed uneven review standards and growing operational risk.

Apr 5, 2026 · Gino Matos

The feature nobody advertised

What Drift and Rhea forced into the open is a question that stablecoin competition had not yet fully surfaced: in a hack, what do users actually want from an issuer?

The anti-censorship instincts that shaped crypto's early culture tend to lose their force the moment users need an emergency brake. Affected protocols, exchanges holding stolen funds, and victims watching their balances drain want to know who can stop the thief.

That reframes freeze capacity as more of a consumer-protection feature.

Tether has been accumulating a record of intervention and visibility. Ardoino's Rhea post was designed to be read as a product statement, and in the context of a fresh exploit, it worked.

The emotional and practical logic is accessible, showing that one issuer froze stolen funds the same day an attacker moved them, while another issuer said legal timelines tied its hands.

This makes optics difficult for Circle regardless of the legal merits of its position.

Stablecoins are quietly differentiating themselves in emergency governance, alongside reserve composition and exchange liquidity.

The cost of the feature

The case for Circle's position is real and does not require dismissing the Drift backlash to hold. Broad issuer discretion over freezes creates risks that extend far beyond hack scenarios.

An issuer that can freeze tokens in its sole discretion when it determines it is prudent can freeze tokens for reasons unrelated to protecting victims. Politically contentious addresses, disputed transactions, regulatory scrutiny from a single jurisdiction, or simple operational error can all trigger freezes under terms as broad as Tether's.

The same capacity that lets an issuer stop a thief also lets it stop a protester, a dissident from a sanctioned country, or a business whose activity it finds inconvenient.

Circle's public writing on the Drift exploit is, among other things, a defense against that risk. The argument that emergency intervention needs new legal frameworks and safe-harbor structures is also an argument that the current situation is a problem, even when the targets are criminals.

The absence of defined standards means an issuer can act generously today and overreach tomorrow, with no formal mechanism to distinguish the two.

Tether's freeze record has not yet produced a major documented wrongful-freeze controversy, but that record is also vast and not fully transparent.

Reports on the $4.2 billion in frozen USDT withhold the details of each decision, the legal process underlying each freeze, and the error rate across thousands of enforcement actions.

Fast intervention looks different in the abstract when the process generating those interventions is opaque.

Two paths from here

The bull case for intervention-first issuers runs in a world where hacks keep coming, and recoverability keeps rising on the priority list.

More regulatory scrutiny on exchanges to show they take asset protection seriously, and more institutional users who need to demonstrate due diligence in custody and recovery. These are factors that push emergency freeze capacity to the center of stablecoin evaluation.

In that scenario, Tether's public freeze record and broad discretionary terms become genuine competitive assets. Exchanges and protocols that have experienced exploits now treat fast-intervention capacity as a due diligence criterion when choosing which stablecoin to hold as primary liquidity.

Circle has to either act faster through new legal mechanisms or accept that some market segments will treat its rule-of-law posture as a liability in crises. Ardoino's Rhea post, in retrospect, looks like an early entry in a competition that the market eventually formalizes.

The bear case for that same model runs through wrongful freezes, regulatory backlash, and the discovery that broad discretion is often a liability as much as a virtue.

A high-profile incorrect freeze, such as an address flagged as malicious that belongs to a legitimate user, a jurisdiction-specific enforcement action that appears to be politically targeted at users in other markets, or an operational error that freezes clean funds during a market stress event, turns the same emergency-governance story toxic.

In that world, Circle's insistence on lawful process and defined standards looks like principled restraint, a deliberate commitment to defined limits over speed, and users place a real premium on an issuer whose freeze decisions carry formal accountability.

The crypto community's historical skepticism toward centralized control reasserts itself as hard-won practical wisdom, grounded in the documented costs of unchecked issuer discretion.

The stablecoin winners in that scenario are the ones whose intervention power is real but bounded. Issuers who can act in genuine emergencies and demonstrate they held back in ambiguous ones.

As stablecoins deepen their role in institutional payments, treasury workflows, and regulated financial infrastructure, governance under stress becomes as material as reserve quality or distribution reach.

The question that Drift and Rhea put on the table of how much control users want an issuer to have has no clean universal answer. Institutions with large exposures and recovery obligations may want emergency brakes, while individuals holding stablecoins across politically sensitive jurisdictions may want the opposite.

Protocols with mixed user bases need to answer for both.

The real contest now is for the version of stablecoin governance that earns enough trust from enough users to become the default.

The post Crypto censorship resistance is questioned as major fight breaks out over who gets to freeze your digital dollars appeared first on CryptoSlate.

The first quarter of 2026 has proven to be a challenging period for the digital asset market. While the previous year ended with high hopes for institutional adoption, a combination of macroeconomic shifts—including hawkish Federal Reserve pivots and geopolitical trade tensions—has sent many high-profile altcoins into a tailspin.

According to recent data, the market is currently navigating a period of "leverage flushing," where over-extended positions are being liquidated, leading to double-digit Year-to-Date (YTD) losses for even the most promising Layer 1 and privacy projects. In this article, we break down the five tokens that have suffered the most significant declines since the start of the year.

Summary of the Biggest YTD Losers

The following table summarizes the performance of the five hardest-hit tokens based on current market data:

1. Midnight (NIGHT): The Privacy Paradox

Topping the list of losers is Midnight ($NIGHT), the privacy-focused partner chain of the Cardano ecosystem. Despite the high anticipation surrounding its Glacier Drop airdrop and subsequent Binance listing in March 2026, the token has seen a massive 58.64% decline YTD.

The primary cause for this "heavy red" status is the typical post-launch fatigue and a series of massive token unlocks. As of April 2026, the market is absorbing a circulating supply of roughly 16.6 billion tokens. While the technology behind its selective disclosure remains sound, the sheer volume of sell pressure from early airdrop recipients has outpaced buyer demand.

2. Sei (SEI): High Speed, Low Momentum

Sei ($SEI), often touted as one of the fastest Layer 1 blockchains for trading, has hit a major roadblock in 2026. With a YTD loss of 48.96%, the SEI price reflects a broader exit from "alternative L1" trades.

Investors appear to be rotating capital out of high-throughput experimental chains and back into "Blue Chip" assets like Bitcoin or stablecoins. Despite a minor 1.84% recovery in the last seven days, the technical outlook remains bearish as it struggles to reclaim previous support levels.

3. Bitget Token (BGB): Exchange Utility Under Pressure

The Bitget Token ($BGB) has dropped 46.10% YTD, currently trading at $1.87. This is a significant correction from its 2024 all-time high of over $8.00. The decline is largely attributed to a decrease in exchange-wide trading volumes and a shift in investor sentiment regarding exchange-native tokens.

While BGB still offers utility within its ecosystem, the lack of new "Launchpad" excitement in a bearish Q1 has left the token without a strong bullish catalyst.

4. Aptos (APT): The Scalability Struggle

Aptos ($APT) is currently down 42.68% for the year, with its price hovering under the $1.00 mark at $0.9523. Much like Sei, Aptos is suffering from the "VC Coin" narrative, where large venture capital backers and scheduled unlocks create persistent overhead resistance.

While the Move programming language continues to attract developers, the price action suggests that the market is repricing the entire Layer 1 sector. Analysts suggest that until the network sees a significant "killer app" deployment, the APT price may continue to lag behind the broader market recovery.

5. Worldcoin (WLD): Regulatory and Identity Hurdles

Rounding out the top five is Worldcoin ($WLD), which has shed 42.52% of its value since January 1st. Trading at $0.2762, WLD has been hampered by ongoing regulatory scrutiny regarding its biometric data collection.

In a 2026 landscape where privacy regulations are tightening globally, Worldcoin's "Orb" model faces logistical and legal friction. This uncertainty has led to a sharp decrease in speculative interest, despite the project's ties to the booming AI sector.

Conclusion: Is the Bottom In?

The heavy losses across these five tokens highlight the inherent volatility of the altcoin market in 2026. While YTD drops of 40% to 60% are painful for holders, they often create "oversold" conditions that attract contrarian investors.

Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have reached a boiling point today, April 18, 2026, as the Iranian military officially announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This move comes less than 24 hours after the waterway was briefly declared "open" during a fragile ceasefire. The Iranian military command stated that the strategic passage has now "returned to its previous state" due to the United States' refusal to lift a naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Impact on Global Energy and Crypto Markets

The sudden escalation triggered an immediate reaction across global financial markets. WTI Crude Oil prices, which had softened during the brief reopening, quickly pumped back to the $83/barrel mark. Simultaneously, the risk-off sentiment hit the digital asset space hard; Bitcoin (BTC), which had been testing major resistance levels, saw a sharp correction down to $76,000.

Why the Strait of Hormuz is Closed Again

According to a statement published via the state-backed Fars media outlet, the Iranian military accused the U.S. of "banditry and piracy" by maintaining its blockade despite the temporary truce. The military command emphasized that until the U.S. ensures full freedom of movement for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the strait will remain under "strict management and control" of Iranian armed forces.

This reversal has effectively caught markets off guard. Just yesterday, President Trump had claimed on Truth Social that Iran had agreed to never use the strait as a weapon again. The current "previous state" implies a full military blockade of one of the world's most vital energy arteries.

Bitcoin and Crypto Under Pressure

The crypto market's reaction has been swift and decisive. Before this news broke, Bitcoin was struggling to maintain momentum at its psychological resistance level.

• Bitcoin (BTC): Slipped to $76,000, erasing recent gains.
• Altcoins: Most major tokens followed suit, with liquidations spiking as traders fled to "safe-haven" assets like gold.
• Outlook: Analysts warn that if the conflict escalates further, BTC could test support levels near $71,000.

Bitcoin Stands at a Technical Crossroads

Bitcoin ($BTC) is currently testing a pivotal resistance level that could define the market's trajectory for the remainder of the second quarter of 2026. After a period of consolidation and geopolitical-driven volatility, the Bitcoin price has surged back toward the $77,000 - $78,000 range.

For traders and long-term investors, the focus is now entirely on the weekly candle close. Technical indicators suggest that flipping the $78,000 level from resistance to support would clear the path for a rapid ascent toward the psychological $90,000 barrier.

Is the BTC Breakout Real?

Yes, current market data confirms that Bitcoin is attempting a high-conviction breakout. As of April 18, 2026, $BTC is trading near $76,378, having touched intraday highs above $78,000 earlier this week. This move is supported by a significant shift in macro-economic sentiment, specifically the cooling of tensions in the Middle East and the temporary reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has lowered global inflation fears and bolstered "risk-on" assets.

Understanding the $78,000 Resistance Zone

In technical analysis, a "breakout" occurs when an asset's price moves above a defined resistance level with significant volume. For Bitcoin, $78,000 represents more than just a number; it is a structural ceiling established during the volatile swings of early 2026.

The Significance of the Weekly Close

Daily price spikes are often dismissed as "noise" or "fakeouts." However, a weekly close (Sunday at midnight UTC) provides a more reliable signal of institutional intent.

• Above $78,000: Confirms a trend reversal and sets a new floor for the next leg up.
• Below $78,000: Suggests the market is not yet ready to sustain higher valuations, likely leading to further consolidation near $70,000.

From Macro Drivers to Price Targets

The current momentum is fueled by a "perfect storm" of fundamental and technical factors:

1. Macro Stability: The collapse of crude oil prices following ceasefire talks has redirected capital from commodities back into digital assets.
2. ETF Inflows: Institutional demand via spot ETFs remains robust, with major players like Morgan Stanley’s MSBT absorbing sell-side pressure.
3. Liquidation Cascades: According to data from Coinglass, a move above $78,500 would trigger the liquidation of billions in short positions, providing the "fuel" needed for a squeeze toward $85,000.

Price Targets: The Road to $90,000

If the weekly close remains bullish, analysts are eyeing two primary stages:

• Target 1 ($85,000): The first major Fibonacci extension level and a historical zone of interest.
• Target 2 ($90,000): A psychological milestone that would likely attract a fresh wave of retail FOMO.

Technical Analysis: RSI and Support Levels

Examining the BTC/USD chart, the Relative Strength Index (RSI) is currently hovering around 64.13. While this indicates strong bullish momentum, it is not yet in the "overbought" territory (typically above 70), suggesting there is still ample room for upward movement before a cooling-off period is required.

Paris is currently the epicenter of the digital asset world as Paris Blockchain Week 2026 kicks off at the Carrousel du Louvre. While institutional panels discuss regulatory frameworks like MiCA, the Austrian fintech giant Bitpanda has decided to take a more "on-the-ground" approach. In a bold marketing stunt to promote its Bitpanda Fusion platform, the company deployed a flashmob of 100 "Traders" to iconic Parisian landmarks, signaling a major push for liquidity dominance in the European market.

Bitpanda Fusion Stunt: A Sea of Traders at the Louvre

On the morning of April 15, visitors at the Louvre and other key spots across the French capital were met with an unusual sight: 100 identically dressed "Traders." This coordinated flashmob wasn't just for show; it was a high-impact "stunt" designed to bring Bitpanda Fusion to the forefront of the conversation during the year's most important blockchain event in Europe.

The message is clear: Bitpanda is no longer just a retail broker; it is evolving into a professional-grade liquidity powerhouse. By choosing the Louvre—a symbol of history and value—Bitpanda is positioning Fusion as the bridge between traditional asset appreciation and modern digital efficiency.

What is Bitpanda Fusion?

At its core, Bitpanda Fusion is a liquidity aggregation platform designed to solve the fragmentation problem currently facing European traders. While most platforms provide access to a single order book, Fusion connects to 12 global trading venues simultaneously.

Key Features of the Platform:

• Order Book Aggregation: Access to combined liquidity from multiple top-tier exchanges.
• Better Execution: By sourcing from multiple pools, traders can often find tighter spreads and better price fills on over 2,000 trading pairs.
• Advanced Order Types: Support for Limit, Stop-Limit, and Take-Profit orders, integrated with native TradingView charting.
• Regulated Environment: Fusion operates within Bitpanda’s highly regulated framework, ensuring user safety while providing "offshore-level" liquidity.

For those tracking the current Bitcoin price, using a platform that aggregates liquidity is essential for minimizing slippage, especially during the high-volatility periods often seen during major conferences.

Fusion Night: Networking at Le Tout Paris

The impact of the day-time stunt leads directly into an exclusive evening event. Bitpanda is hosting the Fusion Night at the iconic Le Tout Paris. Located with a panoramic view of the Seine and the Eiffel Tower, the event serves as a networking hub for partners, influencers, and industry leaders to discuss the future of the crypto exchange landscape.

For attendees, this was a chance to move beyond the flashmob and see the technology behind the brand. The event focuses on the technical superiority of liquidity aggregation and how it will redefine the trading experience for both retail and institutional clients in 2026.

The European digital asset landscape is heating up as Bitpanda announces its latest high-stakes event: the Bitpanda Fusion Trading Competition. This challenge offers a massive €50,000 prize pool and once-in-a-lifetime VIP experiences. Running from April 16 to April 30, 2024, the competition focuses on trading volume, rewarding those who can navigate the markets most effectively using the Bitpanda Fusion infrastructure.

What is the Bitpanda Fusion Trading Competition?

The Bitpanda Fusion Trading Competition is a performance-based contest where users compete to achieve the highest trading volume on the Bitpanda Fusion platform. Bitpanda Fusion allows for deep liquidity and competitive pricing by aggregating multiple liquidity sources, making it a preferred choice for serious traders looking for efficiency.

To participate, users must actively opt-in and select a unique alias. This alias will represent them on the leaderboard, which is updated regularly via email to maintain a competitive "hype" throughout the two-week duration.

How to Join the Bitpanda Trading Competition

Participating in the challenge is straightforward, but requires specific steps to ensure your volume is tracked:

1. Opt-in: Visit the official Bitpanda campaign page and click the join button.
2. Set an Alias: Choose a nickname for the public rankings.
3. Start Trading: Execute trades through Bitpanda Fusion between April 16 and April 30.

Prize Structure: €50,000 and VIP Experiences

Bitpanda has structured the rewards to incentivize both whales and consistent retail traders. The total prize pool is valued at €50,000, broken down as follows:

• 1st Place (Fusion Champion): €10,000 Cash + a VIP Trip for two.
• 2nd Place (Fusion Professional): €5,000 Cash + a VIP Trip for two.
• 3rd Place (Fusion Elite): €2,500 Cash + a VIP Trip for two.
• Top 100: An additional €17,000 in prize money will be distributed among the traders ranking from 4th to 100th place.

What is Bitpanda Fusion

Bitpanda Fusion is the underlying technology driving this competition. Fusion aims to provide better price execution by sourcing liquidity from various institutional partners. While this often results in tighter spreads for assets like Bitcoin, it is important to note that the "best price" refers to an aggregate and does not guarantee the absolute lowest market price at every millisecond.

Full Disclaimer:

All trades executed via Bitpanda Fusion are carried out directly by Bitpanda as your sole contractual partner. The best price refers to the aggregated price from several liquidity sources, but does not guarantee the lowest market price. Trading involves risks, including potential losses due to market fluctuations. Ensure you understand the risks before using Bitpanda Fusion. Bitpanda Fusion is provided by BAM.

GPT-Rosalind is OpenAI's first domain-specific model, built for drug discovery and life sciences—and it's not for everyone.

The price of Bitcoin breaks a seven-month downtrend as geopolitical shifts and prediction markets point to $84K next.

More than $1.2 million worth of wrapped XRP tokens (wXRP) have been minted on Solana as the Ripple-linked asset gains greater DeFi utility.

Rep. Sheri Biggs purchased up to $250,000 worth of BlackRock's spot Bitcoin ETF last month, padding a position she entered into last July.

Iris-scanning crypto project World expands with Tinder's U.S. human verification rollout and Zoom's Deep Face feature.

Institutional adoption of XRP has entered a new phase, as a wave of spot XRP ETFs and sustained inflows signal growing demand from major financial players following regulatory clarity.

Zcash has revealed that the vulnerabilities were not exploited to affect the consensus chain and all user funds remain safe.

A mysterious whale is loading up on Ethereum, withdrawing 32,007 ETH from a major crypto exchange.

The crypto market entered a deeper downturn in Q1 2026, with total capitalization falling over 20% to $2.4 trillion as macro pressure and policy shifts weighed on risk assets.

XRP utility has expanded on Solana in a recent milestone, sparking a response from Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse.

XRP has surged back into the spotlight as renewed buying pressure pushes it toward the critical $3 level, while fresh controversy from Cardano’s founder and accelerating momentum behind Remittix’s near-$30M raise signal a rapidly shifting narrative across the crypto market.

That matters because this market is not just about holding the biggest names. It is about deciding whether to stay in already priced-in assets or move early into the next opportunity before the crowd catches up.

XRP is trading around $1.50 after a 4.38% daily gain and a 10.25% rise over the past week. That kind of move is enough to restart the $3 target debate, especially when momentum is showing up across the market rather than in isolation.

The bigger point is that XRP still has room to run if buyers keep defending current levels. It is a credible large-cap asset with real exchange activity and ongoing payments relevance, but that also means the upside is more measured than what early-stage projects can offer.

Bitcoin Still Sets The Tone

Bitcoin is trading near $78,198.67 after a 4.71% gain in 24 hours and a 7.25% move over the last week. The trend is clearly constructive, but the wider intraday range suggests the market is still testing conviction rather than launching into a clean breakout.

That matters because Bitcoin remains the anchor for sentiment across crypto. When BTC is firm, capital tends to move down the risk curve, and that is where stronger narratives can start to outperform.

Cardano’s Debate Keeps Attention On Alternatives

Cardano is trading around $0.2647, up 3.97% on the day and 3.66% over the week. The move is positive, but it is still modest compared with the sharper action in XRP and Bitcoin.

The founder, Charles Hoskinson, went viral this week after a huge rant and criticism of Bitcoin maxis adding fuel to a familiar argument: whether value should stay concentrated in Bitcoin or spread toward networks and projects that promise more direct utility. That debate keeps the market open to new narratives, especially in payments and presale crypto.

Why Remittix Is Drawing More Attention

Remittix is starting to stand out because it is built around a simple use case: send crypto and have it arrive as fiat in a bank account. It uses real-time conversion and local payment networks, which removes a lot of the friction that still defines cross-border payments.

That is a real problem worth solving. Banks, SWIFT rails, and remittance services can be slow, expensive, and layered with intermediaries, especially for freelancers, businesses, and global users who just want money to move cleanly.

This is where the investment case gets stronger. Real-world utility at an early stage is where asymmetric upside usually lives, and Remittix is being treated like a serious presale because it solves a practical problem instead of chasing another abstract blockchain narrative.

The project has also started to collect credibility signals. The presale has raised $30M, the wallet is live on the Apple App Store, and the team is KYC verified. None of that removes risk, because execution and adoption still matter, but it does show the market is paying attention.

Compared with XRP, which is established and credible but slower-moving, Remittix is the more explosive early-stage setup. XRP can still benefit from a stronger recovery, but Remittix has the cleaner upside profile if momentum keeps shifting toward utility-focused crypto.

Conclusion

XRP’s move back toward $1.50 has revived the $3 discussion, and Bitcoin’s strength is keeping the wider market supported. Cardano adds to the broader debate, but the sharper opportunity is starting to shift toward projects with direct use cases and early traction.

Remittix is the one drawing serious attention right now because it sits at the intersection of payments utility and presale upside. If the market is still underpricing that story, waiting too long could mean paying up later.

Click To Discover the future of PayFi with Remittix

FAQs

Why is XRP back in focus?

XRP is trading around $1.50 and has posted a strong weekly gain, which has brought the $3 target back into the conversation.

Is Bitcoin still important for the market?

Yes. Bitcoin remains the main sentiment driver, and its current strength is still helping risk appetite across crypto.

Why is Remittix getting presale attention?

Because it focuses on direct crypto-to-bank payments, which is a practical use case with clearer real-world demand than many typical crypto projects.

Is Remittix riskier than XRP?

Yes, but that is also why the upside case is stronger. XRP is established, while Remittix is still early and has more room for discovery if adoption continues.

The post XRP Price Rise Reignites $3 Target As Cardano Founder Unloads On Bitcoin Maxis and Remittix Nears $30M Raised appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR

• American Airlines firmly rejected any interest in pursuing a merger with United Airlines (UAL)
• AAL shares declined more than 1% during after-hours trading after the announcement
• United CEO Scott Kirby allegedly presented the merger concept to White House officials in February
• The potential combination would form the world’s largest airline carrier
• Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy indicated consolidation may happen but would undergo rigorous examination

American Airlines issued a forceful rebuttal on Friday regarding speculation surrounding a possible merger with United Airlines, causing its shares to decline in extended trading hours.

Shares of AAL dropped more than 1% following the company’s public statement clarifying it has no involvement in, nor appetite for, merger discussions with United.

American Airlines Group Inc., AAL

“A merger with United would harm competition and consumers,” American Airlines stated, further noting that such a transaction would contradict “our interpretation of the Administration’s stated priorities.”

The statement followed a Bloomberg news story disclosing that United’s Chief Executive Scott Kirby had proposed merging the two airlines during conversations with high-ranking administration figures, including President Trump, during February.

Kirby previously held the position of President at American Airlines before transitioning to United, where he currently leads as CEO.

The Bloomberg reporting does not confirm whether any official discussions or due diligence processes have been initiated regarding a potential transaction.

Regulatory Hurdles Would Loom Large

Combining AAL and UAL would result in the world’s largest airline by a significant margin.

The two companies collectively command over one-third of domestic U.S. air travel, competing alongside Delta (DAL) and Southwest (LUV).

Industry observers have highlighted that a transaction of this magnitude would inevitably attract substantial regulatory scrutiny and probable resistance from consumer advocacy organizations and competing airlines.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy discussed airline industry consolidation earlier in the month during a CNBC interview, suggesting opportunities exist for mergers in the aviation sector.

Duffy mentioned that President Trump typically favors large-scale corporate combinations.

Oversight Would Remain Critical

Nevertheless, Duffy cautioned that any significant airline consolidation would undergo evaluation regarding its effects on airfare pricing and market competition.

He indicated that merging carriers would probably be required to sell off specific operations to avoid creating excessive market dominance.

American Airlines’ public response seemed to acknowledge this regulatory environment, characterizing a United combination as incompatible with antitrust standards.

UAL shares had risen 7.12% earlier during the week, potentially driven by merger-related speculation, while AAL had increased 4.16% during that same timeframe before Friday’s after-hours decline.

As of 6:09 PM ET Friday, AAL had retreated as investors processed the airline’s unequivocal dismissal of the proposed transaction.

The post American Airlines (AAL) Stock Slides as Carrier Rejects United Airlines Merger Reports appeared first on Blockonomi.

Key Highlights

• TSMC delivered Q1 2026 revenue growth of 35.1% year over year, while net income and EPS surged 58.3%
• Netflix released Q1 2026 earnings on April 16, with focus on subscriber metrics and advertising revenue performance
• Nvidia unveiled NVIDIA Ising on April 14, positioning it as the first open AI models optimized for quantum computing applications
• ServiceNow prepares to release Q1 2026 financial results on April 22, with enterprise AI investment trends under scrutiny
• AMD’s Q1 2026 earnings announcement scheduled for May 5 keeps the company on investor radars due to data center and AI chip exposure

Investors tracking growth stocks face a packed calendar this week. A combination of quarterly earnings releases and significant product unveilings across the semiconductor, streaming, and enterprise software sectors is commanding attention.

Five companies have emerged as priority watchlist items: TSMC, Netflix, Nvidia, AMD, and ServiceNow. Each carries immediate catalysts through either financial reporting or strategic product launches.

TSMC

TSMC unveiled first-quarter 2026 financial performance on April 16. The chipmaker posted revenue growth of 35.1% compared to the prior year, accompanied by net income and diluted earnings per share increases of 58.3%.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited, TSM

These figures underscore robust market appetite for cutting-edge semiconductors powering artificial intelligence infrastructure. As the world’s leading contract chipmaker, TSMC’s quarterly performance serves as a barometer for overall semiconductor industry momentum.

Netflix

Netflix delivered its quarterly report on the same day. Market participants scrutinized membership additions, advertising platform performance, and management’s guidance for the remainder of 2026.

Netflix, Inc., NFLX

The streaming giant has been aggressively developing its advertising-supported subscription option as a primary growth engine. International market penetration represents an additional strategic priority the platform has emphasized throughout the past twelve months.

Nvidia

Two days earlier, Nvidia introduced a breakthrough product named NVIDIA Ising. The technology represents what the company characterizes as the inaugural open AI model architecture specifically engineered to accelerate practical quantum computing deployment.

This launch provides Nvidia with an additional innovation narrative extending beyond its dominant position in graphics processing units. The move demonstrates strategic efforts to establish footholds in emerging computational paradigms.

Already positioned as the cornerstone supplier for AI infrastructure investments, Nvidia’s quantum computing initiative expands its long-range technological vision.

AMD

While AMD’s earnings announcement isn’t scheduled until May 5, the semiconductor manufacturer maintains prominent placement on investor watchlists. Market participants closely monitor every indicator related to AI processor demand, with AMD consistently ranking among the first stocks evaluated.

The company maintains substantial market share in data center operations and AI acceleration hardware. The investment community continues assessing whether AMD can narrow performance and revenue gaps relative to Nvidia’s market leadership.

ServiceNow

ServiceNow’s Q1 2026 financial disclosure arrives on April 22. The enterprise software provider specializes in AI-enhanced workflow automation solutions for major corporations, with the central question being whether enterprise technology budgets continue expanding.

The platform has systematically integrated artificial intelligence capabilities designed to drive higher per-customer spending. A robust quarterly performance would reinforce the thesis that enterprise software maintains its position as a sustainable growth sector.

Closing Analysis

A singular theme connects all five companies commanding attention this week: artificial intelligence. From semiconductor fabrication to model development infrastructure and workflow automation software, AI investment represents the common denominator linking each name.

TSMC’s first-quarter performance has already established an optimistic benchmark for the period, with 35.1% revenue expansion and 58.3% earnings acceleration signaling persistent demand from AI chip consumers. Netflix, ServiceNow, and AMD have yet to report, with AMD’s May 5 release completing the comprehensive picture from this cohort.

The post Five Key Growth Stocks Commanding Market Attention This Week appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Publicly listed Bitcoin miners sold over 32,000 BTC in Q1 2026, marking the largest quarterly outflow ever recorded on-chain.

• The 2024 halving cut block rewards to 3.125 BTC while hash rate kept rising, pushing hash price below miner breakeven levels.

• On-chain Miner Position Index and Miner Selling Power metrics both signal that peak distribution pressure has already passed.

• ETF inflows, institutional demand, and macro conditions are now set to replace miner behavior as the key Bitcoin price drivers.

Bitcoin miner selling pressure is showing signs of easing after one of the most intense distribution periods on record. Publicly listed miners sold over 32,000 BTC in Q1 2026, marking the largest quarterly outflow ever recorded.

WuBlockchain reported the trend, attributing it to post-halving profitability compression and strategic reallocation toward AI infrastructure.

On-chain metrics confirm that miner reserves have been in steady decline, though selling power is now visibly contracting.

Record BTC Outflows Mark a Structural Shift in Mining Economics

The 2024 Bitcoin halving cut block rewards from 6.25 to 3.125 BTC, directly reducing revenue for the entire mining sector. As block rewards shrank, the global hash rate kept rising, placing further pressure on individual miner profitability.

Hash price fell below breakeven for many operators, leaving cash flow management as the only viable short-term priority. Miners across the sector prioritized cash flow, selling BTC to cover operational costs and sustain mining activities.

WuBlockchain shared that Q1 2026 marked the largest miner BTC sell-off on record, flagging the historic outflow volume.

The report noted that this was not panic selling but a deliberate operational and strategic response to market conditions.

Mining companies simultaneously redirected capital toward AI and high-performance computing, adding to the volume of BTC liquidations. This marked a notable shift in miner strategy, moving away from the accumulation approach seen in prior cycles.

On-chain data reinforced this narrative, with miner reserves declining steadily throughout the entire quarter. Net position change remained negative, confirming that miners were consistent sellers rather than accumulators over this period.

However, outflow pace began slowing toward the end of Q1, hinting that peak selling pressure had likely already passed.

Demand Drivers Take Over as Miner Selling Power Fades

Despite the sustained wave of distribution, bitcoin miner selling pressure has entered a phase of clear and measurable decline.

On-chain charts now show the Miner Position Index in negative territory while Miner Selling Power contracts sharply from peaks. This combination points to a market where forced miner supply has already been largely absorbed.

Bitcoin market cycles historically follow a progression from supply expansion into supply exhaustion, then into demand-driven price growth.

The current cycle appears to be transitioning into the exhaustion stage, where available seller volume contracts and buyer dominance increases. Miners are no longer adding to their sales volumes, even as Bitcoin prices remain in consolidation.

Going forward, ETF inflows, institutional participation, and macro conditions are expected to become the primary Bitcoin price drivers.

Bitcoin miner selling pressure is no longer the central force shaping near-term market direction. Capital flows from demand-side participants will likely set the timing and scale of the next major uptrend phase.

The post Bitcoin Miner Selling Pressure Fades as Record Q1 2026 BTC Outflows Signal a Supply Turning Point appeared first on Blockonomi.

TLDR:

• Strategy proposes semi-monthly STRC dividends to stabilize price and reduce cyclical volatility for investors.

• No changes to STRC’s annual dividend rate or total obligations are included in the proposed payment restructuring.

• STRC funds Strategy’s Bitcoin purchases without diluting MSTR common shares through new equity issuance.

• Strategy holds 780,897 BTC worth $60.7 billion as Bitcoin rallies past $78,000 at proposal time.

Strategy has proposed shifting its STRC preferred stock dividends from monthly to semi-monthly payments. The change, outlined in a preliminary proxy filing, aims to stabilize prices and reduce volatility.

No adjustment to the annual dividend rate or total obligations is planned. Shareholders will begin voting on April 28, with a formal meeting scheduled for June 8. The proposal comes as Bitcoin continues rallying past $78,000.

Proposed Change Targets Price Stability and Investor Demand

Strategy formally announced the proposal through its official account, explaining the rationale behind the shift. The company stated that the change is intended to stabilize price, dampen cyclicality, drive liquidity, and grow demand for STRC shares. Currently, STRC trades near $99 per share, making dividend frequency a relevant factor in price behavior.

More frequent payments can reduce the price swings seen between distribution cycles. With semi-monthly dividends, investors receive cash flows on a tighter schedule, which smooths out demand patterns. This structure is particularly attractive to income-focused investors who prefer consistent returns.

The proposal does not alter what shareholders earn on an annual basis. Only the payment schedule changes, from once a month to twice a month. Strategy confirmed that no changes to the annual dividend obligations or dividend rate are part of this proposal.

STRC Supports Bitcoin Strategy Without Diluting MSTR Common Shares

STRC currently plays a key role in how Strategy funds its Bitcoin acquisitions. The preferred stock raises capital through dividend payments rather than issuing new common shares.

This approach protects MSTR shareholders from excessive dilution while sustaining the company’s aggressive Bitcoin buying program.

As of the latest data, Strategy holds 780,897 BTC, valued at approximately $60.7 billion. The company’s Bitcoin strategy remains one of the most closely watched in the corporate world. Adjusting how STRC dividends are paid supports that broader financial structure.

Bitcoin’s continued rally above $78,000 adds context to the timing of this proposal. A stronger Bitcoin market raises the value of Strategy’s holdings and reinforces confidence in STRC as a financing tool. Attracting more investors to STRC at this stage aligns with the company’s long-term capital strategy.

The shareholder vote begins April 28 and runs through the June 8 meeting. If approved, the semi-monthly structure would take effect based on terms outlined in the proxy. The outcome will shape how STRC functions as a capital instrument going forward.

The post Strategy Proposes Semi-Monthly Dividends for STRC Preferred Stock appeared first on Blockonomi.

Bitcoin is trading around $76.2k, posting its highest price since the February crash and officially entering the $75k–$80k resistance band that has defined the ceiling of the recent consolidation. The move marks a meaningful escalation in the recovery, with BTC now breaking above the descending channel and the 100-day MA simultaneously, which could be a very optimistic sign if sustained in the coming weeks.

Bitcoin Price Analysis: The Daily Chart

BTC has broken decisively above both the descending channel’s upper boundary and the 100-day moving average (~$75k) on the daily chart. The RSI is now above 60, showing its highest reading since January when BTC was trading around $95k. This is the most constructive daily setup over the past couple of months, and for the first time, the technical weight of evidence is beginning to tilt in favor of buyers rather than simply suggesting seller exhaustion.

The immediate focus shifts to whether BTC can close above the $75k–$80k resistance zone and establish it as a support level. This zone can serve as a key floor for the upcoming months, and reclaiming it on a sustained basis would be a significant structural development. Above it, the 200-day MA (~$86k–$87k) and the $95k–$100k critical supply zone represent the next major obstacles. On the downside, the channel’s former upper boundary can be counted on for a retest and bounce, with the $60k area as the deeper floor.

BTC/USDT 4-Hour Chart

On the 4-hour chart, BTC has briefly pushed through the upper boundary of the ascending channel earlier in the week, tagging the $78k mark before falling back inside the channel. The price is now sitting just below the upper boundary, which is a pattern that often reflects a short-term consolidation or correction following a failed breakout.

The RSI on this timeframe has also pulled back from the overbought region but is not yet signaling a trend reversal. A consolidation above $74k–$75k followed by a renewed push would be the ideal structure for buyers. A breakdown back below the recent structural low near $74k, however, would be more concerning and would warrant reassessment of the short-term outlook, as it points to a probable bearish market shift on the 4-hour timeframe.

On-Chain Analysis

The Bitcoin Coinbase Premium Index has flipped convincingly into positive territory, currently reading around +0.03. This is the first notable positive reading since the correction accelerated in late 2025. After months of deep negative prints that characterized the February crash period, where the index plunged toward -0.20, the shift to green reflects a meaningful change in the behavior of US-based buyers on Coinbase.

The timing aligns precisely with BTC’s breakout above the descending channel, suggesting the move is being supported by genuine US demand rather than purely driven by offshore or derivatives activity. During the 2025 bull run, the Coinbase Premium remained consistently positive throughout the rally.

While one week of positive readings does not recreate that dynamic, the directional shift is notable. If the premium continues to strengthen and hold above zero as price pushes into the $75k–$80k resistance band, it would add meaningful conviction to the case that this recovery has institutional backing rather than being purely technically driven.

The post Bitcoin Price Analysis: BTC Faces Major Resistance Zone After 5% Weekly Surge appeared first on CryptoPotato.

In this day and age, it’s difficult to trust any sort of information, especially when there’s money and political interests involved.

The latest confirmation of this narrative came in the past few hours as the US and Iran clashed over what’s actually going on between the two sides on the war front.

Talks or No Talks?

Friday was a highly optimistic day as Iran’s foreign minister announced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Trump later thanked him for it. Markets reacted with price pumps, except oil, of course, and reports started to emerge for more profound negotiations between the two nations for a more permanent closure to the conflict.

However, Trump made additional claims during the day, including one in which he asserted that Iran had agreed to halt its nuclear program indefinitely, which triggered the Middle Eastern country, and it denied all seven statements made by the POTUS. Moreover, they imposed certain restrictions on the passage of ships through the Strait, and reports from today noted that numerous ships remained blocked.

Trump commented again, saying that “Iran cannot blackmail us” with threats about the Strait of Hormuz, and promised to have more information by the end of the day. In a separate statement, he said the US is having “very good conversations” with Iran and emphasized a firm stance from his administration.

However, Tasnim reported that Iran had “not agreed to another round of talks with the US,” citing pressure from its enemy, which included the blockade of the Strait and what it calls “unreasonable demands.”

Crypto Markets Under Pressure

All major developments on the war front resulted in immediate price volatility for the ever-fluctuating cryptocurrency market, which, given that it trades 24/7, is particularly susceptible to strong statements or actions. Friday’s de-escalation led to instant price increases that drove BTC and numerous altcoins to multi-month peaks.

However, the subsequent uncertainty led to some retracements, with bitcoin falling from its local peak at $78,400 to just under $76,000 earlier today. As the situation continues to unfold rapidly with little to no actual confirmation of what’s happening behind the scenes, the pressure could mount real quick.

The crypto market has shown that even if it manages to remain calm during the weekends, it tends to dip once the legacy spot and futures markets start to open on Sunday evening. Consequently, the next 24 hours could be calm, but Sunday evening and Monday morning could bring more uncertainty and fluctuations.

The post Conflicting Signals: Trump Optimistic, Iran Denies Talks – Crypto Markets Under Pressure appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin’s long-term holder (LTH) cohort is expanding steadily. According to Axel Adler Jr., LTH Realized Supply has climbed from 5.26 million BTC in January 2026 to 8.32 million BTC as of April 16, an addition of 3.06 million units over the past three months and a yearly rise from 4.35 million BTC.

This metric tracks the total volume of BTC unmoved for over 155 days, where growth partly stems from existing coins maturing into the LTH category through inactivity rather than fresh purchases.

Bitcoin’s LTH Cohort Balloons

Over the past year, the supply surged from 4.16 million to 8.32 million BTC, which indicated compression of liquid supply amid consolidation around $76,000. However, this alone does not assure an imminent price rally. Adler stated that a downward reversal in LTH Realized Supply would mean old coins returning to circulation and would serve as a key deterioration indicator.

For context, during the 2022 bear market peak in November, the figure hit 15.31 million BTC before declining as coins were spent.

At the same time, Bitcoin’s LTH SOPR (Spent Output Profit Ratio) on a 7-day simple moving average has dipped below 1.0, currently at 0.979 for the fifth straight day since April 12. This means that long-term holders are spending coins at a loss. This follows recurring dips below the neutral 1.0 threshold since February 2026, including a deeper drop to 0.798 in late March through early April that lasted seven days, with a brief recovery above 1.0 from April 5 to 11 before the latest slide.

Adler explained that SOPR measures the profitability only of spent LTH coins, not the full cohort, and is different from the current shallow, quick-recovering dips with bear market episodes – like 231 days below 1.0 in 2022 (low of 0.45) or 292 days in 2018-2019. He described the present pattern as local stress and not capitulation. All eyes are on whether SOPR holds above March lows or breaks lower, especially alongside any Realized Supply reversal.

Neutral-Cautious Crossroads

The combination of the two metrics has been deemed to be a neutral-to-cautious market picture – LTH Realized Supply growth signals cohort expansion and reduced old supply activity, providing a structurally positive base, while the fresh SOPR drops below 1.0, highlighting short-term pressure from loss-taking sales.

A rapid SOPR rebound above 1.0 with continued Realized Supply gains would confirm the weakness as a fleeting episode. On the other hand, a prolonged hold of SOPR below 1.0 with losses and a Realized Supply downturn would indicate a shift to old coin distribution and a bearish regime change.

Separately, Bitcoin’s Combined Market Index (BCMI) has dropped into the 0.2-0.3 historic undervaluation zone, which essentially confirms a correction reset. With BTC trading just above $76,000, this pivot, last seen in early 2023, is major undervaluation per the index blending MVRV, NUPL, SOPR, and Fear & Greed. The setup indicates a “value-accumulation” phase with reduced downside versus long-term upside.

Having said that, the 90-day moving average’s continued decline warns that selling pressure lingers.

The post 3M BTC Added, Yet Selling at a Loss: What’s Going On With Bitcoin? appeared first on CryptoPotato.

The past few days have seen the rise of numerous altcoins, posting mind-blowing gains. Many of them were among the not-so-popular cohort, but quickly attracted attention following these rallies.

Two of them brought immense results for a few investors. Interestingly, they share the same name but different histories.

351x Return in Hours

One of them was reported by Lookonchain. The ‘success story’ came from an entity that had spent just 11 SOL (worth approximately $960 at the time) to accumulate 158.51 million ASTEROID through three wallets. It’s worth noting that this is a Solana-based altcoin, which had just seen the light of day.

Further on-chain data shows that the entity sold almost 135 million ASTEROID tokens for $135,000 worth of SOL and still held 23.76 million coins at the time of the post. In total, this resulted in a 351x return in the span of less than 120 minutes.

This guy turned $960 into $337K in less than 2 hours — a 351x return!

The trader spent just 11 $SOL ($960) to buy 158.51M $ASTEROID through 3 wallets.

He then sold 134.75M $ASTEROID for 1,539 $SOL ($135K) and still holds 23.76M $ASTEROID ($202K).https://t.co/2Y7c77stw1… pic.twitter.com/mwfNa5jZYP

— Lookonchain (@lookonchain) April 17, 2026

Data from GeckoTerminal shows that the most likely seller who took advantage of the price run was a developer. Most comments below Lookonchain’s report supported this narrative, with one saying that such returns are usually a “distribution event wearing a success-story costume.” Another one alleged that this was likely the owner of the coin that needed more money and sucked in retail investors with a “smart move while the market seems bullish.”

Ethereum-Based Wins

There’s a bit of confusion in the cryptocurrency community, given the existence of identically named tokens on different chains. However, Arkham noted that another trader made a fortune of their own using the ASTEROID coin built on Ethereum.

They bought ASTEROID for 1 ETH after seeing Elon Musk’s tweet about it, and their position skyrocketed to almost $475,000 at its peak. Another one bought $1,160 worth of the altcoin and sold on the way up, generating $210,000 of profit. A third holder now sits on $370,000 after buying ASTEROID when it was created in September 2024 for $21,400.

THIS GUY TURNED 1 ETH INTO HALF A MILLION IN 3 HOURS

The first person to buy ASTEROID today only made $1,300, after selling for about 2x.

But trader 0x680 swapped 1 ETH to ASTEROID after seeing Elon’s tweet about it, and held – now he’s up $474,320 on the coin. pic.twitter.com/8Ubj0VS2vo

— Arkham (@arkham) April 17, 2026

The post 351x Return in Hours: Traders Made a Fortune With 2 Different ASTEROID Tokens appeared first on CryptoPotato.

Bitcoin surged beyond $78,000 yesterday for the first time since early February, but was stopped there and now sits about two grand below its local peak.

The altcoins posted impressive gains as well yesterday, but most have erased them over the past 6 hours. In contrast, RAVE, SIREN, M, and DEXE have skyrocketed by double digits.

BTC Stopped at $78.4K

The primary cryptocurrency started the business week on the right foot, surging to almost $75,000 on Monday and up to $76,000 on Tuesday after reports that the US and Iran will reengage in negotiations to permanently end the war. This came after the weekend’s dip to $70,500 following the failure of the initial peace talks.

The next few days were choppy, as bitcoin remained in a range between $73,300 and $75,600, posting a few volatile moves between the two boundaries. The bulls returned to the scene on Friday when US President Trump and Iran’s foreign minister announced that the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened.

BTC reacted with an immediate surge that drove it to over $77,000. It kept climbing in the following hours to a 10-week peak of $78,400 after Trump made a few more claims about de-escalating the war. Since then, though, Iran has denied many of Trump’s statements, which led to a $2,000 retracement to well below $77,000 as of now.

Nevertheless, BTC’s market cap has increased to over $1.530 trillion as of now, while its dominance over the alts continues to sit above 57%.

Double-Digit Gainers

RaveDAO’s native token continues with its massive surge, rocketing by another 40% in the past day to almost $25. It has entered the top 20 alts by market cap after a spectacular 9,700% (yes, indeed) in the past month.

M, DEXE, and SIREN follow suit in terms of double-digit gains today, while JUST and ENA have increased by almost 10%.

Ethereum was stopped at $2,400, while XRP was rejected at $1.50. BNB is back to $635, while SOL and DOGE are slightly in the red from the larger caps.

The total crypto market cap exploded by over $100 billion from bottom to top, but it’s now down to just under $2.7 trillion on CG.

The post Double-Digit Gains From These Altcoins, BTC Stopped After 10-Week High: Weekend Watch appeared first on CryptoPotato.